Canada Canada Institute Institute

February 2010

Occasional Paper Series

Environmental THIS publication contains twelve papers exploring the issues and themes that emerged from a two-day conference on Transboundary Environmental Governance on Governance in Canada and the United States, held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars on May 8 and 9, 2008, and organized by the the 49th Parallel: Canada Institute. The conference aimed to provide participants with a better understanding of the varied institutional arrangements that make up environmen- New Century, New tal cross-border governance between Canada and the United States, and deter- mine whether these arrangements have had a substantive impact on the bilateral Approaches environmental relationship. Much of the discussion throughout the conference focused on the relevance and impact of the International Joint Commission (IJC) on bilateral environmen- tal issues. Through the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the International Joint Commission was granted a broad range of powers by the Canadian and United States governments to jointly manage transboundary water resources. The IJC’s institutional structure—allowing equal representation from both countries and a commitment to binational consensus in its decision making—has been heralded as a model for building international cooperation. Yet new and emerging environmental developments, particularly the threat of climate change, underscore the urgent need to assess the ability of existing North American institutions to cope. As several authors in this publication highlight, while the IJC remains central to any examination of cross-border environmental governance, it is by no means the only institution that needs to be considered when contemplating an effective response. Enhancing cross-border environmental governance requires an understand- ing not only of future environmental issues, but also a firm grasp of the history of environmental cooperation between Canada and the United States, as well as the multitude of institutions and policy arrangements that have emerged at the national and subnational levels of government in both countries since the estab- lishment of the IJC. The authors in this publication United States in this new century. lend their considerable expertise and insight in each of these areas, while offering guidance on how best Ken Crist to mount an effective response to the unprecedent- Program Associate, Canada Institute, ed environmental challenges facing Canada and the Woodrow Wilson Center

Environmental Governance on the 49th Parallel: New Century, New Approaches

■ Chapter 1: Trans-border Environmental Governance in Canada and the 3 United States: Introduction and Common Themes. Barry G. Rabe.

■ Chapter 2: The International Joint Commission: Convergence, 16 Divergence or Submergence? Stephen Brooks.

■ Chapter 3: Managing Water Scarcity in the Prairie Region: The Role 32 of the International Joint Commission in a Changing Climate. Timothy Heinmiller.

■ Chapter 4: Trans-boundaries of Environmental Governance on the 48 Great Lakes. Mark Sproule-Jones.

■ Chapter 5: Trans-boundary Water Pollution Efforts in the Great Lakes: 63 The Significance of National and Subnational Policy Capacity. Carolyn M. Johns.

■ Chapter 6: Policy Changes on Canada’s Rivers: Different but not Isolated. 83 William R. Lowry.

■ Chapter 7: Multi-jurisdictional Governance of the Great Lakes Fishery: 99 Can a Nonbinding Agreement Work? Marc Gaden and Charles Krueger.

■ Chapter 8: Environmental Cross-border Regions and the Canada-U.S. 115 Relationship: Building from the Bottom-Up in the Second Century? Debora L. VanNijnatten.

■ Chapter 9: Trans-boundary Environmental Governance in the 133 Pacific West.Donald K. Alper.

■ Chapter 10: Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Quebec and the 152 Management of the St. Lawrence River Basin. Philippe LePrestre and Anaiz Parfait.

■ Chapter 11: Renewable Electricity and Canada-U.S. Cross-border 167 Development. Ian H. Rowlands.

■ Chapter 12: The Absence of Governance: Climate Change in 181 Canada and the United States. Barry G. Rabe.

■ Chapter 13: The Next Century of Trans-boundary Environmental 197 2 Governance. Stephen Brooks. BARRY G. RABE february 2010 3 he he odyssey of shared environmental governance involving Canada and the United States was launched one century ago, with the establishment of the 1909 Treaty. Boundary Waters Implementation of the treaty and the management of its enduring The International Joint Commission (IJC), whose centennial is celebrated celebrated is centennial whose (IJC), Commission Joint International The internationalthe upon rose it experimentwhen bold a was volume, this by It scene evolved to 100 become years ago. a major in player a number of environmental concerns and serves as an possessing and important appointees test political by of guided commission concept, i.e., binational a can The and is no. yes both The answer effective? be truly few formal powers following chapters explore IJC performance, but also examine an array of alternative including mechanisms, a growing phalanx of subnational that are responding institutions cross-border and governance arrangements, to new This environmental introductory challenges. chapter explores the governance. of processes and forms on effects its and framing issue of concept in length at discussed and ahead, chapters the in theme recurring Another in law “soft” versus “hard” of effectiveness relative the is introduction, this effecting change to mitigate promote climate environmental sustainability, and—specificeffects, to the original IJC’s role—managewater resources tends to entail a“Hard law” and Canadian jurisdictions. shared U.S. by perceived or problems environmental new to response regulatory centralized failures In soft by sustained existing contrast, law institutions. tends to networks involve less policy of favor in arrangements authoritative and formal through epistemic communities and on relying and cooperation shared sci- end. an to means a as coercion, than rather expertise, technologic and entific regional and historic differences in National, approach—and their relative explored in subsequent chapters. effectiveness—are This deal struckwas at a point at which initial at proponents the high- nearing were governments the of end est their of levels respective their was entering the Roosevelt Theodore final careers politics. in elective the reclaim to effort prime unsuccessful an by as followed year 13th his presidency, his of in year serving was Laurier Wilfrid 1912. in Office Oval after a power regain but 1911 never in minister would election 1909, with the United States “reciprocity” in which his support for expanded cost him dearly. to left be would (IJC), Commission Internationalthe Joint institution, The as succeeding Commission, we federal shall leaders. see in many subsequent chapters, has been a major player in a number of envi- ronmental concerns spanning multiple generations. It constitutes an T abe 3 19 35 53

arry G. R G. arry

niversity of Michigan of University B

Common Themes Common Introduction and and Introduction United States: States: United Canada and the Canada Governance in in Governance Environmental Environmental Trans-border Trans-border Chapter 1: Chapter 4 Canada Institute occasional paper series What about the ever-expanding tapestry of competing of ever-expanding the tapestry about What of new issues and alternative governance arrangements? and the byemergence authority their limited ginalized roletral governance?in areOr they increasingly mar- ­success story that could continue provento evolve a into standard,a cen- gold the still IJC the and Treaty Waters Boundary the Are challenges. environmental and consider ways to best respondcentury to or enduring looming new a to forward look to also but ence governance structure, experi- past at both to back look this of overview comprehensive a launch to overdue effectiveness. uncertain and ever-shiftingboundaries with system ed also illustrating that it is only one player in a very crowd- ued presence of the International Joint Commission but this prise area of governance, demonstrating the contin- com- collectivelyhaveto come that arrangements and institutions of diversetapestry the underscore to serves century.past overthe developments policy This major of subset a illustrates States United the and Canada in governance environmental cross-border of 1.1) Table (see timeline included.Our is border Alaskan-Canada and expands nearly 50 kilometers percentif the further 2,485 or miles 4,000 nearly for stretches that border national a straddle to happen that jurisdictions boring entail whereasothers on a particular ecosystem, such as the Great Lakes Basin, focused are efforts these provinces.of and Some states border region, and loose confederations of neighboring that arrangements address some specified portion of the tinental via Mexican input) negotiation, formal regional established through binational (or in some instances, con- of governance imaginable. This includes new institutions model every virtually represent that playersnumerable with experiment loosely-structured a rather but tion governance”tal reflects treaty single one not institu- or work quiltofotherinstitutionsandpolicyframeworks. not by the IJC, but rather by an incredibly diverse patch- that many “such questions” have begun to be addressed, arise,” it has become increasingly hereafterclear in recent may decades as questions such “all for responsibility and duties Commission initial Water specified Treaty suasion if it is to have influence. But while the Boundary sesses few formal powers and so has to rely on powers of mission guided by political appointees, but one that pos- com- effectivenessbinational the a of of test important Wewaslong time the twothat concluded yearsago The very issue of “Canadian-American environmen- partnerships among neigh- among partnerships hoc ad an A-List team of scholars to tackle this challenge and challenge this tackle to scholars of team an A-List across border. thislongand important governanceneeds environmentaland future challenges contemplate and ahead look to begin we as this from lessons possible about thoughts preliminary some and activity,governance of body remarkable this of results at our current state of affairs, substantial analysis into the howwearrived into insight historic considerable offer chapters Collectively, these challenges. environmental phalanx of institutions to forge a viable response to new existing the of preparedness the consider to begin and energy,renewable and change climate as nations,such light a number of issues rapidly gaining saliency in both institutions and governance arrangements. alternative In turn, it will of also high- array an examines also but IJC.the of volumeThis considerablehas content,”“IJC sioners to move forward with their own historic analysis the IJC. We applaud the decision of the current commis- exclusively on one institution, even one as prominent as of thatconcern. sprung up over past decades to respond to some portion havethat institutions multiple examining and concern sive way, looking across multiple areas of environmental comprehen- a in governance of arena this examine to shortcoming is the absence of any volume that attempts glaring more even1992). An Zarull and 1995;Hartig (Durnil analysis dispassionate offering in faces observer but inherently development, limited by the challenge any participant- policy in involved directly individuals from accounts insider important offering institutions, these serving officials by self-assessment internal tures fea- analysis recentmore Caldwellthe 1988).of Much 1975; (IJC dated rather be to tends and arrangement governance or region institution, one just on focuses States United the and involvingCanada policy mental the existing scholarly literature on cross-border environ- questions.answerthese to made Indeed,been of much nationsthatshare aprofoundlyboring longborder? historic tensions and asymmetries between these neigh- the givencollaboration, and engagement cross-border serious of conceive to possible even it Is protection? institutional comity while doing little for environmental or do they simply carve up convenient turf to maintain effective particularly is these of more or one that gest sug- to evidence there Is agreements? and institutions Steve Brooks and I subsequently decided to assemble Consequently, we rapidly shelved initial plans to focus Weby remain how struck haveattempts few serious BARRY G. RABE february 2010 5 ­fundamental It is our hope that this volume not only provides Office such as Dennis Moore. These partnerships made Office such as Dennis Moore. it possible for us to recruit all of the scholarstop-level whose work appears in this volume and present ini- tial versions of these papers in May 2008 at Wilson a Center conference Trans-Boundary Environmental on Governance in Canada and the exchanges United at States. The that gathering, both but between also through scholars unexpected active participation and nations, both from makers policy senior by engagement convinced us to move this collection of papers into this publication conference policies, and institutions existing of overview broad a alsobeginsbut respondtothesomeofto tates Convention on Great Lakes Fishers and creation of Great Lakes Fisheries Lakes Commission of Great Fishers and creation Lakes on Great Convention Boundary Waters Treaty and creation of International Commission and creation Joint Treaty Waters 1909 Boundary Regime Transnational Ambitious 1918 IJC Apportionment Water on Order 1921 IJC Provisional 1955 Commission Lakes of Great 1955 Interstate compact and creation 1958 International of Control Board Souris River Treaty 1964 Columbia River American Electricity1968 North Reliability Council Agreement Quality Water Lakes 1972 Great and Eastern England Governors of New Canadian Premiers 1973 Conference Agreement amended Quality Water Lakes 1978 Great 1978 Northeast International on Energy Committee Council Lakes 1983 Great Treaty 1984 Skagit River Charter Lakes 1985 Great Treaty Salmon Pacific 1985 Canada-U.S. Action Plans Agreement amendment and Remedial Quality Water Lakes 1987 Great Agreement Cooperation Environmental 1992 British Columbia-Washington America Cooperation in North 1994 Commission on Environmental Strategy Toxics Bi-National Lakes 1997 Great 1998 Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative Annex Charter Lakes 2001 Great Regional Collaboration Lakes 2004 Great Agreement Resources Water Basin Sustainable Lawrence Lakes-St. 2005 Great Initiative Climate Western 2007 2007 SecurityAmerica and Prosperity Partnership of North ajor Development in Cross-Border Environmental Environmental Cross-Border in Major Development imeline of able 1.1: T able 1.1: 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s/1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s attempt to prepare an edited volume that would address address would that volume edited an prepare to attempt We questions. governance environmental these of many and funding essential provide could who partners sought a forum for a conference to pressures any allow of seriousfree makers policy and exchanges scholars between remain we So conclusions. pre-judge to expectations or honored by the opportunity to closely work with col- for Center International Wilson Woodrow the at leagues Scholars, particularly Canada Institute Director David Biette and his colleagues Kristopher Carr and Kenneth remain equally honored by the We collaboration Crist. Academic from the received we have Relations Office of the particularly Canadian Director Embassy, Daniel Abele and colleagues in the Consulate General Detroit T nited S United and the Canada in Governance 6 Canada Institute occasional paper series E Fr governance basic some into insight important offer improved in environmental quality. measured We as believe that these chapters effectiveness, ultimately, and,implementation policy on strongemphasis larly - particu a place but formation policy include cerns of cross-border environmental governance. Our con- body of theory that can to purport explain all aspects proveto disprovetry or to overarchingchapters one questions noted above. It is not our intent to use these nation of environmental governance in the Pacific West, same institutional framework. In Donald Alper’s exami- to respond to multiple frames, often operating within the reveal that institutions and policies have been established and institutional development. A number of our authors often leading to very different kinds of policy responses ways,different very in framed indeed are issues mental ofwhatisinvolvedacterizations (Pralle 2006). different char- perhaps with competing frames offering focus,into come to maylonger takemuch issues other turn, development. In policy be highly subsequent in influential and defined is issue an way the shape can contamination in Ontario and water Wisconsin, with specific events experiences recent more to Commission Boundary the Waters TreatyJoint International the and border river disputes that framed the case for creation cross-of volume.From this in chapters many in riences expe- the disasters,by illustrated or conflicts particular in relations (Axelrod and Atran 2008). common framing could lead to significant improvements more toward working and boundaries political various across enormously relations, varies framing Eastern issue Scott Atranhave demonstrated in the context of Middle administrativelyand feasible.ly RobertAxelrod and As political- not is and is what of boundaries the outlining avoided),(or evenselectedtools and optionspolicy of ing may have direct and extensive influence on the kinds fram- Indeed, athand. issue the define or characterize n u catr, e e ta cosbre environ- cross-border that see we chapters, our In Environmental issues are often framed in response to aming ofGovernanceS political actors and the citizenry have come to comehave citizenry the and actorspolitical lenges in issue framing, namely the way in which chal- important present concerns nvironmental sequent sections. broad governance issues which are introduced in sub- to intended respond, is with varying degrees of chapters emphasis, the to sevenof Each institutions. erning govsubnational - and national blend that boundaries extended across protection environmental to promote can efforts other address to extended be generally more and governance Canadian-American environmental to cross-border relevant are that questions quality and possible impact on human health. Still other environmental over concern as such frames, different offer cases environmentalprotection.Other for comes protect that resource, yet often producing uncertain out- concern, with subsequent policy geared to promote and tection of a particular resource has surfaced as a primary these chapters. are not always evident in that fromthe emerge analyses that savvy managerial and political and sophistication analytical of blend a another, requiring one with flict butgoals many maythem of con- and collide literally umbrellas.ping governance All of may these be worthy and erosion control, among other issues, under overlap - mitigation, diversion water protection, quality water with expansion and development hydroelectricity as such issues blends protection, environmental than tity iden- national promote to opportunities and politics water governance, to seemingly fueled more approach by symbolic unique Quebec’s of analysis LePrestre’s use of resources, and economic development. Philippe logical health, human health, habitat protection, human haveaddressto had eco- simultaneouslyas issues such these of concern.”“areasof often RAPs that finds He reliant upon localized institutions to pursue remediation Joint but Commission the of auspices the International 43 most damaged zones of the Great Lakes Basin under the for (RAPs) Plans Action Remedial developing of process the reviews Sproule-Jones change.Mark mate increasingly, and, cli- waste hazardous sources, energy alternative other and electricity hydro-basedquality, forests, mining, air quality, recreation and tourism, fisheries,waterconfront to forced are institutions of blend a In many chapters, economic development and pro- developmentand chapters,economic many In BARRY G. RABE february 2010 7 The selection of one or more frames may well influ- well may frames more or one of selection The to oversee and impose penalties or sanctions in the event event the in sanctions or penalties impose and oversee to such of as non-compliance, the 1990 American Clean Air Act and other - pro medium-based environmental in examples law hard regulatory Internationally, policies. are astonations find difficult be somewhat may tection though exceptionsnotable to yield reluctant sovereignty, have included the various iterations of an the international deplete that chemicals of use the out phase to accord (Hammitt 2004). ozone layer both subfederal-level policy innovation and prospects for future cross-border collaboration in this Ian arena. analysis his in themes overlapping some finds Rowlands energy development. of renewable as as ence well the direction and design even of policy, enact- for support sufficient is there determinewhether inextricablyinterwo- is This implementation. and ment ven with the question of ideas in policy development, both in guiding the selection of issue frames and the institutions and policy tools that will be employed in per- different chaptersintroduce our of Many response. cases some in variousissues, of framing the on spectives demonstrating changes in framing that take place over that chapters those in notable most perhaps is This time. examine the century-long odyssey of the International Joint Commission from an ­boundary disputes initial many toward other including areas, focus on river- toxic pollution in water These bodies. chapters raise important questions about the both capacity of challenges, and established realities new to adapt to institutions - respond as well as times new for frames new adopting in ing institutionally in to ways effective changing sets of environmental challenges. William Lowry’s examina- tion of river restoration via demonstrates dam removal dramatic differences Americanbetween and Canadian patternsnational different suggesting approaches, policy of framing and attendant policy development that can complicate shared management of rivers that cross the vs. Canadian highlight also chapters Other parallel. 49th American framing differences of this sort that that further governance establishing of challenge the complicate also effective. but is not only collaborative

he “hard” vs. “soft” law debate “soft” is central to vs. any “hard” he issue of environmental governance, and Many nations. multiple par- involving ones ticularly

evelopment and protection protection and Development resource a particular of as a primary has surfaced producing often concern… for outcomes uncertain protection. environmental

scholars have attempted to define Hard law commonly implies a high degree theseof formality distinctions. to assure mechanisms and in outlining policies defining their implementation Young and (Weiss Jacobson 1998; often the law takes Hard form of command-and- 1999). agencies executive to delegated then is that policy control T ernance of Gov Form - resto ecosystem of matters primarilyas framed are cases climate as such issues, newer For management. or ration competing energy, renewable of promotion and change frames are several of clearly which in the overlap play, kinds of characterizations noted If above. a region of attempts to for example, Canada and the United States, develop a carbon cap-and-trade system, is that moti- vated by a desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prod federal institutions to emulate their or a behavior, for preparing in advantage strategic and economic gain selection the might How economy? carbon-constrained supportpolitical policy for secure to used frames the of development influence the design of core elements of such an emissions trading regime? Barry Rabe’s ana­ lysis explores these competing frames and examines 8 Canada Institute occasional paper series sion, such as Remedial Action Plans (RAPs), rely almost havedimen- harderto initiatives a seem IJC that those Even action. take to governments national respective influence to information disseminating and gathering include law,tools soft in primary experiment its ing as ongo- law.an represents respects,IJC most the But,in levels, it outwardly possesses some of the presidential qualitiesand ofministerial hard prime the at appointed ers through a binational treaty and guided by commission- involved. Forged is it which in arena every nearly in institution such as the IJC epitomizes a soft law approach nance, whether binational or regional in scope. Even an gover- law soft of forms many of efficacy the of test a environmentalgovernance manyin respects constitutes hard law approaches toenvironmental governance. at in least reactionin part to perceived to shortcomings decades,recent in corners policy-making and scholarly many in embrace warm increasingly an received has law,soft defined,that broadly evidence considerable is 2009).Kraft and (Mazmanian law soft There with ated associ- more tools utilize and boundaries jurisdictional cross both that arrangements governance of promise the on focused has communities sustainable and ment develop- sustainable of area the in work considerable turn, In 2006). Cass 1990; (Ostrom norms governing shared establish to willingness and expertise localized reflect that initiatives collaborative more for potential evendamage can and jurisdictions multiple across sary neces- maybe not hardlawthat arrangements case the recent work on “common pool resources” has advanced laborative strategies (Haas 1990; Montpetit 2003). Much given area and work to share information and forge col- a in expertise considerable retain but notoriety public much without work to tend who professionals policy of communities,” bodies “epistemic so-called through sustained are networks these of Many coercion. than rather cooperation on rely that networks policy of ing work- the through often arrangements, authoritative (SpethandHaas2006). authority create a World Environmental Organization with broad environmental policy arenas, such as a 2006 proposal to multipleacrosswork can that institutions international ically leads to recommendations to establish major new or perceived failures by existing institutions. This - period response to recognition of new environmental problems The Canadian and cross-borderCanadian The of system American law,Soft contrast,in involveto tends and formal less in issued often are law hard of forms new for Calls Jones demonstrates a somewhat similar pattern in long- particular challenges in individual to lakes. responses Mark Sproule- varied for to allow flexible sufficiently be to appears keyspecies. of approach This protection in success considerable stable demonstrate a can that produced regime and path law soft a followed has instance, it is clear that a series of interwoven networks provided by Marc Gaden and Charles Krueger. In this is the of analysis the Commission Great Lakes Fisheries chapters. One notable “success story” in these chapters between coalition states, provinces and regions, some as reflectedin many of the involve that arrangements mon among pattern the many cross-border governance tion and enforcement capacity. This emerges as a com- networks and collaboration regularather than - formal version of a soft law approach that relies on multi-unit some employ volume this in examined arrangements all of the other cross-border environmental governance two nations. these involving concerns environmental trans-border on institution flagship the as visibility continuing and history lengthy its governance,despite IJC of tiveness this volume raise questions about the impact and effec- States.United the and Canada both Severalin chapters it environmentalcould constitute a serious problem for that declaration periodic and issue the of study limited arisen. haveOn climate change, concerns the IJC is largely cross-borderconfined to where plants power and environ­ with security border and overhomeland concerns ing mount- link to effort serious any undertake could IJC the ask”before to havewould States] United the and Canada [of governments Olson,“the Allan Governor conference by Commissioner and former North Dakota emphases.our or policies newduring initiate noted As 1989).respond (Gormley and sub-national governments and the private sector to national persuade if they only influential be will and havequalities which “hortatory” of reports,many and statements involvepolicy IJC broad the of outputs icy these local remediation efforts. Instead, the pol- primary subfederal-levelto governmentsand federal various by lacks any capacity to mandate any allocation of resources has few funds of its own to facilitate implementation and influential in each designated Area of Concern. The IJC are that fromconstituents suasion exclusively moral on The IJC is not alone in this regard, however. Nearly At the same time, the IJC has very limited capacity to mental issues such as the safety of dams, bridges, BARRY G. RABE february 2010 9 Political Political influence over agency staff is most evident it is clear that In agency some officialsinstances, use tees of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North of Partnership Prosperity and Security the of tees America that was launched in 2007 and retain some natural authorityresource, to engage in environmental, pos- it Is 2008). DiMento and (Craik arenas energy and gover- competing these from lessons any derive to sible effective most beginthe and distill to approaches nance to agency experts? for elected officials as opposed roles in the case of the International Joint As Commission. Stephen chapter Brooks’ demonstrates, politics is never far from the surface of IJC and deliberations indeed a great many commissioners are former elected officials, likely with strong partisan ties to the prime presidents and ministers who have appointed The them. 2008 surrounding controversy the unceremonious ouster of Bush the by Schornack Dennis Commissioner American Administration underscores the enduring political ten- sion facing commissioners when they wade into politi- In there is turn, that little evidence areas. cally-sensitive been to able commissionersuse their political have con- whether nections securing for from resources leverage, federal authorities the or in absent prodding not are subfederal officials or Political regional action. into entities more allow to appear chapters other most but cases other autonomy to policy either professionals, working inter- nally or in some collaboration with other institutions. their latitude to foster again innovation, perhaps most evident in Marc discussion Gaden’s of fisheries gover- But capacity nance. or willingness to use such author- ity is not consistent across cases, particularly Canadian Indeed, provinces. among one theme that emerges across chaptersseveral is the penchant for to provinces lag behind state counterparts in policy and innovation This raises important questions concern- development. ing differing sub-national capacity Debora by and chapters in commitment, identified themes given especially Van Nijnatten and Donald Alper whereby clusters of border border policy raises some sobering cerning questions con- the efficacy of soft-lawthe growing approaches, chorus of scholars despite and activists who have endorsed such a direction. legislatures, ­legislatures, nce erna of Gov ss

fundamental question in - environmental gover nance experiments around the world involves elected by driven to are the extent they which

Cross-border Cross-border environmental governance employs Crossing national boundaries, “trans-governmental officials and their appointees or policy professionals who who professionals policy or appointees their and officials degree some enjoy and expertise through authority gain this Invariably, process. political the from independence of beginning with raises questions an of principal-agency, obvious distinction whereby all Canadian environment and natural resource ministers (both federal - and provin cial) are elected members of their respective a range of leadership The mechanisms. IJC model consid- have to tend is who commissioners by dominated erable experience in elective politics or very close ties to various prime ministers and In presidents. contrast, these in described arrangements governance other many State and chapters pro- are “staff-driven.” clearly more some regard; this in gamut the arrangementsrun vincial are heavily influencedby formal engagement between large- are others whereas governors and premiers elected find who officials agency mezzo-level of working the ly exercise they where areas out carve and cause common Rabe 2004). influence (Carpenterconsiderable 2001; for allowing contexts, many in emerged have networks” direct collaboration between officials who hold com- neighboring in ministries and agencies in positions mon of illustration recent One 2004). (Slaughter jurisdictions this senior involves bureaucrats in the Canada, United States and Mexico who comprise specialized commit- whereas their American counterparts are political appoin- political counterpartsare American their whereas to length considerable to go states some least at and tees isolate their lead agencies direct from political influence. Ian In Rowlands, the case of energy policy examined by for example, all provinces have ministriesa form maintain states of many whereas officials elected headed by commission that governance expressly limits the powers and legislators.of governors A Proce term efforts to reduce the threat to Great Lakes fish But these cases the sea lamprey. species, an invasive by largely remain as exceptional we among our chapters, shall this discuss body further. Collectively, of cross- 10 Canada Institute occasional paper series T Ge but 2008 through engagement much demonstrated governmentpolicy, federal change neither climate of analysisRabe’s In experience. American earlier from may borrow that provinces, select a reframing through in least change,at to beginning be may process This authority.that use to reluctant more provenfar have but counterparts state their American than innovation for latitude greater far have clearly ministries vincial of river restoration policy, for example, Canadian pro- Lowry’schapters.In these analysis in frequency some with recurs but 1999) Rabe 2003;(Boyd previously surfaced has relations environmental cross-border in there isanorthward pressure.” things;do to provinces push to tend states “American As VanNijnatten stated at the Wilson Center conference, ious regions that straddle portions of the national border. provinces and states assume ever-expanding roles in var cialcounterpartsretainmore bargaining far power with in principals Washington their whereas to their Canadian provin- more respond generally must states American borders; national across policy common and laboration col- sustaining of complexity the to Canada.adds This and negotiable approach between nation and province in in the United States as opposed to a more devolutionary state approachregulatoryandbetween nationand ized central- more a favor to tended consistently fairly has decision, court or implementation, agency legislation, area.Nonetheless, federalimprint,the whetherthrough although this varies somewhat by time period and policy 1995), equivalents2007;Canadian (Rabe their Harrison thanlocalities and states on uniformity greater impose to tended have policies environmental American eral, gen- In units. local provincial,state,or to governments central from delegated authority of degrees the in ences systems,federal formal very differ- with significant often previoussection, both Canada and the United States are Washington,the inD.C. noted fashion. as someBut in Ottawaandtogether bring thatpolicies on only focus h ise f osbe aain tts s laggard a as status Canadian possible of issue The ogr ewe to hscly asv ad eco- a and imply might economies massiveadvanced nomically physically two between governance environmental shared of issue he aphic Sc ope fGovernance - form ofcross-borderform collaboration. any complicates clearly which engagement, Canadian in lag frequent a be to appears there that areas policy environmental across looking when striking remains it But development. policy of types various through market”the resolvedand environmentalits challenges “cornered has States United the that suggested be it can cases these of none In neighbors. American with governments,vincial Ontario,including in comparison pro- and federal Canadian of capacity and mitment protection policy, major questions emerge about com- water of Johns’analysis Carolyn area.In this to to turn beginning only are provinces most collabora- whereas tion, regional multi-state on focus increasing withemissions, gas greenhouse range reduce to wide policies of a adopted have states the Multiple in interim. players major became states American many that feature some “bottom-up” initiatives cross-borderquality, of magnitude usually involving sheer the is ters such aunifyingfocalpointas theGreat Lakes Basin. of absence the states,in evenprovincesand of clusters other between agreements negotiated through evident increasingly also is governance environmental cross- border Basin, the Outside Commission. Lakes Great the through concerns quantity water or Fisheries Commission Lakes Great the through fisheries whether governance,environmentalLakes Great of dimensions approaches. various regional address for chapters Many sub-national boundaries and poses and unique opportunities national defies which Basin, Lakes Great the on activity,course,this focuses of of deal nations.good A both in units all than provincesrather of states and ters clus- involves that cross- governance environmental considerable border deterred not has nations within more likely aheavy toface handfrom Washington. developmentnotedabove, recalcitrantas statesareoften maycontribute to the pattern of provincial lag in policy powers federal limited given Ottawa from rent-seeking maximal for penchant provincial this Indeed,Ottawa. An unexpected finding emerging from these chap- these from emerging finding unexpected An decentralization in variation time,this same the At BARRY G. RABE february 2010 11 These concerns surfaced to some extent during the There is little evidence that Canada has felt com- American political economy or losing the capacity to forge an independent course in domestic and envi- foreign to Applied 2007). Stuart 2006; (McDougall policy come to quick be Canada would protection, ronmental into line with any American position in the environ- mental arena or would both nations maintain distinct styles and forms This of issue policy? tends to become particularly salient when nations some the explore two form of closer economic partnership, barriersof reduction services. and goods of trade the to most notably And there are some historic examples of convergence, most Canadian frequently involving decisions to emu- certain in neighborsAmerican their degree some to late (Hoberg 1997). policy areas deliberations leading to the 1988 Agreement and Trade Canada-U.S. Free the 1994 NorthAmerican Free Agreement Environmental Trade concerns, (NAFTA). eclipsed were to some extent by other however, issues, welfare social the of structure the in differences namely state and delivery of The services such as medical care. one environmental development emerging from these agreements was largely at American behest, through the creation of the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (NACEC) ­agreement as to the NACEC NAFTA accords. was pro- a side- moted by the Clinton Administration American commitment concerns about address uneven primarily to States United the between protection environmental to on creation its Since Mexico. southernit and neighbor, role, modest very a played has NACEC tri-partitebasis, a uniforma develop effortsto its in notable most perhaps It nations. three the across emissions toxic on inventory environmental of areas most in profile low fairly a retains concern and is arguably still searching This for a clear mis- creation. its after half a and decade a than more sion when 2009, June in visibility new gain did organization its annual meeting of the lead environment ministers in the Canada, United States and Mexico gained new saliency given the growing possibility of cross-border collaboration on energy and climate change. positions, Americanenvironmental to adhere to pelled either in developing domestic policy or working on cross-border issues. Indeed, a theme that emerges in a - distinctive Canadian continuing is chapters of number Internationally, styles. American governance from ness for example, American repudiation of the Kyoto In turn, many other chapters examine some varia- Addressing Asymmetries in Governance Asymmetries Addressing A long-standing concern in many dimensions of the relationship between Canada and the United given involves asymmetry, the States much larger economic and population base This of has the long latter. led to Canadian concerns about being subsumed by a the into hege- homogenized becoming either neighbor, monic tion on this kind of regionalism, either involving semi- either involving tion on this kind of regionalism, networks. loosely-structured more or agreementsformal most entities, individual of indication some see also We with way” own their “going states, or provinces notably - pro of examples many in emerges This efforts. unilateral circumstances, localized to tailored policy state or vincial - poli differing many the of analysis Rowlands’ in as such to developed and states have cies that various provinces their within found energy renewable of sources promote tai- well may states and provinces Individual boundaries. lor policies to maximize the likelihood that any eco- boundaries, their within accrue will development nomic regardless This of overall environmental consequences. phenomenon also appears in other is cases there where a defined and driving such issue as framed, in Quebec, where LePrestre suggests that any environmental con- siderations in unilateral policy environmental taken by a back seat to issues of establish- take may the province identity. quasi-national a and independence political ing lead the take often states or provinces individual Clearly, in York such as Californiain their and federation, New the American case, but Quebec occupies unique ter- ritory in this and regard, remains fiercely independent with interdependencies environmental strong its despite and the United States. other provinces two or more neighboring subfederal-level jurisdictions. jurisdictions. neighboring more or subfederal-level two As VanNijnatten notes, “cross-border regions” have emerged across the Canadian-American many border, with significantenvironmental governance emphases. She demonstrates substantial variability across regions, contrasting the these Great Lakes with the sug- and the Pacific Northeast, the Prairies-Great Plains, West, gesting regional variation be may greater than national differences. Alper’s chapter on Westthe high- Pacific lights the vast range of environmental policy experi- ments under way in that region, taking many distinct forms but further suggesting a growing trend toward carving up the binational relationship into a series of rather distinct regional entities. 12 Canada Institute occasional paper series I Impac its (or Canada of idea above, the noted Canada.As in steps similar by followed been not have regulation a number of major in air and water reforms American provinces and both federal governments. Domestically, decadefirst after Kyoto,amidfrom generalindifference lated a serious policy response to climate change in the - formu have to entities only the are states American demonstrates, chapter Rabe’s year.As following the Protocol in 2001 was followed by Canadian ratification can we say about the environmental impact of the the of impact commission and all subsequent efforts at environmental cross-­ the about say we can ronmental “outcomes.” envi-and labor policy-focused that betweenof ship all relation- the of consideration trends,less quality much environmental overall of documents these in analysis little finds often contrast,2002).one In (Rabe time of the number of inspections completed to in a given period issued permits of number the from ranging sures, mea- such with packed notoriously are reports annual state or provincial lead environmental unit, for example, 2006;1990;2008).a Moynihan(WilsonRadin For ed complet- work of volume or taken the actions of number namely “outputs,” measuring with obsessed are organizations environmentalpolicy that contend some Indeed,agencies. and policies various of performance evaluate to which in area difficult particularly a is icy haps further attesting to some form ofeffectiveness. attestingtosomeform haps further per- arrangements, these of transformation far-reaching for publicdemands or appeals fewbeen formal certainly soperhaps that is an indicator that all is well. Therehave institutions receive little media or scholarly attention and translates into salutary outcomes. Most of these governing mightunderstandablebe assumeto that thisallofeffort territory. It geographic and area policy both in another of governance arrangements, many of which overlap one authorsdemonstrate an incredibly sizable and diverse set systems of any two national on neighbors the globe. Our densely-packedenvironmentalmost governance the of One century after the creation of the IJC,what the of creation the after century One But But scholars have long noted that environmental pol Canada and the activity,United governanceStates clearly of would volume have for one measure proxy a is agreementsinstitutionsand of numbersheer f t ofGovernance border - power relations.” national in asymmetries equalize level to this “tend to roleregions,of states, provinces,and policyin shifts as toward convergence may be mitigated by the expansive Alper notes in his chapter, any national-level pressures nance by the United States over Canada. Moreover, as domi- literal into translates relationship asymmetrical an that indication little find chapters. we Thus, many a as in remaining provinces) emerges “laggard” sorts of rcs, pol-oe fns ite vdne ofsuccess, evidence little finds Sproule-Jonesprocess, Moretwothan Remedial the into decades Plan Action protection. environmental and preservation resource as such newerconcerns address to capacity scant show allocation”of and “full era an in outdated increasingly appear they But place. in largely remain ago decades seven than more plans allocation water up setting for with changing realities. In that instance, the mechanisms haveIJC up catch to adjusting difficulty enormous had the as such institutions existing that clear is regions,it Heinmiller’s discussion of water protection in the Prairie outcomes.directon with impact cases,some In as such concerns many raised and outcomes salutary of dence lamprey,evi- sea little the detected against authors our assault the of assessment comparable Jones’somewhat comes in the case of Great and Sproule- Lakes fisheries out- of account positive Gaden’s from impacts.Aside deal of it butself-celebratory thin on evidence of actual good a with commissions, and agencies individual by produced is literature existing the of outcomes.Much of environmental hard evidence find to difficult very that have beeninfluenced by thoseactions? it possible to identify actual environmental mental governance in Canada and the United States, is environ cross-border ­ define to collectively used be could like that the and memoranda-of-understanding, guidances, consultations, hearings, public ferences, of all the reports, declarations, covenants,including outputs, agreements, of con- all measures side possible the the to of puts respectfully one if short, In ity? a make activity this difference”of bit environmentalwhopping on qual- of all “does contributors, of one our of words the In governance? environmental Many of our contributors to this volume found it found volume this to contributors our of Many ­outcomes BARRY G. RABE february 2010 13 mental gover- mental or the ss f ss ance ern al Gov Quite aside from the performance of recent decades, decades, performancerecent the of from aside Quite Even when one turns to the great new hope of cross- of hope turnsnew greatone the when to Even capacity to respond to changing circumstances? Or do these cling variousto established turf players and tradi- and needs pressing to oblivious thereby functions, tional future challenges? Our contributors suggest that much ­ environ cross-border of patchwork the of nance is difficult toevaluate and may indeed be lack- impact discern difficult to It remains collective any ing. of This this does collage not of mean efforts. failure or does underscore but case inadequacy in each and every the need to look afresh at this arena and possibly con- chal- these face to arrangements governance other sider decades. lenges in future these chapters also raise sobering concerns about the capacity of existing governance arrangements to adapt to and address emerging environmental challenges. It is the nature of this volume that many chapters intro- duce major new challenges and give little indication that existing institutions are adapting or even IJC the begin-Is ways. meaningful in them to respond to ning capable of modifying its approach to river governance “full allocation has been as Heinmiller noted, that, now reached” and new approaches may be in order? Can the tapestry of institutions responsible for all aspects of water quality adjust to address such challenges as non- water and transfer, pollutant cross-media pollution, point Does sense it to make maintain diversion? RAPs when asked Johns As date? to little so accomplished have they pro- RAP the at been have “We conference, duringour cess for a long Is time. twenty years the beginning or electricity and transportation, with significant impacts air emissions. change and other on climate border environmental governance, through expanded is there little very the continent, for across regions roles evidence of positive particu- environmental staggering, is outputs sheer of measure the outcomes. again, Once and the Northeast. West, Pacific larly in the Great Lakes, most nor chapters, Alper or VanNijnatten the neither But of those that examine some aspect of the activity of pace Great frenetic this Lakes, that indication much provide outcomes. environmental translates into improved redne t and Prepa tive Impac

cholars have long concluded that most - govern mental agencies and related institutions tend to approach immortality. Herbert Kaufman con-

But the centennial of the IJC us prompts to ask not Beyond Beyond the orbit of the IJC, other chapters raise only about the performance of individual institutions but but institutions individual of performance the about only also or, consider impact, their environmental collective nec- of indicators viable there Are thereof. lack possibly, internal as well as institutions across collaboration essary firmed this pattern in the United States in earlier decades earlier in States United the pattern in firmed this either in change subsequent of evidence little is there and It nation is (Kaufman 1976). todifficult such eliminate routines after operation, into enter of they once institutions absence the in least at established, are lines dividing and some cataclysm that poor reveals performance and trig- Pralle (Baumgartnergers initiatives and new 1993; Jones 2006). For nearly four decades, for example, reformers to the correct attempted original that flaws design have continue to leave the Environmental U.S. Protection Agency deeply fragmented by medium, function, - and envi on impact its termsof in suspect highly and region, in alone not is EPA the course, Of outcomes. ronmental similar been Many critiquesraised con- have this regard. Canada as as well outside entities cerning Environment At the same time, protection. of environmental the arena many of also the have existing institutions responsible for governance some environmental cross-border of form resilient in proven the face of even needed adaptation, as the sheer number of institutions and individuals with and proliferate to continued has process this in role some potential competition for turf has increased. S ec Coll comparable comparable Water concerns. quality concerns endure, Ontarioin aftermathtragicthe particularlyevents of in partic - uneven, remains restoration River Wisconsin. and remain rates emission gas Greenhouse Canada. in ularly and nations both in basis capita per a on high incredibly the rate of since growth the 1990s has been substantial to a cleaner set of electricity Transition in both nations. leav- best, at haltingly but begun has sources energy and for sources fossil-fuel on reliant heavily nations both ing with a particularly dismal performance record among or sub-national boundaries. national cross RAPs that ntury of Environment entury C Next 14 Canada Institute occasional paper series Cass, Loren. TheFailure of andEuropeanClimate American Carpenter, DanielP. TheForgingofBureaucratic Autonomy. Caldwell, Lynton K., ed. EcosystemManagementinthe Boyd, David R. Unnatural Law: RethinkingCanadian Baumgartner, Frank, and BryanD. Jones. Agendasand Axelrod, Robert, andScott Atran. “Reframing Sacred Reference structure.alternative It an far-reaching with replacement or reform for either need the suggesting evident, increasingly is Commission the of “submergence”the noted,has BrooksCommission. JointAs International across institutions. integration various for greater Sproule-Jones’of discussion “synchronicity”call its and with coalesce to appear would agement.”this turn, In funding and expertise to achieve effective resource man- stakeholders,mobilize and units territorial fragmented that “institutions and processes are needed that cut across regions.with and consistent states is it Alper’sBut note involving fromemerges efforts decentralized provinces, shift toward centralization or the loss of innovation that effort.extremeof requirean not integration need This achievingand greater acrossting boundaries traditional cut- professionalsof capablepolicy and institutions ing effects ofclimatechange? the minimizing in world the lead to States United the emissions,gas and greenhouse Canada in enabling thus reductions significant achieve to methods finding and transition toward cleaner and renewable energy sources promoting for regimes governance viable establishing end?”the Have wein even surface the scrape to begun Press, 2006. Change Policy. Albany: StateUniversity ofNew York Princeton: University Press, Princeton 2001. York, 1988. Great LakesBasin. Albany: State University ofNew ColumbiaPress,British 2003. Environmental LawandPolicy. Vancouver: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Instability in Politics .American Chicago: University of Values,”, NegotiationJournal July 2008. One starting point would be a candid reviewthe candid of a would be point starting One Looking ahead, one great challenge will be develop- s of cross-border environmental governance. century past the not—workdid did—and what during from lessons distill to chance a also but period current ties to re-frame issues to respond to the challenges of the ventional boundaries. They provide not only - opportuni acrosscon- linkages and bridges build to opportunities unique present and ramifications environmental with provincial counterparts. All of these are also interwoven and state as well Congresses,as and Parliaments future developmentnomic of likelyagenda will the dominate national security, climate change, water access, and eco- Energy,issues. vital other with linkage through shape newtake also might States United the and Canada ing governance approaches. new considering for come has time the that suggestion expression of respect for rolethe historic of the IJC but with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s June 2009 like look in the concluding might chapter. world post-IJC This is entirely a consistent what even and models alternative examine to begins volume. Brooks this in byissues,other many arewhich of chapters in outlined eclipsed been since long has established was it which for agenda the of much that and commissioner IJC an as served ever has environmentalist no that striking is Hammitt, James K. “CFCs: A Look Across Two Haas, Peter M. SavingtheMediterranean: The Politicsof Gormley, William. Taming theBureaucracy. Princeton: Durnil, Gordon KTheMakingofaConservative Craik, Neil, andJoseph DiMento. “Environmental the Future, 2004. and Europe, 158-174. Washington, DC: Resources for InstrumentsandOutcomes intheUnitedState Comparing Continents.” InChoosingEnvironmentalPolicy: Columbia University Press, 1990. EnvironmentalCooperation.International New York: University Press,Princeton 1989. Press, 1995. Environmentalist. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity 8 (2008): 479-512. of North America.” Law ofInternational ChicagoJournal Partnership andProsperity Lessons from theSecurity State:Cooperation inthe(Partially) Disaggregated rn-odr niomna gvrac involv- governance environmental Trans-border BARRY G. RABE february 2010 15 Statehouse The and Greenhouse: , edited by Donald F. Kettl, Kettl, Donald F. edited by GovernanceIn Environmental , 2002. Institution, Brookings DC: Washington, 14-57. 413-431. The Journal 37 (2007): of Federalism Publius: University Georgetown DC: Washington, Revolution. 2006. Press, 2004. Princeton Press, University Island DC: Washington, Environmental Governance. 2006. Press, Johns Baltimore: America. Canadians in Upper North Wilson Woodrow and Press Hopkins University 2007. Center Press, International Strengthening Compliance with Countries: MIT Press, MA: Cambridge, Accords. Environmental 1998. 1990. and Causal Connections Environmental Regimes: MIT Press, MA: Cambridge, Mechanisms. Behavioral 1999. ______. “Permitting, Prevention, and Integration.” Integration.” and Prevention, “Permitting, ______. and the Bush Era.” Policy “Environmental ______. Challenging the Performance Management Beryl. Radin, Princeton: Order. World A New Anne-Marie. Slaughter, Global Haas. M. and Peter Gustave, James Speth, Americans and Dispersed Relations: Reginald C. Stuart, Engaging Jacobson. K. Harold and Edith Brown, Weiss, Basic Books, York: New . Bureaucracy Q. James. Wilson, of International The Effectiveness ed. Oran, Young, Montreal: McGill–Queen’s University University McGill–Queen’s Montreal: is professor of public policy at the Gerald Ford R. School of Public Policy at the University of abe R Press, 1997. Press, 1976. Institution, Brookings DC: Washington, edition]. Cambridge, [revised Communities Sustainable 2009. MIT Press, MA: 2003. of British Columbia Press, DC: Washington, Constructing Information and Reform. 2008. Press, University Georgetown 1990. Cambridge Press, University 2006. Press, University Georgetown in American and Canadian Innovation Explaining In and Regulatory Integration.” Prevention Pollution 288-306. Policy Studies Journal 27 (1999): of British Columbia Press, 1995. of British Columbia Press, Lakes in the Great Democracy Ecological Grassroots Toward 1992. of Michigan Press, University Arbor: Ann Basin. In Degrees Comparing States.” Canada and the United the United States in a Changing Canada and of Freedom: 341-385. World, Barry Miller the at professor visiting a and Institution Brookings the at fellow senior nonresident a also is He Michigan. Center at the University of Virginia. He is the author of four including books, (Brookings Institution Press, 2004), which received the Caldwell Award Award the Caldwell which received 2004), Institution Press, American Climate Policy (Brookings Emerging Politics of Protection Environmental U.S. the from from American the Political Association Award Science for the best Protection book In published Climate 2006, on a policy. environmental receive to scientist social first the became Rabe Agency. Are Governmental Immortal? Institutions Herbert. Kaufman, Toward eds. Kraft, and Michael E. A., Daniel Mazmanian, University Vancouver: Misplaced Distrust. Eric. Montpetit, Management: The Dynamics of Public Donald P. Moynihan, Cambridge: Governing the Commons. Elinor. Ostrom, DC: Washington, Digging In. Branching Out, Sarah. Pralle, and Entrepreneurship: “Federalism Barry G. Rabe, . Vancouver: University University Vancouver: the Buck. Passing Kathryn. Harrison, Under RAPs: Zarull eds. A. and Michael H. John Hartig, the Environment: “Governing George. Hoberg, The Canadian-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty, which marks its cen- tennial this year, is a remarkable achievement of foreign relations and environmental policy making. It broke new ground by resolving, on a platform of bilateral equality, a number of transboundary water con- flicts and establishing a broad regime for the joint management of water resources across the Canada-U.S. border. Yet the record also shows that the International Joint Commission, the binational environmental authority brought into existence by the treaty, is at risk of becoming marginalized or sidelined on matters of sharp controversy and consequence. In this article, the conundrum between the perceived and real impact of the IJC is explored in interviews with past IJC commissioners and chairs, who were questioned about their personal characteristics for the job, how they regard their role, and their differing viewpoints. Even as the IJC enters a second century, there is debate about its institutional purpose and scope. Ultimately that could prove constructive, as one of the greatest threats to the IJC’s relevance is its own lack of definition and clarity, enhancing the possibility it will become lost or submerged within a crowded sea of institutions devoted to studying, advocating and regulating cross-border environmental problems.

Chapter 2: hen the International Joint Commission was created by The International the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, it was the institution Wfor the management of transboundary environmental rela- tions between Canada and the United States. Since then the map of Joint Commission: institutions and processes for studying, advising, advocating, resolving and regulating these relations has become vast and complicated, in part Convergence, a reflection of the explosive growth in the number and complexity of the issues that arise in transboundary environmental governance. The Divergence or IJC continues to be an important part of this network of cross-border environmental management. Submergence? The IJC and the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 express the possibility of convergence between the policies of Canada and the Stephen Brooks United States, institutionalizing a decision-making process based on University of Windsor equal representation of the treaty’s signatories and the idea that com- missioners should rise above mere national interests in deliberating and recommending on matters of shared concern between the two countries. But the selection of IJC commissioners for each of the national sections of the IJC has always been the prerogative of the respective governments, creating at least the potential that the back- grounds and outlooks of Canadian and American commissioners might differ in significant ways. The possibility of divergence on the Commission is, therefore, created by the manner in which commis- sioners are selected. Over the one hundred years of the IJC’s history, the Commission’s status as the preeminent institution for the man- agement of transboundary environmental matters has been diluted, not necessarily through any failures on its part, but as a result of the 16 multiplication of cross-border institutions, agreements and process- STEPHEN BROOKS february 2010 17 s s an The Boundary Waters Treaty Treaty Waters Boundary The a rather and remains was of in terms treaty exceptional and decision-making the rules for established it structures environmental transboundary governance. decision-making body, the IJC, whose form was excep- formwhose was IJC, the body, decision-making the form, and function both of matters in Indeed, tional. broke Treaty new Article Boundaryground. Waters II the in treatment national of right reciprocal a establishes case of injury arising from interference with or diver- sion from boundary waters, stating that each country “the same shall rightshave and entitle the injured par- ties to the same legal remedies as if such injury took place in the country where such diversion or interfer- Article III ence limits occurs.” the of sovereignty each diversion any for approval IJC requiring by government or obstruction that “the affects natural or level flow of manage transboundary environmental issues between Canada and the United to States, the extent that the 1909 treaty assigns it this function and governments have been willing to permit the Commission to play is necessarily the tension between limited by this role, possi- But divergence. and convergence of forces these importantmore even beensubmergencehasthebly of theparticularly IJC, since the under1960s, a growing tide of transboundary This processes and institutions. contributions the of many in described is factor second of this book and is a theme that we return to in the final chapter. ty and the IJC a ters Trea a icie ergence of Pol or the Conv

t is in the nature of international treaties t to is impose in treaties of the nature international obligations and on rules and include establish often rights Treaties for the - govern them. sign that ments The Boundary Waters Treaty Article of Treaty III 1909, of The Waters Boundary But importantaccomplishments. already were These This chapter examines the forces of convergence which creates the was International Joint Commission, and remains a rather exceptional treaty in terms of the rules and decision-making structures that it established for transboundary environmental governance. Signed disputes border of management the when era duringan rep- latter Canada—the and States United the between and prominent a Kingdom—was United the by resented between relationship bilateral the of aspect thorny often a resolved Treaty these Waters the countries, Boundary number of Thesespecific included conflicts. a general the from diversion water on exceptions, some with ban, agreement and V) (Article Falls the above River Niagara on the apportionment of water in the MarySt. River watersheds. and Milk River the Treaty went much further than the resolution of a couple of longstanding water It disputes. established what may well have been an unprecedentedly broad regime for the joint management of water resources border across under the the Canada-U.S. auspices of a mechanisms for dispute resolution to and or, other formssovereignty national Diminished of decision-making. in the area sovereignty shared it a express bit differently, by covered a treaty at is, least in theory if not in always structures and rules agreed-upon the of result the practice, creates. that the treaty I and divergence that operate within the IJC and that are are that and IJC thewithinoperate that divergence and between exist that contradictions built-in the to linked its form—which stresses national equality and impar- tiality—and its function, which inevitably affected by national differences in outlook must and inter- be to IJC the of ability the that concludes paper The ests. es, es, formal and informal. An undeniable submergence its has some taken place argue, status in and, the IJC’s importance, as the field of players engaged in- trans more become has governance environmental boundary and competitive. crowded f itution Inst ry W ry da The Boun 18 Canada Institute occasional paper series practical matter nothing can be accomplished without accomplished be can nothing matter practical be consensual. Unanimity is not a requirement, but as a that the decision-making style of the IJC would have to clear became quickly veryCommission, it the on tion Convention.representa-national of Givenequality the Hague the XLVof under Article umpire independent an to submitted be then would which reports separate submit may sections national the which sioners, failing ence also requires the support of a of majority commis- refer- a on based report a that provide also X and IX Articles and principle majority the to according cases Waters Treaty Boundary the specifies thatof the Article CommissionVIII shallcountry). decide her or his in national section chair who would preside over a meetings having country (each representatives three assigned were States United the and Canada both that fact the was IJC the about novel was(3). What States United the and (2) member),Canada (1 Kingdom United the from representation with earlier years several created been had Commission Boundary Alaskan new. The not was countries both from representation with sion the in specified Treaty. commis- bilateral a of idea The environmentalgovernance activities transboundary the functionmightgobeyondernance water. in its drafting anticipated the possibility that the IJC’s gov- involvedthose of some that suggests issue transboundary the Treaty expressly provides for referrals on virtually any border,theinterests ofeitherside on that mere factthe or government either on binding way no in be would recommendations and report IJC’s the both.Although byreferencea from either national government fromor frontier between common [them].” the along other,This function the may be triggered of inhabitants the to or other the to relation in [country] either of interests or obligations,rights, the involving States] United the and [Canadabetween differencearising of matters or tions ques- other “anyon report and study the Treatyto by managementwaterresources.of empowered is IJCThe transboundary governance that goes far beyond the joint ArticleassignsIXpotentially aIJCthe sweeping role in border.the Finally,of side other the on interests of nity IJC to establish conditions for the protection and indem- natural level of waters on either side,” and authorizing damsthe or other obstructions “involving the elevation of approval construction IJC the offor requiring by eignty the sover- national on limitation another yet imposes VIII line.”the of side otherArticle the on watersboundary No less exceptional was the form chosen to outcarry boundary environmental governance.environmental glow-boundary Alongside trans- in effectiveness and importance Commission’s the on judgments of range the is IJC the with ciated asso- puzzles the of one powers.But important quite be to seem what with institution exceptional rather a to up adds it implications: transboundary with matter any virtually on recommendations making and gating investi- for scope vast potentially a and representation received suchareference. never has arbitration.IJC binding The for Commission matters—notwaterjustary management issues—tothe transbound- refer to States United the and Canada of Article X of the Treaty, which authorizes the governments decision-making authority is also conferred on the IJC by boundary waters on the other side of the [border].” Final tions or diversions that affect “the natural level or flow of III of the Treaty involving applications for water - obstruc under arising Article cases IJC’s in final be will decisions turned by national governments. Article IV states that the or to over appealed maybe and not - arefinal IJC the of decisions Finally,parallel. without certain almost is that fore, a degree of independence formal from governments national section its of the commission. to instructions The IJC enjoys, issue there to - government national either the that Treatyfact empowerthe not is relateddoes and governmentor IJC.tion the to them nominated Second much less as loyal for waterwhatever carriers administra- respectiveadvocatestheir of for that interests,as national role their view to not are commissioners that indication duties imposed upon him under this treaty.” This is a clear declaration” that he or she shall “impartially perform the Treaty,commissionereachrequired isasign to “solemn the of XII mention.Article under First, warrant body ofbinationalconsensus. some degree Final authority on Final some authority matters, equality of national decision-making a as IJC the of features other Three degree of bilateral consensus. accomplished withoutsome matter, nothing can be requirement, butasapractical Unanimity isnot a STEPHEN BROOKS february 2010 19 ions of st ture on the IJC a s: Sugge The stakes were certainly high in the case of the Most volumes World in “Canada longstanding of Affairs, International the Canadian seriesAffairs” make only brief and passing mention Institute University’s Carleton of issue annual no In IJC. of the of between series, Nations” Among “Canada prestigious is there a 1996 single and mention 2006, of the IJC, despite the fact that every year there relations. are of Canada-U.S. to aspects chaptersdevoted Theleading textbooks Americanon foreign policy passing mention to the IJC. no or only make Anevaluation ofwellhowthe IJC has done its job a diplomatic and partisan one to deal with all these 9). matters.”(Bothwell:

boundary environmental issues struck the shoals up of - real clean to regime” ity In early. 1918 the transnational IJC issued what “ambitious Robert an Bothwell as describes so ambitious,” “The idea was he Although Lakes. pollution in the Great buried.” promptly was it “that Bothwell, says effec- more much be to proved IJC the that acknowledges damages awarded it when later decade a than more just tive a by caused pollution of a as result side American the on a was case this that argues Bothwell the B.C., legacy its Trail, as at smelter leave not did and one egregious particularly - environ transboundary of management joint robust of sort mental issues that Root has envisaged. Columbia the to led finally that negotiations protracted ■ ■ is beyond the scope of this chapter. In any case, such such In case, any the scope of this is chapter. beyond to be based on some mea- have would an evaluation surable criteria concerning the func- Commission’s tions, including original and evolving expectations for the IJC and the possibilities realisticallythe open Commission to to influence in various ways- out- gover environmental transboundary to related comes It a difficult challenge. the least, to say This is, nance. should less however, be, problematic to examine and assessthe IJC model of transboundary environmental governance with an eye to identifying the on the Commission. and divergence forcesconvergence of ry Liter ry onda tional Difference Canada and the United States: The Politics of Politics The States: United the and Canada

he he terms of the the Treaty, Boundary Waters original aspirations held for the IJC, and the quick- that decision-making consensus of model ing Na solv

Elihu Root’s original and ambitious vision for the In his book, book, his In the “over Robert observes that Bothwell , Partnership transboundary of number fair a resolved IJC the years But he also the that expresses view the annoyances.” - reflect importance, marginal rather of is Commission it” of people…know few “relatively that fact the in ed and that it has fallen far short of the hopes of Elihu Root, the American secretary of state who signed and who Treaty expressed the the Waters Boundary wish that “set it an would example to the world by from distinguished as Board judicial a of creation the Roughly forty years after the signing of the Boundary Boundary the of signing the after years “[The forty Roughly that view his stated Brown G.W. Treaty, Waters peaceful for agency single important most the is] IJC the and Canada between established far so settlement 26) (Brown: United States.” Writing just after the completion of the Columbia United the and Canada between negotiations Treaty La Forest referred States, G.V. to the “transcendent importance” of the IJC in Canada-U.S. relations. 37) (Deener:

IJC as an impartial arbiter for the management of trans- of management the for arbiter impartial an as IJC - conver suggest all hallmark Commission’s the became ly and Canada of outlooks and interests the between gence of But literature much the secondary States. the United with associated directly not those by written IJC, the on in occurred has divergence that suggests Commission, the cases where the issue being dealt with was controversial as being by governments and perceived the were stakes coun- two the of interests the when happens What high. tries on the IJC come into serious represented conflict?

Sec Divergence in the T Re ■ ■ ■ ing tributes to its significance and accomplishments one one accomplishments and significance its to tributes ing critical highly sometimes and dismissive encounters also assessments of Consider the the IJC. following evalua- observations: tions and 20 Canada Institute occasional paper series United States, Peter Dobellwrites: the and Canada between conflict of source a became what of resolution the in IJC’s part the on Reflecting and 1973. in 1972 damage flood widespread causing 1970s,early the waterLakesGreatlevelsin high the in time.involvedto issue fromtime such IJC One record to havebut theIJCappears beenonthesidelines. conflict,drawn-out this of resolution the in important governmentsand cess borderthe of sides wereboth on province.the U.S.pro- from The regulatory exported in exchange for an 80-year guarantee of electrical power provideto and Columbia British to compensation cash on until 1984 when Seattle agreed not to raise the dam dragged issue dam. The the that raising from Columbia result would British in flooding additional the to stakes are high. The Canadian government was opposed the when decision-making for venue important an be what it seems to reveal about the potential of the IJC to foranannual cashpayment.flooding in return deal by which British Columbia had agreed to increased an therefore dam’sthe of extension 1967 a reservoiror Canada and into dam the of raising a approved had that decision 1942 the either with inconsistent” “not be should recommendations IJC’s the that stated and proceed should project the whether on commenting from commissioners the prohibitedexpresslyreference border between Columbia and British the Washington. at Dam The Ross the raising of environ- consequences the mental of study the IJC the to refer to agreed governments American and Canadian the when ple, exam- case,for the instructions.was government This to similar rather limits impose may Commission the to reference a of government, terms either specific the other decision-makingprocesses andvenues. for preference in sidelined be would IJC wide,the too gap between the IJC’s view and that of the politicians was of the Treaty, a fact that just seemed to confirm IJC, that ifGeneral A.G.L. the the outspokenly critical McNaughton, was of section Canadian the of chair former The negotiations. government-to-government through out workedhowever,was do to what determinationof the 1944 and issued two this time. reports during In the end, struction and flooding of the Columbia River valley since con- dam of consequences environmental the studying in involved been had IJC 1961.The River in Treaty Contentious, high-stakes issues do, however, reach the for interesting particularly is case Dam Ross The fromAlthough the IJC operates without instruction do, theIJCessentiallyabandonedissue in1977. interests. Unable to reach binational agreement on what to and the United States, was strongly opposed by community made an international park, jointly administered by Canada be Roberts Point that proposal Its Roberts.Point at lem and recommend what to do about the water supply prob- TheIJChadestablished binationala committee studyto the provincial and local governments on the Canadian side. munity,proposala thatwithmetstrong opposition from geographically contiguous British Columbia frominto the com- exports water for pushed developers and Roberts Washington State by Bay. Boundary from south separated juts physically The residents of is Point that and Columbia territory British from American of piece small a is This was the 1971 Point reference.Roberts Point Roberts case that did not, strictly speaking, involve boundary waters. At roughly the same time the IJC had been assigned a a assigned been had IJC the time same the roughly At of commissiondecisions. (Dobell: 103) outflow and then only to preserve the traditional unanimity intention and agreed reluctantlyStates’ United the on of notice 30eleventh-hour only givenJanuary was to reduce the Sault Ste Marie. The Canadian section of out be of temporarily Lake Superior reduced at at the locks the Commission water of flow the that IJC the of section the byAmerican directpressures theon Administrationledinsistenceanto could to it keepall done waternot had levelsIJC the from that reachingcomplaints on record hearings heights. These Affairsof the House Committee on Foreign Affairsbegan Lakes. Early in 1973 the the into water Subcommittee of flow reducethe Canadatowith tions on Inter-American negotia- initiate to states Lakes Great the from gressmen con- by 1972 December in pressed was Nixon President instructions. rather similarto government Commission may impose limits terms of areference to the government, thespecific without instruction from either Although theIJCoperates STEPHEN BROOKS february 2010 21 The IJC has had, over the over IJC has had, The higher a considerably years, Canada than in the in profile States. United Having Having a higher profile and greater institutional In any case, there are good reasons to think that prestige prestige in Canada than in the United be States expected to might produce asymmetry in the caliber of appointees to the It national two seem would sections. not unreasonable to expect that the Canadian appoin- Canadian within status higher a have to tend would tees within have counterparts American their than life public their A country. number of the background of fact asymmetriessimple the by generated be conceivably might north of the “bigger deal” a Commission being viewed This in could, turn, produce a border. dynamic within tend commissioners Canadian whereby Commission the to attach greater importance to and work the see IJC’s environmental transboundary in possibilities and role its governance differently from their American - work counter- of experience shared the that be could it Or parts. background of impact the dulls IJC the on together ing com- American and Canadian of expectations initial and missioners and generates greater convergence in their outlooks and behavior. backgrounds, their including are, decision-makers who expectations expertise, and will role affect perceptions, how they see and perform their impact job. the Moreover, of the IJC’s form on commissioners’ outlooks and behaviour—involving equal national an representa- on decision-making consensus of tradition a and tion ested in being nominated to the IJC “What he asked, The State Departmentdoes it officialdo?” replied that get and it into check would he that but sure, not was he nominee. back to this potential ommissioners on the IJC are very proud of theof proud very ommissionersare IJC the on tradition Commission’s of Commission consensus decision- of list the of top the at is It making. But aside from rather general observations about how how about observations general rather from aside But The possible importance of the backgrounds and the IJC model works, observations that have usually come come usually have that observations works, model IJC the from commissioners themselves or from bureaucrats working for the IJC—what Barry introduction Rabe’s to this volume “internalcalls self-assessment”—almost no empirical work has been carried out on who the commissioners their are, backgrounds, how they have viewed their role on the IJC, how the experience of serving on the Commission influencedmay have their and the consequences of these factors for IJC outlooks, decision-making. role perceptions of commissioners is suggested by the a fact considerably that the years, the over IJC has had, all In States. United the in than Canada in profile higher not has IJC the that acknowledged be must it frankness, had much of a profile in either country outside of the contentious very some when except region, Lakes Great issue has arisen such as at Lake controversy the Devil’s the North Dakota-Manitoba border or the protracted dispute management over of the Columbia River that But within the hier- Treaty. led to the Columbia River archy of public sector organizations there can be little within higher be to seen generally is IJC the that doubt Canada than it is within the This United point States. American former a of remarks the by home brought was by contacted was he when that said who commissioner inter- be might he whether about Department State the attributes mentioned by virtually every commissioner, the IJC operates and in explaining how past and present, Prime Canadian successful. been has it believe they why mention the King regularly would Mackenzie Minister deserved that one as cooperation binational of model IJC - The IJC rou was to be the emulated throughout world. - spokesper Canadian by mentioned glowingly and tinely sons in what became known as the “Canadian speech” at WWI League the After of IJC Nations was meetings. as officials by a Canadian modelproposed for resolving in and Germany, and France between conflict border the as from interest generated has IJC the times, recent more as far the East Middle as away a model that might have in Jerusalem. some applicability to governance Model The IJC C 22 Canada Institute occasional paper series of Canadian andAmerican Commissioners: Four Possibilities figure 2.1: Divergence andConvergence intheBackgrounds andOutlooks B larly revealing, former U.S. section chair Gordon Durnil’s category of “internal self-assessment” and is not particu- the into falls definitely very material latter this of most of commissioners,present.the and of past some Although reflections the by supplemented was information each,circumstancesof the in to found is 1. Annex This needed as interviews,adapted these of all for basis the Canadian side of the IJC. The questionnaire that formed from the three ers, and section commission- five from the American past and current eight with conducted were Interviews commissioners. IJC of outlooks and the remainder of this chapter examines the background IJC model of transboundary environmental governance, anddisappointing. also asonethatisrathermarginal “transcendent importance” in Canada-U.S. relations, but evaluation of what has been described as an institution of governments that finance it—is certainly relevant to any the from independence enjoysexceptional that agency poses. Likewise, someone who has spent her career in in career her spent has who Likewise, someone poses. powerelectrical or a water diversion pur- for agricultural generate tointended dam a ondifferentoutlooks very D

ack To better understand the possibilities and limits of the Convergent Divergent

utlooks O ground with differences in outlook. Engineers and and environmental activists, Engineers forexample, outlook. may have in differences with associated be may background in ifferences

INCO NSE [LEARNING CONVER CONVER 3 [LEARNING HIGH] DIVER CONVER 1 s andOutlooks: A Model Convergent GENT OUTLOOK GENT OUTLOOK GENT BACKGR GENT BACKGR QUENTIAL] S OUND OUND Backgrounds S S S over itsonehundred-year history. not accurately reflect the reality of the IJC membership below mayfinding reported the that possibility the ing 83 persons who have served on the Commission, creat- Information was not found for about one-quarter of the office.elective held had who those or commissioners prominent more of case the in problem a not was this the Commission during its first several decades, although for pertinent information some of those who served on any cases some in or reliable find to difficult wasmore overIJC the servedon decades.threefour last to the It material was relatively easy to obtain for those who have sources.online various records,This and congressional U.S. and parliamentary Canadian the in available rial and American versions of ers was drawn mainly from such sources as the Canadian something ofanexceptiontothisrule. book, or other matters from a handful of facts about her back- her about facts of handful froma matters other or possiblepredictperson’sto a outlookenvironmentalon businessbackground.nota from comesisObviously it who person a than issues management environmental equal,somewhatato bring different outlook tobear on expected,be might publicthe service being things other Information Information on the backgrounds of the commission- [LEARNING HIGH] CONVER DIVER 4 [LEARNING LOW] DIVER DIVER 2 is Environmentalist, Conservative a of Making The GENT BACKGR GENT OUTLOOK GENT BACKGR Divergent GENT OUTLOOK Who’s Who, biographical - mate OUND OUND S S S S STEPHEN BROOKS february 2010 23 grounds prima facie, Canadian appointees have appoin- American than society and politics Canadian higher status within tees do within the U.S. careers their in later appointed are commissioners U.S. commissioners. Canadian than are appointments, U.S. in important more is Partisanship so American IJC appointees are less likely to have expertise appointees. than Canadian environmental of degree some generate to tends IJC the Serviceon in the outlooks of commissioners from convergence national sections. the two Commissioners on the unlike ambassadors IJC, and State Department officials, do not receive instruc- appointment. tions upon Quadrant 3 describes a scenario where the IJC second- the of some of survey preliminary a on Based

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ experience’s experience’s impact on commissioners’ outlooks is inconsequential. This scenario is possible, but as will we see, there are some patterns of difference in the background characteristics of CanadianAmerican and should not lose we sight of Moreover, commissioners. the fact that commissioners come from two different societies exist, there and therefore on which to assume that their outlookscultural differenceswill reflectbetween Canada and the United Quadrant States. 2 suggests that IJC decision-making is characterized by a high degree of conflict between the national sections and stalemate, neither involve of3 and 2 whichBoth operations. its of typical been has a as place learningtakes of level low a scenarios where of servingresult on the IJC. were expectations specific four IJC, the on literature ary identified before examining the actual backgrounds of sample a with interviews conducting and commissioners following: include the They of them. Figure 2.1 identifies four possible scenarios that might might that scenarios possible four identifies 2.1 Figure a as learning high relatively involve 4 and 1 Quadrants The limited authority of the IJC may reduce weight the of partisanship and nationality in commis- of their roles. perceptions sioners’ The scientific character muchof of what the IJC deals with and those with whom interact will reduce commissioners the importance of partisanship and other political influences on commissioners. Many appointees have little background in the policy policy the in background little have appointees Many making it matterslikely more dealt with the by IJC, that they will be open to influence those from who expertise. have

■ ■ ■ characterize IJC commissioners at any point in time. The vertical axis measures the similarity (convergent) or dissimilarity (divergent) of outlooks commissioners’ The time. of periodcertain a for IJC the on serving after in dissimilarity or similarity the measures axis horizontal the background characteristics of commissioners from the two national sections. It is impossible to acquire accurate information on the initial role perceptions of I so interviewed, be former cannot commissionerswho am making the bold assumption that background may be surrogate for measure a initial rough-and-ready role perception. Intuitively, IJC. the on serving of experience the of result the scenario in Quadrant 1 seems and improbable it is, at odds with most of what moreover, has been written about the Quadrant IJC. 4, on the other learning a hand, seems to contribute might that factors The plausible. experience in the that increased convergence produces outlooks of commissioners from each national section include the following: ground. ground. But we know that such differences can matter and thus discovering a pattern of be differences least between at might commissioners American and Canadian that of independent outlook, of difference a of suggestive and from come the fact they by that is produced which belief and culture whose countries different two represent not identical. systems are 24 Canada Institute occasional paper series B O appointees to have experience in environmentalissues in haveexperience to appointees Canadian than likely less are commissioners American important in American nominations to the IJC, and that 1909 to2007. period the overpercent) (68 commissioners Canadian U.S.43 of 28 40 of 27 percent)and (65 commissioners is,however,based areaverages included incomplete.It these which commissioners.on Canadian data for The when sioners appointed is 59.5 years, compared to 57.9 fromretiring active public life. before service of stint final a as seen be to likely more on the Commission. Appointment to the IJC would be Canadians for true is than appointment their of time the at older be to wouldtend section the to American it seemed to make sense to assume that those appointed ity and prestige in the United States than in Canada then Canadian their counterparts. If than the IJC has later less relative appointed visibil- be to tend will missioners and HerbGray. Macnaughton,Andrew MaxwellCohen,DaveyFulton ures as Thomas Chase Casgrain, Arnold Heeney,fig- prominent such including high, General fairly been usually has status this particular in chairs Commission.For the tiveCanadianstatusinthoseappointedpublic of life to rela - the in time over consistency greater be to seems there side Canadian the IJC.On the of history earlier the wasin it what from decades recent in somewhat declined has U.S. appointees of status relative the that call— judgment a say—althoughis to this mayfair It be U.S.of (Wyoming-R),position the chair.to particularly James Clark Clarence Senator Congressman and (Minnesota-R),Tawney (Montana-R), Carter Thomas of appointed,Congress nent members including Senator side,American the of early the history IJC the saw a number of promi- “notables.” On of share fair a included have IJC the of sections American and Canadian the country, both and and system political their within er commission- a of status the measure to course, difficult of rather is, It interviews. personal from and sioners ack The expectation that partisanship is The somewhatexpectation that partisanship more U.S. commis- of age average however, fact, the In com- American that is expectation second The ground anOutlooks: Findig rm igahcl aeil n J commis- IJC on material biographical from collected twobydata werelast the supported above,identified expectations only four the f (78 percent). Cautionistherefore advised. commissioners Canadian 40 of 31 and percent) (79 ers with reliable on information 34 of 43 U.S. commission- incomplete,side.was the data American Again,on the McWhorter Roger and side Canadian the on Lanthier Claude including chairs, section national as served als individu- these of couple a sections,although national professional dominant background of only a handful the of commissioners on both constituted engineering or business in Careers commissioners. American than Canadian for grounds recruiting important more been vincial legislature. The public and service academe have who had served in Parliament or been elected to commissioners a pro- Canadian of percent 48 to compared commissioners, all American of percent 71 constituted tees with backgrounds in Congress or state politics have appoin- that shows commissioners. 2.2 Table on data when appointed, found some support in the background of IJCCommissioners T Engineering Academe 18%(6) Business 53%(18) (non-elected) 13%(4) Public service 35%(11) Provincial/State politics Parliament/Congress Career able 2.2:Career Backgrounds to theIJC. role inAmerican nominations Partisanship plays alarger s Canada %()6%(2) 3%(1) 6 5 9%(3) 6%(2) 16% (5) 13% (4) 9%(3) 19% (6) S United tates STEPHEN BROOKS february 2010 25 Had the IJC inserted itself forcefully forcefully itself IJC inserted Had the in a way issue rain the acid into between a wedge that had driven American and the Canadian is a good chance there governments, efforts accelerated have that would or opinions aimed at marginalizing on the making in policy role the IJC’s the border. side of American The fact that so few individuals who have served on served have who individuals factThe few so that Environmentalists applauded her choice. But one the Commission lack either serious scientific credentials credentials scientific serious either lack Commission the in matters environmental or a background in environ- mental policy-making seem may or puzzling. advocacy On the other the hand, experience of Canadian com- mission chair Adèle Hurley may help to explain why this is Hurley so. resigned less than one year after her appointment in a dispute with commission- her fellow ers over a report on acid rain. Had the IJC formal issued written a report to the Canadian and American governments, as Hurley believed ought to have been sections done, of the Clean Air Act would have been triggered to plan limit government’s to the allow U.S. in generation power coal-burning of deregulation some representations oral made IJC the Instead, Midwest. the to the that national two governments—representations effectively were what ignored—avoiding surely would IJC’s the over U.S. the in imbroglio political a been have As a longtime advocate environmental role and power. who had been active in Canada on the acid rain issue found apparently herselfHurley a decade, over for well coal- on beliefs well-known her compromise to unable burning electricity generation. have might speculate on what the consequences would The final expectation is about the impact that service that impact the about is expectation final The appointment their of circumstances the about Asked either of policy the been not has it that said be should It on the IJC has on commissioners’ outlooks and thus Personal goes to the heart the IJC model. of evaluating interviews with eight past commissioners, and present, and including national several formedchairs, the main only one-tenth This represents basis for this assessment. moreover, on the served IJC and, of all those who have the over served includes only commissioners who have commis- that possible quite is It decades. of couple past sioners who served earlier in the IJC’s history these to put questions the might to differently responded have more recent On commissioners. the other inso- hand, far as one wishes to understand the how IJC functions out- the limitations, and possibilities its including today, those are commissioners recent of experiences and looks that matter. four to commissioners the indicated IJC, that they had a requested position on the IJC and four said that their gover- else—a someone by forward put been had name spe- not had they that example—but for senator, or nor cifically asked for an appointmentto the Commission. All of those who had not an requested appointment to the IJC had low prior knowledge of appoint- IJC the an Commission for asked who those Among role. its and ment, three began with a fairly high level of knowl- edge of the Commission and one both had an interest in environmental issues and was aware of the but IJC, mentioned the fact that American commissioners factorin key a are as area D.C. the in reside to required not the decision to request a position on the One IJC. of be could what had interviewed commissioners eight the priorenvironmen- in background describedstrong a as tal policy and another had a background in the natural sciences that made the commissioner familiar with the come that issues modeling environmental and scientific the Commission. before to environmentalists well-known appoint to government this to exceptions some been have there although IJC, the Pierre appointed rule. Béland, by the Canadian - govern Adèle Hurley, was just ment such in an 1995, exception. well- also was year same that in chair Canadian appointed advocacy policy her for circles in environmental known notably commissioners, Some issue. rain acid the on work American section chair Gordon Durnil, the of became result a as - envi reputation public some of ronmentalists experience of serving on the IJC. 26 Canada Institute occasional paper series and who or what influenced their initial expectations initial their Commission,influenced what the or who and on role their including doing, be should IJC the what of sense and goals their sourcesof like having Greenpeace work foryou.” overCommission,the on time that observing “It’sbit a staff was of the problem part of bias that had developed permanent IJC’s the that believed commissioner This ple of environmental advocacy trumping sound science. dischargesasanexam- forthebanonchlorine support advocate for the environmental movement and the IJC’s of office, sort 1970s, a early become the had in created IJC’sthe that perception his/her Windsor particular in become too activist,” the commissioner said, mentioning during the 1980s and 1990s. “I thought that the IJC had past, particularly recent the in points at role proper its that the Commission had in some respects overreached with an idea of the direction the IJC should go believed very negative theirterm. role during IJC had taken an active and, in this commissioner’s view, the which on issue appointee’san this with experience description,This half-seriously,expressed on wasbased world.” the in commission powerful most “the be to commissioner,one of which,case perceivedwasthe in these goals and this direction involved reining in the IJC cases Commission.both the In for direction of sense a or goals of set existing an with IJC the on terms their missioners interviewed could truly be said to have begun was surely exceptional. Only a couple of the eight com- she respect this resign.In to quick was she vision that when she found that its behavior did not with conform the border. of side American the on process policy-making the in marginalization its would probably have accelerated between the Canadian and American governments, this acid rain issue in a way that would have driven a wedge the into forcefully itself inserted IJC the Had agenda. IJC’sthe on high was system water the into charges dis- chlorine industrial of issue the leadership,when Durnil’sGordon movementunder “captured”the by become industry.had it believedthat observers Some anti- and movementenvironmental the of extension governmental circles, on both sides of the border, as an had Commission already acquired a in reputation some released.The been had recommendations and report IJC’swritten the and day the won had Hurley if been l o te omsinr wr akd bu the about asked were commissioners the of All term his/her started who commissioner other The IJC,and the for vision a had clearly Hurley Adèle as is occasional testimony before congressional commit- “budget maintenance” appear to be common, purposes members of Congress for what to one commissioner visits side,called American the On States. United the in to compared community policy-making in Canadian the enjoys IJC the that status greater relatively the to also perhaps governmentand of systems and American Canadian the between differences institutional the to related are that differences national some be to appear Canadian and American chairs. the This of similarity aside,function exclusively—achairs, section there national some mainly—and,under is this that clear very made with officials from other parts of the state, the interviews his book, TheMakingofaConservative Environmentalist: U.S. section chair Gordon Durnil addresses this point in commissioner.IJC an be to processlearning of Former the of nature informal and unstructured relatively the learning.the-job evident,wasmost What however, was couple of commissioners stressed the importance of on- it.on role their and IJC Another the knowledgeabout case by name, as to being their important acquisition of every members,in staff IJC mentioned commissioners they had not received briefing. any formal Three of the that said specifically commissioners couple a and ence staff as an important part of their initial learning experi- IJC by briefing formal a mentioned commissioners of couple a Only nomination. their before expectations IJC,the knowledgeand to their acquiredappointment Three of the commissioners, all of whom had requested dominant in their initial learning about the Commission. was one particular a that indicated or factor one only mentioned them of most fact IJC,in the but for tions expecta- and about learning their to contributed that factor one than more mention could Commissioners activities.IJC the about knowledge of acquisition and In regard to the interaction of IJC commissioners commissioners IJC of interaction the to regard In (Durnil: levels. 175) international even and federal provincial, and catalystsbe state can the They at action government for years studying them. Or they can get ahead of the curve. spend quietly they as view public from problems these problems, hiding government irritable of receptacles be reports.inconsequential and non-controversial can They be. back,quietlysit waves,can no They making issuing to it want they what job the make to them to up is it commissioners,new for sharp butis curve learning The STEPHEN BROOKS february 2010 27 A somewhat different observation about the perceived perceived the about observation different somewhat A Every positive assessment of the IJC as a model for But rate. success percent 98 a with argue to hard is It ronmental ronmental field on both sides of themight border, be seen as an and indirect admittedly very imperfect mea- commis- one Only influence. Commission’s the of sure the about doubts significant some express not did sioner process the in player institutional an as importance IJC’s of “I’m transboundary not environmental governance. so sure that we were always supposed to be relevant,” said one American “Once you commissioner. get out of the Great Lakes you find that the IJC least doesn’t At have member. Canada a observed profile,” a of much two commissioners, both on the American side, used the terms “providing political and “legitimiza-cover” govern- by expected was IJC the what of some for tion” “The commissioner declared, Another U.S. ment to do. IJC is seen more important as where it’s an in Canada, instrument of policy in dealing with the United States screen radar the on isn’t just It issues. environmental on region in the U.S.” Lakes outside the Great relevance of the IJC was made by another American commissioner who expressed the view that “radi- the of calization” the Commission during the years when industrialon ban a the on chlorinehigh was discharges agenda environmental had contributed to the margin- alization This of episode the in IJC. the Commission’s IJC the of argued, commissioner the legacy, a left history officials by “loose cannon” as a bit of a being perceived American government. within the empha- issues transboundary of resolution binational the decision- consensus of tradition Commission`s the sizes making. Officially, at least, Canadian and commissioners American have hardly ever found themselves on opposite sides of A the 2006 fence. presentation made by former American section chair Dennis Schornack percent 2 only in that strikinga included showing slide of all cases resolved by the IJC did the commissioners slide 2) split on national lines (Schornack: a reinforced quickly commissioners the with interviews point made in some of the secondary literature on the matters too that considered contentious are or too IJC: important simply are not assigned to the commission. “Neither American In of the one words commissioner, government really trusts Another the American IJC.” commissioner, speaking of references to the IJC, said “they are that only used when the governments - know recom the When be.” will answer the what much pretty Once you get out of the Great Great the of out get you Once IJC find that the you Lakes, a profile. much of have doesn’t If insecurities concerning the IJC’s budget were shared shared were budget IJC’s the concerning insecurities If at least On one the formerCanadian side, chair was On both national sides of the IJC, though more among not if is, IJC the visible how of question The on the Canadian side, they certainly were not expressed. they certainlynot on expressed. were the Canadian side, they were mentioned by On a however, side, the U.S. that state to as far so went One commissioners. of couple term, their duringconcern real a were cuts budget possible becoming were we that feelings some were “There when an environmental commission the to that Senate the the in sense detrimenta was of “There our and “ role, water getting out ahead of issues.” IJC was govern- with meet not should IJC the that belief the of onment theofficials, grounds that thiswould in some way This compromise its view was independence. not other the On time. the counterpartat U.S. his by shared another hand, Canadian commissioner reported meet- ing often with government officials, including at the The highest personal levels. style and status of an IJC national section chair appear to be factors determining the nature and frequency of interactions with officials other parts of the state. from vocally from the American side, commissioners who not section were chairs expressed some frustration that involved more be to them to available opportunities the in the Commission’s activities, including interaction were other partswith ofofficials the from government, one said model,” current the of shortcoming “A few. too of discretion the at is it that “is Americancommissioner, the chair when and how the other commissioners are Given the involved…. broadening of the IJC’s activi- “the other commission- this commissioner added, ties,” ers involved.” should be more the general public of the two countries, then at least among policy-makers and opinion-leaders in the envi- tees. tees. Meetings with officials from the Army Corps of state Engineers, the Agency, Protection Environmental departments of natural resources and the Great Lakes by mentioned those among were FisheriesCommission American commissioner. another 28 Canada Institute occasional paper series Environmentalist: in Durnil Gordon chair U.S.section former by made is culture.point to This down came sometimes commissioners American and Canadian of outlooks the in differences that view the expressed commissioners Several interests. and values effectiveness. its on limits identified commissioners severalIJC. But the of hallmark the is that decision-making of model consensus the criticized one consensus.No binational upon them under this treaty as a that factor encouraged imposed duties the perform impartially they that ing that IJC commissioners are obliged writing”to undertake, in requir- declaration “solemn the mentioned cally commissioners,one from national section,each specifi- of couple consensus.A the on agreement and eration coop- binational for basis the as information scientific water oncontentioustransboundary issues. agreement tive to the practical obstacles in the way of Canada-U.S. particular commissioner made him/her especially sensi- now.”do to trying are this of background political The of anticipating,tory but thisiswhatwe need to do and his- anything.preventeda never haveWe haven’thad wesaid, disputes,”“But commissioner resolve the and believed to be its functions. “We’re supposed to prevent he/she what out IJC’sthe of carry to ability criticizing of notlikingthedecision.” power to an independent-minded body if there is a risk line.up giveof to aren’tGovernmentswereout going in the Lake Champlain reference, “We were told that we preferences of one or another government, as happened mendations of the Commission do not accord with the same. (Durnil: 24) Americans.the and not Canadians Weare of cultures the in insulted.differences been are just There has she highest of compliments. The Canadian thinks that he or The thinks that he or she has just offered the American Americans like to tell Canadians, “You are Americans.just than like us.”Canadians for easier done,and than national interests and agendas. It is a principle easier said which one individual with sections separatenational two as works than rather body fact-finding a binational as act to Commission the for is principle first The national in involvesdifferences limits these of One quality emphasized commissioners the of Several in further U.S.evenwent same commissioner This h Mkn o a Conservative a of Making The ters asideifthingsgottoocontentious,”ters he observed. Lowry!—divisive.mat- put just wouldwe “Sometimes effects of dams were always damnably—apologies to Bill takings from the Great Lakes and that issues involving the waterof out- issue the on their counterparts American were members moresensitiveCanadian viewthat than commissioner represented. the that perceivedinterests for regional spokesperson a as rather acting “parochial”with overly and concerned being as colleague particular this mentioned missioner however, Interestingly, commissioners. at least one Canadian the and one American com- of personalities the much less mattered his/her during time on the had Commission than nationality and ideology that view the time Americans to think.” This commissioner expressed chair the Canadians would caucus separately,section Canadian particular “giving a the of leadership the under that noted commissioner Canadian history.IJC’sOne the in point Commission’sone the at workimpede to appear did it problem—although a been seldom has styles leadership or personalities of clash serious a that also but chairs, that between varied exists have styles information leadership party third little what from clear is It model. consensus Commission’s the of ness effective- the to crucial as chairs, section national the of those IJC, particularly the on personalities of tance implementation ofwater policyismanaged. on local governments and regional authorities where the believed that much of the IJC’s work should be focused responsibility of local governments eventually” and who the that becomes observed “everything who missioner (Durnil: 25). This view was echoed by another U.S. com- that former commissioner Durnil also makes in his book approach is more centralized than ours,” an observation Commission,the on Canadian time “The their during American commissioner expressed the view that, at least operate more based on their own national interests.” One the opinion that “the perhaps commissioners American ventured commissioner Canadian nessmen.” Another progressivemoreare businessmen busi- than American er, “We tend to be more progressive in Canada, even our “There are differences,” said one Canadian “continental - commission of sort divide” a between of commissioners from the two existence countries. the about point n eet er mc o wa te J de has does IJC the what of much years recent In the expressed commissioners American the of One Several mentioned the of impor- the commissioners this echoed commissioners Canadian of couple A STEPHEN BROOKS february 2010 29 Influence will depend on Influence member governments’ its the use to willingness for as a venue commission decision-making and actual actionable results. Canadian Canadian commissioners had little comparatively to the importance of the factors that contribute to divergence divergence to contribute that factors the of importance the between national sections of the divergence that IJC, is engaged is Commission the when overcome easily most that in fallactivities short of rendering binding decisions or on recommendations issues where the two national positions. out different staked have governments either industry or environmental groups,” the commis- either industrygroups,” or environmental willingness to use adding that government’s sioner said, the IJC had been probably damaged by the perception that it had become a champion of the environmental Another movement. commissioner, also an American, on remarked what to he/she be perceived the political naivety of the scientific experts with whom the com- interact. missioners regularly say about the relations with IJC’s industry - and environ as serve not did who commissioner One interests. mental in much had IJC the that sense not did they that said chair the that but groups, such with dealings direct of way the interaction of office greater the IJC have might Ottawa commissionerCanadian Another aware. was he/she than spoke mainly of interlocutors in the giv- with public sector, contacts and meetings direct that impression the ing frequent neither were groups environmental and industry functioning. nor particularly important to the IJC’s

he original expectations he held original for the expectations IJC by at least some of those who had a hand in its - cre ation were that it would help to the overcome

different interests of Canada and the United States on the the on States United the and Canada of interests different even perhaps and resources water shared of management perform a broader role in the resolution of transbound- The structure of countries. the two ary disputes between decision- consensus binational of tradition its and IJC the But the of with this vision convergence. accord making record shows that the tug of different national interests and outlooks has sometimes to proved be insurmount- or expected being IJC the of likelihood the that and able impartial the as acting differences, these reconcile to able rather is become, would it hoped Root Elihu that arbiter the that course, of mean, not does This cases. such in low IJC becomes irrelevant when the gap between national role limited a differences only is wide playing and of the capable stakes is are IJC high. It the that is to say, rather, and that its influence will depend in such the circumstances, use to willingness governments’ two the on ultimately Interviews Commission as for a decision-making. venue corroborated commissioners present and past some with T Submergence? ergence, Divergence or ion: Conv clus Con involved communicating with the public and organized organized and public the with communicating involved transbound- of range broad increasingly the on interests ary issues that it studies and on which recom- it makes Canadian one said anyone,” to talk can “We mendations. At certain points commissioner. in the history IJC’s its interactions with organized been interests have intense and not always amicable. Gordon Durnil has written about the very strained relations that existed between on for that businesses relied the IJC and representatives the use of chlorine in their industrialBut at processes. least one American commissioner expressed the view under- representatives “Business duringthat term, their eas- were ultimately and compromise for need the stood Another U.S. groups.” ier to talk to than environmental appeared IJC the that view the expressed commissioner talk- Americanpresumably, to politicians—he/she was, ing mainly about in movement environmental the by conservative “captured” become politicians—to have representing as myself see don’t “I 1990s. and 1980s the 30 Canada Institute occasional paper series Annex 1: Dobell, Peter. Canadain World Affairs, 1971-73. Toronto, Brown, G.W. Peaceful SettlementBetweenCanadaandthe Bothwell, Robert. CanadaandtheUnitedStates: The Reference although with a claim to being the most venerable,most the being to claim a with although one,just crowded,morebecome IJC’s has voicethe become has matters these regulating and advocating studying, in involved actors of field playing the As volume.this of chapters other the of some in cussed dis- is it chapter, this of focus a been not has liferation of cross-border environmental issues. Although this pro- management the processesfor and institutions other of ary environmental governance involves the proliferation transbound- for institution an as IJC the on limitations 3. 2. 1.

