UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The use of negotiation in coastal zone management : an analysis of the Fraser Estuary Management Program… Saxby, Gillian Elizabeth 1992

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_spring_saxby_gillian.pdf [ 4.88MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0086464.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086464-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086464-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086464-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086464-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086464-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086464-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0086464-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0086464.ris

Full Text

THE USE OF NEGOTIATION IN COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT:AN ANALYSIS OFTHE FRASER RIVER ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ANDTHE PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITYbyGillian Elizabeth SaxbyB.A., University of Victoria, 1987A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTERS OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Community and Regional Planning)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril 1992© Gillian Elizabeth SaxbyIn 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.(Signature) Department ofThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate 6^ ^ 2--DE-6 (2/88)AbstractAs population pressures rise there are associatedincreases in development, resource use, competition andenvironmental threats. These increases, contribute to theintensification of conflict within the coastal zone. Disputeresolution techniques must be incorporated into the managementof coastal resources. Negotiation use is one means of disputeresolution.The goal of this thesis is to establish whether and hownegotiation is used in coastal zone management. Two bodies ofliterature were reviewed. Literature on North Americancoastal zone management was examined to characterizemanagement approaches with particular reference to the FREMPand the PSWQA. Literature on negotiation was reviewed todevelop a framework for analyzing the use of negotiation inresolving coastal zone management conflicts.The FREMP and PSWQA provide two case studies forexamining the use of negotiation in resolving coastal zonemanagement conflicts. In each case, two comparable decision-making bodies were examined: the FREMP Management CommitteeExecutive (MCE) and the Standing Committee on the WaterQuality Plan (WQSC) and the PSWQA Authority Board (AB) andPoint Source Committee (PSC). Data on the use of negotiationwere collected by telephone interviews with people involved ineach of the four decision-making processes.iiiiiThe management areas of the Fraser River Estuary and thePuget Sound are comparable in that both are located in thePacific Northwest of North America with similar climates andnatural resources, and are experiencing growing population anddevelopment pressures. The management processes differ in thescale of areas covered (estuary versus basin), the size of thepopulations (the Fraser Estuary is half the population ofPuget Sound) and the approach to coastal zone management(coordinator versus player; smaller versus larger budgets;lesser versus greater public involvement).There is no use of "explicit" negotiation in the fourdecision-making processes examined in the case studies."Explicit" negotiation use is identified when there isexplicit expression of the use of negotiation in the decision-making. "Implicit" negotiation is identified when people maketrade-offs to adopt an agreement without explicitly expressingthey are doing so (Dorcey and Riek, 1987), and is routinelyused in all four decision-making situations.There is no use of any outside third party assistancesuch as mediators or facilitators in the negotiations;however, the FREMP Programs Coordinator facilitates the MCEnegotiations and the PSWQA AB chair mediates the Boardmeetings. The implicit negotiations of the FREMP and the PSWQAexhibited a high degree of "structure" with the greatestextent in the PSWQA. "Structured" negotiations are identifiedas negotiations that actively seek to reach agreement byincorporating structure into the decision-making processivthrough: the utilization of preparatory techniques,opportunity for the representation of affected interests, theutilization of explicit agreement criteria, some means tocommit to the agreed-upon actions.Future coastal zone management should recognize the"implicit" use of negotiation since it is used so extensivelywithin coastal zone management and evaluate the contributionof "implicit" negotiation in coastal zone management. Finally,consideration must be given to making the use of negotiationin coastal zone management "explicit" so that means areactively sought to resolve coastal resource use conflicts.TABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract^ iiTable of Contents^List of Figures ixList of Tables^Acknowledgements xiChapter 1.^Introduction1.1 The Research Context^ 11.2 Goals, Objectives, and Scope^ 21.3 The Meaning of the Coastal Zone 41.4 Definition of Coastal Zone Management^ 61.5 Coastal Zone Management in Canadaand the United States^ 71.5.1 Canadian Coastal Zone Management^ 71.5.2 American Coastal Zone Management 141.5.3 Summary of Canada and the United StatesCoastal Zone Management^ 20Chapter 2. The Nature of Coastal Zone Management Problems2.1 Increasing Conflicts in the Coastal Zone^ 232.2 Conflicts within the Fraser River Estuaryand the Puget Sound Basin^ 242.2.1 Conflicts within the Fraser River Estuary^ 252.2.2 Conflicts within the Puget Sound Basin^ 29Chapter 3.^Negotiation Use in Coastal Zone Management3.1 Decision-Making in the Coastal Zone^ 333.2 The Negotiation Use Criteria^ 34TABLE OF CONTENTS cont.Chapter 4.^Description of the Coastal ZoneManagement Processes4.1 Introduction- The Fraser River Estuary andthe Puget Sound Management Areas^ 454.2 The Fraser River Estuary Management Processes^ 464.2.1 The 1970's Fraser River Estuary Management^ 464.2.2 The 1977-1984 Fraser Estuary Studies^ 474.2.3 The 1985 Fraser River EstuaryManagement Program (FREMP) ^ 494.3 The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority^ 534.3.1 The 1983 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority..544.3.2 The 1985 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority..554.3.3 The 1991 Puget Sound Water QualityAuthority (PSWQA) ^ 594.4 A Comparison of the Management Processes^ 614.4.1 The Management Areas^ 614.4.2 The Management Processes 634.4.3 Conclusions of Comparison^ 71Chapter 5.^A Case Study: The Use of Negotiation in theFREMP and the PSWQA5.1 Case Study Introduction^ 735.2 Canadian and American Use of Negotiation^ 745.2.1 Canadian Negotiation Use^ 745.2.2 American Negotiation Use 745.2.3 A Comparison of Canadian and AmericanNegotiation Use^ 75viTABLE OF CONTENTS cont.5.3 The FREMP and PSWQA Primary Management BodiesNegotiation Use^ 765.3.1 The FREMP's Management Committee ExecutiveNegotiation Use^ 765.3.2 The FREMP Analysis 795.3.3 The FREMP Conclusions^ 805.3.4 The PSWQA's Authority Board Negotiation Use ^ 845.3.5 The PSWQA Analysis^ 875.3.6 The PSWQA Conclusions 915.4 The FREMP Secondary Management BodyNegotiation Use^ 935.4.1 The FREMP Water Quality Standing Committee^ 935.4.2 The FREMP Analysis^ 995.4.3 The FREMP Conclusions 1045.5 The PSWQA Secondary Management Body'sNegotiation Use^ 1085.5.1 The PSWQA Point Source Committee^ 1085.5.2 The PSWQA Analysis^ 1115.5.3 The PSWQA Conclusions 1165.6 Case Study Conclusions^ 1185.6.1 The Primary Management BodiesNegotiation Use Conclusions^ 1185.6.2 The Secondary Management BodiesNegotiation Use Conclusions 1195.6.3 A Comparison of the FREMP and PSWQANegotiation Use^ 122viiviiiTABLE OF CONTENTS cont.Chapter 6.^Conclusions and Recommendations6.1 Conclusions^ 1266.1.1 Increasing Conflict in the Coastal Zone^ 1266.1.2 Comparison of the Management Approaches^ 1276.1.3 The Negotiation Analysis^ 1286.1.4 Author's Comments^ 1316.2 Recommendations^ 135References^ 137LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1. The Fraser River Estuary and the FREMP Boundaries.26Figure 2. The Puget Sound Basin and the PSWQA Boundaries ^ 30Figure 3. The Broad Negotiation Use Types^ 36Figure 4. The Specific Negotiation Use Types 38Figure 5. The FREMP Management Committee Structure^ 51Figure 6. The FREMP Reporting Structure of Committeesand Working Groups^ 78Figure 7. The PSWQA Decision-Making Structure^ 85Figure 8. The Type of Authority Board Members 86Figure 9. The Roles of the FREMP Standing Committeeon the Water Quality Plan^ 95Figure 10.The FREMP Water Quality ObjectivesMechanism for Federal and ProvincialAgreement^ 98Figure 11.The PSWQA Organization of Committees and Staff...109ixLIST OF TABLESxTable 1. Negotiation Use Questions for the Case StudyParticipants^ 44Table 2. Analysis of FREMP Management CommitteeExecutive Negotiation Use^ 83Table 3. Analysis of PSWQA Authority BoardNegotiation Use^ 91Table 4. Analysis of FREMP Standing Committeefor the Water Quality Plan 1990Negotiation Use^ 107Table 5. Analysis of the PSWQA Point Source CommitteeNegotiation Use 117Table 6. Summary of Negotiation Use Analysis^ 121AcknowledgementsI am grateful to many people for their help in thecompletion of this thesis. I am indebted for the cooperationthat I received from the various participants in the casestudy interviews. I would like to thank Jim McCracken, DalePaterson, Vic Niemela, George Colquhoun, Steve Samis, LeslieChurchland, Martin Pomeroy, Malcolm Clark, Les Swain, DougWalton and Bob Jones all of whom participated in the FraserRiver Estuary Management Program interviews. A gratefulacknowledgement is made to the Puget Sound Water QualityAuthority participants, Jerry Ficklin, Sheri Tonn, Stan Biles,John Dorhman, Randy Scott, Andrea Copping, Velona Piccolo,Kevin Anderson and Michael Wheeler, who were extremely helpfuland patient with me as I developed an understanding of theAmerican approach to coastal zone management.I am particularly grateful to my supervisor, Tony Dorcey,for stimulating my ideas and persevering as I pursued thisgoal. I would like thank Craig Davis for his editing andMichael McPhee for his insightful comments on my final drafts.Finally, I am sincerely indebted to my family, who withouttheir continual encouragement and laughter I would never havecompleted. Thank-you.xi1Chapter 1INTRODUCTION1.1 The Research ContextThe coastal zone environment is complex and uncertain.The use of coastal resources varies, depending upon thesocioeconomic and political systems involved. Coastal zonemanagement, concerned with the integration of the many demandson the coastal zone, is essential. As the multiplicity ofdemands increases, resource use conflicts are intensified.There must be dispute resolution strategies incorporated intocoastal zone management to resolve these conflicts.Negotiation is one means of dispute resolution that will befocused upon here.There are many decision-making processes utilized incoastal zone management. Such processes include market orprice systems, voting within the political system,administrative decision-making and court adjudication. Each ofthese processes could involve the use of negotiation when thesituation is appropriate.There are many definitions of negotiation in theliterature that vary depending on the specific issues,interests and concerns involved. Negotiation as defined herewill refer to coastal zone management decision-making "wherebytwo or more parties attempt to settle what each shall give ortake, or perform and receive, in a transaction between them"(Rubin and Brown, 1975).21.2 Goals, Objectives and ScopeThe goal of this thesis is to establish the occurrenceand form of negotiation use in coastal zone management. Thisgoal is simple in that it identifies negotiation use withinspecific management bodies of the Fraser River EstuaryManagement Program (FREMP) and the Puget Sound Water QualityAuthority (PSWQA), but does not evaluate how effective thesenegotiations are. More specific objectives of the thesis are:* to identify the nature of North American coastal zonemanagement problems* to outline North American approaches to coastal zonemanagement* to develop criteria for analyzing the use ofnegotiation within coastal zone management processes* to detail the evolution of two coastal zone managementprocesses; the FREMP and the PSWQA* to identify whether and how negotiation is used withinthese processes* to draw conclusions on the use of negotiation and makerecommendations regarding its use in future coastalzone managementTo date there has been little research conducted in NorthAmerica on the use of negotiation in coastal zone management.Hence it is necessary to first of all establish whether or notnegotiation is used and how it is used within the FREMP andPSWQA before further research can be conducted on this topic.The intent of the author is to initiate research on coastalzone management negotiation use and to establish the need forfurther research.3This research will be of interest to individualsconcerned with the resolution of conflicts within coastal zonemanagement and will be of more specific interest to thoseindividuals involved in the FREMP and PSWQA management bodies.The thesis addresses why conflict resolution techniques mustbe incorporated into coastal resources decision-making basedon problems revealed in coastal zone management literature.The types of negotiations currently utilized in the FREMP andthe PSWQA management bodies are then identified and thenecessity for further research on the effectiveness of thesedispute resolution practices is revealed.Two bodies of literature were reviewed. Literature onNorth American coastal zone management was examined tocharacterize management approaches, and literature onnegotiation was reviewed to develop a framework for analyzingthe use of negotiation in coastal zone management conflicts.The analysis criteria were determined from a spectrum ofNorth American experiences with coastal zone management. Thescope of this analysis is limited to the Fraser River Estuaryand the Puget Sound Basin. Data on the use of negotiation werecollected by telephone interviews with participants involvedin the management decision-making processes.Chapter Two discusses the nature of the coastal zoneproblem, and identifies the potential for conflict to occur intwo management areas located in the Pacific Northwest, theFraser River Estuary and the Puget Sound Basin. Chapter Threediscusses management decision-making in the coastal zone, and4criteria are developed to identify the use of negotiation inconflict resolution within the FREMP and the PSWQA. ChapterFour identifies and compares the evolution of these twomanagement processes.A case study in Chapter Five, identifies the use ofnegotiation as part of the decision-making processes of theFREMP and the PSWQA. Some British Columbian and WashingtonState negotiation experiences are described to give a broaderperspective of its use and then the use of negotiation withinthe FREMP and PSWQA decision-making processes is discussedThe FREMP and the PSWQA provide two case studies forexamining the use of negotiation in resolving coastal zonemanagement conflicts. In each case study, two comparabledecision-making bodies are analyzed based on the criteriadeveloped in Chapter Three. The case study analysisidentifies if negotiation is used and how it is used withinthese decision-making processes. Conclusions about the use ofnegotiation in coastal zone management and recommendations forits use in future coastal management processes are then givenin Chapter Six.1.3 The Meaning of the Coastal ZoneThe coastal zone as defined here is that "region of land,marine, and estuarine space in which terrestrial, aquatic andatmospheric systems interact. It is a band of variable widthoverlapping the mainland and sea, and incorporates all coastalislands and inlets" (Rees and Davis, 1978).5Coastal ecosystems are characterized by their highbiological productivity, large biotic diversity, dynamicnature and sensitivity to the impacts of development. Coastalecosystems are among the most productive and highlydiversified ecosystems in the world and yet they occupy only avery small proportion of the earth's surface. Inevitably,these productive and diverse areas are also among the rarestand most valuable of ecosystem resources (Rees and Davis,1978).There are a number of interests dependent on the coastalzone and hence these areas are of extreme importance. Theterrestrial and aquatic populations of plants and wildlifethat inhabit the coastal areas are dependent on the uniqueecological qualities that characterize these areas. The humanpopulation depends on the coastal zone for settlement andeconomic activity from which a competing pattern of land andwater use typically develops (Sadler, 1983). Often the impactsof development on the coastal zone are quite pronounced,direct and visible and the intricate relationship betweenhuman activities and the functioning of the ecosystem isrevealed (Lang and Armour, 1980). Coastal zone managementstrategies must incorporate a multiplicity of factors and mustutilize decision-making means designed to coordinate thecomplexity of issues involved in these areas.61.4 Definition of Coastal Zone ManagementCoastal zone management processes were introduced inNorth America due to the growing concern over rapidlyincreasing pressures on the coastal zone and the resultantthreat to valuable coastal resources. The two factors thatcombine to produce a demand for coastal zone management arescarcity of resources and competing values (Sorensen et al.,1984). Often the uses of the coast are competitive or mutuallyexclusive and hence there is a need for management systemsthat satisfy a variety of needs. Coastal zone management andcoastal resource management will be terms used synonymouslyhere to refer to the processes designed to maintain andimprove the usefulness of coastal zone resources to humans ina way that is most compatible with the environment, societyand the economy.Decision-making occurs throughout all managementactivities. Management is defined to encompass research,planning, implementation and enforcement activities.Management develops knowledge and an understanding of thecoastal zone as a system through research. The second focus ofmanagement involves planning. It is necessary to develop andplan for the best use of coastal resources. This involves thepreparation of plans and the design of planning processes thatspecify the means to effectively integrate environmentalprotection, public recreational use, and economic developmentto achieve optimum social benefit. Management alsoincorporates implementation and enforcement of plans. Finally,7management must include a decision-making framework thatencourages the resolution of conflicts.1.5 Coastal Zone Management in North America1.5.1^Canadian Coastal Zone ManagementThe concept of coastal zone management in Canada has beenrecognized since the 1970's. To date, there has been nooverall management framework for the Canadian coastal zone, noindependent coastal zone management institution, nor has therebeen any legislation specifically designed for the coastalzone. For Canada, coastal zone management has occurred in theform of discrete activities within coastal regions but not ina national approach (Vollmerhausen, 1989).The legislative responsibility to manage the coastalresources, is divided between the federal and provincialgovernments as was initially proclaimed under the BritishNorth America Act of 1867 (Great Britain 1867), and morerecently under the Constitution Act of 1982 (Canada 1982). Themajor federal departments involved in the management of thecoastal resources include the Department of Fisheries andOceans, Environment Canada, Energy, Mines and Resources,Transport Canada, and Public Works Canada. There are sixteenfederal agencies responsible for at least as many actspertaining to various coastal land, marine, and resourceinterests. However, at the present time, there exists nofederal department that deals exclusively with the coastalzone.8The major provincial institutions that manage variouscoastal land, water and resource allocations include theMinistries of Environment, Lands and Parks, Agriculture andFisheries, Health, Transportation and Highways, and MunicipalAffairs. There are at least fifteen provincial agencies ofwhich each is responsible for administering different acts andregulations pertaining to selected land and marine resources.As is the case at the federal level, there is no provincialministry that has exclusive responsibility to comprehensivelymanage the coastal zone.Local agencies are also involved in the management of thecoastal zone. The provincial government delegates tomunicipalities and regional districts limited jurisdictionover designated areas. Hence municipalities and regionaldistricts can control land and water uses within designatedareas through zoning (Dorcey, 1983). Thus there is wide spreadresponsibility among various federal, provincial, and localagencies. Each individual agency has specific jurisdiction-over certain land and water use activities and resources.There have been many separate initiatives in Canada tomanage coastal resources by the federal, provincial and localgovernments, such as industrial and municipal pollutioncontrol, preservation of critical habitats, environmentalimpact assessments, emergency planning groups, oil spill taskforce participation, coastal sensitivity mapping projects, newmarine park proposals, foreshore zoning and harbour authorityinitiatives (Bones, 1989). With these types of initiatives the9responsibility continues to rest with agencies that haveseparate mandates for the coastal zone and thus lack theintegrated approach necessary for the management of coastalresources. As a result often the management of these resourceshas been on an ad hoc and fragmented basis.Canadian Coastal Zone Management ProgramsBy the late 1970's the Canadian piecemeal type of coastalzone management initiatives were thought to be inadequate.These inadequacies were evidenced by the increasingenvironmental degradation of habitats, shellfish closures,reduced recreational opportunities, adverse affects onfisheries and increasing resource use conflicts on the shoresof Canada (Vollmerhausen, 1989).To combat the lack of an overall coastal managementsystem, policies and institutions have evolved into coastalmanagement programs responding to regional and local areaneeds and opportunities that have arisen. These programs areat various stages of development and seem to be working wellin selected areas of Canada. The management programs aredesigned to reduce resource use conflicts and to harmonizelong-term social, economic and environmental uses of ourcoastal areas (Vollmerhausen, 1989).Canadian coastal management programs have emerged inseveral provinces due to the growing concern over developmentpressures on the coastal zone and its resources (Hildebrand,1989). In Atlantic Canada, Newfoundland has a provincial Shore1 0Zone Program that has completed coastal resource inventories,addressed offshore oil exports and incorporates manycomponents of the other Canadian coastal zone managementinitiatives. In Quebec, the St. Lawrence River Action Plan wasannounced in 1988 as a federal-provincial-industrypartnership. The plan was developed to protect the riveragainst toxic substances, to protect endangered species andsensitive environments and to restore polluted habitats(Vollmerhausen, 1989). The success of this plan depends oncooperation from government, industry and the public at large.Other provinces such as Ontario have forms of coastalmanagement programs, such as the Great Lakes Water QualityProgram that is based in the Canada-United States Great LakesWater Quality Agreement. This program, although freshwaterfocused, aims to restore and enhance the Great Lakes and isworking towards the same coastal zone management goals ofcommon objectives, and the development and implementation ofcooperative programs as in other areas of Canada.British Columbian coastal management programs haveemerged in response to a series of escalating coastal resourceuse conflicts that required political attention (Hildebrand,1989) and range from the formal FREMP to less formalcooperative planning programs such as the Cowichan EstuaryEnvironmental Management Plan (CEEMP) and the Burrard InletEnvironmental Action Program (BIEAP).The FREMP is a coastal management program based on ajoint federal and provincial agreement for management within11the Fraser River Estuary. This program is the most integratedapproach to coastal zone management in British Columbia andwill be discussed in detail in Chapters Four and Five.The CEEMP was created in 1987 to provide managementguidance for the opportunities provided by the estuary and forsustaining its environmental quality for future generations.The complex challenges in the estuary require cooperativesolutions involving participation from government, corporateand public interests. Extensive negotiations were used toobtain commitments to limit the detrimental environmentaleffects of industrial and other activities in the estuary(CEEMP, 1987).The Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program (BIEAP)was established in June of 1991 by an agreement signed byfederal, provincial and local parties. Concerns in BurrardInlet were initiated in response to the affects on fish due tocontaminated sediments. The objectives of the program will beachieved through improved coordination of existing programs,coordination of new activities undertaken by all parties andby special projects funded by BIEAP (BIEAP, 1992).Problems in Canadian Coastal Zone ManagementCanadian literature reviews reveal several deficienciesin the present coastal zone management approaches used inCanada. The sector specific mandates of the presentlegislation does not allow for interdependencies betweenagencies and resources (Harrison and Parkes, 1987) and there12is need for better coordination and communication. Thisinvolves building working relationships between and withingovernments as well as with the public, and incorporatingtechniques to resolve present and future conflicts into thedecision-making. Hence there is need for dispute resolutiontechniques such as negotiation, facilitation and mediation(Harrison and Parkes, 1987).In a recent British Columbian study on the FREMP, Dorcey(1990) addresses several issues in the program that reveal whysome aspects of coastal zone management programs have notworked well in British Columbia. First of all, coastal zonemanagement programs need to identify clear budget statements.Secondly, there needs to be strong leadership andaccountability in coastal zone management. This involvesenhanced representation and participation of stakeholdersthrough public consultation, further use of committees thatencourage broad based decision-making and accountable actions.Finally, better productivity from information being generatedis needed. This productivity can be generated throughsecretariat services, development of planning skills,representation of expertise and concerned stakeholderinterests and through facilitation and mediation ofnegotiations. Also, further research questions can be definedthrough facilitators that link research and managerial skills(Dorcey, 1990).In another study on the FREMP, Gamble and Day (1989)focus on coastal zone management issues specifically within13Boundary Bay and reveal several issues that need to beaddressed to improve coastal resource management programs inBritish Columbia. There is need for new coastal managementlegislation, better coordination of governments, integratedresource planning and increased public education andinvolvement. Again, the analysis of FREMP demonstrated theneed for proactive funding. Also the authors suggest thatthere needs to be clearly defined coastal zone allocationprinciples to balance conflicting demands, coordinateddecision-making and a need to communicate effectively betweenagencies. Lastly, it is suggested that there needs to beprocesses incorporated into management that effectivelyfacilitate public involvement (Gamble and Day, 1989).In a review of the 1987 CEEMP, Alexander (1992)criticizes the CEEMP for its lack of enforcement of actions,commitment to restore and enhance estuary and its lack ofpublic participation. According to this report the public hasnot been directly involved in negotiating the implementationof agreements and there has only been discretionary publicinvolvement (Alexander, 1992).Overall, these Canadian coastal zone management programssuggest the need to acknowledge the potential for conflicts toarise and that dispute resolution techniques should beincorporated into the management of coastal resources.141.5.2^American Coastal Zone ManagementThe United States has a much different coastal managementprocess from that of Canada. The United States has an overallcoastal zone management policy based on the 1972 United StatesCoastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA authorized anational Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program founded on anagreement between federal and state governments. The CZMprogram attempts to manage and protect coastal resourcesthrough the cooperation of many agencies.The 1970's were the initial period of state programdevelopment and federal approval and then in 1990 the CZMA wasreauthorized. The amendment placed greater emphasis on theenvironmental protection aspect of CZM, but the main goal tobalance development with the long-term protection of coastalresources has been maintained (House of Representatives,1990). The purpose of CZM in the United States is complexsince it includes multiple goals, both preservation anddevelopment, some of which are invariably conflicting. As aresult, the often competing demands on coastal resources givesCZM the challenge of "devising an improved system forresolving increasingly intense conflicts between competinguses for limited and environmentally sensitive coastalresources" (Owens, 1992).The lead agency charged with managing the CZM program isthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).NOAA's responsibility lies in ensuring that the state coastalzone management plans conform to detailed approval criteria as15prescribed in the CZMA. The federal responsibilities underthis mandate include the evaluation of state programperformances, allocating federal funds, legal responsibilityensuring that federal activities directly affecting thecoastal zone are consistent with the state programs to themaximum extent possible, and lastly the prohibition of federalpermits for activities that are inconsistent with statecoastal zone management policies (Bish, 1982).The CZMA is a voluntary participation program for thevarious states. The federal government offers the coastalstates assistance to develop state CZM programs that conformto minimum federal CZM standards (Bish, 1982). There are twoincentives for states to participate in the CZM program. Thefirst is the federal financial aid providing up to eightypercent of the development and administration costs of acoastal zone management program. The second relates to thetailoring of federal activities to state programs. If a statedevelops a federally approved management program then "federalagency actions within or affecting the coastal zone shall tothe maximum extent practicable be consistent with the stateprogram. Any private activities in the coastal zone licensedor permitted by a federal agency will be consistent with thestate program" (Bish, 1982). This second incentive isextremely important to the state because it gives a stategovernment some control over federal activities in its owncoastal zone. Hence, the state actions, based on state laws,16are key to effective CZM and are essential components of thenational CZM program.More specifically, the management program developed by astate must meet minimum requirements of the CZMA, definepermissible land and water uses and must establish specificboundaries, guidelines for priority of uses, inventory ofconcern areas, and a planning process that addresses beachaccess protection, energy siting and coastal erosion (Chasis,1980).American Coastal Zone Management ProgramsThere are numerous examples of CZM programs in the UnitedStates that have responded to the support provided through theCZMA. As of 1990, twenty-nine of the thirty-five eligiblestates for CZM support have developed individual coastal zonemanagement programs that have been approved. Some of thestates that have responded to the CZMA are: Maryland,Virginia, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maine and Washington. TheseCZM programs are at various stages of development andimplementation.The States of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and theDistrict of Columbia agreed to participate in the clean-up ofthe Chesapeake Bay area. The program includes a one hundredand fifty member Coastal Resources Advisory Committee composedof numerous citizen and non-governmental organizationrepresentatives.17The Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP) was alsodeveloped in response to funding provided by the CZMA. TheOCMP found that due to the complex system of federal, stateand local government planning and permitting that the policiesand standards of these agencies frequently overlap and aresometimes in conflict (Schell, 1987). Mediation was consideredas an additional tool for conflict resolution in the OCMP.The Maine coastal zone management program was establishedto develop a comprehensive plan that provided for compatibleand multiple uses of the coastal zone for the greatest long-term social and economic benefits. Some of the objectives ofthis program were to inventory the coastal resources and theexisting uses, develop comprehensive plans, identify areas ofimpending conflict and to indicate priorities of action(Heikoff, 1977).In order to implement the CZMA, Washington State adaptedsome of their existing Shoreline Management Programs to meetthe federal 1972 CZMA requirements. The Washington StateCoastal Zone Management Program was the first state programunder the CZMA to be adopted in 1976. This program, now runout of the state Shoreline and CZM Program, classifies areasof particular concern by identifying if the area has aresource of particular environmental significance, if it is ofparticular concern by state or federal agencies, if it has thepotential for more than one major land or water use, or if itis a resource being sought by ostensibly incompatible users(Terich, 1987).Within the state of Washington, there are numerousexamples of integrated coastal planning and managementefforts. In fact there are two hundred and thirty localgovernments participating in the Shoreline and CZM Program.Also there are several examples of once independent coastalzone management programs amending their goals to satisfy therequirements of the CZMA, such as the Grays Harbour EstuaryManagement Plan, Cherry Point Industrial Management Unit andthe PSWQA.Problems in American Coastal Zone ManagementThere is some controversy over the success of the UnitedStates CZM program that is based on the CZMA of 1972. In 1979,a report released from the office of the CZM program statedthe CZM program was beginning to make a difference andidentified accomplishments in resource protection, developmentmanagement, recreational access and improved governmentdecision-making (OCZM, 1979).Other authors criticize the 1972 CZMA suggesting that theCZM program is not adequate and that revisions are required.According to a 1980 CZMA review, the CZM program was notsuccessful because it had not brought about effectiveprotection of valuable coastal resources (Chasis, 1980). Theauthor went on to say that the CZM program should governmanagement of coastal resource uses that have direct andsignificant impact on coastal waters, that direct developmentand that guide the resolution of conflicts among competing1819uses. Other CZM evaluations summarize a number of problems,including implementation delays, failure to use guidelines,poor federal and state office communications and various formsof bureaucratic conflicts (Godschalk, 1992).As of 1987, the authors of another CZMA review concludedthat a revitalized CZM program was necessary (Archer andKnecht, 1987). These authors suggest that four basicprinciples should be the foundation of the national CZMprogram: providing a leadership role for the nation, advancingCZM through institution building and technical assistance,insuring that national interests are addressed by the states,and resolving disputes that inevitably arise in a multi-jurisdictional program. Furthermore, the CZM program mustattempt to mediate and resolve disputes between state andfederal activities. They suggest that not all disputes may besettled by negotiation but the federal CZM office shouldpursue dispute resolution techniques such as mediation,arbitration and negotiatory rule-making. Thus the existingCZMA needs strengthening and broadening of existing processesso as to function as an arena for federal and statepartnerships (Archer and Knecht, 1987). In 1990, the UnitedStates Congress generally assumed that the CZM approach wasworking; however, in response to criticism the 1972 CZMA wasreauthorized and amendments were made.As of 1992, there is still scarce evidence to concludethe success of the CZM program. In a recent study, Owens(1992) evaluates the response of states to the challenges of20the CZM program. One subject area of the analysis addressedthe improvements made in government decision-making, such aspermit simplification, land use plans, public participationand inter-governmental conflict resolution. The analysisrevealed that thirty-nine percent of total CZM program fundingwas devoted to improved government decision-making throughproblem identification, facilitating solutions, mediatingdevelopment disputes and the coordination of single purposeprojects. One of the author's conclusions was the improvementin government decision-making through "the implementation ofmore effective decisions and better protection of the naturalresources of the coast (Owens, 1992).Overall, the CZM program continues to be a dynamic andflexible vehicle for addressing coastal issues (Godschalk,1992), however, there still need to be improvements in areassuch as resolving conflicts (Owens, 1992).1.5.3 Summary of Canadian and American Coastal Zone ManagementThe Canadian and American approaches to coastal zonemanagement processes are quite different. First of all, theadministrative systems of the two countries are quitedifferent. The United States is regulatory in its approach tomanagement and Canada is much more discretionary. Secondly,the United States incorporates a federal legislation, theCZMA, into its coastal resource management processes thatincludes federal funding. Finally, the United States is activein its pursuit of coastal zone management, whereas, the21Canadian coastal management approach is more reactive tospecific area activities.There are several lessons that can be learned from theNorth American experiences with coastal zone management. Inboth countries the development and implementation ofintegrated and cooperative plans has emerged due to escalatingcoastal resource use conflicts.Canadian literature addresses several coastal zonemanagement issues that focus on cooperation, coordination,communication and conflict resolution techniques. There needsto be better coordination of existing programs, improvedcommunication within and between governments as well as withthe public, and more thorough processes must be incorporatedto ensure effective facilitation of public involvement(education, consultation, and participation). Also, the publicneeds to be directly involved in the negotiation andimplementation of agreements. Finally, there is need fordispute resolution tactics such as negotiation, facilitationand mediation to be incorporated into the management ofCanadian coastal resources.American literature also reveals issues in the CZMprogram. Coastal resource management conflicts arise due toincreasing complexity of the systems and the multi-jurisdictional areas involved. There are lessons to be learnedfrom the CZM programs already implemented, such as the needfor improved government decision-making through anticipationof conflicts and incorporation of various methods of dispute22resolution into the management processes. Dispute resolutiontechniques, such as mediation, arbitration and negotiation,should be incorporated to achieve compatible and multiple useof coastal resources.23Chapter 2THE NATURE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS2.1 Increasing Conflicts in the Coastal ZoneThere is potential for the resources of the coastal zoneto meet its many different demands; however, incompatibleresource uses often occur when activities depend on the sameresource and when these uses are not compatible. If thevarious uses of a resource can co-exist without conflict, thenthe uses are compatible and there is no coastal zonemanagement problem. If incompatibility exists between the usesof a resource, then conflicts can arise and managementproblems occur.Waste disposal and shipping are water resource uses thatcan usually co-exist in the same area without conflict;however, there are other coastal resource uses that areobviously incompatible if they occur in the same area, such aswildlife preservation and high rise developments. Also, thereare other uses that are seemingly compatible in the short-term, but in time could pose conflicts. One example of this issport fishing and organic waste disposal. In time, these couldbe incompatible due to increasing population pressuresresulting in increased levels of organic loading beyond theassimilative capacity of the systems. These increases couldpotentially have deleterious effects on the sport fishery andresource use conflicts could arise.24There are several different types of conflict that canarise in coastal zone areas, such as value, distributional andallocative conflicts. Value conflicts can occur whenindividuals or groups believe in different ideals, such as adevelopment versus preservation interests. Distributionalconflicts can occur when there is competition over space, suchas an industrial foreshore development versus residentialforeshore development. Lastly, allocative conflicts can occurwhen there is competition over the allocation of a specificresource supply, such as water allocated for industrial versusfisheries requirements.As population pressures rise there are associatedincreases in development, resource use, competition andenvironmental threats. These increases contribute to theintensification of conflict within the coastal zone. Hencedispute resolution techniques must be incorporated into themanagement of coastal resources.2.2 Conflicts within the Fraser River Estuary andthe Puget Sound BasinThe Fraser River Estuary and the Puget Sound Basin areboth experiencing growing population and development pressuresand increasing resource demands. Furthermore, both areas areutilized by similar activities that tend to compete for thenatural resources of the estuaries. Identification ofpotential conflicts that can arise within each managementprocess establishes the need for dispute resolution tactics.252.2.1^Conflicts within the Fraser River EstuaryThe Fraser River Estuary as shown in Figure 1, revealsthe FREMP boundaries that encompass an area of 155 squarekilometers of land and water. Nearly a million and a halfpeople live close to and in one way or another affect theFraser River Estuary and the population base has increasedtwenty per cent over the ten year period of 1976-1986 (Kennettand McPhee, 1988).The physical and biological resources of the Fraser RiverEstuary provide many opportunities for human activities, andthe economic importance of the estuary is great. Current landuse plans are evolving and changing the area from beingpredominantly industrial to a combination of industrial,commercial and residential with a mixture of importanthistorical, recreational, aesthetic, and ecological features(Kennett and McPhee, 1988). Due to growing populations anddevelopment pressures, there are increasing demands on theresources of the Fraser River Estuary.The estuary land was traditionally used for farming andindustry. More recently land has been utilized for commercialand residential purposes. A variety of light and heavyindustries such as fish canneries, cement plants, chemicalplants and coal ports are found in the estuary (Dorcey, 1990).The forest industry uses the estuary for log transportation,storage and wood processing.NE wWESTMINSTER••27Other activities within the estuary are agriculture,shipping, navigation and the commercial, sport and nativefisheries. Recreation, habitat preservation and tourism areplaying an increasing role in resource use within the estuary.Activities such as boating, hunting, hiking, wildlife watchingand picnicking are common within the area.Water resource activities in the estuary such as logtransport, log storage, shipping and navigation are oftencompatible. Recreation and tourism are another example ofpotentially compatible resource uses. Often estuary activitiesdepend on the same resource and sometimes these activities arenot compatible. In the Fraser River Estuary incompatibility ofresource uses can occur. For instance wood processing can beincompatible with residential and commercial land uses,agriculture, fisheries, and recreation, tourism and habitatpreservation. Wildlife preservation and industrial land usedevelopment are another example of resource useincompatibility if it occurs in the same area.Increasing demands on coastal resources can intensify theconflict within the coastal zone and can be identified in theFraser River Estuary if industrial, commercial and residentialland use activities all depend on waterfront usage. Thispotential conflict could intensify further, if other interestssuch as recreation, habitat and wildlife preservation alsomake demands for waterfront usage.Another example of the potential for conflict within theestuary pertains to recreational interests such as hunting28competing with preservation interests of wildlife watching.Conflict intensification occurs if the recreational interestsof hunters and bird watchers join to compete against theagricultural interests of farmers complaining of crop damagedue to bird populations (Dorcey, 1990).The forest industry conflicts with many interest groups.The log transport and storage associated with this industrycan conflict with other industries, such as fisheries, as wellas boating. The wood processing industry due to its wastewater discharges affects the quality of the receiving watersand hence competition over water resources occurs between theinterests of the forest industry and recreation, tourism andfisheries.One last example of the potential for resource useconflicts within the Fraser River Estuary pertains to closureof the shellfish industry. Shellfish are impacted byindustrial discharges, and by non-point pollution sources ofanimal wastes, stormwater and bacterial contamination due tofailing septic systems and run off. These pollution sourcescontaminate sediments and over time can have life threateningeffects on animals that come in contact with them. Often whenfilter feeding organisms, such as oysters and clams, take upthese pathogens the flesh of the animal is no longer safe forhuman consumption (Gordon, 1989). Hence there is potential forconflict between the interests of the industrial polluters,the non-point source polluters, the shellfish fishermen andhabitat preservationists.292.2.2^Conflicts within the Puget Sound BasinAs shown in Figure 2, the Puget Sound Basin and the PSWQAboundary area covers approximately 41,440 square kilometers ofland and water (PSWQA, 1988). The 1988 population estimate ofthe Puget Sound was nearly three million people and estimatesindicate nearly a forty percent increase by the year 2010(PSWQA, 1990a).The Sound is also experiencing increasing development.The land use forecasts suggest a sixty-two percent increasefor urban use and a seventy-three percent increase for ruralnon farming use (PSWQA, 1990a). Since all the land within thewatershed drains to the Sound, every activity in the watershedhas the potential to affect the Sound. How the land is used,the waste disposal techniques and the storage of oils andchemicals are all relevant to how water quality is affectedthroughout the Sound. These increasing trends in developmentand resource demands pose increasing threats to theenvironment in the Sound.The human activities within the Puget Sound have evolvedover the years. The basic sector of the Puget Sound economywere natural resource industries such as timber, mining,fishing, agriculture, and associated processing andmanufacturing activities. The basic sector of the economy alsoincluded transportation and shipping and evolved over time toinclude other industries such as heavy manufacturing. Theservice industry, the environment and recreational interestsare becoming increasingly important (PSWQA, 1988).VIctorl •Stiaaoort •AngelesLocation Map•Port^ EverettTownsendPuget Sound BasinSkokomishI Puget Soundr• • BasinWashingtonState30Figure 2. The Puget Sound Basin and PSWQA study area (Nasser,1992)31Today the activities, interests and values within theSound are similar to those in the Fraser River Estuary. Aswithin the Fraser Estuary, some of the Sound's activities canbe compatible and any incompatible resource uses incombination with increasing demands can intensify the level ofconflict between the Sound's resource uses.Problems in the Sound reveal how activities within theSound are often incompatible and how resource use conflictsoften occur. Problems such as toxicants in the sediments ofthe urban bays, loss of wetlands and habitat, and closure ofcommercial shellfish harvesting areas all exist within PugetSound.Toxicants in the sediments come from point sourcepollution and stormwaters; habitat loss is due to populationgrowth, development, dredging, draining and dyking in thePuget Sound area; and shellfish closures are due to non-pointsources such as failing septic systems, poor animal husbandrytechniques and industrial discharges (PSWQA, 1988).Industrial wastewater discharge contains toxic chemicalsfrom both point and non-point sources. Conflict can occurbetween industries when pollutants accumulate in the bottomsediments and affect water quality. Hence there is a potentialfor conflict to arise between the forest industry andfisheries due to competition over the industry pollutantlevels that affect the marine life that the fisheries dependupon.32Conflict occurs between many interests within the Soundwhen agriculture, shipping, navigation and land developmentsindustries develop and jeopardize habitat through dredging,draining, filling and dyking operations. Nearly sixty per centof the coastal wetlands have already been lost. Damage anddestruction of wetlands seriously hamper the Sound's naturalsystem (Gordon, 1989). Often through flooding and erosion thehabitats of fish and shellfish are lost.One last example of conflict over resource uses withinthe Sound is the closure of shellfish beds due to pathogensstemming from human activities. These closures usually arecaused by routine industry wastewater discharges and non-pointsources such as poor animal husbandry techniques, failedseptic systems and contaminated stormwater. Non-point sourcepollution is likely to increase as the Sound's rural areascontinue to develop (PSWQA, 1990b). Hence conflict overresource use could occur between the industrial polluters,shellfish fishermen, non-point polluters and habitatpreservationists.33Chapter 3NEGOTIATION USE IN COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT3.1 Decision-Making in the Coastal ZoneCoastal zone management processes develop over time andreveal that solutions to the management problems are dependenton many factors. Long-term solutions to problems in thecoastal zone are dependent on adequate understanding of theinterdependent nature of the coastal environment and therelated socioeconomic and institutional systems involved.Coastal resource uses are compatible, mutually exclusiveor somewhere in between. Chapter Two discussed how growingpopulation pressures and increasing demands on the coastalresources relate directly to the intensification ofincompatible uses and the resulting conflicts. Often theseconflicts are classified as "wicked" due to the complex anduncertain nature of the coastal zone (Dorcey, 1986a). Thesecoastal zone conflicts are extremely difficult to resolve andcan be put into a richer class of disputes where the number ofissues are large, the factors are not all economic in natureand there is a "potpourri" of cultures and values (Raiffa,1982).The governance system incorporated to deal with theconflicts that arise in coastal zone management is addressedin the decision-making framework of Dorcey and Riek (1987).These authors suggest that the three mechanisms of decision-making in environmental dispute resolution are authoritative,34consultative and negotiative. Authoritative decision-making"occurs when an individual or organization makes trade-offsalone and imposes the decisions on others" (Dorcey and Riek,1987). The second decision-making mechanism involvesconsultation with other individuals and groups prior to makingany trade-offs and decisions, whereas, negotiative decision-making "occurs when individuals or organizations make thetrade-offs among themselves and adopt an agreement" (Dorceyand Riek, 1987).All three decision-making mechanisms are utilized inresource management processes (Dorcey and Riek, 1987) andcould be included in part of the decision-making processes ofcoastal zone management. However, there has been a shift inthese processes away from authoritative and towards morenegotiative and consultative decision-making due to theincrease in conflicts that arise from competing interests incoastal zone areas and due to changing ideals about how thebest decisions are made (Dorcey and Riek, 1987). Of interesthere is negotiative decision-making. The emphasis in thisthesis is on the use of negotiation as Dart of the decision-making process and not the only means for reaching agreements.3.2 Negotiation Use CriteriaNegotiation use criteria are adapted from thenegotiation framework of Dorcey and Riek (1987), and frompersonal observation of the negotiative processes that occurwithin the coastal zone. Since there has been little work done35on negotiation use in coastal zone management, the criteriadeveloped are simple and designed to establish whether and hownegotiation is used in coastal management processes.Two broad distinctions, implicit and explicit, can beused to identify whether or not negotiation use exists (Figure3). "Implicit" negotiation is utilized broadly throughoutcoastal resource decision-making. This type of negotiation isvery common. Implicit negotiation is identified when peoplemake trade-offs to adopt an agreement without explicitlyexpressing that they are doing so (Dorcey and Riek, 1987)."Explicit" negotiation is identified when there is explicitexpression of negotiation use identified in the decision-making.To address more specifically how negotiation is used, thebroad negotiation types are further classified into"unstructured", "structured" and "assisted" negotiations.Implicit negotiation is identified as assisted, structured orunstructured; explicit negotiation is identified as eitherassisted or structured; and explicit negotiation, bydefinition, can not be identified as purely unstructured.36BROAD NEGOTIATION USE TYPESImplicitIf...no explicit expression ofnegotiation use is identifiedin the decision-makingprocessIs identified as:i. "unstructured"by no use of structurednegotiation criteriaii. "structured"by the use of structurednegotiation criteriaiii. "assisted"by the use of someoutside third partyassistanceExplicit *If...explicit expression ofnegotiation use is identifiedin the decision-makingprocessIs identified as:i. "structured"by the use of structurednegotiation criteriaii. "assisted"by the use of someoutside third partyassistance• Adapted from Dorcey and Riek, 1987Figure 3. Broad Negotiation Use Types37An assisted negotiation is recognized by the utilizationof some form of third party to assist in the process (Susskindand Madigan, 1984). Some third party mechanisms to assist innegotiations are conciliators, facilitators, fact-finders,joint fact-finders, mediators and arbitrators (Dorcey andRiek, 1987).• Conciliators assist negotiations to reachaccommodations but often proceed unilaterally.• Facilitators assist negotiating parties to meet andattend to logistics but do not get involved inactual negotiations.• Fact-finders have technical expertise on thenegotiated subject and use this to analyze thenegotiation issues.• Joint fact-finding is used when fact-finders workdirectly with negotiating parties.• Mediators meet first separately then jointly withnegotiating parties to help understand each othersobjectives, point out areas of agreement and assistthem to negotiated agreements through compromise.• Arbitrators listen to arguments of disputing partiesthen give their own conclusions.As defined here, "assisted" negotiation use is identified bythe use of an outside means of third party intervention(Figure 4)."Structured" negotiation is identified for this thesis asnegotiation that actively seeks to reach agreement byincorporating structure into the decision-making processthrough the utilization of preparatory techniques, opportunityfor the representation of affected interests and a forum thatutilizes explicit agreement criteria and that establishes someSPECIFIC NEGOTIATION USE TYPES38StructuredIf the following negotiationcriteria are utilized1. preparatory techniques2. representation of affectedinterests3. explicit agreement criteria4. some means of commitmentto agreed-upon actionsAssisted *If outside third partyassistance is used such as...1. conciliators2. facilitators3. fact-finders4. joint fact-finders5. mediators6. arbitratorsAdapted from Dorcey and Riek, 1987Figure 4. Specific Negotiation Use Types39means to commit to the agreed upon actions (Figure 4)."Unstructured" negotiation occurs when the negotiating partiesutilize no means of assistance, nor any structure criteria.The necessity for these broad distinctions developed as"the implicit to explicit negotiation use spectrum" becameevident in the literature and in the coastal managementprocesses considered. Also, more specific negotiation usedistinctions became necessary within the analysis to identifythe form of negotiations that occurred when management had notyet committed to outside third party assisted negotiations.The case study participants were asked a series ofquestions based on the explicit and implicit negotiation usetypes defined above. The participants were first asked ifthere was explicit expression of the intent to negotiate anagreement. Once this was established, the negotiation wasanalyzed further to identify specifically how the negotiationoccurred.If a negotiation (explicit or implicit) is assisted, thenit is identified by the inclusion of outside conciliation,facilitation, fact-finding, joint fact-finding, mediation orarbitration in the decision-making frameworks of themanagement processes. Hence the case study participants wereasked:1. Did the negotiation utilize any outside third partyassistance in the decision-making process?40If the negotiation was assisted then by definition astructured negotiation is identified. If there was noassistance in the negotiation then it is necessary to identifythe possibility of a structured negotiation. Hence each studyparticipant was then asked questions to assess whetherstructured negotiation was used. A structured negotiation isidentified by addressing four criteria:• Are any preparatory techniques utilized in thenegotiation?• Are all affected interests given the opportunity forrepresentation in the negotiation?• Are explicit agreement criteria used?• Is there a means to commit those participatingto the agreements reached?If the answer to all four questions is yes, then a purelystructured negotiation was utilized. If none of the structurednegotiation criteria issues is identified, then anunstructured negotiation is identified and the negotiation isimplicit by definition. If the answer to some of thesecriteria questions is yes, then some form of structurednegotiation was utilized in the decision making processes.Each of the criteria distinguishing the structured typeof negotiation use is now addressed in greater detail.First, the criteria consider the use of preparatorynegotiation techniques such as planning, informing all theparticipants of the relevant issues and agenda setting. Whenpreparing to negotiate, planning and preparation are the keysto successful negotiation. In other words, participants must41"do their homework" by preparing with information about thepeople they are going to negotiate with in order to yieldsuccessful results (Nierenberg, 1968). The use of agendasetting is important in order to keep some focus and structureto the negotiation. In order to assess the use of preparatorytechniques two more key questions were asked of the case studyparticipants:2. Were preparatory techniques utilized such as planning andinforming all participants of the relevant issues?3. Was agenda setting utilized in the negotiation?The second criterion for structured negotiations, therepresentation of interests, considers the opportunity forrepresentation of all the affected interests in resource usedecisions. It is important here to consider that allstakeholder interests (present and future) be represented aswell as ensuring that the representative . of the interests beresponsible to the parties they represent (B.C. Environmentand Economy Round Table, 1991). The case study participantswere asked:4. Was there opportunity given for the representation of allaffected interests in the negotiation?Frameworks that set a forum for reaching agreements byincorporating brainstorming for additional options andexplicit agreement criteria are often effective means forreaching agreements. The use of explicit agreement criteria toformalize and structure the negotiation is important. If the42participants have a procedural framework, then agreements canoften be achieved more effectively. Some common agreementcriteria utilized in decision-making are voting (majorityrules), consensus (general agreement) and unilateral decision-making through some body or individual.It is important to recognize that there are differenttypes of consensus agreements. Participants might defineconsensus as unanimous, lack of dissension, or agreement byvast majority. Even in unanimity there are degrees of totalacceptance of aspects of the agreement. Hence the participantsmight agree to parts of the decision but not necessarily toall aspects of the decision. Lastly, participants might agreeto a form of fall back decision-making system if participantsfail to reach an agreement (B.C. Environment and Economy RoundTable, 1991). Thus the participants were asked:5. Was brainstorming for different options included inprocedural framework of the negotiation?6. Were explicit agreement criteria utilized to reach anagreement?Also, if there is flexibility in each participant then inan area of seemingly no agreement there might be enrichment ofthe options (Raiffa, 1982). A more common term for this wouldbe to cooperate and "enlarge the pie" that will some how haveto be divided. If negotiations focus on the process ofcreating cooperative values, then mutual agreements arereached, improvements are made, and perhaps "win-win"43situations are found through the generation of gainfuloptions. The participants were also asked:7. Did the participants strive for flexibility when tryingto reach agreements?The last criteria question is crucial to theimplementation and enforcement of any plans and is often verydifficult to ensure. It is critical that some mechanism isinstalled that formally commits all participants in thenegotiation to their agreed-upon actions. The studyparticipants were then asked:8. Was there any mechanism installed in the negotiation toformally commit all the participants to their agreed-uponactions?Therefore, the case study participants were asked whetherthe negotiation was implicit or explicit, to identify the useof negotiation, and then a series of eight questions were usedto identify the form of negotiation used in the coastalmanagement examples sited (Table 1).44QUESTIONS TO DISTINGUISH THE SPECIFICNEGOTIATION USE TYPES1. Did the negotiation utilize any outside third partyassistance in the decision-making process?2. Were preparatory techniques utilized such as planning andinforming all participants of the relevant issues?3. Was agenda setting utilized in the negotiation?4. Was there opportunity given for the representation of allaffected interests in the negotiation?5. Was brainstorming for different options included in theprocedural framework of the negotiation?6. Were explicit agreement criteria utilized to reach anagreement?7. Did the participants strive for flexibility when tryingto reach agreements?8. Was there any mechanism installed in the negotiation toformally commit all the participants to their agreed-uponactions?Table 1. Specific Negotiation Use Questions for Case StudyParticipants45Chapter 4DESCRIPTION OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROCESSES4.1^Introduction to the Fraser River Estuary and thePuget Sound Basin Management AreasThe FREMP boundaries are those defined by the FraserRiver Estuary and include "the land and water areas outsidethe dykes from Kanaka Creek and the outlet of Pitt Lake at theeastern limit, to the estuary drop-off in the Strait ofGeorgia at the western limit. The area extends as far north asPoint Grey and as far south as the international boundary,including Boundary Bay" (Kennett and McPhee, 1988). The FraserRiver Estuary Study area does not include the entire land areadrained by the Fraser River, only the area outside the dyke.The area included within the boundaries of the PSWQAmanagement area is "the Puget Sound south of Admiralty Inlet;the waters north to the Canadian border, including portions ofthe Strait of Georgia; the Strait of Juan de Fuca south of theCanadian border; and all the land draining into these waters"(PSWQA, 1990b). The Puget Sound is a watershed made up of 10major rivers and several smaller tributaries. There are fourmajor basins in the Sound that are separated from each otherby sills. The portion of the Sound which lies south ofAdmiralty Inlet is a "deep fjord-like estuary" (PSWQA, 1990b).The Fraser River is one of the great rivers of NorthAmerica and the largest river in British Columbia. The estuaryis extremely important to migrating birds, has one of thelargest salmon runs in the world and is a home to rare bird46species and to abundant wildlife. The Puget Sound Basin isalso an ecologically valuable area with a wide range of fish,shellfish, birds, mammals and plants. The area of the PugetSound south of Admiralty Inlet is especially complex andconsists of a set of interconnecting estuaries with diverseand highly productive habitats and marine life (PSWQA, 1988).4.2^The Fraser River Estuary Management ProcessesThe Fraser River Estuary Studies (FRES) started in the1970's due to increasing habitat destruction and developmentconcerns. In 1977 FRES I was established followed by FRES IIin 1979. By 1982 there was an attempt to link the existingagencies to better coordinate themselves but no new agency wasestablished. It was not until October 1985, that the FREMP wasadopted. As of June 1991, another FREMP agreement has beenreached.4.2.1^The 1970's Fraser River Estuary ManagementIn the mid 1970's there was increasing concern for thehabitat of the Fraser River Estuary due to the potentialdevelopment in this area. At this time, more than one hundredgovernment and non-governmental organizations were involved inthe governance of the estuary. With this complexity cameincreasing demands on the decision-making system andincreasing need for conflict resolution.474.2.2^1977-1984 The Fraser River Estuary StudiesIn 1977, the Fraser River Estuary Study (FRES) wasadopted due to increasing conflicts in the estuary. It was ajoint federal-provincial study initiated under agreementbetween Environment Canada and the British Columbia Ministryof Environment. The study was to develop a management plan toprovide a means of accommodating a growing population andeconomy while maintaining the quality and productivity of theFraser River's natural environment (FREMP, 1986). Hence thefocus of the study was to balance environmental quality withdevelopment (Kennett and McPhee, 1988).The FRES study was a multi-agency program involvinginterests of federal, provincial, municipal and regionalagencies, industry and the public. The study was organizedinto two phases. FRES I focused on environmental issues,especially on water pollution, and was directed by a federal-provincial Steering Committee. This Committee gatheredexisting information on trends and conditions in the estuaryand outlined a set of management proposals and strategies.A series of reports was produced that described thecharacteristics and prospects of land and water use thatfocused on transportation, water quality, habitat, andrecreation. Also produced was a report on the constitutionaland legislative frameworks for estuary management and asummary report on proposals for the development of amanagement plan. FRES I was the research phase of the study48and no public involvement nor any special funding wereestablished (Wolfe, 1983).From 1979 through to 1982, FRES II was established. FRESII involved more diverse agencies and built on the earlierstudies. This phase of the study prepared a proposedmanagement program for the Fraser River Estuary entitled "ALiving River By The Door". This report included proposals forpolicies, area plans, activity programs and a managementsystem. The report was based on technical data as well as theissues and concerns identified by groups, organizations andagencies.The study objectives included recommendations onresolving water quality issues that would be subject togovernmental review. The study also prepared a series oftechnical background papers examining the inter-agencyreferral systems for reviewing development project proposals,area designation, information systems and public involvement.In 1982, there was no new institution established but theexisting