19

Commission for

Environmental Cooperation

of North America

North American

Environmental

Law and Policy

N • A • E • L • P
For more information about this or other publications from the CEC,

contact:

Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America

393, rue St-Jacques Ouest, bureau 200

Montréal (Québec) Canada H2Y 1N9

Tel.: (514) 350-4300

Fax: (514) 350-4314

E-mail: info@ccemtl.org

http://www.cec.org

ISBN: 2-89451-805-6

© Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America, 2004

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Legal Deposit - Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, 2004

Legal Deposit - Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, 2004

Disponible en français – ISBN: 2-89451-805-8

Disponible en español – ISBN: 2-89451-806-4

This publication was prepared by the Secretariat of the Commission for

Environmental Cooperation of North America (CEC). The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the governments of

Canada, Mexico, or the United States of America.
PROFILE

In North America, we share a rich environmental heritage and

a complex network of ecosystems that sustains our livelihoods and

well-being. Protecting these ecosystems is a responsibility shared by

Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America (CEC) is an international organization created by Canada, Mexico,

and the United States under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) to address regional environmental

concerns, help prevent potential trade and environmental conflicts, and

promote the effective enforcement of environmental law. The Agreement complements the environmental provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The CEC accomplishes its work through the combined efforts of its

three principal components: the Council, the Secretariat and the Joint

Public Advisory Committee (JPAC). The Council is the governing body

of the CEC and is composed of the top environmental officials from each

of the three countries. The Secretariat implements the annual work program and provides administrative, technical and operational support

to the Council. The Joint Public Advisory Committee is composed of

15 citizens, five from each of the three countries, and advises the Council

on any matter within the scope of the Agreement.

MISSION

The CEC facilitates cooperation and public participation to foster

conservation, protection and enhancement of the North American environment for the benefit of present and future generations, in the context

of increasing economic, trade and social links among Canada, Mexico

and the United States.

VII
NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

AND POLICY SERIES

Produced by the CEC, the North American Environmental Law

and Policy (NAELP) series presents recent trends and developments

in environmental law and policy in Canada, Mexico and the United

States, including official documents related to the citizen submission

procedure empowering individuals and organizations from the NAFTA

countries to allege that a Party to the agreement is failing to effectively

enforce its environmental law.

VIII NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

Secretariat Determinations under Articles 14 and 15 of

the North American Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation: July 2002 through August 2004 . . . . . . . 1

SEM-00-006 Tarahumara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SEM-01-001 Cytrar II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

SEM-02-001 Ontario Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

SEM-02-002 Mexico City Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

SEM-02-003 Pulp and Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

SEM-02-004 El Boludo Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

SEM-02-005 ALCA-Iztapalapa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

SEM-03-001 Ontario Power Generation . . . . . . . . 183

SEM-03-002 Home Port Xcaret . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

SEM-03-003 Lake Chapala II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

SEM-03-004 ALCA-Iztapalapa II . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

SEM-03-005 Montreal Technoparc . . . . . . . . . . . 285

IX
SEM-03-006 Cytrar III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

SEM-04-001 Hazardous Waste in Arteaga . . . . . . 333

SEM-04-002 Environmental Pollution in

Hermosillo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359

X NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
PREFACE

When Canada, Mexico and the United States (the Parties) entered

into the NAFTA in 1994, they also concluded the NAAEC. The NAAEC

supports the environmental goals and objectives of NAFTA and recognizes the importance of public participation in the conservation, protection and enhancement of the environment. The citizen submission

process under NAAEC Articles 14 and 15 is an innovative mechanism

allowing the public to take part in the pursuit of NAAEC’s goals. This

volume of the NAELP series provides an update on the CEC Secretariat’s activity on submissions on enforcement matters under Articles 14

and 15 since June 2002.

The NAAEC citizen submissions process allows members of the

public to request that the CEC investigate concerns regarding environmental enforcement in Canada, Mexico or the United States. The Secretariat administers the process in accordance with NAAEC Articles 14

and 15 and the Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters,

adopted by the Council in October 1995 and revised in June 1999.

The Secretariat may consider a submission from any person or nongovernmental organization asserting that a Party to NAAEC is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental law. Subject to certain conditions,

the Secretariat may request a response from the concerned Party. The

Secretariat may then inform the Council that it considers that the submission, in light of the response provided by the Party, if any, warrants

developing a “factual record.” Factual records provide information on

alleged failures to effectively enforce the environmental law in North

America that may support the submitters, the Parties to the NAAEC,

and other interested members of the public in taking any action they

consider appropriate regarding the matters addressed. Preparation of

factual records requires a two-thirds affirmative vote by the Council, as

does publication of final factual records.

Through August 2004, the Secretariat has received 44 citizen

submissions since 1995. Fourteen concern Canada, twenty-two concern Mexico and eight concern the United States. Some submissions—

XI
including most of those concerning Mexico—focus on a specific project

or incident, while others allege a widespread failure to effectively

enforce environmental provisions against an entire industry. The various submission raise enforcement concerns regarding many different

types of environmental laws, though habitat protection, pollution prevention and environmental assessment provisions are most frequently

invoked. Thirty-four submissions are now closed, following either publication of a factual record or termination at an earlier stage.

Since 1994, nine submissions have resulted in the publication of

a factual record. Those submissions are the following: SEM-96-001

(Cozumel); SEM-97-001 (BC Hydro); SEM-98-007 (Metales y Derivados);

SEM-99-002 (Migratory Birds); SEM-98-006 (Aquanova); SEM-97-006

(Oldman River II); SEM-98-004 (BC Mining); SEM-00-004 (BC Logging);

and SEM-97-002 (Rio Magdalena).

As of 31 August 2004, ten submissions are active. The Secretariat is

currently developing four factual records, as instructed by the Council,

in connection with the following submissions: SEM-00-006 (Tarahumara); SEM-02-003 (Pulp and Paper); SEM-02-001 (Ontario Logging);

and SEM-03-005 (Montreal Technoparc). The Council’s vote on publication of the final factual record is currently pending for SEM-00-005

(Molymex II). The Secretariat has recommended a factual record for

SEM-03-004 (ALCA-Iztapalapa II), and the Council’s vote is pending.

The Secretariat is reviewing two submissions in light of the Party’s

responses to determine whether they warrant the development of factual records: SEM-03-006 (Cytrar III) and SEM-00-003 (Lake Chapala II).

The Secretariat is awaiting a response from the Party for SEM-04-001

(Hazardous Waste in Arteaga). The Secretariat dismissed SEM-04-002

(Environmental Pollution in Hermosillo), giving the Submitters 30 days

to provide a revised submission.

This year marked the tenth anniversary of NAFTA and the CEC. At

its annual session in Puebla Mexico in June 2004, the Council adopted

the Puebla Declaration, which recognized the CEC’s tenth anniversary

as an opportunity for the Council to review the CEC’s progress, reaffirm the Council’s commitment to the CEC, and set directions for the

future. Regarding the submissions on enforcement matters process

under Articles 14 and 15, the Council stated: “We continue to be supportive of the process for submissions on enforcement matters, and commit

to exploring ways for each Party to communicate how matters raised in

factual records may be addressed over time.”

XII NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
All submissions, Party responses, Secretariat determinations, factual records, and related documents are available on the CEC website at

<www.cec.org> under Citizen Submissions on Enforcement Matters

and can also be requested from <info@ccemtl.org>. The Secretariat’s

determinations and other documents released through 31 August 1997

were compiled in the Winter 1998 issue of this series. Determinations

and other documents released from September 1997 through 31 August

2000 were compiled in Volume 5, and those from 1 September 2000

through 30 June 2002 were compiled in Volume 9. Factual records published since the Cozumel factual record appear in Volumes 6, 8, 11, 12,

13, 14, 15 and 17. For information about previous issues, please contact

Les Éditions Yvon Blais Inc. at commandes@editionsyvonblais.com or

<http://www.editionsyvon blais.qc.ca> or at (800) 363-3047 (Canada)

or (450) 266-1086.

The following table captures the status of submissions and actions

taken by the Secretariat at different stages of the process.

1 September 2004

PREFACE XIII
History 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

(to 31 August)

* Note: See North American Environmental Law and Policy, Volume 5 (Fall 2000) for a listing of determinations made in 1995 and 1996.

Submissions

received

SEM-04-001/Hazardous wastein Arteaga (Mx)(27 January,resubmittedon16 March and25 May)SEM-04-002/EnvironmentalPollution inHermosillo (Mx)(14 July)

SEM-03-001/Ontario PowerGeneration (Can)(1 May, resubmitted on 14 August)SEM-03-002/Home Port Xcaret(Mx)(14 May)SEM-03-003/Lake Chapala II(Mx)(23 May)SEM-03-004/ALCA-Iztapalapa II(Mx)(17 June)SEM-03-005/MontrealTechnoparc (Can)(14 August)SEM-03-006/Cytrar III (Mx)(15 August)

SEM-02-001/Ontario Logging(Can)(6 February)SEM-02-002/Mexico CityAirport (Mx)(7 February)SEM-02-003/Pulp and Paper(Can)(8 May)SEM-02-004/El Boludo Project(Mx)(23 August –resubmitted on 10and 24 October)SEM-02-005/ALCA-Iztapalapa(Mx)(25 November)

SEM-01-001/Cytrar II (Mx)(14 February)SEM-01-002/

AAA Packaging

(Can)(12 April)SEM-01-003/Dermet (Mx)(14 June)

SEM-00-001/Molymex I (Mx)(27 January)SEM-00-002/Neste Canada(US)(21 January)SEM-00-003/Jamaica Bay(US) (2 March)SEM-00-004/B.C Logging(Can) (15 March)SEM-00-005/Molymex II (Mx)(6 April –Resubmitted31 July)SEM-00-006/Tarahumara (Mx)(9 June)

SEM-99-001/Methanex (US)(18 October)SEM-99-002/Migratory Birds(US)(19 November)

SEM-98-001/Guadalajara (Mx)(9 January –Resubmitted15 October 1999)SEM-98-002/Ortíz Martínez(Mx)(Revised –4 August)SEM-98-003/Great Lakes(US)(27 May –Resubmitted5 January 1999)SEM-98-004/B.C. Mining (Can)(29 June)SEM-98-005/Cytrar I (Mx)(23 July)SEM-98-006/Aquanova (Mx)(20 October)

SEM-97-001/BC Hydro (Can)(2 April)SEM-97-002/Río Magdalena(Mx)(15 March)SEM-97-003/Quebec HogFarms (Can)(9 April)SEM-97-004/Canadian Env.Defence Fund(Can)(26 May)SEM-97-005/Biodiversity (Can)(21 July)SEM-97-006/Oldman River II(Can)(4 October)

A History of the 44 CEC Submissions on Enforcement Matters, 1 January 1997 – 31 August 2004*

XIV NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
** The Secretariat issued a single determination covering both Article 14(1) and 14(2) for several of these submissions.

Submissions

received

(following)

SEM-98-007/Metales yDerivados (Mx)(23 October)

SEM-97-007/Lake Chapala(Mx)(10 October)

14(1), 14(2)**

and 14(3)

Determinations

continuing

the process

SEM-04-001(30 June)

SEM-03-006(29 August)SEM-03-004(9 September)SEM-03-005(15 September)SEM-03-001(19 September)SEM-03-003(19 December)

SEM-02-002(22 February)SEM-02-001(25 February)SEM-02-003(7 June)SEM-02-004(26 November)

SEM-01-001(24 April)SEM-01-001(13 June)SEM-00-006(6 November)

SEM-99-001(30 March)SEM-00-002(17 April,consolidated withSEM-99-001)SEM-00-004(8 May)SEM-00-005(19 October)

SEM-98-007(5 March)SEM-98-006(17 March)SEM-98-005(9 April)SEM-98-004(25 June)SEM-98-003(8 September)SEM-99-002(23 December)

SEM-97-002(8 May)SEM-97-006(23 January and8 May)SEM-97-007(2 October)SEM-98-004(30 November)

SEM-96-004(22 January)SEM-97-001(1st and 15 May)

SEM-97-002(6 October)SEM-97-003(8 May and 9 July)

14(1), 14(2)

DIsmissals

SEM-04-001(20 February –resubmitted on 16March)SEM-04-001(20 April – resubmitted on 25 May)

SEM-03-001(15 July – resubmitted on 14August)SEM-03-002(31 July)

SEM-02-004(19 September –resubmitted on 10and 24 October)SEM-02-005(17 December)

SEM-01-002(24 April)SEM-01-003(19 September)

SEM-98-001(11 January)SEM-00-003(12 April)

SEM-98-002(18 March)SEM-98-001(13 September)

SEM-97-005(26 May)SEM-98-002(23 June)

SEM-97-004(25 August)

PREFACE XV

History 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

(to 31 August)
14(1), 14(2)

Dismissals

(following)

SEM-04-002(30 August)

SEM-00-001(25 April)SEM-00-005(13 July—Resubmitted31 July 2000)

SEM-98-003(14 December)

Article 21(1)(b)

Requests for

additional

information

from the Party

SEM-98-003(24 March)

SEM-97-002(13 September)

SEM-97-003(16 February)

Dismissals

following

response

SEM-03-001(28 May)

SEM-02-002(25 September)

SEM-98-003(5 October)

SEM-00-002 andSEM-99-001(30 June)SEM-97-007(14 July)

SEM-96-003(2 April)

Notifications

that a factual

record is

warranted

SEM-03-005(19 April)SEM-02-004(17 May)SEM-03-004(23 August)

SEM-00-006(29 August)SEM-02-003(8 October)SEM-02-001(17 December)

SEM-97-002(5 February)SEM-01-001(29 July)SEM-00-006(29 August)SEM-02-001(12 November)

SEM-98-004(11 May)SEM-00-004(27 July)SEM-00-005(20 December)

SEM-98-007(6 March)SEM-98-006(4 August)

SEM-97-006(19 July)SEM-97-003(29 October)

SEM-97-001(27 April)

XVI NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY History 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 (to 31 August)
Final factual

records

completed

SEM-99-002(24 April)SEM-98-006(23 June)SEM-97-006(11 August)SEM-00-004(11 August)SEM-98-004(12 August)SEM-97-002(11 December)

SEM-98-007(11 February)

SEM-97-001(11 June)

SEM-96-001(24 October)

PREFACE XVII

History 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

(to 31 August)

Secretariat Determinations

under Articles 14 and 15

of the North American

Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation: July 2002

through August 2004

SEM-00-006

(Tarahumara)

SUBMITTERS: COMISIÓN DE SOLIDARIDAD Y DEFENSA

DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS,

ASOCIACIÓN CIVIL

PARTY: MEXICO

DATE: 9 June 2000

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege a failure by Mexico to effectively enforce its environmental law by denying

access to environmental justice to Indigenous

communities in the Sierra Tarahumara in the State

of Chihuahua. They particularly assert failures to

effectively enforce environmental law relative to

the citizen complaint process, to alleged environmental crimes and other to alleged violations with

respect to forest resources and the environment in

the Sierra Tarahumara.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 15(1)

(29 August 2002)

Notification to Council that a factual record is

warranted in accordance with Article 15(1).

3

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation of North America

Article 15(1) Notification to Council that Development of a

Factual Record is Warranted

Submission Number: SEM-00-006 (Tarahumara)

Submitter: Comisión de Solidaridad y Defensa de los

Derechos Humanos A.C. (Cosyddhac)

Concerned Party: United Mexican States

Date of Receipt: 9 June 2000

Date of this Notification: 29 August 2002

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement

on Environmental Cooperation (the “NAAEC”), the Secretariat of the

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”) may

consider submissions asserting that a Party to the NAAEC is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental law. If the Secretariat finds that the

submission meets the requirements of Article 14(1), it then determines

whether the submission warrants requesting a response from the Party

named in the submission, in accordance with Article 14(2). If the Secretariat considers that the submission, in light of any response from the

Party, warrants developing a factual record, the Secretariat informs the

Council and provides its reasons (Article 15). By a two-thirds vote, the

Council may instruct the Secretariat to prepare a factual record. The final

factual record, again by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Council, may then be made public.

This Notification contains the Secretariat’s Article 15(1) analysis

with respect to the submission filed 9 June 2000 by “Comisión de

5
Solidaridad y Defensa de los Derechos Humanos, A.C.” (the “Submitter”) in accordance with NAAEC Articles 14 and 15.

The submission asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce

its environmental law by denying environmental justice to the indigenous peoples of the Sierra Tarahumara in the State of Chihuahua,

Mexico. In particular, it asserts failures to effectively enforce the environmental law relative to the denuncia popular citizen complaint process,

to the prosecution of probable environmental crimes, and to other

alleged environmental violations with respect to forest resources and

the environment in the Sierra Tarahumara.

On 6 November 2001, the Secretariat determined that some of the

assertions in the submission do not meet the requirements of Article

14(1), while others do. In addition, considering the criteria set forth in

NAAEC Article 14(2), the Secretariat determined that a response from

the Party was warranted in relation to those assertions meeting the Article 14(1) criteria.

On 15 February 2002, the Party filed its response with the Secretariat in accordance with NAAEC Article 14(3). Mexico asserts that it properly processed the citizen complaints and appeals for review (recursos de

revisión) in regard to which the Secretariat requested a response. The

Party further states that it resolved 139 additional citizen complaints

filed by Tarahumara communities between February 1998 and March

2000, and that it took other actions to improve the participation of these

communities in the environmental protection of the region. In regard to

the alleged failure to prosecute probable environmental crimes, Mexico’s response asserts that the authorities determined that the facts of

which they had knowledge do not constitute specific environmental

crimes, except in those cases allegedly pending resolution.

Having reviewed the submission in light of the response of the

Party pursuant to NAAEC Article 15(1), the Secretariat hereby notifies

Council that the submission warrants the development of a factual

record with respect to some of the assertions for which the Secretariat

considered the submission to warrant a response from the Party. Mexico’s response provides detailed information on how the citizen complaints were addressed, but it cannot be concluded from the information

provided that the relevant authorities took the proper enforcement

actions as prescribed by the General Law on Ecological Balance and

Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la

Protección al Ambiente—LGEEPA) in the majority of the specific cases

discussed in the submission. The matters raised by the submission concerning the effective enforcement of the citizen complaint procedure as a

6 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
mechanism allowing the indigenous peoples and other communities of

the Sierra Tarahumara to participate in environmental protection, as

well as the actions mentioned in Mexico’s response that the authorities

have taken to improve the participation of those communities, warrant

documentation in a factual record. In addition, the matters raised in

the submission concerning the prosecution of probable environmental

crimes remain open despite the response of the Party, and warrant documentation in a factual record. The effective enforcement of the environmental law that establishes these procedures is fundamental to the

promotion of citizen participation in environmental protection and natural resource conservation. While alleged failures to enforce environmental law of the kind in question might not individually warrant

preparation of a factual record, taken together, and considering the

importance of the effective participation by indigenous peoples and

other communities of the Sierra Tarahumara in the environmental protection of that region, the allegations of this submission pose a central

question about effective enforcement of environmental law that warrants preparation of a factual record.

II. SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The original submission consisted of five chapters and 45 pages.

The Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters (the “Guidelines”) suggest a limit of 15 pages, excluding appendices and supporting

information (see section 3.3 of the Guidelines). On 19 June 2000, 20 February 2001, and 6 April 2001, the Secretariat requested the Submitter to

amend the submission so as to correct this minor error of form. In its last

letter, the Secretariat proposed to the Submitter a way of abridging the

submission. This recommendation and the Secretariat’s Article 14(1)

and (2) analysis are based on the abridged submission.1

In the submission, Cosyddhac asserts that Mexico is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental law in relation to the effective processing of citizen complaints (denuncias populares), the prosecution of

environmental crimes, the consultation of indigenous peoples prior to

issuing logging permits, and access to environmental information.2

SEM-00-006 7

1. These documents are available in the Registry of Citizen Submissions on Enforcement Matters on the CEC website at <www.cec.org>, or may be requested from the

Secretariat.

2. The Submission recounts at least 112 specific situations (considering the examples

from all the headings) in which it asserts that the Party failed to effectively enforce its

environmental law. The original structure of this Submission contained a chapter

(Chapter III, now Appendix I) providing a complete procedural history of each citizen complaint and action of the authorities employed in documenting each of the 21

assertions (contained in Chapter IV, which was kept in the body of the Submission).
According to the Submitter, the Party is failing to effectively enforce its

environmental law as follows:

A. Failure by the Party to effectively enforce Article 189 in relation to

Article 191 of the LGEEPA, by failing to guarantee the indigenous

peoples, as social groups, access to environmental justice through the

filing of citizen complaints, or from another standpoint, the Party’s

failure to enforce through its denial to these peoples of legal interest in

the broad sense, as well as legitimatio ad processum and legitimatio ad

causam.

B. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce Articles 189 in relation to

Articles 190 and 191 of the LGEEPA, with respect to its refusal to

allow to proceed a citizen complaint that meets all the legal requirements.

C. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce LGEEPA Article 176,

through its failure to guarantee the affected parties, following a final

decision pronounced by an administrative tribunal, access to environmental justice through the filing of an appeal for review against it,

or from another standpoint, the Party’s failure to enforce through its

denial to the Indigenous Peoples of legal interest in the broad sense, as

well as legitimatio ad processum and legitimatio ad causam.

D. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce LGEEPA Article 176, in that

every appeal for review must result in a decision that concludes the

appeal.

E. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce Article 15.2 of Convention

169 of the ILO [International Labour Organization] in connection

with authorizations issued for the exploitation of timber resources.

F. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce Article 199 in relation to Article 189 of the LGEEPA, in connection with its failure to resolve or conclude citizen complaint files.

G. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce CFPP [sic] Article 418, in relation to its failure to notify the agency responsible for criminal investigations and prosecutions (Ministerio Público Federal—MPF) of the

probable occurrence of environmental crimes consisting of forest cutting, destruction of natural vegetation, and change of land use without authorization, despite becoming aware of these facts in the course

of carrying out its duties.

H. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce CPF [Código Penal FederalFederal Criminal Code] Article 418 in connection with forest cutting

and land use changes without authorization under the Forestry Act

(Ley Forestal).

8 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
I. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce CPF Article 418 in relation to

its failure to notify the MPF of the probable occurrence of environmental crimes consisting of cutting, uprooting, felling or knocking

down trees without authorization, despite becoming aware of these

facts in the course of carrying out its duties.

J. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce CPF Article 418 in connection

with the crime of cutting, uprooting, felling or knocking down trees,

or exploiting forest resources, without authorization under the Forestry Act.

K. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce CPF Article 418 in relation to

its failure to notify the MPF of the probable occurrence of environmental crimes consisting of intentionally causing fires in woodlands

and forest vegetation, thus damaging natural resources, flora, fauna

and ecosystems.

L. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce CPF Article 418 in connection

with the crime of intentionally causing fires in woodlands and forest

vegetation, thus damaging natural resources, flora, fauna and ecosystems.

M. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce CPF Article 419 in relation to

its failure to notify the MPF of the probable occurrence of environmental crimes consisting of the transportation, storage and processing of forest resources without authorization under the Forestry Act,

despite becoming aware of these facts in the course of carrying out its

duties.

N. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce CPF Article 416 in relation to

its failure to notify the MPF of the probable occurrence of environmental crimes consisting of discharging and dumping wastewater

into national bodies of water, causing harm to public health, natural

resources, flora, fauna, and water quality.

O. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce Article 169 in fine of the

LGEEPA, a comprehensive reading of which establishes that once the

decision referred to in Article 168 of the LGEEPA is issued and acts or

omissions constituting one or more crimes are verified, the environmental authorities shall notify the MPF thereof.

P. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce LGEEPA Article 202, in that

the Office of the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection

(Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente—Profepa) in the State of

Chihuahua, despite conducting inspection visits, arising in most

cases from citizen complaints, on which visits it directly observed acts

SEM-00-006 9
and omissions constituting environmental crimes, did not file corresponding denunciations of probable crimes.

Q. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce LGEEPA Article 191 by failing to consolidate a citizen complaint with a pre-existing file opened

in response to a previous citizen complaint of a similar nature.

R. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce LGEEPA Articles 191 and

192, by failing to issue a decision on the admissibility of a citizen complaint, and consequently, failing to take the necessary steps to determine the existence of the acts or omissions alleged therein.

S. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce Article 191 in relation to 190

of the LGEEPA, in failing to process a citizen complaint appropriately

by referring the matter to the competent body.

T. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce LGEEPA Article 193, by

resolving a citizen complaint without informing the complainant of

the considerations adopted in regard to the evidence and information

provided.

U. The Party’s failure to effectively enforce Article 159 Bis 3 in relation to

Article 159 Bis 4 of the LGEEPA, by refusing to provide environmental information in response to a request.

The Submitter asserts that these alleged failures to effectively

enforce the LGEEPA, the CPF, the Forestry Law and the Indigenous and

Tribal Peoples Convention (Convention 169) of the ILO amount to

denying environmental justice to indigenous peoples in the Sierra Tarahumara, State of Chihuahua, in violation of NAAEC Articles 6 and 7. The

final part of the submission states that the 21 assertions and supporting

examples “constitute a persistent pattern.3”

After analyzing the submission in light of Articles 14(1) and 14(2),

the Secretariat requested a response from the Party only with respect to

the assertions contained in headings A, C, D, F, G, H, I, K, M, N, O, P, R, S

and T of the submission.4

III. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSE OF THE PARTY

The Secretariat received Mexico’s response to the submission on 15

February 2002. It contains a concise response to headings A, C, D, F, G, H,

10 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

3. Submission at 18.

4. Section IV.A of this notification summarizes the Article 14(1)/14(2) review.
I, K, M, N, O, P, R, S and T of the submission, supported by a large number of attached documents showing in detail the processing of the citizen

complaints and appeals for review mentioned in the submission. The

response alleges the environmental authorities’ adequate performance

of their duties in responding to the citizen complaints mentioned in

headings A, F, R, S and T of the submission.

The response states:

Mexico, based on NAAEC Articles 5(1)(j), 5(2), 6 and 7 [...] responded, in a

timely manner and using a fair, open and equitable procedure, to a total

of 173 citizen complaints filed between February 1998 and March 2000

relating to various violations of the LGEEPA committed in the Sierra

Tarahumara; all the complaints were admitted by the Profepa and

recorded in the National Citizen Complaint Response System (Sistema

Nacional de Atención a la Denuncia Popular). It should be mentioned that, in

accordance with LGEEPA Article 191 [...], Profepa’s Environmental Petitions, Complaints, and Social Participation Unit in the State of Chihuahua

sent the complainants an acknowledgement of receipt of each of the aforementioned complaints, issuing a decision on the admissibility of each

complaint, and notifying the complainants of those decisions within the

ten days following the receipt of the corresponding complaint.5

Concerning the assertions about the effective enforcement of the

appeal for review procedure in the cases mentioned in the submission

(headings C and D), the Response states that the Party, “based on

NAAEC Articles 7(3) and (4) and LGEEPA Article 176 [...] resolved two

appeals for review filed against decisions of the Profepa State Office

in Chihuahua, to which the Secretariat refers in its determination, in

accordance with Article 91, paragraph II of the Federal Administrative

Procedure Law (Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo—LFPA) [...]

by upholding the administrative decision under review.6”

Regarding the assertions in the submission on the investigation

and prosecution of environmental crimes, the Party asserts that it cannot

respond to the assertion in heading G because the article cited by

the Submitter (Article 418 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure

[Código Federal de Procedimientos Penales—CFPP]) does not correspond to

the matter alleged (which in fact relates to Código Penal Federal—CPF–

Article 418). Regarding heading H, the Party asserts “it refers to a denunciation of probable crimes filed with the MPF by the Community of Ejido

San Diego de Alcalá on 21 September 1999. In that regard, this Party,

SEM-00-006 11

5. Response at 2–3.

6. Response at 8–9.
based on NAAEC Article 14(3)(a), requests the Secretariat give no further consideration to the matter because it asserts that the complaint is

the subject of a pending administrative procedure before the MPF,

which shall determine whether or not to turn the file over to the competent judge”.7

Concerning headings I, K, M and O, which refer to the failure to

notify the MPF of the probable occurrence of environmental crimes in

various cases, the response states that the citizen complaints in question

were resolved, inspection visits were conducted, administrative procedures were followed, and in some cases, administrative sanctions were

imposed on the responsible parties. According to the response, the environmental authorities did not notify the MPF because the acts and omissions observed by the authorities did not qualify as environmental

crimes.8 Finally, the response indicates that Mexico did institute criminal proceedings and issue an administrative decision in regard to the citizen complaint mentioned in heading N.

Mexico’s response states further that “starting in the year 2000, a

series of meetings was held between the relevant authorities of this Party

[and the affected indigenous communities and nongovernmental organizations], for the purpose of keeping them informed of the status of

their complaints and clarifying any legal situation that might arise in

that connection, using those meetings as forums for discussion of environmental situations arising in that geographical area...”. Finally, Mexico’s response indicates that the Party intends to set up “participatory

monitoring committees for natural resource conservation” in the

region.9

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Introduction

The process in regard to this submission is currently at the NAAEC

Article 15(1) stage. To reach this stage, the Secretariat must first determine that the submission meets the requirements of Article 14(1) and

that it merits a response from the Party, considering the criteria of Article

14(2).

12 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

7. Pages 10-12 of the Response. The complaint in regard to which the Party invokes

Article 14(3)(a) is also mentioned in heading M.

8. Response at 11–12.

9. Response at 16–17.
On 6 November 2001, the Secretariat determined that the submission met all the requirements of NAAEC Article 14(1).10 The submission

meets the requirements of Article 14(1)(a), (b), (d) and (f) because it was

filed in writing and in Spanish, one of the official languages of the

Parties;11 the Submitter clearly identifies itself in the submission as a

nongovernmental organization (Cosyddhac) domiciled in the city of

Chihuahua, State of Chihuahua, Mexico.12 The submission appears to be

aimed at promoting environmental law enforcement activities and not

at harassing industry, since it focuses primarily on the manner in which

the environmental authorities have addressed the complaints filed by

the indigenous peoples and other groups interested in the protection of

natural resources in the Sierra Tarahumara. The requirement set out in

Article 14(1)(c) was also met since the submission and its appendices

contain sufficient information to review it. The submission includes

information on the means by which the indigenous peoples and other

groups in the Sierra Tarahumara have attempted to participate in effective law enforcement for the protection of the natural resources of that

area, on the manner in which the authority addressed its complaints,

and on the reasons why the Submitter considers the authority’s actions

to represent a failure of effective enforcement.

Regarding Article 14(1)(e), the Secretariat determined that the

majority of the assertions in the submission refer to matters that have

been communicated to the relevant authorities of the Party.13 In addition, the majority of the assertions in the submission satisfy the requirement in the opening language of Article 14(1), which states that a

submission must assert “a Party is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law”. The Secretariat determined that some of the assertions

do not meet that requirement, because they do not refer to provisions

that are “environmental law” for the purposes of the NAAEC,14 or

SEM-00-006 13

10. SEM-00-006 (Tarahumara), Determination in accordance with Articles 14(1) and (2)

(6 November 2001).

11. See also section 3.2 of the Guidelines.

12. Submission at 1 and Appendix 0.

13. Submission Appendices 5, 10, 20, 49 and 51.

14. NAAEC Article 45(2) establishes the following definition of environmental law:

For purposes of Article 14(l) and Part Five:

(a) “environmental law” means any statute or regulation of a Party, or provision

thereof, the primary purpose of which is the protection of the environment, or the

prevention of a danger to human life or health, through

(i) the prevention, abatement or control of the release, discharge, or emission of

pollutants or environmental contaminants,

(ii) the control of environmentally hazardous or toxic chemicals, substances,

materials and wastes, and the dissemination of information related thereto, or

(iii) the protection of wild flora or fauna, including endangered species, their

habitat, and specially protected natural areas in the Party’s territory, but does not
because they refer to past situations in regard to which the environmental authorities could not have carried out any environmental law

enforcement action at the time that the submission was filed, so that

there cannot be an assertion that Mexico “is failing” to enforce in those

cases.

The Secretariat proceeded to review the submission considering

the criteria of NAAEC Article 14(2) taken together, and concluded in its

determination of 6 November 2001 that the submission warranted a

response from the Party in relation to the assertions contained in headings A, C, D, F, G, H, I, K, M, N, O, P, R, S and T.

The submission contends that the alleged lack of access to the citizen complaint procedure represents harm to the indigenous peoples

and other groups of the Sierra Tarahumara in that it restricts the exercise

of the right to participate in the protection of the environment by reporting possible violations of environmental law [Article 14(2)(a)]. The Secretariat considers that the effective enforcement of the citizen complaint

procedure as a means of access to environmental justice, to which the

submission refers, and the effective enforcement of the criminal law for

the protection of the forest resources of the Sierra Tarahumara are matters whose further consideration in this process would advance the goals

of the NAAEC [Article 14(2)(b)]. The submission addresses the available

remedies pursued under the Party’s law, and the Secretariat considers

that a reasonable effort was made to pursue those remedies [Article

14(2)(c)]. The matter raised by the submission is precisely that the efforts

of these groups to use the available remedies under the Party’s law to

denounce harm to the environment of the Sierra Tarahumara were not

successful due to the Party’s alleged failure to effectively enforce its

environmental law. Finally, the submission does not appear to be based

on media reports [Article 14(2)(d)].

Further to the Secretariat’s determination of 6 November 2001, the

Party provided its response on 15 February 2002, in accordance with

NAAEC Article 14(3).

14 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

include any statute or regulation, or provision thereof, directly related to worker

safety or health.

(b) For greater certainty, the term “environmental law” does not include any statute or regulation, or provision thereof, the primary purpose of which is managing

the commercial harvest or exploitation, or subsistence or aboriginal harvesting, of

natural resources.

(c) The primary purpose of a particular statutory or regulatory provision for purposes of subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall be determined by reference to its primary

purpose, rather than to the primary purpose of the statute or regulation of which it

is part.
B. Why Development of a Factual Record is Warranted

In accordance with NAAEC Article 15(1), and in light of Mexico’s

response, the Secretariat considers that the submission warrants the

development of a factual record.

As detailed in this section, the information provided by the Party

in its response shows how the citizen complaints discussed in the submission, by which the indigenous peoples and communities of the Sierra

Tarahumara reported acts of illegal destruction or exploitation of the

woodlands in the Sierra, were processed. Based on this information, the

matters raised in the submission concerning the effective enforcement of

the environmental law with respect to two of the 33 complaints in question are deemed resolved.15 In the case of the remaining complaints,

either questions persist as to whether the authorities failed to carry out

one or more of the specific actions comprising the procedure, or it

appears that these actions were carried out but not within the period prescribed by law. In regard to the investigation and prosecution of probable environmental crimes, except in one case, the authorities decided

that the facts of which they had knowledge do not constitute crimes,

without providing any grounds and reasons for that decision (the minimum requirements set forth by the Political Constitution of the United

Mexican States) and without notifying the complainants of the decision.

On the other hand, concerning the allegations in the submission relating to the appeals for review filed further to citizen complaints, the

Submitter’s assertions are not confirmed and do not warrant documenting in a factual record, because Mexico’s response shows that they were

in fact resolved.

As mentioned above, the response of the Party consists of a concise

response to the assertions in headings A, C, D, F, G, H, I, K, M, N, O, P, R,

S and T, and numerous appendices documenting the processing by

the relevant environmental authorities of the citizen complaints and

appeals for review as to which the Secretariat requested a response from

Mexico.16

To simplify the review of the submission in light of the Party’s

response, the allegations were grouped under three titles:17

SEM-00-006 15

15. See Submission Appendix 15 and Response Appendix I. Complaints filed by

Ricardo Chaparro Julián (Tepehuán de las Fresas Indigenous People) on 12 October 1998 and Ejido Rocoroyvo, on 18 February 2000.

16. The Secretariat was unable to identify the case to which the document contained in

Response Appendix II referred.

17. A complaint may appear under more than one heading, (i.e., that of 12 October

1998, filed by the Tepehuán de las Fresas People, which was stated as an instance of
1. Alleged failures to effectively enforce the provisions relating

to the citizen complaint procedure (LGEEPA Articles 189,

190-193 and 199) mentioned in headings A, F, R, S and T of the

submission;

2. Alleged failures to effectively enforce the provisions relating

to the investigation and prosecution of probable environmental crimes (CPF Articles 416, 418 and 419 and LGEEPA

Articles 169 and 202) mentioned in headings G, H, I, K, M, N,

O and P of the submission;

3. Alleged failures to effectively enforce the provisions relating

to appeals for review (LGEEPA Article 176) mentioned in

headings C and D of the submission.

1. Alleged failures to effectively enforce the provisions relating to

the citizen complaint procedure (LGEEPA Articles 189, 190-193

and 199)

Under headings A, F, R, S and T of the submission, the Submitter

asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law

by inadequately processing 30 citizen complaints about illegal logging

and forest destruction in the Sierra Tarahumara. These citizen complaints were filed between February 1998 and March 2000 by various

groups: the Community of San Ignacio de Arareco; the communities of

Ejido de Ciénega de Guacayvo, Ejido de San Diego de Alcalá and Ejido

de El Consuelo; the Rarámuri and Tepehuán Indigenous Peoples, and

the Coalición Rural/Rural Coalition. The majority of the citizen complaints refer to activities or facts which the complainants consider to

pose a threat to the ecosystem of the Sierra Tarahumara, as well as the

subsistence, heritage and resources of the Sierra-based cultures.

Pursuant to LGEEPA Articles 191-199, the citizen complaint procedure may be summarized as follows:

• Upon receipt of a citizen complaint, the authority shall issue

a decision on the initial status of the complaint (acuerdo de

calificación), i.e. to allow or disallow it or to consolidate it with

one or more other complaints, and shall notify the complainant

16 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

failure to enforce by the Submitter in points A.2, F.3, I.3 and O.1). The same applies

to the inspections. Appendix A of this recommendation contains a list of the citizen

complaints or denunciations of probable crimes, remedies and inspections, indicating the headings in which each is mentioned.
of this decision within the ten days following the filing of the

complaint.

• Where the authority receiving the complaint is not competent to

process it given the facts alleged in the complaint, it shall refer

the complaint to the competent authority. This referral process

entails the following: acknowledging receipt (without allowing

the complaint); referring the complaint to the competent

authority for the latter’s decision and resolution; and notifying

the complainant that the complaint was referred to that authority, by means of a reasoned and justified decision.

• Where the complaint is allowed, the authority shall notify the

respondent so that the respondent may submit appropriate documents and evidence within a maximum period of 15 working

days.

• The authority shall verify the acts or omissions raised in the

complaint, taking any necessary measures and initiating any

relevant inspection and enforcement procedures, as well as any

administrative procedures arising therefrom.

• The complainant may assist the authority, and the authority

shall, in resolving the complaint, state the considerations

adopted with respect to the information provided by the

complainant.

• The authority shall notify the complainant where it is not

proven that the acts or omissions denounced cause or could

cause ecological imbalance, harm the environment or natural

resources, or violate the law, and the complainant shall then be

given an opportunity to make any observations it sees fit.

According to the submission, the complaints filed by the indigenous peoples and other groups of the Sierra Tarahumara were not processed as prescribed by the LGEEPA: some were disallowed; others

were allowed but not resolved or processed as prescribed by law; and for

some, the follow-up actions prescribed by law have not been taken. The

submission contends that the alleged lack of effective access to the citizen complaint procedure represents harm to the indigenous peoples

and other groups of the Sierra Tarahumara, by restricting the exercise of

the right to participate in the protection of the environment by reporting

possible violations of environmental law.

SEM-00-006 17
In its response, the Party asserts that it appropriately processed the

complaints filed by the indigenous peoples and communities of the

Sierra Tarahumara to which the submission refers, and it provides

copies of numerous related decisions and communications. A detailed

review of these indicates the following:

In heading A of the submission, the Submitter asserts that the environmental authorities failed to guarantee the indigenous peoples, as

social groups, access to environmental justice through the filing of citizen complaints, by disallowing citizen complaints filed by these groups.

In heading R of the submission, the Submitter asserts that the environmental authorities did not issue a decision on the admissibility of a

citizen complaint, and therefore ceased to conduct the procedures necessary to determine the existence of the acts or omissions alleged in the

complaint. From Mexico’s response, it is evident that the authorities

only issued proper decisions on the admissibility of two of the 19 complaints about which the Submitter asserts in these headings that Mexico

is failing to effectively enforce the LGEEPA.18 For four of the complaints,

no such decision was issued,19 while in the remaining 13 cases, a decision

was issued but within a period exceeding, by a few days to over a month,

the 10 days prescribed by the LGEEPA.20

In heading F of the submission, the Submitter alleges that the

authorities did not properly conclude the procedures for 10 citizen complaints by issuing a final decision further to the administrative procedure arising from forestry inspections.21 Pursuant to Article 17 of the

LFPA, the administrative authority shall issue a decision within a period

of four months.22 The documents provided by the Party show that the

authority issued decisions on the ten complaints, but in each case outside the period prescribed by law. For three of the complaints, the

18 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

18. See Submission Appendix 15 and Response Appendix I. Complaint filed by

Ricardo Chaparro Julián (Tepehuán de las Fresas Indigenous People) on 12 October 1998, and complaint filed by Ejido Rocoroyvo on 18 February 2000.

19. See Submission Appendices 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 17 and 19, and Response Appendices I and

III. Complaints filed by José María Fuentes Rodríguez et al. (Choguita Community)

on 26 October 1998; by Ricardo Chaparro Julián (Tepehuán de las Fresas Indigenous People) on 4 December 1998 and by members of the ejido council of Ejido

Ciénega Guacayvo on 26 July and 4 October 1999.

20. See Submission Appendices 57 and 66–80 and Response Appendix I. Complaints

filed by various Rarámuris Indigenous Peoples through the intermediary of

Agustín Bravo Gaxiola, 7 December 1998, 7 and 18 February 2000, and 15 March

2000.

21. Heading F, Submission at 8.

22. LGEEPA article 160, paragraph 2 establishes the LFPA as suppletive law for administrative procedures and appeals, among others.
authority did not inform the complainant, even when the authority carried out administrative procedures and imposed corrective measures

and fines.23 In regard to the last complaint, Profepa allowed it only with

respect to matters under its jurisdiction, referring to the National Water

Commission (Comisión Nacional del Agua—CNA) those matters for

which the latter has jurisdiction. The response does not indicate that the

CNA processed this complaint.24

In heading S of the submission, the Submitter asserts that the environmental authorities, having received a citizen complaint outside their

jurisdiction, failed to refer it to the competent authority, which in turn

should have allowed the complaint. Mexico’s response states that “it

does not possess information enabling the determination of the status of

those complaints.25”

Finally, in heading T of the submission, the Submitter states that in

resolving one complaint regarding allegedly illegal logging, the authorities failed to state their considerations to the complainant with respect to

the information that the complainant provided, as required by LGEEPA

Article 193. The resolution of the complaint attached to Mexico’s

response indicates that the logging complained of does not merit sanctions because it was authorized. However, the resolution does not “state

the considerations” of the authorities in regard to the information provided by the complainant, as required by law.26

In summary, notwithstanding the detailed nature of Mexico’s

response, the documents provided with it do not allow the conclusion

that the relevant authorities took the enforcement actions provided by

the LGEEPA in the majority of the specific cases raised by the submission. It follows from the decisions and communications attached to

the response that the authorities strictly enforced the environmental

law with respect to only two of the 33 complaints covered by this

SEM-00-006 19

23. See Submission Appendices 15, 26 and 27 and Response Appendix II. Complaints

filed by Ricardo Chaparro Julián et al. (Tepehuán de las Fresas Indigenous People)

on 12 October 1998 and by Oscar Romero Viezcas (Community of Ejido San Diego

de Alcalá) on 16 June and 1 September 1999.

24. See Submission Appendices 26-27 and Response Appendix II. Complaint filed by

Oscar Romero Viezcas (Community of Ejido San Diego de Alcalá) on 1 September

1999.

25. See Submission Appendices 22-25 and Response at 6-7. Complaints filed by Félix

Baiza Duarte (Tepehuán de las Fresas Indigenous People) on 13 October 1999 and

by the Tepehuán de Malanoche Indigenous People on 9 July 1999.

26. See Submission Appendices 58-60 and Response Appendix IV. Complaint filed by

Prudencio Ramos Ramos (Rarámuri Indigenous People of Ejido Pino Gordo) on

7 August 1998.
notification.27 For the remaining complaints, the authorities either omitted one or more specific actions comprising the procedure, or performed

them outside the period prescribed by law (by a few days in approximately half the cases, and by approximately a month in the others). The

failure to process these citizen complaints within the required time

period is especially relevant in light of the other alleged failures to effectively enforce the citizen complaint procedure in the cases mentioned in

this submission.

The Mexican legal system only allows persons with a recognized

legal interest to initiate a legal proceeding against persons who, in violation of the applicable law, cause harm to the environment or natural

resources. The citizen complaint procedure is the only means available to

any interested party to set in motion the government’s environmental

protection apparatus. For that reason, the effective enforcement of the citizen complaint procedure by the environmental authority is fundamental

to the promotion of citizen participation in environmental protection.

Furthermore, the Mexican legal system emphasizes the importance of

ensuring the right of indigenous peoples to protect their environment and

natural resources.28 The matters raised by the submission with respect to

the effective enforcement of the citizen complaint procedure as a mechanism allowing the indigenous peoples and other communities of the

Sierra Tarahumara to participate in environmental protection in that

region warrant development and documentation in a factual record. The

Secretariat considers the development of a factual record to be warranted

in relation to the effective enforcement of LGEEPA Articles 189, 190-193

and 199 with respect to the citizen complaints in question.

20 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

27. See Submission Appendix 15 and Response Appendix I. Complaints filed by

Ricardo Chaparro Julián (Tepehuán de las Fresas Indigenous People) on 12 October 1998 and by Ejido Rocoroyvo on 18 February 2000.

28. Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, Article 2, A. This Constitution

recognizes and guarantees the right of indigenous peoples and communities to

self-determination, and in consequence, autonomy to:

[...] V. Conserve and improve their habitat, and preserve their lands in the terms

established in this Constitution.

[...] VIII. Full access to State jurisdiction. To guarantee this right, in all trials and

proceedings in which they participate, individually or collectively, their customs

and cultural characteristics will be taken into account, respecting the precepts of

this Constitution [...]

LGEEPA, Article 15: In formulating and conducting environmental policies and in

issuing official Mexican norms and other instruments stipulated in this Law, in the

area of preservation and restoration of ecological equilibrium and environmental

protection, the Federal Executive Branch will observe the following principles:

XIII. Guarantee the right of communities, including indigenous peoples, to the protection, preservation, use and sustainable exploitation of natural resources and the

safeguarding and use of biodiversity, in accordance with this Law and other applicable ordinances [...]
2. Alleged failures to effectively enforce the provisions relating to

the investigation and prosecution of probable environmental

crimes (CPF Articles 416, 418 and 419, and LGEEPA Articles 169

and 202)

Headings G, H, I, K, M, N, O and P of the submission contain assertions about the alleged failure to effectively enforce environmental law

with respect to the investigation and prosecution of probable environmental crimes.

The submission indicates that by means of citizen complaints,

the environmental authorities were made aware of facts that possibly

constituted environmental crimes. It further states that the authorities

conducted at least 15 inspection visits on which they allegedly have

identified probable environmental crimes. The submission asserts that

Mexico is failing to effectively enforce the environmental law in two

respects: by failing to exercise the powers invested in the environmental

authorities to initiate investigations or notify the agency responsible for

criminal investigations and prosecutions—the MPF—of facts that might

constitute such crimes, pursuant to LGEEPA Articles 169 and 202, and

by failing to apply to the alleged crimes CPF Articles 416, 418 and 419,

which define and sanction criminal conduct that harms the environment.29

SEM-00-006 21

29. CPF, Article 416.- Anyone who performs any of the following acts without the

required authorization, or in violation of the laws, regulations and Mexican official

standards, is liable to a penalty of three months to six years imprisonment and a

fine of 1,000 to 20,000 times the daily minimum wage:

I.- Discharging, dumping, or infiltrating, or authorizing or ordering the discharge, dumping or infiltration of wastewater, chemical or biochemical liquids,

refuse or pollutants into soils, marine waters, rivers, watersheds, reservoirs and

other water bodies or watercourses under federal jurisdiction, causing or possibly

causing harm to public health, natural resources, flora, fauna, water quality in

watersheds, or ecosystems.

Where the water in question is water for bulk delivery to population centers, the

penalty may be increased by up to three additional years...

CPF, Article 418.- Anyone who, without the required authorization under the Forestry Law, cuts or destroys natural vegetation, cuts, uproots, knocks down or fells

trees, exploits forest resources or causes land use changes is liable to a penalty of

three months to six years imprisonment and a fine equivalent to 100 to 20,000 times

the daily minimum wage... The same penalty shall apply to anyone who intentionally causes fires in woodlands, forests, or natural vegetation which damage natural

resources, flora, fauna, or ecosystems.

CPF, Article 419.- Anyone who transports, deals in, stores, or processes timber

resources in quantities greater than four cubic meters roundwood equivalent or the

equivalent without authorization under the Forestry Law is liable to a penalty of

three months to six years imprisonment and a fine equivalent to 100 to 20,000 times

the daily minimum wage, except in cases of exploitation of forest resources for

domestic use, as prescribed by the Forestry Law.
LGEEPA Article 169 provides that the authorities shall notify the

MPF of the occurrence of acts or omissions that they have observed in the

course of their duties that “may constitute one or more crimes.30” In particular, the authorities shall: determine whether the facts of which they

have knowledge may or may not constitute crimes; notify the MPF if

there are facts that may constitute a crime; communicate to the MPF all

the relevant information in their possession; and place the indicted persons at the disposal of the MPF, if they have been detained. In the case

of a citizen complaint, the authority may make its determination of

whether the facts referred by the complainant may or may not constitute

a crime either in the decision to allow the complaint or separately

(regardless of whether the complaint is allowed or not) but—as with any

act of authority—that determination must be reasoned, justified and in

writing, and it must be communicated to the complainant. It is not necessary for the environmental authorities to ascertain that the activities constitute crimes (since it is the responsibility of the court to determine that),

but merely to know of the existence of acts or omissions that may be considered crimes. Likewise, LGEEPA Article 202 provides that the Profepa

may initiate the relevant proceedings before the competent authorities

where it becomes aware of acts or omissions that violate administrative

or criminal law.

The process the MPF shall follow in prosecuting and sanctioning

crimes is, in general terms, as follows. The MPF is required to investigate

the crimes of which it has knowledge (CFPP Article 113). It shall order

any measures and provisions necessary to afford security, safety, and

assistance to victims; prevent from being lost, destroyed or altered all

traces or evidence of the crime, as well as the instruments or things

affected by it, or its effects; ascertain the identity of witnesses; prevent

the crime from continuing to be committed; and, in general, prevent the

investigation from being impeded, detaining those who took part in

committing the crime where they are caught in the act (CFPP Article

123). Where the MPF deduces from the preliminary investigation that

22 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

The relevant paragraph of LGEEPA Article 169 provides that: “Where applicable, the federal authorities shall notify the Office of the Attorney General of the performance of acts or omissions observed in the course of carrying out their duties

which may constitute one or more crimes.”

LGEEPA, Article 202.- The Office of the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection, within the scope of its competence, is empowered to initiate any relevant

proceedings before the competent judicial authorities where it becomes aware of

acts or omissions that constitute violations of administrative or criminal law.

30. The same provision is made, for all public servants, by CFPP Article 117. Likewise,

LGEEPA Article 202 provides that Profepa is empowered to initiate any relevant

proceedings before the competent judicial authorities where it becomes aware of

acts or omissions that constitute violations under administrative or criminal law.
both the corpus delicti and the suspect’s probable responsibility are

proven, it shall bring legal action (CFPP Article 134).

The submission asserts that the environmental authorities are failing to effectively enforce the law by failing to notify the MPF of the probable occurrence of environmental crimes.31 It follows from Mexico’s

response that both in the cases involving only the filing of citizen complaints or denunciation of probable crimes, and in those involving

inspection visits arising from the complaints, the authorities had knowledge of acts or omissions that probably constituted environmental

crimes. However, with respect to the 45 points (complaint and visits) in

headings G, I, K, M, N, O and P of the submission for which this failure to

enforce is asserted, the environmental authorities do not appear to have

determined, in a timely manner and by means of a reasoned and justified

decision, whether the facts in question could constitute crimes. In its

response, Mexico simply asserts that the competent authority considered that the facts did not constitute crimes. The information provided to

the Secretariat does not show that in each case the competent authority

provided its reasons and justification in a written decision.

Regarding headings I, K and O of the submission, Mexico’s

response indicates that on 35 occasions, corrective measures and sanctions were imposed on the persons responsible for the corresponding

facts; in these cases, Mexico contends that the facts were not reported to

the MPF because they were not found to constitute crimes.32 However, it

is not clear that this determination by the environmental authorities was

made properly given that each of these cases involved facts that potentially constituted crimes, and it is not necessary for the authorities to

determine that the facts constitute a crime in order to notify the MPF.33

For example, in eight of the citizen complaints filed by indigenous

peoples and various communities through Agustín Bravo Gaxiola on

15 March 2000, which report the illegal logging and storage of timber

resources, among other probable crimes, the acts complained of potentially fall under the crimes contemplated in CPF Article 418. There is no

indication that the authorities notified the MPF of these acts, or that they

applied the correct standard for determining whether to notify the MPF.

Heading P of the submission also asserts that the environmental

authorities failed to denounce probable environmental crimes despite

having observed facts that were probable environmental crimes on 15

SEM-00-006 23

31. Headings G (p. 9), I (p. 10), K (p. 12), M (p. 13), N (p. 13) and O, Submission at 13.

32. See Submission Appendices 1, 2, 7-12, 15-17, 19, 22-27, 42, 43, 49, 50, 58-63, 66-70

and 74-80, and Response at 11, 12, 14 and 15.

33. See Response Appendices VIII, IX and XII.
inspection visits.34 In two of these cases, the residents of the ejido had

filed denunciations of probable crimes in connection with the same

facts, so that it was not necessary for the authorities to notify the

MPF thereof.35 In the other cases, however, it is evident from Mexico’s

response that the environmental authorities found indications of criminal activity that they did not report to the MPF.36Mexico’s response indicates that the complaints were resolved by imposing administrative

corrective measures and sanctions on the persons responsible for the

facts observed during the inspection visits. Again, Mexico’s response

contends that the facts were not reported to the MPF because they did

not constitute environmental crimes, but the response does not include

any reasoned and justified determination by the environmental authorities to support the decision not to notify the MPF.

Regarding the six points referred to by heading G of the submission,37 the Submitter made an error in citing the provision that Mexico

allegedly is failing to effectively enforce. The Party asserts that this error

prevented it from responding to the assertions in that heading.38 However, in view of the description in the submission of the actions to which

these assertions refer, it is clear that this is a typographical error and that

the Submitter was referring to Article 418 of the Código Penal Federal—CPF—and not the Código Federal de Procedimientos Penales—CFPP.

Furthermore, the Secretariat noted this error in its request for a response

from the Party.39 Because Mexico did not respond to these assertions,

they remain open.

Regarding the complaint referred to in heading N of the submission, Mexico’s response states that the authorities reported the facts to

the MPF on 23 May 2000.40 However, the report provided with the

response refers to the alleged unauthorized removal of natural vegetation and land use change (CPF Article 418) while heading N refers to the

alleged discharge and dumping of wastewater into bodies of water

under federal jurisdiction, causing harm to public health, natural

24 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

34. Heading P, Submission at 13.

35. See Response Appendix XIII.

36. See Response Appendix III.

37. See Submission Appendices 13, 14, 14A, 26, 27, 57, 64 and 65. Complaints filed by

the Community of San Ignacio de Arareco on 18 July 1999; by Oscar Romero

Viezcas (Ejido San Diego de Alcalá) on 16 June and 1 September 1999, and by

Prudencio Ramos Ramos (Rarámuri Indigenous People of Ejido Rocheachi) on 7

December 1999 and 10 March 2000, as well as the Technical Forestry Audit performed in the Community of Colorada de los Chávez in September of 1999.

38. Response at 10.

39. SEM-00-006 (Tarahumara), Article 14(1) and (2) Determination (6 November 2001),

page 2.

40. Response at 13 and Appendix XI.
resources, flora, fauna, and water quality (CPF Article 16). This appendix does not include information on the manner in which the CNA (the

competent authority in this matter) processed the complaint in question.

Consequently, it is not clear whether the CNA took any action with

respect to the facts indicated in heading N.

In the case of the complaint filed 4 October 1999 by the Community

of Ejido Ciénega de Guacayvo, the subject of heading M of the submission,41 the Party states in its response that the complaint is the subject of a

pending proceeding before the MPF, and requests the Secretariat proceed no further concerning this complaint. However, the Party does not

include information enabling the Secretariat to confirm that it is in fact a

pending procedure in the terms of NAAEC Article 14(3)(a). Beyond the

Party’s statement that the matter is the subject of a pending proceeding,

there is no information on the manner in which the denunciation of

probable crimes in question was processed. The Secretariat cannot

determine from Mexico’s response and its appendices that the matter is

the subject of a proceeding initiated by the Party in accordance with Article 14(3)(a), and therefore it is appropriate to proceed further with

respect to this allegation.42 Because Mexico did not respond to this assertion, the question of whether Mexico is effectively enforcing its environmental law with respect to this complaint remains open.

Finally, heading H of the submission asserts that Mexico is failing

to effectively enforce the law in the processing and resolution of a

denunciation of probable crimes filed 21 September 1999.43 Mexico’s

response reiterates its request to the Secretariat to proceed no further

with respect to this allegation, stating that the complaint in question is

the subject of a pending administrative proceeding.44 However, on this

point as well, Mexico’s response includes no information enabling the

SEM-00-006 25

41. See Submission Appendix 1, point G.7 (p. 28) (without appendix) and Response at

12–13.

42. The Secretariat has determined on other occasions that in order to apply Article

14(3)(a), it must show that there exists a pending proceeding in the sense of the

NAAEC, and that this proceeding refers to the same matter as the Submission. In

this case, the Secretariat was not provided with the information necessary to determine this. See NAAEC Articles 14(3)(a) and 45(3); SEM-99-001 (Methanex) Secretariat Determination under Article 14(3)(a) (30 June 2000); SEM-97-006 (Oldman

River II) Secretariat Notification to Council under Article 15(1) (19 July 1999);

SEM-97-001(BC Hydro) Secretariat Notification to Council under Article 15(1) (27

April 1998); SEM-98-004 (BC Mining) Secretariat Determination under Article 15(1)

(11 May 2001); SEM-00-004 (BC Logging) Secretariat Determination under Article

15(1) (27 July 2001); and SEM-01-001 (Cytrar II) Secretariat Determination under

Article 15(1) (29 July 2002).

43. Submission at 10.

44. Response at 10–11.
Secretariat to determine that this matter is the subject of a pending proceeding in the terms of NAAEC Article 14(3)(a), and therefore it is appropriate to continue reviewing this allegation. Here again, the question of

whether Mexico is effectively enforcing its environmental law with

respect to this complaint remains open, given that the Party did not

respond to this allegation.45

In summary, it is not clear from Mexico’s response that the

environmental authorities and the MPF have effectively enforced the

environmental law as it concerns the investigation and prosecution of

probable environmental crimes. The factual record that warrants development with respect to this submission will allow documentation of the

process whereby the environmental authorities determined whether the

facts in question of which they had knowledge constitute probable environmental crimes, as well as the decisions on whether to notify the MPF

of these facts, in accordance with LGEEPA Articles 169 and 202. In addition, a factual record is warranted to develop information on whether

Mexico is effectively enforcing CPF Articles 416, 418 and 419 in regard to

the facts that according to the submission constitute probable crimes.

3. Alleged failures to effectively enforce the appeal for review

provisions (LGEEPA Article 176)

Headings C and D of the submission contain assertions relating to

the processing of the appeals for review filed further to the citizen complaints in question.

LGEEPA Articles 176–181 provide that affected persons may challenge a final administrative decision issued as a result of various acts of

enforcement of that law. Based on a comprehensive reading of Article 8

of the Constitution, LGEEPA Articles 176–181, and LFPA Articles 17 and

83–96, the appeal for review procedure may be described as follows. The

authorities either allow or dismiss the appeal; as applicable, they grant

or deny a stay of the act appealed and review the harm or injury alleged

by the appellant. The authorities are required to issue a final decision

within the following four months. The decision may be to dismiss or stay

the appeal; to uphold the act appealed; to declare the nonexistence, nullity, or voidability of the appealed act or nullify it in whole or in part; or

to order the amendment of the appealed act or dictate or order the issuance of a new one in its place, where the appeal is resolved wholly or partially in favor of the appellant. The authorities are required to notify the

appellant of the final decision without delay.

26 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

45. Ibid.
Regarding the Party’s alleged failure to enforce in connection with

its allowance or dismissal of the appeals for review referred to in heading C of the submission, Mexico’s response shows that the appeals in

question were allowed, and it exhibits the corresponding decisions.

Likewise, regarding the Party’s alleged failure to enforce in connection

with the issuance of a final decision in the appeals for review contemplated in heading D of the submission, Mexico’s response shows that

these appeals were resolved, and it includes the corresponding resolutions.46 Therefore, the Secretariat considers that the development of a

factual record is not warranted in relation to the allegations in the

submission concerning the appeals for review filed further to citizen

complaints.

4. Summary

The matters raised by the submission in regard to the effective processing of citizen complaints as a mechanism for notifying the authorities of the existence of alleged violations of environmental law warrant

development of a factual record, even though the response of the Party

does provide information on the processing of the citizen complaints

filed by the indigenous peoples and communities of the Sierra

Tarahumara that are referenced in the submission. For the majority of

the specific cases discussed in the submission, the communications and

decisions attached to Mexico’s response do not resolve the matters

raised in the submission as to whether the relevant authorities took

proper enforcement actions as prescribed by the LGEEPA.47 Mexico’s

response provides a considerable amount of relevant information on the

manner in which the complaints in question were processed, but this

information does not resolve the central issue of whether Mexico is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law in these cases. The submission warrants the development of a factual record in order to shed

more light on that matter.

Similarly, it is appropriate to address in a factual record the matters

raised in the submission in relation to the investigation and prosecution

of probable environmental crimes. In particular, the factual record

would document the status of the denunciations of probable crimes filed

SEM-00-006 27

46. See Response at 8–9 and appendices VI–VII.

47. Specifically, this refers to the cases discussed in Submission headings A (except the

complaints filed by Ricardo Chaparro Julián [Tepehuán de las Fresas Indigenous

People] on 12 October 1998 and by Ejido Rocoroyvo on 18 February 2000), F, G, H, I,

K, M, N, O, P (except for the inspection visits on which facts already complained of

by the ejido residents were observed, as discussed in Response Appendix XIII), R, S

and T.
with the MPF that are mentioned in the submission; the process whereby

the environmental authorities determined whether the facts in question

of which they had knowledge constitute probable environmental

crimes; and the decisions on whether to notify the MPF of these facts.

The Submitter asserts that the failures to process the citizen complaints filed by the indigenous peoples and communities of the Sierra

Tarahumara constitute a persistent pattern of denial of access to environmental justice to those communities. The NAAEC stresses the importance of public participation in conserving, protecting and enhancing

the environment, and contemplates, among the goals of the Parties, the

achievement of high levels of environmental protection and compliance

with the law.48 The submission also states that the alleged failures to

enforce fall within the context of NAAEC Articles 6 and 7, which establish the commitment of the Parties to initiate, in a timely manner, judicial

proceedings to seek appropriate sanctions or remedies for violations of

their environmental law. The effective enforcement by Mexican environmental authorities of the citizen complaint procedure is fundamental

to the promotion of citizen participation in environmental protection.

Equally important is cooperation between the environmental authorities and the MPF in the proper investigation and prosecution of probable

environmental crimes. The development of a factual record with respect

to this submission would promote the effective enforcement of the

Party’s environmental law provisions that enable the indigenous peoples and other rural communities of the Sierra Tarahumara to participate, by filing complaints and denunciations, in the protection of the

region’s forests and the conservation of its ecosystems.

In the case of the alleged failures to enforce in connection with the

appeal for review process, Mexico’s response resolves the matters raised

in the submission, and the Secretariat considers that the development of

a factual record is not warranted in this regard.

While the alleged failures to enforce environmental law of the kind

raised in this submission might not individually warrant preparation of

a factual record, taken together, and considering the importance of the

effective participation by indigenous peoples and other communities of

the Sierra Tarahumara in the environmental protection of that region,

the allegations in this submission pose a central question about effective

enforcement of environmental law that warrants preparation of a factual

record.

28 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

48. NAAEC Preamble, sixth paragraph, and Articles 1(a) and (g) and 5(1).
V. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth in this Notification, the Secretariat hereby

informs the Council that in light of the response of Mexico, it considers

that those assertions in submission SEM-00-006 (Tarahumara) that previously warranted a response from the Party, concerning the alleged

failures to effectively enforce LGEEPA Articles 169, 189, 190–193, 199

and 202, as well as CPF Articles 416, 418 and 419, warrant the development of a factual record. The submission asserts failures to effectively

enforce environmental law with respect to the citizen complaint procedure and the prosecution of probable environmental crimes, in the

cases presented by indigenous peoples and communities of the Sierra

Tarahumara, which, in light of the response from the Party, warrant documenting in a factual record. The effective enforcement of the environmental law that establishes these procedures is fundamental to the

promotion of citizen participation—particularly of indigenous peoples—in environmental protection and natural resource conservation.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration on this 29th of

August 2002.

Victor Shantora

Acting Executive Director

SEM-00-006 29
Appendix A

Date of Complaint Filed by: Sections to which the

complaint pertains

1.- 14/10/1998 Comunidad Choguita A.1, I.1

2.- 12/10/1998 Tepehuán de las Fresas A.2, F.3, I.3, O.1

3.- 04/12/1998 Tepehuán de las Fresas A.3, F.4, I.4, O.2

4.- 07/12/1998 Comunidad Rochéachi A.4, G.4

5.- 15/03/2000 Ejido Cuiteco (A. Bravo Gaxiola) A.5, I.14

6.- 15/03/2000 Ejido Baragomachi

(A. Bravo Gaxiola)

A.6, I.15

7.- 15/03/2000 Ejido Monterde

(A. Bravo Gaxiola)

A.7, I.16

8.- 15/03/2000 Ejido Basonaivo

(A. Bravo Gaxiola)

A.8, I.17

9.- 15/03/2000 Ejido Mesa de Arturo

(A. Bravo Gaxiola)

A.9, I.18

10.- 07/02/2000 Ejido Churo (Domingo Carrillo) A.10, I.19

11.- 15/03/2000 Ejido Churo (A. Bravo Gaxiola) A.11, I.20

12.- 15/03/2000 Ejido del Refugio

(A. Bravo Gaxiola)

A.12, I.21

13.- 15/03/2000 Ejido Ocoviachi

(A. Bravo Gaxiola)

A.13, I.22

14.- 18/02/2000 Ejido Rocoroyvo A.14, I.23

15.- 15/03/2000 Ejido Rocoroyvo A.15, I.24

16.- 15/03/2000 Ejido Areponapuchi A.16

17.- 15/03/2000 Ejido San Alonso A.17

18.- 20/08/1998 Ejido el Consuelo F.1, I.2

19.- 18/08/1999 Ejido San Ignacio Arareco

(A. Bravo Gaxiola)

F.2, G.1

20.- 16/06/1999 Ejido San Diego Alcalá

(O. Romero)

F.5, G.2

21.- 01/09/1999 Ejido San Diego Alcalá

(O. Romero)

F.6, G.3, N.1

22.- 18/02/1998 Ejido Ciénega Guacayvo F.7, I.7, O.3

23.- 19/07/1999 Ejido Ciénega Guacayvo F.8, I.8, O.4

24.- 03/08/1999 Ejido Ciénega Guacayvo F.9, I.9, O.5

25.- 08/11/1999 Coalición Rural/Coalition F.10

26.- 10/03/2000 Ejido Rocheachi G.5

30 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
27.- 13/10/1999 Tepehuán de las Fresas I.5, S.1

28.- 09/07/1999 Tepehuán de Malanoche I.6, S.2

29.- 04/10/1999 Ejido Ciénega Guacayvo I.10, M.1, O.7, R.2

30.- 01/12/1999 Ejido Ciénega Guacayvo I.11

31.- 07/08/1998 Ejido Pino Gordo (P. Ramos) I.12, T.1

32.- 30/03/1999 Ejido Pino Gordo (J. García y

H. Olvas)

I.13

33.- 26/07/1999 Ejido Ciénega Guacayvo O.6, R.1

Note: (A.B.G.) = Claim submitted by Agustin Bravo Gaxiola

Date of Appeal Filed by: Relevant Sections

1.- 17/12/1998 Comunidad Choguita (J.

Fuentes)

C.1, D.1

2.- 15/02/1999 Ejido Rochéachi (A.B.G.) C.2, D.2

Date of Criminal

Complaint

Filed by: Relevant Sections

1.- 21/09/99 Ejido San Diego de Alcalá H.1

SEM-00-006 31
Date of Forestry

Audit/Inspection

Conducted at: Relevant

Sections

Arising from complaints mentioned

in the submission?

1.- xx/09/1999 Ejido Pino Gordo

(Colorada de los Chávez)

G.6, K.1, P.5 Yes (p. 35 submission)

2.- 02/06/1999 Ejido Ciénega Guacayvo K.2, P.4 ?

3.- 11/08/1999 Ejido Ciénega Guacayvo K.3, P.4’ Yes, that of 03/08/99

and that of 03/08/99

(sections F.8, I.8, O.4,

F.9, I.9, O.5; Appendices 43-50 of the

submission)

4.- 25/10/99 Ejido Ciénega de Guacayvo K.4, P.4’’ Yes, that of 01/10/1999

(Appendix 50 of the

submission)

5.- 31/05/1999 Ejido el Consuelo P.1 Yes, that of 20/08/98

(sections F.1, I.2;

Appendix 12 of the

submission)

6.- 25/11/1999 Ejido San Ignacio Arareco P.2 Yes, that of 18/08/99

(sections F.2, G.2;

Appendix 14 of the

submission)

7.- 04/03/1999 Tepehuán de las Fresas

(Ejido Llano Grande)

P.3 Yes, that of 04/12/98

(sections A.3, F.4, I.4,

O.2; see footnote 88

of the submission)

8.- 16/07/1998 Ejido Ciénega de Guacayvo P.4’’’ Yes, that of 18/02/98

(sections F.7, I.7, O.3;

p. 25 of the submission)

9.- xx/xx/xx Ejido Mesa de Arturo P.9 ?

10.- xx/xx/xx Ejido Churo P.10 ?

11.- xx/xx/xx Ejido Cerocachui P.11 ?

12.- xx/xx/xx Ejido el Refugio P.12 ?

13.- xx/xx/xx Ejido Baragomachi P.6 ?

14.- xx/xx/xx Ejido Monterde P.7 ?

15.- xx/xx/xx Ejido Basonayvo P.8 ?

16.- xx/xx/xx Ejido Ocoviachi P.13 ?

17.- xx/xx/xx Ejido Rocoroyvo P.14 ?

18.- xx/xx/xx Ejido San Alonso P.15 ?

32 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
SEM-01-001

(Cytrar II)

SUBMITTERS: ACADEMIA SONORENSE DE DERECHOS

HUMANOS, A.C., DOMINGO GUTIÉRREZ

MENDÍVIL

PARTY: MEXICO

DATE: 14 February 2001

SUMMARY: The submission asserts that Mexico is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental law in relation to the establishment and operation of the

Cytrar hazardous waste landfill near the city of

Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. The Submitters

assert that the Cytrar hazardous waste landfill

carried on activities in violation of multiple legal

provisions, since: a) it operated without an environmental impact authorization; b) it failed to

comply with the applicable legal provisions concerning the design and construction of its facilities; c) it deposited hazardous waste originating

from the company Alco Pacífico, Inc. of the United

States of America. The submitters allege that these

violations concerning the disposal of hazardous

wastes have caused damage to human health and

to habitat.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 15(1)

(29 July 2002)

Notification to Council that a factual record is

warranted in accordance with Article 15(1).

33

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation of North America

Article 15(1) Notification to Council that

Development of a Factual Record is Warranted

Submission Number: SEM-01-001 (Cytrar II)

Submitter(s): Academia Sonorense de Derechos

Humanos, A.C.

Lic. Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil

Concerned Party: United Mexican States

Date of Receipt: 14 February 2001

Date of this Notification: 29 July 2002

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement

on Environmental Cooperation (the “NAAEC”), the Secretariat of the

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”) may

consider submissions asserting that a Party to the NAAEC is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental law. If the Secretariat finds that the

submission meets the requirements of Article 14(1), it shall then determine whether the submission warrants requesting a response from the

Party named in the submission, in accordance with Article 14(2). In light

of any response from the Party, the Secretariat may notify the Council

that it considers that the submission warrants developing an Article 15

factual record. By a two-thirds vote, the Council may instruct the Secretariat to prepare a factual record. The final factual record, again by a vote

of two-thirds of the members of the Council, may then be made public.

This Notification contains the Secretariat’s analysis with respect

to whether Submission SEM-01-001 (Cytrar II), filed 14 February 2001 by

35
Academia Sonorense de Derechos Humanos, A.C. and Domingo

Gutiérrez Mendívil (the “Submitters”) warrants developing a factual

record. The submission asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively

enforce its environmental law with respect to alleged violations in the

construction and operation of the hazardous waste landfill known as

Cytrar, and with respect to the Submitters’ access to information relating

to those alleged violations.

On 24 April 2001, the Secretariat determined that the submission

met the requirements of Article 14(1) of the NAAEC. In addition, considering the criteria set forth in NAAEC Article 14(2), the Secretariat determined that a response from the Party was warranted. On 4 June 2001 and

30 July 2001, Mexico provided information to the Secretariat about a

pending international dispute resolution proceeding (hereinafter “the

arbitration”), which according to the Party precludes further processing

of this submission, in accordance with Article 14(3)(a) of the NAAEC. In

these communications, the Party did not provide any response to the

assertions contained in the submission.

As described in this notification, the Secretariat determines that

termination of the process of this submission under NAAEC Article

14(3)(a) is not warranted, because the matter raised in the submission is

not subject to a pending proceeding. In accordance with NAAEC Article

15(1), the Secretariat notifies the Council that the submission warrants

development of a factual record. The Secretariat considers that developing information in a factual record on the matters raised in the submission would advance the goals of NAAEC of promoting transparency,

public participation and the effective enforcement of environmental

law.

II. SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

On 14 February 2001, Academia Sonorense de Derechos Humanos,

A.C. and Lic. Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil filed a submission with the

Secretariat in accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the NAAEC. The

Submitters assert that the Mexican government is failing to effectively

enforce its environmental law with respect to alleged violations in the

construction and operation of the hazardous waste landfill known as

Cytrar, and with respect to access to information relating to those

alleged violations. This is the second submission filed with respect to the

Cytrar landfill. The first submission, SEM-98-005, was terminated on 26

October 2000.

36 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Cytrar is located near the city of Hermosillo in the state of Sonora,

Mexico. The landfill is no longer operating, because in 1998 the environmental authority denied Cytrar, S.A. de C.V. renewal of its operating

authorization. The submission asserts that Mexico has failed to effectively enforce with respect to Cytrar, Article 9 of the Federal Law of

Environmental Protection (Ley Federal de Protección al Ambiente—LFPA)

of 1982;1 Articles 28, 29, 32, 153 and 159 Bis 3 of the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio

Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente—LGEEPA); Article 7 of the LGEEPA

Hazardous Waste Regulations (Reglamento de la LGEEPA en Materia

de Residuos Peligrosos—RRP); Article 415 of the Federal Criminal Code

(Código Penal Federal—CPF);2 and Mexican Official Standard NOM057-ECOL-1993, which establishes the requirements for the design, construction and operation of controlled hazardous waste landfill cells

(NOM-057).3

According to the Submitters, Mexico failed to effectively enforce

Articles 28, 29 and 32 of the LGEEPA by not requiring an environmental

impact statement prior to the performance of works and activities at the

landfill site now known as Cytrar, and by allowing the persons subsequently responsible to operate it without the appropriate authorization.

Second, the submission asserts that the environmental authority failed

to effectively enforce Article 153 of the LGEEPA and Article 7 of the RRP,

which prohibit the import of hazardous waste for final disposal in Mexico and require the repatriation of hazardous waste generated under the

temporary import regime. The submission claims that hazardous wastes

abandoned by the company Alco Pacífico, S.A. de C.V. should have been

repatriated to the United States but instead were disposed of in the

Cytrar landfill. The third assertion of the submission is that Mexico did

not take enforcement action regarding the alleged violation of the specifications under NOM-057 for the construction of confinement cells. The

fourth assertion is that the Party has failed to effectively enforce CPF

Article 415 by not bringing a criminal action following the denunciation of alleged environmental crimes concerning the matters described

above, by one of the Submitters on 8 December 1997 and 3 December

1998. Lastly, the submission asserts that Mexico has violated the right to

SEM-01-001 37

1. The LFPA was in effect until 1988. The LGEEPA, which replaced it, essentially keeps

the environmental impact provisions (Articles 28 through 30). Reference is made

hereafter only to the current provisions.

2. The penalties set forth in this article were modified by Decree on 1 February 2002,

published in the Federal Official Gazette (Diario Oficial de la Federación—DOF).

3. As well as the prior Ecological Technical Standard NTE-CRP-010/88, published in the

DOF on 14 December 1988, and Mexican Official Standard NOM-PA-CRP-006/93,

which would receive its current nomenclature, NOM-057-ECOL-1993, by reason of

the Accord published on 22 October 1993.
environmental information contemplated in Article 159 Bis 3 of the

LGEEPA, by denying environmental information to the Submitters,

principally with regard to the nature and origin of waste deposited in the

Cytrar landfill.

III. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSE OF MEXICO

In its response, received 4 June 2001, the Party asserts that “the

Government of the United Mexican States is legally prevented from

responding to the matter in question, since it is the subject of an arbitration proceeding to settle an international dispute with the company

Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. [shareholder of Cytrar S.A.

de C.V.], presumably arising from default on the Agreement for the

Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (Acuerdo para la

Promoción y Protección Recíproca de Inversiones—APRI) with Spain.4”

(translation from original) The Party therefore requested that the Secretariat proceed no further with submission SEM-01-001, pursuant to

NAAEC Article 14(3)(a).

Following the Secretariat’s determination of 13 June 2001 that it did

not have sufficient information to evaluate this assertion of the Party, on

30 July 2001 Mexico provided additional information to the Secretariat

on the international dispute in question. Mexico asserts that, based on

“the connexity of causes [...] between the Cytrar II submission and the

international dispute subject to an ICSID arbitration proceeding, it is

clearly demonstrated that ‘the matter (Cytrar II) is the subject of a pending judicial or administrative proceeding’ as provided in Article 14.3(a)

of the NAAEC, and given that this proceeding began procedurally

before the Cytrar II submission [...] the United Mexican States considers

that submission should be deemed fully and absolutely concluded.”

(translation from original)

The Party did not respond to the matters raised in the submission

in either of the two communications sent to the Secretariat.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Introduction

This Notification concerns the NAAEC Articles 14(3) and 15(1)

stages of the process. The Secretariat previously determined that the

38 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

4. ICSID, Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, listed as number 27 in the list of pending cases.
submission met the requirements of Article 14(1) and that it merited a

response from the Party, in consideration of the criteria of Article 14(2).

On 24 April 2001, the Secretariat determined that the submission

met all requirements under Article 14(1) (a)-(f) of the NAAEC.5 As stated

in that determination, the submission was filed with the Secretariat by

an individual and a non-governmental organization, asserting that

Mexico has failed to effectively enforce various articles of the LGEEPA,

the RRP, the CPF and NOM-057. These provisions qualify as “environmental law” under NAAEC Article 45(2). Also, the Secretariat determined that the assertions met the temporal requirement of Article 14(1)

because they referred to matters for which enforcement action could be

taken at the time the submission was filed. The submission was filed in

Spanish, the language designated by Mexico for such purposes. The

Submitters clearly identify themselves in the submission, indicating that

their domiciles are in the city of Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. The Secretariat determined that the information and documents provided by the

Submitters are sufficient to review the submission, particularly considering that they have tried to obtain additional information that allegedly

has been denied to them. The Secretariat concluded that the submission

is not aimed at harassing industry but rather to promote the enforcement

of environmental law in Mexico. The submission also asserts that the

matter has been communicated in writing to the pertinent authorities in

Mexico, principally through citizen complaints, information requests

and amparo suits.

The Secretariat reviewed the submission considering the criteria

under Article 14(2) of the NAAEC, and in its determination of 24 April

2001 concluded that the submission warranted a response from the

Party.6 The submission addresses the remedies available under the laws

of the Party that have been pursued, and the Secretariat considers that

a reasonable effort has been made to pursue them. The Submitters

indicate that they have initiated several administrative and judicial

proceedings, including a citizen complaint, a denunciation of alleged

environmental crimes, a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission and four amparo suits.7 The submission does not appear to be

based exclusively on media reports, although the Submitters do refer to

some news reports. The Submitters assert that “the harm caused to all

residents of Hermosillo, Sonora by the existence of the Cytrar hazardous

waste landfill is evident, polluting the soil and atmosphere with toxic

waste exposed to the open air, and which will imminently pollute the

SEM-01-001 39

5. SEM-01-001 (Cytrar II), Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) (24 April 2001).

6. Ibid.

7. See exhibits 5, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 27, 31 and 32 of the submission.
water tables at the site, if they have already been polluted [sic].” (translation from original) The information included in the submission does not

provide any certainty as to the existence of harm relating to the landfill,

although there also does not appear to be publicly available information

concerning compliance (by Cytrar, S.A. de C.V. and its predecessors)

with the obligations and specifications required under Mexican environmental law to prevent the hazardous waste landfill from causing

harm to human health and the environment, as stated in the submission.8 Lastly, the Secretariat considered that further study in this process

of the matters raised in the submission, regarding the effective enforcement of environmental law on final disposal of hazardous waste and

access to related information by interested parties, would contribute to

furthering the goals of the NAAEC. Based on the above, on 24 April 2001,

the Secretariat requested a response from Mexico to the submission.

The Party notified the Secretariat on 4 June 2001 that the matter

raised in the submission is subject to an international proceeding and

thus, in accordance with NAAEC Article 14(3)(a), the Secretariat should

proceed no further. After examining the communication received, the

Secretariat informed the Party that it did not have sufficient information

to determine that it was impeded from continuing to process the submission in accordance with NAAEC Article 14(3)(a). The Secretariat indicated that Mexico still had 30 days to provide a response to the matters

raised in the submission and/or the information necessary to determine

whether the matter raised in submission SEM-01-001 (Cytrar II) is the

same as the matter subject to the international dispute [ARB(AF)/00/2]

involving Mexico.

In its response to the Secretariat’s determination, received 30 July

2001, Mexico provided additional information on the matter of the international dispute. Neither of the two communications sent to the Secretariat included a response by the Party to the matters raised in the

submission.

B. Should the Secretariat proceed with the submission in

accordance with NAAEC Article 14(3)(a)?

Under NAAEC Article 14(3)(a), when the matter raised in a submission is subject to a pending proceeding, the Secretariat terminates the

process of the submission without further analyzing whether the development of a factual record is warranted. To apply this exceptional

40 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

8. See pages 7 through 9 and exhibits 5, 8, 13, 15, 17, 20 through 23, 25, 26, 30, 32, 40 and

41 of the submission.
condition for terminating a submission, the Secretariat must ascertain

that there is a “pending judicial or administrative proceeding” and that

the matter raised in the submission is the subject matter involved in such

proceeding.9 Also, there must be a reasonable expectation that the

“pending judicial or administrative proceeding” invoked by the Party

will address and potentially resolve the matters raised in the submission. In the case of this submission, and based on the Party’s communications of 4 June 2001 and 30 July 2001, the Secretariat determines that

the conditions under Article 14(3)(a) for terminating the process are not

satisfied.

Mexico is the defendant in an arbitration proceeding to resolve an

international dispute with the company Técnicas Medioambientales

Tecmed, S.A. The proceeding is before the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), registered under case number

ARB(AF)/00/2 and listed as number 27 of pending cases. The Party

argues:

The international dispute arises because investments made in the territory

of the United Mexican States, by the company “CYTRAR, S.A. DE C.V.”

owner of the hazardous waste landfill of the same name, located in the

area of Hermosillo, municipality of Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico have

allegedly been affected [...]

The international dispute derives from the enforcement of environmental

law by the then-existing Semarnap [Secretariat of Environment, Natural

Resources and Fisheries], given that on 25 November 1998 the renewal of

the landfill’s operating authorization was denied and its closure ordered.

That is, the international dispute subject to arbitration centers on the

authority’s act denying an authorization, in this case for operation [...]

In addition, the cause of the Cytrar II submission arises, from the standpoint of the submitters’ arguments, because of the issuance or denial of

authorizations or permits, since each of the four petitionary points refer, in

essence, to the authority’s act authorizing the operation of the hazardous

waste landfill, the movement of contaminated soil, the construction of

landfill cells or access to environmental information, as the case may be.

Based on the above, establishing the connexity of causes,10 understood to be

an identity existing between two diverse actions with identity of causes,

SEM-01-001 41

9. See in this regard SEM-99-001 (Methanex), Determination pursuant to Article 14(3)

(30 June 2000), and the definition of “pending judicial or administrative proceeding” in NAAEC Article 45(3), including “an international dispute resolution proceeding to which the Party is party.”

