WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.986 [SQUEAKING] 00:00:00.986 --> 00:00:02.465 [RUSTLING] 00:00:02.465 --> 00:00:03.451 [CLICKING] 00:00:21.743 --> 00:00:22.910 GEMMA HOLT: So hi, everyone. 00:00:22.910 --> 00:00:25.730 Today I'm new talking about the ongoing efforts 00:00:25.730 --> 00:00:31.070 to modernize the Columbia River Treaty, sort of the agenda. 00:00:31.070 --> 00:00:34.820 The Columbia River Treaty was originally signed in 1961, 00:00:34.820 --> 00:00:37.160 so I'm going to go through the historical context that 00:00:37.160 --> 00:00:38.690 led to that. 00:00:38.690 --> 00:00:42.590 Signature-- talk about the 1961 treaty negotiations 00:00:42.590 --> 00:00:44.420 and outcomes. 00:00:44.420 --> 00:00:47.060 And then I'm also going to talk about the ongoing case 00:00:47.060 --> 00:00:50.630 for modernization and the ongoing treaty negotiation 00:00:50.630 --> 00:00:51.360 process. 00:00:51.360 --> 00:00:55.740 So covering a lot of time periods here. 00:00:55.740 --> 00:00:59.060 So a little bit of a geographical overview. 00:00:59.060 --> 00:01:03.720 The Columbia River Basin is over 250,000 square miles, 00:01:03.720 --> 00:01:07.280 which is larger than the entire area of France. 00:01:07.280 --> 00:01:10.580 The Basin includes more than half of Washington and Oregon, 00:01:10.580 --> 00:01:14.490 almost all of Idaho, and parts of Montana, Nevada, Utah, 00:01:14.490 --> 00:01:15.830 and Wyoming. 00:01:15.830 --> 00:01:17.810 And approximately 15% of the Basin 00:01:17.810 --> 00:01:20.890 is in the Canadian province of British Columbia, where 00:01:20.890 --> 00:01:22.640 the Columbia River, which you can see here 00:01:22.640 --> 00:01:26.540 on this map in purple, originates. 00:01:26.540 --> 00:01:28.130 And then in southeastern Washington, 00:01:28.130 --> 00:01:30.920 the Columbia River meets the Snake River, 00:01:30.920 --> 00:01:35.780 and together that feeds into the Pacific Ocean. 00:01:35.780 --> 00:01:39.620 So the United States and Canada have a long history 00:01:39.620 --> 00:01:42.830 of bilateral cooperation. 00:01:42.830 --> 00:01:45.020 They share the longest international border 00:01:45.020 --> 00:01:50.030 between two countries, and their bilateral negotiations 00:01:50.030 --> 00:01:51.890 date back for centuries. 00:01:51.890 --> 00:01:55.520 As far as water diplomacy goes, the origin of this 00:01:55.520 --> 00:01:58.880 is the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, 00:01:58.880 --> 00:02:03.050 which was signed to come up with an approach for preventing 00:02:03.050 --> 00:02:07.760 and resolving disputes over the use of shared waters. 00:02:07.760 --> 00:02:10.550 It established an international joint commission 00:02:10.550 --> 00:02:13.730 to help the two countries carry out its provisions. 00:02:13.730 --> 00:02:16.490 And at the time, disputes over water, 00:02:16.490 --> 00:02:21.230 most notably on the Niagara River on the East Coast, 00:02:21.230 --> 00:02:24.920 were already creating tension along the border. 00:02:24.920 --> 00:02:26.780 So the treaty provided this framework 00:02:26.780 --> 00:02:29.060 to deal with these disputes. 00:02:29.060 --> 00:02:31.130 It held its first meeting in 1912, 00:02:31.130 --> 00:02:33.680 and it has worked over the last century plus 00:02:33.680 --> 00:02:36.860 to resolve more than 100 matters raised 00:02:36.860 --> 00:02:39.480 by the two federal governments. 00:02:39.480 --> 00:02:42.980 So the Columbia River Treaty more specifically came 00:02:42.980 --> 00:02:46.550 about during this era of hydropower expansion 00:02:46.550 --> 00:02:48.890 in the United States and Canada, which 00:02:48.890 --> 00:02:54.020 is symbolized in the 1930s with the construction of the Grand 00:02:54.020 --> 00:02:56.780 Coulee Dam in Washington. 00:02:56.780 --> 00:02:58.500 And during about a 20-year period, 00:02:58.500 --> 00:03:01.310 more than a dozen large dams were built in the Columbia 00:03:01.310 --> 00:03:02.630 River Basin-- 00:03:02.630 --> 00:03:06.160 mostly for hydroelectric power purposes, 00:03:06.160 --> 00:03:08.810 but they also benefited flood control, navigation, 00:03:08.810 --> 00:03:11.780 and other irrigation projects. 00:03:11.780 --> 00:03:13.820 The construction of these dams had 00:03:13.820 --> 00:03:15.950 and continues to have a negative impact 00:03:15.950 --> 00:03:18.440 on the ecosystems of the Basin. 00:03:18.440 --> 00:03:20.840 For example, the completion of the Grand Coulee Dam 00:03:20.840 --> 00:03:24.290 eliminated salmon runs from the mainstream Columbia River 00:03:24.290 --> 00:03:27.030 and its tributaries in British Columbia. 00:03:27.030 --> 00:03:31.130 So the specific impetus for the Columbia River treaty 00:03:31.130 --> 00:03:34.730 was a major flood in 1948. 00:03:34.730 --> 00:03:39.560 The river was abnormally high due to deep snowfall and large 00:03:39.560 --> 00:03:40.550 rainstorms. 00:03:40.550 --> 00:03:43.010 And it breached a dike in Vanport, Oregon, which 00:03:43.010 --> 00:03:45.860 is an industrial suburb outside of Portland, 00:03:45.860 --> 00:03:49.220 and the town was completely submerged. 00:03:49.220 --> 00:03:52.850 18,000 residents were displaced, 51 people were killed, 00:03:52.850 --> 00:03:56.460 and the estimated property damage was over $100 million. 00:03:56.460 --> 00:03:59.060 So you can see here on the right a picture of the town 00:03:59.060 --> 00:04:01.220 right after the flood. 00:04:01.220 --> 00:04:03.350 So the original treaty emerged in response 00:04:03.350 --> 00:04:08.000 to these two, one trend of hydropower development 00:04:08.000 --> 00:04:10.610 and then the specific flood control 00:04:10.610 --> 00:04:14.780 needs that were raised by the Vanport flood. 00:04:14.780 --> 00:04:17.839 So agreeing to agree. 00:04:17.839 --> 00:04:21.649 In 1944, Canada and the US had requested 00:04:21.649 --> 00:04:25.670 that the IJC determine whether a greater use than is now 00:04:25.670 --> 00:04:29.420 being made of the waters of the Columbia River System 00:04:29.420 --> 00:04:31.555 would be feasible and advantageous. 00:04:31.555 --> 00:04:33.680 And then four years later, after the Vanport flood, 00:04:33.680 --> 00:04:35.780 detailed studies began. 00:04:35.780 --> 00:04:40.750 And what followed was 11 years of discussions and analysis, 00:04:40.750 --> 00:04:43.640 two requests by the US for approval of the Libby 00:04:43.640 --> 00:04:45.990 Dam in Montana, which is pictured behind me, 00:04:45.990 --> 00:04:48.350 my virtual background. 00:04:48.350 --> 00:04:51.290 Two proposals by Columbia River companies 00:04:51.290 --> 00:04:54.620 to build Canadian dams, committee hearings in the US 00:04:54.620 --> 00:04:57.890 Senate and the Canadian Parliament, 00:04:57.890 --> 00:05:00.260 and a gradual acceptance by the US of the idea 00:05:00.260 --> 00:05:03.560 of sharing downstream US hydroelectric benefits. 00:05:03.560 --> 00:05:08.000 So 11 years of negotiations and then 00:05:08.000 --> 00:05:11.240 another round of formal negotiations 00:05:11.240 --> 00:05:14.210 began in February of 1960. 00:05:14.210 --> 00:05:17.150 And then ultimately the Columbia River treaty 00:05:17.150 --> 00:05:20.300 is signed by President Eisenhower and Prime Minister 00:05:20.300 --> 00:05:25.120 Diefenbaker on January 17, 1961. 00:05:25.120 --> 00:05:27.430 The US Senate approved it almost immediately, 00:05:27.430 --> 00:05:30.070 but ratification took an additional three years 00:05:30.070 --> 00:05:35.350 in Canada, largely due to British Columbia needing 00:05:35.350 --> 00:05:38.740 to negotiate with the Canadian federal government 00:05:38.740 --> 00:05:42.770 to clarify issues of authority and responsibility. 00:05:42.770 --> 00:05:47.720 So that was the original round of negotiation processes. 00:05:47.720 --> 00:05:52.040 And the treaty as it emerged has two primary focuses-- 00:05:52.040 --> 00:05:55.280 hydroelectric power and flood control. 00:05:55.280 --> 00:05:56.870 The terms of the treaty specified 00:05:56.870 --> 00:06:00.350 that Canada would provide about 15 million acre 00:06:00.350 --> 00:06:02.930 feet of storage usable for improving 00:06:02.930 --> 00:06:05.720 the flow of the Columbia River. 00:06:05.720 --> 00:06:07.850 This is really for flood control purposes 00:06:07.850 --> 00:06:11.480 to minimize downstream flood damages in both the US 00:06:11.480 --> 00:06:13.370 and Canada. 00:06:13.370 --> 00:06:17.780 And as compensation, the US made three lump sum payments 00:06:17.780 --> 00:06:22.460 totaling $64.4 million to Canada when the dams were completed, 00:06:22.460 --> 00:06:26.030 and that amount was based on an estimate of half 00:06:26.030 --> 00:06:29.670 of the present value of future US flood damages prevented. 