Conclusions

Throughout my research for this project, I’ve learned a considerable amount about the limitations of governance.  In fact, sometimes I worry that governance cannot compensate for the problems our environment faces.  However, this project and our course in general have shown me that a combination of strategies is the approach that works best in addressing complex problems. The Great Lakes are an interesting case in environmental degradation because not only do they transcend state and regional boundaries, but national boundaries as well.  The Great Lakes do not belong to one particular governmental entity, so it is multidimensional governance that works best in devising solutions.

In my prior blog posts, I addressed three different avenues of governance in regards to the Great Lakes:  the Great Lakes Protection Fund, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the US and Canada, and market-driven protective actions fueled by businesses such as the Great Lakes Brewing Co.  None of these three avenues had one formal key solution; however, each provided an integral piece of the puzzle that is environmental protection.  Agencies such as the GLPF raise awareness, encourage collaboration, and offer funding toward collective solutions; treaties like the GLWQA provide a more formal, documented guide for protective actions; and markets and businesses like the Great Lakes Brewing Company increase local awareness, encourage business accountability, and increase the popularity of advertising environmental sustainability as incentive for consumer support.  All of these actors work toward creating a society that values environmental protection and cultivates awareness of environmental problems.

This knowledge leads us to JP Evans’s eight hypotheses. In my research I have been able to most specifically identify with hypotheses one and two: “Governance is about evolution, not revolution,” and “Getting the mix of approaches right is critical.” Environmental problems cannot be solved in the blink of an eye.  It will take a process of evolution of the way people think and act as we work toward developing solutions to the wicked problems that plague us.  This ties into the “mix of approaches.”  Environmental problems cannot be solved by political entities alone, nor can market forces solely create solutions.  Even grassroots organizations, NGOs, and community driven efforts, on their own, cannot succeed in providing meaningful and sustainable environmental solutions.  We must apply a combination of all of these methods to create change for the Great Lakes.  Evans also explains how crucial duality is to the system of solutions, and how large-scale and small-scale movements, governmental and non-governmental organizations, must all be applied.  Although this course could be frustrating for me, because it illustrated the complexity of the environmental problems we face today, this class and this project taught me the significance of collaboration and innovation.  One perspective alone cannot create a solution.  We have to listen to one another and take a variety of approaches in order to create resolutions for the Great Lakes, and also for our world.  For multidimensional problems, we must take a flexible and multifaceted approach.  Rather than excluding certain actors, we must examine the value of a collaborative approach to solving environmental problems.

Thoughts On Great Lakes Actors

Assessment of the Jobs and Performance of All Actors

In order for our own Lake Michigan and the surrounding water in the Midwest to stay clean, fresh and sustainable there are quite a few steps and precautions that must be taken. People need to take into account that keeping the Great Lakes great is not just a five or even ten year process. Many of the leading organizations are trying to get people involved as soon as possible which is great! But I think many supporters don't comprehend just how big of a project the Great Lakes really is. Most organizations that handle the Great Lakes are large, yes, but most of have them have some limitations particularly when it comes to funding and budgets. Some of the actors that my team has written about before like Freshwater Future, Compact Implementation Coalition and the Great Lakes Protection Fund really try to set up information on their websites about exactly who they are and what they handle. Online, it lays out what kinds of grants they ask for and receive and how. This, as well as where all that money gets distributed in coordination with the goals of the actor. All in all, there is only so much that can go towards the lakes and because of this, I think some people tend to underestimate the importance of clean water initiatives.

Just because a good cause like Freshwater Future isn't known by many people doesn't mean that any or all goals of the initiative are unattainable. For Freshwater Future and many others, I believe the greatest strengths of these organizations have been and continue to be spreading awareness and convincing people to get on board with what needs to be done in our waters. Unfortunately in a lot of ways, these actors are still at the beginning stages of their development with the public. People need to know much more about them and hear of them before they can be raising more money for the Great Lakes. Once the public is made much more aware of actors like these, then people need to be sold on ideas. People need to be sold on the idea of the Asian Carp causing a legitimate threat to the ecosystem. People need to be sold on the idea that we must have a zero tolerance for raw sewage dumping. Once people are 100 percent sold on the idea that our freshwater is actually of vital importance to all humanity, then the real life impact is what we will see unfold right before our eyes.


