Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Stakeholder Forum - 1998

IMPLEMENTING THE BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY
Draft Proceedings

Prepared by:
LURA Group

July 23, 1997 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Context
1.2 Objectives and Meeting Format

2.0 Breakout Discussions
2.1 Key Success Factors
2.2 Review of Principles
2.2.1 Comments on Proposed Principles
2.2.2 Suggestions for New Principles
2.3 Review of Organizational Structure
2.3.1 Steering Team
2.3.2 Multi-Stakeholder Involvement
2.3.3 Subgroups (Working Groups)
2.3.4 Communications/Engagement of Partners

3.0 General Issues

4.0 Next Steps

Appendices

Appendix A: Meeting Agenda
Appendix B: Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy - Draft Implementation Process
Appendix C: Topics for Consideration - Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Appendix D: Participants List
Appendix E: Breakout Sessions - Reports

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 CONTEXT

On April 7, 1997, Canada and the United States formally signed the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (the Strategy). In keeping with the objective of the Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18, 1987 (1987 GLWQA) to restore and protect the Great Lakes, the purpose of the Strategy is to:

Set forth a collaborative process by which Environment Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with other federal departments and agencies, Great Lakes states, the Province of Ontario, Tribes, and First Nations, will work in cooperation with their public and private partners toward the goal of virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances resulting from human activity, particularly those which bioaccumulate, from the Great Lakes Basin, so as to protect and ensure the health and integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

The signing of the Strategy represents an important milestone in Canadian and U.S. efforts to reduce toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin. The current challenge is to move forward with Strategy implementation.

As a step toward meeting that challenge, Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hosted a one day stakeholder meeting entitled Implementing the Binational Toxics Strategy on June 26, 1997 at The Royce Hotel in Romulus, Michigan. LURA Group was contracted to provide process consultation, facilitation and reporting services for the meeting.

This Facilitator's Report was prepared by LURA Group as a record of the June 26, 1997 meeting. It includes the key issues and results that emerged during the plenary and small group sessions.

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND MEETING FORMAT

The objective of the workshop was to obtain stakeholder input and advice regarding the implementation of the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy. In particular, the workshop focused on the contents of a Draft Implementation Process document created by Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to assist in the development of a systematic and straight-forward process to begin the implementation of the challenges and action items in the Strategy. Included in the document are suggestions regarding principles, methodology, governing/management structure, division of labour (subgroups), and reporting.

Along with the Draft Implementation Process document, a concise discussion guide entitled Topics for Your Consideration, was distributed to participating stakeholders for review prior to the meeting. The Agenda for the meeting is included as Appendix A to this report, a copy of the Draft Implementation Process is included as Appendix B, and the discussion guide is included as Appendix C.

Seventy-four people took part; a list of participants is included as Appendix D. Ron Shimizu, (Director of the Environmental Protection Branch, Environment Canada - Ontario Region) and Gary Gulezian, (Senior Advisor to Region 5 Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) opened the workshop by welcoming participants. In plenary, Ron Shimizu provided an overview of the Binational Toxics Strategy, inviting Tim Eder (National Wildlife Federation) and Werner Braun (Council of Great Lakes Industries) to briefly share their perspectives and comments on the development of the Strategy. Gary Gulezian followed with a presentation on the proposed approach to implementation. The floor was open to questions from participants throughout the plenary.

After the plenary session, participants convened in small groups to discuss the Draft Implementation Process in more detail. Three concurrent sessions were held which:

• identified key ingredients for success for implementation of the Binational Toxics Strategy;
• reviewed and sought feedback on the principles proposed to help guide the implementation process; and
• reviewed and sought feedback on the proposed organizational structure.

In the afternoon, participants re-convened in plenary to hear reports from the three breakout sessions presented by the facilitators. Following this, a number of presentations were made on successful toxics reduction initiatives. These included:

