Rescaling water governance - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 92

Cooperation in time of non-crisis?
One consideration for this model, however, is the question of whether State-run
transboundary governance organizations are able to maintain continuity in times
of non-crisis. After all, in my field research, federal, state, and provincial water
managers consistently revealed that the presence of a specific issue is a central driver
for cooperation. These issues give focus to discussions, whereas “water approaches
often diffuse focus, making it more difficult to ascribe plans”. As one state water
manager reflected, “Without an issue, you have no transboundary environmental
cooperation. Issues are everything”. What, then, is the motivation to convene in
times of non-crisis? Study Boards and information-sharing help provide a focus
(and meaning) for the Boards, but will this be enough to sustain momentum?
That is, how will the Boards ensure that this “relationship-building” actually
occurs? This is also a consideration as institutions transition from reactive systems
(such as the reference system) to proactive systems (such as the watershed and
ecosystem-based systems). In addition, as explored in Part Two, for Indigenous-
led transboundary institutions, the twinned goals of ecosystem protection and
processes of self-determination and self-governance provide added impetus to
participate in times of “non-crisis”.
Answers to this question may also lie in pragmatic questions, such as: will the
IJC be able to provide greater financial support for the IWI? How often will they
meet? Will the IWI truly achieve diverse representation? In particular, will the
IWI succeed in having meaningful inclusion of representatives of Indigenous
heritage? Will the benefits of meeting outweigh the costs of attending? This latter
point is especially pertinent in light of increased border wait-times post-9/11
(Davidson, 2013).
These questions are particularly salient for the local, non-governmental actors
who may be representing themselves or a small interest/environmental group as
well as Indigenous communities who are already facing capacity issues in relation
to water governance. Local actors often disproportionately carry the burden of
attending transboundary meetings (Norman, 2014). The governmental employees,
although often over-committed and over-worked, are at least able to build these
meetings into their job responsibilities. The local actors face greater challenges as
the likelihood for financial compensation for their time is less likely than for their
governmental counterparts.
Capacity-building and multijurisdictional integration
As mentioned above, relationship-building and creating neutral platforms for
shared governance is likely to emerge as a main contribution of the International
Watersheds Initiative. Likewise, providing infrastructure and institutional support
will likely be another main contribution of the Initiative. However, for this to
occur, local groups need to trust that working with (or under) the IJC will demon-
strate clear benefits. In particular, the added value of the IJC partnership needs to
surpass the requirements (or perceived burdens) of a more “formal” governance
structure. For First Nations and Tribes, this benefit is less clearly defined.