1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:00,986 [SQUEAKING] 2 00:00:00,986 --> 00:00:02,465 [RUSTLING] 3 00:00:02,465 --> 00:00:03,451 [CLICKING] 4 00:00:21,743 --> 00:00:22,910 GEMMA HOLT: So hi, everyone. 5 00:00:22,910 --> 00:00:25,730 Today I'm new talking about the ongoing efforts 6 00:00:25,730 --> 00:00:31,070 to modernize the Columbia River Treaty, sort of the agenda. 7 00:00:31,070 --> 00:00:34,820 The Columbia River Treaty was originally signed in 1961, 8 00:00:34,820 --> 00:00:37,160 so I'm going to go through the historical context that 9 00:00:37,160 --> 00:00:38,690 led to that. 10 00:00:38,690 --> 00:00:42,590 Signature-- talk about the 1961 treaty negotiations 11 00:00:42,590 --> 00:00:44,420 and outcomes. 12 00:00:44,420 --> 00:00:47,060 And then I'm also going to talk about the ongoing case 13 00:00:47,060 --> 00:00:50,630 for modernization and the ongoing treaty negotiation 14 00:00:50,630 --> 00:00:51,360 process. 15 00:00:51,360 --> 00:00:55,740 So covering a lot of time periods here. 16 00:00:55,740 --> 00:00:59,060 So a little bit of a geographical overview. 17 00:00:59,060 --> 00:01:03,720 The Columbia River Basin is over 250,000 square miles, 18 00:01:03,720 --> 00:01:07,280 which is larger than the entire area of France. 19 00:01:07,280 --> 00:01:10,580 The Basin includes more than half of Washington and Oregon, 20 00:01:10,580 --> 00:01:14,490 almost all of Idaho, and parts of Montana, Nevada, Utah, 21 00:01:14,490 --> 00:01:15,830 and Wyoming. 22 00:01:15,830 --> 00:01:17,810 And approximately 15% of the Basin 23 00:01:17,810 --> 00:01:20,890 is in the Canadian province of British Columbia, where 24 00:01:20,890 --> 00:01:22,640 the Columbia River, which you can see here 25 00:01:22,640 --> 00:01:26,540 on this map in purple, originates. 26 00:01:26,540 --> 00:01:28,130 And then in southeastern Washington, 27 00:01:28,130 --> 00:01:30,920 the Columbia River meets the Snake River, 28 00:01:30,920 --> 00:01:35,780 and together that feeds into the Pacific Ocean. 29 00:01:35,780 --> 00:01:39,620 So the United States and Canada have a long history 30 00:01:39,620 --> 00:01:42,830 of bilateral cooperation. 31 00:01:42,830 --> 00:01:45,020 They share the longest international border 32 00:01:45,020 --> 00:01:50,030 between two countries, and their bilateral negotiations 33 00:01:50,030 --> 00:01:51,890 date back for centuries. 34 00:01:51,890 --> 00:01:55,520 As far as water diplomacy goes, the origin of this 35 00:01:55,520 --> 00:01:58,880 is the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, 36 00:01:58,880 --> 00:02:03,050 which was signed to come up with an approach for preventing 37 00:02:03,050 --> 00:02:07,760 and resolving disputes over the use of shared waters. 38 00:02:07,760 --> 00:02:10,550 It established an international joint commission 39 00:02:10,550 --> 00:02:13,730 to help the two countries carry out its provisions. 40 00:02:13,730 --> 00:02:16,490 And at the time, disputes over water, 41 00:02:16,490 --> 00:02:21,230 most notably on the Niagara River on the East Coast, 42 00:02:21,230 --> 00:02:24,920 were already creating tension along the border. 43 00:02:24,920 --> 00:02:26,780 So the treaty provided this framework 44 00:02:26,780 --> 00:02:29,060 to deal with these disputes. 45 00:02:29,060 --> 00:02:31,130 It held its first meeting in 1912, 46 00:02:31,130 --> 00:02:33,680 and it has worked over the last century plus 47 00:02:33,680 --> 00:02:36,860 to resolve more than 100 matters raised 48 00:02:36,860 --> 00:02:39,480 by the two federal governments. 49 00:02:39,480 --> 00:02:42,980 So the Columbia River Treaty more specifically came 50 00:02:42,980 --> 00:02:46,550 about during this era of hydropower expansion 51 00:02:46,550 --> 00:02:48,890 in the United States and Canada, which 52 00:02:48,890 --> 00:02:54,020 is symbolized in the 1930s with the construction of the Grand 53 00:02:54,020 --> 00:02:56,780 Coulee Dam in Washington. 54 00:02:56,780 --> 00:02:58,500 And during about a 20-year period, 55 00:02:58,500 --> 00:03:01,310 more than a dozen large dams were built in the Columbia 56 00:03:01,310 --> 00:03:02,630 River Basin-- 57 00:03:02,630 --> 00:03:06,160 mostly for hydroelectric power purposes, 58 00:03:06,160 --> 00:03:08,810 but they also benefited flood control, navigation, 59 00:03:08,810 --> 00:03:11,780 and other irrigation projects. 60 00:03:11,780 --> 00:03:13,820 The construction of these dams had 61 00:03:13,820 --> 00:03:15,950 and continues to have a negative impact 62 00:03:15,950 --> 00:03:18,440 on the ecosystems of the Basin. 63 00:03:18,440 --> 00:03:20,840 For example, the completion of the Grand Coulee Dam 64 00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:24,290 eliminated salmon runs from the mainstream Columbia River 65 00:03:24,290 --> 00:03:27,030 and its tributaries in British Columbia. 66 00:03:27,030 --> 00:03:31,130 So the specific impetus for the Columbia River treaty 67 00:03:31,130 --> 00:03:34,730 was a major flood in 1948. 68 00:03:34,730 --> 00:03:39,560 The river was abnormally high due to deep snowfall and large 69 00:03:39,560 --> 00:03:40,550 rainstorms. 70 00:03:40,550 --> 00:03:43,010 And it breached a dike in Vanport, Oregon, which 71 00:03:43,010 --> 00:03:45,860 is an industrial suburb outside of Portland, 72 00:03:45,860 --> 00:03:49,220 and the town was completely submerged. 73 00:03:49,220 --> 00:03:52,850 18,000 residents were displaced, 51 people were killed, 74 00:03:52,850 --> 00:03:56,460 and the estimated property damage was over $100 million. 75 00:03:56,460 --> 00:03:59,060 So you can see here on the right a picture of the town 76 00:03:59,060 --> 00:04:01,220 right after the flood. 77 00:04:01,220 --> 00:04:03,350 So the original treaty emerged in response 78 00:04:03,350 --> 00:04:08,000 to these two, one trend of hydropower development 79 00:04:08,000 --> 00:04:10,610 and then the specific flood control 80 00:04:10,610 --> 00:04:14,780 needs that were raised by the Vanport flood. 81 00:04:14,780 --> 00:04:17,839 So agreeing to agree. 82 00:04:17,839 --> 00:04:21,649 In 1944, Canada and the US had requested 83 00:04:21,649 --> 00:04:25,670 that the IJC determine whether a greater use than is now 84 00:04:25,670 --> 00:04:29,420 being made of the waters of the Columbia River System 85 00:04:29,420 --> 00:04:31,555 would be feasible and advantageous. 86 00:04:31,555 --> 00:04:33,680 And then four years later, after the Vanport flood, 87 00:04:33,680 --> 00:04:35,780 detailed studies began. 88 00:04:35,780 --> 00:04:40,750 And what followed was 11 years of discussions and analysis, 89 00:04:40,750 --> 00:04:43,640 two requests by the US for approval of the Libby 90 00:04:43,640 --> 00:04:45,990 Dam in Montana, which is pictured behind me, 91 00:04:45,990 --> 00:04:48,350 my virtual background. 92 00:04:48,350 --> 00:04:51,290 Two proposals by Columbia River companies 93 00:04:51,290 --> 00:04:54,620 to build Canadian dams, committee hearings in the US 94 00:04:54,620 --> 00:04:57,890 Senate and the Canadian Parliament, 95 00:04:57,890 --> 00:05:00,260 and a gradual acceptance by the US of the idea 96 00:05:00,260 --> 00:05:03,560 of sharing downstream US hydroelectric benefits. 97 00:05:03,560 --> 00:05:08,000 So 11 years of negotiations and then 98 00:05:08,000 --> 00:05:11,240 another round of formal negotiations 99 00:05:11,240 --> 00:05:14,210 began in February of 1960. 100 00:05:14,210 --> 00:05:17,150 And then ultimately the Columbia River treaty 101 00:05:17,150 --> 00:05:20,300 is signed by President Eisenhower and Prime Minister 102 00:05:20,300 --> 00:05:25,120 Diefenbaker on January 17, 1961. 103 00:05:25,120 --> 00:05:27,430 The US Senate approved it almost immediately, 104 00:05:27,430 --> 00:05:30,070 but ratification took an additional three years 105 00:05:30,070 --> 00:05:35,350 in Canada, largely due to British Columbia needing 106 00:05:35,350 --> 00:05:38,740 to negotiate with the Canadian federal government 107 00:05:38,740 --> 00:05:42,770 to clarify issues of authority and responsibility. 108 00:05:42,770 --> 00:05:47,720 So that was the original round of negotiation processes. 109 00:05:47,720 --> 00:05:52,040 And the treaty as it emerged has two primary focuses-- 110 00:05:52,040 --> 00:05:55,280 hydroelectric power and flood control. 111 00:05:55,280 --> 00:05:56,870 The terms of the treaty specified 112 00:05:56,870 --> 00:06:00,350 that Canada would provide about 15 million acre 113 00:06:00,350 --> 00:06:02,930 feet of storage usable for improving 114 00:06:02,930 --> 00:06:05,720 the flow of the Columbia River. 115 00:06:05,720 --> 00:06:07,850 This is really for flood control purposes 116 00:06:07,850 --> 00:06:11,480 to minimize downstream flood damages in both the US 117 00:06:11,480 --> 00:06:13,370 and Canada. 118 00:06:13,370 --> 00:06:17,780 And as compensation, the US made three lump sum payments 119 00:06:17,780 --> 00:06:22,460 totaling $64.4 million to Canada when the dams were completed, 120 00:06:22,460 --> 00:06:26,030 and that amount was based on an estimate of half 121 00:06:26,030 --> 00:06:29,670 of the present value of future US flood damages prevented. 