• Tracey Mehan (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), who provided an overview of the Michigan Mercury Pollution Prevention Task Force as an example of the success which can be achieved through multi-stakeholder processes.
• Werner Braun (Dow Chemical and the Council of Great Lakes Industries), who provided a review of successful pollution prevention initiatives at Dow Chemical and among members of the Council for Great Lakes Industries
• Jamie Lourie (Pollution Probe), who provided a synopsis of the results of a recently completed study entitled, "Mercury in the Health Care Sector - The Cost of Alternative Products," which concluded that hospitals can make a difference by switching to mercury-free alternatives.
• Margaret Wooster (Great Lakes United), who provided a review of GLU's approach to toxics reductions - achieving zero discharge by phasing out toxic production, use, and distribution. GLU's work with the Good Neighbor Committee in Buffalo, New York is illustrative of the environmental successes which can be achieved with the support of a regulatory framework.
• Tim Eder and Lisa Yee (National Wildlife Federation), who provided a brief discussion of NWF's Zero Discharge University Campus Initiative in the Lake Superior basin, and toxics reduction successes in the City of Duluth.
• Stewart Forbes (Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention), who provided a review of the Centre's role in assisting Pollution Prevention efforts across Canada. The Centre's successful dry-cleaning environmental training program, conducted across Ontario with over 1,000 different operations, was described.
• Ron Shimizu and Gary Gulezian closed the workshop by describing next steps and thanking participants for taking part.

2.0 BREAKOUT DISCUSSIONS

This section provides a summary of the key input and advice shared by participants during the breakout sessions. While the intent was not to reach consensus on any of the issues discussed, there were a number of themes which emerged from discussions within a single group and/or emerged from discussions in more than one group. Those themes are highlighted here. A copy of the flipchart notes recorded during each breakout session is included as Appendix E.

2.1 KEY SUCCESS FACTORS

Breakout discussions began with a look at the key factors required to successfully implement a multi-sectoral process, such as the Binational Toxics Strategy. Participants were asked to draw on their experience and expertise with similar processes, and to share their thoughts regarding what works well.

Common themes from the breakouts included:

• Consensus-based, multi-stakeholder processes can work well. Successful, consensus-based processes allow progress to be made while providing opportunities to share, address, and accommodate differing views.
• Communication is key. Clear, understandable information must be made available to participants in the process as well as to the general public. Listening to the needs and concerns of both participants and the public is also important. Regular progress updates recognizing and marketing successes, are essential
• Establish operating procedures. Clear operating procedures for setting priorities, establishing facts, setting goals and objectives, and measuring success are needed. Clear procedures for conflict resolution, as well as timelines for tasks and the overall process, are also necessary.
• Strong process management is required. This includes establishing effective organizational linkages at all levels, as well as ongoing communication channels.
• Balanced representation is vital. The right people need to be at the table in the right proportion. Diversity in backgrounds, sectors, and gender is desirable.
• Build a sense of ownership. Those taking part need to understand their roles, and understand and accept the goals of the process. Participants need to feel a sense of ownership over the process.
• Goals and objectives need to be clear, do-able, practical, meaningful, measurable, achievable. They should also have a focus which is consistent with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
• Milestones need to be set and prioritized. It is important to be able to recognize when efforts in a certain area have reached the "point of diminishing returns" and when it makes more sense to dedicate resources elsewhere.
• Focus on action. The ability to translate planning and strategy development into action is essential. Clear timelines and workplans are needed, and those involved in the process need to be motivated and dedicated.
• Supply participants with good baseline information. This includes accurate problem definition (qualitative and quantitative), based on good science and policy.
• Build in flexibility. Flexibility is needed in the process, among participants, and in identifying different ways to achieve goals. The process should be flexible enough to accommodate new stakeholders as they emerge.
• Provide incentives for participation. Bringing stakeholders to the table is easier when benefits associated with their involvement are readily apparent. Some participants are less likely then others to have the time and resources to take part in multi-stakeholder processes.
• Build on existing programs. In an environment characterized by time and budget constraints, it makes sense to complement rather than duplicate efforts. Successful processes build on existing programs.
• Foster the spirit of trust and compromise. Good dynamics and a spirit of compromise are essential among participants. The implementation process should build in education about different viewpoints and stakeholders should identify their expectations at the outset. Trust needs to be built between, and earned by, all participants.

2.2 REVIEW OF PRINCIPLES

The Draft Implementation Process document proposed a set of principles to guide implementation of the Binational Toxics Strategy. The document proposed that the implementation process needs to:

• Be open, transparent and inclusive;
• Be practical, understandable and systematic;
• Use existing program and processes wherever possible;
• Be consistent and coordinated with other binational and international efforts (e.g. POPs, LRTAP, LaMPs, HAPs, NARAP); and
• Focus on action.

Within each breakout group, participants were asked to review these principles. In order to stimulate discussion, facilitators prompted participants with the following questions:

• Do you agree with the principles to proposed to help guide the implementation process?
• Are there other principles that should be considered? Dropped?
• Are there any ingredients of a successful process which need to be reflected in the principles?

