From supranational to intertribal - Governing Transboundary Waters: Canada, the United States, and Indigenous Communities - page 65

example, appointees from the Bush Administration represented organizations such
as the U.S. Army, General Electric, and the western cattle/sheep ranchers'
association. It should be noted, though, that the political appointees are to represent
“the North American public”, not their country. Although this is not always
achieved, it certainly was the case more in the early years of JPAC. The mechanisms
for representation of the “North American public” is through a National Advisory
Board and Governmental Advisory Council, which are supposed to represent each
country's internal and public views. Another promising aspect of JPAC is that there
have been numerous Indigenous representatives on JPAC and it has held several
distinct meetings on Indigenous issues (Phare, 2014).
Under the right political climate, the public nature of the accord can also act
as a lever to “shame leaders into action” (Malkin, 2000). This has been successful
in certain high profile cases - particularly along the Mexico-U.S. border (Mumme,
1999). The gap between the CEC and the public, however, has provided limited
engagement with civil society despite efforts to engage the public in hearings and
meetings (Personal interview with CEC representative, 2008).
Despite these weaknesses, many accept the contributions of the CEC “as a useful
monitor of environmental trends in the region and as an important advocate of
tri-national environmental solutions that advance regional sustainable development”
(Mumme, 1999, p. 3). In particular, the CEC's work on establishing a tri-national
agreement regarding transboundary environmental impact assessment is a milestone
in regional environmental cooperation. Their work on “green building” has also
provided a framework for North American businesses to participate in conservation
activities relevant to their industries.
Another important contribution to transboundary water governance was the
CEC's granting agency, which provided hundreds of grants for binational
environmental projects, several of which were grant recipients in the western Pacific
regions of Canada and the U.S. However, as of June 2007, the CEC ceased
accepting grant applications with no expectation of reopening. Budget cuts and
the increased costs of border security were seen as primary causes for the program's
closure (Personal interview with CEC representative, 2008). The closure marked
a significant loss for many environmental groups dealing with transboundary issues
at a regional level. The Bertrand Creek Watershed Group, spanning British
Columbia and Washington, is an example of a “local” citizen group who received
funds from the tri-national organization to enhance goals of habitat restoration.
This is an example of scale-jumping, where local citizens were engaging with a
project at an international level (and funded by a tri-national organization). Those
who had received previous CEC funding, such as the Bertrand Creek Group,
reported a significant decline in ability to continue local, binational projects.
Transboundary, intertribal governance
Concomitant with the rise of subnational organizations involved in transboundary
governance is the rise of intertribal, transboundary governance mechanisms. The
section below highlights the work of one such organization, the Yukon River