1996

Annual Report
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.

Mission
In North America, we share vital natural resources

including air, oceans and rivers, mountains and forests.

Together, these natural resources are the basis of a rich network

of ecosystems which sustain our livelihoods and well-being. If they

are to continue being a source of future life and prosperity, these

resources must be protected. Protecting the North American environment

is a responsibility shared by Canada, Mexico and the United States.

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) is an international

organization whose members include Canada, Mexico and the United States.

The CEC was created under the North American Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation (NAAEC) to address regional environmental concerns, help prevent

potential trade and environmental conflicts and to promote the effective enforcement

of environmental law. The Agreement complements the environmental provisions

established in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The CEC accomplishes its work through the combined efforts of its three principal components: the Council, the Secretariat and the Joint Public Advisory

Committee (JPAC). The Council is the governing body of the CEC and is

composed of cabinet-level representatives from each of the three countries.

The Secretariat implements the annual work program and provides

administrative, technical and operational support to the Council. The

Joint Public Advisory Committee is composed of fifteen citizens, five

from each of the three countries, and advises the Council on any

matter within the scope of the agreement.

Secretariat

Council JPAC

Profile
2

1

Canada, Mexico and the United States created the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation alongside the NAFTA because we were committed to ensuring that

the economic benefits we believe come from free trade are environmentally sustainable.

Achieving this objective will require a long-term commitment to improvement, innovation and

environmental excellence by all North Americans.

Canada 32

Mexico 38

United States 44

The CEC’s accomplishments in 1996 represent significant progress on a North American environmental agenda. As such, in some cases they also represent historic “firsts”—the first time

the three countries of North America have made concrete commitments, reflecting continentwide priorities and building upon ongoing efforts in each country, to cooperate on specific issues

affecting human health and slow down degradation of North America’s shared ecosystems.

Strategic Program Framework Summary 10

Building a North American Approach 12

> Environmental Conservation 13

> Protecting Human Health and the Environment 15

> Environment, Trade and Economy 18

> Enforcement Cooperation and Law 20

> Information and Public Outreach 22

Public Participation: Reaching Out Across North America 24

> Responding to Public Concerns 25

> Citizen Submissions on Enforcement Matters 25

> Linking North American Communities 25

Message from the North American Environmental Ministers 4 

Report from the Joint Public Advisory Committee 6 

Message from the Executive Director of the CEC Secretariat 8

Cooperative Achievements

Country 

Reports

Table of Contents
5

More than half of the CEC’s 1996 budget was dedicated to direct program costs. 

Each country contributed equally to the budget.

1996 Budget and Expenditures 50

Financial Statements 51

The 1997 annual program and budget is approved by the Parties to NAEEC and takes into

account the recommendations made by the Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) and the

general public as expressed through the public consultations held throughout 1996. In broad

terms, the work program reflects an effort to ensure that all CEC activities complement existing

efforts, both governmental and nongovernmental, in North America and internationally.

1997 Annual Program and Budget 62

Annual Program at-a-Glance 64

1996 Financial

Review

Looking Ahead

Annex: 

Enforcement

Reports

3

4 

With the aim of achieving high levels of environmental protection and compliance, Article 5 of

the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation imposes the obligation on each

Party to effectively enforce its environmental laws and regulations through appropriate government actions in its territory, such as monitoring compliance, promoting environmental audits,

using permits, initiating proceedings to seek sanctions or remedies, and other appropriate actions.

Table of Contents / Introduction 70 / 71

> Canada 72

> Mexico 80

> United States 88

Appendices 96
Dear citizens of Canada, Mexico and the United States:

In accordance with the obligations under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), it is our privilege to submit the 1996 Annual Report of the Commission for

Environmental Cooperation.

The results of our efforts in 1996 reflect our collective commitment to fulfill the promise of the North

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation through concrete measures to conserve and

protect our shared environment. It was a year of significant accomplishment and planning for the

future.

As agreed at the Second Regular Session of the Council, we took action to reduce the risk to human

health and the environment from persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances through the development of North American Regional Action Plans for PCBs, DDT, chlordane and mercury. We will

be reviewing these plans in 1997 for approval, as well as a criteria document intended to assist us

in choosing two additional substances for regional action. Through our North American Pollutants

Release Inventory and our North American Air Monitoring and Modeling initiative, we strengthened our collective capacity to monitor the release and dispersion of pollutants across North

America. Finally, we acted to address climate change through support for four joint implementation pilot projects.

The Commission continued to aggressively support regional environmental conservation. At the Third

Regular Session of Council in Toronto, we initiated the development of a recommended strategy

for the conservation of North American birds and supported the development of a North American

Network of Important Bird Areas. We also initiated a conservation program for another of our

shared migratory species, the Monarch butterfly. For the marine environment, the NAFTA parties

are cooperating to protect our shared marine ecosystems through implementation of the Global

Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities in two

border pilot areas. As follow-through on the Secretariat’s report concerning the Silva Reservoir, we

have come to agreement on how to implement the results of the report.

Under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, we have a unique opportunity

to ensure that a mutually compatible relationship between environment and trade develops in

North America. In 1996, the Secretariat continued work on a methodology to help assess the environmental effects of the NAFTA. We agreed to seek a joint meeting with our colleagues, the NAFTA

trade Ministers, to review the North American experience in integrating environment and trade and

to discuss next steps to ensure further progress.

One of the objectives of the NAAEC is to enhance compliance with, and enforcement of, environmental

laws and regulations. We undertook a broad range of actions in 1996 to support this objective. In

Toronto, we created the North American Working Group on Environmental Enforcement and

Message from 

the North American Environmental Ministers
5

Compliance Cooperation. This group is cooperating to increase our efforts to combat CFC smuggling, trafficking in endangered species and illegal transborder shipment of hazardous wastes. It

also promotes joint enforcement training as well as capacity building. In addition to ensuring the

effective enforcement of existing laws, we agreed to develop, with the support of public and industry

stakeholders, principles to guide a new generation of environmental regulatory and other management systems.

The NAAEC provides that citizens can help the Parties strengthen their enforcement regimes through

submissions on enforcement matters asserting cases where a Party may be failing to effectively

enforce its environmental laws. We view these provisions as an important catalyst for improving our

environmental enforcement. In 1996, there were submissions that addressed the enforcement of

laws in all three countries and all three governments have been asked by the Secretariat to respond

to the submission which concerned their environmental law.

Involvement of the public in the activities of the Commission and the implementation and further

elaboration of the Agreement is of great importance. In 1996, we were once again assisted in this task

by the excellent work of the Joint Public Advisory Committee. Looking to the future, we have asked

their advice in 1997 on how to better promote environmental networking among communities in

North America, on approaches for voluntary compliance with environmental laws, and on the longrange transport of air pollutants. In 1996, we also awarded the first series of grants from the North

American Fund for Environmental Cooperation, which we created in 1995 to promote communitybased actions in support of the goals of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.

Canada, Mexico and the United States created the North American Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation alongside the NAFTA because we were committed to ensuring that the economic

benefits we believe come from free trade, are environmentally sustainable. Achieving this objective

will require a long-term commitment to improvement, innovation and environmental excellence

by all North Americans. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation has a critical role to play

in providing leadership and inspiration. We are extremely pleased with the progress and the quality

of initiatives that the Commission has delivered in 1996. We look ahead to 1997 as a year of

evaluation, challenge and new opportunities.

Canada

Sergio Marchi

Minister of the Environment 

United States

Carol M. Browner

Environmental Protection 

Agency Administrator

Mexico

Julia Carabias

Secretary of Environment,

Natural Resources and Fisheries
Report from the Joint Public Advisory Committee

The Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) is one of the three branches that constitutes the Commission

for Environmental Cooperation formed in 1994 under the North American Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation. The other branches include the Council and the Secretariat.

Laying Foundations

During its first two years of existence, the JPAC has been cognizant that, though young, its first steps

should be bold ones. Indeed, its first steps are those that may set precedents for how an independent

JPAC functions in years to come. Thus the JPAC noted in its vision statement that it should “provide

firm leadership and constructive contributions to build a trinational model of collaboration, consensus building and consensus-based results.”

This year, the JPAC devoted itself to articulating the mechanisms by which it will achieve this role, as

well as advising the Council, working with the Secretariat and encouraging the emerging North

America constituency for the NAAEC.

As a group of fifteen volunteer citizens—five from each country appointed by their respective

governments—the JPAC recognizes it functions in one respect as a microcosm of the public: independent individuals who bring diverse institutional experience, cultural perspectives and their personal

opinions to the table.

In a larger sense, the JPAC sees itself as representative of the North American Community; thus, its

obligation includes canvassing its “constituents” to ensure public concerns are taken into account

when formulating advice to Council. In fact, public meetings became a central operative mechanism

by which the JPAC determined it would formulate its advice to Council. Near year end, JPAC adopted

Guidelines for Public Consultations. 

1996 JPAC Meetings

The JPAC held five regular meetings in 1996, during the months of March, June, July, August and

November.

All JPAC meetings are open to the public, who attend as observers. Agendas may be obtained from the

JPAC coordinator and are posted on the CEC Web Site, as are the summary records of past meetings.

At the request of Council, the JPAC organized three public meetings on topics pertaining to priority

programs of the Commission, in preparation for the Council’s Third Regular Session. More than 600

North Americans attended and many registered their views at the meetings, held in Montreal, San

Diego and Toronto, the last in conjunction with the Council session. The diverse views presented at

the meetings are summarized in a JPAC report that was discussed with, and formally presented to,

Council. Copies were also provided to participants. As well, JPAC took the views expressed at the

meetings into consideration in formulating its advice to Council on the Commission 1997 program

and budget.
7

In addition, the JPAC chair participates in meetings of other organizations of the Alternate

Representatives of the Council to relay its perspective on policy matters and Commission programs.

JPAC members also attend stakeholder meetings sponsored by the Secretariat on specific programs or

projects.

JPAC also, on occasion, sends representatives to meetings or suggests joint meetings when merited by

the CEC agenda. This spring, the JPAC held an informal joint session with the executive and advisory

councils of the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) to share views on environmental issues in general and US-Mexican transboundary issues in particular and to exchange information

on a continuing basis.

JPAC Advice

The JPAC may provide advice to the Council on any matters within the scope of the Agreement, including

the proposed annual program and budget, the draft annual report and any Secretariat report prepared

under Article 13. As well, the JPAC provides relevant technical, scientific or other information to the

Secretariat, which then forwards this information to the Council. In addition to responding to direct

requests from Council and commenting on projects already on the CEC agenda, the JPAC has the

discretion to advise Council on new directions.

In 1996, the JPAC adopted eight resolutions of advice to Council, dealing with organization of the 1996

public meetings, the Commission’s 1997 program and budget, the North American Fund for

Environmental Cooperation, JPAC Terms of Office, Guidelines on Enforcement Matters under NAAEC

Articles 14 & 15, and Best Practices.

Future Challenges

During its 1996 meetings, the JPAC was pleased to encourage the emergence of a North American

community of citizens actively monitoring and participating in environmental issues. The JPAC recognizes the importance of fostering this community and of working to see that its citizens are afforded

continuing and increasing opportunities to voice their concerns and to participate in shaping the activities

that affect their environment.

To this end, a central consideration in 1997 and beyond will be JPAC’s facilitation of transparency in

Commission activities. As well, JPAC will continue to seek ways to expand and build on public consultation networks, including linkages to the three National Advisory Committees formed by the

governments, ENGO’s, local governments, industry, academia and individual citizens.

Jon Plaut

Chair 1996
Message from the Executive Director

of the CEC Secretariat

New and dynamic economic relationships are

changing not only the way we do business in North America, but also how we

view the environment. The Commission

for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) is working to keep pace with economic globalization and

increased trade. By strengthening cooperation between Canada, Mexico and the United States,

we are building the basic structure to ensure that our trade goals will permit long-term

sustainable development in the North American region.

Environmental cooperation is envisioned at the CEC as a process of building consensus while at the

same time respecting each country’s sovereignty and priorities. In the unusual arrangement

underlying this process, two industrialized countries have begun cooperating on shared

environmental matters with a developing country. The good news is that the relationship

works. Canada, Mexico and the United States are slowly but steadily building bridges of

understanding and trust. But cultivating such a relationship requires time and patience. The

three countries are learning each other’s problems and priorities, as well as each other’s limits.

Together, the three countries are working through the CEC toward national goals and international

obligations. After all, it is only through joint action that we can meet the challenge posed by

continental environmental issues. These issues—many of which are transboundary or regional

in nature—cannot be solved by one country alone.

The early achievements of the CEC are modest in light of the future potential of this innovative

partnership. Greater political will and broader public participation will bring us closer to realizing such goals as reducing the risk posed by dangerous substances and developing policy tools

to maximize positive impacts and mitigate adverse consequences of free trade on the environment.

Cooperation has laid the groundwork for meeting such goals, but much remains to be done.

In a short time, the CEC has become a model for regional cooperation—a model which is being closely

scrutinized in other areas of the world such as Asia and Europe. The ultimate success of this

model depends entirely on the will of its partners and the long-term vision of a healthier future

for all North Americans. Our shared economic goals can be met without sacrificing the environment. An environmentally sustainable future is in our hands.

