Canada Canada Institute Institute

MARCH 2009

Occasional Paper Series

Transboundary THIS publication contains four papers from a two-day conference on Transboundary Environmental Governance in Canada and the United States, Environmental held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars on May 8 and 9, 2008, and organized by the Canada Institute. The conference aimed to provide Governance in participants with a better understanding of the varied institutional arrangements that make up environmental cross-border governance between Canada and the Canada and the United States, and determine whether these arrangements have had a substantive impact on the bilateral environmental relationship. United States Much of the discussion throughout the conference focused on the relevance and impact of the International Joint Commission (IJC) on bilateral environmental 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 gov- ernments 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 between countries. As Stephen Brooks points out in his paper, however, very little work has been carried out to determine the IJC’s impact or effectiveness in resolving transboundary water disputes. He maintains that the IJC is in fact in danger of becoming marginal- ized in issues of cross-border governance as a result of the creation of many other institutions that share its mandate. Consequently, says Brooks, the IJC has been relegated to a less prominent role than had been envisioned when it was created over 100 years ago. Timothy Heinmiller makes the case that although the IJC and its international river management regimes have been essential to the political economy of the Prairie region for decades, they now threaten the region’s stability by adhering to water management policies that do not reflect a changing climate. Implementing needed institutional reforms that promote environmental sustainability, Heinmiller says, will require overcoming significant political pressure from sectors with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. 2 Canada Institute occasional paper series web site, www.wilsoncenter.org/canada. From timeto time, we willpost comments onthese papers attheCanada Institute’s by the Canada Institute ortheWoodrow Wilson International Center for S of thispaper does not imply any endorsement of thepapers or the views of theauthors discussion. T a nonpartisan andneutral forum for free andopen,serious, andinformed scholarship and discussion ontheirown. T presented atWilson Center events intheUnited S related to Canada andCanada-U T environmental relationship. represent an essential component of the Canada-U.S. nowenvironmentaland address challenges to jointly to the emergence of Cross Border Regions that work led has activity this that issues.maintains mental She environ- bilateral of variety a address to level tional subna- the at occurred has activity of groundswell country, national either a in challenges the these address to level at action little been has there States.While United the and Canada between problems environmental shared address not to have sufficiently grown institutions bilateral current that argues in more detail by Debora VanNijnatten. VanNijnatten addressed theme today’schallenges,environmentala The Canada Ins he Canada Institute’s Occasional Paper S Heinmiller touches on the difficulties of governing theUnited S ■ ■ ■ ■ in Canada andtheUnitedSt Transb

t environmental Cross-Border Regions andtheCanada-U Divergence, orS T Role of theIJCinaChangingClimate Managing Water S Building from theBottom UpintheS he International Joint Commission: Convergence, he views expressed inthispublication are those of theauthors; publication he Absence of Governance: Climate Changein Canada and B. Timothy Heinmiller Stephen Brooks Barry G. Rabe Debora L.VanNijnatten oundary Environment tates he Woodrow Wilson International Center for S titute’s O cc ubmergence? carcity inthePrairie Region: T .S . relations. S eries serves asa platform for ideas andtopics ome of thepapers derive from programs asional Paper Sies collaboratively toreduce gasemissions. greenhouse saysRabe, both countries would benefit from working interdependence between Canada and the United States, energy of level change.high climate the Givenaddress be signs that North America is finally poised of tothe seriouslyNovember 2008 election in the United States may led initiatives to reduce carbon emissions and the results emissions. carbon However, in reduction nificant state- sig- achievea to capacity institutional and will political change. Rabe argues that both countries have efforts lackedby Canada the and the United States to address climate Woodrow Wilson Center Program Associate, Canada Institute, Ken Crist econd Century? tates andCanada, others merit In the report’s final paper, Barry Rabe examines examines Rabe Barry paper, final report’s the In a tes he al Go .S . Relationship: vernance cholars serves as cholars. 53 35 19 3 The Canadian-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty, which marks its centennial this year, is a remarkable achievement of foreign relations and environmental policymaking. It broke new ground by resolving, on a platform of bilateral equality, a number of transboundary water conflicts 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. Perhaps the biggest threat to the IJC’s relevance is the emergence The International of numerous institutions and programs that share its mandate. The resulting situation has left the IJC’s once preeminent voice on environmental issues as Joint Commission: just another among many. Convergence, Divergence, or Submergence? t one time, the International Joint Commission created by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, was the institution for the Amanagement of environmental relations between Canada and Stephen Brooks the United States along their shared borders. Since then, things have become vastly more complicated. The map has grown crowded with STEPHE N BROOKS march 2009 institutions and programs developed for studying, advising, advocating, resolving, and regulating these relations. In part this reflects the explosive growth in number and complexity of issues requiring transboundary environmental governance. While still an important part of this network of cross-border envi- ronmental management, the IJC and the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, at their inception, represented so much more. They expressed the possibility of convergence between Canadian and U.S. policies achieved through joint decisions made with equal representation from both countries. They embodied the ideal that commissioners should rise above mere national interests in deliberating and recommending on matters of shared concern between their two countries. But there was the potential for divergence based on the manner in which commissioners are selected. Appointments to the national 3 4 Canada Institute occasional paper series an Ins The Boundary Wa I would argue, itsrelevance, have beensubmerged. crowded and competitive, and the IJC’s status and, some and processes, and informal.formal The fieldgrown has cross-bordermanyinstitutions, so of agreements,scene the on arrival the of result a as part,but its on failures environmental matters has become diluted, not through transboundary managing authority preeminent the as mightdifferinsignificant commissioners ways. American and Canadian of outlooks and backgrounds member governments. This led to the possibility that the ­sections of the IJC have always been the prerogative of its ing body, theIJC. would take place under the auspices of a decision-mak- time.approachthe unprecedentedat management This Canada-U.S. an border, the across resources water of management joint the for regime broad a established that.It than further much went treaty the ments.But RiverMary andMilkRiver St. watersheds. the in water of apportionment the on agreement River(Article aboveNiagara Falls the the fromand V) diversionwaterexceptions, on some ban, with general itself resolved a number of specific conflicts, including a States were prominent and difficultUnited tothe manage.and Kingdom, United the Theby treaty represented Canada,between disputes border when era an during transboundary environmental governance. It was signed for established it structures decision-making and rules the of terms in treaty exceptional rather a remains and JointCommission, International wasthe creates which and structures. rules agreed-upon fromthose resultstreaty—generally a putdifferently, shared sovereignty theinarea covered by sovereignty­ national Diminished decision-making. of forms other and resolution dispute for mechanisms This paper examines the forces of convergenceand of forces the examines paper This IJC’sstatus existence,the its of years 100 the Over n hmevs hs wr iprat accomplish - important were these themselves In Boundary WatersThe of 1909,III Treatyof Article ht in hm Tete otn nld rls and rules include often Treaties them. sign that governments for rights establish and on obligations impose to treaties international of nature the is t titution f or Plic ters Trea —or, y C ty andheIJCas onvergence of transboundary processesof transboundary andinstitutions. gence, particularly since the 1960s, under a growing tide divergence. Also diminishing the and IJC’s convergence role of is forces its submer - these between tension the by limited necessarily is States United the and Canada to manage transboundary environmental issues between and interest. The hypothesis is that the ability of the IJC outlook in differences national by affected inevitablyis national equality and impartiality—and function, which the built-in dichotomy between its form—which stresses divergence that operate within the IJC and are linked to requiring IJC approvalIJC requiring anyfor diversion obstruction or Article III limits the sovereignty of each government by 1909).”(Canada occurs interference or diversion such where country the in place took injury such if as edies rem- legal same the to parties injured the entitle and rights same have“the shall country each that stating waters, boundary from diversion or with interference the right of reciprocity in the case of injury arising from Watersestablishes II ground.Treatynew broke Article Indeed, in both form and function, the Boundary Boundary the function, and form both in Indeed, governance. transboundary environmental structures itestablished for the rules anddecision-making exceptional treaty interms of was andremains arather The Boundary Waters Treaty that affects “the natural level or flow of boundary waters What was novel about the IJC was its truly bilateral on the other side of the line.” Article VIII imposes yet nature and the fact that both Canada and the United another limitation on national sovereignty by requir- States were assigned equal representation. Each coun- ing IJC approval for the construction of dams or other try was allotted three representatives and a national sec- obstructions “involving the elevation of the natural level tion chair who would preside over meetings hosted in of waters on either side,” and authorizing the IJC to his or her country. Article VIII of the Boundary Waters establish conditions for the protection and indemnity of Treaty specifies that the commission shall decide cases interests on the other side of the border. according to the majority principle. Articles IX and X provide that reports based on references require support from a majority of commissioners. Failing that, each nation’s commissioners would be entitled to submit separate reports which would then be reviewed by an Unanimity is not a independent umpire under Article XLV of the Hague Convention. Given the equality of national representa- requirement, but as a practical tion on the commission, it very quickly became clear that the decision-making style of the IJC would have to matter, nothing can be be consensual. Unanimity is not a requirement, but as a practical matter nothing can be accomplished without accomplished without some some degree of bilateral consensus. Three other features of the IJC’s charter are worth degree of bilateral consensus. mentioning. First, under Article XII of the treaty, each commissioner is required to sign a “solemn declaration” that he or she shall “impartially perform the duties imposed upon him under this treaty (Canada 1909).” Finally, in a final sweeping provision, Article IX This is a clear indication that commissioners are not assigns the IJC a potentially vast role in transboundary to view their role as that of advocates for their respec- governance that goes far beyond the joint management tive national interests, nor serve partisan interests within of water resources. The IJC is empowered to study and their own government or political parties. report on “any other questions or matters of difference Second and related is that the treaty does not empower arising between [Canada and the United States] involv- either national government to issue instructions to its ing the rights, obligations, or interests of either [coun- national section of the commission. The IJC therefore try] in relation to the other or to the inhabitants of the enjoys an unparalleled degree of formal independence

other, along the common frontier between [them].” This from its member governments. STEPHE N BROOKS march 2009 prerogative may be triggered by a reference from either Finally, certain decisions of the IJC are final and may national government or both. not be appealed to or overturned by national govern- This last provision did not establish that the IJC’s report ments. Article IV states that the IJC’s decisions will be and recommendations would be binding. However, its final in cases arising under Article III of the treaty, involv- wording—the fact that it anticipates referrals on a vir- ing applications for water obstructions or diversions that tually limitless array of transboundary issues—suggests affect “the natural level or flow of boundary waters on that its creators foresaw the possibility that the IJC’s the other side of the [border].” Final decision-making authority might extend beyond water issues. authority is also conferred on the IJC by Article X of If the IJC’s function was exceptional, so was its form. the treaty, which authorizes the governments of Canada Granted, the idea of a commission with representa- and the United States to refer transboundary matters— tion from both countries was not new. The Alaskan not just water management issues—to the commission Boundary Commission had been created several years for binding arbitration. The IJC has never received such earlier with representation from the United Kingdom a reference. (one member), Canada (two members) and the United Final authority on selected matters, equality of States (three members). national representation, and a potentially vast scope for 5 6 Canada Institute occasional paper series of DivergenceintheIJCLitera Res ■ ■ ■ ations andobservations serve asexamples. evaluassessments.- following The critical highly times some- and dismissive are tributes glowing Alongside effectiveness.and importance its bad,on to good from opinion, of divergence the is IJC the puzzles with associated the of one But authority. considerable with institution exceptional an to up adds issues boundary trans- on recommendations making and investigating tries representedtries on the IJC come conflict? into serious What happens then, when the interests of the two coun- the stakes were perceived by governments as being high. been the norm in cases involving controversy and when commission—suggests that divergence of viewpoint has the with the associated directly not those by on IJC—written literature secondary the of much But States. United the and Canada of outlooks and interests between the convergence suggest all com- hallmark the mission’s became quickly that decision-making sus consen- of model IJC,the the and for held aspirations Boundary Watersthe of terms Treaty,The original the

motne o te J i Cnd-.. relations (Deener 1963:37). Canada-U.S. in IJC the of importance” “transcendent the to G.V.States,referred Forest La Treaty negotiations between Canada and the United Columbia the of completion the after just Writing Rbr Btwl observes Bothwell Robert Partnership, of Politics book, his In United States” (Brown 1948: 26). settlement so far established between Canada and the IJC is] the most important single agency for peaceful signed,G.W.that “[The wasview his stated Brown Boundary Watersthe after years 40 TreatyRoughly secretary of state who signed the Boundary WatersBoundary the signed who American state the of Root, secretary Elihu of hopes the of short far fallen has it that “relatively that and it” of people…know few fact the in reflected importance, marginal rather of is commission the that view the annoyances.” transboundary of expresses also he But number fair a resolved IJC the years that the “over olving Na aaa n te ntd tts The States: United the and Canada tional Differences: Sugges

greater effectiveness to the IJC when it awarded muchdam- it when IJC the effectivenessto greater attributes Bothwell buried.” promptly was it 1992). “The idea was so ambitious,” says Bothwell, “that gime” to clean up Robert re-pollution in transnational what the “ambitious Great an Lakes launched as (Bothwell decision describes Bothwell IJC an 1918, In Unfortunately, issues. that environmentalvision soon transboundary struck the shoals of of the reality.management for arbiter impartial an as it for vision ambitious an IJC,had the of under con- founder original the widely state be to sidered is of and secretary Roosevelt was Theodore who President Root, Elihu gence anddivergence thathave beenrevealed. governance, with an eye to identifying environmentalforces of conver transboundary - of model IJC the assess and examine to is goal the publication, this of scope taking.the for open the remains Within that challenge ronmentalgovernance outcomes.and difficult a is That envirealistically opentoitinfluence transboundary - avenuesthe and IJC the for evolvingexpectations and commission’s functions, taking into account the original have the to concerning be based on measurable criteria well the IJC has done its job. Such an evaluation would ■ ■

1992: 9). partisan one to deal with all these matters”(Bothwell judicial board as distinguished from a a diplomatic and of creation the by world the to example an “set would it that wish the expressed who and Treaty make nooronlypassingmentiontotheIJC. policy foreign American on textbooks leading The Canada-U.S. relations. of aspects to devoted chapters are there year every that fact the IJC,despite the of mention any lacks 2006, and 1996 between series, Nations” Among of the IJC. Carleton University’s prestigious “Canada mention passing Worldand brief only make in Affairs”series “Canada longstanding Affairs’ ofInter- national Institute Canadian the of volumes Most It is beyond to evaluate the scope of this article how ture tions ages on the American side as a result of pollution caused been promised but never exported from the province. by a smelter at Trail, British Columbia, a decision issued Government and regulatory authorities on both sides a decade later. But this earlier case, Bothwell argues, was of the border were important in the resolution of this a particularly egregious example of the opposite and did drawn-out conflict, but the IJC appears to have been not leave as its legacy the sort of robust joint manage- sidelined. ment of transboundary environmental issues that Root Contentious, high-stakes issues do reach the IJC from has envisaged. time to time. One involved record-high water levels in The stakes were also high in the case of the protracted the Great Lakes in the early 1970s, causing widespread negotiations that finally led to the Columbia River Treaty flood damage in 1972 and 1973. The environmental in 1961. The IJC had been involved in studying the envi- impact became a source of conflict between Canada ronmental consequences of dam construction and flood- and the United States. Peter Dobell reflected on the ing of the Columbia River valley since 1944 and issued IJC’s part in the resolution (Dobell 1985:103): two reports during the intervening decades. However, the treaty solution was ultimately reached in direct govern- President Nixon was pressed in December 1972 by con- ment-to-government negotiations. The former chair of gressmen from the Great Lakes states to initiate nego- the IJC’s Canadian section, General A.G.L. McNaughton, tiations with Canada to reduce the flow of water into was outspokenly critical of the treaty (Bothwell 1992: 82). the Lakes. Early in 1973 the Subcommittee on Inter- These developments seemed to confirm that if the gap American Affairs of the House Committee on Foreign between the IJC’s view and that of the politicians was too Affairs began hearings on complaints that the IJC had wide, the IJC would be sidelined in favor of alternative not done all it could to keep water levels from reaching decision-making venues. record heights. These direct pressures on the administra- Although the IJC operates without instruction from tion led to an insistence by the American section of the either government, the specific terms of a reference IJC that the flow of water out of Lake Superior be to the commission may impose limits rather similar to temporarily reduced at the locks at Sault Ste-Marie. government instructions. This was the case, for example, The Canadian section of the commission was given only when the Canadian and American governments referred eleventh-hour notice of the United States’ intention and to the IJC the study of the environmental consequences agreed reluctantly on 30 January to reduce the outflow of raising the Ross Dam at the border between British and then only to preserve the traditional unanimity of Columbia and Washington state, as recorded in identi- commission decision. cal letters sent simultaneously to the IJC on April 7, 1971, by the U.S. and Canadian secretaries of state. The At roughly the same time the IJC had been assigned reference expressly prohibited the commissioners from a case that did not, strictly speaking, involve boundary

commenting on whether the project should proceed. It waters. This was the Point Roberts reference of 1971. STEPHE N BROOKS march 2009 also stipulated that the IJC’s recommendations should Point Roberts is a small piece of American territory be “not inconsistent” with either the 1942 decision that juts south from British Columbia but is physically that had approved a raising of the dam and therefore an separated from Washington state by Boundary Bay. The extension of the dam’s reservoir into Canada or a 1967 residents and developers of Point Roberts pushed for deal by which British Columbia had agreed to increased water exports from geographically contiguous British flooding in return for an annual cash payment. Columbia into the community, a proposal that met with The Ross Dam case is particularly interesting for strong opposition from the Canadian provincial and local what it reveals about the IJC’s diminished capacity as governments. The IJC established a binational commit- a venue for decision making when the stakes are high. tee to study and recommend what to do about the water The Canadian government was opposed to the addi- supply problem. Its proposal that Point Roberts be made tional flooding in British Columbia that would result an international park, jointly administered by Canada from raising the dam. The issue dragged on until 1984, and the United States, was strongly opposed by commu- when Seattle agreed not to raise the dam and to provide nity interests. The IJC was unable to resolve the situation cash compensation to British Columbia in exchange acceptably to both parties and essentially abandoned the for an 80-year guarantee of electrical power that had issue in 1977. 7 8 Canada Institute occasional paper series bu a omrAeia cmisoe.We con- commissioner.When American former a about anecdote an by home brought was point States.This to be higher within Canada than it is within the United seen organizations,generally sector publicis of IJC the to the Columbia River Treaty. But within the hierarchy overpute RiverColumbia the of management led that dis- protracted the or border Dakota-Manitoba North the at controversyDevil’sLake the as such arisen, has issue contentious very some when is this to exception region.Lakes GreatThe the of outside country either in profile high enjoyeda not has IJC frankness,the all States. In United the in than Canada in profile higher had,has IJC overthe years, that the considerably fact a forIJCdecisionmaking. consequences ofthesefactors commission may have influenced their outlooks, and the the on serving of IJC, the experience on the howrole atic way: their backgrounds, system- how they any have in viewed themselves their commissioners the studied has one no this, of effectiveness.commission’s part As the on out carried been has work empirical no almost governance in May - 2008, called environmentalself-assessment”— “internal transboundary on conference a Woodrowto remarks introductory in Center Wilson Rabe,about the IJC model—what fellow author Barry in Jerusalem. East as a model that could possibly apply to governance IJC has generated interest from as far away as the Middle between France and Germany. In more recent times, the be replicated as a means for resolving the border conflict model IJC the that proposed Warofficials I,Canadian Following Nations.World of League the to delivered after what became known as the “Canadian speech” was spokespersons Canadian by mentioned glowingly and world.throughoutemulatedthe wasroutinelyIJC The larly reference the IJC model as one that deserved to be ing speeches on cooperation,international would regu- successful. whyand theybelieveoperates how been IJC has the it everycommissioner, present,and past explaining when virtually by mentioned attributes of list the of top the mission’s tradition of consensus decision-making. It is at Politicians and IJC members are very proud of the com- The IJCModelVersustheIma h iprac o tee atr i ipid y the by implied is factors these of importance The observations enthusiastic insiders’ from aside But Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King, when - giv get backtothispotentialnominee. that he was not sure, but that he would check into it and individual asked, “What does it do?” The official replied might be interested in being nominated to the IJC, that U.S.bythe tacted he whether about Department State pendencefromgovernmentsthe financethat it. Against tion of consensus decision making, and exceptional inde - IJC’s form, involving equal national representation, a the tradi- IJC’sby performance.the underscored affect is This grounds, expertise, expectations, and roleback- their decision-makers,perceptions,including of characteristics will outlooks andbehavior. initial convergencetheir greater in generate and expectations and backgrounds different commissioners’ of impact the conceivablydull could IJC the workingon together of experience shared the But counterparts. their fromAmerican differently governance ronmental envi - transboundary in possibilities roleand its see and IJC’sthe to importance greater attach to tend work ers commission- Canadian whereby dynamic a produce hand,could commission.one to it the On on asymmetry lead itself of and in necessarily not would border havetheir counterparts withintheircountry.American to have a higher status within Canadian public life than sonable to expect that Canadian appointees would tend two national sections of the IJC. It would not be unrea - the to appointees of caliber the in asymmetry produce Canada than in the United States might be expected to Still, there personal arethe reasonsthat good think to viewedbeing a Simply as deal”the “bigger of north in prestige institutional greater and profile higher A United States. profile in Canada thaninthe years, aconsiderably higher The IJChashad, over the ge these neutralizing factors, commissioners’ outlooks and were prominent or held elective office. Of the 83 per- behaviour could tip the balance and possibly lend insight sons who have served on the commission, no infor- as to why the IJC, on one hand, has been described as an mation could be located for approximately one-fourth institution of “transcendent importance” in Canada-U.S. of the total. This lends the possibility that the informal relations (Deener 1963:37), but has also, at times, seemed findings reported here may not accurately reflect the rather marginal and disappointing in impact. reality of the IJC membership over its complete 100- Background information on each commissioner was year history. drawn from such sources as the Canadian and American To better understand the impact of commissioners’ versions of Who’s Who, Canadian parliamentary and U.S. viewpoints on the effectiveness of the IJC model, inter- Congressional records, and various online sites. Whereas views were conducted with eight current and past com- it was easy to find this material for commissioners serv- missioners, five from the American section and three ing within recent decades, it was difficult to find reliable from the Canadian section of the IJC. The basic ques- or in some cases any pertinent information on those tionnaire found in Appendix 1 was adapted for each who served during the IJC’s first decades unless they interviewee.

