The Eight Hypotheses

 

When addressing an environmental issue, every involved actor, regulation and initiative has its own strengths and limitations. Each aspect of environmental governance has a specific role when it comes to defining problems and proposing solutions. Thus far, with regard to pollution in the Great Lakes, we have appointed specific actors, regulations and initiatives which all contribute in some specific way.

Actors previously discussed are the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Milwaukee Water Works. Each of these actors has strength in a certain area. More specifically, the GLSAB and MWW are involved with scientific research. The EPA governs enforcement of regulations based on laws with relation to Great Lakes Pollution.

Regulations previously discussed are The Clean Water Act, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and Microbead Bans. Each of these plays a role in regulating action of the public. The CWA is important as it is a foundational federal law in governing water pollution in the United States. The GLWQA is an essential regulation as it an international regulation. As the Great Lakes are bordered by both the United States and Canada, it sets them both to the same standard. Microbead banning plays it's own very specific role by restricting an environmental input that has been discovered to be very detrimental to aquatic life.

Initiatives mentioned prior are the Great Lakes Stewardship Initiative, National Wildlife Federation, and the Freshwater Society. Each of these works to create a network mode of governance by promoting collaboration. The GLSI works with educational initiatives and local environmental organizations. The NWF brings together all types of actors to promote conservation of wildlife and natural resources. And finally, the FS partners with local organizations and volunteer groups to promote protection of freshwater resources.

With the above information, we know the capabilities and limitations of each actor, regulation and initiative mentioned. In JP Evan's Environmental Governance, he states eight hypotheses in the concluding chapter that we should work to understand as we move forward. A few of these hypotheses stood out to me:

 Governance requires political vision. This hypothesis stood out to me because I fully support this statement. At the end of the day, government officials are going to have the say in whether a major movement is going to be made to address pollution in the Great Lakes. Being able to appeal to politicians can really go along way.

Getting the mix of approaches right is critical. I think this hypothesis is important because it eliminates the bias that is produced from the viewpoint of one particular group. Also, it will help to promote the most feasible solutions in protecting the Great Lakes from pollution sources.

Governance is about learning. At the end of the day, addressing environmental issues is a learning experience for everyone. Environmental problems are complex. This is why there is not one clear cut answer. Actors, initiatives, and regulations across all scales must be open to new/different ideas and information. Without the desire to learn, no advancement can be made to help reduce pollution in our precious Great Lakes.

Evaluating The Actors...

When considering some of the actors that have been conveyed throughout this blog assignment, it's clear that both strengths and weaknesses are evident.

In terms of strengths, these actors are fundamental in their role as a model for environmental governance. Their objectives, scientific contributions and their tendencies to partake in community engagement is invaluable.

For example, Milwaukee Water Works (MWW) has been not just a regional and national leader, but international leader as well. Their pioneering work with ozone sterilization and microbiological abatement may actually have ended up saving countless lives, as MWW practices are then implemented in other problematic regions.

MWW, however, does appear to have its weaknesses. I touched on this notion briefly in the initial post, as MWW exhibits no substantive or otherwise meaningful regulatory authority. They are confined to an observer status. This is evident when considering the studies they have conjured up. These studies are intended to influence the decision making process and provide insight into various issues that effect the water quality of the Great Lakes region, however, they lack the ability to draw out comprehensive policy recommendations and/or implementation.

That regulatory power lies within local, state and federal governments, not a water quality control and monitoring faction. MWW functions not only as an benign observer, but they also perform the function of mediating shortcomings associated with a striking lack of common-sensed water quality requirements.

Their ozone sanitation facilities may inadvertently rationalize and/or justify contamination in Lake Michigan. Policymakers may be less inclined to use their authority to govern if there are no visible or measurable manifestations of poor water quality (i.e. nobody is getting sick), as it may be deemed by the general public to be a non-issue is no serious public health-related issues arise. One might see MWW as "covering up" the dirty little secrets associated with a gross lack of environmental regulation. After all, we can't get too upset about problems if we can't see them, smell them, or even get sick from them.

In order for MWW to obtain regulatory power, the public would need to envision and advocate for a common (political) goal, and indeed, this would require an evolution of understanding.

