November/December 1996
|
|
November/December 1996 |
by John M. Cooley and Charles K. Minns
Within the wider family of those involved with the International Joint Commission's work, there is an ongoing debate over the focus of work under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Some believe that the primary thrust of the Agreement is to address the contamination of the lakes and that efforts in this area are already too dispersed. Others maintain that the focus needs to be broadened to give greater emphasis to other issues that also affect the overall health of the ecosystem, particularly the protection of physical habitat, biological diversity and the integrity of biological systems.
The Agreement contains general and specific water quality objectives, pollutant lists and sections that address pollution control and prevention, phosphorus inputs, discharges from boats, pollution from dredging, discharges from petroleum processing and distribution facilities, response to spills, persistent toxic substances, pollution from nonpoint sources, contaminated sediment, airborne toxic substances and pollution from contaminated groundwater. There are also sections establishing lake ecosystem objectives and biological indicators of ecosystem health. Language in other sections also calls for taking a "comprehensive ecosystem approach" to restoration activities and preserving wetlands that are threatened by dredging and disposal activities. The authors present one view, but we welcome other perspectives as well.
This article was prompted by the recommendations to Governments in the International Joint Commission's Eighth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality. Again the proposed focus for the next two years is the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances. We were also prompted by a recognition that ongoing budget and staff cuts across the Great Lakes basin might further entrench the focus on chemical issues. We do not disagree with controls on toxic chemical inputs, but we do question the implicit conclusion that physical and biological integrity, including issues like habitats, biodiversity, exotic species and climate change, are lesser, "other issues" that can wait to be addressed at some time in the future.
We all are reminded in chapter two of the Eighth Biennial Report that the stated purpose of the 1978 revision of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem." The 1978 revision of the Agreement had established the central role of the "ecosystem approach" as the guiding principle for long-term efforts to restore the Great Lakes. While the three aspects of integrity are equals in the purpose, the majority of substantive, restorative actions are still chemical. The integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem has been damaged more by loss of habitat and invasions of wanted and unwanted exotic species than by all the persistent toxic chemicals discharged into the lakes since the 1930s. Yet only a small portion of the two nations' scientific efforts and restorative actions in the Great Lakes have been focused on the physical and biological aspects of integrity. Here we assess (a) why this imbalance has existed, (b) what evidence of change is emerging and (c) how, despite recent resource and staff cuts in many agencies, a more balanced approach might be achieved.
Two persistent tendencies help explain why this focus on chemical problems exists and persists. These biases are: a perspective centred on humans rather than ecosystems and a preference for short-term technological "fixes" over enduring holistic remedies. Despite accepting that humans are part of ecosystems, society has maintained an egocentric focus on perceived threats to human health inherent in manmade chemicals detected in ecosystems. Substantial evidence exists of effects in wildlife, of indicators in other biota and of potential risks to humans. Endless lists of manufactured chemicals detected in various media create the impression that their accumulated threat to humans, and hence by implication to ecosystems, outweighs all other considerations.
Nonetheless substantial evidence also exists of numerous nonchemical effects and threats. Land use changes, habitat destruction, over-exploitation of renewable resources and appearances of exotic biota have clearly brought far greater, detectable changes to the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. All 10 of the recommendations in the Eighth Biennial Report deal with chemical pollution or its regulation. If all chemical pollution were eliminated today, the Great Lakes ecosystem would remain degraded because of these physical and biological problems. Unfortunately the "ecosystem approach" as preached in principle is still largely a "chemical approach" in practice.
Since 1985 the Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) unfolding throughout the basin have shown that we must look at all perspectives when applying the ecosystem approach. Initially nutrients and contaminants were the focus of attention. Efforts to control phosphorus and some obviously irksome chemicals like DDT were progressing as a result of the 1972 Agreement. Large amounts of money have been spent on reducing the chemical problems and on the science needed to guide the decisionmakers. The significance of physical and biological causes of ecosystem degradation has long been recognized and promoted by the IJC. It was the IJC that orchestrated the binational studies on the Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference (PLUARG) in the 1970s. Regrettably action has not been taken on many of the recommendations in those landmark studies.
When RAP teams truly used the ecosystem approach, habitat restoration and creation, management of exotics and improved land use practices gained prominence as major vehicles for restoring ecosystem integrity. More recently the process of developing Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) has begun. After predictable early attempts by some to limit LaMPs to chemical concerns, the ecosystem approach is prevailing. Unfortunately just as RAPs and LaMPs pointed to the need to broaden assessment of physical and biological aspects of ecosystem integrity, budget cutbacks and staff reductions in many agencies reduced programs. Programs to assess long-term trends in fish and other biota and ecosystem impacts of exotics have been lost or adversely affected. LaMP progress has been impeded by shortages of resources and people. Further, all-encompassing topics like climate change, conversion of biodiversity and ecologically sustainable development are being neglected as a result of cuts. The growing consensus on what is meant by the ecosystem approach and ecosystem management demands that all aspects of ecosystem integrity be addressed in a balanced way. Downsizing is tending to reinforce the focus on chemical integrity.
Achieving a more balanced distribution of reduced effort will not be easy given the mix of problems facing all agencies. There are clear guideposts in view, showing ways forward. We offer two examples, recognizing there are other innovative approaches.
Apply Adaptive Management: A recent Ecological Society of America article noted that "management objectives and expectations must be explicitly stated in operational terms, informed by the best models of ecosystem functioning and tested by carefully designed monitoring programs that provide accessible and timely feedback to managers." The binational Lake Erie model initiative of the IJC was a step in the right direction. In 1995, the IJC's Council of Great Lakes Research Managers applied an ecosystem framework policy exercise to identify needs and priorities for zebra mussel research in Lake Erie. In 1995, the Governments and the IJC published Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach in Great Lakes Management containing good advice, much of which is still to be implemented. The 1993 report from the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, The Ecosystem Approach: Theory and Ecosystem Integrity, provides ample guidance. These recent efforts need reinforcing to build momentum. Coordinated actions will increase the leverage of reduced budgets.
Create interagency programs jointly addressing physical, chemical and biological integrity: The most efficient and holistic approach would be for agencies to pool limited resources and adopt common specific priorities. This will happen slowly because of the inherent possessiveness and inertia in our institutions. Elimination of binational surveillance programs in the mid-1980s was a mistake. The new fiscal restraints alone demand that we work more cooperatively.
Is progress toward sustainable ecosystem management being limited by the continued fixation on chemical risks to human health? The Great Lakes basin community is making progress on the control and elimination of many chemical hazards. Efforts to reduce chemical risks should not be neglected. Rather the community's agenda needs to be broadened to the whole ecosystem and all the factors impairing integrity. Many of the necessary concepts, tools and mechanisms for restoring the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem's health and integrity are at hand. We believe the IJC and similar institutions should be promoting the essential actions and overseeing implementation.
John M. Cooley is director of the Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences and Charles K. Minns is systems ecologist in the laboratory's Fish Habitat Studies Division.
Revised: 14 January 1997
Maintained by Kevin McGunagle,
mcgunaglek@ijc.wincom.net