|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Air |
|
|
Land |
|
|
Water |
|
|
Climate Change |
|
|
Waste |
|
|
About Us |
|
|
 Quick Links
|
Advisories
|
Online Reporting
|
| Last Review/Updated: July 12, 2002 |
|
NRBS - HomeTable of Contents |
Northern River Basins Study Final Report
4.0 Study Board Recommendations
|
|
Recommendation 22 Recommendation 23 Recommendation 24 |
Preamble
Early in its deliberations, the Board posed itself 16 questions of which the 16th was "What form of interjurisdictional body can be established insuring stakeholder participation for the ongoing protection and use of the river basins?" After extensive discussion and debate the Board appreciated that the question had many dimensions, but a clear need emerged for a mechanism or structure by which the work started by the study can be continued and its results and benefits maximized. The argument for some new form of governance and advice turns on a couple of basic points. The currently prevailing wisdom, widely accepted in developed countries, is that "environment" and "economy" are central issues when contemplating change. Moreover, it is fundamental today to go beyond the basic steps of electing governments to involving resident societies and stakeholders directly in identifying their values for choosing directions in both the present and the future.
Environment
The Report to the Ministers recognizes the northern river basins as an ecological entity, and for its own sake and the sake of its residents, it must be dealt with as a whole. Thus because there are borders, there is strong reason for interjurisdictional cooperation.
First Nations' traditional relationship to the waters and the land in the northern river basins is ecologically based and must be protected, along with the interests of all other basin residents and beneficiaries.
There is a need for continued monitoring of the ecological conditions addressed by the Northern River Basins Study, and the regulations for River use must be under continual surveillance that is both adequate and scientifically up-to-date.
Continuing research is called for to follow up NRBS recommendations about knowledge gaps still remaining. In fact, the Northern Rivers should always be research subjects related to effective basin management and for scientific gains.
Some of the recommendations of the NRBS, if they are to be implemented, will require coordination by several agencies in the federal, provincial and territorial governments.
Economy
Expansion of present industry, proposals for new development and population growth will put real pressure on the northern rivers. An open, transparent public process is the best way to make the choices.
Coordination is needed among research, monitoring, management and legislative activities covering the northern river basins, and more than one government is involved.
Governments with parallel or overlapping mandates have to cooperate among jurisdictions if they find fiscally efficient and scientifically sound ways to rationalize existing or new functions. Dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation, are needed for interjurisdictional issues.
Social Values
Throughout NRBS, there has been a strong indication of a lack of public confidence in the present way governments and industry are managing the northern rivers. A stakeholder and residents survey reports that the respondents think a new, ongoing inter-governmental and stakeholder committee should be established to protect the use of the river basins. The survey even suggested that this Committee should have many of the management functions now held by governments.
The basic link between the public interest and environment policy and management is still through elected governments, legislation and the public administration. However, existing structures that could deal with aspects of the follow-on from NRBS are not interjurisdictional in nature, nor do they include the full spectrum of stakeholder groups as well as government.
Public advice and participation in making developing policy, resource planning and making other decisions can be refined through involving interest groups, residents and other stakeholders. Mechanisms to effect this advice, participation and partnership should, in this contemporary society, supplement established practices.
Public understanding, and therefore the quality of public advice will be better if there is good public education, greater public awareness and free access to pertinent information. The public want a direct hand in this.
Finally, the development of a separate agency can be a natural extension, not only of the Northern River Basins Study, but also of other initiatives affecting the basins. Specifically, it could build upon the Mackenzie River Basin Committee master agreement.
Functions to be Addressed
Following the conclusion of NRBS, three distinct functions stand out for attention. There is need for
| a. |
| a revised approach to basin management; |
| b. |
| effective monitoring of human use of the rivers; and |
| c. |
| an overseeing agency with direct public links, public reporting and capacity to judge the stewardship of aquatic resources. |
Basin Management
A large part of the Northern River Basins Study was aimed at understanding the aquatic ecosystem, and linking it with human activity and river uses. While highly important, the aquatic ecosystem is only one part of the basin ecosystem and cannot be dealt with in isolation. An integral relationship exists between land use of all types, including forest harvesting, agriculture, municipal and industrial development, etc., and water quantity, quality and use. There have been, and are now, systems for managing the northern rivers, but throughout the Study and consistent with modern thinking about environment and economy, the concern for river management has moved outward from the hands of regulators to be an issue with the wider public. This, plus 'whole basin' concepts, puts basin management to the forefront in a necessary government reordering.