Feedback on each of the principles is summarized below.

2.2.1 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PRINCIPLES

1. The implementation process needs to be open, transparent and inclusive.

Comments

• In addition to being open, transparent and inclusive, the process needs to be fair, accountable, and balanced (among stakeholder types and sectors).
• Through use of the word "inclusive", this principle includes the notion that people are able to participate.
• Through use of the word "open", this principle includes a responsibility to report on results.

2. The implementation process needs to be practical, understandable and systematic.

Comments

• Through use of the word "systematic", this principle includes the need to develop and use Terms of Reference and Workplans.

3. The implementation process needs to use existing programs and processes whenever possible.

Comments

• One group suggested that this principle be deleted. Instead, subgroups would be given the responsibility to decide which programs should be used (i.e. because they are complementary and successful), and which programs should not be used.
• Another group suggested that the principle be kept, however that a phrase be added which recognizes that existing programs and processes alone may not meet all the needs of the process. It was suggested that the principle read: The implementation process needs to use existing programs and processes whenever possible, but be supplemented with new programs and funding where necessary.

4. The implementation process needs to be consistent and coordinated with other binational and international efforts.

Comments

• The word "consistent" should be replaced with complementary.
• The need for the process to be consistent and coordinated with national efforts should be identified in this principle (i.e add the word national to the principle).
• In addition to being consistent and coordinated with other processes, the concept that the process must be "value-added" should be included in this principle.
• This principle should recognize the different political, economic, and social frameworks in Canada and the US.

5. The implementation process needs to focus on action.

Comments

• In addition to focusing on action, the process needs to produce results. It was suggested that the principle be reworded to read: The implementation process needs to focus on action and results.
• The need for sustainable, longer term action should be included in this principle.
• Measuring success is an important part of the implementation process, and the principle should reflect this.

2.2.2 SUGGESTIONS FOR NEW PRINCIPLES

In addition to providing feedback on the five proposed principles, participants made suggestions regarding new principles they felt should be added. While exact wording was not suggested, the concepts driving the suggestions were made clear.

• Two breakout groups suggested that a principle be created which addresses the need for accountability in the implementation process.
• Two breakout groups suggested that a principle be created which addresses the importance of monitoring the success of implementation efforts.
• Building on the importance of monitoring progress, two breakout groups suggested that another principle be added which addresses the need for prioritization of efforts throughout the implementation process. The observation was made that prioritization should not lead to diminished targets.
• It was suggested that a principle be created which addresses the need to have the implementation process based on the best available science and information.
• It was suggested that the need for flexibility in the implementation process be reflected in the list of principles. Specifically, that the process needs to be flexible enough to include additional/other stakeholders as implementation unfolds. Although not all interests will be able to steer the implementation process, there needs to be an avenue through which contributions from all stakeholder can be communicated.

2.3 REVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Following a review of the principles proposed to guide the implementation of the Binational Toxics Strategy, breakout discussions were dedicated to a review of the governing/management structure proposed in the Draft Implementation Process document. Before initiating discussions, key components of the proposed structure were presented to each discussion group by the facilitators (a full copy of the Draft Implementation Process is included as Appendix B).

In their review of the proposed organizational structure, each of the breakout groups discussed issues regarding the Steering Team, the subgroups, and stakeholder engagement. Due to time constraints, the level of detail which emerged from each of the breakout groups varied.

2.3.1 STEERING TEAM

The Concept
All breakout groups agreed that the Steering Team concept was useful.

The Size
Participants expressed concern regarding the proposed size of the Steering Team. Breakout discussion revealed that many participants were generally in favor of a lean, efficient and effective organization with considerably fewer members then the 15-25 suggested in the Draft Implementation Process document (one breakout group suggested 6-8 members; another group specifically suggested that the Team include core representation from 1-2 individuals from Environment Canada and the USEPA, with the possibility of adding a few other agency representatives). There was some concern expressed regarding the fact that as a consequence of decreased membership, the diversity in representation on the Team would drop.

The Composition
With respect to Steering Team composition, the type of recommendations delivered by the breakout groups differed. Two groups focused on the identification of suitable Steering Team members, while the third group focused on the identification of skills/attributes required by Steering Team members.