00:06:29.670 --> 00:06:33.920 So the operation of the Columbia River Treaty storage 00:06:33.920 --> 00:06:37.100 creates hydropower benefits in both countries, 00:06:37.100 --> 00:06:41.180 and the CRT requires that the downstream power 00:06:41.180 --> 00:06:43.880 benefits in the US due to the operation 00:06:43.880 --> 00:06:46.850 of the Canadian storage be shared equally 00:06:46.850 --> 00:06:49.430 between the two countries. 00:06:49.430 --> 00:06:52.280 This is known as the Canadian entitlement. 00:06:52.280 --> 00:06:54.650 And under the terms of the treaty, 00:06:54.650 --> 00:06:57.200 Canada can opt to sell the entitlement back 00:06:57.200 --> 00:06:58.940 to buyers in the US. 00:06:58.940 --> 00:07:02.120 And actually to pay for construction of the dams, 00:07:02.120 --> 00:07:04.340 British Columbia sold the Canadian entitlement 00:07:04.340 --> 00:07:07.250 to a consortium of utilities in the US for 30 years 00:07:07.250 --> 00:07:10.200 beginning in 1964. 00:07:10.200 --> 00:07:14.960 So the treaty really is premised on this idea of mutual gains 00:07:14.960 --> 00:07:17.450 to both countries, both in terms of flood control 00:07:17.450 --> 00:07:20.030 and hydroelectricity. 00:07:20.030 --> 00:07:24.380 However, there were also losses created. 00:07:24.380 --> 00:07:27.110 Most notably the treaty made no explicit provision 00:07:27.110 --> 00:07:31.190 for other values such as water flow benefits for salmon 00:07:31.190 --> 00:07:35.030 and steelhead, continuing to exacerbate these ecosystem 00:07:35.030 --> 00:07:40.230 problems created by this era of hydropower expansion. 00:07:40.230 --> 00:07:42.560 So these are the three. 00:07:42.560 --> 00:07:47.240 Here you can see a map of all of the dams in the system. 00:07:47.240 --> 00:07:49.980 The three dams in Canada up here. 00:07:49.980 --> 00:07:51.178 Can you see my mouse? 00:07:51.178 --> 00:07:52.220 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Yeah. 00:07:52.220 --> 00:07:54.488 GEMMA HOLT: In purple and the Libby Dam in Montana. 00:07:54.488 --> 00:07:56.030 So those were the four dams that were 00:07:56.030 --> 00:07:59.510 built as a result of the Columbia River Treaty. 00:07:59.510 --> 00:08:01.880 But the consequences of the treaty 00:08:01.880 --> 00:08:05.090 affect the entire hydroelectric power generation 00:08:05.090 --> 00:08:07.520 across the entire basin. 00:08:07.520 --> 00:08:13.010 So it's very involved, even though there 00:08:13.010 --> 00:08:15.530 are only three dams actually generated 00:08:15.530 --> 00:08:18.300 as a result of the treaty. 00:08:18.300 --> 00:08:21.290 So the treaty has been widely regarded 00:08:21.290 --> 00:08:25.040 as an example of successful cooperation 00:08:25.040 --> 00:08:27.980 and successful transboundary negotiations really built 00:08:27.980 --> 00:08:30.170 on this foundation of mutual gains. 00:08:30.170 --> 00:08:34.429 In 2011, when the renegotiation process began, 00:08:34.429 --> 00:08:36.716 the British Columbia government came out 00:08:36.716 --> 00:08:39.049 with a statement saying that the Columbia River is known 00:08:39.049 --> 00:08:40.674 throughout the world as one of the most 00:08:40.674 --> 00:08:44.275 successful models of a transboundary water treaty. 00:08:44.275 --> 00:08:45.650 Other countries see the agreement 00:08:45.650 --> 00:08:50.820 as a benchmark on cooperation to create and share benefits. 00:08:50.820 --> 00:08:53.270 So I thought that was an interesting statement. 00:08:53.270 --> 00:08:55.820 And while the treaty did authorize 00:08:55.820 --> 00:09:00.320 this equal sharing of additional hydropower, 00:09:00.320 --> 00:09:02.720 results from the additional water storage, 00:09:02.720 --> 00:09:07.820 and coordinated water releases, there were also-- 00:09:07.820 --> 00:09:10.370 negative impacts of the dams weren't necessarily equally 00:09:10.370 --> 00:09:13.230 shared by the two countries. 00:09:13.230 --> 00:09:18.200 So the United States had fairly significant adverse impacts 00:09:18.200 --> 00:09:24.710 on fish and salmon habitat and some losses of land. 00:09:24.710 --> 00:09:27.110 But in Canada, as a result of the three dams 00:09:27.110 --> 00:09:31.880 that were constructed, there was major flooding and dislocation 00:09:31.880 --> 00:09:33.320 of entire communities. 00:09:33.320 --> 00:09:38.600 So Canada, although they were ultimately compensated for it, 00:09:38.600 --> 00:09:41.840 did have more significant negative impacts 00:09:41.840 --> 00:09:45.720 as a result of the treaties. 00:09:45.720 --> 00:09:50.390 So the case for modernization-- 00:09:50.390 --> 00:09:54.440 the Columbia River Treaty has no expiration date, 00:09:54.440 --> 00:09:58.070 but 2024 is significant because it 00:09:58.070 --> 00:10:00.590 is the earliest that the terms of the treaty 00:10:00.590 --> 00:10:03.540 can be terminated. 00:10:03.540 --> 00:10:06.590 And so without renegotiation-- also in addition 00:10:06.590 --> 00:10:09.620 to the termination provision, without renegotiation, 00:10:09.620 --> 00:10:13.190 the flood control provisions will shift. 00:10:13.190 --> 00:10:15.590 So this presents an opportunity for the United States 00:10:15.590 --> 00:10:18.680 and Canada, as well as other stakeholders 00:10:18.680 --> 00:10:21.710 on both sides of the border, to reconsider 00:10:21.710 --> 00:10:27.330 the scope of the treaty and evaluate its effectiveness. 00:10:27.330 --> 00:10:30.650 And I think within a water diplomacy framework, the fact 00:10:30.650 --> 00:10:33.020 that this renegotiation process is 00:10:33.020 --> 00:10:36.320 baked into the initial agreement is a strength. 00:10:36.320 --> 00:10:40.550 We can talk about whether the 60-year timeline is too long. 00:10:40.550 --> 00:10:42.360 But I think it is interesting that none 00:10:42.360 --> 00:10:44.850 of the original negotiators expected 00:10:44.850 --> 00:10:48.430 that the original agreement would last forever. 00:10:48.430 --> 00:10:52.110 But at the same time, this has also introduced some measure 00:10:52.110 --> 00:10:55.470 of conflict, I guess, because everyone wants the treaty 00:10:55.470 --> 00:10:58.890 to be updated in a way that reflects their priorities 00:10:58.890 --> 00:11:00.430 and values. 00:11:00.430 --> 00:11:03.780 So thinking about modernization, which 00:11:03.780 --> 00:11:06.660 is the word being used by the negotiators, 00:11:06.660 --> 00:11:08.700 there's five main issues that have 00:11:08.700 --> 00:11:12.600 been raised during these ongoing conversations. 00:11:12.600 --> 00:11:15.570 This is not an exhaustive list-- lots of other things 00:11:15.570 --> 00:11:17.490 have been brought up as well, but I 00:11:17.490 --> 00:11:20.480 think it summarizes the most significant arguments, so I'm 00:11:20.480 --> 00:11:24.780 going to walk through each of these five. 00:11:24.780 --> 00:11:27.960 So first as I mentioned, issue number one 00:11:27.960 --> 00:11:33.750 is that 2024, the current flood risk management provisions 00:11:33.750 --> 00:11:36.270 change to a less defined approach. 00:11:36.270 --> 00:11:38.850 And instead of Canada providing a set amount 00:11:38.850 --> 00:11:40.920 of flood control every year, it will 00:11:40.920 --> 00:11:44.610 be as-- on an on-call basis, and the US 00:11:44.610 --> 00:11:47.280 will pay on an annual basis based 00:11:47.280 --> 00:11:51.610 on how much flood risk has been assessed. 00:11:51.610 --> 00:11:54.210 So this is the core part of the original treaty, 00:11:54.210 --> 00:11:56.370 and it will expire unless measures are 00:11:56.370 --> 00:12:00.100 taken to renew or modify it. 00:12:00.100 --> 00:12:01.830 And in addition, it is the earliest date 00:12:01.830 --> 00:12:04.200 at which the treaty can be terminated, provided 00:12:04.200 --> 00:12:06.240 that either Canada or the United States 00:12:06.240 --> 00:12:09.870 provides 10 years written notice. 00:12:09.870 --> 00:12:11.910 No one has provided this, so the treaty 00:12:11.910 --> 00:12:17.070 will not be terminated in 2024. 00:12:17.070 --> 00:12:24.000 But it catalyzed this era of renegotiations 00:12:24.000 --> 00:12:27.210 beginning around 2011, 2012. 00:12:27.210 --> 00:12:29.700 That's issue one. 00:12:29.700 --> 00:12:33.780 Issue number two is that since the original treaty negotiation 00:12:33.780 --> 00:12:39.150 process in the 1960s, stakeholders outside 00:12:39.150 --> 00:12:43.500 of the main negotiating parties have argued that the treaty 00:12:43.500 --> 00:12:45.490 neglects ecosystem needs. 00:12:45.490 --> 00:12:48.000 So the renegotiation process has opened 00:12:48.000 --> 00:12:52.980 the door for a variety of environmental advocates. 00:12:52.980 --> 00:12:57.030 And in particular, the dams built as a result of the treaty 00:12:57.030 --> 00:13:00.480 have altered the river's ecology and contributed to the decline 00:13:00.480 --> 00:13:01.770 of salmon fisheries. 00:13:01.770 --> 00:13:08.040 So in a 1995 opinion on the impacts of the entire Columbia 00:13:08.040 --> 00:13:12.060 River power system on salmon, NOAA, the National 00:13:12.060 --> 00:13:16.650 Oceanographic Association, had set flow objectives 00:13:16.650 --> 00:13:20.010 at each of the Columbia River Basin dams. 00:13:20.010 --> 00:13:22.410 And in the last 20 years, the spring target 00:13:22.410 --> 00:13:25.830 has been missed roughly 27% of the time. 00:13:25.830 --> 00:13:29.130 So 27% of time, there's not adequate flow 00:13:29.130 --> 00:13:33.870 at these dams for salmon to pass. 00:13:33.870 --> 00:13:36.870 And the initial study is about renegotiation, 00:13:36.870 --> 00:13:39.960 the US and Canadian entities didn't address 00:13:39.960 --> 00:13:41.400 any of these ecosystem needs. 00:13:41.400 --> 00:13:44.760 They only addressed updating the power and flood control 00:13:44.760 --> 00:13:47.610 agreements, although subsequent documents 00:13:47.610 --> 00:13:51.220 have addressed incorporating more ecosystem-based function 00:13:51.220 --> 00:13:52.150 requirements. 00:13:52.150 --> 00:13:55.150 So you can see here on this map on the right 00:13:55.150 --> 00:14:00.570 where there are salmon passages and where 00:14:00.570 --> 00:14:03.420 the dams have prevented any kind of fish migration. 00:14:03.420 --> 00:14:08.490 So almost everything north of the Canadian border, 00:14:08.490 --> 00:14:13.840 the salmon habitats has been completely destroyed. 00:14:13.840 --> 00:14:15.450 And in particular groups that have 00:14:15.450 --> 00:14:17.730 been harmed by the original treaty 00:14:17.730 --> 00:14:19.980 and who have advocated consistently 00:14:19.980 --> 00:14:24.300 for considering salmon habitats are the Canadian First Nations 00:14:24.300 --> 00:14:28.500 and United States Native American tribes. 00:14:28.500 --> 00:14:34.110 And you can see here on the right, the historical land 00:14:34.110 --> 00:14:37.740 of the Yakama, Umatilla, Nez Perce, and Warm Springs tribes 00:14:37.740 --> 00:14:40.830 who have formed a coalition to advocate 00:14:40.830 --> 00:14:43.710 for incorporating ecosystem functions 00:14:43.710 --> 00:14:45.690 in the modernized treaty. 00:14:45.690 --> 00:14:49.560 And that group came out with a statement recently 00:14:49.560 --> 00:14:52.320 that said that any modifications to the treaty 00:14:52.320 --> 00:14:55.500 must ensure full engagement and consent from tribes and First 00:14:55.500 --> 00:15:00.090 Nations and be in alignment with articulated Indigenous 00:15:00.090 --> 00:15:01.230 governance principles. 00:15:01.230 --> 00:15:03.360 So they're advocating essentially 00:15:03.360 --> 00:15:06.660 for expanding the formal negotiation 00:15:06.660 --> 00:15:10.080 team to include representatives from Native American tribes 00:15:10.080 --> 00:15:10.905 and First Nations. 00:15:13.690 --> 00:15:18.940 Next, stakeholders responding to these needs on both sides 00:15:18.940 --> 00:15:21.070 have identified ecosystem functions 00:15:21.070 --> 00:15:24.460 as a key component of a modernized treaty. 00:15:24.460 --> 00:15:26.350 The US came out and said that there's 00:15:26.350 --> 00:15:29.770 an opportunity for inclusion of certain additional ecosystem 00:15:29.770 --> 00:15:33.970 operations, and the BC side, the British Columbia side 00:15:33.970 --> 00:15:36.850 said basically the exact same statement. 00:15:36.850 --> 00:15:40.630 There is certainly a lack of clarity about what exactly 00:15:40.630 --> 00:15:43.030 ecosystem functions mean. 00:15:43.030 --> 00:15:47.740 It's become a buzzword within this negotiation process, 00:15:47.740 --> 00:15:50.920 and a lot of stakeholders trying to advocate 00:15:50.920 --> 00:15:54.795 for clarifying and determining what exactly are we 00:15:54.795 --> 00:15:56.170 thinking about when we're talking 00:15:56.170 --> 00:15:59.140 about ecosystem functions. 00:15:59.140 --> 00:16:03.220 And then finally, the terms of the Canadian entitlement 00:16:03.220 --> 00:16:06.880 have led to conditions that disadvantage US electricity 00:16:06.880 --> 00:16:08.740 consumers. 00:16:08.740 --> 00:16:11.470 Because the Canadian Entitlement specifies 00:16:11.470 --> 00:16:13.990 that all power generated downstream 00:16:13.990 --> 00:16:19.870 would be split evenly among the United States and Canada, 00:16:19.870 --> 00:16:22.150 although the energy market has changed considerably 00:16:22.150 --> 00:16:23.920 since 1964. 00:16:23.920 --> 00:16:25.870 So the original economic assumptions 00:16:25.870 --> 00:16:29.920 were based on forecasts of declining downstream power, 00:16:29.920 --> 00:16:32.120 but these proved to be incorrect. 00:16:32.120 --> 00:16:34.240 And so the power sharing agreement 00:16:34.240 --> 00:16:38.980 has ultimately been more favorable to Canada 00:16:38.980 --> 00:16:42.190 than to the US, and the US entity 00:16:42.190 --> 00:16:45.430 has proposed rebalancing the power benefits 00:16:45.430 --> 00:16:47.530 to better reflect the actual value 00:16:47.530 --> 00:16:50.800 of the coordinated operations. 00:16:50.800 --> 00:16:53.290 However, some Northwest politicians 00:16:53.290 --> 00:16:56.830 believe that the terms of the treaty are beyond repair 00:16:56.830 --> 00:16:59.680 and introduced a bipartisan resolution 00:16:59.680 --> 00:17:01.840 in the United States House of Representatives 00:17:01.840 --> 00:17:05.020 calling for its termination. 00:17:05.020 --> 00:17:08.740 While this seems unlikely, it is another sticking point 00:17:08.740 --> 00:17:10.419 in the renegotiation process. 00:17:13.099 --> 00:17:19.040 So formal negotiations opened on May 30 in 2018, 00:17:19.040 --> 00:17:23.540 and in June 2020, the 10th round of treaty negotiations 00:17:23.540 --> 00:17:26.660 occurred via web conference. 00:17:26.660 --> 00:17:29.930 And at the conclusion of those most recent conversations, 00:17:29.930 --> 00:17:33.230 the two sides released almost identical press statements, 00:17:33.230 --> 00:17:37.850 which I excerpted on this slide. 00:17:37.850 --> 00:17:40.520 Due to the confidential nature of the cross-border 00:17:40.520 --> 00:17:43.400 negotiations, the specific details 00:17:43.400 --> 00:17:47.780 of Canada's initial proposal and of the US framework 00:17:47.780 --> 00:17:51.698 that they're referencing here have not been made public. 00:17:51.698 --> 00:17:53.240 And this lack of information has been 00:17:53.240 --> 00:17:57.230 really frustrating to the numerous stakeholders who 00:17:57.230 --> 00:18:01.790 regard modernizing the treaty as essential. 00:18:01.790 --> 00:18:06.920 So in 2018, a coalition of 31 nonprofit organizations 00:18:06.920 --> 00:18:09.560 sent a letter to the US entity advocating 00:18:09.560 --> 00:18:13.730 for, among other things, the expansion of the US negotiating 00:18:13.730 --> 00:18:16.730 team to include a broader range of stakeholders and greater 00:18:16.730 --> 00:18:20.870 transparency in the negotiation process. 00:18:20.870 --> 00:18:23.770 So I'll talk a little bit about how the negotiations actually 00:18:23.770 --> 00:18:25.270 work. 00:18:25.270 --> 00:18:28.930 Each side is represented by an entity. 00:18:28.930 --> 00:18:33.430 The US entity is made up of the State Department, 00:18:33.430 --> 00:18:35.050 the Bonneville Power Administration, 00:18:35.050 --> 00:18:38.320 which covers multiple states in the Pacific Northwest, 00:18:38.320 --> 00:18:42.220 and then Northwest Division of the US Army Corps of Engineers. 00:18:42.220 --> 00:18:45.010 And the Canadian entity is represented 00:18:45.010 --> 00:18:48.100 by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, 00:18:48.100 --> 00:18:54.190 and Development, and the BC Hydro Power Authority. 00:18:54.190 --> 00:18:57.590 And so these are the formal negotiators. 00:18:57.590 --> 00:18:59.380 But in addition to those teams, there 00:18:59.380 --> 00:19:03.280 are numerous other stakeholders who are not formally 00:19:03.280 --> 00:19:05.320 involved in the negotiation process 00:19:05.320 --> 00:19:09.560 but have claims to the Basin. 00:19:09.560 --> 00:19:14.710 So these include, for example, states and their legislators, 00:19:14.710 --> 00:19:17.920 a large assortment of NGOs and other nonprofits, 00:19:17.920 --> 00:19:20.680 public utility districts, and tribes 00:19:20.680 --> 00:19:24.200 in both the United States and Canada. 00:19:24.200 --> 00:19:27.010 So as far as thinking about what comes next 00:19:27.010 --> 00:19:33.620 and trying to imagine how this treaty might resolve, 00:19:33.620 --> 00:19:37.370 as I said, the negotiations are still very much in progress, 00:19:37.370 --> 00:19:39.560 and there's not a ton of information about how 00:19:39.560 --> 00:19:41.720 things have been evolving. 