Canadian Institute of International Canadian InstituteofInternational Affairs, 1985. Institute ofInternational Affairs, 1948. United States, Toronto: Ryerson Press forCanadian Press, 1992. Politics ofPartnership. Toronto: University of Toronto It may be,may It important however,most the of one that things that learned while on the job? Where did these the go,should of IJC the werewhich or in these direction sense a or goals of set a with out start you did mean, I commission? the of that and role own IJC,yourthe yousee at howdid you started When your appointment? of time environmentalthe or at treatywaters policy boundary IJC,the the about much know you Did government choseyou forthispost?) why.then yesno,Whether or whyyouthe do think yes,(If position? youthis requestedHad IJC? the to government/administration wanted to nominate you the that learned you how and when recall you Do Questions for IJCCommissioners s theme intheconcludingchapter. ago.yearshundred one dicted thisWe to return will prominent pre- and less expected some than today a IJC the for role is surely what to contributing tor processes- and institutions has fac been an important Submergence under a tide of competing cross-border case. the however,longer is, no ago. It years thirty true been have even might IJC. That the of role the about essentially been have would States United the and Canada betweenenvironmentalgovernance ary transbound- of many.study among a ago years Fifty Schornack, Dennis. “The International Joint Commission: A La Forest, G.V. “Boundary Waters Problems in the East.” In Durnil, Gordon. TheMakingofaConservative 6. 5. 4.

Water Policy, Banff, Canada, September10, 2006. Presentation at the Rosenberg International Forum on Case StudyintheManagementofInternational Waters.” Deener. London: University Press, Cambridge 1963. Canada-United States Treaty Relations, editedby David Press, 1995. Environmentalist. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity The IJC is the original The binational IJC Canada-U.S.is the original insti- radar screen? it just wasn’t central enough or often enough on the community;problempolicy-making the within that visibility a had IJC the that sense yourever Wasit andcommittees? members with most? What about Congress/Parliament and its ernment agencies or departments did the IJC interact During your years as a commissioner what other gov- the IJC? at learning on-the-job your in influential most was goals or sense of direction come from? Who or what STEPHEN BROOKS february 2010 31 (Oxford, 2009); 2009); (Oxford, As Others See Us: As Others See Us: ed. th Canadian , Democracy 6 I know that as a commissioner you may have had extensive dealings with and environmental industry some Were groups groups. easier to deal with than others? (Elaborate.) Freedom, Equality, Community: The Political Philosophy of Philosophy Political The Community: Equality, Freedom,

7. (University of Toronto, 2009); 2009); Toronto, of (University tution and talking to commissioners I know they are that proud of the track record of cooperation. But were there ever occasions when you felt that and Canadian commissionerson different were U.S. or view of points different representing wavelengths, interests? to different responding tephen tephen Brooks is a professor of political science His at research interests the Windsor. include University of , with Alain Gagnon and James Bickerton (McGill-Queen’s, 2006); and 2006); Alain Gagnon and Bickerton James with (McGill-Queen’s, Six Influential, Canadians 2006). Toronto, of America (University Perceptions of The Causes and Consequences of Foreign the political influence of political intellectuals, thought in Canada and the United foreign perceptions States, of His Americanmost and recent politics, public books policy. include S Understanding American Politics American Understanding The current water management regimes along the shared transbound- ary rivers of the United States and Canada were established under the International Boundary Waters Treaty (IBWT) of 1909. Prairie rivers tend to fluctuate between scarcity and flooding, and successful attempts to dam, store, and internationally apportion river flow were forward think- ing at the time and contributed to the region’s economic development and political stability. But now many Prairie rivers have reached a point of full allocation and this same water supply is threatened by global climate change. New interests have emerged and sought to reframe water management priorities to support environmental concerns. The very institutions that once contributed to this region’s economy now threaten to undermine its stabil- ity by too strict adherence to the status quo. The region faces the challenge of accommodating environmental protection and preservation within the existing IBWT framework. The outcome could shape the Prairie political economy—in good ways or bad—for the next century or longer.

Chapter 3: he shared boundary waters of North America span a number of diverse natural regions. While the 1909 International Boundary Managing Water TWaters Treaty (IBWT) created a unified set of governance prin- ciples for all boundary waters, this framework has been adapted and expanded by the member governments and the International Joint Scarcity in the Commission (IJC) to meet the unique water challenges of each distinc- tive border region. Prairie Region: The In the Prairie border region, characterized by scarce and highly vari- able water supplies, transboundary rivers have long been an important Role of the IJC in a source of water for irrigators and urban riparians, and the water man- agement rules developed within the framework of the IBWT clearly Changing Climate reflect this. While international apportionment and management of the St. B. Timothy Heinmiller Mary, Milk, and Souris rivers have greatly contributed to Prairie agri- Brock University cultural development, this political economy is also predicated on a water supply that is threatened by global climate change. Water supplies are almost fully allocated in the region, and although current institu- tions have created a relatively stable equilibrium amongst water users, a steep decline in water supplies could throw this into disarray. Many experts predict that the Prairie region, which is naturally semi-arid, will have even less water in the future. This could pose a major threat to the viability of current agricultural patterns and the institutions that have enabled them. This article examines the substantial contributions of the IBWT and IJC to the development of the Prairie political economy over the past century and considers whether this political economy will be sustainable as the region faces increased water scarcity due to global 32 climate change. B. Timothy Heinmiller february 2010 33 on Regi airie Prairie agricultural agricultural Prairie a on predicated is development threatened is that supply water change. climate global by iver Maryt. River S The westernmost river in the Prairie region, the Mary St. originates in the Rocky Mountains of Glacier National Park in From there Montana. it flows north- River Oldman the with joins it where Alberta, into ward River. Saskatchewan South the of stem main the form to Mary The is St. by far the largest of the transboundary Prairie rivers and has the in the melt least glacial variable is flowsource (Halliday main Its 2007:77). Faveri and which Rocky a provides Mountains, more dependable and stable flow compared with the surface runoff on which the Milk and Souris rivers depend. Milk River The Milk River originates as run-off in the Montana and flow annual average lower much a has and foothills (Halliday Mary St. the than variability flow higher much and Faveri The 2007:77). Milk, part of the Missouri system River that drains through the Mississippi River is into also unusual the in Gulf that of it Mexico, starts Alberta southern into northward flows and Montana in for about 200 km before arching southward to return to Montana. it has many management challenges, scarcity is scarcity not one it has management many challenges, some through flows River Red the east, the To them. of Prairie lands and has perennial floodingbut problems, this area has both more water and less irrigated agri- Prairie western its with counterparts. compared culture management challenges the Red River’s Consequently, differ in kind from those on the Milk, St. and Mary, and it is not included in this discussion of Souris rivers, Prairie rivers. the Pr Rivers of ry ounda

ansb nlike nlike most other regions of the Canada-U.S. resources, water abundant have which border, scarce Prairiea characterizedthe is region by

The Prairie region’s main source of water is found Prairie residents must also cope with highly vari- In the region there are three major rivers that cross creeks smaller several rivers, three these to addition In and the the Milk, Souris Mary, As the described, St. U r The T in the few rivers of modest relatively size that transect the landscape. Farmers have come to rely heavily on these rivers for stock watering and agricultural irriga- the tion; latter is by far the largest use of water in the region. Managing the Prairie rivers to facilitate large- scale irrigation is a pervasive challenge, although not the only one. able and sometimes wildly erratic In river fact, flows. Prairie residents often describe their rivers “either as reflecting a situation of general orflood,” scarcitymud punctuated with occasional river Annually, flooding. win- spring during the the in highest usually are flows ter melt and lowest in the late summer and fall, but periodic spikes in river flow due to extremeweather dam- flood severe in result can and common are events age to riparian properties. IJC the by managed are internationalboundaryand the on an ongoing basis: the the St. Mary, Milk, and Mary the and Milk gen- rivers are the St. However, Souris. erally treated by the IJC as a single river system since they are hydrologically connected by a diversion canal in northern Montana. Although the IJC cross the has international boundary. been with involved these tributaries, it has not devel- management river-specific rules. oped any their and flooding and scarcity water by characterized are challeng- management water presents flow of variability east the to basins river neighboring from distinct quite es the over Rocky the Mountains, West, In and the west. Columbia is and the though main transboundary river, and highly variable natural water Surprisingly, supply. agri- world’s the of one as reputation region’s the given cultural breadbaskets, its average annual precipitation is between 300 and 500 mm, and less in some places (Matthews and Morrow This Jr. 1985:38). makes the Prairies a somewhat marginal area for dryland agricul- of fertile stretches land. despite vast ture, 34 Canada Institute occasional paper series 1994:27-28). Hood 1974:532; (Jordan respectively mid-1970s, and (shared by Saskatchewan and Montana) in the late-1960s Creek (shared by Alberta and Montana) and Poplar Sage on Creekdisputes involvedwasinternational resolving in involvement. international theselevel of example, For IJC the of use the to rivers. appliedresult,aAs the they have beenbeensubject substantialato of still have principles IBWT general the regimes, management river-specific of absence manage- regimes.the ment Yetin specific even develop to necessary be would that lized to warrant the investment of time - underuti or small andtoo creeksseemed and rivers these of Manypolitical not. have capital region Prairie the in rivers boundary regimes management trans- other of IJC,number the a of auspices the international under to subject been that attempt. of element key a been has regime management water basin’sthe bring flowsto control, under try IJC an and border have and expense to gone to considerable effort 1994).(Hood the its banks of sides Governmentsboth on bursts it that swollen so is times other and trickle a barely to reduced is Souris the variable.Sometimes bycharacterized flows that are relatively is low river and highly source, the its of inconstancy the to Due off. withthe merging Assiniboine River. and Manitoba southern in wardCanada re-entering and runs southward into North Dakota before arching - north hasTheitsSourissource southerninSaskatchewan and distinct. geographically are rivers two the that, Despite Bay. Hudson into drains eventually that Basin Nelson basin as the St. Mary. Both areof the Saskatchewan- part Unlike the Milk, the Souris River lies in the same drainage S management regime. water IJC an in institutionally hydrologicallyand both the IBWT, of and negotiation the canal has since linked the two the rivers in factors precipitating the of one controversyInternational over this project proved to be Montana. northern in irrigation support to flow dant abun- St.moreMary’s the diverting Milk,thus the to Reclamation constructed a canal of to U.S.connect Bureau century, the the 20th St. the Mary of first decades two the over and, other, each to proximity close in ouris River hl te t Mr, ik ad ors ies have rivers Souris and Milk, Mary, St. the While run- surface from entirely almost fed is Souris The are Milk the and Mary St. the points, various At

1993:463-465). (Reisner effect full to advantage this exploited has and jurisdiction upstream the is the consistently border,States United that On Mexico. and States United the exists,than dynamic example,political for ent between differ- much a to givenrise has landscape natural This river.same the of reach different a on even river—or ment of the other, there could be detri- retaliation on another the to advantage upstream its exploits it if that power of between the two balance countries. Each knowscountry natural a of something created have ships patterns and alternating upstream-downstream relation- River. unusual Souris These the of section upper the RiverMilk and the of section middle the on upstream is a downstream on the St. jurisdiction River, Mary but exclusively upstream or downstream jurisdiction. Canada an is Canada nor States border,United the the neither across forth and back meander rivers Giventhese how vide incentives for productive international cooperation. ary rivers present management challenges, they also pro- been undertaken (Willoughby 1981:37). Belly, has and Waterton the for regimes management developto occurred.waterattempt has subsequent No split a such that IJC the of history the in time only the respectivetheir to reports separate governments. is This lines,submitting national along split and agreement to for theserivers, couldnotcome but thecommissioners regime a recommend investigateand to asked was IJC This situation is not for lack of trying. In the 1950s, regimes.the management river-specific have not do that region Prairie the in River, rivers largest Mary the are and flow into Alberta, where they eventually join the St. If, by their very natures, the Prairie region’s transbound- The Waterton and Belly rivers, which rise in Montana cooperation. for productive international they also provide incentives management challenges, transboundary rivers present If thePrairie region’s B. Timothy Heinmiller february 2010 35 number ­number onomy c Water was regarded as such a regarded was Water resource and valuable scarce by be wasted that it should not it where a stream it in leaving utilized. is not An early example of this was the St. Mary’s Canal All parties gradually came to realize that what was Yet Yet as control and beneficial use became widely controversy controversy at the start of the 20th In century. 1902, at the behest of and agricultural investigated Reclamation of Bureau interests along U.S. the the River, Milk the for Congress U.S. the from approval received 1905 in Mary St. the from water divert to canal a of construction government Canadian the However, Milk. the to River protested the canal’s construction and, after having its its approving threatened retaliation by ignored, protests own project that would have diverted water from the Milk back River Maryto the within St. Canadian ter- interests mutual the this, of all In 1999). ritory(Simonds of farmers and riparians on progress both and rivalryinternational by sides overwhelmed of were the border stalled. was development in water needed was some sort of institution to resolve international manage disputes of and The this con- nature. Marythe St. over Canal was one troversy of a accepted as the basic goals of water management in the in management water of goals basic the as accepted the Prairies, transboundary nature of some of the most seriouscompli- a as arose region the in rivers important The international agricul-divided border cating factor. creating grounds, national on riparian and interests tural political rivalries that threatened to their towards swamp mutual And water at development goals. progress issues development water local junctures, criticalcertain became highly politicized and escalated into interna- both federal governments. tional conflicts involving l E Politica airie ince the first arrival of white settlers in the nine- Prairiethe of economy political the century, teenth border region has been by shaped fundamentally nd the Pr ter a a Cities and industries in the region also tended to The interplay between water and the eco- region’s farm- control, water in stake shared their with Along locate along its relatively few major rivers. As riparian these interests developed, they became subject severe to damage and dislocation from periodic flooding of the Prairieriparians Together, rivers. and irrigators Prairie control to trying in interest fundamental a shared rivers through damming and water Ripariansstorage. sought control to prevent flooding during high flows and farmers sought greater artificially dependability—through manipulated water storage delivery— and during flows. low nomic interests are reflected in the differing meanings of the term “conservation” in the Prairies versus the more water-abundant regions to the east. In the East, is water to minimize usage “conserve” so that much to of it is left in the In natural using the environment. Prairies, and storing, controlling, means water “conserving” regard- was Water environment. the to lost is it before it ed as such a scarce and that resource valuable it should not be wasted by leaving it in a stream where it is not utilized. in water most that agreed generally riparians also and ers the Prairie region should be utilized for beneficial use, defined as use that contributes some kind of economic was use beneficial and control of acceptance The benefit. in amongst almost the universal early involved interests developing the Prairie As region. a water result, man- agement was issue cast rather as “development” than a and/or preservation environmental with concerned one arose, controversies when water Most often, protection. they not were about whether the Prairie rivers should aris- benefits and costs the how about but developed, be ing from development would be distributed amongst Reisner 1993). 1985: parties (Worster the relevant the Agriculture scarcity and variability of water supplies. role critical has been a the dominant economic activity in many partsplayed has management Water region. the of - water stock irrigationand for both agriculture, Prairie in ing, though the former uses far more water and has than the latter. a on the environment bigger impact much W S 36 Canada Institute occasional paper series invest in the construction of irrigation systems without invest of irrigation in the construction to irrigation development because few people wanted to their water supply. wasThis uncertainty amajorbarrier of permanence the about St.basins the Milk and Mary in governments and irrigators for uncertainty created 1900s early the in controversy Canal Mary’s St. The Inter-jurisdictional Water Apportionments ■ ■ ■ are discussedmore thoroughly below: and clearly most interests these reflect regimes these of St.Souris.the the and Mary-Milk Threecharacteristics both entrenchedfor regimes management international the within well become have interests riparian and awkwardcompromises,in political agricultural ing but rivers. Prairie havepersisted,result- sometimes rivalries International transboundary major the for regimes management river in riparians and farmers of interests beneficial usecouldbe recognized andpursued. tained and their common interests in water control and con- be could rivalries international which in forum a the border, thecreation oftheIJCwas amajorboonas of sides both on riparians and farmers negotiated.For be could rules management river newsettled, and and investigated be could disputes management river ary transbound- IJC—where forum—the international an of creation the was important more evenregion. And Prairie the in regime management river international agement of the St. Mary and Milk rivers, creating the first (Dreisziger 1981). 1909 table,in tiating IBWT the eventuallyin resulting nego- the the to governmentsU.S., brought British Canadian,and which disputes water transboundary of

n sne t ceto, h IC a pooe the promoted has IJC the creation, its since And The treaty’s Article VI specifically addressed the man- administer the apportionments and head off off head and disputes. apportionments the boards administer management river Intergovernmental extreme water events. with cope to able be will users water riparian and agricultural that ensure to apportionments the of modification permit provisions flood and Drought water users. grant private entitlements to agricultural and riparian and development water allow their plan to governments apportionments water Inter-jurisdictional prior prior appropriation had been met. river would be equally apportioned, after each country’s be measured and the protocol howfor determining the should apportionments the which at locations the on primarily centered introduction.disagreement its The after shortly it clarify to the IJC the forced apportionment of interpretations differing expansion, irrigation substantial facilitate to certainty supply water enough development. to acceleratetheirirrigation jurisdictions Milk.the shareof oritized allowedtrade-off This both larger,pri- a with Montana and St.Mary the of share aggregate, but provided Alberta with a larger, prioritized agreed to share the St. Mary and Milk rivers equitably in already begun (IBWT, 1909). In effect, the two countries country where large-scale wasirrigation planned or had in each areas the River, reflecting Mary St. the from flow) natural the of three-quarters (or second per feet and that Canada had appropriation a of prior 500 cubic of three-quarters the natural flow) from the Milk River (or second per feet cubic 500 of appropriation prior a tionment ofthewaters inquestion(IBWT, 1909): featuresmain of Article wasIBWT appor- the an of VI supplies.waterassured the Tothis,of remedy one help American position on the location of apportionment apportionment of location the on position American the accepting by crafted judicious compromise a apportionment containing order an issued the Commission 1921, October In 1981:28). their (Willoughby needs suit determine would arrangements to apportionment irrigators what local engaged and severed per- commissioners the But settlement. imposed any ignore to U.S. and,threatened government time,the IJC a the for of legitimacy the of test early critical a (Halliday andFaveri 2007:81). orders specifying the water entitlements provisional of each issued 1921, country to 1918 of seasons irrigation the and,in matter the on hearings of series a held IJC hl te potomn i Atce I created VI Article in apportionment the While Article VI also recognized that the United States had soastoaffordcountry amorebeneficialusetoeach. from one river and less than half from the other by either more than equal half apportionment maysuch be taken tioned equally between the two countries, but in making appor- be shall thereof power,waters and the tion and are to be treated as one stream for the purposes of irriga- The St. Mary and Milk Rivers and their tributaries…. The disagreement on Article disagreement The wasVI’s interpretation 1 Starting in 1915, the B. Timothy Heinmiller february 2010 37 of 1894. As Act of 1894. Northwest Irrigation Throughout Throughout the Prairie region, inter-jurisdictional In Montana and North Dakota, water rights were jurisdictionsPrairie all decades, intervening the Over a number of conditions on these apportionments (dis- cussed but furtherthis basic below), 50/50 split remains apportionment inter-jurisdictional of feature defining the on the Souris. river apportionments have been central to - water devel securityenough with jurisdiction each providing opment, of distribution widespread the facilitate to supply water of defining Beneficial use has been the rights. water private principle of water rights distribution in all inter- substantial fivebeen Prairie however, have, There jurisdictions. entitlement systems. jurisdictional in water differences distributed primarily through prior uti- appropriation, “firstlizing firstthe in Under in time, principle. right” a put could who anyone system, priorappropriation the to a right claim could use beneficial to water of volume but had to maintain it, this beneficial use or risk losing Tarlock 1985:108; (Worster claimant new righta this to use beneficial and right” in first time, in “first The 2001). principles were also adopted in the Canadian Prairies, vested in the region was of all water though ownership the by in the Crown Canadian beneficial use, in addition to proving a result, rightswater claimants had to permitsseek government 2005). formalize to in order their claims (Percy have modified and added to their initial prior appro- and Saskatchewan systems, priorpriationallocation and the yet And reforms. radical most the making Manitoba principle of beneficial use has been largely preserved throughout the region and remains a defining feature of the Prairie political economy. and Flood Provisions Drought supply water to greatly contributerules Apportionment but security, they inherently assume a “normal” level of thatflow water can be divided amongstwater users. highly are region Prairie the in flows water because Yet, there variable, are many years in which the “normal” of level supply is and not water usersavailable are sub- jected to either drought or flooding. Extreme water while are periodic, events, a major threat to the ripar- ian and agricultural water users of the Prairies. It may only take one drought or one flood to put their liveli- the IJC’s hoods Consequently, or property in jeopardy. been have region Prairie the in rules management water supplemented with provisions that modify the appor- The IJC was a major boon as was IJC The in which international a forum be contained could rivalries in interests and their common and beneficial control water and be recognized could use pursued. In the Souris basin, the issue of water apportion- as saw this detrimental apportionment Saskatchewan ment did not arise until the late 1930s, but international but 1930s, late the ariseuntil not did ment behest the at place in put also were rulesapportionment of agricultural and riparian By water interests. the late 1930s, North Dakota had undertaken dam construc- tion and irrigation in its portion of the Souris, while Saskatchewan was only beginning its In development. internationalan recommend to asked was IJC the 1940, Commission, the However, basin. the for apportionment citing inadequate river flow data, recommended only an interim apportionment that approximated levels of use (Hood 1994:14-19). existing water - develop water froze because it effectively to its interests, Dakota. North of advantage the to levels, current at ment for, lobbied government Saskatchewan the Consequently, that 1959 in apportionment interim a new attained, and allowed Saskatchewan and North Dakota to each use 50 percent of the natural flow originatingwithin their borders while the allowing respective other 50 percent to pass to their neighborsdownstream (Hood 1994:16- 19; IJC Amendments 1959). in 1992 and 2000 placed measurement measurement and the Canadian position on the pro- tocol for equal and Halliday apportionment (IJC 1921; Despite some from continued protests 2007:81). Faveri the these Montana 1932, and government, 1931 which 1930, 1928, brought in again IJC the the before issue apportionment rules prevailed (Willoughby 1981:29). Although fully the no satisfying rules one, proven have international sta- providing everyone, almost to adequate bility and the supply security water needed to facilitate Mary and Milk basins. irrigation in the St. development 38 Canada Institute occasional paper series cultural interests from bothextremes. agri- and riparian protect to modified havebeen rules apportionment international drought.The as concern until “normal” flows resume. survive drought periods jurisdictions these in irrigators river,each helping on jurisdiction non-prioritized the flowsriver always actual of to goes one-quarter least at result,2007:81).Faveria and As (Halliday drought the of severity the on flow, depending actual varies which of three-quarters to second) per feet cubic (500 flow arepriations fromtransformed three-quarters of natural mal” level of 666 cubic feet per second, the prior appro- the below“nor- drop Milk the or St. Mary the either protection.drought offering Order in flows IJC When 1921 the of form provisionsnewthe broughtabout in quickly voicedarrangement their concerns. The outcry region. the However, in areas the few remainingby interests this left at risk irrigation major country’s each exercised appropriation. other country itsprior river could be partly or entirely deprived of water as the the danger that the party with the lesser interest on each posed apportionment second—this per feet cubic 666 1921). In low flow flows periods—when were less than three quarters of each river’s presumed natural flow (IJC were these apportionments cases both considered be to Milk;in the on second per feet cubic 500 of priation appro- prior a given was States United the and Mary St.the on second per feet cubic 500 of appropriation prior a givenseason.was Canada irrigation the during flow of bothrivers was around 666 cubic feet per second IBWT,the of wasit the that accepted “normal”natural been drought protection. In the negotiation of Article VI nant water use and the concern of primary has irrigators in theregion. resourceswater the of use beneficial of pursuit the ing water uses, encouraging their development and - facilitat involvedrisk in more and marginal agricultural riparian of level the ways.reduced haveother They in region Prairie the of economy political the on impact an had have provisions flood and drought these users, lished “normal” flows resume. until conditions these with cope to interests riparian and agricultural allow to designed provisions are flood and drought conditions.These extreme in tionments On the Souris River, flooding is at least as great a great as least at is River,flooding Souris the On protect to designed were appropriations prior The domi- the is Basin,irrigation St. Mary-Milk the In estab- for security water providing to addition In tively wet years in which there is both an adequate natu- werement rules modified(IJC1992): riparians. Accordingly,apportion- Dakota 1992,the in North of protection the for so doing reservoirs,while Alameda and Rafferty the from evaporation through apportionment its of part significant a lose now could text of the existing 50/50 apportionment. Saskatchewan (Hood1994). than $40milliontotheirconstruction Alameda dams that the United States morecontributed Dakota stood to benefit so much from the Rafferty and North fact, In 1969. in flood catastrophic a including floodingwhich throughouthad experienced its history, Dakota, North Minot, of city the is beneficiary main Dakota. North Saskatchewan northern and A southern of parts to protection flood offer basin,dams of the these part upper the in Situated 1990s. early and 1980s the during Saskatchewan southern in dams and Alameda Rafferty the of construction the been has ment hs e 6/0 potomn i lmtd o rela- to limited is apportionment 60/40 new This the of natural flowattheSherwoodCrossing. percent forty be will Dakota North to passed actually flow of amount minimum occur,the ditions and Alameda Reservoirs. years During when these con- Rafferty evaporationsfrom of form the in be will share Under certain conditions, a portion of the North Dakota con- hydrological the changed However,dams the develop- significant most protection, the flood For private water rights. widespread distribution of water supplyto facilitate the with enoughsecurity of providing each jurisdiction central to water development, apportionments have been Inter-jurisdictional river B. Timothy Heinmiller february 2010 39

In their administrative activities, the Accredited have boards management river IJC Basin, Souris the In coexisted boards The for two a number of decades No formal management board was created and to this day, day, this to and created was board formal management No basin Mary-Milk St. the on authority intergovernmental the Functionally, Officers.” “Accredited as the known remains is at resolution dispute and in administration rule role its formalized more the so—as more not important—if as least in other transboundaryIJC boards basins. Officers are and guidedflow by natural the “Administrative Measures” the calculating for basis the “form which meeting in performance jurisdiction’s each determining the specifications of the Order” (Halliday Faveri and a Measures provide Administrative While the 2007:85). common protocol for apportionment implementation, they also allow the Accredited Officers some latitude to minor resolve issues before they become major dis- putes. For example, they can resolve differences con- the duration “balancing cerningof periods,” time over for accounted and measured are diversions water which to ensure they are in compliance with apportionment balancing standard the basin, Mary-Milk St. the In rules. in deficits apportionment Typically, days. 15-16 is period one balancing period are made up in the next balanc- ing period, although “this practice has been varied to enhance beneficial (Halliday and use” Faveri 2007:87). Accredited Officers the In such difficult circumstances, have been successful in implementing these types of selective apportionment while maintaining the funda- mental integrity of the rules themselves. played a similarly important role in the region’s The cal politi- first economy. such board createdwas in 1948 and was known as the International “to report Souris-Red mandated was board This Rivers Board. Engineering of on the within the the waters use and apportionment Souris, and Red, Poplar, Big Muddy river basins and to develop plans of mutual advantage for these (IJC waters” once 2007). a However, universally accepted apportion- this of activities the 1958, in reached was Souris the of ment by International the new somewhat eclipsed were board had responsibility which of Control, Board River Souris implementation. for monitoring the apportionment’s until 2002, when responsibilities for all the Souris international were consolidated the in new International administrativeSouris The River cur- Board. tionment tionment of the St. Mary-Milk waters (IBWT 1909). further of were The these responsibilities officers expand- ed and elaborated in the 1921 IJC Order (IJC 1921). The IJC’s solution was to create bodies to with create a man- solution was The IJC’s anagement Boards Boards Management River Intergovernmental Intergovernmental river management been crucial boards to the have preservation of these constructed elaborately international water management rules. In shared resources like the Prairie transboundary rivers, the management rules inherently themselves is constitute a many, by public valued highly although that, good vulnerable to the free-riding and defection challenges 1990:38-49). (Ostrom goods public characterizeall that These challenges can be particularly acute in an inter- national context where there is no figuresovereign to compliance (Heinmiller 2007). or enforce ensure date to administer established river management rules, monitor rule compliance, and resolve minor disputes. These river intergovernmental management boards are binational in membership and often represen- involve tatives from relevant state and provincial governments, thus establishing informal inter-jurisdictional networks and trust ties that further circumvent the public good apportion- in as are day-to-day they Involved problem. ment implementation tasks, these intergovernmental authorities have become the face river management in the Prairie region and of one of the transboundary The St. guarantors of the established political economy. Mary-Milk was one of the first shared basins to have an IJC-created river management but body, its orga- nizational design was somewhat atypical of the many river boards that followed. Its origins can VI to Article of be the IBWT traced which allowed the IJC to United the from officer reclamation designated a direct States and a designated irrigation officer from Canada to in work cooperatively the measurement and appor- ral flow at the international borderCrossing) (the and Sherwood the intri - more A level level. specified minimum ofa at is Dakota Lake Darling in North and governments the among compromises of set cate usersof the Souris Yet theis new difficult to imagine. both that ensure to work provisions drought and flood and Saskatchewan North Dakota riparians the enjoy flood protection of the Rafferty and Alameda dams but that Saskatchewan has the opportunity uptoits water buildstorages in relatively wet whenyears, the 60/40 apportionment comes In into contrast, effect. during dryrelatively when they years, need it most, North Dakota irrigators are assured of their tradi- of the Souris. share tional 50 percent 40 Canada Institute occasional paper series construction. The substantial and protracted resistance to to expand control and beneficial use through further dam attempts alwayssuccessfully—resisting not staunchly—if steadily gained in size, organization, and political influence, agement.1960s,has interestslate of the group Since this man- water Prairie of objectives primary the be should state and reject the premise that control and naturalbeneficial use their in rivers Prairie the value others, among boaters, and fishers recreational and environmentalists, than developmental concerns. to environmentalsupport management priorities rather Among other things, they have sought to reframe water beneficial use in the same way as andriparians. irrigators and control value not do who emerged have interests ing theseobjectives hasbeguntoerode. support- consensus social management,underlying the objectives the ofcontrolwater andbeneficialuseinPrairie institutionalized fundamentally have them, with interlinked regimes entitlement water provincial and regimes,management state these while various the and afterward.And decades for and creation their of time the at economy political Prairie the in weredominant who the development and riparians interests of farmers advanced and reflected clearly have basins Souris and of public support. erosion an to a contributing of be era—may earlier priorities much the to adhere they that fact the and L the Potential Impac Changig Percep tionment rules, for example, establish that appor- flow releases interim Souris’ use. The beneficial to variable waters highly and scarce these put to Souris the of playedhave a key boards role in these allowing the all governments and manifestations, users various their In governments. Dakota North and Manitoba,chewan, Saskat- five the representativesfrom and including American, Canadian five members, 10 has board rent Many of these new interests, which include Aboriginals, evolved, new has economy political Prairie the As St.Mary-Milk the for devised regimes Overall,the oee, o tee ntttos longevity— institutions’ these However, now regimes.management river Prairie the of cess ongevity and stability have been key to the suc- tions andProrie t ofClima iiu srafos ae en salse andfish established been have streamflows minimum some instance, For institutions. existing to “add-ons” of form the in been generally have they place, taken relativelybeen rare. haveenvironmental reforms When have reforms institutional successfully,reframedmajor powerfulinterests.vestedhavebeen issues some by While defended quo status entrenched institutionally an against environmentalhaveup theyto priorities,come have tried to recast Prairie water management according 1999; Hood1994). management in the region (Reisner 1993:187-93; Glenn water influence to attempts and bloc’sconcerns this of and Alameda dams in Saskatchewan are vivid illustrations Raffertyin Alberta,the Dakota, DamandOldman the North in Diversion Garrison the of construction the apportionment hasbeenmaintained. apportionment Souris the of integrity fundamental the and task this 1992). (IJC at them far, adept proven Thus has quite it between contradictions any of reconciliation the and taskedprinciples general these of application the with use” in Dakota.North RiverThe Souris Board is then forallow to and “beneficial flowpatterns natural mate approxito scheduled be should - dams fromCanadian As Aboriginals, environmentalists, and recreationalists te Change developmental concerns. environmental rather than priorities to support reframe water management interests have sought to economy hasevolved, new As thePrairie political s and B. Timothy Heinmiller february 2010 41 Major institutional reforms reforms institutional Major and rare been relatively have in the been generally have existing to “add-ons” of form institutions. These persistent and recurring periods of shortage In 2003, Montana Governor Judy Martz began a Environmental degradation is yet another conse- opment enthusiasts in the Prairies, it has proven to be a proven it has in the Prairies, opment enthusiasts users water both for affairs of state precarious somewhat and One governments. problem has been the creation of institutionalized periods of water When shortage. full allocation is reached on rivers with variable water is result inevitable the Prairies, the in case the is as flows, govern- Alberta The periods. flow duringshortageslow St. the on evident shortagesare water that reports ment and the Mary one River on of average, every 10 years, evident are shortages that reports government Montana (Halliday years 10 of six in average on River Milk the on 2007:84). and Faveri low-priorityon entitle- impact disproportionate a have ment holders, and are therefore systematically creat- ing disadvantaged groups who in turn are demanding trueis This both resources. scarce of shares secure more domestically and Already internationally. there is evi- dence of substantial international discontent with Milk and Mary the St. the for regime management river IJC to recurring shortages. water in large part, due, rivers, campaign to have the IJC re-evaluate its 1921 Order for the St. Mary-Milk claiming that “the Order does not equally divide the waters of the two river basins, 1921, before than different are today circumstances that and are that required to improvements the administra- tive procedures that implement the Order” (Halliday and The Faveri 2007:82). IJC held public hearings in response to the matter in July 2004. Despite substan- tial public input a from wide variety of and individuals interest no groups, major changes to the Order or the Administrative Measures have yet been forthcoming 2007:82-87). and Faveri (Halliday are shortagesRecurring water allocation. full of quence - ransboundary Waters and Waters ransboundary The accommodation of recent - environmental protec long-termwater the was allocation full though Even One of the greatest challenges in the current Prairie The ecological context for this debate has also - devel toward geared rules longstanding with measures tion opment remains awkward and incomplete within trans the most including institutions, management water Prairie management goal of many irrigators and water devel- and wildlife protections have been fundamentally still institutions to added been have they introduced, but use. and beneficial control to achieve designed T Prairie Change Climate After a century of management under the principles of now have Prairie rivers many use, beneficial and control Full a allocation reached point means of full allocation. addi- no support can river a judged have regulators that the issuance in some cases, use and, tional consumptive of new water entitlements has Along been the frozen. transboundary full region, allocation has been reached in the Alberta and portions St. Waterton, of the Belly, Mary rivers, where “applications for any new alloca- tion licenses are no longer being accepted” A (Albertasimilar 2003:5). Environment situation exists on the closed has government Montana the which River, Milk to further development. political economy is the need to accommodate the more more the accommodate to need the is economy political recent water management goals of pro- environmental framework existing the within preservation and tection of institutionalized water management goals favoring The outcomecontrol and ofbeneficial this use. politi- andconflictual, cal, incremental process will shape the Prairie political economy—in good ways or bad—for the next century or longer. changed significantly in recent years.that forestalling in urgency change—and climate global The onset of change—have become widely accepted and scientists begun out climate to exactly change work how is have to impact the Prairielikely region. boundary river management regimes. For example, in the example, boundaryFor river management regimes. Souris basin, amendments enacted in 2000 now provide greater consideration and protection for the water needs of important fish and wildlife refuges in Dakota. North the However, essential the of one elements remains use” of “beneficial the and unaltered apportionment remain releases (IJC 2000). guiding principles for flow 42 Canada Institute occasional paper series recent in assessments evident by the is U.S. rivers transboundary Environmental Prairie Protection the in tion come atasubstantialenvironmental cost. shortages water recurring mitigate to efforts existing fauna. the Thus, and even flora native of loss and ing, spawn- fish channelization,river interrupted including ural flows creates its own set of environmental problems, Furthermore, the and interruption manipulation of nat- state.natural a in exist would than different much are that patterns flow water create dams However, most periods.flow low mitigate to used be can releases and increasing theconcentrationofwater pollutants. ronments,destroying fish, fowl, and habitat wildlife and riverine envi- damage significantly can watershortages all.of givenlowestfrequentlyis the Prolonged priority entitlement holders, but also on the environment, low-priority which on impact adverse an have only not ages short- these allocation,and full of under life of fact a The environmental damage wrought by full alloca- full by wrought environmentaldamage The storages dam riparians, other and irrigators For Environment, 2003. ments. (See EPA 2004a; EPA 2004b); Alberta Environment. allexistingwaterriver branchesfullysupport uses.South Saskatchewan The EPA River assessmentsare basedondataprovided Basin by thestategovern- Water Allocation. Alberta water uses, “threatened” river brancheshave water allexistingwater qualitythatsupports usesbut isindecline, and “good” * IntheEPA assessments, “impaired” river branches have water one(ormore) quality conditionsthatdonotsupport Source: Environmental Protection Agency 2004 Prairie T Table 3.1: EPA Assessments of Environmental Health for Major Lower S Upper S Lower Milk Upper Milk S t. MaryRiver TOT River ALS ouris ouris ransboundary Rivers (2004) Br of River Number anche 50 23 17 6 3 1 s Br Good anche 9 3 5 0 1 0 * s able to speculate that within the context of global climate unreason- not is environmentaldegradation,it and ages economy in a precarious position of recurring water - short that existsinmuch ofthisbasin. ment in the St. Mary-Milk and the state of full allocation develop- levelirrigation higher of giventhe surprising wasMilk worstthe in be shape,to judged not is which (or more) water one uses. Between support the two not basins, does the St. quality Mary- water whose those declining,is but uses and “impaired”are branches river existing supports that quality water has branch ened” uses,watera existing “threat- all supports branch river (Environmental Protection Agency 2004). ened,”already as were“impaired”designated eight and “threat- as designated were “good,” six as designated and Souris basins assessed by the EPA in 2004, nine were Table1.St. the in riverbranches 23 the Of Mary-Milk in summarized been have data (EPA).These Agency Threa Br Given that full allocation has placed the Prairie political the means assessment “good” study, a EPA this In anche 6 3 3 0 0 0 tened s Br Impaired anche 8 2 1 3 1 1 s Br Asse anche Not 27 15 8 3 1 0 ssed s B. Timothy Heinmiller february 2010 43 ter Recurring water shortages shortages water Recurring under life of a fact are and can full allocation, riverine damage significantly fish, destroying environments, and habitat wildlife and fowl, the concentration increasing pollutants. water of ry wa ry ounda main sources of institutional and points, resilience veto problems, identified coordination include Pierson by 2004:142- (Pierson feedback positive and specificity asset institution an make to enough is these of one Any 153). resistant to reform. The institutions of Prairie trans- boundary water governance exhibit all making three, them particularly resilient despite increasing evidence in examined are concepts These reform. for need the of detail below. more Problems Coordination From a collective action perspective, institutions are highly valued because they serve as mechanisms resolving for difficult coordinationThis is actors. the case problems with the Prairie transboundary amongst decades created were regimeswhich management river devel- water in problems coordination overcome to ago opment. Because the coordination problems of water development will and with remain, probably intensify, the onset may governments be of very climate change, climate change and the current state of full allocation may become a future state of severe allocations. in water over-allocation, with no further growth even ansb on airie regi

he emerging question for Prairie water manage- water Prairie for question emerging he currentwater how—the whether—and is ment - transbound the including regimes, management

The obstacles facing reform can be viewed more General recognition of an dysfunctions, institution’s There There also is concern that some of the Prairie riv- clearly using Paul Pierson’s analysis of institutional resil- institutional of analysis Pierson’s Paul using clearly efforts that argues Pierson 2004:142-153). (Pierson ience by prompted often are institutions established reform to case this in true be to seems as effects, dysfunctional their with the recurrent shortages to low-priority users and degradation that has occurred. the environmental is not sufficienthowever, to secure itsreform because established institutions tend to be The resilient. three ary regimes, can be become adapted already have to reform such for pressures the Growing changing climate. the of review a on insistence recent Montana’s in evident But 1921 the IJC growing need Order. for reform does not guarantee it will be initiated or meet with major success. any of way the in hurdles political many are There international reform effort. ers with sources in the Rocky such Mountains, as the will experienceMary, St. a long-term decline in river snows. winter reduced and glaciers melting to due flows Correspondingly higher increase summer also will temperatures, while season, growing potential the increasing creating more demand rates, for evaporation water just be to likely are supplies water available when time the at Adam and Barnett, in 2003:19-28; decline (Bruce et al. Lettenmair 2005:305). In the summary, median water of result a as decline to expected is Prairies the on supply change, this same change, political economy may become com- Most pletely climate untenable. change models predict that as precipitation patternsglobal warming accelerates, will change and river overall flows will decline in the Prairie higher For region. instance, winter temperatures asfall to precipitation winter more cause to predicted are And that rather rain, would than be snow. highly - prob for farmers will run of lematic much the water because off during the winter months when it can not be used, Prairiethe feed to rivers snowpack as remain than rather occurs naturally. as now during the spring melt, e pr ment in th manage T ntury of tr entury C The Next 44 Canada Institute occasional paper series dams, canals, and irrigation along Prairie transbound- Prairie along irrigation and canals,dams, regimes. the current helps toperpetuate in themselves, provide substantial positive feedback that boundary water management regimes. trans- current These investments, the to specific are that assets nizational region have invested Prairie heavily in infrastructural and the orga- in interests private and governments The Asset Specificity and Positive Feedback from theinstitutionalstatusquo. it through all of these veto points is unlikely to move far makes that proposal reform any and it block to reform ample for opportunities those disaffected by a proposed are these.there of Clearly each to internal points veto concomitant the all governments,with Canadian and vetopoints,of IJC,the notablyU.S. most the both and number a through pass mustproposalsregimes, reform watergovernance Totransboundary Prairie the reform effectiveness. their hampering thus them, controlling interests various the of denominator common lowest that any successful reforms will be watered down to the process, thelesslikely willoccur. itisthatreforms nized that the more veto points that exist within recoga - widely nowreform is (1995),George it Tsbelis of work proposals.rejectreform theandblock onlargely Based an institutional reform process who have the authority to reforms.institutional “Vetopoints” within refer actors to achieving of difficulty the to contributes process reform institutionalmultiplepresencethethevetoof inpoints change,climate of context effectivethe more are in that chance on new transboundary water management regimes a take to willingregion’sgovernments arethe if Even Multiple V environmental may effectstheseregimes have. and economic negative the notwithstanding agement, man- water Prairie in comity and stability ensuring of means a as simply maintained be may regimes ary vate interests. In other words, the current transbound- key objective in itself for many governmental and - pri able and stablecoordination, international which is a dinated to the overriding goal of maintaining predict- These negative effects may be discounted and subor- ing to water shortages and environmental degradation. addressing these problems, even if theyfor are - institutions contribut true and tried abandon to reluctant One has only to look at the existing infrastructure of probability the increase also points veto Multiple eto Points vns ta r-rm gvrac ise ad ev to serve and issues governance re-frame that events”“focusing as serve can disasters Such river. degraded severelya or drought prolonged calamity,a tal as such environmen-of kind some be would change rapid for agement regimes is not unthinkable. The likely impetus man- water current of transformation dramatic more However, scenario. a likely most the is situation, ing loom- provethe not mayto or mayadequate that one ic, andsocialdislocationmay betheresult. institutional changes, severe environmental, econom- outpace changes climate. If climate changing the with pace keep to able be will changes institutional tive reac- these whether is unanswered remains which likely proactive. most than question keyrather reactiveA be are to change climate address to Reforms need for such reforms becomes clear and compelling. the until reforms institutional pursue unlikelyareto governments— Canadian U.S. and the and IJC the from thedevelopment-friendly statusquo. means arethat institutional reforms unlikely to stray far points,veto many to access their with tion,combined expected to have a conservative approach. This be orienta- reasonably can interests peaceably, these problems coordination manage to desire their and regimes these in made have interests development water that ments reactive.and incremental be likelyto Giveninvest- the change,all,institutional at that most occurs gests is it if sug- resilience institutional for regimes’capacity ment tocontemplatemajorreforms. for theseactors in them, politically and financially, that it is very difficult many public and private interests are so heavily invested dysfunctions of the current water management regimes, the of recognition growing flows. So,river despite ral regime that seeks to roll back water use or restore natu- new a in lost or stranded become could they risk the presentthreatinvestmentsa these of some to by posing from itscontinued existence. receiveall positive substantial construction feedback its manage it, and the politicians who have built careers on this infrastructure, the public servants who maintain from and benefit who riparians and farmers opment. The devel- water to connected assets specific and valuable investment has been devoted private to these constructing very and public massive a that realize to rivers ary An incremental and reactive response to the threat,the to responsereactive and incremental An situation—including this in involved actors The manage- water transboundary Prairie the Overall, Institutional reforms to address climate change could B. Timothy Heinmiller february 2010 45 Institutions such as the IJC and the transboundary was disagreement on how to operationalize the “equal “equal to operationalize the disagreement on how was apportionment” of the waters in excess of these prior in While Canada felt that all waters appropriations. excess of the prior appropriations should be divided the United States countries, the two equally between felt that the non-prioritized country should get the next 500 cubic feet per then second, the remaining waters should Native water berights divided equally. in VI, Article also a concern to in relation Montana were but notwere a major issue in the IJC proceedings. (See 2007:80). & Faveri Halliday agement regimes to the of imperatives climate change. reformingwith these involved challenges the However, ben- interests The vested many regimes formidable. are efitingfrom the current regimes have a considerable number of veto points at their the disposal fact that The to ineffectual. it render block or reformprocess the reforms few relatively undergone regimesexisting have the emergence of the envi- despite since their creation, ronmentalist movement and various new resil- how water of evidence usersis reform, for pressured have who been in the past. ient these institutions have Prairie river authorities it under has problems spawned perceived are brought valued They for durability. their control and are widely credited with contributing to a flourishing political economy in theregion.However, their same durability can seriously undermine needed change and lead to of the regionalerosion stability and gov- partner the to up be will It legitimacy. institutional ernments in the Prairies to figure out how to resolve this institutional paradox if the Prairie the IJC of management is the in to role continue meaningful a to have the next century. transboundary rivers over of institutional reform options quite different from the status quo. Unfortunately, such dramatic institutional environmental, high potentially a at come would change cost. and social economic, S

lmost a century after the creation of the IBWT, the management IJC river and its international Prairieregimesthe in entering region are peria -

Full allocation on many Prairie while rivers, a trib- In the next few decades, the major challenge fac- 1. More specifically, the United More specifically, States1. argued that the ute to the success and achievement of water manage- ment objectives put in place a century has ago, more political region’s this in vulnerabilities revealed recently victims become have economy this of Sectors economy. to recurring of problems water shortages and environ- Already a threat under current cli- mental degradation. mate these conditions, problems could undermine the The political under economy a warming climate trend. threat of global warming that has been endorsed by all major governments presents unprecedented challenges Prairieriver current overwhelming riskcompletely that management schemes. ing the IJC and its partner governments in the Prairie region will be to adapt their international river man- od of challenge and uncertainty. For decades, these regimes these decades, For uncertainty. and challenge of od economy, Prairiepolitical the integral partof an been have facilitatingripariansfarmers and and of interests the serving scale. on a massive and beneficial use control water sway the status quo by destabilizing resilient institutions. institutions. resilient destabilizing by quo status the sway a Conceivably, major environmental crisis could re- frame Prairie water management from developmental range wide a up opening terms, environmental terms to apportionment should be measured at the border while while apportionment at the border should be measured upstream, Canada argued that it should be measured This was relevant nearbecause the sources. rivers’ an upstream apportionment wouldprovided have Canada with a larger share of waters originating in the United particularly States, on theOn theMilk. other there was agreementissue, that Canada had a prior appropriation of 500 cubic feet per second on the St. Mary and the United States had a prior appropriation of 500 cubic feet per second on thebut there Milk,

E NOT A ION NCLUS Co 46 Canada Institute occasional paper series ———. Measures asModified in1992. Interim 1992. Joint Commission.International Measures. 1959Interim Hood, GeorgeN. and AgainsttheFlow—Rafferty-Alameda Heinmiller, B. Timothy. “Do Intergovernmental Halliday, R., andG. Faveri. “The St. andMilk Mary Glenn, Jack. OnceUponanOldman: SpecialInterestPolitics ———. DakotaAssessment DatafortheStateofNorth Environmental Protection Agency. Assessment Datafor Dreisziger, N.F. “Dreams andDisappointments.” InThe Bruce, J.P. etal. “Climate ChangeImpactsonBoundary Barnett, J.P., J.C. Adam, andD.P. Lettenmair. “Potential REFEENCE . river/en/souris_mandate_mandat.htm Available at: http://www.ijc.org/conseil_board/souris_ . souris_river/en/souris_mandate_mandat.htm 1959. Available at: http://www.ijc.org/conseil_board/ Publishers, 1994. the PoliticsofEnvironment. Saskatoon: FifthHouse (2007):655-74. Regulation intheGreat Lakes Basin.” 20 Governance Institutions Matter? The Caseof Water Diversion 32(2007):75-92. Resources Journal Rivers: The 1921Order Revisited.” Canadian Water ColumbiaPress,British 1999. and theOldmanRiver Dam . Vancouver: University of . state=ND&p_cycle=2004 at: http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/w305b_report_v4.state?p_ 2004. National Assessment Database, 2004. Available . w305b_report_v4.state?p_state=MT&p_cycle=2004 Database, 2004. Available at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/ the StateofMontana2004. National Assessment 1981. Nossal, 8-23. Toronto: Studies, Centre forInternational by Spencer, Robert John Kirton, andKimRichard JointCommissionSeventy International Years On, edited projdb/pdf/48_e.pdf. Canada, 2003. Available at: http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/ Change Action FundProject. NaturalResources and Transboundary Water Management.” A Climate (2005):303-09. in Snow-Dominated Regions.” Nature438 a on of WarmingClimate Impacts Water Availability S Simonds, William Joe. The MilkRiver Project. Bureau Reisner, Marc. CadillacDesert—The American West and Pierson, Paul. Politicsin Time—History, Institutions, and Percy, David R. “Responding to Water Scarcity in Ostrom, Elinor. theCommons . Governing Cambridge: DakotaNorth Water Conservation Commissionand Matthews, Geoffrey J., Morrow, andRobert Jr. Canada Jordan, F.J.E. Joint Commission “The International ———. River Souris Board—Background International ———. IntheMatterofMeasurement and ———. December2000 Amendment tothe Agreement http://www.ubr.gov/dataweb/html/milkrive.html. Program,of ReclamationHistory 1999. Available at: McIntyre, 1993. Its Disappearing Water. 2ded. Vancouver: Douglas& 2004. Social Analysis. Princeton: University Press, Princeton 107. Western Canada.” Texas LawReview83(2005):2091- University Press,Cambridge 1990. Dakota, ofNorth Engineer 1942. and the Twentieth oftheState Biennial Report oftheState Report Water Conservation Commission Dakota. ofNorth State Engineer Third Biennial Prentice-Hall, 1985. and the World—An Atlas Resource. Scarborough, ON: Press, 1974. D. Johnston, 522-43. Toronto: University of TorontoOrganization, editedby R. MacDonald, G. Morris, and Lawand In CanadianPerspectives on International Relations.”and Canada-UnitedStatesBoundary . org/conseil_board/souris_river/en/souris_home_accueil.htm Information. May 12, 2007. Available at: http://www.ijc. and Canada, 1921. Milk Rivers andtheir Tributaries intheUnitedStates ofthe Apportionment Waters oftheSt. and Mary . souris_river/en/souris_mandate_mandat.htm 2000. Available at: http://www.ijc.org/conseil_board/ RiverSupply andFloodControl oftheSouris Basin. Between CanadaandtheUnitedStatesfor Water B. Timothy Heinmiller february 2010 47 Canadian The International Joint Commission Seventy Years Years In The International Seventy Joint Commission and Kirton, John Robert Spencer, edited by On, for Centre Toronto: 24-42. Nossal, Kim Richard 1981. International Studies, Oxford York: New . West American the Growth of the 1985. Press, University Willoughby, William R. “Expectations and Experience.” and Experience.” “Expectations R. William Willoughby, Aridity and of Empire—Water, Rivers Donald. Worster, . He Natural Resources is Journalcurrently. on working an Social Sciences and , and Governance, Heinmiller is an assistant professor in the Department of where Political Science he at Brock University, Natural Resources Journal Resources Natural 41 West.” in the New (2001):769-93. Arising and Questions Waters, Relating to Boundary 1909. and Canada, the United States Between . http://www.ijc.org/agree/water.html at: Available Parliamentarism, in Presidentialism, Players Veto British Journal of Multipartyism.” Multicameralism and Political Science 25 (1995):289-325. im T researches and teaches in the areas of public policy and public administration, focusing specifically on environmental environmental on specifically focusing administration, public and policy public of areas the in teaches and researches gover- and natural resources into water research Heinmiller has done extensive management. policy and resource journalsas such in published been have articles his and States, United the and Australia, Canada, in nance , Administration Public “cap and of on the political and project institutional development Council funded Humanities research Research policies. trade” Tarlock, A. Dan. “The Future of Prior Appropriation of Prior“The Future Dan. A. Tarlock, Britain States and Great the United Between Treaty Systems: in Political “Decision Making George. Tsebelis, The author examines threats to fisheries and water quality throughout the Great Lakes region through the lenses of geographic, socioeconomic and government systems and their respective loci of responsibility. Since ecologic systems do not necessarily adhere to geographic boundaries nor do they respond to socioeconomic or governance systems, some coordina- tion and integration of response is necessary to have effect. Two test cases are examined. One looks at the unified response to the sea lamprey, an invasive predator that, half a century ago, began posing a threat to indigenous fish populations. The other examines the effectiveness of a newer response construct, remedial action plans (RAPs), in remediating ecologic “hot spots.” While the mobilization against the sea lamprey was focused and generally successful, RAPS have brought about incon- sistent and dubious outcomes. Based on this analysis, RAPS are able to be most responsive and effective in action when control and authority are shared and decentralized to a broad range of stakeholders. Chapter 4: Transboundaries oundaries are ubiquitous. They signal differences and imply diversities. They extend into the natural world by character- of Environmental Bizing ecosystems or species or watersheds. They are essential components of human arrangements by indicating differences between Governance on the genders or nation states or computations. Rarely are boundaries either impermeable or permanent. Movements across boundaries occur reg- ularly and sometimes suddenly. Living systems and artifactual systems Great Lakes can and do change. Recently some scholarship has emerged to analyze boundary Mark Sproule-Jones changes in the environmental field of study. The impetus comes from McMaster University ecological science and its concerns with “adaptive management” of liv- ing systems through governance arrangements (Lee 1993; Gunderson, Holling and Light 1995; Gunderson and Holling 2002; Dietz, Ostrom and Stern 2005; Scholz and Stiftel 2005; Armitage 2008). It has also come from social science and its concerns with social dilemmas found in “common pools” like the classic “tragedy of the commons” or the “nesting of institutions of governance” (Ostrom 1990; Ostrom, Gardner and Walker 1994; Ostrom 1998; Ostrom et al. 2001; Sproule- Jones 2002; Dolsak and Ostrom 2003; Ostrom 2007; Barber 2008). Ecological science is stressing the uncertainties over time of prescrib- ing solutions to apparent ecological problems such as the sustainability of fish populations or the productivity of forest stands. Social science finds that prescriptions for either governmental solutions or market processes are both too context free and tend to discount the solutions devised by communities of users and stakeholders, such as those for preserving Alpine meadows or sustaining Maine shellfisheries. In both the ecological and socioeconomic sciences, these theo- retical problems seem to embrace boundary problems in three dif- ferent senses. First, there are boundary problems in the different rates of adaptation through time that are experienced by various 48 ecosystems. There are different interconnections as natural systems Mark Sproule-Jones february 2010 49 ystems of of ystems Indeed, Indeed, Lake Ontario has lost 80 percent and the We We begin by briefly describing the context for A final discussion section the following case studies, ocioeconomic S ocioeconomic tamination from point and non-point sources. point and non-point tamination from wet- and habitat aquatic of percent 60 some lakes other land the of percent 85 than More 1780s. the since lands area of the basin is in agriculture but these or forestry, habitats are also subject to developments for Solec 2006). settlement and transportation human (Solec 1995; Thus the geographical spaces available for ecosystems are reduced and deteriorating. Populations are smaller of lack sound knowledge we However, and less diverse. the upper or typical of levels multiplicity and diversity ecosystems. of sustainable S Basin Lakes the Great The basin has historically supported a diverse range of human activities both on the carryland and and basin on the in the reside waters. inhabitants million 35 Some of coordinated actions by governance institutions and the to threat major a nullify to actors socioeconomic by sustainability of commercial and remedial recreational involving fisheries case, second The Lakes. Great the on remediate to effort incomplete an still is and was action, impaired beneficial uses in the 43 most polluted bays, harbors and river mouths in the Great In Lakes. most socioeco- of governance, these “hotspots,”the polluted “out of sync.” been nomic and ecological systems have later The generalizations. context includes the - natu systems governance and socioeconomic ecological, ral that exist within the Great These Lakes Basin. short documents governmental from drawn descriptions are 2002). (Sproule-Jones, work and previous some of my Experience in the Great Lakes will be used as illus- trative examples of larger processes. After systems the(natural socioeconomic ecosystems, and - gov three ernance systems) are described, we will develop cases at length. two the general- to cases those from draw to effort an represents ize about transboundary relationships and suggest key solutions for both the theory and practice of environ- mental governance. cribed s ems De yst

he following observations he are observations following drawn from my 2005, others1995, of (Solec that and work own be to meant are and 2002), Sproule-Jones, 2006;

A recent review of indicators designed to measure Second, Second, there are boundary problems related to - gov to related problems boundary are there Thirdly, - synchron of problems pose problems of sets three All series a represents case, lamprey sea the case, first The akes Basin Lakes in the Great Ecosystems The Great Lakes Basin exceeds 765 square kilometers or 295 square The miles. fiveGreat Lakes occupy an area greater than half a billion square have kilometers, a shoreline of 17,000 kilometers (10,000 miles), and provide habitat for diverse biotic communities in the coastal zones and lands. waters, the status of biotic communities suggests that community populations many are deteriorating or reduced. These include zoo benthic plankton invertebrates, and Theirfish decline species. seems to be associated with con- as well as habitat, aquatic other and wetlands of loss illustrative of larger processes. illustrative T Three S space that are experienced by socioeconomic systems those like resources large-scale water that extend across for issues, quality Water Basin. Lakes Great the in found vary considerably example, from one watershed to the inter- the ignore may solving problem localized and next pollution. local and lakewide dependencies between ernance linkages. The linkages run horizontally users. resource different couple to intended largely are and They also run vertically national between and subna- tional governments in developing and implementing consistent regulations. National and state/provincial governments can and do a have range of policy con- cerns that can exceed their interests in Great Lakes exclusively. problems And while it is the beyond scope icity. of this paper to present a theory or framework develop to explaining able be will when we and work, can synchronicity why some valuable conclusions about transboundary rela- contrasting cases. two analyzing tionships by pass through such stages as exploitation, conservation, pass conservation, such through stages as exploitation, and reorganization. release 50 Canada Institute occasional paper series to 1 billion pounds per year early in the 20 contrast, commercial fisheries, whose production rose Lakes. In Great five the in annually million 23 exceed day, one an in now minutes 20 least at for fishing son of growth the with fishing. sport Days,” “Angler per- a single associated as defined is and substantially productiongrain intheEuropean Union(EU). tively, since 1980, due to the development of subsidized sel traffic have decreased by 30 and 57 percent, respec- bulk cargoes like iron ore and grains. of Cargoes and vesmostly - shipping, commercial is activity traditional basin.A the in enjoyed and used are waters the that Cleveland and Toronto. Detroit,metropolitan areasthe surrounding in people million eight to four from ranging populations urban large very three for home is it though even mass land the of percent 2 coverbarely areas mining. urban The and forestry the some of supports also cover). percent land land The (28 land basin the of portions lower the in farming of amount significant a as well mies, as econo- industrial modern of activities diverse the on gens (Colborn etal.1990). gens (Colborn is partially treated for conventional pollutants and patho- liquid wastes at 57 million tons per year, the places much of which estimate One lands. urban and agricultural and municipalities, and non-point source pollution fromindustries from wastes liquid source point both posal, for Superior hydro downstream purposes and atNiagara. Lac Long from diverted is second per meters cubic 158 whereSuperior, Lake in lakesoccurs the into diversion largest The disposal. sewage and supply water public for second) per meters cubic (91 Chicago at largest the occur,with also Diversions powerelectric generation(24percent). hydro- than other uses industrial and percent) (28 ply withdrawn for (29 irrigation percent), public water sup- is waterLakes Great of second per metres cubic 2,493 Wisconsin, Michigan and New York. In addition nearly in amounts smaller Ontario’spowerand of percent 20 provides Niagara, from largely hydroelectricity,First, habitat destruction. and overfishing, pollution to year, due per pounds million 50 amount,or that one-twentieth land now Pleasure boating, on the other hand, has grown grown has hand, other the on boating, Pleasure Human activities are reflected in the variety of ways Y et another use of the Great Lakes is for waste dis- waste for is Lakes Great the of Yetuse another The volume of groundwater withdrawals is unknown. lakes.the of uses important other severalare There th Century, rules; rather, the patterns is one where “nests” of rules as the Great Lakes. There is no hierarchynecessary such of regime governance a in rules of number diverse of a uses resource, we and different a around find large Zealand since1990). New for exception possible a (with heritage law mon use. This is a common feature of all regimes with a com- on based differences the retain to tended laws,still but eration. The rules were often later codified into statutory mercial fishing, for example, than for hydroelectric gen- law.common com- for exist rules of Differentpatterns in uses. formalized were”Rules”initially and emerged resources different for relationships of patterns ferent river basins like the Great multiple-useLakes Basin, are based large-scale on dif- for systems governance The Great Lakes Basin Governance S andwaste disposal. patterns settlement through ecosystems on impacts of terms in populations. But there have been negative consequences for burgeoning wildlife and energy,crops, water, fish sides of the Canada-U.S. border. The basin has provided first, second and later generations of immigrants on both the social and economic well being of large numbers of Because different patterns of rules are developedare rules of patterns different Because to contributor major a been has basin the sum, In and deteriorating. for ecosystems are reduced geographical spaces available wetlands since the1780s.… percent of aquatic habitat and and theother lakes some 60 Ontario haslost 80percent ystems of the Mark Sproule-Jones february 2010 51 ser Clusters and Clusters ser The names and character of the horizontal and ver- The governance systems exhibit some analogous egulator Clusters egulator (adapted from Scheffler et al. 2002, 233; Sproule-Jones, Sproule-Jones, 233; (adapted 2002, from Scheffler et al. 2008 Figure B). 4.2 portrays the clusters in relation to what the refers literature to as vertical linkages or cou- horizontalthe to opposed as pling coupling or linkages two shows figure The themselves. users resource among clusters of regulatory agencies RII) “vertical (RI; with relationships also and organizations user to relationships” with organizations not in this particular watershed 2002; or Young 2002; (Berkes arrows) with lines (the basin 2008). Sproule-Jones tical relationships are fully described in many sources. On an international they level, include the Boundary of which Treaty 1909, is the Waters foundation of the 1972 of Agreements Quality Water Lakes Great the IJC; and the 1978; Great Lakes Charter of There 1985 and 2007; 4.1. Appendix in listed rules further 20 least at and is a plethora of rules for the multiple uses embodied in legislation of two federal governments, eight state or and the governments, of bylaws provincial some 6,000 includ- are examples pertinent Some governments. local ed in subsequent sections of this paper. open and ecosystems do boundaries as flexible and links socioeconomic societies. Figure 4.2: U 4.2: Figure R esource esource In this kind of regime, there is no necessary hierarchy hierarchy necessary no is there regime, of kind this In sers and their Clusters and their sers are are built around different resource uses. So various shipping ports, the St. Lawrence Authority, Seaway publictransportation agencies,the International Joint interact and cluster will others, and (IJC) Commission to develop and implement policy changes for com- clusters Other levels). lake (including shipping mercial address waste disposal and water quality uses of the recreational and commercial the others still and lakes The linkages canfishing span uses. of levels - govern thement, boundaries between the public and private sectors and the organizations of different countries the like Canada and the Occasionally, United States. clusters will contain overlapping member organiza- many concernedwith is which IJC, the as such tions, “coupling” generally the However, uses of the Lakes. across the clusters can be referred to “loose as cou- pling” compared to the “tighter comparable coupling” policy within network 2002). Young (Sproule-Jones 1994; Dorcey 1993; of organizations across policy networks and no single basin-wide Instead, authority. interaction and coordi- nation proceed largely through a mutuality of inter- ests by resource regulators users, and Figure managers. 4.1 displays an example of these governance structures Figure 4.1: Water R Water 4.1: Figure U 52 Canada Institute occasional paper series the mainstay of a vibrant GreatLakescommercialfish- vibrant a mainstayof the that were species fish these of collapse the to nificantly sig- contributed thus evensturgeon.eels Lampreyand including trout, salmon, whitefish, chubs, walleye, catfish and immediate impact on all species of Great Lakes fish, the Great Lakes environment. salt and fresh water, which has allowed them to adapt to unlike eels, they feed on large fish. Theybuteels, canresemble live inOcean both Atlantic the to native brates 2005).(GLFC the Ocean Atlantic verte- aquatic These and perhaps through up migration shipping canals from freighters of water ballast from ago, probably some decades environment Lakes Great the into introduced was that invasivespecies parasitic a is lamprey sea The T isted” ashotspotsinnearly25years ofefforts. havebeen areas“del- three only and concern, of areas the of most in difficult too proved systems boundary impaired beneficial uses. The integrationcommon acrosssome the threeeliminate and reduce to action nomic socioeco- and governmental concerted recommended study.of Commission decades The some over IJC the with working scientists by such as identified been had Lakes.spots”Great The “hot the spots”on luted “hot Remedial of operation pol- 43 in (RAPs) Plans Action remain achallengesomedecadeslater.this experience of integration. consequences see,Yet,some shall we as transboundary induced infestation lamprey the before failed largely had Lakes Great the on problems eries in that of integration all three systems to deal with fish- case remarkable a is conditions.It socioeconomic and governmental integrated by controlled and managed lamprey) was sea (the problem ecological defined well quences foreachother? and under what conditions do they pose negative conse- be systems sync”the “in can ies.conditions what Under across boundar- verydifferentof the kinds integrated be question now arises about the capacities for the systems to W Three S he S The introduction and spread of the lamprey had a fast and establishment the concerns case second The case,first a the studies.In case twoWeexplore will ea Lamprey Program operating within the Great Lakes Basin. The ral,governanceand socioeconomic systems natu- overviewsof haveshort now three e ystems andTw o Contr hy rvl ptem o pw. ae apes caught lampreys Male spawn. to upstream travel they as lampreys catch to designed are traps barriers. These with association in Lakes,often Great the throughout locations various at operated are traps lamprey sea the sterilization, and barriers to addition run.In spawning the after die and fish) Lakes Great on prey longer no is,(that arephase males parasitic these their as past they technique,release sterile-male the in lampreysused are sea spawning only fact, this to females.Due spawning for males fertile with compete still they streams, into back released are males these year.When each preys lam- male of sterilization and collection spawning the lamprey through sea of success the reduce to aims technique releasedisruption. minimal sterile-male The with pass to fish other lampreys,most sea for allowing preyblock the barriers upstream migration of spawning lam- Lakes.Sea Great the from species this eliminate to attempt an in lampricides, technique,and trapping, release sterile-male barriers, using as such methods ous Lamprey Control Program tomeetthislatterobjective. Great Lakes. The GLFC has created a multi-faceted Sea the in to populations lamprey program sea minimize or a eradicate implement and formulate to second, and stocks; fish of productivity sustainable maximum the permit to measures recommend and Lakes Great the on research for programs develop sibilities:first, to respon- major two has Lakes.Commission Great The the on controllamprey sea in Engineers,participate of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S.Canada, Oceans the and Army Corps Fisheries with cooperation in ratified on October 11, 1955. and States, United Togetherthe Lakes theand Commission, Canada Great between Fisheries on Convention the by established was lamprey. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) establishedernments a unified body to eradicate the sea of the Great Lakes fishery, Canadian and gov- American any organizationalresponse. exploitative distress, but the pace of change jeopardized in only not was ecosystem 3).The 1961, (Applegate pounds 300,000 only was catch the 1960s, early the programbegan. lampricide beforethe By Superior and Huron Lakes in annually harvested were trout lake of ery.Forexample, pounds million 15 that estimated is it The Sea Lamprey Control Program has utilized vari- In an effort to address this infestation and the collapse a sting C a se s Mark Sproule-Jones february 2010 53 In examining the research provided in In supportexamining the provided research of the We might expect these kinds of uncertainties in Lieffers found that affected populations fully recovered within Yet, five this months. sudden decrease within this taxa should raise concerns, as macro-invertebrates function as vital components of ecosystems, freshwater - preda processing, matter organic in roles criticalserving Even and tion as of and food. invertebrates vertebrates, Lieffers himself acknowledges the crucial functions of con- of lack the Despite streams. within organisms these it seem would that an cern expressed within this study, eradication and of their macro-invertebrates important significant for pose risks could streams within functions the stream environment and other species within this affected area. TFM for harmlessnessuse grounded its of relative to other are aquatic studies most that noted be also should it life, to eliminate required are doses in low fact the only that of the results question one might However, sea lamprey. to treat be required may which TFM, of doses increased lamprey. sea of population resilient more and increased an to According studies recent on and sea the lamprey cur- rent environmental context of the Great impacts Lakes, could change climate and quality water improved as such Ferreri the increase population of invariably sea lamprey. found water quality that in improved streams has been linked to increased amounts of suitable which could ultimately lam- lead to increased spawning, sea lamprey prey production (Ferreri Holmes et Similarly, 1995). al. has found that the sea is lamprey an to early responder the warmer - tem to his study, According climate change. the reduce may change climate with associated peratures incubation period, increase survival and lengthen the growing seasons in streams (Holmes 1990). Given this evidence that the environmental context of the Great sea which within conditions the alter could region Lakes lamprey spawn and could result in an increased popula- tion it of as is this to species, questionable whether the as and, creature this combat to used be would doses same whether such, these doses will have differing effects on the other wildlife in the ecosystem. any efforts to knead governance and socioeconomic arrangements with ecological systems. view of alien species A broader Development Seaway Saint Lawrence the U.S. In 2008, to vessels going ocean all Corporationrequire to began flush ballast tanks areas in 200 miles Similar offshore. Although Although these methods, particularly barriers, have The GLFC credits the program with successfully Three major reservations must still be noted with Ecological risksEcological The scientific data on the impacts TFM of on macro- invertebrates is not In fully a conclusive. study for the LieffersGFLC, (1990) reports an 88 percent decrease in macro-invertebrates with streams exposed TFM. to sought to reduce or eliminate the use of lampricides with the Sea Lamprey Control Program, the primary method to control sea lampreys is still the TFM use of Studies lampricide. as (3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol) research- independent and GLFC the by commissioned and is detoxified TFM is not persistent, ers suggest that poses no threat to wildlife (Hansan and Manian 1978, Questions Hubertstill 461). 6; remain 2003, about the long run exposure of macro-invertebrates in streams and also of crops sprayed with irrigation water con- taminated TFM with (<10mg/L program The of water) (Gilderhus 1). 1990, Lieffers 4; 1979, Hudson 3; 1990, has made some improvements of fish stocks (Francis 1979) and massive reductions in lamprey populations, Lake in predator the of reduction percent 90 a including opera- in been has program control the where Superior, tion for the greatest the By number sea of 1972, years. lamprey controls and lake trout restoration had a well- organized operational status, permitting the GLFC to (Francis 1979). to other areas dedicate resources arrestingand permitting the invasion the fisheries eco- sys- the governance In that sense, system to reorganize. tem readapted itself The to help restore the ecosystem. socioeconomic system in the form of the sports fishery - pro continued and introduction for lobbied successfully gram longevity. First, on a this single focused alien intervention species. while a multiple intervention process was put in place, TFM of much lar- the success appears to be due to the ecological some poses intervention such any and vicide, species alien one on focus main the while Second, risks. appears successful, a broader approach may have - bringingtogeth been for notable is case the Third, preferable. integratedan in units fashion governmental multiple er after many decades of the about failure reservations these (and of each some would argue Below, well). as after is discussed. Program Control Sea Lamprey in traps are used for the sterile-male release technique, for research. used are most females whereas 54 Canada Institute occasional paper series retains fiduciary interests due to aboriginal claims and claims aboriginal to due interests fiduciary retains authority,but of inter-delegation old century a under province Ontario to powers constitutional its of most delegates government Canadian The access. mining inces and states owning the lake bed and fish and deter- prov-governments,the multiple with of responsibility signed, ratifiedandproclaimed Treaty of1908.) opposition in Congress. (The 1915 incident abolished a to due 1946 in and 1915 treatyin a collapsed of means by GLFC the like body international an in authority provincial agencies. fisheries to Efforts invest regulatory and state various the of plans fisheries lakewide dinate authority.coor- regulatory directto works no It has It remedialand strategies.management appropriate about it coordinates responsibilities, research and control advises respective lampreygovernments sea its from apart tookplace. nance boundaries gover- multiple the across coordination that 1981, in Joint later the Strategic Plan for Management and of Great Lakes 1954,Fisheries in GLFC) the established that body (the Fisheries Lakes Great on Convention joint the U.S. until ­ not fisheries.Lakeswas It formal Great of management include the over activities coordination to attempts unsuccessful of decades ants on both sides of the national border have claim- had many group aboriginal various years) recent (in plus governments, Ontario and governments,Canadian the state riparian eight government, the U.S. federal The Sea lamprey andinternational fisheries across boundaries. cal problems appear to have unanticipated consequences ecologi- and immediate for shipping for solutions Focused navigation. those and fisheries for established systems governance the between coordination is, that voluntary guidelines. waterballast introduceto replace to discharges mandatory IJC the and GLFC the of requests earlier to responded have could beenavoided TFM theU.S.if of use andCanadian governments the had for action preventive that vesselballastinwaterargued 1993).(GLFC becould It that over 20 invasive species were likely to lasthavewaters were earlymade1972.asoriginatedas Estimates suggest bal- However,control 2006.ofstrict for initial calls in wasSeawayaction takenCanadian bythe Corporation Fisheries on the Fisheries Great Lakes are generally the shared that,in IJC likethe much very operates GLFC The coordination,cross-sectional of one is concern This Canadian and each AOC could have anywhere between three and (or ciencies “impaired uses”) beneficial were identified, hot spots” or Areas (AOCs). of Concern Fourteen defi- (RAPs) which were to be developed for local “pollution These efforts were to be Remedial termed Action Plans mouths.river or bays, harbors local the in deficiencies identified remediate to stakeholders as users multiple coordinate to efforts localized approvedpromoted and impacts onecosystems. their to relation in systems governance and systems ic would expect few common behaviors of socioeconom- circumstances,dispute.these one any In end to parties tions for enforcement rather than negotiations between regula- on rely efforts these but(Percy 1998) purposes potableclean of that to water domestic for priority top provinces attempt to prioritize sectoral uses, often giving other uses (Sproule-Jones 1993). Some of the states and over shipping to priority grant to servitude navigable of principle the use still courts law, and common on rely to is systems such integrate to way traditional A Lakes.Great the as such resource common valuable a of uses and interdependencies visions negative resolving common for despite boundaries, and spaces cal geographi- large across integrated well not often are systems ecological and governmental Socioeconomic, T socioeconomic boundaries. and governance across relationships their and systems isolated incident in the sustainability of Great Lakes eco - the control of the sea lamprey may remain a significantly to ballast water controls by the two nations suggests that Gorenflo 1999, 347-48). and (Brown,yearsEbener 200 past the in point some at species fish important commercially of populations most for fisheries of collapse complete or partial the in quality depreciation, species introductions) have resulted exploitation and other stresses (habitat destruction, water concludes his reviewhistorical as follows: High levels of Lakes makes fisheries dismal history. Great One commentator the of sustenance generic wide regulators, and fisheries most for severea crisis to respondedcommon Nations (Dochoda1999). First with treaties regulated through rights fishing tees pollution.with concerns U.S.The government guaran- he R n 95 te nentoa Jit Commission Joint International the 1985, In responses coordinated producing of difficulties The which program lamprey sea successful the Unlike emedial Action Program Mark Sproule-Jones february 2010 55 - The practical consequence The of practical consequence was the the GLWQA and it signed shift- was in 1978, A second GLWQA The IJC recommended that multiple stakeholders be stakeholders multiple that recommended IJC The The lead agencies selected representatives from all - gov with synchronized finally be to appeared systems ernment systems in responding to this problem issue Lakes. for the Great reduction by attained were of objectives and phosphorus Targets loadings treatment. through sewage improved a and (an chlorophyll 1991, of indicator algae nuisance the early 1990s. by levels declined to acceptable growth) ed official government the attention control toward of toxic substances within a broadly-defined ecosystem The Agreement specifieswaterapproach. quality stan- microbiologic and dards in termsphysical, of chemical, AdvisoryThe Research Board of radiologic properties. AOCs furtherthe IJC and went identified 43 (later 44) significant were ecosystems the of uses beneficial where ly impacted. The AOCs ly The AOCs coincided impacted. with sites that had been under investigation for water quality conditions, rather than corresponding to particular socioeconomic of formulation the recommended IJC The communities. new a 1985, In governments. national two the to RAPs statute establishing RAPs was passed by gov- the U.S. ernment and the Canadian and Ontario governments. joint involvement. Quebec declined any RAPs of implementation and formulation the in included in order to secure a potential ecosystem approach by all relevant sectors. Implicit was that the respective federal, could designate one governments or state and provincial RAP design. institutional the fashion to agencies lead two asked to a reports agencies were in deliver three stages: problem definitionreport (Stage a1), RAP developed (Stage 2) and a “sign-off” report (Stage 3) that would confirm that useswererestored and the site can be del- isted as The Water Quality an Board AOC. of the IJC of the reports when completed. assess each level would Institutional design and the success of RAPs - govern of levels two respective the of agencies lead The in the (and the four levels AOC’s ment in the domestic select to both discretion their used AOCs) international both for agendas the set to and stakeholders participating the Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports. levels of government in each groups, environmental AOC farming groups, plus industry, of tives representa- universities Of “citizens and the at major large.” users, recreational, shipping and human health groups were The IJC was a focal point for advancing the need for for need the advancing for point focal a was IJC The In the 20-plus years since RAPs were developed government responses. As early as 1960, it began a series a began it 1960, as early As responses. government nutrient loadings emphasized that reviews scientific of as the primary cause Reportsof - eutrophication. pro duced in 1965 and meet- Ministerial 1969 Muldoon1980). further155; 1980; (Munton advanced the case ingsbetween 1970 and 1972 finally produced the first The AgreementQuality(GLWQA). Water LakesGreat AmericanenvironmentalNorthinthe movement two countries both advanced and drew strength from the burgeoning pressures on each ofgovernance systems. Ecosystems the and two socioeconomic national History of Great Lakes pollution controls Lakes pollution controls History of Great As early as the 1912, Canadian governments and U.S. pollution of extent general the examine to IJC the asked in the Great Lakes and to make specificrecommenda- tions for The connecting IJC channels. recommended sewage treatment and water purificationhuman to waste control disposal. The limited response degraded water led quality conditions to in the lower lakes. By the 1953, bottom waters of often Lake was Erie lake showed the the 1960s, late the By anoxia. of signs first characterized as “dead” (Colborn The 1990, 95). lake phos- whereby eutrophication” “cultural to subject was phorous (as a nutrient) led to an algae of bloom levels in low with one and this, lakes, five the of smallest the in summer months. oxygen dissolved under the auspices environmen- of state and provincial counterparts, federal their of help the with regulators, tal only AOCs three have been delisted as environmental re-establish- in made been has progress Some spots. hot ing fish and wildlife 2006) habitatsbut (Jackson, many of the indicators of ecological health and reproduction imply mixed, uncertain or even deteriorating (Solec What 2005). has status gone explore We wrong? this con- pollution of history the first examining by question trol on then the the Great institutional Lakes, arrange- ments put in place for planning and implementation of find that institutionalwas design inadequate We RAPs. built into the system. were and potential flaws 14 of the problems. Appendix 4.2 provides a map of the of map a provides 4.2 Appendix problems. the of 14 AOCs in the Great and Lakes, Appendix 4.3 lists important the to perhaps is It AOC. each for uses improved on impact direct a have uses impaired the of six that note expressly is one and reproduction, and health ecological and wildlife habitat. fish that of improved 56 Canada Institute occasional paper series T Conclusion A less sanguine conclusion offered by some officials was wishful thinking rather than effective ecological science. by inference, help restore beneficial uses. This was, at best, as concerns stressors that need to be reduced and hence, traditional identify to discretion the had agencies Lead problems reports.1 Stage the in listed differentpriority charges, sediment remediations and any other of the 18 dis- municipal and industrial for regulations included RAPs. various concerns the These in concerns quality water traditional of inclusion to inevitably almost led top-down modelofmostRAPsisseenaslesseffective. percentprobability99 (Sproule-Jones 2002, 2009). The teams.writing This finding was statistically significant at report- agency betweenand collaboration stakeholders uses due to its use of inclusive decision making as well as improved has beneficial RAP the that officials) agency perceptionsubsequent byheld (lead coordinators RAP stakeholders— rather than by by agencies with stakeholders advice—is the making decision decentralized of than vice-versa. A suggestive indicator of the importance 1 and 2 reports with the advice of local agencies, rather be fully inclusive and to engage in formulating the Stage Harbour,to selected werestakeholdersdeliberately the Hamilton and Akron) and Cleveland including shed (responsible for draining an urban and wateragricultural - Jones 2003, 2008). (Sproule- commerce of chamber local a from selected ancing interests, and one AOC had 22 of its 23 members bal- to one AOC.paid attention little often was There only in included were aboriginals and ignored largely nance, representing political, ecologic and socioeconom- aswell. cal andsocioeconomicboundaries or governance boundaries are synchronized with - ecologi have expanded our concerns to reveal how such political nine state and provincial and 6,000 local governments, of thetwo national, to political boundaries our concerns but both Canadian and U.S. populations. We have not limited The dominance of lead agencies in the RAP process River Cuyahoga the AOCs, large of couple a In Our studies reveal that the three systems of gover- of systems three the that reveal studies Our of North America and their beneficial uses for for uses beneficial their and America North of Lakes Great the preserve and protect to action taking for boundaries examined has paper his state) were alsosustained. inter- and (national sovereignjurisdictions between were sectors different sustained by governmental lead agencies. Boundaries from Boundaries stakeholders best. at between ambiguous is reports the RAP 2 began, RAPs since Stage years improvementsthe these and between linkages 25 the in haveoccurred AOCs of conditions ecological the in ments cooperationoverto facilitate defection. theU.S. nor the Canadian government appeared willing provincialrespectiveor their governments.state Neither from controls financial bureaucraticand of face the in for lead agencies to defect from consensual arrangements side.other the to river the of was easier side It from one had to be developed to deal with differences in priorities Lawrence, Detroit and Menominee Rivers, parallel RAPs Niagara,St.involvingthe cases In boundaries. interstate and in establish international to spanned AOCscult that diffi- more even were arrangements Consensual taries. commen- stakeholderselective with dominance agency from forms, to of agencies lead supportive with balance and variety inclusivity a took sectors different from tional design and effective strategies for delisting AOCs about,institu- cavalierto, or indifferent were agencies environmentallead if as appears cases,it many best. In at modest been have uses beneficial in improvements Detroit,Michigan,and as Toronto, such cases Ontario, ing from ortheCanadiangovernment. Congress that the RAP process could be used to tease extra fund- sea lamprey in particular. In the second case, an explicit the or general in species likealien issues complex with cial shipping were interdependent in to anydeal efforts commer- and revealed, fisheries studies first, how case particular sites or lakes or the basin as a whole. Our two interestof (stakeholders) were key on depending actors and how sectoral or policy boundaries and communities aries had grown up around different uses of these waters, basin. We discussed, early in the paper, how legal bound- environmentthe affect world’sthe of freshwaterlargest that boundaries internal important havesystems, all ic Thus, while we may conclude that some improve- Consensual arrangements between stakeholders drawn some deficiencies, in design and these of result a As Mark Sproule-Jones february 2010 57