Representatives from Environment Canada and the USEPA were recognized by participants as being essential members of the Steering Team, reflecting the responsibility and lead role which the Parties have for implementation of the Strategy. Other potential Team Members could include representatives from:

• state, provincial and local governments;
• community-based groups;
• labor;
• academia;
• industry associations and companies;
• recreation groups;
• environmental groups;
• the science community;
• Tribal and First Nations; and
• representatives from each of the subgroups.

The length of this list provoked a discussion of the need to have on-the-ground implementors on the Steering Team. Although the issue was not resolved, it was suggested that there may be a more effective way to incorporate the contributions of local governments, community-based groups, and individual companies.

In terms of characteristics and attributes, it was suggested that the Steering Team should be composed of people:

1. who are motivated and have the resources and time to be involved;
2. who are leaders;
3. who understand multi-media movement of chemicals;
4. who are familiar with existing toxics reductions efforts; and
5. with expertise in managing multi-disciplinary teams.

In recognition of time and resources constraints among stakeholders, it was suggested that membership on the Steering Team should not be a full-time commitment.

Steering Team Responsibilities
Concurrent with discussions which resulted in the identification of Steering Team members, breakout groups identified tasks which those members should/could be responsible for.

One issue challenging participants during these discussions was the degree of decision-making power which would be held by the Steering Team versus the Parties. This was unclear to many participants.

The majority of participants saw the Steering Team having responsibility for overall process management and for providing advice/recommendations to the two governments. In addition, it was suggested that the Steering Team should/could be responsible for:

• filling a secretariat function (reporting, communications, etc.);
• defining priorities for the implementation process;
• coordinating stakeholder involvement;
• gathering information;
• allocating resources and capabilities to subgroups (includes identifying the purpose of subgroups, recommending subgroup composition, identifying a chairperson for each subgroup, etc.);
• monitoring and reporting on progress; and
• "doing what needs to be done to make this process work."

Other Issues

• It was suggested that the Steering Team operate with Chairpersons and professional, neutral facilitators.
• One participant cautioned that aiming for a perfect process may lead to inaction.
• It was suggested that creating and maintaining an avenue by which stakeholders can access the Steering Team will be an important way to build accountability into the implementation process.

2.3.2 MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Given the level of support for a small Steering Team, it was recognized that a vehicle would be needed to capture the contributions from the greater stakeholder community. Suggestions are listed here.

• Create a Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group/Committee which could provide advice to the Parties on many components of the process, including: the partnerships needed for Strategy implementation; the strategies for stakeholder involvement, engagement, and communication; the role, structure and activities; the goals, objectives, and priorities of the process; and could provide assistance with the identification of information and process gaps. Membership in this Advisory Group should/could include two (2) representatives from each sector, as well as representation from each of the sub/working group.
• Facilitate the creation of an ad hoc group of interested stakeholders that meet once a year to review progress (perhaps at SOLEC - The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference).
• Enlarge the Steering Team and include a broader representation.

2.3.3 SUBGROUPS (WORKING GROUPS)

In the Draft Implementation Process, the Parties proposed that subgroups be created to implement the challenges and goals within the Strategy. During breakout discussions, participants identified at least three ways of organizing the subgroups:

• by chemical cluster (e.g. metals, cancelled pesticides, PCBs, by-products);
• by sector (e.g. as was done in the Michigan Mercury Pollution Prevention Task Force);
• by function (e.g. one group looking at sources, one looking at transport, one at existing regulations and process); and
• by challenge (as referenced in the Strategy).

It was recognized that membership in the subgroups would vary widely depending on the challenges/substances for which a particular subgroup was responsible. In terms of size, it was suggested that each subgroup have as many members as are needed to ensure full engagement and action from the appropriate sectors. Members with links to other national, binational, and international initiatives are important to ensure that implementation of the Strategy complements and adds value.

It was suggested that the role of subgroups should/could be to:

• initiate and manage actions to meet challenges;
• determine how/if existing programs can be used to meet challenges;
• ensure that sectors are fully covered;
• monitor successes; and
• report on progress to the Steering Team.

2.3.4 COMMUNICATIONS/ENGAGEMENT OF PARTNERS

With a Steering Team overseeing and managing the implementation process, an Advisory Committee or ad hoc group of stakeholders acting as a communication link between the Steering Team and stakeholders, and subgroups working on implementation of the Strategy at the ground level, the major issue left to be addressed is the way in which communication will be maintained with the broader stakeholder group in order to establish new partnerships and keep current stakeholders engaged.