122 00:06:29,670 --> 00:06:33,920 So the operation of the Columbia River Treaty storage 123 00:06:33,920 --> 00:06:37,100 creates hydropower benefits in both countries, 124 00:06:37,100 --> 00:06:41,180 and the CRT requires that the downstream power 125 00:06:41,180 --> 00:06:43,880 benefits in the US due to the operation 126 00:06:43,880 --> 00:06:46,850 of the Canadian storage be shared equally 127 00:06:46,850 --> 00:06:49,430 between the two countries. 128 00:06:49,430 --> 00:06:52,280 This is known as the Canadian entitlement. 129 00:06:52,280 --> 00:06:54,650 And under the terms of the treaty, 130 00:06:54,650 --> 00:06:57,200 Canada can opt to sell the entitlement back 131 00:06:57,200 --> 00:06:58,940 to buyers in the US. 132 00:06:58,940 --> 00:07:02,120 And actually to pay for construction of the dams, 133 00:07:02,120 --> 00:07:04,340 British Columbia sold the Canadian entitlement 134 00:07:04,340 --> 00:07:07,250 to a consortium of utilities in the US for 30 years 135 00:07:07,250 --> 00:07:10,200 beginning in 1964. 136 00:07:10,200 --> 00:07:14,960 So the treaty really is premised on this idea of mutual gains 137 00:07:14,960 --> 00:07:17,450 to both countries, both in terms of flood control 138 00:07:17,450 --> 00:07:20,030 and hydroelectricity. 139 00:07:20,030 --> 00:07:24,380 However, there were also losses created. 140 00:07:24,380 --> 00:07:27,110 Most notably the treaty made no explicit provision 141 00:07:27,110 --> 00:07:31,190 for other values such as water flow benefits for salmon 142 00:07:31,190 --> 00:07:35,030 and steelhead, continuing to exacerbate these ecosystem 143 00:07:35,030 --> 00:07:40,230 problems created by this era of hydropower expansion. 144 00:07:40,230 --> 00:07:42,560 So these are the three. 145 00:07:42,560 --> 00:07:47,240 Here you can see a map of all of the dams in the system. 146 00:07:47,240 --> 00:07:49,980 The three dams in Canada up here. 147 00:07:49,980 --> 00:07:51,178 Can you see my mouse? 148 00:07:51,178 --> 00:07:52,220 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Yeah. 149 00:07:52,220 --> 00:07:54,488 GEMMA HOLT: In purple and the Libby Dam in Montana. 150 00:07:54,488 --> 00:07:56,030 So those were the four dams that were 151 00:07:56,030 --> 00:07:59,510 built as a result of the Columbia River Treaty. 152 00:07:59,510 --> 00:08:01,880 But the consequences of the treaty 153 00:08:01,880 --> 00:08:05,090 affect the entire hydroelectric power generation 154 00:08:05,090 --> 00:08:07,520 across the entire basin. 155 00:08:07,520 --> 00:08:13,010 So it's very involved, even though there 156 00:08:13,010 --> 00:08:15,530 are only three dams actually generated 157 00:08:15,530 --> 00:08:18,300 as a result of the treaty. 158 00:08:18,300 --> 00:08:21,290 So the treaty has been widely regarded 159 00:08:21,290 --> 00:08:25,040 as an example of successful cooperation 160 00:08:25,040 --> 00:08:27,980 and successful transboundary negotiations really built 161 00:08:27,980 --> 00:08:30,170 on this foundation of mutual gains. 162 00:08:30,170 --> 00:08:34,429 In 2011, when the renegotiation process began, 163 00:08:34,429 --> 00:08:36,716 the British Columbia government came out 164 00:08:36,716 --> 00:08:39,049 with a statement saying that the Columbia River is known 165 00:08:39,049 --> 00:08:40,674 throughout the world as one of the most 166 00:08:40,674 --> 00:08:44,275 successful models of a transboundary water treaty. 167 00:08:44,275 --> 00:08:45,650 Other countries see the agreement 168 00:08:45,650 --> 00:08:50,820 as a benchmark on cooperation to create and share benefits. 169 00:08:50,820 --> 00:08:53,270 So I thought that was an interesting statement. 170 00:08:53,270 --> 00:08:55,820 And while the treaty did authorize 171 00:08:55,820 --> 00:09:00,320 this equal sharing of additional hydropower, 172 00:09:00,320 --> 00:09:02,720 results from the additional water storage, 173 00:09:02,720 --> 00:09:07,820 and coordinated water releases, there were also-- 174 00:09:07,820 --> 00:09:10,370 negative impacts of the dams weren't necessarily equally 175 00:09:10,370 --> 00:09:13,230 shared by the two countries. 176 00:09:13,230 --> 00:09:18,200 So the United States had fairly significant adverse impacts 177 00:09:18,200 --> 00:09:24,710 on fish and salmon habitat and some losses of land. 178 00:09:24,710 --> 00:09:27,110 But in Canada, as a result of the three dams 179 00:09:27,110 --> 00:09:31,880 that were constructed, there was major flooding and dislocation 180 00:09:31,880 --> 00:09:33,320 of entire communities. 181 00:09:33,320 --> 00:09:38,600 So Canada, although they were ultimately compensated for it, 182 00:09:38,600 --> 00:09:41,840 did have more significant negative impacts 183 00:09:41,840 --> 00:09:45,720 as a result of the treaties. 184 00:09:45,720 --> 00:09:50,390 So the case for modernization-- 185 00:09:50,390 --> 00:09:54,440 the Columbia River Treaty has no expiration date, 186 00:09:54,440 --> 00:09:58,070 but 2024 is significant because it 187 00:09:58,070 --> 00:10:00,590 is the earliest that the terms of the treaty 188 00:10:00,590 --> 00:10:03,540 can be terminated. 189 00:10:03,540 --> 00:10:06,590 And so without renegotiation-- also in addition 190 00:10:06,590 --> 00:10:09,620 to the termination provision, without renegotiation, 191 00:10:09,620 --> 00:10:13,190 the flood control provisions will shift. 192 00:10:13,190 --> 00:10:15,590 So this presents an opportunity for the United States 193 00:10:15,590 --> 00:10:18,680 and Canada, as well as other stakeholders 194 00:10:18,680 --> 00:10:21,710 on both sides of the border, to reconsider 195 00:10:21,710 --> 00:10:27,330 the scope of the treaty and evaluate its effectiveness. 196 00:10:27,330 --> 00:10:30,650 And I think within a water diplomacy framework, the fact 197 00:10:30,650 --> 00:10:33,020 that this renegotiation process is 198 00:10:33,020 --> 00:10:36,320 baked into the initial agreement is a strength. 199 00:10:36,320 --> 00:10:40,550 We can talk about whether the 60-year timeline is too long. 200 00:10:40,550 --> 00:10:42,360 But I think it is interesting that none 201 00:10:42,360 --> 00:10:44,850 of the original negotiators expected 202 00:10:44,850 --> 00:10:48,430 that the original agreement would last forever. 203 00:10:48,430 --> 00:10:52,110 But at the same time, this has also introduced some measure 204 00:10:52,110 --> 00:10:55,470 of conflict, I guess, because everyone wants the treaty 205 00:10:55,470 --> 00:10:58,890 to be updated in a way that reflects their priorities 206 00:10:58,890 --> 00:11:00,430 and values. 207 00:11:00,430 --> 00:11:03,780 So thinking about modernization, which 208 00:11:03,780 --> 00:11:06,660 is the word being used by the negotiators, 209 00:11:06,660 --> 00:11:08,700 there's five main issues that have 210 00:11:08,700 --> 00:11:12,600 been raised during these ongoing conversations. 211 00:11:12,600 --> 00:11:15,570 This is not an exhaustive list-- lots of other things 212 00:11:15,570 --> 00:11:17,490 have been brought up as well, but I 213 00:11:17,490 --> 00:11:20,480 think it summarizes the most significant arguments, so I'm 214 00:11:20,480 --> 00:11:24,780 going to walk through each of these five. 215 00:11:24,780 --> 00:11:27,960 So first as I mentioned, issue number one 216 00:11:27,960 --> 00:11:33,750 is that 2024, the current flood risk management provisions 217 00:11:33,750 --> 00:11:36,270 change to a less defined approach. 218 00:11:36,270 --> 00:11:38,850 And instead of Canada providing a set amount 219 00:11:38,850 --> 00:11:40,920 of flood control every year, it will 220 00:11:40,920 --> 00:11:44,610 be as-- on an on-call basis, and the US 221 00:11:44,610 --> 00:11:47,280 will pay on an annual basis based 222 00:11:47,280 --> 00:11:51,610 on how much flood risk has been assessed. 223 00:11:51,610 --> 00:11:54,210 So this is the core part of the original treaty, 224 00:11:54,210 --> 00:11:56,370 and it will expire unless measures are 225 00:11:56,370 --> 00:12:00,100 taken to renew or modify it. 226 00:12:00,100 --> 00:12:01,830 And in addition, it is the earliest date 227 00:12:01,830 --> 00:12:04,200 at which the treaty can be terminated, provided 228 00:12:04,200 --> 00:12:06,240 that either Canada or the United States 229 00:12:06,240 --> 00:12:09,870 provides 10 years written notice. 230 00:12:09,870 --> 00:12:11,910 No one has provided this, so the treaty 231 00:12:11,910 --> 00:12:17,070 will not be terminated in 2024. 232 00:12:17,070 --> 00:12:24,000 But it catalyzed this era of renegotiations 233 00:12:24,000 --> 00:12:27,210 beginning around 2011, 2012. 234 00:12:27,210 --> 00:12:29,700 That's issue one. 235 00:12:29,700 --> 00:12:33,780 Issue number two is that since the original treaty negotiation 236 00:12:33,780 --> 00:12:39,150 process in the 1960s, stakeholders outside 237 00:12:39,150 --> 00:12:43,500 of the main negotiating parties have argued that the treaty 238 00:12:43,500 --> 00:12:45,490 neglects ecosystem needs. 239 00:12:45,490 --> 00:12:48,000 So the renegotiation process has opened 240 00:12:48,000 --> 00:12:52,980 the door for a variety of environmental advocates. 241 00:12:52,980 --> 00:12:57,030 And in particular, the dams built as a result of the treaty 242 00:12:57,030 --> 00:13:00,480 have altered the river's ecology and contributed to the decline 243 00:13:00,480 --> 00:13:01,770 of salmon fisheries. 