W.W. Taylor and C.P. Ferreri, 93- Ferreri, and C.P. Taylor W.W. Journal of Great Lakes Research 21 In contrast, the RAP program often lacked basic Arrangements for Managing Fish and Fisheries in the the in Fisheries and Fish Managing for Arrangements and Policy Fisheries Lakes In Great Ecosystem.” Lakes Great edited by Management, 1999. Press, Michigan State University East Lansing: 112. 2003. MIT Press, MA: Cambridge, Millenium. Management, Water Sustainable In Practicing Together.” Toronto: Mitchell. Shrubsole and B. D. edited by 1994. Association, Resource Water Canadian Lamprey Sea on Rotation Treatment Stream and Abundance.” [Supplement 1] (1995): 176-84. [Supplement 1] (1995): 1979. Fishery Lakes Commission, Great Arbor: in Fish Control. Investigations TFM on Plants: Containing Fish Department of the Interior, U.S. WI: La Crosse, 1990. Service, Wildlife and Dochoda, M.R. “Authorities, Responsibilities and “Authorities, M.R. Dochoda, The Commons in the New eds. Ostrom, N and E. Dolsak, Sustainability Toward “Collaborating A.H.J. Dorcey, Quality Water Improved of “Effects al. et P. Ferreir, solutions all contributed to a successfulhelped that of the scientificlevels risks withprogram.lampri - It small. relatively cide were environmental science knowledge intractable problems such as the contamination of about fish. apparent Too strategies frequently, were introduced to reduce or remove purported stressors for ecosystems without basic knowledge of their effectiveness in reaching Some the AOC. an delisting of goal the and targets specified includ- others, than successful more were programs RAP ing those that displayed collaborative action amongst stakeholders in developing Stage 2 reports. It remains to be seen whether the in RAP conjunction program, the in began that programs management lake-wide with a the long can impetus runover toward provide 1990s, The sustainable likelihood and successful environment. is that these boundary issues are likely to remain with us for some time. . Ann . Rehabilitating Great Lakes Ecosystems ed. G., Francis, Water on the Effects of Irrigation Observations P. Gilderhus, s -32. The two policy cases those discussed of here, the Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and and Policy 307- Fisheries Ferreir, Lakes In Great and C.P. Fisheries.” Commercial Taylor W. W. edited by Management, 1999. Press, Michigan State University East Lansing: 355. Great Legacy. Great Lakes, Liroff. and R.A. Jackson, 1990. Authority, Conservation DC: Washington, 1-18. Science 302 (2005): the Commons.” Govern 2 (2008): 1-6. Journal of the Commons 2 (2008): 293- et al, Ostrom E. edited by of the Commons, Drama 2002. Press, Academy National DC: Washington, 322. . Ann Arbor: Great Lakes Lakes Great Arbor: Ann Sea Lamprey Larvicide Selective . 1961. Fishery Commission, International Journal of the Commons 2 World.” Level 7­­ (2008): Colborn, T., A Davidson, S.N. Green, R.A. Hodge, C. C. Hodge, R.A. Green, S.N. A Davidson, T., Colborn, “The Struggle to and PC Stern. Ostrom E. T., Dietz, Brown, R., M. Ebener and T. Gorenflo. “Great Lakes Lakes “Great Gorenflo. T. and Ebener M. R., Brown, ______. “Cross Scale Institutional Linkages.” In The Scale Institutional Linkages.” “Cross ______. 1996. Stoddart, Toronto: The Great Lakes. P. Berton, Berkes, F. “Commons in a Multilevel World,” International World,” “Commons in a Multilevel F. Berkes, Use of 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol as a Use of 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol as a V. Applegate, and the Commons in a Multi- “Governance D. Armitage, reference sea lamprey invasion and the use of RAPs invasion sea to lamprey address ecologic hotspots, provided some insightsnecessary, if not into sufficient, causes the of synchronicity between the three systems ofand socioeconomic In ecology, community. the governance sea lamprey case, a widespread mobilization of commercial and recreational fishers, large scale cooperation amongst agencies from different governmentala well-definedproblem amenable systems relatively to easy and effort was made, ie, the construction ie, effortof RAPs was made, to build into the Great Lakes situation some 43 fora (forums) where stakeholders’ interests could be articulated and aggregated into a community strategy for remediating became, system this Unfortunately “hotspots.” pollution in most a cases, contest for controlling the agenda and the implementation of preferred Environmental issues. winners consistent be to proved government of agencies amongst stakeholders. 58 Canada Institute occasional paper series Ostrom, E. “The Governance Challenge: Matching Olson, M. TheLogicofCollective Action. New Haven: Yale Muldoon, P.R. Joint Commissionand ‘The International Munton, D. “Great Lakes Water Quality.” InResources Lieffers, H. EffectsoftheLampricide TFM onMacro- Lee, KN. CompassandGyroscope. Washington, DC: Island Jackson, J. GreatLakesHotspots. Kitchener, ON: Ontario Joint Commission.International Protectionofthe Waters Hudson R. Toxicities RFMandBayer oftheLampricides Hubert, T. “Environmental FateandEffectsofthe Holmes, J. SeaLamprey asanEarlyResponder to Hanson, L. andP. Manion. oftheSea Chemosterilization Gunderson, L.H., C.S. HollingandS.S. Light, eds. Barriers Gunderson, L.H. andC.S. Holling, eds. Panarchy. Great Lakes FishingCommission. SeaLampreyControl Levin. Princeton; University Press, Princeton 2007. Systems.”In GuidetoEcology editedby ThePrinceton S. ofSocial-Ecological Institutions totheStructure University Press, 1965. 1983. Point Roberts.” Master’s thesis, McMasterUniversity, Toronto: McClellandandStewart, 1980,. and theEnvironment, editedby O.P. Dwivedi, 153-78. Great Commission, Lakes Fisheries 1990. invertebrate Populationsin aSmallStream. Ann Arbor: Press, 1993. Public Council,Advisory 2006. Commission, 2000. Available at: http://www.ijc.org. of theGreatLakes. Windsor, ON: Joint International Wildlife Service, 1979. Crosse, WI: U.S. oftheInterior, Department Fishand 73 toFourBird SpeciesInvestigations inFishControl.La .Research 29[Supplement1](2003): 456-74. Lampricide TFM: A Review.” ofGreatLakes Journal Society119(1990):Fisheries 292-300. Climate ChangeintheGreat Lakes Basin. American 1978. Lamprey. Ann Arbor: Great LakesCommission, Fishery and Bridges. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1995. Washington, DC: IslandPress, 2002. 2005. Available at: http://www.glfc.org. Program. Ann Arbor: Great Lakes FishingCommission, Young, O.R. “Institutional Interplay.” In TheDrama Thomas, K.L. “An Evaluation of Voluntary Instruments ______. at Governments Work. Toronto: University of ______. TheRestoration oftheGreatLakes. Vancouver: ______. “Public Administration.” InInstitutionsas Sproule-Jones, M. “Hamilton Harbour.” InCanadian ______. SOLEC: Burlington, ON: Environment ______. SOLEC: Burlington, ON: Environment State oftheLakes EcosystemConference. SOLEC: Scholz, J.T. andB. Stiftel, eds. Adaptive and Governance Water Percy, D.R. TheFramework of Water RightLegislationin Ostrom, E. Ostrom E, R. Gardner, J. Walker. Rules, Gamesand Ostrom, E. “Institutional Analysis, DesignPrinciples Ostrom, E. T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, PCStern, S. Stonich, EU Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001. of theCommons, editedby E. Ostrom etal, 263-92. University, 2003. of Environmental Management.” PhDdiss., McMaster Toronto Press, 1993. ColumbiaPress,University ofBritish 2002. Sproule-Jones. Boston: Lexington Press, 2008. Human Artifacts, editedby F. Sabetti, B. Allen andM. Press (forthcoming). B.T. Heinmiller. Montreal: McGill–Queen’s University Water Politics, editedby M. Sproule-Jones, C. Jones and Canada, 1995. Canada, 2005. Burlington, ON: Environment Canada, 2006. 2005. Conflict. Washington, DC: Resources fortheFuture, 1998. Canada. Calgary: CanadianInstituteofResources Law, University Press, 1990. Michigan Press, 1994. Common Past Resources. Ann Arbor: University of and G. Daneker, 27-54. SanFrancisco: ICSPress, 1998. ofRenewableGovernance Resources, editedby C. Geisler and ManagementoftheCommons.”In Lawandthe and Threats toSustainable Community Governance DC: National Academy Press, 2001. Weber, eds. TheDrama oftheCommons. Washington, Governing the Governing Commons. New York: Cambridge Mark Sproule-Jones february 2010 59 taff/ taff/ Lamprey costs splits 69%/31% U.S./Canada; other costs evenly $20,000 annual dues, plus foundation and pri- vate support for special projects Funds raised ad hoc for projects Annual dues of $500 Staffed and financed by initiating agencies Staffed and financed by initiating agencies Staffed and financed by initiating agencies Staffed and financed by participating agencies Expenses covered by governments through participating agencies Research and participa- tion financed by agencies Staffed and financed by participating agencies 95% financed by tolls; balance by federal trans- portation agencies 95% by tolls; balance by Seaway agencies S Finances Control sea lamprey; coor- dinate and advise on other fishery matters Developed Great Lakes Charter and seek to pro- mote economic develop- ment in region Promote use of Seaway but has no formal agenda Lobby on impediments to use of Seaway Formed by agencies to recommend actions on Niagara toxics Formed in 1984, with study to be completed in 1988 Committee work stalled, with negotiations now by formal diplomatic procedures Signed 1916 Established 1960s; has not met since 1970s Developing North American Waterfowl Management Plan Recommend regulations to federal governments Determine policies jointly for separate implementation Maintain bridges and collects tolls Formed in 1953 to assure compatibility of data Initiated by governors and premiers; worked closely with IJC air board to 1983 Activities/ History Resource ministers and cabinet secretaries 3 each from federal governments 4 from each side, named 4 from each side, named by Privy Council and President Governors, with premiers as associate members Includes government and nongovernment organizations 4 US, 5 Canadian port authorities Ontario, NY, 2 each EPA, and Environment Canada Fisheries and Environment agencies, with IJC observer Environment Canada, Fisheries and Ocean Corps, and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Michigan County, Wayne Department of Natural Resources, and 2 from Ontario Ministry of Environment Government scientists organized in 4 technical working groups No formal body for implementation 1 from each state and province Administrators appointed by federal governments 8 members, mostly from Canada Members Foster cooperation under 1916 convention Advise governments on protection of migratory birds Coordinate maintenance Coordinate maintenance of fisheries Provide a forum on mutual interests Promote trade and commerce Promote Great Lakes shipping Investigate toxic chemical problems Assess toxins in rivers and Lake St. Clair Coordinate methodology for data collection Develop cooperative pro- gram for air pollution Develop basis for negotiating agreement especially on acid rain Control killing of migratory birds Recommend hunt regulations Coordinate construction operation of seaway Operate bridge at Cornwall International Migratory Birds Committee Canada-U.S. Programme Review Committee Council of Great Lakes Governors Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Maritime Forum International Association of Great Lakes Ports Niagara River Toxics Committee Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study Committee Coordinating Committee on Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data Michigan-Ontario Air Transboundary Pollution Committee Memorandum of Intent Air on Transboundary Pollution Migratory Birds Convention Mississippi Flyway Council St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and Development Corp. Seaway International Bridge Corp. InstitutionGreat Lakes Fishery Commission Purpose Appendix 4.1: Binational governance arrangements outside the Great the Great outside arrangements governance Binational 4.1: Appendix the IJC of independent institutions involving Agreement Lakes 60 Canada Institute occasional paper series Source: EnvironmentCanada, Our Great Lakes, 1999, www.ec.on.gc.ca/glimr/maps-e.html Appendix 4.2: Areas of Concern intheGreat Lakes- Great Lakes Joint ResponseTeam for Board International AirPollution Board Technical InfoNetwork International GreatLakes Levels AdvisoryBoard International GreatLakes Purpose Control (4) International Boardsof Institution materials spills Cleanup ofoil/hazardous air quality Advise governmentson and flowsmeasurements Study adequacyoflevels public information Advise IJConlevelsand levels andflows Assist IJCdecisionon Members agencies Guards andother Canada andU.S.Coast Environment Canada EPA, 1NY, and3 Corps, andNOAA Fisheries andOceans Environment Canada, from public with halfthemembers 16 members,8perside, commissioners each sidenamedbyIJC Equal membersfrom S t. LawrenceRiver basin History Activities/ 9 timessince1971 Contingency Plan,invoked Maintain Joint transboundary pollution Report twiceyearlyon of data user needsandadequacy Reported toIJC1984on twice ayear Carry outstudies;reports 1909 regulation planssince Develop andimplement Finances S occurs cleanup costswherespill Staffed byagencies; collection involved instudyanddata Financed byagencies and IJC Financed byagencies financed byIJC report publication Staffed byagencies; taff/ Mark Sproule-Jones february 2010 61 12 11? 9 11 12 7 7 7 7? 7 11 777 11 7 11 9 11 7 9 11 7 7 9 11 7 9 11 7 9 11 12 7 11 7 77 11 11 12 7 11 7 7 9 6 7 11 2? 7 2 Human use/welfare 10 10? 1 1 1 10 2? 7 9? 11 1 10 2?1 7 11 1 10 2? 1 111 10 1 10 10 1 10 2 1 1 1 1 10 2 1 10 1 1 10 2? 7 9? 1 10 2? 7 11 1 10 2? 7 9 11 1 1 10 1 1 10 1? 1 10 1 Human health 14 14 14? 1? 14 14 14 14 14 14 Habitat 6 6? 6? 6 866 14 8 13 86 14 8 14 6 6 6 6 6 5? 6? 13? 14? 1 10 5 6 8 13 14 5? 6 8 13? 14 5? 5? 6 8 13? 14 4 4? 6? 8? 14 3 4 3 4? 5? 6? 8 13? 14 3 4 5? 6 83? 13? 4 14 5? 6 3 4 5 6 8 13? 14 3 33 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 5 6 8 13 14 3? 5? 6 13 14 3 4 5 6 8 13 14 33 4? 4 5? 6 6 8 133 14 14 3 4 5? 3 4? 5 6 8 13 14 Ecological health health Ecological and reproduction Ashtabula River Oswego River Presque Isle Bay Wheatley Harbour Cuyahoga River Lake Ontario Buffalo River Eighteenmile Creek Black River Rochester Embayment 3 4? 5 6 8 13 14 Collingwood Harbour Severn Sound Spanish River MouthLake Erie Clinton River 3 River Rouge River Raisin Maumee River Lake Huron Saginaw River/Bay 3 White Lake Kalamazoo River Muskegon Lake Grand Calumet River/ Indiana Harbor Canal Waukegan Harbor Waukegan Milwaukee Estuary 3 4 5 6 8 13 14 Sheboygan River St. Louis Bay/River Lake Torch Deer Lake-Carp Creek/ 3River Lake Michigan 4Manistique River 5? 6 Nipigon Bay Thunder Bay Menominee River Jackfish Bay Fox River/Southern Green Bay Area of Concern of Area Lake Superior Peninsula Harbour 3 Appendix 4.3: Categories of use impairments for Areas of Concern on the Great Lakes Great on the Concern of Areas for impairments use of 4.3: Categories Appendix 62 Canada Institute occasional paper series atlas/use-impa.html Source: Adapted from Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995), http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/ (10) Beach closings(bacteria) on fishandwildlifeconsumption(1) Restrictions Human health orreproductionBird oranimaldeformities problems (5) (4) andotherdeformities Fish tumours Undesirable algae/eutrophication (whichmay causelow dis- ofphytoplanktonDegradation andzooplankton(13) ofbenthicpopulations(6) Degradation offishandwildlifepopulations(3) Degradation Ecological healthandreproduction identified by number baseduponthesequenceinwhichthey appearintheagreement. impairments 14 the restoration.belowcontain of need categories in general and four impaired The be may that Lakes Quality investigated.) Great being GLWAQWater uses The impairments the beneficial the 14 indicate lists in marks Agreement.(Question used categories use-impairment specific identify table this in numbers The St. ClairRiver St. MarysRiver Connecting hannels Hamilton Harbour Metro Toronto Port Hope Bay ofQuinte Area of Concern igr ie N)3 ?6 5? 4 3? (Cornwall) 3 St. LawrenceRiver Niagara River(NY) Niagara River(ON) Detroit River (Massena) St. LawrenceRiver cause other impairments) (8) cause otherimpairments) solved oxygen levels thatmay inturn 4 3 and reproduction Ecological health 3 14 13? 8 6 5 4 3 ?4 ?6 3 14 13? 6? 5? 4? 3? ?5 3 14 8 13? 14 6 8 13 5 6 8 5? 4 6 4? 3 3 4? 3 ?56 5 4? 4 3 14 13? 8 6 5 8 6 6 Habitat 14 14 14 14 14 Fish andwildlifehabitat(14) (12) orindustry Added costsforagriculture ofaesthetics(11) Degradation Taste water (9) andodourindrinking (7) on dredging Restrictions Tainting offishandwildlifeflavour (2) Human use(welfare) Human health 10 1 02 112 11 9 7 2? 10 1 10 1 10 1 02 112 11 9 7 2? 10 1 1 1 10 1 10 1 1 Human use/welfare 7 9 7 11 9 7 7 11 9 7 7 11 11 7 7 11 Carolyn M. Johns february 2010 63 - that bilateral efforts are meeting with only ater pollution is an enduring transboundary - environ mental policy issue. Problems of toxic chemicals not and species, to invasive mention the emerging science Almost 40 after years the United States and Canada began con- certed efforts to address environmental degradation in the Great Lakes water pollution watershed region, and other environmental pro the problems remain and enduring challenges in one largest of the species, world’s invasive chemicals, Toxic basins. transboundary jected impact of climate change are creating new pressures. Despite a number of transboundary institutions and agreements aimed at thisproblem, bilateral efforts have met with very limited in success, part due to asymmetries between the United States and Canada in terms of policy effortThis comparative and analysis whether capacity. laws, “soft” vs. points to “hard” differences in reliance on point non-point vs. succeed sourcesTo of pollutionlead. the taking are are authorities targeted, provincial or state and whetherfederal, differences basin, Lakes Great the protect to effort coordinated a in in national and subnational policy and implementation capacities insti- transboundary more for not is need The reconciled. be to need for role A better. work institutions existing making for but tutions, the IJC is especially envisioned, its mechanisms already in place are approaches new However, resolution. dispute transboundary for including stan- scientific accepted to accountability well, as needed responsivenessdards, to multiple stakeholders, integration of water quality and quantity concerns, and convergenceefforts level. at the watershed of policymaking The United States and Canada share similar types of water pollu- water of types similar share Canada and States United The ­transboundary water pollution policy within the auspices of the W related related to the impact of climate change on the water quantity and quality are interface, creating new pressures for transboundary water policy effortsDespite the in existence the of Great Lakes. longstand- Canada and and between agreements institutions ing transboundary the United and States, the proclamation policy that of these evidence efforts little is serve as there a governance, transboundary for model Lakes Great the in issue significant a remains pollution Water progress. subject the remains transboundary institutions of effectiveness the and debate. of much Despite that tion. and the existence of a number growing of trans- boundary institutions and agreements aimed at finding solutions to the it problem, is clear limited success. Different institutional arrangements, policy regimesinstitutional Different arrangements, limited success. (Hoberg 2002) and asymmetries in policy effort and capacity at the national be may and underminingsubnational levels transboundary approaches new for need a is There basin. Lakes Great the in progress to IJC This and chapter beyond. touches on themes outlined in the including introduction of a this comparisonvolume, of how water

yerson University yerson

R Carolyn M. Johns Carolyn Capacity Subnational Policy Policy Subnational National and Significance of Significance Great Lakes: The The Lakes: Great Efforts in the Efforts Water Pollution Pollution Water Transboundary Transboundary Chapter 5: Chapter 64 Canada Institute occasional paper series Figure 5.2: MultipleWater U Figure 5.1 Great Lakes Basin Map and institutions. Source: Sproule-Jones,M.,C.Johns,B.T. Heinmiller2008. Groundwater Wetlands Surface Water Montreal andKingston:McGill-Queen’sUniversityPress,32. Multiple WaterUsesintheGreatLakesBasin ses Cultural -Spiritual Recreation Waste-water Disposal Municipal Use Mining andResourceExtraction Forestry, PulpandPaper Industrial WaterUse Hydroelectricity Commercial Shipping Commercial Fishing Bulk WaterRemoval Bottled Water Agriculture andIrrigation Canadian Water Politics:Conflicts Water Canadian University Press, 32. McGill-Queen’s and Kingston: institutions. Montreal Politics: Conflictsand Canadian Water Heinmiller 2008. M., C. Johns, B.T. Source: Sproule-Jones, pdf GreatLakesBasinMap. ebr/gl_charter/ gov.on.ca/mnr/ http://www.mnr. Source: Carolyn M. Johns february 2010 65 s tershed a s W t Lake By the late 1960s, there was growing public concern public growing was there 1960s, late the By This chapter is divided into four sections. Section point source and non-point source. Point source water Point point source and non-point source. pollution refers to cases in which as such inputs into sources, easily-identifiable natural from come ecosystems - treat sewage municipal from outfall and waste industrial ment facilities. Non-point source pollution comprises those uses in which inputs into natural ecosystems are agricul-and urban as such multi-sourced, and dispersed tural and sewagerunoff, inputs, overflow groundwater gasoline, oil, carrysediment, may Runoff contamination. sub- toxic other and metals, heavy chemicals, pesticides, both assessing for science The bodies. water into stances these types of pollution includes a variety of measures quality indicators health such as and water the of water monitoring within watersheds. of biodiversity about the deterioration of water quality in the Great Lakes, especially related to the problems of eutrophi- cation and Scientificreportstoxic chemicals. indicated the effects of pollution by phosphates and other nutri- ents and described their negative impact in documenting scientists were By the 1970s, terms of biodiversity. the extent of water pollution across the problems lakes and realized that water pollution could not be under- stood in isolation from other important components of the land ecosystem and such biota. air, as sediments, indus- as such sources point of number a from Pollution documented was effluent wastewater try municipal and policy the for stimulus the was and watersheds several in I outlines the enduring issue ofthe Great Lakes and the waterneed for reflection on pollution why in well-defined environmental outcomes have not been achieved some 30 years after governments sides on of both the border agreed to address II them. reviewsSection transboundary policy efforts then to highlights date policy and efforts in the - lev United subnational and national the both at States Canada and Section els. III analyzes the dimensions comparative in light of the broad themes Section of this volume. IV offers some concluding thoughts on future policy directions. ion in Grea ter Pollut a he Great Lakes form the largest fresh water basin water fresh largest the form Lakes Great he of 18 the percent roughly containing km on earth, 8,000 the of percent 40 Some supply. world’s tion I: W As Figure 5.2 highlights, there are many different uses of water in the Great Lakes. these local, Collectively, national, transboundary and international uses have increased and changed time over and have had a ground- and wetlands water, surface on impact negative water (Sproule-Jones 2002; Lakes Sproule-Jones, Great Johns the and size, large their Despite 2008). Heinmiller to the effects sensitive of are a wide range of pollutants pollu- Water sources. varioususersand these of all from tion in the basin can be divided into two broad types: boundary between Canada and the United States is water water is States United the and Canada between boundary constitutes Lawrence Lakes-St. Great the and 2005) (Gray The in basins the one world. water of shared the largest basin is home to nearly 40 than million people—more 30 and States United the of population the of percent 10 percent of the population of Canada span EPA systems 2007). (U.S. draining river and lakes five the Collectively, (see states eight and provinces two km, 1,200 than more role in the eco- a major The basin has played 5.1). figure and Canada and States United the of development nomic provides water for domestic consumption, and recreation a agriculture, host of power, transportation, industry, of concentrations largest world’s the of Some uses. other are industrial located in activity the region Great Lakes Atlas 1995). Lakes (Great Sec T pollution policies are framed, pollution different policies forms are framed, of gover- nance and hard vs. soft law at the transboundary and the domestic significancelevels, of transboundary net- of works political differences and bureaucratic officials; in geographic scope and approaches in terms of cen- tralization and decentralization; asymmetries in effort, and impacts of transboundary governance as measured by indicators of water The quality central in the basin. transboundaryfor institutions order in that is argument subnational and national important effective, more be to policy differences and implementation capacities need of generation next the in consideration into taken be to transboundary efforts. 66 Canada Institute occasional paper series T nifrne o nuig ae pluin sus n a and issues pollution water enduring to indifference growingwaspublicthere 1990s pollution,early the by 1970s and 1980s and some progress in addressing water the in awareness public heightened of period a After pathogens,beach-closings, fish over and wildlife impacts and habitat loss. concerns public reinforcing region, Lakes Great the in released be to continued chemicals of tons of thousands of hundreds and 64) 1990,al. et (Colborn municipalities and inhabitants,industries ing poured into the Great Lakes annually by their - surround werewastes liquid of tons million 57 1980s,some the of end the by control.Nonetheless,sewageimproved and some beaches reopened as a result of regulations and improved, lakes algal the mats disappeared, in levels oxygen odor declined, levels problems nutrient declined as discharges,phosphorous,pollutant as some such in and 2005,Muldoon and 137). reductionsMajor were made (Botts controls source point to due droppeddioxins, cals, including byphenyls,polychlorinated or PCBs, and levels,domestic and presencetoxicthe some of chemi- response outlinedinthenextsection. lution inthefuture (Wisconsin DNR1996). Lakes was required toprevent thistypeofwater pol- waterpal utilitiesthatdraw from drinking theGreat shed managementandefficientoperationof munici- government concludedthatacombinationofwater- one possible source oftheoutbreak andthestate manure were spreading andrunoff thoughttobe was unable topinpointthesource ofthepathogen, water plants.drinking Although agovernment study was found to be polluted water from one of the city's million residents inthearea becameill. The cause were tothisoutbreak and403,000of1.6 attributed break documentedinU.S. history. Over 100deaths Milwaukee was disease out- thelargestwaterborne (pathogen) outbreak in In 1993aCryptosporidium Wisconsin 1993 Water Pollution inMilwaukee, able 5.1: R As a result of policy efforts at both the transboundary ecent Water Pollution Events inGreat Lakes Watersheds ing number of water uses place pressure on water supply, would century.21st the in pressing increas-more that An become challenges and issues environmental ary Commission (IJC) recognized a number of transbound- in theGreat Lakes (Table 5.1). response in connection with publicbroader water a quality issues generate not did pollution, water from died in 1993 and Walkerton, Ontario, in 2000, where people tion events in the Great Lakes in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, cy responses in the region. Even significant water pollu- 1996). This policy shift had a significant impact on poli- significantly improved had water quality (Rosenbaum 1991, control 200; OECD pollution industrial source point and facilities wastewatertreatment municipal on was no convincing evidence that government spending emerging consensus in industrial democracies that there an by reinforced were times.approaches the These of restraint fiscal and economy, competitiveness the on focus ideological the with fit which approaches based voluntary,to approachesmarket- regulatory from ring environmentalin broadershift ideational occur- policy quality issues. water Lakes Great broader to made linkages policy however, 2006, indirect were in tragedy. Only this to response policy the of component strong a was protection source including approach multi-barrier them.of all implemented government had vincial A edy made 92 recommendations and by 2007 the pro- by poorlymanagedmunicipal wells. groundwater water whichwas suppliedasdrinking activities whichpolluted tamination from farming waterbut broadlytosurface con- attributed this pollutionevent was foundtobemulti-faceted contaminated withE. coliOH-157. The causeof ized andover water 2,000becameillfrom drinking In May 2000, seven peopledied, 65were hospital- Water Pollution in Walkerton, t h ed f h 19s h Itrainl Joint International the 1990s the of end the At The public into inquiry this water pollution trag- Ontario 2000 Carolyn M. Johns february 2010 67

surpris- transboundary success stories success transboundary Great Great Lakes is particularly on the There have been some been have There miles of shoreline have been degraded been (GLU 2007). have miles of shoreline relating relating to such issues as and indica- acid several rain, tors of progress in the Great suchLakes, as returns of species on the brink of extinction and - some re-estab lishment of fish and wildlife habitats (Jackson 2006). there However, are also many new and re-emerging issues in the Great including Lakes, new evidence of - prob enduring the pollution, chemical pharmaceutical lem of importing species invasive such as zebra - mus sels (Sanders and and plateaued Stoett progress 2006), EPA in ErieLake “dead zone” in (U.S. addressing the pol- most the up cleaning in progress slow The 2002). luted sites ing given the longstanding institutional arrangements transboundary designed to address Lakes on the Great waterquality issues andthe efforts ofstate andsocietal stakeholders. Thus we arrive at a point where, some 25 years after years 25 some where, arrivepoint a at we Thus the implementation of various water policy initiatives, indi- the of Many met. been not have objectives quality even uncertainor mixed, are health ecologicalcators of watersheds many in Progress 2007). (Solec deteriorating in the Great Lakes and region pollution remains slow, and growth population with along increase to continues the increasing uses of water in the basin. Over two- thirds of the basin’s original wetlands have been lost, thousands of miles of rivers have been impaired, and demand and water quality. Air pollution, demand Air chemical and pollution, use water quality. and habitat release, loss and exotic biological diversity, infrastruc-and management, waste species, invasive and negative a have enduringwhich all issues are needs ture impact on water quality despite (IJC However, 1997). lit- is arrangementsthere governance multi-stakeholder impacts cumulative take to users various for incentive tle particularlyinto account outside 2008), (Sproule-Jones borders. their perceived Source: http://epa.gov/greatlakes/aoc/index.html Source: akes Areas of Concern of Areas Lakes Great Map of 5.3: Figure 68 Canada Institute occasional paper series T Sec on theGreat Lakes (seeFigure 5.3). binational water disputes. According totheIJCitself: of resolution the for institution transboundary unique a as WatersIJC the 1909.Treatyestablished in treaty The ment in 1987 identified 43 Areas of Concern (AOCs) 43 Concern identified of Areas 1987 in ment agree- substances.renewedtoxic The emphasized and approach ecosystem-based an for need the recognized GLWQA 1978 conditions.The nuisance localized of cleanup beyondthe lessons provided severalimportant showed80s and improvementsthat and made be could of the 21 the of challenges the meeting in parties the to assets important are publicforum a as serve and governments local engage to ability its independence, and and objectivity find, fact- joint consultation, on emphasis historic and ibility issues.flex- Commission’s these The on together work to citizens interested scientists, andment, stakeholders- of govern levels all from officials for opportunities the provides institution other no issues, water-resource and and environmental around disputes transboundary ing resolv- and preventing in record track successful its mandate or broad IJC’s the has institution other “No Point source and clean-up initiatives of the late 1970s approachboundary toaddress water pollution. (McCulloch and Muldoon 1999), or soft-law trans- betweenagreement the two levels of government” 1972UnitedStatesin non-binding, “a good-faith the and Canada (GLWQA) between Agreement in the signing of the first Great Lakes Water Quality finding and diplomatic capacity of the IJC resulted municipal sewage treatment systems. The joint fact- trols in the form con - of effluent source limits point for on industries and focused efforts basin-wide for push policy a in culminated research IJC that 1970s the notuntil was it species, fish declining cern about pollution impacts such ascon- indicated algae-mats50s and 1940s and the in studies some tion issues were referred to the IJC for study. pollu- water 1912, as While early well-documented.As is Lakes Great the in pollution water to response tion II:Ther 100 years ago with the signing of the Boundary UnitedsharedStatesthebeganCanadabyand ransboundary management of the vast watersheds st century.”1997) (IJC The transboundary transboundary The ansb oundary Polic 1

was created in 1994, and given powers to make recom- the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) Free North American Tradethe (NAFTA), Agreement ary water management and bilateral relations. bilateral and management water ary involved actors and transbound- organizations in other limited binationalcooperation. had and 90-103) 79, 2002, (Sproule-Jones watershed down themiddleofshared barrier an impermeable (see Figure 5.3) devised two parallel RAPs that assumed yet those AOCs shared by Canada and the United States 2005), Muldoon and Botts 2002,Sproule-Jones1992; Zarrell and (Hartig RAPs in progress some been had related to RAPs. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there from IJC-level to efforts a more decentralized approach The AOC approach gradually resulted in a shift in focus nent watchdog role” in the Great Lakes (Schwartz 2005). reference”a “standing and given“perma- was it effect in GLWQA, the under role investigative its beyond (U.S. EPA 2007). governments, local industries, environmental as groups and individual wellcitizens as agencies federal other from expertise and input RAPs, by complemented the is which implementing and preparing in lead the The eight Great Lakes states and provinceOntario have in AOCs. efforts supplement to supposed wereborder the of sides initiativesboth and programson other and uses. In addition, Lakewide Management Plans (LAMPs) impaired the address to plan implementation an oping water pollution problems in the AOCs, and then devel- assessing in approach:two-stage first a in governments and industry organizations, nongovernmental citizens, involvementmulti-stakeholderof required 5.2).RAPs 5.3) to restore 14 beneficial uses in these areas (see Table Plans (RAPs) to be prepared for all 43 AOCs (see Figure uses (see Table human 5.2). other and health human habitat, wildlife and populations fish species, various health of reproduction and the as such uses ecosystem various impairing basin. the in Together,werechemicals pollutants these toxic of number increasing the contami- and sediments, nated pathogens, metals, heavy from pollution During the same period there was a proliferationof wasa there period same the During expanded not was authority IJC’s the Although Action Remedial for called agreement 1987 The These AOCs highlighted the various types of water y Re sponse 2 Under Carolyn M. Johns february 2010 69 With With the proliferation of transboundary institu- By the environmental organiza- several 1970s, U.S. use operations agricultural and industries all Virtually to water quantity issues, transboundary policy efforts outside the auspices of the and IJC, the separation of water quantity and quality policy regimes. Although in the early years of the there had GLWQA also been participationalmost no direct gov- of local (municipal) ernments (Botts and Muldoon 2005), the designation of RAPs resulted in many local governments becom- Association The of Great Lakes AOCs. ing in involved and St. Lawrence Mayors and the Great by engagement Lakes growing Cities indicated also 2003 in Initiative 163). 2005, (Botts and Muldoon local governments also has there years, 20 past the agreementsin and tions the At stakeholders. nongovernmental in growth a been actors non-state earliest the perhaps level, transboundary scien- were issues quality water Lakes Great in engaged the to contributed has itself IJC The researchers. and tists aca- and research transboundary various of development Advisory Science Lakes Great the as such networks demic Board, the Water Quality Board and the Council of Great Lakes Research In Managers. the addition, State (SOLEC) Ecosystem and Conferences the of the Lakes have Research Lakes Great for Association International ensure to together policymakers and researchers brought and monitoring. ongoing research tions had established Great Lakes programs (Botts and Muldoon 2005, 43) that evolved into specific Great groups such as the Lakes- Lake MichiganFederation, and Great along Lakes Tomorrow United, Great Lakes Natural the as such groups affluent more and larger with All Action. Water Clean and Council Defense Resources of them developed agendas related to the Great Lakes 81). (Botts and Muldoon 2005, Lakes Great in stakeholders important thus are and water - asso industry of number a are There management. water ciations such as the Council of Great Lakes Industries Association and other industry-specific groups associ- fishingated andwith othershipping commercial ports, decades ofthe the first two However, uses on the lakes. has been “lack characterizedof industry GLWQA a by attention reflecting limited the participation sector’s in the Great Lakes community in the firsttwo decades of the (Botts history” agreement’s and Muldoon 2005: The 101). early 1990s saw some increased activity by industry associations, particularly related to the toxic chemicals and the debate about “virtual elimination,” se Impairments in Impairments se and animal deformitiesBird or reproductive problems In addition to these transboundary relations at the U able 5.2: • Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption • of fish and wildlife Tainting • Degradation of fish and wildlife populations • tumours Fish and other deformities • • Degradation of benthic populations • Restrictions on dredging • algae/eutrophication Undesirable • drinking and odour in water Taste • Beach closings • Degradation of aesthetics • Added costs for agriculture of industry • Degradation and zooplanktona of phytoplankton mendations on environmental issues including water pollution in any of the three Soon countries in afterward, NAFTA. the Great Strategy Lakes was signed and co-chaired Binational by the director Toxics of the Great EPA’s Lakes National Program Office and the director of Environment Canada’s Environmental Protection Branch, Ontario Region. The to eliminate a targeted set of goal substances was in the Strategy’s basin between 1997 This and agreement2006. is one “forged which with a reportedly stronger relationship” the NAFTA-CEC Sound concern some Management causing of 2006), Chemicals EPA (U.S. Group Working activ- the supplant might CEC the of mandate the that 2006). ities of the IJC (Schwartz subnational federal transboundary level, environmental management interactions were on the rise (Stoett and Governors Lakes Great of Council The 2006). LePrestre (CGLG)—representing eight Great Lakes states Ontario and and Quebec as affiliate members—has had a transboundary mandate under the CharterLakes Great since 1955. In 2001, the signing of the Annex to the diver- and removals water Charter bulk on Lakes Great sions as a subnational transboundary agreement involving the not federal governments in Canada or the United States (Heinmiller 2008) indicated that subna- tional governments were developing capacity related T akes Areas of Concern of Areas Lakes Great 70 Canada Institute occasional paper series States more generally,more States by characterized been has which tal nature of environmental policymaking in the United policy efforts have come to mirror the intergovernmen- the states and to localities. exclusivelyHowever, almost over pollution time, and water pollution rights water control to authority legal the grant that rules tutional consti- and law common on based are States United the in quality water governing policies and laws The the United S Water Pollution Policy Efforts in national levels inCanadaandtheUnited States. sub- and national the understanding also levelwithout not fully assess the policy response at the transboundary regimes which policy have evolved domestic to address water distinct pollution. very One can- two are there environmental challengesremain. and pollution significant water and 1995) Zimmerman and (Rabe limited been has integration policy based beyond,and ecosystem- IJC the of auspices the under both haveproliferatedenvironmental management ary concerns.primary Although institutions for transbound- its were generation hydroelectricity and irrigation for small.was issues Waterwaterdiversions transboundary management. water transnational When the in IJC began operations, IJC the the set of of role the and efforts policy assess to effort an been has century,there ond approaches its centennial and looks forward into its sec- IJC the to GLWQA relatedreview (Botts and Muldoon 2005). stakeholders As the societal IJC and state of on otherfronts. networks fostering were that technologies munication 2005, 161), despite the growth of information and com- Muldoon and (Botts decline to began Lakes Great the in groups stakeholder and researchersbetween munity com- of sense general 1990s,the late Howeverthe by whom 2002).(Sproule-Joneslevelthe AOC at active of became all scientists, and academics professionals, cultural users, local environmental groups, water agri- system and industrial citizens, local are stakeholders tal water quality issues. The most common nongovernmen- societal stakeholdersto prevent,form assess and remedy around natural which boundaries networks of state and pants (Sproule-Jones 2002). partici- active not weremany AOCs, in industries but Even though the Great Lakes constitute a single basin, re-engagement some recently,been More has there the become have watersheds level, micro the At tates ih h assac o te P (igus 19, 27). 1993, (Ringquist EPA the of assistance the with plans developimplementation and jurisdiction their in sources non-point assess to states directed Act the of Great Lakes Research Office as part of the and EPA. (GLNPO) Sec.319 Office Program National Lakes Great the established also 118 efforts,Section Lakes Great in agency lead the EPAas the designating to addition In CWA.the of Sec.118 in added were 1987-2008 from RAPs and LAMPs and minimum annual appropriations for responsibilities GLWQA.Additional the signed it year same the Reagan, President of veto the over ly Clean the passed Water (CWA)Act unanimous- nearly quality objectives (Rosenbaum 1991). In 1987, Congress sourcepollution point “sticks”were watermeeting not (U.S.EPA 1995a, 72). that increasinglyclear wasalso It source pollution as their major water pollution problem non-point ranked states 52 the of 33 waterways, and reachingAmerican pollutants the of two-thirds nearly for accounted pollution source non-point mid-1980s, improvingmunicipal sewage treatment facilities, by the this policy area. in presence federal a to receptive more became gradually dollars, federal by officials, enticed local and State 58). 1992, (Lowry management pollution water the federal government’s “high vertical involvement” in increased the gradually WPCAto amendments several and 213), 1989, (Rosenbaum bureaucracy ronmental the growing research and technical capacity of the envi- EnvironmentalProtection(U.S. Agency 1971,EPA)in fed- out the of 1981). establishment (ACIR carrying The programs eral in agents regulatory as ernments gov- local and states on reliance increased forcesprompting of variety a paralleled (NPDES).This System ties under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination facili- municipal and industrial for regime and permitting regulatory a established it outcome, another As watertreatmentplants. construct to localities and states ed to interstate waters and resulted in federal funding for government’s role under the constitutional powers relat- federal the altered that legislation of piece primary the exclusive (Welbourn jurisdiction 1988). upon on which matters states previouslyauthority held 1960 and 1980, the majority, between passed 18 lawsof environmentalthem, federal asserted federal 25 the of ties blend and apply concurrently, reflecting thefact that “conjoint federalism,” whereby state and federal - authori Although the focus remained on point sources and sources point on remained focus the Although The 1972 Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA) was Carolyn M. Johns february 2010 71 - ­articulated the federal government’s Another GAO report issued in 2003 indicated that ing in the preceding 10 years and ongoing disagree- ment between EPA and the states over responsibility related to the RAPs (Botts and 2002. Muldoon in law 2005, 152), into signed was Act Legacy Lakes Great the Touted as the “the first significant legislation for the Great Lakes in a decade” (Botts and Muldoon 2005, 152), the Legacy Act provides funding and additional support for the GLNPO to take the necessary steps to clean up “Areas contaminated of sediment Concernin located wholly or partially in the United and States,” outreach public for designated funding specific includes components. and research after almost $2 billion in spending since 1992 on Great Lakes efforts, and coordination among 33 federal and 17 state programs (Botts the and 158), Muldoon 2005, lack of federal coordination (despite the establishment of GLNPO) and measurable results indicated a need for strategy an for overarching restoration of the Great In Lakes. May President 2004, Bush created the Great included which (GLRC), Collaboration Regional Lakes and governors the Lakes Great members of his cabinet, and tribalIn leaders. mayors, Congressional delegation, the GLRC 2005, released the Great Lakes Restoration and Protection Although Strategy. states have made some the AOC progress—for example, Oswego River in state York New became the firstAOC delisted on the side U.S. of basin in 2007, the CGLG and Great been have criticalLakes Mayors of forthcoming finan- government federal the and Congress supportfrom cial 2007; (CGLG belt water nation’s the to related efforts in 2005 in GAO the by reports Subsequent 2008). GLSLCI and 2008 raised enduring concerns imple- about U.S. mentation capacity. in Canada Efforts Policy Pollution Water fed- the at efforts policy water of history the Canada, In 1992; Hoberg 1985; (Pearse documented well is level eral Rassmussen and Johns 2003, Brooks 2002; Sproule-Jones court legislation, of combination a from stems and 2008) under initiatives funding and directives policy decisions, various constitutional authorities. jurisdicfederal within Although fall management water of aspects various the that Act Water Canada 1970 the until not was it tion, federal government passed its first piece of legislation explicitly related to water resource management, that The rather “enabling” in “regulatory” than was nature. Act Water Canada …watersheds have become become have …watersheds around boundaries the natural and state of which networks to form stakeholders societal remedy and assess prevent, issues. quality water By the late 1990s, the EPA Office of Water, along with with along Water, of Office EPA the 1990s, late the By years after the Twenty original law calls was passed, Despite some retreat in the the 1990s, federal govern- in (SDWA) Act Water DrinkingSafe new a signed ment Strategy in Toxics 1996 and the Binational Great Lakes funding and under increased the Clinton admin- 1997, Action Plan in 1998. Water Clean istration’s the 10 EPA’s regional offices and states, tribes, partners and were charged stakeholders, with integrating through actions efforts Lakes Great and SDWA CWA, the under began EPA the 2000, By partnerships. and funds loan state a push toward integrating point source and non-point which requires source efforts Sec.303d, under the CWA Maximum Total through waters impaired identify to states Daily Loads (TMDL)—a calculation of the maximum and receive can body water a that pollutant a of amount 1993). EPA (U.S., quality standards still meet water were being made for a renewed agenda of and levels commit- all from CWA, the under efforts policy to ment to the Great in relation 1993), (Adler et.al. government Congress to reporting quality water time, this By Lakes. and state legislatures, and reports from policy watch- dogs like the Natural Resources Defense Fund, Great indi- clearly groups, stakeholder other and United Lakes cated that water pollution efforts were not producing significant Inresults. response to avery criticalreport by the federal General Accounting Office (GAO)fund- state and federal in declining the noted which 2002, 72 Canada Institute occasional paper series plagued Environment Canada for some has time (Doern that and work water-related of fragmentation mented docu- also have analysts Policy 2005). Muldoon and 2000;(Johns decline Botts marked a witnessed EnvironmentCanada through programs and policies related 1994,and were1990 FWP in the issued water-buton (Savoie1998).agency lead Twothe as reports progress Canada Environment for and programs water-related as “ProgramReview” for significantly funding reduced government’sChrétien exercisebudget-cuttingknown to theenvironment andwater policy. short-livedof federal government period related efforts LakesGreatefforts.research and active,wasan This yet quality water to funding allocated Plan Green ment’s ity mandate. Soon after, in 1990, the Mulroney govern- qual- water its to central as regulation substance toxic government’son federal focus the passed,emphasizing was (CEPA) Act Protection Environmental Canadian 1988,the pollution.In water of sources point and clean- up remediation, on focused efforts system-based eco- other and funding research, through channelled been primarily has role However,process. federal the RAP the and in AOCs efforts quality water to mitted com- GLWQAand 1987 the signed government eral quality research andawaterrole. support infrastructure government’s federal the water to commitment firmed Water1987.in recon- Policy(FWP) simply FWP The Federal the develop to opted government federal the amend the Canada Water Act or develop new legislation, the report,”“Pearseto responsethan islation.In rather leg- water federal new for need the concerning tions Federal on WaterPolicy. severalrecommenda- made It governmentfederal the 1984 in established Inquiry the in theGreat Lakes andotherwatersheds across Canada, inmunicipalitiesinfrastructure across Canada. related and plants treatment sewage of upgrading and construction the for support financial providing by as powers,over fisheries authority powers as well and ing and became involved in water policy through its spend- III of that Act and the Environmental Contaminants Act, Part under toxicregulatingsubstances began also ment and Conway 1994, 22). (Doern In problemsthe 1970s, pollution the waterfederal govern - address to industry and provinces the with agreements reach to ernment authority in this policy area and enabled the federal gov- The fiscal situation during the mid-1990s and the and mid-1990s the during situation fiscal The fed- the announced, was FWP the year same The In response to growing about concerns water quality ies in Walkerton and North Battleford,in Saskatchewan, WalkertonNorth ies and onthestateofwatersto report inCanadadeclined. (NRTEE 2003), the federal government’s capacity even environmentthe of reporting initiativesstate to related in developing water quality indicators as part of broader (NRTEE) and other federal weredepartments involved the National Roundtable on Environment and Economy 1992;(Hoberg Johns2000; 2002).Montpetit Although behind the United States in terms of water policy efforts lagging was Canada revealedthat studies Comparative 2002). Montpetit 2000;(Johns Canada in this of tion recogni- little very was there levels, state and the federal at response policy a initiating was States United the watersheds,and Lakes Great in pollution water to contributor significant a were sources non-point that (BootheandQuinn1995). being performed whether or not the government’s water duties were still determine to “Where’sa assembled wasWater?” team that 1990s severethe so in became Conwayand 1992) port oftheIJC,port noting: report also wasof the federal government’scritical sup- 2002).(CESD program the in The participating ments depart- to went actually million $14.9 only 2000,but million for the Great Lakes program for the years 1995- Environmentof Minister the that $150 committed had noted also specifically. report Lakes The Great the in and rolegenerally waterpolicy federal the diminishing in 33) 2002, (CESD part” a played all have relations and accountability and the politics of federal-provincial ed use of federal powers, weakness in basic management and Sustainable Development (CESD) noted the “limit- Muldoon 2005, 149). and (Botts requested million $160 the of million $40 eight other federal departments reportedly received only Lakes Plan.Action However, Environment and Canada Great the as renewedfivewas ProgramLakes for years Great government’s federal the 2000, In manage. to governmentsprovincial the for problems drinking policy water as viewed were events those Instead, able. question- remained issues water federal of priority the Even of in the the wateraftermath pollution traged- mounting was evidence scientific the Although the GLWQA, for example, it assumed an obligation an assumed example,it GLWQA,for the no is capacity to deliver? there When the federal cases government signed some in when commitments tional interna- and domestic making of value the is “What 2002,In EnvironmentFederalof the Commissioner 3

Carolyn M. Johns february 2010 73 The CWA The provides CWA a comprehensive framework

The period of the Harris government in Ontario saw saw Ontario in Harrisgovernment the of period The The resulting public inquiry led to many recom- the use population Ontario’s of percent 70 than “More 98 while source, water drinking a as directly Lakes Great of waters the on depends population Ontario’s of percent Lawrence Basin the for Great their Lakes-St. drinking water. of the Great Lakes. The current COA also includes two two includes also currentCOA The Lakes. Great the of entirely determining new areas: the impacts of climate change and protecting sources of The drinking water. this to million $32 committed has Ontariogovernment policy yet latest efforts(MOE COA 2007), at the pro- in declined have Lakes Great the to related level vincial the past decade. a particular “in diluting decline effect, the Great Lakes focus and losing much of its capacity to take an active (Botts and Muldoon 2005, matters” Lakes in Great role water- (MOE), The Ministry of the Environment 141). shed-based Conservation Authorities and other agen- impact significant a felt mandates water-related with cies busi- MOE report, one to According cuts. funding from ness plans during this the period off laid MOE barely Ontario the mentioned Great 1997, in and efforts, Lakes RAPs provincially-led the of all almost for coordinators (CIELAP Reduced 2000). efforts were framed around sources non-point and pollution water of sources point that 2002), Montpetit 2000, (Johns ignored largely were tragedy of in 2000 May brought Walkerton until the is, policies into focus. water the status of provincial mendations related to 2002), drinking and the provincial water government committed (O’Connor to implementing all of these recommendations based on Several new approach. “source-to-tap” a multi-barrier, pieces of legislation have been passed, including the Nutrient Management Act, the Safe Act (CWA) Drinking Water Water and the Clean in 2002, Act (SDWA) in 2006, which In emphasizes level. local the at watershed-based, protection water source multi- stakeholder been has government McGuinty the years, five past the committed to implementing all of Justice O’Connor’s recommendations and has significantly increased fund- However, province. the in policy drinkingfor water ing only this most recent piece of legislation has explicitly made connections between provincial drinking water and policy efforts and quality water in the Lakes, Great federal-Ontario the to commitment a reconfirmed thus agreement as follows: to ensure that action The would government be taken. deliv- to failed others when and others, on rely to decided to it for come has time The lead. the assume not did it er, either take responsibility for its commitments or change 52). (ibid., them.” The state of affairs concerning federal water policy In Canada, similar to the United States but even such seventh the is COA 2007-2010 recent most The in Canada during this period has been well documented documented well been has period this during Canada in 2003; Boyd 2003; Perl and Lee 2000; (Johns debated and Botts and Muldoon Bakker 2005; et.al Sproule- 2007; pub- very another aftermathof the In 2008). et.al. Jones lic water pollution tragedy in the Kashechewan First Nation in northern Ontario in the 2005, federal gov- ernment announced funding of $40 million for water previ- the in committed had it level same the programs, ous five-year period (Botts and Muldoon 2005, 149). a Senate That Committee same characterizedyear, the federal in role the area of pollution water management (Senate “in Despite as 2005). retreat” a large federally- 2007), (PRI 2006 in conference policy water sponsored there were no indications of change under Harper’s minority which federal Stephen came government, to overview quick A agenda. environmental no with power of federal water policy efforts gives a clear indication that the federal government was not fulfilling itsrole related and to that GLWQA, given non- the soft-law, binding status of international and intergovernmental recourse. not much was there agreements, one moreso, cannot get a fair picture of water policy and its impact on transboundary policy efforts on the Great Lakes without examining the intergovernmental Bilateral and Canada-Ontario subnational levels. inter- for place in been have (COA) agreements governmental pool- of means a providing 1971, since Lakes Great the ing resources to work with a variety of partners at the criticisms of However, AOCs. Lakes Great in level local well- are agreements these to related action and progress 2005; Muldoon and Botts 1999; (CIELAP documented fed- both 1990s, Duringthe 2008). 2002, Sproule-Jones eral and bureaucratic environmental provincial capaci- ties related to pollution Water water were diminished. efforts related to the Great Lakes fell off the Ontario- federal agenda. agreement and builds on previous agreements to con- clean up tinue degradedto reduce pollution, hot spots, deal with species invasive and protect the biodiversity 74 Canada Institute occasional paper series T the Grea Sec in some instances, introduced roadblocks to addressing instances,to roadblockssome introduced in and, efforts government alongside flowed and has ebbed involvement their but efforts, RAP Lakes Great involvedin havebeen associations industry and panies comment supports earlier observations that there is little make-up and regulatory style” (Hoberg 1992, 254). institutional nation’s This each frameworks, reflecting tory regula- jurisdictions’two the between differences tant overall similarity in approach, however, the noted, “despite there are been impor- has other.As each Canada resemble and States United the in instruments policy andoutcomes. efforts boundary and Canada, and this has important implications for trans- and capacity vary significantly between the United States lenges. From this analysis, it is apparent that policy effort Great Lakes, not to mention future water pollution chal- pollutionproblemsthe water inassociatedmultiple useswith persistent address to capacity of terms in results necessary the provided not has watersheds, but many particularlyin documenting the state of water quality in approach taken by RAPs in AOCs also has made progress, recently, decentralized More 2005). the Muldoon and generated significant research and policy responses (Botts local source protection plans.protection source local of implementation and development the in considered lakes. The agreements affecting the Great Lakes must be directly manythe tains into discharges also and streams flow through the watersheds and ground water that sus- It addresses the Great Lakes themselves, that tributaries basin.Lakes Great the in water drinking protecting for In terms of stakeholder efforts in Canada, some com- major focusandbeneficiary.” (MOE2007) Clean the a Waterbe will Lakes 2006,Great Act the through approach watershed-based a in water drinking protect to authorities conservation and municipalities udmnal, ae ue pluin rbes and problems pollution use, Fundamentally, water tion III:Compar a time when a more centralized IJC approachcentralizedIJCmore a when time a years.was There 30 past the in distance some ransboundary institutions and efforts have come t Lake

As Ontario partners with partners Ontario As s andTr a tive Analysis: Implica ansb ity and intergovernmental cooperation that evolved for more specifically. In many ways,Lakes Great the institutional capac- the in and generally efforts management taken a more active role than Canada in water pollution has U.S. government Clearly, high. the comparatively terms of legislation and program involvement have been of different federalandprovincial governments. therefore subject to the economic cycles and the whims and legalistic,binding less less havebeen efforts policy level.shed Canada’s intergovernmentalwaterpollution policy approach to water at pollution the efforts water- prompted a more vertically and horizontally-integrated have efforts policy and legislation 2000),federal Johns interests societal 1992;Dawes1994;(Lowry1997; and Ringquist Bacot of capacity organizational the and states of capacity the on depending level subnational States,United the although “conjointness”the at varies 2000).In 1993;Johns (Hoberg Canada in efforts than centralized more and stronger havebeen management ings that U.S. policy efforts in the area of water pollution (Hoberg 1993, Howlett 1994) and supports earlier - find evidence of policy convergence in environmental policy review (BottsandMuldoon2005). GLWQA IJC the coalition to related Group” Blue transboundary “the called recently-formed more the and United Lakes Great like U.S.-basedorganizations with networked are some and 2002), AOCs(Sproule-Jones in particularly mandates, related Great-Lakes havehaveprograms.groups waterall local moreMany the Canadian Institute of Environmental Law and Policy and Canada Ecojustice),(nowEnvironmentalDefence Law Association,Pollution EnvironmentalProbe, Defense Legal Sierra Canadian The 166). 2005, Muldoon hold” from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s (Botts and Canada,in environmentalthe and wascommunity “on groups anynational for theme organizing the been not broadly,more policy has quality LakeswaterGreat the and Lakes Great the in active very been have groups environmental 2008).Although (Sproule-Jones AOCs oundary Gov ernance In the United States, federal initiative and efforts in efforts States,initiativeand United federal the In tions f or Carolyn M. Johns february 2010 75 Also, whereas the IJC has broadly defined water pol- water defined broadly has IJC the whereas Also, In contrast to this, the federal government in exerted has States United the which in area Another water pollution and transboundary policy efforts on the on efforts policy transboundary and pollution water Lakes. Great lution problems, jurisdictions U.S. have more closely fishable, drinkable, of goals the to related efforts designed swimmable waters using an ecosystem and pol- integrate watershed to tried have recently more and Act approach, Water Clean U.S. The outcomes. those with goals icy ahead well was of any legislation and policy in Canada both include to frame policy the broadening of terms in as defined in point and non-point of sources pollution, terms specific to Great Lakes efforts. subsequent And legislation related to the binational toxics strategy and the Legacy Act has continued to indicate a policymak- sustained efforts U.S. by Lakes commitment to Great ers and stakeholders. Canada, while officially adopting similar goals for the to devoted does “hard Great not law”’ Lakes, any have articulating goals and resources related to transbound- government Canadian The GLWQA. the and efforts ary also has deferred to Ontario which, for much of capac- policy the water unfortunatelylittle very had 1990s, effortsrelated after significant post-Walkerton Even ity. Lakes Great and pollution water goals, water drinking to as efforts, articulated by the are not IJC and GLWQA, efforts. focus of Ontario’s the shared substantial effortcapacity more is in and the developed area of scientific measurement and capacity, reporting This technical expertise the from U.S. on quality. water EPA is shared and collaborative in Some attribute adversarial the this to more mental context. intergovern- policymaking focused on best-available scientific of technologies level certain a requires which reporting and in turn, This, capacity in contrast to ambient standards. information outside scientific for demand a fostered has Although as sci- well (Bocking 2006). the bureaucracy, role Canada’s ence has also been central to Evironment limited more is capacity technical its Lakes, Great the in sci- on collaboration intergovernmental less is there and ence and It policy. is also not evident that Canadian policymakers have utilized the growing technical and policy expertise that is publicly available through the think tanks and environ- U.S. state bureaucracies, EPA, considerable generated have which of all groups, mental research data related to Although water there quality. is some evidence that Canadian groups environmental While for some proactive states, federal involvement federal involvement states, While for some proactive the under charged is government federal the Canada, In The 1990s, in particular, were a period in which in Great Lakes efforts only added to state action and federal legislative efforts for others, that underway, were loan funds have been centrally- the initial the stimulus from for evolution the state and local However, action. driven approach to a more capacity cooperative of maturation decentralized the by fostered also was approach broader by and 1990) (Lester levels local and state the at administrative reform efforts under the Clinton Bush and administrations. though However, capacity and efforts are comparatively higher in the United States than in Canada, most Great Lakes watersheds in the United still States quality not are objec- meeting water 2006b). EPA (U.S., tives of province the yet GLWQA, the implementing with IJC involvement Federal implementer. primary the is Ontario obser- with consistent is This low. comparatively been has “in which, in areas policy environmental other in vations striking contrast to the the Canadian U.S., federal - gov of administration ernment provincial has not subsidized either conditionally or programs, uncon- environmental government federal The 41). (Harrison 1996, ditionally” supported predominantly have Canada Environment and supportfor effortsthrough control pollution Lakes Great agreements, intergovernmental funding through the IJC, funding - restora research, substance toxic efforts, control agro-environmental of low-levels AOCs, in projects tion program and funding, the rhetoric of - pollution preven tion and the ecosystem approach. and provincial local policy federal, efforts retreat- were stakeholders water were ing a from focus quality, water attention their turning and funding public less receiving to other pressing environmental and economic issues, and the public was increasingly disengaged from Great reinvest- a witnessed has years five past The issues. Lakes drinkingOntario(particularly in policies water in ment water policies) but it remains to be seen whether the new COA or Ontario’s legislative efforts and particu- larly the will CWA contributionCanada’s improve to the administration of point source pollution manage- ment regimes have cleared the way for intergovern- in non-point pollution source and mental involvement watershed-level efforts in This AOCs. capacity stems capac- technical and administrative the legislative, from which ity has EPA, of prompted and the fostered U.S. state policy capacity. 76 Canada Institute occasional paper series T Sec ing imperative to address this dichotomy. Related to this of climate change on the Great Lakes, there is an emerg- water quality policy regimes. Given the foretold impact continue to reflect a divide between water quantity and and and transboundary domestic institutions and efforts 1999;(Rabe remainmedium-based efforts Johns 2000) policy countries’ Both impact. an having possibly are which factors other are there levels, subnational and national the at capacity policy about questions to tion addi- Lakes.In Great the in pollution water of lenge chal- enduring the explaining in important are factors other of number a that slow. indicates been This has progress on both sides of the border in addressing AOCs specifically,Lakes Great the to and generally pollution water to related effort more exertedhave stakeholders alliances (Alper1997). effectivecross-border form to organizations ronmental envi- for difficult it make differences capacity policy and institutional extent, question. To some in remain efforts Lakes Great in groups environmental Canadian of capacity and engagement sustained the Ontario, in SDWA the like policies new into expertise technical have reached out to their U.S. and counterparts injected ter is an imperative. One approach would be to improve pollution. However, water making these address institutions work to bet- institutions watershed-based and ary There does not seem to be a need for more transbound- Institutional Innovation into consideration. takensubnationalbehownational and capacitycan on issues in the basin. In each instance, reflections are offered engagement to address the increasing complexity of water stakeholder and commitment policy renewed for need need for new agreements, legislation and policies, and the will be reviewed: the need for institutional et.al.innovation, 2006, (Bails GLU the2007). itself For IJC purposes of the this chapter, by just consultations a few stakeholder efforts in the Great Lakes basin, some as a result of recent However, despite the that fact U.S. policymakers and tion IV to improve the transboundary and domestic domestic and transboundary the improve to have proposed and been analysis flow this from severalarewhichdifferenthereoptionspolicy : FutureTr ansb oundary Polic in thefuture? this mean for water pollution efforts in the Great Lakes users and municipalities across the basin. What does all evidence of the little of empirical engagement industry environmental groups is well documented, but there is of time is in long periods question. of The engagement over efforts concerted sustain to ability the lems,but prob- pollution water addressing in important more become have partnerships state-society and state tive tries, there is evidence that capacity of the administra- leadership and stakeholder engagement. In both coun- governmenton dependent are country each in ments - arrange institutional However, occur. the to needs action transboundary,local and at which scale national a approach adopted and that watershed agree this is the and public reporting. the frameworkthrough TMDL pollution source point non- and point both reduce to efforts integrating to seems to be further along in this policy transition related this in of terms source protection, but the United States prevention approaches. have to do Both countries tried policy approaches based on remediation and clean-up to is the need to move beyond reactionary water pollution to addressto water Greatthe in Lakespollution basin, but place in are agreements and arrangements Institutional New Agreements, L shed level. water- the at action collective fragmenting institution more one just constitute might they danger a is there such boards has had limited appeal (Schwartz 2006) and issues. However, for a number of reasons, the creation of ing boards to better integrate water quality and quantity possibly certain by prioritizing AOCs or merging exist- level,watershed the at efforts multi-stakeholder malize for- could boards such and resolution dispute for nism boards have been used traditionally to provide a mecha- LakesBoard. IJC WaterGreat Quality IJC the to able account- boards watershed IJC permanent establish to politicizing the IJC’s role. One policy proposal has been numerous proposals on how this could be done without itself.IJC the of capacity roleand the have There been Both the United States and Canada haveCanada explicitlyand States United the Both egislation andPolicies y Op tions Carolyn M. Johns february 2010 77 Environmental groups also are calling Environmental for a renewed defined been have past the in problems quality Water takeholder Engagement Engagement takeholder national water strategy and for more federal leadership. The federal-Ontario like other - agreement, intergovern be could perhaps yet non-binding, is agreements, mental more focused Related on to accountability. this option, the interactions of scientists and researchers formulating always have in and setting agenda in significant very been - stake these of Engagement transboundaryefforts. policy holders such and as others, large think tanks and NGOs transbound- new a enhance could capacity, research with ary agreement outcomes. based on accountability S Under a new transboundary agreement, efforts could focus on effortsreinvigorating AOCs and in revitalizing the RAP process with special attention to altering the prioritizing involve could This of stakeholders. behavior AOCs to a improve few of the Canada-U.S. binational transboundary interactions and efforts of ous water users and stakeholders these at the watershed level. vari - Renewing efforts in AOCs may provide opportunities knowledge policy and scientific transboundary more for Since engagement. stakeholder of re-thinking and sharing expertise sufficient have rarely agencies government-led to need they agenda, the move to resources sustained and view as themselves facilitators or co-managers in - water shed-based efforts This, (Sproule-Jones however, 2002). - rebalanc fundamental more towards shift a require would ing of uses water in the basin in which - other stakehold for ers, would be example industries and communities, significantly. to change their behavior required commitment in the In basin. “Blue the 2007, Group” pri- key eight outlining Blueprint Lakes Great a released orities for all of levels government and enabling stakeholders in governance, improving include: They basin. the public effective connecting participation, water quality and quantity, ecosystem-based stewardship, eliminat- ing upgradingpollution, sewage halting infrastructure, and levels water and protecting species, aquatic invasive reality the reflect priority areas These 2007). (GLU flows that both current water pollution problems and those Both point and of are increasingly complex. tomorrow non-point sources and quantity and quality need regimes to be part of a ecosystem-based comprehensive, usersand uses of multiple the from stemming approach in the basin. water as technical problems requiring technical solutions at In the transboundary realm, an action plan can involve involve can plan action an realm, transboundary the In the out set IJC the 2006, in report Biennial 13th its In National and subnational jurisdictions need to have soft-bind- with agreement transboundary renewed A a form of “soft”’ accountability whereby transboundary transboundary whereby accountability a form “soft”’ of and domestic organizations non-governmental (NGOs), and shame governments external and stakeholders water pressure other jurisdictions for The action. approach some developing external involves standards and indica- - pres and leadership praise to use constituents which tors party third and can also involve for action, laggards sure 2005:222). (Botts and Muldoon independent review Framework Accountability effective an develop to need framework draft a present to governments the urged and Summit Accountability Lakes Great a hold 2008, June by in the summer of 2008 and accelerate their review of the Internationally GLWQA. and in Canada, there is accountability external of type this whether over debate contributes to “race a to “race the or to top” the prompt bot- to work may it However, (Harrison2006). tom” a comparative assessment of effort between the nations at the federal and subnational level. two the technical capacity to contribute to accountability The agreement. this United type States of is more endowed with this capacity to measure Whereas policy and makers report. in Canada may initially find their contribution to this more approach limited given prompt may turn in that area, this in capacity of lack the - cross-bor and Ontario and Canada in capacity-building der networking. new a for ing accountability calling features are could also groups serve Many to refocus Canada. in policy water there is a need for renewal. The GLWQA has not been The GLWQA is there a need for renewal. the updated In IJC since 2005, initiated 1987. a multi- stakeholder consultation process to review the and ecologi-that scientific knowledge given 1987 GLWQA, years 20 the in dramatically changed have conditions cal since the last In agreement a was signed. special report released in October the 2006, IJC recommended that and U.S. Canadian federal authorities should replace the current with a GLWQA shorter and more action- The IJC also recommended a new oriented document. agreement should include a commitment to develop- ing Action a Plan Binational with goals achievable and - pro and performance, evaluating for measures timelines, visions for for monitoringall to provide and reporting, greater accountability related to cleanup of the Great (IJC 2006). Lakes 78 Canada Institute occasional paper series re i iprat o uue rnbudr efrs and efforts transboundary future to important is tries GreatLakes.the in efforts asymme- Recognizingthese has Canada been a policy laggard that relative to assert water pollution does cleanup it but results, better had has States United the that suggest not does chapter this atgoal-setting. tutions andsignificantefforts outcomes despite a proliferation of transboundary insti- drawing1993,(Rose 2005), environmentallimited and lesson or networks policy transboundary of evidence of waterin terms pollution policies, coupled with scant States United the betweenand 1991) Canada (Bennett convergence policy of evidence little is basin.There and meeting water quality objectives in AOCsthe Great up Lakes cleaning in progress limited very only and this, there is similar impact of transboundary governance years.Despite the over effort in asymmetries entailing ofpolicyimplementation. in terms orientation domestic than rather transboundary a for incentives al of policy implementation. And there are few institution- political and bureaucratic officials are significant in terms networks Thereevidencelittle of transboundary is that exist betweenasymmetries the hard law of each nation. of soft law, whereas at the national and subnational level, and intergovernmental level, governance takes the form States.United the and Canada in transboundary the At D Sec human health and ecosystem health). A new - policy instru dimensions: scientific character, scope,risk and (in of terms tion problems vary on a number pollu- water of different that realize and complex makers policy. Policy health and policy,policy,policy industrial energy agricultural policy,change climate as such areas policy other many source.point reality,In to connected are policies water As noted earlier, in the introduction to this volume,this earlier,to introductionnoted the As in taketo tends Canada morea approachdecentralized tion V water pollution policies are framed differently convergence,at aimed agreements and institu- tions transboundary longstanding espite : Conclusion more successful. be will future the in efforts and institutions boundary national and to subnational date efforts so that trans- reflecting onis phase next this movingto of on part important an Clearly, 1987. in signed last GLWQA the renegotiate will Canada and that States United Cannon the Lawrence Affairs Foreign of Minister U.S. Secretary of the State Clinton Hillary and Canadian in by announced story was it 2009 June In basin. policy Lakes Great pollution water the of chapter mental goalsofthebasin. environthe in engage - to users other for need a is there environmentalof groups,engagement bureaucraciesand thischallenge.to rise However, alongside significant institutionally-endowedthe to more seems States United overall,levelwatershedand thethe developedmoreat States, intergovernmental, are partnerships multiagency on the transboundary scale is the challenge. In the United efforts connecting efforts,but policy of generation next thata focus on watersheds hold the most promise in the (Blatter and Ingram 2001). There seems to be a consensus social and ecological systems at various scales are needed Lakes, new approaches that link quantity and quality and management becomes increasingly important in the Great ronmental challengesinthefuture. arrangements to adapt to emerging transboundary envi - raise about concern the capacity of existing governance also findings collaboration.cross-border The potential (Sproule-Jones, Johns, Heinmiller2008). challenges these meet to required reform governance tal rebalancingmore and uses of fundamen- fromserious the butbasin the for shy away priorities transboundary the on agree challenges.Most future and current meeting not is the United States, but effort and capacity in both countries ment mix is now increasingly evident in both Canada and h tm hs oe o ei wiig h next the writing begin to come has time The pollution water of dimension transboundary the As Carolyn M. Johns february 2010 79 ed., edited by Stephen edited by ed., th Brooks and Lydia Miljan. Toronto: Oxford University University Oxford Toronto: Miljan. and Lydia Brooks 2003. Press, of University Vancouver: Environmental Law and Policy. 2003. British Columbia Press, http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/greatlakes/default. at: Available asp?lang=En&n=7E5E6AF1-1. www.ec.gc.ca/ at: Available 1985. Policy. Water Federal . water/en/info/pubs/fedpol/e_fedpol.htm The Canada-Ontario 2005. of Environment, Basin Lakes Agreement Respecting the Great Report. 2004-05 Biennial Progress Ecosystem: http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/greatlakes/default. at: Available asp?lang=En&n=0A3545C7-1. “A Development. and Sustainable Environment Charting a Sustainable Protecting: Worth Legacy River Lawrence and St. Course Lakes in the Great In Report Commissioner of of the Environmental Basin.” 2002. , Development the Environment and Sustainable 1st Act (clean drinking water), and Drugsthe Food Ottawa. 37th Parliament, Session, 3. In March-April 7,000 people as 2001 as many 3. . East Lansing: Michigan State Michigan East Lansing: Agreement. Quality Water 2005. Press, University . Conflicts and Cooperation Transboundary Approaches to 2001. MIT Press, MA: Cambridge, 4 An Introduction, Canada: Unnatural Law: Rethinking Canadian Rethinking Law: Unnatural R. David Boyd, 2007. Website. Lakes Great Canada. Environment Canada. Website: Freshwater Canada. Environment ______. Canada-Ontario Ministry Environment ______. Commissioner of the Environmental ______. Amend Act to An 2005 Bill S-18 Senate. ______. in North Battleford Saskatchewan became ill from became ill from in North Saskatchewan Battleford Cryptosporidium the drinking which entered pathogen the North from surface water raw system from water River. Saskatchewan Evolution of the Great Lakes Evolution Muldoon. Lee and Pal Botts, New Water: Reflections on eds. Ingram, and H. J. Blatter, Policy in In Public Policy.” “Water Stephen. Brooks, s s 1. An Area of ConcernArea in watershed is a designated An 1. for chapter in this volume See Mark Sproule-Jones’ 2. Later. Years 20 Act: Water The Clean Cameron. M. Defense Council, Natural Resources DC: Washington, 1993. and Federal Pollution Politics, Protecting the Environment: 1981. ACIR, DC: Washington, Policy. The in British Northwest.” Columbia and the Pacific 359- American Review of Canadian Studies 27 (1997): 383. Program Outcomes in Environmental and Policy 355- Policy Studies Journal 25 (1997): Management.” 370. Prescriptions for Scavia. & D. H. Regier, M., Murray, Avoiding Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and Restoration: Available 2005. Changes. Tipping Point of Irreversible the http://www.healthylakes.org/site_upload/upload/ at: . prescriptionforgreatlakes.pdf of British University Columbia Vancouver: . Water 2006. Press, British Jounal of What Causes It?” and Convergence Political Science 21 (1991):215-33. Paper Contrasts.” Cross-border Politics: Environmental meeting of the Canadian at the annual presented June University, York Association, Science Political 2006. the Great Lakes which has been identified as having identified as having which has been Lakes the Great 5.3. Table of the use impairmentsmany in arrangements governance outside appendix of binational and IJC. the GLWQA Adler, Robert W., Jessica C. Landman and Diane C. Jessica W., Robert Adler, Relations. Advisory Intergovernmental Commission on Relations Environmental “Transboundary D.K. Alper, “State Expenditures Dawes. and R.A. A.H. Bacot, J., Gannon, M., DePhilip, J., Bulkley, A., Beeton, J., Bails, The Future of Canada’s Eau Canada: ed. Karen, Bakker, What is Policy Article: “Review Colin J. Bennett, “Scientific Expertise and Stephen. Bocking, Reference e Not 80 Canada Institute occasional paper series Great Lakes Commission. Great Lakes Regional Water Great Lakes andSt.Lawrence CitiesInitiative Furlong, Scott “Reinventing Development Regulatory at Doern, G.Bruce and T. Conway. TheGreeningofCanada: ______. to Letters Individual Presidential Candidates ______. Speechby Todd Ambs, water administrator, Council ofGreat Lakes Governors. Annex 2001 Colborn, Theodora et.al. GreatLakes, GreatLegacy? Clinton, B. and A.Gore 1995. Reinventing Environmental ______. Commitment to Great “Canada-Ontario Canadian InstituteofEnvironmental Law and wateruse/database/. Use Database, 2002. 2005. Available at: http://glc.org/ documents/2008GLSLCIResolutions.pdf]. related resolutions available athttp://www.glslcities.org/ greatlakes-stlawrence/pdf/media-july1508-eng.pdf. [Also Lawrence.” 2008. Available at: http://www.toronto.ca/ to Protect andRestore theGreat Lakes andSt. Governments toInvest inCitiesastheSolution 2008. “Group CallsonCanadianand American 23(2005):Studies Journal 466-81. the Environmental Protection Agency.” Toronto Press, 1994. Federal InstitutionsandDecisions. Toronto: University of . projects/priorities/docs/FY09LettertoCongress22508.pdf] the Great Lakes. 2008. Available at: http://www.cglg.org/ Regarding ofCongress and allMembers Action on projects/priorities/docs/ToddAmbsGLRC10-2-07.pdf. October 2, 2007. Available at: http://www.cglg.org/ at theGreat LakesCollaborationMeeting, Regional of NaturalResources,Wisconsin Department given annex2001Implementing.asp. 2005. Available at: http://www.cglg.org/projects/water/ Implementing Agreements Approved andSigned. Ottawa: InstituteforResearch onPublic Policy, 1990. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation and Environmental Quality, 1995. Regulation. Washington, DC: Councilon March 30, 2000. Lakes CleanupExpires Tomorrow.” Press Ottawa. Management inCanadaIII–IssuesandChallenges, Canada II–Resource Useand Treatment. Freshwater Canada I–Jurisdiction.; Freshwater Managementin of Parliament, 2004. Freshwater Managementin Policy. 1999. Troubled Waters Canada, Library Policy release, ______. Advice totheGovernment ontheir Joint Commission.International The IJCandthe21st Howlett, M. “The Judicialization ofCanadian ­­­­______. Environmental“Canadian-American ______. “Environmental Policy: Alternative Styles.” Hoberg, G. CanadianPerformance in “Comparing Hartig, John H. andM. Zarrell. UnderRAPs. Ann Arbor: Harrison, Kathryn, ed. RacingtotheBottom: Provincial Harrison, Kathryn. Passing theBuck: Federalism and Gray, Herb. “Transboundary Issuesin Water Governance.” Great Network. Lakes Information Water Pollutioninthe Great Lakes United.. GreatLakesBlueprint 2007. Available A Special Report totheGovernmentsA SpecialReport ofCanadaand Review oftheGreat Lakes Water Quality Agreement: html/21ste.htm. 1997. Available at: http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/ the Environmental Challengesofthe21stCentury. Proposals onHow To Best Assist Them toMeet Governments ofCanadaandtheUnitedStatesfor Century: Response oftheIJCtoaRequestby the ofPoliticalScience27(1994):Journal 99-127. Canada-United StatesConvergence Thesis.” Canadian Environmental Policy, 1980-1990: A Test ofthe 171-189. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2002. by DeboraL. VanNijnatten Boardman, andRobert Environmental Policy: ContextandCases, 2ded, edited Relations: Framework.”A Strategic InCanadian edited by M. Atkinson. Toronto: Brace, Harcourt 1993. Canada:In Governing Institutions andPublic Policy, 1992. Boardman, 246-262. Toronto: Oxford University Press, Policy: Ecosystems, PoliticsandProcess, editedby R. Environmental Policy.” In CanadianEnvironmental University ofMichigan Press, 1992. ColumbiaPress,University ofBritish 2006 Interdependence intheCanadianFederation . Vancouver: ColumbiaPress,British 1996. Canadian EnvironmentalPolicy. Vancouver: University of November 24, 2005. Joint Commission,International Hamilton, ON, Address by theRt. Hon. HerbGrey, Canadian Chair, net/teach/pollution/water/water1.html. Great Lakes. 2006. Available at: http://www.great-lakes. htm. at: http://www.glu.org/english/restoration/blueprint/index. Carolyn M. Johns february 2010 81 Explaining American and Canadian Innovation in Americanand Canadian Innovation Explaining Regulatory and Integration.” Prevention Pollution 288–306. JournalPolicy Studies 27 (1999): New Controlling Pollution. Politics and Progress in Level: 1993. Sharpe Inc, M.E. York: Policy Control” in State Pollution Responsiveness 25-43. 22 (1994): Studies Journal, Policy 11(1991):3–30. Routledge 2005. London: Guide. Practical In Environmental Politics and Policy.” Environmental Lester. P. James edited by Theories and Evidence, Policy: 1989. Press, University Duke London: 1991. Congressional Quarterly Press, DC: Washington, In Efforts.” Conservation Transborder Invasion: and Change in Canadian- Continuity Ecopolitics: Bilateral Phillipe edited by American Environmental Relations, VT: Burlington, 157-177. Stoett, and Peter Le Prestre 2006. Ashgate, In Bilateral and Future.” Past Boards Watershed Continuity and Change in Canadian-American Ecopolitics: Phillipe Le Prestre edited by Environmental Relations, Ashgate, VT: Burlington, 133-144. Stoett, and Peter 2006. of University Vancouver: Performances. Practices, Promises, 2002. British Press, Columbia American Lakes Great Restoration of the North Canadian Journal of Political Science 35 Environment.” 835-857. (2002b): Conflicts and Institutions. Politics in Canada: Water 2008. Press, University McGill–Queen’s Montreal: Environment ON: Report. Ecosystem of the Lakes ______. “Federalism and Entrepreneurship: and Entrepreneurship: “Federalism ______. at the State Environmental Protection J. Evan Ringquist, Policy Influence and “Policy ______. Journal of Public “What is Lesson Drawing?” R. Rose, a Policy: Public Learning from Comparative ______. and “The Bureaucracy A. Walter Rosenbaum, 2d ed. , Environmental Politics and Policy ______. and “Extinction Stoett. and Peter N. John Sanders, Waters: “The Management of Shared Alan M. Schwartz, of the Great Lakes: Restoration Mark H. Sproule-Jones, “Institutional Experiments in the ______. eds. Tim Heinmiller, and Johns Carolyn Sproule-Jones, State (SOLEC). Ecosystem Conference State of the Lakes the United States. 2006. Available at: http://www.ijc. at: Available 2006. States. the United . org/rel/pdf/advicefinalwc.pdf 2006. Advisory Council, Public A Comparative and the U.S.: Management in Canada Arrangements and Policy Analysis of Institutional 2000. McMaster University, PhD diss., Instruments.” in Canadian-AmericanContinuity and Change 2006. Ashgate, VT: Burlington, . Environmental Relations NC: Durham, Government and Pollution Control Policies. 1992. Press, University Duke On Facing Difficult Decisions Not Regulation: In Agricultural Pollution.” Non-point Source 2d Cases, Context and Canadian Environmental Policy: Boardman, and R. VanNijnatten D. edited by ed., 2002. Press, University Oxford Toronto: 274–85. Indicators Development and Sustainable Environment 2003. Quality Indicator. Freshwater for Canada; http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/publications/ at: Available sustainable-development-indicators/Chapter4-3-Sustainable- . Development-Indicators-eng.htm Attorney Ontario General, Ministry of the Toronto: 2002. Basin Lakes Agreement Respecting the Great http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/ at: Available 2007. Ecosystem. . en/water/greatlakes/coa/index.php Environmental Performance Reviews: Development. 1996. OECD, Paris: Progress in the 1990s. of Signs Regulatory Fragmentation: Environmental Basin.” Integration Lakes in the Case of the Great 58–77. Governance 8 (1995): and Policy Prevention Impediments to Pollution Administration Canadian Public Integration in Canada.” 415-435. 40 (1997): . Kitchener, ON: Ontario ON: Kitchener, Hotspots. Great Lakes J. Jackson, Pollution Water “Non-point Source Carolyn. Johns, Ecopolitics: Bilateral eds. Stoett, and P. P. Le Prestre, State The Dimensions of Federalism: R. William Lowry, Suasion, “Sound Science and Moral E. Montpetit, and Economy. on Environment National Roundtable Inquiry . Walkerton Report of the Dennis R. O’Connor, The Canada-Ontario Ontario Ministry of Environment. Organization for Economic Cooperation and “Beyond Zimmerman. and J.B. Barry G., Rabe, Development: of Sustainable “The Politics Barry G. Rabe, 82 Canada Institute occasional paper series ______. Great Lakes Areas ofConcern. 2007c. ______. Great Lakes: BasicInformation. 2007b. ______. Great Lakes NationalProgram Office. ______. Great LakesBinational Toxics Strategy 2006 ______. DeadZone. Lake Erie 2002. Available at: ______. TheGreatLakes Atlas: An Environmental U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Progress interdisciplinary Ph.D.interdisciplinary inPolicy Studiesprogram. new the of director acting the as PolicyPublicserving Ryerson.and is at programshe Administration Currently M.A.in the in policy,administration public in environmentalcourse policy,core the politics,and Canadian and and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Johns teaches undergraduate courses in public administration, public Trade and Health,” based on a project funded under the Federalism and Finance,Federations Environment,programin of Capacity the Policy IntergovernmentalSocial Sciences of manuscript,Comparativeauthored Analysis “A She is presently working on on a manuscript “Walkerton, Water Pollution and Water Policy in Canada,” and a co- published a co-edited book, public administration, intergovernmental relations, and policy capacity issues in the public sector. She has recently University. Johns’ research interests include comparative (Canada-United States) environmental policy,Carolyn water policy, Available at: http://epa.gov/greatlakes/aoc/rap.html. Available at: http://epa.gov/greatlakes/basicinfo.html. html. 2007a. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/about. binational.net/bns/2006/index.html. . 2006.Annual ProgressReport Available at: http:// http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakeerie/eriedeadzone.html. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/atlas/index.html. Atlas andResourceBook. 3ded. 1995. Available at: Report. Washington, DC: EPA, 1995a. greatlakes/ /sogl2007/index.html. Canada, 2007. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ M. Johns is an associate professor of Politicsin the Department and Public Administration at Ryerson Canadian Water Politics: Conflicts and Institutions, with McGill-Queen’s University Press. Young, Oran. TheInstitutionalDimensionsofEnvironmental Wisconsin. ofNaturalResources. Department 1996. Welbourn, David M. “Conjoint Federalism and U.S. Senate. Clean Water Act. Available at: http://epw.senate. ______. 2008. GreatLakesInitiative: EPA andStates U.S. General Accounting Office. 2005. GreatLakes Press, 2002. Change: Fit, Interplay, andScale. Cambridge, MA: MIT wnrmag.com/stories/1996/jun96/crypto.htm. “Battling Waterborne Bugs.” Available at: http://www. Publius 18(1988): 27-43. Environmental RegulationintheUnitedStates.” gov/water.pdf. Water QualityGoals Are toBe Achieved. Have MadeProgress, RemainstoBeDoneIf but Much and ConsistentImplementationof Water QualityStandards. Initiative: EPA NeedstobeBetterEnsuretheComplete William R. Lowry february 2010 83 Canadian policy changes will be more driven by by driven more be will changes policy Canadian ignificant changes to river management policies have occurred occurred have policies management to river changes ignificant in Canada in recent In a years. 1996, small group revive of to scientists served that plan use water a developed and demanded As important as these they cases do are, not necessarily signal a chang- policy Canadian that determinefactors several that argue will I This comparison of policy changes in Canada versus the United States United the versus Canada in changes policy of comparison This changegeneral environmental in regarding expectations on light sheds rela- that, hypothesizes author The specifically. management, river and Canadian policy changes to are more likely to the tive United States, dependent degree greater a to are bureaucrats, subnational by driven be upon fortuitous alignments of interests and and are institutions, less These con- quickly emulated and spread among jurisdictions in need. cepts are explored in the context of case studies in British Columbia change and indeed, occurred Ontario at where, the subnational level, and was largely dependent on the efforts of small groups of dedicated While mid-level there bureaucrats. were some dramatic results (e.g., they dam to stemmed, removal), from some good degree, timing and and are unlikely to be circumstances, In emulated fact, anytime soon. energy potential be may the dominant issue frame in Canadian river removal, dam and speculates, author the come, to years for management discussed. be to likely not is hydropower, reduce effectively would which ideas and States United the from isolated not is Canada Nonetheless, that cross national borders and change the issues way are framed can an impact. have This paper is organized as follows. The first section uses literature literature uses The firstsection as follows. is paper This organized (B.C.). In 2000, Ontario government engineers removed the Finlayson Finlayson the the removed nearly dormant engineers Alouette River in government southern Ontario British 2000, Columbia In (B.C.). the Big East River. Dam from evolving one the to similar Canada in management river in era new First, questions. related two addresses paper This States. United the in how do policy changes in Canada differ from those in the United American influence? isolated from such changes are States? Second, argu- these examine I States. United the in than differently occur will es British in policies management river changing of context the in ments Ontario. and Columbia S subnational bureaucrats, more dependent upon fortuitous alignments of of alignments fortuitous upon dependent more bureaucrats, change subnational policy time, jurisdictions other same by emulated the quickly less and At institutions, and interests States. United the in changes policy than Ideas States. United the in that from isolated completely not is Canada in can easily cross the shared international border and bring about results framed. in which issues are changingby the ways generate to differences Canadian-American on and change policy on the of brief a review provides section second The hypotheses. specific empiricalsome provide to management river in experiencesAmerican Columbia British in changes policy the of studies case Then context. for assessing the hypotheses. and Ontario as vehicles presented are