The key piece of advice received from breakout discussions was the need to develop an overall communications and stakeholder engagement strategy. Additional detail within this recommendation was generated primarily by participants in one breakout group. A list of the suggestions put forward appear below:

• maintain a national focus, particularly since the targets in the Strategy are national in scale;
• identify opportunities to communicate to stakeholders through existing venues (e.g. SOLEC - The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference); and
• recognize that there are many different audiences for the various Strategy challenges and that different audiences have different communication needs.

In order to encourage the participation of the general public, the following suggestions were put forward:

• communicate via television (Public Services Announcements), in print (posters, brochures), and through the use of speakers (conferences, meetings, etc.);
• deliver short targeted messages which let the public know what to/not to do;
• ensure messages are relevant;
• highlight existing processes and the importance of making use of them; and
• illustrate the success of reduction strategies which represent a collaboration of efforts.

In order to encourage municipal participation, the following suggestions were put forward:

• involve those already involved (e.g., key community leader);
• offer delisting of Remedial Action Plan areas as an incentive to participate; and
• highlight the type of results which can be achieved as a result of reducing municipal generation of toxics (e.g. attract new industry, new housing, as well as nature and recreation enthusiasts)

In order to encourage corporate participation, the following engagement suggestions were put forward:

• illustrate the benefits of toxics reductions, specifically focusing on: the associated public relations benefits (i.e. gaining recognition as a responsible leader in the industry), the financial benefits (i.e. translates into improved efficiencies and cost savings), and the health benefits.

3.0 GENERAL ISSUES

During the day, some individuals raised additional concerns. These included:

• the concern that the Draft Implementation Plan was not more detailed;
• the need for a mix of voluntary and regulatory approaches to address persistent toxic substances;
• the need for a common definition of "virtual elimination";
• the impact of government cutbacks on the ability to implement the Strategy;
• the relationship of the Strategy to other programs, such as the LaMPs; and
• the need within the implementation process to address the issues of consistent data gathering and reporting.

4.0 NEXT STEPS

Brief closing remarks were delivered by Ron Shimizu and Gary Gulezian to end the day's meeting. Both individuals shared their appreciation for the efforts put forward by all. Current targets for next steps in the implementation process include:

• In 3-4 weeks
  Distribution of meeting report to participants.
• August 1, 1997
  Deadline for submitting comments on the implementation process to the Parties (note that those who were invited to the meeting, but were unable to attend are also encouraged to provide their feedback).
• After August 1, 1997
  Environment Canada and the USEPA will move towards establishing an implementation structure and the development of a Terms of Reference for the Steering Team.
• Late September
  Hold the first Steering Team meeting and begin work.

CANADIAN STAKEHOLDERS

Name Affiliation

• Denis Beaulieu St. Lawrence Cement Inc
• Dr. Bruce Bowman Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada
• Howard Carter Canadian Petroleum Products Institute
• Patrick Chevalier Natural Resources Canada
• Mariam Diamond University of Toronto
• Stewart Forbes Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Centre
• Stephane GinGras Great Lakes United
• Don Hames Dow Canada
• John Hartig IJC
• Bob Hartley Thunder Bay PAC & Ontario Public Advisory Council
• Greg Jenish Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy
• Louise Knox Hamilton Harbour RAP Coordinator
• Marianne Lines Great Lakes Pollution Centre
• Bruce Lourie Pollution Probe
• Octavio Melo Ontario Hydro
• Eugene Morrison Citizen/Lake Erie LaMP Forum
• Paul Muldoon Canadian Environmental Law Association
• Robert Telewiak Falconbridge
• Tony Wagner Waterfront Regeneration Trust
• Madhu Malhotra Environment Canada
• Susan Nameth Environment Canada
• Ron Shimizu Environment Canada
• Tom Tseng Environment Canada
• Alan Waffle Environment Canada
• Darrell Piekarz Environment Canada

