International Joint Commission

1. INTRODUCTION
The characteristic purpose of an annual report is twofold. First, it is an assessment of the
accomplishments during the preceding year. Second, it is an affirmation of objectives for the
coming year. This introduction, however, takes a broad view of the challenges that are likely
to confront the Board and the International Joint Commission (IJC) during the 1990s.
The duties and responsibilities ofthe Board have been set forth in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreements (GLWQA) of 1972,1978 and the Protocol of 1987. These provisions, subject
to interpretation by the International Joint Commission (IJC) and the Science Advisory Board
(SAB), are reflected in the priorities adopted by the Board to guide its work and to allocate its
resources. The work plans and budget proposals ofthe Board express itsstrategiesforfulfilling
its obligations within the parameters established by the Agreements, as interpreted by the
Commission and the two federal governments. The project proposals of the Board are, as they
should be,detailed andspecific. The immediateworkplansofthe Boardcannot, however,cover
all aspects of the comprehensive tasks necessary to attain the objectives of the Water Quality
Agreements.
Assessment by the Board of accomplishments for any reporting period resemble
snapshots taken of a complex and dynamic process: the restoration and protection of the Great
Lakes - St. Lawrence Basin Ecosystems. Thus, the significance of the work of the Board, or
indeed of the Commission, should not be judged by an assessment limited to a relatively brief
period oftime. The periodic reports bythe Board (and also bythe Commission) are inherently
and unavoidably incomplete relative to the immense task to which the federal parties have
committed themselves. To remedy the accumulated environmental degradation or contamination
of the past and to achieve an ecologically sustainable and sanative future is a task
requiring decades. To assess progress realistically toward the goals of the Water Quality
Agreementsone needs to review at least a decade of proposals or recommendations to see how
and why tactical priorities have been implemented, disregarded or changed. The Science
Advisory Board has from time to time undertaken this task, especially in regard to ascertaining
the extent to which its findings and recommendations have been considered, adopted or
ignored by the Commission and the governments. This report, however, in so far as it records
accomplishments, provides an unavoidably-limited view of the work of the Board in relation
to challenges in the future.
This Introduction looks ahead to the challenges that the Board may anticipate during the
'90s. In substance, these are also challenges which will confront the International Joint
Commission. We can anticipate future problems with some confidence because they are a
continuation of the unsolved problems of the past. Many have been present since the first
Water Quality Agreement was adopted in 1972; and yet with the passing of time and the growth
of popular concern and impatience, most of them are becoming more acute. The sequence of
events during the past two decades supports an inference that the decade of the '90s will be
different in the following respects. First, our techno-scientific capabilities in terms of analysis,
information and remediation seem certain to improve. Second, organized, popular concern
over the state of the lakes will likely continue its growth and momentum; and third, programs
to which the Parties are alreadycommitted (e.g. Remedial Action Plans) will have reached the
implementation stage.
Over the past decade there has been a consistent rise in popular expectations regarding
the restoration and protection of environmental quality in the lakes and their tributaries. An
unprecedented show of popular concern characterized the public meeting on the Fifth Biennial
Report on Great Lakes Water Quality (International Joint Commission 1990d), held by the
1