The four articles (May 2009) presented in this series from the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars each address issue of transboundary environmental governance between the United States (US) and Canada. In turn, they assess the effectiveness of various unilateral and bilateral institutions and arrangements currently in place and raise questions concerning whether and how these identified organizations can adapt to changing political and natural environments. The authors offer suggestions for possible forms of cooperation towards a North American environmental policy, including the integration of Mexico in a coordinated, continental environmental and energy regime.

1. The International Joint Commission: Convergence, Divergence or Submergence?
By Stephen Brooks
In this article, Brooks examines the governance model of the International Joint Commission (IJC) used to resolve transborder water conflicts and manage water resources under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Though the IJC has been successful at resolving significant transborder water issues, opinions diverge as to its effectiveness. Based on interviews with past Commissioners and national section chairs, Brooks notes that the Commission's mission, its truly bi-national framework and its decision-making process were viewed as contributing to the Commission's effectiveness. Differences in past IJC Commissioners' background such as occupation, expertise, expectations and perception of their role were factors of divergence. Both countries have perceived the IJC differently. For Canada, it has been an instrumental policy for dealing with the US; and for the US, the IJC has been more simply a policy tool limited to the Great Lakes region.

The author argues that with no clear description of the Commissioners' role, the organization learning process within the IJC became a critical factor of its performance. Similar Commissioners' backgrounds or similar environmental outlooks produced the greatest learning experience, while different backgrounds combined with different outlooks provided ground for conflict; similar backgrounds coupled with similar outlooks were non-consequential. Brooks notes that neither the US nor Canada appointed individuals with environmental or science background, or even yet, policy credentials, with the exception of a couple of individuals on the Canadian side. It has been the responsibility of the Commissioners to shape their mission, either by limiting their own roles to solve transborder issues, or by taking a more active approach by engaging actions at all levels of governments. A higher degree of interaction with government officials has been greatly dependent on the personality of the national section chair.

Though the consensus-building process of the IJC has been highly praised, the influence of the Commission remains a function of the willingness of the federal governments to use it. Given the background and experiences of the various Commissioners over time, the IJC has been perceived as lacking scientific authority and as increasingly environmentally activist. Since its inception, both the US and Canadian governments have been reluctant to surrender their authority and national sovereignty to an independent institution, regardless of its bilateralism and converging vision, in particular for matters of high controversy or national stakes. With the proliferation of multiple other institutions concerned with management of cross-border environmental issues, Brooks raises the question of the Commission's relevance as a tool for bilateral environmental policy.

2. Managing Water Scarcity in the Prairie Region: The Role of the IJC in a Changing Time
By B. Timothy Heinmiller
In this second article, Heinmiller describes how the IBWT (International Boundary Water Treaty) and IJC have contributed to the economic development of the Prairie thanks to their management of water resources. These institutions have been instrumental in controlling the flows of rivers which run north and south between the US and Canada. The water management system is based on a "beneficial use" principle which aims at reducing risk and preserving agricultural and riparian interests across borders, accounting for high variability in the water supply during droughts or floods. Conflicts are resolved according to a similar cost-benefit approach. To carry out its mission, the IJC has instituted intergovernmental river management boards which, through complex compromises among states, provinces and users, determine management rules acceptable to all parties.

As the Prairies economy developed, new stakeholders emerged. New players have tended to favour environmental concerns as opposed to agricultural or riparian "beneficial use" values. Most climate change models predict change of precipitation patterns leading Heinmiller to question whether and how current water transboundary management regimes can be adapted, and how they can accommodate environmental protection and preservation within the existing framework of the institutionalized water management which favour beneficial use.

The existing regimes have undergone few changes over their existence, proving their longevity and stability. According to Pierson, cited by Heinmiller, institutional resilience comes about with the existence of coordination problems within the institution, veto points and asset specificity and positive feedback. Heinmiller argues that these factors are all present in the cross-border water management of the Prairie border region, which suggests that institutional reforms are likely to be incremental and reactive. This resilience poses a risk for the economic development of the Prairie region should climate change outpace reforms. Heinmiller posits that an inadequate response to environmental changes would undermine the stability and legitimacy of the current institutions while posing an economic risk to the region.

