North 

A m e r i c a n

E n v i ronmental 

L aw and Po l i cy

C.P. 180 Cowansville (Québec) Canada

Tél.: (450) 266-1086 FAX: (450) 263-9256

North 

A m e r i c a n

E n v i ronmental 

L aw and Po l i cy

Fall 2000

Volume 5
For more information about this or other publications from the CEC,

contact:

Commission for Environmental Cooperation

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: 2-89451-463-8

© Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 2000

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Legal Deposit - Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, 2000

Legal Deposit - Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, 2000

Disponible en français – ISBN: 2-89451-459-X

Disponible en español – ISBN: 2-89451-461-1

This publication was prepared by the Secretariat of the Commission for

Environmental Cooperation (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 that

includes air, oceans and rivers, mountains and forests. Together, these

elements form the basis of a complex network of ecosystems that sustains our livelihoods and well-being. If these ecosystems are to continue

being a source of future life and prosperity, they must be protected.

Doing so is a responsibility shared by Canada, Mexico, and the United

States.

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (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 to 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 highest-level environmental authorities 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 fifteen 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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Secretariat Determinations under Articles 14 and 15 of

the North American Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation—August 1997 Through August 2000 . . . . 1

SEM-97-001 BC Hydro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SEM-97-002 Río Magdalena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

SEM-97-003 Quebec Hog Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

SEM-97-005 Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

SEM-97-006 Oldman River II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

SEM-97-007 Lake Chapala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

SEM-98-001 Guadalajara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

SEM-98-002 Ortiz Martínez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

SEM-98-003 Great Lakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

SEM-98-004 BC Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

SEM-98-005 Cytrar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

SEM-98-006 Aquanova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

SEM-98-007 Metales y Derivados . . . . . . . . . . . 191

IX
SEM-99-001 Methanex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

SEM-99-002 Migratory Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

SEM-00-001 Molymex I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

SEM-00-002 Neste Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

SEM-00-003 Jamaica Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

SEM-00-004 BC Logging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

SEM-00-005 Molymex II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

X NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
PREFACE

The growing economic and social links among Canada, Mexico

and the United States prompted by the signing of the North American

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have increased the importance of

public participation in conserving, protecting and enhancing the environment of the continent.

The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

(NAAEC) came into force in 1994 to support the environmental goals

and objectives of NAFTA and mandated the creation of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The process, created by NAAEC

Article 14, whereby private citizens or nongovernmental organizations,

could file submissions with the CEC alleging that a government of one of

the NAFTA Parties was failing in the effective enforcement of that

Party’s environmental laws, provides an unprecedented opportunity

for the public to raise issues concerning the effective enforcement of

environmental law in North America.

The Secretariat of the CEC implements this process, as specified in

Articles 14 and 15 of NAAEC, and in accordance with the Guidelines for

Submissions on Enforcement Mattersinitially adopted by the CEC Council

in October 1995 and revised in June 1999. Under Article 14, the CEC

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

enforce its environmental law effectively. With Council approval, this

can launch a process that leads to further investigation of the matter

and the publication of findings in a factual record, as provided under

NAAEC Article 15.

The CEC has received 28 submissions since 1995. Eleven of these

submissions are still active, while seventeen have been terminated at

different stages of the process, including two that have led to the

publication of factual records. The first factual record concerned the

construction of a cruise ship pier on the island of Cozumel in the Mexican Caribbean, and the second one related to the effect of hydroelectric

XI
operations on fish habitat in British Columbia, Canada. The Secretariat is

currently preparing a third factual record concerning an abandoned

lead smelter in the border city of Tijuana, Mexico.

Currently, there are three active submissions concerning Canada.

A submission relating to fish habitat protection and environmental

impact assessment in Alberta has been reviewed by the Secretariat,

which concluded that preparation of a factual record was warranted;

however, Council deferred its decision on this matter because the

specific case presented in the submission was the subject of pending

domestic proceedings in Canada. Two submissions concerning fish habitat in British Columbia, one in connection with mining operations and

another relating to logging, are being considered by the Secretariat

in light of the responses provided by Canada to determine if factual

records are warranted.

Five submissions involving Mexico are active. Two are undergoing initial review: one concerning environmental justice for indigenous

groups in the Sierra Tarahumara of Chihuahua and one relating to a

molybdenum plant in the town of Cumpas, Sonora. The other two submissions—one that concerns municipal waste water discharges into the

Magdalena River and the other relating to a hazardous waste landfill

near the city of Hermosillo, both in the state of Sonora, Mexico—are

being reviewed in light of Mexico’s responses, to determine whether

they warrant preparation of factual records. Finally, the Secretariat has

notified Council that a factual record is warranted for a submission concerning shrimp farming operations in San Blas, Nayarit, Mexico. The

Secretariat’s notification explaining its reasons is not included in this

volume, since the Guidelines do not allow the public disclosure of a

determination prior to Council’s decision on whether or not a factual

record will be prepared.

The Secretariat is considering two submissions involving the

United States, both of which are being reviewed in light of the Party’s

responses, to determine whether they warrant preparation of factual

records. One concerns deposition in the Great Lakes of dioxins and

furans from municipal and medical waste incinerators; the other relates

to enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act with respect to logging

operations.

The seventeen submissions no longer pending primarily concern

the protection of biodiversity and natural resources, especially water.

Six involved Canada, five involved Mexico and another six, the United

States.

XII NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
CEC Secretariat determinations and other documents issued

through 31 August 1997, relating to specific submissions, were compiled

in the Winter 1998 edition of this series. The present edition includes

CEC Secretariat documents on specific submissions issued through

31 August 2000. For information about the Winter 1998 edition, or any

other previous edition, please contact Les Éditions Yvon Blais Inc.

at commandes@editionsyvonblais.qc.ca 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 the

actions taken by the CEC at different stages of the process: determinations under Articles 14(1) and 14(2); requests to a Party for additional

information; notifications to Council that a submission warrants

preparation of a factual record; and final factual records.1 Secretariat

documents and other information about each submission (summaries

of the submissions and responses, list of communications with the

Submitter, documents available in electronic format, etc.) are available

in the Registry of Citizen Submissions on the CEC home page, at

<http://www.cec.org>. Copies may also be requested by contacting

<info@ccemtl.org>.

26 October 2000

PREFACE XIII

1. Article 14(1) and 14(2) determinations issued after June 1999 must include

explanations of the Secretariat’s reasoning, per the revised Guidelines. Previous

determinations finding that a submission met the 14(1) criteria and/or warranted a

response under 14(2) typically did not contain such explanations. Thus, 14(1) and

14(2) determinations issued since June 1999 tend to be more detailed and elaborate

than earlier determinations.
Submissions

received*

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 (Mx)(23 July)SEM-98-006/Aquanova (Mx)(20 October)SEM-98-007/Metales yDerivados (Mx)(23 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)SEM-97-007/Lake Chapala (Mx)(10 October)

SEM-96-001/Cozumel (Mx)(18 January)SEM-96-002/Aage Tottrup (Can)(20 March)SEM-96-003/Friends of theOldman River I (Can)(9 September—Resubmitted8 October)SEM-96-004/Fort Huachuca (US)(14 November)

SEM-95-001/Spotted Owl (US)(30 June)SEM-95-002/Logging Rider (US)(30 August)

A History of NACEC Submissions on Enforcement Matters, January 1995—August 2000

Year

History 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995

(to 31 August)

XIV NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Year

History 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995

(to 31 August)

14(1), 14(2)**

Determinations

continuing

the process

SEM-00-002(17 April,consolidated withSEM-99-001)SEM-00-004(8 May)

SEM-98-007(5 March)SEM-98-006(17 March)SEM-99-001(30 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(1 and 15 May)SEM-97-002(6 October)SEM-97-003(8 May and 9 July)

SEM-96-001(6 and 8 February)SEM-96-002(17 April)SEM-96-003(Revised)(18 October and8 November)SEM-96-004(16 December)

SEM-95-001(19 July)

14(1), 14(2)Dismissals

SEM-98-001(11 January)SEM-00-003(12 April)SEM-00-001(25 April)SEM-00-005(13 July—Resubmitted31 July 2000)

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

SEM-97-005(26 May)SEM-98-002(23 June)SEM-98-003(14 December)

SEM-97-004(25 August)

SEM-96-002(28 May)SEM-96-003(1 October)

SEM-95-001(21 Septemberand 11 December)SEM-95-002(8 December)

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

SEM-96-003(2April)

Notifications

that a factual

record is

warranted

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)

SEM-96-001(7 June)

Final factual

records

completed

SEM-97-001(11 June)

SEM-96-001(24 October)

Year

History 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995

(to 31 August)

* Total of submissions received January 1995 to 31 August 2000: 28.** The Secretariat issued a single determination covering both Article 14(1) and 14(2) for several of these submissions.

XVI NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Secretariat Determinations

under Articles 14 and 15

of the North American

Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation—August 1997

Through August 2000

SEM-97-001

(BC HYDRO)

SUBMITTER: B.C. ABORIGINAL FISHERIES COMMISSION,

ET AL.

PARTY: CANADA

DATE: 2 APRIL 1997

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege that the Canadian government is failing to enforce the Fisheries Act, and to

utilize its powers pursuant to the National Energy

Board Act, to ensure the protection of fish and fish

habitat in British Columbia’s rivers from ongoing

and repeated environmental damage caused by

hydro-electric dams.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(1 MAY 1997)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met.

ART. 14(2)

(15 MAY 1997)

Determination pursuant to Article 14(2) that the

submission merits requesting a response from the

Party.

ART. 15(1)

(27 APRIL 1998)

Notification to Council of the Determination that

a factual record is warranted in accordance with

Article 15(1).

3

May 1, 1997

BY FAX AND REGISTERED MAIL

Mr. Gregory J. McDade, Q.C. Ms. Patti Goldman

Sierra Legal Defense Fund Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund

214 – 131 Water Street 705 Second Ave., Suite 203

Vancouver, B.C. Seattle, WA

V6B 4M3 998104-1711

Re: Submission on enforcement matters under Articles 14

and 15 of the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation

Submitter(s): B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission et al.

Party: Canada

Date: 2 April 1997

Submission No.: SEM-97-001

Dear Sirs/Madams:

The Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation has

concluded that your submission satisfies the initial screening criteria

under Article 14(1) of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. Accordingly, the submission will now be reviewed

under Article 14(2) to determine whether the submission merits

requesting a response from the Government of Canada.

5
We will keep you informed of the status of your submission in accordance with Articles 14 and 15 and the Guidelines for Submissions on

Enforcement Matters.

Yours truly,

Commission for Environmental Cooperation – Secretariat

per: Greg Block

Director

c.c. Mr. H. Anthony Clarke, Environment Canada

Mr. William Nitze, U.S. EPA

Mr. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

6 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
15 May 1997

VIA FAX AND REGISTERED MAIL

The Honourable Sergio Marchi

Minister of the Environment

Government of Canada

Les Terrasses de la Chaudière

28th Floor

10 Wellington Street

Hull (Québec)

Canada K1A 0H3

Re: Submission on enforcement matters under Articles 14

and 15 of the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation

Submitter(s): B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission et al.

Party: Canada

Date: 2 April 1997

Submission No.: SEM-97-001

Dear Minister Marchi:

On 2 April 1997, the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation received a submission pursuant to Article 14 of the North

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (“Agreement”)

filed by Sierra Legal Defense Fund and Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund

on behalf of B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission et al. The submission

alleges that the Government of Canada is failing to effectively enforce its

environmental law, namely provisions of the Fisheries Act and the

National Energy Board Act.

The Secretariat reviewed the submission under Article 14(1) of the

Agreement and determined on 1 May 1997 that the submission met the

criteria of Article 14(1).

SEM-97-001 7
Pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Agreement, the Secretariat has determined that the submission merits requesting a response from the Government of Canada. Accordingly, the Secretariat requests a response

from the Government of Canada to the above-mentioned submission

within the time frame provided in Article 14(3) of the Agreement. A

copy of the submission and of the supporting information is annexed to

this letter.

Sincerely,

Commission for Environmental Cooperation – Secretariat

per: Victor Lichtinger

Executive Director

c.c. Ms. Carol M. Browner

Mtra Julia Carabias

Mr. Gregory J. McDade, Sierra Legal Defense Fund

Ms. Patti Goldman, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund

Enclosures (2)

8 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Notification from the Secretariat to the Council of its Reasons

for Considering that the Development of a Factual Record in

accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the North American

Agreement on Environmental Cooperation is Warranted

Submission I.D.: SEM-97-001

Submitter(s):

B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission

British Columbia Wildlife Federation

Trail Wildlife Association

Steelhead Society

Trout Unlimited (Spokane Chapter)

Sierra Club (U.S.)

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association

Institute for Fisheries Resources

Represented by: Sierra Legal Defense Fund and Sierra Club Legal

Defense Fund

Concerned Party: Canada

I- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Submission1 alleges that Canada has failed to effectively enforce

section 35(1) of the federal Fisheries Act,2 and is permitting the ongoing,

unauthorized destruction of fish and fish habitat in British Columbia

(B.C.), distorting the hydro power market, and undermining the purposes of the North American Agreement on Environmental CooperaSEM-97-001 9

1. SEM-97-001. The complete text of both the Submission and the Response are

available from the Secretariat by request or electronically at http://www.cec.org.

2. R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14.
tion (“NAAEC”). The Submission focuses on a failure to prosecute

several incidents arising from the operation of various British Columbia

Hydro (“B.C. Hydro”) dams. It is also alleged that Canada has failed to

exercise its mandatory statutory jurisdiction, pursuant to section 119.06

of the National Energy Board Act (“NEB Act”),3 to examine the environmental impacts of the production of power for export.

As a preliminary matter, Canada states that the assertions concerning

the enforcement of the Fisheries Act are the subject of pending judicial or

administrative proceedings, and that, pursuant to Article 14(3)(a) of the

NAAEC, factual records must not be prepared with respect to issues that

are the subject of contemporaneous domestic proceedings. Further,

Canada submits that it is enforcing its environmental laws and is in full

compliance with its obligations under the NAAEC. Canada takes a

broader view of “effective enforcement,” and submits that the focus

should not be merely upon the issue of whether or not prosecutions are

being pursued under section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act. Canada also

contends that the National Energy Board (“NEB”) properly exercised

its discretionary power under the NEB Act.

We are of the view that the phrase “judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative action” in Article 45(3)(a) of the NAAEC should be defined narrowly to fulfill the objectives and rationale of the NAAEC, and more

particularly, Article 14(3). To fall within that term, a “judicial or administrative proceeding” must be specifically delineated in Article 45(3), be

pursued by a Party in a timely manner, and be in accordance with a

Party’s law. Further, to invoke the automatic termination clause under

Article 14(3)(a), such a proceeding must be of the same subject matter as

the allegations raised in the Submission.

None of the proceedings relied upon by Canada necessitates the automatic termination of the proceedings under Article 14(3)(a). The two

judicial proceedings, BC Hydro and Power Authority v. A.G. Canada and the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans4 and R. v. British Columbia Hydro and

Power Authority5 are either not pursued by a Party, or are no longer pending. British Columbia’s Water Use Planning process and the Regional

Technical Committees, in our view, do not constitute “administrative

proceedings” as that term is used in Article 14(3)(a).

10 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

3. R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7.

4. Federal Court Action File No. T-1171-97.

5. [1997] B.C.J. No. 1744, Kamloops Registry No. 44436, July 19, 1997.
Canada’s assertion that it employs a variety of regulatory measures,

inclusive of prosecution, to effectively enforce its laws is consistent with

the broad construct of “effective enforcement” articulated in Article 5 of

the NAAEC and in other jurisdictions. Consequently, a lack of prosecutions under section 35 of the Fisheries Act may not be dispositive of the

issue regarding Canada’s effective enforcement of its environmental

laws.

Additional information is required before an evaluation can be made

that Canada is effectively enforcing its environmental laws. It is recommended that a factual record be developed in order to assemble further

factual information regarding the enforcement activity undertaken by

Canada and the effectiveness of that activity in ensuring compliance

with section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act.

With respect to the allegations raised regarding the NEB, it is the view of

the Secretariat that there is no information to suggest that the NEB’s

exercise of discretion in that matter was “unreasonable,” and we recommend that a factual record should not be prepared in respect of this

issue. As a result, the preparation of a factual record is recommended

only in respect of the alleged failure to effectively enforce section 35 of

the Fisheries Act.

II- BACKGROUND

On 2 April 1997, seven non-governmental organizations, the B.C.

Aboriginal Fisheries Commission, the British Columbia Wildlife Federation, the Steelhead Society, the Trail Wildlife Association, the Pacific

Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, the Sierra Club (Washington, D.C.) and the Institute for Fisheries Resources (collectively, the

“Submitters”)6 filed a submission with the Secretariat, pursuant to

Article 14 of the NAAEC (“Submission”). The Submitters allege, in summary, “the failure of the Canadian Government to enforce section 35(1)

of the Fisheries Act, and to utilize its powers pursuant to section 119.06 of

the National Energy Board Act, to ensure the protection of fish and fish

habitat in British Columbia’s rivers from ongoing and repeated environmental damage caused by hydro-electric dams.”

Under Article 14, the Secretariat may consider a submission from any

non governmental organization or person asserting that a Party to the

NAAEC is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law. Where

SEM-97-001 11

6. The Submitters are represented by the Canadian law firm Sierra Legal Defense Fund

(S.L.D.F.) and the American law firm Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (S.C.L.D.F.).
the Secretariat determines that the requirements of Article 14(1) have

been met, it shall decide whether the submission merits a response from

the concerned Party in accordance with Article 14(2). In light of the

response provided by that Party, the Secretariat may recommend to the

Council that a factual record be prepared, in accordance with Article 15.

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

The final factual record may be made publicly available upon a twothirds vote of the Council.

The Secretariat has reviewed the submission in light of Canada’s

response to determine whether the development of a factual record is

warranted.

A. The Submission

The Submitters allege that Canada has failed to effectively enforce

section 35(1) of the federal Fisheries Act permitting the ongoing unauthorized destruction of fish and fish habitat in British Columbia, distorting

the hydro power market, and undermining the purposes of the NAAEC.

B.C. Hydro, a Crown corporation wholly owned by the government of

the Province of British Columbia, builds, owns, maintains and operates a

system of hydro-electric dams across British Columbia. The Submitters

allege that the operation of these dams causes substantial damage to fish

and fish habitat.

Pursuant to sections 35(1) and 40(1) of the Fisheries Act, it is an offense to

carry on work which results in the harmful alteration, disruption or

destruction of fish habitat unless authorized by the Minister of Fisheries

or by regulation.7 The Submitters allege that B.C. Hydro has consistently

12 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

7. Section 35 states:

(1) No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful

alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

(2) No person contravenes subsection (1) by causing the alteration, disruption or

destruction of fish habitat by any means or under any conditions authorized by

the Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in Council under this

Act.

Section 40 states:

(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 35(1) is guilty of:

(a) an offense punishable on summary conviction and liable, for a first offense

to a fine not exceeding three hundred thousand dollars and for any subsequent offense, to a fine not exceeding three hundred thousand dollars or to

imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both; or

(b) an indictable offense and liable, for a first offense to a fine not exceeding

one million dollars, for any subsequent offense, to a fine not exceeding one

million dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or

to both.
violated section 35(1), but that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans

(“DFO”), the federal department responsible for the administration of

the Fisheries Act, has laid only two charges against B.C. Hydro since 1990

“despite clear and well documented evidence that B.C. Hydro’s operations have damaged fish habitat on numerous occasions.”8

The Submitters also allege that Canada has failed to utilize its powers

pursuant to section 119.06 of the NEB Actto exercise its mandatory statutory jurisdiction to examine the environmental impacts of the production of power for export. Pursuant to section 119.06 of the NEB Act, the

NEB may recommend to the federal Minister of Natural Resources that

an application be subjected to a public review process. In determining

whether to make that recommendation, the NEB is directed by section

119.06(2) to consider “the impact of the exportation on the environment”

and to “avoid the duplication of measures taken in respect of the exportation by the applicant and the [provincial government].” The Submitters allege that the NEB is the only forum in which the environmental

impacts of the production of electricity for export are addressed.

The Submitters state that in a 13 September 1996 decision, the NEB failed

to address the environmental impacts of an application by Powerex

Corp. to export power to Washington State. The Submitters assert that in

rendering its decision the NEB concluded that the Government of British

Columbia actively regulates the activity at issue. In the Submitter’s view,

the Province exercises no such regulatory authority.

In addition to these general allegations, the Submission outlines six specific incidents illustrating the nature and extent of damage to fish and

fish habitat caused by the operation of B.C. Hydro’s dams throughout

the Province. Appendix A to the Submission includes certain additional

information in respect of the alleged impact of B.C. Hydro’s operations

at each of 39 sites.

B. The Canadian Response

In its Response, Canada submits that it is in fact enforcing its environmental laws and is in full compliance with its obligations under the

NAAEC. In addition, Canada states that the assertions concerning the

enforcement of the Fisheries Act are the subject of pending judicial or

administrative proceedings, and that, pursuant to Article 14(3)(a) of the

NAAEC, factual records must not be prepared with respect to issues that

SEM-97-001 13

8. Submission, supra note 1 at 1.
are the subject of contemporaneous domestic proceedings. Canada

states that the Submission raises issues that are pending before both the

Federal Court of Canada and the British Columbia Supreme Court, and

that the federal government is participating in two comprehensive

administrative proceedings (namely, in British Columbia’s Water Use

Planning initiative and at the Regional Technical Committees.) Canada

contends that a primary objective of these proceedings is to ensure B.C.

Hydro’s compliance with federal and provincial laws with respect to

protection of fish habitat and to ensure that environmental objectives are

fully integrated into water use decisions.

Canada submits that it is fully enforcing the environmental provision

of the Fisheries Act. Canada notes that support for the concept that

enforcement encompasses actions broader than prosecutions, is found

in Article 5 of the NAAEC, which provides a non-exhaustive list of

appropriate enforcement actions. Canada states that the Submission is

based on a limited view of enforcement which equates enforcement

directly with legal and judicial sanctions, and fails to recognize that

both Canada and the Province of British Columbia have a clear record

of ongoing cooperative, comprehensive, and productive studies and

projects to enhance fisheries interests. Canada suggests that the reports

and studies relied upon by the Submitters are an important step in identifying problems and solutions. To the extent that such studies lead to

solutions through cooperative means, more formal enforcement is often

unnecessary. Canada says that it considers enforcement by means of

prosecutions to be a last resort after cooperation and persuasion have

failed. Canada suggests that the immediate and widespread use of

prosecution as a primary enforcement tool would be ineffective and

counterproductive.

Canada goes on to outline those actions which have been taken with

respect to the specific impacts and the specific incidents outlined in the

Submission. The Response also asserts that the NEB properly exercised

its power under the NEB Act. That Act gives the NEB the discretion to

decide whether evidence filed about environmental impacts is sufficient

to recommend a designation order for a public hearing. Canada states

that the NEB acted within this discretion in making this determination

on the basis of the evidence before it, which was not the same as that

reflected in the attachments provided by the Submitters.

Canada also suggests that the NAAEC and the Fisheries Act cannot be

applied retroactively. Finally, Canada states that the development of a

factual record would not further the objectives of the NAAEC in light of

the detailed information provided in its response.

14 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
III- SHOULD THE SUBMISSION PROCESS BE

AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATED OWING TO A

MATTER WHICH CONSTITUTES A PENDING

JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING?

Article 14(3)(a) of the NAAEC provides that the Secretariat “shall proceed no further” where the responding Party has shown that the matter

is the subject of a “pending judicial or administrative proceeding.” This

suggests that the Parties intended to foreclose a review of enforcement

matters actively being pursued by any Party. Article 45(3)(a) defines

“judicial or administrative proceeding” for the purposes of Article 14(3).

In its response, Canada states that the subject matter of the Submission is

the subject of pending “judicial or administrative proceedings,” including the two court cases and the two examples of administrative proceedings referred to above, and that therefore the submission review process

must end. We consider this assertion at the outset, since the fundamental

issue of the preparation of a factual record need only be addressed if the

Secretariat is so authorized.

As noted above, in making its assertion that the Secretariat is estopped

from any review, Canada relies on two pending judicial proceedings.

The first case is BC Hydro and Power Authority v. A.G. Canada and the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, currently underway in the Federal Court

of Canada (the “Federal Court Case”). This case addresses the constitutionality of a minimum flow order made pursuant to section 22 of the

Fisheries Act. The second case is R. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority, a case decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia after

the Submission and Response were received by the Secretariat (the

“Supreme Court Case”). That case involves charges brought against B.C.

Hydro under, among other provisions, section 35 of the Fisheries Act.

Canada further argues that its participation in British Columbia’s Water

Use Planning (“WUP”) initiative and on the Regional Technical Committees (“RTCs”) qualifies as administrative proceeding pursuant to

Article 45(3)(a) of the NAAEC and consequently bars any further

review. The WUP is an initiative sponsored by the government of British

Columbia to review all B.C. Hydro water licenses and to develop water

use plans for each facility. Canada has responded that, through DFO, the

government participates in some aspects of the WUP. DFO also participates, along with representatives from the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and B.C. Hydro, in the RTCs which are charged

with reviewing fisheries issues at both individual facilities and on a

broader basis.

SEM-97-001 15
In making its determination, the Secretariat first considers the meaning

of the term “judicial or administrative proceedings” for the purposes of

Article 14(3)of the NAAEC. Secondly, on the basis of that interpretation

the Secretariat makes a determination regarding whether the proceedings put forward by Canada in its response fall within the scope of this

term.

A. The Definition of a “Judicial or Administrative Proceeding”

In making a determination on the issue of whether any proceeding falls

with the definition of a “judicial or administrative proceeding” under

Article 14(3) the Secretariat has considered first the plain reading of Article 45(3)(a) of the NAAEC. Secondly, the Secretariat has considered the

possible interpretation of the terms within the broader context of other

provisions of the NAAEC. Finally, it is useful to refer to previous decisions by the Secretariat throughout the interpretive process, though we

acknowledge that the Secretariat and the Council are not bound by the

principle of stare decisis.9

(i) A Plain Reading of Article 45(3)

As stated above, the definition of the term “judicial or administrative

proceeding” is provided in Article 45(3) of the NAAEC, which reads:

For the purposes of Article 14(3), “judicial or administrative proceeding” means:

(a) 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;

16 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

9. At a minimum, references to previous determinations will assist in ensuring that the

Secretariat consistently applies the provisions of the NAAEC. Such a contextual

approach to a treaty is suggested by general canons of statutory interpretation as

well as Articles 31 and 32 of The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. See

Pierre-André Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada, 2nd ed. (Cowansville:

Les Editions Yvon Blais, 1991), c. 2; Ruth Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 3d ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1994), c. 8, and The Vienna Convention on the Law of

Treaties, concluded at Vienna, May 23, 1969, entered into force January 27, 1980, 1155

U.N.T.S. 331 (“Vienna Convention”). The Vienna Convention is in force in both

Canada and Mexico as of January 27, 1980. The United States signed the Vienna Convention on April 24, 1970 but has not ratified it. I.M. Sinclair notes in The Vienna

Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd ed., 1984) that since 1969, provisions of The

Vienna Convention have frequently been cited in judgments of the Courts of the

United States and in state practice as accurate statements of the customary rules

in relation to interpretation of treaties.
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; and

(b) an international dispute resolution proceeding to which the

Party is party.

In order to constitute a “judicial or administrative proceeding,” the

action must accordingly be pursued (i) by a Party; (ii) in a timely fashion;

(iii) in accordance with the Party’s law; and (iv) comprise one of the prescribed categories of activities.

As previously determined, the Secretariat has held that the term “by a

Party” means that the action must be undertaken by a government signatory to the NAAEC.10 The requirement to proceed in a “timely fashion” appears to require that any such actions be pursued in a vigorous

manner without undue delay. The third requirement is interpreted to

mean that the proceedings must be grounded in the statutory or common law of the Party. Finally, as stated in Article 14(3) discussed more

fully below, the “judicial or administrative proceeding” must address

the same “matter” as the Submission.

(ii) Other Provisions of the NAAEC

We note that in the context of Article 5(3)(b), a compliance agreement is

referred to as a type of sanction or remedy, along with the imposition of

fines, imprisonment, injunctions and the closure of facilities. This suggests that the term “seeking an assurance of voluntary compliance or a

compliance agreement” includes proceedings regarded as measures

leading to sanctions or remedies.

(iii) The Object and Purpose of the NAAEC

Following an examination of the language in other provisions of the

NAAEC, we next turn to the object and purpose of the NAAEC in order

to seek guidance on the interpretation of the scope of Article 14(3).11

SEM-97-001 17

10. Commission for Environmental Cooperation – Secretariat Determination pursuant

to Articles 14 and 15 of the NAAEC, SEM-96-003, April 2, 1997.

11. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, supra note 9, provides that a treaty “shall be

interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to

the terms of the treaty and in light of its object and purpose.”
In order to promote the objectives of the NAAEC set out in its Article 1,

and to give meaning to the Article 14 process, which is designed to scrutinize the Parties’ commitments to effectively enforce their environmental laws, it is important to construe narrowly the definition of “judicial or

administrative proceeding” in Article 45(3), which, in the context of

Article 14(3), has the ultimate effect of terminating submission review

processes. Only proceedings which are designed to culminate in a specific decision, ruling or agreement within a definable period of time

should be considered as falling within Article 14(3)(a). Activities that are

solely consultative, information-gathering or research-based in nature,

without a definable goal, should not be sufficient to trigger the automatic termination clause. If such proceedings were included within the

definition, a Party could effectively shield non-enforcement of its environmental laws from scrutiny simply by commissioning studies or holding consultations.

We are in no way suggesting that Canada’s attempt to invoke this clause

represents a deliberate attempt to prematurely terminate the proceedings. However, to give full effect to the NAAEC, for the reason given a

peremptory clause of this nature must be construed narrowly.

(iv) Further Considerations

In its Article 15(1) determination of Submission No. SEM-96-003, the

Secretariat considered the rationale underlying Article 14(3)(a). The

Secretariat stated that the exclusion of matters which are currently the

subject of judicial or administrative proceedings was required for two

reasons: (a) the need to avoid a duplication of effort; and (b) the need to

refrain from interfering with pending litigation. These considerations

apply to both proceedings that fall within the Article 45(3)(a) definitional requirements as well as to other proceedings outside of that

specific provision. In another determination under Article 15(1), the

Secretariat noted:

Civil litigation is a complex undertaking governed by an immensely

refined body of rules, procedures and practices. The Secretariat is reluctant to embark on a process which may unwittingly intrude on one or

more of the litigant’s strategic considerations.12

Nor would it be appropriate for the submission review process to

“second guess” a domestic court on the meaning of a provision or on

the disposition of factual and legal matters before that Court.

18 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

12. Supra note 10.
In sum, in order to fall within the definition of “judicial or administrative

proceeding” in Article 45(3)(a), a proceeding must be: specifically delineated in Article 45(3)(a), pursued by a Party in a timely manner, and in

accordance with a Party’s law. Further, such a proceeding must concern

the same subject matter as the allegations raised in the submission. Thus,

this initial threshold consideration should be construed narrowly so as

to give full effect to the object and purpose of the NAAEC, and more

particularly, to Article 14(3).

B. Should Review of the Submission Be Terminated Based

upon the Proceedings Identified by Canada?

(i) BC Hydro and Power Authority v. A.G. Canada and the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Canada relies on the case of BC Hydro and Power Authority v. A.G. Canada

and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (the “Federal Court Case”) as a

“pending judicial proceeding” within the meaning of Article 14(3)(a).

While it is clearly a “judicial proceeding” as that term is used in Article

45(3)(a), it does not relate to the enforcement of section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act; rather, the case involves an application for judicial review of an

order made under section 22 of the Fisheries Act. Accordingly, the “subject matter” of the case and the Submission is not the same. Furthermore,

it does not appear that the proceeding was initiated by a Party, in this

case Canada. Consequently, the Federal Court Case does not operate to

automatically terminate the submission review process under Article

14(3).

With respect to the two-pronged criteria applied by the Secretariat; that

is, avoidance of duplication and non-interference, the Secretariat has

determined that the Federal Court Case will not resolve the issue raised

in the Submission nor is there an identity of issues between the matters.

There appears to be minimal risk that the preparation of a factual record

will result in a duplication of effort. Second, the preparation of a factual

record with respect to the Submission will not interfere with the pending

litigation since the object of a full record inquiry would focus on the

enforcement conduct of Canada, not the constitutionality of section 22 of

the Fisheries Act.

(ii) R. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

Canada also relies on R. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority (the “Supreme Court Case”) as evidence of effective enforceSEM-97-001 19
ment of environmental laws. The Supreme Court Case involved allegations that B.C. Hydro, in response to large inflows into the Bridge River

drainage system, had “spilled large volumes of water from the Terzaghi

Dam on three occasions and ended a long standing spill from the Seton

dam rather abruptly.”13 The Court did find that these actions had killed

fish and damaged fish habitat. However, B.C. Hydro was acquitted on

the basis that it had exercised due diligence in the operation of the dams.

The subject matter of the Supreme Court Case did involve the

enforcement of section 35(1). However, we note that the judgment in the

case was rendered on July 10, 1997. As a result, the matter is no longer

“pending” before the courts, and so the proceeding no longer falls

within the Article 14(3)(a) barrier. Article 14(3)(b)(i) suggests that the

fact that an issue was formerly the subject of a proceeding may nonetheless be of relevance. Therefore, while this case does not warrant termination of the process, the disposition of the case itself may constitute a fact

worthy of notice in a factual record examining the effectiveness of current government enforcement strategies. Moreover, those allegations

which relate to ongoing impacts not litigated in the lawsuit could be

included in a factual record.

(iii) British Columbia’s Water Use Planning Initiative

Canada asserts that British Columbia’s WUP initiative is an ongoing

administrative proceeding within the meaning of Article 14(3)(a). Canada advises that the WUP is a project to review all B.C. Hydro water

licenses and to develop water use plans for each B.C. Hydro facility and

that the plans will lead to changes in the water licenses of the individual

facilities, and the System Operating Orders. Canada has advised that

binding statutory constraints on B.C. Hydro operations will most likely

result from the process. Canada states that the water use plans will be

subject to Fisheries Actrequirements, and that the intent of the WUP is to

“ensure compliance both with the federal Fisheries Act and provincial

legislation in the operation of B.C. Hydro facilities, and to ensure that all

environmental, social and economic values are considered in water use

decisions.”14 The WUP process is expected to take five years or more to

complete.

As the WUP is a provincial initiative, it is arguable that the proceeding is

not undertaken by “the Party” (since the Submission is brought against

20 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

13. [1997] B.C.J. No. 1744, DRS 97-13306, Kamloops Registry No. 44436, supra note 8 at

paragraph 1.

14. Canadian Response to SEM-97-001, July, 1997 (the “Response”) at page 10.
Canada). However, Canada is participating in the project, and it is arguable that a certain degree of federal participation is sufficient to constitute a proceedings brought “by a Party.” However, it is unnecessary to

consider that question since we have concluded that the WUP, for other

reasons, does not operate to terminate the submission review process.

The WUP initiative may lead to greater protection of fish habitat by a

determination to impose statutorily binding limits on B.C. Hydro’s

water use. In fact, after the WUP process is completed, the conditions

attached to B.C. Hydro’s water licenses may become a primary vehicle

for protection of fish habitat. However, WUP process itself, in our view,

is not a “judicial or administrative proceeding” as that term is used in

Article 45(3)(a). The WUP does not fall into any of the categories listed

under Article 45(3)(a). The process does not constitute “seeking an

assurance of voluntary compliance or a compliance plan” as those terms

are used in other contexts, or as they should be interpreted for the purposes of the NAAEC. To consider the WUP to be part of “the process of

issuing a license” would unduly expand the definition of that phrase.

The fact that Canada is participating in a provincial process that may

lead to a different manner of protecting fish and fish habitat does not

preclude the development of a factual record concerning whether Canada is effectively enforcing the Fisheries Act under the legal means which

exist at this time. Moreover, the development of a factual record in this

case will not lead to a duplication of effort, nor will the outcome of the

administrative proceedings interfere with or render moot the subject

matter of the Submission.

(iv) Regional Technical Committees

Canada also relies on its participation in RTCs as constituting an administrative proceeding under Article 14(3). These committees, which

include representatives from DFO, the B.C. Ministry of Environment,

Lands and Parks and B.C. Hydro, review fisheries issues at both individual facilities and on a system-wide basis. As Canada states in its

response to the Submission: “The committee work has primarily

involved identifying and documenting areas of concerns for fish and

fish habitat at existing hydro facilities and to obtain funding from

B.C. Hydro for biophysical and fish inventory studies by independent

consultants to identify improvement possibilities.”15

SEM-97-001 21

15. Response, supra at 19.
While the ultimate aim of the RTC work may be to secure compliance

with the Fisheries Act, the work does not come within the definition of

“judicial or administrative proceedings” in Article 45(3)(a), for the same

reasons outlined above in our discussion of the WUP initiative. As well,

the open-ended nature the RTC work provides additional arguments

against including such initiatives within the scope of Article 45(3)(a).

Finally, the subject matter of the Submission, namely the enforcement of

section 35 of the Fisheries Act, is not the subject of the RTC discussions.

IV- IS THE PREPARATION OF A FACTUAL RECORD

WARRANTED IN THIS CASE?

A. Failure to Effectively Enforce Section 35(1) of the

Fisheries Act against B.C. Hydro

In the face of varied allegations respecting the application of section

35(1) of the Fisheries Act, Canada responds by outlining a range of actions

undertaken to ensure B.C. Hydro’s compliance with section 35(1). However, little information is provided respecting (a) enforcement policies

or directives utilized by Canada and (b) specific factual information

regarding enforcement activity in respect of the allegations raised in the

Submission. The development of a factual record will allow this information to be compiled, which will in turn facilitate an analysis of

whether Canada has been effectively enforcing its environmental laws.

A number of examples will illustrate the point that genuine issues persist regarding the Submitters’ allegations. The Submitters allege that in

the summer of 1996, B.C. Hydro dewatered Cranberry Creek, killing and

stranding trout over a 10 km section.16 Canada’s Response states that the

Walter Hardman development, which affects Cranberry Creek, is a priority for the WUP initiative, and that DFO has participated in the development of interim operating orders, which are not yet in effect.17 It is

not clear from the Response what specific enforcement action Canada

undertook (and the effectiveness of that action) in response to the incident at Cranberry Creek. Without the benefit of that information, including information in respect of Canada’s enforcement policies, it is

difficult to evaluate whether there has been effective enforcement

with respect to the incident at Cranberry Creek or the other specified

incidents in the Submission.

22 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

16. Submission, supra at 5.

17. Response, supra at 27.
Similar questions apply to allegations which relate to ongoing operational problems. For example, the Submission suggests that with respect

to the Shuswap Falls project, negative effects have resulted from low

winter flows, dewatering, rapid flow ions, increased sediment levels,

and reduced access, as well as impacts on benthic productivity.18 In

response, Canada lists a number of actions taken, including the following: (a) commissioning a study on the impacts of ramping down on

flows; (b) the development of a rule curve which B.C. Hydro is currently

declining to use; (c) DFO’s verbal statement to B.C. Hydro that the flow

regime proposed by B.C. Hydro is unacceptable; and (d) DFO’s request

to B.C. Hydro for additional time to monitor work such as flash board

removal. In addition, Canada refers to a request by the B.C. Ministry of

Environment, Lands and Parks, not acceded to by B.C. Hydro, that the

impacts of ramping on invertebrates be examined.19 Again, little information is provided on the effectiveness of these actions to ensure compliance with the law.

With respect to the Downton Lake and the LaJoie project, Canada states

that it has deferred to the Province’s decision not to prosecute B.C.

Hydro with respect to a May 1996 drawdown. Canada notes that the

Province chose not to proceed based on the lack of quantitative evidence

of fish losses and the lack of a pre-impact survey.20 This response does

not contain sufficient information regarding the effectiveness of Canada’s enforcement response. At a minimum, deferral to the Province

does not address Canada’s obligations regarding the enforcement of the

federal Fisheries Act.

The Submission states that the Bennett Dam and the G.M. Shrum Station

are associated with a decline in fish productivity, rapid flow fluctuations

causing strandings, elevated gas levels and sedimentation. Canada

responds that:

DFO was not involved at the time of construction in the 1960s. B.C. Hydro

has not requested Fisheries Act authorization for the project. DFO’s Eastern BC Habitat Unit was formed in 1990, two decades after operations

were established at these facilities. 21

SEM-97-001 23

18. Submission, supra, at 5.

19. Response, supra, 36-37.

20. Ibid., at 32, 37.

21. Ibid., at 32.
These statements do not appear germane to the issue of whether Canada

is failing to currently effectively enforce its environmental laws. As the

Secretariat noted in Submission No. SEM-96-001:22

Article 47 of the NAAEC indicates the Parties intended the Agreement

to take effect on January 1, 1994. The Secretariat is unable to discern

any intentions, express or implied, conferring retroactive effect on the

operation of Article 14 of the NAAEC. Notwithstanding the above, events

or acts concluded prior to January 1, 1994, may create conditions or situations which give rise to current enforcement obligations. It follows that

certain aspects of these conditions or situations may be relevant when considering an allegation of a present, continuing failure to enforce environmental law.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides in section 28 that

“unless a different intention appears from the Treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind the party in relation to any act or fact

which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of

entry into force of the Treaty with respect to that party.” (United Nations,

Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331.)

In that submission, the Secretariat noted “that a present duty to enforce

may originate from, in the language of the Vienna Convention, a situation which has not ceased to exist.” It is appropriate to take a similar

approach to this Submission. Canada’s Response does not appear to be

directed to the allegation of a present, continuing failure to effectively

enforce its environmental law. More information is therefore required.

Another example is the allegation respecting the Keenleyside Dam. The

Submission states that complete shut down of flows in April 1990

dewatered and stranded rainbow trout and kokanee fry on the Norns

Creek fan.23 Canada has responded that this event cannot be the subject

of an Article 14 submission, since it occurred before the NAAEC came

into force. The Secretariat concurs, and recommends that a factual

record not be prepared in respect of this specific allegation.

However, if a situation arising in the past continues to exist, it may be the

subject of an Article 14 submission. For example, if B.C. Hydro operations continue to damage fish habitat, it makes no difference if those

activities were commenced prior to the entry into force of the NAAEC.

As noted above, the Secretariat recognizes that a present duty to enforce

24 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

22. 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, SEM 96-001, June 7, 1997.

23. Submission, at supra 5.
may originate from a situation which continues to exist. If the construction of facilities in the past has led to a state of affairs which “has not

ceased to exist,” then the facts surrounding this condition may be the

subject of a factual inquiry.

Canada also asserts that the negative impacts of facilities at the Bennett

Dam are offset, at least in part, by the Peace/Williston Compensation

Program.24 It is unclear that compensation is of any relevance to the

effective enforcement of Canada’s environmental laws.

In asserting that Canada has failed to effectively enforce section 35(1) of

the Fisheries Act, the Submitters point to the fact that only two prosecutions have been undertaken against B.C. Hydro since 1990. Canada, in its

response, suggests that it undertakes a variety of activities which, when

taken together, constitute effective enforcement of its environmental

law. The Secretariat is mindful of the varied principles and approaches

that can be applied to a definition or application of the term “effective

enforcement.” For example, under certain circumstances, other enforcement measures may be deemed more effective in securing compliance

than an exclusive reliance on prosecutions. In that regard, it is not clear

how Canada selects its enforcement responses to secure compliance

with its environmental law.

In summary, Canada’s response does not disclose sufficient factual

information regarding the specific enforcement activity undertaken by

Canada in each of the alleged incidents and the effectiveness of that

activity in ensuring compliance with its environmental law. As a result,

the preparation of a factual record is recommended in respect of the

failure to effectively enforce section 35 of the Fisheries Act.

B. Failure to Effectively Enforce the National Energy Board Act

One of the Submitters, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, made an application

in 1996 to the NEB for a public review of the environmental effects of the

export of power to the United States by a wholly owned subsidiary of

B.C. Hydro. The NEB denied this application, in part relying on the fact

that the Province was “actively regulating” the activity at issue. The NEB

indicated in its reasons that “the evidence tended to show that the

Province was active with respect to ensuring appropriate operation

of hydro-electric stations, and was taking steps to promote the public

SEM-97-001 25

24. Response at supra 32.
interest in this regard.”25 The Submitters contend that there are no provincial laws or regulations that apply to the environmental impacts of

the production of hydro power. The Submitters allege that the NEB is the

only federal regulatory tribunal with the jurisdiction to examine the

environmental impacts of the production of power for export and that

the NEB’s failure to exercise that jurisdiction has resulted in a failure of

both levels of government to regulate the impact of power generated for

export on fish and fish habitat.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation applied for leave to appeal the decision of

the NEB to the Federal Court of Appeal on the grounds that the NEB

erred in failing to address the environmental effects of the production of

energy for export. This application for leave to appeal was denied without reasons. The Submitters allege that the denial of leave to appeal

effectively immunizes the NEB’s decision from review and exhausts any

further recourse under domestic proceedings.

In its decision, the NEB characterizes the matters raised in the application as operational matters which fall within provincial jurisdiction. The

NEB is of the view that, as a responsible federal regulator, it must be

careful to ensure that it does not intrude into matters of provincial jurisdiction. The NEB concluded that the evidence raised by the B.C. Wildlife

Federation related to operational issues. The record before the NEB

demonstrated that B.C. had approved an Energy Removal Certificate on

February 15, 1996. The NEB was entitled to conclude that the regulatory

concerns of British Columbia in relation to the export application had

been satisfied. The NEB found that the evidence present tended to show

that the Province was active with respect to ensuring appropriate operation of hydro-electric facilities and was taking steps to promote the

public interest in this regard. The NEB concluded that is should not

duplicate provincial responsibilities where the record tends to show that

the Province is actively regulating the activity at issue.

In its reply, Canada asserts that it has properly exercised its power under

the NEB Act. Canada claims that the NEB Act gives the NEB the discretion to decide whether evidence filed about environmental impacts is

sufficient to recommend a designation order for a public hearing. Canada contends that the NEB acted within this discretion in making this

determination on the basis of the evidence before it. Canada notes that

26 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

25. Decision of the National Energy Board, NEB File # 6200-B007-5, September 13,

1996.
the NEB decided the matter on the evidence filed before it in relation to

the application, and that the evidence filed before the NEB is not the

same as that reflected in the attachments provided by the Submitters.

Accordingly, Canada suggests that it cannot be said that Canada failed

to enforce the relevant provisions of the NEB.

Article 45 (1) of the NAAEC states:

A Party has not failed to “effectively enforce its environmental law” or to

comply with Article 5(1) in a particular case where the action or inaction in

question by agencies or officials of that Party:

(a) reflects a reasonable exercise of their discretion in respect of investigatory, prosecutorial, regulatory or compliance matters.

On this matter, the Submission does not meet the threshold necessary to

merit further review. Where an environmental law grants discretionary

decision-making power, a Submitter must adduce evidence that under

the circumstances the Party acted “unreasonably” in exercising discretion in respect of such matters. The Submitters have failed to meet this

standard. As a result, the preparation of a factual record with respect to

the allegations concerning the NEB Act is not warranted.

V- RECOMMENDATION

The Secretariat considers that, in light of the response provided by Canada, the Submission warrants developing a factual record to compile

further factual information regarding the enforcement activity undertaken by Canada and the effectiveness of that activity in ensuring

compliance with section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act.

As noted above, the factual record should not re-examine the underlying

facts which formed the basis of the Supreme Court of British Columbia

action with respect to the Terzaghi and Seton Dams. However, the

ongoing impacts which result from operation of those projects may be

examined, and the disposition of the case itself may be relevant to determining the effectiveness of Canada’s enforcement efforts. Nor should

the factual record examine acts or events preceding the entering into

force of the NAAEC, unless such acts or events are in relation to allegations of a continuing failure to effectively enforce environmental law.

SEM-97-001 27
For the reasons set out above, the Secretariat submits that the preparation of a factual record is not warranted with respect to the allegations

concerning non-enforcement of the NEB Act.

Respectfully submitted on this 27th day of April, 1998,

Janine Ferretti

Interim Executive Director

28 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
SEM-97-002

(RÍO MAGDALENA)

SUBMITTER: COMITÉ PRO LIMPIEZA DEL RÍO

MAGDALENA

PARTY: UNITED MEXICAN STATES

DATE: 15 MARCH 1997

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege that waste water originating in the municipalities of Imuris, Magdalena de

Kino, and Santa Ana, located in the Mexican state

of Sonora, is being discharged into the Magdalena

River without prior treatment. According to the

Submitters, the above contravenes Mexican environmental legislation governing the disposal of

waste water.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(6 OCTOBER 1997)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met.

ART. 14(2)

(8 MAY 1998)

Determination pursuant to Article 14(2) that the

submission merits requesting a response from the

Party.

29

6 de octubre de 1997

POR FAX Y CORREO CERTIFICADO

Sr. Enrique Montaño Guzmán

Sr. Jesús Alberto Sánchez S.

Ing. Luis Felipe Ayala S.

Comité pro limpieza del Río Magdalena

Av. Jesús Arellano No. 103

Pte, Magdalena de Kino

Sonora, México

C.P. 84160

Asunto: Petición relativa a la aplicación efectiva de la legislación

ambiental conforme a los artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo

de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Peticionarios: Comité pro limpieza del Río Magdalena

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha: 15 de marzo de 1997

No. de petición: SEM-97-002

Señores:

Por este conducto me permito informarles que el Secretariado de la

CCA ha concluido la revisión de su petición conforme a los criterios

establecidos en el articulo 14(1) del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental

de América del Norte. De dicha revisión se concluye que la petición

cumple con los requisitos establecidos y procederemos a la evaluación

de la misma de acuerdo al artículo 14(2).

Atentamente,

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Greg Block

Director

31
8 de mayo de 1998

POR FAX Y MENSAJERÍA

Mtra. Julia Carabias Lillo

Semarnap

Periférico Sur # 4209 6o Piso

Fracc. Jardines en la Montaña

14210 México, D.F.

México

Ref.: Petición relativa a la aplicación efectiva de la legislación

ambiental conforme a los artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo

de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Peticionarios: Comité Pro-Limpieza del Río Magdalena

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha: 15 de marzo de 1997

Petición: SEM-97-002

Estimada maestra Carabias:

Como es de su conocimiento, el Secretariado de la CCA recibió el día 7 de

abril de 1997 una petición del Comité Pro-Limpieza del Río Magdalena

con relación a la falta de aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental

mexicana respecto de las descargas de aguas residuales provenientes de

los Municipios de Imuris, Magdalena de Kino y Santa Ana en el Estado

de Sonora, México. El peticionario asevera que dichas descargas son

vertidas al Río Magdalena sin tratamiento previo, en contravención de lo

dispuesto por la legislación ambiental estatal y federal en materia de

prevención y control de la contaminación del agua. Con fecha 6 de

octubre de 1997, el Secretariado determinó que la petición cumple

con los requisitos establecidos en el artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo de

Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte.

32 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
El Secretariado ha revisado la petición de conformidad con el artículo

14(2) del ACAAN. Considerando los criterios allí enunciados, el

Secretariado ha determinado que la petición amerita solicitar una

respuesta de la Parte. Al efecto, solicitamos del Gobierno de México una

respuesta a la petición de referencia y anexamos una copia de la misma y

de toda la información de apoyo que la acompaña.

Conforme al artículo 14(3), estaremos en espera de la respuesta del

Gobierno de México en un plazo de 30 días posteriores a la entrega de la

presente, salvo que por circunstancias excepcionales se requiera ampliar

el plazo a 60 días.

Sometido respetuosamente a su consideración,

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Janine Ferretti

Directora Ejecutiva Interina

c.c. Lic. José Luis Samaniego, Semarnap

Mr. Avrim Lazar, Environment Canada

Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA

Sr. Enrique Montaño Guzmán, Comité Pro-Limpieza

del Río Magdalena

SEM-97-002 33

SEM-97-003

(QUEBEC HOG FARMS)

SUBMITTER: CENTRE QUÉBÉCOIS DU DROIT DE

L’ENVIRONNEMENT (CQDE)

PARTY: CANADA

DATE: 9 APRIL 1997

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege a failure to enforce several

environmental standards related to agricultural

pollution originating from animal production on

the territory of the Province of Quebec.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(8 MAY 1997)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met.

ART. 14(2)

(9 JULY 1997)

Determination pursuant to Article 14(2) that

the submission merits requesting a response

from the Party.

ART. 15(1)

(29 OCTOBER 1999)

Notification to Council of the Determination

that a factual record is warranted in accordance

with Article 15(1).

35

Le 8 mai 1997

Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement

a/s Monsieur Yves Corriveau

2360, rue Notre-Dame Ouest

Suite 307

Montréal (Québec)

H3J 1N4

Objet: Communication sur les questions d’application

visées aux Articles 14 et 15 de l’Accord

nord-américain de coopération dans le

domaine de l’environnement

Auteurs: Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement

(CQDE) et al.

Partie concernée: Canada

Date: 9 avril 1997

Communication no: SEM-97-003

Mesdames/Messieurs,

Le Secrétariat de la Commission de coopération environnementale

a déterminé que votre communication rencontre les critères énoncés

à l’article 14(1) de l’Accord nord-américain de coopération dans le

domaine de l’environnement. En conséquence, le Secrétariat procédera

maintenant à l’étude de la communication en vertu de l’article 14(2) afin

de déterminer si la communication justifie la demande d’une réponse

au gouvernement du Canada.

37
Conformément aux articles 14 et 15 et aux Lignes directrices relatives aux communications sur les questions d’application, nous vous

tiendrons au courant de l’évolution de votre communication.

Veuillez agréer, Mesdames, Messieurs, nos salutations distinguées.

Commission de coopération environnementale – Secrétariat

par: Greg Block

Directeur

c.c.: M. H. Anthony Clarke, Environnement Canada

M. William Nitze, US-EPA

M. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

38 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Le 9 juillet 1997

PAR TÉLÉCOPIEUR ET COURRIER RECOMMANDÉ

L’honorable Christine Stewart

Ministre de l’Environnement

Gouvernement du Canada

Les Terrasses de la Chaudière

28e étage

10, rue Wellington

Hull (Québec)

Canada K1A 0H3

Objet: Communication sur les questions d’application visées

aux articles 14 et 15 de l’Accord nord-américain de

coopération dans le domaine de l’environnement

Auteur(s): Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement

(CQDE) et al.

Partie: Canada

Date: 9 avril 1997

Communication no: SEM-97-003

Madame la Ministre,

Le 9 avril 1997, le Secrétariat de la Commission de coopération environnementale a reçu une communication visée à l’article 14 de l’Accord

nord-américain de coopération dans le domaine de l’environnement

(« l’Accord ») déposée par le Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement (CQDE) et al. La communication allègue que le gouvernement

du Canada omet d’assurer l’application efficace de sa législation de

l’environnement, plus précisément la Loi sur la qualité de l’environnement

et le Règlement sur la prévention de la pollution des eaux par les établissements

de production animale du Québec.

Le Secrétariat a examiné la communication à la lumière du paragraphe

14(1) de l’Accord et en est arrivé à la conclusion, le 1er mai 1997, qu’elle

respecte les critères exposés audit paragraphe.

