This past weekend Canada & the U.S. celebrated the 100^th anniversary of the signing of the Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty, where U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced with Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon that the countries would be “updating” the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. While this was fairly good news for fresh water enthusiasts, the announcement was overshadowed by recent trade and border concerns.

“The friendship between Canada and the United States is a model for the world,” said Cannon.

But, he also had some pointed comments on efforts to hinder, rather than promote, trade between the two countries.

“Free trade has been – and still is – a driving force between our countries, one that will help pull us out of the global economic downturn,” Cannon said, as Clinton looked on.

“Protectionism can only bring everyone down,” he said.

In actuality, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has little to do with “Buying American”. Although the Treaty was intended to prevent and help resolve border disputes between Canada and the U.S., the Agreement is primarily aimed at issues of water quality. Originally signed in 1972, the Agreement has already been amended in 1978, 1983, and 1987 in order to address emerging environmental concerns such as municipal sewage, toxic discharges, and phosphorous runoff.

New amendments to the Agreement have long been anticipated, and are likely to draw on reviews from two Canadian-U.S. international institutions: the International Joint Commission (a dispute resolution body created by the Boundary Water Treaty) report, completed in 2006; and the Binational Executive Committee (an executive committee composed of federal, state, provincial and tribal agencies created by the 1987 Protocol) report, completed in 2007.

Both reports recommend revising the Agreement to reflect more recent environmental concerns in the Great Lakes. For example, both reports recommend joint recognition and provision for action against aquatic invasive species (AIS).

Michigan (currently promoting AIS Awareness Week), and recently New York, have both enacted strict regulation on the discharge of ballast water in the Great Lakes that has been fought by industry but upheld in U.S. courts. In both states, ballast discharge permits for commercial cargo vessels require mandatory technology to treat and prevent AIS spread.

Transport Canada Ballast Water Control and Management regulations however are less stringent:

BALLAST WATER TREATMENT

4.1 … It should be pointed out that the purpose of section 9 of the Regulations is to acknowledge that the use of IMO treatment systems is acceptable for vessels coming to Canada, but there is no obligation at this time for any vessel to fit such systems.

Obviously, from an ecological perspective it makes sense for policy against AIS in the Great Lakes to be the same.  Now that some Great Lakes states have adopted strict technology regulations, it also makes sense from the perspective of cargo operators to have homogeneous regulations rather than a patchwork which may be confusing and/or contradictory.

If the sentiment to continue to improve the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in accordance with ongoing scientific and technological development, regulations by Canada and by the U.S. Great Lake States regarding ballast discharges – among other things – may soon become more uniform.