3. Environmental Cross-Border Regions and the Canada-U.S. Relationship: Building from the Bottom Up in the Second Century?
By Debora L. VanNijnatten
In this article, VanNijnatten states that although the US and Canada engaged in bilateral environmental governance at the beginning of the 20th century, the limited scope of their institutions at the federal level has led subnational organizations to take a more active role in this particular arena. The resulting cross-border environmental initiatives suggest that a bilateral environmental relationship between the US and Canada can be built from a "bottom up" approach rather than relying upon a national-to-national relationship. VanNijnatten argues that the "cross-border regions" (CBRs) can play a significant role in becoming "hubs" for environmental cooperation between the US and Canada.

CBRs assemble local, regional, state or provincial entities that share eco-systems as well as other locational factors. They are defined in term of "linkages" existing between
provinces and states as the result of clustering activities. These "linkages" are used to promote environmental change or preservation.

In a review of CBRs along the US-Canada border, VanNijnatten finds that while CBRs offer similarities in forming region-wide environmental initiatives, their goals often differ in terms of applicability and specificity. One factor of divergence rests with their funding, as funds received from executive branches tend to be allocated to domestic matters rather than transborder projects. CBRs nevertheless show evidence of capacity for autonomous action and impact in terms of policy goals.

VanNijnatten recommends that the federal governments, as opposed to subnational governments, facilitate cross-border projects, providing support and resources to the appropriate CBRs. Such federal involvement would set a path for a decentralized, but cohesive regional approach to environmental cooperation between the two countries.

4. The Absence of Governance: Climate Change in Canada and the United States
By Barry G. Rabe
In this last article, Rabe reviews policy developments between the US and Canada regarding climate change. Though the US and Canada initially agreed on a common course of actions to reduce GHG emission, they parted with the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol; Canada ratifying it, the US not. As a result, little bilateral collaboration took place. At the subnational level, a wide array of initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has taken place in the US. Such efforts are limited in Canada, with provinces preferring to leave that role to the federal government whose actions - of little impact - have mainly centred on voluntary programs.

The intense subnational environmental activity in the US involves initiatives which include mandates of renewable portfolio standards (RPS) or carbon trading programs such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives (RGGI), states acting unilaterally or in concert with others. Cross-border activity has emerged with the creation of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which groups states and provinces in the Western region to form a "regional market-based multi sector mechanism" for emissions reduction.

This proliferation of environmental activity at the subnational level has led some scholars, according to Rabe, to argue that climate policy is likely to involve a "bottom up" approach which will result from a mixture of sub-national, national or multi-national agreements. Those measures, adds Rabe, are likely to occur where energy and related resources are shared.

Convergence of environmental concerns between entities across borders sets the ground for bilateral policy. But, significant asymmetries in power, expertise and authority among players or nationalist concerns put constraints on such development. The recent federal elections in the US and Canada have shifted the environmental policy debate in both countries, reflecting agreement on both sides of the border to engage in a more formal form of cooperation. The creation of the "US-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue" offers opportunities for the joint development of clean energy and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A cap-and-trade regime has emerged as the common mechanism to reduce emissions as opposed to a carbon tax. Preliminary steps include determination of emissions criteria, their reporting and identification of emitting sources.

Developing an environmental collaboration between the US and Canada raises the issue of engaging Mexico to build a continental North American initiative. Political will exists in the three countries. Rabe suggests that one possible avenue is to give more authority to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America (CEC) so that it may reconcile national and regional differences on how a continental climate change policy could be implemented. Such an approach would link trade liberalization with energy diversification and environmental protection. Rabe states that a North American collaboration on climate change and energy policy, very much along the lines of the multilateral WTO governance for trade, would present a regional alternative to Kyoto.