00:19:41.720 --> 00:19:45.110 That said, there seems to be a consensus emerging around 00:19:45.110 --> 00:19:49.370 how they can leverage the treaty to address ecosystem 00:19:49.370 --> 00:19:52.280 functions and other environmental concerns 00:19:52.280 --> 00:19:55.930 such as climate change. 00:19:55.930 --> 00:20:00.880 This seems to be a priority for many 00:20:00.880 --> 00:20:03.640 of the non-formal stakeholders, and that 00:20:03.640 --> 00:20:06.700 has been reflected in statements made by the US and Canadian 00:20:06.700 --> 00:20:08.133 entities. 00:20:08.133 --> 00:20:09.550 There are lots of stakeholders who 00:20:09.550 --> 00:20:12.940 all have various views about how the treaty should 00:20:12.940 --> 00:20:14.860 be modernized, and there are even 00:20:14.860 --> 00:20:18.190 some stakeholders who believe that a formal treaty is 00:20:18.190 --> 00:20:19.150 unnecessary. 00:20:19.150 --> 00:20:21.790 So I think there is a more-- 00:20:21.790 --> 00:20:25.402 I think it's unlikely that actually emerges as an option, 00:20:25.402 --> 00:20:27.610 but there's a question of whether the two sides could 00:20:27.610 --> 00:20:32.410 cooperate on flood control without a formal treaty 00:20:32.410 --> 00:20:36.550 or whether good treaties make good neighbors. 00:20:36.550 --> 00:20:39.370 So that's where we're at with this. 00:20:39.370 --> 00:20:40.650 Thank you all for listening. 00:20:40.650 --> 00:20:43.180 DR. GAIN: Yeah, thank you, Gemma, 00:20:43.180 --> 00:20:44.730 for the excellent presentation. 00:20:44.730 --> 00:20:48.910 I think it's really nice the way that you have presented. 00:20:48.910 --> 00:20:50.500 It's really wonderful. 00:20:50.500 --> 00:20:56.710 So now I would like to ask Mashroof and Flora to make 00:20:56.710 --> 00:20:59.140 the comments. 00:20:59.140 --> 00:21:03.555 And yeah, then we can discuss further. 00:21:03.555 --> 00:21:04.930 AUDIENCE: So what would you think 00:21:04.930 --> 00:21:07.540 would be the biggest challenge to overcome from the government 00:21:07.540 --> 00:21:08.040 side? 00:21:11.241 --> 00:21:15.520 GEMMA HOLT: I think it's this fundamental question 00:21:15.520 --> 00:21:20.300 of the treaty that they have has basically worked for 60 years, 00:21:20.300 --> 00:21:23.890 and people have been pretty happy with it on both sides. 00:21:23.890 --> 00:21:26.320 The US feels like they're overpaying for power, 00:21:26.320 --> 00:21:29.950 but that's been the main objection to the treaty 00:21:29.950 --> 00:21:32.060 as it currently stands. 00:21:32.060 --> 00:21:35.003 However, I think there is a fairly broad consensus 00:21:35.003 --> 00:21:37.420 that the treaty should be-- the scope of the treaty should 00:21:37.420 --> 00:21:40.390 be expanded to include all of these ecosystems-- not all 00:21:40.390 --> 00:21:44.020 of these ecosystem services, but certain ecosystem services 00:21:44.020 --> 00:21:48.680 relating to salmon fisheries and climate change. 00:21:48.680 --> 00:21:49.900 And I think figuring out-- 00:21:49.900 --> 00:21:51.900 I think the biggest challenge for the government 00:21:51.900 --> 00:21:55.110 is figuring out to what extent are 00:21:55.110 --> 00:21:58.770 we going to transform this treaty that has basically 00:21:58.770 --> 00:22:02.880 worked for 60 years and broaden the scope 00:22:02.880 --> 00:22:11.580 of these negotiations, which I think is just a slippery slope. 00:22:11.580 --> 00:22:15.660 And is this treaty as-- even the right vehicle 00:22:15.660 --> 00:22:18.450 for having those conversations about transboundary 00:22:18.450 --> 00:22:20.660 environmental concerns? 00:22:20.660 --> 00:22:21.570 I don't know. 00:22:21.570 --> 00:22:25.140 I'm not sure I actually have an answer to that one. 00:22:25.140 --> 00:22:28.140 Yeah, I think that's the biggest challenge. 00:22:28.140 --> 00:22:29.970 AUDIENCE: I'm also thinking something 00:22:29.970 --> 00:22:33.270 that since the climate changes in the-- 00:22:33.270 --> 00:22:35.490 climate change has very much been the issue, 00:22:35.490 --> 00:22:38.640 so help me understand this because I'm not 00:22:38.640 --> 00:22:41.620 that much familiar with the US government system. 00:22:41.620 --> 00:22:45.990 So I was thinking that, for example, the last government 00:22:45.990 --> 00:22:50.940 of the US, as far as my understanding goes, 00:22:50.940 --> 00:22:53.430 not really very supportive of the measures 00:22:53.430 --> 00:22:56.910 to be taken about the climate change and everything. 00:22:56.910 --> 00:23:00.180 And I know that in the US, there is spoiler system. 00:23:00.180 --> 00:23:02.820 Once the government changes, almost a major portion 00:23:02.820 --> 00:23:05.350 of the administration changes. 00:23:05.350 --> 00:23:09.640 So with this shift of administration, 00:23:09.640 --> 00:23:12.240 do you think that will have a significant effect 00:23:12.240 --> 00:23:16.950 on making the future decisions on this treaty? 00:23:16.950 --> 00:23:21.012 And if yes, then how that might end up? 00:23:21.012 --> 00:23:21.720 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah. 00:23:21.720 --> 00:23:25.890 I think I would venture yes. 00:23:25.890 --> 00:23:28.630 I think that even under the Trump administration, 00:23:28.630 --> 00:23:30.630 climate change still featured in this treaty 00:23:30.630 --> 00:23:36.450 because if, for example, there is less snowmelt or less snow 00:23:36.450 --> 00:23:38.640 accumulation because of a changing climate, 00:23:38.640 --> 00:23:43.230 that has serious impacts on US hydroelectric power generation 00:23:43.230 --> 00:23:46.450 and the economy of the Pacific Northwest-- 00:23:46.450 --> 00:23:51.600 I think 40% of Washington electricity is hydroelectric. 00:23:51.600 --> 00:23:54.060 So if there's less water, there's less power, 00:23:54.060 --> 00:23:58.120 and that's quite devastating to the Northwest economy. 00:23:58.120 --> 00:24:03.060 So to that extent, I think it impacts-- 00:24:03.060 --> 00:24:06.120 the potential impacts of climate change on this treaty 00:24:06.120 --> 00:24:09.060 had already been taken into consideration, 00:24:09.060 --> 00:24:11.580 whether under the current administration that 00:24:11.580 --> 00:24:16.890 might be expanded to include more 00:24:16.890 --> 00:24:23.430 comprehensive environmental values, it seems possible. 00:24:26.220 --> 00:24:31.710 I also think that this treaty is not a major foreign policy 00:24:31.710 --> 00:24:35.010 priority for either government. 00:24:35.010 --> 00:24:38.860 So it's skated under the radar a little bit. 00:24:38.860 --> 00:24:43.030 And during some of the-- there were 10 rounds of negotiations, 00:24:43.030 --> 00:24:49.450 and then it was put on hold during the changing government. 00:24:49.450 --> 00:24:53.090 So I think whether it will be picked up 00:24:53.090 --> 00:24:56.720 with more focus on environmental concerns I 00:24:56.720 --> 00:24:58.598 think remains to be seen. 00:24:58.598 --> 00:25:00.140 AUDIENCE: Actually both the questions 00:25:00.140 --> 00:25:03.440 came from my experience as a government officer. 00:25:03.440 --> 00:25:06.410 Because in our case, in the US or in most 00:25:06.410 --> 00:25:08.360 of the developed countries, generally what I 00:25:08.360 --> 00:25:11.240 see that although the governments change 00:25:11.240 --> 00:25:14.690 but the national policies and the national rules more or less 00:25:14.690 --> 00:25:15.920 remain the same. 00:25:15.920 --> 00:25:20.370 Very minor changes unless some drastic measures are taken. 00:25:20.370 --> 00:25:22.978 But in this part of the world, the government changes, 00:25:22.978 --> 00:25:25.520 the whole thing falls apart and you start from the beginning. 00:25:25.520 --> 00:25:28.730 So this is why I was trying to actually understand 00:25:28.730 --> 00:25:32.360 this thing so that I can actually design my presentation 00:25:32.360 --> 00:25:34.847 on paper from that perspective. 00:25:34.847 --> 00:25:35.680 Thank you very much. 00:25:35.680 --> 00:25:37.840 It was an amazing presentation, and I loved it. 00:25:40.750 --> 00:25:42.010 DR. GAIN: Thanks, Mashroof. 00:25:42.010 --> 00:25:46.300 Flora, do you have any feedback or concern for Gemma? 00:25:46.300 --> 00:25:47.890 AUDIENCE: Yeah, yeah, I really, really 00:25:47.890 --> 00:25:49.430 enjoyed this presentation. 00:25:49.430 --> 00:25:50.620 Great job. 00:25:50.620 --> 00:25:52.660 I appreciate your use of graphics. 00:25:52.660 --> 00:25:55.585 I think making a presentation is-- 00:25:55.585 --> 00:26:01.040 a good presentation is always not as easy as it seems. 00:26:01.040 --> 00:26:03.320 So yeah, overall, I think I learned a lot. 00:26:03.320 --> 00:26:05.540 It was very easy to follow. 00:26:05.540 --> 00:26:07.120 I definitely had a couple of points 00:26:07.120 --> 00:26:10.770 that I would consider as further considerations, not really 00:26:10.770 --> 00:26:13.270 necessary but things that came to mind while I was listening 00:26:13.270 --> 00:26:14.390 to the presentation. 00:26:14.390 --> 00:26:17.500 So I'll run through, and you can either respond or not 00:26:17.500 --> 00:26:18.410 respond to each one. 00:26:18.410 --> 00:26:21.280 So the first one is, are there still opportunities 00:26:21.280 --> 00:26:24.400 for further hydropower expansion along the Columbia River? 00:26:24.400 --> 00:26:26.740 Because you mentioned that flooding is still a priority. 00:26:26.740 --> 00:26:29.980 But I know a lot of parts of the world hydropower expansion 00:26:29.980 --> 00:26:33.970 is really diminishing because we're just utilizing everything 00:26:33.970 --> 00:26:34.495 that we can. 00:26:37.010 --> 00:26:39.140 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah, so in my understanding, 00:26:39.140 --> 00:26:43.550 there are no opportunities for additional dam construction. 00:26:43.550 --> 00:26:47.000 There are opportunities for greater efficiency, 00:26:47.000 --> 00:26:49.370 like greater electric efficiency. 00:26:49.370 --> 00:26:52.010 Some dams have been identified as potential targets 00:26:52.010 --> 00:26:54.470 for removal, which would then catalyze 00:26:54.470 --> 00:26:57.840 additional needs on the existing dams for flood control 00:26:57.840 --> 00:26:58.340 measures. 00:27:03.750 --> 00:27:06.300 Yeah, those are the categories. 00:27:06.300 --> 00:27:07.890 Yeah. 00:27:07.890 --> 00:27:09.840 AUDIENCE: Yeah, and so then the next one-- 00:27:09.840 --> 00:27:11.423 so you talked about this a little bit, 00:27:11.423 --> 00:27:13.200 especially at the end, but I was wondering 00:27:13.200 --> 00:27:15.840 how climate change might exacerbate the water 00:27:15.840 --> 00:27:17.340 resources in the future. 00:27:17.340 --> 00:27:21.600 And I guess specifically, if certain stakeholders 00:27:21.600 --> 00:27:22.630 should be included. 00:27:22.630 --> 00:27:25.200 So you already mentioned a lot of stakeholders that are not 00:27:25.200 --> 00:27:28.320 being included, but it would be interesting 00:27:28.320 --> 00:27:33.990 if like ecologists, either like representing the two 00:27:33.990 --> 00:27:40.170 countries or some kind of neutral ecology representation 00:27:40.170 --> 00:27:41.940 to be included in the negotiations 00:27:41.940 --> 00:27:46.140 to really advocate for these environmental needs and not 00:27:46.140 --> 00:27:49.950 just the wants of the two countries, 00:27:49.950 --> 00:27:54.600 like economically or technologically. 00:27:54.600 --> 00:27:57.550 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah, that's a great question. 00:27:57.550 --> 00:27:59.580 I think one of the suggestions that 00:27:59.580 --> 00:28:03.600 has emerged in recent years is officially adding NOAA 00:28:03.600 --> 00:28:07.410 to the US entity team to have a better 00:28:07.410 --> 00:28:13.947 advocate for environmental impacts in that formal body. 00:28:13.947 --> 00:28:15.030 That is one of the things. 00:28:15.030 --> 00:28:17.490 Or other representatives from the US Department 00:28:17.490 --> 00:28:20.460 of the Interior that could be more 00:28:20.460 --> 00:28:22.260 of a voice for environmental concerns 00:28:22.260 --> 00:28:24.780 compared to the power administrations who 00:28:24.780 --> 00:28:29.900 have clear expertise on the hydroelectric side 00:28:29.900 --> 00:28:35.900 but aren't necessarily equipped to consider salmon habitats 00:28:35.900 --> 00:28:36.840 and things like that. 00:28:36.840 --> 00:28:42.080 So that's one of the strategies that has been proposed. 00:28:42.080 --> 00:28:44.080 Has not happened yet. 00:28:44.080 --> 00:28:45.730 AUDIENCE: Awesome. 00:28:45.730 --> 00:28:47.440 OK so the next thing is about-- 00:28:47.440 --> 00:28:50.770 so you did a good job of explaining the gains and losses 00:28:50.770 --> 00:28:52.780 from the treaty's point of view-- 00:28:52.780 --> 00:28:54.400 like which parties were suffering 00:28:54.400 --> 00:28:56.380 and which ones were really experiencing gain. 00:28:56.380 --> 00:29:00.310 But it'd be interesting to learn more about how 00:29:00.310 --> 00:29:04.670 this treaty was successful in terms of negotiations. 00:29:04.670 --> 00:29:06.970 So not just the effects of the treaty itself 00:29:06.970 --> 00:29:12.880 but also if people are saying that this is the model 00:29:12.880 --> 00:29:14.242 negotiation treaty. 00:29:14.242 --> 00:29:16.450 I'm sure it's not just because of what the treaty was 00:29:16.450 --> 00:29:19.748 able to achieve, but also how the treaty was negotiated. 00:29:19.748 --> 00:29:21.790 I think that's one of the most interesting things 00:29:21.790 --> 00:29:24.370 about your presentation is that it basically 00:29:24.370 --> 00:29:27.850 refers to no animosity between the countries. 00:29:27.850 --> 00:29:29.920 It took a really, really long time, 00:29:29.920 --> 00:29:33.190 like decades of negotiations, but like almost nowhere 00:29:33.190 --> 00:29:36.100 in your presentation did you mention, 00:29:36.100 --> 00:29:41.680 well, they really got stuck on this one issue 00:29:41.680 --> 00:29:48.280 or they couldn't move forward because this one party was not 00:29:48.280 --> 00:29:49.300 cooperating. 00:29:49.300 --> 00:29:51.070 And I don't know, I think it would 00:29:51.070 --> 00:29:55.090 be interesting to understand like why is that. 00:29:55.090 --> 00:29:59.110 It must have something to do with the negotiations 00:29:59.110 --> 00:30:04.725 and then also probably the conditions of what's happening. 00:30:04.725 --> 00:30:06.350 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah, that's a great point. 00:30:06.350 --> 00:30:10.795 I have not really built that in, but I think that-- 00:30:10.795 --> 00:30:11.920 yeah, that's super helpful. 00:30:11.920 --> 00:30:13.420 I'd definitely do that. 00:30:13.420 --> 00:30:15.550 AUDIENCE: Yeah, I think an easy way is like looking 00:30:15.550 --> 00:30:20.470 at the Bruno Verdini's 12 steps and just checking off which 00:30:20.470 --> 00:30:23.260 ones seem to be fulfilled and then which ones don't. 00:30:23.260 --> 00:30:26.740 Because I imagine many are checked 00:30:26.740 --> 00:30:28.750 and then that's why it was effective. 00:30:28.750 --> 00:30:31.510 But yeah, no, it was really interesting. 00:30:31.510 --> 00:30:33.730 I think it's a big shift from the case 00:30:33.730 --> 00:30:36.520 that I'm working on we're like basically the governments hate 00:30:36.520 --> 00:30:40.220 each other and that's why nothing is able to get forward. 00:30:40.220 --> 00:30:43.090 And I think it's just interesting to see 00:30:43.090 --> 00:30:45.640 how long the timeline is even if the governments don't 00:30:45.640 --> 00:30:47.260 hate each other. 00:30:47.260 --> 00:30:50.590 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah, I was thinking I was thinking a lot about that 00:30:50.590 --> 00:30:55.270 after listening to Husnain's case last week. 00:30:55.270 --> 00:30:57.370 And the two-- they kind of arrived-- 00:30:57.370 --> 00:30:59.860 the US and Canada arrived at the negotiating table 00:30:59.860 --> 00:31:02.800 with this idea of mutual gains in mind. 00:31:02.800 --> 00:31:06.070 And the treaty emerged from that, and it wasn't-- 00:31:06.070 --> 00:31:08.380 it's not that the treaty is enabling 00:31:08.380 --> 00:31:10.360 an effective diplomatic relationship. 00:31:10.360 --> 00:31:13.090 The treaty is the result of an effective diplomatic 00:31:13.090 --> 00:31:15.580 relationship. 00:31:15.580 --> 00:31:19.420 So how that differs and how that might 00:31:19.420 --> 00:31:23.080 be leveraged for a more comprehensive and 00:31:23.080 --> 00:31:28.780 forward-looking document going forward. 00:31:28.780 --> 00:31:29.590 Yeah, that's great. 00:31:29.590 --> 00:31:31.210 Thank you so much, Flora. 00:31:31.210 --> 00:31:32.220 AUDIENCE: Yeah, no. 00:31:32.220 --> 00:31:33.220 I'm just trying to see-- 00:31:33.220 --> 00:31:35.320 OK, so the last thing that I had was-- 00:31:35.320 --> 00:31:37.990 I mean, you mentioned this as one of your open questions. 00:31:37.990 --> 00:31:40.805 But it's really interesting what the consequences 00:31:40.805 --> 00:31:42.430 for the different stakeholders would be 00:31:42.430 --> 00:31:45.190 if the treaty was terminated. 