U.S. STAKEHOLDERS

• David G. Berkebile Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
• Werner Braun Dow Chemical Co.
• Timothy H. Brown Clean Sites
• Bennie J. Deaton B.F. Goodrich
• James Downes Monsanto Company
• Arthur E. Dungan The Chlorine Institute
• Timothy Eder NWF
• Don Edmunds AAWA
• John E. Gannon USGS/BRD/Great Lakes Science Center
• Greg Hill WDNR
• Joan Hughes Detroit Water & Sewerage Dept.
• Robert Hurt Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp
• Teri Kline General Motors
• Denise Lani Pascua National Wildlife Federation
• George Kuper Council of Great Lakes Industries
• Paula K. Labadle BASF Corp.
• Dennis Leonard Detroit Edison
• Dr. Robert L. Lipnick USEPA/Headquaters
• Alice Mayer Edison Electric Institute
• Barbara McLeod USEPA/Headquaters
• G. Tracy Mehan III MiDEQ
• David Michaud Wisconsin Electric Co.
• Linda Vlier Moos USEPA/Headquaters
• Jerome Nriagu U. of Michigan Public Health School
• Dan Orr No. States Power Co.
• Donna Perla USEPA/Headquaters
• Max Shauck Baylor University
• Jerry Schwartz American Forest and Paper
• Pradeep K. Srivastava Detroit Water & Sewerage
• Evelyn Strader Council of Great Lakes Industries
• Tara Vizzi Assn. of Intern. Auto Man.
• Margaret Wooster GLU
• Lisa Yee National Wildlife Federation
• Tom Alcamo USEPA Region V
• Frank Anscombe USEPA Region V
• Judy Beck USEPA Region V
• Sue Brauer USEPA Region V
• Alexis Cain USEPA Region V
• Margaret Guerrero USEPA Region V
• Gary Gulezian USEPA Region V
• Tony Kizlaskaus USEPA Region V
• Liz LaPlante USEPA Region V
• Tony Martig USEPA Region V
• Chuck Sapp USEPA Region V
• Vicki Thomas USEPA Region V
• Bob Tolpa USEPA Region V

BREAKOUT REPORT: Red Dot
FACILITATOR: David Dilks

1) Success Factors in Multi-Stakeholder Process

• accepted methods (by process participants) established for:
  - setting priorities
  - establishing facts
  - setting goals and objectives (which are clear, doable, practical, meaningful)
  - determining and measuring success
• good baseline information
• agreement on challenges, goals, targets and how these will be met
• clear timelines and work plan
• interim milestones and regular progress reports (to demonstrate success)
• inclusive process that effectively engages the right actors at the right levels, and includes those who will ultimately implement change early in the process
• process offers benefits for all participants
• equality among participants, fair representation from different sectors
• participants committed to:
  - timelines and work plan
  - goals, objectives, challenges
  - achieving success
• effective communication:
  - on progress
  - to provide the basis for issue resolution
• flexibility - in the process; among participants; in looking at different ways to achieve goals
• spirit of compromise, good dynamics among participants
• sense of ownership
• incentives for behaviour change
• good bottom-up, top-down linkages (organizational, communications)
• scientific, political legitimacy
• strong process management (secretariat)
• resources available to participants
• ability to recognize "point of diminishing returns" and shift priorities
• balance between types of actions - voluntary, regulatory
• ability to translate planning and strategy development into action

The following factors were identified, but not agreed on by the group:

• science as the basis for the process
  open questions: How much science is needed? Whose science?

• process based on the "precautionary principle"
  representatives from industry expressed preference for approach based on risk assessment

2) Principles

1. Be open, transparent and inclusive.
   • Add:
     • fair
     • balanced (among stakeholder types, sectors).
2. Practical, understandable, systematic.
   • No changes.
3. Use existing programs and processes whenever possible.
   • Delete - let the sub groups decide:
     • which programs are complementary, successful and therefore should be used;
     • which programs are not successful and need reworking, and therefore should not be used.
4. Be consistent and coordinated with other binational and international effort.
   • Add:
     • national efforts
     • the concept that the toxics strategy process must be "value-added".
5. Focus on action.
   • Add:
     • concept of sustainable, longer-term action
     • concept of measuring success.

   New Proposed Principles:

   • Be willing to recognize progress (or lack of progress) and shift work effort accordingly.
   • Accountability.

3) Organizational Structure

Proposed Organizational Components:

i) Management Team

• would be small team consisting of EC, EPA personnel (and perhaps a few other agency representatives) that would be responsible for:

• process management/facilitation
• secretariat functions (reporting, communications, etc.)
• developing a proposed structure for the working (sub) groups
• monitoring and progress reporting
• "doing what needs to be done to make the progress work"

• formalizing this EC/EPA team will demonstrate the responsibility and lead role of the two agencies for implementation
• it will be important to ensure that stakeholders have access to management team (the "decision-makers") to ensure accountability

ii) Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group

• provide a "reality check" for the Parties on strategy implementation
• provide advice to the Parties on:

• partnerships needed for implementation
• involvement, engagement, communications strategies
• role, structure, activities and progress of the working (sub) groups (it was suggested that management team and the advisory group could establish the working group structure in a workshop setting)
• goals, objectives
• priorities
• information and process gaps
• monitoring of progress towards goals and objectives

• membership - same as proposed for Steering Team, but add labour, academia; advisory group should include 2 representatives per sector, plus representation from the working (sub) groups

iii) Working (sub) Groups

• establish working groups by challenge/group of substances
• sub-working groups may be needed in a few cases (octachlorostyrene and toxaphene)
• role of working groups would be to:

• initiate and manage actions to meet challenges
• determine how/if existing programs can be used to meet challenges
• ensure that sectors are fully engaged
• report on progress to Management Team

• membership would vary widely depending on the challenges/substances, but the principle should be to include as many members are need to ensure full engagement and action from the appropriate sectors; membership should also include people with links to other national, binational, and international initiatives to ensure that implementation of the toxics strategy is complementary, "value-added"
• open question - will the working groups be responsible for new data collection?

4) Communications/Engagement of Partners

• ensure that national stakeholders are engaged (as targets in strategy are national targets)
• use SOLEC as a key communications opportunity
• develop a communications plan that recognizes:

• there are many different audiences for the various strategy challenges
• different audiences have differing communications needs

BREAKOUT REPORT: Blue Dot
FACILITATOR: Joanna Kidd

1) Success Factors in Multi-Stakeholder Processes

Many success factors were identified by participants. These are listed below.

Composition of Group/Roles:

• balanced representation is vital
• the right people need to be at the table in the right proportion
• need a diversity of backgrounds (e.g. not all scientists or lawyers)
• those taking part need to understand their roles
• those taking part need to understand and accept the goals of the process, and therefore feel a sense of ownership of it
• representatives must be active participants
• representatives must have enough resources to represent their stakeholders
• representatives must communicate views and information to and from their constituents
• the process must build in education about different viewpoints
• stakeholders should identify their expectations at the outset
• those taking part must be motivated

The Multi-Stakeholder Process:

• one participant argued that stakeholders need to agree on strategy being implemented; another suggested that what was needed was a consensus-based process that would:

• allow things to move forward
• identify and document where disagreements occur
• provide ongoing education about differing viewpoints

• reporting out is very important
• clean, understandable information must be presented to those taking part
• there should be clear procedures in place (including conflict resolution)
• there should be clear timelines for the process
• the group should focus on action (do-able activities)
• organizers and participants should remember that at some level, governments have a responsibility to take action

2) Principles

The group reviewed the proposed principles and agreed on the following points.

1. Be open, transparent and inclusive.
   • add "accountable"
   • note that "inclusive" incorporates the notion of "ability to participate"
   • note that "open" includes reporting out
2. Practical, understandable, systematic.
   • no changes
   • "systematic" should include the use of terms of reference and workplans
3. Use existing programs and processes whenever possible.
   • add "but supplement with new programs and funding where necessary."
4. Be consistent and coordinated with other Bi-National and international efforts.
   • replace "consistent" with "complementary"
5. Focus on action.
   • add "and results" (e.g. Pollution Prevention should have high priority in decision making)

The group suggested adding three principles:

6. Be measurable and constantly reviewed
   • use facilitation (neutral third party) for review
7. Be based on the best available science and information
8. Prioritize action.
   • but don't allow prioritizing to lead to diminished targets

Participants raised a number of issues during the discussion:

• there was disagreement about a possible principle on consistent data gathering and reporting; addressing this should be a priority for the data gathering group (is it desirable? how could it be done?)
• there was disagreement over whether to include a principle dealing with equity, level-playing field and cost-effectiveness
• it was suggested that the process should recognize the different political, economic and social frameworks between the US and Canada
• it was suggested that the implementation process needs to be flexible enough to include other stakeholders as implementation unfolds
• it was suggested that not all interests will be able to steer the implementation process, but that it needs to allow them to contribute

3) Organizational Structure

i) Steering Team

• the group agreed that the Steering Team concept was a useful one
• with respect to composition, the Steering Team should be composed of:

• people who are motivated and have the resources and time to be involved
• people who are leaders (whatever sector they are from)
• people who understand multi-media movement of chemicals
• people with expertise in managing multi-disciplinary teams

