Solving Environmental Problems Through Collaboration
A Case Study
For EPA personnel and partners who wish to implement collaborative problem solving projects effectively.
Great Lakes Bi-National Toxics Strategy
The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy demonstrates the success
oftwogovernments-along with a host of supporting partners-coming together to
tackle a shared ecological threat.
Superior
Background
Persistent toxic substances (PTS) such
as mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and DDT have historically
threatened the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem, by poisoning the tissue of
the fish we eat, such as salmon, walleye
and trout. Sources of these toxics
include:
• industrial and municipal discharges;
• contaminated sediments;
• agricultural and urban runoff;
• contributions of pollution from toxic
waste sites;
• open burning;
• spills; and,
• long-range air deposition from
out-of-basin sources.
The good news is significant progress
has been made to decrease the
presence and threat of these sub-
stances in the Great Lakes, and levels
of most toxic substances have de-
creased overtime. Fish advisories,
however, remain in all of the Great
Lakes, indicating that these substances
continue to bio-accumulate through the
food chain to unacceptable levels. This
is particularly a problem for the most
sensitive human populations in the
basin such as pregnant women and
children, and for communities, such as
some Tribes and First Nations that rely
on Great Lakes fish as a primary source
of food.
The Great Lakes Binational Toxics
Strategy (GLBTS) was conceived in
Michigan
response to the International Joint
Commission's (IJC) 1994 Seventh
Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water
Quality. The IJC is an independent
body of government-appointed commis-
sioners with the responsibility to assist
and evaluate U.S. and Canadian efforts
under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA). U.S. and Cana-
dian governments were directed by IJC
to "adopt a specific, coordinated
strategy within two years with a common
set of objectives and procedures for
action to stop the input of persistent
toxic substances into the Great Lakes
environment." Signed eight years ago,
the 1997 GLBTS agreement between
Canada and the U.S. to virtually elimi-
nate persistent toxic substances from
the Great Lakes environment is still
growing strong, with commitments and
plans being currently renewed and
revised.
Ontario
The GLBTS sets forth reduction goals
for twelve "level I" Persistent Toxic
Substances (PTS) with a long term goal
of "virtual elimination" of all PTS in the
Great Lakes basin. The GLBTS also
calls upon the governments to address
a set of level II PTS through voluntary
pollution prevention activities. Some
examples of projects coming out of the
GLBTS collaboration include
partnering with the chlor-alkali industry
to reduce mercury consumption by over
88% (since 1995), and Ontario's Bum It
Smart/program to reduce the unwanted
formation of carcinogenic polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Erie
Great Lakes
Why The Great Lakes
Binational Toxics
Strategy Worked
The Great Lakes Binational Toxics
Reduction Strategy is an example of a
successful partnership among govern-
ment, industry and non-governmental
organizations on both sides of the
border that have a shared commitment
to solve a difficult environmental
problem. Commitment, diligence and
creativity of all concerned parties makes
the Strategy work. Further, the GLBTS
includes a voluntary pollution prevention
component, which is an asset, as it
facilitates stakeholder opportunities and
participation in activities beyond
regulatory requirements. The contin-
ued success of the GLBTS will depend,
in large part, on the continued efforts of
all concerned partners.
What Made The Great
Lakes Binational Toxics
Strategy Unique
To date, the GLBTS represents the
most comprehensive effort by the two
It took decades for the Great Lakes to
reach their current state. It will take
decades for the Lakes to fully
recover...The important thing is that we
are turning a corner and moving toward
better coordinated efforts.
- EPAAdministrator Steve Johnson
-------
countries to reach a mutual commit-
ment to virtually eliminate persistent
toxic substances from the Great Lakes
environment. Environment Canada
(EC), the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), and
stakeholders from industry, academia,
state/provincial and local governments,
First Nations, Tribes, and environmental
and community groups have worked
together towards the achievement of the
Strategy's challenge goals. Substance-
specific workgroups have worked to
eliminate the Level I substances from
the Great Lakes Basin, and an Integra-
tion Working Group has addressed
issues that fall outside the scope of the
substance-specific workgroups.
Lessons Learned
• Pollutantsthataffectthe Great
Lakes ecosystem cross jurisdic-
tional and geographic boundaries
and therefore must be addressed
in a collaborative fashion. Canada
and the U.S. are working with the
Province of Ontario, Great Lakes
states, Tribes and First Nations, and
public and private partners to
virtually eliminate persistenttoxic
substances from the Great Lakes.
• It might not be possible to achieve
total elimination of all persistenttoxic
substances. For example, some
substances such as mercury, occur
naturally and would exist at low
levels even without human
intervention.
• An open, transparent and account-
able process has proven to be the
best process to involve the Great
Lakes community. The strategy
includes provisions for information
sharing, and sets out a means to
measure and communicate
progress.
• To ensure continuing progress, the
GLBTS must continue to work
closely with the national programs of
each country, as well as larger multi-
stakeholders such as the
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation's Sound Management
of Chemicals and the United
Nations Environmental Program's
Persistent Organic Pollutants
programs.
• Out-of-Basin sources of persistent
toxic substances and their relative
contributions to the lakes must be
reasonably well understood in order
to set-forth realistic in-Basin reduc-
tion goals and to maintain realistic
expectations of the attendant
impacts to levels in the ecosystem.
• Collaborative approaches are
applicable to large scale, in this case
"bilateral," projects. Collaborative
problem solving methods aren't limited
to site specific or regional problems.
Results
• Ofthe I/reduction goalssetforth in
1997 for the 12 ("level 1") toxic
substances, ten have been met,
three will be met by the target
timeline date of 2006, and the
remaining four will be well advanced
toward meeting the targets by 2006.
Keys to Collaboration
Exemplified
The U.S. and Canada share a similar
problem: the countries are both
producers of persistenttoxic sub-
stances (PTS) that might impair the
health and longevity of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. A key in bringing the two
countries together to address the
problem was the International Joint
Commission (IJC), an independent
body of government-appointed commis-
sioners with the responsibility to assist
and evaluate U.S. and Canadian efforts
under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA). The IJC called
upon the two governments to "...adopt a
specific, coordinated strategy within two
years with a common set of objectives
and procedures for action to stop the
input of PTS into the Great Lakes
environment.
The Great Lakes Binational Toxics
Strategy represents a formal agree-
ment between the U.S. and Canadian
governments, as committed leaders,
to virtually eliminate PTS from the Great
Lakes environment. Environment
Canada; U.S. EPA; stakeholders from
industry, academia, state/provincial and
local governments; First Nations;
Tribes; and environmental and commu-
nity groups are representatives of
substance, working together to achieve
the goals of the GLBTS.
Finally, an open, transparent, and
accountable process has been used to
involve the Great Lakes community. The
strategy includes provisions for informa-
tion sharing and sets out a means to
measure and communicate progress.
This approach has resulted in a
common information base.
For More Information
Great Lakes National Program Office
(312)353-6571
http://www.epa.gov/innovation/collabora-
tion
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Policy,
Economics and Innovation
(1807T)
June 2006
EPA-231-F-06-003
------- |