Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
creation of Watershed Boards. Although this has occurred informally - the four
International Watershed Boards had a strong foundation for binational cooperation
- the IJC is currently exploring the possibility of formally adopting this approach:
And what the Commission is looking at is whether it could perhaps, and the
decision's not made for sure one way or the other, but whether it could work
with other organizations, to at least provide an initial forum and then see
whether there was someone that appropriately would take on the issue.
Whether that, for example, might be the Washington-British Columbia
Environmental Cooperation Council, whether that might be some group, but
right now, the issue seems to be swirling without the organizational structure
in place to take it, and it's trying to attach itself to a review of the orders that
we are doing.
(Personal interview with IJC staff member,
2007, Washington, DC)
However, if the IJC is joining an already established group, it begs the question,
is the IWI truly adding value or is it unnecessarily redundant?
Value added?
Integrating subnational and federal efforts for governing transboundary water
presents several institutional challenges. One key question that consistently emerged
during interviews and facilitated discussions with water practitioners involved in
transboundary water governance in the IWI was “what is the 'value-added'
component of the IJC International Watersheds Initiative?” The regional water
managers, in particular, expressed skepticism that the IJC could provide anything
substantially different from the already established regional organizations. A main
argument from regional stakeholders and water managers was, if momentum
already existed for binational cooperation at a regional scale, the organization would
function with or without the involvement of the IJC. Examples of value-added
components in working with a Treaty-based organization, though, are access to
additional funding; a governance structure that, once created, is less likely to
succumb to political maneuvering without IJC involvement; and a century-long
engagement in transboundary management.
The acceptance of, or resistance to, the IJC is, however, regionally dependent.
In the Pacific region, for example, there is a long history of resistance to federal
involvement in governance, in particular the IJC (Alper, 1996). Respondents
substantiated this finding at the transboundary workshop in Vancouver, British
Columbia, where regional water managers largely dismissed increased IJC involve-
ment at the watershed-scale as impractical. Many noted that the IJC role should
remain operational (i.e. monitoring water levels of the Columbia River system)
rather than attempting to broaden its role.
The IJC knows of this regional preference for their involvement. As one senior
staff member reflected:
Search WWH ::
Custom Search