November/December 1998
|
|
November/December 1998 |
by Dr. Gail Krantzberg
Setting the Context
Is it any wonder that the Great Lakes are considered a treasured global resource? Astounding as it sounds, less than 0.0001 percent of the water on the entire planet is fresh water, and our Great Lakes hold more than one fifth of that supply.
The terrible truth is that nearly 40 million people living on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border have allowed population growth and development to proceed with little regard to the dire consequences our actions have on the health and well being of the lakes.
Research has helped to identify the deterioration of ecosystem integrity, and science has helped us improve some aspects of the Great Lakes. Still, insights into emerging scientific needs and how they will be fulfilled remains unsatisfactory. The problem is aggravated by the decline of government funding for Great Lakes research (Dolan and Hartig, 1996). I believe this is in part because politicians respond to public demand, but the public and some government decision makers generally do not understand the value of research. Simply put, scientific study helps us properly manage current problems and respond to new concerns. With ongoing cuts to research funding, the gap between what our scientific community can afford to research and the information many of us require to assess, repair and protect the ecosystem is widening.
Having had experience with Great Lakes management and clean up initiatives, my bias is toward applied research that will assist in strengthening management decisions. This is a sampling of subject areas for which, I believe, the citizens of the Great Lakes basin should demand more research and action.
Biodiversity
While contamination of our basin remains a much talked about issue for which solutions will continue to be needed, loss of aquatic habitat has been extensive and largely ignored. The quantity of a habitat in the basin has drastically diminished because of some careless land use decisions, unchecked resource extraction and reckless urban sprawl. We can help protect existing green space by studying the factors that would convince decision makers to stop consuming our shrinking rural land, by choosing instead to intensify urban centers and set limits on future growth and development. This research should more fully explain the consequences of incremental green-space destruction on the health of the Great Lakes.
An area requiring scientific advancement is the development of recovery plans for species and communities at risk. We still need scientific solutions to a number of questions. Where populations appear at risk, are they being threatened by human activities, or simply on the edge of their habitat range? Are populations declining because of natural or human-induced causes? We need answers to these questions because, before we launch costly recovery plans, we need to be able to predict the potential for success.
Research on the natural systems for forests, rivers and wetlands is helping to define the habitats needed to support resilient fish and wildlife communities, but we need more knowledge to improve and sustain biodiversity. Given limited resources, how much of which types of habitat is necessary and sufficient to achieve biodiversity? Indeed, and even more fundamental, how will we recognize when we have achieved healthy, self-sustaining communities of fish and wildlife? Science does not yet have the answers.
Global Issues
A silent and massive threat to the environment, economy and social fabric is growing, if not exploding, in magnitude. I refer to climate change. Consider the potential consequences: flooding, increased heat stress, more prolonged and intense smog episodes, increased forest fires, lowering of Great Lakes water levels and destruction of wetlands to name a few. These will bring profound changes to the basin ecosystem and the resources that provide jobs for millions of people. It will have tremendous adverse impacts on shipping and hydro-power (Environment Canada 1997), with significant economic and social consequences.
We do not have strong predictive models to make a formidable case on the urgency to reverse this trend. We should also be advocating for research and development of technologies that replace those that form greenhouse gases. This is as much a political challenge as it is a research question: how to revolutionize power generation.
I'd like to challenge the mantra: think globally, act locally. Meritorious indeed, but for some of the threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem, like climate change, we should think and act both locally and globally. Another problem requiring actions well beyond the basin is the invisible entry of toxic chemicals to the Great Lakes through rain, snow, or dry fallout, from sources hundreds to thousands of kilometers outside the basin. The notorious chemicals, such as PCBs, DDT and other pesticides, mercury and others, cannot be controlled by local actions alone. If we are to work toward virtual elimination within the Great Lakes basin, we need to know more about the points of origin of these substances and how they behave in the atmosphere.
Toxic Chemicals
Uptake and retention of toxic chemicals (bioaccumulation) by plants and animals occur, and is a necessary first step along the way to damaging health. It may surprise many to hear, however, that outside of severe situations, the effects of these accumulated chemicals to the health of organisms themselves remains poorly defined. In large part, this is because environmental management goals have traditionally been aimed at people first. It is possible to model the concentrations in the environment that will result in, for example, consumption advisories for fish and wildlife. However, it is unclear how best to achieve a healthy, self-sustaining ecosystem if we do not understand the effects of contaminant uptake on species other than top predators such as bald eagles or humans. This research gap makes it difficult to quantify the severity of contamination in a manner that is defensible to those who could fund the clean-up.
Severe contamination can cause tumors and deformities in fish and wildlife, but we are also finding lesions and cancers in animals collected from locations that are considered to represent uncontaminated systems. Are these natural occurrences or the result of a more insidious presence of unmeasured or unrecognized substances? Without this information, we cannot act to rid the Great Lakes of those deformities that are a consequence of human trespass.
While human health effects due to certain pollutants remain controversial, some chemicals as well as some naturally occurring substances have been shown to mimic the action of estrogen (Health Canada 1997). There is evidence that PCBs and dioxins are at least partly responsible for the observed difference in brain development of infants exposed to high concentrations of these chemicals during embryo development (Chen et al. 1992). The importance of these findings to human populations eating different amounts of fish and wildlife from more or less contaminated areas in the Great Lakes is not known. This is a stunning statement. It means that there is the potential for decisions regarding fish consumption advisories to be made in a scientific vacuum. If currently acceptable concentration limits are found to be insufficient to protect human heath, environmental clean-up strategies and the control of contaminant discharges will need to be re-evaluated, as will the viability of the commercial fishery in the Great Lakes.
