I recently had a conversation with a friend about how frustrating it is in university to spend so much time writing papers and projects that no one ever reads aside from yourself and the professor or the TA. A lot of effort goes into these essays, but its not fulfilling work because they're never going to inform anybody or make any changes in the world. After your marked assignments comes back to you, it gets filed away never to see the light of day again or gets chucked into the recycling bin. It might just float around in the electronic space of your laptop for a couple years, until you decide to clean up your hard drive and finally put it in the trash bin.
I've decided that despite the rolling eyes I might get from some friends, I'm going to post parts of a project that I spent many annoying hours writing. At least it will be out there and maybe google statistics will pick up that the topic is becoming increasingly important which in turn will motivate decision makers to move their butt. Okay, that's a lot of wishful thinking and I really have no idea how google works but I hope you catch my drift by this point.
This particular topic was for my Resource Management class last term. I tried to condense it as much as I could.
Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans
The Great Lakes are one of Canada’s most important
resources, with 42 million people living in its basin and half drawing their
drinking water from the lakes (Podolsky & MacDonald, 2008). They also
support 45% of Canada’s industrial capacity and a $100 million commercial
fishing industry (Environment Canada, 2010), not to mention the wildlife that
calls them home.
The Problem
The state of the Great Lakes is deteriorating. Here's an attempt to list all that threatens the ecological integrity and water quality of the Lakes:
- Canadian facilities releasing and
transferring ginormous amounts of pollutants
- Physical alteration of shorelines
- Recreational boating and tourism
 |
Effect of climate change: the Great Lakes, including Lake Superior, were nearly ice free during the winter of 2011-12 when historically they have been mostly frozen. Source: NASA MODIS satellite photo from NOAA Great Lakes Coastwatch website
|
|
These threats also play a role in environmental justice, a term that refers to the
disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences stemming
generally from industrial, municipal and commercial operations (Pollution
Watch, 2008). A study demonstrates that
areas with high poverty rates often coincide with areas where large amounts of
pollutants are being released. In the Great Lakes basin, the more toxic
pollutants are released, the more incidence of poverty increases in the form of
low educational attainment, low income, and high employment in manufacturing.
Clearly, problems related to the Great Lakes are not limited
to ecology. As well as the deterioration of water quality and diminishing water
levels affecting wildlife habitat and biogeochemical cycles, there are social
implications involving the health and well being of humans. This relationship is too often ignored.
Canada's solution to protect the Lakes
There exists much legislation designed to protect and
conserve the Great Lakes, demonstrating that Canada’s plan of action involves a
lot of politics. The following is an overview of the Remedial Action Plan.
- Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: The GLWQA was signed by both countries and is deemed as the
principal policy for reversing environmental degradation in the Lakes (McLaughlin
& Krantzberg, 2011). Its purpose is “to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem” (Environment Canada, 2001).
- Areas of Concern: Under the GLWQA 42 Areas of Concern (AOC) have been
designated, 16 of the sites located in Canada (Environment Canada, 2001). AOCs
are characterized by environmental degradation impairing beneficial uses and/or
“contributing to the overall degradation of the Great Lakes” (Environment
Canada, 2001).
- Remedial Action Plan: An individual Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has been developed
for each OAC, with the restoration of beneficial uses a priority (Environment
Canada, 2001). Scientific and technical
teams are used to “identify environmental problems, determine sources and
causes of the problems, involve the public to establish community and
stakeholder goals and objectives, and to develop consensus on recommended
actions, implementation plans and monitoring stages” (Environment Canada,
2003).
Case Study: Jackfish Bay
Jackfish Bay has been polluted for decades, tracing back to
the operations of a pulp and paper mill owned by Kimberly Clark of Canada Ltd,
later taken over by Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. (Stewart & Rashid, 2011). The
mill is located in Terrace Bay, ON, and is the only source of contamination in
the area (Bowron et al., 2009). It is part of Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan
and is now designated an Area of Concern, meaning that “environmental quality has been degraded compared to other areas in the
Great Lakes and beneficial uses of the aquatic ecosystem are impaired” (Environment
Canada, 2010).
Over the years, several changes in policy have reduced the
release of contaminants. Previous to September of 1989, treatment of effluent only
passed through a primary clarifier (Bowron et al., 2009). In the early 1990s,
the Canadian pulp and paper industry underwent process changes to reduce the
formation of dioxins and furans. A regulated cyclical
Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) program was also developed for pulp and
paper dischargers. Since the implementation of secondary
treatment, biological oxygen demand, phosphorus release, and total suspended
solids has been reduced in the discharge. Also
contributing to a reduction in contamination is the fact that the mill was
closed and reopened in 2006, with a production decrease of 30%.
In 2003, Canada’s RAP Progress Report (Environment Canada)
identified six beneficial use impairments in Jackfish Bay:
·
Mill effluent, spills, and sediment
contamination have deteriorated the ecosystem of the AOC.
