Principles for Review of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and the databases to validate them, because such approaches could facilitate preventive actions. Anticipating and preventing a problem would avoid costly reactionary responses such as the after-the-fact monitoring and remediation occurring throughout the Great Lakes basin. 1.21.4 Delivery of Science through the Agreement Can the existing Agreement accommodate the range of present and future issues? The short answer is “yes.” The language is flexible enough, for example, to allow for research, monitoring, and technology development or transfer. The annexes comprise the specific approaches that together implement an ecosystem approach. Beyond the scientific aspects, the Agreement assigns responsibilities to the Parties and to the IJC. Fulfilling these responsibilities requires scientific information. The ability of the governments to obtain scientific information is limited, and there is a concern that broadening the Agreement to address issues of ecosystem management beyond the focus on water quality will diminish their capacity for specificity and progress. A broadening of the Agreement could create additional obligations and expectations that cannot be adequately funded. Since political will and not science drives action, how should the Agreement be revised to achieve implementation? The answer lies in incorporating human health and well being and other societal issues under the annexes. This would make the Agreement more relevant to ordinary citizens, particularly if clear and readily understood language is used. If the tasks of reporting science, interpreting policy, and accounting for progress were diligently addressed, the political will could follow to support continued progress under the Agreement. Are current research institutions organized to deliver science in the 21 st century? While the institutions support scientific activities that in turn drive Agreement policies, the national and international scales of pollutant impacts are not adequately reflected in the Agreement. Historically, science and technology have always outpaced institutional innovation, and that is also evident in the Great Lakes region. The upcoming review provides a good opportunity for the institutional aspects to better reflect current scientific knowledge and technological innovations. An example is the development of a proposed Great Lakes Observing System, where the science and technology is readily available, yet there is no unified institution or binational arrangement to implement such a system for the Great Lakes. yet we are so far away from our goal it might be a mistake to abandon it and adopt a new one. The issue of PCBs in Great Lakes fish demonstrates this point. PCBs are the primary risk for human and ecological health. Unless aggressive remedial action is taken on sediment cleanup, fish consumption advisories in Lake Michigan will be inevitable for the next 100 years. Based on the public’s awareness of this issue, it is obvious that such consequences are poorly understood and communicated. For example, claiming success by stating that PCB levels have been reduced 10-fold is premature. The reality is that significant reductions from the current levels are needed to fully protect human health. Ultimately the removal of fishconsumption advisories will require significant actions, expenditures, and scientific management to achieve restoration goals. In terms of persistent toxic substances, the questions are, “How do we get our focus back on these key priorities given the need for sustained action well into the future?” and “How does one balance long-term management issues with other priorities in the shorter term?” While some progress has been made under the Agreement, only a fraction of what is in the annexes has been implemented. An element of caution is appropriate in assuming that additional commitments or strengthening the existing Agreement will result in greater implementation and progress. 1.22 Conclusions and Advice 1.22.1 Scientific Principles Workshop participants concluded and advised the SAB that the following scientific principles be reflected in a revised Agreement. Principle 1. Managing the Great Lakes needs to be broader than water quality. Scientific knowledge is not adequate at present to manage the basin as an ecosystem. Present scientific knowledge is sufficient for a broad integrated understanding of water quality problems involving the major ecological functions and the components of the watershed, the airshed, and groundwater. Principle 2. A new Agreement must encompass numeric as well as process approaches in order to benefit from the latest scientific knowledge and information. Two complementary scientific approaches are currently being used: numerical based on objectives and process-oriented based on the most current understanding of the dynamic performance of the system. There are merits to the continued inclusion of both. Can science-policy linkages be strengthened? This question was framed in relation to the idea of a collective vision. If the Agreement is revised, there is always the risk that the current focus on water quality and the concern for the threat and injury to human health will be diminished. Ecosystem health has improved, 22 Principle 3. The interrelationship of water quality, ecosystem health, and water quantity is well established scientifically and should be recognized as such in a new Agreement. Examples of the interrelationship include tributary flow, groundwater recharge, and wetland dynamics in which the quality of the ecosystem is highly dependent on the amount of available water.
