"It's everybody so it's nobody"

Dr. Krantzberg's presentation: Great Lakes Great Responsibility, touched upon major water quality and governance issues that are not very familiar to the larger public, although the problem resides right in our Canadian backyard. To think that the mechanisms set to protect the Great Lakes are in reality outdated and not adequately coordinated between Canada and the US, is a reason for major concern. 

Despite the myth of abundance, reality remains that only 1% of the Great Lakes are renewable through rainfall. In the documentary Waterlife, it is claimed the Great Lakes are the last remaining large source of fresh water in the world. Given this claim, and also given the old and new problems that have emerged (i.e eutrophication, sewer overflow, toxic chemicals, invasive species, etc.), the recent revision of GLWQA (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement- 1972) should address the bi-national governance deficit that has stalled the adoption of a preventative approach. This is critical in order to foresee problems before they arise rather than continue to employ the traditional reactionary attitude that has led us to where we are today in terms of the Great Lakes' deplorable conditions. 

When questions such as "Who is responsible for what?" are posed, the general response is "it's everyone's responsibility" and with this broad-based sense of responsibility, no one feels obligated to assume the role of the culpable. This ambiguity in turn leads to inertia in governance and points to a serious gap in policies and problem-solving mechanisms. 

Dr. Krantzberg emphasized the need for a strong bi-national agreement that can hold both national governments (US and Canada) accountable to an equal amount of dedication of resources and attention for the Great Lakes (as the lakes are divided 50-50). However, as Dr. Krantzberg began to share with us the success of her experience in working with near-shore communities around the lake to restore the conditions of the water and surrounding environment, I became more cognizant of the momentousness of bottom-up initiatives to fill policy gaps and governance inertia. Regardless of the stature of a commitment initiated at higher levels of governance and the promise it holds, the grandeur of such top-down statements can lead to mayhem if a well-coordinated system at every level and area of expertise is not well envisioned and practiced. In the case of nearshore communities around the Lake Victoria Basin in Kenya for example, it seems that self-help initiatives are increasingly becoming the solution to alternative water provision that can reduce pressure from the Lake and also address gaps in policies,  as government and industry actors remain passive. In times of desperation and a threat to livelihood and well-being, a sense of urgency sparks agency at the individual and community level and although it may not be the solution to all the problems, it is the most impactful. It is the bridge between paper agreements and action. 

In brief, concerted efforts need to reside both at the macro governance platform, and more importantly at the involved communities' level. Although it is not fair to shift the burden of responsibility fully onto near-shore communities, their endogenous concern and action can offset the inaction of other actors. In fact, their concern and ownership of the problem will consequently result in placing pressure on policymakers to give greater attention to the cause. I believe that in the revision of GLWQA and its annexes, greater attention and resources must be dedicated to near-shore communities with the goal of raising awareness and working on endogenous solutions. There is no doubt that the given communities, with support from the greater concerned public, experts and governments will take bolder action to protect the Great Lakes and bequeath them to future generations, as challenging a task as that may be.