A more substantive measure, however, was touched on in my post about microbead legislation. These types of laws have clear-cut rules, boundaries, as well as consequences associated with noncompliance. The cosmetics industry, as well as others, are legally bound to comply with the language within this type of legislation, and these laws clearly indicate a timeline for which microbead manufacturing and selling must cease. This legislation is working, contrary to the suggestion that markets are the only medium available for change.

The Great Lakes Stewardship Initiative is also not insulated from shortcomings associated with privatization, a lack of regulatory authority, as well as limited resources and scope of function. While their community outreach initiatives are inspiring and on the right side of history, it appears they suffer from the same ailments associated with any non-regulatory agency.

In the absence of clear-cut and explicitly defined rules, a private organization must resort to influential tactics, such as ranking industries or pollution-intensive firms for their supposed "responsibility". The problem here, however, is that such a small segment of the population might be inclined to avoid a polluting firm. In order to garnish serious attention regarding these suspect groups, it might require this ENGO/non-regulatory group to partake in tactics such as public shaming or smearing in order to obtain public concern, which in return may backfire and reduce credibility of the initial objective at hand.

I would imagine that the alternative would be a targeted educational effort, which in and of itself is costly, requires organization and the distribution of materials, and the effectiveness of such an effort may be limited if the issue at hand is either more complex, or perhaps does not lie in congruence with, the knowledge that the general public possesses. This suggestion then does mirror Evan's argument, that a variety of approaches (in that case: public engagement) may be most effective in influencing change.

Truly, this is a wicked problem.


Sources:
http://www.glstewardship.org/Home.aspx
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-governor-signs-bill-making-illinois-first-state-to-ban-microbeads-20140608-story.html
http://milwaukee.gov/water

Images:
http://cdn.camstar.industrysoftware.automation.siemens.com/manufacturing-geek/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/regulations.jpg

Eight Hypotheses

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Freshwater Society both deal with water pollution in the Great Lakes, however in their own different ways. Since the Environmental Protection Agency is an agency of the U.S. federal government, they may have more options when it comes to proposing solutions. The Freshwater Society is a non-profit organization and may not have as many options to solutions since it is not as large as the EPA and has a lot of volunteers that work on smaller projects rather than more bigger, complicated projects. Even though the Freshwater Society does work on smaller projects, they still are making an effort to work together and educate people to protect and conserve our fresh water resources.

Some strengths that the EPA consist of is the power to control. The EPA controls many pollutants and protects a lot of endangered species. In my opinion, I believe the most promising ways of addressing water pollution is by everyone working together. Like I stated, the EPA has a lot of power, so by working with other agencies and organizations and finding solutions together on individual problems, over time, things can improve. One of the eight hypotheses Evans discussed was Getting the mix of approaches right is critical. I specified that to solve problems, individual solutions need to be proposed. “There is no magic bullet for solving environmental issues because the problems and potential solutions vary greatly.” I believe this definitely applies to this case since every area of water has its own problem; for example a different source of pollution. Another of the eight hypotheses is the Duality of structure is critical. Since the EPA has volunteer programs, such as monitoring conditions of local streams, it has to take into consideration just what those volunteers should do. “A critical question for environmental governance involves deciding what form this duality should take. For example, how much small-scale freedom it is desirable or possible to facilitate while still allowing actions to be sufficiently coordinated, and what form should large-scale structure assume. Should an overarching body have enforcement and monitoring duties, should it set and promulgate a common vision, or should it simply provide a platform to share knowledge?”

The Freshwater Society focuses on educating the public on the importance of our freshwater and things they can do to help with the many problems. This non-profit organization deals with many other volunteer organizations, so a strength they have is having the public get more involved. One of the eight hypotheses that have to do with this society is the Governance requires political vision. Since a lot of these organizations are based locally, they have individual goals for each place. “In order to steer, a society needs to have goals. While participation is costly, and requires decision-makers to loosen their grip on power to order to allow the public to meaningfully affect a decision, it has a critical role to play in generating a shared vision concerning the direction society should be steered in.” 

