|
|
|
Northern River Basins Study Final Report
7.0 Appendices
7.8 Possible Successor Structures Considered
The Study Board considered a variety of possible ways that
a successor organization could be structured to build on the foundation established
by the NRBS. Seven different structures evolved from this consideration, representing
a spectrum of choice. Other variations could be developed from these primary
structures. The seven structures are:
A commentary on each follows, including description, advantages
and concerns identified by the Study Board.
Northern River Basins Management Board
|
Table of Contents
Top of Page
|
|
Description
- An interjurisdictional Board appointed jointly by the Alberta,
Northwest Territories and federal governments with mandate and power to research,
monitor and regulate the environmental health of the aquatic ecosystems
of the northern river basins
- Board members would be selected to represent a cross-Section of the
community, similar to the NRBS Board, but somewhat smaller in size, say,
10 or 12 members
- First&nbps;Nations would participate on the Board
- Existing resources (funding, manpower, etc.) dedicated to these duties
by the participating governments are to be seconded to the Board
- Board reports periodically to the sponsoring governments via a master
agreement
- Enforcement responsibilities remain with the sponsoring governments
- Board periodically holds public information meetings and seeks public
input to promote understanding, awareness and education on river basin
environmental issues
(This Management Board is similar to the Prairie Provinces
Water Board, and it is also like the 'management board' of the Two-Tiered
Model, Alternative five, but with power assigned to it by participating governments)
Advantages
- Management of the environmental health of the aquatic ecosystems of
the northern river basins is transferred from the individual governments
to the Board
- Board concentrates its attention exclusively on the northern river basins
as defined for NRBS
- Could incorporate the work of an Integrated Ecosystem Monitoring Committee
(as recommended elsewhere by the NRBS Board)
- Scope could be expanded to include land use issues if governments so
chose
- Is explicit in proposing whole ecosystem approach to managing the northern
river basins
- Governments can define their own terms and extent of participation
- Some cost saving may result from elimination of any duplication that
exists between the governments now, and could offset research and public
communication costs not currently incurred
Concerns
- A risk of devolving into cross border flow problems only
- Assignment of powers from the governments to this Board may be politically
unacceptable
- British Columbia and Saskatchewan have not participated in the NRBS;
they may decline to participate in this agreement and agency.
Northern River Basins Environmental Board
|
Table of Contents
Top of Page
|
|
Description
- An interjurisdictional Board appointed jointly by the Alberta,
Northwest Territories and federal governments with mandate and power to direct the
research and monitoring of the environmental health of the aquatic ecosystems
of the northern river basins
- Empowered to advise the respective governments on regulation needed
for ecological health of the northern river basins
- Board members would be selected to represent a cross-Section of the
community, similar to the NRBS Board, but somewhat smaller in size, say,
10 or 12 members
- First&nbps;Nations would participate on the Board
- Existing resources (funding, manpower, etc.) dedicated to these duties
by the participating governments remain with the respective governments,
but are directed by the Board
- Board reports periodically to the sponsoring governments via a master
agreement
- Enforcement responsibility remains with the sponsoring governments
- Board periodically holds public information meetings and seeks public
input to promote understanding, awareness and education on river basin
environmental issues
Advantages
- A cooperative means, among governments and stakeholders, to address
and preserve the best monitoring of the river ecosystems
- Board is independent in its power to conduct research and to monitor
conditions
- Board's ability to influence governments in regulatory matters would
be a function of research and monitoring credibility
- Board concentrates its attention exclusively on the northern river basins
as defined for NRBS
- Could incorporate the work of an Integrated Ecosystem Monitoring Committee
(as recommended elsewhere by the NRBS Board)
- Potential for monitoring to go beyond the technical to include social
values
- Scope could be expanded to include land use issues if governments so
chose
- Some cost saving may result from elimination of any duplication that
exists between the governments now, and could offset research and public
communication costs not currently incurred
- Board may use its own staff to do or direct research and monitoring,
or may contract the work out to government departments, universities and
others qualified to do it
Concerns
