Rescaling water governance - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 86

non-governmental actors at a watershed scale. Practically, the design of the Boards
aimed to coordinate activities with the IJC while maintaining a strong regional
presence. To facilitate the development of the Boards, the IJC provided a general
guideline for their development and general structure. Generally, the IJC proposed
the following roles for the Boards:

• coordinate with existing institutions and agencies within the watershed;

• report on the state of the watershed to the IJC;

• serve as liaison between the community and the IJC; develop monitoring

indicators; run water-related studies (as directed by the IJC);

• facilitate the prevention of disputes; foster the development of an

“informed transboundary community” regarding watershed management;

• field comments and complaints regarding the watershed; interface between

different jurisdictional and ecological systems (i.e. freshwater, terrestrial
and marine).

(IJC, 1997, p. 30)

Additionally, the IWI Boards were designed to work with the already established
IJC boards - in particular, the control boards in the specific watershed - when
appropriate. However, for those regions that have not had a reference (including
British Columbia and Alaska), the prospect for creating a new Board is low.
A guiding framework for the IWI Boards is to move beyond government-to-
government discussions to embrace greater public participation. The premise
behind this approach is that local people - as delineated at a watershed scale -
often remain in the best position to resolve difficult transboundary environmental
situations. As one Senior IJC staff member commented:

The original Boards were not set up well to handle public participation. It
can't just be two federal representatives making decisions, imposing them and
telling us, “Well, trust us. It's good for you.” This [the Watersheds Initiative]
is the right decision for us.

The original Boards were directed to have at least one meeting annually with the
public to receive comments and answer questions. In some cases this was a
satisfactory approach, however, overall it represents a minimalist approach to
public involvement and participation. The IJC attempted to broaden their juris-
dictional scope by including “all the various levels of government and non-
governmental actors” (IJC official) into their watershed model. This enhanced
multijurisdictional approach places greater emphasis on engaging local actors in the
governance structure.
The current (and proposed) IWI Boards highlighted in Figure 4.4 show the
potential for coverage along the Canada-U.S. border. Following IJC protocol, in
order for the Watershed Boards to become initially established, political support
from both countries and subnational stakeholders is necessary. In 2005, the Com-
mission identified three existing boards to apply the IWI concept: the St. Croix