Overview
In this resource governance evaluation report, we will be observing the Lake Erie eutrophication problem through multiple levels of governance. This ecological issue has been existent for several decades, and the future of this ecosystem depends on the actions of the binational Governments of Canada and US, provincial governments of Ontario and Ohio, and the local communities, specifically speaking the farmer community utilizing the land around Lake Erie for agricultural purposes.
Governance Frameworks?
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
The binational GLWQA requires US and Canada to reduce phosphorus levels in lake Erie to prevent algae blooms. The target will be organized February 2016, and domestic action plans for both countries will be composed by February 2018. Proposed targets include maintaining cyanobacteria biomass at levels that do not produce concentrations of toxic substances that can endanger a healthy human or ecosystem (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Nutrient Annex Subcommittee, 2015).
In binational.net, the organization presents a governance wheel illustrating how the consultation process alternates between the two countries through multiple occasions during the three-year span (United States Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada, 2009). The Lake Erie Lakewide action and management plan is one of the association’s works: it includes the publication of a nutrient management strategy, construction of the Lake Erie Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, and funding of local events to address lake priorities through GLRI, a US organization that cooperates with Canada, mentioned later in this post.
Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health
This federal-provincial agreement was amended on 2014 and has a supportive role to the GLWQA (Government of Canada and Province of Ontario, 2014). It declares aims of setting time-regulated goals and commitments, legally strengthening cooperation between the national and provincial level. In the agreement, engaging communities and first nations are identified as an crucial factor for the protection of the lake, specifically advocating the importance of raising awareness in the local community, promoting appreciation for the lakes and educating the Great Lakes community. The agreement further guarantees inclusion of First Nations representatives in meetings regarding this issue.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
The GLRI is a federally funded project in the US, where federal agencies are offering grants to local and governmental agencies to carry out clean-up projects and restoration measures. During the first five years of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the appointed agencies and their partners made efforts to reduce the largest anthropogenic non-point source of phosphorus inputs to the Great Lakes, which is the runoff of fertilizers from farming lands (Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, 2015). They also provided the local farmers technological and financial aid to prevent the excessive run-off of nutrients and regulate soil erosion.
Fertilizer Canada
Fertilizer Canada is an informal institution that claims to represent the fertilizer industry in Canada. In response to the proposed phosphorus reduction targets, the institution advocates the 4R Nutrient Stewardship, a BMP (Best Management Practice) that aims the use of fertilizers from the right source, at the right rate, time, and place (Whyte, 2015). According to the organization, cite-specific application of this model though the help of Certified Crop Advisors will lead to responsible use of fertilizers in ecological terms. It has the authority to funding research programs for a practical application of the BMP, in addition to
offering knowledge to the government about what to consider when setting phosphorus targets.
Evaluation of Governance Structures: transparency, accountability, and participation
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
The transparency of the agreement can be explained in a positive light, assessing the highly legible documentation presenting clear objectives and future plans, elaborated by diagrams, figures and graphic representations of the governance process. Participation of the citizens, for now, can be performed by offering advices and proposals through the website. For stakeholders the committee have frequent webinars that promote assertive engagement. Accountability can be reassured to an extent considering the US Canada cooperation for this project, and there are observers within both countries including the Canadian Environmental Law Association; however international accountability was not observable.
Side note: International Joint Commission (US and Canada)
The International Joint Commission is an independent binational organization established by Canada and US to resolve boundary water issues. For this environmental problem, they issued a report on recommended phosphorus targets for US and Canadian governments (International Joint Commission Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority (LEEP), 2014). Although this is not a binding regulation or policy, it is a dense report made through scientific research and public consultation; it is notable that this was published through the support of the GLWQA, demonstrating a high level of credibility to the engagement aspect of GLWQA.
Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health
The agreement document itself is written in formal administrative wording and structure, becoming a hindrance to the transparency of the consensus. The Government of Ontario website (http://www.ontario.ca/page/canada-ontario-great-lakes-agreement) provides a summarized and easily accessible overview of the agreement. The provincial website is more enlightening for the citizens; however there is no lucid explanation of the actual measures taken/planned to take based on this agreement, or an progress report on the accomplishments. An environmental registry notice where citizens were able to post comments about their ideas had been active during 2014 for a certain period (Government of Ontario, 2014). Participation at the moment is unavailable, however according to the website the comments and public consultation accumulated over the two months are currently considered by the Ministry for decision-making. The government may or may not heed the advice but the citizens did have a chance to participate. Accountability can be observed to a credible extent, from the Government of Ontario offering methods to appeal and challenge the decision.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
Its assertion in offering a wide range of opportunities for stakeholders including the local community and First Nations supports its positive attitude towards participation for the citizens to provide input for the government. Furthermore, through the federal registry the citizens may receive alerts for upcoming teleconferences of the Great Lakes Advisory Board (USEPA and EC, 2009). The institution encourages participation of actual stakeholders, and emphasizes engagement with local farmers through so-called PES – payments for ecosystem services – further backing up their supportive attitude towards inclusion. Detailed pictorial reports, along with navigable and user-friendly websites boost the transparency of this committee. Accountability of this organization is high, from the accumulated research, close contact with both US and Canadian projects, evident in its appearance in the LAMP report discussed above.
Fertilizer Canada
Although it is a non-federal informal organization, they own a fairly informative and interactive website, insisting environmentally friendly use of fertilizers. The 4R Nutrient Stewardship is explained in detail encouraging local Canadian farmers, a significant player in the restriction of phosphorus levels, to regulate their fertilizer use through professional advice. Through social networking services such as Twitter and LinkedIn, the institution emphasizes engagement and participation, along with transparency of their actions and latest news. Accountability is low, though they have a loose connection with the federal level.
Side note: Other Agricultural Institutions in Canada
NFU-O, the National Farmers Union Ontario had a letter response to the Great Lakes Protection Act 2015, acknowledging and supporting the movement, without mentioning policies or measures in particular (Eatwell, 2015). In the official NFU website, the Great Lakes eutrophication problem was not mentioned in a significant manner. Canadian Federation of Agriculture, claiming itself as the largest farmer’s organization, and Agricultural institute of Canada had nothing in particular to claim about the issue. Here we see a passive attitude of the farming industry of the problem especially in Canada.
Ending Remarks
Current efforts to counteract the eutrophication of Lake Erie can be referred as widely distributed and regulated throughout both the federal and provincial fields, but assertive action from the farmers, a community that is inevitably connected with the fundamental cause of this problem, seem to be lacking. However the legislative policies are not perfect either, regardless of their transparencies and willingness to accept participation from local community, from a gap in definitive regulations to limit levels of fertilizers. What we will be looking forward to is a close cooperative relationship between legislation and the agricultural industry aiming to achieve clearly stated and realistic goals proposed and supported both by the government and the citizens of Canada and US.
References
Eatwell, K. (2015). Re: EBR Registry Number: 012-3523, Great Lakes Protection Act 2015. Retrieved from http://www.nfuontario.ca/wpr/response-to-the-great-lakes-protection-act-2015/
Government of Ontario. (2014). Environmental Registry – 8th Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health. Retrieved November 3, 2015, from http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTE5NzYx&statusId=MTc5MTcz#
Government of Canada, & Province of Ontario. (2014). Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health. Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. Retrieved from http://ec.gc.ca/grandslacs-greatlakes/default.asp?lang=En&n=B903EE0D-1
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. (2015). Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Report to Congress and the President Fiscal Years 2010–2014. Retrieved from http://greatlakesrestoration.us/index.html
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Nutrient Annex Subcommittee. (2015). Recommended Binational Phosphorus Targets to Combat Lake Erie Algal Blooms. Retrieved from http://www2.epa.gov/glwqa/factsheet-recommended-binational-phosphorus-targets-combat-lake-erie-algal-blooms
International Joint Commission Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority (LEEP). (2014). A Balanced Diet for Lake Erie Reducing Phosphorus Loadings and Harmful Algal Blooms. Retrieved from http://www.ijc.org/en_/leep/report
Lake Erie LAMP. (2013). Lake Erie Lakewide Action and Management Plan Annual Report 2013. Retrieved from http://ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&xml=35127176-E6E1-437F-A3B7-5D5B1A34982F
United States Environmental Protection Agency, & Environment Canada. (2009). Binational.net Canada-United States Collaboration for Great Lakes Water Quality. Retrieved November 3, 2015, from http://binational.net/
Whyte, G. (2015). Fertilizer Canada Response to Bill 66, Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015. Retrieved from http://fertilizercanada.ca/ontario-great-lakes-protect-act-submission/