Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Collaborative planning as a catalyst for better international transboundary environmental governance Carruthers, James Colin 2007

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2007-266922.pdf [ 11.13MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0302394.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0302394-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0302394-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0302394-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0302394-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0302394-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0302394-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0302394-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0302394.ris

Full Text

C O L L A B O R A T I V E PLANNING AS A C A T A L Y S T FOR B E T T E R INTERNATIONAL T R A N S B O U N D A R Y E N V I R O N M E N T A L G O V E R N A N C E  by  J A M E S COLIN CARRUTHERS B.Arch, The University of British Columbia, 1970 M.E.S., York University, 1979  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF D O C T O R OF PHILOSOPHY  in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Resource Management and Environmental Studies)  T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A March 2007  © James Colin Carruthers, 2007  u ABSTRACT International transboundary environmental issues that affect the natural and social systems o f more than one nation state are becoming increasingly prevalent and complex due to population increases and economic activity since the late 18  th  century and post-1945  contemporary globalization. While international and transnational governance institutions have also burgeoned, they are still inadequate to deal with transboundary environmental issues because o f a number o f endemic shortcomings. I argue that governance comprises five dimensions: (1) international/transnational; (2) state/substate; (3) market-economy; (4) civil society; and (5) individual agency; that planning is a form o f governance, and that improved collaborative planning is one way to enhance a governance process to address environmental issues in an international and transboundary context. First, from the literature I identify three shortcomings o f international/transnational regimes: (1) lack o f horizontal coordination between regimes, (2) lack o f vertical coordination within and between regimes, and (3) lack o f enforceability o f internal consensus within, and compliance with regimes. Second, I create an analytical collaborative planning governance framework for assessing how collaborative planning can assist in resolving or managing international transboundary environmental issues. Third, I test the analytical framework by applying it to research and assess the effectiveness o f existing Georgia Basin/Puget Sound (GB/PS)  international/transnational  governance  regimes:  the  BC/Washington State  Environmental Cooperation Council ( E C C ) and one o f its task forces, the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound International Task Force ( G B / P S ITF). Results indicate that the three shortcomings o f international and transnational regimes identified in the literature are present, partially confirming that for North America, regional cross-border governance institutions tend to be single-issue and geographically flow-oriented. Also, in spite o f many transboundary linkages, the BC/Washington State Cascadia cross-border region exhibits minimal institutional scope and depth. Major conflicts are revealed between economic and environmental visions. Best efforts o f individual agents have been impeded by this lack o f social, political and institutional leverage. The conceptual analytical framework is shown to develop iteratively during application and interpretation.  Ill  The thesis contributes to collaborative planning knowledge by creating an analytical collaborative planning framework and evolving it by applying it to assess the effectiveness of collaborative planning in illustrative examples of environmental governance regimes in an international transboundary context; a context absent from existing collaborative planning literature. The thesis addresses mitigation of GB/PS transboundary environmental issues by making recommendations for policy changes in GB/PS transboundary governance institutions and for further research:  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES , ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION.. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction 1.2 Background motivation and justification for the study 1.3 Other international agreements 1.4 Definitions 1.5 Objectives, research questions and sub-questions  '.  -  ii iv .vii viii ix x 1 1 2 4 6 16  CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 19 2.1 Introduction 19 2.2 Research sub-question #1: governance, what it is 20 2.2.1 International and transnational governance 20 2.2.2 State governance 21 2.2.3 Market-economy governance. 22 2.2.4 Civil society governance 23 2.2.5 Individual agency governance 24 2.2.6 Interactions between governance dimensions 25 2.3 Research sub-question #2: collaborative planning as governance 25 2.3.1 Approaches to planning 25 2.3.2 Planning traditions 26 2.3.3 Collaborative planning .......27 2.3.4 Collaborative planning and international/transnational regimes (agreements) 27 2.4 Research sub-question #3: the analytical framework 30 2.7 Summary 31 CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL AND ANALYTICAL COLLABORATIVE PLANNING FRAMEWORK 33 3.1 Introduction 33 3.2 Effectiveness as a criterion for regimes 34 3.3 Conceptual and analytical collaborative planning framework 34 CHAPTER 4: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK APPLIED TO ASSESS COLLABORATIVE PLANNING IN ILLUSTATIVE EXAMPLES 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Data sources :  37 .37 39  4.2.1 Literature Review Use o f literature in this research 4.2.2 Observations Use o f observations in this research 4.2.3 Interviews Use o f interviews i n this research 4.2.4 Document review Use o f documents in this research 4.3 Data reduction and analysis 4.4 Summary Assessment o f primary data sources and contribution to objectives  •  40 46 46 48 49 51 52 52 53 66 67  C H A P T E R 5. R E L I A B I L I T Y O F T H E D A T A , A N A L Y S I S A N D INTERPRETATION  69  5.1 Introduction 5.2 Data content and reliability evaluation 5.3 Analysis and interpretation 5.3.1 Issues 5.3.2 Cultural/social/political/legal context 5.3.3 Values : 5.3.4 Purpose, scope and responsibilities 5.3.5 Powers, process and protocols 5.3.6 Membership 5.3.7 Policy and program coordination 5.3.8 Information exchange 5.3.9 Reporting structure 5.3.10 Accommodate issue change over time 5.3.11 Evaluation 5.3.12 Funding 5.3.13 Political support, continuity, memory 5.3.14 Outreach : 5.4 Suggested improvements in data collection 5.5 Summary 5.5.1 H o w the study uses the analytical framework to address the research subquestions and the objectives 5.5.2 H o w the analytical framework addresses mitigation o f international transboundary environmental issues C H A P T E R 6: C O N C L U S I O N S , R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S , E M E R G E N T T H E M E S AND RECOMMENDATIONS FORFURTHER RESEARCH 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Conclusions 6.3 Recommendations 6.4 Emergent themes 6.5 Recommendations for further research... :  69 69 72 73 77 80 81 82 82 82 83 84 84 84 85 86 86 87 87 89 89  91 91 92 98 103 105  VI  Appendices Appendix A . Review o f collaborative planning literature Appendix B : Details o f observations. Observations o f G B / P S I T F meetings Observations o f Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Transboundary Environmental Indicators Working Group Meetings A P P E N D I X C . Interviews International/Transnational State Market economy C i v i l society Individual agency ....: Contact Letter Questionnaire A P P E N D I X D: D E T A I L S OF D O C U M E N T R E V I E W Summary o f Proceedings o f Meetings o f the Environmental Cooperation Council  118 118 126 126 151 157 .157 158 160 160 163 164 165 167 167  vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Analytical Framework for Assessment of Collaborative Planning in Regimes . 34 Table 2: List of Interviewees 50 Table 3: Analytical framework applied to assess collaborative planning in the ECC and the GB/PS ITF 55 Table 4: Advantages and disadvantages of methods used 69  Vlll  LIST O F  FIGURES  Figure 1: The Georgia Basin/Puget Sound bioregion (Hodge and West 1998). Figure 2: Basic Framework o f governance for the Georgia Basin - Puget Sound bioregion (after Hodge and West 1998)  J  43 44  ix  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It has been my great privilege and pleasure to have known Dr. Les Lavkulich since 1994 and to have worked with him as my Research Supervisor on this dissertation since 1999. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to undertake this dissertation and for his unwavering inspiration, understanding, encouragement and support that have been indispensible to me in this enterprise. I also thank my other committee members as I could not have managed without their generous support, advice and diligence: Dr. Olav Slaymaker o f the U B C Department o f Geography, Professor Peter Boothroyd o f the U B C School o f Community & Regional Planning and David Fraser o f Environment Canada. Finally, for their interest, time and effort I thank the other members o f my Examining Committee: Professor Tony Dorcey o f the U B C School o f Community and Regional Planning, Dr. Thomas Zork o f the U B C Department o f Education and my External Reader, Dr. D o n Alper o f the Center for Canadian-American Studies, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, U S A .  DEDICATION To Freda, the love o f my life; and to Helen, our beautiful and accomplished daughter.  1  CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION  1.0 Introduction International transboundary (italicized words are defined below) environmental issues, that is, those that affect the natural and social systems o f more than one nation state, are becoming increasingly prevalent and complex. A number of3 authors have addressed this problem. M c N e i l l (2000) identifies the two basic sources o f environmental issues to be  th increases in population and economic activity since the late 18  century ( M c N e i l l 2000).  Held et al (1999) propose that this recent increase in transboundary environmental issues is an unintended consequence o f processes o f post-1945 contemporary globalization (Held 1999a). Theories o f governance indicate that while international and governance  regimes have also burgeoned,  they are still inadequate  transnational to deal with  transboundary environmental issues because o f a number o f endemic shortcomings. This dissertation  argues  that  governance  comprises  five  dimensions:  (1)  international/transnational; (2) state/substate; (3) market-economy; (4) civil society; and (5) individual agency; that planning is a form o f governance, and that improved collaborative planning is one way to enhance the effectiveness o f a governance process to address environmental issues in an international and transboundary context. First I create an analytical governance framework for assessing how collaborative planning can assist in resolving or managing international transboundary environmental issues. I then apply the analytical framework to assess the effectiveness o f collaborative planning within the BC/Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council ( E C C ) and one o f its task forces, the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound International Task Force ( G B / P S ITF). Both institutions are contemporary international/transnational environmental governance regimes within the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound ( G B / P S ) international transboundary ecosystem o f British Columbia and Washington State. I contribute to knowledge o f collaborative planning by creating the analytical collaborative planning framework and then developing it iteratively by applying it to assess the effectiveness  o f collaborative planning in illustrative examples  o f environmental  2  governance regimes in an international transboundary context; a context that is absent from the existing collaborative planning literature. I address mitigation o f G B / P S transboundary environmental  issues by making recommendations  for policy  changes  in  GB/PS  transboundary governance institutions and for further research.  1.2 Background motivation and justification for the study The fundamental motivation and justification for this study is a concern for the ecological condition o f the G B / P S international transboundary ecosystem o f British Columbia and Washington State. This concern emerged after I moved to Toronto from Vancouver in 1971, and was struck by Toronto's separation from Lake Ontario and how the lake and its tributary rivers had been polluted and degraded. Historical photos show people crowding Toronto beaches in the 1920s and 30s but these beaches have since been almost completely abandoned. Also, the D o n River, which flows into Lake Ontario at Toronto, was once a major source o f recreation but is now the most highly urbanized and degraded river in the Greater Toronto bio-region (Hough 1995). A tradition o f escaping the city on weekends for "cottage country" also developed. One explanation for this is the general decreasing opportunity for people to feel a connection to nature within the city (Carruthers 1980). In contrast to the Toronto experience, Vancouverites continue to enjoy an abundance o f nature within and around the city and local beaches serve as popular urban natural recreation centres for thousands o f citizens and tourists. Although many Vancouverites do choose to leave the city on weekends, they do not do so from necessity, but mostly for recreational skiing and wilderness experiences.  This contrast between Toronto and Vancouver regarding their relationship to nature continues to fascinate me, but not without a sense o f foreboding about the future o f natural systems around Vancouver, particularly those o f the Georgia Basin which abuts Vancouver and by extension, those o f Puget Sound, which is part o f the same international transboundary marine estuary ecosystem. This personal concern is substantiated by a public perception that the conditions o f the whole transboundary G B / P S regional environment and the quality o f life within it are degenerating as a result o f the increasing population, urbanization and environmental degradation within its watersheds. "Today, the native species and physical environment o f this unique [GB/PS] area are being threatened. The  3  signs o f stress are evident - air and water pollution, traffic congestion, the elimination o f farmlands,  wetlands, and wildlife habitat,  increasing rates o f crime, poverty, and  homelessness. A l l , in one way or another, are a result o f the region's rapid population growth, pattern o f settlement, and our high level o f material consumption" (British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and Economy 1993). The challenge in the G B / P S is to continue the population and economic growth "without degrading the livability and natural environment o f the region, as was done in the expansionist period o f Great Lakes development" (Hodge 1998). The second motivation and justification for this study was my concern about the negative contribution my professional activities i n architecture and land use planning may have made to environmental conditions, and about similar development activities o f others. M u c h o f the environmental deterioration in the G B / P S can be attributed to inadequate land use planning and practices in the watersheds o f both B C and Washington State that drain into the international G B / P S , including Vancouver and Seattle, the two largest urban centres abutting the G B / P S . For example, "the amount o f land taken up by single family and multi-family residential development in the Greater Vancouver area, much o f which was converted from rural residential land in the suburban fringes [and] 120 streams in the Fraser Valley, many o f which were fish-bearing, have been lost to urbanization and 6 1 % o f the remaining streams are listed as endangered" (Curran 2000). Seattle has done even worse by the indication that "[cjompared with Greater Vancouver, greater Seattle spreads across three-quarters more land per resident" (Northwest Environment Watch and Smart Growth B C 2002). To counteract such problems, growth management legislation for planning is in place in both B C and Washington State. O f course planning legislation and practices vary between these two jurisdictions and such differences are one o f the difficulties o f achieving good international transboundary environmental governance in the whole G B / P S ecosystem. Although a number o f BC/Washington transboundary environmental issues emerged during  the  1980s,  the  problem  of  achieving  good  international  transboundary  environmental governance between the two jurisdictions was only addressed institutionally in the early 1990s with the 1992 BC/Washington Environmental Cooperation Agreement  4  that established the E C C . One o f the most important issues was growth management in the 'Cascadia Bioregion' and its ecological impacts. Another international issue was marine water quality, particularly related to the G B / P S which Alley (1998) observes "arguably was the single issue most important to the establishment o f the council [ E C C ] " (Alley 1998). The E C C formed a Marine Science Panel and the G B / P S ITF to deal with marine water quality as well as four other transboundary issue-specific task forces focused on Pacific Northwest air quality, the Abbotsford-Sumas Acquifer, Nooksack River flooding and the Columbia River Basin air and water quality. In this dissertation I address the role that would be potentially played by planning  in strengthening international  and transnational  regimes for  collaborative transboundary  environmental governance, such as the E C C and the G B / P S ITF. The theoretical question I explore is: in what ways, i f any, can collaborative planning assist in mitigating international transboundary  environmental issues; that is, those that involve, in terms o f cause and  effect, more than one nation-state? Motivating this question is my concern about the inadequacy o f current  international and transnational  governance responses to  international transboundary environmental consequences o f contemporary  the  globalization.  It is important to distinguish between "international" and other transboundary cases. This dissertation explicitly addresses only international transboundary environmental issues, that is, those that affect two or more sovereign states, and the international and transnational governance responses created to address them. It does not consider transboundary cases within a sovereign state or their governace. Although domestic governance institutions may share some shortcomings o f international or transnational governance regimes, such as lack o f horizontal coordination (the "silo" problem), and some lack o f vertical coordination; for example between federal, provincial or municipal institutions, one fundamental and unique shortcoming o f international and transnational governance is absence o f overarching authority to facilitate consensus and enforce compliance.  1.3 Other international agreements According to Young (1999) demand for governance in world affairs is unprecedented, a product o f rising interdependencies among members o f international society and an emerging global civil society (Young 1999a). This view is supported by Shaw's (1997)  5  Table o f Treaties and Agreements which indicates that many more international agreements have been made since World War II than between 1648 and 1945 (Shaw 1997). Some o f these international agreements relevant to the G B / P S are outlined below. In response to the 1909 Canada-US Boundary Waters Treaty, the International Joint Commission (IJC) was established to address Canada/US transboundary water resources disputes. The U C provides non-binding advice for good decision-making regarding boundary water use and investigates and manages disputes referred to it (SanchezRodriquez 1998). Both B C and Washington State have resisted a federally controlled mechanism like the IJC Great Lakes Office for the G B / P S (Hodge 1998). However the IJC still has potential for G B / P S involvement. In 1985 Canada and the U S signed the Pacific Salmon Treaty, establishing "a framework for cooperative management, research and enhancement o f pacific Salmon stocks". The Pacific Salmon Commission was created to implement the treaty. It manages harvests o f Fraser River sockeye and pink salmon that pass through the Strait o f Juan de Fuca and international allocation o f chinook, coho and chum salmon. It does not consider domestic Canadian or U S allocation, or overall fisheries management. In 1997 when Canada-US negotiations to renew the Salmon Treaty broke down, B C curtailed relations with Washington State and relations between B C and the Government o f Canada suffered (Hodge 1998). In 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement ( N A F T A ) between Canada, the U S and M e x i c o came into affect. The N A F T A has substantially increased trade between Canada and the U S and has consequently affected the G B / P S environment. The N A F T A environmental side agreement is the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation ( N A A E C ) (Johnson 1996). Although the N A A E C is enforceable in the U S , its affects are limited in Canada by the fact that only Alberta, Quebec and Manitoba have signed o a In 2000, the Canada-US Joint Statement on the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Ecosystem was signed  by  Environment  Canada  and  the  U S Environmental Protection Agency  (Environment Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency 2000). The  6  agreement has three main concerns: (1) engaging First Nations/Tribes across the "Salish Sea" (GB/PS); (2) transboundary  air quality; and (3) sustainability, including an  environmental indicator report, case studies o f sustainable development, smart growth demonstrations and watershed planning. In the next section I define the terms that I use in the dissertation.  1.4 Definitions This thesis develops a series o f working definitions, as defined below, because several significant terms have been and are used in different contexts in the literature. Collaborative planning: I adapt Healey's (2006) definition o f planning; that is, "a style o f governance characterized by a policy-driven, or a planning approach [that] builds on the policy analysis approach to planning". In spite o f Healey's definition being a tautology, the essence o f this definition that I wish to capture is that planning is a style o f governance characterized by a policy driven approach based on policy analysis. However, because policy analysis serves "technocratic and corporate modes o f governance" and is "grounded in instrumental rationality", Healey, while still using a policy-driven approach, promotes new governance approaches more sensitive to 'consumers' than 'producers' o f public policy, but that vary in relative emphasis on 'hard' and 'soft' institutional infrastructures. She argues "for a democratic pluralist mode o f governance and a collaborative style o f planning to help in realizing it" (Healey 2006). Healey (2006), by advocating a style o f governance characterized by a policy-driven approach  that considers the consumers o f the process, employs a phenomenological  interpretation o f knowledge to action whereby knowledge and value are socially constituted in a Giddensian fashion by means o f interactive processes (Giddens 84). Public policy and planning are therefore socially constructed forms o f governance by which ways o f thinking, valuing and acting are actively constituted by participation. Having emerged in planning theory  since  the  1970s,  collaborative planning  is  also  called  "argumentative,  communicative or interpretive planning theory", characterized by participation. Its various branches espouse that:  7  •  A l l knowledge is socially constructed and expert knowledge o f science and technology is not as special as claimed by "instrumental rationalists";  •  Development and communication o f knowledge and reasoning take various forms;  •  Individual agents produce, reproduce and modify their views and interests within social contexts through interaction;  •  Interests and expectations o f contemporary people are diverse and power relations potentially oppress and dominate through unequal distribution o f authoritative or allocative resources and through assumptions and practices;  •  Public policies "concerned with managing co-existence in shared spaces" and those that "seek to be efficient, effective and accountable" to all stakeholders should draw from and embrace "the above range o f knowledge and reasoning";  •  This process moves "from competitive interest bargaining towards collaborative consensus building" whereby durable "organizing ideas can be developed and shared", individual agents' actions are coordinated, and ways o f knowing and organizing are transformed; that is, cultures are constructed;  •  Planning can thus be embedded within its social context through daily social practices and can also alter these practices and relations. Social context and social practice are therefore constituted, reconstituted and changed together (Healey 2006).  Except for Healey's (2006) assertion that all knowledge is socially constructed, these characteristics are also consistent with a constructivist approach that Stake (1995) asserts reflects the beliefs o f the majority o f contemporary qualitative researchers, and defines as "the belief that knowledge is made up largely [my italics] o f social interpretations rather than awareness o f an external reality" (Stake 1995). Thus we can imagine three realities. Reality #1 is an external reality that creates sensory stimulation but which we can know nothing about except our perceptions and interpretations o f such stimuli. Reality #2 is an  8  "experiential reality" constructed o f those interpretations that represent external reality so well that we usually forget our inability to verify reality #2. Reality #3 is our integration o f interpretations, or rational reality, which combines with our second reality to form our own personal realities #2 and #3. Most o f us avoid drifting off into our own personal worlds because the majority believe in a universal external reality and, when sharing the same experience, shape our reality to suit those o f others. Denial that an independent reality exists cannot be supported by evidence, and is "socially disconcerting". A l l three realities exist and importantly affect experience. "It is self-jeopardizing to do other than keep [realities] #2 and #3 robust, and ignoring #1 is a poor way to cross a busy street" (Stake 1995). This approach is echoed by Fall (2005) in her research on cooperation in transboundary protected areas where situations can be seen as identity construction processes wherein discursive boundaries are given meaning (Fall 2005). The Paperback Oxford English Dictionary (2005) also defines cooperate as "to work together to achieve something" and collaborate as "to work jointly on an activity or project" (Soanes 2005). Based on the above analysis my working definition for collaborative or cooperative planning is: a style o f governance characterized by a policy-driven approach, but which also considers the consumers o f the process and involves an interpretation o f knowledge to action whereby knowledge and value are largely socially constituted by means o f interpretive processes. International and transnational regimes: Held (1999) quotes Krasner (1983) to define an international regime as 'implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors expectations converge in a given issue area o f international relations' (Held 1999a). This is a useful basic definition, but I need to go further to adopt Young's (1999) definition o f international and transnational regimes as "sets o f roles, rules and relationships that arise to deal with issue-specific problems, whether these problems are associated primarily with the society o f states or with global civil society" (Young 1999a). This is because Young (1999), supported by Stokke (19.97) and Wapner (1997), makes the  9  necessary  distinction (for my purposes)  between "international regimes" that  are  institutional arrangements between states operating on "issues arising in international society" (for example, arms control regimes) and "transnational regimes" that are institutional arrangements  between non-state actors (for example, the World Wide Web)  that operate on issues that arise in "international civil society" (Young 1999a). I use the term "transnational" because it denotes a distinction necessary for my purposes and is used throughout the literature (Young 1999a, Stokke 1997, Wapner 1997): Governance: I use "governance" rather than "management" for the following reasons. Although  Robbins in Management concepts and  applications (1990)  describes  management functions as including planning, organizing, leading and controlling, he also defines management as "the process o f completing activities efficiently with and through others (Robbins 1990)". Also Healey (2006) refers to "management" in the context o f administration o f policies developed through planning. Thus there is a formal separation between the political arenas where policies are forged through debate and within the management arenas where they are implemented. The latter are "the operating routines o f governance" (Healey 2006). This was the kind o f role that I played as Manager o f Development Services at U B C (1999-2004); implementing development policies o f the various levels o f government and U B C . Management therefore has the connotation o f being more limited in scope than governance, and inappropriate to my purposes here. Further, Young (1999) and others refer to regimes as mechanisms to solve problems o f governance, not management (Young 1999a, Held 1999b, Krasner 1983 {Quoted in Held 1999}).  According to Painter (2000) two different broad uses o f the term governance can be identified in recent academic usage. The first refers to the way organizations function, whereby governance is "the involvement o f a wide range o f [state and non-state] actors and institutions in the production o f policy outcomes", including (1) state institutions traditionally regarded as formally part o f the government, (2) private companies, (marketeconomy), and (3) non-governmental organizations, quangos, (quasi-autonomous-nongovernmental organizations) pressure groups and social movements (civil society). "Most writers ... argue that the state has become less prominent and non-state organizations have  10  become relatively more important within the overall process o f governance" (Painter 2000). The second use refers to how organizations relate (such as Young's {1999} international or transnational regimes) whereby "governance refers to a particular form o f coordination. In contrast with the top-down control in coordination through hierarchy and the individualized relationship in coordination through markets, governance involves coordination through networks and partnerships...Writers adopting this usage commonly refer to a shift in the nature o f coordination in contemporary societies from government ('hierarchy') to governance" (Painter 2000, Young 1999a). From the above prevalent definitions I derive my working definition o f governance as the process by which a wide range o f institutions and actors are involved in the production and implementation o f policy, one sub-process o f which is collaborative planning, within and among five dimensions: (a) international and transnational institutions or regimes; (b) state and substate institutions; (c) market-economy institutions, (d) civil society institutions, as well as (e) individual agents that determine which institutional and individual behaviours are acceptable and effective, which ones to discourage, and how. I came to this definition iteratively in stages. Having started with the idea o f "government", my committee suggested that business and the business-led economy should be considered a governing force. Second, I was urged to distinguish between "government" and "governance" and to include "civil society" as a dimension o f governance. These suggestions were supported respectively by Hawken (1993), Young (1999) and Eberly (2000) (Hawken 1993, Young 1999a, Eberly 2000b). The purposefulness, spirit and effectiveness o f behaviour o f individual agents as a dimension o f governance evolved from my various earlier readings in: philosophy (Jones 1952, Kaufmann 1965, Norton 1976); psychology (Allport 1965); history and biography and more recently from Giddens' (1984) work on structuration theory (Giddens 84). Transboundary: though  I  I specify "transboundary" environmental consequences because, even  am concerned  about  all environmental consequences  of  contemporary  globalization, it is specifically the transboundary environmental consequences that affect the natural and social systems o f more than one state that I address in this thesis.  11  Transboundary refers to issues that transcend the political spatial separation o f a natural system (ecosystem) and the separation is usually not congruent with natural (ecological) boundaries. Globalization:  According to Dicken (2000) this concept emerged about 1960 in the context  o f McLuhan's "global village" and its reference to the effects o f emerging communications technologies on social and cultural life. The meaning o f the word is highly contested in a number o f discourses (Dicken 2000). However, globalization is defined by Held and M c G r e w (2002) as "a historical process which transforms the spatial organization o f social relations and transactions,  generating transcontinental  or interregional networks o f  interaction and the exercise o f power". Historical types o f globalization have exhibited different "spatio-temporal and organizational" attributes o f extensiveness,  "intensity,  velocity and impact" in world-wide relations, networks and flows, as well as "different degrees o f institutionalization, modes o f stratification and reproduction". globalization  Contemporary  (since 1945) connects communities in one part o f the world to events in  another part and expresses particular spatio-temporal and organizational qualities o f high extensiveness, high intensity, high velocity and high impact propensity across many aspects o f society. Although globalization is multi-faceted, crucial aspects are considered to be economic, environmental and political. This is because economics is one o f the principle drivers o f contemporary globalization; because the environment most acutely indicates how the magnitudes o f market failure and global risks have changed; while politics, law and security underline changes in form and context o f state power, and global issues such as technical innovation that need more global regulation (Held 2002). For my purposes I suggest that the relationship among these aspects is that contemporary globalization is principally driven by economics, facilitated or constrained by technological innovation and politics and that environmental change is one o f its major unintended consequences or externalities. Market-economy:  I use "market-economy" instead o f "private sector" for the following  reasons. The Fontana Dictionary o f Modern Thought (1988) defines private sector as "that part o f the economy not owned or controlled by the government" including "the economic activity o f private firms, charities and non-profit-making organizations", and  "the  12  expenditure o f these bodies and expenditure o f individuals". This term is too broad for my purpose, referring not only to business, but also to civil society as well as to individual agents. Alternatively market-economy is defined as "a term synonymous with a free economy and free enterprise". This definition expresses my intent better because the definition o f a capitalist society includes this term and is confined to the sphere o f profitmaking activities conducted within legal limits, distinguishing it from economic activity by civil society or by individuals. " A capitalist society is one in which most of the instruments of production as well as objects o f consumption are privately controlled. Sale occurs for profit in markets (see Market-Economy), which...are free in the sense that, subject to the constraints o f law, entrepreneurs are at liberty to enter or to depart, to expand or contract, and purchasers to buy or not to buy. Capitalism is an exceedingly broad and somewhat vague term, covering [such] societies as ... Sweden, France, Japan, Britain and the U S A in each o f which the mixture o f public and private enterprise [mixed economy], the legal rules governing the pursuit o f profit, the approved market structure, the permitted accumulation of income and wealth, differs significantly from all the others" (Bullock 1988). Civil society: Held (1995), supported by Eberly (2000), defines civil society as those areas of life that are beyond direct state or economic control and are organized by private or voluntary arrangements between individuals and groups (Held 1995, Eberly 2000b). Young (1997, 1999) recognizes the emergence o f global civil society in response to the growing need for governance in world affairs (Young 1999a,Young 1997). While civil society groups  broadly defined  include non-political  groups  such as  Alcoholics  Anonymous and chess clubs, Kernaghan and Siegel (1991) observe that political actors that influence public servants from outside government include pressure groups, political parties, the general public and the news media, and that^these also interact (Kernaghan 1991). I concentrate here primarily on pressure groups, because they represent the type o f civil society governance most active in a transboundary context, while political parties, although they may support transboundary efforts, are most interested in domestic politics. The general public considered as individual agents is also most influential when attached to a pressure group, whether it is an institutional group with continuity and cohesion, or a less organized issue-oriented group. However, I account for governance by individual members of the public elsewhere under the category o f individual agency. I classify the news media  13  not as a member o f civil society, but as representing the market-economy because except for state agencies like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, they are fundamentally business corporations. Kernaghan and Siegel (1991) define pressure groups (or interest groups) as "organizations composed o f persons who have joined together to further their mutual interest by influencing public policy". Lacking legal authority or control, they do exercise influence over development and implementation o f public policy through lobbying. Functions o f pressure groups include communication with public officials to influence policy, and legitimation (Kernaghan 1991). A s noted above by Healey (2006) legitimation is assisted by elected officials through consultation with pressure groups who will be most affected by legislation being contemplated (Healey 2006).  According to  Kernaghan (1991), 50% o f Canadian federal bureaucrats and 68% o f provincial bureaucrats stated that lobbyists were almost an integral part o f their departmental activity or usually taken into account during policy making (Kernaghan 1991). Examples o f civil society regimes in the G B / P S that are pressure groups are the BC-based Georgia Strait Alliance (1991), the Washington-based People for Puget Sound (1991) and their transnational amalgamated group, the Sound and Strait Alliance (Sato 2001). Nevertheless, both effectiveness and accountability are important to legitimation,' particularly regarding civil ' society in a transboundary context. Held et al (2005) deal with this issue in relation to global governance, relating effectiveness to output-oriented legitimation and accountability to input-oriented legitimation (Held 2005).  Institutional: I use "institutional" rather than "collective" behaviour, because after Giddens (1984) I assume that institutions are "chronically reproduced rules and resources", and that "Social systems, as reproduced social practices, do not have 'structures', but rather exhibit 'structural properties'". Such practices that exhibit the most time-space extension can be called institutions (Giddens 84). Alternatively, the term "collective" behaviour is defined as "done by or belonging to all the members o f a group", or "taken as a whole", or, "n. a business owned or run as a cooperative venture" (Soanes 2005). This definition is too broad, does not have the long term connotations of "institution", and could include unfocussed crowds and even mobs.  14  Global governance is defined as including not only formal institutions and organizations that govern world order, but also transnational  institutions such as multinational  corporations ( M N C s ) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), social movements and pressure groups that pursue agendas that affect transnational governance (Held 1999a). Cooperation theory is about 'working together in separate countries' and, when applied to transboundary protected areas, is about "explicit construction o f a shared spatial entity". In this context Fall (2005) concentrates  on how ideas are accepted or resisted  and  consequences o f cooperation in international transboundary protected areas, mainly about meaning. She argues that such cooperation reflects identity construction processes that give meaning to "discursive boundaries". She reviews and identifies major trends in the literature o f cooperation and suggests that inherent weaknesses o f such literature necessitate other "lateral analyses" to be pursued and the definition o f cooperation improved as a negotiated process (Fall 2005). Regional cross-border cooperation: Blatter (2003) considers the recent emergence o f subnational cross border regions ( C B R s ) in North America and Europe using four examples, including Cascadia (defined below). Using 'neoinstitutionalism' insights, Blatter (2003) develops a classification system o f four ideal types o f cross-border political institutions: commissions, connections, coalitions and conassociations. H e observes that while European C B R s constitute more traditional, territorially defined and comprehensive institutions, North American C B R s are founded more on non-territorial 'policy networks' bounded by various territories complementing, but differing in nature from nation-state(s) governance institutions. Blatter (2003) also distinguishes between instrumental institutions for control and symbolic 'identity-providing institutions' related to a constructivist approach as described in the definition o f collaborative planning above. Finally, he distinguishes between formal, or tightly coupled (hierarchies) and informal, or loosely coupled (hierarchies) institutions such as networks. The traditional institutions o f nationstate and (European)  city both  'bundle'  most policy functions  within  congruent  geographical boundaries, but recent decades have seen an increasing 'unbundling' process producing many single-purpose governance units on various levels, including the international level, described as 'dynamic sectoral regimes'. Such regimes are characterized  15  by: a specific function, policy issue or policy field; less formality than state or city; and include private as well as public actors with ambiguous boundaries. Blatter concludes that Cascadia "lacks a comprehensive set o f cross-border institutions". Coalitions such as the BC-Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council ( E C C ) , Pacific Northwest Economic Region ( P N W E R ) , the Cascadia Project and the Sound and Straits Coalition have developed into connections and consociations as originally intended. Further, statedominated commissions have been either ignored like the International Joint Commission (IJC) or dysfunctional like the Salmon Commission. Blatter (2003) concludes that North American C B R s : depend more on private involvement, (although this is not true o f the E C C , which is totally dominated by state actors); have no congruence between various institutions; are much narrower in policy scope; and represent "spaces o f flows" based on watersheds such as the G B / P S rather than "spaces o f place" as in the E U (Blatter 2003). Cascadia is envisioned by Artibise (2005) as three units based on the Pacific Coast. H e defines it most broadly to include B C , Washington, Alberta, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Y u k o n and Alaska and formally organized as the Pacific Northwest Economic Region ( P N W E R ) , a public-private partnership based i n Seattle. More commonly and historically, Cascadia is taken to refer to British Columbia, Washington State and Oregon. This definition is used by the Cascadia Institute,  a governmental, business  and N G O  organization based in Vancouver B C and in the Seattle Discovery Institute. Within this limited definition is "Cascadia's M a i n Street", a corridor extending from Whistler B C to Eugene Oregon (Artibise 2005, Cascadia Institute 2002). International law is a "network o f relationships existing primarily, i f not exclusively, between states recognising certain common principles and ways o f doing things. While the legal structure within all but the most primitive societies is vertical, the international system is horizontal, consisting o f over 190 independent states, all equal in legal theory (in that they all possess the characteristics o f sovereignty) and recognising no one in authority over them. [However] [c]ontrary to popular belief, states do observe international law and violations are comparatively rare" (Shaw 2003).  16  1.5 Objectives, research questions and sub-questions The objectives are: •  T o answer the fundamental collaborative planning  research  assist in  question: in what ways, if any, can  mitigating international transboundary  environmental issues; that is, those that affect the natural and social systems in more than one nation-state? •  T o contribute to collaborative planning knowledge by creating an analytical framework for assessing how collaborative planning can assist i n mitigating international transboundary environmental issues.  •  T o address mitigation o f G B / P S transboundary environmental issues.  t approach the objectives by introducing the three research sub-questions to develop the ^argument for the thesis. 1. What international and transnational theories of governance address international transboundary environmental issues? This provides the context o f the thesis, and leads to; 2. In what ways could collaborative planning theory aid in implementation of governance in international or transnational environmental governance situations? and 3. In what ways, if any, could collaborative planning theory be applied in an international or transnational governance situation to aid in assessment and thus enhancement of the governance process? In Chapter 2, I address the first two research sub-questions and answer the first one by means o f literature review, focusing o n international and transnational theories o f governance that address international transboundary environmental issues, as well as collaborative planning. From the literature I identify three endemic shortcomings o f international/transnational governance regimes: (1) lack o f horizontal and (2) vertical  i  17  coordination between regimes, as well as (3) lack o f consensus within and compliance with regimes. I then hypothesize that collaborative planning as a form o f governance could potentially mitigate these three shortcomings by means o f an analytical framework for assessment o f collaborative planning in regimes. This provides the context o f the thesis. In Chapter 3,1 proceed to answer the second research sub-question by acting on the above hypothesis; that is, by creating a theoretical analytical framework intended to mitigate the three shortcomings o f international/transnational regimes by assessing their effectiveness in their use o f collaborative planning as governance. The theoretical analytical framework is illustrated in Table 1. In Chapter 4, I answer the third research sub-question. I test the theoretical analytical framework by applying it iteratively to examine collaborative planning in the E C C and G B / P S I T F international and transnational environmental governance regimes. These regimes provide excellent examples to illustrate the effectiveness  o f the analytical  framework created in Chapter 3. The results o f this application may be seen in Table 3, a modification o f the theoretical framework in Table 1 that was found necessary to accommodate the data generated by the research. In Chapter 5, upon interpretation o f the data in Table 3,1 find that the analytical framework must be iteratively modified a second time. I conclude that the way collaborative planning is presently applied in the G B / P S regimes is inadequate because, reflective o f the three endemic regime shortcomings, it fails to achieve sufficient horizontal and vertical coordination,  internal  consensus  within  and  compliance  with  the  existing  international/transnational regimes. I also conclude that in the G B / P S , a less technocratic approach and more and better collaborative planning are needed to achieve sufficient social learning to support the necessary political w i l l on both sides o f the border. In Chapter 6, I summarize and synthesize the salient conclusions from the interpretations made in Chapter 5. Second, I make recommendations that the E C C and the G B / P S ITF regimes  should  pursue  to  more  effectively  govern  international  transboundary  environmental issues in the G B / P S to prevent a tragedy o f the international commons in the  18  G B / P S . Third,  I discuss themes that emerge from the research. Finally, I make  recommendations for further research.  19  C H A P T E R 2: R E V I E W O F T H E L I T E R A T U R E  2.1 Introduction Based on my summary o f the thesis and analysis and synthesis i n Chapter 1, this chapter sets the context for the sub-research questions by addressing and answering the first one and addressing the second and third. T o address the first sub-question: What international and  transnational theories of governance address international  transboundary  environmental issues? I review literature about globalization, particularly the forces o f contemporary (post-war) globalization as a major source o f international transboundary environmental issues, as well as literature about all five dimensions o f governance defined in Chapter 1: (1) international/transnational; (2) state and substate; (3) market-economy; (4) civil society; and (5) individual agents acting either alone or collaboratively within or between them. However to answer the first sub-question I focus on reviewing literature about international and transnational theories o f governance that address international transboundary environmental issues and how such governance is supported by the other four governance dimensions to address global environmental change. To address the second research sub-question: In what ways could collaborative planning theory aid  in implementation of governance in international or transnational  environmental governance situations? I concentrate on a broad review o f the collaborative planning literature. I observe that this literature has not yet addressed its potential role or value at international levels. Therefore I aim my research at this shortcoming. From primarily the literature on international and transnational regimes (Young 1999a) regional cross-border cooperation (Blatter 2003) and international law (Shaw 2003) I draw out three endemic shortcomings o f international and transnational environmental regimes that detract from their effectiveness and that challenge collaborative planning at the international and transnational level: (1) their generally single-purpose "silo" nature and their consequent failure to coordinate horizontally with other such regimes; (2) their tendency to be created and operated from the top down and their consequent failure to coordinate vertically with similar programs at local levels; (3) their inherent lack o f overarching political authoritative structure and their consequent inability to facilitate or enforce internal consensus as well as compliance.  20  To address the third research sub-question: How may collaborative planning theory be applied in an international or transnational situation to assess the governance process? I hypothesize that more and better collaborative planning could potentially mitigate these three shortcomings by means o f an analytical framework used to assess the effectiveness o f collaborative planning in international and transnational governance regimes.  2.2 Research sub-question #1: governance: what it is To address the first sub-question, I examine what theories of international and transnational governance address transboundary environmental issues. I refer to my definition o f governance derived i n Chapter 1 above. I derive my definition as the involvement  o f a wide range o f institutions and actors  i n the production and  implementation o f policy outcomes, one sub-process o f which is collaborative planning, within and between five dimensions: (a) international and transnational  institutions  (regimes); (b) state and substate institutions; (c) market-economy institutions; (d) civil society institutions; as well as (e) individual agents that determine which institutional and individual behaviours are acceptable and effective, which ones to discourage, and how.  2.2.1 International and transnational governance However, to answer  the first research  international/transnational  governance  sub-question  I focus  on literature  about  responses to globalization and environmental  change and how they are supported by the other four dimensions o f governance. Numerous authors have written on various aspects o f this issue. The following sources were relevant: Held et al (1999) on globalization (defined above) (Held 1999a); Held et al (2002, 1999, 1995) o n global governance (defined above) (Held 2002, Held 1999a, Held 1995); Fall (2005) on cooperation theory applied to transboundary protected areas (defined above) (Fall 2005); Young et al (1999, 1997) on regime theory (defined above) (Young 1999a, Young 1999b; Blatter (2003, 2000), Sawchuck (2005) on regional cross-border cooperation (defined above) (Blatter 2003, 2000, Sawchuck 2005); Shaw (2003, 1997) on international law (defined above) (Shaw 2003, 1997); and Healey et al (2006), Cooke et al (2002) on planning and collaborative planning (defined above) (Healey 2006, Cooke 2002). I assume after Held et al (1999) that transboundary environmental issues have arisen as unintended consequences o f multidimensional forces o f contemporary (post-war) globalization. I  21 consider Fall's (2005) review o f cooperation theory in her attempt to define cooperation in transboundary  protected areas and observe her conclusion that there are  "inherent  weaknesses o f the existing literature in the field". Part o f Fall's review o f cooperation theory is regime theory, a field that has been concerned with transboundary environmental issues (Fall 20.05). I then review regime theory literature (Young 1999 et al) and assume Young's (1999) distinction supported by Stokke (1997) and Wapner (1997) between "international" to describe institutional arrangements (regimes) between  states, and  "transnational" to describe cross-border institutional arrangements (regimes) between nonstate actors. Blatter (2003, 2000) and Hodge & West et al (1998) discuss and compare emerging sub-national cross-border regional institutions in Europe and North America, including the G B / P S international region. Shaw (2003, 1997) discusses international law.  2.2.2 State governance Regarding state governance response to transboundary environmental change, I refer primarily to Held et al (1999) and Young et al (1999). State governance refers to governance by the institutions o f the nation-state and its subnational components. In Canada and the U S this includes federal, provincial^ state, county and municipal governments. States may respond directly to transboundary environmental change by establishing international environmental regimes with other states such as the Canada/US International Joint Commission (IJC) or the Joint Statement o f Cooperation on the Georgia Basin and Puget Sound Ecosystem (Environment Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency 2000). Alternatively, subnational units may form transnational environmental regimes with other subnational units such as the BC/Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council and its task forces. However, to be effective, such international or transnational regimes require domestic political and legal support within their member states or subnational units. State agencies other than national and subnational executives such as central bankers and security regulators form transgovernmental networks with counterparts in other countries. For example, staff o f certain international agencies such as the World Trade organization ( W T O ) or the International Monetary Fund ( I M F ) have "a substantial degree o f discretion" and "should be regarded as distinct actors in global  22  governance" (Held 2005). States and substate units establish legislation to govern domestic activities o f market-economy, civil society organizations as well as individuals, but contemporary globalization is replacing traditional concepts o f power, functions and authority o f nation-states with a new 'sovereignty regime', as well as facilitating emergence of  new  non-territorial forms  o f organization such  as  multinational  corporations,  transnational social movements and civil society organizations and international regulatory agencies (Held 1999a). Canadian First Nations and U S Tribes operate basically under federal jurisdiction. Canadian aboriginal self-government has emerged strongly since the 1973 Colder case and particularly since the Constitution Act, 1982. Canadian First Nations, and particularly those in B . C . , have been involved in a legal struggle to assert and define the scope o f aboriginal rights within the context o f section 35(1) o f the Canadian Constitution, which recognized and confirmed their existence. One o f these legal contexts deals with the rights to continue traditional activities such as hunting and fishing. Another considers the question o f aboriginal title and establishment o f some legal interest in land, as exemplified by the 1998 Delgamuukw decision. That decision confirmed that First Nations could hold title to land through "aboriginal title", which is similar to, but not exactly the same as, fee simple land ownership. The third legal context, aboriginal self-government has not been fully examined by the courts (Stewart 2001). Under the U S Constitution, U S Indian reservations are governed by treaty between the tribe and the federal government, as well as by subsequent federal laws and confirmation o f treaty rights such as the landmark 1974 Boldt decision. This decision plus subsequent others affirmed Washington State Indian rights to 50% o f hatchery runs and natural runs, as well as to protect salmon and steelhead runs from environmental impacts (Bish 1982). This thesis does not pursue in more detail the state and substate domestic relations with Canadian First Nations and U S Tribes because the focus o f the thesis is the E C C and the G B / P S I T F that represent transboundary regimes.  2.2.3 Market-economy governance Regarding market-economy governance response to transboundary environmental change, Held (1995), Hawken (1993) and Sarra et al (2003) discuss the role o f market-economy institutions relative to the state and in environmental governance. The market-economy is  23  the "collective organization o f the production, distribution, exchange and consumption o f goods and services". In liberal industrial capitalist societies the market-economy and private accumulation is the economic driver that supports the state and so constrains state policy options. To remain in power liberal democratic governments must ensure the profitability o f the market economy, as they are dependent upon it (Held  1995).  Nevertheless, industrial activity by both domestic and multinational corporations generates international/transboundary  environmental  change,  and  must  be  constrained  by  international/transnational regimes supported by adequate domestic policy and legislation. To assist in setting such state policy for the market-economy, economic evaluation o f nature's services has emerged as a basis for their sustainable governance (Daily 1997) and the principal o f property rights has been suggested as a means to govern the marine commons (Peterson 1997). For their part, business corporations also initiate environmental governance mechanisms o f their own in anticipation o f state intervention. For example, business actors create transnational governance mechanisms like technical standardization, safety regulations, dispute resolution and other regulatory areas; "private rule-setting", including 'preventive self-regulation', to avoid more stringent regulation by state agencies (Held 2005). In addition, in response to the downsizing o f state intervention in certain areas, private insurance has emerged as a form o f governance based on local knowledge o f risk (Ericson 2003).  2.2.4 Civil society governance Regarding civil society governance response to environmental change, civil society is defined above in Chapter 1 as those areas o f life that are beyond direct state or economic control and are organized by private or voluntary arrangements between individuals and groups (Held 1995), (Eberly 2000a, Eberly 2000a). Nevertheless, though civil society is organized privately and voluntarily, it is never separate from the state in the sense that the state, by providing the comprehensive societal legal framework, significantly constitutes the civil society (Held 1995). From an environmental perspective, domestic civil society institutions have traditionally developed for governance o f common-pool resources (CPRs) (Ostrom 2003). More recently, in response to contemporary globalization, global civil society regimes have emerged as a transnational response to the growing need for governance in world affairs (Held 1999a), (Young 1999a, Young 1999a), many to address  24  transboundary environmental issues. For example, in the G B / P S international region since 1991 the non-governmental conservation organizations o f the B C based Georgia Strait Alliance and the Washington based People for Puget Sound have cooperated as the Sound and Straits Coalition to address transboundary marine environmental issues (Sato 2001). Canadian First Nations and U S Tribes in the G B / P S also cooperate to develop transnational civil society regimes such as the Coast Salish Sea Council. In addition to pursuing their own broader agenda, the Coast Salish Sea Council is represented as a member o f the G B / P S ITF (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force November 2001(Meeting handout)).  2.2.5 Individual agency governance Regarding individual agency response to globalization and environmental change, the individual agent in the Western World exists in the post-traditional condition o f modernity. Because o f the modern dearth o f guidance by tradition, individual agents are more responsible to govern themselves and must make more decisions than  pre-modern  individuals. They consequently adopt the reflexive project o f self-identity, lifestyle, risk and trust in abstract systems (Giddens 1991, Beck 1994). For example, one change contributing to such individual responsibility for governance is the 1945 Nuremburg and Tokyo Tribunals which recognized individual responsibility under international law without interposition o f the state, whereas until then, individuals could act under international law only through their national states (Shaw 1997). It is also important for modern individuals to understand other individual actors (the "Other") in their different institutional contexts. v  That such understanding  is necessary  to achieve  successful  transboundary collaboration is emphasized by Fall (2005) as part o f her transboundary protected  areas research:  "In all the  stories, the  deciding feature  [for initiating  transboundary cooperation] was identified as being a professional group (such as scientists) an individual, or an institution"..."The process o f identifying the Other was...inherently linked to understanding the system within which this Other functioned. Getting to know and understand institutional differences and patterns o f work in the neighbouring country were inseparable from getting to know the individuals. Again, this process o f identifying institutional processes was problematic, as differences needed addressing i f cooperation was to be formalized in some meaningful way" (Fall 2005).  (  25  2.2.6 Interactions between governance dimensions Regarding interactions between all the above dimensions o f governance, it is apparent that in spite o f changes driven by forces o f contemporary globalization, the nation-state and its components remain at the centre o f governance in modern liberal capitalist democracies. Although state power may appear to be eroded because o f an accelerating number o f unenforceable international regimes while state power remains limited to domestic control over burgeoning international and transnational activities o f market-economy and civil society institutions as well as individual agents, the state nevertheless remains fundamental to provide the legal framework for all such domestic market-economy and civil society institutional and individual activities. Furthermore, although intergovernmental agencies, state agencies, business corporations and civil society institutions increasingly develop 'multi-stakeholder' networks that facilitate consensual solutions to social/environmental problems (for example, the World Commission on Dams) implementation o f agreements within international and transnational regimes requires overall coordination, collaboration and community building as well as social learning to provide the political w i l l for policy support for such regimes and agreements in their domestic settings  (Held 2005, Hodge  1998).  2.3 Research sub-question #2: Collaborative planning as governance I then address the second research sub-question: How can collaborative planning theory of governance aid in international or transnational environmental governance situations? Healey (2006) views planning as a policy driven form o f governance and collaborative planning as one way in which planning is approached. (See definition o f collaborative planning in Chapter 1).  2.3.1 Approaches to planning Literature on planning theory collectively identifies various ways in which public decisions are made in liberal democracies such as those in N o r t h America and Western Europe, and normatively proposes various approaches to planning in support o f public decision-making in these societies. Generally, the major categories o f planning approaches can be described as authoritarian, centralized, top-down planning as previously supported by Faludi (1973), incrementalist (but not bottom-up) planning expounded by Lindblom (1973) and others,  26  and collaborative planning. The differences between the first two approaches  were  described by Faludi (1973), who calls them respectively the "normative" and "behavioural" approaches. Thus "normative theory is concerned with how planners ought to proceed rationally", while "behavioural approaches focus more on the limitations which they are up against in trying to fulfil their programme o f rational action" (Faludi 1973). Lindblom argues that since in actuality planning never proceeds rationally, "rational-comprehensive planning is not a suitable normative concept" (Lindblom 1973). But Faludi quotes Banfield as concluding that "what remains is precisely the validity o f rationality as a normative ideal" (Faludi 1973). Healey describes collaborative planning as a "third way" o f approaching planning (Healey 2006).  2.3.2 Planning traditions Healey (2006) identifies three different planning traditions including that o f policy planning, all o f which contribute to collaborative planning. One is economic planning to manage productive forces o f nations and regions and is connected to social policies that frame the welfare state. The second tradition is management o f physical development to achieve "health, economy, convenience and beauty" in urban milieus. The third is management o f public administration and policy analysis to effectively and efficiently meet explicit goals for public agencies. A l l these traditions provide background to development o f institutional analysis and communicative planning as elaborated in the work o f Healey and others, which forms the basis o f this study. These traditions have evolved. The economic planning tradition has increasingly come to appreciate institutional prerequisites for economic prosperity. The physical development planning tradition has recognised social processes that support spatial organization and urban settings as well as local environmental management interdependencies.  requirements caused by social, economic and ecological  The policy analysis tradition seeks to transcend its emphasis on  instrumental reason and scientific knowledge to better understand how people actually think and value and how development and implementation o f policy can become more interactive. However these developments have been challenged by neo-liberal governance theory that has reasserted  instrumental rationality narrowly within microeconomics,  abstaining from coordinating public policy and leaving it to voluntary action through  27  market processes and community groups. For example, recent changes in the B . C . Forest Practices Code allows applicants to be more self-policing than before (Healey 2006).  2.3.3 Collaborative planning Such neo-liberal ideas  are the  antithesis  o f the  collaborative planning  approach  recommended here. I refer to my definition o f collaborative planning in Chapter 1 above, and I review Healey (2006), Cooke & Kothari (2001) and numerous other authors that examine collaborative planning or its aspects and issues within the contexts o f state, market-economy and civil society institutions but none o f them explicitly considers the role o f collaborative planning in international or transnational governance regimes. That is, the potential  contribution o f collaborative planning to  international  and  transnational  environmental regimes, the social learning and political w i l l needed to support such regimes, or to global citizenship. Details o f this literature review can be found in Appendix A . Surprisingly, the international transboundary role o f collaboration and collaborative planning emerges and is discussed incidentally in other literature about international transboundary  environmental  governance  efforts  by  numerous  authors in various  international transboundary situations such as cross-border region studies o f the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound, the Great Lakes and the G u l f o f M a i n , the Baltic Sea, Lake Constance, the upper Rhine Valley and the U S - M e x i c a n border, as well as transboundary conservation areas in Europe (Alley 1998, Alper 2005, Artibise 2005, Blatter 2003, Fall 2005, Fraser In Press  2006,  Hildebrand 2002,  Hodge  1998, Jansson  2002,  Sproule-Jones  1999,  VanderZwaag 1986, Westley 1995). For example, Westley (1995) refers to "planning-led collaboration" as one o f three generic types o f interorganizational collaboration and only incidentally in relation to the international Great Lakes ecosystem (Westley 1995). Because o f the dearth o f research about the role o f collaborative planning in international transboundary contexts, I identify that role to be the prime target o f my work.  2.3.4 Collaborative planning and international/transnational regimes (agreements) A s noted above, the collaborative planning literature does not address international or transnational governance situations. T o make this connection, I begin by referring to my definition p f international and transnational regimes in Chapter 1 above, and from the literature on regime theory by Y o u n g (1999) and Held (1999) and international legal theory  28  by Shaw (2003, 1997), I draw out three characteristic shortcomings o f international and transnational governance regimes that challenge their effectiveness. (1) One is their generally single-purpose "silo" nature and consequent failure to coordinate horizontally with other regimes. A s regimes that protect stratospheric ozone and regulate trade in endangered species suggest, international/transnational regimes almost invariably respond to specific problems, not to provide comprehensive systems o f public order for geographical areas. Although states remain significant in such arrangements, various nonstate actors have also emerged as important in these institutions. Altogether, regimes create a horizontal rather than a vertical or hierarchal system o f order, resulting in a complex o f decentralized authority. One strength o f this horizontal governance structure is that individual regimes have capacity to survive serious failures in other parts o f this system. The corresponding weakness is an underdeveloped ability to account for overlaps and conflicts. Individual regimes are established for different functions by different agents who usually make little or no effort to coordinate or identify connections between regimes (Young 1999a). For example, the International Joint Commission (IJC) is a single sectoral international regime focussing on Canada-US transboundary  water issues. Another  example is the BC/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council ( E C C ) which is not very well coordinated horizontally with the business-oriented Cascadia Institute/Discovery Institute transnational regime. M o r e narrowly focussed is the Sounds and Straits Coalition, a transnational  civil  society regime that watchdogs  Georgia Basin/Puget Sound  transboundary environmental issues. Many regimes are narrower still, focussing on a single environmental issue; for example the Canada-US Pacific Salmon Commission, or the States-BC O i l Spill Task Force. Although regimes may be intentionally clustered ("institutional clustering"), horizontal linkage overlap and intersection problems between regimes are usually unintended consequences resulting from creating special-purpose regimes (Young 1999a). (2) The second shortcoming is the tendency o f international/transnational regimes to be created and operated from the top down and their consequent failure to coordinate vertically with similar programs at local levels. "[RJegimes are top-down arrangements whose ability to solve problems w i l l be determined largely by the extent to which they  29  complement bottom-up arrangements pertaining to the same issues" (Young 1999a). Thus regime effectiveness w i l l often hinge on the compatibility between top-down approaches o f international regimes and bottom-up local or regional initiatives. For example, such vertical interplay w i l l be critical in the case o f climate change, where the solution involves behaviour extending down to individual users o f motor vehicles or equipment (Young 1999a). A smaller scale example is the BC/Washington E C C which coordinates five transboundary environmental issue-specific task forces vertically including the G B / P S ITF, as well as other regimes. Vertical coordination may be improved by nesting regimes from the bottom-up into broader institutional frameworks. Such "institutional nesting" links specific arrangements restricted in functional scope, geographic domain, or some other criterion into broader institutional frameworks that concern the same general problem area but that are less detailed in application, bringing a broader regime to bear on more specific, topics. For example, nesting substantive protocols into broader framework conventions, such as integrating "the sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and volatile organic compounds protocols" into the 1979 L o n g Range Transboundary A i r Pollution ( L R T A P ) framework, and the integration o f the Norwegian/Russian Barents Sea fishing regime into the 1982 U N Convention on the L a w o f the Sea ( U N C L O S ) (Young 1999a).  (3) The third shortcoming o f international/transnational regimes is their inherent lack o f political authoritative structure and their consequent inability to facilitate internal consensus or enforce compliance. Regarding international regimes, Shaw (2003) observes that "[w]hile the legal structure within all but the most primitive societies is vertical, the international system is horizontal, consisting o f over 190 independent states, all equal in legal theory (in that they all possess the characteristics o f sovereignty) and recognising no one in authority over them" (Shaw 2003). Also, Young (1999) notes that international or transnational regimes have limited ability to alter behaviour partly because o f difficulties o f achieving compliance with their rules (Young 1999a). Compliance, however, is the central issue only with regulatory regimes. The main concern o f procedural regimes is to produce substantive collective choices which participants will agree to implement within their own jurisdictions balancing between weak decisions and extensive decisions that fail because key participants opt out. Programmatic regimes attempt to persuade participants to organize to carry out joint projects and to generate needed resources. Finally, generative regimes  30  promote ideas and diffusion o f new ways o f thinking about international problems. These last three regime types depend more on consensus and persuasion than compliance and may produce consequences as least as substantial as regulatory ones (Young 1999a). From the literature I also focus the second research sub-question to be: How could collaborative planning theory of governance mitigate the. three shortcomings of international and transnational environmental regimes referred to above? Collaborative planning as defined i n Chapter 1 is largely characterized by interactive social construction o f values, knowledge, policy and policy implementation through inclusive participation and communication. Thus, collaborative planning becomes embedded i n its social context through interactive social practices with the intent o f leading to outreach and collaborative consensus building. First, I hypothesize that these characteristics o f collaborative planning qualify it to aid i n international or transnational environmental governance situations by compensating for the three shortcomings o f international and transnational regimes referred to above. Second, I hypothesize that such characteristics o f collaborative planning could contribute  to collaborative planning knowledge  by testing  its relevance  in an  international/transnational governance context.  2.4 Research sub-question #3: the analytical framework I then address the third research sub-question: How may collaborative planning theory be applied in an international or transnational situation to assess the governance process? Based on reasons derived from the literature and described below I hypothesize that collaborative planning could potentially mitigate the three regime shortcomimgs by means o f an analytical governance framework for assessment o f collaborative planning in international/transnational governance regimes. I propose that the analytical governance framework could test (but not demonstrate) the truth o f the above hypotheses by assessing effectiveness o f collaborative planning i n existing international/transnational governance regimes. M y method is, in Chapter 3 to create such a theoretical analytical framework that could be tested in a real environmental governance situation; that is, by conducting qualitative  research  governance regimes.  on actual  illustrative examples  of  international/transnational  31  2.7 Summary In this chapter I have answered the first research sub-question and set the context for answering the second and third sub-research questions. First, to address the first subquestion:  What international and transnational theories of governance addres  international transboundary environmental  issues?  I  reviewed  literature  about  contemporary (post-war) globalization as a major source o f international transboundary environmental issues and about all five dimensions o f governance defined in Chapter 1: (1) international/transnational; (2) state and substate; (3) market-economy; (4) civil society; and (5) individual agency. However to answer the first sub-question I concentrated on international and transnational governance theories that address international transboundary environmental issues and how the other four governance dimensions support it in addressing global environmental change. To address the second research sub-question:  In what ways could collaborative planning  theory aid in implementation of governance in international or transnationa environmental governance situations? I focused on collaborative planning literature and observed that such literature has not yet addressed its use at international levels. I therefore directed my research toward this deficiency. Primarily from the literature on international and transnational regimes, regional cross-border cooperation and international law, I identified three endemic shortcomings o f international and transnational environmental regimes that detract from their effectiveness  and that challenge international and  transnational collaborative planning: (1) their single-purpose nature and weak horizontal coordination with other such regimes; (2) their top-down tendencies and consequent inadequate vertical coordination with similar local programs; (3) their lack o f overarching authority and consequent inability to facilitate or enforce  internal consensus and  compliance.  To address the third research sub-question:  How may collaborative planning theory be  applied in an international or transnational situation to assess the governance proc hypothesized, primarily from the collaborative planning literature, that more and better collaborative planning has potential to mitigate these three regime shortcomings by means  32  o f an analytical framework used to assess the effectiveness o f collaborative planning in r  international and transnational governance regimes. This leads to Chapter 3, where I answer the second research sub-question. I refer primarily to Held & M c G r e w et al (1999, 2002) on global governance, Young (1999) on regime theory, Shaw (1997, 2003) on international law and Healey's account o f collaborative planning theory to create an analytical framework for assessment o f collaborative planning in regimes. The framework could be tested by conducting qualitative research on actual illustrative examples o f international/transnational environmental governance.  \  33  CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL AND ANALYTICAL COLLABORATIVE PLANNING FRAMEWORK  3.1 Introduction In Chapter 3, I answer the second research sub-question: How can collaborative planning theory aid in international or transnational environmental governance situations? I conclude from the regime and international, law literature that effectiveness o f international and transnational environmental regimes is particularly challenged by three endemic shortcomings. One such shortcoming is that the regimes are almost always "silo" institutions formed to address single issues. Consequently they often have gaps between them and lack capacity or w i l l for horizontal coordination or linkage between them (Young 1999a). A second shortcoming o f international/transnational institutions/regimes is that they are usually generated from the top downward with often limited capacity to alter behaviour at the local scale, partly because o f their inability to gain local acceptance o f international rules by numerous individual actors. They may also neglect to coordinate vertically with "bottom-up" grassroots local programs developed to address the same issues, an important indicator o f their problem-solving ability (Young 1999a). A third shortcoming o f international/transnational institutions/regimes is that regulatory regimes (emphasizing rule formulation or prescribing behaviour) often lack effectiveness due to unenforceability (Young 1999a, Shaw 2003). However, i n the case o f procedural regimes (mechanisms for arriving at collective choices), programmatic regimes (leading to joint or collaborative projects) or generative regimes (new ways o f approaching problems), effectiveness is more a function o f successful collaboration (Young 1999a). From these observations o f the literature I propose that more and better collaborative planning would mitigate these shortcomings and increase effectiveness. I identify the problem to be: how could collaborative planning mitigate these three shortcomings o f international and transnational regimes? Relating these regime shortcomings to collaborative planning, I refer to my definition o f collaborative planning in Chapter 1. Planning i n general is a policy form o f governance (Healey 2006) and collaborative planning theory offers a potential solution to the problems caused by centralized, authoritarian, top-down planning as well as incrementalist, diffuse  34  (but not bottom-up) planning. One major shortcoming expressed in the collaborative planning literature is the difficulty o f conducting, much less being able to achieve consensus regarding, bottom-up planning. This is also one o f the shortcomings o f international/transnational regimes.  3.2 Effectiveness as a criterion for regimes The question about effectiveness as a regime criterion is whether international and transnational environmental governance regimes play a role in shaping or guiding the behaviour o f actors, including states that are formal members o f international regimes, as well as government agencies, corporations, interest groups and individuals (Young 1999a). Sources o f such effectiveness can be understood i n terms o f problem structure, regime attributes (design), social practices, institutional linkages and broader settings, or contexts! From these I choose to consider institutional linkages and regime attributes in creating my analytical governance framework. Linkages can be horizontal or vertical, and attributes include decision protocols, such as consensus rules, at the international level (Young 1999a).  3.3 Conceptual and analytical collaborative planning framework The methodological problem is to find a way to study collaborative planning process in an international/transnational  governance  situation that includes horizontal collaboration  between regimes, vertical collaboration between different levels o f a single regime or between nested regimes, and collaboration to achieve consensus within, and compliance with regimes. In response, from a broad analysis and synthesis o f the literature, I create an initial analytical governance framework for assessment o f how collaborative planning could mitigate the three regime shortcomings and propose six attributes (purpose; process; protocols; values; information exchange; policy; and evaluation) that such regimes should possess to conduct effective collaborative planning. Table  1 below illustrates the analytical governance  framework.  The columns  are  international/transnational regime shortcomings and the rows are the theoretical attributes o f regimes necessary for effective collaborative planning. The cells describe how the i  theoretical attributes o f collaborative planning address regime shortcomings in order to achieve more effective regimes.  35  Lack of horizontal coordination of international/ transnational institutions/regimes  Lack of vertical coordination of international/ transnational institutions/regimes  Lack of compliance with, or consensus within international/ transnational institutions/regimes  1) Purpose  Minimizes "silos" and overlaps, fills gaps if necessary, resolves conflicts and ensures that purposes of regimes complement each other. Clustering of regimes can be useful.  Ensures top-down purpose complements bottom-up purpose pertaining to the same issues. Nesting grassroots regimes into broader institutional frameworks can be useful.  Clarifies value of compliance and leads to achieving consensus.  2) Process and protocols  Facilitates coordinated choices between regimes regarding problems in the issue areas, providing procedures for conflict resolution and overcoming power differentials. It is useful to consider. (1) a largely constructivist approach to knowledge; (2) that there are various forms of development and communication of knowledge and reasoning; (3) that individual agents produce and reproduce their views and interests in social contexts through interaction; (4) that interests and expectations are diverse and power relations potentially oppress and dominate through unequal distribution of authoritative or allocative resources as well as through assumptions and practices.  Facilitates coordinated choices in different scales of governance regimes regarding problems in the issue areas, providing procedures for conflict resolution, overcoming power differentials and top-down hegemony. It is useful to consider: (1) a largely constructivist approach to knowledge; (2) that there are various forms of development and communication of knowledge and reasoning; (3) that individual agents produce and reproduce their views and interests in social contexts through interaction; (4) that interests and expectations are diverse and power relations potentially oppress and dominate through unequal distribution of authoritative or allocative resources as well as through assumptions and practices.  Facilitates collaboration between parties to international/transnational regimes to agree on, or refine compliance procedures; for example, dispute resolution procedures as in the NAFTA.  3) Values  Resolves value conflicts and ensures that values of regimes complement each other.  Ensures that top-down values complement bottom-up values pertaining to the same issues.  No new collaboration is required as values have already been expressed in established agreements.  4) Information  Aids in agreement on  Aids in consensus on  Aids in consensus on  r  36  exchange  5) Policy  6) Evaluation  Lack of vertical Lack of horizontal coordination of coordination of international/ international/ transnational transnational institutions/regimes institutions/regimes issues that should be common units of addressed by regimes; measurement or e.g., statistics on global translation of different wanning leading to units for mutual local, provincial and understanding; e.g.,. federal policy to conversion charts are lameliorate the problem. required to relate amounts of solid waste metric tonnes in Canada to imperial tons in the US. Facilitates vertical coFacilitates horizontal coordination of policy ordination of top-down in different regimes policies and bottom-up about their issue areas. policies within and between regimes pertaining to the same issues.  Allows for assessment of effectiveness of different regimes in addressing problems in their respective issue areas including the effectiveness of procedures for conflict resolution and overcoming power differentials.  Allows for assessment of effectiveness of regimes at different scales in addressing problems in the issue areas covered by both scales of governance, including the effectiveness of procedures for conflict resolution, overcoming power differentials and top-down hegemony.  Lack of compliance with, or consensus within international/ transnational institutions/regimes agreements within existing regimes and implementation of those agreements.  Facilitates collaboration within regulatory regimes to ensure policy complies with international law and/or previous agreements. (Within procedural, programmatic or generative regimes, facilitates agreement on policy). Allows for assessment of compliance of different regimes. Encourages institutions to agree on internal evaluation procedures.  The creation pf the analytical collaborative planning framework above leads to Chapter 4 , where I begin to answer the third research sub-question: How may collaborative planning theory be applied in an international or transnational situation to assess the governance process? I approach this question by applying the analytical framework in Table 1 to the illustrative examples of the ECC and the GB/PS ITF using a case study approach. Application of the analytical framework is found to involve an iterative process of using the framework to structure the data which in turn requires modifying the framework to accommodate the data, and iteratively modifying the framework a second time upon interpretation of the data in Chapter 5!  37  C H A P T E R 4: A N A L Y T I C A L F R A M E W O R K A P P L I E D T O ASSESS C O L L A B O R A T I V E P L A N N I N G IN I L L U S T A T I V E E X A M P L E S  4.1 Introduction In this Chapter, I answer the third research sub-question: How may collaborative theory be applied in an international or transnational situation to assess the  planning governance  process? I test the analytical collaborative planning governance framework provided in Table 1 above by applying it to assess illustrative examples o f existing sub-national international and transnational environmental governance regimes within the  GB/PS  international region, where environmental problems are increasing (British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and Economy 1993, British Columbia/Washington Marine Science Panel 1994, Transboundary Georgia Basin - Puget Sound Environmental Indicators Working Group 2002, R y l k o 2002). The G B / P S  international/transnational  governance regimes considered here are the BC/Washington State E C C and one o f its five task forces, the G B / P S I T F (Artibise 2005, Hodge 1998, Alley 1998). I choose the E C C because: •  The E C C was the comprehensive,  first,  and with its task forces  international  environmental  remains  institution  the  between  primary BC  and  Washington State (See Table 3 below). The E C C was established on the basis o f the 1992 B C - Washington Environmental Cooperation Agreement between the Premier o f B C and the Governor o f Washington State to ensure coordinated action and information sharing about mutual environmental concerns.  Under the  Environmental Cooperation Agreement the two lead agencies, the (then) B C Ministry o f Environment, Lands and Parks and the Washington Department o f Ecology in 1996 entered into a Memorandum o f Understanding on Environmental Cooperation ( M O U ) .  The M O U is a  framework  to help  implement  the  Cooperation Agreement and to link subject-specific agreements.  •  T o address mutual environmental concerns, the E C C embraces and coordinates different international/transnational regimes horizontally by collaboration. Thus the E C C created and coordinates five international task forces to address five different transboundary issues: (1) the Abbotsford-Sumas aquifer; (2) Nooksack  38 River flooding (3) air and water quality issues in the Columbia River Basin (4) air quality in the Lower Fraser Valley/Pacific Northwest airshed; (5) the shared waters o f the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound. The last o f these is represented by the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound International Task Force ( G B / P S ITF). •  The E C C contains and coordinates different levels o f regimes vertically by upward and downward collaboration. Thus the E C C reports upward to the B C Premier and the Washington Governor, the five task forces report to the E C C and a number o f subcommittees and work groups report to the task forces.  •  The E C C achieves consensus within its task force regimes and compliance with the BC/Washington Environmental Cooperation Agreement through collaboration.  In addition to the E C C I select one o f its task forces, the G B / P S ITF as an example to assess its effectiveness. I choose the G B / P S international marine estuary because it is representative  o f international marine estuaries undergoing substantial  environmental  change due to global, regional and local forces. Also, since the 1980s G B / P S environmental change has generated first, substantial  national and then transnational  governance  responses. Other reasons for selecting the G B / P S are that, while recognizing the emerging status o f First Nations and Tribes, the cultural similarities between Canada and the U S make it a relatively simple international example; i f successful collaborative planning cannot be achieved here, it is unlikely to be achieved elsewhere. I have observed the G B / P S empirically for a long period o f time and it is close at hand for study. In application o f the analytical framework in Table 1 to the E C C and the G B / P S ITF, I find that the framework must be modified to accept the data, resulting in Table 3. I review literature on qualitative research and particularly the case study approach (Stake 1995). Following Y i n (1989), I then apply the case study approach o f collecting research data by literature review, direct observation, interview and document review to the illustrative examples. The G B / P S governance example is bounded chronologically by the late 1980s and the present, and geographically by the headwaters o f the watersheds that flow into the G B / P S ,  39  including the Fraser River. I review literature about the G B / P S international region and its existing international/transnational  environmental governance  arrangements including  Johnson (1996), K i y (1998), Alley (1998), Hodge and West (1998), Blatter (2003, 2000), Hildebrand et al (2002), Fraser (2006 in press), Artibise (2005). I gather data about the illustrative examples using example-specific literature review, observation, interview and document review. I use the analytical governance framework in Table 1 to structure the data according to how it corresponds to the theoretical attributes in the rows o f Table 1, how the data modifies those attributes,  and how the data illustrates the three endemic shortcomings o f  international/transnational environmental regimes indicated by the columns o f the table. The attributes need to be modified to accommodate the data, and the results are shown in Table 3.  4.2 Data sources Stake (1995) asserts that data gathering begins even before there is commitment to a case study (here extended to illustrative examples) and much data is comprised o f informal impressions and the data pool includes very early observations (Stake 1995). In addition to such informal data, I conduct example-specific literature review, observations, interviews and document review regarding the G B / P S and the E C C and the G B / P S I T F illustrative examples with the anticipation o f developing an in-depth analysis. Observations o f collaborative planning as international/transnational governance in the G B / P S include direct observations at two G B / P S research conferences, two E C C meetings, four G B / P S I T F meetings and five G B / P S Environmental Indicator Work Group meetings. In total I attended thirteen meetings over a period o f four years. Minutes or notes for all meetings except two G B / P S ITF meetings have been issued. Observations for those two meetings have been taken only from my notes and recollections. Although I concentrate on the E C C and the G B / P S I T F as illustrative examples, the research conferences and the Indicator Group meetings have also contributed much to my understanding. A collection o f handed out documents were taken from all meetings attended.  40  In addition to observations at the above meetings, interviews were conducted with five subjects representing the state, market-economy and civil society as dimensions o f governance. T w o o f the state representatives  had been involved in organizing the  transnational 1992 BC-Washington Environmental Cooperation Agreement; one from the political side in B . C . and one from the bureaucracy perspective in Washington State. A third state representative was the Manager o f Policy Planning for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The market-economy interview was with the executive director o f the Cascadia Institute and the civil society interview was with the executive director o f the Georgia Basin Council.  s  Document review involved reading an extensive range o f reports and other documents regarding governance o f the G B / P S . Documents reviewed represent primarily the E C C , the G B / P S ITF as well as other supporting documents produced by state, market economy and civil society dimensions o f governance.  4.2.1 Literature Review A t the centre of the Pacific Northwest bioregion is the G B / P S (See Figure 1). The literature describes its history, geography and governance. The G B / P S extends from Campbell River and Powell River in the north to Olympia in the south (British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and Economy 1993). From a state and substate administration perspective this transboundary basin includes all o r part o f nine B . C . regional districts and thirteen Washington state counties as well as seven contemporary classifications o f Canadian First Nations (Tennant 1996). There are also thirteen U S Indian reservations in the Puget Sound region, with eleven abutting the Sound or the Strait o f Juan de Fuca. U S Indian reservations are governed by treaty between the tribe and the federal government, as well as by subsequent federal laws (Bish 1982). The urban core o f the basin is the 'Pacific north-west urban agglomeration' anchored in Vancouver and Seattle, the two dominant urban centres in the Pacific northwest (Hutton 1998). This urban core also forms part o f " ' M a i n Street' Cascadia" which extends from Vancouver B C to Eugene Oregon (Artibise 2005).  