MEETING RECORD FOR THE 132nd MEETING OF THE
GREAT LAKES SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH "SCIENCE AND THE AGREEMENT" WORKSHOP
February 4 - 6, 2004 – Michigan League, Ann Arbor, Michigan
MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael J. Donahue (United States Co-chair) |
Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI |
William Bowerman |
Clemson University, Pendleton, SC |
John Braden |
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL |
David Carpenter |
University at Albany, Rensselaer, NY |
Milton Clark (by teleconference) |
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL |
Glen Fox |
Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa/Hull, ON |
Allan Jones |
Burlington, ON |
Bruce Krushelnicki |
Ontario Municipal Board, Toronto, ON |
Donna Mergler |
University of Quebec, Montreal, PQ |
Pierre Payment |
University of Quebec, Laval, PQ |
Judith Perlinger |
Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI |
Joan Rose |
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI |
Deborah Swackhamer |
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN |
MEMBERS ABSENT
Isobel Heathcote (Canadian Co-chair) |
University of Guelph, Guelph, ON |
Scott Brown |
National Water Research Institute, Burlington, ON |
Lesbia Smith |
Toronto, ON |
David Stonehouse |
Evergreen, Toronto, ON |
Jay Unwin |
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Kalamazoo, MI |
COMMISSIONERS ATTENDING
Herb Gray, Canadian Chair |
International Joint Commission, Ottawa, ON |
INVITEES/OBSERVERS
Robert Allen |
U.S. CG, Cleveland, OH |
Douglas Alley |
International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON |
Kay Austin |
International Joint Commission, Washington, DC |
Al Beeton |
Ann Arbor, MI |
Lori Boughton |
Pennsylvania DEQ, Meadville, PA |
Marty Bratzel |
International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON |
Mark Burrows |
International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON |
Murray Charlton |
NWRI, Burlington, ON |
Jan Ciborowski |
University of Windsor, Windsor, ON |
Joseph DePinto |
Limno-Tech Inc., Ann Arbor, MI |
John Dettling |
Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI |
John Gannon |
International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON |
Mike Gardiner |
U.S. GS, Cleveland, OH |
Roger Gauthier |
Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI |
Gary Gulezian |
U.S. EPA, Chicago, IL |
Nick Heisler |
International Joint Commission, Ottawa, ON |
Philip Keillor |
Madison, WI |
Gail Krantzberg |
International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON |
Craig Mather |
Aurora, ON |
John McDonald |
International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON |
Ann MacKenzie |
International Joint Commission, Ottawa, ON |
Ann McMillan |
Environment Canada, Gatineau, PQ |
Jan Miller |
U.S. Corps of Engineers, Chicago, IL |
John Mills |
Environment Canada, Downsview, ON |
Lewis Molot |
York University, Toronto, ON |
Paul Muldoon |
Canadian Environmental Law Association, Toronto, ON |
John Nevin |
International Joint Commission, Ottawa, ON |
James Nicholas |
U.S. GS, Lansing, MI |
Victoria Pebbles |
Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI |
Andrew Piggott |
Environment Canada, Burlington, ON |
Leah Quiring |
Transport Canada, Sarnia, ON |
Dave Schwab |
NOAA, Ann Arbor, MI |
Adel Shalaby |
Health Canada, Scarborough. ON |
Harvey Shear |
Environment Canada, Scarborough, ON |
Thomas Skinner |
U.S. EPA, Chicago, IL |
Rebecca Temmer (intern) |
International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON |
SECRETARY
Peter Boyer |
International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON |
1. Background
The Parties are required to "conduct a comprehensive review of the
operation and effectiveness of th[e] Agreement" following release of the
Commission’s 12th biennial report in 2004. The Commission has
committed to issue a special report providing advice to the Parties
regarding the review and its role in the review. The Commission
instructed its Boards / Council to explore the nature of the advice that
it could provide. The lead was assigned to the Water Quality Board,
with the Science Advisory Board, International Air Quality Advisory
Board, and the Council of Great Lakes Research Managers contributing in
their areas of expertise.