Socio-economics
While it is an unfortunate statement on the human condition, self-interest is too often the overriding factor in the decision-making process. Politicians on both sides of the border continue to place the environment at the bottom of the agenda because there is a lack of understanding of the intimate connection between environmental priorities and those of an economic, social and political nature. We must aggressively couple these disciplines if we are to make real change. What, for example, have been the economic and social gains achieved as we advance the implementation of Remedial Action Plans? What methods are available to demonstrate that natural space and sustainable development are essential to secure long-term economic growth and social well-being? I believe that to animate the political passion to promote Great Lakes research and restoration requires thoughtful study in this area.
In Conclusion...
It is time for the Great Lakes research community to broaden its vision and widen its themes. It is time for the public and governments to recognize the importance of science and research in a sustainable future. Opportunities to exchange views on priorities must be sought at every turn. The International Association for Great Lakes Research and the IJC provide forums for such debate that should be availed to their full potential.
Dr. Gail Krantzberg is an ecotoxicologist and policy advisor with the Ontario Ministry of Environment and is responsible for managing Great Lakes programs. She is the past president of International Association for Great Lakes Research, a member of several IJC advisory bodies, and has been involved in Great Lakes research and management for more than 10 years.
REFERENCES:
Chen, Y.C.J., Y.L. Guo and W.J. Rogan. 1992. Cognitive development of Yu-Cheng ("oil disease") children prenatally exposed to heat-degraded PCBs. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. 268: 3213-3218.
Dolan, D. and J. Hartig. 1996. Reduction of funds for Great Lakes science. Results of November, 1995 Research Budget Survey. J. Great Lakes Res. 22: 484-490.
Environment Canada. 1997. Canada Country Studies: A Window on Climate Change in Canada.
Health Canada. 1997. State of Knowledge Report on Environmental Contaminants and Human Health in the Great Lakes Basin. ISBN 0-662-26-169-0. 354 pp.
sommaire
Les priorités à venir de la recherche peuvent aider à redonner la forme aux Grands Lacs
La recherche nous a aidés à constater la détérioration des écosystèmes, et la science nous a aidés à améliorer certaines caractéristiques des Grands Lacs. Pourtant, nos perceptions des besoins scientifiques émergents et des moyens de les satisfaire restent insatisfaisantes. Le problème est aggravé par la baisse du financement gouvernemental de la recherche sur les Grands Lacs. Les études scientifiques nous aident à régler les problèmes actuels et à répondre aux nouveaux sujets de préoccupation. Pendant que l'on comprime le financement de la recherche, le fossé s'élargit entre ce que notre communauté scientifique peut se permettre d'étudier et l'information dont beaucoup d'entre nous avons besoin pour évaluer, réparer et protéger l'écosystème.
On trouvera ci-dessous certains des sujets pour lesquels les habitants du bassin des Grands Lacs devraient demander une recherche et une intervention plus poussées.
La recherche sur les systèmes naturels des forêts, des cours d'eau et des milieux humides aide à préciser les habitats nécessaires au soutien des communautés résilientes de poissons et d'espèces sauvages, mais nous avons besoin de plus de connaissances pour améliorer et maintenir la biodiversité.
Nous ne disposons pas de modèles de prévision puissants qui permettraient de démontrer hors de tout doute l'urgence d'inverser la tendance des changements climatiques. Nous devrions aussi préconiser la recherche et le développement de techniques pour remplacer celles qui sont à l'origine des gaz à effet de serre. Cela représente autant un défi politique qu'un problème de recherche, pour révolutionner la production d'énergie.
L'assimilation et la fixation des produits chimiques toxiques (bioaccumulation) par les végétaux et les animaux est un fait avéré, et c'est la première étape obligatoire du mécanisme qui mène aux atteintes à la santé. Beaucoup pourraient être surpris d'entendre, cependant, qu'à l'exception de situations graves, les effets de ces produits chimiques accumulés pour la santé des organismes mêmes restent peu connus.
Dans les deux pays, le milieu politique continue de faire de l'environnement une question non prioritaire, parce qu'on ne saisit pas le lien intime qui existe entre les priorités écologiques et celles qui sont de nature économique, sociale et politique. Nous devons établir activement des ponts entre ces disciplines si nous voulons provoquer de véritables changements.
Il est temps pour les chercheurs spécialistes des Grands Lacs d'élargir leur vision et leurs thèmes. Il est temps, pour le public et les pouvoirs publics, de reconnaître l'importance de la science et de la recherche pour un avenir viable. Il faut continuellement chercher les occasions de dialogue sur les priorités. Pour ce débat, l'Association internationale de recherche sur les Grands Lacs et la CMI fournissent des tribunes dont il faudrait profiter sans réserve.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Communicating research results to the public is an IJC priority. The trend of cutting funding for research might be reversed if public awareness and support for research, especially on the Great Lakes, is strong. Information published in Focus is one of the diverse approaches the IJC, under the leadership of its Council of Great Lakes Researcher Managers, is using to communicate research issues and broaden the public's understanding of research findings and their benefits to the region. Opinions on research issues vary and it is the editorial policy of Focus to present knowledgeable perspectives on issues do not necessarily reflect those of the IJC.