wry o

. L

Washington University Washington William R

Isolated ifferent but not not but Different Canada’s Rivers: Rivers: Canada’s Policy Changes on Changes Policy Chapter 6: Chapter 84 Canada Institute occasional paper series degree degree of autonomy, even though this has not translat - Hale 1998, 448). 2002,2002, 125;Simeon 60; and Cameron (Harrison authority”extensive and clear havegovernments cial where policy,“provinissues environmental- certainly public of areas most in 1992). Kopastrue and is This 2006;1999, 1992; Rabe 2004; Pralle Hoberg Skogstad 2002; 1996, (Harrison States United is the in than case the level subnational the to pol- responsibilities of icy decentralization the about emphatic more Canada andtheUnitedStates. between differences fundamental some understanding requiresCanada in change policy in actors primary the anticipate changes.To the driving is who determine to is studies change policy most for goal obvious One and Canada Actors:Primary T tal issuesofpolicychange. do foster expectations of variance on the most fundamen- findings, several key differences between two the nations the United States and finds few differences. Despite these Borins (2000) studies over 200 innovations in Canada and Howlett 2000; Johnson and Beaulieu 1996). For example, evolution in Canada and the United States (Hoberg 1991; studies anticipate a degree of convergence many Instead, variation.between cross-national littlepolicy anticipate expectations regarding policy change, and many of those 2004; systematic offer VanNijnattenstudies 1999,few 1999).a Only Rabe 1994; Lowry 1992; Hoberg Hoberg 1994; and Harrison 1999; Bryner 2000; Borins (though see institutions political and traditions,history, wealth,of terms in countries these between similarities not that common, which is surprising in light of the sesmany of policy changes in Canada and the United States are VanNijnatten2002). Lambright and Comparative 2006;analy- Pralle 1993; Mawhinney 2002; 1997, (Howlett Canada in changeliteraturepolicyassesses of body ing 2002).JonesNevertheless, and grow - a Baumgarter and 1999 Sabatier see collections, edited (for States United M The Second, public agencies in Canada have a substantial much is Canada in federalism of system the First, oretical Expec h ms ctd ok cnetae n the on concentrate works cited most The nation. specific one in changes on focuses change policy on work existing the of ost he United S tates t a tions Ab is anticipated in the first chapter of this volume and evident inmany oftheotherchapters. volume of this chapter first the in anticipated is 2004;2006;Rabe Pralle Volden2006). hypothesis This United States (Borins 2000, 69; Hale 1998; Martin 2001; actions of “visionary” subnational bureaucrats than in the policy change in that Canada will be suggests more dependent on groups the interest national weak relatively relative autonomy for bureaucrats, decentralization, and limited (Wilson 1992, 120; Glenn 1999, 144). zones” is peripheral impact the their in and ate policy of 113;2002, 46). result,a As to tend interestgroups “oper- limitations (Hessing and Howlett 1997, 219; Wilson 1992, interestgroupshavedifficulty had overcoming financial makers (VanNijnatten 1999, 270). Further, for mostinterest groups Canadianto gain access and influence with policy pluralist”harder “less the it than making American, thus open”is processand 2002).“less political Canadian The (VanNijnatten1999;1992,States Wilson United the in than Canada in nationally influential developless to and slowerenvironmentalcauses,advocatingbeen have thus those notably groups, Interest counterparts. American and are typically not as active at the national level as their policy changes. reinforcesbureaucracysubnational relianceon the for 2002, (Doern 111). poweragency federal of lack This (EPA) U.S.Agency Protection Environmental the as importance of level the achieved has never Canada Environment instance, For 145) 1997, Howlett and and (Cameron Hessing 1998; Hale 111; States 2002, Doern 2002; United Simeon the in influ- those and as power ence much as have to developed not provincial bureaucrats. cratic discretion suggests a potentially powerful role for 12). bureauand decentralization of - combination The 1994, Hoberg and (Harrison their counterparts American than requirements formal by constrained less been 176).have historically Further,officials Canadian 2002; Franks 1987, 98; Hessing and Howlett 1997, 86, Doern 1983,295; (Campbell agencies public to tion discre- fosteredalways has Canada in government of framework paragraph).WestminsterThe next the in discussed (as offices federal power for significant to ed out Polic n hptei, hn i ta ti cmiain of combination this that is then, hypothesis, One Fourth, Canadian interest groups tend to form locally have institutions federal Canadian many Third, y Change William R. Lowry february 2010 85 M DA YSON FINLA Environmental Assessment (EA) Environmental MNR Engineers Support from fishermenSupport from logging No opposition from No “noise” from few few from “noise” No owners property Nevertheless, windows of opportunity for substantial for opportunity of windows Nevertheless, Diffusion of change spreads more slowly in Canada he Diffusion of Innovations Innovations of he Diffusion change A do second open. hypothesis is that if certain factors align in promising pro-change ways, advocates These factorscan pursue include an significant actions. established process of governance receptive and that bureaucrats can pro-change serve as change, for a vehicle political authorities on the inside of the policy-making institutions, supportive interest groups on the outside, and media framing of that conducive issues are in ways as Canada occurredin have alignments Such change. to well as These in the United States 28). (Howlett 1997, factors the provide summarizedframework in the first rare. Such alignments are 6.1. Table column of T A third area of study policy regarding changes involves diffusion How quickly of and innovations. thoroughly jurisdic-one from emulated or copied policies new are This issue tion has to attracted another? attention from 1983; Rogers 2001; (Mooney decades for scientists social 1969) Walker than in the The United rela- States for reasons. several tively weak national interest groups do not provide as much opportunity for communication across dictions and juris- persuasion in Canada as they do in United the States The less developed federal bureaucracy does not provide as much support and dissemination as public agencies As can the in firstthe United States. typi- government U.S. the states, volume this in chapter cally fosters more uniform the between behavior states RIVER ETTE ALOU (ESOR) First Nations ARMS Minimum instream flows instream Minimum removal Dam TOR The reliance on provincial bureaucrats to pursue pol- pursue to bureaucrats provincial on reliance The able 6.1: Factors Conducive to Policy Change Policy to Conducive Factors able 6.1: FAC Available process of governance process Available ElectricReview Operating Systems Inside knowledge and receptivityInside knowledge Whistle-blowers MOE Outside pressure Transplanted idea Transplanted Favorable framing by media framing by Favorable headlines “Stolen water” icy change comes with no guarantees that such actions by alteration policy successful Instead, successful. be will fortuitousa upon align- depends bureaucrats provincial ment of a wide range of factors, similar to Kingdon’s (1984) This convergence model. is largely due to the and/ groups interest national that e.g., above, factscited or national political agencies that could provide some degree of insulation for bureaucrats are tionalized less in Canada institu- than in the United States. Not surprisingly, decentralization of environmental policy in Canada has not produced a substantial amount of in absolute termsinnovation or to in the terms relative 1999; Rabe 2000; Paehlke (Harrison1996; States United VanNijnatten 1999). Left to their own devices, many politicians rather would provincial not disturb existing, Rabe 1996; (Harrison relationships economic traditional 1992). and Kopas 1999 Skogstad ignificant Change Significant of Likelihood like- the involves studies policy many of focus second A lihood of significant The change. traditional wisdom that public policy achieves change only incrementally (Lindblom 1959) is no longer accepted by many social scientists. Scholars have provided compelling theories of dramatic, substantial change in the Kindgon Birkland 1997; United 1993; (Baumgartner and Jones States Sabatier 1984; and Jenkins-Smith 1993) and thorough case studies of significant changes1975). Schulman 1989; Fritschler in specific 1987; policies (Bosso time over The obvious question is the degree to which policies well. change significantly in Canada as T 86 Canada Institute occasional paper series T United States. innovations in Canada spread more slowly than in the Jones 2000, 289). Thus a third hypothesis is that policy and alone” (Carroll stand to seem each programs cial result, as one analysis concluded, “the a different innovations.provin As - of adoption and spread possible the cesses, and dialogues among Canadian provinces slows provinces. Related, the wide variance in attitudes, pro- than the Canadian federal government does among the hne fcltt itrcin ta cn otr relation- foster can that interactions facilitate change, climate or pollution of air ideas. as the transfer such problems, to Common obstacle significant a not is have notpreviously beenemphasized. or ideas that enable them to reframe issues in ways that advocates can import scientifically-supported processes ceed 2006,(Kamieniecki 60; Libby 1998). Thus, change by supported not “hardscience” likelysuc- arenot to be to perceived ways in issue an frame to efforts that 2005, 587; Howlett 2000). Indeed, studies have Gerlak shown and (Heikkala scientifically supported is idea imported the if issues environmental with likely more recognitionalternativeof processes. isimpact an Such orknowledge new bring that ideas newintroduce to perceptions of an issue over time. One way to do so is transform to framing use can makers health. Policy tal environmen- or utility economic of terms in framed be may river a instance, For 59). 2006, Kamieniecki 1984;Taversky and Kahneman 1993; (Entman that issue of perceptions affecting of point the to issue an an issue. ruptiveforce if they external affect the basic framing of dis- that be can 1993,22-23).1997,Ideas 22;Sabatier Birkland 1993; Jones and (Baumgartner priorities or system is crucial to significant alteration of existing goals policy the to eventexternal or issue some to change a that motivateideas assert scholars Some change? policy Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999). How, specifically, 2002; Parsons can 2001; Mooney 2002; Lieberman Keohane1993; and Goldstein 2003; Blyth 2002; (Berman trade international to regulation state-level from ing rang- policies role, in significant a play can ideas that change involves the role of ideas. Recent work suggests policy of studies recent in attention of focus fourth A he R The border between Canada and the United States United the and Canada between border The regarding reality of element some highlight Frames ole of Ideas inFraming Issues national borders. fromfit flow the across ideas as of national sub- as well are not developed in complete isolation but rather bene­ country.the within diffused rapidly Finally, innovations are more likely to be localized and dispersed rather than ments of interests, institutions, and ideas. Policy changes align- innovations of cess rarefortuitous upon depends reliant on the actions of provincial bureaucrats. The suc- premises.is following Change the on based Canada in Wechange policy havefor expectations certain framed S have roots.American that ideas by impacted be wellmay Canada in change tem management. A fourth hypothesis then is that policy that can be to crucial framing policy changes in ecosys- tant for the transfer of scientific processes or knowledge impor- nations. both literaturefromparticularly is Again,this all scholarly the read border the of sides both on Policymakers barrier. a not is exchange.Language for forums offer (IJC) Commission Joint International the as such Institutions ideas. communicate that ships ummary ofummary Expectations for Policy Change communicate ideas. can foster relationships that facilitate interactions that pollution orclimate change, problems, suchas air transfer of ideas. Common a significant obstacle to the and theUnited States isnot The border between Canada William R. Lowry february 2010 87 s te a t Second, Second, while minimum flows provided for altera- This brief review is not meant to suggest that all ent rivers and lakes, including three of the 10 largest hydro operations in Canada Natural (Glavin 21; 2002, These by blocking dams, Resources Canada 72). 1997, fish passage andappropriating vast amounts water, of have had a significant impact on the rivers Province’s and associated The ecosystems. consequences for fish species, particularly salmon and steelhead, have 2003). been Angelo 2000, Rosenau and 2006; (Ashley severe ment paradigm” is that minimum instream (Postel biodiversity flows of are levels certain maintain to essential This argument gained momen- and 45). Richter 2003, tum with the development of tools for analyzing and prescribing Over anecessary periodflows. of 15years, University State Colorado at hydrologists and biologists Wildlife Fish and with the U.S. working and elsewhere, Service, developed the Instream Methodology (IFIM) as Flow a computer modeling tool for Incremental describing flow regimes on specific waterways under different management alternatives (Bovee 1982; U.S. 1998). Zappia and Hayes 2008; Geological Survey tions to operations of change dams, proponents began promoting a more radical idea on severely impacted rivers across the the country, actual removal of those structures. During the 1990s and 2000s, policymakers have successfully hundreds removed of dams on rivers Grossman 1999; Rivers (American country the across all 2002; Lowry The 2003, 2005). most notable of those removals occurred on the Kennebec River in Maine when policy makers a removed functional hydro dam objections in 1999. the owner’s over (Edwards) river management in the United States has changed. efforts Indeed, to change policies on big rivers such as the Colorado and only Missouri limited achieved have results. Nevertheless, change advocates have removed hundreds of restored dams, large areas of river habitat, and simulated have seasonal flows onwaterways. many The movement to restore American rivers is widely diffused and emulated (Lowry 2003, 2005; Postel and Richter 2003). bia tion in British Colum ited S in the Un tion a a stor stor iver management policies in the United States United the in policies management iver have arguably entered a new era. Until the 1990s, American rivers had been managed

he province of British Columbia blessed with an abundance of (B.C.) rivers. powerful is anthro- tempted also has however, power, That

Attitudes and policies toward rivers in the United Two ideas have dominated recent changes in pogenic use, pogenic particularlyuse, for the generation of hydro- electric During energy. the twentieth century, hydro producers, supported by the Today, B.C. government, built waterways. large dams on most of the province’s’ operates 41 Hydro generating plants on 27 differ- B.C. States have changed in The recent fightsyears. in the mid-1960s over proposed dams in the Grand Canyon argu- and management river in era new a in ushered area 231; 2001, (Nash generally policy environmental in ably Canyon Grand the aborted Congress 295). 1987, Reisner dam proposals and to almost Challenges immediately Act. followed with Rivers Scenic and Wild the of passage 1970s the in intensified rivers of management traditional of the awareness and 1980s with greater environmental ecological damages caused by river modifications and with economic increasing concerningrealism the costs and benefits of structural engineering (Mazmanian and 1986). Palmer McCully 1996; Nienaber 1979; American The river first “newpolicies. river manage- almost entirely for economic (Ferejohn and 1974; Reisner Worster 1985). 1987; People political purposes modified and managed rivers withdams, levees, dikes, to and the other purposes serve structures of economic often Politicians, and hydropower. irrigation, navigation, of Bureau the or Engineers of Corps the through acting used Reclamation, river projects to benefit constituents - sub-govern tight a in interests power and water as well as ment that defied challenges (Clarke and McCool 1996; ofscope the for evidence of piece one As 1987). Reisner these structural modifications, today over 75,000 dams Army Corps stand Americanon 1996). (U.S. waterways structural of model a provided experience American The the world. engineering on rivers for nations all over T River Re Re River R 88 Canada Institute occasional paper series changes to plant operations, such as slightly increased slightly as such operations, plant to changes rivers,certain the that impacted expected theybuthad excessiveforest over-fishing, harvesting, practices land-use other and that realized Democrats New The 21). 2002,(Glavin company the to cost substantial without benefits environmental some produce to tweaked be might operations plant whether assess simply to meant was review (ESOR). ReviewThe Operating Systems Electric the called stations hydro of operations the of in 1991, ordered this province-wide low-profile review stations.tion Democrats,New office takenThe having genera- its B.C.byfor operations system the of Hydro ofanideafromimportation theUnitedStates. their efforts due to a rare constellation in of factors and the successful were and agencies, federal or groups est inter- national from help little receivedadvocatesvery province’s waterways. the of renewal As for hypothesized, potential these the pro-change changes offered they such because initiated activists, local few a of tance advocates, notably provincial bureaucrats with the assis- have occurred in isolated instances. A handful of change policies management river B.C. to changes significant mandated inthe1867Constitution Act. province overhas nearly complete jurisdiction water, as haveauthorities potential interest in fish protection, the federal while that fact the wellas as decentralization al potential federal role would be constrained by tradition- power most of the 1970s,during 1980s, and 2000s.in Any parties Liberal Columbia British and Credit Social rivers, especially with the conservative, pro-development government has encouraged the utilization of Canadian government (Glavin 2002, 21). Not surprisingly, the B.C. more than half a billion dollars per year to the provincial part of its licensing agreements, B.C. as Hydro Further,contributes 1999). (Froschauer 1990s the in occurred that facilities transmission deregula- of integration the electricity and tion the to subsequent particularly of the network that sells to electricity the United States, Resources Canada 1997,61). Canada Resources (Natural Province’s the electricity of percent 94 vided pro- hydropower unfolds, story following the when 1996, In losses.revenue in result would infrastructure passage fish for expenditures capital and/or operations system in changes that governmentprovincial the and B.C.of perceptions the to due Hydroobstacles serious It all started in the 1990s with an official assessment official an with 1990s the in started all It quo,status the of favor in evidence this all Despite Any efforts to change traditional behavior would face 1 B.C. Hydro is also part part also B.C.is Hydro of compliance with their water license.”water their with compliance of its waterrights. companythe within wasthat found He “wayout found conditions the and Hydro B.C. by usage water the to it compared the Riverand Cheakamus on hydrograph historical the examined (MOE), biologist then with the B.C. Ministry of the Environment was expectedtobeexorbitant. system operations for hydro-electric generating stations looked the other way. largely has The expected Oceans) costs to and reconfigure Fisheries (Canada act the ing enforc- for responsible agency federal the cases, court followingsome 1980s the in period short a than other but fish, for flows maintain facilities dam that ensure to supposed is Act Fisheries Canada where.The and when used,as wellbe as can that water of amount the operations. These licenses are quite specific in respect to their for use can they water muchhow specifying Act Columbia British the under moreissued licenses Water or one to according stations generating and dams its oron off, could provide substantialbenefitstofish. turned are generators as flows of andmodified ramping of dams downstream flows minimum funding agency dealing with habitat issues) and the fed- ment’s Habitat Conservation Trust Fund (an arm’s-length change. They of the B.C.recruited the support govern- sumin1995.trivial a not Canadian, million $8.0 be to water unlicensed powerof amount the estimated bygenerated being the river.this on waterIndeed, unlicensed B.C.the Hydro Cheakamus became aware of the potential revenues for ties through negotiation. The Nations local on First the communi- Indian local the with shared often are tions years. ment of millions of dollars in water license rental fees for abusing their allocation and short changing the govern- been B.C.had that Hydro concluded and Cheakamus tion, worked with Rosenau to check sec- past records research on the fisheries MOE’s with scientist Ashley, a water.the Kento claim prior a established thus MOE appropriation,the water of right” system in time,first in the entitled.“first Under not was it which to using was company the that overage average the acre-feet, 140,000 for license a for MOE,applied the for acting of the water it was using from the Cheakamus, Rosenau, that B.C. Hydro hadnotattainedlegalownership ofall In pursuing the ESOR,the pursuing In Rosenau, Marvin fisheries a operate to supposed background,B.C.is As Hydro These two bureaucrats built an informal coalition for 3 Revenues resourcethese with associated extrac- 2 Recognizing William R. Lowry february 2010 89 In the 1960s, In a the few 1960s, local citizens formed what has The window of opportunity for change on the evolved intoevolved Alouette the River Management Society (ARMS)todemand minimum would thatflows allow salmon In migration. Alouette the fact, needed water for more than just migration, including spawning of adult salmon and rearing of juvenile Becausefish. the Alouette license did water on not the prescribe mini- dis- release regarding existed requirement no flows, mal as the ARMS pressure from charges However, for fish. formerB.C. a by led 1990s, and 1980s the in mounted the company , engineerHydro named Geoff Clayton, minimum the increased modestly only but unilaterally flows from 2 cfs to 12 and then These 20. increasedmuch were too for low optimal production fishflows and the efforts of Clayton and ARMS gained traction until the mid-1990s. little Alouette came in the mid-1990s. In by and Rosenau chance met at by a meeting convened 1994, Clayton Hydro concerning Alouette and the its fishB.C. flows. same the toward working were they realized soon They goals. Rosenau still had access to the investiga- Ward drain- River Alouette the of analysis an including tions, age Hydro indicating was out that of B.C. compliance had he Further, watershed. this on license water its with media- the Angelo, Mark with relationship a established savvy head of the Outdoor B.C. Recreation Council, to ready was Angelo issues. river-related of number a on at investigations any time. Ward the blow off cover the In addition, while the coverage of the ReportsWard had a attracted varietymedia attention from of sources, was Glavin Terry another member of the media named specificallyinvolved on the Alouette in a strategically importantGlavin is way. an award-winning journalist who has written extensively about First Nations and several conservation issues. He has also been connected closely to the Sierra Club and other conservation groups. His First Nations connection to the Alouette was to help them deal with treaty The negotiations. Alouette River flows within the territorial boundar- ies of the Any potential Katzie change First to Nation. that affects First waterways Nations territorial waters is part of treaty In already negotiations. this Glavin, case, sympathetic to the restoration was cause, First advising to limited the not were issues Legal Nation. First Katzie Nation claims. Clayton had also contacted the Sierra B.C. against action possible take to Fund Defense Legal In Alouette. the of devastation ecological the for Hydro Internal memos 4

5 Not surprisingly, B.C. Hydro officials targeted Hydro of B.C. reviews the with simultaneous Nearly and e-mail messages show that contro- the Cheakamus and e-mail messages show raise could issue this that realize officials B.C. made versy politically. significant problems eral Fisheries and Oceans Canada in order to obtain funding to undertake a formal engineering analysis of the Cheakamus Generating Yassein Station and (Ward They also 1996). obtained money to initiate a second, independent audit of a number of other suspected Hydro were B.C. that province the throughout operations of being out of compliance with their water licenses. reports The subsequent Ward assessments termedwere following from the name of the engineering company was report Ward first the When analyses. the undertaking “Watergate-type” a and frenzy media a caused it released, 1996; (Anderson government B.C. the within explosion As Glavin 21). 2002, Rosenau then “We told had me, a sympathetic media running headlines about ‘stolen had anger Firstwe from had public support, we water’, Nations, and we had legal grounds.” Rosenau and other bureaucrats as troublemakers and demanded the government relent in its investigations (Glavin The 2002, 22). government ordered Rosenau issue to lock Nevertheless, report. up Ward the second framing was Whereas changing. had hydropower pre- viously been seen as benign relatively environmentally as well as economically beneficial this to the province, pro-change group had shown that not only had hydro operations devastated they provincial waterways, were out taxpayers Firstprovincial cheating and also Nations of andwater, fish, therevenue from using more than under the license. allowed their share water licenses, the place for real action, and the semi- nal pioneering occurred efforton thefor policy change, Once Columbia. British southwestern in River Alouette Alouettethe had been waterway, fish-ladena beautiful, severely damaged over time by logging and then dam- in the river dammed Engineers and ming development. neighbor- a into flows the of most diverted and 1920s the very releasing generation, hydro-electric for watershed ing As the a river result, little Alouette. water into the lower once- It’s languished. strong natural flows which once of nearly 1,000 cubic discharge a mean annual produced hundreds the in populations fish and (cfs) second per feet occasion- to trivialof thousands had been reduced flows ally to cfs down two and salmon runs of only 20,000 or hatchery-spawned. years in recent most of them less, 90 Canada Institute occasional paper series we would have lost credibility.” missed. As Clayton said, “If we had pushed that option, 1999). The possibility of dam removal was quickly dis- (Vanderwaal months several lasted groups interest and column in Table thosefactors. 1summarizes .. yr frhr omte t $0,0 pr year per $200,000 to committed further B.C. Hydro downstream.it releases and reservoir the in deep from takesthat discharge dam the under located frompipe a where today the point flowsminimal to average cfs. 90 this of Most comes water river the of flows stream with water diversion, storage, orwithdrawal. associated impacts economic and social other as well orderin license protectto valuesecosystem aquatic as water a of aspects operational detailed the tutionalize province. The objective of the plan was to legally insti- generation station, the firstplan for such facilitiesin the water use plan (WUP) for the Alouette hydro-electric draft the released B.C. government the 1996, In plan. operations system a into inclusion for Rights Water of Comptroller Columbia British the to mendations recom- the took B.C.Hydro and consensus reached “We blackmailed the government into taking action.”taking into government the “Weblackmailed ations in order to more fully protect fish. As Rosenau says, start a consultative process to develop a set of system oper- apowerful coalition ofsocietyformed facets informal this way, a small group of individuals representing several Rosenau told me, “The stars were aligned.” place.in was As change policy to conducive factors of powerfulidea,constellation a a with tion.armed Now powerthan rather health genera- ecosystem emphasize to issue the of framing enabled tool tifically-supported a scien- as methodology this of flows. Utilization fish science available to make trade-offs between power and that the consultative process should be based on the best methodology,borrowedthe explicitly makers agreeing such as depth, velocity, and habitat. The survivalAlouette policy species fish for factors necessary determine to Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) process tioned previously, American scientists had developed the biodiversityneeds.emphasize to management men- As ture modifications(Vanderwal 1999). from spawning beds, altering ramping rates, and tempera - more water, adjusting flushing flows to remove sediments Potential changes were significant and included providing The dialogue The between B.C.dialogue Hydro and the agencies The Alouette WUP called for increasing the down-The the increasingAlouette for called WUP This coalition motivated the provincial government to An imported idea further reframed idea the further issue of riverAn imported 8 Ultimately, the parties 7 The second 6

release. post-flow doubled almost species this that suggested returns steelhead 2006.of in Indices 300,000 nearly to below the dam increased from about 400 adults in 1964 (Cope 2004,1). Adult chum salmon escaping to the river lion fish representing 16 species downstream of the dam mil- 1.5 over of counts revealed 2004 in Monitoring remarkable. been has populations fish of growth The was restored tosalmonspawning andjuvenile rearing. watershed the when and if salmon small the passing of outlet stream. an low-levelprovewouldthe pipe find Thus incapable they until water the of surface the on depths, great rather at reservoirs of out migrate not do charge outlet. This was important because salmon smolts surface spillway at the dam rather than the low-level dis- the from discharges basis,releasing by experimental an reservoir, the flows of the manage on to agreed Hydro 2005. of B.C. spring the reservoir, in the first occurred of puzzle, surface the from flows releasingof piece dam.final the The of upstream ecosystem aquatic the of fertilization lake pursued scientists the addition, In cycles. salmon five-year two for allow to chosen ber committed to reviewing the plan every 10 years, a num- migration.fish of monitoring for government also The substantially restored.” ago,is years the Alouette ten was it what to “Relative restored2007,the riverin me ing concluded,latter the years. While Clayton and Rosenau were proudly show- River, from the ocean to the Alouette the dam,up wayfor the the firstall time inreturn 80 the 2005,made in spillway releasedjuvenilesbeen as ing surface the using duced a seminal event when adult sockeye salmon, hav- in river management in that there exists the potential the exists there that in management river in Environmentof 2007). change seminal a be could This (B.C. Ministry process the started least at facilities 23 2007).water(Bemister comptrollerof 2007, vincial By approvedstations,be pro-hydroelectric then the byto ties committed to developing WUPs for each of their 34 2006; Rosenau and Angelo 2000). B.C. Hydro authori- (B.C.Hydro facilities hydro and licenses water Hydro formalized into a major government initiative for all B.C.later was concept plan use rivers.water other The for importance,tional the provedpilot Alouette model the opera- more species. Of fish restoring to commitment the B.C. Fish Protection Act, affording at least a nominal on B.C. rivers. In 1997, the provincial passed legislature h rsls ae en mrsie ee dramatic. even impressive, been have results The The Alouette WUP was just the start to policy change 9 ot rmtcly te umr f 07 pro- 2007 of summer dramatically, the Most 10

William R. Lowry february 2010 91 Paroschy’s Paroschy’s

14 12

15 The ultimate results from these changes won’t be clear be won’t changes these from results ultimate The The alignment of factors that made Finlayson Dam Importation of the dam removal idea occurred at for years. However, natural conditions on several rivers, rivers, natural conditions on several However, for years. considerable displayed have Alouette, in addition to the If nothing began. WUP process since the improvement of issues river WUP initiation raised awareness the else, contrib- have may This province. B.C. the in general in on dams seriesof proposed a against protests the to uted provincial the by decision the and River Pitt Upper the in early 2008 to abort the project. government when “we “we saw a when tape of the Edwards Dam [in Maine] removal and thought we could do this.” an ideal candidate for decommissioning are summarized are decommissioning for candidate ideal an meter-high concrete gravity a five The dam, 1. Table in control had structure, been built in the 1950s to assist anecdote suggests much of the In documentation experience. American about the cites removal Finlayson the has become a relatively dam removal the United States, age- with dealing for alternative accepted and common and King, This ing Phillips (Donnelly, dams” 1). 2005, opened up possibilities and changed the entire framing Rather than just considering the option of of the issue. repairing old dams, an expensive and often inconclu- the possibility policy of makers envisioned process, sive Americanexperi- The structures. the removing entirely sci- supported by was option an such that showed ence ence and potentially quite effective. an The opportune MNR time. had a process in place called the Class Environmental Assessment that procedure a of (EA). evolution an represents Ontario,this In began in the 1970s in several provinces and with the Assessment and federal Process Review Environmental (Fenge and Smith 1986; Skogstand and Kopas 1992). The EA established a multistage decommission- dam procedure including whereby projects, MNR potential “can be planned and carrieding, out without the need (Ontario legislature the by approval” project-specific for MNR 2003, vii. 6). According to senior Derryk environmental planner for MNR, the Renton, EA pro- cess regarding the Finlayson Dam occurred entirely at level. the provincial (Rosenau and Angelo 2000; Ryder 2005). Ryder 2005). Angelo 2000; and (Rosenau ario Policy makers makers Policy 11 tion in Ont a stor This This is not to suggest that dam removal hile hile dam was not removal a viable option has it rivers, B.C. most on change policy for Ontario. in discussion considerable received 13

The Ontario government owns over 300 dams in the the in dams 300 over owns government Ontario The

has been a frequent occurrence in occurred Ontario. Instead, as removal dam in B.C., planning use water with bureaucrats provincial of efforts the of largely result the as and the circumstances of favorable who took advantage with as Also, States. United the from idea an of adoption dams decommission to effort the changes, policy B.C. the and faces an unclear future. within the Province remains some of province, them quite old and Prior unsafe. to people dams had for occasionally safety 1999, removed reasons or structure but failure, deliberate removal for environmental reasons had Ministry not the for been engineer project a senior a policy option. Paroschy, Nick sparked was idea the said (MNR), Resources Natural of W River Re to apply this process not only to Hydro licenses, B.C. but also to other large projects affecting fish as The Regional Vancouver well. Greater District is expected opera- modify to process the of version shortlya to use tions of the Cleveland Dam, a stream-impoundment structure built in the 1950s to provide a water supply that has impacted severely fishVancouver migration to River. Capilano the on production and Several reasons are possible. First, while BritishColumbia while First, possible. are reasons Several gets nearly all its electricity Ontario from hydropower, Ontario in relies on dams hydro for only 2,125 29 the percent (Natural of Resources 288 Only 61). 1997, Canada are operated by Ontario Efforts Hydro. to lost about remove the objections face not do dams non-hydro other, most Second and of related, the dams hydro energy. in Ontario’s of many while large, quite are Columbia British Among the 10 sta- largest hydro dams are much smaller. Resources Ontario(Natural in are none Canada, in tions story describes, following the as Third, 72). 1997, Canada a policy makers a have removed dam providing in thus Ontario after a process, review environmental systematic environmental for dams remove to efforts whereas model, with met have Theodosia, the on notably B.C., in reasons little success. - proj non-hydro for WUPs developed recently also have as rivers as in well other geographical areas ects in B.C. 92 Canada Institute occasional paper series nificant problem.nificant removal of the downstream dam would not cause a sig- thus reservoirand the of portion upper the in mulated removal.accu- had sediment the Finlayson, dam of At most to obstacle physical important most the often is removal.conduciveto was sediment of mitigation The several property owners whomadealotofnoise.” Distresswhereaslatterthethe objected onperson “had property owners. Indeed, according to Paroschy, only one few veryremoval, reservoirFinlaysonhad for thedate Further,Dam,Distresscandi- nearby another the unlike by removing the major economic reason to keep the dam. removal option. men. This created a for sourcethe dam of local support sports- local among fish trout,brookpopular most the was species affected the negatively of species. One fish impacting and vegetation natural of hectares 39 ing area, shallowsurface createda substantial lake of flood- Ontario.dam central The north in operations logging he proudly showed me a beautiful river coursing through Paroschy,with 2006 in site engineer,MNR Ontario the (Donnelly, King, and Phillips 2005, 5). When I removalvisitedproclaimedemphatically a it the success”“complete 2001).2005,scientistsinvolvedBytheseveral the of in and fish populations were renewed (Acres andrestored” Associatedbeen has system the ‘riverine showedthat ing year, monitor- one just after River. Even East Big the (Donnelly, King, andPhillips2005; Hatch Acres 2005).process systematic a following Canada in removal dam a of known, case documented first 2000.the was This of summer the International,in structureremoved the Acres with working engineers, MNR validation.The scientific critical received option removal3). the Thus, for”wereaccounted (Donnelly, 2005,King,Phillips and habitat river natural the of restoration the as such issues intangible when overallbenefit greatestprovide the to deemed was option, cheapest“it the not removal was removal.wellas as operations dam altering for Although guidelines.EA the alternatives of providedrange They a accordingpublicto the to case the tookthen and data numerous studies and collected all the necessary scientific 2000.and 1999 Finlaysonin theDamconducted They sioning and “Finlayson was ourbestbetforremoval.” MNR were looking for a candidate dam for decommis- Finally, the situation involving sediment at Finlayson The logging industry had declined in the region, there- Removalof the Finlayson has had amajor impact on h MR et hog te rcs t remove to process the through went MNR The 17 Renton, Paroschy, the in others and 16

18 said, “Now thisisariver insteadofareservoir.” he dam. As the behind flooded been had that area an a meadow with substantial growth of new vegetation in “It’s notavote.” cations instead. As Renton admitted of the EA process, rejection in of the removal resulted option and expensive modifi- citizens local some from pressure intense 2002,MNR (Ontario Tablebined 2.2).Nevertheless, com - upgrades with retention involving alternatives the all of that double nearly response a missioning, respondentsfavoredof cent decom- alternativeof the MNR presented several options. the Finlayson,An with impressive 54 repairs.As per- extensive of need in The obstructs Thornbury fish passage and by 2000 was structure on the Beaver River built in originally 1855. Dam, a the of removal Thornbury consider to process fish greater passage. facilitated that structure the to fications modi- creative some for settled do well, but to as Distress hoped had Finlayson with involved scientists or Canada Ontario as a whole. Paroschy and the other throughout actions such other many inspired not has removal Dam Finlayson the of success however, the then it’s hard.” and resists somebody removaluntil dam about serious Paroschy said of dam removal in efforts Ontario, “We’re ing of old dams more likely (Chung 2007). However, as pushing for legislation that would make decommission- London 2004; Chung 2007). of As of City 2007, the the MNR was of (Corporation instead repair for erence option, it was rejected after the city expressed their pref- process.viable EA a was dam removalthe Although of tation, poor water quality, and some damage led to a full Dam in London, in Ontario 2003. Pollution, fish devas- Indeed, a major controversy erupted over the Springbank yr cmais rsuc aece ad academia and agencies resource companies, hydro try try to upgrade before removing.” sider decommissioning, answered: “Not really, we would when asked if there was momentum nationwide to con- agency,Oceans and Fisheries federal the with biologist McAllister, a Similarly, 2005). Kurt Phillips and King, area”this 2002,progressin (Sentinelles tle 9; Donnelly, this paper, “other of jurisdictions Canada have made lit- in discussed Ontario and Columbia British in dams of for environmental purposes. Aside from theassessments Consistent with the third hypothesis in this paper,this in hypothesis third the with Consistent te psil rmvl hv as be rejected. been also have removals possible Other Policy makers have removed very few Canadian dams 20 wentalso MNR The through entirethe EA 22

21 23 Representatives from 19 William R. Lowry february 2010 93 25 Without Without 26 What does this mean for the future of river resto- 10. Interview with Rosenau, 7/18/2007. Interview with Rosenau, 10. 7/19/2007. Ashley, Interview with 11. WUPs on in rivers managers using are Specifically, 12. has led the charge to decommission Angelo Mark 13. 8/2/2006. Interview with Paroschy, 14. 8/1/2006. Interview with Renton, 15. 8/2/2006. Interview with Paroshcy, 16. see also 8/2/12006; Interview with Paroschy, 17. 8/1/2006. Interview with Paroschy, 18. 8/2/2006. Interview with Paroschy, 19. 8/2/2006. Interview with Paroschy, 20. Perhaps the most respected river biologist in Canada, Canada, in biologist river respected most the Perhaps the Okanagan basin. the Okanagan basin. in 2007 his colleague Marv but told Rosenau Theodosia, me that most momentum had largely dissipated. 2. and Phillips 2005: King, Donnelly, Fourth, policy change is not isolated in Canada but can becan but Canada in isolated not is change policy Fourth, impacted by ideas that cross national borders and change framed. issues are the way ration in Canada? Those rare alignments of favorable conditions may be even less frequent in the next few years if for no other reason than the escalating price of hydro- that perception the and prices, Those fuels. fossil power does not contribute to global continue to warming, enhance the will attractiveness of domi- hydro the as be may an potential energy Thus, source. energy nant frame in Canadian river management for years to Reducing come. reliance on is hydropower not likely dams hydro Removing any will time rarely soon. even fos- to operations alteringhydro just Even discussed. be ter healthier ecosystems will be a challenge for change and reform-minded bureaucrats. advocates Stewart Rood of the University of Lethbridge, metold in late “We don’t2005, have the dialogue about dam removal that they do in the States.” is the dam they’ve always had,” Renton said.” had,” always they’ve is the dam national interest groups or federal agencies - encour aging people to adjust their attitudes and behaviors, actionsFinlaysonthatremainattakenlikelytolike are discussed. even isolated and rarely s

he case studies from British Columbia and Ontario and Columbia British from studies case he largely support the hypotheses the literatures derived on policy change from and Canadian- Consistent with that view was the com- 24

1. Hydro provides 64% of electricity for Canada as a provides Hydro 1. 7/18/2007. Interview with Rosenau, 2. 7/19/2007. Ashley, Interview with 3. 7/18/2007. Interview with Rosenau, 4. the an e-mail to Rosenau from instance, For 5. 7/18/2007. Interview with Rosenau, 6. 7/18/2007. Interview with Rosenau, 7. 7/18/2007. Interview with Clayton, 8. 8/17/2007. with Rosenau, communication Personal 9. American differences. First, in Canada, policy change is occurring mainly at the subnational level, with largely actions dependent on small groups of mid-level - bureau Britishandin Columbia Ashley and Rosenau as such crats policy and changes Renton Second, Paroschy in Ontario. to alterations but substantial in can Canada be dramatic, fortuitous is there alignment when likely only this are of behavior traditional some While factors. relevant of alignment is fairly much random, of it is designed by change - advo - that policy entre of the role reminiscent cates themselves, be to likely less are preneurs Canada play in in alleviating the randomness changes in Kingdon’s Third, model. (1984) groups interest national through disseminated and nurtured States. United the in changes are than agencies federal and nation (Natural Resources Canada 1997: 61). Canada 1997: nation (Natural Resources 1996 admitted, 3, Assistant Deputy Minister dated July not too pleased with the lack of action “the minister was the past over office on Cheakamus the Comptroller’s by with official is the government The Comptroller years.” licenses. water over legal power ment of Ontario MNR official Darry K. Renton, who observed that local citizens are reluctant about “Theonly thing removals. that will makethem happy

e not T ion clus Con have have been asked why Canada has not emulated the United States in and given - simi dam have removals of Manitoba Wojczynski Hydro said, Ed lar answers. “We don’t do dam The removals. local people want them to stay because they’ve adjusted to them being there.” 94 Canada Institute occasional paper series Bovee, K.D. A Guide To Stream Habitat Analysis Using Borins, Sandford. “What Border? Public Management Blyth, Mark. DoNotCome “Structures With an Birkland, Thomas. AfterDisaster. Washington, DC: Bermister, Charlotte. “Balancing Interests Along theStave ______. Water UsePlanning, 2006. Available at: BC Hydro. HandbookforDeveloping Micro Hydro in ______. PolicyDynamics. Chicago: University of Baumgartner, FrankR. and BryanD. Jones. Agendasand Ashley, Kenneth I. “Wild Salmoninthe21stCentury: Rivers.American DamRemoval. SuccessStories Acres & Associated. “Finlayson DamDecommissioning— refeence Wildlife Service, 1982. and LandUse Team. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Fishand PaperFlow No. Information 12. Western Energy the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Instream of Policy Analysis andManagement19(2000): 46-74. Innovation in theUnitedStatesandCanada.” Journal 706. Political Science.” Perspectives onPolitics1(2003): 695- Sheet:Instruction Interests, Ideas, andProgress in Georgetown University Press, 1997. River.” prepared Report forBCHydro, 2007. www.bchydro.com/environment/wateruse. rx_files/environment/environment1834.pdf. Columbia,British 2004. Available at: www.bchydro.com/ Chicago Press, 2002. Chicago Press, 1993. Instability in Politics .American Chicago: University of Alpharetta, GA: Society, Fisheries American 2006. by Energy, Triage, andChoices.” InSalmon2100, edited Washington, DC: Rivers,American 1999. ofNaturalResources, Ministry for Ontario 2002. Environmental Results.” Monitoring prepared Report 23. withMcAlister, Interview 11/29/2005. 22. withParoschy, Interview 8/2/2006. 21. withRenton, Interview 8/1/2006. R.T. Lackey, D.H. Lach, andS.L. Duncan, 71-98. s VanNijnatten, DeboraL. and W. Lambright. Henry 2002. VanNijnatten, DeboraL. 1999. “Participation and U.S. Survey. Geological 2008. Backdrop to “Historical Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. About the Campbell, Colin. underStress: Governments Political Cameron, David andRichard Simeon. Caldicott, Arthur. “Rivers ofRiches.” Watershed Sentinel, Bryner, Gary. “Balancing Preservation andLogging: Brown, M. Paul. “Organizational DesignasPolicy British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Water Use In VanNijnatten andR. Boardman, eds., Canadian Canadian Smog Policy inaContinentalContext.” 267-287. States: Trends over Time.” 27, PolicyStudiesJournal 2: Environmental Policy inCanadaandtheUnited the U.S.G.S. http://www.fort.usgs.gov. IFIM.” CollinsScienceCenterof fortheFort Report ofEngineers. Corps Dams. 1996-97edition. Washington D.C.: U.S. Army ofEngineers. Corps 1996.Army NationalInventoryof Agency, 2007. Available at: www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca.U.S. and Ottawa. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983. Executives andKeyBureaucrats in Washington, London, (2002): 49-71. Emergence ofCollaborative Federalism.” Publius 33 “Intergovernmental Relations inCanada: The 2007:January-February 1-27. (1999): 307-327. Western UnitedStates.” 27 PolicyStudiesJournal Public LandsPolicy Columbiaandthe inBritish 1992. by Boardman, Robert 24-42. Toronto: Oxford Press, Bureaucracy.” InCanadianEnvironmentalPolicy, edited Instrument: Environment CanadaintheCanadian bc.ca/wsd. Stewardship Division webpage. Available at: www.env.gov. Planning, 2007. ofEnvironment Ministry Water 26. withRood, Interview 11/22/2005. 25. withRenton, Interview 8/1/2006. 24. with Interview Wojcznski, 11/19/2005. William R. Lowry february 2010 95 Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment Report, Assessment Report, Environmental Rehabilitation 2004. edited Policy, In Canadian Environmental Institution.” 107-122 eds., Boardman and R. VanNijnatten D.L. by 2002. Press, University Oxford ON: Don Mills, dam.” Finlayson “Once Removed—Decommissioning and Dam Construction 57 Power Water International 1-8. (2005): Journal 43 of Communication Paradigm.” a Fractured 51-58. (1993): for Species at Risk, Program Habitat Stewardship NB: 2002. Assessment and Review Environmental Federal 596-605. Policy 12 (1986): Canadian Public Process.” 1974. Press, University 1987. Press, Toronto of University 1989. Hall, Prentice Cliffs: 2002: Aug 29-Sept 5, The Georgia Straight, Drained.” 20-25. 1999. of British Press, Columbia Ithaca: 3-30. In Ideas and Foreign Policy. Policy.” Foreign 1993. Cornell Press, University 2002. Counterpoint, York: New Canadian of the Status Quo.” the Politics Transcending 429-451. Policy 24 (1998): Public of University Vancouver: Canadian Environmental Policy. 1996. British Press, Columbia Corporation of the City of London. Springbank Dam Corporation of London. of the City Canada as a Networked “Environment Bruce. G. Doern, Phillips. and Mike Larry King, Richard, C. Donnelly, Clarification of Toward “Framing: Robert M. Entman, Moncton, Reclaiming. Free Flow Canada. Environment “Reforming the Graham Smith. and L. Terry Fenge, Stanford Alto: Palo Pork Barrel Politics. A. John Ferejohn, Toronto: of Canada. The Parliament C.E.S. Franks, Englewood 4th ed. Smoking and Politics. Lee. A. Fritschler, Presumed Missing and Water: “B.C. Terry. Glavin, University Vancouver: . Once Upon an Oldman Jack. Glenn, and “Ideas Keohane. and Robert O. Judith Goldstein, America. The Undamming of Watershed: Elizabeth. Grossman, “Reforming Insurance: Employment E. Geoffrey Hale, and Federalism the Buck: Passing Kathryn. Harrison, . Toronto: Oxford, 253-273. Oxford, Toronto: Policy. Environmental M Sc. River.” Alouette on the Integrating Knowledge April 1999. of British University Columbia, Thesis, Health Insurance Success in the Children’s Emulating 2: American Journal Science 50, of Political Program.” 294-312. American Political Science American States.” among the 880-899. Review 63: of licensed a review Plant: Power Cheakamus for Ministry of Prepared operations. diversion Environment. Assessing the Movement: Canadian Environmental VanNijnatten In D.L. Effects of Institutionalization.” Canadian Environmental Policy. eds., Boardman, and R. 46-65. Oxford, Toronto: 2nd ed. ed., In Robert Boardman, Policy.” and Environmental Press, Oxford Toronto: Canadian Environmental Policy. 109-125. Books. Pantheon Incremental Flow Demonstration of the Instream Virginia.” Shenandoah River, Methodology, Survey. U.S.Geological VA: Richmond, in Devolution or Inertia: Convergence to Innovation, Policy 36 Canadian Public in Canada.” Housing Policy 277-293. (2000): 1. 2007: of New State University Albany: 2d ed. . Terrain out the 1996 York, Westslope for Report prepared Enumeration.” 2004. BC, Cranbrook, Fisheries, Vanderwaal, J. 1999. “Negotiating Restoration: Restoration: “Negotiating 1999. J. Vanderwaal, Laboratories: “States as Policy 2006. Craig. Volden, “The Diffusion of Innovation 1969. L. Jack Walker, at the releases Water 1996. Yassein. and H.A. P. Ward, and Change in the “Continuity 2002. Jeremy. Wilson, Groups Pressure Lobbies: “Green 1992. Jeremy. Wilson, York: New Empire of. Rivers 1985. Donald. Worster, “A 1998. Hayes. Humbert and D.C. Zappia, Road “The Jones. and Ruth J.E. Wake Barbara Carroll, April 8, , Star Toronto Waters.” “Troubled Andrew. Chung, Staking McCool. Nienaber and Daniel C. Jeanne Clarke, Salmonid Smolt Migration River “Alouette Scott. Cope, Axelrod, Robert.TheEvolutionofCooperation Axelrod, ReginaS.,andNormanJ. Vig. “TheEuropeanUnion As An EnvironmentalGovernance ASA. Today’s Angler: A StatisticalProfileof Anglers,their Targeted SpeciesandExpenditures. Adler, E.2005.CommunitarianInternationalRelations:TheEpistemicFoundationsof Abbott, Kenneth W., andDuncanSnidal.“HardSoftLawInInternationalGovernance.” CHAPTER 7/GADENKRUEGER Bogue, Margaret Beattie. Birnie, Patricia,and Alan Boyle.InternationalLawandtheEnvironment . 2ded.Oxford:Oxford Fetterolf, CarlosM.“WhyaGreatLakesFisheryCommission and Why aSeaLampreyInternational Faure, Michael,andJurgen Lefevere.“CompliancewithInternational Environmental Agreements.” Crossen, Teall. “MultilateralEnvironmental Agreements andtheComplianceContinuum.” Coleman, William D.,and Anthony Pearl.“Internationalized PolicyEnvironmentsandNetwork Chayes, Abraham, and Antonia Handler-Chayes. TheNewSovereignty: CompliancewithInternational Elazar, DanielJ.“TheShaping ofIntergovernmental Relationsinthe Twentieth Century.” InThePolitics Donahue, MichaelJ.Institutional Arrangements forGreatLakesManagement:PastPracticesandFuture Dochoda, Margaret R.,andMichael L.Jones.“ManagingGreatLakesFisheriesUnderMultipleand Dietz, Thomas, NivesDolsak,ElinorOstrom,andP.C. Stern.“TheDramaoftheCommons.”In Dempsey, David. RuinandRecovery:Michigan’s Rise As aConservationLeader. Ann Arbor: University Congressional QuarterlyPress,1999. System.” InTheGlobalEnvironment, editedbyN.J. Vig andR.S. Axelrod. Washington, DC: Alexandria, VA: American Sportfishing Association,2008. Relations International Organization 54(2000):421-456. University Press,2002. Symposium?” Quarterly Press,1999. In TheGlobalEnvironment, editedbyN.J. Vig andR.S. Axelrod. Washington, DC:Congressional Analysis.” PoliticalStudies Regulatory Agreements. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1995. University of Wisconsin Press,2000. of American Federalism Alternatives. Ann Arbor: MichiganSeaGrantCollegeProgram,1987. Society Press,2002. Disciplines, editedbyK.D.Lynch, M.L.Jonesand W. Taylor. Bethesda,MD: American Fisheries Diverse Authorities. In Washington, DC:National Academy Press,2002. Crama oftheCommons,editedbyE.Ostrom, T. Dietz,N.Dolsak,P. Stern,S.StonichandE. Weber. of MichiganPress,2001. International Environmental LawReview . London:Routledge,2005. Canadian JournalofFisheriesand Aquatic Science Fishing theGreat Lakes: An Environmental History, 1833-1933.Madison: Sustaining North American Salmon: Perspectives Across Regionsand , editedbyD.J.Elazar. Lexington,MA:D.C.HeathandCompany, 1969. 47(1999):691-709. 16(2004):473-500. . New York: Basic Books,1984. 37(1980):1588-1593. Georgetown The 96 Canada Institute occasional paper series Kamieniecki, Sheldon. Corporate and America Kahneman, Danieland Amos Tversky. “Choice, Value, and Johnson, Marc Pierre and Andre Beaulie. TheEnvironment ______. “Issue-Attention andPunctuatedEquilibria ______. “Do Networks Matter? Linking Policy Howlett, Michael. “Beyond Legalism?Ideas, ______. “Sleeping withanElephant: The American Hoberg, George. CanadianPerformance “Comparing Hessing, MelodyandMichaelHowlett. CanadianNatural Heikkala, Tanya and Andrea K.Gerlak. “The Formation Hatch Acres. Removal ofFinlayson Dam, Ontario, 2005. andGeorgeHoberg.Harrison, Kathryn Risk, Science, and ______. “Federal-Provincial Relationsandthe Press, 2006. Environmental Policy. Palo Alto: Stanford University Frames.” 39(1984): Psychologist American 341-350. Continental Law. Washington, DC: IslandPress, 1996. and NAFTA: UnderstandingandImplementingtheNew ofPoliticalScience30(1997):Journal 3-29. the Dynamicsof Agenda-Setting inCanada.” Canadian Models Reconsidered: Examinationof An Empirical ofPoliticalScience35(2002):Journal 235-267. Four CanadianPolicy 1990-2000.” Sectors Canadian Network Structure to Policy Outcomes: Evidence from Policy.” ofPublic Policy 20(2000): Journal 305-329. Convergence inCanadianandU.S. Environmental Implementation StylesandEmulation-Based ofPublic Policy11(1991):Journal 107-131. Influence onCanadianEnvironmental Regulation.” Oxford University Press, 1992,. Policy, editedby R. Boardman, 246-262. Toronto: in Environmental Policy.” InCanadianEnvironmental ColumbiaPress,of British 1997. Resource and Environmental Policy. Vancouver: University Institutions.” 33(2005): PolicyStudiesJournal 583-612. of Large-ScaleCollaborative Resource Management Available at: www.hatchacres.com . 1994. Politics. Montreal: McGill–Queen’s University Press, 144. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2002. edited by D.L. VanNijnatten andR. Boardman, 123- Environment.” InCanadianEnvironmentalPolicy. 2ded, Ontario Ministry ofNaturalResources. Ministry Ontario AClass Natural Resources Canada. PowerinCanada. Electric Nash, Frazier. Roderick andthe Wilderness Mind. American Mooney, Z.. Christopher Effectson “Modeling Regional McCully, Patrick. SilencedRivers. London: ZedBooks, Mazmanian, Daniel A. andJeanne Nienaber. Can Mawhinney, Hanne. “An Advocacy Coalition Approach ______. TheCapacityfor Wonder. Washington, DC: ______. “Potential Focusing Projects andPolicy ______. “Policy Reversal Politics: andChanging Lowry, William R. DamPolitics. Washington, DC: Lindblom, CharlesE. “The ScienceofMuddling Lieberman, C. Robert “Ideas, Institutions, andPolitical Libby, Ronald T. Eco-wars: PoliticalCampaignsandSocial Kingdon, John W. Agendas, Alternatives, andPublic Policies . Printer forOntario,Printer 2003. Environmental Assessment. Peterborough: Queen’s Ottawa: NaturalResources Canada, 1991. 4th ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. (2001): 3-24. State Policy Diffusion.” Quarterly 54 PoliticalResearch 1996. Institution, 1979. Organizations Change? Washington, DC: The Brookings Smith, 59-82. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993. and Learning, editedby P. SabatierandH. Jenkins- to ChangeinCanadianEducation.” InPolicyChange The Brookings Institution, 1994. Change.” 34(2006): PolicyStudiesJournal 313-335. and PolicyQuarterly 5(2005): 394-419. State Governments and Dam Removals.” StatePolitics Georgetown University Press, 2003. 88. Through.” Public Administration Review 14(1959): 79- Science Review96(2002): 697-712. Order: ExplainingPolitical Change.” Political American 1998. Movements. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York: Collins, Harper 1984. William R. Lowry february 2010 97 CO: Westview Press, 1999. Press, Westview CO: In Assessment.” An Framework: Coalition Advocacy Sabatier, A. Paul edited by TheoriesProcess, of the Policy 1999. Press, Westview CO: Boulder, 117-166. 1354-1370. American Review 69 (1975): Political Science for the Habitat Stewardship A report prepared Flow. 2002. Canada, for Environment Program Canadian Environmental Policy, In System.” in a Federal Oxford Toronto: 43-59. Robertedited by Boardman, 1992. Press, University ArmyCorps of U.S. DC: Washington, edition. 1996-97 1996. Engineers, Report for the Fort Science Center of the Collins . http://www.fort.usgs.gov at: Available 2008. U.S.G.S., Canada and the United in Policy Environmental Policy Studies Journal 27 Time.” over Trends States: 267-287. (1999): In in a Continental Context.” Policy Canadian Smog VanNijnatten edited by Canadian Environmental Policy, Oxford Toronto: 253-273. Boardman, and R. 2002. Press, University thesis, M Sc. Alouette River.” on the Knowledge 1999. of BritishUniversity Columbia, Health Insurance Program.” Success in the Children’s 294-312. American Journal of Political Science 50 (2006): American Political Science Review 63 American States.” 880-899. (1969): of licensed A review Plant: Power Cheakamus for Ministry of Prepared operations. diversion and Surrey BC, Lands and Parks, Environment, 1996. Vancouver, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, . Boulder, Boulder, Theories the Policy Process. of ed. A. Paul Sabatier, “The Jenkins-Smith. and Hank C. A. Paul Sabatier, Making.” Policy “Nonincremental R. Paul Schulman, Reclaiming Free Riverkeeper. Sentinelles Petitcodiac Policy “Environmental Kopas. Grace and Paul Skogstad, Army National Inventory of Dams. Corps of Engineers. U.S. Historical to IFIM. Backdrop Geological Survey. U.S. and “Participation Debora L. VanNijnatten, Henry Lambright. W. and Debora L. VanNijnatten, Integrating “Negotiating Restoration: J. Vanderwaal, Emulating Laboratories: “States as Policy Craig. Volden, among the “The Diffusion of Innovation L. Jack Walker, at the releases Water Yassein. and H.A. P. Ward, Peterborough, ON: Ministry ON: Peterborough, Project. Dam and Fishway 2002. Resources, of Natural of California Press, University Berkeley: . Movement 1986 International 56 Organization Union.” of the European 47-84. (2002): 2003. Press, Island DC: Washington, Policy Studies Journal 34 Policy.” in Canadian Pesticides 171-194. (2006): in American and Canadian Innovation Explaining and Regulatory Integration.” Prevention Pollution 288-306. Policy Studies Journal 27 (1991): 1994. Institution, The Brookings 1987. 1983. Press, Free for the Report prepared Water. and Fish for People Fisheries Council, Conservation Pacific Resource 2003. for the Pacific Report prepared and Restoring. 2001. Fisheries Council, Conservation Resource Fisheries Council, Conservation the Pacific Resource 2000. Use Planning Experience in the Water BC Hydro Water Role of Basin. Se San River Transboundary Basin Management, River Transboundary Sciences in 2005. Thailand, Ubon Ratchatani, Sabatier and H. P. edited by Policy Change and Learning, Press, Westview CO: Boulder, 13-39. Jenkins-Smith, 1993,. Class Environmental Assessment Thornbury Assessment Class Environmental ______. and the Conservation Rivers Endangered Tim. Palmer, The Origins Ideas as Causes: “Showing Craig. Parsons, for Life. Rivers Sandra and Brian Richter. Postel, Agenda Setting ‘Mouse that Roared’: “The Sarah. Pralle, and Entrepreneurship: “Federalism Barry. Rabe, DC: Washington, Statehouse and Greenhouse. ______. Books, Penguin York: New Cadillac Desert. Marc. Reisner, York: New 3d ed. . Diffusion of Innovations Everett. Rogers, Conflicts between Angelo. and Mark Marvin L. Rosenau, in Protecting Groups The Role of Public ______. for Report prepared Use Planning. Water ______. Applying Riparian“Negotiating Recovery G. Ryder, a Decade or More.” Change over “Policy A. Paul Sabatier, 98 Canada Institute occasional paper series ______. “Green Lobbies: Pressure Groups and Wilson, Jeremy. “Continuity andChange in theCanadian U.S. Navy veteran andhasworked asaseasonalrangerin Yosemite NationalPark. Brookings Institution, 2009), to discusses restoreefforts natural conditions in America’s national parks. He is also a University Press, 1992). His latest book, Brookings Institution, 1994); and Intergenerational Goods (Georgetown University Press, 1998); Restoring America’sPress,University(GeorgetownRivers 2003); articles numerous and five books of author the and issues.environmentallands,is relatedpolicy He resources,public natural on emphasis special a with institutions political policy,and public politics, William 1992. Boardman, 109-125. Toronto: Oxford University Press, Policy, 2ded, editedby D.L. VanNijnatten andR. Environmental Policy.” InCanadianEnvironmental 46-65. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2002. 2d ed, editedby D.L. VanNijnatten andR. Boardman, Institutionalization.” InCanadianEnvironmentalPolicy, Environmental Movement: Assessing theEffects of R . L is a professor of political science at science political professorof a is owry WashingtonUniversitySt. in Louis. studies He American The Dimensions of Federalism: State Governments and Pollution Control Policies (Duke Repairing Paradise:Repairing The Restoration of Nature in America’s National Parks (The Zappia, andD.C. Humbert Hayes. A Demonstration Worster, Donald. Rivers ofEmpire. New York: Pantheon The Capacity for Wonder: National ParksPreserving (The U.S.Geological Survey, 1998. Shenandoah River, Virginia. Richmond, VA: of theInstream Flow Incremental Methodology, Books, 1985. Preserving Public Lands for the Future:the for of Lands PublicPolitics The Preserving including Dam Politics:Dam Marc Gaden and Charles Krueger february 2010 99 n 1925, long before “ecosystem management” came of age, future future age, of came management” “ecosystem before long 1925, n FrankfurterCourt Felix Supreme and Justice his colleague James Landis observed that natural resources create their own bound- Management of fisheries in the Great Lakes basin is a case Political jurisdictions rarely are congruent with the natural resources resources are congruent with the natural Political jurisdictions rarely they andgovern, management of fisheries in the Great Lakes basin The international border transects four of the five is a case in point. United the by not managed fisheries are region’s the and Lakes Great and theprovince ofOntario, eight by Statesbutstates, andCanada, institutional and historic the explores chapter This tribes. U.S. several evolution of existing governance close particularly a with multilateral, the of examination arrangements andlaw,” “soft their roots in nonbinding Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Evidence for Fisheries. the success of this approach comes from 62 management fishery Lakes Great former and current with interviews process management the of observations direct as well as participants Authorscontend thatJointtheStrategic Planworks because work. at condi- natural fluctuating to respond can and flexible inherently is it closely- existing, participants’ respects and with coexists it that tions, guarded sovereignty and and independence, it contains meaningful mechanisms to foster cooperation and heighten the chance that its actions will be any type implemented. Realistically, of agreement, and with comply to parties its requires otherwise, or binding whether implement the its authors terms, point if out; such compliance was not expected, an agreement would not the be However, necessary. Joint Strategic Plan also appears to work under these circumstances because it is fed or by epistemic a communities, network of profes- fisheries the within competence and expertise recognized with sionals domain, who have aligned their shared vision goals, and sense of This community is supportedidentity. by officials from participating fresh of atmosphere an create and interact regularly who jurisdictions, to commitment and policies, improved cooperation, ongoing thinking, shared decisions. aries, aries, independent like “Regions, of the political Southwest borders. the upon dependent States the or River, Colorado the about clustering are less than for Delaware the water, nation and are greater than any have would said, they States, 1925). Landis and (Frankfurter State” one to come up with to ways creative share and protect such multijuris- This reality creates governance challenges dictional natural resources. because political jurisdictions rarely are congruent with the natural govern. they resources in With point. an international border that runs through four of the five Great Lakes, the- federal govern it is not the two basin’s tribes, eight U.S. and several states,Ontario, the province of fisher- lakes’ the manage that institution overarching an or ments but instead and the of ies, eight several province Ontario, states, I

ger

s Krue

c Gaden

akes Fishery Commission Lakes Great Charle Mar Agreement Work? Agreement Can A Nonbinding Can Fishery: the Great Lakes Lakes the Great Governance of of Governance Multi-jurisdictional Multi-jurisdictional Chapter 7: Chapter 100 Canada Institute occasional paper series in the Joint Strategic Plan want to be flexible in their in flexible be wantto Plan JointStrategic the in participate who managers fishery because appropriate is most agreement Lakes region, fisheries a nonbinding sovereignty. Great subnational the In supersede not to specifically established was it rather bind, not does it because sense mented. is law” legal a plan “soft in The the chances that actions under the plan will be imple - to heighten mechanisms it contains because effectively functioned has Plan Strategic Joint agreement. the decades, For nonbinding a through possible is ment process atwork. management the of observations direct as well as used participants were management Greatmer Lakes fishery for- and current with interviews semi-structured 62 of To gain insight into this aspect of governance, the results regime.the in cooperate themselves theyvoluntarily as participants the of sentiments the requiresdetermining regime management fishery Lakes Great the of nature ereign nations. Understanding the voluntary, cooperative nonfederal entities who, in a sense, often behave like sov- to ernment federal government, rather, it focuses on the overnonbinding agreement abindingone.a prefer they why and effectively together work can Lakesfisheries Great manage who agencies tribal and investigates whether the 11 nonfederal provincial,and further state, step a question that extends chapter This States.United the and Canada between asymmetries ment and collaboration, and tensions given the historic engage - cross-border serious of conceive to possible Plan”). “Joint Strategic (or Fisheries Lakes Great of Management Plan for Strategic Joint A called agreement nonbinding nonfederal the governments, collectively of and multilateral, througha departments resource natural the levels: individually, two through on occurs fisheries but also desirable. inevitable only As such, not governance is of that Great Lakes cooperation of realize degree also some jurisdictions the resource, nonfederal shared large, individual a is fishery Lakes Great (Dochoda and Jones 2002; Gaden 2007). Because the over authority fisheries their primary with ernments gov - nonfederal these of left days has settlement the European since law of evolution The tribes. U.S. We conclude that, yes, cross-borderserious engage- The relationship we discuss is not one of federal gov- is it whether 1 Chapter in asks (2008) Rabe Barry cies, andcommitment toshared decisions. poli- improved cooperation, ongoing thinking, fresh of atmosphere the creates which jurisdictions, other from peers with regularly interact jurisdiction ticular governanceLakes officials a par- because fishery from law approach, overall, soft force. appears to be successful The in binding Great a without decisions their to keepcommittedto them enough is process-facilitator as (GLFC) Commission Fishery Lakes Great the by served role the believe imple- participants be mented.Also,the will policies shared the that chances the heightening thus cooperation, foster to mechanisms it behavior. believe meaningful changes contains it believe do They they action, compel not does plan ing be outofthequestion. would agreement a are that binding such in region the independence guarded and authority political diffuse of realities political and historical that aware well are compliance. managers all,Aboveenhance might cess pro- binding behavior,a constrains though eventhat advancing shared goals is more valuable than a process and on seeking believe focuses a that process managers Moreover, constraining. and inflexible being by tion improve, coopera- not and limit, would agreement binding a conditions; natural fluctuating to response While the managers acknowledge that the nonbind - inevitable butalso desirable. of cooperation isnot only realize thatsome degree nonfederal jurisdictions… resource, theindividual fishery isalarge, shared Because theGreat Lakes Marc Gaden and Charles Krueger february 2010 101 to dis- 1 an Pl tegic a tr The Commission, urged by its enabling treaty to establish establish to treaty enabling its by urged Commission, The The Joint Strategic Plan is largely by, and for, the non- and for, The StrategicJoint Plan is largely by, ping canals and began to lay waste to the binational fish- binational the to waste lay to began and canals ping watched Fishers fishes. on ery native predation through in horror as sea lampreys governments helpless were given a lack destroyed of management their livelihood; - coopera of history poor a and lamprey sea for techniques and Canada The crisis prompted boundaries. across tion the United States to establish the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) by 1954 treaty—the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries—to combat the sea lamprey problem as well as promote research and management jurisdic- nonfederal the Although fisheries. sustainable for fisheries, over independence their guarded jealously tions because acceptable was Commission the of formation the authority management subnational on intrude not did it combating on focused treaty the Instead, 1980). (Fetterolf a common and problem on in ways which cross-border collaboration could be enhanced. 1964 in committees” “lake formed relationships, working and federal agencies provincial, as a place for state, cuss matters and share information. These committees were were committees These information. share and matters cuss the first, permanent,multijurisdictional arrangements for 1981, By fishery management. Lakes Great in cooperation the more and policy in strategic 2007), more be to need the noting (Gaden intrusion federal off fending in defensive arrangement, regional nonbinding, the created jurisdictions or Joint Strategic Plan for Management shared of toward and work Great to identify them help Lakes Fisheries, Like objectives. its role in forming the force lake neutral as the serve committees would GLFC the 1960s, in the to help develop and implement the Joint Strategic Plan. process the to legitimacy provide helped Commission The goals. shared their toward progress agencies the helped and upon, impinge not does it nonbinding, is plan the Because jurisdic- individual the of authority the abrogate or reduce, a in decisions the to bound not are participants The tions. legal sense but are expected nevertheless by other partici- the plan. to the decisions made through pants to adhere to facilitate designed specifically is jurisdictionsand federal The nonbinding their nature intergovernmental relations. of the agreement means it is only it meaning as effective as the sig- “strategic,” The is plan it wish to natories be. establishes processes and strategies for intergovernmental For initiatives. fishery specific outline not does but relations he five Laurentian Great Lakes of North America America North of Lakes Great Laurentian five he worth bil- $7 fishery least at compriselucrative a The region has lion (ASA had annually 2008). While the people of the Great Lakes basin observe This untenable fisheryregime governance began to political boundaries, fish routinely cross the possibility of creating chaos and significant governance borders, much for fact, In harvest. and management over conflict fishery management, Lakes Great historyof early the of the multiple jurisdictions little showed interest in har- monizing their fishery policies and instead engaged in serious to led that practices unsustainable and conflicting decline of the resource (Bogue Dempsey 2000; 2001). the the Between 1880s nonfederal and gov- the 1940s, proposals 25 than fewer no ignored or rejected ernments mechanisms or agreements overarching formal, create to to manage the fishery at thesuch proposals infringed regional on levelstate and provincial rights because mid- the Priorto 1942). al. et Gallagher 1980; (Fetterolf seem- were governments nonfederal century, twentieth ingly more interested in protecting their sovereignty their fishery the fishery itself. than protecting over change around the when 1940s, a crisis out of epic - jurisdictions propor the jolted invasion, lamprey sea the tion, the entered lampreys sea 1921, in Starting parochialism. of ship- through Ocean Atlantic the from Lakes Great upper a rich history of native fishing from the time of human habitation and commercial fishing since European settle- instarted fishing the late 1800sand Recreational ment. It was burgeoned by the middle of the century. twentieth and 1700s late the during treaties and decisions bordering boundary jurisdictions current the created that 1800s early Ontario, of province the states, eight nations, two lakes: the and several Through tribes. enumerated - owner powers, ship rights, court cases, precedent, and legislation, each of the nonfederal jurisdictions would retain consistent or These attain the resource, the of section 2008). its manage to al. authority et (Gaden involvement federal limited with though accepted, and understood generally are authorities The authority nonfederal they are not exclusive. always includes issuing harvest establishing fishing regulations, and conducting the law, enforcing fish, stocking licenses, operate jurisdictions The nonfederal assessment. fisheries Departments of Naturaltheir agencies through own (e.g., to carryResources) out fishery management. nt S d the Joi ance an ern Gov ry Fishe T 102 Canada Institute occasional paper series LFCGet ae Ida Fs ad idie omsin I=lios I=nin, MI=Michigan, IN=Indiana, IL=Illinois, Commission, Wildlife and Fish MN=Minnesota, NY=New York, Indian OH=Ohio, ON=Ontario, PA=Pennsylvania, Lakes WI=Wisconsin. GLIFWC=Great CORA=Chippewa-OttawaResourceAuthority, process. this facilitates Commission Fishery Lakes Great The for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries. Figure 7.1: Committee S HuronOntario,jurisdictions,include which Michigan, ment responsibilities. For example, frommanagers Lake manage- their coordinate to group a as lakemeet each on agencies nonfederal the from officials ­high-ranking in ue t ipeet h plan. the implement to used tions to bevetted thatthey beaddressed. andrequiring of the playing field, allowing opinions minority the chance policy than others, consensus nonetheless serves as a leveler jurisdictionswill have more resources or larger stakes in a be dominated by others. While simple reality or meansdominate will members someits whether dictate might tion - jurisdic a of size geographic the that possibility avertthe movecan decision beforethe decision forward. a helps This with) live to able be least at (or accept must members those objectives. The process is based on consensus andtives all through the plan, but the plan itself objec- does not specify fishery develop to agree might example,agencies h lk cmite ae h ato organiza- action the are committees lake The tructure of Joint S 2 ne te plan, the Under trategic Plan address basin-wideissues. to and policies, management interjurisdictional mon management,to science of translation developto com- the promote to intended is 7.1) (Figure structure this strategic matters from a basin-wide perspective. Overall, cies. This group considers process matters and high-level agen- provincial, federal from state, and officials tribal, Great Lakes Fishery Agencies,of division-levelcomprising Council a exists Committees Lake of Council the Lakes fishery issues from a basin-wide perspective. Over Great discusses and reviews Council committees. The lake the of members all Committees, Lakecomprising of Council a exists advice.committees lake Abovethe scientific provide to committee technical one least at has committee lake each management, into biologists field the of work the integrate and science of eration gen- the Committee. Huron To facilitate Lake the as Authority, meet Resource Chippewa-Ottawa the and Marc Gaden and Charles Krueger february 2010 103 s The Joint Strategic Plan is one such multilateral Other explanations for cooperation are rooted in 1999). 1999). Many natural resources extend beyond borders, another’s, affect could actions jurisdiction’s one since and cooperation requires resources pool common managing cooper- for mechanism The entities. independent among agreeform the - in multilateral comes a typically of ation an by bolstered often jurisdictions, sovereign among ment compelsfacilitates or that commission) a (e.g., institution cooperation. other of context the in placed be should and agreement types of agreements to better understand the how plan many in come Agreements Lakes. Great the to applied is Frequent Frequent interactions among members of the - com instrumental are to cooperation. munity the idea that being a member of a select community— - collec motivates community”— “epistemic an as known play to obligated feel either members because action tive pres- peer through participating into (coerced role their 1992a; (Haas both or so, doing for rewarded are or sure) of Members 1965). Olson 2003; Montpetit 1992b; Haas identity, of sense shared a have community epistemic an shared goals, and shared vision; an epistemic recognized commu- with professionals of “network a is thus, nity, expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area” (Haas 3). p. 1992b, under- an share members community these Importantly, outcomes. policy achieve to how or issue an of standing this At common times, understanding is shaped less by the individual’s affiliation with a particular agency or institution and more by his understanding of the issue. of base credible a producing by communities, Epistemic decisions make help and uncertainty reduce knowledge, with case the is As 2003). Montpetit 1992b; (Haas clearer help also communities epistemic Plan, Strategic Joint the nonbinding agreements successful because mem- make bership is often the tie that binds. in the community The urs: nts greements tion a tional A per te Coo a Why it Occ and Why tion a tie i Commun emic pist t of E hen natural resources cal transcend boundaries, the people that politi- share the resources must cooperate if the resources

he eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, and the U.S. U.S. the and Ontario, states, Lakes Great eight he their over sovereignty considerable exercise tribes authority autonomous relatively have and waters lit aci

Because common pool resources are resources - “sov A fishery. Lakes Great the of portion their manage to defined popu- has defined territory, government ereign” a governmental powers, legal autonomy, lation, identity, and fiscal independenceSovereignty 1972). (Holloway ability to con- the has government’s basic two elements: to and its interact ability activities domestic its own trol with other sovereigns on an equally autonomous sovereignty foot- simply, More 1990). Sundgren and (Haas ing to governments pursueallows their interests (Weiss own

ijurisdic Mult F to T cep Con r pe Coo W known as “common pool resources,” are often in jeopardy jeopardy also These shared in resources, are to often be managed are properly. resources,” pool “common as known - unsustain against checks weak or nonexistent of because able exploitation (Dietz et al. 2002). Cooperation has connotations of synergy and reciprocity—synergy in the sense that to people together work gain more than and because reciprocity all partici - alone, if they worked cooperation For cooperation. from benefits expect pants members of a and respect know group should to work, and goals, shared recognize should interests, other’s each those to reach activities to be coordinate should willing - work is Cooperation 1998). Yaffee 1992; (Sebenius goals ing toward a “in goal such a way that each individual’s 4). 1992, (Kohn successes facilitate the other’s” that many can access, conflict is com- to all leads conflict whether is issue important inevitable. but The petition or cooperation and conflictpreclude itselfcooperative behavior Hardin(Axelroddoes 1984; not 1968; Kohn 1992; Olson 1965; OstromWhile 1990). actors might act selfishly, cooperationactors can occur have if mutual goals, communicate behave regularly, predictably, care about future interactions, and maintain ongoing relationships (Axelrod 1984). 104 Canada Institute occasional paper series 2002). The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Conservation Salmon Organization, Atlantic instance,for institu- an of example an is North The 2002). Zimmerman 1987; (Donahue councils regional and uniform laws, verbal agreements, interstate commissions, ences among government officials, reciprocal legislation, agreements,confer- interstate informal as things such 1987).Other “soft,”include arrangements nonbinding (Donahue compliance persuading and policies nating coordi- to related authority management “soft”with commission or council the vests typically legislation, throughor agreement throughan formally established commission,” or council “interstate example, for while 1987). The (Donahue governments foreign and states jurisdictions, or even and eral nonfederal involvecould exclusive to nonfederal jurisdictions, could involve fed- to facilitate such nonbinding interactions; they could be exist arrangements of types Many practices. reciprocal establish and information, share regulations, monize ways,har- to formal less seek,in and other each with matters shared Routinely,2002).discuss governments 1969;(Elazar formality of els Weiss1999; Zimmerman lev- havevarying and common aregovernments eign (Donahue 1987). participants the bind to servestates), and government federal the between status legal with arrangement (an commissions” “federal-state and Ontario) of province the and government federal Canadian the between author- ity shared of issues addresses which agreement, Canada-Ontario the example, (for agreements” eral like“federal-nonfed- arrangements lightly.Other into entered not are agreements process;such formal a ate cre- they and do they what in clear are they because attractive are compacts Interstate 1976).Wendell and force of law (Frankfurter and Landis 1925; Zimmerman the with binding is and state signatory each in statute must approve the compact, the compact is considered a among states, and because each member state’s legislature Compacts are legally-binding contractual arrangements institution. commensurate no has Canada Constitution U.S.authorizes. the which compact, interstate an of use the through is agreement (or “hard”) binding a in Chapter 1concerning “hard” introduced and “soft” issues law. the weighing to similar is binds agreement levelan the which at comparing and others than binding and formal more are agreements Some forms, each designed to suit the parties’ particular needs. Nonbinding (or among sover“soft”) arrangements - wayU.S.common for most The into enter to states do. Nonbinding agreements, on the other hand, are at hand,are other the do.agreements,on Nonbinding to loath are entities sov- independent ereignty, their something of some relinquish to parties on rely they (Donahue 1987; Victor 1997). participants or needs changing to adapt to enough ible flex- be can discussions,and enlightened more to lead can prompt members to go beyond agreements what informal is on paper, because agreements can formal than dialogue-focused and flexible more be can agreements Lefevere1999).and (Faure interestsInformal domestic serves agreement the great,when too or become sures pres- external 2002),when (Guzman stake at is tation 1995;party’srepu-1990),(Franck a Ostrom when fair processis the think participants all when heightened is held legally to the agreement (Victor 1997). Compliance likely to push the envelope if they know they will not be and are more ambitious because the signatories are more in dealing with compliance, generally rely on consensus, willingness ofsocietiestochangetheirbehavior. . .and .”capabilities real the push much not do mitments cost,”a at says (1997, 243).Victor com- “Conservative comes compliance Indeed, 1999).“high Soroos 2004; maximum (Axelrod participants numberof and the 1999;Vig Crossen attract will that agreement ambitious denominator,”the “lowestcommon least on the focus to tend agreements consequence,binding a 1995).As parties to punish offenders (Chayes and Handler-Chayes enforcement depends on the difficult task of asking the their will. can Binding be agreements enforced, though against sovereigntylimited their want not would they it,with theycomply if not could agreement the sign as to likely less 2002;areBoyle 1998);and parties Victor (Birnie theyknowcomply which theycan with ments hard agreements, as participants only sign binding - agree in 2000).high Snidal often and is (Abbott Compliance ing is often unnecessary after parties reach an agreement and could reduce transaction costs, as ongoing bargain- stature higher a present may level, agreements binding hope to accomplish.hand and what participants At one their character depends on the unique circumstances on ent advantages, disadvantages, and compliance issues, and salmon resources inthenorth Atlantic region. shared restoring and conserving for recommendations use ticipants a to forum multilateral reach on consensus tion operating under a “soft” agreement, where the par- A major characteristic of binding agreements is that is agreements binding of characteristic major A Nonbinding, soft agreements are often more flexible Binding and nonbinding agreements each have inher- Marc Gaden and Charles Krueger february 2010 105 s t Lake tions NONBINDING a In the Great Lakes region, the nonfederal govern- Lakes fisheries, a soft law approach was selected because selected was approach law soft a fisheries, Lakes participants guard their and sovereignty independence because flexibilitystrongly; is helping important, man- agers focus on issues that go beyond the lowest com- mon policy to which members and can because agree; mechanisms exist that can heighten compliance with Based on an the understandingnonbinding agreement. of the history of Great Lakes fishery and governance, obser- and with, interviews semi-structured 62 on based vation of current and past Joint Strategic approach Plan soft partici- this believed managers lake action, in pants the manage them helped has and needs their served has fisheries effectively. In the U.S., while the Constitution prohibits states from from states prohibits Constitution the while U.S., In the entering into interstate compacts, treaties, or alliances with foreign nations without the consent of Congress, in inter- routinely in fact involved state are governments state and The foreign absence issues. of Congressional in seem, not does statute or a domestic a treaty, consent, states entering from to prevent into agreements practice, with each other or with entities foreign so long as the encroach not does and matter state a to relates agreement upon the federal government’s rights and - responsibili ties (Goldsmith 1997; Zimmerman and Wendell 1976; Zimmerman 2002). ments exercise sovereign control over their fisheries, including migratory Becausefishes. the state and pro- vincial boundaries extend to the international border, and because tribal fishing areas are defined bytreaties, jurisdictional authorities usually are clear and absent of federal dominance. Each jurisdiction formulates pursuant and to policies waters, in its its own own executes govern- Nonfederal desires. or obligations legal own its other each with agreements into enter to free are ments so long as the agreements do not intrude on do authorities, not disrupt federal the political balance among supersed- not are or nations, or governments nonfederal how Just treaty. a as such legitimateaction federal by ed wish bound to their the be nonfederal by governments depends on what the participants however, agreements, agreement. the through hope to achieve or the Grea s and Observ

s s has the been Great Lakes established, fishery management regime relies on a nonbinding agreement, the Joint Strategic Plan, to guide