10. The theses of jurisprudence supporting the connexity, in accordance with the

Supreme Court of Justice’s interpretation of the Laws of the United Mexican States,

is attached. [note from original].
between the Cytrar II submission and the international dispute subject to

an ICSID arbitration proceeding, it is clearly demonstrated that “the matter (Cytrar II) is the subject of a pending judicial or administrative proceeding” under the provisions of Article 14.3(a) of the NAAEC, and given

that this proceeding began procedurally before the Cytrar II submission,

as established in point 4 of this communication, the United Mexican States

considers that submission should be deemed fully and absolutely concluded.” (translation from original) [emphasis added]11

Article 14(3)(a) provides: “The Party shall advise the Secretariat ...

whether the matter is the subject of a pending judicial or administrative

proceeding, in which case the Secretariat shall proceed no further.” The

Secretariat considered whether the NAAEC contemplates termination

of a submission due to “connexity of causes” (as defined by Mexico in its

response) with a pending proceeding. Connexity of causes, as used by

Mexico, would appear to apply to proceedings ultimately caused by the

same triggering event, but involving different legal and factual issues.

NAAEC Article 45 contains definitions for purposes of Article 14(3), but

it does not include a definition of “matter.” However, neither the text nor

the objectives of the Agreement suggest that the term “matter” should be

given the broad construction as would derive from applying the principle of connexity of causes. The Secretariat has previously construed provisions of the Agreement narrowly when a broader reading could defeat

the objectives of the Agreement by too liberally allowing Article 14(3)(a)

to cut off further review.12

It is incumbent upon the Party invoking NAAEC Article 14(3)(a) to

show that the matters raised in a submission are the same as those subject to a pending proceeding. In the current case, while the submission

and the pending arbitration both refer to the Cytrar landfill, they address

different issues. As Mexico indicates, the arbitration centers on the denied

renewal of the authorization to operate the Cytrar landfill, which allegedly

caused harm to Tecmed’s investment. By contrast, the submission centers on alleged failures to effectively enforce environmental laws with

respect to presumed violations of the LGEEPA, the RRP, the CPF and

NOM-057-ECOL-1993 in connection to the Cytrar landfill (alleged failure to conduct an environmental impact assessment, alleged illegal

disposal of waste, alleged violation of general cell construction specifications and denied access to information).

42 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

11. See pages 3 through 5 of Mexico’s response of 30 July 2001.

12. See SEM-97-006 (Oldman River II) Notification pursuant to Article 15(1) (19 July

1999); SEM-97-001(BC Hydro) Notification pursuant to Article 15(1) (27 April

1998); SEM-98-004 (BC Mining) Notification pursuant to Article 15(1) (11 May

2001); and SEM-00-004 (BC Logging) Notification pursuant to Article 15(1) (27 July

2001).
Moreover, the arbitration does not refer to a failure to effectively

enforce environmental law; nor does the submission refer to the interests of Cytrar investors or to the denied renewal of the authorization to

operate the landfill in 1998. Thus, Mexico has not argued that any of the

factual or legal matters raised in the submission would necessarily arise

in the arbitration, and the Secretariat has no reason to believe this would

happen. For Article 14(3)(a) to apply so as to terminate a submission,

there must be a reasonable expectation that the “pending judicial or

administrative proceeding” invoked by the Party will address and

potentially resolve the matters raised in the submission. As far as the

Secretariat can foresee, the arbitration is not likely to address, and potentially resolve, the Submitters’ concern that Mexico is failing to effectively

enforce its environmental law with respect to the Cytrar landfill. Nor is

there any reason to believe that a factual record would interfere with the

arbitration.

In the case of the Methanex submission (SEM-99-001), for example,

the Secretariat determined that it was impeded from continuing the process because the same allegations raised in the submission were, along

with others, the subject of a Chapter 11 arbitration under the North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).13 In that case, the submission and the international arbitration were both initiated by the same

person (Methanex Corporation), and the matter raised in the Methanex

submission (that the United States and the state of California were not

effectively enforcing their environmental law on underground gasoline

storage tanks) was expressly the subject, among others, of the Methanex

NAFTA proceeding.

Because the matters raised in the submission are not subject to a

pending proceeding, the Secretariat determines that it is not barred from

continuing the process of submission SEM-01-001, under NAAEC Article 14(3)(a).

C. Reasons why the submission warrants development of a factual

record

In accordance with NAAEC Article 15(1), the Secretariat considers

that the submission warrants the development of a factual record.

Absent a response from Mexico to the allegations in the submission, the

Secretariat’s consideration at this stage is based solely on the submission

and on the objectives of the NAAEC.

SEM-01-001 43

13. See SEM-99-001 (Methanex) Determination pursuant to Article 14(3) (30 June 2000).
The submission contains allegations that Mexico has failed to effectively enforce its environmental law with respect to the Cytrar landfill

by: failing to require an environmental impact assessment, allowing the

final disposal in Cytrar of hazardous waste from Alco Pacífico, failing to

enforce specifications for the construction of landfill cells, failing to prosecute alleged environmental crimes, and denying access to environmental information.

1. Allegations concerning environmental impact assessment

The Submitters assert that Mexico failed to effectively enforce Articles 28, 29 and 32 of the LGEEPA, with respect to the hazardous waste

landfill currently known as Cytrar, by failing to require an environmental impact statement prior to the construction and operation of the landfill and by allowing the subsequent owners to operate the landfill

without the appropriate environmental impact authorization. The submission asserts that the landfill never obtained an environmental impact

authorization and cites an excerpt from a memorandum by the Head of

Legal Affairs at the National Institute of Ecology, dated 28 January 1998,

which states:

It should be noted, with regard to the environmental impact statement and

risk study that you request, that the company in question (referring to

CYTRAR, S.A., DE C.V.) did not have the obligation to file those studies,

because when it began procedures with the General Bureau of Environmental Pollution Prevention and Control [...], in the year 1986, it complied

with the provisions of the Federal Law of Environmental Protection [...]14

(translation from original)

The Submitters claim that the environmental impact evaluation

was required of the landfill from the start, under Article 9 of the LFPA.

According to the submission, even if that were not the case, an environmental impact authorization would be required of the landfill under the

1988 LGEEPA. The Submitters argue that application of the LGEEPA to

require an environmental impact authorization of an existing landfill

would not violate the constitutional provision against retroactive application of the law, because the environmental impact requirement stems

from a law of public order and social interest.15 According to the Submitters, despite the government’s assertion that the environmental impact

assessment requirement was not applicable to Cytrar S.A. de C.V., that

company prepared an environmental impact statement in 1994, which

44 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

14. See quote on page 11 of the submission.

15. See pages 3, 9 through 12 and exhibits 10 and 19 of the submission.
allegedly was never approved. This raises questions about what triggered it and how the government processed it.

The Secretariat considers that development of a factual record with

respect to this submission is warranted, particularly in the absence of a

response from the Party, to gather information on the enforcement by

Mexico of the environmental impact assessment obligations of Cytrar,

S.A. de C.V., after 1 January, 1994, when the NAAEC entered into force.

2. Allegations concerning final disposal of hazardous waste from

Alco Pacifico in Cytrar

Another assertion by the Submitters is that Mexico is failing to

sanction the alleged violation of Article 153 of the LGEEPA and Article 7

of the RRP, purportedly committed by the final disposal in Cytrar of

hazardous waste that the Submitters claim should have been repatriated

to the United States. Article 153 of the LGEEPA and Article 7 of the RRP

prohibit the import of hazardous waste for final disposal in Mexican

territory and require the repatriation of hazardous waste generated

under the temporary import regime.16

According to the Submitters, in 1997 the Cytrar landfill received

for final disposal contaminated soil and other hazardous waste abandoned by the company Alco Pacífico, S.A. de C.V. The Submitters state

that Alco Pacífico lead smelter operated under the maquila regime at El

Florido, Tijuana, BC., and was shut down by the environmental authorities in April 1991. The submission claims that Alco Pacífico abandoned

contaminated soil and hazardous waste illegally imported from the

United States, as well as waste generated from raw materials brought

into the country under the temporary import regime, all of which should

have been returned to the country of origin. According to the submission, the Mexican government arranged for the final disposal in Cytrar

of the waste abandoned by Alco Pacífico. The Los Angeles Superior

Court,17 in the United States, presumably provided for that purpose

US $2 million, which was apparently part of a fine imposed by the same

court on the carrier company S.R.S./Quemetco for the illegal transport

of hazardous waste to the Alco Pacífico site.18

SEM-01-001 45

16. See pages 3 through 6, 12 and 13, and exhibits 15 and 37 through 39 of the submission.

17. The reference for this decision of the Superior Court of California, County of Los

Angeles was not provided.

18. See pages 6 to 8, and exhibits 20 to 23 of the submission.
The Secretariat considers that development of a factual record with

respect to this submission is warranted, particularly absent a response

from the Party, to gather information on the final disposal of the Alco

Pacífico waste in Cytrar, and on the effective enforcement of Article 153

of the LGEEPA and Article 7 of the RRP in connection with that matter.

3. Allegations concerning construction specifications for landfill

cells

The third assertion in the submission is that Mexico has failed to

take enforcement action against Cytrar’s alleged failure to observe the

specifications of Mexican Official Standard NOM-057-ECOL-199319 in

the construction of the landfill cells. According to the authorizations

issued by the National Institute of Ecology to Cytrar, the landfill had one

cell with a capacity of 16,200 m3 in 1996 and a new cell with a capacity of

110,000 m3 in 1997.20

To support the assertion that the NOM-057 specifications were not

met, the submission includes an excerpt of an environmental impact

statement filed by Cytrar in 1994, describing the cell design.21 The Submitters assert that “... the containment walls of the Cytrar landfill cells do

not have the cement layer mentioned in [the environmental impact statement] and in some areas there does not appear to be a 30 cm sand layer.

The materials used as an alternative for the 60 cm concrete wall required

in paragraph 5.1.5 of Mexican Official Standard NOM-CRP-006-ECOL/

1993 [currently NOM-057] do not even remotely have a resistance of

240 kg/cm2.22” (translation)

As stated in the 24 April 2001 request for a Party response to this

submission, the Submitters as private parties do not have powers of

verification and may be limited by technical and economic reasons

from obtaining information from sources other than the environmental

authority.23 The Submitters claim that the authorities have refused their

requests that compliance with the construction specifications be verified. The submission indicates that, despite the refusal to verify the cells,

the government announced in July 1998 that it would perform an environmental audit to ensure that, if necessary, prevention or remediation

measures would be taken before sealing the landfill cells. The Submitters

claim that the government has no intention of performing that audit,

46 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

19. Establishing the requirements for the design, construction and operation of controlled hazardous waste landfill cells.

20. See exhibits 3 and 4 of the submission.

21. Which the environmental authority did not approve, according to the Submitters.

22. See pages 6, 7 and 12 and exhibit 19 of the submission.
because, in February 2001, the government announced that it had given

the company a 45-day period to seal the landfill. The Secretariat has no

information on whether any of these actions has been carried out.

The Secretariat considers that development of a factual record with

respect to this allegation of the submission is warranted, particularly

absent a response from the Party that may have allowed for a better

understanding of Mexico’s enforcement of the landfill cells specifications in NOM-057 with respect to Cytrar.

4. Allegations concerning environmental crimes

The fourth allegation in the submission is that the Party has failed

to effectively enforce Article 415 of the CPF, which provides for a penalty

of three months to six years of imprisonment and a fine of the equivalent

to 1,000 to 20,000 times the daily minimum wage, for undertaking any

activity with hazardous materials or waste that causes or may cause

harm to public health, natural resources, fauna, flora or the ecosystems,

without authorization from the federal competent authority or in contravention of the permit specifications.24 On 8 December 1997 and 3

December 1998, the Submitter denounced as environmental crimes the

alleged lack of an environmental impact authorization, the alleged illegal disposal of hazardous waste from Alco Pacífico in Cytrar, and the

alleged violation of the specifications for the construction of landfill

cells, referred to in the preceding sections.25 Under LGEEPA Article 182

any person may denounce alleged environmental crimes with the

agency responsible for criminal investigations and prosecutions

(Ministerio Público Federal). The Secretariat considers that development

of a factual record is warranted, particularly in the absence of a response

from the Party, to gather information on the processing of the denunciation by the Submitter and the status of any criminal investigation

thereof.

5. Allegations concerning access to environmental information

Lastly, the submission asserts that Mexico has failed to effectively

enforce the right to environmental information contemplated in Article

159 Bis 3 of the LGEEPA, by failing to provide the Submitters various

items of environmental information relating to Cytrar. On 16 July 1998,

SEM-01-001 47

23. SEM-01-001 (Cytrar II) Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) (24 April 2001).

24. The penalties set forth in this article were modified by the Decree of 1 February

2002, published in the DOF.

25. See pages 6, 14 and 15 and exhibits 8 and 15 of the submission.
the Submitter filed a request for information, principally on the nature

and origin of the waste deposited in the Cytrar landfill. On 28 June 1999,

the government declined to provide the information and the Submitters

filed an amparo suit against this refusal. On 12 July 2000, the federal judiciary found the government’s decision to be lacking justification, in violation of the guarantees of legality provided in Constitutional Articles 14

and 16. The court thus ordered the environmental authority to issue a

well-founded and justified response to the information request, which

had not been issued at the time the submission was filed.26 The Submitters assert the Party is thereby failing to effectively enforce its environmental law concerning access to environmental information.

Other information the government allegedly refused to provide to

the Submitters includes information concerning the agreement whereby

which the Office of the Federal Attorney General for Environmental Protection (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente—PROFEPA) and

the Los Angeles Superior Court arranged for the disposal in Cytrar of the

waste abandoned by Alco Pacífico.27

As the Secretariat noted in its determination of 24 April 2001, the

Submitters’ concerns appear to be largely based on the lack of information that could change their perception that the Cytrar hazardous waste

landfill failed to comply with environmental law and poses a high health

risk to the city of Hermosillo. Specifically, there does not appear to be

publicly available information on compliance (by Cytrar and its predecessors) with the obligations and specifications applicable to hazardous

waste landfills under Mexican environmental law.28 The Secretariat considers that development of a factual record is warranted with respect to

the allegations in this submission of a failure to provide access to environmental information in connection to Cytrar.

In sum, the conditions under Article 14(3)(a) for terminating the

process are not satisfied because the matter raised in the submission is

not the subject of the pending proceeding invoked in the Party’s communications of 4 June 2001 and 30 July 2001. Particularly absent a response

from Mexico to the allegations in the submission, all of the matters raised

in the submission remain open and the Secretariat considers that they

warrant development of a factual record. Compliance with and effective

enforcement of environmental law regarding final disposal of

48 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

26. See exhibit 32 of the submission.

27. See pages 6 through 8 and exhibits 20 to 23 of the submission.

28. See SEM-01-001 (Cytrar II) Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) (24 April 2001)

and pages 7 through 9 and exhibits 5, 8, 13, 15, 17, 20 through 23, 25, 26, 30, 32, 40

and 41 of the submission.
hazardous waste and access to relevant information by interested parties are relevant to the NAAEC’s goals to enhance the effective enforcement of environmental laws, achieve higher levels of environmental

protection and compliance with the Parties’ laws, and to promote transparency and citizen participation.29

V. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth in this notification, the Secretariat hereby

notifies the Council that it considers submission SEM-01-001 (Cytrar II)

warrants the development of a factual record. The submission raises

questions that remain open about the effective enforcement of Articles

28, 29, 32, 153 and 159 Bis 3 of the LGEEPA, Article 7 of the RRP, Article

415 of the CPF and NOM-057-ECOL-1993 in connection with the Cytrar

hazardous waste landfill in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. Developing a

factual record with respect to the Cytrar II Submission would contribute

to furthering the goals of the NAAEC, particularly those of enhancing

the effective enforcement of environmental laws and promoting public

participation through access to information.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration on this 29 of July

2002.

Victor Shantora

Acting Executive Director

SEM-01-001 49

29. See NAAEC Preamble, fifth and sixth paragraphs, and Articles 1(a), (e), (g), (h) and

5(1).

SEM-02-001

(Ontario Logging)

SUBMITTERS: SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND ET AL.

PARTY: CANADA

DATE: 6 February 2002

SUMMARY: The Submitters assert that Canada is failing to

effectively enforce section 6(a) of the Migratory

Birds Regulations (MBR) against the logging

industry in Ontario. Section 6(a) of the MBR

makes it an offence to disturb, destroy or take a

nest or egg of a migratory bird without a permit.

The Submitters claim that in 2001 clear-cutting

activity destroyed over 85,000 migratory bird

nests in areas of Central and Northern Ontario.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 15(1)

(12 November 2002)

Notification to Council that a factual record is

warranted in accordance with Article 15(1).

ART. 15(1)

(17 December 2003)

Notification to Council pursuant to Council Resolution 03-05 that a factual record is warranted in

accordance with Article 15(1).

51

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation of North America

Article 15(1) Notification to Council that Development of a

Factual Record is Warranted

Submission Number: SEM-02-001 (Ontario Logging)

Submitters: Canadian Nature Federation

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

Earthroots

Federation of Ontario Naturalists

Great Lakes United

Sierra Club (United States)

Sierra Club of Canada

Wildlands League

Represented by: Sierra Legal Defence Fund (SLDF)

Concerned Party: Canada

Date of Receipt: 6 February 2002

Date of this Notification: 12 November 2002

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Article 14 of theNorth American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (“NAAEC”) creates a mechanism for citizens to file submissions in

which they assert that a Party to the NAAEC is failing to effectively

enforce its environmental law. The Secretariat of the North American

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”) initially

considers these submissions based on criteria contained in Article 14(1)

of the NAAEC. When the Secretariat determines that a submission

meets these criteria, the Secretariat then determines, based on factors

contained in Article 14(2), whether the submission merits requesting a

53
response from the Party named in the submission. In light of any

response from the Party, the Secretariat may inform the Council that the

Secretariat considers that development of a factual record is warranted

(Article 15(1)). The Council may then instruct the Secretariat to prepare a

factual record for the submission (Article 15(2)).

On 6 February 2002, the Submitters filed with the Secretariat a submission alleging “the failure of the Canadian Government to effectively

enforce subsection 6(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations against the

logging industry in Ontario.1” On 25 February 2002, the Secretariat

determined that the submission meets the requirements of Article 14 of

the NAAEC and requested a response from the Party in accordance with

Article 14(2). The Party submitted its response on 25 April 2002.2 In its

response, Canada identifies wildlife enforcement priorities and asserts

that it is currently engaged in compliance promotion activities in the forestry context, although it is committed to acting on any instances of

non-compliance it becomes aware of and to pursuing the most effective

remedy possible. Canada further states that “because the submitters did

not provide any actual case, the Canadian Government was not able to

respond in a meaningful and factual way to their main assertion” and

“[f]or this reason, as well as the submitters’ failure to otherwise make a

complaint to [the Canadian Wildlife Service] that a logging operation in

Ontario was in violation of subsection 6(a) of the [Migratory Birds Regulations], the Government of Canada believes that a factual record is not

warranted.” In accordance with Article 15(1), the Secretariat informs the

Council that the Secretariat considers that the submission, in light of the

Party’s response, warrants developing a factual record, and provides its

reasons.

II. SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The Submitters assert that Canada is failing to effectively enforce s.

6(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations (“MBR”)3 adopted under the

Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (“MBCA”)4 in regard to the logging

industry in Ontario. Section 6(a) of the MBR provides that “[...] no person shall (a) disturb, destroy or take a nest, egg, nest shelter, eider duck

shelter or duck box of a migratory bird [...] except under authority of a

permit therefor.” Violations of s. 6(a) of the MBR may be prosecuted by

54 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Submission at 1.

2. “Response to submission SEM-02-001 Prepared by the Government of Canada

Submitted to the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation”

dated 11 April 2002 [the “response”].

3. C.R.C., c. 1035.

4. S.C. 1994, c. 22.
way of summary conviction or as an indictable offence.5 The Submitters

allege that Environment Canada (“EC”), through its Canadian Wildlife

Service (“CWS”), is primarily responsible for enforcing the MBCA.6

The Submitters claim that their research, based on statistical data,

estimates that in the year 2001, clear-cutting activity destroyed over

85,000 migratory bird nests in areas of central and northern Ontario.7

The Submitters further assert that “despite the estimated widespread

destruction of bird nests,8” an access-to-information request filed in

2001 revealed no investigations or charges in Ontario for violations of s.

6(a) of the MBR.9

The Submitters assert that logging activity in Ontario is carried out

under forest management plans (“FMPs”) prepared under the supervision of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (“MNR”) in accordance with provincial standards and without any input from federal

authorities on matters related to enforcing the MBCA, which is a federal

statute.10 They assert that while EC can be contacted for input on FMPs

and has produced a non-binding guideline11 directing that activities be

avoided during critical periods of migratory birds’ lifecycles, “EC fails

to take enforcement activities to ensure that this requirement [...] is

adhered to.12”

According to the Submitters, the CWS considers nest destruction

during logging to be “incidental” kill and the CWS has decided not

to use proactive enforcement measures against the logging industry

because violations of s. 6(a) of the MBR that occur during logging

SEM-02-001 55

5. Section 13 of the MBCA provides that for a summary conviction offence, a company

faces a maximum fine of $100,000, an individual a maximum $50,000 fine. Individuals are also liable to jail terms of up to six months, or a combination of jail and a

fine. For indictable offences, the maximum fines are $250,000 for a company

and $100,000 for an individual. Individuals are also liable to jail terms of up to five

years, or to both a fine and jail sentence. With subsequent offences the maximum

fine to which an individual is liable is doubled.

6. Submission at 3.

7. Submission at 4 and Appendix 6 of the Submission: Dr. Elaine MacDonald &

Kim Mandzy, “Migratory Bird Nest Destruction in Ontario” (Toronto: Sierra Legal

Defence Fund (SLDF), 2001).

8. Submission at 1.

9. Submission at 6 and Appendices 7 and 8 of the submission (access to information

request respecting enforcement efforts under s. 6(a) of the MBR dated 13 July 2001

from Elaine MacDonald, SLDF to Michael Bogues, Chief Access to Information and

Privacy Secretary, Environment Canada, and materials received in response to

access to information request).

10. Submission at 5.

11. Environmental Assessment Guideline for Forest Habitat of Migratory Birds.

12. Submission at 5, note 32.
operations are not intentional.13 The Submitters claim that the MBCA

does not distinguish between intentional and unintentional violations,

and that like other public welfare laws, when it is infringed, it is often the

result of unintentional, not wilful, conduct.14

The Submitters allege that the CWS favours conservation initiatives over enforcement in regard to the logging industry even though it

lacks evidence that this approach is more effective. Further, they contend that even though logging has been an important industry in Canada and Ontario for many decades, when the MBCA was updated in

1994, the Canadian government did not exempt the logging industry

from laws to protect migratory birds or their nests.

Finally, the Submitters assert that by giving the logging industry

special consideration, Canada is not following the requirement of the

Compliance and Enforcement Policy for Wildlife Legislation, which states

that “[c]ompliance and enforcement activities must be securely founded

in law and must be fair, predictable, and consistent across Canada.15”

They also argue that “prosecutorial discretion” must be exercised on a

case-by-case basis and cannot support a decision not to engage in prosecutions on an industry-wide basis.16

The Submitters claim that a reasonable exercise of enforcement discretion would require an environmental assessment of a proposed FMP

or logging operation in order to weigh the relative costs associated with

each option, something which, they claim, has not been done. They also

advance several arguments in support of their view that the cost of

enforcing section 6(a) of the MBR need not have a significant impact on

EC’s enforcement budget.17”

III. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSE

In its response, Canada advises that the Submitters did not adequately inform the Secretariat of remedies, such as complaints to CWS,

which were available to them.18 Canada asserts that prior to the filing of

the submission, it received only one written complaint of nest destruction pursuant to logging in Ontario, and this complaint, which was duly

investigated, was not filed by one of the Submitters.19 Canada notes

56 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

13. Submission at 8.

14. Ibid.

15. Submission at 11.

16. Submission at 10.

17. Submission at 10.

18. Ibid.

19. Response at 1.
that the Submitters sent only two written communications to relevant

authorities before filing the submission and that CWS officials replied to

these communications, committing to pass along further information as

it became available.

Canada points out that CWS staff had been trying to set up a

meeting with several of the Submitters as well as other interested

nongovernmental organizations long before the filing of the submission.

The purpose of the meeting would have been to allow the CWS to

explain the legal basis of the MCBA regulations; the overall approach to

the conservation of migratory birds, including enforcement; and the

foundations of the current policy on enforcement of the regulations. The

CWS would also have sought input from the Submitters on the overall

approach for the conservation of migratory birds, and where relevant,

on possible new directions for regulations. Canada claims that the Submitters delayed scheduling a meeting with the CWS until after the filing

of the submission, and expresses concern that the decision to do so “is

not reflective of the letter and spirit of the NAAEC.20” According to Canada, at least one Submitter, the Canadian Nature Federation, did participate in a workshop on migratory bird issues, including enforcement of

the MBR, on 12-13 October 2001.

Canada claims that the Submitters’ assertions are not based on any

actual case where a failure to effectively enforce the MBR may or may

not be occurring, and that as a result, the Canadian Government is precluded from addressing in a direct and factual manner the assertions

made by the Submitters.21

Despite these reservations, Canada provided a response to the submission. In its response, Canada states that EC and its agency, the CWS,

are responsible for the conservation and protection of migratory birds in

Canada.22 It notes that CWS programs address migratory bird conservation on several fronts, including law enforcement, habitat stewardship,

scientific research and other conservation actions. Canada states that

annual priorities for wildlife enforcement respond to public complaints,

international commitments, and wildlife conservation goals, and reflect

a balancing of public concern, conservation science, and international

commitments. It remarks that given that resources and staff are limited,

and that enforcement of the MBR must take place over a very large geographical range, some components of the migratory bird conservation

program, including the range of enforcement options, will necessarily

SEM-02-001 57

20. Response at 2.

21. Response at 2.

22. Response at 4.
receive more attention than others. Canada states that enforcement

activities aim both to proactively address key conservation goals, as

defined by the CWS, and to respond to public concerns and emerging

conservation issues.

Canada states that the CWS must work cooperatively “with other

federal departments and agencies, provincial and territorial governments, as well as industry, NGOs, and the research community, to make

choices that promote a healthy landscape in an increasingly complex

environment.23”

Canada states that forestry legislation and guidelines in Ontario

provide for protection of the environment, including biodiversity, and

that federal agencies are invited to public consultations to provide input

in the development of FMPs. Canada disputes the Submitters’ apparent

view that a proposed FMP can routinely trigger the federal environmental assessment process under theCanadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Canada states that approval of a provincial FMP does not absolve companies of their responsibilities under the federal MBCA.

Canada denies the Submitters’ assertion that it has a sweeping policy not to enforce the MBR against the logging industry.24 The response

states that in regard to wildlife law enforcement, Canada traditionally

targets hunting, and, in recent years, illegal import and export of wildlife

and derivatives. Current enforcement priorities at the national level

include commercial smuggling and migratory bird protection, primarily off- and near-shore spills that result in oiled birds. Canada notes that

the regional offices of EC establish a subset of these priorities so that the

Department can obtain the most effective coverage possible with the

resources available.

Canada contends that it is addressing the issue of nest destruction

during logging activities, mainly through compliance promotion.25 In

January 2001, the CWS met with industry representatives and told them

that the taking of migratory bird nests is prohibited except under the

authority of a permit and that compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR is mandatory. In October 2001, the CWS held a workshop on the topic of compliance with the MBCA and associated regulations and conservation of

migratory birds in the forestry context that was attended by industry

groups, Canadian Nature Federation, government representatives and

specialists.

58 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

23. Ibid.

24. Response at 7.

25. Ibid.
Canada states that compliance promotion and education are a necessary first step in a long-term enforcement approach in the forestry context that will eventually facilitate arguments in court that a given

logging company will have been aware of the impacts of its actions. Canada “is concerned that obtaining limited results in a court of law for

non-compliance at this stage would devalue the offence, and would be

counterproductive to conservation of migratory birds.26” Canada states

that EC is nevertheless committed to acting on any instances of noncompliance that it becomes aware of and to pursuing the most effective

remedy possible, including prosecutions where appropriate.

Canada asserts that the CWS is planning and in the process of

implementing significant new initiatives and programs to address the

growing needs of compliance promotion and enforcement of wildlife

laws among industry in general.27

In conclusion, Canada asserts that because the Submitters failed to

provide any actual case, and because of their failure to otherwise make a

complaint to the CWS that a logging operation in Ontario was in violation of s. 6(a) of the MBR, the Government of Canada believes that a factual record is not warranted.

IV. ANALYSIS

The Secretariat considers that the submission, in light of the

response provided by the Party, warrants developing a factual record as

recommended in this notification. The reasons for the Secretariat’s

recommendation are set forth below.

Why preparation of a factual record is warranted

Migratory birds are a cherished and valuable resource in North

America. The study of migratory bird populations yields clues about

long-range environmental impacts of local activities. Birds play a very

important role in insect pest control, plant pollination and seed dispersal.28 Birdwatchers, hunters and photographers contribute significantly to a large ecotourism industry.29

SEM-02-001 59

26. Response at 8.

27. Response at 9.

28. Submission at 4.

29. Ibid.
Canada and the United States recognized the importance of protecting this shared resource when they signed the Canada-U.S. Migratory Birds Convention in 1916. In Canada, the MBCA and MBR translate

Canada’s commitments under the Convention into legal requirements

that are enforceable against companies and individuals, under penalty

of high fines and even prison time. By prohibiting the unauthorized

destruction of nests and eggs of migratory birds, s. 6(a) of the MBR is

potentially a powerful provision for the protection of migratory birds

and for the fulfillment of Canada’s commitments under the Convention.

Only aboriginals are exempted from the prohibition contained in s. 6(a)

of the MBR, consistent with aboriginal and treaty rights recognized

under the Constitution.30

Primary resource industries have always played an important role

in Canada’s economy, and forestry is central among these industries. In

many communities, forestry is the backbone of the local economy, and

because forest products are the first link in the supply chain of many

other industries, the performance of the forestry sector is often used as

one indicator in assessing the strength of Canada’s economy. As well,

concern for sustainability can condition consumer demand for forest

products and create incentives to identify and address environmental

impacts of activities carried on in this sector.

Both the submission and Canada’s response recognize that

destruction of migratory bird nests is a frequent environmental consequence of logging.31 The importance in Canada of both protecting

migratory birds and maintaining a healthy and sustainable forestry sector underscores the value in examining enforcement of s. 6(a) of the MBR

so as to better understand its role in achieving the resource conservation

goals of the MBCA within the resource development context of forest

development.

Together, the submission and response demonstrate that enforcing s. 6(a) of the MBR in connection with logging poses a significant challenge.32 First, gathering evidence necessary to enforce s. 6(a) of the MBR

consistently across the logging sector would require ongoing efforts

over large areas.33 Second, the federal government – not the provinces –

is responsible for enforcing the MBCA and the MBR, but the provinces

own the natural resources within their boundaries and play a primary

60 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

30. See Section s. 2(3) of the MBCA and Article II of the Convention, as amended by a

1994 Protocol.

31. Submission at 4-5 and Response at 7-9.

32. Submission at 5-8 and Response at 8-9.

33. Response at 7.
role in regulating the industries that bring those resources to market.34

Finally, the text of s. 6(a) of the MBR suggests that forestry activities

which result in destruction of migratory bird nests and eggs could be

legalized through the issuance of federal permits, but the MBR does not

contain any provisions for the issuance of such permits.35

Nevertheless, both the submission and response point to measures

that have been taken by Canada to address the issue of compliance with

the MBR in the forestry sector. For example, Canada has issued a guideline outlining measures to protect migratory birds in the context of forest

management planning.36 Canada has organized information and education sessions to make the forest industry aware of its obligations under s.

6(a) of the MBR.37 Canada mentions that “CWS is planning and in the

process of implementing significant new initiatives and programs to

address the growing needs of compliance promotion and enforcement

of wildlife laws among industry in general.38” Finally, Canada has indicated that it enforces s. 6(a) of the MBR on the basis of specific complaints, and that when such complaints are brought to its attention, it

takes appropriate actions.39

The submission and the response, taken together, are insufficient

to dispel central questions regarding whether Canada is failing to effectively enforce s. 6(a) of the MBR in the context of logging in Ontario.

Missing from the materials provided to the Secretariat, for example, is

specific information regarding how the federal guidelines are implemented in practice, in particular in connection with the FMPs covering

the harvest areas mentioned in the submission. Similarly, it would be

useful to obtain information regarding whether and how federal information and education sessions have resulted in changes in forestry company practices and procedures, in the hiring or training of personnel and

in investment in new equipment and scientific studies, and whether

Canada has put in place measures to ensure that its industry outreach

initiatives are improving compliance rates. Information is also needed

regarding the new initiatives that Canada mentions in its response. A

factual record would provide an opportunity to gather such information, as well as information regarding the type and outcome of actions

taken in response to specific complaints, with a view to considering

whether, in light of all of these federal actions, Canada is failing to effectively enforce s. 6(a) of the MBR.

SEM-02-001 61

34. Submission at 5 and Response at 5.

35. Response at 8.

36. Submission at 5, note 32.

37. Response at 8-9.

38. Response at 9.

39. Response at 8.
Canada claims that the submission is not based on any actual case

where a failure to effectively enforce may or may not be occurring, and

that

[i]t is our firm belief that in order to examine whether there has been a failure to effectively enforce an environmental law, one has to look at the facts

of a particular instance, or instances. Without those facts, there can be no

examination of whether the law has been enforced or not.40

In the past, the Secretariat has determined that the Article 14 and 15

citizen submission process lends itself both to allegations of a widespread or systemic failure to effectively enforce an environmental law as

well as to submissions concerning single violations.41 In fact, the Secretariat has found that “[...] [t]he larger the scale of the asserted failure, the

more likely it may be to warrant developing a factual record, other

things being equal.42”

The question before the Secretariat is therefore not whether there

can be an inquiry under Article 15 of the NAAEC into an alleged pattern

of failing to effectively enforce an environmental law, but rather what

kind of information Submitters must present in support of such an allegation, and how, from a practical perspective, the Secretariat might go

about preparing a factual record in connection with a submission making such an allegation. The answer will depend on the nature of the

allegation.

The Secretariat has already found that the submission meets the

requirements of Articles 14(1) and (2) of the NAAEC and has provided

its reasons.43 The Secretariat explains below how the Submitters have

supported their assertions, and it identifies potential sources of additional information relevant to a consideration of these assertions in the

context of a factual record.

The submission alleges that Canada is failing to effectively enforce

s. 6(a) of the MBR against the logging industry in Ontario44 and states

62 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

40. Ibid.

41. See SEM-00-004 (BC Logging), Article 15(1) Notification (27 July 2001); SEM-98-004

(BC Mining), Article 15(1) Notification (11 May 2001); SEM-99-002 (Migratory

Birds), Article 15(1) Notification (15 December 2000); SEM-97-003 (Quebec Hog

Farms), Article 15(1) Notification (29 October 1999); and SEM-97-001 (BC Hydro),

Article 15(1) Notification (27 April 1998).

42. SEM-99-002 (Migratory Birds), Article 15(1) Notification (15 December 2000).

43. SEM-02-001 (Ontario Logging), Article 14(1) & (2) Determination (25 February

2002).

44. Submission at 1.
that “[t]his is a widespread pattern of ineffectual enforcement [...]45” The

Submitters refer to e-mail statements of enforcement authorities as evidence that there is a general policy of non-enforcement vis-à-vis the logging sector,46 and they cite an access-to-information request which

yielded no information on specific enforcement actions.47 They also reference clearcutting activities under fifty-nine provincial FMPs that they

estimate will result in, or have resulted in, the destruction of approximately 85,000 nests, with no enforcement taken in response.48

The Secretariat considers that this information, which, taken

together, reinforces the Submitters’ concerns regarding how and

whether s. 6(a) of the MBR is enforced, is relevant to whether Canada is

failing to effectively enforce that provision. By focusing their assertions

on fifty-nine provincial FMPs, the Submitters suggest that gathering and

developing information regarding activities undertaken under those

FMPs would be an appropriate way to anchor a factual record inquiry.

The Secretariat agrees.

Within each of the forest management units covered by the

selected FMPs, the Submitters identified the planned harvest areas pursuant to the FMPs.49 The Submitters matched these specific harvest areas

to one of eight eco-regions in Ontario and calculated a breeding bird

density discounted to account only for the presence of birds both actually found in those specific areas and included under the MBCA.50 They

also confirmed that logging occurred during the 2001 bird breeding season and regularly occurs within the breeding season, and they cross

checked and determined that numerous breeding birds were observed

in areas that were clearcut during the breeding season.51 While the Submitters admit that the estimate of 85,000 destroyed nests in those areas is

not exact, the estimate is compelling. The only information missing is a

SEM-02-001 63

45. Submission at 10.

46. Submission at 6-7 and Appendix 8. In particular, an e-mail dated 22 May 2001 from

Yvan Lafleur, Director, Wildlife Enforcement, Environment Canada, to Robert

Mclean, Director, Wildlife Conservation, Environment Canada, stating “Bob, as I

said in an earlier e-mail I have met with a representative of the Pulp and Paper

industry. We had an open discussion about the impact of the lumber operations on

migratory birds and express clearly that we were not planning any enforcement

operations to charge the industry. I also said that we are concerned and that we

would like to work with them and Steve Wendt [Chief, Migratory Birds Conservation, Environment Canada] to better understand the situation and support positive

actions taken by the companies. [...]”

47. Submission at 6.

48. Submission at 4-5.

49. Submission at note 25 and Appendix 6.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid.
more precise identification of the areas actually harvested in those forests in 2001, the identities of the timber harvesters and, to the extent it

exists, additional information regarding the actual destruction of migratory bird nests during logging operations.

This information could readily be developed in a factual record.

For example, a factual record would afford an opportunity to examine in

detail the harvesting that actually took place in the FMP harvest areas

identified in the submission and to present facts regarding Canada’s

efforts to promote compliance with or take enforcement action under

s. 6(a) of the MBR in regard to the timber operators who conducted

those harvests. This compliance promotion and enforcement information could be a source of information regarding the actual number of

nests destroyed during logging operations, since enforcement cases

would likely provide evidence regarding actual nest destruction. At the

same time, gaps in available information regarding the extent of actual

nest destruction might also be relevant to whether Canada is failing to

effectively enforce s. 6(a) of the MBR as alleged in the submission. Identifying such information gaps could reveal an area where additional

efforts to obtain information – through surveys, inspections, investigations or other activities – could improve efforts to enforce or otherwise

achieve compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR.

Enforcement necessarily involves the exercise of discretion in setting priorities and making decisions about the allocation of resources. In

its response to the submission, Canada explains in part how it exercises

certain discretionary powers in the context of wildlife enforcement. A

factual record would provide an opportunity to gather valuable additional information regarding how Canada has exercised its discretion,

thereby providing meaningful context for any individual enforcement

actions documented in a factual record. This would involve, for example, gathering information used to establish current enforcement priorities; information on methods used to balance priorities; information on

regional (particularly Ontario) priorities and how they are set; information supporting the decision to engage in compliance promotion in the

forestry context; information supporting the position that compliance

promotion activities are a necessary precursor to prosecution; and information on current initiatives. Information would also be gathered

regarding the manner in which resources are allocated in the context of

administering the migratory bird conservation program.

A factual record is therefore warranted to present a detailed factual

account of the full range and effectiveness of Canada’s compliance promotion and enforcement efforts in the specific context of actual harvests

64 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
in 2001 in the forest harvest areas identified in the submission, including

relevant contextual information on enforcement priorities, resource

allocation and recent initiatives. A detailed description of relevant information is provided below.

V. INFORMATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN A FACTUAL

RECORD

The submission, taken together with the response, leaves open

central questions regarding whether Canada has effectively enforced s.

6(a) of the MBR in 2001 in connection with the logging industry in

Ontario, and in particular the areas harvested under fifty-nine FMPs referenced in the submission. This section identifies information relevant

to a consideration of these open questions.

In respect of the harvest areas referenced in the submission, information required for an assessment of the Submitters’ allegations would

include information regarding species of migratory birds found in those

areas, timing of their nesting seasons and the estimated number of nests

destroyed as a result of clearcutting activities. Also required is information on provincial FMPs for those areas, including specific information

on the role and outcome of any consultations with federal officials during the development of those FMPs, as regards compliance with s. 6(a) of

the MBR; on whether the federal guidelines and/or any other federal

conditions related to protection of nests of migratory birds are referenced in the FMPs and if so, whether the FMPs require compliance with

such conditions; and on whether any provincial conditions under those

FMPs require compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR or equivalent provincial statutory provisions. The Secretariat would also need to review

information regarding compliance promotion activities organized by

EC officials in the harvest areas referenced in the submission, attendance

by personnel from forestry companies operating in those areas, and

effectiveness of such activities in helping achieve compliance with s. 6(a)

of the MBR.

Specific information is also required regarding clearcut logging

activities carried out in 2001 in the harvest areas referenced in the submission, including activities planned and actually carried out, with precise information on locations and timing; data relied upon by foresters or

EC to anticipate species and numbers of migratory bird nests to be

encountered during logging; any reconnaissance procedures implemented by foresters or EC to identify migratory bird nests prior to

clearcutting; measures taken to protect migratory bird nests during

SEM-02-001 65
clear-cutting; and effectiveness of those measures in preventing migratory bird nest disruption and/or destruction.

Information is also required regarding efforts by federal officials

to monitor compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR in connection with

clearcutting activities carried out in 2001 in harvest areas referenced in

the submission. Such information includes information regarding the

scope, operation and budget of any monitoring program, data used to

anticipate species and numbers of migratory bird nests in different

areas, and information obtained through monitoring or inspection. The

Secretariat would also need to consider actions taken in response to suspected violations of s. 6(a) of the MBR, including actions taken in

response to any failure to implement conditions in an FMP relating to

protection of migratory bird nests; follow-up measures to test effectiveness of compliance promotion activities; actions taken to follow up on

any monitoring results indicating potential violations of s. 6(a) of the

MBR; and responses to complaints.

In addition to the information provided in Canada’s response,

information relevant to a consideration of the effectiveness of federal

enforcement and compliance promotion actions in connection with

clearcutting activities in the forest harvest areas referenced in the submission also includes information on how EC establishes and balances

priorities for wildlife enforcement and compliance promotion, and how

financial and human resources are allocated in this area, including at the

regional level in Ontario. Also relevant is information regarding current

initiatives and programs related to enforcing and promoting compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR in the forestry sector in Ontario, and specifically, how such initiatives address any compliance issues noted in the

harvest areas referenced in the submission.

VI. PRIVATE REMEDIES

The NAAEC provides that a Party, in responding to a submission,

may advise the Secretariat “whether private remedies in connection

with the matter are available to the person or organization making the

submission and whether they have been pursued.52” In its response,

Canada claims that the Submitters did not adequately inform the Secretariat of remedies, such as complaints to the CWS, which were available

to them but which were not pursued. Pursuant to Article 15(1) of the

NAAEC and for the reasons outlined below, the Secretariat has

66 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

52. Article 14(3)(b)(ii) of the NAAEC.
considered this assertion and finds that preparation of a factual record is

warranted nonetheless.

The texts of Articles 14(2)(c) and 14(3)(b)(ii) of the NAAEC, relating to the pursuit of private remedies, do not make the identification53 or

pursuit of such remedies a condition precedent to the Secretariat’s

requesting a response from the Party or recommending the preparation

of a factual record.54 Rather, the opening words of Article 14(2)55 and the

text of Article 15(1)56 suggest that the existence and pursuit of private

remedies is a factor, among others, to be considered by the Secretariat in

determining whether a particular submission merits further review

under the Article 14 and 15 citizen submission process. The weight to be

accorded this factor in determining whether to move forward with a

particular submission depends on the facts of each submission.

This submission identifies two types of remedies – civil suits and

private prosecutions – and explains why, in the Submitters’ opinion,

legal, practical and policy obstacles effectively put those remedies out of

reach as a means of compelling enforcement of the MBCA.

First, the Submitters believe they would be denied standing to

bring a civil suit to compel the logging industry in Ontario to comply

with s. 6(a) of the MBR.57 They cite caselaw affirming the principle that

infringement of a private right, or proof of special and personal damages, is required before a private individual or organization can bring a

suit in its own name to protect a public interest (such as the public interest in the conservation of migratory birds), absent the consent of the

SEM-02-001 67

53. The Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters under Article 14 and 15 of the

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (“Guidelines”) state at s. 5.6

that “[...] the Submission should address [...] (c) The actions, including private remedies, available under the Party’s law that have been pursued” [emphasis added].

Thus, submitters are asked to provide information regarding remedies they have

pursued; they are not required to list all potential remedies.

54. Previous Secretariat determinations have made this observation. See e.g. SEM98-006 (Aquanova), Article 15(1) Notification (4 August 2000); SEM-98-004 (BC

Mining), Article 15(1) Notification (11 May 2001); SEM-97-007 (Lake Chapala),

Article 15(1) Notification (14 July 2000); SEM-97-002 (Río Magdalena), Article 15(1)

Notification (5 February 2002).

55. “In deciding whether to request a response, the Secretariat shall be guided by

whether [...] (c) private remedies available under the Party’s law have been pursued” [emphasis added].

56. “If the Secretariat considers that the submission, in the light of any response provided

by the Party, warrants developing a factual record, the Secretariat shall so inform

the Council and provide its reasons” [emphasis added].

57. Submission at 14 and 15 and Appendix 13: Manitoba Naturalists Society Inc. v. Ducks

Unlimited Canada, [1992] 2 W.W.R. 377 (Man. Q.B.) [hereinafter “Manitoba Naturalists Society”].
Attorney General.58 The interest of conservationists in protecting a

natural resource has been qualified as “special,” but not equivalent to

a private right.59 While the courts have discretion to grant standing

to challenge legislation or the statutory authority for administrative

actions, a court has specifically denied standing to a private organization

seeking to enforce s. 6(a) of the MBR.60

Second, the Submitters state that charges sworn by private individuals are arguably an alternative to a civil suit, but they claim that they are

not a viable alternative. Private citizens, they argue, do not have the

financial resources or access rights needed to gather evidence required

for a prosecution in connection with violations of s. 6(a) of the MBR by

logging companies, and gathering evidence in areas where logging is

occurring is potentially very hazardous. In addition, the Submitters

argue that prosecutions are after-the-fact events that do not remedy the

harm done.

The NAAEC instructs the Secretariat, in determining whether a

submission merits requesting a response from the Party, to be guided by

whether, among other things, private remedies available under the

Party’s law have been pursued.61 In its 25 February 2002 Determination

in Accordance with Article 14(1) and (2) of the NAAEC, the Secretariat

considered the arguments of the Submitters regarding private remedies

and concluded that “[i]t therefore appears from the submission that private remedies may in effect not be available.” On the basis of this finding, along with a consideration of the other factors listed in Article 14(2),

the Secretariat requested a response from the Party.

Pursuant to Article 14(3)(b)(ii) of the NAAEC, Canada’s response

to the submission cites complaints to the CWS as a remedy that was

available to the Submitters and was not pursued. However, the response

does not explain the source of this remedy, and the Secretariat has been

unable to identify any provision of the MBCA, the MBR, or the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for Wildlife Legislation that creates such a

68 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

58. Manitoba Naturalists Society at 380.

59. Ibid. at 381.

60. Ibid. at 382.

61. Article 14(2)(c) of the NAAEC. Section 7.5 of the Guidelines provides that “[i]n considering whether private remedies available under the Party’s law have been pursued, the Secretariat will be guided by whether: (a) requesting a response to the

submission is appropriate if the preparation of a factual record on the submission

could duplicate or interfere with private remedies that are being pursued or have

been pursued by the Submitter; and (b) reasonable actions have been taken to pursue such remedies prior to making a submission, bearing in mind that barriers to

the pursuit of such remedies may exist in some cases.”
remedy. This raises the question of what characteristics a particular form

of redress must possess to qualify as a “private remedy” pursuant to the

NAAEC.62

Article 14(2)(c) of the NAAEC refers to “private remedies available

under the Party’s law” [emphasis added], whereas Article 14(3)(b)(ii)

refers to “private remedies in connection with the matter [...]” Since

complaints to the CWS are not mentioned in the MBCA or the MBR, it

seems reasonable for the Submitters not to have mentioned them in the

submission. However, Article 14(3)(b)(ii) does not contain the condition

that the private remedy be “available under the Party’s law.” Other indications are therefore needed to determine whether complaints to the

CWS qualify as a private remedy under the NAAEC.

Article 6 of the NAAEC, entitled “Private Access to Remedies,”

makes the Parties responsible for implementing measures to give

redress to those aggrieved by environmental wrongs. It imposes different requirements on a Party depending on whether a complainant is an

“interested person” or has a “legally recognized interest under its law in

a particular matter.63” On the basis of the caselaw discussed above, it can

be said that the Submitters are “interested persons,” as defined in Article

6 of the NAAEC, since they do not appear to have a “legally recognized

interest” in the enforcement of s. 6(a) of the MBR.64 Under Article 6(1) of

the NAAEC, remedies available to “interested persons” must give such

persons the right to “request the Party’s competent authorities to investigate alleged violations of its environmental laws and regulations” and

must require the Party to “give such requests due consideration in accordance with law.”

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (“CEPA”) contains provisions that meet the requirements found in Article 6 of the

SEM-02-001 69

62. The Secretariat has previously found that a citizen complaint process provided for

under environmental legislation constituted a private remedy for the purposes of

the NAAEC. See SEM-97-007 (Lake Chapala), Article 15(1) Notification (14 July

2000); SEM-98-006 (Aquanova), Article 15(1) Notification (4 August 2000); and

SEM-97-002 (Río Magdalena) Article 15(1) Notification (5 February 2002).

63. Article 6: Private Access to Remedies

1. Each Party shall ensure that interested persons may request the Party’s competent authorities to investigate alleged violations of its environmental laws and regulations and shall give such requests due consideration in accordance with law.

2. Each Party shall ensure that persons with a legally recognized interest under its

law in a particular matter have appropriate access to administrative, quasi-judicial

or judicial proceedings for the enforcement of the Party’s environmental laws and

regulations.

3. [...].

64. See discussion above regarding standing to bring a civil suit.
NAAEC.65 Under CEPA, a person need only be 18 years of age and resident in Canada to be entitled to request the Minister of the Environment

to investigate an alleged offence under CEPA.66 Individuals who are dissatisfied with the Minister’s response may bring an “environmental protection action” before the courts.67 Since neither the MBCA nor the MBR

contain these types or similar types of provisions, and in the absence of

information in the Party’s response concerning the source, rules and

functioning of the CWS complaints process, the Secretariat declines to

conclude that complaints to the CWS qualify as a private remedy under

the NAAEC.

Even if complaints to the CWS were considered a private remedy

pursuant to the NAAEC, however, the Secretariat notes that the Submitters raise concerns about alleged violations that are geographically

widespread and vast in number – 85,000 nests allegedly destroyed

under fifty-nine FMPs. It is not evident in the response that the CWS

complaints procedure on which Canada relies is conceived to address

complaints of this nature.

Furthermore, it appears that the Submitters did bring their concerns about non-enforcement of s. 6(a) of the MBR to the attention of EC

in a letter dated 16 January 2001, and that EC replied on 13 February

2001, saying that it was gathering relevant information.68 The Submitters claim that they never received a reply to their follow-up request for

information on compliance measures.69 In addition, an e-mail quoted in

the submission and reproduced in an appendix to the submission suggests that EC employees are aware of the destruction of migratory bird

nests and eggs during logging.70 The author of the e-mail states that “[...]

the NGOs are pushing us to take action.71”

As Canada’s response to the submission does not indicate what

types of procedures have been established to process complaints from

the public and to give them “due consideration in accordance with law”

as provided by Article 6(1) of the NAAEC, and because Canada has

70 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

65. Sections 17-40 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, S.C. 1999, c. 33.

66. Section 17(1) of CEPA.

67. Section 22 of CEPA.

68. Submission 12-13 and Appendix 9.

69. Submission at 13. The Secretariat has previously found that the requirements of

Article 14(2)(c) were satisfied where concerns were communicated and information requests made to environmental authorities by way of regular correspondence. See. SEM-98-007 (Metales y Derivados), Article 15(1) Notification (6 March

2000).

70. Submission at 13 and Appendix 8.

71. Ibid.
listed public complaints as one of the bases for enforcing, and setting

enforcement priorities for, s. 6(a) of the MBR, a factual record would provide an opportunity to develop information regarding the functioning

of the complaints procedure and its role in ensuring effective enforcement of s. 6(a) of the MBR.

VII. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated above, the Secretariat has determined that

the submission, in light of the Party’s response, warrants development

of a factual record. The Submitters have raised central questions that

Canada’s response leaves open regarding enforcement of s. 6(a) of the

MBR by Canada with respect to the logging industry in Ontario, with

particular reference to clearcut logging carried out in areas of central and

northern Ontario in 2001.

As noted in detail above, additional information required for a

consideration of the Submitters’ assertions through a factual record

includes information regarding the state of the migratory bird resource

in the forest harvest areas referenced in the submission and information

regarding timing and extent of clearcut logging activities carried out in

those areas during 2001. Particularly relevant is information on measures taken by foresters to identify migratory bird nests and avoid their

destruction during clearcut logging in those areas, and the success of

those measures in preventing violations of s. 6(a) of the MBR. Information is also required regarding FMPs for those areas, including any FMP

provisions on protection of migratory bird nests and eggs and the federal role in the development and enforcement of FMP conditions related

to protection of the migratory bird resource. Also relevant is additional

information regarding federal compliance promotion efforts in the harvest areas referenced in the submission, including information on the

effectiveness of those efforts in reducing or avoiding violations of s. 6(a)

of the MBR during clearcut logging in 2001 in those areas. Information

is also required regarding any federal compliance monitoring and

responses to suspected violations. Finally, relevant additional information includes information on how the CWS establishes and balances

wildlife enforcement priorities, how resources are allocated and how the

new initiatives and programs referenced in Canada’s response to the

submission are promoting compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article 15(1), and for the reasons set forth

in this document, the Secretariat informs the Council of its determination that the objectives of the NAAEC would be well served by

SEM-02-001 71
developing a factual record as recommended herein regarding the

submission.

Respectfully submitted on this 12th day of November, 2002.

per: Victor Shantora

Acting Executive Director

72 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation of North America

Notification to Council pursuant to Council Resolution 03-05

recommending preparation of a factual record

Submission Number: SEM-02-001 (Ontario Logging)

Submitters: Canadian Nature Federation

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

Earthroots

Federation of Ontario Naturalists

Great Lakes United

Sierra Club (United States)

Sierra Club of Canada

Wildlands League

Represented by: Sierra Legal Defence Fund (SLDF)

Concerned Party: Canada

Date of Receipt: 6 February 2002

Date of this Notification: 17 December 2003

I. INTRODUCTION

On 6 February 2002, the Submitters listed above filed with the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) a submission alleging “the failure of the Canadian Government to effectively

enforce subsection 6(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations against the logging industry in Ontario.1” On 25 February 2002, the Secretariat determined that the submission meets the requirements of Article 14(1) of the

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and

requested a response from the Party in accordance with Article 14(2).

1. Submission at 1.

73
The Party submitted its response on 25 April 2002.2 On 12 November

2002, the Secretariat notified the Council that the submission, in light of

the Party’s response, warrants the development of a factual record.3

On 22 April 2003, in Council Resolution 03-05, the Council voted

unanimously:

TO DEFER consideration of the Secretariat’s notification of 12 November

2002, pending the following:

a) the submitters being provided a period of 120 calendar days from the

date of this resolution to submit the requisite sufficient information in

support of the allegations set forth in SEM-02-001;

b) the termination of the submission process for SEM-02-001 if the submitters elect not to provide further information within the 120 calendar day time frame;

c) in the event such further information is provided, the Secretariat

determining whether that information warrants a response from

Canada or whether the submission process should be terminated;

d) in the event such a response is requested and provided by Canada, the

Secretariat, after considering both the new information provided by

the submitters and the response of Canada to that information, notifying Council whether it recommends the preparation of a factual

record.

On 20 August 2003, within the 120 calendar day time frame provided in Council Resolution 03-05, the Submitters provided the Secretariat with further information.4 On 21 August 2003, pursuant to Council

Resolution 03-05, the Secretariat determined that the further information provided by the Submitters merited requesting a response from

Canada and requested a response.5 On 16 October 2003, Canada submitted its response.6 Pursuant to Council Resolution 03-05, and after consideration of both the new information provided by the Submitters and the

74 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

2. Government of Canada, “Response to submission SEM-02-001 submitted to the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation” (11 April 2002) [hereinafter “Canada’s response to the original submission”].

3. SEM-02-001 (Ontario Logging), Article 15(1) Notification (12 November 2002) [hereinafter “Article 15(1) Notification”].

4. Submitters, “Supplementary Submission to the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation in Response to Council Resolution 03-05 dated April 22, 2003” (19

August 2003).

5. SEM-02-001 (Ontario Logging), Notification Pursuant to Council Resolution 03-05

(21 August 2003).

6. Government of Canada, “Response to supplemental information submitted to the

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation” (16 October 2003)

[hereinafter “Response to Supplemental Information”].
response of Canada to that information, the Secretariat recommends the

preparation of a factual record.

II. SUMMARY OF NEW INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE

SUBMITTERS

On 20 August 2003, pursuant to Council Resolution 03-05, the Secretariat received from the Submitters a document entitled “Supplementary Submission to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation in

Response to Council Resolution 03-05 dated April 22, 2003” (the “Supplementary Submission”).

In the Supplementary Submission, the Submitters state that they

interpret Council Resolution 03-05 “as an attempt to scope our request

for a factual record in a manner that goes beyond the Council’s mandate

under the NAAEC.7” They add “[n]onetheless, in an effort to avoid any

further delay in the preparation of a factual record, we have obtained all

additional ‘facts’ and the ‘sufficient information’ currently available to

respond to the Council Resolution.8”

The Submitters explain that when they drafted their submission,

they based their calculations on projected figures for clearcut harvest

areas contained in Forest Management Plans (FMPs) rather than actual

numbers, because those numbers were not available when the submission was filed, in February of 2002.9 They note that in its Article 15(1)

Notification, the Secretariat stated “[t]he only information missing is a

more precise identification of the areas actually harvested in those forests in 2001” and that such information “[...] could readily be developed

in a factual record.10”

Section II of the Supplementary Submission, entitled “The Supplementary Evidence,” describes the process engaged by the Submitters to

gather additional information in response to Council Resolution 03-05,

and the information obtained.

The Submitters contacted the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (“OMNR”) for information regarding areas actually harvested in

2001. They were told that the information they were seeking is

reported annually to the OMNR by logging companies for each forest

SEM-02-001 75

7. Supplementary Submission at 3.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid. and note 6, referencing the Article 15(1) Notification at 10.
management unit (“FMU”), in a report table titled Annual Report of

Depletion Area.11 Reports are prepared on a fiscal year basis (1 April -31

March), and they are due by 15 November following fiscal year end.12

Once submitted, they are reviewed by OMNR, which provides comments.13 Finalization of the reports can take several months.14 When the

Submitters contacted the OMNR in May 2003, only 15 of the 59 FMUs

referenced in the submission had completed reports for the fiscal year

beginning 1 April 2001.15

OMNR provided the Submitters with a list of OMNR telephone

numbers to allow them to gather information concerning harvest data

for the 44 FMUs whose reports were not yet complete.16 According to the

Submitters, this proved fruitful in some cases and additional data was

obtained.17 In others, the information could not be released by the

OMNR because the annual reports had not yet been finalized and

approved by district managers.18 As a last resort, the Submitters contacted FMP authors directly.19 They report that in many cases, FMP

authors were forthcoming with information and actual harvest data was

obtained for 49 of the 59 FMUs included in the original submission.20

The Submitters explain that “[o]f the remaining 10 units, five had been

amalgamated with other units, one logging license had been revoked,

and clearcut harvest data was not yet available from any of the sources

we contacted for four units.21” The Supplementary Submission provides

detailed information regarding attempts made by the Submitters to

obtain information regarding the remaining four units.22

The Supplementary Submission contains a table listing the

59 FMUs referenced in the original submission.23 For each FMU, it provides information on the planned clearcut area (drawn from the FMPs

used to prepare the original submission) and on the actual clearcut area

(drawn from annual reports and telephone interviews referenced in the

Supplemental Submission).24 For each FMU, the table also lists the

76 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

11. Ibid. at 4 and note 7.

12. Ibid. at 4.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid. at 5 and note 10.

16. Ibid. at 5.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid. at 6, note 13.

23. Ibid. Table 1. “Comparison of Planned and Actual Clearcut Areas for 2001-02.”

24. Ibid.
source of the information.25 The Submitters remark that information

they gathered regarding the number of hectares clearcut in fiscal year

2001-2002 indicates that numbers were lower than projected.26 They

explain that this is due in part to the absence of data regarding four

FMUs.27 They add that since FMPs contain projected harvest information for five-year periods, the original submission simply divided those

figures by five to obtain a one-year estimate.28 The Submitters explain

that the rate of cutting varies over the course of a five-year period for various reasons, including weather conditions, contractor availability and

First Nations issues, and they add that when asked about the variations,

OMNR consistently replied that while rate of harvesting may vary from

year to year, it typically balances out after five years.29

The Supplementary Submission then addresses whether clearcut

logging occurred during the migratory bird nesting season.30 The Submitters begin by remarking that OMNR does not collect harvest data on

a monthly basis.31 They explain that in order to determine whether and

how much logging may have taken place during the migratory bird

nesting season, they relied on lumber scaling data obtained from

OMNR.32 They assert that this data can be used as an indicator of the rate

of logging on a monthly basis throughout the year.33 The Submitters

report that the 2001-2002 scaling data shows that more logging occurred

during the winter months than the summer and spring months.34 They

add that the nesting period occurs predominantly between April and

August and lasts one month, starting when nest construction begins and

ending once the brood has fledged.35 The Submitters totaled the percentage of the annual harvest scaled from April to August 2001 and determined that approximately 27 % of annual harvest occurred during that

period.36 By then prorating for one month to coincide with the average

length of nesting, they estimated that on average 5.3 % of the annual harvest occurred during nesting.37 Using the breeding bird density data

gathered for the original submission, the Submitters calculated the number of nests destroyed by multiplying the discounted breeding bird

SEM-02-001 77

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid. at 8.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid. at 9.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.
density per hectare by the number of hectares clearcut in 2001-2002

multiplied by a factor of 0.0536 to account for the seasonal variation in

the logging rate and a nesting period of one month.38 Based on this calculation, the Submitters estimated at approximately 43,700 the total number of nests destroyed.39

In sections III and IV of the Supplemental Submission, entitled

“The nature of the evidence that can reasonably be expected from a citizen group” and “The Problem with Scoping,” the Submitters assert that

their submission sets out evidence about a wide-scale failure of the Government of Canada to effectively enforce s. 6(a) of the MBR and they state

that they have asked that a factual record be prepared for each of the

FMUs in which clearcutting takes place.40 They maintain that statistical

or modeling information is appropriate where it is the best information

that is reasonably available to a citizen’s group.41 They note that the

object of the NAAEC citizen submission process is not to meet the standard of proof applicable in legal proceedings, but rather to provide sufficient information to allow the Secretariat to review the allegation of

non-enforcement.42 They contend that there is little merit in investigating specific instances when all of the evidence, particularly government

records, points to both a widespread problem of nest destruction and a

widespread failure to enforce the law.43

III. SUMMARY OF CANADA’S RESPONSE TO NEW

INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE SUBMITTERS

Canada’s Response to Supplemental Information contains comments on the additional information provided by the Submitters as well

as a description of the Canadian Wildlife Service (“CWS”) approach to

bird nest conservation and some observations concerning enforcement

activities within the 49 FMUs for which the Submitters presented additional information in the Supplemental Submission.44

Canada remarks that unlike the original submission, the Supplemental Submission asserts, rather than hypothesizes, that harvesting

78 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

38. Ibid. at 10.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid. at 12.

41. Ibid. at 12-13.

42. Ibid. at 13.

43. Ibid. at 15.

44. Response to Supplemental Information at 3.
took place during the migratory bird nesting season, by relying on actual

harvest data and the application of a method for determining how much

logging took place during each month of the year.45 Canada states that

the Submitters have found that actual harvesting during the migratory

bird nesting season was far less than hypothesized in the original submission.46 It remarks that in the Supplementary Submission, the Submitters did not reveal any complaints in addition to the one identified by the

CWS in Canada’s response to the original submission.47

Regarding the Submitters’ calculations, Canada notes that

[t]o arrive at an estimate of the number of nests potentially destroyed as a

result of the logging that likely took place during the nesting season, the

submitters continue to use the same simple method that was used in the

original submission.48

According to Canada, in quantifying the density of sixteen selected

breeding birds using data from the Canadian Breeding Bird (Mapping)

Census Database, the Submitters did not take into consideration important variability displayed in the breeding density of those species and

the possibility of stratifying the data.49 Canada asserts that for this

reason, the Submitters’ estimate of the number of nests potentially

destroyed as a result of logging during the migratory bird nesting season remains very imprecise.50 Canada asserts that “[t]he NAAEC Article

14/15 submission process should be grounded in specific instances of

alleged failures to effectively enforce a Party’s environmental law.51” It

remarks that although the Submitters’ estimate “is still based on extrapolations from a simple model, rather than on evidence of specific bird

nests having been destroyed by specific logging operations, the supplemental information does provide some specific information.52” Canada

states that given the particular circumstances of this submission,

the supplemental information now provides sufficient information to

enable the Government of Canada to provide a meaningful response.53

SEM-02-001 79

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid. at 4.

52. Ibid.

53. Ibid.
Canada then describes the CWS approach to bird nest conservation, stating

CWS continues, in addition to inspections, investigations and prosecution, to utilize education, compliance promotion, regulation development

and public reporting, as means to achieve bird conservation.54

Canada recalls that no permitting system has been created pursuant to s. 6(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations(“MBR”) “[...] to recognize

circumstances where industry has taken considerable measures that

will benefit the conservation of migratory birds, for example through

the preparation and implementation of conservation plans.55” Canada

observes that “[t]his has created legal uncertainty for the Forestry industry because even after they have implemented conservation plans that

would benefit migratory bird populations, they would still be at risk for

prosecution should any small limited incidental take of nests occur during the course of their activities.56” Canada explains that as a result, CWS

has been involved in a joint effort with industry and nongovernmental

organizations to develop solutions to improve the regulatory framework as it applies to the conservation of birds affected by industrial

activity.57

Canada’s response refers to workshops held in October 2001,

February 2002, and March 2003, in which Environment Canada staff

met with the Forest Products Association of Canada, some nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders.58 According to Canada,

the first workshop affirmed the significance of the forest environment

for the conservation of a large number of migratory bird species and the

difficult compliance issues faced by industry.59 In the second workshop,

CWS explained that its approach on regulations and enforcement has

two main objectives: to ensure the sustainability of migratory birds, and

to ensure that CWS officials, as agents of the Minister of Environment,

fulfill their legal responsibilities.60 CWS organized the meeting to obtain

input from the Submitters on the overall approach for the conservation

of migratory birds, and where relevant, on possible new directions for

regulations.61 At the third meeting, also attended by representatives of

the natural resources departments of Ontario, British Columbia, New

80 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid. at 5.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid.

61. Ibid.
Brunswick and Alberta, the focus was on discussing conservation and

compliance issues with the MBR.62 Canada reports that the outcome of

the workshop was a general agreement by participants on a draft framework to deal with migratory bird conservation within the forestry

context.63 A working group was tasked with further developing the

framework, with recommendations to be made by the end of December

2003.64 Canada anticipates that regulatory changes may be required to

allow for an approval system to deal with the destruction of nests that

may result from industrial operations.65

Canada explains that the CWS wants to focus its efforts on species

of conservation priority and continue to work collaboratively with

stakeholders to sustain viable populations of migratory birds within the

forests of Canada.66 Canada’s response notes that “[n]o federally protected migratory bird species nesting in the boreal region of the province

of Ontario is currently identified as threatened or endangered.67” Canada adds that “[g]iven the nature of the submission, which references

areas in boreal forest to a large extent, it follows that the Submitters have

not established a case that any threatened or endangered species were

involved.68” Canada notes that a major project running until 2006 has

been undertaken to compile additional information on migratory birds

in the boreal forests of Ontario to assist Environment Canada in determining locations and trends of migratory birds in Ontario and provide a

baseline for monitoring species populations and habitat change.69

Regarding enforcement activities in the 49 FMUs for which additional information was provided in the Supplemental Submission, Canada remarks that the CWS enforcement program received no complaints

from the Submitters regarding the 49 FMPs referenced in the original

submission during the period referenced in the submission.70 In regard

to the one complaint received by the CWS and referenced in Canada’s

response to the original submission, Canada notes that the complaint

was received on 12 July 2001, that receipt was acknowledged on 1

August 2001, and that wildlife officers determined that it did not warrant further action since the logging operations had ceased some time

before and OMNR indicated that no other logging was planned.71

SEM-02-001 81

62. Ibid.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid. at 5-6.

65. Ibid. at 6.

66. Ibid.

67. Ibid.

68. Ibid.

69. Ibid.

70. Ibid.

71. Ibid. at 6-7.
IV. ANALYSIS

The Secretariat has considered the Supplemental Submission and

Canada’s Response to Supplemental Information. For the reasons contained in the Secretariat’s Article 15(1) Notification and in light of the

considerations set out below, preparation of a factual record is warranted in order to gather additional information concerning the matters

raised in submission SEM-02-001/Ontario Logging that is necessary for

a consideration of whether Canada is failing to effectively enforce s. 6(a)

of the MBR in regard to clearcut logging activities carried out in 2001 in

harvest areas referenced in the original submission. Section V of the Article 15(1) Notification, which contains a description of information the

Secretariat recommends gathering during development of a factual

record, is reproduced as Appendix 1 to this Notification. Additional

information the Secretariat recommends gathering during development

of a factual record is identified below.

The Supplemental Submission contains some information which

the Secretariat proposed, in its Article 15(1) Notification, to gather in the

context of a factual record investigation, namely information regarding

“timing of [...] nesting seasons and the estimated number of nests

destroyed as a result of clearcutting activities” and

[s]pecific information [...] regarding clearcut logging activities carried out

in 2001 in the harvest areas referenced in the submission, including activities planned and actually carried out [...].

However, as Canada points out in its Response to Supplemental

Information, this information could be refined further.72 Developing a

factual record would allow the Secretariat to gather additional information regarding migratory bird populations in the harvest areas identified

by the Submitters, including as regards variability in the breeding bird

density across species and the possibility of stratifying the data.

The Party’s Response to Supplemental Information contains information not included in the Party’s response to the original submission.

Canada suggests that the forest industry may be taking considerable

measures, including conservation plans, to protect migratory birds.73

Canada also provides additional information about CWS workshops on

migratory bird conservation.74 Canada explains that CWS wants to

focus its efforts on species of conservation priority.75 It states that CWS

82 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

72. Ibid. at 3.

73. Ibid.

74. Ibid. at 5-6.

75. Ibid. at 6.
uses inspections, investigations and prosecutions as a means to achieve

bird conservation,76 and it provides some additional information concerning a complaint referenced in Canada’s response to the original submission.77 However, the Response to Supplemental Information does

not contain certain types of information which the Secretariat identified

in its Article 15(1) Notification as being necessary for a consideration of

whether Canada is failing to effectively enforce s. 6(a) of the MBR in

regard to clearcut logging in 2001 in harvest areas referenced in the original submission.

For example, missing is information regarding any measures

adopted by industry in the harvest areas referenced by the Submitters to

achieve or increase compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR. In the Article

15(1) Notification (see Appendix 1, below), the Secretariat recommends

gathering information on

[...] data relied upon by foresters or EC to anticipate species and numbers

of migratory bird nests to be encountered during logging; any reconnaissance procedures implemented by foresters or EC to identify migratory

bird nests prior to clearcutting; measures taken to protect migratory bird

nests during clear-cutting; and effectiveness of those measures in preventing migratory bird nest disruption and/or destruction.

While the Response to Supplemental Information mentions that

industry may be taking considerable measures that will benefit the conservation of migratory birds,78 additional information is required for a

consideration of the role of any such measures in promoting compliance

with s. 6(a) of the MBR in the harvest areas referenced in the original submission, including information on the nature, extent and timing of measures adopted, information used to design and evaluate those measures,

and overall success of those measures in achieving (or increasing) compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR during logging identified by the Submitters in the original submission. In the context of developing a factual

record, the Secretariat would gather information regarding any conservation plans or other measures that have been prepared and implemented in the harvest areas identified by the Submitters in the original

submission,79 as well as information regarding the “difficult compliance

issues faced by industry80” and the joint effort by CWS, industry and

nongovernmental organizations “to develop solutions to improve the

SEM-02-001 83

76. Ibid. at 4.

77. Ibid. at 6-7.

78. Response to Supplemental Information at 4.

79. Ibid.

80. Ibid. at 5.
regulatory framework as it applies to the conservation of birds affected

by industrial activity” referenced in the Response to Supplemental

Information.81

The Response to Supplemental Information does not contain information regarding any compliance promotion activities carried out by

CWS in regard to the harvest areas referenced in the original submission,

except as regards three workshops on migratory bird conservation held

between October 2001 and March 2003. With regard to those workshops,

the Response to Supplemental Information does not contain information such as meeting agendas, meeting minutes and related correspondence, or a copy of the draft framework to deal with migratory bird

conservation in the forestry context.82 Such information would be gathered by the Secretariat in the context of preparing a factual record.

The Response to Supplemental Information indicates that CWS

wants to focus its efforts on species of conservation priority.83 The legal

provision identified by the Submitters in the original submission, s. 6(a)

of the MBR, states “[...] no person shall [...] disturb, destroy or take a nest,

egg, nest shelter, eider duck shelter or duck box of a migratory bird;”

s. 2(1) of the MBR provides a definition of “migratory bird.84” Neither

84 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

81. Ibid. at 4.

82. Ibid.

83. Ibid. at 6.

84. S. 2(1) of the MBR defines “migratory bird” as follows: “migratory birds” or “birds”

means migratory game birds, migratory insectivorous birds and migratory nongame birds as defined in the Act, and includes any such birds raised in captivity

that cannot readily be distinguished from wild migratory birds by their size, shape

or colour, and any part or parts of such birds. S. 2(1) of the MBCA defines “migratory bird” as follows: “migratory bird” means a migratory bird referred to in the

Convention, and includes the sperm, eggs, embryos, tissue cultures and parts of

the bird. The 1994 Protocol between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America Amending the 1916 Convention Between the

United Kingdom and the United States of America for the Protection of Migratory

Birds in Canada and the United States states at Article I: “In order to update the listing of migratory birds included in the terms of this Convention in a manner consistent with their current taxonomic (Family and Subfamily) status, Article I of the

Convention is deleted and replaced by the following:

The High Contracting Powers declare that the migratory birds included in the

terms of this Convention shall be as follows:

1. Migratory Game Birds:

Anatidae, or waterfowl (ducks, geese and swans); Gruidae, or cranes (greater

and lesser sandhill and whooping cranes); Rallidae, or rails (coots, gallinules and

rails); Charadriidae, Haematopodidae, Recurvirostridae, and Scolopacidae, or

shorebirds (including plovers and lapwings, oystercatchers, stilts and avocets, and

sandpipers and allies); and Columbidae (doves and wild pigeons).

2. Migratory Insectivorous Birds:

Aegithalidae (long-tailed tits and bushtits); Alaudidae (larks); Apodidae

(swifts); Bombycillidae (waxwings); Caprimulgidae (goatsuckers); Certhiidae
provision makes reference to the notion of “species of conservation priority” as qualifying the general prohibition set out in s. 6(a) of the MBR.

The Response to Supplemental Information does not contain information regarding the legal or policy basis for focusing on species of conservation priority in Canada’s enforcement of s. 6(a) of the MBR. Since the

Article 15(1) Notification recommends gathering information on how

EC establishes and balances priorities for wildlife enforcement and compliance promotion (see Appendix 1, below), in the context of preparing a

factual record, the Secretariat would gather information regarding the

basis for CWS’s intention to focus on species of conservation priority in

the context of enforcing and seeking compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR.

In the Response to Supplemental Information, Canada remarks

that no migratory bird species in the boreal region of the province of

Ontario is currently identified as threatened or endangered, and points

out that since the Submitters refer to the boreal region of Ontario, “[...]

they have not established that any threatened or endangered species

were involved.85” As noted above, s. 6(a) of the MBR and the definition

of migratory birds in the MBR do not refer to the notion of “species

of conservation priority”. Similarly, these provisions do not refer to

“threatened” or “endangered” species. Nonetheless, information

regarding any special consideration given to threatened or endangered

species in enforcing s. 6(a) of the MBR in the harvest areas referenced in

the submission would be appropriate for inclusion in a factual record.

For example, the Response to Supplemental Information suggests that

information required to establish a baseline for measuring species population and habitat change – which may be relevant to determining

whether any species are threatened or endangered – is being gathered as

part of a project that began in 2000 and will end in 2006; information

related to this project would be appropriate for inclusion in a factual

SEM-02-001 85

(creepers); Cinclidae (dippers); Cuculidae (cuckoos); Emberizidae (including the

emberizid sparrows, wood-warblers, tanagers, cardinals and grosbeaks and allies,

bobolinks, meadowlarks, and orioles, but not including blackbirds); Fringillidae

(including the finches and grosbeaks); Hirundinidae (swallows); Laniidae

(shrikes); Mimidae (catbirds, mockingbirds, thrashers, and allies); Motacillidae

(wagtails and pipits); Muscicapidae (including the kinglets, gnatcatchers, robins,

and thrushes); Paridae (titmice); Picidae (woodpeckers and allies); Sittidae (nuthatches); Trochilidae (hummingbirds); Troglodytidae (wrens); Tyrannidae (tyrant

flycatchers); and Vireonidae (vireos).

3. Other Migratory Nongame Birds:

Alcidae (auks, auklets, guillemots, murres, and puffins); Ardeidae (bitterns and

herons); Hydrobatidae (storm petrels); Procellariidae (petrels and shearwaters);

Sulidae (gannets); Podicipedidae (grebes); Laridae (gulls, jaegers, and terns); and

Gaviidae (loons).”

85. Response to Supplemental Information at 6.
record. Information regarding threatened or endangered species considerations would also be relevant in conjunction with the recommendation in the Article 15(1) Notification to gather information on data used

by CWS to anticipate species and numbers of migratory bird nests in different areas in monitoring compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR.

The Response to Supplemental Information does not contain information on enforcement activities, such as inspections, investigations

and prosecution, undertaken by Environment Canada or CWS pursuant

to s. 6(a) of the MBR in the harvest areas referenced in the original submission. The Response to Supplemental Information provides summary

information regarding CWS follow-up on a complaint referred to by

Canada in its response to the original submission. A factual record

would provide an opportunity to gather information on enforcement

activities undertaken by Environment Canada and CWS in the harvest

areas identified in the original submission, as well as information concerning processing of complaints regarding non-compliance with s. 6(a)

of the MBR.

In regard to complaints to the CWS, in its Article 15(1) Notification

(see Appendix 1, below), the Secretariat recommended gathering information concerning actions taken by CWS and Environment Canada

in response to suspected violations of the MBR, including responses

to complaints. In the Response to Supplemental Information, Canada

remarks that in their Supplemental Submission, “[...] the Submitters

have not revealed additional complaints other than the one identified by

CWS in its response.86” It also states “[t]he enforcement program of CWS

received no complaints from the submitters related to the 49 Forest

Management Plans identified in the SEM-02-001 during the period referenced in the submission.87” In the context of developing a factual record,

the Secretariat would gather information regarding the role of complaints from the public in the enforcement of s. 6(a) of the MBR, including as regards resources expended by Environment Canada to respond

to complaints in comparison to carrying out routine inspections, and

effectiveness of public complaints as a vehicle for monitoring and

enforcing compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR in the harvest areas referenced in the original submission.

86 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

86. Ibid. at 3.

87. Ibid. at 6.
In regard to the complaint referenced in Canada’s response to

the original submission and Response to Supplemental Information,

Canada noted that

[t]he letter of complaint referred to the fact that the Contingency Forest

Management Plan, which encompassed the brief period of July 12 to September 1, 2001, included a number of clear-cuts and claimed that these

clear-cuts would destroy the nests of migratory birds during nesting season.88

The Response to Supplemental Information states that the complaint was received on July 12, 2001, the first day on which logging

was authorized under the Contingency Forest Management Plan.89 It

explains that wildlife officers dealing with the complaint determined

that it did not warrant further investigation after consultation with the

OMNR, and it states that “[s]ince the reported logging operations had

ceased some time before, it would be very difficult to collect potential

evidence of nest destruction.90” In the Supplemental Submission, the

Submitters maintain that there are good practical and public policy reasons why eyewitness evidence of violations should not be expected from

the public, including lack of legal access to logging areas, the danger of

falling trees, and the onus this puts on the public.91 In developing a factual record, the Secretariat would gather information regarding the role

of CWS consultation with the OMNR in the enforcement of s. 6(a) of the

MBR; the timing of CWS follow-up on complaints from the public and

any effects on the ability of the CWS to gather evidence of violations of s.

6(a) of the MBR; and the type of information required for a complaint

from the public to lead to enforcement action by the CWS in regard to

suspected violations of s. 6(a) of the MBR. Accordingly, the Secretariat

would gather information regarding whether and how the CWS has followed up on the Submitters’ allegation that an estimated 43,700 nests

were destroyed by clearcut logging during the period and in the areas

referenced in the original submission.

In light of the above considerations, after review of the Response to

Supplemental Information, central questions remain regarding whether

Canada is failing to effectively enforce s. 6(a) of the MBR in regard to

clearcut logging activities carried out in 2001 in areas of central and

northern Ontario referenced in the original submission.

SEM-02-001 87

88. Ibid.

89. Ibid.

90. Ibid. at 7.

91. Supplemental Submission at 13.
V. RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to Council Resolution 03-05, and after consideration of

both the new information provided by the Submitters and the response

of Canada to that information, the Secretariat recommends the preparation of a factual record to gather information identified by the Secretariat

in Section V of the Article 15(1) Notification (reproduced at Appendix 1

to this determination) and Section IV of this determination, except

the information identified in Section IV of this determination already

provided to the Secretariat by the Submitters in the Supplemental

Submission.

Respectfully submitted on this 17th day of December 2003.

per: William Kennedy

Executive Director

88 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
APPENDIX 1

INFORMATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN A FACTUAL RECORD

(Section V of the Article 15(1) Notification)

“The submission, taken together with the response, leaves open

central questions regarding whether Canada has effectively enforced s.

6(a) of the MBR in 2001 in connection with the logging industry in

Ontario, and in particular the areas harvested under fifty-nine FMPs referenced in the submission. This section identifies information relevant

to a consideration of these open questions.

In respect of the harvest areas referenced in the submission, information required for an assessment of the Submitters’ allegations would

include information regarding species of migratory birds found in those

areas, timing of their nesting seasons and the estimated number of nests

destroyed as a result of clearcutting activities. Also required is information on provincial FMPs for those areas, including specific information

on the role and outcome of any consultations with federal officials during the development of those FMPs, as regards compliance with s. 6(a) of

the MBR; on whether the federal guidelines and/or any other federal

conditions related to protection of nests of migratory birds are referenced in the FMPs and if so, whether the FMPs require compliance with

such conditions; and on whether any provincial conditions under those

FMPs require compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR or equivalent provincial statutory provisions. The Secretariat would also need to review

information regarding compliance promotion activities organized by

EC officials in the harvest areas referenced in the submission, attendance

by personnel from forestry companies operating in those areas, and

effectiveness of such activities in helping achieve compliance with s. 6(a)

of the MBR.

Specific information is also required regarding clearcut logging

activities carried out in 2001 in the harvest areas referenced in the submission, including activities planned and actually carried out, with precise information on locations and timing; data relied upon by foresters or

EC to anticipate species and numbers of migratory bird nests to be

encountered during logging; any reconnaissance procedures implemented by foresters or EC to identify migratory bird nests prior to

clearcutting; measures taken to protect migratory bird nests during

clear-cutting; and effectiveness of those measures in preventing migratory bird nest disruption and/or destruction.

SEM-02-001 89
Information is also required regarding efforts by federal officials

to monitor compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR in connection with

clearcutting activities carried out in 2001 in harvest areas referenced in

the submission. Such information includes information regarding the

scope, operation and budget of any monitoring program, data used to

anticipate species and numbers of migratory bird nests in different

areas, and information obtained through monitoring or inspection. The

Secretariat would also need to consider actions taken in response to suspected violations of s. 6(a) of the MBR, including actions taken in

response to any failure to implement conditions in an FMP relating to

protection of migratory bird nests; follow-up measures to test effectiveness of compliance promotion activities; actions taken to follow up on

any monitoring results indicating potential violations of s. 6(a) of the

MBR; and responses to complaints.

In addition to the information provided in Canada’s response,

information relevant to a consideration of the effectiveness of federal

enforcement and compliance promotion actions in connection with

clearcutting activities in the forest harvest areas referenced in the submission also includes information on how EC establishes and balances

priorities for wildlife enforcement and compliance promotion, and how

financial and human resources are allocated in this area, including at the

regional level in Ontario. Also relevant is information regarding current

initiatives and programs related to enforcing and promoting compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR in the forestry sector in Ontario, and specifically, how such initiatives address any compliance issues noted in the

harvest areas referenced in the submission.”

90 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
SEM-02-002

(Mexico City Airport)

SUBMITTERS: JORGE RAFAEL MARTÍNEZ AZUELA ET AL.

PARTY: MEXICO

DATE: 7 February 2002

SUMMARY: The submitters assert that Mexico is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental laws with

respect to the noise emissions originating at the

Mexico City International Airport (Aeropuerto

Internacional de la Ciudad de México–AICM).

According to the Submitters, there are studies

showing that the noise emissions of the AICM

exceed the limits established in environmental

law, causing irreversible damage to the thousands

of persons living near the airport.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 15(1)

(25 September 2002)

Determination under Article 15(1) that development of a factual record is not warranted.