SEM-97-003 39
S’appuyant sur les dispositions du paragraphe 14(2) de l’Accord, le

Secrétariat a déterminé qu’il est justifié de demander au gouvernement

du Canada de répondre à ladite communication. En conséquence, le

Secrétariat demande une réponse du gouvernement du Canada à la

communication susmentionnée dans les délais prescrits au paragraphe

14(3) de l’Accord. Vous trouverez en annexe, en français et en anglais,

copie de la communication et des principales information fournies à

l’appui de la communication. Nous joignons également copie d’une

lettre reçues des auteurs de la communication nous indiquant les informations principales fournies à l’appui de la communication.

Veuillez agréer, Madame la Ministre, notre haute considération.

Le Secrétariat de la Commission de coopération environnementale

Par: Victor Lichtinger

Directeur exécutif

c.c.: Mme Carol M. Browner

Mme Julia Carabias

M. Yves Corriveau, Centre québécois du droit

de l’environnement

Pièce jointe (1)

40 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 I.D.: SEM-97-003

Submitter(s):

Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement

Centre de recherche et d’intervention environnementale

du Grand-Portage

Comité de citoyens “À bon port“ (L’Assomption)

Comité de citoyens de Grande-Piles (Mauricie)

Comité de citoyens de Saint-André de Kamouraska

(bas-Saint-Laurent)

Comité de citoyens de Sainte-Luce (Bas-Saint-Laurent)

Comité de citoyens de St-Roch-de-Mékinac (Mauricie)

Comité de citoyens pour un Shipton propre (Estrie)

Comité de protection de la santé et de l’environnement

de Gaspé)

Comité de protection Panmassawipi (Estrie)

Comité de la santé publique et de l’environnement

Comité de qualité de vie de Saint-Jean-de-Dieu

(bas-Saint-Laurent)

Les Ami-e-s de la Terre de Québec

Mouvement Vert Mauricie

Regroupement écologique de Val-d’Or et de ses

environs

Réseau québécois des groupes écologistes

Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature

Union Saint-Laurent Grands Lacs (Canada–États-Unis)

Concerned Party: Canada

Date Received: 9 April 1997

Date of this Determination: 29 October 1999

SEM-97-003 41
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Submitters, a number of nongovernmental organizations,1 assert

that many livestock operations in the Province of Quebec are operating

in violation of various environmental laws. The Submitters further claim

that the pollution discharged from these operations in violation of the

law is causing significant harm to the environment and human health.

The Submitters identify the Chaudière, Yamaska and l’Assomption

river basins as having suffered especially adverse impacts. The Submitters, finally, claim that Canada has failed to effectively enforce the environmental laws with respect to these violations. The Submitters rely on a

variety of government reports, among other sources of information, in

making these claims.

Canada asserts that it is effectively enforcing the environmental laws

concerning agricultural operations in Quebec. Canada points to a wide

variety of strategies it has developed and is implementing in order to

promote compliance with these laws. One of these strategies involves

prosecutions, but Canada has pursued a number of other approaches as

well. Canada claims that its efforts have contributed to an improving

environment in Quebec and lessened the impacts of agricultural operations on this environment.

Having considered the submission in light of the response, the Secretariat believes that developing a factual record is warranted. The submission and response leave open several central questions of fact relating to

whether the Party is effectively enforcing the environmental laws at

issue. We identify two of the main assertions here in order to provide an

introduction to the issues discussed below:

• The Submitters assert that the Party is failing to enforce effectively

limits on the number of authorized livestock. The Submitters assert

that the Party establishes legally binding, enforceable limits on the

number of animal units an operation may produce, that there are

widespread violations of these limits, and that the Party is failing to

effectively enforce with respect to these limits. Further, a government

study cited by the Submitters found that the Party subsidizes continuation of such illegal practices through various financial assistance

mechanisms it administers.2 The Party offers some information concerning the asserted illegal over-production and the Party’s efforts to

42 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. A complete list of the parties filing the Submission is provided above.

2. See Annex 16 of the submission: Rapport du Vérificateur général à l’Assemblée nationale

pour l’année 1995-1996, vol. I, chapter 2: “Aide financière offerte aux producteurs

agricoles.”
promote compliance, but more information is needed concerning the

nature of these efforts and their effectiveness.

• The Submitters assert that the Party is failing to effectively enforce

standards for manure storage and spreading. The Submitters assert

that there are legally enforceable requirements governing these practices, that there are widespread violations of these requirements, and

that the Party is failing to effectively enforce with respect to them.

Again, the Party offers some information concerning the alleged illegal manure-spreading and storage practices and the Party’s efforts to

promote compliance, but more information is needed concerning the

nature of these efforts and their effectiveness.

Outstanding questions of fact concerning these assertions, and a number

of other assertions of ineffective enforcement that the Submitters have

made, are discussed in more detail below.

In sum, the Secretariat believes that it is appropriate to develop a factual

record concerning the use and effectiveness of the different enforcement

tools the Party employs to promote compliance with various environmental laws governing livestock operations in the Province of Quebec.

Conducting such a review would be consistent with a broad interpretation of enforcement, an interpretation contemplated by Article 5 of the

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC).

II. BACKGROUND

On 9 April 1997, the Submitters filed with the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”) a submission on

enforcement matters pursuant to Article 14 of NAAEC. The submission

alleges that the Quebec government is failing to enforce environmental

laws concerning pollution originating from livestock operations, primarily from hog farms.

Under Article 14 of NAAEC, the Secretariat may consider a submission

from any non-governmental 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). On 8 May 1997 the Secretariat determined that the submission met these criteria.

Article 14(2) provides that the Secretariat is to determine whether a submission that meets the criteria in Article 14(1) merits a response from a

SEM-97-003 43
Party. In a determination dated 9 July 1997, the Secretariat found that the

submission merited a response from Canada. Canada submitted its

response on 9 September 1997. In its response, Canada asserts that

Quebec effectively enforces its environmental laws with respect to

agricultural pollution and that development of a factual record is inappropriate given, among other things, new provisions respecting agricultural pollution enacted by the Province of Quebec.

On 16 February 1998 the Secretariat requested further information

from Canada, pursuant to Article 21(1)(b). In May 1998, the Secretariat

received Canada’s response to the Secretariat’s Article 21 request for

information. This determination represents the Secretariat’s Notification to Council that the submission warrants developing a factual record

pursuant to Article 15(1) of NAEEC.

A. The Submission

The Submitters assert that the Party is failing to enforce its environmental laws that regulate the management of manure produced in livestock

operations in the Province of Quebec.3 The Submitters further assert that

this failure has caused significant harm both to the environment and to

human populations, especially those living near places where livestock

operations are concentrated.4 The submission, for example, provides

that:

Pollution of watercourses from agricultural sources is one of the most

important environmental problems in Quebec.... Legal tools have been

set up in order to prevent the negative environmental impacts of these

agricultural activities, but failure to enforce these laws and regulations

makes it impossible to respond effectively to these problems.5

The submission relies in part on government reports, including a report

to the National Assembly of Quebec by the Quebec Auditor General

for the year 1995–96,6 to support its assertions.

44 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

3. See, e.g., Submission at 3, 4, 9, 11.

4. Submission at 3, 9, 13.

5. Submission at 9.

6. Rapport du Vérificateur général à l’Assemblée nationale pour l’année 1995-1996, vol. I,

chapter 2: “Aide financière offerte aux producteurs agricoles” (Annex 16). The submission also cites other government reports, such as: Vision strategique 1. Les grands

enjeux 1996-2001 and État de l’environnement au Québec 1992, chap. 7: “L’activité

agricole.” The former, provided as Annex 1 to the submission, found that the volume

of manure “stored in facilities that do not comply with regulations exceeds 9 million

cubic meters per year and the spreading surface available near the production sites is

only sufficient for 3.6 million cubic meters per year,” cited in the submission, page 3.
In particular, the submission and its annexes (including the Auditor

General’s Report) assert that there is evidence of widespread violations

of the Environment Quality Act (EQA) and the Regulation respecting

the prevention of water pollution in livestock operations (the Regulation).7 Such alleged violations include production of unauthorized animal units, illegal manure-spreading, operation of noncompliant storage

facilities, and noncompliance with record-keeping requirements.8 In

addition, the submission and its annexes (including, again, the Auditor

General’s Report) claim that there are a number of weaknesses in government efforts to enforce the law. They assert, for example, that monitoring is ineffective, and that government is hampered by a lack of basic

information about the regulated sector.9 Further, the Auditor General’s

Report found that government programs provide financial aid to producers who do not comply with the Regulation and thereby subsidize

illegal practices.10

B. The Response

In its response, Canada submits that it has acted consistently with its

obligations under NAAEC in enforcing environmental legislation in the

agricultural sector.11 First, Canada claims that Quebec effectively

enforces the Environment Quality Act and the Regulation, utilizing a

wide array of “innovative regulatory enforcement methods” that “for

the most part use incentive measures to ensure enforcement and to reach

environmental goals” as well as prosecutions and related tools.12 The

Party asserts that Quebec’s strategies and enforcement methods fully

satisfy Article 5 of NAAEC, which presents a “non-comprehensive list of

governmental measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of laws and

regulations.”13

Second, Canada points out that Quebec adopted new laws with respect

to agricultural pollution in 1997, “taking on new measures that improve

SEM-97-003 45

The latter government report, attached as Annex 2 to the submission, states that

there were approximately 10,000 livestock operations that had not complied with

the regulations in 1991. Cited in Submission, page 3.

7. R.R.Q., 1981, c. Q-2, reg. 18 in force from 1981 to 1997. This regulation has been

replaced by the Regulation respecting the Reduction of Pollution from Agricultural Sources (1997), which came into force 3 July 1997. Response at 9. We discuss

below the impact of the adoption of new regulations on this submission.

8. See, e.g., Submission at 3, 7, 9, 12-13.

9. Submission; Auditor General’s Report at 2.110, 2.162-2.166.

10. Auditor General’s Report at 2.111-2.113, 2.141.

11. Response at 1.

12. Response at 2. Section III contains a more detailed presentation of the enforcement

measures identified by the Party in its response.

13. Response at 2.
enforcement of the Environmental Quality Act . . . .”14 Canada asserts

that this effort to improve the state of regulation of this industry renders

preparation of a Factual Record inappropriate, in accordance with Article 3 of NAAEC concerning improvement of environmental laws and

regulations.15

Third, Canada argues that the preparation of a Factual Record would not

produce any new information or “present the matter in a new light,” in

view of the level of detail provided in the response.16

The Party appears to claim that the Submitters would have enjoyed legal

standing under the Environment Quality Act to pursue this issue and

that they have not pursued all of the remedies available to them under

domestic law.17

Finally, Canada submits that NAAEC should not be interpreted as

having retroactive effect.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Introduction

We are now at the Article 15(1) stage of the factual record process.

To reach this stage, the Secretariat must first determine that a submission

meets the criteria in Article 14(1) and that it is appropriate to request a

response from a Party based upon a review of the factors contained in

NAAEC Article 14(2). As the Secretariat has noted in previous Article

14(1) determinations, the requirements contained in Article 14 are not

intended to place an undue burden on submitters. In the determination

concerning the Animal Alliance submission (SEM-97-005), for example,

the Secretariat states as follows:

The Secretariat is of the view that Article 14, and Article 14(1) in particular,

are not intended to be insurmountable screening devices. The Secretariat

also believes that Article 14(1) should be given a large and liberal interpretation, consistent with the objectives of the NAAEC . . . .18

In its discussion in the Animal Alliance determination of the burden

under Article 14, the Secretariat noted that use of the word “assertion” in

46 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

14. Response at 5.

15. Response at 5.

16. Response at 5.

17. Response at 12-13.

18. Submission No. SEM-97-005 (26 May 1998).
the opening sentence of Article 14(1) “supports a relatively low threshold under Article 14(1),”19 while also indicating that “a certain amount of

substantive analysis is nonetheless required at this initial stage” because

“[o]therwise, the Secretariat would be forced to consider all submissions

that merely ‘assert’ a failure to effectively enforce environmental law.”

The recent revisions to the Guidelines provide further support for the

proposition that the Article 14(1) and (2) stages of the citizen submission

process are not intended to serve as as an “insurmountable” screening

mechanism. The Guidelines limit submissions to 15 pages in length.20

The revised Guidelines require a submitter to address a minimum of 13

criteria or factors in this limited space, indicating that a submission is not

expected to contain extensive discussion of each criterion and factor in

order to qualify under Article 14(1) and (2) for more in-depth consideration.

Here, as indicated above, the Secretariat previously found (on 9 May

1997) that the submission meets the six criteria listed in Article

14(1)(a)–(f) for continued review.21 In brief, the analysis is as follows:

1. The submission is in French, one of the languages designated by

Canada (14(1)(a)).

2. The submission clearly identifies the persons and organizations

making the submission (14(1)(b)). (Submission at 2.)

3. The submission provides sufficient information to allow the Secretariat to review the submission, including several government and

other reports relating to the issues covered in the submission

(14(1)(c)).22

SEM-97-003 47

19. The relevant part of Article 14(1) reads as follows: “The Secretariat may consider a

submission from any nongovernmental organization or person asserting that....”

20. Guideline 3.3.

21. The Council adopted revised Guidelines for the Article 14 process in June 1999.

Guideline 7.2 requires the Secretariat to provide in its notifications concerning

Article 14(1) and (2) an explanation of how the submission meets or fails to meet the

Article 14(1) criteria as well as an explanation of the factors that guided the Secretariat in making its determination under Article 14(2). The revised Guidelines are

available on the CEC web page, www.cec.org, under Citizen Submissions.

22. See, e.g., Rapport du Vérificateur général à l’Assemblée nationale pour l’année 1995-1996,

vol. I, chapter 2: “Aide financière offerte aux producteurs agricoles.” The submission also identifies the applicable statutes and regulations and contains a succinct

account of the facts on which the assertions of failures of effective enforcement are

based. See Guidelines 5.2 and 5.3.
4. The submission appears to be aimed at promoting enforcement,

not at harassing industry (e.g., the Submitters are not competitors

of entities that are the subject of the government “enforcement”

practices at issue. Instead, the Submitters are organizations committed to environmental and public health protection and the

submission focuses on purported government failures)(14(1)(d)).

5. The submission indicates that the matter has been communicated

in writing to the relevant authorities of the Party and it indicates

the Party’s response, if any (14(1)(e)).23

6. The Submitters reside in or were established in Canada (14(1)(f)).

The submission also satisfies the three additional threshold criteria contained in the opening sentence of Article 14(1), notably that a submission

must assert that a Party: 1) “is failing;” 2) “to effectively enforce;” 3) its

“environmental law.” The Environment Quality Act and the Regulation

qualify as “environmental law” for purposes of NAAEC. The submission appropriately focuses on the extent to which a Party has failed to

effectively enforce those laws, not on the effectiveness of the environmental laws as written. Finally, the submission meets the temporal

requirement in Article 14(1) because the assertions involve many alleged

violations that occurred after 1 January 1994; indeed, the submission

asserts that many of the alleged violations are ongoing.

The Secretariat also previously determined that a response from the

Party was merited, based on the factors in Article 14(2) (on 9 July 1997).

In deciding whether to request a response from a Party, the Secretariat is

guided by the four factors listed in Article 14(2). Thus, during this phase

of the process the Secretariat assigns weight to each factor as it deems

appropriate in the context of a particular submission. Concerning the

48 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

23. The submission summarizes some of the correspondence with the government on

pages 3-4. This correspondence includes letters to the government on 2 February

1996, 5 February 1996, 12 March 1996, and 19 November 1996, and government

responses dated 27 March 1996 and 4 December 1996. The Party apparently does

not believe that the Submitters took full advantage of their opportunities to interact

with government, while the Submitters apparently believe opportunities to participate were unduly limited in some situations. See, e.g., Response at 13; Submission

at 14. The important point for our purposes at this juncture is that the Secretariat

previously determined that the Submitters satisfied the criterion that the submission indicate that the matter has been communicated in writing to the relevant

authorities and indicate the Party’s response, and the response has not persuaded

the Secretariat that this previous determination was in error. The materials provided to the Secretariat, including the Auditor General’s report, reflect that the

matter identified in the submission is well known to the Party as well as the public

at large.
issue of harm (see Article 14(2)(a)), the submission alleges that significant environmental harm and harm to human health have resulted from

the alleged violations and failure to effectively enforce.24

Similarly, in the Secretariat’s view the submission raises matters whose

further study would advance the goals of NAAEC (Article 14(2)(b)).

Submissions such as this, which focus on the effectiveness of enforcement in the context of asserted widespread violations, are inherently

more likely to warrant scrutiny by the Commission than allegations of

failures to enforce concerning single violations. This is so even though it

obviously may be appropriate for the Commission to address the latter,

depending on the circumstances. The asserted violations at issue in this

submission also appear to have the potential for significant adverse

environmental impacts. As discussed in more detail below, the fact that

in 1997 the Party changed some of its laws governing management of

pollution by agricultural operations does not negate the value of developing a factual record here.

The Secretariat also was satisfied that the Submitter had adequately

pursued private remedies (Article 14(2)(c)). The Submitters have communicated numerous times with government officials regarding their

concerns, although the Secretariat is not aware of any private legal

actions filed against alleged violators. Some of the submitting organizations have corresponded with the government regarding their concerns

and they participated in consultative meetings during the development

of the new regulations.25 The Submitters claim that the initiation of individual lawsuits against violators is not a satisfactory strategy to address

the violations alleged here:

The problems posed by failure to enforce the legal provisions concerning

livestock operations, as raised by the Submitters, have an impact on Quebec as a whole. The proliferation and concentration of operations of this

SEM-97-003 49

24. The submission, among other things, indicates that members of the submitting

organizations “feel the direct or indirect effects of this environmental problem

which affects numerous Quebec watercourses.” Submission at 9. In “Recommendation of the Secretariat to Council for the development of a Factual Record in

accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation”, SEM 96-001 (7 June 1996), the Secretariat stated that in considering harm, “the Secretariat notes the importance and character of the resource

in question,” continuing that “[w]hile 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 nature of

the resources at issue “bring the submitters within the spirit and intent of Article 14

of the NAAEC.” The importance of the resources at issue in this proceeding support the same conclusion.

25. See previous note summarizing the correspondence and see Submission at 3-4, 14.
type in certain Quebec regions causes major deterioration in the water

quality of many watercourses, due to the combined action of various agricultural operations, many of which may not comply with the environmental standards in force. Thus it becomes extremely difficult for those

affected to ensure that their rights are respected by using private remedies

directed at many possible culprits, since the pollution comes from multiple sources.

. . . There is a persistent pattern of failure to enforce standards throughout

Quebec. Given the significant number of violations, individual remedies

cannot provide permanent solutions for the harm done to both environment and population.26

Finally, the submission relies on a number of reports issued by government and others in support of its allegations and is not drawn exclusively from mass media reports (Article 14(2)(d)). One such report is the

Quebec Auditor General’s Report to the National Assembly of Quebec

for 1995–96.27

In sum, the Secretariat has previously found that the submission meets

the criteria in Article 14(1) and it has previously determined that a

response from the Party was merited based on the factors contained in

NAAEC Article 14(2). Under Article 15(1), the Secretariat must now

consider whether a factual record should be developed in light of the

submission and response. As discussed in the following section, the

Secretariat is persuaded that a factual record is warranted to develop

additional information concerning the effectiveness of Canada’s

enforcement responses to the alleged widespread and ongoing violations of the environmental laws.

B. Why Preparation of a Factual Record is Warranted

The Secretariat believes that development of a factual record is warranted. The key provisions at issue are contained in the Environment

Quality Act (EQA) and the Regulation respecting the prevention of

water pollution in livestock operations (the Regulation). Among other

things, the EQA prohibits the discharge into the environment of a

50 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

26. Submission at 11, 14 (emphasis in submission). Canada submits that the Submitters

have not pursued all the remedies that were available to them, such as the right

to seek an injunction pursuant to sections 19.1, 19.2 and 19.3 of the Environment

Quality Act.

27. Rapport du Vérificateur général à l’Assemblée nationale pour l’année 1995-1996, vol. I,

chapter 2: “Aide financière offerte aux producteurs agricoles” (Annex 16).
contaminant in greater quantity than provided for by government regulation.28 The EQA also provides that no one may undertake certain activities that seem likely to result in environmental contamination without

first obtaining a certificate of authorization.29

The Regulation contains a general prohibition, providing that the

deposit or discharge of livestock manure, manure liquid or contaminated water into the environment is prohibited except where such

deposit or discharge is carried out in accordance with the Regulation.30

The Regulation establishes standards for different aspects of manure

management, including the siting of facilities, manure storage, and

manure-spreading. Producers must also comply with record-keeping

requirements, providing information on, among other things, the date,

place and quantity of manure-spreading on land that is not their property.

Further, the Regulation requires producers to obtain a certificate of

authorization to begin or expand livestock operations or to make certain

modifications of their facilities. The Deputy Minister of Environment

must ensure that the project complies in all respects with the Environment Quality Act and the Regulation before issuing a certificate of

authorization.31

SEM-97-003 51

28. Section 20 provides:

Emission of a contaminant. – No one may emit, deposit, issue or discharge or allow

the emission, deposit, issuance or discharge into the environment of a contaminant

in a greater quantity or concentration than that provided for by regulation of the

Government.

Emission of a contaminant. – The same prohibition applies to the emission,

deposit, issuance or discharge of any contaminant the presence of which in the

environment is prohibited by regulation of the Government or is likely to affect the

life, health, safety, welfare or comfort of human beings, or to cause damage to or

otherwise impair the quality of the soil, vegetation, wild life or property. 1972, c. 49,

s. 20.

29. Section 22 provides: “No one may erect or alter a structure, undertake to operate an

industry, carry on an activity or use an industrial process or increase the production of any goods or services if it seems likely that this will result in an emission,

deposit, issuance or discharge of contaminants into the environment or a change in

the quality of the environment, unless he first obtains from the Minister a certificate

of authorization. However, no one may erect or alter any structure, carry out any

works or projects, undertake to operate any industry, carry on any activity or use

any industrial process or increase the production of any goods or services in a constant or intermittent watercourse, a lake, pond, marsh, swamp or bog, unless he

first obtains a certificate of authorization from the Minister.”

30. Division IV, General Manure Management Standards, section 17.

31. Section 3 of the regulation reads as follows: “Compliance: Before granting a certificate of authorization, the Deputy Minister must ensure that the project complies in

all respects with the Act and this Regulation.”
As noted above, the Submitters allege widespread violations of the EQA

and Regulation and the Certificates of Authorization issued under these

authorities and a failure to effectively enforce with respect to these violations. While the response describes some of the measures Quebec has

employed to enforce the EQA and the Regulation, additional information should be developed concerning the central issue of the effectiveness of these measures, particularly in light of the widespread violations

asserted to exist in the submission and described in the government

reports appended to the submission. Additional information should

also be developed concerning the actual use of the various enforcement

tools. This section: 1) summarizes the types of violations asserted to

exist; 2) reviews the Party’s enforcement responses to these asserted violations; and 3) identifies some of the questions that remain, concerning

the nature of the Party’s responses and their effectiveness.

1. Assertions that far more animal units are produced than are

permitted under Certificates of Authorization

Livestock operators who wish to establish, expand or modify an operation must first obtain a certificate of authorization.32 Such certificates

limit the number of “animal units” the operation may raise, based on a

variety of factors such as manure-spreading capability, storage capacity,

and the like.33Applicants for a certificate of authorization are required to

furnish the Government of Quebec with information about their proposed project, including location, construction plans, and the means and

methods of manure disposal.34 The Quebec Ministry of Environment

and Wildlife (MEF) then analyzes the information provided for compliance with applicable regulations and, where necessary, projects are

modified so that they will comply with the standards.35 The Party

asserts that Quebec places significant importance on analysis of project

design, carrying out quality control before a project goes ahead.36

The Submitters assert that substantially more animal units are raised

than is allowed by the certificates.37 The Auditor General’s Report

(Annex 16) indicates the practice of raising unauthorized animal units is

widespread. For example, the Report cites the results of a 1995 investigation which found a discrepancy of approximately 23 percent between

52 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

32. Response at 26.

33. Div. II of Regulation, Response at 25-27, Auditor General’s Report 2.103; Submitters’ Annex 21.

34. Response at 26.

35. Response at 26.

36. Response at 26-27.

37. See, e.g., Submission at 12.
the number of units of hogs authorized by the certificates of authorization and the number of livestock units actually owned by pork producers.38 A 1996 article in Le Soleil (Annex 25) summarizing another report

that was endorsed by, among others, the MEF, the Ministry of Agriculture (MAPAQ), and organizations representing livestock producers,

found that nearly one third of herds in some parts of the ChaudièreAppalaches regions do not appear on official registers.39 The article

reports that “The Ministry of Environment and Wildlife (MEF) has lost

control of the pork production industry in the Chaudière-Appalaches

regions; delinquent producers have significant illegal herds. . . .”40

The Auditor General also found that the Party is directly subsidizing

unauthorized animal units. One investigation cited by the Auditor General found that, of $ 4.4 million in compensation remitted by the Régie

des Assurance Agricoles (RAAQ) in 1994 to approximately 50 producers, more than $ 800,000 was for unauthorized animal units.41

The response states that the government has initiated an enforcement

response in connection with this problem:

The Government of Quebec has taken significant measures toward finding solutions to the manure-spreading problem....A pilot project dealing

with pork production is currently underway. Its goal [is to] ensure that

insurable stock is limited to the units authorized by the MEF. . . .

Once the results of the project have been evaluated, this policy will be

incorporated into the regulatory overhaul of the stabilization insurance

program . . . and will be in effect for all livestock operations.42

It would be relevant to obtain the following types of information concerning the asserted violations of the limits on animal production units

SEM-97-003 53

38. Auditor General’s Report, 2.110, 2.111. When the Auditor General compared the

number of declared animal units as reflected on government record cards with the

number of hogs insured by RAAQ in one river basin, it found that declared animal

units had been underestimated by approximately 220,000 hogs. This underestimation represents 15,950 tanker-truck loads of animal waste, each containing 40,000

litres. Auditor General’s Report, 2.122.

39. Article in Le Soleil, 28 February 1996, by Michel Corbeil, entitled “Illegal Pig Herds:

The MEF can no longer keep track of surplus manure.” (Annex 25). This article covers a report called “Surplus Manure in the Chaudière-Etchemin Basin” (“Les surplus de fumier dans le bassin Chaudière-Etchemin”) and indicates the report was

endorsed by the MEF and the Ministry of Agriculture (MAPAQ), as well as by organizations representing producers.

40. Article in Le Soleil, 28 February 1996, by Michel Corbeil, entitled “Illegal Pig Herds:

The MEF can no longer keep track of surplus manure.” (Annex 25).

41. Auditor General’s Report, 2.111.

42. Response at 58.
and the nature and effectiveness of the Party’s response to these asserted

violations:

1. Information concerning the scope of the violations and noncompliance. Relevant information here would include information concerning the number and distribution of unauthorized animal units.

In its report, the Auditor General indicated that it was unable to

determine what percentage of the $ 145 million remitted from

RAAQ to 1,644 pork producers in 1994 went to unauthorized units,

because information concerning authorized herds was unavailable.43 Also relevant would be the nature of the Party’s efforts to

monitor compliance with limits on the number of animal units. The

Party indicates that it gives priority to monitoring farms’ compliance with environmental standards,44 and it would be relevant to

develop information concerning the nature of these monitoring

approaches and, in particular, the extent to which they are effective

in identifying unauthorized practices such as maintenance of

unauthorized animal units.

2. Information concerning the nature and effectiveness of the Party’s

pilot project. It would be relevant to develop additional information concerning: 1) the nature of the pilot project; 2) efforts to monitor its impacts, including the evaluation the Party indicated it

would complete; and 3) the actual effect of the pilot project on the

extent of noncompliance in the areas covered by the project.

3. Information concerning the status of the effort to incorporate the

lessons learned from the pilot project into revised regulations

for the stabilization insurance program. It would be relevant to

develop information concerning the extent to which the pilot project or lessons learned from it have been incorporated into regulations. It would also be relevant to develop information concerning

efforts to monitor the impacts of such an initiative and concerning

the extent to which this broader initiative has affected the extent of

noncompliance.

4. Information concerning other enforcement efforts to promote

compliance. It also would be relevant to develop information concerning any other strategies that the Party is implementing to

address the violations involving maintenance of unauthorized

54 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

43. Auditor General’s Report, para 2.112.

44. See, e.g., Response to Article 21 request at 6.
units. Information should also be developed concerning the steps

the Party has taken to evaluate the success of any such strategies

and concerning the effectiveness of such strategies. Related, it

would be worthwhile to develop information concerning whether

the Party is of the view that reducing or eliminating subsidies will

address the noncompliance, or whether the Party is concerned that

substantial violations will continue even if subsidies are reduced.

2. Surplus Manure-spreading

Another type of violation asserted in the submission and supporting

documentation is surplus manure-spreading. The Regulation provides

that manure must be uniformly spread on cropland over a minimum

area of 0.3 hectares per animal unit contained in the operation.45 Under

the Regulation, producers are required to either own enough cropland

to spread the manure generated by the animal units that they raise at or

below the maximum application level allowed by the Regulation or

arrange to spread the manure on the land of a third party.46 Producers

must also comply with record-keeping requirements, maintaining information on, among other things, the date, place and quantity of manure

spread on land that is not their property.47

The Auditor General’s report found violations of manure-spreading

requirements, including lack of effective monitoring, noncompliance

with record-keeping requirements, and violations of substantive

requirements.48 The Auditor General found that “in the absence of effective monitoring, spreading agreements are rarely taken seriously by

producers and records are not kept.”49 Similarly, a Le Soleil article

reported that, among the “several failures on the part of the MEF,” MEF

officials do not ask producers for the manure-spreading records that the

Regulation requires them to keep, and do not ensure compliance with

spreading agreements.50 The Auditor General found excess manurespreading to be the leading source of nonpoint source pollution.51

SEM-97-003 55

45. Division VI, section 40. Application at a higher rate is allowed if a technical study

signed by a duly authorized professional attests that the nature of the crops allows

a higher application rate. Id.

46. Division VI, section 40. Consigning management of surplus manure to MEFrecognized agencies is another option. Response at 8.

47. Auditor General’s Report, 2.103; Response at 8.

48. Auditor General’s Report, 2.108, 2.110, 2.113.

49. Auditor General’s Report, 2.110.

50. Le Soleil, 28 February 1996, by Michel Corbeil, “Illegal Pig Herds: The MEF can no

longer keep track of surplus manure.” (Annex 25).

51. Submission at 12, cites Auditor General’s Report, 2.6.
The Auditor General also reports that the Party provides financial aid to

operators that are violating spreading requirements. The Report indicates that “producers continue to receive financial assistance from

MAPAQ and its organizations, even if they do not comply with MEF

requirements and spread farm manure inappropriately.”52

The response asserts that the Government of Quebec has “taken significant measures toward finding solutions to the manure-spreading problem.”53 The response identifies the pilot project intended to ensure that

insurable stock is limited to the units authorized by the MEF as one such

measure. It would be relevant to develop more information concerning

this pilot project and any expansion of it, as indicated above. Information regarding other enforcement strategies to address violations of

spreading requirements would be relevant as well.

The Party refers to specific programs to address manure-spreading

problems in areas with particularly high concentrations of livestock

operations. The response indicates that “[m]anure management agencies have been established in the most problematic areas of the

Chaudière, Yamaska and l’Assomption river basins, where there is an

overall manure surplus in relation to the whole region.”54 The mission of

the surplus manure management agencies is to “appropriately use and

dispose of the manure in their respective regions, taking into account

agronomic, environmental and economic factors.”55 The agencies are

monitored by committees made up of representatives from the municipal, provincial, environmental and public health sectors.56 The Regulation was amended to give powers to manure management agencies in

1996.57 As a result, producers with surplus liquid manure in regions

with “high breeding concentrations” are required to use the services

of the regional management agency to construct or expand breeding-related facilities.58 The Quebec government can revoke the powers

of an agency at any time if it does not comply with its requirements.59

56 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

52. Auditor General’s Report, 2.113. The Auditor General’s Report also states: “Even

though the purpose of these subsidies is environmental protection, MAPAQ does

not ensure that the producers targeted adopt sound environmental practices. Thus,

subsidies for proper manure storage have not been conditional upon the establishment of a fertilization plan that includes environmentally friendly manurespreading methods.” Auditor General’s Report, 2.61.

53. Response at 58.

54. Response at 58.

55. Response at 45.

56. Response at 45.

57. Response at 45.

58. Response at 45.

59. Response at 45.
The Party estimates that Quebec will have granted nearly C $10 million

to manure management agencies by 1999.60 The response sums up as follows concerning these agencies: “In short, these management agencies

promote regional cooperation among the various stakeholders while

giving the Quebec government the final say if an agency cannot guarantee that its activities are environmentally sound.”61

The Auditor General’s Report found that, since their creation, manure

management organizations have carried out studies aimed at accurately

determining volumes of surplus manure and have recruited producers

to join the organizations.62 The Report also found, however, that only

a small percentage of high surplus producers are members because

MAPAQ does not require producers of surplus manure to belong to a

manure management organization.63 Thus, the Auditor General found

that manure management agencies only manage 10 to 20 percent of the

pollutant load in their respective river basins, and MAPAQ cannot be

sure that manure surpluses are being managed adequately.64The Report

states that “few concrete measures have been taken to manage previously existing surpluses or the surpluses brought about by the 15 percent increase in pork production over the last five years.”65

It would be relevant to develop facts on several issues relating to the creation of the manure management agencies. Such issues include the following:

• the nature of the strategies the agencies have developed to deal

with surplus manure in order to promote compliance with manurespreading requirements;

• the nature of the Party’s efforts to monitor the effectiveness of these

strategies in promoting compliance;

• the extent to which the strategies have been effective; and

• the nature and extent of the Party’s plans to pursue other enforcement

approaches to the extent the strategies have not proven effective (for

example, enforcement approaches taken concerning the many “high

SEM-97-003 57

60. Response at 45.

61. Response at 45.

62. Auditor General’s Report, 2.132.

63. Auditor General’s Report, 2.133. The Report states that between 5 and 27 percent of

high surplus producers are members, depending on the region.

64. Auditor General’s Report, para 2.133.

65. Auditor General’s Report, para 2.130.
surplus producers” in these regions that apparently have not associated with the agencies).66

The response references the new Regulation as part of its strategy to

improve manure-spreading practices:

The new regulation makes several modifications to the old Regulation

respecting the prevention of water pollution in livestock operations,

particularly with respect to manure-spreading conditions, spreading

agreement rules, ownership of the land where spreading occurs and

record-keeping. It establishes distance limits for spreading near sources of

water and renews those for aquatic environments. Formal agreements are

required for spreading on land of which the producer of the manure is not

the owner. Prior provisions concerning manure management agencies

were incorporated into the new legislation. New record-keeping requirements for operations that are particularly large or that pose a hazard to the

environment have been added to existing rules concerning the consignment of manure to other operators. The MEF can also require operators to

submit records of manure-spreading and shipping activities. Spreading

on frozen or snow-covered ground continues to be prohibited, to which is

added a ban on spreading between 1 October and the following 1 March,

and the use of canons to spread liquid manure.67

The response points out that the new regulation requires the 25,000

producers with the highest environmental risk factors to develop agrienvironmental fertilization plans over the next six years. These plans are

intended to establish a balance between crop needs and the use of all

types of fertilizer.68 Because the Party has identified the new regulation

as part of its strategy to address the environmental and public health

concerns at issue in this submission, the Secretariat believes it would be

appropriate to develop facts concerning the extent to which there is compliance with this regulation. The factual record would not develop facts

concerning the effectiveness of the regulation itself but instead would be

limited to the question of effectiveness of enforcement. For example, the

Auditor General notes that no follow-up measures have been taken to

ensure that the plans prepared under the new regulation are implemented.69 It would be appropriate to develop information concerning

the nature and extent of such follow-up.

58 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

66. The Party has provided policies that appear to set forth its approach to monitoring

and other issues (see, e.g., Annex 2 to the Response to the Article 21 Request) but

there is little information concerning actual implementation of these strategies.

This information seems particularly relevant in light of the Auditor General’s findings relating to an absence of effective monitoring.

67. Response at 9.

68. Response at 10.

69. Auditor General’s Report, 2.62.
3. Noncompliant manure storage facilities.

Another type of violation of the Regulation asserted in the submission

involves noncompliant manure storage facilities. The Auditor General

reports that a 1987 inventory by the MEF found that 86 percent of agricultural buildings were neither adequate nor compliant with manure

storage regulations.70 In 1988, the government initiated the Manure

Management Assistance Program (PAAGF) to remedy this problem. By

1996, the government had invested $ 98 million in improving manure

storage facilities.71 Livestock producers also contributed to the cost of

the improvements.72

The response asserts that Quebec has made significant progress in bringing manure storage facilities into compliance with the Regulation, in

large part due to this program.73 Canada explains that Quebec has prioritized liquid manure storage, which has a higher polluting potential, and

that subsequent government actions will be aimed at the storage of

solid manure.74 Canada indicates that the above-referenced grants have

“resulted in the proper storage of more than 12 million cubic meters of

manure produced by nearly 698,000 animal units.”75

Canada reports that “[o]ver a period of five years, it should resolve the

problems surrounding manure storage. . . .”76 The response indicates

that “new measures will allow operations with more than 100 animal

units to comply with manure storage regulations,” starting in March

1999, and that operations with fewer than 50 animal units will be compliant by March 2002.77

The Auditor General estimated that the remaining program budget

would be sufficient to resolve the 1,200 to 1,500 cases of farms with serious storage problems.78 Citing MAPAQ calculations, the Auditor General estimated that an additional investment of $ 210 million would be

necessary to resolve the 8,000 less critical cases that remain.79

SEM-97-003 59

70. Auditor General’s Report, 2.105.

71. Auditor General’s Report, 2.106. Canada advises in its response that from 1988 to

1997, “$ 114 million was granted to 6,965 projects for the construction or modification of storage facilities.” Response at 23.

72. Auditor General’s Report, 2.105.

73. Response at 16, 23, 53.

74. Response at 53.

75. Response at 23.

76. Response at 23.

77. Response at 53.

78. Auditor General’s Report, 2.106.

79. Auditor General’s Report, 2.106.
Facts relevant to Canada’s enforcement response to resolve violations of

manure storage requirements include:

• information relevant to the nature and extent of efforts to promote

compliance at the 1,200 to 1,500 farms that the Auditor General’s

Report indicates have serious storage problems; this would include

information relating to the financial assistance program referenced

on page 23 of the response and covered in Annex 11, among others;

• information relating to the Party’s efforts to monitor compliance at

such farms;

• information relating to the effectiveness of the Party’s efforts in promoting and producing compliance;

• information relating to the Party’s plans to the extent that significant

noncompliance exists;

• the same questions with respect to the 8,000 “less critical cases” of

noncompliance the Auditor General identifies; and

• the point made by the Auditor General’s Report that improvements

in manure storage have led to an increase in manure to be spread.80

Thus, it would be relevant to learn the nature and effectiveness of

government efforts to monitor the connection between storage practices (including coming into compliance with storage requirements)

and spreading practices, if any. Related, it would be relevant to learn

the nature and extent of government efforts to ensure that enhanced

compliance with storage requirements does not cause or exacerbate

noncompliance with spreading requirements.

4. Information Concerning Enforcement Activity and Information

Management

The use of formal enforcement (investigations, prosecutions, etc.) and

management of information are two issues that relate to all three types of

alleged violations discussed above. It would be relevant to develop

additional information in each of these areas.

With respect to the former, for example, the Party asserts that, in recent

years, the MEF has increased its monitoring efforts and initiated more

60 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

80. Auditor General’s Report, 2.108.
legal actions to enforce the Regulation.81 As noted above, however, the

Auditor General’s Report raises questions about the adequacy or effectiveness of compliance-monitoring. The Report indicates that widespread violations of the spreading requirements and limits in

numbers of authorized animal units may occur at least in part because

of deficiencies in such monitoring:

Respect for such regulations is even more vital than is recognized by both

the MEF and MAPAQ, as, in the absence of effective monitoring, spreading agreements are rarely taken seriously by producers and records are

not kept. Moreover, herds are larger than authorized.82

Thus, it would be worthwhile to develop additional information concerning, among other things, the effectiveness of monitoring practices in

uncovering violations of the law concerning numbers of authorized

units and manure-spreading practices, as well as concerning recordkeeping requirements.

It also would be relevant to develop information concerning the policies

the Party has developed for initiating prosecutions (e.g., the types of violations that warrant prosecutions) as well as information concerning

actual implementation of those policies. As discussed above, the Auditor General’s Report and other documents suggest that there are thousands of ongoing violations. The Party has provided certain information

concerning its prosecution activities in recent years.83 It would be relevant to determine the Party’s policies for prioritizing among violations

and determining when prosecutions are appropriate, and actual implementation of these policies, among other information in order to supplement the information already provided.

The Auditor General identifies lack of accurate information about the

regulated population as another obstacle to effective enforcement.84 In

its comments to the Auditor General’s report, the MEF states that it

“only has access to partial data,” “making the identification of surplus

municipalities difficult” and “prevent[ing] it from accurate knowledge

of farms in the area.”85 The Party states that one response of the MEF to

data-related concerns has been to undertake a “unique identification

project” that “will lead to a better understanding of the agricultural

community.”86

SEM-97-003 61

81. Response at 28.

82. Auditor General’s Report, para 2.110.

83. See, e.g., Response at 28-41.

84. See, e.g., Auditor General’s Report, 2.147-2.166.

85. Auditor General’s Report, 2.166.

86. Response at 59.
The following information on the identification project would be useful

in evaluating the effectiveness of this program:

• the nature of the unique identification project, and

• the effectiveness of the project in enabling the Party to develop information necessary to evaluate compliance.

It would also be relevant to develop information concerning other

efforts Canada is making to improve accuracy of information needed to

monitor compliance. Canada references other efforts to improve data,

including facilitating interagency exchanges of information. It would

be relevant to develop information concerning such efforts and their

effectiveness in addressing some of the issues identified above

(such as enhancing the government’s ability to monitor the number of

authorized animal units and enhancing its ability to limit subsidies to

authorized units).

Operators are obligated to provide accurate information to the government.87 The Auditor General’s Report suggests that there may be violations of this obligation. The Report indicates that the three government

bodies that hold information on livestock producers (MEF, MAPAQ,

and RAAQ) found numerous inconsistencies in data held by the different sources.88

The response states that information provided in applications for a certificate of authorization is “rigorously analyzed” for compliance with

applicable regulations.89 The response indicates that the MEF has had 26

people to analyze the nearly 5,000 requests for certificates of authorization received between April 1994 and the filing of the submission in

1997.90 Based on this limited information and the Auditor General’s

findings, additional inquiry would seem to be appropriate concerning

the nature of the Party’s efforts to analyze the applications rigorously,

including means employed to verify information provided (such as

cross-checking with other government agencies, which the Auditor

General suggests rarely occurs).91

62 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

87. See, e.g., Response at 7, discussing EQA Article 122’s authorizing the Government

to amend or cancel a certificate where the certificate is issued based on incorrect

information, among other reasons.

88. Auditor General’s Report, 2.158.

89. Response at 26.

90. Response at 25 and 41. Specifically, page 41 says that the MEF “received 5,039

requests for official documents in this period, most of which were requests for

authorization. 4,624 were processed. . . .”

91. Auditor General’s Report, 2.155-2.166.
5. Other Issues

It appears that Canada is asserting that its upgrade of its standards

should operate to render moot an Article 14 submission alleging a failure to enforce earlier standards effectively. The Secretariat does not

believe that the regulations adopted in July 1997 justify termination of

this proceeding. The Secretariat does not believe that, as a general matter, submissions alleging failures to enforce effectively should be automatically terminated on the ground that new standards have been

adopted. The enactment of the new Regulation does not address the allegations of a failure to effectively enforce the previous Regulation

between 1994 and 1997.

There conceptually may be submissions where the consequence of

adoption of a new law is that the matters raised in the submission do not

merit further study under Article 14(2)(b). This submission does not

appear to qualify for such treatment. Canada notes in its response that

“the new regulation governs livestock operations in much the same way

as the preceding one. . . .”92 Thus, the development of a factual record on

the effectiveness of Quebec’s enforcement practices regarding agricultural pollution and, more specifically, livestock production operations is

not solely a matter of historical interest but rather would improve the

state of knowledge about ongoing enforcement of laws regulating livestock waste in Quebec.

Finally, assuming a factual record is developed, the question has been

raised concerning the time period of activity it should address. The

Council provided the following direction to the Secretariat in Council

Resolution 98-07:

[T]he Secretariat, in developing the factual record, [is] to consider whether

the Party concerned ‘is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law’

since the entry into force of the NAAEC on 1 January 1994. In considering

such an alleged failure to effectively enforce, relevant facts that existed

prior to 1 January 1994, may be included in the factual record. . . .93

This direction would seem to be equally applicable in the context of this

submission.

SEM-97-003 63

92. Response at 42, noting that “The response also notes that the new regulation

focuses much more on manure-spreading. . . .”

93. Council Resolution 98-07 (24 June 1998).
IV. CLOSING COMMENT

The Secretariat considers that the submission, in light of the response

provided by Canada, warrants developing a factual record to compile

further factual information regarding the enforcement activity undertaken by Canada and the effectiveness of that activity in ensuring compliance with various sections of Canadian environmental law. The

submission highlights the significant environmental and public health

concerns at stake in connection with these laws. The response does not

take issue with the importance of the environmental laws and natural

resources at issue in this submission. Instead, it reflects an appreciation

of their significance. Further, while the response asserts that the Party’s

strategies are effective in preventing and addressing violations of these

laws, the Submitters’ assertions (supported by the Auditor General and

others) that violations are widespread, and to some extent subsidized by

the government, supports developing additional information concerning the use and effectiveness of these tools.

Respectfully submitted on this 29 day of October 1999.

Janine Ferretti

Executive Director

64 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
SEM-97-005

(BIODIVERSITY)

SUBMITTER: ANIMAL ALLIANCE OF CANADA, ET AL.

PARTY: CANADA

DATE: 21 JULY 1997

SUMMARY: The Submitters alleged that Canada is failing to

enforce its regulation ratifying the Convention on

Biological Diversity signed at the Rio Earth Summit on 11 June 1992 and subsequently ratified pursuant to an Order-in-Council on 4 December 1992.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(26 MAY 1998)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have not been met.

65

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) of the

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

Submission ID: SEM-97-005

Submitter(s): Animal Alliance of Canada

Council of Canadians

Greenpeace Canada

Concerned Party: Canada

Date Received: July 22, 1997

Date of this Determination: May 26, 1998

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 21, 1997, the Submitters1 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”).

This is the Secretariat’s determination as to whether the Submission

meets the requirements of Article 14(1) so that it may be considered by

the Secretariat.

II. SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The Submission alleges that Canada has a serious and growing endangered species problem, and that it has failed to enact federal legislation

designed to protect endangered species. It also alleges that Canada’s

67

1. The Submitters include Animal Alliance of Canada, Council of Canadians and

Greenpeace Canada.
failure to enact such legislation has implications for the other signatory

countries to the NAAEC.

The Submission states that on June 4, 1992, the Governor in Council

passed Order in Council No. P.C. 1992, 1204,2 authorizing the Prime

Minister or Secretary of State for External Affairs to sign and ratify the

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (“Biodiversity Convention”). On June 11, 1992, Canada’s Prime Minister signed the Biodiversity

Convention on behalf of Canada at the U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de

Janeiro. On December 4, 1992, Canada’s Prime Minister ratified the

Biodiversity Convention on behalf of Canada by issuing an Instrument of

Ratification.3

The Submission alleges that the Instrument of Ratification, made pursuant to the authority of Order in Council P.C. 1992, 1204 (the “Ratification

Instrument”), is an “environmental law” as that term is defined in Article 45 of the NAAEC , and that Canada is failing to enforce that environmental law. The Submitters suggest that the legal effect of the

Ratification Instrument is to “commit Canada to be bound by the

Biodiversity Convention and fulfill its requirements in good faith.” Article

8(k) of the Biodiversity Convention requires a signatory nation to, “as far

as possible and as appropriate” [...] “develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations.” The Submitters state that Canada’s

failure to enact endangered species legislation contravenes Article 8(k)

of the Biodiversity Convention, which in turn constitutes a “failure to

enforce” the Ratification Instrument.

The Submission also notes that the Submitters have communicated their

concerns to the Canadian Government through various means, and concludes by arguing that the Submission merits a response from Canada as

well as the preparation of a factual record.

III. ANALYSIS

1. Article 14(1) of the NAAEC

Article 14 of the NAAEC allows the Secretariat to consider a submission

from any non-governmental organization or person asserting that a

Party to the NAAEC is failing to effectively enforce its environmental

law. The Secretariat may consider any submission that meets the

68 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

2. Attached as Appendix 5 to the Submission.

3. Attached as Appendix 7 to the Submission.
requirements of Article 14(1). Where the Secretariat determines that the

Article 14(1) requirements are met, it shall then determine whether the

submission merits requesting a response from the Party named in the

submission.

The Secretariat is of the view that Article 14, and Article 14(1) in particular, are not intended to be insurmountable procedural screening devices.

The Secretariat also believes that Article 14(1) should be given a large

and liberal interpretation, consistent with the objectives of the NAAEC4

and the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.5

However, the Secretariat also recognizes that meaning must be given

not only to the specific criteria delineated in Article 14(1)(a)-(f), but also

to the opening words of the section; that is, an “assertion” that a “Party”

is “failing to effectively enforce its environmental law.”

While recognizing that the language of an “assertion” supports a relatively low threshold under Article 14(1), a certain amount of substantive

analysis is nonetheless required at this initial stage. Otherwise, the Secretariat would be forced to consider all submissions that merely “assert”

a failure to effectively enforce environmental law. The fact that the term

“environmental law” is expressly defined in Article 45(2) for the purposes of Article 14(1) supports the conclusion that some initial screening

is appropriate at the 14(1) stage.

This Submission raises a particularly challenging question that requires

the Secretariat to determine whether or not the Submission involves an

assertion relating to “environmental law.”

2. The Subject Matter of the Submission

The Secretariat is of the view that the Submission, on the basis of its subject matter, is relevant to the work of the Commission for Environmental

SEM-97-005 69

4. See Article 1 of the NAAEC.

5. Adopting such an interpretative approach is suggested by general canons of statutory interpretation as well as Articles 31 and 32 of The Vienna Convention on the Law of

Treaties. See Pierre-André Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada, 2nd ed.

(Cowansville: Les Éditions Yvon Blais, 1991), c. 2; Ruth Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 3d ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1994), c. 8, and The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded at Vienna, May 23, 1969, entered into force

January 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (“Vienna Convention”). The Vienna Convention

is in force in both Canada and Mexico as of January 27, 1980. The United States signed

the Vienna Convention on April 24, 1970 but has not ratified it. I.M. Sinclair notes in

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd ed., 1984) that since 1969, provisions

of The Vienna Convention have frequently been cited in judgments of the Courts of

the United States and in state practice as accurate statements of the customary rules

in relation to interpretation of treaties.
Cooperation. The concerns raised by the Submitters regarding endangered species find expression in the NAAEC itself. Article 1(c) provides

that one of the objectives of the NAAEC is to “increase cooperation

between the Parties to better conserve, protect, and enhance the environment, including wild flora and fauna.” Further, the definition of “environmental law” in Article 45(2), which applies directly to Article 14,

extends to laws for “the protection of wild flora and fauna, including

endangered species, their habitat, and specially protected natural

areas.”

Notwithstanding the above, the Secretariat must first determine under

Article 14(1) whether the Submission asserts that Canada is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental law.

3. Is the Ratification Instrument “Environmental Law?”

Article 45(2) of the NAAEC defines the term “environmental law” for

the purposes of Article 14(1) in the following manner:

2. For the purposes of Article 14(1) and Part Five:

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

or provision thereof, directly related to worker safety or health.

Consistent with Article 14(1), the Secretariat is of the view that the term

“environmental law” should be interpreted expansively. It would not be

consistent with the purposes of the NAAEC to adopt an unduly restrictive view of what constitutes a statute or regulation which is primarily

aimed at protection of the environment or prevention of a danger to

human life or health.

70 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
The central argument in the Submission is that the Ratification Instrument “obligates” Canada to fulfill the obligations of the Biodiversity

Convention. The Submission argues that Canada has not met the requirements of Article 8(k) of the Biodiversity Convention, and so has therefore

failed to “enforce” the Ratification Instrument. However, with respect,

the Secretariat is of the view that the Submission fails to make a critical

distinction between “international” and “domestic” legal obligations.

The purpose and effect of the Ratification Instrument is simply to confirm Canada’s international obligations in respect of the Biodiversity

Convention.6 In Canada, there is a fundamental and long-standing constitutional principle, derived from Canada’s legal heritage, that the ratification process does not import international obligations into domestic

law. Until international obligations are implemented by way of statute

or regulation pursuant to a statute, those obligations do not constitute

the domestic law of Canada.7

The Secretariat acknowledges that an Order in Council can, in certain

circumstances, constitute a “regulation,” as that term is used in Article

45(2).8 However, in this case, the Ratification Instrument is not, in the

opinion of the Secretariat, a “regulation.” The Ratification Instrument

simply evidences and constitutes a one-time administrative act by a representative of the executive branch of the Canadian government, in this

case, the Prime Minister of Canada. It is properly distinguished from a

“regulation,” which is authorized by statute and is subjected to the formal process of registration, Parliamentary scrutiny and publication.9

The Ratification Instrument is not legislative in nature, and has not been

subjected to the rigours of the Statutory Instruments Act. While formally

confirming international obligations, the Ratification Instrument has no

effect on Canada’s domestic law, and so cannot be considered as an

“environmental law” of Canada for the purposes of Article 14(1).

In making this determination, the Secretariat does not wish to exclude

the possibility that future submissions may raise issues in respect of a

Party’s international obligations that would meet the criteria of Article

14(1). Further, as noted above, the Secretariat acknowledges that the

subject matter of the Submission raises important environmental conSEM-97-005 71

6. See generally A. Jacomy-Millette, Treaty Law in Canada, U. of Ottawa Press, 1975, pp.

50-68 and 196-207.

7. P. Hogg, Constitutional Law in Canada (2d) (loose-leaf version) 1997, p.11-5; International Law Chiefly as Applied and Interpreted in Canada., eds. H. Kindred et al. (5th ed),

Emond Montgomery, 1993, p.168.; Jacomy-Millette, ibid., p. 196-207.

8. See R. Dussault and L. Borgeat, Administrative Law: A Treatise, Vol. 1 (2nd ed.)

(Toronto: Carswell, 1985) at 326-329.