Victor Lichtinger

CEC Executive Director
Cooperative Achievements

1
The goals of projects in this program

area are to promote and conserve

ecosystem health and integrity, and

foster and encourage the conservation,

protection and sustainable use of biodiversity and its components.

> Cooperation in the Conservation of

North American Birds

> North American Biodiversity

Information Network 

> Maps of North American Ecological

Regions

> Cooperation in the Protection of

Marine and Coastal Area Ecosystems

> Nongovernmental Participation in the

Conservation of Protected Areas and

Adjacent Land Holdings

The goal of the program on Protection

of Human Health and the Environment

is to facilitate cooperative initiatives to

reduce pollution risks and minimize

pollution impacts.

> Sound Management of Chemicals

> North American Pollutants Release Inventory

> North American Air Monitoring and

Modeling

> Science Liaison, Cooperation and

Coordination

> Transboundary Environmental Impact

Assessment

> Energy Efficiency Cooperation

> North American Cooperation on 

Climate Change

> Climate Change and its Potential Impact on

Transboundary Water Resources in North

America

> Environmental Education and Training

> Capacity Building in Environmental

Management in Guanajuato

Environmental

Conservation

Protecting Human 

Health and the Environment

Strategic Program

Framework 

Summary
Cooperative Achievements

11

Environment, Trade

and Economy

Enforcement

Cooperation and Law

Information 

and Public Outreach

The goal of the Environment, Trade

and Economy program is to encourage mutual compatibility of trade

environmental and economic policies

and instruments within North

America and between North America

and other trade alliances or regions.

> NAFTA Environmental Effects

> Technology Clearinghouse

> Pollution Prevention Cooperation

The goal of the Enforcement 

Cooperation and Law program 

is to facilitate the development of law, 

policy and economic instruments; 

to aid the development of alternative

approaches to achieving compliance,

including effective enforcement; and 

to promote greater public participation

and transparency in decision-making.

> Dialogue on Environmental Law

> Reciprocal Access to Courts

The goal of the Information and

Public Outreach program is to raise

the level of public awareness and

understanding about the environmental

challenges facing the NAFTA partners.

> CEC Database Development

> CEC Information Center

> North American Environmental

Awareness Initiative 

> North American Integrated System

for Environmental Management
Building a North American 

Approach

The year 1996 marked an important transition for the CEC. In the previous year and a half, the CEC

Secretariat had been established in Montreal, with staff recruited from across North America,

and had begun extensive consultation with experts and the public on a range of environmental

concerns. This process continued in 1996, helping the CEC determine how best to contribute

in light of ongoing international, binational and national efforts. By the end of 1996, the CEC

had sharpened its focus, reducing its work program to 15 major initiatives for the following year.

The CEC’s accomplishments in 1996 represent significant progress on a North American environmental

agenda. As such, in some cases they also represent historic “firsts”—the first time the three

countries of North America have made concrete commitments, reflecting continent-wide

priorities and building upon ongoing efforts in each country, to cooperate on specific issues

affecting human health and to slow down degradation of North America’s shared ecosystems.

Building upon early cooperative efforts undertaken in 1995, the 1996 CEC work program was

divided into five main areas:

> Environmental Conservation;

> Protecting Human Health and the Environment;

> Environment, Trade and Economy;

> Enforcement Cooperation and Environmental Law; and

> Information and Public Outreach.

In addition, the CEC Council—during its second annual regular session held in

Oaxaca, Mexico, in October 1995—designated four priority issues for the CEC

Secretariat to emphasize within its 1996 work program:

> Habitat and Species (under Environmental Conservation);

> Reducing Risk (under Protecting Human Health and the Environment);

> Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (under Protecting Human Health

and the Environment); and

> North American Greenlane (under Information and Public Outreach).

Reaching out to a broader public in North America was a goal which underscored all

CEC activities in 1996. During its Oaxaca meeting, the CEC Council created the North

American Fund for Environmental Cooperation (NAFEC) to grant resources to nongovernmental

organizations for community-based projects. In doing so, the CEC Council expressed the desire

to engage communities across North America in the shared environmental objectives of the

North American partners. The role of other existing public participation tools in the CEC, most

notably citizen submissions under Article 14 and independent reports on pressing environmental concerns (Article 13 reports), was expanded and found expression in a range of

environmental issues.
Building a North American Approach

13

Environmental Conservation

To conserve ecosystem health and integrity and foster and encourage the conservation,

protection and sustainable use of biodiversity and its components

When one looks at North America from space, national boundaries are rendered invisible and the continent appears as a series of ecosystems—forests, plains, deserts, mountains, lakes, rivers, tundra

and wetlands. This distinctive perspective—North America as a series of complex and interdependent ecological regions—is reflected in all areas of CEC’s work, but particularly in the

area of environmental conservation. This year, the CEC focused on projects related to migratory

bird conservation, mapping of ecological regions, biodiversity information, marine and coastal

area protection, and nongovernmental participation in conservation.

Habitat and Species

COOPERATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS From a regional

perspective, migratory birds are a particularly important component of North American biodiversity. Over 354 species of birds migrate from Canada to the United States, to Mexico, or

even further south in Latin America. A similar number of birds migrate from the United States.

When the environmental health of migration routes are endangered, entire populations of

species can be put at risk. Without regional cooperation, the best policies and programs can be

rendered futile since migratory species—such as songbirds—require protection throughout

their entire range. While there are international and regional programs for the conservation of

migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, there is no similar cooperative effort for the conservation of migratory terrestrial birds. The CEC is working with the three countries to identify

cooperative initiatives to facilitate the conservation of terrestrial migratory birds.

In 1995, private sector organizations from each country worked together to identify important bird

areas for non-game migratory birds. In 1996, the Council formally established the Working

Group on Cooperation in the Conservation of North American Birds made up of wildlife

agency representatives and citizen groups concerned about migratory bird conservation. One

of the main tasks of the Working Group will be that of developing a strategy and action plan for

the conservation of North American birds.
NORTH AMERICAN BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION NETWORK There is no comprehensive understanding at the North American level of what biodiversity data exists, where it is

held, how reliable it is and how it may be accessed. To address this gap, the CEC launched an

initiative whose objectives were to identify and make accessible biodiversity information in

North America. In 1996, the CEC Secretariat identified the steps and elements required to link

up the databases of various agencies and establish a virtual North American Biodiversity

Information Network (NABIN). The business plan and guidelines for NABIN were finished by

the end of 1996. The implementation of the plan is scheduled to begin in 1997.

MAPS OF NORTH AMERICAN ECOLOGICAL REGIONS In

1995, the CEC coordinated the production of a set of maps

and descriptions for North American ecological regions. This

valuable educational tool is intended to provide scientists and

policy makers with a common interpretation and understanding

of North American geographical and ecological information.

This year, the scientists and cartographers engaged in the project

from each of the three countries wrote the report describing

the level I regions and their classification. The maps have been

developed according to two levels of complexity, levels I and II,

which include 15 and 52 ecological regions respectively. Maps

are now being completed for level III, which will be composed

of approximately 200 ecological regions. At this level, local and

regional influences, rather than continental or national ones,

are identified. The maps will be available in 1997 in both printed

and electronic formats, and will be accompanied by the report

summarizing the mapping and describing each of the specific

ecological regions.

COOPERATION IN THE PROTECTION OF MARINE AND COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEMS

Increasing pollution threatens rich marine ecosystems all over North America. Contaminants

from municipal and industrial effluents and sewage overflows—as well as atmospheric deposition

and agricultural runoff—are just some of the pressures on these highly dynamic and diverse

habitats. The CEC has launched a project to conserve these areas through joint actions, recognizing

the need for cooperation at the regional and subregional levels. Identification of major threats

to marine ecosystems, and strategies for dealing with them, form the basis for this action. This

year, the CEC launched two cooperative pilot projects with local organizations for the implementation of the UNEP Global Program of Action (GPA) for the Protection of the Marine

Environment from Land-based Activities. The two pilot projects—for which cooperative strategies were developed with the help of relevant agencies and organizations in each region—are

the Southern California Bight (Mexico-United States) and the Gulf of Maine (Canada-United

States). The CEC also provided assistance to the NAFTA countries in advancing the

International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI). A report on these efforts will be available in 1997

and implementation of the strategies will begin at that time.

Ecological Regions 

of North America
Building a North American Approach

15

NONGOVERNMENTAL PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF PROTECTED

AREAS AND ADJACENT LAND HOLDINGS There is general recognition that protected

areas will survive only if they are seen to be of value to the country and to the local community.

To promote participation in the conservation of these important areas, the countries of North

America benefit by sharing their respective experiences. This year, the CEC helped identify possible sites for pilot projects to improve nongovernmental participation and established a first

North American cooperative pilot project in Mexico. A survey of possibilities for nongovernmental participation in the conservation of these areas was completed in late 1996. Site selection

criteria for these pilot projects will be defined in early 1997. The results of a subsequent evaluation will form the basis of case studies to be presented at the end of the project.

To facilitate cooperative initiatives to reduce pollution risks 

and minimize pollution impacts.

The presence of toxic substances in the North American environment has caused concern in all

three countries regarding potentially serious health problems both for humans and wildlife.

Toxic chemicals have accumulated in food chains, particularly affecting people whose sustenance derives principally from wildlife, including native peoples in regions such as the Arctic

and the Great Lakes. The CEC approach to protecting human health and the environment

focuses on reducing pollution risks and minimizing the impact of existing pollution across

the continent.

Reducing Risk Program

SOUND MANAGEMENT OF CHEMICALS In late 1995, the CEC Council resolved to

develop trinational action plans for the reduction or phase-out of priority substances.

This resolution included provisions for joint action in the sound management of chemicals, with the reduction and virtual elimination of persistent bioaccumulative pollutants in North America as a medium-term objective. The initiatives and actions 

pursued in this project include finding suitable policy options and alternatives to

the toxic and persistent substances named. In 1996, four substances were targeted

for the development of regional action plans: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),

DDT, chlordane and mercury. Meetings with interest groups were held to solicit

input into these plans. In addition, a criteria document outlining the process

for the identification of additional substances for common action was drafted

for public comment. This year, the Council resolved to identify two additional

substances for regional action on reduction or phase-out. Goals for 1997

include the completion of the first four regional action plans and the development of

two additional plans.

Protecting Human Health and the Environment
NORTH AMERICAN POLLUTANTS RELEASE INVENTORY In 1996 the CEC prepared the

first annual North American Pollutant Release Inventory (NAPRI) report on pollutant release

and transfer registers (PRTRs) based on publicly available information from the 1994 national

pollutants inventories in each country. Since Canada and the United States have PRTRs in place

and Mexico is in the process of developing its own, initial work in 1995 included a focus on

providing Mexico with support for the development of its PRTR. The first NAPRI report will

be published in 1997 and will include a description and status of the national inventories,

an evaluation of the comparability and compatibility of the data, as well as extensive data analysis. A series of special issues documents will also be considered based upon national needs and

priorities, to provide an update on emerging issues and trends in North America. Furthermore,

it is expected that a comparative analysis of PRTRs will assist in the implementation and

evaluation of CEC air efforts.

NORTH AMERICAN AIR MONITORING AND MODELING Air monitoring and modeling

efforts are essential for tracking the movement of pollutants in order to develop valid policy and

regulatory decisions. Experts and officials throughout North America must have reliable information upon which they can base these decisions. In 1996, the CEC-established Advisory

Group recommended several key action areas for cooperation, including promotion of data

compatibility, status and quality enhancement of emissions inventories and technology transfer.

As a result, the CEC launched several important air monitoring and modeling activities in 1996. 

SCIENCE LIAISON, COOPERATION AND COORDINATION This project was designed to

foster and encourage increased trinational cooperation and joint initiatives between the environmental science communities of North America and the CEC. Activities in 1996 included

promoting the generation of sound science-based environmental information; support for the

planning and convening of a North American Conference on Atmospheric Change and

Transportation (being organized by the Royal Society of Canada and the National Academies of

Science in Mexico and the United States); producing a study on the potential for scientific

cooperation between the CEC and other organizations; and co-sponsoring a North American

Workshop to assess the impact of non-indigenous species on the abundance, distribution and

diversity of native freshwater species.

TRANSBOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Under Article 10(7) of

NAAEC, the CEC is charged with developing specific recommendations on transboundary environmental impact assessment. In 1995, the CEC initiated discussions with senior impact

assessment officials from the three countries on this important area, leading in October 1995

to the adoption by the CEC Council of the Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment
Building a North American Approach

17

“Overarching Principles.” In 1996, the intergovernmental group used these principles to develop

a draft of the specific recommendations. Such recommendations include assessing the environmental impact of projects likely to cause significant adverse transboundary effects, notification

and provision of relevant information, consultation between the Parties and consideration of

mitigation measures of the potential adverse effects of such projects. This document will be

completed in 1997 and submitted to the CEC Council for further action.

Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Program

ENERGY EFFICIENCY COOPERATION In 1996, the CEC worked to support an expanded

program of energy efficiency upgrades for small- and medium-size enterprises in North

America. Four pilot audits were conducted and the results, including an overview of the financing

opportunities, are expected to be ready in the third quarter of 1997. Based on the study of

barriers and opportunities completed in 1995, as well as extensive consultations with government

and nongovernmental experts, the CEC this year provided a forum for discussion and exchange

of information on experiences in voluntary energy efficiency audit programs. Also to be

published are case studies based on initiatives, at the trinational, federal and sub-federal levels,

in which governments and private sector partnerships have developed innovative energy

technologies and efficiency gains. 

NORTH AMERICAN COOPERATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE In 1995, the Council signed

a Statement of Intent to Cooperate on Climate Change and Joint Implementation. The

Statement laid the groundwork for joint action by the three countries on information exchange,

technology transfer and facilitating private sector involvement in greenhouse gas emissions

reduction activities. Milestones under this project were an assessment of barriers and opportunities to joint implementation, capacity development of relevant institutions in Mexico involved

in greenhouse gas mitigation, release of funds to evaluate potential joint implementation projects

at four different sites and produce an options paper on the potential for a greenhouse gas emissions

trading system.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT ON TRANSBOUNDARY WATER

RESOURCES IN NORTH AMERICA The CEC continued work on a report, expected to be

completed by the end of 1997, that will provide the public with “vulnerability” indicators to

climate variability in the transboundary water basins. It will also include detailed case studies of

the potential impact of climate variability on fresh water resources along the Canadian-US and

US-Mexican borders. The results of the report are intended to assist policy and decision makers

in revising current policies for the management of these resources.
Capacity Building Program

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING Techniques for protecting the environment,

education and training have become vital for both management and employees. A new survey

conducted as part of this project found that many Mexican companies are looking to specific

environmental training and education programs for help. The survey represents perhaps the

most comprehensive effort so far to gauge this interest in Mexico. This report will be released

in 1997 and efforts are continuing to ensure that Canada, Mexico and the United States give a

high priority to environmental education and training.

CAPACITY BUILDING IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN GUANAJUATO One of

the results of the first Secretariat report under Article 13 on the Death of Migratory Birds in the

Silva Reservoir was the identification of the need to build capacity for environmental management

at the state level in Guanajuato. During 1996, the CEC developed an environmental action

program with the State of Guanajuato for the period 1995–2000, which was officially approved

by the Mexican Congress in November of 1996. Other achievements included the creation of

the state’s first environmental council, a nongovernmental organization, as well as the provision

of technical support for the preparation of the management plan for the Turbio River.

Additionally, and in cooperation with Environment Canada, a workshop on wastewater

treatment and plant operation was conducted; another, for environmental management, is

planned for early 1997.

To encourage mutual compatibility of trade, environmental and economic policies and

instruments within North America and other trading regimes.

Public consultations convened by the Joint Public Advisory Committee identified the trade and environment program as a core area for the CEC. In 1996, the CEC made progress in converting

existing theoretical and conceptual work into practical programs deployed in the real-world

context of the North American economy. The CEC advanced on two projects, one which

explores the linkages between free trade policies and the environment, and a second which

reduces barriers to accessing timely and useful information on North American technologies.

Environment, Trade 

and Economy
Building a North American Approach

19

Trade and the Environment

NAFTA ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS This project responds directly to Articles 10(2)(1) and

10(6) of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. The general objective

of the NAFTA Effects Project is to design and implement an analytical framework to identify

and assess the effects of NAFTA on the environment.

In 1995, the CEC began the exploratory phase of the NAFTA Effects Project, Phase I, which focused

on the main elements of NAFTA and its more general regime, and their immediate effects on

trade and investment within North America.

In April 1996, in partnership with the Institute of the Americas (United States), El Colegio de México

(Mexico), and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (Canada), the

CEC held a workshop in La Jolla, California, to consider a preliminary framework. The proceedings of the workshop have been issued as the fourth publication in the CEC’s Environment

and Trade Series, Building a Framework for Assessing NAFTA Environmental Effects: Report of a workshop

held in La Jolla, California, on April 29 and 30, 1996. In 1996, the CEC prepared for distribution the complete set of research papers undertaken in Phase I of the project and has made

them available to the public as the NAFTA Effects Working Papers.

The objectives of Phase II of the project, begun in 1996, include considering specific issues that, taken

together, address key elements of the general framework. This will permit expanded focus on

those areas where empirical data is not available or will clarify linkages between environmental

issues and trade and economic activity. The studies explore such issues as production processes,

technology use, infrastructure, social organization and government policy, and will also include

analysis of one or more elements of environmental media: air, water, biodiversity and land.

Phase II also includes systematic work to develop the framework for the

ongoing monitoring of trade and investment dimensions of environmental issues.

In addition, work in 1996 included a study of the intergovernmental institutions created or inspired by

NAFTA. This work responds to repeated assertions

that the effects of NAFTA on the North American

environment would depend on the operations of the

dozens of trilateral intergovernmental institutions

implementing, managing and extending the trinational

trade regime. This information will be published in 1997

as number five in the CEC’s Environment and Trade

Series: NAFTA Effects: NAFTA’s Institutions, their Potential and

Performance.
Technology Cooperation Program

TECHNOLOGY CLEARINGHOUSE The CEC actively promotes “green technology” that is appropriate and cost-effective for helping North American companies meet their environmental

goals. This year, the CEC joined forces with three private environmental technology groups in

Canada, Mexico and the United States to create an electronic service to promote such technology. This environmental technology information service is designed to help environmental

technology and service suppliers in Canada, Mexico and the United States increase sales and

introduce North American technology globally, including markets in Central and South

America. The pilot version of this service, which draws on information collected by each of the

three governments, will be available to the public in 1997.

POLLUTION PREVENTION COOPERATION This initiative concentrated on meeting the technical support needs of small- and medium-size enterprises in Mexico. An initial study concluded that access to financing and information on available, successful approaches and technologies were the two key barriers to the successful adoption of pollution prevention in the

region. Work undertaken in 1996 with the cooperation of private and public institutions was

aimed at addressing these barriers and led to the adoption of a resolution that established the

first-ever pollution prevention fund for small- and medium-size enterprises in Mexico. The

Fund will eventually be available to help SMEs in Canada and the United States, as well.

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.

The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) obligates Canada, Mexico

and the United States to enforce their environmental laws effectively, maintain high levels of

environmental protection and ensure that adequate procedural guarantees are available to

North American citizens. In 1996, the three countries intensified the cooperative programs

established in 1995 to coordinate environmental enforcement policies, build capacity and

inform citizens of government enforcement efforts and results.

In August 1996, the Council constituted the North American Working Group on Environmental

Enforcement and Compliance Cooperation to strengthen enforcement through joint training

and shared expertise, to prepare the annual report on environmental enforcement obligations

and activities, and to provide advice and recommendations to the CEC on related program

priorities. The Enforcement Working Group in turn established the Wildlife Enforcement

Working Group to direct policies and programs in that area. Projects undertaken by these two

working groups during the past year were:

Enforcement Cooperation and Law
Building a North American Approach

21

Enforcement and Compliance Cooperation: 

• A series of meetings, with supporting documentation, were organized for enforcement and customs

officials from key border crossings to improve their ability to detect the transboundary movement of

regulated or banned substances or wastes, including smuggling of CFCs. 

• In parallel, continued support was given to the interagency exchange of information and strategies

on alternative approaches to environmental compliance, focusing particularly on ISO 14000.

Wildlife Enforcement: 

• Training workshops were conducted for wildlife enforcement and customs officials in Toronto on

endangered fur-bearing species and in Jalapa on endangered bird species. 

• Commitment to coordinate wildlife enforcement activities was formalized between the CEC and the

Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management.

Finally, a CEC report surveying North American innovations and experience with alternative strategies

for achieving effective environmental enforcement and compliance, and the performance indicators for measuring their success, will provide the background for an international conference

planned for the fall of 1997.

DIALOGUE ON ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Since its inception the CEC has received a number of

submissions from the North American community raising issues or concerns related to alleged

deregulation, defunding or reduced enforcement of environmental laws. In August 1996 the

CEC Council issued a communiqué stating its intention to “develop principles to help guide the

development of a new generation of environmental regulatory and other management systems,

in accordance with each country’s laws in order to avoid a reduction of effective environmental

protection and public health standards.”

In response the CEC Secretariat sponsored a dialogue among environmental lawyers, government,

industry, NGOs and academia from the three countries in December in Austin, Texas. The purpose

was to identify and explore major trends in the development of North American environmental

law and to initiate the dialogue on potential

common principles to guide the development

and implementation of environmental laws. Background papers

and the proceedings of the dialogue are available. A follow-up

project is to be delivered in 1997,

focusing on joint identification

and review of principles and

processes for use in the introduction of new environmental

law, policy or management.
Information and Public Outreach

RECIPROCAL ACCESS TO COURTS Under current practice, citizens suffering environmental

harm may encounter significant barriers to seeking administrative or judicial remedies when the

source of the harm originates in a neighboring country. The CEC is exploring ways to improve

access to legal remedies. In 1996, the CEC prepared a report for publication in 1997, reviewing

the current status of reciprocal access to courts in the three NAFTA countries. The report

assesses current barriers and constraints to reciprocal access; provides an overview of current

practice in each country; and reviews the status of OECD, state and bar association efforts to

improve reciprocal access.

To communicate with the growing network of concerned citizens across North America,

the CEC continues to invest resources in developing tools for the open, transparent and

low-cost exchange of information. 

CEC INFORMATION CENTER & CEC DATABASE DEVELOPMENT The CEC Information

Center, located in Montreal, expanded its collection of periodicals and monographs on topics

related to the North American environment. The public can access this Information Center

through the CEC homepage, one of the main vehicles for informal, trinational information

exchange being developed by the Secretariat. In 1996, the CEC homepage had close to 100,000

visitors. One of its most heavily used features was the environmental law database, which offers

summaries of environmental laws in Canada, Mexico and the United States. Another database,

which catalogues existing transboundary agreements in North America, was also developed this

year and will be made available on the CEC homepage in 1997.

NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

INITIATIVE Efforts to promote a greater awareness of North

American environmental issues focused this year on public access to information. In 1995, the CEC supported

the creation of a Mexico-based nongovernmental organization, the North American Center for Environmental

Information and Communication. In 1996, this group

created an environmental video library and built the

foundations for an information center which gives the

public access to environmental resources across North

America. The Center successfully implemented a fundraising plan that attracted private donations from several

corporations, including Hewlett Packard of Mexico,
Building a North American Approach

23

General Electric of Mexico, Chrysler of Mexico, Coca-Cola of Mexico, Dupont of Mexico,

Lucent Technology, Microsoft of Mexico and the Grupo Pulsar. The Center also moved closer

to independence from the CEC by creating a trinational board.

NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The CEC launched a project in 1995 to address the problems posed by limited sources of

information on environmental issues covering the whole of North America. This project is

intended to provide public on-line access to environmental and selected social data parameters

in Canada, Mexico and the United States for educational, demonstration and analytical purposes.

Work in 1996 focused on overlaying ecological and other

physical data parameters with socioeconomic data from

the national census and other sources. A future, more

refined database will eventually offer users

the same information, but at the muncipal

or county level. The CEC is also working

to create a World Wide Web interface that

will enable users to access other existing

regional systems.
Public Participation: 

Reaching Out 

Across North America

The public in North America is demanding and achieving a greater role in environmental decisionmaking processes. The CEC provides the public in Mexico, Canada and the United States with

an important, unprecedented opportunity to participate in environmental decision-making. It

does so through a variety of formal and informal means, many of which are changing the way

the public interacts with environmental authorities across the continent. Taken together, they

enable the public to influence the direction and priorities of the North American agenda. They

also help ensure that the processes established under the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) are open and transparent. Public participation through

the CEC is evolving, shaped by the demands and needs of the public itself. 

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

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

This year, these consultations also contributed significantly to the process of sharpening CEC’s

focus and narrowing its work program to fewer initiatives. At over 100 meetings this year,

experts from the private and public sector participated actively in the process of helping to

shape and define the CEC work program and shared governmental priorities. The Secretariat

seeks out these experts formally and informally for every CEC project.

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

(JPAC). The members of JPAC, five from each country, serve on a volunteer basis as advisors to

Council. They do not represent specific constituencies, but rather speak as knowledgeable,

independent, concerned individuals. The year 1996 marked the second round of JPAC public

consultations. At these consultations—21 June in Montreal, Quebec, 15 July in San Diego,

California and 1 August in Toronto, Ontario—members of JPAC listened to the opinions of

concerned citizens on the following issues:

• reducing human health risks from environmental contaminants,

• conserving biodiversity,

• strengthening environment and economy linkages, and 

• defining public participation.

All these sessions included plenary sessions and roundtable discussions, which involved over 600 participants from industry, NGOs, academia and government. Using this input, the JPAC was able

to develop sound recommendations, which were delivered to Council at its third regular session,

held in Toronto, Ontario. Summaries of all JPAC public consultations and JPAC regular sessions

are available electronically on the CEC homepage, or in hard copy at the CEC Secretariat in

Montreal.

As part of its mandate, the CEC Council holds public sessions at its yearly meetings. This year, at the

regular session held in Toronto, over 200 participants contributed to roundtable discussions

and a free exchange with the three North American environment ministers.
Public Participation: Reaching Out Across North America

25

Responding to Public Concerns

Responding to public concerns about the environment is of utmost importance to the CEC. Under

Article 13 of NAAEC, the CEC Secretariat can prepare a special report on any environmental

matter relating to the CEC’s scope of work. In response to public consultation and general

public concerns over air pollution, the CEC Secretariat this year launched a report on continental pollutant pathways and the fate of atmospheric pollutants in North America. This report,

scheduled for release in 1997, is expected to provide a foundation for developing a framework

agreement to guide and promote regional cooperation on reducing transboundary air pollution. 