41 The inland sea ecosystem has been divided by the international boundary of Canada and the US since 1846 (Artibise 2005, McEvedy 1988) and is composed of three natural basins: the Strait of Georgia on the north, Puget Sound to the south and the Strait of Juan de Fuca that connects them to the Pacific Ocean. An estuary is defined as "the mouth of a large river, where it becomes affected by the tide" (Soanes 2005) arid the U.S. National Estuary Program in 1985-86 listed Puget Sound as a First Tier Estuary (Imperial 1996). As a marine estuary, the GB/PS inland sea is a semi-enclosed body of water in which sea water from the Pacific Ocean is mixed with fresh water from rivers. The origins of these rivers are in the watersheds of the surrounding mountains of the Coast Range, the Cascades, Vancouver Island and the Olympic Peninsula. Three-quarters of the fresh water entering the inland sea comes from two rivers. The largest one is the Fraser, which drains about one quarter of British Columbia and the second largest is the Skagit in Washington. "An ecosystem is composed of air, land, water, and biota (including humans) and the interactions among them" (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Guidelines Task Group 1996). As an ecological unit, the whole GB/PS may therefore be considered a marine estuarine ecosystem. In 1994 the human population of the watershed of the inland sea was about 5.5 million, concentrated in Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle and Tacoma, as well as in such smaller centres such as Nanaimo and Bellingham (United States, Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Washington Sea Grant Program 1994). The 2002 population was reported to be about 7 million (Hildebrand 2002), about 4 million in Washington and about 3 million in BC. By 2020 this regional population is projected to reach 9 million (Transboundary Georgia Basin -Puget Sound Environmental Indicators Working Group 2002). Much could be said about the evolution of GB/PS governance from prehistory to its present division between the modern states of Canada and the United States. However I limit my discussion primarily to the period starting in the late 1980s when a perspective began to emerge of the GB/PS as a unified ecosystem and that cross-boundary cooperation was therefore required (Hildebrand 2002, Fraser In Press (2006))  42 The GB/PS drainage basin is generally used to define the primary boundary for analysis. The Fraser River drains about a quarter of the area of British Columbia and supplies about 80% of the fresh water flowing into the Strait of Georgia, so a boundary is added to indicate the extent of the Fraser drainage basin. A secondary boundary useful for analysis is the full extent of the implicated jurisdictions of the Province of B C and the State of Washington because provincial and state decision-makers may refer to their whole jurisdiction when making decisions within the more limited drainage areas (See Figure 1 below) (Hodge 1998). Hodge and West (1998) provide a brief history of the GB/PS bioregion as well as the Great Lakes, outline environmental issues of concern, and progress on these issues and a good overall comparative description of environmental governance arrangements up to 1997. Regarding governance, they describe federal-provincial/state relationships, provincial-state relationships, local-local government relationships and the role of First Nations. They describe differences in Canadian and American regulatory and legislative cultures, particularly Canadian ministerial discretion and different constitutional division of powers. Hodge and West (1998) also emphasize the importance of community building and "collaborative solution building" through civil society groups such as environmental nongovernmental organizations (ENGOs). In the GB/PS such ENGOs began in the 1990s with the Georgia Strait Alliance and People for Puget Sound, which worked cooperatively as the Sound and Straits Coalition (Sato 2001). Hodge and West also mention the importance of transboundary collaborative research but do not mention the research conferences. Six research conferences have been held. Although the earlier conferences were confined to PS with Canadians only participating, the two most recent conferences in 2003 in Vancouver and in 2005 in Seattle included both GB and PS, and each was attended by approximately 800 people. Hodge and West (1998) observe that in the GB/PS, due to high rates of social and economic expansion, growth management is critical and refer to relevant legislation in B C and Washington State: They conclude that political will to act comes from a sense of place and community. Collaborative federal-provincial/state approaches are needed to deal with international transboundary environmental issues, and as many governmental and civil  43 society elements are involved, "overall coordination and collaboration" are required. They also conclude that in the G B / P S , the E C C needs to be reinforced, as does federal-provincial collaboration in Canada (Hodge 1998).  "«fN"';  BRJTfiH OXUM8IA  mi ft)  55 N |  AX 5tFN~  3CTN ..1  LEGEND  B H j f'  Oo'g«  Basin  Pniyi  | Srcoiiddry f nvdopr "j friser River Drainage Ba»m  I  WA.SHINC.TON  r v  The Georgia Basin-Pttget  >  Sound  I v  bioregion.  Map by Clover Point Cartographic  Ltd.  Figure 1: The Georgia Basin/Puget Sound bioregion (Hodge and West 1998)  © Texas A & M University Press  44  M a n y G B / P S governance institutions complement and overlap each other, but the basic structure o f environmental governance for the G B / P S bioregion is as shown in Figure 2 below.  CANADA  JOINT  UNITED STATES  [1909 International Joint Commission (IJC)]  Federal Government [including Tribes]  CANADA-US  Federal Government [including First Nations]  [1985] Pacific Salmon Commission [2000 Joint Statement of Cooperation on the Georgia Basin and Puget Sound Ecosystem]  Province of British Columbia  State of Washington  [1992] British Columbia -Washington Cooperation Agreement Environmental Cooperation Council and Task Forces Growth Manaeement Accord  Regional Districts [GVRD, etc.] The Islands Trust Municipal Governments  Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Counties Service Districts  Figure 2: Basic Framework of governance for the Georgia Basin - Puget Sound bioregion. (after Hodge and West 1998)  © Texas A & M University Press  45  In response to the 1909 Canada-US Boundary Waters Treaty, the International Joint Commission ( D C ) was established to address Canada/US international transboundary water resources disputes. The IJC provides non-binding advice for good decision-making regarding boundary water use and investigates and manages disputes referred to it (Sanchez-Rodriquez 1998). Both B C and Washington State have resisted a federally controlled mechanism like the IJC Great Lakes Office (Hodge 1998). However the IJC still has potential for G B / P S involvement, so I add it to Figure 2. In 2000, the Canada-US Joint Statement on the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Ecosystem was signed  by  Environment  Canada  and  the  US  Environmental Protection Agency  (Environment Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency 2000), so I add it to Figure 2. Alley (1998) supported by Harcourt (1996) describes the history o f the E C C based on the Environmental Cooperation Agreement signed in 1992 by the premier o f British Columbia and, the governor o f Washington State, up to June, 1997 when, in response to a breakdown o f US/Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations, the B C government boycotted direct relations with Washington State, including the E C C (Alley 1998, Kellas 2005, Hodge 1998). Annual reports and other publications o f the E C C available on the web support Alley's description and add to it from 1997 to 2005 (British Columbia Ministry o f Environment 2006).  Hildebrand, Pebbles and Fraser (2002) support and provide an update on Hodge and West (1998) by comparing the G u l f o f Maine, Great Lakes and the G B / P S regarding governance frameworks  for  international  transboundary  cooperative  ecosystem  management  (Hildebrand 2002). Blatter (2000) compares the G B / P S with the European Lake Constance to show that international cross-border cooperation within environmental and economic sectors actually encourages antagonism between these sectors, thus detracting from sustainability (Blatter 2000). This conclusion is supported for Cascadia in general by Alper and Artibise (Alper 2005, Artibise 2005).  46  Use of literature in this research The analytical framework for assessment o f collaborative planning in regimes in Table 1 was developed further using an iterative approach. Part o f this approach was to revisit the regime literature in order to further clarify the three shortcomings o f international and transnational regimes, and to incorporate this clarification into the framework to make it more self-sufficient. This was done by adding a more detailed explanation at the top o f each o f the columns entitled "issues" in Table 3. A substantial amount o f example-specific literature exists about the G B / P S study area. Some o f this literature was used above to provide a brief overview o f the history and geography  o f the study area and its governance. Example-specific literature  was  particularly useful in developing the analytical framework in the second iteration developed by the "Analysis and interpretation" in Chapter 5, as a result o f which two additional attributes were added to Table 3. For example, analysis o f Table 3 emphasized that although Canadians and Americans share many cultural characteristics, certain differences between Canadian and American governance cultures and institutions constitute barriers for effective  international  transboundary  governance.  Consequently  "Cultural/social/political/legal context" became a more important factor than it had appeared while Table 3 was being constructed, and so this factor was not only added as a new attribute but was also given a very high priority. This analysis was strongly assisted by a number o f example-specific literature sources described in Chapter 5, particularly the works o f Hodge and West (1998), Alper (2005), Artibise (2005) and Bish (1982).  4.2.2 Observations Observations were made primarily at meetings, including two Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conferences,  T w o E C C meetings,  four G B / P S  I T F meetings  and  five  Transboundary Environmental Indicators Work Group meetings. The two research conferences were attended to observe general background for the case study; the first in Vancouver on March 31 - April 3, 2003 in Vancouver and the second in Seattle on March 29 - 31, 2005. The research conferences, co-hosted by Environment Canada and the Puget Sound Action Team, were sixth and seventh in a series o f conferences representing the largest and most visible efforts to communicate research results among the region's  47  scientists and natural resource managers. The conferences provided an interdisciplinary venue for ecosystem-based  management  and for various international cross-border  scientists and decision-makers to discuss critical issues  such as climate change,  transboundary air quality, marine resources, indicators and collaborative management. The 2003 conference was attended by over 800 academic and government scientists, Coast Salish representatives, politicians, students and community leaders (Whitfield 2004). Details o f G B / P S I T F meetings and Transboundary Environmental Indicators meetings are found in Appendix B . The two E C C meetings were held on A p r i l 2, 2003 in conjunction with the Vancouver Research Conference and the other on October 28, 2005 in Victoria. The four G B / P S ITF meetings were held on November 28 - 29, 2001 in Victoria, September 17 - 18, 2002 in Bellingham, M a r c h 5 - 6, 2003 in Victoria and November 20 - 21, 2003 in Bellingham. The five Transboundary Environmental Indicator W o r k Group meetings were held on April 1, 2003 in Vancouver also in conjunction with the research conference, June 18, 2004 in Seattle, October 15, 2004 in Victoria, December 10, 2004 in Victoria and September 7, 2005 in Bellingham. A l l meetings were conducted according to written agendas. Written proceedings were issued for most E C C meetings, except meetings nine and ten which B C did not attend, and for meeting 21 which was not available. Proceedings o f the last two G B / P S I T F meeting were not available but were made available for all Transboundary Environmental Indicator meetings. However I took supplementary hand written notes at all meetings. Indicator Work Group meetings were supported by a Seattle consultant funded by Environment Canada and the U S Environmental Protection Agency (US E P A ) . B C Provincial representatives attended G B / P S I T F meetings in Victoria but due to funding constraints, found it difficult to travel to Bellingham meetings. M o r e members o f the public attended the Bellingham G B / P S ITF meetings than the Victoria meetings. M y attendance at E C C and G B / P S ITF meetings was strictly as an observer.  The Transboundary Environmental Indicator Working Group, having published its first document regarding six indicators in 2002, proposed developing a second cycle report  48  starting in 2004. The U S E P A , the Puget Sound Action Team and Environment Canada Pacific Y u k o n Region secured funds for this second report (Environment Canada-US Environmental Protection Agency 2004). A t the first meeting to discuss the second report, I attended only an observer. However my presence at the last four Working Group meetings was that o f an invited participant. Because o f my research interest and my professional background as a registered planner in both Canada and the U S , I was invited to attend the meeting to address this new project on June 18, 2004 in Seattle at U S E P A headquarters and to participate by advising on the Land Use Changes (now Urbanization and Forest Change) indicator. I also attended three subsequent meetings as a participant on October 15 and December 10, 2004 in Victoria and September 7, 2005 in Bellingham. W o r k Group meetings  were chaired by Environment Canada and U S E P A representatives and  coordinated by a consultant. They were structured in a round table fashion (see Appendix B for details). The institutional structure o f the G B / P S Ecosystem Indicators Project included the W o r k Group itself, eleven indicator development  teams (IDTs), internal  communications  specialists and external advisors. The W o r k Group provided overall content, policy and communications direction. I was assigned to the Land Use Changes (now Urbanization and Forest Change) IDT. W o r k on this second phase o f international indicators was completed for management review by September 30, 2005 and was published on a website in October 2006(Environment Canada 2006).  Use of observations in this research Observations assisted iterative development o f the analytical framework in Table 1 by suggesting additional attributes in order to accommodate the data in Table 3. F o r example, at its October 2005 meeting, I observed that the E C C continued to work with its original five component task forces and that it approved the G B / P S I T F proposal to focus on marine protected areas, exotic species, (both long-term high priority) toxic waste (long-term medium priority) and orca recovery (relatively new item primarily related to the high priority protection o f marine life as well as medium priority control o f toxic waste). The G B / P S ITF also continues working with the original 1994 issues set by the Marine Science Panel, with slight variations. Further, at the March 5 - 6, 2003 G B / P S ITF meeting I  49  observed that the Task Force discussed future directions and tabled a draft framework for review o f Marine Science Panel Recommendations (See Appendix C ) . Also, using categorical aggregation I made use o f a table to determine the number o f times issues were raised at the four G B / P S ITF meetings (See Appendix B ) . Primarily to accommodate some o f these observations I added the new attribute "Accommodate issue change over time" to Table 3.  4.2.3 Interviews In addition to five formal interviews (see Table 2) (see Appendix C for details) I had many informal and informative discussions, particularly with representatives attending G B / P S ITF and Transboundary Environmental Indicator Work Group meetings. These informal interactions facilitated my understanding o f regime structure and process.  Selection of interviewees The objective o f the interviews was to sample viewpoints from representatives o f the four different  governance  institutional  dimensions,  with  emphasis  on  the  international/transnational dimension. I therefore selected the first two because they had been involved in the 1992 British Columbia/Washington State Cooperative Agreement; exB C Premier M i k e Harcourt from the political perspective in B . C . and Carol Jolly from the political/bureaucratic viewpoint in Washington State. These two represent both the international/transnational and state dimensions o f governance. The third interviewee, Hugh Kellas o f the Greater Vancouver Regional District, was selected as representing the state dimension o f governance, but at a local, metropolitan level. The fourth, B e v Scorey o f the Cascadia Project was selected as representing transnational market-economy, and the fifth, David Marshall o f the Fraser Basin Council as representing environmental civil society.  How the interviews were performed The interviews were structured according to a list o f nine questions structured on a protocol format from the qualitative research literature (Cresswell 1998) (see Appendix C ) . Questions were approved by the U B C Ethical Review Committee and sent to the interviewees in advance. Consent was given for all the interviews. T w o o f the interviews were by telephone. T w o were conducted face to face in the offices o f the interviewees.  50  Three of the interviews were audiotaped. One suffered technical failure. One was by e-mail only referring to documentation that was e-mailed to me. I simultaneously took handwritten notes of four interviews to highlight the points being made and to ensure against technical failure. Interviews were conducted conversationally to allow the interviewee to expand on the questions as he or she saw fit. Most, but not all of the interviewees covered all of the questions. One could not spare enough time to answer all questions and confined the discussion to generalities. Another stuck strictly to the questions and did not elaborate much. One simply referred me to documentation that was then e-mailed to me. Other interviewees answered certain questions at length while glossing over others. The main advantages of this conversational approach were that interviewees felt they could say as much or as little as they wanted. The disadvantage is that some information may have been missed due to time constraints or reluctance to reveal it. Inconsistencies of response necessitated narratives rather than direct comparisons of answers to the same questions. Table 2: List of Interviewees  Interviewee  Position  Method  Mike Harcourt  Previous premier of B.C.  Telephone  Carol Jolly  Executive Policy Coordinator, Washington  Telephone  State Governor's Office. Previously Special Assistant to the Director of Washington State Dept. of Ecology  HughKellas  Manager, Policy & Planning, G V R D  Face to face  Bev Scorey  Executive Director, The Cascadia Institute  E-mail  David Marshall  Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council  Face to face  51  Use of interviews in this research Interviews i n Appendix C were helpful in the evolution o f the framework by suggesting additional attributes. For example, M i k e Harcourt in interview stated that the original idea for the G B / P S cross-border initiative came from planner-trained, Oak Bay M L A Elizabeth Cole in the late 1980s. The ecological problem was seen to be an international ecosystem with a very difficult geography coming under enormous population pressure that needed holistic consideration. When Harcourt became B C premier he then approached Washington State Governor Booth Gardner resulting i n the 1992 BC/Washington Environmental Cooperation Agreement (Harcourt 2004). Further, Carol Jolly i n interview asserted that in the creation o f the E C C there was no binding legislation or formal governmental authority involved and that cooperation has lapsed due to the B C Government's lack o f commitment (Jolly 2005). From these interviews and similar comments about B C changes to environmental ministries that I observed at the G B / P S ITF meeting o f November 28 - 29, 2001 (Carruthers 2001), I added the attribute o f "Political support, continuity, memory" to the framework in Table 3. Interviews in Appendix C contributed to the thesis by supporting the hypothesis that collaborative  planning  could  improve  international/transnational  environmental  governance. For example, David Marshall, Executive Director o f the Fraser Basin Council, when asked: what potential bridges exist to facilitate improvement of collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the GB/PS? replied "Learn from the Fraser Basin Council ( F B C ) model". The F B C model "is an N G O " that is "exporting its collaborative model, works province-wide, has 36 board members all treated equally,' includes government arid private industry, uses consensus to bring people together, for example to solve the Britannia Beach pollution problem" (Marshall 2005). Hugh Kellas' interview  also  supported  collaborative  planning  for  international/transnational  environmental governance by considering that "dialogue" (collaboration) appears to be the only way to address international cross-border issues such as the proposed Sumas II power plant. H e also observed that the Fraser Basin Council "has huge collaborative experience" and that it would be interesting to see how they would work across an international boundary (Kellas 2005).  (  52  Interviews in Appendix C also contributed to the thesis in general by indicating that international/transnational governance regimes need improvement, whilemost governance efforts are domestic in focus. For example, Carol Jolly observed that the BCAVashington Environmental Cooperation Agreement has faltered because o f reduced commitment by the B C Government (Jolly 2005). Another example is that Hugh Kellas noted that "the G V R D only meets with Whatcom County in Washinton State regarding air quality, while most [international] cross-boundary work is done by the federal government". A third example is David Marshall's Fraser Basin Council, which, despite early international transboundary collaboration with the Puget Sound Action Team on water quality in 1998 (Puget Sound / Georgia Basin International Task Force 1998), present commitment is confined to domestic pursuits within B C only (Marshall 2005).  4.2.4 Document review Documentary information is relevant for any case study or illustrative example. These include  communications,  memoranda,  agendas,  meeting  minutes,  administrative  documents, progress reports, internal documents, other studies o f the same site and news clippings and other media articles. Such sources may not necessarily be accurate or unbiased, but for case studies they are most important to confirm or support evidence from other sources. They can be used to verify spellings, titles or names suggested in interviews; provide details supporting or contradicting other sources, perhaps suggesting further research or inferences to possibly pursue. Therefore documents have overall value in data collection for any case study ( Y i n 1989) (see Appendix D for details o f E C C document review).  Use of documents in this research Many documents are used in this research to support observations and interviews to (1) understand the institutional structure o f the international/transnational regimes operating in the G B / P S ; (2) determine the formal and informal processes involved in their operation and; (3) issues and problems o f both structure and process requiring collaboration, particularly related to horizontal and vertical coordination between regimes, as well as to consensus building within, and compliance with, regimes. Some documents were in draft or  53  unpublished form, and so could not be quoted and could only be generally reported on. A few documents, such as some proceedings o f meetings were not available. Documents were helpful in the evolution o f the framework by suggesting additional attributes. For example documents revealed that the E C C on December 1, 1994 directed the G B / P S ITF to broaden "the scope o f participation beyond government agencies to include representatives from local government, non-governmental organizations, aboriginal or tribal organizations, industry and other interested parties as appropriate"(British Columbia/ Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council 1995b). However by 2001, the G B / P S I T F membership list indicated that only Tribes and First Nations had been added (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force November 2001 (Meeting handout)). Because o f this documentation and because successful collaborative planning should be inclusive, I added the "membership" attribute to accommodate the relevant data in Table 3. A second example is the requirement in the BC/Washington Environmental Initiative ( E C C ) Terms o f Reference document requiring an annual report from the E C C to the B C premier and the Washington State governor (British Columbia and Washington State 92), and the use o f "reporting structure" in the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Ecosystem Indicators Working Group terms o f reference (Environment Canada et al 2003). Because o f this documentation, as well as the observation by Alley (1998) in the example-specific literature that "it was very important to the [ E C C ] initiative that the mandate began directly with the premier and the governor, and that the council reports directly to them" (Alley 1998), I added the "reporting structure" attribute to Table 3.  4.3 Data reduction and analysis Y i n (1984) recommends that for case study analysis, which I extend to include illustrative examples, a general strategy based on theoretical propositions or a basic descriptive framework be adopted to reduce potential analytic difficulties. Accordingly, I use this research to support theoretical propositions as outlined above in the analytical governance framework in Figure 2; that is, I hypothesize that using collaborative planning as a policy form o f governance would improve the coordination required to mitigate the shortcomings o f first, inadequate horizontal coordination between international/transnational regimes; second, inadequate vertical coordination between international/transnational regimes and  54  bottom-up regional and local programs, and third, lack o f compliance with, and consensus within,  international/transnational regimes. I assert that coordination of, and compliance  with international/transnational institutions/regimes requires collaborative planning to agree on purpose, process/protocol, values, information exchange, policy and evaluation. Within a general strategy, Y i n (1984) recommends that every case study (or illustrative example) consider three dominant analytical techniques, pattern-matching, explanationbuilding and time-series analysis. Pattern-matching compares an empirically-based pattern with one or more alternative predicted patterns. The goal o f explanation building is to analyze the data by developing an explanation o f the case; that is, to specify causal links for it, usually in narrative form. Time-series analysis, or tracing changes over time is a major advantage o f case studies and chronology is a special form o f time-series analysis ( Y i n 1989). I use pattern-matching by comparing the empirically-based analytical framework in Table 3 to patterns predicted by the theoretical Table 1; I utilize explanation-building in Chapter 5 to discuss the observations in Table 3 and the strength and weaknesses o f the theoretical analytical collaborative planning framework in Table 1. I use time-series analysis by discussing changes in the illustrative examples over time.  For Cresswell (1998), case study analysis amounts primarily to a detailed description o f the case and its setting. For the temporal dimension o f the case as a chronology o f events, I proceed by analysis o f the various data sources to substantiate evolutionary phases o f the illustrative governance  examples and their setting. The information is analyzed to  understand how the illustrative examples o f the E C C and G B / P S I T F transboundary governance process fit into the setting o f the transboundary G B / P S (Cresswell 1998). In addition Cresswell (1998) refers to Stake's (1995) advocacy o f four forms o f analysis and interpretation  for case study. research:  (1) categorical aggregation;  (2) direct  interpretation; (3) patterns; and (4) naturalistic generalizations, as well as Cresswell's own recommended detailed description o f the 'facts' o f the case. Categorical aggregation involves reviewing a series o f instances, hoping to capture issue-related meanings. Direct interpretation involves examining a single instance for meaning; deconstructing and reassembling more meaningfully. Establishing patterns involves seeking correspondence  55  between at least two categories. Naturalistic generalization involves generalizing lessons from the data to apply to other cases. Description involves developing a detailed view of the 'facts' of the case: events, major players, sites and activities (Cresswell 1998). I apply these forms of analysis to the study as follows. I use categorical aggregation in attending four GB/PS ITF meetings and then in reviewing their results to capture issuerelated meanings. I use direct interpretation to examine for meaning single interviews with representatives of specific dimensions of governance. I use establishing patterns to seek instances of horizontal linkages between categories of governance regimes and vertical connections between two categories of nested governance institutions: the E C C and the GB/PS ITF. I refer to naturalistic generalization in anticipation of extending lessons from the GB/PS to apply to other transboundary marine estuary cases (see Chapter 6: Recommendations for Future Research). Table 3 below illustrates application of the theoretical analytical framework in Table 1 to assessment of collaborative planning in the illustrative examples of the E C C and the GB/PS ITF as international/transnational governance regimes. As in Table 1, the Table 3 column headings represent the three shortcomings of international/transnational regimes and the row titles represent attributes considered necessary for effective collaborative planning. The order of attributes has been changed and new attributes have been added in response to empirical observation, illustrating iterative development of the analytical framework. Table 3: Analytical framework applied to assess collaborative planning in the E C C and the G B / P S ITF  1) Regime Issues (added for clarification)  Horizontal Coordination between international / transnational regimes  Vertical Coordination between international / transnational regimes  Regimes are piecemeal or issue-specific with overlaps, or gaps between that may conflict or reinforce each other. One weakness of this horizontal governance structure is an underdeveloped ability to coordinate efforts and identify links (Young 1999a). In the illustrative example, "Failure [to  Regimes are arrangements created and administered from the top down. Their effectiveness will largely reflect the extent to which they complement bottomup local or regional arrangements regarding similar issues (Young 1999a).  Consensus within or Compliance with international / transnational regimes  Although regimes may be regulatory, procedural, programmatic or  generative, compliance is the central issue only in regulatory regimes. Regimes may or may not be legally binding, and often assign important roles to non-state actors. There is no over-arching authority to facilitate or  56  Horizontal Coordination between international / transnational regimes  2)Vaiues (previously #3)  3) Purpose, scope and responsibilities (previously #1 Purpose)  protect joint marine resources of BC and Washington State] may be the result of fragmented authority and overlapping responsibility of federal, state/provincial, and regional agencies for marine resource protection" (British Columbia/Washington Marine Science Panel, 1994). BC/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council (ECC) values were established in the 1992 Environmental Cooperation Agreement (British Columbia and Washington State 1992). The ECC collaborates horizontally with the economically -oriented Cascadia Project /Discovery Institute, eg. regarding the BC/Washington Corridor Task Force (Cascadia Institute 2002) and Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER), but environmental values may complement but conflict with, their economic values and vision (Blatter 2000, Alper 2005, Artibise 2005).  The Environmental Cooperation Agreement established the purpose and scope of the ECC. The ECC collaborates horizontally with the Cascadia Project /Discovery Institute (Cascadia Institute 2002) and with the Pacific Northwest Economic  Vertical Coordination between international / transnational regimes  Consensus within or Compliance with international/ transnational regimes enforce consensus within, or compliance with regimes. >  The ECC collaborates upward with overarching international and national regimes: the International Joint Commission (IJC), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)/ North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), Environment Canada and the US E P A The ECC also shares values, and collaborates vertically with its five environmental issuespecific task force regimes and their subsidiary bottom-up work groups. One of these task forces is the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound International Task Force (GB/PS ITF). Such vertical collaboration ensures that top-down values complement bottomup values pertaining to the same issues.  Compliance with preestablished ECC values is assumed and no new collaborative planning is required for this except for interpretation in specific cases. If the 1992 Cooperation Agreement is no longer respected, parties may agree to disband it. Then more collaborative planning would be required in its absence or to reach a new agreement.  Environment Canada & EPA sit as ECC observers to coordinate upward vertical consistency of purpose with federal regimes. The ECC created the Marine Science Panel (MSP) to provide scientific purpose downward, and it then created the GB/PS ITF to implement MSP intent.  Compliance with its purpose by the ECC is assumed and no new collaborative planning is required there except for interpretation in specific cases. However the ECC Marine Science Panel set the original purpose of the GB/PS ITF, and in its reporting to the ECC, the  57  4) Powers,  Process and protocols (previously #2 Process and Protocols)  5) Membership (new)  Horizontal Coordination between international / transnational regimes  Vertical Coordination between international / transnational regimes  Consensus within or Compliance with international / transnational regimes  Region (PNWER), but environmental purpose may complement but conflict with, their economic purpose (Blatter 2000;Alper 2005; Artibise 2005). The GB/PS ITF purpose is set by the E C C , and one such purpose is to act as the principal means of horizontal coordinating of purposes by collaboration with agencies, stakeholders or interested parties (British Columbia/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council 2003). Powers, process and protocols for collaboration between the two lead E C C agencies, one ministry and one state, and for the E C C itself have been agreed upon in the 1996 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Environmental Cooperation including horizontal collaboration and dispute resolution (British Columbia and Washington State 96a).  The GB/PS ITF in turn creates and collaborates downward with its work groups for specific purposes and with other lower scale regimes such as the Transboundary Environmental Indicators Work Group to ensure topdown purpose coordinates with bottom-up programs about the same issues.  GB/PS ITF purpose has been reviewed and varied over time, making compliance unclear. Also, some E C C directives to the GB/PS ITF, such as the request to have all joint working groups have not been implemented due to bottom up implementation difficulties.  Powers, process and protocols for collaboration between the two lead E C C agencies, one ministry and one state, and for the E C C itself have been agreed upon in the 1996 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Environmental Cooperation including vertical collaboration and dispute resolution (British Columbia and Washington State 96a).  Powers, process and protocols for collaboration between the two lead E C C agencies, one ministry and one state, and for the E C C itself have been agreed upon in the 1996 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Environmental Cooperation including dispute resolution for compliance (British Columbia and Washington State 96a).  GB/PS ITF powers, process and protocols have been set in its 1996 Terms of Reference, including general horizontal coordination instructions (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force 1996).  GB/PS ITF powers, process and protocols have been set in its 1996 Terms of Reference, including vertical coordination instructi ons(Pugct Sound/ Georgia Basin International Task Force 1996).  The E C C is not a regulatory regime so cannot enforce compliance, and so must depend on collaboration to resolve issues.  E C C membership was agreed upon in the 1996 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Environmental Cooperation and is  No local government, market-economy or civil society groups are J represented as members for vertical collaboration. However, the E C C  The E C C on December 1, 1994 directed the GB/PS ITF to broaden "the scope of participation beyond government agencies to include representatives  58  Horizontal Coordination between international / transnational regimes  Vertical Coordination between international / transnational regimes  confined to the following: Co-chairs are the BC deputy minister of Water, Land & Air Protection (now Environment) and the director, Washington Department of Ecology. Members are the regional director-general, Environment Canada Pacific Yukon Region; and the regional ad'ministrator, US Environmental Protection Agency Region 10(Maxwell 2006). No local government, marketeconomy or civil society groups are represented as members for horizontal collaboratioa Such collaboration must be pursued beyond the regime.  coordinates and vertically collaborates with its five member task forces(British Columbia / Washington Environmental Cooperation Council 1994a), some of which include local governments as well as universities.  GB/PS ITF membership is most recently (November 2001) composed almost exclusively of governmental agencies, except for Coast Salish Sea Council, a First Nations/ Tribal civil society organization. No marketeconomy or other civil society regimes are represented as members for horizontal collaboration(Puget Sound / Georgia Basin International Task Force November 2001(Meeting handout)). The ECC on December 1, 1994 directed the task ; forc6 to broaden "the scope of participation beyond government agencies to include representatives from local government, non-governmental organizations, aboriginal or tribal organizations,  For GB/PS ITF membership, no marketeconomy or other civil society regimes are represented as members for verticalcollaboration (Puget Sound / Georgia Basin International Task Force November 2001(Meeting handout)).  Consensus within or Compliance with international / transnational regimes from local government, non-governmental organizations, aboriginal or tribal organizations, industry and other interested parties as appropriate"(British Columbia / Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council 1995b). However by 2001 only Tribes and First Nations have been added and they do not always attend. The ECC is not a regulatory regime so cannot enforce GB/PS ITF compliance, so must depend on collaboration to resolve such issues.  59  Horizontal Coordination between international / transnational regimes  6) Policy and program coordination (previously #5 Policy)  industry and other interested parties as appropriate" (British Columbia/Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council 1995b). However by 2001 only Tribes and First Nations had been added and they do not always attend. The ECC collaborates horizontally with other institutions to agree on arrangements for actors in different regimes to make collective choices regarding policy in the different issue areas covered by the regimes being coordinated. For example, the ECC collaborates horizontally with strong work linkages regarding the GB/PS to parties implementing the 1994 BC/Washington Growth Management Accord (British Columbia/ Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council 1995b) (British Columbia and Washington State 1994). The ECC collaborates horizontally with Cascadia Project /Discovery Institute; for example, regarding the BC/Washington Corridor Task Force (Cascadia Institute 2002) and the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER), but ECC environmental policies may complement but conflict with, PNWER economic policies (Blatter 2000, Alper 2005, Artibise 2005)  Vertical Coordination between international / transnational regimes  Consensus within or Compliance with international / transnational regimes  The ECC collaborates upward with overarching international and national regimes: the International Joint Commission (IJC), the N AFT A/North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), Environment Canada and the US EPA, to ensure policy coordination. The ECC also shares policies, and collaborates downward with its five issue-specific task force regimes and their subsidiary bottom-up work groups. One of these task forces is the GB/PS ITF. Such vertical collaboration attempts to ensure that topdown policies complement bottom-up policies pertaining to the same issues. The GB/PS ITF creates and collaborates downward with work groups for specific purposes and with other lower scale regimes such as the Transboundary Indicators Work Group to ensure that top-down policy coordinates with bottom-up programs about similar issues. For example, on June 9, 1995 the GB/PS ITF reported that for time and efficiency, it had developed parallel working groups for certain issue  Although neither the ECC nor the GBPS ITF are regulatory regimes, they do collaborate to ensure that their policies comply with international law and/or previous agreements. The ECC and the GB/PS ITF are primarily procedural, programmatic or generative regimes, so that they must depend on collaboration to agree on policy. In the case of the parallel working groups policy they apparently remain at odds.  60  Horizontal Coordination between international / transnational regimes  7) Information exchange (Previously #4)  Part of the ECC purpose is information exchange on environmental matters of mutual concern between BC and Washington State (British Columbia and Washington State 92;British Columbia and Washington State 96a;British Columbia and Washington State 2001a). The GB/PS ITF collaborates horizontally to exchange information with other institutions; for example, with the business-oriented Cascadia Project /Discovery Institute (Cascadia Institute 2002) and the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) (Blatter , 2000;Alper 2005;Artibise 2005). One of the GB/PS ITF tasks is "to promote and coordinate mutual efforts [that is, collaborate] to ensure the protection, conservation and enhancement of the shared inland marine environment" to "[fjacilitate exchange of technical data/information  Vertical Coordination between international / transnational regimes areas in BC and Washington. The ECC expressed concern that such parallel work groups contradicted the ECC's efforts to facilitate bilateral approaches to the shared GB/PS waters British Columbia / Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council 1995b). Nevertheless, the GB/PS ITF has continued to use these parallel work groups, reflecting a bottomup approach. 03ritish Columbia and Washington State 2001a) The ECC collaborates upward to exchange information with the BC premier and the Washington governor. The ECC also receives information vertically regarding related work by the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) established under NAFTA (British Columbia / Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council 1996). The ECC also shares information, and collaborates downward with its five issue-specific task force regimes and their subsidiary bottom-up work groups. One of these task forces is the GB/PS ITF. Such vertical collaboration ensures that top-down information complements bottom-up information pertaining to the same issues. Vertical collaboration for information exchange  Consensus within or Compliance with international / transnational regimes  (British Columbia and Washington State 2001a) As the ECC is not a regulatory regime it cannot enforce compliance. Therefore it depends upon collaboration to facilitate compliance with, or consensus within its jurisdictions. For example, the ECC facilitates internal collaboration horizontally at regular meetings between its two component jurisdictions. One subject of such collaboration is information exchange about the differences and similarities in the two jurisdictions and about how environmental protection responsibilities are delegated and divided (Maxwell 2005)  61  8) Reporting Structure (New)  Horizontal Coordination between international / transnational regimes  Vertical Coordination between international / transnational regimes  across the border on issues related to management of the shared waters" (British Columbia and Washington State 96b). One way the GB/PS ITF does this is by collaborating horizontally with the independent GB/PS Transboundary Environmental Indicators Working Group, to understand agreement on common units of measurement or translate different units for mutual underetanding, such as to relate amounts of solid waste in metric in Canada to imperial in the US (Transboundary Georgia Basin- Puget Sound Environmental Indicators Working Group 2002), or to compare different effects of the Canadian Species at Risk Act and the US Endangered Species Act. (British Columbia and Washington State 2001b). One information problem involving horizontal collaboration identified by GB/PS ITF members is that the ECC needs broader public visibility, that few people attend ECC or GB/PS ITF meetings (British Columbia and Washington State 1998).  between ECC and its task forces was disrupted when the ECC did not meet between October 1996 and October 1998 because BC suspended its participation in June 1997 due to slow progress in Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations (British Columbia and Washington State 1998) (British Columbia / Washington Environmental Cooperation Council 1998). The GB/PS ITF also receives information vertically about the broader activities of such organizations as the Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (British Columbia and Washington State 1998).-  Reporting structure was established by the 1992 BC/ Washington Environmental Cooperation Agreement. The ECC regime collaborates upward by regular reporting to the premier of BC and the Governor of Washington State (British Columbia and Washington State 92). The ECC also collaborates  Consensus within or Compliance with international / transnational regimes  62 Horizontal Coordination between international / transnational regimes  9) Accommodate issue change over time (New)  Major ECC issues areas have remained remarkably unchanged. There are still five task forces representing five priority areas defined in 1994. In 1993 the ECC formed the GB/PS ITF and selected the 6-member transboundary Marine Science Panel (MSP). In 1994 the ECC asked the MSP and the GB/PS ITF to collaborate horizontally to convene a transboundary science symposium in 1994, supplemented by written submissions and interviews. On this basis the ECC instructed the MSP to produce an independent scientific report with recommendations (British Columbia/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council 1994a). The ECC then directed the GB/PS ITF to develop actions to implement the MSP recommendations (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force 2000).  Vertical Coordination between international / transnational regimes downward by receiving regular reports from its five task forces including the GB/PS ITF based on high priority transboundary environmental issues (British Columbia and Washington State 92). The GB/PS ITF collaborated upward by reprioriuzing the MSP recommendations. GB/PS ITF environmental issues have generally remained constant over time. For example, establishing marine protected areas was always a high MSP priority and the task force has recently been requested to support the transboundary Orca Pass International Stewardship Area promoted by the Sounds and Straits Coalition originally composed of the Georgia Strait Alliance and the People for Puget Sound, but more recently supported by many other groups (Sato 2001). However, recently there has been some reluctance by First Nations and US Tribes to support designation of MSP areas. From time to time the GB/PS ITF has requested the ECC to review and clarify GB/PS ITF priorities. At its October 2005 meeting the ECC approved the GB/PS ITF proposal to focus on marine protected areas, exotic species, (both long-term high priority) toxic waste (long-term medium priority) and orca recovery (a relatively new item primarily related to the high priority protection of  Consensus within or Compliance with international / transnational regimes  63  Horizontal Coordination between international / transnational regimes  10) Evaluation (previously #6)  There is no indication that either the ECC or the GB/PS ITF collaborate horizontally with other economically-oriented transboundary regimes such as the Cascadia Institute/Discovery Project or the PNWER to agree on arrangements for evaluation of effectiveness of different regimes in addressing problems in their respective issue areas, including procedures for conflict resolution and to overcome power differentials.  Vertical Coordination between international / transnational regimes  marine life as well as medium priority control of toxic waste) (Maxwell 2005). ECC collaborates vertically with the BC/Washington Transboundary Ecological Indicators Work Group presumably to fulfill Marine Science Panel's 1994 recommendation that such indicators should be used for evaluating the state of the environment as well as regime effectiveness. However the Indicators Group was initiated and funded not by the ECC or GB/PS ITF but independently in 1999 by six Canadian and US federal, provincial and state government agencies. The Indicators Group's second cycle in 2004 was also initiated and funded separately. Vertical collaboration proceeded as follows. Terms of reference were set by the six founding institutions in 2003 (Environment Canada et al 2003); then the work plan was developed bottom up by the work group and approved top down by the founders. Finally, the draft Indicators report was circulated for top down evaluation by the founding institutions before publishing in late 2006. What remains to be done with evaluation is to use the indicators as originally intended by the Marine Science Panel for state of the environment reporting to determine whether marine water quality has actually improved since the early 1990s. Such a j  Consensus within or Compliance with international / transnational regimes  There is no indication that the ECC or the GB/ITF collaborate with other institutions to agree on arrangements for evaluation of compliance of different regimes, or whether they collaborate internally to agree on evaluation procedures.  64  Horizontal Coordination between international / transnational regimes  11) Funding (New)  The ECC has no special funding and must make use of existing resources, requiring horizontal collaboration between the two lead ECC provincial/state agencies to ensure that they fairly share resources to support the ECC. The GB/PS ITF also operates using existing funds and staff from various institutions that "work from the corner of their desks" (Maxwell 2005). GB/PS ITF members at meetings collaborate horizontally among themselves as well as with representatives of various other regimes and individual actors. However even such normal collaboration can be limited by lack of funding; for example, travel to GB/PS ITF meetings was restricted when the BC Government restructured and downsized the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in 2001 (British Columbia and Washington State 2002).  