• with respect to size, while not unanimous, there was significant support for a lean, streamlined Steering Team (e.g. 6 to 8 people)
• with respect to the role, there was confusion over how much decision-making power the Steering Team should or could have (versus the role of the Parties); one participant suggested that either the Steering Team should "own" the process, or act as a catalyst
• on participant cautioned that aiming for a perfect process may lead to inaction

ii) Multi-Stakeholder Involvement

• the group agreed that there will continue to be a need to involve other (broader) stakeholders; however, because of time constraints, there was no agreement on how this best might be done
• three possible models suggested were:

• a larger Steering Team with stakeholders sitting on it
• a formal Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee
• an amorphous ongoing pool of interested stakeholders that would meet, perhaps once a year -- possibly at SOLEC -- to review progress
  

iii) Sub Groups

• due to time constraints, the group did not reach a conclusion with respect to Sub Groups
• three ways of organizing the Sub Groups were suggested:

• by chemical cluster (e.g. metals, cancelled pesticides, PCBs, by-products)
• by sector (e.g. as was done in the Michigan Mercury Pollution Prevention Task Force)
• by function (e.g. one group looking at sources, one looking at transport, one at existing regulations and processes)

BREAKOUT REPORT: Yellow Dot
FACILITATOR: Sally Leppard

1) Success Factors in Multi-Stakeholder Process

The Multi-Stakeholder Process:

• build trust between all participants
• have goals that are measurable, achievable, and consistent with GLWQA
• open communications (listening, recognizing differences)
• accurate problem definition
• recognize and market successes
• educate the public
• need incentives to participate: tools include recognition, voluntary, regulatory
• sustained commitment, resources
• build on existing programs
• equal participation

Composition of Group/Roles:

• diversity in gender, culture, sector
• accountability within different groups

Examples

• Pollution Probe's Mercury in hospitals project
• California Air Resources
• Green Chemistry Challenge
• White House V-P recognition of successes
• 33-50 (Clear goals, flexibility for industry to do the best job based on differing circumstances)
• Common Sense Initiative
• Voluntary Butadiene Reduction (clear goals, flexibility)

2) Principles

• should be compatible with international initiatives, not "the same" (consistent)
• recognize different obligations for each country
• add accountability

3) Organizational Structure

i) Steering Team

Role

• should have access to existing toxics reduction plans in order to start off well informed
• should operate with chairs and professional, neutral facilitator
• should define priorities and gather information
• should allocate resources and capabilities for sub-groups
• provide direction and guidance
• should assess sub group's progress
• should co-ordinate stakeholder involvement
• should provide advice/recommendations to government; government then makes final decisions
• should identify purpose of subgroups
• should recommend composition of subgroups
• should articulate principles and guidelines (chair timeline, Terms of Reference, accountability)
• should network with sectors to ensure that they are represented

Composition

• should have a cadre of professional staff from each country to serve Steering Team and subgroups (secretariat)
• should be sensitive to practical side - not full - time "steerers"
• shoud be diverse, multi-sectors
• composition should be flexible depending on priorities
• 2 national governments
• would include:

• state governments
• community based groups
• local governments
• representatives from existing processes (e.g. LaMPs)
• industrial associations & companies
• recreation groups
• environmental groups
• scientific community
• Tribal/First Nations

ii) Subgroups

• identify activities
• implement actions
• monitor achievements
• action teams or long term workgroups (depending on sector or substance, activity level)
• chair of sub-group sits on Steering Team

4) Communications/Engagement of Partners

Resources

• need to ensure diverse representation through resources/costs
• research requirements? who pays?
  

General Public

• use TV campaigns, Public Service Announcements
• use short targeted messages (what to do, what not to do)
• be relevant to people
• communicate what people can do in collaboration with others
• use posters, brochures, speakers
• use existing communication processes where possible
  

Corporate Engagement Strategies

• use public relations
• recognize participation/success
• promote cost savings (pollution prevention)
• show the benefits of pollution prevention
• link to health
• link to environmental improvements
• link to efficiencies
• show leadership

Municipalities

• involve those already involved (i.e., community leaders)
• use delisting of RAP areas as an incentive
• promote spin-off improvements (new industry, housing, fishing, recreation

5) Other Issues Raised

• how to link/build strategy to other programs, e.g. LaMPs?
• strategy can help LAMPS prioritize and allocate resources
• Lake Superior is more ambitious than Strategy will respect to virtual elimination
• governments need to be consistent in setting agreements
• it is difficult for shareholders to understand all initiatives (e.g., National, Bi-National, lateral, tri-lateral)