9. See the Statutory Instruments Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-22.
cerns that should be the subject of debate and discussion between the

NAAEC state Parties. However, it is not the role of the Secretariat to

attempt to resolve these issues within the Article 14(1) process. The Secretariat is bound to interpret the provisions of Article 14(1) in a manner

consistent with the language and purposes of the NAAEC.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Secretariat finds that it is precluded from further considering the

Submission because it does not assert a failure by Canada to effectively

enforce its environmental law. In accordance with Article 6(2) of the

Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters Under Articles 14 and 15

of the NAAEC, the Submitters may provide the Secretariat with a submission that conforms to the criteria of Article 14(1) of the Agreement,

within 30 days of receipt of this notification.

per: Janine Ferretti

Interim Executive Director

72 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
SEM-97-006

(OLDMAN RIVER II)

SUBMITTER: THE FRIENDS OF THE OLDMAN RIVER

PARTY: CANADA

DATE: 4 OCTOBER 1997

SUMMARY: The Submitter alleges that Canada is failing to

apply, comply with and enforce the habitat

protection sections of the Fisheries Act and the

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(23 JANUARY 1998)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met.

ART. 14(2)

(8 MAY 1998)

Determination pursuant to Article 14(2) that the

submission merits requesting a response from the

Party.

ART. 15(1)

(19 JULY 1999)

Notification to Council of the Determination that

a factual record is warranted in accordance with

Article 15(1).

73

23 January 1998

REGISTERED MAIL

The Friends of the Old Man River

c/o Ms. Martha Kostuch

Box 1288

Rocky Mountain House, Alberta

T0M 1T0

Re: Submission on enforcement matters under Articles 14

and 15 of the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation

Submitter(s): The Friends of the Oldman River

Party: Canada

Date: October 4, 1997

New Submission No.: SEM-97-006

Dear Ms. Kostuch:

The Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation has

concluded that your submission satisfies the initial screening criteria

under Article 14(1) of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. Accordingly, the submission will now be reviewed

under Article 14(2) to determine whether the submission merits

requesting a response from the Government of Canada.

We take this opportunity to ask that you please provide us with an electronic copy of your submission, if available, in order to make it available

to the public on HomePage of the CEC.

75
We will keep you informed of the status of your submission in

accordance with Articles 14 and 15 and the Guidelines for Submissions

on Enforcement Matters.

Yours truly,

Commission for Environmental Cooperation—Secretariat

per: Greg Block

Director

c.c. Mr. Avrim Lazar, Environment Canada

Mr. William Nitze, US EPA

Mr. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

76 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
8 May 1998

VIA FAX AND REGISTERED MAIL

The Honorable Christine Stewart

Minister of the Environment

Government of Canada

Les Terrasses de la Chaudière

28th Floor

10 Wellington Street

Hull (Québec)

Canada K1A 0H3

Re: Submission on enforcement matters under Articles 14

and 15 of the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation

Submitter(s): The Friends of the Oldman River

Party: Canada

Date: 10 October 1997

Submission No.: SEM-97-006

Dear Minister:

On 10 October 1997, the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation received a submission pursuant to Article 14 of the

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (“Agreement”) filed by The Friends of the Oldman River. The submission alleges

that the Government of Canada “is failing to apply, comply with and

enforce the habitat protection sections of the Fisheries Act and with

the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). In particular, it is

alleged that Canada “is failing to apply, comply with and enforce

Sections 35, 37 and 40 of the Fisheries Act, Section 5(1)(d) of CEAA and

Schedule 1 Part 1 Item 6 of the Law List Regulations made pursuant to

paragraphs 59(f) and (g) of CEAA.”

SEM-97-006 77
The Secretariat reviewed the submission under Article 14(1) of the

Agreement and determined on 23 January 1998 that the submission

met the requirements of Article 14(1).

Guided by the considerations provided in Article 14(2) of the Agreement, the Secretariat has determined that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Government of Canada. Accordingly,

the Secretariat requests a response from the Government of Canada to

the above-mentioned submission, within the 30 day time frame provided in Article 14(3) of the Agreement, or in exceptional circumstances,

within 60 days of delivery of this request. We are not attaching the submission or the supporting information as the have been previously sent.

Sincerely,

Commission for Environmental Cooperation—Secretariat

per: Janine Ferretti

Interim Executive Director

c.c. Mr. Avrim Lazar, Environment Canada

Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA

Lic. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

Ms. Martha Kostuch, The Friends of the Oldman River

78 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 I.D.: SEM-97-006

Submitter(s): The Friends of the Oldman River

Concerned Party: Canada

Date of this Notification: 19 July 1999

I- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Submitter, a nongovernmental organization known as “The Friends

of the Oldman River” (FOR or the Submitter), claims that Canada is failing to effectively enforce its Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)1 in at least two significant ways.2 First,

the Submitter asserts that Canada’s approach to reviewing proposed

projects is fundamentally flawed. The Submitter focuses particularly on

projects that, as originally proposed to Canada, could harm fish habitat

in violation of Fisheries Act Section 35(1),3 but which Canada and the

applicant agree will be modified to avoid such harm.

The Submitter alleges that Canada’s standard enforcement response to

such projects typically involves engaging in discussions with the project

proponent and issuing a “Letter of Advice.” The Submitter argues that

this standard approach to project review harms the interest of FOR and

SEM-97-006 79

1. Fisheries Act, R.S.C.1985, c.F-14 and various supplements; Canadian Environmental

Assessment Act, S.C.1992, c. 37.

2. The complete text of the submission and the response are available from the Secretariat by request or electronically at <http://www.cec.org>.

3. Fisheries Act, Section 35(1) provides that “[n]o person shall carry on any work or

undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish

habitat.” The acronym often used to describe such harm is HADD. For purposes

of convenience, the Secretariat refers to such HADD of fish habitat as harm to fish

habitat.
the public in protection of fish habitat and compliance with Fisheries Act

Section 35(1). The submission annex characterizes Canada’s standard

approach as “a powerful force for the reduction of the protection

afforded to fish habitat.”4 The Submitter believes that Canada should

use an alternative approach for project reviews that would enhance the

effectiveness of project reviews in achieving the goals of Fisheries Act

Section 35(1). The Submitter asserts that Canada should evaluate such

projects using the procedures established by the CEAA and, if it decides

such projects should proceed, it should authorize them pursuant to

Fisheries Act Section 35(2).5 The Submitter claims that Canada’s use

of a purportedly less effective approach to project review constitutes

a systematic failure to effectively enforce Canadian environmental

law for purposes of Article 14 of the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC).

The Submitter also asserts that Canada’s approach to prosecutions,

when projects violate Fisheries Act, Section 35(1), constitutes a failure to

effectively enforce for the purposes of Article 14 of the NAAEC. The

Submitter claims that Canada rarely prosecutes violations of Section

35(1) of the Fisheries Act, that “prosecutions that do occur are very

unevenly distributed across the country,” and that Provincial prosecutions do not offset the shortfall in federal enforcement.

The Submitter cites the Sunpine Road project as an example of the

government’s purported failure to effectively enforce its environmental

laws.

There is some common ground between the submission and the Canadian response. Consistent with the submission, Canada states that its

standard approach to project review is to work with the project proponent and issue Letters of Advice for projects that could harm fish habitat

but which Canada and the proponent agree will be modified to avoid

such harm. For such projects, Canada advises the proponent of the

changes necessary to avoid harm to fish habitat and the proponent

agrees to implement such. (Response at 5). Canada sets out this standard

approach in its 1995 Directive on the Issuance of Subsection 35(2) Authorizations (hereafter: Directive).6

80 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

4. The annex is attached to the submission and is referenced by it, and the Secretariat

has reviewed the annex as part of its consideration of the submission.

5. Fisheries Act, Section 35(2) provides that “No person contravenes subsection (1) by

causing the alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat by any means or

under any conditions authorized by the Minister or under regulations made by the

Governor in Council under this Act.”

6. Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) issued this Directive. The Directive is attached to the response and is referenced by it, and the Secretariat has

reviewed the Directive as part of its consideration of the response.
The Canadian response parts company from the submission concerning

the effectiveness of this standard Canadian response for projects that

could harm fish habitat but which Canada and the proponent mutually

agree will be modified to avoid such harm. Canada explains that its

strategy is intended to prevent the occurrence of violations in the first

place. As Canada explains, “[t]hrough this consultative process,” DFO

“provides advice to proponents regarding... mitigation measures . . . so

that in the technical judgment of DFO, a HADD of fish habitat will not be

incurred.” (Response at 5). Canada advises that it uses Section 35(2)

authorizations and CEAA reviews for appropriate projects, notably

those that will harm fish habitat and therefore violate Section 35(1) of the

Fisheries Act.

Canada indicates that prosecutions are another enforcement tool it uses.

It contends that federal prosecutions must be considered in tandem with

Provincial enforcement efforts as well as government approaches such

as Letters of Advice and Fisheries Act Section 35(2) authorizations, and it

claims that its use of prosecutions constitutes an element of its effective

enforcement effort.

Canada recommends that the Secretariat not consider the Sunpine Road

situation because of ongoing litigation concerning that project.

The Secretariat does not view the submission to be a challenge to the

effectiveness of the environmental laws of Canada.7 The Submitter does

not appear to allege that the Fisheries Act and the CEAA are ineffective

as written. Instead, this submission alleges that Canada’s application

or implementation of these laws (i.e., Canada’s approach to project

reviews, as reflected primarily in the above-referenced 1995 Directive,

and its approach to prosecutions) constitutes a systematic failure to

enforce them for purposes of Article 14 of the NAAEC. Our analysis is

based on this understanding of the submission.

Having considered the submission in light of the response, the Secretariat believes that developing a factual record is warranted. The response

and submission leave open several central questions of fact relating to

whether the Party is effectively enforcing the environmental laws at

issue. Concerning the Party’s approach to project review, as discussed in

more detail in Section III below, for example, the Secretariat has been

provided quite limited information concerning the current use of Letters

of Advice (e.g., the numbers of Letters of Advice issued annually). Similarly, the Secretariat has only received limited information concerning

SEM-97-006 81

7. Cf. SEM-95-001, SEM-95-002, involving challenges to a Party’s environmental laws.
use of Letters of Advice and related enforcement tools over time. Also,

there is a lack of information concerning the extent to which Canada’s

strategy of using a consultative process and issuing Letters of Advice is

effective in achieving its goal of preventing harm to fish habitat and violations of Fisheries Act Section 35(1). Regarding prosecutions, limited

information has been provided as to Canada’s statement that “when...

the Fisheries Act is contravened, such that habitats supporting fisheries

are harmfully altered, destroyed or degraded, enforcement action is

taken.” (Response at 9-10). For example, the number of Section 35(1) violations discovered each year and the number of prosecutions involving

such violations have not been provided.

The Secretariat believes that it is appropriate to develop a factual record

concerning these enforcement tools. Conducting such a review would

be consistent with a broad interpretation of enforcement that encompasses Canada’s “preventative” project review enforcement strategy as

well as its approach to prosecutions, an interpretation contemplated

by NAAEC Article 5.

II- BACKGROUND

Under NAAEC Article 14, the Secretariat may consider a submission

from any nongovernmental organization or person asserting that a

Party to the NAAEC is failing to effectively enforce its environmental

law. Where the Secretariat determines that the requirements of Article

14(1) have been met, it shall decide whether the submission merits a

response from the concerned Party in accordance with Article 14(2). In

light of the response provided by that Party, the Secretariat may recommend to the Council that a factual record be prepared, in accordance

with Article 15. The Council may then instruct the Secretariat to prepare

a factual record. The final factual record is made publicly available upon

a two-thirds vote of the Council.

On 9 September 1996, the Submitter filed a submission with the Secretariat, pursuant to Article 14 of the NAAEC. On 1 October 1996, the Secretariat rejected this submission on the ground that it failed to meet the

Article 14(1) criterion that it indicate that the matter (the alleged general

failure to enforce) had been communicated to the relevant authorities of

the Party. Following the Submitter’s 8 October 1996 re-submission,

which contained information regarding communications to Canada

about the alleged general failure to enforce, on 18 October 1996, the

Secretariat determined that the submission met the criteria under

Article 14(1).

82 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
On 8 November 1996 the Secretariat requested a response from Canada

under Article 14(2). On 10 January 1997, Canada responded by stating

that the submission was the subject of a pending judicial or administrative proceeding. On 2 April 1997, the Secretariat dismissed the submission. The Secretariat determined that while the court case at issue was

not a “pending judicial or administrative proceeding” for purposes of

Article 14(3)(b) of the NAAEC [as it was not commenced by a Party, see

Article 45(3)(a) of the NAAEC], the subject matter was sufficiently similar in nature that it would not be appropriate to proceed to a factual

record under Article 15(1).

On 4 October 1997, the Submitter re-submitted the submission, noting

that the litigation had been discontinued. On 23 January 1998, the Secretariat determined that the submission met the criteria in Article 14(1). On

8 May 1998, the Secretariat determined pursuant to Article 14(2) that a

response from Canada was warranted. Canada submitted its response

on 13 July 1998.

The Secretariat has reviewed the most recent submission in light of Canada’s response in considering whether the development of a factual

record is warranted.

A. The Submission

The Submitter asserts that the stakes are high with respect to the government practices at issue in this proceeding. It claims that the two environmental laws involved, the Fisheries Act and the CEAA, are the “most

important legislation for the protection of fish habitat in Canada.”

(Submission at 1) The submission annex similarly notes that the “strong

federal power” relating to marine and freshwater environments “makes

the habitat-protection regime and the prohibitions against the discharge

of deleterious substances in the Fisheries Act potentially the most powerful and universally applicable provisions of federal environmental

law in Canada.” The Submitter asserts that “protection of the environment and particularly protection of rivers and riparian ecosystems[ ] are

very much affected by how the Fisheries Act and CEAA are applied.”

(Submission at 1)

The Submitter asserts that Canada’s strategy for “applying, complying

with, and enforcing” the Fisheries Act and the CEAA is deficient in two

primary respects. First, the Submitter contends that Canada’s process

for reviewing projects that may violate Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act

SEM-97-006 83
and cause harm to fish habitat constitutes a failure to effectively apply,

comply with, and enforce Sections 35 and 37 of the Fisheries Act.8 The

Submitter claims that these sections “were to create a preventative and

planning regime for works and undertakings with the potential to harm

fish habitat.” (Submission at 1).

The Submitter contends that Canada’s strategy is a “clear attempt to

avoid issuing [Fisheries Act Section] 35(2) authorizations and to circumvent CEAA,” because it contemplates use of Letters of Advice rather

than Section 35(2) and the CEAA for a substantial number of projects

that as proposed would harm fish habitat. (Submission at 2). In the

Submitter’s view, Canada’s failure to use Section 35(2) as “intended”

and its “circumvention” of CEAA constitutes an ineffective approach to

implementing these laws because the approach fails adequately to prevent projects from violating Section 35(1) and harming fish habitat. The

Submitter alleges that Canada:

invents a decision making process which frustrates the intention of Parliament and usurps the role of CEAA as a planning and decision making

tool.... [Under the Directive that outlines Canada’s policy] [t]he question

of whether effects on fisheries and fish habitat are acceptable and can be

properly mitigated is prejudged without any public input. (Submission

at 2).

The submission annex characterizes the Directive in the following way:

“The most worrisome development of recent years [concerning implementation of the Fisheries Act] is the Directive on the Issuance of Subsection

35(2) Authorizations(1995).... [T]he Directive has serious negative implications for the protection of fish habitat and Canada’s environment.”

The submission annex asserts that a lack of opportunity for public

involvement and a narrower scope of environmental assessment under

the Directive are particular deficiencies that will undermine protection of

fish habitat:

As DFO would have the administration of Sections 35(2) and 37, multiple

determinations are made regarding impacts, project design, mitigation,

and even compensation without ever conducting screening or comprehensive study under CEAA as an early planning and decision-making

tool. This denies Canadians the right to be informed of projects and to participate in decision making. It also means, for example, that cumulative

effects of projects may never be considered.

84 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

8. As noted above, this process is outlined in Canada’s 1995 Directive on the Issuance of

Subsection 35(2) Authorizations. This Directive is discussed in Section II.B.1 below.
The Submitter claims that there has been a decline in recent years in use

of the allegedly more effective Fisheries Act Section 35(2) authorization

approach to project review and asserts that this decline is evidence of

Canada’s failure to apply, comply with, and enforce Canadian environmental law. In terms of empirical support for this claim, the Submitter

indicates that in 1995–96, DFO issued no more than 339 authorizations

under Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act, while more than 12,000 authorizations were issued in 1990–91. (Submission at 3). As is discussed in

more detail below, the Secretariat has also been provided with limited

information by Canada, suggesting that the Party uses the allegedly

ineffective Letter of Advice approach to project review far more frequently than it uses the supposedly more effective CEAA and Fisheries

Act Section 35(2) approach. Finally, the Submitter asserts that the fact

that “the number of Section 35(2) authorizations varies widely from

province to province” supports its claim that there is a failure to effectively apply, comply with and enforce the law. (Submission at 2).9

In addition to its claim that Canada’s review of proposed projects constitutes a failure to effectively enforce, the Submitter contends that the federal record on prosecutions constitutes a similar failure. The Submitter

asserts that Canada’s small number of prosecutions for violations of

Fisheries Act Section 35(1) means that it has effectively abdicated its

legal responsibilities to the provinces. The Submitter claims that the

paucity of Canadian prosecutions is compounded by the fact that in

some parts of the country prosecutions are rarely if ever brought at all;

and by the fact that the provincial prosecutions of such conduct fall far

short of curing problems with the federal performance. To quote the

submission:

There are very few prosecutions under the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act and the prosecutions that do occur are very unevenly distributed

across the country. In fact, there has been a de facto abdication of legal

responsibilities by the Government of Canada to the inland provinces.

And the provinces have not done a good job of ensuring compliance with

or enforcing the Fisheries Act. (Submission at 3).

Finally, while affirming that the “general failure” of Canada to apply,

comply with, and enforce the Fisheries Act and CEAA is the subject matter of the submission, the Submitter outlines in detail the facts of one

“specific example” of the general allegations. The example relates to a

SEM-97-006 85

9. Along the same lines, the Submitter claims that “[a]pplication of 35(2) is far from

consistent.”

The Submitter also asserts that Canada under-utilizes Section 37. (See Submission

at 2).
road construction by Sunpine Forest Products in Alberta that entailed

some 21 stream crossings. The Submitter indicates that neither authorizations nor Letters of Advice were issued for 19 of the crossings. Letters

of Advice were issued for the remaining two (Prairie Creek and

Ram River) following an environmental assessment triggered under the

Navigable Waters Protection Act.

B. The Response

Canada submits that it is effectively enforcing its environmental laws

with respect to projects that may harm fish habitat in violation of

Fisheries Act Section 35(1), and it is therefore in full compliance with its

obligations under the NAAEC. Canada asserts that, as a result, the

development of a factual record is not warranted.

In asserting that it effectively enforces its environmental laws Canada,

like the Submitter, addresses both the process it uses to evaluate proposed projects, and Canada’s prosecution of violators of the prohibition

in Section 35(1) against harming habitat without a Section 35(2) authorization. Canada claims that its enforcement approach is effective. It also

asserts that its approach constitutes reasonable exercise of its discretion

and therefore is exempt from consideration under Articles 45 and 14 of

the NAAEC.

1. Canada’s Process for Preventing and Minimizing Violations

Canada disagrees with the Submitter’s assertion that the Directive establishes a process for reviewing proposed projects that fails to effectively

apply, comply with, and enforce Fisheries Act Section 35. Canada

asserts, instead, that the Directive effectively applies, complies with, and

enforces this Section because it does not allow harm to fish habitat prohibited by Section 35(1), and it does not preclude the genuine need for an

authorization. (Response at 4).10

86 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

10. Canada also addresses the Submitter’s allegation that the Directive is illegal

because it is inconsistent with the CEAA and the Fisheries Act. (Response at 7-9).

The Secretariat does not address the latter issue in this document. Canada appears

to agree with the Submitter that Section 35(1) prohibits harm to fish habitat, and

that Section 35(2) qualifies this absolute prohibition by empowering the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans to authorize such harm to fish habitat under certain circumstances. Canada indicates, for example, that “[b]oth the [Fisheries] Act and the

Directive are explicit that any HADD of fish habitat requires an authorization in

order to avoid a violation of the Fisheries Act.” (Response at 4). Further, Canada

and the Submitter appear to agree that the Minister’s exercise of this regulatory

power to issue a Section 35(2) authorization triggers an environmental assessment

under the CEAA. (Response at 4).
Canada explains the process its implementing Department, the Department of Fisheries & Oceans (DFO), follows under the Directive when a

project proponent applies for review of a project relative to Section 35 of

the Fisheries Act.11

• On receiving a proposal, DFO representatives examine it to determine whether the project will result in harm to fish habitat. (Response

at 5). DFO’s Directive makes applicants “responsible for providing

sufficient information with respect to their projects to allow” DFO to

assess “potential impacts to fish habitat, including information concerning proposed measures to prevent, mitigate or compensate for

damage to fish habitat.” (Directive at 4).12

• If DFO decides that no harm to fish habitat will result if the proposed

work is carried out as specified in the plans provided to DFO, DFO

notifies the applicant that a Section 35(2) authorization is not needed.

DFO cautions the applicant that “if harmful alteration, disruption or

destruction of fish habitat occurs as a result of the failure to implement the work as proposed, a violation of Section 35(1) of the

Fisheries Act may occur.” (Response at 5).

• In cases in which the project as proposed would harm fish habitat,

DFO tries to help the proponent to “develop and propose mitigation

measures that will avoid these effects.” If DFO and the applicant identify such measures, DFO informs the proponent that “inclusion of the

measures, if carried out as outlined, will avoid [harm to fish habitat]

and consequently subsection 35(2) will not apply.” (Response at 5). If

the applicant agrees to do so, DFO will provide the applicant with a

Letter of Advice in which, as appropriate, DFO “set[s] out measures

aimed at ensuring that harmful effects do not occur.” (Directive at 4).

The Letter of Advice will further indicate that DFO believes that the

project will not cause harm to fish habitat if the applicant implements

specified measures. As the Directive provides, “[a]lthough such written advice does not constitute an authorization, proponents will have

some protection against enforcement action where due diligence

has been applied in implementing the provided written advice.”

(Directive at 4).

SEM-97-006 87

11. Some of this discussion of DFO’s process is quoted directly from the response or

from the Directive itself, while other parts paraphrase the response or Directive.

Canada notes its view that DFO does not have authority to require a project proponent to seek or obtain a Section 35(2) authorization. Instead, a proponent “can proceed with the work at its own risk should it wish to do so”: Section 35 of the

Fisheries Act “does not create a mandatory obligation for a proponent to seek an

authorization.” (Response at 2, 8).

12. This DFO review occurs informally and is not done pursuant to the CEAA. DFO’s

view concerning when review under the CEAA is warranted is discussed below.
DFO summarizes this consultative process as one of providing

advice to proponents at the planning stage of a project in order to avoid

harm to fish habitat where possible. DFO explains that, in its view, if

there is no harm to fish habitat, there is no possible violation of Section

35(1) and therefore there is no need for a Section 35(2) authorization.

DFO notes, however:

Although it is not mandatory for proponents to obtain letters of advice

or authorizations with respect to their projects, failure to do so could

result in enforcement action being taken if adverse effects to fish habitat

occur as a result of project implementation. In addition, failure to

implement measures set out in letters or authorizations which result in

harmful effects to habitat could lead to enforcement action. (Directive at

5).

• If the project will harm fish habitat and the applicant refuses, or is

unable, to include measures DFO determines are necessary to avoid

such harm, DFO informs the applicant that it must obtain a Section

35(2) authorization in order to avoid violating Fisheries Act Section

35(1). The consideration of whether to issue a Section 35(2) authorization triggers the CEAA. Through this process, DFO obtains additional

information and determines whether to issue or deny the authorization. DFO identifies any particular terms or conditions to be included

in the authorization as part of this process as well.13 It appears from

the Directive that DFO’s intention was to create a narrow universe of

projects for which Section 35(2) authorizations would be issued:

Subsection 35(2) authorizations should only be issued...”when it prov[e]s

impossible or impractical to maintain the same level of habitat productive

88 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

13. As a general matter, DFO notes that it prefers to proceed on a voluntary basis to

obtain information necessary to deal with Section 35 issues rather than use the

powers of Section 37 to do so. DFO expresses the view that the question of whether

to use Section 37(1) and (2) to obtain information and require modifications in

order to avoid harm to fish habitat, or whether to accomplish these goals using

other approaches, is a matter for its discretion. Canada notes:

When, in the opinion of DFO officials, the information and/or required amendments to plans or changes to undertakings will occur without invoking the powers

under Section 37 of the Act, such officials are reflecting a reasonable exercise

of their discretion in respect of investigatory, prosecutorial, regulatory or compliance matters as explicitly allowed for under the NAAEC Article 45 definitions.

(Response at 7).

The Submitter challenges the legality of this interpretation. We do not address this

legal issue, but instead focus on questions of fact relating to the nature and effectiveness of Canada’s enforcement responses. The Submitter attaches to its submission a 7 May 1997 decision from the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(Muldoon, J.), in which the Judge concluded that Canada’s approach improperly

circumvented the requirements of the Fisheries Act and the CEAA.
capacity by altering the design of the project or using mitigating measures.” . . . In practical terms, authorizations should only be issued for

works or undertakings which could result in damage to fish habitat

which cannot be avoided through relocating or redesigning the project

or through mitigation. (Directive at 3).

Canada’s conclusion is that:

Since the Directive is explicit that any HADD of fish habitat requires an

authorization in order to avoid a violation of the Fisheries Act, its characterization as a device or mechanism which facilitates or enables the government to fail to apply, comply with or enforce Section 35 of the Fisheries

Act is unfounded. (Response at 5).

Canada provides limited information concerning the level of Canada’s

activity in providing authorizations and Letters of Advice, based on the

1996/97 Annual Report to Parliament on the Administration and Enforcement

of the Fish Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the

Fisheries Act (hereafter: Annual Report). Canada notes:

[T]here were 91 authorizations issued and advice provided in 3689

instances to private proponents and in 3223 instances to federal, provincial or territorial agencies for a total of 7003 instances where efforts were

made to ensure compliance with Section 35. (Response at 10).

As discussed in more detail in Section III below, information is not provided concerning the number of authorizations and Letters of Advice

issued in other years, or concerning the extent to which Letters of Advice

are effective in accomplishing their objective—i.e., to prevent projects

that receive them from harming fish habitat in violation of Fisheries Act

Section 35(1).

2. Prosecutions

Canada rejects the Submitter’s allegation that the small number of federal prosecutions involving violations of Section 35(1) of the Fisheries

Act, or their uneven distribution throughout the country, means that

“there has been a de facto abdication of legal responsibilities by the Government of Canada to the inland provinces.” Canada offers the following points in asserting that its pattern of program implementation and

enforcement across the country is appropriate:

1. It is misleading to look only at federal enforcement prosecutions

because the provinces, under provincial law, address, including

SEM-97-006 89
prosecute, some activities that constitute violations of Section

35(1). While DFO has primary responsibility for enforcing the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act, provinces, particularly the inland provinces, also have the authority to enforce these

provisions. Further, “provinces have developed their own conservation legislation... which may deal with similar development.”

Canada indicates that, “[a]s a result, activity that could risk legal

action under the federal Fisheries Act is often subject to legal sanction under provincial statute where this is chosen to be the most

appropriate route by enforcement officers.” (Response at 3, 10).

Canada notes that “fish habitat related matters frequently find

redress through provincial court action under provincial statute.”

(Response at 11).

Canada indicates that it “has identified provincial personnel

responsible for the implementation of the habitat provisions and

enforcement of the Fisheries Act for every province in Canada.” It

provides a very brief overview of the provincial staffing devoted to

such work. (Response at 11).

2. The uneven distribution of federal prosecutions among the provinces is understandable because of a variety of factors, such as the

distribution of habitat and varying levels of economic activity.

Canada states that “[t]he pattern of enforcement and referral/

assessment activity... reflects the level and variety of economic

development activity across the country. . . . Further, proximity to

fisheries waters is not uniform across the country so that related

enforcement cannot be expected to be uniformly distributed.”

(Response at 10).

3. The level of federal enforcement activity reflects a reasonable exercise of enforcement discretion, as contemplated under Article 45 of

the Agreement.14

90 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

14. As a general matter, Canada takes the position that its enforcement of Section 35 of

the Fisheries Act, and the implementation of the 1995 Directive, constitute a reasonable exercise of its discretion in respect of investigatory, prosecutorial, regulatory,

or compliance matters. It notes that Article 45 of the NAAEC recognizes that Parties

may exercise their discretion in relation to such matters. Canada suggests that a factual record is not warranted because the Agreement “does not permit the review of

the legitimate exercise of a Party’s discretion.” (Response at 3). Canada urges that

its approach to enforcement is contemplated by the Agreement. Canada points to

Article 5, which lists “seeking assurances of voluntary compliance” as an appropriate governmental action for effectively enforcing environmental law. It indicates

that the Canadian Directive cited above, among others, establishes a strategy

intended to assure voluntary compliance. Canada suggests that the fact that its
4. The “allocation of [federal enforcement] resources to do the job is

consistent with Article 45 definitions of NAAEC.” (Response at 9).

Related, “the pattern of enforcement reflects the level of resources

allocated by federal and provincial governments.” (Response at 3).

5. “The pattern of prosecutions and convictions under the habitat

provisions of the Fisheries Act reflects the compliance-based

approach taken to habitat protection. . . . DFO prefers to prevent

damage to habitat and avoid losses to the fisheries resource in the

first phase, before proponents proceed with projects.” (Response

at 9). Canada continues: “However, when voluntary compliance

fails, and the Fisheries Act is contravened, such that habitats supporting fisheries resources are harmfully altered, destroyed or

degraded, enforcement action is taken.” (Response at 9-10).

Canada cites its 1996/97 Annual Report in reporting that there were 48

convictions under Section 35(1) during that time period. (Response

at 10).

3. Sunpine Road

The final topic Canada covers in its response is the Sunpine Forest Products Forest Access Road. The Sunpine Road project involves a road project that would cross 21 streams. DFO determined that 8 of the 21 had

potential implications for fish habitat. For two of the streams, Ram River

and Prairie Creek, DFO permits for bridge construction were required

under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). This triggered

DFO’s responsibility to conduct CEAA screenings for these bridges. The

screenings were completed and permits issued. DFO issued Letters of

Advice for these crossings. DFO concluded that six crossings did not

have a HADD potential if constructed as proposed by the company and

therefore no further action by DFO was required. Project construction,

except for the Prairie Creek Bridge, was completed in 1997. Alberta Fish

and Wildlife officials have inspected the 40 km road and have confirmed

that the bridges and culverts have been constructed as proposed and

that fish habitat has been protected. (Response at 11).

The permits and Environmental Assessments are currently subject to

judicial review. Canada suggests that because an appeal is now pending,

further review of Sunpine is not appropriate at this time. (Response

at 12).

SEM-97-006 91

enforcement strategy is one of those expressly acknowledged in Article 5 of the

NAAEC reinforces its position that a factual record is not warranted because

Canada’s enforcement approach is a legitimate exercise of a Party’s discretion.
III- IS THE PREPARATION OF A FACTUAL RECORD

WARRANTED IN THIS CASE?

A. Introduction

We are now at the Article 15(1) stage of the factual record process. To

reach this stage, the Secretariat must first determine that a submission

meets the criteria in Article 14(1) and that it is appropriate to request a

response from a Party based upon a review of the factors contained in

NAAEC Article 14(2). For this submission, the Secretariat has found that

the submission meets the Article 14(1) criteria on two occasions (on 18

October 1996, and on 23 January 1998). With respect to Article 14(1)(e),

the Secretariat initially found the submission deficient on this point (see

Secretariat’s Determination of 1 October 1996),15 but the Secretariat was

persuaded by the Submitter’s re-submission on 8 October 1996, that the

matter had been communicated in writing to the Party in compliance

with this requirement. (See the Secretariat’s Determination of 18 October

1996). The Secretariat similarly determined that the submission met

NAAEC Article 14(1)(d) and a series of factors persuaded the Secretariat

that the submission satisfied Article 14(1)(c), including the fact that the

submission focuses on “systemic” practices rather than on an alleged

failure to effectively enforce involving a single incident and the burden

on a submitter of establishing non-enforced violations in this context;16

the importance of the environmental laws involved and, related, the significance of fish habitat as a resource intended to be protected by the

laws; and the operation of the precautionary principle (the project

review practices that are a central element of the Party’s enforcement

response are intended to prevent violations in the first place, which is

consistent with the notion that it is easier to prevent violations and environmental harm from occurring than to repair the damage once a violation exists).

Finally, as noted at the outset, the Secretariat believes that this submission does not focus on the effectiveness of the environmental laws as

written; instead, it addresses the extent to which a Party has failed to

effectively implement or enforce those laws.

Similarly, the Secretariat has determined on two occasions that a

response from the Party was warranted based on the factors in Article

92 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

15. See SEM-96-003, “The Friends of the Oldman River.”

16. Here, the submission not only takes a “systemic” approach, it also is broad-ranging

in that it challenges a Party’s project review approaches as well as its approach

to traditional prosecutions. The Submitter claims, among other things, that the

Party’s project review practices are not effective because they lack certain features

and protections provided by alternative processes available to the Party.
14(2) (on 8 November 1996 and on 8 May 1998).17 The Secretariat previously determined that the submission alleges harm [see Article

14(2)(a)].18 Similarly, in the Secretariat’s view the submission raises matters whose further study would advance the goals of the NAAEC, notably the effectiveness of a Party’s various enforcement practices under

one of the most important environmental laws of that Party. The Secretariat also was satisfied that the Submitter had adequately pursued

private remedies (among other things, the Submitter filed a lawsuit challenging the Party’s practices), and that the submission was not drawn

exclusively from mass media reports (the submission cites a number of

reports, as well as information obtained from the government, in support of its allegations).

Once the Secretariat requests, and receives, the Party’s response, Article

15(1) of the NAAEC provides the following direction to the Secretariat

for this third step of the factual record process:

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.

Thus, having previously found that the submission meets the criteria in

Article 14(1) and having previously evaluated the submission in light of

the factors contained in NAAEC Article 14(2) and determined that a

response from the Party was merited, the Secretariat must now consider

the impact of the response on the issues raised in the submission.

The language of the legal provision that is central to this submission, Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act, is quite clear and direct: “No person shall

carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration,

disruption or destruction of fish habitat.”19 Section 35(2) provides the

only qualification on the broad language of Section 35(1). Section 35(2)

SEM-97-006 93

17. See SEM-96-003 and SEM-97-006. As noted above, the Secretariat has actually made

these determinations twice each in connection with this submission because of its

history.

18. See Recommendation of the Secretariat to Council for the development of a Factual Record

in accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation, SEM-96-001 (7 June 1996), stating that in considering harm, “the Secretariat notes the importance and character of the resource in question” and continuing that “[w]hile 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 nature of the resources

at issue “bring the submitters within the spirit and intent of Article 14 of the

NAAEC.” In the Secretariat’s view, the importance of the resources at issue in this

proceeding support the same conclusion.

19. R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14.
provides that “No person contravenes subsection (1) by causing the

alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat by any means or

under any conditions authorized by the Minister or under regulations

made by the Governor in Council under this Act.”20 Under the CEAA

and the Law List Regulations, a Section 35(2) authorization “triggers”21

commencement of an environmental assessment.22 Section 37(2) of the

Fisheries Act, which allows various orders to be made respecting modifications to a project, is also a “trigger.”23

94 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

20. R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14.

21. The term “trigger” is used to describe a provision of a federal statute which is listed

in the Law List Regulations, and which instigates an environmental assessment

when an action is taken by the federal government under that statutory provision.

22. The key provisions of CEAA are as follows:

5. (1) An environmental assessment of a project is required before a federal authority exercises one of the following powers or performs one of the following duties or

functions in respect of a project, namely, where a federal authority

...

(d) under a provision prescribed pursuant to paragraph 59(f), issues a permit or

license, grants an approval or takes any other action for the purpose of enabling the

project to be carried out in whole or in part.

***

59. (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations

(f) prescribing the provisions of any Act of Parliament or any regulation made pursuant thereto that confer powers, duties or functions on federal authorities the

exercise or performance of which requires an environmental assessment. under

paragraph 5(1)(d).

23. Section 37 of the Fisheries Act provides as follows:

(1) Where a person carries on or proposes to carry on any work or undertaking

that results or is likely to result in the alteration, disruption or destruction of fish

habitat . . . the person shall, on the request of the Minister or without request in the

manner and circumstances prescribed by regulations made under paragraph

(3)(a), provide the Minister with such plans, specifications, studies, procedures,

schedules, analysis, samples or other information relating to the work or undertaking and with such analysis, samples, evaluations, studies or other information

relating to the water, place or fish habitat that is or is likely to be affected by the

work or undertaking as will enable the Minister to determine.

(a) whether the work or undertaking results or is likely to result in any alteration,

disruption or destruction of fish habitat that constitutes or would constitute an

offence under subsection 40(1) and what measures, if any, would prevent that

result or mitigate the effects thereof....

(2) If, after reviewing any material or information provided under subsection (1)

and affording the persons who provided it a reasonable opportunity to make representations, the Minister or a person designated by the Minister is of the opinion that

an offense under subsection 40(1) or (2) is being or is likely to be committed, the

Minister or a person designated by the Minister may, by order, subject to regulations made pursuant to paragraph (3)(b), or, if there are no such regulations in

force, with the approval of the Governor in Council.

(a) require such modifications or additions to the work or undertaking or such

modifications to any plans, specifications, procedures or schedules relating thereto

as the Minister or a person designated by the Minister considers necessary in the

circumstances, or
The Party enforcement response at issue in this submission is intended

to promote compliance with Fisheries Act Section 35(1). The response

consists primarily of advance review of projects that have the potential

to harm fish habitat (sometimes using Fisheries Act Section 35(2) and the

CEAA) and after-the-fact prosecutions in some cases when violations of

Fisheries Act Section 35(1) occur. The level and nature of advance project

review varies depending on Canada’s judgment concerning whether

harm from a project can and will be avoided. The fundamental question

is whether the Party’s approach to project review and to prosecutions

constitutes effective enforcement of Fisheries Act Section 35(1).

B. Why Preparation of a Factual Record is Warranted

1. Canada’s “Preventative Enforcement Response”

In the Secretariat’s view, the response leaves open several central

questions concerning the effectiveness of Canada’s approach to project

review. From Canada’s response it appears clear that consultations with

project proponents leading to issuance of Letters of Advice is a key

element of its effort to “seek... assurances of voluntary compliance.”

(Response at 3). Important information concerning use of this strategy to

promote voluntary compliance, however, is not provided. With a particular focus on projects for which Canada issues “Letters of Advice” in an

effort to prevent violations of Fisheries Act Section 35(1), four key areas

of information that warrant further development are as follows:

1. What is the extent of use of this strategy and how has the use of this

approach shifted over time? Canada provides information concerning the number of times it provided “advice” during fiscal

year 1996–97 (6,912 times, 3,689 times to proponents and 3,223

times to “others”). (Response at 10). It is not clear, however,

whether these instances of providing “advice” were embodied in

Letters of Advice. Basic information concerning the number of

Letters of Advice issued annually is not provided in the submission or response. Such information is essential to understand use

of this enforcement tool.

Such information is especially pertinent in light of the Submitter’s

claim that the number of authorizations issued has dropped

SEM-97-006 95

(b) restrict the operation of the work or undertaking, and with the approval of the

Governor in Council in any case, direct the closing of the work or undertaking

for such period as the Minister or a person designated by the Minister considers

necessary in the circumstances.
significantly in recent years. It reports that in 1995–96, Canada

issued no more than 339 authorizations under Section 35(2) of the

Fisheries Act, while more than 12,000 authorizations were issued

in 1990–91.24

Because of the potential relationship between authorizations and

Letters of Advice, information concerning the number of Fisheries

Act Section 35(2) authorizations applied for and issued annually is

also relevant. Canada only provides information concerning the

number of authorizations issued in 1996–97,25 while the Submitter

provides some information concerning the number of authorizations provided in 1995–96 and 1990–91.

Similarly, information would be relevant concerning the nature

and extent of information required by the Department prior to

issuance of letters of Advice, and how this information differs

from that required prior to issuance of Fisheries Act Section 35(2)

authorizations.

2. What is the nature and extent of Canada’s efforts to monitor projects that receive Letters of Advice to identify violations of Section

35(1), in terms of numbers of violations and severity of violations?

Canada justifies use of Letters of Advice on the basis that they are

effective in preventing violations of Section 35(1) from occurring—that they help to produce voluntary compliance. Information directly relevant to this claim, however, is not provided. First,

no information is provided concerning the nature of Canada’s

efforts to monitor the extent to which projects that receive Letters

of Advice violate Section 35(1). [See, e.g., NAAEC Article 5(1)(b).]

With respect to monitoring, it would be relevant to have information relating to the amount of compliance-related monitoring conducted on projects that receive Letters of Advice. It would also be

relevant to have information relating to any differences in the

96 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

24. The submission annex provides as follows on this point:

[T]he effect [of the Directive] is to radically reduce the number of cases where DFO

will be involved in protecting fish habitat and the scope of Sections 35(2) and 37(2)

as CEAA triggers. It allows officials and proponents to simply sidestep application

of the fish-habitat protection regime of the Fisheries Act and CEAA.

ENGO Concerns and Policy Options Regarding the Administration and Delegation of Subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act, Proposed Subsection 35(3) and Consequences for Federal Environmental Assessment, Prepared by the Quebec

Environmental Law Centre, January 1996 (Principal Consultants: Yves Corriveau,

Franklin S. Gertler), 2.

25. Canada indicates that during fiscal year 1996–97, DFO issued 91 authorizations

under Section 35(2), as well as Sections 26 and 32, without providing a breakdown.
nature of, and resources dedicated to, monitoring of compliance,

depending on whether a Letter of Advice or an authorization is

issued.

In addition, information concerning the number and severity of

violations of Section 35(1) committed by projects that receive such

Letters is directly relevant to Canada’s claim that Letters of Advice

are effective in preventing violations of Fisheries Act Section 35(1),

but is not provided. It would be relevant to develop such information in connection with the Party’s claim.

3. What is the nature and extent of Canada’s enforcement response

with respect to projects that receive Letters of Advice and violate

Section 35(1)? [See, e.g., NAAEC Article 5(1)(j).] The Directiveindicates that “failure to implement measures set out in Letters of

Advice which result in harmful effects to habitat could lead to

enforcement action.” (Directive at 5). The response, however,

provides little information concerning this aspect of Canada’s

enforcement approach. Relevant information would include any

Canadian policies concerning the array of possible enforcement

actions in response to violations of Fisheries Act Section 35(1) and

the circumstances under which Canada would use such. Information concerning the actual use of these enforcement approaches,

both in an absolute sense and in the context of the number and

severity of violations, is relevant as well.

4. How effective are these follow-up efforts in promoting and

achieving compliance with Section 35(1)?

To sum up, the questions listed above focus primarily on Canada’s use

of Letters of Advice as an enforcement tool to review project applications and to prevent violations of Section 35(1) from occurring. Canada

asserts that its overall approach to habitat protection is “compliance-based.” That is, Canada tries to prevent damage from being caused

in the first place. (Response at 10, 11). Information, however, is lacking

concerning the details of Canada’s compliance-based approach and the

extent to which Canada’s approach is effective in achieving the purposes

of the Fisheries Act and the CEAA. As the questions above reflect, while

the response provides some information concerning this approach, we

believe that there are significant information gaps and that a factual

record is warranted to fill those gaps.26

SEM-97-006 97

26. For a variety of reasons, the Secretariat is not persuaded that it is warranted to

extend the scope of a factual record concerning the project review stage to include

(Fisheries Act) Section 37-related issues. Among other things, the Secretariat views
2. Prosecutions

The Secretariat is similarly of the view that important information is

lacking concerning the use of prosecutions as an enforcement tool. Canada advises that when Canada’s “voluntary compliance fails, and the

Fisheries Act is contravened, such that habitats supporting fisheries

resources are harmfully altered, destroyed or degraded, enforcement

action is taken.” (Response at 9, 11). The Party, however, offers only limited information concerning the nature of enforcement activity, notably

the number of convictions in 1996/97. (Response at 10).27 Additional

information necessary to substantiate the statement that enforcement

action is taken when the Fisheries Act is contravened that is lacking, for

example, includes the number and severity of violations, the nature and

extent of Canada’s enforcement responses, and the effectiveness of

those responses. This is true for projects that receive Letters of Advice

as well as for other projects (e.g., those that receive authorizations

and “outliers”—i.e., projects that have been built without government

review). 28

Canada asserts that it is misleading to look only at federal enforcement

prosecutions because the provinces address some violations of Section

35(1). As noted above, the response indicates that “activity that could

risk legal action under the federal Fisheries Act is often subject to

legal sanction under provincial statute”... ”and that the provinces have

authority to enforce the Fisheries Act as well. (Response at 3, 10, 11). Yet,

little information is provided concerning provincial enforcement activity under provincial law or under the Fisheries Act, other than the number of provincial employees involved in certain activities. (Response at

11). Because of Canada’s apparent view that provincial prosecutions are

an integral element of the effort to enforce Fisheries Act Section 35(1),

information concerning the provinces’ prosecution efforts is relevant as

well and should be developed.

98 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

the submission and annex as focusing primarily on the Directive on the Issuance

of Subsection 35(2) Authorizations in their challenge to Canada’s project review

practices.

27. The submission annex reports that in 1991–92 there were a total of 145 prosecutions

and four injunctions relating to the habitat protection and pollution prevention

provisions of the Fisheries Act.

28. The Submitter asserts that federal prosecutions for violations are particularly

important because federal practice significantly constrains private actions when

violations occur. The Submitter claims that the issuance of Letters of Advice

frustrates prosecutions by private parties, as do interventions in and stays of such

prosecutions by the Attorney General. (Submission at 1).
3. Other issues concerning the Party’s enforcement practices

1. As noted above, Canada asserts that its enforcement approach reflects

a reasonable exercise of its discretion in respect of investigatory, prosecutorial, regulatory or compliance matters. In particular, Canada asserts

that:

The method by which Canada enforces and applies Section 35 of the Fisheries Act and the issuance of the Directive is a legitimate application of [its]

discretion. Furthermore, the Agreement acknowledges, in Article 5, that

seeking assurances of voluntary compliance, as Canada does through the

Directives, is an appropriate government enforcement action. As such,

Canada respectfully submits that the development of a factual record in

this case is not warranted since the Agreement does not permit the review

of the legitimate exercise of a Party’s discretion. (Response at 3).

The Secretariat agrees that strategies intended to assure voluntary compliance may qualify as effective enforcement under Articles 5 and 14 of

the NAAEC. Respectfully, however, the Secretariat does not believe that

Canada’s response establishes adequately that Canada’s enforcement

approach constitutes a legitimate exercise of its discretion. Article

45(1)(a) provides that a Party has not failed to “effectively enforce its

environmental law” where its action or inaction reflects a reasonable

exercise of its discretion in relation to investigatory, prosecutorial, regulatory or compliance matters. As the questions listed above reflect,

Canada’s response provides very little information concerning key

issues necessary to evaluate its exercise of its discretion, such as the

number and severity of violations, the nature of Canada’s enforcement

responses, and the effectiveness of those responses. Canada’s response

also fails to provide information concerning its overall policy context—for example, information concerning its policies regarding the

nature of monitoring that is appropriate, the circumstances under which

it is appropriate to pursue various types of enforcement action, and

the circumstances in which enforcement action is not needed. Finally,

Canada has failed to provide information concerning the extent to which

it is implementing the strategies set forth in its policy context.

Thus, there is no basis for the Secretariat or the Council to evaluate

whether Canada has exercised its discretion in a reasonable way. The

extent to which it is appropriate for the Secretariat to conduct such an

evaluation has never been addressed and the Secretariat does not seek to

address it here. The Secretariat, however, believes that a Party must provide more support for a statement under Article 45 that it has reasonably

exercised its discretion than is contained in this response in order to

exempt its enforcement practices from scrutiny under Article 14.

SEM-97-006 99
2. Canada also asserts that its enforcement approach results from bona

fide decisions to allocate resources to enforcement in respect of other

environmental matters determined to have higher priorities. As is the

case with respect to the exercise of discretion, virtually no information is

provided to support this assertion. There is little information, for example, concerning the overall level of resources available for enforcement,

the relative priority of various environmental matters, or the level of

resources devoted to enforcement in the area covered by the submission.

Again, the extent to which it is appropriate for the Secretariat to evaluate

a claim under Article 45(1)(b) has never been addressed and the Secretariat does not seek to address it here. The Secretariat, however, believes

that a Party must provide more support for a statement that it has made

bona fide decisions to allocate resources to enforcement concerning

higher priority matters than is contained in this response.

4. Sunpine Road project

As noted above, the Submitter has provided the “Sunpine Road” example as a specific illustration of Canada’s alleged failure to effectively

enforce the Fisheries Act and CEAA. The Party, on the other hand, urges

that the pendency of a lawsuit relating to the road renders it inappropriate to delve further into the project as part of a factual record.29

The Secretariat has previously addressed the issue of pending judicial

proceedings in connection with this submission, among others. Briefly,

the NAAEC is clear that the Secretariat must “proceed no further” when

the subject matter of the submission is also the subject of an ongoing

judicial or administrative proceeding being pursued by a Party.30 This

100 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

29. Two judicial proceedings are relevant to the submission. The first one is The Friends

of the West Country Association v. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Attorney

General of Canada, Federal Court Trial Division (Docket T2457-96). This proceeding

was initiated in November 1996 but then abandoned by the Submitters in November 1997. The second court case is The Friends of the West Country Association v. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Director, Marine Programs, Canadian Coast Guard,

Federal Court Trial Division (unreported, 7 July 1998, Docket T-1893-96; Gibson J.).

A decision was rendered in July 1998 but then appealed by the Canadian Government in September 1998. The appeal is currently under way (Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans and Director, Marine Programs, Canadian Coast Guard v. Friends of West Country Association, Federal Court of Appeal (Docket A-550-98).

30. See, e.g.,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), regarding SEM 97-001 at 9. Article 14(3) of

the NAAEC provides that the Secretariat “shall proceed no further” where the

responding Party has shown that the matter is the subject of “pending judicial or

administrative proceedings.” Article 45(3) defines a “judicial or administrative

proceeding” for purposes of Article 14(3) to mean: “a domestic judicial, quasi-
provision does not apply here because the pending litigation was not

pursued by a Party. The Secretariat may also deem it appropriate not to

consider a matter because, as it had stated in an April 1997Determination,

the “similarity of issues presented in both the submission and the lawsuit . . . creates a risk that the preparation of a factual record may duplicate important aspects of the judicial action” and interfere with the

pending litigation.31

As stated in this Determination, the Secretariat considered that this submission did not warrant developing a factual record because a court case

pending at the time involved similar issues, notably the use of Letters of

Advice under the Fisheries Act. The Secretariat noted that the Submitter

“may wish in the future to file a new submission following a . . . resolution” of the court case involving these issues.32 The Submitter later abandoned the court case.

The currently ongoing court proceedings appear to create less overlap

with the submission than the case pending in April 1997. The current

court case appears to be concerned primarily with the interpretation of

the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Navigable Waters

Protection Act.33 In contrast, as discussed above, the factual record

SEM-97-006 101

judicial or administrative action pursued by the Party in a timely fashion and in

accordance with its law. . . .”

31. Determination pursuant to Articles 14 & 15 of the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation for SEM-96-003 (2 April 1997).

32. Ibid.

33. On 7 July 1998, the Federal Court Trial Division decided that the environmental

assessments conducted concerning the construction of two bridges as part of the

Sunpine project were inadequate, and the approvals were set aside. The Court

found that the Coast Guard failed in its requirement to consider the cumulative

environmental effects from other projects or activities that had been or would be

carried out [Section 16(1)(a), CEAA], to assess various other undertakings [Section

15(3), CEAA], and to ensure convenient public access to all documents in the public

registry [Section 55, CEAA]. Together with the related statutory preliminary steps,

the approvals were referred back to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for

“redetermination in manner consistent with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and these reasons.” The Friends of

the West Country Association v. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Director, Marine

Programs, Canadian Coast Guard, Federal Court Trial Division (unreported, 7 July

1998, Docket T-1893-96) (Gibson J.), at 33. The Attorney General of Canada appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal based on the following grounds:

a) the Court erred in the standard of review applied to the circumstances of the

case;

b) the Court erred in its interpretation of Section 15 of CEAA.

c) the Court erred in law in its interpretation of Section 16 of CEAA; and

d) the Court erred in its opinion that the public registry established by the Coast

Guard failed to meet the requirements of Section 55 of CEAA so as to constitute a

further reviewable error.
would concentrate on the development of factual information concerning the Party’s project review strategy under the Fisheries Act, with a

particular focus on the Letter of Advice strategy, and information concerning the Party’s approach to prosecutions. Thus, the risk of substantial duplication or interference seems minimal, unlike in the previous

court case that led to the Secretariat’s termination of the submissions

process in April 1997.

Weighed against the possible downside of duplication or interference is

the reality that it would seem relatively straightforward to fill the gaps in

the information provided to the Secretariat concerning the handling of

this project under the Fisheries Act. Based on the submission and

response, it appears that three types of information have not been provided. First, the Submitter asserts that the government was concerned, at

least early on, that several of the projects could harm fish habitat in violation of Fisheries Act Section 35(1). Information concerning such possible

impacts and possible violations has not been provided. Second, the Secretariat has not been provided with the Letters of Advice issued to prevent harm or violations from occurring due to two of the crossings.

Finally, while the Secretariat has been advised that Alberta officials have

inspected the road and concluded that the construction did not harm

fish habitat, the Secretariat has not been provided with a copy of the

report of the Alberta enforcement officials concerning their assessment

of the final impacts on fish habitat as a result of the construction.

V. RECOMMENDATION

The Secretariat considers that, in light of Canada’s response, the submission warrants developing a factual record to compile further information regarding the enforcement activity undertaken by Canada and the

effectiveness of that activity in ensuring compliance with Section 35(1) of

the Fisheries Act. The response does not take issue with the importance

of the environmental laws and natural resources at issue in this submission. Instead, it reflects an appreciation for their significance. The

1996/97 DFO Annual Report to Parliament concerning administration

and enforcement of the Fisheries Act, cited in the response, notes

that “[t]he fish habitat protection . . . provisions of the Fisheries Act” are

among the “main tools for the conservation and protection of fish habitat.” Further, while the response asserts that the project review and

prosecution approaches the Party uses are effective in preventing and

addressing violations of Fisheries Act Section 35(1), the lack of information concerning the actual extent of use of different enforcement tools,

and concerning the effect of these tools in achieving compliance with the

102 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Fisheries Act, has led the Secretariat to conclude that it is appropriate

to use the factual record process to develop facts concerning these

questions.

Respectfully submitted on this 19 day of July 1999.

Janine Ferretti

Executive Director

SEM-97-006 103

SEM-97-007

(LAKE CHAPALA)

SUBMITTER: INSTITUTO DE DERECHO AMBIENTAL

PARTY: UNITED MEXICAN STATES

DATE: 10 OCTOBER 1997

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege that Mexico is failing to

enforce environmental law, in connection with

the citizen complaint filed on 23 September 1996,

concerning the degradation of the Lerma Santiago

River—Lake Chapala Basin.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)(2)

(2 OCTOBER 1998)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met and determination pursuant

to Article 14(2) that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party.

ART. 15(1)

(14 JULY 2000)

Dismissed following Party’s response in

accordance with Article 15 (1).