Vertical Coordination between international / transnational regimes positivefindingwould suggest, but not conclusively prove the effectiveness of the GB/PS ITF regime, as improvements might be otherwise explained. There is no indication that the ECC or the GB/PS ITF has procedures for conflict resolution or to overcome top-down hegemony. The dependence of the two ECC lead agencies upon existing funding makes them vulnerable to restructuring and cutbacks vertically from above, as happened to BC Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks after the 2001 election (British Columbia and Washington State 2001b). Alternatively, vertical collaboration upward might generate more funding from above. The GB/PS ITF appears to have been under funded from the top down at least since 1999 as indicated by the fact that the website has not been updated since and complete meeting minutes have not been available (British Columbia and Washington State 1999). This "challenge" of "limited resources" was recently presented by the GB/PS ITF to the ECC at the October 28, 2005 ECC meeting (Maxwell 2005). Also, initiation and funding for both cycles of the , Indicators Working Group since 1999 has not come through either the ECC or the GB/PS ITF, but independently through federal, provincial and state  Consensus within or Compliance with international/ transnational regimes  When downsizing and cutbacks are imposed on one side or the other disproportionately, there is no superior authority that can enforce equity. Compliance must depend upon collaboration between the two lead agencies, the premier and the governor or pressure from civil society groups. The consequences of no special ECC or GB/PS ITF funding on compliance are evident in the case of the ecological indicators recommended by the Marine Science Panel for development in 1994. Work on these was not initiated until 1999, and even then not by the responsible regime, the GB/PS ITF, but by a new, separate regime composed of national, provincial and state government agencies. In response to the GB/PS ITF recommendation at the Dec. 1,1994 ECC meeting that both BC and Washington hire a staff person to plan for implementation of the Marine Science Panel's report, the EPA funded a position and the Environment Canada Georgia Basin Action  65  Horizontal Coordination between international / transnational regimes  Vertical Coordination between international / transnational regimes agencies. Because such indicators work was first recommended by the Marine Science Council, such work and funding would be expected to have come through the ECC or GB/PS ITF.  12) Political support, continuity, memory (New)  Horizontal collaboration by the ECC and by the GB/PS ITF has been substantially affected by political support, continuity and memory. The GB/PS ITF has met since 1992. Since then the GB/PS ITF has been regularly attended by the same person who has also served as the Washington co-chair since 1999. Political support has varied during this period, particularly from the BC side, where the BC cochair, responsible ministry and its mandate have changed a number of times.  Vertical collaboration by the ECC and by the GB/PS ITF has been substantially affected by political support, continuity and memory. For the ECC, strong political support was originally provided by the founding premier and governor, but has varied substantially since. One comparative weakness appears to exist on the BC side where the deputy minister, a staff member, reports to the premier, whereas in Washington, the director of Ecology is appointed politically by the governor, and reports to the governor. Regarding continuity, the ECC has met regularly since October 1992, interrupted only by the BC government's withdrawing political support between June 1997 and October 1998. Also, although administrators have changed, ECC meeting proceedings have been well recorded and remain posted on the web site, partly substituting for lack of continuity of staff and memory. The GB/PS ITF has met since 1992 and also since  Consensus within or Compliance with international / transnational regimes Plan funded a position for one year as well. However the BC Deputy Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks also noted "that there would almost certainly be no new funding available" (British Columbia/Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council 1995a) Compliance with the ECC as well as internal agreement may have been affected by variations in political support, continuity and memory.  66  Horizontal Coordination between international / transnational regimes  Vertical Coordination between international / transnational regimes  Consensus within or Compliance with international / transnational regimes  then has been regularly attended by the person who has also been the Washington co-chair since 1999. Political support has varied during this period. The GB/PS ITF appears to have been under-supported politically from the top down since 1999 as indicated by the fact that the website has not been updated since then and complete meeting minutes have not been available (British Columbia and Washington State 1999).  4.4 Summary In Chapter 4, I answer the third research sub-question: How may collaborative planning theory be applied in an international or transnational situation to assess the governance process? To do this I test the theoretical analytical governance framework in Table 1 by applying it to assess collaborative planning in illustrative examples o f existing subnational international and transnational environmental governance regimes within the G B / P S international region: the E C C and one o f its five task forces, the G B / P S ITF. I gather data about the illustrative examples from literature, observations, interviews and documents and test the theoretical framework by structuring the data according to how it corresponds to the theoretical attributes in the rows o f Table 1, how the data modifies those attributes, and how  it  illustrates  the  three  endemic  shortcomings  of  international/transnational  environmental regimes indicated by the columns in Table 1: first, inadequate horizontal coordination o f policy between international/transnational environmental regimes; second, inadequate vertical coordination o f policy between international/transnational regimes and bottom-up regional and local programs, and third, lack o f compliance with, and consensus within, international/transnational environmental regimes.  67  I find that the theoretical analytical framework in Table 1 has to be modified to accept the data, in that the attributes in the rows are reordered as well as added to, resulting in the revised Table 3: R o w 1 changes from Purpose to Regime issues, a new attribute; R o w 2 changes from Process and protocols to Values, previously #3; R o w 3 changes from Values to Purpose, scope and responsibilities, expanded from Purpose, previously #1; R o w 4 changes from Information exchange to Powers, process and protocols, expanded from Process and protocols previously #2; R o w 5 changes from Policy to Membership, a new category; R o w 6, Evaluation, changes to Policy and program coordination, previously #5 Policy; R o w 7, Information exchange, was previously #4; R o w 8, Reporting structure, is new; R o w 9, Accommodate issue change over time, is new; R o w 10, Evaluation, was previously #6; R o w 11, Funding, is new; and R o w 12, Political support, continuity, memory is new. The columns remain unchanged from Table 1.  Assessment of primary data sources and contribution to objectives Again, the objectives are: •  T o answer the fundamental research question: in what ways, i f any, can collaborative  planning  assist  in  mitigating  international  transboundary  environmental issues; that is, those that affect the natural and social systems in more than one nation-state? •  T o contribute to collaborative planning knowledge by creating an analytical framework  for assessing how collaborative planning can assist i n mitigating  international transboundary environmental issues. •  T o address mitigation o f G B / P S transboundary environmental issues.  A s data sources contributing to the objectives, I find the literature and documents to be the most informative, primarily because they are comparatively complete and provide much o f the information, particularly for the E C C . Observations at meetings are second in contribution value, because even though the information they provide is more ad hoc than documented information, it is supplemented by intangibles such as informal Conversations and body language. For the G B / P S ITF, meeting observations are the most useful because  68  its documentation is more limited than for the ECC. I find the interviews provide the least contribution, and are not as relevant as they could have been or potentially more useful because for a number of legitimate reasons, the interviewees did not understand my concept and working definition of collaborative planning in an international transboundary context. With no advance coaching, the interviewees were simply and understandably responding to the activities of their respective institutions that might relate to planning, coordination and/or governance. The reason the results are reported with minimum reference to Appendix C is that the interviews did not address the issues that I had identified as the «. dissertation's objectives. Another reason the interviews were of limited use is that my interpretation of the Behavioural Ethics Research Board approval process was too restrictive. That is, I mistakenly assumed that the questions were not as useful as they could have been because they had to be formulated too early to be pointed and were vetted in advance by the Board. However in retrospect, I should have corrected for this by revisiting the Ethics approval process as the research progressed. However, in addition to formal interviews, I talked to a number of people informally that I considered as experts able to answer specific questions important to the illustrative examples. Because the work is a synthesis of the literature and documentation, I decided who could answer specific questions and solicit expert information on discrete issues, but not about the whole illustrative example. The research illustrated in Table 3 leads to Chapter 5, where I analyze the data in the table to determine its reliability and the strengths and weaknesses of the theoretical framework in Table 1.  69  C H A P T E R 5:  RELIABILITY  O FTHE DATA, ANALYSIS AND  INTERPRETATION  5.1 Introduction In Chapter 5, I first evaluate the content and reliability of the data, then discuss, analyze and interpret what the findings from the illustrative example in Table 3 indicate about the strengths and weaknesses of the theoretical analytical collaborative planningframeworkin Table 1 and what the framework can potentially contribute to answering the sub-research questions and basic question: in what ways, if any, can collaborative planning assist in resolving or managing transboundary environmental issues; that is, those that affect more ; than one nation-state? as well as theframework'spotential application.  5.2 Data content and reliability evaluation I use Table 4 below to evaluate the content and reliability of the data. To accomplish this T utilize a number of categories of activities: data collection; data reduction; data display; data analysis; drawing conclusions and verification; and research limitations. Under these activities^ discuss techniques and their advantages and/or disadvantages. Table 4 : A d v a n t a g e s a n d d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f m e t h o d s u s e d  Techniques Data collection  Advantages/Disadvantages  Literature review  Advantageous in encapsulating extensive history of the illustrative governance examples and their setting. Disadvantageous in being several years out of date.  Observations  Advantageous in providing empirical information in the absence of written minutes for the GB/PS ITF, permitting informal conversations and adding intangibles such as body language etc. Disadvantageous in providing only piecemeal and "snapshot" information devoid of history.  Interviews  The main advantage of the conversational approach to interviews was that interviewees  70 Techniques  .  Data reduction  Datadisplay  Data analysis  . « I  Advantages/Disadvantages felt they could say as much or as little as they wanted, despite the formal prescribed questions. The disadvantage is that some information may have been missed due to time constraints or reluctance to reveal it. Also, viewpoints expressed were comparatively narrow, sometimes conflicting, sometimes due to time or lack of analysis.  Document Review  Advantageous in providing relatively complete information particularly for ECC proceedings. Disadvantageous in being incomplete for GB/PS ITF proceedings.  General strategy (theoretical propositions regarding regime shortcomings and attributes)  Advantageous in providing an analytical framework against which to assess pertinent data. Disadvantageous in thus possibly causing inadvertent rejection of certain potentially relevant data.  Pattern matching  Advantageous in allowing comparison between empiricallybased Table 3 and theoretically predicted Table 1, resulting in modification of, and addition to number of regime attributes.  Time-series analysis  Advantageous in tracing changes in the illustrative examples over time.  Tables and figures  Advantageous in being able to show large amounts of data within a manageable context. Disadvantageous in lacking capacity for more complete discussion.  Appendices  Advantageous in providing certain details of, and insight into information gathered and used.  Categorical aggregation  Useful in reviewing observations of a large number of meetings to capture issue- related meanings.  71 Techniques  Conclusions and verification  Advantages/Disadvantages  Direct interpretation  Advantageous in examining single instance interviews with individual representatives of specific governance institutions  Establishing patterns  Advantageous in determining instances of horizontal linkages between environmental and economic categories of governance regimes and vertical connections between nested environmental governance regimes.  Naturalistic generalization  Useful in anticipation of possibly generalizing lessons from the GB/PS illustrative examples to apply to other international environmental marine estuary cases.  Explanation-building  Advantageous in the Chapter 5 discussion of observations in Table 3.  Identify data that answers research questions Research limitations  Was able to attend only two ECC meetings  Comparative disadvantage relative to personal observation, limited informal communication with participants and limited pattern establishment This was partially overcome by quite complete documentation on history of ECC.  GB/PS ITF meeting proceedings incomplete  Limited ability to construct coherent history of the GB/PS  Misinterpretation of the UBC Ethics Board approval process as being too restrictive. Process should have been revisited as research progressed.  Limited ability to pursue lines of questioning with interviewees.  nr.  72  5.3 Analysis and interpretation Here I discuss, analyze and interpret the data, structuring the argument according to Table 3: Analyticalframeworkapplied to assess collaborative planning in the ECC and GB/PS ITF, to show what problems the G B / P S international/transnational governance regimes have been dealing with, how they define these problems, how they have approached solving these problems procedurally^ what are the critical points in the process, what has worked and what has not, and how collaborative planning could assist these regimes to become more effective in future. I discuss what the findings from the illustrative example contribute to the analytical collaborative planning framework, the research questions, the argument  and the basic question above. Relevant attributes  transnational  governance  regimes  were  o f international and  hypothesized in the theoretical analytical  framework in Table 1. More attributes were added as a result o f application o f Table 1 to the illustrative example and were expressed in Table 3. In the process o f analyzing and interpreting the data content o f Table 3, I find that the theoretical framework has to be modified a second time to include two important new attributes: Cultural/social/political/legal context; and Outreach. Consequently the attributes in the rows are reordered as well as added to, resulting i n the revised order below: R o w 1 Issues, remains  unchanged;  R o w 2 changes  from  Values by the addition o f  Cultural/social/political/legal context, a new attribute; consequently, all subsequent attributes move down one priority level: thus R o w 3 changes from Purpose, scope and responsibilities to Values; R o w 4 changes from Powers, process and protocols to Purpose, scope and responsibilities; R o w 5 changes from Membership to Powers, process and protocols; R o w 6 changes from Policy and program coordination to Membership; R o w 7 changes from Information exchange to Policy andprogram coordination; R o w 8 changes from Reporting structure to Information exchange; R o w 9 changes from Accommodate issue change over time to Reporting structure; R o w 10 changes from Evaluation to Accommodate change over time; R o w 11 changes from Funding to Evaluation; R o w 12 changes from Political support, continuity, memory to Funding; R o w 13 becomes Political support, continuity, memory and R o w 14 becomes Outreach, a second newly added attribute.  73  5.3.1 Issues: The first attribute missing from the theoretical framework is a summary needed to further explain the three issues, or shortcomings regarding international and  transnational  governance regimes that the analytical framework and its application are designed to address. T o begin with, the E C C can be understood to be an international regime in that it includes subunits o f two sovereign states: Canada and the U S . However it can also be considered a transnational regime because its constituents are not sovereign states using a legal treaty agreement; instead they are substate entities: B C and Washington State working under a voluntary environmental cooperation agreement with no legal status. The G B / P S I f F, a creature o f the E C C , is also a transnational regime for similar reasons. First, illustrative o f the assertion that international/transnational regimes are primarily issue-specific, the E C C is an issue-specific regime i n that it focuses on environmental issues in contrast to the economics-oriented Cascadia Project/Discovery Institute or The Pacific Northwest Economic Region ( P N W E R ) transnational regimes (Alper 2005, Artibise 2005, Blatter 2000).  However, relative to its more specific environmental task forces  including the G B / P S ITF, the E C C is an umbrella regime, a convention that provides a joint forum for it's five nested protocols. Collaborative planning could assist the E C C to better coordinate these five nested regimes horizontally; for example, by connecting the air quality regime to the G B / P S water quality regime. The E C C could also use collaborative planning to coordinate the G B / P S I T F water quality regime with other  relevant  transnational regimes such as the 1994 BC/Washington Growth Management Agreement (British Columbia and Washington State 1994) or to the more specific domestic land use regimes based upon the B C L o c a l Government A c t and the Washington State Growth Management Act. Blatter (2003) contends.that while European cross-border subnational regions exhibit "clear-cut geographic" and "multi-sectoral" characteristics, North American cross-border subnational cooperative regions including the G B / P S follow more "the logic o f spaces o f flows", complementing the nation-state with "non-territorial polities" having specific policy purposes (Blatter 2003). The European spatially congruent regime model suggests that it would permit easier horizontal coordination than the North American model.  74 Second, illustrative o f the assertion that international/transnational regimes are primarily top-down arrangements, collaborative planning could assist the E C C regime to coordinate vertically with the bottom-up initiatives and problems o f any one o f its task force regimes. For example, while the E C C expressed a strong preference that the G B / P S ITF foster a transboundary ecosystem approach by forming international work groups right from the start, the G B / P S I T F instead, " i n the interest o f time and efficiency", created parallel sets o f provincial and state work groups for each o f its environmental issues, preferring to link them later, acting "as the communication and coordination mechanism" (British Columbia/ Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council 1995b). However, the G B / P S ITF continues to use two separate sets o f work groups. This suggests that the E C C has acquiesced in this matter, and that bottom-up collaborative planning has prevailed in this instance. The G B / P S I T F in turn acts as an umbrella to its own working groups. It also coordinates and collaborates vertically with other independent work groups such as the G B / P S civil society groups by providing them with a joint forum for horizontal collaboration. This suggests that although international/transnational regimes may be mainly piecemeal or issue-specific, this description is relative in the case o f nested regimes and artificially constructed for convenience o f thought. Continuing with the assertion that international/transnational regimes are  top-down  arrangements, the BC/Washington State E C C regime was indeed formed top-down by two sub-state entities. However, the E C C did not create all o f its  five  transboundary  environmental task forces. Three o f them were transboundary arrangements that pre-existed the 1992 formation o f the E C C : (1) the Nooksack River Flood Management Task Force was formed in January 1991; (2) the Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council was formed in 1991 by the U S E P A and the Washington State Department o f Ecology and included Environment Canada and the B C Ministry o f Environment on the council; (3) A i r quality protection technical information had been shared by the province and the state "for years" before 1992. Before the first E C C meeting in October 1, 1992, the province and the state and local governments developed joint monitoring and permitting approaches The E C C endorsed their recommendations (British Columbia Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council 1992). Therefore, I argue that the E C C was formed at least 50% in response to bottom-up local arrangements by "nesting" three pre-existing transboundary  75  regimes ("substantive  protocols") into an umbrella "framework convention" regime  (Young 1999a). According to regime theory, this coordination o f top-down with bottom-up arrangements would contribute to the effectiveness o f the E C C regime, at least at the outset. However, the G B / P S ITF was formed top-down by the E C C and is the only task force that must respond upward to a science panel (British Columbia and Washington State 1999). Third, regarding the assertion o f the need for facilitation o f consensus within and compliance with regimes, neither the E C C nor the G B / P S I T F is a regulatory regime. They are advisory and do not spell out rules to be followed so compliance is not their central concern. Instead, the E C C and the G B / P S ITF represent different-combinations o f a procedural regime "to provide mechanisms that allow actors to arrive at collective or social choices regarding problems that arise in the issue areas covered by regimes"; a programmatic regime "to pool resources to undertake projects that.. .cannot be carried out on a unilateral basis"; and a generative regime that "center[s] on the development o f distinctive social practices where none previously existed" (Young 1999a). The E C C is procedural in that it uniquely provides a forum and meets regularly for collective discussion and social choices regarding five transboundary environmental issue areas between B C and Washington State. The E C C is programmatic in that it allows B C and Washington State to pool resources, particularly scientific and bureaucratic, to undertake projects that could not be carried out unilaterally such as implementing the 1994 BC/Washington Marine Science Panel Report and initiating the first o f the PS research conferences. (However these early conferences were not combined G B / P S efforts, but were really organized solely by Americans about Puget Sound, even though Canadians did participate. The 2003 and 2005 G B / P S conferences in Vancouver and Seattle respectively were truly transboundary G B / P S research conferences, but were organized based on the 2000 Joint Statement of Cooperation on the Georgia Basin and Puget Sound Ecosystem signed  by  Environment  Canada  and  the  U S Environmental Protection Agency  (Environment Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency 2000).) Finally, the E C C is generative in that it continues to develop social practices around the guiding vision o f the 1992 BC-Washington State Environmental Cooperation Agreement  76  and international transboundary .environmental cooperation, where none, or very little existed before. I argue that these procedural, programmatic and generative functions require the building o f transboundary social learning and consensus within the E C C , as well as between the E C C regime and its nested components, and that this requirement could be partly met by more and better collaborative planning. One example o f such social learning described by Lee (1995) is the case o f balancing the economics o f power utilities and agriculture against petitions under the U S Endangered Species A c t for salmon conservation in the Columbia River Basin, a large international transboundary ecosystem (Lee 1995). According to Lee (1995) two complementary kinds o f social learning are necessary in the search for sustainable development. One is about the relationship between humans and nature, using adaptive management by treating economic uses o f nature as experiments to learn efficiently from experience. The other is to learn more about the relationships among people using the political process. "The combination o f adaptive management and political change is social learning. Social learning explores the human niche in the natural world as rapidly as knowledge can be gained, on terms that are governable, but not always orderly." (Lee 1995)  ;  Regarding the G B / P S ITF, it is a procedural regime in that provides a transnational forum that meets for collective discussion and social choices regarding G B / P S transboundary environmental issues between B C and Washington State which would otherwise not exist. However, it does not meet regularly, at least partly because o f being subject to the E C C . The G B / P S ITF is programmatic in that it allows B C and Washington State to pool resources,  particularly scientific and  bureaucratic,  to  undertake  projects  such  as  implementing the recommendations o f the BC/Washington Marine Science Panel that could not be carried out unilaterally. However, the G B / P S I T F is limited to being an advisory body and cannot undertake projects without permission from the E C C as well as from the agencies that would execute the work (British Columbia and Washington State 2004). The G B / P S I T F is generative in that it continues to recommend and coordinate over time, social practices around the guiding vision o f the 1992 BC-Washington State Environmental Cooperation Agreement transboundary environmental cooperation, where  77  very little existed before. However it is limited in this role largely because o f its subjection to the E C C and its Marine Science Panel.  5.3.2 Cultural/social/political/legal context: The second attribute missing from the analytical model in Table 1 (and also from Table 3) is the "Cultural/social/political". Although Canadians and Americans share many cultural characteristics, certain differences between Canadian and U S governance cultures and institutions constitute barriers for effective transboundary governance in the G B / P S . For example, significant differences exist between legislative and regulatory cultures in Canada and the U S . U S legislation focuses on implementing policy that specifies regulation in detail along with strict deadlines for issuance by the executive branch. Judicial and quasijudicial review, as well as public comment, are fundamental and governmental and citizen litigation is normal. In contrast, Canadian legislation is often limited to providing general policy direction, delegating substantial discretion to ministers and their departments to determine "scale, scope, style and speed o f implementation". In Canada, few opportunities for public review o f executive decisions and even fewer for judicial decisions exist than in the U S (Hodge 1998). This suggests that in the U S , collaboration is more institutionalized into the governance culture as due process o f the state, and i f it does not happen, lawsuits are brought to bear. In Canada, institutionalized "ministerial discretion" suggests less recourse to courts and this in turn suggests that instead, more recourse must be made through civil society institutions to achieve the level o f accountability provided by the state in the U S . This suggests that collaborative planning is seen to have been more successful in B C provincial land use planning (Gunton 2003) and in Vancouver urban planning (Healey 2006), as well as in Toronto (Sewell 1993), (although gentrification) (Bunting 1988, L e y 1993) because o f  criticized for  promoting  the development o f social and  community learning that supports political w i l l (Hodge 1998). It also suggests that more transnational social learning and community building is needed in the G B / P S to develop political w i l l to compensate for the lack o f political structure. For example, transnational support was raised to institute "the Great Bear Rainforest" on the B C coast. Constitutional divisions o f power provincial/state  governments.  differ between  For example,  Canadian and U S federal  while Canadian  federal  and  environmental  78  jurisdiction is limited to provisions in the Fisheries Act, Oceans A c t and Environmental Protection Act, provincial jurisdiction includes natural resources and municipal affairs, giving provinces effective control over natural resources and the environment. Conversely, the U S federal government has broad powers to address environmental issues and can require states and local governments to implement programs (Hodge 1998). However, the National Estuary Program (NEP), a voluntary program established by the 1987 U S Water Quality amendment to the 1972 Clean Water A c t and administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (Imperial 1996), has been applied by Washington State since 1996 through  the  Puget  Sound  Water  Quality Action  Plan,  the  federally  approved  Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan for Puget Sound (State o f Washington Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team 2000). Further, the U S federal government is empowered to impose federal treaties such as the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation attached to the North American Free Trade Agreement ( N A F T A ) , while Canada cannot impose that agreement on the  provinces, and as o f 1996,  only one province, Alberta, had signed (Johnson' 1996) and by 1998 only Quebec and Manitoba had added their signatures (Hodge 1998). There is a lack p f coordination and leadership which suggests that there is not much political advantage to federal or provincial/state politicians supporting transboundary governance institutions. International transboundary initiatives must depend on decisions made in traditional domestic political situations (Artibise 2005). This suggests that social learning is needed on both sides o f the international border regarding environmental values and issues to support the political w i l l necessary to protect the international transboundary environmental commons. Fear o f "back east" federal hegemony in both B C and Washington State is indicated by, for example, reluctance to bring the IJC into the G B / P S (Hodge 1998, Alper 2005) and, in B C , a perception that 'the real enemy is Ottawa' (Artibise 2005). There is also the reverse fear in federal circles o f loss o f sovereignty that might result from provincial/state collaboration. For example, Alley (1998) notes that the E C C regime was initiated by two subnational governments in spite o f federal fears o f threats to sovereignty that proved groundless. Eventual federal tacit approval and observer participation may have resulted from the  79  success o f the earlier States-BC O i l Spill Task Force, recognition that the regime would proceed regardless o f federal participation, and the fact that there was no strong centralist in either Environment Canada or the U S E P A at the time that would restrict the regional initiative (Alley 1998). Fear o f U S hegemony in B C is described by Alper: "Until the late 1980s, for ideological reasons as well as for reasons o f economic self-interest, the B C government rejected formalized ties with its American neighbours" (Alper 2005). Legislation regarding rights o f land ownership differs between Canada and the U S . In Canada, land law in each province is a matter o f "property rights" under Section 92(13) o f the B N A A c t (Canadian Government 1867), and in B C the authorizing legislation is in the Municipal Act, the Land Title A c t and the Islands Trust Act (Bish 1999). In the U S , Constitution-Amendment 5 states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation, and this has been used to overturn state and local land use legislation in the U S (United States Government 1791). For example, based on a January 2006 Oregon Supreme Court decision supporting Oregon Measure 37 (The Supreme Court o f the State o f Oregon 2006), the proposed Washington State Support Initiative 933 would require state and local governments to either compensate land owners for financial loss due to land use regulation or waive the regulations (Lake 2006). This Washington initiative is in strong contrast to the February 23, 2006 ruling by the Supreme Court o f Canada on the Arbutus Corridor in Vancouver that supports the City o f Vancouver's right to determine C P Rail land use by enacting its Arbutus Corridor Official Development Plan and without compensating the owner (Bridge 2006, Fowlie 2006). The Washington initiative, i f successful, would probably change the Washington Growth Management  Act and  consequently affect the horizontal collaborative planning between B C and Washington State carried out under the 1994 BCAVashington State Growth Management Agreement (British Columbia and Washington State 1994). The contrast between the two decisions highlights legal and political differences between Canada and the U S and suggests underlying cultural and social differences in values. While such citizen initiatives do not exist in Canada, "[i]n Washington State,...[t]he initiative process... permits citizens to submit a measure directly to the electorate and, i f approved, the measure becomes law-  80  completely bypassing the legislature and governor...The degree o f citizen participation is one aspect o f American Government, especially in the western states, that differs significantly from English common law. In most common law countries, parliament simply assumed the prerogatives formerly exercised by the king. Citizens are generally limited to electing representatives rather than participating directly in law-making processes" (Bish 1982). Although Canadian First Nations and U S Tribes are officially administered under the two respective federal governments, recognition o f their legal rights regarding traditional occupations, aboriginal title and self-government has increased during recent decades through landmark cases in both Canada and in the U S (Stewart 2001;Bish 1982). Although First Nations and Tribes are represented as members o f the G B / P S ITF by the Coast Salish Sea Council, both the E C C and the G B / P S ITF should collaborate more actively with them to  better  coordinate  and  increase  their  involvement in  international/transnational  environmental governance.  5.3.3 Values: The 'Values" attribute in Table 3 has been moved ahead o f "Purpose" and "Process and protocols". Regarding values related to regimes being issue-specific,  E C C values were  established in the 1992 BC/Washington Environmental Agreement. These values emerged during the 1980s as the idea o f a shared ecosystem on both sides o f the international border emerged(Alper 2005;Fraser In Press (2006)). Many authors have indicated this tendency toward cross-border environmental vision and cooperation (Alley 1998, Alper 2005, Artibise 2005, Blatter 2003, Durning 1996, Fraser In Press 2006, Garreau 1981, Harcourt 2004, Hildebrand 2002, Hutton 1998, Northwest Environment Watch 2004, Schelle 1995, VanderZwaag 1986). E C C values for the marine environment are expressed in the 1994 Marine Science Panel Report. State support to the E C C values was by two substate entities: B C and Washington State. Market-economy support to the E C C values came partly from the Cascadia Institute/Discovery Project in its support for growth management (Cascadia Institute 2002). C i v i l society support to the E C C values would have come from the Georgia Strait Alliance, "a non-profit society formed in 1990 to protect and restore the the marine environment and promote the sustainability o f Georgia Strait, its adjoining waters and  81  communities" (Georgia Strait Alliance 2004) and the People for Puget Sound, founded in 1991, that have worked cooperatively since 1991 as the Sounds and Straits coalition to address international transboundary marine environmental issues. Individual agent support to E C C values was from the premier o f B C , the governor o f Washington State, at least three other B C politicians and an unknown number o f bureaucrats from B C and Washington State (Kellas 2005). '  >,  .  '  Conflicting environmental and economic values and visions exist for the G B / P S (Alper 2005), with the economic vision strongly driven by N A F T A (Hodge 1998, Johnson 1996, Juillet 2001, K i y 1998a, Turbeville 2005) and supported by Asian trade with Canada through the B C "Pacific Gateway" and with the U S through Seattle (Hutton 1998).  The  drive toward economic integration is partly constrained by the U S need for national security, but it suggests that more social and community building vision is needed on both sides o f the border to support political w i l l to realize an environmental vision to counterbalance the economic vision. It further suggests that this clash o f visions may be the most difficult G B / P S environmental problem and that the G B / P S ITF needs to collaborate with business leaders by including them in its membership to better horizontally coordinate the economic and environmental visions for the G B / P S (Artibise 2005, Blatter 2000).  5.3.4 Purpose, scope and responsibilities: In Table 1 "Purpose" was #1. Regarding horizontal coordination o f regimes, the purpose o f the G B / P S I T F has been determined by the E C C as being the main coordinator o f agencies, stakeholders or interested parties about the G B / P S . Blatter (2003) observes that although North American international cross-border regional functions are limited in social and political scope, their specialization o f purpose has permitted them to achieve 'high performance'. For example, some initially local regimes such as Greenpeace, restricted to an environmental function have become truly transnational, while also being antagonistic to other local free-trade-oriented regimes (Blatter 2003). For the G B / P S ITF, one thing that has not worked so well has been its prescribed preoccupation with the marine environment without enough consideration for cumulative effects [from other sources such as land use practices in the river basins that flow into the G B / P S ] (British Columbia and Washington State 2004).  82  This observation supports the contention that international/transnational regimes require i n i u i c  :;  i_tj  i;  j.:  i __u_i  A!  -.1  :  n u i l i u m a i cuuiuuuuivjii aim c u i i a u u i a u v c planning  A IU  A  picvciii  a:-. L a j m i R i i  ... J  ..i-..  miu u v c i i a p .  5.3.5 Powers, process and protocols: In Table 1 "Process and protocols" was #2: Powers, process and protocols decreed for the E C C and for the G B / P S ITF in 1996 should be revisited for relevance (British Columbia and Washington State 96a, British Columbia and Washington State 96b). Alley (1998) observed that E C C activities have remained relatively informal, having to work within existing jurisdictional structures. However pressures exist from above to formalize environmental cooperation under legal requirements o f international commitments. Also, potential trade litigation in environmental issues may create problems (Alley 1998). The G B / P S I T F (2004) observed that its link to implementation is weak because it is only advisory and must get permission from those that would do the work before they would accept doing it (British Columbia and Washington State 2004).  5.3.6 Membership: "Membership" was a new attribute in Table 3. The chronic restriction o f both the E C C and the G B / P S ITF to primarily state agencies with only token civil society but absolutely no market-economy participation represents only partial governance, and suggests that both regimes should broaden their membership. Indeed the E C C and the Marine Science Panel suggested that the G B / P S I T F do that, but it has not yet responded (British Columbia/ Washington Environmental Cooperation Council 1995).  5.3.7 Policy and program coordination In Table 1, this attribute was originally #5 "Policy". Regarding such coordination, Alley concludes that much E C C success has been due to its casting o f difficult local issues bottom-upward into a wider regional and scientific context. It has also successfully depoliticized some very prominent issues, defusing social and political rancour about international issues by encouraging and facilitating (downward) collaboration, social learning and political support and permitting them to be reduced to policy issues that could be addressed through scientific and technical collaboration. One such international issue is G B / P S marine water quality, which Alley argues was the single most important issue for establishing the E C C (Alley 1998).  83  5.3.8 Information exchange In Table 1, this attribute was originally #4. Alley (1998) observes that B C and Washington representatives have had to learn about each other's different governmental approaches to problems and administration; for example, standard-setting versus site-specific planning regarding sewage issues. Also, the Director o f Ecology is a political appointment by the governor while the deputy minister is only administrative, but reports to an elected minister. This observation is consistent with cooperation problems discovered by Fall (2005) in transboundary governance o f protected areas in Europe that are seen to be culturally linked to institutional and administrative differences in the "Other". Fall (2005) found that in international transboundary context identifying the "Other" with which to work was problematic on two levels: the appropriate institution and the individual with a similar job description, For example in three cases, "...it emerged that... [bjeing a .'director' o f a protected area did not mean the same thing in each country as levels o f authority, decision-making and accountability varied tremendously" (Fall 2005). Alley (1998) observes that the E C C has been prominent and catalytic in improving communications between jurisdictions at all levels, including government, scientists, field workers and civil society institutions. The E C C has clarified almost all issues by providing a forum for their discussion, allowing participants to realize their common concerns and objectives. Meetings have been conducted informally and include a lunch break, permitting participants to become familiar with each other and build trust. Most importantly, the E C C has focused on establishing shared transboundary understanding regarding issues and approaches using workshops and joint research. It has also pursued E C C education and outreach to civil society and scientific groups and has created a website (Alley 1998). The E C C website is operated under the'BC Ministry o f Environment website and is up to date. The G B / P S ITF, although creating a website within the Puget Sound Action Team, has not, updated it since 1999. For the G B / P S ITF, one thing that has worked well has been keeping lines o f communication open. The task force has also raised the bar for B C to follow Washington's example in some instances, and coordinated much work, thus avoiding redundancy and overlap. The task force has also facilitated scientific work through collaboration, and  84  diffused new reports as well as work being done by the whole group. This has led to adoption o f some best practices; for example, B C ' s shore zone method that 'became the map for everything else' (British Columbia and Washington State 2004).  5.3.9 Reporting structure "Reporting structure" was a new attribute in Table 3. The E C C originated directly with the premier and the governor and reports directly to them. A l l e y observes that such political endorsement has legitimized and highlighted the E C C , and encouraged administrative commitment to crossborder  initiatives, replacing previous staff reticence based  on  discomfort or threat. Such political commitment must continue and should extend to other ministries and departments, particularly the B C Ministry o f Environment, where the deputy minister, not the minister, reports E C C proceedings to the premier (Alley 1998). For the G B / P S ITF one thing that has worked well has been setting deadlines for workshop projects on specific issues and requesting progress reports. This has been complemented by interdependence, mutual accountability, and co-commitment among work group members to complete the work (British Columbia and Washington State 2004).  5.3.10 Accommodate issue change over time This was a new attribute in Table 3. A l l e y suggests that in future the E C C might take on a more anticipatory role, considering long-term issues. L o n g term E C C success may depend on more collaboration with civil society institutions, as well as First Nations and Tribes (Alley 1998). This should also apply to the G B / P S I T F and should include marketeconomy institutions such as the Cascadia Institute/Discovery Project and the P N W E R . The G B / P S ITF has been successful in taking on emerging issues even while being preoccupied with other items and recognizing that only some new issues w i l l prove relevant. Another worthwhile strategy has been an effort to transcend everyday work by awareness o f new issues and gaining new perspectives (British Columbia and Washington State 2004).  5.3.11 Evaluation: In Table 1 this attribute was originally #6. The data suggests that the E C C and the G B / P S ITF should collaborate horizontally with other transboundary regimes, particularly those  85  with economic agendas, to agree on arrangements for evaluation o f effectiveness for addressing problems within their respective issue areas (Alper 2005) (British Columbia/ Washington Marine Science Panel 1994). The E C C and the G B / P S ITF should also address the basic issue o f how the environmental conditions originally identified by the Marine Science Panel can be evaluated. One way to accomplish this would be to collaborate vertically with the Transboundary Indicators Work Group that is developing measurable indicators that could be refined and monitored over time. One thing that has worked for the G B / P S I T F has been to list specific recommendations that the task force has implemented (British Columbia and Washington State 2004),  5.3.12 Funding This is a new attribute in Table 3; Alley observes that generally, the E C C uses existing mechanisms and avoids creating new ones unnecessarily. Direct E C C operations are conducted using existing staff and resources. The E C C has no funding mechanisms and must redirect funds from existing programs. This makes the E C C vulnerable to downsizing and budget cuts in participating agencies, as occurred after the B C government changed in 2001. Table 3 suggests that funding for the G B / P S ITF is limited and inadequate to carry out its purpose. It also suggests that the commitment for funding the E C C by the B C Ministry side is less than the commitment by the Washington Department o f Ecology. The G B / P S I T F (2004) itself has observed that it has not been sufficiently valued to receive sufficient  support including adequate funding from senior government  management  (British Columbia and Washington State 2004). I propose that collaborative planning could assist in resolving or managing this funding attribute. One approach to such assistance would be to collaborate horizontally with business oriented regimes such as the Cascadia Institute/Discovery  Institute  to  secure  funding  from  them  to  consider  common  environmental/economic concerns such as growth management and future land availability (Cascadia Institute 2002). To be effective, such horizontal collaboration would require that the G B / P S ITF mandate be expanded to include upland land use practices such as land allocation for future development. Such an expansion o f G B / P S I T F mandate would require vertical collaboration with the E C C . Another approach would be for the G B / P S ITF to solicit additional funding directly from the E C C , which might require the E C C in turn to  86 collaborate horizontally with its component regimes or upward with its political masters in B C and Washington State.  5.3.13 Political support, continuity, memory This is a new attribute i n Table 3. Alley observes that social support was important for political support critical to early E C C success and w i l l continue to be in the future. Some such support originally came from the personal friendship between Premier M i k e Harcourt and Governor Booth Gardner, and these actors have changed a number o f times since with unknown results. Observations in Table 3 suggest that the political support, continuity and memory contribution to the G B / P S I T F is limited and inadequate to carry out its purpose, and that this deficiency is more attributable to B C than to Washington, because while the Washington co-chair has remained constant from 1999 to at least 2005, the B C co-chair has changed a number o f times, as has the name and, more importantly, the mandate o f the responsible B C ministry.  5.3.14 Outreach: This is a new attribute uncovered through the analysis i n Chapter 5. One thing that has worked well for the G B / P S I T F has been  "[leveraging, going [collaborating] beyond  borders, sewing seeds on the other side" (British Columbia/Washington State 2004). The task force has also helped diffuse information about marine issues. One suggestion that might work well would be to link the Georgia Basin Environment Ecosystem Initiative (GBEI) (now Georgia Basin Action Plan, or G B A P ) with the Puget Sound Action Team ( P S A T ) by conducting joint meetings, and then to raise the profile o f such meetings onto the national agenda(s) and to keep it there to maintain sources o f federal funding. Another initiative that might work would be to establish better links with other external agencies (British Columbia and Washington State 2004). What has proven less successful is that some outreach efforts have been mistakenly interpreted as interloping or even turf war. Neither the G B / P S I T F ' s geography nor its organizational structure is congruent with those o f other agencies (British Columbia and Washington State 2004). This conclusion is supported by Blatter (2003) who observes that North American cross-border regimes are specialized and characterized by flow-oriented territories incongruent with other regimes (Blatter 2003). The G B / P S I T F also suggested that too much general visibility might  87  detract from its ability to network with those actually doing implementation work. Finally, the G B / P S I T F cautioned itself to remember that its mandate is advisory and that it must not misrepresent itself to the public as a decision-making body (British Columbia and Washington State 2004).  