The Power of Witness

More thoughts on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Review

I saw a statement about trying to find efficacy for positive change in these challenging times, the source lost to the blur of social media. But the comment was along the lines of, when we can’t find the right action or leverage to respond to a political threat at the moment, we can still show up as an active witness to create a record, a memory, and maybe even a story, and that may lead to future accountability.

I had plans to at least witness the Triennial Public Forum of the Parties to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) on February 4 and 5. (The description just trips off the tongue, but alas, that is the language of diplomacy for the U.S.-Canada administrators who oversee the GLWQA.)

On the February 2 deadline day I attempted to register to participate online, but apparently failed the process which included downloading a form, saving it (as a PDF?) and sending it to the portal via good old email. My simple cut and paste didn’t do the trick, so I didn’t get in, declared “oh well,” and made other plans. I did follow up with an email the night before the meeting, saying, “Did I do something wrong?”

After the first day concluded, that evening, some kind human responded, and offered me a link to register on the second day. With alternative plans now in place, I decided to at least make room for the afternoon listening session hosted by the International Joint Commission (IJC).

I give the IJC credit for carving out the time to hear from people. I understand from those who did witness the first day and second morning sessions, that the agenda was filled with presentations from invited participants (e.g., local agencies who had received federal funding) with success stories to tell. I’m all for celebrating success, but it doesn’t tell full story about the state of the Great Lakes, or the state of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Not knowing quite what to expect from the IJC’s two-hour session, I hadn’t prepared any particular remarks. Besides, Great Lakes Ecoregion Network had already submitted our comments (or at least I think we did—no one from either U.S. EPA, or the Canada Water Agency ever confirmed that they have received our comments).

I am not a fan of Microsoft Teams, but that was the way in, so I dusted off my account and logged in. After the welcoming video and a brief explanation about how this session would work, I made a few notes in case there was room in the queue for me to talk and raised my digital hand, because if you are going to show up, you should at least show up. I waited for the rush of comments. To my shock, I was invited to speak in the first group. After fumbling with trying to remember how to unmute on Teams (not the bottom box with the symbol next to my name, but aha, after two failures, the top ribbon) I offered some remarks, and so did perhaps a dozen others. I made a few points:

• We need an independent analysis of the impact of more than a decade of cuts to regulatory program funding in the Great Lakes region at both the federal and state/provincial levels. Similar losses to science funding also have consequences.

• We need to acknowledge after fifty years of trying, that voluntary programs just can’t get the job done on nutrient pollution (and resulting algal pollution) in the Great Lakes, and that another analysis we need is the impact of agricultural policy in both nations, but particularly the impact of the U.S. Farm Bill on incentivizing farming practices that drive high-input agriculture.

• We need to look at the vitality of aquatic biological life in the lakes, and not just through the “fishery” lens, although the crash of whitefish in Lake Michigan needs urgent attention.

• We don’t have a cohesive regional strategy for PFAS, nor preventative strategies to prevent another PFAS-type of contamination from happening.

A handful of other speakers made thoughtful and compelling statements. Let me offer a special thank-you to GLEN colleagues Andrew McCammon of Ontario Headwaters Institute for raising the issue of inadequate watershed protection in Great Lakes tributaries, and Gayle Krantzberg from McMaster University for highlighting the need for an improved approach for the next decade’s science needs, and a reminder of likely climate-driven immigration into the Great Lakes region.

Then, at end of the first hour, no other hands were raised, and that was that, so they ended the meeting an hour early.

Was it worth showing up? I don’t know, but it was revelatory in how far the GLWQA has fallen as an instrument of positive change and transboundary collaboration for the Great Lakes. The phrase “bearing witness” acknowledges that there is a weight that comes with this knowledge, and we must guard against it shifting into grief.

The IJC must now complete its own evaluation of the work the U.S. and Canada have and have not done over the last three years to better protect the Great Lakes, and I’d like to think the IJC’s input still matters. They will produce a report—the Triennial Assessment of Progress, or “TAP”— that sums up their own witness of the needs and challenges for the Great Lakes.

If you want to bolster their case, consider participating in the input process for that report between now and April 3, through topical online webinars or submitting your own comments--short or long, or you can even submit a video. (Their online registration process is easier than that for the forum, but you still will need to either log-in or register for a webinar to participate.) IJC staff advised participants at the close of the Forum session that other topics will be welcome at any of these sessions, so if you care about microplastics, or toxic contaminants, or headwaters, or some other burning issue, square up those shoulders and make an appearance.

Here’s their schedule:

Feb 24, 6 pm ET: Perspectives on Working with Great Lakes Fish

Feb 25, 11:30 am ET: Perspectives on Working with Algal Blooms in the Great Lakes

Mar 11, 11:30 am ET: Perspectives on Engaging with the Great Lakes Coasts

Mar 24, 6:00 pm ET: Perspectives on Restoration in Great Lakes Communities

Mar 25, 11:30 am ET: Perspectives on Engaging in Great Lakes Participatory Science

If we don’t speak up, we can guarantee that long-held concerns won’t get in the record, so let me urge you to pick a topic, or an action, and show up in whatever way works for you. Be an active witness.

GLEN welcomes diverse perspectives on Great Lakes protection. Please note that the views in our posts are those of the author. To learn more about GLEN please explore our website at https://www.greatlakesecoregion.org/.