244 00:13:01,770 --> 00:13:08,040 So in a 1995 opinion on the impacts of the entire Columbia 245 00:13:08,040 --> 00:13:12,060 River power system on salmon, NOAA, the National 246 00:13:12,060 --> 00:13:16,650 Oceanographic Association, had set flow objectives 247 00:13:16,650 --> 00:13:20,010 at each of the Columbia River Basin dams. 248 00:13:20,010 --> 00:13:22,410 And in the last 20 years, the spring target 249 00:13:22,410 --> 00:13:25,830 has been missed roughly 27% of the time. 250 00:13:25,830 --> 00:13:29,130 So 27% of time, there's not adequate flow 251 00:13:29,130 --> 00:13:33,870 at these dams for salmon to pass. 252 00:13:33,870 --> 00:13:36,870 And the initial study is about renegotiation, 253 00:13:36,870 --> 00:13:39,960 the US and Canadian entities didn't address 254 00:13:39,960 --> 00:13:41,400 any of these ecosystem needs. 255 00:13:41,400 --> 00:13:44,760 They only addressed updating the power and flood control 256 00:13:44,760 --> 00:13:47,610 agreements, although subsequent documents 257 00:13:47,610 --> 00:13:51,220 have addressed incorporating more ecosystem-based function 258 00:13:51,220 --> 00:13:52,150 requirements. 259 00:13:52,150 --> 00:13:55,150 So you can see here on this map on the right 260 00:13:55,150 --> 00:14:00,570 where there are salmon passages and where 261 00:14:00,570 --> 00:14:03,420 the dams have prevented any kind of fish migration. 262 00:14:03,420 --> 00:14:08,490 So almost everything north of the Canadian border, 263 00:14:08,490 --> 00:14:13,840 the salmon habitats has been completely destroyed. 264 00:14:13,840 --> 00:14:15,450 And in particular groups that have 265 00:14:15,450 --> 00:14:17,730 been harmed by the original treaty 266 00:14:17,730 --> 00:14:19,980 and who have advocated consistently 267 00:14:19,980 --> 00:14:24,300 for considering salmon habitats are the Canadian First Nations 268 00:14:24,300 --> 00:14:28,500 and United States Native American tribes. 269 00:14:28,500 --> 00:14:34,110 And you can see here on the right, the historical land 270 00:14:34,110 --> 00:14:37,740 of the Yakama, Umatilla, Nez Perce, and Warm Springs tribes 271 00:14:37,740 --> 00:14:40,830 who have formed a coalition to advocate 272 00:14:40,830 --> 00:14:43,710 for incorporating ecosystem functions 273 00:14:43,710 --> 00:14:45,690 in the modernized treaty. 274 00:14:45,690 --> 00:14:49,560 And that group came out with a statement recently 275 00:14:49,560 --> 00:14:52,320 that said that any modifications to the treaty 276 00:14:52,320 --> 00:14:55,500 must ensure full engagement and consent from tribes and First 277 00:14:55,500 --> 00:15:00,090 Nations and be in alignment with articulated Indigenous 278 00:15:00,090 --> 00:15:01,230 governance principles. 279 00:15:01,230 --> 00:15:03,360 So they're advocating essentially 280 00:15:03,360 --> 00:15:06,660 for expanding the formal negotiation 281 00:15:06,660 --> 00:15:10,080 team to include representatives from Native American tribes 282 00:15:10,080 --> 00:15:10,905 and First Nations. 283 00:15:13,690 --> 00:15:18,940 Next, stakeholders responding to these needs on both sides 284 00:15:18,940 --> 00:15:21,070 have identified ecosystem functions 285 00:15:21,070 --> 00:15:24,460 as a key component of a modernized treaty. 286 00:15:24,460 --> 00:15:26,350 The US came out and said that there's 287 00:15:26,350 --> 00:15:29,770 an opportunity for inclusion of certain additional ecosystem 288 00:15:29,770 --> 00:15:33,970 operations, and the BC side, the British Columbia side 289 00:15:33,970 --> 00:15:36,850 said basically the exact same statement. 290 00:15:36,850 --> 00:15:40,630 There is certainly a lack of clarity about what exactly 291 00:15:40,630 --> 00:15:43,030 ecosystem functions mean. 292 00:15:43,030 --> 00:15:47,740 It's become a buzzword within this negotiation process, 293 00:15:47,740 --> 00:15:50,920 and a lot of stakeholders trying to advocate 294 00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:54,795 for clarifying and determining what exactly are we 295 00:15:54,795 --> 00:15:56,170 thinking about when we're talking 296 00:15:56,170 --> 00:15:59,140 about ecosystem functions. 297 00:15:59,140 --> 00:16:03,220 And then finally, the terms of the Canadian entitlement 298 00:16:03,220 --> 00:16:06,880 have led to conditions that disadvantage US electricity 299 00:16:06,880 --> 00:16:08,740 consumers. 300 00:16:08,740 --> 00:16:11,470 Because the Canadian Entitlement specifies 301 00:16:11,470 --> 00:16:13,990 that all power generated downstream 302 00:16:13,990 --> 00:16:19,870 would be split evenly among the United States and Canada, 303 00:16:19,870 --> 00:16:22,150 although the energy market has changed considerably 304 00:16:22,150 --> 00:16:23,920 since 1964. 305 00:16:23,920 --> 00:16:25,870 So the original economic assumptions 306 00:16:25,870 --> 00:16:29,920 were based on forecasts of declining downstream power, 307 00:16:29,920 --> 00:16:32,120 but these proved to be incorrect. 308 00:16:32,120 --> 00:16:34,240 And so the power sharing agreement 309 00:16:34,240 --> 00:16:38,980 has ultimately been more favorable to Canada 310 00:16:38,980 --> 00:16:42,190 than to the US, and the US entity 311 00:16:42,190 --> 00:16:45,430 has proposed rebalancing the power benefits 312 00:16:45,430 --> 00:16:47,530 to better reflect the actual value 313 00:16:47,530 --> 00:16:50,800 of the coordinated operations. 314 00:16:50,800 --> 00:16:53,290 However, some Northwest politicians 315 00:16:53,290 --> 00:16:56,830 believe that the terms of the treaty are beyond repair 316 00:16:56,830 --> 00:16:59,680 and introduced a bipartisan resolution 317 00:16:59,680 --> 00:17:01,840 in the United States House of Representatives 318 00:17:01,840 --> 00:17:05,020 calling for its termination. 319 00:17:05,020 --> 00:17:08,740 While this seems unlikely, it is another sticking point 320 00:17:08,740 --> 00:17:10,419 in the renegotiation process. 321 00:17:13,099 --> 00:17:19,040 So formal negotiations opened on May 30 in 2018, 322 00:17:19,040 --> 00:17:23,540 and in June 2020, the 10th round of treaty negotiations 323 00:17:23,540 --> 00:17:26,660 occurred via web conference. 324 00:17:26,660 --> 00:17:29,930 And at the conclusion of those most recent conversations, 325 00:17:29,930 --> 00:17:33,230 the two sides released almost identical press statements, 326 00:17:33,230 --> 00:17:37,850 which I excerpted on this slide. 327 00:17:37,850 --> 00:17:40,520 Due to the confidential nature of the cross-border 328 00:17:40,520 --> 00:17:43,400 negotiations, the specific details 329 00:17:43,400 --> 00:17:47,780 of Canada's initial proposal and of the US framework 330 00:17:47,780 --> 00:17:51,698 that they're referencing here have not been made public. 331 00:17:51,698 --> 00:17:53,240 And this lack of information has been 332 00:17:53,240 --> 00:17:57,230 really frustrating to the numerous stakeholders who 333 00:17:57,230 --> 00:18:01,790 regard modernizing the treaty as essential. 334 00:18:01,790 --> 00:18:06,920 So in 2018, a coalition of 31 nonprofit organizations 335 00:18:06,920 --> 00:18:09,560 sent a letter to the US entity advocating 336 00:18:09,560 --> 00:18:13,730 for, among other things, the expansion of the US negotiating 337 00:18:13,730 --> 00:18:16,730 team to include a broader range of stakeholders and greater 338 00:18:16,730 --> 00:18:20,870 transparency in the negotiation process. 339 00:18:20,870 --> 00:18:23,770 So I'll talk a little bit about how the negotiations actually 340 00:18:23,770 --> 00:18:25,270 work. 341 00:18:25,270 --> 00:18:28,930 Each side is represented by an entity. 342 00:18:28,930 --> 00:18:33,430 The US entity is made up of the State Department, 343 00:18:33,430 --> 00:18:35,050 the Bonneville Power Administration, 344 00:18:35,050 --> 00:18:38,320 which covers multiple states in the Pacific Northwest, 345 00:18:38,320 --> 00:18:42,220 and then Northwest Division of the US Army Corps of Engineers. 346 00:18:42,220 --> 00:18:45,010 And the Canadian entity is represented 347 00:18:45,010 --> 00:18:48,100 by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, 348 00:18:48,100 --> 00:18:54,190 and Development, and the BC Hydro Power Authority. 349 00:18:54,190 --> 00:18:57,590 And so these are the formal negotiators. 350 00:18:57,590 --> 00:18:59,380 But in addition to those teams, there 351 00:18:59,380 --> 00:19:03,280 are numerous other stakeholders who are not formally 352 00:19:03,280 --> 00:19:05,320 involved in the negotiation process 353 00:19:05,320 --> 00:19:09,560 but have claims to the Basin. 354 00:19:09,560 --> 00:19:14,710 So these include, for example, states and their legislators, 355 00:19:14,710 --> 00:19:17,920 a large assortment of NGOs and other nonprofits, 356 00:19:17,920 --> 00:19:20,680 public utility districts, and tribes 357 00:19:20,680 --> 00:19:24,200 in both the United States and Canada. 358 00:19:24,200 --> 00:19:27,010 So as far as thinking about what comes next 359 00:19:27,010 --> 00:19:33,620 and trying to imagine how this treaty might resolve, 360 00:19:33,620 --> 00:19:37,370 as I said, the negotiations are still very much in progress, 361 00:19:37,370 --> 00:19:39,560 and there's not a ton of information about how 362 00:19:39,560 --> 00:19:41,720 things have been evolving. 