renegotiation of the great lakes water quality agreement · great lakes water quality agreement why...
TRANSCRIPT
Renegotiation of theGreat Lakes Water Quality Agreement
National Invasive Species Awareness WeekForum on International and Island Invasive Species Issues
February 28, 2011
Presented byKathe Glassner-ShwayderGreat Lakes Commission
Coordinator, Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Objectives of this presentation on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) as part of the NISAW international forum
• Provide a general overview of the binational Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as it currently stands
• Establish how it has evolved since inception and convey identified areas of strengths and weakness
• Convey recommendations on where the Agreement needs to go to address the issue of aquatic invasive species, a priority Great Lakes issue
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Why is there a need for an international agreement to govern over the Great Lakes ecosystem?
• The Great Lakes exists as a shared resource between the United States and Canada
• Both countries face similar ecological and economic issues and challenges related to these shared Great Lakes resources
• The stressors causing threats to the Great Lakes health, namely biotic and abiotic pollution, cross jurisdictional boundaries
Great Lakes Water Quality AgreementStrengths (not to be taken for granted)
• The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) established in 1972 between United States and Canadian governments to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.”
• Through consensus based goals and objectives, the Agreement commits the U.S. and Canada to implement programs to manage nutrients and reduce toxic chemicals released by municipal, industrial, agriculture, forestry, and shipping activities
• The Agreement, has laid the foundation for Great Lakes environmental protection efforts over the last 38 years
Evolution of the Agreement
1972 1978 1983 1987
ReducePhosphorus Loading
Reduction of visible pollution
PersistentToxicSubstances
Ecosystem Approach to management
(PhosphorusSupplement)
UpdatedPhosphorusreduction targets
RemedialAction Plansfor Areas ofConcern
LakewideManagement Plans
Provisions of Current Agreement
• Binational commitments established to implement programs to:
– Reduce nutrients and toxics
– Monitor water pollution, atmospheric deposition of pollutants and biological quality
– Develop Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) to address localized degraded areas known as Areas of Concern (AOC)
– Develop management program for each of the Great Lakes (LaMPs)
– Oversight: International Joint Commission
– Periodic reporting on progress and operation/effectiveness of the Agreement
Is the Agreement Working?
• Conventional sources of water pollution are currently addressed in the Agreement, but not the threats that have emerged since 1987, such as:– Aquatic invasive species– Water quality impacts of overlapping stressors,
such as the combined effect of aquatic invasive species and warmer water (from climate change), damaging water quality and wildlife
– New wave of toxic chemicals impacting the Great Lakes food web, such as pharmaceuticals
– Changes in flows, levels and pollution distribution from increasing intense storm events and the impacts on sewer overflows and human health
Is the Agreement Working?
Strong agreement on both sides of the border that the GLWQA must include a component on aquatic invasive species to be effective! Here’s just a few reasons why…
To prevent further spread
of established species
throughout the Great
Lakes and inland waters
of the U.S. and Canada
Zebra and quagga mussels Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia
Is the Agreement Working?
Why do we need an aquatic invasive species component?
To prevent the introduction of
new aquatic invasive species into
U.S. and Canadian waters
Northern snakehead (Channa argus)
Is the Agreement Working?
Why do we need an aquatic invasive species component?
To build capacity for
binational collaboration
in efforts to close the
door on Asian carp. If
invasion occurs into
Lake Michigan through
the Chicago Area
Waterways System, the
Asian carp could
potentially decimate the
Great Lakes ecosystem
in both U.S. and
Canadian waters Map © Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Is the Agreement Working?
Why do we need an aquatic invasive species component?
To reach agreement between the
U.S. and Canada on a common
ballast water discharge standard
in efforts to interrupt the leading
vector of AIS introduction into the
Great Lakes
Is the Agreement Working?