91

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación

Ambiental de América del Norte

Determinación del Secretariado en conformidad con el artículo 15(1)

del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Número de petición: SEM-02-002 (Aeropuerto

de la Ciudad de México)

Peticionarios: Jorge Rafael Martínez Azuela

Jorge Martínez Sánchez

Raúl Morelos C.

José Alberto Téllez Murillo

Saúl Gutiérrez Hernández

Norma Guadalupe Viniegra Cantón

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de recepción: 7 de febrero de 2002

Fecha de la determinación: 25 de septiembre de 2002

I. INTRODUCCIÓN

El Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

(el “Secretariado”) puede examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u

organización sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte

signataria del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte (el

“ACAAN” o “Acuerdo”) está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación

efectiva de su legislación ambiental, si el Secretariado juzga que la

petición cumple con los requisitos señalados en el artículo 14(1) del

ACAAN. Si la petición lo amerita, considerando los criterios del artículo

14(2), el Secretariado puede solicitar a esa Parte que proporcione una

respuesta a la petición. A la luz de la respuesta de la Parte, el Secretariado puede notificar al Consejo que amerita la elaboración de un expediente de hechos, en conformidad con el artículo 15. El Consejo, con el

93
voto de las dos terceras partes de sus miembros, puede entonces instruir

al Secretariado para que elabore un expediente de hechos. El expediente

de hechos final se pone a disposición pública, también mediante el voto

de las dos terceras partes de los miembros del Consejo.

Esta determinación contiene el análisis realizado por el Secretariado, conforme al artículo 15(1) del ACAAN, respecto de la petición

presentada el 7 de febrero de 2002 por Jorge Rafael Martínez Azuela y

otros vecinos de la zona circundante al Aeropuerto Internacional de la

Ciudad de México (AICM) (los “Peticionarios”). Los Peticionarios aseveran que el gobierno de México está incurriendo en omisiones en la

aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental respecto de las emisiones

de ruido originadas por ese aeropuerto, y respecto de una denuncia

popular y una denuncia ciudadana presentadas a la Profepa y al

Gobierno del Distrito Federal en relación con ese asunto.

El 22 de febrero de 2002, el Secretariado determinó que la petición

satisface los requisitos del artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo, y que ameritaba

solicitar una respuesta a la Parte mexicana conforme al artículo 14(2). El

23 de mayo de 2002 la Parte envió al Secretariado su respuesta conforme

al artículo 14(3) del ACAAN. México reconoce el problema de la emisión

de ruido, pero afirma que la norma oficial mexicana que establece límites

a la emisión de ruido de fuentes fijas, citada en la petición, no es aplicable

respecto de las emisiones de ruido que generan las aeronaves, que son

fuentes móviles y están sujetas a los límites señalados en otra norma.

México señala en su respuesta que el 30 % de la flota aérea nacional ha

reducido las emisiones de ruido en los tiempos establecidos por la

norma correspondiente, y que por ello ha cumplido con la aplicación

efectiva de su legislación ambiental. La respuesta de México también

detalla el trámite que las autoridades respectivas han dado a las denuncias que el Peticionario presentó en octubre y noviembre de 2001 sobre el

asunto planteado en la petición.

Habiendo examinado la petición a la luz de la respuesta de la

Parte en conformidad con el artículo 15(1) del ACAAN, el Secretariado

informa a los Peticionarios y al Consejo que la petición no amerita la elaboración de un expediente de hechos. Aunque el Secretariado no se ha

persuadido de que la NOM-081-ECOL-1994 no sea aplicable al AICM, a

falta de una interpretación judicial al respecto, ésta es una cuestión

abierta aún. Además, sin perjuicio de que sea legítima la preocupación

que los Peticionarios han expresado por los efectos potenciales del ruido

proveniente del AICM en la población que vive en sus inmediaciones,

para que se amerite la elaboración de un expediente de hechos debe

haber mayor certeza que la que se desprende de la petición a la luz de la

94 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
respuesta de México, sobre si de hecho las emisiones de ruido del AICM

violan la legislación ambiental. El análisis de estas cuestiones se detalla

en la sección IV de este documento.

II. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

Los Peticionarios aseveran que existen estudios que muestran que

las emisiones de ruido del AICM exceden los límites establecidos en la

legislación ambiental, causando daños irreversibles a las miles de personas que residen en la periferia de ese aeropuerto. Los Peticionarios afirman que las autoridades ambientales federales y locales han omitido

aplicar de manera efectiva los artículos 5 fracciones V y XIX, 8 fracción

VI, 155 y 189 al 204 de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente (LGEEPA), la Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-081-

ECOL-1994 Que establece los límites máximos permisibles de emisión de ruido

de las fuentes fijas y su método de medición1 (NOM-081-ECOL-1994) y los

artículos 80 al 84 de la Ley Ambiental del Distrito Federal (LADF).

Los Peticionarios argumentan que conforme a los artículos 5 fracciones V y XIX y 155 de la LGEEPA la autoridad ambiental federal está

obligada a lo siguiente respecto del AICM: “...(i) vigilar el cumplimiento

de la NOM-081-ECOL-1994; (ii) adoptar medidas para evitar que se

transgredan los límites máximos permisibles de emisión de ruido establecidos en la NOM-081-ECOL-1994, y (iii) aplicar las sanciones correspondientes en caso de que se transgredan dichos límites.” Señalan

también que “el artículo 8, fracción VI de la LGEEPA, en relación con el

artículo 9 del mismo ordenamiento, confiere al gobierno del Distrito

Federal la facultad de aplicar las disposiciones jurídicas relativas a la

prevención y control de la contaminación por ruido, proveniente de

fuentes fijas que funcionen como establecimientos de servicios”.2

La petición afirma que como consecuencia de la falta de aplicación

por parte de México de su legislación ambiental en este caso, los vecinos

del AICM han sufrido daños al sistema auditivo, diversos efectos negativos por la interrupción del sueño y la merma del desarrollo académico

de los niños de la zona, cuyas clases se interrumpen por el paso de un

avión aproximadamente cada 7 minutos. Según los Peticionarios, los

estudios concluyeron que “[n]o existe procedimiento alguno que pueda

mitigar el ruido aeroportuario cercano al AICM”.3

SEM-02-002 95

1. Publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) el 13 de enero de 1995.

2. Ambas citas vienen de la página 5 de la petición.

3. El estudio que citan los Peticionarios dice literalmente: “There are few, if any, mitigating procedures that could be implemented to reduce noise exposure at the AICM”.
La petición afirma:

Es claro, por lo tanto, que la forma de proteger el ambiente y salvaguardar

la integridad física de los habitantes de las inmediaciones del AICM es

cerrar la fuente fija que produce las emisiones de ruido por encima de los

estándares legal y mundialmente aceptables. En la alternativa, solicitamos

una recomendación en el sentido de que se tomen las medidas pertinentes

para reducir el ruido y que se valore la posibilidad de compensar económicamente por los daños sufridos a los vecinos del AICM.4

Además, la petición asevera que México incurre en omisiones respecto de los procedimientos de denuncia popular y denuncia ciudadana

iniciados por los Peticionarios ante el gobierno federal y del Distrito

Federal, respectivamente, relativos a las posibles violaciones del artículo

155 de la LGEEPA y de la NOM-081-ECOL-1994.

III. RESUMEN DE LA RESPUESTA DE LA PARTE

El Secretariado recibió la respuesta de México a la petición el 23 de

mayo de 2002. En ella México reconoce el problema de la emisión de

ruido. Sin embargo, la Parte aclara que la Norma Oficial Mexicana

NOM-081-ECOL-1994 citada en la petición no es aplicable respecto de

las emisiones de ruido que generan las aeronaves en sus maniobras de

despegue y aterrizaje. La respuesta explica que las aeronaves están

clasificadas como fuentes móviles de emisión de ruido e indica que la

norma aplicable a las emisiones de ruido que éstas producen es la

NOM-036-SCT3-2000Que establece dentro de la República Mexicana los límites máximos permisibles de emisión de ruido producido por las aeronaves de

reacción subsónicas, propulsadas por hélice, supersónicas y helicópteros, su

método de medición, así como los requerimientos para dar cumplimiento a

dichos límites5 (NOM-036-SCT3-2000). México señala en su respuesta que

el 30 % de la flota aérea nacional ha reducido las emisiones de ruido en

los tiempos establecidos por la NOM-036-SCT3-2000, y que por ello ha

cumplido con la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental.

La respuesta de México afirma que los artículos 8 fracción VI, 80 al

84 de la LADF que fundamentan parcialmente la petición, no son aplicables en el presente asunto debido a que éste corresponde a la competencia del fuero federal.

La respuesta de México también detalla el trámite que las autoridades correspondientes han dado a las denuncias populares que el

96 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

4. Página 7 de la petición.

5. Publicada en el DOF el 19 de febrero de 2001.
Peticionario presentó en octubre y noviembre de 2001 sobre el asunto

planteado en la petición. Sobre la denuncia ciudadana presentada el 23

de noviembre de 2001 por el señor Jorge Rafael Martínez Azuela ante la

Secretaría de Medio Ambiente del Gobierno del Distrito Federal, la

respuesta indica que la Dirección General de Regulación y Gestión

Ambiental del Agua, Suelo y Residuos turnó la denuncia ciudadana a la

Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (Profepa) por considerar que el asunto era del orden federal, mediante el oficio número

SMA/DGRGAASR/DVA/6009/2002 de fecha 22 de abril de 2002, y que

se marcó copia al denunciante.6

Sobre la denuncia popular presentada por el Peticionario ante la

Profepa el 31 de octubre de 2001, la respuesta de México indica que se le

asignó el número de expediente 0111/235/DI/09, y se turnó con el oficio

número DG/004/DI/1358/2001 de fecha 26 de noviembre de 2001 a la

Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil (DGAC) de la Secretaría de

Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT) para su trámite. La Parte señala

que ese oficio se intentó notificar al Peticionario, pero debido a que la oficina de correos del Servicio Postal Mexicano no encontró el domicilio, el

oficio fue devuelto a la autoridad.7 El 8 de abril de 2002, la DGAC envió

el oficio 101.205.00539 al Peticionario en respuesta a su denuncia popular, comunicándole que la norma oficial mexicana aplicable a los vehículos aéreos era la NOM-036-SCT3-2000.8 Además, se turnó la denuncia

popular a la Delegación Venustiano Carranza del Distrito Federal y a la

Dirección General de Regulación y Gestión Ambiental de Agua, Suelo y

Residuos. La primera emitió el oficio número DGDD/065-0 de fecha 15

de enero de 2002 (que se menciona en la petición) y la segunda procedió

a la acumulación del expediente y lo turnó nuevamente a la Profepa.9

Respecto de la aseveración de que la Parte ha incurrido en la omisión de la aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental por incumplimiento a lo dispuesto por la NOM-081-ECOL-1994, la respuesta de

México afirma que “dicha norma oficial mexicana no es aplicable respecto de las emisiones de ruido que generan las aeronaves en sus

maniobras de despegue y aterrizaje, ya que de conformidad con lo

establecido por el artículo 6 del reglamento para la protección del

ambiente contra la contaminación originada por la emisión del ruido

de la LGEEPA [...], las aeronaves son consideradas como fuentes

SEM-02-002 97

6. Véanse las páginas 2 y 3 y el anexo 1 de la respuesta de México.

7. Véanse las páginas 4 a 6 y los anexos 2 y 3 de la respuesta de México.

8. Véase el anexo 4 de la respuesta de México.

9. Véanse la página 6 y el anexo 5 de la respuesta de México, y el oficio presentado en la

petición como anexo 4.
móviles de emisión de ruido, y no así como fuentes fijas” (líneas destacadas en el original).10

La respuesta señala:

México reconoce que el problema de la emisión de ruido representa un

gran reto para el país y una preocupación enorme, sobre todo para proporcionar a los ciudadanos un ambiente adecuado para su desarrollo. En esa

virtud, la Parte emitió la norma oficial mexicana NOM-036-SCT3-2000

para combatir el problema que representan las emisiones de ruido producidos por las aeronaves. México está consciente [de] que es una tarea difícil

y por ello se han establecido tiempos para cumplir con dicha norma

oficial.11

La respuesta explica que esa norma oficial mexicana establece en

su numeral 13 los siguientes plazos para que las aeronaves cumplan con

los límites de emisión de ruido:12

Fecha de cumplimiento Tipo de Aeronave

31 de diciembre de 2001 Aeronaves propulsadas por hélice y helicópteros,

aeronaves de reacción subsónicas y supersónicas.

Peso máximo al despegue: menor de 34,000 kg

(75,000 libras)

31 de diciembre de 2001 El 30 % de la flota aérea nacional (aeronaves de reacción subsónica y supersónica). Peso máximo al despegue: mayor de 34,000 kg (75,000 libras)

31 de diciembre de 2002 El 60 % de la flota aérea nacional (aeronaves de reacción subsónica y supersónica). Peso máximo al despegue: mayor de 34,000 kg (75,000 libras)

31 de diciembre de 2003 El 80 % de la flota aérea nacional (aeronaves de reacción subsónica y supersónica). Peso máximo al despegue: mayor de 34,000 kg (75,000 libras)

31 de diciembre de 2004 El 100 % de la flota aérea nacional (aeronaves de

reacción subsónica y supersónica). Peso máximo al

despegue: mayor de 34,000 kg (75,000 libras).

La Parte indica que la DGAC de la SCT vigila el cumplimiento de

esta norma a través del programa de cumplimiento por las empresas

aéreas regionales, troncales, de fletamento y de carga.13 Señala que la

98 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

10. Véanse las páginas 5 a 7 de la respuesta de México.

11. Véase la página 10 de la respuesta de México.

12. Véanse las páginas 6 a 9 de la respuesta de México.

13. El anexo 6 de la respuesta de México contiene un listado de las aeronaves.
DGAC ha otorgado un total de 417 certificados de homologación de

ruido a los concesionarios, permisionarios u operadores aéreos, 168 de

los cuales corresponden a certificados otorgados a los concesionarios de

transporte aéreo nacional.14 Finalmente, la respuesta afirma: “Esta Parte

considera que ha cumplido con la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental y prueba de ello son los 417 certificados de homologación de

ruido otorgados al 30 % de la flota aérea en los que se constata la reducción de emisiones de ruido en los tiempos establecidos por la norma”.15

IV. ANÁLISIS

A. Antecedentes

Esta determinación se refiere a la etapa del proceso que corresponde al artículo 15(1) del ACAAN. El Secretariado determinó previamente que la petición cumple con los requisitos del artículo 14(1) y que

amerita solicitar una respuesta de la Parte conforme a los criterios del

artículo 14(2).

El 22 de febrero de 2002, el Secretariado determinó que la petición

cumplía con todos los requisitos señalados en el artículo 14(1) del

ACAAN.16 La petición cumple con los requisitos establecidos en los incisos (a), (b), (d) y (f) del artículo 14(1) porque se presentó por escrito en

español, uno de los idiomas oficiales de las Partes;17 los Peticionarios se

identificaron claramente en la petición como particulares con domicilio

en la Ciudad de México, D.F., México.18 Las aseveraciones de la petición

se ajustan a lo dispuesto en el preámbulo del artículo 14(1), que plantea

que una petición debe aseverar “que una Parte está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental”. La petición

parece encaminada a promover actividades de aplicación de la legislación ambiental y no a hostigar una industria, porque se centra en la presunta falta de aplicación por la autoridad ambiental de las disposiciones

legales sobre la emisión de ruido y se refiere a la presunta exposición de

miles de personas que residen en las inmediaciones del AICM a los efectos nocivos para la salud relacionados con las emisiones de ruido,

supuestamente ilícitas, generadas por el AICM.

SEM-02-002 99

14. El anexo 7 de la respuesta de México contiene copias de los certificados mencionados.

15. Véase la página 10 de la respuesta de México.

16. SEM-02-002 (Aeropuerto de la Ciudad de México), Determinación conforme a los

artículos 14(1) y (2) (22 de febrero de 2002).

17. Véase también el encabezado 3.2 de las Directrices para la presentación de peticiones.

18. Páginas 1, 2 y 8 de la petición.
Se consideró cumplido también el requisito señalado en el inciso

(c) porque la petición y sus anexos contienen suficiente información para

analizar las aseveraciones que se plantean. La petición incluyó información sobre la exposición de las personas que residen en las inmediaciones del AICM al ruido generado por las operaciones de ese aeropuerto19

y sobre la legislación ambiental aplicable.20 Los Peticionarios sustentan

sus aseveraciones en dos estudios realizados en torno a los efectos en la

salud de las personas expuestas a esas emisiones de ruido, y anexan a la

petición uno de ellos, de septiembre de 2001, titulado “Análisis de

Ruido, Aeropuerto Internacional de la Ciudad de México”.21

La petición invoca los objetivos planteados por el ACAAN, que

consisten en alentar la protección y el mejoramiento del medio ambiente

en el territorio de las Partes, para el bienestar de las generaciones presentes y futuras [artículo 1(a)]; y en mejorar la observancia y la aplicación de

las leyes y reglamentos ambientales [artículo 1(g)].22 En cuanto al inciso

(e) del artículo 14(1), el Secretariado determinó que las aseveraciones de

la petición se refieren a asuntos que se han comunicado a las autoridades

pertinentes de la Parte mediante una denuncia popular y una denuncia

ciudadana.23

El Secretariado evaluó la petición considerando en conjunto los criterios del artículo 14(2) del ACAAN, y concluyó en su determinación del

22 de febrero de 2002 que dicha petición ameritaba una respuesta de la

Parte.

Según los Peticionarios, de los estudios que citan se desprende que

los habitantes localizados dentro de un radio de 51 km2 alrededor

del AICM padecen emisiones de ruido violatorias de la NOM-081-

ECOL-1994 y superiores a los estándares mundialmente aceptables.24 El

número de personas afectadas por estas operaciones se estima entre

medio y dos millones.25 Señalan la pérdida de la audición, entre otros

100 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

19. Véanse las páginas 3 y 4 de la petición.

20. Véanse las páginas 1, 2, 4 y 5 de la petición.

21. Véanse las páginas 2, 5 a 7 y los anexos 1 y 2 de la petición.

22. Véase el artículo 14(1)(d) del ACAAN, el apartado 5.4 de las Directrices y la página

3 de la petición.

23. Véanse las páginas 3, 9 a 12 y los anexos 3 y 4 de la petición.

24. Esta medida es claramente incorrecta. El estudio que se acompaña a la petición

como anexo 1 no se refiere a un radio de esa magnitud. El documento proporcionado indica que con base en las operaciones aéreas del 10 de agosto de 2001 (escenario 1) se calculó un nivel de ruido mayor o igual a 60 (dBA) en un área de 50.95 km2

alrededor del AICM, y en un área de 51.35 km2 con base en las operaciones de la

madrugada del 25 de agosto de 2001.

25. Véase el anexo 1 de la petición.
efectos de las emisiones de ruido en cuestión.26 [artículo 14(2)(a).] El

Secretariado consideró que la ulterior revisión en este proceso de los

asuntos planteados en esta petición contribuiría a la consecución de las

metas del Acuerdo y promovería el acceso de los interesados a información adicional sobre la presunta falta de aplicación de la legislación

ambiental en materia de ruido respecto del AICM [artículo 14(2)(b)]. La

petición aborda los recursos disponibles conforme a la legislación de la

Parte a los que se ha acudido, y el Secretariado considera que se ha hecho

un esfuerzo razonable para acudir a esos recursos [artículo 14(2)(c)].27

Finalmente, la petición no parece basarse en noticias de los medios de

comunicación [artículo 14(2)(d)].

Como consecuencia de la determinación del Secretariado del 22 de

febrero de 2002, la Parte presentó su respuesta el 23 de mayo de 2002, de

acuerdo con el artículo 14(3) del ACAAN.

B. ¿La petición amerita la elaboración de un expediente de hechos?

En conformidad con el artículo 15(1) del ACAAN, el Secretariado

considera que a la luz de la respuesta de México la petición no amerita la

elaboración de un expediente de hechos por las razones que se explican

enseguida. La petición contiene dos aseveraciones: 1) que México incurre en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental

(artículos 5 fracciones V y XIX, 8 fracción VI y 155 de la LGEEPA y la

NOM-081-ECOL-1994) por la nula vigilancia y aplicación de sanciones

al AICM, no obstante que sus operaciones rebasan los límites máximos

permisibles de emisión de ruido; y 2) que México incurre en omisiones

respecto de los procedimientos de denuncia popular y denuncia ciudadana (artículos 189 al 204 de la LGEEPA y 80 al 84 de la LADF) iniciados

ante los gobiernos federal y del Distrito Federal, respectivamente, relativos a las posibles violaciones del artículo 155 de la LGEEPA y la

NOM-081-ECOL-1994 por el AICM.

1. Aplicación efectiva de los artículos 5, fracciones V y XIX;

8 fracción VI, y 155 de la LGEEPA y de la NOM-081-ECOL-1994

Los artículos de la LGEEPA en cuestión establecen:

Artículo 5. Son facultades de la Federación:

V.- La expedición de las normas oficiales mexicanas y la vigilancia de

su cumplimiento en las materias previstas en esta Ley; [...]

SEM-02-002 101

26. Véanse las páginas 3 y 4 de la petición.

27. Véanse las páginas 9 a 11 de la petición.
XIX.- La vigilancia y promoción, en el ámbito de su competencia, del

cumplimiento de esta Ley y de los demás ordenamientos que de ella

deriven. [...]

Artículo 8.- Corresponden a los Municipios, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en esta Ley y las leyes locales en la materia, las siguientes facultades

[...]

VI.- La aplicación de las disposiciones jurídicas relativas a la prevención y control de la contaminación por ruido, vibraciones, energía térmica, radiaciones electromagnéticas y lumínica y olores perjudiciales

para el equilibrio ecológico y el ambiente, provenientes de fuentes

fijas que funcionen como establecimientos mercantiles o de servicios,

así como la vigilancia del cumplimiento de las disposiciones que, en

su caso, resulten aplicables a las fuentes móviles excepto las que conforme a esa Ley sean consideradas de jurisdicción federal. [...]

Artículo 155.- Quedan prohibidas las emisiones de ruido, vibraciones,

energía térmica y lumínica y la generación de contaminación visual en

cuanto rebasen los límites máximos establecidos en las normas oficiales

mexicanas que para ese efecto expida la Secretaría, considerando los

valores de concentración máxima permisibles para el ser humano de contaminantes en el ambiente que determine la Secretaría de Salud... Las autoridades federales o locales, según su esfera de competencia, adoptarán las

medidas para impedir que se transgredan dichos límites y, en su caso, aplicarán las sanciones correspondientes.

La NOM-081-ECOL-1994 dispone, en sus secciones más relevantes

al asunto planteado en esta petición:

1. OBJETO. Esta norma oficial mexicana establece los límites máximos permisibles de emisión de ruido que genera el funcionamiento de las fuentes

fijas y el método de medición por el cual se determina su nivel emitido

hacia el ambiente.

2. CAMPO DE APLICACIÓN. Esta norma oficial mexicana se aplica en la

pequeña, mediana y gran industria, comercios establecidos, servicios

públicos o privados y actividades en la vía pública...

5. ESPECIFICACIONES

5.1 La emisión de ruido que generan las fuentes fijas es medida obteniendo

su nivel sonoro en ponderación “A”, expresado en dB (A).

...5.3 Para obtener el nivel sonoro de una fuente fija se debe aplicar el procedimiento de actividades siguiente: un reconocimiento inicial; una medi102 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
ción de campo; un procesamiento de datos de medición, y la elaboración

de un informe de medición.

5.3.1 El reconocimiento inicial debe realizarse en forma previa a la

aplicación de la medición del nivel sonoro emitido por una fuente fija,

con el propósito de recabar la información técnica y administrativa y

para localizar las Zonas Críticas.

5.3.1.1 La información a recabar es la siguiente:

5.3.1.1.1 Croquis que muestre la ubicación del predio donde

se encuentre la fuente fija y la descripción de los predios con

quien colinde. Ver figura No 1 del Anexo 1 de la presente

norma oficial mexicana.

5.3.1.1.2 Descripción de las actividades potencialmente ruidosas.

5.3.1.1.3 Relacionar y representar en un croquis interno de la

fuente fija el equipo, la maquinaria y/o los procesos potencialmente emisores de ruido. Ver figura No 2A del Anexo 2

de la presente norma. [...]

5.3.1.2 Con el sonómetro funcionando, realizar un recorrido por

la parte externa de las colindancias de la fuente fija con el objeto

de localizar la Zona Crítica o zonas críticas de medición. Ver

figura No 2A del Anexo 2 de la presente norma.

5.3.1.2.1 Dentro de cada Zona Crítica (ZCi) se ubicarán 5

puntos distribuidos vertical y/u horizontalmente en forma

aleatoria a 0.30 m de distancia del límite de la fuente y a no

menos de 1.2 m del nivel del piso. Ver figura No 2A del

Anexo 2 de la presente norma oficial mexicana[...]

5.3.2 Ubicados los puntos de medición conforme a lo señalado en el

punto 5.3.1.2.1 se deberá realizar la medición de campo de forma continua o semicontinua, teniendo en cuenta las condiciones normales de

operación de la fuente fija. [...]

5.3.3.4.6 Se determinará que la emisión de la fuente fija es

contaminante si el nivel sonoro que resulte de la determinación realizada en el punto 5.3.3.4 de la presente norma oficial

mexicana supera el límite máximo permisible correspondiente al que se establece en la Tabla 1 del punto 5.4 abajo

mostrado. [...]

SEM-02-002 103
5.4 Los límites máximos permisibles del nivel sonoro en ponderación “A”

emitido por fuentes fijas, son [... de 6:OO a 22:OO horas, 68 dB(A); y de

22:OO a 6:OO horas, 65 dB(A)]...

6. VIGILANCIA...

6.1 La Secretaría de Desarrollo Social, por conducto de la Procuraduría

Federal de Protección al Ambiente, así como los Estados y en su caso los

Municipios, son las autoridades competentes para vigilar el cumplimiento

de la presente norma oficial mexicana.

La respuesta de México señala que el asunto que plantea la petición

es de competencia federal, por lo que considera que el artículo 8 fracción

VI de la LADF (sic) citado en la petición no es aplicable.28 La lectura

integral de los artículos 5, 8 y 155 de la LGEEPA y de la NOM-081-

ECOL-1994 parece indicar que la responsabilidad por la vigilancia del

cumplimiento de los límites de emisión de ruido recae en la autoridad

federal (Profepa), sin excluir que las autoridades locales en la esfera

de su competencia adopten “medidas para evitar que se transgredan

dichos límites”. La petición señala también que “el artículo 8, fracción VI

de la LGEEPA, en relación con el artículo 9 del mismo ordenamiento,

confiere al gobierno del Distrito Federal la facultad de aplicar las disposiciones jurídicas relativas a la prevención y control de la contaminación

por ruido proveniente de fuentes fijas que funcionen como establecimientos de servicios”.29 Sin embargo, según muestra la respuesta de

México, esa autoridad se declaró incompetente en este asunto, al considerar que el AICM es competencia de la Profepa y de la SCT por ser “un

inmueble destinado a prestar servicios de los Poderes Federales”.30

Ahora bien, la cuestión sustantiva que la petición plantea es que el

artículo 155 de la LGEEPA y la NOM-081-ECOL-1994 no se han aplicado

de manera efectiva respecto del AICM. El artículo 155 de la LGEEPA

prohíbe las emisiones de ruido por encima de los límites que dispongan

las normas oficiales mexicanas para prevenir daños a la población.

La respuesta de México señala:

México reconoce que el problema de la emisión de ruido representa un

gran reto para el país y una preocupación enorme, sobre todo para proporcionar a los ciudadanos un ambiente adecuado para su desarrollo. En esa

virtud, la Parte emitió la norma oficial mexicana NOM-036-SCT3-2000

104 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

28. Véase la página 4 de la respuesta de México.

29. Ambas citas vienen de la página 5 de la petición.

30. Véase la página 2 del anexo 1 de la respuesta de México.
para combatir el problema que representan las emisiones de ruido producidos por las aeronaves. México está consciente [de] que es una tarea difícil

y por ello se han establecido tiempos para cumplir con dicha norma oficial.31

Respecto de la NOM-081-ECOL-1994 en concreto, México en su

respuesta afirma que:

[...] dicha norma oficial mexicana no es aplicable respecto de las emisiones

de ruido que generan las aeronaves en sus maniobras de despegue y aterrizaje, ya que de conformidad con lo establecido por el artículo 6 del

reglamento para la protección del ambiente contra la contaminación originada por la emisión del ruido de la LGEEPA[...], las aeronaves son consideradas como fuentes móviles de emisión de ruido, y no así como fuentes

fijas.32

Conforme al artículo 6 del Reglamento para la Protección del

Ambiente contra la Contaminación Originada por la Emisión de Ruido

(RR), es claro que las aeronaves (aviones y helicópteros) son fuentes

móviles de emisión de ruido y que los aeropuertos son fuentes fijas.33

Como bien señala la Parte en su respuesta, la NOM-081-ECOL-1994 no

es aplicable a las aeronaves. Sin embargo, la petición no asevera que las

aeronaves sean fuentes fijas, ni que los límites que establece la NOM081-ECOL-1994 sean aplicables a las aeronaves. La petición afirma que

esos límites son aplicables al AICM como fuente fija, y se refiere a las

emisiones derivadas de las operaciones del AICM en su conjunto.34

A falta de una interpretación de estas cuestiones por las autoridades judiciales competentes, el Secretariado analizó las normas NOM081-ECOL-1994 y NOM-036-SCT3-2000 a la luz de los principios generales de interpretación y aplicación de las normas jurídicas, y de las

disposiciones respectivas de la legislación civil, para dilucidar si la

NOM-036-SCT3-2000 deroga la NOM-081-ECOL-1994, o establece una

excepción a su aplicación respecto de los aeropuertos. Los artículos 9 y

11 del Código Civil Federal disponen respectivamente:

Artículo 9.- La ley sólo queda abrogada o derogada por otra posterior que

así lo declare expresamente o que contenga disposiciones total o parcialmente incompatibles con la ley anterior. [...]

SEM-02-002 105

31. Véase la página 10 de la respuesta de México.

32. Véanse las páginas 5 a 7 de la respuesta de México.

33. Publicado en el DOF el 6 de diciembre de 1982.

34. Véanse las páginas 5 y 6 de la petición.
Artículo 11.- Las leyes que establecen excepción a las reglas generales, no

son aplicables a caso alguno que no esté expresamente especificado en las

mismas leyes.35

La NOM-036-SCT3-2000 es posterior a la NOM-081-ECOL-1994,

pero no la derogó de manera expresa ni implícita. La NOM-036-SCT3-

2000 tampoco establece una excepción expresa a la aplicación a los

aeropuertos (clasificados expresamente como fuentes fijas) de la NOM081-ECOL-1994, que es la norma general en materia de ruido proveniente de fuentes fijas.

La norma NOM-036-SCT3-2000 y la NOM-081-ECOL-1994 no

parecen ser total o parcialmente incompatibles, conforme a los principios de interpretación aplicables. Ante todo, esas normas no regulan el

mismo hecho. Aunque ambas normas regulan fuentes emisoras de

ruido, se refieren a fuentes distintas. Además, los sujetos obligados por

una y otra también son distintos.

La NOM-036-SCT3-2000 dispone:

1. Objetivo y campo de aplicación. La presente Norma Oficial Mexicana

establece dentro de la República Mexicana los límites máximos permisibles de emisión de ruido generado por las aeronaves de reacción subsónicas, propulsadas por hélice, supersónicas y helicópteros, su método de

medición, así como los requerimientos para dar cumplimiento a dichos

límites, y aplica a todos los concesionarios, permisionarios u operadores

aéreos nacionales o extranjeros que operen o pretendan operar dentro de

la República Mexicana y su espacio aéreo. [...]

3.1 Todo concesionario, permisionario u operador aéreo de aeronaves,

nacional o extranjero, que opere o pretenda operar dentro de la República

Mexicana y su espacio aéreo, con aeronaves de reacción subsónicas, propulsadas por hélice, supersónicas, helicópteros, deberá cumplir con lo

prescrito en la presente Norma Oficial Mexicana.

En contraste, la NOM-081-ECOL-1994 establece:

1. Objeto. Esta norma oficial mexicana establece los límites máximos permisibles de emisión de ruido que genera el funcionamiento de las fuentes

fijas y el método de medición por el cual se determina su nivel emitido

hacia el ambiente.

106 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

35. Código Civil para el Distrito Federal en materia común y para toda la República en

materia federal, publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 26 de marzo de 1928.
2. Campo de aplicación. Esta norma oficial mexicana se aplica en la

pequeña, mediana y gran industria, comercios establecidos, servicios

públicos o privados y actividades en la vía pública.

Estas normas tampoco parecen ser incompatibles con base en los

métodos de medición del ruido dispuestos por cada una. La medición

del nivel de emisión de ruido de las fuentes fijas conforme a la NOM081-ECOL-1994 consiste en la medición de los niveles sonoros en “zonas

críticas” desde el exterior del inmueble y no implica la medición del

nivel de emisión de ruido de las aeronaves individualmente. El nivel

sonoro que emiten las fuentes fijas debe medirse a partir de su barda

perimetral (o puntos equivalentes) y en su medición se consideran

en conjunto las operaciones de la fuente. Por su parte, la NOM-036-

SCT3-2000 regula el nivel de ruido emitido por las aeronaves de manera

individual e independiente del aeropuerto en el que operen. En términos generales, la medición debe hacerse tomando en cuenta tres puntos

relativos a la aeronave (uno lateral, uno de sobrevuelo en el despegue y

uno de aproximación en el aterrizaje). La ubicación del perímetro del

aeropuerto en que operen las aeronaves, que sería el punto de medición

relevante para la NOM-081-ECOL-1994, no se toma en cuenta para

determinar los puntos de medición del ruido emitido por las aeronaves

conforme a la NOM-036-SCT3-2000. La NOM-081-ECOL-1994 tampoco

establece un procedimiento para descontar el ruido atribuible a una

fuente móvil ligada a una fuente fija.

Por último, la NOM-081-ECOL-1994 y la NOM-036-SCT3-2000 no

parecen ser incompatibles de modo que la aplicación de una haga imposible la aplicación de la otra. Es concebible que las aeronaves individuales puedan cumplir con la NOM-036-SCT3-2000 al mismo tiempo que

sus emisiones conjuntas de ruido, combinadas con otro ruido generado

por un aeropuerto, también puedan resultar en el cumplimiento por

parte de ese aeropuerto de la NOM-081-ECOL-1994. Por ello, el cumplimiento de la NOM-081-ECOL-1994 parece depender del total de aeronaves individuales y el tráfico aéreo total.

Aunque el análisis anterior no parece apoyar la interpretación que

sugiere México en su respuesta al afirmar que la NOM-081-ECOL-1994

no es aplicable al AICM, a falta de una interpretación jurídica emitida

por la autoridad judicial competente, la cuestión de si la NOM-036-

SCT3-2000 deroga la NOM-081-ECOL-1994, o de si establece una excepción a su aplicación respecto de los aeropuertos, sigue siendo una cuestión abierta.

SEM-02-002 107
Ahora bien, aunque la petición se refiere a la aplicación de la

NOM-081-ECOL-1994 respecto del AICM como fuente de emisión de

ruido, y no a las aeronaves en particular, la información que proporcionó

México en su respuesta sobre la aplicación de la NOM-036-SCT3-2000 es

relevante al asunto que se plantea en la petición. La respuesta no detalla

este aspecto, pero es lógico suponer que la aplicación efectiva de la

NOM-036-SCT3-2000 respecto de las aeronaves que operan en la República Mexicana contribuye al abatimiento del ruido emitido por el

AICM. La respuesta de México afirma que la DGAC de la SCT vigila el

cumplimiento de la NOM-036-SCT3-2000 y que conforme a esa norma

ha otorgado un total de 417 certificados de homologación de ruido a los

concesionarios, permisionarios u operadores aéreos, correspondientes

al 30 % de la flota aérea nacional.36 Esos certificados de homologación,

que se anexan a la respuesta de México, son muestra clara de la aplicación de la NOM-036-SCT3-2000 respecto de las aeronaves que operan en

territorio mexicano.

Los Peticionarios aseveran que existen estudios que muestran que

las emisiones de ruido del AICM exceden los límites establecidos en la

NOM-081-ECOL-1994. El estudio que citan se basa en una modelación

de los niveles de ruido conforme a un procedimiento de la Agencia de

Protección Ambiental de Estados Unidos (US EPA) y con base en datos

de las aeronaves que operaron en el AICM en uno de los dos meses más

activos del año, los días 10 y 25 de agosto de 2001.37 El modelo empleado

para calcular el nivel de ruido del AICM en que los Peticionarios apoyaron su petición bastó, a pesar de sus limitaciones, para plantear cuestiones sobre la aplicación efectiva de la NOM-081-ECOL-1994 respecto del

AICM que justificaron solicitar a México una respuesta. Sin embargo, a

la luz de la información que México proporcionó en su respuesta, es

cuestionable si el estudio muestra efectivamente que el AICM viola la

NOM-081-ECOL-1994. La duda surge por la fecha de operaciones en que

se basó la estimación del estudio citado, y el hecho de que la estimación

no se realizó conforme a los métodos establecidos en la NOM-081-

ECOL-1994, o en la NOM-036-SCT3-2000, que disponen mediciones

directas, sino en una modelación que no parece haber incluido ninguna

medición directa.

En su respuesta, la Parte no admite ni niega que el AICM rebase los

límites de emisión de ruido que establece la NOM-081-ECOL-1994. Aunque la Parte afirma que el AICM no está sujeto a esos límites de emisión

de ruido para fuentes fijas, la respuesta reconoce que existe un problema

108 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

36. Véanse la página 10 y los anexos 6 y 7 de la respuesta de México.

37. Véanse las páginas 2, 5 a 7 y los anexos 1 y 2 de la petición.
de ruido ligado a la aviación comercial y muestra que se han realizado

acciones para resolverlo: la expedición de la NOM-036-SCT3-2000 y su

cumplimiento, a partir del 31 de diciembre de 2001, por el 30 % de la flota

aérea nacional. Para el 31 de diciembre de 2004, el 100 % de la flota aérea

deberá cumplir con esta norma. El estudio en el que se basa la petición no

parece haber considerado el posible efecto de estas acciones sobre el

nivel de ruido emitido por el AICM. De no haberlo considerado, es concebible que la estimación del nivel de ruido emitido por el AICM haya

sido obsoleta al momento de presentarse la petición, en febrero de 2002.

Además, es previsible que el nivel de ruido siga modificándose conforme el resto de las aeronaves cumplan con los límites establecidos en la

NOM-036-SCT3-2000 en los plazos correspondientes. La cuestión de si

México incurre en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de los límites de

emisión de ruido respecto del AICM es un aspecto técnico y puntual del

problema de ruido causado por el tráfico aéreo de la Ciudad de México.

Sin cuestionar la importancia de este problema, para que esta cuestión

puntual amerite la elaboración de un expediente de hechos, debe haber

mayor certeza que la que se desprende de la petición a la luz de la respuesta de México, sobre si de hecho las emisiones de ruido del AICM

violan la legislación ambiental.

En vista de los aspectos equívocos (de hecho y de derecho) que

se han identificado a la luz de la respuesta de México, el Secretariado

considera que la aseveración de que México incurre en omisiones en la

aplicación efectiva de los artículos 155 de la LGEEPA y la NOM-081-

ECOL-1994 respecto del AICM no amerita la elaboración de un expediente de hechos. Esta determinación se hace sin perjuicio de que sea

legítima la preocupación que los Peticionarios han expresado por los

efectos potenciales del ruido proveniente del AICM en la población que

vive en sus inmediaciones.

2. Aplicación efectiva de los artículos 189 al 202 de la LGEEPA y

80 al 84 de la LADF

En lo que concierne a las aseveraciones de que la Parte está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de los artículos 189 al 202

de la LGEEPA y 80 al 84 de LADF, respecto de la denuncia popular y la

denuncia ciudadana presentadas por el señor Jorge Rafael Martínez

Azuela en octubre y noviembre de 2001, respectivamente, la respuesta

de México proporcionó información detallada sobre el trámite que las

autoridades dieron a esas denuncias posteriormente a la presentación de

esta petición.

SEM-02-002 109
En cuanto a la denuncia popular del 31 de octubre de 2001, al

momento de presentarse la petición (en enero de 2002), la Dirección

General de Desarrollo Delegacional de la Delegación Venustiano

Carranza del Distrito Federal ya había respondido al denunciante

mediante el oficio DGDD/065-0 de fecha 15 de enero de 2002.38 Por su

parte, la SCT y el Gobierno del Distrito Federal enviaron al Peticionario

en el mes de abril de 2002 sus respuestas respectivas.39

En cuanto a la denuncia ciudadana presentada por el Peticionario

ante el Gobierno del Distrito Federal, mediante acuerdo del 22 de

abril de 2002 (Oficio SMA/DGRGAASR/DVA6009/2002), la Dirección

General de Gestión y Regulación Ambiental del Agua, Suelo y Residuos

de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente se declaró incompetente en la materia de la denuncia.40 En ese mismo oficio, la autoridad local notificó el

asunto a la Profepa e informó al denunciante “que deberá reiniciar los

trámites ante la autoridad competente ya mencionada”.41

El Secretariado considera que ha quedado suficientemente documentado el trámite que recayó a ambas denuncias.42 Aunque podrían

señalarse algunas posibles irregularidades en el trámite de estas denuncias, el Secretariado considera que son asuntos demasiado puntuales y

de alcance limitado, que en este caso no ameritan la elaboración de un

expediente de hechos.43 El Secretariado no considera que elaborar información adicional sobre estas presuntas omisiones contribuiría a la consecución de las metas del ACAAN.44

V. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

El Secretariado de la CCA ha revisado la petición SEM-02-002

(Aeropuerto de la Ciudad de México) presentada por Jorge Rafael

110 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

38. Véase el anexo 4 de la respuesta de México.

39. Véanse las páginas 4 a 6 y los anexos 2, 3 y 4 de la respuesta de México.

40. Véase la página 2 del anexo 1 de la respuesta de México.

41. Idem, página 3.

42. Véanse: Supra, página 4, las páginas 2 a 6 y los anexos 1 a 5 de la respuesta de

México, y el oficio presentado en la petición como anexo 4.

43. Las posibles irregularidades que se observan consisten en la falta de determinación

oportuna al denunciante sobre el trámite que se dio a su denuncia popular (artículo

191 de la LGEEPA, tercer párrafo), y la aparente omisión de la Profepa de llevar a

cabo las diligencias necesarias con el propósito de determinar la existencia de actos,

hechos u omisiones constitutivos de la denuncia (artículo 192 de la LGEEPA,

segundo párrafo).

44. Esto sin perjuicio de que en otras ocasiones el Secretariado sí considere meritorio

abordar en un expediente de hechos supuestas omisiones en la aplicación efectiva

del trámite de la denuncia popular. Véase por ejemplo, SEM-00-006 (Tarahumara)

Determinación conforme al artículo 15(1) (29 de agosto de 2002).
Martínez Azuela, et Al., conforme al artículo 15(1) del ACAAN. En vista

de los aspectos equívocos (de hecho y de derecho) que se han identificado a la luz de la respuesta de México, y que se explican en esta determinación, el Secretariado considera que la aseveración de que México

incurre en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de los artículos 155 de la

LGEEPA y la NOM-081-ECOL-1994 respecto del AICM no amerita la

elaboración de un expediente de hechos. Para que esta cuestión puntual

amerite la elaboración de un expediente de hechos debe haber mayor

certeza que la que se desprende de la petición a la luz de la respuesta de

México, sobre si de hecho las emisiones de ruido del AICM violan la

legislación ambiental. El Secretariado también considera que ha quedado suficientemente documentado el trámite que recayó a las denuncias respecto de las que, según la petición, México está incurriendo en

omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de los artículos 189 al 202 de la

LGEEPA y 80 al 84 de LADF. Por ello, sin perjuicio de que sea legítima la

preocupación que los Peticionarios han expresado por los efectos potenciales del ruido proveniente del AICM en la población que vive en sus

inmediaciones, el Secretariado considera que esta petición no amerita la

elaboración de un expediente de hechos.

Conforme a lo dispuesto por el apartado 9.6 de las Directrices,

el Secretariado da por concluido el proceso respecto de la petición

SEM-02-002 (Aeropuerto de la Ciudad de México) y explica sus razones

a los Peticionarios y al Consejo de la CCA en este documento. Esta determinación se refiere exclusivamente a los alegatos contenidos en esa petición, y no contempla otros aspectos del asunto planteados fuera de la

petición, o que pudieran plantearse en una petición distinta.

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Victor Shantora

Director Ejecutivo Interino

cc: Dra. Olga Ojeda Cárdenas, Semarnat

Sra. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Sra. Judith Ayres, US-EPA

Sr. Jorge Rafael Martínez Azuela

SEM-02-002 111

SEM-02-003

(Pulp and Paper)

SUBMITTERS: SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND ET AL.

PARTY: CANADA

DATE: 8 May 2002

SUMMARY: The submitters allege that Canada is failing to

effectively enforce the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act and provisions of

the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations, or PPER,

against pulp and paper mills in Quebec, Ontario

and the Atlantic provinces. Section 36 of the Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of a deleterious

substance in water frequented by fish, except as

authorized by regulations such as the PPER. Failure to comply with these regulations is punishable by fines and jail time.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 15(1)

(8 October 2003)

Notification to Council that a factual record is

warranted in accordance with Article 15(1).

113

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Article 15(1) Notification to Council that

Development of a Factual Record is Warranted

Submission Number: SEM-02-003 (Pulp and Paper)

Submitter(s): Friends of the Earth

Union Saint-Laurent, Grands Lacs

Conservation Council of New Brunswick

Ecology Action Centre

Environment North

Represented by: Sierra Legal Defence Fund (SLDF)

Concerned Party: Canada

Date of Receipt: 8 May 2002

Date of this Notification: 8 October 2003

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Article 14 of theNorth American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) creates a mechanism for citizens to file submissions in

which they assert that a Party to the NAAEC is failing to effectively

enforce its environmental law. The Secretariat of the North American

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”) initially

considers these submissions based on criteria contained in Article 14(1)

of the NAAEC. When the Secretariat determines that a submission

meets these criteria, the Secretariat then determines, based on factors

contained in Article 14(2), whether the submission merits requesting a

response from the Party named in the submission. In light of any

response from the Party, the Secretariat may inform the Council that the

Secretariat considers that development of a factual record is warranted

115
(Article 15(1)). By a two-thirds vote, the Council may instruct the Secretariat to prepare a factual record (Article 15(2)).

On 8 May 2002, the Submitters listed above filed a submission,

along with supporting materials, asserting that Canada is failing to

effectively enforce sections 34, 36, 40, 78 and 78.1 of the federal Fisheries

Act and sections 5 and 6 and Schedules I and II of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (PPER) promulgated in 1992, against pulp and paper

mills in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces (i.e., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland). Section 36 of the Fisheries Act

prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance in water frequented by

fish unless the deposit is authorized by regulation, such as the PPER. The

Submitters allege that, despite reductions in pulp mill effluent pollution

since the coming into force of the PPER, in the period from 1995 to 2000

there were more than 2,400 documented violations of the PPER at mills

in central and eastern Canada, and very few prosecutions. The submission and its appendices provide information on alleged violations at

approximately 70 of the 116 mills that the Submitters identify, with

twelve mills highlighted as mills of particular concern to the Submitters.

The Submitters request the preparation of a factual record.

On 7 June 2002, the Secretariat determined that the submission

meets the requirements of Article 14(1) of the NAAEC and requested a

response from the Party in accordance with Article 14(2).1 Canada submitted its response on 6 August 2002. The response explains Canada’s

general approach to enforcing the PPER and the Fisheries Act and provides the general policy framework for the decisions taken in connection

with mills identified in the submission. Canada then provides information with respect to federal enforcement responses from 1995–2000 in

regard to the twelve mills for which the Submitters raised particular concerns.2 For five mills, although some information was provided, Canada

explained that it would not provide further information in light of investigations that were ongoing at the time the response was prepared.

The Secretariat has concluded that the response leaves open central questions that the submission raises regarding enforcement of s.

36(3) and the PPER at the mills of concern in the submission and the

information attached to it. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 15(1),

the Secretariat hereby informs the Council that the Secretariat considers

that the submission, in light of the Party’s response, warrants developing a factual record and provides its reasons.

116 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. SEM-02-003 (Pulp and Paper), Determination under Articles 14(1) and (2) (7 June

2002).

2. For ten of the mills, only information from 2000 is provided.
II. SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The Submitters assert that Canada is failing to effectively enforce

sections 34, 36, 40, 78 and 78.1 of the federal Fisheries Act and sections 5

and 6 and Schedules I and II of the PPER against pulp and paper mills in

Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

A. General Assertions

The Submitters first provide general assertions regarding the

amount and pollutant content of effluent from Canada’s 157 pulp and

paper mills, contending the mills have “added tonnes of harmful substances to our waterways and caused extensive harm to aquatic ecosystems.3” They claim that the pulp and paper industry made progress in

investing in environmental upgrades in the early 1990s but that those

investments have dropped sharply since 1995.4

Next, the Submitters describe the pollution prevention provisions

of the Fisheries Act and the PPER that they contend Canada is failing to

effectively enforce in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. They

note that under the Fisheries Act, “it is an offense to deposit a deleterious

substance of any type in water frequented by fish that renders the water

deleterious to fish or fish habitat, unless the deposit is authorized by regulation.5” They identify as relevant to their submission two provisions

of the federal Fisheries Act Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions Compliance and Enforcement Policy (Compliance and Enforcement

Policy). First is the policy that “fair, predictable, and consistent enforcement govern the application of the law, and responses by enforcement

personnel to alleged violations.6” Second is the intent stated in the Compliance and Enforcement Policy “to ensure that violators will comply with

the Fisheries Act within the shortest possible time, that violations are not

repeated and that all available enforcement tools are used.7”

The Submitters note that the 1991 PPER regulations, which took

effect in July 1992, define acutely lethal effluent, biochemical oxygen

demand (or BOD) matter and total suspended solids (or TSS) as deleterious under the Fisheries Act. According to the Submitters, the PPER

authorize levels of BOD and TSS that do exceed specified maximum

quantities as long as certain conditions are met, but (at least since 1995)

SEM-02-003 117

3. Submission at 3.

4. Submission at 3.

5. Submission at 3. See Fisheries Act s. 36(3).

6. Submission at 4 (quoting Compliance and Enforcement Policy, Introduction).

7. Submission at 4.
they strictly prohibit acutely lethal effluent.8The Submitters describe the

conditions for discharges of TSS and BOD matter as “relating to monitoring equipment, monitoring reports, preparing a remedial plan in case

the effluent fails certain acute-lethality tests, preparing and implementing an emergency response plan, and preparing environmental effects

monitoring studies.9”

They also describe the test methods and effluent monitoring

requirements for BOD, TSS and acute lethality and note that each day on

which the PPER are violated constitutes a separate offense. They note

that trout acute-lethality test failure is an automatic PPER (and hence

Fisheries Act) violation that requires accelerated follow-up testing, and

that failure of an acute-lethality test for Daphnia magna, while not an

automatic violation, also requires follow-up test procedures. For both

kinds of acute-lethality test, failure to conduct follow-up test procedures

as required violates the PPER and the Fisheries Act. Testing for BOD levels and TSS is described as more straightforward. If testing shows levels

of BOD or TSS above those authorized, the deposit is not authorized, violates the PPER and is an offense under the Fisheries Act. The submitters

say that according to the Compliance and Enforcement Policy, every suspected violation is to be examined for action ranging from a warning to

prosecution. Violations of s. 36(3) are punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding C$300,000 for a first offense and C$300,000

plus imprisonment not exceeding six months for subsequent offenses,

and for an indictable offense a fine not exceeding $1 million for a first

offense and a fine not exceeding $1 million and imprisonment not

exceeding three years for subsequent offenses.

B. Assertions Regarding Mills in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic

Provinces

The Submitters next present in detail their assertion that Canada is

failing to effectively enforce the Fisheries Act and the PPER in regard to

pulp and paper mills in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. The

two categories of noncompliance for which they contend enforcement is

deficient are (1) failure to meet a “deleterious substances” effluent test

(that is, either a BOD test, a TSS test or a trout acute-lethality test) and (2)

118 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

8. Submission at 5. The submitters describe transitional authorizations under the

PPER. Under ss. 20-26, subject to conditions with a view to coming into compliance,

mills unable to comply were allowed to exceed PPER limits and discharge acutely

lethal effluent between 1 December 1992, and 31 December 1993, or under “extraordinary circumstances” and for reasons “beyond the control” of the mill operator,

until 31 December 1995.

9. Submission at 5.
failure to conduct follow-up testing as required when there is an effluent

test failure. The submission and its appendices provide information on

alleged violations at approximately 70 of the 116 mills that the Submitters identify, with twelve mills highlighted as mills of particular concern

to the Submitters.

In regard to Quebec, the Submitters obtained data that they claim

show 960 acute-lethality, BOD and TSS violations from 1995 to 2000 at

nine mills. They claim that in 2000, 26 Quebec mills had 171 violations

(presumably acute lethality, BOD and TSS violations); 24 mills failed

the trout acute-lethality test, 33.3 percent of which also violated follow-up test procedures; and 28 mills, after failing the Daphnia magna

acute-lethality test, violated the acute-lethality follow-up procedures.10

In all, the Submitters claim that there were at least 250 reported potential offenses for failure to follow the PPER follow-up test procedures

throughout Quebec in 2000. The Submitters claim that, despite these

offenses, they could find no Fisheries Act prosecutions or convictions of

any Quebec mills, and they state that they are particularly concerned

about apparent lack of effective enforcement at six mills, based on data

from 2000. Of these, they highlight especially the Tembec Inc. mill in

Témiscaming, for which they claim no prosecution was brought for noncompliance with either federal or provincial effluent regulations despite

an alleged 275 reported violations from 1995 through 2000.

With regard to Ontario’s 33 regulated pulp and paper mills, the

Submitters highlight the data for 13 mills that had over 225 acutelethality, BOD and TSS test failures between 1996 and 2000. In 2000

alone, the Submitters claim that 7 mills were responsible for 18 such test

failures, that six of those mills failed the trout acute-lethality test and that

two of the mills also failed the trout lethality test follow-up procedures.

They also claim that nine mills violated the Daphnia magna follow-up

procedures. In all, the Submitters claim there were at least 94 follow-up

test procedure violations at Ontario mills in 2000. The Submitters assert

that from 1995 to 2000, six Ontario mills were prosecuted under the

PPER, which they believe explains the lower number of alleged violations in Ontario as compared to Quebec and the Atlantic provinces,

where the Submitters claim there have been fewer prosecutions. Nonetheless, on the basis of 2000 data, the Submitters identify two Ontario

mills for which they “have concerns about the apparent lack of effective

enforcement of the federal laws.11”

SEM-02-003 119

10. Appendix 6 to the submission provides a flowchart showing the acute lethality

testing procedures and the points at which violations occur.

11. Submission at 9.
The Submitters obtained only partial data for the approximately 22

mills in the Atlantic provinces for the years 1995 to 2000 and claim therefore that they understate the number of alleged violations in those provinces. According to the Submitters, the data they obtained show that 19

mills reported 1,081 acute-lethality, BOD and TSS violations from 1995

to 2000. The Submitters did not calculate alleged follow-up test procedure violations for the Atlantic provinces. They claim that despite the

number of alleged test failure violations, they found only “two prosecutions of mills in the Atlantic Region under the federal laws since the

PPER came into force.12” Based on 2000 data, the Submitters are particularly concerned about the apparent lack of effective enforcement regarding four mills in the Atlantic provinces. According to the Submitters, the

mill in the Atlantic provinces with the most alleged violations from 1995

to 2000, the Irving Saint John mill, was prosecuted under the federal laws

in 1998 but still had 22 alleged test failure violations and an unknown

number of alleged follow-up test violations in 2000.

The Submitters contend that the exclusions in NAAEC Article

45(1) from the definition of “failure to effectively enforce environmental

law” do not apply. They claim that Canada’s alleged failure to effectively enforce the Fisheries Act and the PPER do not reflect a reasonable

exercise of discretion or result from bona fide decisions to allocate resources to other enforcement matters within the meaning of Article 45(1).

Among other things, they assert that “[i]t is not a reasonable exercise of

discretion where an available enforcement tool, such as prosecutions, is

used so infrequently in the face of widespread and numerous violations.13”

C. Request for a Factual Record

Finally, the Submitters present information in support of their contention that the submission meets the requirements of Article 14(1)(a)-(f)

and that the submission merits requesting a response from Canada

based on the criteria in Article 14(2). They ask the CEC to prepare a factual record on enforcement of cited provisions of the Fisheries Act and the

PPER with respect to the mills in Quebec, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces that they identify in the submission.

III. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSE

Canada’s response provides clarifying information on the general

basis of the enforcement decisions of the Government of Canada and a

120 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

12. Submission at 10.

13. Submission at 11.
description of enforcement decisions regarding specific cases raised by

the Submitters.

A. Clarifying Information

Canada first provides “clarifying information” regarding Canada’s approach to enforcing the PPER and the Fisheries Act, so as to

“assist the reader in understanding the facts pertaining to the specific

cases identified in the submission as of particular concern to the Submitters.14” Canada describes the role of fishery inspectors in conducting

inspections and investigations and choosing the appropriate response if

the inspector has reason to believe that an offense has been committed.15

Canada states that, consistent with the Compliance and Enforcement

Policy, it will “choose the appropriate response such as a warning,

inspector’s direction, prosecution, etc.16” Canada explains that “[t]he

response to a violation will be chosen taking into account the nature of

the violation, the likelihood of achieving the desired result (i.e., compliance with the Fisheries Act in the shortest possible time and no further

occurrence of violations), and consistency in enforcement.17” The

response provides criteria taken into account in assessing these factors.

Canada states that the “ultimate decision on whether or not to proceed

with a prosecution of the charges rest [sic] with the Attorney General of

Canada.18”

Canada then describes methodologies for determining compliance

under the PPER. Canada notes that the margins of error in the methodologies for determining compliance of effluent with the regulated limits

for biological oxygen demand (BOD), and total suspended solids (TSS)

may affect decisions on enforcement, especially as to whether a conviction may be obtained in accordance with the criminal burden of proof

(guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).19

B. Enforcement Decisions for Specific Mills

The main body of Canada’s response is a discussion of its actions in

connection with twelve specific mills identified in the submission,

divided into sections on the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Ontario.

SEM-02-003 121

14. Response at 2.

15. Response at 3.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Response at 4.

19. Response at 4-5.
1. Atlantic provinces

In regard to four mills in the Atlantic provinces, Canada states that

it subjected the mills’ monthly effluent reports to an “off-site inspection”

or review of the data. In cases of exceedance of TSS or BOD limits or the

prohibition on acutely lethal effluent, the response states that from

1995–2000, it was routine practice of Environment Canada Fisheries Act

inspectors to discuss the exceedances with Environment Canada specialists in the operation of pulp and paper mills.

a. Irving Pulp and Paper Ltd., Saint John, New Brunswick

The response provides information regarding the Irving Pulp and

Paper Ltd. in Saint John, New Brunswick, for the period 1995 through

2000. The response states that this mill did not come into compliance

with the PPER as required at the end of 1995 because of delays in environmental assessment approval from the province for a conventional

treatment facility and the subsequent inability of the mill to complete in

time the internal mill process changes it pursued as an alternate route to

compliance.

In 1996, of the mill reported 481 test failures, including 157 failures

of the trout acute-lethality test. In January, Environment Canada began

an investigation of alleged PPER violations at the mill. Environment

Canada closed the investigation after the mill indicated that modifications to the mill would achieve compliance by September. Federal

inspectors also conducted an on-site inspection and issued the mill a

written warning in July for exceedances of the BOD limit and for acute

lethality. An effluent sample taken in December failed the trout lethality

test.

In 1997, the mill reported 127 test failures. At an April meeting

between representatives of Environment Canada, the provincial department and the mill, Irving presented a plan to meet the requirements of

the PPER. In June, Environment Canada requested a tighter schedule

and after project delays in August and September, “began to examine

enforcement options.20”

In 1998, the mill reported 80 test failures. In the early spring of 1998,

effluent collected under a search warrant failed the trout test and the mill

was charged for Fisheries Act violations. In August, the mill was charged

a second time under s. 36(3) for the discharge of green liquor and the

122 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

20. Response at 7.
company pled guilty and was fined $50,000. After the company

“fine-tuned the operation of the internal treatment systems it had

installed to meet the regulatory limits,21” reports and tests showed a

reduced number of acute-lethality test failures, some non-lethal samples

and improved, but still non-conforming, levels of BOD that the mill

began to address. Following consultations with Environment Canada

officials, in October 1998, the Attorney General advised that a prosecution was not warranted.

In 1999, the mill reported a total of 11 test failures. The internal

changes made in 1998 generally allowed the Irving mill to meet all discharge limits except the monthly limit on BOD. Environment Canada

process specialists indicated that the mill was making progress on this

problem. The mill subsequently failed some acute-lethality tests, but by

October, the effluent passed.

In 2000, the mill reported 25 exceedances, including six failures of

trout acute-lethality tests. Two trout test failures came in February,

attributed by the mill to start-up after a shutdown; and two more in

April said to be due to a membrane leak in the treatment reverse osmosis

unit. The response states: “In a manner consistent with the factors to consider before taking action with respect to an alleged violation, Environment Canada decided that the mill had reported corrective action and

that no action on the inspector’s part was required.22” The mill attributed a further failure in June to maintenance work. Environment Canada subsequently conducted an on-site inspection and all the samples

taken passed the trout lethality test. The mill reported failure of a trout

lethality test failure in December, after which the follow-up tests passed

as required. Hence Environment Canada took no action. The mill

explained that the 19 reported failures of TSS and BOD tests were due to

maintenance activities or were corrected, and some exceedances were

within the margin of precision. Environment Canada therefore took no

action.23

b. AV Cell Inc. at Atholville, New Brunswick

The response reports 35 alleged violations by this mill in 2000. As

regards 10 failures of the trout acute-lethality test, the mill set up a “trouble-shooting” team but the test failures continued. Both Environment

Canada and the New Brunswick Environment Department conducted

SEM-02-003 123

21. Ibid.

22. Response at 9.

23. Response at 10-11.
on-site sampling, and the province proceeded with a prosecution for

failure of the trout lethality tests. In these circumstances, Environment

Canada took no enforcement measures. The mill pled guilty to the provincial charge and was fined $30,000. The mill reported failures of the

TSS limits in every month from January to May and of BOD in February,

March and July. The mill attributed these test failures to maintenance, a

temporary shutdown and a process change, and took corrective action.

Environment Canada decided not to act. Canada says that the PPER

allows for an authorization for higher emissions associated with process

changes, and that the mill applied and received such an authorization in

May 2000.

c. Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., Grand Falls, Newfoundland

This mill reported nine failures of the trout acute-lethality test in

April, May, June, November and December of 2000. Process changes

made prior to December did not prevent the December test failure. Environment Canada inspectors conducted on-site inspections in June and

July and executed a search warrant and took effluent samples in December. All of the Environment Canada samples passed the trout lethality

test.

d. Bowater Mersey Paper Company Ltd., Brooklyn, Nova Scotia

In 2000, this mill reported 16 test failures, including 13 trout

acute-lethality test failures and three daily TSS failures. On the basis of

an “adequate compliance history” and “ongoing corrective measures,”

Environment Canada took no immediate action for two trout test failures reported in January.24 Following another acute-lethality test in

June, Environment Canada took samples that passed the test, and the

mill took corrective action. The mill reported no test failures after October, and an Environment Canada sample taken in January 2001 passed.

In view of the mill’s corrective action, Environment Canada decided to

take no action in regard to the trout test failures. After the mill reported a

TSS test failure in January, it installed a new system for removing solids,

which was complete in December. The mill attributed TSS test failures in

April 2000 to the dredging of its treatment system.

2. Quebec

With respect to mills in Quebec, Canada’s response explains that

consistent with the spirit of an expired federal-provincial agreement, the

124 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

24. Response at 15.
six mills discussed in the response submitted monthly effluent reports

under the PPER to the province, which served as a “single window” for

information required under both provincial and federal legislation. The

province then forwarded the information to Environment Canada. The

federal-provincial agreement expired in 2000.25

a. Tembec Inc., Témiscaming, Québec

The response explains that this mill had a transitional authorization that expired in December 1995 and that the mill had complied with

the conditions of the authorization. The response then provides information regarding the mill for the years 1996 through 2000.

For 1996, the mill reported 25 failures of the monthly trout lethality

test and 82 failures of the weekly follow-up trout lethality test, with failures of both in every month of the year. Environment Canada reviewed

the effluent reports and contacted the Quebec Ministry of the Environment (QME), which issued notices of violation of the provincial law in

May and September 1996 and January and February 1997. The QME

requested a corrective action plan, which the mill finalized in July 1996.

Environment Canada took into account the actions of the province.

In 1997, the mill failed monthly or weekly trout acute-lethality tests

in every month, for a total of 66 failures. The mill also reported four failures of TSS or BOD tests. Environment Canada inspector reviewed the

effluent reports and consulted with the province. QME indicated that it

issued notices of violation in April, July, September, October, November

and December 1997 and in January and February 1998. Environment

Canada took into account the actions of the province.

In 1998, the mill reported failures of trout acute-lethality tests in

every month. The mill reported failure of daily TSS tests on 16 occasions.

QME requested a corrective plan from the mill and approved it in May

1998. QME also issued notices of infraction in every month from May to

October 1998 and in February 1999. Environment Canada initiated an

investigation in April 1998.26

In 1999, the mill reported 20 failures of the monthly or weekly trout

acute-lethality tests and nine failures of the daily TSS test. The mill

reportedly continued to work to achieve the requirements of its 1998 corrective action plan, and QME issued notices of infraction every month

SEM-02-003 125

25. Response at 17.

26. Response at 21.
from March through September. Environment Canada’s investigation

continued.

In 2000, the mill reported five failures of the monthly or weekly

trout acute-lethality test and three failures of the daily TSS limit. QME

issued notices of infraction in April and July. In October, the Attorney

General advised Environment Canada that a prosecution was not warranted. The mill took corrective action that according to Canada “significantly improved its rate of conformity from 1997 to 2000.27”

b. The five other Quebec mills

For the remaining five Quebec mills discussed in the response,

Canada provides information for the year 2000. For the Fjordcell Inc. mill

at Jonquière, the Tembec Inc. mill at St. Raymond and the La Compagnie

J. Ford Ltd. mill at Portneuf, Canada provides a summary of the effluent

reports for each mill but limited additional information because of

investigations that were pending at the time of the response. The investigations were initiated in July, August and September 2000. The response

states that the Uniforêt-Pâte Port Cartier Inc. mill at Port-Cartier

reported 24 failures of daily TSS and BOD tests and monthly trout

acute-lethality tests and that Environment Canada issued written warnings. The response states that the mill ceased operating in February 2001.

The response indicates that the F.F. Soucy Inc. mill at Rivière-du-Loup

was in compliance throughout 2000.

3. Ontario

The response addresses the concerns raised by the Submitters with

respect to two Ontario mills in 2000, the Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., mill

in Iroquois Falls and the Interlake Papers mill in St. Catherines. In light

of investigations begun at the Abitibi Consolidated mill in October 2001

and at the Interlake Papers mill in October 2000, both of which were

ongoing at the time of the response, Canada provided only limited information regarding these two mills.

IV. ANALYSIS

The Secretariat considers that the submission, in light of Canada’s

response, warrants developing a factual record as recommended in this

126 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

27. Response at 23.
notification.28 The reasons for the Secretariat’s recommendation are set

forth below.

To reach this stage, the Secretariat must first determine that a submission meets the criteria in Article 14(1) and that it merits requesting a

response from the Party based upon a review of the factors in Article

14(2). As indicated above, on 7 June 2002, the Secretariat determined that

the submission meets the criteria for continued review included in Article 14(1) and that, based on the factors in Article 14(2), the submission

warranted a response from the Party.29

A. Why a factual record is warranted

This submission seeks a factual record regarding enforcement of

the Fisheries Act, one of the principal federal environmental statutes in

Canada, in regard to one of Canada’s important industrial sectors, the

pulp and paper industry. In the submission and supporting materials

attached to it, the Submitters describe the environmental, economic and

trade significance of the pulp and paper industry. They call it “Canada’s

largest net export sector30” and describe the significant water use and

discharge of organic waste and chemicals associated with pulp and

paper production processes used in Canada.31 They note the public concern regarding pollutant discharges from pulp and paper mills that led

to the promulgation of the PPER in 1991. Both the submission and the

response allude to the challenges that the pulp and paper industry and

the government face in striving to achieve compliance with the Fisheries

Act and the PPER in the pulp and paper sector. The submission emphasizes the Submitters’ concern over a perceived lack of prosecutions to

enforce and assure compliance with the PPER and the Fisheries Act.

Canada’s response to the submission provides a considerable

amount of information regarding the federal government’s actions in

regard to twelve specific mills mentioned in the submission. Nonetheless, it leaves open central questions regarding Canada’s enforcement of

the relevant provisions of the Fisheries Act and the PPER at the mills of

SEM-02-003 127

28. On 16 October 2002, the Submitters sent to the Secretariat a brief “reply” to Canada’s response. Neither the NAAEC nor the Guidelines make any provision for a

reply to a response. Consistent with its practice to date, the Secretariat did not consider the Submitters’ reply in conducting its review under Article 15(1) but will

retain the reply for possible consideration during the preparation of a factual

record, should the Council instruct the Secretariat to prepare one.

29. SEM-02-003 (Pulp and Paper), Determination in accordance with Article 14(1) and

(2) (7 June 2002).

30. Submission at 2.

31. Submission at 2-3.
concern. A factual record would afford a thorough and detailed factual

examination relevant to those open questions so as to allow a more comprehensive consideration of whether Canada is failing to effectively

enforce those laws as the Submitters assert.

Although the primary focus of the submission is on twelve specific

mills, the Submitters provide information regarding the Fisheries Act and

PPER compliance record for 1995 through 2000 at approximately 116

mills in eastern Canada, noting over 2,400 alleged violations. Appendices 5 and 7 to the submission, in particular, provide considerable detail

regarding those alleged violations. The Secretariat considered the information regarding the twelve mills of heightened concern in light of the

extensive information provided in regard to numerous other mills as

well. With this comprehensive view of the submission in mind, the following sections explain why a factual record is warranted to present

detailed information regarding matters that the submission and Canada’s response leave open.

1. Failure to conduct acute-lethality tests and follow-up tests

The submission focuses in part on Canada’s alleged failure to effectively enforce the Fisheries Act and PPER when pulp and paper mills do

not conduct required acute-lethality tests and follow-up tests.32 A factual record is warranted to present a clearer and more comprehensive set

of factual information regarding acute-lethality test failures and failures

to conduct follow-up as required.

Additional information is especially warranted in regard to follow-up testing. Appendix 7 to the submission provides detailed information regarding 344 alleged failures to conduct follow-up tests as

required by 48 mills in Ontario and Quebec in 2000. The federal government’s investigation of two of the Ontario mills, discussed in Canada’s

response, indicates that Canada considers failure to conduct follow-up

tests to be a potential compliance problem meriting investigation.33

Although the response provides some information on some of the mills’

reporting of follow-up tests for trout lethality,34 the picture it presents

regarding follow-up testing for trout lethality is far from complete, and it

provides almost no information regarding testing and follow-up testing

for Daphnia lethality. The response also does not address the Submitters’

emphasis on the magnification of the extent of alleged noncompliance

that occurs because each day of noncompliance constitutes a separate

128 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

32. Submission, at 5 and 8.

33. Response at 27-28.

34. See, e.g., Response at 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 24 and 27.
offense under the Fisheries Act. Under this continuing offense provision,

the Submitters contend that the 344 alleged failures to conduct follow-up tests as required resulted in 1,406 alleged violations.

In addition, unexplained discrepancies exist between the submission and response regarding the number of test failures at the mills of

concern. For example, for the F.F. Soucy Inc. mill in Rivière-du-Loup,

Quebec, Canada indicates that it found no instances of noncompliance in

2000.35 By contrast, the Submitters allege that in 2000 the mill had four

test failure violations and 36 violations for failure to conduct follow-up

tests as required.36 Discrepancies between the submission and response

also exist in regard to test failures at the Irving Pulp and Paper mill at

Saint John,37 the AV Cell mill at Atholville,38 the Tembec mill at Témiscaming,39 and the Fjordcell mill in Jonquière.40 A factual record would

afford an opportunity to develop and present factual information in

regard to such discrepancies, in particular those for which the submission alleges a greater number of failures than are reported in Canada’s

response.

2. Canada’s consideration of provincial enforcement action

Several times in its response, Canada makes note of provincial

enforcement action and in some cases states that Canada took such

SEM-02-003 129

35. Response at 26.

36. Submission at 8, Appendix 5 at 2, Appendix 7 at 9-10.

37. Compare Submission, Appendix 5 at 14 (106 BOD test failures and 97 trout lethality

test failures in 1996) with Response at 6 (324 BOD test failures and 157 trout

lethality test failures in 1996); compare Submission, Appendix 5 at 14 (49 trout

lethality test failures in 1997) with Response at 6 (51 trout lethality test failures in

1997); and compare Submission, Appendix 5 at 15 (7 monthly BOD test failures and

5 trout lethality test failures in 2000) with Response (9 monthly BOD test failures

and 6 trout lethality test failures in 2000).

38. Compare Submission, Appendix 5 at 15 (4 monthly TSS test failures and 9 trout

lethality test failures in 2000) with Response at 11 (5 monthly TSS test failures and

10 trout lethality test failures in 2000).

39. Compare Submission, Appendix 5, at 5 (1 daily TSS test failure and 25 trout

lethality test failures in 1996) with Response at 18 (no daily TSS test failures and 21

trout lethality test failures in 1996); compare Submission, Appendix 5 at 6 (5 daily

TSS test failures and 65 trout lethality test failures in 1997) with Response at 19 (1

daily TSS test failure and 66 trout lethality test failures in 1997); compare Submission, Appendix 5 at 6 (7 daily TSS test failures and 44 trout lethality test failures in

1998) with Response at 20 (16 daily TSS test failures and 78 trout lethality test failures in 1998); compare Submission, Appendix 5 at 6 (8 daily TSS test failures and 25

trout lethality test failures in 1999) with Response at 22 (9 daily TSS test failures and

20 trout lethality test failures in 1999); and compare Submission, Appendix 5 at 8 (2

daily TSS test failures in 2000) with Response at 23 (3 daily TSS test failures in 2000).

40. Compare Submission, Appendix 5 at 8 (28 BOD test failures and 9 trout lethality

test failures in 2000) with Response at 24 (28 BOD test failures and 7 trout lethality

test failures in 2000).
action into account in determining how to respond to possible noncompliance with the PPER or the Fisheries Act at various mills.41 The Submitters do not assert that any of the provinces are failing to effectively

enforce provincial environmental laws, and the Secretariat is not proposing that a factual record is warranted to consider any such assertion.

However, information regarding provincial enforcement action may be

relevant to a consideration of whether the federal government is failing

to effectively enforce provisions of the Fisheries Act and the PPER if the

federal government took provincial action into account in determining

its own enforcement response. A factual record is warranted to present

in more detail facts regarding the manner and extent to which the federal

government took into account action, such as approval of corrective

action plans, notices of infractions or other enforcement-related measures, that provincial officials took in regard to certain mills.42 More

detailed information than is included in Canada’s response regarding

federal-provincial administrative agreements or other federalprovincial arrangements on enforcement of the Fisheries Act would

also be relevant to understanding Canada’s consideration of provincial

enforcement activity.

By way of illustration, factual information regarding the relation of

provincial enforcement actions to federal enforcement responses is relevant in regard to the Submitters’ assertion of a total absence of federal

prosecution for alleged violations of the Fisheries Act and the PPER in

connection with Quebec mills.43 The Submission gives minimal information on prosecutions of pulp and paper mills under Quebec law.44

Similarly, Canada’s response indicates in several places that QME’s

issuance of notices of infraction was a factor relevant to federal decisions

on compliance and enforcement responses.45 However, the response

does not explain the nature and terms of those notices of infraction, the

effect those notices had in achieving compliance, any sanctions obtained

in connection with the notices or other information regarding the notices

that may have been relevant to the federal government’s consideration

of them. To present a complete picture, a factual record would also allow

for a more detailed presentation of facts regarding other examples, such

as Canada’s decision not to take enforcement in connection with alleged

ongoing discharge of acutely lethal effluent by the AV Cell mill in New

Brunswick in view of provincial charges leading to a fine of $30,000.46

130 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

41. Response at 12, 18, 19, 21-25, 27.

42. Response at 7, 11-12, 18-19, 21, 22-27.

43. Submission at 7-8.

44. Submission at 8, Appendix 5 at 1.

45. Response at 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27.

46. Response at 11-12.
3. Canada’s use of the full set of options under the Compliance and

Enforcement Policy

The submission highlights the Submitters’ primary concern

regarding the alleged lack of prosecutions of pulp and paper mills and

does not discuss in detail other possible enforcement responses. Nonetheless, both the submission and Canada’s response note the full range

of available enforcement responses under the Compliance and Enforcement Policy.47 These responses include actions short of court proceedings, such as warnings, directions by Fishery inspectors, authorizations,

and ministerial orders, as well as court actions, such as injunctions, prosecution, court orders upon conviction and civil suits for recovery of

costs.48 Canada explains that, following an inspection or investigation,

“[t]he response to a violation will be chosen taking into account the

nature of the violation, the likelihood of achieving the desired result (i.e.,

compliance with the Fisheries Actin the shortest possible time and no further occurrence of violations), and consistency in enforcement.49”

For the twelve mills highlighted in the submission, Canada’s

response recounts several instances in which Canada issued warnings

and notes one federal prosecution resulting in the payment of a fine.

Canada does not mention any instances in which ministerial orders, as

to which the Compliance and Enforcement Policy indicates failure to comply may result in prosecution,50 were used to seek compliance. In several

instances, Canada indicates that its enforcement response took into

account a mill’s corrective action, but in no case is there any indication

that the corrective action plan was part of a binding, enforceable order or

agreement. In addition, the response indicates occasions on which warnings were sent to mills, at least two of which became the subject of Fisheries Actinvestigations.51 TheCompliance and Enforcement Policy indicates

that prosecution is the preferred course of action where “the alleged violator had previously received a warning for the activity and did not take

all reasonable measures to stop or avoid the violation.52”

A factual record is warranted to examine in further detail Canada’s

consideration and use in connection with the pulp and papers mills discussed in the submission of the full range of enforcement options

SEM-02-003 131

47. Submission at 4; Response at 3.

48. Compliance and Enforcement Policy (July 2001) at 5 (attached to Submission as

Appendix 4).

49. Response at 3.

50. Compliance and Enforcement Policy (July 2001) at 23.

51. E.g., Response at 25, 27.

52. Compliance and Enforcement Policy (July 2001) at 24.
described in the Compliance and Enforcement Policy, including ministerial

orders, warnings and prosecutions, and the results obtained. In connection with fines imposed, relevant information would include facts

regarding the factors taken into account in recommending sentences

under the Compliance and Enforcement Policy, such as the benefit gained,

the number and nature of previous convictions, deterrence of future violations, prevalence and trends in the type of violation involved generally

and sentencing precedents in similar cases.

4. Self-reporting, inspections and investigations

The large number of instances of alleged noncompliance with the

Fisheries Act and PPER as reflected in mandatory reporting by individual

mills lies at the heart of the submission. Canada’s response reveals no

instance in which Canada initiated a prosecution without tests by government inspectors that confirmed reports from mills of discharges with

levels of TSS or BOD that exceed PPER limits or discharges of acutely

lethal effluent. In addition, the response indicates instances in which the

results of Environment Canada’s on-site sampling differed from the

results reported by mills. One possibly relevant factor, mentioned in

Canada’s response, is the range of precision for the monitoring tests for

TSS and BOD.53

The federal government has relied on self-reported data in prosecutions in other contexts.54 A factual record would afford the opportunity to present detailed facts regarding the application of the Compliance

and Enforcement Policy in connection with self-reported instances of noncompliance and, in particular, in regard to the practice of consulting

with Environment Canada pulp and paper mill specialists and conducting on-site testing and investigations to confirm the results of test

failures.

A factual record is also warranted to present detailed information

regarding the investigations that Canada has undertaken at several of

the mills. For example, in the case of the Tembec mill in Témiscaming,

Quebec, Canada refers to an investigation file that was opened by

132 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

53. Response at 4.

54. In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Fitzpatrick, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 154,

that on charges of exceeding a fishing quota under the Fisheries Act and its regulations, the Crown could introduce into evidence “hail reports” required to be made

by the fisherman. Their use was held not to offend the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedomsright not to be deprived of the right against self-incrimination as included

in the s. 7 protection of the liberty and security of the person except in accord with

the principles of fundamental justice.
Environment Canada in April 1998 and remained “active” until October

2000, when “the Attorney General advised that a prosecution was not

warranted given the particular facts of this case.55” During the period in

which the investigation was underway, the response reveals several

instances of reported test failures and noncompliance with the Fisheries

Act and PPER, contacts between Environment Canada and the mill operators, off-site federal inspections and a number of provincial notices of

infraction and corrective plans. There appears to have been in that

period some improvement in compliance by the mill. For this and other

investigations, a factual record would provide an opportunity to present

additional factual information regarding the concrete steps in the investigation, its results and the federal decisions that followed.56

5. Information regarding compliance promotion

The Compliance and Enforcement Policy makes a distinction between

enforcement and measures to promote compliance. Compliancepromoting activities listed in the policy include communication and

publication of information, public education, consultation with parties

affected by the pollution prevention and habitat protection provisions of

the Fisheries Act and technical assistance.57 Preparation of a factual

record regarding the open questions discussed above would provide

an opportunity to present relevant information regarding Canada’s

actions, in addition to the kinds of enforcement measures listed in the

Compliance and Enforcement Policy, to promote compliance at the mills

of concern in the submission. It would also provide an opportunity to

present information regarding Canada’s use of those appropriate governmental actions set out in Article 5 of the NAAEC that are relevant to

assertions in the submission.

In addition, a factual record would afford an opportunity to provide further information regarding the challenges that the pulp and

paper sector has faced in seeking to achieve compliance with the

Fisheries Act and the PPER. This would include information regarding

the nature, environmental limitations and compliance potential of various pulp and paper technologies mentioned in the submission;58 the

kinds of process, facility and equipment changes required to achieve

SEM-02-003 133

55. Response at 21-23.

56. The Secretariat is aware that certain information regarding investigations might be

subject to confidentiality, as recognized in the NAAEC and the Guidelines. See,

e.g., NAAEC Articles 11(8), 39; Guideline 17.

57. Compliance and Enforcement Policy (July 2001) at 5. See also the activities listed on

pages 14–18 of the policy.

58. Submission at 2-4, Appendix 3.
compliance; the economic costs of compliance; and the variability in

these factors across the mills of concern in the submission.

B. Consideration of Canada’s pending investigations at certain

mills

Canada declined to provide further facts with regard to the record

of certain mills on the basis of ongoing investigations by Environment

Canada.59 Canada does not state that these investigations are pending

judicial or administrative proceedings that bar the Secretariat from proceeding further.60 However, with previous submissions, the Secretariat

has noted that ongoing, timely and active investigations, especially with

a view to penal proceedings, may in appropriate cases militate against

proceeding with a factual record that could interfere with or jeopardize

those proceedings.61

Canada’s response indicates that the five Environment Canada

investigations mentioned were commenced in July 2000, August 2000,

September 2000, October 2000 and October 2001. The factual record recommended here need not include information regarding instances of

noncompliance for which a pending administrative or judicial proceeding or a timely and active investigation, capable of leading to charges, is

underway. However, for the mills under investigation at the time of the

response, a factual record is warranted to present information regarding: 1) investigations that have been concluded, 2) alleged violations for

which no investigation was undertaken, and 3) alleged violations for

which the two-year limitation period for summary conviction criminal

proceedings has run or an indictment is no longer a realistic option.62

V. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Secretariat considers that this submission, in light of Canada’s response, warrants the development of a

factual record and hereby so informs the Council. The submission and

response leave open matters for which a more detailed presentation of

factual information will assist in considering whether Canada is failing

to effectively enforce the Fisheries Act and the PPER in Ontario, Quebec

134 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

59. Response at 24 (Fjordcell), 25 (Tembec and St-Raymond), 27 (J. Ford), 27 (Abitibi

Consolidated), 28 (Interlake Paper).

60. See NAAEC Article 14(3)(a).

61. SEM-00-004 (BC Logging), Article 15(1) Notification, at 15-17.

62. Fisheries Act s. 82. Section 40 of the Fisheries Act creates hybrid offenses, and in proceedings by way of indictment (subject to the relations of ss. 7 and 11 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom) no limitation period applies.
and the Atlantic provinces, as the Submitters allege. As discussed above

in detail, a factual record is warranted to develop and present, in connection with all of the mills of concern in the submission, detailed factual

information regarding: (1) the federal response to alleged effluent test

failures and failures to conduct follow-up tests as required under the

PPER; (2) Canada’s consideration of provincial action in enforcing the

PPER; (3) Canada’s use of the full set of options under theCompliance and

Enforcement Policy in enforcing the PPER;(4) the system of self-reporting,

inspections and investigations that Canada employs in enforcing the

PPER; and (5) federal efforts to promote compliance with the PPER.

Information regarding offenses for which a timely and active investigation, capable of leading to charges, is underway need not be included in

the factual record. In light of the comprehensive information presented

in the Appendices 5 and 7 to the submission in addition to the detailed

information regarding the twelve mills of particular concern, the factual

record should present facts regarding specific mills in the context of factual information regarding the broader enforcement concerns throughout eastern Canada that frame the submission.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article 15(1), and for the reasons set forth

in this document, the Secretariat informs the Council of its determination that the objectives of the NAAEC would be well served by developing a factual record as recommended herein regarding the submission.

