JGLR-00680; No. of pages: 3; 4C:
Journal of Great Lakes Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Great Lakes Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jglr
Commentary
Donning our thinking hats for the development of the Great Lakes nearshore
governance framework
Savitri Jetoo, Gail Krantzberg ⁎
McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4 K1, Canada
A R T IC L E
IN F O
Article history:
Received 7 October 2013
Accepted 16 January 2014
Available online xxxx
Communicated by Robert Hecky
Index words:
Nearshore zone
Governance
Co-management
Recently there has been much emphasis on the nearshore areas of
the Great Lakes due to an increased appreciation for the importance of
those areas in the larger Great Lakes ecosystem.
The impacts of ongoing and emerging stresses to the ecosystem
often emerge first and are felt most strongly in the nearshore areas
(Bails et al., 2005). Some of those stresses include extensive colonization of zebra mussels in the lower lakes (Hecky et al., 2004), invasion
by other aquatic invasive species (Vanderploeg et al., 2002), algal
blooms in Lake Erie (IJC, 2012; US EPA and Environment Canada,
2004), nonpoint source loadings of nutrients, pathogens and contaminants, particularly during more frequent severe storm events,
toxic contaminants and hydrologic modifications (Bails et al., 2005).
The breakdown of ecosystem function resulting from these threats
has been seen as a failure of governance as the Great Lakes institutions
were unable to effectively address the policy issues (Manno and
Krantzberg, 2008). The problems signifying a decline in Great Lakes
governance have been said to stem from a “lack of institutional accountability, a lack of inclusion and engagement of non-governmental civic
society and a lack of distributive governance that coordinates and is
flexible” (Krantzberg et al., 2007). The Great Lakes governance regime
has been in decline since at least the late 1980s (Botts and Muldoon,
2005). Further, the International Joint Commission (IJC, 2011) identified
governance as a key issue in its 15th Biennial Report, noting that “there
is a critical need to modify existing governance to strengthen coordination across jurisdictional lines to address ecological challenges in the
nearshore”.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 905 525 9140.
E-mail address: krantz@mcmaster.ca (G. Krantzberg).
This call for attention to the nearshore areas has resulted in new language under Annex 2 in the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Protocol:
“develop, within three years of entry into force of this Agreement, an integrated nearshore framework to be implemented collaboratively
through the Lakewide Management process for each Great Lake.” If
approached inclusively by the Great Lakes Executive Committee,1 this
new specific direction in the Protocol could signal an opportunity for
stakeholders to work together in designing a nearshore governance
framework that is flexible to respond nimbly to changes in the environment and proactive in anticipating mitigative measures to address
future challenges. A nearshore governance framework is envisioned as
a conceptual structure that shows the scale, the arrangement and
flows of information and the relationship between central practitioners
in the Great Lakes nearshore regions to facilitate cooperative decision
making that increases the capacity for programme and policy implementation leading to a sustainable Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
The creation of a nearshore governance framework is challenging as it
involves considerations of uncertain, complex problems such as climate
change and co-management decision making that cross political boundaries. A successful framework will require innovative thinking, beyond
the habitual thinking style by Great Lakes stakeholders. Such thinking
as proposed by Edward DeBono's (1999) ‘Six thinking hats’ can be useful
for the development of the nearshore governance framework as it breaks
the task at hand into different components using symbolic hats, each of
which highlights one feature of the problem. This process simplifies
thinking by allowing the user to think about one thing at a time while
allowing for the categorizing of feelings regarding a problem, thus separating facts from biases and concerns and allowing a switch in thinking
(DeBono, 1999). DeBono's six thinking hats method has been used extensively to spur organizational creativity. Post-programme analysis has
shown that these methods proposed by DeBono significantly improved
idea generation for effective problem solving (Birdi, 2005). Further, in
the study conducted, the six thinking hats method scored higher in improvements in work-related idea generation than other thinking models
(Birdi, 2005). As such, this model would be useful for the generation of
ideas by stakeholders for the visioning of the nearshore framework.
The six thinking hats can allow for the development of the nearshore
framework while transcending the rut of bureaucratic, top down governance. This method can be used as a framework for the group creative
process in brainstorming nearshore governance processes. It can foster
1
Under Article 5: “The Parties hereby establish a Great Lakes Executive Committee to
help coordinate, implement, review and report on programmes, practices and measures
undertaken to achieve the purpose of this Agreement”.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2014.01.015
0380-1330/© 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of International Association for Great Lakes Research
Please cite this article as: Jetoo, S., Krantzberg, G., Donning our thinking hats for the development of the Great Lakes nearshore governance framework, J Great Lakes Res (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2014.01.015
2
S. Jetoo, G. Krantzberg / Journal of Great Lakes Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
parallel thinking if stakeholders adopt this method, creating a shared
focus and more efficient process. These hats can be applied to the development of the nearshore governance framework as follows:
1. White hat — Objective facts for the development of the nearshore
governance framework.
