Home

Governance: Final Comments

Section I: Governance and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

Introduction
 
In the first round of the governments’ consultation on governance, the 32 citizens’ groups who submitted shared recommendations emphasized the importance of dramatically improving governance in the Great Lakes:
 
If substantial reform is not made to governance in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin, the potential of the changes that are made to the Agreement during these negotiations around issue-specific matters, such as toxics, invasives, and climate change, will fail to achieve their hoped for positive impacts on the basin. [ENGO Submission on February 15, 2010]
 
That understanding still is at the base of our comments to you.
 
In this, our second submission on Governance, we address the specific governance areas that you put out for consultation on your binational.net website at the end of May 2010. There is considerable overlap between these and the comments we submitted in February. Instead of repeating these, we have referred you to our previous governance submission and attach it for easy reference.
 
Government Issue Area: Participation in Binational Management Process
 
The Binational Executive Committee (BEC) or a New Binational Coordinating Committee
In our earlier submission, we explained why we believe that the BEC must be substantially reformed [p. 20]. To summarize, it has failed to develop shared workplans and programs; it needs to become a body that has responsibility for decision-making, and it needs to have accountability mechanisms. Also it has failed to seriously engage the range of stakeholders. We believe that the BEC is so seriously flawed that it should be replaced with a new Binational Coordinating Committee, unencumbered by the negative reputation that the BEC has acquired.
 
  • Recommendations: Article X, 3 of the GLWQA should be amended in the following ways:
 
    •  A new Binational Coordinating Committee (BCC) should develop a comprehensive binational Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin work plan by a specified date, using an open and transparent process. This work plan should be based on the commitments in the GLWQA. The section should also state a frequency with which the workplan will be updated. The Agreement should specify that the binational work plan will identify prescriptive programs for both present and emerging needs and will include timetables for regular review and reporting on progress on the work plan.
       
    • The Agreement should state that the provincial, state, first nation, tribal, Métis and municipal governments shall be members of the new BCC. Representatives of the public, including industry, ENGOs, etc, should also be fully included as members of BCC for discussion purposes, but they should not be part of the final decision voting. As an alternative, the governments could set up a formal multi-sector advisory committee.
       
    • All BCC activities should be conducted in an open and transparent manner. This should include having all meetings public and the conduct of a formal consultation process on the binational plans as well as on all matters that would change existing programs or processes.
       
    • The BCC should restructure and use the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) and the process around it to develop and report on indicators that measure progress toward meeting identified endpoints, the objectives and the purposes of the GLWQA. SOLEC should be more active at including public participants in its processes than it currently is.
 
    • The BCC should report to Parliament and Congress every two years. This report should be sent to a legislative committee for a public hearing.
  
 
Government Issue Area: Principles, Governing Concepts, & Tools Applicable to Implementation of the GLWQA
 
We addressed this issue in our submission to you on February 15 on pages 4 to 6. Please see our recommendations for principles on those pages.
 
In regards to “Tools Applicable to Implementation of the GLWQA”, we urge you to reread pages 14 to 19 of our attached February brief.
 
Government Issue Area: Review of the GLWQA
 
See Page 13 of our February brief for our recommendations and explanation on the process and timing for review of the GLWQA.
 
Government Issue Area: Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPS)
 
To achieve our goals concerning the condition of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, it is essential that a watershed approach be taken throughout the basin. We see this as integrating into the LaMP process. We made specific recommendations on the watershed approach in our February brief [pages 6 and 7].
 
We here add three recommendations specific to LaMPS:
 
Recommendation: The watershed plans that we discuss later under nearshore should be integrated with the LaMP program for each Lake and their connecting waterways. One objective of the watershed plans should be to ensure that the whole lake needs are properly addressed. The governments should commit to implement these plans.
 
We are very dissatisfied with the current public involvement in the LaMP process. It is very inconsistent from lake to lake.
 
Recommendation: In the GLWQA the governments should commit to strong public engagement in each LaMP. The Agreement should commit the governments to have a multi-stakeholder forum that acts as an advisory body to the governments in the development and implementation of each LaMP. The LaMP Forums should also advise the governments on public involvement mechanisms for the LaMP.
 
Recommendation: A governance mechanism should be put in place to ensure that proper linkages are made between the LaMPS and the St. Lawrence River management processes such as the St. Lawrence Plan. The linkages should be encouraged through this mechanism not only at the government level but also between the municipalities and the community groups involved in the protection, conservation, restoration, and enhancement of the St. Lawrence River.
 