Citizen Submissions on Enforcement Matters

The CEC plays important roles in both reporting on how governments are living up to their environmental commitments, and in helping governments improve environmental enforcement. The

public has an opportunity to be part of this effort. In accordance with NAAEC, any person or

nongovernmental organization asserting that a Party to NAAEC is failing to enforce its environmental law effectively may make a submission to the CEC Secretariat on enforcement matters

under Articles 14 and 15 of NAAEC. This year, the Secretariat received four citizen submissions,

filed under Article 14 of NAAEC. 

In order to provide potential submitters with additional guidance,

the CEC makes available Guidelines for Submissions

on Enforcement Matters. As well, the CEC maintains

a registry to provide information for any interested

organization or person wishing to follow the status of

any submission during the review process. The

guidelines and registry are available for viewing and

downloading in electronic format on the CEC homepage. Hard copies are also available on request from

the CEC Information Center. Please see the end of

this section for a complete listing of the submissions

filed in 1996.

Linking North American Communities

The North American Fund for Environmental Cooperation (NAFEC), created by Council in 1995, is

the CEC’s newest venue for public participation. This year marked the first full year of operation for this trinational fund. For 1996, the CEC allocated C $2 million to NAFEC, a source of

funding for community-based environmental projects in Canada, Mexico and the United States. 
NAFEC is intended to enhance public participation in protecting the North American environment at

two levels. First, it provides an avenue for communities to propose ways of dealing with environmental concerns based on their own experience and seek support for concrete actions. This

allows people throughout North America to suggest, and potentially carry out, initiatives within

the framework of the CEC, and disseminate the results of their work widely. At the level of the

projects themselves, the emphasis on “community-based” projects reflects the notion that

those who are affected should take part in decisions related to their environment.

Guidelines for the NAFEC fund were developed and a Call for Preproposals was issued at the end of

April 1996. Each of the Parties appointed two representatives to the NAFEC Selection

Committee. This committee selects preproposals for which full proposals are requested and,

from this group, chooses the final projects to be awarded grants. In total, 35 NAFEC grants

were awarded to nongovernmental organizations across North America in 1996, ranging from

C $7,000 to $100,000. The first group of fourteen grants was announced at the CEC Council

meeting in August. A second set of awards followed soon afterwards and another fifteen grants

were awarded in early December. The remaining six grants were made from the discretionary

fund (for amounts up to $10,000).

As a recipient of over 700 preproposals and several thousand information requests in 1996, NAFEC

has already become a storehouse of information about community-based environmental

activities in North America. Lists of resource materials, other sources of funding and products

resulting from NAFEC projects have been developed and continue to be expanded. Such information could prove to be the basis of an important new network of communities across the

continent—people all interested in protecting the North American environment.

Groups awarded grants in 1996 include: • Air & Waste Management Association for Advancing

Environmental Quality and Sustainability in Two Model Cities: Hamilton, Canada

and Monterrey, Mexico (Canada/Mexico/US) • International Institute for Sustainable

Development for Communities for Environmentally Sustainable Development

(Canada/US/Mexico) • World Wildlife Fund (WWF) for The DDT Dilemma: Seeking

Alternatives which address Community Priorities (Mexico/US/Canada) • Manitoba

Eco-Network for the North American Forest Forum (Canada/US/Mexico) • Grupo de

Mejoramiento Ambiental y Desarrollo Económico de la Barra del Potrero for the Use of Alternative

Technologies to Increase the Sustainability of a Small Community

Located in a Marine Turtle Reserve (Oaxaca, Mexico)

• Border Ecology Project for the Development of CrossBorder Strategies to Diminish the Social and

Environmental Impact of Mining in Mexico (Mexico/US)

• Assembly of First Nations for the Environmental Tool Kit for

First Nations (Canada).

Information about applying for a NAFEC grant is available

through the Internet, on the CEC homepage, or by contacting

the CEC headquarters.
Public Participation: Reaching Out Across North America

27

Articles 14 & 15 of NAAEC

Submission I.D.: SEM-96-001

Submitter(s):

Comité para la Protección de los Recursos Naturales, A.C.;

Grupo de los Cien Internacional, A.C.; Centro Mexicano de

Derecho Ambiental, A.C.

Party: United Mexican States

Summary of the matter addressed in the submission:

The Submitters allege that the appropriate authorities failed to

effectively enforce environmental laws during the evaluation

process of the project “Construction and Operation of a

Public Harbor Terminal for Tourist Cruises on the Island of

Cozumel, State of Quintana Roo” (Construcción y operación de

una terminal portuaria, de uso público para cruceros turísticos en la

Isla Cozumel, Estado de Quintana Roo).

The Submitters allege that during the evaluation process of the

above-mentioned project, the competent authorities failed to

effectively enforce the following environmental laws: General

Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection

(Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente);

Regulation on Environmental Impact (Reglamento en materia de

Impacto Ambiental); Instructions to prepare and present a general declaration of Environmental Impact (Instructivo para desarrollar y presentar la Manifestación de Impacto Ambiental en la

Modalidad General). The Submitters also describe other legal

requirements that in their opinion were not effectively

enforced. These are: the Decree published in the Diario Oficial

de la Federación establishing the Declaration of a “Protection

Zone for the Marine Fauna and Flora of the western coast of

the Island of Cozumel in the State of Quintana Roo” (Decreto

publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación que estableció la

Declaratoria de “Zona de refugio para la flora y fauna marinas de la

costa occidental de la Isla Cozumel, Estado de Quintana Roo”) of

11 June 1980, the Declaratory Decree of Uses, Functions and

Reserves of the Municipality of Cozumel (Decreto de Declaratoria

de Usos, Destinos y Reservas del Municipio de Cozumel) of 9 March

1987, and the Law on Harbors (Ley de Puertos). 

More specifically, the Submitters allege that the abovementioned project was initiated without a declaration of environmental impacts covering all the works included in the project,

contrary to the Concession Title awarded by the Secretariat

of Communications and Transportation (Título de Concesión

otorgado por la Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes) for the

construction and operation of the project. In addition, the

Submitters argue that the project is located within the limits of a

protected natural area known as the “Zona de refugio para la protección de la flora y la fauna marinas de la costa occidental de la Isla

Cozumel” protected under a special legal regime. The

Submitters further allege that the situation is serious and represents an immediate danger for the survival and development of

both the Paradise Reef “Arrecife Paraíso” and the Caribbean

Barrier Reef (Cadena Arrecifal del Gran Caribe).

Name and citation of the environmental law in question:

1. Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al

Ambiente (LGEEPA)

2. Reglamento de la Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la

Protección al Ambiente en Materia de Impacto Ambiental

3. Instructivo para desarrollar y presentar la Manifestación de

Impacto Ambiental en la Modalidad General

4. Decree published on 11 June 1980 in the Diario Oficial de la

Federación, which declares the “Zona de refugio para la

protección de la flora y fauna marinas de la costa occidental

de la Isla Cozumel, Estado de Quintana Roo”

5. Decreto de Declaratoria de Usos, Destinos y Reservas del

Municipio de Cozumel, Quintana Roo, publicado en el

Periódico Oficial del Estado de Quintana Roo el 19 de

Marzo de 1987

6. Ley de Puertos

Summary of the response provided by the Party:

In its response, the Mexican Government asserts that the application of the North American Agreement on Environmental

Cooperation (NAAEC) cannot be retroactive, and argues that

the submission exceeds CEC’s jurisdiction. The response also

states that the submission is inadmissible under Article 14 of

NAAEC as, in its view, the Submitters did not certify their legal

capacity, did not specify the damages they suffered and did not

exhaust all remedies available under Mexican Law.

The Government of Mexico also states in its response that

there is an inconsistency between the issues raised in the submission and NAAEC’s goals as, in its opinion, the Submitters

failed to “establish a necessary relation between the alleged

environmental damage to the flora and fauna of Paraíso’s reef

and the alleged violations of environmental law” [translation].

The Government of Mexico’s response also disputes many factual assertions in the submission regarding the alleged failure

to effectively enforce its environmental law. 

Citizen Submissions 

on Enforcement Matters
Summary of the notifications to the submitter(s):

1. Acknowledgement of receipt of the submission 

(18 January 1996)

2. Secretariat’s Determination under Articles 14(1) 

(6 February 1996)

3. Secretariat’s Determination under Articles 14(2) 

(8 February 1996)

4. Secretariat Notification to Council (7 June 1996)

Council’s decision on the preparation 

of a factual record:

Council instructed Secretariat to develop 

a factual record on 2 August 1996 

Council’s decision on the public release 

of the factual record: N/A

Status of the process: 

The Secretariat is developing a factual record.

Submission I.D.: SEM-96-002

Submitter(s):

Aage Tottrup, P. Eng. 

Party: Canada

Summary of the matter addressed in the submission:

The Submitter asserts that the governments of Canada and

Alberta have failed to effectively enforce their environmental

laws resulting in the pollution of specified wetland areas,

which impacts on the habitat of fish and migratory birds.

Name and citation of the environmental law in question:

1. Fisheries Act, R.S.C., c. F-14, a. 35, 36 and 38; 

2. Department of Environment Act, R.S.A. 1980, 

c. D-19, a.7, 16 and 17; 

3. Clean Water Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. C-13, a. 3, 4 and 17; 

4. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, 

S.A. 1992, c. E-13.3, as modified by part 4, 

divisions 1 and 2, and part 10; 

5. Waste Water and Storm Drainage Regulation, Alberta

Regulation 199/93 as modified by Alta. Reg. 249/93.

Summary of the response provided by the Party: N/A

Summary of the notifications to the Submitter(s):

1. Acknowledgment of receipt of the submission 

(28 March 1996)

2. Article 14(1) Determination (17 April 1996)

3. Article 14(2) Determination (28 May 1996) 

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: The Secretariat advised the

Submitter that the submission did not merit requesting a

response from the Government of Canada. The process is

therefore terminated.

Submission I.D.: SEM-96-003

Submitter(s):

The Friends of the Oldman River

Party: Canada

Summary of the matter addressed in the submission:

The Submitter alleges that “[t]he Government of Canada is

failing to apply, comply with and enforce the habitat protection sections of the Fisheries Act and with CEAA (Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act). In particular the Government

of Canada is failing to apply, comply with and enforce Sections

35, 37 and 40 of the Fisheries Act, Section 5(1)(d) of CEAA

and Schedule 1 Part 1 Item 6 of the Law List Regulations

made pursuant to paragraphs 59(f) and (g) of CEAA.”

According to the Submitter the Department of Fisheries

released a Directive (Directive on the Issuance of Subsection

35(2) Authorizations) which creates “a decision-making

process which frustrates the intention of Parliament and

usurps the role of CEAA as a planning and decision-making

tool.” The Submitter further alleges that “[t]here are very few

prosecutions under the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act

and the prosecutions that do occur are very unevenly distributed

across the country. In fact there has been a de facto abdication

of legal responsibilities by the Government of Canada to the

inland provinces. And the provinces have not done a good job

of ensuring compliance with or enforcing the Fisheries Act.”

According to the Submitter, “228 projects were reviewed by

the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the Central and

Arctic Region (the Prairie Provinces, Ontario and the

Northwest Territories), as of 21 June 1996. For these projects,

78 Letters of advice were issued. The other 150 projects listed

were handled by providing advise to provincial or territorial

agencies or to the permitting agency.”
Public Participation: Reaching Out Across North America

29

Name and citation of the environmental law in question:

1. Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, s. 35, 37 and 40

2. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, 

c. 37, s. 5(1)(d); 59(f)(g), Schedule 1, Part 1

3. Law List Regulations, Item 6, SOR/94-636

Summary of the response provided by the Party:

In its response, the Canadian government indicates that 

the matter raised in the submission is the subject of a pending

judicial or administrative proceeding before the Federal Court

of Canada.

It specifies that on 7 November, the Friends of the West

Country Association filed an Originating Notice of Motion in

the Trial Division of the Federal Court of Canada in Alberta,

The Friends of the West Country Association v. The minister

of Fisheries and Oceans and the Attorney General of Canada

(Federal Court case No. T2457-96). It also states that at issue

in both the submission to NAAEC and the case before the

Federal Court are the application and interaction of sections

35, 37 and 40 of the Fisheries Act and of the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act.

The Government of Canada further states that as referred to

in Article 14(3), private remedies in connection with the matter raised in the submission are available and are being pursued in the Federal Court action.

Summary of the notifications to the Submitter(s):

1. Acknowledgment of receipt of the submission 

(20 September 1996).

2. Article 14(1) Determination (1 October 1996)

3. Acknowledgment of receipt of the amended submission

(15 October 1996)

4. Second Article 14(1) Determination (18 October 1996)

5. Secretariat’s request for a response from Canada 

(8 November 1996)

6. Article 14(3) advice from the Party that it will be responding

within 60 days (23 December 1996)

7. Response from Canada (10 January 1997)

8. Article 15(1) Determination (2 April 1997)

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: 

On 2 April 1997, the Secretariat notified the Submitter that

the Submission does not warrant developing a factual record.

The process is therefore terminated.

Submission I.D.: SEM-96-004

Submitter(s):

The Southwest Center for Biological Diversity and Dr. Robin Silver

Party: 

United States of America

Summary of the matter addressed in the submission:

The Submitters allege that the United States of America is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law, namely the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with respect to

the United States Army’s operation of Fort Huachuca,

Arizona. According to the Submitters, the Army has significantly increased the number of people assigned to Fort

Huachuca and this expansion also resulted in a corresponding

increase in off-base population. The Submitters allege that as

the population continues to increase, the water demand upon

the limited water resources of the Upper San Pedro basin will

increase and that increased pumping from the aquifer that sustains the river threatens to dewater the San Pedro and to

destroy the unique ecosystem that is dependent upon it. The

Submitters further allege that “in 1992, the Army prepared an

environmental analysis of impacts of expanding Fort

Huachuca. In that document, the Army split off the required

analysis of current and future impacts on a cumulative basis,

promising to include the cumulative analysis in a separate

Master Plan (Environmental Impact Statement).” The

Submitters allege that the analysis was never prepared. The

Submitters also state that on 7 July 1994 they brought a claim

under NEPA in the United States District Court of Arizona to

compel the Army to complete the required cumulative impact

analysis. The judge assigned to the case found that the claim

was barred by the statute of limitations under the Defense

Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. The Submitters

further note that this procedural ruling barred the Submitters

from compelling the Army to complete the NEPA analysis by

a court order, even though the Court agreed that the Army’s

analysis was insufficient.

Name and citation of the environmental law in question:

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. ss.

4321-4370d
Summary of the response provided by the Party: 

The Party alleges that “In this case, the Secretariat should not

request authorization to prepare a factual record regarding the

assertions in the Submission for the following reasons. First,

the United States is not failing to effectively enforce its environmental laws as contemplated by Article 14(1) of the

NAAEC because the Submitters’ assertions relate to actions

that were complete before the Agreement’s entry into force or

relate to proposed federal actions that are not ripe for challenge under United States law. Second, the Submitters suggestion that there is an ongoing failure to enforce the requirements of NEPA misstates applicable law. Third, the Submitters

failed to pursue private remedies under United States law in a

timely manner, and when they did pursue remedies, they

abandoned them as moot. Fourth, the development of a factual record could adversely affect the pending judicial appeal

by the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity and others of

the dismissal of a suit brought under the Endangered Species

Act which arises from the facts that are the subject of the

Submission. Finally, the Submission suggests that the Submitters do not have a complete understanding of the activities at

Fort Huachuca related to population and groundwater use.”

Summary of the notifications to the Submitter(s):

1. Acknowledgement of receipt of the submission 

(27 November 1996)

2. Article 14(1) Determination (16 December 1996)

3. Article 14(2) Determination (22 January 1997)

4. Response from the United States (3 March 1997)

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:

On 5 June 1997, the Submitters withdrew their submission 

in accordance with Section 14.1 of the Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters under Articles 14 and 15 of the

NAAEC. The process is therefore terminated.
2

Country

Reports
Country Reports on Implementation 

of the Commitments Derived from 

the NAAEC

The following report was submitted to the CEC Secretariat 

by Environment Canada in accordance with NAAEC.

Canada

Article 2 General Commitments

Article 2(1)(a)

Canada’s third national state of the environment report, The State of Canada’s Environment 1996,

was completed in 1996 and released on both the Internet and on CD-ROM. A print version of the

report is scheduled for completion in spring of 1997. The comprehensive report provides

information on environmental conditions and trends in each of Canada’s main ecological

regions, as well as overviews of national and global trends.

In addition to the national report, seven new or updated bulletins in Canada’s National

Environmental Indicator Series were produced in the 1996–97 fiscal year: Stratospheric Ozone

Depletion update; Climate Change update; Acid Rain; Urban Water: Municipal Water Use and

Wastewater Treatment update; Urban Air Quality update; Energy Consumption update; Canadian

Passenger Transportation update.

The State of the Environment Infobase, can be accessed from Environment Canada’s Green

Lane home page on the Internet at http://www.ec.gc.ca. The CD-ROM containing the infobase

and other information is entitled Conserving Canada’s Natural Legacy / Le capital nature du Canada

en capsule.

1996 marked the first year of full participation in the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation by the province of Alberta. In 1996, Alberta released its State of

the Environment Report, which focused on aquatic ecosystems, and was intended to inform

and educate readers about Alberta’s rivers, lakes and wetlands. Two State of the Environment

fact sheets were distributed in 1996: one on Alberta’s Special Places program and a second one

on the Clean Air Strategic Alliance, a multistakeholder organization that is developing strategies to

address several air quality issues.

Article 2(1)(b)

Progress was made in the development of regional annexes implemening the Canada-United

States Joint Inland Pollution Contingency Plan. Environment Canada’s Quebec region and

USEPA Region 1 developed a risk assessment program to identify sites that could create transboundary effects as a result of an emergency release. The Joint Inland Pollution Contingency

plan is on track for finalization in 1997–1998.
Canada Country Reports on Implementation of the Commitments Derived from the NAAEC

33

Environmental emergency officials from Mexico, the United States and Canada met in March

to promote the use of national telephone numbers for reporting environmental emergencies,

and to harmonize notification and actions to minimize the impact of spills at border crossings.

Canada also hosted representatives from Profepa and Semarnap in March and June respectively

in regard to environmental emergencies programs and creation of an emergency response center

in Mexico.

Article 2(1)(c)

In 1996, Canada began a process to develop a national framework for environmental education.

At the practical level, Canada began pilot testing the Rescue Mission Indicators kit created by

Peace Child International in 20 schools. Through this project, students will conduct assessments of their school grounds and immediate surroundings based on 16 sustainability indicators.

Results will be sent to the United Nations by June 1997.

Article 2(1)(d)

Canada worked in partnership with both the United States and Mexico to further scientific

research and technology development in respect of environmental matters. 

Canada-US cooperation included initiatives such as research on in situ combustion of oil spills,

as well as ongoing negotiation of a draft agreement on Mutual Acceptance of Data related to

OECD Good Laboratory Practice for Testing of Chemicals.

Cooperation with the US Environmental Protection Agency included:

• The joint development and verification of environmental analytical methods;

• Studies of exhaust emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles/engines to determine the effectiveness of existing regulatory compliance protocols and to develop more effective and

representative methodologies; and

• Evaluation and development of pervaporation for decontaminating water.

Canada also worked with the US Department of Interior (the Minerals Management Service) on: 

• Development of airborne oil spill remote sensing technologies, including the Scanning Laser

Environmental Airborne Fluorosensor (SLEAF);

• Studies on spill-treating agent effectiveness and effects;

• Field studies on in situ treatment of oiled shorelines, including the development of improved

methods for cleaning oiled shorelines hydraulically; and

• Studies on the performance of oil sorbent products.
Canada is conducting research, in conjunction with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, on the bioremediation of oil spills, and with the US Coast Guard, on development

of spill countermeasures for the fuel “orimulsion,” and evaluating the performance of oil skimmers

in ice-infested waters.

With Mexico, Canada also provided training on the development of a National Environmental

Laboratory Accreditation System—in cooperation with the Canadian Association of

Environmental Analytical Laboratories and the Canadian Chapter of the International

Association for Environmental Analytical Testing Laboratories.

Article 2(1)(e)

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) is responsible for administering

the federal environmental assessment process. In 1996–1997, the Canadian Environmental

Assessment Agency managed a total of twelve public reviews, six under the Environmental

Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order, and six under the Canadian Environmental

Assessment Act. In addition, during the same period federal departments and agencies conducted, in accordance with their environmental assessment obligations under the Act, a total of

8,759 screenings and 18 comprehensive studies.

Article 2(1)(f)

The first demonstration of an international trade between Canada and the United States for

nitrogen oxides under an open-market emission reduction trading system occurred under the

Pilot Emission Reduction Trading Project (PERT). This is an industry-led initiative to reduce

smog in the Windsor-Quebec corridor and to develop principles and program elements for creating, recognizing and trading Emission Reduction Credits as a commodity in an open market. 

Canada promoted the use of economic incentives for the efficient achievement of environmental

goals through the federal budget. In 1996, the federal budget encouraged the creation of a level

playing field between certain renewable and non-renewable energy investments by extending

the use of flow through share financing to certain renewable energy expenditures. 

In addition, both the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which

reports to the Prime Minister, and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment made

public commitments to promote economic instruments.

Article 2(3)

Bis(chloromethyl) ether (BCME) and chloromethyl methyl ether (CMME) have been determined to be toxic. Although neither substance is present in Canadian commerce, as a preventive

measure both substances were added to the List of Toxic Substances (Schedule I) and to the List

of Prohibited Substances (Schedule II) of CEPA. These substances were then added to the

Schedule of the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations. 
Canada Country Reports on Implementation of the Commitments Derived from the NAAEC

Article 3 Levels of Protection

Two major pieces of legislation were introduced in the House of Commons in 1996: the Canada

Endangered Species Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The Endangered Species Protection Act provides for the early identification, protection, and

recovery of species at risk, and applies to migratory birds, fish and marine mammals, species

that range across international boundaries, and all species on federal lands. When a species is

listed, the act provides prohibitions on activities causing damage or destruction to habitat that

is critical to its survival. The Act also provides the federal authority to develop regulations, in

consultation with the provinces, to protect those species that range across international boundaries. The Act establishes a mandatory recovery planning process to put in place measures

addressing the identified threats that species face. Stiff penalties are provided for offenses.

The renewed Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) aims to better protect the health

and environment of Canadians from the threat of pollution. It is a result of extensive consultations with Canadians. The renewed CEPA will: make pollution prevention the national goal;

implement a fast track approach to evaluating and controlling toxic substances; ensure the most

dangerous substances will not be released into the environment in any measurable quantity, or

be phased out; improve enforcement of existing and new regulations; encourage greater citizen

participation; and allow for more cooperation and partnership with other governments and

Aboriginal Peoples.

On the regulatory side, regulations were either proposed or promulgated during 1996 whose

objectives are:

• providing Canadian PCB owners with the opportunity to export their PCB wastes for treatment

and destruction to the United States while ensuring that these wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner;

• limiting the concentration of sulfur in diesel fuel, which will result in reduced emissions and

environmental and human health effects from the combustion of diesel fuel;

• putting into one set of regulations all of the toxic substances for which it has been determined

that their manufacture, use, process, offer for sale, sale and importation in Canada should be

totally banned for reasons of environmental and health protection;

• amending the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations Schedule V to identify provincial representatives for the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, as a result of administrative

agreements being signed for the enforcement of the regulations;

• requiring owners of federally and privately owned storage tanks to register storage tank systems

containing petroleum or allied petroleum products, to Environment Canada. The resulting

inventory will enable federal departments to more effectively implement and administer

sound storage tank management programs; 

35
• extend the period of exemption for certain classes of racing vehicles for the use of leaded

gasoline; and

• amending the New Substances Notification Regulations to adopt a preventive approach by

providing for health and environmental assessment of biotechnology products. The amendments

will provide a safety net for those products not regulated under other acts of Parliament.

In addition, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Respecting the Import of Chloranil and Chloranilderived Substances (CDS) was signed between the Department of the Environment and Canadian

companies which import chloranil or dyes and pigments derived from chloranil into Canada. 

In Alberta, a new Water Act was passed by the Alberta Legislature, and is scheduled for proclamation and filing in 1997. The act focuses on managing and protecting Alberta’s water and

streamlining administrative processes. The legislation: protects existing licenses; protects

existing traditional agricultural uses of water; recognizes the importance of household uses of

water; requires that a provincial water management framework be developed; requires that a

strategy for protecting the aquatic environment be developed; streamlines the licensing and

approval process; provides the ability to transfer water licenses; and provides firm but fair

enforcement measures.

Article 4 Publication

Environment Canada publishes all of its laws, regulations, procedures and administrative rulings. 

The Canada Endangered Species Protection Act was tabled on 31 October 1996 and the

Canadian Environmental Protection Act was tabled on 10 December 1996.

The following regulatory initiatives were published in 1996:

• The Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations under the Canadian Environmental

Protection Act (CEPA), published in Canada Gazette Part II in May 1996, and amendments to

the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations under the Fisheries Act in June 1996. 

• Amendments to the Gasoline Regulations (December), PCB Waste Export Regulations (October),

and New Substances Notification Regulations (dealing with biotechnology products) (August).

• The Registration of Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products on Federal

Lands Regulations (October) and the Diesel Fuel Regulations (September) were new proposals

published in Canada Gazette Part I.

• Technical Guidelines for Above Ground Storage Tank Systems Containing Petroleum Products (August). 
Canada Country Reports on Implementation of the Commitments Derived from the NAAEC

Article 5 Government Enforcement Action

(See Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement)

Article 6 Private Access to Remedies

In Canada, interested persons may present to a competent authority a request to investigate

alleged violations of environmental laws and regulations. For example, the Canadian

Environmental Protection Act provides specific statutory authority for a person to apply to the

Minister of the Environment for an investigation of any alleged environmental offense under

that Act. As well, persons with a recognized legal interest in a particular matter have access to

administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial proceedings for the enforcement of Canada’s environmental laws and regulations. In this regard, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides the statutory authority to sue for damages, seek injunctions and to request the review of

administrative decisions or proposed regulations. These statutory provisions and others

ensure that Canada fully satisfies its obligations under Article 6 of the NAAEC. Canada is

continuing and building on its commitment to private access to remedies in Bill C-74, the

renewed Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1997.

Article 7 Procedural Guarantees

Canada has administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial proceedings available for the enforcement

of environmental laws and regulations. Persons are given an opportunity, consistent with the

rules of procedural fairness and natural justice, to make representations to support or defend

their respective positions and to present information or evidence. Decisions are provided in

writing, made available without undue delay and are based on information or evidence in

respect of which the parties were offered the opportunity to be heard. In accordance with its

laws, Canada provides parties to such proceedings, as appropriate, with the right to seek review

and, where warranted, correction of final decisions by an impartial and independent tribunals.

One example of fair, open and equitable proceedings at the administrative level is the Board of

Review process available under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

37
Country Reports on Implementation 

of the Commitments Derived from 

the NAAEC

The following report was submitted to the CEC Secretariat 

by the Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources and 

Fisheries (Semarnap) in accordance with NAAEC.

Mexico

Article 2 General Commitments

Article 2(1)(a)

The 1995–1996 Report on the General Situation Regarding Ecological Balance and

Environmental Protection is being prepared in collaboration with the Instituto Nacional de

Estadística, Geografía e Informática [National Statistics, Geography, and Computing Institute]

Article 2(1)(b)

The 1995–2000 Program to Improve the Air Quality in the Valley of Mexico was drafted. This

program includes the participation of the Department of the Federal District, the Government

of the State of Mexico, the Health Department and Semarnap. The objectives are health

protection and the elimination of air pollution.

A study was begun, with the objective of implementing the Centro Nacional de Emergencias

Ambientales [National Environmental Emergency Center]; it will operate 24 hours a day all year

round, will run on Lada 800, and will guide the responsible authorities and the public in

general as regards the activities that are necessary to control emergencies and avoid damages

among the population and to the environment. The Center is expected to start operating in

late 1996.

With respect to national environmental emergencies and contingencies, 300 reports on

environmental risks issued by the Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE) [National Ecology

Institute] were followed up, in order to verify compliance with the recommendations made.

Also, the Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (Profepa) [Federal Attorney General’s Office

for Environmental Protection] received reports on a total of 466 emergencies and contingencies.

As regards information relative to recycling companies and controlled containment of hazardous

waste, at this time both the handling capacity and the type of the waste that can be treated and

contained at a national level have been identified. The implementation of the Sistema de Empresas

de Riesgo Ambiental (Siera) [Environmental Risk Company System] is in progress. This system

contains general information on substance handling and hazardous waste per company, as well

as on the response to environmental emergencies in a georeferenced manner at a national level.
Mexico Country Reports on Implementation of the Commitments Derived from the NAAEC

39

Article 2(1)(c)

With respect to primary education, the Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP) [Education

Department] and Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (Semarnap) [Secretariat

of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries] Coordination Guidelines signed on 5 July

1995 specify the actions that are necessary to incorporate an environmental perspective to the

Sistema Educativo Nacional (SEN) [National Educational System]. The related actions and

activities are the following: the establishment of the Evaluation and Monitoring Committee that

carried out an initial diagnosis of the activities conducted jointly by both institutions, through

federal delegations, decentralized organizations, and various sections, in the case of Semarnap,

and through all SEP bodies.

The environment and sustainability educational package for secondary school teachers is being

prepared. It consists of a guide and an anthology, as well as video and audio material. They are

to be included in the upcoming promotion of the SEP’s Programa de Actualización Permanente

[Continuing Skills Upgrading Program], starting in January 1997. The Dirección General de

Programas Complementarios de la Subsecretaría de Servicios Educativos para el D.F. [Complementary

Programs Section of the Federal District Office for Educational Services] attended to the

concerns of 152 environmental education teachers who participated in the School Crusade for

the Preservation and Protection for the Environment. The Crusade was carried out during the

1995–1996 academic year at 4,588 primary education schools in the Federal District. The

1996–1997 Tools and Basic Environmental Concepts conference cycle aimed at primary education teachers was delivered in conjunction with the Centro de Educación Ambiental para la

Comunidad Escolar [Center for Environmental Education for the School Community].

The Instituto Tecnológico de Oaxaca [Oaxaca Technology Institute], the Instituto Estatal de Educación

Pública de Oaxaca [Oaxaca State Public Education Institute] and the Semarnap federal delegation

in Oaxaca are offering a Diploma in Environmental Education, aimed at increasing the availability

of environmental education and teacher training.

The official participation of Semarnap in the boards of directors of SEP-Conacyt [National

Science and Technology Council] institutions that conduct research in our particular field has

been normalized, particularly at the Colegio de la Frontera Sur [College of the Southern Border],

the Instituto de Ecología de Jalapa [Jalapa Ecology Institute], CIAD [Food and Development

Research Center], Cibnor [North Western Biological Research Center], and CICESE [Center

for Scientific Research, Technological Development, and Higher Education].

Article 2(1)(d)

During the past year, several Semarnap Internet sites have been published, all of which are being

integrated into a unified vehicle to provide information about the sector and the Secretariat.

The first version of the Sistema de Indicadores Ambientales (Sidia) [Environmental Indicators

System] has been built. This system, which facilitates projections with real data, has been

incorporated as an additional element to the indicator debate. Sidia is based on the PSR

(pressure-state-response) model proposed by the OECD and was designed to provide information

according to the OECD’s 13 basic subjects.
The state-of-the-art Red Informática Nacional Privada de Telecomunicaciones [National Private

Telecommunications Information Network] will be started. The network will allow for a more

efficient interaction between the various jurisdictions of this sector as regards decision making.

Article 2(1)(e)

As regards environmental impact, more than 674 inspection and verification visits were

conducted at a national level between September 1995 and December 1996. As a result,

24 [facilities] were closed, irregularities were detected in 180 cases, and 470 [industries]

complied with environmental regulations.

Article 2(3)

In order to track efficiently the cross-border movement of waste and hazardous materials, a

tracking system called Haztracks was brought into effect at the six northern ports of entry.

During the past year, 66 markedly polluting industries were identified. In 38 cases, irregularities

warranted the application of sanctions; in the remaining 28 cases, no irregularities were found.

The number of companies identified during that time decreased by 55 percent compared to

the previous year.

Article 3 Levels of Protection

The establishment of a body of environmental information is being sought. In order to develop

it, a system has been established by combining the various information and production variables

of the INE. Among the available programs, the Programa de Registro de Emisiones y Transferencia de

Contaminantes (RETC) [Emissions and Pollutant Transfer Registration Program] will provide

full information on the release of pollutants through a multimedia registration system. The

coordination group is designing the mechanisms to bring it into effect.

A second extension for the 1997 Mexican Environmental Program is currently in the process

of formalization. The extension, which was approved by the World Bank on the basis of the Plan

of Action, allows the spending of an estimated credit balance of US $3.1 million. A donation in

the amount of $400,000 was authorized for the preparations.

The development of the Subsecretaría de Recursos Naturales [Natural Resources Office] forestry

project was completed. A donation of $400,000 was authorized for preoperative actions.

As regards the revision of technical documents relative to the aquaculture development project

in Mexico, work was restarted in conjunction with the World Bank under a new administrative

structure that includes the participation of all key Semarnap areas.

A donation of $410,000 was obtained through the World Bank Institutional Development Fund

(IDF), to strengthen the areas of planning and international affairs.

Projects carried out in conjunction with the UNEP were revised. Also reviewed was the possibility of new projects to be implemented with local, Agenda 21, GEF and other resources. The
Mexico Country Reports on Implementation of the Commitments Derived from the NAAEC

41

areas identified to date are biodiversity, international waters, climate change, decentralization

and clean production (standardization and certification).

Article 4 Publication

Article 4(1)

The 1995–2000 Programa de Áreas Naturales Protegidas de México [Protected Natural Areas of

Mexico Program] was published and implemented. This program, which was established as the

starting point for an organized collective initiative in favour of conservation, envisions 10

important objectives with specific actions and projects; it incorporates new elements for

regional development through sustainability, resorting to consensus, consultation, and negotiation; it also includes novel financing programs that involve the participation of private initiatives.

The Border XXI Program represents an innovative bilateral effort that brings together the various federal bodies responsible for the border area environment in Mexico and the United

States. The purpose is to collaborate in the common objective of sustainable development

through the protection of human health and the environment, and through the adequate

management of natural resources.

Within the framework of the Border XXI Program, agreements have been reached with state

and municipal governments, as well as with various NGOs and organizations rooted in civil

society in general, to carry out decentralization activities in the northern strip of the country;

the issues addressed are water, air, hazardous waste, contamination prevention, emergency

response, information systems, and environmental and natural resources law enforcement.

During the past year, four Regional Advisory Councils were established to guarantee the broadest

possible participation of social groups in the development of environmental management

strategies, policies, and instruments, as well as in forums aimed at discussing, negotiating and

agreeing on solutions for the diversity of environmental problems affecting the country. 

In doing so, a balanced and broad representation of all groups and sectors was sought.

Eight Normas Oficiales Mexicanas (NOM) [Mexican Official Standards] were issued, and two

standard projects were published. The new standards cover: installation and testing methods for

fuel fumes recovery systems at service stations and self-serve facilities (NOM-092 and 093-

ECOL-1995); separation, packaging, storage, collection, transport, treatment and final disposal

of biological and infectious hazardous waste generated by health facilities, which is estimated at

800 tonnes/day (NOM-087 ECOL-1995); mobile source emissions (NOM-076-ECOL-1995,

NOM-077-ECOL-95, and NOM-EM-102-ECOL-1995); fixed source emissions (NOM-075-

ECOL-1995 and NOM-097-ECOL-1995). Also, the projects for standards NOM-045-ECOL1995 and NOM-001-ECOL-1996 were published. These would regulate vehicle exhaust

emissions and would establish the maximum limits for discharges of sewage into national waters

and property.

Issuance of these standards brings the number of current Mexican environmental norms to 87.
Article 4(1)(2)(a)(b)

On 13 December 1996, the Reforma a la Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente

[Amendment to the Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection Act] was published. The

general objectives are to promote the process of decentralization in environmental matters, to

broaden the right of society to participate in environmental management, to reduce the discretion

of the authorities, to incorporate economic instruments and devices for voluntary compliance

with the law, and to strengthen and develop environmental policy instruments.

During the past winter, 14,010 vehicles were stopped for inspection, out of which 9,069

contravened the regulations.

Article 5 Government Enforcement Action

Article 5(1)

The 1995–2000 Environmental Program is intended to monitor and encourage strict compliance

with environmental legislation in the following areas: forestry, industry, fisheries, wildlife,

protected natural areas and the Federal Land and Sea Zone, as well as ecological regulations and

environmental impact of activities and projects. The Program is also aimed at preventing the

deterioration of ecosystems and environmental damage by reaching a consensus regarding

preventive measures, through voluntary environmental audits, by correcting and reversing the

environmental damage caused by accidents or uncontrolled events, by decentralizing verification

procedures through state and regional inspection and monitoring infrastructures, and through

permanent action and surveillance to prevent corruption.

Following the administrative updating of the Monarch Butterfly Program, and in order to

inspect and monitor natural resources, 183 spot checks, 35 inspection and verification procedures

and 25 technical audits were conducted. These actions resulted in 40 reports, 21 administrative

records, seven administrative resolutions, 90 recommendations, 23 notifications, as well as

seven precautionary equipment seizures and 12 precautionary product seizures; 19 cases were

referred to other authorities, 10 offenders appeared before the Ministerio Público [Justice

Department], and two development permits were temporarily suspended.

Article 5(1)(a)

Also initiated was the process aimed at updating the skills of the Prosecutor’s Office technical

personnel at state delegations who are in charge of conducting environmental inspections and

verifications, and of issuing resolutions.

Article 5(1)(b)

As regards the encouragement and monitoring of compliance with environmental regulations,

Profepa published last August a Web page containing information on the Procuraduría

[Prosecutor’s Office] and on environmental legislation, as well as on environmental audits,

natural resources law enforcement, industrial verification, citizen submissions, the program,
Mexico Country Reports on Implementation of the Commitments Derived from the NAAEC

43

and training activities carried out by Profepa. Between September 1995 and August 1996,

118 inspection visits were conducted; as a result, 98 companies were found liable for slight

irregularities and 20 had no irregularities at all.

Article 5(1)(f)(j)

During the past 16 months (September 1995 to December 1996) 13,965 inspection visits were

carried out. To date, a total of 55,200 visits have been conducted. The following are the results

of the inspections:

• 45 temporary full closures,

• 175 temporary partial closures,

• 9,019 companies with slight irregularities, and

• 4,064 companies without irregularities.

With the objectives of conducting detailed evaluations, closely monitoring compliance with

environmental legislation and informing the public, a procedure has been developed to rate the

level of compliance of each source of pollution. This procedure, which is currently being tested,

was brought into effect in late 1996 and will become part of the Sistema de Seguimiento de la

Aplicación de la Normatividad Ambiental (SSANA) [Environmental Legislation Application

Monitoring System].