Respectfully submitted on this 8th day of October 2003.

per: William V. Kennedy

Executive Director

SEM-02-003 135

SEM-02-004

(El Boludo Project)

SUBMITTERS: ARCADIO PESQUEIRA SENDAY ET AL.

PARTY: MEXICO

DATE: 23 August 2002

SUMMARY: The Submitters assert that Mexico is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental laws with

respect to the “El Boludo” mining project on the

site called “El Tiro,” owned by the Submitters and

located in the Municipality of Trincheras, Sonora,

Mexico. According to the Submitters, the company Minera Secotec, S.A. de C.V. has exploited

the low-grade placer gold deposit of the “El

Boludo” project without complying with several

conditions of the environmental impact authorization.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(19 September 2002)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have not been met.

REVISED SUBMISSION

ART. 14(1)(2)

(26 November 2002)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met, and that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party.

ART. 15(1)

(17 May 2004)

Notification to Council that a factual record is

warranted in accordance with Article 15(1).

137

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación

Ambiental de América del Norte

Determinación conforme al artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo de

Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Número de petición: SEM-02-004 (Proyecto “El Boludo”)

Peticionarios: Leoncio Pesqueira Senday

Fernanda Pesqueira Senday

Milagro Pesqueira Senday

Arcadio Pesqueira Senday

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de recepción: 23 de agosto de 2002

Fecha de la determinación: 19 de septiembre de 2002

I. INTRODUCCIÓN

El Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental (el

“Secretariado”) puede examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte signataria del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte (el

“ACAAN” o “Acuerdo”) está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación

efectiva de su legislación ambiental, si el Secretariado juzga que la

petición cumple con los requisitos señalados en el artículo 14(1) del

ACAAN. Si la petición lo amerita, considerando los criterios del artículo

14(2), el Secretariado puede solicitar a esa Parte que proporcione una

respuesta a la petición.

El 23 de agosto de 2002, Arcadio, Leoncio, Fernanda y Milagro

Pesqueira Senday (los “Peticionarios”) presentaron al Secretariado

una petición de conformidad con los artículos 14 y 15 del ACAAN. Los

Peticionarios aseveran que México está incurriendo en omisiones en la

139
aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental respecto del proyecto

minero “El Boludo” en el predio “El Tiro”, propiedad de los Peticionarios, ubicado en el municipio de Trincheras, Sonora, México.

Según los Peticionarios, la empresa Minera Secotec, S.A. de C.V.,

ha realizado el aprovechamiento y tratamiento del depósito de oro de

placer de baja ley correspondiente al proyecto “El Boludo” sin observar

diversas condicionantes de su autorización en materia de impacto

ambiental y en presunta violación de la Ley General del Equilibrio

Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente (LGEEPA), las fracciones III y IV

del artículo 15 de su Reglamento en materia de residuos peligrosos y la

Ley Minera y su Reglamento.

El Secretariado determina que esta petición no satisface lo dispuesto por el artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo por las razones que se expresan

en esta determinación.

II. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

La petición asevera que México está incurriendo en omisiones en la

aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental respecto del proyecto

minero “El Boludo” ubicado dentro del predio “El Tiro”, propiedad de

los Peticionarios, en el municipio de Trincheras, Sonora, México. Los

Peticionarios indican que su terreno está dedicado a la explotación

pecuaria, contando en la actualidad con 526 cabezas de ganado mayor.

Los Peticionarios afirman que la empresa Minera Secotec, S.A. de

C.V., ha incumplido disposiciones contenidas en la LGEEPA, las fracciones III y IV del artículo 15 de su Reglamento en materia de residuos

peligrosos y la Ley Minera y su Reglamento, además de diversas condicionantes de la autorización en materia de impacto ambiental del proyecto “El Boludo”. Según la petición, la empresa obtuvo la autorización

para ese proyecto el 9 de septiembre de 1997. La petición incluye lo que

parece ser una trascripción de las condicionantes previstas en la presunta autorización de impacto ambiental, relativas a distintas etapas del

proyecto: preparación del sitio, construcción, operación, mantenimiento

y abandono.1

Según la petición, el proyecto “El Boludo” consiste en el aprovechamiento y tratamiento de un depósito de oro de placer de baja ley. La

extracción del suelo con valores de oro se realizará con una excavadora a

140 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Páginas 5 a 10 de la petición.
un espesor promedio de dos metros. El material se someterá a un proceso de separación granulométrica, con aditamentos centrífugos en

seco, para obtener concentrado de minerales pesados con valores de oro

que será lavado, separando el producto comercial, las arcillas y el agua

en un sistema de diferenciación gravimétrica.2

La petición asevera que la empresa minera ha destruido un área

aproximada de 300-00-00 hectáreas, y que ha dañado el ecosistema de la

región, eliminando tanto flora como fauna catalogada de protección

especial. Según los Peticionarios, en el acta de inspección practicada el 15

de abril del 2002 constan graves irregularidades, que condujeron a una

orden de clausura parcial temporal y adopción de medidas correctivas,

dictada el 11 de junio de 2002. La petición afirma que, a pesar de no

“haber dado cumplimiento a todas las irregularidades detectadas, sorpresivamente la empresa minera celebra convenio con la Procuraduría

Federal de Protección al Ambiente Delegación Sonora y levanta la suspensión parcial temporal sin darnos oportunidad de hacer manifestación alguna”.3

Los Peticionarios afirman que Secotec, pese a que no ha cumplido

con las condiciones que le fueron impuestas para el proyecto “El

Boludo”, solicitó la constitución de servidumbres superficiales de paso y

ocupación temporal relacionadas con otros lotes mineros que se encuentra dentro de la propiedad de los Peticionarios, e indican que la Dirección General de Minas declaró procedentes las solicitudes.

III. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME AL ARTÍCULO

14(1) DEL ACAAN

El artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo establece que:

El Secretariado podrá examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte está

incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental, si el Secretariado juzga que la petición:

(a) se presenta por escrito en un idioma designado por esa Parte en una

notificación al Secretariado;

(b) identifica claramente a la persona u organización que presenta la petición;

SEM-02-004 141

2. Página 2 de la petición.

3. Página 11 de la petición.
(c) proporciona información suficiente que permita al Secretariado revisarla, e incluyendo las pruebas documentales que puedan sustentarla;

(d) parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar

una industria;

(e) señala que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades

pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la respuesta de la Parte; y

(f) la presenta una persona u organización que reside o está establecida

en territorio de una Parte.

Si bien el artículo 14(1) no pretende colocar una gran carga sobre

los peticionarios, sí se requiere en esta etapa cierta revisión inicial.4 El

Secretariado revisó la petición con tal perspectiva en mente.

En cuanto a los seis requisitos listados en el artículo 14(1), el Secretariado determinó que la petición satisface los requisitos establecidos en

los incisos a), b) y f) del artículo 14(1), por las razones siguientes. La petición se presentó por escrito en español,5 que es el idioma designado por

México. Los Peticionarios se identificaron claramente en la petición

como personas que residen en el territorio de la Parte mexicana, en

Caborca, Sonora, México.6 Sin embargo, la petición no satisface el requisito del inciso c), porque no contiene información suficiente para que el

Secretariado pueda analizarla, ni acompaña las pruebas documentales

que puedan sustentarla. Por ejemplo, la petición no anexa ninguno de

los documentos que en ella se mencionan.

La petición no contiene información suficiente sobre la supuesta

omisión de México en la aplicación efectiva de la legislación citada, que

permita analizar la cuestión umbral de si la petición “asevera que una

Parte está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental”, ni para evaluar el requisito señalado en el inciso d) del

artículo 14(1). La petición afirma que la empresa ha violado la legislación

ambiental, pero no incluye información suficiente ni información de

apoyo sobre los presuntos hechos violatorios de la legislación ambiental.

La petición tampoco contiene una explicación de la forma en que México

presuntamente ha omitido aplicar su legislación ambiental de manera

efectiva respecto de esos hechos. La petición afirma que la empresa

ha destruido un área aproximada de “300-00-00 hectáreas”, y que ha

142 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

4. Véanse en este sentido, e.g., SEM-97-005 (Biodiversidad), Determinación conforme

al artículo 14(1) (26 de mayo de 1998) y SEM-98-003 (Grandes Lagos), Determinación

conforme a los artículos 14(1) y (2) (8 de septiembre de 1999).

5. Véanse el artículo 14(1)(a) del ACAAN y la sección 3.2 de las Directrices para la presentación de peticiones.

6. Véanse los artículos (14)(1)(b) y (f) del ACAAN.
dañado el ecosistema de la región al eliminar tanto flora como fauna

catalogada de protección especial, pero no proporciona ninguna información de apoyo que permita comprender en qué consisten los daños y

de qué especies se trata.7

Por último, los Peticionarios indican que presentaron denuncias a

diversas autoridades sobre las presuntas violaciones a la legislación

ambiental por parte de la empresa minera,8 y que la autoridad ambiental

realizó una inspección en la que encontró “graves irregularidades”,

impuso medidas y celebró un convenio con la empresa. Sin embargo,

tampoco se acompaña documento alguno que apoye estas afirmaciones

y que permita evaluar el requisito previsto en el inciso e) del artículo

14(1).

IV. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

Por las razones que se explican en este documento, el Secretariado

determina que la petición SEM-02-004 (Proyecto “El Boludo”), presentada por Arcadio, Leoncio, Fernanda y Milagro Pesqueira Senday, no

satisface el artículo 14(1) del ACAAN, por lo que el Secretariado no

procederá a examinar la petición.

En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por el apartado 6.1 de las Directrices, el Secretariado notifica esta determinación a los Peticionarios y les

informa que, de acuerdo con el apartado 6.2 de las Directrices, cuentan

con 30 días para presentar una petición que cumpla con el artículo 14(1)

del ACAAN.

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Victor Shantora

Director Ejecutivo Interino

cc: Dra. Olga Ojeda, Semarnat

Sra. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Sra. Judith Ayres, US-EPA

Sr. Arcadio Pesqueira Senday

SEM-02-004 143

7. Página 3 de la petición.

8. La petición afirma que los hechos se denunciaron a las autoridades siguientes: la

Delegación en Sonora de la Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (Profepa), a la Comisión Nacional del Agua (CNA), a la Dirección General de Minas de la

Secretaría de Economía, al Ministerio Público del Fuero Común del Distrito Judicial

de Caborca, al Ministerio Público Federal adscrito al Distrito Judicial de Caborca y a

la Secretaria de Fomento Ganadero del Gobierno del Estado.

Secretariado de la Comisión para la

Cooperación Ambiental

Determinación en conformidad con los artículos 14(1) y (2)

del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Número de petición: SEM-02-004 (Proyecto “El Boludo”)

Peticionario: Leoncio Pesqueira Senday

Fernanda Pesqueira Senday

Milagro Pesqueira Senday

Arcadio Pesqueira Senday

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de recepción: 23 de agosto de 2002

Fecha de la determinación: 26 de noviembre de 2002

I. INTRODUCCIÓN

El Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental (el

“Secretariado”) puede examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte

signataria del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

(el “ACAAN” o “Acuerdo”) está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental, si el Secretariado juzga que la

petición cumple con los requisitos señalados en el artículo 14(1) del

ACAAN. Si la petición lo amerita, considerando los criterios del artículo

14(2), el Secretariado puede solicitar a esa Parte que proporcione una

respuesta a la petición.

El 23 de agosto de 2002, Arcadio, Leoncio, Fernanda y Milagro Pesqueira Senday (los “Peticionarios”) presentaron al Secretariado una

petición en la que aseveran que México está incurriendo en omisiones en

la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental respecto del proyecto

145
minero “El Boludo” en el predio “El Tiro”, propiedad de los Peticionarios, ubicado en el municipio de Trincheras, Sonora, México.

Al revisar la petición por primera vez, el Secretariado determinó

que esa no satisfacía los requisitos establecidos en los incisos (c), (d) y (e)

del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN.1 De conformidad con el apartado 6.1 de

las Directrices para la presentación de peticiones ciudadanas (las “Directrices”), el 19 de septiembre de 2002, el Secretariado notificó a los Peticionarios que no procedería a seguir examinando la petición y que, de acuerdo

con el apartado 6.2 de las Directrices, los Peticionarios contaban con 30

días hábiles para presentar una petición que cumpliera con todos los criterios del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN. El 10 y el 24 de octubre de 2002, el

Secretariado recibió una petición revisada acompañada de anexos. Esta

Determinación contiene el análisis de la petición revisada con base en los

artículos 14(1) y (2) del ACAAN.

II. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

La petición asevera que México está incurriendo en omisiones en la

aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental respecto del proyecto

minero “El Boludo” ubicado dentro del predio “El Tiro”, propiedad de

los Peticionarios, en el municipio de Trincheras, Sonora, México. Los

Peticionarios indican que su terreno está dedicado a la explotación

pecuaria, contando en la actualidad con 526 cabezas de ganado mayor.

Según la petición, el proyecto “El Boludo” consiste en el aprovechamiento y tratamiento de un depósito de oro de placer de baja ley.2 Los

Peticionarios afirman que la empresa Minera Secotec, S.A. de C.V.

(“Secotec”) obtuvo una autorización de impacto ambiental para ese

proyecto el 9 de septiembre de 1997 (la “AIA”). La petición incluye una

trascripción de los términos y condicionantes previstas en la AIA.3

Los Peticionarios afirman que Secotec ha incumplido disposiciones de

la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente

(“LGEEPA”) y sus Reglamentos en materia de impacto ambiental y

residuos peligrosos al no haber cumplido con todos los términos y condicionantes de la AIA.4 Aseveran que Secotec ha destruido un área aproximada de 300 hectáreas, y que ha dañado el ecosistema de la región,

eliminando tanto flora como fauna catalogada de protección especial.

146 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Ver más adelante la Sección III.

2. Página 2 de la petición.

3. Páginas 4 a 11 de la petición.

4. Páginas 1 y 2 de la petición.
Según los Peticionarios, en una inspección practicada el 15 de abril

del 2002, representantes de la Procuraduría Federal de Protección al

Ambiente (“Profepa”) constataron graves irregularidades, que condujeron a una orden de clausura parcial temporal y adopción de medidas

correctivas, dictada el 11 de junio de 2002. La petición afirma que, a pesar

de no “haber dado cumplimiento a todas las irregularidades detectadas,

sorpresivamente la empresa minera celebra convenio con la Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente Delegación Sonora y levanta la

suspensión parcial temporal sin darnos oportunidad de hacer manifestación alguna”.5

Los Peticionarios afirman que Secotec, pese a que no ha cumplido

con las condiciones que le fueron impuestas para el proyecto “El

Boludo”, solicitó la constitución de servidumbres superficiales de paso y

ocupación temporal relacionadas con lotes mineros que se encuentran

dentro de la propiedad de los Peticionarios, e indican que la Dirección

General de Minas declaró procedentes las solicitudes.

III. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME AL ARTÍCULO

14(1) DEL ACAAN

El artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo establece que:

El Secretariado podrá examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte está

incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental, si el Secretariado juzga que la petición:

(a) se presenta por escrito en un idioma designado por esa Parte en una

notificación al Secretariado;

(b) identifica claramente a la persona u organización que presenta la petición;

(c) proporciona información suficiente que permita al Secretariado revisarla, e incluyendo las pruebas documentales que puedan sustentarla;

(d) parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar

una industria;

(e) señala que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades

pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la respuesta de la Parte; y

SEM-02-004 147

5. Páginas 3 y 11 de la petición.
(f) la presenta una persona u organización que reside o está establecida

en territorio de una Parte.

El 19 de septiembre de 2002, el Secretariado determinó que la petición cumple con los requisitos establecidos en los incisos (a), (b) y (f) del

artículo 14(1). La petición se presentó en español, que es el idioma designado por México. Además, los Peticionarios se identificaron claramente,

y son personas que residen en México.

Conforme al artículo 14(1)(c), la petición revisada proporciona

información suficiente que permite al Secretariado revisarla, e incluye

las pruebas documentales que pueden sustentarla. Los artículos 28 y 35

de la LGEEPA y el artículo 20 de su Reglamento en materia de impacto

ambiental vigente al momento de expedirse la AIA6, establecen que las

obras o actividades que puedan causar desequilibrio ecológico deberán

sujetarse a las condiciones que establezca la Secretaría de Medio

Ambiente y Recursos Naturales a través del procedimiento de evaluación del impacto ambiental. La petición afirma que la Parte está

incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental respecto del incumplimiento de Secotec con diversas condicionantes establecidas en su AIA.7En específico, la petición hace referencia a las condicionantes nueve, once, dieciséis, diecinueve, veintidós,

veintiséis y treinta y uno de la AIA. Asimismo, la petición afirma que

Secotec incurrió en diversos incumplimientos en materia de residuos

peligrosos. De la documentación anexa a la petición, se desprende que

esto último se refiere a la condicionante doce de la AIA.8 Los Peticionarios afirman también que Secotec solicitó la constitución de servidumbres superficiales de paso y ocupación temporal relacionadas con lotes

mineros que se encuentran dentro de la propiedad de los Peticionarios, e

indican que la Dirección General de Minas declaró procedentes las

solicitudes.

En la petición, se afirma que el acta de inspección practicada el 15

de abril de 2002 por la Delegación Sonora de la Profepa9 detalla estas

visitas en materia de residuos peligrosos, y que derivado de las irregularidades detectadas, el 11 de junio de 2002 se decretó a Secotec clausura

parcial temporal y orden de adopción de medidas correctivas.10 Según

los Peticionarios, el 24 de junio de 2002, Secotec celebró con la Profepa un

148 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

6. Publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 7 de junio de 1988

7. Páginas 1, 2 y 11 de la petición.

8. Página 6 del Anexo 7.

9. Ver Anexo 43b).

10. Ver Anexos 43e) y f).
convenio que prevé la corrección de algunas de las irregularidades identificadas por la Profepa (el “Convenio”). Afirman que en virtud del Convenio, se decretó el levantamiento de la clausura parcial temporal.11

La petición asevera que la Parte está omitiendo aplicar su legislación

ambiental al haber decretado el levantamiento de la clausura parcial

temporal a Secotec sin que Secotec hubiera cumplido con todas las condicionantes y los términos de la AIA.

La información proporcionada al Secretariado permite destacar

que los Peticionarios están aseverando que la autoridad ambiental no

está aplicando de manera efectiva los artículos 28 y 35 de la LGEEPA, 20

de su Reglamento en materia de impacto ambiental y 8 fracciones III, VI,

VIII, X, XI, 15 fracciones III y IV, 23 y 25 de su Reglamento en materia de

residuos peligrosos, al omitir sancionar a Secotec por las violaciones a

esas disposiciones y a los términos de la AIA. Los Peticionarios proporcionaron al Secretariado copias de la AIA, del acta de inspección, de la

orden de clausura parcial temporal, y del Convenio, además de numerosos otros documentos.12

La petición parece encaminada a promover actividades de aplicación de la legislación ambiental y no a hostigar una industria, ya que se

enfoca principalmente en la forma en que la autoridad ambiental presuntamente ha incurrido en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su

legislación ambiental respecto del proyecto minero “El Boludo”, por lo

que el Secretariado considera cumplido el requisito contenido en el

inciso (d) del artículo 14(1).

En la petición se señala que las presuntas violaciones a la legislación ambiental por parte de Secotec fueron comunicadas por escrito a

diversas autoridades de la Parte entre el 17 de agosto de 1998 y el 26 de

junio de 200213. El Secretariado recibió copias de diversos documentos

que apoyan estas afirmaciones y que contienen algunas de las respuestas

de la Parte, mismos que permitieron evaluar el cumplimiento con el

requisito del inciso (e) del artículo 14(1)14.

SEM-02-004 149

11. Ver Anexo 43d).

12. La petición revisada se acompañó de 45 anexos.

13. La petición afirma que los hechos se denunciaron a las autoridades siguientes: la

Delegación en Sonora de la Profepa, a la Comisión Nacional del Agua, a la Dirección General de Minas de la Secretaría de Economía, al Ministerio Público del Fuero

Común del Distrito Judicial de Caborca, al Ministerio Público Federal adscrito al

Distrito Federal de Caborca y a la Secretaría de Fomento Ganadero del Gobierno

del Estado.

14. Anexos 8, 10, 16, 17, 18, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 y 42 de la

petición.
Además de los requisitos listados en el artículo 14(1), el preámbulo

de ese artículo plantea que una petición debe aseverar “que una Parte

está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental”. Esto lo hace la petición, en la que se asevera que la Parte

sigue incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación de su legislación

ambiental, y hace referencia a los artículos 28 y 35 de la LGEEPA, 20 de

su Reglamento en materia de impacto ambiental y 8 fracciones III, VI,

VIII, X, XI, 15 fracciones III y IV, 23 y 25 de su Reglamento en materia de

residuos peligrosos. Estas disposiciones son “legislación ambiental”

conforme a los artículos 14(1) y 45(2) del ACAAN, ya que su propósito

principal es la protección del medio ambiente y la prevención de un peligro contra la vida o la salud humana.

El Secretariado considera que la aseveración de los Peticionarios en

el sentido de que la Dirección General de Minas otorgó indebidamente a

Secotec servidumbres superficiales de paso y la ocupación temporal

sobre diversos lotes mineros ubicados dentro la propiedad de los Peticionarios no cumple con los requisitos contenidos en el preámbulo del

artículo 14(1). No se asevera una omisión en la aplicación efectiva de una

ley, y además, esos derechos están regulados por disposiciones de la Ley

Minera que no tienen como propósito principal la protección del medio

ambiente o la prevención de un peligro contra la vida o la salud humana,

por lo que no se trata de “legislación ambiental” en virtud del artículo

45(2) del ACAAN.

IV. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME AL ARTÍCULO

14(2) DEL ACAAN

Una vez que el Secretariado ha determinado que las aserciones de

una petición satisfacen los requisitos del artículo 14(1), el Secretariado

analiza la petición para determinar si ésta amerita solicitar una respuesta

a la Parte. Conforme al artículo 14(2) del ACAAN, son cuatro los criterios

que guían la decisión del Secretariado en esta etapa:

(a) si la petición alega daño a la persona u organización que la presenta;

(b) si la petición, por sí sola o conjuntamente con otras, plantea asuntos

cuyo ulterior estudio en este proceso contribuiría a la consecución de

las metas de este Acuerdo;

(c) si se ha acudido a los recursos al alcance de los particulares conforme

a la legislación de la Parte; y

(d) si la petición se basa exclusivamente en noticias de los medios de

comunicación.

150 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
En relación con la consideración contenida en el inciso 14(2)(a), la

petición asevera que los Peticionarios son los propietarios del terreno

en el que se ubica el proyecto minero “El Boludo”, el cual, afirman, “ha

destruido y desbastado (sic.) un área aproximada de 300-00-00 hectáreas... afectándose no sólo el área impactada sino también la circundante dañando el ecosistema de la región, eliminando con la complacencia de las autoridades tanto Flora

como Fauna la cual de conformidad con las Leyes Ambientales son de protección

especial”.15

En cuanto al inciso (b) del artículo 14(2), el Secretariado considera

que la petición plantea asuntos cuyo ulterior estudio en este proceso

contribuiría a la consecución de las metas del ACAAN, porqué se refiere

a la aplicación efectiva, en el sector minero, de la legislación en materia

de impacto ambiental y residuos peligrosos, contribuyendo a evitar la

creación de distorsiones o de nuevas barreras en el comercio (artículo

1(e) del ACAAN) y a mejorar la observancia y aplicación de las leyes y

reglamentos ambientales (artículo 1(g) del ACAAN).

Los Peticionarios indican que se presentaron denuncias a diversas

autoridades sobre las presuntas violaciones a la legislación ambiental

por parte de Secotec.16 En particular, la petición afirma que se presentaron denuncias populares ante la Profepa el 17 de agosto de 1998, el 26 de

mayo de 2000, el 28 de noviembre de 2000, el 8 de octubre de 2001 y el

13 de febrero de 2002 y ante la Comisión Nacional del Agua el 15 de abril

de 2002, así como denuncia penal ante el Ministerio Público Federal el

26 de junio de 2002, por lo que el Secretariado estima que los Peticionarios han acudido a los recursos disponibles conforme a la legislación de

la Parte (artículo 14(2)(c)).

Por lo que se refiere al artículo 14(2)(d), la petición no parece

basarse en noticias de los medios de comunicación, sino en el conocimiento directo de los hechos por ocurrir en terrenos propiedad de los

Peticionarios.

V. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

Después de analizar la petición revisada y sus anexos, el Secretariado determina que ésta cumple con todos los requisitos contenidos en

el artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo. Asimismo, tomando en consideración los

criterios establecidos en el artículo 14(2), el Secretariado determina que

la petición amerita solicitar una respuesta de la Parte.

SEM-02-004 151

15. Página 3 de la petición.

16. Página 3 de la petición.
Por lo tanto, el Secretariado solicita una respuesta del gobierno de

México con respecto a la petición, dentro de un plazo de 30 días, conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 14(3) del Acuerdo. Dado que ya se ha

enviado a la Parte interesada una copia de la petición y de los anexos

respectivos, no se acompañan a esta Determinación.

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Katia Opalka,

Oficial Jurídica,

Unidad sobre Peticiones Ciudadanas

cc: Dra. Olga Ojeda, SEMARNAT

Sra. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Sra. Judith Ayres, US-EPA

Sr. Arcadio Pesqueira Senday

152 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Article 15(1) Notification to Council that

Development of a Factual Record is Warranted

Submission Number: SEM-02-004 (El Boludo Project)

Submitters: Leoncio Pesqueira Senday

Fernanda Pesqueira Senday

Milagro Pesqueira Senday

Arcadio Pesqueira Senday

Concerned Party: United Mexican States

Date of Receipt: 23 August 2002

Date of this Notification: 17 May 2004

I. INTRODUCTION

The Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

(the “Secretariat”) may examine submissions from any person or nongovernmental organization asserting that a Party to the North American

Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (“NAAEC” or “Agreement”) is

failing to effectively enforce its environmental law, if the Secretariat

determines that the submission meets the requirements of Article 14(1)

of the NAAEC. If the submission warrants a response, based on the factors listed in Article 14(2), the Secretariat may request a response from

the concerned Party. In light of the response provided by the Party, the

Secretariat may notify the Council that the submission warrants the

preparation of a factual record, in accordance with Article 15(1). The

Council may then instruct the Secretariat to prepare a factual record by a

two-thirds vote of its members. The final factual record is made public

upon a two-thirds vote of the Council.

153
This determination contains the Secretariat’s analysis, in accordance with NAAEC Article 15(1), of submission SEM-02-004/El Boludo

Project, filed on 23 August 2002, by Arcadio, Leoncio, Fernanda and

Milagro Pesqueira Senday (the “Submitters”). The Submitters assert

that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law with

respect to the “El Boludo” mining project in the lot called “El Tiro,”

which is owned by the Submitters and located in the municipality of

Trincheras, Sonora, Mexico.

On 26 November 2002, the Secretariat determined that the submission meets the requirements of NAAEC Article 14(1) and warranted

requesting a response from the Party pursuant to Article 14(2). On

8 January 2003, the Party filed its response with the Secretariat in accordance with NAAEC Article 14(3) (the “Response”). Pursuant to Article

14(3)(a),1 Mexico requested the Secretariat to proceed no further in

reviewing the submission since, in October 2001, the Submitters filed a

public complaint (denuncia popular) with the competent authority which,

according to the Party, concerns the same matter as the submission and

is the subject of a pending administrative proceeding.

Having reviewed the submission in the light of the Party’s

response and pursuant to NAAEC Articles 14(3)(a) and 15(1), the Secretariat hereby informs the Council that the submission warrants the

development of a factual record as further explained below. Based on

the information it obtained, the Secretariat does not consider the administrative proceeding to which the Party refers in its response to be a

pending administrative proceeding in terms of NAAEC Article 14(3)(a)

and the NAAEC objectives. The rationale for this conclusion is set forth

in section IV of this Notification.

II. SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The submission asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce

its environmental law with respect to the “El Boludo” mining project

located on the “El Tiro” lot, which is owned by the Submitters and

located in the municipality of Trincheras, Sonora, Mexico. The Submitters indicate that their land is used to run a livestock operation consisting

of 526 adult head of cattle.

154 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Article 14(3): “The Party shall advise the Secretariat within 30 days or, in exceptional

circumstances and on notification to the Secretariat, within 60 days of delivery of the

request: (a) whether the matter is the subject of a pending judicial or administrative

proceeding, in which case the Secretariat shall proceed no further...”
According to the Submitters, the “El Boludo” project involves mining and processing a low-grade placer gold deposit.2 The Submitters

assert that Minera Secotec, S.A. de C.V. (“Secotec”) obtained an environmental impact authorization (autorización de impacto ambiental—AIA) for

this project on 9 September 1997 (the “AIA”). The submission includes a

transcription of the terms and conditions of the AIA.3 The Submitters

assert that Secotec violated provisions of the General Law on Ecological

Balance and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio

Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente—LGEEPA) and its environmental

impact and hazardous waste regulations by failing to comply with all

the terms and conditions of the AIA.4 The information provided to the

Secretariat indicates that the Submitters are asserting that the environmental authority is failing to effectively enforce LGEEPA Articles 28 and

35, Article 20 of the Environmental Impact Regulation5 and Articles 8 III,

VI, VIII, X and XI, 15 III and IV, 23, and 25 of the LGEEPA Regulation

Respecting Hazardous Waste by failing to sanction Secotec for violating

these provisions and conditions 9, 11, 16, 19, 22, 26 and 31 of the AIA.

They assert that Secotec destroyed an area of approximately 300 ha and

damaged the region’s ecosystem, eliminating flora and fauna classified

as subject to special protection.

According to the Submitters, serious irregularities were observed

during an inspection carried out on 15 April 2002, by representatives of

the Office of the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente—Profepa), leading to orders for

temporary partial closure and corrective measures issued on 11 June

2002. The submission asserts that although “the company did not comply with the orders issued in response to the irregularities detected, the

mining company suddenly entered into an agreement with the Sonora

State Branch of the Profepa that rescinded the temporary partial suspension without giving us any opportunity to comment.6”

The Submitters assert that although Secotec did not comply with

the authority’s conditions for the “El Boludo” project, it applied for the

SEM-02-004 155

2. Submission, p. 2.

3. Submission, pp. 4–11.

4. Submission, pp. 1–2.

5. LGEEPA Articles 28 and 35 (published in the Official Gazette of the Federation

(Diario Oficial de la Federación–DOF) on 8 January 1988) and Article 20 of the version of

the Regulation to the LGEEPA Respecting Environmental Impact (published in the

DOF on 7 June 1988) that was in force at the time the AIA was issued establish that

works or activities that may cause ecological imbalance shall adhere to the conditions imposed by the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaría

de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales–Semarnat) through the environmental impact

assessment procedure.

6. Submission, pp. 3 and 11.
creation of rights of way and licenses of temporary occupation relating

to mining lots located within the Submitters’ property, and they indicate

that the Mining Branch (Dirección General de Minas) approved the

applications.

On 26 November 2002, the Secretariat determined that the allegations in the submission meet the requirements of NAAEC Article 14(1)

except as regards the creation of rights of way and licenses of temporary

occupation. These latter assertions do not meet the threshold requirement of NAAEC Article 14(1) since they do not allege a failure of environmental law enforcement.7 Pursuant to Article 14(2), the Secretariat

requested a response from Mexico in regard to the remaining assertions

in the submission.

III. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSE

The Secretariat received Mexico’s response to the submission on 9

January 2003. Mexico summarizes the Secretariat’s processing of the

submission as of the date it was first filed in August 2002. Mexico asserts

as follows:

In light of the foregoing and as justified by NAAEC Article 14(3)(a), this

Party hereby requests the Secretariat of the CEC to proceed no further in

reviewing the submission since, on 8 October 2002 [sic 3 October 2001],

Leoncio, Fernanda and Milagro Pesqueira Senday filed a denuncia popular

with the Office of the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection

(Profepa) against the mining company “SECOTEC, S.A. de C.V.” that concerns the same matter as submission SEM-02-004/El Boludo Project.

It should be noted that the denuncia popularfiled with Profepa is the subject

of a pending administrative proceeding bearing file number 37/2002.8

IV. ANALYSIS

This Notification corresponds to the stages of the process delineated in NAAEC Articles 14(3) and 15(1). The Secretariat determined

previously that the submission met the requirements of Article 14(1) and

156 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

7. SEM-02-004 (El Boludo Project), Determination under Articles 14(1) and 14(2) (26

November 2002), p. 5.

8. The Secretariat notes as well that file 37/2002, to which the Party refers in its

response in support of its argument that the denuncia popularfiled with Profepa is the

subject of a pending judicial or administrative proceeding, does not correspond to a

denuncia popular filed by the Submitters on 8 October 2002, but rather to a denuncia

popular filed on 8 October 2001.
warranted a response from the party in view of the criteria of Article

14(2). A response was received from the Party on 9 January 2003.

The Secretariat is obligated to include in this Notification its reasons for determining that the development of a factual record is warranted. First, however, the Secretariat discusses Mexico’s assertion that

the Secretariat should proceed no further because the matter set out in

the submission is subject to a pending administrative proceeding.

A. Pending Judicial or Administrative Proceedings under

NAAEC 14(3)(a)

NAAEC Article 14(3)(a) establishes that the Party, when it is

requested by the Secretariat to respond to a submission, “shall advise the

Secretariat within 30 days or, in exceptional circumstances and on notification to the Secretariat, within 60 days of delivery of the request

whether the matter is the subject of a pending judicial or administrative

proceeding, in which case the Secretariat shall proceed no further.”

In NAAEC Article 45(3)(a), “judicial or administrative proceeding” is defined for the purposes of Article 14(3) as:

a domestic judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative action pursued by the

Party in a timely fashion and in accordance with its law. Such actions comprise: mediation; arbitration; the process of issuing a license, permit, or

authorization; seeking an assurance of voluntary compliance or a compliance agreement; seeking sanctions or remedies in an administrative or

judicial forum; and the process of issuing an administrative order.9

In previous determinations, the Secretariat has read Article

14(3)(a) as indicating the Parties’ intent “to foreclose a review of enforcement matters actively being pursued by any Party.10” Moreover, it determined that “in view of the commitment to the principle of transparency

pervading the NAAEC, the Secretariat cannot construe the Agreement

as permitting it to base its determination that it is before the situation

contemplated by Article 14(3)(a), and that it shall proceed no further

with a submission, on the mere assertion of a Party to that effect.11”

Accordingly, the Secretariat established that “to apply this exceptional

SEM-02-004 157

9. NAAEC Article 45(3)(a).

10. See SEM-97-001 (BC Hydro), Recommendation of the Secretariat to the Council for

the development of a Factual Record in accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (27 April 1998).

11. SEM-01-001 (Cytrar II) Determination pursuant to Article 14(3) of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (13 June 2001).
condition for terminating a submission, the Secretariat must ascertain

that there is a ‘pending judicial or administrative proceeding’ and that

the matter raised in the submission is the subject matter involved in such

proceeding. Also, there must be a reasonable expectation that the ‘pending judicial or administrative proceeding’ invoked by the Party will

address and potentially resolve the matters raised in the submission.12”

In submission Oldman River I (SEM-96-003), the Secretariat determined that the interpretation of the concepts “judicial or administrative

proceeding” and “pursued by the Party” contained in NAAEC Article

45(3)(a) should be construed as meaning those judicial or administrative

proceedings initiated by a Party to the Agreement.

In other words, where a government is actively engaged in pursuing

enforcement-related measures against one or more actors implicated in an

Article 14 submission, the Secretariat is obliged to terminate its examination of the allegations of non-enforcement. The examples listed in Article

45(3)(a) support this approach, since the kinds of actions enumerated are

taken almost exclusively by the official government bodies charged with

enforcing or implementing the law.13

In sum, for an action to constitute a judicial or administrative proceeding, it must be pursued: (i) by a Party; (ii) in a timely fashion; (iii) in

accordance with the Party’s law and must (iv) belong to one of the categories set forth in Article 45(3). As regards the requirement of proceeding in a timely fashion, it is relevant to consider whether the action is

pursued in accordance with time limits established by law and without

undue delay.

B. Proceedings Referred to in the Submission and the Parties’

Response

As noted above, proceedings not initiated by a Party to the Agreement do not fall within the meaning of judicial or administrative proceeding under Article 45(3)(a). Because a denuncia popularis not initiated

by the Party, it is not a “judicial or administrative proceeding” within the

meaning of Article 45(3)(a), although a denuncia popular may under certain circumstances lead to inspection and surveillance (inspección y

vigilancia) proceedings, brought by the Party, that could meet the Article

45(3)(a) definition.

158 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

12. See SEM-01-001 (Cytrar II) Article 15(1) Notification to Council that Development

of a Factual Record is Warranted (29 July 2002).

13. See SEM-96-003 (Oldman River I), Determination pursuant to Articles 14 & 15 (2

April 1997).
In addition, whereas the Party asserts in its response that the

denuncia popular relates to the same matter as the submission, the information provided to the Secretariat indicates that the submission not only

encompasses the alleged failures to enforce mentioned in the denuncia

popular of October 2001 but also refers to additional failures to enforce

such as those relating to hazardous waste noted during an inspection of

Secotec by Profepa on 15 April 2002.14

The denuncia popular to which the Party refers was filed in October

2001. Profepa conducted inspections giving rise to the issuance, on 11

June 2002, of an order for temporary partial closure and a corrective

measures order.15 In notifying Secotec of these orders, Profepa informed

Secotec that as of the effective date of the notice of these orders, it was initiating a proceeding of an administrative nature against the company. It

thus informed the company of its right to submit a written defense and

evidence within 15 working days and that “once the aforementioned

period has elapsed, an Administrative Decision on the merits will be

issued as prescribed by Article 167 of the General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection.16” Unlike the denuncia popular, the

proceeding initiated on 11 June 2002 against Secotec was initiated by the

Party and is the kind of proceeding that is explicitly included in Article

45(3)(a), although it did not include all of the matters that are included in

the submission.

Secotec filed comments in the days following the orders, with the

result that on 21 June 2002, it obtained a decision from Profepa permitting it to sign an agreement with that authority to rescind the order for

temporary partial closure. Such an agreement was signed on 24 June

2002.17

The agreement signed by Profepa with Secotec in June 2002

referred to some of the problems detected during the inspection of the

company. However, the agreement did not refer to all the discrepancies

noted in the notice of 11 June 2002, with which the administrative proceeding commenced. Evidence of this is provided by the fact that

Profepa reminded the company, on 24 June 2002, that

SEM-02-004 159

14. A list of these alleged failures to enforce is given below.

15. Submission, Appendix 43(e): oficio no. PFPA-DS-SJ-0654/2002 from Profepa,

Sonora State Office, Legal Affairs Section, 11 June 2002, in re “Notice of summons,

temporary partial closing order, corrective measures order and deadline for comment”; no. 037/2002.

16. Ibid.

17. Submission, Appendix 43(c): oficio no. PFPA-DS-SJ-1017/2002 from Profepa,

Sonora State Office, Legal Affairs Section, 21 June 2002, in re “Agreement”, administrative file no. 037/2002 I.A.
[...] all points not contemplated in [photocopy illegible] this decision shall

remain covered by the decision issued [illegible] under oficio no. PFPADS-SJ-0654/2002 [notice of 11 June 2002] or, failing that, the provisions

[illegible] General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection, its [illegible] Environmental Impact Assessment regulation, as well

as the Forestry Law and its Regulation and [illegible] legal [illegible] applicable to the case.18

The party in its response to the submission did not provide information related to matters not referred to in the aforementioned agreement and in consequence there is no evidence as to any follow-up to

verify Secotec’s compliance with those issues. At the same time, no evidence was provided to the Secretariat with respect to whether the company addressed the issues that were included within the agreement

between Secotec and Profepa.

C. Timeliness with which Administrative Proceedings Must Be

Resolved in Mexico

In Mexican administrative law there exists a concept known as the

lapsing or running (caducidad) of administrative proceedings. According

to Mexican courts, the purpose of this concept is to “give certainty to and

enhance the efficiency of a proceeding in terms of time, not leaving to the

authorities’ own discretion the possibility of their acting or failing to do

so but, rather, ensuring that they observe and punctually adhere to the

rules establishing when a power arises and is extinguished so as not to

create uncertainty and arbitrariness.19” Thus, the Federal Administrative Procedure Law (Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo—LFPA),

which is applied in supplemental fashion to laws such as the LGEEPA,20

provides in Article 57 paragraph IV that one cause for terminating an

administrative procedure is its being declared lapsed. The LFPA indicates two separate cases and periods in which lapsing operates. Article

60 provides that “in proceedings initiated by the interested party, where

these are paralyzed for reasons attributable to the interested party...

160 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

18. Profepa, oficio no. PFPA-DS-SJ-1017/2002, in re “Agreement,” administrative file

no. 37/2002 I.A.

19. LAPSING OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS OF RIGHT.

OPERATES WHERE THE CORRESPONDING DECISION IS NOT ISSUED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 92, LAST PARAGRAPH, PLUS THE THIRTY DAYS CONTEMPLATED IN ARTICLE 60 OF THE

FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE LAW. Novena Época, Tribunales

Colegiados de Circuito, Semanario Judicial de la Federación and Gazette, Vol.

XVII; January 2003, Tesis I.4.A.368, p. 1735.

20. LFPA Article 2 provides that “This Law, except as regards title 3A, shall apply in

suppletive fashion to the various administrative laws. The Federal Code of Civil

Procedure shall apply, again suppletive to this Law, and as applicable.”
upon the expiry of a period of three months, the proceeding shall lapse....

In the case of proceedings initiated as of right, these shall be deemed to

lapse, and shall be archived, at the request of the interested party or as of

right, 30 days following the expiry of the period provided for issuance of

a decision.”

Profepa has asserted that denuncia popular proceedings and inspection and monitoring are independent of one another and that, specifically, inspection and monitoring proceedings are proceedings as of

right.21 The Secretariat infers that the time period elapsed with respect to

the denuncia popular and the inspection and monitoring proceedings

appear to correspond to the time periods contemplated in the LFPA for

operation of lapsing in both cases. In order to resolve the issue of the time

when an administrative proceeding may be formally considered to have

lapsed, the Secretariat notes that the Tribunales Colegiados de Circuito

(circuit courts) in Mexico have interpreted that in order for lapsing to

operate fully, only two criteria must be met: “the elapsing of a given

period of time and the inactivity that consists in the absence of acts relating to the proceeding.22” By this principle, lapsing operates even without any explicit decision to that effect since, in the opinion of the same

court, such a decision would have to be made by the authority in mandatory form or as of right.23

In view of the existing criteria and interpretations relating to the

lapsing of administrative procedures, the Secretariat’s view is that

where an administrative proceeding lapses due to the expiry of the

period in which the authority must issue a decision, it ceases to be pending and ceases to be an “administrative action pursued by the Party in a

timely fashion and in accordance with its law” (emphasis added) for the purposes of the NAAEC. Accordingly, and consistent with the other factors

discussed above, the Secretariat concludes that neither the denuncia

SEM-02-004 161

21. Submission, Appendix 43(a): PROFEPA, Sonora Office, Legal Affairs Section.

Oficio PFPA-DS-SJ-1248/2002 of 19 July 2002 in re “Reasoned report issued in

amparo case No. 506/2002”.

22. CADUCIDAD DE LA INSTANCIA. PROCEDE DECLARARLA EN LOS PROCEDIMIENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS INICIADOS DE OFICIO, CUANDO

PREVIAMENTE SE HA CONSUMADO EL PLAZO PARA QUE AQUÉLLA

OPERE. Novena Época. Tribunales Colegiados de Circuito. Semanario Judicial de

la Federación and Gazette, Vol. XVI, July 2002. Tesis: I.7o.A.173 A Page 1258 in

re: Isolated Administrativa Tesis.

23. CADUCIDAD DE LOS PROCEDIMIENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS. PRESUPUESTOS O CONDICIONES PARA DECLARARLA DE OFICIO, CONFORME A

LA LEY FEDERAL DE PROCEDIMIENTO ADMINISTRATIVO. Novena Época,

Tribunales Colegiados de Circuito, Semanario Judicial de la Federación and

Gazette, Vol. XVI, September 2002. Tesis: I.4o.A.369 A, Page 1340.
popular filed on 8 October 2001 nor the proceeding initiated on 11 June

2002 are pending administrative proceedings requiring the Secretariat

to proceed no further.

D. The Submission Warrants Development of a Factual Record

Pursuant to NAAEC Article 15(1) and in light of Mexico’s

response, the Secretariat considers the submission to warrant the development of a factual record for the reasons set out below.

In the case of the “El Boludo” project, the Submitters assert that

Secotec is failing to comply with the terms of the AIA as well as the

LGEEPA and its regulations as regards the restoration of areas impacted

by its mining activities and as regards hazardous waste management, in

terms of waste documentation and shipping as well as spill clean-up. In

inspecting Secotec’s operations, Profepa noted these failures as well as a

significant delay in the restoration of the mined areas, which was to have

proceeded at the same pace as the mining operations. The company was

failing to grade the land; moreover, it was failing to comply by not

storing topsoil and native plants for subsequent reforestation of the

lot. Additional instances of noncompliance involved the failure to protect plants classified as subject to special protection during vegetation

removal operations.24 A listing is presented below of the instances of

noncompliance noted by Profepa during the inspection visit of 15 April

2002 and their relationship to the assertions in the submission.

Alleged noncompliance by Secotec with the terms and conditions of the AIA

as noted in the inspection report

The alleged instances of noncompliance set out below are taken in

their entirety from the inspection report of 15 April 2002. Some of these

were alleged by the Submitters specifically, while others, though not

mentioned explicitly in the Submission, are included by virtue of the fact

that the Submitters make generic reference to all irregularities detected

in the inspection report.25

162 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

24. See Appendix 43(b) of the submission: Profepa, Sonora State Office, Inspection and

Enforcement Section, inspection report, El Boludo project, 15 April 2002, and

Appendix 7 of the submission: National Institute of Ecology, Environmental

Land-use Planning and Impact Branch, no. D.O.O.DGOEIA.05647 (Environmental

Impact Authorization for Secotec “El Boludo” Project), 9 September 1997.

25. Submission, p. 11.
Alleged environmental impact-related noncompliance

1. On the date of the inspection report, approximately 56 ha of the

total area worked were observed to be outside the authorized concession area.26

2. Secotec failed to exhibit documentation attesting to compliance

with its obligation to notify the workers of the legal provisions and

sanctions relating to the protection of wild flora and fauna as well

as of the actions taken to guarantee observance of these provisions

by the workers.27

3. Secotec failed to exhibit documentation demonstrating compliance with the Mexican Official Standards on air and noise emissions from its equipment and machinery; nor did it exhibit its

preventive maintenance program.28

4. The inspection visit found that there was no temporary greenhouse infrastructure and that the company was failing to spray

water constantly during its mining activities in order to keep down

dust.29

5. Secotec failed to exhibit the salvage program for flora and fauna

subject to special protection, since seven desert ironwood plants

(Olneya tesota, a species subject to protection under NOM-059-

ECOL-1994) were observed at the edge of one of the worked areas,

as were piles of specimens of this species that had been affected

previously.30

6. Secotec failed to store material obtained by clearing and removal of

vegetation.31

7. It was observed that no type of soil salvage was performed prior to

the mining operations32 and that while mining activities had taken

SEM-02-004 163

26. See first term of AIA, in relation to inspection report, p. 13, and oficio PFPA-DSDQPS-061/2002 of 30 April 2002.

27. See fifth condition of sixth term of AIA in relation to inspection report, p. 7.

28. See tenth condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report, p. 7

29. See sixteenth condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report,

pp. 9–10.

30. See nineteenth condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report, p. 10

31. See twenty-second condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report,

p. 10.

32. See twenty-fourth condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report,

p. 12.
place on 163 ha, Secotec had only carried out restoration work on

22.5 ha.33

8. Secotec failed to exhibit its General Site Restoration Plan.34

9. Secotec failed to exhibit its Participatory Conservation and

Enforcement Program.35

Alleged hazardous waste-related noncompliance

1. Various soil areas were found to be contaminated by hydrocarbons.36

2. A piece of sheet metal with mercury was found on the ground,

exposed to the elements. Mercury was also found on bare ground

in the amalgamation area over a surface of approximately seven

square meters.37

3. Secotec failed to install devices to prevent hydrocarbons from contaminating the ground occupied by the workshop.38

4. Hazardous waste was found uncovered outside the temporary

warehouse and in a disused truck.39

5. An automotive battery was found on bare ground, exposed to the

elements.40

6. The hazardous waste had no identification indicating its name and

hazardousness characteristics.41

7. The recipient’s signature was lacking on the delivery, shipping,

and receipt manifests bearing numbers 3132, 3133, and 3070, as

well as the unnumbered manifest bearing the shipping date 20

March 2002.42

164 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

33. See twenty-sixth condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to oficio PFPA-DSSJ-0654/2002, 11 June 2002, p. 4.

34. See twenty-sixth condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report,

p. 12.

35. See thirty-first condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report, p. 12.

36. See ninth condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report, p. 7.

37. See sixteenth condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report, p. 9.

38. See eleventh condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report, p. 7.

39. See twelfth condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report, pp. 8–9.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.
8. The storage area lacked retaining walls, ditches, and gutters.43

9. Secotec failed to file semi-annual hazardous waste movement

reports for both half-year periods of 2001.44

10. The entry and exit log for the hazardous waste warehouse did not

indicate destinations and exit dates.45

The AIA provides that Profepa shall enforce compliance with the

terms of the AIA as well as the applicable environmental provisions and

that, for that purpose, it shall exercise, among others, the powers with

which it is invested by Article 20 of the LGEEPA Regulation Respecting

Environmental Impact.46 According to the terms of the AIA, noncompliance with any of its terms invalidates the AIA without prejudice to the

application of the sanctions provided by the LGEEPA and any other

applicable provisions.47 The AIA further provides that where the works,

during their different stages, cause impacts that alter ecological balance,

they may be required to be removed and compensation programs may

be required to be implemented.48 Moreover, where ecological balance is

at risk or unforeseen environmental impacts occur, Semarnat may reassess the Environmental Impact Statement, General Form,49 or request

any other document it considers necessary, in accordance with Article 23

SEM-02-004 165

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. See fifteenth term of AIA.

Article 20.- (published in the DOF on 7 June 1988) Upon evaluation of the environmental impact statement for the work or activity in question, filed in the appropriate form, the Ministry shall formulate a decision and notify the interested parties

thereof, in which decision it may:

I. Authorize the performance of the work or activity under the terms and conditions set out in the corresponding statement;

II. Authorize the performance of the projected work or activity conditional on modification or relocation of the project, or

III. Deny such authorization.

In the cases of paragraphs I and II of this article, the Ministry shall specify the term

of the corresponding authorizations. The performance of the work or activity in

question shall adhere to the provisions of the corresponding decision. The Ministry

may make use of its inspection and enforcement powers at any time to verify that

the work or activity in question is or was carried out in accordance with the corresponding authorization and in a manner that meets the requirements of the applicable environmental technical provisions and standards.

47. See fourteenth term of AIA.

48. See tenth term of AIA.

49. The Secretariat did not obtain a copy of this document.
of the relevant LGEEPA regulation,50 for the purpose of revalidating,

amending, or suspending the AIA.51

The information obtained by the Secretariat shows that Profepa

took some action in response to the Submitters’ denuncia popular and that

it acted in accordance with the LGEEPA in an attempt to compel Secotec

to adhere to the requirements of the AIA and the LGEEPA. However,

and in view of the fact that in its response Mexico did not respond to the

submission’s assertions, central questions remain outstanding for a consideration of whether, in the case of the “El Boludo” project, the Party is

failing to effectively enforce its environmental law. The development of

a factual record would enable the Secretariat to compile the information

necessary for such a consideration.

For example, a factual record would make it possible to compile

relevant information as to why Profepa, when ordering corrective measures and temporary partial closing on 11 June 2002, did not include in

those orders all the irregularities detected during the inspection visit of

15 April 2002. Following is a list of these irregularities:

Alleged environmental impact-related noncompliance

1. On the date of the inspection report, approximately 56 ha of the

total area worked were observed to be outside the authorized concession area. 52

2. Secotec failed to exhibit documentation attesting to compliance

with its obligation to notify the workers of the legal provisions and

166 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

50. Article 23.- (published in the DOF on 7 June 1988) In those cases in which supervening causes of environmental impact not foreseen in the statements filed by the

interested parties arise as a result of force majeure or acts of God subsequent to the

issuance of the environmental impact authorization contemplated by Article 20 of

the Regulation, the Ministry may, at any time, reassess the environmental impact

statement in question. In such cases, the Ministry shall require the interested party

to file any additional information necessary to assess the environmental impact of

the work or activity in question.

The Ministry may revalidate the authorization and amend, suspend or revoke it

where ecological balance is at risk or unforeseen harmful environmental impacts

are caused.

Where the Ministry issues the decision contemplated in the preceding paragraph, it

may, further to a hearing granted to the interested parties, order the temporary partial or total suspension of the work or activity in cases of imminent danger of ecological imbalance or contamination with dangerous consequences for ecosystems,

their components, or public health.

51. See twelfth term of AIA.

52. See first term of AIA, in relation to inspection report, p. 13, and oficio no. PFPA-DSDQPS-061/2002, 30 April 2002.
sanctions relating to the protection of wild flora and fauna as well

as of the actions taken to guarantee observance of these provisions

by the workers.53

3. Secotec failed to exhibit documentation demonstrating compliance with the Mexican Official Standards on air and noise emissions from its equipment and machinery; neither did it exhibit its

preventive maintenance program.54

4. The inspection visit found that there was no temporary greenhouse infrastructure and that the company was failing to spray

water constantly during its mining activities to keep down dust.55

Alleged hazardous waste-related noncompliance

1. The recipient’s signature was lacking on the delivery, shipping,

and receipt manifests bearing numbers 3132, 3133, and 3070, as

well as the unnumbered manifest bearing shipping date 20 March

2002.56

Among the documents provided to the Submitters by the Department of Environmental Petitions, Complaints, and Civic Participation

(copies included as appendices to the submission), there is no copy of a

technical report corresponding to the inspection of 15 April 2002, and

mentioned in the notice of 11 June 2002, which might contain information relevant to this issue.57 Regarding the technical report, the Secretariat has only the following information: a copy of a letter from the Sonora

State Deputy Attorney for Natural Resources to the Director of the

Profepa Department of Environmental Petitions, Complaints and Civic

Participation, which was given to the Submitters as part of the denuncia

popular proceeding and states as follows:

On the 15th day of this month [15 April 2002], an inspection visit was made

to the company Minera Secotec, S.A. de C.V. Inspection report 14042002-

SIV-Q-008 was produced and referred to the decision-making unit under

file no. 037/2002. This report indicated that the company had not in fact

complied with all the terms and conditions under which the project was

originally authorized. It was further observed that 34.3 percent (56-00-00

SEM-02-004 167

53. See fifth condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report, p. 7.

54. See tenth condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report, p. 7

55. See sixteenth condition of sixth term of AIA, in relation to inspection report,

pp. 9–10.

56. Ibid.

57. See notice of 11 June 2002, Appendix 43(e) of the submission, p. 2.
ha) of the total worked were located outside of the authorized concession

area and that at the time of the visit, the company had worked on approximately 163-00-00 ha of the 300-00-00 authorized. The reforestation carried

out by the company was insufficient in terms of both the area reforested

and the manner in which this was done, since it was low density and the

rate of survival was minimal.58

Furthermore, the Secretariat has no information about Profepa’s

assessment of Secotec’s comments after Secotec received a copy of the

inspection report of 15 April 2002.59 This information would be relevant

for consideration in a factual record.

Also lacking is information concerning Profepa’s decision to

rescind the order for temporary partial closure. Profepa issued the order

as a safety measure on 11 June 2002,60 and, in doing so, stated as follows:

[...] it was found that the Establishment has carried out mining activities

on 163 ha and only carried out restoration activities on 22.5 ha, plus 8 additional ha indicated in the quarterly report filed with this office on 8 May

2002, the foregoing to the detriment of the site’s flora and fauna with possibly irreversible negative consequences...61

In the development of a factual record, information would be gathered on the reasons why Profepa decided to rescind the order for temporary partial closure upon signing the agreement of 24 June 2002, with

Secotec, despite the fact that it had stated in the notice of 11 June 2002,

that the order for closure would be rescinded “when [Secotec] carries

168 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

58. Oficio no. PFPA-DS-DQPS-061/2002 from the Deputy Attorney for Natural

Resources, Dr. José Ramón Nuñez Soto, to the Director of the Department of Environmental Petitions, Complaints, and Civic Participation of Profepa, Lic. Beatriz

Eugenia Carranza Meza, 19 April 2002 in re “Complaint.”

59. Appendix 43(e) of the submission; memo no. 14042002-SIV-Q-008 to the Profepa

Attorney for the State of Sonora, Lic. Otto Guillermo Clausen Iberri, from Francisco

Arturo Bayardo Tiznado, on behalf of Secotec, 24 April 2002, in re “Presenting

Observations.” On p. 2 of the notice of 11 June 2002, Appendix 43(e) of the submission, it is stated that these observations were noted, without further details.

60. Pursuant to LGEEPA Article 170: Where there exists an imminent risk of ecological

imbalance or damage to or severe degradation of natural resources, or cases of contamination with dangerous consequences for ecosystems, their components, or

public health, the Ministry may, with due justification, order any of the following

safety measures: I. Temporary partial or total closing of pollution sources, as well

as facilities managing or storing specimens, products or subproducts of wild flora

or fauna species, forest resources, [... II. ...] as well as property, vehicles, tools and

instruments directly related to the conduct giving rise to the imposition of the

safety measure, or...

61. Appendix 43(e) of the submission, p. 5.
out the following actions and provides proof thereof to this office...”,

pursuant to LGEEPA Article 170 Bis.62 The actions to which Profepa subjected the rescission of the order for temporary partial closure were as

follows: 1) Secotec’s grading of 40 ha previously mined, and 2) Secotec’s

filing with Profepa a study or expert opinion issued by a respected organization or professional indicating whether or not there is a loss of fertile

soil in the graded and mined area. The conditions contained in the agreement were as follows: 1) grade a minimum of 10 ha of land per month in

the mined areas; 2) by 31 December 2002, provide proof of having

graded 80 percent of the areas mined to date, and maintain that proportion with respect to the areas where mining was ongoing; 3) carry out a

reforestation program; 4) post a performance bond with Profepa in an

amount of P$400,000.00 to guarantee compliance with the corrective

measures stipulated in the agreement.

The only information obtained by the Secretariat as to why the

order for temporary partial closure was rescinded two weeks after it was

issued is found in a report issued by Profepa on 19 July 2002, in the context of a judicial review proceeding in which the Submitters challenged

the validity of the agreement.63 Profepa stated that this type of agreement is contemplated by LGEEPA Article 168, that it “specifically

defines the actions to be taken by the company in performance of the corrective measures necessary to comply with the terms and conditions

imposed by means of the decision rendered in file no. D.O.O.O.DGNA.-

005647 [the AIA] of 9 September 1997,” and that “the Office of the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection reserves the right to exercise

any of its powers in case of noncompliance with the aforementioned

terms of the agreement in question...64”

Likewise, a factual record would make it possible to gather information on whether the Party has taken the actions necessary to ensure

and, as applicable, require compliance by Secotec with the agreement of

24 June 2002,with any stipulations in the notice of 11 June 2002 not

SEM-02-004 169

62. LGEEPA Article 170 Bis: Where the Ministry orders any of the safety measures contemplated by this Law, it shall indicate to the interested party, as applicable, the

actions that the latter shall take to correct the irregularities justifying the application of said measures, as well as the deadlines for carrying them out, in order for the

safety measures order to be rescinded once these actions are completed.

63. Appendix 43 of the submission: oficio PFPA-DS-SJ-1248/2002 from the Profepa

Attorney for the State of Sonora, Lic. Otto Guillermo Clausen Iberri, to the First

District Judge of the State of Sonora, 19 July 2002, in re “Reasoned Report Filed,”

amparo proceeding no. 506/2002; Complainants: Leoncio, Fernanda and Milagro

Pesqueira Senday; File: Principal.

Mexico does not mention this proceeding in its response.

64. Ibid., p. 16.
covered by that agreement, and with any remaining instances of noncompliance noted in the inspection report of 15 April 2002. If none of

said instances of noncompliance were remedied, the Secretariat would

gather information regarding follow-up by Profepa in order to determine, among other things, whether Profepa ever found it necessary to

terminate the agreement of 24 June 2002 and execute the bond posted by

the company in order to carry out restoration of the affected site itself.

The Secotec AIA issued in September 1997 specifies that its period

of validity is two years and that the company may apply for renewal

within the 30 calendar days prior to expiry. The application must

include the validation of the company’s last report of compliance with

the conditions imposed by Profepa as well as the following: a) a report of

the results of the restoration program, including maps with geographical coordinates; b) current status of the lot; c) area and location on maps

with geographical coordinates of the sites to be exploited in the next

two years; d) video and photographic record indicating the progress

achieved.65 The authorization was renewed for the first time in October

2000.66 For the development of a factual record, information would be

gathered to determine how the Party granted to Secotec the renewal of

these authorizations and whether it gave the appropriate follow-up to

these applications and decisions.

V. SECRETARIAT’S DETERMINATION

In the case of submission SEM-02-004/El Boludo Project, the Secretariat reviewed the Party’s response in accordance with Article 14(3)(a)

in light of Article 45(3)(a) and the relevant provisions of the Party’s law,

in this case, the LGEEPA. The Secretariat finds, based on the information

received by the Secretariat, that for the purposes of the NAAEC, the

matter addressed by the submission is not the subject of a pending

administrative proceeding. The Secretariat reviewed the submission for

the purposes of Article 15(1) and finds that it raises central issues relating

to whether the Party is failing to effectively enforce its environmental

law in the case of the “El Boludo” project, issues that remain outstanding

as the Party did not respond to the assertions in the submission. Therefore, the Secretariat hereby notifies the Council, pursuant to NAAEC

Article 15(1), that it considers the submission to warrant the development of a factual record.

170 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

65. See second term and condition 3 of sixth term of AIA.

66. Appendix 32 of the submission; oficio no. D.O.O.DGOEIA.-006278 to Secotec from

National Institute of Ecology, Environmental Land Use Planning and Impact

Branch, 17 October 2000.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration on 17 May 2004.

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

per: William V. Kennedy

Executive Director

SEM-02-004 171

SEM-02-005

(ALCA-Iztapalapa)

SUBMITTERS: ÁNGEL LARA GARCÍA

PARTY: MEXICO

DATE: 25 November 2002

SUMMARY: The Submitter, Ángel Lara García, asserts that

the manufacturing facility of ALCA, S.A. de C.V.

releases highly toxic contaminants into the neighborhood of Santa Isabel Industrial, where Mr.

Lara García lives. The health and economic effects

allegedly attributable to the emissions produced

by the company are cited in the 183 documents

submitted by Mr. Lara García. He claims that the

factory should close or relocate since, “according

to environmental standards, which have not been

respected, it is a source of pollutants.” The documents make multiple references to the presence

of strong odors from fuels and solvents. And

Mr. Lara García claims that complaints lodged

with the Procuraduría Federal de Protección al

Ambiente (Federal Attorney for Environmental

Protection) and other agencies have been to no

avail.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(17 December 2002)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have not been met.

173

Secretariado de la Comisión

para la Cooperación Ambiental

Determinación del Secretariado en conformidad con el

artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental

de América del Norte

Número de petición: SEM-02-005 (ALCA-Iztapalapa)

Peticionario: Ángel Lara García

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de petición: 25 de noviembre de 2002

Fecha de la determinación: 17 de diciembre de 2002

I. INTRODUCCIÓN

Con fecha 25 de noviembre de 2002, el Sr. Ángel Lara García (el

Peticionario) presentó al Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental (“el Secretariado”) una petición en conformidad con los

Artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

(“ACAAN” o “el Acuerdo”). La petición asevera que México ha omitido

aplicar de manera efectiva su legislación ambiental respecto de la

presunta emisión de contaminantes altamente tóxicos por parte de la

empresa, ALCA, S.A. de C.V. en la colonia Santa Isabel Industrial, Iztapalapa, Ciudad de México, D.F. Según el ACAAN, el Secretariado podrá

examinar las peticiones que cumplan con los requisitos establecidos en

el artículo 14(1). El Secretariado ha determinado que esta petición no

cumple con varios de los requisitos del artículo 14(1) para su examen

en este proceso y en este documento expone las razones de esta

determinación.

175
II. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

El Peticionario asevera que en la colonia Santa Isabel Industrial,

Iztapalapa, Ciudad de México, D.F., la empresa ALCA, S.A. de C.V., ubicada en el predio colindante al domicilio del Peticionario, tiene emisiones altamente contaminantes de partículas y gases, tales como tuluol,

hexano, heptano y xilox, entre otros. Según el Peticionario, al llevar a

cabo sus actividades de inspección y vigilancia con relación a la operación de la empresa, la autoridad ambiental ha cometido diversas irregularidades, evitando con ello la reubicación o clausura de la misma.

Aparentemente, el Peticionario afirma que tales hechos constituyen delitos ambientales y que, a pesar de estar plenamente comprobadas tales

conductas delictivas, la autoridad ha omitido castigar a los responsables.

Finalmente, el Peticionario sugiere que la operación y ubicación de la

empresa en cuestión, transgrede diversas normas ecológicas.

III. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME AL ARTÍCULO

14(1) DEL ACAAN

El artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo establece que:

El Secretariado podrá examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte

está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental, si el Secretariado juzga que la petición:

(a) se presenta por escrito en un idioma designado por esa Parte en una

notificación al Secretariado;

(b) identifica claramente a la persona u organización que presenta la petición;

(c) proporciona información suficiente que permita al Secretariado revisarla, e incluyendo las pruebas documentales que puedan sustentarla;

(d) parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar

una industria;

(e) señala que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades

pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la respuesta de la Parte; y

(f) la presenta una persona u organización que reside o está establecida

en territorio de una Parte.

176 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Si bien el artículo 14(1) no pretende colocar una gran carga para los

peticionarios, en esta etapa se requiere al menos de cierta revisión inicial

para verificar que la petición cumple con estos requisitos.1Por lo tanto, el

Secretariado examinó la petición en cuestión con tal perspectiva en

mente.

La primera cuestión es si la petición “asevera que una Parte está

incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental”. El Secretariado determinó que la petición sí satisface este

requisito umbral, por las siguientes razones.

El Peticionario “asevera” que el objetivo de su petición es exponer

“diversas omisiones en la aplicación de la legislación ambiental.2” Del

mismo modo, el Peticionario sostiene que desde 1995 “a la fecha los verificadores ambientales han cometido diversas irregularidades evitando

que esta fabrica se reubique o se clausure”.3 A partir de estas afirmaciones del Peticionario, puede inferirse que las irregularidades supuestamente cometidas por las autoridades ambientales mexicanas, se han

prolongado en el tiempo desde 1995 y que continúan cometiéndose

hasta el momento de la presentación de la petición.

La petición parece referirse a legislación ambiental toda vez que

alude a “delitos ecológicos” y “normas ecológicas”. 4 Sin duda, las

SEM-02-005 177

1. En este sentido, véanse (SEM-97-005/Animal Alliance of Canada, et al) Determinación conforme al artículo 14(1) (26 de mayo de 1998); y (SEM-98-003/Department of

the Planet Earth, et al) Determinación conforme a los artículos 14(1) y (2) respecto de

la versión revisada de la petición (8 de septiembre de 1999).

2. Página 1 de la petición.

3. Página 1 de la petición.

4. El artículo 45(2) del ACAAN establece:

Para los efectos del Artículo 14(1) y la Quinta Parte:

(a) “legislación ambiental” significa cualquier ley o reglamento de una Parte, o sus

disposiciones, cuyo propósito principal sea la protección del medio ambiente, o la

prevención de un peligro contra la vida o la salud humana, a través de:

(i) la prevención, el abatimiento o el control de una fuga, descarga, o emisión de

contaminantes ambientales,

(ii) el control de químicos, sustancias, materiales o desechos peligrosos o tóxicos, y

la diseminación de información relacionada con ello; o

(iii) la protección de la flora y fauna silvestres, incluso especies en peligro de extinción, su hábitat, y las áreas naturales protegidas en territorio de la Parte, pero no

incluye cualquier ley o reglamento, ni sus disposiciones, directamente relacionados con la seguridad e higiene del trabajador.

(b) Para mayor certidumbre, el término “legislación ambiental” no incluye ninguna

ley ni reglamento, ni sus disposiciones, cuyo propósito principal sea la administración de la recolección, extracción o explotación de recursos naturales con fines

comerciales, ni la recolección o extracción de recursos naturales con propósitos de

subsistencia o por poblaciones indígenas.
disposiciones legales que tipifican y sancionan conductas delictivas perpetradas en contra del ambiente, así como aquellas normas técnicas que

establecen límites para la emisión de contaminantes, califican como

legislación ambiental para efectos de los artículos 45(2) y 14 del ACAAN,

porque son disposiciones cuyo propósito principal coincide con “... la

protección del medio ambiente, o la prevención de un peligro contra

la vida o la salud humana, a través de: ... la prevención, el abatimiento

o el control de una fuga, descarga, o emisión de contaminantes

ambientales...”.

En cuanto a los seis requisitos listados en el artículo 14(1), el Secretariado determinó que la petición satisface los requisitos establecidos en

los incisos a), b), e) y f) del artículo 14(1), por las siguientes razones. La

petición se presentó por escrito en español, que es el idioma designado

por México.5 El Peticionario se identificó como Ángel Lara García, con

residencia en México, específicamente en la Delegación Iztapalapa en el

Distrito Federal; esto es, se trata de una persona que reside en el territorio de la Parte mexicana.6 De igual forma, el Peticionario afirma haber

iniciado diversos procesos legales y penales ante diversas dependencias

en México relacionadas con la protección del ambiente con motivo de las

supuestas omisiones por parte de México en la aplicación de su legislación ambiental.7 Adicionalmente, el Peticionario adjunta a su petición

diversos documentos en donde se corrobora esta circunstancia.

Sin embargo, el Secretariado juzga que la petición no satisface el

requisito del inciso c) porque no contiene información suficiente para

analizarla, ni proporciona información suficiente para determinar si se

satisface el requisito establecido en el inciso d) de dicho artículo.

La petición es muy breve, constando de dos páginas y 66 anexos,

y no contiene suficiente información para que el Secretariado pueda

178 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

(c) El propósito principal de una disposición legislativa o reglamentaria en particular, para efectos de los incisos (a) y (b) se determinará por su propósito principal y

no por el de la ley o del reglamento del que forma parte.

Aun cuando el Secretariado no se rige por el principio de stare decisis, en ocasiones

anteriores, al examinar otras determinaciones, ha señalado que las disposiciones

citadas deben satisfacer la definición de legislación ambiental. Véanse las determinaciones del Secretariado, conforme al artículo 14(1) del ACAAN, para las siguientes

peticiones: SEM-98-001/Instituto de Derecho Ambiental et al. (13 de septiembre

de 1999), SEM-98-002/Héctor Gregorio Ortiz Martínez (18 de marzo de 1999) y

SEM-97-005/Animal Alliance of Canada, et al. (26 de mayo de 1998).

5. Véanse el artículo 14(1)(a) del ACAAN y la sección 3.2 de las Directrices para la

presentación de peticiones.

6. Véanse los artículos 14(1)(b) y (f) del ACAAN.

7. Página 1 de la petición.
revisarla en este proceso.8 En particular, el Peticionario no expresa claramente las disposiciones legales cuya aplicación ha sido, en su opinión,

indebidamente omitida. Al respecto, el punto 5.2 de las Directrices para la

presentación de peticiones establece:

5.2. El Peticionario deberá identificar la ley o el reglamento aplicable, o su

disposición, tal como se define en el artículo 45(2) del Acuerdo. En el caso

de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente de

México, el Peticionario deberá identificar el capítulo o la disposición aplicable de la Ley.

En la petición misma, no se refiere ningún cuerpo legal en específico. Sólo es en algunos anexos de la petición9 donde se mencionan

el Título Vigésimo Quinto, Capítulo Único: Delitos Ambientales del

Código Penal Federal; la Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-002-

ECOL-1996;10 y la Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-085-ECOL-1994.11 Sin

embargo, el Peticionario no expresa la relación que esas disposiciones

guardan con las afirmaciones contenidas en la petición.

Asimismo, el Peticionario no señala la función de sus anexos en el

argumento de que México está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación

efectiva de su legislación ambiental en este asunto, sino que afirma que

anexa “documentos comprobatorios de dichos delitos ecológicos” y que

considera “que los delitos están claramente comprobados”.

SEM-02-005 179

8. Aunque la petición indica que se acompaña de un total de 183 documentos, de

hecho sólo se distinguen 66 en términos de contenido. Entre los 183 documentos

anexos, algunos eran cartas sustantivamente iguales pero dirigidas a diferentes

destinatarios o correspondientes a diferentes fechas y otros estaban repetidos.

9. Véase, por ejemplo: Carta del Lic. Genaro Carillo Elvira, C. Agente del Ministerio

Publico de la Federación Titular de la Mesa I-FEPII dirigida al C. Juez de Distrito en

Materia Penal en Turno del D. F., del 1o de diciembre de 1997; Carta del Dip. Eco.

Javier Serna Alvarado, Presidente de la Comisión de Salud y Asistencia Social dirigida al Lic. Aron Mastache Mondragón, Secretario del Medio Ambiente en el D. F.,

del 31 de julio de 2000; y Carta del Dip. Arnold Ricalde de Jager, Presidente Comisión de Preservación del Medio Ambiente y Protección Ecológica destinada a la

Dra. Claudia Sheinbaum Prado, Secretaria di Medio Ambiente del D. F., del 7 de

noviembre de 2001.

10. Que establece los límites permisibles de contaminantes en descargas de aguas residuales en los sistemas de drenaje y alcantarillado urbano o municipal.

11. Que establece los niveles máximos permisibles de emisión a la atmósfera de

humos, partículas suspendidas totales, bióxido de azufre y óxidos de nitrógeno y

los requisitos y condiciones para la operación de los equipos de calentamiento indirecto por combustión; así como los niveles máximos permisibles de emisión de bióxido de azufre en los equipos de calentamiento directo por combustión.
Como se ha dicho, si bien la petición incluye anexos que contienen

información sobre el problema planteado por el Peticionario respecto de

la empresa ALCA, S.A. de C.V., en la petición misma no se explica concretamente cómo se relaciona esa información con el asunto específico

materia de la petición. Es decir, la petición no contiene suficiente información sobre la supuesta omisión en la aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental (sean los artículos 414 al 420 del Código Penal Federal

o alguna norma oficial mexicana relativa a emisiones de sustancias tóxicas). Esta omisión de la petición es relevante particularmente considerando que la petición es tan breve.

Además, la insuficiencia de información no permite al Secretariado determinar si la petición cumple o no con el requisito establecido

en el inciso d) del artículo 14(1). La petición no parece encaminada a hostigar a una industria, sino a promover la aplicación de la ley para proteger la salud de la comunidad vecina a la planta de ALCA, S.A. de C.V., y

no parece que el Peticionario sea un competidor que podría beneficiarse

económicamente con la petición. Sin embargo, los alegatos de la petición

no se centran en los actos u omisiones de la Parte, como lo dispone el

inciso d) y el apartado 5.4(a) de las Directrices para la presentación de peticiones, sino en el cumplimiento de esa compañía en particular. Sobre este

asunto, la información proporcionada no es suficiente para determinar

si se satisface el requisito de este inciso d) del artículo 14(1).

Habiendo revisado la petición de conformidad con el artículo

14(1), el Secretariado determinó que la petición no satisface todos los

requisitos en él establecidos, por las razones arriba descritas.

IV. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

El Secretariado ha revisado la petición en conformidad con el

artículo 14(1) del ACAAN y considera que no cumple con todos los

requisitos allí establecidos, porque no contiene suficiente información

para determinar si cumple con uno de tales requisitos, y porque no

contiene suficiente información que permita al Secretariado revisar la

petición.

En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por el apartado 6.1 de las Directrices, este Secretariado notifica al Peticionario que no procederá a examinar la petición. No obstante, de acuerdo con el apartado 6.2 de las

180 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Directrices, el Peticionario cuenta con 30 días para presentar una petición que cumpla con los requisitos del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN.

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Victor Shantora

Director Ejecutivo Interino

cc: Dra. Olga Ojeda, SEMARNAT

Sra. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Sra. Judith E. Ayres, US-EPA

Sr. Ángel Lara García

SEM-02-005 181

SEM-03-001

(Ontario Power Generation)

SUBMITTERS: WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE ET AL.

PARTY: CANADA

DATE: 1 May 2003

SUMMARY: The submitters assert that emissions of mercury,

sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from Ontario

Power Generation’s (OPG) coal-powered facilities pollute the air and water downwind, in eastern Canada and northeastern United States. They

assert that Canada is failing to effectively enforce

sections 166 and 176 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which, they claim, obligate the

Minister of the Environment to take action to

address Canadian sources of pollution that he has

reason to believe are causing air or water pollution in the United States. They also assert that

Canada is failing to effectively enforce section

36(3) of the Fisheries Act against the OPG facilities.

Section 36(3) prohibits the deposit of a deleterious

substance into water frequented by fish or in any

place under any conditions where the substance

may enter such water.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(15 July 2003)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have not been met.

183
REV. SUBM.

ART. 14(1)(2)

(19 September 2003)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met, and that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party.

ART. 15(1)

(28 May 2004)

Determination under Article 15(1) that development of a factual record is not warranted.

184 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination in accordance with Article 14(1)

of the North American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation

Submission Number: SEM-03-001 (Ontario Power Generation)

Submitters: Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the

State of New York

Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General

of the State of Connecticut

Patrick C. Lynch, Attorney General of

the State of Rhode Island

Adirondack Communities and

Conservation Program

Adirondack Mountain Club, Inc.

American Lung Association of the

City of New York

American Lung Association of Connecticut

American Lung Association of Maine

American Lung Association of

Massachusetts, Inc.

American Lung Association of

New Hampshire

American Lung Association of

New Jersey

American Lung Association of

Rhode Island

Appalachian Mountain Club

Audubon New York

Breast Cancer Coalition of Rochester

Citizen ́s Environmental Coalition

Connecticut Public Interest Research

Group

Conservation Law Foundation

Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Inc.

185
Submitters: Environmental Advocates

(following) Environmental & Society Institute

Finger Lakes Trail Conference

Fishkill Ridge Caretakes, Inc.

Global Warming Action Network

Great Lakes United

Green Education and Legal Fund, Inc.

Greenpeace Canada

Greenpeace USA

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

Lake Clear Association

Massachusetts Public Interest

Research Group

Natural Resources Defense Council

Massachusetts Public Interest Research

Group

Natural Resources Defense Council

New Hampshire Public Interest Research

Group

New Jersey Public Interest Research Group

New York Public Interest Research Group

New York State Community of Churches

Northeast Organic Farming Association

of New York, Inc.

Ohio Public Interest Research Group

Ontario Clean Air Alliance

PennEnvironment

Rainbow Lake Association, Inc.

Resident ́s Committee to Protect the

Adirondacks

Rhode Island Public Interest Research

Group

Scenic Hudson, Inc.

Sierra Club, including Sierra Club

of Canada

Sierra Club of Canada, Eastern Canada

Chapter

Toronto Environmental Alliance

Town of Chesterfield

Town of Wilmington

U.S. Public Interest Research Group

Vermont Public Interest Research Group

Waterkeeper Alliance

WNY Sustainable Energy Association

186 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Concerned Party: Canada

Date of Receipt: 1 May 2003

Date of this

Determination: 15 July 2003

I. INTRODUCTION

On 1 May 2003, the Submitters listed above filed with the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”) a submission on enforcement matters pursuant to Article 14 of the

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (“NAAEC” or

“Agreement”). Under Article 14 of the NAAEC, the Secretariat may consider a submission from any nongovernmental organization or person

asserting that a Party to the Agreement is failing to effectively enforce its

environmental law if the Secretariat finds that the submission meets the

requirements of Article 14(1). When the Secretariat determines that

those requirements are met, it then determines under Article 14(2)

whether the submission merits requesting a response from the Party

named in the submission, in this case Canada.

The Secretariat has determined that the submission does not meet

all of the requirements in Article 14(1) for further consideration. Specifically, the submission does not satisfy Article 14(1)(c) because the

Submitters have not submitted sufficient information to allow the Secretariat to consider all of the factors in Article 14(2). The Secretariat’s

reasons are set forth below in Section III.

II. SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The submission, filed on 1 May 2003 by the attorneys general of the

states of New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island, along with 48 Canadian and United States non-governmental organizations and two towns

in New York State, asserts that Canada is failing to effectively enforce

the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the federal Fisheries Act

against Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG’s) coal-fired power plants.

The submission focuses primarily on OPG’s Nanticoke, Lambton and

Lakeview generating stations, but the submission encompasses all six of

OPG’s fossil fuel powered facilities.

The Submitters assert that emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide

and nitrogen oxides from OPG’s coal-powered facilities pollute the air

SEM-03-001 187
and water downwind, in eastern Canada and northeastern United

States. They assert that Canada is failing to effectively enforce sections

166 and 176 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA),

which, they claim, obligate the Minister of the Environment to take

action to address Canadian sources of pollution that he has reason to

believe are causing air or water pollution in the United States. They also

assert that Canada is failing to effectively enforce section 36(3) of the

Fisheries Actin connection with the OPG facilities. Section 36(3) prohibits

the deposit of a deleterious substance into water frequented by fish or in

any place under any conditions where the substance may enter water

frequented by fish.

The Submitters attach portions of a 2001 report indicating that

OPG’s six fossil fuel fired facilities generate 14.7 % of the nitrogen

oxides, 23.7 % of the sulfur dioxide and 22.6 % of the mercury emitted in

Ontario.1 The submission describes the transport of emissions of sulfur

dioxide and nitrogen oxides and their deposition as acidic precipitation

and asserts that the prevailing westerly winds in North America transport OPG’s emissions of these substances to Quebec, the Maritime Provinces, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and other New England

states. The submission cites (and attaches portions of) studies indicating

that Ontario is the source of 23 % of the sulfur deposition on Whiteface

Mountain in the Adirondacks and 22 % of the sulfur deposition in

the western Adirondacks.2 The submission also provides information

regarding the adverse environmental and human health impacts that

they claim result from the downwind deposition of OPG’s mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions in eastern Canada and northeastern United States.

The submission describes the efforts of some of the Submitters to

communicate to the Canadian Minister of the Environment and others

their concerns regarding the alleged downwind impacts of OPG’s air

emissions. The Submitters claim that “Canada has responded to these

communications by promising attention to the matter but by doing little

about it.3” They contend that “[t]he only concrete changes at the OPG

plants discussed by Canada have been the installation of pollution control equipment on certain units to reduce NOx emissions in an effort to

meet obligations under the 2000 Ozone Annex to the Canada-United

States Air Quality Agreement.4”

188 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Submission at 5, Appendix C.

2. Submission at 7, Appendix C.

3. Submission at 13.

4. Ibid.
III. ANALYSIS

Article 14 of the NAAEC directs the Secretariat to consider a submission from any nongovernmental organization or person asserting

that a Party to the NAAEC is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law. When the Secretariat determines that a submission meets

the Article 14(1) requirements, it then determines whether the submission merits requesting a response from the Party named in the submission based upon the factors contained in Article 14(2). As the Secretariat

has noted in previous Article 14(1) determinations,5 Article 14(1) is not

intended to be an insurmountable procedural screening device. Rather,

Article 14(1) should be given a large and liberal interpretation, consistent with the objectives of the NAAEC.

A. Opening sentence of Article 14(1)

The opening sentence of Article 14(1) authorizes the Secretariat to

consider a submission “from any nongovernmental organization or person asserting that a Party is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law [...].”

Article 45(1) of the NAAEC defines a “non-governmental organization” as “any scientific, professional, business, non-profit, or public

interest organization or association which is neither affiliated with,

nor under the direction of, a government.” The Submitters include 48

non-governmental organizations within the meaning of this definition.

Five of the Submitters – the three state attorneys general and the towns

of Chesterfield and Wilmington – are governmental entities. In view of

the Article 45(1) definition of “non-governmental organization,” the

Secretariat concludes that the two towns and the three attorneys general,

who joined the submission in their capacities as attorneys general, are

not non-governmental organizations or persons within the meaning of

Article 14. Any further proceedings in connection with this submission

will reference the 48 non-governmental organizations as the Submitters.

The submission alleges that a Party, Canada, is failing to effectively

enforce ss. 166 and 176 of CEPA and s. 36(3) of the Fisheries Act. All of

these provisions come clearly within the definition of “environmental

law” found in Article 45(2)(a).