agencies were linked to better coordinate themselves.The focus on inter-agency processes resulted in a proposal fora Linked Management System. Within the proposal the inter-agency linkages were seen to be essential in the management ofthe estuary. Since no single agency could dictate decisions,management coordination involving bargaining was recognized tobe necessary as well as a forum for negotiation in managementof the estuary (Wolfe, 1983).49From 1983-1984 the study continued as the FRES II Review.The Review Committee was established to obtain public andgovernment comment on the proposed management program and toprepare an implementation strategy. The Committee thenprepared the report "An Implementation Strategy for the FraserRiver Estuary Management Program" which was released in May,1984 (Fraser River Estuary Review Committee, 1984).4.2.3^The 1985 Fraser River Estuary Management ProgramThe FREMP was eventually established on October 10, 1985through a formal federal-provincial agreement. The 1985 FREMPwas based on the Implementation Strategy from 1984 and sinceno one agency had over-riding jurisdiction, implementing amanagement program for the estuary required cooperation andcoordination among the various organizations. Also in order toimplement the program a strong commitment was necessary amongthe key agencies to work together to achieve common goals andobjectives (FREMP, 1986).There were five parties in the agreement: the federalMinister of the Environment, the federal Minister of Fisheriesand Oceans, the provincial Minister of the Environment, theChairman and Commissioners of the Fraser River HarbourCommission and the North Fraser River Harbour Commission(FREMP, 1985). As of June, 1991 the Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict is included as a party to the agreement.There was an evolution from a study (FRES I, II) to aprogram with emphasis on processes and evolving management50techniques. FREMP's role in the agreement as the primarycoordinating institution, has brought several key componentsto this linked management system.The first component of the FREMP was the ManagementCommittee (MC). This Committee had five members at its coreand a further twenty-seven Members at Large (Figure 5). TheManagement Committee Executive (MCE), the core of theCommittee, was composed of representatives from the federalDepartment of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and theprovincial Ministry of the Environment and the two HarbourCommissions in the Fraser (as of June, 1991 the GVRD isofficially included in the MCE). The Executive had theresponsibility for leadership and was accountable to theCanadian Minister of Environment and the B.C. Minister ofEnvironment. Another component of the Agreement, theSecretariat, was established to support the ManagementCommittee and the entire Management Program. In October of1984, an office opened providing a contact point for thepublic and for the Secretariat services.A basic principle of the FREMP is that primaryresponsibility for improving the estuary will continue to restwith those agencies which currently have management authority.Two major objectives of FREMP are to improve decision-makingby using an estuary-wide context rather than a site specificbasis and to provide all agencies an opportunity toparticipate in key management decisions (FREMP, 1986).MANAGEMENT COMMITTEEEXECUTIVEMinistry of EnvironmentEnvironment CanadaFisheries & Oceans CanadaNorth Fraser Harbour CommissionFraser River Harbour CommissionMEMBERS AT LARGEPort of VancouverPublic Works CanadaTransport CanadaMinistry of Agriculture & FoodMinistry of Lands, Parks & HousingMinistry of Transportation & HighwaysCentral Fraser Valley Regional DistrictDewdney-Alouette Regional DistrictGreater Vancouver Regional DistrictBurnabyCoquitlamDeltaLangleyMaple RidgeNew VVes:minsterPort CciuitlamPitt MeadowsRichmondSurreyVancouverWhite RockCoquitlam Indian BandKatzie Indian BandMusqueam Indian BandTsawwassen Indian BandMatsqui Indian BandSemiahmoo Indian BandBritish Columbia Ministerof EnvironmentCanada Minister ofEnvironment51COMMITTEE STRUCTUREFigure 5. The FREMP Committee Structure (FREMP, 1986)52The FREMP was allocated a budget of $250,000. per yearfor the period of 1985-1990. Funding was made availablethrough contributions of $50,000 per year from each of thefive agencies involved. As of June 1991, this budget has beenexpanded to $600,000. per year with each of the six memberscontributing $100,000. per year. This is a relatively smallbudget considering the scope of the tasks to be performed.Hence, the program depended on staff and funding volunteeredby the participating organizations (Dorcey, 1990).To improve estuary management, a number of activitieswere included in the FREMP plans. Several of these activitieswere initiated such as the Coordinated Project Review Process,Activity Programs developed by Working Groups, a Water QualityPlan, Information Systems, Area plans and Area Designationplanning.The Coordinated Project Review System was developed toprovide a system that is thorough and efficient in the reviewof proposed projects and activities within the estuary.Activity Programs were developed to deal with estuary wideissues. The Activity Programs were prepared by Work Groupsmade up of agencies and user groups.A 1990 draft Water Quality Plan has been released as ofApril 1991. The objectives of the plan are to maintain waterquality in the Fraser River Estuary and to ensure thepreservation of fisheries, wildlife and recreation. Amanagement information system and a public information systemwere planned for use within the Fraser Estuary.53The Area Designation project began with an "AreaDesignation Map developed during FRES II in 1982 that definedthe best use of the estuary based on its natural attributesand its suitability to human activities" (FREMP, 1986).Through FREMP the area designations are being refined andvarious agencies including municipalities enter intoagreements on these designations. Through the Habitat ActivityProgram Work Group, Habitat Classifications have beendeveloped with a goal to protect habitat in the estuary.4.3 The Puget Sound Water Quality AuthorityThe Puget Sound studies began in the late 1970's withseveral reports revealing the potential pollution problems forthe Sound. The studies and investigations of the Soundrevealed serious problems of bacterial contamination, toxiccontamination of sediments and marine organisms, and wetlandloss (PSWQA, 1987).It was not until 1983 that the PSWQA (the Authority)began as an unofficial organization with a challenge to cleanup the Sound in a comprehensive manner using systematicmanagement plans. Then in May 1985, the PSWQA was given anindependent status by the state as a new agency to develop,adopt and oversee the implementation of the Puget SoundManagement Plan. The 1991 PSWQA has been given approval understate legislation to continue its work until 1995.544.3.1^The 1983 Puget Sound Water Quality AuthorityIn response to population and industrial threats theState of Washington created the PSWQA to develop acomprehensive plan for clean up and management of the Sound.The Authority was originally established in 1983 and consistedof 21 members appointed by the governor. The PSWQA was askedto identify the pollution-related threats to Puget Soundmarine life, evaluate pollution threats to human health, andto investigate the need for coordination among agenciesresponsible for protecting Puget Sound water quality (PSWQA,1990b).The challenge to the PSWQA was to protect and manage thePuget Sound using systematic management plans that offerpriorities and that cross all regional boundaries within theSound. Since the Puget Sound consists of hundreds of publicjurisdictions there was great need for coordinated strategiesto combat these jurisdictional complexities. Among therecommendations in its 1984 annual report was the call for a"long-range coordinated plan...to protect and improve waterquality throughout the Sound" (PSWQA, 1990b).The PSWQA felt that much of their task was preventive innature. They needed to look ahead and to anticipate and avoidany negative aspects of activities within the Sound. Itprepared technical reviews of the Sound's environmentalproblems, analyzed current programs to control contaminationand worked to increase public awareness and to involvecitizens in the planning processes (PSWQA, 1987).554.3.2^The 1985 Puget Sound Water Quality AuthorityIn May 1985, the PSWQA was restructured and establishedas an independent state agency with a mandate to provide acoordinated management plan for the Sound. The independence ofthe agency was established because it was commissioned asindependent of any other state agency and was appointed by andaccountable to the governor directly, rather than to the stateDepartment of Ecology.The principal responsibility of the Authority was todevelop, adopt, and oversee the implementation of the PugetSound Water Quality Management Plan. The goal that theAuthority held throughout the 1985-1990 planning process wasto "restore and protect the biological health and diversity ofthe Sound" (PSWQA, 1990b).The Authority Board had nine members: seven voting andtwo ex-officio, non-voting members. The seven voting membersincluded the Authority's chair, who also served as anexecutive director, and six representatives from the sixcongressional districts around the Puget Sound (PSWQA, 1990b).These members were all appointed by the governor and approvedby the State Senate. The ex-officio members were the Directorfrom the Department of Ecology and the Commissioner of PublicLands. The PSWQA had twenty-five staff who researched issuesand reported to the final decision-making Board.The Authority was to engage in a continuing planningprocess through 1991, at which time the agency was toterminate. The Authority was directed to revise the plan every56two years, evaluating the process toward previous goals andaddressing additional concerns. Recent amendments to the PugetSound Water Quality Act restructured the Authority, extendingit to 1995, and calling for a four year plan update cyclefollowing the adoption of the 1991 plan (PSWQA, 1990b). Thiswill be discussed more fully later.One of the major challenges in mobilizing and carryingout a comprehensive effort to protect the Sound is the factthat so many jurisdictions and levels of government must beinvolved. More than 450 public bodies have responsibility forsome aspect of the Sound's water quality. The Authoritycreated a participatory process in preparing the ManagementPlan to accomplish the goals of bringing together andcoordinating the numerous agencies and jurisdictions. Thisapproach to the Puget Sound plan shows the heavy emphasis onlocal responsibility and multi-jurisdictional cooperation(PSWQA, 1988).The PSWQA mandate was to be an active overseer of theplan and other actions affecting the Puget Sound and to beheld accountable to the governor and legislature. Hence theAuthority was "authorized to promulgate rules, to intervene inlegal proceedings and required to review major actionsaffected by the plan" (Fletcher, 1990a). The Authorityconsciously avoided an adversarial role in making sure theplan was implemented.The task of the 1986 Authority was to adopt a plan before1987. This task had a great "will" at the time because of the57attention that the environment of the Sound was getting andthe great political momentum generated (Fletcher, 1991). Inthe summer of 1986, nine issue papers and a State of the SoundReport were published. The Authority prepared and issued thedraft 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan andEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS). Following public commentand review, the PSWQA developed a revised proposal and issuedthe final EIS. In December of 1986, "the Authority unanimouslyadopted the final 1987 Water Quality Management Plan after anextensive planning process" (PSWQA, 1987). The estimated costof implementing the 1987 plan during 1987-1989 was about $37million; however, funding received was limited to about $27million.The preparation of the 1987 plan involved an advisorycommittee, a scientific review panel and numerous publicmeetings. Hundreds of informal meetings and consultations werealso held with interested groups and individuals in order toinclude as many interested parties as possible in the process.The fundamental goal of the 1987 plan was to restore andprotect the biological health and diversity of the Sound(PSWQA, 1987). The plan was comprehensive with major programsfor non-point sources, municipal and industrial sources,stormwater contaminated sediments, shellfish and wetlandprotection, as well as public education and information. Otherplan elements dealt with monitoring, research, and laboratorycertification. Existing state and local agencies wereresponsible for implementation of the plan rather than calling58for the creation of new ones. The Authority worked to assurecompliance with the plan and provided oversight and technicalassistance.Funding for a Sound-wide monitoring program was allocatedso that meaningful long-term data for the Puget Sound would beavailable. This information was thought to be essential inorder to detect improvements in the Sound as a result ofvarious management strategies and actions. It was also thoughtnecessary to detect the continued degradation that may beoccurring and that would require additional management andregulation (PSWQA, 1988). The final report for a Puget SoundAmbient Monitoring Program was completed in April 1988 andincluded a proposed sampling design, a data managementapproach, an institutional structure to manage the program anda cost estimate for the program. The monitoring plan was usedby the Authority in preparing the 1989 Puget Sound Plan(PSWQA, 1988).The 1989 plan, had the purpose of restoring andprotecting the biological health and diversity of Puget Sound.The strategies for achieving this purpose were to protect andenhance the Sound's water and sediment quality, its fish andshellfish, and its wetlands and other habitats. During the1989-1991 period, the funding request was about $54 millionfor the final 1989 plan; however, only $36 million was madeavailable for implementation of the 1989 plan (PSWQA 1990b).594.3.3^The 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality AuthorityThe final project of the 1985-1990 Authority wasoriginally scheduled to cease after June 30, 1990. Legislationapproved by the 1990 Washington State Legislature, EngrossedSubstitute House Bill 2482, extends the work of the Authorityuntil June 30, 1995 (PSWQA, 1990b).The structure of the Authority Board has changed underthe new statute. Previously all of the members were appointedby the governor and approved by the State Senate. TheAuthority Board will now have eleven members. Nine of thesemembers will be appointed by the governor. Of these ninemembers, six will represent the congressional districtssurrounding the Puget Sound and the remaining three will berepresentatives from cities, counties, and tribes (PSWQA,1990b). The remaining two members, the Director of Ecology andthe Commissioner of Public Lands or their respectivedesignated official, will serve as ex-officio members and willeach have a vote. The Director of Ecology will act as theAuthority's chair. Hence, the number of voting members hasincreased from seven to eleven. The ex-officio members, theDirector of Ecology and the Commissioner of Public Lands, arenow voting members and the Authority's chair is the Directorof Ecology and is no longer appointed by the governor.The 1991 plan builds on the progress made by implementingthe previous plans. The 1991 plan adds new programs includinga comprehensive ambient monitoring program, a long-rangestrategy for education and public involvement and a system of60priorities and funding for research. The 1987 programs werestill continued with minor modifications and improvements. The1991 plan includes 15 programs addressing the pollution issuesand an unfinished agenda of issues that may need to beaddressed in future plan updates. The Authority estimates thatthe 1991 plan would require "$98 million over the next twoyears, increasing to $119 million by the 1995-97 biennium"(PSWQA, 1990b).The purpose and strategies of the 1991 plan are the sameas in the 1989 plan except that the 1991 plan updates andrefines the existing plan programs. Also there are new programproposals and four new financial options to provide betterfunding. Efforts currently underway to address the Soundspollution problem are: local activities to protect shellfishand other resources, tightening of permit standards to furtherreduce toxic contamination from industry and sewage treatmentplants, projects to educate individuals about their roles inprotecting Puget Sound and programs to inventory and save theSound's remaining wetlands (Gordon, 1989).As stated earlier, the planning cycle of the Authoritywill be extended so that the next plan will be completed by1995 (PSWQA, 1990b). The Authority will continue to be atechnically independent agency except that the Director ofEcology, the chair of the Authority, will select, supervise,and manage the work of the Authority's staff.614.4^A Comparison of the Management ProcessesThe Fraser River Estuary and the southern part ofAdmiralty Inlet in the Puget Sound are estuaries that flowinto the water bodies of the Strait of Georgia and the Straitof Juan de Fuca respectively. Both of these areas have largepopulations that live adjacent to marine ecosystems of greatimportance to the surrounding regions and the economies ofBritish Columbia and Washington State (Fekete and Goldblatt,1990). Also, both areas have numerous government authoritiesthat claim jurisdiction over land and water use and areutilized by humans in similar ways. As a result, these areasexperience similar environmental problems and similarmanagement challenges.4.4.1^The Management AreasThe Fraser River Estuary studies are primarily concernedwith the estuary, whereas the PSWQA planning area covers theentire Puget Sound Basin. Thus the hydrologies of these areasdiffer somewhat. The Fraser River Estuary has the Fraser Riverand its tributaries as a focal point. Hence, the flushing rateof this area is a factor of tides and the high or low riverflow rates depending on the season (Kennett and McPhee, 1988).The hydrology of the Puget Sound Basin is also dependent onthe tides and seasons; however, the Puget Sound south ofAdmiralty Inlet is semi-enclosed due to sills in the inlets.This area tends to be more vulnerable because the water andpollutants are recirculated within the Sound and some inlets62and bays experience only limited tidal exchange (PSWQA,1990a). Hence most contaminated sediment (ninety-five percent) is not flushed from the Puget Sound system due to thelimited exchange with the open ocean (PSWQA, 1988).The biological resources of the two areas are verysimilar. Both areas encompass estuarine habitats that supportsuch biological resources as fish, invertebrates, birds andmammals. Also both of these areas are subject to mildclimates, moderate year round temperatures, high rainfalllevels and long growing seasons that result in high levels ofprimary productivity and rich biological diversity (Kennettand McPhee, 1988).The 1988 population living in close proximity to theFraser River Estuary is 1.5 million people and has increasedby twenty per cent over the ten year period of 1976-1986(Kennett and McPhee, 1988). This suggests that a populationestimate of 2.2 million people by the year 2006 living inclose proximity to the estuary. The population in the PugetSound was estimated at 3.0 million people for 1989, andprojections for 2010 are estimated to be as high 4.4 millionpeople (PSWQA, 1990b). Hence the population base for the PugetSound Basin is approximately double that of the Fraser RiverEstuary area and both areas share increasing populationpressures.These estuaries are utilized by human activities and havesimilar user groups. The Fraser River Estuary and the PugetSound support such industries as fishing, log handling, wood63processing, agriculture, shipping as well as residential andrecreational interests. The Puget Sound also contains miningand all the associated processing and manufacturing thataccompanies the above industries.Even though these management processes differ in area andpopulation scale both areas are experiencing increasing trendsin development and population size. As population increases,there are associated increases in developments, greaterdemands on the area resources, increasing threats to theenvironment and greater potential for conflicts to arise.4.4.2^The Management ProcessesManagement EvolutionThe Fraser River Estuary Studies and the Puget Soundstudies both started in the 1970's. The Fraser River studiesbegan due to the increasing concern for habitat and for theever increasing development of the estuary. The Puget Soundstudies began due to studies revealing the potential pollutionproblems in the Sound.In 1983 the PSWQA began as an unofficial organization.Then in May 1985, the PSWQA was adopted and given anindependent status as a new agency to develop, adopt andoversee the implementation of the Puget Sound Management Plan.In October 1985, the same year that the PSWQA was adopted, theFREMP was adopted. However, still no formal independentinstitution exists.64Management ApproachesThese management processes were established for differentreasons and thus they adopted different management approaches.The Puget Sound reached a crisis point in its environmentaland resource problems and the Authority was established with agoal to clean up the Sound as quickly and completely aspossible using systematic management plans. Hence the PugetSound used an aggressive fast track approach by implementing acomprehensive plan as quickly as possible. They realized thepotential for administrative and jurisdictional problems butleft these to be corrected after the plan was initiated(Fekete and Goldblatt, 1990).The Fraser River Estuary had not yet experienced thiscrisis point; however, the resource problems within this areaare increasing in intensity and extent (Sadler, 1983). TheFraser River Studies began first with studies and theneventually established a program and is now developingplanning processes. There were several studies produced butformal institution building was low on the political agenda(Fekete and Goldblatt, 1990). Hence the Fraser River EstuaryStudy was more cautious than the PSWQA. Thus the managementapproaches to these coastal environments differ due to thedifference in the extent of the problems within the areas.Institutional StructureThe legal and institutional systems governing these areasfundamentally differ. In Canada and British Columbia there isemphasis on parliamentary sovereignty and responsible65government. Hence, federal and provincial institutionalarrangements can change and central planning and management ofresources can be carried out with little citizen interferenceor constitutional constraints. Under Canadian legislationthere is utilization of a number of coordinated activities tomanage the Fraser River Estuary. The United States has anational CZM program that is based in a federal CZMA, bothnational and state governance stems from popular sovereigntyand a strong constitution that encourages the state ofWashington to manage of the Sound through local control andcitizen involvement.More specifically, the institutional structure of thesetwo processes is quite different. The FREMP is based on ajoint federal-provincial agreement and is