00:31:45.190 --> 00:31:48.460 I think it seems like everyone's on the same page 00:31:48.460 --> 00:31:50.770 that this treaty's working, it's good. 00:31:50.770 --> 00:31:52.540 But then it's really weird that they're 00:31:52.540 --> 00:31:54.593 unable to extend the treaty. 00:31:54.593 --> 00:31:56.260 It seems like mainly just because people 00:31:56.260 --> 00:31:57.680 are dragging their feet. 00:31:57.680 --> 00:32:04.660 But , yeah it seems like in most cases, if the treaty went away, 00:32:04.660 --> 00:32:08.560 stakeholders would have some kind of loss. 00:32:08.560 --> 00:32:10.770 But I don't know. 00:32:14.260 --> 00:32:15.510 DR. GAIN: Yeah, thanks, Flora. 00:32:15.510 --> 00:32:18.350 Very constructive suggestions. 00:32:18.350 --> 00:32:23.090 So any other suggestions from, I don't know, 00:32:23.090 --> 00:32:24.845 Cassiano or Husnain? 00:32:28.570 --> 00:32:33.430 OK, so yeah, I would like to ask one thing. 00:32:33.430 --> 00:32:35.570 Maybe Mashroof touched upon it. 00:32:35.570 --> 00:32:38.860 You mentioned five areas of new-- 00:32:38.860 --> 00:32:43.580 uh, the renegotiation process. 00:32:43.580 --> 00:32:50.140 And so what are the disagreements among these areas 00:32:50.140 --> 00:32:52.690 that you mentioned among the two parties 00:32:52.690 --> 00:32:55.730 between Canada and the US? 00:32:55.730 --> 00:33:01.180 Was there a, uh, were you able to explore the disagreement 00:33:01.180 --> 00:33:05.500 among the parties for those areas that can-- 00:33:05.500 --> 00:33:08.237 a negotiation might [? stack? ?] 00:33:08.237 --> 00:33:10.570 GEMMA HOLT: I think one of the things that's interesting 00:33:10.570 --> 00:33:13.750 about this case is that the disagreement isn't necessarily 00:33:13.750 --> 00:33:17.170 between the two entities but also between all 00:33:17.170 --> 00:33:18.640 of these peripheral-- 00:33:18.640 --> 00:33:19.720 or not even peripheral. 00:33:19.720 --> 00:33:20.740 They're deeply involved. 00:33:20.740 --> 00:33:23.210 They're just not part of the formal process. 00:33:23.210 --> 00:33:25.735 So one of the things that's been so interesting looking 00:33:25.735 --> 00:33:27.610 through all of the documents that have been-- 00:33:27.610 --> 00:33:30.160 or the statements that have been put out by the US and Canada 00:33:30.160 --> 00:33:33.870 is how identical they are. 00:33:33.870 --> 00:33:36.593 And so after each round of negotiations, 00:33:36.593 --> 00:33:38.010 they put up these statements like, 00:33:38.010 --> 00:33:39.990 oh, we made so much progress. 00:33:39.990 --> 00:33:41.850 We responded to their framework, we 00:33:41.850 --> 00:33:43.710 responded to their framework. 00:33:43.710 --> 00:33:45.420 Things are moving right along. 00:33:45.420 --> 00:33:49.530 And all of the complexity seems to be 00:33:49.530 --> 00:33:54.840 driven by these other actors who are pushing for change. 00:33:54.840 --> 00:33:58.420 So I'm not sure if there's necessarily 00:33:58.420 --> 00:34:06.180 a ton of disagreement between the two countries around, say, 00:34:06.180 --> 00:34:09.150 the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in the negotiation 00:34:09.150 --> 00:34:09.840 process. 00:34:09.840 --> 00:34:15.389 I think both countries are willing to expand 00:34:15.389 --> 00:34:19.679 the scope of the treaty to think about how those tribes have 00:34:19.679 --> 00:34:21.450 been harmed over the last 60 years. 00:34:24.429 --> 00:34:29.860 But the conflict then is how does the collaborative treaty 00:34:29.860 --> 00:34:33.040 mechanism respond to the needs of these stakeholders 00:34:33.040 --> 00:34:34.760 on both sides of the border? 00:34:34.760 --> 00:34:36.610 Does that answer your question? 00:34:36.610 --> 00:34:37.659 DR. GAIN: Yep. 00:34:37.659 --> 00:34:39.820 Yeah, yeah, thanks. 00:34:39.820 --> 00:34:42.219 So the second issue that I wanted 00:34:42.219 --> 00:34:46.750 to mention that you mentioned climate science 00:34:46.750 --> 00:34:51.080 is one of the future aspects that need to be considered. 00:34:51.080 --> 00:34:55.540 So is there any study that can provide 00:34:55.540 --> 00:34:59.710 details of what are the expected impacts of the climate science? 00:34:59.710 --> 00:35:09.280 Is it future flooding, or is it the impact on energy hydropower 00:35:09.280 --> 00:35:10.030 generation? 00:35:10.030 --> 00:35:13.000 So I think if you can mention those impacts, 00:35:13.000 --> 00:35:16.190 I think then it could be much more-- 00:35:16.190 --> 00:35:20.110 I think your succession could be much more solid. 00:35:20.110 --> 00:35:23.950 GEMMA HOLT: Yes, I think I left that out for complexity's sake 00:35:23.950 --> 00:35:25.840 here, but I think the main concern is 00:35:25.840 --> 00:35:30.490 this shift from a basin that's driven by snowmelt to a basin 00:35:30.490 --> 00:35:32.530 that's driven by rain. 00:35:32.530 --> 00:35:37.010 And as there is less snowmelt and more rain, 00:35:37.010 --> 00:35:40.240 the kind of flood control mechanisms change, as well as 00:35:40.240 --> 00:35:44.930 the potential management of hydropower over time. 00:35:44.930 --> 00:35:47.230 So yes, I do have sources for that, 00:35:47.230 --> 00:35:49.330 and I will include those in my final case study. 00:35:52.770 --> 00:35:54.770 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Gemma, I've mentioned to you 00:35:54.770 --> 00:36:00.620 a couple of times along the way that it's invisible 00:36:00.620 --> 00:36:03.170 but the states and the provincial governments 00:36:03.170 --> 00:36:07.142 in Canada are in fact very much calling the shots. 00:36:07.142 --> 00:36:07.850 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah. 00:36:07.850 --> 00:36:10.100 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: And they're not officially 00:36:10.100 --> 00:36:12.890 part of the entities. 00:36:12.890 --> 00:36:20.270 But remember that the US entity is led by the State Department 00:36:20.270 --> 00:36:23.990 because allegedly this is an international negotiation, 00:36:23.990 --> 00:36:27.350 and the State Department has no relationships 00:36:27.350 --> 00:36:30.140 with the governors of all those states, 00:36:30.140 --> 00:36:33.230 no long-standing working relationships, which 00:36:33.230 --> 00:36:39.080 has caused some severe difficulty for those governors. 00:36:39.080 --> 00:36:42.680 It may be-- you don't have to do this-- 00:36:42.680 --> 00:36:47.600 but you might want to imagine as a last little piece 00:36:47.600 --> 00:36:51.470 of your paper what it might be like 00:36:51.470 --> 00:36:55.100 and how helpful it might be to imagine 00:36:55.100 --> 00:37:00.920 a second track of negotiations convened by the US 00:37:00.920 --> 00:37:04.040 governors and the provincial leadership 00:37:04.040 --> 00:37:09.080 in BC with First Nations and tribes. 00:37:09.080 --> 00:37:12.080 They would have enormous credibility. 00:37:12.080 --> 00:37:14.030 They said, we're getting together 00:37:14.030 --> 00:37:18.240 because we are convinced that the future of this agreement, 00:37:18.240 --> 00:37:23.570 whether it's strengthened or renewed or replaced, 00:37:23.570 --> 00:37:27.800 it needs to take account of the changing conditions 00:37:27.800 --> 00:37:31.130 from 60 years ago, and we feel those 00:37:31.130 --> 00:37:33.800 when we have responsibilities. 00:37:33.800 --> 00:37:37.100 And if they were to organize a set of sessions 00:37:37.100 --> 00:37:42.120 with NGOs and [INAUDIBLE] on their own. 00:37:42.120 --> 00:37:44.400 The State Department I promise you would [INAUDIBLE] 00:37:44.400 --> 00:37:47.640 the same way that the Canadian agencies would show up, 00:37:47.640 --> 00:37:52.260 but they wouldn't be there in their official capacity. 00:37:52.260 --> 00:37:57.090 And if they just took three or four questions, 00:37:57.090 --> 00:37:59.550 maybe even two or three questions 00:37:59.550 --> 00:38:05.010 that are not addressed for the future in the existing treaty 00:38:05.010 --> 00:38:10.830 and laid out substantively agreements they might reach, 00:38:10.830 --> 00:38:14.340 the same way that Bruno described local officials 00:38:14.340 --> 00:38:18.120 on both sides of the US-Mexico border 00:38:18.120 --> 00:38:22.320 initiating their own conversations, 00:38:22.320 --> 00:38:23.850 trying to come up with what they'd 00:38:23.850 --> 00:38:27.270 like to see as jointly beneficial elements 00:38:27.270 --> 00:38:32.250 of a future supplementary agreement, which then became 00:38:32.250 --> 00:38:35.260 the basis of what the US government negotiated, 00:38:35.260 --> 00:38:37.042 I think the same thing could happen. 00:38:37.042 --> 00:38:37.750 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah. 00:38:37.750 --> 00:38:42.060 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: And I think the two big differences 00:38:42.060 --> 00:38:45.120 between then and now are that there 00:38:45.120 --> 00:38:47.910 were enormous number of positive benefits 00:38:47.910 --> 00:38:50.640 to be shared in the beginning. 