Overall, the eight hypotheses apply to many issues when it comes to pollution of the Great Lakes. Since the Freshwater Society has so many volunteer programs, the public is more aware of pollution issues around them. The only weakness with the Freshwater Society is that they can only do so much, unless it grows and receives more funds. The EPA has many projects going on, and one of the main problems with this is funding a lot of them. However, by organizations working together, solutions to these issues regarding water pollution can be resolved over time. 

Sources:

http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa

Evans, J.P. Environmental Governance. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.

Freshwater Society

The Freshwater Society is a nonprofit organization that promotes the protection, conservation and restoration of freshwater resources. By partnering with local organizations and working with many volunteer groups, the Freshwater Society displays the network mode of governance. The Society, first established in 1968, has been a very important public nonprofit organization dealing with all freshwater resources. The organization devotes its resources and experiences to activities that help with the understanding, enhancement, protection, and restoration of all freshwater resources. There were three members that built the Society: Dick Gray, Dr. Richard Caldecott, and Hib Hill. Dr. Richard Caldecott is still a member of the Freshwater board today.

There are multiple types of memberships you can be apart of in the Freshwater Society, ranging from individual to corporate. They accept any type of donations, just like other nonprofit organizations do so. Overall, the Society works with many other nonprofit organizations, volunteer groups, and has multiple partnerships so they can protect and preserve our lakes and rivers.

An example of a partnership with the Freshwater Society is the Healthy Lakes and Rivers Partnership. The HLRP transports resources to organizations through encouragement and training to make a community-based management proposal for their river or lake. The program gives training lessons for skill improvement in development of a River Management Plan, nonprofit leadership, and a presentation with many natural resource agency representatives. Collaborating with the Initiative Foundation, the Freshwater Society was given funding from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund from the Legislative Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources to continue the program in Otter Tail County.

Another role the Freshwater Society plays is in community clean ups for water quality. The Society has created a DVD that breaks down how to implement and organize a clean up, along with a community toolkit. The object of the clean up is to decrease the amount of nutrients and soil that goes into the lakes and rivers; this can be done by removing yard debris and leaves from city streets by raking and baking leaves and debris. These community clean ups for water quality have been funded for quite some time by Friends of the Minnesota Valley. The Freshwater Society has been working to take the volunteer effort to organizations all around the state since 2010.

The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Freshwater Society have created a highly effective new program to help with the protection of water quality in the state of Minnesota. The program is called The Master Water Stewards, and is supporting community managers to create pollution prevention developments that decrease pollutants from urban runoff, help educate community associates, and permit more water to sink in the ground before running into the storm sewer systems. The volunteer community managers take part in a 50-hour program of projects and courses.

Overall, the Freshwater Society plays a large role in the protection, conservation and restoration of our freshwater resources. By partnering with other nonprofit organizations, guiding volunteer organizations, and supporting its members, the Freshwater Society works hard to continue to be a leading public nonprofit organization when it comes to our freshwater resources and their surrounding watersheds.

Sources:
http://freshwater.org/about-the-society/

National Wildlife Federation

 

The National Wildlife Federation is the United States' largest private, non-profit organization that works to promote conservation of wildlife and natural resources. The NWF strives to unite multiple actors including individuals, businesses, governments and organizations. Its efforts exemplify the network mode of governance, as it brings in actors who interact by collaborative methods as opposed to traditional hierarchical means. There are 48 state and territorial affiliated organizations, and nearly six million members of NWF across the country.

        

The National Wildlife Federation plays an important role in restoration of the Great Lakes. The NWF serves as the co-chair of Healing Our Waters - Great Lakes Coalition. The coalition is comprised of over 125 organizations. Serving as the co-chair, the NWF is aiming to fund and implement a plan that looks to remove toxic sediments, reduce polluted runoff, and stop contamination from sewage in the Great Lakes. In addition, they look to protect and restore habitat and wetlands.

The NWF also looks to prevent oil spills in the Great Lakes. As we move toward the future, aging pipelines become an increasing concern. The National Wildlife Federation monitors these pipeline networks as a preventative measure in protecting the Great Lakes.

The NWF is an active player in protecting the Great Lakes from the implementation of environmentally harmful projects. For example, they are working to get multiple actors involved to prevent sulfide mining in the vicinity of Lake Superior.