The nearshore areas of the Great Lakes are home to over 34 million
persons and as a result of the associated activities, the anthropogenic
effects are detrimental to the Great Lakes ecosystem. This is evident
in the 43 (now 39 with four considered fully remediated) Areas of
Concern (AOCs) located in the nearshore areas of the Great Lakes.
These AOCs span eight states, one province, two federal governments, numerous municipalities, First nations' reserves and Native
American lands. This is an illustration of the complexity of governance, with the multiplicity of actors and actions required that
must be taken into consideration in the development of a practical
and pragmatic framework.
2. Red hat — Intuitive view for a nearshore governance framework.
With the red thinking hat on, the deterioration of the nearshore area
seems to follow from the overall focus on the open waters of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement prior to the 2012 Great Lakes Protocol (the Protocol). With the inclusion of the nearshore zone in the
Protocol, it would follow that more resources will be allocated to address the issue for implementation of the Protocol to proceed. Resources would be required to harness stakeholder support and
engagement in the development of sustainable restoration and protection interventions. The Great Lakes Futures Project [http://www.
uwo.ca/biology/glfp/index.html accessed October 4, 2013] is one example applying Red Hat thinking towards Great Lakes Restoration.
This project was a transboundary, multidisciplinary endeavour that
used scenario analysis to examine alternative futures for the Great
Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin. Participants (including university
students mentored by faculty members, government and nongovernment organizations) critiqued the current state of the basin and
envisioned alternative scenarios for the future, creating a vision and
pathway for the future that can be useful for decision makers.
3. Black hat — Challenges to the development of the nearshore governance framework.
There are many challenges to the development of a nearshore framework. Some of these include:
• The multiplicity of actors and disciplines involved in the protection
and restoration efforts means that there are differing perspectives
and conceptual backgrounds that must be taken into account.
• Nearshore degradation is a result of complex interdependent processes exacerbated by a changing climate for which there are no
proven standards of governance.
• The nearshore area spans many scales from local, to regional, to
transboundary with many interactions across a range of spatial
and temporal scales. As such, the nearshore governance framework needs flexibility to adjust to different levels of complexity.
• First nations and Native American inputs are critical for the development of a comprehensive nearshore governance framework.
Input has to be solicited in a way that is non-invasive and respects
the traditions and customs of these stewards of the Great Lakes.
• The nature of the problem in the nearshore is uncertain and changing at any given instant. This is challenging to the development of
a nearshore governance framework as it needs to include mechanisms to accommodate these changes.
• There is no fixed definition of what constitutes the nearshore areas
of the Great Lakes.
• The term governance itself is often not well understood. The elements needed for sustainable governance of the great lakes have
been identified as “active public participation, ecosystem based
management, multi-jurisdictional collaboration and a shared
sense of responsibility for stewardship by the people and their
leaders” (Manno and Krantzberg, 2008, 163).
4. Yellow hat — Optimistic outlook for a nearshore governance
framework.
For the first time, the Great Lakes Water Quality Protocol (2012)
includes the need for an Integrated Great Lakes Nearshore Assessment and Management Framework in Annex 2, the Lakewide
Management Annex. The Protocol is realistic in allocating three
years for the development of the framework. Included in the nine
bulleted items for what the nearshore framework will encompass
is the development of a collaborative model to engage stakeholders
and agencies that are involved in restoration activities. There is an
opportunity in the non-prescriptive nature of the wording of the
latter terms which invites development of a nearshore framework
that is free from prescriptive solutions and free to explore adaptive
management solutions. There is also an opportunity to engage
the Great Lakes community in the development of this framework. One such community is the Great Lakes Policy Research
Network, which is a collaborative transboundary network formed
to address the existing gap in generating policy knowledge focused
on the Great Lakes [http://www.greatlakespolicyresearch.org/,
accessed October 4, 2013]. The network aims to improve policy
outcomes by engaging Great Lakes stakeholders in three research
priority areas: transboundary governance capacity and policy implementation challenges, elite and public opinion about Great Lakes
issues and engagement of governmental, non-governmental and
other stakeholders in policy issues. This represents a ready pool of
resources to be utilized in the development of a nearshore governance framework.
5. Green hat — Creativity and new ideas for a nearshore governance
framework.
There are many successful transboundary governance regimes that
can be examined for lessons in the development of a nearshore governance framework for the Great Lakes. Any framework must be
adaptive, that is, have the ability to self-adjust after a period of
systematic monitoring and review and incorporate this feedback
into the system. Lessons can be learnt from regimes that are multijurisdictional, have well-defined governance systems and are well
equipped to undertake comprehensive self-evaluations. There may
be an opportunity to learn from marine coastal management initiatives if the nearshore is redefined as the coastal zone of the Great
Lakes. This will allow for lessons learnt from integrated coastal
zone management (ICZM) initiatives such as the European Union
demonstration projects and their eight principles of good ICZM
(Rupprecht Consult, 2006). Another out of the box thinking approach
is the idea of a governance index that allows for comparison of
governance approaches across basin, region and the world. Such an
index can be developed qualitatively using reasoned judgement of
Great Lakes experts.