00:38:50.640 --> 00:38:51.448 GEMMA HOLT: Yep. 00:38:51.448 --> 00:38:53.740 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: And so they were getting together-- 00:38:53.740 --> 00:38:55.710 I agree that everyone who pointed out they 00:38:55.710 --> 00:38:58.450 start with friendly relationships, it matters. 00:38:58.450 --> 00:39:01.170 But when the actual negotiators sat down-- 00:39:01.170 --> 00:39:04.930 OK, how much flood control are you going to give me? 00:39:04.930 --> 00:39:08.340 Well, how much money are you going to give me? 00:39:08.340 --> 00:39:11.820 And that was the negotiation. 00:39:11.820 --> 00:39:14.250 Whereas now it's, OK, what restrictions 00:39:14.250 --> 00:39:15.270 are we going to impose? 00:39:15.270 --> 00:39:17.250 What dams are we going to take down? 00:39:17.250 --> 00:39:19.800 Who's going to build the new flood control 00:39:19.800 --> 00:39:22.800 systems if you take down existing dams to make 00:39:22.800 --> 00:39:25.650 salmon migration possible? 00:39:25.650 --> 00:39:29.640 It's not all about allocating gains. 00:39:29.640 --> 00:39:32.350 That's one big difference. 00:39:32.350 --> 00:39:35.370 The second is, nobody had those concerns 00:39:35.370 --> 00:39:39.630 about salmon and climate and other natural resource 00:39:39.630 --> 00:39:43.620 questions and ecological concerns the way we do now, 00:39:43.620 --> 00:39:50.310 and that's not represented well in the entities. 00:39:50.310 --> 00:39:54.090 But the concerns are there, but the entities can't really 00:39:54.090 --> 00:39:55.990 negotiate them very well. 00:39:55.990 --> 00:40:01.650 So I think if you look at what's different in big ways 00:40:01.650 --> 00:40:05.940 between then and now that the response to that 00:40:05.940 --> 00:40:09.000 would be most effective in the short term 00:40:09.000 --> 00:40:13.440 is to have a different track of local and non-governmental 00:40:13.440 --> 00:40:17.520 and scientific negotiators generate 00:40:17.520 --> 00:40:23.810 some of the elements of a supplementary subsidiary 00:40:23.810 --> 00:40:30.630 version or addition to the existing agreement. 00:40:30.630 --> 00:40:33.540 And I think the governors in those states 00:40:33.540 --> 00:40:37.410 have been tracking every move in the State Department. 00:40:37.410 --> 00:40:39.010 I mean, my engagement. 00:40:39.010 --> 00:40:40.740 In this case-- I think I mentioned-- 00:40:40.740 --> 00:40:43.380 happened when I was doing training for the State 00:40:43.380 --> 00:40:46.470 Department, and the two guys who were appointed by the State 00:40:46.470 --> 00:40:49.110 Department to lead these conversations who 00:40:49.110 --> 00:40:53.400 had zero, zero background in anything 00:40:53.400 --> 00:40:58.320 Northwest, water, Canada. 00:40:58.320 --> 00:41:01.260 They were absolutely just thrown into this 00:41:01.260 --> 00:41:04.110 and they were saying, so, we got a problem. 00:41:04.110 --> 00:41:06.510 These governors are telling us that they 00:41:06.510 --> 00:41:11.662 want to say what should happen, and we don't know 00:41:11.662 --> 00:41:12.870 how should we negotiate that. 00:41:12.870 --> 00:41:14.100 That was the question they were asking 00:41:14.100 --> 00:41:16.002 me is, how should we do this negotiation 00:41:16.002 --> 00:41:17.460 with these governors who don't have 00:41:17.460 --> 00:41:20.130 any official role while we're trying to negotiate 00:41:20.130 --> 00:41:21.360 with the Canadians. 00:41:21.360 --> 00:41:24.380 That was the conversation. 00:41:24.380 --> 00:41:26.310 I don't think they figured it out, 00:41:26.310 --> 00:41:31.530 and I think there's enormous pressure coming on the US 00:41:31.530 --> 00:41:33.818 government from the states. 00:41:33.818 --> 00:41:35.610 GEMMA HOLT: That's a thing I've been trying 00:41:35.610 --> 00:41:38.580 to untangle is the relationship of state 00:41:38.580 --> 00:41:40.470 governments to their representatives 00:41:40.470 --> 00:41:43.980 back to the federal government because so many state 00:41:43.980 --> 00:41:47.880 representatives and senators from the Northwest states 00:41:47.880 --> 00:41:51.120 have come out with various official 00:41:51.120 --> 00:41:55.470 statements and their perspective on these renegotiations. 00:41:55.470 --> 00:41:59.790 And how are the Washington senators 00:41:59.790 --> 00:42:02.700 coordinating with the Washington governor 00:42:02.700 --> 00:42:04.650 to get things back to the State Department, 00:42:04.650 --> 00:42:06.520 like trying to tease out all of those-- 00:42:06.520 --> 00:42:07.050 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: They're not. 00:42:07.050 --> 00:42:07.860 GEMMA HOLT: They're not? 00:42:07.860 --> 00:42:09.193 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: They're not. 00:42:09.193 --> 00:42:10.265 That's for show. 00:42:10.265 --> 00:42:12.360 That's-- we're trying to make political capital 00:42:12.360 --> 00:42:14.040 on the legislative side. 00:42:14.040 --> 00:42:15.370 The key is the governors. 00:42:15.370 --> 00:42:19.632 The key is the governors have the access to the White House. 00:42:19.632 --> 00:42:20.340 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah. 00:42:20.340 --> 00:42:22.200 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: The governors only 00:42:22.200 --> 00:42:26.130 care later about getting the Senate to ratify 00:42:26.130 --> 00:42:27.780 any change in the treaty. 00:42:27.780 --> 00:42:30.632 Between now and then, the House of Representatives, 00:42:30.632 --> 00:42:32.340 the governors don't care to talk to them. 00:42:32.340 --> 00:42:34.560 There's nothing they're going to do for this. 00:42:34.560 --> 00:42:38.910 So my sense is that when you see state legislators 00:42:38.910 --> 00:42:44.190 and congressional legislators from the states making noise 00:42:44.190 --> 00:42:47.670 about this issue, it's political self-promotion 00:42:47.670 --> 00:42:51.420 to try to gain some advantage from all of this. 00:42:51.420 --> 00:42:54.930 But it isn't because they expect to be part of solving it. 00:42:54.930 --> 00:42:57.137 GEMMA HOLT: Got it. 00:42:57.137 --> 00:42:57.970 That's good to know. 00:42:57.970 --> 00:43:00.460 That's helpful. 00:43:00.460 --> 00:43:02.920 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: But it is wonderful to have somebody 00:43:02.920 --> 00:43:05.290 say it was a successful treaty. 00:43:05.290 --> 00:43:07.915 Yeah, I think that's great. 00:43:07.915 --> 00:43:10.960 A successful water treaty between two countries. 00:43:10.960 --> 00:43:12.045 Wonderful. 00:43:12.045 --> 00:43:13.420 GEMMA HOLT: It's basically worked 00:43:13.420 --> 00:43:16.870 the way it was supposed to for a long time. 00:43:16.870 --> 00:43:20.650 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: And we have parallel negotiations 00:43:20.650 --> 00:43:22.600 after 50 years in Latin America. 00:43:22.600 --> 00:43:25.570 We didn't spend much time on it, but there 00:43:25.570 --> 00:43:30.100 are negotiations between different countries 00:43:30.100 --> 00:43:33.700 in Latin America where treaties that existed over shared 00:43:33.700 --> 00:43:37.090 waters for 50 years are up. 00:43:37.090 --> 00:43:42.460 And you can't just extend the treaty. 00:43:42.460 --> 00:43:45.620 Everything has changed so much. 00:43:45.620 --> 00:43:47.650 But nobody knows, well, but we've 00:43:47.650 --> 00:43:51.460 had this treaty in 50 years, it's worked. 00:43:51.460 --> 00:43:53.230 Why should we mess with it? 00:43:53.230 --> 00:43:55.900 Well, because the conditions are all changed. 00:43:55.900 --> 00:44:00.490 But that doesn't translate into a specific strategy 00:44:00.490 --> 00:44:02.920 for how to do the negotiation. 00:44:02.920 --> 00:44:08.180 In my view, if there is anything we've learned, 00:44:08.180 --> 00:44:10.610 it's that you need to get all the stakeholders-- 00:44:10.610 --> 00:44:12.790 I mean Aron, one of his four conclusions, 00:44:12.790 --> 00:44:15.940 you need to get all the stakeholders into this story. 00:44:15.940 --> 00:44:20.320 Well, you can't do that in an official treaty renegotiation. 00:44:20.320 --> 00:44:23.350 So you have to run a parallel effort 00:44:23.350 --> 00:44:27.340 and get the other stakeholders into the substance of 00:44:27.340 --> 00:44:30.340 what should the new agreement say and why. 00:44:30.340 --> 00:44:33.460 And as Bruno has shown, if you can get agreement 00:44:33.460 --> 00:44:37.660 at the next level down from the National government 00:44:37.660 --> 00:44:43.840 on the two sides and you have real players with stakes, 00:44:43.840 --> 00:44:46.030 and they say, this is what we think. 00:44:46.030 --> 00:44:47.950 Whether it's you're changing the treaty, 00:44:47.950 --> 00:44:51.010 you're extending it with a new supplementary terms. 00:44:51.010 --> 00:44:53.350 However you doing it, here's the substance, 00:44:53.350 --> 00:44:56.650 and we all agree with it, and we'll all support it. 00:45:01.140 --> 00:45:06.080 That for me is what a diplomacy framework 00:45:06.080 --> 00:45:10.670 meshes with the political reality of the treaty 00:45:10.670 --> 00:45:11.530 renegotiation. 00:45:14.800 --> 00:45:18.000 But I think the presentation was terrific. 00:45:18.000 --> 00:45:22.780 It's such an interesting circumstance. 00:45:22.780 --> 00:45:26.730 I don't think you can conclude anything at this stage, 00:45:26.730 --> 00:45:31.860 but I think you can say, as you have, look, this is a problem. 00:45:31.860 --> 00:45:34.350 Treaty renegotiation, treaty extension. 00:45:34.350 --> 00:45:36.150 Here's what they face. 00:45:36.150 --> 00:45:38.680 Here is how they got into it. 00:45:38.680 --> 00:45:41.100 Here's what they're trying. 00:45:41.100 --> 00:45:43.240 Maybe they could try this. 00:45:43.240 --> 00:45:46.830 But I don't think anyone can hold you 00:45:46.830 --> 00:45:49.440 or anyone else to trying to come up 00:45:49.440 --> 00:45:53.640 with a conclusion about anything in this case 00:45:53.640 --> 00:45:55.430 at this stage of the game. 00:45:55.430 --> 00:45:57.930 GEMMA HOLT: I think we're at the lessons learning phase more 00:45:57.930 --> 00:45:59.978 than we're at the lessons learned phase. 00:45:59.978 --> 00:46:01.020 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Yeah. 00:46:01.020 --> 00:46:03.353 GEMMA HOLT: Maybe in a few years, someone can update it. 00:46:03.353 --> 00:46:05.810 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: I hope so. 00:46:05.810 --> 00:46:09.490 We'll give them your paper to start with. 00:46:09.490 --> 00:46:12.570 DR. GAIN: So, thanks, Gemma again, for the presentation. 00:46:12.570 --> 00:46:13.758 And also thanks-- 00:46:13.758 --> 00:46:15.710 GEMMA HOLT: Thank you all for your feedback. 00:46:15.710 --> 00:46:17.050 DR. GAIN: For the presentation. 00:46:17.050 --> 00:46:22.690 So next week, we'll have last two cases 00:46:22.690 --> 00:46:24.970 by Mashroof and Flora. 00:46:24.970 --> 00:46:28.720 And as I already mentioned that the deadline for submission 00:46:28.720 --> 00:46:31.660 is on 21st of May. 00:46:31.660 --> 00:46:36.130 So yeah, we are expecting much more [INAUDIBLE] 00:46:36.130 --> 00:46:40.960 presentation and also much more final piece of your work 00:46:40.960 --> 00:46:43.040 in the next week. 00:46:43.040 --> 00:46:48.820 And as I already mentioned that please provide 00:46:48.820 --> 00:46:52.540 your feedback by May 24. 00:46:52.540 --> 00:46:53.950 I guess you already-- 00:46:53.950 --> 00:46:55.867 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Yeah, on the whole course. 00:46:55.867 --> 00:46:57.580 DR. GAIN: Yeah, for the whole course. 00:46:57.580 --> 00:46:58.773 [INAUDIBLE] already. 00:46:58.773 --> 00:47:00.190 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Add a footnote 00:47:00.190 --> 00:47:02.740 to what Animesh said at the outset. 00:47:02.740 --> 00:47:08.230 MIT has this online, give it a rating, 00:47:08.230 --> 00:47:10.240 here's a set of questions. 00:47:10.240 --> 00:47:13.510 And then they say what the average score 00:47:13.510 --> 00:47:16.870 was on each question by averaging across whoever 00:47:16.870 --> 00:47:18.740 happened to answer. 00:47:18.740 --> 00:47:21.940 I do not find this system helpful. 00:47:21.940 --> 00:47:26.800 I've never learned anything from that device, 00:47:26.800 --> 00:47:31.720 and I have always asked people to please just 00:47:31.720 --> 00:47:34.390 send a paragraph, something. 00:47:34.390 --> 00:47:36.460 What do you think the strengths and weaknesses 00:47:36.460 --> 00:47:38.320 of the course are, and what idea do you 00:47:38.320 --> 00:47:41.680 have about something we could do to improve it 00:47:41.680 --> 00:47:45.730 in a conversational just rough draft email. 00:47:45.730 --> 00:47:49.600 That's how I learn stuff about what we do in the course 00:47:49.600 --> 00:47:51.080 and how to improve it. 00:47:51.080 --> 00:47:55.840 So yes, MIT would like you to please fill out 00:47:55.840 --> 00:47:58.960 the formal evaluation form, and we'll 00:47:58.960 --> 00:48:03.250 live with whatever the numerical score is, whatever that means. 00:48:03.250 --> 00:48:08.614 But we really would like to learn something from you. 00:48:08.614 --> 00:48:12.880 We made a decision to have guest presenters, particularly 00:48:12.880 --> 00:48:13.990 guest presenters. 00:48:13.990 --> 00:48:15.820 Did we make good choices? 00:48:15.820 --> 00:48:18.460 Did we give them good advice about how to structure 00:48:18.460 --> 00:48:20.710 what they were presenting? 00:48:20.710 --> 00:48:26.980 Animesh and I tried to provide the water diplomacy framework 00:48:26.980 --> 00:48:31.270 in some more exploratory way at the outset. 00:48:31.270 --> 00:48:34.060 We asked everyone to pick a case and write a case. 00:48:34.060 --> 00:48:38.320 We used the Aquapedia frame so that people 00:48:38.320 --> 00:48:40.450 have some common device because it's 00:48:40.450 --> 00:48:44.740 worth it because we've published your paper in the Aquapedia. 00:48:44.740 --> 00:48:46.600 I mean, so we make a bunch of decisions. 00:48:46.600 --> 00:48:48.220 Those could all be different. 00:48:48.220 --> 00:48:50.590 DR. GAIN: Yeah, and also the last thing 00:48:50.590 --> 00:48:54.880 I would like to mention that last year two students-- so 00:48:54.880 --> 00:48:58.840 one of the students was able to submit their final paper 00:48:58.840 --> 00:49:00.290 into a journal article. 00:49:00.290 --> 00:49:03.190 So it's already submitted in one of the journal article. 00:49:03.190 --> 00:49:06.160 Another student is still working on that, 00:49:06.160 --> 00:49:09.250 and another student was able to publish 00:49:09.250 --> 00:49:12.460 their article in a newspaper. 00:49:12.460 --> 00:49:14.920 So this kind of thing says-- 00:49:14.920 --> 00:49:16.640 these are the practical things. 00:49:16.640 --> 00:49:20.170 So all these are the possibilities that you can do, 00:49:20.170 --> 00:49:22.840 and I am happy to support you. 00:49:22.840 --> 00:49:26.610 So yeah, I think-- 00:49:26.610 --> 00:49:28.582 yeah, it's very practical. 00:49:28.582 --> 00:49:30.540 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: It's very encouraging to us 00:49:30.540 --> 00:49:34.320 that there's peer acceptance and excitement 00:49:34.320 --> 00:49:37.020 about the things that are produced in the course. 00:49:37.020 --> 00:49:40.770 So we tell the stories of people whose papers became 00:49:40.770 --> 00:49:43.080 theses or dissertations or their papers 00:49:43.080 --> 00:49:45.630 became articles in peer-reviewed journals 00:49:45.630 --> 00:49:49.320 or their papers turned into op eds. 00:49:49.320 --> 00:49:54.305 This is all for us one indicator that people 00:49:54.305 --> 00:49:57.190 are getting something out of the thinking, 00:49:57.190 --> 00:50:00.557 reading, writing, listening, talking that happens 00:50:00.557 --> 00:50:01.140 in the course. 00:50:01.140 --> 00:50:06.000 So we hope you'll think of a way to capitalize 00:50:06.000 --> 00:50:09.870 on all the work you did in some other outlets 00:50:09.870 --> 00:50:11.670 if you can, and we'll help. 00:50:11.670 --> 00:50:13.500 We'll help. 00:50:13.500 --> 00:50:16.440 In some cases, it takes another year 00:50:16.440 --> 00:50:19.680 to deal with the journal that wants more elaboration. 00:50:19.680 --> 00:50:23.370 And we'll be glad online to help you 00:50:23.370 --> 00:50:26.600 if you want to follow up on any of this. 00:50:26.600 --> 00:50:28.730 DR. GAIN: Is there any other specific issue 00:50:28.730 --> 00:50:30.620 that you would like to mention maybe 00:50:30.620 --> 00:50:36.430 for the final paper or other issue? 00:50:36.430 --> 00:50:39.930 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Everybody's just doing some wonderful work, 00:50:39.930 --> 00:50:42.060 and we're very excited about the products. 00:50:44.610 --> 00:50:49.810 See everybody next week for the last go at this. 00:50:49.810 --> 00:50:50.310 All right. 00:50:50.310 --> 00:50:51.060 DR. GAIN: Bye. 00:50:51.060 --> 00:50:52.020 See you next week. 00:50:52.020 --> 00:50:53.260 GEMMA HOLT: Thank you all. 00:50:53.260 --> 00:50:54.340 DR. GAIN: Thank you, everybody 00:50:54.340 --> 00:50:55.882 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Great work today. 00:50:55.882 --> 00:50:56.600 Thanks!