5.4 Suggested improvements in data collection Primary sources o f data might have been collected in a more relevant manner. For example, the way the literature review was conducted, an initial broad review o f collaborative planning literature revealed no references to international transboundary applications o f collaborative planning. For example, although M o h a n (2001) addresses Eurocentric collaborative planning in non-Western locations such as Africa,  this context o f  "international" would mean taking something from one "nation" (state) and applying it to another "nation" (state) (Mohan 2001). However a subsequent, more focused literature analysis about international transboundary environmental issues and planning frameworks proved to be more useful, yielding a number o f examples o f international transboundary collaboration. These cases included European transboundary conservation areas (Fall 2005), the Baltic Sea (Jansson 2002) and the Great Lakes Basin (Francis 1995). The literature review perhaps would have been more relevant i f it had concentrated more on these kinds o f international transboundary examples o f cooperation from the outset. Also, the interviews were not as useful as expected primarily because interviewees appeared to not sufficiently understand the concept o f "collaborative planning" in the international/transboundary context o f the research. It is probable that the interviews might have produced more useful, information i f interviewees had been coached or had participated in a workshop before interviews proceeded.  5.5 Summary In Chapter 5, I first evaluated the content and reliability o f the data, then discussed, analyzed and interpreted what the research findings from the illustrative example in Table 3 indicated about the strength and weaknesses o f the analytical governance framework for collaborative planning that I created and what the framework can contribute to answering the research questions and basic question motivating the research: in what ways, if any, can  88  collaborative  planning  assist in resolving  or managing  international  transboundary  environmental issues; that is, those that affect more than one nation-state? The study research finds that the theoretical framework when applied to the illustrative examples lacks some o f the attributes international/transnational  governance  necessary to adequately capture the actual  processes.  This indicates that the analytical  collaborative planning governance framework develops through a series o f iterative applications to accommodate the data. The research also indicates that the analytical framework is useful in a number o f ways. From the application o f the analytical framework in Chapter 4, the research indicates that the three endemic shortcomings o f international/transnational regimes indicated by the columns o f Table 1 are indeed present in, and influence the effectiveness o f the G B / P S examples o f the E C C and the G B / P S ITF regimes: (1) inadequate horizontal coordination between  international/transnational  environmental  regimes;  (2). inadequate  vertical  coordination within and between top-down international/transnational regimes and bottomup regional and local programs; and (3) lack o f compliance with, and consensus within, international/transnational environmental regimes. Regarding inadequate horizontal coordination, the research  confirms the assertion in the  literature that the G B / P S transboundary environmental governance institutions are singleissue, and flow-oriented, relative, for example to those in Europe which tend to be multifunctional and spatially congruent (Blatter 2003). The major drivers are conflicting economic and environmental visions, and although horizontal collaborative planning between them could potentially improve coordination between these visions and hence sustainability, this has not occurred (Alper 2005, Artibise 2005, Blatter 2000). Regarding inadequate vertical coordination, Alper (2005) observes that in spite o f many transboundary linkages, minimal "scope and depth o f institutionalization" exists in the Cascadia cross-border region. Collaborative planning with national governments would strengthen such institutionalization but that has been avoided. The "Cascadia movement" is thus not broadly based (Alper 2005) and the best efforts o f individual agents are impeded  89  by this lack o f social, political and institutional leverage (Fall 2005). Vertical collaborative planning could improve this leverage. Regarding lack o f compliance with, and consensus within, international transnational environmental regimes, neither the E C C nor the G B / P S I T F are regulatory regimes. Consequently they must depend upon collaborative planning to achieve compliance or to reach internal consensus.  5.5.1 How the study uses the analytical framework to address the research sub-questions and the objectives First, the study uses the analytical framework to answer the second research sub-question: In what ways could collaborative planning theory aid in implementation of governance in international or transnational environmental governance situations? The study also achieves the second objective: to contribide to collaborative planning knowledge. The study achieves both o f the above by creating and iteratively developing an analytical framework  for  assessing  collaborative  planning  in  international/transnational  environmental regimes. Second, the study uses the analytical framework to answer the third research sub-question: In what ways, if any, could collaborative planning theory be applied in an international or transnational governance situation to aid in assessment and thus enhancement of the governance process? The study also achieves the third objective: to address mitigation o f G B / P S transboundary environmental issues. The study achieves both o f the above by applying the analytical framework to assess collaborative planning in the E C C and the G B / P S ITF and by making recommendations to improve their effectiveness.  5.5.2 How the analytical framework addresses mitigation of international transboundary environmental issues The  analytical  framework  addresses  mitigation  of  international  transboundary  environmental issues on two levels: 1. O n a general level by providing a means for assessing collaborative planning in international transboundary environmental governance regimes at large;  90  2.  O n a specific level in the G B / P S by its application for assessing collaborative planning in the E C C and the G B / P S I T F international transboundary environmental governance regimes.  The analytical thereby answers the fundamental research question motivating the study: in what ways, if any, can collaborative planning assist in resolving or managing  international  transboundary environmental issues; that is, those that affect more than one nation-state? In Chapter 6, I summarize and synthesize the salient conclusions from the above interpretations and make recommendations that the E C C and the G B / P S ITF regimes should pursue to more effectively govern international transboundary environmental issues in the G B / P S . I then discuss themes that emerge from the research. Finally, I make recommendations for further research.  91  CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, EMERGENT THEMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH »  6.1 Introduction International transboundary environmental issues are becoming increasingly prevalent and complex. Theories o f governance indicate that while international and transnational governance institutions have burgeoned in response, they are still inadequate to deal with international transboundary  environmental issues because o f a number o f endemic  shortcomings. This dissertation argues that governance comprises five dimensions: (1) international/transnational; (2) state/substate; (3) market-economy; (4) civil society; and (5) individual agency; that planning is a form o f governance, and that collaborative planning is one way to enhance the effectiveness o f an international and transnational governance process to address environmental issues in an international transboundary contexts The fundamental theoretical question I address and answer is: In what ways, if any, can collaborative planning assist in resolving or managing international transboundary environmental issues; that is, those that affect the natural and social systems in more than one nation-state? I successfully answer this question by creating an analytical theoretical governance  framework  international/transnational framework  for  assessment  of  collaborative  planning  in  environmental governance regimes and then applying the  to illustrative examples o f existing international/transnational  governance  regimes in the international G B / P S : the E C C and the G B / P S ITF. The application shows that the analytical framework develops iteratively; first as it is applied to the examples, and second as the results o f this application are interpreted. This observation indicates that in order to develop, refine and diffuse the framework, it should be applied iteratively to other international/transnational environmental governance regime situations. In Chapter 6, I summarize and synthesize the salient conclusions from the interpretations made in Chapter 5. Second, I make recommendations that the E C C and the G B / P S ITF regimes  should  pursue  to  more  effectively  govern  international  transboundary  92  environmental issues in the G B / P S . Third, I discuss themes that emerge from the research. Finally, I make recommendations for further research.  6.2 Conclusions I first summarize and synthesize the salient conclusions from the interpretations o f the application o f the framework that have been made in Chapter 5. •  The E C C and G B / P S I T F exhibit characteristics o f both international and transnational regimes.  •  M o r e horizontal, vertical and internal coordination is needed in G B / P S international/transnational regimes. The "flow-oriented" nature o f such regimes in B C and Washington State encourage them to focus on single issues and remain spatially exclusive with overlaps and gaps, discouraging horizontal coordination between them.  •  The G B / P S I T F coordinates and collaborates vertically with other independent regimes such as G B / P S civil society groups by  providing them with a joint  forum to facilitate horizontal collaborative planning between them. •  The E C C and the G B / P S ITF are not regulatory regimes. Instead, they function as procedural,  programmatic  and generative  regimes. These procedural,  programmatic and generative functions require the building and support o f transboundary social learning and consensus within the E C C , as well as between the E C C and its nested component regimes including the G B / P S ITF. •  In the U S , collaboration is more institutionalized into the governance culture and as due process o f the state, with recourse to lawsuits. In Canada, institutionalized "ministerial discretion" suggests less recourse to courts and instead, more recourse must be made through civil society institutions to achieve the U S level o f accountability. This suggests that, the apparent success o f collaborative planning in B C provincial land use planning as well as in  93  Vancouver and Toronto urban planning is a product o f social and community learning that supports the necessary political will. Canadian and U S constitutional divisions o f power differ between federal and provincial  or  state governments.  For example, while Canadian  federal  environmental jurisdiction is limited, provincial jurisdiction includes natural resources and municipal affairs, giving provinces effective control over natural resources and the environment. Conversely, the U S federal government has broad powers to address environmental issues and can require states and local governments to implement programs Further, the U S federal government can impose  federal  treaties  such  as  the  North  American  Agreement  on  Environmental Cooperation attached to N A F T A , while Canada cannot impose that agreement on the provinces. There is not much political advantage for politicians in supporting international transboundary governance institutions, because international  transboundary  initiatives depend upon traditional domestic political decisions. Social learning is needed on both sides o f the border to support the political w i l l necessary to protect the international transboundary environment. Fear o f "back east" federal hegemony is indicated in both B C and Washington State. There is also the reverse federal fear o f sovereignty loss that might result from provincial/state collaboration. Constitutional land ownership rights differ between Canada and the U S . In Canada, land law in each province is a matter o f "property rights" under Section 92(13) o f the B N A Act, and in B C the authorizing legislation is in the L o c a l Government Act, the Land Title A c t and the Islands Trust Act. In the U S , Constitution-Amendment 5 states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation, and this amendment has been used to overturn state and local land use legislation in the U S . This constitutional difference is relevant to G B / P S transboundary environmental issues because  94  poorly governed land use practices in G B / P S watersheds destroy habitat and generate non-point source pollution that ends up in the B G / P S marine estuary. First Nations and Tribes are represented by the Coast Salish Sea Council which is a member of the G B / P S ITF, but representatives do not often attend. Conflicting environmental and economic visions exist for the G B / P S with the economic vision strongly driven by N A F T A (Johnson 1996, K i y 1998b, Hodge 1998) and supported by Asian trade with Canada through the B C "Pacific Gateway" and with the U S through Seattle. Although BC/Washington crossborder environmental vision and cooperation has been growing at least since the late 1980s (Alley 1998, Garreau 1981, Durning 1996, Hutton 1998, Kellas 2005, Northwest Environment Watch 2001, Northwest Environment Watch 2002, Northwest Environment Watch and Smart Growth B C 2002, Northwest Environment Watch 2004) and the drive toward economic integration is partly constrained by the U S need for national security, more social learning and community building vision is needed on both sides o f the border to support political w i l l to realize an environmental vision to counterbalance the economic vision. This clash o f visions may constitute the most fundamental G B / P S transboundary environmental problem.  ECC  values were established in the 1992 BC/Washington Environmental  Cooperation Agreement, developed by collaboration between Premier Harcourt o f B C and Governor Gardner o f Washington State. E C C values specific to the marine environment contained in the 1994 Marine Science Panel Report are a product o f collaborative planning between B C and Washington State scientists. C i v i l society support for E C C values would have substantially come from (among others) the B C based Georgia Strait Alliance formed in 1990 and the Washington based People for Puget Sound founded in 1991. Both regimes have worked collaboratively since 1991 within the umbrella Sounds and Straits Coalition to address G B / P S international transboundary marine environmental issues. Major individual agent support for E C C values originated with the  V  95  collaborative efforts o f B C Premier Harcourt, Washington State Governor Gardner, several other B C politicians and an unknown number o f bureaucrats from B C and Washington State. Although North American cross-border regional functions are limited in purpose and scope, such specialization has achieved 'high performance', while some environmental regimes and free-trade-oriented regimes have even become mutually antagonistic. This supports contentions that international/transnational regimes require more horizontal coordination to minimize conflict and overlap. The G B / P S ITF, for example, sees it's E C C and Marine Science Panelprescribed preoccupation with the G B / P S marine environment as a limitation, preventing it from considering "cumulative effects" from broader sources such as non-point source pollutants from air-borne and watershed land use based sources that flow into the G B / P S . Terms o f reference ( T O R ) for both the E C C and G B / P S ITF are vague and inadequate, particularly for the G B / P S ITF. For example, this research would have been considerably facilitated by a requirement for the G B / P S ITF to minute every meeting and post the minutes on its website. The chronic restriction o f both the E C C and the G B / P S I T F membership to primarily state agencies constitutes only partial governance. There is only a minor civil society involvement, (including First Nations and Tribes) and absolutely no market-economy participation. M u c h E C C success has been due to casting difficult local issues bottom-upward into a wider regional and scientific context. The E C C has also successfully depoliticized and defused prominent and international issues, such as G B / P S marine water quality, by facilitating downward collaboration, social learning and political support, reducing them to policy issues approachable through scientific and technical collaboration.  \  96  Information exchange is fundamental for institutional and data compatibility within regimes. Cooperation problems i n transboundary governance are often culturally linked to institutional and administrative differences in the "Other" because  levels  of  authority,  decision-making  and  accountability  vary  tremendously. For example, B C and Washington E C C representatives have had to learn about each other's different governmental approaches to problems and administration. The E C C has facilitated communications between B C and Washington State jurisdictions and has clarified issues by providing a forum for discussion, allowing participants to understand their common concerns and objectives. Meetings have been conducted informally and include lunch, permitting participants to become mutually familiar and build trust. The E C C has focused on establishing "a shared crossborder understanding o f issues and approaches through workshops and joint research". It has also pursued E C C education and outreach to civil society and scientific groups and has created and maintained an up to date website.  The G B / P S ITF has tried to keep lines o f communication open and has coordinated much work, thus avoiding redundancy and overlap. It has also facilitated scientific work through collaboration, and diffused new reports as well as work being done by the whole task force, leading to adoption o f some best practices. Collaborative planning has been important in facilitating these accomplishments. The E C C reports directly to the premier and the governor. In addition to legitimizing and highlighting the E C C , such political endorsement  has  encouraged administrative commitment, replacing previous staff reticence based on discomfort or threat, thereby facilitating more and better collaborative planning in crossborder initiatives.  The environmental and economic sectors are commonly concerned about the problem o f land use and growth management for different reasons: conservation  97 and  development  respectively.  Also,  the  Marine  Science  Panel  has  recommended evaluation o f G B / P S environmental conditions. E C C operations use existing mechanisms, staff and resources and must redirect funds from existing programs. This makes the E C C vulnerable to downsizing and budget cuts in participating agencies, as occurred after the B C government changed in 2001. Research suggests that G B / P S ITF funding is limited and inadequate to carry out its purpose, and that the commitment for E C C funding by the B C Ministry has been less firm than that o f the Washington Department o f Ecology. Some political support critical to early E C C success came from personal collaborative planning between individual agents B C Premier Harcourt and Washington Governor Gardner. However, research indicates that political support, continuity and memory for the G B / P S ITF remain limited and inadequate. This deficiency appears more attributable to the B C government than to Washington State. Outreach is necessary  for horizontal and vertical coordinationwithin and  between regimes. The G B / P S ITF has been successful in "[FJeveraging, going [collaborating] beyond borders, sowing seeds on the other side" and has also helped diffuse information about marine issues. However some outreach efforts have been misinterpreted as interloping or even turf war. Also disadvantageous to outreach J s that neither the G B / P S I T F ' s geography nor its structure is congruent with those o f other agencies. Further, too much general visibility might detract from the G B / P S I T F ' s ability to network with those actually doing implementation. Finally, the G B / P S I T F ' s mandate is only advisory.  98  6.3 Recommendations I recommend the following measures that the E C C and the G B / P S I T F regimes should adopt to more effectively mitigate international transboundary environmental issues in the GB/PS. •  The E C C should use collaborative planning to improve horizontal coordination between its five nested sub-regimes, for example, between the G B / I T F and the Lower Fraser Valley/Pacific Northwest Airshed Task Force, which are functionally related. The E C C should also encourage its sub-regimes to use collaborative planning to coordinate with other relevant regimes; for example, with domestic growth management regimes such as the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD).  •  The E C C and the G B / P S ITF should use collaborative planning to improve horizontal coordination between "flow-oriented" international/transnational regimes in B C and Washington State that remain focussed on single issues and spatially exclusive with overlaps and gaps. The E C C should use collaborative planning to improve vertical coordination with bottom-up initiatives and problems with its task force sub-regimes, as should the G B / P S I T F in turn with its own work groups.  •  The E C C and G B / P S I T F should use collaborative planning to further involve First Nations/Tribes  and  other  civil  society  groups  and  to  improve  horizontal  coordination with market-economy regimes. •  Collaborative planning should be used by the E C C and the G B / P S ITF to improve their functions as procedural, programmatic and generative regimes in the building o f transboundary social learning and consensus within the E C C , as well as between the E C C and its nested component regimes including the G B / P S ITF.  •  Collaborative planning should be used by all governance institutions to facilitate social learning and community building in the G B / P S to develop political w i l l to compensate for the lack o f international transboundary political structure.  99  Collaborative planning should be used by the Government o f Canada and the provinces to help overcome their differences on environmental issues. This is needed to compensate for the limited Canadian federal environmental jurisdiction compared to provincial jurisdiction that includes natural resources and municipal affairs,  giving  provinces effective  control over  natural  resources  and  the  environment. The E C C should improve the advertisement o f its meetings and make them more inclusive to encourage more and better international transboundary collaborative planning. This would facilitate social learning on both sides o f the border to support the political w i l l required to protect the international environment because such initiatives ultimately depend upon traditional domestic political decisions. The U S and Canadian federal governments and the B C and Washington State governments should all use collaborative planning to reduce fear o f "back east" federal hegemony in both B C and Washington State, as well as the reverse federal fear o f sovereignty loss from provincial/state collaboration, and also fear in B C o f U S hegemony.  '  Both the B C and Washington State governments should use collaborative planning domestically within both jurisdictions, as well as transnationally under  the  BC/Washington Growth Management Agreement to overcome Canada/US land use constitutional differences and improve land use practices in the G B / P S international region. Further, the E C C should expand the G B / P S I T F ' s mandate to include upper land use practices and the G B / P S I T F should then use collaborative planning to improve such practices in the G B / P S . Both the E C C and the G B / P S ITF should undertake collaborative planning with First Nations and Tribes to better coordinate and increase their involvement in G B / P S international/transnational environmental governance. The G B / P S ITF should undertake collaborative planning with market-economy regimes such as the Cascadia Institute/Discovery Project, ideally facilitated by  100  including them as G B / P S I T F members. This is to better horizontally coordinate the different economic and environmental visions for the G B / P S , and generate more social learning and community building vision on both sides o f the border to support political w i l l to realize an environmental vision to counterbalance the economic vision. ECC  values should continue to be supported and reinforced by collaborative  planning conducted by successive premiers and governors, and by B C and Washington State politicians and bureaucrats. Specific E C C values for the G B / P S marine  environment  should continue  collaborative planning by  to  be  supported  and  reinforced  by  successive B C and Washington State scientists,  particularly through the biennial G B / P S Research Conferences. C i v i l society regimes such as the Georgia Strait Alliance and the People for Puget Sound should continue to support and reinforce E C C values using collaborative planning through their umbrella regime, the Sounds and Straits Coalition. These regimes and individual agents should reach out, involve and conduct collaborative planning with market economy regimes to expand support for E C C values.  The E C C should encourage the G B / P S ITF to use collaborative planning to coordinate horizontally with other regimes that affect marine water quality to minimize conflict and overlap between regimes that tend to be limited in purpose and scope. Powers, process and protocols decreed for the E C C and the G B / P S I T F should be revisited for relevance. Terms o f reference ( T O R ) for both regimes are vague and inadequate, particularly for the G B / P S ITF. For example, this research would have been considerably facilitated by a G B / P S I T F requirement to minute every meeting and post the minutes on its website. Renegotiation o f E C C T O R would require vertical collaboration upward by the E C C to the premier and the governor. Renegotiation o f G B / P S I T F T O R would require vertical collaboration between the G B / P S ITF and the E C C .  101  Both the E C C and the G B / P S ITF should broaden their membership, undertaking collaborative planning to horizontally coordinate market-economy and civil society regimes. The E C C should continue and expand its successful collaborative planning involving casting difficult local issues bottom-upward into a wider regional and scientific context and successfully depoliticizing and defusing prominent  and  international issues. B C and Washington E C C representatives should continue use o f collaborative planning to improve communication by learning about each other's different governmental  approaches  to  problems  and  administration,  facilitating  communications between their jurisdictions and clarifying issues by providing a forum for discussion, allowing participants to understand common concerns and objectives and to build trust through workshops and joint research,  pursuing  outreach to civil society and scientific groups and maintaining an up to date website.  '  *  The G B / P S ITF should continue and improve the use o f collaborative planning to keep communication open and coordinate work to avoid redundancy and overlap between regimes, facilitate scientific work, diffuse new reports and task force work and adopt best practices. The E C C should continue to report directly to the premier and the governor because this structure has served to politically endorse, legitimize and highlight the E C C and has encouraged administrative commitment, replacing previous staff reticence, thereby facilitating collaborative planning in crossborder initiatives.  1  In future the E C C should consider a more anticipatory role, and should pursue collaborative planning with civil society institutions, including First Nations and Tribes. Similarly, the G B / P S I T F should increase involvement o f First Nations and Tribes as well as market-economy regimes by use o f collaborative planning.  102  The E C C and the G B / P S ITF should both pursue agreement with other types o f regimes on how to evaluate the effectiveness o f addressing common problems within their respective issue areas. The E C C and G B / P S I T F should also address evaluation  and  monitoring  of  GB/PS  environmental  conditions  with  the  Transboundary Environmental Indicators W o r k Group. Collaborative planning would facilitate evaluation o f regime effectiveness in both o f the above instances. To mitigate its lack o f special funding and vulnerability to downsizing and budget cuts the E C C should collaborate horizontally with business oriented regimes such as the Cascadia Institute/Discovery Institute to secure additional funding to conduct collaborative planning on common environmental/economic concerns such as growth management and future land availability. T o facilitate this process the E C C should also collaborate vertically with the G B / P S I T F to expand its mandate to include upland land use practices. To mitigate its inadequate funding the G B / P S ITF should solicit additional funding directly from the E C C . This would require horizontal collaboration between the E C C and its participating agencies as well as vertically upward. collaborative planning with its political masters in B C and Washington State. The E C C should pursue collaborative planning upward to the premier and the governor to maintain political support, continuity and memory, with an emphasis on the premier, because research indicates that B C ' s support has faltered. The E C C should also collaborate upward to maintain personal collaborative planning between the premier and the governor for continued E C C political support. The E C C should use vertical collaborative planning in outreach to promote linkage o f two federally mandated programs: the Canadian Georgia Basin Action Plan and the U S Puget Sound Action Team by conducting joint meetings to maintain sources o f federal funding. The G B / P S ITF should be careful  in its outreach  efforts  to avoid being  misinterpreted as interloping or instigating turf war. The G B / P S I T F should also be  1  103 wary that too much visibility might also detract from its ability to network with people actually doing implementation work. Finally, the GB/PS ITF should remember its advisory mandate and not misrepresent itself as a decision-making body. The GB/PS ITF should use collaborative planning to mitigate all of the above issues. •  Social and political mechanisms should be devised to support GB/PS international transboundary environmental governance.  6.4 Emergent themes The following themes emergedfromthe research. •  That collaborative planning can assist in mitigating international transboundary environmental issues.  •  That the three shortcomings of international/transnational regimes are present in the ECC and the GB/PS ITF: (1) horizontally, they are primarily single-issue and geographically flow-oriented; (2) vertically, they display minimal depth of instituionalization; (3) the ECC and the GB/PS ITF are not regulatory, so they lack capacity for internal consensus and compliance. Consequently more horizontal, vertical and internal coordination and compliance incentive is needed for effectiveness of GB/PS international/transnational regimes.  •  That  collaborative  planning  is  fundamental  to  effectiveness  of  international/transnational governance regimes to facilitate horizontal, vertical and internal coordination, and to compensate for the lack of overarching authority for compliance. •  That the analytical collaborative planningframeworkcreated in this study is successful in assessing the effectiveness of the ECC and the GB/PS ITF as illustrative examples of international/transnational environmental governance regimes.  104  That the analytical framework develops iteratively and that it should be applied to other examples of international/transnational environmental governance regimes in order to refine and diffuse it. •  '  i •  That value conflict between environmental and economic visions for the GB/PS may be the most difficult environmental problem, that this reflects similar conflicts in other international regions and that it requires improved horizontal coordination between environmental and economic regimes. That lack of horizontal coordination between First Nations/Tribes and the GB/PS ITF needs mitigation. That the GB/PS international/transnational regimes need to be more inclusive, particularly regarding market economy and First Nations/Tribes to assist horizontal coordination; That political will reflecting a need for social learning and support on both sides of the border is a fundamental problem for GB/PS international/transnational regimes. That information exchange, particularly data compatibility is a fundamental problem in the GB/PS international/transnational regimes. That international transboundary environmental issues in GB/PS change over time and this change must be accommodated by international/transnational governance regimes. That funding of GB/PS international/transnational regimes is inadequate. That political support, continuity and memory are important and shifts in power and authority importantly influence cross-border efforts. That outreach is necessary for horizontal and vertical coordination between regimes and an important aspect of collaboration.  105  6.5 Recommendations for further research The above analysis has suggested a number o f useful directions for future research. Some of the most important o f these are listed below. 1.  The analytical framework to assess collaborative planning in regimes has a sound theoretical basis. Research should be conducted in applying the framework to examples or case studies o f international/transnational governance regimes other than the G B / P S in order to develop, refine and diffuse it.  2.  ,  The G B / P S ITF was observed to have little i f any involvement with marketeconomy transnational regimes in its environmental governance  activities. This  observation is consistent with findings by Blatter (2000) that transboundary cooperation within environmental or economic communities does not foster cooperation and may even generate antagonism between environmental and economic communities, not only in the G B / P S but also in Europe. It is also consistent with Artibise's (2005) view that this antagonism may be exacerbated by conflicting visions. This may be seen as an example o f lack o f horizontal coordination between international/transnational regimes due to different values as well as different purpose, scope and responsibilities and further research should be done to see how the analytical framework could mitigate this difficulty. One subject that appears to appeal to both environmental and economic values and purposes is growth management in B C and Washington State as indicated by the 1994 BC/Washington Growth Management Agreement. Therefore land use planning would seem to be a good place to start research about how to strengthen horizontal coordination between transnational environmental and economic regimes. 3.  The G B / P S I T F was observed to have achieved only minimal direct involvement o f First Nations and Tribes in its activities. This may be seen as an example o f lack o f horizontal coordination between international/transnational regimes due to different cultural/social/political/legal context and values and further research should be done to see how the Collaborative Planning Framework could mitigate this difficulty.  4.  It was observed that political support for the E C C and its task forces including the G B / P S I T F was weak in both B C and Washington State, and this suggests the need for  106  more social learning in both jurisdictions to generate political support. This may be seen as an example of lack of horizontal coordination between domestic governance regimes due to different cultural/social/political/legal context and values and further research should be done to see how the Collaborative Planning Framework could mitigate this difficulty. 5.  Although interviews were found to be least useful in this research, the literature indicates that they are considered to be an important part of the case study approach. Therefore, in future research using the analytical framework, methods to maximize effectiveness of interviews should receive careful attention.  6.  The literature revealed that in addition to effectiveness of international/transnational regimes, a major issue is their accountability. Further research should be undertaken to address this issue.  107  Reference List 1.  Abram, Simone A. Planning the public: some comments on empirical problems for planning theory, Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2000 Summer; Vol. 190sfo. 4):351-357.  2.  Alexander, E. R. The planner-prince: interdependence, rationalities and post-communicative practice. Planning Theory & Practice. 2001 Dec; Vol. 2(No. 3):311-324.  3.  Alexander, Ernest R. Rationality revisited: planning paradigms in a post-modernist perspective. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2000 Spring; Vol. 19(No. 3):242-56.  4.  Alley, Jamie. The British Columbia - Washington Environmental Cooperation Council: an evolving model of Canada - U.S. cooperation. Kiy, Richard and John D. Wirth, Editors. Environmental management on North America's borders. College Station, Texas: Texas A & M University Press; 1998; pp. 53-71.  5.  Allport, Gordon W. Becoming: basic considerations for a psychology of personality. New Haven and London: Yale University Press; 1965.  6.  Alper, Donald K. Conflicting transborder visions and agendas: economic and environmental Cascadians . Nicol, Heather N. and Ian Townsend Gault, Editors. Holding the line: borders in a global world. Vancouver: UBC Press; 2005; pp. 222-237.  7.  Artibise, Alan F. J. Cascadian adventures: shared visions, strategic alliances, and ingrained barriers in a transborder region. Nicol, Heather N. and Ian Townsend Gault, Editors. Holding the line: borders in a global world. Vancouver: UBC Press; 2005; pp. 238-267.  8.  Beck, Ulrich Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash. Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press; 1994.  9.  Bish, Robert L. Governing Puget Sound. Seattle: Washington Sea Grant Program Puget Sound Books; 1982.  10.  Bish, Robert L. and Eric G. Clemens. Local government in British Columbia. 3rd Edition ed. Richmond, BC: Union of British Columbia Municipalities; 1999.  11.  Blatter, Joachim. Emerging cross-border regions as a step toward sustainable development. International Journal of Economic Development. 2000; 2(3): pp. 402-439.  12.  Blatter, Joachim K. Debordering the world of states: toward a multi-level system in Europe and a multi-policy system in North America? Insights from the border regions. Brenner, Neil Bob Jessop Martin Jones and Gordon MacLeod, Editors. State/space: a reader. Maiden, MA, USA; Oxford, UK; Carlton, Australia; Berlin, Germany: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.; 2003; pp. 185-207.  13.  Bridge, Maurice. Court blocks CP Rail plan. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, BC; 2006 Feb 24; B: Westcoast News: B l and B3.  14.  British Columbia and Washington State. British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Initiative Terms of Reference.  15.  British Columbia and Washington State. Environmental cooperation agreement between the Province of British Columbia and the State of Washington. 1992 May 7.  108 16.  British Columbia and Washington State. Joint Statement. British Columbia and Washington State; 1994 Sep 6.  17.  —. British Columbia/Washington State Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Cooperation.  18.  —. The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force Terms of Reference; cl996b.  19.  —. Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force meeting Notes; Best Western Inn, Bellingham, Washington. 1998 Dec. —. Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force meeting Notes; NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Centre, Seattle, Washington. 1999 Apr.  20.  21.  —. British ColumbiaAVashington State Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Assessment.  22.  —. Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force meeting Notes; Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. 2001b Nov.  23.  —. Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force meeting Notes; Best Western Heritage Inn, Bellingham, Washington. 2002 Sep.  24.  —. Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force meeting Notes; Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. 2004 Oct.  25.  British Columbia Ministry of Environment. British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council-Reports/Publications [Web Page]. 2006; Accessed 2006 Feb 20.  26.  British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and Economy. Georgia Basin initiative: Creating a sustainable future. 1993 May.  27.  British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council Interim Report February, 1993.  28.  British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. Borderline news: A periodic update of the Washington/British Columbia Environmental Cooperation Council. British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council; 1994a Feb.  29.  British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. Borderline news: A periodic update of the Washington/British Columbia Environmental Cooperation Council. British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council; 1994b Jun.  30.  British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. 1993^1994 Annual Report: British Columbia/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council. 1994c Jul.  31.  British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. Borderline news: A periodic update of the Washington/British Columbia Environmental Cooperation Council. British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council; 1995 Jan.  32.  British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. Borderline news: A periodic update of the Washington/British Columbia Environmental Cooperation Council. British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council; 1998 Dec.  33.  British Columbia AVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. Borderline news: A periodic update of the Washington/British Columbia Environmental Cooperation Council. British  109 ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council; 1999 Jun. 34.  British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. Borderline news: A periodic update of the Washington/British Columbia Environmental Cooperation Council. British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council; 2000 Oct.  35.  British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. Borderline news: A periodic update of the Washington/British Columbia Environmental Cooperation Council. British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council; 2001a Mar.  36.  British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. Borderline news: A periodic update of the Washington/British Columbia Environmental Cooperation Council. British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council; 2001b Oct.  37.  British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. Borderline news: A periodic update of the Washington/British Columbia Environmental Cooperation Council. British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council; 2002a Apr.  38.  British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. Borderline news: A periodic update of the Washington/British Columbia Environmental Cooperation Council. British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council; 2002b Jul.  39.  British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. Borderline news: A periodic update Of the Washington/British Columbia Environmental Cooperation Council. British Columbia/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council; 2003 Jul.  40.  British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. Borderline news: A periodic update of the Washington/British Columbia Environmental Cooperation Council. British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council; 2005.  41.  British ColumbiaAVashington Marine Science Panel. The shared marine waters of British Columbia and Washington: a scientific assessment of current status and future trends in resource abundance and environmental quality in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia, and Puget Sound. 1994 Aug.  42.  British Columbia Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council. Summary of October 1, 1992 meetmg of me BCAVasmngton Environmental Cooperation Council; 1992 Oct.  43.  British ColumbiaAVashington State Environmental Cooperation Council. Report on the December 1, 1994 meeting of the BCAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. British ColumbiaAVashington State Environmental Cooperation Council; 1995a Jan 25.  44.  British ColwnbiaAVashington State Environmental Cooperation Council. Report to the Governor of Washington and the Premier of British Columbia from the BCAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council. British ColumbiaAVashington State Environmental Cooperation Council; 1995b Sep 1.  45.  British ColumbiaAVashington State Environmental Cooperation Council. British Columbia/ Washington Environmental Cooperation Council Fourth Annual Report to the Governor and the Premier. British ColumbiaAVashington State Environmental Cooperation Council; 1996.  46.  Brody, Samuel D. Measuring the effects of stakeholder participation on the quality of local plans based on the principles of collaborative ecosystem management. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2003 Summer; Vol. 22QNfo. 4): pp. 407-19.  110 47.  Bullock, Alan Oliver Stalleybrassand Stephen Trombley. The Fontana dictionary of modern thought. Second ed. London: Fontana Press; 1988.  48.  Bunting, Trudi E. and Pierre Filion. Introduction: the movement towards the post-industrial society and the changing role of the inner city . Bunting, Trudi E. and Pierre Filion, Editors. The changing Canadian Inner City. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo Department of Geography; 1988; pp. 1-24.  49.  Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Guidelines Task Group. A framework for developing ecosystem health goals, objectives, and indicators: tools for ecostem based management Winnipeg, Manitoba: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Guidelines Task Group; 1996 Mar.  50.  Canadian Government. The Constitution Act, 1867, Sections 91 and 92. 1867: pp. 92 (13).  51.  Carruthers, James. Observations of GB/PS ITF meeting. 2001 Nov 28-2001 Nov 29.  52.  Carruthers, Jim. Human values in planning. Toronto: City of Toronto Planning & Development Department; 1980; 3, (2): pp. 14-15.  53.  (The Discovery Institute of Seattle). Cascadia Institute. Report on the activities, results and recommendations of the BC-Washington Corridor Task Force . Vancouver, BC: The Cascadia Institute; 2002 Jan.  54.  Cleaver, Frances. Institutions, agency, and the limitations of participatory approaches to development. Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari, Editors. Participation: the new tyranny? London, New York: Zed Books; 2001; pp. 36-55.  55.  Cooke, Bill. The social psychological limits of participation? Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari, Editors. Participation: the new tyrany? London, New York: Zed Books; 2001; pp. 102-121.  56.  Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari. Participation: the new tyranny? London, New York: Zed Books; 2002.  57.  Corburn, James. Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making: improving urban planning for communities at risk. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2003 Summer; Vol. 22(No. 4): pp. 420-33.  58.  Cresswell, John W. Qualitative inquiry and research design, choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications; 1998.  59.  Curran, Deborah and May Leung. Smart growth: a primer. University of Victoria, B.C.: Smart Growth British Columbia; 2000.  60.  Daily, Gretchen C. Natures services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington D.C. and Covelo, California: Island Press; 1997.  61.  Dicken, Peter. Globalization. Johnston, R. J. Derek Gregory Geraldine Pratt and Michael Watts, Editors. The dictionary of human geography. Fourth Edition ed. Oxford UK, Maiden Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers; 2000; pp. 315-316.  62.  Durning, Alan Thein. This place on earth: Home and the practice of permanence. Seattle: Sasquatch Books; 1996.  63.  Eberly, Don E. The essential civil society reader: classic essays in the American civil society debate. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 2000a.  Ill 64.  Eberly, Don E. The meaning, origins, and applications of civil society. Eberly, Don E., Editor. The essential civil society reader: classis essays in the American civil society debate. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.; 2000b; pp. 3-29.  65.  Environment Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency. Joint statement of cooperation on the Georgia Basin and Puget Sound ecosystem.  66.  Environment Canada et al. Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Ecosystems Indicators Working Group Terms of Reference.  67.  Environment Canada-US Environmental Protection Agency. Joint statement of cooperation on the Georgia Basin and Puget Sound ecosystem: 2004 action plan and report on progress. 2004 Apr 29.  68.  Environment Canada, US EPA et al. http://www.epa.gov/regionlO/psgb/indicators/ [Web Page]. 2006 Oct.  69.  Ericson, Richard V. Insurance as governance. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press; 2003.  70.  Fall, Juliet. Drawing the line: nature, hybridity and politics in transboundary spaces. First ed. Burlington, V T and Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate Publishing Company Limited; 2005.  71.  Faludi, Andreas. Part 1: what is planning theory? introduction. Faludi, Andreas, Editor. A reader in planning theory. Oxford, New York, Toronto: Permagon Press; 1973; pp. 1-10.  72.  Fischler, Raphael. Communicative planning theory: a Foucauldian assessment. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2000 Summer; Vol. 19(No. 4): pp. 358-68.  73.  Fowlie, Jonathan and Maurice Bridge. Old rail line to stay green. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, BC; 2006 Feb 24; B: Westcoast News: B2 and B3.  74.  Francis, George R. and Henry A. Regier. Barriers and bridges to the restoration of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. Gunderson, Lance H. C. S. Holling and Stephen S. Light, Editors. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press; 1995; pp. 239-291.  75.  Francis, Paul. Participatory development at the World Bank. Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari, Editors. Participation: the new tyrrany? London, New York: Zed Books; 2001; pp. 72-87.  76.  Fraser, David A. Transboundary ecosystem management in the Canada-United States Pacific corridor: organizing for sustainable development in the Georgia Basin-Puget Sound bioregion. In Press (2006): 4.  77.  Garreau, Joel. The nine nations of North America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company; 1981.  78.  Georgia Strait Alliance. Strait Talk. Nanaimo, BC; 2004 Summer: 1.  79.  Giddens, Anthony. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1984.  80.  Giddens, Anthony. Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press; 1991.  .81.  Gunton, Thomas I. J. C. Day and Peter W. Williams. Evaluating collaborative planning: the British  112 Columbia experience . Environments: a Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. 2003; Volume 31(Number3):pp. 1-11. 82.  Hailey, John. Beynd the formulaic: process and practice in South Asian NGOs. Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari, Editors. Participation: the new tyranny? London, New York: Zed Books; 2001; pp. 88-101. ' • .  83.  Harcourt, Mike. Telephone interview. 2004 Dec 3.  84.  Hawken, Paul. The ecology of commerce: a declaration of sustainability. New York: HarperBusiness: HarperCollins Publishers; 1993.  85.  Healey, Patsy. Editorial. Planning Theory & Practice. 2001 Dec; Volume 2(No. 3): pp. 255-8.  86.  —. Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Second ed. Houndrmlls, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2006. (Rydih, Yvonne  87.  Held, David. Democracy and the global order: from the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1995.  88.  Held, David and Anthony McGrew. Governing globalization: power, authority and global 7 govei governance. Cambridge, UK and Maiden, Ma: Polity Press and Blackwell Publishers Inc.; 2002  89.  Held, David Anthony McGrew David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perraton. Global transformations: politics, economics and culture. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press; 1999a.  90.  Held, David Anthony McGrew David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perraton. The territorial state and global politics. Held, David Anthony McGrew David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perraton. Global transformations: politics, economics and culture. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press; 1999b; pp. 32-86.  91.  Held, David & Mathias Koenig-Archibugi. Introduction. Held, David & Mathias Koenig Archibugi, Editors. Global governance and public accountability. Maiden, MA; Oxford, UK; Carlton, Australia: Blackwell Publishing; 2005; pp. 1-7.  92.  Henkel, Heiko and Roderick Stirrat. Participation as spiritual duty; empowerment as secular subjection. Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari, Editors, participation: the new tyranny? London, New York: Zed Books; 2001; pp. 168-184.  93.  Hildebrand, Lawrence P. Victoria Pebbles and David A. Fraser. Cooperative ecosystem management across the Canada-US border: approaches and experiences of transboundary programs in the Gulf of Maine, Great Lakes and Georgia Basin/Puget Sound. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2002; Volume 45(Issues 6-7): pp. 421-457.  94.  Hildyard, Nicholas Pandurang Hegde Paul Wolvekamp and Somasekhare Reddy. Pluralism, participation and power: joint forest management in India. Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari, Editors. Participation: the new tyranny? London, New York: Zed Books; 2001; pp. 56-71. • ' ' / Hodge, Anthony R. and Paul R West. Achieving progress in the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem and the Georgia Basin-Puget Sound Bioregion. Kiy, Richard and John D. Wirth, Editors. Environmental management on North America's borders. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press; 1998; pp. 72-107.  and Andrew Thornley. Planning : environment: cities; 2).  95.  96.  Hough, Michael. Cities and natural process. London and New York: Routledge; 1995.  113  97.  Hutton, Thomas A. The transformation of Canada's Pacific metropolis: a study of Vancouver. Montreal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy; 1998. (Monograph series on cityregions; Volume 4).  98.  Huxley, Margo. The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2000a Summer; Vol. 19(No. 4): pp. 369-77.  99.  Huxley, Margo and Oren Yifachel. New paradigms or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2000b Summer; Vol. 19(No. 4): pp. 333-42.  100.  Imperial, Mark T. and Timothy M . Hennessy. An ecosystem-based approach to managing estuaries: an assessment of the National Estuary Program. Coastal Management. 1996; Vol. 24: pp. 115-139.  101.  Jansson, Bengt-Owe and AnnMari Jansson. The Baltic Sea: reversibly unstable or irreversibly stable? Gunderson, Lance H. and Lowell Pritchard Jr., Editors. Resilience and the behaviour of large-scale systems: Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press; 2002; pp. 71109.  102.  Johnson, Pierre Marc and Andre Bealieu. The environment and NAFTA: understanding and implementing the new continental law. Washington D.C.; Covelo, California: Island Press; 1996.  103.  Jolly, Carol. Telephone interview. 2005 Jan 19.  104.  Jones, W. T. A history of western philosophy. New York. Harcourt, Brace and Company; 1952.  105.  Juillet, Luc. Regional models of environmental governance in the context of market integration. Parson, Edward A., Editor. Governing the environment: persistent challenges, uncertain innovations. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press; 2001; pp. 125-168.  106.  Kaufmann, Walter. Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre. Cleveland and New York: Meridian Books: The World Pubhshing Company; 1965.  107.  Kellas, Hugh. Interview. 2005 Apr 8.  108.  Kernaghan, Kenneth and David Siegel. Public administration in Canada: a text. Second Edition ed. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Canada, Division of Thomson Canada Limited; 1991. Kiy, Richard and John D. Wirth. Environmental management on North Americas's borders. College Station, Texas: Texas A & M University Press; 1998a.  109.  110.  Kiy, Richard and John D. Wirth. Introduction. Kiy, Richard and John D. Wirth, Editors. Environmental management on North America's borders. College Station, Texas: Texas A & M University Press; 1998b; pp. 3-31.  111.  Kothari, Uma. Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari, Editors. Participation: the new tyranny? London, New York: Zed Books; 2001; pp. 139-152.  112.  Krasner, S. International regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1983.  113.  Lake, Carolyn A. and Rich Carson (WA-APA [Washington Chapter, American Planning Association] @yahoogroups.com). Oregon High Court Ruling Tuesday [February 21, 2006] on Measure 37. E-mail to: (James Carruthers). 2006 Feb 23.  114 114.  Laurian, Lucie. A prerequisite for participation: environmental knowledge and what residents know about toxic sites. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2003 Spring; No. 3: pp. 25769).  115.  Lee, Kai N. SustainabiUty in the Columbia River Basin Gunderson, Lance H. C. S. Holling and Stephen S. Light, Editors. Barriers & bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press; 1995; pp. 214-238.  116.  Ley, David F. Past elites and present gentry: neighbourhoods of priviledge in the inner city. Bourne, Larry S. and David F. Ley, Editors. The changing social geography of Canadian cities. Montreal* Kingston; London: Buffalo: McGill-Queen's University Press; 1993; pp. 214233.  117.  Lindblom, Charles E. The science of "muddling through". Faludi, Andreas. A reader in planning theory. Oxford, New York, Toronto: Permagon Press; 1973; pp. 151-169.  118.  Margerum, Richard D. Collaborative planning: building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2002 Spring; Vol. 21 (No. 3): pp. 237-53. '  119.  Marshall, David. Interview. 2005 Aug 16.  120.  Maxwell, Jennifer (BC Ministry of Environment) British Columbia Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council. Record of discussion for ECC meeting: October 28, 2005 ; Delta Ocean Pointe Resort, Victoria, BC. Victoria, BC: BC Ministry of Environment; 2005 Oct.  121.  Maxwell, Jennifer, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/spd/ecc/memberslup.html [Web Page]. 2006; Accessed 2006 Feb 20.  122.  McEvedy, Colin. The Penguin atlas of North American history to 1870. Markham, Ontario: Penguin Books, Canada; 1988.  123.  McNeill, J. R. Something new under the sun: an environmental history of the twentieth century world. New York; London: W.W. Norton & Company; 2000.  124.  Mohan, Giles. Beyond participation: strategies for deeper empowerment. Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari, Editors. Participation: the new tyranny? London, New York: Zed Books; 2001; pp. 153-167.  125.  Mosse, David. Teoples knowledge', participation and patronage: operations and representations in rural development. Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari, Editors. Participation: the new tyranny? London, New York: Zed Books; 2001; pp. 16-35.  126.  Neuman, Michael. Communicate this! Does consensus lead to advocacy and pluralism? Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2000 Summer, Vol. 19(No. 4): pp. 343-50.  127.  Newson, Malcolm. Land, water and development. Second ed. London and New York: Routledge; 1997.  128.  Northwest Environment Watch. This place on earth 2001: Guide to a sustainable northwest. Seattle: Northwest Environment Watch; 2001.  129.  —. This place on earth 2002: Measuring what matters. Seattle: Northwest Environment Watch; 2002. /  130.  Northwest Environment Watch. Cascadia scorecard. Seattle: Northwestenvironmentwatch; 2004:  115  131.  Northwest Environment Watch and Smart Growth B C . Sprawl and smart growth in Greater Vancouver [Web Page]. 2002 Sep 12.  132.  Norton, David L . Personal destinies: a philosophy of ethical individualism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1976.  133.  Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, U K , Cambridge University Press; 2003.  134.  Painter, Joe. Governance. Johston, R. J. Derek Gregory Geraldine Pratt and Michael Watts, Editors. The dictionary of human geography. Fourth Edition ed. Oxford, U K and Maiden, Mass.. Blackwell Press; 2000; pp. 316-317.  135.  Peterson, Charles H . and Jane Lubchenco. Marine ecosystem services. Daily, Gretchen C , Editor. Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, D C and Covelo Ca.: Island Press; 1997; pp. 177-194.  136.  Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force. Terms of Reference.  1996 Sep 12.  137.  Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force. Puget Sound-Georgia Basin International Task Force April Meeting [Minutes]: December 7, 1998.  138.  Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force. Pathways to our optimal future: a five-year review of the activities of the International Task Force. December 2000.  139.  Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force. Puget Sound-Georgia Basin International Task Force Membership. November 2001(Meeting handout).  140.  Robbins, Stephen B . Management concepts and applications. Canadian Second Edition ed. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall Canada Inc.; 1990.  141.  Rylko, Michael (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Helping to define the problem for ecosystem management. Canada U.S. Studies: Puget Sound/Georgia Basin: Managing an international ecosystem. Ecodesign Resource Society (EDRS) Event: Regional sustainability and governance. U B C L i u Centre for the Study of Global Issues. 2002. Notes: 40 marine species formally at risk in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin  142.  Sanchez-Rodriquez, Roberto A . Konrad Von Moltke Stephen Mumme John Kirton and Donald Munton. The dynamics of transboundary environmental agreements in North America: prehminary findings: Kiy, Richard and John D. Wirth, Editors. Environmental management on North America's borders. College Station, Texas: Texas A & M University Press; 1998; pp. 32-49.  143.  Sandercock, Leonie. When strangers become neighbours: managing cities of difference. Planning Theory & Practice. 2000 Sep; Volume l(No. 1). pp. 13-30.  144.  (People for Puget Sound). Sato, Mike and Philip Bloch. The Orca Pass international Stewardship Area: hands across the border. Seattle: People for Puget Sound; May 2001.  145.  Sawchuck, Gary (Canadian Government Policy Research initiative [PRTJ). Sawchuck, Gary. The emergence of cross-border regions. PRI Project: North American linkages; Nov 2005.  146.  Schelle, P. and J. Hamer. Cascadia: the new binationalism of western Canada and the U.S. Pacific northwest. Earle, R. L . and J. D . Wirth, Editors. Identities in North America: the search for community. Stanford, C A : Stanford University Press; 1995; pp. 140-156.  116 147. Selman, Paul. Social capital, sustainability and environmental planning. Planning Theory & Practice. 2001 Apr, Vol. 2(No. 1): pp. 13-30. 148. Sewell, John. The shape of the city: Toronto struggles with modern planning. Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press; 1993. 149. Shaw, Malcolm. International law. Fourth Edition ed. Cambridge, new York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press; 1997. 150. —. International law. Fifth Edition ed. Cambridge, New York, Port Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town: Cambridge University Press; 2003. 151.  Siegelbaum & Associates. The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Ecosystems Indicators Working Group history and chronology. Seattle; Jul 2004.  152. Soanes, Catherine Sara Hawker and Julia Elliott. Paperback Oxford English Dictionary. Tenth ed. Oxford,UK: Oxford University Press; 2005. 153. Sproule-Jones, Mark. Restoring the Great Lakes: institutional analysis and design. 1999; 27, pp. 291316. 154. Stake, Robert E. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, Ca., London, New Delhi: Sage Publications Inc.; 1995. 155. State of Washington Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. 2000 Puget Sound water quality management plan. 156. Stewart, Colin. ADMN 452 Local government law. Victoria : School of Public Administration, University of Victoria; Sep 2001. 157. Stokke, Olav Schram. Regimes as governance systems. Young, Oran, Editor. Global governance: drawing insights from the environmental experience. Cambridge, Mass., London: The MTT Press; 1997; pp. 27-63. 158. Taylor, Harry. Insights into participation from critical management and labour process perspectives. Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari, Editors. Participation: the new tyranny? London, New York: Zed Books; 2001; pp. 122-138. 159. Tennant, Paul. Aboriginal peoples and aboriginal title. Carty, R. K , Editor. Politics, policy and government in British Columbia. Vancouver: UBC Press; 1996; pp 45-64. ;  160. The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. Ballot Measure 37. 2006 Feb 21; 37. 161.  Transboundary Georgia Basin- Puget Sound Environmental Indicators Working Group. Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Ecosystem Indicators Report. Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative/ Washington State Department of Ecology; 2002 Spring; GBEI Pub. # EC/GB-01-034: Washington State Dept. of Ecology Pub. # 02-01-002.  162. Turbeville, Daniel E. Ill and Susan L. Bradbury. NAFTA and transportation corridor improvement in western North America. Nicol, Heather N. and Ian Townsend Gault, Editors. Holding the line: borders in a global world. Vancouver: UBC Press; 2005; pp. 268-292. 163. Umemoto, Karen. Walking in another's shoes: epistemological challenges in participatory plarming. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2001 Fall; Vol. 21(No. 1): pp. 17-31. 164.  United States. Environmental protection Agency Region 10 Washington Sea grant Program. Shared  117 waters: the vulnerable inland sea of British Columbia and Washington. Seattle: Washington Sea Grant Program; 1994. 165.  United States Government. US Constitution - Amendment 5. Dec 15, 1791.  166. VanderZwaag, Gordon Beanlands Peter Duinker Karen A. Massey Alison Rieser Judith Spiller Robert A. Taylor and Peter Underwood. Chapter 6: Decisionmaking improvements and alternatives. Rieser, Alison Judith Spiller and David VanderZwaag, Editors. Environmental decisionmaking in a transboundary region. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, London, Paris, Tokyo: Springer-Verlag; 1986; pp. 155-182. 167.  Wapner, Paul. Governance in global civil society. Young, Oran, Editor. Global governance: drawing insights from the environmental experience. Cambridge, Mass., London: The MIT Press; 1997; pp. 65-84.  168. Westley, Frances. Governing design: the management of social systems and ecosystems management. Gunderson, Lance H. C. S. Holling and Stephen S. Light, Editors. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press; 1995; pp. 391-427. 169.  Wheeler, Stephen M. Planning for metropolitan sustainability. Journal of Planning Education & Research. 2000 Winter, Vol. 20(No. 2): pp. 133-45.  170. Whitfield, Paul H. David Fraser and Stewart Cohen. Climate change impacts on water in Georgia Basin/Puget Sound. Canadian Water Resources Journal. 2004; 28(4): pp. 523-529. 171.  Yin, Robert K. Case study research: design and methods. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications; 1989. (Bickman, Leonard. Applied social research methods series; Volume 5).  172. Young, Oran R. Global governance: drawing insights from the environmental experience. Cambridge, Mass., London: The MTT Press; 1997. (Choucri, Nazli. Global environmental accords: strategies for sustainability; 5). 173.  Young, Oran R. Governance in world affairs. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press; 1999a.  174. Young, Oran R. and Marc A. Levy assisted by Gail Osherenko. The effectiveness of international regimes. Young, Oran R., Editor. The effectiveness of international regimes. Cambridge, Mass. and London: The MTT Press; 1999b; pp. 1-32.  118  Appendices  Appendix A: Review of collaborative planning literature Collaborative planning literature indicates a variety o f criticisms and suggests a number o f potential directions that would contribute significantly to new collaborative planning knowledge. First, although 'the broad aim o f participatory [collaborative] development is to increase the involvement o f socially and economically marginalized peoples in decision-making over their own lives' {Guijt 1998 in (Cooke 2002)}5, Cooke and Kothari (2001), editors o f Participation:  the new tyranny argue that the collaborative planning paradigm has become  a dominating orthodoxy. Their objective is to provide more rigorous and critical insights than were previously available by examining participatory theory, methods and practices. The editors attempt to transcend the limited "self-reflexivity" o f participatory development in practice and address how the discourse itself systemically facilitates the illegitimate use o f power (CoOke 2002). The fundamental  concern is the naivete o f participatory  development proponents regarding "the complexities o f power and power relations", between  facilitators'  and  participants,  between  participants,  between  donors  and  beneficiaries and also regarding the historical construction and constitution o f knowledge and  social  norms  and  the  "multiple and  diverse"  expressions  o f power.  Such  misunderstanding o f power necessitates reconsideration o f the meanings o f empowerment and claims for its achievement. Essentially, tyranny is about "the illegitimate and/or unjust uses o f power". Whether such tyranny is inevitable is not addressed, but "a more sophisticated and genuinely reflexive understanding o f power and its manifestations and dynamics" must recognize that participatory development is actually constructed by development professionals whose power is sufficient to create and support the process. Although versions o f reality differ, development professionals construct a particular reality that justifies their intervention. A "genuine and rigorous reflexivity" that acknowledges such constructions is needed. Although proponents o f participation claim an ongoing 'selfcritical epistemological awareness', what is needed is better criticism both within the system and o f the participatory methodology itself. This is evident because the critique so  119  far has failed to substantially affect  the widespread diffusion  o f participation in  development process. Other comments and criticisms o f collaborative planning include the following: Neuman (2000) critiques communicative planning, especially the consensus based version. Limitations are identified. M a n y U S consensus processes are separated from power centres, avoid important issues and result in general, thin agreements. Consensus processes use position-based and interest-based  methods that overlook, norms and meaning. Also,  communicative planning theory focuses on words and avoids images, whereas images exert a dominant influence in society. Image literature is reviewed and the question about the shape o f a richer and more integrated theory o f planning is discussed (Neuman 2000). Abram (2000) addresses communicative and participative planning by examining empirical problems in a British planning process case. She reviews various understandings among local participants about aims and methods o f planning and o f the future. Two problems are: the amount o f representativeness  required to achieve legitimacy and disconnections  between process and outcome. Also planning rituals are seen as institutions supporting particular forms  o f governance,  epistemologies  and technologies.  This challenges  Habermas' view that participants can leave aside their interests or power during process, instead o f assuming that these attributes flow from intrinsic ways o f thought and being-inthe-world (Abram 2000).  Attending to 'local knowledge' through participation will not change relationships i  between local communities and development institutions. L o c a l knowledge is often structured by planning process. In one case 'local need' was generated by what was locally anticipated to be the capacity o f the donor agency to deliver. Here, 'participatory planning' was the adoption and manipulation o f new 'planning knowledge' in the guise o f making use of'peoples knowledge'(Mosse 2001). Participatory development tends to blend social structures with institutions usually expressed as organizations, often to clarify such social structures. Participants' institutional arrangements may not coincide with those o f development bureaucracies.  Informal  120  institutions may be given lip service while formal ones are actually promoted: Different institutions may require different forms of participation; participatory institutions may be based on unfounded ideas of 'community' and may harbour foundationalist tendencies regarding local communities. Participatory approaches may inadequately reflect individual agency and links between agency and structure. Participatory approaches overlook the variety and flux of identities of individual agents and how these attributes affect individual's motivation, rationale and responsibility about participation, and ignore connections between participating and subordination (Cleaver 2001). Failure of donors to implement participation is often institutionalized, undermining the potential of civil society groups. Participatory processes that do not consider the "relative bargaining power" of stakeholders simply perpetuate power inequities (Hildyard 2001). Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), one major participatory development method, emphasing "charismatic specialists" in relating 'professionals' and 'community', appears shamanistic. P R A thus becomes a "rite of communion", an exorcism of 'phantoms' of 'conventional  development  practice' and PRA techniques  appear simplified and  reductionist. PRA allows too much individualism, opportunism and cooption while ignoring structural constraints (Francis 2001). Participatory development formulas are analyzed-by Hailey (2001) using: cross-cultural management; a Foucaultian  review bf power and participation discourse; and Cold War  community participation. Formulaic participation approaches have three major failings: operational limitations; cultural inappropriateness; and the appearance or actuality of being a form of external control (Hailey 2001). Cooke (2001) uses four ideas from social psychology to show how the real, implied or imagined presence of others influences thoughts, feelings and behaviours and suggests that participatory development process has weaknesses that can reduce its effectiveness and empowerment capacity, greater risks may be taken than would have been taken alone (risky shift); participants may proceed with what they think everyone wants, but actually do not (Abiline paradox); though taken for moral reasons, wrong decisions harmful to outsiders can result from self-censorship and mindguards (groupthink); group processes can be  121  manipulated to negatively affect beliefs or consciousness (coercive persuasion) (Cooke 2001). Taylor (2001) uses Foucaultian and labour process critiques to show that both participatory development and participatory management are attempts to affect power relations between elites and less powerful or dependent project beneficiaries or organizational employees. (Taylor 2001). Kothari (2001) criticizes participatory development truth claims and suggests a Foucaultian analysis o f power as circulating, rather than being statically divided between haves and have-nots. Participatory Rural Appraisal ( P R A ) is subverted by its own rituals that hide the reality behind performanaces (Kothari 2001). M o h a n (2001) first criticizes participatory practice, arguing that non-local development interventions are subtly Eurocentric. Also, focusing on personal and local empowerment and knowledge diverts attention from other power and knowledge centres such as the state. Transcendence o f "the self and other", "insider and outsider" and linking o f local interventions to democratization, anti-imperialism and feminism is recommended (Mohan 2001). Henkel and Stirrat (2001) consider the cosmologies, ideas and practices o f development professionals. They review traditions o f participation, describing them as being mainly religious, tracing the moral imperative in participation from the Reformation to current British N G O s . Participation is "a religious experience" and liberation claimed by 'empowerment' is overstated. Participation forms identities and empowers actors to take part in modernization, but really amounts to Foucaultian subjection (Henkel 2001). Huxley and Yiftachel (2000) want clarification regarding dominance o f communicative planning theory relative to theory about power, the state and political economy. They observe the recent turn to communicative planning that some claim to be a new dominant paradigm. They question the communicative paradigm and its theoretical dominance. They point to alternative, often underestimated analytical positions that focus on power, the state and political economy that demonstrate diversity in planning theory. They suggest six  122  critical propositions about communicative planning theory as contributions to debates about theory, practice, nature and effects o f planning (Huxley 2000b). Huxley (2000) examines Habermasian theory o f communicative action and implications for communicative planning theory and collaborative planning practice.  Communicative  planning theoretical debate increases about the need for greater acknowledgement o f power and inequality, particularly regarding the problematic relation o f planning to the state, as well as conceptions o f public discourse in planning that fails to critically examine Habermas' positioning o f communicative rationality in opposition to state and economy. The possibility o f communicative planning itself may be questioned (Huxley 2000a). Alexander (2001) argues that the Habermasian/Foucauldian debate is relevant to how planning theory affects practice, because it requires various behaviour from planners. Communicative  practice  requires  consensual  planning  through  open  democratic  participation, while Foucauldian theory implies strategic rationality and Machiavellian realpolitik in planning. However these conflicting views are reconciled by planning situations involving interdependent actors that require both approaches. One implication is that more attention should be spent on institutional design (Alexander 2001). Selman (2001) observes that environmental planning increasingly involves local people in reaction against top-down, expert-led planning, exclusion o f marginalized 'unheard' voices and lack o f 'ownership'  o f planning policies by affected  publics. Successful  local  participation requires social capital; that is, organizations, structures and relationships built within communities to achieve local sustainability. This study concludes that extravagant claims for participatory approaches to build consensus and active environmental citizenship must be tempered by experience (Selman 2001). Newson (1997) regards participation as the key to any successful sustainable river basin management project. Newson promotes collaborating with existing local groups and institutions, ensuring sufficient contact, attention to.local traditions and practices and motivating the community to act collectively (Newson 1997).  123  Brody (2003) states that, while effective ecosystem management requires looking beyond local jurisdictions, its implementation representation.effects  will  be  local.  Examination o f  stakeholder  on ecosystem management and relationships between community  participation and quality o f local plans for long-term ecological management indicate that specific stakeholder input does significantly increase quality o f ecosystem plans (Brody 2003). Corburn (2003) notes that the need for local knowledge pressures environmental and health planners to combine scientific expertise with local community knowledge. knowledge  can  improve  collaborative  planning  for  communities  facing  Local serious  environmental and health risks in at least four dimensions: epistemology, procedural democracy, effectiveness  and distributive justice. This implies a shift from 'science  speaking truth' to society to 'making sense together' (Corburn 2003). Laurian (2003) doubts that residents are aware o f local issues and sufficiently informed to participate meaningfully i n environmental decision-making and seeks to demonstrate that participation depends upon awareness and information. She identifies factors that affect awareness and information levels and recommends policies to generate participation. She concludes that supporting community mobilization efforts increases residents awareness and information, thereby increasing participation (Laurian 2003). Gunton, Day and Williams (2003) evaluate collaborative planning (CP) in British Columbia and describe C P as the emerging dominant environmental planning model. C P delegates planning responsibility to multi-stakeholder groups engaging in negotiations to reach consensus. C P is now 'institutionalized' as the preferred method in the U S Forest Service and Environmental Protection Agency in preparing watershed plans, and is widely used in environmental planning. C P is evaluated and 'best practice' guidelines for preparation o f B C regional land use plans for B . C . are identified. C P , adopted in B . C . in 1992 for environmental conflict resolution and named shared decision-making ( S D M ) , delegated planning responsibility to 'planning tables' o f all relevant government, business, N G O and community stakeholders to prepare regional land use plans by consensus-based negotiation. B y July 2003, 75 percent o f the provincial land base had been planned using  124  nineteen regional land use plans, and six additional plans were underway. Plans took about four years each using 20-30 stakeholder representatives. Power shifts from extractive industries to environmental industries such as tourism and to First Nations and threats by environmental blockades and boycotts encouraged  substantial changes  in land use  planning, reinforced by policies o f public funding to compensate the forest industry. S F U concluded that achieving consensus on most plans "is a remarkable achievement that provides strong evidence o f the effectiveness o f C P relative to other more traditional planning models". C P also generated 'social capital' benefits o f improved knowledge and relationships, and increased communities' capacity to manage regional welfare (Gunton 2003).  Sandercock (2000) begins with Healey's definition o f planning as 'managing our coexistence in shared space'. Focus on difference is justified by an emerging literature regarding planning for multiple publics. Four ways are elaborated in which multicultural, polyethnic cities and regions challenge planning and four possible ways o f meeting these challenges are identified. Political dialogue is examined in a case study o f a recent inner Sydney land use conflict between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents. A more 'therapeutic' approach to planning practice is recommended and compared with existing communicative models (Sandercock 2000). Umemoto (2001) states that increasing cultural diversity newly challenges planning practice, then examines five challenges for planners working in communities with cultural backgrounds different from those o f the planner (Umemoto 2001). Healey (2001) suggests that the significance o f planning's social role can be reconsidered in two ways: by examining effects o f planning process on social life or by advancement o f values and aims for planning to promote quality o f life and place. 2 0  th  century planning  emphasized buildings and environment to satisfy basic material needs and quality o f life. 2 1 century planning realizes more complex and diverse ways o f meeting material needs, st  cultural aspirations, constraints on meeting needs and transcending material concerns toward cultural contexts and identity formation. Planning is an active part o f identity formation providing types o f land use, topics, places and social groups. Planning requires  125  institutional space for social and political processes to facilitate diversity o f views and to resolve corrflicts over place qualities (Healey 2001). Alexander (2000) confirms that planning has always been associated with rationality, but postmodernist critiques question the future o f rational planning. This article reviews different types o f rationality to conclude that rationality is broader and more diverse than instrumental rationality associated with planning. The question should be, what kinds o f planning and rationality are appropriate to particular cases, situations or  contexts  (Alexander 2000)? Wheeler (2000) establishes a framework for considering sustainable development at the metropolitan level by examining origins o f sustainability and its meaning in urban development, reviewing historical approaches to planning urban regions and analyzing ways to create a context for regional sustainability planning. Regional sustainability requires holistic, long-range planning as well as certain policy aims like compact urban form, reduced auto use, ecosystem protection and improved equity. Based on three urban regions the article proposes a long term strategic approach in which seven elements contribute to a sustainable regional context (Wheeler 2000). Fischler (2000) shows that although there is philosophical opposition between Foucault and Habermas and communication theorists, there are also significant points o f agreement between them, particularly regarding the relationship between theory and practice. But Foucault's approach raises critical questions about the relationship between history and theory, and challenges Forester, Healey et al to consider communicative planning in its historical context and assess its dangers (Fischler 2000). Margerum (2002) describes collaborative planning as an interactive consensus building and implementation process incorporating stakeholder and public involvement. Collaborative planning confronts a wide range o f obstacles to address i n a model for practice. Twenty case studies are used to explore some most common obstacles to building consensus, and a range o f responses. Distinctions between conflict resolution and collaborative planning are identified as are key questions for stakeholders' use in designing consensus building processes (Margemm 2002).  126  Appendix B: Details of observations Observations of GB/PS ITF meetings G B / P S I T F meeting November 28-29, 2001, Victoria, B . C . The meeting was held at the Ministry o f Water, Land and A i r Protection Building, 2975 Jutland Road, Victoria. The co-chairs were from the B C Ministry o f Environment, Lands and Parks and from the Washington State Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. About 15 persons attended, almost all as participants. Proceedings were generally as follows. •  Government restructuring and cutbacks. The new B C government replaced the Ministry o f Environment with two new ministries: Water Land and A i r Protection and Sustainable Resource Management, accompanied by budget cuts o f 25-40% percent and layoffs. Washington State had cut budgets by 15% but Puget Sound was one o f 28 U . S . estuaries that benefited from a federal Environmental Protection Agency ( E P A ) fund increase from $300 M to $400 M (US). Environment Canada had fully funded the Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative (GBEI).  •  There was a general roundtable, updates and information sharing by Task Force members.  The action list  from  the January  2001 meeting was reviewed.  Washington State Department o f Ecology is involved i n watershed planning and will present at Penticton regarding international planning. Fisheries and Oceans Canada ( D F O ) is concerned with water quality changes in response to increases in sewage and aquaculture in the Pacific Region and about offshore o i l and gas Provincial funding cuts and layoff uncertainty makes federal/provincial partnerships difficult. •  Environment Canada G B E I presented on G B / P S environmental indicators. In 1999 the Canada/US Indicators Working Group was established to identify international indicators to help consider G B / P S ecosystem holistically. Five participating agencies were: B C Water, Land and A i r Protection, U S E P A , Environment Canada, Washington State Department o f Ecology and the U S Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Number o f indicators was reduced from 40 to 6. population distribution and growth, air quality, domestic solid waste, persistent  organic  127  pollutants (POPs) in harbour seals, species at risk and terrestrial protected areas. Status o f each indicator was reported. Report to be published in M a r c h 2002 will describe what is happening, why it is happening, why it is important and what is being done to address it. It is intended to be a means to engage stakeholders and the larger public. In 2000 the G B / P S population totaled about 7 M with over 50% concentrated in the Greater Vancouver Regional District ( G V R D ) and K i n g County, 28.9 % and 24.9 % respectively. The 2020 regional population is projected to be 9 M , including 4 M in Canada and 5 M in the U S . 75% o f Canadian growth has been immigration. A i r quality in the G B / P S region is improving. Status and trends indicate that inhalable particulates  declined since 1994. Washington  combines all samples from all communities. Domestic waste is defined differently in Canada and the U S . The main issue is volume. Total waste has remained constant and is about the same in both countries but more is recycled in B C . Seals are top o f food chain so are good indicators for toxics. Geographic distribution o f P C B , dioxin and furin levels in harbour seals was indicated. Levels in Puget Sound were much higher due to higher industrial activity, maybe also atmospheric deposition. Levels are much lower than in late 70s and early 80s but have leveled off. P C B s were banned but remain grandfathered in transformers and maybe in products such as soap. M a i n concern is accumulation in salmon. 1996 data indicate dioxins and fiirins worse in B C than in Washington. H i g h levels are attributed to pulp and paper processing methods prior to late 1980s, changed in Washington before B C . Species vulnerable to extinction were compared in Georgia Basin and Puget Sound: freshwater fish, amphibians, mammals, reptiles, birds and vascular plants. Numbers o f species at risk, loss o f aquatic, wetland and riparian habitats were indicated. One problem is different accounts in Canada and the U S . In B C individual species are reviewed; in Washington habitat is reviewed, which translates into many more species. However the U S has not considered as many individual species. Protected lands were compared. B C has higher percentage o f lower level protected lands while Washington has higher percentage o f higher level lands. M o r e species live in lower level lands than in higher. Transboundary indicators help to consider the ecosystem as a whole. The report is a means to  128  engage stakeholders and the larger public. The U . S . species act works in response to petitions. The petition is to list a series o f species. Even though Puget Sound stocks o f say, rockfish are declining they are not considered to be facing extinction because there are plenty o f the same species further north. Most resources are going toward saving salmon. The issue o f "what is a species?" keeps arising in Washington. "Evolutionary Significant Unit ( E S U ) " has been newly invented because salmon are tied to specific streams, even though they are part o f a bigger species than E S U s . This is complicated by Canadians catching U S endangered fish. What would "recovery" mean in Puget Sound? For example, 21 stocks o f Chinook have been identified, and i f 10 recovered it would be deemed to be sufficient diversity. W e are moving toward an overall salmon plan for the whole Puget Sound. One problem is getting a report technical enough but also simple enough for lay people. Expect to have more funding for habitat projects, at least in estuaries i f not for open shorelines. Need to do a stock assessment in order to petition for marine fish.  Northwest Straits Commission Report. There are 7 counties north o f Seattle in North Puget Sound and the Strait o f Juan de Fuca. The commission is designed to empower communities to identify issues, take initiatives, improve conditions. 7 resource authorities for marine resources are established for 5 years' and then evaluated. Benchmarks must be achieved. I f deemed successful congress must reenact resource authorities. See w w w , nwstraits. org for 2  n d  annual report  One  initiative is four counties are documenting beaches. Marine protected areas ( M P A s ) are very difficult. One reason is tribal rights and necessary participation. If Shoreline Master Program requires, action must proceed on zoning to protect areas. San Juan County was first to form a Marine Resource Committee ( M R C ) and now 7 counties have them. M R C s need better communication devices to get to the public. Next year $50K grants will be available for each M R C . Geographic information systems (GIS) are being used to map areas. Forage fish, bottom fish and salmon are the three targets. $75K pilot project is underway to remove old traps, nets, etc. "Ghost nets", sometimes raised by storms, continue to kill marine life. Media and public can easily grasp this situation. W e are working with a large  129  number o f groups and want to expand to cross-boundary. A hot line w i l l be available so that divers and others can report on abandoned gear. W i l l map location, depth, quantity and prioritize removal based on criteria. W i l l write a protocol regarding who does what, what equipment, procedures, records, etc. This is a pilot project and will be transferable. A disposal protocol and recycling is needed i f possible. Contract divers and vessels will do removal and sites will be monitored after gear removed. Public and the media w i l l be educated. Project coordinator will be in place soon to manage. Report on exotic species, Pacific Ballast Water Treatment Pilot Project, B C ballast water research and policies and B C zebra mussel communications plan. The following were discussed: new ballast water regulations and technology; ballast water quality testing advice to Fisheries and Oceans Canada; U S E P A petition to report on ballast water treatment to stop nuisance species moving west o f the 100  th  meridian North American midpoint; " P M O " advocation o f international standards; scientific debate about ballast water cleanliness requirements; economic and legal ballast water dumping locations; U S ballast water research is much more extensive than in Canada; B C is part o f the Pacific Ballast Working Group; need for a west coast-wide ballast coordination program; San Francisco Bay is badly invaded by exotic species that Washington and Oregon want to avoid.  Boundary B a y N P S Meeting report, mostly Canadian. T w o water quality standards exist: for recreational quality and for shellfish. Beach closures due to persistent fecal contaminants strongly affect White Rock tourism. Cross-border initiatives, land use planning efforts are needed. A circulation study was proposed for Semiahmoo Bay, Boundary B a y and the Georgia Basin. The B C Government does not recognize bivalve shellfish to be a human health problem, but closed off large areas. The U S Congress established a beach monitoring program for states to organize local beach testing and monitoring programs. Nearshore habitat loss groups implementation report. The B C Water, A i r and Land Protection Ministry Wildlife Branch is: (1) Identifying important sensitive coastal  130  habitats; (2) Securing priority coastal habitats; (3) Improving management o f coastal habitats; (4) Improving awareness and stewardship o f coastal habitats. Washington State is developing salmon habitat criteria to measure estuary quality against. The U S A r m y Corps o f Engineers is partnering with local authorities to assess shorelines and determine needed repairs. U S federal funds are directed to upgrade salmon habitats in response to the Endangered Species Act. U S Superfunds are available for sediment cleanup. Marine protected areas implementation report. Draft agreement by Fisheries and Oceans Canada on First Nations roles in December 2001. Want to get designation, process back in place. Department o f Defence wants exemption for security reasons. Agreement in place between B C Islands Trust and Washington San Juan County to create rockfish protected areas. Protect Marine Life W o r k Groups implementation report. The B C Coastal Waters Working Group has draft short list o f significant species dependent on habitat. A l l top food chain species are at risk due to pollution accumulation. 50 species are listed and what is known about each. A complete report w i l l be available before year end, then recommendations and management options w i l l be available by M a r c h 2002. It has been very difficult to agree on 50 species.  Powerpoint report on transboundary fish surveys and Washington State Department o f Fish and Wildlife report on recent transboundary surveys. A video was shown by Fisheries and Oceans Canada on mitten crabs as an invasive species. A report by the Davis Campus, University o f California that administers the Marine Ecosystem Health Program. Objectives are marine research ideas facilitation and competitive grant program.  131  Day 2: November 29. 2001 •  Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative ( G B E I ) report. Discussed were: Coastal Resource Guide;  Biodiversity Guide for Lower Mainland; W o r k with G V R D ;  Children's conference; Union o f B C Municipalities (UBCM)/Environment Canada ecosystem agreement; Environment Canada projects website; agenda for nextG B E I strategy discussion; February 2002 public forum in Vancouver; lobbying and larger G B E I budget for an international region concept and an ecosystem approach; while Puget Sound is only one o f six U S west coast estuaries, the Georgia Basin is the largest on Canadian west coast; the U S EPA/Environment Canada Statement o f Cooperation  regarding  sustainability;  implementation,  meeting  biannually;  transboundary airshed management; data coordination; indicators; Future o f the Basin conference  and an air quality conference  in spring; data coordination;  security; Environment Canada to be explained to U S E P A staff; Minister to state G B E I commitment; forum needed on US/Washington and Canada/BC governance systems.  •  Canadian Salish Council report on collaboration with U S Tribes to develop crossboundary Coast Salish Initiative. Squamish, Musqueam and three other First Nations w i l l attend April Coast Salish (environmental) Conference with 23 U S Salish tribes. See Sta-Ol Atlas for  history, language and culture. Sta-Ol have listed  environmental issues and want international mapping/GIS done. U S Tribes have better legislation and better government relations than Canadian First Nations. They do land planning, challenge municipalities. Road building practices need review and marine protection areas and watershed  protection councils are needed.  Inclusion on the Task Force o f western Washington treaty tribes was discussed. Local tribes have local fish expertise and Task Force should be inclusive.  •  Report from the Environmental Cooperation Council ( E C C ) meeting. A t the June meeting there was an Environmental Assessment Agreement ( M O U ) between Washington Department o f Ecology and the B C Ministry o f Environment (recently replaced by two new ministries): Goal is to share information. M a i n part o f M O U is  I.  132  notification agreement o f major projects with cross-boundary effects (See website for  agreement).  Need  to  share  information;  require  notification;  require  consideration o f comments. Western Canada and U S joint planning for cross-border toxic spills (land-based) needed. Environment Canada and U S E P A to get local governments to set local protocols within 10 k m or 6 miles o f the border. Next meeting will be in the Okanagan in April 2002 to consider local issues such as fishing and water management, using existing mechanisms.  The subsequent  meeting will be held on the coast. Water, land and air protection are main issues. E P A Region 10, Environment Canada and B C Deputy Minister o f Water, Land & A i r Protection are all on council. The new B C premier is more committed than previous one to cross-boundary issues. •  (  Report from toxics work groups. Handout from the U S E P A on Puget Sound Toxics Work Group: Recommendations will be in a separate report. Final report will be available April 2002. Environment Canada and E P A have about six base layers o f mapping for the whole Georgia Basin/Puget Sound, which is the "Salish Sea" for First Nations and Tribes. Although individual tribes have mapped, they have no composite map yet. GIS would be important here. A l l First Nations in B C are preparing individual maps for treaty negotiations. These all need to be integrated together by this group. Maybe invite Washington Tribes to a workshop. The E P A needs a larger entity to integrate the various input. Environment Canada could be the host. Handout from Environment Canada on toxics work; also see website. The contact for endocrine disrupter research is at the E P A . Studies on sewage treatment plants and pulp mills are very useful. Report on electronics method o f separating heavy metal from sediments, and tests to determine effects on soil organisms, earthworms. A common problem is that we have displaced animals from their natural food source habitat and now they are feeding on our garbage. M u c h agriculture is wasted, causes pollution o f one kind or another. For example, cornfields in Saanich Peninsula get flooded, geese settle and droppings are washed off during floods from heavy rains into Saanich inlet. This raises coliform the count.  