The National Wildlife Federation is also concerned with education about the environment as it pertains to the Great Lakes. The NWF looks to restore the connection between our youth and nature by the means of a wildlife and kids community called Wildlife Nation. This social community encourages adults to educate their children about the environment to enhance the next generation of conservation.

The NWF's efforts go far beyond addressing just pollution in the Great Lakes. They are mainly concerned with problems relating to the well being of wildlife populations. These issues are important as they reap the effects of pollution. Beyond protecting the Great Lakes, there are many other issues that the NWF is concerned with. They work with the previously mentioned 48 state and regional organizations to address issues in different areas of the country. Other wild places of concern are Bristol Bay, Mississippi River Delta, Puget Sound and many more.

This organization differs from a traditional form of governance. Input is provided from all different sectors in this network mode of governance. The National Wildlife Federation essentially acts as a facilitator in environmental issues. Some of the NWF's accomplishments include: holding BP accountable for Gulf Restoration, establishment of Rio Grande del Norte as a national monument, and many more.  I personally think that the network mode of governance that the National Wildlife Federation creates can have more of an impact than traditional top-down forms of government. A private, non-profit organization such as NWF has the ability to incorporate the opinions of multiple actors. It prevents the controlling bias that may be produced by one lone actor, resulting in an even distribution of power.

References:

https://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Protect-Habitat/Waters/Great-Lakes.aspx

http://www.learningtogive.org/resources/national-wildlife-federation

Image Sources:

http://blog.nwf.org/2009/10/be-out-there-five-great-online-tools-for-parents-to-increase-their-kids-outdoor-time/

https://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/PhotoZone/Archives/2015/Water-Photo-Gallery-2015.aspx

Great Lakes Stewardship Initiative

The Great Lakes Stewardship Initiative (GLSI) is a Michigan-based project that utilizes network principles in an attempt to stimulate environmental governance. The project attempts to garnish a collaborative effort between a multitude of actors, concentrating specifically on those that deal with educational initiatives and local environmental organizations (About).

GLSI utilizes “. . .grants and technical assistance. . .” as a medium to collaborate with “. . . students, teachers and community organizations” (About). One of the initiatives main tenet revolves around the belief that citizens are genuinely concerned with the well-being of the Great Lakes, however, they often lack the knowledge and means to enact meaningful change. Educational initiatives, as suggested by the GLSI, are tailored in a manner that works in conjunction with community organizations (Our Accomplishments).

Some of these organizations include the Lake Superior Stewardship Initiative, which specializes in educating middle and high school students about the relationship between humans and ecosystems (“LinkClick” #1), as well as West Michigan Great Lakes Stewardship Initiative, which specializes in hands-on student workshops for fish habitats and storm water runoff (“LinkClick” #2).

GLSI does not focus on environmental objectives that necessarily deal with concrete, tangible or otherwise “measurable” results (i.e. trash collection, river clean up), unless of course, that initiative has an explicit educational and/or curriculum element. It serves as a catalyst for community appreciation via educating the public, mainly K-12 students, about major issues within the Great Lakes. The only “measurable” elements within the organization dealt with the number of students touched by their outreach effort, results of GLSI-funded university studies, as well as numerical information regarding grants (Overview).

GLSI receives funding primarily through their collaboration with the Great Lakes Stewardship Trust (GLST) and the Wege foundation (About). The GLSI, in return, then rewards associated organizations by according grants and technical assistance (About). However, it is unclear what eligibility criteria is used to determine how associated organizations receive funding, as no explicit information was provided within their website. This may imply flexibility, rather than rigidity, within the scope of initiatives they advance.
GLSI exemplifies network-based modes of governance, as the organization and it’s associated groups, are privately run and outside the realm of hierarchical and traditional governmental constructs. The only relationship GLSI has with governmental entities is confined to the role of donations to public schools for the purpose of environmental education.

The initiative has no evident market-based incentives or initiatives. Rather, it appears that the goal of the organization is strictly for the purpose of community outreach and educational action, rather than production/operation efficiency, favorable public image, and/or profiteering. The only incentive GLSI provides deals with grants to nonprofits and public schools, which again, it appears unclear as to how and why certain entities are deemed worthy of receiving grants. While the organization may exhibit a hierarchical characteristic (in the form of funding), it in no way has the rigid parameters that are evident within governmental regulation, as a list of the initiatives funded are rather broad, imply flexibility, and cover a multitude of disciplines and objectives (Our Grants).

These efforts are fundamental, as it provides crucial knowledge to younger generations regarding water quality, the role of watersheds, the fundamental importance of the Great Lakes and other water resources, as well as recreational significance (Our Grants). As state funding for public education continues to not only stagnate (MichiganRadio), but can only be used within the parameters outlined by the state, GLSI has proven to be invaluable. One might argue that GLSI functions to combat the shortcomings associated with state government, which of course, has become increasingly hostile to the public realm.

Sources:

http://www.glstewardship.org/OurAccomplishments/CommunityProjects.aspx

http://www.glstewardship.org/About.aspx

http://www.glstewardship.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-uhMmKbc6Is%3d&tabid=73

http://www.glstewardship.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=KC_dFHkybEc%3d&tabid=73

http://www.glstewardship.org/OurGrants/FundedGrants.aspx

http://michiganradio.org/post/has-public-education-funding-gone-or-down-under-gov-snyders-watch#stream/0

http://www.glstewardship.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9lSM7T2EpgA%3d&tabid=63

Images:

http://k12teacherstaffdevelopment.com/tlb/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/114274093.jpg

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

 

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is an international agreement between Canada and the United States. The agreement addresses water quality issues in the Great Lakes and the international section of the St. Lawrence River. It’s overall goal is to uphold and re-establish the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem through interventions that are appointed at the areas of concern.

First signed by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and President Richard Nixon in 1972, the agreement has been updated several times; in 1978, 1987, and 2012.  The original 1972 agreement primarily focused on reducing algae, and both countries believed that limiting phosphorus inputs was the answer to the control of the excessive algal growth.  The 1978 revision focused on toxic substances in the Great Lakes, so both countries have taken action in decreasing the release of toxic chemicals in the environment. In the 1987 revision, the United States and Canada agreed to find the specific damages, like fish and wildlife consumption limitations, beach closings, or unfavorable algae. This revision also concentrated on re-establishing the ecosystem within these areas. The most recent revision in 2012 came into power February 12, 2013. This revision allowed the International Joint Commission substantial responsibilities to inform the public and measure its progress. Also, the 2012 GLWQA now involves measures to avoid environmental risks before they result in ecological destruction, while also continuing to support the work on current pressures to the quality of the waters of the Great Lakes. Overall, one of the most important changes in the 2012 GLWQA is the position both the United States and Canada have placed on providing the widest variety of organizations, governments and also involving the public in work to protect and restore the water quality of the Great Lakes.

The GLWQA contains the regulations and committee that has the power to choose whether a specific area should be labeled an area of concern. Since each individual waterway has its own characteristics that effect its ecological damage, a Remedial Action Plan has been created to help recognize the causes of those damages. This, in turn, will then be used to help local actions restore the individual waterways.

A group that is greatly involved in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is the International Joint Commission. The IJC’s position under the GLWQA is to report on development towards meeting the agreement’s intentions, evaluate the efficiency of programs in the United States and Canada, and lastly to examine the material given by the governments. When the GLWQA was first created, a Water Quality Board was developed to advise the IJC. There is also a regional office in the Great Lakes basin, managed by the IJC, to help the IJC with its obligations under the agreement.

The IJC adopted four important priority areas in 2012 to be worked on from 2012-2015. Each priority was given a desired goal that should result from its work by 2015, along with a staff administration team to work with its Great Lakes boards and many other professionals. The four main priorities consist of: The reduction of phosphorus loads and algal blooms in Lake Erie, the evaluation of growth towards the re-establishment of the Great Lakes, strengthening the volume to distribute Great Lakes Science and Information, and lastly public involvement and education.

Sources:

http://www.ijc.org/en_/Great_Lakes_Quality

https://www.ec.gc.ca/grandslacs-greatlakes/default.asp?lang=En&n=647DC488-1

http://binational.net/glwqa-aqegl/