Sometime in the next several months, the Canadian and U.S. governments will hold a ceremony to sign a substantially revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Will this be a time for us to celebrate?

                  Because we have not yet seen a draft Agreement—and it appears that we will never see one—we can’t tell if the revised Agreement will reflect the lengthy submissions that citizens groups throughout the basin have made to the negotiators over the last few years. But, even if the GLWQA that the two federal governments sign substantially reflects the input that we have made, it would be a cause for some hope—but not for celebration.

                  Yes, we all agree that the Agreement needs to be updated to reflect new understandings of threats to the Great Lakes and solutions to these serious problems, but we also all agree that, if the existing Agreement had been more seriously and fully implemented, the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River ecosystem and its inhabitants would be far healthier today. One of the major findings of the government-conducted review of the existing GLWQA was that “most of the Reviewers identified a need for increased accountability, consistent and appropriate funding by the Parties and others, and a greater emphasis on implementation of the Agreement” [Agreement Review Committee, Report to the Great Lakes Binational Executive Committee, Vol. 1, p. 18, September 2007].

                  If we are to have reason to celebrate, the Canadian and U.S. governments need to make some concrete commitments at the signing ceremony—commitments that will give us hope that this time, the governments will more completely implement the new Agreement than they did the old one. To convince us, the primary commitment that the governments will have to make at the signing ceremony is financial:

- Each government needs to announce substantial, specific dollar commitments to the implementation of the GLWQA. The Brookings Institute estimates that we need to invest $26 billion dollars to restore and protect the Great Lakes. They point out that this investment will result in an economic benefit to the basin in the range of $50-80 billion dollars. Thus far, expenditures on Great Lakes programs have been in the millions, not the billions of dollars.

                  In Canada, commitments from the federal government have been piddling in nature for the past couple of decades—commitments like $5 million dollars a year beyond the base operation. And often those commitments were never fulfilled. The only financial commitment to the Great Lakes made by any of the political parties in the current Ontario election is $1 million dollars for each lake for each of the next five years by the Liberal Party, the current governing party in Ontario. This won’t take us far.

                  On the U.S. side, we have been in a better situation for the last couple of years as funding under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative brought an additional $475 million in 2010 (fiscal year). But that dropped significantly in 2011 to $300 million. We fear that it could fall even further as budget haggling continues. And even that is not in the range of what is needed for the well-being of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

                  On both sides of the border at the federal, provincial, and state levels we have been seeing cuts in core operations budgets. For example, the Canadian government has recently said that it is reducing Environment Canada staffing by 700 positions.

                  Without concrete substantial financial commitments by both federal governments at the signing of the Agreement we will not be able to have trust that the Agreement will be implemented and will not be able to celebrate.

                  Two additional actions that we need to have at the signing ceremony are the following:

- Release by the governments for public comment of a detailed workplan for the first year of activities under the new Agreement, including dates and those responsible for each action.
- A precise statement of the bodies that non-government stakeholders will be recruited to join, including the new Great Lakes Binational Executive Committee and the annex-specific sub-committees formed under it, and a new Water Quality Board under the International Joint Commission.

                  This statement should include a specific proposal for public comment on how people will be recruited to these and any other advisory bodies and the timing for setting up those committees.

                  The people who live, work and thrive on the shores of the Great Lakes have been calling for significant change for some time now, and this is the opportunity for governments to respond. These lakes are a precious resource, and to protect them, we need commitments backed by action.

Please, governments. Give us cause for celebration.