SEM-03-001 189

5. See e.g. SEM-97-005 (Biodiversity), Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) (26 May

1998) and SEM-98- 003 (Great Lakes), Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) & (2) (8

September 1999).
The submission alleges “failure to effectively enforce” these sections against OPG, not a deficiency in the provisions themselves or in

standard-setting under the provisions. CEPA ss. 166 and 176 both provide that the Environment Minister shall take certain prescribed action if

the Environment Minister and the Health Minister have reason to

believe that a substance released from a Canadian source into the air or

water creates, or may reasonably be anticipated to create, air or water

pollution either (1) in a foreign country that provides substantially the

same rights to Canada as Canada provides in ss. 166 and 176 or (2) that

violates or is likely to violate an international agreement on prevention,

control or correction of pollution.6 In regard to alleged non-federal

sources of pollution such as OPG, the ministerial action that ss. 166 and

176 contemplate is, first, consultation with the relevant non-federal

government to determine whether that government can address the

transboundary pollution and, second, if the non-federal government

cannot or does not take action, either the publication of a notice requiring preparation and implementation of a pollution prevention plan

under CEPA s. 56(1) or recommendation of regulations to the Governor

in Council regarding the pollution. In a previous submission, the Secretariat determined that assertions similar to those regarding ss. 166 and

176 were assertions of a failure to effectively enforce or fulfill a specific

legal obligation that the Secretariat could consider under Article 14.7 The

assertion regarding enforcement of Fisheries Act s. 36(3) likewise satisfies

the requirement that it refer to an alleged failure to effectively enforce.

B. Six specific criteria under Article 14(1)

Article 14(1) then lists six specific criteria relevant to the Secretariat’s consideration of submissions. The Secretariat must find that a

submission:

a) is in writing in a language designated by that Party in a notification

to the Secretariat;

b) clearly identifies the person or organization making the submission;

c) provides sufficient information to allow the Secretariat to review

the submission, including any documentary evidence on which

the submission may be based;

190 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

6. See CEPA ss. 166 and 176.

7. See SEM-98-003 (Great Lakes), Determination pursuant to Articles 14(1) and 14(2) (8

September 1999).
d) appears to be aimed at promoting enforcement rather than at

harassing industry;

e) indicates that the matter has been communicated in writing to the

relevant authorities of the Party and indicates the Party’s response,

if any; and

f) is filed by a person or organization residing or established in the

territory of a Party.8

The submission meets all of these criteria except Article 14(1)(c).

Consistent with Article 14(1)(a), the submission is in English, a language

designated by the Parties. As Article 14(1)(b) requires, it clearly identifies the organizations making the submission. The submission appears

to be aimed at promoting enforcement rather than at harassing industry,

as required by Article 14(1)(d) of the NAAEC. It is focused on the acts or

omissions of a Party rather than on compliance by a particular company

or business, and the Submitters are not competitors of OPG.9 The Secretariat does not find the submission to be frivolous.10 The submission

meets the criterion contained in Article 14(1)(e) of the NAAEC, in that it

indicates that the matter has been communicated in writing to the relevant Canadian authorities and their response.11 The submission provides copies of correspondence sent to the Canadian Minister of the

Environment, and copies of the replies received. Finally, because the

Submitters are established in the United States or Canada, the submission satisfies Article 14(1)(f).

Overall, the submission does not meet the requirement in Article

14(1)(c) that it provide sufficient information to allow the Secretariat to

review the submission.12 Regarding the Submitters’ substantive assertions, the submission and the documentary evidence attached to it do

provide information regarding 1) the amount of nitrogen oxides, sulfur

dioxide and mercury that OPG’s facilities emit, and their percentage

contribution to overall emissions in Ontario;13 2) the downwind movement of these pollutants to northeastern United States and eastern

Canada, including some information regarding the percentage contribution of Ontario emissions;14 and 3) the harm to human health and the

SEM-03-001 191

8. Article 14(1)(a)-(f).

9. See Guideline 5.4(a).

10. See Guideline 5.4(b).

11. Submission at 12-15.

12. Article 14(1)(c); Guideline 5.3

13. Submission at 5-6 and documents cited (Appendix C).

14. Submission at 6-7 and documents cited (Appendix C).
environment that deposition of mercury and acid precipitation resulting

from emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides cause in eastern

Canada and northeastern United States.15 The submission, with supporting documentation, asserts that acid rain has resulted in “large

losses of fish and aquatic communities in over 30,000 sensitive lakes in

southern Ontario and Quebec.” The submission also contains information on at least some of Canada’s efforts to address power plant emissions.16

Taken together, this information provides some support for the

assertion that, in respect to CEPA ss. 166 and 176, there is reason to

believe that OPG air emissions create, or may reasonably be anticipated

to create, air or water pollution in the United States, which appears to

provide substantially the same rights to Canada as Canada provides to

other countries in sections 166 and 176.17 The information is therefore

sufficient to allow the Secretariat to review the submission with respect

to CEPA ss. 166(1)(a) and 176(1)(a). The information also relates to the

assertion that Canada has not taken sufficient action to meet nitrogen

oxides requirements under the Ozone Annex to the Canada-United

States Air Quality Agreement, such that those emissions violate or are

likely to violate an international agreement on prevention, control or

correction of pollution.18 The information in the submission is therefore

also sufficient to allow the Secretariat to review the submission with

respect to CEPA ss. 166(1)(b) and 176(1)(b).

The Submitters’ assertions regarding s. 36(3) appear to suggest

a largely untested application of the provision to air emissions that

eventually fall into water frequented by fish. Although it is possibly

unprecedented, the Secretariat finds no basis for rejecting outright the

application of s. 36(3) that the Submitters propose. The definition of

“deposit” in s. 34(1) includes any “emitting” or “spraying” of a substance.19 Further, the “deposit” need not be directly into the water, as s.

36(3) also encompasses the deposit “in any place under any conditions

where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that

results from the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter” water

frequented by fish. The information in the submission regarding the

OPG emissions, their downwind movement and their potential impacts

192 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

15. Submission at 8-9 and documents cited (Appendix C).

16. Submission at 13.

17. See Submission at 2-3 (citing provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act and Clean Water

Act).

18. Submission at 13.

19. Section 34(1) defines a deposit as “any discharging, spraying, releasing, spilling,

leaking, seeping, pouring, emitting, emptying, throwing, dumping or placing.”
on numerous water bodies in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, as well as on Canada’s alleged lack of an adequate enforcement

response, is sufficient to allow the Secretariat to review the Submitters’

assertions regarding section 36(3).

The submission fails to meet fully the requirement in Article

14(1)(c) because the Submitters have provided insufficient information

regarding whether private remedies available under Canada’s law have

been pursued, a factor the Secretariat must consider under Article 14(2)

in determining whether to request a response to the submission. The letters attached to the submission referencing concerns regarding enforcement of CEPA ss. 166 and 176 and Fisheries Act s. 36(3) in connection with

OPG’s emissions do not provide the information needed for the Secretariat’s consideration of Article 14(2)(c).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Secretariat has determined that

although submission SEM-03-001 (Ontario Power Generation) meets

some of the requirements of Article 14(1), it does not meet all of them, in

particular Article 14(1)(c). Pursuant to Guideline 6.2 of the Guidelines for

Submission on Enforcement Matters under Articles 14 and 15 of the North

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, the Secretariat will terminate the Article 14 process with respect to this submission, unless

remaining Submitters (that is, those who are nongovernmental organizations or persons within the meaning of Article 14(1)) provide the Secretariat with a submission that conforms to the criteria of Article 14(1)

and the guidelines within 30 days after receipt of this Notification.

Respectfully submitted,

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

per: Victor Shantora

Acting Executive Director

cc: Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Olga Ojeda, SEMARNAT

Judith E. Ayres, US-EPA

Submitters

SEM-03-001 193

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination in accordance with Articles 14(1) and (2)

of the North American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation

Submission Number: SEM-03-001 (Ontario Power Generation)

Submitters: Adirondack Communities and

Conservation Program

Adirondack Mountain Club, Inc.

American Lung Association of the

City of New York

American Lung Association of Connecticut

American Lung Association of Maine

American Lung Association of

Massachusetts

American Lung Association of

New Hampshire

American Lung Association of New Jersey

American Lung Association of New York

American Lung Association of

Rhode Island

Appalachian Mountain Club

Audubon New York

Breast Cancer Coalition of Rochester

Citizen ́s Environmental Coalition

Connecticut Public Interest Research

Group

Conservation Law Foundation

Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Inc.

Environmental Advocates

Environmental and Society Institute

Finger Lakes Trail Conference

Fishkill Ridge Caretakes, Inc.

Global Warming Action Network

Great Lakes United

195
Submitters: Green Education and Legal Fund, Inc.

(following) Greenpeace Canada

Greenpeace USA

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

Lake Clear Association

Massachusetts Public Interest Research

Group

Natural Resources Defense Council

New Hampshire Public Interest Research

Group

New Jersey Public Interest Research Group

New York Public Interest Research Group

New York State Community of Churches

Northeast Organic Farming Association

of New York, Inc.

Ohio Public Interest Research Group

Ontario Clean Air Alliance

PennEnvironment

Rainbow Lake Association, Inc.

Resident ́s Committee to Protect the

Adirondacks

Rhode Island Public Interest Research

Group

Scenic Hudson, Inc.

Sierra Club, including Sierra Club

of Canada

Sierra Club of Canada, Eastern Canada

Chapter

Toronto Environmental Alliance

U.S. Public Interest Research Group

Vermont Public Interest Research Group

Waterkeeper Alliance

WNY Sustainable Energy Association

Party: Canada

Date of Receipt: 14 August 2003

Date of receipt of the

original submission: 1 May 2003

Date of this

Determination: 19 September 2003

196 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
I. INTRODUCTION

On 14 August 2003, the Submitters listed above filed with the

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”) a revised submission on enforcement matters pursuant to

Article 14 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

(“NAAEC” or “Agreement”). The revised submission contains new

information following the Secretariat’s determination of 15 July 2003

that the original submission, filed on 1 May 2003, failed to meet fully the

requirement in Article 14(1)(c) because the Submitters provided insufficient information regarding whether private remedies available under

Canada’s law have been pursued.

The Secretariat has determined that the revised submission meets

all of the requirements in Article 14(1) for further consideration and,

upon consideration of the factors in Article 14(2), that it merits requesting a response from Canada. The Secretariat’s reasons are set forth

below in Section III.

II. SUMMARY OF THE REVISED SUBMISSION

Like the original submission, the revised submission, filed by 49

Canadian and United States non-governmental organizations,1 asserts

that Canada is failing to effectively enforce the Canadian Environmental

Protection Act and the federal Fisheries Act against Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG’s) coal-fired power plants. The revised submission focuses

primarily on OPG’s Nanticoke, Lambton and Lakeview generating stations, but the submission encompasses all six of OPG’s fossil fuel powered facilities.

The Submitters assert that emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide

and nitrogen oxides from OPG’s coal-powered facilities pollute the air

and water downwind, in eastern Canada and northeastern United

States. They assert that Canada is failing to effectively enforce sections

166 and 176 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

(CEPA), which, they claim, obligate the Minister of the Environment to

SEM-03-001 197

1. Five of the original Submitters are listed as Interested Parties in the submission: the

attorneys general of New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island and the Towns of

Chesterfield and Wilmington, both in New York State. The submission makes clear

that these “Interested Parties” are not submitters. Submission at ii. In its 15 July 2003

determination, the Secretariat concluded that , in view of the Article 45(1) definition

of “non-governmental organization,” “the two towns and the three attorneys general, who joined the submission in their capacities as attorneys general, are not

non-governmental organizations or persons within the meaning of Article 14.”

SEM-03-001, Determination under Article 14(1) (15 July 2003).
take action to address Canadian sources of pollution that he has reason

to believe are causing air or water pollution in the United States. They

also assert that Canada is failing to effectively enforce section 36(3) of the

Fisheries Actin connection with the OPG facilities. Section 36(3) prohibits

the deposit of a deleterious substance into water frequented by fish or in

any place under any conditions where the substance or another deleterious substance may enter water frequented by fish.

The Submitters attach portions of a 2001 report indicating that

OPG’s six fossil fuel fired facilities generate 14.7 % of the nitrogen

oxides, 23.7 % of the sulfur dioxide and 22.6 % of the mercury emitted in

Ontario.2 The revised submission describes the transport of emissions of

sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides and their deposition as acidic precipitation and asserts that the prevailing westerly winds in North America

transport OPG’s emissions of these substances to Quebec, the Maritime

Provinces, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and other New England states. The revised submission cites (and attaches portions of) studies indicating that Ontario is the source of 23 % of the sulfur deposition

on Whiteface Mountain in New York State’s Adirondack Mountains and

22 % of the sulfur deposition in the western Adirondacks.3 The revised

submission also provides information regarding the adverse environmental and human health impacts that they claim result from the downwind deposition of OPG’s mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides

emissions in eastern Canada and northeastern United States. The Submitters claim that they or their members are directly and personally

affected by the harm described in the revised submission and that natural resources that they use have been degraded in recreational and other

value.4

The revised submission describes the efforts of some of the Submitters to communicate to the Canadian Minister of the Environment and

others their concerns regarding the alleged downwind impacts of OPG’s

air emissions. The Submitters claim that “Canada has responded to

these communications by promising attention to the matter but by doing

little about it.”5 They contend that “[t]he only concrete changes at the

OPG plants discussed by Canada have been the installation of pollution

control equipment on certain units to reduce NOx emissions in an effort

to meet obligations under the 2000 Ozone Annex to the Canada-United

States Air Quality Agreement.”6

198 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

2. Revised submission at 5, Appendix C.

3. Revised submission at 7, Appendix C.

4. Revised submission at 14-15.

5. Revised submission at 13.

6. Ibid.
The only new information in the revised submission concerns the

pursuit of private remedies available under Canadian law in regard to

the matters addressed in the submission. The Submitters claim that

“[t]here are no realistic private remedies available and such avenues for

redress that may be available have been pursued by Submitters and

others without success.”7

III. ANALYSIS

Article 14 of the NAAEC directs the Secretariat to consider a submission from any nongovernmental organization or person asserting

that a Party to the NAAEC is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law. When the Secretariat determines that a submission meets

the Article 14(1) requirements, it then determines whether the submission merits requesting a response from the Party named in the submission based upon the factors contained in Article 14(2). As the Secretariat

has noted in previous Article 14(1) determinations,8 Article 14(1) is not

intended to be an insurmountable procedural screening device. Rather,

Article 14(1) should be given a large and liberal interpretation, consistent with the objectives of the NAAEC.

A. Opening sentence of Article 14(1)

The opening sentence of Article 14(1) authorizes the Secretariat to

consider a submission “from any nongovernmental organization or person asserting that a Party is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law [...].”

Article 45(1) of the NAAEC defines a “non-governmental organization” as “any scientific, professional, business, non-profit, or public

interest organization or association which is neither affiliated with,

nor under the direction of, a government.” The Submitters are 49 nongovernmental organizations within the meaning of this definition.

The revised submission alleges that a Party, Canada, is failing to

effectively enforce ss. 166 and 176 of CEPA and s. 36(3) of the Fisheries

Act. All of these provisions come clearly within the definition of “environmental law” found in Article 45(2)(a).

SEM-03-001 199

7. Revised submission at 12.

8. See e.g. SEM-97-005 (Biodiversity), Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) (26 May

1998) and SEM-98- 003 (Great Lakes), Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) & (2) (8

September 1999).
The revised submission alleges “failure to effectively enforce”

these sections against OPG, not a deficiency in the provisions themselves or in standard-setting under the provisions. CEPA ss. 166 and 176

both provide that the Environment Minister shall take certain prescribed

action if the Environment Minister and the Health Minister have reason

to believe that a substance released from a Canadian source into the air

or water creates, or may reasonably be anticipated to create, air or water

pollution either (1) in a foreign country that provides substantially the

same rights to Canada as Canada provides in ss. 166 and 176 or (2) that

violates or is likely to violate an international agreement on prevention,

control or correction of pollution.9 In regard to alleged non-federal

sources of pollution such as OPG, the ministerial action that ss. 166 and

176 contemplate is, first, consultation with the relevant non-federal

government to determine whether that government can address the

transboundary pollution and, second, if the non-federal government

cannot or does not take action, either the publication of a notice requiring preparation and implementation of a pollution prevention plan

under CEPA s. 56(1) or recommendation of regulations to the Governor

in Council regarding the pollution. In a previous submission, the Secretariat determined that assertions similar to those regarding ss. 166 and

176 were assertions of a failure to effectively enforce or fulfill a specific

legal obligation that the Secretariat could consider under Article 14.10

The assertion regarding enforcement of Fisheries Act s. 36(3) likewise satisfies the requirement that it refer to an alleged failure to effectively

enforce.

B. Six specific criteria under Article 14(1)

Article 14(1) then lists six specific criteria relevant to the Secretariat’s consideration of submissions. The Secretariat must find that a

submission:

a) is in writing in a language designated by that Party in a notification to the Secretariat;

b) clearly identifies the person or organization making the submission;

c) provides sufficient information to allow the Secretariat to

review the submission, including any documentary evidence

on which the submission may be based;

200 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

9. See CEPA ss. 166 and 176.

10. See SEM-98-003 (Great Lakes), Determination pursuant to Articles 14(1) and 14(2)

(8 September 1999).
d) appears to be aimed at promoting enforcement rather than at

harassing industry;

e) indicates that the matter has been communicated in writing

to the relevant authorities of the Party and indicates the

Party’s response, if any; and

f) is filed by a person or organization residing or established in

the territory of a Party.11

The revised submission meets all of these criteria. Consistent with

Article 14(1)(a), the submission is in English, a language designated by

the Party. As Article 14(1)(b) requires, it clearly identifies the organizations making the submission. The revised submission appears to be

aimed at promoting enforcement rather than at harassing industry, as

required by Article 14(1)(d) of the NAAEC. It is focused on the acts or

omissions of a Party rather than on compliance by a particular company

or business, and the Submitters are not competitors of OPG.12 The Secretariat does not find the revised submission to be frivolous.13 The revised

submission meets the criterion contained in Article 14(1)(e) of the

NAAEC, in that it indicates that the matter has been communicated in

writing to the relevant Canadian authorities and their response.14 The

revised submission includes copies of correspondence sent to the Canadian Minister of the Environment, and copies of the replies received.

Finally, because the Submitters are established in the United States or

Canada, the revised submission satisfies Article 14(1)(f).

Unlike the original submission, the revised submission also meets

the requirement in Article 14(1)(c) that it provide sufficient information

to allow the Secretariat to review the submission.15 Regarding the Submitters’ substantive assertions, the revised submission and the documentary evidence attached to it provide information regarding 1) the

amount of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury that OPG’s facilities emit, and their percentage contribution to overall emissions in

Ontario;16 2) the downwind movement of these pollutants to northeastern United States and eastern Canada, including some information

regarding the percentage contribution of Ontario emissions;17 and 3) the

harm to human health and the environment that deposition of mercury

SEM-03-001 201

11. Article 14(1)(a)-(f).

12. See Guideline 5.4(a).

13. See Guideline 5.4(b).

14. Revised submission at 11-13.

15. Article 14(1)(c); Guideline 5.3

16. Revised submission at 5-6 and documents cited (Appendix C).

17. Revised submission at 6 and documents cited (Appendix C).
and acid precipitation resulting from emissions of sulfur dioxide and

nitrogen oxides cause in eastern Canada and northeastern United

States.18 The revised submission, with supporting documentation,

asserts that acid rain has resulted in “large losses of fish and aquatic communities in over 30,000 sensitive lakes in southern Ontario and Quebec.”19 The submission also contains information on at least some of

Canada’s efforts to address power plant emissions.20

Taken together, this information is relevant to the assertion that, in

respect to CEPA ss. 166 and 176, there is reason to believe that OPG air

emissions create, or may reasonably be anticipated to create, air or water

pollution in the United States, which appears to provide substantially

the same rights to Canada as Canada provides to other countries in sections 166 and 176.21 The information is therefore sufficient to allow the

Secretariat to review the submission with respect to CEPA ss. 166(1)(a)

and 176(1)(a). The information also relates to the assertion that Canada

has not taken sufficient action to meet nitrogen oxides requirements

under the Ozone Annex to the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement, such that those emissions violate or are likely to violate an international agreement on prevention, control or correction of pollution.22 The

information in the submission is therefore also sufficient to allow the

Secretariat to review the submission with respect to CEPA ss. 166(1)(b)

and 176(1)(b).

The Submitters’ assertions regarding s. 36(3) appear to suggest

a largely untested application of the provision to air emissions that

eventually fall into water frequented by fish. Although it is possibly

unprecedented, the Secretariat finds no basis for rejecting outright the

application of s. 36(3) that the Submitters propose. The definition of

“deposit” in s. 34(1) includes any “emitting” or “spraying”of a substance.23 Further, the “deposit” need not be directly into the water, as s.

36(3) also encompasses the deposit of a deleterious substance “in any

place under any conditions where the deleterious substance or any other

deleterious substance that results from the deposit of the deleterious

substance may enter” water frequented by fish. The revised submission

clearly identifies OPG as the source of the emissions of concern. The

information in the revised submission regarding the OPG emissions,

202 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

18. Revised submission at 7-11 and documents cited (Appendix C).

19. Revised submission at 8.

20. Revised submission at 12.

21. See Revised submission at 2-3 (citing provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act and Clean

Water Act).

22. Revised submission at 12.

23. Section 34(1) defines a deposit as “any discharging, spraying, releasing, spilling,

leaking, seeping, pouring, emitting, emptying, throwing, dumping or placing.”
their downwind movement and their potential impacts on numerous

water bodies in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, as well

as on Canada’s alleged lack of an adequate enforcement response, is sufficient to allow the Secretariat to review the Submitters’ assertions

regarding s. 36(3).

Finally, unlike the original submission, the revised submission

provides sufficient information to allow the Secretariat to conduct its

review of all of the factors in Article 14(2). In particular, it provides the

information needed for the Secretariat’s consideration pursuant to Article 14(2)(c) of whether private remedies available under the Party’s law

have been pursued.

C. Article 14(2)

The Secretariat reviews a submission under Article 14(2) if it finds

that the submission meets the criteria in Article 14(1). The purpose of

such a review is to determine whether to request that the Party concerned prepare a response to the submission. During its review under

Article 14(2), the Secretariat considers each of the four factors listed in

that provision based on the facts involved in a particular submission.

Article 14(2) lists these four factors as follows:

In deciding whether to request a response, the Secretariat shall be guided

by whether:

(a) the submission alleges harm to the person or organization making the

submission;

(b) the submission, alone or in combination with other submissions,

raises matters whose further study in this process would advance the

goals of this Agreement;

(c) private remedies available under the Party’s law have been pursued;

and

(d) the submission is drawn exclusively from mass media reports.24

The Secretariat, guided by the factors listed in Article 14(2), has

determined that the revised submission merits requesting a response

from the Party, in this case Canada.

SEM-03-001 203

24. Article 14(2) of the NAAEC.
The Submitters provide information regarding the adverse

impacts of OPG emissions on human health and the environment

and assert that they and their members are “directly and personally

affected” by those impacts.25 Similar assertions have been considered

under Article 14(2)(a) for other submissions and they are relevant here as

well.26

The revised submission also raises matters whose further study in

the Article 14 process would advance the goals of the Agreement.27 The

Submitters note, inter alia, that further study in the citizen submission

process would foster the protection and improvement of the environment as contemplated in NAAEC Article 1(a); promote sustainable

development based on cooperation and mutually supportive environmental and economic policies, as contemplated in NAAEC Article 1(b);

increase cooperation between governments to better conserve, protect

and enhance the environment, as contemplated in NAAEC Article 1(c);

avoid creating trade distortions or new trade barriers, as contemplated

in NAAEC Article 1(e); strengthen cooperation on the development and

improvement of environmental laws, regulations, procedures, policies

and practices, as contemplated in NAAEC Article 1(f); enhance compliance with, and enforcement of, environmental law and regulations, as

contemplated in NAAEC Article 1(g); and promote pollution prevention policies and practices, as contemplated in NAAEC Article 1(j).28 The

Secretariat agrees that further study of the matters raised in the submission would advance these goals, particularly those set out in NAAEC

Articles 1(a), 1(e), 1(g) and 1(j).

The Submitters assert that “[t]here are no realistic private remedies

available and such avenues for redress that may be available have been

pursued by Submitters and others without success.”29 They claim that it

is “impractical and unrealistic for individuals and non-governmental

entities with limited resources and expertise to seek redress through

private remedies for a transnational problem of such scope and com204 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

25. Revised submission at 7-11, 14-15.

26. In SEM-96-001 (Cozumel), Recommendation to the Council for the Development of

a Factual Record (7 June 1996), for example, the Secretariat noted: “In considering

harm, the Secretariat notes the importance and character of the resource in question

– a portion of the magnificent Paradise coral reef located in the Caribbean waters of

Quintana Roo. While the Secretariat recognizes that the submitters may not have

alleged the particularized, individual harm required to acquire legal standing to

bring suit in some civil proceedings in North America, the especially public nature

of marine resources bring the submitters within the spirit and intent of Article 14 of

the NAAEC.”

27. Article 14(2)(b) of the NAAEC.

28. Revised submission at 15.

29. Revised submission at 12.
plexity.”30 They also claim that bringing private prosecutions, which the

government can stay, is a financial burden and not a viable option in

light of the number of alleged violations by OPG and their alleged widespread effects on the environment.31 The Submitters assert that “the

better approach is for the government regulator to address the source of

the emissions.”32 The Submitters also describe the legal and other obstacles they would face in bringing private tort actions or common law

actions.33 Nonetheless, the Submitters describe efforts to urge the federal government of Canada and the government of Ontario to address

the air and water pollution issues presented in the submission.34 Taking

note of the burdens that the Submitters describe, and noting also that the

Submitters or others have made federal or provincial authorities in Canada aware of their concerns regarding OPG’s emissions on numerous

occasions beginning in May 1999,35 the Secretariat concludes that the

approach in regard to pursuit of private remedies was reasonable in

light of the circumstances.

Finally, the submission is not based exclusively on mass media

reports. As the Submitters note, the submission is based primarily on

“government reports and studies and on peer reviewed scientific studies.”36

In sum, having reviewed the submission in light of the factors contained in Article 14(2), the Secretariat has determined that the assertion

that Canada is failing to effectively enforce provisions of the Canadian

Environmental Protection Act and the federal Fisheries Act against Ontario

Power Generation’s (OPG’s) coal-fired power plants merits a response

from Canada.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Secretariat has determined that the

revised submission SEM-03-001 (Ontario Power Generation) meets the

requirements of Article 14(1) and merits requesting a response from the

Party in light of the factors listed in Article 14(2). Accordingly, the Secretariat requests a response from the Government of Canada subject to the

provisions of Article 14(3). A copy of the revised submission and the

SEM-03-001 205

30. Revised submission at 13.

31. Revised submission at 13.

32. Revised submission at 13-14.

33. Revised submission at 14.

34. Revised submission at 13-14.

35. Revised submission at 11-12.

36. Revised submission at 14.
supporting information provided with the original submission were

previously forwarded to the Party under separate cover.

Respectfully submitted,

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

per: Geoffrey Garver

Director, Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit

cc: Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Olga Ojeda, SEMARNAT

Judith E. Ayres, US-EPA

William V. Kennedy, CEC Executive Director

Submitters

206 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination in accordance with Article 15(1)

of the North American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation

Submission Number: SEM-03-001 (Ontario Power Generation)

Submitters: Adirondack Communities and

Conservation Program

Adirondack Mountain Club, Inc.

American Lung Association of the

City of New York

American Lung Association of Connecticut

American Lung Association of Maine

American Lung Association of

Massachusetts

American Lung Association of New

Hampshire

American Lung Association of New Jersey

American Lung Association of New York

American Lung Association of

Rhode Island

Appalachian Mountain Club

Audubon New York

Breast Cancer Coalition of Rochester

Citizen ́s Environmental Coalition

Connecticut Public Interest Research

Group

Conservation Law Foundation

Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Inc.

Environmental Advocates

Environmental and Society Institute

Finger Lakes Trail Conference

Fishkill Ridge Caretakes, Inc.

Global Warming Action Network

Great Lakes United

SEM-03-001 207

207
Submitters: Green Education and Legal Fund, Inc.

(following) Greenpeace Canada

Greenpeace USA

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

Lake Clear Association

Massachusetts Public Interest Research

Group

Natural Resources Defense Council

New Hampshire Public Interest Research

Group

New Jersey Public Interest Research Group

New York Public Interest Research Group

New York State Community of Churches

Northeast Organic Farming Association

of New York, Inc.

Ohio Public Interest Research Group

Ontario Clean Air Alliance

PennEnvironment

Rainbow Lake Association, Inc.

Resident ́s Committee to Protect the

Adirondacks

Rhode Island Public Interest Research

Group

Scenic Hudson, Inc.

Sierra Club, including Sierra Club

of Canada

Sierra Club of Canada, Eastern Canada

Chapter

Toronto Environmental Alliance

U.S. Public Interest Research Group

Vermont Public Interest Research Group

Waterkeeper Alliance

WNY Sustainable Energy Association

Concerned Party: Canada

Date of Receipt: 14 August 2003

Date of receipt of the

original submission: 1 May 2003

Date of this

Determination: 28 May 2004

208 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Article 14 of theNorth American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC or the “Agreement”) creates a mechanism for citizens to

file submissions in which they assert that a Party to the NAAEC is failing

to effectively enforce its environmental law. The Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “CEC”) initially considers

these submissions based on criteria contained in Article 14(1) of the

NAAEC. When the Secretariat determines that a submission meets these

criteria, the Secretariat then determines based on factors contained in

Article 14(2) whether the submission merits requesting a response from

the Party named in the submission. If the Secretariat considers that the

submission, in light of any response from the Party, warrants developing a factual record, the Secretariat must inform Council and provide its

reasons (Article 15(1)). The Secretariat dismisses the submission if it

believes that development of a factual record is not warranted.

On 14 August 2003, the Submitters listed above filed with the

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”) a revised submission on enforcement matters pursuant to

Article 14 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

(“NAAEC” or “Agreement”). The revised submission contains new

information following the Secretariat’s determination of 15 July 2003

that the original submission, filed on 1 May 2003, failed to meet fully the

requirement in Article 14(1)(c). On 19 September 2003, the Secretariat

requested a response to the revised submission from Canada. Canada

provided its response on 18 November 2003.

The Secretariat has determined that the revised submission does

not warrant preparation of a factual record, and provides its reasons

below.

II. SUMMARY OF THE REVISED SUBMISSION

Like the original submission, the revised submission, filed by 49

Canadian and United States non-governmental organizations,1 asserts

SEM-03-001 209

1. Five of the original Submitters are listed as Interested Parties in the submission: the

attorneys general of New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island and the Towns of

Chesterfield and Wilmington, both in New York State. The submission makes clear

that these “Interested Parties” are not submitters. Submission at ii. In its 15 July 2003

determination, the Secretariat concluded that , in view of the Article 45(1) definition

of “non-governmental organization,” “the two towns and the three attorneys general, who joined the submission in their capacities as attorneys general, are not

non-governmental organizations or persons within the meaning of Article 14.”

SEM-03-001, Determination under Article 14(1) (15 July 2003).
that Canada is failing to effectively enforce the Canadian Environmental

Protection Act and the federal Fisheries Act against Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG’s) coal-fired power plants. The revised submission focuses

primarily on OPG’s Nanticoke, Lambton and Lakeview generating stations, but the submission encompasses all six of OPG’s fossil fuel powered facilities.

The Submitters assert that emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide

and nitrogen oxides from OPG’s coal-powered facilities pollute the air

and water downwind, in eastern Canada and northeastern United

States. They assert that Canada is failing to effectively enforce sections

166 and 176 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

(CEPA), which, they claim, obligate the Minister of the Environment to

take action to address Canadian sources of pollution that he has reason

to believe are causing air or water pollution in the United States. They

also assert that Canada is failing to effectively enforce section 36(3) of the

Fisheries Actin connection with the OPG facilities. Section 36(3) prohibits

the deposit of a deleterious substance into water frequented by fish or in

any place under any conditions where the substance or another deleterious substance may enter water frequented by fish.

The Submitters attach portions of a 2001 report indicating that

OPG’s six fossil fuel fired facilities generate 14.7 % of the nitrogen oxides

(NOx), 23.7 % of the sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 22.6 % of the mercury emitted in Ontario.2 The revised submission describes the transport of emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides and their deposition as acidic

precipitation and asserts that the prevailing westerly winds in North

America transport OPG’s emissions of these substances to Quebec, the

Maritime Provinces, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and other

New England states. The revised submission cites (and attaches portions

of) studies indicating that Ontario is the source of 23 % of the sulfur

deposition on Whiteface Mountain in New York State’s Adirondack

Mountains and 22 % of the sulfur deposition in the western

Adirondacks.3 The revised submission also provides information

regarding the adverse environmental and human health impacts that

they claim result from the downwind deposition of OPG’s mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions in eastern Canada and northeastern United States. The Submitters claim that they or their members

are directly and personally affected by the harm described in the revised

submission and that natural resources that they use have been degraded

in recreational and other value.4

210 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

2. Revised submission at 5, Appendix C.

3. Revised submission at 7, Appendix C.

4. Revised submission at 14-15.
The revised submission describes the efforts of some of the Submitters to communicate to the Canadian Minister of the Environment and

others their concerns regarding the alleged downwind impacts of OPG’s

air emissions. The Submitters claim that “Canada has responded to

these communications by promising attention to the matter but by doing

little about it.”5 They contend that “[t]he only concrete changes at the

OPG plants discussed by Canada have been the installation of pollution

control equipment on certain units to reduce NOx emissions in an effort

to meet obligations under the 2000 Ozone Annex to the Canada-United

States Air Quality Agreement.”6

The only new information in the revised submission concerns the

pursuit of private remedies available under Canadian law in regard to

the matters addressed in the submission. The Submitters claim that

“[t]here are no realistic private remedies available and such avenues for

redress that may be available have been pursued by Submitters and others without success.”7

III. SUMMARY OF CANADA’S RESPONSE

In its response, Canada affirms that it is concerned about the harmful effects of NOX, SO2 and mercury emissions from OPG’s Nanticoke,

Lambton and Lakeview Generating Stations on human health and the

environment, including on fish and fish habitat.8 Canada asserts that it

has been working cooperatively with the Government of Ontario for

many years to ensure that these atmospheric emissions are reduced in a

timely fashion, taking into account economic and competitive considerations vis-à-vis the United States.9

Canada explains that under a 1998 Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization (Harmonization Accord), the federal government and the provinces work together to develop strategies to address

environmental issues, and they agree on the development of Canada-Wide Standards (CWS) for emissions of specific pollutants.10 Canada explains that the Harmonization Accord is used to determine the

order of government “best situated” to effectively address the environmental concern in question.11 However, if that government is unable to

SEM-03-001 211

5. Revised submission at 13.

6. Ibid.

7. Revised submission at 12.

8. Response at 6, 15.

9. Response at 15.

10. Response at 5.

11. Ibid.
fulfill its obligations, the concerned governments will develop an alternative plan. The response indicates that federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions are all accountable for achieving CWS targets and

reporting publicly on their progress.12 Canada states that in the case of

stationary sources of emissions, such as OPG’s facilities, Canada’s practice is to pursue a multilevel and consensus-based approach when setting expectations, such as a CWS.13

Canada states that s. 176 of CEPA 1999, which addresses international water pollution, does not apply to a situation where airborne pollutants blow over international borders and ultimately descend into

water.14 In regard to s. 166 of CEPA 1999, which addresses international

air pollution, Canada outlines federal and provincial actions designed to

limit emissions of the pollutants identified by the Submitters at OPG’s

facilities.15

Canada explains that NOx emissions from OPG facilities are being

addressed under the Ozone Annex to the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement (December 2000) and the Canada-wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post2000. Under the Ozone Annex, Canada has agreed to a 39-kilotonne cap,

by 2007, on NOx emissions from fossil-fuel electric power generation

facilities located within a specific area of Ontario.16 Canada describes

steps that Ontario has taken, including a commitment to phase out coal

use at the Lakeview Generating Station by 2005 and adoption of Regulation 397/01, which establishes a series of decreasing caps for NOx for the

electricity sector using a hybrid cap-and-trade system.17 Canada states

that under the regulation, emissions trading could prevent attainment of

the 39-kilotonne cap and expresses its belief that “the province-wide

application of the cap and the flexibility provisions that allow allowances to be purchased from uncapped sources and/or from the U.S.

would be inappropriate.”18 Canada is working with the new Ontario

provincial government under subparagraph 166(1)(b) of CEPA 1999

to determine whether the province can use its laws to meet the

39-kilotonne cap.19 If not, Canada will consider appropriate action

under federal law.20 Under the Acid Rain Strategy, Canada is funding

212 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

12. Response at 6.

13. Ibid.

14. Response at 7.

15. Ibid.

16. Response at 8.

17. Response at 8-9.

18. Response at 9.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.
nitrogen research which will provide a science basis for determining

whether further action on NOx may be required.21

As regards SO2, Canada asserts that it has cut emissions by more

than 45 % since 1980.22 Under the Acid Rain Strategy, Ontario announced

in January 2000 a provincial SO2 reduction target of 50 % by 2015.23 To

reach this target, Ontario is phasing out the use of coal at the Lakeview

Generating Station by 2005, eliminating SO2 emissions there, and is

implementing emission caps intended to reduce SO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning power plants by 25 % by 2007.24 In light of Ontario’s

actions, Canada asserts that there is no indication that action by the federal government is warranted.25

As regards mercury, Canada asserts that a CWS on mercury emissions originating from the electric power generation sector will be developed by 2005 and is expected to be implemented by 2010.26 Canada

affirms that the federal and provincial governments have also committed to explore the national capture of mercury from coal burned in the

range of 60-90 %, based on current and emerging technology.27 The

phase-out of coal-burning at the Lakeview Generating Station by 2005

will eliminate one source of mercury emissions.28 Concerning section

36(3) of the Fisheries Act, which prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish, Canada asserts that there is insufficient evidence of a causal link between mercury emissions originating

from OPG’s facilities and the mercury found in fish-bearing waters.29

Consequently, Environment Canada is working on an inspection program in Ontario that will include the “complex and difficult task” of

sampling and tracking the fate of mercury emissions from OPG’s facilities.30 Canada notes that OPG’s Nanticoke facility reported a discharge

of one kilogram of mercury into water in 2001, and states that at this

time, the Government of Canada is focusing its efforts on Nanticoke’s

atmospheric releases of mercury, which in 2001 were 226 times greater

than its reported mercury discharge into water.31

SEM-03-001 213

21. Response at 10.

22. Ibid.

23. Response at 12.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. Response at 13.

29. Response at 13-14.

30. Response at 14.

31. Ibid.
IV. ANALYSIS

The revised submission focuses on the impacts of long-range deposition of air pollutants from coal-fired power plants, issues that have

long challenged governments in North America, both domestically and,

in regard to transboundary movement of those pollutants, in the international domain. For example, Canada’s response mentions programs

that have been in place, and the progress made, since 1985 in both Canada and the United States to address acid rain caused in part by emissions from coal-fired power plants.32 The revised submission suggests

that emissions from OPG’s coal-fired power plants are an obstacle to

Canada meeting its commitments under an international agreement

with the United States, and it presents substantial information on the

potential effects of OPG’s coal-fired power plant emissions on human

health and the environment.

The revised submission approaches these issues through the lens

of specific provisions of law that the Submitters claim Canada is failing

to effectively enforce in regard to OPG’s coal-fired power plants. In

regard to the transboundary movement of power plant emissions and

Canada’s commitments under an international agreement with the

United States, the Submitters assert that the federal government is not

fulfilling its obligations under Sections 166 and 176 of CEPA 1999. In

regard to potential effects in Eastern Canada of emissions from OPG’s

coal-fired power plants, the Submitters assert that Canada is failing to

enforce section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act to address air emissions from

OPG’s facilities that eventually are deposited into fish-bearing waters

downwind. As explained below, the Secretariat has determined that neither set of assertions warrants the development of a factual record.

A. Assertions regarding CEPA 1999

CEPA ss. 166 and 176 both provide that the Environment Minister

shall take certain prescribed action if the Environment Minister and the

Health Minister have reason to believe that a substance released from a

Canadian source into the air or water creates, or may reasonably be

anticipated to create, air or water pollution either (1) in a foreign country

that provides substantially the same rights to Canada as Canada provides in ss. 166 and 176 or (2) that violates or is likely to violate an international agreement on prevention, control or correction of pollution.33

In regard to alleged non-federal sources of pollution such as OPG, the

214 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

32. Response at 10-11.

33. See CEPA ss. 166 and 176.
ministerial action that ss. 166 and 176 contemplate is, first, consultation

with the relevant non-federal government to determine whether that

government can address the transboundary pollution and, second, if

the non-federal government cannot or does not take action, either the

publication of a notice requiring preparation and implementation of a

pollution prevention plan under CEPA s. 56(1) or recommendation of

regulations to the Governor in Council regarding the pollution. The Act

does not establish time limits within which Environment Canada must

initiate or conclude consultations with the relevant non-federal government or take action where the non-federal government cannot or does

not take action.

Canada takes the position that s. 176 does not apply to airborne

pollutants that blow over international borders and ultimately descend

into water. In view of this position,34 and because the revised submission

focuses on OPG’s air emissions, the Secretariat focuses its analysis solely

on the Submitters’ assertions regarding s. 166. Section 166 states in full:

Determination of international air pollution

(1) Subject to subsection (4), the Minister shall act under subsections (2)

and (3) only if the Ministers [of Environment and of Health] have reason to

believe that a substance released from a source in Canada into the air creates, or may reasonably be anticipated to contribute to

(a) air pollution in a country other than Canada; or

(b) air pollution that violates, or is likely to violate, an international

agreement binding on Canada in relation to the prevention, control

or correction of pollution.

Consultation with other governments

(2) If the source referred to in subsection (1) is not a federal source, the Minister shall

SEM-03-001 215

34. Section 176 applies where the Ministers of Environment and of Health have reason

to believe that a substance released from a source in Canada into water creates, or

may reasonably be anticipated to create, water pollution in another country or

water pollution that violates, or is likely to violate, an international agreement

binding on Canada in relation to the prevention, control or correction of pollution.

CEPA 1999, s. 176(1). The Secretariat found no judicial opinions discussing the

scope of s. 176. Because the revised submission deals only with air emissions and

neither it nor the response presents an issue regarding interpretation of s. 166, the

Secretariat sees no reason to discuss in detail legal interpretations that might differ

from Canada’s interpretation of s. 176.
(a) consult with the government responsible for the area in which

the source is situated to determine whether that government can

prevent, control or correct the air pollution under its laws; and

(b) if the government referred to in paragraph (a) can prevent, control or correct the air pollution, offer it an opportunity to do so.

Ministerial action

(3) If the source referred to in subsection (1) is a federal source or if the government referred to in paragraph (2)(a) cannot prevent, control or correct

the air pollution under its laws or does not do so, the Minister shall take at

least one of the following courses of action:

(a) on approval by the Governor in Council, publish a notice under

subsection 56(1); or,

(b) recommend regulations to the Governor in Council for the purpose of preventing, controlling or correcting the air pollution.

Reciprocity with other country

(4) If the air pollution referred to in paragraph (1)(a) is in a country where

Canada does not have substantially the same rights with respect to the

prevention, control or correction of air pollution as that country has under

this Division, the Minister shall decide whether to act under subsections

(2) and (3) or to take no action at all.

Other factors

(5) When recommending regulations under paragraph (3)(b), the Minister

shall take into account comments made under subsection 168(2), notices of

objection filed under subjection 332(2) and any report of a board of review

submitted under subsection 340(1).

The Submitters’ assertions regarding s. 166 are similar to those

found in the Great Lakes submission (SEM-98-003), for which the Secretariat concluded a factual record was not warranted for claims that the

United States was failing to effectively enforce section 115 of the federal

Clean Air Act.35 Section 115 of the Clean Air Act provides Canada with

substantially the same rights as s. 166 of CEPA affords the United States,

in that it requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take

action where it has reason to believe that air pollution from a United

216 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

35. SEM-98-003 (Great Lakes), Article 15(1) Determination (5 October 2001).
States source harms the environment or human health in a foreign country. In Great Lakes, the Secretariat reasoned as follows in deciding

against recommending a factual record:

As courts in the United States have noted, EPA’s flexibility regarding

when, whether and how to implement § 115 is very broad, and determin -

ing whether the factual circumstances warranting an endangerment finding exist is very complicated in general. Based on the submission and the

response, it appears that it would be especially complicated to make such

a finding regarding any endangerment in Canada due to mercury and

dioxin emissions in the United States. Whether the United States is effectively enforcing § 115 is intricately tied in this case to the broad scope of the

EPA’s discretion under that provision, and whether a factual record is

warranted must be viewed in light of the complex, dynamic and improving situation described in the United States’ responses. Relevant as well is

the lack of any indication in the submission or in the materials the United

States has provided of any significant noncompliance with emissions regulations applicable to the incinerators at issue in this submission.

In light of these considerations, the Secretariat finds that the submission

and the response do not leave open a central question regarding whether

the United States is ineffectively addressing an ongoing environmental

violation under § 115 or exercising its discretion in a manner legally contrary to § 115. 36

Canada states that in regard to NOx emissions, Environment Canada currently “is working under subparagraph 166(1)(b) of CEPA 1999

with the Government of Ontario to determine whether the province can

prevent, control or correct NOx emissions under its laws, in order to

meet the 39-kilotonne cap set out in the Ozone Annex.”37 Canada notes its

concern that the cap-and-trade approach of the previous Ontario government risked non-attainment of the 39-kilotonne cap, but states that it

is “looking forward to seeing a revised NOx plan from the province” that

reflects Canada’s commitment to the 39-kilotonne cap.38 In these circumstances, Canada’s response indicates that Ontario may be able to takes

steps that ensure the 2007 cap commitment will be met, making action

under federal law unnecessary.39 In light of Ontario’s SO2 emission

reduction target of 50 % by 2015, with a 25 % reduction anticipated by

2007 through implementation of Ontario Regulation 397/01, Canada

indicates that no federal action is warranted at this time in regard to

SO2 emissions. Regarding mercury emissions, Canada points to the

SEM-03-001 217

36. Cite to Great Lakes

37. Response at 9.

38. Response at 7, 9.

39. Response at 9.
development of a CWS by “2005 to reduce mercury emissions from the

coal-fired electric power generation sector by 2010.”40

In addition to these targets, Canada points out that coal use at the

Lakeview Generating Station will be phased out by 2005, resulting in

elimination of all coal-related emissions from that source. The Secretariat also is aware of numerous press reports of OPG’s recent announcement that, consistent with the announced policy of the Ontario

government elected in October 2003, it will close five coal-fired power

plants in Ontario within four years, including the three on which the

submission focuses.41 These press accounts, issued after Canada filed

its response, indicate that OPG wrote off $473 million as a one-time

accounting cost to reflect the loss of future revenues from those plants.

Like section 115 of the Clean Air Act, which was at issue in the

Great Lakes submission, s. 166 of CEPA 1999 appears to provide a considerable degree of discretion to the Environment Minister. The Submitters essentially assert that Environment Canada is failing to exercise its

discretion as required, in that it is not taking the actions that are contemplated under s. 166, namely (1) consulting with Ontario and, if the province can prevent, control or correct the air pollution, providing it an

opportunity to do so; (2) publishing a notice (on approval of the Governor in Council) requiring OPG to prepare and implement a pollution

prevention plan; or (3) recommending regulations to the Governor in

Council. Yet, the Act prescribes neither the time nor the manner in which

the Minister must take these actions. Notably, nothing in the Act indicates that Canada has a clear obligation to require a pollution prevention

plan or recommend regulations notwithstanding Ontario’s adoption

of emissions reduction targets (for NOx and SO2), federal-provincial

218 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

40. Response at 12.

41. See R. Mackie, “Ontario’s five coal-fired plants to shut down within four years,” The

Globe and Mail, 17 March 2004 (viewed on the internet at http://www.theglobeand

mail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPPrint/LAC/20040317/HYDRO17/TPNational

(17 April 2004); Reuters, “Ontario vows to shut coal plants, critics wary,” Forbes.

com, 17 March 2004, viewed on the internet at http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/newswire/2004/03/17/rtr1302622.html (15 April 2004); “Plant closure report alarms Nanticoke,” The Toronto Star, 17 March 2004, viewed on the

internet at http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=

thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1079564621228&call_

pageid=968256289824 (15 April 2004); “Ontario Power Generation reports 2003

earnings,” CNW Telbec, 16 March 2004, viewed on the internet at http://www.

cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/March2004/16/c0843.html (15 April 2004); “Ontario

braces for big changes to energy market,” CTV.ca, 18 March 2004, viewed on the

internet at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/10795439

73373_74953173/?hub=TopStories&subhub=PrintStory&articleURL=http://

www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1079543973373_74953173/?

hub=TopStories (15 April 2004).
efforts to establish a relevant CWS (for mercury), and the announced

elimination of the pollution sources at issue, even if the actual elimination of those sources faces a degree of uncertainty. In fact, s. 166(2)(b)

states that “if the government referred to in paragraph (a) [in this case,

the Ontario government] can prevent, control or correct the air pollution”, the federal government “shall offer it an opportunity to do so.”

The response indicates that Canada is currently providing Ontario this

opportunity.

The information before the Secretariat regarding both emission

reduction targets and concrete actions, together with reports of the

planned closure of some or all of OPG’s coal-fired power plants, indicates a dynamic and improving situation in regard to the transboundary

pollution of concern to the Submitters, similar to the situation presented

in the Great Lakes submission. While the passage of time without any

progress on the part of Ontario or the federal Environment Minister

may, in the future, raise a question regarding the application of s. 166 in

this context, the Secretariat cannot, at this time, identify a central question regarding the Environment Minister’s exercise of the discretion

given him in s. 166 of CEPA that would warrant preparation of a factual

record.

B. Assertions regarding s. 36(3) of the Fisheries Act

The Submitters’ assertions regarding s. 36(3) appear to suggest an

untested application of the provision to air emissions that eventually are

deposited into water frequented by fish. Nonetheless, by conducting an

inspection of OPG’s mercury emissions under the Fisheries Act, Canada

indicates that OPG’s emissions might be considered “a deposit of a deleterious substance . . . under [] conditions where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of

the deleterious substance may enter [water frequented by fish]” within

the meaning of s. 36(3). However, Canada also points out the complexity

of tracking air emissions to establish the causal source-receptor link

between OPG’s emissions and specific fish-bearing waters downwind,

as well as the need to establish the elements of an offense under s. 36(3)

beyond a reasonable doubt. Canada explains as follows:

The task of measuring mercury emissions in stack gases is difficult and the

scientific techniques are quite complicated. Specialized equipment based

on a unique determination of the circumstances is required. Due to these

complications, and thus high costs, stack sampling programs are usually

carried out once a year or once every few years. As a result data on long

term monitoring of emission is very scarce.

SEM-03-001 219
The atmospheric modelling of emissions and the attempt to determine

their ultimate fate is even more difficult. First, as described above, the data

is scarce; and second, there is not full scientific understanding of atmospheric pathways and chemical interactions with mercury in the atmosphere. This science is in its infancy and is the subject of much study and

debate in the scientific community. There are currently no comprehensive

models available that can deal with the mercury emissions from these

stacks.42

In view of the apparently unprecedented nature of the application

of s. 36(3) to air emissions that are eventually deposited into waters frequented by fish, Canada’s inspection of OPG’s mercury emissions with

a view to considering whether action is warranted under s. 36(3) is a

significant step. Because Canada is early in the process of addressing

the complexities inherent in undertaking the sampling and studies

involved, and noting as well the announced closing of some or all of

OPG’s coal-fired facilities, the Secretariat has concluded that a factual

record at this early stage in Canada’s possible pursuit of s. 36(3) charges

would be of limited value.

IV. DETERMINATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Secretariat considers that the revised

submission, SEM-03-001 (Ontario Power Generation), does not warrant

developing a factual record and pursuant to section 9.6 of the Guidelines

hereby notifies the Submitters and the Council of its reasons and that the

process is terminated with respect to the submission.

Respectfully submitted,

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

per: William V. Kennedy

Executive Director

cc: Norine Smith, Environment Canada

José Manuel Bulás, SEMARNAT

Judith E. Ayres, US-EPA

Submitters

220 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

42. Response at 14.
SEM-03-002

(Home Port Xcaret)

SUBMITTERS: ALFONSO CIPRÉS VILLAREAL, ET AL.

PARTY: MEXICO

DATE: 14 May 2003

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege “legal violations and irregularities in the permit-granting process for the

Home Port Xcaret project,” which they assert

“will irreparably affect and destroy the natural

resources and coral ecosystems, gravely endangering countless marine species.”

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(31 July 2003)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have not been met.

221

Secretariado de la Comisión

para la Cooperación Ambiental

Determinación del Secretariado en conformidad con el

artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental

de América del Norte

Número de Petición: SEM-03-002 (Home Port Xcaret)

Peticionarios: Luis Hernández, Movimiento Ecologista

del Sureste

Arturo Rodríguez, Movimiento

Ecologista de Playa del Carmen

Nancy De Rosa, Movimiento Ecologista

de Acumal

José Manuel Castello, Movimiento

Ecologista de Cozumel

Marciano Toledo, Movimiento

Ecologista de la Riviera Maya

José Antonio Duclaud González

Enrique Montero Montero, Movimiento

Ecologista Mexicano, A.C.

Marcos Falfán Reyes, Movimiento

Ecologista Mexicano, A.C.

César Mora, Instituto Politécnico

Nacional

Luis Treviño, Instituto de Ingeniería de

la UNAM

Representados por: Arq. Alfonso Ciprés Villarreal

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de la petición: 14 de mayo de 2003

Fecha de la determinación: 31 de julio de 2003

223
I. INTRODUCCIÓN

Con fecha 14 de mayo de 2003, el Sr. Alfonso Ciprés Villarreal presentó al Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental (“el

Secretariado”) una petición en conformidad con los Artículos 14 y 15 del

Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte (“ACAAN” o “el

Acuerdo”) a nombre de las organizaciones sin vinculación gubernamental y personas arriba mencionadas (“los Peticionarios”). La petición asevera, entre otras cosas, que México está incurriendo en omisiones en la

aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental respecto de la autorización en materia de impacto ambiental (AIA) de un proyecto de muelle en

la Riviera Maya, en Quintana Roo (“el Proyecto”). Según el ACAAN, el

Secretariado podrá examinar las peticiones que cumplan con los requisitos establecidos en el artículo 14(1). El Secretariado ha determinado que

esta petición no cumple con uno de los requisitos del artículo 14(1) para

su examen en este proceso, y en este documento expone las razones de su

determinación.

II. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

Los Peticionarios alegan “violaciones legales e irregularidades en

el proceso de otorgamiento de permisos del ‘Home Port Xcaret’,” obra

que, afirman, “afectará irreparablemente y destruirá los recursos naturales y los ecosistemas coralinos, poniendo en grave peligro de extinción

una infinidad de especies marinas.1” Aseveran que la AIA del Proyecto

viola el artículo 34 de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al

Ambiente (“la LGEEPA”), así como los artículos 37, 38 y 40 a 43 de su

Reglamento en materia de Impacto Ambiental (“el Reglamento”), ya

que, según sus afirmaciones, se omitió cumplir con la obligación de

poner a disposición del público cierta información respecto del Proyecto

y llevar a cabo una consulta o reunión pública de información.2 Los Peticionarios aseveran además que el Proyecto afectara colonias de coral

protegidas y que el promovente omitió tramitar la AIA ante la Secretaría

de Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente del Estado de Quintana Roo.3 La petición se acompaña de un video mostrando vida marina y un sistema arrecifal a proximidad de donde se ubicará el Proyecto, y de numerosos

artículos de periódicos.

Además de las afirmaciones mencionadas arriba, la petición asevera que hubo irregularidades en el proceso para la solicitud y el

224 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Página 1 de la petición.

2. Página 2 de la petición.

3. Ibid.
otorgamiento del título de concesión para el Proyecto por la Secretaría

de Comunicaciones y Transportes. Según los Peticionarios: (i) Grupo

Xcaret y Carnival Corporation omitieron notificar su concentración a la

Comisión Nacional de Competencia de acuerdo con los artículos 16, 18,

20 y 21 de la Ley Federal de Competencia Económica;4 (ii) el Proyecto fue

calificado como “de uso particular” cuando se trata más bien de una

terminal portuaria de altura para “cruceros de uso público,” haciendo

necesario, de acuerdo con el artículo 24 de la Ley de Puertos, convocar a

concurso público o a licitación el otorgamiento del título de concesión;5 y

(iii) el Proyecto se ubicará en una zona de monumentos arqueológicos, y

el promovente ha omitido obtener un decreto autorizando el cambio de

uso del suelo u otras autorizaciones de acuerdo con la Ley Federal sobre

Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos, cuyo artículo 27

dispone que monumentos arqueológicos son propriedad de la Nación,

inalienables e imprescriptibles.6

III. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME AL

ARTÍCULO 14(1) DEL ACAAN

El artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo establece que:

El Secretariado podrá examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte está

incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental, si el Secretariado juzga que la petición:

(a) se presenta por escrito en un idioma designado por esa Parte en una

notificación al Secretariado;

(b) identifica claramente a la persona u organización que presenta la petición;

(c) proporciona información suficiente que permita al Secretariado revisarla, e incluyendo las pruebas documentales que puedan sustentarla;

(d) parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar

una industria;

(e) señala que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades

pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la respuesta de la Parte; y

SEM-03-002 225

4. Página 3 de la petición.

5. Ibid.

6. Páginas 5-6 de la petición.
(f) la presenta una persona u organización que reside o está establecida

en territorio de una Parte.

Si bien el artículo 14(1) no pretende colocar una gran carga para los

peticionarios, en esta etapa se requiere al menos de cierta revisión inicial

para verificar que la petición cumple con estos requisitos.7 Por lo tanto, el

Secretariado examinó la petición en cuestión con tal perspectiva en

mente.

La primera cuestión es si la petición “asevera que una Parte está

incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental”. El Secretariado determinó que algunas de las aseveraciones

de la petición sí satisfacen este requisito umbral, mientras otras no, por

las siguientes razones.

La primera serie de aseveraciones en la petición se relaciona a la

AIA del Proyecto.8 El Secretariado determinó que estas aseveraciones

satisfacen el requisito umbral del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN. Los Peticionarios afirman que “la autorización del proyecto viola lo dispuesto por

el artículo 34 de la LGEEPA” porqué se emitió sin que se hubiese cumplido, según los Peticionarios, con disposiciones del artículo 34 de la

LGEEPA y del Reglamento que establecen reglas para la publicación de

información y la posibilidad de reuniones y consultas públicas respecto

de proyectos propuestos. La LGEEPA y el Reglamento son “legislación

ambiental” para efectos del ACAAN, porque su propósito principal es la

protección del ambiente.9

226 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

7. En este sentido, véanse (SEM-97-005/Animal Alliance of Canada, et al) Determinación conforme al artículo 14(1) (26 de mayo de 1998); y (SEM-98-003/Department of

the Planet Earth, et al) Determinación conforme a los artículos 14(1) y (2) respecto de

la versión revisada de la petición (8 de septiembre de 1999).

8. Página 2 de la petición.

9. El artículo 45(2) del ACAAN establece:

Para los efectos del Artículo 14(1) y la Quinta Parte:

(a) “legislación ambiental” significa cualquier ley o reglamento de una Parte, o sus

disposiciones, cuyo propósito principal sea la protección del medio ambiente, o la

prevención de un peligro contra la vida o la salud humana, a través de:

(i) la prevención, el abatimiento o el control de una fuga, descarga, o emisión de

contaminantes ambientales,

(ii) el control de químicos, sustancias, materiales o desechos peligrosos o tóxicos, y

la diseminación de información relacionada con ello; o

(iii) la protección de la flora y fauna silvestres, incluso especies en peligro de extinción, su hábitat, y las áreas naturales protegidas en territorio de la Parte, pero no

incluye cualquier ley o reglamento, ni sus disposiciones, directamente relacionados con la seguridad e higiene del trabajador.

(b) Para mayor certidumbre, el término “legislación ambiental” no incluye ninguna

ley ni reglamento, ni sus disposiciones, cuyo propósito principal sea la administración de la recolección, extracción o explotación de recursos naturales con fines
Por lo que se relaciona a las aseveraciones de los Peticionarios en

torno al otorgamiento del título de concesión para el Proyecto, el Secretariado determinó que estas aseveraciones no cumplen con el requisito

umbral del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN. Los Peticionarios aseveran que la

Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes emitió el título de concesión para el Proyecto a pesar de presuntas violaciones del artículo 24 de

la Ley de Puertos, de los artículos 16, 18, 20 y 21 de la Ley Federal de Competencia Económica, y del artículo 27 de la Ley Federal sobre Monumentos y

Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos. No se trata de aseveraciones

respecto de la falta en la aplicación efectiva de legislación ambiental,

dado que ninguna de estas disposiciones tiene como propósito principal

“la protección del medio ambiente, o la prevención de un peligro contra

la vida o la salud humana” conforme al artículo 45(2) del ACAAN. En

consecuencia, el Secretariado está impedido para examinar estas aseveraciones en este proceso.10

En cuanto a los seis requisitos listados en el artículo 14(1), el Secretariado determinó que la petición satisface los requisitos establecidos en

los incisos a), b), d), e) y f) del artículo 14(1), por las siguientes razones.

En cuento al inciso a), la petición se presentó por escrito en español, que

es el idioma designado por México.11 Respecto de los incisos b) y f), la

petición identifica claramente a las personas u organizaciones que la

presentan, y se trata de personas y organizaciones que residen o están

establecidas en el territorio de la Parte mexicana.12 En lo que se relaciona

al inciso d), la petición parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la

ley y no a hostigar una industria: los Peticionarios son representantes de

movimientos ecologistas, académicos, y un miembro de la comunidad

donde se ubicará el Proyecto, por lo que al parecer, no son competidores

que podrían beneficiarse económicamente con la petición. Además, sus

afirmaciones se centran en la autorización del Proyecto por la Secretaria

de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (“la Semarnat”) y no en el

SEM-03-002 227

comerciales, ni la recolección o extracción de recursos naturales con propósitos de

subsistencia o por poblaciones indígenas.

(c) El propósito principal de una disposición legislativa o reglamentaria en particular, para efectos de los incisos (a) y (b) se determinará por su propósito principal y

no por el de la ley o del reglamento del que forma parte.

10. Aun cuando el Secretariado no se rige por el principio de stare decisis, en ocasiones

anteriores, al examinar otras determinaciones, ha señalado que las disposiciones

citadas deben satisfacer la definición de legislación ambiental. Véanse las determinaciones del Secretariado, conforme al artículo 14(1) del ACAAN, para las siguientes peticiones: SEM-98-001/Instituto de Derecho Ambiental et al. (13 de septiembre

de 1999), SEM-98-002/Héctor Gregorio Ortiz Martínez (18 de marzo de 1999) y

SEM-97-005/Animal Alliance of Canada, et al. (26 de mayo de 1998).

11. Véanse el artículo 14(1)(a) del ACAAN y la sección 3.2 de las Directrices.

12. Véanse los artículos (14)(1)(b) y (f) del ACAAN.
cumplimiento de una compañía o negocio en particular. Los Peticionarios alegan que no se cumplió con disposiciones de la LGEEPA sobre la

participación pública y el derecho a la información en el contexto del

otorgamiento de la AIA para el Proyecto, por lo que la petición no parece

intrascendente. En cuanto al inciso e), la petición señala que el asunto ha

sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades, ya que alude a un recurso

de revisión interpuesto ante la Semarnat que fue rechazado por falta de

interés jurídico, y menciona que “actualmente el asunto se ventila en el

Tribunal Fiscal Federal del Poder Judicial.”

Sin embargo, el Secretariado juzga que la petición no satisface el

requisito del inciso c) del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN porque no contiene

información suficiente para analizarla. De acuerdo con este inciso y la

sección 5.3 de las Directrices, una petición deberá contener una relación

sucinta de los hechos en que se funden las aseveraciones de los Peticionarios, y deberá proporcionar información suficiente que permita al

Secretariado examinarla, incluidas las pruebas documentales que puedan sustentar la petición. Las secciones 5.5 y 5.6 de las Directrices señalan al respecto, que el Peticionario deberá adjuntar con la petición copias

de cualquier correspondencia pertinente con las autoridades pertinentes, y que la petición debería abordar los factores a ser considerados por

el Secretariado conforme al artículo 14(2) del ACAAN.

La petición no contiene detalles respecto de la presunta falta en la

aplicación efectiva del artículo 34 de la LGEEPA en relación con el Proyecto, por ejemplo, sobre si la Semarnat recibió alguna solicitud para llevar a cabo una consulta pública respecto del Proyecto. La petición

tampoco aborda los siguientes factores que orientan al Secretariado para

decidir si amerita solicitar una respuesta de la Parte de acuerdo con el

artículo 14(2): la cuestión del daño [a los Peticionarios]; si el estudio ulterior de los asuntos planteados en la petición contribuiría a alcanzar las

metas del ACAAN; y la medida en que la petición se base exclusivamente en noticias de los medios de comunicación. La petición se acompaña de un video mostrando vida marina y un sistema arrecifal proximo

al sitio propuesto para el Proyecto, y de numerosos artículos de periódicos. Sin embargo, no se acompaña de copias de cualquier correspondencia pertinente con las autoridades o de otra información pertinente,

como por ejemplo una copia de la AIA o del recurso de revisión mencionado en la petición.

Habiendo revisado la petición de conformidad con el artículo

14(1), el Secretariado determinó que la petición no satisface todos los

requisitos en él establecidos, por las razones arriba descritas.

228 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
IV. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

El Secretariado ha revisado la petición en conformidad con el

artículo 14(1) del ACAAN y considera que no cumple con todos los

requisitos allí establecidos, porque no contiene suficiente información

que permita al Secretariado revisar la petición.

En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por el apartado 6.1 de las Directrices, este Secretariado notifica al Peticionario que no procederá a examinar la petición. No obstante, de acuerdo con el apartado 6.2 de las

Directrices, el Peticionario cuenta con 30 días para presentar una petición que cumpla con los requisitos del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN.

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Victor Shantora

Director Ejecutivo Interino

cc: Dra. Olga Ojeda, SEMARNAT

Sra. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Sra. Judith E. Ayres, US-EPA

Sr. Alfonso Ciprés Villarreal

SEM-03-002 229

SEM-03-003

(Lake Chapala II)

SUBMITTERS: DR. RAQUEL GUTIERREZ NAJERA, ET AL.

PARTY: MEXICO

DATE: 23 May 2003

SUMMARY: The Submitters assert that Mexico is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental law with

respect to the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago-Pacífico

basin. According to the Submitters, this has resulted in serious environmental deterioration and

uneven water distribution in the basin, as well as

the risk that Lake Chapala and its migratory birds

will eventually disappear.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)(2)

(19 December 2003)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met, and that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party.

231

Secretariado de la Comisión

para la Cooperación Ambiental

Determinación del Secretariado en conformidad con los

artículos 14(1) y (2) del Acuerdo de Cooperación

Ambiental de América del Norte

Núm. de petición: SEM-03-003 (Lago de Chapala II)

Peticionaria(os): Fundación Lerma-Chapala-Santiago

Pacífico, A.C.

Sociedad Amigos del Lago de Chapala, A.C.

Instituto de Derecho Ambiental, A.C.

Vecinos de la Comunidad de

Juanacatlán, Jalisco

Comité Pro-Defensa de Arcediano, A.C.

Amigos de la Barranca, A.C.

Ciudadanos por el Medio Ambiente, A.C.

AMCRESP, A.C.

Red Ciudadana, A.C.

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de recepción: 23 de mayo de 2003

Fecha de la

determinación: 19 de diciembre de 2003

I. ANTECEDENTES

El 23 de mayo de 2003, la Fundación Lerma-Chapala-SantiagoPacífico, A.C., Sociedad Amigos del Lago de Chapala, A.C., el Instituto

de Derecho Ambiental, A.C., Vecinos de la Comunidad de Juanacatlán,

Jal., Comité Pro-Defensa de Arcediano, A.C., Amigos de la Barranca,

A.C., Ciudadanos por el Medio Ambiente, A.C., Amcresp, A.C. y Red

Ciudadana, A.C. (los “Peticionarios”), presentaron al Secretariado de la

233
Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental (el “Secretariado”) una petición de conformidad con los artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo de Cooperación

Ambiental de América del Norte (el “Acuerdo” o “ACAAN”).

Según el ACAAN, el Secretariado podrá examinar las peticiones

que cumplan con los requisitos establecidos en el artículo 14(1). Si considera que una petición cumple con esos requisitos, el Secretariado debe

determinar si la petición amerita solicitar una respuesta de la Parte. Para

llegar a esta determinación, el Secretariado se orienta por las consideraciones listadas en el artículo 14(2) del ACAAN.

El Secretariado ha determinado que la petición SEM-03-003 (Lago

de Chapala II) cumple con todos los requisitos establecidos en el artículo

14(1) del ACAAN y que amerita solicitar una respuesta de la Parte con

acuerdo al artículo 14(2), por las razones que se exponen en la sección III

de la presente determinación.

II. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

Los Peticionarios aseveran que México está omitiendo aplicar de

manera efectiva su legislación ambiental1 en relación con la gestión

de los recursos hídricos en la Cuenca Hidrológica Lerma-ChapalaSantiago-Pacífico (Región Hidrológica XII) (“la Cuenca”).2 Afirman que

eso tiene como consecuencia el grave deterioro ambiental y desequilibrio hídrico de la Cuenca, así como el riesgo de que el Lago de Chapala y

el hábitat de aves migratorias que llegan al mismo desaparezcan.3 Citan

como ejemplos el estado de contaminación del río Santiago,4 al que le

atribuyen graves repercusiones en la salud de los habitantes de Juanacatlán,5 así como el bajo nivel del Lago de Chapala,6 que según los Peticionarios está poniendo en peligro el hábitat del pelícano blanco.7

Según afirman los Peticionarios, la Parte no está garantizando la

participación ciudadana de una manera efectiva en la política ambiental

234 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Véase la página 7 de la petición: LGEEPA: artículos 1, 2, 5 (fracciones III, IV, XVI, XI,

XIX), 18, 78, 79 (fracciones I, III), 80 (fracciones I, VII), 83, 88 (fracciones I, II, III), 89,

133, 157, y 161-170; Reglamento de la LGEEPA en Materia de Impacto Ambiental:

artículo 3 (fracciones III-IX); LAN: artículos 1, 2, 3 (fracciones IV, V), 4, 7 (fracciones

II, IV, VIII), 9 (fracciones I, XIII); Reglamento de la LAN: artículo 2 (fracciones IV, V,

VIII, XII, XIV, XVI-XXV), y Reglamento Interior de la Semarnat: artículo 44.

2. Página 1 de la petición.

3. Ibid.

4. Páginas 7 y 12 de la petición, y anexo XXV.

5. Página 7 de la petición.

6. Página 3 de la petición.

7. Páginas 6 y 7 de la petición, y anexo XXIV.
respecto de la Cuenca porque, según sostienen, todas las iniciativas en

las que participó la sociedad civil, y que son descritas en la Petición, para

solucionar la problemática de la calidad y cantidad de agua en la Cuenca

[...] no pasaron de eso, de buenas intenciones, y cuyo sinnúmero de borradores se encuentran en los archivos tanto del Secretario del Ambiente

como del Director General y Regional de la Comisión Nacional del Agua.8

Los Peticionarios aseveran que, en el caso del río Santiago, la

Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (“Semarnat”) está

omitiendo la aplicación efectiva del artículo 133 de la Ley General del

Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente (“LGEEPA”) al no realizar

un monitoreo sistemático y permanente de la calidad del agua del río

con el fin de detectar la presencia de contaminantes o exceso de desechos

orgánicos y aplicar las medidas que procedan.9 Alegan que la Semarnat

está omitiendo aplicar los criterios de aprovechamiento sustentable del

agua y de los ecosistemas acuáticos del artículo 88 de la LGEEPA al permitir la construcción de una presa en la barranca de Huentitán (Presa

Arcediano), en el río Santiago, para abastecer de agua a la zona metropolitana de Guadalajara, a pesar tanto de una declaratoria de protección

del gobierno municipal de Guadalajara de 1997 que interdice la

construcción de tal obra, como del grado de contaminación del río.10

Afirman:

Luego entonces, la autoridad está omitiendo estos criterios de manejo de

recursos hídricos, cuando la Autoridad de la Comisión Nacional del Agua

y del estado de Jalisco (CEAS) están pretendiendo construir una Presa

Arcediano en el Río Santiago, sin antes restaurar el funcionamiento del

equilibrio ecológico del mismo, al margen de la política ambiental que hoy

en día está explicitada en los diversos instrumentos jurídicos alusivos a la

Cuenca en comento.11

Los Peticionarios sostienen que la Comisión Nacional del Agua

(“CNA”) está delegando en el Consejo de Cuenca las decisiones sobre el

uso y la distribución del agua en la zona y, por tanto, no está aplicando

de manera efectiva las disposiciones de la Ley de Aguas Nacionales

(“LAN”) que le confieren la autoridad y la responsabilidad de tomar

decisiones en la materia.12 Según los Peticionarios, la Parte está impidiendo la corresponsabilidad de la ciudadanía en la protección del

ambiente al delegar en el Consejo de Cuenca las decisiones sobre el

SEM-03-003 235

8. Página 8 de la petición.

9. Página 12 de la petición.

10. Página 9 de la petición.

11. Ibid.

12. Página 10 de la petición.
manejo y distribución del agua en la Cuenca, y sin embargo considerar

que las decisiones que de dicho Consejo emanen no son sujetas a ser

impugnadas por la ciudadanía mediante los recursos de revisión previstos por la LAN.13 Afirman:

Planteada así nuestra premisa, la CNA, debería asumir su Autoridad en

materia de distribución y aprovechamiento del recurso hídrico en México,

lo que a la fecha ha omitido en virtud de que se ha escudado reiterativamente en el Consejo de Cuenca para evadir la responsabilidad en el marco

de la ley de Aguas Nacionales la aplicación de la Ley en el aprovechamiento y distribución del agua, tal es el caso de las respuestas dadas a dos

diferentes peticiones realizadas por la Fundación a efecto de conocer el

acto de autoridad que estaba decidiendo sobre la distribución del agua y

de la que le correspondería al Lago de Chapala como se desprende de los

diversos oficios de fechas 26 de Noviembre del 2001, 11 de febrero y 14 de

noviembre del 2002 y 10 de Enero del 2003, escritos a los cuales la CNA

contesta en forma evasiva lavándose las manos y cuando le conviene a

efecto de evadir su responsabilidad, dice que el Consejo de Cuenca no es

autoridad y cuando se le pide el acto de autoridad, dice que se resolvió en

el consejo de cuencas, incumpliendo de manera impune y reiterativa el

contenido del artículo 4, de la Ley Federal del Procedimiento Administrativo de aplicación supletoria a la Ley de Aguas Nacionales [...]14

Los Peticionarios aseveran que los acuerdos concluidos por el Consejo están viciados de nulidad: primero, al no respetar la prioridad que la

LAN otorga al uso doméstico del agua y, segundo, al no cumplir con los

requisitos de forma para actos de autoridad señalados en los artículos 3,

4 y 5 de la Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo.15

III. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME AL ARTÍCULO 14

DEL ACUERDO

a) El artículo 14(1) del ACAAN

El artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo establece que:

El Secretariado podrá examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte está

incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental, si el Secretariado juzga que la petición:

(a) se presenta por escrito en un idioma designado por esa Parte en una

notificación al Secretariado;

236 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

13. Páginas 4, 5 y 13 de la petición.

14. Página 10 de la petición.

15. Páginas 10 a 12 de la petición.
(b) identifica claramente a la persona u organización que presenta la petición;

(c) proporciona información suficiente que permita al Secretariado revisarla, e incluyendo las pruebas documentales que puedan sustentarla;

(d) parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar

una industria;

(e) señala que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades

pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la respuesta de la Parte; y

(f) la presenta una persona u organización que reside o está establecida

en territorio de una Parte.

Para que el Secretariado pueda examinar si la petición cumple

con los criterios establecidos en los incisos a)-f) del artículo 14(1) del

Acuerdo, la petición debe satisfacer el requisito umbral del artículo

14(1). Esto lo hace, en el sentido de que la presentan varias organizaciones sin vinculación gubernamental y asevera que una Parte, México, está

incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental. Sin embargo, no todas las disposiciones legislativas identificadas por los Peticionarios16 son disposiciones cuya aplicación se puede

revisar dentro del procedimiento de peticiones ciudadanas establecido

por los artículos 14 y 15 del ACAAN. A continuación se hace un análisis

de las disposiciones de referencia para identificar las que guardan congruencia con los términos del encabezado del artículo 14 del ACAAN.

El Secretariado ya determinó, al analizar peticiones anteriores, que

aseveraciones en cuanto a omisiones en la aplicación de disposiciones

que establecen derechos procesales de la sociedad civil respecto a asuntos ambientales se ajustan a los requisitos del preámbulo del artículo

14(1) del ACAAN, debido a que las disposiciones mismas se encuadran

en la definición de “legislación ambiental” contenida en el ACAAN.17

SEM-03-003 237

16. Véase la página 7 de la petición: LGEEPA: artículos 1, 2, 5 (fracciones III, IV, XVI, XI,

XIX), 18, 78, 79 (fracciones I, III), 80 (fracciones I, VII), 83, 88 (fracciones I, II, III), 89,

133, 157, y 161-170; Reglamento de la LGEEPA en Materia de Impacto Ambiental:

artículo 3 (fracciones III-IX); LAN: artículos 1, 2, 3 (fracciones IV, V), 4, 7 (fracciones

II, IV, VIII), 9 (fracciones I, XIII); Reglamento de la LAN: artículo 2 (fracciones IV, V,

VIII, XII, XIV, XVI-XXV), y Reglamento Interior de la Semarnat: artículo 44.

17. El artículo 45(2) del Acuerdo establece:

Para los efectos del Artículo 14(1) y la Quinta Parte:

(a) “legislación ambiental” significa cualquier ley o reglamento de una Parte, o sus

disposiciones, cuyo propósito principal sea la protección del medio ambiente, o la

prevención de un peligro contra la vida o la salud humana, a través de:

(i) la prevención, el abatimiento o el control de una fuga, descarga, o emisión de

contaminantes ambientales,
Al analizar la petición SEM-00-006 (Tarahumara), la cual asevera omisiones en la aplicación de las disposiciones de la LGEEPA en torno al

procedimiento de denuncia popular y el recurso de revisión, el Secretariado determinó que

[e]s claro entonces, que las disposiciones que establecen el recurso de revisión satisfacen la definición de legislación ambiental del ACAAN porque

al igual que en el caso de la denuncia popular, estas disposiciones establecen un mecanismo cuyo propósito principal es la protección del medio

ambiente mediante la participación de cualquier persona en la vigilancia

del cumplimiento de la ley ambiental.18

En casos anteriores, para determinar si una petición se refería a una

omisión en la aplicación efectiva de la ley, el Secretariado examinaba si

los peticionarios aseveraban una omisión en el cumplimiento de una

obligación legal específica.19 El Anexo 1 de esta determinación contiene

el texto de las disposiciones legislativas identificadas por los Peticionarios. De estas disposiciones, algunas contienen definiciones,20 otras contienen listas de atribuciones del gobierno federal de acuerdo con la

LGEEPA,21 y de la CNA y los consejos de cuenca de acuerdo con la

LAN.22 Se incluyen las disposiciones que definen los objetivos y campos

de aplicación de la LGEEPA23 y de la LAN,24 además de disposiciones

que listan asuntos que se consideran de utilidad pública.25 La petición

238 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

(ii) el control de químicos, sustancias, materiales o desechos peligrosos o tóxicos, y

la diseminación de información relacionada con ello; o

(iii) la protección de la flora y fauna silvestres, incluso especies en peligro de extinción, su hábitat, y las áreas naturales protegidas

en territorio de la Parte, pero no incluye cualquier ley o reglamento, ni sus disposiciones, directamente relacionados con la seguridad e higiene del trabajador.

(b) Para mayor certidumbre, el término “legislación ambiental” no incluye ninguna

ley ni reglamento, ni sus disposiciones, cuyo propósito principal sea la administración de la recolección, extracción o explotación de recursos naturales con fines

comerciales, ni la recolección o extracción de recursos naturales con propósitos de

subsistencia o por poblaciones indígenas.

El propósito principal de una disposición legislativa o reglamentaria en particular,

para efectos de los incisos (a) y (b) se determinará por su propósito principal y no

por el de la ley o del reglamento del que forma parte.

18. Véase SEM-00-006 (Tarahumara), Determinación conforme a los artículos 14(1) y

(2) (6 de noviembre de 2001) en la página 8.

19. Véase SEM-98-003 (Grandes Lagos), Determinación conforme a los artículos 14(1) y

(2) (8 de septiembre de 1999) en la página 7.

20. El artículo 3 del Reglamento de la LGEEPA en materia de impacto ambiental: el

artículo 3 de la LAN: el artículo 2 del Reglamento de la LAN.

21. El artículo 5 de la LGEEPA.

22. Artículos 4, 9 y 13 de la LAN y artículo 44 del Reglamento Interior de la Semarnat.

23. Artículo 1 de la LGEEPA.

24. Artículos 1 y 2 de la LAN.

25. Artículo 2 de la LGEEPA y artículo 7 de la LAN.
también enumera disposiciones que listan principios o criterios que el

Ejecutivo Federal observará, por ejemplo, para la conducción de la política ambiental,26 y considerará para la preservación y aprovechamiento

sustentable de la flora y fauna silvestre y para el aprovechamiento sustentable del agua y los ecosistemas acuáticos.27 Se listan las disposiciones de la LGEEPA que enumeran las facultades de vigilancia y

inspección de la Semarnat, además de la disposición que faculta a la

Semarnat para ordenar medidas de seguridad en materia ambiental.28

La petición se basa también en una disposición que prevé que el

Ejecutivo Federal promoverá la participación de los distintos grupos

sociales en la elaboración de los programas ambientales, y otra que

dispone que el Gobierno Federal deberá promover la participación

corresponsable de la sociedad en la planeación, ejecución, evaluación y

vigilancia de la política ambiental y de recursos naturales.29 La petición

identifica una disposición que establece que la Semarnat deberá formular y ejecutar programas de restauración ecológica en aquellas áreas que

presenten procesos de degradación o desertificación, o graves desequilibrios ecológicos.30 Se identifica también una disposición que prevé que

la Semarnat realizará un sistemático y permanente monitoreo de la calidad de las aguas, para detectar la presencia de contaminantes o exceso

de desechos orgánicos y aplicar las medidas que procedan.31

El Secretariado concluyó que de las disposiciones de referencia, las

que contienen definiciones,32 las que describen el objetivo y campo de

aplicación de la LGEEPA33 y de la LAN,34 y las listas de lo que se considera de utilidad pública,35 mientras sirven para interpretar el sentido de

las demás disposiciones de estas leyes, no son disposiciones cuya aplicación se puede revisar de acuerdo con el artículo 14 del ACAAN, porqué

no confieren a la autoridad alguna facultad, o bien, le imponen alguna

obligación. Respecto de las demás disposiciones, el Secretariado determinó que en cuanto su propósito principal es la protección del medio

ambiente y confieren a la autoridad alguna atribución o facultad, o le

imponen alguna obligación, los alegatos de los Peticionarios respecto de

SEM-03-003 239

26. Artículo 15 de la LGEEPA.

27. Artículos 79, 80, 88 y 89 de la LGEEPA.

28. Artículos 161-170 de la LGEEPA.

29. Artículos 18 y 157 de la LGEEPA.

30. Artículo 78 de la LGEEPA.

31. Artículo 133 de la LGEEPA.

32. El artículo 3 del Reglamento de la LGEEPA en materia de impacto ambiental: el

artículo 3 de la LAN: el artículo 2 del Reglamento de la LAN.

33. Artículo 1 de la LGEEPA.

34. Artículos 1 y 2 de la LAN.

35. Artículo 2 de la LGEEPA y artículo 7 de la LAN.
presumidas omisiones en su aplicación efectiva se pueden revisar de

acuerdo con los criterios establecidos en los incisos a)-f) del artículo 14(1)

del Acuerdo.

El Secretariado determinó que la petición cumple con los requisitos a), b) y f) del artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo, toda vez que fue presentada

por escrito en español, el idioma designado por México para tales efectos;36 los Peticionarios se identifican claramente en la petición,37 y, a partir de la información proporcionada por los Peticionarios, es posible

constatar que tienen su domicilio en México.

En cuanto a los requisitos establecidos en los incisos c) y e), el Secretariado determinó que la información y documentos proporcionados

por los Peticionarios son suficientes para permitir al Secretariado analizar algunos alegatos de la petición. En la parte V de la petición, que lleva

el encabezado “Omisiones en la aplicación de la normatividad ambiental: acuerdo paralelo y legislación mexicana,” los Peticionarios aseveran

que la Parte está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación de ciertas disposiciones de la LGEEPA y la LAN38 al no: 1) aplicar de manera efectiva

las políticas elaboradas con la participación de la sociedad civil en lo que

se refiere a la Cuenca (ejemplo de la Presa Arcediano);39 2) dar seguimiento a quejas de ciudadanos que vigilan el cumplimiento de la Ley

(ejemplo de las quejas de los habitantes de Juanacatlán respecto de la

contaminación del Río Santiago);40 3) ejercer las atribuciones que confiere la LAN a la CNA en cuanto a firmar y ejecutar acuerdos sobre el uso

y distribución del agua en la Cuenca.41 La petición cuenta con 27 anexos

que contienen información que se relaciona a las afirmaciones contenidas en la petición respecto de los asuntos mencionados arriba. Entre los

anexos se encuentran copias de correspondencia con las autoridades,

informes técnicos, copias de acuerdos de coordinación entre entidades

federales y estatales para la gestión del agua en la Cuenca, decretos, fotografías, artículos periodísticos y documentos de otro tipo. La petición

también señala que el asunto se comunicó por escrito a la Procuraduría

Federal de Protección al Ambiente (“Profepa”), la CNA, la Semarnat y

otras autoridades.42

240 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

36. Véase también el apartado 3.2 de las Directrices para la Presentación de Peticiones(“las

Directrices”).