Given their sovereignty over fisheries, how free are the the are free how fisheries, over sovereignty their Given

cross-jurisdictional This cross-jurisdictional cooperation. is clearly a “soft law” approach, as participants are not bound in legal As sense Chapter the to 1 any what notes, they agree. for law soft on reliance Commission’s Joint International effective- in lacking it left often has activities its of many with ness, This policies raises described “hortatory.” as important questions about the efficacybut of soft law, an what of context the in asked be must questions those agreement was purported to and achieve the historical context in which In the Great agreement was reached. A an f Why a Nonbinding Pl iew erv Int Fishery? provinces, states, and U.S. tribes to work with each othertribes each with work to U.S. and states, provinces, fed- strong glance, first At governments? foreign with and interstate/ manage to or treaties into enter to powers eral interprovincial matters would appear to preclude non- in federal foreign involvement or cross-border activities. foreign and However, interstate/interprovincial matters are not necessarily to exclusive the federal governments. (BNA, Act America NorthBritish the while instance, For Constitution) suggests Canada’s that the federal - govern ment, by virtue of its treaty takes power, the lead - pro in prohibit expressly not does BNA the affairs, foreign provinces The agreements. foreign in involvement vincial thewhich to treaties implement to upon called often are federal government agreesRutan 1971). (Kennett 1997; times desirable precisely because they do not require the parties to give is Sovereignty up their sovereignty. jealously guarded and nonbinding arrangements honor opportunities collective on focusing by sentiments such rather than on constraining In ability activities. sovereign the the have entities sovereign the region, Lakes Great to interact with each other as see they fit and to estab- However, cooperation. their facilitate to institutions lish all types of agreement, whether binding or otherwise, require the parties to comply with and implement the terms. If compliance was not expected, an agreement would not Thus, be agreements necessary. are usually designed to compel behavior and ensure that partici- pants implement it. 106 Canada Institute occasional paper series tions ebb and flow, as political pressures come and go, and come fishpopula- flow, pressures and political ebb as as tions evolve must policies fishery flexibility because requires management fishery Lakes Great rather than be committed to a specific of course action. flexible be to seek participants when agreements ing bind- than desirable moreare agreements Nonbinding Needs Flexibility Great Lakes Management Fishery would thisstatement. support rejected25 proposals between1940s the and 1880s the put it, “would never happen.” one as agreement, of more The history than an such that citing agreement, ing bind- a of idea the supported participant single a Not affairs.own its manage to diction’sability independent agree- the juris- ment.each understand members to showsthat This adhere to are tribes the and states, the the plan’s success depends on how willing the province, and independent remain members Plan Strategic Joint do?” The cannot and can you what about you to say concisely,added “What,really, jurisdiction another can state large agencies,”a from various colleague in a and Ontario, .“Management authority . . vestedis currently agencies.”fromthe manager of a Observed authorities here that has a legal framework the to individualtrump common sentiment: “There is no overarching authority this captured sovereignty.manager their state usurp A would that something to agree never would agencies that and history basin’s the given unfeasible simply as nonbinding agreements, dismissed a binding agreement and binding about asked when participants, interview nonbinding.The is Plan Strategic Joint the why sons participants appeared to respect and understand the rea- naturethe for accounts Plan. Jointthe of Strategic Plan independence such management; fishery Lakes Great management authorities. provincial or state individual of, abdication an for, or substitute a be to plan the intended never Signatories cooperation. for process a is rather, it regulations; ing is not a specific management plan containing, say, bind- ticipants want to preserve their independence. The plan Joint par- the when appropriate particularly is Plan Strategic the like agreement nonbinding A needs. their suits best that agreement fishery of type the establish to free relatively are U.S. tribes and Provinces, states, Important Considerations S overeignty andIndependence Are uidcinl needne s ned raiy in reality a indeed is independence Jurisdictional - partici interview Plan.Several Strategic Joint the of connected such flexibility with the nonbinding nature and plan flexible a of importance the acknowledged address them. A binding, operationalplanwould not. to wish members the new,should ing issues emergent of address- capable regime flexible a establish did it change, of rejection or calcification preclude itself in 1978).(GLFC ery not did plan strategic a such While and be capable of changing with the needs of the fish- deliberation management facilitate would that process a create instead and plan point-in-time avoida to was goal The fisheries. of nature protean the of reflective less and constraining unnecessarily been have would any approach that was prescriptive, as such an approach rejected largely because agencies were quite skeptical of was 2007).However,approach (Gaden an inces such even declare fishery regulations for the states and prov- outline operational plans to reach objectives, those objectives, fishery and specific establish would that plan a conceived,wanted was some plan the 1970s,when than the emerged. Indeed, late the ultimately in that agreement fisheries to specific more and operational somewhat were Plan Strategic Joint the of concepts Early institutions. many so characterize to that change unwillingness stubborn and marginalization the like-minded with colleagues. only interact professionals policy when or sectors, particular address agreements when needs, specific on focus institutions when particularly automatic, not are management) environmental with areaspolicy (e.g., integrate to need fisheries connect to ment. problemis,The management,ecosystem the and disciplines often prompt specific responses from govern- related to specific media, such as air or water), crises, or nance needs emerge. Certainly, specific problems (often gover-and issues new as conditions changing to adapt to unable or established,irrelevanttions, once become GreatLakesabout institu- governancesions whether is and politicalchanges. ecosystem to react managers as and available becomes knowledge better as words,change other in practices, management politics.Fishery internal movedby often are managers and base, forage the in changes to tied fishery,the levels are harvest of and needs stocking the to reactchange. Regulations conditions natural as and ihr mngr, nevee fr hs chapter, this for interviewed managers, Fishery overcome to attempt an is Plan Strategic Joint The discus- the through emerged has that question One Marc Gaden and Charles Krueger february 2010 107 Explicit in the Joint Strategic Plan, and implicit While the Joint Strategic Plan allows and - envi whereas they might voluntarily choose to do something something do to choose voluntarily might they whereas know they agreement], binding a [With that. than better that they can’t be forced to do something better and they can always explain doing the minimum to their constituents.” A Canadian participant, reflectingother on binding noted agreements, that such agreements and an are “wishy-washy,” academician who was also ele- binding as soon “as that noted agreements in versed too are they or general too either are they set, get ments rigid As thus one [and, are] Ontario …less workable.” the teeth more you “sometimes, manager noted simply, it becomes.” the less effective something, give in the plan’s flexibility, is the idea that members will practice “ecosystem The management.” concept of ecosystem management is somewhat inconsistently understood throughout the Great Lakesfishery dis- management has not from been immune basin, and ciplinary parochialism. This parochialism the reason: Joint standsStrategic Plan process was to created and by, fishery for, managers, and fishery managers process. StrategicPlan Joint the dominate indeed, do, process the into concepts ecosystem of injection The arises from individual members who are inclined thinkto beyond fisheries, from an explicit goalplan toin produce the environmental objectives, and from disciplines. other from colleagues engage to need the Such an approach depends on a flexible plan because members will be required to go beyond traditional concepts incorporate instead and management fishery from other management activities, like the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process discussed in this volume (2008). Mark Sproule-Jones by sions ecosystem management, convinced members the plan has were been effective not in facilitatingthe incorporation of concepts not traditionally con- members, instance, For management.” “fishery sidered what when should asked be changed about the Joint Strategic Plan, noted that the fishery managers still have a long way to go before environmental objec- 2007). (Gaden objectives fishery with meshed are tives Part of the problem is that assembling all experts— fishery Achieving con- and otherwise—is unwieldy. sensus among the fishery let alone managers, among a larger is community, extremely Another difficult. man- ecosystem of complexity the simply is problem agement. Fishery managers might feel comfortable 3 Finally, several participantsseveral pointed out Finally, that a bind- Moreover, a few participants observed that a binding a that participantsobserved few a Moreover, ing agreement would be undesirable for Great Lakes fisherywould management because such an agreement denominator common lowest the on based and weak be to which the agencies could Said agree. a senior state manager who was intimately in involved other ­ multi jurisdictional agreements, binding agreements people force to comply [with] the minimum standards, “can They might use the process to come to a shared under- shared a to come to process the use might They prac- management the and biology lake’s the of standing use not do they but resource, the sustain to needed tices is adherence which to determinequota to a process the set the up committees lake to were Instead, mandatory. mem- keep plans, help rehabilitation members develop bers informed about jurisdictional articulateactivities, and shared goals, Success balance depends interests. on integration of scientific plan- proactive understanding, applica- constant a and flexibility, thinking, creative ning, tion of informationnew to changing conditions rather that mechanism ensure an enforcement than on having the members In adhere to other the words, agreement. plan was designed to focus more on shared needs and goals and less on how to hold the jurisdictions to spe- delineated provisions. cific, agreement would be simply unnecessary for the purpose the for unnecessary simply be would agreement agencies The achieve. to tries process committee lake the do not need to be bound in a legal sense to what they the because process committee lake the through develop binding a to conducive wholly not are themselves issues with the important exception example, For agreement. of the Lake Erie the Committee, lake committees do quotas. harvest common establish to process the use not pants expressed their belief that a nonbinding - fisher ies agreement is superior for the Great Lakes because it allows the members to address any issue they find important. Lake committee and technical committee members said that because the plan does not attempt to lock jurisdictions into a specific course of action, they were able to use their best an Said judgmentpolicies. shared to and approach their in to be innovative is agreement] binding firm, [a “once Ontariomanager, there is no wiggle room. and delivered, sealed, signed, …Battles [would] be even more intense than they are nonbindingA theagreementallows thisone like now.” members to be flexible, raising the comfort innovation binding eschewotherwise might who levelthose of without wiggle room. 108 Canada Institute occasional paper series agency has the final discretionary authority. Second, suc- what the lake committee process develops, an individual sovereignty.jurisdiction’s their matter ciate is,no That they recognize indicate that the participants and appre- within a jurisdiction, are important for two reasons. First, arewhat ourpoliticalmasters goingtodictate.” the Joint Strategic Plan . . . . It ultimately comes down to management agency wants to do, they can do in spite of Lake Committee,Superior “I think anything that a state return to their home jurisdiction. Said a member of the theywhen internally policies theypromotemustthose they must work together to develop shared policies and that knew reality,members this committee lakeof the Because binding. so be only can agreement the cess, or no matter what they came up with through the pro- says,Plan Jointthe Strategic what matter no knewthat it,”words,around other another.participants In added echoed. participants several“You observation can’tget manager,an state own,” a its said of life a had process process[internal] that we had to go through. [The state] this wasthere that regulations the change and back go to had we if that understood colleagues our that sure fishery management different. “We always tried to make jurisdiction’smakeeach that regulations and politics of stressed explicitly that has each its jurisdiction own mix participants plan.Most the to adhere wayto legal a in agencies compels agreement the in nothing it; ment imple- to agencies’willingness the as effective as only is Plan Strategic Jointagreement, the nonbinding a As Community, Overseen by Neutral T Compliance Enforced by anEpistemic disciplines. other in those with and other to each with collaborate them remind did Plan that Strategic Joint believed flexible the managers fishery Nevertheless, tives. engaged in not the development are of fish communitymanagers objec- environmental and processes, Plan Management Lakewide and in RAP the engaged fully always not are instance, for managers, Fishery ties. activi- their in engage they when managers fishery ronmental management routinely defer to, or ignore, fisheries.to unique not is of field the envi- in Those decisions orlinkagesoutsideoftheirdisciplines. overwhelmedfeel maketo theyareaskedliableto if are they but practices, fishery about decisions making hs sniet aot mlmnain internally, implementation about sentiments These training one’s of outside think to reluctance This hird Party particular agency’s culture, resulting in refined ideas refined in resulting culture, agency’s particular the of outside thinking fresh to leads which peers, of group larger much a with interact jurisdiction ticular par- a in managers of group small a because occurs attractive to the jurisdiction. A broadening of thinking less became stocking processes,such committee nical tech- and committee lake the through discussed wasissue the when but fish, of species certain a stock to wanted jurisdiction one where instances recall could cases,participants few a intended.In plan the as was it understandable, only not is viewpoints different to exposure managers, the among interactions ongoing the ground.Given common find to motivation a and stating that the plan offered them a different viewpoint their affected ownagency,their perspectiveof beyondthe processthinking Plan Strategic Joint the that knew simply they specificthat instead identify stated examples. They to unable often were participants behavior,their changed has plan the where instances that things havedone.otherwise not do might they for asked When to them compelled has plan the that strongly felt most will, their against something do to implementation. on say final the have and sovereign are agencies that them to do compelled anything generally corroborated their everbelief has Plan Strategic Joint the whether thing we some- didn’t want to do.” do to Participants’ us feelings about forced plan] [the where examples think of can’t “I manager: state a from response the to similar was responses common most the pel.”of One reflected differences how in defined participants “com- to act in a way.certain The responses were nuanced and Joint Plan had ever Strategic forced or compelled them ity.believedtheythe wereIntervieweeswhether asked creativ- or flexibility constrain might that agreement heavy-handed more a without goals their achieve to participants the allowingcooperation, thus facilitate to might a binding (as agreement), action it contains ample strategies unwilling compel not does plan the while that belief their expressed compliance.They address could Plan Strategic Joint nonbinding the that believe decisions generatedthrough theagreement. implement to are jurisdictions the willing how of tion ance with, and effectiveness of, the agreement is a func- policies.the Thus,implement compli- to capacity and will jurisdiction’s home the on depend policies cessful Wie ebr dd o blee hy r forced are they believe not did members While participants challenges, implementation Despite Marc Gaden and Charles Krueger february 2010 109 Another reason participants believe the plan height- plan the participantsbelieve reason Another The dilemma that the Commission faces is trying Members believed consensus reflects the members’ work work members’ the reflects consensus believed Members plan, the own they feel they because and sentiments, and members generally have a lessened incentive to their break contravening be would they as willingly, consensus own opinions and flouting the epistemic community’s conventions. ens the chances for compliance is that the they believe sub- neutral soft, a alternative—albeit an as serves GLFC authority responsibility with overarching an stitute—to to bind The the they Commission, is entities. stressed, pres- gently and process facilitatethe to enough neutral In agreements. their implementing into agencies the sure participants expected the general, Commission to push but not so them forcefully along, that the Commission This upsets means the spheres basin’s that of authority. and process the facilitate to expected is Commission the to help the agencies learn about and address issues of As concern. one participant suggested, the role of the Commission is “to facilitate professional, appropriate participatingof individuals of behavior standards in the What that means, according process.” to a senior state isofficial, that the Commission is asked “create to the lake [the for easier it’s where support of level appropriate the is it than rightthing the do to members] committee Strategic Joint atmosphere, that create To thing.” wrong Plan participants expect the Commission to make sure the meetings take place, to stimulate memoryinstitutional the an retain to science, best the with discussions and broker, honest an as serve to minutes), prepare (e.g., to stay Said neutral. one lake committee the member, Commission’s job is to “provide the prodding to the along.” people [to] gently nudge up; follow enough in the to to process be encourage involved the development and implementation of shared proactive, policies yet detached enough so that the Commission itself is not the only entity pants compelling to the rethink partici- their policies. The not a member of Commission the lake committees or is the Council of Lake Committees, but in does the technical committee The participate process. fact that the on the actively entity fishery basin-wide only the is Commission lakes makes it naturally prone to the risk of overstep- ping its to bounds having conversely, or, jurisdictions expect too much from the Commission the if if their home term, long the Over act. to reluctant are authorities Commission to as were be continually over- perceived - For lake committee activities to be successful, mem- successful, be to activities committee lake For non- this to related deeply is ownership of sense The Joint Joint Strategic Plan members were aware of why bers must stay committed to what they develop jointly; jointly; develop committed to what they bers stay must agreementbinding a besides to forces on membersrely “compel” them to adhere to what These they decide. pro- a regular include following implementation forces cess lake (i.e., committee a meetings), feeling of own- ership in the plan, and decision by As consensus. one feel we tellingly, observed member committee technical compelled to stick to the “because plan we been have so involved much in Membersdrafting [the policies].” lessen could which plan, the in ownership of sense a had The the discussions need that for a binding agreement. technical one of words the in plan, the under place take committee “us A are member, versus now-retired us.” to plan the preferred he that added manager state senior other agreements“because it originates from the par- The it ties; managers is understood not that imposed.” no higher force than themselves compels cooperation, rather, cooperation occurs because the members products. are in the plan’s vested decision strategy: fundamental most agreement’s binding Consensus by occursconsensus. after members express all viewpoints and when no participant objects to the defini a than more is Consensus 1997). (GLFC opinion and improved positions. In this mindset in change regard, a the plan ways, persuasive has soft, in compelled, and For behavior. membersexample, noted that the plan prompted them “take other to jurisdictions into account before they took actions that could affect the whatre-think peopleto of lot a “forced system,” whole they were and doing,” prompted members “to think about some changes.” and to make things consensus is important and how it relates to the plan’s Members implementation. emphasized many elements of consensus that make them feel somewhat bound to the decision that arises from it. For they instance, felt epistem- the (to peers their to accountable professionally ic community to which they obstruc-too feel being or consensus, breaking that they believed belong) and unprofessional. was consensus, near is group the if tionist tion of a decision-making It process. is a mindset that time as members over become involved more develops emerged that business doing of way a is It process. the in out of historythe jurisdictions’ of information sharing, and participatingvoluntarily, equals, as together coming preserving jurisdictional autonomy. 110 Canada Institute occasional paper series A Applicability to O meetings Commission-facilitated in participate to tant wouldlikely break down. would Members grow reluc- stepping its role as facilitator, the lake committee process unequal footing. In a situation where unequals inter- unequals where situation a In footing. unequal cable in situations where interact on the an participants governanceof multijurisdictional were tooccur. areas other in Plan JointStrategic the of replication ful epistemic community could be a an major factor if success- of existence the interacting.Thus, to accustomed become knowand to another get one to opportunities and meet to place a had years many for nevertheless plan, participants the before formal less were tionships for them to work together effectively. needed Although the relationships rela the - establish first to have not did members its and plan the developed members munity fromplan communitythe start,helped the com- the as solid,epistemic respected,a science-based of existence years15 for ed before wasplan the produced. pre-This Plan benefited from thefact that lake committees exist- Strategic Joint time.The takes Relationship-building relationships.maintain and build to participants’desire without forcing action. process a facilitate to willing is and exists GLFC the like exert preemptive authority and when a neutral institution applicablewhenfederalthe governments areablenotto particularly also institutionis of agreements. type This less-ambitious to other each bind to than policies flexible whereand they have to more it find important ambitious, omy, where they do not need to overcome competitiveness, The Joint Strategic Plan likely would be less repli- less be would likely Plan Strategic Joint The on contingent also is this like plan a of success The like structure is most applicable to situations situations to wish to preservewhere jurisdictions their auton- applicable most is structure like governancea institution,s Plan- JointStrategic a ther Area Plan tocooperate. Strategic Joint the of outside processes establishwould or cooperatively work not either would instead,and, tence andcooperation. coexis- of history a lack participants of community the if especially tense, particularly is quotas) harvest establishing (e.g., allocation harvest where situations in replicable be would Plan Strategic Joint the like to speculate the extent to which a nonbinding process difficult is it regard, that in limited somewhat is plan the Erie, Lake since in but does it fisheries, as of tion alloca- the over cooperation facilitating of capable is Plan decisions. Strategic Joint their The supersede not will force external an that honored; be will decisions their that fact the by motivated are members mittee com- process,the the as helps committee’salso work the with interfere not do generally agency home the in others and politicians that fact implemented. The be will to agree they what that them assure and faith work good togetherin participants the help to enough are community epistemic an throughrelationships and objectives,and consensus,science,plans of foundation ical to common pool resource management. Instead, the that other (e.g.,writers Ostrom, 1990) have said are - crit forthestrongerestablishes partners. boundaries and partners weaker the empowers or participants the of each of roles the delineates clearly either that way a in drafted be must terms unequals,the with regime Joint Plan. Strategic If the goal is to build a cooperative the in outlined terms the than different quite are ship consensus become skewed. The terms of such a relation- and synergy, relationships, trust, like ments—elements govern- federal by dominated systems in as act—such s ofGovernance The Joint Strategic Plan lacks enforcement factors factors enforcement lacks Plan Strategic Joint The Marc Gaden and Charles Krueger february 2010 111 The interviews demonstrated on that, the one hand, maximize cooperation while still respecting jurisdictional jurisdictional respecting still while cooperation maximize The managers who currently participate in sovereignty. sentiments. those from not deviated have the process Joint Strategic Plan members they must believed work while goals, shared their achieve and develop to together on the other they hand, were that aware much of the of success on depends their the deliberations individual dismissed will of their home jurisdictionmembers to implement their deci- case, Plan’s Strategic Joint the In sions. but jurisdiction, their binds plan the that idea the outright participants did point to the fact that it changes - behav that chances the heighten that elements contains and ior members will take the nonbinding agreement seriously. These elements include consensus-based the on-going, itself process and a sense of in ownership the plan that the members to motivates lessening to adhere the plan, the need for A a neutral binding third party, agreement. the GLFC, helps keep the process moving and instills confidence that some entity iskeeping the process fair and the members true - acknowl to have their Plan, Strategic In word. Joint the the essence, through members, coordinate to present be to needs entity some that edged the and process that a soft force is all that is needed to it work. make Acknowledgements and Barry thank Stephen Brooks Rabe for inviting We Environmental “Transboundary the in participation our Governance of Canada and the confer- United States” We ence. are also grateful to Barry Ann Chih Denise and Rabe, Lin, Brabec, Michael Scheberle, Elizabeth Kraft for their comments on earlier versions manuscript. of this atural atural resources routinely transcend political tools numerous are there however, boundaries; to available facilitate action collective in the The Great Lakes are unique in that the nonfed- on i lus c Con N eral governments, together, manage an international Paraphrasing resource. Frankfurter and Landis (1925), the jurisdictions have recognized that they are smaller than nations and greater than any one jurisdiction and a established have formal in process—tailored response, While fisheries. manage together needs—to their to suit independence own their guard entities nonfederal these they are also that quite aware jealously, and sovereignty independence and means sovereignty that one jurisdic- They chose a consensus- actions tion’s affect everybody. it would felt they because agreement nonbinding based, form of treaties, interstate compacts, informal form interstate interstate compacts, of treaties, Each understandings. shared and conferences, agreements, and type of agreement has drawbacks, its own benefits, on Members decide the to ability bind the participants. type of agreement and its binding nature based on their be can agreements Nonbinding needs. and circumstances but agreements, binding than ambitious and flexible more compliance and implementation will often be a struggle. Participants who agreement desire to nonbinding protect a their independence toward turn will sovereignty and Lakes Great the In agreement. binding a than readily more a nonbinding agreementregion, is suitable because fish- because participants ery management flexibility, requires that a desire approach identifiesstrategic and progressive to norms exist and institutions because and goals, shared nurture compliance without a heavy-handed entity or - recog also Participants activities. their bind to agreement precludes essentially independence jurisdictional that nize a binding approach. 112 Canada Institute occasional paper series Chayes, Abraham, and Antonia Handler-Chayes. TheNew Bogue, Margaret Beattie. FishingtheGreatLakes: An Birnie, Patricia, and Alan Boyle. Lawandthe International Axelrod, Robert. TheEvolution ofCooperation. New York: Axelrod, S., Regina J. andNorman Vig. “The European ASA. Today’s Angler: A StatisticalProfile of Anglers, their Adler, E. 2005. Relations: International Communitarian The Abbott, Kenneth W., andDuncanSnidal. “Hard and Reference Note committees remained “commission committees.” theJointPlan,designed tofacilitate Strategic thoughthe entities designedtoserve thecommissiontocommittees 1964. The planessentiallychangedthecommitteesfrom lake committeesthatwere established by theGLFC in ofthelakemembers committeeprocess. federal government. Nations, First thus, are notformal Nationsbyof theFirst theprovince andthe ofOntario inCanadaare managedonbehalf fisheries Aboriginal rights. theirmanagement casesaffirmed 1980s aftercourt Commission) would becomeinvolved directly by the andtheGreat LakesAuthority IndianFishand Wildlife organizations (theChippewa-Ottawa Resource Sovereignty: Regulatory CompliancewithInternational of Wisconsin Press, 2000. Environmental History, 1833-1933. Madison: University 2002. Environment. 2ded. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Basic Books, 1984. Press, 1999. Axelrod. Washington, DC: Quarterly Congressional The GlobalEnvironment, editedby N. J. Vig andR. S. Union As An Environmental Governance System.” In SportfishingAmerican Association, 2008. Targeted SpeciesandExpenditures. Alexandria, VA: Routledge, 2005. Relations.Epistemic FoundationsofInternational London: Organization 54(2000):421-456. Governance.”Soft Law InInternational International 2. The lake committeesundertheplanare thesame 1. U.S. tribes, actingthrough two intertribal s s Donahue, Michael J. Institutional for Arrangements Dochoda, Margaret R., andMichaelL. Jones. “Managing Dietz, Thomas, Nives Dolsak, ElinorOstrom, andP.C. Dempsey, David. RuinandRecovery: Michigan’s Rise Crossen, Teall. “Multilateral Environmental Agreements Coleman, William D., and Anthony Pearl. successfully toallocation-typedecisions does suggestthattheplan’s processes couldbe applied Joint Plantothe Strategic TAC process onLake Erie toward theirshared objectives, theapplicationof throughout thebasinidentifyandworkthe jurisdictions is onLake Erie. While theplanisusedmostlytohelp as shared allocationislessanissueinthoselakes thanit not usetheprocess directly toaddress allocationissues, species.commercial andsport Otherlake committeesdo for walleye andyellow perch, two ofthelake’s top to establish anannual totalallowable catch(TAC) CommitteeusestheJointPlanprocess Strategic Erie Great Lakes Management: Past PracticesandFuture SocietyPress, Fisheries American 2002. D. Lynch, M. L. Jones and W. Taylor.Perspectives Across RegionsandDisciplines, editedby K. Bethesda, MD: Authorities. InSustainingNorth Salmon:American Great UnderMultipleandDiverse Lakes Fisheries National Academy Press, 2002. P. Stern, S. StonichandE. Weber. Washington,the Commons, editedby E. DC: Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, Stern. “The Drama of the Commons.” In Michigan Press, 2001. As aConservation Leader . Ann Arbor: University of 500. EnvironmentalLawReview16(2004):473- International and theComplianceContinuum.” Georgetown Network Analysis.” PoliticalStudies47(1999):691-709. Policy“Internationalized Environments andPolicy 1995. Agreements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 3. Unlike theotherlake committees, theLake . The Crama of Marc Gaden and Charles Krueger february 2010 113 International Law.” CaliforniaLaw Review 90 (2002). International Law.” Stratospheric EffortsCommunity to Protect Ozone.” International 46 (1992a):187-224. Organization International Coordination.” and International Policy Organization 46 (1992b):1-35. Changing Practices Law: International Environmental Pollution Control In Integrated of National Sovereignty.” Haigh N. edited by America, in Europe and North The Conservation DC: Washington, Irwin. and F. 1990. Foundation, 162 (1968):1243-1248. MSS Information Corp, York: New the United States. 1972. In Environmental Policy: Legislation.” Environmental K. L. edited by , Trends Issues and National Transnational Quorum CT: Westport, Bartlett. V. and R. Caldwell 1997. Books, Age of Competition, the Beyond In Cooperation: Mean. and Breach, Gordon Philadelphia: Combs. A. edited by 1992. and Canada. the United States, the Environment in France, of British University Columbia Press, Vancouver: 2003. 1965. Press, University Harvard MA: 1990. Cambridge Press, University in Canada and the United States: Governance In: Themes.” Common and Introduction New Environmental Governance on the 49th Parallel: and Brooks S. edited by Approaches, New Wilson Century, Woodrow DC: Washington, Rabe. G. B. Available 2010. Center for International Scholars, http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_ online at: Guzman, Andrew. “A Compliance Based Theory of “A Compliance Based Andrew. Guzman, Epistemic “Banning Chlorofluorocarbons: M. Peter Haas, Communities Epistemic “Introduction: ______. “Evolving Sundgren. Jan and M., Peter Haas, Science of the Commons.” Tragedy “The Garrett. Hardin, Intergovernmental Relations in Vernon. William Holloway, “Boundary Issues and Canadian Steven. Kennett, What It Means and Doesn’t “Cooperation: Alfie. Kohn, Policy Networks and Misplaced Distrust: Éric. Montpetit, Cambridge, Action. The Logic of Collective Mancur. Olson, Cambridge: Governing the Commons. Elinor. Ostrom, Environmental “Trans-Border Barry G. Rabe, Alternatives. Ann Arbor: Michigan Sea Grant College Sea Grant Michigan Arbor: Ann Alternatives. 1987. Program, of In The Politics Century.” Twentieth in the Relations Lexington, Elazar. J. D. edited by American, Federalism 1969. and Company, Heath D.C. MA: In The Agreements.” International Environmental S. Vig and R. J. N. edited by Global Environment, Congressional Quarterly DC: Washington, Axelrod. 1999. Press, International a Sea Lamprey Why Commission and Aquatic Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Symposium?” Science 37 (1980):1588-1593. 1995. Press, University Oxford York: New Institutions. Law Journal Yale Clause of the Constitution.” (1925):685-750. Strategic Plan for A Joint Through Action Collective PhD diss., Fisheries.” Lakes Management of Great 2007. of Michigan, University Strategic“A Joint Plan for and Gerald Barnhart. A Cooperative Fisheries: Lakes Management of Great Aquatic and Regime in a Multi-jurisdictional Setting.” Ecosystem Health Management 11 (2008):50-60. In Report and Supplement. Oosten. Van and John International of Inquiry for the Great Lakes Fisheries Board . Printing Government Office, U.S. DC: Washington, 1942. In 1978. 12, May call, and Conference Arbor MI, Ann Lakes Great MI: Arbor, Ann Meetings 1978. Executive 1978. Fishery Commission, Lakes Great MI: Arbor, Ann Fisheries. Lakes Great 1997. Fishery Commission, Virginia Law Review 83 (1997):1617-1715. Federalism.” Elazar, Daniel J. “The Shaping of Intergovernmental of Intergovernmental “The Shaping Daniel J. Elazar, “Compliance with Lefevere. Jurgen and Michael, Faure, Fishery Lakes a Great “Why Carlos M. Fetterolf, Fairness in International and Law Thomas M. Franck, “The Compact Landis. M. and James Felix, Frankfurter, “Bridging Jurisdictional Divides: Marc. Gaden, Christopher Goddard, Charles Krueger, Marc, Gaden, Taylor, D.J. Huntsman, A.G. Hubert R., Gallagher, 1978, April 6, Meeting, of Executive Minutes GLFC. Strategic Joint Plan for Management of A ______. and Affairs, Foreign Courts, “Federal L. Jack Goldsmith, 114 Canada Institute occasional paper series (Maryland American Fisheries Society, inNaturaland Uncertainty ManagedSystems(Maryland Fisheries American 2003). Management.of Fisheries He was author a to contributing Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Sciences ,Fisheries Aquatic of the Journal Canadian University.and State the Michigan for Fisheries at Wildlifeof written Department has the professorfor Krueger served as chair. Additionally, he serves on the board of Conservationdirectors of Foundationthe Fisheries and is a Charles University, fromAmerican The degree from degree and abachelors theUniversity ofMichigan. masters a Michigan, of University Ph.D.the froma received he scientist, social A to joining the commission secretariat, Gaden worked as a legislative assistant for the U.S. House of Representatives. ducts strategic planning, serves as a liaison with elected officials, and communicates the commission’s program. Prior U.S./Canadian agency established by treaty to improve the Greatand perpetuate Lakes fishery resources. He con- Commission, Great Lakes the legislative Fishery for and liaison communicationsofficer servesas a MarcGaden Thomas, Craig W. “Public ManagementasInteragency Sproule-Jones, Mark. “Trans-boundaries of Soroos, S. Marvin “Global Institutionsandthe Sebenius, James K. Conventional“Challenging Rutan, GeraldF. “Provincial Participation inCanadian Research and Research Theory: J-PART 7(1997):221-246. at theDomesticLevel.” ofPublic Journal Administration Cooperation: Testing EpistemicCommunity Theory id=171631. cfm?topic_id=1420&fuseaction=topics.publications&group_ Available onlineat: http://wilsoncenter.org/index. Scholars,Wilson CenterforInternational 2010. and B. G. Rabe. Washington, DC: WoodrowNew Century, New ,Approaches editedby S. Brooks In: onthe49thParallel: EnvironmentalGovernance Environmental Governance ontheGreat Lakes.” Press, 1999. Axelrod. Washington, DC: Quarterly Congressional Global Environment, editedby N. J. Vig andR. S. Environment: An Evolutionary Perspective.” In The (1992):323-365. Communities.” Organization46 International Negotiation Analysis andtheCaseofEpistemic Cooperation:Explanations ofInternational World Affairs 13(1971):230-245. Foreign Relations.” Studiesand ofInteramerican Journal id=171631. id=1420&fuseaction=topics.publications&group_ is the current science director of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission,previously he whereFishery Lakes Great the of director science current the is Krueger ,Research the Lakes and Great of Journal Strategies Riverfor Restoring Ecosystems: Sources of Variability Zimmerman, Joseph F. InterstateCooperation: Compactsand Zimmerman, L., Frederick andMitchell Wendell. The Yaffee, Steven L. Cooperation: A Strategyfor Achieving Weiss, EdithBrown. of Structure “The Emerging ______. ByDoing’“‘Learning intheNonbinding David, G. Victor. “The UseandEffectiveness of Administrative Agreements. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002. Council ofStateGovernments, 1976. Law andUseofInterstateCompacts. Lexington, KY: Washington, DC: IslandPress, 1998. ,Boundaries editedby R. L. KnightandP. B. Landres. Stewardship Across Boundaries. InStewardship Across Washington, DC: Press, Quarterly Congressional 1999. Environment, editedby N. J. Vig andR. S. Axelrod. EnvironmentalInternational Law.” InTheGlobal 1998. and E. B. Skolnikoff. Cambridge, MA: The MITPress, andPracticeTheory , editedby D. G. Victor, K. Raustiala EnvironmentalCommitments:Effectiveness ofInternational Chemicals andPesticides.” InTheImplementationand toManage Regime International Trade inHazardous 241-250. edited by M. Gavouneli. 91st Annual Meeting(1997): Proceedings ofthe Law, SocietyofInternational American EnvironmentalComplex International Problems,” intheManagementof Nonbinding Instruments North American Journal Journal North American Debora L. VanNijnatten february 2010 115 he United States and Canada are now moving into their sec- their into moving now are Canada and States United he ond century of bilateral governance of - shared environmen are challenges those while And unfortunately, tal challenges.

The first century of joint governance launched was when the while theseHowever, bilateral environmental institutions have were observers environmental many mid-1990s, the by result, a As A century the ago, United States and Canada embarked on joint environmental governance when they signed countriescenturyshared both second of as a enter Yet the Boundary Waters 1909. of Treaty the at apparatus policymaking little is there challenges, environmental federal level to address ever more pressing Instead, hope threats. for inter- and federal level higher at directed once solutions, environmental One mechanism for is being directed downwards. national authorities, or assem- (CBR), carrying region” “cross-border out such change is a on the basis and provincial entities who, state, regional, of blage local, of shared ecosystems as and well historic, as economic, other cultural, are to motivated jointly pursue environmental change location factors, This or article preservation. reviews four CBRs operating along the and border concludes that they are U.S.-Canadian capable of having However, meaningful impact on environmental policies and outcomes. differences and asymmetries among CBRs render them less cohesive and directed as than a Environmental they model, CBRs, might be. offer for the environmental best coopera- “hubs” prospect of becoming federal from help need but Canada and States United the between tion authorities in the form of concrete support and resources.

growing, the tools for addressing them are not. In recent years, close close years, In recent not. are them for the addressing tools growing, new is that little relatively seen have relations Canada-U.S. of observers initiatives. of joint environmental in the way at the federal level 1909. in enacted was (IBWT) Treaty Waters InternationalBoundary included Articlea “waters statement Treaty shall IV that not of the harmcauses that extent an to border the of side one on polluted be this of strength the on was it and other,” the on property or health to Internationalthe by capped institutions, of set complex a that clause all waters shared manage to established was (IJC), Commission Joint specific agreementsrespect with time, Over along the 49th Parallel. the and place, in put also were pollution air and waters Lakes Great to Canada-U.S. the as such institutions bilateral other by joined was IJC Air Quality Committee. - envi defined narrowly for mediators stable as served cases many in broadersustainability ronmentalbecomeproblems, objectives have mired in politics and the sensitivities in Canada off and the United States national backed governments of diplomacy. Moreover, to due 1990s early the beginningin policy-making environmental lack a of perceived or constraints, resource political both. pay-off, Intheenvironmentalpost-9/11 issues furtherera, fell even behind other policy priorities. T

Wilfrid Laurier University Wilfrid Nijnatten L. Van ebora D Second Century? Second Bottom Up in the Bottom Building from the the from Building Relationship: the Canada-U.S. the Canada-U.S. Regions and and Regions Cross-Border Cross-Border Environmental Environmental Chapter 8: Chapter 116 Canada Institute occasional paper series orientation, and more ambitious in terms of the proj- the of terms in ambitious more and orientation, more formalized, increasingly multilateral or regional in become have interactions cross-borderprovincial) and 2004 and VanNijnatten 2005). address problemstransboundary (see for example: Rabe to innovations and initiatives policy environmental of locus primary the mechanisms,been havecooperative national governments, often acting through cross-border Case study work over the past decade indicates that sub- provinces,Canadian roles.central adopted havequietly extent lesser a to and states western and northern-tier governments, particularly subnational that actors, lead making stage, populated with many but supporting few placed real limitsontherole thattheCECcanplay. governments participating byinterference political and these hopes remain largely unfulfilled; a lack of resources act.However,to age,governments push, evennational a continental environmental regime that would encour- woulddevelopment(CEC) the Cooperation to lead of Environmental for Commission American North eral trilat- the of establishment the that level.hoped was It an entirely different set to of political actors at the continental rather but degradation, environmental further looking not to national actors to lead the charge to avert WCI RGGI PTP PRI PNWER ECP NEG/ IJC IBWT GHG CEC CBR Ke h eiec sos ht untoa (.. state (e.g., subnational that shows evidence The policy- environmental Canada-U.S. this on is It y to Abbre Western ClimateInitiative Initiative Greenhouse Gas Regional Powering thePlainsinitiative Policy Research Initiative Region Pacific Northwest Economic Premiers Canadian Governors/Eastern England Conference of New Joint Commission International Treaty Boundary International Waters Greenhouse gases Cooperation ofNorth America Commission forEnvironmental Cross-border region via tions

answer these important questions. First, distinct environto - attempts paper this Canada, of Government the of tional level. subna- downward,the directed to being now is CEC the then and IJC the at directed once was that tions solu- environmental for Hope 2006c). VanNijnatten 2002; Springer 2002; Fraser and Pebbles Hildebrand, 2003; 1997; Alper 1998; Alper (Alley undertaken ects research on state-province environmental linkages, environmentalstate-province on research ronmental governance? we move into the second of century Canada-U.S. envi- as up bottom the from policy environmentaleffective and fundamentally, what are the prospects for achieving Finally outcomes? importantly, on most perhaps and, (i.e.,employingregulation, market)exhortation, the or achieveto goals chosen goals,these instruments the on of having a meaningful impact on environmental policy institutions? throughjoint goals Third,aretheycapable regional on acting and articulating of means by action ronmental CBRs exist, are they capable of autonomous envi-Second,networks?if and perception by also but regional clusters, linked together not considered only by be geography can jurisdictions these that way a such togetherin moreclosely provinces and Canadian gathering states U.S. Are boundaries? distinct with CBRs environmental U.S.- of series the a does comprise border i.e., Canadian exist, structure this does First, bilateral (i.e., nation-to-nation)entities. regions (CBRs) rather than remaining solely focused on cross-borderaccordingof it model ing subnational a to environmental relationship from the “bottom up,” recast- suggests that it might be possible to reconstruct the scene Canada-U.S. policy-making environmental the on Regions well as the Combining insights gleaned from the author’sown the from gleaned insights Combining questions. empirical several raises proposition This governments subnational of presence increased The the sensitivities of diplomacy. become mired inpolitics and Sustainability objectives have 2 carried out by the Policy Research Initiative Research Policy the by out carried Leader Survey on the Emergence of Cross-Border 1 as Debora L. VanNijnatten february 2010 117

is such a thing as a Only a small proportion of survey 4 al Delineating shared ecosystems in this manner has The Policy Research Initiative (PRI), in its Emer- In order to test their initial findings thePRI little relevance if they are not recognized as such, espe- as such, not if are recognized they little relevance along the and border. living working residents cially by So the next step is to look for evidence of agreement Here, CBRs. attributesof ecologicalboundaries and on (Brunet-Jailly, illustrative prove may results survey recent 2006). VanNijnatten and Clarke ini- conducted Project, Regions Cross-Border of gence The Parallel. 49th the along interactions into research tial organizational and “economic examine to was approach cooperative linkages” as well as “cultural/values simi- larity” (Policy Research While Initiative 2005: 3). the not was research designed specifically to accommodate ecological attributes, the PRI found that CBRs are a composed phenomenon regional primarilysubnational, of different provinces and states straddling four of existence the to pointed Results the border. Canada U.S.- the distinct Prairies-Great West, the CBRs: the Plains, jurisdic- some with East, the and Lakes-Heartland, Great tions straddling than more one CBR (Policy Research 1). 2006: Initiative then conducted a detailed survey talists of working - environmen in leadership roles der in capacity. a - cross-bor The results The of results the Leader and - Survey interviews pro vide support for the notion ofwidespread CBRs agreement and on indicate their respondents key agreed aspects. that First, there CBR, consisting of states and provinces as its basic units. Indeed, no respondent or interviewee specifi- respondents actually worked in field,but subsequent the to follow-up environmental inter- survey, the views were conducted by this author with - individ uals who had completed the leaders survey and in were environmental also transborder organizations. - environmen Finally, capacity. functional and maturity tal CBRs are having some impact in terms of policy goals and instrument choice but it is not yet with to respect clear “meaningful” whether the are results outcomes. environmental On the

And with 3 ent t Environm

cological attributes provide the most obvious means of defining the boundaries ofbor- environ- the of side Canadian the On CBRs. mental

Another approach might be to defineenvironmen- Next there is the Red River Basin straddling der, “Ecologicalan der, has Framework” been adopted for official purposes and can assist in the task of demark- ing CBRs (Natural Resources Canada 2008). tal CBRs as those regions containing major ecologi- the threats cal to features, which some provide kind of impetus for joint In action. the Pacific for Northwest, the transboundary by is anchored relationship example, the Georgia Strait-Puget Sound Basin, spanning the southern coastal reaches of British Columbia and the northwestern areas of Washington state. Moving east, the Cascades and the “Crown of the Continent” (the montane cordillera landscape to connecting the Yukon) Yellowstone draws British Columbia, Alberta, and relationships. Montana into cooperative Manitoba, North Dakota, and Minnesota, requiring attention to shared watershed management issues. In the Canada-U.S. heartland, the Great Lakes Basin already serves as the dynamis for considerable cross- border interaction, while Lake Champlain and its associated watershed further east encourage a - mutu ality of interest between Québec, New and York, Vermont. Finally, at the coast shared the and landscape continent’s Appalachian the edge, northeastern and boundary waters, particularly the Gulf of Maine promote Basin, a shared approach to environmental challenges. no formal classification scheme consistently applied, the applied, consistently scheme formalclassification no to reference with CBRs environmental defining of task ecological attributes is not straightforward. E inc Dist Are There ons? r Regi de Cross-Bor mental CBRs are indeed regions emergingthese boundariesof the although onborder, the U.S. Canada- are flexible and often issueregions are capable specific.of autonomous Second,action, but sig- these nificant asymmetries exist in terms of institutional American there side, however, is more debate about standard- less and boundaries, ecological draw to where ization in terms of ecosystem boundaries. 118 Canada Institute occasional paper series ronmental reach,” which is less precise than defining than precise less reach,”is ronmental which be defined, should in the words of one interviewee, CBR by itsa “envi - that observed also they CBRs, of in with their boundaries circumscribed understanding (Tremblay boundaries” interview). ecosystem on based is region real “the that noted Northeast the from another while view), inter- key”(Krantzberg is watershed the of presence physical “the that stated region Lakes interviewee Great the from An watershed/airshed.” Basin Georgia the shared central Columbia River by and the Puget Sound/ together tied is CBR Columbia state-British Washington “the that example, for noted, respondent geography added to the definition of CBRs. One survey landscape, linkages, shared or natural environmental to reference some see to wanted interviewees all as well as Canadians) as many Americans as twice (including more highlyrated. cal/natural boundaries. Only physi- economic exchanges sharedwere of importance the on agreement some implies this CBRs, and of feature defining a as factors in everyday interactions. Lakes, which may reflect the importance of lake ecology links (Table 1). That response was historical strongest in the Great or similarities cultural than so highly, more CBRs, survey their respondents defining rated shared in ecosystems quite important most were factors which tures should be included in the core CBR. fea- When ecological asked major to adjacent or containing units subnational that featuresand ecological on part in least CBR, difficulttodefine. seemedparticularly Plains Prairies-Great above, the mentioned not CBR a in equivocal. membership is provincesAnd or states specific of inclusion wherethe CBRs of periphery the on zones transition be to responses,appear viewthere Greatthe surveyon Lakes-Heartland?Based inter- and CBRs; for example, does Québec belong in the East or some of edges outmost the on boundaries the draw to New Brunswick, andNova ScotiaintheEast. states, England New the and Lakes-Heartland,Great the in states Lakes Great the the in West,and Ontario state Washingtonand Columbia British of consisting cally questioned the membership of three “core”CBRs While all interviewees emphasized shared ecosystems respondents survey many comments, verbatim In Respondents expressed the most support for location at based be should CBRs Therethat was agreement There were some differences of opinion about where (Policy R defining theboundaries of your CBR…” Table 8.1: “What factors are important when ain sget ht uidcin drcl breig a bordering directly jurisdictions that suggest cations (Trachselinterview). equivo- efforts These of dination coor- broad a requireenvironmental issues many so as that “bigger is often better” in terms of defining a CBR, ofthisreality”part (Smithinterview). shared environmental issues. Shared ecosystems are only strategy based on the reality of cooperation to deal with environmental an shares which region cross-border a to referring only ‘sharednot ecosystems.’ Rather, is this define the of boundaries the Northeast region, but I am factors “environmental that observed cooperation, tal environmen- transboundary in engaged actively been toward theMidwest. more region the of borders the shift to tend transport of the region,part whereas discussions of air pollutant considered is invasiveQuébec species, of problem the discussing when that example, for noted, She view). inter- (Krantzberg discussion under issue the on ing depend- region, the defining in license geographic some is there but cooperate” to necessity shared a ates Great Lakes interviewee explained, “the a watershed As cre boundaries. ecological strict beyond extend well of sharedthe physical ecosystems and may boundaries S Links Historical Similarities Cultural Exchanges Economic Factors Locational Ecosystems Shared urvey, 2005-2006) F An interviewee from the Pacific Northwest explained has who someone Northeast, the in official state A ac o Ea tor esearch Initiative L 2 3 2 26% 42% 43% 89% 52% 100% 14% 89% 28% 100% 95% 75% 76% 75% 95% 79% 81% 55% st Lake Grea s t Pr eader Plains Grea airie %17% 8% t s- We st - Debora L. VanNijnatten february 2010 119 s # of Linkage ON Ontario OR Oregon Pennsylvania PA QC Québec Vermont VT Washington WA Wisconsin WI air P op 20 only) op 20 s MI Michigan MN Minnesota MT Montana Hampshire NH New York NY New Brunswick NB New Scotia NS Nova OH Ohio 13 AB-OR 11 # of Linkage tate Pair (T Pair tate S air P As Table 2 indicates, environmental linkages are region- are linkages environmental indicates, 2 Table As The New England region has a smaller number of The broader Northeast bloc shows a greater AB Alberta AB BC British Columbia CaliforniaCA ID Idaho IL Illinois IN Indiana MA Massachusetts ME Maine BC-WAON-MION-MN 22QC-NY 17ON-NY AB-ID 16ON-WI 15 QC-PAON-OH ON-IN 13BC-ID 11 ON-IL 13ON-PA 11 13 AB-WA 11 BC-OR BC-MTQC-VT 11 BC-CA 13NB-ME 11 13AB-MT 11 12 QC-ME 11 12 QC-NH 11 NS-ME 10 NB-NH 10 NB-MA 10 10 10 Key inkages per inkages L Number of le 8.2: Tab Province- ally concentrated—that is, they cluster—in the Northwest, the Pacific Great Lakes, and of New number greatest the England. have Britishstate Columbia-Washington Ontario- (17), Ontario-Michigan by followed (22), linkages (15). York and Québec-New Minnesota (16), agreements and institutions but those linkages, more than in tend any other to region, be multilateral rather mem- other one than more involving (i.e., bilateral than of Conference The region). the in province or state ber New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers its (NEG/ECP), Committee on the Environment and its International Committee as on well Energy, as the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, and various Northeast forest and fire protection coun- activity. of the cross-border much account for cils, tendency toward bilateralism. This can be explained 6 “Linkage” “Linkage” was definedas Viewed together, Viewed thesetogether, data 5 7 Ontario has a high number of ties with all eight Great Great eight all with ties of number high a has Ontario New between linkages environmental of number The Table 3 provides data organized by region in two Still another criterion for determining the bound- the determiningcriterion for another Still In the basic calculation in Table 2, the number of provide insight into the degree and nature of transbor- of nature and degree the into insight provide CBRs. der institutionalization within environmental Lakes states, indicating a significant level of clustering in ofclustering level a significant indicating states, Lakes with linkages many shares British Columbia region. this linked is also and neighbours northwestern contiguous its with California and indicating Oregon, another cluster. the Indeed, top ten state-province pairs in terms of the exclusively almost are linkages environmental of number jurisdictions. Northwest and Pacific Lakes Great England jurisdictions and Atlantic provinces Brunswick-Nova is Québec-New gener- the however, lower; ally grouping Hampshire-Massachusetts Scotia-Maine-New suggests another It regional is that, cluster. noteworthy not does there linkages, formalcollaborative termsof in appear to be any significant level of clustering among Plains/Prairie jurisdictions. different There ways. is overlap of someprovinces when determining states the and boundaries of New The purpose England here versus the is Northeast. to construct an Index of Linkages, which measures the average number of linkages per pair in each region, and to examine this alongside an Index of Bilaterality, agreements multilateral to bilateral of ratio the is which seen within each region. aries of environmental - con CBRsauthor This is to governance. trace cross-border of imprint the formal structed a database of state-province linkages along the border. Canada-U.S. major ecological feature, e.g., a watershed, are at the core core the at are watershed, a e.g., feature, ecological major peripherythe on located those while may CBR, the of Speculatively, issue. the on depending not or included be the challenges to defining a Plains/Prairie CBR may ecologi- major a of lack the with do to something have acting as a focal point. cal feature environmental environmental linkages was totaled for each province states. or border-region all border with paired follows: mechanisms setting conditions forthfor regularized interactions proceduresin a formal- and ized manner means by of jointly signed - documenta tion, incorporation of interactions into jurisdictional operating procedures and budget, or the - establish resources to attached institutions identifiable of ment and personnel. 120 Canada Institute occasional paper series being members of PNWER, are also connected to their to addition in Alberta,and Columbia opment.British those primarily relating to energy technology and devel- issues, environmental/sustainability of number a with region;projects,manythe its in among deals PNWER planning and policy transboundary with bydeal to statute up set linkage umbrella an is (PNWER) Region Cooperative.Health Economic Northwest Pacific The Legislative Forestry Task Force and the Western Wildlife the level,Westernas regional such the at management resource natural on focusing groups other Force, and such as the Pacific States-British Columbia Oil Spill Task environmentalcoastal with dealing nisms management, region.mecha- Certainly,multilateralthe are on there ality and the second highest number of linkages focused The core.Northwest has the highest score on its the index of bilater- at relationship Columbia-Washington British close very the with bilateralism, of one nantly Wildlife Agencies). broader the West(e.g., the or Westernand Council),Fish of Association Flyway Central the (e.g., Nebraska Colorado,Missouri,Kansas, such states mid-continent Agencies, the North Central Forest Pest Workshop), the and Fish Wildlife of Midwest Association Officers, the Association of Midwest Fish (e.g.,the andMidwest broaderGame the Law in Enforcementstates involving ties in the region arePrairie/Plains often drawn into activi- included pairs that appear closely,would more it base data- the examining however. In jurisdictions, Plains Prairie/ among multilateralism levelof high a indicate the region and on the index of bilaterality. on focused linkages This environmentaldoes not of number the in be considered anothersubregion. might jurisdictions these neighbors; its and Manitoba between agreements bilateral of number significant a towardbilateralism. region the also of is balance There neighbors. its The extent of these and latter agreements tips the Ontario between agreements bilateral of host a as well as jurisdictions Lakes Great all incorporating activity;mechanisms bilateral nine areand there lateral tinct from thecore New Englandregion. subregion, which straddles but is for some dis- purposes a is there that Québec-New argue York-Vermont might New(Northern England) One neighbors. its and Québec between agreements numerous the by part in In the Pacific Northwest, the picture is predomi- picture the Northwest, Pacific the In region scores The relativelyPrairies/Plains low both Lakes,Greatmulti- the of In combination a is there Linkages by R Tab S le 8.3: for being built upon distinct, core clusters of jurisdictions: out stand issue.CBRs environmentalthe Three on ing relationshipsdepend- other incorporate to as so enough flexible but region a in enough membership core identify firm to be to tend boundaries and definitions CBR that clear becomes another,it one upon overlaid networks—are institutional and results, survey butes, - attri CBRs—ecological environmental of boundaries ments andinstitutions. neighbors bysouthern a wide variety of bilateral agree- † The Index of Bilaterality is calculated as the number of bilateral agree- the by divided linkages total as calculated is Linkages of Index The * ID, CA, AL States : WA, OR, Provinces: BC, AB Pacific Northwest ND, MT States : WI, MN, SK, AB Provinces: MB, Prairies/Plains WI, MN OH, MI, IN, IL, States : NY, PA, Provinces: ON Great Lakes NY, PA ME, MA, CT, RI, States : NH, VT, NB, NS, PEI, NL Provinces: QB, Northeast ME, MA, CT, RI States : NH, VT, NS, PEI, NL Provinces: NB, New England Region ments divided by thenumber ofmultilateral agreements. number ofstatesintheregion. the by multiplied region the in provinces of number the of product hn h tre ifrn apoce t stig the setting to approaches different three the When ubnational Environmental egion sible pair) per pos- linkage ( Linkage Index of a v g #of 13.25 8.5 5.5 7.0 7.1 s s* Multila Bila (Ra Bila Index of A greements) tio f ter ter 1.24 1.05 .54 .77 .49 al to ality† ter al Debora L. VanNijnatten february 2010 121 The same approach was taken in successive Gulf of The three core clusters can radiate influence outward outward influence radiate can clusters core three The their goals, as well as accountability measures. as well their goals, England CBR New which region-wide states Truly involve and initiatives, provinces on an equal basis, are strongest in the New England region. The Conference of Governors/Eastern New Canadian England Premiers (NEG/ECP), out of successive rounds of multilateral planning and negotiating, created Action Plans for Acid Mercury, and Rain, Climate Change—with provisions applying Plan Action NEG/ECP jurisdictions. participating all to goals feature pollution overall reduction a targets (e.g., 50 percent reduction in mercury pollution by 2003) connected to specific tasks intended that to are achieve these goals emission (e.g., limits for point sources and management protocols). waste more even are plans These Plans. Action Council Maine although less detailed, focused on targets than on tasks and “protect marineObjectives restore habitats”). (e.g., tied plans are to that work contain dozens of initiatives riskanalysis conducting priorityof mapping areas, (e.g., for invasive species). In both the Gulf of be must items action on progress Maine initiatives, and NEG/ECP jurisdicparticipating- the in leaders political to reported tions goals on are not a legally regular However, basis. to draw in other states and provinces in the subregions or subregions the in provinces and states other in draw to connect- be to want periphery but the on lie who those ed New for particularQuébec, For purposes. example, Vermont may and be incorporatedYork, into broader Northeastefforts environmental or the tentacles of the Northwest may reach out Alaska to and California on selected issues such as coastal management and energy. as cohesive as nearly not Plains/Prairieis The grouping does perhaps and CBRs environmental other the of any not fit the definition of anenvironmental CBR at all. Rather it is a very loose grouping of jurisdictions that interact bilaterally or are occasionally drawn into the activities of other regions. tion? c ons der Regi al Cross-Bor

Northeast interviewee expressed the view that, that, view the expressed interviewee Northeast - cross-bor of aspects important most the of “one a defined plan with der cooperation is to have

That person may as well have been describing a set of of set a describing been have well as may person That In addition, we can In three identify smaller clusters of addition,

Autonomous A le of Autonomous apab A Are Environment C Each of the three core CBRs that have been identified in the the in identified been have and Accountability Goals that CBRs core three the of Each Lakes-Heartland, Great Northwest, Pacific the section, last ini- the region-wide undertaken among has CBRs, differences England New and notable however, are, There tiatives. of specificity and applicability the termsof in regions three measurable goals/objectives and a timeline—specificity goals/objectives measurable This is provides a necessary. roadmap for cross-border activity and also a provides measure of accountability” (Smith interview). criteria for determining CBRs whether environmental are capable of autonomous Whether action. environ- mental CBRs have qualifying goals—are “soft” or articulated “hard” are these whether regional goals—and The factors. maturity and governing capacity of joint institutions also matter. Concepts like horizontal and vertical networks, and the concrete and in-kind sup- ports for that achieving are any available regional goals to will which come jurisdictions into committed, have - evalu when consideration into taken be should and play for action. capacity ating a CBR’s jurisdictions that straddle core cross-border regions and that jurisdictions core straddle cross-border might be considered subregions characterized by net- works of bilateral interactions: Québec-NorthernManitoba-Minnesota- New Vermont); and York (New England Alberta-Montana-Idaho. and, North Dakota; the Pacific Northwest (encompassing British Columbia, the and Montana); Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Alberta, Great Lakes-Heartland (including Ontario, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, York, New Michigan, Pennsylvania), and New England (including and Québec the four Atlantic provinces as well as Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont). and 122 Canada Institute occasional paper series the basin. in management water of terms in least future,at the towardmorea broadly based, approachsubnational in (Great movement signal updated may agreement was Annex). This Lakes Charter Lakes Great 1985 the Premiers,and Governors Lakes Great of Conference However, the Annual of recently, initiative an through have been the preserve traditionally of the two Agreement, federal governments. Quality Water Lakes Great promote objectives, regional necessarily however. not oversight.does to accountability subject This thus areand departments theyfederal arebyor funded state requirements,as reporting have programs ability,such have authorities federal acted.not account- of terms In where gaps policy actual fill Plans,which ECP Action NEG/ the of sense the in initiatory truly being than rather activities binational/federal ongoing of support while such programs contain specific goals, initiation. And they of program exist in terms in significant less is cooperation. federal jurisdictions Canadian of role The state- of outgrowth an as border the of side American the on origins their Commission,Lakeshad Great the ErosionControlSediment and programs byconducted initiatives,the as such Soil or Species Nuisance Aquatic Activities in the Great Lakes tend to be bifurcated. Many Great Lakes- CBR Heartland on theU.S. side. exclusivelyalmost and infrequently tion,occurs which been independently incorporated into domestic legisla- havethey unless jurisdictions participating on binding tt areet cvrn te eri Strait-Puget Georgia the covering agreements state Columbia-Washington British of number a are There Pacific Northwest CBR haveall jurisdictions ratifiedthecompact. force.into present,not comes At Charter the if/when accountability of degree significant a provide will this and terms, its by abide to fails or agreement the ment imple- not does jurisdiction participating a that event the in action legal for provisions contains Charter the Plans.NEG/ECP Action Significantly,the to however, but internationally relies on domestic similar legislation conservation programs. The Charter cannot be enforced provincesand requiresstates and institute that harm tal ing water removals on the basis of potential environmen- Truly region-wide initiatives, Trulyto the as such updates region-wide The Annex will put in place new processes for judg- 8 the Initiative.the joined have Manitoba and Columbia British of inces prov-western also and states emissions.western Other (GHG) gas greenhouse reducing for strategies regional develop to Washington and Oregon, Mexico, New 2007by thegovernorsFebruary of Arizona, California, the WesternInitiativeClimate (WCI), in waslaunched policy efforts, at least in this policy sector. One of these, environmental directed and specific towardmore turn U.S.bywestern pushed the being states, maya this signal and programs change climate into drawn been has on water resources withintheregion. Issues, intended to address Waterthe impact of on climate change Consensus PNWER the and jurisdictions, individualin cars cell fuel for infrastructure the linking involves which project, Highway Hydrogen vaunted to be even more informal. Examples include the much- ects involving all or most jurisdictions in the region tend proj-multilateral and agreements bilateral such of ture from agriculture, industry, vessels). andmarine to reduce pollution (e.g., initiatives to reduce emissions orderin undertakenbe to jurisdictions by participating Sound Basin. The goal is to lay out management actions according to the date of establishment of date the to according regions within linkages state-province shows 4 Table created in order to out carry cross-border regional goals. havebeen that institutions joint the of maturity the is Another indicator of the capacity for autonomous action Maturity of Joint Institution that reduction goal. achieve help to implemented being is scheme trading A market-based mechanism in the of form an emissions (WesternInitiativelevels2020 2007).byClimate 2005 below percent 15 of goal reduction GHG aggregate transborder problem solving, a less of establishedterms in experience actual architectureless indicate may building have better access entities,to well-establishedfunding as sources. linkages, older More that recent surmise linkage experience dealing with a range of issues. One might also more inter-relationships established and more through rity,may have enhanced capacity for autonomous action environmental CBRs, by virtue of their institutional matu- increments aswell asthegrowth overall. time various during linkages growthin percentage the However, the Pacific Northwest environmental CBR fea- a not generally are timelines and goals Specific These data are helpful under the premisethat the under arehelpful data These “older” 9 Through WCI, the partners have set an set have Throughpartners WCI,the 10 and pinpoints and Debora L. VanNijnatten february 2010 123 2000-05 2005

11 1996- 2000 4 4 1 21 1 1 5 20 0 0 2 12 ime Period So another question to explore is whether environ- Further insights into this question are provided by orizontal Governance Governance ertical and Horizontal mental CBRs have mental the CBRs capability have to integrate activities from higher to levels lower of governance across their respective The regions. case study literature indicates primarilyfocused are linkages CBR environmental that - transgov are and actors executive state-province around ernmental and transborder they in i.e., involve nature, communication and cooperation between officials in related departments of all participating governments. These interactions and cooperation are typically the byproducts of annual conferences of political leaders, to direction committees whose outcomes then provide with and process officialsof man- invested senior-level assigned officials mid-level and responsibilities agement further delib- meetings, Between tasks. project-specific electronically. continue eration and communication all interviewees, of whom work full-time with trans- linkages with their contiguous state partners to address air and water pollution as well as energy cooperation. V and Integration Another measure of an environmental CBR’s effec- tiveness is its capability for which governance, is key vertical to regional and coordination of horizontal environmental Work by Anne-Marie issues. Slaughter horizontaltransborder and vertical that indicates (2004) networks of officials can build trust establish and the kind of long-term relationships that are necessary for addressing the increasing number of policy problems state borders. across that reach

1981-85 1986-90 1991-95 egion and T egion and 1980 % 1980 2005 of 4 19% 1 2 10 2 2 23 5 24% 3 4 6 30% 1 6 6 50% 1 3 al >1980 In the Great Lakes region, there has In been the consistent Great region, Lakes North- Pacific continent,the the of side other the On Pacific Northwest Pacific Great Lakes Great Northeast New England New ent Environm inkages by R by Linkages Environmental able 8.4: T 1991 1991 to 95. During that time, British Columbia and Washington state signed an Environmental ration Coope- Agreement and established an Environmental Cooperation Council; also PNWER was created and became active in environmental issues. More recently, AlbertaBritishestablishedandColumbia have additional of engaging in such problem solving and thus less capac- less thus and solving problem engagingsuch of in New England regionthrough.The expe- ity for follow rienced early almost institutionalization; half of all the including the multilateral NEG/ECP linkages, region’s air management, resource on focusing entities as well as In 1980. to prior place in were issues, energy and quality the New England the region NEG/ECP, has thus had and environmental on focused organization umbrella an This may explain sustainability issues for three decades. the importance of “historical links” that respondents from the region referred to in survey More questions. there recently, has been considerable bilateral activity and environmental specific with marginsdeal the to on management issues. linkage building A until number recently. of linkages include all Great Lakes jurisdictions and have been in place for but some seem time, to be linked informally, such as the Great Use Water Lakes Lacking Database. broad a with organization umbrella subnational a is here noted As PNWER. or NEG/ECP the as such mandate, insti- many too are “There interviewee: Lakes Great a by tutions in the Great Lakes basin… the big question is: (Krantzberg interview). who is in charge?” west region is institutionally “younger.” experienced The a region burst of new linkages (10 in all) from 124 Canada Institute occasional paper series horizontally across sectors, horizontally i.e., gov-link and engage to activities integrate to capacity the have CBRs mental environ-whether is that and structure governance ing seen intheNew Englandregion. ing to assume project leadership—something that is will- not been have cases certain in and funding provide is stronger thaninNew England. Federal officials often District,routine. fairly is Here, too, presencefederal the Greater the Vancouveras governments,Regional such multilateral initiatives. certain undertaking also becoming more active in Great Lakes initiatives and to cooperation in the region. But local governments are subnational initiatives and may in some cases be a barrier observers contend that the federal presence overshadows some In fact, support. technical and scientific as as well collaboration formal of terms in both true is This bodies.associated its and IJC the of presence giventhe governments.and regional local with collaborating of history long a has Council Plans.Maine Change Action of Climate Gulf and The Mercury NEG/ECP’s the with associated projects in governments,local with collaborate also groups seen as project-specific federal funding is sought. New England when instrumental prove observers same these Often wellas committees ECP Council.Maine of Gulf the as forNEG/ true is projects. This specific out carrying or issues particular addressing committees on “observer status” for provisions formal through achieved is established exception. take on management responsibilities. PNWER to is a agrees well- often jurisdiction one and elaborate less are systems Northwest,Pacific committee the Council.In or well staffed, with the exception of the Gulf of permanent Maine be to tend not do but systems committee their of terms in sophisticated relatively are nizations elsewhere. orga- counterparts England Newtheir than and these tend to be more and permanent better staffed subcommittees,and committees operate which zations organi- of system elaborate an has region Lakes Great systems.The committee their of sophistication the in relationships—lies effective maintain and form to ity perhaps serve as a proxy and for abil- their permanence can that one CBRs—and environmental among ence differ- view,major their a In organizations. boundary There is another question to be considered concern- In the Pacific Northwest, collaboration with regional LakesGreat the in strongest is presence federal The usually involvementfederal-levelEngland, New In tic mandates takemandates tic precedence over transborder projects, viding funding dollars, the of priorities fulfilling domes- executivethe for sayingthat without pro- goes entities projects.specific and activities management It for ongoing funds branch executive or departmental existing share keya regions All reliantbeing in on vulnerability CBRs.environmental all for problem a are Resources Financial S the private sectorover thosewithcivic groups. Northwest, there is a tendency to seek Pacificinteractions with the representatives. In civic with than experts less consultative, interacting more frequently with policy governmentbyofficials. NEG/ECP, The contrast, by is outnumbered far arecommittees, they dozen although on the central Council and also serve on its more than a website). And,fact,in representatives sit groups civic of organizations, and information” (Gulf of Maine Council people,connect and Gulf; the about awareness public raise workshops; and conferences organize “Wethat, notes website Its networking. horizontal facilitate to interactions between executive officials. expert community, the major linkages are dominated by scientific- the with wellconnected and wellorganized Lakesregion,Greateven arethe groups in civicwhere CBRs.Yet environmental various the civic within among groups capacity organizational of lack relative tend tobeexecutive officials. department action above,cross-border regional of drivers main the CBRs in general. It likely reflectsfact that, the as noted evolving and remains a weaker aspect of environmental still is responsibility leadership environ-initiatives? This mental in citizens and sector private the ernment, In New England, the Gulf of Maine Council purports the reflect also may integration horizontal of Lack were inplace priorto 1980. half of alltheregion’s linkages institutionalization; almost experienced early The New Englandregion tructure Debora L. VanNijnatten february 2010 125 st esponses P-GP We urvey R urvey 55% 43% 58% 42% 55% 52% 67% 61% 52% 57% 67% 56% 41% 52% 58% 50% 45% 81% 56% 54% 41% 57% 50% 39% 45% 38% 50% 56% 45% 24% 67% 42% NEGL eader S eader t tion a Northeast Provinces Lakes Great Prairie Plains Great However, the Great Lakes environmental CBR tends CBR environmental Lakes Great the However, In the institutionally newer Pacific Northwest rs to arriers to Underfunding of Initiatives Capacity of cross-bor- der organization Political factors Political Economic conditions Border crossing crossing Border conditions Infrastructure conditions Security Different regulatory/ Different legal systems B per Coo a grea “…to ent” ext Key NE GL P-GP to be limited in two major First, ways. the tendency toward bilateralism in the region and the lack umbrella of organization hamper an region-wide ambitions. It is possible that the sig- Premiers and recent Governors Lakes activism Great of Conference of the Annual nals greater Second, subnational regionalism, however. cross-border of terms in both presence, federal larger the linkages and departmental occupies objectives, policy room that might otherwise be to available subnational government federal U.S. the particular, In governments. looms the CBR, large Great Lakes over environmental for capability its on inhibitoryeffect an had has this and autonomous action. rath- management-oriented more are initiatives Region, er than focusing on andspecific the goals, CBR is less organi- As the major multilateral institutionally mature. institutional of terms in exception an is PNWER zation, capacity but still reflects the lack of project specificity. and horizontal are under Vertical networking develop- ment, but relationships tend to be strongest with the sector. the private and federal government RI L le 8.5: P Tab Being reliant on executive-level funding also renders also funding executive-level on reliant Being The majority of project-specific funding is sought To summarize with regard to the central question institutionally are England New in institutions Shared of Many these same can features be seen in the Great environmental CBRs susceptible to changes in govern- in changes to susceptible CBRs environmental corresponding a and jurisdictions, more or one in ment lessening of political supportfor regional and resources 6 points respondents to to Table this problem; projects. “underfunding the of PRI ini- Leader consider Survey organizations” cross-border of capacity “the and tiatives” cross-bor- to obstacles significant most the among be to der cooperation. from Canadian Americanand federal departments and The fact that such fund- the in CEC. some cases, even, obstacle an proves nature in temporary and hoc ad is ing to medium- and long-term There planning. is also a real need for funding to support travel and in-person interactions, which inter- all one As interviewees success. project and cooperation perceive for critical to important most “[t]he be noted, England New from viewee the promote to do can governments [federal] that thing work of CBRs is to provide funding to facilitate the face-to-face interaction that is so critical to successive federal Targeted funding to cross-border projects. sup- (Smith interview). costs … is key” port travel - evi show do CBRs environmental section, this in posed true is This action. autonomous for capacity the of dence both in terms of regional there But goal articulation institutions. and shared institu- their of development tional and asymmetries differences significant are among them. exhibiting the capac- and regionallymature integrated, ity to work vertically and to a lesser extent horizon- tally through relatively stable Also, committee systems. a of “hard” higher policy level ambition is expressed in goals backed up by - concrete prob ongoing an timelines are and resources while And reporting requirements. the lem more for institution- CBRs, all environmental ally mature New England region has had some success in obtaining funding for specific progams. organizations, of array complex a contains It region. Lakes and sophistication organizational exhibit which of many governance Great capability. Lakes linkage and mechanisms networking, for linked vertically and horizontally are fed- termsof in especially disposal, their at resources have eral scientific and technological expertise. particularly in the United where States, there is active oversight. legislative 126 Canada Institute occasional paper series achieved ofenvironmental in terms outcomes. goals and paying much closer attention to what is actually policyinstrumentsrangeofwideachieve to a ing these requires setting more ambitious, long-term goals, that employ- problems. achieveTo environmental of range full the across necessary is governments by actionforceful not insignificant. forum.joint a problem in the discussing together is This of coordinated action, and they are willing to spend time theyagreethatsolving theproblem requires someform problem,a acknowledgegovernments their that citizens borders. Joint policy goals signal to the private across sectorcooperate and to and together come to governments CBRs denotes a commitment on the part of participating The existence of shared policy goals within environmental governmenta committed.which has to action of course outcomes. environmental Policy actual expectedthestatedgoalsrefertheor ofends to and choices, ment goals policy - instru policy the their jurisdictions, individual by on adopted based CBRs environmental of impact the on thoughtsinitial some down set to pos- sible only is it Here area. this in research empirical of mental policy is more speculative. There isenviron a markedon - impact lack potential or actual their of estimate regionalthroughgoalson actinstitutions,joint and any W Do Environment Ha Most observers would agree that considerably more considerably that agree would observers Most term planning. obstacle to medium-andlong- temporary innature proves an funding isadhocand The fact thatproject-specific ve MeanigfulPolic n dge b ter blt t articulate to ability their by degree vary- ing a to characterized are and exist to shown be can CBRs environmental hile al Cross-b y Impac

order Regions regional scenarios for reducing CO reducing for scenarios regional (PTP) initiative with a consensus agreement to develop Plains the Powering a launched have Wisconsin and west, Dakotas,Further the Iowa, Minnesota, Manitoba, climate.the to threat a pose not do levelsthat to sions emis- decrease to ultimately and 2020 by levels below 1990 percent 10 2010, by levels 1990 to emissions GHG reduce to members commits Plan Change Action NEG-ECP’s the example, policy, for change environmentaljoint goals.climate policy of case the In tious over time. its geographic neighbors, grew considerably more ambi- Columbia’s target for GHG reductions, now in line with point, in British Plan. Mercury case Action another As reduce those emissions to prior to participating in the NEG/ECP inclination little showed Canada, in sions emis- mercury the largestpointsources ofatmospheric of some to example,Newfoundland,home Forgoals. jurisdictions have endorsed successively more ambitious a first step (i.e., they previously had no target), or where as goals regional have endorsed jurisdictions individual where cases in policy, particularly environmental for progressof environmental mayrepresentform CBRs a Basinarea. Georgia Sound- Puget the in health ecosystem and quality air transboundary addressing initiatives joint spawned has Northwest Pacific wetlands.The coastal and species nuisance aquatic to respect with objectives adopted common have organizations, collaborative other and Commission LakesGreat region,the throughworking Action Plan. And, states and provinces in the Great Lakes in mercury pollution is the focus of another NEG/ECP example,reduction Forgoals. shared to commitments els by 2020. individually reduce GHG to emissions by 33 percent from current agreed lev- have California and Oregon, In the Pacific Northwest, British Columbia, Washington, roadmap to achieve guiding efforts goal. this long-term transition energy regional a developing to committed havealso levels2050.bypartners 1990 from PTP cent etil CR hv dvlpd omtet to commitments developed have CBRs Certainly Without full case studies, it is difficult to argue that argue to difficult studies,is case it full Without within goals shared of existence themselves,the By haveenvironmentaladditional broughtissues Other t? 2 emissions 80 per- 80 emissions Climate Debora L. VanNijnatten february 2010 127 There is another conundrum: shared policy goals are are goalspolicy shared conundrum: another is There the to refers which choice, instrument policy such, As Compared with the environmental goals, impact of In the early phase of the NEG/ECP Action Plans, at all, but rather may be more process- or task-oriented, task-oriented, or process- more be may rather but all, at reporting/moni- “improved or habitat” “protecting e.g., directing goals the of many with case the is Such toring.” Gulf the as such bodies in and Lakes Great the in activity to jurisdictionsparticipating direct goals Such Maine. of perform but it tasks, is not known whether those tasks degree. quality to a measurable environmental improve of com- to the actual depth not necessarily proximate mitment to those policy goals on the part of partici- The literature is full of pating examples governments. of environmental agreements whose goals par- have been by met been not have but formally, even endorsed, ticipatinghigh-profile is a recent, Kyoto governments. example. policy achieve to devise governments that means actual may goals, be a better indicator of the depth of com- environmental on cooperation cross-border to mitment say- without goes It se. per goals policy than protection, materialand political the incur to willingness a that ing environ- taxing with or regulation, with associated costs of level higher a indicates unfriendlybehavior, mentally commitment on the part of government to environ- mental protection than for does, a example, voluntary issued to industry to change. “challenge” environmental CBRs on the choice of policy instru- ments for carrying out those goals is much more indi- the focus primarily until has In very recently, fact, rect. been on achieving shared goals and then compatibility not generally on the adoption of of policy instruments, the same policy instruments. the policy instrument choices of American states and States partici- quite different. were Canadian provinces pating in the NEG/ECP Action Climate Plan Change from were the beginning more likely to adopt a range of policy instruments, including regulatory targets for reductions in GHG and tailpipe emissions, alternative energy incentives generation, for energy conservation, electric- the for system trading emissions RGGI the and were easternprovinces Canadian contrast, By sector. ity more likely to rely on voluntary challenges to reduce emissions, including negotiated nonbinding emissions educa- industryagreementswith public and reductions (New to encourage energy conservation tion programs Card Report Change Climate Canada England/Eastern influence. Pressure to Pressure act more some influence. For example, it was the commitment by Massachusetts by commitment the was it example, For with their met Canadian regularly When states have shared to regard with caveats few a are there However, meetings annual in endorsed goals point, second a As the take not may goals policy sometimes finally, And progress in setting policy goals in these specific instances specific these in goals policy setting in progress are due primarily to CBRs; activities in environmental it seems reasonable to propose, that however, had activities have these to a “Zero Mercury Strategy” which helped to drive the NEG/ECP’s Mercury Action The Plan. Western Climate Initiative (WCI) emerged out of the energiesthe when only was it and states Coast West of group a of and Columbia British that running and up was Initiative origi-The interested. became provinces Canadian other nal impetus for the Great Lakes Charter major be was would concern there that states among side U.S. the on demands on the basin’s water resources in the future 4). (International Commission 2000: Joint exert- have they forums, counterpartsenvironmental in their follow to provinces on pressure” “peer of form a ed And lead. the greater sense of urgency across the U.S. border seems to have produced initiatives that are the than stringent in more and ambitious more cases many Canadian status quo. goals within the First, environmental CBRs. nature of many In scrutiny. closer requires goals regional “shared” where there is a specific thecases, goal target or target, applies region-wide rather than to individual jurisdic- aggre- an set partnershave WCI the example, For tions. Regional of “Statement their goal; reduction GHG gate is goal economy-wide regional, “this that declares Goal” partnersWCI and of goals emission the with consistent does not replace the partners’ existing goals (Western Climate As Initiative 2007). a individual consequence, jurisdictional goals can—and those do—vary that from jointly adopted. are designed and laudable while governors, and premiers of do some to measure provide of political accountability, implemen- galvanize law—and of force the acquire not tation action—until they are embedded in legislation. And only rarely has that particularly happened, on the Canadian side. quality environmental to related targets specific formof urgently or forcefully has, in most cases, originatedwith cases, most in has, forcefully or urgently been have also States provinces. Canadian not states, U.S. the driving force behind some of the most ambitious CBR initiatives. 128 Canada Institute occasional paper series which are shown below: of examples some choice, instrument policy into ing ECP’s Mercury Action Planshowed asimilartrend. and-trade regimes. cap- Implementation plans for the as NEG/ such instruments market-based or mandates, energy alternative reductions, emissions regulated in ECP target and have adopted some mercury policy - instru requirements amongNew Englandstates. product mercury-containingrestrictions, disposalobjectives, of notificationand terms in clustering some also standards.federal is than There stringent more limits ed ity boilers, incinerators, etc) have, for the most part, adopt- with air emissions sources tagged in the Action Plan (util- states have the endorsed reduction target and those states England states, clustering is very much in evidence; all six (VanNijnattenplan 2006d: 29-30). New six theAmong the advocatedininstruments policy to respectwith es provinc- Canadian eastern five the and states England New six the convergencegrowingPlan,among is there decade after negotiating the NEG/ECP Mercury Action casestudy conducted by thisauthor found thatalmost a for GHGemissions(Laghi2008). system cap-and-trade approach—a common a behind follow the United States and unite inces and territories prov-all before time of matter a only is it that mused ■ ■ ■ ■ Partners

Morerecently, there are convergenceof signs creep- The provincesAtlantic haveNEG/ also the endorsed trend,thisempirical ofansignal anotherperhaps As Indeed, Québec Premier Jean Charest has publicly has Charest Jean Premier Québec Indeed, Québec has formulated a comprehensive 2006-2012 Ontario, Québec, Manitoba, and British Columbia British Ontario,Québec,and Manitoba, on cap a both instituted has Columbia British a passed Island Edward 2005,Prince December In various industrial sectors. industrial various for targets alternative reduction regulated model), and targets, energy California the (on standards emission tailpipe new fuels, fossil and gasoline on duty a includes that change climate for Plan Action have calledonotherprovinces totake part. state-led and the WCI joining of process the in are emissions andacarbontax. this mandate. sources by 2010—with plans to substantially increase at least 15 percent of electrical energy from renewable Renewable Energy utilities Act to requiring acquire

2006: 16-20). There was initially little interest little 2006:16-20).initially was There the influenceofenvironmental CBRs. are needed in order to definitively ascribe these trends to studies detailed instruments.more policy ket-based)But employ regulation as well as alternative (particularly mar- more ambitious goals, it has also encouraged provincesadopt to tostates provincesencouraged and only not has lar disposalandnotification requirements. mercury releases,atmospheric to that end adopting simi- withassociated sourcesregulatingpoint activein most been have states, provinces, like Instead,Atlantic states. England New as active as been not havethey although Mercury the Plan,with Action areconsistent that ments become a become more to “results-based organization”resolved (Tremblayhas Council Maine of Gulf the For example, requirements. report by accompanied environmental to quality relating objectives and goals cific on spe- “results,”focus in expressed greater as a see already can one governance, environmental bilateral new phenomenon, when particularly compared with there are afew trends worth noting. question, this answer to early too still is life.it While pollutants in ambient air, water, soil, or plant and of animal levels in measured as quality environmentalis, that a discernible impact on environmental policy outcomes, environmental governance is whether CBRs are transboundary having about concerned those to importance The implication is that participation in CBR initiatives First, while environmental CBRs are a relatively relatively a are CBRs environmental while First, Finally, beyond goals and instrument choice, of utmost future. basin’s water resources inthe be majordemandsonthe among states thatthere would concern ontheU.S. side Great Lakes Charter was The originalimpetus for the Debora L. VanNijnatten february 2010 129