The concept of 'whole basin' ecosystem management is not without challenges. In fact, the present system of jurisdictional ownership of water transmits consequences downstream, some of which are not wanted. Current First Nations agreements and proposals for co-management with government of river resources tend to be applied to distinct reaches of a river. This same approach could conceivably arise in other circumstances. A design for future management of the northern rivers, within the ecological overview will have to find ways to acknowledge local or regional circumstances.
Management decisions have to build on knowledge, so the management function clearly calls for research as a parallel activity. Whatever structure that is given the management functions for the basins will have to be able to identify, call for, or undertake the necessary studies.
Monitoring
Adequate protection of the northern rivers ecosystem requires keeping track of what goes into the rivers, what impact it has on river life, and what effects may be expected by those who drink the water or eat fish or other food from the rivers. The Study has amply demonstrated what may be for some self evident, that monitoring of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems is absolutely essential. It is a complex task, many elements of which are highly technical and dependent upon good science if they are to properly meet public standards and expectations. The monitoring systems that are in place will be improved by the results of the Study. The potential for creating new thinking and restructuring of river ecosystem monitoring is the message of separate recommendations. The adoption of these recommendations may require a structure or agency separate from what might be proposed for basin management and / or other forms of public scrutiny.
Overseeing Resource Stewardship
It is a separate function to review, make judgements and adjust the ways the Northern Rivers are being managed. It involves testing the standards, recommending revisions to the regulations, anticipating new developments, and ultimately, making the right decisions. At present, these functions are mainly in the hands of government agencies, governed by legislation. The Study has indicated that this approach should be stretched to be more inclusive of structured public participation in the task of overseeing resource stewardship. The benefit does not only come from better environmental behaviour but from better public education through free information flow and regular meetings with the public at large.
The evidence for these observations is, in part, the way NRBS itself conducted the Study with its unique Board composition and its extensive use of public meetings. The stakeholder and residents surveys support in every respect the above remarks. The advice that is being conveyed is that direct public links to an overseeing function are needed, and can best be effected by a separate agency created for that purpose.
Other Factors
First&nbps;Nations
As recognized by NRBS, First&nbps;Nations peoples living in the northern river basins have a unique and pre-existing relationship with the resources of basins. Any approach taken to following on from NRBS must provide for meaningful input and participation by First&nbps;Nations peoples so that it protects their rights and interests. In this respect, co-operative management of the rivers is an important issue for First&nbps;Nations residents. In both this and any other participation by First Nations in the management and overseeing process, First Nations expect to be invited on a government to government basis to participate. It is an approach that acknowledges First Nations cultural norms as to how input can be offered that is representative of First Nations peoples as a whole.
Funding
Recommendations for change inevitably involve questions of costs. NRBS did not, however, investigate the financial implications of the follow-on structures offered for consideration. There are, nevertheless some observations.
The means of funding any vehicle or process for follow on from NRBS should be tailored to the nature of the vehicle or process. It can be assumed that governments will resist proposals that duplicate or are redundant, open-ended, or lacking definition. Also it is likely that if existing funding can be redirected or reduced, it will be preferable to having to find new funds. Government funding for new functions in today's world will mean arguing for high priority within fixed budget limits, or seeking new partners like industry, municipalities, other interest groups and even public subscription or the capacity for charitable donations. Assessed on a rational basis, such as water consumption or effluent discharge permits, perhaps modified according to user, funds could be raised to contribute to the new post NRBS arrangement being recommended. The basic point is not to advance a particular scheme, but that there is an opportunity to be inventive. In this particular instance, it might be easier to try something new because it has local application, although it might be seen as a precedent by others.
Conclusion
The Board devoted considerable time to its deliberations on the question: What should be the nature of a successor organization to NRBS? In addition to background papers prepared by the Study staff, the Board commissioned a review of the possible alternative structures (Report No. 62). After Board discussions, an option was presented that involved a two-tiered board to provide interjurisdictional management on the one hand, and an overseeing function on the other (Report No. 84). Report No. 84 includes extensive background and rationale for the way in which the Study board has addressed Question 16. An alternative structure was advanced by a Board member proposing an independent council of residents, stakeholders and other interests that can demonstrate legitimate concerns to assume an overseeing and advisory role to press for proper stewardship of the rivers and the basin. Later, a small task force expanded the options and prepared the stage for final Board recommendations on Question 16.
Following debate, the Board concluded that the prior question, "Do we need a new structure implied in Question 16?" should be answered in the affirmative.
The Board recommends that:
Preamble
The Study Board examined and debated a broad range of possible organization structures that could be utilized to carry forth the work and recommendations of the NRBS after its term concludes. The Board then distilled these possibilities into seven distinct alternatives, as briefly described below. Each is described in more detail in Section 7.8, including remarks about possible advantages and concerns for each.
Would have powers seconded to it by governments to perform much of the management function for the Basins. The exact sharing of powers is not defined absolutely, but the intent is to have a board that could indeed manage the northern rivers aquatic ecosystem.
Would have power to conduct research, monitor as needed, and otherwise prepare itself to give well placed management advice to the governments.
Would oversee the stewardship of the Basins. It would advise on policy, standards and practices that affect the northern rivers.
The longstanding and almost concluded Agreement would be utilized to encompass in scope the Northern River Basins south of Great Slave Lake.
One part would address management, and independent from the first, a second part would act as overseer of the work of the first, thereby serving as a public monitoring body.
Would consist of members self selected by resident / stakeholder groups, with the aim of influencing government action in line with its goals for responsible basin management.
A "go it alone" proposition for Alberta, consolidating Alberta's responsibilities for the basins within a single branch of government, but excluding any direct interjurisdictional organization.
The first three options are for interjurisdictional, stand alone boards with graduated authority, descending in scope and power. The first two would appear to have the most potential to meet the public expectations identified by the Northern River Basins Study. Alternatives four, five and six all have potential, but each appears to be less than ideal for reasons noted in the accompanying comments (see Section 7.8). Alternative seven is simply a reorganization of Alberta's existing resources relative to the northern river basins, and assumes that Alberta would find it necessary to proceed independently of the other governments.
These alternatives have been developed to describe the range of options that may be available for dealing with the northern river basins after the NRBS concludes, While they have been given considerable thought, they are not presented as final answers. Whether one of them is adopted, or a variation is agreed to, they are intended to assist in guiding the governments to a viable solution that will meet the needs of the northern river basins and their residents.
Doing nothing to establish a process for follow-on from NRBS, that is, remaining with the status quo, is not considered to be an option as it would not meet any of the three essential needs that NRBS has identified; those of
As can be seen from many of the recommendations of the Board, the public is not confident in the way things are being done now. The solution must include visible, ongoing public involvement, public access to information, and independence.
Conclusion
Having already recommended that the Ministers should establish some form of post-NRBS structure for the northern river basins, the Study Board urges that the Mackenzie River Basin Transboundary Waters Master Agreement be made final. The long time in negotiations notwithstanding, the Board is convinced that the Agreement is a good umbrella for overall management and wise use of the entire Mackenzie drainage, including the northern rivers. Beside its provision for sub-agreements in bilateral, transboundary situations; it closely resembles some of the options for northern rivers, and together they would give stronger purpose to those goals arising from NRBS. In particular, the Agreement calls for active participation of the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, something which has been effectively missing in NRBS but obviously necessary for total drainage basin strategies.