Backgrounds and Outlooks: An Evaluative Schematic

Differences in background may be associated with dif- to bring a somewhat different outlook to environmental ferences in outlook. Engineers and environmental activ- management than a person who comes from a business ists, for example, may have very different outlooks on background. whether a proposed dam is intended to generate elec- Obviously it is not possible to predict a person’s out- trical power or divert water for agricultural purposes. look on environmental or other matters from a handful Likewise, other things being equal, someone who has of facts about her background. But we know that these spent her career in the public service might be expected background details matter and may contribute to a pat-

Table 1: Divergence and Convergence in the Backgrounds and Outlooks of Canadian and American Commissioners: Four Possibilities

Divergent 1 2 STEPHE N BROOKS march 2009

CONVERGENT BACKGROUNDS DIVERGENT BACKGROUNDS Outlooks DIVERGENT OUTLOOKS DIVERGENT OUTLOOKS [LEARNING HIGH] [LEARNING LOW]

3 4

CONVERGENT BACKGROUNDS DIVERGENT BACKGROUNDS CONVERGENT OUTLOOKS CONVERGENT OUTLOOKS Convergent [L E AR N IN G [LEARNING HIGH] INCONSEQUENTIAL]

Convergent Backgrounds divergent 9 10 Canada Institute occasional paper series scenarios where a low level of learning takes place as a a as place takes learning of levellow a where scenarios American American side, the early history of the IJC sawof share“notables.” fair a the a haveOn included number IJC the of status,Canadianthebothandand sections Americanof views.It is, of course, rather difficult to measure political inter- fromand personal commissioners IJC on material twowere supported by data collected from biographical expectationsidentified above,four the last Ofthe only B ■ ■ ■ ■ below. are described uting factors opinion among commissioners.- Some of these contrib convergenceincreasethe might of experience learning a to contributing factors plausible:same seems the that hand,IJC.other the 4,the about Quadrant on written been has what of most is,with moreover,and odds at Intuitively, the in scenario quadrant 1 seems improbable IJC.the on serving of experience the of result a as ing as proposed. or dissimilarity (divergence) in commissioners’ outlooks, (convergence) similarity for potential measuresthe axis larity in their background characteristics and the vertical dissimi- or similarity the measures axis horizontal The time. in point any at commissioners IJC characterize in nationalityandculture andassociatedbeliefsystems. American commissioners independent of their differences tern suggestive of varying outlooks among Canadian and

a weight of partisanship and nationality on how how on nationality perceivecommissioners and theirroles. partisanship of weight the reduce may IJC the of authority limited The effects the reduce to serve will consultations expert and content IJC of character scientific The be influencedfrom thosewhohave expertise. the to are likely and to IJC in the referred matters background policy little have appointees Many appointment. receivenot do commissioners IJC upon instructions officials, Department State and ambassadors Unlike of partisanship and other political influences on on influences commissioners. political other and partisanship of Both quadrants 2 and 3, on the other hand, depict depict hand, other the on 3, and 2 quadrants Both - learn high relatively project 4 and 1 Quadrants Figure that1 might identifies four possible scenarios ck ground andOutl ooks: Finding

sumed characteristics are described below. are described sumed characteristics conducting interviews with a sample of them. These pre - examining the actual backgrounds of commissioners and expectations were identified and presumed to exist before States. IJC’scentury,the overpast role the cribing specific four des- literature United the of survey preliminary a the on Based and Canada between ferences dif- cultural reflect and differ will outlooks their that and societies different exist, there two from come missioners com- that is factor contributing missioners.possible A com- American and Canadian background among in characteristics differences by mediated be but to plausible,likely is scenario This outlooks. missioners’ com- shaping in factors other than consequence less of is IJC the on byserving gained experience and tion and stalemate, neitherofwhichhasbeentypical. by a high degree of conflict between the national sections paints a scene where IJC decision making is characterized result of serving on the IJC. Quadrant 2, the most unlikely, a Conservative Party member of Parliament; Arnold Arnold Parliament; of member Party Conservative a Casgrain, Chase Thomas including appointment, IJC their before roles prominent in served who individuals many included have chairs Republicans. Canadian all Rep.(Wyoming)Jamesand Clark Tawney (Minnesota), chairs,Senators ThomasCarter (Montana) and Clarence prominent members of Congress appointed, including, as ■ ■ ■ ■

- orienta the where scenario a describes 3 Quadrant the two nationalsections. convergence in the outlooks of commissioners from Service on the IJC tends to generate some degree of appointees. likely to have environmental U.S. expertise than in Canadian less are appointees factor IJC American so appointments, a frequently more is Partisanship their in careers thanare Canadiancommissioners. later appointed are commissioners U.S. do withintheUnitedStates. within U.S.than appointees status society and politics Canadian higher have appointees Canadian gons n hc t assume to which on grounds facie, prima s

Heeney, former ambassador to the United States; General U.S. commissioners and that a smaller percentage of Andrew Macnaughton, former minister of Defense and Canadian commissioners, 48 percent, had ever served ambassador to the United Nations; Maxwell Cohen, dean in Parliament or been elected to a provincial legisla- of law at McGill University, who chaired a number of ture. Public service and academia have been more active federal commissions; Davey Fulton, a Conservative cabi- recruiting grounds for Canadian than American com- net minister; and Herb Gray, a Liberal cabinet minister missioners. It is worth noting that only a handful of and deputy prime minister. It would appear that the rela- commissioners with professional backgrounds in busi- tive status of U.S. appointees has declined somewhat in ness or engineering backgrounds were recruited for recent decades, and that there has been greater consis- either national section—even though a couple of these tency over time in the relative status in Canadian public individuals served as national section chairs, includ- life of those appointed to the commission. But that is a ing Claude Lanthier on the Canadian side and Roger judgment call. McWhorter on the American side. Again, the data were incomplete, with reliable information on 34 of 43 U.S. commissioners (79 percent) and 31 of 40 Canadian commissioners (78 percent). Cautious interpretation is Partisanship plays a larger therefore advised. role in American nominations Table 2: Career Backgrounds of IJC Commissioners COUNTRY CANADA UNITED to the IJC. STATES Parliament/Congress 35% (11) 53% (18) Provincial/State politics 13% (4) 18% (6) The second expectation, that American commission- Public service (non-elected) 19% (6) 9% (3) ers will tend to be appointed later than their Canadian Business 13% (4) 6% (2) counterparts, follows from the first. If the IJC has less Academe 16% (5) 9% (3) relative visibility and prestige in the United States than Engineering 3% (1) 6% (2) in Canada, then it logically would follow that American commissioners might be older at the time of their appointment than Canadian commissioners. The infer- The final expectation, that the very experience of ence is that appointment to the IJC would provide a serving on the IJC influences commissioners’ outlooks

final stint of public service before retiring from active towards greater convergence, goes to the heart of the STEPHE N BROOKS march 2009 public life. IJC model. The main basis for this assessment derives In fact, the average age of U.S. commissioners when from personal interviews with eight commissioners, appointed is 59.5 years, compared to 57.9 for Canadian past and present, including several national chairs. These commissioners. Granted, these data are based on incom- individuals represent only one-tenth of all commission- plete data. But they are representative of 28 of 43 U.S. ers who have served on the IJC, but they all have served commissioners (65 percent) and 27 of 40 Canadian over the past couple of decades. It is quite possible that commissioners (68 percent) during the period from commissioners who served earlier in the IJC’s history 1909 to 2007. might have responded differently to the survey ques- The third expectation, that partisanship plays a larger tions (Appendix 1). However, to reach an understanding role in American nominations to the IJC and that of how the IJC functions today, including its possibilities American commissioners are less likely than Canadian and limitations, the outlooks and experiences of recent appointees to have experience in environmental issues commissioners are most beneficial. when appointed, is supported by the background data. When asked about the circumstances of their appoint- Table 2 shows that appointees with backgrounds in ment to the IJC, four commissioners indicated that they Congress or state politics comprise 71 percent of all had requested a position on the IJC and four said they 11 12 Canada Institute occasional paper series by the Canadian government in 1995, was such an excep- well-known Béland, appointed IJC. Pierre appoint the environmentalists to to policy U.S. or Canadian the the commission. before come that issues modeling environmental and natural sciences, so both were familiar with the scientific background in environmental policy and another in the appointment. the for them strongfied a prior had One quali- that backgrounds had ment, commissioners two American sideof theborder. role inpolicy makingonthe aimed atmarginalizing theIJC’s accelerated efforts oropinions a goodchance thatwould have American governments, there is wedge between theCanadian and issue inaway thathaddriven a forcefully into theacidrain Had theIJCinserted itself in Washington, D.C. nity to sit on a commission of this level without residing key factor in seeking the appointment was the - opportu environmental issues and was aware of the IJC, but said a in interest an had commissioner commission. fourth A the about knowledge levelof high a with began three appointment,IJC an role.for asked who those Among IJC had low knowledgeprior of the commission and its the requestedto not appointment had an who those of by someone else, a governor or senator, for example. All forwardput been had name their that but commission to the anappointment for asked specifically not had With some notable exceptions, it has not been been not has it exceptions, notable some With As for the others, despite not seeking the appoint- the seeking not despite others, the for As

when she found that its behavior did not conform to conform not did behavior its that found she when sideoftheborder.American the on making policy in IJC’srole the at marginalizing aimed opinions or efforts accelerated have would and governments,American there is a good chance that Canadian the betweenwedge a driven had that way a in issue rain acid the into forcefully itself inserted IJC thewater system was hightheon IJC’s agenda. Hadthe ship, when the issue discharges of chlorine into industrial environmental movement under Gordon Durnil’s leader- it had become compromised and overly aligned with the in viewpoint.anti-industry Some observers believed that environmentalthe of extension an being movement and some governmental circles, on in both reputation sides a of acquired the already border, had commission The of released.been had recommendations and report written would have been if Hurley had won the day and the IJC’s glio intheUnitedStatesover theIJC’s role and power. others regard as deft avoidance of a likely political imbro- choice. But what some regard as failure on the IJC’s part, her applauded Environmentalists generation. electricity coal-burning on beliefs well-known her compromise to unable herself found apparently over well Hurley decade, for a issue rain acid the on Canada in active representations thateffectively were ignored. oral representations to the two national governments— made IJC the report, the issue than Midwest.Rather the in generation power coal-burning of deregulation ported to limit the U.S. government’s plan to allow some ments. By invoking sections of the Clean Air Act, it pur- govern- and American Canadian the to report written her fellow over commissioners onacidrain. areport with dispute a following chair the to appointment her after year one than illustrative.less resignedbe Hurley chair,commission Canadian former Hurley,Adèle may ing or advocacy may seem puzzling. But the example of serious credentials in environmental science, policymak- ontheIJC. ofserving tion asaresult oftheexperience Durnil, became environmentalists of some public reputa- Gordon chair section commissioners,notably American issue. Other rain acid the on workadvocacy policy her for circles environmental in known well also year, was tion. Adèle Hurley, appointed Canadian chair in that same Adèle Hurley clearly had a vision for the IJC,and the for vision a had clearly Hurley Adèle It is possible to speculate about what the consequences environmentallongtime a As advocate been had who formal a issue to Hurleycommission pressedthe for fewso individualsthat were fact with The recruited that vision, she was quick to resign. In this respect she chair Gordon Durnil addresses this point in his book, was surely exceptional. Only two of the eight commis- The Making of a Conservative Environmentalist (Durnil sioners interviewed could truly be said to have begun 1995: 175): their terms on the IJC with an existing set of goals or a sense of direction. In both cases their goals and stated The learning curve is sharp for new commissioners, but direction involved reining in the IJC’s authority. it is up to them to make the job what they want it to One commissioner said in an interview that he per- be. They can quietly sit back, making no waves, issuing ceived the IJC to be “the most powerful commission non-controversial and inconsequential reports. They can in the world.” This description, half-serious, was based be receptacles of irritable government problems, hiding on this appointee’s previous involvement, as an elected these problems from public view as they quietly spend official, with an issue on which the IJC had taken an years studying them. Or they can get ahead of the curve. active role—and one the commissioner perceived to be They can be catalysts for government action at the state highly negative. and provincial, federal, and even international levels. The other commissioner believed that within recent decades the IJC had in some respects overreached its With regard to IJC commissioners’ interactions with proper role, particularly during the 1980s and 1990s. other public officials, the interviews made very clear “I thought that the IJC had become too activist,” that that this is primarily—and, under some national sec- individual said, mentioning in particular the perception tion chairs, exclusively—a function of the Canadian that the commission had wandered off-course, from and American chairs. This similarity aside, there appear sound science into the realm of environmental advo- to be some national differences that are related to the cacy, with its support for the ban on chlorine discharges. institutional differences between the Canadian and This commissioner mentioned the IJC’s permanent staff American systems of government and perhaps also to as collusive with the bias that had developed over time the relatively greater status that the IJC enjoys in the on the commission, stating that “It’s a bit like having policymaking community in Canada relative to the Greenpeace work for you.” United States. On the American side, visits to members All four of these proactive commissioners were of Congress for what one commissioner called “bud- asked about the sources of their goals and sense of what get maintenance” purposes appear to be common, as the IJC should be doing, including their role on the is occasional testimony before congressional commit- commission, and who or what influenced their initial tees. Meetings with officials from the Army Corps of expectations and acquisition of knowledge about the Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, state IJC activities. Even though there was no limit on the departments of natural resources, and the Great Lakes number of factors they could mention, most attributed Fisheries Commission were among those mentioned by

their learning about and expectations for the IJC to only another American commissioner. STEPHE N BROOKS march 2009 one factor. And in three of four cases, the commission- If insecurities concerning the IJC’s budget were ers—all of whom had requested appointment to the shared on the Canadian side, they certainly were not IJC—had acquired their knowledge and expectations expressed. On the U.S. side, however, they were men- before their nomination. tioned. One commissioner said that possible budget cuts Two commissioners mentioned a formal briefing by were a real concern at a time when “There were some IJC staff as an important part of their initial learning expe- feelings that we were becoming an environmental com- rience and two others said that they had not received mission to the detriment of our water role . . . . There any formal briefing. Three commissioners mentioned IJC was a sense in the Senate that the IJC was getting out staff members, in every case by name, as being important ahead of issues.” to their acquisition of knowledge about the IJC and their On the Canadian side, at least one former chair was role on it. Another couple of commissioners stressed the of the belief that the IJC should not meet with govern- importance of on-the-job learning. ment officials, on the grounds that this would in some What stands out among these findings is the rela- way compromise its independence. This view was not tively unstructured and informal nature of the process of shared by his U.S. counterpart. But another Canadian learning to be an IJC commissioner. Former U.S. section commissioner reported meeting often with government 13 14 Canada Institute occasional paper series that matters considered too contentious or too impor- too or contentious too considered matters that literature,namely the of some in made point a forced identifiedlimitstoitseffectiveness.sioners making that is the hallmark of the IJC, decision several of commis- model consensus the criticized one no if 2006:national lines(Schornack Slide2). all cases resolved of by percent the IJC did 2 the commissioners split on only in that showing slide striking a included Schornack Dennis Chair Section American sides of the fence. A 2006 presentation made by former opposite on themselves found rarely have missioners dition ofconsensusdecisionmaking. assessment of the IJC emphasized the commission’s tra- positive every critical.And were observations all Not C of sides both on leaders opinion and policymakers tal environmen- among least at then public, general the shouldbemore“the othercommissioners involved.” IJC’sactivities,”the added, of commissioner ening this other commissioners are involved . . . . Given the broad- that it is at the discretion of the chair when and how the commissioner,“is American one model,” said current officials, ernment few. too were the of shortcoming “A commission’s activities, includinginteractionwithgov- the involvedin more be to them to available tunities section chairs expressed some frustration that the oppor- werenot who side, commissioners the American from interactions withgovernment officials. of frequency and nature the determining factors be to appear chair section national IJC an of status and style personal The levels. the highest at including officials, onsensus, C o eape itriw wt cmisoes rein- commissioners with interviews example, For It is hard to argue with a 98 percent success rate. But com- American and Canadian least, at Officially, The question of raising the IJC’s profile, if not among On both national sides of the IJC, albeit more vocally doesn’t have muchof aprofile. Lakes, you findthattheIJC Once you get outof theGreat onsensus, C onsensus government officials. IJC is perceived as a “loose cannon” the by some legacywherebyAmerican a left history commission’s the in tion of the IJC. According to that individual, the episode - marginaliza the to contributed had agenda ronmental dischargeswas highontheenvi chlorine - on industrial ization” of the commission during the years when a ban commissioner who expressed the view that American the another by “radical- made was IJC the of relevance A somewhat different observation about the perceived radar screen outside the Great Lakes region in the U.S.” United States on environmental issues. It just isn’t on the the with dealing in policy of instrument an it’sas seen commissioner U.S.declared, Another “The IJC is do.more in important Canada, where to government by and “legitimization” cover” for some of what the IJC was political expected “providing terms the used side, IJC doesn’t have much ofa profile.” observed: member “Once you get out of the Great Lakes you Canadian find that the a And commissioner. were always supposed to be relevant,” said one American player.institutional an as tance sureso not “I’m wethat IJC’s the about impor- doubts significant some express commission’s influence. Only one commissioner did not border,the indirectthe measurean of as seen be might resolve disputes,” he said, “But we have never prevented mission more forcefully. “We’re supposed to prevent and its out carry to changing of capable is IJC the whether the decision.” independent-minded body if there is a risk of not liking ued. “Governments aren’t going to give up power to an line,”contin- of he out were we that told “Wewere reference, Champlain Lake the in happened as ment, accord with the preferences of one or the other govern- be.”When the recommendations will of the commission do not answer the what much pretty know ments govern- the when used IJC,only the said are “theyto theIJC.” really trusts ernment govcommissioner,- “Neither American one of words commission.the the In to assigned not are simply tant At least two commissioners, both on the American American the on both commissioners,two least At This same U.S. commissioner expressed skepticism of references of commissioner,speaking American An anything. We haven’t had a history of anticipating, but missioners, one from each national section, specifically this is what we need to do and are trying to do now.” mentioned the “solemn declaration in writing” that IJC Several commissioners identified the need for quality commissioners are obliged to take—requiring that they scientific information as prerequisite for re-making the “impartially perform” duties imposed upon them under IJC into a more proactive entity capable of achieving the Boundary Waters Treaty”—as a factor encouraging true binational cooperation and consensus. Two com- better outcomes.

Personalities On Board

Still others blamed differences in national values and it did appear to impede the commission’s work at one interests for perceived limitations to the IJC’s effective- point in the IJC’s history. One Canadian commissioner ness. Several commissioners expressed the view that noted that their section, under the leadership of a partic- divergent outlooks between Canadian and American ular Canadian chair, would caucus separately, “giving the commissioners reflect inherent cultural difference. Americans time to think”—in the words of the offend- Their views echo a point made by former U.S. section ing section leader. The same commissioner expressed the chair Gordon Durnil in The Making of a Conservative view that ideology and nationality had mattered much Environmentalist (Durnil 1995: 24): less than the personalities of the commissioners during his IJC tenure. But in reaction to that, both a Canadian 2A couple of Canadian commissioners also testified to and American commissioner cited this particular col- the existence of a “continental divide” between commis- league as being rather “parochial” and overly concerned sioners. Said one: “There are differences. We tend to be with acting as a spokesperson for regional interests. more progressive in Canada, even our businessmen are American commissioners expressed the view that more progressive than American businessmen.” Another Canadian members were more sensitive than their Canadian commissioner ventured the opinion that “the American counterparts on the issue of water out-takings American commissioners perhaps operate more based on from the Great Lakes. According to this person, issues their own national interests.” involving the environmental effects of dams werealways divisive and “sometimes we would just put matters aside And from the American side, a former commissioner if things got too contentious,” he observed. expressed the view that, “the Canadian approach is more In recent years, the IJC’s role has expanded from one centralized than ours,” an observation that former com- of merely study to communicating with the public and STEPHE N BROOKS march 2009 missioner Durnil also makes in his book (Durnil 1995: organized interests about the increasingly broad range of 25). A similar view was expressed by a U.S. commis- transboundary issues on which it makes recommenda- sioner who believes that instead, much of the IJC’s work tions. “We can talk to anyone,” said a Canadian commis- should be focused on local governments and regional sioner, whereas at points in the IJC’s history, its interac- authorities where the implementation of water pol- tions with organized interests were not always amicable. icy is managed. About the IJC outcomes, “everything For example, Gordon Durnil has written about the becomes the responsibility of local governments even- very strained relations that existed between the IJC and tually,” he observed. representatives for businesses that relied on the use of Several commissioners mentioned the impact of per- chlorine in their industrial processes. But at least one sonalities on the IJC, particularly those of the national American commissioner offered the countering view- section chairs, as critical to the effectiveness of the point that during his term, “Business representatives commission’s consensus model. From scarce third-party understood the need for compromise and ultimately information that exists, it is clear that leadership styles were easier to talk to than environmental groups.” have varied. And still, a serious clash of personalities or Still another U.S. commissioner said that to American leadership styles has seldom been a problem—although politicians—presumably conservative politicians—the 15 16 Canada Institute occasional paper series effectiveness has to do with the proliferation of mul- of proliferation the with do to has on its effectiveness limitations significant most the of one that be United Stateshave staked outdifferent positions. the and Canada where issues on particularly dations, recommen- or decisions nonbinding issues and issues water of charter its to sticks it i.e,self-limiting,when is commission the when overcome easily most is that Fromexperience, ever-presentthe divergencethreatof venue for actual decision-making and actionable results. ber governments’ willingness to use the commission as a stances. Ultimately, its influence willcircum- dependsuch in onrole limited itsa mem- only playing of capable is IJC the that say to is high.Rather,it are stakes the betweengap and the differenceswide when nationalis divergence between theIJC’s nationalsections. to contribute that numerousfactors of importance the with some past and present commissioners corroborated Elihu wouldit hoped Root become, low.rather is that Interviews arbiter impartial the as acting differences, these reconciling of capable is IJC the that likelihood times,the provedinsurmountable.those sometimes At has outlooks and interests national different of tug the sion making accord with this vision of convergence. But environmental disputes. transboundary of resolution the in role broader a play agement of their joint water resources and perhaps even sharedman- concerning States United the and Canada of interests the reconcile to serve would vergence. It con- of one was IJC the for held vision original The Divergence orSubmere? C regularly consulted entific experts by commissioners. sci- the naivetyof perceivedpolitical the on remarked American, an also commissioner,movement. Another environmentalthe of champion a become had IJC the the IJC had probably been damaged by perceptions that on government’sreliance the that opined butsaid, he environmentalgroups,”or industry either representing movement in the 1980s and 1990s. environmental the “I don’t by see “captured”myself be as to appeared IJC onclusion: C At this point in the commission’s history, it may well This does not mean that the IJC becomes irrelevant deci- consensus of tradition and structure IJC The Canadian commissioners had relatively few things to onvergence,

and predicted 100years ago. less prominent role for the IJC today than was expected a to contributed has institutions and processes border cross- competing of tide a under Submergence pack. one among many, even if it is the most venerable of the become more crowded, the IJC’s voice has become just has matters these regulating and advocating studying, in involved institutions of environmental field playing the cross-border issues.As managing with cerned that,programs and itself,likecon- areinstitutions tiple no longerthecasetoday. sively. That might even have been true 30 years ago. It is wouldhave exclu- roleIJC the on of focused been States United the and Canada betweengovernance tal functioning. IJC’sthe to important frequentneither particularly nor environmentalwereand groups industry with contacts lic sector, giving the impression that direct meetings and commissioner spoke of his/her interlocutors in the pub- groups.such with Canadian dealings Another direct of way the in little very was there said and commission ronmental interests. envi - One commissioner and vouched for the industry with relations IJC’s the about say Fifty years ago a study of transboundary environmen- actionable results. actual decision-makingand commission asavenue for willingness to use the its membergovernments’ Influence willdependon References

Bothwell, Robert. 1992. Canada and the United States: Dobell, Peter. 1985. Canada in World Affairs, 1971-73. The Politics of Partnership. Toronto: University of Toronto, Canadian Institute of International Affairs. Toronto Press. Durnil, Gordon. 1995. The Making of a Conservative Brown, G.W. 1948. Peaceful Settlement Between Canada Environmentalist. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana and the United States. Toronto, Ryerson Press. University Press.

Canada.1909. International Boundary Waters Treaty Act Schornack, Dennis. 2006. “The International Joint ( R.S., 1985, c. I-17 ), accessed at http://laws.justice. Commission: A Case Study in the Management of gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/I-17///en. International Waters.” Presentation at the Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy, Banff, Canada, Deener, David, ed. 1963. Canada-United States Treaty September 10, 2006. Relations, G.V. La Forest, “Boundary Waters Problems in the East,” London, Cambridge University Press.

Appendix 1 Questions for IJC Commissioners

1. Do you recall when and how you learned that the 4. During your years as a commissioner what other gov- government/administration wanted to nominate you ernment agencies or departments did the IJC interact to the IJC? Had you requested this position? (If yes, with most? What about Congress/Parliament and its then why. Whether yes or no, why do you think the members and committees? government chose you for this post?) 5. Was it ever your sense that the IJC had a visibility 2. Did you know much about the IJC, the boundary problem within the policy-making community; that Waters treaty or environmental policy at the time of it just wasn’t central enough or often enough on the your appointment? radar screen?

3. When you started at the IJC, how did you see your 6. The IJC is the original binational Canada-US insti- own role and that of the commission? I mean, did tution and talking to commissioners I know that you start out with a set of goals or a sense of the they are proud of the track record of cooperation.

direction in which the IJC should go, or were these But were there ever occasions when you felt that STEPHE N BROOKS march 2009 things that learned while on the job? Where did these US and Canadian commissioners were on different goals or sense of direction come from? Who or what wavelengths, representing different points of view or was most influential in your on-the-job learning at responding to different interests? the IJC? 7. I know that as a commissioner you may have had extensive dealings with environmental and industry groups. Were some groups easier to deal with than others? (Elaborate)

17 18 Canada Institute occasional paper series Miljan, 4thedition), and America Through Foreign Eyes: of Political ClassicInterpreters American Life. Alain G. Gagnon and James Bickerton), Canadian Democracy (4th edition),politics, and Public Policy and public in Canada (withpolicy. Lydia His most recent books includepolitical Liberté, influence of egalitéintellectuals, et communauté: political thought six inpenseurs Canada canadiensand the United (with States, S foreign perceptions of American tephen is a professoraisBrooks politicalof science theatUniversity of Windsor.Hisresearch interests include the The current water management regimes along the shared transboundary 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 thinking 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 sup- port environmental concerns. The very institutions that once contributed to this region’s economy now threaten to undermine its stability by too strict adherence to the status quo. The region faces the challenge of accommodat- ing 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.

he shared boundary waters of North America span a number of Managing Water diverse natural regions. While the 1909 International Boundary TWaters Treaty (IBWT) created a unified set of governance prin- Scarcity in the ciples for all boundary waters, this framework has been adapted and expanded by the member governments and the International Joint Prairie Region: The Commission (IJC) to meet the unique water challenges of each distinc- tive border region. Role of the IJC in a In the Prairie border region, characterized by scarce and highly vari- able water supplies, transboundary rivers have long been an important Changing Climate source of water for irrigators and urban riparians, and the water man- B. TIMOTHY HEI N MILLER march 2009 agement rules developed within the framework of the IBWT clearly reflect this. B. Timothy Heinmiller While international apportionment and management of the St. Mary, Milk, and Souris rivers have greatly contributed to Prairie agri- 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 climate change. 19 20 Canada Institute occasional paper series Columbia is the main transboundary river, transboundary main though the and is Columbia west.the and In West, Mountains,the Rocky over the east the to basins river neighboring from distinct quite variability of flow presents water management challenges are characterized by water scarcity and flooding and their oped anyrules. river-specific management devel- not has it tributaries, these involvedwith been boundary. international has the crossIJC the Although Montana. in northern canal diversion a by connected hydrologicallyare they since system river single a as IJC the by treated erally Souris.However, St.the are rivers gen- Milk and the Mary and Milk, Mary, St. the the basis: ongoing an on the and boundary international are managed by the IJC properties. riparian to damage severeflood in result can and mon com- are events weather extreme to due flow river in spikes periodic fall,but and summer late the lowestin usually highest in the spring during the winter melt and flooding.occasional with ated Annually,river flows are flood,” scarcity general punctu- of a situation reflecting or mud “either as rivers their describe often residents and sometimes riverwildly erratic flows.fact, In Prairie the onlyone. not although challenge, pervasive a is irrigation scale large- facilitate to rivers Prairie the Managing region. the in water of use largest the far by is latter tion;the - irriga agricultural and watering stock for rivers these on heavily rely to come have Farmers landscape. the transect that size relativelymodest of rivers few the in land. of fertile stretchesvastagriculture, despite dryland for area ginal mar- somewhat a Jr. Prairies 1985:38).the makes This Morrow and (Matthews places some in less and mm, 500 and 300 between is precipitation annual average breadbaskets, world’sits the agricultural of one as tion reputa- region’s the given supply. Surprisingly, water natural variable highly and scarce a by characterized is which have abundant water resources, the Prairie region Canada-U.S.the of border, regions other most Unlike The Transb As described, the St.described,the As Mary, Souris Milk,the the and In addition to these three rivers, several smaller creeks cross that rivers major three are there region the In variable highly residentswith cope mustalso Prairie found is water of source region’smain Prairie The oundary RiversofthePraire Re S rivers. Prairie rivers, Souris of discussion this in included not is it and Mary, and St. Milk, the on those from kind in differ Consequently,River’sRed the challenges management culture compared counterparts.with its western Prairie - agri irrigated less and water more both has area this problems, but flooding perennial has and lands Prairie of them. To the east, the Red River flows through some challenges,manymanagement has it one not scarcityis Montana. to return to At southward various points, arching before the St.km Mary and the Milk 200 are about in for close Alberta southern into northward flows and Montana in Mexico, starts it that in unusual also is that of Gulf system the into RiverRiver Mississippi the Missouri through drains the of part Milk, variabil- flow The 2007:77). Faveri and (Halliday higher Mary St. the much than ity and flow annual age averlower- much a has and foothills Montana the in Milk depend. rivers onwhichtheMilkandSouris runoff surface the with compared flow stable and dependable moreMountains, providesa Rocky which the in melt (HallidayFaveriand 2007:77). sourcemain Its glacial is flow variable least the has and rivers Prairie boundary trans- the of largest the far by is River. Mary St. The River to form the main stem of the South Saskatchewan northward into Alberta, where it joins with the Oldman of Glacier National Park in Montana. From there it flows region, the St. Mary in originates the Rocky Mountains t. ary Mary climate change. is threatened by global on awater supplythat development ispredicated Prairie agricultural River. River. The Milk River originates as run-off run-off as originates River Milk The The westernmost river in the Prairie gion proximity to each other, and, over the first two decades The Waterton and Belly rivers, which rise in Montana of the 20th century, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and flow into Alberta, where they eventually join the St. constructed a canal to connect the St. Mary to the Milk, Mary River, are the largest rivers in the Prairie region thus diverting the St. Mary’s more abundant flow to that do not have river-specific management regimes. support irrigation in northern Montana. International This situation is not for lack of trying. In the 1950s, the contr oversy over this project proved to be one of the IJC was asked to investigate and recommend a regime precipitating factors in the negotiation of the IBWT, for these rivers, but the commissioners could not come and the canal has since linked the two rivers both hydro- to agreement and split along national lines, submitting logically and institutionally in an IJC water manage- separate reports to their respective governments. This is ment regime. the only time in the history of the IJC that such a split has occurred. No subsequent attempt to develop water Souris River. Unlike the Milk, the Souris River lies management regimes for the Waterton and Belly, has in the same drainage basin as the St. Mary. Both are part been undertaken (Willoughby 1981:37). of the Saskatchewan-Nelson Basin that eventually drains into Hudson Bay. Despite that, the two rivers are geo- graphically distinct. The Souris has its source in southern Saskatchewan and runs southward into North Dakota before arching northward and re-entering Canada in If the Prairie region’s southern Manitoba and merging with the Assiniboine River. transboundary rivers present The Souris is fed almost entirely from surface run- off. Due to the inconstancy of its source, the river is management challenges, characterized by flows that are relatively low and highly variable. Sometimes the Souris is reduced to barely a they also provide incentives trickle and other times is so swollen that it bursts its banks (Hood 1994). Governments on both sides of the for productive international border have gone to considerable effort and expense to try to bring the basin’s flows under control, and an IJC cooperation. water management regime has been a key element of that attempt. B. TIMOTHY HEI N MILLER march 2009 While the St. Mary, Milk, and Souris rivers have If, by their very natures, the Prairie region’s trans- been subject to international management regimes boundary rivers present management challenges, they under the auspices of the IJC, a number of other trans- also provide incentives for productive international coop- boundary rivers in the Prairie region have not. Many eration. Given how these rivers meander back and forth of these rivers and creeks seemed too small or underuti- across the border, neither the United States nor Canada lized to warrant the investment of time and political capital is an exclusively upstream or downstream jurisdiction. that would be necessary to develop specific manage- Canada is a downstream jurisdiction on the St. Mary ment regimes. Yet even in the absence of river-specific River, but upstream on the middle section of the Milk management regimes, the general principles of the River and the upper section of the Souris River. These IBWT have still been applied to the use of these unusual patterns and alternating upstream-downstream rivers. As a result, they have been subject to a substantial relationships have created something of a natural bal- level of international involvement. For example, the IJC ance of power between the two countries. Each country was involved in resolving international disputes on Sage knows that if it exploits its upstream advantage to the det- Creek (shared by Alberta and Montana) and Poplar Creek riment of the other, there could be retaliation on another (shared by Saskatchewan and Montana) in the late-1960s river—or even on a different reach of the same river. and mid-1970s, respectively (Jordan 1974:532; Hood This natural landscape has given rise to a much differ- 1994:27-28). ent political dynamic than exists, for example, between 21 22 Canada Institute occasional paper series United States consistently is the upstream jurisdiction jurisdiction upstream the is the consistently border,States United that On Mexico. and States United the to much that so “conserve”usage minimize to wateris East,the east. In the to regions abundant water- more the versus Prairies the in “conservation” term the of meanings differing the in reflected are interests nomic low flows.during and delivery— storage water manipulated dependability—through artificially greater sought farmers and flows high during flooding prevent to control sought storage.Riparians water and damming through rivers shared a fundamental interest in trying to control Prairie irrigators and rivers. Together, riparians Prairie the of flooding periodic from dislocation and damage to severe subject became they developed, interests these riparian As rivers. major few relatively its along locate on theenvironment thanthelatter. former uses far more water and has a much bigger the impactwatering,though stock and irrigation ture,for both - agricul Prairie rolein playedcritical has a management nant economic activity in many parts of the region. Water watersupplies.of ability domi- the been has Agriculture - vari and scarcity the by fundamentally shaped been has century, the political economy of the Prairie border region white nineteenth settlersthe of arrival in Sincefirst the Wa iis n idsre i te ein lo edd to tended also region the in industries and Cities The interplay between water and the region’seco- the and water between interplay The is not utilized. leaving itinastream where it that itshouldnot bewasted by scarce andvaluable resource Water was regarded assucha ter andhePraire Politic 1993:463-465). (Reisner effect full to advantage this exploited has and protestsignored, byretaliationthreatenedapproving its its having after and, construction canal’s the protested River to the Milk. However, the Canadian government construction of a canal to divert water from the St. Mary in 1905 received approval from the U.S. Congress for the Milk River, the the U.S. along interests Bureau of Reclamation investigated agricultural and of behest the at 1902, century. In 20th the of start the at controversy tional conflictsinvolving bothfederalgovernments. - interna into escalated and politicized highly became certain critical junctures, local water development issues goals.developmentat water And mutual towardstheir thatthreatened toswamping politicalrivalries progress grounds,creat - national on interests riparian and tural factor.cating - borderdividedagricul international The important rivers in the region arose as a compli- serious most the of some of nature transboundary Prairies,the accepted as the basic goals of water management in the the relevant (Worster parties 1985: Reisner1993). amongst distributed be would development from ing be developed, but about how the costs and benefits- aris should rivers Prairie the whether about werenot they protection.often,Most waterwhen controversies arose, one concerned with environmental preservation and/or a than “development”as rather cast issue was agement in developing the region.Prairie As a result, water man- was almost universal amongst the early use interests involved andbeneficial of control acceptance benefit. The economic of kind some contributes that use as defined use,beneficial for utilized be should region Prairie the ers and also riparians generally agreed that most water in is notutilized. wastedstreamwhereit be a by leaving not in should it it that resourcevaluable and scarce a such as regarded environment.the to lost and is it Waterbefore it wasusing storing, controlling, means water “conserving” Prairies,environment. the natural In the in left is it of An early example of this was the St. Mary’s Canal Mary’sSt. the was this of example early An widely became use beneficial and control as Yet Along with their shared stake in water control,- farm al Economy own project that would have diverted water from the Inter-jurisdictional water apportionments. The Milk River back to the St. Mary within Canadian terri- St. Mary’s Canal controversy in the early 1900s created tory (Simonds 1999). In all of this, the mutual interests of uncertainty for irrigators and governments in the St. farmers and riparians on both sides of the border were Mary and Milk basins about the permanence of their overwhelmed by international rivalry and progress in water supply. This uncertainty was a major barrier to water development was stalled. irrigation development because few people wanted to All parties gradually came to realize that what was invest in the construction of irrigation systems without needed was some sort of institution to manage and assured water supplies. To help remedy this, one of the resolve international disputes of this nature. The con- main features of Article VI of the IBWT was an appor- troversy over the St. Mary Canal was one of a num- tionment of the waters in question (IBWT, 1909): ber of transboundary water disputes which brought the U.S., Canadian, and British governments to the nego- …the St. Mary and Milk Rivers and their tributaries… tiating table, eventually resulting in the IBWT in 1909 are to be treated as one stream for the purposes of irriga- (Dreisziger 1981). tion and power, and the waters thereof shall be appor- The treaty’s Article VI specifically addressed the man- tioned equally between the two countries, but in making agement of the St. Mary and Milk rivers, creating the first such equal apportionment more than half may be taken international river management regime in the Prairie from one river and less than half from the other by either region. And even more important was the creation of country so as to afford a more beneficial use to each. an international forum—the IJC—where transbound- ary river management disputes could be investigated Article VI also recognized that the United States had a and settled, and new river management rules could be prior appropriation of 500 cubic feet per second (or three- negotiated. For farmers and riparians on both sides of quarters of the natural flow) from the Milk River and that the border, the creation of the IJC was a major boon as Canada had a prior appropriation of 500 cubic feet per a forum in which international rivalries could be con- second (or three-quarters of the natural flow) from the St. tained and their common interests in water control and Mary River, reflecting the areas in each country where beneficial use could be recognized and pursued. large-scale irrigation was planned or had already begun And since its creation, the IJC has promoted the (IBWT, 1909). In effect, the two countries agreed to share interests of farmers and riparians in river management the St. Mary and Milk Rivers equitably in aggregate, but regimes for the major transboundary Prairie rivers. provided Alberta with a larger, prioritized share of the St. International rivalries have persisted, sometimes result- Mary and Montana with a larger, prioritized share of the ing in awkward political compromises, but agricultural Milk. This trade-off allowed both jurisdictions to acceler- B. TIMOTHY HEI N MILLER march 2009 and riparian interests have become well entrenched ate their irrigation development. within the international management regimes for both While the apportionment in Article VI created the St. Mary-Milk and the Souris. Three characteristics enough water supply certainty to facilitate substantial of these regimes reflect these interests most clearly and irrigation expansion, differing interpretations of the are discussed more thoroughly below: apportionment forced the IJC to clarify it shortly after its introduction. The disagreement centered primarily ■ Inter-jurisdictional water apportionments allow on the locations at which the apportionments should governments to plan their water development and be measured and the protocol for determining how the grant private entitlements to agricultural and riparian river would be equally apportioned, after each country’s water users. prior appropriation had been met.1 Starting in 1915, the ■ Drought and flood provisions permit modification IJC held a series of hearings on the matter and, in the of the apportionments to ensure that agricultural irrigation seasons of 1918 to 1921, issued provisional and riparian water users will be able to cope with orders specifying the water entitlements of each country extreme water events. (Halliday & Faveri 2007:81). ■ Intergovernmental river management boards The disagreement on Article VI’s interpretation was administer the apportionments and head-off a critical early test of the legitimacy of the IJC and, disputes. for a time, the U.S. government threatened to ignore 23 24 Canada Institute occasional paper series ment at current levels, to the advantage of North Dakota. interests,its to effectivelyit because froze water develop - existing water use(Hood1994:14-19). of levelsapproximated that apportionment interim an only recommended data, flow river inadequate citing apportionment for the basin. However, the Commission, 1940, the IJC was asked to recommend an international development.In its beginning only was Saskatchewan while Souris, the of portion its in irrigation and tion - construc dam undertaken had Dakota North 1930s, late interests.the water By riparian and agricultural of apportionment rules were also put in place at the behest ment did not arise until the late 1930s, but international development intheSt.irrigation andMilkbasins. Mary facilitatetoneeded watersecuritysupply the and bility adequate to almost everyone, providing sta- international haveprovenone,rules satisfyingno the fullyAlthough 1981:29). (Willoughby prevailed rules apportionment issue before the the IJC again in brought 1928, 1930, which 1931 government,and 1932, Montana these the Faveri2007:81). protestscontinuedfrom some Despite 1921;(IJC apportionment Hallidayand equal for tocol pro- the on position Canadian the and measurement 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 Saskatchewanapportionmentdetrimentalthissawas - apportion water of issue the basin, Souris the In pursued. use could berecognized and water control andbeneficial and theircommon interests in rivalries could becontained a forum inwhichinternational The IJCwas amajorboonas supply isnotavailable andwater are users subjected there are many years inwhichthe “normal” level of water are flows highly region variable, inthePrairie that canbedivided amongstwater users. Yet, because they inherently assumea “normal” level ofwater flow towater greatly supplysecurity, contribute rules but Drought andfloodprovisions. Apportionment politicaleconomy.of thePrairie feature defining a remains and region the throughout preserved largely been has use beneficial of principle Manitoba making the most radical reforms. And yet the and allocation priation prior systems, Saskatchewan and appro- prior initial their to added and modified have theirclaims(Percyin order toformalize 2005). governmentseek permits to had claimants waterrights result,a provingto addition in use,beneficial Canadian in theCrown by the ownershipthough waterall of was region the in vested Prairies, Canadian the in adopted also were principles 2001). The “first in time, first in right” and beneficial use to this a right new claimant (Worster 1985:108; Tarlock losing risk or use beneficial this it,maintain to had but volume of water to beneficial use could claimright a to the prior appropriation system, anyone who could put a right”principle. time, in Under in the first lizing “first appropriation,uti- prior through primarily distributed differences inwaterjurisdictional entitlementsystems. jurisdictions. There have, however, Prairie been five substantial inter- all in distribution rights water of principle private water rights. Beneficialusehasbeenthedefining of water supply to facilitate the widespread distribution of ment,providing securityenoughjurisdictionwith each river apportionments have been central to water develop- on theSouris. the defining feature of inter-jurisdictional apportionment remains split 50/50 below),basic this further but cussed (dis- apportionments these on conditions of number a placed 2000 and 1992 in 1959).Amendments IJC 19; 1994:16- (Hood downstreamneighbors their to pass to percent50 otherrespectiveallowing thewhile borders their within originating flow natural the of percent 50 use each to Dakota North and Saskatchewan allowed andattained, newa interim apportionment in1959 that Consequently, the Saskatchewan government lobbied for, Over the intervening decades, all Prairie jurisdictions were rights water Dakota, North and Montana In inter-jurisdictional region, Prairie the Throughout Northwest Irrigation Irrigation Northwest Act of1894. As to either drought or flooding. Extreme water events, while periodic, are a major threat to the riparian and Inter-jurisdictional river agricultural water users of the Prairies. It may only take one drought or one flood to put their livelihoods apportionments have been or property in jeopardy. Consequently, the IJC’s water management rules in the Prairie region have been supplemented with provisions that modify the appor- central to water development, tionments in extreme conditions. These drought and flood provisions are designed to allow agricultural and providing each jurisdiction riparian interests to cope with these conditions until “normal” flows resume. with enough security of In addition to providing water security for estab- lished users, these drought and flood provisions have water supply to facilitate the had an impact on the political economy of the Prairie region in other ways. They have reduced the level of widespread distribution of risk involved in more marginal agricultural and riparian water uses, encouraging their development and facilitat- private water rights. ing the pursuit of beneficial use of the water resources in the region. In the St. Mary-Milk Basin, irrigation is the domi- the non-prioritized jurisdiction on each river, helping nant water use and the primary concern of irrigators has irrigators in these jurisdictions survive drought periods been drought protection. In the negotiation of Article until “normal” flows resume. VI of the IBWT, it was accepted that the “normal” natu- On the Souris River, flooding is at least as great a ral flow of both rivers was around 666 cubic feet per concern as drought. The international apportionment second during the irrigation season. Canada was given a rules have been modified to protect riparian and agri- prior appropriation of 500 cubic feet per second on the cultural interests from both extremes. St. Mary and the United States was given a prior appro- For flood protection, the most significant develop- priation of 500 cubic feet per second on the Milk; in ment has been the construction of the Rafferty and both cases these apportionments were considered to be Alameda dams in southern Saskatchewan during the three quarters of each river’s presumed natural flow (IJC 1980s and early 1990s. Situated in the upper part of 1921). In low flow periods— when flows were less than the basin, these dams offer flood protection to parts of B. TIMOTHY HEI N MILLER march 2009 666 cubic feet per second— this apportionment posed southern Saskatchewan and northern North Dakota. A the danger that the party with the lesser interest on each main beneficiary is the city of Minot, North Dakota, river could be partly or entirely deprived of water as the which had experienced flooding throughout its history, other country exercised its prior appropriation. including a catastrophic flood in 1969. In fact, North The prior appropriations were designed to protect Dakota stood to benefit so much from the Rafferty and each country’s major irrigation areas in the region. Alameda dams that the United States contributed more However, the few remaining interests left at risk by this than $40 million to their construction (Hood 1994). arrangement quickly voiced their concerns. The outcry However, the dams changed the hydrological con- brought about new provisions in the form of the 1921 text of the existing 50/50 apportionment. Saskatchewan IJC Order offering drought protection. When flows in could now lose a significant part of its apportionment either the St. Mary or the Milk drop below the “nor- through evaporation from the Rafferty and Alameda mal” level of 666 cubic feet per second, the prior appro- reservoirs, while doing so for the protection of North priations are transformed from three-quarters of natural Dakota riparians. Accordingly, in 1992, the apportion- flow (500 cubic feet per second) to three-quarters of ment rules were modified (IJC 1992): actual flow, which varies depending on the severity of the drought (Halliday and Faveri 2007:81). As a result, Under certain conditions, a portion of the North Dakota at least one-quarter of actual river flows always goes to share will be in the form of evaporations from Rafferty 25 26 Canada Institute occasional paper series The St. Mary-Milk was one of the first shared basins basins shared first the of one was St.Mary-Milk The economy. political established the of guarantors the one of and region Prairie the transbound - in management of river face ary the become intergovernmen- have authorities these tal tasks, implementation ment - apportion day-to-day in are problem.they Involvedas good public circumvent the further that ties trust and networks inter-jurisdictional informal establishing thus governments, provincial and state relevant from tatives represen- involve often and membership in binational areintergovernmentalboards managementTheseriver disputes. minor resolve and compliance, rule monitor rules, management river established administer to date ensure orenforce compliance(Heinmiller2007). to sovereignfigure no is there where context national inter- an in acute particularly be can challenges These that all characterize public goods (Ostrom 1990:38-49). challenges defection and free-riding the to vulnerable good that, although highly valued public by many, a constitute is themselvesinherently rules management the rivers, transboundary Prairie the like resources shared In rules. management water international elaborately constructed these of preservation have the to boards crucial been management river Intergovernmental boards. management riverIntergovernmental tional 50percent share oftheSouris. most, areNorth Dakota assured irrigators of their tradi- it years,need relatively theycontrast, dry when during In effect. into comes apportionment 60/40 the when nity to build up its water storages in relatively wet years, - Saskatchewanbutopportu that dams the Alameda has enjoy riparians the flood protection of the Rafferty and Dakota North and Saskatchewan both that ensure to work provisions drought and flood new ine. the Yet imag- to difficult is Souris the of users and ernments level. specified minimum a at A more set intricate of compromises among the is gov- Dakota Darling North Lake in of level the (the and border Crossing) international Sherwood the at ade- flow an natural both quate is there which in years wet relatively The IJC’s solution was to create bodies with a man - a with bodies create to wasIJC’s solution The 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-

one balancing period balancing one periodis 15-16 days. Typically,apportionment deficits in rules.Inthe St. Mary-Milk basin, the standard balancing apportionment with compliance in are they ensure to for accounted and measured arediversions water which over time of duration periods,” the “balancing cerning con- differencesresolve example, can disputes.Forthey latitude to resolve minor issues before they become major mentation,they also allow the AccreditedOfficers some imple- apportionment for protocol common a provide 2007:85). (HallidayFaveri and Order” the While AdministrativeMeasures the of specifications the meeting in performance jurisdiction’s each natural determining the and flow calculating for basis the “…form which Measures” the “Administrative by guided are Officers basins. the more IJC formalized boards in other transboundary so—as more not important—if as least at is resolution Functionally,dispute and administration rule in role its Milk basin remains known as the “Accredited Officers.” St.Mary- the 1921). on day, authority intergovernmental the (IJC Order IJC 1921 No formal management the board was created and in to this elaborated and expanded further were officers these responsibilitiesof 1909). The (IBWT waters Mary-Milk St. the of ment - apportion and measurement the cooperativelyworkin officer from Canada to States and a designated irrigation designateddirectreclamationa Unitedofficer from the to IJC allowed the which IBWT the of Article to VI many river boards that followed. Its origins can be traced the but of body, atypical somewhat was organizational design management its river IJC-created an have to waters” (IJC 2007). However, once a universally accepted basins and river to develop Muddy plans of Big mutual advantage Poplar, and Red,for these Souris, the within waters the of apportionment and use the on report to RiversBoard. Engineering This board was mandated “… Souris-Red International the as known was and 1948 in region’s created was economy. board political the such first in The role important similarly a played have themselves.the rules tionment while maintaining the fundamental integrity of successful in implementing these types of selective appor- difficult circumstances, the Accredited Officers have been such2007:87). Faveri (HallidayIn and use beneficial ” period, although “this practice has been varied to enhance n hi amnsrtv atvte, h Accredited the activities, administrative their In n h Sui Bsn IC ie mngmn boards management river IJC Basin, Souris the In

aremade upinthenext balancing apportionment of the Souris was reached in 1958, the played a key role in allowing the governments and users activities of this board were eclipsed somewhat by the of the Souris to put these scarce and highly variable new International Souris River Board of Control, which waters to beneficial use. The Souris’ interim apportion- had responsibility for monitoring the apportionment’s ment rules, for example, establish that flow releases from implementation. Canadian dams should be scheduled to approximate The two boards coexisted for a number of decades natural flow patterns and to allow for “beneficial use” until 2002, when all international administrative in North Dakota. The Souris River Board is then tasked responsibilities for the Souris were consolidated in with the application of these general principles and the the new International Souris River Board. The cur- reconciliation of any contradictions between them (IJC rent board has 10 members, five Canadian and five 1992). Thus far, it has proven quite adept at this task and American, including representatives from the Saskat- the fundamental integrity of the Souris apportionment chewan, Manitoba, and North Dakota governments. has been maintained. In their various manifestations, all these boards have

Changing Perceptions and Priorities and the Potential Impact of Climate Change

Longevity and stability have been key to the success of staunchly—if not always successfully—resisting attempts the Prairie river management regimes. However, now to expand control and beneficial use through further dam these institutions’ longevity—and the fact that they construction. The substantial and protracted resistance to adhere to the priorities of a much earlier era—may be the construction of the Garrison Diversion in North contributing to an erosion of public support. Dakota, the Oldman Dam in Alberta, and the Rafferty Overall, the regimes devised for the St. Mary-Milk and Alameda dams in Saskatchewan are vivid illustrations and Souris basins have clearly reflected and advanced of this bloc’s concerns and attempts to influence water the development interests of farmers and riparians who management in the region (Reisner 1993:187-93; Glenn were dominant in the Prairie political economy at the 1999; Hood 1994). time of their creation and for decades afterward. And As Aboriginals, environmentalists, and recreationalists while these management regimes, and the various state have tried to recast Prairie water management according and provincial water entitlement regimes interlinked to environmental priorities, they have come up against B. TIMOTHY HEI N MILLER march 2009 with them, have fundamentally institutionalized the objectives of control and beneficial use in Prairie water management, the underlying social consensus support- ing these objectives has begun to erode. As the Prairie political As the Prairie political economy has evolved, new interests have emerged who do not value control and economy has evolved, new beneficial use in the same way as irrigators and riparians. Among other things, they have sought to reframe water interests have sought to management priorities to support environmental rather than developmental concerns. reframe water management Many of these new interests, which include Aboriginals, environmentalists, and recreational fishers and boaters, priorities to support among others, value the Prairie rivers in their natural state and reject the premise that control and beneficial use environmental rather than should be the primary objectives of Prairie water man- agement. Since the late 1960s, this group of interests has developmental concerns. steadily gained in size, organization, and political influence, 27 28 Canada Institute occasional paper series Waterton, and St. Mary rivers, where “applications for rivers,whereWaterton, “applications St. Mary and Belly,the of portions Alberta the in reached been has allocation region,full frozen. transboundary the Along been has entitlements water new of issuance cases,the some in and, use consumptive additional no support allocation means that regulators have judged a river can allocation.Full full of point a havereachednow rivers Prairie use, many beneficial and control of principles climate and Change. waters transboundary Prairie region. the Prairie work out exactly how climate change is likely to impact to begun have scientists and accepted widely become change—and urgency in forestalling that change—have significantly in recent years. The onset of global climate orlonger.the nextcentury bad—for or ways good economy—in political Prairie the shape will process incremental cal,conflictual, and politi- use. this beneficial of and control outcome The favoring goals management water institutionalized of tection and preservation within the existing framework environmentalproof - goals management waterrecent political economy is the need to accommodate the more (IJC 2000). flow releases for principles guiding the of one remains use” “beneficial and unaltered remain apportionment in North Dakota. However, the essential elements of the for the water needs of important fish and wildlife refuges 2000 now provide greater consideration and protection in enacted amendments basin, Souris the in example, regimes.For management river transboundary the ing includ- institutions, management water Prairie most within incomplete awkwarddevelopmentremainsand tection measures with longstanding gearedrules toward designed toachieve control andbeneficialuse. but introduced, they have been added to institutions still fundamentally been have protections wildlife and 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 The ecological context for this debate has also changed Prairie current the in challenges greatest the of One pro- environmental recent of accommodation The fe a etr o mngmn udr the under management of century a After and Faveri 2007:82). The IJC held public hearings in hearings public held IJC 2007:82).Faveri The and (Halliday Order” the implement that procedures tive administra- the improvementsto requiredthat are and that circumstances today are different than before 1921,basins, river two the of waters the divide equally not St.the for that claiming Mary-Milk Order“…the does Order 1921 its re-evaluate IJC the have to campaign rivers, due, inlargepart, water shortages. torecurring IJC river management regime for the St. the Mary and with Milk discontent international substantial of dence evi- is there internationally. Already and domestically more secure shares of scarce resources. both This is true demanding are turn in who groups disadvantaged ing creat- systematically therefore are and holders, ment have a disproportionate impact entitle- on low-priority and Faveri 2007:84). on the Milk River on average in six of 10 years (Halliday Montana government reports that shortages are evident years,10 everyaverage, of on Riverone Mary the and ment reports that water areshortages evident on the St. lowshortages during flow periods. The Alberta govern- flows, as is the case in the Prairies, the inevitable result is water variable with rivers on reached is allocation full shortage.When water of periods institutionalized of creation the been has problemgovernments. One and somewhat precarious state of affairs for both water users opment enthusiastsinthePrairies, ithasproven tobea develwater- and irrigators many of goal management development.closed tofurther on the Milk River, which the Montana government has (Alberta Environment 2003:5). A similar situation exists any new allocation licenses are no longer being accepted” n 03 Mnaa oenr uy at bgn a began Martz Judy Governor Montana 2003, In shortage of periods recurring and persistent These Even though full allocation was the waterlong-term institutions. form of “add-ons” to existing have generally beeninthe have beenrelatively rare and Major institutional reforms response to the matter in July 2004. Despite substan- including river channelization, interrupted fish spawn- tial public input from a wide variety of individuals and ing, and loss of native flora and fauna. Thus, even the interest groups, no major changes to the Order or the existing efforts to mitigate recurring water shortages Administrative Measures have yet been forthcoming come at a substantial environmental cost. (Halliday and Faveri 2007:82-87). The environmental damage wrought by full alloca- Environmental degradation is yet another conse- tion in the Prairie transboundary rivers is evident in quence of full allocation. Recurring water shortages are recent assessments by the U.S. Environmental Protection a fact of life under of full allocation, and these short- Agency (EPA). These data have been summarized in ages not only have an adverse impact on low-priority Table 1. Of the 23 river branches in the St. Mary-Milk entitlement holders, but also on the environment, which and Souris basins assessed by the EPA in 2004, nine were frequently is given the lowest priority of all. Prolonged designated as “good,” six were designated as “threat- water shortages can significantly damage riverine envi- ened,” and eight were designated as already “impaired” ronments, destroying fish, fowl, and wildlife habitat and (Environmental Protection Agency 2004). increasing the concentration of water pollutants. In this EPA study, a “good” assessment means the For irrigators and other riparians, dam storages river branch supports all existing water uses, a “threat- and releases can be used to mitigate low flow periods. ened” branch has water quality that supports existing However, most dams create water flow patterns that uses but is declining, and “impaired” river branches are much different than would exist in a natural state. are those whose water quality does not support one Furthermore, the interruption and manipulation of nat- (or more) water uses. Between the two basins, the ural flows creates its own set of environmental problems, St. Mary-Milk was judged to be in the worst shape,

Table 1: EPA Assessments of Environmental Health for Major Prairie Transboundary Rivers (2004)2

Number Branches Good Threatened Impaired River of River Not Branches Branches Branches Branches Assessed

St. Mary River 1 0 0 1 0 B. TIMOTHY HEI N MILLER march 2009

Upper Milk 3 1 0 1 1

Lower Milk 6 0 0 3 3

Upper Souris 17 5 3 1 8

Lower Souris 23 3 3 2 15

TOTALS 50 9 6 8 27

Source: Environmental Protection Agency 2004 Given that full allocation has placed the Prairie political economy in a precarious position of recurring water shortages and environmental degradation, it is not unreasonable to speculate that within the context of global climate change, this same political economy may become completely untenable. 29 30 Canada Institute occasional paper series the environmental that hasoccurred. degradation and users low-priority to shortages recurrent the with their dysfunctional effects, as seems to be true in this case to reform established institutions are often prompted by ience (Pierson 2004:142-153). Pierson argues that efforts clearly using Paul Pierson’s analysis of institutional resil- effort. reform international major any wayof the in hurdles political success.with many meet are or There initiated be will it guarantee not does growingthe But reform for need Order.IJC 1921 the of review a on insistence recent havesuch reform already become evident in Montana’s climate. changing the to adapted Growing pressures for be can regimes, transboundary the including regimes, is whether—and how—the water current management management water Prairie for question emerging The mana The Nex water median summary,the In 2005:305). Lettenmair al.et (Bruce decline 2003:19-28;in Barnett, and Adam at the time when available water supplies are likely to be just waterevaporation for rates,demand morecreating increasing the potential growing season, while temperatures,will also summer increase higher Correspondingly flows due to melting glaciers and reduced winter snows. river in decline long-term a St.Mary,experience will the as Mountains,such Rocky the in sources with ers melt,spring asnow naturally. occurs remain as snowpack to feed the Prairie rivers during the the winter months when it can not be used, rather than during off run waterwill the of much because farmers for problematic highly be snow.would than that And morecause rain,to as precipitationwinter fall to rather predicted are temperatures winter instance,Forhigher and overall river flows will decline in the Prairie region. global change will accelerates, as warming patterns precipitation that predict models change climate Most the basin. and this of much in exists that allocation full Mary-Milk of state St. the in development gation - irri of level higher the given surprising not is which h osals aig eom a b vee more viewed be can reform facing obstacles The - riv Prairie the of some that concern is also There gement inhepraire re t Cenury oftransb

problems amongst actors. This is the case with the Prairie serve as mechanisms for resolving difficult coordination they because valuedperspective, highly are institutions problems. Coordination more detailbelow. of the need for reform. These concepts are examined in evidence increasing despite resilient particularly them three, making all exhibit governance water boundary trans- Prairie of institutions The reform. to resistant 153). Any one of these is enough to make an institution asset specificity and positive feedback (Pierson 2004:142- by Pierson include coordination identified problems, veto resilience points, and institutional of sources main three resilient.The be to tend institutions established because reform its secure to however,sufficient not is even growth withnofurther inwater allocations. tion may become a future state alloca- of severefull of over-allocation,state current the and change climate of result a as decline to expected is Prairies the on supply oundary w General recognition of an institution’sdysfunctions,an of recognition General gion of water pollutants. increasing theconcentration fowl, andwildlife habitat and environments, destroying fish, significantly damageriverine full allocation, andcan are afact of life under Recurring water shortages a ter rm cletv action collective a From transboundary river management regimes which were ary water management regimes. These investments, in created decades ago to overcome coordination prob- themselves, provide substantial positive feedback that lems in water development. Because the coordination helps to perpetuate the current regimes. problems of water development will remain, and prob- One has only to look at the existing infrastructure of ably intensify, with the onset of climate change, govern- dams, canals, and irrigation along Prairie transbound- ments may be very reluctant to abandon tried and true ary rivers to realize that a massive public and private institutions for addressing these problems, even if they investment has been devoted to constructing these very are contributing to water shortages and environmental valuable and specific assets connected to water devel- degradation. These negative effects may be discounted opment. The farmers and riparians who benefit from and subordinated to the overriding goal of maintain- this infrastructure, the public servants who maintain and ing predictable and stable international coordination, manage it, and the politicians who have built careers on which is a key objective in itself for many governmental its construction all receive substantial positive feedback and private interests. In other words, the current trans- from its continued existence. boundary regimes may be maintained simply as a means Institutional reforms to address climate change could of ensuring stability and comity in Prairie water man- present a threat to some of these investments by posing agement, notwithstanding the negative economic and the risk they could become stranded or lost in a new environmental effects these regimes may have. regime that seeks to roll back water use or restore natu- ral river flows. So, despite growing recognition of the Multiple veto points. Even if the region’s govern- dysfunctions of the current water management regimes, ments are willing to take a chance on new transbound- many public and private interests are so heavily invested ary water management regimes that are more effec- in them, politically and financially, that it is very difficult tive in the context of climate change, the presence of for these actors to contemplate major reforms. multiple veto points in the institutional reform process Overall, the Prairie transboundary water manage- contributes to the difficulty of achieving institutional ment regimes’ capacity for institutional resilience sug- reforms. “Veto points” refer to actors within an institu- gests that institutional change, if it occurs at all, is most tional reform process who have the authority to block likely to be incremental and reactive. Given the invest- and reject reform proposals. Based largely on the work ments that water development interests have made in of George Tsbelis (1995), it is now widely recognized these regimes and their desire to manage coordination that the more veto points that exist within a reform problems peaceably, these interests can reasonably be process, the less likely it is that reforms will occur. expected to have a conservative approach. This orienta- Multiple veto points also increase the probability tion, combined with their access to many veto points, B. TIMOTHY HEI N MILLER march 2009 that any successful reforms will be watered down to the means that institutional reforms are unlikely to stray far lowest common denominator of the various interests from the development-friendly status quo. controlling them, thus hampering their effectiveness. The actors involved in this situation—including To reform the Prairie transboundary water governance the IJC and the U.S. and Canadian governments— regimes, reform proposals must pass through a number are unlikely to pursue institutional reforms until the of veto points, most notably the IJC, and both the U.S. need for such reforms becomes clear and compelling. and Canadian governments, with all the concomitant Reforms to address climate change are most likely to veto points internal to each of these. Clearly there are be reactive rather than proactive. A key question which ample opportunities for those disaffected by a proposed remains unanswered is whether these reactive institu- reform to block it and any reform proposal that makes tional changes will be able to keep pace with the chang- it through all of these veto points is unlikely to move far ing climate. If climate changes outpace institutional from the institutional status quo. changes, severe environmental, economic, and social dislocation may be the result. Asset specificity and positive feedback. The An incremental and reactive response to the threat, governments and private interests in the Prairie region one that may or may not prove adequate to the loom- have invested heavily in infrastructural and organiza- ing situation, is the most likely scenario. However, a tional assets that are specific to the current transbound- more dramatic transformation of current water man- 31 32 Canada Institute occasional paper series Conceivably, a major environmental crisis could re- could Conceivably, environmentalcrisis major a sway the status quo to by destabilizing resilient serve institutions. and issues governance re-frame that events”“focusing as serve can disasters Such river. degraded severelya or drought prolonged calamity,a tal as such environmenof - kind some be would change rapid for agement regimes is not unthinkable. The likely impetus region will be to adapt their international river man- river international their adapt to be will region Prairie the in governments partner its and IJC the ing management schemes. that completely risk overwhelming current riverPrairie challenges unprecedented presents governments major all by endorsed been has that warming global of threat trend.climate warming a economyunder political The the undermine could problems conditions,these mate degradation.mental cli- current under threat a Already environand - shortages water problemsof recurring to economy. Sectors of this economy have become victims recently revealed vulnerabilities in this region’s political more ago,has century a place in put objectives ment manage- water of achievement and success the to ute control andbeneficialuseonamassive scale. water facilitating and riparians and farmers of interests integral part of the Prairie political economy, an serving been the have regimes these decades,uncertainty. For the Prairie region are entering a period of challenge and in regimes management river international its and IJC IBWT,the the of creation the after century a Almost C NOTES agreement that Canada had a prior appropriation of500 appropriation thatCanadahadaprior agreement ontheMilk.particularly Onthe otherissue, there was intheUnitedStates,larger share ofwaters originating wouldapportionment have provided Canadawitha the rivers’ sources. This was relevant becauseanupstream Canada arguedthatitshouldbemeasured upstream, near shouldbemeasured attheborderapportionment while oNCLUSION - fac challenge major the decades, few next the In - trib a rivers,while Prairie many on allocation Full 1. More specifically, theUnitedStatesarguedthat

economic, andsocialcost. change would come at a potentially high environmental, institutional dramatic such Unfortunately, quo. status the fromdifferent quite options reform institutional of to terms environmental terms, opening up a wide range developmental from management water Prairie frame transboundary rivers over rivers transboundary thenextcentury. have to a meaningful continue role to in the is management of IJC the Prairie the if paradox institutional this resolve to how out figure to Prairies the in ernments institutional legitimacy. It will be up to the partner gov- and stability erosionregional the of to lead and change needed undermine seriously can durability same their However,region. the in economy political flourishing a to contributing with credited widely are and control their durability. for They valued brought are perceivedspawned problemshas under it authorities river Prairie ient theseinstitutionshave beeninthepast. who have pressured for reform, is users evidence of water how resil new- various and movement ronmentalist since theircreation, despitetheemergenceofenvi- haveexisting regimes undergone relatively few reforms the processreform or blockrender it ineffectual. to The that fact disposal the their at points veto of number aconsiderable have regimes current the from efiting areformidable. regimes manyvestedThe interestsben- However, the challenges involved these with reforming change.climate imperativesof the to regimes agement the United States felt that the non-prioritized country country the UnitedStatesfeltthat non-prioritized should bedivided equallybetween thetwo countries, appropriations felt thatallwaters inexcessoftheprior appropriations.in excessoftheseprior While Canada to operationalize the “equal apportionment” of the waters second ontheMilk, but there was onhow disagreement of500cubicfeetper appropriation States hadaprior cubic feetpersecondontheSt. andtheUnited Mary Institutions such as the IJC and the transboundary transboundary the and IJC the as such Institutions should get the next 500 cubic feet per second, then in decline, and “good” river branches fully support all the remaining waters should be divided equally. Native existing water uses. The EPA assessments are based on water rights in Montana were also a concern in relation data provided by the state governments. (See EPA 2004a; to Article VI, but were not a major issue in the IJC EPA 2004b) Alberta Environment. South Saskatchewan proceedings. (See Halliday & Faveri 2007:80). River Basin Water Allocation. Alberta Environment, 2003. 2. (In the EPA assessments, “impaired” river branches Barnett, J.P., J.C. Adam, and D.P. Lettenmair. “Potential have water quality conditions that do not support one Impacts of a Warming Climate on Water Availability in (or more) water uses, “threatened” river branches have Snow-Dominated Regions.” Nature 438 (November, water quality that supports all existing water uses but is 17 2005):303-09.

REFERENCES

Bruce, J.P. et al. “Climate Change Impacts on Boundary souris_river/en/souris_mandate_mandat.htm. and Transboundary Water Management.” A Climate Accessed 15 January 2008. Change Action Fund Project. Natural Resources Canada, 30 June 2003. ———. “Interim Measures as Modified in 1992.” 1992. http://www.ijc.org/conseil_board/souris_river/en/ Dreisziger, N.F. “Dreams and Disappointments.” In souris_mandate_mandat.htm. Accessed 15 January The International Joint Commission Seventy Years 2008. On, edited by Robert Spencer, John Kirton, and Kim Richard Nossal, 8-23. Toronto: Centre for ———. “December 2000 Amendment to the Agreement International Studies, 1981. Between Canada and the United States for the Water Supply and Flood Control of the Souris River Basin.” Environmental Protection Agency. Assessment Data for 2000. http://www.ijc.org/conseil_board/souris_river/ the State of Montana 2004. 2004. National Assessment en/souris_mandate_mandat.htm. Accessed 15 January Database. http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/w305b_report_ 2008. v4.state?p_state=MT&p_cycle=2004. Accessed 12 January 2008. ———. In the Matter of the Measurement and Apportionment of the Waters of the St. Mary and ———. Assessment Data for the State of North Dakota Milk Rivers and their Tributaries in the United States 2004. 2004. National Assessment Database. http:// and Canada, (1921). iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/w305b_report_v4.state?p_

state=ND&p_cycle=2004. Accessed 12 January 2008. ———. International Souris River Board - Background B. TIMOTHY HEI N MILLER march 2009 Information. 12 May 2007. http://www.ijc.org/ Glenn, Jack. Once Upon an Oldman: Special Interest conseil_board/souris_river/en/souris_home_accueil. Politics and the Oldman River Dam. Vancouver: UBC htm. Accessed 15 January 2008. Press, 1999. Jordan, F.J.E. “The International Joint Commission Halliday, R., and G. Faveri. “The St. Mary and Milk and Canada-United States Boundary Relations.” Rivers: The 1921 Order Revisited.” Canadian Water In Canadian Perspectives on International Law and Resources Journal 32, no. 1 (2007):75-92. Organization, edited by R. MacDonald, G. Morris, and D. Johnston, 522-43. Toronto: University of Heinmiller, B. Timothy. “Do Intergovernmental Toronto Press, 1974. Institutions Matter? The Case of Water Diversion Regulation in the Great Lakes Basin.” Governance 20, Matthews, Geoffrey J., and Robert Morrow, Jr. Canada no. 4 (2007):655-674. and the World - An Atlas Resource. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1985. Hood, George N. Against the Flow - Rafferty-Alameda and the Politics of the Environment. Saskatoon: Fifth North Dakota Water Conservation Commission and House Publishers, 1994. State Engineer of North Dakota. Third Biennial Report of the State Water Conservation Commission International Joint Commission. “1959 Interim and the Twentieth Biennial Report of the State Measures.” 1959. http://www.ijc.org/conseil_board/ Engineer of North Dakota (1942). 33 34 Canada Institute occasional paper series Tarlock, A. Dan. “The Future ofPrior in Appropriation Simonds, William Joe. “The MilkRiver Project.” In Reisner, Marc. - CadillacDesert The American West Pierson, Paul. Politics in Time -History, Institutions, and Percy, David R. “Responding to Water Scarcity in Ostrom, Elinor. Governing theCommons. Cambridge: and trade” policies. developmentof institutional “cap and political the on projectresearch funded SSHRC an on workingrently cur- is Journal.He Resources Public Administration,Governance,Natural Canadian and as journals such in publishedCanada,have been resourcesgovernancein articles natural States, his United Australia,and the and environmental policy and resource management. Professor Heinmiller has done extensive research in water on and specifically focusing administration, public and policy public of areas the in teaches and researches he where B . Timothy. 2001):769-93. the New West.” NaturalResources 41(Fall Journal Accessed 22January 2008 . http://www.ubr.gov/dataweb/html/milkrive.html. Program.Bureau ofReclamationHistory 1999. Douglas &McIntyre, 1993. and ItsDisappearing Water. 1986. 2ded. Vancouver: 2004. Social Analysis. Princeton: University Press, Princeton 107. Western Canada.” Texas Law Review 83(2005):2091- University Press,Cambridge 1990. is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Brock UniversityBrock at PoliticalScience of Department the in professor assistant an is Heinmiller Worster, Donald. Rivers ofEmpire - Water, and Aridity Willoughby, William R. “Expectations andExperience.” Tsebelis, George. “Decision MakinginPolitical Systems: Treaty Between theUnitedStatesandGreat Britain University Press, 1985. the Growth ofthe American West. New York: Oxford Studies,International 1981. and KimRichard Nossal, 24-42. Toronto: Centre for Years On, editedbySpencer, Robert John Kirton, In Joint CommissionSeventyThe International of Political Science25(1995):289-325. Multicameralism andMultipartyism.” Journal British Veto Players inPresidentialism, Parliamentarism, 2002. www.ijc.org/agree/water.html. Accessed 12 December Between theUnitedStatesandCanada. 1909. http:// Relating toBoundary Waters, andQuestions Arising A century ago, the United States and Canada embarked on joint envi- ronmental governance when they signed the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Yet as both countries enter a second century of shared environmental challenges, there is little policymaking apparatus at the federal level to address ever more pressing threats. Instead, hope for environmental solu- tions, once directed at higher level federal and international authorities, is being directed downwards. One mechanism for carrying out such change is a “cross-border region” (CBR), or assemblage of local, regional, state, and provincial entities who, on the basis of shared ecosystems as well as other cultural, economic, historic, and location factors, are motivated to jointly pursue environmental change or preservation. This article reviews four CBRs operating along the U.S.-Canadian border and concludes that they are capable of having meaningful impact on environmental policies and outcomes. However, differences and asymmetries among CBRs render them less cohesive and directed than they might be. Environmental CBRs, Environmental as a model, offer the best prospect of becoming “hubs” for environmental cooperation between the United States and Canada but need help from Cross-Border federal authorities in the form of concrete support and resources. Regions and the Canada-U.S. he United States and Canada are now moving into their sec- Relationship: ond century of bilateral governance of shared environmen- Ttal challenges. And unfortunately, while those challenges are Building from the growing, the tools for addressing them are not. In recent years, close observers of Canada-U.S. relations have seen relatively little that is new at the federal level in the way of joint environmental initiatives.

Bottom Up in the D EBOR The first century of joint governance was launched when the International Boundary Waters Treaty (IBWT) was enacted in 1909. Second Century? Article IV of the Treaty included a statement that “waters shall not be polluted on one side of the border to an extent that causes harm A L. V Debora L. VanNijnatten to health or property on the other,” and it was on the strength of this

clause that a complex set of institutions, capped by the International ANN IJ NA Joint Commission, was established to manage shared waters all along the 49th Parallel. Over time, specific agreements with respect to Great Lakes waters and air pollution were also put in place, and the IJC was joined by other bilateral institutions such as the Canada-U.S. TTE N Air Quality Committee.

However, while these bilateral environmental institutions have m a rch 2009 in many cases served as stable mediators for narrowly defined envi- ronmental problems, broader sustainability objectives have become mired in politics and the sensitivities of diplomacy. Moreover, national governments in Canada and the United States backed off environmental policy-making beginning in the early 1990s due to resource constraints, a perceived lack of political pay-off, or both. In the post-9/11 era, environmental issues fell even further behind other policy priorities. 35 36 Canada Institute occasional paper series and provincial) cross-border interactions have 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 CEC canplay. the that role the on limits real governmentsplaced ing lack of resources and political interference by - participat to act. However, these hopes remain largely unfulfilled; a that would encourage, even push, national governments the development of a continental environmental regime to lead would (CEC) Cooperation Environmental for Commission North American trilateral the of lishment estab- the that hoped was level. It continental the at actors political of set differententirely an to rather but environmentaldegradation, avertfurther to charge the lead to actors national to not looking were observers WCI RGGI PTP PRI PNWER Pacific NorthWest Economic England Conference ofNew NEG/ECP IJC IBWT GHG CEC CBR Key to Abbrevia h eiec sos ht untoa (.. state (e.g., subnational that shows evidence The policy- environmental Canada-U.S. this on is It environmentalmid-1990s,many the result,by a As

Western ClimateInitiative Initiative Greenhouse Gas Regional Powering thePlainsinitiative Policy Research Initiative Canadian Governors/Eastern Joint Commission International Boundary International Waters Greenhouse gases CommissionforEnvironmental Cross-border region Region Premiers Treaty CooperationofNorth America tions

Regions well as the 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 proj- the of terms in ambitious more and orientation, more formalized, increasingly multilateral or regional in 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 enviSecond,- 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, focused onbilateral(i.e., solely nation-to-nation)entities. remaining than rather (CBRs) regions border cross- of model subnational a to according it recasting Canada- U.S.up,”the the fromenvironmental“bottom relationship reconstruct to possible be might it suggests that scene policy-making environmental the on 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 bycarried the Policy Research Initiative of Leader Survey on the Emergence of Cross-Border 1 as the Government of Canada, this paper attempts to answer terms of institutional maturity and functional capacity. these important questions. First, distinct environmental Finally, environmental CBRs are having some impact CBRs are indeed emerging on the Canada-U.S. border, in terms of policy goals and instrument choice but it is although the boundaries of these regions are flexible and not yet clear whether the results are “meaningful” with often issue specific. Second, these regions are capable of respect to environmental outcomes. autonomous action, but significant asymmetries exist in

Are There Distinct Environmental Cross-Border Regions?