Principle 4. A binational scientific infrastructure to provide surveillance and monitoring information that supports policy and management must underpin any Agreement, and should be institutionalized as an essential component to link science and policy. Principle 5. The Agreement must be consistent and integrated with numerous other transboundary instruments. Some of its challenges are continental, such as those addressed under the North American Free Trade Agreement by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, and global, such as those addressed by the International Maritime Organization through the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments. To ensure that Great Lakes policies are coherent and effective, the Agreement would benefit from establishing scientific linkages among other instruments such as those developed for the control of persistent toxic substances including the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution and the United Nations Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. 1.22.2 Overarching Conclusions and Advice Workshop participants concluded and advised the SAB that the following general improvements be adopted as pertaining to the broad aspects of the Agreement. • Agreement language needs to define the term “ecosystem approach” and also provide clear guidance on how that approach can be implemented to advance Agreement goals and objectives. • The review process needs to be defined, strengthened and driven by scientific understanding. An independent binational scientific review of the Agreement should be conducted similar to the one that occurred in 1985 with the binational National Research Council / Royal Society of Canada report, The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement – An Evolving Instrument for Ecosystem Management. • The Agreement must be both proactive and reactive, especially regarding emerging issues such as alien invasive species, land use, habitat protection, biodiversity, and climate change. Flexibility is needed to accommodate new scientific information. This could be accomplished by explicitly incorporating a routine scientific assessment of emerging issues explicitly in a new Agreement. • “Integrity” needs a definition and a common scientific understanding. Restoring and maintaining integrity needs greater expression in order to provide a renewed purpose in a new Agreement. • “Restoration” needs to be defined scientifically and understood as a goal and a vision to sustain progress and commitment to Great Lakes improvement. One suggestion is to define it in terms of achieving beneficial uses. Restoration of the Great Lakes to a pre-settlement benchmark is not realistic. • The Agreement should specify responsibility for reporting, interpretation, and accountability. Who is responsible for progress and what is the schedule for reports and responses? The institutional arrangements required to support and implement the Agreement should be updated and their roles clarified, especially governance mechanisms that facilitate binational cooperation, coordination, and ecosystem management. The Agreement needs to require that the responses of the Parties to all IJC recommendations are provided in a timely, public, and substantive manner. 23 • Public health should be explicitly addressed as a basin issue that is affected by water quality, air quality, and land use. It requires an integrated approach among all orders of government and a greatly enhanced awareness and sharing of information among health professionals and practitioners. • The Agreement should reflect a methodology that determines risk and uses that determination in guiding binational priority setting and action to reduce risk. Understanding exposures as well as effects in the context of risk is needed. Risk assessment, management, and communication need to be encompassed within the broader policy context of the precautionary principle rather than a regulatory one that drives management decision-making. • Several annexes could be combined to improve their general effectiveness, especially streamlined implementation and reporting. Examples include Annexes 4-6 with 8-10, Annex 3 with 13, and Annex 2 with 7 and 14.
Page 3 and 4: PRIORITIES 2003-2005 Priorities and
Page 5: Table of Contents Introduction Summ
Page 8 and 9: The Board’s membership includes 2
Page 10 and 11: as a principal outcome of the propo
Page 13 and 14: REVIEW OF THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUA
Page 15 and 16: Table of Contents REPORT OF THE GRE
Page 17 and 18: REPORT OF THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUA
Page 19 and 20: History of the Great Lakes Water Qu
Page 21 and 22: 1.12 Bibliography 1.12.1 Documents
Page 23 and 24: Donahue, M. (ed.) 1991. Inter-Unive
Page 25 and 26: Great Lakes United. 2003. A Citizen
Page 27 and 28: Chemical Integrity: The dynamic int
Page 29 and 30: Watershed-based planning approaches
Page 31 and 32: REPORT OF THE GREAT LAKES SCIENCE A
Page 33: 1.21.2 Remediation and Restoration
Page 37 and 38: Annexes 4-6 and 8-10 - A combined a
Page 39 and 40: (1) Analysis and development of exp
Page 41 and 42: would stimulate policy integration
Page 43 and 44: REPORT OF THE COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKE
Page 45: plan for the Great Lakes Observing
Page 49 and 50: Table of Contents REPORT OF THE INT
Page 51 and 52: REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL AIR QUA
Page 53 and 54: particulate matter. These three for
Page 55 and 56: Figure 4. Schematic of HYSPLIT Mode
Page 57 and 58: Figure 6 presents the largest sourc
Page 59 and 60: Figure 13. Model Estimates of Mercu
Page 61 and 62: Figure 18. Conceptual Diagram of En
Page 63 and 64: In addition to mercury that origina
Page 65 and 66: • An ArcGIS interface for process
Page 67 and 68: The models will be refined to incor
Page 69 and 70: (Rossman 2000) that uses water-puri
Page 71 and 72: T Figure 26. Box Plots Showing Meth
Page 73 and 74: The preliminary dietary assessment
Page 75 and 76: Figure 30. Overall Project Organiza
Page 77 and 78: Hoyer, M., J. Burke and G. Keeler.