These are images (a couple from WTMJ, a Milwaukee news station) of an aerial view of some raw sewage dumped into Lake Michigan likely killing everything in its way and contaminating the water.

Overall, I think the actors currently involved in the Great Lakes projects are doing a wonderful job with the initial "making people aware" epidemic. Although many are still uneducated on our waters, the actors are getting larger as well as multiplying. This may be the best news yet, but the most difficult task ahead of actors and supporters will be convincing the public to invest their own time or money to help these water causes over long periods of time.

Market Incentives and Great Lakes Brewing Co.

Market governance is intriguing because it uses capitalist principles to incite social improvement. As environmental conservation grows into a more popular idea with consumers, many businesses want to take advantage of the benefits they can reap from advertising their environmental responsibility.  This is not to say that businesses do not care at all about the status of the environment without economic incentives, but the patronage of consumers certainly provides an additional reason for companies’ environmental interest.  I became really interested in this concept after learning about market-based initiatives in our class, and also studying similar concepts in another of my courses. Recently I read an article about a similar type of reaction in a different sector.  All sorts of companies in the food world make more environmentally friendly, “natural,” organic, or healthier decisions in manufacturing, based on the concerns and ideals of their consumers.  It turns out that recently certain candy manufacturers have decided to begin a more natural process of coloring some of their candies, specifically ones like gummy worms or bears.  Based upon a recent trend in consumers becoming more concerned with artificial ingredients, the company decided to switch the way they were doing things to a more transparent, healthy avenue in order to gain profit from that switch.

Now, whether or not these sorts of alterations are actually healthy, environmentally responsible, or truthful can be up for debate.  But there is no doubt that companies are listening to the wills of their consumers and making an attempt to be cleaner and more straightforward based upon these ideals.  When it comes to environmental conservation in particular, I became interested in what kinds of companies are making an effort to appear superior to their competitive counterparts, and actually be more environmentally responsible.  Although in a capitalist society we sometimes tend to equate markets forces with greed, it is possible in many situations that market incentives can increase responsibility of a business in a meaningful way.  The example I will focus on in the remainder of this post is the Great Lakes Brewing Company.

Great Lakes Brewing Co. is a business that, in recent years, has put a great deal of effort into the transparency of its environmental initiatives. Each year, the company publishes what they deem a “Sustainability Report.”  It starts with a conversational letter, and the rest of the report focuses on the efforts they’ve made that year to obtain their resources responsibly and conserve the environment in meaningful ways.  The report is divided into several sections such as energy management, waste management, food and farming, etc.  Because the Great Lakes Brewing Company (not surprisingly) is located on Lake Erie, they have a specific focus toward “water stewardship,” including this passage:  

“Because we’re located two miles from the shores of Lake Erie and we produce a product that is over 90% water, we’re committed to protecting this valuable resource in brewery operations. While brewing and bottling utilizes a large amount of water, we do our best to reduce and reuse within our bottling and cleaning processes. Since 2001, we’ve hosted the Great Lakes Burning River Fest, a beer and music festival with an environmental focus. The Fest takes place at the historic Coast Guard Station at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River, which leads into Lake Erie--the source of the same water we use to craft our beers. In 2007 the non-profit Burning River Foundation formed as an outgrowth of the fest, and has awarded over $320,000 to local non-profit organizations invested in protecting our freshwater resources.” 

Market influences can indeed incite greed, but they also can produce incentives for companies to be accountable and responsible. Whether or not you believe the efforts of companies such as this one are genuine or just financially based, there’s no denying the fact that market incentives can sometimes cause environmental change for the better- or at least a change in the way businesses discuss it. 

Sources:

http://new.greatlakesbrewing.com/downloads/Sustainability_Report_2014.pdf

The Great Lakes: Freshwater Future

Freshwater Future:


One of the biggest programs and networking organizations out there right now for the Great Lakes is called Freshwater Future. This group is very valuable to the region mainly because of the fact that they neither require or have any higher entity to consult or follow. Their main focus is on gathering people within communities across the Midwest & Great Lakes area so they can address pollution as well as conservation issues at the local levels. In some ways, The Freshwater Future network prefers to operate in a "bottom up" sort of way. After looking into their Mission and Vision statements on their website, FF (Freshwater Future) likes to promote the healthy future of our freshwater supply by the ways of state and local levels. Whether this is having FF's members at local community meetings or state hearings, members have the ability to effectively advocate their environmental positions. Gaining partnerships and opinions from many different types of communities and neighborhoods on conservation ideas is something FF thrives on. 
Freshwater Future is the only watershed-wide organization, which makes them extremely well-known across the region to freshwater advocates. Through over $2 million in grants, they have helped support dozens of projects since 1996. In a sense, I would say that FF does reward lots of voluntary action because that's what much of their work is. They can reach down to many local and community levels where bigger and more national actors cannot.

Just some of the awareness and activities that are being spread to local communities include:

-The Great Lakes Community Climate Program: This really focuses tremendously on how to incorporate climate adaptation into the work that one is already doing to properly sustain the water resources. The supporters of this initiative believe that no matter what we do to reduce greenhouse gases, it cannot be fixed in the short term. More about strategies than anything else. This according to the Freshwater Future website as well.
-Asian Carp of the IL area: This Asian Carp have been a huge problem ever since they have come from the Mississippi River area and swam up the Illinois River and into Lake Michigan. Not only can they become outrageously large, but they also reproduce quickly. Freshwater Future does have an Asian Carp Petition that can be signed electronically on their website and this can be especially easy if a membership to FF is obtained.

Overall, the Freshwater Future promotes good old fashioned community involvement and awareness of Great Lakes water quality and cleanliness. When there is a cause that they need more people to get on board with, they make it easy on their website to get involved with municipal meetings and activities around the Great Lakes region that promote that particular cause. So therefore, it seems like the actors that are most involved currently with Freshwater Future are the supporters themselves. This organization talks about how people can jump into a Great Lakes problem that's concerning to them and immediately have some sort of impact on the amount of money going towards great water quality. This networking for the future of the Great Lakes freshwater supply can really make a difference in the containment of Asian Carp as well as the preservation of our great waters.

http://freshwaterfuture.org/
This is the one of the most well organized and insightful websites I have seen yet in regards to the Great Lakes preservation.

 It sure it hard to believe that this is how big the Asian Carp can get in and around our Great Lakes. Many barriers and electric fences are being installed in the Midwest to prevent them from swimming from the Mississippi River and into our area.

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement- Cooperation & Collaboration Between the US and Canada

The governing of the Great Lakes is an interesting case in environmental policy because their geographic area spans transnationally. Because of this, the efforts of both the United States and Canada are necessary in order to create meaningful environmental change.  Since ensuring the quality of the lakes as a resource is the responsibility of both of these countries, it is essential that agreements are facilitated between the two that prompt both parties to be involved in a concrete way.  One such example of this sort of transnational collaboration is the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.  

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was originally put into action in 1972, and has since been modified several times, most recently in 2012.  According to Environment Canada, the amendment of 2012 has refocused the agreement's purpose to "(commit) to a shared vision of a healthy and prosperous Great Lakes region in which the waters of the Great Lakes, through their sound management, use, and enjoyment, provide benefits to present and future generations."  Although the agreement facilitates conversation and collaboration between the two parties, it is not only about discussing these issues, but also about implementing lasting change to protect the environment and the Great Lakes as a resource.  

The GLWQA contains 10 specific sectors, which are as follows: 

Annex 1: Areas of Concern 

Annex 2: Lakewide Management 

Annex 3: Chemicals of Mutual Concern 

Annex 4: Nutrients 

Annex 5: Discharges from Vessels 

Annex 6:  Aquatic Invasive Species 

Annex 7: Habitat and Species 

Annex 8: Groundwater 

Annex 9: Climate Change Impacts 

Annex 10: Science 

{If you wish to learn more about any of these sectors, please follow this link: https://www.ec.gc.ca/grandslacs-greatlakes/default.asp?lang=En&n=45B79BF9-1} 

As you might note, the GLWQA concerns a diverse panel of environmental issues related to the health of the Great Lakes. The agreement itself has been a slowly evolving treaty.  It was initiated in the 1970s originally to help stop and prevent the problem of phosphoric algal blooms in the lakes. In the 1980s, the agreement expanded to include the idea of what is now Annex 1, Areas of Concern.  This to me is an interesting development because it shows that policy makers were serious about restoring even the most deteriorated parts of the Great Lakes Basin.  The amendment of 2012 really brought the agreement into the modern age, focusing on new problems that have more recently developed, with an added emphasis on identification, clarity, and innovation. 

The GLWQA works in collaboration with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 to focus on identifying point and non point pollution, and upholding a commitment of both countries to not pollute their valuable boundary waters. Since the health of the people living around the Great Lakes is dependent upon the health of the environment, the treaty stresses that it is in everyone's best interest to protect the waters. Essentially, the agreement is a legally binding treaty between the United States and Canada to uphold a commitment to the restoration, maintenance, and preservation of the Great Lakes, their shores, and their ecosystems. This protection involves pollution control, allocating governmental funds toward environmental progress, developing clean technologies, and continuing meaningful conservation practices.  The agreement also obligates both parties to monitor the progress of their actions, and provide a certain level of transparency to the public about what steps they are taking to implement environmental change. As far as accountability, representatives from the US and Canada meet in a forum every three years with the International Joint Commission to communicate their levels of progress. Additionally, both sides had to come together to form the Great Lakes Executive Committee, which monitors the specific annexes through sub-departments. Although the GLWQA is an example of traditional government, the agreement places a large emphasis on the participation of not only law-makers but individual citizens, businesses, NGOs and community actors. The agreement maintains that is important for all of these actors to work together to protect this vital resource.  

If you wish to learn more about the details/layout of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, visit: http://www.ijc.org/en_/Great_Lakes_Water_Quality. 

Great Lakes Charter of 1985

Great Lakes

Bordering the Great Lakes whether one is in Canada or the United States is both a responsibility and a privilege. A privilege due to the fact that we and so many other millions of people are close to loads of sports and recreation, but more so for the abundant fresh water supply. A responsibility for a larger reason-this is the part where the responsibility of maintaining these waters for life and for leisure comes into play. Although it may be hard to believe that many consider saving our ecosystems a chore or not a top priority, lawmakers along with many different advocates and citizens surrounding the region have made lots of preservation possible and achievable.

Over the years, many organizations have attempted to speak out against infecting our waterways with unnecessary waste and have succeeded. Now that many cleanups have occurred, people believe that a conversation phase is now upon us-especially with our region-the Great Lakes. Signed in 1985 right here in Milwaukee, The Great Lakes Charter was a huge stepping stone in the preservation and management of the water supply not just in the actual lakes, but within the entire Great Lakes Basin. The ten signatories of the Charter include Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The original documentation included a couple different proposals for diverting large sums of water completely out of the basin. At the same time, it had proposals for keeping large water that's already in the basin, too. Overall, the states and provinces wanted preservation and protection of the lakes no matter what was going in and what was coming out. The Governors of the states and provinces are the main actors in this Charter because they sat down and came together as a team in order to protect their environment for future generations. These are the same ideas that environmental actors incorporate into their work. Even though the agreement was signed back in 1985 by Governors who are no longer in power, there have been quite a few revisions and follow up treaties put in place by current government. They were partially influenced by these almost "do or die" sort of actors in environmental organizations. Good thing their determination is rubbing off on political powers! I believe water quality is essential and necessary for everyone in the Great Lakes region.


It has proven effective-the Great Lakes Charter has-by leading to other stepping stones like the Great Lakes Compact in 2008 and the St. Lawrence River Water Resources Agreement in '05.

http://www.greatlakes.org/Document.Doc?id=148
-This document is the actual Great Lakes Charter that includes all the necessary information to effectively interpret the international agreement

http://www.protectourgreatlakes.org/timeline/
-This website link is from the same website as my first blog post-it serves as great timeline with the Charter being the first real starting point in preservation projects all along the Great Lakes region


This was all of the land (2 provinces (Quebec not marked on this map) & 8 states) that signed the Charter agreement back in 1985

Compact Implementation Coalition

Hey Everyone,

Tonight, I'm writing about the Great Lakes Compact and how it has and will be affected in the Southeastern Wisconsin region and area. This Great Lakes Compact was put into effect in 2008 as an agreement between some Canadian provinces and U.S. states to closely monitor our Great Lakes. The past few years in the state of Wisconsin, there has been  some question as to who can have access to this water from Lake Michigan. The city of Waukesha in Waukesha County has expressed much interest in transferring most to all of their water supply over to the lake, but the Great Lakes Compact is preventing them from doing so and one actor in particular is helping in this fight.

An actor that comes into play with the Great Lakes Compact is the Compact Implementation Coalition.

http://www.protectourgreatlakes.org/
Their main focus and goal as an actor or group of actors is to keep tabs on the lakes and consistently advertise for the absolute best causes when it comes to keep that freshwater in tip-top shape. Before the Compact was even developed and implemented in '08, the CIC was right there fighting the battle against all lake pollution. They also incorporate many of their ideas directly to the public, so that even more steps and awareness can be shown. When Waukesha first submitted their water application, the CIC had a major role in sending the paperwork back to be revised because both them and the Great Lakes Compact claimed the report to be "incomplete". Basically what this meant was that the organization felt like Waukesha had no need for Great Lakes water. The current members of the CIC include; River Alliance of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Riverkeeper, National Wildlife Federation, Clean Wisconsin and the Midwest Environmental Advocates. Since all of these organizations come together, it is considered a coalition and does not have a headquarters. So I guess you could say, this actor or these actors are headquartered in all five of our Great Lakes.

I do believe the CIC is great at addressing the problems with our lake system. When an issue like the city of Waukesha steps into the picture, the organization is great at alerting the public about what exactly the problem is. Obviously the public cared enough about the situation and the CIC took action, so the plans have been revisited multiple times. The coalition has been around since 2008, so right around the same time as the compact. They have been doing solid work as well as representing tens of thousands of Wisconsin residents when it comes to arguing for water quality. To quote protectourgreatlakes.org, the CIC and WIDNR are close friends too. They have recently been"..aiding the Department of Natural Resources in the promulgation of administrative rules to implement the Compact, we have passionately and consistently advocated for the strongest protections possible for the waters of the Great Lakes, in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the Compact." So in a nutshell, the members of the CIC team up with each other and with larger actors to achieve a common goal of keeping the waterways up to snuff.

In conclusion, the steps that the CIC have been working extremely well and in their favor. This, to go along with the best option for the surrounding environment as well. The water quality doesn't just affect the living things that are in the water, it affects the people and other living things in Wisconsin and around the Midwest region. If citizens can get behind and stay behind this wonderful coalition and everything they do, we can preserve our waters for dozens of generations to come.



As you can see, Waukesha County is out of the Great Lakes Basin area. Although it is barely out of it, many still believe that they do not have the need for any lake water.