Our Great Lakes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE CANADA-ONTARIO AGREEMENT (COA)

In 2002, the Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem was signed by eight federal government Ministers and three Ministers of the provincial government.   The Purpose of the five-year COA is to build on the longstanding commitment of the Parties – the first COA was signed in 1971 – to restore, protect and conserve the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.  The Agreement commits the two governments to continue to work in a cooperative, coordinated and integrated fashion with each other and with others in the Basin to achieve the vision of a “healthy, prosperous and sustainable Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem for present and future generations”.

THE REVIEW PROCESS

The 2002 Agreement expires in March, 2007.  In the fall of 2005, Canada and Ontario launched a Review to inquire into how the current Agreement has worked and how well it has been implemented.  An internal Review Team of Program Coordinators not involved in COA was created to manage this objective Review.  An independent consulting firm (Ogilvie, Ogilvie & Company) was retained to design and conduct the Review. The Review included:

Ø     Survey of internal and external participants including:

·        Staff from the federal and provincial government departments and ministries that are Parties to the Agreement;

·        Selected staff of environmental and other non-government organizations (NGOs), municipalities, the private sector, academic institutions and others.

Ø     Analysis of other agreements and mechanisms with a view to assessing best practices in governance and implementation.

Ø     Interviews and Focus Groups – Senior public servants from federal and provincial agencies, academics, and representatives of NGOs were interviewed for their input on the survey findings and their thoughts on implications for the future of the COA.  In addition, four focus groups were held with people at both the management and project delivery levels. The range of participants included:

·        senior government managers responsible for COA programs,

·        lake managers,

·        local program coordinators,

·        scientists from all levels of government, and

·        representatives of NGOs that are involved with the Great Lakes. 

Ø     Reporting – After public consultation to gather comments and feedback on an Interim Report, a Final Report will be submitted to the COA Management Committee. 

Overall, close to 200 people gave generously of their time to provide thoughtful comments and advice to inform this report.

THE REVIEW'S FOCUS

In general, the questions put to participants were to learn their views on the following:

·        Is the COA making a difference to the Great Lakes Basin environment?

·        Does the Purpose of the Agreement continue to make sense in terms of current conditions, needs or problems?

·        What are the major challenges and opportunities for improving the effectiveness and/or efficiency of Agreement?

·        Are the goals and results clear to the people who are challenged to reach them?

·        Do the actions that the governments have agreed to implement help achieve the goals?

·        Do the decision-making structures and processes set up under the COA work well?

·        Do the Parties to the COA coordinate what they do? 

·        Do they work well with other partners?

·        Are stakeholders satisfied with their involvement?

·        How well are the Parties anticipating and responding to change?

This Review did not conduct an evaluation of the outcomes or results of the projects that have been carried out under the auspices of the Agreement since 2002 (i.e. which actions resulted in what outcomes?)  The reasons have to do with timing.  The COA has a five-year timeline and some of the work will not be completed until next year. But even when the current Agreement expires in 2007, it will be some time before it will be possible to evaluate the outcomes of some of the initiatives carried out during this five-year period. 

Findings and Recommendations of the Review

The recommendations in this report are intend to:

Ø      inform the renewal, enhancement and expansion of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, and

Ø     improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its implementation.

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

According to responses in the survey, interviews and focus groups, the COA is making a solid contribution to the environment of the Basin ecosystem.  However, the responses also clearly identified ways in which the current COA can be improved. Subsequent recommendations 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 that Canada and Ontario should 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 Lakes Basin ecosystem.

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

The current Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is under review in anticipation of a new round of negotiations between Canada and the U.S.  The U.S. federal and state governments are reviewing their approach to the negotiations.  On the Canadian side, aligning the review of COA with the GLWQA review is essential.  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. 

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.  There are already a number of strategic plans that relate to particular aspects of Great Lakes environmental management.  But there is no strategy that comprehensively looks at how environmental issues are being managed by Canada and Ontario in the Great Lakes Basin.  The Review concluded that such a strategy is needed to pull all the threads together.

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.  Other agencies involved with infrastructure (federal and provincial) 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.

The current COA has four Annexes which specify goals, results and commitments to take action on the part of the two governments.  The current Annexes cover cleanup of Areas of Concern (AOCs), Harmful Pollutants, Lakewide Management and Monitoring and Information Management.  A persistent theme in the responses was the need to broaden the focus of the Annexes to include the pressures from human development in the Basin and on sustainability issues.

FINDING 6: The current Annexes do not adequately address major pressures on the Great 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.  The issues raised warrant consideration for inclusion as Annexes to the new Agreement.

FINDING 7: Political responsibility for action on Great Lakes issues 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.

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.  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.  According to the responses, some stakeholders do not view the relationship with government agencies as particularly strong.

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.  Harnessing the capacities of local communities to take action on environmental priorities under a new COA represents an opportunity.  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.  GLIC was established to provide advice to the COA Management Committee on innovative initiatives and it has focused its work on urban planning and information.  Feedback indicates that the GLIC structure is not considered an effective vehicle, as designed.  Its focus and membership are too narrow. 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.

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

The COA Management Committee (MC) is co-chaired by one representative from Environment Canada and one from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. It has representatives from all the participating departments and ministries.  In addition to GLIC (see Finding 11), the Management Committee established the Annex Implementation Committee (AIC) to coordinate the development and implementation of the work planning process and report on the progress made under the Annexes. 

Under the current COA, both governance and management functions are vested in the 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. 

The governance structure requires adjustment to ensure that the governing body is in a position to provide strategic leadership and accountability, and that management responsibilities are more clearly defined and separated from the governance or “steering” role.  In addition, the Review recommends that other governance models be reviewed to see if they might be more appropriate for the COA. 

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

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: Canada and Ontario are not paying sufficient attention to the precautionary principle in making decisions about the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.

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.

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.  The Annexes in the new COA will be strengthened and implementation improved by identification of SMART outcomes.  SMART stands for:

• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable
• 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.

The management/administrative system was characterized as cumbersome and confusing.  The COA has one Secretariat, with part-time staff, to provide administrative support.  It used to have two Secretariats, but they were merged, which seems to have been a popular move. Administrative requirements were criticized as layering on too much overhead.  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.

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. 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.  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. 

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.  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.