133  Report on Fraser Basin Council ( F B C ) : Handouts o f Sustainability Indicators, September  2001. Background on Fraser Basin Council. 80 % o f B C Gross  provincial product (GPP) comes from the Fraser Basin. It covers % o f the B C land mass, includes 2/3 o f the B C population and is composed o f 5 regions. F B C has a staff o f 16, including regional coordinators. The board o f directors has 36 members composed o f 3 federal government, 3 provincial government, 8 local government, 8 First Nations, TO regional and 4 basin-wide representatives. The F B C includes a broad range o f perspectives, is consensus based, has no legislative powers, only dialogue. Tasks include facilitating dialogue for multi-interest challenges, but not regulation.  Background  includes  a  mandate to  measure  progress  toward  sustainability. A workbook provides a start for dialogue and there are 40 indicators for consideration. Consultation and communication activities include 8 regional workshops, a communication plan for the State of sustainability in the Fraser Basin report for fall 2002. See website and links to other websites. Highlights o f feedback: use fewer than 30 indicators; combine "workbook" indicators and "alternative" indicators; appeal should be to governments, N G O s and general public; support "balance" but need better economic and institutional indicators; report on indicators every 3 years; indicators should have targets and interpretation o f trends. Process from indicators to action includes 2 levels: passive and active. Action planning is required to implement. Four sustainability dimensions: (1) social wellbeing; (2) vibrant economy; (3) healthy ecosystem (4) governance and decision-making. Draft set o f indicators include 9 social and economic and 7 environmental  and  institutional. Questions for indicator interpretation include: what is the indicator and why selected? What does it say about sustainability? What is status o f indicator trends and targets? What are causes/who responsible? What can be done/who should be involved? Next steps include: development/refinement o f indicators; data acquisition; indicator interpretation; develop and review "mockup" report. State of Sustainability  in Fraser Basin report and communication; 2002 conference on  October 20-21. It was suggested that the biggest problem w i l l be the data. Message about First Nations should be couched in a more sensitive way, as it reflects a way oflife.  134  •  Action items below were discussed including the April 17-18, 2002 Coast Salish workshop. Next meeting w i l l be in March, 2002 in Washington State. Indicators will be discussed.  .  1. B C work group on protection o f marine life w i l l present their report in M a r c h 2002. 2.  Task  Force  will  discuss  GBEI  renewal  at  March  2002  meeting.  Environment Canada w i l l organize session to ensure productive session. 3.  Specified Task Force members to determine i f Western Washington tribes wish to change their status as members o f the Task Force.  4. Environment Canada w i l l maintain rolling calendar of upcoming events. 5. Task Force members are to keep A p r i l 17-18, 2002 open for Coast Salish Workshop. 6.  Chairs will consider scheduling SOE/indicator work for each meeting.  7. Data integration systems update to be presented by E P A . 8. When data integration work being undertaken, Coast Salish should all be invited. 9. Chairs should consider shared workshops about how decisions are made in each jurisdiction. 10. Next meeting M a r c h 2002 to be in Port Townsend, Washington. Date and location to be confirmed by the U S Chair. G B / P S I T F meeting September 17-18, 2002, Bellingham Washington The meeting was postponed from M a r c h 2002 and the location was changed from Port Townsend. I took the train (Amtrak) to Bellingham on the evening o f September 16, 2002. The train leaves Vancouver only in early evening which works well for Americans  135  returning home but is inconvenient for Canadians traveling to Bellingham or Seattle who arrive at night. Treatment at the border was cordial despite increased security. However upon arriving later at Bellingham the train/bus station was locked, no cabs were available and I had no American quarters for the phone. Fortunately another person who had called by cell phone was waiting for a limousine pickup from the same hotel I was going to, the Best Western Heritage Inn. •  The G B / P S ITF meeting was held at the same hotel. After introductions and agenda review, there was a general roundtable and updates by representative organizations. The B C Ministry o f Water, Land and A i r protection has been restructured into 3 divisions: (1) environmental stewardship, (2) environmental protection and (3) planning innovation and enforcement.  Environment Canada reported on: (1)  linkage with the G V R D and its Sustainable Region Initiative (2) Coast Salish First Nations (3) air quality (4) climate change (5) transboundary issues. U S E P A referred to an indicator report on www.epa.gov. The Washington Department o f Fish and Wildlife discussed long-lived fish species and eco-regional conservation planning. Marine Protected Areas ( M P A s ) and their inventory, as well  as  conservation o f sedentary and long-lived ground fish were discussed. A s rockfish are stationary and can be fished out in any one location there can't be a single harvest for all. Three principles are needed to sustain harvest: (1) Precautionary Principle/management (2) Biomass/space harvest limits, and (3) M P A s in Puget Sound closed or restricted for fishing. There have been discussions with Tribes for co-management o f species. Questions were raised about what is the M P A in relation to outside areas and what is the management model. •  The Orca Pass proposal was presented. The proposal calls for a trans-boundary protected area. People for Puget Sound (US N G O ) presented. stewardship  areas are to: focus  attention  Reasons for  on issue; permit more  effective  management; permit more effective use o f laws and regulations; encourage more public education and involvement. Species richness was discussed:  marine  mammals, marine fishes, seabirds, invertebrates, vegetation should all be included on species richness map to identify biodiversity richness zones by overlays. These  136  should be science-based, determined by public process and have a sense o f stewardship. Next step is more richness zones analysis. Need a site-specific management plan including regulations and voluntary work. Need governmental and tribal recognition. Georgia Strait Alliance (Canadian N G O ) also presented. The Islands Trust was discussed regarding marine stewardship and 3 pilot projects: Galiano Island, Hornby Island, Saturna Island. See website. Proposed G S X natural gas pipeline route from mainland to Vancouver Island through Orca Pass area was discussed. Question about what to kind o f governance would be required to operationalize the Orca Pass protected area. GIS was suggested to overlay species, habitat and jurisdictional maps, as well as treaty rights map and other stakeholder maps. See www.georgiastrait. org for regulatory information, best practices. For First Nations fish has harvest value, not just sustainability value. A workgroup w i l l prepare recommendations for the E C C . Orca Pass is a prototype example o f integration. The Task Force supports the concept o f the Orca Pass proposal. Caucus will convene a new workgroup to work with Orca Pass proponents to develop model/paradigm for the Resource Conference and present to E C C in spring 2003. Report from Environment Canada. The first 5 years o f the Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative ( G B E I ) is being finalized and the new program w i l l be funded $ 2 5 M over 5 years until 2008. The new G B E I will be announced in Victoria in 2003. Ecosystem approach is good but challenging. (1) N o one agency jurisdiction. Environment Canada has to build partnerships  has  with provincial  agencies. (2) Data access is a problem. (3) Public perception is a problem. People are difficult to motivate when the environment appears alright, even pristine. (4) Resources are limited; even $ 2 5 M is not a lot. (5) Can't get all stakeholders at the table. (6) Needs long term planning, does not coincide with 4 year political tenures. (7) Environment Canada can only bring to the table what it is mandated to do.  See the Environment Canada website for a list o f all the G B E I programs  presently funded. N e w programs will be developed for the new 5 year/$25M G B E I mandate.  137  •  Status report by the E P A on Environment Canada/EPA Statement o f Cooperation. Interim agreement (memorandum o f understanding) has been signed between E P A and Environment Canada with 3 main areas: (1) Engaging First Nations/Tribes across the Salish Sea. (2) Transboundary air quality. (3) Sustainability, including environmental indicator report, case studies o f sustainable development, smart growth demonstrations and watershed planning.  •  Update on U S Endangered Species A c t about changes o f listings, particularly salmon, and Washington's Monitoring Oversight Committee the new state-wide monitoring design.  •  Public comment was invited. Although there had been a number o f other members o f the public in attendance earlier, they had all left except me.  Day 2: Wednesday September 18. 2002 •  Report from Nearshore Habitat Loss Work Groups- update on implementation activities. (See handout). Discussed (1) Alternative Bank Protection Methods for Puget Sound Shorelines publication-May 2000 (2) Nearshore "White Papers" on issues around, and scientific ways to mitigate damage from, overwater structures and shoreline armouring as part o f multi-agency Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Project. (3) Nearshore Workshop Strategy for homeowners, practitioners and regulators  regarding  shoreline  armouring and  alternatives.  (4)  "Nearshore  Processes"- The Video regarding how nearshore processes create habitats in Puget Sound, how processes are interrupted by armouring and how "soft" alternatives can be used. (5) State o f the Nearshore Report - K i n g County's review o f findings on nearshore processes and habitats in central Puget Sound summarized in a conceptual model to be used in salmon recovery. (6) Directory o f Estuarine and Nearshore Marine Habitat Assessment Projects,by Puget Sound Action Team o f 50 projects to inventory nearshore habitats and assess conditions o f marine shorelines, salmonoid use, development impacts and other aspects. Directory was used to identify data gaps and research needs for the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project ( P S N E R P ) . (7) K i n g County/US A r m y Corps o f Engineers  138  905(b) Reconnaissance Study which reviewed issues o f Puget Sound marine shoreline degradation from cumulative alterations due to federal activities. It also assessed Puget Sound regional w i l l to develop a comprehensive restoration strategy toward a long term reconstruction project. Report on status of the Derelict Fishing Gear Removal Project in Washington State. Derelict fishing gear can be lost or abandoned nets, lines, crab and shrimp traps or other equipment that is left unattended in the marine environment. Modern nets and lines are made o f monofilament plastic which may not decompose for years or decades.  Such derelict gear can entangle divers, swimmers, sea mammals, birds  and fish, compromise marine ecosystems and damage propellers and rudders. The Northwest Straits Commission is developing protocols to remove derelict gear. Four steps are: (1) locating, (2) verifying and prioritizing, (3) removing and reusing and (4) recycling and disposing o f derelict gear. See handout and Washington State Substitute Senate B i l l 6313.  Report by Environment Canada on the next Research Conference to be held in Vancouver B C March 31-April 3, 2003, primarily sponsored by Environment Canada and the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Themes o f this international conference will be: (1) to share science and solutions about ecosystem health issues in the trans-boundary Georgia Basin/Puget Sound region, and (2) to apply science to support decision-making, capacity-building and effective dialogue between disciplines and community interests. Report from Marine Life W o r k Groups on implementation status. 30 species identified  based  on  ecological  and  economic  importance.  Will  make  recommendations to Task Force on how to protect and preserve them. N e w legislation/regulation to handle pollution generated by lifting o f B C salmon farming moratorium, applies to all fish farms, new and old. (1) Registration fees and information submission. (2) Sediment/Chemical standards and thresholds.  (3)  Monitoring reporting schedules and routines with objectives (4) Best management practices in place after 180 days: enforcement practices; targeted research program;  139  chair in aquaculture established at U B C ; list o f key research questions. (5) Ongoing review from year 3 to 5. (See handout B C Order in Council 836) Report on Puget Sound's health 2002. (1) Population growth- see handout map: shoreline modification and water quality. (2) Several specific management actions have been successful. (3) Sharp synchronous declines in several species There are problems o f matching data sources internationally; for example, for indicators. Types o f questions vary with mandates on each side o f the border. More systematic trans-boundary monitoring is needed, but this would require coordinated indicators. The critical issues are: (1) what are the questions that we want answered by the indicators we choose, and (2) are the indicators different for the international scale than-at the state or provincial level. Some indicators geographically or nationally restricted and don't need to be international. The G B / P S is a single ecosystem, but it has hot spots that can be treated independently at a national level; for example, regarding  sedentary  rockfish.  However some  issues  need  to  be  treated  internationally, such as the transboundary Orca Pass proposal.  Report on status o f southern resident killer whales and N M F S (?) decision on petition to list them under the U S Endangered Species A c t (ESA). The decision was that the southern resident killer whales do not constitute a separate species under the E S A . Next step is to reclassify them as depleted. M a p o f killer whales shows range from the Aleutians to Washington State. Only a few range south to San Francisco. There are 4 kinds that do not usually mix socially and are reproductively isolated: (1) B C pods (2) Southern resident pods (3) northern residents and (4) Alaskan residents. So there is not a global shortage o f Orca species. Lifespan is 40-50 years for males and 60-70 years for females; may be cyclical over 30 years. Question: What is the D P S (?) o f the global species to which the southern residents belong? Endangered Species A c t says it must be used sparingly. Extinction risk for southern residents is determined by population viability analysis ( P V A ) , done to assess possible consequences o f small population size (less than 500), population trends and risk factors. Females,can offload contaminants to calves; males cannot, so accumulate more. M M P A clarification o f their status as "depleted". Southern  140  residents may be below optimum sustainable population (OSP). Designation requires a conservation plan including management measures to promote recovery, cost and duration o f management measures and agencies/entities responsible for implementation. Southern residents would become a strategic stock; would allow conservation and management measures in areas o f ecological significance. There are as many research questions as management proposals; for example, where do the whales go in the winter? •  Report from Toxics W o r k Groups. See handout. Four items: (1) an inventory o f toxics in the Georgia Basin. (2) profiles o f priority toxics and development o f management options. (3) Environment Canada research/monitoring o f toxics in the Georgia Basin. (4) stormwater management projects for toxics. Abbotsford Aquifer is a big trans-boundary issue regarding manure runoff.  •  Three major issues for next meeting: (1) Orca Pass (2) toxics and (3) indicators. Meeting w i l l be held in late February or early March, 2003.  G B / P S ITF meeting M a r c h 5-6, 2003, Victoria, B C The meeting was held on March 5 and 6 at the Ministry o f Water, Land and A i r Protection Building, Victoria. The co-chairs were from the B C Ministry o f Water, Land & A i r Protection and from the Washington State Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Review of Action List from the September  17-18, 2002 meeting  1. Completing the work o f the toxics work groups - B C not yet completed update to come as part of spring 2003 meeting. 2.  Track implementation o f past work group recommendations and look at new issues. This will be the focus of the March 2003 meeting. The objective will be to develop an action plan to complete outstanding tasks.  3.  Next meeting w i l l be scheduled for late February or early March, 2003 to allow final agreement on recommendations to the E C C . This has been completed with E C C recommendations on the agenda for Day Two.  141  4. Co-chairs w i l l form a work group to develop recommendations on the Orca pass proposal.  The work group has been formed and is active. Draft  ECC recommendations will be presented to the Task Force on Day One. 5. Orca Pass to be included i n the Research Conference.  Orca Pass  proponents are scheduled to present at the Research Conference. 6. D F O or W L A P to produce electronic version o f species status report for posting on web site.  This has not been completed.  7. B C and Washington toxics groups to present recommendations to next Task Force meeting for consideration and recommendations to the E C C .  This is  still a work in progress. BC Toxics Group is not prepared to table recommendations yet. An update will be made on Day Two. 8. B C Nearshore Habitat work group to reconsider its recommendations and status of implementation.  This has not been completed.  9. Task Force to continue discussion o f future directions.  This is the subject of  the current meeting. •  Framework  presented  for  review  of  Marine  Science  Panel  Recommendations (1994) (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force 2000); provides background for updates and work planning discussions to follow.  Priority Recommendation  BC or Washington  High  Protect marine life  High  Establish  marine  protected  Actions  Status  142  BCor  Priority Recommendation  Actions  Status  Washington areas High  Prevent loss  nearshore  habitat  High  Prevent introduction o f nonindigenous species  Medium  Control discharges  Medium  Coordinate monitoring  Medium  Undertake strategic planning  Medium  Prevent large oil spills  Medium  Prevent major diversions  Low  Ensure freedom o f scientific information  Low  Increase communications across border  Low  Comprehensive audit  toxic  waste  research  and  freshwater  program  N e w issue format presented:  Workgroup  Issue  Potential International Task Force Action  143  •  Questions not yet addressed: (1) H o w does the network o f Marine Protected Areas relate to management o f specific species? (2) Does good management o f single species necessarily result in good management o f the entire ecosystem o f species? In Washington, and maybe in B C , the whole trend in rockfish management has been reversed. Storm water is a major stressor on marine ecosystems. There are also outside stressors not to be forgotten. In the five-year review o f the activities o f the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force 2000) a "future direction" has been identified for each recommendation. ("New challenges for the Task Force" were also identified in the report, P. 17). The report should be revisited using a work group.  •  Report on non-indigenous species postponed until tomorrow.  •  Report on Transboundary Indicators Working Group progress and discussion on working group terms o f reference. See report on six indicators (Transboundary Georgia Basin-Puget Sound Environmental Indicators Working Group 2002). Getting value for the effort: (a) Capture attention o f government decision-makers, industry and public, (b) Write for target audiences, well written, diverse product, (c) Realize that information alone doesn't change things, (d) Find out what audience thinks, values, etc. and how to communicate to them, (e) Strategic marketing and distribution to the public, (f) F o r government decision-makers: assess indicator information and develop policy recommendations for strategic responses, (g) Use environmental information effectively to evaluate results o f management plans. Voluntary choices are critical emphasis. See website. The E C C is much broader than this Task Force, so the indicator work should relate to the whole E C C mandate. Should the Task Force's mandate from the E C C be extended beyond its present marine mandate (for example to cover air quality, which affects water quality)?  Day 2: Thursday M a r c h 6. •  Discussion on planning for, and the nature of, fall monitoring and research conference.  144  •  Report by B C Exotic Species Working Group. Reference to Elston Report, Pathways and management of marine non-indigenous Species in the shared waters of British Columbia and Washington. Strategy based on coordination, monitoring, education, legislative analysis, response planning and research. Related legislation: Canadian Fisheries A c t and B C Wildlife Act and Fisheries Act. Pacific Northwest Economic Region - see website for lists o f invasive species.  •  Report by Washington State Exotic Species Work Group. Reference to Marine Science Panel recommendations. A new group, Aquatic Nuisance Species ( A N S ) Coordinating Committee. Established the Ballast Water W o r k Group. The Washington Ballast Water Program includes: exchange treatment by June 2004; setting o f treatment standards; reports on ballast practices; research; the Ballast Water Work Group. 82% o f vessels do not discharge ballast; 15% do discharge exchange ballast; 3% unclear.  •  Report by Environment Canada on the Georgia Basin Action Plan ( G B A P ) , which replaces the Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative. This program is much more "people systemic" than the Great Lakes plan which is primarily a plan for toxics In the Georgia Basin we must also manage the population increase. The vision has changed somewhat; now emphasis is on being "healthy and productive", and is very science-oriented. Concern includes climate change and also economic and social issues and smart growth. Concerned about the planning framework and the management framework is evolving. Reference to watershed based management and integrated data management. Environment Canada budget for G B A P is $25 M over 5 years.  G B / P S I T F meeting, Nov. 20-21, 2003, Bellingham, Washington Because the train had been so inconvenient to get to the last Bellingham meeting, arriving at night and requiring an extra night hotel expense, I took the bus to Bellingham on the morning o f the meeting; November 20, 2003. Treatment at the border was again cordial despite the increased security. This time the bus station was open complete with a free phone to my hotel to request a ride. The meeting was again held at the Best Western Heritage Inn, where I again stayed.  v  145  •  O n November 12, 2003, before this meeting, e-mail information was received about an upcoming study to assess the feasibility o f establishing a national marine conservation area ( N M C A ) in the southern part o f Georgia Strait, as announced by Canada's prime minister and the B C premier in October 2003.  The study was  supposed to start in early 2004. T w o backgrounders were attached: the October 2003 press release and the feasibility study area map. The sender could not attend the meeting. Day 1: Thursday November 20. •  The co-chair reviewed the agenda and activities since the March 2003 Task Force meeting and the Task Force Action Plan. See Action Plan handout including Objectives, Activities, Status, Outcomes/Deliveries, Timing generally, and for each o f the following working groups: (1) Protect Marine Life; (2) Habitat Loss; (3) Monitoring and Research; (4) Toxic Waste; (5) N o n Indigenous Species; (6) Marine Protected Areas; (7) Trans-boundary Indicators.  •  Report on status o f the North West Straits Initiative.  •  Report on status o f Non-Indigenous Species (Aquatic Nuisance Species) Working Group implementation. (See handout). The major A N S trans-boundary issue is to carry out a rapid assessment and risk analysis o f the shared marine waters.  •  Report on status o f Orca Pass Initiative and review o f activities since M a r c h 2003 meeting.  •  Report on status o f proposed international G S X Natural Gas Pipeline project for Georgia Strait Puget Sound (see map handout).  •  Report on Orca Recovery for Southern Residents: Population status; threats; regulatory status; recovery planning; recovery o f 'lost whales'; research; Navy sonar; other activites and web links. See handout presentation.  copies o f Power Point  146  •  Report on status and planned activities o f B C Toxics W o r k Group. (See handout) Phase 1: identification o f substances and issues o f interest. Phase 2: develop recommendations on research, monitoring and management actions to address issues and develop final implementation plan.  •  Report on status and planned activities o f Washington Toxics W o r k Group. Reference  to  Puget  Sound  Ambient Monitoring  Program by  Washington  Department o f Ecology (PS A M P ) . A l l fish in Puget Sound have arsenic and P C B levels that exceed carcenogenic levels. Other contaminants are copper, lead, mercury, total P C B , total D D T ; reference to 1989 and 1997 E P A documents. Emerging issues include, endocrine disruptors; P C B cogener versus aroeter s  analysis; personal care products.  Goals:  Science based  approach;  adaptive  management based on the Precautionary Principle. Day 2: Friday November 21, 2003 •  Report on eelgrass  inventory recent  findings.  Concern about  condition o f  submerged eelgrass and kelp [as indicators], because they are in the "middle" [between the marine environment and human environment]. Eelgrass incorporates anthropocentric indicators because it remains stationary. Land uses generate sediments. Washington Department o f Natural Resources' Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program ( D N R / P S A M P ) has a nearshore habitat program. Mapping and monitoring covers about 37% o f the Washington shoreline. Monitoring is based on GIS mapping o f 1000 m. increments o f shoreline, then using random samples to extrapolate results. The San Juan County Eelgrass Survey, for example, uses buoy count on each 1000 m relevant section o f shoreline and land uses and docks. WDNR's  submerged vegetation monitoring project  statewide goals are:  (1)  Summarize temporal trends over Puget Sound and hub basins; (2) Determine what are precursors o f depletion o f eelgrass extent and depth; (3) Break up the whole Puget Sound into sub areas to monitor constantly. Results: Biophysical model indicated that suspended  solids are more critical than chlorophyll. Eelgrass  meadows = zostera marina. Summary o f critical factors: light penetration,  147  dissication, erosion, salinity, temperature. Landscape structure is critical habitat for juvenile Chum Salmon. Westcott and Garrison B a y eelgrass has been almost totally (95%) depleted in five years, reduced from 140 ha to 7 ha. Land use changes affecting eelgrass include aquaculture, pleasure boating, piers, marinas. (Also refer to  Burrard Inlet  Environmental Action  Plan  (BIEAP)  and  Fraser  River  Environmental Management Plan ( F R E M P ) ) . Causes o f decline include sediment reload, and observations are also linked to herring resources. B . C . eelgrass report. Native species are protected by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO): inventory; resource; inventory/mitigation; habitat loss. Eelgrass distribution in Georgia Strait is unknown. References to Seagrass Conservation Group 2002 to present; eelgrass mapping review noted; some mapping done; for example, by Dunster (consultant) and as part o f Saltspring Island Official Community Plan (OCP). Whether other O C P s have included eelgrass mapping is not known. D F O can only protect eelgrass i f they know where it is. M a n y volunteers are contributing to mapping eelgrass, using a standard method. They can go on line and fill in map data. The methodology is at four levels including: simple location o f seagrass bed, mapping and classifying, and monitoring o f quality. F R E M P has mapped and classified habitat using digital air photos in 2002. Mapped eel grass beds, "ground truthing", preliminary maps available in 2004. Research is being done by U B C and S F U graduate students, Parks Canada. Research at Bamfield regarding "wasting disease". Restoration efforts where development has destroyed eelgrass include sewer outlet modifications, transplant areas and marina improvements. Between 2000 and 2002 Seachange Marine Conservation Society planted eelgrass in T o d Inlet adjacent to Butchart Gardens north o f Victoria to counteract effects o f sailboats, waste, anchorage, bad water quality, with some measureable success in cleaning up the water (See www.vipirg.ca/assets/publications). Habitat losses are unknown, except for anecdotal information. Factors include forestry booming grounds, dredging, water quality, aquaculture. The Washington Department o f Natural Resources suggested that it may be time for a Washington/BC collaborative effort on eelgrass rehabilitation. Eelgrass changes are too great to be caused by natural ecosystem changes or by events such as E l N i n o ; rather they appear to be  x  148  development-generated.  Increases in "fines" (sediment)  are often related to  "upland" development and resultant increased storm runoff. •  Report on status o f Georgia Basin Action Plan ( G B A P ) (previously Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative) by Environment Canada. Program was renewed in April, 2003 for five years; budget $4.9 M per year (slightly reduced from previous reports). G B A P has four integrative goals supported by 12 outcome statements. See 5 year report for details. The G B A P very much emphasizes the effects o f growth, compared with the Great Lakes program, which emphasizes toxics, and the G u l f o f Maine program which focuses on community outreach. The annual work plan and data management are new. Annual stakeholder workshop is to be held in M a y , 2004, emphasizing cross-boundary aspects. The 2000 Joint statement of cooperation on the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound ecosystem between the U S E P A and Environment Canada is a very high level agreement. It set out three priorities: (1) A n international airshed strategy; (2) Smart growth for sustainability; (3) Supporting relations between U S Tribes and First Nations and others. (See website) It is a model for other parts o f the world. See the spring 2002 Georgia Basin Puget Sound ecosystems indicators report for population growth information. Comment: the new B C Community Charter empowers local governments to deal with growth.  Frequency of issues raised at GB/PS ITF meetings Issue  November  28-29,  2001 Meeting  Islands Trust/San Juan County (1))  X  Transboundary GB/PS Indicators  X  September 17-18, 2002 Meeting  M a r c h 5-6, 2003 Meeting  X  (2)  Fraser Basin Indicators (1)  X  Marine Ecosystem  X  X  November 20-21, 2003 Meeting  149  November 28-29, 2001 Meeting  Issue  September 17-18, 2002 Meeting  March Meeting  5-6, 2003  November 20-21, 2003 Meeting  Healm Program (2) Northwest Straits Commission /Initiative (2)  X  X  Boundary Bay NPS X (1) Nearshore Habitat Loss Groups Implementation (3)  X  X  X  Protect Marine Life Work Groups Implementation (4)  X  X  X  X  Exotic (nonX indigenous) Species Reports (4)  X  X  X  Marine Protected Areas (4)  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  Puget Sound Research Conference (1)  X  (  X •  US Endangered Species Act (2)  X  X  Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative (4)  X  X  EC/EPA Statement of Cooperation (2)  X  X  Salish Council (1)  X  Inclusion of western Washington Tribes on Task Force (1)  X  Environmental Cooperation Council (ECC) (4)  X  x  150  Issue  November 28-29, 2001 Meeting  September 17-18, 2002 Meeting  M a r c h 5-6, 2003 Meeting  November 20-21, 2003 Meeting  Toxic Work Groups (4)  X  X  X  X  Orca health concerns/recovery (3)  X  X  Orca Pass proposal (3)  X  Washington State Monitoring Oversight Committee (1)  X  Puget Sound New Nearshore Project (1)  X  Derelict Gear Project(1)  X  2003 Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference (2)  X  Puget Sound Health (1)  X  X  X  X  Overview of Marine Science Panel Recommendations (1)  X  Fall Monitoring and Research Conference planning (1)  X  Action Plan development (Re Science Panel recommendations) (2)  X  GSX Pipeline Proposal (1)  X  X  X  151  November 28-29, 2001 Meeting  Issue  September 17-18, 2002 Meeting  M a r c h 5-6, 2003 Meeting  November 20-21, 2003 Meeting  Puget Sound Action Team priorities (1)  X  Eelgrass inventory (1)  X  Categorical Aggregation of issues in order of importance  Categorical observations o f the issues considered at the four above G B / P S International Task Force meetings indicates that their order o f importance based on number o f times discussed are: (1) protect marine life, exotic species, marine protected areas, Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative, Environmental Cooperation Council, toxics (four times);  (2)  Nearshore habitat loss, Orca health concerns/recovery and Orca Pass proposal (three times); (3) Transboundary indicators, marine ecosystem health program, Northwest Straits Commission/program, U S Endangered Species Act, Environment Canada/EPA Statement o f Cooperation, Georgia Basin Puget Sound Research Conference and action plan development (two times); (4) Islands Trust/San Juan County, Fraser Basin indicators, Boundary B a y N P S , Puget  Sound Research Conference,  Salish Council,  Western  Washington treaty tribes on Task Force, Washington State oversight committee, Puget Sound new nearshore project, derelict gear project, Puget Sound health, overview o f Marine Science Panel recommendations, fall monitoring and research conference, action plan development (re Science Panel recommendations),  G S X Pipeline proposal, Puget  Sound Action Team priorities, eelgrass inventory (one time). See Chart 1 above.  Observations of Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Transboundary Environmental Indicators Working Group Meetings The Transboundary Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Ecosystem Indicators Working Group was established in 1999 for collaboration between Environment Canada, B C Ministry o f Water, Land & A i r Protection, the U S Environmental Protection Agency, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team and Washington State Department o f Ecology.  The Indicators Group published its first document in 2002 regarding six  transboundary  indicators (Transboundary Georgia Basin- Puget Sound Environmental  152  Indicators Working Group 2002). T o understand how this bottom-up information is developed and diffused, I attended the Indicators W o r k Group public workshop as part o f the G B / P S Research Conference in Vancouver on A p r i l 1, 2003 that initiated the second cycle o f indicator development.  Minutes o f that workshop were issued. However I have  also attended four subsequent work group meetings as an invited participant on June 18, 2004 in Seattle, October 15, 2004 in Victoria, December 9-10 in Victoria and September 7, 2005 in Bellingham. These meetings were all convened to develop a second, expanded indicator document to be published late 2005 or early 2006. Although the second report will be a public document, the working group meetings were not public forums, so I am able to report on their proceedings only indirectly. A p r i l 1, 2003 meeting in Vancouver: I was an observer at this meeting convened in conjunction with the G B / P S Research Conference  in Vancouver. Having  published its first  group  o f six international  environmental indicators in 2002, the working group chose a workshop session at the Research Conference to initiate a second indicator cycle. The purpose was to determine whether data or metrics were compatible in both jurisdictions for five new topics chosen internally by consensus and to then combine workshop results with Canadian and American scientific expertise to develop indicator topics for: (1) surface water quality; (2) marine water quality; (3) shellfish health; (4) water consumption; and (5). land density patterns and development. The workshop concentrated on answers to five questions applied to the five topics: (1) What metric/indicator is relevant and timely? (2) Is data available? (3) What scale is data collection? (4) Is data compatible in Canada and U S ? I f not, can parallel reporting be done? (5) Can a report using the data be completed by winter 2005? Group terms of reference were distributed in M a y , 2003. The workgroup expects to better relate the indicators together in this second round to clarify the complexity and relationships o f landscape use and management; that is, how development patterns may affect surface water quality and quantity, salmon health and declines in resident Orca pods, or to show how flame retardants affect the solid waste stream and health o f populations that eat mainly subsistence fish (Siegelbaum & Associates 2004).  153 June 18, 2004 meeting in Seattle:  This meeting/workshop was convened at the U S E P A Region 10 offices to develop and publish a second set o f transboundary indicators that characterize conditions, and i f possible, trends, in the transboundary G B / P S ecosystem. The five indicators from the A p r i l 1 previous meeting had been expanded to ten: (1) surface water quality; (2) marine environment; (3) shellfish; (4) landscape changes; (5) solid waste; (6) sustainability; (7) air quality; (8) water use/availability; (9) climate change; (10) aquatic species at risk. Each indicator was assigned an indicator development team (IDT) and I was an invited participant assigned as a member o f the landscape changes I D T to utilize my land use planning background. The two chairs represented Environment Canada ( E C ) and the U S Environmental Protection Agency ( U S E P A ) , the two agencies now funding the project.  Environment  Canada provided the "authorizing environment" for the transboundary indicator work group including the 2000 Statement o f Cooperation between  E C and U S E P A ; the  Environmental Cooperation Council, etc. as well as a chronology o f thev working group from its 1999 inception. Various questions were answered regarding: roles and challenges; evaluation and use o f previous indicators; who is the primary audience; institutional capacity o f participating agencies to undertake this work. Discussed were: the schedule to completion; communications versus outreach; local diffusion and I D T updates on all ten indicators. October 15, 2004 meeting in Victoria:  The meeting was held at the Ministry o f Water, Land and A i r Protection. M u c h preparation information was distributed by e-mail in advance o f the meeting by the coordinating consultant, including minutes o f the June 18 meeting. The ten indicators were confirmed to be: (1) surface water quality; (2) marine environment; (3) shellfish; (4) landscape; (5) water use and appropriations; (6) toxins in marine species; (7) aquatic species at risk; (8) population human well-being and sustainability (housing density/type); (9) air quality; (10) solid waste. Proposed indicator "criteria" were: (1) scientific validity; (2) overall data availability; (3) data sources; (4) comparable Canadian/US reporting units; (5) relevance to ecosystem; (6) storyline ties to local level; (7) long-term trend analysis.  A preliminary  discussion o f each indicator was provided; for example, a discussion o f landscape metrics  154  and their connections, such as metrics describing natural changes; metrics describing human modification; metrics describing effects on resources, economies and lifestyles; and metrics describing management  or social implications. Metrics describing human  modification include percent of paved land and percent of impervious surfaces. Percent of forest cover or natural shoreline changes may be part natural, part human generated. Internal and external advice was requested on scientific and technical matters, audience identification, communications and outreach, reader-friendly writing, behavioural change tools and the arts. Data profiles for most indicators were posted on the E P A website for editing and additions by committee members. Meeting objectives were: (1) Discuss and agree on metrics for all indicators; (2) discuss and agree on product physical formats; (3) discuss communication strategy next steps; (4) determine  initial draft products deadlines  and next steps. N G O perspective and  recommendations were given by the Georgia Strait Alliance. Indicator Development Teams (TDTs)  discussed  status for  all indicators  Communications were discussed  at length.  except water  use  and solid waste.  A communications  strategy has been  commissioned. Data template and indicator development template formats were agreed upon. '  D e c e m b e r 9-10 2004 meeting in V i c t o r i a  The meeting was held at the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Again, much preparation material was distributed by e-mail in advance of the meeting, including: draft communications strategy; draft format for writing the indicators; data template and indicator development templates for adding information and editing. The first day was a partial group devoted only to communications: review of the draft communications strategy /framework, including risk communication principles and small group listening sessions to be convened in Canada and in US; discussion of role of NGOs; research findings; message framing, behaviour change, indicator communication. The full workgroup met on December 10. Recap of pre-edited data templates and indicator development templates e-mailed to chairs in advance. IDT breakout work sessions for coordination. Report on communications meeting. Presentation on web format and  155  functions.  Product  design  and  development  discussion  and  recommendations.  Presentations by all IDTs o f draft data and indicator development templates. May 6, 2005 meeting in Bellingham I was unable to attend this meeting, but I received all related information including agenda and minutes. July 20, 2005 small group listening session in Vancouver I was requested to attend this session and provide a written report to the coordinating consultant before the September 7 working group meeting. The session was held at S F U downtown and was also attended by the facilitator, an Environment Canada representative, a Port M o o d y council member, and representatives o f three civil society groups (NGOs). The report format and graphics were presented and discussed and recommendations were made. September 7, 2005 meeting in Bellingham The meeting was held at the University o f Western Washington. This was to be the final meeting o f the Indicators Working Group as the coordinating consultant's contract is ended on September 30. Preparation material was distributed in advance by e-mail with a request for last-minute data, graphs, storylines etc. and to review indicator material available in draft form on the web. Each participating agency will be asked to review and edit material after September 30. Meeting objectives:  (1) review indicators on web; (2) review and  agree on I D T and agency review procedures; (3) summarize results o f small group listening sessions; (4) discuss strategies for evaluation and web coordination; (5) discuss hard copy product and next steps after September 30. Indicators on web were reviewed; not all indicators were yet developed on web. W e b presentations were discussed regarding specific reports, photos and other information still needed. Various unaddressed and intractable issues were identified and discussed. Draft editing  protocol was discussed,  particularly management  review and editing by  participating agencies. A schedule was agreed upon. There was a synopsis o f the three small group listening sessions convened in Vancouver, Seattle and Victoria. Strategies for evaluation and web coordination were on agenda, but not discussed. Next steps and hard  156  copy product were discussed. The whole report will be capable o f being downloaded in P D F . Opinions were solicited on what form next indicator cycle should take. Attendance was recommended at the October 28 E C C meeting in Victoria.  157  APPENDIX C: Interviews International/Transnational In this context" John Dohrmann, Washington Co-chair o f the BC-Washingtori G B / P S International Task Force recommended  for interview Carol Jolly, Executive Policy  Coordinator in the Washington State Governor's Office, previously Special Assistant in the office o f the Director o f the Washington State Department o f Ecology until 1996. She was recommended because o f her involvement in the formulation o f the 1992 BC/Washington Environmental Cooperative Agreement. M s Carol Jolly was interviewed by audiotaped telephone conversation on January 19, 2005. From  her  perspective  the  BC/Washington Environmental Cooperative  Agreement  originated in cross-border environmental problems that required a new approach. These issues included the Trail Smelter/Lake Washington and Selgar Castlegar pulp mill pollution, Victoria sewage treatment inadequacies, Sumas Aquifer pollution which flows south and air pollution mostly originating in the U S . A new mechanism was needed for a joint Canadian/US approach to these international problems. T w o environmental agencies were involved". B C Ministry o f Environment and Washington State Department o f Ecology. M s . Jolly was party to the drafting o f the Cooperative Agreement with a staff member o f the B C Ministry in M a y or June 1992. The previous Director o f Ecology, now Governor Gregoire o f Washington State, was very supportive o f setting a process for the B . C . ministry and the Washington department to work together. What was pivotal was the establishment o f biennial meetings between the two institutions, but this agreement languished after the 2001 governmental change in B C .  For more detail M s . Jolly recommended talking to T o m Laurie at the Department o f Ecology (360-407-7017) who has all the files. Memoranda o f Understanding were written on single issues such as a notification system for Lake Washington about sewage spills in Trail. Establishment o f the biennial Georgia Basin-Puget Sound Research Conference was very important. It facilitated cross-border networking between scientists that had not known about each other before. Leadership commitment was what kept cross-border cooperation  158  alive. There was no binding legislation or formal governmental authority involved. Demise o f cooperation has been due to the B C Government's lack o f commitment, although Canadian government has continued support through the G B E I . John Dohrmann has been a constant as G B / P S I T F co-chair on the U S side since 1992. M s . Jolly is moving back east in February 2005 after 20 years in Washington State.  State M i k e Harcourt, ex-premier o f British Columbia was one o f the signatories o f the 1992 B . C . /Washington State Environmental Cooperation Agreement. M r . Harcourt was interviewed by audiotaped telephone conversation on Friday, December 3, 2004. Questions were not followed systematically. F r o m his perspective the idea o f an agreement between B C and Washington State regarding the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound was first raised by Elizabeth Cole, Oak B a y M L A in the late 1980s. O n this basis M i k e Harcourt when he became premier launched an international initiative, and this led to more formal agreements. The Georgia Basin Environmental Initiative has matured and the Cascadia high speed rail corridor has emerged as an important concept. Contact Charles K e l l y o f the (Vancouver) Cascadia Institute. There is a lot o f international trade in this corridor. The ecological view has changed. Geography is difficult. Strategy is important as are watersheds. Population is burgeoning. H u g h Kellas ( H K ) , Manager, Policy and Planning for the Greater Vancouver Regional District ( G V R D ) , is responsible for consistency o f the Official Community Plans o f all the G V R D municipalities with the G V R D Livable Region Plan. H e was interviewed in person on April 8, 2005 in his office at 4330 Kingsway. Questions were followed systematically. (1) Regarding dates o f substantial interest in governing the G B / P S as an integrated system, H K remembered Cascadia meetings, Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Environment Canada and E P A involvement in the late 1980s, early 90s as well as airshed management in 1994. Earlier G V R D planning did not look south o f the border. (2) Regarding the effects o f N P S P on quality o f life in the G B / P S region, H K referred to the air quality management plan, and air quality negatively affected by autos and ships. (3) Regarding his role in collaborative planning in a governance institution affecting land use in the G B / P S ecosystem acting in one or more o f the five governance categories, H K considered his role to be within number  159  2, a local state category. International participation has been through Environment Canada, and the G V R D only meets with Whatcom County in Washington State regarding air quality.  Environment  Canada  and  E P A make  agreements.  (4)  Regarding  major  achievements toward better collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the G B / P S ecosystem, FIK considered that governance achievements had not been through land use, but in water and air quality. This has been through informal work with the Puget Sound Regional Council. H e referred to "Green Heartland" and Robert Tibbs. (5) Regarding issues yet to be addressed to improve collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use planning in the G B / P S , H K considered that dialogue (collaboration) appears to be the only way to address cross-border issues such as the proposed Sumas II power plant. Maybe the plant could be located in a better spot. It is even difficult to govern land use within the G V R D itself. (6) Regarding potential bridges to facilitate improvement in collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the G B / P S ecosystem, H K stated that local improvements should be done first within our own region. For example, it is possible that a set o f principles developed locally for the G V R D could work for the whole o f Cascadia. The international airshed strategy has a land use task group, best practices  component.  (7)  Regarding  barriers  hindering  further  improvement  of  collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the G B / P S ecosystem, H K cited a perceived concern that while the Federal Government needs to work internationally, the G V R D Board would not see the value o f working with Seattle regarding land use. (8) Regarding what broader ramifications exist from improvement in collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the G B / P S ecosystem, for H K , such things as new highways in Washington and ability to clear borders has land use implications. H e agreed *  that improved local roads affect increasing international trade into the Port o f Vancouver. (9) Regarding to whom we should approach to find out more about reactions  to  collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the G B / P S ecosystem, H K suggested Northwest Environmental Watch regarding their comparison between Vancouver and Seattle, the Cascadia group, (and?) a Seattle group pushing for rapid rail. The International airshed agreement is just a handshake agreement. The International Joint Commission (which could apply to the G B / P S ) is rather legalistic as opposed  to  collaborative. The G V R D has no international mandate. Smart Growth B C is worth  160  contacting. However, most cross-boundary work is done through the federal government. The Fraser Basin Council has huge collaborative experience. It would be interesting to consider how they would work across the international boundary.  Market economy B e v Scorey, Executive Director o f The Cascadia Project. The interview was conducted by e-mail, referring to Cascadia Project documentation that was e-mailed (Cascadia Institute 2002).  Civil society David Marshall, Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council ( F B C ) was interviewed in his office on Tuesday A u g . 16, 2005. Background was that I attended his lecture at 2005 Seattle G B / P S Research Conference on F B C collaboration. F B C is exporting its collaborative model F B C also works province wide. F B C is an N G O with 36 board members, all treated equally. Government and private industry included in structure. Works as opposed to lobbying. F B C is a society, is not legislation based, so not constrained by legal mandate which might be compromised by decisions, (like U S law is compromised by N A F T A softwood rulings, hampering implementing the rulings ). Uses consensus instead. E g . brought people together to resolve the Britannia Beach point source pollution. Coordinates different groups. Has an M O U with Puget Sound Action Team on file. Knows David Fraser and his new boss, Mary Beth Berbub? who replaced Bruce Kay. Recommends interview him.  161  Randall Krips, Mary Beth' s boss is on F B C Board. A l l F B C Board members treated as equals. Board bylaws give procedures. Answers to Questions: 1. It has been asserted that substantial interest in governing the GB/PS as an integrated system has only existed since the late 1980s. Would you agree with that timeframe? If so, why? If not, why not, and what should it be? Agree and disagree. Progress has been fragmented and inconsistent. Livable Region Strategic Plan was started in the early 90s. Has a good environmental component, led to Regional Context Statements. For F R E M P history see Joe Stott. Before Joe see Marian Adair. Before her, M i k e McPhee (now at Quadra Consultants).  Also K e n  Lamburtson. Very early, Larry Wolfe (Quadra Consultants) did Fraser River Estuary Study in late 70s, early 80s. (Led to?) Estuary Management Plan. See Amana Matheson at F R E M P . F R E M P was established for single stop shopping.' See Tony Dorcey's 2 blue books from early 1990s (I have them). Fraser Basin Management Program has (had?) 3Federal, 3 Provincial, 3 municipal, 3 First Nation members, plus 7 N G O members. M O U with F R E M P needs review, as F R E M P role first expanded, then shrunk. G B E I emerged, initiated by M i k e Harcourt in 1993. Fraser Basin Action Plan is under Canadian Green Plan. Fraser Basin Charter for Sustainability (Copy). Structure to implement it became the Fraser Basin Council, born i n 1997. Art Martell, Environment Canada Director General 1997 98 pushed it. K e n Cameron, F R E M P Chair and architect o f L R S P , 7  now C E O o f Home Protection.  2.  What are the effects of non-point source pollution (NPSP) on quality of life in the GB/PS region? Agricultural runoff is critical issue i n N P S pollution. G B extends up to Hope and lots o f N P S in Fraser Valley. See Marion Robinson for Fraser Valley section o f F B C (that is Langley to Manning Park and Boston Bar). See B o b Purdy for F B C area Greater Vancouver, Langley to Pemburton. F B C covers an area as  162  large as California, contributes 10% o f the Canadian economy and 80% o f the B C economy. 3. For this study collaborative planning as a governance institution has been defined in five categories:  (1) international,  Nations, provincial/state individual  conscience.  (2) nation-state  and local) (3) market-economy,  (including federal,  First  (4) civil society and (5)  What has been your role in collaborative planning  as a  governance institution affecting land use in the GB/PS ecosystem, acting in one or more of the five governance  categories?  F B C does all 5 areas o f governance  defined by me, including the individual conscience. For the latter, does a (periodic?) report based on survey o f issues. 4.  What have been major achievements toward better collaborative planning as a governance  institution for land use in the GB/PS  ecosystem? Britannia Beach  collaboration bringing actors together to resolve. Triparty agreement for Aggasis debris trap (explained trap workings), 5.  What issues remain to be addressed  to improve collaborative planning  as a  governance institution for land use in the GB/PS ecosystem? Need the Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) to be recognized and more collaboration with Georgia Basin Action Plan ( G B A P ) . For SRI see Johnney Carline at G V R D ; see Jock Finlayson at B C Business Council; see Cheying H o at Smart Growth B C ; see Pat Jacobson at TRANSLrNK; see  at United Way. Next emerging in collaborative  governance is Regional Economic Strategy; sustainability enriched, goes beyond land use. Need province to have political w i l l to recognize G B as critical. Number 1 issue is the G B E I needs to include all interests at the table with reference to the F B C collaborative model. (What about the Georgia Basin Council?) 6.  What potential bridges exist to facilitate improvement of collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the GB/PS ecosystem? Learn from the F B C model.  163.  7.  What are existing or potential barriers hindering farther improvement of collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the GB/PS ecosystem? Existing barriers are mindset, lack o f political w i l l and foresight. Need a collaborative effort.  8.  What broader ramifications exist, if any, from improvement in collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the GB/PS ecosystem? Lost opportunities.  9.  To whom should we talk tofindout more about reactions to collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the GB/PS ecosystem? Jeff (or Geoff?) Meggs, assistant to (Larry or Gordon?) Campbell, E r i k Karlsen, Tony Dorcey, David Cadman, Nolan Charles (Lawyer), Peter Jones, Barbara Sharp, Peter Boothroyd.  Contact him again with any questions, by cell i f necessary.  Individual agency Individual agency interviews were considered to be covered by interviews o f individuals above.  164  Contact Letter Company Name Here  July 10, 2006 [Click here and type recipient's address] Dear Sir: Re: Request for Interview: Governance in the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound International Region This letter is to request your assistance in research being conducted in partial fulfillment o f requirements for a P h . D degree in the U B C Faculty o f Graduate Studies, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability. The subject is regarding governance for sustainability in the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound international region, and you have been selected for an interview because you possess expert knowledge related to this field. There are two attachments to this letter. The first is a consent form that explains the research project, its purpose, procedures and confidentiality. The second attachment is a questionnaire that would be used in the interview, should you agree to participate. Y o u r signature on and return o f the consent form would represent your agreement to participate in this study. Y o u r participation in this research would constitute a valuable contribution and would be very much appreciated. Sincerely, James C . Carruthers Ph.D Candidate  165  Questionnaire I have chosen the case study tradition to describe the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound (GB/PS) as an instrumental case to describe and understand collaborative planning as a governance institution to mitigate land-use generated non-point source pollution in an international cross-boundary region. 1. It has been asserted that substantial interest in governing the GB/PS as an integrated system has only existed since the late 1980s. Would you agree with that timeframe? If so, why? If not, why not, and what should it be? 2. What are the effects of non-point source pollution (NPSP) on quality of life in the GB/PS region? 3. For this study collaborative planning as a governance institution has been defined in five categories: (1) international, (2) nation-state (including federal, First Nations, provincial/state and local), (3) market-economy, (4) civil society, and (5) individual conscience. What has been your role in collaborative planning as a governance institution affecting land use in the GB/PS ecosystem, acting in one or more of the five governance categories? 4. What have been major achievements toward better collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the GB/PS ecosystem? 5. What issues remain to be addressed to improve collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the GB/PS ecosystem? 6. What potential bridges exist to facilitate improvement of collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the GB/PS ecosystem? 7. What are existing or potential barriers hindering further improvement of collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the GB/PS ecosystem?  166  8. What broader ramifications exist, i f any, from improvement in collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the GB/PS ecosystem? .9. To whom should we talk to find out more about reactions to collaborative planning as a governance institution for land use in the GB/PS ecosystem?  167  APPENDIXD: DETAILS OF DOCUMENT REVIEW Summary of Proceedings of Meetings of the Environmental Cooperation Council The  first meeting of the Environmental Cooperation Council (ECC) was held on October  1, 1992 in Seattle, chaired by the two designated council members, the Acting Director of the Washington Department of Ecology and the Deputy Minister of the B C Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The Director General of Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region and the Director of International Liaison for Region 10 of the US E P A were Council observers and also participated along with members of their staff, as did other B C and Washington agencies and invited observers. Six topics were discussed: (1) Puget Sound and Fraser Basin programs; (2) Nooksack River flood management; (3) Abbtsford/ Sumas aquifer; (4) Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt; (5) air quality management; and (6) state of the environment reporting. Next steps for each issue were agreed upon. For Puget Sound and Fraser Basin discussions, the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority has created a comprehensive plan to protect the sound and to manage implemention of the plan. The Fraser Basin Management Program, established earlier in 1992, is a collaborative effort between federal, provincial and local governments to manage air, land and water and facilitate sustainable development in the Fraser Basin. The E C C agreed:  •  That B C Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Washington Department of Ecology, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Fraser Basin management Board, the USEPA and Environment Canada will develop recommendations for next meeting for: information sharing, joint monitoring and possible joint research in Puget Sound and consider extension of this initiative in the Georgia Basin.  •  To discuss recommendations for information sharing about pollution control and joint planning activities.  •  To.defer Victoria Capital Regional District sewage treatment until the next E C C meeting, following the November 1992 referendum.  168  For state of environment reporting, Washington had just issued its second such report while B C was developing its first such document for March 1993. The E C C agreed that BC  and Washington would continue to explore opportunities for environmental  cooperation at the next meeting, which will after the B C report publication (British Columbia Washington State Environmental Cooperation Council 1992). In February 1993, the E C C provided to the Deputy Minister of B C Environment Lands and Parks and the Director of Washington Department of Ecology, an interim status report on E C C activities relative to its agenda and on issues for the next meeting in Victoria in April 1993. Regarding Puget Sound/Georgia Basin water quality management, the issue of Victoria Capital Regional District (CRD) sewage was discussed. In August 1992, the Ministry informed the C R D that secondary sewage treatment would be required, similar to that of Port Angeles. In the CRD November 1992 referendum, most voters wanted no treatment, while 42% wanted some treatment by 1997. It was expected that primary treatment would be installed by 2003 and secondary treatment installed by 2013. Regarding state of environment reporting, the B C report to be completed in March 1993 will be compared with Washington's 1991 report and then the 1993 Washington report will be done. The E C C meeting will identify shared approaches and common environmental indicators for cross-boundary reporting. Regarding institutional issues: (1) the Nooksack River International Task Force, which preceded the E C C , expressed concern about the E C C recommendation that the Task Force report to the E C C , and a decision is required. (2) As new transboundary issues continue to emerge, a mechanism is required to systematically review the E C C agenda, reset priorities and consider these new issues. Also, some E C C action agenda items reflect agencies not represented on the council. Decision is needed on how to include these agencies in E C C activities. (3) Other transboundary issues related to the Environmental Cooperation Agreement exist or have been proposed. These include the Cascadia Corridor Commission, the Georgia Basin Initiative, the Puget Sound/Georgia basin Forum and the the Pacific Northwest Economic Region. The E C C should decide on how it wants to relate to these other initiatives. (4) An E C C public information and involvement program could  169 include a variety of target audiences and diverse projects. A major determinant of inclusion of such program components is funding available for ECC work (British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council 1993). The second ECC meeting was on May 20, 1993 in Sidney, BC. The BC Deputy Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Director of Washington Department of Ecology again chaired the meeting. Environment Canada and the US EPA were observers. Attending were representatives of the Canadian and US consulates, the BC premiers office, observers from various federal, provincial, state and local government agencies as well as citizen's groups. The ECC received reports from each of the five working groups and approved the direction each group had taken. The BC State of the Environment Report was discussed. Much time was devoted to the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound. Victoria Capital Regional District sewage and future liquid waste management was discussed at length, as well as Washington's strong support. In April 1993 the Premier and governor agreed to establish a joint panel of Canadian and US scientists to study water quality and monitoring, to be directed by the ECC. Accordingly, the ECC at its May 1993 created the Marine Science Panel to consider water quality and trends in the shared waters. Panel terms of reference and a process for nominations were agreed upon. The purpose of the Marine Science Panel is to 'advise the BC/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council regarding existing transboundary marine water quality issues and trends for the waters of BC and Washington including the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.' The panel includes six scientific experts, threefromBC and threefromWashington State in physical oceanography,fisheriesbiology, chemical oceanography, and biological oceanography. Questions regarding the status and trends of the shared waters will be posed by the ECC and Science Panel. These will be addressed by scientists at a conference to be held before January 1994 that will include invited scientists, government representatives and US and Canadian citizens. The Marine Science Panel will report to the ECC before its spring 1994 meeting regarding conference presentations, and provide conclusions and recommendations. Regarding state of the environment reporting, the premier and the governor requested the ECC to produce a joint state of the environment (SOE) report on the Georgia Strait/Puget  170  Sound. Before identifying indicators that will lead to long-term SOE reporting in GB/PS, data on current status of the shared waters in the separate B C and Washington SOE reports needs to be compiled. The Marine Science Panel was requested to examine existing information and to identify trends and risks in the shared waters. The GB/PS Working Group (now Task Force) will propose joint monitoring and research initiatives to support a long-term joint SOE shared marine waters reporting process (British Columbia/ Washington Environmental Cooperation Council 1994c). The  Third meeting  of the E C C was held in November 1993 in Bellingham. A dominant  theme of that meeting was the "strong and growing level of cooperation between the participants on trans-boundary issues" (British Columbia/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council 1994c). On January 13 and 14, 1994 the Symposium on the BC/Washington Marine Environment was held where papers jointly authored by Canadian and US scientists were presented. About 2 0 0 people attended from both sides of the border. There were thirteen presentations jointly authored by US and Canadian scientists. The symposium provided a venue for exchange of up to date information regarding conditions and trends in the GB/PS shared waters and formed new cross-boundary scientific connections.  Symposium  Proceedings were made available in May 1994 to the public (British Columbia/ Washington Environmental Cooperation Council 1994c). The  fourth meeting  of the E C C took place on May 2 6 , 1994 in Sidney, BC.  The main  focus was on the Marine Science Panel report. To produce the report he panel referred to Symposium proceedings, written and oral briefings, scientific literature review and information from professional collegues. The panel's recommendations were based on scientific evaluations of risk and harm, not on popular perceptions. The panel determined. that the worst threat to the GB/PS shared waters was the loss of nearshore habitat, particularly estuarine wetlands. Critical condition of some marine populations, such as salmon and other fish and some species of birds was emphasized. Conditions in B C were judged to be better than those in Washington and would continue to be due to BC's relatively lower population, greater surface area and longer shoreline in the shared waters.  171  Subjects addressed were habitat loss, biological resources such as salmonids, shellfish, birds and mammals as well as human health. Threats and responsive actions were ranked according to "irreversibility o f impacts, degree of harm, likelihood o f prevention and expense  o f repair". H i g h priority actions recommended  destruction; preventing major  freshwater  were: preventing  diversions; preventing  fish  and  habitat shellfish  population losses; establishing marine protected areas and preventing exotic species introduction. Medium priority actions recommended were minimizing toxic contamination o f marine sediments and biota and preventing large o i l spills. The panel strongly encouraged continuation o f the increased communication and free scientific discussion initiated by the Symposium. Also, it encouraged establishment o f joint strategic long-range planning, monitoring, management and research. Further, the panel recommended an independent audit body to determine why existing government policies and programs had not successfully protected marine environments. The E C C then instructed the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Work Group (Task Force) in consultation with the Marine Science Panel, to develop an implementation plan for the report's recommendations. Regarding B C wastewater treatment, the B C Ministry o f the Environment, Lands and Parks reported that Canadian Government funds w i l l be used to upgrade the Greater Vancouver Annacis Island sewage treatment plant would be upgraded to secondary treatment by the end o f 1997 and that the L u l u Island plant would be upgraded to secondary by the end o f 1995. In addition, the Victoria C R D is under provincial order to initiate a capital reserve fund by 1996, introduce primary sewage treatment by 2002 and secondary treatment by 2008 (British  ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council  1994c,  British  ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council 1994b). The fifth meeting o f the E C C was on December 1, 1994 in SeaTac, Washington. In addition to the Deputy Minister  and the Director o f two lead agencies,  other  representatives were the director o f the U S E P A Region 10 and the Director General o f Environment Canada Pacific and Y u k o n Region. The B C Intergovernmental Relations Office and the U S and Canadian Consulates were also represented. There were 40 attendees from the public and private sector. Most o f the meeting was spent discussing how to implement the Marine Science Panel's report on the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound. The task force's report "Response to the Marine Science Panel Report: Summary o f  172  Recommended Actions" included 56 possible actions to be taken on the 12 priority issues identified by the M S P report. These ranged from those already underway through those to be easily accomplished to more difficult actions requiring additional resources. The task force recommended that the preliminary action plans should receive more development from working groups conducted by a lead agency chosen by the E C C . The task force named potential American and Canadian lead agencies for each o f the 12 M S P priority topics. The E C C instructed the task force to continue to develop the action plans, and to extend the scope o f participation to transcend government agencies to include local governments, aboriginal and tribal groups, members o f industry and other interested parties. The E C C also asked that actions capable o f immediate implementation be identified and undertaken accordingly. F o r efficiency, the task force established parallel working groups for each of the 12 priority issues in both B C and Washington, intending to act as the coordinator between the two jurisdictions of working groups. The task force and work groups duly met in M a y , 1995 to assess progress made by the two jurisdictions (British ColumbiaAVashington State Environmental Cooperation Council 1995b). Invited speakers contributed. The E C C received a preliminary action plan submitted by the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Task Force suggesting some initiatives that could start immediately. These included detailed analyses on plant and animal populations, and exotic species, monitoring program adequacy and oil spill prevention. The Task Force also recommended that both B C and Washington employ a staff person to work on the project, and Washington reported that they had already hired such a person. Three invited respondents represented People for Puget Sound from Washington, the Georgia Strait Alliance from B C and the Ministry o f Municipal Affairs that is leading the Georgia Basin Initiative. Because o f the scale and complexity o f issues identified by the Science Panel, an action program w i l l be long-term. The process is expected to involve a number of government agencies and a broad spectrum of other stakeholders and progress will be reported on. Members o f the audience then entered the discussion. These included a representative o f the Nooksack tribe, the Washington Toxics Coalition regarding non-point sources o f bioaccumulative toxics including agriculture and the Pacific Coast Joint Venture regarding waterfowl habitat according to the 1986 North American Waterfowl Plan. The E C C accepted the action plan,  173  expressed that no new funds would be available and therefore priorities should be clear before proceeding, urged inclusion o f various related initiatives already underway in B C in the action plan, and committed to coordinate among provincial agencies. Others asserted the value o f a communications plan to diffuse the M S P Report and subsequent efforts. Scarcity o f funds dictates the need to make use o f activities already underway. The E C C endorsed the work o f the Task Force and asked it to identify all existing programs and more clearly assess the scope o f work possible within available resources. The E C C also asked the task force to identify desirable initiatives needing additional resources, to look for potential sources for additional support as well as opportunities for prompt action to maintain momentum. The E C C requested the task force to report on a refined action plan to  the  E C C spring meeting  (British  ColumbiaAVashington State Environmental  Cooperation Council 1995a). The s i x t h meeting o f the E C C took place in Seattle Washington in June 1995. Approximately 50 people attended. The G B / P S International Task Force reported on the status o f the work groups addressing the 12 priority issues and anticipated future issues. It also requested certain direction and decisions from the council. Council was impressed by "the sheer volume o f work" undertaken by the task force since the December 1, 1994 meeting, but considered such a workload excessive. Consequently the meeting focused on the task force's role and on identifying priority issues for the E C C . Concern was expressed about having parallel sets o f work groups in B C and Washington, as this appeared to contradict the bilateral approach advocated for the shared marine waters. While the task force expected to defer the interjurisdictional linkage, the E C C strongly preferred that a unified structure o f international working groups be initiated at the outset to foster an ecosystem approach to identify ecosystem-wide responses to the issues, then undertake to implement these responses within each jurisdiction. The upshot o f the meeting was that the E C C instructed the task force to set fewer priorities and focus efforts, to identify priorities and deliverables within two months and to report on progress at next meeting. Regarding other relevant binational initiatives, the E C C heard about the Growth Management Accord between B C and Washington signed in September 1994. The B C Ministry o f Municipal Affairs that leads the Georgia Basin Initiative ( G B I ) in B C also led  174  the B C delegation at the first meeting o f B C and Washington to implement the Growth Management Accord. A s the Accord proceeds, regular communications and joint meetings should be considered between the E C C and the growth strategies group. The E C C also initiated communications between B C and Washington agricultural authorities regarding the pest control product Bt. In addition, E C C efforts to compare and integrate G B and PS monitoring data has led to a 1995 joint transboundary trawl survey to investigate bottomfish contaminant levels in Canadian waters. Finally, now that the E C C has existed for two years it should review its structure, mandate and relationship to other agencies, governments,  stakeholders  and  the  public  (British  ColumbiaAVashington State  Environmental Cooperation Council 1995b). The seventh meeting o f the E C C was in Bellingham in December, 1995. Meetings allow council members to follow progress on the five major priority transboundary issues, including  G B / P S water quality. They also permit the E C C members to coordinate with  related work by the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation established  under  NAFTA.  accomplishments have  resulted  Major from  transboundary the E C C task  environmental forces,  management  including the  GB/PS  International Task Force. Regarding Georgia Basin/Puget Sound water quality, the G B / P S International Task Force has made significant progress in implementing the BC/Washington Marine Science Panel recommendations in four areas: habitat loss, marine protected areas, protecting marine life and minimizing introduction o f exotic species. B C has funded mapping o f lost nearshore Georgia Strait habitat for public education. Washington has funded a case study o f habitat loss in two jurisdictions and a public information document. Both B C and Washington are proceeding with strategies for marine protected areas ( M P A s ) based on assessment o f existing M P As. Both jurisdictions are completing reports on marine life depletion and w i l l recommend stock management strategies. A status report on exotic species w i l l be followed by recommendations on avoiding exotic species introduction into G B / P S shared waters. Work is also proceeding on toxic pollutant loading reduction strategies.  175  Toward developing a shared trans-boundary understanding o f issues and approaches, workshops have been conducted for provincial and state representatives to develop a common habitat classification system, on exotic species threats and on marine water strategic planning. A fish tissue contamination study by Washington Fish and Wildlife consulting with B C and Canadian scientists has been used to compare sampling and analytical techniques. The task force has been funded by the U S E P A to assess Washington habitat management programs and has assisted Fisheries and Oceans Canada in contracting the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team for coordinated cross-border studies. Additional funding is being sought from the above federal agencies and Environment Canada.  In the past year much education and outreach has been done. The task force issued a brochure about issues, needs and work underway i n the G B / P S and established a website. It has also taken displays and presentations to scientific conferences such as the Coastal Society Conference in Seattle and Coastal Zone Canada in Quebec. Task force members and work groups met with B C and Washington citizen groups to discuss how government and non-government institutions could complement each other. These initiatives have enhanced the task force's reputation and generated cross-country enquiries about this regional process model. The E C C task force work has attracted attention o f the International Joint Commission and the Commission on Environmental Cooperation. This also included biannual E C C meetings, task force hosted workshops, publication o f papers and reports and contributions o f staff, federal, provincial, state and local governments, First Nations and Tribes and non-governmental organizations (British ColumbiaAVashington State Environmental Cooperation Council 1996).  The  eighth meeting o f the E C C was in Victoria in October, 1996. The proceedings are  combined with the seventh E C C meeting above, as outlined in the Fourth Annual Report o f the E C C below. B C suspended participation in the  ninth and tenth biannual E C C meetings starting in June  1997 because it was dissatisfied with progress in negotiations on the Pacific Salmon Treaty (British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council 1998).  176  The E C C resumed its meetings with its  eleventh meeting on October 7, 1998 in Victoria.  About 25 members o f the public attended. The G B - P S ITF will prepare for the fall 1999 E C C meeting a report describing actions taken, or to be taken to address the high, medium and low priority Marine Science Panel issues. The Washington nearshore habitat loss work group has reported on the Washington State regulatory program, developed an action strategy and is producing a Shoreline Property Owner's Stewardship Guidebook. B C is conducting research and producing a discussion paper on legal mechanisms for near-shore habitat protection. The Washington marine life protection work group has created a Puget Sound marine species protection strategy and has managed production and adoption o f management plans for forage and ground fish and oysters, and the equivalent B C work group is developing recommendations. (Why are there still two separate work groups when the E C C at its 6  th  meeting in June 1995 instructed that the work groups be combined?).  The Washington non-indigenous  species  prevention work group  has  produced  a  background report and implementation plan, helped with the Washington Aquatic Nuisance Species ( A N S ) Management Plan and to assign an A N S Coordinator in the Department o f Fish and Wildlife. A B C Non-Indigenous Species Action Plan is nearly complete and the Port o f Vancouver ballast water protocols may be expanded to other ports. The E C C agreed with the (BC?) work group that B C should form an inter-agency non-indigenous species committee and that committee members collaborate on initiating a coordinator position. The Washington Marine Protected Areas working group has produced a strategy and a background report on 102 existing Puget Sound M P As. Washington's Fish and Wildlife Commission has adopted an M P A policy and several "no-take" areas. A B . C . Marine Protected Area discussion paper was issued in September 1998, and an M P A strategy should be completed by year end, along with four M P A s , two o f which are in place. (British Columbia/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council 1998). The twelfth meeting o f the E C C was held in Bellingham on M a y 7, 1999. About 40 people attended.  Representatives o f the Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT),  governmental  organization and the Fraser Basin Council, a civil society organization, explained the work of their respective organizations and their collaboration. Both are attempting to implement their respective comprehensive plans. Also they have recently signed a memorandum o f understanding ( M O U ) committing them 'to enhance the water quality and biological  177  resources o f the Fraser Basin and Puget Sound', and to joint work plans and annual meetings. Four reports were given on environmental trends, one o f which was by about the Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative (GBEI). The G B E I has gathered data from both Canadian and U S sources on air and water quality, biological diversity, waste management, toxic contamination, and land use to develop basin-wide indicators by fall 1999. Both B C and Washington reported on efforts to better regulate and reduce environmental toxics (British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council 1999). The  thirteenth meeting, o f the E C C was held in  on (fall) 1999 (information not  available). The  fourteenth meeting o f the E C C was held in Spokane on M a y 19, 2000. This was the  first meeting held in an eastern or interior location. About 50 people attended. The focus was on environmental issues in the Columbia River Basin. The G B / P S was not discussed (British Columbia/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council 2000). The  fifteenth meeting o f the E C C was held in Victoria on November 28, 2000. About 40  people attended.  The BCAVashington Environmental Assessment Memorandum o f  Understanding ( M O U ) underway by the B C Environmental Assessment Office ( E A O ) and the Washington Department o f Ecology ( D O E ) was discussed. The M O U will contain notice and information exchange protocols for large projects near the international border that have potential for transboundary implications. The E C C urged that the M O U plainly describe environmental assessment in both jurisdictions, provide opportunities to improve processes, strongly connect to other transboundary agreements and allow each party to review the M O U with federal collegues. The draft is expected at the next E C C meeting in spring 2001. B C ' s Environmental Assessment A c t requires that a jurisdiction near a proposed project be invited to join the interagency project committee that assesses the proposal. Washington's State Environmental Policy A c t requires that it support efforts to maximize international cooperation in preventing decline in environmental quality. Different environmental assessment approaches i n the two jurisdictions include different relationships to respective federal jurisdictions. These are important in forming joint administrative relationships for collaboration on core technical review o f major projects.  178  The M O U should maximize information exchange and minimize administration. Each jurisdiction will collaborate internally on the M O U to ensure internal support. It is important that the parties commit to continually work to understand jurisdictional similarities and differences. The Department o f Ecology w i l l depend on its database to meet M O U obligations and B C w i l l be more direct and active with Washington on specific projects. Clarification is required about, definition o f M O U projects; collaboration with federal agencies, aboriginal interests and the public; coordination with other formal agreements requiring administration on the same projects. The G B / P S International Task Force presented Pathways to our optimal future: a five-year review of the activities of the International Task Force for public distribution. It also presented a successful case o f interception o f non-native zebra mussels inadvertently bound for the G B / P S and a draft report by the B C Nearshore Habitat Work Group entitled A strategy to prevent coastal habitat loss and degradation in the Georgia Basin. Four major strategies are: (1) identify all critical sensitive coastal habitats; (2) secure high priority habitats; (3) improve coastal habitat management and restore degraded habitats; (4) improve coastal habitat stewardship. The E C C w i l l review and endorse the report before next meeting. It was reported that the E C C website is now operational, and other website sources were provided. (British Columbia/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council 2001a). The  sixteenth meeting of the E C C was held in Bellingham on June 20, 2001. Discussions  started with the Environmental Assessment Memorandum of Understanding ( E A M O U ) between B C and Washington State signed at this same June 20, 2001 E C C meeting by the Deputy Minister o f the B C Environmental Assessment Office and the Director o f the Washington Department o f Ecology. The purpose o f the E A M O U is to promote strong communication between the two jurisdictions regarding: (1) Mutual understanding o f environmental assessment processes in the two jurisdictions; (2) Notification o f major projects located near the other jurisdiction; (3) Consideration o f comments from the other jurisdiction and possible effects o f major projects; (4) Public notification and consultation  179  methods about projects: The E A M O U and supporting documents are posted on the E C C website. Representatives  o f the Ministry o f Water, Land and A i r Protection and the U S  Environmental Protection Agency presented regarding environmental indicators o f the G B / P S transboundary region. The G B / P S Environmental Indicators Working Group was created in 1999 to identify, investigate and communicate regional environmental quality indicators to policy makers and the public. The group includes representatives from the Ministry o f Water, Land and A i r Protection, Environment Canada, Washington Department o f Ecology, U S E P A , and the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. In 1999 an inclusive group o f agencies generated a list o f environmental indicators to be reported on. Six indicators were selected for initial reporting: (1) population growth; (2) air quality (PM10); (3) terrestrial protected areas; (4) species at risk; (5) domestic solid waste; (6) persistent organic pollutants in harbour seals. Preliminary indicator results were discussed. W o r k is ongoing and differences in data measuring methods are being dealt with. Results o f the six indicators are expected to be published in late summer 2001. The E C C discussed the contribution o f the indicators in analyzing environmental issues, doing business and using public resources.  The U S E P A and the Coast Salish Sea Initiative jointly reported on progress on engagement o f First Nations and tribes under Focus 3 o f the 2000 Canada-US Joint Statement o f Cooperation on the G B and P S Ecosystem (SOC). The S O C is an agreement between Environment Canada and the U S E P A to collaborate at the federal level on transboundary issues (Environment Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency 2000). The first annual action plan identified three focus areas: (1) air quality; (2) sustainability and smart growth; (3) engaging First Nations and tribes. Efforts have aimed at promoting cross-boundary inter-First Nation/tribal communications using the Coast Salish Sea Initiative and facilitating dialogue between federal agencies and First Nations /tribes regarding G B / P S transboundary issues. A number o f activities have so far been undertaken, and Environment Canada and the E P A will finish their 2  n d  annual action plan  in July, 2001 (British Columbia/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council 2001b).  180  The  seventeeth meeting o f the E C C was held in Penticton, B C on December 12, 2001.  About 22 people attended from federal, provincial, state and local governments, as well as First Nations and environmental organizations. The G B / P S International Task Force did not report at this meeting (British Columbia/Washington Environmental Cooperation Council 2002a). The  eighteenth meeting o f the E C C was held in Spokane on April 29, 2002 (British  ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council 2002b). It was noted that the E C C will be ten years old on M a y 7, 2002. The G B / P S International Task Force did not report, but the U S E P A and Washington Department o f Ecology did present on the G B / P S Ecosystem Indicators Report. They described the six environmental indicators, the measures used in the report and the process the Work Group used to develop the report. The report is a collaborative effort to explore how to better use scientific knowledge and expertise to preserve the G B / P S environment. The partners are Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, B C Ministry o f Water, Land and A i r Protection, B C Ministry o f Sustainable Resource Management, U S E P A Region  10, Washington  Department o f Ecology, and the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. The six indicators are: population growth and distribution; air quality; domestic solid waste generation; species at risk; protected areas; and persistent organic pollutants in harbour seals. The indicators were selected on the basis o f availability o f data in the two jurisdictions that could be comparably presented. In addition to trends, the report discusses significance o f indicators, sources or causes o f pollutants and actions taken to address issues. The E C C discussed lessons from this report, difficulties o f working with different countries, agencies, expectations and data compatibility, public communication, task force recommendations for additional studies and improvements to future interagency and international research. A subject reported on related to the G B / P S was watershed planning in Washington State. The Washington Department o f Ecology, Washington Department o f Fish and Wildlife Watershed Stewardship and a watershed biologist for the Kalispel Indian Tribe presented on the watershed planning process in Washington State and cross-border connections. The 1988 Watershed Management A c t established a framework for local governments, tribes,  181  state and federal agencies and the public to collaboratively resolve watershed issues in three phases funded by state grants. The process is locally driven and based on watershed areas called Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs). Within these areas, locally based Planning Units are established to strategically satisfy water supply requirements, improve water quality, protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and recommend in-stream flow levels. Twelve state agencies signed an M O U stating roles and responsibilities to be coordinated under the Watershed Planning Act, so that they can speak with one institutional voice at local planning unit meetings. Presenters connected watershed planning is related to the Washington Salmon Recovery Plan, focusing on border watershed activities and aspirations o f watershed planning units to collaborate with B C communities on shared watersheds. The E C C discussed how a cross-border watershed perspective would benefit water quantity and quality decisions. The Department o f Ecology has responded to the new watershed planning approach with new watershed-aligned organizational structures. It has also become more strongly influenced by bottom-up input from local governments and groups to departmental budgeting, planning and prioritization. However the department remains largely driven by priorities o f lawsuits and federal programs. Finally, the Northwest Border Environmental Enforcement  Task Force ( N B E E T F )  reported. The prime goal is to facilitate coordination and communication between federal, provincial and state agencies in B C , Washington, Alberta, Montana, Idaho and Oregon. The  NBEETF  attempts  to  establish  communication networks,  discuss  common  enforcement issues, determine training and capacity needs among participating agencies and plan Tor future group pursuits. The N B E E T F provides an information forum on customs inspections procedures, differing jurisdictional environmental regulations and cross-border transport o f materials including illegal import and export o f pesticides, banned C F C s , hazardous waste fuel tax fraud, lumber smuggling and medical waste. The  nineteenth meeting o f the E C C was held on April 1, 2003 in Vancouver. I attended  this meeting, so proceedings are included under observations above. The  twentieth meeting o f the E C C was held in SeaTac on February 5, 2004. The Georgia  Basin/Puget Sound International Task Force presented, providing some Task Force  182  background, a review o f activities i n the task force's draft I T F Action Plan, and a discussion o f challenges the task force faces. The task force's five year review published in 2000 observed that the task force's policies and actions had addressed the majority o f the Marine Science Panel's recommendations, except for nine specific activities that then required further task force attention. These mostly pertained to information exchange and improving cross-boundary communication regarding marine issues. A t the previous A p r i l 2003 meeting, the E G C requested the task force to review its mandate and return with recommendations about its future. The task force already had an action plan underway with a 2-3 year time-frame and prescribing actions referring back to the nine activities in the 5 year review that needed further attention. Objectives were set out for the following subjects: habitat loss, marine protected areas, marine life protection, non-indigenous species, toxic waste, monitoring and research and trans-boundary indicators. The E C C observed that in some o f these areas, progress is ongoing but independent; for example, continued communication is valued but does not require formal joint action. The co-chairs emphasized that the Task Force's fundamental role has evolved to be that o f information exchange between separate and independent Canadian and U S working groups. Areas that may require joint action were continuous management o f non-indigenous species, toxics management,  shared  waters  research  promotion and transboundary  environmental  indicators. Task force chairs presented three options: (1) implement the proposed work plan; (2) put the task force in abeyance; (3) disband the task force. The E C C unanimously agreed that the task force had achieved the Marine Science Panel's goals and should continue with its action plan. Simultaneously, task force members should continue to evaluate the focus, composition and time commitments o f the task force and its working groups. The value o f the task force as a successful forum for tribes was noted. Similarly British Columbia's and Canada's task force to value traditional knowledge has been an important dialogue focus for B C First Nations. The Washington State Swinomish Tribe noted tribal opposition to marine protected areas as conflicting with tribal fishing rights and advocated  continuation  o f co-management  with  the Northwest  Indian Fisheries  Commission (British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council 2005): T h e twenty-first meeting o f the E C C was held in Nelson, B C on November 30, 2004. Although the G B / P S was not discussed at this meeting, relevant updates were given on the  183  B C Ministry o f Water, Land and A i r Protection and the Washington Department o f Ecology. The. Ministry representative noted that the ministry was now stable, after the cutbacks o f recent years. The Department o f Ecology representative  described how  Ecology might face significant changes after a decision o f the new state governor. One issue is the degree o f regional discretion relative to state direction regarding state environmental policy. Current Ministry initiatives include: "streamlining" standards; coordinating standards with Alberta; water quantity and quality; contaminated  sites  regulations changes; cleaning up contaminated sites; and succession planning. B C uses an outcomes approach to set standards for certain discharges into the environment. B C continues to  do airshed planning and water  quality monitoring but will  change  contaminated sites monitoring administration. Permits w i l l still be required for high risk waste management sites but w i l l be waived for low and medium risk in favour o f operational standards. The ministry w i l l review the B C Environmental Management Act, develop flood hazard and pesticide management strategies and climate change initiatives. Ecology is considering environmental management partnerships and new relations with business (British ColumbiaAVashington Environmental Cooperation Council 2005). T h e twenty-second meeting o f the E C C was held on October 28, 2005 in Victoria. I attended this meeting and made notes. Also, the Record o f Discussion for this meeting was e-mailed to me in February 2006 upon my request but as o f July, 2006 had not yet been reported on the E C C website (Maxwell 2005). A l l participants listed were representatives of government agencies.  

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.831.1-0302394/manifest

Comment

Related Items