Government Issue Area: Areas of Concern
 
A major emphasis should be put in the GLWQA on cleaning up the areas of concern at a much more rapid pace. The AOCs should be focused on dealing with historic pollutants and pollutant sources rather than being broadened into whole watershed plans. We do not recommend expanding the scope of RAPs. We believe that the RAP scope should remain focused on contamination problems. Our focus should be on doing better—not doing more. The broader range of issues in an area should appear under the watershed management planning components in Annex 13 of the Agreement. Instead of expanding the RAP program, the watershed management plans section in Annex 13 should be developed to require the development and implementation of watershed management plans for all parts of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin. The RAP process in Annex 2 should remain focused on addressing areas with higher than average degradation.
 
 
Recommendations:
  • Annex 2 of the GLWQA should be amended to ensure that the AOC program is focused on the most severe existing contamination problems and sources and upon cleaning up these areas rapidly.
 
  • The watershed approach recommended elsewhere should be applied in watersheds that include AOCs, but should be much broader in their work and not draw focus away from the core AOC problems until those AOC problems have been corrected.
 
  • The urgency to complete the RAPs and the frustration around RAPS is so substantial that we urge the formation of a Basin-wide citizens’ committee under the auspices of the IJC to be a watchdog on the implementation of Annex 2 and Annex 14 (Contaminated Sediment) of the Agreement. In addition, the Binational Toxics Strategy should take a more active role in the contaminated sediments program since this is listed as one of the issues in the BTS agreement.
 
  • The wording of some of the impairments listed in Annex 2, Sec 1 should be clarified or expanded. For example, “beach closings” could be expanded to refer to all recreational uses—not just those at beaches. Human health impacts should also be considered.
 
  • If the Governments propose an “an area of recovery” stage to be recognized in Annex 2 (for areas where remedial actions have been taken and beneficial uses are not yet restored), the Annex should clearly specify that certain conditions must be met for this classification to be accepted. These should include showing that all necessary pollution sources have been eliminated and that all necessary clean-up actions have been taken. It also should require an on-going funded monitoring system, periodic reporting on recovery progress, and a mechanism for undertaking additional actions, if monitoring indicates the need for such or if cleanup criteria change. A proposal to enter a recovery phase should go to the IJC for comment prior to such a designation. The public should be included throughout the recovery time.
 
  • The Agreement should clearly state that an area in recovery stage still retains its area of concern status. It is an area of concern until impairments resulting from conditions within the area of concern have been removed.
 
  • Since there is often 10 or more years between the stage reports that the RAPs submit to the IJC for comment, the annex should be amended to set up a new reporting schedule to the IJC so the public doesn’t have to wait so long to hear the IJC’s views. The IJC should be required to provide their comments within a specified timeframe after receipt of the RAP documents to ensure that their comments come at a useful time to affect the next stage of work.
  • Section 2(e) of Annex 2 should be strengthened to require a strong public role in decision-making in the RAP process, recognizing the bodies such as the public advisory committees as leaders and co-decision-makers. The Agreement should also include a commitment to fund serious public involvement.
 
  • The Agreement should state that RAP and LaMP goals should be assessed taking into account whether the goals for one are strong enough to support the goals of the other. RAPs and LaMPs should be required to cross reference and share information with each other.
 
Government Issue Area: Addressing the Nearshore Zone
The first issue that needs to be addressed is to come to a shared definition of “nearshore.”
 
Recommendation: The governments should enter into a dialogue with stakeholders to come to an agreement on the definition of “nearshore” for inclusion in a renegotiated GLWQA and to inform the other parts of the Agreement concerning nearshore.
 
One core component for addressing the nearshore should be to implement the watershed approach throughout the Great Lakes basin. We refer you to our February brief for an explanation of how and why we have concluded that the watershed approach should be applied throughout the Great Lakes St. Lawrence River basin [p. 6 & 7]. Please see our recommendations on the watershed approach in our previous submission.
 
There is tremendous variety in terms of the condition of the nearshore areas throughout the Great Lakes basin.
 
Recommendations:
  • The governments should commit in the GLWQA to classify the current status of all nearshore areas.
  • The governments should also commit to develop and implement restoration plans for those that are showing degradation.
  • The governments should commit through the GLWQA to give a special designation to high quality nearshore areas and to implement protections that will ensure that the high quality nearshore areas do not become degraded. 
  •  An adaptive management framework for experimentation, learning, and reduction of uncertainties should be an integral part of watershed plan implementation, to improve understanding of best management practices

 

  • ""