This Web page has been archived on the Web.
1999 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Exhibit 3.6—Impacts of Declining Resources in the Great Lakes Region
This case study illustrates the impacts of resource cuts on research and monitoring programs in the Great Lakes. Historically, the Great Lakes Basin has been a particular focus of study because of evidence that contaminants there harm the health of many Canadians and Americans.In 1972, Canada and the United States signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). "Great Lakes 2000", the federal component, was signed in 1994 as a $125 million, six-year program involving Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, among others. After the first year, however, only Environment Canada and Health Canada allocated money from their departmental budgets for this program and even these two departments had to reduce their funding from the planned levels.
Environment Canada's budget for Great Lakes 2000 was reduced by 35 percent between 1994 and 1998. Health Canada now estimates that it will provide no more than 60 percent of the promised funding by 2001 and will meet less than 75 percent of its public commitments under Great Lakes 2000. Moreover, its internal funding mechanisms mean that existing funding is not secure.
Although Fisheries and Oceans is not allocating funding to the Great Lakes 2000 program, its activities support the GLWQA. At its Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Science, research is conducted on the impacts of toxic contaminants on freshwater fisheries in the region. Notwithstanding these activities, since 1994 the Laboratory's research staff has been cut by 40 percent and its Ecotoxicology Division by 70 percent. As a result, Fisheries and Oceans is not meeting all of its research and monitoring commitments.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is no longer a partner in Great Lakes 2000 because of funding constraints.
These cuts have resulted in wasted resources, because research projects that were undertaken could not be completed. Departments are not able to fully meet international commitments, resulting in a perception by their domestic and international partners that they are unreliable. This perception may hamper their ability to establish essential collaborative, longer-term projects to address ecosystem issues.