37. Página 2 de la petición.

38. Página 7 de la petición. Véase el Anexo 1 de esta determinación.

39. Página 8 y 9 de la petición.

40. Página 12 de la petición.

41. Páginas 9 y 10 de la petición.

42. Véase recurso de revocación, páginas 4 y 5 de la petición y anexos XVI y XVII; documento de reflexión, página 5 de la petición y anexo XX; escrito al Presidente de
El 15 de agosto y el 2 de septiembre de 2003, el Secretariado solicitó

a los Peticionarios una copia de un acuerdo de la Profepa, mencionado

en un anexo a la petición, notificado al C. Manuel Villagómez Rodríguez, presidente de la Fundación Cuenca Lerma-Chapala-SantiagoPacífico, A.C., el 28 de marzo de 2003 y que se relaciona con una denuncia popular interpuesta por esta persona.43 Los Peticionarios entregaron

al Secretariado una copia de tal acuerdo el 18 de septiembre de 2003,44

seguido el 2 de octubre por un oficio de la CNA al que se refiere el multicitado acuerdo de la Profepa. También el 2 de octubre, los Peticionarios

proporcionaron al Secretariado copias de artículos periodísticos relacionados a un desvío del trasvase de la presa Solís en el estado de Guanajuato por parte de un grupo de campesinos, y copias de peticiones

respecto del estado del Lago de Chapala.45

Respecto al inciso d) del artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo, el Secretariado

concluyó que la petición no parece estar encaminada a hostigar a una

industria, sino a promover la aplicación de la legislación ambiental en

México. Esto en virtud de que la petición está esencialmente referida a

omisiones de la autoridad en México y no al cumplimiento de una

empresa en particular. La petición tampoco plantea una cuestión intrascendente.46

SEM-03-003 241

la República, página 6 de la petición y anexo XXII; escrito a la CNA, página 6 de la

petición y anexo XXIII; denuncia popular, página 7 de la petición y anexo II; denuncias de los habitantes de Juanacatlán, página 7 de la petición y anexo XXV.

43. Véase el anexo II de la petición, carta de Manuel Villagómez Rodríguez fechada el

10 de abril de 2003 y dirigida al delegado de la Profepa en el estado de Jalisco. Véase

también el apartado 5.5 de las Directrices: “La petición deberá indicar que el asunto

ha sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades pertinentes de la Parte en cuestión

e indicar la respuesta de la Parte, si la hubiera. El Peticionario adjuntará con la petición, copias de cualquier correspondencia pertinente con las autoridades pertinentes [...]” y el apartado 3.10 de las Directrices: “El Secretariado podrá notificar en

cualquier momento al Peticionario la existencia de errores menores de forma en la

petición para que éste los rectifique”.

44. El oficio recibido por el Secretariado tiene el número P.F.-E27-D.D.Q.-1100-(02)

5698 y lleva la fecha 26 de noviembre del 2002.

45. Carta del Gerente Regional Lerma Santiago Pacífico de la CNA, Raúl Antonio

Iglesias Benítez, al delegado de la Profepa para el estado de Jalisco, Oficio No.

BOO.00.R12.07.3/86, Asunto: Relativo al oficio No. P.F.-E27.-D.D.A.Q.P.S.-0835-

(02) 4270, recibida por la Profepa el 25 de octubre del 2002.

46. Véase también el apartado 5.4 de las Directrices, que señala que el Secretariado, al

determinar si la petición está encaminada a promover la aplicación efectiva de la

legislación ambiental y no a hostigar a una industria, tomará en cuenta: (i) “si la

petición se centra en los actos u omisiones de la Parte y no en el cumplimiento de

una compañía o negocio en particular; especialmente cuando el Peticionario es un

competidor que podría beneficiarse económicamente con la petición”; y (ii) “si la

petición parece intrascendente”.
b) El artículo 14(2) del ACAAN

El artículo 14(2) del ACAAN dispone que cuando el Secretariado

considere que una petición cumple con los requisitos estipulados en el

párrafo 1 del artículo 14, determinará si la petición amerita solicitar una

respuesta de la Parte. Para decidir si debe solicitar una respuesta, el

Secretariado se orientará por las siguientes consideraciones:

(a) si la petición alega daño a la persona u organización que la presenta;

(b) si la petición, por sí sola o conjuntamente con otras, plantea asuntos

cuyo ulterior estudio en este proceso contribuiría a la consecución de

las metas del ACAAN;

(c) si se ha acudido a los recursos al alcance de los particulares conforme

a la legislación de la Parte; y

(d) si la petición se basa exclusivamente en noticias de los medios de

comunicación.

Con la orientación de las consideraciones expuestas arriba, el

Secretariado determina que la petición amerita solicitar una respuesta a

la Parte. De acuerdo con el inciso a) del artículo 14(2), la petición alega

daño a las personas y organizaciones que la presentaron: dos de los Peticionarios son habitantes de Juanacatlán, donde, según se asevera, el

estado de contaminación del río Santiago está teniendo efectos nocivos

en la salud de las personas.47 Además, todos los Peticionarios aseveran

que la presumida falta por parte de la autoridad ambiental de ejercer las

atribuciones que le confieren la LAN y la LGEEPA para la protección de

los ecosistemas acuáticos “se ha traducido en [...] la imposibilidad material por parte de los denunciantes de ejercer las garantías procesales para

acceder a justicia en cuanto a la legalidad de los actos de la autoridad en

materia de aguas en México [...].48”

Respecto del inciso b) del artículo 14(2), la petición también plantea

asuntos cuyo ulterior estudio en este proceso contribuiría a la consecución de las metas del ACAAN, sobre todo las dispuestas en los incisos

(a), (g) y (j) del artículo 1 del ACAAN. En cuanto al inciso c), uno de los

Peticionarios ha interpuesto una denuncia popular ante la Profepa, que

aborda temas similares a los que se plantean en la petición, por lo que se

comprueba haber acudido a los recursos al alcance de los particulares.49

242 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

47. Página 12 de la petición.

48. Ibid.

49. Anexo II de la petición.
Finalmente, con respecto al inciso d), la petición no se basa exclusivamente en noticias de los medios de comunicación, sino también en actas

de autoridades ambientales y otros escritos.

Tras haber analizado las aseveraciones contenidas en la parte V

de la petición a la luz de la información proporcionada y las disposiciones legislativas citadas por los Peticionarios bajo el rubro “Legislación

ambiental mexicana cuya aplicación fue omitida,” el Secretariado considera que se amerita solicitar una respuesta a la Parte respecto de la

aplicación de las siguientes disposiciones legislativas en cuanto a los

siguientes asuntos identificados por los Peticionarios: artículos 88 fracciones II y III, 89 y 157 de la LGEEPA respecto del Proyecto de la Presa

Arcediano; artículo 88 fracción I y 133 de la LGEEPA respecto de las quejas ciudadanas de habitantes de Juanacatlán en cuanto al estado de contaminación del Río Santiago; artículos 4, 7 fracción IV y 9 fracción XIII de

la LAN en cuanto a la conclusión y ejecución de acuerdos sobre el uso y

distribución de agua en la Cuenca.

IV. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

El Secretariado examinó la petición SEM-03-003 (Lago de Chapala

II) de acuerdo con el artículo 14(1) del ACAAN y determina que algunas

aseveraciones de la misma cumplen, según las razones expuestas en esta

determinación, con todos los requisitos allí establecidos. Asimismo,

tomando en cuenta el conjunto de los criterios establecidos en el artículo

14(2) del ACAAN, el Secretariado determina que la petición amerita

solicitar una respuesta a la Parte interesada, en este caso los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, a las aseveraciones de los Peticionarios respecto de la

aplicación de las siguientes disposiciones legislativas en cuanto a los

siguientes asuntos: artículos 88 fracciones II y III, 89 y 157 de la LGEEPA

respecto del Proyecto de la Presa Arcediano; artículos 88 fracción I y 133

de la LGEEPA respecto de las quejas ciudadanas de habitantes de Juanacatlán en cuanto al estado de contaminación del Río Santiago, y artículos

4, 7 fracción IV y 9 fracción XIII de la LAN en cuanto a la conclusión y ejecución de acuerdos sobre el uso y distribución de agua en la Cuenca, y

así lo hace.

Conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 14(3) del ACAAN, la Parte

podrá proporcionar una respuesta a la petición dentro de los 30 días

siguientes a la recepción de esta notificación, y en circunstancias excepcionales, dentro de los 60 días siguientes a la misma. Dado que a la Parte

interesada ya se le enviaron copias de la petición y de los anexos respectivos, no se acompañan a esta determinación.

SEM-03-003 243
Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Katia Opalka

Oficial jurídica

Unidad sobre Peticiones Ciudadanas

cc: Lic. José Manuel Bulás, Semarnat

Sra. Norine Smith, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente de Canadá

Sra. Judith E. Ayres, EPA de EU

Dra. Raquel Gutiérrez Nájera, Instituto de Derecho

Ambiental, A.C.

Sr. William Kennedy, Director Ejecutivo de la CCA

244 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Anexo 1

LGEEPA

Artículo 1

La presente Ley es reglamentaria de las disposiciones de la Constitución

Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos que se refieren a la preservación y restauración del equilibrio ecológico, así como a la protección

al ambiente, en el territorio nacional y las zonas sobre las que la

nación ejerce su soberanía y jurisdicción. Sus disposiciones son de orden

público e interés social y tienen por objeto propiciar el desarrollo sustentable y establecer las bases para:

I.- Garantizar el derecho de toda persona a vivir en un medio

ambiente adecuado para su desarrollo, salud y bienestar;

II.- Definir los principios de la política ambiental y los instrumentos

para su aplicación;

III.- La preservación, la restauración y el mejoramiento del

ambiente;

IV.- La preservación y protección de la biodiVéasesidad, así como

el establecimiento y administración de las áreas naturales

protegidas;

V.- El aprovechamiento sustentable, la preservación y, en su caso, la

restauración del suelo, el agua y los demás recursos naturales,

de manera que sean compatibles la obtención de beneficios económicos y las actividades de la sociedad con la preservación de

los ecosistemas;

VI.- La prevención y el control de la contaminación del aire, agua y

suelo;

VII.- Garantizar la participación corresponsable de las personas, en

forma individual o colectiva, en la preservación y restauración

del equilibrio ecológico y la protección al ambiente;

VIII.- El ejercicio de las atribuciones que en materia ambiental corresponde a la Federación, los Estados, el Distrito Federal y los

Municipios, bajo el principio de concurrencia previsto en el

artículo 73 fracción XXIX – G de la Constitución;

SEM-03-003 245
IX.- El establecimiento de los mecanismos de coordinación, inducción y concertación entre autoridades, entre éstas y los sectores

social y privado, así como con personas y grupos sociales, en

materia ambiental, y

X.- El establecimiento de medidas de control y de seguridad para

garantizar el cumplimiento y la aplicación de esta Ley y de

las disposiciones que de ella se deriven, así como para la

imposición de las sanciones administrativas y penales que

correspondan.

En todo lo no previsto en la presente Ley, se aplicarán las disposiciones

contenidas en otras leyes relacionadas con las materias que regula este

ordenamiento.

Artículo 2

Se consideran de utilidad pública:

I.- El ordenamiento ecológico del territorio nacional en los casos

previstos por ésta y las demás leyes aplicables;

II.- El establecimiento, protección y preservación de las áreas naturales protegidas y de las zonas de restauración ecológica;

III.- La formulación y ejecución de acciones de protección y preservación de la biodiVéasesidad del territorio nacional y las zonas

sobre las que la nación ejerce su soberanía y jurisdicción, así

como el aprovechamiento de material genético; y

IV.- El establecimiento de zonas intermedias de salvaguardia,

con motivo de la presencia de actividades consideradas como

riesgosas.

Artículo 5

Son facultades de la Federación:

III.- La atención de los asuntos que afecten el equilibrio ecológico en

el territorio nacional o en las zonas sujetas a la soberanía y jurisdicción de la nación, originados en el territorio o zonas sujetas a

la soberanía o jurisdicción de otros Estados, o en zonas que estén

más allá de la jurisdicción de cualquier Estado;

246 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
IV.- La atención de los asuntos que, originados en el territorio nacional o las zonas sujetas a la soberanía o jurisdicción de la nación

afecten el equilibrio ecológico del territorio o de las zonas sujetas a la soberanía o jurisdicción de otros Estados, o a las zonas

que estén más allá de la jurisdicción de cualquier Estado; [...]

XI.- La regulación del aprovechamiento sustentable, la protección y

la preservación de las aguas nacionales, la biodiVéasesidad, la

fauna y los demás recursos naturales de su competencia; [...]

XVI.- La promoción de la participación de la sociedad en materia

ambiental, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en esta Ley; [...]

XIX.- La vigilancia y promoción, en el ámbito de su competencia, del

cumplimiento de esta Ley y los demás ordenamientos que de

ella se deriven; [...]

Artículo 18

El Gobierno Federal promoVéaseá la participación de los distintos grupos sociales en la elaboración de los programas que tengan por objeto la

preservación y restauración del equilibrio ecológico y la protección al

ambiente, según lo establecido en esta Ley y las demás aplicables.

Artículo 78

En aquellas áreas que presenten procesos de degradación o desertificación, o graves desequilibrios ecológicos, la Secretaría deberá formular y

ejecutar programas de restauración ecológica, con el propósito de que se

lleven a cabo las acciones necesarias para la recuperación y restablecimiento de las condiciones que propicien la evolución y continuidad de

los procesos naturales que en ella se desarrollaban.

En la formulación, ejecución y seguimiento de dichos programas, la

Secretaría deberá promoVéase la participación de los propietarios,

poseedores, organizaciones sociales, públicas o privadas, pueblos indígenas, gobiernos locales, y demás personas interesadas.

Artículo 79

Para la preservación y aprovechamiento sustentable de la flora y fauna

silvestre, se considerarán los siguientes criterios:

I.- La preservación de la biodiVéasesidad y del hábitat natural de

las especies de flora y fauna que se encuentran en el territorio

SEM-03-003 247
nacional y en las zonas donde la nación ejerce su soberanía y

jurisdicción; [...]

III.- La preservación de las especies endémicas, amenazadas, en

peligro de extinción o sujetas a protección especial; [...]

Artículo 80

Los criterios para la preservación y aprovechamiento sustentable de la

flora y fauna silvestre, a que se refiere el artículo 79 de esta Ley, serán

considerados en:

I.- El otorgamiento de concesiones, permisos y, en general, de toda

clase de autorizaciones para el aprovechamiento, posesión,

administración, conservación, repoblación, propagación y

desarrollo de la flora y fauna silvestres; [...]

VII.- La creación de áreas de refugio para proteger las especies acuáticas que así lo requieran; [...]

Artículo 83

El aprovechamiento de los recursos naturales en áreas que sean el habitat de especies de flora o fauna silvestres, especialmente de las endémicas, amenazadas o en peligro de extinción, deberá hacerse de manera

que no se alteren las condiciones necesarias para la subsistencia, desarrollo y evolución de dichas especies.

La Secretaría deberá promoVéase y apoyar el manejo de la flora y fauna

silvestre, con base en el conocimiento biológico tradicional, información

técnica, científica y económica, con el propósito de hacer un aprovechamiento sustentable de las especies.

Artículo 88

Para el aprovechamiento racional del agua y los ecosistemas acuáticos se

considerarán los siguientes criterios:

I.- Corresponde al Estado y a la Sociedad la protección de los ecosistemas acuáticos y del equilibrio de los elementos naturales

que intervienen en el ciclo hidrológico;

II.- El aprovechamiento sustentable de los recursos naturales que

comprenden los ecosistemas acuáticos deben realizarse de

manera que no se afecte su equilibrio ecológico;

248 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
III.- Para mantener la integridad y el equilibrio de los elementos

naturales que intervienen en el ciclo hidrológico, se deberá considerar la protección de suelos y áreas boscosas y selváticas y el

mantenimiento de caudales básicos de las corrientes de agua, y

la capacidad de recarga de los acuíferos, [...]

Artículo 89

Los criterios para el aprovechamiento racional del agua y de los ecosistemas acuáticos, serán considerados en:

I.- La formulación e integración del Programa Nacional

Hidráulico;

II.- El otorgamiento de concesiones, permisos, y en general toda

clase de autorizaciones para el aprovechamiento de recursos

naturales o la realización de actividades que afecten o puedan

afectar el ciclo hidrológico;

III.- El otorgamiento de autorizaciones para la desviación, extracción o derivación de aguas de propiedad nacional;

IV.- El establecimiento de zonas reglamentadas, de veda o de

reserva;

V.- Las suspensiones o revocaciones de permisos, autorizaciones,

concesiones o asignaciones otorgados conforme a las disposiciones previstas en la Ley de Aguas Nacionales, en aquellos

casos de obras o actividades que dañen los recursos hidráulicos

nacionales o que afecten el equilibrio ecológico;

VI.- La operación y administración de los sistemas de agua potable y

alcantarillado que sirven a los centros de población e industrias;

VII.- Las previsiones contenidas en el programa director para el desarrollo urbano del Distrito Federal respecto de la política de

reuso de aguas;

VIII.- Las políticas y programas para la protección de especies acuáticas endémicas, amenazadas, en peligro de extinción o sujetas a

protección especial;

IX.- Las concesiones para la realización de actividades de acuacultura, en términos de lo previsto en la Ley de Pesca, y

SEM-03-003 249
X.- La creación y administración de áreas o zonas de protección

pesquera.

Artículo 133

La Secretaría, con la participación que en su caso corresponda a la Secretaría de Salud conforme a otros ordenamientos legales, realizará un sistemático y permanente monitoreo de la calidad de las aguas, para

detectar la presencia de contaminantes o exceso de desechos orgánicos y

aplicar las medidas que procedan. En los casos de aguas de jurisdicción

local se coordinará con las autoridades de los Estados, el Distrito Federal

y los Municipios.

Artículo 157

El Gobierno Federal deberá promoVéase la participación corresponsable de la sociedad en la planeación, ejecución, evaluación y vigilancia de

la política ambiental y de recursos naturales.

Artículo 161

La Secretaría realizará los actos de inspección y vigilancia del cumplimiento de las disposiciones contenidas en el presente ordenamiento, así

como de las que del mismo se deriven.

En las zonas marinas mexicanas la Secretaría, por sí o por conducto de la

Secretaría de Marina, realizará los actos de inspección, vigilancia y, en su

caso, de imposición de sanciones por violaciones a las disposiciones de

esta Ley.

Artículo 162

Las autoridades competentes podrán realizar, por conducto de personal

debidamente autorizado, visitas de inspección, sin perjuicio de otras

medidas previstas en las leyes que puedan llevar a cabo para Véaseificar

el cumplimiento de este ordenamiento.

Dicho personal, al realizar las visitas de inspección, deberá contar con el

documento oficial que los acredite o autorice a practicar la inspección o

Véaseificación, así como la orden escrita debidamente fundada y motivada, expedida por autoridad competente, en la que se precisará el lugar

o zona que habrá de inspeccionarse y el objeto de la diligencia.

250 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Artículo 163

El personal autorizado, al iniciar la inspección, se identificará debidamente con la persona con quien se entienda la diligencia, exhibiéndole,

para tal efecto credencial vigente con fotografía, expedida por autoridad

competente que lo acredite para realizar visitas de inspección en la materia, y le mostrará la orden respectiva, entregándole copia de la misma

con firma autógrafa, requiriéndola para que en el acto designe dos testigos.

En caso de negativa o de que los designados no acepten fungir como testigos, el personal autorizado podrá designarlos, haciendo constar esta

situación en el acta administrativa que al efecto se levante, sin que esta

circunstancia invalide los efectos de la inspección.

En los casos en que no fuera posible encontrar en el lugar de la visita persona que pudiera ser designada como testigo, el personal actuante

deberá asentar esta circunstancia en el acta administrativa que al efecto

se levante, sin que ello afecte la validez de la misma.

Artículo 164

En toda visita de inspección se levantará acta, en la que se harán constar

en forma circunstanciada los hechos u omisiones que se hubiesen presentado durante la diligencia, así como lo previsto en el artículo 67 de la

Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo.

Concluida la inspección, se dará oportunidad a la persona con la que se

entendió la diligencia para que en el mismo acto formule observaciones

en relación con los hechos u omisiones asentados en el acta respectiva, y

para que ofrezca las pruebas que considere convenientes o haga uso de

ese derecho en el término de cinco días siguientes a la fecha en que la diligencia se hubiere practicado.

A continuación se procederá a firmar el acta por la persona con quien se

entendió la diligencia, por los testigos y por el personal autorizado,

quien entregará copia del acta al interesado.

Si la persona con quien se entendió la diligencia o los testigos, se negaren

a firmar el acta, o el interesado se negare a aceptar copia de la misma,

dichas circunstancias se asentarán en ella, sin que esto afecte su validez y

valor probatorio.

SEM-03-003 251
Artículo 165

La persona con quien se entienda la diligencia estará obligada a permitir

al personal autorizado el acceso al lugar o lugares sujetos a inspección en

los términos previstos en la orden escrita a que se hace referencia en el

artículo 162 de esta Ley, así como a proporcionar toda clase de información que conduzca a la Véaseificación del cumplimiento de esta Ley y

demás disposiciones aplicables, con excepción de lo relativo a derechos

de propiedad industrial que sean confidenciales conforme a la Ley. La

información deberá mantenerse por la autoridad en absoluta reserva, si

así lo solicita el interesado, salvo en caso de requerimiento judicial.

Artículo 166

La autoridad competente podrá solicitar el auxilio de la fuerza pública

para efectuar la visita de inspección, cuando alguna o algunas personas

obstaculicen o se opongan a la práctica de la diligencia, independientemente de las sanciones a que haya lugar.

Artículo 167

Recibida el acta de inspección por la autoridad ordenadora, requerirá

al interesado, cuando proceda, mediante notificación personal o por

correo certificado con acuse de recibo, para que adopte de inmediato las

medidas correctivas o de urgente aplicación que, en su caso, resulten

necesarias para cumplir con las disposiciones jurídicas aplicables, así

como con los permisos, licencias, autorizaciones o concesiones respectivas, señalando el plazo que corresponda para su cumplimiento, fundando y motivando el requerimiento. Asimismo, deberá señalarse al

interesado que cuenta con un término de quince días para que exponga

lo que a su derecho convenga y, en su caso, aporte las pruebas que considere procedentes en relación con la actuación de la Secretaría.

Admitidas y desahogadas las pruebas ofrecidas por el interesado, o

habiendo transcurrido el plazo a que se refiere el párrafo anterior, sin

que haya hecho uso de ese derecho, se pondrán a su disposición las

actuaciones, para que en un plazo tres días hábiles, presente por escrito

sus alegatos.

Artículo 168

Una vez recibidos los alegatos o transcurrido el término para presentarlos, la Secretaría procederá, dentro de los veinte días siguientes, a dictar

por escrito la resolución respectiva, misma que se notificará al interesado, personalmente o por correo certificado con acuse de recibo.

252 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Durante el procedimiento y antes de que se dicte resolución, el interesado y la Secretaría, a petición del primero, podrán convenir la realización de las acciones de restauración o compensación de daños necesarias

para la corrección de las presuntas irregularidades observadas. La instrumentación y evaluación de dicho convenio, se llevará a cabo en los

términos del artículo 169 de esta Ley.

Artículo 169

En la resolución administrativa correspondiente, se señalarán o, en su

caso, adicionarán, las medidas que deberán llevarse a cabo para corregir

las deficiencias o irregularidades observadas, el plazo otorgado al

infractor para satisfacerlas y las sanciones a que se hubiere hecho acreedor conforme a las disposiciones aplicables.

Dentro de los cinco días hábiles que sigan al vencimiento del plazo otorgado al infractor para subsanar las deficiencias o irregularidades observadas, éste deberá comunicar por escrito y en forma detallada a la

autoridad ordenadora, haber dado cumplimiento a las medidas ordenadas en los términos del requerimiento respectivo.

Cuando se trate de segunda o posterior inspección para Véaseificar el

cumplimiento de un requerimiento o requerimientos anteriores, y del

acta correspondiente se desprenda que no se ha dado cumplimiento a las

medidas previamente ordenadas, la autoridad competente podrá imponer además de la sanción o sanciones que procedan conforme al artículo

171 de esta Ley, una multa adicional que no exceda de los límites máximos señalados en dicho precepto.

En los casos en que el infractor realice las medidas correctivas o de

urgente aplicación o subsane las irregularidades detectadas, en los plazos ordenados por la Secretaría, siempre y cuando el infractor no sea

reincidente, y no se trate de alguno de los supuestos previstos en el

artículo 170 de esta Ley, ésta podrá revocar o modificar la sanción o sanciones impuestas.

En los casos en que proceda, la autoridad federal hará del conocimiento

del Ministerio Público la realización de actos u omisiones constatados en

el ejercicio de sus facultades que pudieran configurar uno o más delitos.

En los casos en que proceda, la autoridad federal hará del conocimiento

del Ministerio Público la realización de actos u omisiones constatados

que pudieran configurar uno o más delitos.

SEM-03-003 253
Artículo 170

Cuando exista riesgo inminente de desequilibrio ecológico, o de daño o

deterioro grave a los recursos naturales, casos de contaminación con

repercusiones peligrosas para los ecosistemas, sus componentes o para

la salud pública, la Secretaría, fundada y motivadamente, podrá ordenar

alguna o algunas de las siguientes medidas de seguridad:

I.- La clausura temporal, parcial o total de las fuentes contaminantes, así como de las instalaciones en que se manejen o almacenen

especímenes, productos o subproductos de especies de flora o

de fauna silvestre, recursos forestales, o se desarrollen las actividades que den lugar a los supuestos a que se refiere el primer

párrafo de este artículo;

II.- El aseguramiento precautorio de materiales y residuos peligrosos, así como de especímenes, productos o subproductos de

especies de flora o de fauna silvestre o su material genético,

recursos forestales, además de los bienes, vehículos, utensilios e

instrumentos directamente relacionados con la conducta que da

lugar a la imposición de la medida de seguridad, o

III.- La neutralización o cualquier acción análoga que impida que

materiales o residuos peligrosos generen los efectos previstos en

el primer párrafo de este artículo.

Asimismo, la Secretaría podrá promoVéase ante la autoridad competente, la ejecución de alguna o algunas de las medidas de seguridad que

se establezcan en otros ordenamientos.

REGLAMENTO DE LA LGEEPA EN MATERIADE IMPACTO

AMBIENTAL

Artículo 3

Para los efectos del presente reglamento se considerarán las definiciones

contenidas en la ley y las siguientes:

[...]

III.- Daño ambiental: Es el que ocurre sobre algún elemento ambiental a consecuencia de un impacto ambiental adVéaseso;

254 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
IV.- Daño a los ecosistemas: Es el resultado de uno o más impactos

ambientales sobre uno o varios elementos ambientales o procesos del ecosistema que desencadenan un desequilibrio

ecológico;

V.- Daño grave al ecosistema: Es aquel que propicia la pérdida de

uno o varios elementos ambientales, que afecta la estructura o

función, o que modifica las tendencias evolutivas o sucesionales

del ecosistema;

VI. Desequilibrio ecológico grave: Alteración significativa de las

condiciones ambientales en las que se prevén impactos acumulativos, sinérgicos y residuales que ocasionarían la destrucción,

el aislamiento o la fragmentación de los ecosistemas;

VII. Impacto ambiental acumulativo: El efecto en el ambiente que

resulta del incremento de los impactos de acciones particulares

ocasionado por la interacción con otros que se efectuaron en el

pasado o que están ocurriendo en el presente;

VIII. Impacto ambiental sinérgico: Aquel que se produce cuando el

efecto conjunto de la presencia simultánea de varias acciones

supone una incidencia ambiental mayor que la suma de las incidencias individuales contempladas aisladamente;

IX. Impacto ambiental significativo o relevante: Aquel que resulta

de la acción del hombre o de la naturaleza, que provoca alteraciones en los ecosistemas y sus recursos naturales o en la salud,

obstaculizando la existencia y desarrollo del hombre y de los

demás seres vivos, así como la continuidad de los procesos

naturales; [...]

LAN

Artículo 1

La presente ley es reglamentaria del artículo 27 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos en materia de aguas nacionales; es

de observancia general en todo el territorio nacional, sus disposiciones

son de orden público e interés social y tiene por objeto regular la explotación, uso o aprovechamiento de dichas aguas, su distribución y control,

así como la preservación de su cantidad y calidad para lograr su desarrollo integral sustentable.

SEM-03-003 255
Artículo 2

Las disposiciones de esta ley son aplicables a todas las aguas nacionales,

sean superficiales o del subsuelo. Estas disposiciones también son aplicables a los bienes nacionales que la presente ley señala.

Artículo 3

Para los efectos de esta ley se entenderá por:

[...]

IV.- Cuenca hidrológica: el territorio donde las aguas fluyen al mar a

través de una red de cauces que conVéasegen en uno principal,

o bien el territorio en donde las aguas forman una unidad autónoma o diferenciada de otras, aún sin que desemboquen en el

mar. La cuenca, conjuntamente con los acuíferos, constituye la

unidad de gestión del recurso hidráulico;

V.- La Comisión: la Comisión Nacional del Agua, órgano administrativo desconcentrado de la Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos; [...]

Artículo 4

La autoridad y administración en materia de aguas nacionales y de sus

bienes públicos inherentes corresponde al Ejecutivo Federal, quien la

ejercerá directamente o a través de La Comisión.

Artículo 7

Se declara de utilidad pública:

[...]

II.- La protección, mejoramiento y conservación de cuencas, acuíferos, cauces, vasos y demás depósitos de propiedad nacional, así

como la infiltración de aguas para reabastecer mantos acuíferos

y la derivación de las aguas de una cuenca o región hidrológica

hacia otras; [...]

IV.- Reestablecer el equilibrio hidrológico de las aguas nacionales,

superficiales o del subsuelo, incluidas las limitaciones de extracción, las vedas, las reservas y el cambio en el uso del agua para

destinarlo al uso doméstico; [...]

256 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
VIII.- La instalación de los dispositivos necesarios para la medición de

la cantidad y calidad de las aguas nacionales.

Artículo 9

Son atribuciones de La Comisión:

I.- Ejercer las atribuciones que conforme a la presente ley corresponden a la autoridad en materia hidráulica, dentro del ámbito

de la competencia federal, excepto las que debe ejercer directamente el Ejecutivo Federal; [...]

XIII.- Vigilar el cumplimiento y aplicación de la presente ley, interpretarla para efectos administrativos, y aplicar las sanciones y ejercer los actos de autoridad en la materia que no estén reservados

al Ejecutivo Federal; [...]

REGLAMENTO DE LA LAN

Artículo 2

Para los efectos de este “Reglamento”, se entiende por:

[...]

IV. Condiciones particulares de descarga: el conjunto de parámetros físicos, químicos y biológicos y de sus niveles máximos permitidos en las descargas de agua residual, determinados por

“La Comisión” para un usuario, para un determinado uso o

grupo de usuarios o para un cuerpo receptor específico, con el

fin de preservar y controlar la calidad de las aguas conforme a la

“Ley” y este “Reglamento”;

V. Corriente permanente: la que tiene un escurrimiento superficial

que no se interrumpe en ninguna época del año, desde donde

principia hasta su desembocadura; [...]

VIII. Cuota natural de renovación de las aguas: el volumen de agua

renovable anualmente en una cuenca o acuífero; [...]

XII. Humedales: las zonas de transición entre los sistemas acuáticos

y terrestres que constituyen áreas de inundación temporal o

permanente, sujetas o no a la influencia de mareas, como pantanos, ciénagas y marismas, cuyos límites los constituyen el tipo

SEM-03-003 257
de vegetación hidrófila de presencia permanente o estacional;

las áreas en donde el suelo es predominantemente hídrico; y las

áreas lacustres o de suelos permanentemente húmedos, originadas por la descarga natural de acuíferos; [...]

XIV. Lago o Laguna: el vaso de propiedad federal de formación natural que es alimentado por corriente superficial o aguas subterráneas o pluviales, independientemente que dé o no origen a otra

corriente, así como el vaso de formación artificial que se origina

por la construcción de una presa; [...]

XVI. Uso agrícola: la utilización de agua nacional destinada a la actividad de siembra, cultivo y cosecha de productos agrícolas, y su

preparación para la primera enajenación, siempre que los productos no hayan sido objeto de transformación industrial;

XVII. Uso agroindustrial: la utilización de agua nacional para la actividad de transformación industrial de los productos agrícolas y

pecuarios;

XVIII. Uso doméstico: para efectos del artículo 3o., fracción XI de la

“Ley”, la utilización de agua nacional destinada al uso particular de las personas y del hogar, riego de sus jardines y de sus

árboles de ornato, incluyendo el abrevadero de sus animales

domésticos que no constituya una actividad lucrativa;

XIX. Uso en acuacultura: la utilización de agua nacional destinada al

cultivo, reproducción y desarrollo de cualquier especie de la

fauna y flora acuáticas;

XX. Uso en servicios: la utilización de agua nacional para servicios

distintos de los señalados en las fracciones XVI a XXV, de este

artículo;

XXI. Uso industrial: la utilización de agua nacional en fábricas o

empresas que realicen la extracción, conservación o transformación de materias primas o minerales, el acabado de productos o

la elaboración de satisfactores, así como la que se utiliza en

parques industriales, en calderas, en dispositivos para enfriamiento, lavado, baños y otros servicios dentro de la empresa, las

salmueras que se utilizan para la extracción de cualquier tipo de

sustancias y el agua aún en estado de vapor, que sea usada para

la generación de energía eléctrica o para cualquier otro uso o

aprovechamiento de transformación;

258 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
XXII. Uso para conservación ecológica: el caudal mínimo en una

corriente o el volumen mínimo en cuerpos receptores o embalses, que deben conservarse para proteger las condiciones

ambientales y el equilibrio ecológico del sistema;

XXIII. Uso pecuario: la utilización de agua nacional para la actividad

consistente en la cría y engorda de ganado, aves de corral y animales, y su preparación para la primera enajenación, siempre

que no comprendan la transformación industrial;

XXIV. Uso público urbano: la utilización de agua nacional para centros

de población o asentamientos humanos, a través de la red municipal, y

XXV. Usos múltiples: la utilización de agua nacional aprovechada en

más de uno de los usos definidos en la “Ley” y el presente

“Reglamento”, salvo el uso para conservación ecológica, el cual

está implícito en todos los aprovechamientos.

REGLAMENTO INTERIOR DE LA SEMARNAT

Artículo 44

La Comisión Nacional del Agua tendrá las atribuciones que se establecen en la Ley de Aguas Nacionales, su Reglamento, este ordenamiento y

las demás disposiciones aplicables, las cuales serán ejercidas por las unidades administrativas que la integran, sin perjuicio de su ejercicio

directo por parte del Director General de dicha Comisión.

Asimismo, deberá aplicar las políticas y disposiciones emitidas en materia de transparencia y acceso a la información.

SEM-03-003 259

SEM-03-004

(ALCA-Iztapalapa II)

SUBMITTERS: ÁNGEL LARA GARCÍA

PARTY: MEXICO

DATE: 17 June 2003

SUMMARY: The Submitter asserts that Mexico is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental laws with

respect to a citizen complaint he filed with the

Office of the Federal Attorney General for Environmental Protection (Procuraduría Federal de

Protección al Ambiente–Profepa) in 1995. The

Submitter alleges that there are environmental

irregularities in the operation of a footwear

materials factory by ALCA, S.A. de C.V. (ALCA)

in the Santa Isabel Industrial neighborhood of

Iztapalapa Delegation in Mexico, D.F., where the

Submitter lives. He asserts that his health and that

of his family have been affected by the pollution

generated by the factory.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)(2)

(9 September 2003)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met, and that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party.

ART. 15(1)

(23 August 2004)

Notification to Council that a factual record is

warranted in accordance with Article 15(1).

261

Secretariado de la Comisión

para la Cooperación Ambiental

Determinación del Secretariado en conformidad con los

artículos 14(1) y (2) del Acuerdo de Cooperación

Ambiental de América del Norte

Petición número: SEM-03-004 (ALCA-Iztapalapa II)

Peticionario: Ángel Lara García

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de la petición: 17 de junio de 2003

Fecha de la determinación: 9 de septiembre de 2003

I. ANTECEDENTES

El 25 de noviembre de 2002, Ángel Lara García (“el Peticionario”)

presentó al Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

(“el Secretariado”) una petición (SEM-02-005/ALCA-Iztapalapa) en

conformidad con los artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte (“ACAAN” o “el Acuerdo”). El 17 de diciembre

de 2002, el Secretariado determinó que dicha petición no cumplía con los

requisitos de los incisos (c) y (d) del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN. Con base

en el apartado 6.2 de las Directrices para la presentación de peticiones (“las

Directrices”), el Secretariado advirtió al Peticionario, en el momento de

notificarle su determinación, que contaba con 30 días para presentar una

petición que cumpliera con los criterios del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN.

El 17 de junio de 2003, el Peticionario, luego de señalar que por falta

de recursos le fue imposible enmendar su escrito original en el tiempo

señalado, presentó al Secretariado una nueva petición (SEM-03-004/

ALCA-Iztapalapa II) en conformidad con los artículos 14 y 15 del

263
Acuerdo.1 El 3 de julio de 2003, el Peticionario confirmó por escrito su

intención de que el Secretariado, al revisar la nueva petición, tome en

cuenta la información contenida en la petición original.

Según el ACAAN, el Secretariado podrá examinar las peticiones

que cumplan con los requisitos establecidos en el artículo 14(1). Si considera que una petición cumple con esos requisitos, el Secretariado debe

determinar si la petición amerita solicitar una respuesta de la Parte. Para

llegar a esta determinación, el Secretariado se orienta por las consideraciones listadas en el artículo 14(2).

El Secretariado ha determinado que la petición SEM-03-004/

ALCA-Iztapalapa II cumple con todos los requisitos establecidos en el

artículo 14(1) y que amerita solicitar una respuesta de la Parte con

acuerdo al artículo 14(2), por las razones que a continuación se exponen.

II. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

El Peticionario sostiene que México está incurriendo en omisiones

en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental respecto de la operación de una fábrica de material para calzado, propiedad de la empresa

ALCA, SA de CV (“ALCA”), ubicada en un predio colindante al domicilio del Peticionario en la colonia Santa Isabel Industrial, Iztapalapa,

Ciudad de México, DF.2 El Peticionario afirma que las emisiones atmosféricas de la fábrica y el manejo de sustancias y residuos peligrosos por

los empleados de ALCA violan el artículo 150 de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente(“la LGEEPA”) y los artículos 414

párrafo primero y 415 fracción I del Código Penal Federal (“el CPF”).3 En

particular, se desprende que el Peticionario asevera que la empresa ilícitamente, sin aplicar las medidas de prevención y seguridad, realiza

actividades de almacenamiento, desecho y descarga de sustancias consideradas peligrosas que causan daño al ambiente.4 El Peticionario

también sostiene que ALCA, sin aplicar las medidas de prevención o

seguridad, emita, despida o descarga en la atmósfera gases, humos, polvos o contaminantes que ocasionan daños al ambiente.5 Se destaca por

fin que el Peticionario alega que la empresa está omitiendo manejar

materiales y residuos peligrosos con arreglo a la LGEEPA y las normas

oficiales mexicanas expedidas por la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y

264 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Páginas 1 y 5 de la petición.

2. Páginas 1, 3 y 4 de la petición.

3. Páginas 3 y 4 de la petición.

4. Página 3 de la petición, en letra negrita.

5. Ibid.
Recursos Naturales.6 El Peticionario asevera que estas presuntas violaciones están causando contaminación que daña su salud y la de su familia.7 Asevera además que la Procuraduría Federal de Protección al

Ambiente (“la Profepa”), a pesar de haber comprobado la existencia de

violaciones al inspeccionar la fábrica, dio por concluido el trámite de una

denuncia popular interpuesta por el Peticionario sin, por lo tanto, tomar

las acciones necesarias para poner fin a las presuntas violaciones.8

III. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME AL ARTÍCULO

14(1) DEL ACAAN

El artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo establece que:

El Secretariado podrá examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte

está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental, si el Secretariado juzga que la petición:

(a) se presenta por escrito en un idioma designado por esa Parte en una

notificación al Secretariado;

(b) identifica claramente a la persona u organización que presenta la petición;

(c) proporciona información suficiente que permita al Secretariado revisarla, e incluyendo las pruebas documentales que puedan sustentarla;

(d) parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar

una industria;

(e) señala que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades

pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la respuesta de la Parte; y

(f) la presenta una persona u organización que reside o está establecida

en territorio de una Parte.

SEM-03-004 265

6. Página 4 de la petición, en letra negrita.

7. Página 2 de la petición.

8. Páginas 1 y 2 de la petición ulterior, SEM-02-005/ALCA-Iztapalapa, página 2 de la

petición y anexo: Acta administrativa de la Subsecretaría de Atención Ciudadana

y Normatividad, Dirección General de Atención Ciudadana, Dirección General

Adjunta de Atención Ciudadana, Subdirección de Atención Directa y Gestión Inmediata de la Secretaría de Contraloría y Desarrollo Administrativo con fecha 23 de

octubre de 2002.
Si bien el artículo 14(1) no pretende colocar una gran carga para los

peticionarios, en esta etapa se requiere al menos de cierta revisión inicial

para verificar que la petición cumple con estos requisitos.9 Por lo tanto, el

Secretariado examinó la petición en cuestión con tal perspectiva en

mente.

La primera cuestión es si la petición “asevera que una Parte está

incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental”. En la petición, el Peticionario afirma: “...asevero que el

Estado mexicano está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva

de su legislación ambiental”.10 La petición hace referencia a los artículos

3 fracción I y 150 de la LGEEPA y a los artículos 414 párrafo primero y

415 fracción I del CPF. De acuerdo con la definición contenida en el

artículo 45(2) del ACAAN, estas disposiciones califican como “legislación ambiental” porque su propósito principal coincide con la protección del medio ambiente, o la prevención de un peligro contra la vida o la

salud humana, a través de la prevención, el abatimiento o el control de

una fuga, descarga o emisión de contaminantes ambientales. Las primeras dos disposiciones se refieren respectivamente a la definición legal del

término “ambiente”, así como al deber de manejar los materiales y residuos peligrosos con arreglo a la legislación ambiental.11 Por su parte, los

artículos 414 párrafo primero y 415 fracción I del CPF sancionan penalmente a aquellos que ilícitamente o sin aplicar las medidas de prevención y seguridad necesarias realicen, ordenen o autoricen actividades

con sustancias consideradas peligrosas o emisiones de gases, humos,

polvos o contaminantes que ocasionen daños al ambiente.12

266 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

9. En este sentido, véanse la Determinación conforme al artículo 14(1) en relación con

la petición SEM-97-005/Animal Alliance of Canada, et al., y la Determinación conforme a los artículos 14(1) y (2) relativa a la petición SEM-98-003/Department of the

Planet Earth, et al., en su versión revisada.

10. Página 1 de la petición.

11. Artículo 3 de la LGEEPA:

“Para los efectos de esta Ley se entiende por:

“I.- Ambiente: El conjunto de elementos naturales y artificiales o inducidos por el

hombre que hacen posible la existencia y desarrollo de los seres humanos y demás

organismos vivos que interactúan en un espacio y tiempo determinados...”

Artículo 150 de la LGEEPA:

“Los materiales y residuos peligrosos deberán ser manejados con arreglo a la presente Ley, su Reglamento y las normas oficiales mexicanas que expida la Secretaría,

previa opinión de las Secretarías de Comercio y Fomento Industrial, de Salud, de

Energía, de Comunicaciones y Transportes, de Marina y de Gobernación. La regulación del manejo de esos materiales y residuos incluirá según corresponda, su uso,

recolección, almacenamiento, transporte, reúso, reciclaje, tratamiento y disposición final.”

12. Artículo 414 del CPF:

“Se impondrá pena de uno a nueve años de prisión y de trescientos a tres mil días

multa al que ilícitamente, o sin aplicar las medidas de prevención o seguridad,
El Secretariado determina que la petición también satisface los

requisitos establecidos en los seis incisos del artículo 14(1), por las

siguientes razones. De acuerdo con el inciso a), la petición se presentó

por escrito en español, idioma designado por México.13 El Peticionario

se identificó como Ángel Lara García, con residencia en México, satisfaciendo así los requisitos de los incisos b) y f).14 De igual forma, la petición

cumple con el requisito del inciso e), al señalar que en numerosas ocasiones el asunto se comunicó por escrito a las autoridades pertinentes de la

Parte, y proporciona información sobre la respuesta de la Parte, anexando a la petición copias de correspondencias con las autoridades

pertinentes.15

En su determinación del 17 de diciembre de 2002, el Secretariado

concluyó que la petición anterior, SEM-02-005/ALCA-Iztapalapa, no

cumplía con los requisitos de los incisos c) y d) del artículo 14(1) porque

carecía de información suficiente para permitir al Secretariado analizarla, de acuerdo con el inciso c), y satisfacerse, de acuerdo con el inciso

d), que la petición no parecía estar encaminada a hostigar una industria.

La nueva petición, SEM-03-004/ALCA-Iztapalapa II, sí contiene información suficiente para permitir al Secretariado analizarla y satisfacerse

por cuanto a que la petición no parece estar encaminada a hostigar una

industria.

La nueva petición identifica claramente las disposiciones legislativas materia de la petición16 y se refiere a varias actuaciones del Peticionario ante diversas autoridades para que se sancionen las presuntas

violaciones a las disposiciones citadas. En particular, la nueva petición

hace referencia a un procedimiento de denuncia popular entablado por

el Peticionario que la Profepa dio por concluido el 8 de octubre del 2002

SEM-03-004 267

realice actividades de producción, almacenamiento, tráfico, importación o exportación, transporte, abandono, desecho, descarga, o realice cualquier otra actividad

con sustancias consideradas peligrosas por sus características corrosivas, reactivas, explosivas, tóxicas, inflamables, radiactivas u otras análogas, lo ordene o autorice, que cause un daño a los recursos naturales, a la flora, a la fauna, a los

ecosistemas, a la calidad del agua, al suelo, al subsuelo o al ambiente.”

Artículo 415 del CPF:

“Se impondrá pena de uno a nueve años de prisión y de trescientos a tres mil días

multa, a quien sin aplicar las medidas de prevención o seguridad:

“I. Emita, despida, descargue en la atmósfera, lo autorice u ordene, gases, humos,

polvos o contaminantes que ocasionen daños a los recursos naturales, a la fauna, a

la flora, a los ecosistemas o al ambiente, siempre que dichas emisiones provengan

de fuentes fijas de competencia federal, conforme a lo previsto en la Ley General del

Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente.”

13. Véanse el artículo 14(1)(a) del ACAAN y el apartado 3.2 de las Directrices.

14. Página 1 de la petición.

15. Páginas 1 y 2 de la petición.

16. Páginas 3 y 4 de la petición.
con base en el artículo 199 inciso VII de la LGEEPA, el cual dispone: “Los

expedientes de denuncia popular que hubieren sido abiertos, podrán ser

concluidos por las siguientes causas: [...] Por la emisión de una resolución derivada del procedimiento de inspección.”

El Peticionario anexó a la nueva petición copia de un oficio de la

Profepa en el cual ésta señala haber detectado diversas contravenciones

y posibles infracciones a la normatividad ambiental en visitas de inspección practicadas a la fábrica entre 1994 y 2001 en atención a varias denuncias del Peticionario.17 A la nueva petición también se anexó copia de un

oficio de la Profepa que menciona que la Delegación de la Profepa en la

Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México hubiera informado a la Dirección General de Denuncias Ambientales, Quejas y Participación Social

de la Profepa

del resultado de las diligencias realizadas en la atención de la denuncia de

mérito (promovida por Omar A. Velasco y Ángel Lara García el 19 de

noviembre de 1998 y 14 de septiembre del 2000 en contra de la emisión de

gases tóxicos por parte de ALCA), en los siguientes términos: que con

fecha 7 de septiembre del 2001 se dictó resolución administrativa, No.

1460/01-D, en contra de la empresa denunciada y que todos los procedimientos administrativos abiertos a la empresa ALCA, S.A. de C.V., se

encuentran debidamente concluidos.18

En un acta administrativa anexa a la nueva petición, el Peticionario

declara: “[...] nunca se me hizo del conocimiento tal resolución, es decir,

de la supuesta inspección nunca se informó nada al respecto [...]”.19

Afirma que siguen las emisiones que están afectando su salud y la de su

familia.20

De acuerdo con el inciso (d) del artículo 14(1), la nueva petición

parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar una

industria. Si bien la petición se refiere al presumido incumplimiento

de una empresa en particular con las normas ambientales, las aseveraciones contenidas en la petición se enfocan en las actuaciones de las

268 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

17. Carta de Edgar del Villar Alvelais, Director General, Dirección General de Denuncias Ambientales de la Profepa, dirigida a la diputada Lorena Ríos Martínez, presidenta del Comité de Atención, Orientación y Quejas Ciudadanas de la Asamblea

Legislativa del Distrito Federal, Oficio Num.: DG/094/DI/167/2002; FOLIO:

0274/98/2 con fecha 14 de febrero de 2002.

18. Folio No. 0274/98/2; Asunto: Acuerdo resolutivo, con fecha 8 de octubre de 2002.

19. Acta administrativa de la Subsecretaría de Atención Ciudadana y Normatividad,

Dirección General de Atención Ciudadana, Dirección General Adjunta de Atención Ciudadana, Subdirección de Atención Directa y Gestión Inmediata de la Secretaría de Contraloría y Desarrollo Administrativo con fecha 23 de octubre de 2002.

20. Ibid.
autoridades ambientales respecto de ALCA.21 Además, el Peticionario

no es un competidor de ALCA, y la petición no parece intrascendente.

Por las razones expuestas arriba, el Secretariado determinó que la

petición satisface todos los requisitos del artículo 14(1).

IV. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME AL ARTÍCULO

14(2) DEL ACAAN

El artículo 14(2) del ACAAN dispone que cuando considere que

una petición cumple con los requisitos estipulados en el párrafo 1 del

artículo 14, el Secretariado determinará si la petición amerita solicitar

una respuesta de la Parte. Para decidir si debe solicitar una respuesta, el

Secretariado se orientará por las siguientes consideraciones:

(a) si la petición alega daño a la persona u organización que la presenta;

(b) si la petición, por sí sola o conjuntamente con otras, plantea asuntos

cuyo ulterior estudio en este proceso contribuiría a la consecución de

las metas del ACAAN;

(c) si se ha acudido a los recursos al alcance de los particulares conforme

a la legislación de la Parte; y

(d) si la petición se basa exclusivamente en noticias de los medios de

comunicación.

Orientándose por las consideraciones expuestas arriba, el Secretariado determina que la petición amerita solicitar una respuesta a la Parte.

De acuerdo con el inciso (a) del artículo 14(2), la petición alega daño a la

salud del Peticionario y la de los miembros de su familia.22 En particular,

el Peticionario alega que

derivado de los desechos tóxicos que expulsa (ALCA) hasta la actualidad

en forma de vapores y pestilencias altamente desagradables, es que

empecé a tener síntomas como astenia, adinamia, mareos, vértigo, cefalea

en región occipital y dolor abdominal, acompañado de náusea y vómito,

así como temblor fino en extremidades superiores, dolor de cabeza, irritación de los ojos.23

SEM-03-004 269

21. Páginas 1 y 2 de la petición.

22. Página 2 de la petición.

23. Acta Administrativa de la Subsecretaría de Atención Ciudadana y Contraloría

Social, Dirección General de Atención Ciudadana, Dirección General Adjunta de

Atención Ciudadana de la Secretaría de Contraloría y Desarrollo Administrativo

con fecha 18 de enero de 2001.
Además, entre los anexos de la petición se encuentran numerosas

cartas en las cuales personas que han acudido al domicilio del Peticionario afirman haber sufrido molestia por las emisiones atmosféricas de la

fábrica de ALCA.24 La petición también plantea asuntos cuyo ulterior

estudio en este proceso contribuiría a la consecución de las metas del

ACAAN, sobre todo las dispuestas en los incisos (a), (g) y (j) del artículo

1 del ACAAN. El Peticionario ha interpuesto denuncias populares ante

la Profepa para obtener que se investigue y se ponga fin a las presuntas

violaciones en las que está incurriendo ALCA, por lo que ha comprobado haber acudido a los recursos al alcance de los particulares conforme a la legislación de la Parte.25 Finalmente, la petición no se basa

exclusivamente en noticias de los medios de comunicación, sino en actas

de autoridades ambientales y otros escritos.

V. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

El Secretariado examinó la petición SEM-03-004/ALCAIztapalapa II de acuerdo con el artículo 14(1) del ACAAN y determina

que la misma cumple con todos los requisitos allí establecidos según

las razones expuestas en esta Determinación. Asimismo, tomando en

cuenta el conjunto de los criterios establecidos en el artículo 14(2) del

ACAAN, el Secretariado determina que la petición amerita solicitar una

respuesta a la Parte interesada, en este caso los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, y así lo hace.

Conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 14(3) del ACAAN, la Parte

podrá proporcionar una respuesta a la petición dentro de los 30 días

siguientes a la recepción de esta notificación, y en circunstancias excepcionales, dentro de los 60 días siguientes a la misma. Dado que a la Parte

interesada ya se le enviaron copias de la petición y de los anexos respectivos, no se acompañan a esta Determinación.

270 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

24. Véanse, por ejemplo, carta de la representante de la Comisión de Preservación del

Medio Ambiente y Protección Ecológica, Cristina Alcayata, dirigida a Antonio

Azuela de la Cueva, Procurador Federal del Medio Ambiente, del 17 de enero de

1997; carta del subdirector de Unidades Gerontológicas del Instituto Nacional de la

Senectud (ahora Instituto Nacional de Adultos en Plenitud) Alejandro Marín Guerra, dirigida “A Quien Corresponda”, del 5 de diciembre de 2001; carta de Miguel

Ángel Barragán Reynaga, Audio Mundo de México, S.A. de C.V., dirigida “A

Quien Corresponda”, del 23 de octubre de 2002.

25. Página 1 de la petición.
Sometido respetuosamente a su consideración el 9 de septiembre

de 2003.

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Katia Opalka

Oficial Jurídica

Unidad de Peticiones Ciudadanas

ccp: Dra. Olga Ojeda Cárdenas, Semarnat

Ms. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Ms. Judith E. Ayres, US EPA

Sr. Ángel Lara García

Sr. William Kennedy, Director Ejecutivo de la CCA

SEM-03-004 271

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Article 15(1) Notification to Council that

Development of a Factual Record is Warranted

Submission Number: SEM-03-004 (ALCA-Iztapalapa II)

Submitter: Ángel Lara García

Concerned Party: United Mexican States

Date of Receipt: 17 June 2003

Date of this Notification: 23 August 2004

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North America (the “Secretariat”) may consider submissions asserting that a Party to NAAEC is

failing to effectively enforce its environmental law. If the Secretariat

finds that the submission meets the requirements of Article 14(1), it shall

then determine whether the submission warrants requesting a response

from the Party named in the submission, in accordance with Article

14(2). The Secretariat may notify the Council that it considers that the

submission warrants developing an Article 15 factual record, in light of

any response from the Party. By a two-thirds vote, the Council may

instruct the Secretariat to prepare a factual record. The final factual

record, again by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Council, may

then be made public.

This Notification contains the Secretariat’s Article 15(1) analysis

with respect to whether the submission filed 17 June 2003 warrants the

development of a factual record.

273
This submission asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce

its environmental laws with respect to the operation of a footwear materials factory owned by the company ALCA, SA de CV (ALCA), located

on a property neighboring the Submitter’s home in the Santa Isabel

Industrial neighborhood of Iztapalapa Delegation in Mexico City.1

On 9 September 2003, the Secretariat determined that the submission met the requirements of Article 14(1) of NAAEC. Furthermore, in

light of the criteria set forth in NAAEC Article 14(2), the Secretariat considered that the submission warranted a request for a response from the

Party. Mexico provided the Secretariat with a response to the submission on 4 December 2003.

Although the submission and Mexico’s response provide some

information regarding certain proceedings related to the assertions in

the submission, central questions regarding those assertions remain.

The proceedings discussed in the submission and Mexico’s response

were all concluded well before the filing of the Submitter’s submissions

in November 2002 and June 2003, in which the Submitter asserts that

ALCA’s alleged violations continue despite any action Mexico has

taken, and the Secretariat has no information indicating that any action

has been taken with respect to the assertions in the submission since the

filing of the submissions. Accordingly, as described further in this notification, pursuant to Article 15(1) of NAAEC, the Secretariat hereby notifies the Council that the submission warrants the development of a

factual record in accordance with the provisions of section IV below.

II. THE SUBMISSION

A. Background

On 25 November 2002, Ángel Lara García (the “Submitter”) submitted to this Secretariat a submission (SEM-02-005/ALCA-Iztapalapa)

under Articles 14 and 15 of NAAEC. The Secretariat determined on 17

December 2002 that the submission did not meet the requirements of

sections (c) and (d) of Article 14(1) of NAAEC. Based on section 6.2 of the

Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters (the “Guidelines”),

upon giving notice of its determination, the Secretariat notified the

Submitter that he had 30 days to present a submission meeting the

NAAEC Article 14(1) requirements.

274 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Submission at 1, 3 and 4.
On 17 June 2003, after stating that a lack of resources prevented

him from amending his original filing in the time provided, the

Submitter submitted a new submission to the Secretariat

(SEM-03-004/ALCA-Iztapalapa II).2 On 3 July 2003, the Submitter confirmed in writing his intention for the Secretariat to consider the information contained in the original submission in its review of the new

submission.

Under NAAEC, the Secretariat may examine submissions meeting

the requirements of Article 14(1). If it considers that a submission meets

those requirements, the Secretariat shall then determine whether the

submission warrants requesting a response from the Party. To arrive at

this determination, the Secretariat follows the provisions of Article 14(2).

The Secretariat determined on 9 September that the submission met the

requirements of Article 14(1) and, pursuant to Article 14(2), requested a

response from Mexico.

B. Summary of the submission

The Submitter asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce

its environmental laws with respect to the operation of a footwear materials factory owned by the company ALCA, S.A. de C.V. (ALCA),

located on a property neighboring the Submitter’s home in the Santa

Isabel Industrial neighborhood of Mexico City.3 The Submitter asserts

that the factory’s air pollution and ALCA employees’ handling of

hazardous substances and wastes violate Article 150 of the General Law

of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (Ley General del

Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente—LGEEPA) and Articles

414, first paragraph and 415, Section I of the Federal Penal Code (Código

Penal Federal—CPF).4 In particular, the Submitter asserts that the company is illegally carrying on the storage, disposal and unloading of

environmentally harmful hazardous substances without applying prevention and safety measures.5 The Submitter also claims that ALCA

does not apply prevention or safety measures to prevent the atmospheric release or discharge of environmentally harmful gas, smoke,

dust or pollutants.6 The Submitter asserts that the company is failing

to manage hazardous materials and wastes in accordance with

LGEEPA and the Mexican Official Standards (Normas Oficiales

Mexicanas—NOMs) issued by the Secretariat of the Environment and

SEM-03-004 275

2. Submission at 1 and 5.

3. Submission at 1, 3 and 4.

4. Submission at 3 and 4.

5. Submission at 3, bolded.

6. Ibid.
Natural Resources (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos

Naturales—Semarnat).7 The Submitter asserts that these alleged violations are causing pollution harming his and his family’s health.8 He further asserts that the Office of the Federal Attorney General for

Environmental Protection (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al

Ambiente—Profepa), despite having found violations during a factory

inspection, terminated a citizen complaint filed by the Submitter without taking the actions necessary to stop the alleged violations.9

III. SUMMARY OF THE PARTY’S RESPONSE

In its response, Mexico focuses its arguments on what it claims

to be the three principal aspects of the Submission: “a) violation of

LGEEPA Article 150 by the company ALCA, SA de CV, as raised in a citizen complaint; b) violation of CPF Article 415, Section I as raised in a

criminal complaint; and c) lack of resolution of a proceeding filed with

the Semarnat’s Internal Control Agency, claiming ‘collusion between

inspectors and the company ALCA, to cover up liabilities and thereby

avoid involvement of the judicial authority.’“10

As regards the alleged failure to enforce LGEEPA Article 150, Mexico refers to the citizen complaint that the Submitter filed on 10 November 1995, but provides no further information because, it claims, the file

was lost in a flood in the file room. However, Mexico asserts the process

was concluded pursuant to law without initiation of a criminal investigation.11 In addition, Mexico states that other proceedings were initiated

against ALCA, including: 1) a filing dated 10 November 1998 submitted

to the Iztapalapa Delegation by the coordinator of the Public Affairs

Center (Casa de Atención Ciudadana), Omar A. Velasco, who noted the

concern of neighbors residing near the company ALCA, SA de CV,

which releases toxic gases such as hexane, heptane, styrene, toluene,

xidenol, etc.; 2) a citizen complaint dated 19 November 1998 and filed by

the same Omar A. Velasco against ALCA, due to toxic gas releases; and

276 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

7. Submission at 4, bolded.

8. Submission at 2.

9. Submission at 1 and 2, and exhibit: Administrative report of the Undersecretariat

for Public Affairs and Rules (Subsecretaría de Atención Ciudadana y Normatividad),

General Bureau of Public Affairs (Dirección General de Atención Ciudadana), Adjunct

General Bureau of Public Affairs (Dirección General Adjunta de Atención Ciudadana),

Assistant Bureau of Direct Attention and Immediate Processing (Subdirección de

Atención Directa y Gestión Inmediata) of the Secretariat of the Comptroller and

Administrative Development (Secretaría de Contraloría y Desarrollo Administrativo),

dated 23 October 2002.

10. Party’s response at 1.

11. Party’s response at 2.
3) a second citizen complaint filed by Ángel Lara García on 14 September

2000.12 Mexico states that collectively, these proceedings led to an

inspection of ALCA on 27 July 2001, during which facts and omissions

constituting offenses under LGEEPA, as well as the air pollution, hazardous waste and environmental impact regulations thereunder, were

observed. Based on inspection, on 7 September 2001, ALCA was fined

2,421.00 pesos, equivalent to 60 days’ minimum salary for the Federal

District.13 Mexico states that on 8 October 2002, after the fine was

imposed, all of the citizen complaints were deemed concluded.14

As regards the violation of Article 415, paragraph I of the CPF,

Mexico refers to a criminal investigation dated 14 March 1999, referenced by the Submitter under folio 4099/FEDEC/97. Mexico explains

that this complaint was filed against Roberto Guillermo Álvarez

Cabañas, Guillermo Antonio Álvarez Zarraga, Alejandra Verónica

Álvarez Zarraga, Eduardo Álvarez Cabañas, and the company ALCA,

SA de CV. Mexico states that, based on a technical opinion, it was

decided 22 August 2000 not to undertake a criminal action, as the investigations “did not clearly establish a crime as set forth and penalized

under Article 415, Section I of the CPF nor the probable liability of the

suspects, as we deduce from the acts that although the asserted facts

may constitute a crime, it is impossible to determine whether the crime

exists due to irreparable material hindrance, because the proof provided

is insufficient to evidence the crime.15”

With respect to the lack of resolution of a proceeding filed with the

Semarnat Internal Control Agency, Mexico states that the proceedings

begun by the Submitter against Profepa officials were concluded without the imposition of penalty because sufficient evidence of the public

servants’ alleged liability was not found. Mexico provides no further

comment or documentary evidence in this regard, arguing that this

information was deemed confidential under Article 13, Section V of the

Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Governmental Public Information (Ley Federal de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública

Gubernamental—LFTAIPG)16 and Article 26 of the Regulation thereSEM-03-004 277

12. Party’s response at 2 and 3.

13. Party’s response at 3.

14. Ibid.

15. Party’s response at 3, 4, 5 and 6.

16. Article 13. Information may be classified as reserved when it may: [...]

V. Cause serious harm to the activities to verify compliance with the law, the prevention or prosecution of crimes, the administration of justice, collections from taxpayers, immigration control operations, and procedural strategies in judicial or

administrative proceedings while rulings are pending.
under.17 The Internal Control Agency classified the information as

confidential.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Introduction

This notification corresponds to the process stages set forth in Articles 14(3) and 15(1) of NAAEC. Previously, on 9 September 2003, the Secretariat determined that the submission met all requirements under

Article 14(1) (a)-(f) of NAAEC.18 The Secretariat then proceeded to evaluate the submission based on the NAAEC Article 14(2) criteria, concluding that the Submission warranted requesting a response from the Party,

which was received on 21 November 2003 as noted above. Consistent

with Article 15(1), the Secretariat presents below the reasons why it considers this submission to warrant the development of a factual record.

B. Analysis of the reasons why the development of a factual record

is warranted

In its response, although Mexico explains certain proceedings

undertaken with respect to the company ALCA, it does not provide a

comprehensive set of information with respect to the assertions contained in the submission to the effect that ALCA’s air pollution releases

and handling of hazardous substances and wastes violate Article 150 of

the LGEEPA19 and Articles 414, first paragraph and 415, Section I of

278 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

17. Article 26. The heads of the administrative units of agencies and entities shall classify information at the time that:

The information is generated, obtained, acquired or processed, or

An information access request is received, in the case of documents not previously

classified.

The classification may refer to a file or to a document.

18. SEM-03-004 (ALCA-Iztapalapa II), Article 14(1) determination (9 September 2003).

19. LGEEPA Article 150. Hazardous materials and wastes must be handled in accordance with this law, the Regulations hereof and any Mexican Official Standards

issued by the Secretariat, on prior opinion of the Secretariats of Trade and Industrial Development, of Health, of Energy, of Communications and Transportation,

of the Navy, and of the Interior. The regulation of the handling of these materials

and substances shall include, as applicable, the use, collection, storage, transport,

reuse, recycling, treatment and disposal thereof.

The Regulations and Mexican Official Standards to which the preceding paragraph

refers shall contain criteria and lists identifying and classifying hazardous materials and wastes by their degree of hazard, consider the characteristics and volumes

thereof, and differentiating those of high and low hazard. The Secretariat is responsible for the regulation and control of hazardous materials and wastes.

Furthermore, in coordination with the secretariats to which this article refers, the

Secretariat shall issue the Mexican Official Standards establishing the require-
the CPF.20 In particular, it does not discuss whether ALCA, without

applying prevention and safety measures: i) carries on the storage, disposal and unloading of environmentally harmful hazardous substances;

ii) releases or discharges environmentally harmful gas, smoke, dust or

pollutants into the atmosphere; or iii) is failing to handle hazardous

materials and waste in accordance with the LGEEPA and the environmental NOMs issued by Semarnat.

SEM-03-004 279

ments for the labeling and containment of hazardous materials and wastes and for

risk assessment and information on contingencies and accidents that may occur in

the handling thereof, particularly in the case of chemical substances.

20. CPF Article 414. A penalty of one to nine years of imprisonment and from 300 to

3,000 days’ fine shall be imposed on anyone who illegally, or without applying

the prevention or safety measures, undertakes the production, storage, traffic,

importation or exportation, transport, abandonment, disposal, discharge, or any

other activity with substances deemed hazardous due to their corrosive, reactive,

explosive, toxic, flammable, radioactive or other similar characteristics, or so

orders or authorizes, causing damage to natural resources, flora, fauna, the ecosystems, water quality, the soil, the subsoil, or the environment.

The same penalty shall apply to persons who illegally undertake the actions with

the substances listed in the preceding paragraph, or with ozone-depleting substances, causing a risk of harm to natural resources, flora, fauna, the ecosystems,

water quality or the environment.

In the case that the activities to which the preceding paragraphs refer are undertaken in a protected nature area, the penalty of imprisonment shall increase by up

to three years and the economic penalty shall increase by up to 1,000 days’ fine,

except for activities undertaken with ozone-depleting substances.

When the actions referenced in the first and second paragraphs of this article

are undertaken in urban zones with used oils or ozone-depleting substances in

amounts not exceeding 200 liters, or with waste deemed hazardous by reason of its

biological-infectious characteristics, half the penalty set forth in this article shall

apply, except in the case of repeat offenses with amounts lower than those provided when they exceed such amount.

Article 415. A penalty of from one to nine years’ imprisonment and from three hundred to three thousand days’ fine shall be imposed on anyone who, without applying the prevention or safety measures:

I. Emits, releases or discharges into the atmosphere, or who so authorizes or orders,

gases, smokes, dusts or pollutants that cause harm to the natural resources, the

fauna, the flora, the ecosystems or the environment, provided that such emissions

derive from fixed sources under federal jurisdiction, in accordance with the provisions of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection,

or

II. Generates emissions of noise, vibrations, thermal energy or light from sources

under federal jurisdiction, in accordance with the law set forth in the preceding section, causing harm to the natural resources, the flora, the fauna, the ecosystems or

the environment.

The same penalties shall apply to anyone who illegally undertakes the activities

described in the foregoing sections causing a risk to the natural resources, the flora,

the fauna, the ecosystems or the environment.

In the case that the activities to which this article refers are undertaken in a protected nature area, the penalty of imprisonment shall increase by up to three years

and the economic penalty shall increase by up to 1,000 days’ fine.
In its response, Mexico refers to the citizen complaint filed by the

Submitter on 10 November 1995 (file number 512/1166/09). Mexico

states that the file for this citizen complaint was lost in a file room flooding and then refers to other proceedings filed by Omar Velasco on 10 and

19 November 1998, which were joined with a second complaint filed by

Ángel Lara García on 14 September 2000. These three proceedings led to

a fine against ALCA of 2,421.00 pesos on 7 September 2001. Lastly, the

Party refers to criminal investigation 4099/FEDEC/97, presented by the

Submitter on 14 March 1997, which resulted in no criminal action pursuant to ruling number 1039/2000 dated 22 August 2000.

Although the information Mexico provides in its response and

the attachments to it present some information regarding certain proceedings related to the assertions in the submission concerning Article

150 of LGEEPA and Articles 414, first paragraph and 415, Section I of the

CPF, central questions regarding those assertions remain. First, the

proceedings discussed in Mexico’s response were all concluded well

before the filing of the Submitter’s submissions in November 2002 and

June 2003, in which the Submitter asserts that ALCA’s alleged violations

continue despite any action Mexico has taken. Mexico provides no

information regarding any action it has taken with respect to possible

environmental violations since the filing of the submissions.

Further, the Secretariat notes that the documents attached to the

Submission include a document issued on 14 February 2002 by the

Profepa General Bureau of Environmental Complaints and Public Participation (Dirección General de Denuncias Ambientales, Quejas y Participación Social),21 which cites certain actions undertaken by the authority

with respect to ALCA:

• It refers to a citizen complaint filed 5 October 1994 by Ángel Soto

Medina, resulting in an inspection visit on 7 December 1994, in which

various infractions of federal environmental rules were found. As a

result of the inspection, the temporary partial closing of pollution

sources was imposed as a safety measure, lifted on 14 August 1996.

• By reason of a citizen complaint filed by Ángel Lara García on 13 January 1997, an inspection visit was performed on 10 March 1997, and

given the company’s observed noncompliance, on 5 September 1997

an administrative ruling was entered, imposing a fine of 21,160.00

pesos and ordering the undertaking of various corrective measures.

280 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

21. Ruling No. DG/094/DI/167/2002, FOLIO 027/4/98/2, dated 14 February 2002,

issued by the General Bureau of Environmental Complaints and Public Participation, signed by General Director Edgar del Villar Alvelais.
• An inspection visit was carried out on 17 February 2000, finding irregularities regarding hazardous waste generation.

• An inspection visit on 27 July 2001 found possible offenses regarding

hazardous waste, risk and air pollution.

In its response, Mexico provided information only with respect to

the last proceeding listed in the Profepa document.

The information provided in the Submission and Mexico’s

response give some idea as to the history of penalties imposed on ALCA

and the complaint and inspection processes carried out with respect to

ALCA’s operations since 1994. The penalties against ALCA range from

the imposition of safety measures, such as the temporary partial closing

of its pollution sources, to monetary sanctions.

However, while the information provided by the Submitter shows

signs of pollution and health and environmental risks derived from

ALCA operations, the respective information provided by Mexico is

incomplete. For example, Exhibit 11 to Mexico’s response, consisting of a

“technical opinion with respect to the advice not to exercise criminal

action made by agents of the Public Prosecutor (Ministerio Público)

assigned to the General Bureau of Criminal Proceeding Control

(Dirección General de Control de Procedimientos Penales)” is not a complete

copy of that document, which purports to disprove the existence of environmental crimes committed by ALCA.

Article 161 of the LGEEPA provides: “The Secretariat shall carry on

acts of inspection and oversight of compliance with the provisions contained in this law, and of all provisions hereunder.22” Although Mexico

has undertaken some inspection and oversight activities, the fact that

the Submitter asserts that alleged environmental violations continue

despite those activities, compounded with the history of complaints and

inspections against ALCA and the penalties thereon since 1994, persuade the Secretariat that a factual record is warranted. Development of

a factual record would provide an opportunity to present a detailed and

up-to-date set of facts regarding ALCA’s alleged environmental violations, the various citizen complaints and proceedings that have arisen in

connection with those alleged violations, the actual conduct of inspections and investigations undertaken, and the alleged failure of those

proceedings to prevent ALCA’s alleged violations from continuing.

More specifically, a factual record would contribute not only to allowing

SEM-03-004 281

22. LGEEPA Article 161.
for a determination of whether ALCA’s air pollution releases and handling of hazardous substances and wastes violated the legal provisions

set forth in the Submission,23 but also to analyzing how and whether

follow-up actions and measures intended to prevent repeat offenses

were implemented.

A factual record on this submission would enable an analysis of

Mexico’s actions in undertaking important inspection and oversight

proceedings, following through on each proceeding and determining

measures to prevent repeat offenses. This focus would contribute to the

furtherance of the NAAEC objectives, by potentially encouraging the

strengthening of environmental procedures and practices, enhancing

compliance and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations,

promoting effective environmental measures and promoting pollution

prevention policies and practices.24

V. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the reasons set forth herein, the Secretariat hereby notifies the Council that, in light of Mexico’s response with respect to the

operation of the company ALCA in the Iztapalapa Delegation of Mexico

City, it considers that the assertions of submission SEM-03-004 – with

respect to Article 150 of LGEEPA and Articles 414 and 415 of the CPF –

warrant developing a factual record. The submission raised questions

left unanswered by the response on the effective enforcement of environmental laws with respect to the company ALCA, regarding the

application of prevention and safety measures in the storage, disposal

and unloading of environmentally harmful hazardous substances; the

release or discharge of environmentally harmful gas, smoke, dust or

pollutants; and the failure to handle hazardous materials and wastes in

282 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

23. LGEEPA Article 150 and CPF Articles 414, first paragraph and 415, Section I, particularly regarding the application of prevention and safety measures, to prevent: (i)

the storage, disposal and unloading of environmentally harmful hazardous substances; (ii) the atmospheric release or discharge of environmentally harmful gas,

smoke, dust or pollutants, or (iii) whether hazardous materials and wastes are

being handled in accordance with LGEEPA and the environmental NOMs issued

by Semarnat.

24. NAAEC Article 1: Objectives

The objectives of this Agreement are to: [...]

(f) strengthen cooperation on the development and improvement of environmental laws, regulations, procedures, policies and practices;

(g) enhance compliance with, and enforcement of, environmental laws and regulations [...]

(i) promote economically efficient and effective environmental measures;

(j) promote pollution prevention policies and practices.
accordance with LGEEPA and the environmental NOMs issued by

Semarnat. The factual record would enable a clarification of the unanswered questions and the collection of further information on ALCA’s

effective compliance with such provisions, as well as an illustration of

whether and how the inspection and oversight proceedings served to

prevent polluting industries’ repeat offenses against environmental

laws in Mexico, and contribute to effective enforcement in furtherance of

the goals of NAAEC.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration on this 23rd day

of August, 2004.

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

by: William V. Kennedy

Executive Director

SEM-03-004 283

SEM-03-005

(Montreal Technoparc)

SUBMITTERS: WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE ET AL.

PARTY: CANADA

DATE: 14 August 2003

SUMMARY: The submission asserts that Canada is failing

to effectively enforce the federal Fisheries Act

against the City of Montreal in regard to the

discharge to the St. Lawrence River of toxic

pollutants from the city’s Technoparc site. The

submitters assert that polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs), polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

and other pollutants are being discharged from

Technoparc, the site of an historic industrial and

municipal waste landfill. The City of Montreal

now owns the site.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)(2)

(15 September 2003)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met, and that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party.

ART. 15(1)

(19 April 2004)

Notification to Council that a factual record is

warranted in accordance with Article 15(1).

285

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination in accordance with Articles 14(1) and (2)

of the North American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation

Submission Number: SEM-03-005 (Montreal Technopac)

Submitters: Waterkeeper Alliance

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

Société pour Vaincre la Pollution

Environmental Bureau of Investigation

Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper/

Save the River!

Concerned Party: Canada

Date of Receipt: 14 August 2003

Date of this

Determination: 15 September 2003

I. INTRODUCTION

On 14 August 2003, the Submitters listed above filed with the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”) a submission on enforcement matters pursuant to Article 14 of

the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (“NAAEC”

or “Agreement”). Under Article 14 of the NAAEC, the Secretariat may

consider a submission from any nongovernmental organization or person asserting that a Party to the Agreement is failing to effectively

enforce its environmental law if the Secretariat finds that the submission

meets the requirements of Article 14(1). When the Secretariat determines

that those requirements are met, it then determines whether the submission merits requesting a response from the Party named in the submission (Article 14(2)).

287
The Submitters assert that Canada is failing to effectively enforce

section 36(3) of the federal Fisheries Act in connection with various toxic

pollutants that the Submitters allege are being discharged into the St.

Lawrence River from the Technoparc site in Montreal, Quebec. The Secretariat has determined that the submission meets all of the requirements in Article 14(1) and merits requesting a response from the Party in

light of the factors listed in Article 14(2). The Secretariat’s reasons are set

forth below in Section III.

II. SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The Submitters are three Canadian and two United States

non-governmental organizations. They assert that Canada is failing to

effectively enforce section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act in connection with

the alleged discharge of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) and other pollutants into the St. Lawrence River

from the Montreal Technoparc, the site of an historic municipal and

industrial waste landfill now owned by the city of Montreal. Under s.

36(3), it is an offense to deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance in water frequented by fish or in any place under conditions

where a deleterious substance may enter any such water.

The Submitters assert that the Montreal Technoparc site functioned as a landfill for municipal and industrial wastes until it was redeveloped as parking lots for Expo ‘67 and then, in 1988, as an industrial

park.1 They assert that the city of Montreal has been aware of PCB contamination of the site since at least 1995 and is responsible for discharges

of deleterious substances from the site.2 According to the Submitters, the

city’s efforts to use booms to contain the contamination are not effective.

They cite sampling results from October 2000 to January 2002 showing

levels of PCBs up to 941,000 times the Canadian Water Quality Guideline for the Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life for Total PCBs inside

the boom, 820 times the PCB Guideline outside the boom and 8.5M times

the PCB Guideline at the discharge point.3 The Submitters attach an

April 2002 biologist’s report concluding that PCBs, PAHs and other pollutants are being discharged to the St. Lawrence River from the Montreal

Technoparc in concentrations well in excess of provincial, federal and

international guidelines.4 The submission includes a detailed description of the alleged threats to human health and aquatic life of PCBs.5

288 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Submission at 3.

2. Ibid.

3. Submission at 4-5.

4. Submission at 5-6.

5. Submission at 6-10.
The Submitters assert that PCBs are “highly toxic, persistent and

bioaccumulative” and that Environment Canada identifies PCBs as persistent toxic substances that are “too dangerous to the ecosystem and to

humans to permit their release in any quantity.6”

The submission states that, following its receipt of a brief describing the alleged discharges, Environment Canada initiated a Fisheries Act

investigation of the Montreal Technoparc in April 2002. According to the

Submitters, Environment Canada explained in an April 2003 letter that

“the investigation was stopped because the source of the contamination

could not be determined.7” The Submitters assert that their ability to

bring a private prosecution in connection with the Montreal Technoparc

is in question.8 They contend that the booms and absorbent pads that

have been used to try to contain the alleged discharges are still ineffective and that the discharges are ongoing.9

The Submitters assert that the alleged failure to effectively enforce

the Fisheries Act has resulted in harm to the Submitters and that further

study of the matters raised in the submission would advance the goals of

the NAAEC.10 They request the CEC to prepare a factual record.

III. ANALYSIS

Article 14 of the NAAEC directs the Secretariat to consider a submission from any nongovernmental organization or person asserting

that a Party to the NAAEC is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law. When the Secretariat determines that a submission meets

the Article 14(1) requirements, it then determines whether the submission merits requesting a response from the Party named in the submission based upon the factors contained in Article 14(2). As the Secretariat

has noted in previous Article 14(1) determinations,11 Article 14(1) is not

intended to be an insurmountable procedural screening device. Rather,

Article 14(1) should be given a large and liberal interpretation, consistent with the objectives of the NAAEC.

SEM-03-005 289

6. Submission at 6.

7. Submission at 11.

8. Ibid.

9. Submission at 12, 13.

10. Submission at 13-14.

11. See e.g. SEM-97-005 (Biodiversity), Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) (26 May

1998) and SEM-98-003 (Great Lakes), Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) & (2)

(8 September 1999).
A. Article 14(1)

The opening sentence of Article 14(1) authorizes the Secretariat

to consider a submission “from any nongovernmental organization or

person asserting that a Party is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law [...].” The submission meets these requirements. First, the

Submitters are nongovernmental organizations as defined in Article

45(1) of the NAAEC. Second, the submission asserts that a Party, Canada, is failing to effectively enforce section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.

Third, the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act are environmental law within the meaning of NAAEC Article 45(2)12 and the

submission alleges an ongoing failure to effectively enforce s. 36(3). Last,

the submission alleges a failure to effectively enforce the cited provisions of law and not a deficiency in the law itself.

Article 14(1) then lists six specific criteria relevant to the Secretariat’s consideration of submissions. The Secretariat must find that a

submission:

(a) is in writing in a language designated by that Party in a notification to

the Secretariat;

(b) clearly identifies the person or organization making the submission;

(c) provides sufficient information to allow the Secretariat to review the

submission, including any documentary evidence on which the submission may be based;

(d) appears to be aimed at promoting enforcement rather than at harassing industry;

(e) indicates that the matter has been communicated in writing to the relevant authorities of the Party and indicates the Party’s response, if

any; and

(f) is filed by a person or organization residing or established in the territory of a Party.13

The submission meets these criteria. First, the submission is in English, a language designated by Canada.14 Second, it clearly identifies the

organizations making the submission.15 Third, the submission provides

sufficient information to allow the Secretariat to review the submis290 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

12. See SEM-98-004 (BC Mining), Article 15(1) Notification at 11 (11 May 2001).

13. Article 14(1)(a)-(f).

14. Article 14(1)(a), Guideline 3.2; submission at 12.

15. Article 14(1)(b); submission at i-ii.
sion.16 The Submitters provide extensive data regarding the alleged discharges and the manner in which they allegedly create an offense under

the Fisheries Act, as well as information regarding the extent to which

Canada has taken enforcement action in response to those alleged violations. Fourth, the submission appears to be aimed at promoting enforcement rather than at harassing industry. It is focused on the acts or

omissions of a Party rather than on compliance by a particular company

or business, the Submitters are not competitors standing to benefit economically from the submission, and the submission does not appear

frivolous.17 Fifth, the Submitters indicate that the matter has been communicated in writing to the relevant Canadian authorities and the Canadian government’s response, the letter of 24 April 2003, is attached to the

submission.18 Finally, the Submitters are established in the United States

or Canada.19

B. Article 14(2)

The Secretariat reviews a submission under Article 14(2) if it finds

that the submission meets the criteria in Article 14(1). The purpose of

such a review is to determine whether to request that the Party concerned prepare a response to the submission. During its review under

Article 14(2), the Secretariat considers each of the four factors listed in

that provision in the context of the particular assertions in the submission. Article 14(2) lists these four factors as follows:

In deciding whether to request a response, the Secretariat shall be guided

by whether:

(a) the submission alleges harm to the person or organization making the

submission;

(b) the submission, alone or in combination with other submissions,

raises matters whose further study in this process would advance the

goals of this Agreement;

(c) private remedies available under the Party’s law have been pursued;

and

(d) the submission is drawn exclusively from mass media reports.20

SEM-03-005 291

16. Article 14(1)(c), Guideline 5.2, 5.3.

17. See Guideline 5.4.

18. Article 14(1)(e); Guideline 5.5; Submission at 10-11, Attachments.

19. Submission at i-ii; Article 14(1)(f).

20. NAAEC Article 14(2).
The Secretariat, guided by the factors listed in Article 14(2), has

determined that the submission merits requesting a response from the

Party.

First, in addition to describing adverse effects of PCBs on human

health and aquatic ecosystems, the submission explicitly alleges harm to

the Submitters.21

Second, the submission raises matters whose further study in the

Article 14 process would advance the goals of the Agreement. The Submitters note, inter alia, that further study in the citizen submission process would foster the protection and improvement of the environment

as contemplated in NAAEC Article 1(a); ensure that activities in Canada

do not cause damage to the environment shared with the United States,

consistent with responsibilities reaffirmed in the NAAEC preamble;

promote sustainable development based on cooperation and mutually

supportive environmental and economic policies, as contemplated in

NAAEC Article 1(b); increase cooperation between governments to

better conserve, protect and enhance the environment, as contemplated

in NAAEC Article 1(c); avoid creating trade distortions or new trade barriers, as contemplated in NAAEC Article 1(e); strengthen cooperation on

the development and improvement of environmental laws, regulations,

procedures, policies and practices, as contemplated in NAAEC Article

1(f); enhance compliance with, and enforcement of, environmental law

and regulations, as contemplated in NAAEC Article 1(g); and promote

pollution prevention policies and practices, as contemplated in NAAEC

Article 1(j). The Secretariat agrees that further study of the matters raised

in the submission would advance some or all of these goals.