Article 5(1)(k)

In order to address issues related to marine and water resources, as well as to the Federal Land

and Sea Zone, seven basic programs were put into effect that reflect the priorities in this area.

The programs included 5,132 verification procedures, which resulted in the seizure of 1,213

tonnes of fishery products and 356,160 marine product items. Also seized were 3,775

pieces of fishing equipment and nets. Particularly noteworthy is the seizure of 362 tonnes of

fishery products during an operation that involved three vessels, including a foreign ship, and

resulted in fines in the amount of 2,144,000 pesos. 

(See Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement)

Article 6 Private Access to Remedies

On 2 August 1996, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) unanimously

instructed the Secretariat to prepare a factual record about the petition submitted by three

Mexican NGOs as regards the effective application of environmental legislation by the Mexican

authorities in the port terminal project at Playa Paraíso, Cozumel, Quintana Roo.

Profepa, through the Sistema Nacional para la Atención de la Denuncia Popular [national system to

receive citizen submissions], received and processed 5,552 submissions, out of which 3,330 were

concluded. The distribution of the total received per resource is the following: air: 1,487; water:

388; soil: 787; fauna: 914; and flora: 2,068. Eight submissions were related to other issues.
Country Reports on Implementation of 

the Commitments Derived from the NAAEC

The following report was submitted to the CEC Secretariat 

by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

in accordance with NAAEC.

United States

Article 2 General Commitments

Article 2(1)(e)

The Sustainable Fisheries Act, which amends and reauthorizes the Magnuson Fishery

Management and Conservation Act of 1976 (PL 94-265) was signed into law October 1996.

The amendments contain new conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing

and to ensure that already depressed stocks are rebuilt to levels that produce maximum sustainable

yield. The Act includes a new national standard to minimize bycatch or the unintentional capture

of non-target species. The Act also highlights the importance of habitat to fish stocks by requiring

that fishery management plans describe and identify essential fish habitats, including adverse

impacts on and actions to ensure enhancement of such habitats.

Article 2(1)(f)

The Sustainable Fisheries Act (above in (e)), specifically prohibits implementation of new fishery

management systems that employ individual quota shares, an economic instrument called

individual fishing quotas or IFQs. 

Article 3 Levels of Protection

HABITAT In 1996, the United States continued development of habitat-based conservation planning

(Habitat Conservation Plans, or HCPs). Habitat Conservation Plans bring an ecosystem perspective to the protection of individual species, thus increasing the chances of success with the

primary target species, and providing protection to the entire suite of species associated with a

particular habitat type, including species that are not legally protected. The plans often involve

multiple landowners and local governments, and require significant up-front investment in

scientific information. However, they can provide increased certainty regarding the kinds of

activities that can be undertaken in an area, consistent with viability of the protected species.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service issued, as of 30 September 1996, 197 HCP permits, covering

hundreds of species and more than 1.8 million hectares. In addition, the Service is currently

negotiating 200 additional HCPs that cover approximately 5.8 million hectares. The total

acreage identified in these HCPs includes lands that will be preserved, as well as lands that will

be actively managed or developed.
United States Country Reports on Implementation of the Commitments Derived from the NAAEC

45

ENDANGERED SPECIES The United States listed 91 new species in 1996 under the Endangered

Species Act, delisted one species, and reclassified three species from endangered to threatened

status. The United States also continued implementation of several procedural innovations

designed to provide greater flexibility and certainty to the regulated community in dealing

with the Endangered Species Act. The “No Surprises” policy assures non-Federal landowners

participating in functioning Habitat Conservation Planning efforts that no additional land

restrictions or financial compensation will be required for species should unforeseen or extraordinary circumstances occur. The “Safe Harbor” policy authorizes non-intentional taking of

federally listed species that establish themselves on a property as a result of the landowner’s

affirmative conservation efforts. These policies are strong incentives for the private sector to

work with FWS in recovery of listed species. 

WATER QUALITY The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 are among the

most significant legislative changes to be enacted and signed into law in the environmental area

during the last several years. Some of the important amendments are the following: establishment

of drinking water state revolving funds to provide money to communities to improve their

drinking water facilities; new authority requiring that cost-benefit analysis of each new drinking

water standard promulgated by EPA not be used to weaken existing drinking water standards

or to set standards for disinfection byproduct; and a requirement for EPA to promulgate regulations for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts, an enhanced surface water treatment rule

(including standards for cryptosporidium), a radon standard, and a revised arsenic standard by

2001 reflecting additional research on cancer risks from exposure to low levels of arsenic.

Under the Amendments, there are also requirements for community water systems to monitor

for up to 30 unregulated contaminants in order to collect information for future standards and

for each system to issue an annual consumer confidence report to its customers, including

information about contaminants in their water and health effects information regarding contaminants found above national drinking water standards; and authorization for increased

administrative penalties that may be assessed in enforcement actions for violation of the SDWA.

In addition, states must identify areas that contribute pollution to sources of drinking water and

assess potential pollution threats. The amendments also address ways to improve delivery of

drinking water (e.g., states must have authority to prohibit new systems that do not have the

capacity to meet health standards, and must certify system operators).

In a separate but related action, the Drinking Water Information Collection Rule (ICR) was

promulgated under the SDWA, requiring the largest public water systems in the United States

to monitor for microbials (including cryptosporidium) and provide extensive information on

treatment technologies. These data will be used initially to determine if current drinking water

disinfection and filtration regulations need to be strengthened. Later, these data, together with

the results of a coordinated research effort, will be used to determine appropriate levels of control

for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts. This future disinfection cluster rule is EPA’s highest

drinking water regulatory priority.

Also, on 31 October 1996, the EPA Administrator signed a final Clean Water Act (CWA) rule

establishing effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, and pretreatment
standards for the coastal oil and gas industry. The rule requires zero discharge of produced

water and drilling wastes for the entire coastal subcategory, except in Cook Inlet, Alaska, where

the rule requires limits equal to those already required of offshore oil and gas operations.

PESTICIDES Another significant piece of environmental legislation, the Food Quality Protection

Act of 1996 (FQPA), was signed into law in 1996 to provide a comprehensive and protective

regulatory scheme for pesticides. The new law amends both the Federal Food, Drug and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Among the key provisions of FQPA linked to ensuring a high level of environmental protection

is the requirement that pesticide tolerances must be determined to be safe for children, including

an additional safety standard factor of up to ten-fold, if necessary, to account for uncertainty in

data relating to children. Other key provisions include the establishment of a strong, healthbased safety standard (reasonable certainty of no harm) for pesticide residues in all foods; the

requirement that all existing tolerances be reviewed every 10 years to ensure they meet the new

health-based safety standard; provisions relating to endocrine disruptors, such as authority to

require pesticide manufacturers to provide data on potential endocrine effects; enhanced

enforcement authority enabling the Food and Drug Administration to impose civil penalties for

tolerance violations; and expedited review of safer pesticides to help them reach the market

sooner and replace older and potentially more risky chemicals.

HEAVY METALS Deteriorated (chipped, peeling, etc.) lead-based paint is a major source of lead

exposure among children in the United States. Lead exposure in children can result in learning

disabilities, growth, hearing and visual impairment, and other damage to the brain and nervous

system. US housing built before 1978 may contain lead-based paint because use of lead-based

paint was common in the United States prior to 1978 when use of lead in residential paint was

banned by law. A final rule developed jointly by EPA and the US Department of Housing and

Urban Development was signed by the EPA Administrator on 19 February 1996, to require

measures relating to disclosure of the presence of lead-based paint and potential associated

health hazards to buyers or renters of housing constructed before 1978. The three main components of the rule are requirements that those seeking to sell or lease housing constructed

pre-1978 housing: (1) disclose to buyers and renters the presence of known lead-based paint

and lead-based paint hazards in housing; (2) provide buyers and renters with any available

records and reports pertaining to the presence of lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards

in the housing; and (3) provide buyers and renters with a federally-approved lead hazard information pamphlet. The rule was developed under section 1018 of the Residential Lead-Based

Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. The rule does not require that housing be inspected for

lead-based paint or lead hazards or that abatement of lead hazards be conducted. However, it

does require sellers to provide buyers with a 10-day opportunity to conduct a risk assessment or

inspection of the housing for the presence of lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards.

TOXIC SUBSTANCES EPA published a final rule on 18 March 1996, which allows persons who

have facilities in the United States that are approved pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control

Act (TSCA) for storage and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), to import PCB wastes

for disposal in the United States. This rule is significant because, since 1980, EPA’s PCB rules
United States Country Reports on Implementation of the Commitments Derived from the NAAEC

47

have banned import into the United States and export from the United States of PCB wastes

at concentrations of 50 parts per million (ppm) or greater for disposal. The final rule concludes

that these PCB imports will be regulated as stringently as domestically-generated PCB wastes,

and will not present an unreasonable risk of injury in the United States. The final rule does not

address the export from the United States of PCB wastes of 50 ppm or greater, which is still banned.

CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW The EPA Administrator

signed a risk management plan (RMP) rule and related guidance on 24 May 1996, that will

require approximately 66,000 stationary sources that hold large quantities of 140 volatile acutely

toxic and flammable chemicals to assess their potential for catastrophic, accidental air releases

that could affect the public; record their release history; undertake programs to prevent and

respond to chemical accidents; and disclose this information in publicly-accessible, electronic

RMPs by the summer of 1999. This rule was promulgated under the authority of section 112(r)

of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which addresses prevention of catastrophic, accidental chemical air

releases like the Bhopal, India, release of methyl isocyanide, and lesser, more common accidents.

The rule will affect a wide range of regulated entities, such as: chemical plants and refineries

that use several chemicals; manufacturers who use acids like nitric, hydrofluoric, and

hydrochloric; users and distributors of propane; fertilizer retailers with ammonia tanks; ammoniabased refrigeration systems; and water treatment facilities.

AIR QUALITY A final rule issued in June 1996 establishes performance standards and certification

procedures for fuel additives, commonly referred to as detergents, to prevent accumulation of

deposits in engines or fuel supply systems. This regulation is required by section 211(l) of the

CAA. The final rule requires detergent additives to be registered and certified to meet certain

performance standards for control of deposits in port fuel injectors and intake valves. It provides

various options under which an additive can be certified, relating to the type and geographic

distribution of the gasoline in which it will be used. It also establishes limited exemptions for

some types of fuel, such as racing and aviation fuels.

In a separate regulatory action, EPA published final regulations under which it will administer CCA

Part V operating permits programs for use in all situations in which it is necessary for EPA to

assume permitting authority responsibility. For example, the CAA requires that EPA establish federal programs for all states that did not receive approval of their state operating permits program.

Also covered are those situations in which a state fails to adequately implement its approved program, or fails to respond to EPA’s veto of a state-issued permit. It will also apply to areas over which

states have no jurisdiction such as the outer continental shelf and Native American territories.

HAZARDOUS WASTE On 26 March 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Land Disposal

Program Flexibility Act. The legislation provides greater flexibility under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by allowing for land disposal of certain wastes that no

longer exhibit a characteristic of a hazardous waste at the point of discharge, without the need

to pre-treat such wastes to meet strict RCRA land-disposal characteristics. Specifically, the

legislation states that such wastes would not be prohibited from land disposal if they are managed

under: (1) a treatment system whose discharge is regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA),
(2) a CWA-equivalent treatment system, or (3) a Class I non-hazardous waste injection well

regulated under the SDWA. The legislation is focused on small changes to RCRA that would

remove requirements for low risk wastes and is the result of an initiative announced as part of

the President’s plan for Reinventing Environmental Legislation. It had the support of the

Administration on the condition that it was not amended by Congress to expand its limited scope.

The following month, on 12 April 1996, a final rule was published in the Federal Register

implementing in the United States a Council Decision of the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD), concerning the control of the transboundary movement

of hazardous wastes destined for recovery (not for disposal). The rule identifies the wastes,

under RCRA, that are subject to a graduated system of controls (green, amber, red) when they

move across national borders between OECD countries. These rules apply only to US

importers and exporters of RCRA hazardous wastes destined for recovery in OECD countries

(except for Canada and Mexico—bilateral agreements continue to govern exports of hazardous

wastes from the United States to those two countries). 

GENERAL On 29 March 1996 the President also signed into law the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). The statute calls on federal agencies to establish programs

and policies to assist small entities in their efforts to comply with regulatory requirements, and

generally to reduce or waive penalties levied on first-time violators who are small businesses. It

also establishes mechanisms for overseeing enforcement practices with respect to small business

entities, and Subtitle E establishes an opportunity for Congress to review and potentially disapprove agency regulations promulgated after 29 March 1996 (or 1 March 1996 for major rules).

Thus, although SBREFA is procedural in nature, it has significant substantive implications for US

environmental regulatory and enforcement programs.