Participation in CBR initiatives in CBR initiatives Participation only encouraged has not adopt to and states provinces it has ambitious goals, more to provinces encouraged also as as well regulation employ instruments. policy alternative towards a series of three developing environmental CBRs a series environmental of towards developing three and of equally occupying capable however, not, which are While the policy spaces. transboundary operationalizing action targeted most advanced coordinated, of the undertaking three, of the New capable England appears region, institutional the developed has and issues, policy larger on is Northwest Pacific the efforts, these support to machinery at an earlier stage in terms of both institutional and policy The third CBR in functioning the Great development. characteristicsthe of active, an of many exhibits area Lakes difficultiesexperienced has but CBR mature institutionally in terms of undertaking region-wide initiatives. and share more specificenvironmental policy goals, the result is greater success in achieving desired The New outcomes. England CBR provides the best example of Under Action the Plan, NEG/ECP Mercurythat success. participating jurisdictions agreed to undertake 45 lution pol- reduction actions with respect to reduction waste point percent management, 50 sources, a and of goal public interim education. the Currently that it estimated is 2005). (Smith achieved been has levels) 1998 (from 2003 by of because known only is on Progress the Action that Plan Climate Change has been even but slower, considerably mandatory reporting requirements that are exerting their deci- more to take form on governments own of pressure Canadian side. especially on the action, sive tions a he observations in this paper are directed towards towards directed are paper this in observations he a premise established in earlier research: that between initiatives environmental cross-border The hypothesis, then, is then, that The it hypothesis, might be possible to the findings thatrepeating led toWithout these obser- Various factorsVarious might account for this - pro First, shift. reconstruct the Canada-U.S. environmental relation- recasting ship it from “bottom according the to up,” a CBRs subnational rather model than of environmental remaining solely focused on bilateral (i.e., nation-to- nation) entities. Addressing - envi established there are this First, explored. proposition, were questions several CBRs functioning ronmental along the U.S.-Canadian capable CBRs environmental those are Second, border? regional on acting and articulating of means by action of having they are last, And institutions? joint through goals in making policy environmental on impact meaningful a and outcomes? mechanisms for action, terms of goals, that suggests here presented evidence empirical the vations, the environmental Canada-U.S. relationship has evolved the United States and Canada are to an increasing degree increasing an to are Canada and States United the taking place at the where subnational interactions level, - multilat increasingly are become formalized, more have ambitious more seem and orientation, regionalin or eral in terms of the projects Hope undertaken. for - environ mental solutions that directed was once being at directed the now national is CEC, the then and IJC the to and level, governments local and provincial, state, to downward, policy-making organizations. environmental ding Observ clu Con T gramming with more specific targets more And is on especially attract federal side. funding, likely the U.S. to it also appears that where CBR insitutions are stronger interview). The NEG/ECP moved from “facilitating” “facilitating” The NEG/ECP from moved interview). negotiatingwithplansaction to years early its inaction specific The targets. Great Lakes Charterrequires its members to water evaluate use on - the “envi basis of ronmental harm,” although the specific metrics are still being studied The and Powering the negotiated. which originallyPlains initiative, consisted of a state- ment has now to incorporated cooperate, a long-term are initiatives such Significantly, target. reduction GHG reporting requirements. accompanied by increasingly 130 Canada Institute occasional paper series Note of thecontinent. spread of WCI across the and northern western portions the witness to only has example, one influence. an As of diffusion horizontal objectives,a and measur- and goals able with initiatives specific establishing toward as they mightbe. cohesiveas be to seem not do efforts such directedand environmental governance at subnational hands. Overall, ous questions about the prospects of achieving effective seri- remain there goals, these achieve to instruments policy of range wider a of consideration and goals icy subnational nature has encouraged more ambitious pol- this of cooperation regional cross-border though even up.”result,“bottom the a from As reoriented be to is States United the and Canada betweengovernance tal environmen- for regime shared the if problems pose level. Respondents were surveyed from thefourcross- nature of relationships and interactions at the cross-border Elite Survey, the purpose of which was to examine the adetailed12-page (including thisauthor)constructed Canada) researchers and three university academics project, Policy Research Initiative (Government of fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt/ecoreg1_home.html. oftheUnitedStates.Ecoregions Available at: http://www. of Department Agriculture, ofthe Description oftheUnitedStates:Ecoregions U.S. Forest Service, tanks. This author was an academic advisor on the project. Commerce, cross-border associations, NGOs, andthink governmentin various jurisdictions, of Chambers PRI conductedasurvey ofU.S. andCanadianleaders of Canada. As onecomponentofthisProject, the investigate thepolicyimplicationsforGovernment of cross-border relationships, regional aswell asto substantiate thegrowing significance, scope, andnature Emergence ofCross-Border Project Regions was to vanderbilt.edu/ameriquests/viewissue.php?id=7. 3no.1Americas (2006). Available at: http://ejournals.library. U.S. Border,” AmeriQuests: oftheCenter The Journal North America: Province-State LinkagesontheCanada- “Towards Cross-Border Environmental Policy Spacesin Canada, hasbeenpublished as: DeboraL. VanNijnatten, by by theSocialSciencesandHumanitiesCouncilof n h pstv sd, hr ae norgn trends encouraging are there side, positive the On could CBRs environmental among Asymmetries 4. As part of its North American Linkages research 3. Onemuch-used classificationschemeisBailey’s 2. The objective ofthePolicy Research Initiative’s 1. iterationofthe The first research findings, funded s to their southern counterparts for inspiration. counterparts to theirsouthern It may be that folks on the northern border need to look cooperation.and planning environmentalcross-border to approach regional decentralized, now a undergirds framework federal under-resourced if strong border,a U.S.-Mexico the Interestingly, on institutionalization. albeit with a firmer national backdrop encouraging their betweencooperation tal Canada,and States United the environmen-cross-borderbecoming future “hubs”for tional transborder governance, offer the best prospect of subna- of model a as CBRs,environmental that sible andresources.ing concrete support foster cross-border project implementation and provid- facilitating policy change at the national level in order to by instance for asymmetries, these addressing in ments regions, paradoxically, suggests a role for federal govern- 200 possible pairs. Inadditiontostateslocated adjacentto share atleast10environmental linkages, outofatotal of totheendof2005. database iscurrent provinces agentsofthelinkage. must betheprimary The of itsexistenceandnature and, second, statesand documentation onthelinkagewhichprovides evidence in thedatabase. First, of there must besomeform imposed fortheinclusionofstate-province linkages process.the verification conditions Particular were declared inactive. A few additions alsoresulted from deletions from thedatabase, asadditional linkageswere Input from stateandprovincial officials resulted in then senttoeachstateandprovince forverification. the name, dateofestablishment andmembership—were be discovered. listsoflinkages—including Preliminary whetheradditionallinkagescould order todetermine Database.Agreements Research was thenconductedin (2004),Service aswell as theCEC Transboundary and Grenville-Wood (1984), CanadaSchoolofPublic studies were consulted, suchasSwanson (1976), Stein completed between July 20andOctober7, 2005. the survey, foraresponse rateof19percent. Surveys were received thesurvey. Onehundred individuals completed and associations. A total of 547 people were contacted and of Commerce, economicdevelopment regional agencies, nongovernmental organizations, thinktanks, Chambers of organizations—provincial-state governments, cities, border regions outlined by the PRI and from a range ie cret oiia dnmc, t em pos- seems it dynamics, political current Given across capacity and effort uneven of problem The 6. Table 2provides dataforallstate-province that pairs 5. stepin building thedatabase,As afirst existing Debora L. VanNijnatten february 2010 131 10. In some cases, we used the date when a linkage used the date when we cases, In some 10. “vertical”concepts “horizontal”and that note Please 11. Ocean and Coastal Georgia Basin/Puget Sound.” 421-457. Management 45 (2002): Final Report Governments to the Lakes: of the Great February 2000. of Canada and the United States, 2008. 26, July , Globe and Mail Update Report” Change: http:// at: Available 2008. “Ecological Framework.” atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/ecology/ . framework/ecologicalframework Report CardThirdAnnual Partners.Assessment of the Meeting Region’s Toward Progress the Goals England Governors/Eastern of the New Canadian Action Plan of 2001. Premiers Climate Change http://www.newenglandclimate.org/ at: Available 2006. . Scorecard2006.pdf Interim Report. Regions: Emergence of Cross-Border November American Linkages. North PRI Project: 2005. Roundtables Canada and the United States: Between American North PRI Project: Synthesis Report. 2006. May Linkages. Washington, American Climate Change Policy. Politics of 2004. Institution Press, Brookings DC: moving toward full participant status, including Ontario including full participant status, toward moving and Québec. joined an province a i.e., became truly cross-border, organization. inter-state established who refers to Slaughter, those used by differ slightly from horizontal government as those among national networks issue areas, countriesofficials in different respective in their outward extends dimension horizontal the here whereas Slaughter society. civil and sector private the include to supranational tie which those as networks vertical to refers vertical the here governments; domestic to organizations to encompass various levels dimension extends downward local. subnational, of government—national, Waters of the Protection International Commission. Joint On Climate Far Behind Provinces “Ottawa B. Laghi, Atlas of Canada: The (2008) Canada. Natural Resources England/EasternNew Canada Climate Change The of Canada). (Government Initiative Research Policy Regions The Emergence of Cross-Border ______. The Emerging (2004) Statehouse and Greenhouse: B.G. Rabe, S Environmental Cooperation Council: An Evolving Evolving An Council: Cooperation Environmental Interjurisdictional States Canada-United of Model North on Management In Environmental Cooperation.” 53- Wirth, Kiy and J.D. R. edited by , Borders America’s 1998. Press, A & M University TX: College Station, 71. in British Northwest.” Columbia and the Pacific White American Review of Canadian Studies - Red, The Environmental Relations 27 Canada-U.S. and Green: (1997):359-384. in the Georgia Basin/ Governance Environmental to the presented Paper Puget Sound Ecosystem.” Nevada, Vegas, Las Studies, Association of Borderland April 2003. An Emerging Model The Results in Perspective: Regional Co-operation in Northof Cross-Border Cross- In Leader Survey on Canada-U.S. America.” American Linkages North . Analysis An Regions: Border of Canada, Government Series Paper 012, Working 2006. Initiative, Research Policy http://www. at: Available 2008. About the Council, gulfofmaine.org/council/. the Canada-U.S. Across Ecosystem Management Transboundary Experiencesand Approaches of Border: and Lakes Great in the Gulf of Maine, Programs 7. A score of greater than 1.0 indicates a region in in region a indicates 1.0 than greater of score A 7. Annex actually consists of 2001 Charter The newer 8. as and Mexican states as well Other U.S. 9. Alley, J. “The British Columbia-Washington Columbia-Washington British “The J. Alley, Relations Environmental “Transboundary D.K. Alper, for Frameworks “Emerging Collaborative ______. “I. VanNijnatten. and D.L. Clarke, S.E. E., Brunet-Jailly, Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. “Cooperative Fraser. and D.A. Pebbles, V. L.P., Hildebrand, REFERENCE the border, provinces were also paired with Oregon and Oregon with also paired were provinces the border, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, West California in the Island in the Northeast.and Rhode to be bilateral likely more relatively are which linkages of less than 1.0 indicates a greater tendency while a score linkages. in terms multilateralism of environmental toward states and Lakes the eight Great one agreement between although and Québec, Ontario, the states, another between Further similar in terms agreements are of content. the two have goals overall Charter’s the implement to agreements and provinces. states also been signed by with some joined as observers, have Canadian provinces 132 Canada Institute occasional paper series project carried outby the Policyproject Research carried Initiative, Government ofCanada (2004-2006). School of Natural Resources. She was also academic advisor for the “Emergence of been Cross-Bordera Regions” Chair at DukeVisiting Fulbright University and visiting associate professorresearch at the University of Michigan’s Capacity,States.”United the Canada,and and Approacheshas in Mexico She Management Transboundary Issue (Oxford 2002, 2009) and is workingcurrently on a entitled manuscript “Environmental Policy in North America: policy, climate change policy,quality air including and subnational policy policy innovations.environmental Canadian-American-Mexican She is co-editor of of aspects various as well as America, University. Laurier Wilfrid research Her cross-border onenvironmentalfocuses as North in regions actors policy at PoliticalScience of Department the in professorProgram, associate Studies and North American the of nator Debora Phone interview, Michele Tremblay, coordinator, Gulf Personal interview, Dr. GailKrantzberg, director, Interview ______. oftheCanada- “The ConstituentRegions ______. “Environmental and ConstituentRegions VanNijnatten, D.L. ReductionintheUnited “Mercury Springer, A. “North American Transjurisdictional Smith, C.M. “NEG/ECP Mercury Action Plan: Mercury Slaughter, A-M. ANew World Order. Princeton: Princeton September 2006. Environment,of MaineCouncilontheMarine Office). Regional September 1, director, 2006(formerly Great Lakes Practice,of Engineering McMasterUniversity, andPublic Policy,Centre forEngineering School and theU.S.: A RelationshipataCrossroads?Centre United StatesEnvironmental Relationship.” InCanada Paso, Texas, 2006a. Linnea Terrarum: BordersConference, International El the Canada-U.S. Relationship,” Paper prepared forthe Association, Washington, DC, 2005. Annual Meetingofthe PoliticalAmerican Science Borders.”and International Paper prepared for the States andCanada: Policy Diffusion Across Internal PublicPolicyJournal/titles.htm. (2002). Available at: http://www.umaine.edu/canam/ Environment.”Marine Public Policy Canadian-American Cooperation: The GulfofMaineCouncilonthe PowerPoint presentation, 2005. Management andRetirement Recommendations.” University Press, 2004. L. V is director of the Master’s Program in International Public Policy,Public International coordi- programin Master’sProgram the of director is anNijnatten s Phone interview, Daymon Trachsel, Columbia British Phone Interview, C. MarkSmith, co-chair, Mercury Western ClimateInitiative. “Western ClimateInitiative ______. “The North Context:American Canadian ______. ReductionintheCanadian “Mercury ______. “Towards Cross-Border Environmental 2006. of Ministry Water, Landand Air Protection, September CanadianPremiers,Eastern September2006. Task Force, Conference ofNew EnglandGovernors/ org/ewebeditpro/items/O104F13006.pdf 2007. Available at: http://www.westernclimateinitiative. Goal.”Statement ofRegional Press release, August 22, Press, 2008. R. Boardman. DonMills, ON: Oxford University and Innovation, 3ded, editedby D.L. VanNijnatten and Canadian EnvironmentalPolicy: ProspectsforLeadership Environmental Policy andtheContinentalPush.” In Toronto, Ontario, 2006d. Meeting oftheCanadianPolitical Science Association, Diffusion,” Paper prepared forthe Annual General Provinces: Interprovincial vs. Cross-border Policy oftheCenterfor The Journal 3(2006c). Americas Linkages ontheCanada-U.S. Border.” AmeriQuests: Policy SpacesinNorth America: Province-State Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 2006b. University ofManitobaPolitical ScienceStudents Studies,for DefenceandSecurity Proceedings ofthe Canadian Environmental Policy Donald K. Alper february 2010 133 - tion ithin Westthe of Pacific North America, transbound- ary environmental politics are and shaped by economic geography interdependencies. British Columbia

Contemporary environmental problems are as much about ecosystems ecosystems about much as are problems environmental Contemporary prob- these West, Pacific the In borders. about are they as basins and scales, different reflect that ways in framed been have increasingly lems interests and conceptionssur and removal of dam natural against hydropower of and imperatives the social systems—pitting,example, for such addressing In basin. River Columbia the in species fish of vival subfederal as lessened has governments national of role the dilemmas, mobilized, have organizations nongovernmental and entities political provincial and state across solutions effortsfind led to and innovated Case borders. studies reviewed here suggest several factors that appear to it contributeFirst, is to important success. to have a “fit” proper organization- and institutional the and hand at problems the between actors, and issues of proximity spatial including them, to responses al - bureau and networking relationships, personal encourage helps which intersectoral Second, cooperation among cratic political transparency. and economic citizens, andofficials, environmental groups is a cru- cial element in developing capacity for regional policy making—and especially so within the context “place-based of environmentalism,” where success saving a or valley watershed relies on mobilizing associations Third, owners. property and officials local scientists, activists, of “champion” also depends on the leadership of individuals willing to the cause of transboundary cooperation on environmental andissues, rela- working and bonds preexisting suchwhen helps have it leaders provincial and state of agendas policy the meshing However, tionships. local of perspectives resource and environmental the with governments remains a challenge. communities

W Introduc (B.C.), (B.C.), theYukon and adjacent states U.S. share marine The and sheer forests water richnessand basins, airsheds. of fresh the region’s natural bounty has made for a continual and at times contentious struggle resource over allocation Disputes and salmon use. over have management of agreementsallocation binational creation to led and concerninginto industrialIssues of discharge the wastes institutions. transboundary rivers have involved complex diplomatic and has border the legal terrestrial of bisecting by The habitats wildlife efforts. promptedjoint including action, the creation of parks and protected The effects areas. of pollutants in heavily urbanized border regions have spurred environmental action to protect shared airsheds. It is

Western Washington University Washington Western Donald K. Alper

Pacific West Pacific Governance in the in Governance Environmental Environmental Transboundary Transboundary Chapter 9: Chapter 134 Canada Institute occasional paper series Monahan 1986). River and potential flooding of a B.C. valley (Alper and Ross Dam on the U.S. side of the Skagit transboundary Ross Dam controversy over the proposed raising of the Skagit/ the of settlement and 1979); (Swainson basin trol and power development in the binational Columbia the Columbia River Treaty, which concerned flood con- 1972); (Murray in WashingtonState valley downwind a overpolluted that smelter fromCanadian emissions a conflict a with dealt which arbitration, Smelter Trail the West.the in instrumental particular,was In IJC the in issues transboundary playedmany keyhas in roles it been on water quality issues in the Great Lakes, although book,this elsewherein cussed IJC’s the has focus main createdBoundary bythe Waters Treaty1909.of dis- As (IJC),Commission Joint International the is tionalism environmental politics. for backdrop important an form processes and tutions practices. In this regard, federally created binational insti- industrial and rights allocations, over fish interestswater their defending governments federal two the with stage L Tr Political-Histor ical Context of the examine we Next, politics. environmental ary transbound- regional of contexts historical and cal tive, bordersmay serve tomotivate policyefforts. oceans’policy. perspec- integrated this an From create to borders across coalescing by powercollective their For example, multiple coastal mayjurisdictions leverage multi-jurisdictional policy alignments at a regional scale. for opportunities provide jurisdiction- borders. also Yet,al by borders exacerbated or caused problems on thereby strainingcross-border relations. disagreements, lingering caused however, often have the impetus for common agendas. been These havesame realities, regions transboundary in abatement tion pollu- and sharing resource of imperatives that clear The cornerstone of Canada-U.S. environmental bina- - geographi the discusses briefly first chapter This focus Transboundaryto environmentaltend politics ansb generallywas played out on the national political bilateral environmental relations in the Pacific of history West continent, the the on elsewhereike order Environment alism neaec arhd ult acrs ie a aligning at aimed accords quality airshed interagency produced has level regional B.C.-Washington the at Canada-U.S.border. agreement the of Implementation pollutants and the flow ofground level ozone across the vided a framework for cooperation to reduce industrial the resource between thetwo countries. designed to prevent over-fishing and unfair allocation of 1999. The Treatyframeworkmanagement a established in 1985, re-negotiated Salmon of Pacific Treaty the is important most level.The federal the at agreements bilateral by primarily governed been haveregion, the governance equation. environmental cross-border the of part vital a remain resources and relationships agreements, federal-level innovation, policy environmental regional in growth the and attitude, alone” it 2007).“go this Yet, despite 2000;Springer Commission Joint (International issues ments are sufficient to manage most transboundary water have developed the attitude that province-state arrange- to the forefront. In general, the subfederal-level officials West, far while local, the provincial in and state issues actors watersheds’have moved transboundary on stance environmental governance intheregion. of future and the to relate they how and regional processes local national, between relationships the of assessment an with conclude We structures. tutional insti- existing in opportunities also deficiencies, reveals but studies case several of Examination found. are efforts problem-solving practical and groups ing work - (NGOs), organizations nongovernmental es, regional levels where numerous interagency process- and local the at occurs interaction cross-border the of Much region. the in politics environmental ary by, transbound- shaped been and shaped, have that structures institutional examines chapter the of tion sec- politics.major and The agendas environmental what,any,cross-borderask if to imaginings and relation their is regional other and Cascadia of notion The Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement has pro- has Canada-U.S. Agreement Quality The Air in issues contentious most the matters, Fishery In recent years, the IJC has taken more of a back seat Donald K. Alper february 2010 135 (www.cascadiaproj- Since the 1980s, subfederal-level political actors have have actors political subfederal-level 1980s, the Since Although notions of ecological regionalism have habitat in the main flyway for bird populations for migrat- bird habitat in the main flyway ing from the northern to southern This hemispheres. flyway runs directlythrough the region. Canada and the have an U.S. agreement to protect the porcupine At border. caribouAlaska-Yukon that migrate the cross the the trilateral NorthAmericanAgreement level, on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and its insti- tutional offshoot, the Commission on and Environmental States United the Canada, links (CEC) Cooperation trilateralenviron- increasing purposeof the for Mexico mental cooperation. become key sources of innovation and leadership on environmental matters (Springer 2007; VanNijnatten Gutierri2003; Alper Assisted 1997). by 1997; a strong what has emerged movement, environmental is a gov- from impulses bottom-up which in ernanceframework citizen activists and government agencies against higher bump of levels authority creating multifaceted up hybrid institutions and processes. areas. areas. Similarly the 49th Parallel borderlands between punctu- are coast B.C.-Washington the and Rockies the wilderness marineand proposed reserves parks, ated by These protected expanses areas. of relatively unspoiled eco- an of something region the made have areas natural magnet a result, a as and, world, the for showcase logical States, United the Canada, in activists environmental for and elsewhere. Europe been articulated been mostly they also writers, by have various entrepreneurs, political of plans the in expressed environmentalists. some and internationalorganizations for- a by 1990s early the in formed Project, Cascadia The transborder a envisioned Seattle, from congressman mer sustainability a accompany agenda planning that would transportation regional cross-border improved for effort corridor the in between competitiveness economic and Oregon Portland, B.C. Whistler, and ect.org/about.php). The PacificNorthwest Economic Region (PNWER), a B.C., binational with states Northwest Pacific five joins that regional group advocacy “dedicated to is Alberta, Saskatchewan and Yukon, the onalism? l Regi gica olo c The Nine Nations of NorthAmerica pub- , or generations, notions of an integratedan of notions ecologi- generations, or cal north West Pacific have beenadvanced by visionaries (Sparke Ernest2000). Callenbach in Since the 1970s, marine water quality in the Georgia the in quality marinewater 1970s, the Since International initiatives focused on wildlife con- The ecological regionalism perspective is fueled by E ce of The For F Basin-Puget Basin-Puget Sound has been a major bilateral environ- Early mental concernson, issue. were raised about the risk of oil spills from tankers plying these inner waters. pollutant More discharges recently, from industry and trans- cooperative for calls provoked have systems sewage Basin-Puget Georgia entire the manage to efforts border representatives congressional 2008, In bioregion. Sound federal legislation State introduced to Washington from The supportleg- efforts recovery for the Puget Sound. islation was an attempt to bring the federal spotlight on the deteriorating conditions of the sound and with it national attention and infusion of federal dollars for B-1). (Stiffler 2008: restoration servation have been another important component of binational environmental cooperation. For example, a North AmericanManagement Waterfowl Plan pro- critical protecting and conserving for framework a vides and coordinating policies. policies. and coordinating the reality of the sheer amount of public space of of envi- the sheer amount of public the reality ronmental significance that frames borderlandsthe in Nichol and (Konrad continent the corner of Pacific the Virtually 2008). the whole of the Alaska which Panhandle, borders on is British Columbia Yukon, and the encased in lands which are part of parks or protected Ecotopia (1975) talked about a bioregional state that would encompass much of the coastal zone Columbia. British reaching of northerncoast the to Oregon from This was expanded upon by Joel Garreau in his well- known book, extended boundaries ecological Garreau’s 1981. in lished David since, years In Alaska. to Californianorthern from McCloskey (1995) and others have drawn ecological the ter- boundaries on the basis of regional watersheds, ritorial range of Pacific salmon, rain forests and other natural processes (Todd 2008; Robbins 2001; Findlay Egan 1991). 1997; Bunting 1997; 136 Canada Institute occasional paper series te eiec sget saeodr fo ec side each from stakeholders suggests evidence Other environmentalists. border-crossing among identity ary and Salazar (2006) found little evidence of transbound- of cross-border environmental relations is unclear. Alper in the Yukon. Yellowstone National Park to the approximatelyMackenzie from Mountains stretching region the in issues ed resource-relat-other land,and aroundwater coalesced has that network the Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) is interior. Perhaps the most ambitious cross-border vision southern and coast north the both on parks wilderness international vast for up drawn havebeen plans Many the zone. coastal Pacific the in to limited been have not West imaginings ecological cross-border largescale on North America’s West coast (Tsao, et al. 2005). Such biodiversity for areas protected marine north-south of blocks building the form which environments marine project views the coastal rich region as a of series linked 2005).B2B Areas The Conservation Priority (Marine Baja California to Bering Sea (B2B) conservation vision the of part as (PCA) AreaConservation Priority a be to managers and scientists resource of team trilateral the Olympic Peninsula have been designated by a CEC of areas Vancouverand coastal Island and basin Sound International Strategyin 2005. Airshed Action Plan in 2003, and the Georgia Basin-Puget Sound and U.S. federal governments in 2000, the Georgia Basin Georgia Basin-Puget Sound Ecosystem by the Canadian the signing of the Joint Statement of Cooperation on the GeorgiaBasin Ecosystem the Initiative in1998, by conceivedfollowed by was plan ecosystem regional based border.broad-U.S.the acrossA adjacent state the with Basin region as a whole, Georgia including Sound strategies for working Puget the manage to ways considered Economy,1992,the in and Environmentmandated the sustainability.tal Roundtableon Columbia British The environmenfor - mechanisms “roundtables”planning as Canadian federal and provincial governments to institute digm following the 1992 Rio Earth Summit encouraged para- sustainability 2004).popularized (Alper The goals organizationand explicitlytransboundaryin are which few very are there although America, North in active and numerous most the among are regionNorthwest B.C.-Pacific the in communities NGO environmental our world class natural environment” (www.pnwer.org). The preserving competitiveness economic and encouraging The impact of on regionalism ecological the politics Basin-Puget Georgia the level, continental the At tives by pursued theirrespective jurisdictions. initia- domestic individual than more significantly are reflected ingroundbreaking regional policy actions that levels,non-elite ness,or elite the at either yet be has to protection (Todd 2008). conscious- regional Ecological to use energy inefficiently and scores poorly on wildlife and clean air, although the cross-border region continues mance in the areas of public health, access to clean water perfor- impressiveregional reports Scorecard Cascadia annual stewardship.The environmental in leadership region’s the about boast constantly Politicians 2007). (Bula 2007 in Sustain-Lane Fransciso-based San bythe ies by National Geographic’s Green Guide in 2005, and cit- green 10 top the of one as named been has Seattle (Smith 2004). Despite its decrepit transportation system, sustainability urban promoting in leader world a been has enacted similar urban growth zoning. Vancouver has ince-wide zoning land.to preserve agricultural Oregon ed in 1973, is an early example of forward-looking prov- and environmental awareness. The B.C. Land Act,policy public green in enact- leadership for reputation a built land residents” (2008, 10-11). borderlanders which “is not evident to (eastern) border- other hand, postulate a “Cascadia effect”the on among Nicol,western and Konrad2004). al. et (Liebow ning cross-borderplan- to barrier possible a presents which differently,goals conservation view often border the of h s-ald acda rnbudr rgo has region transboundary Cascadia so-called The jurisdictions. pursued by theirrespective individual domestic initiatives are significantly more than regional policy actionsthat reflected ingroundbreaking consciousness… hasyet to be Ecological regional Donald K. Alper february 2010 137 nts ments gree The Columbia River transboundary management Columbia the institutions, of proliferation this Despite Finding effective solutions to complex resource is the Treaty the Columbia River then, In summary, system is tied entities— to Treaty the Columbia River in and Hydro, Canada, B.C. in the United States, the Army Corps U.S. of Engineers and Bonneville Power Activities Administration conducted (BPA). under the Treaty are regulated by numerous Canadian and and overlapping U.S. federal and provincial bodies. In recent years, public stakeholder groups have become is the incorpo- Especially noteworthy influential. more institutions management in perspectives native of ration through organizations such as the Canadian Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Columbia Commission River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, based and the The (Mattison in Columbia and the Moore n.d.). U.S. Program Transactions was started Water Basin in 2003 (NFWF) Foundation Wildlife and Fish National the by improv- for strategies grassroots support to BPA the and and rivers streams basin Columbia in flows instream ing ). A (www.nwcouncil.org/fw/program/2008amend/cbwtp.pdf joint Internationalcross-border Columbia Basin River CBT the by 2006 in created Informationwas of Center and Northwest Power and Conservation Council to increase public understanding of interconnected issues on both sides of the border. the by challenged is system severely management River competing demands on the river and Several salmon its and watersheds. steelhead populations have been listed as Endangered Species endangered under the U.S. more local- resulting in demands for Act, dam removals, the to sensitivity greater and management watershed ized have Biologists people. of and culture native livelihoods new discovered fish populations under Scientists threat. snow winter affecting already is change climate that warn flow the in alterations in resulting melt, spring and packs Gosal 2006). pattern (Cohen 2006, of the river in this large management multi-state/Canada problems a creating is problem key The task. easy no be will region and regional to accountable is that structure management responding of capable yet values, and communities local to the needs of a basin-wide ecological system under 1996). et al. Day strain (Muckleston 2002; institutionalization of joint authority between Canada reaty reaty A ions and itut l Inst tiona conomic conomic development considerations and state interests been have paramount in framing cross- for institutions shaping and issues resource border By the 1980s, political managers, pressured by NGOs, NGOs, by pressured managers, political 1980s, the By iver T River he Columbia T dealing with them. As cross-border environmental issues As environmental cross-border dealing with them. have new changed, institutions and relations of - author Higher authority level based ity on evolved. have legal confront to had has interests economic and arrangements pragmatism and processes local impulses, participatory the a context provide To levels. lower at the evident are that we authority, of relations shifting these assess to which in next turn to an overview of three key bilateral - accords envi evolving of characteristics the of many reveal which the The Treaty, Columbia ronmental River governance: Treaty. and the SkagitTreaty River Salmon Pacific were seeking new mechanisms to balance hydro demands hydro balance to mechanisms new seeking were with salmon conservation. In least the at 1990s, controversies involved side U.S. the on restoration salmon over agen- federal groups, aggregations—tribal political three cies in involved river and management, four principal Oregon). and Idaho Montana, (Washington, states basin and First activists environmental the Canadian side, On demanding groups community by joined were Nations because displaced communities entire for compensation of creation the to led This Columbia. the to alterations of a Britishin 1995, Columbia Trust the Columbia River crown corporation, which functions to return money to communities most affected severely by the building of the dams. The Columbia River Treaty, signed in 1964, was initiated initiated was 1964, in signed Treaty, River Columbia The - hydro supplying of purpose the for States United the by Northwest Pacific the in cities growing rapidly to power called agreement The control. flood improve to also and Britishin dams constructionthe for three of Columbia to increase capacity hydropower and control flooding In Canada return, (Britishside. Columbia) on the U.S. a one-time receive would cash payment and a share of the additional generated power by The the new dams. agreement was (and remains) controversial because of the belief among many Canadians that the was power has Treaty The sold no too specificcheaply. end date. either may government Treaty terminate the However, notice. advance 10 years with (2024), after 60 years Bina E 138 Canada Institute occasional paper series T social andenvironmental values. hydropowerthe reconcile to imperativeother try with nance will efforts need to work within this context and Southwest energy markets. Future environmental gover- Pacificthe Northwest,to linkages other and hydropower California River Columbia vital the and concerns change climate of because so remain will and mount, control). para- flood hydropower of is production The (hydropower needs resource specific to response al and ment of the Columbia River. The develop- and Treatyuse the governwas to a States function- United the and Pacific Salmon of Coalition,Pacific consisting Reform Treaty the convened by was workshop scientific independent an 2007 issue.environmentalIn critical a become has attempt to balance competing pressures on the resource, coherencebiological (Ebbin2003; Taylor 2002). serves political interests and national claims, but ignores interests.fishing model commercial This and servation equity, con- of values competing balance to attempts by driven are resource the of portion what harvest to north Pacific stocks. Thus, trade-offs involving who gets for the conservation and harvest sharing of intermingled rivers, and stocks specific managing of goal the with all for arrangements specifies regime Each California. to fishing six regimes, spanning the West created Coast from Southeast Alaska PSC The water/bcgwlp/s4.shtml). between(www.bcwatersheds.org/issues/ twothe countries catches fish allocating for as wellproduction” mumas opti- “achieve to conserved for are salmon responsibility that ensuring with (PSC) Commission Salmon sustainability oftheresource. biological goal,of achieveanother that to managers of natural cycle of salmon and thus the undermines efforts the disrupts sea open the in stocks of capture random equity.achieving Further,of the goal treaty primary a ers from the other country. Fish interceptions complicate vice versa, they are considered to be intercepted by fish- U.S.Canadians,byor in harvestedspawned are waters streams enter the zonesfishery of both countries. If fish and Canadian from patterns,U.S.fish migratory the of long distances, spending several years at sea. In the course this managing valuable resource. Pacific salmon migrate for conditions the 1999,sets in renegotiated and 1985 Canada-U.S.The SalmonPacific Treaty, in signed first he Canada-U Habitat protection, always problematic in the treaty’s Pacific a created Treaty Salmon Canada-U.S The .S . Pacific S almon T reaty provided by anotherB.C. source toSeattleCityLight. valley would be saved—but equivalent power would be B.C.the therefore raised—and be not would dam the that agreeing parties resolvedwasthe end,by issue the IJC, which inserted itself directly into the conflict. In the togetherthe wasintervention of the parties the getting at resolving the impasse began in 1981. A major factor in battles, court of series a and and subfederal-level officials on both sides of the border, the spoiledvalley was inadequate. for compensation monetary that Canadians by made Skagit Valley dam.the behind claim the was There also the saving on focused groups, activist well-organized by fanned concerns, Environmental thoughts. second had Canada when 1960s, late the until occurred ings rais- Incremental requirements. power future accordance with in stages in Dam Ross the of height the raise to Light City Seattle authorized 1942, IJC in the the Mt. near into Sound Puget flowing Vernon, and Washington. Beginning Cascades North the in the border crossing before Columbia British in headwaters ducing Ross Dam on River.the Skagit hasThe Skagit City (Seattle Light) to utility continue raising the height of its power-pro Seattle - a of need perceived the with arose issue The territory. Canadian of flooding over conflict the resolved RiverTreaty Skagit 1984 The T andthe delicate ecosystemthatsustainsit. eries the socioeconomic system surrounding the salmon fish- sequence, it is unable to strike a proper balance between ereignty considerations and scientific systems. As a con- an intentional bias toward the interests of harvesters, sov - plex environmental governance, the system suffers from adapted.easily not and based frameworkcom- a for As regime created by the Pacific Salmon Treaty is narrowly tiations. 2007, forCongress (CRSReport 39) Pacificfuture Salmon and current in tion nego- Treaty participa- public and transparency more for called and protection habitat perspectiveof resourcethe from the manage to country each exhorted group the short, In for sustainable, conservation-based salmon management. ing:reevaluateto Pacificthe Salmon Treaty a as vehicle is emblematicpurpose of shifting environmental think- U.S.groups.conservation Canadian and coalition’sThe he Skagit River T olwn mn yas f osig ewe federal between jousting of years many Following Like the Columbia River Treaty,Columbia the management Like the raising the level of Ross Dam and the resultant the and Dam Ross of level the raising reaty serious negotiations aimed negotiations ­serious Donald K. Alper february 2010 139 What can - be learned these cases of from environ the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission, the SkagitCommission, Endowment Environmental it. to manage had? treaties national three these impact have What analysis. A comparative can How these cases and the various mechanisms of environmental governance be compared? All three agreements and the institutions createdwere nationalby supporting governments, albeit withthe them active involvement of subnational actors and societal per- It interests. is instructive that the Treaty, Skagit in resulted scope, narrow relatively its of because haps all virtually by been, has that structure management a accounts,highly successful. Likethe others, atits core and giving rise to the treatyothers, the wasunlike But a disputevalues. and interests involvingcompeting what seems to be a well conceived watershed man- of result a as place into put been has process agement process. the treaty mental governance? National-level agreementstreaties andinvolving resource issues tend to focus more on economic and political interests Such agreements typically frame issues and environment. less on the - as there among problems groups resource-user and, solutions fore, are reflective of interests groups’ and These high-level agreements agendas. and the orga- nizations formed to support them are generallydesignedbringto together stakeholdersdiverse dealto not with complex ecosystem In problems. their analysis transboundaryof Blatter and waterPerry, governance, Ingram (2001, 325) argue for modes- sov nation-state on less depend “outcomes of which in governance initiatives para-state or supra, sub, upon than ereignty undertaken within the of framework well- a shared, defined regional environmental discourse.” Arobust discourse of this kind depends on engaged - commu nities of stakeholders arrayed across various levels of government.beInusefulthisitmay regard, tolook at the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission as a model. This issue, which in many respects has proven to A second lesson relates to the role of the IJC. Still another lesson concerns the results. The be an exemplaryanbe casetransboundaryof environmental yields governance, several lessons worthy of discus- - com were parties negotiating the thing, one For sion. formalauthorities, usual diplomatic the prisedof not instead, but, of a highly unusual team made up of the deputy mayor of Seattle, Bob and Royer, the deputy The groups minister of Ben BritishMarr. Columbia, developed strong links with community groups negotiators, these two Further, and regional stakeholders. moreso than national were free relatively diplomats, to explore unconventional negotiating processes and and their individuals these two In the end, solutions. associatesabletranscendtowere narrownation-based advocacy positions and define the problem in terms of the general interests of both sides. In effect, the became at least co-equal of the environment interest hydropower. of increased to the interest Without question the IJC criticalwas to getting the two sides to begin two had IJC the seriousthat fact the to due negotiationswas this part large in 1981. In their to close be to known commissionerswere who respective heads of governments and were therefore perceived These as two heavyweights. commission- ers were knowledgeable about the issue at hand and (Alper and Monahan 1986). together well worked agreement produced an Once for the both focus shifted was sides. ‘win-win’ outcome perceived as from the dam a to the matter of power equivalency, a path to resolution was a Thus, in further hand. les- son that should be applicable to other cross-border issues is that the negotiations “added included ben- efits” beyond the specific issue at hand and (Alper An Monahan added 1986). benefitwas the creation - pro provide to plan endowment environmental an of tection of and the in improvement environment the Valley. Skagit the of portions Canadian Americanand Valley Skagitseparate a created treaty the addition, In Endowment Fund and a joint bilateral commission, 140 Canada Institute occasional paper series S Subna Washington Environmental Cooperation Agreement Agreement Cooperation Environmental Washington Columbia- British the of signing the in factor nificant to north foul drifted the beaches of and Vancouver coast Island was a sig- State which Washington the spill off oil occurred an to responses ineffective 1992, In Environmental Cooperation Council T will beexaminedandassessed. model,andhasbeen replicated Montanain andIdaho, it BecauseBCWECCconsideredbeenthehaspotential a forces, which in themselves have become institutionalized. CooperationCouncil (BCWECC) anditsoff-shoot task region is the theBritish Columbia-Washington in structure governance environmental boundary Environmental and Washington Stategovernors. “championing” exerted on the part of several B.C. premiers theprovince andstate have beenenhanced byhigh level Northwest.Pacific the in kinds of all roles leadership The Washington cross-border anchoring in relations state of and Columbia British of importance the is ),prippt.pdf (www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/Institute PolicyResearch Ottawa-based the by produced regions cross-border on evidentbylooking at VanNijnatten’sstudyandthework morenumerous, they arenot more intense.” become have althoughWhat “linkages alsois that findings (2006,18) standing, etc.—in the Pacific West under- confirms of VanNijnatten’s memoranda agreements, ments—institutions, 2008). An overview of subnational - transboundary arrange part of these transboundary mechanisms (Day and Calbick latoryauthority anddispute resolution mandates, arenot (2006, together”11). workingregu- “Hard”as instruments,governancesuch actually on is focus “the where and sharing, information than more is that activity as defined Washington-B.C. linkages tend to focus on “cooperation,” rangingum from information sharingintegration,to the continu- VanNijnatten’s five-point on plotted functions highest the has numberbilateralof institutional pair mechanisms. state-province termsofIn Columbia British Washington- the linkages, environmental province-state to VanNijnatten’s(2006) continent-wide study ofpairs of he BritishColumbia-Washington The most soundly institutionalized subnational trans- subnational institutionalized soundly most The Washington State andin British Columbia. officials political linking According those especially ated, ubnational initiatives and institutions have prolifer- tional Cross-b order Institutons Council and its task forces engage in parallel processes parallel in engage forces task its and Council planning. integrated Instead,conduct to impossiblethe ronmental authority in the Council. This makes it all but of Washington state and British Columbia to pool envi the council’s of referenceterms reflect an unwillingness followed.be to rules the out spell not Organizationally, can- thus natureand in advisory is BCWECC the that (Day and Calbick 2008). (2006,Carruthers power 68) observes regulatory no has and funding stable pendent, can accomplish in the policy realm because it lacks inde- trends andimpactsonhabitat(Day andCalbick2008). pollution marine monitor investigateand to effort der shops and reports, has effectively mobilized a cross-bor- 86).BCWECC,meetings,Further,work-throughthe scientific and technical collaboration” 2006, (Carruthers throughapproachable issues policy to them “reducing by issues quality water marine binational depoliticized successfully context.” also scientific has and It regional awider into bottom-upward issues local difficult ing cast- to due been has success its of notes,“much 86) (2006, Carruthers efforts.As mitigation and planning munication problemspecific in facilitated areas has and com- cross-border of form structured a provided has water and air issues. Through its task forces, the Council of government to levelsexchange information on transboundary all from actors environmental key together and water qualityintheColumbiaRiver basin. River (which runs north into British Columbia), and air Nooksack the in flooding aquifer; Abbotsford-Sumas the of quality Lowland; deteriorating Fraser the in ity one. each address areaswereThe transboundary of concern to air qual- forces task created and areas priority Sound other four identified Basin-Puget then Force.TaskInternational It Georgia the and Panel Science Marine a created BCWECC the formation, its Upon was to work binationally on marine water quality issues.mission BCWECC,whose the of creation the to led turn in bc.ca/spd/ecc/docs/bcwaccord.pdf). agreement The boundaries”(www.env.gov.political nor physical neither respect impacts and concerns “environmentalbecause concern, mutual of matters environmental on sharing 1992, was coordinatedfoster to information and action in agreement,signed the 1998).of (Alley purpose The The BCWECC is,BCWECC The however, it what in limited quite bringing in successful been has BCWECC The - Donald K. Alper february 2010 141 nts greements al A British Columbia’s aggressive actions to tackle climate climate tackle to actions aggressive Columbia’s British launched was (WCI) Initiative Climate Western The Blatter’s (2000) findings, in comparing European and European comparing in findings, (2000) Blatter’s achieve this goal, carbon taxes are to be combined with combined be to are taxes carbon goal, this achieve a cap and trade system and other initiatives. change are part of a larger regional plan than extends and especially to states and provinces, Western to other California. In 2007, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell and California Governor signed Arnold a memorandum Schwarzenegger of mit the state and understanding to province work together in setting to com- greenhouse gas reduction targets to reduce would The emissions reductions or below. 2020 to 1990 by levels “consistent and with state provincial policies,” be made a caveat allowing jurisdictions room to change course for economic or other reasons (www2.news.gov.bc.ca/ news_releases_2005-2009/2007). in February 2007 by Washington, California, Oregon, New Mexico Arizonaand as a partnership to enhance opportunities for the joined Columbia British co-operation 2007). (Brownstein change to address Canadian other two climate then, since April2007,and in WCI provinces The have WCI joined. goal was to achieve a regional standard—utilizing cap and trade and other mechanisms—to meet greenhouse gas reductions tar- North American environmental governance, confirm that transboundary environmental institutions need to be responsive to a broad array of societal that This require the interests BCWECC would be to be effective. subsystems different the in institutionalized deeply more of society domestic (e.g., political business elites, lead- Greater penetration of etc.). society groups, Native ers, is necessary to build legitimacy and also is strategically important for enlisting people and organizations with Finally, leaders. community and makers policy to access trans- effective more a into evolve to is BCWECC the if public shaping of capable regime, governance boundary policy and effective dispute it resolution, will need modeled at perhaps authority, regulatory of measure a least from is buy-in required where IJC, on the federal-level national governments.

nt ernme incial Intergov te and Prov

a ntergovernmental ntergovernmental agreements have sprung between states many and of provinces, forththem focus- ing on environmental issues not limited to border In the Pacific West and elsewhere, reduction of In perhaps the most comprehensive assessment of t green house gases (GHG) is at the center of the climate the of center the at is (GHG) gases house green British provinces. and states by embraced agenda change perhaps Columbia, the leader in this enacted effort, in 2008 what some touted as the greenest budget seen in ever North America (Hume The 2008). plan B.C. a carbon from tax to provide is based on using revenue incentives for people and businesses to become more goal The is province toreduce carbon energy efficient. To emissions by 33 by 2020. 2007 percent below levels regions. Climate regions. ocean regionalchange, spills, transpor- forest health manage- technology, environmental tation, of some are energy clean and planning emergency ment, been important have agreements These the points. focal and environmental to commitment regional signaling in community and agendas to and building programs, - sup Because public. mass the and leaders political among port of the centrality of the climate change agenda worthitexamining in is statesWest, in the Pacific and provinces this how issue is related to regional transboundary- envi governance. ronmental I S the BCWECC as a transboundarygov- environmental ernance institution, Carruthers (2006) concludes that, although it is successful in information coordinating sharing actions, to and be an effective transbound- ary governance regime, the BCWECC needs to cre- his in Planning, planning. collaborative for process a ate is view, a policy driven approach that is “more sensi- tive to ‘consumers’ than ‘producers’ of public policy” (Carruthers Collaborative 4). 2006, planning produces the participa- and guided by, derived from, governance tion of agents of political civil institutions, society and Carruthers’ point is that forms of the economy. market environmental governance lack legitimacy if they are detached from the broader political, societal and eco- exist. nomic context in which they (Harris et al. 2001). 2001). (Harris et al. 142 Canada Institute occasional paper series I Tr Although climate change is global in scale, and national are likely to open new avenues for policy development. together, rather than complicating environmental issues, working jurisdictions multiple that appears border. It which areanimated by not necessarily the Canada-U.S. tive power collec- to address their regional, increasenational and global issues to attempt an in borders across laboration, clusters of provinces and states are coalescing the rest ofthecontinent” 2007). (Cernetig examplethat will boththe grabimagination andinspire much when he told reporters that he intended “to set an as said governments.Schwarzenegger federal countries’ both vis-a-vis leverage regional provide would clearly and California other Pacific states with Columbia British ). fact_sheets/western_climate_initiative/ www.climateactionsecretariat.gov.bc.ca/En/industries( regions’ the to costs the lower to expected is market carbon regional a in scale.Participation of advantages gain Washington,to other members,is as WCI well as and Columbia British of case the effort,in the joining for incentive emissions.The GHG control to trade system and cap regional a on collaboratively working dards, in a cross-border participating GHG registry, and to stan- tailpipe California attempting prescribing by goals the meet are jurisdictions member WCI gets. tists,academics.and areimpor- planners groupings Such activists with epistemic communities composed of scien- Fox 1998). NGO coalitions typically join environmental sharesarily ideologies andpolitical cultures (Brooks and neces- not do efforts.coalitions Transnationallitigation across as well as strategies media working in skilled highly and borders comfortable issue-based, are groups Such 1994). Neufeld and Dobell 1995;2004;Wapner Fox and (Brooks behavior political and economic ence empowerto activistsattempting influ- communitiesand coalition-building,network-forming as involvesNGOs 54). environmentalism 2001,Transnational Meyers and traditionaand grassroots of democracy (Papademetriou By engaging in this form of intergovernmentalcol- of form this in engaging By additionIn thetoeconomic benefits scale,of linking ture is especially marked by a sense of independence Pacific cul- the region’s political the in where West pervasive is NGOs environmental of nvolvement ansn tional Envronment and cross-border toalignpolicyagendas. efforts learning social enhance should activities political these else, nothing If governance. environmental boundary such coalitions will have on the shaping of future trans- who are engaged in this effort. It is unclear what impact businesses and universities officials, municipal entists, the extensive cross-border network of civil servants, sci- as international debates. Indeed, their research highlights has the potential to influence and shape national as well change climate on focused development policy tional or customers. students attract to ability its therefore and tion’simage plans—which are now an important part of an organiza- change climate have to businesses and universities for to states commonplace is measures. respectiveIndeed,it supporting enact their with closely working and focused.” most are tools regulatory where government of level the is it and based is infrastructure transportation and 2005) notes, “it is at this level where energy production DeeverVan and 2005). (Selin As Rabe (quoted in effectiveSelin and most VanDeever be can efforts political years.for noted been levelthis at Action may wherebe has action regional for potential authority, the policy U.S.and Canadian of terms in executive legislativeand tain and protect the diversity of species and habitat in habitat and species of diversity the protect and tain main- strategically to Canada-U.S.is the mission border.across Its works that coalition bership-supported formerly Transboundary Watershed Alliance,mem- a is (RWB), Borders RiversWithout coast, north the On T Rivers Without Borders andthe tional organizations. transna- key of effectiveness and strategies the discuss overall.recentof examples Using controversies, we will environmentalgovernance made to contributions havesubstantial actors transnational goals, own their ing Sikkink 1998). tant in framing issues around ecological values (Keck and al Politic ulsequah MineDebate As Selin and Selin As VanDeeverreport,(2005) transjurisdic- plans action own their creating are cities Several By achieving varying degrees of success in promot-achievingin By success of degrees varying s Donald K. Alper february 2010 143 atshenshini International Campaign Campaign International atshenshini Some have called for the IJC to broker a solution. In 1991, following two years of extensive organiz- he T federal lands. RWB has called for a binational environ- RWB federal lands. mental assessment of the project based impacts on on the economic and potential ecosystem values of the Previous watershed. assessments Taku by entire British Columbia and Canada focused narrowly on issues sur- rounding the project itself (miningwatch.ca/index.php?/ Tlingit The newsletter_24redfern_abandons_road). Nation assessment. environmental also insisted on a full both Interestingly, Alaska and British Columbia have opposed calling in the IJC fearing an environmentally- biased solution that could harm commercial interests (Lord 2004). British Columbia also made it clear that it does not support establishment of any IJC interna- tional watershed boards in the province Interparliamentary Committee 2001). (Reportthe Canada-U.S. of continues RWB to mount a very high-profile, public campaign against the project. It maintains a detailed monitoringand other Taku system issues of affect- the on its website. ing the watershed T In the 1980s, the Canadian mining company Geddes Resources, Ltd., proposed to build an open pit underground and mine at Windy Craggy the northwest corner Mountain of The British devel- Columbia. in opment was sited in a wilderness area surrounded by and U.S. Canadian parks—Kluane National Park, the Elias Wrangell-St. and Glacier Bay The National Park and Alaska. in Forest National Tongass the and Preserve, mine would be located Tatshenshini in a the vulnerable from upriver watershed miles 25 on about Creek, Tats River which joins with the Alsek Tatshenshini River before flow- The Pacific. the to Alaska through west ing ecosystem supports countless populations of wildlife, one of the continent’s most productive salmon rivers rafting area and white water perhaps the most desirable people, indigenous to home regionis The world. the in including the Yakutat and the Champagne-Aishihik First Nations. ing by a Tatshenshini group Wild, called Tatshenshini environmen- 50 than more of coalition a International, tal NGOs including Native groups in Canada and the United States—with a membership totaling over 10 million people—was formed to fight the mine devel- opment (BC Spaces for The Nature coalition’s 2008). goal was to make Tatshenshini wildernessthe in area, Like Like that of most effective environmental NGOs, has effort political visible most RWB’s years, recent In still was process permitting mine the 2008, early of As RWB’s work is a mix of science and politics. For exam- For politics. and science of mix a is work RWB’s Research Environmental Craighead with worked it ple, Design Area for a Institute Conservation in developing transboundaryTaku the watershed based upon grizzly bear salmon habitat, and old growth forest as the pri- ). (www.grizzlybear.org/taku.htm mary data layers. sit- development mining Ventures’ Redcorp against been River—considered Taku the of tributary B.C. a on uated to be southeast Alaska’s most prolific salmon produc- The er—about 50 Alaska. miles upstream from Juneau, and Ventures Redcorp by owned mine, Chief Tulsequah accessibility and economic of because 1957 since closed was project The 1994. in reopening proposed problems, watershed, the through road 100-mile a by accessed be to a proposal since A abandoned. new re-opening plan, proposed in would alter 2007, the earlier controversial 1994 transportation plan by utilizing river hoverbarges and mine the from concentrates Metal road. a of instead and Alaska, Juneau, between barged be would equipment (riverswithout- River Tulsequah located on the the mine, Concerns mine the re-opening about ). borders.org/2007 system—a river the into spills chemical toxic on focused potential the 1950s—and the since problem continuing Aboriginalrights watershed. the to barges from damage traditional Tlingitter- are at issue Nation’s because the ritory includes Tlingit the Taku watershed. However, litigation before the Supreme B.C. Court to stop the unsuccessful (Kneen 2007). was development agencies at government numerous being by considered In countries. both in levels federal and province state, the the state Alaska, Department of Natural Resources has touch not does project the because authoritypermitting the transboundarythe Southeast and Canada of watersheds Alaska and to foster planning for river the systems region’s (riverswithoutbor- long-term conservation-based ). ders.org/about-rwb/ Its diverse 22-member binational coalition includes First Nations, labor groups, communities and small as recreationalists, well as conserva- sophis- a has coalition The tion-orientedorganizations. regularly and system communication networked ticated target- on information scientific with media the supplies binational funding has sources multiple RWB ed issues. and its offices are located in the population centers of and Alaska, as as well in and Juneau, Seattle, Vancouver Yukon. Whitehorse, 144 Canada Institute occasional paper series in Trail, British Columbia, 10 miles north of the U.S.the of north miles 10 Columbia,in Trail, British located smelter lead and zinc a Ltd.is TeckCominco Mobilization andL itigation: T siteonearth. becoming thelargestworld heritage Alaska southeast the Yukonand Columbia, British of achieved in 1994, which resulted in this triangular area wouldclaims occur.land U.N. wasstatus site heritage nation,that separate but assurances receiving only after world heritage sight.a First Nations designated supported the desig- wilderness the have to apply to Canada Cultural and Columbia and (UNESCO) urged Organization British Scientific Education, Nations the and United Union Conservation World The issue. the on bear to pressure conservationist international - ing bring in important was States, United the in Park National Bay Glacier adjacent for status site heritage world for pushed Gore,simultaneously of who ment ecosystem.the protectinvolve directto The Canada - with agreements into enter to state of U.S.secretary the on calling legislation U.S.congressional enacting by mine the against campaign the in intervened Gore Albert Senator 1992, 1997).then In (Careless edented and aided by Canadian and U.S. politicians, was unprec- against the mine, directed by Tatshenshini International was was critical. strategy made public high-profile The as apark. proposed to preserve the entire Tatshenshini-Alsek area B.C. government the 1993, In 1999). (McDaniels ing min- from benefits outweighed wilderness of retaining province the to monetary) (including benefits lic pub- the that and 1996) wereincompatible(Harrison the in Tatshenshini wilderness preserving and mining that decided which (CORE), Environment the and Resources on Commission entity, the planning use B.C.’s of lap land the in placed was issue 1992,the In cials were unable to get the necessary permit approvals. proved effective. After three years of trying, mine offi- riversof two (Hume 1992). magnificent destruction possible on attention focus to globally and States United the across opinion public at but ments, aimed not only at the B.C., Canadian and U.S. campaign govern- information public international extensive an involved Clayoquot, the save to campaign licized pub- more later the Tatshenshinito battle,precursor a preserve. wilderness The a located, is mine the which The political context in which the park decision decision park the which in context political The The high-profile public strategy led by Tatshenshini eck Cominco Cominco refused to comply on the grounds that it did it that grounds the on comply refusedto Cominco CERCLA.Teck the by required studies the to conduct Cominco Teck ordered EPA the 2003 In 2006). (Roberts listing Superfund for it qualified tamination con- levelsof high very the found and Rooseveltarea Columbia-Lake upper the inspected EPA EPA.The costly cleanup of hazardous waste sites identified by the in 1980 to allow the federal government to enforce the Congress by passed (CERCLA),was Liability Act and the Comprehensive for name Environmental common Response the Compensation author- is which Superfund Superfund,ity. federal U.S. under intervene to (EPA) Agency Protection U.S. Environmental the to petition formal a reservoir,issued the abuts homeland determinative. wereassessments conducted. be wereto None deemed 2005). (Parrish wildlife Variousor scientific humans of health the to risk a be to wereriver determined the in found pollutants if remediation for pay to offered and river the into discharging stopped company State,the in Washingtonresidents and agencies downstream and government,surefromCanadian the Columbia British pres- after 1995, In wildlife. and people health for concerns raised years for have waters surrounding and 2006).levelsLakeHigh inRoosevelt contamination of tons of slag have been deposited into the river (Roberts plant in the late 1800s, it is estimated that twelve million Trail smelter. Since smelting operations began at the the involving dispute environmentalTrail of chapter recent most the is Dam, Coulee Grand the by created river the of U.S. part the on reservoir Roosevelt,the Lake flowed downstream intotheUnitedStates. which River Columbia the into pollutants other and mercury,slag, lead arsenic, dumped smelter the 1994) in addition to important, emitting air pollution, More for a century (1894- settlement. the with weredissatisfied farmers downwind as controversy the end not law. pays” in international principle did The arbitration to arbitration. The settlement established the “polluter parties contending the bringing in IJC instrumental was The 2006). (Robinson-Dorn pollution air ary ontransbound- ruling international first the sidered con- is which 1941, in Settlement TrailArbitration the in U.S. the resulted on border the property of side damaged that smelter the from over emissions dispute downwind River. A Columbia the along border n 99 h Clil Cneeae rbs whose Tribes, Confederated Colville the 1999 In RiverColumbia and northern the of polluting The Donald K. Alper february 2010 145 ), ), and one of the largest However thiscontroversy However playsouttheinlegal and alone / www.techcominco.co ( mining companies in the world, has always been the and dominantTrail economic forcetheineconomyof thesurrounding Inthe northern area. Columbia/Lake Roosevelt agriculturearea, and more recently - recre significantbeen Several economicationhave activities. transboundarythe Firstarea. and share Nations Tribes U.S. lobbied have groups citizen local 1930s, the Since smelter. the from pollution end to officials government In 1989, the Lake Roosevelt Forum was formed as a multi-agency/stakeholder group to coordinate the work of the numerous state, federal and tribal enti- ties This that was fol- jurisdictionhave the over lake. Quality Council, Water by the lowed Lake Roosevelt which supports scientific studies of - fish contamina tiontransnational throughout Powerful the watershed. such environmental NGOS, as the Sierra Club USA, Sierra Club Canada Likewise, lawsuit. and tribes’ Colville the of EarthJustice, behalf on briefs filed amicus multinational mining associations have of The citizen high and activism level aligned Cominco. with Teck corporate interest have made for a highly politicized context in which somewhat narrow notions of legal collided have prerogatives diplomatic and responsibility forces. governance environmental with broader diplomatic arenas, environmental governance is notlikely to be advanced if the issues inremain theanchored legal context of Canada-U.S. relations. worse, the Even unilateral efforts by the United imposeStates to extraterritorial invite legal defensive mandates and reciprocal will political from responses The Canada. likely pollution issues stemming from Cominco Teck (and other industrial/urban activity both upstream and downstream fromTrail) are now bound up with transboundary environmental social, and cultural issues endemic to the broader region. will need frameworks to governance incorpo- Thus, transnation- of perspectives and needs diverse the rate resource and water land, workable achieve to actors al use decisions. U.S. th Circuit Court’s ruling on Canada-U.S. trade, trade, Circuit ruling Court’s on Canada-U.S. th Not withstanding the this, issue of cleanup was still Although somewhat diminished by the legal context, context, legal the by diminished somewhat Although With With an impasse between EPA and the com- outstanding. In outstanding. citing 2007, potential negative impacts of the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals, where the federal courtruledfederal the where Appeals, Courtof Circuit Cominco Teck in Ltd. that Pakootas the v. company estimatedcleanbillionanto$1 of share a forliable was was agreement voluntary a 2007 In Roosevelt. Lake up study to EPA the and Cominco Teck between reached the extent and seriousness of the contamination. Teck Cominco lawyers unsuccessfully attempted to Cominco get lawyers Teck Supreme the Court U.S. to review the Circuit Court decision (High Court Declines to Review does 2008). Law Of Superfund that claim company’s the is interest hazardous discharging company Canadian a to apply not end to contamination the for “arranged” it unless wastes up in the United States. key transnational actors and forces been have impor- tant in politicizing the dispute. The Teck Cominco plant, employing more than 4000 people in Canada pany, the Tribes Colville pany, in 2004 launched a lawsuit under CERCLA’s citizen suit provisions againstTeck Cominco to force the company to comply unprecedentedThe actionthefirstwith was suit theorder. EPA brought under CERCLA that attempted to apply the extraterritorially corporalaw Canadian - a against U.S. The tion. case was joined by Washington Teck State. Cominco, all the time insisting the motion a filed nonlegal issuethrough bilateralsolved means, should be applynot does law U.S. arguingthat case, dismissthe to The to case them. worked its way up to the 9 not believe the EPA had not the jurisdictionbelieve EPA its Canadian over The operations. Canadian government sided with the company and lodged a State formal protest to the U.S. does not law apply extrater- Department claiming U.S. greatly concerned Canadians were ritorially in Canada. cases liability transboundary allowing precedent a about against companies to be initiated in the other country sending the case Canada also proposed (Roberts 2006). to the a IJC, course of action not agreed upon by the United States. 146 Canada Institute occasional paper series T Analysis andConclus ions rmwr fr oiy oriain mn cvl ser- civil among coordination policy for framework mental issues, and has provided a needed transboundary equate federal attention to critical cross-border environ- the Pacific West, was a response to the problem of inad- in entity bilateral regional-level major BCWECC,the them to (see and Biermann Bauer, responses 2004; organizational Young and 2001). institutional The the and hand at problems the “fit” the between of importance the to attention brought has organizations ronmental envi- international effectivenessof the on work lytical institutions.ana- First,effective more to contribute to appear that factors several suggest studies case the but possible,not overis comprehensivetime? assessment A governance environmental transboundary for promise Miller 2006). blame rather than fostering protection (see Bratspies and assigning toward oriented generally and distant is that control state accept to stakeholders of part the on ness government can control. Moreover, there is less willing- single involveno and that problemsissues cultural and borders,theyand increasingly sensitiveon touch spatial about arethey as basins and ecosystems about much as atic environmentalbecause contemporary problems are Top-down legislative and judicial processes are problem- levelinstruments.es.national for true especially is This ventional institutions to address contemporary challeng- havebeing readinesscon- broughtthe of question into well environmental and wealth resource vast region’s andastrongegies role forNGOs. scalar processes and flows emphasizing collaborative strat- leadership. Today,multi-level,of one is picture the trans- have become key sources of mobilization, NGOs and innovationentities political subfederal-leveland as lessened environmentalgovernance, transboundary has in players systems. Therole nationalof governments, oncethekey social and scales,natural ent of conceptions and interests issues have been framed in different ways, reflecting differ- cial jurisdictions. As the case studies show, environmental provin- and state across actions collaborative in engage and resolving cross-border issues and building capacity to So, how can we assess emerging institutions and their the between relationship the about beliefs Shifting tions, processes and networks aimed at managing Pacific West isby characterized a mix of institu- ransboundaryenvironmental governance in the the Pacific West, combined with a history of local and local Pacific of the history a with West, combined kind ofactivity. inherent lack of political and financial incentives for this pions, tend efforts transboundary to languish due to the of “transboundary” work. In the absence of such cham- state governors have been crucial to elevating the profile between different sets of B.C. premiers and Washington is clear that the close personal and working relationships estimated.chapter,this in on touched it only Although promoting of cooperation,transboundary cannot be over- cause the “champion” to willing are who viduals sectors. across mobilization of kind this for basis the as place likeRWB Lakethe and Roosevelt havecoalitions used local officials and property owners. Effective campaigns scientists, activists, of associations mobilizing on relies environmentalism,”watershed valleyor a saving where “place-based focused highly of context the in cessful Interestingly, intersectoral cooperation may be most suc- process.planning collaborative a in engage to inability Council’sthe in weakness similar revealsa BCWECC the of examination Carruthers’ stakeholders. gruntled dis- by efforts reform for basis telling,the is is and tors sec- across collaborativeefforts sustain and mobilize to River Columbia Pacific and the Salmon treaty regimes Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Blatter 2001). The failure of 2006; 2006;Bocher (Carruthers making icy Millenium crucial element a in developing capacity for regional as pol- identified been groups—has environmental and economic citizens, officials, political between eration are infrastructure situated. toolsandcritical regulatory capacity,policy where will,and political greater be may states and provinces focuses efforts at the level wheredifferent level, there recent strategic coalition-building among border. a the At of sides both on differently addressed being are which change) climate (particularly stressors facilitatecommunicationoverarching on environmental to needed transparency.are frameworksmid-level cross-border Such bureaucratic and networking tionships, State-B.C.relaWashington- personal borderlands, the encourages which within actors and issues of proximity spatial by helped is stakeholders.Cooperation and vants environmentalof degree in high consciousness The indi- of and leadership, of importance the Third, coop- is, cooperation—that inter-sectoral Second, Donald K. Alper february 2010 147 N 12 13 Trail 12 Alsek River River Tatshenshini Atlin Lake River Taku Stikine River Fraser River Strait of Georgia Strait of Juan de Fuca Puget Sound Skagit River Similkameen River Columbia River Lake Roosevelt 11 12 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 11. 10. 12. 13. 6 10 6 Seattle 9 Vancouver 7 8 d WASHINGTON n la Is ernment leaders with the environmental and resource enormous an be will communities local of perspectives - institu transboundary the question, Without challenge. ensure to able be must future the of processes and tions effective coordination across jurisdictions and scales, - cre expertise, of wealth the to responsive being while communities in lies that experience cultural and ativity West. Pacific the throughout

r e v u co n a V BRITISH COLUMBIA BRITISH 5 Stewart YUKON 3 200 miles 200 4 Juneau Whitehorse OCEAN PACIFIC 2 1 Skagway

0

Canada ALASKA USA appendix 9.1 regional innovation and strong leadership from gover- experimen-meanmoreto likely are premiers, and nors tation with forms of environmental The governance. potential power of the climate change issue is enor- mous in terms of reframing and redirecting thinking about subsidiary issues such as forestry, ocean policy, wilderness, water and Meshingsalmon. the somewhat grandiose policy agendas of state and - gov provincial 148 Canada Institute occasional paper series ______. “Cross-border Regions: A Step Toward Blatter, Joachim. Cross-border asa “Emerging Regions BC SpacesforNature. Tatshenshini-Alsek Provincial Badenoch, Nathan. Transboundary Environmental Associated Press. 2008. Declinesto “High Court Artibise, Alan F. J. “Cascadian Adventures: Shared Alper, DonaldK., L. andRobert Monahan. “Regional Alper, DonaldK., andDebraJ. Salazar. “Identification ______. “Conflicting Transborder Visions and Agendas: Alper, DonaldK. Collaborative“Emerging Frameworks Reference America. InCooperation, EnvironmentandSustainability Considerations from ExamplesinEurope andNorth Sustainable Development? and Experiences ofEconomicDevelopment 2(2000):Journal 402-39. Step Toward Sustainable Development.” International greatspaces/tatshenshini.html. Park, 2008. Available at: http://www.spacesfornature.org/ cfm?PubID=3160 Available at: www.wri.org/governance/pubs_toc. Southeast Asia. World Resources Institute, 2002. Governance: andPracticeinMainland Principles html. NW_010708ENB_teck_cominco_scotus_JM.1b1b5a8f. Available at: http://www.king5.com/business/stories/ Review Teck Cominco Ruling.” January 7, 2008. ColumbiaPress,British 2005. Townsend Gault, 238-67. Vancouver: University of in aGlobal World, editedby HeatherNicolandIan a Transborder Region.” InHoldingtheLine: Borders Visions, in Strategic Barriers Alliances andIngrained Canadian Public Policy12(1986): 163-74. River Treaty: Analysis andFuture Application.” Transboundary NegotiationsLeadingtotheSkagit Studies 20(2006): 23-43. Columbia Environmentalists.” ofBorderlands Journal Transboundary Governance: A CaseStudyofBritish with Transboundary forEcological PlacesandSupport ColumbiaPress,University ofBritish 2005. Nicol andIan Townsend Gault, 222-37. Vancouver, BC: the Line: Borders inaGlobal World, edited by Heather Economic andEnvironmental Cascadians.” InHolding 19 (2004): 79-98. Puget SoundEcosystem.” ofBorderlands Studies Journal for Environmental Governance Basin- intheGeorgia s Cohen, Stewart J. 2006. “Climate ChangeandManaging Clarke, Susan. and “Regional Transnational Discourse: Cernetig, Miro. “Cascadia: More Than aDream.” The Careless, Rick. To Save the .Wild Earth Vancouver: Canadian DelegationoftheCanada-UnitedStates Bunting, Robert. ThePacific Raincoast: Environment and Bula, Frances. “A Tale of Three Cities.” The Vancouver Sun, Brownstein, Ronald. “Go Green, Young Man.” TheSeattle Brooks, David, andJonathan Fox. NAFTA: Ten Years Bratspies, Rebecca, andRussell A. Miller, eds. Bocher, Michael. GovernanceThe ConceptofRegional and ClimateChange Workshop, Winnipeg, March 3, Columbia Basin.” Presented attheHydro Power for MultipleObjectives: From the Experiences 2 (2000): 5-22. Cascadia.” ofEconomicDevelopment Journal International The Politics ofIdeasandEconomicDevelopment in Vancouver Sun, 14 14,April 2007: B1. Raincoast, 1997. U_S/mai01/cdausrp42-e.htm#toc-e. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/interparl/associations/ Group Annual Meeting, May 17-21, 2001. Available at: Meeting. Canada-UnitedStatesInter-Parliamentary Parliamentary Group totheForty-Second Annual Delegation oftheCanada-UnitedStatesInter- Inter-Parliamentary Group. oftheCanadian Report University ofKansasPress, 1997. Culture inan Eden 1778-1900.American Lawrence, KS: May 5, 2007: B1, B3. Times, 19,April 2007: J6. online.org/reports/2004/0403nafta_body.html. Special Report, 2004. Available at: http://americas.irc- of Cross-border Dialogues. IRC Program Americas University Press, 2006. the Trail Smelter Arbitration. Cambridge: Cambridge Transboundary Law: inInternational Harms LessonsFrom regional_governance_boecher_hagen.pdf. md/contnet/politikwissenschaft/lgi/projektbmvel/ Available at: http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/imperia/ in Different NationalFundingProgrammes, 2006. Diego: SanDiegoUniversity Press, 2001. in Border Regions, editedby Paul Ganster, 33-59. San Donald K. Alper february 2010 149 Boardman, 246-62. Toronto: Oxford University Press, Press, University Oxford Toronto: 246-62. Boardman, 1992. B5. 1991: April 8, Sun, Vancouver The 2008. February 20, , The Globe and Mail Leader.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ at: Available story/LAC.20080220.BCCARBON20/TPStory/ TPNational/BritishColumbia. Available 2007. 30, January Juneau Empire, Mine.” http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/013007/ at: . loc_20070130003.shtml Ithaca: Networks in International Politics. Advocacy Borders: 1998. Cornell Press, University Don’t We In What Chasing an Illusion?” Northwest: edited by Northwest Fish Runs, Pacific About Know OR: Portland, 91-143. Katz, and Mike Patrica Koss 2000. Press, State University Portland on the High Ross “Perspectives Jarosz. Evelyn of the Skagit 1 and 2 Oral History Treaty—Phases and Social Health Environmental Seattle: Project.” 2004. Center, Policy Ride Wilderness River Thrills on a Rafters’ Tempers 2004: October 17, News, Alaska Daily Near Juneau.” H1.. 2008. Basin.” in the Columbia River Governance http://www.globalnature.org/bausteine.net/ at: Available file/showfile.aspx?downdaid=6199&sp=E&domid=1011 &fd=2. http://tnews. at: Available 1995. Rim, Northeast Pacific . com:80/text/mccloskey.html.CascadiaPlanet Journal of Wilderness Decision.” Preservation Alsek 123-41. Environmental Management 57 (1999): World DC: Washington, Synthesis. Being, Well Human http://www. at: Available 2005. Institute, Resources Hume, Mark. “U.S., Pressure Could Kill Copper Mine.” Kill Copper Mine.” Could Pressure “U.S., Mark. Hume, a Climate-Change B.C. “Plan Makes Mark. Hume, Access to as Proposed River “Taku Empire. Juneau Activists Beyond and Kathryn Sikkink. E., Margaret Keck, Salmon to the Pacific Wild “Restoring T. Robert Lackey, and Sara Breslow Dorinda Bixler, Edward, Liebow, Threat Mining Taku: the “Cloud Over Nancy. Lord, “Water and Michelle-Lee Moore. S., James Mattison, A Great Green Land on the Cascadia: David. McCloskey, Tatshenshini- Analysis of the “An L. T. McDaniels, Ecosystems and Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem University University Press of Kansas, 1997. of Kansas, Press Case Study of Climate Change Implication Basin: on Symposium Watersheds.” Transboundary for for the Organizing the Science Climate Change: April 4-6, Argentina, Mendoza, American Cordillera, http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/ at: Available 2006. gosalclimatemanagement.html. in Collaboration “Transboundary Rana. Naureen Integrating Lessons from Ecosystem Management: University manuscript, Unpublished Experience.” and of Michigan School of Natural Resources 2001. Environment, Organized Interests Values, Postmaterial Columbia: Policy and Government In Politics, Politics.” and Party 290-309. Carty, K. R. edited by in British Columbia, of British University Columbia Press, Vancouver: 1996. In Canadian Environmental Policy.” in Environmental R. edited by Politics and Processes, Ecosystems, Policy: 2006. Available at: http://c-ciarn.mcgill.ca/Stewart%20 at: Available 2006. . Cohen%20HP2006.pdf 2004. 23, July , Seattle Post-Intelligencer in Reshuffling.” http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/ at: Available ben333. The Georgia Sound Basin-Puget Waters: of Marine Challenges in the Policy In Transboundary Example.” James America, edited by Regions of North Border Pacific Calgary: 141-70. Day, C. and J. Alper Donald Loucky, 2008. of Calgary Press, University “Emergingfor Bilateral Management Institutions American Review of Basin.” of the Columbia River 217-32. Canadian Studies 26 (1996): Salmon Co- Northwest Interplay in the Pacific 441- Marine Policy 27 (2003): management Regime.” 48. Culture, Place, Wests: In Many Northwest.” in the Pacific and Wrobel M. David edited by & Regional Identity, KS: Lawrence, 37-50. Steiner, Michael C. Gosal, K. “Climate Change in the Columbia River River “Climate Change in the Columbia K. Gosal, and Mangle, William Chase Huntley, Elizabeth, Harris, in British Protection “Environmental Kathryn. Harrison, “Comparing Canadian Performance George. Hoberg, Connelly, Joel. “Canada’s Environment Loses Key Ally Loses Key Environment “Canada’s Joel. Connelly, “Binational Governance Calbick. S. and K. C., J. Day, Hackett. C. and Nancy Boudreau, Kristan M. J.C., Day, Institutionalized Through “Enhanced Fit A. Syma Ebbin, Regional Identity Proposition: “A Fishy M. John Findlay, 150 Canada Institute occasional paper series Selin, Henrik, and StacyD. VanDeever. “Canadian- Robinson-Dorn, Michael. “The Trail Smelter: Is What’s Roberts, Kari. “A ContinentalDivide? Rethinkingthe Robbins, William G. “Nature’s Northwest: InSearch ofa Rabe. G. Barry StatehouseandGreenhouse: The Emerging Perry, Richard, Joachim Blatter, andHelenIngram. Parrish, Austin L. “Trail SmelterDéjà Vu: Norman, Emma, andKaren Bakker. andBarriers “Drivers Muckleston, Keith W. Managementinthe “International Morgan, Lance, SaraMaxwell, Fan Tsao, Tara A.C. U.S. Environmental Cooperation: ClimateChange 14(2006):Journal 233-321. CERCLA.” New York University EnvironmentalLaw Past Prologue? The EPA BlazesaNew Trail for the Canada West Foundation, 2006. Canada-US Border Relationship.” prepared Report by 82. Corvallis: Oregon StateUniversity Press, 2001. Regional Identity, editedby William G. Robbins, 158- Pacific Region.” InTheGreatNorthwest: for The Search DC: Brookings InstitutionPress, 2004. Politics of Climate ChangePolicy.American Washington, Press, 2001. Helen Ingram, 321-40. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Conflict andCooperation, editedby Joachim Blatterand Reflections on Water: New to Approaches Transboundary Research andGovernance inaGlocalized World.” In “Lessons from theSpacesofUnbound Water for University LawReview85(2006): 363-427. Transboundary Water Pollution Disputes.” Boston Law, andtheSearch forSolutionstoCanada-U.S. Extraterritoriality, Environmental International Foundation, November 8, 2005. States.” tothe Report Walter andDuncanGordon A CaseStudyof Western CanadaandtheUnited of Cooperationin Transboundary Water Governance: unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001332/133292e.pdf. Documents inHydrology, 2002. Available at: http:// Columbia River System.” UNESCOIHP Technical files/pdf/biodiversity/B2B_PCAs_en.pdf. North America, 2005. Available at: http://www.cec.org/ Sea. CommissionforEnvironmental Cooperationin Conservation Areas: totheBering BajaCalifornia Wilkinson, andPeter Etnoyer. Priority Marine 3/24/08). millenniumassessment.org/en/synthesis.aspx (accessed Young, O. R. “Evaluating theEffectiveness of ______. “Towards Cross-border Environmental VanNijnatten, DeborahL. “Analyzing theCanada- ResearchUnited StatesCongressional Service. “Canada- Tsao, Chih-Fan, LanceE. Morgan, andSaraMaxwell. Todd, Douglas. Future“The Ecological ofCascadia.” The Taylor, Joseph E. RootsoftheCanadian- “The Historical Sullivan, Kathleen. “Discursive PracticesandCompeting Stiffler, Lisa. Introduced “Legislation toRestore Puget Springer, Allen L.. “From Trail SmeltertoDevils Lake: Smith, J. Patrick “Transborder Cascadia: Opportunities Environmental Politics1(2001): 99-121. EnvironmentalInternational Regimes. Global oftheCenter The Journal 3(2006). Americas Linkages ontheCanada-U.S. Border.” AmeriQuests: Policy SpacesinNorth America: Province-State (2003): 93-120. Approach.” ReviewofCanadianStudies33 American U.S. Environmental Relationship: A Multifaceted U.S. Relations.” 96-397, CRSReport 2007. BasinResearch Conference,Sound Georgia 2005. SeaInitiative.Bering Proceedings ofthe2005Puget Conservation to Areaa Priority intheBajaCalifornia Selectedas BasinRegion The PugetSound/Georgia Vancouver Sun, May 8, 2008: B3. University of Washington Press, 2002. by John M. Findlay andKen S. Coates, 155-80. Seattle: Relations Canadian-American West, oftheRockies edited Salmon American Wars.” InParallel Destinies: 2001. Ingram, 163-88. Cambridge, MA: The MITPress, Cooperation, editedby Joachim BlatterandHelen on Water: New to Approaches Transboundary Conflictand Pacific SalmonResources.”American InReflections intheGovernanceDiscourses of Wild North Sound.” SeattlePost-Intelligencer,June 27, 2008: B1. ReviewofCanadianStudies37(2007):American 77-102. EnvironmentalCanadian-American Disputes.” The NeedforEffective Federal Involvement in 99-121. and Obstacles.” ofBorderlands Studies19(2004): Journal Canadian Studies35(2005): 353-78. Networks andRegional Action.” Reviewof American Donald K. Alper february 2010 151

Journal for for Journal , and , The British Columbia Quarterly Columbia British The Sustaining the Forests of the Pacific Coast: Forging Forging Coast: Pacific the of Forests the Sustaining BC Studies: BC ARCS, AmericanAlper is Review a of member Canadian of Studies (ARCS). Transboundary Policy Challenges in the Pacific Border Regions of North America North of Regions Border Pacific the in Challenges Policy Transboundary has been director of the Center for Canadian American Studies at Western Washington University University Washington Western at Studies American Canadian for Center the of director been has Alper K. as editor and contributing author (University of Calgary, 2007), and 2007), Calgary, of (University contributing author and editor as 2001). of British as editor and contributing author (University Columbia Press, Woods in the War the in Truces . His publications include publications His Studies. Borderland Donald Alper In since is addition 1993. also to professor of this political directorship, science and director of the Border at Award Retention/Recruitmenta as well as Awards Merit three of recipient the is He Institute. Research Policy Western instrumental making in was he recently, Most teaching. in excellence for University Washington Western the University new home of the Washington the Advisory Board for the Canada Institute of the Woodrow Wilson Wilson International Center He for is Scholars. an Advisory the Board for the Woodrow Canada Institute of the including boards, editorial several of member active While a relative “latecomer” to the debate over how to protect the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin ecosystem, Québec, since joining the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement of 2005, has continued to define its role as a protector and defender. The author analyzes the motivation and impact of these developments from the standpoint of two possible incentives: interdependence and self identity on the international stage. The later motivation, international status, is explored against the background of the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine of 1965, which asserts that Québec has the power to conclude treaties in Chapter 10: the areas where it enjoys exclusive authority. In recent decades, the doc- trine has led to Québec’s concluding some 550 international agreements. Along the However, when it comes to water issues, Québec’s leaders have signalled a growing acceptance of regional interdependence and seem more inclined Domestic- towards a type of collaborative rather than competitive federalism. Given that Quebec wants to convey the image of an autonomous actor on the Foreign Frontier: international scene, the authors speculate that the province sees regional cooperation as a means of harmonizing environmental policies without Québec and the giving over that responsibility to the federal government. In this case of intertwined principles, the environment, as well as the province, can be Management of the seen as the beneficiary. St. Lawrence River Basin Introduction Philippe Le Prestre aving signed the 2001 Great Lakes Charter Annex, along with Ontario and eight Great Lakes State Governors, Québec, on Anaïz Parfait Dec. 13, 2005, joined the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Université Laval H Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement. In doing so, it pledged to act jointly in order to protect, conserve and restore these waters, to promote information exchange, and to prevent the negative impacts of water withdrawals. This implied the need to devise common norms and standards for the management of water in the basin, irrespective of the type of extractive activity or the location of the water. What has been the nature and extent of Québec’s engagement and how can it be explained? After recalling the context and describing the extent of Québec’s regional cooperation on water issues, two explana- tions are considered: interdependence, i.e., those links that force the 152 Philippe Le Prestre and Anaïz Parfait february 2010 153

2 1 ies ies egional T he International Dimension he International and two consult provinces to and notify, seek consent from one another regarding any project of diversion limited to providing technical expertise (Allee 1993), it technical expertise (Allee limited 1993), to providing is only since the signature of the Great Lakes Charter in 1985 that Québec has been more involved directly in the management of the basin. water Domestically, management is shared between the federal and prov- incial a governments, pragmatic that arrangement 2002 in that only was has It framework. complex a produced adop- the to led which policy water a adopted Québec can in tion part, of principlesnew that, and procedures be traced to subnational international agreements. T 2005 2001 and of 1985, agreements The subnational which (BWT), Treaty The has Waters Boundarybeen Lakes Great of institutionalization the of foundation the management between Canada and the The United States, initiatives. subnational numerous for way the paved the in active increasingly are states border and provinces management of natural and resources the environment At the (Allee end 1993). of the the 1970s, Great Lakes governors realized the potential threat of water diver- Southwest. the dryof the states of favor in projects sion of premiers the with consultation in decided, then They Charter Lakes Great the adopt to OntarioQuébec, and a unique bilateral “represents effort to clean which also up the Great Lakes basin This (Sproule-Jones act 2002, 44). at of goodwill, signed the subnational level” on both covers Februaryground 1985, and 11, surface states eight the for obligation new a is core its At waters. the impact of this international engagement on domes- internationalon this engagement of impact the the in participation Québec’s has example, For policy. tic Agreement triggered norms, the adoption of new 2005 ones? existing or strengthened Expanding R Expanding Québec’s cooperation with the and with Great Ontario takes place Lakes in the larger context states of Canada-United States cooperation governed by International the Joint Although Commission it (IJC). has played a certain role within the IJC over the years, ­­ (Giroux 1991) which contribute l ica ional, and Histor itut l, Inst aphica ogr Québec holds three percent of the world’s renewable renewable world’s the of percent three holds Québec The river has been closely associated with Québec’s fresh fresh water (Québec 1999b) economy is and Québec’s 1997, in example, For resources. water its to tied strongly of percent 96 than more for accounted hydroelectricity Québec’s total electricity production (although much of this comes power from outside the Shipping basin). lanes offer a major trade and advantage, the environ- mental industry has more than 350 firms specializing in water issues, employing more accounts for 40 percent River Lawrence than The St. 6,000 (ibid.). people of freshwater renewable and Québec’s provides drink- to million ing three people water in 100 municipalities (Québec 2002). identity ever Rivières, Trois sailed it Maisonneuve to found Québec, since Champlain, and in Montréal, respectively, the Laviolette, early 17th century. and in importance economic and reflected symbolic is This status special Lawrence St. grantthe to wishes Québec’s “recognize to as so policy management water new its in Quebeckers” all for intrinsicvalue its of importance the (Québec 2005: 39). One of the major challenges for is to therefore, protect Québec, its interests within the governance structure of the Great Lawrence Lakes-St. 1991). basin (Giroux 80 percent of the flow of the St. Lawrence at Montréal at Lawrence St. the of percentflow the80of (Québec 2002). eart of Québec’s Québec’s at the Heart of A River and Identity Economy five the cover basin Lawrence St. and Lakes Great The to down Lawrence River GreatLakesasasthe well St. includes watershed huge This Rivières. Trois of city the 18 percent of the fresh water ofis thehome world, to 40 million people, has been the industrial heartland of the American Midwest as well as of Ontario and Québec, and represents 3,700 km of shipping consti- lanes. river the of length the of three-fifths upper The tute the Great Lakes The Ge ement Involv ’s of Québec ext Cont Province to cooperate Province more closely with its neighbors, that and desire Québec’s is, identity, to bypass Ottawa This areas. certain issue in interests specific assertits and first section also leads naturally to questions regarding 154 Canada Institute occasional paper series Great Lakes. the from proposals withdrawal be water new will to applied standard That standard. conservation based resource-common,new a implement and develop to well, as commit, and Charter, the in set principles to commitment their reaffirm they where Charter Lakes Great the to Annex 2001 the sign to governors eight the and Québec, Ontario led have water of quantities in themanagementofGreat Lakes (Francis1989). Québec’s participation of direct beginning the marked agreement IV).This (Principle Basin Lakes Great the of or reduction of CO of reduction the for plan regional short-term a develop and rain, issues, salient as the such acid to follow politically mandate with Environment the on Committee Conference a the created 1984, as early As 1973. in creation its upon Premiers Canadian Eastern and Governors problem-solving” (ibid.). groups, and conferences that have emerged out of daily act via a multitude of collaborative agreements, working links between provinces and states in such 1995. 100 “They than inter- more were there Kirton, and Munton (VanNijnattento 2006).AccordingCanada and States in subnational regional increase environmental significant cooperation between a the United saw 1990s The Québec’s growing regional integration BodywithabroadResources Regional mandate. Lakes‑St.RiverGreatLawrence the Watercreates also wateron cooperation and withdrawals. The Agreement resources,water the of management and conservation promotion of an adaptive management approach to the consultations.public objectivesof Its series a after developedwere which commitments 2001 the implements Agreement Resources Water Sustainable cooperation in the areas of air quality, energy, climate significant and CO encouraged and also mercury, Conference change. The rain, acid on subcommittees three its in and Committee the in actively participates of the same states, pre- which the Québec and Ontario Governors Lakes Great of Council the with regularly Commission as associate members. Québec collaborates emissions (ibid.). ute cnen rgrig xottos f large of exportations regarding concerns Further Québec joined the Conference of New England England New of Conference the joined Québec Finally, the 2005 Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin In 1999, Québec and Ontario joined the Great Lakes osmto o lre uniis f ae from water of quantities large of ­consumption 3 2 emissions (Rausch 1997). Québec1997). (Rausch emissions include the include 2

watershed, the Bay of Missisquoi, of Bay the rently active. Canadian and American neighbors, of which 11 are cur- (Lubin 2003, 2004). It has signed agreements with all its bors in several areas, notably pollution, water,neigh- its and energy with cooperates VanDeveerQuébec 2006). and Selin 2006;Boardman 2006;(VanNijnatten 2004, cooperation environmentaltransborder towardgreater trend general a more reflects basin Lawrence St. and Lawrence basin. introduction St.and LakesinvasiveGreat alien the of into species the preventing with concerned Force TaskSpecies Invasive the Aquatic of activities the ing groups of the Council. Currently, it is closely follow- working in some status observer with participated has 1997.Québec in members associate as joined miers Lakes-St. Lawrence basin, or are general in nature. mental impacts, mental provinces in those areas where provinces enjoy exclu- enjoyprovinces where areas those in provinces approvalof the requirelaw, may implementation their Canadian in enforceable directly not are treaties since them.for basis legal Moreover,a is therewheretreaties initiate to capacity the retain to wishes Québec ters, mat- external in government federal the of supremacy subject of law.international Thus, while recognizing the only the longer no is state haveargued,the (1989-90) 2006).(Paquin ments However, and Dupré as Théroux agreements are only nonbinding administrative - arrange clude real international agreements and argues that such The first one does not recognize provinces’right to con- perspectives,federal,one provincial,one have emerged. (Jacomy-Millettesigned by Britain 1977). eral government with the capacity to implement treaties clause, which some consider outmoded, entrusts the fed- who Canada, Boundary the signed Waters of Treaty name 1909).in one Only the in Britain, was (it crown British the under then were activities these since ters mat- external for responsible is federation the of body which specify not does 1867 of Act American North British 2006).(Paquin The rules clear no follows ters eral and provincial governments over international mat- In Canada, the allocation betweenof authority the fed- Québec’s international legal status what isthelegalbasisofsuchactions? Cooperation on issues pertaining to the Greatthe to Lakes pertaining issues on Cooperation In the absence of formal constitutional provisions, two 7 Lake Champlain, 4 The agreements cover transborder environ- 5 acid rain, acid 9 the management of the Great the of management the 6 the Lake Memphrémagog Lake the 8 phosphorus reductionphosphorus in 10 But Philippe Le Prestre and Anaïz Parfait february 2010 155 12

