Transnational Environmental Management: U.S.-Canadian Institutions at the Interlocal Scale

• Published in: The American review of Canadian studies 2007-07, Vol.37 (2), p.218-245
• Main Author: Lovecraft, Amy Lauren
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Boundaries; Canada; Canada-US relations; Climate Change; Cooperation; Ecology; Environment; Environmental management; Environmental policy; Environmental protection; Globalization; Governance; Institutional change; International Cooperation; International Relations; Management; Natural Resources; North America; Policy making; Political institutions; Pollution; Transnationalism; U.S.A
• ISSN: 0272-2011; 1943-9954
• DOI: 10.1080/02722010709481856

The next set of necessary design principles stems from the need for clear bound- aries. This refers to several kinds of boundaries. First, the physical boundaries of the institution itself must be practical in terms of the resource and the local inhabitants. The amount of area expected to be affected must be clear and should be rational in terms of the local ecology. In other words, political borders may need to be crossed to create an equitable and ecologically stable institution for a particular water resource. Second, there must be clear internal and external expectations delineated according to the physical boundaries. Roles, responsibilities, limitations, timetables, and costs should not only be discussed in planning, but clearly outlined to avoid duplication, neglect, or confusion among actors and their actions both within the institution and among its external linkages to other programs, governments, and institutions. The word "boundary" does not have to include the negative connotation of shutting certain people or ideas out. In fact, boundaries can also be inclusive, especially when they redraw how people might interact. The cases studied in this essay are examples of "inclusionary" boundary creation. For each shared river, the International Joint Commission suggested an institution whose boundaries would incorporate both Canadians and Americans. Keeping the boundaries clear is an overarching concern in any discussion of shared resources. Interlocal institutions require flexibility, common value preferences, clear boundaries, and authority in order to achieve reasonable goals of natural resource stewardship and remediation. Each criterion is important, and they work together to promote the existence of one another. For example, the lack of agreement on remedial goals, and strategies for achieving those goals, in the cases of Detroit and St. Marys, limited the authority of the AOCs. This has led me to pair the criteria into two sets. (1) The criteria of flexibility and clear boundaries tend to promote the success of the practical applications of the AOC. These "can do" criteria allow participating institutions to react to environmental and social shifts by monitoring changes in community behaviors toward the resource and the quality of the water. (2) The criteria of common value preferences and authority, on the other hand, tend to promote an institution's legitimacy. These create the "will to do" needed by institutions, especially non-regulatory i