The International Joint Commission 100 Years Later The 1899 River & Harbor Act and the International Waterways Commission (1905-1913) were the precursors of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. Since 1909, the Commission has evolved into an overseeing binational group focused on the recovery of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem through the development of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Biennial Reports and guidelines for Areas of Concern.
1909 1970
Boundary Waters Treaty
Formal cooperation between the United States and Canada regarding shared bodies of waters. The treaty establish an International Joint Commission (IJC) to “prevent and resolve transboundary water resource and environmental disputes between the U.S. and Canada through processes that seek common interests of both countries”
International Joint Commission Report
Report found that bodies of water on both sides of the international boundary were polluted causing harm to the neighboring county. The Report formed the basis of negotiations between the U.S. and Canada resulting in the Great lakes Water Quality Agreement.
1972
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
The agreement set basin-wid water quality objectives and declared binational commitment to design, implement and monitor industrial, and municipal industrial and municipal pollution control. Made the IJC responsible for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating water quality objectives, and monitoring related programs. IJC now also responsible for providing advice and recommendations towards achieving water quality objectives. Allowed for a 5-year review, which enabled the 1978 revision. Established Great Lakes Water Quality Board. Established Research Advisory Board.
1978
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Revision
The Revision replaced the 1972 agreement, shifting its focus to address and eliminate the discharge of persistent toxic substances into shared water bodies along the international boundary. This version of the agreement was also the first to refer to the “Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.” This focus led to binational cooperation between scientists to set lake-specific target levels for phosphorus loading in order to achieve GLWQA objectives. The acknowledgement of the Great Lakes Basin as a system introduced an ecosystem-based approach, acknowledging complex interactions between air, land, water, and organisms. The revision set way for future amendments to the GLWQA. A review period was established for every third IJC biennial report.
1983
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Amendments
Amendments added in 1983 formed the Phosphorus Load Reduction Supplement, which outlined measures to reduce phosphorus inputs throughout the basin. Using these guidelines, each jurisdiction in the basin developed detailed plans to reduce phosphorus inputs thus reaching target levels.
1987
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Protocol Amendment
A series of annexes based on review of the GLWQA and public input, that describes new programs and initiatives. Defined Areas of Concern (AOCs) as “geographic areas that fail to meet the general or specific objectives of the Agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or of the area’s ability to support aquatic life.” As a result, 43 AOCs were identified within the Great Lakes Basin. Protocol outlined procedures for clean-up through development and implementation of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs). Outlined principles and procedures for addressing critical pollutants through development and implementation of Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs).
Great Lakes Biennial Reports 1990 - Today 1992 1994
6th Biennial Report
1996
8th Biennial Report
1998
9th Biennial Report
2000
10th Biennial Report
2002
11th Biennial Report
2004
12th Biennial Report
2007
13th Biennial Report
2009
14th Biennial Report
Focused on the complex policy and institutional issues related to the pollution of the Basin’s Ecosystem by persistent toxins.
7th Biennial Report
Continued to focus on pollution caused by persistent toxins and the need to develop an effective strategy.
Continued the Commission’s work related to policy and institutional issues while concentrating on localized problems and dataintensive assessments. Included 19 targeted recommendations for measures progress of the Act; focusing highly on dioxins, furans, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls and radioactivity. Emphasized “the Parties’ binational program responses to resolving the Great Lakes’ problems and recommended approaches for cooperation, decision making, coordination and joint action. Primarily addressed actions needed to restore chemical and biological integrity and methods to assess progress in restoration.
Detailed the Parties’ progress in restoring the physical, biological and chemical integrity of the Great Lakes Ecosystem.
Proposed the development and implementation of an Accountability Framework in order to stop past shortfalls.
Surveyed existing programs aimed at controlling surface-water pollution and provided an overview of existing conditions.
2011
Biennial Report 15: The nearshore zone, a “vital ecological link” for the Great Lakes Key concerns included increased eutrophication-aquatic plant growth caused by inadequate wastewater and septic systems, agricultural run-off and industrial livestock operations. Nonpoint source pollution was also addressed as it threatens public health and the quality of drinking water especially for those living within “the nearshore zone.”
a.n.m.f. 09/11
Delisting Process for an Area of Concern The U.S. and Canadian Governments identified 43 geographic areas as Areas of Concern. Of those, 26 are located entirely within the U.S.; 12 within Canada; and 5 are considered binational. The successful implementation of Remedial Action Plans has resulted in the delisting of 3 Canadian AOCs and 1 American AOC. Thirty-nine AOCs remain on the list of which 30 are associated with the U.S. and 14 with Canada. The process to delist an AOC shown below in 5 major steps may take several decades to complete as the process to remediate areas is highly complex involving several governmental, public and private actors. For example, Oswego River, New York became the first remediated AOC within the U.S. An original AOC defined during the 1980s, Oswego was officially delisted in 2006, exemplifying the long process needed to fully implement an RAP. In 2001, the United States Policy Committee adopted delisting principles and guidelines to ensure the delistment of an AOC can be approved through a “rigorous and scientifically defensible” review process. Such guidelines are important to show progress and maintain momentum so AOCs may become formally delisted.
AOC RAP start: step 1
Great Lakes Areas of Concern
Areas defined by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) as severely damaged geographic areas within the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem that have failed to meet objectives of the Agreement resulting in impairment of beneficial use of area’s ability to support aquatic life.
Remedial Action Plan
“Identifies specific problems in severely degraded Areas of Concern (AOC) and describes methods for correcting the AOC.” The US and Canadian governments have agreed to work with state and provincial governments to develop and implement RAPs as outlined by Annex 2 of the 1987 GLWQA.
Area is identified as an AOC
Collaboration of national governments, state and provincial governments and stakeholders to develop RAP.
Problem Definition
Outlining of issues and impairment of beneficial uses by Government and Stakeholders.
Submitted for review and comment by IJC
step 2
Selection of Remedial & Regulatory Measures
Evaluation of existing and alternative remedial measures. Selection of additional remedial measures. Identification of actors responsible for implementation.
Submitted for review and comment by IJC
step 3
Restoration of Beneficial Uses
Implementation of remedial measures to improve AOC.
Submitted for review and comment by IJC
step 4
Independent Review by IJC
Evaluation of implementation and effectiveness of remedial measures. Evaluation of monitoring process description aimed at tracking effectiveness measures. Determination of whether or not beneficial uses have been restored.
IJC Asks: “Has the beneficial uses have been restored?” Parties, public and IJC agree to delist AOC stop. yes no
IJC recommends continued remediation Parties delist without concurrence of IJC. OR
stop.
Parties implement further actions or extends monitoring to prove restoration.
Submitted for review and comment by IJC
Notes: 1. “Origins of the Boundaries Water Treaty.” International Joint Commission Boundary Waters Treaty Website. Accessed Summer 2011. http://bwt.ijc.org/index.php?page=origins-of-the-boundaries-water-treaty&hl=eng 2. A Guide to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: Background for the 2006 Governmental Review, International Joint Commission, 2005 http://www.ijc.org/en/activities/consultations/glwqa/guide2bw.pdf 3. GLWQA Biennial Reports 6-15. International Joint Commission. Accessed Summer 2011. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glwqa/ 4. “Areas of Concern.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Great Lakes Website. Accessed Summer 2011. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html 5. “Oswego River Area of Concern.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Great Lakes Website. Accessed Summer 2011. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/oswego.html#On_July_21,_2006 6. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 1978, Annex 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans. U.S. & Canadian Governments, International Joint Commission. Accessed Summer 2011. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glwqa/1978/annex.html#ANNEX%202 7. Restoring United States Areas of Concern: Delisting Principles and Guidelines. Adopted by the United States Policy Commission. December 6, 2011. Accessed Summer 2011. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/rapdelistingfinal02.PDF angela n.m. fortino 09/11