13 The provincial water policy was made public in Indeed, Indeed, the two levels of government play differ- he Internal Dimension he Internal November 2002, with implementation entrusted to the entrustedto implementation with 2002, November and Environment, Development, Sustainable of Ministry Québec’s water policy water Québec’s Québec’s ample supply of water has long delayed the emergence of It a was provincial water only policy. in December 1997, against an international context increasing concern of for water issues, that a symposium on water management led to the first global picture of the Then, Québec. in water of management and use the initiated consultations public which led to government future the for framework general a of establishment the policy. Québec water T of authority spheres and provincial Federal The is environment a responsibility shared by Québec and according Ottawa (Bédard to Nevertheless, 2004). Articlesthe own 1867 of provinces the Confederation, govern- Federal the Accordingly, resources. natural their ment must recognize the supremacy of the provinces the have in Provinces water management (Allee 1993). right to pass regulating its laws use (Brandes 2005) and & (Loë resource the for primaryresponsibility hold they Québec also grants“water that Yet, Kreutzwiser 2007). is a complex reality that often falls under jurisdic-two involve- Ottawa’s accepts and 22) 1997, Québec ( tions” ment in research, particularly as it pertains to the St. River. Lawrence ent roles since water is also a strategic resource for the leading a claims Québec whole. a as economy Canadian role in the management of water in its and ecosystems territory, and of protection the for responsibility takes sources of drinkingIt is water. in charge of managing ofand grantingregulating water flows, user and rights, pol- has to the pass supply, water power regarding laws - gov Federal The development. hydroelectric and lution, gathering in role important an plays part, its for ernment, pro- substances, toxic regulating data, disseminating and author- with pollution, preventing and research moting waters, boundary shipping, fisheries, and oceans over ity and water resources on land under federal jurisdiction. since In much general, however, authority is not for- mally allocated to one redundancies or level the other, case the is as laws, of number the is so and common are River. Lawrence pertaining to the St. with laws

11 Québec invokes a constitutional dualism, which it On the basis of the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, Québec has Québec doctrine, Gérin-Lajoie the of basis the On Québec has concluded more than 550 international sees as the foundation of the federation, to justify signing signing justify to federation, the of foundation the as sees Gérin- The agreements. international implementing and Lajoie doctrine of 1965, which has governed official thinking in this area (regardless of the party in power), asserts that Québec has the power to conclude treat- ies in the areas where it enjoys It exclusive authority. can establish and pursue bilateral relations with other countries and international organizations and 2006). (Paquin countries other set in representations official up con- have governments Québec successive Accordingly, extension international the claim to duty their it sidered 2006). of authorityof their spheres (Turp adopted enabling legislation to support its internationallegislationsupportits to enabling adopted These agreements laws cover signed by responsibilities. internationalforumsparticipationin Québec’s Québec, in Canada agreementsand by signed organizations, and The prov- areas where Québec has authority. exclusive incial minister of International Relations is responsible accords. international implementing and negotiating for Since any 2002, important international commitments submit- be must government Québec the by undertaken ted to whether the signed National Assembly, directly by Québec or requiring assent Québec’s for its imple- mentation on the basis that albeit signed by Canada, Consultation spheres of Québec’s it authority. involves in place in put often are provinces the with mechanisms of chance better a stand treaties that ensure to cases such 2006). being implemented (Paquin agreements in the last few decades (Paquin 2006) and has more than 30 delegations, offices or local agents abroad (Québec The 2006). province is a member of the Organisation Internationale de It la Francophonie. also has taken part in the activities and conferences of Cultural and Scientific Educational, Nations United the agree- 2006 May a since ever (UNESCO) Organization ment established the position of sentative of Québec permanent within the repre- Canadian UNESCO its Québec assent has to given more Finally, delegation. spheres own its in Canada by signed agreements 30 than 2006). of constitutional authority (Turp sive sive authority (Jacomy-Millette 1977), as with environmental most and resource matters. Indeed, in Québec participate and consulted be should it that claimed has the negotiation of international agreements that touch powers. upon provincial 156 Canada Institute occasional paper series tradicted by evidence: severalleast at followingthe of arecon- statements not Lawrence-Great Lakes, one should be able to show that involvementinternational in the management of the St. destiny (Dehousse1991). common a of sense greater a to lead and denser ever growthat transborderinteractions informal and formal directly linked to increased interdependence and to the availableproblemssolutions.and is the It of nature the est here, is conditioned by geography in and similarities and global paradiplomacy. The first type, ofgreater inter- three types of paradiplomacy: transborder, transregional, identifies (1990) 2004).Duchacek (Paquin federations American and Canadian the of members of activities international the referenceto in 1980s the in literature the in entities, subnational appears of activities lomatic concept of “paradiplomacy,”concept 2004b).Paquin1990; & (Duchacek Lachapelle ity The author- exclusive their within lie Canada,that of case the or, in interests their affect that areas issue in role international active more a play to units subnational towards system globalization international and the of crisis the state have encouraged the of evolution The Interdependence stage. international the on interests specific its assert and Ottawa bypass to areas, certain Québec’sidentity, desire,reflects in which Québec to cooperate more closely with its neighbors, and growing sense of collective regional interests has incented nations readilyto mind:spring interdependence, where a agreements and the nature of its involvement? Two expla- H Regional W Explainig Québec’s Involvemnt in vices, and recreation. Furthermore, this policy identifies River, aquatic ecosystems, water supply and quality ser- ernance, the integrated management of the St. Lawrence Parks (MDDEP). Its five major concerns are, water gov- f hs prah ee sfl o xli Québec’s explain to useful were approach this If issues under the Greatthe under issues Lakes St.and Lawrence managementwaterregional active in rolean ow can we explain both Québec’s desire to play a ter Management 14 which refers to the dip- the to refers which management inasustainable development context. water integrated ecosystems,and aquatic of protection Quebeckers,all and of health public heritage common issues: threeimportant recognitionthe waterthat the is Our industrial development, our scientific potential, our ing interdependence is a most stimulating challenge. . . . 1991:in Relations International grow-this “Managing for minister Québec’s by expressed was dependence inter- economic increased of face the in cooperation international of interdependence. this importance The of consequence direct the is 1970s the in perspective ecosystem an of IJC the by adoption the ate.Indeed, incentivean is cooper- and to vulnerability sitivityand states. Ecological interdependence enhances actors’ sen- tion from the Midwest. Québec borders four American pollu- air fromdownstream as well as watershed mon the bottom. with avoiding an interprovincial and transborder race to would also mean that the province should be concerned interdependence).It (ecological environmentalreasons for actors regional other with cooperation on depends pendence and believe that successful water management interde- ecological Québec’s of conscious are makers decision that mean wouldinvolvement,Québec’s this If interdependence were significant as an explanation for on cooperation withregional actors? Is theeffectiveness ofQuébec’s policydependent ■ ■ ■

coalitions inthewater issuearea; transbordercreationof the to waterand of agement man- the to pertaining areas issue in cooperation of emergence the to led have networks Transborder with itsneighbors; the St. Lawrence watershed depends on cooperation The effectiveness of Québec’s water policy regarding Ecologically, Québec lies downstream from a com- a fromdownstream Ecologically, lies Québec policy. domestic its of development water the its to and of resources management the to threats perceived external to response a is involvement Québec’s Philippe Le Prestre and Anaïz Parfait february 2010 157 Further, “with the opening of bor- Further, 15 Many Many organizations on both sides of the border Sustained transborder cooperation started in the ders to trade and investment, regions that are becoming are that regions investment, and trade dersto are also another one with integrated economically more more likely to share transjurisdictional pollution prob- American the 2005, In 655). 2004, (VanNijnatten lems” exports, annual Québec’s of percent 80 absorbed market accounting for one-third of Québec’s was gross trade that of domestic two-thirds because and (GDP), product with the New England and Midwestern states (ENAP integrationeconomic that infer easily could one 2006), cooperation. environmental stronger for ground the lay to work protect the watershed or advance the interests of water Without users. more extensive it research, is difficult to show a causalrelation between their activ- equally be it would but involvement, ism and Québec’s a context created that to that they deny hard facilitated Québec strong with Organizations involvement. an such For interdependence. of web this illustrate help will links an import-Coalition Eau Secours! has played example, ant in role fostering public concern and pressuring the government to defend and strengthen the 2005 agree- And transborder there are additional noteworthy ment. cooperation including. networks, Great Lakes United, an international coalition dedicated to preserving and restoring the Great Lakes and the Lawrence St. River ecosystem, and the International Association of Great Lakes established and in Lawrence Mayors, St. the late heightened heightened public concern which leads the to with top, convergence being races explained by to similar on policymakers. pressures domestic in led to cooperation networks transborder Have of water? pertaining to management issue areas An interdependence approach would the also development portend of new networkson water issues arising of out of the existing cooperationnetworks in other issue areas, or the creation of transborder networks and coalitions specifically concerned issues. water with natural resources power, with the transportation, 1960s, and tourism States sectors. and provinces set up trans- border structures in order to promote their common 2003-2004). information(Lubin exchange and interests This to cooperation the has point evolved where New England governors and Eastern “foreign” Premiers do really not be even to border the of side other the consider (Duchacek 1984). The interdependence of the St. Lawrence River and the Lawrence River of the St. The interdependence Great Lakes calls for increased participation Québec by within the international agencies active in managing these .The . bodies . quantity of and water. quality of The depend waters in part on external Québec’s factors. down- River, Lawrence St. the is example obvious most stream The from levels the as and Great significantly flows, Lakes. are Lawrence St. the of quality, water as well human decisions phenomena and by natural affected by 30) made upstream (Québec 2002, lit- know we although Harrison(2006), to According Rather than a race to the bottom, evidence points tle about the nature of interprovincial interdependence, interdependence, interprovincial of nature the about tle it can lead to a race to the bottom, where provinces might be tempted to is weaken there their when norms in order However, to investments. new attract or keep sup- (and policy particular a of favor in support popular prov- Québec), in strong is management portwater for inces are less vulnerable to interprovincial competition the (ibid.). Moreover, federal government may inter- and tryvene to harmonize in to standards order defuse envi- According to Olewiler (2006), such competition. which in stable Canada, normsronmental relatively are competi- positive or negative a for evidence that means regu- strengthened for demands when But weak. is tion one lation can are observe high, increased competition poli- little, by little then, legislation; stronger to leads that greater harmonization. toward cies move long has management Watershed direction. other the in been in place in whereas it Ontario, was only in 2002 policy water new its implemented formally Québec that There is based thus on greaterthat approach. evidence of a race Incidents not to involving only the pub- top. lic but health, also water heightened allocation, public sensitivities and led to new legislation and regulations in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia (Loë and policy their revised provinces Many 2007). Kreutzwiser following those incidents; they Ontario. and include Saskatchewan, Nova Manitoba, Scotia, Alberta, Québec, The adoption of tougher norms is directly linked to cultural dynamism, as well as our social development are to linked our capacity ensure to conclude alliances, and offer exchanges to collaborations, the of advantage the need Furthermore, VIII- IX). (Québec 1991, each” for cooperation with régional also expressed actors was Policy: Water 2002 in Québec’s 158 Canada Institute occasional paper series bulk. in exported be could water Québec that Employment and Economy the on Summit provincial 1996 a ing 1996,waterdur- in city made suggestion wellthe as as in response about the privatization to of fears Montreal 2001). (Elwell basin the from water of diversions and structures,trol con- flow projects, control withdrawals, erosion large dams, as such systems,water basin to alterations large prevent non- to eager and (NGOs) organizations governmental citizens with concerns raised have ments new over concerns water from exports theregion. raised 1994 and 1989 in agreements trade Free (ibid.). America North in transfers massivetransborder be to yetcountry, are each there in place take already transfers water resources.though ownEven overtheir exert states provincesand Lakes Great that control the threatening as perceived been projects,have diversion water new as well Southwest,as the in the West,and Midwest,upper in the in water for need growing The began in the 1960s in the United States (Lasserre 2005). and transfers. exports water as threats,such external from watershed protectSt.orderto the in agreements signed Lawrence involvement, one should find evidence that Québec has If interdependence were a useful explanation of Québec’s threats tothemanagement ofitswater resources? Is Québec’s involvement a response to perceived external common strategytoprotect andimprove theresource. their common and precious environment, of awarenessand develop raising a to contribute interests, common discover,their promoteto and opportunity support an both sides of the border. Its objectives are to give mayors cipalities, as well as public and private organizations from system. Its aremembers Canadian and muni- American Lawrence Lakes-St. Great the of development nomic protection,the on ommendations promotion, eco- and rec- make to annually meets Council. Developmentassociation The Economic Lawrence St. the by 1980s the caseofderivations, have toguard againstthem. the case of bulk water exports) or provinces and states, in provinces(in that and exists shared,threats largely that conviction,case,the legal hereis the important is what 2005). Trade agreements give no clear answer. Whatever status of water as a commercial or public good (Lasserre Ambiguities about the status of water in trade agree- water of supply the of security the over Concerns 16 These fears have led to a legal debate over the over debate legal a to led have fears These

The Eau Secours! coalition was created was coalition Secours! Eau The jects. of all upstream water diversion and consumption pro- impacts cumulative the by affected be will Québec November 2006. in Assembly National Québec’s in debate the ratification during exports, and diversions water control to watershed. the outside diversion water regarding rules restrictive tity, and that one concern was to adopt new and more waterquality quan- to sufficient access in long-term Québec’sprotect to need the emphasized have ister and the Environment premier and Sustainable Development min- Québec’s both Agreement, Resources Water Sustainable Basin River Lawrence Lakes-St. withdrawals intheGreat Lakes (ibid.). water concerning principles similar outline Agreement SustainableSt. RiverLawrenceBasin Water Resources GreatLakes- 2005 GreatLakesthe Charter and Annex 2001 the Similarly, 158-159). 2007, (Lasserre States” approvedis GreatLakethe byGovernor of the each of diversionsuch unless GreatLakesbasin the outside use waterbyany State, Federalagency, for entity private or 1962d-20) that prohibits “any diversions of Great Lakes ment to the U.S. Water Resources Development Act (art. waterfor managing withdrawals. This led to an amend- criteria new implement to willingness their affirming declaration a adopted Premiers Canadian Eastern and Governors them England New prevent the 1999, to In 2001).(Elwell talks subnational to life new gave diversion.” State or ProvinceLakes that could be impacted by such a sale or Great any with consultation in of Canada, Government the and Government States United the of representatives by approvedfully is and diversion negotiated or sale such any that guarantee to established are procedures until individuals and tions, Lakes water to foreign countries, Great businesses, of - corpora diversion or sale the prevent “to Senate and the President the on calling 1998 October 20 on (D-Michigan),resolution(H.a submitting Res. 566) Stupak Bart quickly,very reacted Representative with the Asian market. The U.S. House of Representatives 600 millions of liters of water from Lake Superior for mit to Nova Group to export annually a maximum of in 1998, when the governmentOntario issued a per- In connection with the revised 2005 Great Great 2005 revised the with connection In These renewed over concerns massive water exports The The debate over water reached exports a new height 19 The minister specifically pointed to the need the to pointed specifically minister The 17 18 Indeed, given its downstream position,downstream its givenIndeed, 20 Philippe Le Prestre and Anaïz Parfait february 2010 159 - Québec rejected the proposed the proposed Québec rejected 22 In the context of its 2002 water policy, Québec reiter Québec policy, water 2002 its of context the In provincial level, Québec collaborate and in Ottawa the level, provincial management of the St. Lawrence. Several coordina- tion mechanisms been have set up since such 1989, as Vision 2000 action Lawrence the plan St. (1988-1993), (1993-1998 and 1998-2003), and St. tensions Lawrence Yet Plan 2005-2010. for a Sustainable Development The do Canadian exist. federal government is keen to develop a national approach to water issues in order, between coherence to promote among other concerns, show to and policies subnational and national among and On options. policy certain behind united is Canada that if too heavy-handed, such an approach, the other hand, as was the case in many areas after the 1995 Québec runs the on referendum riskindependence, of encour- the over Tensions Québec. in feelings nationalistic aging water of management the in responsibilities of allocation arose between Québec and when in Ottawa the 1999, latter called for the implementation of a pan-Canadian - water Canadian from diversion water prevent to strategy 2007). sheds (Johansen agreement on the grounds an that intru-it represented sion of the federal government into mattersprovincial and because it wished to retain the capacity to export (Lasserre a national resource which it considered water, subsequently prohibited bulk however, Québec, 2005). without still 58), (Law 2001 December in transfers water then, In signing a the federal way, proposed agreement. regional cooperation one could argue that for Québec, harmonizingof means a is givingwithout policies over government. to the Federal that responsibility policy as a means water International legitimacy international to build Since international relations are traditionally the pre- of rogative the nations, sovereign symbolic and politi- cal nature of the international activities of subnational international In relations have units this is regard, high. assumed considerable importance for Québec, which wants to communicate the image of an autonomous Feldman and (Feldman international scene the on actor Gardner 1984). International relations are a means rein- help to process, the in and, externalrecognition, gain Paquin & (Lachapelle identity of sense domestic a force greater the feelings, nationalistic the greater The 2004b). 2004). (Paquin relations external develop to attempts the to akin rituals developed has Québec fact, of matter a As of interstate (Dehousse 1991). the signature treaties in water issues, with Québec’s with in Québec’s water issues, 21 The first review of the implementation of the agree- the of implementation the of review first The In the water issue area, we may be witnessing the risethe witnessing be may we area, issue water the In ment on the integrated management of water resources resources water of integratedmanagement the on ment states “because that Canada is a it federation, is essen- tial that all jurisdictions collaborate to address issues water and challenges” (Government of Canada 2005, also Ottawa 2). recognizes the existence and the legit- imacy of relations between two provinces and several states regarding the management of the The Canadian Great Council 3). of 2005, Ministers(Canada, Lakes which has an of developed indicator the Environment, of quality in order to harmonize how various govern- ments communicate information about water quality, is a good example of vertical and horizontal collabora- tive federalism (Government At of the 2005). Canada, regional involvement providing a needed government federal The dimension policy. federal upon builds that itself has favored cooperative solutions on water issues 2007). Wenig (Saunders and Does Québec’s involvement stem from a desire to a desire from stem involvement Does Québec’s an imbalance in the federal-provincial for compensate relationship? in the Great participation can Québec’s what extent To as Lakes Charter and well as agreements, related in the as a be means viewed - of reor Commission, Lakes Great dering internal political - provinc other with horizontally relations, and vertically government, Federal with the is Québec’s 54-55), (1990, words to use Kincaid’s es? Or, and grievances long-standing of product “the diplomacy of because Lawrence, St. the so, If autonomy”? for desires excel- an be might importance, cultural and economic its these concerns.lent means of promoting of a new kind of collaborative federalism whereby no of level government is subordinate to the other (Watts Cameron 2003; and Simeon many Indeed, 2002). ele- than rather collaborative a of supportments picture the federalism competitive Identity Identity involve- active Québec’s Rather than interdependence, ment in regional matters might be rooted in its long- standing desire to assert its specificity and autonomy within (and sometimes outside) the Canadian federa- would involvement Québec’s Thus, be explained tion. by the twin desires to reorder domestic relations with Ottawa and build an international political legitimacy, along with the gradual of development a new national conception. role 160 Canada Institute occasional paper series formal objectives of the 2005 Great LakesGreat Agreement, 2005 the objectivesof formal current research has not yet been able to show significant plausible,Québec’sremains sourcerole,of this although Québec’s role conception. Regarding the external origin Québec’s identity issues also support identity as the root of andgovernments. ofparties eign policyplatforms of water management and protection in the official for- also arrangements,and a growing presence of the theme regional in participate and role proactive a assume to system,Québec i.e.,the actors,fromfor regional tions expecta- sustained both observe promising,should we national identity” (Idem, 5). Thus, if this recognitionexplanation by actors,international were and a conception of system, a international the on claim a reflects role “A Prestre1997).(Le origin (status) external and capacity) role conceptions can have both a domestic (identity and from the desire to protect or assert national stem identity. largely But government federal the with conflicts as one,previous insofar the to linked is explanation This Using water aspecific toassert role the number ofenvironmental signed. agreements power does not seem to be in significantly correlated with is party which strategy, and international similar a pursued have governments active, Liberal more been of Québec’s role.international Even though the PQ has both parties share similar concerns regarding the essence law. international under be valid to Canada by fied Yet, the right to approve agreements that will have to be rati- national treaties on behalf of Québec rather than merely inter- sign to sovereign the wayclaim right the and all agreements in its spheres of authority, of spheres its in agreements national agreements to assert its right and capacity to sign federations (Québec 2002). Generally, Québec uses inter- other with links its strengthen provinceto the enabling thus discussions, international relevant in government federal the associatedwith be to andwater on debates international the in participant full a be to wish its ated outside the Federation. the outside and within interests its assert to Québec for need the fers a more concerted approach, all the while reaffirming approach based on unilateral a favoredissue. has this latter on The parties (PQ) Québécois and (PLQ) Liberal the of approaches states oftheGreat Lakes–St. Lawrence watershed. strengthenandto economic cooperation withtheeight h peiu rmrs eadn te motne of importance the regarding remarks previous The hr ae ifrne bten h respective the between differences are There faits accomplis, whereas the former pre- 26 Naturally, the PQ would go would PQ Naturally,the 23 also one of the of one also 25 24

ence to the international dimensions of water. of dimensions international the to ence refer- makes platforms, political 2007 their in them, of None concerned.are affairs foreign as far as parties political of minds the in prominently features longer policy,water 2002 no waterits adopted it when ment govern- PQ preceding the of eyes the in importance (MRI,major 2006b).pages of was 128 water Whereas devoid of concrete actions, are devoted to water in over paragraphs,twocentury, only 21st the of issues major respect to natural resources, and that water is one of the work asserts frame- that it has international policy responsibilities with international 2006 Québec’s although engagement. regional Yet,Québec’s with do to much has conception role that perspective the support could eign of policy the platforms and parties of governments area thatwould indicateitplayed adeterminative role. expectations from other regional actors in the water issue ers. an effective role in the management of Great Lakes wat- and voice havea would Québec ensurewould project tions on the revised agreement, he emphasized that this Mulcair announced a second round of public consulta- Development Thomas Sustainable for Minister When matters. these on destiny regional collective of sense it remains unclear whether there exists today a stronger congruent withitsidentity aspirations.congruent and status level,on regional based the at itself for role dependence issues, which enabled a it newto articulate reasonsfor linkedmainly inter- to agreement 2005 the Increasing references to water issues in the official for- 28 – St. Lawrence watershed. eight states of theGreat Lakes economic cooperation withthe authority… andto strengthen agreements inits spheres of right andcapacity to sign agreements to assert its Québec uses international Indeed, it may very well be that Québec,joined that be well very may Indeed,it 27 Thus, Philippe Le Prestre and Anaïz Parfait february 2010 161 The 29 present present in the

the legal status of the whether resource, surface

To implement the policy To as well as the 2005 agree- Regarding identity, Québec’s involvement could involvement be Québec’s Regarding identity, With adoption of this bill into law, the Annex 2001 the With adoption of this bill into law, 2002 policy and in the 2005 agreement (polluter/user- clari-while reparation), prevention, precautionary, pays, fying to adopt criteria for water withdrawals and watercourse watercourse and withdrawals criteria adopt water to for would, it that declared also It 2002). (Québec diversions upon completion of the 2005 agreement negotiations, criteria new to these adapting of possibility the evaluate hydrological the account into taking territory, entire its characteristics and location of each drainage basin, as as regionaldisparities well (ibid.). legisla- introduced 2008, June in government, the ment, “asserting tion the collective nature of water resources and aiming at strengthening their protection.” water area. Québec also has signed agreements in order agreementssigned has also order in Québec area. water to protect the St. Lawrence watershed from Furthermore, externaltransfers. and exports water as such threats the growing web of fueled interdependence, by eco- nomic integration, may have also laid the ground for cooperation. environmental stronger explained by the desire to reorder domestic relations with and Ottawa to build international political legiti- both associated with the gradualof development macy, if Even it a is new joining by national conception. role than rather role, a developed Québec that agreement the or underground. It would also tighten considerably It the would or underground. requirements for water withdrawals for all watersheds, except which in a the specific case of the St.Lawrence, the follows also section This addresses. bill the of section and transfers water bulk prohibiting by agreement 2005 withdrawals. further or new existing regulating new inserted directly have will agreement 2005 the and norms into the domestic process and strengthened the these therefore, agreements Indirectely, existing policy. also have helped probably domestic Québec overcome measures, political coalitions opposed to such extensive lacking. although details are legislation reaffirms principlesalready ts ts uébec came relatively late to the Great Lakes- late to the Great uébec came relatively The adoption of Lawrence scene. St. an eco- did 1970s the in IJC the by perspective system pac ic Im st

second avenue of second inquiry avenue par- looks at Québec’s in ticipation the Annex 2001 and in the 2005 and accord from perspective an environmental

The 2001 Annex seeks to establish guidelines for water water for guidelines establish to seeks Annex 2001 The Québec’s water adopted policy, as late as 2002, is From From an although interdependence the perspective, withdrawals based on such withdrawals principles as compensation for qual- or quantity water on impact minimal and losses water Rather than reflecting the commonlowest ity. denomin- ator, the 2005 Great Lawrence Lakes-St. River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement contains novel features that may serve to solidify or even pull domestic policies upwards, including concepts such as sustainable the development, precautionary principle, public partici- and regulatory flexibility. management, adaptive pation, based on nature (i) “public principles: seven good” the of water; (ii) the need for a common engagement in favor of its protection, restoration, and improvement; (iii) the precautionary principle; (iv) access to drink- ing water at a reasonable cost; (v) the user-payer and polluter-payer principles; (vi) the integrated and sus- tainable management of the resource with a concern and and (vii) transparency; the equity, for effectiveness, state the on information of dissemination and collection undertook Québec of Government The resource. the of examines how this process has inserted new norms into the the into norms new inserted has process this how examines international its of domestic because process or strengthened stronger existing ones. In laws other Québec are words, Only brief will be offered. remarks involvement? not not trigger much movement in but Québec, growing ecological and economic interdependence and identity politics combined to push Québec toward adopting a regional - position in a active range more of environmen tal matters. provinces may be concerned with avoiding an inter- and provincial transborder race to there is, the bottom, greater in evidence of Canada, a race to the top in the

ion clus Con Q Dome A 162 Canada Institute occasional paper series note ment, whereas identity only may explain the propensi- the nature and contents of Québec’s involve regional - both explain helps its since explanation stronger what some- a seems power. Interdependence explanatory respective their differentiate help would variable dent depen- the of precision plementary, greater although throughlegitimacy suchmeansisclear. political international an build to ity, desire Québec’s and capacity to sign in agreements its sphere of author- Québec’s assert right to expressedthe is objectivesof Agreement the of one since addition, In Ottawa. and Québec between water of management the in bilities responsi- of allocation overthe remain issues,tensions water in federalism competitive than rather laborative col- a of picture the support elements many although relations, political internal of matter the On note. of worthy still is explanation around,this way other the du QuébecandGovernment oftheStateNew signed Aug. 27, 2001. between“Agreement Government concerning Transboundary Environmental Impacts,” du QuébecandGovernment oftheStateMaine signed Nov.13, 2001. between“Agreement Government concerning Transboundary Environmental Impacts,” andthisannex. ofthecharter and monitoring available information, andcoordinate theimplementation develop systemthat ensures thebest adecisionsupport §1109, 42U.S.C. §1962d-20(1986)(amended2000), under the Water Resources Development Act of1986, establish anew decisionmakingstandard, review project develop abroad-based program, public participation charter: develop anew setofbindingagreement(s), following directives ofthe theprinciples tofurther Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Lawrence River StudyBoard. study groups, Lake Ontario-St suchastheInternational several Quebeckers from civil societycanbefoundin St.the International Lawrence River Board. Finally, oftheGreatmembers Lakes Water QualityBoard and in theIJC, however. OtherQuébeccivil servants are but there isalmostalways acommissionerfrom Québec officially represent their government ororganization, hs tee w epaain ae biul com- obviously are explanations two these Thus, 5. between“Agreement QuébecandNew Brunswick 4. Personal communication, 2007. 3. The governors andpremiersputforward the 2. Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, 1. oftheCommission’s Members councildonot s state’s questfordomesticautonomy. the hinder than rather help can tions, interdependence condi- some that,under again basin; Lawrenceproof throughout Québec’s territory, felt and not only in the St. be will impacts whose agreement 2005 the from directly follow bill water 2008 the of provisions Many ment might have triggered the adoption of new norms. suggests that Québec’s participation in the 2005 - agree of paper analysis the of speeches. section Finally,official content last the extensive of absence the in ited dence of perceived interdependence also remains lim- entities. distinct twoYet eviremain- partners its and terms: Québec Québec’sregional redefine in identity collective destiny.regional of to attempt an of evidence no is There sense stronger a of idea the contradicts Québec’sof dimensions waterissues international the to it. references for of lack support The domestic gain ty toward involvement or, help when instrumentalized, great diversitygreat ofits constitutingelementsanditsmultiple (Gouvernement duQuébec2006). et del’ÉtatQuébec,” adoptedinDecember. 2000 fondamentaux etdesprérogatives du peuplequébécois 10, 1993. New York etlegouvernementduQuébec,” signedMay d’environnement entre legouvernementdel’État signed Aug.26, 2002. Reduction inMissisquoiBay,” Phosphorus concerning Québec andtheGovernment oftheState Vermont Champlain,” signedJuly 2, 2003. Cooperation ontheManagementofLakeAgreement signed Feb. 11, 2007. d’urgence environnementale-Lac Memphrémagog,” sur lesmodalitésconjointesd’intervention enmatière complémentaire entre le Québecetle Vermont etportant State Vermont,” signedonDecember4, 2003; “Protocole Government ofQuébec andtheGovernment ofthe Memphremagog andits Watershed between the 2000,” signedonOctober19, 1998. Impacts,” signed Aug. 27, 2001. Hamsphire concerning Transboundary Environmental 12. The physical dimensions oftheSt. Lawrence, the 11. Art. 7ofthe “Loi surl’exercice desdroits 10. “Entente decoopérationenmatière 9. between“Agreement theGouvernementdu 8. “Vermont–New York–Québec Environmental 7. “Cooperation Lake onManaging Agreement 6. “The Canada-Wide Acid RainStrategyforPost- Philippe Le Prestre and Anaïz Parfait february 2010 163 20. see: http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/fr/informer/salle_de_ see: 20. goals are by which national as a process Defined 21. (i) changes components : three The Strategy has 22. Lawrence At the signing of the Great Lakes-St. 23. of the agreement is clearly One of the objectives 24. minister for International Relations As Québec’s 25. in the 2006 policy, remarks Charest’s See Premier 26. to promote The Liberal manifesto only promises 27. See: http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/fr/informer/salle_de_ 28. Our translation 29. presse/communiques/textes/2006/2006_11_30.asp or by acting alone government the federal by achieved behaviour shaping provincial government the federal power. of its spending the exercise through (ii) Treaty, Waters implementing the Boundary in the law a joint Canadian-American for the IJC to study request and consumption, diversion, water the consequences of agreement a panCanadian on finally, and, withdrawals, withdrawals. water Premier Agreement, Resources Water Basin Sustainable River an agreement“such confirms that declared Charest, and conclude international ability to negotiate Québec’s agreements on issues that come under its jurisdiction” (http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/fr/informer/salle_de_presse/ communiques/textes/2005/2005_12_14.asp). authority within the Basin State and Provincial “retain to under appropriate arrangements for intergovernmental Lawrence (Great Lakes-St. cooperation and consultation.” 2005, Agreement Resources Water Sustainable Basin River Article 100). Chapter 1, “is also an opportunity for this agreement has stated, with initiatives cooperative Québec to strengthen which are states and Ontario, Lakes the eight Great (http://www.mri. important partners for Québec” gouv.qc.ca/fr/informer/salle_de_presse/communiques/ textes/2005/2005_12_14.asp). de (Observatoire de l’action concertée,” “La force – ENAP 2006). l’administration publique the PQ Similarly, uses. less wasteful) (i.e,. responsible ADQ while the manifesto grants to water, little space but to water references a few 2007 manifesto makes its regional character. avoids presse/communiques/textes/2005/2005_06_30.asp http:// centuries th and early 20 th 13. A process coordinated by the Bureau d’audiences the Bureau by coordinated A process 13. such as Brian Hocking however, Some authors, 14. economic migration Québec to the Heavy from 15. 16. See: http://www.eausecours.org/public/zindex.htm. 16. Section 1109 although to Glass (2003), According 17. See: http://www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/fr/informer/salle_de_ 18. http://www.strategiessl. Stratégie ; Saint-Laurent 19. uses present major challenges to the development of a development challenges to the major uses present management regime legal for its environmental coherent a create powers constitutional Shared 1991). (Giroux Act to the 1867 According situation. highly complex is part of Québec’s Lawrence the St. of Confederation, what had already exceptions: with two domain, public such government, of the Federal been the responsibility Québec, and Trois-Rivières as the ports of Montréal, the by or improved subsequently acquired and what was du Québec 1999). (Gouvernement federal government that code specifies civil 919 of Québec’s art. Moreover, line, high water up to the the riverbed Québec owns to the federal government unless it has been conceded Québec 1997). (Gouvernement du of a unique feature sur l’environnement, publiques The mission of the policy. environmental Québec’s is to informBureau on questions and consult the public assigned to it by the environment to the quality of related Environment Development, the minister of Sustainable it helps guide government In so doing, and Parks. perspective, development decision making in a sustainable social and comprisinga perspective the biophysical, economic aspects. that question this concept on the grounds (1994), diplomacy is a system and cannot be segmented. the 19 England States in New no doubt reinforced this feeling. no doubt reinforced Act of 1986 already Development Resources Water of the the Great from water plan to remove that any “requires only with the unanimous consent basin proceed Lakes its dim states,” Lakes Great of all eight of the governors the statute an rendered have for enforcement prospects water. Lakes Great tool for protecting ineffective ; presse/communiques/textes/2005/2005_06_30.asp www.mri.gouv.qc.ca/fr/informer/salle_de_presse/communiques/ textes/2005/2005_12_14.asp qc.ca/strate.fra.html 164 Canada Institute occasional paper series Dreisziger, N.F. “Dreams andDisappointments. ” InThe Dehousse, R. Fédéralisme et relationsinternationales. Courchene, T.J. Federalism and theNew Economic Commission MixteInternationale. finalsurla Rapport Canada. Environnement Canada. L’eau etleCanada-La Cameron, D. and Simeon, R. “Intergovernmental Relations Cairns, A. C. “The Governments andSocietiesof Brandes, O.M. Ata Watershed: and EcologicalGovernance Boardman, R. 2006. “Multi-Level Environmental Bédard C. LebassinduSaint-LaurentetlesGrands Lacs: cadre Beauchamp, L. Projet deloin92présentédevant Bakker, K., ed. EauCanada—TheFutureofCanada’s Water. Allee, D. J. “Subnational Governance andthe Reference Toronto, 1981. StudiesattheUniversityCenter ofInternational of by R. Spencer, J. andK. Kirton Nossal. Toronto: JointCommissionSeventy International Years On, edited Bruxelles: Bruylant, 1991. Paper, mimeo, Queen’s University, 2003. Order: A CitizenandProcess Perspective. Working protection deseauxGrands Lacs. Ottawa, 2000. gestion intégréedesressourceseneau, 2005. Publius: ofFederalism 32(2002):The Journal 49-72. in Canada: The EmergenceofCollaborative Federalism.” Science 10(1977): 695-725. Canadian Federalism.” ofPolitical CanadianJournal Urban Water DemandManagement, 2005. Sustainable Water ManagementinCanada. Victoria, BC: Aldershot, UK, and Relations, editedby P. LePrestre andP. Stoett, 179-196. Continuity and Change in Canadian-American Environmental Biodiversity Conservation.” InBilateral Ecopolitics- Governance inNorth BirdsAmerica: and Migratory ,juridique Québec: Presses del’Université Laval, 2004. renforcer leurprotection, 2008. caractère collectifdesressources eneauetvisantà le l’Assemblée nationalequébécoise–Loiaffirmant Vancouver: ColumbiaPress, University ofBritish 2007. 33(1993):Natural ResourcesJournal, 133-151. of UnitedStatesandCanadianBoundary Waters.” Joint Commission:International LocalManagement Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006. s Jacomy-Millette, A. “Aspects juridiques des activités Hocking, B. des “Les intérêtsinternationaux Harrison, K. “Provincial Interdependence: Concepts Giroux, L. dufleuve“La protection Saint- juridique Francis, G. “Binational Cooperation forGreat Lakes Feldman, E. J. &Feldman Gardner, L. “The Impactof École Nationaled’AdministrationPénitentiare— Elwell, C. “NAFTA Effectson Water: Testing forNAFTA Dupré, J.-P. & Théroux, É. “Les relations internationales du ______. 1990. Perforated Sovereignties: Towards a Duchacek, I.D. Dimensionof “The International Canada etleQuébecsurlascène internationale, 515-544. duQuébec.”internationales InP. Painchaud (ed.), Le 409-420. ”et del’externe? XXV(1994): ÉtudesInternationales gouvernements régionaux: désuétudedel’interne Columbia Press, 2006. K. Harrison, 1-24. Vancouver: University ofBritish Interdependence intheCanadianFederation, editedby and Theories.” InRacingtotheBottom?Provincial Laurent.” LesCahiersdeDroit 32(1991): 359-373. Connection.” Chicago-KentLawReview65(1989): Water Quality: A Framework fortheGroundwater 33-59. Policy.” Publius: ofFederalism 14(1984): The Journal Federalism ontheOrganisationofCanadianForeign Québec comparées. Québec: ENAP, 2006. du québécois enperspective –Les relationsinternationales collaboration deN. Michaud &M. T. Boucher). L’État Observatoire del’administrationpublique (avec la Washington, DC. Club ofCanada, Sierra 2001. the Linkagesbetween Trade andEnvironment, the North SymposiumonUnderstanding American Effects intheGreat Lakes Basin.” Paper presented at 6(1989-90): québécoise desrelationsinternationales Québec danslecontextedudroit international.” Revue Soldatos. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Subnational Units, editedby H.J. MichelmannandP. Relation--TheRoleof In Federalism andInternational Typology ofNew Relations. inInternational Actors 5-31. Subnational Self-Government.” Publius 14(1984): 1027-1072. 145-151.

Philippe Le Prestre and Anaïz Parfait february 2010 165

Vancouver: University of British University Vancouver: Québec: Presses de l’université Laval, Laval, de l’université Presses Québec: Canada-U.S. Border and the InternationalBorder Outreach Canada-U.S. London Journal of Canadian Studies of Québec.” Activities 19-40. 1 (2003-2004): Spencer, R. edited by On, Years of Center Joint Commission Seventy Toronto: 60-97. Nossal, K. and Kirton J. 1981. Toronto, of International Studies at the University Bottom? the to In Racing Harmonized at the Bottom?” in the Canadian Federation, Provincial Interdependence Harrison. K. edited by 2006. Columbia Press, 2004. Lang, P.I.E.-Peter la doctrine Gérin-Lajoie prolongement (1965-2005)—Le de Presses Québec: externe des compétences internes. 2006. Laval, l’université construction l’inévitable d’une diplomatie au Canada : In Les relations internationales du à paliers multiples.” Québec depuis la doctrine Gérin-Lajoie Le (1965-2005)— S. edited by prolongement externe des compétences internes, 23-47. Paquin, 2006. Journal nationale québécoise. des débats de l’Assemblée 3645-3660. 2006): Cahier N 65 (30 novembre la gestion de sur Consultation publique l’environnement. Saint-Laurent—Document l’eau au Québec—Le Fleuve de soutien à l’atelier de la Commission du 9 juin 1999 à 1999a. Trois-Rivières. monde pour horizon. 1991. Québec et l’interdépendance—Le 2002. Policy. Water Québec Our future. life. document de consultation publique. de l’eau au Québec : 1999b. 2006a. Fondements juridiques et historiques. 2006b. politique internationale du Québec. Munton, D. “Paradoxes and Prospects.” In The International and Prospects.” “Paradoxes D. Munton, in Canada: Policy “Environmental 2006. N. Olewiler, Bruxelles: et relations internationales. Paradiplomatie S. Paquin, depuis Québec du internationales relations Les ed. S., Paquin, internationales et les relations “Le fédéralisme S. Paquin, 2e session. 37e législature. nationale. Assemblée Québec. sur publiques d’audiences Bureau ______. Le des affaires internationales. Ministère ______. Our Water. de l’environnement. Ministère ______. La gestion de l’environnement. Ministère ______. internationales. des relations Ministère ______. La internationales. des relations Ministère ______.

Burlington, Burlington, Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2004b. Laval, de l’Université Presses Québec: Québec: Centre québécois de relations internationales, internationales, québécois de relations Centre Québec: 1977. du et droit du Division Ottawa: . règlements canadiens 2007. du Parlement, Bibliothèque gouvernement, International and In Federalism and the Nation-State.” H.J. edited by of Subnational Units, Relations—The Role Clarendon Oxford: 54-76. Soldatos, Michelmann and P. 1990. Press, de Presses Québec: subétatiques. stratégies et nouvelles 2004a. Laval, l’Université eds., S., & Paquin, G. In Lachapelle, internationales?” subétatiques, stratégies Gouvernance et nouvelles Mondialisation, 74-91. Hors Série VertigO : L’eau L’eau : VertigO Série Hors ” Amérique du Nord. outil coopération, de facteur – Nord du Amérique en ou enjeu de conflit?–Les actes du de développement études hautes des québécois l’Institut par organisé colloque internationales recherches de l’Observatoire et internationales 2005. 1-11. sur l’eau, The Future In Eau Canada— Canada and Beyond.” 143-162. Bakker, K. edited by Water, of Canada’s 2007. of British University Columbia Press, Vancouver: Changing States Boundary Canada-United Relations.” 59-91. Resources JournalNatural 33 (1993): Foreign Era— War Post-Cold the in Quest Montreal In Role 3-14. War.” Prestre, Le P. by edited Transition, Policies in 1997. Press, University McGill–Queen’s & Buffalo: Continuity and Change in Canadian-American and UK, Aldershot, Environmental Relations. 2006. Ashgate, VT: In in Canada.” Governance Water of the Evolution by edited Water, The Future of Canada’s Eau Canada— of British University Vancouver: 85-101. Bakker, K. 2007. Columbia Press, Les prélèvements massifs d’eau: Lois et d’eau: massifs Les prélèvements D. Johansen, Polities in Federal “Constituent Diplomacy J. Kincaid, Gouvernance Mondialisation, eds. S., & Paquin, G. Lachapelle, les régions font-elles des relations “Pourquoi ______. ______. “Drawers of Water: Water Diversions— Water Water: of “Drawers ______. and Commission Joint International “The D. Lemarquand, Policy Roles after the Cold Foreign “Defining P. Le Prestre, Ecopolitics- Bilateral eds. P., and Stoett, P. Le Prestre, “Challenging the Status Quo: R. & Kreutzwiser, R., Loe, the Americas: the in Sovereignties “Perforated M. Lubin, Lasserre, F. “Les projets de transferts massifs d’eau en en d’eau massifs transferts de projets “Les F. Lasserre, 166 Canada Institute occasional paper series Environmental RelationswithPeter J. Stoett(AshgatePublishing, 2006). Publishing,(Ashgate Diversity Biological and 2003) including recently most books several co-authored or authored has and publications numerous to contributed has Prestre policies,Le security and environmental international in theory,U.S.relationspolicy. expert and foreign an politics, international As Diversity, Biological biodiversity,Conventionon of governanceeco- the tional transnational of implementation interna- include interests researchLaval. UniversitéHis at Society Environment,and Developmentof Institute Philippe Selin, H. & VanDeveer, S.D. “Canadian-U.S. Cooperation: Schwartz, A.M. The ManagementofShared Waters: Saunders, O. J. & Wenig, M. “Whose Water? Canadian Sadler, B. “The ManagementofCanada-U.S. Boundary Rausch, U. ThePotentialof Transborder Cooperation: Still Rabe, B.G. “The Politics ofEcosystemManagement ______. Ministère dudéveloppement durable, de ______. Ministère dudéveloppement durable, de ______. Ministère duConseilexécutif. Symposium sur Canadian-American EnvironmentalRelations,Canadian-American editedby In Bilateral Ecopolitics -ContinuityandChangein Climate Change Regional Action intheNortheast.” Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006. Prestre &P. Stoett(eds.), 133-144. EnvironmentalRelations,American editedby P. Le Ecopolitics -ContinuityandChangeinCanadian- Watershed Boards Past andFuture.” InBilateral ColumbiaPress,University ofBritish 2007. Canada’s Water, editedby K. Bakker, 119-42. Vancouver:Fragmentation.” InEauCanada—TheFutureof Water ManagementandtheChallengesofJuridictional 26(1986):359-376. Journal Waters: Retrospect andProspect.” Natural Resources for Foreign Policy Studies, DalhousieUniversity, 1997. CanadianPremiers). andEastern England Governors Centre Worth a Try (An Assessment of the Conference of New Canadian Studies, 27(1997): 411-430. in theGreat Lakes Basin.” The Reviewof American Bilan annuel2004-2005.2006. duQuébec- politique nationaledel’eaudugouvernement l’environnement etdesparcs. Miseenœuvredela Bilan annuel2003-2004. 2005. duQuébec- politique nationaledel’eaudugouvernement l’environnement etdesparcs. Miseenœuvredela la gestiondel’eauauQuébec: documentderéférence. 1997. L is a professor in the Department of Political Science and director of the Hydro-Quebec the of director and PoliticalScience of Department the in professor a Prestreis e Governing Global Diversity: The Evolution and Implementation of the Convention on Convention the of Implementation and Diversity:Evolution Global The Governing Aldershot, UK, and Bilateral Ecopolitics: Continuity and Change in Canadian-American Canadian-American Ecopolitics:in Bilateral Change and Continuity Watts, R. “Federalism.” InThe oftheState:Art Governance ______. “Ground-Level Ozone: A Multi-Faceted VanNijnatten, D.L. Environmental“Canadian-American Valiante, M., Muldoon, P. &Botts, L. 1997. “Ecosystem United States. Congress. House. H. Res. 566.(20octobre Turp, D. etl’émergenced’un Gérin-Lajoie “La doctrine Sproule-Jones, M. Restoration oftheGreatLakes-Promises, publiques, 2003. D. Savoie. Montréal: Institut de recherche en politiques in a World Without Frontiers, editedby T.J. Courchene & Aldershot, UK, andBurlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006. edited by P. LePrestre & P. Stoett(eds.), 51-72. EnvironmentalRelations, Change inCanadian-American Approach.” InBilateral Ecopolitics-Continuityand Review ofCanadianStudies, 34(2004): 649-664. Relations: Interoperability andPolitics.” The American MIT Press, 1997. ,Experience editedby O.R. Young. Cambridge, MA: -DrawingGovernance InsightsfromtheEnvironmental Governance: Lessonsfrom theGreat Lakes.” InGlobal concerned. governments saleisfullysuch negotiatedbetweenandapproved by the until proceduresareestablished toguarantee thatany to foreigncountries, business, corporations, andindividuals actions toprevent thesaleordiversion ofGreatLakes water that thePresidentandSenateshouldtakenecessary 1998). ExpressingthesenseofHouseRepresentatives Québec: Presses del’université Laval, 2006. ,des compétencesinternes editedby S. Paquin, 49-77. (1965-2005)—Leprolongementexterne Gérin-Lajoie duQuébecdepuisladoctrine Les relationsinternationales droit québécoisdesrelations internationales.” In Columbia Press, 2002. Practices, Performances. Vancouver: University ofBritish and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006. P. LePrestre &P. Stoett(eds.), 93-113. Aldershot, UK, Ian H. Rowlands february 2010 167 tion he purpose of this chapter is to investigate the ways in which the ways he purpose is of to this chapter investigate efforts to promote the increased use of electricity renewable in either Canada or the United States have been affected by Traditionally, any consideration of binational issues elec- regarding Traditionally, Increased use of resources renewable is part of a broader agenda being pursued in U.S.-Canadian transboundary an areas, agenda that also includes such topics as boundary waters managementmitigate andclimate “Renewable effortschange. energy” is to defined as electricity derived biomass from andsolar, wind, hydroelectric In many resources. these transboundary policies areas, are being pushed forward by sub- regional and local) governments and energy provincial, national (state, linksbetweenThe nongovernmentalaswell as consortia, organizations. both countries on this issue—both institutionally and physically—are whichinternationalin increased cooperation ways as well as discussed, focuses study case A agenda. electricity renewable the forward push could theonshared renewable electricity interface thathas developed between New Brunswick and Maine. transnational actors, institutions and structures. transnational actors, U.S. and Canadian of combination some involving issues is, (that tricity institutions or structures) actors, has tended to concentrate upon reli- is guaranteed or secured. provision in which power or the way ability, binational a AmericanElectricCouncil, Reliability Norththe Indeed, organization with the mission “ensure to the realiability of the bulk system power dates in back NorthAmerica,” to 1968 pri-that (NERC 2008; however, years, few past Duringthe 2005). Gattinger also, see, Issues of the securitymary has focus been upon challenged. reliability in both deliberations, binational in important be to continue supply of terms of in the the the shortblackout northeastern term United (i.e., States and Ontario in 2003) and the the longer discussions term (i.e., Canada in systems supply electricity large of construction the regarding wid- has debate the But market). U.S. the in demands meet to order in ened to Within consider the issues of and environment sustainability. are that issues examining to devoted chapters other are there book, this Introduc T s

wland o

niversity of Waterloo of University Ian H. R Developments Cross-border Cross-border Canada-U.S. Canada-U.S. Electricity and and Electricity Renewable Renewable Chapter 11: Chapter 168 Canada Institute occasional paper series T Setting theContext ity systems around the world (including those in Canada tainly worthy of attention. The sustainability of electric- defined) by naturalgasratherthanelectricity. (howeverreached better be maybe that might goal lar switchingplayalso could role;a example,for particu- a services” would draw attention to the way in which fuel consideration of services”“electricity the to simply “energy widening further Indeed, standards. appliance of deploymentfor countries other lobbying might as role issues of efficiency and conservation issues would play a of services”“electricity rather than, say, “electrons,” then weresystems provision the about sustainableelectricity implications. transboundary Additionally, have would of focus the if clearly that and reduced be can stations) powercoal-fired from (e.g.,pollutants emissions sulfur “conventional”which atmospheric plants’in ways are electricity system, it is by no means the only focus. Theremove to towardssustainable efforts a in step important an is renewableelectricity of use increased the that ed structures. and institutions actors, transnational by affected been have States United the and Canada hydroelectric both resources,in and biomass solar, wind, example, for of,use increased the surrounding discussions which in the demand services.for electricity We look at the ways of use ‘renewableresources’ (however meet to defined) example (seeRabe, thisvolume). part of this emerging agenda. Climate change is a prime country—are thenreviewed.country—are able electricity—through explicit policy strategies in each renew- of supply the advance to efforts Current upon. reflectedthensustainabilitysystems isforthesepects of pros- consequent portfolio.The supply country’s each upon the present contribution of renewable resources to Canada and the United States, with a emphasis particular both systemselectricityin structureofexamine the we Nevertheless, the issue of renewable electricity is cer- While it is generally (though not universally) accept- increased part, another upon focuses chapter This oig rm ah f hs to onre indi- countries two these of each from Moving electricity electricity issues in this section. More specifically, thischapter, weprovide introductionbrief a to subsequentdiscussionthein tocontext give o work concludethechapter. future for broadly.moreSuggestions systems, ernance relevanceof before reflecting gov- for lessons the upon final section identifies other cross-border developments cross-border developments that are worthy of other note. identifies The section fourth brief structures.A and institutions actors, transnational by affected been have the promoterenewablecountry increasedof either use in electricity to efforts which in ways the regarding third section of this chapter presents a detailed highlighted. caseThe are study agenda electricity renewable the increased cooperation international could push forward and physically—areintroduced,also wayswhich the in and institutionally issue—both this on countries the increased use of renewable electricity. The links the promotebetween to both in developed being strategies icy systems in Canada and the United States as well as pol- supply electricity the of elements key highlighting by section next the in set introduction,is this context the tothatsamedebate.different contributions the of relativevalue the evaluate to States,and United the and Canada in debate this affecting are activity kinds of different which in ways the examine to priate comes among countries. Consequently, it is now appro- involved to promotein efforts mutually-beneficial out- ernance is evolving, with a much broader range of actors electricity—is vital. At the renewablesame time, of international use gov- increased an include inevitably will future—which energy sustainable more a to transition question.into called been has States) United the and A terms of national production,per- national 23.4 of for accounting terms (IEA) figures for 2005, the United States ranked in first Agency Energy International electricity. to According of consumers and producers substantial both are States United the study.and case Canada a in tion,explored sec- subsequent the then,in and discussed is issue the on cooperation States Canada-United of importance potential electricity, the renewable of issue the upon specifically more Focusing issue. this with concerned are that organizations transborder of array the to refer and exchanges U.S.-Canadianelectricity current light high- we them, between interactions the vidually, to The chapter proceeds in five main parts. Following main five in proceeds chapter The Ian H. Rowlands february 2010 169 tates ector ector nited S United 25% 40% otal National Emissions* otal Turning to the United States, the same IEA database IEA same the States, United the to Turning - ref the above, Canada about discussion the to Similar which is --sometimes “waste,” complete the To list, able 11.1: Percentage Contribution Contribution Percentage able 11.1: PollutantSulfur dioxide oxidesNitrogen Canada Mercury 20%Carbon dioxide 11% 69% 22% 22% 39% wind supplied approximately 0.23 percent of Canadian 0.23 percent wind supplied approximately 0.005 approximately tidal 2005, in production electricity percent and solar photovoltaics approximately 0.003 2008a). (IEA, percent electricity pro- 50 percent of U.S. in 2005, that, reveals from percent 19 facilities, coal-powered from was duction gas. natural from percent 18 over just and power, nuclear The other resources that a played secondary role were biomass and percent) (3.3 oil percent), (6.8 hydropower As with its neighbor to the 2008b). (1.1 percent) (IEA, there are north, however, significant differences across the country and it is possible to find dominated individual portfolios states supply electricity their have which with Virginia, 98 percent of West by coal (for example, power nuclear resource), this by electricitygenerated all with (Vermont 72 natural percent), gas (Rhode Island State with (Washington with 97 hydropower percent), 76 percent) and petroleum products (Hawaii with 78 2007). EIA, (2006 data, percent) electricity in sources the United “renewable” to erence biomass, and terms in specifically hydropower of States, would have to be adjusted downward if they were to be further categorized U.S. of percent as 0.42 “new” supplied and/or wind “sustainable” Additionally, sources. percent, 0.39 geothermal 2005, in production electricity solar thermal 0.014 percent and solar-PV 0.0004 per- 2008b). cent (IEA, power renewable/sustainable or “green”, the in included accounted for 0.53 of percent electricity pro- category, T S Generating Electricity the from to T to * Contribution to total national emissions from all stationary, * Contribution to total national emissions from all stationary, sources mobile and other human-related area, 1. p. Atten (2004), Van Miller and Source: - First, First, consider Canada. IEA figures reveal that in Depending upon how “renewable” is defined— cent of the global value, and cent Canada of sixth ranked the with global value, 3.4 percent of the These global value 27). 2007, (IEA, respective shares are disproportionately large relative to each as population, country’s by revealed per capita valuethat is 2,596 Forworld, the consumption figures. kilowatt hours per capita (kWh/capita) and for coun- tries of the Organization for States, United the Economic kWh/capita; Cooperation 8,365 Development, and 13,640 established kWh/capita; Having and Canada, 57). 17,307 and 51 kWh/capita 49, 2007, IEA, data, (2005 produc electricity substantial are countries two the that 2005, almost 58percent 2005, ofthe electricity generated in Canadaoriginated facilities hydropower (thevast from majority of them of the “large-scale” variety), while coal provided almost 17 percent and - rela a played nuclearresources Other total. that of percent 15 almost tively modest role: natural gas just under 6 percent, oil about 3 percent, and biomass approximately percent. 1.5 No signifi- other however, resource are, There contributed 2008a). (IEA, percent 0.25 more than cant differences among with provinces, some domi- nated by hydropower and others by fossil fuels. For Newfoundland Québec, British in Columbia, example, and Labrador and Manitoba, more than 94 percent of whereas fos- the electricity derives from hydropower, sil fuels supply 93 percent of the electricity supply in - Other Albertaprov and 75 percent in Saskatchewan. balancedsupplymoreportfolio a data(2005 have inces 2008a). Statistics Canada, from and this is often contested (Patterson and Rowlands, 2002)—Canada can be considered already to sig- have Note, portfolio. supply its in resources renewable nificant But if figure cited above. the hydropower in particular, renew- “new restrictsone categorythe so-called the to which are often renew- defined “low-impact as ables,” biomass and hydro small wind, solar, e.g., resources,” able then the contribution 2002), and Patterson, (Rowlands of to renewables the supply portfolio across Canada is much more modest. Of the noted hydropower above, only a small portion would be included in “new” this about made be could observation similar a and category, only some i.e., category, “biomass” the aforementioned In addition, manner. “sustainable” of it is generated in a ers and consumers, we now turn to examine the United the examine to turn now we consumers, and ers States and Canada separately to consider the compo- nents of that supply. 170 Canada Institute occasional paper series ramp up overup ramp time. may fulfill generators electricity All ity) facilities. This share”“predetermined may gradually supply is provided by qualifying (i.e., renewable - electric ensure that a predetermined share of their total electricity to participants market renewableobliging byresources renewable electricity. This policy encourages advancingreliance of on means popular and most the be been to continues has traditionally (RPS) standard portfolio renewable the States, United the and Canada both In R ments totheforefront issues. ofelectricity govern-subnational push haveto servedaction further environmental and intervention government pursuing havein both countries shown relatively little interest in governmentsnational Canada,that in larly fact the and eration.federalism,particu- of Additionally, nature the also encourages local communities to push for self gen- security energy for desire the considerations, political been thus encouraged to develop have their own supply options. areas As for geographic Smaller distances. long transported is electricity when occur losses cant political and phenomena. physical physicalattributes,respectto With signifi- both by encouraged been has governments.This provincial) or state (usually tional subna- by driven been has Canada and States United the in activity policy the of making.First,worthmost Canada (REN21, 2008). and States United the including countries OECD in world, particularly the around arisen have systems ply increased use of renewable in sup- electricity electricity play. Indeed, a range of particular policies to support the in also motivatorschapter, other this often in arethere vateinterest renewablein electricity, although, noted as a key ofenvironmental determinant prospects. an not strictly electricity—is “environmental” issue, it is details. Thus, though the issue covered in this chapter— dominance of coal in that country). Table 11.1 provides the givensurprising, (not States United the in case the particularly is this quality,and air of determinant key a is sector power the of operation the States, United consequences.the atmospheric In both Canada and the are perhaps, significant, Most ranging. wide are tems in Canada(IEA, 2008b; IEA, 2008a). duction in the United States in 2005 and 0.003 percent enewable Electricity R Before reflecting upon such efforts, two points are points two efforts, such upon reflecting Before moti- to helped have interests environmental Such sys- electricity of consequences sustainability The esources that is traditionally associated with European efforts efforts European with associated traditionally is that (Lipp, 2007). New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island in electricity,renewableexists of amount that to procure having utility one least at and time, over up” ing something resembling an RPS, with a set target, “ramp- power”(Rowlands,policy case,anyforthcoming-a). In accurately referred to as a more “utility perhaps procurement for is green proponents its by “RPS” an Canada States.United the in in result, called a often As is what that behind lagged markets—has heretoforemonopoly into competition of introduction the to respect with restructuring—particularly industry electricity of pace different guises) predominates. However, the extent and the RPS (though sometimes under different names and has been some policy action; similar to the United States, supply portfolio at the national level. Nevertheless, there surprising, given the fact that hydropower dominates the not perhaps modest.moreis been haveprovisionThis In Canada, the level and extent of renewable electricity Developments inCanadianrenewable electricity federal taxcredit. which,issue the on date,to bydominated the been has action slowly-evolvingfederal to links the straints,and implementing RPS policies RPS,in light of of transmission con- effectiveness cost the concerning debate are (Wiser and Barbose, 2008, 1). As the issue evolves, there so-called througheration,“carve-outs” gen- accommodated distributed and/or energy solar for RPS the of portion a reserve to need recognized a been has there developments in wind energy, in particular. Increasingly, 2008, 1). Barbose,and (Wiser sales electricity retail nationwide of percent 46 for account collectively that markets in of Columbia had implemented mandatory RPS policies so that, by the middle of 2008, 25 states and the District has increased in popularity (Wiser et al, 2007)—so much (Rader and Norgaard, 1996). the past decade, During it debate the to concept the introducing mid-1990s the place” “birth- the of the RPS, as with discussions identified in California during been has States United The Developments inU.S. renewable electricity renewable (REN21, energycertificates 2008). this obligation through the use of some kind of tradable While the RPS predominates, another approach, one significant stimulate to served have policies RPS Ian H. Rowlands february 2010 171 tates, 2007* tates, 6,330,050 Amount (MWh) Additionally, Canada and the Additionally, United States explore a of are number electricalthere intercon- Physically, between between the two countries. As - reliabil already promote to exists noted NERC in introduction, this chapter’s regional of number a by supported further is work Its ity. operations that span of three which have organizations, Electricity Western the boundary (e.g, the Canada-U.S. Power Area the Mid-Continent Council, Coordinating Council). Coordinating the Northeast and Power Pool electricityinternationalof range a in involv- issues fora ing other countries. Continentally, they include Cooperation the of North Commission for Environmental Group, Working American the North Energy America, and, more the broadly, International Energy Agency. Globally, the group includes with associated work the and Development Sustainable the Commission Renewable International Washington on the like gatherings DC, Washington, in place took that Conference Energy 2008. March And although nections the the between countries. two electricityof amount importsexportstotal remains and small relatively compared to the total amount of elec- tricity generated in each the country, absolute values electricity exports to Canada to exports US electricity Amount (MWh) Source Destination Oregon 1,440,369 Maine 1,462,576 Washington 3,402,811 California 4,618,468 England New Québec 1,202,946 tates .-Canadian Electricity Connectedness Connectedness Electricity .-Canadian .S nited S United and the Canada Between Exchanges Electricity Cross-border able 11.2: Manitoba Minnesota 1,202,176 BC NB Ontario Michigan 1,681,802 Québec Vermont 2,199,576 BC BC QuébecYork New 6,815,050York New Québec 2,149,560 Québec England New 6,897,117 Minnesota Ontario 2,812,087 OntarioYork New 7,415,852 Michigan Ontario 2,887,447 Manitoba ND/Minn 9,860,933 Washington BC Canadian electricity exports exports electricity Canadian S the United to Source Destination * Exchanges of at least 1,000,000 MWh. (2008). Board National Energy Source: U to advance renewable America. electricityNorth of parts in ground gaining be (Rowlands, to appears 2005), in Commonly “feed-in its called tariff, this a approach, most basic form, is a payment—usually at a premium compared with the market price for electricity—to “conventional” electricityrenewable facilities for every unit of electricity guaranteed generated, for a number the generator and some a contract between by of years, public and/or Payment levels utility may be authority. location facility by even or technology, by differentiated (REN21, 2008). In Canada, the Province of feed- Ontarioa pursue would it that 2006, March in announced, in tariff in or, its “standard a language, offer contract.” the virtual monopoly that the broke This development RPS had on the policy discourse (Rowlands, 2007). Consideration of feed-in tariffs in other as provinces, well as a number of states (Rickerson et has 2008), al, followed. now We look at the energy connections between the United States Currently and there Canada. are a num- ber of organizations examining shared energy issues T 172 Canada Institute occasional paper series O New Bruns C T vice versa. and States United the to energy exported Canada tion and details where among their 8,000 km border (IEA,2007, 27)). Table- providesinforma 11.2 more and a much smaller relative share went the other way Canada’s electricity was exported of to the United Statespercent 7 about 2005, In involved. provinces and states border the significant, for be particularly still can or loweror both.prices, or For example, interconnection reliability increased of terms in realized be may ment to better operation of the entire system. The improve- border, can lead both situation this of the international sides to paid is consideration and area, smaller, than provision overconsidered is larger,electricity a rather origin—when resource its of irrespective electricity the in follows that to applies this section. thing—and For one study subsequent case a for stage the set to cooperation on renewable issues. electricity cross-border This helps in interest emerging is there why sons rea- identify to useful is it section, this Toconclude ecn o te lcrct gnrtd n h province the in generated electricity the of percent NRCan,fromtaken are2006). 2004, and In 12 2004 for are (figures percent) (6 gas natural and percent) power percent),percent), (15 (22 hydropowercoal (15 province),the in generation all percentof (42 nuclear productspetroleum of means by electricity generates Brunswick New 2008b), Canada, Statistics from data population of approximately 750,000 (2007 inhabitants relationsbetween Maine.and New Brunswick Witha investigating recent aspects of and future prospects for bilateral and the relationship to specifically turns then focus quarter-century.The past the during evolved issues on governance that electricity havearrangements review the institutional context, analyzing the regional border, then international Brunswick-Maine New of ly the examine respective power resources on each side Maritime provinces and New England states. We - brief among interactions of context broader the within set he R a se S ationale for Cross-border Cooperation rnwc ad h sae f an, n is and Maine, of state the New and Brunswick of province Canadian the between relations examines study case in-depth ur tud y ofSharedElec wick andMaie tricityInitia now move toourcasestudy. reality,weinto translate might possibilities these how so that a more temporally-constant supply results. To see area”rich (with, for example, strong winter production) mer production) may be able to be linked with a “wind- area”a that “solar-rich (with,example, for sum- strong means area larger a upon draw Similarly,to ability the muted.be to renewables tends of 2007),variability the areeration facilities spread out across space (Milborrow, gen- when reach,as geographical such increased With potentially increasing its “firmness” in terms of by dispatch. electricity renewable of attractiveness the increase might area larger geographically a to attention time, would have tobe. in be areas both could lower capacity required it than otherwise and reversed, be could situation the which in instances be may there Or demand. seasonal high with area an in demand meet to demand seasonal low with area an in plant power a allow may Similarly, it side.other the on outage an following role a play to border the of side one on plant power a allow may I, 2008). EIA, from taken are and 2005 for are (figures percent 9 ing remain- the satisfy Canada from percent); imports (2 coal and percent) (6 products percent),petroleum (22 hydropower percent), (29 biomass demand), total of percent 32 (meeting gas natural include former The imports. as well as plants power in-state of portfolio a by met is demand electricity its and Bureau,2008) U.S.fromCensus data (2007 inhabitants million 1.3 (NRCan,generation portfolio) 2006). fuel-dominated fossil a provincewith (a NovaScotia sits beside Québec (a large hydropower producer) and is that system, New is a Brunswick winter-peaking and (NRCan, 2006; NEB, 2005). Important to provincesnote, Canadian other as to well,percent 11 another and (namely, Maine), States United the to exported was fuel (ISO-NE, 2008). has significant reliance upon natural gas as a generating collectively,that, system summer-peaking a is which (NE-ISO), Operator System England-Independent eod ad unn t rnwbe epiil this explicitly renewables to turning and Second, an, enhl, a a ouain f ut over just of population a has meanwhile,Maine, 2 einly Mie s at f h New the of part is Maine Regionally, tive 1 s: Ian H. Rowlands february 2010 173 Not much attention was paid to “renewable electricity” electricity” “renewable to paid was attention much Not Change Climate the adopted Conference the 2001, In Following this, the level of attention accorded Notwithstanding these good intentions—as articu- and promote competition (Watkiss and Smith, 1993). New Indeed, England was one of the pioneers in this and the ISO new area, New England—one of the first independent electricity system operators in the United States—was created by FERC in 1997 (Bushnell and 2002). Saravia, during this period, with one exception worth further highlight- foreshadow to served effectively it Interestingly, ing. elsewhere but continent, the of part this in only not debate, in July the 2000, Specifically, too. directed Conference of Richardson then-Secretary to letter a “adopt to NICE of Department Energy the (DOE) recommending U.S. and the with and NICE DOE states work the that U.S. to an maintain energy American open North provinces hydro-electric largescale of treatment the clarify and market It is further under federal restructuringpower legislation.” with the DOE on “to work willing noted that NICE was restructurfederal - any for programs renewable developing n.d.). (NICE, ing proposal” With respect to Action the Plan. electricitythis sector, car- of amount the reducing of goal the established plan bon dioxide emitted per unit of electricity use within levels. emission then-current of percent 20 by region the electricity, renewable to tied explicitly not is this While argue would example, for proponents, power nuclear and remains emission dioxide carbon play, to role key a has it 2008). in the discussion (Conference, point a key energy lead- continued In to renewable 2002, be high. ers “to pledged investigate new and renewable energy technologies and market In opportunities.” 2005, the Conference published a draft strategy for promoting renewable energy and energy as efficiency, and, well, at the annual meeting the following the year, NICE presented its report in entitled Energy “Recommendations Renewable and Efficiency Energy for Promoting Island PrinceEdward 2006, October In Northeast”. the hosted an “energy dialogue” focusing on “renewable power promotion”—a forum that was held under the later months six than fewer and Conference, the of aegis (11-12 February there was 2007), a Ministerial Forum on Energy and Environment in Québec was City energy” renewable where of development the “promoting 2008). part (Conference, of the agenda lated in declarations and studies of various kinds—it followed by an investigation of the 3 egional Context egional Context The Conference of New England Governors and the the and Governors England New of Conference The Not surprisingly, interest in energy issues at this States United the electricityin the scene in Changes he R T Useful for our analysis is a brief of review the regional formalthe which in context organizational administra- tive discussions between New Brunswick and Maine have taken place, Eastern Canadian Premiers (hereafter referred to as “the as to referred (hereafter Premiers Canadian Eastern the of Consisting 1973. in established was Conference”) Massachusetts, Maine, (Connecticut, states six of leaders and Vermont) Rhode five Island New Hampshire, and provinces (New has group the Brunswick, Québec), and Island Edward Prince Newfoundland, Scotia, Nova environmental both parts agenda, its of key as included, and energy issues. Indeed, a “Northeast International Committee on Energy” (NICE) was formed in 1978 in order to “monitor and act upon common energy issues in the New England-Eastern Canadian region,” concernmajor a been had energy governors the and of Conference the of establishment the since premiers and 2008). (Conference, regional level has largely followed what has happened at the global During level. the oil crises of the focus, major a 1970s was energy example, for 1980s, early and with renewable energy occupying the agenda as well. duringperiod, mentioned this often was power” “Tidal as well as the occasional accord- attention of level the reference to solar however, 1983, By and wind power. broadly, “energy” or even energy,” “renewable ed either renewable year, following the By significantly. fallen had energy appeared to have disappeared from the agenda This, altogether. as mentioned above, follows global including trends, dramatic declines in the world price of oil and thus reduced economic incentive to pursue or to explore energy strategies at energy, all. renewable 2008). (Conference, in the early encouraged 1990s, however, the reemer- gence of energy as an agenda item. In 1995, the one tasks of of the Conference was “assess to the chang- This ing was 2008). energy (Conference, marketplace” sparked by the increasing level of attention being paid electricityto industry restructuring at continent the on of Act Policy Energy the States, United the In time. that RegulatoryEnergy Commission Federal the gave 1992 (FERC) authority to monitor transmission systems particular provincial-state relationship that exists and to develop. continues 174 Canada Institute occasional paper series efudad n Lbao ae h exceptions.) the are Labrador and and Newfoundland (Québec resources. local prioritize to serve that RPS,havequalifications them twosome of least at but have an Canada five Eastern provincesthe in of Three Atlantic Canadaprovinces inturn. countries We each of the twoexplore by this further considering driven primarily by provincial- and state-level priorities. actions in Atlantic Canada and New England have been expressed in regional fora. Instead, renewable electricity regions have not served England to operationalize the New inspirational words and Atlantic the within and states provinces individual of actions the that remains state, Vermont,a had “standard,” a has now“goal.”but haveplace. in region RPS the an in states six sixth The the of five that see weStates, United the to Turning New Englandstates Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine. municipality of Matane and the administrative region of county regional the in incurred be must turbines wind the in of cost the of incurred percent 30 least was at Québec,that and farm wind each of cost total the of percent 60 least at that ensure must bids winning the regulation,all government Québec a with accordance specifically,satisfied. More be must in that criterion ic wind industry. There is, moreover, a particular - geograph of series “requests for proposals” as it aims to develop its resources andlocation. regarding what kinds of systems qualify both in terms of is 15 percent by 2010, yet there is a broad interpretation nificant qualifier. InPrince Edward Island, the RPS goal system, sig- a certification is Canadian-based it a is this that given and 2008), Inc., Marketing Environmental the need for them to be EcoLogo certified (TerraChoice for the renewable electricity generating facilities, there is Although there is no explicit requirementgeographical increases: from 1 percent in 2007 to 10 percent in 2016. gradually goal RPS the meanwhile, Brunswick, New province’sIn borders.the within located resources by however,satisfied, be to 2013.has by This percent 10 and 2010 by percent 5 is target RPS NovaScotia,the Hydropower, for example, is treated differently by the by inclusion.differently Hydropower,treated example,is for for qualify resources what to respect with variations the noting worth is it RPS, state’s each of details the regarding differences various the Amongst Although Québec does not have an RPS, it has had a 4 In 5