363 00:19:41,720 --> 00:19:45,110 That said, there seems to be a consensus emerging around 364 00:19:45,110 --> 00:19:49,370 how they can leverage the treaty to address ecosystem 365 00:19:49,370 --> 00:19:52,280 functions and other environmental concerns 366 00:19:52,280 --> 00:19:55,930 such as climate change. 367 00:19:55,930 --> 00:20:00,880 This seems to be a priority for many 368 00:20:00,880 --> 00:20:03,640 of the non-formal stakeholders, and that 369 00:20:03,640 --> 00:20:06,700 has been reflected in statements made by the US and Canadian 370 00:20:06,700 --> 00:20:08,133 entities. 371 00:20:08,133 --> 00:20:09,550 There are lots of stakeholders who 372 00:20:09,550 --> 00:20:12,940 all have various views about how the treaty should 373 00:20:12,940 --> 00:20:14,860 be modernized, and there are even 374 00:20:14,860 --> 00:20:18,190 some stakeholders who believe that a formal treaty is 375 00:20:18,190 --> 00:20:19,150 unnecessary. 376 00:20:19,150 --> 00:20:21,790 So I think there is a more-- 377 00:20:21,790 --> 00:20:25,402 I think it's unlikely that actually emerges as an option, 378 00:20:25,402 --> 00:20:27,610 but there's a question of whether the two sides could 379 00:20:27,610 --> 00:20:32,410 cooperate on flood control without a formal treaty 380 00:20:32,410 --> 00:20:36,550 or whether good treaties make good neighbors. 381 00:20:36,550 --> 00:20:39,370 So that's where we're at with this. 382 00:20:39,370 --> 00:20:40,650 Thank you all for listening. 383 00:20:40,650 --> 00:20:43,180 DR. GAIN: Yeah, thank you, Gemma, 384 00:20:43,180 --> 00:20:44,730 for the excellent presentation. 385 00:20:44,730 --> 00:20:48,910 I think it's really nice the way that you have presented. 386 00:20:48,910 --> 00:20:50,500 It's really wonderful. 387 00:20:50,500 --> 00:20:56,710 So now I would like to ask Mashroof and Flora to make 388 00:20:56,710 --> 00:20:59,140 the comments. 389 00:20:59,140 --> 00:21:03,555 And yeah, then we can discuss further. 390 00:21:03,555 --> 00:21:04,930 AUDIENCE: So what would you think 391 00:21:04,930 --> 00:21:07,540 would be the biggest challenge to overcome from the government 392 00:21:07,540 --> 00:21:08,040 side? 393 00:21:11,241 --> 00:21:15,520 GEMMA HOLT: I think it's this fundamental question 394 00:21:15,520 --> 00:21:20,300 of the treaty that they have has basically worked for 60 years, 395 00:21:20,300 --> 00:21:23,890 and people have been pretty happy with it on both sides. 396 00:21:23,890 --> 00:21:26,320 The US feels like they're overpaying for power, 397 00:21:26,320 --> 00:21:29,950 but that's been the main objection to the treaty 398 00:21:29,950 --> 00:21:32,060 as it currently stands. 399 00:21:32,060 --> 00:21:35,003 However, I think there is a fairly broad consensus 400 00:21:35,003 --> 00:21:37,420 that the treaty should be-- the scope of the treaty should 401 00:21:37,420 --> 00:21:40,390 be expanded to include all of these ecosystems-- not all 402 00:21:40,390 --> 00:21:44,020 of these ecosystem services, but certain ecosystem services 403 00:21:44,020 --> 00:21:48,680 relating to salmon fisheries and climate change. 404 00:21:48,680 --> 00:21:49,900 And I think figuring out-- 405 00:21:49,900 --> 00:21:51,900 I think the biggest challenge for the government 406 00:21:51,900 --> 00:21:55,110 is figuring out to what extent are 407 00:21:55,110 --> 00:21:58,770 we going to transform this treaty that has basically 408 00:21:58,770 --> 00:22:02,880 worked for 60 years and broaden the scope 409 00:22:02,880 --> 00:22:11,580 of these negotiations, which I think is just a slippery slope. 410 00:22:11,580 --> 00:22:15,660 And is this treaty as-- even the right vehicle 411 00:22:15,660 --> 00:22:18,450 for having those conversations about transboundary 412 00:22:18,450 --> 00:22:20,660 environmental concerns? 413 00:22:20,660 --> 00:22:21,570 I don't know. 414 00:22:21,570 --> 00:22:25,140 I'm not sure I actually have an answer to that one. 415 00:22:25,140 --> 00:22:28,140 Yeah, I think that's the biggest challenge. 416 00:22:28,140 --> 00:22:29,970 AUDIENCE: I'm also thinking something 417 00:22:29,970 --> 00:22:33,270 that since the climate changes in the-- 418 00:22:33,270 --> 00:22:35,490 climate change has very much been the issue, 419 00:22:35,490 --> 00:22:38,640 so help me understand this because I'm not 420 00:22:38,640 --> 00:22:41,620 that much familiar with the US government system. 421 00:22:41,620 --> 00:22:45,990 So I was thinking that, for example, the last government 422 00:22:45,990 --> 00:22:50,940 of the US, as far as my understanding goes, 423 00:22:50,940 --> 00:22:53,430 not really very supportive of the measures 424 00:22:53,430 --> 00:22:56,910 to be taken about the climate change and everything. 425 00:22:56,910 --> 00:23:00,180 And I know that in the US, there is spoiler system. 426 00:23:00,180 --> 00:23:02,820 Once the government changes, almost a major portion 427 00:23:02,820 --> 00:23:05,350 of the administration changes. 428 00:23:05,350 --> 00:23:09,640 So with this shift of administration, 429 00:23:09,640 --> 00:23:12,240 do you think that will have a significant effect 430 00:23:12,240 --> 00:23:16,950 on making the future decisions on this treaty? 431 00:23:16,950 --> 00:23:21,012 And if yes, then how that might end up? 432 00:23:21,012 --> 00:23:21,720 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah. 433 00:23:21,720 --> 00:23:25,890 I think I would venture yes. 434 00:23:25,890 --> 00:23:28,630 I think that even under the Trump administration, 435 00:23:28,630 --> 00:23:30,630 climate change still featured in this treaty 436 00:23:30,630 --> 00:23:36,450 because if, for example, there is less snowmelt or less snow 437 00:23:36,450 --> 00:23:38,640 accumulation because of a changing climate, 438 00:23:38,640 --> 00:23:43,230 that has serious impacts on US hydroelectric power generation 439 00:23:43,230 --> 00:23:46,450 and the economy of the Pacific Northwest-- 440 00:23:46,450 --> 00:23:51,600 I think 40% of Washington electricity is hydroelectric. 441 00:23:51,600 --> 00:23:54,060 So if there's less water, there's less power, 442 00:23:54,060 --> 00:23:58,120 and that's quite devastating to the Northwest economy. 443 00:23:58,120 --> 00:24:03,060 So to that extent, I think it impacts-- 444 00:24:03,060 --> 00:24:06,120 the potential impacts of climate change on this treaty 445 00:24:06,120 --> 00:24:09,060 had already been taken into consideration, 446 00:24:09,060 --> 00:24:11,580 whether under the current administration that 447 00:24:11,580 --> 00:24:16,890 might be expanded to include more 448 00:24:16,890 --> 00:24:23,430 comprehensive environmental values, it seems possible. 449 00:24:26,220 --> 00:24:31,710 I also think that this treaty is not a major foreign policy 450 00:24:31,710 --> 00:24:35,010 priority for either government. 451 00:24:35,010 --> 00:24:38,860 So it's skated under the radar a little bit. 452 00:24:38,860 --> 00:24:43,030 And during some of the-- there were 10 rounds of negotiations, 453 00:24:43,030 --> 00:24:49,450 and then it was put on hold during the changing government. 454 00:24:49,450 --> 00:24:53,090 So I think whether it will be picked up 455 00:24:53,090 --> 00:24:56,720 with more focus on environmental concerns I 456 00:24:56,720 --> 00:24:58,598 think remains to be seen. 457 00:24:58,598 --> 00:25:00,140 AUDIENCE: Actually both the questions 458 00:25:00,140 --> 00:25:03,440 came from my experience as a government officer. 459 00:25:03,440 --> 00:25:06,410 Because in our case, in the US or in most 460 00:25:06,410 --> 00:25:08,360 of the developed countries, generally what I 461 00:25:08,360 --> 00:25:11,240 see that although the governments change 462 00:25:11,240 --> 00:25:14,690 but the national policies and the national rules more or less 463 00:25:14,690 --> 00:25:15,920 remain the same. 464 00:25:15,920 --> 00:25:20,370 Very minor changes unless some drastic measures are taken. 465 00:25:20,370 --> 00:25:22,978 But in this part of the world, the government changes, 466 00:25:22,978 --> 00:25:25,520 the whole thing falls apart and you start from the beginning. 467 00:25:25,520 --> 00:25:28,730 So this is why I was trying to actually understand 468 00:25:28,730 --> 00:25:32,360 this thing so that I can actually design my presentation 469 00:25:32,360 --> 00:25:34,847 on paper from that perspective. 470 00:25:34,847 --> 00:25:35,680 Thank you very much. 471 00:25:35,680 --> 00:25:37,840 It was an amazing presentation, and I loved it. 472 00:25:40,750 --> 00:25:42,010 DR. GAIN: Thanks, Mashroof. 473 00:25:42,010 --> 00:25:46,300 Flora, do you have any feedback or concern for Gemma? 474 00:25:46,300 --> 00:25:47,890 AUDIENCE: Yeah, yeah, I really, really 475 00:25:47,890 --> 00:25:49,430 enjoyed this presentation. 476 00:25:49,430 --> 00:25:50,620 Great job. 477 00:25:50,620 --> 00:25:52,660 I appreciate your use of graphics. 478 00:25:52,660 --> 00:25:55,585 I think making a presentation is-- 479 00:25:55,585 --> 00:26:01,040 a good presentation is always not as easy as it seems. 