- Board has no regulating power
- The government agendas are central and may dominate
- Risk that attention may focus on one jurisdiction to the exclusion or
neglect of others
- British Columbia and Saskatchewan have not participated in the NRBS;
they may decline to participate in this agreement and agency
Northern River Basins Advisory Board
|
Table of Contents
Top of Page
|
|
Description
- An interjurisdictional Board appointed jointly by the Alberta,
Northwest Territories, British Columbia and federal governments to hold a watching
brief on the environmental health of the aquatic ecosystems of the northern
river basins, and advise the governments on policy and regulation affecting
the river basins
- Board members would be selected to represent a cross-Section of the
community, including respected members of the public and scientific communities
- First&nbps;Nations would participate on the Board
- Board conducts periodic public forums and workshops throughout the river
basins to obtain public input and share information with the public
- Board has no power to act independently with regard to regulation or
enforcement
- Existing government departments retain present responsibilities
- Funding for the Board is provided by the participating governments
Advantages
- Board's credibility with governments and in particular with the public,
will depend on its perceived independence and the scientific and public
authority with which it speaks
- Board concentrates its attention exclusively on the northern river basins
as defined for NRBS
- Scope could be expanded to include land use issues if governments so
chose
- An open forum for public vetting of environmental standards and practices
has potential through influence to bring non government thinking to government
policy and action
- The public venue could enhance pressure for government decisions to
be more ecologically based and basin wide in consequence
Concerns
- Board is empowered only to generally monitor conditions and advise governments
- The Board will need public support and members of sufficiently known
reputation and respect for its advice to be effective and receive insufficient
attention
- Budget limitations would restrict the useful work of the Board
- British Columbia and Saskatchewan have not participated in the NRBS;
they may decline to participate in this agreement and agency
Mackenzie River Basin Master Agreement and Board
|
Table of Contents
Top of Page
|
|
Description
- Assuming the agreement is signed, utilizes the structure and approach
already developed by the Mackenzie River Basin Committee to manage the
northern rivers within the overall Mackenzie River drainage system
- A bilateral Alberta - Northwest Territories transboundary agreement
could follow from provisions in the Master Agreement
- Fully interjurisdictional
- Provides for maximum coordination and cooperation in addressing environmental
and related issues of the entire river system
Advantages
- A whole drainage basin perspective is provided
- All jurisdictions have to be sensitive to the downstream users
- First&nbps;Nations are participants
- Governments affected already have a positive attitude to this format
Concerns
- Issues of local importance may receive low priority when ranked against
the entire river basin system
- Upstream users may feel little in common with users far downstream
- Would probably still require some degree of regional sub-organization
to adequately address issues throughout the system
- Primarily a governmental organization designed to meet basin management
needs, focusing on aquatic issues, without prescribed public participation
- Cost savings, if any, compared with current would likely be negligible
- The agreement process begun over a decade ago is still not final
- It is likely that the best results will have to wait for bilateral agreements
between neighbouring jurisdictions
|
Table of Contents
Top of Page
|
|
Two-Tier Board Structure
Description
- An intergovernmental agreement establishing a Board to manage the river
basin as a unit
- A second "Overseeing Board, independent from the first but established
within the same agreement, to monitor management of the river basin, track
conditions and development in the river basins, and provide for public
input
- Members of the management Board would represent government, scientists,
First&nbps;Nations and other residents
- Members of the independent Board would be selected to represent a cross-Section
of the community, including government, but with non-government elements
dominant
- Both boards fully interjurisdictional
- Both boards could be nested within a signed Mackenzie river Committee
Master Agreement
- Details described in Report No. 84
Advantages
- Separates administrative functions from overseeing functions
- Independent overseeing or watchdog board may build public confidence
in how the basin management functions are carried out
- Overseeing Board can provide for wide range of public and First&nbps;Nations
participation
- Basin management Board can work with existing government resources /