·
Sportfish consumption restrictions are based on
a variety of chemicals, including dioxins and furans attributed to mill
effluent.
·
White suckers collected from Jackfish Bay prior
to the installation of secondary effluent treatment at the mill had an
increased incidence of liver cancer.
·
Reproductive failure and elevated contaminant
levels in herring gulls have been reported. Sediments in Moberly Lake remain
acutely toxic to bottom dwelling organisms.
·
Lake trout spawning habitat in Moberly Bay has
been destroyed through the deposition of organic materials and chemical
contamination of sediments.
·
Over- fishing and sea lamprey predation have
also contributed to the decline of trout populations.
Despite improvements in mill procedures, studies have shown
that effluent at Jackfish Bay is impacting white sucker species by affecting
their reproductive development (Bowron et al., 2009). Eutrophication and food
limitation remains a problem (Bowron et al., 2009). Another study has found
that the only beneficial use impairment that has changed over the years is the
presence of fish tumors and other deformities (Stewart & Rashid, 2011). The
modernization of the mill alone is insufficient to remediate the area.
 |
| "Progress" of the RAP. The only change is in the "Fish tumors and other deformities" category. Adapted from Stewart & Rashid, 2011. |
Unfoundedly, Jackfish Bay’s RAP has “recommended no further intervention
at this time. Over time the deposition of cleaner sediments will stabilize and
physically isolate the contaminated sediments” with an ecosystem recovery
expected within 30-60 years (Environment Canada, 2003). Yet it is doubtful that
Jackfish Bay will recover on its own if the initial source of its degradation
has not been eliminated.
It appears that Environment Canada’s measure of success for
Jackfish Bay’s RAP relies mainly on results. This is troublesome because
statistics are not only dependent on RAP strategies:
- The RAP should not be held accountable for a
reduction in contamination that was the result of a change of ownership in
2006, accompanied by a production decrease. If new owners decide to increase
production, it would clearly demonstrate that there has not been much progress.
- RAP is likely not responsible for the process
changes in the Canadian pulp and paper industry in early 1990s and therefore
should not take credit for reducing dioxins and furan release.
It is apparent that RAP progress reports are misleading.
Pollution Watch (2005) remarks “the Great Lakes are under threat from
pollutants from industry, agriculture, cities and disposal sites. Yet,
governments continue to tell a 'good news' story about the health of the Great
Lakes.”
Continual Challenges
- Lack of funding
- Constant
addition of new issues to the plan
- RAP spans Canada and the US: the
social, economic, and political divergences of the two countries have been shown
to create challenges (McLaughlin &
Krantzberg, 2011). When political
agendas conflict, governance is characterized by an uncertainty that undermines
the efficacy of management.
- Multiple actors are involved: not only is the federal government of both nations involved
in protecting the Great Lakes, but also at the very least “two Canadian provinces and dozens of legislative ridings, eight
U.S. states and dozens of congressional districts, hundreds of municipal and
other lower-tier governments, dozens more First Nations and Tribes, a diversity
of non-governmental organizations and innumerable individual citizens” (McLaughlin & Krantzberg, 2011).
Conclusions
It is generally agreed that the potential of the GLWQA has
not been achieved (Podolsky & MacDonald, 2008). In over two decades only 3
AOCs have met delisting targets - a very unsatisfactory record. The large
number of AOCs may be too much to tackle at once with the current political and
economic conditions. Perhaps a deeper focus on the worst or most sensitive
areas would be more feasible.
Another fault is that on certain aspects, such as
invasive species, it is limited to outlining needs for research without
recommending a program to reduce threats (Barlow, 2011). Concrete guidelines
would be more helpful.
Despite the 1978 obligation of the GWQA to virtually
eliminate persistent toxic substances, large amounts are still entering the
Great Lakes from Canada (McLaughlin & Krantzberg, 2011). There is a need to
investigate why the agreement is inefficient and why targets are unmet before
spending more effort into elaborating RAPs.
Outlook
As RAPs continue to demonstrate low achievements, it is
likely that the project will be repealed in the near future. The present
government has already abandoned environmental initiatives, such as the Kyoto
protocol, and bringing an end to funding the Experimental Lakes Area directly
related to the study of pollution effects on lakes.
The current political climate is alarmingly approaching the
circumstances that made possible the Walkerton Tragedy in 2000. The incident stemmed from systematic
irresponsibility in environmental governance, “promulgated
by an overarching hostility to any regulatory interference with free markets,
as well as specific regulatory gaps that produce environmental risks” (Prudham,
2004). Prior to the Walkerton Tragedy was a
reconfiguration of provincial environmental governance, which is re-occurring
today with Ontario’s budget plan dubbed “Strong Action for Ontario 2012” and
Bill C-38. The recent amendments made to the Fisheries Act do not bode well on
the Great Lakes. The omnibus bill may also facilitate the approvals of large
industrial projects that could create new AOCs.
Environmental governance must be improved before history repeats itself
on a much larger scale: the Great Lakes Tragedy.