6. Blue hat — Organising, process control for a nearshore governance
framework.
This is the practical aspect of the development of the nearshore
governance framework. The methodology that would be used by
the authors includes the definition of what constitutes good
governance in nearshore areas, the use of questionnaires and key
informant interviews to solicit the views of experts and key stakeholders and the ultimate development of an adaptive nearshore
governance framework. The development of such a framework is
the first step in the quest for better governance of the Great Lakes.
Engagement and positive involvement of stakeholders are central
to this process to build ownership and advance implementation,
and ultimately determine the success of any governance framework
for decision making that will lead to a resilient Great Lakes Basin
ecosystem.
The donning of these thinking hats will allow for processes that will
lead to the inclusive development of a nearshore governance framework that can guide decision making to improve the nearshore areas
Please cite this article as: Jetoo, S., Krantzberg, G., Donning our thinking hats for the development of the Great Lakes nearshore governance framework, J Great Lakes Res (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2014.01.015
S. Jetoo, G. Krantzberg / Journal of Great Lakes Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
of the Great Lakes. It is envisioned that this governance framework will
benefit from working with existing institutional mechanisms for a more
participatory, integrated and flexible approach that can respond to the
integrated sources of stress that are degrading the nearshore areas.
This governance framework must recognise the value of the Great
Lakes ecosystem while representing the diverse interests in the basin.
The nearshore governance framework will only be successful if it fosters
a sense of community, a sense of belonging of all stakeholders in the
basin. Or in the famous words of Aldo Leopold “We abuse land
because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see
land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with
love and respect”. Ultimately the nearshore areas will only be restored
when we who live and dwell in the Great Lakes basin recognise the
entire basin as our home.
To advance these ideas into the realm of implementation we suggest
that a coordinating body such as the IJC, in cooperation with the Great
Lakes Executive committee, identifies a representative cross section
of stakeholders for input in the process of defining or re-defining the
nearshore zone. This could be undertaken as a concerted effort at an
IJC semiannual meeting, where the parties and informed stakeholders
gather to assess progress in addressing priority areas of policy development and delivery. Getting a common vision for what is meant by
the ‘nearshore framework’ could include parsing the concept into operational nearshore monitoring programmes, nearshore governance
structures, and nearshore coordination of project design and implementation. Achieving consensus on the definition of the nearshore governance framework in particular can result in an engaged Great Lakes
community of stakeholders who participate in the development,
3
testing, monitoring, evaluation and adjusting collaborative governance
arrangements in a formalize, continual fashion.
References
Bails, J., Beeton, A., Bulkley, J., DePhillip, M., Gannon, J., Murray, M., Regier, H., Scavia, D.,
2005. Prescription for Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection and Restoration: Avoiding
the Tipping Point of Irreversible Changes. Wege Foundation and Joyce Foundation
(Available at: http://healthylakes.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Prescriptionfor-Great-Lakes-RestorationFINAL.pdf accessed November 11, 2011).
Birdi, K.S., 2005. No idea? Evaluating the effectiveness of creativity training. J. Eur. Ind.
Train. 29, 102–111.
Botts, L., Muldoon, P., 2005. Evolution of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Michigan State University Press (103 pp.).
DeBono, E., 1999. Six Thinking Hats, 2nd ed. Black Bay Books 197.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Protocol. Canada and the United States, 2012.
Hecky, R., Smith, H., Barton, D., Guilford, S., Taylor, W., Charlton, M., Howell, T., 2004. The
nearshore phosphorus shunt: a consequence of ecosystem engineering by dreissenids
in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61, 1285–1293.
International Join Commission (IJC). 16th Biennial Report on Water Quality, 2012.
International Join Commission (IJC), 2011. 15th Biennial Report. IJC, Windsor, Ontario
(http://www.ijc.org/rel/news/2011/110308_e.htm.accessed on October 1, 2013).
Krantzberg, G., Manno, J., De Boer, C., 2007. Great Lakes St. Lawrence River Governance:
Report on the Expert Workshop. A Report Sponsored by the Joyce Foundation and
McMaster University.
Manno, J., Krantzberg, G., 2008. Rediscovering and revitalizing the Great Lakes governance. In: Bosselmann, K., Engel, R., Taylor, P. (Eds.), Governance for Sustainability:
Issues, Challenges and Successes. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 70,
pp. 159–170.
Rupprecht Consult, 2006. Evaluation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe.
Final Report. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/evaluation_iczm_summary.pdf
(accessed October 6, 2013).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, 2004. Lake Erie LaMP 2004
Report. Prepared by Lake Erie LaMP Workgroup (4 pp.).
Vanderploeg, H., Nalepa, T., Jude, D., Mills, E., Holeck, K., Liebig, J., Grigorovich, I., Ojaveer,
H., 2002. Dispersal and emerging ecological impacts of Ponto-Caspian species in the
Laurentian Great Lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59, 1209–1228.
Please cite this article as: Jetoo, S., Krantzberg, G., Donning our thinking hats for the development of the Great Lakes nearshore governance framework, J Great Lakes Res (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2014.01.015