the coordinatinginstitution that brings together the independent agencies thatcomprise it. A basic premis of the FREMP is the responsibilityof estuary improvement which will continue to rest with theagencies that have the specific authority. There is noindependent agency established for the FREMP.The 1985 Authority was commissioned as independent of anyother state agency and appointed by and accountable to thegovernor. This is unique in that one state agency mandatesactions by another state agency, whereas, most other estuaryprograms in the country are run out of the federalEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA), through the NationalEstuary Program (NEP). Technically the Authority is stillindependent because the staff still reports directly to the66Authority's chair, however, this independent status is nowquestionable with the adoption of the 1991 legislature, sincethe chair of the Authority is the Director of the Departmentof Ecology and no longer appointed by the governor (Fletcher,1991).Management MembershipThe numbers of agencies involved in the two managementprocesses are similar in that they are multi-agencyinstitutions. The 1985-1990 FREMP had five agencies involvedas members. FREMP also includes twenty-seven Members at Large.The 1985-1990 PSWQA was composed of nine Authority Boardmembers. The membership within the Authority includesgovernment agencies and various private interests. However,more than 450 public jurisdictions have responsibility forsome aspect of the Sound's water quality (PSWQA, 1988).As of 1991, both of the management memberships havechanged. The FREMP now consists of six members rather thanfive. The sixth member is the Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict (GVRD). The 1991 PSWQA membership has changed due tothe new statute, and there is now eleven members, nine of whomwill be appointed by the governor. The Director of Ecologywill also serve as the Authority's chair.Management GoalsThe mandate of the 1985 FREMP was to "facilitate theimplementation of a Management Program by building upon pastFRES efforts through adoption of common objectives, and bycoordinating activities under a Management Program and to67establish and finance a Secretariat" (FREMP Agreement, 1985).The FREMP acted as a coordinating agency, whereas the mandateof the Authority in 1985 was to bring together and coordinatethe multiplicity of agencies and jurisdictions as well as todesign the plan that is to be carried out by existing entities(PSWQA, 1987). The Authority is responsible, in conjunctionwith the state and local governments, to ensure the complianceof regulations and to ensure the implementation of the plan.The processes are similar in that they both bring together andcoordinate agencies; however, the FREMP and the PSWQA havesome differences in their structure. The Authority seems tohave more responsibility to assure the compliance toregulations within the area mandated than does the FREMP.The broad goals of the FREMP and the PSWQA seem to besimilar in that there is a common concern for the environment.More specifically, the FREMP seems to strive to balance theenvironment with development. The goals and objectives of theFREMP focus on sectoral and area designation plans, improvingdecision-making is an estuary-wide context, and providing allagencies the opportunity to participate in key decisions.Until 1991, the PSWQA has maintained a broad goal torestore and protect the biological health and diversity of theSound (PSWQA, 1990b); however, the Authority in the draft 1991plan was forced to express overtly a set of priorities tobalance the environment with policy and implementation.Overall, there has been no major shift in the fundamentalgoals within the Authority and the objectives are still68broadly focused on the environment and more specifically onwater quality issues (Fletcher, 1991). Thus the PSWQA goalsseem to differ from the FREMP goals in that the overallpurpose of their work is focused upon the environment. Itappears that the FREMP incorporates into its goals activitiesin the estuary along with the environment.The spectrum of water resource interests for each ofthese processes is similar. The FREMP has several waterresource interests: habitat management, waste management,water quality, recreation, environmental emergency response,shipping and navigation. The PSWQA main purpose is to protectand enhance the Sound's water and sediment quality; its fishand shellfish; and its wetlands and other habitats. Hencethere seems to be different emphasis on the interests of eachprocess, yet the main issues from each are present in both.Public InvolvementThe public involvement levels within these processes seemto be drastically different. There has been, however, somepublic involvement in both processes. The Fraser River EstuaryStudy had no public involvement in the beginning stages,however, this involvement was incorporated in the FRES IIprograms. Then in 1985, the FREMP was designed to provide anumber of opportunities for public consultation and to assistthe public by increasing the availability of usefulinformation on the estuary (FREMP Review Committee, 1983).Opportunities were given to the public to submit informationand to review and comment on draft reports. There were69opportunities given to establish a public consultation groupand the Secretariat was to act as a link between the publicand the Management Committee. Public participation in theWorking Groups has also been encouraged, however, there is nodirect public participation in the decision-making. Overall,public participation appears discretionary and the level ofpublic involvement has been relatively small mostly due tolack of staff and funding resources.The PSWQA's public involvement participation activitieshave been an extremely important part of their managementprocess. The Authority realized very early that because thepollution problem is so diffuse in the Sound that to combat itthey would need all the support possible from both financingand people (Fletcher, 1990a). The Authority involved as muchas possible all the people and institutions that play asignificant role in the Sound. There was a general lack ofpublic awareness as to the state of the Sound and hence theAuthority made several efforts to combat this. One such effortis the Public Information and Education Fund (PIE Fund) whichis thought to have had a "multiplier effect" in the spreadingof awareness and information (PSWQA, 1990b). Also, theinformation base has been increasing via the Puget SoundAmbient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) and the Puget SoundFoundation which is a non-profit public corporation thatcoordinates and supports research. Thus the public isvigorously consulted through the monthly public meetings,70workshops and reports and actively participates in theprograms.Management BudgetsThe FREMP and the PSWQA budgets are also different. TheFREMP had a budget of $250,000 per year for the period 1985-1990. It is thought that the FREMP has made good progressconsidering the small amount of funding; however, a realisticbudget is needed if more and better work is to be carried outin the Fraser. As of 1991, the FREMP budget will be expandedto $600,000 per year.The PSWQA had $27 million allocated for the period 1987-1989 for the implementation of the 1987 plan and $36 millionfor the period of 1989-1991 was available for the 1989 plan.They still found this funding inadequate and many of theSound's programs have been only partially funded or have beenput off into the future. The Authority estimates that fullimplementation of the 1991 plan would require $98 million overthe next two years, increasing to $119 million by the 1995-97biennium (PSWQA, 1991).The FREMP and the PSWQA budgets appear drasticallydifferent. The FREMP budgets appear relatively small; however,if the staff time and travel expenses that are presentlyabsorbed by the participating agencies were included in thisbudget, then the estimate would be more comparable to thePSWQA budget. Nevertheless, when the budgets are reduced to acomparable basis it is probable that the FREMP budget is stillmuch lower.714.4.3^Conclusions of the ComparisonThere are similarities and differences within the FREMPand the PSWQA resource management processes. They are similarin many respects due to their North American Pacific Northwestlocations that affect climate, biological resources,population trends and activities in the areas. Also, the twoprocesses seem to be somewhat similar in the actual goals andinterests of the management programs.There are also some great differences. Obviousdistinctions are the size of the areas, the populationdifferences and the scale of the two programs. Also, ofdramatic distinction is the budget scales; however, as statedabove, these budget estimates when directly compared can bemisleading. The institutional structure of the PSWQA processis also seen as distinct. Both programs have coordinatingfunctions. It seems that the PSWQA is different in that it isan independent agency. The Authority has more responsibilityto assure the compliance of regulations throughout theplanning area.The Authority has made effective use of its peopleresources. There is active public involvement throughout thePSWQA. The public is always consulted in the final decision-making discussions and public participation is a main resourcein the various programs. There has been some funding allocatedfor this but a lot of the work was done by volunteers. Withinthe FREMP there have been some attempts to include the public,72however, relative to the PSWQA there is little active publicinvolvement to date.Even though these programs must consider similarenvironmental problems, there are some fundamental differencesin their management approaches. The FREMP is more aware ofagency coordination and involves a number of activities withno overall legislation to govern and manage coastal resources.In the Puget Sound, there is a formal legislative system thatprovides funding to Washington to allocate to localgovernments to plan and regulate their specific areas (Sadler,1981). Hence, the Authority can act as an independent and isable to be more aggressive in its pursuits. The Fraser RiverEstuary and the Puget Sound management areas both experienceincreasing demands and the resultant resource use conflictsthat will need some means of resolution.73Chapter 5A CASE STUDY:THE USE OF NEGOTIATION IN THE FREMP AND THE PSWQA5.1 IntroductionThe case study analyzes whether and how negotiation isused within the coastal zone management processes of the FREMPand the PSWQA. The format of all case study interviews was thesame. The interviews were based on the eight questionsoutlined in the criteria presented in Chapter Three and ageneral discussion on the use of negotiation. Each interviewwas conducted through a pre-arranged telephone discussion.Subsequent interviews were conducted if it was necessary.To begin the study, an overview is given of the use ofnegotiation in Canada and the United States. The occurrenceand form of negotiation used is then identified within theprimary management bodies of the FREMP Management CommitteeExecutive (MCE) and the PSWQA Authority Board (AB).In sections 5.3 and 5.4, the management processes of theFREMP Standing Committee on the 1990 Water Quality Plan (WQSC)and the PSWQA Point Source Committee (PSC) are addressed, toconsider negotiation use at a secondary level of management.Examples pertaining to the development of Water QualityObjectives are analyzed in each of these committees. Casestudy conclusions are then addressed in section 5.5.745.2 Canadian and American Use of Negotiation^5.2.1^Canadian Use of NegotiationVarious negotiation approaches are being utilizedthroughout Canada to resolve resource use conflicts. Theprovinces of Alberta, Ontario and Quebec use forms ofnegotiation in management decisions concerning affectedresource interests (Sadler and Armour, 1987). Thesenegotiations are not necessarily explicit in nature; however,in Canada environmental mediation is used in the resolution ofenvironmental disputes (Dorcey and Riek, 1987).The use of negotiation in British Columbia has developedthrough the necessity for inter-agency cooperation andcoordination. This implicit basis for negotiation occurs invarious formal and informal arenas (Dorcey, 1986). The FREMPwas designed to coordinate the decision-making of variousmanagement agencies involved. The FREMP incorporated into itsstructure a forum to discuss and resolve the multipleinterests affected by the management of the Fraser RiverEstuary area. As we will see more fully later in this chapter,negotiations are usually implicit in the FREMP decision-making.^5.2.2^American Use of NegotiationIn the United States negotiatory approaches are used toefficiently settle environment and development disputes(Bingham, 1986). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency usesfacilitated negotiations to supplement the current approach to75regulation and considers the use of negotiation as part of aneffective means to set environmental standards (U.S. NationalInstitute for Dispute Resolution, 1986).More specifically, there has been increasing use ofnegotiated agreements throughout Washington State in the lastfew years. These negotiations have been notable in theresource management fields of fisheries, forestry and waterrights allocations (Gaffney, 1990). These negotiations utilizethird party assistance as well as innovative technicalnegotiating means.5.2.3^A Comparison of Canadian and AmericanNegotiation UseThe governance systems of Canada and the United Statesdiffer. Canada has no formal coastal resource managementlegislation, whereas the United States does have formallegislation for coastal resource management. Due to thisdifference, the use of negotiation in these systems alsodiffers (Dorcey and Riek, 1987). Both the United States andCanada utilize some form of negotiation in the settlement ofresource uses. However, Canadian innovations in negotiationuse are on an implicit and narrower basis (Sadler and Armour,1987). Nevertheless, negotiation may be more feasible inCanada due to the overlap in management responsibilities ofthe federal and provincial governments, the smaller scale ofgovernment bureaucracy, and the types of legislation andenforcements (Dorcey and Riek, 1987).76In both countries the use of coastal resources usuallyinvolves the compromise of various stakeholder positions andthe resolution of conflicts. The decision-making processes inboth countries incorporate some form of negotiation in theirmanagement strategies (Dorcey, 1981).5.3 The FREMP and the PSWQA Primary Management BodiesNegotiation UseThe focus in this section is on the primary managementbodies of the FREMP and the PSWQA. The examples focus on theroles that the FREMP MCE and the PSWQA AB play within thefinal decision-making processes of the organizations. Thesebodies are detailed and analyzed for negotiation use.5.3.1 The FREMP's Management Committee ExecutiveNegotiation UseThe FREMP structure incorporates several differentcommittees and groups that govern the management program.Essentially the MCE organize and administer the FREMP. As ofJune 1991, the MCE will be referred to as the ManagementCommittee and the former Management Committee will be referredto as the Implementation Advisory Committee; however, for thisthesis the committees addressed will be those prior to the1991 revisions.The MCE terms of reference for the last five years (1985-1990) were adopted in the 1985 FREMP political agreement. Thisagreement establishes the program's goals, objectives,financing and names the parties and their obligations.77Next to the Ministers, the MCE is the highest level ofreview in the FREMP decision-making process. Morespecifically, the MCE formulates the terms of reference forthe Management Committee and is responsible for theadministration of the agreement and the allocation of funds.Within the FREMP structure the two secondary managementdecision-making bodies are the Activity Program Working Groupsand the Standing Committees (Figure 6). There are eightdifferent Activity Programs and Working Groups and twoStanding Committees. The two Standing Committees are theEnvironmental Review Committee and the WQSC.The MCE always reviews and approves the Working Groupsdecisions, usually reviews and approves the WQSC decisions butreviews the Environmental Review Committee decisions only whenthe issues are particularly contentious or if a projectrequires a higher level of review. Background information onthe issues to be negotiated at the MCE meetings is distributedto the MCE members prior to discussions.As written in the 1985 FREMP agreement, appointedrepresentatives from the parties involved will constitute theMCE. These representatives are known as permanent MCE membersand are from senior levels of government. The parties involvedin the MCE are the federal Minister of the Environmentrepresented by the Department of the Environment (DOE); thefederal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans represented by theDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO);78Reporting Structure and Relationship of FREMPCommittees and Work GroupsManagement( CommitteeManagement Committee ExecutiveSTANDING COMMITTEES ACTIVITY PROGRAM WORK GROUPS1. Standing Committee on the Fraser 1. Log ManagementRiver Estuary Water Quality Plan2. Environmental Review Committee 2. Waste Management3. Emergency Management4. Habitat Management5. Recreation Management6. Port and Industrial7. Navigation and Dredging8. Dyking and DrainageFigure 6. The FREMP Structure (FREMP Standing Committee onthe Water Quality Plan, 1991)79the provincial government represented by the provincialMinister of the Environment (MOE); the Fraser River HarbourCommission (FRHC); and the North Fraser Harbour CoRmassion(NFHC).The MCE meets regularly once a month or more often whenspecifically required. Some informal interaction processes dooccur more frequently than once a month. Issues are oftendiscussed through conference calls and regular phoneconversations. These interactions stem from the need tocommunicate more frequently between meetings. However, theseinformal communication processes are not part of theestablished FREMP processes.5.3.2^The Management Committee Executive AnalysisThose FREMP participants interviewed for the MCE examplewere: Jim McCracken the MCE co-chair and representative fromBritish Columbia Environment, Lands and Parks, Vic Niemelathe MCE co-chair and representative from Conservation andProtection of Environment Canada, Dale Paterson the Departmentof Fisheries and Oceans Canada representative, and GeorgeColquhoun the North Fraser Harbour Commission representative.These four participants were chosen based on the range ofinterests represented and availability to participate in theinterviews.Within the MCE decision-making process there is no use ofexplicit negotiation. The MCE participants all expect tonegotiate when attending their meetings.801. Did the negotiation utilize any outside third partyassistance in the decision-making process?There is no outside third party assistance utilized inthe MCE. The chair of the MCE alternates between the federaland provincial representatives and the Programs Coordinatorfacilitates the meetings.2. Were preparatory techniques utilized such as planning andinforming all participants of the relevant issues?The MCE members always prepare, plan and do theirhomework for the meetings by reviewing background material andreports and by clarifying issues over the telephone.3. Was agenda setting utilized in the negotiation?Set procedures and agendas are utilized within the MCEmeetings.4. Was there opportunity for the representation of allaffected interests in the negotiation?The interests of federal and provincial government arerepresented in the MCE. Within the last year, the GreaterVancouver Regional District (GVRD) has been included in theMCE and so the municipal governments are now represented.Also, the MCE is trying to involve the provincial Landsdepartment. Only one participant felt that the affectedinterests were given the opportunity for representation.One participant felt that there is not enough activepublic input in the FREMP processes and stated that the MCE isattempting to include some form of public consultation. Theparticipant hopes that the MCE will "tighten up" the presentrepresentation format involved in the MCE negotiations because81often there is only representation of one of the outsideinterested parties at a time in these meetings.Another participant agreed and thought that all affectedparties were not represented and that in the near future morepublic involvement would be incorporated into the FREMPprocesses. Overall the participants felt that all of theinterested parties are not necessarily represented at eachmeeting. If there is need for additional representation thenthe MCE members bring in other interests to attend the nextdiscussions.5. Was brainstorming for different options included inprocedural framework of the negotiation?Brainstorming is used in the MCE and included in theMCE procedures. The MCE sometimes utilize brainstorming togenerate new ideas when considering future FREMP issues anddirections. At other times they adhere to a format of fixedagendas to attend to financial and administrative issues.6. Were explicit agreement criteria utilized to reach anagreement?The MCE members agree upon policy through developmentof terms of reference and verbal unanimity. Usually, they donot have to vote.7.^Did the participants strive for flexibility when tryingto reach agreements?Usually the MCE meetings are business-like, efficient andwell structured and yet the actual discussions are reasonably82flexible considering that the various agencies must abide todifferent mandates.8. Was there any mechanism installed in the negotiation toformally commit all the participants to their agreed-uponactions?The FREMP agreement commits the MCE to some agreed-uponactions. Within the MCE itself, the mechanism that commits theMCE to their actions is the minutes of the meetings thatinclude a letter signed by the co-chair. Only one participantfelt that there was no formal means other than the honoursystem to commit the participants to the agreed-upon actions.5.3.3^The Management Committee Executive ConclusionsThe MCE members agree that implicit negotiation occurswithin the final decision-making of the FREMP. Also, themembers identified all of the structured negotiation usecriteria with the exception of the opportunity forrepresentation of affected interests and a means to commit tothe agreed-upon actions (Table 2). It is interesting to notethat most participants agreed that the MCE does not giveopportunity for representation of all the affected interests.The industry and public interests are not actively representedin the MCE meetings. Therefore the MCE final decision-makingprocess of the FREMP reveals the use of implicit structurednegotiation.83ANALYSIS OF FREMP MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE EXECUTIVENEGOTIATION USEInterview Participants1.^2.^ 3.^4. Implicit^yes yes yes noExplicit no^no no^nol.third^no no^no noparty2.prep.^yes^yes^yes^yestech.3.agendaset^yes^yes^yes^yes4.rep.inter.^no^no yes^no5.newideas^yes^yes^yes^yes6.expl.crit.