Our Great Lakes

PART 2: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The survey responses and the subsequent discussion, clarification and/or validation of the survey results in interviews and focus groups were analyzed to extract the major findings. Recommendations were then developed, based mainly on the feedback from participants and with an eye to related research.

There is a more extensive description of the information gathered in the Appendices.  In reporting on survey responses, percentages do not always add up to 100% because some participants chose not to answer some questions.  The choices they were given were strongly agree, mostly agree, mostly disagree, strongly disagree, and don’t know.  Percentages were rounded for the discussion of findings.

Many of the people involved in this Review took the time to provide detailed comments.  The quotations that accompany these findings do not reflect the weight of opinion, pro or con, on any one topic.  They are intended to illustrate the variety of opinions expressed and to catch some of the flavor of the commentary.

FINDING 1: Overall, there is strong support for the Agreement and its purpose.

The Review began by exploring with participants whether the Agreement has been making a difference to restoring, protecting and conserving the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.

In the survey of internal participants, fully 90% agreed that the COA is making a difference. 

Almost 70% said that the goals, results expected and priorities set out in the Agreement are generally understood and shared by the Parties to the Agreement.

Among external participants, a smaller proportion (about 61%) credited the Agreement with making a difference.  However, only 18% of them answered in the negative, with the rest saying they didn’t know.  Asked how they felt about their involvement with the COA, 72% of the external group said their experience was positive.

The generally favourable response on the COA is significant because it indicates that the Agreement is seen as a constructive vehicle that is contributing to a healthy, prosperous and sustainable Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.  The overall endorsement of the COA does not mean, however, that Review participants were uncritical.  There were many suggestions for improvements in the next COA.  

“Without COA, the drivers to make a difference would not exist at senior levels.  Progress is being made, but [we] could certainly be doing a better job.” 
Internal Survey

“Our issues are not with the Agreement, but with actions in support of the Agreement.”
Focus Group

“COA is making a difference, particularly on specific issues which previously had not been adequately addressed/funded.”
External Survey

Based on responses in the survey, interviews and focus groups that the COA is making a solid contribution to the environment of the Basin ecosystem, the Review concluded that the Agreement should be renewed.  However, the responses also clearly identified ways in which the current COA can be improved.. Subsequent recommendations in this report deal with a number of ways in which these improvements can be addressed. Recommendation 1 reflects the Review’s conclusion that the longstanding partnership of the Parties through COA is one thatCanadaandOntarioshould continue to build upon for the future. Enhancing and expanding the Agreement will make it more effective and efficient in restoring, protecting and conserving the Great LakesBasinecosystem.

FINDING 2: COA supports delivery of Canada and Ontario ’s contribution to the Canada-U.S. water quality agreement.

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is also being reviewed in 2006-07, in anticipation of a new round of negotiations between Canada and the United States.  More than 80% of internal respondents agreed that the COA supports implementation of the international GLWQA and associated Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) and Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs).  About 58% of the external participants said they consider the COA to be an “effective component” of the efforts by Canada and Ontario to implement the GLWQA, RAPs and LaMPs.

There was recognition of the complexity of managing all the different relationships involved in multiple overlapping agreements at the international, national, provincial, lake and local levels.

One of the challenges for Canada and Ontario will be to articulate how a new COA will relate to an updating of the cross-border agreement.

“We agree that COA provides an effective component of Ontario’s commitments to the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.  We are particularly supportive of Ontario’s approach which has focused on partnerships and ‘on the ground’ activities.”
External Survey

“Canada has not made significant progress, so I assume COA needs to be focused and strengthened and better funded.”
External Survey

“COA renewal is a good opportunity to talk about the Water Quality Agreement negotiation.
Interview

The GLWQA is reviewed every six years.  The International Joint Commission initiated the latest public review in 2005 under the leadership of the Bi-national Executive Committee (BEC).  The BEC review is led by Foreign Affairs in Canada and the State Department in the U.S.  An Agreement Review Committee has been established, and Ontario has a representative on it.  There are numerous technical and policy working groups reporting to the BEC through the Agreement Review Committee. 

The current GLWQA review is to be completed by the fall of 2007.  With COA expiring in March of 2007, there is a timing question.  Aligning the two processes is essential.  One approach would be to wait for the international agreement to be renegotiated.  But that would mean losing time and momentum for the COA partners because funding under the Canada-Ontario agreement runs out at the end of fiscal 2006-07.  There are already concerns that action and funding taper off in the final year of the COA.  Based on the advice, particularly from the provincial side, to be proactive, this Review recommends starting now to develop a Canada-Ontario strategy to inform the GLWQA process.  The U.S. federal government and state governments in the Great Lakes Basin are also discussing their approach to the GLWQA review.

FINDING 3: A Canada-Ontario Great Lakes Basin strategy to drive long-term change is lacking.

Comments received during the Review centred on the need for a Canada-Ontario strategy to provide overall direction and drive change faster and more comprehensively in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.  The need for clearer strategic-level direction and leadership was expressed in different ways.  There were concerns expressed, for example, about a perceived lack of vision, a gap between goals and implementation, and fragmentation of effort and resources.  There was also impatience with the rate of progress in restoring, protecting and conserving the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.

Developing a strategy would involve a review of the vision, purpose and principles of the existing Agreement and their application.  It would involve examining how to make the best use of available resources and linking high-level goals to desired outcomes and actions on the ground.  It would provide the basis for a renewed COA, and reinvigorate interest and commitment.

Fairly or not, the lack of strategic direction for the current COA was laid at the feet of the Management Committee (MC), although there were comments indicating that the MC had done the best it could with the Agreement it was handed.  There were, one focus group suggested, “growing pains” in moving from a very unstructured Agreement before 2002 to implementing the current, more structured COA.

“Much of COA (2002) was built from the commitments up rather than from the goals/results down.  Next COA provides an opportunity to better link  each expected result to implementation (how do we achieve it).”
Internal Survey

“Strategic thinking is going on in other forums.”
Interview

 “… it does appear in my experience that COA implementation works 90% as a repository of projects and priority actions (i.e., identifies the actions) and only 10% as a driver of actions.”
Internal Survey

“MC should be focused more on [the] next agreement than on the current one.  Should be strategic planning and have [the next agreement’s] strategic focuses ready so renewal proceeds efficiently and effectively.” 
Internal Survey

There are already a number of strategic plans that relate to particular aspects ofGreat Lakes environmental management.  For example, the international Great Lakes Fishery Commission focuses on management of shared fisheries resources.  The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) have developed the Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Biodiversity, which contributes to Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy. 

However, there is no strategy that comprehensively looks at how environmental issues are being managed by Canada and Ontario in the Great LakesBasin.  The Review concluded that a comprehensive strategy is needed to pull all the threads together.  The development of a strategic-level plan could be used as a process to engage partners, especially those who have felt uninvolved in the current COA implementation, in developing the building blocks of a new Agreement.  The strategy could be developed prior to or as part of the COA renewal process.

FINDING 4: Several agencies with a direct stake in outcomes of COA are not included as Parties to the Agreement.

The responses suggest that the COA should be expanded to bring government departments and ministries concerned with major issues affecting Great Lakes Basin sustainability into the Agreement.  For example, both governments have departments with responsibility for infrastructure development – Infrastructure Canada (IC) and Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (MPIR) – because of the importance of infrastructure (e.g., roads, transit, pipelines of various kinds) to economic growth and the need for upgrading and rebuilding of deteriorating systems.  These infrastructure agencies are not Parties to the current Agreement.

Neither is the provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, even though municipalities are responsible for their water and sewage systems, and land use is seen as one of the most serious challenges for the Basin ecosystem. 

The federal government has representation from Health Canada in the COA, but the Ontario Ministry of Health does not.  The fact that public health, which deals with safe drinking water, sanitation and disease transmission, is not at the table was identified in some of the comments received as a major gap.

There was some discussion during the Review about expanding the Parties beyond the two governments.  While there was some support for municipalities, Conservation Authorities and NGOs becoming Parties to the COA, there was also resistance to their inclusion.  The main reason for not broadening the Agreement in this way seemed to be the prospect of creating an unwieldy group with complex accountabilities that would have grave difficulty coming to agreement. It was suggested that a better job should be done to involve other stakeholders in an active advisory role, rather than asking them to be signatories. 

 “[The COA is] pretty comprehensive in the areas that fall under the jurisdiction of EC, MNR and MOE (Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ontario Ministry of the Environment).  Key issues that fall outside these mandates such as land use and infrastructure have not fared as well.”
Internal Survey

“The agreement touches upon most of the key issues. However, if in 2007 all the Goals were accomplished, the Great Lakes would still be far from restored or protected.  Some issues that are not effectively addressed include the impact on water quality of urbanization – land use trends, including source water protection and habitat protection.  The Agreement also has difficulty addressing the municipal infrastructure challenge.”
External Survey

The recommended expansion of the Parties to the COA relates to Recommendation 3 on a comprehensive strategy for the Great Lakes.  Other agencies involved with infrastructure (federal, provincial and municipal) and human health should be at the table to help inform this strategy and align it with strategic plans within their own mandates.  Their participation in the COA is crucial to achieving results and also to engaging more stakeholders and a wider public in efforts to restore, protect and conserve the Basin ecosystem.

FINDING 5: The current Annexes are too narrow to fulfill the vision and purpose of the COA.

Concerns about the narrowness of the Annexes surfaced in answer to more than one question in the survey.  For example, 84% of internal respondents and 64% of the external group agreed that the 2002 COA addresses “the key aquatic environmental issues” in the Basin.  But even those who thought these issues were adequately addressed offered comments about challenges that do not fit the definition of “aquatic” issues. 

