GLWQAGreat Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Copyright 1988-2018, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
The 1971 COA and the 1972 GLWQA addressed eutrophication, caused by an overabundance of such nutrients as phosphorous in the lakes' waters, by jointly funding municipal sewage-treatment plant construction.(32) Nutrient levels were also to be controlled by reducing the amount of phosphorous permitted in detergents.(33) As the issues deals with in the U.S.-Canada GLWQA evolved, COA was expanded by the parties.
commitments under GLWQA Work share on any new GLWQA Strategy RAPs Uncertain priority: A priority, Ontario Feds should contribute pays LaMPs Low priority: do RAPs Higher priority first
For example, consistent with the pasterns of Duchacek's combinative foreign policy, Ontario officials argued that the province should be represented at the negotiating table when Canada and the United States discuss GLWQA.
The 1987 protocol to GLWQA calls for surveillance and monitoring of a vast array of substances and sources.
The federal officials interviewed for this study indicated that, despite its financial woes, the federal government intended to set clear targets and goals for accomplishing such GLWQA requirements as completing RAPs and LaMPs.
The federal government could also see LaMP development as an effective method for implementing the 1987 GLWQA's call for an "ecosystem" approach to treating the Great Lakes' environmental problems.
TABLE 2 COA Implementation Issues Issue area Ontario Canada Timing and duration Renew for shorter term Renew COA before GLWQA, after next GLWQA every five years Governance Make RAP Steering Recognize RAP Steering structure Committee subordinate Committee's importance to Board of Review Citizen Probably not important More important, involvement required in COA by GLWQA
As mentioned above, Canada and Ontario negotiated the original (1971) COA prior to initiating GLWQA negotiations with the United States, and, until recently, negotiated renewals roughly every five years.
The province's perspective on COA's timing and duration arises from the potential for differences between COA and GLWQA. If COA is finalized before GLWQA negotiations begin, Canada could agree with the United States to do more than had been contemplated in COA.
This federal-provincial debate over the relative merits of negotiating a new COA before or after GLWQA revisions have been completed may have been mooted by other developments.
Public officials disagree over the desirability of citizen involvement, end over the extent to which public participation in COA activities is required, either by such existing documents as GLWQA or by precedent.
It may also reflect the growing strength of Canadian environmental groups, and suggest the likely shape of any future GLWQA negotiations.