departments, act independently, or assume direct operation of those resources,
as sponsoring governments prefer
- First&nbps;Nations peoples could be involved in co-management agreements
with the management Board
- Could encompass either the aquatic ecosystem only or the land and aquatic
ecosystems, depending on government preference
- Fits well within existing Mackenzie Valley initiatives and thinking
- Follows directly in the spirit of NRBS and how it approached its mandate
Concerns
- Would probably require some time (a year or more?) to establish and
place into operation
- The public participation may seem a bit too structured, and for some
interest groups, weak in representation
- The two tiers may appear to be less efficient or more costly than a
single board
- The boards have no authority except that which might be delegated; inter-
and intrajurisdictional disputes would rely heavily on good will for resolution
Northern River Basins Stakeholder Council
|
Table of Contents
Top of Page
|
|
Description
- An interjurisdictional stakeholder steering committee to organize a
representative basin-wide council of delegates
- Periodic meetings of the council to receive status reports from government
and industry, address environmental issues of the basins, and recommend
policy and action to government and industry
- Periodic forums, workshops and other communication to promote public
education and understanding regarding river basin environmental issues
- Community driven and funded, with delegates paying their own way, similar
to a regional Chamber of Commerce in concept
- Details described in the Swanson proposal presented to the
December 12 - 14 NRBS Board session (Hay River)
Advantages
- A fully independent vehicle for public input and participation, open
to all interests and interest groups, able to define its own mission and
strategies
- A fully "democratic" process
- Unencumbered by government thinking or processes able to offer recommendations,
and would have the potential to mobilize public
- Opinion for political influence
- Could readily include First&nbps;Nations involvement
- Intensity of issues would determine level of active support
- Operational funding could be through an innovative approach such as
a regional water use levy, or through membership dues
Concerns
- No power to act
- Delegate self-funding may be a barrier to participation by some community
sectors
- Ability to generate initiatives would depend on level of community or
government funding that could be won
- Would government be prepared to pay costs of a secretariat/office? perhaps
$250,000 per year or about $1 per resident annually (excluding all delegate
costs)
- Would enough residents and businesses agree to pay membership dues?
- The 'alliance' of participants is not stable, and subject to change
according to rising or falling interests, successes or failures
- The agenda and control could gravitate towards narrowing foci of persevering
special interests
Alberta Northern River Basins Branch
|
Table of Contents
Top of Page
|
|
Description
- Established by the Alberta government, a branch (probably within Alberta
Environment) which would bring together in itself, all research, monitoring,
regulatory and enforcement responsibilities of the Alberta government
in all matters related to the northern river basins
- Designed to maximize coordination of Alberta's activities concerning
the environmental health of the northern river basins aquatic ecosystems
- Could become the agency to effect cooperation with the governments of
British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories and Canada
for interjurisdictional northern river basins matters
Advantages
- Assumes that an interjurisdictional agency is not feasible, at least
in the short-term, and that Alberta, as the "owner of the largest
portion of the northern river basins area wishes to coordinate its management
of the basins in line with the NRBS recommendations
- Only the action of the government of Alberta is needed to begin this
initiative; other government cooperation can be built later
- Could introduce some efficiencies or cost savings within the Alberta
government service on northern water matters
- A large part of the 'problem areas' for the Northern Rivers lies within
Alberta; this branch would address many if not most of the problems
- Would offer some fresh assurance to the public that the government is
acting to coordinate the basins' aquatic environment management
Concerns
- Provides no obvious mechanism for First&nbps;Nations involvement
- Any public involvement or consultation would be on the same basis as
could be done by any government department
- Could be an administrative improvement, but represents little new initiative
as an Alberta initiative, the costs would be entirely Alberta's, unless
downstream benefits could be negotiated at a price
- The security of downstream locations with respect to changes coming
to the northern rivers within Alberta would not be high
- The Alberta leadership of this initiative will have to be strong to
persuade neighbouring governments to join a cooperative venture
|
Quick Links