Page 79 and 80: Cohen, M., R. Draxler, R. Artz, B.
Page 81: Georgopoulos, P.G., S.W. Wang, V.M.
Page 85:
Table of Contents REPORT OF THE GRE
Page 88 and 89:
In AOCs where the RAP is centralize
Page 90 and 91:
3.3.2 Leadership and Accountability
Page 93:
URBANIZATION THE COMMISSION’S PRI
Page 96 and 97:
List of Figures 1. Effect of Urbani
Page 98 and 99:
Specifically, the Work Group undert
Page 100 and 101:
to urban settings. Zanders (2005) f
Page 102 and 103:
The results of the GAWSER simulatio
Page 104 and 105:
• Allowed runoff to be concentrat
Page 106 and 107:
4.7.1 United States Professors Eliz
Page 108 and 109:
oversight is available through fund
Page 110 and 111:
Schroeter, H.O., D.K. Boyd and H.R.
Page 113 and 114:
Table of Contents REPORT OF THE GRE
Page 115 and 116:
REPORT OF THE GREAT LAKES SCIENCE A
Page 117 and 118:
HAB outbreak in 1987-88 closed shel
Page 119 and 120:
5.4.3 Municipalities Municipal and
Page 121 and 122:
• A data communications component
Page 123 and 124:
5.8 References Waterborne Microbial
Page 125 and 126:
REPORT OF THE GREAT LAKES SCIENCE A
Page 127 and 128:
and size (Schrank, personal communi
Page 129 and 130:
5.11 Effects In the 1960s and 1970s
Page 131 and 132:
5.13 Health Effects of Toxic Contam
Page 133 and 134:
of residence and multi-media exposu
Page 135 and 136:
diet, including fish as desired, an
Page 137 and 138:
When investigators dosed sexually m
Page 139 and 140:
A new approach to chemical regulati
Page 141 and 142:
5.17 Appendix - Emerging Contaminan
Page 143 and 144:
Current Concentrations See Table 2.
Page 145 and 146:
2005). In marine mammals there is e
Page 147 and 148:
NP and NPEO have been reported to c
Page 149 and 150:
Budtz-Jorgensen, E., N. Keiding, P.
Page 151 and 152:
Hayes, T.B. 2004. There is no denyi
Page 153 and 154:
McElroy, J.A., M.S. Kanarek, A. Ten
Page 155 and 156:
Soto, A.M., J.M. Calbro, N.V. Prech
Page 157:
GREAT LAKES SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Page 160 and 161:
2004 population, assessing several
Page 162 and 163:
cohorts for cross-sectional and pro
Page 164 and 165:
6.3.4 Science and the Great Lakes W
Page 166 and 167:
6.5 Activities and Meetings of the
Page 168 and 169:
6.6 Science Advisory Board and Work
Page 171:
COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH MAN
Page 174 and 175:
document the proceedings of worksho
Page 176 and 177:
• Installations to capture three-
Page 178 and 179:
3. Control pollution from diffuse s
Page 180 and 181:
Policy’s recent report. Navigatio
Page 182 and 183:
7.5 Council Membership for 2003-200
Page 185:
GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY BOARD Tab
Page 188 and 189:
8.2 Great Lakes Water Quality Board
Page 191 and 192:
APPENDIX LIST OF ACRONYMS ADCP - Ac
Page 193:
SHEDS-4M - Stochastic Human Exposur
show all

Principles for Review of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?