Ecological attributes provide the most obvious means of little relevance if they are not recognized as such, espe- defining the boundaries of environmental CBRs. On the cially by residents living and working along the border. Canadian side of the border, an “Ecological Framework” So the next step is to look for evidence of agreement has been adopted for official purposes and can assist in on boundaries and ecological attributes of CBRs. Here, the task of demarking CBRs (Natural Resources Canada recent survey results may prove illustrative (Brunet-Jailly, 2008). On the American side, however, there is more Clarke and VanNijnatten 2006). debate about where to draw ecological boundaries, and The Policy Research Initiative (PRI), in its Emer- less standardization in terms of ecosystem boundaries.3 gence of Cross-Border Regions Project, conducted And with no formal classification scheme consistently initial research into interactions along the 49th paral- applied, the task of defining environmental CBRs with lel. The approach was to examine “economic and orga- reference to ecological attributes is not straightforward. nizational cooperative linkages” as well as “cultural/ Another approach might be to define environmen- values similarity” (Policy Research Initiative 2005: 3). tal CBRs as those regions containing major ecologi- While the research was not designed specifically to cal features, the threats to which provide some kind of accommodate ecological attributes, the PRI found that impetus for joint action. In the Pacific Northwest, for CBRs are a primarily subnational, regional phenom- example, the transboundary relationship is anchored by enon composed of different provinces and states strad-

the Georgia Strait-Puget Sound Basin, spanning the dling the U.S.-Canada border. Results pointed to the D EBOR southern coastal reaches of British Columbia and the existence of four distinct CBRs: the West, the Prairies- northwestern areas of Washington state. Moving east, Great Plains, the Great Lakes-Heartland, and the East, the Cascades and the “Crown of the Continent” (the with some jurisdictions straddling more than one CBR A L. V montane cordillera landscape connecting Yellowstone (Policy Research Initiative 2006: 1).

to the Yukon) draws British Columbia, Alberta, and In order to test their initial findings the PRI then ANN IJ NA Montana into cooperative relationships. conducted a detailed survey of environmentalists work- Next there is the Red River Basin straddling ing in leadership roles in a cross-border capacity.4 Only a Manitoba, North Dakota, and Minnesota, requir- small proportion of survey respondents actually worked ing attention to shared watershed management issues. in the environmental field, but subsequent to the sur- TTE N m a rch 2009 In the Canada-U.S. heartland, the Great Lakes Basin vey, follow-up interviews were conducted by this author already serves as the dynamis for considerable cross- with individuals who had completed the survey and were border interaction, while Lake Champlain and its asso- also leaders in environmental transborder organizations. ciated watershed further east encourage a mutuality The results of the Leader Survey and interviews pro- of interest between Québec, New York, and Vermont. vide support for the notion of CBRs and indicate wide- Finally, at the continent’s northeastern edge, the spread agreement on their key aspects. First, respondents Appalachian landscape and the shared coast and bound- agreed that there is such a thing as a CBR, consist- ary waters, particularly the Gulf of Maine Basin, pro- ing of states and provinces as its basic units. Indeed, no mote a shared approach to environmental challenges. respondent or interviewee specifically questioned the Delineating shared ecosystems in this manner has membership of three “core”CBRs consisting of British 37 38 Canada Institute occasional paper series the physical boundaries of shared ecosystems and may and ecosystems shared of boundaries physical the defining than precise less is reach,” which ronmental interviewee, one be its of “enviby words the - defined, in should CBR a that observed also they CBRs, of understanding their in boundaries circumscribed with interview). (Tremblay boundaries” ecosystem on based is region realthat “the noted Northeast the from another while interview),key” (Krantzberg is watershed the of ence pres- physical “the that stated region Lakes Great the Georgia Basin watershed/airshed.” An interviewee from Sound/ Puget the and River Columbia the central shared by together tied is CBR Columbia state-British Washington“the that example, for noted, respondent geography added to the definition of CBRs. One survey landscape,shared environmentallinkages,natural or to reference some see to wanted interviewees all as well as Canadians) as Americans many 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 Scotia intheEast. and the New England states, New Brunswick, and Nova and the Great Lakes states in the Great Lakes-Heartland, West, the Ontario in state Washington and Columbia 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 2005-2006) (Policy R defining theboundaries of your CBR…” Table 1: “What factors are important when Midwest. tend to shift the borders of the moreregion toward the the region, whereas discussions of air of pollutant transport part considered is Québec species, invasive of lem She noted, forexample, thatwhendiscussingtheprob- interview). (Krantzberg discussion under issue the on depending region, the defining in license geographic some is cooperate”there butto necessity shared a ates GreatLakes interviewee explained, watershed“the cre - a boundaries.As ecological strict beyond extend well dination of efforts (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 Links Historical Similarities Cultural Exchanges Economic Factors Locational Ecosystems Shared F An interviewee from the Pacific Northwest explained has who someone Northeast, the in official state A a ctor esearch Initiative L Eas 52% 28% 76% 79% 55% t Lakes Grea 43% 14% 95% 95% 81% t Praires- eader S Plains Grea 100% 100% 42% 75% 8% t urvey, Wes 26% 75% 17% 89% 89% t cations suggest that jurisdictions directly bordering a Table 2: # Linkages per Province-State major ecological feature, e.g., a watershed, are at the core Pair (Top 20 only) of the CBR, while those located on the periphery may # of # of Pair Pair be included or not depending on the issue. Speculatively, Linkages Linkages the challenges to defining a Plains/Prairie CBR may BC-WA 22 AB-ID 11 have something to do with the lack of a major ecologi- cal feature acting as a focal point. ON-MI 17 QC-PA 11 Still another criterion for determining the bound- ON-MN 16 ON-IN 11 aries of environmental CBRs is to trace the formal QC-NY 15 ON-IL 11 imprint of cross-border governance. This author con- structed a database of state-province linkages along the ON-NY 13 AB-WA 11 Canada-U.S. border.5 “Linkage” was defined as follows: ON-WI 13 BC-MT 11 mechanisms setting forth procedures and conditions ON-OH 13 BC-CA 11 for regularized interactions in a formalized manner by BC-ID 13 AB-OR 11 means of jointly signed documentation, incorporation ON-PA 13 QC-ME 10 of interactions into jurisdictional operating procedures BC-OR 13 QC-NH 10 and budget, or the establishment of identifiable institu- tions attached to resources and personnel. QC-VT 12 NS-ME 10 In the basic calculation in Table 2, the number of NB-ME 12 NB-NH 10 environmental linkages was totaled for each province AB-MT 11 NB-MA 10 paired with all border or border-region states.6 Key Ontario has a high number of ties with all eight Great AB Alberta MI Michigan ON Ontario Lakes states, indicating a significant level of clustering in BC British Columbia MN Minnesota OR Oregon this region. British Columbia shares many linkages with CA California MT Montana PA Pennsylvania its contiguous northwestern neighbours and also is linked ID Idaho NH New Hampshire QC Québec IL Illinois NY New York VT Vermont with California and Oregon, indicating another cluster. IN Indiana NB New Brunswick WA Washington Indeed, the top ten state-province pairs in terms of the MA Massachusetts NS Nova Scotia WI Wisconsin number of environmental linkages are almost exclusively ME Maine OH Ohio

Great Lakes and Pacific Northwest jurisdictions. D EBOR The number of environmental linkages between New England jurisdictions and Atlantic provinces is gener- As Table 2 indicates, environmental linkages are region- ally lower; however, the Québec-New Brunswick-Nova ally concentrated—that is, they cluster—in the Pacific A L. V Scotia-Maine-New Hampshire-Massachusetts grouping Northwest, the Great Lakes, and New England. British

suggests another regional cluster. It is noteworthy that, Columbia-Washington state have the greatest number ANN IJ NA in terms of formal collaborative linkages, there does not of linkages (22), followed by Ontario-Michigan (17), appear to be any significant level of clustering among Ontario-Minnesota (16), and Québec-New York (15). Plains/Prairie jurisdictions. The New England region has a smaller number of Table 3 provides data organized by region in two agreements and institutions but those linkages, more TTE N m a rch 2009 different ways. There is overlap of some states and than in any other region, tend to be multilateral rather provinces when determining the boundaries of New than bilateral (i.e., involving more than one other mem- England versus the Northeast. The purpose here is to ber state or province in the region). The Conference of construct an Index of Linkages, which measures the New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers average number of linkages per pair in each region, and (NEG/ECP), its Committee on the Environment and to examine this alongside an Index of Bilaterality, which its International Committee on Energy, as well as the is the ratio of bilateral to multilateral agreements seen Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, within each region.7 Viewed together, these data provide and various Northeast forest and fire protection coun- insight into the degree and nature of transborder insti- cils, account for much of the cross-border activity. tutionalization within environmental CBRs. The broader Northeast bloc shows a greater 39 40 Canada Institute occasional paper series tion to being of members PNWER, are also connected and addi- in technology Alberta, and Columbia energy development. British to relating those primarily 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 Oil Spill Task Columbia States-British Pacific the as management,such environmental coastal with dealing region.the Certainly, there are multilateral mechanisms on focused linkages of number highest second the bilaterality and of index the on score highest second the Washingtoncore.its at relationship has Northwest The one of bilateralism, with the very close British Columbia- the Western Association ofFishand Wildlife Agencies). FlywayCentral the Council), broaderthe or West(e.g., Colorado,(e.g.,such Kansas,Nebraska Missouri, states North Central Forest Pest Workshop), the mid-continent Midwestand Fish of Association Wildlife Agencies,the Midwest Fish and Game Law Enforcement Officers, the of (e.g.,Association the Midwest broader the in states involvingactivities into drawn often are region Plains closely, it would appear that pairs included in the Prairie/ jurisdictions,however. moredatabase the examining In cate a high level of multilateralism among Prairie/Plains region and on the index of bilaterality. This does in the not number indi- of environmental linkages focused on the 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 explained be can This bilateralism. toward tendency In the Pacific Northwest, the picture is predominantly region scores The relativelyPrairies/Plains low both Lakes,Greatmulti- the of In combination a is there

Linkages by R Table 3: S andinstitutions. agreements to their southern neighbors by a wide variety of bilateral † The Index of Bilaterality is calculated as the number- of bilateral agree the by divided linkages total as calculated is Linkages of Index The * incorporate other relationships depending on the issue.the on depending relationships other incorporate core membership in a region but flexible enough so as to tions and boundaries tend to be enoughfirm to identify laid upon one another, it becomes clear that CBR defini- butes, survey results,- attri and institutional CBRs—ecological networks—are environmental over- of boundaries ME, MA, CT, RI States : NH, VT, NS, PEI, NL Provinces: NB, New England Re NY, PA ME, MA, CT, RI, States : NH, VT, NB, NS, PEI, NL Provinces: QB, Northeast WI, MN OH, MI, IN, IL, States : NY, PA, Provinces: ON Great Lakes ND, MT States : WI, MN, SK, AB Provinces: MB, Prairies/Plains ID, CA, AL States : WA, OR, Provinces: BC, AB Pacific Northwest 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 gion ubnational Environmental egion p po per linka (av Linka Index of air) ssible g #of 13.25 7.1 7.0 5.5 8.5 ges ges* Agreement Mul Bila (R Bila Index of a tio of tila teral to terality† 1.05 1.24 .49 .77 .54 teral s) Three environmental CBRs stand out for being built upon The three core clusters can radiate influence out- distinct, core clusters of jurisdictions: the Pacific Northwest ward to draw in other states and provinces in the (encompassing British Columbia, Alberta, Washington, subregions or those who lie on the periphery but Idaho, Oregon, and Montana); the Great Lakes-Heartland want to be connected for particular purposes. For (including Ontario, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, example, Québec, New York, and Vermont may be Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania), and New incorporated into broader Northeast environmental England (including Québec and the four Atlantic prov- efforts or the tentacles of the Northwest may reach inces as well as Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New out to Alaska and California on selected issues such Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont). as coastal management and energy. The Plains/Prairie In addition, we can identify three smaller clusters of grouping is not nearly as cohesive as any of the other jurisdictions that straddle core cross-border regions and environmental CBRs and perhaps does not fit the might be considered sub-regions characterized by networks definition of an environmental CBR at all. Rather it of bilateral interactions: Québec-Northern New England is a very loose grouping of jurisdictions that interact (New York and Vermont); Manitoba-Minnesota-North bilaterally or are occasionally drawn into the activities Dakota; and, Alberta-Montana-Idaho. of other regions.

Are Environmental Cross-Border Regions Capable of Autonomous Action?

A Northeast interviewee expressed the view that, “one New England CBR. Truly region-wide initiatives, of the most important aspects of cross-border coopera- which involve states and provinces on an equal basis, are tion is to have a defined plan with measurable goals/ strongest in the New England region. The Conference objectives and a timeline—specificity is necessary. This of New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers provides a roadmap for cross-border activity and also pro- (NEG/ECP), out of successive rounds of multilateral vides a measure of accountability” (Smith interview). planning and negotiating, created Action Plans for D EBOR That person may as well have been describing a set of Mercury, Acid Rain, and Climate Change—with provi- criteria for determining whether environmental CBRs are sions applying to all participating jurisdictions. NEG/ capable of autonomous action. Whether environmental ECP Action Plan goals feature overall pollution reduc- A L. V CBRs have articulated regional goals—and whether these tion targets (e.g., a 50 percent reduction in mercury are “hard” or “soft” goals—are qualifying factors. The matu- pollution by 2003) connected to specific tasks that are rity and governing capacity of joint institutions also matter. intended to achieve these goals (e.g., emission limits for ANN IJ NA Concepts like horizontal and vertical networks, and the point sources and waste management protocols). concrete and in-kind supports that are available for achiev- The same approach was taken in successive Gulf of ing any regional goals to which jurisdictions have commit- Maine Council Action Plans. These plans are even more TTE N march 2009 ted, will come into play and should be taken into consider- detailed, although less focused on targets than on tasks ation when evaluating a CBR’s capacity for action. (e.g., “protect and restore marine habitats”). Objectives are tied to work plans that contain dozens of initiatives Goals and accountability. Each of the three core (e.g., mapping of priority areas, conducting risk analysis CBRs that have been identified in the last section, the for invasive species). In both the Gulf of Maine and Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes-Heartland, and New England NEG/ECP initiatives, progress on action items must be CBRs, has undertaken region-wide initiatives. There are, reported to political leaders in the participating jurisdic- however, notable differences among the three regions in tions on a regular basis. However, goals are not legally terms of the applicability and specificity of their goals, as binding on participating jurisdictions unless they have well as accountability measures. been incorporated independently into domestic legisla- 41 42 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 ily promote objectives, regional however. oversight.to ject necessar- not does accountability This funded by state or federal departments and are thus sub- programshavesuch requirements, reporting theyareas accountability,of terms In acted. not have authorities Action NEG/ECP Plans, the which fill actual policy of gaps where federal sense the in initiatory truly being of port ongoing binational/federal activities rather than goals,specific sup- contain programs in such exist they And while initiation. of program terms in significant state-federal less of is jurisdictions outgrowth Canadian of cooperation.role an The as border the of side the American on origins Commission,their Lakes had Great the by conducted programs Control Sediment and Erosion Soil or Species Nuisance Aquatic the as Great Lakes tend to be bifurcated. Many initiatives, such Great on theU.S. side. exclusivelyalmost and infrequently tion,occurs which Pacific 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- participating jurisdictions in order to reduce pollution reduce to order in jurisdictions participating by undertaken be to actions management out lay to is Basin.goal Sound The Strait-Puget Georgia the ering cov- agreements state Columbia-Washington British Truly region-wide initiatives, Trulyto the as such updates region-wide The Annex will put in place new processes for judg - BR C Lakes- Heartland rhet CBR Northwest 8 . hr ae nme of number a are There . ciiis n the in Activities

solving andthuslesscapacity forfollow through. less established architecture of engaging in such problem solving, a problem transborder of terms in experience actual less indicate may building linkage recent More establishedentities, have sources.funding to access better issues. One might also surmise that older linkages, as well- of range a withdealing experiencemore tionshipsand inter-relathroughestablishedmore- action autonomous for capacity enhanced have maturity, may institutional their of virtue by regions, cross-border environmental well as the growth overall. as increments time various during linkages in growth ae f establishment of date state-provinceaccordingthe to regions within linkages goals. cross-borderregional out Tablecarry showsto 4 order in created been have that institutions joint the of maturity the is action autonomous for capacity the 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 the Initiative.the joined have Manitoba and Columbia British of inces provwestern - 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 projmultilateral- and agreements bilateral such of ture industry, vessels). andmarine agriculture, from emissions reduce to initiatives(e.g., These data are helpful under the premisethat the under arehelpful data These “older” However, the Pacific Northwest environmental CBR fea- a not generally are timelines and goals Specific 9 Through WCI, the partners have set an set have Throughpartners WCI,the 10 n pnons h percentage the pinpoints and Another indicator of The New England region experienced early insti- such as the Great Lakes Water Use Database. Lacking tutionalization; almost half of all the region’s link- here is a subnational umbrella organization with a broad ages, including the multilateral NEG/ECP as well as mandate, such as the NEG/ECP or PNWER. As noted entities focusing on resource management, air quality by a Great Lakes interviewee: “There are too many insti- and energy issues, were in place prior to 1980. In the tutions in the Great Lakes basin… the big question is: NEG/ECP, the New England region has thus had an who is in charge?” (Krantzberg interview). umbrella organization focused on environmental and On the other side of the continent, the Pacific North- sustainability issues for three decades. This may explain west region is institutionally “younger.” The region the importance of “historical links” that respondents experienced a burst of new linkages (10 in all) from from the region referred to in survey questions. More 1991 to 95. During that time, British Columbia and recently, there has been considerable bilateral activity Washington state signed an Environmental Coope- on the margins to deal with specific environmental and ration Agreement and established an Environmental management issues. Cooperation Council; also PNWER was created and In the Great Lakes region, there has been consistent became active in environmental issues. More recently, linkage building until recently. A number of linkages British Columbia and Alberta have established additional include all Great Lakes jurisdictions and have been in linkages with their contiguous state partners to address place for some time, but seem to be linked informally, air and water pollution as well as energy cooperation.

Table 4: Environmental Linkages by Regionand Time Period

1980 % 1996- Environmental >1980 1981-85 1986-90 1991-95 2000-05 2005 of 2005 2000

New England 6 50% 1 3 0 0 2 12

Northeast 6 30% 1 6 1 1 5 20

Great Lakes 5 24% 3 4 4 4 1 21 D EBOR Pacific Northwest 4 19% 1 2 10 2 2 23 A L. V Vertical and horizontal governance and inte- communication and cooperation between officials in gration. Another measure of an environmental CBR’s related departments of all participating governments. ANN IJ NA effectiveness is its capability for vertical and horizontal These interactions and cooperation are typically the governance, which is key to regional coordination of byproducts of annual conferences of political leaders, environmental issues. Work by Anne-Marie Slaughter whose outcomes then provide direction to committees

(2004) indicates that vertical and horizontal transborder of senior-level officials invested with process and man- TTE N m a rch 2009 networks of officials can build trust and establish the agement responsibilities and mid-level officials assigned kind of long-term relationships that are necessary for project-specific tasks. Between meetings, further delib- addressing the increasing number of policy problems eration and communication continue electronically. that reach across state borders.11 Further insights into this question are provided by So another question to explore is whether environ- interviewees, all of whom work full-time with trans- mental CBRs have the capability to integrate activities boundary organizations. In their view, a major differ- from higher to lower levels of governance across their ence among environmental CBRs—and one that can respective regions. The case study literature indicates perhaps serve as a proxy for their permanence and abil- that environmental CBR linkages are focused primarily ity to form and maintain effective relationships—lies around state-province executive actors and are transgov- in the sophistication of their committee systems. The ernmental and transborder in nature, i.e., they involve Great Lakes region has an elaborate system of organi- 43 44 Canada Institute occasional paper series 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 environinitiatives? - This mental in citizens and sector private the ernment, across sectors, horizontally i.e., govlink and engage to - activities integrate to capacity the have CBRs mental environwhether - 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 areand governments local But region. the in cooperation national initiatives and may in some cases be a presencefederal the that overshadowscontend ers sub- as scientific and technical support. Infact, some- observ This is true both in terms of formal collaboration as well 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.to PNWER agrees is often a well- 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 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 to barrier ment in one or more jurisdictions, and a corresponding environmental CBRs susceptible to changes in govern- where there isactive legislative oversight. States, United the in projects,particularly transborder ties of fulfilling domestic mandates take precedence over executiveprovidingentities - dollars,funding priori the and specific projects. It goes without saying that for the activities management ongoing for funds branch tive execuor - departmental existing on reliant being in ity environmental CBRs. All regions share a key vulnerabil- Financial structure. with civic groups. overthose sector private the with interactions seek to sentatives.Pacificthe In Northwest, there tendency a is repre- civic with than experts policy with frequently more consultative,interacting less ECP,is contrast,by NEG/ officials.government The by outnumbered far are they although committees, dozen a on than serve more also its and Council central the on sit groups civic of representativeswebsite).fact, Council in And, people, organizations, and information” (Gulf of Maine connect Gulf;and the awarenessabout public raise … workshops; and conferences that, organize “We websitenotes Its networking. horizontal facilitate to ports interactions between executive officials. expert community, the major linkages are dominated by scientific/ the with wellconnected and well organized Lakesregion,Greateven arethe groups in civicwhere CBRs.Yet environmental various the civic within among groups capacity organizational of lack relative Being reliant on executive-level funding also renders pur- Council Maine of Gulf England,the New In the reflect also may integration horizontal of Lack were inplace priorto 1980. half of alltheregion’s linkages institutionalization; almost experienced early The New Englandregion Resources are a problem for all lessening of political support and resources for regional evidence of the capacity for autonomous action. This projects. Table 6 points to this problem; respondents to is true both in terms of regional goal articulation and the PRI Leader Survey consider “underfunding of ini- institutional development of their shared institutions. tiatives” and “the capacity of cross-border organizations” But there are significant differences and asymmetries to be among the most significant obstacles to cross-bor- among them. der cooperation. Shared institutions in New England are institution- ally mature and regionally integrated, exhibiting the capacity to work vertically and to a lesser extent hori- Table 5: PRI Leader Survey Responses zontally through relatively stable committee systems. Also, a higher level of policy ambition is expressed Barriers to in “hard” goals backed up by concrete timelines and Cooperation NE GL P-GP West “…to a great reporting requirements. And while resources are an extent” ongoing problem for all environmental CBRs, the more institutionally mature New England region has Different regulatory/ 45% 24% 67% 42% had some success in obtaining funding for specific legal systems progams. Security 45% 38% 50% 56% Many of these same features can be seen in the Great Infrastructure Lakes region. It contains a complex array of organiza- 41% 57% 50% 39% conditions tions, many of which exhibit organizational sophisti- Border crossing cation and governance capability. Great Lakes linkage 45% 81% 56% 54% conditions mechanisms are horizontally and vertically linked for networking, and have resources at their disposal, espe- Economic conditions 41% 52% 58% 50% cially in terms of federal scientific and technological Political Factors 52% 57% 67% 56% expertise. Capacity of cross- However, the Great Lakes environmental CBR tends 55% 52% 67% 61% border organization to be limited in two major ways. First, the tendency Underfunding of toward bilateralism in the region and the lack of an 55% 43% 58% 42% Initiatives umbrella organization hamper region-wide ambitions. It is possible that the recent activism of the Annual D EBOR Conference of Great Lakes Governors and Premiers sig- nals greater subnational regionalism, however. Second, the larger federal presence, both in terms of cross-border A L. V The majority of project-specific funding is sought linkages and departmental objectives, occupies policy from Canadian and American federal departments and room that might otherwise be available to subnational ANN IJ NA even, in some cases, the CEC. The fact that such fund- governments. In particular, the U.S. federal government ing is ad hoc and temporary in nature proves an obstacle looms large over the Great Lakes environmental CBR, to medium- and long-term planning. There is also a and this has had an inhibitory effect on its capability for real need for funding to support travel and in-person autonomous action. TTE N m a rch 2009 interactions, which all interviewees perceive to be In the institutionally newer Pacific Northwest critical for cooperation and project success. As one inter- Region, initiatives are more management-oriented viewee from New England noted, “[t]he most impor- rather than focusing on specific goals, and the CBR tant thing that [federal] governments can do to promote is less institutionally mature. As the major multilat- the work of CBRs is to provide funding to facilitate the eral organization, PNWER is an exception in terms face-to-face interaction that is so critical to successive of institutional capacity but still reflects the lack of cross-border projects. Targeted federal funding to sup- project specificity. Vertical and horizontal network- port travel costs… is key” (Smith interview). ing are under development, but relationships tend To summarize with regard to the central question to be strongest with the federal government and the posed in this section, environmental CBRs do show private sector. 45 46 Canada Institute occasional paper series achieving in terms ofenvironmentalachieving interms outcomes. and paying much closer attention to what we are actually goals these achieve to instruments policy of range wide a employing goals, long-term ambitious, more setting range of environmental problems. To achieve that requires forceful action by governments is necessary across the full forum. This isnotinsignificant. to spend time together discussing the problem in a joint willing are theyaction, coordinatedand of form some a problem, they that agree solving the problem requires sector and citizens that their governments acknowledge private the to signal goals policy Jointborders. across pating governments to come together and to cooperate tal CBRs denotes a commitment on the part of - partici The existence of shared policy goals within environmen- course of action to which a government has committed. Policy goals refer to the stated or expected ends of the instrument choices, and actual environmental policy outcomes. their jurisdictions, individual by adopted goals the impact of environmental CBRs based on the policy on thoughts initial some down set to possible only is it area.Here this in research empirical of lack marked environmentalon morespeculative.is policy a Thereis impact potential tutions,or actual their of anyestimate insti- throughjoint goals regional on act and articulate byto ability their degree varying a to arecharacterized environmentalWhile shownbe can CBRs and exist to Have MeaningfulPolic Do Environment 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 al Cro ss-b y Imp

order Re a progress in setting policy goals in these specific instances 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 in Lakes mercury pollution is the focus of another NEG/ECP example,reduction Forgoals. shared to commitments 33 percent from levels current by 2020. by emissions GHG reduce individually to haveagreed Columbia, British Washington, Oregon,California and Northwest,Pacific the goal.In long-term this achieve to efforts roadmapguiding transition energy regional a 2050.havealso partners PTP developing to committed reducing CO a consensus agreement to develop regional scenarios for have launched a Powering the Plains (PTP) initiative the Dakotas,with Iowa, Minnesota, Manitoba, and Wisconsin els that do not pose a threat to the climate. Further west, levels by 2020 and ultimately to decrease emissions to emissions lev- to 1990 levels by 2010, 10 percent below 1990 GHG reduce to members commits Plan Change Action NEG-ECP’s the example, policy, for change environmentaljoint goals.climate policy of case the In ct? 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 etil CR hv dvlpd omtet to commitments developed have CBRs Certainly 2 emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels by gions Climate are due primarily to activities in environmental CBRs; e.g., “protecting habitat” or “improved reporting/moni- it seems reasonable to propose, however, that these toring.” Such is the case with many of the goals directing activities have had some influence. Pressure to act more activity in the Great Lakes and in bodies such as the Gulf urgently or forcefully has, in most cases, originated with of Maine. Such goals direct participating jurisdictions to U.S. states, not Canadian provinces. States also have been perform tasks, but it is not known whether those tasks the driving force behind some of the most ambitious improve environmental quality to a measurable degree. CBR initiatives. There is another conundrum: shared policy goals are For example, it was the commitment by Massachusetts not necessarily proximate to the actual depth of com- to a “Zero Mercury Strategy” which helped to drive mitment to those policy goals on the part of partici- the NEG/ECP’s Mercury Action Plan. The Western pating governments. The literature is full of examples Climate Initiative (WCI) emerged out of the energies of environmental agreements whose goals have been of a group of West Coast states and it was only when the endorsed, even formally, but have not been met by par- Initiative was up and running that British Columbia and ticipating governments. Kyoto is a recent, high-profile other Canadian provinces became interested. The origi- example. nal impetus for the Great Lakes Charter was concern As such, policy instrument choice, which refers to the on the U.S. side among states that there would be major actual means that governments devise to achieve policy demands on the basin’s water resources in the future goals, may be a better indicator of the depth of com- (International Joint Commission 2000: 4). mitment to cross-border cooperation on environmental When states have met regularly with their Canadian protection, than policy goals per se. It goes without say- counterparts in environmental forums, they have exerted ing that a willingness to incur the political and material a form of “peer pressure” on provinces to follow their costs associated with regulation, or with taxing environ- lead. And the greater sense of urgency across the U.S. mentally unfriendly behavior, indicates a higher level of border seems to have produced initiatives that are in commitment on the part of government to environ- many cases more ambitious and more stringent than the mental protection than does, for example, a voluntary Canadian status quo. “challenge” issued to industry to change. However, there are a few caveats with regard to shared Compared with environmental goals, the impact of goals within environmental CBRs. First, the nature of environmental CBRs on the choice of policy instru- “shared” regional goals requires closer scrutiny. In many ments for carrying out those goals is much more indi- cases, where there is a specific goal or target, the target rect. In fact, until very recently, the focus primarily has applies region-wide rather than to individual jurisdic- been on achieving shared goals and then compatibility of D EBOR tions. For example, the WCI partners have set an aggre- policy instruments, not generally on the adoption of the gate GHG reduction goal; their “Statement of Regional same policy instruments. A L. V Goal” declares that “this regional, economy-wide goal is In the early phase of the NEG/ECP Action Plans, consistent with the emission goals of WCI partners and the policy instrument choices of American states and does not replace the partners’ existing goals (Western Canadian provinces were quite different. States partici- ANN IJ NA Climate Initiative 2007). As a consequence, individual pating in the NEG/ECP Climate Change Action Plan jurisdictional goals can—and do—vary from those that were from the beginning more likely to adopt a range are jointly adopted. of policy instruments, including regulatory targets for TTE N march 2009 As a second point, goals endorsed in annual meetings reductions in GHG and tailpipe emissions, alternative of premiers and governors, while laudable and designed energy generation, incentives for energy conservation, to provide some measure of political accountability, do and the RGGI emissions trading system for the electric- not acquire the force of law—and galvanize implemen- ity sector. By contrast, eastern Canadian provinces were tation action—until they are embedded in legislation. more likely to rely on voluntary challenges to reduce And only rarely has that happened, particularly on the emissions, including negotiated nonbinding emissions Canadian side. reductions agreements with industry and public educa- And finally, sometimes policy goals may not take the tion programs to encourage energy conservation (New form of specific targets related to environmental quality England/Eastern Canada Climate Change Report Card at all, but rather may be more process- or task-oriented, Partners 2006: 16-20). There was initially little interest 47 48 Canada Institute occasional paper series C tre ad ae dpe sm mruy policy instruments mercury that are consistent some with the Mercury adopted Action have and target ECP The Atlantic states. provinces also have England endorsed the NEG/ New among requirements notification restrictions, objectives, productcontaining disposal and dards. of Theremercury- in is terms also some clustering most part, adopted limits more stringent than federal stan - Action Plan (utility boilers, incinerators, etc) have, for the andthosestates withairemissions sources taggedthe in target reduction the endorsed have states six all dence; evi- in much very is states,clustering England New six the (VanNijnatten 29-30). 2006d:Among plan the in advocatedinstrumentspolicyprovinces torespect with Canadian eastern five the and states England New six the among convergence Mercurygrowing is NEG/ECPPlan,there Action the negotiating after decade a almost that foundauthor this byconducted study case for GHGemissions(Laghi2008). system cap-and-trade approach—a common a behind follow the United States and unite inces and territories provall - before time of matter a only is it that mused ■ ■ ■ ■ 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

As perhaps another signal of this trend,thisempirical ofansignal anotherperhaps As Indeed, Québec Premier Jean Charest has publicly has Charest Jean Premier Québec Indeed, Morerecently, there are convergenceof signs creep - 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

trends totheinfluenceofenvironmental CBRs. definitively theseorderto in neededascribe arestudies detailed more But instruments. policy market-based) (particularly alternative as well as regulation employ to provinces encouraged also has goals,it ambitious more adopt to states provincesandencouraged only not has adopting similar disposal and notification requirements. end that releases,to mercury atmospheric with ciated haveactivesourcesasso- most regulatingpoint been in states, like provinces, Atlantic Instead, states. New England as active as been not have they although Plan, NEG/ECP moved from “facilitating” action in its early organization”“results-based (Tremblay interview). The resolvedhas moreCouncil a Maine become of to Gulf accompanied by report requirements. For example, the quality environmental to relating objectives and goals on focus “results,” greater specific a in expressedsee as already can one governance, environmental bilateral with compared when particularly phenomenon, new 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 is, hl evrnetl Bs r a 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 years to negotiating action plans with specific targets. result is greater success in achieving desired outcomes. The Great Lakes Charter requires its members to eval- The New England CBR provides the best example uate water use on the basis of “environmental harm,” of that success. Under the NEG/ECP Mercury Action although the specific metrics are still being studied and Plan, participating jurisdictions agreed to undertake 45 negotiated. The Powering the Plains initiative, which pollution reduction actions with respect to point sources, originally consisted of a statement to cooperate, now waste management, and public education. Currently it has incorporated a long-term GHG reduction target. is estimated that the interim goal of a 50 percent reduc- Significantly, such initiatives are increasingly accompa- tion by 2003 (from 1998 levels) has been achieved nied by reporting requirements. (Smith 2005). Progress on the Climate Change Action Various factors might account for this shift. First, pro- Plan has been considerably slower—but even that is only gramming with more specific targets is more likely to known because of mandatory reporting requirements attract federal funding, especially on the U.S. side. And that are exerting their own form of pressure on govern- it also appears that where CBR insitutions are stronger ments to take more decisive action, especially on the and share more specific environmental policy goals, the Canadian side.

Concluding Observations

The observations in this paper are directed towards a evolved towards a series of three developing environmental premise established in earlier research: that cross-border CBRs which are not, however, equally capable of occu- environmental initiatives between the United States and pying and operationalizing transboundary policy spaces. Canada are to an increasing degree taking place at the While the most advanced of the three, the New England subnational level, where interactions have become more region, appears capable of undertaking coordinated, tar- formalized, are increasingly multilateral or regional in geted action on larger policy issues, and has developed orientation, and seem more ambitious in terms of the the institutional machinery to support these efforts, the projects undertaken. Hope for environmental solutions Pacific Northwest is at an earlier stage in terms of both that was once directed at the national level, to the IJC institutional and policy development. The third CBR and then the CEC, is now being directed downward, functioning in the Great Lakes area exhibits many of the D EBOR to state, provincial, and local governments and environ- characteristics of an active, institutionally mature CBR mental policy-making organizations. but has experienced difficulties in terms of undertaking A L. V The hypothesis, then, is that it might be possible to reconstruct the Canada-U.S. environmental relation- ship from the “bottom up,” recasting it according to a ANN IJ NA subnational model of environmental CBRs rather than Participation in CBR initiatives remaining solely focused on bilateral (i.e., nation-to- nation) entities. Addressing this proposition, several has not only encouraged TTE N march 2009 questions were explored. First, are there established envi- ronmental CBRs functioning along the U.S.-Canadian provinces and states to adopt border? Second, are those environmental CBRs capable of action by means of articulating and acting on regional more ambitious goals, it has goals through joint institutions? And last, are they having a meaningful impact on environmental policy making in also encouraged provinces to terms of goals, mechanisms for action, and outcomes? Without repeating the findings that led to these obser- employ regulation as well as vations, the empirical evidence presented here suggests that the Canada-U.S. environmental relationship has alternative policy instruments. 49 50 Canada Institute occasional paper series Notes tions ofthecontinent. por - western and northern the across WCI of spread 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 seem tobeascohesive anddirected asthey might be. ernance at subnational hands. Overall, such efforts do not effectiveenvironmentalgovachieving - of prospects the achieve these goals, there remain serious questions about policyinstrumentsconsiderationofrangewiderto a of natureencouragedhas moreambitious policygoals and subnational this of cooperation regional cross-border reoriented from the “bottom up.”be to is States United Asthe aand Canadabetweenresult, nance even though environmentalgoverfor regime shared- the problemsif initiatives.region-wide 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 www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt/ecoreg1_home.html oftheUnitedStates.Ecoregions Available at: http:// Service, of Department Agriculture, ofthe Description Bailey’s oftheUnitedStates: Ecoregions U.S. Forest author was anacademicadvisorontheproject. cross-border associations, NGOs, andthinktanks. This governmentvarious jurisdictions, ofcommerce, chambers conducted asurvey ofU.S. in andCanadianleaders of Canada. As onecomponentofthisProject, thePRI investigate thepolicyimplicationsforGovernment of cross-border relationships, regional aswell asto substantiate thegrowing significance, scope, andnature “Emergence ofCross-Border Regions” Project was to library.vanderbilt.edu/ameriquests/viewissue.php?id=7 3no.1Americas (2006). Available at: http://ejournals. 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 Asymmetries among environmental CBRs could pose 4. ofitsNorth As part research Linkages American 3. Onemuch-used classificationschemeis 2. The objective ofthePolicy Research Initiative’s 1. iterationofthe The first research findings, funded

look to their southern counterparts forinspiration. counterparts look totheirsouthern to need border northern the on folks that be may It cross-border environmental planning and cooperation. to approachdecentralized,now regional a undergirds framework federal under-resourced if border,strong a U.S.-Mexico the Interestingly, on institutionalization. albeit with a firmer national backdrop encouraging their tal cooperation between the United States and of Canada, prospect best becoming “hubs” for the future cross-border environmen- offer governance, transborder subnational of model a as CBRs, environmental that 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 rateof19%. 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 Given current political dynamics, it seems possible possible seems it dynamics, political current Given across capacity and effort uneven of problem The 6. Table 2 provides data for all state-province that pairs 5. stepin building thedatabase,As afirst existing the border, provinces were also paired with Oregon and moving toward full participant status, including Ontario California in the West and Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Québec. and Rhode Island in the Northeast. 10. In some cases, we used the date when a linkage 7. A score of greater than 1.0 indicates a region in became truly cross-border, i.e., a province joined an which linkages are relatively more likely to be bilateral established inter-state organization. while a score of less than 1.0 indicates a greater tendency 11. Please note that I use the “horizontal”and toward multilateralism in terms of environmental linkages. “vertical”concepts slightly differently than Slaughter. She 8. The newer 2001 Charter Annex actually consists of refers to horizontal networks as those among national one agreement between the eight Great Lakes states and government officials in different countries in their another between the states, Ontario, and Québec, although respective issue areas; I extend the horizontal dimension the two agreements are similar in terms of content. Further outward to include the private sector and civil society. agreements to implement the Charter’s overall goals have Slaughter refers to vertical networks as those which tie also been signed by states and provinces. supranational organizations to domestic governments; I 9. Other U.S. and Mexican states as well as extend the vertical dimension downward to encompass Canadian provinces have joined as observers, with some various levels of government—national, subnational, local.

REFERENCES

Alley, J. (1998) “The British Columbia-Washington Environmental Cooperation Council: An Evolving International Joint Commission. (2000) Protection Model of Canada-United States Interjurisdictional of the Waters of the Great Lakes: Final Report to Cooperation,” pp. 53-71 in R. Kiy and J.D. Wirth, the Governments of Canada and the United States. eds., Environmental Management on North America’s February. Borders. College Station, Texas A & M University Press. Laghi, B. (2008) “Ottawa far behind provinces on climate Alper, D.K. (1997) “Transboundary Environmental change: report” Globe and Mail Update, July 26. Relations in British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest,” The American Review of Canadian Natural Resources Canada. (2008) The Atlas of Canada: Studies - Red, White and Green: Canada-U.S. “Ecological Framework.” Available at: http://atlas. Environmental Relations, 27, no.3 (Autumn):359-384. nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/ecology/ framework/ecologicalframework.

Alper, D.K. (2003) “Emerging Collaborative Frameworks D EBOR for Environmental Governance in the Georgia Basin/ New England/Eastern Canada Climate Change Puget Sound Ecosystem,” Paper presented to the Report Card Partners. (2006) Third Annual Association of Borderland Studies, April, Las Vegas, Assessment of the Region’s Progress Toward Nevada. Meeting the Goals of the New England Governors/ A L. V Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change

Brunet-Jailly, E., S.E. Clarke, and D.L. VanNijnatten. Action Plan of 2001. Available at: http://www. ANN IJ NA (2006) “I. The Results in Perspective: An Emerging newenglandclimate.org/Scorecard2006.pdf. Model of Cross-Border Regional Co-operation in North America” Leader Survey on Canada-US Policy Research Initiative (Government of Canada). Cross-Border Regions: An Analysis. North American (2005) The Emergence of Cross-Border Regions: Linkages Working Paper Series 012, Government of Interim Report. PRI Project: North American TTE N march 2009 Canada, Policy Research Initiative. Linkages, November 2005.

Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. Policy Research Initiative (Government of Canada). (2008) “About the Council” Available at: http://www. (2006) The Emergence of Cross-Border Regions gulfofmaine.org/council/ Between Canada and the United States: Roundtables Hildebrand, L.P., V. Pebbles, and D.A. Fraser. (2002) Synthesis Report. PRI Project: North American “Cooperative ecosystem management across the Linkages, May 2006. Canada-U.S. border: approaches and experiences of transboundary programs in the Gulf of Maine, Great Rabe, B.G. (2004) Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Lakes and Georgia Basin/Puget Sound.” Ocean and Emerging Politics of American Climate Change Coastal Management 45: 421-457. Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 51 52 Canada Institute occasional paper series Research Initiative, Government ofCanada(2004-2006). wasalso academic advisor for the “Emergenceof Cross-Border Regions” research project out bycarried the Policy at Duke University and visiting associate professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources. She Transboundary Issue Management in Canada, Mexico and the United States.” She has been a Visiting Chair Fulbright and is currently working on a manuscript entitled “Environmentalpolicy, Policyinnovations.policy subnational Environmentaland Canadian of Policyco-editor is in(Oxford2002,She 2009) North policy,America: change quality climate air Capacity, including policy environmental Canadian-American-Mexican of aspects Approaches various and University.researchHer cross-borderon focuses environmentalas regions North in actors policy America,wellas as the North American Studies Program, and associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Wilfrid Laurier Debora Phone interview, Michele Tremblay, coordinator, Gulf Personal interview, Dr. GailKrantzberg, director, Intervie VanNijnatten, D.L. (2006b) “The ConstituentRegions VanNijnatten, D.L. (2006a) “Environmental Constituent VanNijnatten, D.L. (2005) Reductioninthe “Mercury Springer, A. (2002) “North American Transjurisdictional Smith, C.M. (2005) “NEG/ECP Mercury Action Slaughter, A-M. (2004) A New World Order. New Jersey: 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 Relationship,” inGeorge A. MacLean, ed., Canada of theCanada-UnitedStatesEnvironmental Borders Conference, ElPaso, Texas. prepared fortheLinnea Terrarum: International andtheCanada-U.S.Regions Relationship,” Paper Science Association, Washington, D.C. for the Annual Meetingofthe PoliticalAmerican Borders.” andInternational Internal Paper prepared United StatesandCanada: Policy Diffusion Across canam/PublicPolicyJournal/titles.htm. Policy (April). Accessed at: http://www.umaine.edu/ Environment,”Marine Public Canadian-American Cooperation: The GulfofMaineCouncilonthe Recommendations” PowerPoint Presentation. Plan: Management andRetirement Mercury University Press.Princeton L. V annijnatten is director of the Master’s Program in PublicInternational Policy, program coordinator of w s Phone interview, Daymon Trachsel, Columbia British Phone Interview, C. MarkSmith, co-chair, Mercury Western ClimateInitiative. (2007) “Western Climate VanNijnatten, D.L. (2008) “The North American VanNijnatten, D.L. (2006d) Reductioninthe “Mercury VanNijnatten, D.L. (2006c) “Towards Cross-Border 2006. of Ministry Water, Landand Air Protection, September CanadianPremiers,Eastern September 2006. Task Force, Conference ofNew EnglandGovernors/ O104F13006.pdf westernclimateinitiative.org/ewebeditpro/items/ Release: August 22. Available at: http://www. Initiative Goal” StatementofRegional Press Mills: Oxford University Press (underreview). Prospects andInnovation. forLeadership 3rd ed. Don Boardman, eds., CanadianEnvironmental Policy: Continental Push,” inD.L. VanNijnatten andR. Context: CanadianEnvironmental Policy andthe Association, Toronto, Ontario. General MeetingoftheCanadianPolitical Science Policy Diffusion,” Paper prepared forthe Annual Canadian Provinces: Interprovincial vs. Cross-border 3no.1.Americas AmeriQuests: oftheCenterfor The Journal Province-State LinkagesontheCanada-U.S. Border,” Environmental Policy SpacesinNorth America: Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba. University ofManitobaPolitical ScienceStudents Studies,for DefenceandSecurity Proceedings ofthe Two decades ago, Canada and the United States seemed destined to lead the world’s response to climate change. They formally parted ways when deciding whether or not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, although neither federal government has since formulated significant climate poli- cies. Clusters of American states, many sharing a common border with Canada, have been the most active sources of policy development in either nation. This paper reviews this policy history and further explores continuing factors that deter cross-border collaboration. But it also con- The Absence of siders ways in which Canada and the United States might begin to work together, perhaps building on sub-national initiative as well as Governance: new engagement from Washington. This analysis includes exploration of possible forms of bi-national collaboration as well as a truly con- Climate Change tinental strategy that would involve Mexico in partnership with its in Canada and the northern neighbors. United States here has been remarkably little formal collaboration between Barry G. Rabe Canada and the United States on the issue of climate change Gerald Ford School of Public Policy Tpolicy, despite a wide range of mechanisms for cross-border University of Michigan engagement on common environmental concerns and a vast body April 22, 2009 of literature that underscores the threat that climate change poses to both nations. The International Joint Commission (IJC) and B

the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation A RRY G. R (CEC), as well as non-governmental organizations, have published studies outlining the risks of climate change in both Canada and the United States (IJC 2003; CEC 2002, 2008; National Wildlife

Federation 2007). These reports foretell not only the prospect of A BE march 2009 elevated temperature but also the proliferation of extreme weather events, public health risks due to changing patterns of disease trans- mission via insects, declining surface water levels, elevated sea levels, and shifts in agricultural productivity. Future projections for climate change and attendant conse- quences frame a shared environmental challenge that is daunting in its potential impact, with cascading effects that could influence virtually every other area of environmental governance, from fish- eries habitat to availability of drinking water. These findings also 53 54 Canada Institute occasional paper series hog vros eus f nentoa diplomacy. international of venues nations various among through cooperation formal some requiring governance, international of challenge a as framed be would essentially change climate that suggested 1990s decade.end ofthecurrent realizedbythe werebe that to commitments supposed and left Kyoto with nearly-identical emission reduction took remarkably similar positions to the bargaining table Protocol. In this instance, Canada Kyotoand the United States the agreement, international binding a of tion levels1990 by2000. negotia - 1997 the to led step This at stabilization emissions national for calling (FCCC), Change Climate on Convention Framework Nations by percent 20 2005. reduced A few years later, be both nations ratified the United to were emissions GHG global that governments and American Canadian both by supported recommendation a produced conference in Toronto.hosted Atmosphere Changing the on That profile opening address at the Conference International alded the era of global climate governance with a high- her- Mulroney Brian Minister Prime 1988,former in in both Canada and the United States. Twenty years ago, but it has only relatively recently commanded attention environmentalchallenge,new a not is change Climate and theK A C WTO WCI RPS RGGI IJC GHG FCCC ETS EU CEC Key to Abbrevia All of this activity between the late 1980s and late and 1980s late the between activity this of All ontinent Divided:Canada, theUnitedSt 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 y oto Protoco l tions with Mexico. partnership expanded in even or fashion coordinated they may well have more impact actions,by unilateral acting together at in stabs taking country each than reduceto emissions.global effort anyserious Rather in role a significant play to need clearly States United the and Canada both consequences, shared for tial poten- the and change climate to contribution huge theiremissions. Given global annual of quarter one and than more world generate the nations two the in combined when highest very the among are sion year.each gases house emis- of rates capita per Their and Canada that the United States make to the contributions global release of - green sizable the confirm percent above 1990 levels by 2006. Part of 16 this differen- nearly Canada, of that below growth emissions of Kyoto rate a has spurned actually States ratification but Kyotoapproachits commitment. Ironically, United the to begin not will Canada that recognized is commonly It 2006. and 1990 between percent 26 than more soared emissions actual levels, 1990 from percent six by emissions reduce to was pledge the Canada,where hence.In years two for set targets reduction emission Kyoto the ratified Protocol,Canada,their including to nowhere areclose that parties Most tatters. in now are measures governance climate international toward steps Kyoto,early after those decade a than more and compliance mechanismsseemedonlytooapparent. and targets reduction formal with treatyby established law environmental hard of form some for need The under theFCCC, produced few ifany intendedresults. commitment non-binding as law,environmental such soft in experiments early that acknowledged countries willingness to engage in joint negotiated solutions. Both in both their research into the severity of the compatibility and consistency problemdemonstrated and threat and officials acknowledged that climate change was a serious Throughout much of this period, both Canada and U.S. oe w dcds fe te oot conference Toronto the after decades two Some a tes, tial, however, can be attributed to increased American of economies of scale and establish governance rules import of Canadian energy and manufactured goods, among institutions with prior working relationships whereby resulting emissions are registered in Canada. and trust. Such a bottom-up approach has precedents in Either way, collectively, these two nations demonstrate trade and monetary policy, where a gradual move toward that the absence of climate governance has produced cross-national, continental, and, in some instances, inter- disturbing performance results. Despite initial hopes, it national collaboration took into account some degree seems clear that purely voluntary strategies, even when of regional, national, and even sub-national variation. It combined with technological advances, are insufficient clearly reflects a quite different model than that which to reverse past trends or emissions growth. has dominated international environmental policy and Even the most steadfast international supporters of climate change deliberations. In the latter, there has Kyoto, such as the European Union (EU), have strug- been presumed movement toward expanded interna- gled to meet various national targets in many cases. The tional authority over sovereign nations and develop- EU has faced significant challenges in implementing ment of new institutions such as a World Environment it own continental emissions trading system, the EU Organization (Speth and Haas 2006). Emissions Trading Scheme (Ellerman, et al. 2008). Other Yet the “bottom-up” approach could prove more major ratifying nations, such as Australia, Japan, and practical and create tremendous opportunity for collab- New Zealand, have also struggled to develop policies oration between Canada and the United States. But the and reduce emissions growth. In the meantime, emerg- increasing involvement of individual states, provinces, ing economies such as China and India, which were cities, regions, and, in the United States, even the federal never bound by Kyoto, have seen extraordinary rates of government, continues to have an ad hoc quality. There greenhouse gas emissions growth in recent years. This simply is no governance entity currently in operation leaves very few models for effective climate governance that could be said to be serving as a model or exerting a or progress toward Kyoto’s shared goal of emissions sta- major role in promoting Canada-U.S. collaboration on bilization and reduction. GHG reductions despite potential economies of scale Hope springs eternal for further international diplo- and collaborative opportunities across policy arenas that macy and coalescence around taking the next steps. such a relationship portends. Instead, collective climate Indeed, the intensified American federal engagement on governance bringing together Canadian and American climate change in the Obama era has renewed interest entities has thus far been largely non-existent. in this possibility, with the December 2009 international This paper purports to underscore the absence of Copenhagen climate meetings an early test case. But governance on climate change and explore alternative the growing reality of climate policy in North America strategies. It begins with a detailed overview of ongoing and elsewhere has been a patchwork quilt of state, pro- climate policy development within both nations, placing vincial, local, and regional policies and emission reduc- particular emphasis on relatively high levels of American tion commitments, often leading to formal collabora- state and regional policy development in this area when B tion between local and regional jurisdictions rather than contrasted with Canadian provincial governments. This A RRY G. R national governments. Some scholars have asserted that section will also describe early experimentation with the next generation of climate policy is likely to take this creation of a Western regional zone for carbon emis- form of “bottom-up” approach involving a mixture of sions trading that links seven states and four provinces in sub-national, national, and multi-national agreements, a formal agreement. It then reviews a series of possible A BE march 2009 developed through unique networks or partnerships collaborative governance options, considering some (Selin and VanDeveer 2009). of the enduring stumbling blocks to such coordinated Such arrangements are most likely to occur in cases action. The paper concludes with references to other where energy and related resources are shared and models around the globe, where neighboring nations natural boundaries emerge for defining collaboration, have decided to work together on climate change, with whether shaped by a regional electricity grid that tran- particular attention to the cases of Australia and New scends jurisdictional boundaries or formal compacts Zealand as well as the EU. among governments with a history of collaboration. In light of progress being made in some corners of This allows considerable opportunity to take advantage the world, we will ask why it has proven so hard for 55 56 Canada Institute occasional paper series Harper Harper that broached the possibility of bold new col- President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen both nations and the February 2009 summit betweenin elections federal 2008 the from ramifications sible governance? pos- on focus will discussion latter This environmental shared with change climate avert to efforts and Canadian American joint for hold future the in the does possibility? What a indeed collaboration decade coming greater Is change. climate on ground common find to States United the and Canada tts n pru a oiin oe lsl ale with allied closely more position a pursue and States United from the itself differentiate to ratification using North American moral super-power on climate change, could ratify Kyoto and thereby lay claim to the mantle of of provinces, led by Alberta. On the other hand, Canada majority clear a and organizations prominentindustrial many by endorsed strongly was position States.This United the with interdependence economic of degree considerable of risks unilateral implementation given its withdrawhand,fromKyoto,clearly one could it citing distinct options (McDougall 2006; Stuart 2007). On the two had States,Canada United the by dominated was lines around theworld but was largelyanticlimactic. fromStates KyotoUnited the head- generated 2001 in withdraw to decision Bush Administration subsequent race about his plans for moving toward ratification. The by then-Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential said was little remarkably and Administration Clinton the of years remaining the in ratification of sideration con- any serious deterred Senate the in opposition stiff States, United the routes. In ratification different sued pur- but agreement the signed nations both after rated evapoStates,- quickly United the and Canada of areas heavily-forested to advantage substantial allow to sinks up to Kyoto, on issues such as liberal definition of carbon history of fairly unified bargaining in all sessions leading mental point of departure between the two countries. A funda- a represents Kyoto processes. development icy least attributable to partly divergence in at their respective pol- be may change climate on States United the and Canada by engagement common of absence The Na No longer tied to a bilateral bargaining position that tional Divergenceas aB arrier to C or creation ofnew institutions. a turing substantial expansion of the role of the CEC raise numerous new issues would of governance,course of strategy.perhaps This fea- continental North truly American a to bilateral a from move thereby and involve Mexico formally to scope the issue expanding by the of reframing fundamental more a to give rise also may they time, same the At collaboration. cross-border more new trigger These may developments change. recent climate on options laborative it opprobrium as a climate it scofflawopprobrium in Ottawa, Brussels, Kyoto commitments. towardsprogress demonstrate to output legislative for prospects. It has also left provincial Parliaments thrashing cooperation,policy to anychilled certainly rupture the United States on Kyoto did not seal formally its borders the with break Canada’s parties. While ratifying with conducted if Kyotopurposes for legitimate only were trades as Canada for meaningless rendered been have been established on both sides of the 49th parallel, might theysystems, had cap-and-trade neighboring under its cred- and emission of trading the it States.Even United the between ties collaborative potential weaken Canada’s near-totallackoffollow-through. on comment to not choosing or oblivious remaining willingness to fromstand apart the United States, while and commitment Canadian applauded community icy years after ratification. Indeed, much of the climate pol- few first the least at for inaction coverpolicy some for it bought have actually may and negotiations national Canada to remain a respected in partner ongoing inter- emissions (Jaccard 2007). But on treaty impact any endorsement if little allowedhavehad to appear that sources voluntary programs andsubsidiesforalternative energy of array dizzying a from anything,aside do to Ottawa legacies afterdecadesofpublic service. Jean Chretien to leave ratification as one of his primary ily influenced by the desire of outgoing Minister Prime EU.the Ultimately, wastaken,decision latter the heav - In contrast, American withdrawal from Kyoto earned At the same time, Canada’s action served to formally commit necessarily not did ratification Canadian ollab ora tion and much of the world. The U.S. federal government’s now apply to more than 60 percent of the American prolonged inactivity on climate policy has contributed to population and are under active consideration in many this perception. In fact, legislative products with poten- additional states; they serve as a principal driver behind tial climate impact have been quite similar in the United substantial growth in new renewable energy capacity in States and Canada. Policies of this type have tended to the United States in recent years. In turn, 23 states have be larded with distributional subsidies to virtually every made formal commitment to a carbon trading program generator of energy (low-carbon or otherwise) and that would essentially parallel the EU ETS. This includes voluntary reduction programs. This began to change 10 Northeastern states that comprise the Regional in December 2007 with U.S. passage of an energy bill Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which became the that included an increase in mandatory vehicular fuel world’s first carbon trading program to auction all of its economy. That step was followed by a flurry of propos- allowances in late 2008. At the same time, California has als under consideration in the 110th Congress and of attempted to use its powers to request a waiver under course has led to a seeming opening of the federal policy federal clean air legislation to implement its own legisla- window in 2009 given early pronouncements by the tion that would mandate dramatic reduction in carbon Obama Administration and the 111th Congress. But the emissions from newly-manufactured vehicles. Fourteen overall pattern of disengagement by executive and legis- other states have vowed to adopt the California standard lative branches in Washington during this broad period if the federal government grants the waiver and initial further contributed to a global portrait of American dis- executive branch opposition to such a step seemed likely engagement for collective action related to greenhouse to be reversed under President Obama. gas emissions. This deflected attention from its northern Alongside unilateral experimentation of this sort, a neighbor, even though Ottawa was pursuing an essen- growing number of states have attempted to enact mul- tially similar strategy. tiple policies. California, for example, has been simulta- Another important point of departure involved very neously pursuing an array of policy options in pursuit different policy responses below the federal level in of statutory emission reductions by 2020 and 2050 that both nations. American state governments began in the would exceed those of any other government in the late 1990s to use their own authority to enact poli- world. In addition to its proposed vehicle emissions pro- cies designed to reduce greenhouse gases with unan- gram, they include developing cap-and-trade, energy ticipated aggressiveness and have only expanded and efficiency, low-carbon fuel, and renewable energy man- intensified those efforts in the current decade. This dates. Other states with large populations and growing represents another point of American and Canadian GHG emissions levels have enacted a multiplicity of divergence, as most provinces have done very little on climate policies; these include New York, Pennsylvania, climate policy throughout this period. Indeed, much Illinois, New Mexico, and Arizona. At the same time, provincial climate policy effort has focused on trying even historically inactive states such as Florida, Michigan, to extract various forms of rent in exchange for coop- North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia are beginning to fol- B eration with a Canadian federal government encum- low suit (Rabe 2008). A RRY G. R bered by Kyoto ratification rather than take unilateral As a result, the American federal system has produced policy steps well within their expansive powers over a diametrically different pattern from its Canadian natural resources and environmental protection (Rabe neighbors. American federal disengagement from Kyoto