The Science Advisory Board is the scientific advisor to both the
Commission and the Water Quality Board. To develop the requested
advice, the Science Advisory Board held a workshop, Science and the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
2. Workshop Purpose
The purpose of the workshop was to help the Board develop sound and
objective advice regarding review of the Agreement from a scientific
perspective. The Board’s scientific advice will complement advice being
developed by the Water Quality Board and others within the Commission
family.
3. Workshop Structure
- Review the Agreement purpose and annexes, with appropriate reference to the Articles.
- The adequacy of the Agreement to accommodate present and future stressors that impact Great Lakes water quality.
- Suggest specific areas of the Agreement where, from a scientific perspective, provisions might be added, revised, or deleted.
4. Workshop Questions
In their introductory remarks on February 4, the Science Advisory
Board Drs. Donahue and Jones described the scientific focus of the
workshop and provide insight into the preamble and the first four
articles of the Agreement from a scientific perspective. They stated
that the fundamental question is whether the stated purpose of the
Agreement necessary and sufficient to meet present and future
challenges.
The workshop focused on several themes related to the following other questions:
- What is the present state of the science associated with this
element of the Agreement? Is the scientific knowledge implicit in the
Agreement necessary and sufficient to achieve the purpose of the
Agreement? Why or why not?
- If not, what new or additional scientific information is required?
- What new elements might be considered and what is the state of the science to support them?
- Can the existing Agreement accommodate present and future issues,
including but not limited to alien invasive species, habitat, land use,
climate change, biodiversity, pathogens, new chemicals, and long-range
transport of atmospheric pollutants?
Finally, to conclude the workshop, a panel comprising the Board and Council co-chairs addressed the questions:
- Do current institutional arrangements under the Agreement help or hinder the application of science?
- Are current Great Lakes research institutions organized to deliver
science in the 21st century? If not, then what organizational changes
would be suggested?
- How can science-policy linkages be strengthened?
- How might a detailed scientific review be undertaken by the Parties?
6. Agenda
The agenda for the meeting was as follows:
Wednesday, February 4 |
|
6:00 - 6:30 PM |
Opening Reception |
6:30 - 8:00 PM |
Dinner at the Michigan League |
7:00 - 8:30 PM |
Introduction -- Workshop Purpose, Preamble, Articles I-IV & Annex 1: Michael Donahue & Allan Jones |
|
Thursday, February 5 |
|
8:30 - 8:45 AM |
Goals & Objectives for Day 1: Michael Donahue & Allan Jones |
8:45 - 9:30 |
Nutrients & Non-Point Sources -- Annexes 3 & 13 : Craig Mather & Jan Ciborowski |
9:30 - 10:15 |
Persistent Toxic Substances -- Annex 12: David Carpenter & Milt Clark |
|
10:15 - 10:45 |
Break |
|
10:45 - 11:30 |
Dredging & Sediment -- Annexes 7 & 14: Joe de Pinto & Jan Miller |
11:30 - 12:15 PM |
Groundwater -- Annex 16: Andrew Piggott & Jim Nicholas |
|
12:15 - 1:30 |
Lunch |
|
1:30 - 2:15 |
Airborne Toxic Substances -- Annex 15: Gary Foley & Ann Macmillan |
2:15 - 3:00 |
RAPs & LaMPs -- Annex 2: Bill Bowerman & Lori Boughton |
|
3:00 - 3:30 |
Break |
|
3:30 - 4:15 |
“Coast Guard” Annexes -- Annexes 4-6 & 8-10: Mike Gardiner & Leah Quiring |
4:15 - 5:00 |
Surveillance, Monitoring & Research -- Annexes 11 & 17; Deb Swackhamer & Harvey Shear |
5:00 - 5:30 |
Wrap Up |
5:30 PM |
Adjourn |
|
Friday, February 6 |
|
8:30 - 8:45 AM |
Goals & Objectives for Day 2 : Michael Donahue & Allan Jones |
8:45 - 10:00 |
Delivery of Science through the Agreement: Articles VII-XV
Glen Fox & Harvey Shear |
|
10:00- 10:30 |
Break |
|
10:30 - 11:45 |
Integration & Development of Board Advice for the Commission Panel: Board & Council Co-Chairs |
11:45 - 11:55 |
Observations & Workshop Summary: Plan for Moving Forward Mike Donahue & Allan Jones |
11:55 - 12:00 |
Concluding Remarks: Commission Co-Chairs |
12:00 Noon |
Adjourn |
5. Workshop Findings and Conclusions:
The Board will develop a report on the outcome of the workshop under separate cover
which will include recommendations for the Commission. Since the workshop was also a
regularly scheduled meeting of the Science Advisory Board, a set of meeting notes was
adopted by invitees and board members and is attached as reflecting an overview of the
meeting.
Attachment 1
Science and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Preliminary Summary of Key Points From Sessions
Session #1 Wednesday Evening - Preamble, Purpose, Articles I-IV, & Annex 1
Question: Is the stated purpose of the Agreement necessary and sufficient to meet present and future challenges?
- Should the Agreement be reviewed? There is broad support for
review; review will occur after next IJC biennial report; there is a
distinction between review and renegotiation.
- Agreement review is required because of perceived inability of the Agreement to be predictive, strategic, and responsible.
- What should be the approach to the review? Strengths and
weaknesses need to addressed – especially, scope. Is it better to have
one omnibus agreement or separate agreements? How can ecological
integrity be achieved through an Agreement? Any review must include
institutional issues, e.g. implementation mechanisms and accountability.
- The Agreement could spell out reporting, interpretation and accountability -- who is responsible?
- The Agreement should provide specific direction but be flexible.
- The Agreement review should focus on both articles and annexes, to
avoid the risk of a disconnected document -- each must support the
other.
- Are we doing enough to meet existing obligations in the articles and annexes?
- Given new-found science and complexity, should we change future goals?
- What process should be used to accomplish the review? The review
process must be coherent, transparent, participatory, and inclusive.
- Preamble question: Is water quality best achieved by managing the ecosystem or through managing water pollution?
- Article I – there is a need to define terms, e.g. “restoration,”
"risk," "watershed" in order to define, for example targets and goals.
The definition of watershed or basin should consider ground water.
- Article II – science based planning and best management to ensure an ecosystem approach needs to be reflected in the purpose.
- Article III – General objectives exclusively focus on Great lakes
water being “free from” effects of human activities. What additional
objectives are needed to support restoration?
- Article IV – in order to keep the Agreement vital and timely, new
objectives need to process based rather than state or target based,
while encompassing targets related to integrity goals. If Agreement is
process based rather than target based, then how do we reconcile with
the present regulatory framework?
- Targets serve a useful accountability function, but we need to
understand processed so that targets can be set and adjusted as
required.
- Need consistent processes to set targets, e.g. ozone, fish consumption advisories.
- Annex 1 -- refer to previous SAB advice in 1999-2001 priorities report.
- The old agreement can be improved; however chemical contamination is still an important issue.
- A water quality and a water quantity Agreement?
- Invasive species aren’t just aquatic – cutting trees because of
emerald ash borer also impinges on water quality. Also, some invasive
species, such as salmon are perceived by resource managers and the
public as desirable.
- What scope is necessary to drive action and influence management? Should human health be more explicitly addressed?
- The objectives call for risk management, which is beyond risk assessment and communication.
- The Agreement needs to be an enabling document that is not
restrictive or inflexible. It is one instrument of many, e.g. CEC,
Migratory Birds, Fishery Convention, Biodiversity, Kyoto, Great Lakes
Charter, Annex 2001. Should the Agreement be the enabling document to
deal with issues, or just one thread of many? One tool or an umbrella?
- Role of science -- can science define the problem / explain why
problems exist? Can science define the solution and how to achieve it?
- Is there any scientific evidence to indicate that inadequacies
with the current agreement prevented appropriate action taking place?
Answer: No.
- Is the science / our knowledge sufficient to know how the ecosystem functions?
- Earlier narrow approaches, e.g. P control and target loads have
evolved to a broader scope and better understanding of how the natural
system operates. Conclusion: Science has outgrown the Agreement. There
are two scientific approaches being used – numerical objectives to
support planning activities/management goals and process oriented
understanding related to how the system works in order to achieve that
objective. The development and use of scientific knowledge that links
both approaches may need to be recognized more explicitly.
- Our understanding of stresses impacting the Great Lakes has
expanded, as has the range of stresses, as well as how stresses
interact. The perception of risk changes with time, as knowledge
changes.
- The Agreement addresses components but not ecosystem aspects such as pathways and relationships.
- Current water science is based on the watershed, air/water/land
interface, and hydrologic cycle. The linkage of water quantity and
quality issues extends the need for basin management into the
tributaries.
- A process based approach is an opportunity to move beyond simply
listing a stressor such as climate change, to one of providing much
greater clarity by indicating that the goal is to "understand the
effects of climate change by developing a regional atmospheric
circulation model to be coupled to dynamic global models".
Session #2 Thursday - Agreement Annexes 2-17
Questions:
(1) What is the present state of the science associated with this
element of the Agreement? Is the scientific knowledge implicit in the
Agreement necessary and sufficient to achieve the purpose of the
Agreement? Why, or why not? (2) If not, what new or additional
scientific knowledge is required?
(3) What new elements might be required and what is the state of the
science to support them?
Annex 2
- a process annex, needs a linkage to Annex 14 – contaminated sediment
- need to improve implementation and linkage between basic and applied science, especially sampling and monitoring plans
- RAPs linkage to LAMPs and ecosystem approach needs more clarity
- Define geographic extent of AOCs.
- What is the purpose of a LaMP -- a management tool? LaMPs do not
look like what the Agreement called for in 1987 -- do we stay with
critical pollutants or adopt a broader ecosystem perspective?
- Add -- area of recovery?
- RAPs / LaMPs -- a "magnet" for environmental activism.
- Is the goal ecosystem management or water quality management through pollution control and remediation?
- The concept and the list of beneficial use impairments
satisfactory (but is the list sufficient?) but, as worded, are vague
goals -- definitions could be improved.
- There is no universal interpretation / meaning / understanding of a BUI.
- Do BUIs reflect the Agreement purpose, however defined?
- Define delisting criteria. Flexibility to establish targets locally?
- Addressing social and economic aspects could support
implementation by identifying benefits and opportunities for public and
private investments and partnerships -- ecological economics.
Annex 3 & 13
- It is not essential to amend these annexes unless it will help drive action and implementation.
- Sustainability of current practices e.g. storm water pond cleaning, a future issue
- Climate change will bring a new hydrological regime that will affect the Agreement however it is not addressed in Annex 13.
- A broader understanding of the L. Erie basin is needed, e.g. a P
budget for L. Erie that accommodates both total and reactive P would
support predictive efforts and could be based on current scientific
capabilities and move management well beyond the modest and limited
goals of P control. This point could be broadened -- what we lack is an
understanding of the current science (and its complexity) behind the
issues, e.g. the processing of phosphorus and other trends and
conditions in Lake Erie, and how to link and model. We need to be
process oriented rather than reactive.
- The targets need to be revisited based on current science, and Annex 13 is a grab-bag that needs to be more quantitative
- The impact of urbanization on groundwater not reflected in Annex 13
- Implementation and assessment of BMPs by lake basin would enable
review and evaluation to occur, and additional measures adopted. The
science is sufficient that we know what has to be done. There is a
knowledge gap with regard to how well remedial measures work, and no
budget to fill that gap.
- Non point problems may need greater emphasis – in urban areas
drainage and runoff from tributaries has greater impact than sewage
discharges since it affects the nearshore whereas some STPs discharge
out into the lake.
- Because current monitoring and loading estimates do not account
for significant weather events, the impact of CSOs and storm water
runoff is under estimated on the lakes.
Annexes 7 & 14
- Almost everything that is known scientifically about contaminated
sediment has been discovered since the Agreement was written. The
provisions and implementation of this Annex 14 are very outdated. e.g.,
rather than chemical based, site assessment could be risked based, both
human and ecological, recognizing bioavailability, depth of
contaminants and external processes such as benthic mixing, and the
probabilities of storm surge events and river flood events that would
cause a redistribution of exposed contaminated sediments or breaching of
capped sediments in place. Such probabilities are likely to change as
the climate changes. Risk-based can mean either risk assessment or risk
management. It should mean risk management which requires a strong
commitment to monitoring and undertaking corrective action. The source
needs to be connected to its impact, and the pathways ranked based on
site specific models. Post project monitoring to ensure recovery needs
to be included.
- The concept of natural recovery needs to be quantified
- There needs to more research directed on alternative remediation
technologies such as enhanced bioremediation and enhanced capping with
sorbent amendments, as well as combination technologies.
- Annex 7 basically fulfilled / completed.
- Relate beneficial uses to contaminated sediment and BUIs to
contaminated sediment targets -- how clean is clean? We can do exposure
assessment, but we need effects assessment for contaminated sediment.
Annex 12
- Contaminant levels are declining, however scientific understanding
of the hazards is increasing. (1) there is a greater public health
threat today as a result – in 1978 endocrine disruptors, neurological
impacts and the role of pollutants in environmentally induced diseases
were not well understood (2) Human health impact from inhalation of air
borne pollutants could be very significant (3) contaminant levels are
generally perceived to be plateauing as a result of reservoirs,
probably sediments, as well as air sources. Prioritization based on risk
needs to guide action and implementation in order to protect human
health Although the critical issues related to PTSs are well understood,
science moves rapidly forward and the Agreement needs updating to be
current.
- The Agreement has adequacy with respect to the basin, it doesn’t
address major pathways from a global or ecosystem perspective, or
provide any linkage to other international agreements. This could be a
hard row politically.
- Fish PCB levels in open water are over 20X higher than they should
be for protection of human health. Great Lakes human exposure is
greater than Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades combined, however if the
focus of virtual elimination and zero discharge is reduced in a revised
Agreement, the solution will remain a very long term challenge for many
future generations.
- Is virtual elimination a realistic goal? The solution must be globalized, not limited to the Great Lakes. Keep as a principle.
Annex 15
- This annex is the most prescriptive in the Agreement and has been
very successful in generating scientific understanding of the role of
the air pathway. Source-receptor models have enabled atmospheric
scientists to understand continental scale processes and loadings.
- Gaps exist such as in understanding the impact of air deposition
in land runoff, predicting levels in fish based on load estimates and in
developing nested regional, national and global multi media models.
Other gaps -- chemical transformation and in-water dynamics.
- Focus on long range transport overlooks local air factors and confounds priority setting processes.
- Annex 15 successful because it is well defined and self contained,
however needs greater integration with water quality management.
- A policy obstacle -- the Great Lakes are a source of pollutants to the atmosphere.
- An obstacle for policy setting and action -- relative [and
absolute] loadings of contaminants via various pathways, including air,
ground water, sediment [both a source and a sink].
- Atmospheric PCBs -- point to political problem to get PCBs out of use -- after all these years!
Annex 16
- Groundwater contribution to stream flow can be quite significant
--> points out the need for water budgets. Groundwater can be an
important pathway for the delivery of non point source pollutants to
surface water. Groundwater is vulnerable to hazards – a single bore hole
can expose large aquifers to pollution.
- Groundwater hydrology is a mature science, however there is
insufficient information for regional management and decision making
e.g. a regional perspective is lacking, the linkage of groundwater with
the aquatic ecosystem has not been quantified, and the integrated
modeling of groundwater and surface runoff and fluxes is needed.
- Monitoring of groundwater is limited in both countries.
- Annex 16 addresses “pollution from” contaminated groundwater, and
is not an annex to provide for groundwater management, or pollution
prevention activities such as source water protection or land use
management.
- Should also address "pollution to."
- Large scale mapping is needed beyond that indicated in Annex 16.
- There is increasing recognition of the potentially severe
implications of non point source groundwater contamination. Non point
source contaminants, while typically less concentrated and toxic than
point source contaminants, have the potential to be so extensive that
remediation of the contaminants would be impossible and that large
portions of the groundwater resource of the basin could be lost from use
as a water supply.
- There is a linkage between groundwater quantity and quality and
water supply and in stream conditions that is not reflected in the
Agreement. For example, reductions in groundwater discharge due to land
use and climate change may impact the low flow characteristics and
assimilative capacities of waters receiving waste water discharge. In
another example, if non point source contamination becomes sufficiently
extensive that the resource becomes unusable, then it is possible that
this will result in water quantity concerns and increasing competition
for uncontaminated surface and ground water.
Annexes 4-6 & 8-10
- Fold the Coast Guard annexes into one annex with streamlined
reporting, and incorporating standards to protect the Great Lakes from
international ships discharging ballast.
- Regulatory regime to support these annexes is "mature." The
programs in relation to the annexes have been incorporated into the
regulatory regime of both countries and are closely coordinated.
- Scientifically the standard for new AIS introductions should be
“0”, which is not to say that zero organisms should be discharged
- Undertake a study of the costs and benefits of salt water shipping
to include the environmental impact of international ships using the
seaway.
Annexes 11 & 17
- Monitoring is fundamental to the Agreement. It should always
answer a question, i.e. have a purpose, and the questions have to drive
the monitoring, in terms of current science the questions are often
expressed as models. The development and use of models needs to be
integrated into the monitoring commitments of the Agreement. Linking
modeling and monitoring could encourage predictive capabilities
currently lacking in the Agreement, but attainable using current
science.
- Basic, long term monitoring needs to be institutionalized in the
Agreement and should include the commitment to continuous quality
improvement utilizing best available technology, such as envisaged by an
integrated earth observation and monitoring system for the Great Lakes.
Such a system would constitute basic essential scientific
infrastructure in order to support binational decision making,
coordination and cooperation.
- All of the monitoring requirements in the Agreement could be put in one place, and include a provision to report.
- Data are disconnected -- need linkage among various monitoring efforts, e.g. via modelling, interdisciplinary approach.
- Research listed under Annex 17 is a tacked-on laundry list, mostly
related to understanding chemical pollutants and needs to be more
broadly defined.
- A research strategy is required -- encompass policy, social,
economic -- involve managers and policy makers to ensure that the
product is responsive. Clearly articulate priorities.
- Annex 17 -- research and science should be connected to drive
action. Lay out role of science and research -- why and how they are
beneficial to non-scientists.
- Monitoring should be not only the "what" but also -- through science and research -- provide the "why."
- Need post-project monitoring to track effectiveness of actions, to
justify funding, commitment to action and investment, to drive / direct
adaptive management.
Session #3 Friday AM – Articles VII-XV; Delivery of Science Through the Agreement
Question:
Can the existing Agreement accommodate present and future issues,
including but not limited to alien invasive species, habitat, land use,
climate change, biodiversity, pathogens, new chemicals and long range
transport of atmospheric pollutants?
Scope of Agreement:
- multiple dimensions
- ecosystem wide or water quality focus?
- geographic -- AIS, climate change, air ground water.
- science based, including economics and management science.
- health dimension -- fish, ecosystem and human.
- The articles do not preclude addressing future challenges, and
adequately embrace all of the existing and foreseeable scientific
issues.
- What should the science capacity be? The possibility of the development of a Research Strategy as a binational approach.
- Great Lakes programs are significantly under funded which impinges
on the effectiveness of the Agreement giving the mistaken impression
that the Agreement is the problem.
- Science needs better linkage to policy and decision making. This
could be accomplished by ensuring that the Agreement drives action and
obligates progress.
- Public involvement needs greater emphasis, along with education in order to sustain political will.
- Social science needs greater emphasis.
- There are institutional obstacles to involvement of all the orders of government.
- A bottom line -- science has outpaced the Agreement --> reorganize and consolidate.
- Another bottom line -- benchmarks absent --> need indicators but only if there will be measurable, on-the-ground improvement.
- The Agreement does not recognize the significant links between
water quantity, water quality and ecosystem health. These links include
the important link between urban infrastructure (lake side and harbour
side water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants, industrial
plants, power plants, utilities etc.) and the lake level ranges for
which infrastructure performance was designed. The facilities upon which
millions of Great Lakes basin residents (and residents outside the
basin) depend, are vulnerable to lake levels higher and lower than the
historic ranges. This omission is a structural weakness in preparation
for future battles over Great Lakes diversions.
Session #4 Integration Panel – Institutional Arrangements to Facilitate Science/Policy Linkages
Questions:
- Do current institutional arrangements under the Agreement help or hinder the application of science?
- Are current Great Lakes research institutions organized to deliver science in the 21st century?
- How can science/policy linkages be undertaken by the Parties?
- How might a detailed scientific review be undertaken by the Parties?
- Institutional arrangements do not hinder science, and most often
help, however there are opportunities to go further. The question should
be how can it be improved? Define programmatic structure needed for the
Agreement, then design the science to inform those needs.
- Great Lakes research institutions are not currently well organized
to deliver science under the Agreement in the 21st century, especially
research coordination. Example -- LaMPs do not provide integrated
science, Lake Erie Millennium Network does. There are opportunities to
go further with existing institutional arrangements, e.g. linkage
between research / science community and policy, transfer of scientific
knowledge to planning and reporting at the local level.
- Great Lakes science has driven policy, regionally, nationally and internationally.
- Any review needs to be open, inclusive and science based. Review
of the operation and effectiveness of the Agreement should be ongoing
and not just at 6 year intervals.
- Some institutions and organizations are under utilized, eg. Conservation Authorities, SOLEC, BEC, Binational Toxics Strategy.
- The Great Lakes region has the potential to lose its international
status as a policy innovator if science is unable to sustain policy and
progress. There is a science policy disconnect evident when improvement
and success are declared so far from our goals. Rewriting the Agreement
won’t solve the implementation problem.
- Is the role of the IJC under the GLWQA still relevant, and are the institutional arrangements to support their role adequate?
- Role for IJC and its institutions -- provide leadership with
regard to vision, needs, required research, but how to engage agencies
in development of a research strategy -- to garner new focus and energy,
absent a crisis?
- Need to build a Great Lakes constituency -- need social
scientists, economists, communications specialists involved to show
benefits.
- Institutional arrangements under the Agreement -- an advisory
board but also a board of directors as a driver. More broadly --
organizational changes to improve the way we operate -- create
policy-resource management linkage.
- Observation -- science and technology historically outpace policy and institutional arrangements.
- Need for coordination among institutions to drive science and policy -- provide vision, coordination, leadership collectively.
- Challenge -- to create a collective vision and to distill issues
to instill political focus and will, and to interest and engage the
public.
- Reorganize Agreement by issues, e.g. swimmable, to serve as the focus to drive policy, programs, monitoring.
A Few Additional, Overarching Post Meeting Reflections
- The Agreement is only important if implementation is improved.
- The relevance of monitoring is important to understanding the state of the lakes and also to evaluate program effectiveness.
- The current agreement even if out of date and imperfect, does not preclude addressing future challenges.
- The institutional arrangements in the Agreement do not reflect
current practice, and the current arrangements may not necessarily be
the only way or the most effective way of accomplishing binational
cooperation, coordination and implementation.