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.