“[The challenge is] updating our Great Lakes Program paradigm to meaningfully address key issues such as invasive species, sub-urban sprawl and climate change – we need to make our ‘remedially’ minded program much more pro-active and focused on sustainability.”
Internal Survey

“At a broad scale, the Agreement covers the main key environmental issues; however, these issues are complex and highly linked to economic development and social factors.” 
Internal Survey

“The Agreement needs to broaden the focus to the Basin as a whole and not just the Areas of Concern (AOCs).  An integrated watershed planning approach is appropriate for [a] more meaningful and manageable process.” 
External Survey

The vision for a healthy, prosperous and sustainable Basin ecosystem cannot be achieved unless we address problems in the Basin and on the land that are related to the Agreement’s purpose – to restore, protect and conserve the Basin ecosystem.

The Agreement states clearly that it is concerned with the Great Lakes Basin, not just the Great Lakes waters, but the Annexes do not reflect that perspective very well.  They are focused primarily on aquatic issues.  In addition, the principle of sustainability, which requires the integration of environmental, economic and social interests, is written into the Agreement, but is not adequately reflected in the Annexes.

Broadening the Annexes to focus clearly on the Basin as a whole, including the pressures from human development, is aligned with Recommendation 4 that the Parties to the Agreement should be expanded.  For example, investments in urban infrastructure, like water treatment and stormwater runoff, have key impacts on the Great Lakes.  Many participants urged the inclusion of a number of issues, such as urbanization and invasive species, in the Annexes of a new COA.  Those issues are addressed in the next section.

FINDING 6: The current Annexes do not adequately address major pressures on theGreat Lakes.

Participants in this Review were asked to elaborate on challenges and opportunities for improving the Agreement.  One of the most common answers was that the COA Annexes should address a range of pressing issues that they do not cover now.  Some issues were identified as emerging challenges, while others were considered chronic problems that require concerted and coordinated action.   Issues that were raised included:

• pressures from urbanization (roughly 75% of Ontario’s population lives and works in the Basin) and related infrastructure;
• climate change, its impact on the waters and habitat in the Basin, and other air issues;
• maintaining water levels in the Great Lakes, particularly if the resource continues to be depleted;
• source water protection and watershed health;
• invasive species, some of which are overwhelming native species;
• loss of biodiversity and species at risk;
• the accumulation of pharmaceuticals in water supplies;
• agricultural land use.

“Water quantity management especially with respect to the demands likely to come out of the U.S. is the next big issue – and perhaps the most important issue of this millennium.” 
Internal Survey

“Emerging issues are not adequately addressed (pharmaceuticals, invasive species, climate change). Degradation of coastal terrestrial ecosystems need more inclusion as development pressures mount.”
External Survey

“Need more emphasis on looking at climate change, on finding mechanisms to share information among all agencies and partners, and need to start looking at understanding the real impacts of invasives.”
Internal Survey

“Next COA will need to address source protection, have a strong role for municipalities and look to addressing emerging substances of concern.”
Internal Survey

The issues raised warrant consideration for inclusion as Annexes to the new Agreement. Some of the proposed Annexes may be dealt with through other agreements between the federal and provincial governments, or be adequately dealt with under existing Annexes.   New Annexes will have to be developed in some order of priority, to be agreed upon by the Parties. 

These issues should be explored as part of the strategic planning process for the new COA.

FINDING 7: Political responsibility for action on Great Lakesissues is unclear and the public profile is low.

To successfully restore, protect and conserve the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem, Canada and Ontario need to mobilize coordinated action and the support of the people who live, work and play in the Great Lakes Basin.  Mobilizing the public is best achieved with strong and visible political leadership.  There were comments from the survey and discussions that there is not enough visibility for the issues threatening the ecosystem.  There is also little sense of urgency conveyed in public reporting on progress.

Responsibility is diffused among many departments and ministries in two governments, with the result that there is no clear political leadership for the COA and a relatively low profile.  The governments need to signal publicly their renewed commitment to making major progress on sustainable solutions in the Great Lakes Basin.

“Who speaks on behalf of the Great Lakes now?”
Focus Group

“There is a lack of profile for COA at the highest level of government.  The Premier and Prime Minister signal political interest.”
Interview

“The agreement is an effective means to gain governments’ attention and support for making progress towards a common vision, goals and targets and is an important means to influence bi-national discussions.”
Internal Survey

There was a sense from the respondents that scientists, lake managers and others feel they are soldiering on to improve conditions in the Great Lakes, but fear that quiet, incremental progress will not be enough to slow damage to the overall health of the ecosystem.  Political leadership creates public profile and engagement, which is needed to generate more momentum and resources.  One way of raising public profile could be the appointment of designated political “champions”.

FINDING 8: Funding is inadequate to achieve the purpose of the Agreement.

No other point was made as often as the importance of funding to getting results. Resources were mentioned in response to all sorts of different questions.  Some participants identified specific areas that need more funding, such as “big ticket” infrastructure (e.g. stormwater treatment), while others simply said that the COA is “woefully underfunded.”

There were many comments that the total financial resources available are not in line with what needs to be done.  Internal participants were asked if staff had the authority and tools they need to make decisions and take action.  About 53% said yes, 27% said no (others said they didn’t know).  Some related “tools” to resources, but others did not e.g., “Often it is the resources that are lacking, not the tools or authority.”

A number of comments spoke to the importance of allocating available funding to the highest priorities.  Some feared a few priorities would consume all the money, but others were concerned that government allocations tended to be locked in, based on program funding, making it impossible to move funding away from underperforming and/or less urgent projects to emerging or more pressing challenges. 

There was concern from some participants about the pacing of funding under the Agreement.  They said there is a loss of momentum as one agreement tapers off (and funding with it) in its final year of review and reporting before a new one is signed and funded.  But mainly the comments were about how much more progress could be made with greater financial support.

“Agreements are wonderful things. But only people can give them legs. And only financing can drive the process.  Without adequate people or financing, the process dies and/or people become frustrated.” 
External Survey

“COA needs an economic case for getting funding – a solid strategic plan and a financial case.” 
Interview

“We have made significant progress as a result of COA funding on projects that had been waiting for some time.” 
Internal Survey

“The inability [of Management Committee] to realign resources is very frustrating.  The budget is set before MC has an opportunity for review.  It has little strategic influence.”                            
Interview

The consensus was overwhelming that more money will be needed to make real progress under a renewed COA.  Where additional resources should come from was not explored much, although there was a suggestion for a royalty on water use as a new source of revenue.  The issue of funding is complicated by the fact that there is also funding going into programs that benefit the Great Lakes Basin but do not fall under the COA umbrella.

Experience suggests that there are other ways to generate more funding without relying entirely on new allocations from government.  It may be possible to leverage private funding from business and industry on the Great Lakes.  Some environmental NGOs are successful fund-raisers and have shown willingness to partner with government on projects that help meet their objectives.  Reallocation within funding envelopes may also be possible, particularly if the political leadership (see Recommendation 7) places a high priority on the Great Lakes Basin.

FINDING 9: Working relationships among the Parties to the COA are generally good.  The success of relationships with external stakeholders is uneven.

The COA says the two governments are committed to working in a “cooperative, coordinated and integrated fashion, with each other and others in the Basin” to achieve the vision.  The survey responses indicate that the biggest weakness on this topic involves the “others” in the Basin.

That said, the overall response was positive, and working horizontally across jurisdictional boundaries is recognized as one of the most difficult things for governments, which are organized into vertical departments or ministries, to achieve.  Over three-quarters of those responding to the Internal Survey felt that the Parties do work in a cooperative, coordinated and integrated fashion with each other and other partners.  This challenge will become even more difficult, however, with the expansion of the Agreement (Recommendation 4).

Only 53% of the External Survey participants felt that government agencies work in a cooperative, coordinated and integrated fashion with them.  Some people drew a distinction between cooperation vs. coordination vs. integration, but did not necessarily agree on which was happening and which was not.

“There are sometimes minor disagreements, but in general, the Parties work very well together.”
Internal Survey

“Our experience is that cooperation, coordination and integration are lacking, even between Federal and Provincial partners.” 
External Survey

“As a major industrial stakeholder on the Great Lakes, I see very little information exchange, support or participation opportunities.”
External Survey

“Frequent change in management structure of the committees (AIC) has hampered momentum and continuity of action. [We] need more engagement of agencies at the implementation level.”
Internal Survey

This Review recommends ways to improve how the Parties of COA work with other partners.  To get off on the right foot, it is important that consultations on a new Agreement involve a broader spectrum of stakeholders, particularly in light of expansion of the Agreement.  The strengthening of networks should help to build constructive working relationships that will carry over into more cooperative, coordinated and integrated implementation of the new COA.

Stakeholders’ concerns and capacities should be reflected in the ways in which projects are carried out.  Stakeholder organizations have different strengths to contribute.  As the next section explains, local communities are in a unique position to contribute to initiatives that will help achieve the vision.

FINDING 10: The success of collaboration with local communities and local organizations is mixed.

Internal participants are very aware that governments cannot achieve objectives of the Agreement without the contribution of others.  Two-thirds said other partners and NGOs make a difference in implementation of the Agreement.  There was more than one comment that other partners, particularly at the local level, are carrying a major load when it comes to getting work done on the ground.