480 00:26:01,040 --> 00:26:03,320 So yeah, overall, I think I learned a lot. 481 00:26:03,320 --> 00:26:05,540 It was very easy to follow. 482 00:26:05,540 --> 00:26:07,120 I definitely had a couple of points 483 00:26:07,120 --> 00:26:10,770 that I would consider as further considerations, not really 484 00:26:10,770 --> 00:26:13,270 necessary but things that came to mind while I was listening 485 00:26:13,270 --> 00:26:14,390 to the presentation. 486 00:26:14,390 --> 00:26:17,500 So I'll run through, and you can either respond or not 487 00:26:17,500 --> 00:26:18,410 respond to each one. 488 00:26:18,410 --> 00:26:21,280 So the first one is, are there still opportunities 489 00:26:21,280 --> 00:26:24,400 for further hydropower expansion along the Columbia River? 490 00:26:24,400 --> 00:26:26,740 Because you mentioned that flooding is still a priority. 491 00:26:26,740 --> 00:26:29,980 But I know a lot of parts of the world hydropower expansion 492 00:26:29,980 --> 00:26:33,970 is really diminishing because we're just utilizing everything 493 00:26:33,970 --> 00:26:34,495 that we can. 494 00:26:37,010 --> 00:26:39,140 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah, so in my understanding, 495 00:26:39,140 --> 00:26:43,550 there are no opportunities for additional dam construction. 496 00:26:43,550 --> 00:26:47,000 There are opportunities for greater efficiency, 497 00:26:47,000 --> 00:26:49,370 like greater electric efficiency. 498 00:26:49,370 --> 00:26:52,010 Some dams have been identified as potential targets 499 00:26:52,010 --> 00:26:54,470 for removal, which would then catalyze 500 00:26:54,470 --> 00:26:57,840 additional needs on the existing dams for flood control 501 00:26:57,840 --> 00:26:58,340 measures. 502 00:27:03,750 --> 00:27:06,300 Yeah, those are the categories. 503 00:27:06,300 --> 00:27:07,890 Yeah. 504 00:27:07,890 --> 00:27:09,840 AUDIENCE: Yeah, and so then the next one-- 505 00:27:09,840 --> 00:27:11,423 so you talked about this a little bit, 506 00:27:11,423 --> 00:27:13,200 especially at the end, but I was wondering 507 00:27:13,200 --> 00:27:15,840 how climate change might exacerbate the water 508 00:27:15,840 --> 00:27:17,340 resources in the future. 509 00:27:17,340 --> 00:27:21,600 And I guess specifically, if certain stakeholders 510 00:27:21,600 --> 00:27:22,630 should be included. 511 00:27:22,630 --> 00:27:25,200 So you already mentioned a lot of stakeholders that are not 512 00:27:25,200 --> 00:27:28,320 being included, but it would be interesting 513 00:27:28,320 --> 00:27:33,990 if like ecologists, either like representing the two 514 00:27:33,990 --> 00:27:40,170 countries or some kind of neutral ecology representation 515 00:27:40,170 --> 00:27:41,940 to be included in the negotiations 516 00:27:41,940 --> 00:27:46,140 to really advocate for these environmental needs and not 517 00:27:46,140 --> 00:27:49,950 just the wants of the two countries, 518 00:27:49,950 --> 00:27:54,600 like economically or technologically. 519 00:27:54,600 --> 00:27:57,550 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah, that's a great question. 520 00:27:57,550 --> 00:27:59,580 I think one of the suggestions that 521 00:27:59,580 --> 00:28:03,600 has emerged in recent years is officially adding NOAA 522 00:28:03,600 --> 00:28:07,410 to the US entity team to have a better 523 00:28:07,410 --> 00:28:13,947 advocate for environmental impacts in that formal body. 524 00:28:13,947 --> 00:28:15,030 That is one of the things. 525 00:28:15,030 --> 00:28:17,490 Or other representatives from the US Department 526 00:28:17,490 --> 00:28:20,460 of the Interior that could be more 527 00:28:20,460 --> 00:28:22,260 of a voice for environmental concerns 528 00:28:22,260 --> 00:28:24,780 compared to the power administrations who 529 00:28:24,780 --> 00:28:29,900 have clear expertise on the hydroelectric side 530 00:28:29,900 --> 00:28:35,900 but aren't necessarily equipped to consider salmon habitats 531 00:28:35,900 --> 00:28:36,840 and things like that. 532 00:28:36,840 --> 00:28:42,080 So that's one of the strategies that has been proposed. 533 00:28:42,080 --> 00:28:44,080 Has not happened yet. 534 00:28:44,080 --> 00:28:45,730 AUDIENCE: Awesome. 535 00:28:45,730 --> 00:28:47,440 OK so the next thing is about-- 536 00:28:47,440 --> 00:28:50,770 so you did a good job of explaining the gains and losses 537 00:28:50,770 --> 00:28:52,780 from the treaty's point of view-- 538 00:28:52,780 --> 00:28:54,400 like which parties were suffering 539 00:28:54,400 --> 00:28:56,380 and which ones were really experiencing gain. 540 00:28:56,380 --> 00:29:00,310 But it'd be interesting to learn more about how 541 00:29:00,310 --> 00:29:04,670 this treaty was successful in terms of negotiations. 542 00:29:04,670 --> 00:29:06,970 So not just the effects of the treaty itself 543 00:29:06,970 --> 00:29:12,880 but also if people are saying that this is the model 544 00:29:12,880 --> 00:29:14,242 negotiation treaty. 545 00:29:14,242 --> 00:29:16,450 I'm sure it's not just because of what the treaty was 546 00:29:16,450 --> 00:29:19,748 able to achieve, but also how the treaty was negotiated. 547 00:29:19,748 --> 00:29:21,790 I think that's one of the most interesting things 548 00:29:21,790 --> 00:29:24,370 about your presentation is that it basically 549 00:29:24,370 --> 00:29:27,850 refers to no animosity between the countries. 550 00:29:27,850 --> 00:29:29,920 It took a really, really long time, 551 00:29:29,920 --> 00:29:33,190 like decades of negotiations, but like almost nowhere 552 00:29:33,190 --> 00:29:36,100 in your presentation did you mention, 553 00:29:36,100 --> 00:29:41,680 well, they really got stuck on this one issue 554 00:29:41,680 --> 00:29:48,280 or they couldn't move forward because this one party was not 555 00:29:48,280 --> 00:29:49,300 cooperating. 556 00:29:49,300 --> 00:29:51,070 And I don't know, I think it would 557 00:29:51,070 --> 00:29:55,090 be interesting to understand like why is that. 558 00:29:55,090 --> 00:29:59,110 It must have something to do with the negotiations 559 00:29:59,110 --> 00:30:04,725 and then also probably the conditions of what's happening. 560 00:30:04,725 --> 00:30:06,350 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah, that's a great point. 561 00:30:06,350 --> 00:30:10,795 I have not really built that in, but I think that-- 562 00:30:10,795 --> 00:30:11,920 yeah, that's super helpful. 563 00:30:11,920 --> 00:30:13,420 I'd definitely do that. 564 00:30:13,420 --> 00:30:15,550 AUDIENCE: Yeah, I think an easy way is like looking 565 00:30:15,550 --> 00:30:20,470 at the Bruno Verdini's 12 steps and just checking off which 566 00:30:20,470 --> 00:30:23,260 ones seem to be fulfilled and then which ones don't. 567 00:30:23,260 --> 00:30:26,740 Because I imagine many are checked 568 00:30:26,740 --> 00:30:28,750 and then that's why it was effective. 569 00:30:28,750 --> 00:30:31,510 But yeah, no, it was really interesting. 570 00:30:31,510 --> 00:30:33,730 I think it's a big shift from the case 571 00:30:33,730 --> 00:30:36,520 that I'm working on we're like basically the governments hate 572 00:30:36,520 --> 00:30:40,220 each other and that's why nothing is able to get forward. 573 00:30:40,220 --> 00:30:43,090 And I think it's just interesting to see 574 00:30:43,090 --> 00:30:45,640 how long the timeline is even if the governments don't 575 00:30:45,640 --> 00:30:47,260 hate each other. 576 00:30:47,260 --> 00:30:50,590 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah, I was thinking I was thinking a lot about that 577 00:30:50,590 --> 00:30:55,270 after listening to Husnain's case last week. 578 00:30:55,270 --> 00:30:57,370 And the two-- they kind of arrived-- 579 00:30:57,370 --> 00:30:59,860 the US and Canada arrived at the negotiating table 580 00:30:59,860 --> 00:31:02,800 with this idea of mutual gains in mind. 581 00:31:02,800 --> 00:31:06,070 And the treaty emerged from that, and it wasn't-- 582 00:31:06,070 --> 00:31:08,380 it's not that the treaty is enabling 583 00:31:08,380 --> 00:31:10,360 an effective diplomatic relationship. 584 00:31:10,360 --> 00:31:13,090 The treaty is the result of an effective diplomatic 585 00:31:13,090 --> 00:31:15,580 relationship. 586 00:31:15,580 --> 00:31:19,420 So how that differs and how that might 587 00:31:19,420 --> 00:31:23,080 be leveraged for a more comprehensive and 588 00:31:23,080 --> 00:31:28,780 forward-looking document going forward. 589 00:31:28,780 --> 00:31:29,590 Yeah, that's great. 590 00:31:29,590 --> 00:31:31,210 Thank you so much, Flora. 591 00:31:31,210 --> 00:31:32,220 AUDIENCE: Yeah, no. 592 00:31:32,220 --> 00:31:33,220 I'm just trying to see-- 593 00:31:33,220 --> 00:31:35,320 OK, so the last thing that I had was-- 594 00:31:35,320 --> 00:31:37,990 I mean, you mentioned this as one of your open questions. 595 00:31:37,990 --> 00:31:40,805 But it's really interesting what the consequences 596 00:31:40,805 --> 00:31:42,430 for the different stakeholders would be 597 00:31:42,430 --> 00:31:45,190 if the treaty was terminated. 