2007). But as the provinces huffed and puffed about has inspired increasingly active state-level policy devel- A BE march 2009 Kyoto and Ottawa, a surprisingly wide collection of opment, whereas Canada’s formal embrace of Kyoto has states began to act unilaterally or in concert to develop generally been met with disinterest from the provinces. significant new policy initiatives Even provinces most outwardly supportive of Kyoto rat- The burgeoning bottom-up process in the United ification, such as Manitoba and Quebec have not begun States involves essentially all imaginable options in the to approach their more active American state neighbors kit box of climate policy tools. Twenty-eight states have in actual policy development. This may be changing, enacted renewable portfolio standards (RPS), which however, most notably in the case of British Columbia, mandate a consistent increase in the supply of elec- perhaps fostering greater opportunity for cross-border tricity provided from low-carbon sources. These RPSs collaboration than in previous years. 57 58 Canada Institute occasional paper series their efforts with seven Western states,American Arizona, link development policy formally to butsteps early took becomemostactivethe provinces unilateralof terms in nificantly, British Columbia and Manitoba sig- have most policy. not Perhaps environmentalonly of areas other arrangements,consistent with a phenomenon evident in regional hoc ad of consistsandWashington rather but cross-bordercollaboration thatdoesinvolvenot Ottawa more modestenergyfeesin15statesandQuebec). to confined and scale large a on Columbia British in provinces) as opposed to carbon taxes (operational only two and states 28 (in RPS as such tools regulatory for preference government sub-federal strong the explain 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 policy engagementessentiallyfrom groundzero. federal future any consider must and change, climate to regard with laggards world’sleading the among are of China and Saudi Arabia. So both federal governments ahead placed barely countries Kazakhstan,the by only States 53rd out of 56 entries. Separated from each other version of the CCPI, Canada ranks 51st and the United States and ranks them near the very bottom. In the 2007 finds strong similarities between Canada and the United countries, rapidly-industrializing and industrialized 56 of governments central cli- the of the efforts protection mate evaluates which (CCPI), Index Protection Change Climate proposals.The innumerable despite initiatives, policy significant formulate to struggle to continued have governments federal Admittedly,both border.the across change climate on collaboration for United the exists potential the and common and in much have States Canada differences, their Despite Signs ofP n em o ata pors, hr hs en some been has there progress, actual of terms In conducted rarely is polling opinion public turn, In ssible C onvergence o eeoig rgoa mre-ae mli sector multi market-based “regional a developing to provinces and states other and Columbia British ing it obliges allofustoadapt.” initiatives.new the us,around all and is evidence “The announcing in Campbell Gordon premier British Columbia problem,” said a got we’ve know to change to thework oftheIntergovernmental Panel onclimate tax credits. “In Columbia,British we don’tthrough businessesneed to look and citizens to returned be would which operation, of years three first its during billion $2 2008).estimated an wouldgenerate tax carbon The use through disincentivespricing (Fowlie and Anderson tax in 2008 February that is designed to deter fossil fuel with somelikely role inclimatechangegovernance. lished a provincial Climate Action Team economy.fuel to and link emissions Administratively, ministries estab- it the Canadian tradition of voluntary standards for vehicle awayfromveers thereby and legislation California the Columbia, through a policy that has some parallels with carbon emission standards for all vehicles sold in British set to agreed 2050.also provincefor The targets term wellas 2016 and long- 2012 as for targets intermediate levels.below1990 set percentapproximately also 10 It them place would 2020,which bylevels current from target formal to reduce its GHG emissions by one-third eral beforeactions shortly joining the WCI, including a nisms thatmightbeadvanced basis. onaregional trading provisions as opposed to other regulatory mecha- emissions with ahead moving to resistance political nal Even the flagship jurisdiction, California,faced has inter- unclear.remains Quebec) and Ontario,Manitoba, larly Montana and Utah) and provinces(particularly - (particu states member some from commitment actual of depth partnership remains in early stages of development andprogram for carbon emissions the(WCI 2008), although this developmentforregionalplansdraftcap-and-trade a of 2008,Quebec. detailed Marchthe releasedand In WCI joined the WCI in 2007 and have been joined by partners,stateManitobaColumbia Ontarioformallyand British Launchedin 2006 by California and initially focused on (WCI). Initiative Climate Western the Washington, in California,Montana,Mexico,New Oregon, Utah, and - participat committed has WCI the into Entry Furthermore, Columbia introduced British a carbon Columbia British took particularly aggressive unilat- mechanism” for emissions reduction. All WCI members tal policy focus. Some of these jurisdictions, primarily are required to have formal reduction targets and are such states as Delaware and New York, are on track to expected to use the regional system, most likely an emis- meet their 2010 goal of holding to 1990 emission lev- sions trading regime, to attain much if not all of their els. But the promised development of common stan- reduction goals. These respective states and provinces dards and policies has met with little success, with most have also agreed to establish a common registry to track subsequent effort involving resolutions that support the and manage credit trading for all emissions covered under general goals but lacking in specifics. the plan. “We welcome British Columbia’s participation Far more significant, the six participating states are in the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative,” said part of a larger American regional effort known as the California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in April Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). This initia- 2007 after British Columbia signed a memorandum of tive also includes New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and understanding to officially join the WCI. “We all share Delaware and may expand to include other states such the same goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as Pennsylvania. All participants will be linked through and addressing climate change while boosting economic a formal cap-and-trade program for coal-burning utili- growth. Premier Gordon Campbell’s leadership on this ties that began to auction allowances in late 2008 and issue is helping our two countries take a collaborative has been designed to achieve a 10 percent reduction approach that will result in real actions and innovative in emissions during its first decade. The RGGI states solutions that will have an impact across the globe.” have expressed their eagerness to serve as a possible role Manitoba has a longer track record of support for model for federal policy but insist they will only cooper- GHG reduction policies, though it has tended not to ate if prospective federal legislation sets standards at the match its rhetoric with implementable policies com- same or greater level than the regional effort. The RGGI parable to those of British Columbia or many leading was developed through several years of intensive collab- states. The province made a major effort to build a strong oration between lead environmental and energy officials climate policy team earlier in the decade, although much from participating states (Rabe 2008a). During nearly of this effort collapsed after staff departures (Rabe 2007). five years of deliberations, neighboring Canadian prov- But Manitoba has demonstrated a remarkable procliv- inces have been regularly invited to attend sessions and ity to sign cooperation agreements with various states. consider membership. New Brunswick has remained a In addition to joining the WCI, it agreed in November formal “observer” but no province has formally entered 2007 to join with six Midwestern states (neighboring into the RGGI system thus far and there is no indication Minnesota, as well as Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, that this will change in the near future. and Wisconsin) in establishing the Midwestern Regional Overall, there has been some attempt among neigh- Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (Pendergrass 2007). boring states and provinces to begin to think about This agreement thus far has much less detail than the WCI cross-border collaborations, most of which emphasize and a number of the participating states have not been some version of an emissions trading mechanism for B active in early development of their own carbon cap- GHGs. All of these have emerged without any active A RRY G. R and-trade systems. Several years prior to the Midwestern engagement or encouragement from respective federal agreement, Manitoba also joined with another subset of governments, much less any bi-national or continental Midwestern states to form “Powering the Plains,” a col- authority, and varies in detail from region to region. To

lective designed to promote regional renewable energy date, the WCI is the only one that begins to outline A BE march 2009 sources and reduce GHG emissions through methods formal commitments and expectations of membership, tailored to its individual member jurisdictions. thereby approximating the RGGI and the EU ETS rather Yet another earlier effort at cross-border collabora- than more symbolic efforts that lack any mechanisms tion involved six New England states along with Quebec to achieve reduction goals, though it remains in a very and the Maritime provinces in an attempt to establish early and uncertain stage in development. Nonetheless, a regional zone pledged to common levels of green- the WCI precedent does raise the question or whether house gas reduction by 2010 and 2020. This followed a regional networks that link select states and provinces long-standing set of common agreements among these could be the beginning of a trend towards cross-border jurisdictions, only some of which have an environmen- climate governance at the regional level. 59 60 Canada Institute occasional paper series pating states.American - partici among generated addressemissions only can but system cap-and-trade carbon a have states RGGI of Kyoto,ratification imports,its ity despite whereas any restrictions on carbon emissions from its - electric Canada each year. Ironically, from Canada does not imposeelectricity their of percent 11 than more secure example, for zone, RGGI the 10 comprise The Canada. that from states imported electricity of tities American regions are dependent on substantial some quan- and decades subsequent in increased steadily has countries two the between trade 1992).Energy (Averyt Falls Niagara at facilities generating power Ontario when between ago interconnection New an Yorkand created century a than more began ity ity and fuel.transport Cross-border- trade in electric - electric of givenimportation particularly American nations, two the between interdependence energy Minister Harper. Prime and Feburary Obama President between the summit 2009 of heels adaptation the even on or particularly strategies, mitigation emissions entails it whether engagement, cross-border of degree achieve to some efforts renew to need increasing the of is recognition there But governance. less much ing, organizational any think- “home”climate shared for or issue this on lead the taken currently has which step.next sonable institution bi-national no is There the on buildingrea model,- a WCI constitute might of whether some common action or strategy, perhaps new markets are anticipated. This raises the possibility for vast and which skills technologies climate-friendly also faulted are for not seizing countries the Both opportunity change. to develop climate new likely of ity sever- the exacerbating in long and action on short ascircles international in havedepicted widely been neighbors American North these states, American Kyoto and a patchwork of quilt of policy development among embrace symbolic Canada’s from Aside implementation.and development policy climate of the “post-Kyoto”recordsverytrack with modest era ous reasons, both Canada and the United States enter numer- for envision to hard remains regime,which toward a leap new international sudden some Barring The Case f Much of this recognition reflects the extraordinary extraordinary the reflects recognition of this Much or Exp anded C ollab emerging trading areas, though only British Columbia British areas,only trading though emerging these with linkage develop to begun have four inces, prov- the advanced.Among furthest the RGGI with some commitment to a carbon cap-and-trade program, 49th parallel. Nine states that border Canada have made ficiency of sustaining two separate policy regimes at the inef- the underscores transport and generation energy of energysupply. areas other in evident are scale of economies Similar the export of hydro electricity” for (Courchene 2009, England 25). New with agreement long-term a into enter to Courchene,ready Thomas “seems “Quebec analyst policy to according 2009, In trade. electricity province-to-state greater of possibility the explore to in organizations such as engage “Powering to the only Plains,” not is it but Minnesota, also as such states ing Doer has met regularly with counterparts in neighbor- greater distance. Indeed, when at Manitoba provincesPremier other Gary of citizens than rather consumers American neighboring to this sell to keen be would and power hydro in expand capacity current further substantial their could they that aggressively argued of renewable energy. haveand Quebec Manitoba Both it sources decentralized more if include to designed were particularly infrastructure, transmission refined investmentinconsiderable require might this though strongerported ties north-south exports,in electricity 2007). But a number of premiers have also actively sup- in of dition the their engagement Kyoto process (Rabe sion ties, most frequently notably Ontario and Manitoba as a con- have transmis- east-west bolster to subsidies premiers federal sought provincial Some (Bevington provinces”2007). Canadian between lines are between lines and Canada than the there States United Parliament noted, there “Currently are more electricity in of areas.Western member years, one particularly As recent in these expand to effort an been has there and States United the and Canada between linkages grid power 100 than more east-west already continuum.are than There north-south a on stronger much ally gener- is States United extended the and Canada across in distances electricity conveying for structure physicalinfra- years,the coming because part large in h pyia raiy n evrnetl ot of costs environmental and reality physical The is This to expected energy interdependence grow in ora tion has moved as far in policy development as the more little room for shared development of technology and active states. In turn, while the prospects for a federal making renewables as price-competitive as possible cap-and-trade bill in the 111th Congress appear increas- with conventional sources. ingly promising, it is less clear that Canada is prepared to Compatibility and interchangeability of energy poli- make a comparable move. Prime Minister Harper and cies are thus a big issue facing U.S.-Canadian border associates appear to be moving in this direction after jurisdictions. And whereas some neighboring states the Obama inauguration but the official position of the have begun to try to create “renewable energy credits” Canadian government in early 2009 involved far less that would be transferable across states through bilat- stringent reductions and more voluntary mechanisms eral agreements, so far none of this activity has crossed for compliance. If this pattern continued, what could any state-and-provincial border. Looking ahead, one emerge in the next few years is a rigorous American could envision a true patchwork quilt of RPSs and carbon emissions trading zone alongside a very differ- related policies, perhaps a blending of state, provincial, ent policy infrastructure in Canada. This poses obvious and federal policies that work at cross-purposes with concerns of “leakage,” namely whether the absence of one another. As in the case of a cap-and-trade program, carbon pricing and credit allocation in Canada creates some mechanism to establish common definitions and a huge incentive for Americans to purchase even more develop a viable system for trading renewable energy quantities of Canadian electricity. In turn, this raises the credits across these various jurisdictions could ease the issue of whether common standards or a shared emis- transition to renewables and thereby prove instrumen- sions trading regime would prove beneficial. Such a tal in reducing GHG emissions. Questions about trans- regime could begin with the electricity sector but, as parency and compatibility also emerge with regard to we are learning from California and the EU, any cap- renewable fuels, particularly those derived from plant and-trade system could readily be expanded to other material. These fuels have been heavily subsidized in carbon sources, whether fixed entities such as industries both nations, although serious questions have arisen or mobile sources such as all commercial flights in the over their actual GHG impact and the fact that they two nations. require ground transport rather than pipelines for cross- Collaboration could also extend to other areas where border movement. some form of carbon-related regulation was developed. Similar issues arise for virtually every other arena The issue of RPS is instructive here, especially given of possible policy development relevant to climate the dense concentration of American RPSs in 11 states change, from carbon emission standards for vehicles to that share a border with one or more Canadian prov- sequestration strategies that store carbon below ground ince. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have also level. Collectively, an effort to achieve greater unity enacted their own RPSs. No two jurisdictions with in Canadian and American approaches might also an RPS define renewable energy in identical ways maximize the potential for both nations to take full and often establish special provisions to boost a spe- advantage of the economic development opportuni- B cific renewable technology that has a strong base of ties likely to accrue to those governments that actively A RRY G. R political support in a particular jurisdiction. In turn, and effectively develop new technologies and skills we are also seeing a growing pattern of “RPS protec- that will be in high-demand in a carbon-constrained tionism,” whereby authorizing legislation is somewhat economy. Just as many private firms are attempting to discriminatory against electricity generated outside of take the advantage by becoming “first movers,” many A BE march 2009 the single jurisdiction, even in cases where it might governments (most notably American states) are tak- be less expensive and more environmentally-friendly. ing similar approaches. But just as the EU attempts This is a particular threat among the provinces, given to position itself as the “world leader” in this arena, the absence of a Constitutional Commerce Clause to there could be obvious advantages to some form of protect cross-border commerce, as reflected in Nova collaboration between Canada and the United States. Scotia’s RPS that confines eligible electricity to sources This could entail not only discovery of methods to generated within the province. Collectively, this type reduce emissions but also preparation to take a lead of constraint likely deters full development of renew- role in the international development and transfer of able potential in Canada and the United States, leaving essential technologies and skills. 61 62 Canada Institute occasional paper series ec, u dwpa css hr Cnd coss a chooses Canada where cases downplay but gence, prodthat toward Canada throughasymmetries conver - ous areas in which Canadian identity appears threatened numer- emphasize thesis this of iterations recent more overt or “stealth” in nature (McDougall 2006). Ironically,pressures, integration whether to submit to Canada on pressures continual laments and chronicles that arship schol- of industry cottage a sustained 2006).also has It (Helleiner convergence for pressures periodic despite policy monetary and currency separate a maintain to dence from the United States, such as prolonged efforts indepen- Canadian preserve to attempt to decisions of Historically, this imbalance has contributed to a number own.its with comparison U.S.in economy and the population of scope well-established vast the about are concerns Canadian there First, players. respective among power authority in and asymmetries significant of collaborative opportunities. discussions broad for stakeholders researchmental, and in Scholars for Washingtonconveneto private, govern - the Woodrowof Institute Center International Wilson Canada C.D.the in Torontothe or Institute Howeas effort, attempts by aside from think tanks such periodic collaborative serious a launched has that base tutional insti- existing any to point to difficult remains it Thus Kyoto began.the battles after ratification stalled largely this though States, United the and Mexico,Canada, of ministers environment in lead the Implementation” through 1990s Joint the and Change Climate on Cooperate to Intent of “Statement a developing for America” (CEC 2002, 23). The CEC was also the venue for,tial North within trading emissions trans-boundary a 2002 report that “There is interest in, and good poten- analysis of continental energy markets and concluded in tinuing climate change. The CEC has provided detailed con- by posed threats cross-border likely highlighting nizations such as the IJC have compiled research reports development.policy common of noted, As orga- form change; hence there is no obvious point starting for any climate roleon lead a assume to forth stepped has tion network. No existing bi-national or continental institu- or organization appropriate an by guided policies into collaboration climate for case the translate to task easy rationale,or need an the hownot matter great is No it Impediment To some degree, such collaboration is complicated by s to Exp anded C ollab and provincial authorities have generally rejected trad- rejectedhave generally provincial authorities and federal Both GHGs. for recently more and taminants con- conventionalair for Canada,both in slowerpace federal budget proposal. subsequent and Congress to address 2009 February his larly given President Obama’s call for such legislation in such legislation enacted in the next year or two, - particu see to possible entirely is (I-CT).It Lieberman Joseph and (R-VA) JohnWarner Senators by sponsored Act Security Climate the notably most mechanism, trade Congress focused on various forms of a federal cap-and- 110th the in change climate over deliberations the of emissions.carbon turn,to In tool most same this apply to transitioning of challenges the relativewith comfort able of in expertise emissions various forms trading and instances, guided by state agency officials with consider- regional basis. All of these efforts are staffed and, in some a on schemes the such and operate RGGI to the WCI by efforts in recently more and decade current the early in very regimes cap-and-trade carbon develop to experience has been evident in unilateral state programs nas of environmental protection (Raymond 2003). This are- other in and contaminants air various for trading and all 50 states have considerable expertise in emissions governmentmechanisms,federal trading the American approach.emissions cap-and-trade in a pioneer of a As appropriateness the about disagreements culturally, to extending,and trading or sions philosophically perhaps emis- in expertise technical with capacity, beginning policy in variation substantial is collaboration to ment impedi- further emissions.A GHG reduce to efforts futurelink to attempt arethreatenlikelyanyserious 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 sub-nationally.the tools in policy evident mate is This Kyoto ratificationorinthedevelopment cli- ofserious of point the at whether conform, to Canada on sure pres- American any see not does one efforts, national in policy WashingtonOttawa,and sub- mention to not climate of decade last the reviewing States.Indeed,in United the from different fundamentally route policy In contrast, emission trading has moved at a much a at moved has trading emission contrast, In and persist Nonetheless,concerns nationalistic these ora tion 2007). Legal scholar Katrina Wyman has offered a particularly nuanced interpretation of the Canadian There appears to be strong “slowness to introduce pollution markets,” one that places less emphasis on cultural consideration and sentiment in both nations emphasizes economic and related factors (Wyman 2002). In turn, some policy analysts have raised grow- for a substantial increase in ing concern about the capacity of Canadian insti- tutions to design an effective cap-and-trade system efforts to reduce greenhouse given limited expertise and pressures to weight down such a system with all sorts of exemptions and special gas emissions, but particularly preferences for particular sectors or provinces. Regardless of the ultimate explanation for Canadian strong support for those tools recalcitrance, one thing is clear: the United States is better prepared than Canada and appears primed to perceived as not imposing move from a regional toward a national system of carbon emissions trading, even though many politi- substantial direct costs on cal hurdles remain and the implementation challenges are potentially daunting. In contrast, Canada has little significant policy development under way in this area individual citizens. and scant experience using market mechanisms of this sort in any environmental arena aside from fisheries management. Alongside conventional concerns about power asymmetries among these neighbors has been a rather fundamental difference in policy approach ing mechanisms in favor of a blend of voluntary and and capacity that could prove difficult to blend into regulatory strategies for reducing air contaminants. any shared system. Given the two countries’ diverging Modest early provincial efforts to establish experimen- views and circumstances, even such issues as develop- tal carbon trading systems (such as in British Columbia ing mechanisms to oversee emissions credit transactions and Ontario) have essentially collapsed. Resistance to or approve carbon offsets in trading could prove dif- this approach and the attendant lag behind the United ficult to reconcile across national borders. One excep- States may be attributable to several factors. tion here may entail instances in which one or more First, there may be legal and Constitutional con- provinces move in an “American direction” and use straints on development of this method in Canada, their considerable constitutional latitude to develop whereas there have been no such questions in the a “home grown” approach that allows for direct col- B