While there were comments about “good collaboration”, there was also criticism of “top-down” approaches and “unilateral initiatives” rather than genuine collaboration with local communities and NGOs.  Based on some of the comments, there is work to be done to convince local players to get involved.  For example, one internal participant said some NGOs don’t want to participate because of what they see as a slow and cumbersome process to achieve results.

“The other partners sometimes accomplish more than the actual parties to the Agreement (i.e. municipalities, since they are local, on the ground, have the responsibility, resources and authority to make decisions and take the necessary actions).” 
Internal Survey

“At the field level, there is much interaction between Agency representatives (Lake Advisors, Coordinator) and partners.”
Internal Survey

“The challenge is to get out of decades of old thinking of Great Lakes cleanup as focusing on toxic hot spots and truly beginning to take an ecosystem approach to protecting the Great Lakes.  There is an opportunity to take a strategic direction with a plan for the Great Lakes, sub-plans for each lake based on regional priorities, and then implementing by taking a bottom-up approach where local communities are empowered to take action, and the federal-provincial roles are to facilitate through funding, research and administrative support.
External participant

“There have been occasional exceptions, but for the most part, agencies retain a ‘top down’ approach to environmental work.  Most agencies work poorly at the local level and tend to have a paternalistic approach to dealing with issues at the local community level.” 
External Survey

More attention should be paid by the two governments to harnessing the capacities of local communities to take action on environmental priorities under a new COA.  Local organizations can deliver programs in the field, rally public support in their communities, and they may also be able to leverage local financial and human resources to supplement government funding.  Providing government support may entail bringing relevant organizations together to discuss collaborative action, communicating the latest research in an understandable format, and providing resources and administrative backup.

FINDING 11: There is no structure or strategy that engages the broad range of interests in the Great Lakes Basin and brings them into the process.

Part of the management structure for the current COA includes the Great Lakes Innovation Committee (GLIC), which includes stakeholders (municipalities, academia, forestry, fisheries, public health, conservation, industry, and environmental and other interested organizations).

GLIC was established to provide advice to Management Committee on innovative initiatives and it has focused its work on urban planning and information. 

Feedback from the focus groups and interviews indicated that the GLIC structure is not considered an effective vehicle, as designed.  Its focus and membership are too narrow.

EnvironmentCanadawas involved in GLIC discussions, but other COA Parties were not.  Nor is GLIC membership inclusive of the interests in the Basin.

External survey participants indicated that stakeholders support the COA. Almost 84% said they and their organizations understand and support the goals, results expected and priorities of the Agreement.  However, there were comments in response to other questions about COA being “too bureaucratic” and too “closed door.”  These came mostly from external partners. Some of the comments related to cooperation on implementation, while other focused on information-sharing and involvement of partners.

“To date, COA has been quite top down and closed door – efforts to change this will result in better progress, I think.”
External Survey

“Government has little interest in identifying problems – more interested in greenwashing.”
External Survey

“Communication approach is satisfying an old paradigm in a new information age.”
Interview

It used to be that government bureaucracies generated most of the information for policy and strategy development within their own walls.  Decision-making tended to be an internal process.  Given the knowledge explosion, high-speed communications, the strength of advocacy groups and the demands from a well-informed public for a “say” on issues that affect them, smart governments are reaching out and involving stakeholders and the public in the decision-making process.  It makes for better decisions (more ideas at the table) and more effective implementation (support is built early on for collaborative action). 

The Review concluded that a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) should be established for the COA.  Membership and terms of reference for this new Committee will require careful consideration.  Members must be knowledgeable to provide useful advice on policy, strategy and science.  The Chair of the Public Advisory Committee should sit on the governance body, now called the Management Committee, to create a stronger link between stakeholders’ advice and decision-making.   

FINDING 12: Blurring of governance responsibilities with management roles is hindering accountability and hampering implementation. 

Under the current COA, both governance and management functions are vested in the Management Committee (MC).  It is expected to provide strategic direction and is ultimately accountable for implementation of the Agreement (governance), but it is also involved at the level of activities/projects (management – linking governance with the actual work on the ground).  The management functions seem to be overwhelming the governance functions.

There is confusion, even among those involved, as to who has the lead on what, within the COA.  There are differing expectations for what the COA is about, and uncertainty about how it relates to other bilateral agreements on the Great Lakes. 

The MC, which includes all the Parties to the COA, has a list of responsibilities set out in the Agreement.  The first is setting priorities and establishing strategies for addressing emerging environmental issues or management functions based on regular and ongoing review of scientific information, monitoring reports, public consultations and other information.  The Internal Survey asked if the MC has the processes in place to identify, assess and respond to emerging issues and concerns.  Only about 31% agreed, while 37% disagreed and 20% didn’t know. The comments generally pointed to the need for the MC to act at a more strategic level.  There were also concerns that it is more of a reporting-to mechanism when what is needed is leadership. 

Another question in the Internal Survey explored whether the current “management structure (i.e., the committees) is efficient and effective”.  The answer was yes from 45%, no from 35%, and 20% said they didn’t know.  The Internal Survey also asked participants if they were satisfied with the decision-making processes in the COA.  The response again was lukewarm in favour – 47% compared to 32% who were not satisfied (22% said they didn’t know).

There were concerns from some participants that a governing body that meets only twice a year does not have enough time and cannot give enough priority to the process to make decisions in a timely fashion and provide the necessary leadership. 

“MC has not provided this service [responding to emerging issues] and is mainly an approvals mechanism.  Processes [are] not in place to do anything more than that, mainly due to timing of meetings and large amount of administration needed for preparation.  Role of MC needs to be reviewed and revised if this is to be effective.”
Internal Survey

“The structure is okay, however…it is a challenge to get everyone interested in all management aspects because the Agreement so heavily impacts the work of EC and MOE and only touches on the efforts of some agencies.  Management Committee could be more effective if it used its time to discuss strategy, united Canadian strategy for the Great Lakes…”
Internal Survey

“Given the complexity of the governance of the [Great Lakes Basin], I think it works very well.” 
Internal Survey

“There is very little in terms of direction from either MC or AIC [Annex Implementation Committee].  It seems that we just report into them, but nothing comes back in terms of next steps or action.  The Agreement needs leadership in order to solve the piecemeal approach and we are not getting it.”
Internal Survey

“If this were the case [i.e. processes to identify, assess and respond to emerging issues], risk assessment approach would be used and a strategic framework to guide COA renewal would be in place now.”
Internal Survey

Is the Management Committee, as currently constructed, the best way to provide the necessary accountability for implementation of the new COA?  Given the level of misgivings about the current structure, expressed through the Review findings, it would seem logical at least to take a look at other models.  The Box (shown next) provides very brief descriptions of three examples of different approaches.  The models illustrate the following:

• A council, which brings together government Ministers from different jurisdictions to discuss national priorities and determine work to be carried out under its auspices.  A staff steering committee provides ongoing management and advice.
• An arm’s length commission, with members appointed by two governments and with funding from both.  Boards, committees and contract agencies carry out the mandate.  There are citizen’s committees to advise and a staff Secretariat to provide support.
• A tripartite board, which has equal membership from government and two groups of stakeholders, with members representing and consulting their constituencies.  It was created to oversee implementation of a tripartite agreement with a list of specific commitments.

Some of these other models are more publicly-focused than the MC, which is an intergovernmental committee of public servants.  There was some concern expressed about a revolving-door membership over the five-year period as some senior public servants moved to other job responsibilities and were replaced by successors at the MC table and on the Annex Implementation Committee.

There are advantages and disadvantages to any governance model.  The models to be examined do not have to be limited to the ones mentioned in this report.  The purpose of such a review is to identify alternatives that would allow the governing body to carry out its appropriate role more effectively and efficiently.  The Panel on Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector (1999) described eight features of active and effective oversight of an organization by its governing body.  The features have been adapted to reflect the governance role for the COA.

1. steering towards the vision and guiding strategic planning;
2. being transparent, including communicating with partners, stakeholders and the public;
3. developing appropriate structures for implementation of the Agreement;
4. understanding roles and responsibilities of the Parties;
5. maintaining fiscal responsibility;
6. ensuring that an effective management team is in place and providing oversight;
7. implementing assessment and control systems; and
8. planning for succession and potential future Agreements.

Analysis will be required to determine which model or models are most appropriate for the COA to provide appropriate accountability to the public and to exercise effective leadership.

FINDING 13: There has been only limited engagement of Aboriginal people in the COA.

A workshop was held with several First Nations in the Great Lakes Basin and representatives of Environment Canada and HealthCanadabefore the signing of the 2002 COA, but there has been little involvement by Aboriginal communities in implementation of the current COA.  A few First Nations have been involved, to varying degrees, in Remedial Action Plans or Lakewide Management Plans. 

“We need to place more emphasis on First Nations, including the approach and capacity to provide input.”
Focus Group

There are legal requirements for consultation with Aboriginal people where government initiatives may affect treaty rights.  While COA has no legislative authority, and therefore has no direct impact on Aboriginal rights, there is good reason to engage and involve Aboriginal people in the COA in advance of development of a new Agreement and later in implementation.  First Nations communities have a unique store of knowledge of the natural history of their lands, and a major stake in the restoration, protection and conservation of that heritage.

The Review suggests that discussions include Métis groups, in addition to the First Nations of the Great Lakes Basin.

FINDING 14: CanadaandOntarioare not paying sufficient attention to the precautionary principle in making decisions about the Great LakesBasinecosystem.

Canada and Ontario have not fully embraced the precautionary principle in the COA.  This principle says that full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing action in the face of threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage.  Full scientific certainty can take a long time, years or even decades.  Good scientific advice that provides evidence of degradation of ecosystems should be acted upon before it is too late.  Once the definitive study comes in, there may be no way to retrieve what has been lost

Internal respondents were asked whether the principles of the 2002 Agreement have been followed.  Positive responses ranged from a high of 93% for science-based management to a low of 47% for the precautionary principle.  Those on the high end of positive responses (between 80% and 90%) were accountability, conservation, ecosystem approach, free exchange of information, public and stakeholder participation, and rehabilitation.  On the low end, but still well above the precautionary principle, were adaptive management (68%), pollution reduction (72%), prevention (74%), and sustainability (72%).

Of the 12 principles in the COA, adherence to the precautionary principle was the only failing grade given by the survey participants.  For that reason, and because of the importance of this principle for the future, the Review is specifically recommending it be reinforced in the next Agreement. 

FINDING 15: Some of the results and commitments in the current COA are too vague, and there is no clear linkage to achievement of the goals.

The current Agreement differs from past COAs in that it establishes, in the Annexes, specific commitments for each government to achieve certain results.  This is seen as an improvement over previous Agreements.  The commitments are activities that each government will engage in, and they are listed under each result.  But some results and commitments are more targeted than others.

There was relatively strong agreement (70%) from internal participants to a statement that the COA through its Annexes “articulates the commitments that each of the Parties will deliver in order to contribute to the achievement of the stated goals and results.” Almost two-thirds (65%) also said the outcomes were reasonable and measurable to monitor progress and report on the achievement of commitments and results. One-quarter (25%) said they were not. 

However, a number of comments were received questioning whether the commitments, as articulated, are as useful as they could be.  The commitments were too “broad” or “vague” or too “open to interpretation”, according to some respondents. Similarly, the results could be made more “concrete”.  In addition, the linkage between goals, results and commitments is unclear.  A new COA will need to clarify how results and commitments will contribute to the achievement of five-year goals.

Performance measures were identified as part of the implementation process after the 2002 Agreement was signed.  Some participants commented that it was difficult to develop effective measures after the fact.  The anticipated results, the activities (commitments) to achieve them, and the way to measure success should be developed together.

“Agency accountability for various commitments is well defined but … the commitments do not always link well to the expected result.”
Internal participant

 “The results and commitments are so subjective and up for interpretation; responsibility is shared by interpretations are not clear/agreed on.  The goals are clearer.”
Internal participant

“The goals, results and commitments often have no apparent link.”
Internal participant

“Most agencies spent half the Agreement’s time term trying to figure out what they were supposed to do and how to measure the progress of those activities.” 
Internal participant

“The wording of the commitments is generally generic and leaves a considerable amount of room for movement of the deliverables.”
Internal participant

The Annexes in the new COA will be strengthened and implementation improved by identification of SMART outcomes.  SMART stands for:
·       Specific
·       Measurable
·       Achieveable,
·       Realistic
·       Time-bound or time-specific.  

Getting there will require a process to come to agreement on what the most important outcomes are.  But the time spent on this up-front process will make performance management during the next Agreement more meaningful and will help to ensure progress on Great Lakes Basin issues that are identified as priorities through the strategic plan (Recommendation 3).

FINDING 16: COA implementation is tied up in red tape.

There were comments about implementation of COA being overwhelmed by administrative requirements, better known as red tape.

Generally, support was low for the administrative structure put in place for the COA (the Secretariat function).  Only 37% of internal participants thought the administrative structure was efficient and effective.  The merger of the two Secretariats into one was seen as a positive move to reduce overlap.  According to some feedback, the staff in the Secretariat should be full-time. 

The Internal Survey also asked whether the COA management (MC, AIC, Secretariats and working groups) have done an effective job of coordinating assessments, evaluating the results and recommending amendments against established objectives.  Approval was lukewarm at 48%.

But the more telling statistic may be the “don’t knows”, who usually were in the 10% or less range on most questions in the Internal Survey.  On the question of the efficiency and effectiveness of the administrative structure, the don’t-knows were 35%, and on the question of effectiveness of management in assessing, evaluating and adapting, the don’t-knows were almost as high (32%).  The don’t knows were also high (34%) in answer to a question about Management Committee processes to identify, assess and respond to emerging issues.

This finding fits with concerns expressed about a management/administrative system that is cumbersome and confusing.  How can you know, for example, if the system is working if it is unclear how the process works?

Administration was characterized by the commentary as “too complex and layered.” One of the focus groups talked about the layering of decision-making and said there is “too much overhead” in the current process.”  One comment said: “lots of assessments/evaluations – limited actions.”  Another called the planning and reporting processes “very labour intensive.”

“Annex implementation is bureaucratic and broken.”
Interview

“Current structure is far too complex and layered.  The agreement and its actions do not require that many levels, but do require the support of various participants.”
Internal Survey

“I see very little evidence of actual management decision-making.  There is certainly an abundance of administrative decision-making, however.”
Internal Survey

“There is a lot of confusion as to who is responsible for what.”   
Internal Survey

“…too complex and layered.  Too multi-actioned and too confusing to those who participate. Results in wasted efforts, repetition and a great sense of frustration.  Needs to be streamlined…somehow.”
Internal Survey

This Review strongly urges creation of a new, streamlined management/administrative system to provide an effective and efficient link between governance and the work being done at the operational level.  Since this Review also recommends exploration of alternate governance models, whatever new management/administrative system is put in place must be aligned and consistent with the governance model that is chosen.

FINDING 17: Decision-makers at all levels are not getting the information they need.

One of the major internal administrative problems is the management of information.  This is an area that is covered in one of the Annexes (Monitoring and Information Management).  Despite the efforts put into internal reporting, information does not seem to be flowing properly, either up or down.   Staff do not seem to feel well-informed about decision-making at the top, while there is concern at upper levels that the Management Committee is not getting the kind of information it needs to provide the necessary leadership. 

Fifty-eight percent of internal participants agreed with the statement that effective tools are in place to improve collaboration on priorities, track progress and report on achievements.

“There are instances where the top-down approach prevented information that should have gone up from being provided for direction.  They don’t always want to know… and the high-level requirement for information often prevents detailthat is too complex or lengthy from being brought forward for discussion or direction. Not everything can be made simple…”
Internal Survey

“The committees, from my perspective, are disconnected to the majority of the work we do.  Their role seems to be solely that of reporting. There needs to be better two-way communication.” 
Internal Survey

“Reporting, especially through various databases, is not as certain as it could be in that the timelines for inputting detail and projects are not the same across the agencies… Each agency works on their own fiscal schedule, their own workplan schedule, their own political schedule etc. etc. For the most part, this can’t be avoided, but it is still a deterrent.” 
Internal Survey

Considerable staff effort is going into tracking and reporting, but it is questionable whether the reporting is productive.  Staff seemed to be bogged down in burdensome and ineffective processes.  This issue could be lumped into removal of administrative overhead (above), but it was considered important enough to warrant a separate recommendation.

One of the key benefits of good information collection and management is its support for good decision-making.  Conditions, needs and priorities can change over a five-year period.  Implementation schedules may need to be adjusted or human and financial resources moved from one area to another. 

The 2002 COA built in more flexibility than past Agreements.  It states that Annexes may be developed at any time, and come into force when they are signed by the Parties.  Annexes may be amended, by consent, as well.

In order for the Agreement to be managed adaptively, whether Annexes are amended or added or implementation plans are sped up or changed in light of changing conditions, there has to be current and relevant information flowing up from the operational level to decision-makers providing strategic direction and back down to the implementation teams so that decisions can be made about programs on the ground.  In this way, course corrections can be made, the COA can get out ahead of emerging issues, and operations staff will feel more connected to the overall strategy.  Rather than working on information systems in the abstract, the best way to find out what information is needed by whom is to ask decision-makers what they need.

 FINDING 18:  The COA is not generating much public interest or support. 

Both internal and external participants were asked about the public reports generated under the COA – whether they are meaningful, reliable, accurate, timely and clear (plain language).  There was not much enthusiasm expressed in the External Survey (53%).  There was a little more in the Internal Survey where 62% were supportive, but some of the most negative comments came from within.

Timeliness was an issue in several comments.  There was confusion as to whether reports were meant for highly-informed stakeholders or the general interest.  The effort to do both at the same time seems to satisfy neither – too generic for the stakeholders and too technical for the general public.  Some internal and external respondents thought the reporting too often was used for government “spin” control.

 “How do we make every Canadian support Great Lakes restoration?”
Interview

 “Choose five headline indicators for the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.”
Interview

“Most COA reports issued to date are way overdue or written for a generic audience that they have little meaning.  Serious stakeholders place little value on this sort of thing.  I expect the truly informed public will turn to NGO efforts, such as the recent Prescription for the Great Lakes, for their Information.
Internal Survey

“A better network of information exchange is required to provide stakeholders with information in a timely manner to permit meaningful review and comment.” 
External Survey

“Reports end up being spin documents for government programs, rather than providing meaningful information or tools for accountability.  There is little to no publicity or dissemination of reports.” 
External Survey

“Progress report is well written and focuses on improvements, but does not address gaps.  As well, reports are not produced in a timely fashion.” 
   External Survey

Building the public’s awareness and enthusiasm for actions to restore, protect and conserve the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem will require attention to relations with various publics, including the local groups that are already working hard on cleanup, restoration and other initiatives in their local rivers or on their local lakefronts.  The suggestion that a few clear priorities should be chosen and communicated widely is a good one.  There are many different communications approaches that could be taken to headline Great Lakes Basin sustainability.  What is carried out will depend at least in part on the resources allocated to the effort.