105

2 de octubre de 1998

POR FAX Y MENSAJERO

Mtra. Julia Carabias Lillo

Semarnap

Periférico Sur # 4209

6o Piso

Fracc. Jardines en la Montaña

14210 México, D.F.

México

Ref.: Petición relativa a la aplicación efectiva de la legislación

ambiental conforme a los artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo

de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Peticionarios: Instituto de Derecho Ambiental

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha: 10 de octubre de 1997

Petición: SEM-97-007

Estimada maestra Carabias:

Como es de su conocimiento, el Secretariado de la CCA recibió el día 10

de octubre de 1997 una petición del Instituto de Derecho Ambiental,

A.C. en unión de ciudadanos de la rivera del Lago de Chapala. Los

peticionarios aseveran que ha habido una omisión en la aplicación

efectiva de la legislación ambiental mexicana respecto de “la denunica

popular interpuesta el 23 de septiembre de 1996, relativa a la

problemática de la Cuenca Hidrológica formada por el Río Lerma Santiago-Lago de Chapala” que presentaron ante la Procuraduría Federal

de Protección al Ambiente “para el efecto de que declarara el estado de

emergencia ambiental para el ecosistema Lago de Chapala...”

107
El Secretariado ha revisado la petición y ha determinado que cumple con

los requisitos establecidos en el artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo de

Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte. Asimismo,

considerando los criterios previstos en el artículo 14(2) del ACAAN, el

Secretariado ha determinado que la petición amerita solicitar una

respuesta de la Parte. Al efecto, solicitamos del Gobierno de México una

respuesta a la petición de referencia y anexamos una copia de la misma y

de la información de apoyo que la acompaña.

Conforme al artículo 14(3), estaremos en espera de recibir la respuesta

del Gobierno de México el día 16 de noviembre de 1998, esto es, en un

plazo de 30 días hábiles posteriores a la entrega de la presente, salvo que

por circunstancias excepcionales se requiera ampliar el plazo a 60 días.

Sometido respetuosamente a su consideración,

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: Janine Ferretti

Directora Ejecutiva Interina

c.c. Lic. José Luis Samaniego, Semarnap

Mr. Jim Wall, Environment Canada

Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA

Dra. Raquel Gutiérrez Nájera y/o Lic. Jacqueline Brockmann,

Instituto de Derecho

Ambiental, A.C.

108 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
Secretariado de la Comisión

para la Cooperación Ambiental

Determinación del Secretariado en conformidad con el artículo 15(1)

del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Peticionario: Instituto de Derecho Ambiental, A.C.

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Número de petición: SEM-97-007

Fecha de recepción: 10 de octubre de 1997

Fecha de esta determinación: 14 de julio de 2000

I. INTRODUCCIÓN

En conformidad con los artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo de Cooperación

Ambiental de América del Norte(ACAAN), el Secretariado de la Comisión

para la Comisión Ambiental (Secretariado) puede examinar peticiones

que aseveren que una Parte del ACAAN está incurriendo en omisiones

en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental. El 10 de octubre de

1997, el Secretariado recibió una petición del Instituto de Derecho

Ambiental, A.C. que asevera que México ha incurrido en una omisión en

la aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental mexicana al no resolver

el fondo de la Denuncia Popular sobre la degradación del ecosistema del

Lago de Chapala, presentada el 23 de septiembre de 1996 (Denuncia

Popular),1 y al no declarar una emergencia ambiental en el Lago de

Chapala como resultado de la verificación de los hechos planteados en la

Denuncia Popular.

El 2 de octubre de 1998, el Secretariado determinó que la petición cumple

con los requisitos establecidos en el artículo 14(1) del ACAAN.

Considerando los factores previstos en el artículo 14(2) del ACAAN,

SEM-97-007 109

1. Anexo 11 de la petición.
el Secretariado decidió que la petición ameritaba una respuesta de la

Parte, por lo que en ese mismo documento del 2 de octubre de 1998

solicitó a México una respuesta. Estas determinaciones del Secretariado

se explican en la sección siguiente de este documento.

El 30 de octubre de 1998, a dos años de haberse presentado la Denuncia

Popular motivo de la petición, la Profepa emitió una contestación a la

Denuncia Popular señalando a los denunciantes que el Lago de Chapala

no se encuentra en una situación que amerite declarar una emergencia

ambiental. La Parte mexicana incorporó la contestación a la Denuncia

Popular en la respuesta a la petición que envió al Secretariado el 14

de diciembre de 1998, y que se resume en la sección III de esta

determinación. La Parte afirma en la respuesta, que no obstante su

retraso, dio cabal trámite a la Denuncia Popular y que en la contestación

a la Denuncia Popular demostró a los denunciantes que no era

procedente declarar la emergencia ambiental. El Secretariado estudió la

posibilidad de contactar a los Peticionarios para confirmar si ante la

contestación a la Denuncia Popular aún consideran que la Parte está

incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental, más no encontró fundamento para hacerlo ni en el ACAAN

ni en las Directrices para la presentación de peticiones conforme a los artículos

14 y 15 del ACAAN (Directrices).

El análisis del Secretariado de la petición y de la respuesta de la Parte, se

plantea en la sección IV de este documento. Sin embargo, al Secretariado

no le es posible considerar si esta petición en particular, a luz de la

respuesta de la Parte, amerita que se elabore un expediente de hechos

conforme al artículo 15(1), debido a que la respuesta de la Parte se basa

en un acto de la Parte posterior a la petición, y dado que, el Secretariado

no puede confirmar con los Peticionarios si sus aseveraciones se

mantienen ante ese acto de la Parte. Ante esta situación, el Secretariado

se ve en la necesidad de concluir el proceso iniciado por la petición

SEM-97-007 por las razones procesales que se plantean en este

documento.

II. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME A LOS

ARTÍCULOS 14(1) Y 14(2) DEL ACAAN

En esta sección el Secretariado explica las razones por las que la petición

cumple con los requisitos del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN, y explica las

consideraciones por las que ameritó solicitar una respuesta de la Parte

110 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
conforme al artículo 14(2) del Acuerdo, según su determinación del 2 de

octubre de 1998.2

En su primera sección, el artículo 14 del Acuerdo establece:

1. 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.

El Secretariado considera que este artículo no pretende establecer

requisitos infranqueables para las peticiones, pero que deben revisarse

con cierto detenimiento estas cuestiones para avanzar en la

consideración de una petición.3 El Secretariado analizó con este enfoque

la petición presentada por el Instituto de Derecho Ambiental, A.C.

El preámbulo del artículo 14(1) exige que las peticiones aseveren que

una Parte está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su

legislación ambiental. Los Peticionarios aseveran que México está

SEM-97-007 111

2. Este análisis se hizo estando en vigor las Directrices anteriores a las modificaciones

adoptadas en junio de 1999, que no exigían al Secretariado explicar su razonamiento

en cada paso, como lo hacen ahora en el apartado 7.2 de las Directrices.

3. Véanse la Determinación conforme al artículo 14(1) en relación con la petición

SEM-97-005/Animal Alliance of Canada, et al; 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; entre otras.
incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental en el caso de la Denuncia Popular sobre la degradación del

Lago de Chapala, presentada el 23 de septiembre de 1996. La petición

contiene aseveraciones de omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de la

LGEEPA en los artículos 189 al 194 (anteriores a las Reformas de

diciembre de 1996 y de acuerdo a la cual se interpuso la Denuncia

Popular) y del Reglamento Interior de la Semarnap en su artículo 62. La

petición señala expresamente que ésta no alude “...al fondo del asunto

planteado [en la Denuncia Popular], ya que éste nunca se abordó por

la autoridad competente.” La petición asevera que la Parte mexicana

viola los artículos 5, 6 y 7 del ACAAN, que se refieren a las medidas

gubernamentales para la aplicación de leyes y reglamentos, al acceso

de los particulares a los procedimientos y a las garantías procesales,

haciendo referencia también a los artículos 14 y 16 de la Constitución

Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, “que establecen las garantías

de legalidad y de debido proceso, [y] forman parte de la columna

del Derecho Procesal Mexicano”, que los Peticionarios consideran

vulnerado por la Parte en su tramitación de la Denuncia Popular.

La petición declara que “...tiene por objeto el fortalecimiento de la

cooperación en la elaboración de leyes, reglamentos procedimientos,

políticas y prácticas ambientales, así como el mejorar la observancia

y aplicación de las leyes y reglamentos ambientales en los términos

del artículo 1o. del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental.4” Estas

aseveraciones de la petición satisfacen el preámbulo del artículo 14(1)

del ACAAN.

A efecto de calificar para el proceso del artículo 14(1), las peticiones

deben referirse a disposiciones que satisfagan la definición de

“legislación ambiental” contenida en el artículo 45(2) del ACAAN, que

se refiere al propósito principal de tales disposiciones.5 En el caso de esta

petición, se satisface la definición del ACAAN porque las disposiciones

que establecen el procedimiento de denuncia popular y las facultades

de la Profepa citadas por los Peticionarios, son disposiciones adjetivas

cuyo propósito principal es la protección del medio ambiente6 y porque

112 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

4. Páginas 5 a 7 de la petición (énfasis eliminado).

5. Véase el artículo 45(2) del ACAAN. 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).

6. Véanse los artículos 189 al 194 de la LGEEPA en su versión anterior a la reforma de

diciembre de 1996 y el artículo 62 del Reglamento Interior de la Semarnap de fecha 8

de julio de 1996. (página 7 de la petición)
las disposiciones sustantivas en las que se basó a su vez la Denuncia

Popular, tienen también como propósito principal la protección del

medio ambiente.7 Las disposiciones sustantivas más relevantes a esta

definición, en las que se basó las Denuncia Popular son los artículos 1, 7,

13, 119 y 122 de la Ley de Aguas Nacionales (LAN), 117 al 129 de

la LGEEPA entonces en vigor, y 21 normas oficiales mexicanas que

establecían los límites máximos permisibles de contaminantes en las

descargas de aguas residuales de diversas fuentes, entonces en vigor.8

Esas disposiciones se ajustan a la definición del artículo 45(2) porque

su propósito principal es la protección del medio ambiente a través

de la prevención y el control de la contaminación del agua y de los

ecosistemas acuáticos.

La petición cumple también los seis requisitos enlistados en el artículo

14(1). Esta se presentó por escrito en español, idioma designado por la

Parte mexicana.9 Los Peticionarios se identificaron como el Instituto de

Derecho Ambiental, A.C., organización sin vinculación gubernamental

establecida en Guadalajara, Jalisco, México.10 El Secretariado hace notar

que la petición fue presentada por persona distinta a quienes

presentaron la Denuncia Popular objeto de la petición, sin que ello

resulte un impedimento para su examen.11 El artículo 14 del Acuerdo no

señala que la persona que formule una petición deba ser la misma persona que por escrito comunicó el “asunto” a las autoridades de la Parte

correspondiente, sino que pone énfasis en la coincidencia del “asunto”

en cuestión, coincidencia que resalta en este caso. La petición contiene

suficiente información, lo cual permitió al Secretariado revisarla.

Incluye copia de la Denuncia Popular, información acerca del trámite

que dio la autoridad a la Denuncia Popular, algunos documentos sobre

los problemas de contaminación del Lago de Chapala en los que se

basó la Denuncia Popular, y descripciones de las actividades que

presuntamente contribuyen a la degradación de la cuenca.12 La petición

no parece encaminada a hostigar una industria, sino a promover la

SEM-97-007 113

7. En particular, el Secretariado determinó en la mencionada Determinación respecto

de la SEM-98-002, que las disposiciones relativas a la denuncia popular califican

como legislación ambiental a efecto del artículo 14 del ACAAN siempre que el

asunto a que se refiera la denuncia popular se ajuste a su vez a la definición del

ACAAN.

8. Véase la Denuncia Popular (anexo 11 de la petición).

9. Véanse el artículo 14(1)(a) del ACAAN y el apartado 3.2 de las Directrices.

10. Véanse el artículo 14(1)(b) y (f) del ACAAN y la página 10 de la petición.

11. Firmaron y presentaron conjuntamente la Denuncia Popular: Raquel Gutiérrez

Nájera, Jacqueline Brockmann C., Pedro Díaz Martínez, Luis Alberto López

Herrera, Alvaro Gómez Minakata, Adolfo Alejandro López Aguayo y Fabián Oscar

Monsalve Agraz. La primera es presidenta del Instituto de Derecho Ambiental,

A.C., organización que presentó la petición objeto de esta determinación.

12. Véanse el artículo 14(1)(c) del ACAAN y las páginas 3 a 5 de la petición.
aplicación de la legislación ambiental para la protección del ecosistema

de la cuenca Lerma-Chapala y se centra en la actuación de las autoridades de la Parte respecto del problema.13 La petición incluye copias de

las comunicaciones dirigidas a las autoridades, de una denuncia popular anterior a la que es objeto de la petición, de la Denuncia Popular y de

diversas comunicaciones oficiales al respecto.14

Habiendo revisado la petición conforme al artículo 14(1) del ACAAN

y constatado que cumple con los requisitos allí establecidos, el

Secretariado consideró los factores señalados en el artículo 14(2) y

determinó que la petición ameritaba solicitar una respuesta a la Parte

mexicana. El artículo 14(2) dispone:

2. Cuando considere que una petición cumple con los requisitos

estipulados en el párrafo 1, 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 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.

Al tomar la decisión de que la petición ameritaba solicitar una respuesta

de la Parte, el Secretariado consideró los alegatos de la petición respecto

del daño a la organización que la presenta: tanto los alegatos relativos a

la importancia de los mecanismos que permiten la participación pública

en la protección del medio ambiente, como los alegatos relacionados con

la importancia del ecosistema del Lago de Chapala y la gravedad de la

presunta degradación del mismo.

Los Peticionarios alegan denegación de justicia por la falta de estudio

por parte de la Profepa del fondo del asunto planteado en la Denuncia

114 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

13. Véanse el artículo 14(1)(d) del ACAAN y el apartado 5.4(a) de las Directrices.

14. Véase el artículo 14(1)(e) del ACAAN y las páginas3a5y anexos 11 a 24 de la

petición.
Popular. La petición indica que la Profepa es la autoridad responsable

de resolver las denuncias populares, y que con base en la Denuncia

Popular “...debió haber entrado a estudiar a fondo qué estaba pasando

ambientalmente en el Lago de Chapala’”, debió cubrir las etapas

procesales y debió dictar resolución administrativa sobre el fondo. Los

Peticionarios señalan que en vez de cumplir de esta manera con sus

atribuciones conforme a la LGEEPA y el Reglamento Interior de la

Semarnap, la Profepa permitió que el asunto se tramitara como una

cuestión de responsabilidad de funcionarios públicos y que delegó su

competencia en la CNA.15 Sobre este punto, el Secretariado tomó en

cuenta junto con los alegatos, la reconocida importancia en el marco del

ACAAN de la participación ciudadana en la protección del medio

ambiente, a través de la vigilancia pública del cumplimiento de la

legislación ambiental para la prevención de la contaminación y de su

aplicación por parte de las autoridades competentes.16

Respecto de la importancia del ecosistema al que se refiere esta petición,

el Secretariado tomó en cuenta las dimensiones del Lago de Chapala, la

reconocida importancia de la cuenca Lerma-Chapala en la actividad

económica de la región y su reconocida importancia ecológica, cuya

grave degradación en supuesta violación de la legislación ambiental

según los Peticionarios es “... en detrimento del patrimonio de las

generaciones presentes y futuras...”.

La Denuncia Popular describe la importancia del la Cuenca LermaSantiago y la gravedad del problema ambiental, en los términos

siguientes. El Lago de Chapala con una longitud máxima de 82.18 km se

ubica en la parte sur de la Altiplanicie Mexicana, en la Mesa Central,

entre los Estados de Jalisco y Michoacán y es el lago más grande de la

República Mexicana y el tercero en tamaño en América Latina. Funge

como vaso regulador de la Cuenca Lerma-Santiago, que abarca

aproximadamente 129,263 Km2 en los Estados de Querétaro, Estado

de México, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Aguascalientes, Jalisco y Nayarit.

Señala la Denuncia Popular, que según algunos informes la contaminación de las diferentes regiones de la Cuenca Río Lerma-Santiago,

varía de acuerdo a las actividades que se realicen en sus áreas de

influencia.17 Indica que a su paso en el Norte del Estado de Michoacán,

el Río Lerma presenta elevadísimos niveles de contaminación por

desechos industriales, aguas negras y basura, y que en la Piedad,

Guanajuato, el problema se agrava por la cercanía al lecho del río de

SEM-97-007 115

15. Página 10 de la petición.

16. Véanse el preámbulo y los artículos 1, 5, 6, y 14 del ACAAN.

17. Informe publicado por la Universidad de Guadalajara titulado “Jalisco a tiempo”.

Anexo 3 de la petición.
importantes granjas porcinas que tiran al agua los excrementos de casi

un millón de animales.18 La Denuncia Popular concluye que el Lago de

Chapala “presenta un alto grado de degradación por la presencia de

metales pesados en sus aguas lo que ocasiona graves enfermedades

en su población piscícola, extracción de agua y serios niveles de

azolvamiento, aunado a la gran cantidad de nutrientes que generan la

sobrepoblación del lirio acuático”.19

En particular, el Secretariado tomó en cuenta la supuesta gravedad de

los riesgos para la vida y la salud humana y para la supervivencia

de especies, los daños que según los Peticionarios se han causado al

ecosistema por la presunta descarga sin tratamiento de aguas residuales

industriales, agropecuarias y municipales, el vertido de desechos en los

ríos que alimentan el lago, y la explotación desmedida del agua de la

cuenca, en supuesta violación de la legislación que se invoca en la

Denuncia Popular.20 Por lo anterior, en opinión del Secretariado la

petición plantea un asunto cuyo ulterior estudio en este proceso

contribuiría a la consecución de las metas del ACAAN, especialmente

con relación a sus artículos 1 y 5.21

Se aborda ahora la consideración de si se ha acudido a los recursos

disponibles conforme a la legislación de la Parte. Si bien es claro que

le corresponde al Secretariado llevar a cabo esta consideración como

antecedente a que solicita una respuesta a la Parte, cabe referirse aquí a la

opinión que ha expresado la Parte sobre este punto. La Parte en su

respuesta manifiesta que la denuncia popular no es un recurso y que

considera que la petición transgrede el artículo 14(2)(c) porque los

Peticionarios no agotaron los recursos legales correspondientes.22 La

Parte en su respuesta parece interpretar ese artículo 14(2)(c) como

estableciendo el requisito de que los peticionarios agoten los recursos

legales disponibles, en lugar de disponiendo una consideración del

Secretariado sobre si los peticionarios han acudido a ellos. Al parecer

del Secretariado, que difiere respetuosamente con lo asentado en la

respuesta de la Parte, el texto del ACAAN es claro en este aspecto.

Según lo que señala ese artículo 14(2), los factores en él listados, son

consideraciones que orientan al Secretariado para decidir si una petición

amerita solicitar una respuesta a la Parte, a diferencia del artículo 14(1),

116 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

18. Informe del Foro Mexicano de la Sociedad Civil sobre Medio Ambiente y

Desarrollo. Anexo 4 de la petición.

19. Página 2 de la petición.

20. Páginas 5 a 7 de la petición.

21. Ver artículo 14(2)(a) y (b) del ACAAN.

22. Páginas 2 y 3 de la respuesta de la Parte.
que establece los requisitos que deben cumplir las peticiones. Entre esas

consideraciones, el artículo 14(2)(c) incluye la cuestión de “...si se ha

acudido a los recursos al alcance de los particulares conforme a la

legislación de la Parte...”. Por otra parte, los apartados 5.6(c) y 7.5(b) de

las Directrices, proporcionan mayor dirección sobre el sentido de este

factor del artículo 14(2)(c), al señalar respectivamente, que “la petición

deberá abordar [...] los recursos que estén al alcance de los particulares y

disponibles bajo las leyes de la Parte, que se han perseguido...” y que,

para evaluar este asunto “...el Secretariado se orientará por las siguientes

consideraciones: ....(b) si con anterioridad a la presentación de la

petición se han tomado las acciones razonables para acudir a dichos

recursos...23”

El Secretariado consideró que los Peticionarios abordaron en la petición

los recursos que se han perseguido, y que se tomaron medidas

razonables para acudir a ellos con anterioridad a la presentación de la

petición. Según la petición, se ha perseguido el recurso de denuncia

popular conforme a la LGEEPA, primero el 16 de mayo de 1996, para

reportar la aplicación de plaguicidas para el control de lirio acuático en

el Lago de Chapala, y luego el 23 de septiembre de 1996, respecto de las

violaciones a la legislación ambiental y la degradación del ecosistema

del Lago de Chapala, que los denunciantes consideran amerita la

declaración de emergencia ambiental. Según afirma la petición, en

ambos casos el asunto planteado por los denunciantes no se resolvió

conforme a derecho, no abordándose el fondo del mismo.24 También es

claro en opinión del Secretariado, que para efectos del artículo 14

del ACAAN, la denuncia popular es un recurso contemplado por la

legislación de la Parte mexicana y disponible a los peticionarios para que

acudan a esa Parte, previamente a la presentación de una petición.25

SEM-97-007 117

23. Estas disposiciones de las Directrices entraron en vigor en junio de 1999, después

de que se hubiera presentado la petición el 10 de octubre de 1997, si bien ello no

afecta la conclusión del Secretariado en este aspecto.

24. Página 9 de la petición.

25. La Parte señala que considera que la denuncia popular prevista en la LGEEPA no es

un recurso, sino un mecanismo para informar a la autoridad sobre cuestiones

ambientales. (páginas 2 y 3 de la respuesta) El artículo 14(2)(c) hace alusión a “... los

recursos disponibles conforme a la legislación de la Parte...” exigiendo que estén

previstos en la legislación de la Parte, pero sin establecer otras limitaciones sobre

las características de esos recursos. La denuncia popular está prevista en los

artículos 189 y siguientes de la LGEEPA, y permite a cualquier persona recurrir

a la autoridad ambiental para denunciar presuntas violaciones a las leyes o

reglamentos ambientales o daños al medio ambiente. La denuncia popular es en

este sentido y para efectos del proceso conforme a los artículos 14 y 15 del ACAAN,

un recurso contemplado por la legislación de la Parte mexicana y disponible a los

peticionarios para que acudan a esa Parte, previamente a la presentación de una

petición conforme al artículo 14 del ACAAN.
Como última consideración conforme al artículo 14(2), el Secretariado

observó que la petición no parece basarse en noticias de los medios de

comunicación, aunque se anexan copias de diversos volúmenes de una

publicación local sobre la situación de la cuenca ( “El Charal”) y otras

publicaciones especializadas que se refieren al tema.26

El 2 de octubre de 1998 el Secretariado determinó que la petición cumplía

con los requisitos del artículo 14(1) y orientándose por las consideraciones del artículo 14(2), el Secretariado solicitó en esa fecha una

respuesta de la Parte. La Parte mexicana presentó su respuesta al

Secretariado el 14 de diciembre de 1998.

III. RESUMEN DE LA RESPUESTA DE LA PARTE

En la respuesta de México, recibida por el Secretariado el 14 de

diciembre de 1998, la Parte arguye que la petición no es procedente

puesto que, según la Parte, conforme al artículo 14(2)(c) del ACAAN los

Peticionarios debieron haber agotado los recursos previstos en la

legislación mexicana y no lo hicieron. Sobre este asunto, la Parte

mexicana explica que considera además, que la denuncia popular

prevista en la LGEEPA no es un recurso. En la sección anterior se hizo

referencia a estos comentarios de la Parte.

Respecto del asunto planteado en la petición, la Parte sostiene que no

incumplió con su obligación de aplicar de manera efectiva sus leyes y

reglamentos ambientales a través de medidas adecuadas. Señala que el

procedimiento de responsabilidad de servidores públicos se inició

porque los propios denunciantes lo solicitaron, y que se remitió la

Denuncia Popular a la CNA por ser dicho órgano el competente para

ejercer las funciones en materia de prevención, control, fiscalización y

sanción de asuntos relativos a contaminación del agua, y también

porque era una de las autoridades denunciadas. La Parte indica que si

bien es cierto que “el gobierno mexicano omitió acatar el término de 30

días al que se refería el artículo 193 de la LGEEPA, para notificar a los

denunciantes el resultado de la verificación de los hechos y, en su caso,

las medidas impuestas, también lo es que la autoridad ambiental si

atendió la Denuncia Popular y la dilación en que incurrió para elaborar

la respuesta a la misma se debió a la necesidad de atender con la

profundidad que el asunto requería el fondo de la problemática

ambiental planteada sobre el Lago de Chapala, y ameritaba conocer la

opinión de diversas autoridades...”. Finalmente, la Parte señala que no

118 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

26. Ver artículo 14(2)(d) del ACAAN y anexos 9 y 10 de la petición.
practicó el peritaje solicitado por los denunciantes para efectos de la

declaratoria de emergencia solicitada porque estimó que la información

proporcionada por la CNA era suficiente para determinar la

improcedencia de dicha declaratoria.

La Parte afirma haberse ocupado de todos los hechos materia de la

Denuncia Popular en la contestación a la Denuncia Popular notificada el

30 de octubre de 1998. No obstante lo anterior, la Parte manifiesta que a

efecto de proporcionar una respuesta integral a la CCA, solicitó a la

CNA información actualizada relativa a la situación ambiental del Lago

de Chapala, por lo cual se elaboró un diagnóstico que se integró a la

respuesta. En ese diagnóstico la Parte afirma que el agua del Lago de

Chapala refleja valores que permiten su utilización como agua potable,

para fines agrícolas, de pesquería y recreación, por lo que el mismo no se

encuentra en una situación de emergencia.

IV. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN A LA LUZ DE LA

RESPUESTA DE LA PARTE, CONFORME AL

ARTÍCULO 15(1) DEL ACAAN

En conformidad con el artículo 15(1) del ACCAN, el Secretariado

procede a revisar la petición a la luz de la respuesta proporcionada por la

Parte, para determinar si amerita la elaboración de un expediente de

hechos.

A juicio de los Peticionarios, México está omitiendo aplicar de manera

efectiva su legislación ambiental en este caso porque consideran que

para que exista una aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental,

la Profepa debía, en resumen: haber cumplido con las formalidades

aplicables a la denuncia popular, respondiendo a los denunciantes en

los tiempos y términos que señala la LGEEPA; haber declarado al

ecosistema del Lago de Chapala en emergencia ambiental con base en la

verificación de los hechos denunciados y el peritaje del IMTA; no

haber convertido la Denuncia Popular en “un caso de responsabilidad

de funcionarios públicos”; y no haber delegado inapropiadamente su

competencia en la CNA.27

La argumentación central de la petición se refiere a la necesidad de

declarar en emergencia ambiental al ecosistema del Lago de Chapala,

como consecuencia de una correcta tramitación de la Denuncia Popular

en los tiempos y términos que señala la LGEEPA. Según los Peticionarios, la autoridad ambiental no ha exigido el cumplimiento por

SEM-97-007 119

27. Páginas 9 y 10 de la petición.
parte de quienes aprovechan la cuenca para la extracción de agua y la

descarga de aguas residuales de las disposiciones aplicables para la

protección de los recursos de la cuenca y la prevención de la

contaminación del agua. La petición asevera que la Parte ha omitido

aplicar de manera efectiva su legislación ambiental al no considerar el

fondo de la Denuncia Popular en la que plantean estos problemas de

degradación y violación a la legislación ambiental, y en al que se solicita

la declaratoria de una emergencia ambiental en la zona. Los

Peticionarios expresamente señalan que en la petición no se abordan los

problemas sustantivos planteados en la Denuncia Popular porque la

petición se aboca al hecho de que la autoridad no respondió dicha

Denuncia Popular, omitiendo aplicar de manera efectiva su legislación

ambiental. Para comprender el contexto de las aseveraciones de la

petición, se explica a continuación el procedimiento de denuncia popular.

La denuncia popular es un procedimiento establecido en la LGEEPA

(Título Sexto, capítulo VII, artículos 189 a 194), que se origina cuando

una persona pone en conocimiento de la Secretaría (Semarnap) hechos,

actos u omisiones contrarios a la legislación ambiental, y que obliga a la

Secretaría a llevar a cabo ciertas acciones concretas, dentro de plazos

determinados. Es importante señalar que en este caso son aplicables las

disposiciones vigentes el 23 de septiembre de 1996, y no las actuales, que

entraron en vigor en diciembre de 1996.

La LGEEPA no indica expresamente cuáles son los efectos de la

denuncia popular. De la lectura armónica de los artículos 8 y del Título

Sexto de la LGEEPA, se desprende que una denuncia popular obliga a la

Secretaría a realizar determinados actos, y otorga el derecho a los

denunciantes a que se les proporcione la información correspondiente, y

a utilizar los expedientes relativos a las denuncias populares como

prueba en juicio, en caso de que decidan demandar el pago de daños y

perjuicios al responsable de los hechos materia de la denuncia popular.

Al conocer de una denuncia popular, la Secretaría tiene las siguientes

obligaciones: recibir la denuncia, identificar al denunciante, y en su caso,

notificar a la persona o personas a quienes se hayan imputado los hechos

materia de la denuncia o a quienes pudiera afectar la misma (artículo

191). La Secretaría debe realizar las diligencias necesarias para

comprobar la veracidad de los hechos materia de la denuncia, y en su

caso “evaluarlos”, o debe remitirla a la autoridad competente cuando los

hechos materia de la misma fueren de competencia local, en cuyo caso

deberá promover ante dicha autoridad la ejecución de las medidas que

resulten procedentes (artículo 192). Dentro de los quince días hábiles

120 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
siguientes a su presentación, la Secretaría debe hacer del conocimiento

del denunciante el trámite que se le haya dado (artículo 193). En caso de

que los hechos, actos u omisiones denunciados resulten ser ciertos,

deberá realizar las acciones que le competen a fin de preservar, proteger

y restaurar el equilibrio ecológico y el ambiente (artículo 8, fracciones II y

III), iniciar los procedimientos administrativos que resulten necesarios

tales como los relacionados con sus facultades de investigación y

vigilancia, ejecución de medidas de seguridad, imposición de multas y

sanciones por infracciones administrativas; así como, en su caso,

coadyuvar en la persecución de delitos ambientales (Título Sexto,

capítulos I, II, III, IV y VI, así como artículo 193). En todo caso, la

Secretaría deberá tramitar la denuncia conforme a derecho, e informar

al denunciante el resultado de la investigación correspondiente y las

medidas que en su caso ejecutó — dentro de los 30 días hábiles

siguientes (artículo 193).

En su respuesta, la Parte argumenta que aplicó efectivamente su

legislación ambiental, afirmando que “si bien es cierto que el gobierno

mexicano omitió acatar el término de 30 días al que se refería el artículo

193 de la LGEEPA, para notificar a los denunciantes el resultado de la

verificación de los hechos y, en su caso, las medidas impuestas, también

lo es que la autoridad ambiental sí atendió la denuncia popular y la

dilación en que incurrió para elaborar la respuesta a la misma se debió a

la necesidad de atender con la profundidad que el asunto requería el

fondo de la problemática ambiental planteada sobre el Lago de Chapala,

y ameritaba conocer la opinión de diversas autoridades administrativas...28”

Asimismo, la Parte sostiene la legalidad de sus actuaciones al señalar

que el procedimiento de responsabilidad de servidores públicos se

inició porque los propios denunciantes lo solicitaron, y que la Denuncia

Popular se remitió a la CNA por ser dicho órgano “el competente para

ejercer las funciones en materia de prevención, control, fiscalización

y sanción de asuntos relativos a contaminación del agua, y también

porque era una de las autoridades denunciadas...29”

La Profepa dio tramite a la Denuncia Popular mediante el intercambio

de numerosos oficios con las autoridades denunciadas, así como de las

mismas y la Profepa con los denunciantes. Las comunicaciones que

por parte de la Profepa y de las autoridades denunciadas recibieron

los denunciantes, ofrecen cierta información a los denunciantes sobre

SEM-97-007 121

28. Página 25 de la respuesta.

29. Página 26 de la respuesta.
aspectos de la Denuncia Popular, pero no se refieren específicamente al

fondo de las peticiones de los denunciantes, salvo el Acuerdo No. D-047,

del 23 de junio de 1997, emitido por el Contralor Interno de la CNA,

en donde resuelve que “no se acreditó la irregularidad atribuida a

servidores públicos adscritos a la Comisión Nacional del Agua, en

consecuencia no ha lugar a instaurar el procedimiento administrativo de

determinación de responsabilidades, ni ha lugar a imponer sanción

administrativa alguna”.30

El 30 de octubre de 1998 fue notificada a los denunciantes la contestación

a la Denuncia Popular, de fecha 25 de septiembre de 1998, dándose

respuesta a la Denuncia Popular más de dos años después de que fue

presentada el 23 de septiembre de 1996. En la contestación a la Denuncia

Popular, que se anexa a la respuesta de la Parte a la petición, la Profepa

afirma que el Lago de Chapala “de ningún modo sufre un alto grado de

degradación”, y que no existen elementos para considerar a la Cuenca

Lerma-Chapala en un estado de emergencia, mencionando que

deberían practicarse ciertos estudios por el IMTA. También señala, en

aparente contradicción a lo anterior, que es innecesario realizar los

estudios indicados por los denunciantes porque “el Lago de Chapala no

está tan contaminado”, ya que si eso fuera cierto, el agua “no se ocuparía

para consumo humano como actualmente se usa, ya que de éste se

abastece a casi todo el Estado de Jalisco, previa potabilización del agua”.

La contestación a la Denuncia Popular afirma también que la CNA

realiza monitoreos sobre la calidad del agua en el Lago de Chapala. 31

De la petición y de la respuesta se desprende que la Semarnap al conocer

de la Denuncia Popular: (i) recibió la denuncia; (ii) identificó a los

denunciantes y notificó a las autoridades denunciadas; (iii) hizo del

conocimiento de los denunciantes el trámite que se le dio a la Denuncia

Popular dentro de los quince días hábiles siguientes a la presentación del

escrito de Denuncia Popular;32 y (iv) realizó diligencias con el fin de

comprobar la veracidad de los hechos materia de la Denuncia Popular y

las evaluó.33

La petición y la respuesta de la Parte coinciden en que la Semarnap

omitió comunicar a los denunciantes dentro de los treinta días hábiles

siguientes al día en que hizo del conocimiento de los denunciantes

el trámite que se le dio a la Denuncia Popular, el resultado de la

verificación y evaluación de los hechos denunciados, así como las

122 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

30. Anexo 24 de la petición.

31. Página 14 de la respuesta.

32. Páginas3a5y anexos 11 a 24 de la petición.

33. Página 17 de la respuesta.
medidas que en su caso se hubiesen ejecutado. Esta comunicación se

notificó a los denunciantes con dos años de retraso, después de que los

Peticionarios presentaron la petición y de que el Secretariado solicitara

una respuesta de la Parte.

La Parte argumenta que omitió acatar el término de 30 días hábiles para

notificar a los denunciantes, debido a la necesidad de atender con la

profundidad que el asunto requería, el fondo del problema ambiental

planteado sobre el Lago de Chapala, máxime que necesitaba conocer la

opinión de diversas autoridades, incluido el análisis técnico de la CNA,

sin el cual, la Profepa nunca hubiera estado en posibilidad de determinar

la existencia o no de una situación de emergencia ambiental.34

Al analizar la petición conforme al artículo 15(1) del ACAAN, el

Secretariado confrontó los argumentos de los Peticionarios sobre la

omisión por parte de México de aplicar de manera efectiva su legislación

ambiental al no estudiar el fondo de la Denuncia Popular y decretar

la emergencia ambiental en el Lago de Chapala, con la información

que la Profepa proporcionó en la contestación a la Denuncia Popular.

El Secretariado concluyó que, pese a que es incuestionable que la

contestación a la Denuncia Popular aborda el fondo del problema

ambiental planteado sobre el Lago de Chapala, no es claro que lo haga

en los términos que los Peticionarios señalan que la Profepa debía

responder para dar cumplimiento a sus atribuciones.

La respuesta de la Parte no indica que la Profepa haya verificado de

manera independiente la información que le fue proporcionada por la

CNA para dar respuesta a la Denuncia Popular, sino que se desprende

de la respuesta que la información proporcionada por la CNA es la única

fuente de información con la que la Parte sustenta la contestación a la

Denuncia Popular. Asimismo, se observa que la respuesta de la Parte no

indica que la Profepa o la CNA hayan aplicado sanciones a persona

alguna, y afirma que no se declaró la emergencia ambiental que los

denunciantes pretendían por considerarla una medida innecesaria.

Por las razones procesales que más adelante se detallan, el Secretariado

no puede establecer cuál es el punto de vista actual de los Peticionarios

a la luz de la Respuesta de la Parte, en particular, respecto de si estiman

que de la contestación a la Denuncia Popular se desprende que Profepa

atendió “con la profundidad necesaria” el fondo del problema

ambiental planteado sobre el Lago de Chapala, que es el asunto

SEM-97-007 123

34. Páginas 25 y 32 de la respuesta.
planteado en la petición. El Secretariado tampoco puede obtener y

considerar la opinión de los Peticionarios sobre si el “análisis técnico

de la CNA” y demás “información recabada” por la Parte con relación

a el problema ambiental del Lago de Chapala, sea a juicio de los

Peticionarios, aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental en términos

de la verificación de los hechos y su evaluación, como plantean en su

petición que debe darse para que se aplique de manera efectiva la

legislación ambiental.

Por otra parte, el Secretariado observó que la legislación de la Parte no

establece expresamente en qué casos se debe declarar una emergencia

ambiental. De conformidad con dicha legislación, la Parte tiene cierta

discrecionalidad para resolver sobre la declaratoria de una emergencia

ambiental. De los artículos 5, 6, 8, 13, 42 y 133 de la LGEEPA se

desprende que cuando se trata de un asunto de competencia federal,

corresponde a la Secretaría “declarar” una emergencia ambiental,35

aunque para resolverla deban participar más dependencias del gobierno

federal. Además, el artículo 63 del Reglamento Interior de la Semarnap

creó la Dirección General de Emergencias Ambientales, como unidad

124 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

35. El artículo 5 de la LGEEPA establece materias de exclusiva jurisdicción federal.

Entre éstas se encuentran: (i) las que afecten el equilibrio ecológico de dos o más

entidades federativas (fracción VII); y (ii) “la prevención y el control de

emergencias y contingencias ambientales, cuando la magnitud o gravedad de

los desequilibrios a los ecosistemas o de los daños reales o potenciales lo haga

necesario” (fracción IX). El artículo 6 de la LGEEPA dispone que es materia local

(estatal o municipal) “la prevención y el control de emergencias ecológicas y

contingencias ambientales, en forma aislada o participativa con la Federación,

cuando la magnitud o gravedad de los desequilibrios ecológicos o daños al

ambiente no rebasen el territorio de la entidad federativa o del municipio, no

hagan necesaria la acción exclusiva de la Federación” (fracción III). Por lo tanto,

cabe concluir que declarar una emergencia con relación al Lago de Chapala, por

involucrar varias entidades federativas, es de exclusiva competencia federal.

El artículo 8 de la LGEEPA establece que corresponde a la Secretaría: (i) “Aplicar,

en la esfera de su competencia, esta Ley, sus reglamentos y las normas técnicas

ecológicas que expida y vigilar su observancia” (fracción II); (ii) “realizar las

distintas acciones que le competen a fin de preservar, proteger, y restaurar el

equilibrio ecológico y el ambiente ...” (fracción IV); (iii) “formular y desarrollar

programas para preservar y restaurar el equilibrio ecológico y propiciar el manejo

integral de los recursos naturales” (fracción V); y (iv) “proponer al Ejecutivo

Federal, la adopción de las medidas necesarias para la prevención y control de

contingencias ambientales y aplicarlas en el ámbito de su competencia” (fracción

XVI). Asimismo, la Secretaría está obligada a mantener “un sistema permanente de

información y vigilancia sobre los ecosistemas y su equilibrio en territorio nacional

...” (artículo 42), así como a realizar “un sistemático y permanente monitoreo de la

calidad de las aguas, para detectar la presencia de contaminantes ... y aplicar las

medidas que procedan o, en su caso, promover su ejecución” (artículo 133).

Según el artículo 13 de la LGEEPA, cuando se esté en presencia de emergencias, “la

Secretaría de Gobernación, la Secretaría, y las demás autoridades competentes,

propondrán en forma coordinada al Ejecutivo las medidas necesarias.”
administrativa dependiente de la Profepa, señalándole entre otras

atribuciones, la de emitir recomendaciones para aplicar medidas

preventivas, correctivas y de seguridad, para la atención de emergencias

o contingencias ambientales en general. Ahora bien, declarar o no

una emergencia ambiental presumiblemente sería discrecional para la

Secretaría toda vez que no hay precepto alguno que le ordene hacerlo,

ni indica la ley aquellos casos en que se tendría por fuerza que declarar

una emergencia ambiental.

Como se ha indicado, para el Secretariado es de interés la opinión de los

Peticionarios sobre la contestación a la Denuncia Popular en tanto

esa contestación afecta la aseveración central de su petición: que al

no resolver debidamente dicha Denuncia Popular y declarar el Lago

de Chapala en emergencia ambiental, la Parte estaba incurriendo en

una omisión en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental. El

Secretariado estudió la posibilidad de contactar al Peticionario para

aclarar esta cuestión, más no encontró fundamento para hacerlo ni en el

ACAAN ni el las Directrices.

El ACAAN y las Directrices no establecen un mecanismo ad-hoc para

aclarar en el proceso del Artículo 14 una cuestión de fondo con los

peticionarios, sino que limitan al Secretariado a analizar la petición a la

luz de la respuesta de la Parte. El hecho de que los Peticionarios no hayan

retirado su petición al recibir la contestación a la Denuncia Popular,

como lo contempla el apartado 14.2 de la Directrices, podría sugerir que

consideran que la contestación es inadecuada y que existe aún una

omisión en la aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental de la Parte,

más no es suficiente para confirmarlo. Con base en lo establecido en

el artículo 21(1)(b) del Acuerdo, el Secretariado puede solicitar

información a una Parte, más no a un peticionario.36 El Secretariado

consideró también el apartado 3.10 de las Directrices, que autorizan

al Secretariado a “notificar en cualquier momento al peticionario la

existencia de errores menores de forma en la petición” a fin de que éstos

sean rectificados. Sin embargo, es claro que la ausencia en la petición de

la opinión del Peticionario respecto de la contestación de la Denuncia

Popular no es un error menor de forma en la petición, ya que se trata

de un hecho posterior a la petición. Por esta razón, el Secretariado

consideró que tampoco tenía facultades para contactar al Peticionario

con base en este apartado de las Directrices.

SEM-97-007 125

36. El artículo 21(1)(b) del ACAAN dispone:

1. A petición del Consejo o del Secretariado, cada una de las Partes, de conformidad con su legislación, proporcionará la información que requiera el Consejo o el

Secretariado, inclusive:

b) hará lo razonable para poner a su disposición cualquier otra información que se

le solicite.”
Resumiendo, la petición asevera que la Parte no aplicó de manera

efectiva su legislación ambiental al no resolver la Denuncia Popular

declarando una emergencia ambiental ante el presunto deterioro del

ecosistema del Lago de Chapala. No obstante su retraso, la Parte afirma

en la respuesta que dio cabal trámite a la Denuncia Popular y que en la

misma demostró a los denunciantes que no era procedente declarar

la emergencia ambiental. Como ya se mencionó, con base en la

información que el Secretariado puede tomar en cuenta en su análisis

conforme al artículo 15(1) del ACAAN, no le es posible determinar si una

vez expedida y notificada la contestación a la Denuncia Popular, los

Peticionarios coinciden con lo expresado por la Parte o si aún consideran

que la Parte está incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de

su legislación ambiental. En particular, al Secretariado no es posible

considerar en el examen de esta petición, la opinión de los Peticionarios

sobre si al recabar información de la CNA, la Profepa cumplió con la

verificación de los hechos correspondiente, y si consideran que al tomar

esa información como base para no declarar una emergencia ambiental,

y al no haber aparentemente impuesto medidas correctivas ni sanciones,

la Profepa está aplicando de manera efectiva la legislación ambiental de

la Parte.

Es pertinente recordar que el primer párrafo del artículo 14 del Acuerdo

establece expresamente que el Secretariado “podrá examinar peticiones

de cualquier persona u organización ... que asevere que una Parte está

incurriendo en omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación

ambiental ...” (énfasis añadido) y el primer párrafo del artículo 15 prevé

que el Secretariado considere si una petición amerita la elaboración de

un expediente de hechos “...a la luz de la respuesta dada por la Parte...”.

Al no poder confirmar si ante la contestación a la Denuncia Popular,

que se anexa a la respuesta de la Parte, aún fuese intención de los

Peticionarios aseverar que la Parte está incurriendo en omisiones en la

aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental, el Secretariado considera

que ha quedado impedido desde un punto de vista procesal, para llevar

a cabo la consideración prevista por el artículo 15(1) en el proceso

iniciado por la petición SEM-97-007. En vista de lo anterior, el

Secretariado determina dar por concluido ese proceso.

V. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

El Secretariado ha revisado la petición a la luz de la respuesta

proporcionada por la Parte, y determina que ha quedado impedido por

razones procesales para considerar si la petición amerita la elaboración

de un expediente de hechos conforme al artículo 15(1) del ACAAN, ya

que la respuesta de la Parte se basa en un acto de la Parte posterior a la

126 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
presentación de la petición, pero que afecta la aseveración principal

de dicha petición, y el Secretariado por razones procesales no puede

considerar la opinión de los Peticionarios sobre ese acto de la Parte. Por

esa razón el Secretariado da por concluido el procedimiento de la

presente petición y en cumplimiento a lo dispuesto por el artículo 9.6 de

la Directrices, explica sus razones en esta Determinación.

por: Janine Ferretti

Directora ejecutiva

c.c. Lic. José Luis Samaniego

Sra. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Sr. William Nitze, US-EPA

Dra. Raquel Gutiérrez Nájera, Instituto de Derecho Ambiental

SEM-97-007 127

SEM-98-001

(GUADALAJARA)

SUBMITTER: INSTITUTO DE DERECHO AMBIENTAL

PARTY: UNITED MEXICAN STATES

DATE: 9 JANUARY 1998

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege that Mexican Federal

Attorney General and the Federal Judiciary

did not duly enforce the General Law on

Ecological Balance and Environmental

Protection (LGEEPA) in relation to the

explosions in the Reforma area of the city

of Guadalajara, state of Jalisco.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(13 SEPTEMBER 1999)

Determination that criteria under Article

14(1) have not been met.

REV. SUB. ART. 14(1)

(11 JANUARY 2000)

Determination terminating the process upon

receipt of a revised submission.

129

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) of the

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

Submitter(s): Instituto de Derecho Ambiental,

A.C. et al.

Concerned Party: United Mexican States

Date received: 9 January 1998

Date of the determination: 13 September 1999

Submission I.D.: SEM-98-001

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 9 January, 1998, the Institute for Environmental Law (Instituto de

Derecho Ambiental, A.C.) together with some of the citizens affected by

the explosions of 22 April 1992 in the Reforma sector of the City of

Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico (the Submitters), filed a submission with

the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (Secretariat) under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC or Agreement). The Secretariat

now reviews the submission pursuant to Article 14(1) of the NAAEC.

II. SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION

The Submitters allege that Mexico has failed to effectively enforce its

environmental law with regard to the explosions of 22 April 1992 in the

Reforma sector of the City of Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. The Submitters indicate that the incident occurred as the result of the presence of

hydrocarbons and other highly explosive substances in the underground sewer of the Reforma sector of Guadalajara. According to some

official reports cited by the Submitters, the explosions killed 204 people,

131
injured 1,460 people and destroyed or caused major damage to 1,148

buildings, approximately.1

The Federal Attorney General’s Office (Procuraduría General de la

República) initiated criminal proceedings against nine allegedly responsible individuals for manslaughter, injuries caused by negligence,

damage to property, damage to streets and communications, inappropriate exercise of authority as a public servant and the one provided

for in the General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental

Protection(Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente—

LGEEPA).2 The submission asserts that there have been violations of

the Mexican Constitution (Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos

Mexicanos) with respect to Articles 14, 16, 19, 20 and 21; of Articles 182 to

188 of the LGEEPA; of Articles 6 to 11 and 18 of the Federal Criminal

Code (Código Penal Federal); of Articles 1, 2, 4, 10, 41, 134, 135, 136, 138,

141, 144, 146, 292, 298, 299 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure

(Código Federal de Procedimientos Penales); and of Articles 5 (1)(j)(l), 6 and 7

of the NAAEC.

While the Submitters make a number of assertions, their primary argument under Article 14 of the NAAEC, and the one we focus on in the

analysis below, is that the Federal Attorney General’s Office and the

Federal Judiciary of Mexico (Poder Judicial de la Federación) failed to effectively enforce the LGEEPA by issuing a stay of proceedings with the

force of res judicata in the criminal case arising from the aforementioned

explosions, because they believe that such procedural action impeded

any further investigation of the incident. The Submitters’ other arguments, notably that justice has been denied because no investigation was

ever conducted regarding environmental control, use of hazardous substances, release of said substances into the sewer system, and prevention

measures and maintenance in those facilities, are not supported by references to particular environmental laws that presumably obligated the

government to undertake such activities and for that reason we do not

review them here.

III. ANALYSIS

Under Article 14(1) of the NAAEC, the Secretariat may

“. . . consider a submission from any nongovernmental organization or

person asserting that a Party is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law, if the Secretariat finds that the submission:

132 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. The Submitters question the accuracy of the official data and point out certain

inconsistencies. Page 3 of the submission.

2. Page 6 of the 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.”

The threshold requirement that the submission “assert(s) that a Party is

failing to effectively enforce its environmental law” is of special relevance in determining whether this submission meets the criteria for the

Secretariat to review it. This document addresses this preliminary issue

as the basis for the Secretariat’s determination. The analysis then refers

to the allegations by the Submitters with regard to Articles 5, 6 and 7 of

the NAAEC.

1) Environmental law

This section is an analysis of the legal provisions that the Submitters

allege Mexico has failed to enforce effectively, grouped under the

following headings: allegations related to criminal procedure and

allegations related to environmental crimes. For the purpose of this

analysis, the starting point should be the definition provided in the

Agreement itself. In Article 45(2), the NAAEC defines “environmental

law” as the legal provisions of a Party the primary purpose of which is

the protection of the environment, or the prevention of a danger to

human life or health.3 The legal provisions cited in a submission must

SEM-98-001 133

3. “For purposes of Article 14(1) 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
meet this definition in order for the Secretariat to review them within the

process established by Article 14 of the Agreement.

a) Allegations Related to Criminal Procedure

As mentioned above, the definition of “environmental law” in the

Agreement requires that the primary purpose of the provisions regarding which a failure to effectively enforce is alleged must be the protection

of the environment or the prevention of a danger to human life or health

from environmental pollutants or hazardous substances. A simple reading of Articles 14, 16, 19, 20 and 21 of the MexicanConstitution; Articles 6

to 11 and 18 of the Federal Criminal Code; and Articles 1, 2, 4, 10, 41, 134,

135, 136, 138, 141, 144, 146, 292, 298, 299 of the Federal Code of Criminal

Procedure, clearly shows that their primary purpose is to establish due

process requirements and to regulate criminal procedure.4 Thus, the

Secretariat is not authorized to review the allegations of the Submitters

of a failure to effectively enforce such provisions. Because they are not

environmental law under Article 45(2) of the Agreement, these legal

provisions are beyond the scope of the submission process under Article

14 of the NAAEC.5

b) Allegations related to environmental crimes

Unlike the foregoing, it is clear that provisions specifying environmental

crimes are, by virtue of their primary purpose, “environmental law”

134 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

(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 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”.

4. For example, Article 14 of the Mexican Constitution provides that “No law shall be

applied retroactively against any person. No-one may be deprived of life, liberty or

property, goods or rights except through due process before previously established

courts of law. . . .” (free translation)

5. The Submitters also allege that there is a correlation between the procedural provisions they cite and Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the NAAEC. Notwithstanding the clear

intention of the NAAEC to promote strengthening of government measures for

enforcement, procedural guarantees and access to legal remedies, the Secretariat

considers that the definition of “environmental law” for the purposes of Article 14 of

the NAAEC only includes procedural provisions, when their primary purpose is

environmental in nature. That is not the case here.
under the definition in Article 45(2) of the NAAEC. These provisions

sanction violations of mandatory prevention and control measures that

may harm human life or health and the environment.6

We point out at the outset that there is some uncertainty concerning

whether any environmental law applies to the 1992 incident and the

enforcement of that incident. There is also some uncertainty as to which

environmental law applies, if one does. The reason for this uncertainty is

that Articles 183 to 187 of the LGEEPA that covered environmental

crimes at the time of the explosions, and that are cited by the Submitters,

were revoked on 13 December 1996. 7 Based on Article 117 of the Federal

Criminal Code, which provides that the law suppressing a type of

offense extinguishes the right of action, it could be alleged that prosecution for these offenses is no longer possible. From the opposite view, it

could be argued that the type of offense has not been suppressed

because the environmental crimes were incorporated into the Federal

Criminal Code in Articles 414 to 423 simultaneously to their being suppressed from the LGEEPA. However, the constitutional principle that

prohibits the retroactive application of a law against any person would

seem to prevent the application of criminal provisions established in

1996 to events that took place in 1992. As a final point, it could be argued

that there is no legislative intention to cease penalizing such conducts as

crimes, but rather it is clear that society maintains its interest in sanctioning them, so what would be unconstitutional is to prevent prosecution

of the crimes previously covered by the LGEEPA, by retroactively

applying the revocation Decree against the interest of society.

In short, as regards the scope of the Article 14 process, the Secretariat

considers that the provisions cited by the Submitters related to criminal

procedure are not environmental law for the purpose of Article 14 of the

NAAEC. As for the environmental crimes cited by the Submitters, their

content meets the definition of environmental law. However, because

SEM-98-001 135

6. For example, Article 415 of the Federal Criminal Code states that “A prison term of

three months to six years and a fine of the equivalent of one thousand to twenty thousand days of the current general minimum daily wage in the Federal District shall be

imposed upon whoever: I Without authorization of the competent federal authorities or in violation of the terms under which it was granted, undertakes any activity

with hazardous materials or wastes that causes or may cause harm to public health,

natural resources, fauna, flora or ecosystems. . . .” (free translation)

7. The second transitory Article of the Reform Decree published on December 13, 1996

in the Official Gazette of the Federation (Diario Oficial de la Federación) states that

“Articles 183 to 187 of the General Law on Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection, Article 58 of the Forestry Law, and Articles 30 and 31 of the Federal

Hunting Law are hereby revoked.” (free translation)
we believe that the submission should be dismissed on other grounds,

we do not discuss further the issue of the applicability of the revoked

Articles 183 to 187 of the LGEEPA, but simply note that there is an unresolved question concerning the identity of the environmental law that

covers the incident that is the subject of the submission.

We now turn to the key substantive assertion of the submission and

explain why we are not persuaded that this assertion merits continued

consideration under Article 14 of the NAAEC. The submission argues

that a failure to effectively enforce environmental law took place in early

1994, when a stay of proceedings was issued and confirmed with regard

to the prosecutions related to the 1992 explosions. The Submitters argue

that staying the criminal proceedings with the force ofres judicata, barred

any further investigation of the incident, as well as the identification

and punishment of whoever was responsible for the incident; in other

words, that the effective enforcement of environmental law with regard

to the incident of 1992 was thereby impeded.

The fact that the explosion itself occurred in 1992 raises a temporal issue.

Pursuant to both Article 14 of the NAAEC, and the Vienna Convention on

the Law of Treaties, the process of reviewing submissions on effective

enforcement of environmental law shall not be applied retroactively.

Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties stipulates that “unless a different intention appears from the Treaty or is

otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to

any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist

before the date of the entry into force of the Treaty with respect to that

party.”

The Secretariat interprets Article 14 of the NAAEC as requiring that the

failure to effectively enforce environmental law argued in a submission

take place while the Agreement is in force. It is not required that the

events referred to by the Submitters in their allegations occurred after

1st January 1994, when the NAAEC entered into force. However, if they

took place before, there needs to have been a failure to effectively enforce

environmental law after 1st January 1994 in order to be considered in the

review of a submission. The Submitters claim that this is the case here—

that when the Agreement entered into force, the authorities had the

power and the responsibility to prosecute environmental crimes related

to the explosions of 22 April 1992. Although the Secretariat is not

governed by the principle of stare decisis in making its determinations, it

should be mentioned that in previous determinations it has stated

“. . . the possibility that a present duty to enforce may originate from,

136 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
in the language of the Vienna Convention, a situation which has not

ceased to exist. . . .”8

It is important to highlight the precise nature of the Submitters’ assertion

here. The Submitters’ assertion, at least as we understand it, is that the

dismissal of the case against the nine charged individuals operated as res

judicata legally to prevent the Party from further investigating the incident or from bringing charges against other culpable parties. Based on

our understanding of Mexican law, this assertion is incorrect. It is our

understanding that the only legal effect of res judicata in this case was to

terminate that particular criminal proceeding and to prevent a new trial

of the same individuals for the same offenses. The termination of the

proceeding did not have the legal effect of barring further investigation

of the facts, nor did it impede initiating new proceedings against others

presumably responsible. Thus, following dismissal of the case the Party

retained the ability to investigate the incident and pursue legal action

against other allegedly culpable parties. As a result, the assertion that

the dismissal of this criminal proceeding in itself constitutes a failure to

enforce does not merit further consideration under Article 14 of NAAEC

because it did not prevent enforcement action in the way the Submitters

apparently believe it did.

We note that we do not address in this Determination two apparently

related questions. First, there is the issue of whether the dismissal is

potentially a failure to enforce with respect to the nine individuals initially charged. The Submitters do not raise this issue as far as can tell and

we do not address it. Similarly, the Submitters do not raise and we do

not address the issue of whether failing to prosecute other individuals

constitutes a failure to enforce.

2) Allegations related to the NAAEC

The Submitters also cite Articles 5 (1)(j)(l), 6 and 7 of the NAAEC, related

respectively to government action for the enforcement of environmental

laws and regulations, private access to remedies and procedural guaranSEM-98-001 137

8. From SEM-96-001, Recommendation of the Secretariat to Council for the development of a Factual Record in accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the North

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, 7 June 1997. See also SEM97-001, Notification of the Secretariat to Council of the reasons why it considers the

development of a factual record is merited in accordance with Articles 14 and 15

of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, 27 April 1998.
tees. The Secretariat’s view is that, as a general matter, to the extent that

these articles create obligations on the part of the Parties (Canada, Mexico and the United States)9 the remedy provided under the Agreement

for a Party’s purported failure to fulfill its obligations lies with the other

Parties. Article 14 of the NAAEC provides the exclusive process for

nongovernmental organizations and individuals relating to allegations

that a Party is not effectively enforcing its environmental laws. Only if an

individual or nongovernmental organization could seek enforcement of

Articles 5(1)(j)(l), 6 and 7 of the NAAEC under the domestic legal regime

of a Party would these provisions be potentially susceptible to a submission under Article 14 of the Agreement. Because the Submitters do not

indicate that they have sought enforcement of Articles 5(1)(j)(l), 6 and 7

of the NAAEC under the domestic legal regime of the Party or communicated that matter to the Party, we cannot conclude that the allegations

that those provisions are not being enforced effectively satisfy the criteria under Article 14(1) of the Agreement.

In short, the Secretariat considers that the allegations that Articles

5(1)(j)(l), 6 and 7 of the NAAEC have not been enforced effectively, do

not satisfy the criteria under Article 14(1) of the Agreement.

IV. SECRETARIAT DETERMINATION

The Secretariat has reviewed the Submission in accordance with Article

14(1) of the NAAEC, and considers that it does not meet the criteria

established therein because, among other considerations, the submission fails to connect the incident with a violation of applicable environmental law. For the reasons set out above, the Secretariat cannot

conclude with certainty that the failures indicated by the Submitters in

this submission are failures to effectively enforce applicable Mexican

environmental law incurred by the Party during the legal force of the

Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 6.1 of the Guidelines, the Secretariat notifies the

Submitters that it will not further review the submission. However,

138 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

9. For example, the first paragraph of Article 5 of the NAAEC states that “With the

aim of achieving high levels of environmental protection and compliance with its

environmental laws and regulations, each Party shall effectively enforce its environmental laws and regulations through appropriate government action, subject to

Article 37. . . .”
in accordance with Section 6.2 of the Guidelines, the Submitters have

30 days from the receipt of this determination to provide the Secretariat

with a submission that meets the criteria of Article 14(1) of the NAAEC.

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

per: David L. Markell

Head, Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit

c.c. Ms. Janine Ferretti, CEC Executive Director

SEM-98-001 139
Montreal, a 11 de enero de 2000

POR CORREO CERTIFICADO Y ELECTRÓNICO

Instituto de Derecho Ambiental

Att. Dra. Raquel Gutiérrez Nájera

Isla Filipinas No. 1935

Fraccionamiento Jardines de la Cruz

C.P. 44950

Guadalajara, Jalisco

México

Asunto: Petición relativa a la aplicación efectiva de la legislación

ambiental conforme a los Artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo

de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Peticionario: Instituto de Derecho Ambiental

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha: 15 de octubre de 1999

No. de petición: SEM-98-001

Estimados peticionarios:

Hacemos referencia a la petición revisada presentada al Secretariado de

la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental (“Secretariado”) el día 20 de

octubre de 1999, en conformidad con el apartado 6.2 de las Directrices

para la Presentación de Peticiones Relativas a la Aplicación Efectiva de la

Legislación Ambiental (“Directrices”). El 13 de septiembre de 1999 el

Secretariado determinó que la petición original no cumple con los

requisitos establecidos en el artículo 14(1) del ACAAN, entre otras

consideraciones, porque no logra relacionar el incidente con una

violación de la legislación ambiental aplicable.

El Secretariado ha analizado la petición revisada y sus anexos, que repite

la mayoría de los argumentos esbozados en la petición original e invoca

algunas disposiciones de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la

Protección al Ambiente vigente antes de la reforma de 1996, respecto de

140 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
las cuales, los Peticionarios consideran que México está incurriendo en

omisiones en su aplicación efectiva. De nueva cuenta, el Secretariado no

puede concluir que las omisiones señaladas por los Peticionarios se

refieran a la aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental mexicana

aplicable estando en vigor el Acuerdo. Las aseveraciones que se hacen

en la petición revisada o no se basan en legislación ambiental aplicable a

las propias aseveraciones, o no señalan omisiones en la aplicación

efectiva de la legislación ambiental a partir del 1 de enero de 1994,

cuando el ACAAN entró en vigor1. En su mayoría, las aseveraciones se

basan en disposiciones que establecen definiciones y atribuciones

genéricas. Al hacer esas aseveraciones, sin embargo, no se indica la

correlación con disposiciones sustantivas aplicables en el ámbito temporal del ACAAN, que supuestamente no estuvieran siendo aplicadas de

manera efectiva en el marco de esas definiciones y atribuciones. Por lo

anterior, la petición revisada no modifica las conclusiones del

Secretariado –expresadas en su Determinación del 13 de septiembre de

1999– en el sentido de que la petición no cumple con los criterios

establecidos en el Artículo 14(1) del ACAAN.

En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por los apartados 6.1 y 6.3 de

las Directrices, este Secretariado notifica al Peticionario que el

procedimiento respecto de la petición SEM-98-001 ha terminado.

Atentamente,

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: David L. Markell

Jefe de la Unidad sobre Peticiones Ciudadanas

c.c. José Luis Samaniego, Semarnap

William Nitze, US-EPA

Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Janine Ferretti, Directora Ejecutiva del Secretariado

SEM-98-001 141

1. Es preciso repetir aquí la siguiente aclaración sobre este asunto vertida en la

Determinación del Secretariado del 13 de septiembre de 1999: “El Secretariado

interpreta el artículo 14 del ACAAN en el sentido de requerir que la omisión en la

aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental que se argumente en una petición, sea

una omisión que esté ocurriendo o cuyos efectos persistan durante la vigencia del

Acuerdo. Ahora bien, no es condición necesaria que los hechos a los que se refieran

los alegatos de los Peticionarios hayan ocurrido después del 1o de enero de 1994

cuando entró en vigor el ACAAN. Pero si ocurrieron antes, debe haber habido una

omisión en la aplicación efectiva de la legislación ambiental después del 1o de enero

de 1994 para considerarlos en la revisión de una petición.”

SEM-98-002

(ORTIZ MARTÍNEZ)

SUBMITTER: C. HÉCTOR GREGORIO ORTIZ MARTÍNEZ

PARTY: UNITED MEXICAN STATES

DATE: 14 OCTOBER 1997

SUMMARY: The submission alleged “improper administrative processing, omission and persistent failure

to effectively enforce” environmental law in

connection to a citizen complaint filed by the

Submitter.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(23 JUNE 1998)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have not been met.

REV. SUB. ART. 14(1)

(18 MARCH 1999)

Determination terminating the process upon

receipt of a revised submission.

143

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination in accordance with Article 14(1) of the North

American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation

Submission No.: SEM-98-002

Submitter(s): C. Héctor Gregorio Ortiz Martínez

Party: United States of Mexico

Date: 14 October 1997

I. BACKGROUND

On 14 October 1997, the Submitter forwarded to the Secretariat of the

North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (“the

Secretariat”) a submission under of articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation (“the NAAEC” or “the

Agreement”). Article 3.3 of the Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters (“the Guidelines”) establishes that submissions should

not exceed 15 pages of typed, letter-sized paper, excluding supporting

information. Since the submission exceeded this limit, the Secretariat

requested that the Submitter provide a revised version in accordance

with the above-mentioned provision.

On 10 February 1998, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the

revised submission delivered to the Secretariat’s liaison office in Mexico

City. The Secretariat also informed the Submitter that, under Article 3.1

of the Guidelines, submissions must be delivered to the Secretariat’s

offices located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

In accordance with Article 14(1) of the NAAEC, the Secretariat

hereby records its determination, in relation to the above-mentioned

submission.

145
II. SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The submission alleges “that there has been a lack of due process, omissions and persistent non-compliance in the effective enforcement of

current environmental legislation” on the part of the Ministry of the

Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries (“Semarnap”) and the

Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (“Profepa”) of the

United States of Mexico (“Mexico”), in relation to a citizen denunciation

(“denuncia popular”) made by the Submitter. The Submitter alleges procedural violations during various processes described in the submission, which are related to forestry operations in “El Taray,” in the state

of Jalisco.

The submission indicates that an Inspection Visit was carried out on the

above-mentioned site, after a Technical Audit order had been issued. As

a result, sanctions were imposed on the person against whom the

“denuncia popular” had been filed, and under the specific circumstances, sanctions were also imposed upon the Submitter himself. The

Submitter alleges that neither the Technical Audit nor the Inspection

Visit constitutes an adequate response to the “denuncia popular.” The

Submitter also claims that the authorities have not issued “a technical

opinion regarding harm, [which would be] deemed as [admissible]

evidence if adduced in a trial, under the provisions of Article 194 of

the [Mexican] Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection Law

(LGEEPA), which was in effect at the beginning of said proceedings.”

The Submitter also states that he has challenged the imposed sanctions

and that the proceeding is under appeal, although he claims that this

does not preclude the Secretariat’s consideration of the submission.

III. ANALYSIS

Under Article 14(1), the Secretariat may:

Consider a submission from any non-governmental organization or person asserting that a Party is failing to effectively enforce its environmental

law, if the Secretariat finds that the 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;

146 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
(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.

Noteworthy amongst the evaluation criteria established in Article 14(1)

is the threshold requirement that the submission be related to “environmental law.” The Secretariat will now address this preliminary matter to

determine whether the submission meets the necessary requirements to

be considered by the Secretariat. Article 45(2) defines the term “environmental law” as follows:

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 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.

SEM-98-002 147
Although the Secretariat has concluded that the Submission makes

many allegations that could not be construed as relating to “environmental law,” the Secretariat has also concluded that there are some

claims that could potentially meet the threshold requirement of being

assertions of a failure to effectively enforce “environmental law.” The

Secretariat now turns to the latter claims.

1) Failure to effectively enforce the LGEEPA in relation to the

“denuncia popular” procedures

The Submitter argues that Mexico has failed to effectively enforce environmental legislation with relation to the “denuncia popular” pursued

by the Submitter through writs delivered on 14 January 1994 and 6

October 1995 to the [Mexican] Department of Agriculture and Water

Resources and to the Semarnap (pages 1 and 5 of the submission).

Firstly, the Secretariat observes that the submission and its annexes do

not sufficiently support the claim that the documents filed by the

Submitter on 14 January 1994 and 6 October 1995, constitute a “denuncia

popular.” The term “denuncia popular” is not used in such submissions,

nor is it indicated that the complaint was made under the provisions of

the LGEEPA. Furthermore, the documents do not relate to a “fact, act or

omission that resulted or may result in ecological imbalance or harm to

the environment or natural resources, or that contravened the provisions of the LGEEPA and other legal codes regulating environmental

protection and ecological balance preservation and restoration,” as provided in Article 204 of the LGEEPA in relation to the “denuncia popular”

procedure.

Notwithstanding the above, the Secretariat has examined the alleged

“denuncia popular” presented by the Submitter, to determine whether it

is related to “environmental law” for the purposes of its Article 14(1)

review. In the opinion of the Secretariat, it is evident that the provisions

of the LGEEPA establishing the “denuncia popular” procedures qualify

as “environmental law” as defined in the above-mentioned Article 45(2).

Nevertheless, it is equally clear for purposes of the NAAEC, that the

facts addressed in the “denuncia popular” shall in each specific case

comply with the provisions of Article 45(2). A “denuncia popular” may

refer to violations of Mexican environmental laws as well as to other

threats to the environment. It is the opinion of the Secretariat that the

definition of “environmental law” in Article 45(2) implies that if procedural provisions such as those establishing the “denuncia popular”

148 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
procedure, relate to substantive provisions that are clearly environmental in nature, they must also qualify as “environmental law” under Article 45(2).

In the present case, the Secretariat notes that the facts reported by the

Submitter as a “denuncia popular” in the above-mentioned documents

are not relevant to “i) prevention, control or abatement of a spill, discharge or emission of environmental pollutants, ii) control of hazardous

or toxic chemicals, substances or waste and the dissemination of relevant information, or iii) protection of wildlife, including endangered

species and their habitat, and natural protected areas.” Therefore, the

Secretariat cannot conclude that those complaints of the Submitter relate

to environmental protection. On the contrary, the complaints are related

to the management of commercial forestry resources, a subject which,

under paragraph (b) of the above-mentioned the NAAEC article, is

expressly excluded from the definition of “environmental law.” The

Submitter refers to this definition and argues that the complaint “is also

related to wildlife species or forestry resources, the exploitation of which

has been restricted by the authorities” (page 14 of the submission). In

this regard, the Secretariat has examined the submission, the documents

attached, and particularly the alleged “denuncia popular” and the Technical Audit Certificate in question. The Secretariat again notes that the

above are related to the management of commercial forestry resources

and do not relate to environmental protection. Therefore, this complaint

cannot constitute a matter of “environmental law” as defined in Article

45(2).

2) Failure to effectively enforce the LGEEPA, in relation to the

issuance of a technical opinion on harm caused as a result

of violations of LGEEPA provisions

The Submitter claims that environmental authorities did not issue a

technical opinion on harm in accordance with Article 194 of the

LGEEPA, as that provision existed at the time of the “denuncia popular”

(page 6 of the submission). Article 204 of the current LGEEPA, which

contains the same text as the former Article 194, stipulates that parties

concerned may request that Semarnap issue a technical opinion concerning harm caused as a result of violations of the LGEEPA. As regards

these allegations, the Secretariat has found no evidence in the submission or in the attached documents that the Submitter requested a

technical opinion under said provisions.

SEM-98-002 149
3) Failure to effectively enforce the [Mexican] Forestry Law, its

Regulations and the Federal Administrative Procedures Law

The Submitter has made various allegations involving “procedural violations” (see pp. 2, 3, 7, etc. of the submission). In this regard, it should be

noted that the process established in articles 14 and 15 of the NAAEC

does not constitute a forum in which to revisit a Party’s internal administrative proceeding; rather it is strictly framed within the obligations

undertaken by the Parties signatory to the Agreement to effectively

enforce their “environmental laws.” In the context of the current submission, the provisions of the Forestry Law, its Regulations and the Federal

Administrative Procedures Law cited by the Submitter do not constitute

“environmental law” for the purposes of Article 14(1) of the NAAEC. In

light of the above, the assertions regarding omissions in the effective

enforcement of said provisions cannot be the subject of analysis on the

part of the Secretariat, within the framework of the process established

in articles 14 and 15 of the NAAEC.

4) Additional considerations by the Secretariat

The Secretariat is not required to examine all the questions raised by the

Submitter until it has determined that the submission meets the requirements of Article 14(1) of the NAAEC, including the threshold requirement that submissions relate to “environmental law.” However, we

believe it is important to refer to a type of allegation which in the opinion

of the Secretariat is not within its jurisdiction nor contemplated by the

objectives listed in Article 1 of the NAAEC. The submission in question

contains accusations against various government officials in different

agencies and at different levels of government, which in the opinion of

the Secretariat are inappropriate for this forum. The process established

by the NAAEC in articles 14 and 15 aims at promoting cooperation

amongst the Parties for environmental protection in North America. It

should be stressed that this process, designed to examine submissions

related to the failure to effectively enforce “environmental law,” is not

intended as a mechanism to review allegations respecting the performance of individual public officials. This process solely addresses the

actions of the authorities as institutions, and the specific facts and actions

that are related to the effective enforcement of “environmental law,” as

defined in the Agreement.

150 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
IV. DETERMINATION BY THE SECRETARIAT

The Secretariat has examined the submission in accordance with Article

14(1) of the NAAEC and has determined that it does not meet the

requirements established therein, because it does not refer to a “failure

to effectively enforce environmental law,” for the reasons set out above.

Under Article 6.1 of the Guidelines, the Secretariat hereby notifies the

Submitter that it will not proceed to examine the submission. In accordance with Article 6.3 of the Guidelines, the Submitter has 30 days to file

a submission that meets the criteria established in Article 14(1).

per: Janine Ferretti

Interim Executive Director

(23 June 1998)

SEM-98-002 151
18 de marzo de 1999

POR CORREO CERTIFICADO

C. Héctor Gregorio Ortiz Martínez

Javier Mina No. 1081

C.P. 44800

Sector Libertad

Guadalajara, Jalisco

México

Asunto: Petición relativa a la aplicación efectiva de la legislación

ambiental conforme a los artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo

de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Peticionarios: C. Héctor Gregorio Ortiz Martínez

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha: 14 de octubre de 1997

No. de petición: SEM-98-002

La presente hace referencia a la petición revisada que el Peticionario

presentó al Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

(“Secretariado”) el día 4 de agosto de 1998, en conformidad con el

apartado 6.2 de las Directrices para la Presentación de Peticiones

Relativas a la Aplicación Efectiva de la Legislación Ambiental

(“Directrices”). El 23 de junio de 1998 el Secretariado determinó que la

petición original no cumple con los requisitos establecidos en el artículo

14(1) del ACAAN, ya que no se refiere a “omisiones en la aplicación

efectiva de la legislación ambiental”.

El Secretariado ha analizado la petición revisada, que difiere de la

petición original en cuanto a que contiene denuncias adicionales

respecto del desempeño de algunos funcionarios públicos relacionado

con el aprovechamiento maderable materia de la petición. Sin embargo,

ninguno de los nuevos argumentos en la petición revisada modifica

las conclusiones del Secretariado en su Determinación del 23 de junio

de 1998. Asimismo, el Secretariado ha analizado los argumentos

152 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
planteados en el escrito que acompaña a la petición revisada, sin

perjuicio de que formalmente éstos no son parte de la petición revisada,

y ha determinado que dichos argumentos tampoco modifican las

conclusiones del Secretariado. Por las razones vertidas en la

Determinación del Secretariado del 23 de junio de 1998, la petición

revisada no cumple con los criterios establecidos en el artículo 14(1)

del ACAAN.

En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por el apartado 6.1 de las Directrices,

este Secretariado notifica al Peticionario que el procedimiento respecto

de la petición SEM-98-002 ha terminado.

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: David L. Markell

Jefe de la Unidad de Peticiones Ciudadanas

c.c. Lic. José Luis Samaniego, Semarnap

Ms. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA

SEM-98-002 153

SEM-98-003

(GREAT LAKES)

SUBMITTER: DEPARTMENT OF THE PLANET EARTH,

ET AL.

PARTY: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DATE: 27 MAY 1998

SUMMARY: The Submitters assert that the US Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations drafted

and programs adopted to control airborne

emissions of dioxins and furans, mercury and

other persistent toxic substances from solid

waste and medical waste incinerators violate

and fail to enforce both: 1) US domestic laws,

and; 2) the ratified US-Canadian treaties

designed to protect the Great Lakes that are

partly referenced in the US Clean Air Act.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(14 DECEMBER 1998)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have not been met.

REV. SUB. ART.

14(1) AND 14(2)

(8 SEPTEMBER 1999)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met and determination pursuant

to Article 14(2) that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party.

155

14 December 1998

BY FAX AND REGISTERED MAIL

Mr. Erik Jansson, Exec. Dir.

Department of the Planet Earth

701 E Street, S.E., Suite 200

Washington, D.C. 20003

Phone: (202) 543-5450

Fax: (202) 543-4791

Re: Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) of the North American

Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

Submission I.D.: SEM-98-003

Submitter(s): Department of the Planet Earth;

Sierra Club of Canada;

Friends of the Earth;

Washington Toxics Coalition;

National Coalition Against Misuse of Pesticides;

WASHPIRG;

International Institute of Concern for Public

Health

Dr. Joseph Cummins; and

Reach for Unbleached

Concerned Party: United States of America

Date Received: May 27, 1998

I- INTRODUCTION

On May 27, 1998, the Submitters 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

157
(“NAAEC” or “Agreement”). Under Article 14 of the NAAEC, the Secretariat may consider a submission from any non-governmental 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)).

This is the Secretariat’s determination as to whether the submission meets the requirements of Article 14(1) so that it may be considered

by the Secretariat.

II- SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The submission concerns airborne emissions of dioxin and mercury into the Great Lakes. It alleges that solid waste and medical incinerators in the United States are substantial sources of such emissions, and

that a significant percentage of these emissions could be eliminated

without economic sacrifice and, indeed, steps to eliminate these emissions could produce substantial economic benefits.1 The submission

further alleges that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations governing emissions from such incinerators conflict with the

domestic laws (statutes) of the United States and with certain provisions

of ratified U.S.-Canadian agreements because the regulations authorize

greater emissions than contemplated by the statutes and agreements.

The submission claims that these purported inconsistencies constitute a

failure of “enforcement,” thereby bringing the inconsistencies within

the scope of Article 14.

III- ANALYSIS

A. Overview

Article 14 of the NAAEC directs the Secretariat to consider a submission from any non-governmental organization or person asserting

that a Party to the NAAEC is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law. The Secretariat may consider any submission that meets the

requirements of Article 14(1). When the Secretariat determines that the

Article 14(1) requirements are met, it shall then determine whether the

submission merits requesting a response from the Party named in the

submission.

158 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Submission at 2.
As the Secretariat has noted in previous Article 14(1) determinations,2

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.3

The Secretariat nevertheless has determined that the Article 14

process is not an appropriate forum for the issues raised in Submission

98-003. Article 14(1) reserves the Article 14 process for claims that a

Party is “failing to effectively enforce its environmental law. . . .” We conclude that the Party’s conduct at issue here does not qualify as “enforcement” and therefore such conduct is not subject to review under Article

14.4

B. The Governing Legal Framework

Based on our review of the Agreement, we conclude that whatever

the outer bounds of “enforcement” under Article 14(1) may be, enforcement does not include government standard-setting. As two distinguished commentators have noted, the NAAEC’s purpose is not to set

environmental standards for the Parties. Instead, the Parties intended to

reserve to themselves the right to establish their own standards.5

Article 3 of the Agreement supports the interpretation that government standard-setting is outside the purview of Article 14. It provides

that the Agreement “[r]ecogniz[es] the right of each Party to establish its

own levels of domestic environmental protection.”6 Thus, Article 3 is

SEM-98-003 159

2. See e.g., Submission No. SEM-97-005 (May 26, 1998).

3. See e.g., Submission No. SEM-97-005 (May 26, 1998).

4. We do not reach the issue of whether the international agreements at issue here qualify as “environmental law” for purposes of Article 14 because of our interpretation of

the term “enforcement.” Further, the Secretariat, by its determination, is not in any

way questioning the importance of the environmental and public health issues the

submission raises. See e.g., 33 U.S.C. § 1218 (a)(1)(A) (describing the Great Lakes as a

“valuable natural resource”); U.S. EPA, Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great

Waters: Second Report to Congress (June 1997); International Joint Commission,

Ninth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, 1, 35-40 (1997). Instead, again,

the determination only reflects the Secretariat’s judgment that Article 14 is not the

appropriate forum in which to raise these issues, at least not in the context in which

the submission raises them.

5. Pierre Marc Johnson and André Beaulieu, The Environment and NAFTA: Understanding and Implementing the New Continental Law 153, 171 (Island Press 1996) (noting the

distinction between claims that regulations are not enforced and the claim that regulations are inadequate because they are insufficiently stringent). Under some circumstances, a Party concerned about issues related to standard-setting may initiate

consultations under NAFTA Article 1114. See Article 10(6).

6. Article 3 also provides that “each Party shall ensure that its laws and regulations

provide for high levels of environmental protection and shall strive to continue to

improve these laws and regulations.”
strong evidence that the Parties did not contemplate that the Article 14

citizen submissions process would be available for challenges to a

Party’s exercise of its standard-setting authority.7

Article 5 of the Agreement, entitled “Government Enforcement

Action,” supports the conclusion that Article 14 in particular was not

intended to encompass Party standard-setting activity. Article 5 provides an illustrative list of governmental actions that qualify as “enforcement” activity. Viewed as a whole, the activities listed are geared more

toward promoting compliance with governing legal standards than to

establishing such standards.8

Our view, in sum, is that the better interpretation of the Agreement

is that the Article 14(1) requirement that a submission assert a failure to

“effectively enforce” bars the Secretariat from considering disputes concerning “standard-setting” under Article 14.9 Article 14 focuses, instead,

on whether, once established, such standards are effectively enforced.

We recognize that, as others have noted, drawing the line between

“standard-setting” and “enforcement” of the law may be blurred on

occasion and difficult to discern at the margins.10 Perhaps the paradigmatic case for the sort of standard-setting that is beyond the purview of

Article 14 involves a Party’s enacting legislation that establishes specific

environmental standards. It seems indisputable that Article 14 is not

available as a vehicle to challenge the standards adopted in such legislation.

160 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

7. See also Submission SEM-95-001 (Sept. 21, 1995).

8. There is some ambiguity in the list in the sense that some of the items included, such

as “using licenses, permits, or authorizations,” may have dual compliance and

standard-setting dimensions. See Article 5(1)(I). This is the case for regulations as

well. The list is also not intended to be exclusive in nature.

9. See Submission #95-001 (Sept. 21, 1995) (noting that “[w]hile the Submitters may

contend that... legislative action amounts to a breach of the obligation to maintain

high levels of protection, Articles 14 and 15 do not repose in the Secretariat the

power to explore aspects of the Agreement not arising from a failure to enforce environmental law.”) We do not believe that Article 45(1), which defines effective

enforcement, at least in part, by discussing what it is not, is helpful to the interpretation of enforcement in the context of this submission.

10. See e.g., American Automobile Manufacturers Association et al. v. John P. Cahill, et al.,

152 F.3d 196 (2nd Cir. 1998) (noting that the distinction between “standards” and

“enforcement mechanism” “can be less than a bright line in some cases... .”). See

also Kal Raustiala, International “Enforcement of Enforcement” Under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, 36 Va. J. Int’l L. 721, 758 (1996) (discussing issues relating to the definition of “enforcement” under the NAAEC and noting

that “[i]n the complex regulatory system, enforcement cannot be readily separated

from lawmaking in practice.”)
On the other hand, a submission with three key elements perhaps

would be the paradigmatic submission involving “enforcement:” 1) a

Party’s law establishes specific environmental standards; 2) regulated

entities (i.e., parties subject to such standards) are allegedly operating in

violation of such standards; and 3) the Party has allegedly failed to effectively enforce this law (e.g., by allegedly allowing violations to occur

without using available enforcement authorities to curtail them). Many

variations on this paradigm undoubtedly would fall within the ambit of

Article 14 as well.11

In this Determination, we consider the question as to where the line

should be drawn between standard-setting and enforcement in the context of a Party’s promulgation of regulations that establish substantive

emission or discharge standards.

C. Article 14(1) Analysis of the Party’s Activities Involved in this

Submission

The Submitters’ claim, as we understand it, contains three elements: 1) several provisions in the Clean Air Act, Pollution Prevention

Act, and Great Lakes Agreement,12 among other statutes and agreements, obligate the U.S. EPA to promulgate regulations that will result

in the “virtual elimination” and “zero discharge” of certain pollutants,

including mercury and dioxin; 2) EPA regulations are inconsistent with

these provisions because the regulations will allow for certain waste

incinerators to continue to emit at “excessive” levels; and 3) these regulations, by failing to comply with the governing law, constitute a “failure

to effectively enforce.”

In our judgment, the submission before us falls on the “standard-setting” side of the line. The critical analytical point, in our view, is

that even if the Submitters’ claim is accurate, the Party has created an

SEM-98-003 161

11. See e.g., Article 5.

12. With respect to U.S. domestic law, the submission claims that Clean Air Act sections 7401(c), 7415(a)(b), and 7429(a)(2) and the entire Pollution Prevention Act have

not been effectively enforced. Submission at 8, 9. In Appendix 2, the Submitters cite

to a variety of other Clean Air Act provisions as well. The submission alleges that

the U.S. EPA regulatory program also is inconsistent with the “virtual elimination

of persistent toxic substances” and “zero emission” components of the Great Lakes

Water Quality Agreement (1972 and 1978), the Protocol of 1987 and the Strategy of 1997.

Finally, the Submission asserts that the regulatory program violates the 1986 Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States Concerning Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste. The submission claims that

these international agreements are part of U.S. domestic law because they have

been ratified. Submission at 8, 9.
inconsistency in its substantive emission standards.13 We do not believe

that adoption of regulations that contain emission standards that allegedly are less stringent than the standards established in governing legislation constitutes a “failure to effectively enforce” for purposes of Article

14.14 Instead, the regulations in such a case would represent an inconsistency in the governing legal standards. Addressing purported inconsistencies of this sort is, in our view, beyond the scope of Article 14.

In closing, we note that a variety of strategies may have the ultimate effect of undermining a Party’s environmental standards; yet, even

though the environmental and health consequences of different strategies may be comparable, one strategy may subject a Party to Article 14

while another may not. Here, for example, the Party’s purportedly

allowing excessive emissions through promulgation of regulations is a

form of “standard-setting” activity (albeit in the Submitters’ view a

flawed one) and therefore it is not within the reach of Article 14. In contrast, a Party’s failure to effectively enforce against regulated parties that

are violating and thereby exceeding legally enforceable standards

would be subject to Article 14. For the reasons provided above, we are

of the view that the limited scope of Article 14 jurisdiction requires the

Secretariat to draw such a line.

162 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

13. We do not reach the issue of whether the Submitters’ claim is accurate. The Secretariat reviewed the Petition and the Appendices carefully and had difficulty, inter

alia, determining the precise level of emissions mandated by the statutes cited by

the Submitters. Thus, the Secretariat found it difficult to evaluate the Submitters’

claim that the domestic legislation and EPA regulations are inconsistent. For example, the Submitters cite section 7401(c) of the Clean Air Act as one section EPA has

violated with its regulations. This section does not appear to establish emission

standards, providing simply that: “A primary goal of this chapter is to encourage

or otherwise promote reasonable Federal, State, and local governmental actions,

consistent with the provisions of this chapter, for pollution prevention.”

14. A Party’s adoption of regulations that are inconsistent with the governing statute

may be addressable in a different forum. Under U.S. environmental law, for example, adoption of regulations that are inconsistent with the governing statute would

likely be subject to judicial review. Indeed, while the courts in the United States

grant agencies such as EPA considerable deference in the application of statutory

responsibilities, see e.g., Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), “Chevron

does not seem to have insulated agency interpretations of statutes from effective

judicial review.” Percival, Miller, Schroeder, and Leape, Environmental Regulation:

Law, Science, and Policy 760 (Little Brown, 2nd ed. 1996). We simply are stating that

such issues are not subject to Article 14.

We emphasize the narrowness of our determination in drawing a distinction

between standard-setting and enforcement in the context of regulations. We are

not concluding that all regulations are necessarily beyond the scope of Article 14.

For example, we voice no opinion here as to whether a submission alleging that a

Party’s regulations inappropriately narrow the scope of EPA inspection or monitoring authority might qualify for review under Article 14(1). See Article 5(b). Cf.

Submission SEM-95-002 (December 8, 1995).
Pursuant to Guideline 6.2, the Secretariat, for the foregoing reasons, will terminate the Article 14 process with respect to this submission, unless the Submitters provide the Secretariat with a submission

that conforms to the criteria of Article 14(1) within 30 days after receipt

of this Notification.

Yours truly,

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

per: Janine Ferretti

Interim Executive Director

c.c. Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA

Mr. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Mr. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

SEM-98-003 163
Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) and (2) of the North

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

Submitter(s): Department of the Planet Earth;

Sierra Club of Canada;

Friends of the Earth;

Washington Toxics Coalition;

National Coalition Against Misuse of Pesticides;

WASHPIRG;

International Institute of Concern for

Public Health

Dr. Joseph Cummins; and

Reach for Unbleached

Concerned Party: United States of America

Date Received: 4 January 1999

Date of this

Determination: 8 September 1999

Submission I.D.: SEM-98-003

I- INTRODUCTION

Article 14 of the North American Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation (“NAAEC” or “Agreement”) provides that the Secretariat

of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”)

may consider a submission from any non-governmental 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). On 27 May 1998, the Submitters filed with the Secretariat a submission on enforcement matters

pursuant to Article 14 of the NAAEC. On 14 December 1998, the Secretariat issued a determination in which it dismissed the submission on the

164 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
basis that it did not meet the requirements of Article 14(1). The essence of

the determination was that the Party’s conduct at issue in the May 27

submission did not qualify as “enforcement”—one of the threshold

elements for triggering review under Article 14.

On 4 January 1999, the Submitters filed a “new and amended submission.”1 The Secretariat has determined that two assertions in this

submission meet the criteria in Article 14(1) and that these assertions

merit a response from the Party in light of the factors listed in Article

14(2). The Secretariat believes that otherwise, the submission does not

meet the criteria for review contained in Article 14(1). The Secretariat

sets forth its reasons in Section III below.2

II- SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The submission concerns airborne emissions of dioxin and mercury into the Great Lakes. The submission claims that such emissions

pose a significant threat to public health and the environment. It asserts

that solid waste and medical incinerators in the United States are substantial sources of such emissions.

The submission further asserts that various domestic laws and

international legal instruments obligate the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take several actions to address these emissions.

These actions include, among others: 1) inspecting and otherwise monitoring emissions from such incinerators; 2) advising “host states” that

incinerators within their jurisdictions are contributing air pollution that

may be endangering public health or welfare in a foreign country,

thereby triggering such states’ obligation to reduce such pollution;

and 3) requiring such incinerators to implement pollution prevention

approaches and the like to achieve the goal of virtually eliminating these

emissions. The submission claims that the United States has not fulfilled

these obligations and that this asserted failure constitutes a failure to

“effectively enforce” for purposes of Article 14 of the NAAEC.

SEM-98-003 165

1. 4 January 1999 Submission at 2, 16.

2. The Council adopted revised Guidelines for the Article 14 process in June 1999. Pursuant to Guideline 7.2, the Determination provides an explanation of how the submission meets or fails to meet the Article 14(1) criteria as well as an explanation of the

factors that guided the Secretariat in making its determination under Article 14(2).

The revised Guidelines are available on the CEC web page, www.cec.org, under Citizen Submissions.
III- ANALYSIS

A. Article 14(1)

As the Secretariat has noted in previous Article 14(1) determinations, the requirements contained in Article 14 are not intended to place

an undue burden on submitters. In the determination concerning the

Animal Alliance submission (SEM-97-005), for example, the Secretariat

states as follows:

The Secretariat is of the view that Article 14, and Article 14(1) in particular,

are not intended to be insurmountable screening devices. The Secretariat

also believes that Article 14(1) should be given a large and liberal interpretation, consistent with the objectives of the NAAEC. . . .3

In its discussion in the Animal Alliance determination of the burden under Article 14, the Secretariat noted that use of the word “assertion” in the opening sentence of Article 14(1) “supports a relatively low

threshold under Article 14(1),”4 although it also indicated that “a certain

amount of substantive analysis is nonetheless required at this initial

stage” because “[o]therwise, the Secretariat would be forced to consider

all submissions that merely ‘assert’ a failure to effectively enforce environmental law.”

The recent revisions to the Guidelines provide further support for

the notion that the Article 14(1) and (2) stages of the citizen submission

process are intended as a screening mechanism. The Guidelines limit

submissions to 15 pages in length.5 The revised Guidelines require a

submitter to address a minimum of 13 criteria or factors in this limited

space, indicating that a submission is not expected to contain extensive

discussion of each criterion and factor in order to qualify under Article

14(1) and (2) for more in-depth consideration.

We reviewed the submission with this perspective in mind.

Article 14(1) provides that the Secretariat may consider a submission if the submission meets six criteria. We believe that the submission

meets each of these criteria, as indicated below.

166 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

3. Submission No. SEM-97-005 (26 May 1998).

4. The relevant part of Article 14(1) reads as follows: “The Secretariat may consider a

submission from any non governmental organization or person asserting that . . . .”

5. Guideline 3.3.
1. The submission is in English, one of the official languages designated by the Parties (14(1)(a)).

2. The submission clearly identifies the persons and organizations

making the submission (14(1)(b)).

3. The submission provides sufficient information to allow the Secretariat to review the submission, including several scientific reports

relating to the issues covered in the submission (14(1)(c));6

4. The submission appears to be aimed at promoting enforcement

rather than at harassing industry (e.g., the Submitters are not competitors of entities that are the subject of the government “enforcement” practices at issue. Instead, the Submitters are individuals

and organizations committed to environmental and public health

protection and the submission focuses on purported government

failures)(14(1)(d));

5. The submission indicates that the matter has been communicated

in writing to the relevant authorities of the Party and it indicates

the Party’s response, if any (e.g., the Submitters’ cover letter of 28

May 1998 indicates that the Submitters petitioned EPA Administrator Browner on 5 July 1997 to “undertake a program to phase out

solid waste and medical incinerators, and 106 sources of air pollution that were responsible for 86 percent of airborne dioxin discharges into the Great Lakes.” In the same letter, the Submitters

notified EPA of their intention to initiate a submission unless EPA

responded to the petition. The Submitters reported initially that

EPA did not respond to this letter but the Submitters supplemented the submission to advise that EPA did respond)7 (14(1)(e));

and

SEM-98-003 167

6. See e.g., Thomas Webster and Paul Connett. 1998. Dioxin emission inventories and

trends: The importance of large point sources, 37 Chemosphere, 2105.

7. In its May 28 cover letter, the Submitters reported that EPA did not respond. The Submitters notified the Secretariat by letter, dated 14 July 1998, that the Submitters had

received a copy of a letter from EPA, dated 18 June 1998 responding to the letter. The

Submitters provided a copy of the EPA response. The Department of the Planet Earth

also has provided a copy of its 11 December 1998 letter to the US EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics relating to the draft Multimedia Strategy for Priority

PBT Pollutants and the draft EPA Action Plan for Mercury. In this letter, the Submitters cover several issues raised by the submission, among others, including whether

EPA proposals for dioxin and furan are “in harmony” with the Clean Air Act, Clean

Water Act, Pollution Prevention Act and the “virtual elimination” requirements of

the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
6. The Submitters reside in or were established in the United States or

Canada (14(1)(f)).

Article 14(1)’s opening sentence establishes three other parameters

for the Article 14 process. Submissions must: 1) involve one or more

“environmental laws;” 2) involve asserted failures to “effectively

enforce” such laws; and 3) meet a temporal requirement in that they

must assert that the Party “is failing” to effectively enforce. This submission involves a variety of different laws that qualify as “environmental

law” for purposes of Article 14, such as the US Clean Air Act and Pollution Prevention Act. The Secretariat is not persuaded by the submission

that the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement or the 1986 Agreement

Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste should be considered “environmental laws” for purposes

of Article 14.

Treatment of the latter two agreements warrants some elaboration.

The Submitters’ argument, as we understand it, is that the Great Lakes

Water Quality Agreement8 and the 1986 Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada

Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste,9 are

“environmental law” for purposes of Article 14 because they represent

the “law of the nation.”10 (Submission at 7). Respectfully, the Secretariat

does not agree. Article 45(2) of the NAAEC is the key operative provision, defining environmental law to mean “any statute or regulation of a

Party. . . .” The Secretariat dismissed the Animal Alliance submission

(SEM-97-005) on the ground that the Biodiversity Convention did not

qualify as “environmental law” because it was an international obligation that had not been imported into domestic law by way of statute or

regulation pursuant to a statute. The Animal Alliance determination is

consistent with the plain language of Article 45(2) and the Secretariat

168 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

8. Canada-United States: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 1978, as amended

by the 1983 and 1987 Protocols, done at Ottawa on 22 November 1978, United

States-Canada, 30 UST 1303, TIAS 9257 as amended 16 October 1983, TIAS 10798

and November 1987, Consolidated in International Joint Commission, revised

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 (1994).

9. Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, 28

Oct. 1986, US-Can., T.I.A.S. No. 11,099.

10. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that «This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance

thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the

United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state

shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.» US Constitution, Article VI.
follows it here.11 As noted concerning that submission, by making this

determination, the Secretariat is not excluding the possibility that future

submissions may raise questions concerning a Party’s international obligations that would meet the criteria in Article 14(1).

The second significant issue under Article 14(1) is whether the submission involves the required assertion that a Party is currently failing to

“effectively enforce” the environmental laws at issue in this proceeding.

The Secretariat understands that the Submitters’ submission of 4 January 1999 asserts that the Party is failing to effectively enforce for purposes of Article 14 with respect to air emissions of dioxins and mercury

into the Great Lakes on three grounds.12 We will discuss each of these

assertions below. The first two seem to the Secretariat to qualify as assertions relating to possible failures to “enforce” and therefore are subject

to consideration under Article 14(1). The third, however, does not in our

view qualify as “enforcement” for purposes of Article 14.

1. Asserted Inspection-Related Failures

One basis for the Submitters’ assertion of a failure to effectively

enforce involves the government’s asserted failure to adequately inspect

and monitor incinerator emissions. The Submitters assert that the

US EPA has an “incredibly poor” incinerator monitoring program.

(Submission at 11-12). The Submitters assert that, among other things,

inspections are rarely performed:

Astonishingly MSW plants accounting for 26 percent of total combusted

solid waste in the United States have never been tested for their dioxin

emissions. Most US facilities have only been tested once, which means that

a lot of guesswork is needed about emissions. (5 November 1998 letter

from Department of the Planet Earth at 1-2).

SEM-98-003 169

11. Because of the Secretariat’s view concerning the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Secretariat also determines that the Submitters’ assertion based on Clean

Air Act § 118, 42 USC § 7418, does not merit further consideration under Article 14.

(Submission at 11). Recourse to the plain language of the Agreement is consistent

with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 31(1), which provides

as follows: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of

its object and purpose.” See also Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article

32, which provides that under certain circumstances it may be appropriate to have

recourse to supplementary means of interpretation.

12. The Secretariat read the original submission to assert that standards contained in

EPA regulations for solid waste and medical waste incinerators conflict with various statutes and international instruments and it determined that such an assertion

did not provide the basis for an Article 14 submission because the assertion’s primary focus was on allegedly flawed “standard-setting” activity—not on enforcement actions.
The submitters also assert that there are concerns with the testing

that is done because in some cases it is performed under ideal circumstances rather than under normal operating conditions:

[T]here has been a documented concerted effort to test plants under the

most ideal circumstances rather than normal operating conditions....

(Submission at 12).

The 1998 Webster and Connett article attached to the submission

offers additional detail concerning these assertions:

A major limitation of our estimates is the paucity of measurement data. An

astonishing number of US MSW incinerators have either been tested for

PCDD/PCDF [dioxins/furans] only once or never tested at all. Although

the current lack of emission data is improving, operators and regulators

have in the past seemed quite happy to deem a plant’s emissions acceptable based on one set of measurements. An important related deficiency is

the reliance on many stack tests taken under near-ideal circumstances.

Actual emissions can be larger for a number of reasons including seasonal

variations, upset conditions, start-up, shut-down and periods of soot blow

off. We believe that increasing scientific attention must be paid to emissions during non-optimal conditions; such conditions may tend to drive

inventories in the future.13

The Secretariat believes that the assertion that the U.S.’s inspection

and compliance-monitoring record is not effective satisfies the requirements of Article 14(1). Maintaining an adequate inspection/compliance-monitoring scheme is an inherent part of enforcement. Indeed,

Article 5(1)(b) of the NAAEC specifically identifies “monitoring compliance” as a type of government enforcement action.

2. Clean Air Act § 115, 42 USC § 7415(a), (b)

A second basis for Submitters’ assertion of a failure to effectively

enforce is Clean Air Act § 115, 42 USC § 7415(a), (b). The Submitters

assert that these provisions require the EPA Administrator to “notify the

Governor of the State in which such emission originates” whenever the

Administrator receives reports from any duly constituted international

agency such as the IJC or CEC, that air pollution or pollutants emitted in

the United States can “be reasonably anticipated to endanger public

170 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

13. See Webster and Connett. 1998; pp. 2105, 2115, 2116.
health or welfare in a foreign country.”14 The Submitters assert that

“[u]nfortunately, the Administrator has not carried out this program.”15

The thrust of this assertion, in short, is that EPA is failing to effectively enforce or fulfill a clear, quite specific legal obligation. This is similar to the assertion we have seen in previous submissions, in which the

Secretariat has determined that an assertion that a Party is failing to comply with a NEPA-type law satisfies the requirements of Article 14.16 The

Secretariat believes that this assertion satisfies the requirements of Article 14(1).

3. Failure Adequately to Pursue Legislative Policy Directions

The Submitters’ third assertion is that US legislation and international “treaties” obligate EPA to pursue pollution prevention-oriented

approaches to air pollution that do not involve standard-setting but EPA

has failed to follow the legislatively-charted path and this failure qualifies as a lack of “effective enforcement.” The submission alleges that

Clean Air Act § 101(c), 42 USC § 7401(c), and the Pollution Prevention

Act provide a hierarchy of strategies for addressing waste that favors

pollution prevention approaches, yet EPA has failed to propose pollution prevention as a mandatory component with regard to regulation of

incineration. (Submission at 10). EPA’s failure to do so, in the Submitters’ view, is not in harmony with the legislative direction that the first

priority is to reduce emissions through process changes, substitution of

materials, and the like, and therefore is a failure to enforce for purposes

of Article 14.

The Submitters assert that the Pollution Prevention Act establishes

a “clear hierarchy of pollution prevention programs for all of the management programs of the Environmental Protection Agency” (SubmisSEM-98-003 171

14. The Submitters state that the notification is considered a “finding” that requires the

State to revise its air pollution plan to prevent or eliminate the endangerment. (Submission at 10, 11).

15. 4 January 1999 Submission at 11. See also 25 March 1999 letter from Department of

the Planet Earth at 2.

16. Recommendation of the Secretariat to Council for the development of a Factual

Record in accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation, SEM-96-001 (7 June 1996, reported in CEC, North

American Environmental Law and Policy, Winter 1998, at p. 96); The Southwest

Center for Biological Diversity, et al. (Fort Huachuca; SEM-96-004); requesting a

response under Article 14(2) based on the assertion that the Party failed to effectively enforce the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with respect to the

United States Army’s operation of Fort Huachuca by, inter alia, failing to provide a

cumulative environmental analysis. After the Party issued its response, the Submitters withdrew their submission, thereby terminating the process.
sion at 10). Section 13101(b) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

establishes the policy of Congress to be as follows:

The Congress hereby declares it to be the national policy of the United

States that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an

environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be

prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or other release into the environment

should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an

environmentally safe manner.

Clean Air Act § 101(c), 42 USC § 7401(c), sounds much the same

theme, providing that “[a] primary goal of this chapter is to encourage or

otherwise promote reasonable Federal, State, and local governmental

actions, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, for pollution prevention.”

The Submitters’ assertion appears to be that EPA is not effectively

enforcing these laws because the agency has “failed to propose source

reduction and pollution prevention as a mandatory component

with regard to regulation of incineration. . . .” (Submission at 10). With

respect, the Secretariat does not believe that this is a matter of “enforcement” for purposes of Article 14.

The broad question this assertion raises is whether legislative

encouragement that EPA pursue various goals may serve as the basis for

an assertion under Article 14 that EPA is failing to effectively enforce

these goals. As we noted in our 14 December 1998 Determination concerning this submission, arriving at a precise definition of “enforcement” is not a simple task. The term is not defined in the NAAEC.

The meaning of the term “enforcement” is illuminated to some

extent by Article 5, entitled “Government Enforcement Action.” Article

5 seems to signal at least two points regarding the appropriate definition

of enforcement. The first is that the concept of enforcement should be

defined broadly. It should not be limited to traditional deterrence-based

enforcement—i.e., it should not be confined to the level of government

prosecution activity and the like. The Secretariat and the Council have

embraced this interpretation in previous submissions. (See e.g., BC

Hydro, Council Resolution 98-07).

Article 5 is also helpful through the list of enforcement actions it

provides. This list is merely illustrative but it nevertheless offers some

172 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
insights into the drafters’ intentions. As we noted in the December 14

Great Lakes determination, for example, the list provides support for the

notion that Article 14 is not intended for challenges to a Party’s standard-setting activities because “[v]iewed as a whole, the activities listed

[in Article 5] are geared more toward promoting compliance with governing legal standards than to establishing such standards.” (Determination at 4).

The list of illustrative enforcement actions provided in Article 5

provides a strong indication that the type of general legislative direction

involved here is not a ground for an Article 14 submission. The legislative directive to promote pollution prevention (including creation of a

hierarchy of approaches for managing waste) has little in common with

the types of government actions labeled as enforcement in Article 5 and

leaves EPA considerable discretion as to how best to fulfill this responsibility. As a result, the Secretariat here reaches the limited conclusion that

a directive to EPA of the sort referenced here to promote pollution prevention does not provide the basis for an assertion that EPA’s purported

failure adequately to promote pollution prevention is a failure to enforce

under Article 14.

In an effort to explain its reasoning on this point further, the Secretariat notes that the outcome might be different if the legislative direction were clearly enforcement-oriented. For example, if a statute

established a hierarchy, or priorities, for enforcement action—e.g., it

directed the government to give top priority to inspecting the largest

facilities in a particular industry and lowest priority to inspecting the

small facilities—government failure to adhere to this priority scheme

potentially would constitute a failure to effectively enforce in the Secretariat’s view because the government allegedly would be failing to perform its enforcement responsibilities in the manner directed by the

legislature. That is not the situation here.

B. Article 14(2)

In deciding whether to request a response from a Party, the Secretariat is to be guided by the four factors listed in Article 14(2). Thus,

during this phase of the process the Secretariat may assign weight to

each factor as it deems appropriate in the context of a particular submission. The Secretariat has determined based on its consideration of the

factors contained in Article 14(2) that the submission merits requesting a

response from the Party.

SEM-98-003 173
The Submitters’ assertion that there are significant health and environmental issues associated with airborne emissions of persistent toxic

chemicals dioxins and mercury, and that solid waste and medical incinerators are prominent sources of such emissions, qualifies this submission as one that raises matters “whose further study in this process

would advance the goals of this Agreement” [Article 14(2)(b); 28 May

1998 Submission at 8, 9]. The Submitters cite government and other

sources in support of these assertions. The 18 June 1998 letter from EPA,

provided by the Submitters, states that EPA is “very concerned about air

pollution from incinerators, particularly with regard to mercury and

dioxin. The USEPA is committed to reducing these air pollutants and

is undertaking several high priority policy and regulatory initiatives

targeted at reducing these and other persistent, toxic substances.” This

Article 14(2) factor is perhaps of greatest significance in the context

of this submission.

The submission’s focus on such impacts also is relevant to Article

14(2)(a), involving allegations of harm to the Submitters.17 With respect

to Article 14(2)(c), the Submitters assert that a private remedy available

under the Party’s law is being pursued by Earthjustice to address some

of the issues raised in the submission. The widespread failure to monitor

asserted to exist here is relevant to the weight to be given to this factor.

Finally, the submission includes several scientific studies and other

documents and is not drawn exclusively from mass media reports.

[Article 14(2)(d)].

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Secretariat has determined that two

of the assertions contained in the submission meet the requirements of

Article 14(1) of the Agreement. The Secretariat has determined under

Article 14(2) that the submission merits requesting a response from the

Government of the United States as to these two assertions. Accordingly, the Secretariat requests a response from the Government of the

174 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

17. In its Recommendation to the Council for the development of a factual record with

respect to SEM-96-001 (Comité para la Protección de los Recursos Naturales, A.C., et al.),

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.” The same is true here.
United States to the above-mentioned submission within the time frame

provided in Article 14(3) of the Agreement. A copy of the submission

and of the supporting information is annexed to this letter.

David L. Markell

Head, Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit

c.o. Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA

c.c. Ms. Norinne Smith, Environment Canada

Mr. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

Mr. Erik Jansson, Exec. Dir.

Department of the Planet Earth

Ms. Janine Ferretti, CEC Executive Director

SEM-98-003 175

SEM-98-004

(BC MINING)

SUBMITTER: SIERRA CLUB OF BRITISH COLUMBIA,

ET AL.

PARTY: CANADA

DATE: 29 JUNE 1998

SUMMARY: The submission alleges a systemic failure of

Canada to enforce section 36(3) of the Fisheries

Act to protect fish and fish habitat from the

destructive environmental impacts of the

mining industry in British Columbia.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(30 NOVEMBER 1998)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met.

ART. 14(2)

(25 JUNE 1999)

Determination pursuant to Article 14(2) that

the submission merits requesting a response

from the Party.

177

November 30, 1998

ELECTRONICALLY AND BY REGISTERED MAIL

Mr. David R. Boyd

Sierra Legal Defence Fund

214-131 Water Street

Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4M3

Phone: (604) 685-5618

Fax: (604) 685-7813

E-mail: sldf@sierralegal.com

Re: Submission on enforcement matters under Articles 14

and 15 of the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation

Submitter(s): Sierra Club of British Columbia

Environmental Mining Council of

British Columbia

Taku Wilderness Association

Represented by: Sierra Legal Defence Fund

Party: Canada

Date: 29 June 1998

Submission No.: SEM-98-004

Dear Mr. Boyd:

The Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation has

concluded that your submission satisfies the initial screening criteria

under Article 14(1) of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). We noted in our determination in SEM

97-005 that Article 14 is not intended to be an insurmountable procedural screening device but instead it should be given a large and liberal

179
interpretation, consistent with the objectives of the NAAEC and the

provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.1 The

Submission meets this burden. Further, the Submission appears to be

aimed at promoting enforcement rather than at harassing industry.2 The

Submission meets the other criteria in Article 14(1) as well.

Accordingly, the submission will now be reviewed under Article 14(2) to

determine whether the submission merits requesting a response from

the Goverment of Canada.

We will keep you informed of the status of your submission in accordance with Articles 14 and 15 and the Guidelines for Submissions on

Enforcement Matters.

Yours truly,

Commission for Environmental Cooperation – Secretariat

per: Janine Ferretti

Interim Executive Director

c.c. Ms. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Mr. William Nitze, U.S. EPA

Mr. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

180 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. SEM 97-005 (May 26, 1998).

2. See Article 14(1)(d).
June 25, 1999

BY FAX AND REGISTERED MAIL

The Honourable Christine Stewart

Minister of the Environment

Government of Canada

Les Terrasses de la Chaudière

28th Floor

10 Wellington Street

Hull (Québec)

Canada K1A 0H3

Attention: Ms. Norine Smith

Re: Submission on enforcement matters under Articles 14

and 15 of the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation

Submitter(s): Sierra Club of British Columbia

Environmental Mining Council of

British Columbia

Taku Wilderness Association

Represented by: Sierra Legal Defence Fund

Party: Canada

Date: 29 June 1998

Submission No.: SEM-98-004

Dear Minister:

On 29 June 1998, the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation received a submission pursuant to Article 14 of the North

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (“Agreement”)

filed by Sierra Legal Defence Fund on behalf of Sierra Club of British

Columbia, Environmental Mining Council of British Columbia and

SEM-98-004 181
Taku Wilderness Association. The submission alleges “the systemic failure of the Government of Canada to enforce section 36(3) of the Fisheries

Act to protect fish and fish habitat from the destructive environmental

impacts of the mining industry in British Columbia.”

The Secretariat reviewed the submission under Article 14(1) of the

Agreement and determined on 30 November 1998 that the submission

met the requirements of Article 14(1).

Pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Agreement, the Secretariat has determined that the submissions merits requesting a response from the Government of Canada. Accordingly, the Secretariat requests a response

from the Government of Canada to the above-mentioned submission,

within the 30 day time frame provided in Article 14(3) of the Agreement,

or in exceptional circumstances, within 60 days of delivery of this

request. A copy of the submission and of the supporting information is

annexed to this letter.

Sincerely,

Commission for Environmental Cooperation—Secretariat

per: David L. Markell

Head, Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit

c.c. Mr. William Nitze, U.S. EPA

Mr. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

Mr. David R. Boyd, Sierra Legal Defence Fund

Ms. Janine Ferretti, Interim Executive Director

Enclosures (2)

182 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
SEM-98-005

(CYTRAR)

SUBMITTER: ACADEMIA SONORENSE DE DERECHOS

HUMANOS

PARTY: UNITED MEXICAN STATES

DATE: 11 AUGUST 1998

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege that Mexico has failed to

effectively enforce environmental law by having

authorized the operation of a hazardous waste

landfill (Cytrar) less than six kilometers away

from Hermosillo, Sonora.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)(2)

(9 APRIL 1999)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met and that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party in accordance with Article 14(2).

183

9 de abril de 1999

POR FAX Y MENSAJERO

Mtra. Julia Carabias Lillo

Semarnap

Periférico Sur # 4209, 6o Piso

Fracc. Jardines en la Montaña

14210 México, D.F.

México

Atención: Lic. José Luis Samaniego

Ref.: Petición relativa a la aplicación efectiva de la legislación

ambiental conforme a los Artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo

de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Peticionarios: Academia Sonorense de Derechos Humanos, A.C.

Lic. Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha: 11 de agosto de 1998

Petición: SEM-98-005

Como es de su conocimiento, el Secretariado de la CCA recibió el día

11 de agosto de 1998 una petición presentada por la Academia

Sonorense de Derechos Humanos, A.C. y el licenciado Domingo

Gutiérrez Mendívil. Los Peticionarios aseveran que México ha incurrido

en una omisión en la aplicación efectiva de su legislación ambiental al

autorizar la operación de un confinamiento de residuos peligrosos,

conocido como Cytrar, a menos de seis kilómetros de la ciudad de

Hermosillo, Sonora, México.

La petición señala que conforme a la Norma Oficial Mexicana

NOM-055-ECOL/1993, la distancia entre el confinamiento y la ciudad

185
de Hermosillo debería ser de por lo menos veinticinco kilómetros.

Los Peticionarios aseveran que las autoridades han anunciado que el

confinamiento será reubicado y que no se ha informado a la sociedad

sobre la nueva ubicación ni sobre las medidas previstas para la limpieza

del sitio, que ha sido contaminado y que representa un grave riesgo para

la salud y el medio ambiente.

El Secretariado ha revisado la petición y ha determinado que cumple

con los requisitos establecidos en el artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo de

Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte. Asimismo, considerando los criterios previstos en el artículo 14(2) del ACAAN, el

Secretariado ha determinado que la petición amerita solicitar una

respuesta de la Parte. Al efecto, solicitamos del Gobierno de México una

respuesta a la petición de referencia. Anexamos una copia de la petición

y de la información de apoyo que la acompaña.

Conforme al artículo 14(3), estaremos en espera de recibir la respuesta

del Gobierno de México el día 26 de mayo de 1999, esto es, en un plazo de

30 días hábiles posteriores a la entrega de la presente, salvo que por

circunstancias excepcionales se requiera ampliar el plazo a 60 días.

Sometido respetuosamente a su consideración,

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: David L. Markell

Jefe de la Unidad de Peticiones Ciudadanas

c.c. Ms. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA

Lic. Gutiérrez Mendívil, Academia Sonorense de

Derechos Humanos, A.C.

Ms. Janine Ferretti, Directora Ejecutiva Interina

186 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
SEM-98-006

(AQUANOVA)

SUBMITTER: GRUPO ECOLÓGICO MANGLAR

PARTY: UNITED MEXICAN STATES

DATE: 20 OCTOBER 1998

SUMMARY: The submission alleges that Mexico is failing to

effectively enforce its environmental laws with

respect to the establishment and operation of

Granjas Aquanova S.A. de C.V., a shrimp farm in

Isla del Conde, San Blas, Nayarit, Mexico.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)(2)

(17 MARCH 1999)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met and that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party in accordance with Article 14(2).

ART. 15(1)

(4 AUGUST 2000)

Notification to council to be disclosed upon

Council’s decision on whether the Secretariat

will prepare a factual record.

187

17 de marzo de 1999

POR FAX Y MENSAJERO

Mtra. Julia Carabias Lillo

Atn.: Lic. José Luis Samaniego,

Semarnap

Periférico Sur # 4209 6o Piso

Fracc. Jardines en la Montaña

14210 México, D.F.

México

Ref.: Petición relativa a la aplicación efectiva de la legislación

ambiental conforme a los artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo

de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Peticionarios: Grupo Ecológico Manglar, A.C.

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha: 20 de octubre de 1998

Petición: SEM-98-006

Como es de su conocimiento, el Secretariado de la CCA recibió el día 20

de octubre de 1998 una petición del Grupo Ecológico Manglar, A.C. La

petición se refiere a diversas omisiones en la aplicación efectiva de la

legislación ambiental por parte de México respecto al establecimiento y

operación de las instalaciones camaronícolas de Granjas Aquanova,

S.A., de C.V., en la Isla del Conde, Municipio de San Blas, Nayarit,

México.

Los Peticionarios aseveran la falta de aplicación efectiva de

disposiciones legales para la protección de los recursos naturales

(incluyendo protección de selvas y bosques tropicales, algunas especies

de mangle sujetas a protección especial y aves migratorias), de

los requerimientos en materia de impacto ambiental, de diversas

189
disposiciones en materia de agua (incluyendo las aplicables a descargas

de aguas residuales, prevención y control de la contaminación de las

aguas y aprovechamiento de aguas), así como de las disposiciones para

la protección de los recursos pesqueros en caso de introducción de

especies. La petición señala que han habido omisiones en la aplicación

efectiva de la legislación ambiental durante los procedimientos de

verificación que la autoridad ambiental ha realizado. Dichos

procedimientos concluyeron mediante la firma de un convenio con la

empresa para evaluar los daños ocasionados a dos áreas de manglar

y las opciones de remediación. Los Peticionarios argumentan que la

legislación ambiental no se ha aplicado de manera efectiva y que “...la

autoridad no puede transigir el cumplimiento y aplicación de las leyes

de orden público e interés social, como son la Ley General del Equilibrio

Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente y la Ley Forestal.” Finalmente, la

petición asevera que se han cometido delitos ambientales que no han

sido perseguidos y que se ha incumplido tres convenios internacionales

para la protección de especies migratorias y humedales.

El Secretariado ha revisado la petición y ha determinado que cumple

con los requisitos establecidos en el artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo de

Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte. Asimismo,

considerando los criterios previstos en el artículo 14(2) del ACAAN,

el Secretariado ha determinado que la petición amerita solicitar una

respuesta de la Parte. Al efecto, solicitamos del Gobierno de México una

respuesta a la petición de referencia. Anexamos una copia de la petición

y de la información de apoyo que la acompaña.

Conforme al artículo 14(3), estaremos en espera de recibir la respuesta

del Gobierno de México el día 3 de mayo de 1999, esto es, en un plazo de

30 días hábiles posteriores a la entrega de la presente, salvo que por

circunstancias excepcionales se requiera ampliar el plazo a 60 días.

Sometido respetuosamente a su consideración,

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: David L. Markell

Jefe de la Unidad de Peticiones Ciudadanas

c.c. Ms. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA

Grupo Ecológico Manglar, A.C.

190 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
SEM-98-007

(METALES Y DERIVADOS)

SUBMITTER: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COALITION

ET AL.

PARTY: UNITED MEXICAN STATES

DATE: 23 OCTOBER 1998

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege that Mexico has failed to

effectively enforce its environmental law in

connection with an abandoned lead smelter

in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, that poses

serious threats to the health of the neighboring

community and to the environment.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)(2)

(5 MARCH 1999)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met and that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party in accordance with Article 14(2).

ART. 15(1)

(6 MARCH 2000)

Notification to Council that a factual record is

warranted in accordance with Article 15(1).

191

5 de marzo de 1999

POR FAX Y MENSAJERO

Mtra. Julia Carabias Lillo

Atn.: Lic. José Luis Samaniego,

Semarnap

Periférico Sur # 4209 6o Piso

Fracc. Jardines en la Montaña

14210 México, D.F.

México

Ref.: Petición relativa a la aplicación efectiva de la legislación

ambiental conforme a los artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo de

Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte

Peticionarios: Environmental Health Coalition

Comité Ciudadano Pro Restauración

del Cañón del Padre, A.C.

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha: 23 de octubre de 1998

Petición: SEM-98-007

Como es de su conocimiento, el Secretariado de la CCA recibió el día

23 de octubre de 1998 una petición del Environmental Health Coalition y

el Comité Ciudadano Pro Restauración del Cañón del Padre, A.C. Los

Peticionarios aseveran que ha habido una omisión en la aplicación

efectiva de la legislación ambiental mexicana en el caso de una fundidora de plomo abandonada en Tijuana, Baja California, México, que

presenta un alto riesgo para la salud de las comunidades vecinas y el

medio ambiente.

193
En la petición se afirma que México “no ha aplicado con efectividad sus

leyes ambientales por su incapacidad o falta de voluntad para proseguir

con los procesos penales [iniciados] contra [el propietario] mediante su

extradición formal”. Asimismo, señalan los Peticionarios que México

“no ha aplicado efectivamente el artículo 170 de la Ley General

[del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente] al no tomar las

medidas necesarias para contener o neutralizar los residuos peligrosos

generados por Metales y Derivados a fin de evitar un riesgo eminente de

perjudicar el medio ambiente y la salud pública”, y que tampoco ha

aplicado “el artículo 134 de la Ley General porque no ha tomado las

acciones adecuadas para controlar o impedir la contaminación del suelo

en el sitio de Metales y Derivados y lugares cercanos.”

El Secretariado ha revisado la petición y ha determinado que cumple con

los requisitos establecidos en el artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte. Asimismo, considerando los

criterios previstos en el artículo 14(2) del ACAAN, el Secretariado ha

determinado que la petición amerita solicitar una respuesta de la Parte.

Al efecto, solicitamos del Gobierno de México una respuesta a la petición

de referencia. Anexamos una copia de la petición y de la información de

apoyo que la acompaña, presentadas originalmente en inglés, así como

la traducción de la petición al español.

Conforme al artículo 14(3), estaremos en espera de recibir la respuesta

del Gobierno de México el día 16 de abril de 1999, esto es, en un plazo de

30 días hábiles posteriores a la entrega de la presente, salvo que por

circunstancias excepcionales se requiera ampliar el plazo a 60 días.

Sometido respetuosamente a su consideración,

Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

por: David L. Markell

Jefe de la Unidad de Peticiones Ciudadanas

c.c. Ms. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA

César Luna, Esq., Environmental Health Coalition

Janine Ferretti, Directora Ejecutiva Interina

194 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 no.: SEM-98-007

Submitter(s): Environmental Health Coalition

Comité Ciudadano Pro Restauración

del Cañón del Padre y Servicios

Comunitarios, A.C.

Party: United Mexican States

Date of the Submission: 23 October 1998

Date of this notification: 6 March 2000

I- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In accordance with Article 14 of the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), the Environmental Health

Coalition and the Comité Ciudadano Pro Restauración del Cañon del

Padre y Servicios Comunitarios, A.C., presented to the Secretariat of

the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) a Submission

asserting that there has been a failure to effectively enforce Mexican

environmental law in the case of an abandoned lead smelter in Tijuana,

Baja California, Mexico (Metales y Derivados). The Submitters allege

that the site represents a major risk for the health of the neighboring

communities and the environment, that Mexico has failed to extradite

the persons responsible for the contamination, and that the measures

that have been taken at the site are not sufficient to protect the neighboring population and avoid ecological imbalance. The Submitters believe

that there has been a failure to effectively enforce the Federal Criminal

Code (Código Penal Federal), the Law on International Extradition (Ley de

Extradición Internacional), and the Extradition Treaty between the United

SEM-98-007 195
Mexican States and the United States of America. They also assert that

Mexico has failed to effectively enforce the General Law on Ecological

Balance and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilíbrio

Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente—LGEEPA).

In light of the Party’s Response, the contents of which have been designated as confidential, the Secretariat hereby notifies the Council that certain allegations in the Submission warrant the development of a factual

record and others do not warrant further review under the submissions

on enforcement matters process. With regard to the assertions that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law by failing to

pursue extradition of the owners of Metales y Derivados, the Secretariat

has determined that no further review is warranted. With respect to the

allegations of a failure to effectively enforce LGEEPA Articles 170 and

134, the Secretariat considers that the development of a factual record is

warranted to understand Mexico’s enforcement efforts to prevent an

imminent risk to the environment and dangerous repercussions to public health, and to prevent and control soil contamination, including by

restoration, at the Metales y Derivados site, in accordance with those

provisions. The Secretariat hereby, and in accordance with Article 15(1)

of the NAAEC, provides the reasons for its determinations, within the

limitations arising from the asserted confidentiality of the Response and

absent a summary by the Party for the purposes of Section 17.3 of the

Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters.

II- PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On 23 October 1998, the Secretariat of the CEC received a Submission

from the Environmental Health Coalition and the Comité Ciudadano

Pro Restauración del Cañon del Padre y Servicios Comunitarios, A.C.

The Submitters assert that there has been a failure to effectively enforce

Mexican environmental law in the case of an abandoned lead smelter in

Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, that they claim poses a high risk to the

health of the surrounding communities and to the environment. The

Submitters request that the Submission be studied for the development

of a factual record in accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the NAAEC;

they also request that the Secretariat make a report to Council in accordance with Article 13 of the Agreement. On 30 October 1998, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Submission, informing the

Submitters that it would be reviewed in accordance with Article 14 of the

NAAEC, and also informing them that in accordance with Article 13 of

NAAEC, the possibility of making a Secretariat report would be considered after the conclusion of the Article 14 process.

196 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
On 5 March 1999, the Secretariat notified Mexico that it had reviewed the

Submission and determined that it met the criteria set forth in Article

14(1) of the NAAEC. The Secretariat considered the factors set forth in

Article 14(2) of the NAAEC, and decided that the Submission merited a

response from the Party. In that same Determination of 5 March 1999,

the Secretariat requested a Response from Mexico.

Mexico submitted a Response to the Secretariat on 1 June 1999 and designated that Response as confidential. On 14 June 1999, the Secretariat

acknowledged receipt of the Response and requested an explanation

from Mexico for the designation of confidentiality, as well as a summary

of the confidential information for the purposes of Section 17.3 of the

Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters. Mexico informed

the Secretariat on 20 July 1999 that in accordance with Article 39(1) of the

NAAEC and Article 16 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure

(Código Federal de Procedimientos Penales), the designation of confidentiality encompassed the totality of the information contained in the

Response. On 13 September 1999, the Secretariat requested certain clarifications from the Government of Mexico regarding its request for confidentiality. On 13 October 1999, the Secretariat referred the matter to

Council for its consideration. Pending a decision by Council on this matter, this Notification does not provide information from the Response

because of the assertion of confidentiality and absent a summary by the

Party for the purposes of Section 17.3 of the Guidelines for Submissions

on Enforcement Matters.

III- SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The Submitters assert that Mexico has failed to effectively enforce its

environmental laws in the case of the abandoned lead smelter Metales y

Derivados in Tijuana, Baja California. The Submitters assert that the site

poses a major risk to the health of the neighboring communities and the

environment. They state that the company New Frontier Trading Corporation, through its subsidiary, Metales y Derivados, has not returned

the hazardous wastes it generated to the United States, as required by

Mexican law and the La Paz Agreement. According to the Submitters,

the owner and operators abandoned the facility when it was shut down

and they returned to the United States, leaving behind some 6,000 metric

tons of lead slag, waste piles of by-products, sulfuric acid and heavy

metals such as antimony, arsenic, cadmium and copper from the battery

recycling operations.1

SEM-98-007 197

1. P. 3 of the Submission.
The Submission states that there is a community of approximately 1,000

inhabitants (Colonia Chilpancingo) located within approximately 150

yards of Metales y Derivados and asserts that the conditions at this site

represent a constant health risk for the inhabitants of that community.

The Submission describes the various health problems reported by its

members, which the Submitters consider to be attributable to exposure

to the toxic substances abandoned at the site.

The Submitters also state that in May of 1993, the Federal Attorney for

Environmental Protection (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente

-Profepa) recommended that the Attorney General (Procuraduría General

de la República) initiate a prosecution against the owners and operators of

the company. According to the Submission, a federal judge issued arrest

warrants for José Kahn and other persons involved in the operations of

Metales y Derivados in August 1995, but those people fled to the United

States to evade prosecution. The Submission claims that Mexico has

been unable or unwilling to resume the prosecution of Mr. Kahn or

other parties responsible for the contamination caused by Metales y

Derivados, while New Frontier Corporation continues to operate as an

active company with its head office in San Diego, California, and with

annual business estimated at between US $700,000 and $1,000,000.2

The Submission cites Article 415 of the Federal Criminal Code which

establishes environmental crimes related to hazardous wastes and other

contaminants. The Submitters argue that Article 3 of the Law on International Extradition and Articles 1 and 2 of the Extradition Treaty between

the United States of America and the United Mexican States obligate

Mexico to request the extradition of the persons responsible for Metales

y Derivados. The Submitters assert that the failure to pursue the criminal

proceeding instituted against the owner of Metales y Derivados by

requesting his formal extradition from the United States is a failure to

effectively enforce environmental law on Mexico’s part.

In addition, the Submitters assert a failure by Mexico to effectively

enforce the LGEEPA. The Submission alleges a failure to effectively

enforce Article 170 of the LGEEPA by failing to order adequate measures

to properly confine or secure the hazardous materials and wastes from

Metales y Derivados to prevent an imminent risk to the ecological balance and dangerous repercussions to public health, and Article 134 of

the LGEEPA by failing to take the actions necessary to control or prevent

soil contamination at the site and its environs, or to restore the site. The

Submitters allege that the measures Mexico has taken (i.e. the shutdown

of the plant, the repair of a wall and the installation of a plastic cover over

198 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

2. P. 7 and Appendix 6-a of the Submission.
the slag) are not sufficient to protect the community and prevent ecological imbalance, and that this situation represents a failure to effectively

enforce the LGEEPA.

IV- SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSE

As mentioned above, Mexico designated its Response as confidential

and informed the Secretariat on 20 July 1999 that the designation of confidentiality encompassed the totality of the information contained in the

Response. Pending a decision by Council on this matter, the Secretariat

does not include in this Notification information from the Response,

because of the assertion of confidentiality and absent a summary by the

Party for the purposes of Section 17.3 of the Guidelines for Submissions

on Enforcement Matters.

V- ANALYSIS OF THE SUBMISSION IN ACCORDANCE

WITH ARTICLES 14(1) AND 14(2) OF THE NAAEC

On 5 March 1999 the Secretariat notified Mexico that it had reviewed the

Submission and determined that it met the criteria set forth in Article

14(1) of the NAAEC.

Article 14(1) of the Agreement states that:

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

to effectively enforce its environmental law, if the Secretariat finds

that the 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

SEM-98-007 199
(f) is filed by a person or organization residing or established in

the territory of a Party.

Article 14(1) is not intended to place a heavy burden on submitters,

although some initial screening is required at this stage.3 The Secretariat

reviewed this Submission with that perspective in mind.

The first issue is whether the Submission involves the required assertion

of a failure to effectively enforce environmental law. The Secretariat

determined that the Submission met these requirements for the following reasons.

The Submission “asserts” that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce

Article 3 of the Law on International Extradition, Articles 1 and 2 of the

Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and the United

Mexican States, Article 415 of the Federal Criminal Code, and Articles

170 and 134 of the LGEEPA. To meet the Article 14(1) threshold, the legal

provisions cited in a submission must satisfy the definition of “environmental law” contained in Article 45(2) of the NAAEC,4 which refers to

the principal purpose of such provisions.5

200 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

3. See SEM-97-005/ Animal Alliance of Canada, et al, Article 14(1) Determination; and

SEM-98-003/Department of the Planet Earth, et al, Article 14(1)&(2) Determination

concerning the revised submission.

4. Article 45(2) of the NAAEC states:

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 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.

5. Although the Secretariat is not governed by the principle of stare decisis, it has previously, in other determinations, noted that provisions cited in a submission must

meet the definition of environmental law. See the determinations of the Secretariat

pursuant to Article 14(1) of the NAAEC for the following submissions: SEM-98-

001/Instituto de Derecho Ambiental et al. (13 September 1999), SEM-98-002/Hector
The Secretariat found that it was appropriate to review these allegations

under Articles 14 and 15 of the NAAEC, with a focus on Articles 415 of

the Federal Criminal Code and 170 and 134 of LGEEPA. The Secretariat

considered that the allegation that Mexico is failing to enforce its environmental law effectively by the failure to extradite met this threshold.

The Submission argues that the failure to enforce these provisions is a

failure to enforce Article 415 of the Federal Criminal Code, which establishes criminal penalties for environmental offenses, directed to protecting human health and the environment.6 Although the provisions from

the extradition law and treaty cited in the Submission are not in and of

themselves “environmental law,” the Submission connects these to Article 415 of the Federal Criminal Code, which clearly meets the definition

of environmental law.

Articles 170 and 134 of the LGEEPA also clearly qualify as environmental law. These Articles set out criteria and measures for the protection of

the environment and the prevention of risks to human life or health associated with hazardous substances and with soil contamination, satisfying Article 14(1) of the NAAEC and the definition of environmental law

the effective enforcement of which is the subject of this process.

The Secretariat also determined in March 1999, that the Submission satisfied the six listed criteria in Article 14(1). The Submission was filed in

writing in English,7 and the Secretariat translated it to Spanish, because

this is the official language of the Party concerned.8 The Submitters identified themselves as the Comité Pro Restauración del Cañon del Padre y

Servicios Comunitarios, A.C., established in Tijuana, Baja California,

SEM-98-007 201

Gregorio Ortiz Martínez (18 March 1999) and SEM-97-005/Animal Alliance of

Canada, et al. (26 May 1998)].

6. Article 415 of the Federal Criminal code provides:

“There will be a penalty of between three months and six years in prison, as well as a

fine equivalent to between 1,000 and 20,000 days of minimum wage as established in

the Federal District at the moment the crime was committed, for those who:

I. Without authorization from the appropriate federal authority or in violation of the

terms in which it were granted, carry out any activity involving hazardous wastes or

materials that cause or can cause harm to public health, natural resources, fauna,

flora, or ecosystems;

II. In violation of established legal guidelines or relevant official Mexican standards,

emits, releases, or discharges into the atmosphere—or authorizes or orders such

activities—gases, smoke, or dust that cause harm to public health, natural resources,

flora, fauna, or ecosystems; or

III. In violation of established legal guidelines or relevant official Mexican standards,

generates noise, vibrations, or thermal or luminous energy that cause harm to public

health, natural resources, flora, fauna, or ecosystems.” (Free translation)

7. See Article 14(1)(a) of the NAAEC and section 3.2 of the Guidelines.

8. However, where the Submission is cited in this document, the reference is to the original version filed by the Submitters in English.
Mexico and the Environmental Health Coalition, established in San

Diego, California, United States. Both are non-governmental organizations, representing the community allegedly affected by the site.9 The

Submission contains sufficient information to allow the Secretariat to

review it. For example, it includes information about the American company New Frontier Trading Corporation and its subsidiary Metales y

Derivados, S.A. de C.V., it describes the activities carried out at the site

while it was in operation, and includes photographs of the site taken in

1998. The Submission contains information about the toxic characteristics of the wastes abandoned at the site, descriptions of the ailments

potentially caused by exposure to the toxic substances allegedly at the

site (from skin irritations to babies born with hydrocephaly), information about the human health risks associated with lead and technical

information about options for remediation of lead-contaminated sites.10

The Submission does not appear to be aimed at harassing industry, but

rather, at promoting enforcement for the protection of the health of the

community living near the site and of the environment.11 The Submission includes copies of various letters sent to the authorities before the

plant was closed down,12 as well as a letter of 13 February 1998 to

Profepa requesting information about the status of the criminal proceeding against the plant owners and other information about the conditions

at the site.13 No reference is made in the submission to any response from

the government to the letters sent prior to plant closure, but the Submitters refer to and attach a letter from Profepa, Baja California, dated 12

March 1998, by which the information requested on 13 February 1998

was denied.14

Having reviewed the Submission in accordance with Article 14(1) and

found that it meets the requirements established therein, the Secretariat

decided that the Submission merited a response from Mexico. The Secretariat’s decision was guided by Article 14(2) of the NAAEC, which provides that:

2. Where the Secretariat determines that a submission meets the criteria

set out in paragraph 1, the Secretariat shall determine whether the

submission merits requesting a response from the Party. In deciding

whether to request a response, the Secretariat shall be guided by

whether:

202 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

9. See Article (14)(1)(b) and (f) of the NAAEC.

10. See Article (14)(1)(c) of the NAAEC.

11. See Article 14(1)(d) of the NAAEC.

12. See Appendices 1-b through 1-e of the Submission.

13. See Appendix 1-a of the Submission.

14. See Article 14(1)(e) of the NAAEC and Appendix 2-a of the Submission.
(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.

The Secretariat reviewed the Submission with these factors in mind. The

Submitters claim that the community of Colonia Chilpancingo, which

the Submitters represent, is exposed to grave risks from the toxic substances at the abandoned and allegedly inadequately secured site.15 In

the opinion of the Secretariat, the types of grave risks to human health

and the environment allegedly ensuing from the Party’s asserted failure

to effectively enforce its environmental law are a matter whose further

study in this process will contribute to achieving the goals of the

NAAEC, especially Articles 1 and 5 thereof.16

The Secretariat also considered whether private remedies have been

pursued. The Submission states that members of the allegedly affected

communities appealed to the environmental authorities while the plant

was operating to demand control of the toxic emissions and the illegal

disposal of hazardous waste. It states that those communications

resulted in certain actions by Profepa regarding the plant, including filing a formal criminal complaint and ordering the shutdown of the

smelter. As mentioned above, on 13 February 1998, the Submitters

requested information about the status of the criminal proceeding initiated in 1993 against the owners of the plant, and on the conditions at the

site and the measures for its remediation. This information was denied

SEM-98-007 203

15. Pp. 3–7 and Appendices 1-b, 1-c, 1-d, 3 and 4-b of the Submission.

16. See Article 14(2)(a) and (b) of the NAAEC. The Submitters claim that between 1990

and 1994, when the plant was still operating, 35 children and at least 4 adults died

of illnesses allegedly caused by the exposure to the toxic releases of the Metales y

Derivados plant, and that the community has also suffered other allegedly related

illnesses (see Appendix 4-c to the Submission). The submission includes 4 letters

sent to the government between 1990 and 1992 concerning these health problems

and requesting that the situation be resolved. The Submitters also argue that the

risks to health in Colonia Chilpancingo and other nearby communities continue to

grow each year because the hazardous wastes at the site continue to be exposed to

the environment and the toxic substances in them do not break down. (See page 7 of

the Submission).
to them on the grounds that a judicial proceeding was in course. The

Submitters do not indicate whether they have pursued other remedies

contemplated in the law, for example, a citizen complaint. The Submitters made concerted efforts to obtain information on the situation at the

site and to have the government take action. The government refused to

provide this information on the basis that it was taking an enforcement

action, so it is not reasonable to expect the Submitters to have done much

more.17

Based on the 12 March 1998 response from Profepa to the Submitters

mentioning a prosecution concerning the site, the Secretariat took note

of the possibility that in its response to the Submission under Article

14(3), the Party might indicate that review of the allegations should not

proceed because of a pending judicial proceeding initiated by a Party.

However, the Party did not make that claim in its Response.18 As a final

matter in the Article 14(2) stage, the Secretariat was satisfied that the

Submission was not based exclusively on media reports, although copies of certain reports were appended to it.19 Considering all these factors,

the Secretariat determined that it was appropriate to request a response

from the Party to this Submission under Article 14(2) of the NAAEC, and

requested such a response on 5 March 1999. Mexico’s Response, which

the Party designated as confidential, was received on 1 June 1999.

204 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

17. See Article 14(2)(c) of the NAAEC. Section 7.5 of the Guidelines, adopted after the

Submission was made, provides that the Secretariat “[i]n considering whether private remedies available under the Party’s law have been pursued... will be guided

by whether . . . (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.” The Secretariat made the following considerations, based on this guiding factor of Article 14(2). In repeated occasions the Submitters communicated the matter to the government and requested that it take the

appropriate action. The Submission includes 4 letters sent to the government

between 1990 and 1992. In addition, prior to making its submission, the Submitters

requested information from Profepa on the criminal prosecution against the owners of the abandoned site, requesting also that any other responsible parties be

identified (See Appendix 1-a to the Submission). Given the terms of Profepa’s

response of 12 March 1998, it seems reasonable for the Submitters to assume that

there was no further remedy they could pursue (See Appendix 2-a to the Submission). Bearing in mind these circumstances, the Secretariat believed that it was

appropriate to request a response, considering this and the other Article 14(2)

factors.

18. Further explanation of this point may not be provided without disclosing the content of the Party’s Response. As noted before, because of the asserted confidentiality and absent a summary by the Party for the purposes of Section 17.3 of the

Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters, and pending a decision by

Council on that matter, this Notification does not provide information from the

Response.

19. See Article 14(2)(d) of the NAAEC and Appendix 4 of the Submission.
VI- ANALYSIS OF THE SUBMISSION IN LIGHT OF THE

RESPONSE FROM THE PARTY, IN ACCORDANCE

WITH ARTICLE 15(1) OF THE NAAEC

Article 15(1) of the NAAEC provides that:

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.

As explained in section V above, in its Determination dated 5 March

1999 the Secretariat determined that the Submission merited requesting

a response from Mexico and requested such response. The Secretariat

has received the Response of the Party and reviewed the Submission in

light of the Response. With respect to the allegations that Mexico has

failed to effectively enforce the Federal Criminal Code and the law and

treaty on extradition, the Secretariat has determined in light of the

Party’s Response, that those specific allegations do not warrant further

review under the Articles 14 and 15 process. On the allegations of a failure to effectively enforce Articles 170 and 134 of the LGEEPA, the Secretariat considers the development of a factual record to be warranted. The

Secretariat’s reasons for both determinations are set out below. Because

of the assertion of confidentiality on Mexico’s Response and absent a

summary by the Party for the purposes of Section 17.3 of the Guidelines

for Submissions on Enforcement Matters, the Secretariat’s reasons are

explained only to the extent that doing so is possible without disclosing

information from the Response.

1. Allegations of a failure to effectively enforce Article 415

of the Federal Criminal Code by failure to extradite

The Submission asserts that Mexico is failing to enforce Article 415 of the

Federal Criminal Code by failing to extradite the owners of Metales y

Derivados under Article 3 of the Law on International Extradition and

Articles 1 and 2 of the Extradition Treaty between the United States of

America and the United Mexican States. In March 1999, the Secretariat

determined that it was appropriate to review this allegation, among

other reasons, because Article 415 of the Criminal Code meets the definition of environmental law, although the other provisions involved in

this allegation do not in and of themselves meet that definition. However, in light of the Response provided by the Party, the Secretariat does

not consider further in this Notification the allegations that Mexico is

failing to effectively enforce its environmental law by failing to pursue

extradition. Because of the asserted confidentiality of the Response and

SEM-98-007 205
absent a summary by the Party for the purposes of Section 17.3 of the

Guidelines, the Secretariat does not explain its reasons for this determination, since it is unable to do so without providing information from

the Party’s Response.

2. Allegations of a failure to effectively enforce Articles 170

and 134 of the LGEEPA

The Submission also asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce

LGEEPA Articles 170 and 134. The Secretariat determined in March 1999

that it was appropriate to review these allegations and to request a

response from the Party, under Articles 14(1) and (2) of the NAAEC. In

light of the Party’s Response, the Secretariat reviewed whether Articles

170 and 134 are applicable to the matters raised in the Submission and

confirmed that these provisions are indeed applicable for the following

reasons.

The fact that Metales y Derivados operated until March 1994 and the

enforcement measures in regard to the site were taken mainly between

1993 and 1995 raises the question of whether the version of Articles 170

and 134 of the LGEEPA cited in the Submission is applicable to the facts

on which the Submitters base their assertions, because that version of

Articles 170 and 134 entered into force on 14 December 1996.

Article 170 of the LGEEPA, as cited in the Submission, states:

When an imminent risk to the ecological balance exists, or a harm or serious deterioration of natural resources, cases of contamination posing dangerous repercussions to the ecosystems, [their] components or to public

health, the Secretary, with probable cause, could order one or more of the

following safety measures:

I. The temporary, partial or total closure of the sources of contamination, as well as the facilities that handle or store wild flora or fauna species, forestry resources, or activities that create what is described in the

first paragraph of this Article,

II. The precautionary securement of hazardous materials and wastes,

as well as wild flora or fauna specimens, products or byproducts or

their genetic material, forestry resources, as well as the assets, vehicles,

equipment and instruments that are directly associated with the activity that gives rise to the imposition of the safety measure, or

206 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
III. The process of neutralizing or other analogous action that prevents the materials or hazardous wastes from creating the effects

named in the first paragraph of this Article.

Likewise, the Secretary may promote before the competent authority,

the implementation of one or some of the safety measures found in

other regulations.

From Article 134 of the LGEEPA, the Submission cites the following:

For the prevention and control of soil contamination, the following criteria

will be considered:

I. It is the responsibility of the State and society to prevent soil contamination;

II. Wastes must be controlled since they constitute the principal

source of soil pollution. . . .

V. Proper actions shall be taken to restore or reestablish the quality of

soil that is contaminated by the presence of hazardous materials or

waste, in such a manner that it can be used or restored in whatever

type of activity contemplated in the appropriate urban development

program or ecological regulation.

In terms of content, the current text increases and specifies the government’s authority to prevent and control soil contamination and an imminent risk to public health, although both this and the previous text

provide that authority.20 Both versions of Articles 170 and 134 empower

SEM-98-007 207

20. Articles 170 and 134 of the LGEEPA, prior to the amendment of 1996, stated (free

translation):

Article 170.— Where there exists an imminent risk of ecological imbalance or cases

of contamination with hazardous consequences for ecosystems, their components

or public health, the Ministry, as a safety measure, may order the seizure of contaminant materials or substances, the temporary, partial or total shutdown of the corresponding sources of contamination, and initiate, before the competent authority

under the terms of the relevant laws, any of the safety measures established by said

provisions.

Article 134.—For the prevention and control of soil contamination, the following

criteria shall be considered:

I. It is the responsibility of the state and society to prevent soil contamination;

II. Wastes must be controlled, as they constitute the principal source of soil contamination;

III. It is necessary to rationalize the generation of solid municipal and industrial

wastes and to incorporate techniques and procedures for their reuse and recycling,

and

IV. The use of pesticides, fertilizers and toxic substances must be compatible with

the stability of ecosystems.
environmental authorities to take safety measures to respond to cases of

imminent risk to the environment or contamination with dangerous

repercussions to the environment or public health, and provide that certain criteria must be considered for the prevention and control of soil

contamination. Articles 170 and 134 focus on the existence of risk and on

prevention and control of soil contamination, not on risky or contaminating activities or facility operations themselves.

The Submission asserts that wastes and soil contamination at the abandoned site continue to represent a public health risk, even though the

plant is no longer operating. The allegations in the Submission focus

on the contamination and risk allegedly caused by the operations at

Metales y Derivados, but that allegedly continued to exist at the time the

Submission was made in October 1998. The causes of this contamination

according to the Submitters, include the alleged inadequacy of the

enforcement measures taken in regard to the site until 1995, and the lack

of any further steps to remediate the site to the date of the Submission.21

The Submitters’ allegations focus on the second alleged cause. The provisions cited in the Submission are applicable because the assertions

concern allegedly existing soil contamination and risks to public health,

as do Articles 170 and 134, not the plant operations that allegedly caused

the soil contamination.

In this Notification, the Secretariat focuses mainly on the current text of

Articles 170 and 134, which governs the alleged failures by Mexico to

effectively enforce its environmental law that are the focus of this Submission. However, with respect to enforcement action taken before the

amendment of 1996, the applicable text is the text prior to the amendment. Finally, it should also be noted that the Secretariat focused mainly

on events that occurred after the entry into force of the NAAEC in January of 1994, although events that occurred before may potentially be relevant.22

208 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

21. Pp. 10 and 11 of the Submission.

22. On this subject, the Secretariat observed in regard to submission SEM-96-001:

“Article 47 of the NAAEC indicates the Parties intended the agreement to take

effect on January 1, 1994. The Secretariat is unable to discern any intentions,

express or implied, conferring retroactive effect on the operation of Article 14 of the

NAAEC. Notwithstanding the above, events or acts concluded prior to January 1,

1994, may create conditions or situations which give rise to current enforcement

obligations. It follows that certain aspects of these conditions or situations may be

relevant when considering an allegation of a present, continuing failure to enforce

environmental law. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides in

Article 28 that unless a different intention appears from the Treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind the party in relation to any act or fact which took place or

any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the Treaty with

respect to that party.” (cited in SEM-96-001, Recommendation of the Secretariat to
The Secretariat now explains its reasons for considering that a factual

record is warranted with respect to the assertions that Articles 170 and

134 of LGGEPA have not been effectively enforced.

The Submission asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce Article 170 of the LGEEPA, which empowers the Mexican environmental

authorities to order safety measures where there exists an imminent risk

to the ecological balance, or cases of contamination posing dangerous

repercussions to the ecosystems, their components or to public health.

As mentioned before, the focus of the allegations is on the current version of Article 170, which provides in paragraphs II and III that Profepa

has the ability to order the precautionary securement of hazardous

materials and wastes, and “the neutralization or other analogous action

that prevents the materials or hazardous wastes from creating the effects

named in the first paragraph of this Article,” that is, that prevents an

imminent risk to the environment or dangerous repercussions to the

ecosystems, their components or to public health.

The Submission argues that the site is a case of contamination by hazardous materials and wastes that poses a risk to the environment and dangerous consequences for public health, and that Mexico has not taken

measures to prevent the hazardous materials and wastes from creating

those effects. The Submission describes the types of hazardous materials

and wastes allegedly found at the site, including lead, sulfuric acid, cadmium and arsenic, and the potentially hazardous consequences for public health from the exposure to those substances.23 The Submission

asserts that the inhabitants of Colonia Chilpancingo, located approximately 150 yards downhill from the Metales y Derivados site, have suffered health problems which may have been caused and/or exacerbated

by the exposure to the toxic site. The health problems described range

from nausea to infants affected with asthma, chronic skin irritations and

fatal birth defects such as hydrocephaly.24 The Submitters also argue

that the risks to health in Colonia Chilpancingo and other nearby communities continue to grow each year because the hazardous wastes at

the site continue to be exposed to the environment and the toxic substances in them do not break down.25The Submitters indicate that part of

the wall that was repaired in 1995 by Profepa has corroded or is cracked,

SEM-98-007 209

Council for the development of a Factual Record in accordance with Articles 14 and

15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, 7 June 1997.

See also SEM-97-001, Notification 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).

23. Pp. 4-6 of the Submission.

24. P. 4 and Appendix 4-d of the Submission.

25. P. 7 of the Submission.
and that the plastic cover Profepa installed over the piles of lead slag has

deteriorated and the lead slag is again exposed. The Submission also

claims that the authorities have failed to post warnings about the potential risks to human health represented by the waste site, and that people

have made openings in the wall to enter the premises and remove debris,

and others regularly take a path adjacent to the site to get to and from

work, potentially exposing themselves to particles and runoff from the

Metales y Derivados site.26 According to the Submitters, Mexico has

failed to effectively enforce Article 170 of the LGEEPA in that, although

the facility was shut down in 1995, Mexico has not taken the appropriate

actions to contain and secure the hazardous wastes at the site, nor to neutralize them and prevent them from causing contamination with hazardous consequences for public health, despite numerous requests from

the Submitters.27

The Secretariat has reviewed these allegations in light of the Party’s

Response. Because of the Party’s assertion of confidentiality and absent a

summary by the Party for the purposes of Section 17.3 of the Guidelines

for Submissions on Enforcement Matters, the Secretariat’s discussion of

Mexico’s Response in this Notification is limited to the following. The

Response does not contest the Submitters’ assertion that the site is “an

imminent risk to the ecological balance or a case of contamination posing

dangerous repercussions to the ecosystems, their components or to public health,” as contemplated by Article 170 of the LGEEPA. The Party’s

Response is also consistent with the Submitters’ allegations that measures were taken with regard to the Metales y Derivados site up to 1995,

and that no other measures have been taken under the current text of

Article 170, which entered into force in December of 1996. From both the

Submission and the Response it is evident that despite the actions taken

by Profepa, the site remains in a state of contamination posing dangerous repercussions to public health. It is clear that Mexico took some

actions that are contemplated in the version of Article 170 in force until

December 1996, mainly the temporary closure of the plant before 1995

and the repair of the wall and covering of the lead slag in 1995. However,

as it reads since the 1996 reform, Article 170 provides for neutralization

or other analogous action that prevents risk or dangerous consequences

to public health from hazardous contamination. The Response does not

claim that the government is not obligated under paragraphs II and III of

Article 170 to take action where there is an imminent risk to the environment or dangerous repercussions to public health created by hazardous

materials or wastes. Although Mexico’s Response does not concede that

210 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

26. P. 6 and 10 of the Submission and Appendix 3.

27. P. 10 of the Submission.
the Party is failing to effectively enforce Article 170, the information in

the Response does not support a claim that the Party has effectively

enforced paragraphs II and III of Article 170, or that safety measures

have been taken to effectively prevent “an imminent risk to the environment or dangerous repercussions to the ecosystems, their components

or to public health” from the allegedly toxic contamination at the site.

For these reasons, the Secretariat considers that the development of a

factual record is warranted in order to better understand Mexico’s

enforcement of Article 170 of the LGEEPA and the effectiveness of such

enforcement in preventing risks to the environment and public health

from the Metales y Derivados site, pursuant to that provision.

As part of the above, the information collected in a factual record about

Mexico’s efforts to enforce Article 170 effectively, should include more

information about the contamination at the site and the health problems

allegedly connected with it. As mentioned above, the Party’s Response

does not contest that the site is contaminated and that it poses a risk to

the environment and to public health. However, there is little information from both the Submission and the Response on the specific conditions at the site. The Response does not indicate whether the government

has specific data on the degree of contamination and the level of risk. For

example, it does not indicate whether a characterization of the wastes

now present at the site exists, or that there is any specific assessment of

the current concentration of the contaminants in the soil within and outside the site, and on the exposure levels, etc. This information is relevant

to the effective enforcement of Article 170 because it is essential to an

understanding of the specific contamination problem, that could be

addressed with the authority provided under Paragraph III of Article

170, to prevent such contamination from causing dangerous repercussions to public health and the environment.

Information is also lacking with regard to the reported health problems

in the Colonia Chilpancingo, allegedly caused by the hazardous contamination at the Metales y Derivados site. For example, there is no mention in the Response of whether the risks of exposure have been assessed

and whether the alleged dangerous repercussions to public health

have been investigated. Also lacking is information on whether specific

measures necessary to protect the health of the allegedly exposed community from any dangerous repercussions have been considered or

identified. This kind of factual information is relevant to the effective

enforcement of Article 170 because it provides a basis to identify specific

measures that allegedly could be taken under the authority provided by

Paragraph III of Article 170, to prevent hazardous contamination or

wastes from causing dangerous repercussions to public health.

SEM-98-007 211
The Secretariat believes that, in light of the degree of the potential harm

in question, a factual record on the effective enforcement of LGEEPA

Article 170 with respect to the Metales y Derivados site, would advance

the goals of the Agreement28 by shedding light on the effective enforcement of measures for the prevention of risk to public health and the environment in connection with hazardous waste. A factual record prepared

in regard to this Submission should obtain the information described in

the two preceding paragraphs and other factual information that is relevant to the effective enforcement of Article 170 of LGEEPA, to better

understand Mexico’s enforcement efforts under that provision. Such

information would also be relevant in connection with resource constraints or other obstacles that the Party may have been facing for the

effective enforcement of its environmental law with respect to the

Metales y Derivados site.

The Submission also asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce

Article 134 of LGEEPA, which enumerates the criteria that must be taken

into account in the prevention and control of soil contamination, including restoration. In its opening sentence, LGEEPA Article 134 provides

that the criteria it enumerates shall be taken into consideration in achieving prevention and control of soil contamination. Preventing soil contamination is an obligation imposed on both the state and society under

Paragraph I; controlling wastes because they are the principal source of

soil contamination is prescribed by Paragraph II; and Paragraph V provides that where soil contamination from hazardous substances or

wastes exists, actions should be taken to restore contaminated soil, based

on land use plans or ecological zoning programs. In light of the Party’s

Response, the Secretariat considered the definitions of “control” and

“prevention” in Article 3 of the LGEEPA for a better understanding of

the scope of Article 134. “Control” is defined as “inspection, monitoring

and enforcement of the measures necessary for compliance with the provisions hereof” and “prevention” is defined as “the set of provisions and

measures taken with foresight to prevent the deterioration of the environment.” It is clear in light of these definitions that enforcement of Article 134 where toxic wastes and substances are concerned, should be

aimed at preventing soil contamination from occurring by securing

compliance, as well as at the remediation of contaminated soil.

The Submitters argue that Mexico has not taken adequate actions to control the hazardous materials found at and near the site of Metales y

Derivados nor to prevent soil contamination or have the site restored,

as provided by Article 134. They assert that the measures taken do not

212 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

28. Articles 1 and 5 of the NAAEC.
constitute effective enforcement of Article 134 of the LGEEPA since soil

contamination was not in fact prevented and the site has not been

restored. As mentioned above, the Submission contains information to

support the assertion that the site is contaminated,29 and the Party’s

Response does not contest that a grave situation of contamination exists

at the Metales y Derivados site. The Submission mentions a number of

measures, including inspections and the final shutdown of the plant,

that were taken by the government of Mexico. Arguably, Article 134 contemplates these measures because Article 134 provides for “prevention

and control” of soil contamination and those measures fall within the

definition of “control” established in the LGEEPA. However, especially

in light of the definitions of “control” and “prevention,” it is evident that

inspections and shutdowns are measures available to the environmental

authority (the means) in order to prevent and control soil contamination

(the end). It is also clear under that definition of control, that Paragraph

II of Article 134 requires that any measures necessary to achieve compliance with other requirements (i.e. hazardous waste management

requirements) be taken to prevent soil contamination.

Again, because of the Party’s assertion of confidentiality and absent a

summary by the Party for the purposes of Section 17.3 of the Guidelines

for Submissions on Enforcement Matters, the Secretariat’s discussion of

Mexico’s Response to these allegations is limited to the following. The

Party does not concede that it is failing to effectively enforce Article 134.

As regards the actions taken by Profepa with respect to the site, the

Party’s Response is basically consistent with the information provided

in the Submission. The Party’s Response does not claim or show that the

actions taken by Profepa brought the Metales y Derivados plant into

compliance regarding hazardous wastes and the prevention of soil contamination, nor that those actions otherwise prevented soil contamination at the site or produced its remediation, in accordance with Article

134. The Response does not provide information on the way in which the

actions taken by Profepa applied Article 134, or whether Profepa monitored the effectiveness of its actions in preventing soil contamination.

This kind of information would provide a better understanding of Mexico’s enforcement efforts to prevent or control contamination at the

Metales y Derivados site and to have the site restored, and of the effectiveness of those efforts. The Secretariat’s understanding, in light of both

the Submission and the Party’s Response, is that Mexican environmental authorities have been aware of the contamination at the Metales y

Derivados site and have recorded violations that were serious enough

to shut down the plant. The fact that measures were taken at the site is

SEM-98-007 213

29. Pp. 3, 6, 7, 10 and 11, and Appendices 3 and 4-b of the Submission.
supported by the Response, but no basis was provided therein to understand how those measures amount to the effective enforcement of

LGEEPA Article 134, by preventing and controlling soil contamination.

Obstacles that the Party may have been facing in its enforcement efforts

related to the site are not specified in the Response either. Given the current situation of soil contamination at the Metales y Derivados site, that

allegedly could have been prevented or could be remediated under the

authority provided by Article 134, and in light of the limited information

on the Party’s enforcement efforts, the Secretariat considers that development of a factual record is warranted in regard to the Submitter’s

assertions of a failure to effectively enforce Article 134 of the LGEEPA.

Here again, the Secretariat believes that in light of the degree of the

potential soil contamination in question, a factual record on the effective

enforcement of LGEEPA Article 134 with respect to the Metales y

Derivados site would advance the goals of the Agreement,30 by shedding light on the effective enforcement of provisions for the prevention

and control of soil contamination from hazardous waste.

In summary, the Secretariat considers that, in light of the Response from

the Party, development of a factual record is warranted concerning the

alleged failure to effectively enforce LGEEPA Articles 170 and 134 in this

Submission. The factual record should provide information on the contamination at the Metales y Derivados site, on the alleged dangerous

repercussions to public health and the environment from such contamination, and on the Party’s enforcement efforts to prevent an imminent

risk to the environment and dangerous repercussions to public health,

and to prevent and control soil contamination, including by restoration,

with respect to that site, in effective enforcement of LGEEPA Articles 170

and 134.

VII- NOTIFICATION TO COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE

WITH ARTICLE 15(1) OF THE NAAEC

This Notification concerns the Submission by Environmental Health

Coalition and Comité Ciudadano Pro Restauración del Cañon del Padre

y Servicios Comunitarios, A.C. As noted in this document, the Secretariat has determined in light of the Party’s Response that the assertions

concerning the alleged failure to extradite the owners of Metales y

Derivados, under Article 415 of the Federal Criminal Code and provisions of the Law on International Extradition and the Extradition Treaty

between the United Mexican States and the United States of America, do

not warrant further review under this process. Because of the asserted

214 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

30. Articles 1 and 5 of the NAAEC.
confidentiality of the Response and absent a summary by the Party for

the purposes of Section 17.3 of the Guidelines, this notification does

not explain the reasons for such determination, since the Secretariat

was unable to do so without providing information from the Party’s

Response.

Also in light of the Party’s Response, the Secretariat considers that the

development of a factual record is warranted on the Submitters’ assertions that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce LGEEPA Articles 170

and 134, by failing to protect public health and the environment from the

risks posed by the allegedly contaminated site in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, abandoned by Metales y Derivados, S.A. de C.V., and by

failing to prevent and control soil contamination at the site or restore the

site. In accordance with Article 15(1) of the NAAEC, the Secretariat so

informs the Council and in this document provides its reasons, within

the limitations arising from the asserted confidentiality of the Response

and absent a summary by the Party for the purposes of Section 17.3 of

the Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters.

Respectfully submitted on this 6th day of March 2000.

Janine Ferretti

Executive Director

SEM-98-007 215

SEM-99-001

(METHANEX)

SUBMITTER: METHANEX CORPORATION

PARTY: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DATE: 18 OCTOBER 1999

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege that the United States of

America has failed to enforce California’s environmental laws and regulations related to water

resource protection and to the regulation of underground storage tanks (USTs).

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)(2)

(30 MARCH 2000)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1) have

been met and that the submission merits requesting a response from the Party in accordance with

Article 14(2).

ART. 14(3)

(30 JUNE 2000)

Dismissal in conjunction with submission

SEM-00-002 following Party’s response.

217

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) and (2) of the North

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

Submitter(s): Methanex Corporation

Concerned Party: United States

Date Received: 18 October 1999

Date of this

Determination: 30 March 2000

Submission I.D.: SEM-99-001

I- INTRODUCTION

Article 14 of the North American Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation (“NAAEC” or “Agreement”) provides that the Secretariat

of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”)

may consider a submission from any non-governmental 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 in Article 14(1). On 18 October 1999 the Submitters filed a submission with the Secretariat pursuant to Article 14 of

the NAAEC. The Secretariat has determined that one of the assertions in

this submission meets the criteria in Article 14(1) and that this assertion

merits a response from the Party in light of the factors listed in Article

14(2). The Secretariat is dismissing a second assertion contained in the

submission on the ground that it raises issues that are beyond the scope

of the Article 14 process. The Secretariat sets forth its reasons in Section

III below.

219
II- SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The submission contains two basic assertions. The first is that the

government is failing to effectively enforce various environmental laws

relating to water resource protection and concerning underground storage tanks (USTs).1 This assertion rests on a three-step analysis. The submission asserts that there is a regulatory scheme in place in California

relating to releases of hazardous materials, such as gasoline, from USTs.2

Next, it asserts that there are substantial numbers of violations of this

regulatory scheme.3 Finally, the submission claims that the government

has failed to effectively enforce the regulatory scheme, and that this failure to enforce has “allow[ed] gasoline to be released into the environment from leaking USTs.”4 In the words of the Submitter, “[t]he harm

caused by this lack of enforcement is . . . clear.”5

The submission’s second assertion is that existing laws are insufficiently protective of human health and the environment because they do

not regulate certain categories of USTs. The submission states that “as

only a portion of USTs are regulated, California has also failed to enforce

its environmental laws . . . by notregulating all sources of environmental

contamination.”6

III- ANALYSIS

A. Article 14(1)

The assertion that California and/or the United States is failing to

effectively enforce various environmental laws satisfies the criteria for

further consideration contained in Article 14(1), with the qualifications

discussed below.7 First, the submission meets the requirements contained in the opening sentence of Article 14(1). This sentence authorizes

the Secretariat to consider a submission “from any non-governmental

organization or person asserting that a Party is failing to effectively

enforce its environmental law. . . .” Article 45(1) of the NAAEC defines

“non-governmental organization” to include, inter alia, “any . . . business

220 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. See e.g., Submission at 3.

2. See e.g., Submission at 1.

3. See e.g., Submission at 1, 2, 7-9.

4. See e.g., Submission at 1, 3, 4, 8, 11.

5. Submission at 2.

6. Submission at 1.

7. The Secretariat has noted in previous Article 14(1) determinations that the requirements contained in Article 14 are not intended to place an undue burden on submitters. We review the submission with this perspective in mind. See e.g., Submission

No. SEM-97-005 (26 May 1998); Submission No. SEM-98-003 (8 September 1999).
. . . which is neither affiliated with, nor under the direction of, a government. . . .” Based on the information provided in the submission, the

submitter qualifies as a “non-governmental organization.”8 It is a business and there is no indication that it is affiliated with, or under the direction of, a government.

Further, the assertion in the submission that the Party has failed to

effectively enforce UST-related requirements9 focuses, as required, on a

Party’s asserted failure to effectively enforce the law, not on the effectiveness of the law itself.10

Third, the submission’s focus is on the asserted failure to effectively enforce “environmental laws.” The submission challenges the

enforcement of numerous laws, including the United States Clean Water

Act, the United States Safe Drinking Water Act, the California Water

Code, and the California Code of Regulations.11 These laws qualify as

“environmental law” for purposes of the NAAEC in that their primary

purpose is “protection of the environment, or the prevention of a danger

to human life or health. . . “12

Finally, the submission focuses on asserted failures to enforce that

are ongoing, thereby meeting the requirement in Article 14(1) that a submission assert that a Party “is failing” to effectively enforce its environmental law.

Article 14(1) 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;

SEM-99-001 221

8. See NAAEC Article 45(1), Guideline 2.1, Submission at 13.

9. See e.g., Submission at 1.

10. See SEM-98-003, Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) of the North American

Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (14 December 1998).

11. Submission at 3-6.

12. Article 45(2)(a). The relevant provisions of the California Code have this purpose.
(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 first two criteria are straightforward and may be addressed

quickly. The submission is in English, a language designated by the

Parties.14 The submission also clearly identifies the organization making the submission.15

Concerning the third criterion in Article 14(1), the submission provides sufficient information to allow the Secretariat to review the submission with respect to the assertions of a failure to effectively enforce

the California laws cited.16 Among other things, the submission contains a fairly extensive discussion of asserted failures to effectively

enforce the State’s UST requirements.17 It also provides as Appendices

various government documents relating to the subject matter at issue,

including reports issued by the California State Auditor concerning the

regulation of USTs and enforcement of regulatory requirements pertaining to USTs.18

The submission, however, does not provide sufficient information

concerning the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and federal Clean Water

Act. As has been noted in other Determinations, while the requirements

of Article 14(1) are not intended to place an undue burden on submitters,

a certain amount of support is required for assertions at this initial

stage.19 The vast majority of this submission focuses on asserted failures

to effectively enforce various California environmental laws. Indeed,

the “Summary” portion of the submission refers exclusively to California and California laws. While the submission makes brief references to

the referenced federal laws, it does not provide the Secretariat with the

222 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

13. Article 14(1)(a)-(f).

14. Article 14(1)(a), Guideline 3.2.

15. Article 14(1)(b), Submission, cover page and inside cover page, and page 2.

16. Article 14(1)(c), Guideline 5.2, 5.3.

17. See e.g., Submission at 6-11.

18. Annexes G and H.

19. See e.g., Submission No. SEM-97-005 (26 May 1998); Submission No. SEM-98-003

(8 September 1999).
information necessary to review the submission adequately with respect

to these laws.20

The fourth criterion in Article 14(1), relating to whether a submission is “aimed at promoting enforcement,” also warrants elaboration.

Guideline 5.4 indicates that in determining whether a submission

appears to be aimed at promoting enforcement rather than at harassing

industry, the Secretariat is to consider factors such as whether or not:

(a) the submission is focused on the acts or omissions of a Party rather

than on compliance by a particular company or business; especially if

the Submitter is a competitor that may stand to benefit economically

from the submission;

(b) the submission appears frivolous.

An unusual feature of this submission is that the Submitter is a

producer of methanol, which is used in the production of Methyl

Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE).21 MTBE, in turn, is a constituent of gasoline that is stored in, and sometimes leaks from, USTs. The Submitter’s

status may raise a question for some concerning its motivation in filing

the submission. The Submitter expresses the hope that more stringent

enforcement of UST requirements will reduce leakage from such tanks

and thereby enhance environmental protection and promote protection

of public health.22 In addition to its expressed concerns relating to the

harm that such leaks cause to the environment and public health, the

Submitter has an economic interest. In March 1999, California’s Governor issued an Executive Order in which he announced a phase-out of the

use of MTBE in gasoline.23 The submission notes that the Executive

Order cites the environmental threat that MTBE poses to groundwater

and drinking water because of leaking underground fuel storage

tanks.24 The submission suggests that the approach of phasing out

MTBE is a flawed strategy for addressing this environmental problem,

and that heightened enforcement of UST requirements to prevent leakage would be a better approach, stating as follows:

SEM-99-001 223

20. See e.g., Guideline 5.2 and 5.3.

21. Annex K, March 9, 1999 letter from Fred T. Williams, Vice President Marketing,

Methanex Corporation to Governor Gray Davis, stating that “Methanex is the

world’s largest producer and marketer of natural gas derived methanol, one of the

two components used to produce MTBE.”

22. Submission at 1-2, 13.

23. Submission at 2.

24. Submission at 2.
This [the Governor’s] Order acknowledges the UST issue, but focuses

attention on one gasoline component, namely MTBE. It thus treats a

symptom (MTBE) of gasoline leakage, rather than the leakage itself,

deflecting attention from the State’s failure to enforce its environmental

laws.25

The Submitter expresses the view that, in short, the government’s

responsibility is to improve enforcement of existing regulations in order

to prevent leakage and promote clean-up.26 The submission states that

the risk to the environment is not from MTBE, but from leaking USTs.27

The Submitter’s status as a producer of methanol does not take

away from the focus of the submission, which is on the asserted need for

tighter enforcement. It also, importantly, does not suggest that the purpose of the submission is to challenge a particular company or business’s

compliance with UST requirements. The submission states on its face

that it is focused on the acts or omissions of the government in enforcing

the law and for purposes of Article 14(1)(d) this appears to be the case.28

The submission summarizes its position on this issue as follows:

[T]he submission is aimed at enforcement, and not at harassing any particular company or industry in the United States. Methanex notes that California authorities have failed to enforce their environmental laws with the

result that gasoline released from USTs has and continues to contaminate

the environment, including soil, air and water.... Methanex submits

that active enforcement of California’s existing environmental laws will

ensure that gasoline is not unnecessarily released into the environment

from USTs and that such diligent enforcement of environmental laws will

result in increased protection for the environment.29

In sum, the submission’s assertion satisfies the criterion in Article

14(1)(d).

With respect to the fifth criterion in Article 14(1), the submission

indicates that the Submitter has communicated its concerns to govern224 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

25. Submission at 2. The Secretariat’s Determination is not intended to address this

assertion of the Submitter and should not be viewed as doing so. As noted above,

the Secretariat’s focus is on the assertions that various environmental laws relating

to releases of hazardous materials from USTs are being violated and that the government is failing to effectively enforce these laws.

26. Submission at 11.

27. Submission at 12.

28. Article 14(1)(d), Submission at 13.

29. Submission at 13.
ment officials, and it indicates that to date it has not received a

response.30 The submission also includes copies of relevant correspondence.31

Concerning the sixth criterion, contained in Article 14(1)(f), the

submission is filed by an organization residing or established in the territory of a Party, notably Canada.32 The Submitter’s status as a for-profit

entity raises the issue of whether Article 14/15 is reserved for environmental NGOs/individuals. There is nothing in the Agreement itself that

limits the pool of submitters in this way. Article 14(1)(f) simply requires

that the submission be filed by an organization residing or established in

the territory of a Party. As noted above, Article 45(1) of the NAAEC supports allowing businesses to file submissions through its definition of an

NGO to include any business organization that is neither affiliated with,

nor under the direction of, a government. As a result, a business may be

a submitter so long as it is not affiliated with, nor under the direction of, a

government, and so long as it resides or is established in the territory of a

Party. Methanex does not seem to be disqualified under any of these

exclusions and therefore it qualifies under Article 14(1)(f) as a potential

submitter.

For the foregoing reasons, the submission’s assertion of a failure to

effectively enforce the above-referenced California environmental laws

satisfies the criteria in Article 14(1).

We now turn to the submission’s second assertion—that existing

laws are insufficiently protective of human health and the environment

because they do not regulate certain categories of USTs. Article 14

focuses on asserted failures to effectively enforce. It does not provide

jurisdiction to consider assertions that a Party’s environmental laws

are ineffective.33 The Secretariat’s understanding is that this assertion

involves a challenge to the effectiveness or adequacy of the regulatory

scheme itself.34 Because this claim is beyond the scope of the Article 14

process, we do not consider it further.

SEM-99-001 225

30. Article 14(1)(e), Guideline 5.5, Submission at 13, 14, Annex K.

31. Guideline 5.5., Submission at 13, 14, Annex K.

32. Article 14(1)(f), Submission at 3, 13.

33. The Secretariat discussed the distinction between challenges to the effectiveness of

a Party’s enforcement practices (within the scope of Article 14) and challenges to

the adequacy of environmental laws themselves (beyond the scope of Article 14) in

the Great Lakes determination. SEM-98-003 (14 December 1998).

34. The Secretariat found the submission somewhat unclear concerning this assertion.

Methanex alleges that “many of the State’s USTs are unregulated, and thus they are

not subject to any controls.” (Submission at 4). The asserted failure targeted by this

aspect of Methanex’s submission appears to relate to the scope of California’s UST
B. Article 14(2)

The Secretariat reviews a submission under Article 14(2) if the Secretariat 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 relevant Party 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.35

The Secretariat, guided by the factors listed in Article 14(2), has

determined that the submission merits a response from the Party. The

submission asserts that the Submitter “is concerned with the harm

which has been, and continues to be, caused to the environment by California’s failure to enforce its environmental laws.”36 It alleges that

“[g]asoline, which is a hazardous substance, continues to be released to

226 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

and other water quality protection regulatory programs rather than to inadequate

enforcement of such programs. As the Secretariat has noted in other proceedings

initiated under Article 14, the purpose of the NAAEC is not to set environmental

standards for the Parties, a right they have reserved to themselves. Government

standard-setting is therefore outside the purview of Article 14 and the Article 14

citizen submission process is not available for challenges to a Party’s exercise of its

standard-setting authority. See, e.g., SEM-98-003 (14 December 1998). The submission also asserts that California’s failure to regulate all USTs contravenes California and federal environmental law. If such a failure exists, and if it contravenes one

or more environmental laws, the submission conceivably could constitute an assertion of a failure to enforce, rather than a challenge to the scope of the law itself. If

this is the assertion of the Submitter, it has not developed the assertion sufficiently

to make Secretariat review appropriate.

35. Article 14(2).

36. Submission at 2. See also Submission at 14 (asserting that “harm has resulted, and

continues to result, from California’s lack of enforcement. . .”).
the environment and continues to contaminate the environment; soil,

air and water.”37 The submission cites an excerpt from a report of the

California State Auditor that indicates that leaking tanks “pose a major

threat to California’s groundwater. . . .”38 The Summary of the State

Auditor’s report states that leaking tanks are a threat to the State’s drinking-water supplies: “the State of California has ample evidence that gasoline leaking from underground storage tanks is jeopardizing the safety

of our drinking-water supplies. . . .”39 Assertions of substantial harm to

the environment (here groundwater and drinking-water supplies) have

been considered under Article 14(2)(a) for other submissions and they

are relevant here as well.40 We note that the Submitter claims that the

harm allegedly sustained is due to the asserted failure to effectively

enforce the environmental law involved and that the alleged harm

relates to protection of the environment.41

The submission also raises matters whose further study in the Article 14 process would advance the goals of the Agreement.42 The submission asserts that the failure to enforce is widespread. Assertions of this

sort—that there is a pattern of ineffectual enforcement—are strong candidates for Article 14 consideration.43 This is particularly the case when,

as here, it is also asserted that the failure to effectively enforce threatens

substantial environmental harm.

Third, the submission indicates that private remedies to require

the Party to enforce its law are not available.44 The submitter states that

it has communicated its concerns to California officials but has not

SEM-99-001 227

37. Submission at 14.

38. Submission at 7 (the excerpt is from page 15 of the California State Auditor’s

report).

39. Annex G, at 1.

40. In its Recommendation to the Council for the development of a factual record with

respect to SEM-96-001 (Comité para la Protección de los Recursos Naturales, A.C., et al.),

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.” The same is

true here. It appears that Methanex also claims at least indirect personal harm from

the asserted failure to effectively enforce.

41. Guideline 7.4.

42. Article 14(2)(b).

43. Submissions that focus on asserted failures to enforce concerning individual facilities also warrant consideration under Article 14 under some circumstances, as previous Secretariat Determinations and the Council’s Resolution for SEM-96-001

reflect.

44. Article 14(2)(c), Guideline 7.5, Submission at 13-15.
received a response to its letters or to a “Five Point Plan” it provided to

Governor Davis of California.45 The Submitter advises in its submission

that it has also filed a Notice of Intention to bring an investor-state dispute against the United States pursuant to Chapter 11 of NAFTA.46 The

Secretariat notes that the Agreement expressly provides that the Party

may raise the availability of private remedies in its response.

Finally, the submission is not based exclusively on mass media

reports. Instead, as noted above, the submission includes several government documents, among other materials, that relate to the assertion

that there is a failure to effectively enforce that creates a substantial risk

to public health and the environment.

In sum, having reviewed the submission in light of the factors contained in Article 14(2), the Secretariat has determined that the assertion

that there is a failure to effectively enforce the California environmental

laws referenced above merits requesting a response from the Party.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and to the extent outlined above, the Secretariat has determined that the assertion that the Party is failing to effectively enforce its environmental laws meets the requirements of Article

14(1) of the Agreement. The Secretariat has determined under Article

14(2) that this assertion in the submission merits requesting a response

from the Government of the United States. Accordingly, the Secretariat

requests a response from the Government of the United States to the

above-mentioned submission within the time frame provided in Article

14(3) of the Agreement. A copy of the submission and of the supporting

information is annexed to this letter.

David L. Markell

Director, Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit

c.o. Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA (with annexes)

c.c. Ms. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Mr. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

Mr. Michael Mcdonald, Methanex Corporation

Ms. Janine Ferretti, CEC Executive Director

228 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

45. Submission at 13 -15.

46. Submission at 13.
Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination pursuant to Article 14(3) of the

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

Submitter(s): Methanex Corporation

Neste Canada Inc.

Concerned Party: United States

Date Received: 18 October 1999

Date of this

Determination: 30 June 2000

Submission I.D.: SEM-99-001 and SEM-00-002

I- INTRODUCTION

This determination addresses two submissions, SEM-99-001 (Methanex)

and SEM-00-002 (Neste). Methanex filed its submission on 14 October

1999. On 30 March 2000 the Secretariat determined that the submission

met the criteria in Article 14(1) for further consideration and that the submission merited a response from the Party based on the factors contained in Article 14(2). Neste filed its submission on 21 January 2000. On

17 April 2000 the Secretariat determined that it was appropriate to consolidate this submission with the submission filed by Methanex pursuant to Guideline 10.3. That guideline authorizes the Secretariat to

“consolidate two or more submissions that relate to the same facts and

the same asserted failure to effectively enforce an environmental law.”

The Secretariat determined that the Neste submission met the criteria in

Article 14(1) for further consideration and that the submission merited a

response from the Party based on the factors contained in Article 14(2).

On 30 May 2000 the Secretariat received a response from the Party to the

consolidated submissions.

SEM-99-001 229
II- SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSIONS

The Methanex submission contains two basic assertions. First,

Methanex asserts that the Party is failing to effectively enforce various

environmental laws relating to water resource protection and concerning underground storage tanks (USTs). According to the submission,

there is a regulatory scheme in place in California relating to releases of

hazardous materials, including gasoline, from USTs. Methanex claims

that there is a substantial number of violations of this regulatory scheme.

Finally, the submission argues that the Party has failed to effectively

enforce the regulatory scheme, and that this failure to enforce has

allowed gasoline from USTs to be released into the environment from

leaking USTs, causing harm. The submission asserts that the California

Governor’s issuance of an Executive Order that phases out the use of

MTBE is “wrong-headed” because it “focuses attention away from the

UST issue by phasing-out the use of MTBE.”1

Second, the Methanex submission asserts that existing laws are insufficiently protective of health and the environment because they do not

regulate certain categories of USTs. According to Methanex, the failure

to regulate certain categories of USTs amounts to a failure to effectively

enforce the Party’s environmental laws. In its 30 March 2000 determination, the Secretariat declined to consider this second assertion further on

the ground that Article 14 does not provide jurisdiction for the Secretariat to consider assertions that a Party’s environmental laws are ineffective. Because the second assertion in the Methanex submission involved

a challenge to the adequacy or effectiveness of the regulatory scheme

itself, rather than to the Party’s alleged failure to effectively enforce it,

the Secretariat dismissed this portion of the Methanex submission.

As the Secretariat noted in its 17 April 2000 determination in SEM00-002, the Neste submission largely tracks Methanex’s submission.

Neste’s main assertion is that the Party is failing to effectively enforce

various environmental laws relating to water resource protection

and concerning USTs. Neste explicitly refers to the close link with

Methanex’s submission and states its belief that “the Methanex Submission accurately summarizes the nature and importance of the enforcement issues relating to USTs.”2

230 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Methanex Submission at 11.

2. Neste Submission at 2.
III- SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSE

The Party affirms its support for the citizen submission process and for

developing factual records under appropriate circumstances. It states

that, for example, “we wish to emphasize that the United States Government believes that the Articles 14 and 15 process is a critical component

of the cooperative efforts for environmental protection among the

Parties to the NAAEC. The United States has repeatedly been and continues to be a strong supporter of that process.”3 The Party continues,

however, that “as the Secretariat has recognized, not all submissions

merit development of a factual record.”4

The Party asserts that it is not appropriate to develop a factual record for

the Methanex and Neste submissions. The Party identifies two reasons

why development of a factual record is not warranted. First, the

Response asserts that the Methanex and Neste submissions must be

dismissed based on Article 14(3)(a) of the North American Agreement

on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC or the “Agreement”). Article

14(3)(a) provides that the Secretariat “shall proceed no further” if a submission “is the subject of a pending judicial or administrative proceeding.” The Response asserts that there is such a proceeding, notably a

pending proceeding under Chapter 11 of the North American Free

Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Response states that, as a result, the

Secretariat must dismiss the submissions.5 The Party summarizes as follows its view that Article 14(3) requires that the Secretariat dismiss the

submissions:

Article 14.3(a), as elaborated by Article 45.3(b), specifically precludes the

preparation of a factual record where the matter submitted is the subject of

an international dispute resolution proceeding involving the same Party.

In this case, Methanex is already challenging California’s enforcement of

its UST regulations as part of its arbitration claim against the United States

under NAFTA Chapter 11. Because the issue of California’s enforcement

of its UST regulations has been raised before the international arbitral tribunal convoked to address Methanex’s Chapter 11 claim (a qualifying

proceeding under Article 45.3(b)), development of a factual record is

proscribed by Article 14.3(a).6

The Response also asserts that the Party is effectively enforcing its environmental laws. The Response describes the enforcement response of

SEM-99-001 231

3. Response at 1.

4. Response at 1. The Party cites to two Secretariat determinations that dismissed submissions on various grounds.

5. See Response at 5-8.

6. Response at 5.
the Party to the asserted violations and claims that this response constitutes effective enforcement for purposes of the NAAEC. The Response

asserts that, as a result, the Secretariat should dismiss the submission

because it would be inappropriate to develop a factual record under

these circumstances.7

The Party summarizes these two points as follows:

This memorandum serves to advise the Secretariat, in accordance with

Article 14.3(a) of the Agreement, that the matter raised in the submission is

the subject of a pending judicial or administrative proceeding. In accordance with Article 14.3(a), the Secretariat should proceed no further with

the consideration of the submission. This memorandum also explains that

California is effectively enforcing its environmental law.8

IV- ANALYSIS

A. Introduction

Article 15(1) of the NAAEC directs the Secretariat to determine, based on

its review of a submission and the Party’s response, whether to dismiss

the submission or to inform the Council that the Secretariat considers

that the submission warrants developing a factual record. The text of

Article 15(1), which reads as follows, provides little guidance to the Secretariat as to the factors it should consider in performing this responsibility:

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.

In contrast to the general language in Article 15(1) of the NAAEC, Article

14(3)(a) requires the Secretariat to dismiss a submission in one specific

situation. Article 14(3)(a) provides that if “the matter is the subject of a

pending judicial or administrative proceeding. . ., the Secretariat shall

proceed no further” (emphasis added). Accordingly, if the Secretariat

determines that the matter involved in a submission is the subject of a

pending judicial or administrative proceeding, under Article 14(3)(a) the

Secretariat must dismiss the submission, regardless of the result the

Secretariat otherwise would have reached.

232 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

7. See e.g., Response at 8-29.

8. Response at 1.
B. Reasons for the Secretariat’s Dismissal of these Submissions

Applying Article 14(3)(a) to the submissions at issue here, the Secretariat

determines that dismissal of the Methanex and Neste submissions is

warranted. Article 14(3)(a) provides that 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.” This legal standard requires that the Secretariat dismiss a submission if two facts exist. First, there must a “pending judicial or administrative proceeding.” Second, the matter that is the subject of the

submission must be the subject of the pending proceeding. Both facts

exist here.

First, the information the Party provided in its response indicates that

there is a “pending judicial or administrative proceeding.” Article

45(3)(b) defines the term “judicial or administrative proceeding” for

purposes of Article 14(3) to include “an international dispute resolution

proceeding to which the Party is party.” The mechanism created by

Chapter 11 of NAFTA for settlement of investment disputes qualifies as

an international dispute resolution proceeding.9 Based on the information provided to the Secretariat, it appears that such a proceeding is currently pending. The Party reports that on 15 June 1999 Methanex filed a

Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under Chapter 11 of the

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and that the Claim

itself was filed on 3 December 1999.10 The Party also advises that the

arbitration is currently a pending proceeding: as of 30 May 2000 the arbitral panel has been selected but has not yet met.11 In addition, the Party

in the Methanex and Neste submissions is also party to the pending

Chapter 11 proceeding. Methanex’s Statement of Claim in the Chapter

11 proceeding describes the claim as one between Methanex Corporation and the United States. As a result, Methanex’s pending Chapter 11

arbitration claim qualifies as a “judicial or administrative proceeding”

under Article 14(3)(a).

Second, the matter that is the subject of the Methanex and Neste submissions is also the subject of the pending NAFTA proceeding. The NAAEC

SEM-99-001 233

9. See e.g., section 906 of the Restatement (3d) of the Foreign Relations Law of the

United States (1987), “Private Remedies for Violation of International Law.” Comment a states: “A few international agreements have given private persons access

to an international forum where the agreement establishing the forum allows such

extension of its jurisdiction [to include claims by private persons].”

10. Response at 4. The Party has attached to its Response a copy of the Statement of

Claim filed on 3 December 1999.

11. Response at 6.
does not define the term “matter” or the term “subject” for purposes of

Article 14(3)(a). Nor do the Council’s Guidelines for Submissions, which

essentially track the language of Article 14(3)(a).12 Under any common

sense reading, however, it is clear that the “matter” before the Secretariat

in the Article 14 submissions is the “subject” of the pending Chapter 11

proceeding. That is, the “matter” before the Secretariat is encompassed

within Methanex’s Chapter 11 claim. In each forum, Methanex contends

that, inter alia, the government should address the risks associated with

leakage of gasoline from USTs by improving its enforcement of legal

measures designed to prevent such leaks rather than by banning the use

of MTBE.13

As noted above, the primary focus of the Methanex and Neste Article 14

submissions is California’s asserted failure to effectively enforce its UST

laws. The assertion is that this failure to enforce results in leakage of gasoline containing Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), creating a risk to

human health and the environment. The Submitters assert that in order

to address this threat, California should enhance its enforcement, not

ban the use of MTBE.14

Methanex’s pending Chapter 11 claim involves this “matter” as well.

The “Facts” section of the Statement of Claim devotes several paragraphs to UST legislation and the requirements it imposes on UST facilities to protect waters of the state from leaks.15 The section of the Claim

entitled “Nature of the Claim” contains assertions by Methanex about

the reasons why MTBE is present in drinking water. It states as follows:

21. The presence of MTBE in drinking water occurs primarily as a result

of gasoline releases to the environment. Gasoline is released primarily due to:

234 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

12. See Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters 9.2-9.4.

13. See e.g., Notice of a Submission of a Claim to Arbitration at 5-7; Statement of Claim

at paras. 21, 23, 33-35; Methanex Submission at 11-12.

14. See e.g., Methanex Submission at 2, 11-12; Neste Submission at 2. As the Secretariat

stated in its 30 March 2000 Determination, the submission suggests that the

approach of phasing out MTBE is a flawed strategy for addressing the environmental problem at issue here, and that heightened enforcement of UST requirements to

prevent leakage would be a better approach. In particular, Methanex asserts that

the Executive Order “treats a symptom (MTBE) of gasoline leakage, rather than the

leakage itself, deflecting attention from the State’s failure to enforce its environmental laws.” Methanex Submission at 2. See also Neste Submission at 3.

15. Statement of Claim at paras. 14-19. Annex 2 of the Statement of Claim, provided to

the Secretariat as an annex to the Party’s response, is captioned, “Summary of California’s Environmental Laws Relating to Underground Storage Tanks.” It contains

an extensive review of these laws and their requirements.
i. the failure of the State of California to enforce its environmental

legislation relating to underground storage tanks (“USTs”) and

water resource protection; and

ii. local municipalities permitting the operation of inefficient two

stroke engines on drinking water reservoirs.16

The section on the “Nature of the Claim” describes California’s response

to the discovery of MTBE contamination in ground and surface waters

as follows: “The response of the government of California was to propose legislation which, rather than address the problem of environmental law enforcement and specifically leaking USTs, arbitrarily called for a

ban on the use of MTBE in gasoline.”17

According to Methanex’s Statement of Claim in the Chapter 11 proceeding, the action by the State Governor in phasing out the use of MTBE

i. was arbitrary and based on a process which lacked substantive fairness;

ii. penalizes and bans only one component of gasoline;

iii. failed to consider alternative measures to mitigate the effects of gasoline releases into the environment;

iv. resulted from the failure or delay in enacting or enforcing legislation

to reduce or eliminate gasoline releases into the environment;

v. failed to take proper consideration of the legitimate interests of

Methanex and Methanex US; and

vi. goes far beyond what is necessary to protect any legitimate public

interest.18

Methanex claims that, because of these purported flaws in the government’s approach to addressing MTBE, “the State of California did not

accord to Methanex US treatment in accordance with international law,

SEM-99-001 235

16. Statement of Claim at para. 21.

17. Statement of Claim at para. 23.

18. Statement of Claim at para. 33 (emphasis added). Methanex’s Notice in the Chapter

11 proceeding contains the identical list of reasons why the Executive Order purportedly is flawed. Notice at 7.
including fair and equitable treatment.”19 Methanex also asserts that the

government’s approach “is both directly and indirectly tantamount to

an expropriation.”20

In sum, Methanex’s Statement of Claim in the Chapter 11 NAFTA proceeding specifically alleges that, inter alia, the California Governor’s ban

on the use of MTBE “resulted from the failure or delay in... enforcing

legislation to reduce or eliminate gasoline releases into the environment.”21 Thus, one of the assertions Methanex makes in the Chapter 11

proceeding is that there has been a failure or delay in enforcing legislation intended to reduce or eliminate releases of gasoline. The issue that is

at the heart of the Methanex and Neste submissions under the NAAEC is

whether California is failing to enforce legislation to reduce or eliminate

gasoline releases into the environment. Thus, to return to the language

in Article 14(3)(a) of the NAAEC, the matter that is the subject of the submission is also the subject of a pending judicial or administrative proceeding. In both proceedings, Methanex (and Neste, in the case of its

Article 14 submission) has alleged that the Party should have pursued

enforcement actions against those responsible for leaks of gasoline from

USTs rather than prohibit the use of MTBE in gasoline.22

As a result, the Secretariat believes that dismissal of the submissions is

required under Article 14(3)(a). The matter raised by the Methanex and

Neste submissions is the subject of a pending arbitration proceeding initiated by Methanex under Chapter 11 of NAFTA.

Because of the Secretariat’s determination on this threshold issue, the

Secretariat does not reach the question of whether a factual record

would be warranted absent the pendency of such a proceeding. Thus the

Secretariat does not address the nature and extent of the violations of the

laws governing releases of MTBE from USTs, or the effectiveness of the

Party’s enforcement efforts. Both the submission and response highlight

the significance of the environmental problems posed by such releases.

236 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

19. Statement of Claim at para. 34.

20. Statement of Claim at para. 35.

21. Statement of Claim at para. 33.

22. Similarly, in the Notice of a Submission of a Claim to Arbitration, Methanex asserts

that “[r]ather than address the primary issues causing gasoline releases into the

environment, the government of California proposed legislation that arbitrarily

called for a ban on the use of MTBE in gasoline.” Methanex Notice of a Submission

of a Claim to Arbitration at 5, 6. See also Methanex Statement of Claim at para. 23,

33.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Secretariat considers that the submissions

SEM-99-001 and SEM-00-002 do not warrant developing a factual

record. Instead, because the matter is the subject of a pending judicial

or administrative proceeding, under Article 14(3)(a), the Secretariat is

to proceed no further.

Respectfully submitted.

Janine Ferretti

Executive Director

c.c. Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA

Ms. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Mr. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

Mr. Michael Macdonald, Methanex Corporation

Mr. Kimmo Rahkamo, Neste Canada Inc.

SEM-99-001 237

SEM-99-002

(MIGRATORY BIRDS)

SUBMITTER: ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES,

CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, ET AL.

PARTY: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DATE: 19 NOVEMBER 1999

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege that the United States is

failing to effectively enforce the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act (MBTA), which prohibits the killing

of migratory birds without a permit.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)(2)

(23 DECEMBER 1999)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met and that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party in accordance with Article 14(2).

239

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) and (2) of the North

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

Submitters: Alliance for the Wild Rockies

Center for International Environmental Law

Centro de Derecho Ambiental del Noreste

de México

Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental

Friends of the Earth

Instituto de Derecho Ambiental

Pacific Environment and Resources Center

Sierra Club of Canada

West Coast Environmental Law Association

Represented by: The Center for International Environmental

Law (CIEL)

Concerned Party: United States

Date Received: 19 November 1999

Date of this

Determination: 23 December 1999

Submission No.: SEM-99-002

I- INTRODUCTION

Article 14 of the North American Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation (“NAAEC” or “Agreement”) provides that the Secretariat

of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”)

may consider a submission from any non-governmental organization or

person asserting that a Party to the Agreement is failing to effectively

241
enforce its environmental law, if the Secretariat finds that the submission meets the requirements of Article 14(1). On 17 November 1999 the

Submitters filed with the Secretariat a submission on enforcement matters pursuant to Article 14 of the NAAEC. The Secretariat has determined that the submission meets the criteria in Article 14(1) and that it

merits a response from the Party in light of the factors listed in Article

14(2). The Secretariat sets forth its reasons in Section III below.

II- SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The submission asserts that the United States Government is “failing to effectively enforce” section 703 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

(MBTA or the Act), 16 U.S.C. § 703, which prohibits the killing or “taking” of migratory birds except under limited circumstances. This assertion rests on a three-step analysis. The submission first asserts that

section 703 of the MBTA prohibits any person from killing or “taking”

migratory birds, including the destruction of nests, the crushing of eggs,

and the killing of nestlings and fledglings, “by any means or in any manner,” unless the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) issues a valid permit.1

Next, it asserts that loggers, logging companies, and logging contractors

frequently engage in practices that violate the Act and that the government has conceded that such practices occur and violate the MBTA.2

Finally, the submission claims that the United States is failing to effectively enforce this requirement of the Act against these parties.3

The submission characterizes the government’s position as one of

“deliberately refus[ing] . . . to enforce this clear statutory prohibition as

it relates to loggers, logging companies, and logging contractors.”4 It

elaborates on this assertion as follows:

As a matter of internal policy, the United States has exempted logging

operations from the MBTA’s prohibitions without any legislation or regulation that authorizes such an exception. The United States has never prosecuted a logger or logging company for a violation of the MBTA, even

though it acknowledges that the MBTA has consistently been, and continues to be, violated by persons logging on federal and non-federal land. In

fact, the Director of the FWS has stated that the FWS, the agency responsible for enforcement of the MBTA, “has had a longstanding, unwritten

policy relative to the MBTA that no enforcement or investigative action

242 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Submission at 1.

2. Submission at 1, Appendix C.

3. See e.g., Submission at 1.

4. Submission at 1.
should be taken in incidents involving logging operations, that result in

the taking of non-endangered, non-threatened, migratory birds and/or

their nests.”5

The submission asserts that, as a result, the United States “has

completely abdicated its enforcement obligations.”6

III- ANALYSIS OF THE SUBMISSION

A. Article 14(1)

The submission meets the criteria in Article 14(1) for further consideration. First, the submission meets the requirements contained in

the opening sentence of Article 14(1).7 This sentence authorizes the Secretariat to consider a submission “from any non-governmental organization or person asserting that a Party is failing to effectively enforce its

environmental law. . . .” The submitters qualify as “non-governmental

organizations.”8 Further, the law involved, the Migratory Bird Treaty

Act, qualifies as an “environmental law” for purposes of the NAAEC.

Article 45(2) of the NAAEC defines “environmental law” to mean, inter

alia, any statute “the primary purpose of which is the protection of the

environment... through . . . the protection of wild flora or fauna, including endangered species, their habitat, and specially protected natural

areas in the Party’s territory. . . .” As the submission suggests, the

MBTA, and section 703 of the MBTA in particular, involves “environmental law” because the “primary purpose of the MBTA is to protect

and preserve wild fauna—wild birds.”9

As is also required by the opening sentence of Article 14(1), the

focus of the submission is on a Party’s asserted failure to effectively

SEM-99-002 243

5. Submission at 1. Memorandum from Director, FWS, to Service Law Enforcement

Officers, “MBTA Enforcement Policy” (March 7, 1996).

6. Submission at 1.

7. The Secretariat has noted in previous Article 14(1) determinations that the requirements contained in Article 14 are not intended to place an undue burden on submitters. We review the submission with this perspective in mind. See e.g., Submission

No. SEM-97-005 (26 May 1998); Submission No. SEM-98-003 (8 September 1999).

8. See NAAEC Article 45(1), Guideline 2.1, Submission at 9.

9. Submission at 9. See e.g., 16 U.S.C. section 703; Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 52-53

(1979)(noting that the MBTA is a “conservation statute... designed to prevent the

destruction of certain species of birds.”) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has

described the MBTA as “a landmark in wildlife conservation legislation.” See Origins of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service web page, www.fws.gov/who/origin (visited December 9, 1999). For these reasons the MBTA does not qualify as a statute “the

primary purpose of which is managing the commercial harvest or exploitation...

of natural resources.” Article 45(2)(b).
enforce the law. For example, as noted above, the submitters assert

that the Party has “completely abdicated its enforcement obligations”

through its failure to enforce against logging operations that allegedly

kill or take migratory birds and/or their nests.10 The submission does

not purport to challenge the effectiveness of the law itself.11

Finally, the submission focuses on asserted failures to enforce that

are ongoing. It thereby meets the jurisdictional requirement in the first

sentence of Article 14(1) that a submission assert that a Party “is failing”

to effectively enforce its environmental law.

Under Article 14(1), the Secretariat also 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.12

The submission meets these six listed criteria. The submission is

in English, a language designated by the Party involved.13 It clearly

identifies the organizations making the submission.14 The submission

244 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

10. See e.g., Submission at 1.

11. Cf. SEM-98-003, Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) of the North American

Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (14 December 1998). The Secretariat

accepts the submission as styled at this stage of the process. The Party, of course,

has the opportunity to discuss in its response whether in its view the submission

involves a challenge to the content of the underlying law rather than a failure to

enforce, among other issues.

12. Article 14(1)(a)-(f).

13. Article 14(1)(a), Guideline 3.2.

14. Article 14(1)(b), Guideline 2.2, Submission, cover page and inside cover page.
provides sufficient information to allow the Secretariat to review the

submission.15 Among other things, the submission provides as Appendices various government documents relating to the subject matter at

issue. Fourth, the submission appears to be aimed at promoting enforcement.16 Fifth, the submission indicates that the matter has been communicated in writing to the relevant authorities of the Party and it indicates

the Party’s response, if any.17 Among other things, the submission attaches as Appendix C an April 26, 1999 letter from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) to the Fish and Wildlife Service of the

Department of the Interior in which CIEL raises the issues covered in the

submission. The submission indicates that the Party has not responded

to this letter.18 Finally, the submission is filed by an organization residing or established in the territory of a Party.19

B. Article 14(2)

The Secretariat, guided by the factors listed in Article 14(2), has

determined that the submission merits a response from the Party. This

provision provides in pertinent part 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

The submission alleges harm to the submitters and summarizes

the types of harm they allegedly have sustained.21 Among other things,

SEM-99-002 245

15. Article 14(1)(c), Guideline 5.3, Submission at 10.

16. Article 14(1)(d), Guideline 5.4, Submission at 9, 10.

17. Article 14(1)(e), Guideline 5.5, Submission at 9, 10.

18. Submission at 9, 10.

19. Article 14(1)(f), Submission at 9.

20. Article 14(2). See also Guideline 7.3.

21. In its Recommendation to the Council for the development of a factual record with

respect to SEM-96-001 (Comité para la Protección de los Recursos Naturales, A.C., et al.),

the Secretariat discussed the issue of harm as follows: “In considering harm, the
the submitters indicate that they “have a common interest in protecting

migratory bird populations shared by Canada, Mexico and the United

States.”22 The submission indicates that each submitter has an organizational goal of protecting migratory birds and it claims that each

submitter is harmed in achieving its organization’s goals by the alleged

failure of the Party to enforce the MBTA and protect migratory birds

with respect to logging operations.23 The submission also asserts that

migratory birds are of “great public importance.”24 Among other benefits, migratory birds are a source of food, and they provide “direct economic benefits to local economies through recreation, hunting, and

birdwatching.”25 We note that the submitters claim that the harm they

have allegedly sustained is due to the asserted failure to effectively

enforce the environmental law involved and that the alleged harm

relates to protection of the environment.26

The submission also raises matters whose further study in the Article 14 process would advance the goals of the Agreement.27 The submission asserts that the failure to enforce is one that is longstanding in

nature and that it is nationwide in scope. Assertions of this sort—that

there is a widespread pattern of ineffectual enforcement—are particularly strong candidates for Article 14 consideration, although submissions that focus on asserted failures to enforce concerning individual

facilities may warrant consideration under Article 14 under some circumstances, depending on other factors. The submission asserts that

the alleged failure to enforce involved here has “significant consequences. . . .”28 It asserts that “logging directly kills or takes migratory

birds by destroying nests, crushing eggs, and killing nestlings and fledglings” and that the failure to effectively enforce “permits the ongoing

destruction within the United States of migratory bird populations

shared by Canada, Mexico, and the United States” and “undermines . . .

efforts to... maintain biodiversity. . . .”29 As the submission notes, the

246 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

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.”

22. Submission at 10.

23. Submission at 10, 11.

24. Submission at 11.

25. Submission at 11.

26. Guideline 7.4.

27. Article 14(2)(b).

28. Submission at 2.

29. Submission at 2.
CEC itself has found that that “migratory birds are a particularly important component of North American biodiversity.”30

Third, the submission indicates that private remedies to require

the Party to enforce its law are not available.31 Finally, the submission is

not based exclusively on mass media reports. Instead, as noted above,

the submission includes several government documents. In addition,

the submitters have sought to obtain relevant information from the

government through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.32

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Secretariat has determined that the

submission meets the requirements of Article 14(1) of the Agreement.

The Secretariat has determined under Article 14(2) that the submission

merits requesting a response from the Government of the United States.

Accordingly, the Secretariat requests a response from the Government

of the United States to the above-mentioned submission within the time

frame provided in Article 14(3) of the Agreement. A copy of the submission and of the supporting information is annexed to this letter.

David L. Markell

Head, Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit

c.o. Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA (with annexes)

c.c. Ms. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Mr. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

Chris Wold and David Downes, Attorneys, Center for

International Environmental Law

Ms. Janine Ferretti, CEC Executive Director

SEM-99-002 247

30. Submission at 2.

31. Submission at 12, 13. Article 14(3)(b)(ii) provides that the Party may address in its

response the availability of private remedies to the submitter if the Party believes

additional consideration of this issue is warranted.

32. Submission at 13, Appendices D, E.

SEM-00-001

(MOLYMEX I)

SUBMITTER: ROSA MARIA ESCALANTE DE FERNANDEZ

PARTY: UNITED MEXICAN STATES

DATE: 27 JANUARY 2000

SUMMARY: The Submitter asserts that the town of Cumpas,

Sonora, Mexico, has been affected by air pollution

from the Molymex, S.A. de C.V. plant which produces molybdenum trioxide from molybdenum

sulfide, allegedly in violation of the provisions

of LGEEPA regarding air quality and Official

Mexican Standards for environmental health.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(25 APRIL 2000)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have not been met. Process terminated.

249

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

Peticionaria(os): Rosa María Escalante de Fernández

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de recepción: 28 de enero de 2000

Fecha de la determinación: 25 de abril de 2000

Núm. de petición: SEM-00-001

I. ANTECEDENTES

Con fecha 28 de enero de 2000, Rosa María Escalante de Fernández

presentó al Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental

(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 el poblado de Cumpas, Sonora,

México se ha visto afectado por la contaminación atmosférica que produce la empresa Molymex, S.A. de C.V., en supuesta violación de las

disposiciones de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al

Ambiente (LGEEPA) sobre calidad del aire, y de las normas oficiales

mexicanas de salud ambiental que establecen límites relativos a bióxido

de azufre y partículas menores a 10 micras. 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 los requisitos del artículo

14(1) para su examen en este proceso y en este documento expone las

razones de esta determinación.

251
II. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

La Peticionaria de referencia asevera que el poblado de Cumpas, Sonora,

México, se ha visto afectado por la contaminación atmosférica que produce la empresa Molymex, S.A. de C.V., que lleva a cabo un proceso de

tostación de sulfuro de molibdeno para la producción de trióxido de

molibdeno, en supuesta violación de las disposiciones de la LGEEPA

sobre calidad del aire, y de las normas oficiales mexicanas de salud

ambiental que establecen límites relativos a bióxido de azufre y

partículas menores a 10 micras.

La petición señala que los habitantes de Cumpas y las organizaciones

no gubernamentales de las que la Peticionaria es miembro consideran

que la contaminación que emite la planta Molymex origina daños

irreversibles de imposible reparación en la salud y el medio ambiente,

supuestamente incrementando la mortandad y afectando los cultivos

en Cumpas. Según la Peticionaria, se violan los artículos 110 al 116

de la LGEEPA, la norma oficial mexicana 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.; y la norma oficial mexicana NOM-025-SSA1-1993- Salud

Ambiental. Criterio para evaluar la calidad del aire ambiente con respecto

a las partículas menores de diez micras (PM10). Valor normado para la

concentración de partículas menores de diez micras (PM10) en el aire ambiente,

como medida de protección a la salud de la población.

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;

252 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
(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.1 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.

La Peticionaria “asevera” que México está incurriendo en omisiones en

la aplicación efectiva de los artículos 110 al 116 de la LGEEPA y las

normas oficiales mexicanas NOM-022-SSA1-1993 y NOM-025-SSA1-

1993, dado que el poblado de Cumpas, Sonora se ha visto afectado por la

contaminación atmosférica que produce la empresa Molymex, en

supuesta violación de esas disposiciones de la LGEEPA sobre calidad

del aire, y de esas normas oficiales mexicanas de salud ambiental.

Además, en el caso de esta petición, la legislación citada satisface la

definición de legislación ambiental aplicable a este proceso. 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 ACAAN.2 Los artículos 110 al 116 de

SEM-00-001 253

1. 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.

2. 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:
la LGEEPA contienen disposiciones sobre prevención y control de la

contaminación de la atmósfera, y las normas oficiales mexicanas NOM022-SSA1-1993 y NOM-025-SSA1-1993, contienen valores normados

para la concentración, respectivamente, de bióxido de azufre (SO2) y de

partículas menores de diez micras (PM10) en el aire ambiente, como

medidas de protección a la salud de la población. De su simple lectura

se desprende claramente que las disposiciones citadas 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) y f) del artículo 14(1), por las siguientes razones. La petición

se presentó por escrito en español,3 que es el idioma designado por

México. La Peticionaria se identificó como Rosa María Escalante de

Fernández, con residencia en Hermosillo, Sonora, México, es decir es

una persona que reside en el territorio de la Parte mexicana.4

254 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

(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

ningunaley 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 SEM97-005/Animal Alliance of Canada, et al. (26 de mayo de 1998).

3. Véanse el artículo 14(1)(a) del ACAAN y la sección 3.2 de las Directrices para la

presentación de peticiones.

4. Véanse los artículos (14)(1)(b) y (f) del ACAAN.
Sin embargo, el Secretariado juzga que la petición no satisface el

requisito del inciso c) porque no contiene información suficiente para

analizarla, ni satisface los requisitos establecidos en los incisos d) y e) de

dicho artículo. La petición es muy breve, constando de cuatro páginas y

6 anexos, y no contiene suficiente información para que el Secretariado

pueda revisarla en este proceso.5 En particular, la petición no expresa

claramente la función de cada uno de sus anexos en la argumentación

sobre la presunta 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. Los anexos de la

petición constan de una nota de la Procuraduría Federal de Protección al

Ambiente (Profepa) sobre la problemática relacionada con la planta

Molymex; un dictamen de la Subdelegación de Medio Ambiente (SMA)

de la Delegación de Sonora de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente

Recursos Naturales y Pesca (Semarnap); un documento sobre el

proyecto de ampliación de la planta Molymex; un documento de

la Secretaría de Salud Pública con gráficas comparativas de tasas

de mortalidad en la zona; una querella presentada ante el Ministerio

Público Federal el 15 de noviembre de 1999; y un dictamen de dos

comisiones del Congreso del Estado de Sonora, relacionado con la

planta Molymex. Como se ha dicho, si bien la petición incluye anexos

que contienen información sobre el problema planteado por la

Peticionaria respecto de la planta Molymex, en la petición misma no se

explica concretamente cómo se relaciona esa información con el asunto

específico materia de la petición, es decir, con la supuesta omisión en la

aplicación efectiva de los artículos 110 al 116 de la LGEEPA y de las

normas oficiales mexicanas NOM-022-SSA1-1993 y NOM-025-SSA1-

1993.

Además, la insuficiencia de información no permite al Secretariado

determinar si la petición cumple no con los requisitos establecidos en los

incisos d) y e) del artículo 14(1). Primero, aunque 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

Molymex, 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). En segundo lugar, el inciso e)

de ese artículo prevé que la petición señale que el asunto se haya

SEM-00-001 255

5. Véase el artículo (14)(1)(c) del ACAAN.

6. Página 3 de la petición, punto 5.
comunicado por escrito a las autoridades pertinentes de la Parte. La

petición menciona que los habitantes de Cumpas, Sonora, y las

organizaciones sin vinculación gubernamental de las que la Peticionaria

es miembro activo, “...han solicitado en reiteradas ocasiones, y seguirán

solicitando la clausura definitiva de la planta contaminante o su

reubicación...6”, pero al no acompañar copia alguna de aquéllas u otra

comunicación dirigida a las autoridades pertinentes de la Parte, u otra

información al respecto, no es posible determinar si se satisface el

requisito de este inciso e).

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 requisitos allí

establecidos porque no contiene suficiente información para determinar

si cumple con algunos de esos requisitos, y porque no contiene suficiente

información que permita al Secretariado revisarla.

En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por el apartado 6.1 de las Directrices,

este Secretariado notifica a la Peticionaria que no procederá a examinar

la petición. No obstante, de acuerdo con el apartado 6.2 de las

Directrices, la Peticionaria cuenta 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: David L. Markell

Director de la Unidad sobre Peticiones Ciudadanas

c.c. Lic. José Luis Samaniego, Semarnap

Sra. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Sr. William Nitze, US-EPA

Sra. Janine Ferretti, Directora Ejecutiva de la CCA

256 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
SEM-00-002

(NESTE CANADA)

SUBMITTER: NESTE CANADA INC.

PARTY: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DATE: 21 JANUARY 2000

SUMMARY: The Submitter believes that “applicable regulatory agencies in California are not enforcing

environmental laws, as defined in the NAAEC,

relating to underground storage tanks (USTs)

with the result that significant volumes of

gasoline continue to leak into and contaminate

soil, water and air in that State.”

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(17 APRIL 2000)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met and consolidation with submission

SEM-99-001.

(See Submission SEM-99-001 for copy of Determination Art. 14(3),

30 June 2000, regarding dismissal in conjunction with submission

SEM-99-001, following Party’s response).

257

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination in accordance with Article 14(1) of the North

American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation

Submitters: Neste Canada Inc.

Concerned Party: United States

Date Received: 4 January 2000

Date of this determination: 17 April 2000

Submission I.D.: SEM-00-002

I- INTRODUCTION

Article 14 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (“NAAEC” or “Agreement”) provides that the Secretariat of the

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”) may

consider a submission from any non-governmental 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). On 4 January 2000 the

Submitter filed with the Secretariat a submission on enforcement matters pursuant to Article 14 of the NAAEC. The Secretariat hereby consolidates the submission with SEM-99-001 (the “Methanex Submission”),

filed on 18 October 1999. The Secretariat provides its reasons in Section

III below.

II- SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The submission largely tracks Submission 99-001, recently filed by

the Methanex Corporation (SEM-99-001). Neste’s main assertion, like

259
Methanex’s, is that the government is failing to effectively enforce various environmental laws relating to water resource protection and concerning underground storage tanks (USTs).1 Neste explicitly refers in its

submission to the close link with Submission 99-001, stating that, inter

alia, “[w]e believe that the Methanex Submission accurately summarizes

the nature and importance of the enforcement issues relating to USTs.”2

Additional information on the Methanex submission, including the

Secretariat’s 30 March 2000 Determination that one of the assertions in

Methanex’s submission merits a response from the United States, is

available from the CEC’s home page, www.cec.org.

III- ANALYSIS

The threshold question the Neste submission raises concerns the appropriate treatment of a submission when it relates to the same facts and

same asserted failure to effectively enforce as an already pending submission. Guideline 10.3, quoted in full below, provides guidance concerning the appropriate treatment of related submissions. It indicates

that the Secretariat may consolidate two or more submissions that relate

to the same facts and the same asserted failure to effectively enforce. It

also provides that the Secretariat may propose such consolidation to the

Council when there is substantial overlap between submissions and the

Secretariat believes it would be more efficient or cost-effective to consolidate them.

10.3 The Secretariat may consolidate two or more submissions that relate

to the same facts and the same asserted failure to effectively enforce an

environmental law. In other situations where two or more submissions

relate essentially to the same facts and enforcement matter and the Secretariat considers that it would be more efficient or cost-effective to consolidate them, it may so propose to the Council.

The Secretariat’s reading of the Neste submission is that it relates to the

same facts and the same asserted failure to effectively enforce an environmental law as the Methanex submission. As noted above, the operative text in Guideline 10.3 provides that the Secretariat “may”

consolidate two submissions if they meet the elements for consolidation.

This is the first submission that has raised the “consolidation” issue. A

review of the submissions filed to date reveals that the common

approach of like-minded prospective submitters has been to file jointly,

260 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. See e.g., Submission at 1, 2.

2. Submission at 2.
rather than file independently and then await possible consolidation.

Thirteen of the 26 submissions filed to date have involved multiple submitters. For the reasons stated below, the Secretariat has determined

that consolidation is appropriate in this instance.

The Secretariat has reviewed whether the Neste submission meets the

criteria in Article 14(1). As is the case for the Methanex submission, the

Neste submission meets the requirements contained in the opening sentence of Article 14(1). This sentence authorizes the Secretariat to consider a submission “from any non-governmental organization or person

asserting that a Party is failing to effectively enforce its environmental

law. . . .” Article 45(1) of the NAAEC defines “non-governmental organization” to include, inter alia, “any . . . business... which is neither affiliated with, nor under the direction of, a government. . . .” Based on the

information provided in the submission, the submitter qualifies as a

“non-governmental organization.”3 It is a business and there is no indication that it is affiliated with, or under the direction of, a government.

Further, the assertion in the submission that the Party has failed to effectively enforce UST-related requirements4 focuses, as required, on a

Party’s asserted failure to effectively enforce the law, not on the effectiveness of the law itself.5 Third, the submission’s focus is on the

asserted failure to effectively enforce “environmental laws.” The submission challenges the enforcement of numerous laws, including the

United States Clean Water Act, the United States Safe Drinking Water

Act, the California Water Code, and the California Code of Regulations.6

These laws qualify as “environmental law” for purposes of the NAAEC

in that their primary purpose is “protection of the environment, or the

prevention of a danger to human life or health. . . .”7 Finally, the submission focuses on asserted failures to enforce that are ongoing, thereby

meeting the requirement in Article 14(1) that a submission assert that a

Party “is failing” to effectively enforce its environmental law.

Article 14(1) 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;

SEM-00-002 261

3. See NAAEC Article 45(1), Guideline 2.1, Submission at 1.

4. See e.g., Submission at 1.

5. See SEM-98-003, Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) of the North American

Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (14 December 1998).

6. Submission at 2.

7. Article 45(2)(a). The relevant provisions of the California Code have this purpose.
(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.8

The Submission meets the criteria contained in Article 14(1)(a) and (b).

It is in English, a language designated by the Party.9 The submission

identifies the organization making the submission.10 Article 14(1)(d)

requires that the submission appear to be aimed at promoting enforcement rather than at harassing industry.11 There is no indication that

Neste is attempting to harass industry. Similarly, the final criterion, in

Article 14(1)(f), is satisfied.12 The Secretariat notes that dismissal of the

submission would be required if it did not satisfy the requirements in

Article 14(1)(a), (b), (d), and (f), even if it met the elements in Guideline

10.3 necessary for consolidation with an already pending submission.

The criteria contained in Article 14(1)(c) and (e) warrant more detailed

discussion because of the questions they raise concerning the extent to

which it is appropriate to consider SEM-99-001 in addressing this submission. With respect to Article 14(1)(c), the Submitter has endorsed and

incorporated by reference the materials submitted in connection with

Submission SEM-99-001:

Neste is aware of the particulars of the submission (the “Methanex Submission”) made to the Secretariat by Methanex Corporation on October

18, 1999. We believe that the Methanex Submission accurately summarizes the nature and importance of the enforcement issues relating to

USTs. Neste has done its own extensive research and investigations and,

based on our knowledge of the facts, we submit that the documentary

262 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

8. Article 14(1)(a)-(f).

9. Article 14(1)(a), Guideline 3.2.

10. Article 14(1)(b), Submission at 1.

11. Article 14(1)(d).

12. Article 14(1)(f), Submission at 1.
evidence that Methanex has provided to you accurately reflects the current situation.13

The Secretariat finds that the submission meets the requirement in Article 14(1)(c) that it provide sufficient information to allow the Secretariat

to review the submission, including any documentary evidence on

which the submission may be based, through its incorporation of the

information provided by Methanex.14 The Secretariat previously determined that Submission 99-001 met the requirement in Article 14(1)(c).

Little value would be served by requiring this submitter to submit

another copy of these materials.15

The Secretariat similarly finds that this submission meets the requirements contained in Article 14(1)(e), in part because of the content of Submission 99-001 on this issue. Article 14(1)(e) requires that a submitter

“indicate... that the matter has been communicated in writing to the

relevant authorities of the Party and indicate . . . the Party’s response, if

any. . . .” Guideline 5.5 provides that a submission must include copies

of any relevant correspondence with the relevant authorities.

The Secretariat has previously determined (in the Methanex Determination) that the matter at issue in this submission has been communicated

to the Party, as required by Article 14(1)(e). The Agreement does not

require that, in a multiple submitter submission, each submitter independently communicate with the Party. Given the complete identity of

the matter involved in this submission and in SEM-99-001, and the practical consequence of consolidating this submission with SEM-99-001, it

would promote efficiency to recognize that this submission does not

arise in a vacuum by considering the Methanex submission, including

the Secretariat’s Determination that the Methanex submission satisfies

Article 14(1)(e), in reviewing this issue here.

In sum, if two submissions relate to precisely the same facts and the same

asserted failure to effectively enforce an environmental law, and the Secretariat has determined that the already pending submission merits a

response from the Party, consolidation of the two submissions may be

appropriate if the “follow up” submitter could have signed on to the

original submission. If the “follow up” submitter would not qualify as a

submitter under Article 14(1)(a), (b), (d), or (f), the follow up submission

would warrant dismissal. If, however, the “follow up” submitter meets

SEM-00-002 263

13. Submission at 2.

14. Article 14(1)(c), Guideline 5.2, 5.3.

15. Neste provides limited additional information concerning the asserted failure to

effectively enforce as well. Submission at 2.
these criteria, and it has specifically referred to the earlier submission as

is the case here, it seems contrary to a common sense application of the

Agreement to require such a submitter to duplicate the showings made

concerning Article 14(1)(c) and (e). Thus, as noted above, little value

would be gained by having Neste submit another copy of the information already supplied by Methanex. This analysis assumes, of course,

that consolidation would not prejudice the Party, or the original Submitter (here Methanex). No such prejudice would appear to be present

here. As noted above, the Party has been asked to provide a response to

SEM-99-001, and this submission raises no new issues or matters. It

follows that even though this submission alleges a failure to effectively

enforce a variety of state and federal laws, the submission will proceed,

as consolidated, only with respect to the assertions for which a response

has been requested in SEM-99-001.

Having determined that the submission meets the criteria in Article

14(1), the Secretariat determines that the submission warrants consolidation with SEM-99-001 and, in that respect, warrants a response from

the Party in light of the factors in Article 14(2). The Secretariat’s review

of the Article 14(2) factors in connection with SEM-99-001 applies with

equal force here, particularly given the determination that Neste could

have been a co-submitter for Methanex’s submission.

IV- CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and to the extent outlined above, the Secretariat has determined that this submission warrants consolidation with

Submission SEM-99-001 under Guideline 10.3. A response from the

United States to SEM-99-001 has previously been requested. A copy of

Submission SEM-00-002 and of the supporting information is annexed

to this letter.

Yours truly,

David L. Markell

Director, Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit

c.o. Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA (with annexes)

c.c. Ms. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Mr. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

Kimmo Rahkamo, General Manager, Neste MTBE Canada

Ms. Janine Ferretti, Executive Director

Mr. Michael Mcdonald, Methanex Corporation

264 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
SEM-00-003

(JAMAICA BAY)

SUBMITTER: HUDSON RIVER AUDUBON SOCIETY

OF WESTCHESTER, INC. AND

SAVE OUR SANCTUARY COMMITTEE

PARTY: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DATE: 2 MARCH 2000

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege that the United States is

failing to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

which prohibits the killing of migratory birds

without a permit and the Endangered Species

Act of 1973 (ESA), which prohibits the taking of

endangered and threatened species, requires the

protection of such species “whether by protection

of habitat and food supply,” and requires the

designation of “critical habitat.”

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(12 APRIL 2000)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have not been met.

265

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination in accordance with Article 14(1) of the North

American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation

Submitter(s): Hudson River Audubon Society

of Westchester, Inc.

Save our Sanctuary Committee

Concerned Party: United States

Date received: 2 March 2000

Date of this determination: 12 April 2000

Submission I.D.: SEM-00-003

I- INTRODUCTION

On March 2, 2000, the Submitters 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 non-governmental 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)).

The Secretariat has determined that the submission does not meet all

of the requirements in Article 14(1) for further consideration. The Secretariat’s reasons are set forth below in Section III.

267
II- SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The submission concerns a proposal to construct a paved, multi-purpose

bicycle path through the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge,

located in Queens, New York, is part of the Gateway National Recreation Area. The Submitters assert that through its proposed construction of the above-referenced bicycle path the United States Department

of Interior—National Park Service (NPS) is “failing to enforce and proposing to violate Sections 4-10 of the Endangered Species Act [ESA]. . . .”1

The Submitters also assert that construction of the pathway will violate

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The Submitters claim that construction of the pathway will constitute a failure to effectively enforce

these laws because it “will destroy critical habitat for endangered and

threatened species and it will result in the taking of migratory birds

(including nests). . . .”2

III- ANALYSIS

A. Overview

Article 14 of the NAAEC directs the Secretariat to consider a submission

from any non-governmental 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,3

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.4

The Secretariat nevertheless has determined that the submission does

not presently meet the criteria in Article 14 for further consideration.

B. The Governing Legal Framework

The opening sentence of Article 14(1) authorizes the Secretariat to consider a submission “from any non-governmental organization or person

268 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Submission at 1, 2.

2. Submission at 2.

3. See e.g., Submission No. SEM-97-005 (May 26, 1998).

4. See e.g., Submission No. SEM-97-005 (May 26, 1998).
asserting that a Party is failing to effectively enforce its environmental

law. . . .” Following this first sentence, Article 14(1) 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.5

C. Application of the Governing Legal Framework

As noted above, the opening sentence of Article 14(1) authorizes the Secretariat to consider a submission “from any non-governmental organization or person asserting that a Party is failing to effectively enforce its

environmental law. . . .” The submission, filed by the Hudson River

Audubon Society of Westchester, Inc. (Hudson River) and Save Our

Sanctuary Committee, meets the requirement in the opening sentence of

Article 14(1) that it be filed by a “non-governmental organization.”6 It

also meets the requirement that it focus on an asserted failure to enforce

a Party’s environmental laws, rather than on a deficiency in the law

itself.7 Further, both the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act qualify as environmental laws. The submission, however,

does not meet the requirement in the first sentence that the assertion

focus on an alleged ongoing failure to enforce.

SEM-00-003 269

5. Article 14(1)(a)-(f).

6. Article 45(1) defines a “non-governmental organization” to include any non-profit

or public interest organization or association which is neither affiliated with, nor

under the direction of, a government. There is no indication from the submission that

either Submitter is affiliated with, or under the direction of, a government.

7. Cf. SEM-98-003 (14 December 1998).
Article 14(1) requires that a submission allege that a Party “is failing” to

effectively enforce its environmental law. The process presupposes in a

case such as this one, where the submission identifies a particular government action as the source of the alleged enforcement failure, that the

Party involved actually have taken the action at issue or made some final

decision. Absent such a final action or decision, any allegation of a failure to effectively enforce is based on speculation.8

Although the submission alleges that the National Park Service “is failing to enforce” the MBTA and the ESA, it also alleges that the NPS is

“proposing to violate” these statutes.9 Based on the Secretariat’s understanding of the status of the potential bicycle path project that is the focus

of the submission, it appears that the submission focuses on a prospective rather than on an ongoing asserted failure to effectively enforce.

It therefore fails to comply with Article 14(1)’s requirement that the

submission assert that a Party “is failing” to effectively enforce its

environmental laws.

The failure of the submission to identify an ongoing enforcement failure

is reflected in the assertions contained on page two of the submission.

The submission asserts that the NPS “is violating” the ESA and the

MBTA “by proposing to construct a paved, multi-purpose bicycle path”

through the Refuge. According to the submission, construction of the

pathway “will destroy critical habitat” for endangered and threatened

species and “will result in the taking of migratory birds (including

nests),” “and will therefore be in violation” of the ESA and the MBTA.10

The information supplied in the submission and the attachments to it do

not reflect that the NPS has made a final decision to construct a bicycle

path through the Refuge in any particular form or location. Indeed, the

information provided with the submission suggests that the government is currently engaged in evaluating the appropriate location and

other details of such a bicycle path. For example, a December 3, 1999 letter attached to the submission from Mr. Billy Garrett, Superintendent of

the Jamaica Bay Unit of the NPS Gateway National Recreation Area, to

participants in an August 1999 workshop (or “facilitated discussion”) on

270 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

8. Under Article 14(2), the Secretariat is guided in determining whether to request a

response by a series of factors including, among others, whether the submission

alleges harm to the person or organization making the submission. This Determination does not suggest that, for example, any harm that a submitter alleges in connection with a Party’s asserted enforcement failure must have already occurred

before a submission may be filed.

9. Submission at 1, 2.

10. Submission at 1, 2.
the “multi-use pathway (RGG-IIA) that has been proposed” for the

Gateway National Recreation Area, contains Mr. Garrett’s statement

that “I am going to suggest that the preferred alternative identified in the

1997 Environmental Assessment (EA) be modified and updated and

[the] expanded EA be finalized for public review and comment. Potential changes to the preferred alternative are described on the attached

page.” Mr. Garrett’s letter then solicits comments on these potential

changes.11 The submission refers to this letter (along with an earlier

August 27, 1999 letter from Mr. Garrett to Mr. Joseph O’Connell, the

President of the Hudson River Audubon Society of Westchester) as “the

most recent correspondence” from the NPS.12 Accordingly, the documentation provided by the Submitters, along with the submission itself,

suggests that there has not yet been a final decision to proceed with the

bicycle path project. Similarly, the submission does not identify a final

decision about the location and other details of the project. Because the

submission does not identify a final government decision on the bicycle

path, the assertion that the content of that decision constitutes a failure to

effectively enforce is premature.

Further, while the submission meets several of the criteria contained in

Article 14(1), it does not meet others. In particular, the submission satisfies Article 14(1)(a), (b), (d), and (f)—the submission is in English, a language designated by the Party, the submission clearly identifies the

submitters, the submission appears to be aimed at promoting enforcement rather than at harassing industry,13 and the Submitters appear to

reside in and be established in the territory of a Party.

The submission, however, does not meet the requirement in Article

14(1)(c) of the NAAEC that a submission provide sufficient information

to allow the Secretariat to review the submission, including any documentary evidence on which the submission may be based. The activity

that allegedly constitutes a failure to enforce both the MBTA and the

ESA involves construction of a bicycle path that, according to attachments to the submission, is tentatively planned to be 10 feet wide with

one-foot shoulders. The submission does little to support its assertion that construction of the path “will destroy critical habitat” for

endangered and threatened species and thereby violate the ESA. The

SEM-00-003 271

11. An attachment to the December 3, 1999 letter, entitled «Cross Bay Boulevard Segment,» also indicates that the NPS «proposes to modify the preferred alternative

and reissue the environmental assessment.» According to that attachment, the next

step in the process would be to present the NPS’s modified alternative to the RGG

Advisory Board.

12. Submission at 2.

13. See also Guideline 5.4.
submission, for example, does not indicate what endangered or threatened species are found within the Refuge. It similarly does not indicate

where “critical habitat” exists within the Refuge or the portion of such

habitat (if any) which purportedly will be destroyed by the proposed

bicycle path.

Concerning the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the submission alleges that

construction of the path will result in the taking of migratory birds

(including nests). It adds that the construction and resulting recreational

use of the path will disrupt nesting and feeding of migratory birds and

destroy nests and feeding areas in violation of the MBTA.14 The Submitters cite to recent CEC publications that identify the Refuge as a key conservation site and an important bird area. The submission, however,

does not provide support for its assertion that the path, in light of its

location and other details, will cause disruption or destruction that

violates the MBTA.

Absent further information to support the existence of a connection

between construction of the bicycle path and the types of impacts that

would violate the ESA and/or the MBTA, the submission fails to satisfy

Article 14(1)(c).

A final issue involves Article 14(1)(e), which requires that submitters

indicate that the matter has been communicated in writing to the relevant authorities of the Party and the Party’s response, if any. The Submitters assert that “[w]e have recommended to the United States

Department of Interior-National Park Service an alternative site for the

bicycle path outside the boundary of the refuge.” The submission does

not indicate, however, whether, in making these recommendations, the

Submitters alerted the NPS to the specific concerns that form the basis

for their submission. Neither of the letters from Mr. Garrett appended to

the submission (including the attachment to the December 3, 1999 letter)

raises a concern on the part of the Submitters or any other participant in

the facilitated workshop process that construction of the bicycle path

would violate an environmental law. Indeed, other than a general statement in an August 27, 1999 letter from the NPS to one of the Submitters

that “impacts to wildlife habitat and existing visitor uses” will be considered, none of the documents provided refers to any concern that construction of the path would adversely affect endangered or threatened

species or migratory birds. Additional information is needed to indicate

that the “matter” that is the focus of the submission has been communicated in writing to the NPS. If such concerns have been brought to the

272 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

14. Submission at 2.
attention of the Party, any correspondence that does so has not been

provided. (See Guideline 5.5).

IV- CONCLUSION

Pursuant to Guideline 6.2, the Secretariat, for the foregoing reasons, will

terminate the Article 14 process with respect to this submission, unless

the Submitters provide the Secretariat with a submission that conforms

to the criteria of Article 14(1) within 30 days after receipt of this Notification.

Yours truly,

per: David L. Markell

Director, Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit

c.c. Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA

Mr. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Mr. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

Ms. Janine Ferretti, Executive Director

SEM-00-003 273

SEM-00-004

(BC LOGGING)

SUBMITTER: DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION, ET AL.

PARTY: CANADA

DATE: 15 MARCH 2000

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege that the Government of

Canada “is in breach of its commitments under

NAAEC to effectively enforce its environmental

laws and to provide high levels of environmental

protection.”

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)(2)

(8 MAY 2000)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have been met and that the submission merits

requesting a response from the Party in accordance with Article 14(2).

275

Secretariat of the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation

Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) and (2) of the

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

Submitter(s): David Suzuki Foundation

Greenpeace Canada

Sierra Club of British Columbia

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance

National Resources Defense Council

Represented by: Sierra Legal Defence Fund

Earthjustice Legal Defence Fund

Concerned Party: Canada

Date Received: 15 March 2000

Date of this

Determination: 8 May 2000

Submission I.D.: SEM-00-004

I- INTRODUCTION

Article 14 of the North American Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation (“NAAEC” or “Agreement”) provides that the Secretariat

of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the “Secretariat”)

may consider a submission from any non-governmental 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 in Article 14(1). On 15 March 2000 the Submitters filed a submission with the Secretariat pursuant to Article 14 of

the NAAEC. The Secretariat has determined that the assertion in the

submission that the Party is failing to effectively enforce the federal Fisheries Act meets the criteria in Article 14(1). The Secretariat has also deter277
mined that this assertion merits a response from the Party in light of the

factors listed in Article 14(2). The other assertion contained in the submission, relating to NAAEC Articles 6 and 7, does not meet the Article

14(1) criteria. The Secretariat sets forth its reasons in Section III below.

II- SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSION

The submission contains two basic assertions. First, the Submitters

assert that the Party is failing to effectively enforce several provisions of

the federal Fisheries Act, with a particular focus on ss. 35 and 36. Section

35(1) prohibits the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish

habitat in the absence of an authorization issued under s. 35(2).1 Section

36 prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances in waters frequented

by fish unless the deposit is authorized by regulation.2 In addition, the

Submitters assert that the Party is failing to effectively enforce specific

Articles of the NAAEC, notably Articles 6 and 7.

The Submitters assert that ss. 35 and 36 of the federal Fisheries Act

“are routinely and systematically violated by logging activities undertaken [in] British Columbia and no effective and appropriate enforcement action is being taken.”3 The Submitters assert that logging

operations cause harm to fish habitat and result in the deposition of deleterious substances in waters frequented by fish. They assert that, for

example, “[e]cologically, current forest practices are contributing to the

decline of fisheries and the extinction of fish stocks.”4 The Submitters

state as follows:

As more evidence is gathered from long-term studies in watersheds,

a growing number of scientists note that clearcut logging and other

land-use activities have profound, long-term impacts on streams, rivers

and lakes and the fish populations that depend on them.5

The Submitters list and summarize different types of environmental damage that the Submitters claim are caused by logging, including:

1) loss of streamside vegetation; 2) altered water temperature; and

3) impacts on water quality and quantity.6 The Submitters assert that

forestry activities such as clearcutting that occur adjacent to small

278 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Submission at 8.

2. Submission at 8.

3. Executive Summary at iii.

4. Submission at 2.

5. Submission at 3. See also Submission at 5 (stating that “[l]ogging was one of the primary factors cited” in the decline in salmon numbers and in salmon health throughout coastal British Columbia).

6. Submission at 3-5.
non-fish bearing streams have a “reasonable potential” to affect downstream fish resources.7 With respect to this latter claim, the Submitters

assert that the “cumulative effect of logging-related stream damage to

non-fish bearing streams can be significant. . . . While the impact of

increased sedimentation or higher temperatures may be minimal in any

one stream, the cumulative effect of all tributaries flowing into fish

streams can have significant negative impacts on fish habitat.”8 The Submitters list a number of specific areas where they assert logging operations have caused and/or are causing harm to fish and fish habitat.9

While the Submitters state that “[r]egulation of logging and fisheries in British Columbia is a complex jurisdictional issue,”10 the Submitters claim that Canada has jurisdiction, and the responsibility, to protect

fish and fish habitat. The Submitters assert that the jurisdiction of thefederal and provincial government is concurrent—“the legitimate exercise

of one government’s jurisdiction does not oust the jurisdiction of the

other.”11 The Submitters claim that the provisions of the Fisheries Act

addressing harm to fish habitat and deposition of deleterious substances

“empower DFO to address the damage to fish and fish habitat resulting

from activities permitted under provincial legislation or undertaken on

private lands.”12 They assert that “[t]he powers of DFO are... both preventative and remedial.”13 The Submitters review several provisions of

the Fisheries Act that provide the legislative framework for protection of

fish and fish habitat. As noted above, they refer to ss. 35 and 36. The

Submitters also cite s. 40, which creates an offence for contraventions of

ss. 35 and 36. In addition, they cite s. 37, which empowers the minister to

require plans and specifications if someone proposes, or is carrying on,

a work or undertaking that results, or is likely to result, in a violation

of either s. 35 or s. 36 and to require modifications to the work or

undertaking or restrict its operation if a violation is occurring or is likely

to occur.14

In addition to discussing federal jurisdiction and responsibility,

the Submitters indicate that the provincial government has jurisdiction

over most aspects of logging. They state that in 1995 the Province of

British Columbia introduced the Forest Practices Code.15The Submitters

SEM-00-004 279

7. Submission at 5.

8. Submission at 5.

9. See e.g., Submission at 5, 6, 8-9 and Attachments 2, 6, and 8.

10. Submission at 1.

11. Submission at 1.

12. Submission at 8.

13. Submission at 8.

14. Executive Summary at iii.

15. Submission at 1.
assert that the Code is “aimed at regulating forestry practices on public

lands,”16 but that the Code “has no application on private land.”17

The Submitters’ assertion that Canada is failing to effectively

enforce the Fisheries Act with respect to the harm to fish habitat and

deposition of deleterious substances allegedly caused by logging operations extends to logging on public and private lands. The Submitters

assert: “In spite of the clear legislative authority to address damage to

fish habitat from logging, the Government of Canada is not enforcing its

laws against damage from logging on private lands and smaller streams

on public lands.”18 Elaborating on this assertion, the Submitters state as

follows:

After the introduction [in 1995] of the Code, DFO, the federal government

agency responsible for the enforcement of the Fisheries Act, effectively

withdrew from the regulation of logging activities. This occurred even

though the federal government’s legislative mandate had not changed,

and that logging activities are routinely permitted under the Code which

violate the Fisheries Act. Furthermore, the Government of Canada is failing

to enforce the Fisheries Act against damage occurring from logging on

private lands where no effective provincial environmental protections

apply.19

280 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

16. Submission at 1.

17. Submission at 1. In support of their assertion that Canada is failing to effectively

enforce the Fisheries Act in leaving the protection of fish habitat to the provincial

government, the Submitters assert that the BC government “promised that it [the

Code] would eventually apply to private land” but “this promise was never kept.

. . .” The Submitters state that the BC Government has proposed the “Private Land

Forest Practices Regulation” in place of the Code but the Submitters assert that this

Regulation “is sorely inadequate.” Submission at 9.

18. Executive Summary at iv.

19. Submission at 1. See also Attachment 12, p. 17 (containing the statement that

“MacMillan Bloedel’s assertion that adherence to the Forest Practices Code will fulfill their commitment to maintain fish, fish habitat and riparian attributes is not the

Department of Fisheries and Ocean’s position, particularly with regard to small

streams. The best-management practices set out in the Code are not adequate to

deal with the issues of falling and yarding away, and retaining non-merchantable

and deciduous trees, especially in old-growth forests.”) The excerpt from the Dovetail Consulting report provided in the Attachment attributes this point to a person

named Cowan. Mr. or Ms. Cowan’s affiliation is not identified in the excerpt. The

report describes itself as a “summary of a two-day workshop” “the purpose of

which was to consult with scientists to obtain their input on ecological aspects of

MacMillan Bloedel’s BC Coastal Forest Project.” The report indicates that 14 scientists were invited to the workshop to act as an expert panel. Scientists were nominated by environmental organizations and by MacMillan Bloedel and representatives from several environmental organizations, MacMillan Bloedel and

Weyerhaeuser attended as well. The report indicates that the comments summarized do not necessarily represent a consensus of the scientific panel or the workshop participants. Attachment 12 at i. The submission indicates that Dovetail

Consulting prepared the report for DFO and the report is dated March 5, 1999.
With respect to logging on private lands, the Submitters identify

TimberWest’s logging of its private land in the Sooke watershed as

“[o]ne particularly troubling example of private land logging. . . .”20 The

Submitters assert that TimberWest’s logging practices have been particularly troubling in several respects. They assert that Timber West left an

inadequate buffer, felled trees on the banks of the Sooke River below the

high water mark, harvested trees from an island within the river, harvested a buffer strip left by a previous landowner to protect fish along a

known fish stream, built roads without culverts across a salmon stream,

and stacked woody debris within the stream channel of this creek.21 The

Submitters assert that these actions threaten fish and fish habitat22 and

they claim that “[a]lthough DFO has been made aware of these activities,

it has taken no action against TimberWest.”23 The Submitters also assert

that, although requested to do so by the Submitters, DFO has not used

its power under s. 37(2) of the Fisheries Act to formally request plans

and specifications from TimberWest and to order modifications to

TimberWest’s operations as necessary.24

With respect to logging on public lands, the Submitters provide

examples of three types of activities that they assert are “routinely permitted under the Code” even though they “frequently result in damage

to fish and fish habitat.”25 The Submitters assert that “[e]ven though this

damage is foreseeable, DFO is not enforcing the Fisheries Act in these

instances.”26 The Submitters identify “falling and yarding across fish

habitat” as one such activity.27 The submitters claim that this activity

“causes immediate and direct damage to fish and fish habitat.”

Falling and yarding causes the erosion and de-stabilization of streambanks, transport of sediment and wood downstream, and the disruption

or destruction of critical habitat features. Thus, the practice is contrary to

both section 35 of the Fisheries Act . . . and also contrary to section 36(3)....

SEM-00-004 281

20. Submission at 8-9. See also Attachment 6 [referenced in the submission as Attachment 5], containing correspondence between DFO and the Sierra Legal Defence

Fund relating to, inter alia, TimberWest logging in the Sooke watershed area.

21. Submission at 8-9. See also Attachment 6.

22. Correspondence between Sierra Legal Defence Fund and Department of Fisheries

and Oceans, attached as Attachment 6 [referenced as Attachment 5].

23. Submission at 9 and see e.g., Attachment 6.

24. See note 22 above.

25. Submission at 10.

26. Submission at 10.

27. The submission defines falling trees across fish habitat as “cutting down trees such

that they will fall across fish bearing streams.” It defines “yarding trees” as “dragging trees that have been cut down across fish bearing streams.” Submission at 10

and Attachment 2 at 19.
However, despite the damaging nature of the practice, falling and yarding

across streams is routinely allowed across fish habitat.28

The Submitters identify “logging landslide-prone lands” as a second type of activity that occurs. The submission describes landslides

and the harm they may cause to fish habitat in violation of ss. 35 and 36 of

the Fisheries Act as follows:

Landslides can prove highly destructive to fish habitat. Those landslides

that do reach fish habitat introduce silt and sediment and other woody

debris while also damaging habitat features and blocking fish habitat.

And even those landslides that do not reach fish streams can have detrimental impacts as sedimentation is often increased and waterflow patterns in a watershed may also be altered. Logging that causes landslides

may therefore violate both sections 35 and 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.29

The Submitters assert that logging using a clearcutting approach,

the “logging method most likely to cause landslides,” occurs in a significant number of instances where the logging is planned for landslide-prone lands.30

The third type of logging activity harmful to fish habitat that the

Submitters identify involves “clearcutting riparian areas.” The Submitters describe the impacts of such clearcutting as follows:

The clearcutting of riparian areas has significant negative effects on fish

and fish habitat. The removal of trees and vegetation in riparian areas

leads to bank destabilization and increased streambank erosion, alterations in water temperature (particularly increased warming of streams

which can be lethal to fish), greater fluctuations in water flows (which can

cause water levels to be both dangerously high, during storm events and

snowmelt periods, and dangerously low, during periods of low precipitation such as summer), decreased water quality (through introduction of

sediment and logging debris) and the removal of sources of large woody

debris.31

282 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

28. Submission at 10 and see e.g., Attachment 2 at 5, 20-21, and Attachment 14.

29. Submission at 10 and Attachment 8 at 7. For the purposes of s. 36(3) a substance is

deleterious if, when added to any water, it would degrade or alter or form part of a

process of degradation or alteration of the quality of the water so that the water is

rendered deleterious to fish (R. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Alberni) Ltd. (1979), 47 C.C.C.

(2d) 118 (B.C.C.A.). Depending on the circumstances, silt and sand can be deleterious substances (R. v. Jourdain, [1999] B.C.J. No. 1186 (Prov. Ct.); R.v British Columbia

Hydro and Power Authority (1997), 25 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 52 (B.C.S.C.); R. v. Jack Cewe Ltd.

(1983), 13 C.E.L.R. 91 (B.C.Co. Ct.).

30. Submission at 11 and see e.g., Attachment 8 at 3-4, 8-10, 15, 17-20, and Attachment

14.

31. Submission at 10-11 and see e.g., Attachment 2 at 16 and Attachment 8.
The Submitters assert that a substantial amount of clearcutting of

riparian areas occurs.32

The Submitters’ claim appears to be that there is a failure to effectively enforce ss. 35 and 36(3) of the Fisheries Act because, in part, “[e]ven

though the functioning of the Forest Practices Code does not assure compliance with the Fisheries Act, the Government of Canada seems to have

simply left the protection of fish and fish habitat to the provincial government. . . .”33 The Submitters assert that this strategy is a failure to

effectively enforce because, inter alia, some fish habitat (e.g., private

lands) are not regulated by the Code and because violations of the Fisheries Act continue to occur with respect to fish habitat subject to regulation under the Code. The Submitters assert that “[u]nder Canadian law,

the fact that an activity is also subject to provincial regulation does not

justify a reduction in the enforcement of federal legislation.”34

The Submitters assert that a failure to effectively enforce exists

because “[n]ot only has DFO stopped active involvement in the planning process, it is failing to take remedial action after damage has

occurred.”35 With respect to the latter claim, the Submitters state that

SEM-00-004 283

32. Submission at 11-12 and see e.g., Attachment 2 at II, 2, 5, and Attachment 14. In

addition to its coverage of this type of alleged harm in the submission and attachments, subsequent to filing the submission, the Submitters submitted to the Secretariat two letters from DFO to the BC Ministry of Forests in which DFO expresses

the concern that “current logging practices in this province rarely provide riparian

leave strips or setbacks that adequately protect these streams.” The letter continues: “Given the current practice and the importance of such streams, we wish to

confirm that the federal Fisheries Act, and specifically the requirements not to

harm fish habitat or deposit deleterious substances into fish-bearing waters, continue to apply to the practice of logging adjacent to small streams in this province.”

See letter dated 28 February 2000 from D.M. Petrachenko, Director General, Pacific

Region, DFO, to Lee Doney, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Forests. This letter states

that DFO will send a letter to the province “outlining interim standards that we

[DFO] deem acceptable to meet fish habitat objectives.” The DFO letter also indicates that the Department believes that a review of the riparian provisions of the

Forest Practices Codeis required. The Submitters included one of these letters setting

out the interim standards. The Submitters state that the interim standards include

S4, S5 and S6 riparian management zone retention levels approaching 100 %. The

Submitters assert that they view this new development favorably, and they intend

to monitor future logging plan approvals to determine whether they actually abide

by the new interim standards contained in the letter.

33. Submission at 12.

34. Submission at 13.

35. Submission at 12. It appears that the Submitters’ assertion on the first point is that,

at least in part, the Party is failing effectively to use its powers under s. 37 to

proactively protect fish and fish habitat. Executive Summary at iii; Submission at 8;

Attachment 6; Submitters’ 31 March 2000 letter to the Secretariat. As noted above,
“DFO statistics for the last three years in BC show that only one prosecution . . . for the type of activities outlined in this complaint has been

brought.”36 They continue that “[t]hat prosecution was abandoned by

DFO due to delay in pursuing the charges.”37 The Submitters assert that

DFO has brought charges “outside the logging context” for removal of

trees from riparian areas. They claim that “[a] number of charges have

been brought against homeowners who have removed riparian vegetation, or where riparian vegetation has been removed as part of an industrial project.”38 The Submitters assert that “there is no justifiable reason

for DFO to distinguish between homeowners and forestry companies.”39

The submission’s second assertion is that the Party is failing to

meet its commitments under Articles 6 and 7 of the NAAEC through its

“consistent intervention and staying of environmental prosecutions

. . . .”40 This assertion relates to the right that Canadian law creates for

initiation of private prosecutions against violators of the Fisheries Act.

The Submitters assert that “there have been 12 private prosecutions in

British Columbia in the last 19 years, at least nine of which included

charges under the Fisheries Act. Eleven of these private prosecutions

have been stayed.”41 The Submitters state that “it appears that environmental private prosecutions are being stayed as a matter of course,

rather than after the reasonable exercise of discretion.”42 The Submitters

claim that this government conduct constitutes a failure to meet the obligations of Articles 6 and 7 of the NAAEC.43

284 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

s. 37 empowers the minister to require plans and specifications if someone proposes or is carrying on a work or undertaking that results or is likely to result in a

violation of either s. 35 or s. 36 and to require modifications to the work or undertaking or restrict its operation if a violation is occurring or is likely to occur.

36. Submission at 12.

37. Submission at 12.

38. Submission at 12.

39. Submission at 13. The Submitters assert that Canada is motivated not to bring

charges against BC forest companies for violations of the Fisheries Act because

“those charges would undermine Canada’s carefully cultivated message that

Canadian forest products are ‘sustainable and environmentally friendly’—a message Canada has spent considerable amounts of time, energy and tax dollars

spreading." Submission at 15.

40. Submission at 14.

41. Submission at 13-14.

42. Submission at 14.

43. Executive Summary at iv; Submission at 14.
III- ANALYSIS

A. Article 14(1)

The assertion that Canada is failing to effectively enforce the cited

sections of the Fisheries Act satisfies the criteria for further consideration

contained in Article 14(1).44 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 Submitters qualify as

non-governmental organizations. Further, the assertion in the submission that the Party has failed to effectively enforce the federal Fisheries

Act45 focuses, as required, on a Party’s asserted failure to effectively

enforce the law, not on the effectiveness of the law itself.46 Third, the submission’s focus is on the asserted failure to effectively enforce “environmental laws.” The Fisheries Act qualifies as an “environmental law” for

purposes of the NAAEC in that its primary purpose is “protection of the

environment, or the prevention of a danger to human life or health. . . .”47

Finally, the submission focuses on asserted failures to enforce that are

ongoing, thereby meeting the requirement in Article 14(1) that a submission assert that a Party “is failing” to effectively enforce its environmental law.

Article 14(1) 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;

SEM-00-004 285

44. The Secretariat has noted in previous Article 14(1) determinations that the requirements contained in Article 14 are not intended to place an undue burden on submitters. We review the submission with this perspective in mind. See e.g., Submission

No. SEM-97-005 (26 May 1998); Submission No. SEM-98-003 (8 September 1999).

45. See e.g., Executive Summary at iii.

46. See SEM-98-003, Determination pursuant to Article 14(1) of the North American

Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (14 December 1998).

47. Article 45(2)(a).
(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.48

The submission meets these criteria. The submission is in English,

a language designated by the Parties.49 The submission clearly identifies

the organizations making the submission.50 Concerning the third criterion in Article 14(1), the submission provides sufficient information to

allow the Secretariat to review the submission with respect to the assertions of a failure to effectively enforce the law cited.51 Among other

things, the submission provides considerable information concerning

the asserted violations of the Fisheries Act and it asserts that there has

been a lack of adequate response by the government to such alleged violations.52

The submission appears to be aimed at promoting enforcement

rather than at harassing industry, as required by Article 14(1)(d). It is

focused on the acts or omissions of a Party rather than on compliance by

a particular company or business.53 The submission’s statement concerning this issue is as follows:

This submission meets the threshold requirements established under Article 14(1):

. . .

Article 14(1)(d): The Submitting parties have a longstanding interest and

involvement in the protection of the environment and, in particular, the

effects of logging in British Columbia. The organizations do not have a

financial interest in logging operations whether in British Columbia or

elsewhere.54

The submission meets the fifth criterion, contained in Article

14(1)(e), that it indicate that the matter has been communicated in writing to the relevant authorities of the Party and the Party’s response, if

any. The submission states that it has communicated the issues raised in

286 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

48. Article 14(1)(a)-(f).

49. Article 14(1)(a), Guideline 3.2.

50. Article 14(1)(b), Executive Summary at v.

51. Article 14(1)(c), Guideline 5.2, 5.3.

52. See e.g., discussion above at pp. 2-7.

53. See Guideline 5.4(a).

54. Executive Summary at v.
the submission with the Party. The submission also provides copies

of correspondence it sent to the government, and correspondence it

received in response.55

Finally, the submission meets the requirement in Article 14(1)(f)

that it be filed by a “person or organization residing or established in the

territory of a Party.”56

The Submitters’ second assertion is that Canada is failing to effectively enforce the NAAEC. The Submitters assert that, inter alia, government actions staying private prosecutions have “denied the right to

bring private prosecutions against violators of the Fisheries Act, even

though the Fisheries Act encourages citizen enforcement by granting a

statutory right to one-half of all fines resulting from private prosecutions.”57 The Submitters appear to claim that these government actions

violate Canada’s obligations under Articles 6 and 7 of the NAAEC.58

The Secretariat’s view is that, as a general matter, to the extent that

Articles 6 and 7 create obligations on the part of the Parties (Canada,

Mexico, and the United States), the remedy for a Party’s purported failure to fulfill its obligations lies with the other Parties. Article 14 of the

NAAEC provides the exclusive process for non-governmental organizations and individuals relating to allegations that a Party is failing to

enforce its “environmental laws” effectively. Article 45 of the Agreement defines “environmental law” to mean “any statute or regulation of

a Party, or provision thereof. . . .” The Secretariat has dismissed previous

submissions on the ground that the particular international agreement

involved did not qualify as “environmental law” as defined by the

Parties. While Order in Council P.C. 1993-2196 authorized the Secretary

SEM-00-004 287

55. See Attachment 6 (containing correspondence between the Party and the Submitters); attachments to 31 March 2000 letter. See Guideline 5.5. After receiving the

submission, on 30 March 2000 the Secretariat sent the Submitters a letter in which

the Secretariat notified the Submitters that, pursuant to Guideline 3.10, there may

be a minor error of form. In particular, the Secretariat informed the Submitters that

Guideline 5.5 provides that the Submitter must include copies of any relevant correspondence with the relevant authorities. The Secretariat indicated that the submission contained certain correspondence between the Submitters and the Party,

and it noted that one of these letters referenced earlier correspondence. The Secretariat requested that the Submitters supply this earlier correspondence if it is relevant. On 31 March 2000 the Submitters provided additional correspondence

between DFO and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund that the Submitters indicated may

be relevant to the submission.

56. Executive Summary at v.

57. Executive Summary at iv.

58. Executive Summary at iv; Submission at 14-15. The Executive Summary, at iv,

refers to Article 7 of the NAAEC, while the discussion at page 14 of the submission

discusses Article 6. The discussion in the text is of equal relevance to each Article.
of State for External Affairs to take the action necessary to bring the

NAAEC into force for Canada under international law, as far as the

Secretariat is aware Canada has not acted to make the NAAEC part of

domestic law.

For the foregoing reason, the Secretariat dismisses this assertion.

By making this determination, the Secretariat is not excluding the possibility that future submissions may raise questions concerning a Party’s

international obligations that would meet the criteria in Article 14(1).

B. Article 14(2)

The Secretariat reviews a submission under Article 14(2) if the Secretariat 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 relevant Party 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.59

The Secretariat, guided by the factors listed in Article 14(2), has

determined that the submission merits a response from the Party. The

Submitters assert that logging operations’ violations of Fisheries Act ss.

35 and 36 cause substantial harm to the environment. Such assertions

have been considered under Article 14(2)(a) for other submissions and

they are relevant here as well.60 We note that the Submitter claims that

288 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

59. Article 14(2).

60. In its Recommendation to the Council for the development of a factual record with

respect to SEM-96-001 (Comité para la Protección de los Recursos Naturales, A.C., et al.),
the harm allegedly sustained is due to the asserted failure to effectively

enforce the environmental law involved and that the alleged harm

relates to protection of the environment.61

The submission also raises matters whose further study in the Article 14 process would advance the goals of the Agreement.62 The submission asserts that the failure to enforce is significant in scope. Further, as

suggested above, the Submitters claim that effective enforcement

would, inter alia, “foster the protection of an important environmental

resource for the benefit of present and future generations,” . . . “promote

. . . sustainable development,” and “enhance compliance with, and

enforcement of, environmental laws and regulations.”63

Third, the Submitters state that they “have pursued all available

‘private remedies.’64” The Submitters indicate that various parties have

“urged DFO to enforce the Fisheries Act. . . .”65 Further, the Submitters

state that they, and others, have brought prosecutions under the Fisheries

Act. The Submitters assert that “in each instance, the Provincial Attorney

General took over and stayed the proceedings . . . .”66

Finally, the submission is not based exclusively on mass media

reports. Instead, the Submitters include considerable documentation in

support of their assertion that there is a failure to effectively enforce ss.

35 and 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.

In sum, having reviewed the submission in light of the factors contained in Article 14(2), the Secretariat has determined that the assertion

that there is a failure to effectively enforce ss. 35 and 36(3) of the Fisheries

Act merits requesting a response from the Party.

SEM-00-004 289

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.” The

resources at issue in this submission are of substantial importance as well.

61. Guideline 7.4.

62. Article 14(2)(b).

63. Submission at 15, referencing NAAEC Article 1(a), (b), and (g).

64. Article 14(2)(c), Guideline 7.5, Submission at 13-15.

65. Submission at 15.

66. Submission at 15.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Secretariat has determined that the

assertion that Canada is failing to effectively enforce the Fisheries Act

meets the requirements of Article 14(1) and merits requesting a response

under Article 14(2). Accordingly, the Secretariat requests a response

from the Government of Canada to this assertion within the time frame

provided in Article 14(3) of the Agreement. The Secretariat has determined that the assertion that Canada is failing to effectively enforce the

NAAEC does not satisfy the requirements of Article 14(1). A copy of the

submission and of the supporting information is annexed to this letter.

David L. Markell

Director, Submissions on Enforcement Matters Unit

c.o. Ms. Norine Smith, Environment Canada (with annexes)

c.c. Mr. William Nitze, US-EPA

Mr. José Luis Samaniego, SEMARNAP

Mr. Randy Christensen,

Ms. Patti Goldman,

Ms. Janine Ferretti, Executive Director

290 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
SEM-00-005

(MOLYMEX II)

SUBMITTERS: ACADEMIA SONORENSE DE DERECHOS

HUMANOS, A.C. and

DOMINGO GUTIERREZ MENDÍVIL

PARTY: UNITED MEXICAN STATES

DATE: 6 APRIL 2000

SUMMARY: The Submitters allege that Mexico has failed to

effectively enforce the General Law of Ecological

Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (Ley

General del Equilibrio Ecologico y la Proteccion al

Ambiente–LGEEPA) in relation to the operation of

the company Molymex, S.A. de C.V. in the town of

Cumpas, Sonora, Mexico.

SECRETARIAT DETERMINATIONS:

ART. 14(1)

(13 JULY 2000)

Determination that criteria under Article 14(1)

have not been met.

291

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

Peticionaria(os): Academia Sonorense de Derechos

Humanos, A.C.

Lic. Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil

Parte: Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Fecha de recepción: 6 de abril de 2000

Fecha de la determinación: 13 de julio de 2000

Núm. de petición: SEM-00-005

I. ANTECEDENTES

El día 6 de abril de 2000, la Academia Sonorense de Derechos Humanos,

A.C. y el Lic. Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil (los “Peticionarios”),

presentaron al Secretariado de la Comisión para la Cooperación

Ambiental (el “Secretariado”) una petición (la “Petición”) de

conformidad con los Artículos 14 y 15 del Acuerdo de Cooperación

Ambiental de América del Norte (el “Acuerdo”).

El Secretariado puede 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 cumple con los

requisitos señalados en el artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo.

El Secretariado considera que la Petición no reúne todos los requisitos

establecidos en el artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo, por las razones que se

293
exponen en la Sección III de la presente determinación. En particular, la

Petición no cumple el requisito contemplado por el inciso e) del artículo

14(1), porque la Petición no señala que el asunto ha sido comunicado por

escrito a las autoridades pertinentes de la Parte.

II. RESUMEN DE LA PETICIÓN

Los Peticionarios aseveran que México ha omitido aplicar de manera

efectiva su legislación ambiental en relación con el funcionamiento de la

planta productora de molibdeno, operada por la empresa Molymex,

S.A. de C.V. (“Molymex”), ubicada en el municipio de Cumpas, en el

estado de Sonora, México.1

Según los Peticionarios, la autoridad en México ha dejado de aplicar las

siguientes disposiciones de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la

Protección al Ambiente (la “LGEEPA”): (i) los artículos 28, fracción III, 29

fracciones IV y VI, y 32,2 al permitir la operación de la planta Molymex

sin autorización en materia de impacto ambiental;3 (ii) el artículo 98,

fracción I, al tolerar que la planta Molymex realice un uso de suelo

incompatible con la vocación natural del mismo;4 (iii) el artículo 99,

fracción III, toda vez que no se ha expedido el plan de desarrollo urbano

de Cumpas, en el que se definan los usos, reservas y destinos del suelo;5

(iv) el artículo 112, fracción II, al omitir definir las zonas en las que se

permita la instalación de industrias contaminantes;6 (v) el artículo 153,

fracción VI, ya que se ha permitido que los residuos generados durante

el proceso de tostación de molibdeno (supuestamente introducidos al

país bajo el régimen de importación temporal) permanezcan en México;7

(vi) el artículo 153, fracción VII, al otorgar autorizaciones a Molymex

para la importación de materiales supuestamente peligrosos, sin que se

haya garantizado el cumplimiento de la normatividad aplicable, ni la

reparación de los daños y perjuicios que pudieran causarse en el

territorio nacional.8

294 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1. Página 3 de la petición.

2. Aunque los Peticionarios mencionan estos tres artículos, las transcripciones que

aparecen en la Petición corresponden al texto de la LGEEPA anterior a las reformas

publicadas en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el día 13 de diciembre de 1996. Esto

sin embargo, no modifica sustancialmente el sentido de los argumentos de los

Peticionarios, tanto por la naturaleza de los argumentos, como debido a que el texto

vigente de la LGEEPA incorpora en sus artículos 29 y 30, el contenido de los

anteriores artículos 28, 29 y 32.

3. Página 5 de la petición.

4. Página 8 de la petición.

5. Página 9 de la petición.

6. Página 10 de la petición.

7. Página 11 de la petición.

8. Página 12 de la petición.
Del mismo modo los Peticionarios argumentan supuestas violaciones al

cumplimiento de la norma oficial mexicana 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 (la “NOM-022-SSA1-1993”).9

Finalmente, los Peticionarios solicitan al Secretariado la elaboración de

un informe en los términos del artículo 13 del Acuerdo, arguyendo que

el presente caso “se inscribe en tres de los principales programas

estratégicos” de la Agenda de América del Norte para la Acción: 2000-2002,

Plan Programa Trienal de la Comisión para la Cooperación Ambiental.10 Según

los Peticionarios tales programas son: (i)”las relaciones entre medio

ambiente, economía y comercio”; (ii)”la obligación de las Partes de

aplicar de manera efectiva sus leyes y reglamentos ambientales”; y

(iii)”la importancia de trabajar en iniciativas de cooperación para

prevenir o corregir los afectos adversos para la salud de los humanos y

del ecosistema de América del Norte derivados de la contaminación.”11

III. ANÁLISIS DE LA PETICIÓN CONFORME AL ARTÍCULO

14(1) DEL ACUERDO

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;

SEM-00-005 295

9. Página 5 de la petición.

10. Página 13 de la petición.

11. Páginas 13 y 14 de la petición.
(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.

La Petición fue presentada al Secretariado por una persona física y una

organización sin vinculación gubernamental,12 y asevera que México ha

omitido aplicar de manera efectiva diversos artículos de la LGEEPA, así

como la NOM-022-SSA1-1993. Las disposiciones citadas califican para

ser consideradas como “legislación ambiental” conforme a la definición

contenida en el artículo 45(2) del Acuerdo,13 ya que su propósito principal es la protección del medio ambiente y la prevención de un peligro

contra la vida o la salud humana a través de la prevención y control de

emisiones de contaminantes, el control de sustancias tóxicas y la

protección de la flora y fauna silvestres.14 Por lo tanto, los tres primeros

requisitos establecidos en el artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo se encuentran

satisfechos.

296 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

12. La Academia Sonorense de Derechos Humanos, A.C., uno de los Peticionarios, es

una asociación civil que no es parte, ni se encuentra bajo la dirección de ningún

gobierno. Por ello, califica como una organización sin vinculación gubernamental

en los términos del artículo 45(1) del Acuerdo.

13. 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,

(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.

14. Véase SEM-00-005, Determinación del Secretariado de conformidad con el artículo

14(1) (25 de abril de 2000), en donde se consideró que la NOM-022-SSA1-1993 goza

del carácter de legislación ambiental conforme a la definición establecida en el

artículo 45(2) del Acuerdo.
El Secretariado determinó que la Petición cumple de igual modo, 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;15 los Peticionarios se identifican claramente en

la Petición;16 y, a partir de la información proporcionada por los

Peticionarios, es posible constatar que, al menos la Academia Sonorense

de Derechos Humanos, A.C., tiene su domicilio en la Ciudad de

Hermosillo, Sonora, México.17

En cuanto al requisito establecido en el inciso c), el Secretariado

determinó que la información y documentos proporcionados por los

Peticionarios son suficientes para permitir al Secretariado analizar la

Petición, al menos respecto de algunas de sus aseveraciones, y en especial respecto de la supuesta omisión por parte de México en la aplicación

de la NOM-022-SSA1-1993.

Con relación a dos de las aseveraciones de los Peticionarios, el

Secretariado no considera que la Petición proporciona información

suficiente para analizarlas. Primero, no hay información suficiente

respecto de la aseveración de que México incurre en una omisión en la

aplicación efectiva del artículo 98, fracción I, al tolerar que la planta

Molymex realice un uso de suelo incompatible con la vocación natural

del mismo. No se desprende claramente de la información

proporcionada, que las actividades de Molymex son incompatibles con

la vocación natural de los predios que ocupa. Segundo, no hay

información suficiente respecto de la aseveración de que México

incurrió en una omisión en la aplicación efectiva del artículo 153,

fracción VII, al otorgar autorizaciones a Molymex para la importación de

materiales supuestamente peligrosos, sin que se haya garantizado el

cumplimiento de la normatividad aplicable, ni la reparación de los

daños y perjuicios que pudieran causarse en el territorio nacional. La

Petición no proporciona al Secretariado información suficiente para

determinar que la materia prima utilizada por Molymex constituye un

residuo peligroso conforme a la normatividad aplicable, ni para analizar

la supuesta omisión en garantizar el cumplimiento de la normatividad

aplicable, y la reparación de los daños y perjuicios que pudieran

causarse.

SEM-00-005 297

15. Ver también el apartado 3.2 de las Directrices para la Presentación de Peticiones.

16. Página 2 de la petición.

17. El Lic. Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil, el otro peticionario, no asevera en la petición

residir dentro del territorio mexicano; sin embargo, ambos Peticionarios designan

en la petición un domicilio para oír notificaciones ubicado en la ciudad de

Hermosillo, Sonora, México.
No obstante las deficiencias respecto de estas dos aseveraciones, en

opinión del Secretariado, la Petición satisface el requisito del inciso c), en

particular respecto del alegato relacionado con laNOM-022-SSA1-1993.

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. Los Peticionarios no son además, competidores

de Molymex, la empresa involucrada en este caso, ni tampoco plantea

la Petición una cuestión intrascendente.18

Por último, el Secretariado considera que la Petición no cumple con el

requisito previsto en el inciso e) del artículo 14(1). No existe mención

alguna en el texto de la Petición en la que se asevere que el asunto ha sido

comunicado por escrito a las autoridades pertinentes de México.

Tampoco en los documentos que se acompañan se señala esto con

certeza. Dos de los anexos de la Petición titulados “Problemática de la

Empresa Molymex, S.A. de C.V. Localizada en Cumpas, Sonora, Perteneciente

a al Corporación Radian, S.A. de C.V. y Operada por Personal Chileno19”

y “Contaminación Atmosférica en el Poblado de Cumpas, Sonora, Caso

Molymex, S.A de C.V.,”20 mencionan la existencia de una denuncia

ciudadana. Sin embargo, ninguno de tales documentos indica con

claridad si dicha denuncia fue presentada por escrito.21 Por lo tanto,

la Petición no señala que el asunto ha sido comunicado por escrito a

las autoridades mexicanas pertinentes, como lo requiere el inciso e).22

298 NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

18. Ver también el apartado 5.4 de las Directrices para la Presentación de Peticiones, 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”.

19. Anexo VIII de la petición.

20. Anexo IX de la petición.

21. La legislación ambiental vigente en 1994, año en el que supuestamente se realizó la

denuncia ciudadana, preveía la figura de la Denuncia Popular, a través de la cual

toda persona podía denunciar ante la autoridad competente, todo hecho, acto u

omisión de competencia de la Federación, que produjera desequilibrio ecológico o

daños al ambiente, contraviniendo las disposiciones en materia ambiental. Sin

embargo, se desconoce si la denuncia ciudadana a la que se refieren los anexos

mencionados, se trató en realidad de una Denuncia Popular en los términos de la

legislación vigente en aquel momento.

22. Si bien en ocasiones previas el Secretariado ha interpretado que el artículo 14(1) del

Acuerdo “no pretende colocar una gran carga para los peticionarios”, no puede

procederse al análisis de la Petición si no existe un sustento suficientemente claro
IV. DETERMINACIÓN DEL SECRETARIADO

Después de revisar la Petición conforme al artículo 14(1) del Acuerdo, el

Secretariado considera que ésta no satisface todos los requisitos que

dicho artículo establece, toda vez que no señala que el asunto planteado

en la Petición, ha sido previamente comunicado por escrito a las

autoridades pertinentes en México, como lo requiere el inciso e) de dicho

artículo.

Por lo tanto, conforme a lo dispuesto por el apartado 6.1 de las Directrices

para la Presentación de Peticiones, por este medio el Secretariado notifica a

los Peticionarios que no procederá al análisis de la Petición. No obstante,

de acuerdo con el apartado 6.2 de las Directrices, los Peticionarios

cuentan con 30 días para presentar una petición que cumpla con los

criterios del artículo 14(1) del ACAAN.

Finalmente, 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.

por: Carla Sbert

Oficial Jurídica de la

Unidad sobre Peticiones Ciudadanas

c.c. Lic. José Luis Samaniego, Semarnap

Sra. Norine Smith, Environment Canada

Sr. William Nitze, US-EPA

Sra. Janine Ferretti, Directora Ejecutiva de la CCA

SEM-00-005 299

para afirmar el cumplimiento de uno de los requisitos establecidos en el artículo

14(1) del Acuerdo. A este respecto, véanse SEM-00-005, Determinación del

Secretariado de conformidad con el artículo 14(1) (25 de abril de 2000), SEM-97-005,

Determinación del Secretariado de conformidad con el artículo 14(1) (21 de julio de

1997), SEM-98-003, Determinación del Secretariado de conformidad con el artículo

14(1) (27 de mayo de 1998).