Ballast Water Treatment Requirements Based on the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (International Maritime Organization (IMO))
Parameter: Living Organisms Limit
Organisms greater to or equal to 50 micrometers in minimum dimension
Less than 10 viable organisms per cubic meter
Organisms less than 50 micrometers in minimum dimension and greater than or equal to 10 micrometers in minimum dimension
Less than 10 viable organisms per milliliter
Parameter: Concentrations of
Indicator Microbe
Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139)
Less than 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 milliliters or less than 1 cfu per 1 gram (wet weight) zooplankton samples
Escherichia coli Less than 250 cfu per 100 milliliters
Intestinal Enterococci Less than 100 cfu per 100 milliliters
Findings from the Binational 2006-7 Review of the Agreement
• Governance: The current Agreement needs to be replaced with a new, more action-oriented Agreement, signed by the U.S. President and Canadian Prime Minister of Canada and endorsed by the U.S. Congress & Canadian Parliament
• Execution: Engage federal, state, provincial and municipal entities as well as Tribes and First nations, that are responsible for delivering programs necessary to achieve the goals of the Agreement on a binational basis
• Structure and Content:– Although the purpose of the Agreement remains valid,
there is a need for new provisions to be incorporated to respond to emerging threats• Aquatic Invasive Species
Findings from the Binational 2006-7 Review of the Agreement
• Public Involvement needs to be strengthened and maintained on a binational level
• Scientific Capacity needs to be increased to address the complexity of threat to the Great Lakes ecosystem
• Accountability of the Agreement needs to be strengthened by:– defining achievable goals and timelines, – measures for evaluating performance, – monitoring responsibilities and the entities that are
accountable for reports
GLWQA Reegotiation Announcement
• Recognition by both the U.S. and Canada that an update to the Agreement was needed to sufficiently manage the Great Lakes ecosystem as a shared resource
• The announcement to renegotiate the Agreement was made on June 13, 2009, at a celebration commemorating the centennial of the Boundary Waters Treaty.
GLWQA Renegotiation Announcement
“In its current form, the Great Lakes Agreement does not sufficiently address the needs of our shared ecosystem.
So I’m pleased to announce that Canada and the United States have agreed to update the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.”
17
Secretary of State Clinton & Foreign
Affairs Minister Cannon
June 13, 2009
Announcement forGLWQA Renegotiation
• Formal negotiations are being conducted between the two federal governments represented by:
Environment Canada
Foreign Affairs and
International Trade
Canada
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
U.S. Department of State
19
Renegotiation Process
Plenary 1 – Jan 2010
Structure and Process; “Charge” Governance Leads
Plenary 2 – April 2010
“Charge” Specific Environmental Issue Leads
Plenary 3 – Spring 2011 (tentative)
Charges completed; Begin Synthesis and Drafting Team
Plenary 4 – Summer 2011 (tentative)
Agreement on Text for Formal Approvals
New Agreement – December 2011 (tentative)
GLWQA NegotiationsProgress to Date
• Binational Consultations
• Domestic Consultations
• Issues:
Governance Science Coordination
Nutrients Aquatic Invasive
Species
Toxic Substances Habitats and Species
Ship-source Pollution Climate Change Impacts
Recommendations on GLWQAGreat Lakes Panel on ANS
As Submitted to the ANSTF, October 2010• Implement a new annex that explicitly addresses the
problems of AIS and integrates existing prevention, control and management goals and objectives
• Ensure the renegotiation and annex development processes provide adequate and meaningful opportunities for stakeholder engagement
• Maximize resources and knowledge by utilizing and, if necessary, modifying existing institutional arrangements to coordinate the implementation of an AIS annex under a revised Agreement
GLWQAAquatic Invasive Species Issue
(put forth by the U.S. Negotiators)
Potential U.S. Positions Under Consideration
• Creation of a new annex with commitments to protect the Great Lakes from AIS
• Enhancement of programs to deal with organisms in trade, canals and waterways, recreation/resource users
• Risk assessment of species would help identify/prioritize prevention activities
• Research activities would be articulated
GLWQAAquatic Invasive Species Issue
(put forth by the U.S. Negotiators)
Potential U.S. Positions Under Consideration
• Establishment of a new subcommittee to oversee implementation
• Commitment to implementing ballast water discharge standards protective of the Great Lakes ecosystem