598 00:31:45,190 --> 00:31:48,460 I think it seems like everyone's on the same page 599 00:31:48,460 --> 00:31:50,770 that this treaty's working, it's good. 600 00:31:50,770 --> 00:31:52,540 But then it's really weird that they're 601 00:31:52,540 --> 00:31:54,593 unable to extend the treaty. 602 00:31:54,593 --> 00:31:56,260 It seems like mainly just because people 603 00:31:56,260 --> 00:31:57,680 are dragging their feet. 604 00:31:57,680 --> 00:32:04,660 But , yeah it seems like in most cases, if the treaty went away, 605 00:32:04,660 --> 00:32:08,560 stakeholders would have some kind of loss. 606 00:32:08,560 --> 00:32:10,770 But I don't know. 607 00:32:14,260 --> 00:32:15,510 DR. GAIN: Yeah, thanks, Flora. 608 00:32:15,510 --> 00:32:18,350 Very constructive suggestions. 609 00:32:18,350 --> 00:32:23,090 So any other suggestions from, I don't know, 610 00:32:23,090 --> 00:32:24,845 Cassiano or Husnain? 611 00:32:28,570 --> 00:32:33,430 OK, so yeah, I would like to ask one thing. 612 00:32:33,430 --> 00:32:35,570 Maybe Mashroof touched upon it. 613 00:32:35,570 --> 00:32:38,860 You mentioned five areas of new-- 614 00:32:38,860 --> 00:32:43,580 uh, the renegotiation process. 615 00:32:43,580 --> 00:32:50,140 And so what are the disagreements among these areas 616 00:32:50,140 --> 00:32:52,690 that you mentioned among the two parties 617 00:32:52,690 --> 00:32:55,730 between Canada and the US? 618 00:32:55,730 --> 00:33:01,180 Was there a, uh, were you able to explore the disagreement 619 00:33:01,180 --> 00:33:05,500 among the parties for those areas that can-- 620 00:33:05,500 --> 00:33:08,237 a negotiation might [? stack? ?] 621 00:33:08,237 --> 00:33:10,570 GEMMA HOLT: I think one of the things that's interesting 622 00:33:10,570 --> 00:33:13,750 about this case is that the disagreement isn't necessarily 623 00:33:13,750 --> 00:33:17,170 between the two entities but also between all 624 00:33:17,170 --> 00:33:18,640 of these peripheral-- 625 00:33:18,640 --> 00:33:19,720 or not even peripheral. 626 00:33:19,720 --> 00:33:20,740 They're deeply involved. 627 00:33:20,740 --> 00:33:23,210 They're just not part of the formal process. 628 00:33:23,210 --> 00:33:25,735 So one of the things that's been so interesting looking 629 00:33:25,735 --> 00:33:27,610 through all of the documents that have been-- 630 00:33:27,610 --> 00:33:30,160 or the statements that have been put out by the US and Canada 631 00:33:30,160 --> 00:33:33,870 is how identical they are. 632 00:33:33,870 --> 00:33:36,593 And so after each round of negotiations, 633 00:33:36,593 --> 00:33:38,010 they put up these statements like, 634 00:33:38,010 --> 00:33:39,990 oh, we made so much progress. 635 00:33:39,990 --> 00:33:41,850 We responded to their framework, we 636 00:33:41,850 --> 00:33:43,710 responded to their framework. 637 00:33:43,710 --> 00:33:45,420 Things are moving right along. 638 00:33:45,420 --> 00:33:49,530 And all of the complexity seems to be 639 00:33:49,530 --> 00:33:54,840 driven by these other actors who are pushing for change. 640 00:33:54,840 --> 00:33:58,420 So I'm not sure if there's necessarily 641 00:33:58,420 --> 00:34:06,180 a ton of disagreement between the two countries around, say, 642 00:34:06,180 --> 00:34:09,150 the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in the negotiation 643 00:34:09,150 --> 00:34:09,840 process. 644 00:34:09,840 --> 00:34:15,389 I think both countries are willing to expand 645 00:34:15,389 --> 00:34:19,679 the scope of the treaty to think about how those tribes have 646 00:34:19,679 --> 00:34:21,450 been harmed over the last 60 years. 647 00:34:24,429 --> 00:34:29,860 But the conflict then is how does the collaborative treaty 648 00:34:29,860 --> 00:34:33,040 mechanism respond to the needs of these stakeholders 649 00:34:33,040 --> 00:34:34,760 on both sides of the border? 650 00:34:34,760 --> 00:34:36,610 Does that answer your question? 651 00:34:36,610 --> 00:34:37,659 DR. GAIN: Yep. 652 00:34:37,659 --> 00:34:39,820 Yeah, yeah, thanks. 653 00:34:39,820 --> 00:34:42,219 So the second issue that I wanted 654 00:34:42,219 --> 00:34:46,750 to mention that you mentioned climate science 655 00:34:46,750 --> 00:34:51,080 is one of the future aspects that need to be considered. 656 00:34:51,080 --> 00:34:55,540 So is there any study that can provide 657 00:34:55,540 --> 00:34:59,710 details of what are the expected impacts of the climate science? 658 00:34:59,710 --> 00:35:09,280 Is it future flooding, or is it the impact on energy hydropower 659 00:35:09,280 --> 00:35:10,030 generation? 660 00:35:10,030 --> 00:35:13,000 So I think if you can mention those impacts, 661 00:35:13,000 --> 00:35:16,190 I think then it could be much more-- 662 00:35:16,190 --> 00:35:20,110 I think your succession could be much more solid. 663 00:35:20,110 --> 00:35:23,950 GEMMA HOLT: Yes, I think I left that out for complexity's sake 664 00:35:23,950 --> 00:35:25,840 here, but I think the main concern is 665 00:35:25,840 --> 00:35:30,490 this shift from a basin that's driven by snowmelt to a basin 666 00:35:30,490 --> 00:35:32,530 that's driven by rain. 667 00:35:32,530 --> 00:35:37,010 And as there is less snowmelt and more rain, 668 00:35:37,010 --> 00:35:40,240 the kind of flood control mechanisms change, as well as 669 00:35:40,240 --> 00:35:44,930 the potential management of hydropower over time. 670 00:35:44,930 --> 00:35:47,230 So yes, I do have sources for that, 671 00:35:47,230 --> 00:35:49,330 and I will include those in my final case study. 672 00:35:52,770 --> 00:35:54,770 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Gemma, I've mentioned to you 673 00:35:54,770 --> 00:36:00,620 a couple of times along the way that it's invisible 674 00:36:00,620 --> 00:36:03,170 but the states and the provincial governments 675 00:36:03,170 --> 00:36:07,142 in Canada are in fact very much calling the shots. 676 00:36:07,142 --> 00:36:07,850 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah. 677 00:36:07,850 --> 00:36:10,100 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: And they're not officially 678 00:36:10,100 --> 00:36:12,890 part of the entities. 679 00:36:12,890 --> 00:36:20,270 But remember that the US entity is led by the State Department 680 00:36:20,270 --> 00:36:23,990 because allegedly this is an international negotiation, 681 00:36:23,990 --> 00:36:27,350 and the State Department has no relationships 682 00:36:27,350 --> 00:36:30,140 with the governors of all those states, 683 00:36:30,140 --> 00:36:33,230 no long-standing working relationships, which 684 00:36:33,230 --> 00:36:39,080 has caused some severe difficulty for those governors. 685 00:36:39,080 --> 00:36:42,680 It may be-- you don't have to do this-- 686 00:36:42,680 --> 00:36:47,600 but you might want to imagine as a last little piece 687 00:36:47,600 --> 00:36:51,470 of your paper what it might be like 688 00:36:51,470 --> 00:36:55,100 and how helpful it might be to imagine 689 00:36:55,100 --> 00:37:00,920 a second track of negotiations convened by the US 690 00:37:00,920 --> 00:37:04,040 governors and the provincial leadership 691 00:37:04,040 --> 00:37:09,080 in BC with First Nations and tribes. 692 00:37:09,080 --> 00:37:12,080 They would have enormous credibility. 693 00:37:12,080 --> 00:37:14,030 They said, we're getting together 694 00:37:14,030 --> 00:37:18,240 because we are convinced that the future of this agreement, 695 00:37:18,240 --> 00:37:23,570 whether it's strengthened or renewed or replaced, 696 00:37:23,570 --> 00:37:27,800 it needs to take account of the changing conditions 697 00:37:27,800 --> 00:37:31,130 from 60 years ago, and we feel those 698 00:37:31,130 --> 00:37:33,800 when we have responsibilities. 699 00:37:33,800 --> 00:37:37,100 And if they were to organize a set of sessions 700 00:37:37,100 --> 00:37:42,120 with NGOs and [INAUDIBLE] on their own. 701 00:37:42,120 --> 00:37:44,400 The State Department I promise you would [INAUDIBLE] 702 00:37:44,400 --> 00:37:47,640 the same way that the Canadian agencies would show up, 703 00:37:47,640 --> 00:37:52,260 but they wouldn't be there in their official capacity. 704 00:37:52,260 --> 00:37:57,090 And if they just took three or four questions, 705 00:37:57,090 --> 00:37:59,550 maybe even two or three questions 706 00:37:59,550 --> 00:38:05,010 that are not addressed for the future in the existing treaty 707 00:38:05,010 --> 00:38:10,830 and laid out substantively agreements they might reach, 708 00:38:10,830 --> 00:38:14,340 the same way that Bruno described local officials 709 00:38:14,340 --> 00:38:18,120 on both sides of the US-Mexico border 710 00:38:18,120 --> 00:38:22,320 initiating their own conversations, 711 00:38:22,320 --> 00:38:23,850 trying to come up with what they'd 712 00:38:23,850 --> 00:38:27,270 like to see as jointly beneficial elements 713 00:38:27,270 --> 00:38:32,250 of a future supplementary agreement, which then became 714 00:38:32,250 --> 00:38:35,260 the basis of what the US government negotiated, 715 00:38:35,260 --> 00:38:37,042 I think the same thing could happen. 716 00:38:37,042 --> 00:38:37,750 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah. 717 00:38:37,750 --> 00:38:42,060 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: And I think the two big differences 718 00:38:42,060 --> 00:38:45,120 between then and now are that there 719 00:38:45,120 --> 00:38:47,910 were enormous number of positive benefits 720 00:38:47,910 --> 00:38:50,640 to be shared in the beginning. 721 00:38:50,640 --> 00:38:51,448 GEMMA HOLT: Yep. 722 00:38:51,448 --> 00:38:53,740 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: And so they were getting together-- 723 00:38:53,740 --> 00:38:55,710 I agree that everyone who pointed out they 724 00:38:55,710 --> 00:38:58,450 start with friendly relationships, it matters. 725 00:38:58,450 --> 00:39:01,170 But when the actual negotiators sat down-- 726 00:39:01,170 --> 00:39:04,930 OK, how much flood control are you going to give me? 727 00:39:04,930 --> 00:39:08,340 Well, how much money are you going to give me? 728 00:39:08,340 --> 00:39:11,820 And that was the negotiation. 729 00:39:11,820 --> 00:39:14,250 Whereas now it's, OK, what restrictions 730 00:39:14,250 --> 00:39:15,270 are we going to impose? 731 00:39:15,270 --> 00:39:17,250 What dams are we going to take down? 732 00:39:17,250 --> 00:39:19,800 Who's going to build the new flood control 733 00:39:19,800 --> 00:39:22,800 systems if you take down existing dams to make 734 00:39:22,800 --> 00:39:25,650 salmon migration possible? 735 00:39:25,650 --> 00:39:29,640 It's not all about allocating gains. 736 00:39:29,640 --> 00:39:32,350 That's one big difference. 737 00:39:32,350 --> 00:39:35,370 The second is, nobody had those concerns 738 00:39:35,370 --> 00:39:39,630 about salmon and climate and other natural resource 739 00:39:39,630 --> 00:39:43,620 questions and ecological concerns the way we do now, 740 00:39:43,620 --> 00:39:50,310 and that's not represented well in the entities. 741 00:39:50,310 --> 00:39:54,090 But the concerns are there, but the entities can't really 742 00:39:54,090 --> 00:39:55,990 negotiate them very well. 743 00:39:55,990 --> 00:40:01,650 So I think if you look at what's different in big ways 744 00:40:01,650 --> 00:40:05,940 between then and now that the response to that 745 00:40:05,940 --> 00:40:09,000 would be most effective in the short term 746 00:40:09,000 --> 00:40:13,440 is to have a different track of local and non-governmental 747 00:40:13,440 --> 00:40:17,520 and scientific negotiators generate 748 00:40:17,520 --> 00:40:23,810 some of the elements of a supplementary subsidiary 749 00:40:23,810 --> 00:40:30,630 version or addition to the existing agreement. 750 00:40:30,630 --> 00:40:33,540 And I think the governors in those states 751 00:40:33,540 --> 00:40:37,410 have been tracking every move in the State Department. 752 00:40:37,410 --> 00:40:39,010 I mean, my engagement. 753 00:40:39,010 --> 00:40:40,740 In this case-- I think I mentioned-- 754 00:40:40,740 --> 00:40:43,380 happened when I was doing training for the State 755 00:40:43,380 --> 00:40:46,470 Department, and the two guys who were appointed by the State 756 00:40:46,470 --> 00:40:49,110 Department to lead these conversations who 757 00:40:49,110 --> 00:40:53,400 had zero, zero background in anything 758 00:40:53,400 --> 00:40:58,320 Northwest, water, Canada. 759 00:40:58,320 --> 00:41:01,260 They were absolutely just thrown into this 760 00:41:01,260 --> 00:41:04,110 and they were saying, so, we got a problem. 761 00:41:04,110 --> 00:41:06,510 These governors are telling us that they 762 00:41:06,510 --> 00:41:11,662 want to say what should happen, and we don't know 763 00:41:11,662 --> 00:41:12,870 how should we negotiate that. 764 00:41:12,870 --> 00:41:14,100 That was the question they were asking 765 00:41:14,100 --> 00:41:16,002 me is, how should we do this negotiation 766 00:41:16,002 --> 00:41:17,460 with these governors who don't have 767 00:41:17,460 --> 00:41:20,130 any official role while we're trying to negotiate 768 00:41:20,130 --> 00:41:21,360 with the Canadians. 769 00:41:21,360 --> 00:41:24,380 That was the conversation. 770 00:41:24,380 --> 00:41:26,310 I don't think they figured it out, 771 00:41:26,310 --> 00:41:31,530 and I think there's enormous pressure coming on the US 772 00:41:31,530 --> 00:41:33,818 government from the states. 773 00:41:33,818 --> 00:41:35,610 GEMMA HOLT: That's a thing I've been trying 774 00:41:35,610 --> 00:41:38,580 to untangle is the relationship of state 775 00:41:38,580 --> 00:41:40,470 governments to their representatives 776 00:41:40,470 --> 00:41:43,980 back to the federal government because so many state 777 00:41:43,980 --> 00:41:47,880 representatives and senators from the Northwest states 778 00:41:47,880 --> 00:41:51,120 have come out with various official 779 00:41:51,120 --> 00:41:55,470 statements and their perspective on these renegotiations. 780 00:41:55,470 --> 00:41:59,790 And how are the Washington senators 781 00:41:59,790 --> 00:42:02,700 coordinating with the Washington governor 782 00:42:02,700 --> 00:42:04,650 to get things back to the State Department, 783 00:42:04,650 --> 00:42:06,520 like trying to tease out all of those-- 784 00:42:06,520 --> 00:42:07,050 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: They're not. 785 00:42:07,050 --> 00:42:07,860 GEMMA HOLT: They're not? 786 00:42:07,860 --> 00:42:09,193 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: They're not. 787 00:42:09,193 --> 00:42:10,265 That's for show. 788 00:42:10,265 --> 00:42:12,360 That's-- we're trying to make political capital 789 00:42:12,360 --> 00:42:14,040 on the legislative side. 790 00:42:14,040 --> 00:42:15,370 The key is the governors. 791 00:42:15,370 --> 00:42:19,632 The key is the governors have the access to the White House. 792 00:42:19,632 --> 00:42:20,340 GEMMA HOLT: Yeah. 793 00:42:20,340 --> 00:42:22,200 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: The governors only 794 00:42:22,200 --> 00:42:26,130 care later about getting the Senate to ratify 795 00:42:26,130 --> 00:42:27,780 any change in the treaty. 796 00:42:27,780 --> 00:42:30,632 Between now and then, the House of Representatives, 797 00:42:30,632 --> 00:42:32,340 the governors don't care to talk to them. 798 00:42:32,340 --> 00:42:34,560 There's nothing they're going to do for this. 799 00:42:34,560 --> 00:42:38,910 So my sense is that when you see state legislators 800 00:42:38,910 --> 00:42:44,190 and congressional legislators from the states making noise 801 00:42:44,190 --> 00:42:47,670 about this issue, it's political self-promotion 802 00:42:47,670 --> 00:42:51,420 to try to gain some advantage from all of this. 803 00:42:51,420 --> 00:42:54,930 But it isn't because they expect to be part of solving it. 804 00:42:54,930 --> 00:42:57,137 GEMMA HOLT: Got it. 805 00:42:57,137 --> 00:42:57,970 That's good to know. 806 00:42:57,970 --> 00:43:00,460 That's helpful. 807 00:43:00,460 --> 00:43:02,920 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: But it is wonderful to have somebody 808 00:43:02,920 --> 00:43:05,290 say it was a successful treaty. 809 00:43:05,290 --> 00:43:07,915 Yeah, I think that's great. 810 00:43:07,915 --> 00:43:10,960 A successful water treaty between two countries. 811 00:43:10,960 --> 00:43:12,045 Wonderful. 812 00:43:12,045 --> 00:43:13,420 GEMMA HOLT: It's basically worked 813 00:43:13,420 --> 00:43:16,870 the way it was supposed to for a long time. 814 00:43:16,870 --> 00:43:20,650 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: And we have parallel negotiations 815 00:43:20,650 --> 00:43:22,600 after 50 years in Latin America. 816 00:43:22,600 --> 00:43:25,570 We didn't spend much time on it, but there 817 00:43:25,570 --> 00:43:30,100 are negotiations between different countries 818 00:43:30,100 --> 00:43:33,700 in Latin America where treaties that existed over shared 819 00:43:33,700 --> 00:43:37,090 waters for 50 years are up. 820 00:43:37,090 --> 00:43:42,460 And you can't just extend the treaty. 821 00:43:42,460 --> 00:43:45,620 Everything has changed so much. 822 00:43:45,620 --> 00:43:47,650 But nobody knows, well, but we've 823 00:43:47,650 --> 00:43:51,460 had this treaty in 50 years, it's worked. 824 00:43:51,460 --> 00:43:53,230 Why should we mess with it? 825 00:43:53,230 --> 00:43:55,900 Well, because the conditions are all changed. 826 00:43:55,900 --> 00:44:00,490 But that doesn't translate into a specific strategy 827 00:44:00,490 --> 00:44:02,920 for how to do the negotiation. 828 00:44:02,920 --> 00:44:08,180 In my view, if there is anything we've learned, 829 00:44:08,180 --> 00:44:10,610 it's that you need to get all the stakeholders-- 830 00:44:10,610 --> 00:44:12,790 I mean Aron, one of his four conclusions, 831 00:44:12,790 --> 00:44:15,940 you need to get all the stakeholders into this story. 832 00:44:15,940 --> 00:44:20,320 Well, you can't do that in an official treaty renegotiation. 833 00:44:20,320 --> 00:44:23,350 So you have to run a parallel effort 834 00:44:23,350 --> 00:44:27,340 and get the other stakeholders into the substance of 835 00:44:27,340 --> 00:44:30,340 what should the new agreement say and why. 836 00:44:30,340 --> 00:44:33,460 And as Bruno has shown, if you can get agreement 837 00:44:33,460 --> 00:44:37,660 at the next level down from the National government 838 00:44:37,660 --> 00:44:43,840 on the two sides and you have real players with stakes, 839 00:44:43,840 --> 00:44:46,030 and they say, this is what we think. 840 00:44:46,030 --> 00:44:47,950 Whether it's you're changing the treaty, 841 00:44:47,950 --> 00:44:51,010 you're extending it with a new supplementary terms. 842 00:44:51,010 --> 00:44:53,350 However you doing it, here's the substance, 843 00:44:53,350 --> 00:44:56,650 and we all agree with it, and we'll all support it. 844 00:45:01,140 --> 00:45:06,080 That for me is what a diplomacy framework 845 00:45:06,080 --> 00:45:10,670 meshes with the political reality of the treaty 846 00:45:10,670 --> 00:45:11,530 renegotiation. 847 00:45:14,800 --> 00:45:18,000 But I think the presentation was terrific. 848 00:45:18,000 --> 00:45:22,780 It's such an interesting circumstance. 849 00:45:22,780 --> 00:45:26,730 I don't think you can conclude anything at this stage, 850 00:45:26,730 --> 00:45:31,860 but I think you can say, as you have, look, this is a problem. 851 00:45:31,860 --> 00:45:34,350 Treaty renegotiation, treaty extension. 852 00:45:34,350 --> 00:45:36,150 Here's what they face. 853 00:45:36,150 --> 00:45:38,680 Here is how they got into it. 854 00:45:38,680 --> 00:45:41,100 Here's what they're trying. 855 00:45:41,100 --> 00:45:43,240 Maybe they could try this. 856 00:45:43,240 --> 00:45:46,830 But I don't think anyone can hold you 857 00:45:46,830 --> 00:45:49,440 or anyone else to trying to come up 858 00:45:49,440 --> 00:45:53,640 with a conclusion about anything in this case 859 00:45:53,640 --> 00:45:55,430 at this stage of the game. 860 00:45:55,430 --> 00:45:57,930 GEMMA HOLT: I think we're at the lessons learning phase more 861 00:45:57,930 --> 00:45:59,978 than we're at the lessons learned phase. 862 00:45:59,978 --> 00:46:01,020 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Yeah. 863 00:46:01,020 --> 00:46:03,353 GEMMA HOLT: Maybe in a few years, someone can update it. 864 00:46:03,353 --> 00:46:05,810 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: I hope so. 865 00:46:05,810 --> 00:46:09,490 We'll give them your paper to start with. 866 00:46:09,490 --> 00:46:12,570 DR. GAIN: So, thanks, Gemma again, for the presentation. 867 00:46:12,570 --> 00:46:13,758 And also thanks-- 868 00:46:13,758 --> 00:46:15,710 GEMMA HOLT: Thank you all for your feedback. 869 00:46:15,710 --> 00:46:17,050 DR. GAIN: For the presentation. 870 00:46:17,050 --> 00:46:22,690 So next week, we'll have last two cases 871 00:46:22,690 --> 00:46:24,970 by Mashroof and Flora. 872 00:46:24,970 --> 00:46:28,720 And as I already mentioned that the deadline for submission 873 00:46:28,720 --> 00:46:31,660 is on 21st of May. 874 00:46:31,660 --> 00:46:36,130 So yeah, we are expecting much more [INAUDIBLE] 875 00:46:36,130 --> 00:46:40,960 presentation and also much more final piece of your work 876 00:46:40,960 --> 00:46:43,040 in the next week. 877 00:46:43,040 --> 00:46:48,820 And as I already mentioned that please provide 878 00:46:48,820 --> 00:46:52,540 your feedback by May 24. 879 00:46:52,540 --> 00:46:53,950 I guess you already-- 880 00:46:53,950 --> 00:46:55,867 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Yeah, on the whole course. 881 00:46:55,867 --> 00:46:57,580 DR. GAIN: Yeah, for the whole course. 882 00:46:57,580 --> 00:46:58,773 [INAUDIBLE] already. 883 00:46:58,773 --> 00:47:00,190 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Add a footnote 884 00:47:00,190 --> 00:47:02,740 to what Animesh said at the outset. 885 00:47:02,740 --> 00:47:08,230 MIT has this online, give it a rating, 886 00:47:08,230 --> 00:47:10,240 here's a set of questions. 887 00:47:10,240 --> 00:47:13,510 And then they say what the average score 888 00:47:13,510 --> 00:47:16,870 was on each question by averaging across whoever 889 00:47:16,870 --> 00:47:18,740 happened to answer. 890 00:47:18,740 --> 00:47:21,940 I do not find this system helpful. 891 00:47:21,940 --> 00:47:26,800 I've never learned anything from that device, 892 00:47:26,800 --> 00:47:31,720 and I have always asked people to please just 893 00:47:31,720 --> 00:47:34,390 send a paragraph, something. 894 00:47:34,390 --> 00:47:36,460 What do you think the strengths and weaknesses 895 00:47:36,460 --> 00:47:38,320 of the course are, and what idea do you 896 00:47:38,320 --> 00:47:41,680 have about something we could do to improve it 897 00:47:41,680 --> 00:47:45,730 in a conversational just rough draft email. 898 00:47:45,730 --> 00:47:49,600 That's how I learn stuff about what we do in the course 899 00:47:49,600 --> 00:47:51,080 and how to improve it. 900 00:47:51,080 --> 00:47:55,840 So yes, MIT would like you to please fill out 901 00:47:55,840 --> 00:47:58,960 the formal evaluation form, and we'll 902 00:47:58,960 --> 00:48:03,250 live with whatever the numerical score is, whatever that means. 903 00:48:03,250 --> 00:48:08,614 But we really would like to learn something from you. 904 00:48:08,614 --> 00:48:12,880 We made a decision to have guest presenters, particularly 905 00:48:12,880 --> 00:48:13,990 guest presenters. 906 00:48:13,990 --> 00:48:15,820 Did we make good choices? 907 00:48:15,820 --> 00:48:18,460 Did we give them good advice about how to structure 908 00:48:18,460 --> 00:48:20,710 what they were presenting? 909 00:48:20,710 --> 00:48:26,980 Animesh and I tried to provide the water diplomacy framework 910 00:48:26,980 --> 00:48:31,270 in some more exploratory way at the outset. 911 00:48:31,270 --> 00:48:34,060 We asked everyone to pick a case and write a case. 912 00:48:34,060 --> 00:48:38,320 We used the Aquapedia frame so that people 913 00:48:38,320 --> 00:48:40,450 have some common device because it's 914 00:48:40,450 --> 00:48:44,740 worth it because we've published your paper in the Aquapedia. 915 00:48:44,740 --> 00:48:46,600 I mean, so we make a bunch of decisions. 916 00:48:46,600 --> 00:48:48,220 Those could all be different. 917 00:48:48,220 --> 00:48:50,590 DR. GAIN: Yeah, and also the last thing 918 00:48:50,590 --> 00:48:54,880 I would like to mention that last year two students-- so 919 00:48:54,880 --> 00:48:58,840 one of the students was able to submit their final paper 920 00:48:58,840 --> 00:49:00,290 into a journal article. 921 00:49:00,290 --> 00:49:03,190 So it's already submitted in one of the journal article. 922 00:49:03,190 --> 00:49:06,160 Another student is still working on that, 923 00:49:06,160 --> 00:49:09,250 and another student was able to publish 924 00:49:09,250 --> 00:49:12,460 their article in a newspaper. 925 00:49:12,460 --> 00:49:14,920 So this kind of thing says-- 926 00:49:14,920 --> 00:49:16,640 these are the practical things. 927 00:49:16,640 --> 00:49:20,170 So all these are the possibilities that you can do, 928 00:49:20,170 --> 00:49:22,840 and I am happy to support you. 929 00:49:22,840 --> 00:49:26,610 So yeah, I think-- 930 00:49:26,610 --> 00:49:28,582 yeah, it's very practical. 931 00:49:28,582 --> 00:49:30,540 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: It's very encouraging to us 932 00:49:30,540 --> 00:49:34,320 that there's peer acceptance and excitement 933 00:49:34,320 --> 00:49:37,020 about the things that are produced in the course. 934 00:49:37,020 --> 00:49:40,770 So we tell the stories of people whose papers became 935 00:49:40,770 --> 00:49:43,080 theses or dissertations or their papers 936 00:49:43,080 --> 00:49:45,630 became articles in peer-reviewed journals 937 00:49:45,630 --> 00:49:49,320 or their papers turned into op eds. 938 00:49:49,320 --> 00:49:54,305 This is all for us one indicator that people 939 00:49:54,305 --> 00:49:57,190 are getting something out of the thinking, 940 00:49:57,190 --> 00:50:00,557 reading, writing, listening, talking that happens 941 00:50:00,557 --> 00:50:01,140 in the course. 942 00:50:01,140 --> 00:50:06,000 So we hope you'll think of a way to capitalize 943 00:50:06,000 --> 00:50:09,870 on all the work you did in some other outlets 944 00:50:09,870 --> 00:50:11,670 if you can, and we'll help. 945 00:50:11,670 --> 00:50:13,500 We'll help. 946 00:50:13,500 --> 00:50:16,440 In some cases, it takes another year 947 00:50:16,440 --> 00:50:19,680 to deal with the journal that wants more elaboration. 948 00:50:19,680 --> 00:50:23,370 And we'll be glad online to help you 949 00:50:23,370 --> 00:50:26,600 if you want to follow up on any of this. 950 00:50:26,600 --> 00:50:28,730 DR. GAIN: Is there any other specific issue 951 00:50:28,730 --> 00:50:30,620 that you would like to mention maybe 952 00:50:30,620 --> 00:50:36,430 for the final paper or other issue? 953 00:50:36,430 --> 00:50:39,930 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Everybody's just doing some wonderful work, 954 00:50:39,930 --> 00:50:42,060 and we're very excited about the products. 955 00:50:44,610 --> 00:50:49,810 See everybody next week for the last go at this. 956 00:50:49,810 --> 00:50:50,310 All right. 957 00:50:50,310 --> 00:50:51,060 DR. GAIN: Bye. 958 00:50:51,060 --> 00:50:52,020 See you next week. 959 00:50:52,020 --> 00:50:53,260 GEMMA HOLT: Thank you all. 960 00:50:53,260 --> 00:50:54,340 DR. GAIN: Thank you, everybody 961 00:50:54,340 --> 00:50:55,882 PROFESSOR SUSSKIND: Great work today. 962 00:50:55,882 --> 00:50:56,600 Thanks!