Third, the Submitters describe their successful efforts to request

that Environment Canada investigate the alleged discharges from the

Montreal Technoparc site and assert that “[n]ow that the Ministry has

ended their investigation without denying or confirming that an offense

is indeed being committed the Submitters’ ability to bring forward a private prosecution is in question.22” It appears that in April 2002, rather

than initiate a private prosecution on their own, the Environmental

Bureau of Investigation and the Société pour Vaincre la Pollution (two

of the Submitters) opted to provide Environment Canada “with a full

brief, which includes samples, results, notes, pictures, and a biologist’s

report,23” such that the federal government could follow through with

292 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

21. Submission at 13-14.

22. Submission at 11.

23. Letter from M. Mattson and D. Green to M. Berard (11 April 2002), attached to the

Submission.
its own investigation and address the matters they raised. The Submitters now express concern about the potential impact on a private

prosecution of Environment Canada’s decision to terminate its recent

investigation without taking enforcement action.24 The Secretariat concludes that the approach taken toward pursuing a remedy to the alleged

discharges was reasonable in light of the circumstances.25

Finally, the submission is not based exclusively on mass media

reports. Water quality data that some of the Submitters obtained at their

own initiative are a key element of the information supporting the

submission.

In sum, having reviewed the submission in light of the factors contained in Article 14(2), the Secretariat has determined that the assertion

that Canada is failing to effectively enforce s. 36(3) of the Fisheries Act in

regard to the Montreal Technoparc merits a response from Canada.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Secretariat has determined that submission SEM-03-005 (Montreal Technoparc) meets the requirements of

Article 14(1) and merits requesting a response from the Party in light of

the factors listed in Article 14(2). Accordingly, the Secretariat requests a

response from the Government of Canada subject to the provisions of

Article 14(3). A copy of the submission, along with supporting information provided with the submission, was previously forwarded to the

Party under separate cover.

Respectfully submitted,

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

Geoffrey Garver

Director, Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit

cc: Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Judith E. Ayres, US-EPA

Olga Ojeda, SEMARNAT

William V. Kennedy, CEC Executive Director

Submitters

SEM-03-005 293

24. See Submission at 11.

25. See Guideline 7.5.

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Article 15(1) Notification to Council that

Development of a Factual Record is Warranted

Submission Number: SEM-03-005 (Montreal Technoparc)

Submitters: Waterkeeper Alliance

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

Société pour Vaincre la Pollution

Environmental Bureau of Investigation

Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper/

Save the River!

Concerned Party: Canada

Date of Receipt: 14 August 2003

Date of this Notification: 19 April 2004

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Article 14 of theNorth American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) creates a mechanism allowing citizens to file submissions with the Secretariat (the “Secretariat”) of the Commission for

Environmental Cooperation of North America (CEC) asserting that a

Party to the NAAEC is failing to effectively enforce its environmental

law. The Secretariat reviews these submissions based on criteria contained in Article 14(1) of the NAAEC. If it finds that these criteria are met,

the Secretariat then determines, based on factors listed in Article 14(2),

whether the submission merits requesting a response from the Party

concerned. In light of any response from the Party, the Secretariat may

inform the Council that the Secretariat considers that development of a

factual record is warranted (Article 15(1)). By a two-thirds vote, the

Council may instruct the Secretariat to prepare a factual record (Article

15(2)).

295
On 14 August 2003, the Submitters listed above filed a submission

with the Secretariat, along with supporting materials, asserting that

Canada is failing to effectively enforce section 36(3) of the federal Fisheries Act against the city of Montreal in connection with the discharge of

contaminated groundwater from the city’s Technoparc site to the Saint

Lawrence River. Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of

a deleterious substance into water frequented by fish unless the deposit

is authorized by regulation.

On 15 September 2003, the Secretariat determined that the submission meets the requirements of Article 14(1) of the NAAEC and

requested a response from the Party in accordance with Article 14(2).1

Canada submitted its response on 14 November 2003. The response

explains Environment Canada’s responsibilities in regard to administration of section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, presents summary information

concerning the history and environmental condition of the sector of the

Montreal Technoparc, and describes enforcement and compliance promotion actions undertaken by Environment Canada in regard to deposits of deleterious substances from the sector of the Montreal Technoparc

into the Saint Lawrence River.

The Secretariat has concluded that the response leaves open

central questions that the submission raises regarding enforcement of

section 36(3) in connection with discharges of deleterious substances to

fish-bearing waters from the sector of the Montreal Technoparc site.

Consequently, in accordance with Article 15(1), the Secretariat hereby

informs the Council that the Secretariat considers that the submission, in

light of the Party’s response, warrants developing a factual record and

provides its reasons.

II. SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The Submitters are three Canadian and two United States

nongovernmental organizations. They assert that Canada is failing to

effectively enforce section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act in connection with

the alleged discharge of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and other pollutants into the Saint

Lawrence River from the Montreal Technoparc, the site of an historic

domestic and industrial waste landfill now owned by the city of

Montreal. Under section 36(3), it is an offense to deposit or permit the

296 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. SEM-03-005 (Montreal Technoparc), Determination under Articles 14(1) and (2) (15

September 2003).
deposit of a deleterious substance in water frequented by fish or in any

place under conditions where a deleterious substance may enter any

such water, unless the deposit is authorized by regulation.

The Submitters assert that the Montreal Technoparc site functioned as a landfill for domestic and industrial wastes until it was redeveloped as a parking lot for Expo ‘67 and then, in 1988, as an industrial

park.2 They assert that the city of Montreal has been aware of PCB contamination of the site since at least 1995 and is responsible for discharges

of deleterious substances from the site.3 According to the Submitters, the

city’s efforts to use booms to contain the contamination are not effective.

They cite sampling results from October 2000 to January 2002 showing

PCB levels at the discharge point up to 8.5 million times the Canadian

Water Quality Guideline for the Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life

for Total PCBs, 941,000 times the PCB Guideline inside the boom, and

820 times the PCB Guideline outside the boom.4 The Submitters attach

an April 2002 biologist’s report concluding that PCBs, PAHs and other

pollutants are being discharged to the Saint Lawrence River from the

Montreal Technoparc in concentrations well in excess of provincial, federal and international guidelines.5 The submission includes a detailed

description of the alleged threats to human health and aquatic life of

PCBs.6 The Submitters assert that PCBs are “highly toxic, persistent and

bioaccumulative” and that Environment Canada identifies PCBs as a

persistent toxic substance that is “too dangerous to the ecosystem and to

humans to permit their release in any quantity.7”

The submission states that, following its receipt of a brief describing the alleged discharges, Environment Canada initiated a Fisheries Act

investigation of the Montreal Technoparc in April 2002.8 According to

the Submitters, Environment Canada explained in an April 2003 letter

that “the investigation was stopped because the source of the contamination could not be determined.9” The Submitters assert that their ability to bring a private prosecution in connection with the Montreal

Technoparc is in question.10 They contend that the booms and absorbent

SEM-03-005 297

2. Submission at 4.

3. Ibid.

4. Submission at 6. According to the Submitters, the Guideline was established at

0.001 g/L in 1987.

5. Submission at 6-7.

6. Submission at 7-11.

7. Submission at 7-8.

8. Submission at 12.

9. Ibid.

10. Submission at 12-13.
pads that have been used to try to contain the alleged discharges are still

ineffective and that the discharges are ongoing.11

The Submitters assert that the alleged failure to enforce the Fisheries Act has resulted in harm to the Submitters and that further study of

the matters raised in the submission would advance the goals of the

NAAEC.12 They request the CEC to prepare a factual record.

III. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSE

On 15 September 2003, the Secretariat determined that the submission fulfills the criteria set out in Article 14(1) of the NAAEC and merited

requesting a response from Canada, in light of the factors listed in Article

14(2).13 Canada responded to the submission on 14 November 2003.14

The response contains three sections: 1. Enforcement of the Fisheries Act,

2. Description of the Sector Comprising the Technoparc Site; 3. Procedure Followed by Environment Canada.15 In its introduction to the

response, Canada explains that

the information provided in [chapters 1 and 2] forms the context for the

department’s actions described in chapter three. These actions related to

administrative procedure allow the department to ensure that fish and

their habitat are protected within the shortest time possible.16

1. Enforcement of the Fisheries Act

Under “Enforcement of the Fisheries Act,” Canada describes Environment Canada’s responsibilities regarding the administration of section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, identifies penalties applicable to violations

of section 36(3), and describes the compliance promotion and enforcement programs established by Canada to achieve the department’s primary objective of preventing pollution of waters frequented by fish

through compliance with the Fisheries Act.17

298 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

11. Submission at 13.

12. Submission at 14-15.

13. SEM-03-005 (Montreal Technoparc) Determination in accordance with Articles

14(1) and (2) (15 September 2003).

14. “Deposits of Deleterious Substances in the Saint Lawrence River Opposite the

Technoparc Site / Commission for Environmental Cooperation / Response to submission SEM-03-005,” prepared by Environment Canada for the Government of

Canada (November 2003).

15. Response at i.

16. Response at 1.

17. Response at 2-4.
Canada explains that the Minister of the Environment is responsible for administering the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries

Act, including section 36(3).18 Canada states that contravention of section 36(3) is punishable on conviction by a fine and/or imprisonment,

with separate offences being counted for every day on which the contravention continues. It notes that proceedings under section 36(3) may be

instituted by a public department or a private party.19

Canada asserts that Environment Canada’s compliance promotion

program involves many activities intended to promote compliance with

section 36(3), including education and information, consultation on proposed regulations, development of guidelines and reviewing new projects to provide technical advice on means of achieving compliance.20

The law enforcement program includes two main activities, inspections

and investigations, with the objective of requiring compliance with the

Act through recourse to administrative and legal measures of law

enforcement.21The response sets out the law enforcement measures provided for in the Fisheries Actin the case of an infraction–inspectors’ directions, Minister’s orders, injunctions, recovery of costs as the result of

prosecution, and penalties imposed by courts on summary conviction—noting that the Fisheries Act lists situations in which a particular

measure can be used.22

In the response, Canada states: “In order to respect basic principles

of fairness, predictability and consistency, the department has framed

administration of the two approaches [compliance promotion and

enforcement] in a policy on compliance and enforcement of the Act.23”

Canada notes that under the Compliance and Enforcement Policy, “[t]he

department also has the administrative option of issuing a warning as a

law enforcement measure.24” Canada explains that the Compliance and

Enforcement Policy contains three criteria for deciding upon the appropriate law enforcement measure in regard to an infraction: the nature of

the infraction; the effectiveness of the measure in obliging compliance

by the alleged violator or in deterring re-offending; and consistency in

enforcement.25 Canada states that “[...] the measure chosen will be the

SEM-03-005 299

18. Response at 2.

19. Ibid.

20. Response at 3.

21. Ibid.

22. Response at 4.

23. Response at 3, note 7: Environment Canada, Compliance and Enforcement Policy –

Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions – Fisheries Act(November 2001)

[hereinafter the “Compliance and Enforcement Policy”].

24. Response at 4.

25. Ibid.
measure that will secure compliance within the shortest time possible,

or, if the infraction has already been corrected, the measure that will best

serve to deter a reoccurrence.” Canada asserts:

In the light of the intended measure, the department has the responsibility

of taking that measure, of making a recommendation to ministers or making a recommendation to the Department of Justice. In the latter case, the

Department of Justice must also assess certain criteria before deciding to

begin judicial proceedings.26

2. Description of the Sector Comprising the Technoparc Site

The response then provides a description of the history, physical

characteristics and ownership of the sector comprising the Technoparc

site. Canada begins by noting that between 1864 and 1888, the city of

Montreal acquired land with a view to establishing a dump at the south

end of Ash Street in Pointe-Saint-Charles, in an area located on the shore

of the Saint Lawrence River, on the south part of the Island of Montreal,

between the Victoria and Champlain bridges.27 Canada states:

In 1925, noting the southern progression of the Pointe-Saint-Charles

dump, the Harbour Commission (Société du Port de Montréal) authorized

the city of Montreal to dump garbage on its swampy lands and to do so up

to the water limits.28

The response includes “an aerial photo of the sector in 1930 with a

projection of future lands that would be formed in the riverbed by the

garbage backfill.29” The response notes that in 1937, the city ceded part of

the land at the southern end of Ash Street to Canadian National Railways (CNR) for a switching yard.30 Later, large-capacity above ground

storage tanks were installed there.31 Canada notes that

[b]uilt on the riverbed, the dump (in its post-1937 extension) continued to

be used for landfill until its closing in 1966. From four to twelve metres

of household and industrial waste along with dry material had been

dumped in the area.32

The response notes that in 1966, the area that now forms the

Technoparc site was leveled and covered with a thin coat of gravel, for

300 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

26. Ibid.

27. Response at 5.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Response at 6.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.
use as a parking lot during the Universal Exposition of 1967 (EXPO ‘67).

Canada notes that “[a]t that point, problems related to the production of

gas by decomposing organic matter were encountered for the first

time.33” According to the response, also at that time, the Bonaventure

Autoroute was built along the southern edge of what is now the Technoparc site, “[...] using large quantities of external landfill dumped directly

on the riverbed, between the Victoria and Champlain Bridges.34” The

response states that after EXPO ‘67, the land was not used until 1976,

when the federal Department of Transport installed a short-takeoff and

landing airport in the sector, with a terminal, parking area and fuel storage tanks.35 The site was again abandoned in 1977, with dismantling of

final infrastructure ending in 1991.36 The response states that in 1984, Via

Rail built a maintenance center on the southwest part of the site that is

now the Technoparc.37 It also notes that part of the site was used for storage of granular material and as a snow dump during the winter of

1985.38

In regard to the physical characteristics of the site, the response

notes that because of the heterogeneous make-up of the subsoil, underground water moves slowly and at varying rates throughout the sector.39 The response makes reference to environmental site characterization studies carried out between 1990 and 2002 by Environment Canada

and different owners of land in the area.40 A 1990 report prepared for

Environment Canada and the Quebec Ministry of the Environment

apparently “shows that the soil and water of the sector are contaminated

by many substances, and some of them at a significant level.41” According to the response, CNR conducted its own studies and in 1996 installed

a system to recover floating hydrocarbons in underground water at the

southern edge of its land.42 A 2002 study carried out by SNC-Lavalin for

the city of Montreal

[...] confirmed the presence of a significant concentration of PAHs and

PCBs in some of the observation wells located near the banks of the Saint

Lawrence River. The SNC-Lavalin study also showed the presence of

PCBs in a high number of the wells throughout the Technoparc site.43

SEM-03-005 301

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid.

40. Response at 7.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.
In the response, Canada states that during the summer of 2002,

the city of Montreal conducted an ecotoxicological study with the participation of Environment Canada. The study “concluded that an analysis

of underground water samples were harmful and represent a lethal and

sub-lethal effect on fish.44”

In regard to site ownership, the response states that the Technoparc site, which covers an area of 456,057 m2, was sold to the city of

Montreal in 1989 by the Crown in right of the Province (Government of

Quebec) and the Montreal Port Corporation (legal representative of Her

Majesty in right of Canada).45 The site consists of 30 separate lots, of

which the city owns 24.46 Between 1989 and 1999, the city sold the other

six lots to Teleglobe Canada Inc. (1 lot); Bell Mobility Cellular Inc. (1 lot);

Cité du cinéma (Mel’s) inc. (3 lots); and Société immobilière Partech inc.

(1 lot).47 According to the response, the land immediately north of the

Technoparc site is used by CNR as a switching yard, while part of the

land immediately south of the site (toward the river), on which is located

the Bonaventure Autoroute, is owned in part by the Quebec Ministry of

the Environment. The response states that “ownership of the other part

is unknown.48”

Under the caption “Deposits in the Saint Lawrence River,” the

response states that at the eastern end of “the sector under study,”

“deposits in the river, characterized by a floating hydrocarbon phase,

[...] are contaminated by PCBs, among others. Booms are now in place to

recover the contaminated oil film to the extent possible.49”

3. Procedure Followed by Environment Canada

The response contains a description of actions taken by Environment Canada with respect to the Technoparc site since 1991. Canada

states:

Environment Canada is concerned about the deposits in the Saint Lawrence River between the Victoria and Champlain Bridges. Its main objective is protection of the environment. The department has acted and

continues to take action to resolve this problem.50

302 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Response at 7-8.

47. Response at 8.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. Response at 9.
Canada states that Environment Canada has employed both compliance promotion and enforcement approaches to resolving the problem of deposits in the river. Canada explains:

One approach consists of promotion of the Fisheries Act by acting as a technical adviser and the other approach is by law enforcement. The two

approaches are mutually inclusive in achieving the objective of protecting

the environment with the result that they reinforce each other.51

Under the caption “Compliance Promotion Program,” Canada

states:

Since 1998, the scientific staff of Environment Canada’s compliance

promotion program has been increasingly concerned by deposits of

substances in the Saint Lawrence River bordering on the Bonaventure

Autoroute between the Victoria and Champlain Bridges.52

Canada explains that as regards compliance promotion, since

1998, Environment Canada has been in talks with the province of Quebec and more recently, with the city of Montreal and owners of other

sites in the contaminated sector, to find an overall solution to the problem.53 In 2002, the city proposed installing a system for containing and

recovering floating hydrocarbon phases at the site.54 Canada states that

Environment Canada expressed concerns about the capacity of such a

system to contain substances present in a dissolved phase.55 In the summer of 2002, Environment Canada “participated in an ecotoxicological

study of a dissolved phase of the underground water to measure the

harmful and lethal and sub-lethal effects on fish.56”

Regarding enforcement, Canada states that in August 1991, Environment Canada received information from a representative of the

Montreal Port Corporation concerning an oil film on the Saint Lawrence

River, under the Victoria Bridge.57 According to Canada:

[...] Environment Canada conducted an inspection and took an open water

sample. Since the source of the pollution was unknown, Environment

Canada incurred the cost of installing an oil containment system in the

river. Soon after, CN decided to take charge of the operation. SubseSEM-03-005 303

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid.

53. Response at 9-10.

54. Response at 9.

55. Ibid.

56. Ibid.

57. Response at 10.
quently, CN and the city of Montreal agreed on cost sharing to maintain

booms at locations where deposits were observed and on recovery of

hydrocarbons. In 1996, CN withdrew its contribution from the operation

for the purpose of working on recovery of floating hydrocarbons on the

surface of underground water along the limits of its property.58

According to the response, in November 1998, Environment Canada issued a warning to the city of Montreal because of “the poor condition of the booms and the cessation of oil pumping.59” From that time

until August 2003, Canada states that Environment Canada has carried

out twenty visual inspections of the booms and three times asked the city

“to correct the situation.60” Through regular inspections, Environment

Canada says it “ensures that the equipment for containing and recovering hydrocarbons is operational.61” Canada recognizes that the booms

and pumping of hydrocarbons are not a permanent solution and do not

solve the overall problem.62

Canada states that, following a request by some of the Submitters

in April 2002, Environment Canada conducted an investigation for violation of section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.63 According to Canada,

[t]he investigation consisted of an exhaustive search of the different existing studies in the department on soil and underground water contamination in the sector making up the Technoparc site. Information was also

collected on departmental actions regarding deposits in the river at that

location. As part of the investigation, consultations took place with

departmental personnel involved as technical advisers to various parties

in the sector to whom the deposits might be attributed. Finally, a search of

title documents was made in the Montreal land register of the land registry

office, and in documents of the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources to

trace the history of the transfer of title documents and to identify current

title owners in the sector comprising the Technoparc.64

According to Canada, “the information collected showed that the

different lands forming the study sector are contaminated by many pollutants resulting from diverse activities (household and industrial waste

burial site, installation of petroleum product tanks and of liquid residue

lagoons, snow dumping, and dump for material of unknown origin).65”

304 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid.

61. Ibid.

62. Response at 13.

63. Response at 10.

64. Response at 11.

65. Ibid.
The response states that “[w]hile the owners of the different lots forming

what was previously the dump are now known, there is not sufficient

proof to attribute the fact that the contaminants deposited in the river

come directly from the Technoparc site, from one of the sites of other

owners or from all these sites.66”

Under the caption “Conclusion of the Investigation,” the response

states: “Having failed to establish sufficient proof of the infraction covered by section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, an overriding condition for successful pursuit of legal proceedings, the department decided to close the

investigation.67” The response states that “[f]or these reasons [and following an assessment of the criteria of the Compliance and Enforcement

Policy68], the department [...] has decided to continue its interventions

with the different parties potentially responsible for the deposits in the

river to find a lasting solution to this environmental problem.69”

The response contains a two-page Annex entitled “Environment

Canada clarification of certain statements by the authors of submission

SEM-03-005.70” Clarifications concern the contents of the Compliance

and Enforcement Policy, the lack of information regarding the origin of

the contamination responsible for the deposits in the river, Environment

Canada’s response to a January 2002 phone call reporting an oil slick discharging from the Technoparc site, the purpose of criminal investigations, and the effect of Environment Canada’s ending its investigation

on the Submitters’ ability to bring a private prosecution under the Fisheries Act.71 With regard to a statement by the Submitters that “[t]he Montreal Technoparc is one of Quebec’s largest hazardous waste sites [...]”,72

Canada affirms:

The Technoparc site is part of a sector that used to be a household and

industrial waste burial site. It has been the location of and the neighbour of

sites where many types of activities have also contributed to the contamination of the Technoparc soil and neighbouring land. By the nature of their

foundations, underground water moves according to a complex hydrogeological system, with the result that information concerning the source

of substances deposited in the river does not exist.73

SEM-03-005 305

66. Ibid.

67. Response at 12.

68. Response at 13.

69. Response at 12.

70. Response at 14.

71. Response at 14-16.

72. Response at 14, submission at 4.

73. Response at 14.
In the Annex to the response, Environment Canada notes that the

Submitters contend that “[...] it is the purpose of a criminal investigation

to establish the identity of the accused where the evidence of an offence

exists.74” Environment Canada states:

The purpose of a criminal investigation of an infraction of strict responsibility, such as provided for in section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, is to collect

sufficient evidence on each of the elements constituting an infraction,

and information surrounding the infraction, where there are reasonable

grounds for believing that an infraction has occurred. If the law enforcement measure being considered by the department is a criminal penalty

imposed by a court, the evidence is assessed by the Attorney General of

Canada who also considers the public interest in deciding whether to

begin legal proceedings.75

IV. ANALYSIS

The Secretariat considers that the submission, in light of Canada’s

response, warrants developing a factual record as recommended in this

notification. The reasons for the Secretariat’s recommendation are set

forth below.

A. Why a factual record is warranted

The submission, taken together with Canada’s response, leaves

open central questions regarding whether Canada is failing to effectively enforce section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act in regard to Montreal’s

Technoparc site. As a result, additional information is required for a

proper consideration of the allegations contained in the submission.

This information would be gathered during development of a factual

record. A factual record would present information relevant to a full and

objective understanding of Canada’s actions to enforce and promote

compliance with section 36(3) in connection with the Technoparc site, in

particular as regards application of criteria from Environment Canada’s

Compliance and Enforcement Policy such as the nature of the infraction,

the goal of ensuring that alleged violators comply within the shortest

time possible, and consistency in enforcement.

306 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

74. Response at 15, submission at 12.

75. Response at 15.
i) Infractions of section 36(3)

Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act provides:

[s]ubject to subsection (4) [authorization by regulation], no person shall

deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in

water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where the

deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that results from

the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter any such water.

The submission identifies ongoing contraventions of section 36(3)

of the Fisheries Act related to discharges of deleterious substances—

including PCBs—from the area of a former municipal dump located

on the bed and shore of the Saint Lawrence River near downtown

Montreal.76 The Submitters assert that Environment Canada has identified PCBs as a persistent toxic substance that is “too dangerous to the

ecosystem to permit their release in any quantity.77” In its response to

the submission, Canada acknowledges the existence of the deposits78

and the deleterious nature of the substances being deposited,79 as well

as the growing concern of Environment Canada scientists since 1998

regarding those deposits.80

The Submitters claim that “[s]ince October 1995 and possibly

before, the city [of Montreal] has been aware of the PCB contamination

of the [Technoparc] site. The governments of Quebec and Canada, as

past owners of the site, have also been aware of the contamination risks

linked to the Technoparc.81” In its response, Canada states that in 1990,

Environment Canada and the Quebec Ministry of the Environment commissioned a report that showed “[...] that the soil and water of the sector

are contaminated by many substances, and some of them at a significant level.82” Canada acknowledges that zinc, nickel, silver, cadmium,

arsenic, phenols, PAHs and PCBs were detected in soil samples from the

sector, while ethylbenzene, benzene, toluene, styrene, xylene, PAHs,

chlorophenols, and methylene chloride were detected in ground- and

SEM-03-005 307

76. Submission at 5-6.

77. Submission at 8.

78. Response at 8, 15.

79. Response at 7: “During the summer of 2002, the city of Montreal conducted an

ecotoxicological study with the participation of Environment Canada. The study

concluded that an analysis of underground water samples were harmful and represent a lethal and sub-lethal effect on fish.” See also response at 15.

80. Response at 9.

81. Submission at 4.

82. Response at 7.
surface waters.83 The deleterious nature of many of these chemicals is a

factor weighing in favor of development of a factual record.

ii) Inspections for compliance with section 36(3)

In the response, under the caption “Law Enforcement Program,”

Canada states that in August 1991, Environment Canada received information from a representative of the Montreal Port Corporation84 concerning an oil film on the Saint Lawrence River under the Victoria

Bridge.85 The response states that Environment Canada conducted an

inspection and took an open water sample.86 It adds: “Since the source of

the pollution was unknown, Environment Canada incurred the cost of

installing an oil containment system in the river.87” According to Canada, operation of that system was soon taken over by CNR, then carried

out jointly by CNR and the city of Montreal, and is now conducted solely

by the city.88 The response does not contain information regarding why

CNR and the city of Montreal agreed to operate and maintain the

oil-pumping system, nor does it contain information about the cost of

operating and maintaining the system, or information regarding the system’s relative effectiveness in stopping deposits of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish. This information is relevant to a

consideration of whether Canada is failing to effectively enforce section

36(3) of the Fisheries Act in regard to the Technoparc site and would be

gathered by the Secretariat during development of a factual record.

In the response, Canada states that in November 1998, Environment Canada sent the city of Montreal a warning for an infraction of section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act because of the poor condition of the booms

and the cessation of oil pumping.89 Environment Canada’s Compliance

and Enforcement Policy provides that enforcement personnel may use

warnings when they have reasonable grounds to believe that a violation

of the Fisheries Act has occurred; where the degree of harm or potential

harm to the fishery resource, its supporting habitat and to human use of

fish or both appears to be minimal; and where the alleged violator has

made reasonable efforts to remedy or mitigate the negative impact of the

308 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

83. Ibid.

84. “Montreal Port Authority” since 1 March 1999.

85. Response at 10.

86. Ibid.

87. Ibid.

88. Ibid.

89. Ibid. According to Canada, although warnings are not mentioned in the Fisheries

Act, Environment Canada “[...] has the administrative option of using a warning as

a law enforcement measure.” Response at 4.
alleged offenses. In addition to considering whether such reasonable

efforts have been taken, enforcement personnel are to consider the

alleged violator’s Fisheries Act compliance history and whether the

alleged violator has taken sufficient action to prevent future offenses.

Canada asserts that since 1998, Environment Canada has used regular

inspections to ensure that the city of Montreal maintains the oilcontainment system.90 According to Canada, “[a]n inspection consists of

a verification of compliance with the Act [...].91” Canada acknowledges

that “[...] the booms and pumping of hydrocarbons are not a permanent

solution and do not solve the overall problem.92”

In the response, Canada states that pursuant to the Compliance

and Enforcement Policy, in selecting among a range of available measures for achieving compliance with section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act,

“[...] the measure chosen will be the measure that will secure compliance

within the shortest time possible [...].93” In regard to compliance promotion and enforcement actions taken by Environment Canada with

respect to discharges to the Saint Lawrence River from the area of the

Technoparc site, Canada has stated: “these actions related to administrative procedure allow the department to ensure that fish and their habitat

are protected within the shortest time possible.94”

During development of a factual record, the Secretariat would

gather information regarding Environment Canada’s reliance on

inspections as a primary enforcement tool in regard to known, ongoing

discharges of deleterious substances to the Saint Lawrence River from

the Technoparc sector, both before and after the issuance of a warning

in 1998. The Secretariat would also gather additional information on

the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a warning in 1998 and

actions taken in response to it.

iii) Investigation for an infraction of section 36(3)

Under the caption “Investigation,” Canada’s response states:

Following the 11 April 2002 request from SVP and EBI [two of the Submitters], Environment Canada decided to conduct an investigation for an

infraction of section 36(3) of the Fisheries Actresulting from deposits of delSEM-03-005 309

90. Response at 10.

91. Response at 3.

92. Response at 13.

93. Response at 4.

94. Response at 1.
eterious substances in the Saint Lawrence River opposite the Technoparc

site.95

According to Canada, an investigation is sometimes undertaken

by Environment Canada when there are reasonable grounds for believing that an infraction of the Act has been committed.96 In regard to the

Technoparc site, it states:

Environment Canada conducted an investigation that would allow consideration of legal proceedings so that protection of the environment

through compliance with the Fisheries Act could be achieved in the shortest

time possible.97

In light of the above, a factual record is warranted to gather information regarding the lead-up to, timing of, and other circumstances surrounding Environment Canada’s investigation in 2002–03 in regard to

the ongoing deposits of deleterious substances to the Saint Lawrence

River in the area of the Montreal Technoparc. Since Canada states that

the decision to conduct an investigation followed a request from the

Submitters,98 the Secretariat would also gather information regarding

the role of such a request in prompting an investigation by Environment

Canada under section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.99

iv) Laying charges and prosecution under section 36(3)

In the response, Canada explains:

An investigation is conducted, either to gather additional information that

will allow a choice of the appropriate law enforcement measure, or to seek

proof of the infraction and additional information surrounding the infraction to support legal action, when the measure being considered is a penalty imposed by the court.

In the case of the Technoparc site, Canada states:

The investigation was carried out with the aim of finding evidence for

each of the factors constituting an infraction and for information concerning the infraction, which are essential to support legal proceedings.100

310 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

95. Response at 10.

96. Response at 3.

97. Response at 13.

98. Ibid.

99. Response at 4.

100. Response at 11.
Although the submission identifies the city of Montreal as being

responsible for deposits of deleterious substances to the Saint Lawrence

from the Technoparc site,101 Canada claims that after an exhaustive

investigation, “[...] there is not sufficient proof to attribute the fact

that the contaminants deposited in the river come directly from the

Technoparc site, from one of the sites of other owners or from all these

sites.102”

Together, the submission and response do not present sufficient

information to allow for a full and objective assessment of Canada’s

decision in regard to the laying of charges under section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act in connection with discharges of deleterious substances from

the sector of the Technoparc site. In the context of developing a factual

record, the Secretariat would gather information on what needs to be

known about the source of a deposit to support laying charges under

section 36(3) in the case of a contaminated site like the Technoparc. This

would include information regarding what constitutes “any place under

any conditions where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious

substance that results from the deposit of the deleterious substance may

enter any such water” for the purpose of laying charges under section

36(3) in connection with multi-owner contaminated sites. A factual

record would also present detailed information regarding what is

known about the Technoparc sector and what is missing to lay and pursue charges under section 36(3) in connection with discharges from the

Technoparc site, as well as any obstacles to prosecution.

Canada’s response to the submission does not include any supporting documents. Relevant supporting information referred to in Canada’s response that would be gathered in the course of preparing a

factual record includes the materials reviewed by Environment Canada

during its 2002 investigation. This information consists of existing

environmental reports; information on departmental actions regarding

deposits in the river; results of consultations with departmental personnel involved as technical advisers to various parties in the sector to

whom the deposits might be attributed; and results from a search of title

documents.103 The Secretariat would thus review in detail what is

known about the environmental condition of the area that includes the

Montreal Technoparc site, with a view to presenting information relevant to Canada’s claim that available information does not allow for the

identification of the source of the deposits. The Secretariat would also

gather or develop information regarding available methods for tracking

SEM-03-005 311

101. Submission at 2.

102. Response at 11.

103. Ibid.
the source of deposits and for gathering other missing information relevant to taking enforcement action in connection with the Technoparc

site, including information on obstacles to employing these methods.

In its response, Canada states that Environment Canada uses a

dual approach to addressing the problem of deposits in the river, with

some of its staff acting as technical advisers to owners of property in the

area and others pursuing law enforcement.104 According to Canada,

“[t]he two approaches are mutually inclusive in achieving the objective

of protecting the environment with the result that they reinforce each

other.105” For a consideration of this assertion in the context of the

Technoparc site, in developing a factual record, the Secretariat would

review information regarding departmental actions in regard to deposits in the river as well as the views expressed to Environment Canada

enforcement personnel by Environment Canada’s scientific advisers,

and the role of such actions and views in determining further enforcement action by Environment Canada.

In the response, Canada states:

Since it is not possible to make the link between the activities that led to the

contamination responsible for the deposits in the river, it is necessary to

determine who has authority over the contaminants that are escaping

from the contaminated land or lands. This is a very complex determination in view of the hydrogeological system of sector.106

In developing a factual record, to allow for a consideration of the

division in land ownership as an obstacle to enforcement of section 36(3)

of the Fisheries Act, the Secretariat would review information related to

each property in the area, including location in relation to the

Technoparc site, proximity to the shore, what is known about its environmental condition and history of ownership and use, and what types

of environmental conditions were attached to the transfer of title to the

property to its current and/or previous owners.

In its response, Canada states: “If the law enforcement measure

being considered by the department is a criminal penalty imposed by a

court, the evidence is assessed by the Attorney General of Canada who

also considers the public interest in deciding whether to begin legal proceedings.107” While the response states that the 2002 investigation “[...]

312 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

104. Response at 9.

105. Ibid.

106. Response at 15.

107. Ibid.
did not produce sufficient evidence to assign criminal responsibility to

one or more offenders,108” the response does not contain information

regarding assessment of the evidence and consideration of the public

interest by the Attorney General of Canada. Such information would be

gathered by the Secretariat, as appropriate, in the course of preparing a

factual record.

v) Promoting compliance with section 36(3)

In its response to the submission, Canada identifies compliance

promotion activities undertaken by Environment Canada in regard to

deposits of deleterious substances from the area of the Technoparc

site.109 These activities consist of: discussions with the Quebec Ministry

of the Environment, the city of Montreal, and owners of other properties

in the contaminated sector to find an overall solution to the problem;110

reviewing and expressing concern about a proposal by the city of Montreal to build a containment and recovery system for floating hydrocarbon phases at the Technoparc;111 and participating in an ecotoxicological

study of a dissolved phase of the underground water to measure its

harmful and lethal and sub-lethal effects on fish.112

In developing a factual record, the Secretariat would gather relevant information on past and ongoing discussions between Environment Canada and other parties regarding “[...] the problem and possible

plans for its solution.113” This would include information on the extent

to which such discussions led to actions consistent with the Compliance

and Enforcement Policy’s objective of achieving compliance in the shortest time possible.114

The Secretariat would gather information regarding Environment

Canada’s review of the city of Montreal’s proposed containment system,

and would gather or develop comparative information regarding technical options for addressing pollution of fish-bearing waters from heterogeneous contaminated sites like the Technoparc site.

The Secretariat would also gather information regarding the basis

for Environment Canada’s participation in an ecotoxicological study

SEM-03-005 313

108. Response at 13.

109. Response at 9.

110. Response at 9-10.

111. Response at 9.

112. Ibid.

113. Ibid.

114. Response at 4.
regarding the effects of the deposits on fish. Although under the Compliance and Enforcement Policy, priority for action to deal with suspected

violations is guided by degree of harm or risk of harm to fish, fish habitat

or human health, to establish an offense under section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, it is not necessary to prove that the deposit has actually resulted

in harmful effects on fish in the environment if the substance deposited

is acknowledged to be inherently deleterious to fish.115

The response states that Environment Canada’s compliance promotion and law enforcement approaches to administration of section

36(3) of the Fisheries Act are mutually inclusive in achieving the objective

of protecting the environment, “with the result that they reinforce each

other.116” Under the caption “Conclusion of the Investigation,” Canada’s response states:

Having failed to establish sufficient proof of the infraction covered by

section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, an overriding condition for successful

pursuit of legal proceedings, the department decided to close the investigation.

For these reasons, the department sent notice of the closing of the investigation to the applicants by letter dated April 24, 2003, and has decided to

continue its interventions with the different parties potentially responsible for the deposits in the river to find a lasting solution to this environmental problem.117

In developing a factual record, the Secretariat would gather information regarding the progress and success of Environment Canada’s

compliance promotion activities in connection with the sector that

includes the Technoparc site since the time Environment Canada closed

the investigation for lack of evidence.

314 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

115. In determining whether a substance is deleterious, it is sufficient to prove that the

substance deposited is capable of making water harmful to fish. For instance, inR. v.

MacMillan Bloedel (Alberni) Limited (1978), 42 C.C.C. (2d) 70 (B.C. Co. Ct.) at 73-74;

affirmed 47 C.C.C. (2d) 118 (B.C.S.C.); leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused (1979), 47

C.C.C. (2d) 118n (S.C.C.), the Court held that “[t]he effect of the Act is to provide that

if such a substance has had a harmful effect on fish elsewhere when added to water,

then it qualifies as a deleterious substance under the Fisheries Act.” See also R. v.

Abitibi Consolidated (2000), 190 Nfld. and P.E.I.R. 326; 2000 Nfld. and P.E.I.R. LEXIS

238; 576 A.P.R. 326 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.) at para. 51: “In determining whether the Crown

has established that there was a deposit of a deleterious substance beyond a reasonable doubt, I agree with the Crown’s assertion that it is not necessary to establish

actual harm or damage to fish or fish habitat.”

116. Response at 9.

117. Response at 12.
V. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Secretariat considers that this submission, in light of Canada’s response, warrants the development of a

factual record and hereby so informs the Council. The submission and

response leave open matters for which a more detailed presentation of

factual information will assist in considering whether Canada is failing

to effectively enforce section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act in regard to Montreal’s Technoparc site, as the Submitters allege.

As discussed above in detail, a factual record is warranted to

develop and present information regarding the following matters in

relation to effective enforcement of section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act

in regard to deposits of deleterious substances from the area of the

Montreal Technoparc site to the Saint Lawrence River: a) Environment

Canada’s use of inspections and a warning as enforcement tools in connection with ongoing deposits; b) the lead-up to and timing of Environment Canada’s decision to undertake an investigation in response to a

request from members of the public; c) characteristics and fate of contamination in the sector of the Montreal Technoparc; d) effectiveness

and cost of oil containment and pumping system(s) in place since the

early 1990s; e) availability and cost of options for addressing pollution of

fish-bearing waters from heterogeneous contaminated sites such as the

sector of the Montreal Technoparc; f) evidence needed to lay charges

for an infraction of section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act in the case of

multi-owner contaminated sites such as the Montreal Technoparc;

g) considerations of the Attorney General in making its determinations

in regard to the Montreal Technoparc site, as appropriate; h) the ecotoxicological study carried out in 2002, in regard to enforcement of section 36(3); i) effects of division of ownership in the Technoparc sector on

success of enforcement efforts; j) effects, if any, of Environment Canada

technical actions and advice on success of enforcement efforts; k) ongoing discussions between Environment Canada, the Quebec Ministry of

the Environment, the city of Montreal, and owners of others sites in the

sector; l) compliance promotion efforts following the decision not to

seek charges.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article 15(1), and for the reasons set forth

in this notification, the Secretariat informs the Council of its determination that the objectives of the NAAEC would be well served by developing a factual record as recommended herein regarding the submission.

SEM-03-005 315
Respectfully submitted on this 19th day of April 2004.

per: William V. Kennedy

Executive Director

316 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
SEM-03-006

(Cytrar III)

SUBMITTERS: ACADEMIA SONORENSE DE DERECHOS

HUMANOS, A.C. AND DOMINGO

GUTIÉRREZ MENDÍVIL

PARTY: MEXICO

DATE: 15 AUGUST 2003

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege that Mexico is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental law at a

hazardous waste landfill owned by Cytrar, S.A.

de C.V. in Sonora, Mexico. The Submitters filed

two previous submissions regarding the operation of the Cytrar facility. Like the second submission, the new submission asserts that Mexico is

failing to effectively enforce its environmental

law in relation to the establishment and operation

of the Cytrar landfill. The Submitters assert that

Cytrar, in violation of applicable environmental

laws, operated the site without an environmental

impact authorization; did not comply with design

specifications regarding cell lining; and allowed

hazardous waste from the US to be buried at the

site. The Submitters allege that these actions have

caused damage to human health and the environment.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)(2)

(29 August 2003)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met, and that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party.

317

Secretariado de la Comisión

para la Cooperación Ambiental

Determinación del Secretariado en conformidad con los

artículos 14(1) y (2) del Acuerdo de Cooperación

Ambiental de América del Norte

Número de petición: SEM-03-006 (Cytrar III)

Peticionarios: Academia Sonorense de Derechos

Humanos, A.C.

Lic. Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de recepción: 15 de agosto de 2003

Fecha de la determinación: 29 de agosto de 2003

I. INTRODUCCIÓN

El Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental (el

“Secretariado”) puede examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte signataria del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte (el

“ACAAN” o “Acuerdo”) está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación

efectiva de su legislación ambiental, si el Secretariado juzga que la

petición cumple con los requisitos señalados en el artículo 14(1) del

ACAAN. Si la petición lo amerita, considerando los criterios del artículo

14(2), el Secretariado puede solicitar a esa Parte que proporcione una

respuesta a la petición.

El 15 de agosto de 2003, la Academia Sonorense de Derechos

Humanos, A.C. y el Lic. Domingo Gutiérrez Mendivil (los “Peticionarios”), presentaron al Secretariado una petición de conformidad con los

artículos 14 y 15 del ACAAN. Los Peticionarios aseveran que el gobierno

319
de México está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su

legislación ambiental respecto de presuntas irregularidades en la construcción y operación del confinamiento de residuos peligrosos conocido

como Cytrar, y respecto al negado acceso a los Peticionarios a la información relacionada con esas presuntas irregularidades. Esta es la tercera

petición presentada respecto de este asunto. Las primeras dos peticiones

pueden consultarse bajo los números de identificación SEM-98-005 y

SEM-01-001.

El trámite de la petición SEM-01-001 concluyó con la Resolución de

Consejo 02-13 del 10 de diciembre de 2002, la cual registró el voto unánime del Consejo contra la elaboración de un expediente de hechos. La

Resolución destacó que México había informado al Secretariado que el

asunto de la petición era objeto de un procedimiento pendiente de solución de controversias en el Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a la Inversión (“el CIADRI”).

En su carta de presentación para la nueva petición, SEM-03-006, el

Peticionario Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil mencionó que “en atención a

que ha dejado de existir la razón por la que no fue posible continuar con

el trámite de la anterior petición que se identificó como Cytrar II, estoy

planteando de nueva cuenta dicha solicitud en los mismos términos, al

permanecer la situación esencialmente igual. En esa virtud, los documentos de prueba de esta petición vienen a ser los que ya se remitieron

previamente, sin perjuicio de enviar mas adelante otras constancias adicionales sobre el particular.” La petición SEM-03-006 es idéntica a la petición SEM-01-001. Por consiguiente – y tomando en cuenta que, al

responder a la petición SEM-01-001, la Parte sólo proporcionó información respecto del procedimiento en el CIADRI, sin responder a lo aseverado en la petición – el texto de esta determinación es igual al que se

encuentra en la Determinación del Secretariado en conformidad con los

artículos 14(1) y (2) del ACAAN del 24 de abril de 2001.

El Secretariado determina que esta petición satisface los requisitos

del artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo, y que amerita solicitar una respuesta a la

Parte mexicana conforme al artículo 14(2), por las razones que se expresan en esta Determinación.

II. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

Los Peticionarios aseveran que México ha omitido aplicar de

manera efectiva su legislación ambiental en relación con el confinamiento de residuos peligrosos conocido como Cytrar, ubicado en la proximidad de la ciudad de Hermosillo, en el estado de Sonora, México, y

320 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
con el derecho a la información ambiental relacionada con ese confinamiento. El confinamiento ya no está operando, debido a que en 1998 la

autoridad ambiental negó a Cytrar, S.A. de C.V. la renovación de su

autorización de operación. La petición asevera que México ha incurrido

en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva del artículo 7 de la Ley Federal de

Protección al Ambiente de 1982 (LPFA)1, de los artículos 28, 29, 32, 153 y

159 bis 3 de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente

(en adelante, LGEEPA), del artículo 7 del Reglamento de la LGEEPA en

Materia de Residuos Peligrosos (en adelante, RRP), del artículo 415 del

Código Penal Federal (en adelante, CPF), y de la Norma Oficial Mexicana

NOM-057-ECOL-1993 Que establece los requisitos que deben observarse en el

diseño, construcción y operación de celdas de un confinamiento controlado de

residuos peligrosos (en adelante, NOM-057).2

La petición plantea cinco aseveraciones que se describen separadamente a continuación, si bien la relación entre todas ellas es importante

para la consideración de esta petición. La primera aseveración de la petición se refiere a la falta de autorización en materia de impacto ambiental

del confinamiento. Los Peticionarios aseveran que la Parte mexicana

omitió aplicar de manera efectiva los artículos 28, 29 y 32 de la LGEEPA,

respecto del confinamiento de residuos peligrosos ahora conocido como

Cytrar, al no requerir una manifestación de impacto ambiental previamente a la realización de las obras y actividades del confinamiento y al

permitir su operación a los subsecuentes responsables sin que contaran

con autorización en esa materia. Afirman que la evaluación de impacto

ambiental era exigible al confinamiento desde el inicio, porque el requisito en la LFPA data de 1982, además de que sería exigible de manera

retroactiva, al tratarse de una disposición de orden público e interés

social.3

La segunda aseveración de los Peticionarios es que la autoridad

ambiental omitió aplicar de manera efectiva los artículos 153 de la

LGEEPA y 7 del RRP que prohiben la importación de residuos peligrosos para su disposición final en territorio nacional y exigen la

repatriación de los residuos peligrosos generados bajo el régimen de

SEM-03-006 321

1. La LFPA estuvo en vigor hasta 1988. La LGEEPA que la sustituyó conserva disposiciones en materia de impacto ambiental equivalentes en lo esencial (artículos 28 al

30). En adelante se hace referencia sólo a las disposiciones vigentes.

2. Así como de la anterior Norma Técnica Ecológica NTE-CRP-010/88, publicada en el

Diario Oficial de la Federación (en adelante, “DOF”), el 14 de diciembre de 1988 y la

Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-PA-CRP-006/93, la cual quedó con la nomenclatura

NOM-057-ECOL-1993 en virtud del Acuerdo publicado el 22 de octubre de 1993, la

cual fue cambia a NOM-057-SEMARNAT-1993 en virtud del Acuerdo publicado en el

DOF el 23 de abril de 2003.

3. Véanse las páginas 3, 9 a 12 y los anexos 10 y 19 de la petición.
importación temporal. Esta afirmación se basa en el hecho de que en

1997 el confinamiento Cytrar recibió tierras contaminadas y otros residuos peligrosos abandonados por la empresa Alco Pacífico, S.A. de C.V.

para su disposición final. Según la petición, la fundidora de plomo Alco

Pacífico abandonó tierras contaminadas y residuos peligrosos importados ilegalmente desde Estados Unidos y residuos generados a partir de

materia prima introducida al país bajo el régimen de importación temporal, que debían haberse retornado al país de origen. Esa empresa operaba bajo el régimen de maquila en el Florido, Tijuana, BC. y fue

clausurada por la autoridad ambiental en abril de 1991. Según la petición

y la información que la acompaña, la autoridad ambiental gestionó la

disposición final de esos residuos en Cytrar, para lo cual recibió 2 millones de dólares estadounidenses asignados por el Juez del Condado de

Los Angeles, California, E.E. U.U. A.A. Al parecer, dicha suma fue una

parte de la multa impuesta por el mismo juez a la compañía transportista

S.R.S./Quemetco en virtud del transporte ilegal de residuos peligrosos

al sitio de Alco Pacífico. Esta aseveración se entiende en el sentido de que

México está omitiendo sancionar la supuesta violación a los artículos 153

de la LGEEPA y 7 del RRP, que se cometió presuntamente al depositar

los residuos peligrosos en Cytrar para su disposición final, siendo que

según los Peticionarios, dichos residuos peligrosos deben repatriarse.4

La tercera aseveración de la petición es que el confinamiento de

residuos peligrosos no observó las especificaciones de la NOM-057 respecto de la construcción de sus celdas y que la Parte mexicana no ha

sancionado esta supuesta violación de su legislación ambiental. Según

las autorizaciones concedidas por el Instituto Nacional de Ecología a

Cytrar, en 1996 el confinamiento contaba con una celda con capacidad de

16,200 m3, y contaba con una nueva celda con capacidad para 110,000 m3

en 1997.5 En apoyo a la afirmación de que se han incumplido estas especificaciones, la petición incluye un extracto de una manifestación de

impacto ambiental presentada por Cytrar en 1994, que describe el diseño

de las celdas.6 Los Peticionarios afirman que “... los muros de contención

de las celdas del confinamiento CYTRAR no cuentan con la capa de

suelo cemento que se menciona en [la manifestación de impacto ambiental] y en algunas áreas al parecer tampoco existe la capa de arena de

30 cm. De ahí que los materiales que se utilizaron como alternativa al

muro de 60 cm de concreto que exige en su párrafo 5.1.5 la Norma Oficial

Mexicana NOM-CRP-006-ECOL/1993, ni remotamente tienen una

resistencia de 240 Kg/cm2.”7

322 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

4. Véanse las páginas 3 a 6, 12 y 13, y los anexos 15 y 37 a 39 de la petición.

5. Véanse los anexos 3 y 4 de la petición.

6. Misma que la autoridad ambiental no aprobó, según afirman los Peticionarios.

7. Véase las páginas 6, 7 y 12 y el anexo 19 de la petición.
La cuarta aseveración de la petición es que la Parte ha omitido aplicar de manera efectiva el artículo 415 del CPF al no ejercer acción penal

tras la denuncia de hechos que el Peticionario presentó el 8 de diciembre

de 1997 y que amplió el 3 de diciembre de 1998. La fracción primera del

artículo 415 del CPF dispone una pena de tres meses a seis años de prisión y de mil a veinte mil días de multa, a quien sin autorización de la

autoridad federal competente o contraviniendo los términos en que

haya sido concedida, realice cualquier actividad con materiales o residuos peligrosos que ocasionen o puedan ocasionar daños a la salud

pública, a los recursos naturales, la fauna, la flora o a los ecosistemas. La

denuncia que presentaron los Peticionarios se refiere a los hechos que

son objeto de las tres aseveraciones que se resumieron en los párrafos

precedentes. Esto es, a la presunta operación del confinamiento sin

que haya mediado autorización en materia de impacto ambiental, a la

supuesta disposición final ilegal de residuos peligrosos que debieron

repatriarse y al presunto incumplimiento de las especificaciones sobre

construcción de las celdas.8

Por último, la petición asevera que al negarse a proporcionar

diversa información ambiental relacionada con Cytrar a los Peticionarios, la Parte mexicana ha violado el derecho a la información ambiental

contemplado en el artículo 159 Bis 3 de la LGEEPA. Se anexa a la petición

una solicitud de información escrita que se refirió principalmente a la

naturaleza y origen de los residuos depositados en el confinamiento

Cytrar. La respuesta mediante la cual la autoridad ambiental negó la

entrega de dicha información fue declarada por la justicia federal como

violatoria de la garantía de legalidad regulada en los artículos 14 y 16

constitucionales, por falta de motivación.9 Los Peticionarios indican que

a pesar del amparo de la justicia federal, la información solicitada aún no

se ha proporcionado y que por ello la Parte está incurriendo en una omisión en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental.

Por otra parte, la petición afirma que el Secretariado está facultado

para elaborar un informe sobre el caso Cytrar según el artículo 13 del

ACAAN, por referirse a un asunto relacionado con las funciones de

cooperación del Acuerdo.

SEM-03-006 323

8. Véanse las páginas 6, 14 y 15 y los anexos 8 y 15 de la petición.

9. Véase el anexo 32 de la petición.
III. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME A LOS

ARTÍCULOS 14(1) Y 14(2) DEL ACAAN

Artículo 14(1) del ACAAN

El artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo establece que:

El Secretariado podrá examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte está

incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental, si el Secretariado juzga que la petición:

(a) se presenta por escrito en un idioma designado por esa Parte en una

notificación al Secretariado;

(b) identifica claramente a la persona u organización que presenta la petición;

(c) proporciona información suficiente que permita al Secretariado revisarla, e incluyendo las pruebas documentales que puedan sustentarla;

(d) parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar

una industria;

(e) señala que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades

pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la respuesta de la Parte; y

(f) la presenta una persona u organización que reside o está establecida

en territorio de una Parte.

Si bien el artículo 14(1) no pretende colocar una gran carga sobre

los peticionarios, sí se requiere en esta etapa cierta revisión inicial.10 Con

tal perspectiva en mente el Secretariado determina que la petición sí

satisface los requisitos de ese artículo y explica a continuación las razones de esta determinación.

Los artículos 28, 29, 32, 153 y 159 bis 3 de la LGEEPA, 415 del CPF y

la NOM-057 que invoca la petición satisfacen la definición de “legislación ambiental” contenida en el artículo 45(2) del ACAAN, que se refiere

324 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

10. Véanse en este sentido, e.g., SEM-97-005 (Biodiversidad), Determinación conforme

al artículo 14(1) (26 de mayo de 1998) y SEM-98-003 (Grandes Lagos), Determinación conforme a los artículos 14(1) y (2) (8 de septiembre de 1999).
al propósito principal de tales disposiciones.11 De la simple lectura de

dichos artículos se desprende claramente que son disposiciones cuyo

propósito principal coincide con “... la protección del medio ambiente, o

la prevención de un peligro contra la vida o la salud humana, a través de

[...] el control de químicos, sustancias, materiales o desechos peligrosos o

tóxicos, y la diseminación de información relacionada con ello...”.12

La expresión “está incurriendo” en el artículo 14(1) impone una

consideración temporal respecto de las aseveraciones de una petición.13

Esta consideración se satisface si la Parte correspondiente puede tomar

SEM-03-006 325

11. El artículo 45(2) del ACAAN establece:

Para los efectos del Artículo 14(1) y la Quinta Parte:

(a) “legislación ambiental” significa cualquier ley o reglamento de una Parte, o sus

disposiciones, cuyo propósito principal sea la protección del medio ambiente, o la

prevención de un peligro contra la vida o la salud humana, a través de:

(i) la prevención, el abatimiento o el control de una fuga, descarga, o emisión de contaminantes ambientales,

(ii) el control de químicos, sustancias, materiales o desechos peligrosos o tóxicos, y

la diseminación de información relacionada con ello; o

(iii) la protección de la flora y fauna silvestres, incluso especies en peligro de extinción, su hábitat, y las áreas naturales protegidas en territorio de la Parte, pero no

incluye cualquier ley o reglamento, ni sus disposiciones, directamente relacionados

con la seguridad e higiene del trabajador.

(b) Para mayor certidumbre, el término “legislación ambiental” no incluye ninguna ley ni reglamento, ni sus disposiciones, cuyo propósito principal sea la administración de la recolección, extracción o explotación de recursos naturales con

fines comerciales, ni la recolección o extracción de recursos naturales con propósitos de subsistencia o por poblaciones indígenas.

El propósito principal de una disposición legislativa o reglamentaria en particular,

para efectos de los incisos (a) y (b) se determinará por su propósito principal y no

por el de la ley o del reglamento del que forma parte.

Véanse en este sentido, e.g., SEM-97-005 (Biodiversidad), Determinación conforme

al artículo 14(1) (26 de mayo de 1998), SEM-98-001 (Guadalajara), Determinación

conforme al artículo 14(1) (13 de septiembre de 1999) y SEM-98-002 (Ortiz Martínez), Determinación conforme al artículo 14(1) (18 de marzo de 1999).

12. De modo ilustrativo, se transcribe una de las disposiciones referidas:

LGEEPA, Artículo 153.- La importación o exportación de materiales o residuos

peligrosos se sujetará a las restricciones que establezca el Ejecutivo Federal, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en la Ley de Comercio Exterior. En todo caso deberán

observarse las siguientes disposiciones:

...III.- No podrá autorizarse la importación de materiales o residuos peligrosos

cuyo único objeto sea su disposición final o simple depósito, almacenamiento o

confinamiento en el territorio nacional o en las zonas donde la nación ejerce su

soberanía y jurisdicción, o cuando su uso o fabricación no esté permitido en el país

en que se hubiere elaborado; [...]

...VI.- Los materiales y residuos peligrosos generados en los procesos de producción, transformación, elaboración o reparación en los que se haya utilizado materia

prima introducida al país bajo el régimen de importación temporal, inclusive los

regulados en el artículo 85 de la Ley Aduanera, deberán ser retornados al país de

procedencia dentro del plazo que para tal efecto determine la Secretaría; [...]

13. Véase en este sentido, e.g., SEM-97-004 (Canadian Env. Defence Fund), Determinación conforme al artículo 14(1) (27 de agosto de 1997).
medidas de aplicación de su legislación ambiental respecto de los asuntos materia de la petición y está omitiendo hacerlo, si bien los hechos a

los que sea aplicable dicha legislación ambiental pueden ser hechos

pasados.14 Aunque los Peticionarios plantean sus aseveraciones en términos de que México “ha incurrido” en omisiones respecto del confinamiento Cytrar, que ya no está operando, las supuestas omisiones en las

que la Parte “ha incurrido”, sí corresponden a posibles acciones de aplicación que la autoridad competente pudiera llevar a cabo, es decir, a

omisiones en que la Parte supuestamente “está incurriendo”.

De la información contenida en la petición se desprende que las

facultades para imponer sanciones administrativas no habían prescrito

al momento de presentarse la petición en febrero de 2001,15 suponiendo

que las presuntas violaciones administrativas sucedieron: hasta

noviembre de 1998 cuando parece haber cesado la operación presuntamente ilícita del confinamiento por falta de autorización de impacto

ambiental16; en 1997 cuando supuestamente se iniciaron los envíos de

Alco Pacífico a Cytrar17; y entre 1996 y 1997 cuando parece haberse construido la última celda.18 Por otra parte, en cuanto a la presunta omisión

en la aplicación del artículo 415 del CPF, a partir de los hechos descritos

en la petición parece que las actuaciones realizadas por las autoridades

han interrumpido la prescripción de la acción penal, y por lo tanto, la

aseveración sí se refiere a una supuesta omisión en que la Parte “está

incurriendo”.19 Por último, dado que al momento de presentarse la petición la Parte no había proporcionado la información solicitada a los Peticionarios, la supuesta omisión en la aplicación del artículo 159 bis 3 de la

LGEEPA continuaba en ese momento, y esta aseveración satisface también la consideración temporal del artículo 14(1).

En vista de todo lo anterior, no obstante que el confinamiento se

encuentre cerrado y que la petición se refiera a actos consumados, la

petición cumple con esta consideración temporal del artículo 14(1). Las

326 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

14. Véase en este sentido, e.g., SEM-96-001 (Cozumel), Recomendación conforme al

artículo 15(1) (7 de junio de 1997).

15. Véase el artículo 79 de la Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo, que dispone

que la facultad para imponer sanciones administrativas prescribe en cinco años,

contados a partir del día en que se cometió la falta o infracción, si fueren consumadas, o desde que cesó si fuere continua.

16. Véase el anexo 4 de la petición, del que se desprende que la autorización de operación concedida a Cytrar por un año, expiró el 19 de noviembre de 1998.

17. Véase el anexo 39 de la petición.

18. Véase el punto 1.1 de los anexos 3 y 4 de la petición.

19. Véase el anexo 9 de la petición y el artículo 110 del CPF, que dispone que las actuaciones que se practiquen en averiguación del delito interrumpen la prescripción de

las acción.
aseveraciones se entienden en el sentido de que México está incurriendo

en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental al

no sancionar que la empresa Cytrar, S.A. de C.V. haya operado el confinamiento sin contar con autorización en materia de impacto ambiental,

que supuestamente haya construido sus celdas sin observar las especificaciones de la NOM-057, que presuntamente haya recibido para su disposición final residuos peligrosos cuya importación está prohibida y

que debieron repatriarse, conforme al artículo 153 de la LGEEPA, y al no

proporcionar información en presunta violación al artículo 159 bis 3 de

la LGEEPA.

La petición también satisface los seis requisitos listados en el

artículo 14(1). La petición se presentó por escrito en español, que es el

idioma designado por la Parte mexicana.20 Los Peticionarios se identificaron como la Academia Sonorense de Derechos Humanos, A.C. y

Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil. La primera es una organización sin vinculación gubernamental y el segundo un particular, vinculado a esa organización, ambos con residencia en Hermosillo, Sonora, México.21

La petición contiene información suficiente, que permitió al Secretariado revisarla. La petición incluye información sobre los antecedentes del confinamiento y sobre las acciones de la autoridad ambiental

respecto del confinamiento (incluyendo copia de las autorizaciones

otorgadas para su operación y de algunas notas sobre los residuos abandonados por la antigua fundidora Alco Pacífico y su traslado a Cytrar).

Asimismo, la petición describe y documenta los esfuerzos de los Peticionarios por obtener de la autoridad ambiental mayor información relacionada con el cumplimiento de la legislación ambiental en la operación

del confinamiento.22

Si bien respecto de algunos puntos tomados por separado la información de apoyo no es concluyente, en conjunto la información proporcionada en la petición es suficiente para que el Secretariado la revise. Los

Peticionarios como particulares no gozan de facultades de verificación y

pueden estar limitados por razones técnicas y económicas para obtener

información de fuentes externas a la autoridad ambiental. Los Peticionarios indican que la autoridad les ha negado mayor información. Afirman

SEM-03-006 327

20. Véanse el artículo 14(1)(a) del ACAAN y el apartado 3.2 de las Directrices.

21. Véanse los artículos 14(1)(b) y (f) y 45(1) del ACAAN y los anexos 44 y 45 de la petición.

22. Véase el artículo 14(1)(c) del ACAAN. Posteriormente a la presentación de la petición, otros interesados enviaron al Secretariado información relacionada con el

asunto materia de la petición. El Secretariado mantendrá dicha información en el

archivo para su consideración en el caso de que se llegue a elaborar un expediente

de hechos y hasta ese momento.
que han solicitado que se verifique el cumplimiento de las especificaciones de construcción, y que la autoridad se ha negado a hacerlo.23 También señalan que se les ha negado información sobre la naturaleza y

origen de los residuos depositados en el confinamiento, y sobre el convenio por el que la Profepa y el Juez del Condado de Los Angeles determinaron disponer en Cytrar de los residuos abandonados por Alco

Pacífico.24 Considerando todo lo anterior, se estima que la información

proporcionada en la petición es suficiente para satisfacer el requisito

conforme al artículo 14(1)(c) del ACAAN.

La petición no parece encaminada a hostigar una industria aunque

las presuntas omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de la legislación

ambiental se refieren en particular a la empresa Cytrar, S. A. de C.V., que

fue la última empresa responsable del confinamiento a que se refiere la

petición. La petición parece encaminada, antes bien, a promover la aplicación de la legislación ambiental, porque se centra en la aplicación por

la autoridad ambiental de diversas disposiciones sobre disposición final

de residuos peligrosos respecto del confinamiento y en la falta de acceso

que se ha dado a los Peticionarios a la información ambiental relativa al

posible incumplimiento de algunas obligaciones ambientales del confinamiento. No parece que los Peticionarios hayan sido competidores de

dicha empresa, ni en el momento en que se presentó la petición, ni

cuando dicha empresa estaba aún operando. La petición no es intrascendente, ya que la disposición adecuada de residuos peligrosos es una

materia de importancia indiscutible, que representa además un problema reconocido ampliamente en México.25

La petición incluye copias de múltiples comunicaciones por escrito

enviadas a la autoridad ambiental, mediante las cuales los Peticionarios

han comunicado el asunto materia de la petición a las autoridades pertinentes de la Parte mexicana (en particular, al Ministerio Público Federal

mediante la denuncia penal de diciembre de 1997, ampliada en diciembre de 1998; y a la Profepa mediante la denuncia popular de marzo de

1998), así como las respuestas que aquéllos recibieron, además de otros

328 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

23. La petición señala que, no obstante la negativa de realizar la verificación de las celdas, la autoridad ambiental anunció en julio de 1998 que se realizaría una auditoría

ambiental para garantizar que se tomarían las medidas necesarias de prevención, o

en su caso de remediación, antes de sellar las celdas del confinamiento. Los Peticionarios consideran que no hay intención de realizar dicha auditoría, ya que la autoridad ambiental anunció en febrero de 2001 que se fijó a la empresa un plazo de 45

días para sellar el confinamiento.

24. Véanse las páginas 6 a 8, y los anexos 20 a 23 de la petición.

25. Véase el artículo 14(1)(d) del ACAAN, el apartado 5.4 de las Directrices. y el anexo

44 de la petición.
documentos que muestran que las autoridades están al tanto de dicho

asunto.26

Habiendo estimado cumplidos los requisitos del artículo 14(1) respecto de esta petición por las razones arriba expuestas, el Secretariado

pasa a la consideración de si la petición amerita solicitar una respuesta a

la Parte interesada.

Artículo 14(2) del ACAAN

Para determinar si la petición amerita una respuesta de la Parte,

el Secretariado debe guiarse por las consideraciones que establece el

artículo 14(2). Dichas consideraciones son las siguientes:

(a) si la petición alega daño a la persona u organización que la presenta;

(b) si la petición, por sí sola o conjuntamente con otras, plantea asuntos

cuyo ulterior estudio en este proceso contribuiría a la consecución de

las metas de este Acuerdo;

(c) si se ha acudido a los recursos al alcance de los particulares conforme

a la legislación de la Parte; y

(d) si la petición se basa exclusivamente en noticias de los medios de

comunicación.

Para hacer esta determinación, el Secretariado contempló lo

siguiente.

Los Peticionarios afirman que “resulta evidente el perjuicio que

[...] causa a todos los habitantes de Hermosillo, Sonora, la existencia del

confinamiento de residuos peligrosos CYTRAR, que está contaminando

el suelo y la atmósfera con desechos tóxicos expuestos al aire libre, y que

inminentemente contaminará si es que se contaminaron ya [sic] los mantos freáticos que existen en el sitio”. De la información incluida en la

petición no se desprende certeza sobre la existencia o no de daños relacionados con el confinamiento. Según la autoridad ambiental, ésta negó

a Cytrar la renovación de su autorización de operación sin que el confinamiento hubiese alcanzado su capacidad instalada, no por haberse

comprobado que existan daños o incumplimiento por parte de la

empresa, sino en respuesta a las preocupaciones de la ciudadanía. Ahora

SEM-03-006 329

26. Véanse el artículo 14(1)(e) del ACAAN y los anexos 13 a 15, 27 a 32 y 37 a 39 de la

petición.
bien, dichas preocupaciones parecen basarse tanto en la proximidad con

la ciudad de Hermosillo de una actividad percibida como altamente

peligrosa, como en la falta de información que pudiera cambiar dicha

percepción. En particular, no parece haber información disponible a la

ciudadanía sobre el cumplimiento (por parte de Cytrar y sus antecesoras) de las obligaciones y especificaciones diseñadas para prevenir que el

confinamiento de residuos peligrosos cause daños a la salud humana y

al medio ambiente, que se invocan en la petición.27

Los artículos 1 y 5 del ACAAN plantean, entre otras metas, mejorar

la aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental, lograr niveles altos de

protección del medio ambiente y de cumplimiento de las leyes de las

Partes, así como promover la transparencia y la participación pública. La

observancia y la aplicación efectiva de la legislación relacionada con la

disposición final de residuos peligrosos y el acceso de los interesados a la

información relativa a ello, a que se refiere esta petición, están directamente relacionados con dichas metas del ACAAN. El ulterior estudio de

los asuntos planteados en esta petición contribuiría a su consecución.

Con relación a los recursos disponibles conforme a la legislación de

la Parte a los que se ha acudido, la Petición aborda este punto y muestra

que se ha hecho un esfuerzo razonable para acudir a ellos.28 Los Peticionarios indican que han iniciado diversos procedimientos administrativos y judiciales y proporcionan copia de los siguientes: la denuncia

popular del 11 de marzo de 1998; la denuncia penal del 8 de diciembre de

1997, ampliada el 3 de diciembre de 1998, con base en la cual se inició la

averiguación previa penal número 56/98/H-11; la queja ante la Comisión Estatal de Derechos Humanos del 2 de mayo de 1987; los juicios de

amparo números 85/98 ante el Juez Primero de Distrito del Estado de

Sonora, número 386/2000, número 679/99 y número 181/2000 (éste

último concluido mediante sentencia en parte favorable al Peticionario),

todos ante el Juez Tercero de Distrito del Estado de Sonora.29

Finalmente, la Petición no parece basarse exclusivamente en noticias de los medios de comunicación, aunque los Peticionarios sí hacen

referencia a algunas noticias de ese tipo.30

Considerando en conjunto los factores del artículo 14(2) del

ACAAN, el Secretariado determina que esta petición sí amerita solicitar

una respuesta de la Parte.

330 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

27. Veánse las páginas 7 a 9 y los anexos 5, 8, 13, 15, 17, 20 a 23, 25, 26, 30, 32, 40 y 41 de la

petición.

28. Véanse también los apartados 5.6(c) y 7.5 de las Directrices.

29. Véanse los anexos 5, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 27, 31 y 32 la petición.

30. Véanse los anexos 22, 23, 33, 36, 40 y 41 de la petición.
IV. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

El Secretariado determina que la Petición SEM-03-006 (Cytrar III),

presentada por la Academia Sonorense de Derechos Humanos, A.C., et.

al cumple con todos los requisitos contenidos en el artículo 14(1) del

ACAAN. Asimismo, tomando en cuenta el conjunto de los criterios establecidos en el artículo 14(2) del ACAAN, el Secretariado determina que

dicha petición amerita solicitar una respuesta a la Parte interesada, en

este caso México, y así lo hace a través de esta Determinación.

La Parte podrá proporcionar una respuesta dentro de los 30 días

siguientes a la recepción de esta notificación, y en circunstancias excepcionales, dentro de los 60 días siguientes a ella, conforme a lo establecido

en el artículo 14(3) del ACAAN. Dado que ya se ha enviado a la Parte

interesada una copia de la petición y de los anexos respectivos, no se

acompañan a esta Determinación.

Por otra parte, se informa a los Peticionarios que su solicitud para

que el Secretariado lleve a cabo un informe conforme al artículo 13 del

Acuerdo, sería tomada en consideración una vez concluido el proceso

conforme al artículo 14 del mismo.

Sometida respetuosamente a su consideración, el 29 de agosto de

2003.

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Katia Opalka

Oficial Jurídica

Unidad sobre Peticiones Ciudadanas

cc: Dra. Olga Ojeda , SEMARNAT

Sra. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Sra. Judith E. Ayres , US-EPA

Sr. Victor Shantora, Director Ejecutivo Interino de la CCA

Lic. Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil, Academia Sonorense

de Derechos Humanos

SEM-03-006 331

SEM-04-001

(Hazardous Waste in Arteaga)

SUBMITTERS: FRANCISCO H. GARZA VARA ET AL.

PARTY: MEXICO

DATE: 27 January 2004

SUMMARY: The Submitters assert that Mexico is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental laws by not

properly processing their complaint against the

companies Ecolimpio de México, SA de CV and

Transportes J. Guadalupe Jiménez, SA, and by

not penalizing those companies. The Submitters

claim that both companies operate in violation of

the law, causing serious damage to the environment and their property. Furthermore, they assert

that the companies are seriously endangering

their health and physical well-being due to the

improper management of hazardous waste.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(20 February 2004)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have not been met.

Revised Submission

ART. 14(1)

(20 April 2004)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have not been met.

333
Revised Submission

ART. 14(1)(2)

(30 June 2004)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met, and that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party.

334 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Secretariado de la Comisión

para la Cooperación Ambiental

Determinación del Secretariado en conformidad con el artículo 14(1)

del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Número de petición: SEM-04-001 (Residuos Peligrosos

en Arteaga)

Peticionaria(os): Genaro Meléndez Lugo y José Javier,

José Genaro, Miguel Ángel, Carlos

Ariel,

Juan Antonio, Iris Elidia y

Cruz Adriana Meléndez Torres

Representados por: Francisco H. Garza Vara

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de recepción: 27 de enero de 2004

Fecha de la determinación: 20 de febrero de 2004

I. ANTECEDENTES

Con fecha 23 de enero de 2004, Francisco H. Garza Vara en representación de los Peticionarios presentó al Secretariado de la Comisión

para la Cooperación Ambiental (el “Secretariado”) una petición en conformidad con los Artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental

de América del Norte (“ACAAN” o “el Acuerdo”). La petición hace referencia al “incumplimiento y a la falta de aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al

Ambiente y su reglamento en materia de residuos peligrosos con fundamento en el artículo 14 y 15 del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de

América del Norte, así como la omisión e incumplimiento en nuestro

país del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte en lo

335
referente a sus art. 1, art. 6 y art. 7 del referido Acuerdo”1. En especifico,

aseveran la falta de cumplimiento por parte de la Procuraduría Federal

de Protección al Ambiente (“PROFEPA”) para dar tramite a la denuncia

presentada por los Peticionarios en contra de las empresa Ecolimpio de

México, S.A. de C.V., y Transportes J. Guadalupe Jiménez, S.A.; empresas que, según lo que los Peticionarios argumentan, operan en forma

irregular causando graves daños al ambiente, a sus propiedades,

su salud e integridad física por el inadecuado manejo de residuos

peligrosos.

Según el ACAAN, el Secretariado puede examinar las peticiones

que cumplan con los requisitos establecidos en su artículo 14(1). El Secretariado ha determinado que esta petición no cumple con los requisitos

de dicho artículo y en este documento expone las razones de esta

determinación.

II. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

Los Peticionarios aseveran la falta de cumplimiento por parte de la

PROFEPA para dar tramite a la denuncia presentada por los mismos en

contra de las empresa Ecolimpio de México, S.A. de C.V. (“Ecolimpio”) y

Transportes J. Guadalupe Jiménez, S.A. (“TGJ”).2 En específico señala

que estas empresas, “...operan en forma irregular, causando graves

daños ambientales, danos en las propiedades de mis representados, y

exponiendo en graves peligro su salud e integridad física, por el inadecuado manejo de residuos peligrosos por parte de Ecolimpio de México,

S.A. y la transportación y disposición de residuos peligrosos en lugares

no autorizados por la empresa Transportes J. Guadalupe Jiménez,

S.A.”.3

Los Peticionarios aseveran también “... que la dependencia encargada de realizar la inspección no actuó en tiempo y forma y es fecha que

no se nos ha mostrado la copia de la referida inspección a la empresa

Ecolimpio de México, S.A. y no se realizó ninguna inspección en el

terreno donde se vierten residuos peligrosos propiedad de la empresa

Transportes J. Guadalupe Jiménez, S.A.”.4

Los Peticionarios fundan su Petición en “...la falta de aplicación

efectiva de la legislación ambiental de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente y su reglamento en materia de residuos

336 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Página 1 de la Petición.

2. Página 2 de la Petición

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.
peligrosos con fundamento en el artículo 14 y 15 del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte, así como la omisión e incumplimiento en nuestro país del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de

América del Norte en lo referente a sus art. 1, art. 6 y art. 7 del referido

Acuerdo”.5

Adjunto a la Petición, los Peticionarios acompañan 1) fotografías

de paredes presuntamente de las casas de los vecinos a la empresa tratadora de residuos peligrosos; (2) fotografías de derrames aparentemente

en el interior de la empresa tratadora; (3) copia de artículos de periódico

que hacen alusión a que en la empresa Ecolimpio han ocurrido incendios

y explosiones; (4) Copia del Permiso de Tratamiento de Residuos Peligrosos expedido por la Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos

Naturales (“SEMARNAT”) a favor de Ecolimpio; (5) fotografías aparentemente del interior de la empresa Ecolimpio; (6) fotografías en donde se

aprecian lodos; y (7) Copia de una denuncia de hechos presentada por

los Peticionarios de fecha 1 de diciembre de 2003.

III. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME AL

ARTÍCULO 14(1) DEL ACAAN

El artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo establece que:

El Secretariado podrá examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización

sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte está incurriendo en

omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental, si el Secretariado

juzga que la petición:

(a) se presenta por escrito en un idioma designado por esa Parte en una

notificación al Secretariado;

(b) identifica claramente a la persona u organización que presenta la petición;

(c) proporciona información suficiente que permita al Secretariado revisarla, e incluyendo las pruebas documentales que puedan sustentarla;

(d) parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar

una industria;

(e) señala que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades

pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la respuesta de la Parte; y

SEM-04-001 337

5. Página 1 de la Petición
(f) la presenta una persona u organización que reside o está establecida

en territorio de una Parte.

En esta etapa se requiere entonces, de cierta revisión inicial para

verificar que la petición cumple con estos requisitos, si bien el artículo

14(1) no pretende colocar una gran carga para los peticionarios.6 El

Secretariado examinó la petición en cuestión con tal perspectiva en

mente.

En cuanto a los seis requisitos listados en el artículo 14(1), el Secretariado determinó que la petición satisface los requisitos establecidos en

los incisos a), b), d), e) y f) del artículo 14(1), por las siguientes razones. La

petición se presentó por escrito en español,7 que es el idioma designado

por México. Los Peticionarios se identificaron como Genaro Meléndez

Lugo y José Javier, José Genaro, Miguel Ángel, Carlos Ariel, Juan Antonio, Iris Elidia y Cruz Adriana Meléndez Torres, todos representados

por el Sr. Francisco H. Garza Vara, con residencia en Saltillo, Coahuila,

México, es decir personas que residen en el territorio de la Parte mexicana.8 La petición es presentada con respecto a la falta de cumplimiento

por parte de la PROFEPA para dar tramite a la denuncia presentada por

los Peticionarios, por lo mismo parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar una industria en cumplimiento de lo que

establece el inciso d) del artículo 14(1). Con respecto al inciso e) del

mismo artículo, éste prevé que la petición señale que el asunto se haya

comunicado por escrito a las autoridades pertinentes de la Parte; el

Secretariado considera que la Petición si cumple con este requisito al

hacer referencia a dicha denuncia interpuesta por los Peticionarios de

fecha 1 de diciembre de 2003 de la cual anexaron copia a la Petición y con

respecto a la cual los Peticionarios manifiestan no haber tenido respuesta

a la fecha de presentación de la Petición.

En distinto sentido, el Secretariado juzga que la petición tampoco

satisface el requisito del inciso c) de dicho artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo. Lo

anterior, primero, ya que no contiene información suficiente para analizarla; la petición es muy breve, constando de 3 páginas y 7 anexos, y no

contiene suficiente información para que el Secretariado pueda revisarla

en este proceso.9 En particular, la petición no expresa claramente la función de cada uno de sus anexos en la argumentación sobre la presunta

338 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

6. Véanse en este sentido, e.g., SEM-97-005 (Biodiversidad), Determinación conforme

al artículo 14(1) (26 de mayo de 1998) y SEM-98-003 (Grandes Lagos), Determinación

conforme al artículo 14(1) y (2) (8 de septiembre de 1999).

7. Véanse el artículo 14(1)(a) del ACAAN y la sección 3.2 de las Directrices para la presentación de peticiones.

8. Véanse los artículos (14)(1)(b) y (f) del ACAAN.

9. Véase el artículo (14)(1)(c) del ACAAN.
omisión por parte de México de aplicar de manera efectiva su legislación

ambiental en este asunto, lo cual es de especial importancia dado lo

breve que es la petición misma. Si bien la petición incluye anexos que

presuntamente contienen información sobre el problema planteado por

el Peticionario respecto del sitio donde se encuentran localizados residuos peligrosos aparentemente en la empresa llamada Ecolimpio, en

la petición misma no es clara la explicación de los anexos.

Además, la petición no contiene información suficiente para

determinar si la petición “asevera que una Parte está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental”. Los Peticionarios “aseveran” que México está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación

efectiva “de la legislación ambiental de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente y su reglamento en materia de residuos

peligrosos”. A efecto de calificar para el proceso del artículo 14(1), las disposiciones citadas en una petición deben satisfacer la definición de “legislación ambiental” contenida en el artículo 45(2) del ACAAN10. Para ello,

los Peticionarios pueden acudir a lo que establece la sección 5.2 de las

Directrices para la presentación de peticiones (las “Directrices”)11 ya que de la

SEM-04-001 339

10. El artículo 45(2) del ACAAN establece:

Para los efectos del Artículo 14(1) y la Quinta Parte:

(a) “Legislación ambiental” significa cualquier ley o reglamento de una Parte, o

sus disposiciones, cuyo propósito principal sea la protección del medio ambiente, o

la prevención de un peligro contra la vida o la salud humana, a través de:

(i) la prevención, el abatimiento o el control de una fuga, descarga, o emisión de contaminantes ambientales,

(ii) el control de químicos, sustancias, materiales o desechos peligrosos o tóxicos, y

la diseminación de información relacionada con ello; o

(iii) la protección de la flora y fauna silvestres, incluso especies en peligro de extinción, su hábitat, y las áreas naturales protegidas en territorio de la Parte, pero no

incluye cualquier ley o reglamento, ni sus disposiciones, directamente relacionados

con la seguridad e higiene del trabajador.

(b) Para mayor certidumbre, el término “legislación ambiental ” no incluye ninguna ley ni reglamento, ni sus disposiciones, cuyo propósito principal sea la administración de la recolección, extracción o explotación de recursos naturales con

fines comerciales, ni la recolección o extracción de recursos naturales con propósitos de subsistencia o por poblaciones indígenas.

El propósito principal de una disposición legislativa o reglamentaria en particular,

para efectos de los incisos (a) y (b) se determinará por su propósito principal y no

por el de la ley o del reglamento del que forma parte.

Aun cuando el Secretariado no se rige por el principio de stare decisis, en ocasiones

anteriores, al examinar otras determinaciones, ha señalado que las disposiciones

citadas deben satisfacer la definición de legislación ambiental. Véanse las determinaciones del Secretariado, conforme al artículo 14(1) del ACAAN, para las siguientes peticiones: SEM-98-001/Instituto de Derecho Ambiental et al. (13 de septiembre

de 1999), SEM-98-002/Héctor Gregorio Ortiz Martínez (18 de marzo de 1999) y

SEM-97-005/Animal Alliance of Canada, et al. (26 de mayo de 1998).

11. La sección 5.2 de las Directrices establece que: “El peticionario deberá identificar la

ley o el reglamento aplicable, o su disposición, tal como se define en el artículo 45(2)
lectura de la Petición se aprecia que no son señalados en específico ni el

capítulo ni la disposición o disposiciones aplicables de la LGEEPA.

Además, de la misma forma el Peticionario omite explicar porque

considera que las presuntas faltas de cumplimiento efectivo de la legislación ambiental por parte del gobierno mexicano son también un incumplimiento del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

en lo referente a sus art. 1, art. 6 y art. 7 del referido Acuerdo, disposiciones las cuales cita el Peticionario.

Dada la redacción y el breve contenido de la Petición, los Peticionarios deben establecer si pretenden denunciar ya sea: la falta de cumplimiento por parte de la PROFEPA de dar el debido trámite al proceso de

denuncia popular establecido aparentemente por los Peticionarios; la

falta de cumplimiento por parte de la autoridad para detectar y sancionar en su caso a las empresas que se señalan en la Petición; o bien ambas

premisas.

IV. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

Habiendo revisado esta petición de conformidad con el artículo

14(1) del ACAAN, con base en el análisis expuesto en el capítulo anterior, el Secretariado considera que ésta no cumple con todos los requisitos en él establecidos. Por esto, y en cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por el

apartado 6.1 de las Directrices, este Secretariado notifica a los Peticionarios la no procedencia de su petición y al mismo tiempo los apercibe de

que, de conformidad con el apartado 6.2 de las Directrices, cuentan con

30 días para presentar una petición que cumpla con los criterios del

artículo 14(1) del ACAAN.

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: William V. Kennedy

Director Ejecutivo

ccp: Sr. José Manuel Bulás, SEMARNAT

Sra. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Sra. Judith E. Ayres, US-EPA

Sr. Francisco H. Garza Vara

340 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

de Acuerdo. En el caso de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al

Ambiente de México, el Peticionario deberá identificar el capítulo o la disposición

aplicable de la Ley.
Secretariado de la Comisión

para la Cooperación Ambiental

Determinación del Secretariado en conformidad con el artículo 14(1)

del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Número de petición: SEM-04-001 (Residuos peligrosos

en Arteaga)

Peticionaria(os): Genaro Meléndez Lugo y José Javier,

José Genaro, Miguel Ángel,

Carlos Ariel, Juan Antonio, Iris Elidia

y Cruz Adriana Meléndez Torres

Representados por: Francisco H. Garza Vara

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de recepción: 16 de marzo de 2004

Fecha de la determinación: 20 de abril de 2004

I. ANTECEDENTES

Con fecha 23 de enero de 2004, Francisco H. Garza Vara en representación de los Peticionarios presentó al Secretariado de la Comisión

para la Cooperación Ambiental (el “Secretariado”) una petición en conformidad con los Artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental

de América del Norte(“ACAAN” o “el Acuerdo”). El 20 de febrero de 2004

el Secretariado notificó a los peticionarios que la petición no cumplía con

todos los criterios del artículo 14(1) y que tenían 30 días para presentar

una petición revisada. Fue el 16 de marzo del año en curso que el Secretariado recibió la versión revisada de dicha Petición. La petición hace referencia al incumplimiento y a la falta de aplicación efectiva de la Ley

General del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente y su reglamento en materia de residuos peligrosos. En especifico, aseveran la falta

341
de cumplimiento por parte de la Procuraduría Federal de Protección al

Ambiente (“PROFEPA”) para dar tramite a la denuncia presentada por

los Peticionarios en contra de las empresa Ecolimpio de México, S.A. de

C.V., y Transportes J. Guadalupe Jiménez, S.A.; empresas que, según lo

que los Peticionarios argumentan, operan en forma irregular causando

graves daños al ambiente, a sus propiedades, su salud e integridad física

por el inadecuado manejo de residuos peligrosos.