economic and social links. Additionally, they have long- New Brunswick and Maine have a number of historical T specific New Brunswick-Maine relationship. more the to attention our turn now webackground, heavily be priorities.influenced to local by this Against continue policies England, subregional New as well as have been articulated across Eastern and Atlantic Canada, requirements RPS(ISO-NE, oftheparticular 2008). generation,tricity meetsthewhetherdeterminethen it elec- of source the track to haveestablished ments been ISO-NE is playing a lead role in these efforts and - arrange contributions. protectto designed extraterritorial against been states’hasEngland NewRPSs of number a with goals oftheRPSmay nothave beenadvanced. particular the then exported), being power”is “green the (because jurisdiction neighbouring that in eration gen- electricity environmentally-damaging increase to serves simply electricity out-of-state of import the if generator;and,second, renewable electricity particular that from “sourced” been have to guaranteed be not can- electrons the that mean may transmission tricity elec- with associated challenges that, auditing first, the concerns are thereregion, the of outside from comes benefits.social Additionally, electricity qualifying the if able energy can with bring it a variety of economic and renew- as of development local states the often well),because neighboring Connecticut, for (and, erable pref- is England New of borders the within its states,location the of many For RPS. the in inclusion for the renewable resource can be located in order to qualify ables—may have toplay apart aswell. an RPS could stifle indigenous development of of renew- goals the meeting in role their that possibility the power resources north of the international border—and hydropower, the presence of significant largescale hydro- endowment affects the decision as to where to “cut off” RPS.its resourcestate-level of While terms the under Massachusetts does not allow any hydropower to qualify MW.of 5 state is The Connecticut,it MW; for 30 is numberequivalent Island, the Rhode limits: for ferent states, however, inclusion. Other for qualifies have dif- power facility with a nameplate capacity under 100 MW states.Maine’s of various terms the In RPS, any hydro- he New Brunswick-Maine Example Thus, notwithstanding the regional aspirations that aspirations regional the notwithstanding Thus, associated legislation concerns, such to response In where with do to has differenceobserved second A Ian H. Rowlands february 2010 175 Moreover, legislators Moreover, and the - repre 8 subregional policies continue continue policies subregional by influenced be heavily to priorities. local …legislation associated with with associated …legislation England New a number of has been RPSs states’ against protect to designed contributions… extraterritorial Nevertheless, there is still some frictionthesome still between is there Nevertheless, But discussions between New Brunswick and Maine and Brunswick New between discussions But Brunswick system. two jurisdictions with regard to renewable electric - Fority there one, policy. are those in Maine who are - renew state’s the to contributeothers have to hesitant able asenergy Maine Indeed, goals. developed its own it placedRPS, emphasis“steel upon in the ground [in clearly Maine],” looking for the economic benefits from indigenous resources of development renewable (Maine, 2005). sentatives of the Maine Public Utilities Commission continue to highlight “job creation and as development” reasons to promote economic renewable elec- 2008). tricity (Ravana, and potentially a key produce could and they continue, - renew on relations international for model path-forging critical Already be to ingredientsappear electricity. able complemen- in place and these include historical links, tary diverse needs, resources and synergetic ambitions. While they are not the only bilateral links currently in play across the border Canada-U.S. (the next clear- are section they ones), other of number a identifies briefly monitoring. worth ly ones that are That That could 7 and have recently been work- been recently have and 6 World World Gas Intelligence, 2008). Reports investigating Both jurisdictions would seem to benefit from great- from benefit to seem would jurisdictions Both On its part, the state of Maine has its own motivations. motivations. own its has Maine of state the part, its On er electricity New interaction. for Brunswick, its part, would like to increase its development of its interest given renewable all electricity, indeed, electricity—and, (NBSO, potential significant has power—and nuclear in 2007, p. 11) for supplying the States northeasternwith low- or no-carbon United electricity. ing to augment them. New Brunswick Premier Shawn Brunswick New Shawn Premier ing to augment them. released Baldacci E. John Governor Maine and Graham a report on electricity cooperation following from the Province the between Understanding of “Memorandum Brunswickof New and the State of Maine to Enhance the Mutual Benefits of the Maine/NewElectrical Brunswick Interconnections” or MOU, an agreement signed in Bangor, Maine on 9 February While 2007. focusing on more than just that renewable electricity, MOU noted, in its that preamble, “The northeastern United States needs new supplies of electrical reportA Phase of energy, 2007). (Maine, renewables” including I was released in June 2007 (New Brunswick/Maine, with the n.d.), Phase II report scheduled to investigate the feasibility and challenges of specific collaborative 2007). (Maine, approaches It has had a not-entirely-harmonious relationship with its New While England it partners. power is endowed state the hydropower, low-priced relatively of lot a with consump- the for” “pay to had has it that feels Maine of the to neighbours its by gas natural higher-priced of tion south—in in particular, the densely-populated areas of exam- for 2008, March 31 from Records Massachusetts. ple, reveal that New England had the highest power prices in the entire United States The (Riner, 2008). public—a made been has quo status the with discontent spokesman for the Maine Public Utilities Commission not made a of secret our dis- have “We reportedly said, pleasure of some of [the New England Pool’s] Power cost allocations and governance in structure” (quoted 2008) and one (Riner, been published have alternatives of these alternatives involves merging with the New be helpful given that New England states not only have have only not states England New that given helpful be in electricitythe (as obligations noted above renewable discussion regarding RPSs), but the emerging regime known as the Regional (RGGI) Greenhouse obliges these states Gas to reduce carbon Initiative dioxide (RGGI 2008). emissions as well standing electricalstanding links, 176 Canada Institute occasional paper series I of EmergingGovernance S Conclusions: Reflec A O days of renewable and electricity shared gov-electricity book, we emphasize the that fact it is still the very early this in undertaken are that governanceenvironmental could continue tounfold. unfolding, and are issues these how into insight some issues.rangeofa Nevertheless, wehave provideto tried tions with multiple states—has also been at the center of of degree economic activity, interconnec- and electricity the province of Ontario—with its large population, high examined. and identified be also could that cases Indeed, other are Canada,there and States United the between tioned in brief. Of course, given the length of the border border, Alberta and Montana also have had discussions havehad also border, Montana and Alberta relevant toourinvestigation. Gas are that Greenhouse examples specific two are Midwestern Accord Reduction the and System (M-RETS) Trading Energy Renewable Midwest the in participation Manitoba’s links. institutional are there (Bradley, occurred 2004).However, certainly noted,as have former the hydropower to of export latter’s the Minnesota,regarding and Manitoba between Disputes international relationship has been entirely harmonious. B,Appendix the pp.that suggest 11-15).to not is This cross-border cooperation (New Brunswick/Maine, n.d., for model a as some by identified is Operators System Midwestthe Independent of member a is Transmission issues. electricity HydroIndeed,Manitoba that fact the havesouth on its links to solid states the and Manitoba istics, intheconclusionsofthischapter. examples, drawing revealing upon particularly character- interest. Each is briefly described; then we return to those highlight three additional bilateral relationships that are of ther Cross-b n ih o bodr icsin aot cross-border about discussions broader of light In Moving west from this part of the international international the of part this from west Moving continent, American North the of middle the In tricity; one we have identified in depth, men- others cross-border developments regarding renewable elec- of number a chapter, upon this havereflected wen pet o rnwbe lcrct i beyondchapter.single a Nevertheless,of scope the is we electricity renewable on opments devel- cross-border other of investigation full order De tions ontheRol velopments ystems Even within regions of Canada and the United States,United the and Canada of regions within Even states—that to date remains a patchwork of approaches. developed at the subnational level within provinces and to draw from—particularly the that legislation has been is, declarations of intent. While there is some “hard law”law,”—thatof “soft form the taken primarily has issue level ofattention. Butaction, todate, hasbeen modest. for renewable electricity are attracting an unprecedented developments,geopolitical global of light prospectsthe in concern key a becoming supply energy of security the with and energy locally-sourced accompany often developmenteconomic “spin-offs”the that paid being ventional energy sources increasing, with more attention con- of cost agenda,the the with on place higher a to ernance. With climate change and air quality issues rising role todate. key a played Schwarzenegger, have Arnold Governor sonalities of the involved,leaders California particularly Energy per- addition,the Renewable In System. Western Information the Generation to led has which this issue, including the Western Governors Association, on cooperation cross-border for possibilities exploring natural gas. A number of formal organizations have particularly fuels, been fossil upon dependent highly is that (e.g.,demand cant system California),supply a also but signifi- there is only part,not southern the in whereas resources, hydropower significant are there Oregon), Columbia, (British Washington region and this of part consider the Pacific Coast.next briefly In the northern (AWEA, continent n.d.). the of Midwest the in exists that potential power wind substantial the unlock help to serves that fuels. In fact, this project could well be the first of many fossil upon reliance heavy Alberta’s address to extent, some to least at (MATL,designed,were2008). These 2008 in received were interface electricity major the approvalsfor west), regulatory the to neighbours their totheeast(nor,as theirneighbours aswe below, report regarding renewable electricity. Though not as advanced utemr, ht ciiy hr hs en n this on been has there activity what Furthermore, Completing our travels in a westerly direction, wedirection, westerly a in travels our Completing Ian H. Rowlands february 2010 177 Climate Initiative (emphasis added) lends added) (emphasis Initiative Climate Western Notwithstanding Notwithstanding potential future impact, it is also conclude We this broader reflection upon interna- The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the has not been able to do. able has not been ideas”— “policy which to extent the considering worth whoever generates them—are having an impact across can pick up examples bothflowing south- We borders. to-north, as well The as popularitynorth-to-south. of influ- has certainly States United the in system RPS the enced decision making in some Canadian the provinces. initiative on Conversely, feed-in tariffs in Ontario influence in the other direction. has had at least some observations two with governance environmental tional about how the case issue in-depth the of in renewable electricity particular, in is being illuminated, As framed. Rowlands, (e.g., elsewhere as well as chapter, this in study and 2007; forthcoming-b), renewable elec- Rowlands, tricity often is advocated initially to for reasons particular, of in envi- rehabilitation, or preservation ronmental evolves, declaration public this But change. climate avert econom- involving rationale a into develops, issue the as ic and Consequently, development public health issues. the termsof “framed”—in is issue the which in way the challenges it is designed to critical meet—by is scope supporters geographic The and significant. is opponents electricity, renewable of issue the on point this At well. as From work. at scales” “competing see sometimes see we rela- bilateral a saw we continent, the of parteastern the tionship that could potentially be at odds with a larger In biregional the one. middle of the we see continent, a number of organizations with overlapping member- ship the (e.g., Midwestern Governors Association, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator System), Tracking Energy and Renewable the Midwest participa- the And issue. this in interest an claiming each Ontarioand Québec of provinces Canadian the of tion the in scope geographic that observation the to weight further can be “socially constructed”; how accordingly, these issues are framed will have impact upon the develop- arrangements.ment of governance ways in which efforts to promote the increased use of renewable electricity in either Canada or the United States been have affected by transnational insti- actors, The tutions context and was structures. set by review- ing electricity—bothrenewable physical resources and policy strategies—in each Links country. between the twocountries on this issueThere werealso reviewed. There There is perhaps one exception worth the noting, extent the consider to us encourages speculation Such indus- electricity of restructuring a witnessing are We various “reliability councils” that operate in Canada and Canada in operate that councils” “reliability various the United With States. actions spanning the electricity on policy border, set traditionally have councils these issues with the goal of keeping As the inter- lights on. these groups have electricityest in increases, renewable begun to investigate aspects of this for issue, example, areas. international large, in power wind of reliability the providers first the among be to prove may councils The electricity transborder policy. “harder” of to which we would expect to see future policy driven by elected officials andtheir as appointees, opposed to exper- authority gain who through professionals policy tise and retain some degree of independence from the political process and that of governance. Given both how complex electricity systems consumers are, as is, (that been well have traditionally as they “closed” how about make to decisions many had traditionally not have par- become not have thus and electricity consumption ticularly educated about it), professionals—including those engineers whose job it is gov- to in technocrats run respective the the with coupled electricity systems, ernments—might be expected to become the primary players on They may this be issue. well-placed to play a significant future role. Indeed, one might speculate that the set of engineers traditionally concerned with “epistem- forman conceivably could electricitysystems ic community” that may ultimately have considerable transborder developing economists of Groups influence. systems for energy renewable certificates may be addi- role. tional candidates for a governance and speeds varying at albeit America, triesNorth across This is serving to encourage partici- to various extents. has what consequence, a as electricitysystems; in pation industry traditionally is been a facingconservative very challenges on a range of issues, for environ- example, mental issues as well as new ideas such as distributed generation. Prodded by constituencies interested these sorts in of questions, it is the elected officials who are serving forward to on ways this explore innovative issue in ways that the dominant epistemic community let alone across the international border, disparate poli- let the alone internationalacross border, - coordi policy strict of evidence no is There coexist. cies as construed be could what of evidence little and nation reach to efforts cross-border these in assist to law” “hard energy sustainability. 178 Canada Institute occasional paper series Reference note upon reflections broader interest, weof offer areas der Maine.and Brunswick cross-bor other - flagging After and New Canada between narrowly more New England, then and Atlantic and Eastern between context, general a continent—in the of part eastern the on ing followed in-depth examination of the activities unfold Database ofStateIncentives forRenewables &Efficiency, Bushnell, James andCelesteSaravia. An Empirical Bradley Ken. New Energy Technologies: Alternatives to American Wind Energy Association. Top 20Stateswith (forthcoming). policies istaken from Lipp(2007)andRowlands bodies thanhave focusedmore uponpolicy. above). Here, however, we concentrateupongovernance by Power theNortheast Coordinating Council(noted borderacross hasalsobeenaddressed theinternational rounding.) 2006). donotaddupto100becauseof (Numbers Québec (19percent) andNova Scotia(3percent) (NEB, were from New Brunswick; smalleramountswere from example, E7(2000). issues,cooperation onelectricity generally, see, for 2008. Available at: http://dsireusa.org/. Center fortheStudyofEnergyMarkets, 2002. Berkeley: UniversityEnergyInstitute, ofCalifornia Market.England Electricity (CSEM WP-101). Assessment oftheCompetitiveness oftheNew pdf. fresh-energy.org/publications/report_newenergytechnology. Dam Development, 2004. Available at: http://www. www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Top_20_States.pdf. Wind EnergyResource Potential. Available at: http:// 4. aboutCanadianrenewable Information electricity 3. systemthatstretches Operationoftheelectricity 2. (79percent) oftheseimports The vast majority 1. For more aboutthebenefitsofinternational s s - set to contribute to our understanding ofthesame. toourunderstanding set tocontribute also are they but experiences, governance ronmental envi - binational other from learn to set policymakers States, and the United across Canada both not are only sibly unfold. As interest in renewable grows electricity how governance arrangements on this issue might pos- Gattinger, M. “Canada-United StatesElectricity ______. Consumption, Price, andExpenditure Energy Information Administration. Power Electric CooperationandIntegration. Electricity E7 Regional provincesMaritime (Maine, 2006). that theresources could comefrom out-of-stateandeven the working groupput forward, there was acceptance Brunswick/Maine, nd, p. 4, forexample). (for example)andreceive revenues fordoingso(New hydropower in Newfoundland andLabrador facilities itself,the electricity itcould “wheel” from electricity system(NewBrunswick Brunswick/Maine, nd, p. 13). in Maine; itsonlyinterconnection iswiththeNew is noteven system connectedtotherest oftheelectricity ofthestate) part system(inthenorthern Service Service between thetwo jursidictions, but theMainePublic policies istaken from DSIRE(2008). Queen’s University Press, 2005. Doern, 143-62. Montreal andKingston: McGill– 2005-2006:, ManagingtheMinority editedby G. Bruce Associative Governance.” InHowOttawa Spends Relations: Policy Coordination andMulti-level 2008. Washington, DC: EnergyInformation Administration, Estimates. StateEnergyDataSystem(SEDS). Administration, 2007. Annual 2006 Washington, DC: EnergyInformation upload/File/E7_RECI_Guidelines.pdf. Guidelines. 2000. Available at: http://www.e8.org/ 8. That having been said, in the recommendations that 7. Even ifNew doesnotgenerateallof Brunswick 6. Notonlyisthere aphysical interconnection 5. aboutU.S. Information renewable electricity Ian H. Rowlands february 2010 179 Conference. Overview of Discussions, 1973-2002 1973-2002 of Discussions, Overview Conference. http://www.negc.org/documents/ at: Available 2008. NEG-ECP_Overview07_03.pdf. . http://www.nerc.com at: Available November rev. December 2005, Monthly Statistics for 2006. National Energy Board, AB: Calgary, 2006. 30, 2005. December 8, rev 2004, Statistics for December 2005. National Energy Board, Calgary: http://maine.gov/mpuc/ at: Available Phase 1 Report. . staying_informed/NBINTERIMMOUREPORT.DOC England 2001 Report of New to the 26th Conference Available and EasternGovernors Canadian Premiers. . http://www.scics.gc.ca/pdf/850084010_e.pdf at: Natural Resources Ottawa: Case 2006. The Reference 2006. Canada, A Comparison of the Beholder: “Beauty in the Eye Australia, Certification in Programs Power‘ ‘Green of States.” the United Kingdom and the United Canada, 1-25. & Environment 13 (2002): Energy The Sustainability in Restructured Electric Markets: The Electricity Journal, Standard.” Portfolio Renewable 1996. July 28, March News, Bangor Daily Electricity Debated.” 2008. http://www.e8.org/ at: Available 2000. Guidelines, . upload/File/E7_RECI_Guidelines.pdf REN21 Global Status Report. Paris: 2007: Renewables 2008. Secretariat, . http://www.rggi.org New England Governors and Eastern Governors England Canadian Premiers New American 2008. ElectricNorth Corporation. Reliability Electricity Exports and Imports: National Energy Board. Monthly Electricity Exports Imports: and ______. Understanding. of Memorandum Brunswick/Maine New 2000- Northeast International Committee on Energy. Energy Outlook: Canada’s Canada. Natural Resources (2002), Rowlands and Ian H. Mary Jane, Patterson, and “Efficiency Norgaard. and Richard Nancy, Rader, of Sources Maine?: Power Will “What Anee Ravana. Regional E7 Electricity Cooperation and Integration. for the 21st Century. Network Energy Policy Renewable at: Available 2008. Regional Gas Initiative, Greenhouse Canada in 2005. Paris: International Energy Agency, Agency, International Energy Paris: 2005. Canada in http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/ at: Available 2008a. . electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=CA Available 2008b. Agency, International Energy Paris: http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/electricitydata. at: . asp?COUNTRY_CODE=US 2007. Agency, International Energy . http://www.iso-ne.com/aboutiso/index.html at: Available Canadian Environment: Science, In Innovation, Provinces.” Bruce G. edited by 2007-2008, Policies and Performance, Press, University McGill–Queen’s Montreal: Doern. 2007. 2007. February 9, Electricity,” in Education, Partner http://mobile.maine.gov/news/?sid=29687. at: Available Standing Committee on Utilities Report to the Joint http://www. at: Available 2006. 9, January and Energy, . maine.gov/mpuc/renewable/reports/rsgdraftrpt_final.htm Standing Committee on Utilities Report to the Joint http:// at: Available 2005. 12, December and Energy. . maine.gov/mpuc/renewable/reports/u_and_e_121205 . http://www.matl.ca/ at: Available The Challenge of Electricity and the Grid: Renewable London: 31-54. Boyle, Godfrey edited by , Variability 2007. Earthscan, Commission for Montreal: Air Emissions. Power Plant 2004. America, Cooperation of North Environmental Calgary: Monthly Statistics for December 2007. 2008. National Energy Board, Brunswick System Operator, New Fredericton: 2007. 2007. International Energy Agency. Electricity/Heat in Agency. International Energy Electricity/Heat States in 2005. in United ______. Paris: 2007. Energy Statistics, World Key ______. 2008. England. About ISO-New England. ISO-New and the Energy Policies “Renewable Judith. Lipp, Agreements to Brunswick Sign “Maine and New Maine. Group: Stakeholder Resources “Renewable ______. Group: Stakeholder Resources Renewable ______. 2008. Tie Ltd, Alberta Montana Tie Ltd. Alberta Montana In on the Grid.” Power “Wind D. Milborrow D. American North Atten. Van and Chris J., Paul Miller, Electricity Exports and Imports, National Energy Board. ReportAnnual 2006- Brunswick System Operator. New 180 Canada Institute occasional paper series American Politics:American Institutions, Policymaking, andMultilevel (MITPress, Governance 2009). EnergyPolitics: Publishing,Perspectives(Ashgate Comparative International and 2009), and Policy and Politics: Prospects for Leadership and Innovation (Oxford University Press, 2009), to a number of scholarly journals and publications. Recent publications include chapters in Network. His research in renewable energy,Research Buildings Solar the powerwith solar in States,researchdomestic United and the consumption,and Canada in and electricity ablegovernance issues has led him to contribute housing with the National Research Council in Ottawa, exploration of issues in multilevel governance on renew- of an Energy Hub Management System with Centresthe Ontario of Excellence, development of energy-efficient projects:major developmentfour of with University associated Waterloo.the activitiesresearch ongoing has He Ian Statistics Canada(a). Percentage Generation ofElectricity Rowlands, IanH. Jane andMary Patterson. “A North ______. “Envisaging Feed-in Tariffs forPhotovoltaic ______. “The Development ofRenewable ______. (b). “Renewable Politics Electricity across Rowlands, IanH. (a). “Renewable Electricity.” In Riner, Bobette. May Prompt“Gas Prices MainetoLeave Rickerson, Wilson, BennholdandJames Florian research/11-621-MIE/2007062/tables/table4.htm. 2005. 2008. Available at: http://www.statcan.ca/english/ by Utility Companies, by Province and Energy Source, 64. Environment andSustainable Development 1(2002):249- Implications forSustainability.” of Journal International DefinitionforAmerican ‘Green Electricity’: & Sustainable Energy Reviews 9(2005): 51-68. Electricity: European LessonsforCanada.” Renewable 24(2007):Research 185-207. Influence ofIdeasand Timing.” ReviewofPolicy PolicyElectricity intheProvince ofOntario: The Governance. Cambridge, MA: MITPress, forthcoming. Politics: Institutions, PolicyMakingandMultilevel Borders.” InChangingClimatesinNorth American Toronto: Oxford University Press, forthcoming). by DeboraL. VanNijnatten Boardman. andRobert Canadian EnvironmentalPolicy, 3dedition, edited Nepool.” Natural Gas Week, 7,April 2008. Foundation North America, 2008. USA: A PolicyUpdate. Washington, DC: Boll Heinrich Bradbury. Feed-in Tariffs andRenewable Energy inthe H. R is professor and associate dean in the Department of Environment and Resource Studies at Studies Resource Environmentand of Department the in dean associate and professor is owlands “Why Wet, Windy MaineMay Leave USPower Pool for Wiser, Ryan, Christopher Namovicz, Mark Gielecki and Wiser, Ryan andGalenBarbose. Renewable Portfolio Watkiss, J.D., andD.W. Smith. “The EnergyPolicy Act of U.S. CensusBureau. Population Finder: Maine, TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, Inc. CCD-003: ______(b). Population by Year, by Province and Canada.” World GasIntelligence, 16,April 2008. 20(2007):Journal 8-20. Portfolio Standards intheUnitedStates.” TheElectricity Smith.Robert withRenewable“The Experience National Laboratory, 2008. Data Through 2007. Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley Standards intheUnitedStates: with A StatusReport Power Market.” Yale onRegulation10(1993). Journal 1992: A Watershed forCompetitioninthe Wholesale sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph. state=04000US23&_county=&_cityTown=&_zip=&_ servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=Search&_name=&_ 2008. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/ id=228. http://www.ecologo.org/en/seeourcriteria/details.asp?ccd_ Electricity-Renewable Low-impact. 2008. Available at: l01/cst01/demo02a.htm?sdi=population. Territory, 2008. Available at: http://www40.statcan.ca/ Transatlantic Environment and Changing Climates in North North in Climates Changing Canadian Environmental Barry G. Rabe february 2010 181 askatchewan has experienced a greater rate of growth in its green- its in growth of rate greater a experienced has askatchewan province Canadian other any than 1990 since emissions gas house use its in expansion tremendous to due is This state. American or Consequently, this Weyburn, Saskatchewan site has offered an early site has offered Saskatchewan Weyburn, this Consequently, Beyond this experiment, there is remarkably little formal col- Twenty Twenty years ago, Canada and the United States seemedto lead the internationaldestined response to climate recognizing that change, the devastating effects of global warming will cross national - ratifica with confronted when countriesparted two borders. ways the However, tion of the Kyoto Protocol and have continued along separate paths. This paper examines and next this considers steps. divergence possible endorsement Ottawa’s of Kyoto has not produced results at the pro- vincial level or in federal in Conversely, policy. the United States, there has been a vacuum of federal leadership following rejection of but Kyoto many states have unilaterally or taken multilaterally steps There are nascent to state reduce attempts carbon to emissions. recruit bordering Canadian provinces as partners in some regional initiatives. progress Transboundary on climate change - phenom has thus “top-down” far occurred than as rather a local, and regional i.e., “bottom-up,” pos- a and level federal the at played be to role a still is there But enon. proposes author The engagement. federal American expanded of sibility establish should Canada and States United the point, starting a as that a bilateral infrastructure to track and verify both nations’ progress on climate change explore other opportunities and collaboration. for of fossil fuels, with a growth rate more than three times that of overall that of times overall than three rate more with a growth of fuels, fossil Saskatchewan time, same the At Americanduringemissions period. this seques- carbon ambitious most and earliest world’s the of one hosted has This of has injection than more entailed million three projects. tration primary The caverns. subterranean into year per dioxide carbon of tons - forc injection the whereby recovery,” oil “enhanced promote to is intent - pros the is benefit added An surface. the to deposits oil supplemental es released being from dioxide carbon the permanentlyof pect preventing into the atmosphere. and dioxide carbon store to technology promising potentially a of test the carbon very Ironically, assist in possibly mitigating climate change. that dioxide has been pumped into the ground has been in produced neighboring North Dakota, a byproduct of a gasification plant and shipped the across national border via pipeline (Riding and Rochelle This project 2006). has been supported by a combination of private sources but also a unique partnership Department of Energy. between Canada and the U.S. Natural Resources laboration between Canada and the United States literatures Vast on serve climate to change. the frame the issue looming of threat of Bodies such as the Internationalclimate change in both nations. Joint Cooperation Environmental for Commission the and (IJC) Commission of North America, as well as non-governmental organizations, have S abe

arry G. R G. arry

niversity of Michigan of University B United States United in Canada and the in Canada Climate Change Change Climate Governance: The Absence of of Absence The Chapter 12: Chapter 182 Canada Institute occasional paper series h Uie Sae hs nrae mrel i recent in markedly increased has States United the and Canada both in saliency its challenge,though tal alleviate potentialimpacts. thereby and emissions global reduce to effort serious any in roles significant play to need clearly but actions throughsolveproblemchange unilateral the climate of cent of global emissions per year. They per- obviously cannot thirty nearly generate to continue together,they but,world the in highest very the among emissions of rates capita nations’per these are only year.Not each carbon of release global the to make States United the and Canada that contributions sizable the confirm also availability of water.drinking to These types habitat of documents fisheries volume, from this to contributors by addressed governance environmental of area other every virtually influence could that effects cascading impact,with potential its in daunting is that challenge They provide a common framing for an environmental therein. regions various or nation each for generated ter, this volume). Such reports are consistent with those productivity (see Heinmiller chap- shifts in agricultural levels, and sea levels, elevated water surface declining to for patterns changing disease transmission via insects, weatherextremeevents, of tion due risks health public prospectelevatedprolifera-of the temperaturebutalso the only not 2007).examine Federation reports These in both nations (IJC 2003; CEC 2002; National Wildlife change climate of risks the outlining studies published WTO WCI RPS RGGI IJC GHG FCCC ETS EU CEC Ke Ironically,newenvironmen-a not is change climate y to Abbre World Trade Organization Western ClimateInitiative Renewable Portfolio Standards Greenhouse GasInitiativeRegional Joint Commission International emissions Greenhouse gas gasesorgreenhouse Climate Change United NationsFramework Convention of Emissions Trading Scheme(ofEU) European Union Cooperation ofNorth America Commission forEnvironmental via tions prxmtl 1 pret bv 19 lvl b 2004. by levels 1990 above percent 15 approximately Canada, of that below growth emissions of rate a has actually but ratification Kyoto spurned States United economy and attendant emissions decline. Ironically, the its of collapse cataclysmic Kyotocommitment,barring its approach to begin not will Canada that recognized commonly is It 2004. and 1990 between percent 26 than more soared emissions actual its but levels 1990 was pledged to reduce its emissions by six percent from close to their emission nowhere reduction targets. are Indeed, Canada, Canada including Protocol, Kyoto the governancetatters.remainsratified in that parties Most climate Kyoto, after international decade a than more mechanisms. compliance and targets reduction formal featured that treaty a through established law environmental hard of form some to yield to needed and results intended ing commitment under the FCCC, produced few if any experiments in soft environmental law, such as nonbind- negotiations. Both increasingly acknowledged that early receptivitygeneral towardand ity these in engagement sever-problem on research their in consistency erable consid- demonstrated they and threat serious a indeed was change the climate and that acknowledged Canada States United both period, this of diplomacy. much international During of venues nations various among through cooperation formal some requiring governance, international of challenge a as framed be essentially would change climate that suggested 1990s decade.end ofthecurrent reduction commitments that were to be realized by the emission Kyotonearly-identical left with and table ing States took remarkably similar positions to the bargain- Kyoto Protocol. In this instance, the Canada agreement,and the United international binding a of negotiation 1997 the to 2000.levelsbyled 1990 then at This tion Change (FCCC), calling for national emissions stabiliza- the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate governments. A few years later, both nations had ratified and Canadian American both by supported was which greenhouse gas emissions be reduced 20 percent by 2005, Toronto.global that in recommendation a produced This hosted Atmosphere Changing the on Conference with a high-profile opening address at the International Mulroney heralded the era of global climate governance Brian Minister years.Prime ago,Twentyformer years Some twoSome the after decades Torontoconferenceand late and 1980s late the between activity this of All Barry G. Rabe february 2010 183 This would seemingly create tremendous opportu- Thischapterintended isfurther to explorethislack regional, national, and even subnational variation. It clearly reflects a differentmodel than that which has and policy environmental international much animated climate change deliberations, with presumed - move ment toward expanded international authority institutions new of over development and nations sovereign EnvironmentOrganization (SpethWorld and asuch as Haas 2006). nity for collaboration Canada between and the United for servingmetaphor perhaps a as Weyburn with States, engage- increasing the But engagement. policy extended and, regions, cities, ment provinces, of individual states, con- government, federal the even States, United the in gov- no simply is There quality. hoc ad an have to tinues ernance entity currently in operation that has much if collaboration on greenhousein promoting gas role any and reductions, all of the potential economies of scale that arenas policy across opportunities collaborative and climate governance collective Instead, this might entail. bringing together Canadian and American entities is largely nonexistent. alternatives. possible consider also and governance of It begins with a more detailed overview of ongo- within both nations, ing climate policy development placing particular emphasis American of state levels and onregional policy engage- unexpectedly high This ment. section will also consider early experi- mentation with creation of Westerna regional zone and states five links that trading emissions carbon for reviews then It formala agreement. in provinces two options, a series governance of collaborative possible blocks enduring stumbling the of some examines but with concludes paper The action. coordinated such to whereby globe, the around models other to references neighboring nations have decided to work together particularof with cases the to attention issue, this on Australia and New Zealand as well as the European hard so proven has it why ask will we Indeed, Union. for Canada and the United States ground to on given the climate somewhat change, dif- find common neighboringother jurisdictions, among record ferent and explore whether greatercoming decade collaboration is indeed a American possibility inand Canadian of future andthe thefor whatentail might that governance. environmental - At the same time, even the strongest international diplo- internationalfurther for eternalsprings Hope supporters of Kyoto, such as the European Union (EU), (EU), Union European the as such Kyoto, supportersof many in targets variousstrugglednational meet to have cases and have faced significant challengesEU the system, trading emissions in imple- continental a menting Other 2007). al. et (Ellerman, Scheme Trading Emissions have Australia, and Japan as such nations, ratifying major also struggled policies to and develop reduce emissions emerging economies such Of as course, China growth. and India were never bound by Kyoto and have seen extraordinarygreenhouseof growth rates emissions gas in recent years, leaving very few models and stabilization for is goal effective the indeed if governance climate emissions. of reduction macy and a seamless But internationalthe agreement. growing reality of climate policy in Northsub- Americanand national of quilt patchwork a is elsewhere and commitments, reduction emission and policies national often leading to formal collaboration between vari - ousjurisdictions. Some scholars begun tosuggesthave thatthe next generation of climate policy will involve a mixture of subnational, national, and multi-national agreements, developed through unique networks or partnerships. Such arrangements and are shared are resources related andenergy where cases most likely in natural boundaries emerge for defining collaboration, tran grid electricitythat regional a by shaped whether At least part of this differential, however, can be attrib- At least parthowever, of this differential, American importuted to increased of Canadian goods, in registered are manufacturing from emissions whereby these two cases Collectively, demonstrate Canada. that the absence of climate governance has produced dis- turbing performance results, despite initial hopes that purely-voluntary strategies and technological develop- ment would prove sufficient to reverse past trends of emissions growth. scends jurisdictional boundaries or formal compacts among governments with a history of collaboration. advantage considerableopportunity take toallows This of economies of scale and establish governance rules - relation priorsome with institutions among working ship and trust. Such a bottom-up approach suggests tradeandpossibledevelopmentof precedentsthe from monetary with policy, a gradual move toward cross- in and, some continental, internanational, instances, - tional collaboration, but allowing for some degree of 184 Canada Institute occasional paper series T Na it some cover for policy inaction for at least the first first the least at for inaction policy for cover some bought it have actually may and negotiations national Canada to remain a respected in partner ongoing inter- allowed endorsement treaty But 2007). (Jaccard sions sources that appear to have little if any impact on emis- voluntary programs andsubsidiesforalternative energy of array dizzying a from anything,aside do to Ottawa cies afterdecadesofpublic service. Chretien to leave ratification asJean one of hisMinister lega- primary Prime outgoing of desire the by enced taken,Ultimately,was influ- decision heavily latter the EuropeanUnion. a the with allied closely more position pursue and States United the from itself ferentiate dif- to climate,ratification on superpowerusing moral and thereby lay claim to the mantle of North American Alberta.hand,other the On Kyotoratify could Canada provinces,byof led majority clear a and organizations industrial prominent many by endorsed strongly was States.United position the This with interdependence unilateral implementation given its degree of economic clearly withdraw from could Kyoto, Canada hand, citing one considerable risks of the On 2007). Stuart 2006; (McDougall relationship binational the dominate to upon wherebythe asymmetries the United States tends around theworld but was largelyanticlimactic. headlines generated 2001 in Kyoto from States United the withdraw to decision Administration Bush sequent movingtowardfor ratification.plans his about sub- The then-Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential race Clinton remarkablyand Administration waslittle bysaid the of years remaining the in ratification of sideration con- serious any deterred Senate the in opposition stiff pursued different ratification routes. In the United States, evaporatedagreementbutnationsthesignedboth after States,Unitedthe andCanadaquicklyforested areasof of carbon sinks to allow substantial advantage to heavily- definition liberal as Kyoto,such to issues up on leading sessions all in bargaining unified fairly ture.of history A cesses.Kyoto is, course,of depar- of point fundamental a pro- development policy respective their in divergence Canadian ratification did not necessarily commit necessarily not did ratification Canadian This process gave Canadatwo distinctoptionsbased tional Dvergence at least partly attributable to important points of and the United States on climate change may be he absence of common engagement by Canada s aB arrier to Collab proposals under consideration in the 110 fuel economy. This step has been followed by of a flurry energy bill that included some increase in vehicular an mandatory with 2007 December in change to began programs.reduction This voluntary and otherwise) or every (low-carbonenergy of virtually generator to dies subsi- distributional with larded policy, Canadian to similar quite actually were climate on impact possible pro- longed inactivity. through perception Indeed, legislative products this with some to contributed further as a climate scofflaw. The federal government American it opprobrium in Ottawa, Brussels, and around the world approaching Kyoto commitments. movementsome towarddemonstrate to islative output leg- for respectivethrashing Parliamentsleft also has It action. possible any chilled certainly but cooperation policy to borders the seal formally not did step This parties.ratifying with conducted if Kyotopurposes for legitimate only were trades as Canada for meaningless both sides of the 49 ing cap-and-trade systems, had they been established on neighbor- under credits emission of trading the even nations.two Indeed,the between collaborative ties tial same time, this action served to formally weaken poten- follow-through.of the lack At near-total its obscuring States,United the from apart stand to willingness and commitment Canadian at marveled community policy few years after ratification. Indeed, much of the climate government encumbered by Kyoto ratification rather ratification Kyoto by encumbered government federal Canadian a with cooperation for exchange in rent of forms various extract to trying on focused has effort policy climate provincial much Indeed,period. this during little stunningly done haveprovinces most another point of and Canadian American divergence, as greenhouse aggressiveness.unanticipated with reducegases represents This to designed policies enact to ity ments began in the late 1990s to use their own author- asimilar strategyinOttawa.essence pursuing in was which neighbor smaller its coverto further ing emissions,gas giv- greenhouse to relatedlective action to a global of portrait disengagement American for col- contributed in Washington branches further legislative executiveand by disengagement of overallpattern the In contrast, American withdrawal from Kyoto earned At the same time,however,same the govern-At state American th parallel, would have been rendered or th a Congress. But tion Barry G. Rabe february 2010 185 This burgeoning bottom-up process in the United Alongside unilateral experimentation, a growing produced has system federal American the result, a As tion in subnational policy development and state and emission provincial trends are reflected in Figures 12.1 demonstrating and that 12.2, a far larger percentage of American states made have substantial policy commit- than growth emissions modest more achieved and ments a comparable percentage of their Canadian provincial counterparts. States essentially involves all imaginable options in the kit box of states climate Twenty-six have policy tools. enacted renewable portfolio standards (RPSs), which mandate a consistent in increase the supply of electric- now RPSs These sources. low-carbon from provided ity Americanpopula- the of percent 60 than more to apply tion and are under consideration active in many other principala as substantial behind serve driver they states; growth in adoption of new energy renewable capacity in the United States in recent In years. turn, 15 states - pro trading carbon a to commitment formal made have six and ETS EU the parallel essentially would that gram suit. intent announced to their follow broad have more California has attempted to use its to powers request a under federal waiver clean air legislation to implement reduc- dramatic mandate legislationwould that own its tion in carbon emissions from vehicles. Seventeen other newly-manufactured states have vowed to adopt grants government federal the if Californiastandard the and branch initial reluctance executive will the waiver, states in the courts. to be challenged by continue poli- multiple enact to attempted have states of number pursuing simultaneously is example, for California, cies. developing to addition in program emissions vehicle its energy cap-and-trade, low-carbon fuel, and efficiency, emis- statutory of pursuit in mandates energy renewable sion reductions by 2020 and 2050 that states would Other exceed world. the in government other any of those emission gas greenhouse and populations large have that policies climate of multiplicity a enacted have and levels New Mexico, Illinois, Pennsylvania, York, include New historicallyinactive even time, same the At Arizona. and Texas, North Carolina, states such Michigan, as Florida, 2008). Virginia suit (Rabe beginning are to follow and a diametrically different Kyoto from disengagement pattern federal American neighbors. from its Canadian has coincided with increasingly active state-level poli- cy whereas development, Canada’s formal embrace of w (<15%) rends o L 0 Provinces 2 Provinces Manitoba Québec w (<15%) o 12 States California Mexico New Pennsylvania 7 States Louisiana Michigan Virginia West L rends (1990-2004) rends rends (1990-2004) rends 7 Provinces Alberta Ontario Prince Edward Island Brunswick New Newfoundland Scotia Nova Saskatchewan 1 Province British Columbia High (>15%) tate Climate Policy Adoption Adoption Policy Climate tate 10 States Arizona Minnesota Oregon 22 States Alabama Florida Texas High (>15%) s) s) s) s) (0-1 w (0-1 (0-1 w (0-1 o o province: province: Renewable Portfolio Standard, Carbon Tax, Fuel Formal Carbon Renewable Standard, Emissions Cap-and-Trade, Reduction Target. rends High (2 or more policie L policie L policie High (2 or more policie than take unilateral policy steps well within their expan- their within well steps policy unilateral take than sive powers over natural resources and environmental protection (Rabe 2007). But as the provinces huffed and puffed about a Ottawa, surprisingly wide collec- tion of states began to act unilaterally or in concert to develop significantnew policy This initiatives. varia- Levels of Province Climate Policy Adoption* Climate Policy of Province Levels * Measures the adoption of the following policies within a state or Emission Growth T Growth Emission 12.2. Provincial Climate Policy Policy Climate figure 12.2. Provincial Gas Emission and Greenhouse Adoption T Levels of State Climate Policy Adoption* of State Climate Policy Levels Emission Growth T Growth Emission 12.1. S 12.1. figure T Gas Emission and Greenhouse 186 Canada Institute occasional paper series Canada ranks 51 ranks Canada CCPI,the of version 2007 the nations.In these among UnitedtheStates ranksand themnearverythe bottom and countries,between similarities Canada strong finds ernmentsof 56 industrialized and rapidly-industrializing evaluates the climate protection efforts of the central gov- als. The Climate Change Protection Index (CCPI),significant policy initiatives,which despite innumerable propos- eral governments have continued to struggle to formulate collaboration across the national border. Indeed, both fed- evident elsewhere in the volume.the elsewherein evident signifi- Perhapsmost phenomenon a with consistent arrangements, regional hoc ad represent rather but Washington and Ottawa signs of cross-border collaboration that does not involve states andtwo provinces) asopposedtocarbontaxes. renewable26 standards(in as tools portfolio regulatory explain the strong state government preference for such citizens.individual on maycosts This direct substantial strong support particularly for those tools perceived but as emissions,not imposing gas greenhouse reduce to ment in both nations for a substantial increase in efforts a range of policy tools. There appears to be strong senti- change and its perceived severity, as well as receptivity to reflects climate publicof existence the about sentiment efforts.This survey reputable other as well as States), United the (in Pewpolls and Canada) (in Reid Angus in reflected change,as climate on opinion of formity major polling in recent years suggests considerable uni- But countries. both in posed questions identical with zero, amongtheworld’s leadinglaggards. future federal policy engagement essentially from ground Saudi and Arabia. China of So both ahead of these barely federal and governments Kazakhstan consider by any States in 53 in States D Signs ofPossible Convergence and Quebec,as Manitoba have yet to begin to such approach their ratification, more active Kyoto of portive sup- outwardly most provinces those provinces. Even the from disdain with met been generally has Kyoto oe oceey hwvr tee ae en some been have concretely, however, there More conducted rarely is polling opinion public turn, In nations and even a few indicators of possible of indicators few a even and nations respective the between similarities significant espitethesegaping differences, thereare some rd place. The two countries are separated only st out of the 56 entries, with the United ever, to developing a “regional market-based multi sector to adapt.” us of all obliges it us,aroundand all is evidence “The initiatives. new the announcing in Campbell Gordon Premier Columbia problem,”British a said we’vegot know to change climate on Panel Intergovernmental the of work the to look to need don’tColumbia,we credits.British tax “In through businesses and citizens to returned be would operation,which of years three first its during billion $2 estimated an generate would tax 2008).carbon Anderson The and (Fowlie use fuel fossil deter disincentiveto pricing a create to designed is that 2008 February in tax carbon a introduced and across ministries with some likely role in climate change cut Action TeamClimate that provincial a established also economy. It fuel and emissions vehicle for dards stan- voluntary of tradition Canadian the from away parallels with the California legislation and thereby veers sold in British Columbia, through a policy that has some vehicles all for standards emission carbon set to agreed 2050.for targets longer-term wellas province The also els. targets for 2012 and 2016 as It also set intermediate lev- 1990 belowpercent approximately10 them place by one-third from levelscurrent by 2020, which would emissions gas greenhouse its reduce to target formal a the WCI,including joining before shortly actions eral program forcarbonemissions(WCI 2008). draft plans for development of a regional cap-and-trade WCI the in 2007. joined In March 2008, formally the Manitoba WCI and released detailed Columbia partners. British state on focused initially and California by InitiativeClimate (WCI), 2006 in waslaunched which NewMexico, Oregon, and Washington,the in Western fivewith states, American Western Arizona, California, policy development but have formally linked their efforts become the most active provinces of in unilateral terms only not have Manitoba and Columbia cantly, British for cross-border collaboration. Columbia,case of British perhaps opening opportunity change,the to in notably most beginning be may This state American neighbors in actual policy development. Entry Entry into the WCI committed both provinces, how- Columbia British took particularly aggressive unilat- Barry G. Rabe february 2010 187 Perhaps Perhaps most thesignificant, six participating states there has been Consequently, some attempt among jurisdictions, only some of which have an environmental environmental an have which of some only jurisdictions, Some policy of focus. these primarilyjurisdictions, the are on states, track to meet their 2010 goal of holding But has there been little of the to 1990 emission levels. of common and standards development poli- promised with cies, most subsequent effort resolutions involving details. that support offer few the general goals but are part of a Americanlarger regional effort known at the Regional Maryland, This Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Jersey, New York, New includes also initiative and Delaware and may expand to include other states such as All Pennsylvania. participants will be through linked a formal cap-and-trade burning program utilities that for is scheduled coal- to begin operation in 2009 and achieve a 10 percent reduction in emis- sions in its first The decade. RGGI states make clear their eagerness to serve as a possible model for federal will they that contended repeatedly have also but policy legisla-federal future any with cooperatively work only tion if it sets at standards the same or than greater level the regionalThe RGGI effort. process was developed between collaboration intensive of years several through lead environmental and energy officialsfrom partici- pating states During(Rabe 2008a). nearly yearsfive of deliberations, Canadian provinces (including those in regularly been have England) agreementthe New with invited to attend sessions and consider New Brunswick has but membership. remained a “observer” formal system RGGI the into entered formally has province no thus far and is there no indication that this will change in the near future. about think beginto to provinces neighboringand states cross-border collaborations, most of which emphasize some version of an emissions trading All carbon. mechanism of for these have emerged without any active engagement or encouragement from federal respective governments, much less any binational tal or and authority, vary continen- in detail from region to region. the date, WCI To is the only one that clearly outlines formal commitments and expectations of rather membership, ETS EU the and RGGI the approximating thereby The to mechanisms any lack that efforts symbolic more than be. might they lofty however goals, reduction achieve WCI precedent does raise the question of whether this cross-border in pattern larger a of beginning the be could will return. we a topic to which climate governance, Manitoba has a longer track record of support for One earlier effort at cross-border collaboration greenhouse gas reduction policies, though it has tended has it though policies, reduction gas greenhouse not to match its rhetoric with implementable policies lead- many or BritishColumbia of those to comparable ing The states. province made a major effort to build a strong climate policy team earlier in the decade but (Rabe departures staff after collapsed effort this of much 2007). But Manitoba has demonstrated a remarkable to proclivity sign cooperation agreements with various states. In addition to joining WCI, the Manitoba also Midwestern six with join to 2007 agreedNovember in states (neighboringas well Iowa, Minnesota, as Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, and Wisconsin) in establishing the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse faragreementthus This has 2007). (Pendergrass Accord Gas Reduction par- the of number a and WCI the than detail less much ticipating states not have been in active early develop- Several systems. cap-and-trade carbon own their of ment also Manitoba agreement, Midwestern the to prior years form to states Midwestern of subset another with joined promote to designed collective a Plains,” the “Powering regional renewable energy sources and other methods to reduce greenhouse gases that were particularly well to these jurisdictions.tailored involved six New England states along with Quebec and the Maritime provinces in an attempt to establish a regional zone pledged to common levels of a green- This followed 2010 house and by 2020. gas reduction long-standing set of common agreements among these mechanism” for emissions reduction. All WCI members WCI All reduction. emissions for mechanism” are required to have formal reduction targets emis- an and likely most are system, regional the use to expected sions trading to regime, attain much if not all of their reduction These goals. respective states and provinces track registryto common a establish to agreed also have under covered emissions all for trading credit manage and participation Columbia’s British welcome “We plan. the said Initiative,” Action Climate Regional Western the in California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in April 2007 after British Columbia signed a memorandum of all share “We understanding to WCI. officially join the the same goals of reducing greenhouse gas economic boosting emissions while change climate addressing and leadership on this Premier Gordon Campbell’s growth. issue is helping our two countries take a collaborative approach that will result in real actions and innovative the globe.” an impact across solutions that will have 188 Canada Institute occasional paper series aaa n te ntd tts s uh togr n a on stronger much is States United the and Canada in distances extended across infrastructure electricity conveying literal for the because part large in years, sions generatedamongparticipating states.American emis- address only can but system cap-and-trade bon car- Kyoto, have of a states ratification RGGI whereas carbon emissions from imports, its electricity despite its on restrictions any impose Ironically,not does Canada year.each Canada from electricity their of percent 11 than more example,secure zone,for RGGI the prise com- that states electricity. 10 imported The of tities quan- substantial on dependent are regions American some and decades subsequent in increased steadily has It 1992). (Averyt Falls Niagara at facilities generating and Ontario powerbetween when interconnectionNew an Yorkcreated ago century a than electricity more began in trade Cross-border fuel. transport and electricity of importation American through ticularly twobetweeninterdependencenations,the energy par- or even adaptationstrategies. der engagement, whether it entails emissions mitigation cross-bor-of degree some least at for made be can case a that organizations nongovernmentaltanks, and think ing recognition, at least among some individual scholars, increas- is there governance. But less much thinking, climate shared for “home”organizational any or issue this on lead the taken currently has which institution reasonablea constitute step.next Therebinational no is perhaps building on the modest step of the WCI, might possibility of whether some common action or strategy, anticipated.aremarkets new the vast raises which This develop new climate-friendly technologies and skills for mate change, and laggards in seizing to the opportunity cli- likely of severity the exacerbating in long action, increasingly depicted in circlesinternational as on short are neighbors American North these states, American among development policy of quilt patchwork a and Kyoto of embrace Canada’ssymbolic tion.from Aside records of climate policy development and implementa- States enter the “post-Kyoto” era with very modest track B The C hs nedpnec my ny rw n coming in grow only may interdependence This extraordinary the reflects recognition this of Much numerous reasons, both Canada and the United for envision to hard is regime,which national inter- new a toward leap sudden some arring a se f or Expanded Collab ae oiy eie a te 49 the at regimes policy rate port underscores the complexity of sustaining two sepa- scale are evident inotherareas ofenergysupply. province-to-state trade.electricity Similar economies of greater of possibility the explore to Plains,also the but Poweringas such organizations in engage to only not Minnesota, as such states with neighboring in meets counterparts regularly Doer Gary Premier Manitoba Indeed, provinces. other in those to than consumers to sold American be efficiently morepower could that cally expand their currently substantial capacity in dramati- hydro could they that feel provinces these of Both Quebec.and Manitoba from emanating enthusiasm est great- the with exports, electricity in ties north-south stronger supported activelyhave premiers all virtually their engagement in the Kyoto process (Rabe 2007).of condition a But as Manitoba and Ontario notably most ties, transmission east-west bolster to subsidies federal 2007). Some provincial premiers have frequently sought there are lines between than Canadian provinces”States United (Bevingtonthe and Canada between electric- lines ity more are there year, “Currently last noted ticularly in Western par- areas. years, recent As one member in of Parliament continued has those improve to between Canada and the United States and some effort linkages grid power 100 than more already are There east-westdirection.an in than continuum north-south eral cap-and-trade bill in the 111 Map 12.1). Combined with the real possibility of a fed- internal policy capacity in carbon emissions trading (see developsignificant to yet has neither and areas trading emerging these with linkage any have the WCI) into entry recent their (through Manitoba and Columbia British provinces, only the advanced.Among furthest the RGGI with program, cap-and-trade carbon a to states that border Canada have made some commitment regulation.of kind some of issue turn,the In raises this electricity,of Canadian absence of the givenquantities evenpurchaseincentive moreto huge for a Americans creates Canada in allocation credit and pricing carbon of absence of “leakage,”the concerns whether namely Canada.obviousin poses infrastructure This policy est mod- very a alongside zone trading emissions carbon American rigorous a is years few next the in emerge This physical reality of energy generation and trans- physicaland This generation realityenergy of or a tion th aall e o te 14 the parallel.Ten of th Congress, what could Barry G. Rabe february 2010 189 rade Policies rade T tates and Provinces tates enewable Portolio Portolio enewable tates and Provinces with with and Provinces tates Comparable opportunities emerge for virtually every every virtually for emerge opportunities Comparable tandards in S tandards Source: The maps were made by Cartographer Paul deGrace Paul Cartographer The maps were made by Source: ance instead on some form of ground transportation. other arena of possible policy to relevant development climate change, from carbon emission standards vehicles to sequestration strategies for that build upon the an effort to achieve Collectively, experiment. Weyburn greater unity in Canadian and American approaches might also maximize the potential for to both take full nations advantage of the that governments economic those to accrue development to likely opportunities actively and effectively develop new technologies carbon-constrained and a in demand high in be will that skills Just as many economy. private firms are attempting to take the advantage by many becoming “first movers,” American states in a North(most notably governments ap 12.1. S Map 12.1. Cap-and- Carbon Map 12.2. R S - Collaboration could also extend to other areas where where areas other to extend also could Collaboration begun have states neighboring some whereas Indeed, common standards and even the spectre of a shared emis shared a of spectre the even and standards common some form of carbon-related regulation was developed. developed. formwas some regulation carbon-related of The issue of renewable portfolio standards is instruc- tive especially here, given the dense concentration of or one with border a share that states in RPSs American juris- two No 12.2). Map (see province Canadian more identi- in energy renewable define RPS an with dictions cal and ways often establish special to provisions boost a specificrenewable technology that has a strong base of political support in a particular In jurisdiction. turn, we are also seeing a growing pattern “RPS of protec- whereby authorizing tionism,” legislation is somewhat discriminatory against electricity generated outside of the single jurisdiction, even in cases where it be might less expensive and more environmentally-friendly. This is especially possible among the given provinces, the absence of a Constitutional Commerce Clause to protect cross-border commerce, as reflected in Nova policy to Scotia’s confine eligible electricity to sources generated (see within chapter). Rowlands the province this Collectively, type of constraint likely deters potential in Canada and the of renewable full development devel- shared both for room little leaving States, United price-as renewables making and technology of opment sources. with conventional as possible competitive would that credits” energy “renewable try establish to to be transferable states across bilateral through agreements, state-and-provincial any crossed has activity this of none border yet. Looking ahead, one - pro could state, of envision blending a a perhaps trueRPSs, of quilt patchwork and vincial, federal policies that work at cross-purposes As in the case of a - cap-and-trade pro with one another. some mechanism to common establish definitions gram, energy renewable of system trading viable a develop and credits across these various one jurisdictions could serve to provide thereby and renewables to transition the ease path to reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. Similar particularly fuels, renewable of arena the in emerge issues dif- extreme the given material, plant from derived those ficulty of transporting these through pipelines andreli- sions trading regime. Such a regime could begin with the the with begin could regime a Such regime. trading sions Californiain seeing and are we as electricitybut, sector the European any Union, cap-and-trade system could readily be expanded to other carbon whether sources, entitiesfixed such as industries or mobile sources such nations. two flights in the as all commercial 190 Canada Institute occasional paper series T The C States,United the and Canada find to only not ways to betweencollaboration of form some advantagesto ous as the “world leader” in this arena, there could be obvi- itself position to trying is Union European the as just But approaches. similar taking are context) American downplay cases where Canada chooses a policy route policy a chooses Canada where cases downplay that prodasymmetries Canada toward convergence, but in which Canadian identity appears threatened through recent iterations of this thesis emphasize numerous areas “stealthy” or in nature (McDougall 2006). overt Ironically, whether pressures, more integration to submit to Canada on pressures continual laments and chronicles that scholarship of industry cottage a sustained also has convergence2006).pressuresfor (Helleiner It periodic despite policy monetary and currency separate a tain main- to efforts prolonged as such States, United the from independence Canadian preserve to attempt to Historically, this has contributed to a number of decisions Canada.with comparison in economy and population power imbalances given the vast scope of the American about Canadians many by raised concern familiar the case.course,this includes,of in This asymmetries cant discussions ofcollaborative opportunities. private, governmental, and research stakeholders for Torontobroad or the Wilson Center in Washington to conveneefforts by think tanks such as the C.D. Howe Institute in collaborativeeffort, periodic from aside serious a launch topoint to any existing institutional base from which to hard is it 2002,23).But (CEC America” North within potentialgoodandfor, transboundary emissionstrading and concluded in a 2002 report that “There is interest in, markets energy continental of analysis detailed sustained has Cooperation Environmental on Commission The cross-border threats posed by continuing climate change. the IJC have compiled research reports highlighting likely mon policy development. As noted, organizations such as com- of form any for point starting obvious no is there hence change; climate on role lead a approaches that anything assumed has institution continental or national olbrto i frhr opiae b signifi- by complicated further is Collaboration tion or network is no small task. No existing bi- organiza - bysome guided policy of form some ranslating the case for climate collaboration into a se A gainst Expanded Collab 212 margin in June 2009 and moved to the Senate for Senate movedthe and to 2009 June in margin 212 219-to- Representativesa byof House the passed that Henry WaxmanEdwardMarkeyand (D-MA) (D-CA) and Energy Security Act sponsored by Representatives Climate the American notably mechanism,most trade cap-and- federal a of forms various on focused have and challenges facing any suchcollaboration. and challengesfacing to such a partnership after reviewing likely impediments nologies and skills. We will consider possible approaches tech- essential of transfer and development the in role global a take to both prepare to but emissions reduce deliberations over climate change in the 110 to carbon emissions. In turn, most of the Congressional tool same this apply to transitioning of challenges the ous forms of emissions trading and relative comfort with state agency officials with considerable expertise in- vari these efforts are staffed (and, in some instances, guided) RGGI by and the WCI to operate on a regional basis. All of decade (Rabe 2004) and more recent efforts such as the current the veryin early regimes cap-and-trade carbon developto programs state unilateral in evident been ly protection (Raymond 2003). This has experience clear- air contaminants and in related arenas of environmental various for trading emissions in expertise considerable the federal government and all American 50 states have approach. As a pioneer in emissions trading mechanisms, differences about the appropriateness of a cap-and-trade culturally,or extending,philosophically and perhaps to in with emissions technical trading expertise beginning to collaboration is substantial variation in policy capacity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A further impediment to futureefforts link to attempt anyserious mitigate to anything, lagbehindtheUnitedStates. into a mish-mash of loosely-structured programs that, if Canada,”policy translated in has “made far thus which near-constant refrain in Canada of developing a climate climate policy tools subnationally. This is evident in the the point of Kyoto ratification or development of serious conform,at anypressureto whether see and American units, subnational less Ottawa, much and Washington in policy climate of decade last reviewthe to hard is it fundamentally different from the United States. Indeed, Nonetheless, these concerns persist and likely serve likely and persist concerns Nonetheless,these or a tion th Congress Barry G. Rabe february 2010 191 Regardless Regardless of the ultimate rationale for Canadian greater familiarity and comfort pol- with conventional number relative and economies of scale given icy tools, in sources gas greenhouse public and private of size and the Canadian case (Rabe Legal 2007). scholar Katrina Wyman has offered a particularly nuanced interpreta- tion of the “slowness Canadian to introduce pollution on cultural con- one that places less emphasis markets,” sideration and emphasizes economic and related have economists seriesof a fac- turn, In 2002). (Wyman tors Canadian of capacity concernthe about growing raised institutions to design cap-and-trade an system effective given limited expertise and pressures to weight down such a system with all sorts of exemptions and special for particular sectorspreferences or provinces. the recalcitrance, clear reality is that the United States is primed to move from a regional toward a national system of though even carbon many emissions trading, political hurdles remain and the implementation chal- Canada has In contrast, lenges are potentially daunting. little significant policy development underway in this of mechanisms market of use with history scant and area this sort in any arena environmental aside from fisher- ies So management. far concernsconventional beyond about power asymmetries among these neighbors is a rather fundamental difference in policy approach and capacity that could extremely prove difficult toblend such even imbalance, this Given system. shared any into issues as developing mechanisms to oversee emissions credit transactions or approve carbon offsets in trad- ing seem hard to reconcile across the national borders. One exception here be may instances in which one or more provinces in move “American an and direction” develop to latitude constitutional considerable their use a “home grown” approach that allows for direct col- laboration with select states or the even United States. This factor the Britishrecent makes Columbia venture as it com- WCI states particularly noteworthy, with the (pro- PERT failed its beyond move to province the mits technique) of program the gramand review evaluation beginand decade past seriouslyto regionala into enter emissions on emphasis some include will that agreement trading to achieve common reduction Another goals. exception may involve the Canadian federal govern- ment’s March 2008 “Turning the Corner” which includes strategy, a general commitment to “setting up a carbon emissions trading including market, a carbon 2008). Canada (Environment offset system” There appears to be strong be strong to appears There nations in both sentiment in increase a substantial for greenhouse reduce to efforts but particularly gas emissions, tools those support for strong imposing as not perceived on costs direct substantial individual citizens. In contrast, In emissions-trading contrast, has at moved a much further consideration. President Barack Obama concernssome over expressing while bill, endorsedthis has trade. its potential restrictions on cross-border pace slower in both Canada, for air conventional con- Both gases. greenhouse for recently more and taminants rejected generally have authorities provincial and federal voluntary of blend some of favor in mechanisms trading some and contaminants, air strategiesfor regulatory and modest early effortsprovincial to establish experimen- tal carbon trading systems (such as in British Columbia and Ontario) essentially collapsed. Such resistance to this approach and the attendant lag behind the United States there be may attributableFirst, factors. to several may be legal and Constitutional constraints on devel- opment of this method in whereas there Canada, have been no such questions in the United As States. legal like- a least “at is there noted, has Lucas Alasdair scholar lihood that the federal lacks constitutional government authority to legislate national standards and the neces- sary framework for a national emissions trading pro- The result is that gram. agreement federal-provincial is necessary and constitutional jurisdiction is not a strong 191). 2004, (Lucas side” negotiating either for candidate there Second, may indeed be resistance to such policy grounds, either on normative ministries, key tools from 192 Canada Institute occasional paper series other types of tax burdens.tax of types other scholars,Such from ranging reduce or sources energy cleaner to transition support to either used be could that revenue substantial erate the need for complex regulatory systems, and likely gen- direct incentives to reduce energy consumption, negate produce would it that contend proponents tool.Such logical perspectives, have increasingly converged on this mate policy analysts in both nations, from diverse ideo- fuels.cli- Ironically,fossil of from derivedset diverse a energy in content carbon the of taxation direct upon reduction gas greenhouse of burden the of some least at place and nations both in scholars climate of chorus growing a of advice the heed may units, subnational many others. including renewable portfolio and fuel standards among policies, other of confluence a feature likelyto also are but trading emissions on reliance of degrees varying involve indeed may neighbors American North these decade.next the Consequently, betweenpolicy climate also likely applies to Canada and the United States over and Zealand,New and Australia as such systems, ated feder- other in evident is dynamic achieved.similar A to pursue any menu of policies as long as reductions are be delegated to individual member-states, which are free geted for the next round. The remaining reductions will tar- reductions emission of percent 40-to-45 between address only to ETS hopefully,(and,functional) more proposals emanating from call for an expanded Brussels 2008 the even Indeed, regime. trading emissions this Kyoto that runs through 2012 will be achieved through continental reductions required under the first round of the receivedof has half attention,muchthan so less far from vehicles.EuropeanUnion, emissions the EvenETS in the where carbon on standards regulatory gent other waivera strin- morefor requestestablish their to states dozen a than more and California grants dent presi- the if further even go could decade.This next the overeconomy fuel vehicular in increases mandate to 2007 December in decision the federal in American of forms direct regulation. This is reflected, for example, is likely to employ some blend of policy tools, including system methods,multi-levelgovernanceany and-trade cap- on focused attention the of all for Indeed,tion. reduc- gas greenhouse seek to emerge to likely areas policy other in difficult so be proveto not might tion collabora- of degree some trading, emissions Beyond Where to Begin It is also possible that one or both nations,both or of one sets that possibleor also is It both have struggled to develop effective climate policies, turn,In counterparts. American North their to similar have neighbors These asymmetries with struggled long climate. on Australia and Zealand New between ship American relationship involves the burgeoning partner- able energyandefficiency. in select areas such as developmentstrategies of renew- States within the larger system are establishing common Member EU neighboring some experiment,the WCI (Ellerman,and incremental reform etal. 2008). As with learning policy through outcomes parsimonious more arenato complex lead a easily in could that experience learning as implementation, ETS in setbacks as such episodes,evenearly characterize scholars rience.Some that havecross-borderand little expe- sector that dominate entities large own) to continue instances, some in (and, protected historically have nations individual where sector electricity the in especially increase, to begun has cooperation cross-national whereby lessons numerous 2006).offers (Cass EU the But managerially nor politically easy not tools,is other trading,or sions taxation,emis- carbon through change,whether mate cli- to approach coordinated more a to transition the mental boundaries. govern-subfederal-level and federal across establish to accelerating the use of other policies that might be easier more efficiently or develop non-carbon energy sources, use to thereby ways find to entities private and ments govern- for stimulus tremendous a create would also energy carbon-generated of price the in increase clear a turn,imposing In jurisdiction. particular a in sold or generated energy against discriminate to not as so icies whereby neighboring jurisdictions could set similar pol- the reduced complexity of such a policy and the option cross-borderto path collaboration,easier much a given offers approach tax carbon a of consideration very the obscured through regulatory and subsidy programs. But be easily more can which costs of imposition explicit its approach,in this developmentof particularly full to impediments political enormous course,are, of There direction. this in move to begin they as Boulder and New as such Yorkcities City,American Francisco,San some and case Columbia British the ence, in reflected topic and may actually be beginning to have some influ- Fraser, have out been and papers churning blogs on this HarvardMarcat to JaccardMankiw Gregory Simon at ehp a oe p cmaio t te Canadian- the to comparison apt more a Perhaps that suggest Union European the from Experiences Barry G. Rabe february 2010 193 The carbon tax approach approach tax carbon The to path easier a much offers collaboration, cross-border and simplicity its given transparency. Such a starting point might lead to further areas where collaboration was indeed feasible. As more states where collaboration indeed was feasible. and provinces for consider, RPS example, and related some important policies to energy, promote renewable toward transition the ease dramatically could steps initial These sources. energy alternative these of use expanded did (and did what of definitions common include could and define to how and energy renewable constitute not) produc- renewable small and large from credits measure tion that sources could indeed be used to meet various jurisdiction policies. As with the emissions reporting common definitions and metrics could approach, serve a consistency that is currently absent among to provide states and This provinces. would reflect the fact that electricity and energy distribution is not sealed at the 49th parallel and recognize that some basic infrastruc- to is policy future if operation into put be to needs ture and effective. be credible possible embarrassmentpossible to firmswould face public that this might provide of disclosure their carbon emissions, the first common metric on greenhouse gas emissions in one Indeed, the of world. the key stumbling blocks to the firstround of EU ETS implementationwas the rush to construct a continental cap-and-trade system before any systematic program There of emissions reporting place. in was cap the under covered parties among remain doubts as to how far the EU has progressed in this regard and Canada and the United States have a clear opportunity in a designing lead a to role sys- take tem that transparent provides and reliable data to con- policies. future sider any There are, There in are, turn, important short-term steps that nego- extended in involved been have states 40 Nearly Canada and the United States (or clusters of provinces concert in perhaps interim, the in take might states) and move- than less-glamorous be may These Mexico. with yet and system cap-and-trade full-blown a toward ment could essential represent components of future cli- any This might mate beginpolicy. with common metrics, related and dioxide carbon for system reporting a namely Ironically, sources. major from emissions gas greenhouse the technical process for measuring emissions is simple a usually rela- instances, most in straightforward tively this to But, consumption. fuel fossil to appliedalgorithm most point, of the numbers used to calculate emission a having than rather projections and estimates are levels basis in formal and systematic disclosure and reporting This is systems. an area in which the Commission on role significant a played has Cooperation Environmental simi- provide and data these systematize to attempting in for inventories emissions conventional for inventories lar thus involved been not has it although nations, three all far in greenhouse gas emissions. disclosure for system common some establish to tiations and development of a common although registry, this quite be would It agreements. final any reach to yet has easy to expand this to include Canada provinces. and Mexico have begun to develop reporting but systems, This could evolve these too in remain very early stages. into an area in which all three federal governments or attempt and process this into enter could CEC the even to establish a Asideunifiedreporting from the regime. reflected in rates of greenhousegas emissions growth United the and Canada of those double least at are that to begun have nations both However, 1990. since States take significant steps toward collaboration in the past New while maintaining national differences. years, two Zealand has developed a cap-and-trade system broad with inclusion of emission while sources, Australia is consider to innovation state significant on building now active an begun have nations Both policies. national new cooper- might they which in exploring ways of process ate on this both issue, to achieve emissions reductions at the possible lowest cost and also possibly to emerge dis- and regionaldevelopment Asian the in leader an as semination of climate-friendly As technologies. in the be lessons may in there this relationship case, European American of Canadian and development for future any collaboration on climate change. 194 Canada Institute occasional paper series and multinational entities played some role in a gradual ferences by sector, nation, and continent. Many national dif- substantial recognizes still and fashion incremental WTO emerged over two generations. It was built in an 1990s,the in Mexico engage later the formally to expanded and decades, many over evolved States United the relationsbetweenand trade Canada bilateral Just as tional interna- institutions such as eventhe but World States United Trade the Organization. and Canada ing relationships,developmenttrade the of to involv- both (Craik andDiMento2008). North America of Partnership Prosperity and Security with the kind of cross-unit interaction envisioned by the comparable integrative mechanisms, perhaps compatible achievedbe might through portfolios comparable with ful in this regard. Cross-border collaboration of officials success- reasonably been have RGGI the American as such experiments entities, these between rivalries and divides traditional energy. Despite and protection tal environmen- with charged ministries or departments government between interaction serious for allow to crucial case,other.becomes this each it fromIn sealed hermetically are or commerce and energy of flow the follow and interactive are that policies climate prefer theywhether consider to nations both for opportunity unique however, a taxation, presents carbon of forms comparable even or systems such of development lel paral- possible The 2008a). (Rabe pressures political tremendous to subject incredibly and untested, largely remain complex, discussed, as programs, trade cap and Carbon proposal. Corner the Turning evolving its through considering is Canada direction broad the parallel to appear these But Act. Security Energy and specificity,reflected in iterations greatest of the proposed the American Climate have proposals American far, governments.Thus federal respective the by trade systems and cap carbon interactive but parallel of tion In many respects, these kinds of steps have parallels have steps of kinds respects,these many In construc- with coincide could this course,of Of all credible andeffective. be will policy future any that likelihood the maximize to professionals policy diverse together bring and data steps to establish an infrastructure that can gather with reliable beginning perhaps strong, remains collaboration for case the development.But policy collaborative or numerous institutional impediments to either unilateral remain there that concludes paper economy.This ly climate-friend- more a to transition a lead to tunities oppor- the seized or promises earlier those on deliver to impossiblebegun ally has nation either that argue to virtu- states, is of it American subset significant a from aside layer. But ozone rapidly-depleting a to friendly more economies to transition the securing in did they United States seemed poised to lead the world, much as at the Toronto,nations. neighboring ago and Twentyyears Canada two these and provinces, states, among interdependence energy and economic of degree nary extraordi- the givenquilt, patchworkespecially a such sustaining of effectiveness the about emerge questions states, American notably most jurisdictions, American and innovationexperimentation in some Canadian and of flurry a nation.everyAfter in government of level some blending of activity that cuts across involveessentiallyto continue will everypolicy climate that evident ly tional governance mechanism, it has become increasing- anticipated scholars a rapid march to a binding interna- ago, decade a whereas But action. unilateral of limits all arenas of public policy and clearly demonstrating the nitely more complex than trade, cutting across virtually models forclimatepolicy(Victor2004). once seemed insurmountable and may pose some useful that collaboration cross-national to barriers rigid some considerable criticism. But it has succeeded in reducing of focus the be to continues and numerouslimits faces national, regional, and international authority.blends that mechanism The current the into WTOtrade national inter- of system loosely-coordinated very a from shift Of course, in many respects, climate change is infi- is change respects,manyclimate course,in Of Barry G. Rabe february 2010 195 Century, st edited by Timothy Conlan and Paul Posner, 176-205. 176-205. Posner, Conlan and Paul Timothy edited by 2008. Institution, Brookings DC: Washington, Press, for the Future Resources DC: Washington, 2003. CO2 Monitoring Project. and Storage Weyburn IEA 2004. British Geological Survey, Nottingham: Island DC: Washington, Environmental Governance. 2006. Press, Johns Baltimore: America. Canadians in Upper North Hard Choices: Choices: In Hard the Law.” Climate Change and Wilfrid Coward Harold edited by ON: , Climate Change in Canada Waterloo, 179-198. Weaver, J. Andrew and 2004. Laurier Press, University ON: Peterborough, . Integration Canadian-United States 2006. Press, Broadview 2007. Resources, Water Lakes Environmental Forum (January/February 2008): South.” 10. Governance: Systems.” Governance in Multilevel and Administration, An International Journal of Policy, 423-444. 20 (2007): Institutions, American Climate of Odyssey Intergovernmental 105-128. Review of Policy Research, 25 (2008): Policy.” Multistate Collaboration Revisiting Change Policy: In Tool.” Management as an Intergovernmental Intergovernmental Management for the 21 Private Rights in Public Resources. Resources. in Public Rights Private Leigh. Raymond, The Rochelle. A. and Christopher B., James Riding, Global Haas. M. and Peter Gustave, James Speth, Americans and Dispersed Relations: Reginald C. Stuart, Lucas, Alastair. “Legal Constraints and Opportunities: and Opportunities: “Legal Constraints Alastair. Lucas, of The Political Economy Together: Drifting John. McDougall, Great Climate Change and Federation. Wildlife National All Regions but in “GHG Policies John. Pendergrass, Climate Change Policy Kyoto: “Beyond Barry G. Rabe, The “States on Steroids: Barry G. Rabe, “Regionalism and Global Climate Barry G. Rabe, s Environmental Politics,” Canadian-American Public Politics,” Environmental 1-33. Policy (1992): 26. 2007: April 30, Times, The Hill Energy Grid.” Press, York of New State University Albany: Policy. 2006. Environmental Challenges and Opportunities of America. American Electricity Market. Montreal: Norththe Evolving 2002. CEC, DisaggregatedCooperation in the (Partially) State: the SecurityLessons from and Prosperity Partnership Chicago Journal of International Law, America.” of North 479-512. 8 (2008): 2008. Cambridge Press, University Cambridge: Union. Air Pollution. to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 2008. Canada, Environment Ottawa: is First Jurisdiction in North Province Tax: Carbon Tax.” Consumer-Based Carbon America to have 2008. February 19, Sun, Vancouver Exchange Rate The Politics and History of Canada’s Press, University McGill–Queen’s Montreal: Regime. 2006. Region, Lakes 2003. Quality in the Great Water Howe C.D. Climate Policy,” Options for Effective C.D. Toronto: Institute 2007 Benefactors Lecture. 2007. Institute, Howe Bevington, Dennis. “Time for a Canada-wide Renewable Renewable “Time for a Canada-wide Dennis. Bevington, American and European Climate of The Failure Loren. Cass, of North Cooperation Commission for Environmental “Environmental DiMento. and Joseph Neil, Craik, in the European Trading Emissions et al. Denny, A. Ellerman, Action Plan An the Corner: Turning Canada. Environment Introduces “B.C. Anderson. and Fiona Jonathan, Fowlie, American Monetary Union? North Towards Eric. Helleiner, and Climate Change International Commission. Joint Diet: Low-Carb “Designing Canada’s Marc. Jaccard, Averyt, William. “Canada-U.S. Electricity Trade and Trade Electricity “Canada-U.S. William. Averyt, rence Refe 196 Canada Institute occasional paper series Protection Agency. Protection receive Climate to a scientist social Awardfirst 2006, from the the became U.S.Rabe Environmental environmentalon policy.publishedAward book best Politicalthe Science fromthe for Association American In Press,Caldwellreceived Institution 2004),the (Brookingswhich Policy Climate of American Politics Emerging The Universityof the books,at four Center of Miller author including the Virginia. the is He at professor visiting a and Institution Brookings the at fellow senior nonresident a also is Michigan.He of G. Barry Victor, David G. ClimateChange: Debating America’s Policy 2004. Options. New York: CouncilonForeign Relations, Center Press, 2007. Hopkins University Press and Woodrow Wilson R is professor of public policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University the at Policy Public of School R.Ford Gerald the at policy public of professor is abe Wyman, Katrina. “Why Regulators Turn to Tradeable Western ClimateInitiative. DraftProgram Scope ,Law Journal 52(2002): 419-502. Permits: A CanadianCaseStudy,” University of Toronto Recommendations, March 3, 2008. Statehouse and Greenhouse:and Statehouse Stephen Brooks february 2010 197 century after the signing of the Treaty the Boundary Waters has been transformed governance of environmental landscape dramatically. Irrigation, navigation and hydration (potable To an To important degree it was probably the uncluttered state of The century-old Boundary Waters Treaty was signed against a relatively relatively a against signed was Treaty Waters century-oldBoundaryThe institutions existing no were There landscape. bureaucratic “uncluttered” exclu- focused agenda uncomplicated the and tasks same the accomplish to from cry far supply—a water potable and navigation irrigation, on sively the complexity of today’s transboundary issues issues concerned with survival renewable andof energy, the biodiversity, fisheries, potentially While some and far-reaching consequences vast of global climate change. founder visionaries, Elihu Root among them, may have broader a expected address the to (IJC) Commission Joint International the and and treaty visibility the Today, pass. to come not has this agenda, transboundary Rather than attemptinfluence of to the IJC be may at an all-time low. this revive author them, suggests the time is ripe to build on the wide- create to matters environmental with concern public deeply-rooted spread, an institution with a more comprehensive on governments both to recommendations make scope. Suchand consult an study, might institution and issues, environmental cross-border with connected matters all and any be linked with the legislative branches of government through reporting mechanisms similar to those and rest Auditor-General of the the might Canadian failure or success its However, Office. Accounting General U.S. and stature public high the including warns, author the factors, several on pur- important the from away take not it that and members, its of caliber poses and activities of of subnational a governanceproliferation arrange- ments and cooperative agreements that have arisen in recent decades to environmental issues. deal with transboundary water) comprised the agenda of water management 100 years ago. They They ago. years 100 management water of agenda the comprised water) been have issues transboundary these but agenda, the on be to continue joined lake levels, by species, concerns invasive the generation, power and over exports water rights, native fishing, commercial and recreational agen- the Had change. climate of effects far-reaching and vast potentially da of transboundary water management been about this talk to broad down and sat the negotiators compli- Canadian bet and American fair a when is cated it resolution, their for framework institutional binational a and the Treaty International Joint Commission Waters Boundary(IJC) day. seen the light of have never would structures of absence near the and agenda management water the both A

s

niversity of Windsor of University Stephen Brook Stephen

Governance Environmental Environmental of Transboundary Transboundary of The Next Century Century Next The Chapter 13: Chapter 198 Canada Institute occasional paper series oe o h pit sae te rgesv ble that belief Progressive the shared point, the to more and, policy public in reforms major some over sided standards. But in the context of his times Roosevelt pre- Roosevelt was a long wayTheodore from of interventionist by today’s administration problems.The policy to Progressive movement’s in faith governmental solutions involvedforms.One the of couple a took ideas These management. water transboundary about thinking of new wouldhave without tion notwayssufficient been by entrenched institutionalinterests. governance process that new models were not ruled out the in fluidity enough was thereissues. wasterBut ary transbound- on wereagencies lead the External Affairs of Department the and Interior of the Department federal Canada, in community; policy this of part were already Engineers of the Corps and Army Department American side, the Department of the Interior,the On rasa.the tabulaState a not was issues these of agement man- the for setting involved.stakesinstitutional The were increases in both the frequency of conflict and the mon watersheds that cross the Canada-U.S. border, there intensified in the Great Lakes region and along the com- and increased agriculture and industry population, As border.the of respectivesides their on groups communi- and ties the to tied interests opposing sometimes channel thinkingabouthow tomanagetheseissues. budgets to defend and no deeply cut neural pathways to interests, no administrators with line items and program bureaucratic entrenched no short,ters.were, in There mat- these of resolution and monitoring,study the for without there being any stable institutional architecture arose,as these issues specific around negotiations hoc ad of consisted ways old the management, water ary when old ways already exist. In the case of transbound- difficult more generally is waysnovel in thinking and agement of scarce water resources. But doing new things over,” expressed the high stakes associated with the man- adage, fightin’for drinkin’wateris “Whiskeyfor and is was a simple matter when the treaty was signed. The old of water resources shared across the Canada-U.S. border, gest that water management, let alone the management and an institution as novel as the IJC. This is not to sug- British Ambassador to the United States, it— described Treaty—an “uncommonly good treaty,” as James Bryce, Boundary Watersthe as ambitious as treaty a create to providedopportunity that the issues these with deal to A relative to absence innova-of institutional barriers with governments governments: were there But conflicts actually appears tohaveconflicts actuallyappears declined over time. transboundary high-stakes in IJC the of involvement and,indeed,the case the been not has this exceptions ness to use the IJC when the stakes were high. With rare role. It would also have required governmental willing- and certainly insufficient for it to play this sort of leading havecomparativelybeen fact in overmeager history its ment of status and resources in the IJC, investments that invest-major issues.a waterrequiredhave would This transboundary managing in stage occupycenter to IJC created it had to be willing the to treatypermit and the couldnotbecountedontoaccomplish.of theparties achieve outcomes that the goodwill and sense of fairness dition of relying on structures and formal agreements to ernments. The model was solidly in the Madisonian tra- power to impose binding on rulings both national gov- least,include,powersat that it the assigns formally and for both parties, establishes a decision-making institution a policy problem: a treaty that creates obligationsformal IJC represents a classic example of a hard law solution to model embodied in the Boundary Waters Treaty and the allowed innovation. that for figuration governance con- The felicitous a in together came interests and ideas individuals, institutions, Canada-U.S. relations. The in behalf andthegovernments they represented. contained the ideas of those who negotiated treaty on Canada’s the Consequently, issues. water transboundary of resolution the for model workable and visionary a that the Boundary Waters Treaty and the IJC represented convictionoptimistic an Root Elihu State of Secretary Canadian negotiator, George Gibbons, shared with U.S. by the British at this point in time. However,managed formally the and leading mainly still were affairs foreign resources.watershared their Canadian of management the in countries two the of say equal the on premised IJC,wereinstitution,the new that a and treaty a from ship, Canada had everything to gain and nothing to lose management ofwater resources. binational of idea the for presidency his during space intellectual the create helped that factor another ably appreciation and respect for the natural world, was lifelong prob- his in conservationism,rooted of ethic the in whose nature problemswas essentially technical. to Roosevelt’s solutions strong at belief arrive could experts From today’s abundantly more complicated perspec- And yet, for this model to work, the governments that This model was perhaps only achievable at that point relation- weakerthe asymmetrical As this in partner Stephen Brooks february 2010 199 Viewed this way, it was probably inevitable that this Viewed the way, In the end, the real question is not whether the authority for these issues rests at the level of com- local and and interests The governments. provincial and state to tend also affected immediately most are that munities be local or regional and the causes of transboundary issues also are often within the immediately as affected may be area, true of a dam or other water diversion case, the always not is This pollution. point-source of or species and of Invasive lake course. levels are examples typi- and region a outside lie causes the where issues of cally are the beyond control of subnational authorities. But to summarize, the proliferation of decentralized governance models is perhaps best explained by transboundary the nature of the the issue, motivations for local and regional actors to and become the involved, Americansys- political and Canadian factthe both that large a enact to governments subnational empower tems law hard the shortof stop that measures policy of range of nation-to-nation treaties. and the IJC centralized gover- Treaty Waters Boundary be now by centurya launched would model ago nance and agreements subnational of wave a under submerged cooperation through regional and networks local link- IJC the for place no is there that mean not does It ages. and a approach more to comprehensive transboundary but it does strongly suggest governance, environmental that there are serious limitations to the of effectiveness this model. Indeed, some of the participants at the Wilson Center conference where the chapters of this the whether doubts expressed presented first were book decentralized model and reliance on soft law have the capacity to deal with such issues as the impact of cli- mate change on water water takings levels and supply, in response to the needs of populations far from and border, the Canada-U.S. the weaning of cross-border energy dioxide-generating carbon gridselectricityfrom ones. to renewable sources based making decision centralized of model Madisonian or soft-law the subnational, on decentralized, hard law, strik- involves challenge the Rather, better. works model, ing the right these balance models between in creating the institutional architecture for environmental gover- as we into move Therefore, the second nance. century of transboundary environmental governance between Canada and the United work States, or on which models appearmoment toto reflect it is world the of parts other in an be, may case the as opportune work, not The border that separates Canada from the United The of involvement these subnational governments States also marks a line of jurisdiction between provinces provinces jurisdictionof line between a marks also States and states and between communities. Issues involving water supply and recreational and quality, commercial uses of and shared water the resources, generation and transmission of electrical power are of interest to state, much of Indeed, and the provincial local governments. national the at treat not is matters such to that regard in authority governments of level subnational the at but level, operate sewage, water systems, regulate hydroelectricity issue commercial and other forms generation, of power the have and licenses boating and fishing Also recreational and polluters. of behavior the affecting laws pass to power their and communities native border, the of sides both on asserted have governments their rights in to be view involved of point their and matters, these on making decision the has last decades. been few accepted increasingly over The centralized nature of the model embodied in the Treaty and Boundary Waters the IJC was not able to accommodate the decentralized involvement reality of extensive the the - environ and agenda governance mental in of the process managing governments of subnational issues. transboundary environmental is only partially due to the limits of nation-to-nation structures and processes for managing the how- issues, the of much that fact the been has important More ever. tive, the Madisonian model of governance seems to have have to seems governance of model Madisonian the tive, - circum the fit to centralized too also rigidand too been Moreover, management. water transboundary of stances the political and economic stakes on both sides of the U.S. and Canadian the for high too be to proved border governments to empower the IJC to play given a dominant States, United the for true especially was This role. that it had the least to gain and potentially the most to lose from the binational equality formula in IJC deci- sion making. But several other factors contributed to gov- of transboundary the environmental development which through structure and ernanceprocesses the and it One operates. of these was precisely the broadening and transformation of the original which issue agenda, had been only about water into management, a much governance. environmental of agenda complicated more that this expanding highly set improbable always It was not- IJC, the through funnelled be would issues new of legislationenabling withstanding that the commission’s may issue cross-border any virtually that states explicitly national governments. the be referred to it by 200

Canada Institute occasional paper series governance amongitscountries. umbrella of legitimacy for transboundary environmental of sort providesa thus and states member of ernments gov- subnational and national the rivals that authority of center a as itself established clearly very has EU the Lisbon Treaty.the Nevertheless,of rejection 2008 ers’ vot- Irish then and 2006 in proposal the of rejection voters’French byconstitution,followed EU proposed the of rejection 2005 the in expressed clearly verywas and known well is population European the of much of cynicism Brussels.general in The making policy of centralization the about skeptical and rules its and EU the of critical frequently not aregovernments national groups incivil societythroughout Europe. have status and authority in the eyes of policy makers and institutionsthethatEUcase the thewerealso of not it UnitedtheandStates. However, thiswouldtrue benot ment more achievable among them than- agree makes betweenprobablysovereignty national Canadatheir dilute binding rule making whose terms of membership already that the EU member-states participate within a system of fact two,the onlybut are there when achievethan to makeconsensusdifficultmoretoappear mightmaking states. Having 27 national parties to negotiations and rule member- of borders the across cut that issues managing for bureaucracy specialized and elaborate an and nance severalbelt goverits supranational under of has decades - States. EU United The the and Canada between exist circumstancesof arethatquitedifferent fromthosethat transboundaryenvironmental governance istheproduct national complianceisspotty. meet, but member-states must that rules standards and GeneraltheEuropeanof Unionnow establishes binding Directorate- Environment matters.The these regulating anycentralized architecture formonitoring, studying and existed.However, untilfairly recently, thereexistnotdid whose consequences spill over national borders, have longwater and sewage practices, and energy generation systems, tries. country’sbycreatedone industries, externalities The their basins encompassing an even greater number of coun- Danube, run through six and 13 countries,staggering. respectively, The continent’s quite and been long majorhas governments European rivers, facing issues the Rhine and the Indeedthecomplexity theenvironmentalof governance similarchallenges.that face This is not to suggest that many national and sub- and national many that suggest to not is This for model centralized EU’s the aside, Effectiveness The European Union (EU) is an obvious starting point. ly to be able to take the lead in the second century century second the in lead the take to able be to ly well beatanall-timelow. may IJC the of influence and visibility later,the years under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Thirty last time the IJC acquired an expanded role was in 1978, ways. significant in The reformed be to likely are role the IJC to suggest that the treaty and the Commission’s of history recent the pass.in nothing virtually is There to come not has this well,but as issues transboundary coordinated watermanagement,approachto conceivablyand other a for process and structure a provide to expected by some visionaries, Elihu Root among them, probably was WatersTreaty Boundary umbrella.The The IJC and the Boundary Waters Treaty are unlike- of sort this lack States United the and Canada existing institutions. appear to take anything from whose formal powers donot does not require atreaty and… institution whose creation an entirely new binational action might beto invest in more effective course of governance… politically transboundary environmental in thesecond century of to beableto take thelead Waters Treaty are unlikely The IJCandtheBoundary Stephen Brooks february 2010 201 (Oxford, 2009); 2009); (Oxford, As Others See Us: As Others See Us: , 6th ed. Canadian , Democracy However, there However, is still no guarantee that a newly Freedom, Equality, Community: The Political Philosophy of Philosophy Political The Community: Equality, Freedom, to the legislative branches of government through such through branches of government to the legislative the and Auditor-General’s Canadian the as mechanisms General Accounting reports Office’s U.S. to the legis- latures of their respective countries. An environmen- tal commissioner reporting annually to the simultane- delivering House Congress, of U.S. the and Commons mattersboth include reportsthat ous agreementof and generate to likely be would them, between disagreement far more public and legislative interest than the annual recommenda- and studies special occasional and reports tions of the IJC. created institution along the lines described or above, structured in some other will manner, make the least bit of difference in terms of environmental outcomes. AmericaNorth is not Europe and there are many rea- sons to that believe the centralized model that is being constructed as of partEU integra- of the larger process And, here. acceptance widespread find to unlikely is tion if to a be institution new created even were conversely, and were to achieve a level of visibility and influence farwhat the beyond IJC capable was of during the last century of this environmental governance, would not governance subnational the importanceof the diminish arrangements that have proliferated in recent decades. demonstrat- have chapters preceding the of many as But of much the agenda of transboundary environmen- ed, tal governance between Canada and the United States arises causes from whose are not roots local and which agreementsand processes through with dealt be cannot There causes. true their with commensurate not are that are that processes and institutions for need a short, in is, and important the complement to comprehensive more across cooperation regional and local of necessarywork first centuryThe transboundary of environ- border. the mental governance failed to produce such institutions to centuryis second the of challenge The processes. and rectify this failure and expand our capacity to respond to what are now some of the most pressing challenges facing continent. our shared attractive ­attractive (University of Toronto, 2009); 2009); Toronto, of (University ‘Easier said than done!’ is surely the reasonable tephen tephen Brooks is a professor of political science His at research interests the Windsor. include University of as this prospect is, such an institution would be doomed be would institution an such is, prospect this as to inevitable marginalization and failure unless certain to One be would of have these conditions satisfied. are the and Canada Both members. its of stature public the United States would have to select - profession or representatives public of whose people caliber, cabinet-level al careers establish their credibility and thus contribute Another to the and prestige visibility of this institution. condition might be to link this binational institution response to this suggestion. The history of environmen- historyof The suggestion. this to response failed that institutions with meet to littered is policy tal It creation. their at when them for moment held expectations a grand the at arrived have we that however, be, may build to entrepreneurship policy skillful for possible is it public deeply-rooted concernon the with widespread, environmental matters such as global climate change and its consequences, to create an institution whose scope would be more than comprehensive that which in model Treaty-IJC Waters Boundary characterizedthe the first century of transboundary gov- environmental Such an ernance. institution might be assigned a broad consult mandate and to make study, recommendations to on both and any governments all matters connected as But issues. environmental cross-border with of transboundary environmental governance, of and transboundary this governance, environmental may be partially explained by the association that is typically made in the minds of policy makers and the the IJC and Lakes, the between public Great attentive and the general perception that its role is limitedIt water. is to doubtful that either of these perceptions Instead of attempting can and to be revive overcome. effec- more politically a IJC, the and treaty the reframe tive course of action might be to invest in an entirely new binational institution whose creation require does a treaty not and whose initial role and authoritystrikebalance a betweentheprestige needed ensureto that its activities and pronouncements are taken seri- whose but formal do not appear to take powers ously, existing institutions. from anything , with Alain Gagnon and James Bickerton (McGill-Queen’s, 2006); and 2006); Alain Gagnon and Bickerton with James (McGill-Queen’s, Six Influential Canadians, 2006). Toronto, of America (University The Causes and Consequences of Foreign Perceptions of S the political influence of political intellectuals, thought in Canada and the United foreign perceptions States, of His most recent books include Americanand public policy. politics, Understanding American Politics American Understanding The Canada Institute The Canada Institute strives to increase awareness and knowledge about Canada and Canada-U.S. relations among U.S. policymakers and opinion leaders.

The Canada Institute’s Occasional Paper Series The Canada Institute’s Occasional Paper Series serves as a platform for ideas and topics related to Canada and Canada-U.S. relations. Some of the papers derive from programs presented at Wilson Center events in the United States and Canada, others merit discussion on their own. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars serves as a nonpartisan and neutral forum for free and open, serious, and informed scholarship and discussion. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors; publication of this paper does not imply any endorsement of the papers or the views of the authors by the Canada Institute or the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. From time to time, we will post comments on these papers at the Canada Institute’s web site, www.wilsoncenter.org/canada.

202 One Woodrow Wilson Plaza 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-3027 www.wilsoncenter.org/canada [email protected] T (202) 691-4270 F (202) 691-4001

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Lee H. Hamilton, President and Director

Mission Statement The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars is the living, nation- al “living” memorial to President Wilson established by Congress in 1968 under the auspices of the Smithsonian Institution and headquartered in Washington, D.C. It is a nonpartisan institution, supported by public and private funds, engaged in the study of national and world affairs. The Wilson Center establishes and maintains a neutral forum for free, open, and informed dialogue. The Center commemorates the ideals and concerns of Woodrow Wilson, the only U.S. president to hold a Ph.D. by: providing a link between the world of ideas and the world of policy; and fostering research, study, discussion, and collaboration among a full spectrum of individuals concerned with policy and scholarship in national and world affairs. In addi- tion to the more than 700 meetings and lectures it holds each year, the Wilson Center maintains an active campaign of outreach through books, newsletters, the award-winning Wilson Quarterly magazine, and the globally syndicated dialogue radio and television programs.

Board of Trustees Joseph B. Gildenhorn, Chair Sander R. Gerber, Vice Chair Public Members: James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress; Hillary R. Clinton, Secretary, U.S. Department of State; G. Wayne Clough, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; Arne Duncan, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education; Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States; James Leach, Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities Private Citizen Members: Charles Cobb, Jr., Robin Cook, Charles L. Glazer, Carlos M. Gutierrez, Susan Hutchison, Barry S. Jackson, Ignacio E. Sanchez