^yes^yes^yes^yes7.flex-^yes yes yes yesible8.mech.commit^yes^yes^no^yesTYPENEG.USED Implicit Negotiation with some form of StructureTable 2. Analysis of the FREMP MCE Negotiation UseExample based on interviews with the ManagementCommittee Executive Members and Negotiation UseCriteria845.3.4^The PSWQA's Authority Board Negotiation UseThe PSWQA is structured into bodies that govern themanagement process. These management bodies consist of theAuthority Board (AB), Committees of the Board, staff membersand the public (Figure 7). The AB is focused upon here toaddress the final decision-making within the PSWQA. Thesedecisions take place in a public forum where issues arediscussed and negotiated by all present. The AB members thenmake the final decision on these issues.There are several steps in PSWQA decision-making. Firstof all, issues of concern are established from previous ABmeetings and informal discussions. Then the Authority staffresearch the various issues and develop alternative solutions.These issues and alternatives are then presented by staff tothe appropriate Committee where discussion takes place andrecommendations are agreed-upon. In these Committee meetingsthe Authority staff, Committee members and the public developlists of recommendations to be taken before the full AB forreview and approval.As of 1991, the AB consists of an eleven members fromvarious agencies and private interests that range from privatesector consultants and the U.S. Department of Ecology to theMayor of Bellingham (Figure 8). Nine of these members areappointed by the governor; the remaining two members are theDirector of the Department of Ecology and the Commissioner ofPublic Lands. The AB members are divided into four Committeesthat will be detailed in the example of section 5.4.85THE PSWQA DECISION-MAKING STRUCTUREAUTHORITY BOARD-reviews and approves-final decision-making bodyI COMMITTEES-increases information flow-provides forum for specialized discussionPUBLIC INVOLVEMENT-questions, issues and concernsPSWQA STAFF-research issues-prepare reports and plans-assigned to projects and programsPSWQA PROGRAM STAFF-allows for specialized researchand report generation-provide support for CommitteesFigure 7.^The Governance Decision-Making Structureof the PSWQATHE TYPE OF AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBERSThe PSWQA final decision-making body consists ofa total of eleven representatives from:The Department of EcologyCounty Commissioner of Public LandsMayor of BellinghamNative FisheriesPrivate Party Members:Oyster Company PresidentEnvironmental Consultants (2)Attorney at Law (2)Associate Professor/ Sierra Club rep.86Figure 8. The Type of Authority Board Members87The PSWQA has twenty-five staff members that are hired bythe PSWQA Administrative Director based on their experienceand training. These staff are divided into PSWQA program,project and administrative duties. The staff research issues,prepare reports and plans, and attend Committee and ABmeetings when issues pertinent to their programs arediscussed.The AB meets once a month or more frequently whenrequired. Daily working processes within the PSWQA are wellestablished and function as information exchanges to initiatediscussion between the staff. These processes are usedextensively to prepare for Committee and AB meetings and arecrucial for establishing the issues to be discussed andnegotiated.5.3.5^The Authority Board AnalysisThose individuals who participated in the Authority Boardinterviews were Jerry Ficklin, an Environmental Consultant,Sheri Tonn, an Associate Professor of Chemistry at PacificLutheran University, and Stan Biles the Deputy Supervisor,Washington Department of Natural Resources as therepresentative for the Commissioner of Public Lands. Thesethree participants were chosen based on the range of interestsrepresented and the availability of participants toparticipate in the interviews.The AB members come to the meetings expecting tonegotiate; however, two of the participants stated that there88are extensive negotiations carried out prior to the ABmeetings. There was no explicit expression of negotiation usein these meetings.1. Did the negotiation utilize any outside third partyassistance in the decision-making process?There was no outside third party assistance in theBoard meetings. However, often the chair of the Board wouldmediate the discussions.2. Were preparatory techniques utilized such as planning andinforming all participants of the relevant issues?The members plan and prepare through discussions at theCommittee level and through staff briefings. Preparation forthese meetings was extensive since two weeks prior to themeetings extensive background readings are distributed to allmembers. The issues would usually be researched, discussed andprepared for by the Authority staff. The public is alwaysnotified about the meetings and is also encouraged to preparefor the meetings. PSWQA documentation is always available tothe public free of charge. The PSWQA has monthly newslettersthat also inform the public of upcoming meetings and events.3. Was agenda setting utilized in the negotiation?Agendas are always set and distributed for thesemeetings. In fact these agendas are announced and publishedin public papers and bulletins twenty-four hours prior tothe meeting time.894. Was there opportunity for the representation of allaffected interests in the negotiation?One participant felt that there was representation of allthe affected interests due to the overlap of interestsrepresented by the Board members. Also, there is an attempt toinclude all the affected interests via public announcements.There is a range of two to fifty public participants in thesemeetings depending on the issues. Another participant thoughtthat not all affected interests were necessarily representedbut that all affected interests were given the opportunity tobe represented.The last participant felt that even though the membersare broadly based, all affected interests were not necessarilyrepresented for two reasons. First of all, the meeting time ofone full day during the work week per month is difficult forsome interests to attend. Secondly, these water quality issuesdiscussed are relatively new concepts and people might not yetunderstand that they are affected by the issues and hencewould not be represented.5. Was brainstorming for different options included inprocedural framework of the negotiation?The discussions at the Board meetings are flexible andpeople are encouraged to brainstorm as conversation flowsfreely. Hence, the majority of the issues are flexible andnew ideas welcomed.906. Were explicit agreement criteria utilized to reach anagreement?There is an explicit agreement procedure defined as afunction of motions and voting. First and second motions arediscussed and passed and then decisions move towards anofficial vote. Prior to the vote, the members have talkedenough to know that the decision would be close to unanimity.The vote is usually unanimous or of the possible eleven votes,the split would be ten to one. However, if the vote is agreater split such as six to five then the members wouldusually reconsider the issue. The explicit mechanism fordecision-making within the AB is a voting mechanism thatutilizes some form of consensus in its agreements.7. Did the participants strive for flexibility when tryingto reach agreements?The members do strive for flexibility in opinions whendeciding upon issues, however, there might be one or twomembers who might get fixed on specific issues and set intheir positions.8. Was there any mechanism installed in the negotiation toformally commit all the participants to their agreed-uponactions?There are mechanisms to commit the members to theiragreed-upon actions depending on the types of issuesaddressed. Such mechanisms are a sign-off sheet, the minutesof the meeting, a covering letter attached to the plans andreports or a letter signed by the chair that is sent with anyrecommendations. Also there is a formal letter endorsed by the91Department of Ecology that commits the Authority to itsresponsibilities.5.3.6^The Authority Board ConclusionsThe PSWQA members all agree that the Board utilizesimplicit negotiations that satisfy most of the structurednegotiation use criteria with the exception of the opportunityfor representation of all affected interests (Table 3). Theparticipants felt that the AB decision-making procedure iseffective.ANALYSIS OF PSWQA AUTHORITY BOARD NEGOTIATION USEInterview Participants1.^2.^3. Implicit^yes^yes yesExplicit no no nol.third^no^no^noparty2.prep.^yes^yes^yestech.3.agendaset^yes^yes^yes4.rep.inter.^yes^no^yes5.newideas^yes^yes^yes6.expl.crit.^yes^yes^yes7.flex-^yes yes yesible8.mech.commit^yes^yes^yesTYPENEG.USED^Implicit Purely Structured NegotiationTable 3. Analysis of the PSWQA Authority Board NegotiationUse Example based on interviews with the PSWQAmembers and Negotiation Use Criteria92935.4 The FREMP's Secondary Management Body Negotiation Use5.4.1^The FREMP Water Quality Standing CommitteeThe FREMP MCE and Management Committee assist with thecoordination of the decision-making within the Fraser RiverEstuary. The Management Committee established two standingcommittees, the Environmental Review Committee and the WQSC,to improve environmental review and water quality managementwithin the Fraser River Estuary.Of interest here is the WQSC and its function as one ofthe secondary management bodies of the FREMP. The decisionsmade within this Committee are agreed-upon and then passed upto the MCE for final approval. The purpose of the WQSC was todevelop a Water Quality Plan for the Estuary to ensure itslong-term protection.The WQSC members are selected by the various governmentalagencies represented in the Committee. The WQSC involves threeprovincial and three federal representatives as well as onerepresentative from the Greater Vancouver Regional District.The Committee meets monthly and utilizes informalcommunication processes, such as phone calls, to discussspecific issues between Committee meetings. There was moneyallocated in the Committee budget for a plan typist.The WQSC discussions did not focus only on the plan, muchof the Committee time was spent organizing and administeringtheir other responsibilities. The WQSC has published severalresearch and monitoring activity reports, two status reports(1987 and 1990), a draft 1990 Water Quality Plan and has94conducted surveys and annual research and monitoring workshops(Figure 9).The need for a Fraser River Estuary Water Quality Plandeveloped out of the phase II of FRES. In 1985, terms ofreference for a Water Quality Plan for the area were developedand internally reworked in government. These terms becameevident in the FREMP when the WQSC was established to developa Water Quality Plan.The overall goal of the plan was to contribute tomaintenance and where possible the improvement of theenvironmental quality within the Estuary. The purpose of theplan was to establish ambient Water Quality Objectives and todevelop a coordinated monitoring program. It was due to thelack of time to devote solely to the development of the planthat it took approximately five years to complete. The draftWater Quality Plan has just been released in April, 1991.This section of the case study details an discussionspertaining to Water Quality Objectives within the WQSC 1990Water Quality Plan. Provisional provincial Water QualityObjectives already exist for the area; however, the CanadianEnvironmental Protection Act gives the federal Minister of theEnvironment the mandate to develop Water Quality Objectives.Hence, the goal within FREMP WQSC was to agree on one singleset of Objectives that would satisfy both the federal andprovincial mandates (FREMP, 1991).Roles of the Water Quality Plan Standing CommitteeWATER NALITY PLANEITANDI10 COMMITTEEInteractWithACTIVITYGROUPSAdvisethe FREMPExecutiveon waterqualitymattersReview andDevelopWater QualityObjectivesRecommendandCoordinateMonitoringDirectActivities ofPlanCoordinatorDevelop andUpdate theWaterQualityPlanEnsure PublicInvolvement- Status Reports- Monitoring andResearchReports- Public Meetings96The WQSC brought together both federal, provincial andregional representatives in a forum of discussion. Prior tothis forum, the federal and provincial representatives didhave some interactions regarding this Water Quality issue.Previous interactions focused on the disagreement between thefederal and provincial approaches to Water Quality controlspertaining to the initial dilution zone. The federalmonitoring approach tests at the source (end of pipe) and theprovincial approach tests the receiving waters assimilativecapacity in the ambient environment.Due to this previous history, the WQSC found that it wastoo difficult to reach an agreement on Water QualityObjectives given that there were no explicit agreementprocedures for the discussions. Hence, the WQSC decided thatit was necessary to develop some means to resolve the WaterQuality Objectives issue so that agreement could be reachedand future amendments could be made.The WQSC developed a procedure designed to reach WaterQuality Objectives agreements (they did not actually agree-upon the Objectives). The WQSC developed this mechanism andthen tested it with Water Quality Objectives set for the PittRiver. The Pitt River Objectives were issued by the Ministryof Environment and the Committee found that it was aneffective agreement means.This mechanism developing the agreed-upon federal andprovincial Objectives for the study area of the FREMP isrevealed in the 1990 FREMP Water Quality Plan (Figure 10). The97mechanism is not complicated. Revisions to the Water QualityObjectives are submitted in documentation to the WQSC forreview. The WQSC could submit the proposal to an ad hoc sub-committee for recommendations. Any recommendation from thissub-committee would be put back to the WQSC for review andapproval. Once this is approved by the WQSC, the documentationis sent to the FREMP MCE for federal and provincial review andapproval. Then this documentation and recommendation for newor revised Water Quality Objectives is forwarded to theprovincial Ministry of Environment who then issues Objectives(FREMP Standing Committee, 1991).Documentation by any entitysupporting new or revised WaterQuality Objectives_41Documentation submitted to FREMPStanding Committee 98Mechanism to Develop Agreed-Upon Water Quality Objectivesfor the FREMP Study AreaAd hoc sub-committee forspecific proposalsDocumentation and recommendationfor new or revised water qualityobjectives sent to FREMPManagement Committee Executiveforfederal/provincialreview/approvalDocumentation and recommendationfor new or revised Wafer QualityObjectives sent to Ministry ofEnvironment (140E)Other parties involved asneededMOE issues ObjectivesFigure 10. The FREMP Mechanism to Develop Agree-UponWater Quality Objectives for the FREMP StudyArea (FREMP Standing Committee, 1991)995.4.2^The FREMP Example AnalysisAll of the members from the 1990 WQSC were available andthus were interviewed for the analysis. The FREMP WQSC membersfor the 1990 Water Quality Plan were:Steve Samis (Chairman)^Habitat Management DivisionDepartment of Fisheries andOceansLeslie ChurchlandMartin PomeroyMalcolm ClarkChief, Water Quality BranchEnvironment CanadaEnvironmental ProtectionEnvironment CanadaEnvironmental ProtectionDivisionB.C. EnvironmentLes Swain^Water Quality BranchB.C. EnvironmentDouglas Walton^Environmental ProtectionDivisionLower Mainland RegionB.C. EnvironmentBob Jones^Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrictThe development of a procedure, such as an agreementmechanism, designed to reach agreements is a classic disputeresolution tactic. When negotiating a solution that isseemingly difficult to resolve often agreement procedures ormechanisms are utilized. Hence the WQSC developed a mechanismto reach agreed-upon Water Quality Objectives. This mechanismis an agreement to a means of resolution and not necessarilyan agreement to specific numbers.There was no explicit use of negotiation in the WQSC onthe Fraser River Estuary Water Quality Plan discussionspertaining to the development of this mechanism. All of the100WQSC members expected to negotiate and acknowledged the use ofnegotiation in the WQSC discussions. However, the reasons thatthey expected to negotiate seem to differ. Also, there is somedifference in opinion pertaining to the extent of thenegotiations used.1. Did the negotiation utilize any outside third partyassistance in the decision-making process?There was no third party assistance utilized in thediscussions pertaining to the mechanism for agreeing uponWater Quality Objectives. The WQSC chair does not act as aneutral third party and does not necessarily facilitatereaching the agreements.2. Were preparatory techniques utilized such as planning andinforming all participants of the relevant issues?Preparatory techniques were utilized in thesediscussions. The members would plan for the meetings and workwas assigned for the next meeting. These meetings weregenerally well organized and the members prepared, informedthemselves and "did their homework" for the next meeting.There is an important negotiation issue concerning whysome members did not feel that the participants utilizedpreparatory techniques. The participants felt that the groupdid not prepare well because everyone was too busy. Themembers were all involved in this Committee outside their ownfull time jobs and found it difficult to work on the Committeeissues. Hence the Committee members were over-extended andfelt that they could not complete their role in thedevelopment of the Water Quality Plan in the time framesgiven. The 1990 draft Water Quality Plan has only just beenreleased as of April, 1991.3. Was agenda setting utilized in the negotiation?All Committee members stated that agendas were used foreach meeting.4. Was there opportunity for the representation of allaffected interests in the negotiation?The WQSC members felt that all the affected interestswere represented. The interests of the federal, provincial andregional governments were represented through an individualwho represented their agencies. Often the members would reportback to their directors and managers to get their opinions onthe Committee issues and thus the members were responsible totheir agencies. If an individual included his/ her own opinionit was usually clearly identified.The participants agreed that all the affected interestswere represented in the Committee mechanism discussions due tothe nature of the topic being negotiated; however, there wereno industry people represented in the MCE. One participantthought that this was intentional because if industry wasrepresented then often no consensus is reached (at leastwithin limited time frames) since industry is generallyrepresented by lobbyists. One participant explained that ifthis issue was more pertinent to other outside interestsperhaps these other interests would have been represented.101These negotiations were really based in policy issues thatleaned towards the technical aspects of Water QualityObjective setting.5. Was brainstorming for different options included in theprocedural framework of the negotiation?Only one member felt that there were no new ideas orbrainstorming in the procedural framework due to the set termsof reference for the plan that laid out clearly the tasks forthe WQSC. The other members thought that the discussions werefull of new ideas and that the meetings included brainstormingand flexibility. Generally, the members would prepare and tryto understand the views of the others in the WQSC.Specifically in this example the members attempted to developnew understandings of the provincial and federal Water QualityObjectives issue. Several different mechanisms were discussedbefore the agreed-upon mechanism was formalized.6. Were explicit agreement criteria utilized to reach anagreement?Consensus decision-making was described by most of themembers as the type of agreement used to reach the agreed-uponmechanism. The consensus decision-making described is the typeof consensus decision that involves unanimity with a fallbacksystem of voting. It should be mentioned that the unanimitymight not necessarily mean total agreement with every aspectof the decision. The different members could support ordisagree with different aspects of a decision, but when102103considering the complete overall decision there was unanimousconsensus.Members of the WQSC confirmed that the group rarely votedon an issue. One member described how the group would worktogether and tried to reach "win-win" situations that wereacceptable to all members. Sometimes members were less happy;recognizing that certain members might have some minorreservations but these seemed to not be worth disagreeingabout. It was felt that this consensus type agreement wouldsatisfy the members overall.Only one member stated that there was not a consensusagreement pertaining to the mechanism and Objectives; however,this member went on to say that there was agreement but thefederal needs may not have been fully addressed. Hence, thismember acknowledges there was a type of consensus agreement(perhaps not unanimity) and that there were some (but not all)issues that were not fully addressed in the agreement.7. Did the participants strive for flexibility when tryingto reach agreements?The terms of reference for the group gave the WQSCdiscussions direction and would sometimes contribute todecreasing the flexibility within the group. Often the membershad set positions that were not too flexible. Althougheveryone had their bottom line, these bottom lines would varyand often there was some give and take. Some members suggestedthat the meetings included flexibility depending on theissues.1048. Was there any mechanism installed in the negotiation toformally commit all the participants to their agreed-uponactions?Another interesting negotiation use issue in the WQSCdiscussions was the difference in opinion on the level ofcommitment to the agreed-upon actions. The members agreed thatthe formal commitment of the WQSC actions lies within theFREMP procedure such that after the WQSC reaches an agreement,the documents are turned over to the MCE for formal approvaland signing.Within the WQSC itself, most members suggested that therewas no formal mechanism to commit the participants to theiragreed-upon actions; however, a few members suggested variousmechanisms that did commit it to action, such as a coveringletter attached to the proposal sent to the MCE that is signedby the WQSC chair on behalf of the members.Another member felt that the agreed-upon mechanism was ameans of formal agreement in itself since all members agreedto the mechanism and then took the mechanism to their agenciesto agree on. Lastly, one member suggested that since they wereall co-authors of the Water Quality Plan that each member wasaccountable in that way.5.4.3 The FREMP Example ConclusionsThe WQSC incorporated into its decision-making someclassic negotiation use issues. The development of themechanism itself identifies a negotiation tactic to ensurethat the WQSC reached some agreement. All members expected to105negotiate in the mechanism discussions, however, they expectto negotiate for different reasons.Another negotiation issue was revealed in the lack ofappropriate funding and staff working time to give to the WQSCtasks and mandates and hence the members might not have beenas prepared as they could have been. It is interesting to notethat all of the WQSC participants agreed that all affectedinterests were represented even though neither industry northe public were included in these negotiations. Theparticipants felt that all interests were representedconsidering the technical nature of the issues beingnegotiated.The type of agreement reached is also interesting tofocus upon. Most of the participants agreed that the type ofagreement was unanimity with a fallback voting system and yetone member interpreted the type of agreement differently thanthe others. Lastly, an issue that focuses on the differentinterpretations of the level of commitment to agreed-uponactions within the WQSC was revealed. However, the formalFREMP agreement commitment was acknowledged by all of themembers.Therefore, all of the members of the FREMP WQSCidentified the use of implicit negotiation in its developmentof a mechanism to agree on Water Quality Objectives. Theseimplicit negotiations incorporate some form of the structurecriteria identified for this thesis (Table 4).106The degree of structure within the negotiation use ishigh. All of the members recognize some form of structure;most of the members acknowledge over eighty percent of thestructure criteria, and one member recognizes the negotiationas purely structured. Therefore, based on this analysis, theoverall negotiation use in the WQSC involves some form ofstructure but does not incorporate purely structurednegotiation use.ANALYSIS OF FREMP STANDING COMMITTEE EXAMPLEInterview Participants1.^2.^3.^4.^5.^6.^7. Implicit^yes yes yes yes yes yes yesExplicit no no no no no^no nol.third^no no no no no^no noparty2.prep.^yes yes yes yes yes yes notech.3.agendaset^yes yes yes yes yes yes yes4.rep.inter.^yes yes yes yes yes yes yes5.newideas^no yes yes yes yes yes yes6.expl.crit.^yes yes yes no yes yes yes7.flex-^no yes yes yes yes no yesible8.mech.commit^no no no no yes yes yesTYPENEG.USED Implicit Negotiation with some form of StructureTable 4. Analysis of the FREMP Water Quality ObjectivesExample based on interviews with the StandingCommittee members and Negotiation Use Criteria1071085.5 The PSWQA Secondary Management Body Negotiation Use5.5.1^The PSWQA Point Source CommitteeThe PSWQA Committee format was established as aninformation exchange to address the Puget Sound Water Qualityissues. These Committees are not decision-making bodies. Thisformat allows the PSWQA a forum, other than the AB meetings,to address more specific issues at greater levels of detail.Each Committee makes lists of recommendations that arepresented to the full AB for final decision-making.The four Committees that are part of the PSWQAgovernance structure are the PSC, Non-Point Source Committee,Public Outreach and Education Committee, and the GovernanceCommittee (Figure 11). Each Committee is comprised ofvolunteer AB members from various political and communitybackgrounds who participate in the appropriate Committeedepending and their interests. Each Committee is alsocomprised of appropriate PSWQA staff from various programs andprojects within the PSWQA that work on the Committee issues.The PSC, the example to be considered here, wasestablished to address specific projects and programs such asmonitoring, spill prevention, waste disposal, stormwatermanagement, sediment management and Water Quality Objectives.The PSC usually meets once every four to six weeks. The PSCstaff meet more frequently amongst themselves to prepare forthese meetings.AUTHORITY BOARD COMMITTEES1. Point SourceCommittee2. Non Point SourceCommittee3. Public Ed./OutreachCommittee4. GovernanceCommittee109THE PSWQA ORGANIZATIONOF COMMITTEES AND STAFFI^Interaction of Committee and Staff^IPSWQA STAFF PROGRAMS AND PROJECTSEstuary ManagementFish and Wildlife Habitat ProtectionSpill Prevention and ResponseMonitoringResearchEducation and Public InvolvementPuget Sound FoundationHousehold Hazardous WasteNon Point Source PollutionShellfish ProtectionWetlands ProtectionMunicipal and Industrial DischargeContaminated Sediments and DredgingStormwater and Combined Sewer OverflowsLaboratory SupportFigure 11.^The PSWQA Committee and Staff Organization110These PSC meetings are also public meetings that are announcedthrough local media. At these meetings the staff usually makean informal presentation and then discussions begin.One controversial issue within the PSC was the discussionassociated with the review of Water Quality Standards. Therewere four PSC discussion sessions pertaining to this topicthat began in April, 1991. The PSC met with the Department ofEcology and any other interested party to discuss WaterQuality Standards revisions. The PSC purpose in thesediscussions was to develop and agree on a list ofrecommendations in response to the proposal of the Departmentof Ecology to update and review the Water Quality Standards.Hence the PSC discussed specific Water Quality Standardsincluding Objectives and Criteria, the language used, and theprotection of human health pertaining to toxic substanceissues.These discussions focused on the controversy surroundingthe initial mixing zone of point source pollutants. There weresome advocates for monitoring to be done at the initialdilution zone where standards now exceed the acute toxicitystandards; other interests felt that measurements should betaken at the edge of the dilution zone and should meet thetoxicity levels; still others felt that measurements should betaken at the edge of the entire zone where chronic standardsshould be met.Once the PSC agreed-upon a certain list of issues andrecommendations then one member presented the list and aletter of comment to the full AB. The AB then discussed,modified and agreed to these recommendations and passed themon to the Department of Ecology as Water Quality StandardsRecommendations. The Department of Ecology has the finaldecision on this matter for the PSWQA does not have theauthority to decide upon Standards.5.5.2^The PSWQA Example AnalysisThe PSC is composed of Board members and staff. The ABmembers that participate in the PSC are:Jerry Ficklin^Ficklin Environmental ServicesMichael Thorp^Attorney at LawSheri Tonn^Associate Professor/ SierraClub RepresentativeTim Douglas^Mayor, City of BellinghamThe PSWQA Staff members of the relevant programs associatedwith the PSC are:John Dorhman^Lead of Point SourceCommitteeAndrea Copping^Lead of Monitoring ProgramVelona Piccolo^Environmental SupervisorKevin Anderson^Environmental PlannerMichael Wheeler^Environmental PlannerThe interviews involved one of the PSC AB members and allof the PSC staff. The PSC AB member, Jerry Ficklin, was chosenfor the interview based on his availability and representationof the private sector. The other AB members were either111112unavailable or it was felt by the author inappropriate toimpose upon them.The PSC is not a decision-making body but more of a forumfor information exchange and hence it seemed difficult forsome of the participants to accept that negotiations occurred.These participants stressed that the PSC discussed issues anddid not necessarily negotiate for decisions. However, theseparticipants did concede that the PSC process did utilizeforms of negotiation. Other participants stated that the PSCmembers would always expect to negotiate and that the PSCprocess necessarily utilizes forms of negotiation where issuesare discussed back and forth and opinions are alwaysexpressed. The PSC used no explicit negotiations.During the PSC meetings the participants discuss issuesand make recommendations to the AB. These recommendations aredeveloped with vigorous public consultation. Information isexchanged between AB members, staff and the public.1. Did the negotiation utilize any outside third partyassistance in the decision-making?There was no third party assistance utilized in thedecision making pertaining to the review of Water QualityStandards in the PSC. There was no individual who acted as amediator from within the group to help reach the agreed uponrecommendations. Usually the staff takes control of themeeting making sure that specific issues and questions areaddressed.1132. Were preparatory techniques utilized such as planning andinforming all participants of the relevant issues?The PSC staff always prepared well for these meetings.Preprinting of agendas was encouraged and the staff researchedissues and to provide the members of the PSC with backgroundinformation. Often documents were distributed to the membersfor review prior to these meetings and phone calls were usedto brief members on the issues. All participants in the PSCwere familiar with the issues and hence they seemed to comewell prepared; however, sometimes the members found itdifficult "to do their homework" since they are not on salaryand have other commitments to attend to.3. Was agenda setting utilized in the negotiations?Agendas were always utilized.4. Was there opportunity for representation of all affectedinterests in the negotiation?The opportunity for representation of affected interestsin the PSC seem to be a negotiation issue of controversybetween the participants interviewed. In order to assess this,the representation of interests will be broken down into ABmembers, staff and the public.The AB members of the PSC ranged from the Mayor ofBellingham, an environmental consultant, a lawyer whospecializes in representation of polluters, and a SierraClub member to the staff and directors of the PSWQA. Someparticipants felt that the AB members representation ofinterests was appropriate since there was representation of114extreme interests. However, one participant felt that not allaffected interests were represented since only a small crosssection of the AB members was represented at these PSCmeetings. Once the issues were taken to the entire Board thenmore affected interests were represented. The staffrepresentation seemed to be appropriate since the staff was torepresent the interests of the PSWQA.In theory, within the PSC meetings all of the affectedinterests could be represented since the meetings wereadvertised and public participation was welcomed. However,the public attendance at these meetings varied and so it ishard to conclude that the meetings were well represented bythe public. Usually the interested stakeholders would attendthe meetings.Overall, the participants felt that all of the affectedinterests were not represented at these PSC meetings. Thereasons for this are that not all AB members interests arerepresented and the public representation is not alwaysensured. Another participant emphasized that not all affectedinterests were represented since the point of thesediscussions was to encourage communication and informationexchanges between the AB and the Authority staff.5. Was brainstorming for different options included in theprocedural framework of the negotiation?Depending on the issue there was usually flexibilityand brainstorming present. The primary purpose of the meetingswas to form a partnership type of discussion where allinterests and opinions had equal weight.6. Were explicit agreement criteria utilized to reachagreement?The PSC preferred to use consensus agreements as best asthey could. The explicit agreement criteria usually took theform of consensus, however, if no consensus was reached thenthe staff made up a list of issues and recommendations andpresented this to the Board for final decision-making. Thefour AB members involved in the PSC really had the finaldecision of which recommendations to take to the Board.7. Did the participants strive for flexibility when tryingto reach agreements?The issues and discussions were flexible depending on theissues. Sometimes opinions were quite polarized but these wereusually recognized.8. Was there any mechanism installed in the negotiation toformally commit all the participants to the agreed-uponactions?There is a mechanism called a working draft letter thatis used as a vehicle for these agreed-upon recommendations,agreements and disagreements to be taken to the AB. Thisletter is more of a comment letter than a formal commitment;however, it is signed by the PSC members.1151165.5.3^The PSWQA Example ConclusionsAll of the members of the PSC suggested that somecombination of implicit structured negotiation was utilized inreaching the agreed-upon recommendations for the review of theWater Quality Standards. The two negotiation use issues wherethe participants have some differences in opinion are thedefinition of negotiation use and the representation ofinterests (Table 5).The participants all agreed that the participants usuallyprepared well. It was often stressed that since the AB membersare volunteers they sometimes do not give all the attentionthey could to the PSC issues and concerns. There seemed to besome differences in opinion as to the definition ofnegotiation use. Since the PSC is not a decision-making bodysome participants felt that negotiation was not used. However,after some clarification of negotiation, defined as a means toattempt to reach an agreement on issues and not necessarily afinal decision, the implicit use of negotiation seemed to beexpected by most of the participants.The negotiation use criteria pertaining to therepresentation of interests seemed to be somewhat divided inthe participants opinions. However, on the whole, the PSCmeetings do not give opportunity to include all affectedinterests since the range of AB members interests is notrepresented, the public is not always involved and since thepurpose of the PSC is really not a representation of interestsbut a forum to communicate and exchange information.ANALYSIS OF NEGOTIATION USE INTHE PSWQA POINT SOURCE COMMITTEEInterview Participants1.^2.^3.^4. 5.Implicit yes yes yes^yes yesExplicit no no no no no1.thirdparty no no no^no no2.prep.tech. yes yes yes^yes yes3.agendaset yes yes yes^yes yes4.rep.inter. yes yes no^no no5.newideas yes yes yes^yes yes6.expl.crit. yes yes yes^yes yes7.flex-ible yes yes yes^yes yes8.mech.commit yes yes yes^yes yesTYPENEG.USED Implicit Negotiation with some form of StructureTable 5. Analysis of the PSWQA Water Quality ObjectivesExample based on interviews with the Point SourceCommittee Participants and Negotiation UseCriteria117118Hence, the PSWQA PSC utilized implicit negotiation in itsdiscussions pertaining to the review of the Water QualityStandards (Table 5). These negotiations were thought by two ofthe participants to be purely structured and the othersidentified high levels of structured negotiation use criteria.These implicit negotiations incorporated some form of thestructured negotiation criteria identified for this thesis.5.6 Case Study ConclusionsCanada and the United States utilize various forms ofnegotiation tactics. British Columbia is a more fertileenvironment for implicit negotiation use than Washington Statepartially due to the legislative and institutional structuresthat overlap in federal, provincial and local managementresponsibilities. Washington State appears to use moreadvanced negotiation tactics than British Columbia. However,recent undertakings in dispute resolution by the B.C. RoundTable on the Environment and the Economy seem to be movingtowards other negotiation means and tactics.5.6.1 Primary Management Bodies Negotiation Use ConclusionsBoth the FREMP and the PSWQA utilize implicit rather thanexplicit negotiation tactics in their final decision-makingprocesses. Also, structured negotiation is seen in both theFREMP MCE and the PSWQA AB decision-making.In the FREMP MCE, the majority of the members agreed thattheir decision-making utilizes all of the structured119negotiation use criteria with the exception of the opportunityfor the representation of all affected interests. Some of theMCE members suggested the need for a wider representation ofinterests because industry and the public are not representedin this final decision-making body.Both final decision-making processes utilize highlystructured negotiations; however, the PSWQA AB utilizes thehighest level of structured negotiation, purely structurednegotiation, in these decisions (Table 6). This negotiationformat suggests that the AB is actively pursuing provennegotiation strategies.5.6.2 Secondary Management Bodies Negotiation Use ConclusionsConclusions on the use of negotiation can also be drawnfrom the FREMP and PSWQA secondary management bodies throughthe Water Quality Objectives and Standards examples. Bothexamples reveal that agreements were reached within therespective Committees through the use of implicit structurednegotiation.The FREMP WQSC was able to reach agreement on the WaterQuality Objectives mechanism. These negotiations were expectedto occur, were implicit in nature, and were quite high intheir level of structure with some minor differences inopinion regarding the flexibility of the WQSC, the potentialfor new ideas, the use of explicit agreement criteria and ameans to commit the WQSC to action. Overall, the WQSC members120recognized the use of implicit negotiations with a high degreeof structure (Table 6).It is interesting that even though the WQSC participantsfelt that all of the affected interests were represented,there was no opportunity for public or industry representationbecause the issues discussed were technical issues and notappropriate for public decision-making.In the second Water Quality Standards example, the PSWQAPSC also utilized implicit structured negotiation in reachingits agreed-upon recommendations for the review of WaterQuality Standards. The negotiations used were also high instructure with only minor differences in opinion regardingpreparation and the representation of interests.The PSC members might not be as prepared as they couldhave been mostly due to the lack of time to devote to the PSCissues. The opportunity for representation of all interestswithin the PSC was a controversial negotiation use criteriaissue. The public is always invited to the meetings; however,it is often difficult to ensure that the public attend. Also,there was concern over the smaller cross section of Boardmember representatives in the PSC.SUMMARY OF THE NEGOTIATION USE ANALYSIS(based on the average of interview results)FREMP^FREMP^PSWQA^PSWQAMCE WQSC AB PSCExplicit no no^no^noImplicit yes^yes yes yes1.thirdparty no^no^no^no2.prep.tech.^yes^yes^yes^yes3.agendaset^yes^yes^yes^yes4.repres.inter. no^yes^yes^no5.newideas yes^yes^yes^yes6.expl.crit.^yes^yes^yes^yes7.flex-ible^yes^yes^yes^yes8.mech.commit yes^no^yes^yesTYPE NEGUSED:^Implicit Implicit^Implicit^Implicitsome form some form purely some formstructure structure structured^structureTable 6. Summary of the Negotiation Use Analysis121122As with the FREMP WQSC, it is interesting that eventhough the representation of interests in the PSC wasidentified by the participants as not representing allaffected interests, this representation is thought to havebeen appropriate by some participants given the nature of thePSC discussions.Therefore, the decision-making within the FREMP and thePSWQA is similar in that both the primary and secondarymanagement bodies utilize implicit highly structurednegotiations. However, in the PSWQA final decision-makingbody, the AB utilizes purely structured negotiations.5.6.3^A Comparison of Negotiation Use in theFREMP and the PSWQAGovernance FrameworksThere are some fundamental differences in theconstitution of those participating in the FREMP and the PSWQAmanagement bodies. All of the FREMP MCE and WQSC members areselected by the agencies that they represent. The PSWQA ABmembers are all appointed by the governor and the PSWQA PSCparticipants include AB members that are appointed by thegovernor, staff that are hired through the PSWQA, and thepublic who attend when they are interested.The decision-making procedures are similar in theprocesses in that both the FREMP and the PSWQA utilizesecondary management processes to pass on recommendations forapproval to a final decision-making body. There is afundamental difference in the level of public involvement123within the decision-making of these processes. The FREMP doesnot explicitly involve the public in its decision-makingprocesses. In the PSWQA there is a legislative responsibilityto consult with the public in its decision-making procedures.Hence public involvement a crucial component of the PSWQA.Similarities in the Negotiations UsedThere are several negotiation use criteria similaritiesbetween the two management processes. Neither managementprocesses utilize outside third party assistance; however, inthe final decision-making processes, the FREMP ProgramsCoordinator acts as a facilitator and the PSWQA utilizes thechair to mediate the discussions.All of FREMP and the PSWQA management bodies seemed to bequite well prepared; however, a common complaint from bothprocesses was the lack of time allocated from within themanagement process to devote to the management issues. All ofthe participants agreed that agendas were used, that usuallynew ideas were welcomed and that there was flexibility in theopinions of those participating in the discussions.Both the FREMP WQSC and the PSWQA PSC participantsacknowledged that the opportunity for representation of all ofthe affected interests is not always appropriate and that thiswould depend on the issues being addressed.124Differences in the Negotiations UsedThere are negotiation use criteria differences in the twomanagement processes that concern the participant'sperceptions regarding the representation of interests, thetype of agreement criteria utilized in the decision-making andmeans to commit the body to its agreed-upon actions.The representation of affected interests revealsdifferences in the management processes approaches todecision-making. In the final decision-making body of theFREMP, the MCE participants agreed that all of the affectedinterests were not represented and that industry and publicrepresentation was lacking, whereas, in the final decision-making of the PSWQA the AB participants agreed overall thatall of the affected interested were represented through the ABmembers and through public representation.Overall, in the secondary management processes of theFREMP the WQSC participants felt that because of the technicalnature of the water quality issues being discussed all of theaffected interests were represented. In the secondarymanagement body of the PSWQA the PSC, some participants agreedthat all affected interests were represented due to thetechnical nature of the issues calling for a focusedrepresentation of interests; however, the majority of the PSCparticipants felt that all of the affected interested were notrepresented.Differences in the agreement processes are also revealed.The FREMP MCE and the SC make decisions through unanimity. The125PSWQA AB, on the other hand, utilizes procedures thatimplicitly include consensus agreements through discussion andthen makes its final decisions through voting. The PSCattempted to make decisions through consensus discussion, butif no decision was reached then they decided upon a list ofagreements and disagreements. The majority of the FREMP WQSCmembers felt that the WQSC had no formal means to commit theCommittee to the agreements, whereas the FREMP MCE, PSWQA ABand the PSWQA PSC all had some means to commit the bodies tothe agreed-upon actions.Comparison SummaryBoth the FREMP and the PSWQA management processes utilizeimplicit negotiation. The FREMP incorporates a high degree ofstructure within its decision-making processes revealing someinitiatives in utilization of conflict resolution tactics. ThePSWQA utilizes a high degree of structure negotiation criteriawithin the secondary management body of the PSC and revealsthe use of purely structured negotiations in the finaldecision-making procedures of the AB.Chapter 6CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS6.1 ConclusionsConflicts are increasing over the use of coastalresources. Negotiation can be used in coastal managementdecision-making as one means for the resolution of theseconflicts. This thesis established whether and how negotiationis used in the coastal zone management processes of the FREMPand the PSWQA as a basis for future coastal zone managementnegotiation use research.6.1.1^Increasing Conflicts in the Coastal ZoneThere is potential for coastal zone resources to meetmany different demands; however, incompatible resource usesoften occur. If incompatibility exists between the uses of aresource, then conflicts can arise and management problemsoccur.As population pressures rise there are associatedincreases in development, resource use, competition andenvironmental threats. These increases contribute to theintensification of conflict within the coastal zone. Hencemanagement of coastal resources must incorporate into thedecision-making some means for the resolution of theseconflicts.1261276.1.2^Comparison of the Management ApproachesThe two coastal zone management processes analyzed werethe FREMP and the PSWQA. These management areas are located inthe Pacific Northwest of North America and have similarclimates and natural resources. These management processesexperience similar challenges due to the increasing populationpressures and similar use of the coastal resources.The management processes differ in the physical scale ofthe areas covered, the size of the populations considered andin their approaches to coastal zone management. The PSWQAconsiders the entire Puget Sound Basin in its managementstrategies, whereas the FREMP considers only the Fraser RiverEstuary outside of the dyke. The population base of the PugetSound Basin is approximately double that surrounding theFraser River Estuary. The FREMP and PSWQA managementapproaches differ primarily due to the different approaches tocoastal zone management in Canada and the United States. Thesedifferences appear in the institutional structures,legislation, size of budgets and public participation levelswithin the processes.The FREMP is a coordinator of a number of agencies andactivities and has no independent legal status since there isno overall legislation governing Canadian coastal resources.Prior to the 1991 legislation, the PSWQA acted as anindependent institution based on a nation wide legislativesystem that provides funding for state and local governmentsto manage their specific areas; however, now the chair of the128Authority is the Director of the Department of Ecology andthere is some controversy over whether or not the PSWQA isstill independent.A second major distinction in the management approachesis the budgets. The PSWQA budget appears large since thecosts are absorbed by the Authority rather than by otherinstitutions. The FREMP budget appears relatively small sinceits financial responsibilities still rest with the agenciesinvolved. If these budgets were analyzed on a comparablebasis, it is quite probable that the FREMP budget would stillbe lower.The last major difference in the management approaches isthe level of public involvement. The PSWQA utilizes extensivepublic consultation in the decision-making as well as activeparticipation in its various programs. There has been somefunding for this, but most of the public involvement is on avolunteer basis. Within the FREMP there has been some attemptsto include the public in consultation and there has been somediscretionary participation in the Working Groups. However,relative to the PSWQA, FREMP public involvement is small.6.1.3^The Negotiation AnalysisThe case study focused on the use of negotiation as ameans to resolve resource use conflicts in the coastalmanagement processes of the FREMP and PSWQA. The analysisrevealed that both processes utilize implicit negotiation."Implicit" negotiation is identified when people negotiate129without explicitly expressing they are doing so (Dorcey andRiek, 1987)."Structured" negotiation is identified here, asnegotiation that actively seeks to reach an agreement byincorporating structure into its decision-making processthrough the utilization of preparatory techniques, opportunityfor representation of all affected interests and a forum thatutilizes explicit agreement criteria and that establishes somemeans to commit to the agreed-upon actions. The FREMPincorporates a high degree of structured negotiation withinboth the MCE and the WQSC. The PSWQA utilizes the highestlevel of structure, purely structured negotiation, in the ABfinal decision-making procedures. A high degree ofnegotiation structure is also observed within the PSC, thesecondary management body of the PSWQA. Therefore, both theFREMP and the PSWQA utilize implicit negotiation with somelevel of structure and both processes utilize some means ofdispute resolution to reach decisions; however, the PSWQAreveals more of a tendency towards the complete use of theidentified negotiation use tactics.It is interesting to note that there was no explicitexpression of negotiation use in the decision-making, nor anyoutside third party assistance identified in either managementprocess. However, in the final decision-making the FREMPutilizes a facilitator from within the FREMP program and thePSWQA chair mediates the discussions. Also, the FREMP WQSCstrategy of developing a mechanism to agreed-upon water130quality issues to ensure that some type of agreement isreached is a classic dispute resolution tactic.Preparatory TechniquesThe analysis examples identify the use of preparatorytechniques; however, a common complaint from the participantsof both processes was the lack of time allocated from withinthe programs to devote to the management issues. All of theparticipants agreed that agendas were used, new ideas welcomedand that there was flexibility in the opinions of thecommittee members.Explicit Agreement CriteriaAlthough there were explicit agreement criteria utilizedin the processes, the types of agreements differ. Themanagement bodies of the FREMP utilize unanimity. The PSWQAAB, on the other hand, utilizes consensus agreementsthroughout the discussions, and then the final decisions aremade through voting. The PSC attempts to make theiragreements through consensus, but if no decision is reachedthen a list of agreements and disagreements is documented andpassed onto the AB members.Representation of InterestsThe analyses also reveal that there were differencesidentified in the opportunity for the representation ofinterests and the mechanisms to commit the members to action.The participants in the FREMP final-decision making bodyagreed that opportunity was not given for all affectedinterests to be represented in the MCE discussions because131there was no industry nor any public participation. Themajority of the PSWQA final decision-making participants, onthe other hand, agreed that the AB decisions allow allaffected interests the opportunity to participate. Theparticipants in the FREMP WQSC believed, on the whole, thatall of the affected interests were represented due to thetechnical nature of the issues involved, even though thepublic nor industry was included. Within the PSWQA PSC, themajority of participants felt that all affected interests werenot represented, even though the public was invited to attend.Means to Commit to ActionLastly, the FREMP MCE, the PSWQA AB and PSC all had somemeans such as endorsed letters and minutes, that commit thebodies to the agreed upon actions, whereas the majority of theFREMP WQSC members felt that there was no such mechanism.6.1.4 Author's CommentsBased on the authors personal observations and not on thethesis analysis, an evaluation can be made on how effectivethe present use of negotiation is working within the FREMP andPSWQA management processes. Explicit expression of the use ofnegotiation in the FREMP and the PSWQA could encourageparticipants to actively seek to reach negotiated decisions.Explicit negotiation use could encourage greater awareness ofthe agreements reached and could motivate participants to bemore prepared for the negotiations by reading backgroundinformation and acquiring training in dispute resolution. The132explicit use of negotiation could encourage more activeparticipation in the discussions since the use of negotiationwould be expressly stated and the participants would be moreaware that they have something at stake. Explicit expressionof negotiation can be implemented through several means, suchas stating explicitly the use of negotiation in coveringletters, agendas, minutes, terms of reference, reports, plansand job descriptions, through the distribution of negotiationstrategy information, by explicitly supporting disputeresolution training, and by simply initiating informaldiscussions that explicitly point out the use of negotiation.If some form of "structured" negotiation is utilized,then negotiations could be more successful because theparticipants may be more prepared, may strive to consider newideas and may try to include greater flexibility in theiropinions. If there is opportunity for the representation ofmore of the affected interests, then the negotiations could bemore equitable. If all of the affected interests are given theopportunity for representation, then the interests may be moresatisfied with the decisions made since they were invited toparticipate in the decision-making. Also, these negotiationscould be more efficient because there is some means to reachthe agreements. Lastly, these negotiations could be moreeffective because there is some means to commit the group totheir agreed-upon actions.If "assisted" negotiations are used in coastal zonemanagement, then the discussions could reveal the more133successful, equitable, efficient and the more effectiveattributes associated with structured negotiation use.Assisted negotiations could also act as a catalyst to ensure,if appropriate, that specific negotiation use criteria areutilized. If the decision-making processes utilize a thirdparty assistant from within the management programs, thendepending on the situation, the negotiations could encouragemore participation and cooperation because some participantsmight feel more comfortable working with someone they know andtrust.To date much of the FREMP's decision-making success stemsfrom understandings between its participants and from a commonground on the issues involved. Hence in the past the implicitstructured use of negotiation has worked well for the FREMPbecause there are common goals that aid in reaching the multi-party agreements. The current trend in coastal zone managementfocuses on better communication, more effective governmentdecision-making and more active public involvement. Theincreasing level of public involvement requires greatercommitment and accountability from the decision-making. Thusthe FREMP must consider incorporating the explicit expressionof negotiation use in the decision-making processes.The FREMP should give consideration to incorporating morehighly structured negotiating techniques into the decision-making so that all affected interests are given theopportunity to be actively involved and to ensure that thereare formal means of committing and implementing the decisions.134If these criteria are utilized well, then more equitable andmore effective negotiations could occur.Within the FREMP, the MCE has been successful inutilizing a member of the management program, the ProgramsCoordinator, as a facilitator; however, consideration could begiven to expanding this tactic into other FREMP decision-making arenas. As the FREMP public involvement forums increaseand when negotiating participants are not used to workingtogether, such as in transboundary issues, the inclusion ofoutside third party assistance could improve the decision-making processes.The present use of implicit highly structurednegotiations within the PSWQA management bodies is workingeffectively; however, making use of explicit negotiation couldencourage more active means to reach negotiated decisions. Thebenefits of including an outside third party assistant withinthe PSWQA negotiations is not as great as within the FREMP,because the PSWQA already effectively incorporates mandatorypublic involvement in the decision-making. The use of theAuthority chair as a mediator in the Board meetings has beeneffective and this negotiation tactic could be extended intoother arenas of the PSWQA, such as the Committees, to improvethe decision-making.There is an increasing demand for coastal zone managementto improve the decision-making through the use of disputeresolution tactics, such as explicit negotiation use,structured negotiating techniques and third party assistance135(when participants are not familiar with each other). Finally,coastal zone management processes could consider the use offacilitation on a daily basis, through staff that are skilledand trained in dispute resolution techniques.6.2 RecommendationsFuture coastal zone management should recognize the"implicit" use of negotiation since it has been used soextensively to date. This recognition could encouragedecision-makers to be more prepared, and could yield betterrepresentation of interests and more effective outcomes.Secondly, future coastal management should evaluate thecontribution of the "implicit" negotiations used in coastalzone management. The issues necessary to address are:• What does implicit negotiation use contribute tocoastal zone management?• How well are the present dispute resolutionstrategies working in coastal zone management?• If structured negotiation criteria are utilized,then are the negotiations better, more efficient andmore effective?• Would the use of an outside assistant improve thepresent use of implicit negotiation in coastal zonemanagement?• Why is there little use of third party assistance incoastal zone management processes to date?Finally, future coastal zone management processes shouldconsider "explicit" negotiation use in coastal zonemanagement. Explicit expression of the use of negotiationcould encourage the participants to be more active in the136negotiating process. Also, explicit negotiation use couldreveal the little analysis undertaken to date on this topic,and could establish the need for appropriate funding,resources and research. Explicit negotiation issues to addressare:*^Would the use of explicit negotiations prove to bemore successful than implicit negotiations incoastal zone management conflict resolution?*^Why is there no explicit use of negotiation incoastal zone management processes to date?REFERENCESAlexander, Lawrence. 1992. Recommendations for theImprovements of the Cowichan Estuary EnvironmentalManagement Plan. Vancouver: West Coast EnvironmentalLaw Association.Archer Jack H. and Robert W. Knecht. 1987. The U.S. NationalCoastal Zone Management Program- Programs andOpportunities in the Next Phase, Coastal ManagementJournal, Volume 15, pp. 103-120.Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decadeof Experience. The Conservation Foundation,Washington, D.C.Bish, Robert L. 1982. Governing Puget Sound. A WashingtonSea Grant Publication. Seattle, Washington: Universityof Washington Press.Bish, Robert L. and Mark Sproule-Jones. 1983. "ADifferent Approach to Coastal Resource Governance." In:Barry Sadler (ed.). Coastal Zone management in BritishColumbia. Department of Geography, University ofVictoria.Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Plan. 1992. Burrard News,Volume 1, February 1992. Vancouver.Bones, John. 1990. Coastal Zone Management in BritishColumbia, Coastal Zone, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.4-5.British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and theEconomy. 1991. Consensus Processes in British Columbia,Reaching Agreement Vol. 1, Canadian Cataloguing inPublication Data.Cowichan Estuary Environmental Management Plan. 1987.Victoria: Ministry of Environment and Parks.Chasis, Sarah. 1980. The Coastal Zone Management Act,American Planning Association Journal, April 1980,pp.145-153.Daley, H.E. and J.B.Cobb,Jr. 1989. For the Common Good-Redirecting the Economy toward Community, theEnvironment and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press.Boston Massachusetts.Dorcey, Anthony H.J. 1990. Sustainable Development of theFraser Estuary: Success Amidst Failure. WestwaterResearch Center. The University of British Columbia.137REFERENCES cont.^ 1986. Bargaining in the Governanceof Pacific Coastal Resources: Research and Reform.Vancouver: Westwater Research Center, The University ofBritish Columbia.^ 1983. "Coastal Zone Management as aBargaining Process." In: Barry Sadler (ed.). CoastalZone Management in British Columbia. Department ofGeography, University of Victoria. First appeared inthe Coastal Zone Management Journal. Crane, Russak andCompany,Inc.Dorcey, Anthony H. J. and C.L. Riek. 1987. The Place ofNegotiation in Environmental Assessment. A backgroundpaper prepared for The Canadian EnvironmentalAssessment Research Council.Fekete, M. and R. Goldblatt. 1991. Summary Report on the1990 Workshop on Land Based Sources of MarinePollution. Edited by M. Healey. Ocean Studies Council,U.B.C., Vancouver.Fisher, Roger and William Ury. 1981. Getting to Yes:Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.Fletcher, Katherine. 1991. pers comm.^ . 1990a. Protecting Puget Sound: AnExperiment in Regional Governance. Reprinted fromWashington Law Review Volume 65, Number 2. April 1990.^ . 1990b. Protecting Puget Sound: AFeasibility Study of Non-Governmental Offices. IntermReport October, 25 1990. University of WashingtonGraduate School of Public Affairs.Fox, Irving K. 1983. Review and Interpretation ofExperiences in Water Resources Planning.Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP). 1990.Status Report on the Water Quality in the Fraser RiverEstuary. New Westminister.FREMP. 1989. Developing and Implementing Strategies toImprove Water Quality in the Fraser River Estuary, NewWestminister.FREMP. 1986. FREMP Newsletter, Issue No.1 March 1986. NewWestminister.FREMP. 1985. FREMP Federal Provincial Agreement138REFERENCES cont.FREMP Review Committee. 1984. An Implementation Strategy forthe FREMP, Vancouver.FREMP Review Committee. 1983. An ImplementationStrategy for the FREMP. Draft #3. Vancouver.FREMP Standing Committee on the Fraser River Estuary WaterQuality Plan. 1991. Draft Water Quality Plan - 1990:Monitoring and Objectives.Fraser River Estuary Study (FRES). 1982. "A Living Riverby the Door" A Proposed Management Program for theFraser River Estuary. March 1982. FRES II.Gaffney, Frank. 1991. pers comm. January, 1991.Gamble, Don. 1989. Evaluation of B.C. Approach to CoastalZone Management. Msc. Thesis, Natural ResourceManagement from Simon Fraser University, Vancouver,B.0Godschalk, David R. 1992. Implementing Coastal ZoneManagement 1972-1990. Coastal Management Journal, Vol.20, No. 2, In process.Gordon, David G. 1989. Puget Sound: Our Heritage atRisk. Seattle, Washington: PSWQA.Grays Harbor Estuary Management Program. 1986. Grays Harbor,Washington.Harrison Peter and J.G. Michael Parkes. 1983. Coastal ZoneManagement in Canada, Coastal Zone Management Journal,Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.1-11.Haussmann, F.C. 1986. Environmental Mediation: A CanadianPerspective. Report prepared for Environment Canada,Ottawa.Heikoff, Joseph M. 1977. Coastal Resources Management:Institutions and Programs. Michigan: Ann Arbor SciencePublishers.Hildebrand, Lawrence P. 1989. Canada's Experience withCoastal Zone Management. Halifax: The Ocean's Instituteof Canada.House of Representatives, U.S. Congress. 1990. Coastal ZoneAct Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. Report 101-535,June 11, 1990.139REFERENCES cont.Kennett, K. and M. McPhee. 1988. The Fraser RiverEstuary: An Overview of Changing Conditions. NewWestminister: FREMP.Lang, Reg and Audrey Armour. 1980. Resource ManagementResourcebook. Montreal: Lands Directorate, EnvironmentCanada.Milbraith, Lester W. 1989. Envisioning a SustainableSociety: Learning Our Way Out. New York: StateUniversity of New York Press.Nasser Christine. 1992. Beyond the Border: EnvironmentalManagement in British Columbia and Washington State.Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Seattle.Nierenberg, Gerald I. 1968. The Art of Negotiation:Psychological Strategies for Gaining Advantages inBargaining. New York: Hawthorn Books Inc.Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, U.S. Department ofCommerce. 1979. The First Five Years of Coastal ZoneManagement: An Initial Assessment. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office.Owens, David W. 1992. National Goals, State Flexibility andAccountability in Coastal Zone Management, CoastalManagement Journal, Vol. 20, No.2. In process.Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA). 1991.Summary: 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality ManagementPlan. Sound Waves, January 1991.PSWQA. 1990a. Puget Sound Update: First Annual Report of thePuget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. May, 1990.Seattle, Washington. 1990b. Draft- 1991 Puget Sound Water QualityManagement Plan,June 1990. Seattle, Washington. 1988. State of the Sound Report. May, 1988. Seattle,Washington. 1987. "Puget Sound: A Plan for its Future." CoastalZone '87. Proceedings from the 5th annual symposium onCoastal and Ocean Management. Seattle, Washington :American Society of Civil Engineers.140REFERENCES cont.Raiffa, Howard. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation.Massachusetts: The Harvard University Press.Rees, William and Craig Davis. 1978. Coastal EcosystemPlanning and Impact Evaluation. In Coastal Zone'78.Symposium on Technical, Environmental, Socioeconomicand Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Management.March 14,1978. New York: American Society of CivilEngineers.Rubin, J.Z. and B.R. Brown. 1975. The Social Psychology ofBargaining and Negotiations. New York: The Free Press.Sadler, Barry. 1983. Coastal Zone Management in BritishColumbia. Cornett Occasional Papers No.3. Department ofGeography, University of Victoria.Sadler, Barry and Audrey Armour. 1987. Common Ground: On theRelationship of Environmental Assessment andNegotiation. A background paper prepared for TheCanadian Environmental Assessment Research Council.Schell, Steven R. 1987. Resolving Permit Conflicts inOregon's Coastal Zone, Coastal Zone Proceedings, Vol.1,p. 2741.Sorensen, J.C., S.T. McCreary, and M.J. Hershman. 1984.Institutional Arrangements for Management of CoastalResources. Prepared by the Research Planning Institutefor National Parks Services. U.S. Department of theInterior and U.S. Agency for Internal Development ofRenewable Information Series. Coastal ManagementPublications. No. 1. Columbia, South Carolina.Susskind, L. and D. Madigan. 1984. New Approaches toResolving Disputes in the Public Sector. The JusticeSystem Journal 9 (2): 179-203.Terich, Thomas A. 1987. Living with the Shore of Puget Soundand the Strait of Georgia. Durham: Duke UniversityPress.Tenner, H. 1986. Public Participation in the Broader Sense:The Chesapeake Bay Experience, in Estuarine and CoastalManagement Tools of the Trade Proceedings, TenthNational Conference, Vol. 1, p. 364. Maryland: CoastalSociety.United States National Institute for Dispute Resolution.1986. Dispute Resolution Forum. Regulatory NegotiationIssue.141REFERENCES cont.Vollmerhausen, J.E. 1989. An Overview of Coastal ZoneManagement in Canada: Issues Approaches andOpportunities, Coastal Zone, Vol. 10, No.1, pp. 13-18.Wolfe, Larry D.S. 1983. "The Fraser River EstuaryPlanning Process." In: Barry Sadler (ed.). Coastal ZoneManagement in British Columbia. Department ofGeography, University of Victoria142

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.831.1-0086464/manifest

Comment

Related Items