Según el ACAAN, el Secretariado puede examinar las peticiones

que cumplan con los requisitos establecidos en su artículo 14(1). El Secretariado ha determinado que la versión revisada de la petición reincide en

no cumplir con los requisitos de dicho artículo y en este documento

expone las razones de esta determinación.

II. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

Los Peticionarios aseveran la falta de cumplimiento por parte de la

PROFEPA para dar tramite a la denuncia presentada el 4 de diciembre

de 2003 por los mismos peticionarios en contra de las empresa Ecolimpio

de México, S.A. de C.V. (“Ecolimpio”) y Transportes J. Guadalupe Jiménez, S.A. (“TGJ”). En específico señala que estas empresas, “...operan en

forma irregular, causando graves daños ambientales, danos en las propiedades de mis representados, y exponiendo en graves peligro su salud

e integridad física, por el inadecuado manejo de residuos peligrosos por

parte de Ecolimpio de México, S.A. y la transportación y disposición de

residuos peligrosos en lugares no autorizados por la empresa Transportes J. Guadalupe Jiménez, S.A.”.

Los Peticionarios fundan su Petición en “...la falta de aplicación

efectiva de la legislación ambiental de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente en sus siguientes artículo: art. 1, fracc. I,

III y VII, art. 121, art. 150, art. 151, 164, art. 170, fracc. I y II, art. 180, art.

181, art. 194, respecto al reglamento de residuos peligrosos, denunciamos la falta de aplicación efectiva de los siguientes artículos: art. 15,

fracc. II, III, IV; art. 16, fracc. IV; art. 17, fracc. II; art. 18; art. 19, fracc. III;

art. 58, fracc. II. Así mismo, denunciamos el incumplimiento en nuestro

país del referido acuerdo de cooperación ambiental en sus art. 6, fracc. 1,

2, 3, fracc. A, B, C, D; art. 7 garantías procesales art. 1, fracciones a, b, c,

d”.1

342 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Página 2 de la Petición.
III. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME AL ARTÍCULO

14(1) DEL ACAAN

El artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo establece que:

El Secretariado podrá examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización

sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte está incurriendo en

omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental, si el Secretariado

juzga que la petición:

(a) se presenta por escrito en un idioma designado por esa Parte en una notificación al Secretariado;

(b) identifica claramente a la persona u organización que presenta la petición;

(c) proporciona información suficiente que permita al Secretariado revisarla, e

incluyendo las pruebas documentales que puedan sustentarla;

(d) parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar una

industria;

(e) señala que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la respuesta de la Parte; y

(f) la presenta una persona u organización que reside o está establecida en territorio de una Parte.

En esta etapa se requiere entonces, de cierta revisión inicial para

verificar que la petición cumple con estos requisitos, si bien el artículo

14(1) no pretende colocar una gran carga para los peticionarios.2 El

Secretariado examinó la petición en cuestión con tal perspectiva en

mente.

En cuanto a los seis requisitos listados en el artículo 14(1), el Secretariado determinó que la petición satisface los requisitos establecidos en

el inciso a), ya que la petición se presentó por escrito en español, idioma

designado por el gobierno de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos;3 satisface

los requisitos del inciso b), ya que los peticionarios se identificaron como

Genaro Meléndez Lugo y José Javier, José Genaro, Miguel Ángel, Carlos

Ariel, Juan Antonio, Iris Elidia y Cruz Adriana Meléndez Torres, todos

SEM-04-001 343

2. Véanse en este sentido, e.g., SEM-97-005 (Biodiversidad), Determinación conforme

al artículo 14(1) (26 de mayo de 1998) y SEM-98-003 (Grandes Lagos), Determinación

conforme al artículo 14(1) y (2) (8 de septiembre de 1999).

3. Véanse el artículo 14(1)(a) del ACAAN y la sección 3.2 de las Directrices para la presentación de peticiones (las “Directrices”).
representados por el Sr. Francisco H. Garza Vara; y también satisface los

requisitos del inciso f), ya que acreditan tener residencia en Saltillo,

Coahuila, México, es decir personas que residen en el territorio de la

Parte mexicana.4

Con respecto al inciso c), el Peticionario ha anexado a la Petición la

información que a continuación se detalla.

1. Fotografías de paredes presuntamente de las casas de los vecinos a

la empresa tratadora de residuos peligrosos;

2. Copia de escritura pública de propiedad;

3. Fotografías de presuntos derrames de líquidos en el interior de la

empresa Ecolimpio de México, S.A. de C.V.;

4. Fotografías de manchas por presunta contaminación de las paredes de casas habitación;

5. Copias de periódicos de la localidad donde narran este evento;

6. Copia de carta folio 1189160-25 de la Coordinación de Atención

Ciudadana de la Presidencia de la República de México;

7. Copia de la Carta de Folio 1189160-25 girada por la Coordinación

de Atención Ciudadana de la Presidencia de la República de

México al Secretario de Medio Ambiente, Sec. Victor Lichtinger;

8. Fotografías de presuntos residuos al descubierto;

9. Fotografías de pisos de tierra;

10. Fotografías de aparentes residuos que presuntamente no cumplen

con legislación;

11. Fotografías de fosa y de autorización 5-4-PS-V-01-2001;

12. Fotografías de maquina retroexcavadora mezclando aparentes

residuos con tierra;

344 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

4. Véanse los artículos (14)(1)(b) y (f) del ACAAN.
13. Fotografías que presuntamente indican sitios donde se mezclan

presuntos residuos peligrosos con tierra;

14. Copia de oficio No. SGPA/007/COAH/2004;

15. Fotografías donde se aprecian lodos y camiones de volteo;

16. Copia de oficio PFPA-B00-387 de PROFEPA de fecha 22 de enero

de 2004;

17. Copia de escrito dirigido a la PROFEPA relacionado con la denuncia 03/12/145/104;

18. Copia de denuncia de hechos presentada ante la PROFEPA de

fecha 4 de diciembre de 2003 y registrada bajo número 03/12/

145/104;

19. Copia de Orden de Inspección y verificación expedida por

PROFEPA bajo número PFPA-B00-1-0004855;

20. Copia de artículos relacionados de la Ley Federal de Metrología y

Normatización;

21. Copia de antecedentes de Norma Oficial NOM-052-1993;

22. Copia de análisis de laboratorio elaborado por Laboratorio Microanálisis, S.A.;

23. Carta de Residuos Industriales Multiquim, S.A. de C.V. dirigida al

delegado de PROFEPA en el Estado de Coahuila.

El Secretariado observa que los peticionarios efectivamente han

acompañado a la Petición información relacionada a los argumentos que

en ella plantea. No obstante, el Secretariado considera que los Peticionarios no han cumplido aún con el requisito del inciso c) del artículo 14.1

del Acuerdo. El Secretariado estima que la información proporcionada

no es suficiente ya que si bien la Petición en esta ocasión si incluye información que permite al Secretariado revisar los planteamientos hechos

por los peticionarios, por otro lado no deja claro si el motivo por el que la

presenta es encaminado a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar una industria. Lo anterior ya que a través de información pública

el Secretariado ha tomado conocimiento de que el Sr. Francisco

Garza Vara, representante legal de los peticionarios, es señalado como

SEM-04-001 345
propietario de una compañía denominada Garlok Industrial la cual aparenta tener un giro industrial similar al de Ecolimpio.5 Lo anterior hace

considerar al Secretariado que los Peticionarios pudieren encontrarse

dentro del supuesto artículo 14.1, sección d) del Acuerdo. El supuesto (a)

del punto 5.4 de las Directrices respecto del artículo 14.1, sección d) del

Acuerdo señala que el Secretariado considerará si una petición se “centra en los actos u omisiones de la Parte y no en el cumplimiento de una

compañía o negocio en particular; especialmente cuando el Peticionario es

un competidor que podría beneficiarse económicamente con la petición [énfasis

añadido]”. El Secretariado estima que éstas mismas premisas están presentes cuando el representante legal del peticionario pudiera obtener un

beneficio económico indebido con la petición al ser un competidor de la

entidad en contra de la cual se alega que la Parte no ejerce de forma efectiva su legislación.

La cita del artículo de periódico en el que se hace referencia al

representante legal de los peticionarios, aún cuando no fuere concluyente, si indica que el Secretariado requeriría de argumentos adicionales

dentro de la Petición que clarifiquen tal situación o bien de información

adicional al respecto. Es ante esa falta de claridad y/o de información al

respecto que el Secretariado estima que la Petición cumple parcialmente

con el inciso c) del artículo 14.1 del Acuerdo.

Con respecto al inciso e) del artículo 14.1, éste prevé que la petición

señale que el asunto se haya comunicado por escrito a las autoridades

pertinentes de la Parte. El Secretariado ha observado que el Peticionario

ha hecho referencia a una denuncia popular que presentó el 4 de diciembre de 2003.

El Secretariado ha notado que en la primera versión de la Petición

los peticionarios señalaron con respecto a esta denuncia popular que la

346 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

5. “Clausuran a Garlok depósito de residuos... Deberá, además, remediar 20 hectáreas

que usó en ejido de Ramos”. Periódico PALABRA / México (25 de febrero de 2004).

“El confinamiento Garlok Industrial fue clausurado total y definitivamente por el

Instituto Coahuilense de Ecología ante distintas irregularidades en que incurrió,

como fueron incendios, desorganización y no tener la posesión del predio... Sergio

Avilés de la Garza, director de la dependencia... agregó que se aplicó una multa de

20 mil pesos. El funcionario dijo que antes de abandonar el sitio, el propietario

Francisco Garza Vara deberá remediar las 20 hectáreas de que se componía dicho

confinamiento. El plazo es de 90 días contados a partir del 11 de febrero, de acuerdo

con la Ley General de Protección al Ambiente. Con base en los datos proporcionados por el Instituto, se supo que si Garza Vara no cumple con la obligación de remediar el suelo, se le demandaría por la vía penal ante el Ministerio Público por

probables delitos ambientales... La última historia... El Confinamiento de residuos

industriales de Garlok Industrial atravesó en las últimas fechas una serie de conflictos 2002...”
autoridad ambiental en México: “...es fecha que no se nos ha mostrado la

copia de la referida inspección a la empresa Ecolimpio de México,

S.A...”6 Luego, en la versión revisada de la Petición se afirmó que “... al

día 10 de marzo de 2004 y a más de 90 días de presentada la denuncia

ante la Procuraduría del Medio Ambiente.... no se han desahogado las

pruebas tanto de inspección en el interior de la empresa como en la casa

del Sr. Genaro Meléndez...”.7

El Secretariado ha notado también que de la lectura del resto de la

versión revisada de la Petición los peticionarios hacen referencia a un

oficio número PFPA-B00 00387 expedido por PROFEPA el 22 de enero

de 2004 del que manifiestan que: “... en el referido oficio se hace constar

en el punto tercero “toda vez que al desahogar la inspección ocular,

tanto en las instalaciones de Ecolimpio de México, S.A. de C.V., como en

la casa habitación que ocupan los denunciantes, pueda ser necesario llevar a cabo la toma de muestras o bien se haga necesaria la aplicación de

conocimientos especiales...”.”8 Luego, en la página 11 de la petición revisada también se hace referencia al oficio PFPA-0004855 expedido por

PROFEPA en fecha 8 de diciembre de 2003 que se da como resultado de

la presentación de la denuncia popular hecha por los Peticionarios. Estos

datos parecen indicar que los peticionarios tenían conocimiento de éstas

actuaciones al momento de presentación de esta Petición. El Secretariado hace notar estas posibles contradicciones en la Petición y si bien el

Secretariado considera se satisface el requisito establecido por el artículo

14.1, sección e), la Petición indica que el asunto materia de la Petición

puede encontrarse todavía en un proceso de inspección y vigilancia en

desarrollo.

IV. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

Habiendo revisado esta petición de conformidad con el artículo

14(1) del ACAAN, con base en el análisis expuesto en el capítulo anterior, el Secretariado considera que la Petición nuevamente no cumple

con todos los requisitos en él establecidos.

Siendo que las razones por las que en esta ocasión se considera la

Petición improcedente son distintas de aquellas por las que se desestimó

en la primera ocasión, el Secretariado considera procedente aplicar de

nuevo lo dispuesto por el apartado 6.2 de las Directrices en el sentido de

otorgar a los Peticionarios el plazo de 30 días para presentar una petición

que cumpla con los criterios del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN.

SEM-04-001 347

6. Página 2 de la Primera Versión de la Petición.

7. Página 8 de la Petición Revisada.

8. Página 9 de la Petición Revisada.
Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Rolando Ibarra R.

Oficial Jurídico de la Unidad sobre Peticiones Ciudadanas

ccp: Lic. José Manuel Bulás, SEMARNAT

Sra. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Sra. Judith E. Ayres, US-EPA

Sr. William Kennedy, Director Ejecutivo, CCA

Lic. Francisco H. Garza Vara

348 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Secretariado de la Comisión

para la Cooperación Ambiental

Determinación del Secretariado en conformidad con los

artículos 14(1) y (2) del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental

de América del Norte

Número de petición: SEM-04-001 (Residuos peligrosos

en Arteaga)

Peticionaria(os): Genaro Meléndez Lugo y José Javier,

José Genaro, Miguel Ángel,

Carlos Ariel, Juan Antonio, Iris Elidia

y Cruz Adriana Meléndez Torres

Representados por: Francisco H. Garza Vara

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de recepción: 25 de mayo de 2004

Fecha de la determinación: 30 de junio de 2004

I. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

Los Peticionarios aseveran la falta de cumplimiento por parte de la

Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (“PROFEPA”) para dar

tramite a la denuncia presentada el 4 de diciembre de 2003 por los mismos peticionarios en contra de las empresa Ecolimpio de México, S.A. de

C.V. (“Ecolimpio”) y Transportes J. Guadalupe Jiménez, S.A. (“TGJ”).

En específico señala que estas empresas, “...operan en forma irregular,

causando graves daños ambientales, danos en las propiedades de mis

representados, y exponiendo en graves peligro su salud e integridad

física, por el inadecuado manejo de residuos peligrosos por parte de Ecolimpio de México, S.A. y la transportación y disposición de residuos

349
peligrosos en lugares no autorizados por la empresa Transportes J. Guadalupe Jiménez, S.A.”.1

Los Peticionarios fundan su Petición en “...la falta de aplicación

efectiva de la legislación ambiental de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente en sus siguientes artículo: art. 1, fracc. I,

III y VII, art. 121, art. 150, art. 151, 164, art. 170, fracc. I y II, art. 180, art.

181, art. 194, respecto al reglamento de residuos peligrosos, denunciamos la falta de aplicación efectiva de los siguientes artículos: art. 15,

fracc. II, III, IV; art. 16, fracc. IV; art. 17, fracc. II; art. 18; art. 19, fracc. III;

art. 58, fracc. II. Así mismo, denunciamos el incumplimiento en nuestro

país del referido acuerdo de cooperación ambiental en sus art. 6, fracc. 1,

2, 3, fracc. A, B, C, D; art. 7 garantías procesales art. 1, fracciones a, b, c,

d”.2

II. ANTECEDENTES

A. La Petición

Con fecha 23 de enero de 2004, los Peticionarios presentaron al

Secretariado (el “Secretariado”) de la Comisión para la Cooperación

Ambiental (“CCA”) una petición en conformidad con los Artículos 14

y 15 del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte(“ACAAN”

o “el Acuerdo”). El 20 de febrero de 2004 el Secretariado notificó a los

peticionarios que la petición no cumplía con todos los criterios del

artículo 14(1) y que tenían 30 días para presentar una petición revisada.

En esta ocasión, el Secretariado baso su determinación en que la

petición no cumplió con el requisito del inciso c) del artículo 14(1) del

Acuerdo al no proporcionar información suficiente que permitiera al

Secretariado revisarla, e incluyendo las pruebas documentales que puedan sustentarla. Lo anterior en el sentido de que el contenido de la Petición era muy breve constando de 3 páginas y 7 anexos. Además, el

Secretariado noto que la petición no contenía una descripción específica

de cuales disposiciones de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente (“LGEEPA”) y su reglamento en materia de residuos peligrosos eran las cuales estaban siendo omitidas de ser aplicadas

de forma efectiva.3 El Secretariado también hizo notar a los Peticionarios

350 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Página 2 de la Petición.

2. Página 2 de la Versión Revisada de la Petición

3. Lo anterior dando referencia a los Peticionarios de considerar la sección 5.2 de las

Directrices para la presentación de peticiones (las “Directrices”) que establece que:

“El peticionario deberá identificar la ley o el reglamento aplicable, o su disposición,

tal como se define en el artículo 45(2) de Acuerdo. En el caso de la Ley General del
la omisión de explicar porque consideraban que las presuntas faltas

de cumplimiento efectivo de la legislación ambiental por parte del

gobierno mexicano eran también un incumplimiento del ACAAN en lo

referente a sus art. 1, art. 6 y art. 7 del referido Acuerdo, disposiciones las

cuales se incluían también en la Petición.

B. La Versión Revisada de la Petición

El 16 de marzo del año en curso, el Secretariado recibió una versión

revisada de dicha Petición. Esta Versión Revisada de la Petición se

estimó cumplía con los incisos (a), (b), (e) y (f) del Artículo 14(1) del

ACAAN. Sin embargo el Secretariado estimo que la Petición no cumplía

con el inciso (c) del Artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo. En consecuencia, el 20 de

abril del año en curso el Secretariado notificó a los Peticionarios que

la petición no cumplía con todos los criterios del artículo 14(1) sin

embargo, dado que las razones por las que en esa ocasión se consideró la

Petición improcedente fueron distintos de aquellos por los que se desestimó en la primera ocasión, se les otorgó nuevamente el plazo de 30 días

para presentar una petición que cumpliera con los criterios del artículo

14(1) del ACAAN.

El Secretariado en esta ocasión estimó que la información proporcionada en la Petición no había sido suficiente ya que si bien en esta ocasión si incluyó información que permitía al Secretariado revisar los

planteamientos hechos por los Peticionarios, por otro lado no había

dejado claro si el motivo por el que fue presentada era encaminado a

promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar una industria. Lo anterior ya que a través de información pública el Secretariado tuvo conocimiento de que el Sr. Francisco Garza Vara, representante legal de los

peticionarios, es señalado como propietario de una compañía denominada Garlok Industrial la cual aparenta tener un giro industrial similar

al de Ecolimpio. Lo anterior hizo considerar al Secretariado que los Peticionarios pudieren encontrarse dentro del supuesto artículo 14.1, sección d) del Acuerdo. El supuesto (a) del punto 5.4 de las Directrices

respecto del artículo 14.1, sección d) del Acuerdo señala que el Secretariado considerará si una petición se “centra en los actos u omisiones de la

Parte y no en el cumplimiento de una compañía o negocio en particular;

especialmente cuando el Peticionario es un competidor que podría beneficiarse

económicamente con la petición [énfasis añadido]”.4

SEM-04-001 351

Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente de México, el Peticionario deberá

identificar el capítulo o la disposición aplicable de la Ley”

4. El Secretariado estimó que éstas mismas premisas están presentes cuando el representante legal del peticionario sea un competidor de la entidad en contra de la cual se

alega que la Parte no ejerce de forma efectiva su legislación.
C. La Versión Aclaratoria de la Petición

En esta ocasión, el 25 de mayo del presente, el Secretariado ha recibido una versión aclaratoria de la Petición. En esta versión aclaratoria, el

representante legal de los Peticionarios, en un apartado que solicitó sea

guardado como confidencial, expuso las razones por las que considera

no encontrarse dentro del supuesto artículo 14.1, sección d) del ACAAN,

aclarando que el motivo por el que se presentó la Petición es el de promover la aplicación de la ley y no hostigar a una industria, aclarando también que no considera que pueda beneficiarse económicamente con la

petición. En otro apartado, los Peticionarios aclararon las observaciones

hechas por el Secretariado en cuanto al desarrollo del procedimiento de

denuncia popular referido en la Petición. Es en este documento donde se

analiza el contenido de esta versión aclaratoria y si con ella la Petición

cumple con los requisitos del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN para luego de

cumplir con los requisitos del artículo 14(2) de dicho Acuerdo, se amerita la solicitud de una respuesta de la Parte objeto de la presente

Petición.

En fecha 27 de mayo del presente, el Secretario emitió y envió una

carta al representante legal de los Peticionarios respecto del contenido

que solicitó fuera guardado como confidencial. El Secretariado solicitó

que se le informara si parte de dicha información hubiera podido ser

manejada de forma pública. Lo anterior con la intención de que el Secretariado esté en aptitud de poder hacer uso de ella y exponerla en el análisis que realice para determinar si la Petición cumple con los requisitos

del Artículo 14 del ACAAN y en dicho caso continuar con el trámite de la

petición. El Secretariado realizo la anterior solicitud en consideración

del punto 17.3 de las Directrices para la Presentación de Peticiones Ciudadanas que a la letra señala:

“17.3. Tomando en consideración que la información confidencial o privada proporcionada por una Parte, organización sin vinculación gubernamental o persona

puede contribuir de manera sustancial a la opinión del Secretariado en cuanto a si

se amerita la elaboración de un expediente de hecho, los suministradores de esa

información deberían esforzarse proa proporcionar un resumen de esa información o explicación general de por qué esa información se considera como confidencial o privada.”

No obstante, el Secretariado no recibió respuesta alguna a su

solicitud.

352 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
III. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN, SU VERSIÓN REVISADA Y

SU ACLARACIÓN, CONFORME AL ARTÍCULO 14(1) DEL

ACAAN

El artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo establece que:

El Secretariado podrá examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización

sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte está incurriendo en

omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental, si el Secretariado

juzga que la petición:

(a) se presenta por escrito en un idioma designado por esa Parte en una notificación al Secretariado;

(b) identifica claramente a la persona u organización que presenta la petición;

(c) proporciona información suficiente que permita al Secretariado revisarla, e

incluyendo las pruebas documentales que puedan sustentarla;

(d) parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar una

industria;

(e) señala que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la respuesta de la Parte; y

(f) la presenta una persona u organización que reside o está establecida en territorio de una Parte.

En esta etapa se requiere entonces, de cierta revisión inicial para

verificar que la petición cumple con estos requisitos, si bien el artículo

14(1) no pretende colocar una gran carga para los peticionarios.5 El

Secretariado examinó la petición en cuestión con tal perspectiva en

mente.

En cuanto a los seis requisitos listados en el artículo 14(1), el Secretariado determinó:

A. Con respecto del inciso (a) del artículo 14(1), que la Petición cumple con el requisito de ser presenta por escrito en un idioma designado por esa Parte en una notificación al Secretariado ya que la

petición se presentó por escrito en español, idioma designado por

el gobierno de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

SEM-04-001 353

5. Véanse en este sentido, e.g., SEM-97-005 (Biodiversidad), Determinación conforme

al artículo 14(1) (26 de mayo de 1998) y SEM-98-003 (Grandes Lagos), Determinación

conforme al artículo 14(1) y (2) (8 de septiembre de 1999).
B. Con respecto del inciso (b) del artículo 14 (1), que la Petición satisface el requisito de identificar claramente a la persona u organización que presenta la petición, ya que los peticionarios se

identificaron como Genaro Meléndez Lugo y José Javier, José

Genaro, Miguel Ángel, Carlos Ariel, Juan Antonio, Iris Elidia y

Cruz Adriana Meléndez Torres, todos representados por el Sr.

Francisco H. Garza Vara.

C. Con respecto del inciso (c) del artículo 14 (1), que la Petición cumple el requisito de haber proporcionado información suficiente que

permita al Secretariado revisarla y haber incluido las pruebas

documentales para sustentarla. Para mayor referencia, véase la

sección IV siguiente.

D. Con respecto del inciso (d) del artículo 14 (1), que la Petición cumple el requisito de estar encaminada a promover la aplicación de la

ley y no a hostigar una industria. Para mayor referencia, véase la

sección IV siguiente.

E. Con respecto del inciso (e) del artículo 14 (1), que la Petición cumple el requisito de señalar que el asunto ha sido comunicado por

escrito a las autoridades pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la respuesta de la Parte. Para mayor referencia, véase la sección IV

siguiente.

F. Con respecto del inciso (f) del artículo 14 (1), que la Petición cumple

el requisito de ser presentada por una persona u organización que

reside o está establecida en territorio de una Parte ya que acreditan

tener residencia en Saltillo, Coahuila, México, es decir personas

que residen en el territorio de la Parte mexicana.

IV. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN

A. Con respecto a los incisos (c) y (d) del artículo 14 (1) del ACAAN

El requisito que establece el inciso (c) del artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo

consiste en proporcionar junto con la Petición, información suficiente

que permita al Secretariado revisarla y haber incluido las pruebas documentales para sustentarla. El inciso (d) de dicho artículo establece que la

Petición debe estar encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a

hostigar una industria. El Secretariado ya había notado que la Versión

Revisada de la Petición contenía información adicional que permitía al

354 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Secretariado verificar los argumentos que se plantean en la Petición.6

También, a diferencia de la versión original de la Petición, en la Versión

Revisada se hizo una descripción de las disposiciones que en cada

cuerpo legislativo los Peticionarios consideraban no estaban siendo aplicadas de forma efectiva.

No obstante, el Secretariado hizo notar que la información proporcionada continuaba sin ser suficiente ya que no dejaba claro si el motivo

por el que la presentaba era encaminado a promover la aplicación de la

ley y no a hostigar una industria. Lo anterior ya que el representante

legal de los peticionarios, podía estar vinculado con una compañía la

cual aparentaba tener un giro industrial similar al de Ecolimpio y por lo

mismo pudiere encontrarse dentro del supuesto artículo 14.1, sección d)

del Acuerdo y del supuesto (a) del punto 5.4 de las Directrices. El Secretariado estimó que éstas mismas premisas estaban presentes cuando el

representante legal del peticionario sea un competidor de la entidad en

contra de la cual se alega que la Parte no ejerce de forma efectiva su

legislación.

Al respecto y como se señalo antes, el representante legal de los

Peticionarios expuso en un escrito que solicitó fuera guardado como

confidencial los argumentos por los cuales consideraba no caer dentro

de los supuestos descritos en el párrafo anterior. No obstante que el

Secretariado no esta en aptitud de exponer en el presente documento su

análisis de la información proporcionada por el representante legal por

el carácter confidencial de la misma, por no contar el Secretariado, al

momento de valoración del presente documento, evidencia alguna en

contrario, éste estima que el representante legal no se encuentra dentro

del supuesto artículo 14.1, sección d) del Acuerdo y del supuesto (a) del

punto 5.4 de las Directrices.

B. Con respecto del inciso (e) del artículo 14 (1) del ACAAN

Con relación al requisito de señalar que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la

respuesta de la Parte. Los Peticionarios han hecho referencia a una

denuncia popular presentada el 4 de diciembre de 2003. De la información proporcionada por los Peticionarios tal y como se hizo notar en la

determinación del 20 de abril de 20047 el Secretario hizo notar que aún y

cuando se satisface el requisito establecido por el artículo 14.1 sección e)

del ACAAN, los Peticionarios también han aportado, al menos hasta

SEM-04-001 355

6. Página 4 de la Determinación 14.1 de fecha 20 de abril de 2004.

7. Página 6 de la Determinación 14.1 de fecha 20 de abril de 2004.
cierto punto, documentos emitidos por PROFEPA dando seguimiento a

su denuncia popular. Ya que dicha denuncia popular fue presentada

relativamente de forma reciente y su trámite podría todavía ser existente, el Secretariado puede no contar con todos los oficios que la Parte

haya emitido con respecto a dicho procedimiento..

V. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME AL ARTÍCULO

14(2) DEL ACAAN

Una vez que el Secretariado ha determinado que las aserciones de

una petición satisfacen los requisitos del artículo 14(1), el Secretariado

analiza la petición para determinar si ésta amerita solicitar una respuesta

a la Parte. Conforme al artículo 14(2) del ACAAN, son cuatro los criterios

que guían la decisión del Secretariado en esta etapa:

(a) si la petición alega daño a la persona u organización que la presenta

(b) si la petición, por sí sola o conjuntamente con otras, plantea asuntos cuyo

ulterior estudio en este proceso contribuiría a la consecución de las metas de

este Acuerdo;

(c) si se ha acudido a los recursos al alcance de los particulares conforme a la

legislación de la Parte; y

(d) si la petición se basa exclusivamente en noticias de los medios de comunicación.

En cuanto a los cuatro requisitos listados en el artículo 14(2), el

Secretariado determinó:

A. Con respecto a si la Petición alega daño a la persona u organización

que la presenta, el Secretariado observa que base de los argumentos que los Peticionarios exponen es precisamente que las operaciones de Ecolimpio están causando un daño en su salud y sus

propiedades. Por lo anterior, el Secretariado estima dicho requisito

como satisfecho.

B. El Secretariado estima que la Petición efectivamente plantea asuntos cuyo ulterior estudio en este proceso contribuiría a la consecución de las metas de este Acuerdo ya que porqué se refiere a la

aplicación efectiva, en el sector del manejo de residuos peligrosos,

de la legislación en materia de manejo de residuos peligrosos, contribuyendo a mejorar la observancia y aplicación de las leyes y

356 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
reglamentos ambientales (artículo 1(g) del ACAAN); alentar la

protección y el mejoramiento del medio ambiente en territorio de

la Parte para el bienestar de las generaciones presentes y futuras

(artículo 1(a) del ACAAN); y promover políticas y prácticas para

prevenir la contaminación (artículo 1(j) del ACAAN).

C. Como se ha expuesto antes, los Peticionarios indican que presentaron una denuncia popular sobre las presuntas violaciones a la

legislación ambiental por parte de Ecolimpio. En particular, la petición afirma que se presentaron denuncias populares ante la Profepa el 4 de diciembre de 2003, hecha la aclaración en el último

párrafo de la sección IV anterior, el Secretariado estima que los

Peticionarios han acudido a los recursos disponibles conforme a la

legislación de la Parte (artículo 14(2)(c)).

D. Por lo que se refiere al artículo 14(2)(d), la petición no parece

basarse en noticias de los medios de comunicación, sino en el conocimiento directo de los hechos por ocurrir en terrenos propiedad

de los Peticionarios.

VI. SOLICITUD DE LOS PETICIONARIOS RESPECTO DEL

PROCEDIMIENTO DE CONSULTA Y SOLUCIÓN DE

CONTROVERSIAS CONTENIDO EN LOS ARTÍCULOS 22,

23 Y 24 DEL ACAAN

Esta versión aclaratoria de la Petición incluye la solicitud por parte

de los Peticionarios de que se tenga por denunciado “la existencia de una

pauta persistente de omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental”.8 Su solicitud especifica consiste en que por conducto del Secretariado se notifique a los Estados Unidos de América de la existencia de

una pauta persistente de omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental por parte de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, para que

manifieste a lo que su derecho corresponda y de considerarlo conveniente, efectué el procedimiento relacionado con los artículo 22, 23 y 24

del ACAAN.9

Al respecto el Secretariado informa a los Peticionarios que su solicitud no encuadra dentro de algún tipo en el procedimiento descrito en

los artículos a los que los Peticionarios hacen referencia ni dentro de las

funciones que tiene el Secretariado bajo el ACAAN.

SEM-04-001 357

8. Página 3 de la Versión Aclaratoria de la Petición.

9. Página 4 de la Versión Aclaratoria de la Petición.
VII. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

Después de analizar la petición, su versión revisada, su versión

aclaratoria y los anexos a estos tres documentos, el Secretariado determina que la petición cumple con los requisitos contenidos en el artículo

14(1) del ACAAN. Asimismo, tomando en consideración los criterios

establecidos en el artículo 14(2), el Secretariado determina que la petición amerita solicitar una respuesta de la Parte.

Por lo anterior, el Secretariado solicita una respuesta del gobierno

de México con respecto a la petición, dentro de un plazo de 30 días, conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 14(3) del Acuerdo. Dado que ya se ha

enviado a la Parte interesada una copia de la petición y de los anexos respectivos, no se acompañan a esta Determinación.

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Rolando Ibarra R.

Oficial Jurídico

Unidad sobre Peticiones Ciudadanas

ccp: Ing. José Manuel Bulás, SEMARNAT

Sra. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Sra. Judith E. Ayres, US-EPA

Sr. William Kennedy, Director Ejecutivo, CCA

Peticionarios

358 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
SEM-04-002

(Environmental Pollution in Hermosillo)

SUBMITTERS: ACADEMIA SONORENSE DE DERECHOS

HUMANOS, A.C., AND DOMINGO

GUTIÉRREZ MENDÍVIL

PARTY: MEXICO

DATE: 14 July 2004

SUMMARY: The Submitters assert that Mexico is failing to

effectively enforce various provisions of Mexican

environmental law regarding the prevention,

monitoring, oversight and control of air pollution

in Hermosillo, Sonora.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(30 August 2004)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have not been met.

359

Secretariado de la Comisión

para la Cooperación Ambiental

Determinación del Secretariado en conformidad con el artículo 14(1)

del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Número de petición: SEM-04-002 (Contaminación

Ambiental en Hermosillo)

Peticionaria(os): Academia Sonorense de Derechos

Humanos, A.C. y

Lic. Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil

(los “peticionarios”)

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de recepción: 14 de julio de 2004

Fecha de la determinación: 30 de agosto de 2004

I. ANTECEDENTES

El 14 de julio de 2004, los Peticionarios antes señalados presentaron

ante el Secretariado (el “Secretariado”) de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental (la “Comisión”) una petición ciudadana de conformidad con el artículo 14 del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de

América del Norte (el “ACAAN” o el “Acuerdo”). Los peticionarios aseveran que México ha incurrido en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de

su legislación ambiental en relación con el control de la contaminación

atmosférica en la ciudad de Hermosillo, Sonora;1 que las autoridades

señaladas como responsables han omitido aplicar de manera efectiva

prácticamente todas las disposiciones jurídicas en materia de prevención y control de la contaminación del aire en el Municipio de Hermosillo, Sonora.2 Afirman que resulta evidente el perjuicio que causa a todos

los habitantes de Hermosillo, Sonora, la circunstancia de que

361

1. Página 5 de la Petición.

2. Página 13 de la Petición.
prácticamente no se esté realizando acción alguna para la prevención y

control de la contaminación de la atmósfera.3

Según el ACAAN, el Secretariado puede examinar las peticiones

que cumplan con los requisitos establecidos en su artículo 14(1). El Secretariado ha determinado que esta petición no cumple con los requisitos

de dicho artículo y en este documento expone las razones de esta

determinación.

II. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

Los peticionarios fundan su Petición en la omisión por México en la

aplicación efectiva del artículo 4to. de la Constitución de los Estados

Unidos Mexicanos; de los artículos 5, fracciones II, V, XVIII y XIX, 7, fracciones III, XII y XIII, 8, fracciones III, XI, XII y XV, 10, y 112 fracciones II

y IV, de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al

Ambiente; de los artículos 3, fracción VII, 4, fracción III, 13, 16, y 41, del

Reglamento de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al

Ambiente en Materia de Prevención y Control de la Contaminación de la

Atmósfera; de los artículos 13, apartado A, fracción I, y apartado B, Fracción VI, Y 20 Fracción VII, de la Ley General de Salud; de los artículos 73,

75, 85, apartado B, fracción I, 138 y 139 de la Ley del Equilibrio Ecológico

y la Protección al Ambiente para el Estado de Sonora; de los Artículos 15,

Fracción VI, y 18, Fracción VI, de la Ley de Salud para el Estado de

Sonora; del artículo 9, fracción II, de la Ley de Protección Civil para el

Estado de Sonora; y de las Normas Oficiales Mexicanas (“NOM”) NOM020-SSA1-1993, NOM-021-SSA1-1993, NOM-022-SSA1-1993, NOM023-SSA1-1993, NOM-024-SSA1-1993, NOM-025-SSA1-1993,

NOM-026-SSA1-1993, NOM-048-SSA1-1993, NOM-040-SEMARNAT2002 (antes NOM-040-ECOL-2002; NOM-CCAT-002-ECOL/1993),

NOM-043-SEMARNAT-1993 (antes NOM-043-ECOL-1993; NOMCCAT-006-ECOL/1993), NOM 085-SEMARNAT-1994, NOM-121-

SEMARNAT-1997 (antes NOM-121-ECOL-1997), NOM-041-

SEMARNAT-1999 (antes NOM-041-ECOL-1999; NOM-CCAT-003-

ECOL/1993), NOM-042-SEMARNAT-1999 (antes NOM-042-ECOL1999; NOM-CCAT-004-ECOL/1993), NOM-044-SEMARNAT-1993

(antes NOM-044-ECOL-1993, NOM-CCAT-007-ECOL/1993), NOM045-SEMARNAT-1996 (antes NOM-045-ECOL-1996; NOM-CCAT-008-

ECOL/1993), NOM-048-SEMARNAT-1993 (antes NOM-048-ECOL1993; NOM-CCAT-012-ECOL/1993) Y NOM-050-SEMARNAT-1993

(antes NOM-050-ECOL-1993; NOM-CCAT-014-ECOL/1993).4

362 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

3. Ibid.

4. Página 1 y 2 de la Petición.
Los peticionarios señalan a las siguientes como autoridades

responsables por las omisiones aseveradas: La Secretaría de Medio

Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Semarnat); la Procuraduría Federal de

Protección al Ambiente (Profepa); la Secretaría de Salud del Gobierno

Federal (Salud); el Poder Ejecutivo del Gobierno del Estado de Sonora y

las Secretarías de Infraestructura Urbana y Ecología y de Salud; el Ayuntamiento de Hermosillo, Sonora (“Ayuntamiento”); Comisión Estatal de

Derechos Humanos de Sonora, Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos, Juzgado Segundo de Distrito en el Estado de Sonora y Tercer Tribunal Colegiado del Quinto Circuito.5

Los peticionarios enumeraron los argumentos por los que considera que la Parte Mexicana ha incurrido en omisiones en la aplicación

efectiva su legislación ambiental.

A. Consideran que PROFEPA y SALUD han omitido: vigilar el cumplimiento de las NOMs sobre control de la contaminación atmosférica en el Estado de Sonora y, en particular, en el municipio de

Hermosillo. Además, la segunda de aquéllas aseveran ha omitido

establecer y mantener actualizado un Sistema Nacional de Información de la Calidad del Aire que registre los datos relativos a la

ciudad de Hermosillo, aparte de que tampoco ha vigilado el cumplimiento de la NOM-048-SSA1-1993, ya que presuntamente jamás

ha realizado evaluación alguna sobre el impacto que está teniendo

en la población de Hermosillo el confinamiento de residuos peligrosos Cytrar.6

B. Exponen que el Poder Ejecutivo del Gobierno del Estado de Sonora y

las Secretarías de Infraestructura Urbana y Ecología, y de Salud del propio Gobierno del Estado han omitido: a) llevar a cabo las acciones de

prevención y el control de la contaminación del aire en bienes y

zonas de jurisdicción estatal; b) definir en el Plan Estatal de Desarrollo Urbano las zonas en que sea permitida la instalación de

industrias contaminantes; c) vigilar y hacer cumplir en la esfera de

su competencia las NOMS sobre control de la contaminación

atmosférica; d) expedir las normas técnicas ecológicas sobre la

materia; e) establecer y operar o, en su caso, autorizar el establecimiento y operación de centros de verificación, para los vehículos

automotores destinados al servicio publico de transporte concesionado por el Estado, con arreglo a las normas técnicas ecológicas

que no existen; f) expedir los reglamentos, las circulares y las

SEM-04-002 363

5. Página 4 y 5 de la Petición.

6. Página 6 de la Petición.
demás disposiciones de observancia general que resulten necesarias para proveer, en su esfera administrativa, a la exacta observancia de la Ley Ambiental del Estado, entre otros, el relativo a la

prevención y control de la contaminación de la atmósfera, también

ha dejado de actualizar el plan estatal de ecología; g) proponer los

planes para la verificación, seguimiento y control de los valores

establecidos en las NOMs NOM-020-SSA1-1993 a la NOM-026-

SSA1-1993.7

C. El Ayuntamiento de Hermosillo, Sonora ha omitido: a) llevar a cabo las

acciones de prevención y el control de la contaminación del aire en

bienes y zonas de jurisdicción municipal; b) definir en el Programa

Municipal de Desarrollo Urbano las zonas en que sea permitida la

instalación de industrias contaminantes; c) vigilar y hacer cumplir

en la esfera de su competencia las NOMs sobre control de la contaminación atmosférica; d) establecer programas de verificación

vehicular obligatoria, así como establecer y operar o, en su caso,

autorizar el establecimiento y operación de centros de verificación

vehicular obligatoria, con arreglo a las normas técnicas ecológicas

(que no existen); e) integrar la Comisión Municipal de Ecología

prevista en el artículo 138 de la Ley local de la materia; f) expedir

los reglamentos, las circulares y las demás disposiciones de observancia general que resulten necesarias para proveer, en su esfera

administrativa, a la exacta observancia de la Ley Ambiental del

Estado, entre otros, el reglamento sobre prevención y control de la

contaminación de la atmósfera; el reglamento municipal de ecología, el programa municipal de protección al ambiente, programa

de respuesta contingencias ambientales y un programa de administración de la calidad del aire; g) reducir o controlar las emisiones

de contaminantes a la atmósfera, sean de fuentes artificiales o naturales, fijas o móviles para asegurar una calidad del aire satisfactoria

para el bienestar de la población y el equilibrio ecológico.8

D. Los peticionarios argumentan que como consecuencia de que presuntamente no se está realizando el monitoreo de la calidad del

aire de Hermosillo, la Secretaría de Salud del Gobierno del Estado de

Sonora se ha abstenido de formular estudios epidemiológicos en

los que se determine cuál es la gravedad del efecto negativo que

está teniendo la contaminación atmosférica en la salud de los

pobladores de la mencionada ciudad.9

364 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

7. Página 6 de la Petición.

8. Página 7 de la Petición.

9. Página 9 de la Petición.
E. Los peticionarios aseveran que el monitoreo de la calidad del aire

en Hermosillo es una actividad obligatoria para el Ayuntamiento de

dicho municipio, según lo ordenado por el artículo 8o., fracciones

III y XII de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al

Ambiente.

F. En el mismo sentido, las NOM-CCAM-001-ECOL/1993 a la NOMCCAM-005-ECOL/1993 (denominación original), así como las

NOM-CCAT-001-ECOL/1993 a la NOM-CCAT-014-ECOL/1993

(denominación original), responsabilizan de su cumplimiento a la

PROFEPA, al Gobierno del Estado y al Ayuntamiento, mismas instancias que los Peticionarios aseveran nada han hecho para acatar las

referidas disposiciones.10

G. Aseveran que la Comisión Estatal de Derechos Humanos de Sonora, la

Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos, el Juzgado Segundo de Distrito en el Estado de Sonora y el Tercer Tribunal Colegiado del Quinto

Circuito han omitido aplicar en forma correcta las disposiciones

jurídicas ambientales en sus resoluciones. Los Peticionarios dan

una descripción incluida en la petición de los procesos seguidos

ante dichas instancias.11

H. Los peticionarios aseveran que no existe un Plan Estatal de Medio

Ambiente actualizado, que el Ayuntamiento de Hermosillo no ha

expedido un Reglamento de Ecología, ni se dispone de un Programa de Administración de la Calidad del Aire, ni de un Programa de Respuesta a Contingencias Ambientales.12

I. Los peticionarios también incluyen en la petición que: “El artículo

13 del ACAAN faculta al Secretariado para preparar un informe

de evaluación del caso CONTAMINACIÓN ATMOSFÉRICA EN

HERMOSILLO, como un asunto relacionado con las funciones de

cooperación del Acuerdo.13”

SEM-04-002 365

10. Ibid.

11. Véanse páginas 10, 11 y 12 de la Petición.

12. Páginas 7 y 8 de la Petición.

13. Página 13 de la Petición.
III. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME AL ARTÍCULO

14(1) DEL ACAAN

El artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo establece que:

El Secretariado podrá examinar peticiones de cualquier persona u organización

sin vinculación gubernamental que asevere que una Parte está incurriendo en

omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental, si el Secretariado

juzga que la petición:

a. se presenta por escrito en un idioma designado por esa Parte en una notificación al Secretariado;

b. identifica claramente a la persona u organización que presenta la petición;

c. proporciona información suficiente que permita al Secretariado revisarla, e

incluyendo las pruebas documentales que puedan sustentarla;

d. parece encaminada a promover la aplicación de la ley y no a hostigar una

industria;

e. señala que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a las autoridades pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la respuesta de la Parte; y

f. la presenta una persona u organización que reside o está establecida en territorio de una Parte.

En esta etapa se requiere entonces, de cierta revisión inicial para

verificar que la petición cumple con estos requisitos, si bien el artículo

14(1) no pretende colocar una gran carga para los peticionarios.14 El

Secretariado examinó la petición en cuestión con tal perspectiva en

mente.

Para que el Secretariado pueda examinar si la petición cumple con

los criterios establecidos en los incisos a) al f) del artículo 14(1) del

Acuerdo, la petición debe satisfacer el requisito umbral del artículo 14(1)

consistente en ser presentada por cualquier persona u organización sin

vinculación gubernamental y que asevere que una Parte está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental. Esto lo hace, en el sentido de que la presentan una organización sin

vinculación gubernamental y una persona física las cuales aseveran que

366 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

14. Véanse en este sentido, e.g., SEM-97-005 (Biodiversidad), Determinación conforme

al artículo 14(1) (26 de mayo de 1998) y SEM-98-003 (Grandes Lagos), Determinación conforme al artículo 14(1) y (2) (8 de septiembre de 1999).
una Parte, México, está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental.15

En cuanto a los seis requisitos listados en el artículo 14(1), el Secretariado determinó:

A. Con respecto del inciso (a) del artículo 14(1), que la Petición cumple con el requisito de ser presenta por escrito en un idioma designado por esa Parte en una notificación al Secretariado ya que la

petición se presentó por escrito en español, idioma designado por

el gobierno de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

B. Con respecto del inciso (b) del artículo 14 (1), que la Petición satisface el requisito de identificar claramente a la persona u organización que presenta la petición, ya que los peticionarios se

identificaron como Academia Sonorense de Derechos Humanos,

A.C. y el Lic. Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil.

C. Con respecto del inciso (c) del artículo 14 (1), que la Petición no

cumple el requisito de haber proporcionado información suficiente que permita revisarla ni de haber incluido las pruebas documentales que la sustenten. Para mayor referencia, véase la sección

IV siguiente.

D. Con respecto del inciso (d) del artículo 14 (1), el Secretariado considera que la petición no parece estar encaminada a hostigar a una

industria, sino a promover la aplicación de la legislación ambiental

SEM-04-002 367

15. El Secretariado nota como en el texto de la Petición al momento de señalar a cada

una de las autoridades que se señalan como responsables de la omisión en la aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental mexicana los peticionarios utilizan el vocablo “han omitido”. En casos anteriores se ha señalado como la expresión “está

incurriendo” en el artículo 14(1) impone una consideración temporal respecto de

las aseveraciones de una petición y el Secretariado ya ha considerado que se satisface si la Parte correspondiente puede tomar medidas de aplicación de su legislación ambiental respecto de los asuntos materia de la petición y está omitiendo

hacerlo, si bien los hechos a los que sea aplicable dicha legislación ambiental pueden ser hechos pasados. Por esto, si bien los peticionarios plantean sus aseveraciones en términos de que México “ha omitido” en cumplir con las disposiciones a las

que hace referencia en la Petición, si esas supuestas acciones que la Parte ha omitido

corresponden a posibles acciones de aplicación que la autoridad competente

pudiera llevar a cabo, entonces se consideran omisiones en que la Parte supuestamente “está incurriendo”. (Veasé SEM-01-001 (Cytrar II) Determinación del Secretariado en conformidad con los artículos 14(1) y (2) (24 de abril de 2001) y también

en este sentido, SEM-97-004 (Canadian Env. Defence Fund), Determinación conforme al artículo 14(1) (27 de agosto de 1997) y SEM-96-001 (Cozumel), Recomendación conforme al artículo 15(1) (7 de junio de 1997).
en México. Esto en virtud de que la petición está esencialmente

referida a omisiones de diversas autoridades en México y no al

cumplimiento de una empresa en particular. La petición tampoco

plantea una cuestión intrascendente.16

E. Con respecto del inciso (e) del artículo 14 (1), dada la falta de información suficientes que permitan revisar la Petición conforme al

requisito del inciso (c) del artículo 14 (1), al Secretariado no le es

posible en este momento determinar si la Petición cumple con el

requisito de señalar que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a

las autoridades pertinentes de la Parte y, si la hay, la respuesta de la

Parte. Para mayor referencia, véase la sección IV siguiente.

F. Con respecto del inciso (f) del artículo 14 (1), que la Petición cumple

el requisito de ser presentada por una persona u organización que

reside o está establecida en territorio de una Parte ya que acreditan

tener residencia en la ciudad de Hermosillo, Sonora, México, es

decir personas que residen en el territorio de la Parte mexicana.

IV. ASPECTOS DE FONDO EN EL ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN

A. ASPECTOS DE LEGISLACIÓN AMBIENTAL Y

AUTORIDADES PERTINENTES.

El Secretariado estima necesario realizar las siguientes precisiones

en cuanto al alcance de la Petición con respecto a (i) ciertas disposiciones

ambientales que los peticionarios señalan como aplicables al caso objeto

de la petición y (ii) las autoridades que los peticionarios señalaron como

responsables de la omisión en la aplicación efectiva de la legislación

ambiental.

A.1. DISPOSICIONES DE LEGISLACIÓN AMBIENTAL

OBJETO DE LA PETICIÓN.

En casos anteriores, para determinar si una petición se refería a una

omisión en la aplicación efectiva de la ley, el Secretariado examinaba si

368 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

16. Véase también el apartado 5.4 de las Directrices, que señala que el Secretariado, al

determinar si la petición está encaminada a promover la aplicación efectiva de la

legislación ambiental y no a hostigar a una industria, tomará en cuenta: (i) “si la

petición se centra en los actos u omisiones de la Parte y no en el cumplimiento de

una compañía o negocio en particular; especialmente cuando el Peticionario es un

competidor que podría beneficiarse económicamente con la petición”; y (ii) “si la

petición parece intrascendente”.
los peticionarios aseveraban una omisión en el cumplimiento de una

obligación legal específica.17 La sección II de esta determinación ha

hecho referencia a las disposiciones legislativas identificadas por los

Peticionarios y el Anexo I a esta determinación ha hecho un listado de

dichas disposiciones legislativas de una forma más detallada.

El Secretariado nota sin embargo que la petición no contiene una

relación sucinta de los hechos o bien brinda información suficiente que

explique la aseveración por la que los peticionarios consideran que las

autoridades no han aplicado de forma efectiva cada una de las NOMs y

de las demás disposiciones que se listan.18

A.2. AUTORIDADES PERTINENTES PARA LA

APLICACIÓN DE LEYES AMBIENTALES.

Las autoridades que los peticionarios han señalado como responsables de la falta de aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental son:

Semarnat; Profepa; Salud; el Poder Ejecutivo del Gobierno del Estado de

Sonora y las Secretarías de Infraestructura Urbana y Ecología y de Salud;

el Ayuntamiento de Hermosillo; y la Comisión Estatal de Derechos

Humanos de Sonora, la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos, el

Juzgado Segundo de Distrito en el Estado de Sonora y el Tercer Tribunal

Colegiado del Quinto Circuito.19

El Secretariado estima que para efectos de esta Petición la Comisión Estatal de Derechos Humanos de Sonora y la Comisión Nacional de

Derechos Humanos no pueden ser objeto del presente proceso ya que no

son parte de los organismos de gobierno encargados, de acuerdo con la

legislación de la Parte, de la aplicación de la ley ambiental en cuestión.20

Además, el Secretariado opina que el proceso relativo a los artículos 14 y

15 del ACAAN no se enfoca a una revisión de las acciones como se presentan en la petición, del Juzgado Segundo de Distrito en el Estado de

Sonora o el Tercer Tribunal Colegiado del Quinto Circuito.

SEM-04-002 369

17. Véase SEM-98-003 (Grandes Lagos), Determinación conforme a los artículos 14(1) y

(2) (8 de septiembre de 1999) en la página 7.

18. Lo anterior tal y como lo recomienda la directriz 5.3 de las Directrices para la presentación de peticiones relativas a la aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental

conforme a los artículos 14 y 15 del ACAAN (las “Directrices”):

“5.3 La Petición deberá contener una relación sucinta de los hechos en que se funde

dicha aseveración y deberá proporcionar información suficiente que permita al

Secretariado examinarla, incluidas las pruebas documentales que puedan sustenta

la Petición.”

19. Página 4 y 5 de la Petición.

20. Apartado 5.5 de las Directrices: “... Las autoridades pertinentes son los organismos

del gobierno encargados, de acuerdo con la legislación de la Parte, de la aplicación

de la ley ambiental en cuestión.”
B. CON RESPECTO AL REQUISITO EN EL INCISO (C) Y (E)

DEL ARTÍCULO 14 (1) DEL ACAAN.

En cuanto a los requisitos establecidos en los incisos (c) y (e) del

Artículo 14 (1) del ACAAN, el Secretariado determinó que la información y documentos proporcionados por los Peticionarios no son

suficientes para permitir al Secretariado analizar algunas de las aseveraciones hechas en la petición.

En el Anexo II a esta determinación se hace referencia a los documentos que se acompañaron a la petición misma. Brevemente, entre los

anexos se encuentran copias de: un oficio emitido por Semarnat; un

escrito de los Peticionarios dirigido al Ayuntamiento, Copia de un acta de

sesión del cabildo del Ayuntamiento, comunicaciones y documentos

parte del expediente de los procesos llevados ante las comisiones de

derechos humanos y los juzgados y tribunales a los que hicieron referencia los Peticionarios, copia de un reporte “Concentración de partículas

en Aire Ambiente para la ciudad de Hermosillo, Sonora, México”, copia

de la escritura pública donde consta la constitución de la Asociación

Civil “Academia Sonorense de Derechos Humanos, A.C. y copia de

credencial para votar del Sr. Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil. Además, se

adjuntan fotografías y notas de prensa.

No obstante, el Secretariado estima que la petición no proporciona

información suficiente para acreditar que el asunto haya sido efectivamente comunicado por escrito a las autoridades pertinentes en México

tal y como lo señala el inciso (e) del artículo 14 (1) . Lo anterior dado que:

(i) Con respecto a SEMARNAT, los Peticionarios ofrecen un oficio que

fue emitido por esta autoridad hace 5 años. Para determinar que el

asunto materia de esta petición fue debidamente comunicado a esta

autoridad, el Secretariado considera necesario contar con la copia del

escrito que los Peticionarios presumiblemente hayan presentado a

dicha autoridad y que pudo haber motivado tal oficio expedido por

SEMARNAT.

(ii) Con respecto al Ayuntamiento, los peticionarios ofrecen prueba de la

comunicación que al Ayuntamiento presentaron, lo anterior a pesar

de haber sido esta de hace más de 5 años.

(iii) Con respecto a la respuesta del Ayuntamiento a la comunicación referida en el inciso anterior, los peticionarios ofrecen copia del Acta de

Sesión del Cabildo del Ayuntamiento de fecha 25 de febrero de 1999 y

que también adjuntaron los Peticionarios. El Secretariado nota que

entre otras cosas la información que fue solicitada por los Peticiona370 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
rios fue autorizada a ser proveída según consta en el acta instruyendo

para tal efecto el Ayuntamiento a su Dirección General de Servicios

Públicos Municipales (siendo la expedición de las copias de esa información a costa de los Peticionarios).

(iv) Al margen de estos escritos a los que se ha hecho referencia en los sub

incisos anteriores (emitidos por SEMARNAT, los Peticionarios hacia

el Ayuntamiento, y el Ayuntamiento mismo) no se encontró información alguna de que el asunto haya sido comunicado al resto de las

autoridades a las que los Peticionarios hicieron referencia en la Petición.21

No habiendo mostrado las comunicaciones hacia estas otras autoridades y dada la observación que el Secretariado hizo, basado en el

punto 5.3 de las Directrices, al no contener la Petición una relación

sucinta de los hechos o bien brindar información suficiente que pueda

explicar la aseveración por la que los peticionarios consideran que las

autoridades no han aplicado de forma efectiva cada una de las NOMs

y de las demás disposiciones que se listan, hace necesario que también

los Peticionarios expliquen la razón por la que estas autoridades han

omitido aplicar de forma efectiva la legislación ambiental a la que los

peticionarios hicieron referencia.

Por las razones que antes se señalan en cuanto a que la información

que proporciona la Petición no hace posible determinar si el asunto

materia de la Petición ha sido efectivamente comunicado a las autoridades que los Peticionarios señalaron con excepción del Ayuntamiento,

son los elementos por los que se considera como no satisfechos los incisos (c) y (e) del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN. Lo anterior, además de la precisión que hace el Secretariado con base a las Directrices en cuanto a que

la Petición no contiene una relación sucinta de los hechos o bien brinda

información suficiente que pueda explicar la aseveración por la que los

peticionarios consideran que las autoridades no han aplicado de forma

efectiva cada una de las NOMs y de las demás disposiciones que se listan.22

V. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

Habiendo revisado esta petición de conformidad con el artículo

14(1) del ACAAN, con base en el análisis expuesto en el capítulo III y IV

SEM-04-002 371

21. Con respecto a la Comisión Estatal de Derechos Humanos de Sonora, la Comisión

Nacional de Derechos Humanos, el Juzgado Segundo de Distrito en el Estado de

Sonora y el Tercer Tribunal Colegiado del Quinto Circuito, véase sección A.2 de la

presente determinación.

22. Con base en la directriz 5.3 de las Directrices antes citada.
anterior, el Secretariado considera que ésta no cumple con los requisitos

en los incisos (c) y (e) del artículo 14 (1) del ACAAN. En especifico al no

haber proporcionado información que compruebe que el asunto materia

de la petición haya sido comunicado a las autoridades que los peticionarios señalaron como responsables de las omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental en México. Además, el Secretariado hace

la precisión de que la petición no considera el punto 5.3 de las Directrices

al no brinda la información suficiente para determinar la forma especifica en que ha sido omitida la aplicación efectiva de las disposiciones

citadas por los peticionarios.

Por lo anterior, y en cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por el apartado

6.1 de las Directrices, este Secretariado notifica a los Peticionarios la no

procedencia de su petición y al mismo tiempo los apercibe de que, de

conformidad con el apartado 6.2 de las Directrices, cuentan con 30 días

para presentar una petición que cumpla con los criterios del artículo

14(1) del ACAAN y las observaciones hechas con base en las Directrices.23

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Rolando Ibarra R.

Oficial Jurídico

Unidad sobre Peticiones Ciudadanas

ccp: Mtro. José Manuel Bulás, SEMARNAT

Sra. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Sra. Judith E. Ayres, US-EPA

Sr. William Kennedy, Director Ejecutivo CCA

Lic. Domingo Gutiérrez M., Academia Sonorense de

Derechos Humanos, A.C.

372 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

23. “6.1 Cuando el Secretariado determine que una petición no cumple con los criterios

establecidos en el artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo, así como con cualquier otro requisito

establecido en estas directrices –a excepción de los errores menores de forma contemplados en el apartado 3.10 de estas directrices–, notificará a la brevedad al Peticionario las razones por las cuales ha determinado no examinar la petición.

6.2 Luego de la recepción de tal notificación del Secretariado, el Peticionario tendrá

30 días para presentar al Secretariado una petición que cumpla con los criterios

establecidos en el artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo y con los requisitos establecidos en

estas directrices.”
ANEXO I

LISTA DE LEGISLACIÓN AMBIENTAL A LA QUE SE HACE

REFERENCIA EN LA PETICIÓN

DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

ARTÍCULO 4o.- El varón y la mujer son iguales ante la ley. Esta protegerá la organización y el desarrollo de la familia.

Toda persona tiene derecho a decidir de manera libre, responsable

e informada sobre el número y el espaciamiento de sus hijos.

Toda persona tiene derecho a la protección de la salud. La Ley definirá las bases y modalidades para el acceso a los servicios de salud y establecerá la concurrencia de la Federación y las entidades federativas en

materia de salubridad general, conforme a lo que dispone la fracción

XVI del artículo 73 de esta Constitución.

Toda persona tiene derecho a un medio ambiente adecuado para

su desarrollo y bienestar.

Toda familia tiene derecho a disfrutar de vivienda digna y decorosa. La Ley establecerá los instrumentos y apoyos necesarios a fin de

alcanzar tal objetivo.

Los niños y las niñas tienen derecho a la satisfacción de sus necesidades de alimentación, salud, educación y sano esparcimiento para su

desarrollo integral.

Los ascendientes, tutores y custodios tienen el deber de preservar

estos derechos. El Estado proveerá lo necesario para propiciar el respeto

a la dignidad de la niñez y el ejercicio pleno de sus derechos.

El Estado otorgará facilidades a los particulares para que se coadyuven al cumplimiento de los derechos de la niñez.

DE LA LEY GENERAL DEL EQUILIBRIO ECOLÓGICO Y LA

PROTECCIÓN AL AMBIENTE

ARTICULO 5o.- Son facultades de la Federación:

...

SEM-04-002 373
II. La aplicación de los instrumentos de la política ambiental previstos en esta Ley, en los términos en ella establecidos, así como la regulación de las acciones para la preservación y restauración del equilibrio

ecológico y la protección al ambiente que se realicen en bienes y zonas de

jurisdicción federal;

...

V. La expedición de las normas oficiales mexicanas y la vigilancia

de su cumplimiento en las materias previstas en esta Ley;

...

XVIII. La emisión de recomendaciones a autoridades Federales,

Estatales y Municipales, con el propósito de promover el cumplimiento

de la legislación ambiental;

XIX. La vigilancia y promoción, en el ámbito de su competencia,

del cumplimiento de esta Ley y los demás ordenamientos que de ella se

deriven;...

ARTICULO 7o.- Corresponden a los Estados, de conformidad con lo

dispuesto en esta Ley y las leyes locales en la materia, las siguientes

facultades:

...

III. La prevención y control de la contaminación atmosférica generada por fuentes fijas que funcionen como establecimientos industriales,

así como por fuentes móviles, que conforme a lo establecido en esta Ley

no sean de competencia Federal;

...

XII. La participación en emergencias y contingencias ambientales,

conforme a las políticas y programas de protección civil que al efecto se

establezcan;

XIII. La vigilancia del cumplimiento de las normas oficiales mexicanas expedidas por la Federación, en las materias y supuestos a que se

refieren las fracciones III, VI y VII de este artículo;...

374 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
ARTICULO 8o.- Corresponden a los Municipios, de conformidad con lo

dispuesto en esta Ley y las leyes locales en la materia, las siguientes

facultades:

...

III. La aplicación de las disposiciones jurídicas en materia de prevención y control de la contaminación atmosférica generada por fuentes

fijas que funcionen como establecimientos mercantiles o de servicios, así

como de emisiones de contaminantes a la atmósfera provenientes de

fuentes móviles que no sean consideradas de jurisdicción federal, con la

participación que de acuerdo con la legislación estatal corresponda al

gobierno del estado;

...

XI. La participación en emergencias y contingencias ambientales

conforme a las políticas y programas de protección civil que al efecto se

establezcan;

XII. La vigilancia del cumplimiento de las normas oficiales mexicanas expedidas por la Federación, en las materias y supuestos a que se

refieren las fracciones III, IV, VI y VII de este artículo;

...

XV. La formulación, ejecución y evaluación del programa municipal de protección al ambiente,...

ARTÍCULO 10.- Los Congresos de los Estados, con arreglo a sus respectivas Constituciones y la Asamblea Legislativa del Distrito Federal,

expedirán las disposiciones legales que sean necesarias para regular las

materias de su competencia previstas en esta Ley. Los ayuntamientos,

por su parte, dictarán los bandos de policía y buen gobierno, los reglamentos, circulares y disposiciones administrativas que correspondan,

para que en sus respectivas circunscripciones, se cumplan las previsiones del presente ordenamiento.

En el ejercicio de sus atribuciones, los Estados, el Distrito Federal y

los Municipios, observarán las disposiciones de esta Ley y las que de ella

se deriven.

ARTICULO 112.- En materia de prevención y control de la contaminación atmosférica, los gobiernos de los Estados, del Distrito Federal y de

SEM-04-002 375
los Municipios, de conformidad con la distribución de atribuciones establecida en los artículos 7o., 8o. y 9o. de esta Ley, así como con la legislación local en la materia:

...

II. Aplicarán los criterios generales para la protección a la atmósfera en los planes de desarrollo urbano de su competencia, definiendo

las zonas en que sea permitida la instalación de industrias contaminantes;

...

IV. Integrarán y mantendrán actualizado el inventario de fuentes

de contaminación;...

DEL REGLAMENTO DE LA LEY GENERAL DEL EQUILIBRIO

ECOLÓGICO Y LA PROTECCIÓN AL AMBIENTE EN MATERIA

DE PREVENCIÓN Y CONTROL DE LA CONTAMINACIÓN DE

LA ATMÓSFERA

ARTICULO 3o.- Son asuntos de competencia federal, por tener alcance

general en la nación o ser de interés de la Federación, en materia de prevención y control de la contaminación de la atmósfera, los que señala el

artículo 5o. de la Ley y en especial los siguientes:

...

VII. La protección de la atmósfera en zonas o en casos de fuentes

emisoras de jurisdicción federal.

ARTICULO 4o.- Compete a las entidades federativas y municipios, en el

ámbito de sus circunscripciones territoriales y conforme a la distribución de atribuciones que se establezcan en las leyes locales, los asuntos

señalados en el artículo 6o. de la Ley y en especial:

...

III. La prevención y el control de la contaminación de la atmósfera

generada en zonas o por fuentes emisoras de jurisdicción estatal o

municipal;...

376 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
ARTICULO 13.- Para la protección a la atmósfera se considerarán los

siguientes criterios:

I. La calidad del aire debe ser satisfactoria en todos los asentamientos humanos y las regiones del país, y

II. Las emisiones de contaminantes a la atmósfera, sean de fuentes

artificiales o naturales, fijas o móviles, deben ser reducidas o controladas, para asegurar una calidad del aire satisfactoria para el bienestar de

la población y el equilibrio ecológico.

ARTICULO 16.- Las emisiones de olores, gases, así como de partículas

sólidas y líquidas a la atmósfera que se generen por fuentes fijas, no

deberán exceder los niveles máximos permisibles de emisión e inmisión,

por contaminantes y por fuentes de contaminación que se establezcan en

las normas técnicas ecológicas que para tal efecto expida la Secretaría en

coordinación con la Secretaría de Salud, con base en la determinación de

los valores de concentración máxima permisible para el ser humano de

contaminantes en el ambiente que esta última determina.

Asimismo, y tomando en cuenta la diversidad de tecnologías que

presentan las fuentes, podrán establecerse en la norma técnica ecológica

diferentes valores al determinar los niveles máximos permisibles de

emisión o inmisión, para un mismo contaminante o para una misma

fuente, según se trate de:

I. Fuentes existentes;

II. Nuevas fuentes, y

III. Fuentes localizadas en zonas críticas.

La Secretaría en coordinación con la Secretaría de Salud, y previos

los estudios correspondientes, determinará en la norma técnica ecológica respectiva, las zonas que deben considerarse críticas.

ARTICULO 41.- La Secretaría establecerá y mantendrá actualizado un

sistema nacional de información de la calidad del aire.

Este sistema se integrará con los datos que resulten de:

I. El monitoreo atmosférico que lleven a cabo las autoridades competentes en el Distrito Federal, así como en los Estados y municipios, y

II. Los inventarios de las fuentes de comunicación de jurisdicción,

federal y local, así como de sus emisiones.

SEM-04-002 377
DE LA LEY GENERAL DE SALUD

ARTÍCULO 13.- La competencia entre la Federación y las entidades

federativas en materia de salubridad general quedará distribuida conforme a lo siguiente:

A. Corresponde al Ejecutivo Federal, por conducto de la Secretaría

de Salud:

I. Dictar las normas oficiales mexicanas a que quedará sujeta la

prestación, en todo el territorio nacional, de servicios de salud en las

materias de salubridad general y verificar su cumplimiento;

...

B. Corresponde a los gobiernos de las entidades federativas, en

materia de salubridad general, como autoridades locales y dentro de sus

respectivas jurisdicciones territoriales:

...

VI. Vigilar, en la esfera de su competencia, el cumplimiento de esta

Ley y demás disposiciones aplicables,

...

ARTÍCULO 20

Las estructuras administrativas a que se refiere el segundo párrafo

del Artículo 19 de esta Ley, se ajustarán a las siguientes bases;

...

VII. Promoverán y vigilarán la aplicación de principios, normas

oficiales mexicanas y procedimientos uniformes;...

DE LA LEY DEL EQUILIBRIO ECOLÓGICO Y LA PROTECCIÓN AL

AMBIENTE PARA EL ESTADO DE SONORA

ARTICULO 73.- En materia de contaminación atmosférica, el Estado y

los Ayuntamientos, en los ámbitos de sus respectivas competencias:

I. Llevarán a cabo las acciones de prevención y el control de la contaminación del aire en bienes y zonas de jurisdicción estatal o municipal;

378 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
II. Aplicarán los criterios generales para la protección a la atmósfera, en las declaratorias de usos, destinos, reservas y provisiones, definiendo las zonas en que sea permitida la instalación de industrias

contaminantes;

III. Convendrán con quienes realicen actividades contaminantes y,

en su caso, les requerirán la instalación de equipos de control de emisiones cuando se trate de actividades de jurisdicción local, y promoverán

ante la Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología dicha instalación, en

los casos de jurisdicción federal;

IV. Integrarán y mantendrán actualizado el inventario de fuentes

fijas de contaminación y evaluarán el impacto ambiental en los casos de

jurisdicción local previstos en el artículo 31 de la Ley General;

V. Establecerán y operarán sistemas de verificación de emisiones

de vehículos automotores en circulación;

VI. Establecerán y operarán, con el apoyo técnico, en caso, de la

Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología, sistemas de monitoreo de la

calidad del aire. Dichos sistemas deberán contar con dictamen técnico

previo de dicha Secretaría. Esta promoverá, mediante acuerdos de coordinación, la incorporación de los reportes locales de monitoreo a la información nacional;

VII. Establecerán requisitos y procedimientos para regular las emisiones de contaminantes de vehículos automotores, excepto los destinados al transporte público federal, y las medidas de tránsito y, en su caso,

la suspensión de circulación, en casos graves de contaminación;

VIII. Tomarán las medidas preventivas necesarias para evitar contingencias ambientales por contaminación atmosférica;

IX. Elaborarán los informes sobre el estado del medio ambiente en

la Entidad o Municipio correspondiente, que convengan con la Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología, a través de los acuerdos de coordinación que se celebren; y

X. Ejercerán las demás facultades que les confieren las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias aplicables.

...

SEM-04-002 379
ARTICULO 75.- No podrán emitirse contaminantes a la atmósfera, que

ocasionen o puedan ocasionar desequilibrios ecológicos o daños al

ambiente. En todas las emisiones a la atmósfera deberán ser observadas

las previsiones de esta Ley y de las disposiciones reglamentarias que de

ella emanen, así como las normas técnicas ecológicas expedidas por la

Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología.

...

ARTICULO 85.- En relación con las emisiones de contaminantes de

vehículos automotores, excepto los destinados al transporte público

federal, corresponderá:

...

B) A los Ayuntamientos, dentro de sus circunscripciones territoriales:

I. Establecer programas de verificación vehicular obligatoria;

...

ARTICULO 138.- En cada Municipio, se integrará una Comisión Municipal de Ecología, la que será presidida por el Presidente Municipal y

como Secretario Técnico fungirá la persona que éste designe. Dicha

Comisión tendrá, en el ámbito de su competencia, las atribuciones señaladas en el artículo 135 de esta Ley y sesionará en los términos del Reglamento respectivo.

ARTÍCULO 139.- El Gobernador del Estado y los Ayuntamientos expedirán los reglamentos, las circulares y las demás disposiciones de observancia general que resulten necesarias para proveer, en su esfera

administrativa, a la exacta observancia de este ordenamiento.

DE LA LEY DE SALUD PARA EL ESTADO DE SONORA

ARTICULO 15.- En materia de salubridad general, corresponde al

Poder Ejecutivo del Estado, por conducto de la Secretaría:

...

VI.- Vigilar y hacer cumplir en la esfera de su competencia, la

Ley General de Salud, la presente ley y demás disposiciones legales

aplicables;

380 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
...

ARTICULO 18. – Compete a los Ayuntamientos:

...

VI.- Las demás que sean necesarias para hacer efectivas las atribuciones anteriores y las que se deriven de la ley.

DE LA LEY DE PROTECCIÓN CIVIL PARA EL ESTADO DE SONORA

ARTICULO 9o.- El Consejo tendrá las siguientes atribuciones:

...

II.- Aprobar el Programa Estatal de Protección Civil y los programas especiales que de él se deriven, evaluando su aplicación y cumplimiento por lo menos una vez en el año, promoviendo la participación de

la sociedad, en general en la elaboración de tales programas;...

LISTADO DE NORMAS OFICIALES MEXICANAS A LAS QUE

SE HACE REFERENCIA EN LA PETICIÓN

NOM-020-SSA1-1993

Salud ambiental. Criterio para evaluar el valor límite permisible para la

concentración de ozono (O3)de la calidad del aire ambiente. Criterio

para evaluar la calidad del aire

NOM-021-SSA1-1993

Salud Ambiental. Criterio para evaluar la calidad del aire ambiente con

respecto al monóxido de carbono (CO). Valor permisible para la concentración de monóxido de carbono (CO) en el aire ambiente como medida

de protección a la salud de la población

NOM-022-SSA1-1993

Salud Ambiental. Criterio para evaluar la calidad del aire ambiente con

respecto al bióxido de azufre (SO2). Valor normado para la concentración de bióxido de azufre (SO2) en el aire ambiente como medida de protección a la salud de la población

NOM-023-SSA1-1993

Salud Ambiental. Criterios para evaluar la calidad del aire ambiente con

SEM-04-002 381
respecto al bióxido de nitrógeno (NO2). Valor normado para la concentración de bióxido de nitrógeno (NO2) en el aire ambiente como medida

de protección a la salud de la población

NOM-024-SSA1-1993

Salud Ambiental. Criterio para evaluar la calidad del aire ambiente con

respecto a partículas suspendidas totales (PST). Valor permisible para

la concentración de partículas suspendidas totales (PST) en el aire

ambiente como medida de protección a la salud de la población

NOM-025-SSA1-1993

Salud Ambiental. Criterio para evaluar la calidad del aire ambiente con

respecto a partículas menores de 10 micras (PM 10). Valor permisible

para la concentración de partículas menores de 10 micras (PM10) en el

aire ambiente como medida de protección a la salud de la población

NOM-026-SSA1-1993

Salud Ambiental. Criterios para evaluar la calidad del aire ambiente con

respecto al plomo (Pb). Valor normado para la concentración de plomo

(Pb) en el aire ambiente como medida de protección a la salud de la

población

NOM-048-SSA1-1993

Que establece el método normalizado para la evaluación de riesgos a la

salud como consecuencia de agentes ambientales

NOM-040-SEMARNAT-2002

Que establece los niveles máximos permisibles de emisión a la atmósfera

de partículas sólidas, así como los requisitos de control de emisiones

fugitivas, provenientes de las fuentes fijas dedicadas a la fabricación de

cemento.

NOM-043-SEMARNAT-1993

Que establece los niveles máximos permisibles de emisión a la atmósfera

de partículas sólidas provenientes de fuentes fijas.

NOM 085-SEMARNAT-1994

Contaminación atmosférica-fuentes fijas-para fuentes fijas que utilizan

combustibles fósiles sólidos, líquidos o gaseosos o cualquiera de sus

combinaciones

NOM-121-SEMARNAT-1997

Que establece los límites máximos permisibles de emisión a la atmósfera

de compuestos orgánicos volátiles (COVs) provenientes de las operacio382 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
nes de recubrimiento de carrocerías nuevas en planta de automóviles,

unidades de uso múltiple, de pasajeros y utilitarios; carga y camiones

ligeros, así como el método para calcular sus emisiones.

NOM-041-SEMARNAT-1999

Que establece los límites máximos permisibles de emisión de gases contaminantes provenientes del escape de los vehículos automotores en circulación que usan gasolina como combustible.

NOM-042-SEMARNAT-1999

Que establece los límites máximos permisibles de emisión de hidrocarburos no quemados, monóxido de carbono, óxidos de nitrógeno y partículas suspendidas provenientes del escape de vehículos automotores

nuevos en planta, así como de hidrocarburos evaporativos provenientes

del sistema de combustible que usan gasolina, gas licuado de petróleo,

gas natural y diesel de los mismos, con peso bruto vehicular que no

exceda los 3,856 kilogramos.

NOM-044-SEMARNAT-1993

Que establece los niveles máximos permisibles de emisión de hidrocarburos, monóxido de carbono, óxidos de nitrógeno, partículas suspendidas totales y opacidad de humo provenientes del escape de motores

nuevos que usan diesel como combustible y que se utilizarán para la propulsión de vehículos automotores con peso bruto vehicular mayor de

3857 kg.

NOM-045-SEMARNAT-1996

Que establece los niveles máximos permisibles de opacidad del humo

proveniente del escape de vehículos automotores en circulación que

usan diesel o mezclas que incluyan diesel como combustible.

NOM-048-SEMARNAT-1993

Que establece los niveles máximos permisibles de emisión de hidrocarburos, monóxido de carbono y humo, provenientes del escape de las

motocicletas en circulación que utilizan gasolina o mezcla de gasolina-aceite como combustible.

NOM-050-SEMARNAT-1993

Que establece los niveles máximos permisibles de emisión de gases contaminantes provenientes del escape de los vehículos automotores en

circulación que usan gas licuado de petróleo, gas natural u otros combustibles alternos como combustible.

SEM-04-002 383
ANEXO II

Lista de información adicional adjunta a la Petición.

1. Copia del oficio número DS-UAJ-095/99, del 26 de febrero de 1999,

suscrito por el entonces Delegado en Sonora de la Secretaría de

Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca, Juan Carlos Ruiz

Rubio.

2. Copia del escrito de fecha 3 de diciembre de 1998 dirigido al Ayuntamiento y Presidente Municipal de Hermosillo.

3. Copia del acta de la sesión del Ayuntamiento de Hermosillo, celebrada el 25 de febrero de 1999, que contiene respuesta al escrito

mencionado con anterioridad.

4. Copia del expediente número CEDH/I/22/1/197/1999, relativo a

la queja interpuesta el 29 de abril de 1999 ante la Comisión Estatal

de Derechos Humanos de Sonora, en contra del Ayuntamiento de

Hermosillo.

5. Copia del oficio número 16614, de fecha 04 de junio de 1999, derivado del expediente CNDH/121/99/SON/I00159.000, a través

del cual el Coordinador General de Presidencia de la Comisión

Nacional de Derechos Humanos, licenciado Adolfo Hernández

Figueroa, comunicó el desechamiento del Recurso de Impugnación interpuesto en contra del acuerdo de no admisión de la instancia en el asunto descrito en el punto anterior. (Este documento se

encuentra integrado a la copia del expediente CEDH/I/22/1/

197/1999).

6. Copia de la demanda relativa al juicio de amparo indirecto número

620/1999, del índice del Juzgado Segundo de Distrito en el Estado

de Sonora, promovido el 12 de julio de 1999 en contra, entre otras

autoridades, del Ayuntamiento de Hermosillo y del Coordinador

General de Presidencia de la Comisión Nacional de Derechos

Humanos.

7. Copia de la sentencia que se terminó de engrosar el 13 de diciembre

de 1999, dictada en el referido amparo indirecto número 620/1999.

8. Copia de la sentencia emitida el 31 de enero de 2001 por el Tercer

Tribunal Colegiado del Quinto Circuito, en el toca número 223/

384 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
2000, relativo al recurso de revisión interpuesto en contra de

la resolución constitucional pronunciada en el amparo indirecto

número 620/1999.

9. Copia del expediente número CEDH/II/22/1/210/1999, relativo

a la queja interpuesta el 6 de mayo de 1999 ante la Comisión Estatal

de Derechos Humanos de Sonora, en contra del Ayuntamiento de

Hermosillo.

10. Copia del Reporte Concentración de partículas en Aire Ambiente para

la ciudad de Hermosillo, Sonora, México, durante el período 1990-1995,

emitido por la Subdelegación de Medio Ambiente en el Estado de

Sonora de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y

Pesca, Agosto de 1996. (Este documento se encuentra integrado a

la copia del expediente CEDH/II/22/1/210/1999).

11. Copia de la escritura pública número 181, de fecha 19 de agosto de

1991, pasada ante la fe de la Notaria Pública número 46 de Hermosillo, Sonora, relativa a la constitución de la Academia Sonorense

de Derechos Humanos, A.C., con la que acredito mi carácter de

representante legal del citado organismo no gubernamental.

12. Copia de la credencial para votar con folio número 045328578,

expedida por el Instituto Federal Electoral, con la que se acredita

que el suscrito tiene su residencia en la ciudad de Hermosillo,

Sonora.

13. NOTAS DE PRENSA: 1996, Octubre 5, Urge frenar contaminación

(El Imparcial, 1A); 1997, Marzo, 4: Sofoca humo a hermosillo. (El

Imparcial, 1A); 11: Contaminación por polvo. Problema vigente en Hermosillo. (El Imparcial, 1D); 1998, Diciembre 4: Piden resultados de

monitoreo. (El Imparcial, 8B); 5: No monitorean el polvo. (Cambio,

2A); 8: Monitorear ¿para qué? si ya se sabe que hay polvo: J. Valencia.

(Cambio, 5A); 10: Registra Hermosillo espesa capa de humo. Provocan

quemas bruma.(El Imparcial, 1B); 11: Polvo, humo y bajas temperaturas

provocan efecto de inversión térmica. (Cambio, 4A); 11: Fallecen por

neumonía tres personas más. Aumentan muertes por frío. (El Imparcial,

1B); 1999, Enero: Respiramos la muerte. Contaminación del aire en Hermosillo. (Expresión Ciudadana); Julio 15: Alertan a nogalenses /

Detectan compuesto que causa cáncer. (El Imparcial, 1E); Diciembre 9:

Humo encerrado (El Imparcial, 1A); Afecta inversión térmica / El frío y

el polvo provocan este problema.(El Imparcial, 1B); 2000 Diciembre 13:

Alertan contra el polvo. (El Independiente); 14: Pequeñas cantidades de

SEM-04-002 385
partículas, suficientes para elevar la tasa de muertes, revela estudio. (La

Crónica de Hoy); 21: Pide cuidarse por inversiones. (El Imparcial);

2001 Febrero 4: Polvo somos y... ¡Polvo respiramos! (El Imparcial);

Noviembre 24:Registró Hermosillo ayer fenómeno de inversión térmica.

(Cambio, 14A); 2002 Enero 8: En el mundo mueren 500 mil personas al

año por la contaminación del aire: estudio del PNUMA. (La Jornada,

35); 14:Causa la contaminación en la ZMVM 35 mil muertes prematuras

al año. (La Jornada, 39); Noviembre 4: Hace Ayuntamiento monitoreo

del aire. (El Imparcial, 2B); 18: Para los niños. Hay riesgo en el norte. (El

Imparcial, 3B); Diciembre 12: Tiempo de contaminación. (El Imparcial, 4B); 2003 Octubre 27: Cubre a Hermosillo densa nube de polvo.

(Cambio, 1A); Amanece con calima. (El Imparcial, 1B); “Desaparece”

Hermosillo. (El Imparcial, 1A); Noviembre 14: Partículas suspendidas, causa de males crónicos. (El Imparcial, 15A); 20: Sacarán la vuelta

al polvo. (Cambio, 1B); Diciembre 15: Afectan partículas la calidad del

aire. (El Imparcial, 1B).

14. FOTOGRAFÍAS: 1997, Marzo 4: sin pié. (El Imparcial, 1A). sin pié.

(El Imparcial, 1A); 1998, Diciembre 10: Como en el DF. (El Imparcial

1A); Una espesa capa de polvo... (El Independiente, 1A); 2001, Octubre 9: Llega contaminación. (El Imparcial, 1B); Noviembre 6: Gris

amanecer. (El Imparcial, 1A); 24: Paisaje londinense. (El Imparcial,

1A); 2002, Enero 18: ¿Contaminación? (El Imparcial, 2B); Febrero 1:

Quema dañina. (El Imparcial, 1A); En medio de la contaminación... (El

Imparcial, 2B); Noviembre 2: Baja temperatura. (El Imparcial, 2B);

20: Una nube de polvo y “smog” cubre... (Cambio, 1A); Mal ambiente.

(El Imparcial, 2B); 28: Capa gruesa. (El Imparcial, 5B): Diciembre 15:

Se contamina Hermosillo. (Cambio, 1A); 2003, Octubre 27: Cubre a

Hermosillo densa nube de polvo. (Cambio, 1A); Noviembre 25: Contaminación urbana. (El Imparcial, 1B); Diciembre 15: Hay que pavimentar. (El Imparcial, 1B); fecha desconocida: Hermosillo registró ayer...

(El Imparcial); 2004, Febrero 28: Contaminación en la capital. (El

Imparcial, 4A); Octubre 27: Amanece con calima. (El Imparcial, 1B);

“Desaparece” Hermosillo. (El Imparcial, 1A); Noviembre 20: Sacarán

la vuelta al polvo. (Cambio, 1B); Diciembre 15: Afectan partículas la

calidad del aire. (El Imparcial, 1B).

386 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY