Rescaling water governance - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 97

Although there are demands for the Commission to take on existing new
challenges . . . the IJC operates best within a fairly narrow range of issues,
including boundary water project supervision, fact finding, and evaluation.
Going beyond this range would likely result in failure.
Similarly, LeMarquand suggests that the IJC's “much needed reform” should focus
on what it already does well. That is, expand its role as a third-party advisor (fact
finder and technical mediator), as well as a neutral mediator and program evaluator.
LeMarquand (1993, p. 60) aptly queries, “What are we looking for in good trans-
boundary resource management apart from nondegradation of shared resources and
maintenance of good bilateral relations?” He proposes that ideally the “artificial
line dividing the countries should not hinder achievement of outcomes that could
be attained within a single jurisdiction”. To achieve this lofty goal, the IJC would
need to undergo significant reform. Notably, he suggests that the IJC needs to
focus on equity between scales of governance, respond to public concerns and
interests, increase political accountability, and develop good information and
information-sharing techniques. Interestingly, many of these proposals are goals of
the Watershed Council model, which he rejects.
Another suggestion for reform of transboundary water governance was with
small refinements, rather than in relation to the major issues. As one State water
manager noted, “when an issue becomes elevated, it really needs to be handled
within an established binational structure”. Here, the manager views the federal
capacity of the IJC as an asset, but suggests small refinements to increase its capacity.
For example, the manager reflected that she personally, “would like to see the
governing mechanism to be more progressive”. Rather than having a solely issue-
driven process, she would like to see more sustained conversations that focus on
preventative, pre-emptive measures. This, she surmised, “would be a good role
for the transboundary watershed councils”. Here, the State representative saw
upholding a strong nation-to-nation governance structure as instrumental for
dealing with transboundary issues; however, she also saw many opportunities to
refine the IJC to engage in activities that are more “preventive”. Another career
governmental water specialist suggested that the best role for the IJC would be
facilitative:
I mean, the IJC is not going to go away, it's still going to have a role, but if
it wants to be really relevant in this Participatory Period, it has to find a niche
for itself. I'm not sure if they [the IJC] think of it that way, but that's where
the watershed approach would take them. I think they would play a facilitating
role in this top down, bottom up situation.
Others, however, are less optimistic over the future role of the IJC, questioning
whether the new Initiative is “too little, too late”. Or, put another way: does the
Watersheds Initiative do enough to keep the IJC “relevant” in this changing political
environment? Several interviewees commented that if the IJC sincerely wanted the
Initiative to succeed, they needed to act swiftly. One senior water analyst warned: