ANNUAL

REPORT

1995
I CEC Profile and Mission 1

Council Letter 2

JPAC Report 4

JPAC Vision Statement 6

Message from the Executive Director of the CEC Secretariat 7

II CEC’s Major Accomplishments 9

Environmental Conservation Program 10

Protecting Human Health and the Environment Program 11

Environment, Trade and Economy Program 13

Enforcement Cooperation and Environmental Law Program 14

Information and Public Outreach Program 17

Public Participation Program 18

Special Reports 19

Citizen Submissions 21

III Highlights of Government Initiatives to Implement the Agreement 23

Canada 25

Mexico 27

United States 29

IV Parties Obligations under the NAAEC 31

Canada 32

Mexico 34

United States 38

V Financial Review 41

1994 - 1995 CEC Budget Review 43

1996 CEC Budget Preview 44

1996 CEC Project Budget Summary 46

CEC Directory 48

Table of Contents
1995

ANNUAL 

REPORT

Profile

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was created 

by the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

(NAAEC) to enhance regional environmental cooperation, reduce

potential trade and environmental conflicts and promote the 

effective enforcement of environmental law. The Agreement, 

signed by Canada, Mexico and the United States, complements 

the environmental provisions established in the North American 

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The CEC consists of 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 cabinet-level representatives from each of the three countries. 

The Secretariat provides administrative, technical and operational 

support to the Council and is charged with implementing the annual

work program. 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.

COMMISSION FOR 

ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION
Dear Citizens of Canada, Mexico and the United States:

In accordance with obligations under the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation, it is our privilege to submit the Commission 

for Environmental Cooperation’s Annual Report for the year 1995.

As Ministers of the Environment of our respective countries, we are committed to

working together to conserve and protect the North American environment. At the

Second Annual Regular Session of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation 

in Oaxaca, Mexico on October 13, 1995, we affirmed our commitment to protect,

conserve and enhance the environment through signing ground-breaking initiatives

on climate change; sound management of persistent toxic substances, including

PCBs; principles of transboundary impact assessment; and public access to 

information. 

Ushering in a new era of results-oriented cooperation, we announced other 

key accomplishments of the Commission’s 1995 work program. These included 

creating maps of North American ecoregions, establishing measures to increase the

compatibility of pollutant release inventory information, supporting a cooperative

program for the conservation of migratory song birds, and launching several projects

improving public access to information, such as an on-line Commission home page

on the Internet.

Under Article 13 of the Agreement, the Secretariat established an international 

scientific panel with the task of examining the circumstances leading to the deaths 

of migratory birds at Mexico’s Silva Reservoir. The panel concluded that the overriding cause of mortality at the Silva Reservoir was botulism and the Secretariat 

prepared a report to the Council, which included advice to the Council. To provide 

guidance to the public on how to use Articles 14 and 15 of the North American

Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, we approved the Guidelines for

Submissions on Enforcement Matters, which incorporated important public comments. 

COMMISSION FOR 

ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION

COMISIÓN PARA LA 

COOPERACIÓN AMBIENTAL

COMMISSION DE 

COOPÉRATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE
As our countries continue to increase economic, trade and social links, the

beneficiaries of this enhanced well-being are the present and future generations of

our peoples. Only by working cooperatively will we solve North America’s most

pressing environmental problems. Together, we can make the North American region

an environmental example for the rest of the world.

Looking ahead, we recognize the critical role the Commission must play in the

development of innovative tools and strategies necessary to address North America’s

environmental challenges. Further, we believe that the movement toward the shared

goal of economic health for all citizens must respect the unique heritage of each

country and consequently, environmentally sustainable development. Translating this

vision into practical results resides, in part, with the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation, and to this effort, we commit ourselves and our national resources.

Sergio Marchi Julia Carabias Carol Browner

CANADA

Minister 

of the Environment

MEXICO

The Secretary of State 

for the Environment

UNITED STATES

Environmental Protection 

Agency Administrator
JPAC Report

The Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC), together with the Council of Ministers and

the Secretariat constitutes the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

This is probably the first instance of an intergovernmental agreement integrating an

advisory mechanism of independent citizens within the formal structure of an

international governmental organization.

The JPAC is composed of fifteen members, five from each of the three countries,

appointed by the respective governments. It acts as a single, transnational body. Its

members act independently of outside authority. Their responsibility is to provide the

Council with their best advice on all matters within the scope of the Agreement.

At its first meeting in Washington, in July 1994, the JPAC adopted the vision

statement expressing its mandate and its role. This also represents the goals JPAC set

for itself and against which it expects to be judged.

To implement the vision, the Committee has two essential and complementary

responsibilities. The first is to provide Advice to the Council and information to the

Secretariat. The second is to act as an extension of the Commission to the public; a

link between people and organizations interested in the health of the North American

environment.

Advice to the Council 

Acting as a single body, the JPAC formulates specific Advice to the Council. This

advice is discussed and shaped at the meeting of the Committee and submitted to the

Council by its Chair.

In its first year, the JPAC submitted formal advice on eight subjects, ranging from the

extension of the NAFTA (which we welcomed, while emphasizing the need for

simultaneous accession to the cooperative relationship of the environmental

agreement as well as the trade agreement), to providing guidelines for the

implementation of Articles 14 and 15 on Enforcement.

At its meeting in Oaxaca in October 1995, Council expressed its appreciation of the

Advice provided by the JPAC and its confidence in the Committee. Council requested

Advice on the establishment of the North American Environmental Fund, the

implementation of the Report on Migratory Bird Mortality at the Silva Reservoir and

on CEC’s 1996 Program, all of which was provided in December 1995, and will be

subjects of JPAC’s ongoing deliberations. JPAC Advice to the Council is available

upon request to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation Secretariat.
Outreach 

It is of great importance to the JPAC that it act in an open way, that it be receptive to

all expressions of opinion from the public, and that it take active steps to promote

transparency and dialogue. Thus, the Committee decided at its very first session that its

meetings would be public, that is, open to any interested individual or organization.

It also decided that it would be important to consult formally with a broader public

on important issues and key policy matters. In its first year of activity, the JPAC

organized the first formal trinational consultation on an environmental matter. On

behalf of the Commission, the JPAC solicited views from interested public on the

procedural guidelines that facilitate representations by non-governmental

organizations under Articles 14 and 15 of the Agreement.

In addition to soliciting public comments on the draft procedures, the JPAC worked

with the Council to organize the Ministers’ meeting with the public at the

Commission’s Annual Meeting in Oaxaca, Mexico in October. 

The Way Ahead 

The Agreement requires the JPAC to meet once a year. However, in its first full year of

operation, the Committee has taken a much more active role. With the help of the

Secretariat, the JPAC has organized and participated in the first North American

consultation. It participated in meetings of the Alternate Representatives of the

Council to provide its perspective on policy matters and the CEC’s programs, as well as

on the organization of the Commission’s annual meetings.

The Committee intends to continue as active a role as possible in discharging its

responsibilities to provide advice and to reach out. As the Commission learns and

benefits from its first year of experience, the JPAC will become an increasingly useful

and effective member of this unique and promising institution, the Commission for

Environmental Cooperation. 

Jacques Gérin, Chairman (1995)
JPAC Vision Statement 

The Joint Public Advisory Committee,

which together with the Council of

Ministers and the Secretariat comprise the

NAFTA Commission for Environmental

Cooperation, represents a unique institution

charged with seizing an historic opportunity. 

The North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation set a precedent

as a formal environmental agreement

adopted in parallel with a trade agreement,

and the Commission it created also set a

precedent by including a public,

nongovernmental advisory group as one 

of its components. 

The JPAC was established as a cooperative

mechanism to advise the Council in its

deliberations and to advise the Secretariat

in its planning and activities. 

Our vision is to promote continental

cooperation in ecosystem protection and

sustainable economic development, and 

to ensure active public participation and

transparency in the actions of the full

Commission. 

While we come from three different

nations, and have different institutional

connections, we serve on the JPAC as

individual citizens of the North American

continent, joined in a commitment to

preserving and enhancing our common

environment and to achieving a sustainable

society. 

The JPAC will work to provide firm

leadership and constructive contributions to

build a trinational model of collaboration,

consensus building, and consensus-based

results. The JPAC is, in effect, a model for

the future in a process which is without

precedent, and which presents a great

opportunity for cooperative progress. 

26 July 1994 Washington, D.C. 

CANADA

T. M. (MIKE) APSEY

Council of Forest Industries

President & Chief Executive Officer

MICHAEL E. CLOGHESY

Centre patronal de l'environnement du Québec 

Président

LOUISE COMEAU

Sierra Club of Canada

Climate Change Coordinator

JACQUES GÉRIN

Hatch & Associés Inc.

Président

ROSEMARIE KUPTANA

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada

President

MEXICO

JORGE A. BUSTAMANTE

El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, A.C.

Presidente

IVAN RESTREPO

Centro de Ecología y Desarrollo, A.C.

Director

MARÍA CRISTINA CASTRO

Coordinación Estatal de Desarrollo Municipal

Coordinadora General

GUILLERMO BARROSO MONTULL

Sector Empresarial Mexicano

Representante

FRANCISCO JOSE BARNES DE CASTRO

Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo

Director general

UNITED STATES

PETER BERLE

National Audubon Society

President and C.E.O.

DAN MORALES

Attorney General

Natural Resources Division

JONATHAN PLAUT

AlliedSignal Inc.

Director, Environmental Quality

JEAN RICHARDSON

The University of Vermont Environmental Program

Director, EPIC Project

JOHN D. WIRTH

North American Institute

President
Message from the Executive Director of the CEC Secretariat

The NAAEC partners created the Commission for Environmental Cooperation to level

the playing field in a free-trading North America and, at the same time, strengthen

environmental protection. Conceived during the NAFTA negotiations and operational

since last year, the CEC is still a young organization. 

Much has happened in a short time which the NAAEC partners could not have

foreseen when the institution was created. Diverse economic, political and social

changes in the three countries have brought pressures across North America towards

weaker environmental protection standards and relaxed environmental law

enforcement. Yet environmental protection and conservation are more important than

ever, and are supported by the public in the three countries, along with the

governments, non-governmental organizations and many dynamic and forwardlooking industries. 

The CEC is a powerful tool for result-oriented cooperation and an effective forum for

a new way of looking at the protection of both nature and human health. For the first

time we are approaching environmental issues not only nationally, but regionally.

This means that our actions must correspond to the reality that environmental issues

do not respect political borders. The resources we share — including streams, air,

oceans and forests — are vital to our health, our livelihoods, and our future. The

regional approach also means we must recognize that environmental problems are

not unique to any one NAAEC country and neither are the solutions. 

At the CEC we are working together to protect our shared resources. We are also

working toward improved compliance with environmental laws. Together with the

public, we are creating consensus for strategies and concrete actions complementary

to those being pursued in each of the three countries. We are learning from each

other, from our experiences, from our successes and from our failures. The first full

year of this new approach to the environment in North America has already shown

results. 
Take toxic chemicals as an example. Many of these highly toxic substances threaten

the health of citizens in all three countries as they flow freely across the borders —

often undetected — through our rivers and streams. Working through the CEC, the

NAAEC partners have identified the most dangerous of these pollutants in the three

countries and have committed themselves to reducing their emission into the

environment. It is clear that alone, we cannot solve the problem. It takes the will, and

the cooperation, of all three countries. 

One of the by-products of working together is the realization that environmental

protection efforts do not contradict our economic goals. In a world of shrinking

financial means, pooling our limited resources is a far more strategic investment. We

have also learned that by promoting innovation and sharing green technology across

borders we are not only boosting environmental protection, but also creating

business opportunities and making it more efficient and cost-effective. 

The three governments committed this geographic, historic and economic zone to

protecting the environment for future generations. This past year we generated the

commitment necessary for an environmentally sustainable future. The biggest

challenges lay ahead making the tough choices that will lead to lasting results and to

a cleaner, healthier environment. 

Victor Lichtinger 

CEC Executive Director
CEC’s 

Major Accomplishments 

The CEC undertook an ambitious program of activities in its first full

year of operations, introducing cooperative regional initiatives on a

wide range of environmental matters. The most promising of these 

initiatives are continuing in 1996, reflecting a decision to concentrate

efforts in those areas which present the greatest opportunities for

progress while at the same time avoiding duplication and institutional

overlap.

The CEC took care to ensure that its activities complement and enhance

efforts of others with similar missions. The CEC engaged in extensive

consultations to identify priority areas in which its work would augment

current activities, as well as to break new ground on matters of 

continental environmental importance.

Staffed by an interdisciplinary team of professionals from each NAAEC

country, the Secretariat implemented the 1995 work plan by launching

projects in different program areas including:

Environmental Conservation

Protecting Human Health and the Environment

Environment, Trade and Economy

Enforcement Cooperation and Environmental Law

Information and Public Outreach

In addition to the program areas, responding to specific NAAEC 

obligations was, and will continue to be, an important component 

of the CEC’s operations. 
Environmental Conservation Program

Goal: To conserve ecosystem health and integrity and to foster and encourage

the conservation, protection and sustainable use of biodiversity and its components.

Cooperation on Migratory Birds

Through their annual migration, more than 250 species of song birds link the three

North American countries. Due in large part to loss or decline in the quality of habitat

throughout their range, populations of several bird species are at risk. The protection

of migratory birds is dependent on cooperative efforts among the three countries to

protect important habitats along the migration routes.

In 1995, the CEC initiated a cooperative program to identify the important bird areas for

non-game migratory birds. The CEC assembled a trinational team of wildlife agencies

and citizen groups that are concerned about migratory bird conservation to develop an

action program. It will be implemented in 1996.

Ecoregion Mapping of North America

In 1995, the CEC facilitated the production of a set of ecoregion maps for North

America. These ecoregion maps are important tools for scientists and policy makers and

provide a common interpretation and understanding of North American geographical

and ecological information. They are also a valuable educational tool.

The CEC supported a team of scientists and cartographers from each of the three

countries to develop, from geographical information systems, a common basis for

classification of North American ecoregions. The maps were developed for two levels

of complexity: Level I maps depict 16 ecoregions, and Level II maps depict 51

ecoregions. The maps are available in both printed and electronic formats, and are

accompanied by a report on each specific ecoregion and the methodologies used.

Level III maps will be produced in 1996.

Assessment of Conservation Status of North American Ecoregions

Cooperation on the conservation of biodiversity in North America requires an

understanding of the conservation status of ecoregions throughout the region. In

1995, the CEC initiated a program to undertake a coarse-scale status assessment of

terrestrial ecoregions in North America and an analysis of conservation gaps in the

Northern Rocky Mountains and the Sonoran Desert. This initiative, a multi-year

project, will provide the basis for identifying priorities for cooperation on the

conservation of North American ecoregions.

Transboundary Water Resources

The CEC initiated the analysis of transboundary water issues in North America at the end

of 1995. This project considers the social, political, economic and environmental

implications of present water uses in the transboundary water basins in North America,

and their impact for future economic growth and social well-being in the border areas.

The analysis on the state of transboundary water resources will provide options for

improving the management of those resources in the region.
Protecting Human Health and the Environment Program

Goal: To facilitate cooperative initiatives to reduce pollution risks and minimize

pollution impacts.

Cooperation on Limits for Specific Pollutants

The governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States in the NAAEC recognized

the need to set appropriate limits to specific pollutants on a cooperative basis to

protect human health and the North American environment. 

The CEC initiated discussions to implement this provision of the NAAEC. The Council

members passed a resolution at their meeting in Oaxaca to develop trinational action

plans on four priority substances, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The

resolution includes provisions for joint action on the reduction and virtual elimination

of persistent bioaccumulative pollutants and for improving capacity for the sound

management of chemicals. The Council established an intergovernmental working

group to identify three other priority pollutants and develop corresponding regional

action plans for submission corresponding to the Council for approval in December 1996. 

North American Pollutants Release Inventory 

The Council resolved to produce an annual North American Pollutants Release Inventory

(NAPRI). The CEC is producing an annual report on pollutant releases and transfers using

publicly available information from the national pollutants inventories in each country. 

Canada and the United States have pollutant emission inventories in place. Mexico is

in the process of developing its own inventory. The CEC focused its efforts on

providing Mexico with support for the development of its inventory, and on preparing

several draft chapters of the first NAPRI report, including the draft data analysis

methodology. The NAPRI report will be published in 1996 and will provide a unique

regional perspective on pollutant loading into the North American environment.

North American Air Monitoring and Modeling

Air monitoring and modeling efforts are essential to track the movement of air

pollutants to arrive at valid policy and regulatory decisions and are dependant upon

reliable information. The CEC reviewed the status of air monitoring and modeling

systems. It also established an Advisory Committee which recommended several key

action areas for the CEC 1996 work plan, including promotion of data compatibility,

status and quality enhancement of emissions inventories and technology transfer.

Facilitating Energy Efficiency in North America

The CEC worked to identify the barriers to, and opportunities for improved energy

efficiency cooperation in North America. The document, available in 1996, identifies

trends in energy markets in the three countries, and highlights specific opportunities

for facilitating the flow of technology, know-how and investment. It includes case

studies on motor efficiency standards and voluntary programs. Activities in 1996 will

be based on this research.

The CEC sponsored Canadian and Mexican participation in the development of a

North American Energy Measurement and Verification Protocol. These voluntary

guidelines shape energy efficiency projects and encourage new and lower cost

sources of financing for energy efficiency improvements.

The CEC initiated an energy efficiency audit program based on extensive

consultations and evaluation. A meeting of experts was convened to shape the audit,

d M i il t dit i iti t d
North American Cooperation on Climate Change and Joint Implementation

The Council signed a Statement of Intent to Cooperate on Climate Change and Joint

Implementation at their meeting in October. The Statement lays the groundwork for

joint action by the three countries on information exchange, technology transfer and

facilitation of private sector involvement in greenhouse gas emissions reduction

activities. The Statement of Intent will guide the work of the intergovernmental

working group in 1996. The Council also established an intergovernmental working

group to facilitate the exchange of information on climate change and to promote

and encourage joint implementation. 

Environmental Training in North America

The availability of mutually recognized accreditation of environmental education and

training is essential to ensure an adequate supply of trained environmental

professionals for industry in North America. The CEC completed an overview of the

demand for environmental education and training and the supply of such services in

North America. Based on that report, the Commission held a trinational round table

of experts on environmental training and education concluding that a more extensive

review of the demand for education and training of environmental professionals in

the Mexican small- and medium-sized industry sector be produced in 1996. 

Cooperation on Pollution Prevention

Information on pollution prevention trends and opportunities in North America will

generate increased cooperation and exchange of technologies and experience among

industry and governments in North America. The CEC identified opportunities for

North American cooperation on pollution prevention. It also held a round table with

private sector and government experts to produce recommendations on the CEC’s

role in promoting pollution prevention in North America. The experts found that

improved access to financial resources was a need of small- and medium-sized

industries in North America.

Technology Clearinghouse

Government officials, business and environmental organizations frequently identify

the lack of information exchange as a major barrier to successful adoption of

environmental technologies by industry. The installation of environmental

technologies that have not met local needs, the unnecessary purchase of expensive

technologies with high operating costs and the emphasis on pollution control over

pollution prevention are some of the results of this lack of information exchange.

The CEC reviewed the information needs of users and potential users of environmental

technologies. It included major environmental technology information resources

currently available in North America, and the capacity of those resources to meet the

needs of current and potential users of environmental technology. It concluded that a

clearinghouse mechanism could improve access to information on environmental

technologies that are appropriate to the needs of industry and local circumstances. 

Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment

Under Article 10(7) of the NAAEC, the CEC is to develop specific recommendations

on transboundary environmental impact assessment. In 1995, the CEC initiated

discussions with senior environmental impact assessment officials from the three

countries on this important area, leading to the adoption by the CEC Council of the

Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment ”Overarching Principles“ in

October 1995. These principles will be used to inform and guide the discussions

conducted in 1996 on the specific topics covered by Article 10(7).
Environment, Trade and Economy Program

Goal: To encourage mutual compatibility of trade environmental and economic 

policies and instruments within, and between, North America and other trading regimes.

The CEC designed a study to assess the impacts of the NAFTA on the environment in

North America. In 1995, experts began to assess the NAFTA’s effects on trade and

investment, to identify environmental variables and their appropriate indicators and

to define the ‘connectors’ linking the NAFTA-induced economic activity with the

specific environmental variables identified. Two background papers that contributed

to the initial design of the study are available from the CEC Secretariat.

The NAAEC imposed a dual responsibility on the Parties to support the environmental

goals and objectives of the NAFTA, without creating trade distortions or new trade

barriers. The NAFTA, taken together with its side accords, is the first trade agreement

in the world which addresses environmental concerns in a comprehensive way.

The Secretariat prepared a survey of issues with important environmental components

which have been the subject of trade disputes in the past. The CEC also assembled a

wide range of perspectives on issues in North America which might become the

subject of environmentally related trade disputes in the future and undertook an

analysis of the committees and working groups constituted under the NAFTA that are

working on trade matters having significant environmental dimensions. A background

paper that contributed to this work is available from the CEC Secretariat.

The NAFTA, beyond any other trade agreement, expanded the role for scientific and

technical expertise brought before the NAFTA panels, committees and working

groups addressing issues with environmental components. For example, the NAFTA

permits a panel or any party to a dispute to request that a scientific advisory team be

named to support the panel’s deliberations. The CEC identified the articles in both the

NAFTA and the NAAEC which allow for recourse to environmental advice and

expertise to avoid or resolve disputes with important environmental components.

Assessing Latin American Markets for Environmental Goods and Services

Opportunities are expanding under the NAFTA and the demand for clean, energy

efficient technologies is on the rise. Because of Mexico’s proximity to other Latin

American countries and its similiar culture and common language, it is particularly

well-positioned to take advantage of existing trade liberalization agreements in Latin

American markets, which offer the potential to leverage existing partnerships among

the NAFTA countries. The CEC has undertaken a project designed to facilitate

partnerships between and among North American environmental technology and

service companies to enhance these opportunities. The project will identify specific

North American technologies that have been successfully applied in Mexico, detail

specific target markets and examine sources of financing for the NAFTA suppliers as

well as their Latin American clients. 
Goal: To facilitate the development of law, policy and economic instruments for

alternative approaches to compliance, effective enforcement, and to promote

greater public participation and transparency in decision making.

Enforcement Cooperation Program 

The NAAEC imposes a number of obligations on the Parties and the Council to ensure

effective enforcement of environmental laws. It also mandates the CEC to foster

trilateral cooperation to achieve this goal. The 1995 CEC Program reflects these

obligations by designating enforcement cooperation as a program area. Consistent

with this direction, the CEC initiated a number of activities in support of the Parties’

obligations. A detailed report on each of the Parties’ enforcement activities and

cooperative initiatives is provided in Annex I: North American Report on

Environmental Enforcement.

North American Permanent Working Group on Environmental Enforcement

and Compliance Cooperation (PWG) 

The CEC established a working group of senior level environmental enforcement

officials, the North American Permanent Working Group for Environmental

Enforcement and Compliance Cooperation (PWG). The PWG has been mandated to

oversee cooperation in joint enforcement training, development of strategy and policy,

exchange of expertise and initiation of specific trilateral enforcement and compliance

programs. For a detailed report, see Annex I: North American Report on Environmental

Enforcement.

The CEC also provided administrative and financial support to the PWG and its

member agencies. The CEC delivered collaborative programs and initiatives,

including efforts to develop consistent indicators of effective environmental

enforcement and compliance. 

Enforcement of Pollution Control Laws

Priority initiatives by the CEC with the PWG included support for a seminar series

directed at improved compliance with environmental laws by maquiladora industries

in Mexico. The seminars focused on environmental auditing information, pollution

prevention and other voluntary compliance initiatives. The seminars triggered

additional meetings among North American enforcement officials to review

government roles and responsibilities in voluntary compliance initiatives, including

environmental audits and ISO14000. This cooperative initiative will continue into 1996.

The second priority initiative identified by the PWG was improved tracking of the

movement of hazardous wastes across North America and ultimately improved

capacity to enforce related laws. The project includes a review of North American

laws, policies and practices, as well as exploration of improved compatibility of

electronic data systems. 

Enforcement of Wildlife Laws

The CEC facilitated the creation of the North American Working Group on Wildlife

Enforcement (NAWEG). The CEC worked with NAWEG in the design and delivery of a

series of joint training programs delivered in Mexico and Canada for improved

enforcement of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)

in North America by wildlife and customs officials.
In addition to supporting specific training seminars, the CEC is publishing a Roster of

North American Environmental Enforcement and Compliance Training programs to

facilitate shared training opportunities. The CEC continues to serve as an information

broker among the working groups and enforcement agencies.

Survey of North American Experience with Voluntary Compliance

In response to considerable interest expressed by government agencies, regulated

industry and public interest organizations, the CEC initiated a comparative study to

document the use in North America of voluntary mechanisms for achieving

compliance with environmental protection standards and objectives. The project is

also aimed at supporting the efforts by the Parties to develop a common framework

for effective enforcement. The NAAEC makes specific reference to adoption of

voluntary compliance mechanisms as part of each country’s framework for effective

enforcement.

The study report will document the application of select voluntary compliance

initiatives in the three countries, including environmental self-audits, compliance

plans, sectoral agreements, and privatization of enforcement programs among others.

It will also provide a critical analysis of the current use and application of these

alternative mechanisms, assess implications for enforcement obligations of the Parties

and share options for more effective use of these measures in North America.

Environmental Law Program

Comparative Environmental Law Database

The CEC has made a comparative environmental law database available on the

Internet, accessible directly through the Secretariat’s home page on the World Wide

Web (WWW:http://www.cec.org). The database, called the Summary of

Environmental Law in North America enhances access to environmental legal and

decision making frameworks in each of the NAAEC countries and allows users to

have direct access to the full text of the laws and regulations available on the WWW,

cross-referenced by subject matter in the three official languages of the NAAEC.

Reciprocal Access to Courts

Under Article 10(9) of the NAAEC, the CEC Council shall consider reciprocal access

to courts for transboundary pollution matters, and as appropriate, develop

recommendations for such access. The CEC initiated work under that article by

identifying a group of experts drawn from the Canadian Bar Association, the

American Bar Association and the Barra Mexicana. The CEC also delineated the

scope of the work to be undertaken in anticipation of the formal commencement of

the project in 1996.
The NAEEC obligates the Council to promote, and as appropriate, develop

recommendations regarding public access to environmental information held by public

authorities. This is consistent with commitments made by the Parties in such other

international documents including the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21.

Two activities were initiated in 1995. The CEC held a meeting of North American

experts on access to information which included representatives from government,

industry and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The expert group formulated a

Consensus Report on Essential Elements of Public Access to Environmental Information

(soon to be available on the CEC home page). On the basis of this report, the Council

issued Public Access to Environmental Information, Council Resolution No.95-8

recommending to the Parties the following actions to foster enhanced public access

to information in their respective jurisdictions:

To identify present laws and practices pertaining to public access to 

environmental information in the three countries, in accordance with the 

respective laws of the Parties, and within the scope of work undertaken 

by the Commission;

To implement actions and initiatives aimed at improving education and 

communication programs concerning environmental issues and access to 

environmental information in the respective nations;

To explore ways of facilitating ease of access, affordability and timeliness 

of obtaining information to which members of the public are entitled, as 

prescribed by domestic law.

A second associated initiative involves a study documenting North American law,

policy and practice on access to environmental information. The study is currently

being finalized.

Economic Instruments

The NAAEC Article 2(f) directs the Parties to promote the use of economic instruments

for the efficient achievement of environmental goals. This reflects the broadly held

view that economic instruments can be very effective in furthering environmental

goals in tandem with regulations and enforcement.

In 1995, the Secretariat held a meeting of experts to identify opportunities for the use of

economic instruments from a North American perspective and to recommend an

appropriate contribution by the CEC. The resulting report documents priority areas and

recommends a strategy for action by the CEC to promote the effective use of economic

instruments. This report will be available in 1996 on CEC’s WWW home page.
Information and Public Outreach Program

Goal: To increase public awareness and understanding of the environmental

challenges facing the NAAEC partners.

There is growing recognition in North America that environmental protection efforts

require access to quality environmental information and a greater awareness of how

environmental issues affect our health, quality of life and livelihoods. Equally

important, an informed public can participate more fully in the decision making

process. The CEC is meeting the challenge to improve the flow of information and

communication across borders and, at the same time, working to close the linguistic,

geographic and cultural gaps among the NAAEC partners.

This year, the CEC inaugurated the CEC home page on the WWW of the Internet. The

home page serves as an affordable public access point for CEC’s electronic resources,

including summaries of environmental laws in the three countries, CEC publications,

and linkages to other environmental sources and the NAFTA-related organizations.

The home page is also where the public can electronically visit the CEC Resource

and Public Information Center, a clearinghouse for North American environmental

information, including a unique array of serials and monographs on the environment.

The CEC Resource and Public Information Center is located in Montreal at the CEC

headquarters. Inaugurated this year, it has quickly become an invaluable tool for

researchers and policy makers across North America. Information Center staff will

respond to questions on any aspect of the NAFTA and its relationship to the

environment. Questions from the public are accepted in English, French and Spanish,

in person, by telephone, fax or by electronic mail. Complementary to the Information

Center, a multimedia resource center, The North American Center for Environmental

Information and Communication, (known by its Spanish acronym CICEANA) in

Mexico City is a public access point for environmental information assembled by the

CEC. The CICEANA is also the base for trinational media initiatives to support greater

public awareness of North American environmental issues.

In keeping with its commitment to delivering state-of-the-art environmental

information, this year the CEC developed the North American Integrated Information

System (NAIIS). This system will create a regional perspective on environmental

issues for educational, demonstration and analytical purposes, at first using georeferenced data at the state and provincial level and then later, at the municipal

levels. Future access to NAIIS via CEC’s home page will also enable the public to tap

into existing databases and other regional environmental systems at other institutions.

The CEC is also putting the finishing touches on a database which provides the public

access to an inventory of transboundary agreements on environmental matters at the

local, state/provincial and federal levels. Our review of the data reveals a rich and

complex range of environmental management activities across North America. These

agreements are the foundation for promoting broader cooperation to improve the

management of shared natural resources and environmental protection. The database

will be available on the CEC’s home page.
Public Participation Program

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation provides the public in Mexico,

Canada and the United States an important opportunity to participate in

environmental decision making. It does so through a variety of formal and informal

mechanisms, many of which are changing the way the public interacts with

environmental authorities across North America. Taken together, these mechanisms

enable the public to influence the direction and priorities of the North American

environmental agenda. They also ensure the processes established under the NAAEC

are open and transparent. Public participation through the CEC will evolve further in

the coming year. We are learning by doing and we are looking for new and more

effective ways of reaching out to include a larger public.

One of the central avenues for public participation is through the Joint Public

Advisory Committee. The members of the JPAC, five from each country, serve on a

volunteer basis as advisors to the Council. They do not represent specific

constituencies, but rather speak as knowledgeable, independent and concerned

individuals. This year, the JPAC held public consultations for the first time. At these

consultations — July 31st in Ottawa, August 3rd in Washington, D.C. and August 7th

in Mexico City — members of JPAC listened to advice from concerned citizens on

proposed guidelines for public submissions under the NAAEC. All the sessions

included plenary sessions and round table discussions with over 100 participants from

industry, NGOs, academia and government. Using this input, the JPAC was able to

develop sound and credible recommendations for the Council. As a result, the

Council adopted the Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters, which are

now available in the three official languages on the CEC home page, or in hard copy

from the CEC Secretariat.

As part of its mandate, the Council of Ministers hold public sessions at its yearly

meetings. The first public session was held in Washington, D.C. in July, 1994, when

the three governments formally put plans for the CEC in operation. Dozens of

environmental and citizen groups from across North America provided their input for

the development of the first CEC work plan. The second public session was in

October, 1995, in Oaxaca, Mexico. Over 100 participants contributed to round table

discussions and a three-hour dialogue with the three environmental ministers.

The NAAEC offers another central avenue for public participation. Under Article 14,

citizens have the opportunity to bring inter-alia a local or transboundary

environmental issue to the attention of a regional body. The public submission

process is designed to help citizens spotlight environmental issues relating to

effective non-enforcement that most concern them. This year, the CEC received two

public submissions.

The CEC is committed to involving the public in its work. Working groups and expert

meetings conducted by the Secretariat help the CEC solicit concrete input from the

public. At over 75 meetings this year, experts from the private and public sector

participate actively in the process of shaping and defining the CEC work program and

regional governmental priorities. The Secretariat seeks out these experts through

formal and informal mechanisms at regular intervals.

The Secretariat has developed several tools to facilitate the open, transparent and

low-cost exchange of information. The CEC Resource and Information Center is a

clearinghouse for a vast array of environmental information. The public can access

the Center through the CEC home page which is one of the main vehicles for an

informal trinational dialogue being developed by the Secretariat
Special Reports

In 1995, the Silva Reservoir Report became the first report submitted to the Council

pursuant to Article 13 of the NAAEC.

Article 13 empowers the Secretariat to make reports to the Council on any matter within the

scope of the annual program. The Secretariat may also make reports on any other

environmental matter related to the cooperative functions of the Agreement, unless the

Council objects by a two-thirds vote to the preparation of such a report. 

The Silva Reservoir Report was prompted by a water bird die-off incident involving

migratory birds. Migratory birds were an important part of the CEC’s 1995 work

program. In addition, migratory birds have traditionally been a subject of interest for

the three member countries, evident in cooperative arrangements such as the North

American Waterfowl Management Plan. The different species of waterfowl affected by

the Silva Reservoir die-off are a shared resource among the three NAFTA countries

and are the subject of extensive protection by international agreements ratified by

Canada, Mexico and the United States. 

During the winter of 1994-95, between 20,000 and 40,000 birds died at the Silva

agricultural reservoir near León in the state of Guanajuato, Mexico. Among the 21

species killed were ruddy ducks, northern pintails, green-winged teals and whitefaced ibises. Three non-governmental environmental groups from the United States

and Mexico, the National Audubon Society, the Grupo de los Cien Internacional and

the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental, requested that the CEC report on the

mass mortality in accordance with Article 13 of the NAAEC. Based on a series of

internal criteria developed to help the Secretariat to decide in which cases to accept

requests from the public for Article 13 reports, the Secretariat evaluated the

pertinence and relevance of the issue and decided to prepare the report,

communicating this decision to the three Parties, the NGOs that requested the report

and the public in general. Julia Carabias, Mexico’s Minister for the Environment,

Natural Resources and Fisheries, welcomed the Commission’s participation, saying

that, as part of the cooperative process for solving environmental problems, it would

be useful for her country and its North American partners.
The Secretariat set up a scientific panel composed of three highly recognized experts

from each of the three countries giving it a mandate to gather information and draw

the necessary conclusions on the incident at the Silva Reservoir and assist the

Secretariat in the development of its report. The International Silva Reservoir

Scientific Panel nominated three chairs, one from each country, Joe Carriero

(Canada), Linda Glaser (United States) and Jorge Soberon (Mexico). The panelists had

expertise in veterinary medicine, waterfowl biology, wildlife toxicology, industrial

chemistry, ecology, and watershed management. 

Relying on the consensus views of the Panel, the Secretariat‘s report concluded that the

overriding cause of mortality in water birds at the Silva Reservoir was botulism, but that

a small percentage of birds may have died of other causes. Birds that may have died of

other causes, such as exposure to heavy metal and organic pollutants, could also have

triggered a subsequent and larger die-off from an outbreak of botulism. The report noted

that many of the conditions in the Silva Reservoir were conducive to botulism outbreaks,

including the shallow basin, the fluctuating water levels, the extreme eutrophy (primarily

as a result of municipal sewage) and the abundance of algae. The report further noted

that the Silva Reservoir, and the Turbio River and its major tributaries, are highly polluted

and indicated that industrial pollution — especially chromium pollution — was very

evident, both in sediment samples and in the bodies of some of the birds that had died. 

The Secretariat, in its report, made nine suggestions for remedial and preventive actions

for the Council’s consideration. Among these, the Secretariat suggested the desirability

for Mexico to develop a national program for wildlife health surveillance for the

investigation of, and response to, wildlife disease outbreaks and that this program be

coordinated with similar existing programs in the United States and Canada. 

The need to fully implement the Turbio River Initiative was suggested to the Council,

as well as a number of central actions for recommendation to the Mexican

government including a comprehensive clean-up program for the river, the

establishment of an independent mechanism that would be broadly representative of

all interested stakeholders for monitoring and reporting on the progress and results of

this initiative, conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the environmental

compliance situation in the area and the design and implementation of a targeted

pollution prevention program so as to decrease industrial pollution in a substantial

way.

This Secretariat report was made public by the Council at the Oaxaca meeting in October

of 1995, and is available in hard copy and electronic format. 
Citizen Submissions on Enforcement Matters

Articles 14 & 15 of the NAAEC

Any non-governmental organization or person asserting that a Party to the NAAEC is

failing to effectively enforce its environmental law may make a submission to the CEC

Secretariat on enforcement matters under Articles 14 or 15 of the NAAEC.

In order to provide potential submitters with additional guidance, the CEC has

developed Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters under Articles 14 and

15 of the NAAEC.

As well, the CEC established a registry to provide information for any interested

organization or person to follow the status of any submission during the process.

The guidelines and the registry are available for viewing and downloading in

electronic format at the CEC Web site on the Internet:

(URL: http://www.cec.org/english/citzen/) 

Hard copies are also available on request from the CEC Resource Center.

In 1995, the Secretariat received two submissions on enforcement matters and issued

final determinations in both cases. The following abstract from the registry provides

summary information on those submissions.

Special Legal Advisers

In 1995 the CEC Secretariat appointed, on an honorary basis, a distinguished panel of

Special Legal Advisers to counsel the Secretariat on specific issues arising under

Articles 14 and 15 of the NAAEC.

Lic. Carlos Bernal, senior partner in the law firm of Noriega y Escobebo, A.C. in

Mexico City, is the appointed Mexican Special Legal Adviser. Lic. Bernal served as a

Minister Counselor of the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations from

1983 to 1989.

Prof. Steven C. McCaffrey, B.A., J.D., Dr.Jur., Professor of Law at McGeorge School of

Law in Sacramento, California is the appointed U.S. Special Legal Adviser. Prof.

McCaffrey served as a member of the International Law Commission from 1982 to

1991, which he chaired in 1987-1988.

The Honourable Mr. Justice Bryan Williams, Q.C., formerly a senior partner in the

law firm of Swinton & Company served as the Canadian Special Legal Adviser until

being appointed Justice of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, the highest court

of that province.
Submission I.D.: SEM-95-001

Submitter(s):

Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Consejo Asesor Sierra Madre, Forest Guardians, Greater

Gila Biodiversity Project and Southwest Center for Biological Diversity

Party: The United States of America

Summary of the Matter Addressed in the Submission:

Submitters allege that provisions of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and

Rescissions for the Department of Defense to Preserve and Enhance Military Readiness

Act of 1995 (Rescissions Act) have resulted in a failure to effectively enforce selected

provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Specifically, submitters allege that the

Rescissions Act prohibits the Fish and Wildlife Service from making "final

determinations" for species or critical habitat designations for the remainder of fiscal year

1995. Submitters further allege that the Rescissions Act rescinds $1.5 million from the

budget allocated to the listing program and prohibits the Fish and Wildlife Service from

compensating for the loss from other programs.

Name and Citation of the Environmental Law in Question:

Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1631-1544

Summary of the Response Provided by the Party: N/A

Summary of the Notifications to the Submitter(s):

Acknowledgment of receipt of submission sent on July 10, 1995.

Secretariat’s determination that submission meets Article 14:1 (a-f) criteria.

Sent on July 19, 1995.

Secretariat’s determination informing submitters that the Secretariat will not request 

a response from the Party and will no longer consider the submission provided no 

supplemental information is received within 30 days [Article 14(2)]. 

Sent on September 21, 1995.

Secretariat’s determination that the new or supplemental information provided by 

submitters does not merit a review of the Secretariat’s previous determination in this 

matter. Sent on December 11, 1995.

Council’s Decision on the Preparation of a Factual Record: N/A

Council’s Decision on the Public Release of the Factual Record: N/A

Status of the Process: Process terminated.

Submission I.D.: SEM-95-002

Submitter(s):

Sierra Club, Alaska Center for the Environment, Ancient Forest Rescue, Friends of the

Earth, Headwaters, Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Idaho Conservation League,

Inland Empire Public Lands Council, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Klamath Forest

Alliance, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northcoast

Environmental Center, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Oregon Natural Resources

Council, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Pacific Rivers Council,

Pilchuck Audubon Society, Portland Audubon Society, Seattle Audubon Society,

Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, Western Ancient Forest Campaign, The Wilderness

Society, Earthlife Canada Foundation operating as BC Wild, Environmental Resource

Center of Alberta, Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental, Grupo de Los Cien and Red

Mexicana de Acción Frente al Libre Comercio

Party: The United States of America

Summary of the Matter Addressed in the Submission:

Submitters allege that provisions of the Fiscal Year 1995 Supplemental Appropriations,

Disaster Assistance and Rescissions Act (Rescissions Act) result in a failure to effectively

enforce all applicable federal environmental laws by eliminating private remedies for

salvage timber sales. Specifically, submitters allege that the rider in Rescissions Act

2001(a)(3) provides that salvage timber sales shall not be subject to administrative

review and that the sales shall be deemed to satisfy all federal environmental and natural

resource laws.

Name and Citation of the Environmental Law in Question:

All relevant federal environmental laws.

Summary of the Response Provided by the Party: N/A

Summary of the Notifications to the Submitter(s):

Acknowledgment of receipt of submission sent by the Secretariat on August 31, 1995.

Secretariat’s determination that submission does not meet Article 14:1 (a-f) criteria and

that the Secretariat will not request a response from the Party and will no longer consider

the submission provided no supplemental information is received within 30 days [Article 14(2)].

Sent on December 8, 1995.

Council’s Decision on the Preparation of a Factual Record: N/A

Council’s Decision on the Public Release of the Factual Record: N/A

St t f th P P t i td
Highlights 

of Government Initiatives 

to Implement the Agreement 

CANADA

Highlights of Government Initiatives to Implement the Agreement 

In 1995, the federal government of Canada made progress in a number of areas that

reinforced Canada’s commitments and obligations under the NAAEC.

Article 2 - General Commitments

Article 2(1)(a) - Periodically prepare and make publicly available reports on the state of

the environment

The third national five-year report, The State of Canada’s Environment - 1996, is

being made available to the public on the Internet.

Fact sheets, other specific reports, and the Environmental Indicator Series will be

available through Environment Canada’s State of the Environment Infobase. Seven

indicator bulletins will have been released by the end of 1995/96: Canadian

Passenger Transportation (1995); Sustaining Canada’s Forests - Timber Harvesting

(1995); Stratospheric Ozone Depletion (update-1995); Climate Change (update

1996); Energy Consumption (update-1996); Acid Rain (1996), and Urban Air Quality

(update-1996). A number of indicator bulletins will be updated in 1996-97.

Article 2(1)(b) - Develop and review environmental emergency preparedness measures

In July 1994, the Canada-United States Joint Inland Pollution Contingency Plan was signed,

establishing a coordinated and integrated federal response mechanism when an accidental

or unauthorized release of a pollutant causes, or could cause, damage to the environment

along the shared inland boundary. Regional annexes to implement the Canada-United

States Joint Inland Pollution Contingency Plan will be finalized in 1997-98.

The federal government is involved in several environmental emergency preparedness

projects on a bilateral basis, such as: a project with Mexico on environmental emergency

legislation, risk assessment and response; and a project in the Sarnia/Port Huron chemical

valley area in regard to improved mapping capabilities for emergency preparedness.

The Parliamentary committee reviewing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act

(CEPA) made six specific recommendations relating to environmental emergencies. These

include: the establishment of enabling provisions to create a legislative framework for

dealing with the environmental aspects of emergencies, site registration and a national

spill reporting network. The government response outlines how they could be

implemented through CEPA amendments and through cooperative agreements with the

provinces.

Article 2(1)(e) - Assess, as appropriate, environmental impacts

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) was established in

December 1994, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (the Act) came into

force in January 1995. In 1995-96, CEAA managed five public reviews under the

Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order, two public reviews

under the Act, and two under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The

CEAA leads Canada’s efforts to achieve an agreement between the North American

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Parties on their mutual obligations regarding

assessment of projects with transboundary impacts, as required under Article 10(7) of

the NAAEC
Article 2(1)(f) - Promote the use of economic instruments for the efficient achievement of

environmental goals

Canada has a variety of economic instruments in place at the municipal and

provincial levels. Use of economic instruments is less evident at the federal level,

however some progress is being made. A Task Force was created in 1994 to find

effective ways in which to use economic instruments, and to identify barriers and

disincentives to sound environmental practices. Several of these initiatives were

subsequently included in the 1995 Federal Budget. In addition, a transferable

allowance program for methyl bromide control came into effect on January 1, 1995,

and a similar program for HCFCs came into effect on January 1, 1996.

Article 3 - Levels of Protection

The federal government released its response to the CEPA parliamentary review, and

has proposed revisions to the Act based on the recommendations of the review

report, which focused on four broad areas: strengthening the commitment to the

principles of sustainable development (pollution prevention, ecosystem approach,

precautionary principle); ensuring a strong federal leadership role in the management

of human health and environmental protection; increased opportunities for public

participation in environmental protection and improved regulatory capacity,

particularly for toxic substances. The government response is presently undergoing

public review.

The Expert Advisory Panel on the Second Priority Substances List (PSL 2) submitted its

report in October 1995. The panel reviewed over 600 substances and recommended that

25 of them be added to the list of substances which should be given priority to determine

whether they are toxic and should therefore be subject to controls under CEPA.

In June 1995, the Minister of the Environment released the Canadian Endangered

Species Protection Act - A Legislative Proposal. This proposal includes: recognizing

the preservation of biodiversity as a responsibility shared by the federal and

provincial governments; providing the federal elements of a national framework to

protect and conserve endangered species, and providing for regulation of a wide

variety of activities respecting federally listed species. This proposal is currently the

subject of national consultations.

Article 5 - Government Enforcement Action

Canada, along with the other NAFTA parties, has been participating in the activities

of the CEC Working Group on Environmental Enforcement and Compliance.

Looking to the Future

For Canada, the CEC is increasingly being seen as an effective forum for addressing

environmental issues of regional concern. The resolutions agreed to by the Council at

their Oaxaca session in October 1995, are already being translated into regional

action plans and strategies. In 1996, we will see action plans on PCBs, DDT and

Chlordane, and mercury. We will see agreement on obligations regarding

transboundary environmental assessment, as well as the launch of a North American

Environment Fund which will promote implementation of the goals of the NAAEC at

the grass roots level. In addition, Canada is committed to increasing participation in

the NAAEC by its provinces and territories. Alberta became the first province to sign

the intergovernmental agreement, and will be formally declared a participant in the

NAAEC in spring 1996.
MEXICO

Highlights of Government Initiatives to Implement the Agreement 

Examples of future Mexican governmental action with regards to the environment

The following are some of the activities that Mexico is carrying out or plans to

implement in the near future.

Public Information and Social Participation

The annual report on the state of the environment in Mexico was published.

The new Mexican forestry inventory was completed.

The Secretaría del Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP)

(Secretariat for the Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries) launched its home

page on the Internet.

The Mexico City emission inventory of was published.

A report on the Tepoztlán Golf Club and the Guadalcázar affairs is being prepared and

will be made public.

The Consejos Consultivos Regionales (Regional Advisory Councils) were created and

the Consejo Consultivo Nacional (National Advisory Council) was established.

The Consejo Consultivo para las Áreas Naturales Protegidas (Advisory Council for

Protected Natural Areas) was created.

The revision process of La Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al

Ambiente (LGEEPA) (General Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection Act)

was initiated. The process includes the participation of the executive and legislative

powers.

Four SEMARNAP sectoral programs were published. They address matters relative to

forestry and soil, fisheries and aquaculture, the environment and water.

Procedures to handle citizen submissions are in the process of being modified.

With regards to air quality policies, the Consejos Consultivos Metropolitanos

(Metropolitan Advisory Councils) are being promoted in conjunction with the Federal

District authorities.

Establishment and operation of joint protection and surveillance committees.
Measures Concerning Preparations for Environmental Contingencies

One thousand, three hundred and seventy-eighty volunteer response groups were

established.

A working group for border area environmental contingencies is currently in

existence within the framework of the Programa Frontera XXI (Border Program XXI).

Environmental Technology Research and Development

The Mexican position in terms of climate change is being prepared.

Financial Incentives

Financial incentives will be incorporated into environmental legislation and will

consist of a system aimed at encouraging producers and consumers to make

decisions conducive to environmental protection and sustainable development.

Evaluation of the Environmental Impact

La Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (PROFEPA) (Federal District

Attorney for the Protection of the Environment) is developing a database containing

company and industry statistics to verify compliance with environmental legislation.

The regulations to simplify and systematize reports on the environmental impact were

approved.

The implementation of environmental legislation will be sought for every state and

every critical region. Legislation will be founded on a technical basis, will have legal,

economic and financial backing, will reflect the necessary public consensus, and will

be enforced.

A system of public and technical hearings is being developed with regards to

environmental impact.
UNITED STATES 

Highlights of Government Initiatives to Implement the Agreement 

The following examples are highlights of United States initiatives to implement the North

American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation:

Article 2

Article 2(1)(b)

The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began a joint project with

Environment Canada on the environmental effects of different clean up measures for

oil spills to develop better methodologies for removing oil without causing further

environmental injury.

Article 2(1)(e)

Since the passage of NAFTA, the United States has participated in efforts to develop

recommendations on transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as required by

Article 10.7 of the NAAEC. An informal interagency group has met in an effort to better

define the policy issues involved in transboundary EIA. Efforts are also being made to

collect better data on existing practices and to involve the United States in the effort to

address transboundary EIA. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun to

examine federal pollution statutes as they may pertain to transboundary assessment.

Article 2(1)(f)

Under the President’s “Reinventing Environmental Regulation” initiative, EPA

proposed an open market air emissions trading rule in August 1995 for ozonecreating pollutants which would allow states to apply for approval for open market

trading of emissions credit.

A new rule that sets standards based on the Maximum Achievable Control

Technology (MACT) allows refineries to engage in certain forms of averaging toxic

emissions.

Article 2(3)

NAFTA Parties receive notification from EPA about any action taken by the United

States to ban or severely restrict pesticides and industrial chemicals which are based

on a concern for human health or the environment.

NAFTA Parties (and all governments) now have access to a great deal of historical and

current chemical-specific data from EPA on the Internet.

Efforts to develop a legally binding system for Prior Informed Consent (PIC) are

proceeding. All NAFTA Parties participate in the Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO)/United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) system of PIC for banned and

severely restricted pesticides and chemicals.

EPA made the 1993 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data available to the public in

March 1995 and the TRI grew in scope as federal facilities began submitting TRI

reports for the first time, following an Executive Order from President Clinton.
Article 3

The EPA issued a number of regulations to implement the Clean Air Act (CAA)

Amendments of 1990, including:

• a final New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for prime coat operations 

at automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants, as well as municipal waste 

combustors;

• rules which establish an interim federal operating permit program for sources 

of air pollution that participate in the Early Reductions Program;

• creation of source standards for air emissions from industrial source cooling 

towers that use chromium-based water treatment;

• under the acid rain program, a rule on nitrogen oxide (NOx) limitations for 

coal-fired utility units;

• a rule enabling combustion sources, including small utility units and 

industrial boilers, to voluntarily participate in the sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

allowances emissions trading program under Title IV.

Article 4

As required by section 110(h) of the CAA, EPA noticed the availability of State

Implementation Plan (SIP) compilations, in November 15, 1995. SIPs are state rules

that are federally approved and federally enforceable. The SIP system has been in

place since 1970, and because of multiple revisions to SIPs, it has often been difficult

for the public, including sources of air pollutant emissions, to determine exactly what

is required by a particular SIP. The SIP compilations are intended to alleviate this

problem and to assist state governments and emissions sources as they develop

operating permits under Title V of the CAA.

Article 5

Under the auspices of the CEC Permanent Working Group on Environmental

Enforcement and Compliance, EPA, in cooperation with their counterparts in Mexico

and Canada, hosted two industry conferences on voluntary compliance and

environmental auditing in North America. The conferences explored innovative

programs to encourage the practice of environmental auditing to assure compliance

and identify pollution prevention opportunities; as well as the emergence of

voluntary international standards for environmental management systems (EMS).

There were intergovernmental consultations regarding potential future cooperation in

this area.
Parties Obligations Under the NAAEC 
CANADA

Obligations Under the Agreement

Article 2 - General Commitments

Environment Canada prepares, and makes publicly available, reports on the state of

the environment. The third national five-year report, The State of Canada’s

Environment - 1996 will be an in-depth, comprehensive and technologically

advanced information base on Canada’s environment. Environment Canada also

makes available fact sheets and environmental indicators bulletins.

In its commitment to re-orienting education towards sustainable development, to

increasing public awareness of environmental issues, and to promoting training, the

federal government has assisted in the creation and maintenance of Learning for a

Sustainable Future, a multi-stakeholder, non-profit organization, committed to

working with Canadian educators to implement learning compatible with sustainable

development concepts and principles in all primary and secondary schools in

Canada. The federal government has also assisted in the development of the

Canadian Environmental Education and Communications Network (EECOM), an

informal network of educators and trainers throughout the country who work with

both informal and non-formal education structures.

In order to obtain consistent and reliable results from scientific research and to

encourage technology development in respect of environmental matters, Canada has

participated in meetings among the NAFTA Parties to develop a North American

Environmental Quality Assurance Program (NAEQAP). The objectives of the program

are: to support the establishment of quality management systems in participating

laboratories; to establish comparability of environmental measurements between the

NAFTA countries; to enhance technical capabilities through training and technology

transfer; to promote the development and production of reference materials; and to

develop a communication network between environmental laboratories in North

America.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (the Act) is the statutory basis by which

the Government of Canada undertakes an environmental assessment of projects

requiring federal action or decisions. The Act applies when a federal authority

proposes a project, grants money or any other form of financial assistance to a project,

grants an interest in land to enable a project to be carried out, or exercises selected

regulatory duties such as issuing permits of licenses specified in regulation. The Act

also applies to selected physical activities specified in regulation. Under the Act, there

are four types of environmental assessments: screening, comprehensive study,

mediation and panel review. According to the transboundary provisions of the Act, the

Minister of the Environment has the authority to refer a project directly to a mediator

or panel, if the Minister believes that the project may cause significant adverse

transboundary effects in cases when the project would otherwise not trigger the Act.

Canada established the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), whose

mandate includes: providing advice to the Minister of the Environment, promoting

sound environmental assessment practices, designating class screening reports,

facilitating public review and comment on comprehensive study reports, and

supporting reviews by environmental assessment panels and mediators initiated

under the Act
The federal government is committed to using economic instruments, as a

complement to the traditional regulatory and voluntary approaches. The

Parliamentary Committee reviewing CEPA recommended that enabling authority for

the use of economic instruments be included in the Act. The government response to

the Committee stated that: 1) tradable permit systems, deposit refund programs, and

financial incentives should be incorporated into CEPA, or other federal statutes; and

2) proposals for environmental taxes and charges would be recommended to the

Minister of Finance for consideration.

Since December 1992, the Toxic Substances Export Notification Regulation has been

a part of CEPA. These Regulations address the requirement to notify the authority in

importing countries of impending shipments of toxic substances that have been

severely restricted in Canada’s commitment to the London guidelines for the

exchange of information on chemicals in international trade under United Nations

Environment Program (UNEP).

Article 3 - Levels of Protection

The Department of the Environment’s responsibility for the protection of the

environment and of wildlife resources subject to federal jurisdiction are founded

upon five key pieces of legislation: The CEPA; the pollution prevention provisions of

the Fisheries Act; the Migratory Birds Convention Act; the Canadian Wildlife Act, and

the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of Interprovincial and

International Trade Act (WAPPRIITA). Regulations have been in place for many years

under the authority of all but WAPPRIITA, for which regulations will be released in

1996.

The federal government released the Toxic Substances Management Policy in June

1995. The policy is the centerpiece of the federal government’s position for dealing

with toxic substances from both domestic and international sources. It has two key

management objectives:

• virtual elimination from the environment of toxic substances that are persistent, 

bioaccumulative, and anthropogenic (Track 1)

• life cycle management of other substances which do not meet the criteria for 

Track 1, to prevent or minimize their release into the environment.

Article 4 - Publication

Canada publishes or otherwise makes available its laws, regulations, procedures and

administrative rulings of general application to matters covered by the NAAEC.

Canada also provides persons with a legally recognized interest under its law with

the appropriate access to administrative, quasi-judicial proceedings for the

enforcement of its environmental laws and regulation. In addition, under CEPA there

is a pre-publication requirement for proposed regulations. Subsequent to publication

in Canada Gazette Part I, there is a 60 day comment period prior to publishing in

Canada Gazette Part II.

Article 5 - Government Enforcement Action

(see Annex I: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement)
MEXICO

Obligations Under the Agreement

Article 2 - General Commitments

The Secretaría del Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP)

(Secretariat for the Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries), through various

channels, fulfils its commitment to report periodically on the state of the

environment. Since June 1992, the Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE) (National

Ecological Institute) has prepared a detailed biannual report on the state of the

environment in Mexico. Recently, a new national forest inventory was completed. It

provides information on areas affected by deforestation, fire, insect and disease

infestations, weather, agricultural practices, and grazing, as well as on open forests.

In process, is a report containing an evaluation of the state of the country's

environment. This report is being prepared by the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD) and will be available on the Internet. There

also exists a quarterly report on the general status of ecological balance and

protection of the environment, called the Gaceta Ecológica (Ecological Gazette),

published by the INE. These reports are made available for public consultation at

branch offices of the Secretariat, as well as in universities, educational and research

centres, ecological organizations, and so forth.

Regarding contingencies like fire, hurricanes, atmospheric chemicals or resource

impacts, there are actions to limit authorizations for the change in land use, increase

the level of monitoring in the most severely affected areas, improve fire detection

methods, hire specialized firefighting aircraft, increase the number of firefighting

brigades, offer training in firefighting and control techniques, build fire breaks,

improve detection techniques and implement appropriate safety measures. Existing

programs include an environmental contingency program for air pollution in

metropolitan Mexico City, the Inter-Institutional Program for Occupational Safety and

Health and Environmental Protection, the Accident Prevention Program of the

Committee for Analysis and Approval of Accident Prevention Programs and the

National Centre for Accident Prevention. In all cases, SEMARNAP is involved in

coordination with the appropriate agency.

A General Directorate called Centro de Educación y Capacitación para el Desarrollo

Sustentable (CECADESU) (Centre for Education and Training for Sustainable

Development), which was established by SEMARNAP, has established diploma courses

in universities, technical schools and other environmental centres. It has also signed

agreements with these institutions for the mutual interchange of information,

cooperated in a program for environmental education, and signed an agreement of

cooperation with the Secretaría de Educación Pública (Department of Public Education)

to reach all levels of primary, secondary and higher education. Nationally, at

institutions of higher education, it has also provided training courses and workshops in

environmental impact, biodiversity, sustainable development of natural resources, and

pollution prevention and control. In addition, CECADESU, as part of UNEP, is

completing an environmental training program for Latin America and the Caribbean

region. It is participating in the drafting of teaching material such as the book, Hacía

una Estrategía Nacional y Plan de Acción de Educación Ambiental (Towards a National

Strategy and an Environmental Education Action Plan), and has participated jointly in

bi-national training courses for civil servants with Finland and the United States.
La Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (PROFEPA) (Federal District

Attorney for the Protection of the Environment) has distributed laws, maps, posters

and other material dealing with environmental legislation throughout the country. It

has offered training to deputy state representatives, environmental workshops, state

forums on municipal environmental management, seminars and training courses for

environmental promoters, as well as inter-institutional programs with Secretaría de

salud (SSA), Secretaría de educación pública (SEP), Instituto Mexicano del seguro

social (IMSS)-Secretaría del trabajo y previsión social (STPS) and Instituto nacional

indigenista (INI).

A number of bilateral activities for fighting forest fires, tree planting and the

sustainable management of forest resources were undertaken with the United States.

A program for education and dissemination of information in the field of sustainable

development of natural resources is being established with Canada.

SEMARNAP has a number of research centres and works closely with university

centres and educational institutions. Instituto nacional de investigaciones forestales y

agropecuarias (INIFAP) (National Research Institiute on Forestry and Farming) is one

such institution that deals with forest research. Comisión Forestal de América del

Norte (COFAN) (Forest Commission for North America) functions at the trilateral

level. Bilateral cooperation in technology and research development for sustainable

management of woods and forests is being done with the United States, Canada,

Finland, Germany and Japan. There are also a number of air pollution programs such

as the Monterrey-World Bank research into mobile sources, the study of atmospheric

pollution in Mexico City and the Registro de emisiones y transferencia de

contaminantes (RETC) (Pollutant Release Inventory) project study for Tijuana.

Mexican law mandates the performance of environmental impact assessments in

addition to the required licenses or permits that are issued by PROFEPA, INE, and/or

its state representatives. Currently, environmental impact assessments are required in

all areas of the environment.

At present, there are three types of economic instruments in effect:

1. Payment of duties for the use of, or benefit from, national waters, or for the 

use of, or benefit derived from, goods in the public domain, such as the 

sewage system and water purification plants. 

2. Commercial permit system: the official standard of Mexico, Norma Oficial 

Mexicana (NOM) 085 applies to fixed emission sources of emission which 

use fossil fuels in any combination; establishes the maximum permissible 

atmospheric emission levels for smoke, particulates, sulphur dioxide, nitrous 

oxides and the requirements and conditions for the operation of indirect 

heating or combustion equipment.

3. Presently a joint implementation study for the Chiapas highlands is being 

completed. It would create a new plan which would offer indigenous 

communities the opportunity of earning income by tending the forests and 

reforesting other areas.
Article 3 - Levels of Environmental Protection

SEMARNAP has at its disposal three organizations to dictate environmental

protection levels and to observe them. These are the Instituto Nacional de Ecología

(INE) (National Environmental Institute), La Procuraduria Federal de Protección al

Ambiente (PROFEPA) (Federal District Attorney for the Protection of the Environment)

and La Comisión Nacional del Agua (CNA) (National Water Commission).

INE is charged with establishing technical standards at levels based on the

recommendations of its experts. PROFEPA has the mandate to inspect, monitor and

receive complaints from the general public. It is responsible for the formulation and

guidance of the national policy and in environmental matters and stimulating compliance

with the law. The CNA has technical and standard setting authority only for water.

Mexican environmental legislation consists of La Ley General del Equilibrio

Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente (LGEEPA) (General Ecological Balance and

Environmental Protection Act) and other laws that regulate such matters as hunting,

fishing, etc. All the environmental laws, regulations and technical standards are in

force to protect natural resources, the environment and ensure their better

management. They provide environmental agencies with the power to undertake

inspection and monitoring visits, ensure compliance with legal requirements, enforce

safety measures and apply the appropriate sanctions when necessary. Environmental

authorities can also call upon the police to assist them in their duties.

The criteria to determine administrative sanctions and safety measures vary according

to the specific legislation at hand. It may vary from a fine, to the seizure of products

and equipment, and may even result in the revocation of the franchise, permit, or

authorization, or even bring about permanent closure. The aforementioned

administrative sanctions are independent of those laid out in the Penal Code. The

latter describes certain actions as crimes, and provides for sanctions ranging from

fines to incarceration, in addition to requiring compensation for damages and injury

brought about by the misuse or abuse of natural resources. 

Article 4 - Publication of Legislation 

Some of the relevant publications for announcing legislation include El Diario Oficial

de la Federación (Official Diary of the Federation) and La Gaceta Ecológica del INE

(INE Environmental Gazette). In the case of the NOM, the law on Meteorology and

Standardization establishes a 90-day period for the public to make comments on

proposed NOM bills and to convey them to the appropriate authority for

consideration. A new environmental law is currently being drafted by the legislative,

executive, non-governmental and academic sectors.

Article 5 - Government Enforcement Action for Environmental

Legislation 

PROFEPA is the authority charged with enforcement of environmental law, and therefore

works closely with other departments of the Secretariat to ensure its administrative and

judicial enforcement. PROFEPA is responsible for inspectors; monitoring compliance

with the law; investigating suspected violations; on-site inspections; seeking assurances

of voluntary compliance and obtaining compliance agreements; releasing noncompliance information to the public; issuing bulletins on enforcement procedures;

promoting environmental audits; requiring record keeping and reporting as part of the
PROFEPA also encourages the use of mediation and arbitration services; it also

promotes the use of licenses, permits and authorizations in forestry, fishing,

ecotourism, fish farms, flora and fauna, waste water disposal, etc. SEMARNAP

representatives monitor the proper compliance of these standards in their area of

jurisdiction throughout the country. Some of the sanctions may go so far as to

incarcerate the violator, set injunctions, close down facilities and clean up the

pollution.

Collaboration with the Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público (SHCP)

(Department of Finance and Public Credit) and with the Departamento del Distrito

Federal (Department of the Federal District) is required for searches, administrative

detentions and seizure of goods, as well as for the payment of fines for violations. 

The Federal Environmental Authority works closely with state authorities to set up

Environmental State Inspection and Monitoring Committees appropriate to the

various resources.

Article 6 - Private Access To Remedies 

In compliance with LGEEPA, PROFEPA has investigated events which were the

subject of complaints or allegations made by individuals and attempts to remedy

them. Likewise, the Ley Federal de Procedimientos Administrativos (Federal Law on

Enforcement Procedures) states that the parties involved, upon initiation of

administrative procedures to investigate an infraction, shall receive notice so that

they may defend themselves in judicial process. It also provides recourse in cases of

non-compliance which, depending on the path followed, may lead to the withdrawal

of legal counsel.

Public reporting of infractions has been successfully used by the community on a

number of occasions. It is closely associated with the right of access to information.

Article 7 - Procedural Guarantees 

One of the most important procedural guarantees is to be found in the Ley General

de Procedimiento Administrativo (Federal Law on Enforcement Procedures) dealing

with right of recourse in cases of non-compliance. These must be withdrawn by the

superior of the appointed legal counsel, which in this case is the District Attorney for

the Protection of the Environment.
UNITED STATES

Obligations Under the Agreement

Article 2 - General Commitments

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), through its

Hazardous Materials and Response Assessment Division, provides the primary

scientific advice to the federal On-Scene Coordinator during spills in navigable waters.

NOAA prepares the environmental portions of oil and hazardous materials

contingency plans to improve the effectiveness of response measures and has

continued to refine map ranking areas according to their environmental sensitivities to

oil. Recently, NOAA began a joint project with Environment Canada on the

environmental effects of different clean-up measures to develop better methodologies

for removing oil without causing further environmental injury.

Under the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 (NEEA) [Public law 101-

629], EPA is moving forward with international environmental initiatives that 1)

explore the sponsorship and management of an international exchange among the

NAFTA parties, teachers and other educational professionals involved in

environmental programs and issues [Sec. 5(b)(4)] through a grant to the Environmental

Education and Training Partnership, a consortium of environmental education

organizations and universities and 2) continue to sponsor design and demonstration

projects that foster international cooperation in addressing environmental issues and

problems involving the NAFTA parties [Sec. 6(b)(4)]. To date, EPA has provided over

$450,000 in grant monies for such educational projects.

To ensure consistent, comparable, and reliable environmental and natural resource

assessments among the NAFTA parties, the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) and NOAA are developing a collaborative NAFTA Quality

Assurance Program with Canada and Mexico. The objective of the program is to

ensure that data generated in one country would be comparable to that of the others.

The application of economic instruments at the federal level has been most effective

in the area of air pollution control. Examples of federal initiatives include: 1)

proposed “Open Market Trading” rules that let facilities find the most cost-effective

method of air pollution control by allowing them to create, sell, and purchase

emission reductions. The hallmark of these rules is that emissions reductions may be

sold and purchased separately over time, which allows for greater trading flexibility;

and 2) expansion of the Toxic Release Inventory to include over 600 chemicals and

chemical categories. Due to industry’s desire to maintain positive public relations and

their increased awareness of wasted resources in the form of releases and transfers of

valuable chemicals, the TRI has greatly reduced the release of TRI substances.

In 1995, EPA experienced delay in data collection and policy development for

transboundary assessments as a result of the federal budget impasse. However, the

United States provided the government of Mexico with an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) and invited comment regarding a proposed municipal waste landfill

on the Campo Indian Reservation adjacent to the United States-Mexico border in

California. The United States Department of State invited Mexican participation on a

Programmatic EIS on impacts in the United States of future permit actions for new

bridges between the United States and Mexico. 
Article 3 - Levels of Protection

The United States record on compliance with the obligations in Article 3 is uneven.

Legislation enacted in 1995 suspended or otherwise weakened portions of United

States environmental protection laws. For example, in the air quality area, specific

legislation rescinded EPA’s rule making initiatives to promulgate ground-level ozone

and carbon monoxide federal implementation plans for portions of the state of

California.

The “Hutchinson Amendment” of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and

Rescissions for the Department of Defense to Preserve and Enhance Military

Readiness Act (the Rescissions Act) rescinded $1,500,000 from the amounts available

in fiscal year 1995 to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to determine

whether a species should be declared “endangered“ or “threatened“ or whether an

area should be designated “critical habitat“ under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

It also prohibited compensating for the loss of funds by transferring funds from other

programs or using other funds appropriated under the same heading as the funds that

were rescinded. Although the Hutchinson amendment did not amend the ESA, it

suspended implementation of portions of the ESA governing new listings of

“endangered” or “threatened” species or new designation of “critical habitat,” until

after October 1, 1995. Note: This issue was raised in a NAAEC Article 14 submission,

however the CEC Secretariat did not request a response from the United States

government.

The United States' record in meeting Article 3 is more positive with respect to

regulatory developments, than with legislative developments. EPA issued Clean Air

Act (CAA) rules in late 1994 and in 1995 that are based on maximum achievable

control technology (MACT) for specified hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions

from the following source categories: solvent cleaning machines; commercial

sterilization and fumigation sources; bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout

stations -- major subcategories of the gasoline distribution network; magnetic tape

manufacturing operations; chromium electroplating and anodizing tanks; epoxy

resins and non-nylon polyamide resin manufacturers; secondary lead smelters;

petroleum refineries, including collocated marine tank vessel loading operations;

aerospace manufacturers; marine tank vessel operations not collocated with

refineries; wood furniture manufacturers; solid waste incinerators and surface coating

operations at shipbuilding and repair facilities. EPA estimates that implementation of

the rule providing MACT standards for surface coating operations at ship building

and repair facilities alone will reduce baseline emissions of HAPs in the United States

by 24% or 350 tons per year.

On January 24, 1995, following a petition process initiated in the Northeast Ozone

Transport Region (OTR), which extends from Maine to Northern Virginia, EPA

promulgated a rule that requires further reduction of new motor vehicle emissions.

EPA determined these reductions are necessary to mitigate the effects of air pollution

transport and to bring non-attainment areas in the OTR into attainment (including

maintenance) of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone.
Article 4 - Publication

In December 1995, EPA published a final rule expanding the opportunities for public

participation in the permit process of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA), the United States Federal statute that governs the generation, transport,

treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste. The rule requires applicants for permits to

hold public meetings prior to application submittal and requires EPA to issue a public

notice upon receipt of an application. The rule also gives EPA the authority to require

permit applicants and permitted facilities to establish information repositories that are

accessible to the public.

Article 5 - Government Enforcement Action

(see Annex I: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement)

Article 6 - Private Access to Remedies

The United States’ record on ensuring private access to remedies for violation of

domestic environmental law as required by Article 6 is mixed. The Hutchinson

Amendment to the Rescissions Act suspended portions of the ESA relating to new

listings of “endangered” or “threatened” species, or new designation of “critical

habitat” until after October 1, 1995. This suspension potentially affected public

participation under the ESA, because the ESA enables any interested person to initiate

the listing process and to ensure that the Secretary of the Interior designates “critical

habitat” for endangered species as required by the statute.

Similarly, the Logging Rider, which is another portion of the Rescissions Act, provides

expedited procedures for timber salvage sales from public lands through, among other

measures, limiting or eliminating public recourse to judicial and administrative review

of specified governmental decisions and agency action. It restricted access to private

remedies for actions that could constitute (at least absent other requirements of the

Logging Rider) a violation of United States environmental protection and natural

resource conservation statutes such as the ESA or the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA). Note: This issue was raised in a NAAEC Article 14 submission, however;

the CEC Secretariat did not request a response from the United States government.

In the area of hazardous waste site remediation, EPA has begun to expand public

participation to involve community representatives in the entire clean-up process

under both the RCRA Corrective Action Program and Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). These measures broaden

public participation beyond the existing requirements of United States law, such as

public hearings and public notice and comment, that may apply to hazardous waste

site remediation.
Financial Review

Figure 1 1995 Budget

1994-1995 CEC Budget Review

Under Article 43 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, each

Party is required to contribute an equal share of the annual budget of the CEC. At its first

regular session in July 1994, the Council approved the Financial Rules of the CEC. The

financial year of the CEC corresponds to the calendar year.

The launching of the Commission took place in the latter part of 1994 with a $2,161,303

U.S. budget approved by the Council. Most of the expenses in 1994 were directed

towards the installation and other start-up costs of the Secretariat at its headquarters in

Montreal. Council approved the carry over of unused funds of $1 million U.S. to budget

year 1995. Under Rule 7 of the Financial Rules, a Financial Statement was prepared and

audited by external auditors. The audited 1994 Financial Statements can be found in the

back pocket of this report.

For 1995, the Council approved a $10,615,000 U.S. budget which is detailed in Figure 1.

An audited Financial Statement for the 1995 financial year will be available shortly. On

an indicative basis, Figure 2 shows the 1995 financial expenditure distribution.

1995 Budget

49% Work Programs and Project Implementation Fund

38% Operating Expenses*

7% Translation & Interpretation

5% Council - JPAC

1% Contingency Fund

1995 Expenditures

47% Operating Expenses*

46% Work Programs and Project Implementation Fund

4% Council - JPAC

3% Translation & Interpretation

48%

5% 1%

%

* Includes:

Salary & Benefits (Includes Levy Adjustment)

Relocation & Orientation

Travel Including Accommodations & Meals

Professional Development

Accounting / Audit / Legal Services

Corporate Professional Fees

Temporary Help

Accommodation

Office Equipment & Supplies

Telecommunications

Corporate Publications / Printing

Hospitality

4

49%

38%

7%

5% 1%

46%

47%

3% 4%

Figure 2 1995 Expenditures
1996 CEC Budget Preview

Budget

In 1995 a great deal of energy and resources were devoted to the development of the

various components of the Commission and its management policies and procedures.

As evidenced by the structure of the program, 1996 presents a different operational

reality. With much of the scoping of the program activities completed in 1995, the

fully-staffed Secretariat can decentralize the budget enabling the program managers to

employ the most appropriate resources to achieve their respective mandates while still

being held accountable for results. The budget structure has thus been realigned to

reflect this reality.

The budget comprises the following items:

Program Implementation

Specific Obligations Under NAAEC

Common Operations

Departmental Operations

Contingency Fund

Program Implementation

The specific main program areas, programs and their respective projects have been

described in previous sections of this document. The budget elements for projects have

been standardized and made to include all direct costs associated with the projects

such as staff travel, meetings, professional fees, temporary help, translation, editing

and printing of reports.

Specific Obligations Under NAAEC

Although they are not included under program implementation these activities will be

funded and administered in a manner similar to that employed for projects.

Common Operations

These elements support the CEC as a whole. The major entry under this item remains

salaries and compensation reduced proportionally as compared to 1995. The generic

Corporate Translation, Editing and Printing budget element covers corporate CEC

products including electronic data and postings on the CEC Home Page.

Departmental Operations

This is a completely restructured budget element to reflect the concept of Cost

Centers. Council, JPAC, and each of the main components of the Secretariat are Cost

Centers and will be budgeted utilizing the same rubric where applicable: Business

Travel; Professional Fees; Temporary Help; Translation; Interpretation; Rental of

Facilities; Printing and Publication; Technical Editing; Hospitality (including

receptions) and other miscellaneous costs (teleconferences, messengers, special

equipment and supplies).

Contingency Fund

The amount, reduced substantially from that of 1995, is set aside for unforeseen needs.
1996 Revenues

Description Amount (U.S.$)

Party Contributions 9,000,000

Credit from 1995 (Max: 5% of Budget) 530,000

CEC Levy 650,000

Interest on Short Term Investments/Others 75,000

Total: $10,255,000

1996 Budget - Summary

Description Amount (U.S.$)

Total Program Costs 4,362,000

Specific Obligations under NAAEC 683,000

Common Operations 3,525,000

Departmental Operations 1,485,000

Contingency Fund 200,000

Total: $10,255,000

1996 Budget - General

Description Amount (U.S.$)

Total Program Costs: 5,045,000

1) Program Implementation 4,362,000

2) Specific Obligations Under NAAEC 683,000

Common Operations: 3,525,000

1) Salary & Benefits 2,690,000

2) Relocation & Orientation 60,000

3) Professional Development 30,000

4) Accommodation (Montreal & Mexico) 40,000

5) Office Equipment & Supplies 120,000

6) Telecommunications (Montreal & Mexico) 135,000

7) Corporate Translation / Editing / Printing 340,000

8) Assets 110,000

Departmental Operations: 1,485,000

1) Council 170,000

2) Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) 120,000

3) Office of the Executive Director 158,000

4) Directorate (#1) 98,000

5) Directorate (#2) 98,000

6) Communications 195,000

7) Mexico Liaison 38,000

8) NA environment fund Coordination & Administration 185,000

9) Corporate Services 423,000

Contingency Fund 200,000

Total: $10,255,000
1996 CEC Project Budget Summary

Environmental Conservation Program

P96-01 Habitat and Species

96.01.01 Cooperation in the Conservation of North American Birds 

Budget: $67,000

96.01.02 Plant Biodiversity Inventory and Information Network for North American 

Forest Ecosystems 

Budget: $77,000

96.01.03 Maps of North American Ecoregions

Budget: $71,000

96.01.04 Cooperation on the Protection of Marine and Coastal Area Ecosystems

Budget: $100,000

96.01.05 Non-Governmental Participation in Conservation of Protected Areas and 

Adjacent Land Holdings

Budget: $105,000

Protecting Human Health and the Environment Program

P96-02 Reducing Risk

96.02.01 Sound Management of Chemicals

Budget: $522,000

96.02.02 North American Pollutant Release Inventory (NAPRI)

Budget: $364,000

96.02.03 North American Air Monitoring and Modeling

Budget: $158,000

96.02.04 Science Liaison, Cooperation and Coordination

Budget: $67,000

96.02.05 Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TEIA)

Budget: $249,000

P96-03 Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

96.03.01 Energy Efficiency Cooperation

Budget: $138,000

96.03.02 North American Cooperation on Climate Change

Budget: $330,000

96.03.03 Climate Change and its Potential Impact on Transboundary Water 

Resources in North America

Budget: $119,000

P96-04 Capacity Building

96.04.01 Environmental Education and Training

Budget: $166,000

96.04.02 Capacity Building in Environmental Management in Guanajuato

Budget: $104,000
Environment, Trade and Economy Program

P96-05 Trade And The Environment

96.05.01 NAFTA Environmental Effects

Budget: $214,000

P96-06 Technology Cooperation

96.06.01 Technology Clearinghouse

Budget: $24,000

96.06.02 Pollution Prevention Cooperation

Budget: $224,000

P96-07 Economic Instruments

96.07.01 Economic Instruments for Migratory Songbird Habitat Protection

Budget: $67,000

Enforcement Cooperation and Environmental Law Program

P96-08 Enforcement Cooperation and Law

96.08.01 Cooperation In Environmental Enforcement

Budget: $478,000

96.08.02 Reciprocal Access to Courts (RAC)

Budget: $67,000

96.08.03 Dialogue on Environmental Law

Budget: $58,000

Information and Public Outreach Program

P96-09 North American GreenLane

96.09.01 CEC Database Development

Budget: $239,000

96.09.02 North American Integrated System For Environmental Management

Budget: $91,000

96.09.03 CEC Resource Center

Budget: $143,000

96.09.04 North American Environmental Awareness Initiative

Budget: $120,000

Total: $4,362,000
SECRETARIAT

COUNCIL JOINT PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

CEC DIRECTORY

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Victor Lichtinger

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

Louise Morgan Tel: (514) 350-4302 

email: lmorgan@ccemtl.org

DIRECTOR

Greg Block Tel: (514) 350-4320

email: gblock@ccemtl.org

NAFTA LINKAGES

Sarah Richardson Tel: (514) 350-4336

email: srichard@ccemtl.org

TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES

Roberto Sánchez Tel: (514) 350-4331 

email: rsanchez@ccemtl.org

SPECIAL LEGAL PROJECTS & PROCEDURES

Marc Paquin Tel: (514) 350-4324

email: mpaquin@ccemtl.org

LAW & ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION

Linda Duncan Tel: (514) 350-4334

email: lduncan@ccemtl.org

PROGRAM LIAISON

Cristóbal Vignal Tel: (514) 350-4333 

email: cvignal@ccemtl.org

JPAC SUPPORT

Manon Pepin Tel: (514) 350-4305

email: mpepin@ccemtl.org

COMMUNICATIONS

Rachel Vincent Tel: (514) 350-4308

email: rvincent@ccemtl.org

LIAISON OFFICE, MEXICO

Beatríz Bugeda

Tel: (011-525) 661-2061 Fax: (011-525) 662-2783

DIRECTOR

Janine Ferretti Tel: (514) 350-4317

email: jferrett@ccemtl.org

ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION

Irene Pisanty Tel: (514) 350-4335

email: ipisanty@ccemtl.org

PROTECTED AREAS

Martha Rosas Tel: (514) 350-4300

email: mrosas@ccemtl.org

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE

Lisa Nichols Tel: (514) 350-4323

email: lnichols@ccemtl.org

CAPACITY BUILDING COOPERATION

Hernando Guerrero Tel: (514) 350-4321

email: hguerrero@ccemtl.org

ENVIRONMENTAL & ENERGY POLICY

Lynn Fischer Tel: (514) 350-4337

email: lfischer@ccemtl.org

SCIENCE DIVISION

Andrew L. Hamilton Tel: (514) 350-4332

email: ahalmilto@ccemtl.org

CORPORATE SERVICES

Gilles Lamoureux Tel: (514) 350-4309

email: glamoure@ccemtl.org

LIBRARIAN

Marcos Silva Tel: (514) 350-3214 

email: msilva@ccemtl.org
COMMISSION FOR 

ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION

COMISIÓN PARA LA 

COOPERACIÓN AMBIENTAL

COMMISSION DE 

COOPÉRATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE

393, rue St-Jacques Ouest 

Bureau 200

Montréal (Québec) 

Canada H2Y 1N9 

Tel.: (514) 350-4300 

Fax : (514) 350-4314 

E-mail: ccastell@ccemtl.org