REPORT FROM THE GREAT LAKES ROUNDTABLE, OCTOBER 31, 1997

Commissioner Pierre Béland

Bonjour. [French] For those who did not understand what I said, you can ask Daniel Green or Ken Ogilvy. I noted they're here.

We had a roundtable yesterday and the focus of that roundtable was on health effects from toxic compounds. The goal was to develop advice that the Commission could bring to the Parties in our next biennial report. So the issue was about the fact that there is increasing scientific evidence, and that evidence is definite and it is broadly accepted, even though there is still some disagreement -- and we heard about that yesterday at the roundtable -- that persistent toxic substances and most particularly DDT and PCBs have and continue to cause injury to humans in the Great Lakes basin. The recent human health studies indicate that: (1) reproductive functions may be disrupted by exposure to PCBs and other PTSs; (2) neurobehavioural and developmental deficits occur in newborns and continue through school-age children, from in utero exposure to these substances; (3) other systemic effects, e.g. liver disease and diabetes may be associated with elevated serum levels of PCBs; and (4) increased cancer risks are associated with PCB exposure.

These findings that people have been hearing about for years, for the first time recently, agencies both in Canada and the U.S. have determined that these effects are real and occurring. So we wanted through that roundtable to explore and identify potential strategies to address this issue and to provide, as I said, advice to the IJC that we could then examine and carry to the Parties. Approximately 30 representatives participated. They were from a broad cross-section of sectors and perspectives, including: agriculture, communication, education, environmental, non-government, government, industry, labor, Native American/First Nations, research, social and economic. Another 40 or so people, observed the Roundtable discussions.

I will summarize the advice or the Priorities for Action that were identified. I want also to say that this roundtable came after a big health conference in Montreal, after a workshop that we had in Collingwood on Sediment Remediation, after another workshop in Wingspread, all these leading to this final event yesterday. What was identified yesterday were the following priorities:

• Evaluate Existing Programs, to examine them -- the RAPs, the LaMPs -- to identify strengths and weaknesses in those programs based on 20, 15, depending on the program, 10 years of experience. And measure progress towards program goals taking account of social, economic and environmental factors. That the IJC should conduct these evaluations and recommend improvements where needed.
• Establish a "Just Transition" Process in an attempt to bring together all stakeholders to address the social and economic implications of bans and phase-outs of specific substances, and to undertake transition planning. I think it was believed that this type of transition planning is going to be needed, whatever the activity we are considering. If we are going to move from the previous type of society that brought us up and the next type of society that we want if we want to live in equilibrium with our environment. Mercury was identified as a possible case study to pilot a transition planning process. And it was recommended that this be done under the IJC umbrella. That we should support and facilitate this initiative.
• Develop Creative Partnerships for Clean-Up. To facilitate further development of hybrid partnerships and creative financing arrangements (e.g. Ashtabula Partnership), and communicate success stories to other Areas of Concern. The IJC could help facilitate partnership development and communication of successes.
• Establish a framework for greater government accountability. Such a framework would include a tracking system of loadings to the lakes, specific indicators of human health and environmental quality, and requirements for the Parties to report on progress based on these specific indicators. The IJC should maintain its traditional role as the lead advocate for accountability, and develop specific recommendations for action by governments. I think the idea there was that the suggestions were that the IJC think in terms of smaller targets that would then constitute milestones that would be easily measurable as to whether or not the Parties have made a specific progress during the two year periods.
• Improving Public Education and Communication. That campaigns are needed to inform the public about the injury issue, its causes and effects, and to provide impetus for action. These campaigns should be aggressive, that they should feature mainstream messages and focus on the social and economic aspects of the issues.
• Put humans back in the ecosystem. To enhance basinwide understanding of human health effects through consideration of health issues by the RAPs and LaMPs, which in our view have not been incorporated enough into the LaMPs specifically. Ensure that adequate funding is available for health-related research. The IJC should encourage the Parties to incorporate health issues as part of RAPs and LaMPs.
• Advice on economic analysis of costs and benefits. Demonstrate the costs of injury by the toxic substances. Costs in terms of health, in terms of not being able to use harbours, beaches, waterways. To put this in relation to the cost of actually cleaning them. There is a feeling that they would balance out and even would come out on the favour of cleaning up.
• IJC should urge the Parties to insure that measures to address PTSs are included in international fora and agreements regarding atmospheric deposition from outside the basin.

This short summary, I think will be available at the back of this room or in the atrium. Marty [Bratzel] is telling me that there are 500 copies or so in the atrium. So you could have two copies each. So we will use this advice in preparing our response and preparing our ninth biennial report. As we will use the advice we will hear from you in the next two days. Thank you.

Commissioner Frank Murphy

My name is Frank Murphy. I'm a Canadian Commissioner, and I want to introduce the representatives of the Canadian and United States governments. The governments explicitly stated in the Water Quality Agreement, "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem," marked the first time that two nations explicitly recognized that a comprehensive approach was required to cope successfully with human made pollution. What also made the Agreement noteworthy, and have captured the interest of many others including nations, are the Agreement concepts of virtual elimination and zero discharge. I know that you are eager to hear the governments report to you on the progress that they are making and with no further ado I'll introduce them. This is my second meeting of the biennial.

The last time I was accused the odd time of appearing to be snoozing when I was being quite contemplative. So those accusations will not be made again. The Commissioners are going to leave the stage now, and I'll introduce the government representatives. Will they come up as I introduce them please?

Mr. Dave Ullrich, U.S. EPA, Acting Regional Director for Region V in Chicago; John Mills, Regional Director General of Environment Canada's Ontario Region; Jeanne Fox, U.S. EPA's Regional Administrator for Region II in New York; Ivy Wile, Assistant Deputy Minister for Ontario's Ministry of Environment and Energy; and, Bob Perciasepe, U.S. EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water in Washington, DC. Thank you very much.