The Board recommends that:
| 1. |
All reasonable efforts by the Ministers be directed to
the earliest possible signing of the Mackenzie River Basin Transboundary
Waters Master Agreement, and the establishment of that Board. General Conditions for Recommended Structures The Study Board, reflecting its experience from NRBS, is concerned about the membership of any particular interjurisdictional board or panel that might be created for the Northern Rivers, and sees great value in a comprehensive group with different interests represented. The Board recommends that: |
| 2. |
Membership of any new board or panel related to the affairs
of the northern iver basins be kept small but appointed to represent federal,
provincial and territorial governments, First&nbps;Nations, municipalities, industry,
environmental interests, residents and other stakeholders without dominance
by any one constituency or interest group. |
| 3. |
The method of appointment for each member be acceptable
to the constituency to be represented by the member. The Preferred Solution In selecting a preferred structure to recommend, the Study Board was not unmindful of the existing systems through which governments and others were already performing many of the tasks related to conditions and use of water in the northern river basins. Recommending a new structure is based on evidence from the Study and the experience of the Board through the past five years. It is not necessarily intended to replace all that is now being done, but to supplement it by responding to new thinking and public awareness. The Board expressed strong preference for the principles embodied in Alternative Structure No. 3, the Advisory Board, preferably accompanied by Alternative Structure No. 4, the Mackenzie River Basin Transboundary Waters Master Agreement as a good umbrella for overall management of the entire Mackenzie drainage. There was a strong sense that this structure needed to adopt some of the more "hands-on" management functions described in Alternative Structures No. 1 and 2, while recognizing the potential difficulty of governments agreeing to delegate their powers to an appointed body. There was some support for the representational features of the Stakeholder Council, Alternative No. 6. Under the circumstances, the Study Board concluded that an advisory board, properly informed with power to direct research and monitoring activities, with a strong ability to influence governments, adequately supported and delivered by credible individuals in an open public arena could make major contributions to the well-being of the northern rivers and the people who live there. |
|
The Board recommends that: | |
| 4. a) | An advisory board, to be called the Northern River Basins Board (NRBB), be created jointly by the governments of the jurisdictions covered by the northern river basins, to advise governments on matters related to the aquatic and riparian ecosystems of the northern river basins. |
| 4. b) | The NRBB have within its mandate the responsibility to; (i) participate in the development of the governments' management policies and practices for the rivers, (ii) review and comment upon current and proposed conditions for the rivers, (iii) review and advise upon public knowledge and expectations concerning the aquatic ecosystem, and (iv) address other matters it deems relevant. |
| 4. c) | The NRBB have its own secretariat, and be given adequate support to meet its mandate, and have the means to consult and involve public opinion. |
| 4. d) | The NRBB gather input and feedback from the public, and be able to provide information to the public, on matters within its mandate. |
| 4. e) | The NRBB be empowered to report directly to the responsible Ministers of the sponsoring governments on any matter within its mandate. |
| 4. f) | The NRBB publish an annual report to the sponsoring governments and the public at large, detailing its work through the year and commenting on all issues within its mandate. |
| 4. g) | The NRBB be compatible with and related to the Mackenzie River Basin Transboundary Waters Master Agreement, should that Agreement come into force. |
| The Board further recommends that: | |
| 5. | If the NRBB is established as recommended, the Integrated Ecosystem Monitoring Committee (IEMC) as described in Monitoring Recommendation 11-1 should be closely linked to NRBB, possibly reporting to the NRBB. |
Dissenting Views
Strong dissenting views were expressed by some Board members with regard to Recommendation 23-4, reflecting a wide difference of opinion as to the best means of meeting the need. As stated by one Board member:
"There is need for NRBS follow-up activities to ensure recommendations are carried out. However, given the uncertainty of government (political) priorities, the availability of existing infrastructures (or committees), fiscal reality and poor definition of purpose, the recommendation of a specific organization is premature. It is sufficient to provide the range of options and the Board examination of post-NRBS needs."
As stated by some Board members:
"The subject of creation of the NRBB is already covered by Recommendation 22."
Addressing Recommendation 23 in light of Recommendation 22, another Board member added:
"The Board has clearly laid out the details of the management system and the requirements for consultation and the examination of the values that are important to the residents of the basins. These aspects of the system need to be implemented to the extent expected by those residents. The Board should recommend that the governments implement whatever systems and structures are required to meet the outcomes, not what those structures should be. If the Board feels the governments are the keepers of the resource, the Board should tell them how it should be managed. The Board should define the input and influence it wants to have regarding the future of the resource. The Board should require that the governments develop the systems and structures to accomplish the recommended results."
Preamble
It will likely take some time for the Ministers to evaluate NRBS results and recommendations. However, the northern river basins are a dynamic ecosystem in which the conditions identified by the Study continue to persist and evolve. To ensure that nothing is lost in terms of what has been learned with regard to reach specific issues, basin management, monitoring, research, public confidence, etc., steps should be taken as soon as possible in anticipation of actions the Ministers may decide to take. At the same time, the Ministers will likely require an opportunity to determine how they may choose to coordinate their efforts in follow-up.
Conclusion
The Board anticipates that the Ministers may require a mechanism to bridge any possible gap between the completion of the NRBS and the establishment of any successor organization(s).
The Board recommends that:
|
...PREVIOUS |
NEXT... |
| Environment
Home | Search
| Contact
Us | Privacy
Statement |
Minister's Office Expenses Emergency Numbers The user agrees to the terms and conditions set out in the Copyright and Disclaimer statement. © 2009 Government of Alberta |
|
|