United States. As legal scholar Alasdair Lucas has laboration with select states or even the entire United A RRY G. R noted, there is “at least a likelihood that the federal States. This factor makes the recent venture of a set of government lacks constitutional authority to legislate provinces with the WCI states particularly noteworthy, national standards and the necessary framework for a as it advances serious exploration of emissions trading national emissions trading program. The result is that as a mechanism to achieve common reduction goals. A BE march 2009 federal-provincial agreement is necessary and con- Another exception may involve the Canadian fed- stitutional jurisdiction is not a strong candidate for eral government’s March 2008 “Turning the Corner” either negotiating side” (Lucas 2004: 191). Second, strategy, which includes a general commitment to “set- there may indeed be resistance to such policy tools ting up a carbon emissions trading market, including from key ministries, whether due to normative objec- a carbon offset system” (Environment Canada 2008). tions, greater familiarity and comfort with more con- Of course, very recent signs of possible cross-national ventional policy tools, or economies of scale given coalescence around the cap-and-trade approach, the relative number and size of private and public explored more fully below, could further stimulate greenhouse gas sources in the Canadian case (Rabe such policy development in Canada. 63 64 Canada Institute occasional paper series U fes ueos esn weey cross-national whereby lessons numerous offers EU the 2006).But (Cass managerially or politically either trading,sions tools,other or achieved easily be not will taxation,emis- carbon through change,whether mate coordinatedhighly- approacha to cli- transition to the provincesneighboring andstates. between strategies shared for opportunities numerous others.many among standardscreates fuel This and lio - portfo renewable including policies, other of fluence con- a featurelikely also will but trading emissions on reliance of degree some involve well may neighbors American North these between policy climate mon decade.overnext States the United the com- and Any Canada between emerge also could dynamic similar A any menu of policies as long as reductions are achieved. pursue to free are States,who Member EU individual to delegated be will reductions round.remaining The percent45 reductionsemission of next the for targeted 40-to- between address only to ETS functional) more (and,hopefully,expanded an for call Brussels from ing mechanism.trading this Even recent proposals emanat- achievedbe throughwill through 2012 runs that ment commit- Kyoto the of round first the under required attention, far less than half of the continental reductions the EU,example,for received has In much ETS so the where world. the around nations neighboring other among strategies change climate collaborative toward convergence would be consistent with a growing trend standards.Such common and response Canadian rable from vehicles, thereby raising the possibility of a compa- more stringent regulatory standards on carbon emissions a dozen other states their request for a waiver than to establish more and California grants Obama if President further even go could decade.This next the over economy fuel vehicular in increases mandate to 2007 example, in the federal American decision in December including forms of direct regulation. This is tools,reflected,policy of for blend some employ to likely is system methods,cap-and-trade on multi-levelany governance ing were employed. And for all of the attention focused not prove might to be so reductiondifficult if tools other GHG than emissions achieve trad- to collaboration Beyondtrading,emissions cross-borderof degree some Canada-U A Po Experiences from the European Union suggest that suggest Union European the from Experiences ssible St .S . C ollab ar ting Poitf ora tion or instructive for the future development of Canadian Canadian and collaborationonclimatechange. of American development future the for instructive prove may experiences their of some case, European the in technologies. As climate-friendly of semination dis- developmentand the in leaders regional as Asian the lowest possible cost and not incidentally. to emerge at reductions emissions achieve to systems,attempting respective ways their link explore they might in which openly work could actively to have neighbor.begun its nations with Both that program trading national own its consider to innovation state significant on ing build- now is sources,Australia and emission of sion inclu- broad with system cap-and-trade developinga differences.national respectingis while Zealand New collaboration, toward steps significant take to begun respective Kyoto commitments. More recently,their have of nations 1990 both violation since clear in States them place United and the and Canada both of abovewellthoseare that growth emissions gas house green - of rates in reflected policies, climate pendent inde- effective develop to struggled have both turn, base.In economic and population larger substantially terparts,givenwith its partner dominant the Australia with coun- American North their struggled to similar asymmetries long have neighbors These policy. climate on Australia and Zealand New between ship relationship involves American - partner emerging the and energyefficiency. energy renewable of development as such areas select in aresystem EU larger establishing strategies common provinces, some Member neighboring States within the Canadian and states American of sets involving iment ferences (Ellerman, et al. 2008). As with the WCI exper- recognizesthat reform dif- and commonalities national incrementaland throughoutcomes learning ous policy - parsimoni more to lead easily could that governance cross-borderin experience learning as ETS implementation in setbacks as such episodes early even acterize have little cross-border experience. Some scholars char- large entities own)that dominate that to sector and continueuntil recently instances, some in (and, protected historically have nations Individual sector. the electricity in especially increase, to begun has cooperation n vn oe p cmaio t te Canadian- the to comparison apt more even An A New Beginning?

Environmental policy analyses often look for “trigger- now have a partner on the North American continent ing events,” such as environmental disasters that galva- that will provide leadership to the world on the cli- nize public concern and foster significant changes in mate change issue.” Even prior to this gathering, officials existing policy or produce entirely new policy initia- in both nations began to signal broad new possibilities tives. New environmental policy development in both for collaboration, including comments from Canadian nations has frequently been linked to such events. But Environment Minister Jim Prentice that a “key objec- it is also possible that a political event, namely an elec- tive…should be a common cap and trade system that tion, can also be a “game-changer” of sorts, not only would allay competitiveness concerns.” by bringing new people into offices but also ideas and policy proposals that might not have been feasible under prior leadership. Clearly, the 2008 American election appears to have considerable potential for having just such an impact on federal climate policy, producing a The carbon tax approach rapid shift in policy preference, particularly within the executive branch given the election of President Obama. offers a much easier path to But it is also possible that, in a far more subtle way, the 2008 Canadian election had a similar impact, through cross-border collaboration, the defeat of a Liberal Party leader who ran in large part on a climate policy idea that is widely endorsed given its simplicity and by policy analysts but clearly failed to resonate among Canadian voters and appears similarly unpopular in the transparency. United States. Combined, these two elections may cre- ate a unique opportunity for cross-border collaboration on climate change through development of a common cap-and-trade system and related institutional develop- ment, a kind of partnership that seemed almost incon- ceivable as recently as October 2008. Cap-and-trade emerged as a leading option in both At the same time that he began to push for a carbon nations despite the historic differences noted earlier. cap-and-trade bill toward the end of the first month of Congress increasingly turned to the cap-and-trade his Presidency, Barack Obama also chose to make his approach during the 110th Congress and a range of B first foreign visit to Canada. One of the major themes bills were filed early in the succeeding 111th Congress. A RRY G. R to emerge from a one-day summit was commitment to In Canada, the crushing defeat in October 2008 of a “U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue” that would not Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion and his proposal only increase the movement of energy across the 49th for a “green shift” that involved direct taxation of the

parallel but find ways to collaborate actively on develop- fossil fuel content of fuels shifted attention back to cap- A BE march 2009 ing non-fossil fuel sources and reducing greenhouse gas and-trade as the primary default. Harper was a strong emissions. In their concluding press conference, both opponent of the Dion plan but also contended he was leaders talked about possible venues for cooperation. constrained from unilateral action by the intransigence Obama offered his support for “the development of an of the American federal government. “We didn’t want electric grid that can help deliver the clean and renew- to go too tough on targets with Bush in the White able energy of the future, to homes and business both House,” he said at the 2008 G-8 summit in Germany, in Canada and the United States.” Harper noted that “because then if (Americans) didn’t follow it would “I will be watching what’s done in the United States place Canadian industry at a disadvantage.” It is highly with great interest. But I’m quite optimistic that we unclear whether that statement was an accurate expla- 65 66 Canada Institute occasional paper series tory for carbon dioxide and other GHGs.Indeed,the other and dioxide carbon for tory it could be charged with development of such an inven- tional emissions for both nations, as well as Mexico, and convenfor - inventories similar provide and data these tosystematize attempting in role significant a played already has CEC land.The and water air, to released contaminants toxic of range wide the a for and States United Canada in operate that programs reporting emission existing on build such as and requirements the bargain. in reporting provincial and federal Canadian and include systems these unify to try to technically feasible quite be would emerge.It systems reporting different have cerns ifabout possible conflicts markedly surfaced have con- years. agreements and final reached no But recent in system a develop to working been also has Agency Protection U.S. Environmental the and istry reg - reporting emissions GHG common a and ments require- disclosure common establish to negotiations extended in involved been have states 30 than More have established statutory emissions disclosure of policies. states the Wisconsin jurisdictions, and New Jersey three and the province of only Alberta, Canada, and Statessystems. United reporting the and Throughout disclosure systematic and formal in basis a having than late emission levels are estimates and projections rather But heretofore nearly all of the numbers used to calcu- consumption.fuel fossil to applied algorithm simple a instances,usually most in straightforwardrelatively is overlooked often emissions processtechnical the because measuring for is step This sources. major from emissions GHG related and dioxide carbon for tem sys- reporting a metrics,namely common with begin to be would nature this of step collaborative early an of example policy. An climate future any of ponents provenonetheless might steps com- essential as useful incremental such system, cap-and-trade full-blown a than glamorous challenge. less this If to approach mon com- a develop to begin to take might Canada and Obama andtheincomingCongress. President by advanced being policies new the match to him on pressure intensified south the to presidency Bush George the of end the and home at option tax carbon the of elimination the But development. pol- icy serious avoid to excuse an with Harper vided pro- instead or act to reluctance Canadian for nation Such policies tend to pose relativelypose to straightforwardtend policies Such States United the that steps of range a are There renewable energy and standardized methods for defin- for methods standardized and renewableenergy constitute not does and does what of definitions mon of alternative energy sources. These might include com- use expanded to transition this ease dramatically could steps preliminary energy,renewablesome promote to policies related and RPS provincesconsider and states more as example, For collaboration. of areas further basis onwhichtoconsiderany future policies. a as providesreliabledata that and transparent system a have a clear to opportunity take a lead role in designing States regardUnited this thereforethe and and Canada in progressed has EU the far how to as doubts remain was in place among parties covered under the cap. reporting emissions of There program systematic any before system cap-and-trade continental a construct to rush wasthe implementation ETS of round first EU’s the to blocks stumbling key the of GHG emissions.Indeed,one for metric model a providing by ground new ture, this kind of cross-border collaboration would break program forcarbon(Betsill2009; 2008). Graubart trading emissions continental developa less much tory invenchange - climate a develop to charge formal any has, however, fairly limited authority at present and lacks environmentalAmerican issues (CEC, 2008). The CEC keyon regular its reporting within change mate North cli- continental of analysis includes also Commission Such a starting point as an inventory might lead to lead might inventory an as point starting a Such vena such for home institutional - Regardlessthe of global emissions. in any serious effort to reduce need to play asignificant role and theUnited States clearly consequences, both Canada the potential for shared to climate changeand Given theirhugecontribution ing and measuring credits from large and small renew- Organization (WTO). Just as bi-lateral trade relations able production sources that could be used to meet between Canada and the United States evolved over policies in various jurisdictions. As with the emissions many decades, and later expanded to formally engage reporting approach, common definitions and metrics Mexico in the 1990s, the WTO emerged over two could serve to provide a consistency that is currently generations. It was built in an incremental fashion and absent among states and provinces. These steps would still recognizes substantial differences by sector, nation, constitute progress by their recognition that electricity and continent. Many national and multi-national enti- and energy distribution is not sealed at the 49th parallel ties played a role in the very gradual shift from a very and that some basic infrastructure needs to be put into loosely-coordinated system of international trade into operation if future bi-national policies are to be credible the current mechanism that blends national, regional, and effective. and international authority. The WTO faces numer- Of course, all of these early efforts at establishing ous limits and continues to be the focus of consider- transparency in measurements and reports of GHG emis- able criticism. But it has succeeded in reducing some sions and renewable energy sources could at the same rigid barriers to cross-national collaboration that once time coincide with construction of interactive carbon seemed insurmountable and may pose some useful cap-and-trade systems by the U.S. and Canadian fed- models for climate policy (Victor 2004). eral governments. Thus far, American proposals have the Of course, climate change is considerably more greatest specificity, reflected in iterations of the proposed complex than trade. It intersects with virtually all Climate Security Act and its numerous counterparts. But arenas of public policy and clearly demonstrates the they also appear to parallel the broad direction Canada limits of unilateral action. But whereas a decade ago, introduced in the March 2008 version of its “Turning scholars anticipated a rapid march to binding inter- the Corner” proposal and is generally consistent with national climate governance, it has become increas- the sentiments expressed by Harper since the Obama ingly evident that such policy will continue to cut visit. Carbon cap and trade programs remain incredibly across essentially every level of government in every complex, largely untested, and subject to tremendous nation. After a flurry of experimentation and inno- political pressures (Rabe 2008a). The possible integra- vation in some Canadian and American jurisdictions, tion in the development of such systems or even compa- most notably American states, questions emerge about rable forms of carbon taxation, however, presents unique the effectiveness of sustaining such a patchwork quilt, opportunities for both nations to consider whether they especially given the extraordinary degree of economic prefer climate policies that are interactive and follow and energy interdependence among states, provinces, the flow of energy and commerce or are hermetically and these two neighboring nations. Twenty years ago at sealed from each other. In this case, it would be crucial Toronto, Canada and the United States seemed poised to allow for serious interaction between government to lead the world in developing a response to climate departments or ministries charged with environmen- change, just as they were instrumental in leading the tal protection and energy. Despite traditional divides transition to economies less threatening to the ozone and rivalries between these entities, experiments such layer. But except for a cluster of extremely active state as the American RGGI have been reasonably success- governments, neither nation has begun to deliver on ful. Cross-border collaboration of officials with compa- those earlier promises nor has either of them seized rable portfolios would take it a step further, and might opportunities to lead the transition to a more climate- be achieved through integrative mechanisms similar to friendly economy. There are numerous institutional the kind of cross-unit interaction that was envisioned impediments to sound policy development on climate under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North change, but the essential argument for collaboration America (Craik and DiMento 2008). remains strong. Perhaps it could begin with steps to In many respects, these kinds of initial steps to establish an infrastructure to gather reliable data and establish U.S.-Canadian collaboration on climate bring together diverse policy professionals. Such steps change and energy policies parallel the development would help maximize the likelihood that any future of trade relationships involving both countries as well policy collaboration, when undertaken, will be cred- as international institutions such as the World Trade ible and effective. 67 68 Canada Institute occasional paper series Inter-ministerial Commission on Climate Change,Climate on Commission Inter-ministerial and an Change,established Climate on Program National a introducedyears,2009). recenthas (CBC In Mexico and Mexico that is moving forcefully around States these United Canada,betweenthe issues” create can we that template a of possibility the is offers that think I What Presidentas Calderon’sissue this on has.administration and trying to raise its standard of living to stay as focused very rare for a country that’s still involved in developing and carbon reductions of any country out there. And it’s the boldest steps around the issues of alternative energy of some taken has actually that:“Mexico conclude to of Calderon’s interest in a new partnership, leading him iting Ottawa, Obama told a leading Canadian journalist Mexican President Felipe Calderon. before Shortly vis- a visit to the United States by issues a bit earlier during very these on collaboration cross-border discussed ally actu- involvedCanada,he energy and change climate on discussion and visit foreign Obama’sfirst President in Washington.Interestingly, leadership while political new of arrival the by substantially months,influenced Foreign Relations 2005, 18). on (Council program provisions offset trading included that emissions continental a also report endorsed the nations, three and the from ministers federal ambassadors former of series a by Headed regional a American alternative to Kyotooffer that includes could all three North countries.”regime emissions “A and energy that American North observed a community” “building on report Relations Foreign on Council 2005 example,a For effort. an such in component central a climate and energy ing mak - and coordination continental greater toward move to decade past the over proposals of number a been have Mexico. There also but States and United the Canada both and between environmental interdependence energy tremendous the of reminder a as serves change climate to approaches possible continental of discussion early and CEC the of ation environmentalgovernance.for model cre- very The American North fully a toward moving and issue the larger question of a truly the radical opens departure, change re-framing climate on collaboration Canadian expanded American- of possibility very turn,the In Going C This idea appears to have gained momentum in recent ontinent al? potential strategic advantagespotential strategic from such an alliance. For ket. Both Canada and the United States would also gain mar- carbon North American a through opportunities offset considerable its of advantage take to positioned well be might strategy.also cap-and-trade It common involvementa possible in in interest expressed also has and change climate on nations emerging among leader world a becoming in era Calderon the during interest growing indicated has above, Mexico noted sions.As emis- gas greenhouse total and population in EU the largest region for collaborative climate policy, surpassing a continentalapproach are substantive orsymbolic. collaboration and whether these recent overtures toward for avenues possible on revealingprove could nations three all of officials environmental lead the of consists Denver,in which Council CEC the of meeting 2009 2009).(Betsill implemented or interpreted be JuneThe howin ences might any agreement climate continental differ- regional and national inevitable reconciling of system,issue cap-and-trade the continental including a as challenge a such on take to capacity its concerning questions many leavestherefore role expanded any of anonymity” (Alm and Burkhart 2006: 5). Consideration apparentlywork and closurein its of much “completes dis- information as such functions beyondhortatorical experience limited only has date to CEC the course, such as the CEC might be given expanded authority. Of Administration counterparts. In such a context, an entity lateral climate talks in their initial meetings with Obama Juan Elvira have promoted for tri- the CEC as a forum Mexican Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Both Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice and before.than scale larger much a on protection climate with energy diversification as well as environmental and step could open a mechanism to link trade liberalization the early weeks of his Presidency (Weisman 2009). Such cussed this frequently,a the campaign both and during in on environmental and labor protection. Obama has dis- negotiated were that side-agreements separate include the North Free American Trade Agreement to formally of expansion proposed the be would strategy tinental carbon emissionstradingstrategies. entered into talks with California officials about possible This kind of a partnership would create the world’sthe createwould partnership a of kind This One possible mechanism for launching a larger con- Canada, Mexican involvement would help protect it new lead provided by the Obama presidency. Given the against possible American domination under a bilateral growing saliency of the climate change issue in all three system. For the United States, a continental framework North American nations, the CEC or some successor might provide considerable bargaining leverage enter- body might have an opportunity to become a force- ing into any larger multi-national or international nego- ful North American player in the 21st Century, thereby tiations, including any future consideration of a global expanding conventional approaches to North American carbon trading regime. Thus it is possible to envision environmental governance that focus exclusively on a shift toward continental collaboration, following the issues that cross the 49th Parallel.

References

Alm, Leslie R. and Ross E. Burkhart. 2006. “Is Courchene, Thomas. 2009. “The Obama Opportunity: Spotlighting Enough? Environmental NGOs and Agent of Change in a Time of Crisis,” Policy Options the Commission on Environmental Cooperation,” (February): 18-25. Canadian-American Public Policy, No. 67 (August): 1-39. Craik, Neil, and Joseph DiMento. 2008. “Environmental Averyt, William. 1992. “Canada-U.S. Electricity Trade Cooperation in the (Partially) Disaggregated State: and Environmental Politics,” Canadian-American Public Lessons from the Security and Prosperity Partnership Policy, No. 12 (December): 1-33. of North America,” Chicago Journal of International Law, vol. 8, no. 2 (Winter): 479-512. Betsill, Michele M. 2009. “NAFTA as a Forum for CO2 Permit Trading?” in Changing Climates in North Ellerman, A. Denny, et al. 2008. Emissions Trading in the America, eds. Henrik Selin and Stacy VanDeveer. European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Cambridge: MIT Press: 161-179. Press.

Bevington, Dennis. 2007. “Time for a Canada-wide Environment Canada. 2008. Turning the Corner: An Renewable Energy Grid,” The Hill Times (April 30): Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Air 26. Pollution. Ottawa: Environment Canada.

Canadian Broadcast Corporation, “Transcript of the CBC Fowlie, Jonathan, and Fiona Anderson. 2008. “B.C. News interview with Obama,” http://www.cbc.ca/ Introduces Carbon Tax: Province is First Jurisdiction canada/story/2009/02/17/obama-transcript.html in North America to have Consumer-Based Carbon Tax,” Vancouver Sun (February 19). Cass, Loren. 2006. The Failure of American and European Climate Policy. Albany: State University of New York Graubart, Jonathan. 2008. Legalizing Transnational Activism: B

Press. A RRY G. R The Struggle to Gain Social Change from NAFTA’s Citizen Petitions (University Park, PA: Penn State Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 2002. University Press). Environmental Challenges and Opportunities of the Evolving North American Electricity Market. Montreal: Helleiner, Eric. 2006. Towards North American Monetary CEC. A BE march 2009 Union? The Politics and History of Canada’s Exchange Rate Regime. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 2008. Press. “Climate Change,” in The North American Mosaic: An Overview of Key Environmental Issues. Montreal: CEC. International Joint Commission. 2003. Climate Change and Water Quality in the Great Lakes Region. Council on Foreign Relations. 2005. Building a North American Community. New York: Council on Foreign Jaccard, Marc. 2007. “Designing Canada’s Low-Carb Diet: Relations. Options for Effective Climate Policy,” C.D. Howe

Institute 2007 Benefactors Lecture. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. 69 70 Canada Institute occasional paper series Rabe, G. Barry 2008a. andGlobalClimate “Regionalism Rabe, G. Barry 2008. “States onSteroids: The Rabe, G. Barry 2007. “Beyond Kyoto: ClimateChange Pendergrass, John. 2008. “GHG Policies in All Regions National Wildlife Federation. 2007. ClimateChangeand McDougall, John. 2006. Drifting Together: The Political Lucas, Alastair. 2004. “Legal Constraintsand 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,PolicyInstitution (BrookingsClimate 2004), Politicsreceived Caldwellof which the American Emerging Greenhouse:Universitybooks,and of the four Statehouse at of including Center author the Virginia.is The He Michigan. He is also a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a visiting professor at the Miller B arry G. arry Brookings Institution, 176-205. Timothy ConlanandPaul Posner. Washington, D.C.: , Management forthe21stCentury Intergovernmental eds. as anIntergovernmental Management Tool,” in Change Policy: Revisiting MultistateCollaboration 105-128. Policy,” Intergovernmental Odyssey of Climate American Institutions, vol. 20, no. 3(July): 423-444. ofPolicy, Journal An International Administration, and Policy inMultilevel Governance Systems,” Governance: p. 10. but South,” EnvironmentalForum(January/February), Great Lakes Water Resources. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press. Economy ofCanadian-UnitedStatesIntegration. University Press, pp. 179-198. and Andrew J. Weaver. Waterloo: Choices: Laurier Wilfrid ClimateChangeinCanada, eds. Harold Coward Opportunities: ClimateChangeandtheLaw,” inHard vol.Review of Policy Research, 25, no. 2 (March): R is professor of public policy at the Gerald R.Gerald Universitythe PolicyPublicof the at of Fordat policy publicSchool professor of is abe Wyman, Katrina. 2002. “Why Regulators Turn to Western ClimateInitiative. 2008. “Draft Program Scope Weisman, Jonathan. 2009. “Obama, inCanada, Warns Victor, David G. 2004. ClimateChange: Debating America’s Stuart, C. Reginald 2007. DispersedRelations: Americans Speth, James Gustave, andPeter M. Haas. 2006. Global Selin, Henrik, andStacy VanDeveer eds. 2009. Changing Raymond, Leigh. 2003. Private RightsinPublic Resources. of Toronto, LawJournal vol. 52, pp. 419-502. Tradeable Permits: A CanadianCaseStudy,” University Recommendations.” (March 3), pp. 1-35. 20): A4. Against Protectionism,” Wall (February StreetJournal Relations. Policy Options. New York: CouncilonForeign CenterforScholars.International Johns HopkinsUniversity Press and Woodrow Wilson and CanadiansinUpperNorth .America Baltimore: Press. .Environmental Governance Washington, D.C.: Island Climates inNorth America. Cambridge: MITPress. Washington, D.C.: Resources fortheFuture Press. 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. B A RRY G. R A BE march 2009

71 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, national “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, The Librarian of Congress; Hillary R. Clinton, The Secretary, U.S. Department of State; G. Wayne Clough, The Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; Arne Duncan, The Secretary, U.S. Department of Education; Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Adrienne Thomas, Acting Archivist of the United States; Carol Watson, Acting 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