Article 5 Government Enforcement Action

(See Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement)

Article 6 Private Access to Remedies

A final regulation signed by the EPA Administrator explicitly requires US states that administer, or

seek to administer, an authorized National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, to provide an opportunity for judicial review in state court of final permit decisions that is

sufficient to provide for, encourage and assist public participation in the permitting process. States

have one year from the date the rule was published to come into compliance with it, unless state

legislation is required in order for the state to come into compliance, in which case they are

allowed two years. The rule specifies that a state will meet this standard if it allows opportunity

for judicial review that is the same as that available to obtain judicial review in federal court of federally issued NPDES permits. It also specifies that a state will not meet this standard if it narrowly restricts the class of persons who may challenge permit decisions (for example, if persons

must demonstrate injury to a pecuniary interest in order to obtain judicial review).
3

1996 Financial Review
1996 Budget and Expenditures

For 1996, the Council approved a US $10,255,000 budget, 

as represented in Figure 1. 

Figure 1:

1996 B UDGET

Direct Program Costs

Common Operations

Departmental Operations

Contingency Fund

Figure 2:

1996 E XPENDITURE D ISTRIBUTION

Direct Program Costs

Common Operations

Departmental Operations

Contingency Fund

2%

14%

34%

49%

2%

14%

31%

53%
1996 Financial Review

51

Auditors’ Report

To the Council of the Commission 

for Environmental Cooperation

We have audited the balance sheet of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation as at

December 31, 1996 and the statements of revenue and expenditures and operating surplus,

capital surplus and of changes in financial position for the year then ended. These financial

statements are the responsibility of the Commission’s management. Our responsibility is to

express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the

financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test

basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also

includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management,

as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.

In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial

position of the Commission as at December 31, 1996 and the results of its operations and the

changes in its financial position for the year then ended in accordance with generally accepted

accounting principles in Canada.

Chartered Accountants

March 21, 1997
1996 1995

$ $

A SSETS

Current assets

Cash and term deposits 5,077,953 5,357,610

Receivables (Note 3) 1,094,503 669,230

Contributions receivable (Note 4) 2,109,926 954,800

Prepaid expenses 23,031 21,979

8,305,413 7,003,619

Capital assets (Note 5) 722,420 686,212

9,027,833 7,689,831

L IABILITIES

Current liabilities

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 932,231 1,096,583

Contributions received in advance (Note 6) 1,324,104 –

Contributions from 1995 refundable 340,826 –

2,597,161 1,096,583

Deferred revenue 1,079,173 625,173

Deferred contributions (Note 7) 2,800,920 3,281,863

NORTH AMERICAN FUND

FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION 1,598,240 2,000,000

OPERATING SURPLUS 229,919 –

CAPITAL SURPLUS 722,420 686,212

9,027,833 7,689,831

Commitments (Note 8)

As at December 31, 1996

(in Canadian dollars)

Balance Sheet
Statement of Revenue, Expeditures

and Operating Surplus

Year ended December 31, 1996

(in Canadian dollars)

1996 1995

$ $

R EVENUE

Contribution - Canada 4,125,000 4,125,000

Contribution - Mexico 4,125,000 4,125,000

Contribution - United States 4,125,000 4,125,000

Contribution from 1994 transferred to 1995 – 1,246,371

Internally generated funds 786,097 784,989

Other revenue 240,328 85,798

13,401,425 14,492,158

E XPENDITURES

Expenses related to work program - Schedule 3,275,026 2,732,627

Expenses related to specific obligations - Schedule 499,658 –

Expenses related to the Council and public meetings - 

Schedule 404,503 290,319

Expenses related to the JPAC - Schedule 110,407 150,813

Expenses related to North American Fund 

for Environmental Cooperation support 167,907 –

Expenditures related to contingency fund 73,979 –

Salaries and fringe benefits 3,385,603 2,845,787

Relocation and orientation expenses 73,533 213,462

Travelling expenses 153,999 254,566

Training expenses 37,973 38,744

Temporary personnel 407,013 275,741

Office expenses 224,870 167,719

Publishing and Website 401,378 157,427

Telecommunications 189,616 170,661

Office maintenance and improvements 203,394 248,471

Rent 281,238 218,892

Professional fees 312,738 1,083,660

External relations 23,219 18,882

Translation and interpretation 107,225 36,887

Loss on foreign exchange 52,219 105,544

Contributions transferred to capital surplus 215,007 200,093

10,600,505 9,210,295

EXCESS OF REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 2,800,920 5,281,863

Transferred to the North American Fund

for Environmental Cooperation – (2,000,000)

Contributions transferred to the following

year budget (Notes 2(b) and 7) (2,800,920) (3,281,863)

Contributions from 1995 transferred to 1996 3,281,863 –

Expenditures related to 1995 commitments - Schedule (2,711,118) –

Contributions refundable (340,826) –

OPERATING SURPLUS 229,919 –

53

1996 Financial Review
1996 1995

$ $

BALANCE, BEGINNING OF YEAR 686,212 672,845

Add:

Contributions for the acquisition of capital assets

- transferred from operations 215,007 200,093

- transferred from 1995 contributions 34,897 –

Deduct:

Disposal of capital assets – (5,312)

Amortization of capital assets (213,696) (181,414)

BALANCE, END OF YEAR 722,420 686,212

Year ended December 31, 1996

(in Canadian dollars)

Statement of Capital Surplus

1996 1995

$ $

BALANCE, BEGINNING OF YEAR 2,000,000 –

Transfer from operations – 2,000,000

Grants disbursed (401,760) –

BALANCE, END OF YEAR 1,598,240 2,000,000

Year ended December 31, 1996

(in Canadian dollars)

Statement of North American Fund

for Environmental Cooperation
Statement of Changes 

in Financial Position

Year ended December 31, 1996

(in Canadian dollars)

1996 1995

$ $

O PERATING ACTIVITIES

Operating surplus 229,919 –

Items not affecting cash

Contributions transferred to the following 

year budget 2,800,920 3,281,863

Contributions from prior year (3,281,863) (1,246,371)

(251,024) 2,035,492

Changes in non-cash operating working 

capital items (80,873) (155,331)

(331,897) 1,880,161

F INANCING ACTIVITIES

Change in North American Fund 

for Environmental Cooperation (401,760) 2,000,000

Contributions for the acquisition of capital assets 249,904 200,093

Change in deferred revenue 454,000 459,573

302,144 2,659,666

I NVESTING ACTIVITIES

Acquisition of capital assets (249,904) (200,093)

Net cash inflow (279,657) 4,339,734

Cash position, beginning of year 5,357,610 1,017,876

CASH POSITION, END OF YEAR 5,077,953 5,357,610

55

1996 Financial Review
1. N ATURE O F ACTIVITIES

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation is an international organization that was

created by the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation for the purpose

of meeting NAFTA’s environmental provisions. The Commission became operational in

July 1994.

2. S IGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

A) FINANCIAL STATEMENT PRESENTATION

All transactions related to capital assets, including amortization, are presented in capital

surplus. The operating results are included in operating surplus. Contributions for the

purchase of capital assets which form part of the contributions from the Parties are

charged to operations and transferred to capital surplus.

B) CONTRIBUTIONS

The Government of Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States and the

Government of the United States of America (the Parties) contribute an equal share to the

Commission’s annual budget.

Funds contributed remain available for 12 months following the end of the financial year

to discharge related obligations incurred during the year.

Any surplus funds in excess of 5% of the budget are credited to the Parties by an adjustment

of the assessments for the subsequent financial year.

C) CAPITAL ASSETS

Capital assets are recorded at cost and are being amortized on a straight-line basis at the

following annual rates:

Computer equipment 20%

Computer equipment and software–projects 30%

Computer software 30%

Furniture and fixtures 20%

Telephone system 30%

Equipment 30%

Leasehold improvements 12%

Year ended December 31, 1996

(in Canadian dollars)

Notes to the Financial Statements
Notes to the Financial Statements

Year ended December 31, 1996

(in Canadian dollars)

D) FOREIGN CURRENCIES

Transactions conducted in foreign currencies are translated using the temporal method.

Exchange gains and losses are included in the results for the period.

E) DEFERRED REVENUE

Deferred revenue represents leasehold inducements relating to office space. These inducements, which are amortized over the term of the lease, are offset against rental expenses.

3. R ECEIVABLES

A portion of these receivables ($967,235) relates to QST and GST receivable. Given the

international status of the Commission, special agreements must be signed between the

Federal and Quebec governments and the Commission before the sales taxes paid on

purchases are reimbursed. As at the auditors’ report date, no agreement has been signed.

Management is of the opinion that this amount will be received.

4. C ONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVABLE

1996 1995

$ $

Mexico – 954,800

Canada 2,109,926 –

2,109,926 954,800

5. C APITAL ASSETS

1996 1995

Accumulated Net Book Net Book

Cost Amortization Value Value

$ $ $ $

Computer equipment 358,654 115,124 243,530 265,965

Computer equipment and

software–projects 100,972 15,146 85,826 –

Computer software 57,709 16,496 41,213 13,235

Furniture and fixtures 356,473 151,158 205,315 276,610

Telephone system 97,986 52,524 45,462 52,003

Equipment 123,823 79,835 43,988 78,399

Leasehold equipments 60,654 3,568 57,086 –

1,156,271 433,851 722,420 686,212

57

1996 Financial Review
6. C ONTRIBUTION RECEIVED I N ADVANCE

1996 1995

$ $

United States 1,215,300 –

Mexico 108,804 –

1,324,104 –

7. D EFERRED CONTRIBUTIONS

For the financial year 1996, contributions available to discharge related obligations during

1997 amount to $2,800,920 (1995: $3,281,863). These contributions are presented as

deferred contributions in the balance sheet.

8. C OMMITMENTS

A) The Commission leases premises under an operating lease which expires in August 2004.

Total minimum payments required as well as minimum payments required in future years,

are as follows:

$

1997 50,661

1998 303,550

1999 346,902

2000 390,254

2001 433,606

2002 and thereafter 1,460,966

2,985,939

B) The Commission has commitments of $3,832,000 relating to 1996 environmental projects

as at December 31,1996.

9. P RIOR YEAR FIGURES

Certain of the prior year’s comparative figures have been reclassified to conform to the

current year’s presentation.

Year ended December 31, 1996

(in Canadian dollars)

Notes to the Financial Statements
Schedule

Expenses Related to the Work Program, Specific Obligations 

under North American Agreement, Council Meetings, Joint Public

Advisory Committee (JPAC) Meetings and Prior Year Commitments

Year ended December 31, 1996

(in Canadian dollars)

1996 1995

$ $

Work program

Professional fees 1,648,687 1,665,831

Travelling, accommodation and meeting expenses 976,944 653,627

Translation and interpretation 337,527 227,553

Office expenses 311,868 185,616

3,275,026 2,732,627

Specific obligations under North American Agreement 

on Environmental Corporation

Professional fees 299,899 –

Travelling, accommodation and meeting expenses 106,203 –

Translation and interpretation 82,468 –

Office expenses 11,088 –

499,658 –

Council meetings

Professional fees 27,870 9,273

Travelling, accommodation and meeting expenses 146,137 71,762

Translation and interpretation 124,770 140,827

Office expenses 105,726 68,457

404,503 290,319

Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) meetings

Professional fees 2,825 32,343

Travelling, accommodation and meeting expenses 46,835 66,752

Translation and interpretation 30,289 47,086

Office expenses 30,458 4,632

110,407 150,813

Expenditures related to prior year commitments

Professional fees 2,439,361 –

Travelling, accommodation and meeting expenses 86,470 –

Publications and communications 74,084 –

Translation and interpretation 49,569 –

Office expenses 26,737 –

Contributions transferred to capital surplus 34,897 –

2,711,118 –

59

1996 Financial Review

4 

Looking Ahead
1997

Annual Program and Budget

The CEC is building upon lessons learned and progress achieved in 1996 by moving ahead in

1997 with a work program that corresponds to the demonstrated strengths of regional cooperation

and was approved by the Council. The 1997 annual program and budget takes into account the

recommendations made by the Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) and the general public

as expressed through the public consultations held throughout 1996. In broad terms, the work

program reflects an effort to ensure that all CEC activities complement existing efforts, both

governmental and nongovernmental, in North America and internationally. In order to better

focus the program, the number of projects has been reduced from 26 in 1996 to 17 for this year.

The experience of the last two years and an effort to use the resources more efficiently is reflected

in the 1997 budget. This has allowed us to save close to US $500,000, mainly from the

Common Operations activities, through the streamlining of resources used for administration

purposes. The main objective of this effort was to maximize the funds available for project

implementation while taking into account that the functions related to organizing Council and

JPAC meetings are growing along with their broader mandates and intensity of the activities

planned for 1997.

The budget in 1997 is presented under a new format that strives to reflect a more straightforward

and transparent allocation of resources to the different components and functions of the

Secretariat’s activities. The goal is to have the budget structure reflect as much as possible the

real costs of implementing of the Program.

ANNUAL PROGRAM BUDGET TOTAL: US $2,687,000

1997 BUDGET TOTAL: US $9,942,000
Looking ahead Annual Program and Budget

63

Direct Program Costs

This item has been restructured to include direct costs for the implementation of projects

such as salaries and professional fees, costs of project-related publications, specific

obligations under the Agreement—such as the State of the North American

Environment Report, expected to be published late 1997/early 1998—and the

maintenance and continued support of the CEC Information Center.

Common Operations

All of the elements under this rubric support the Commission as a whole. Included are

technical editing, external and temporary support, telecommunications, rent of our

headquarters office in Montreal and our liaison office in Mexico City, relocation expenses

for staff, professional development costs, and assets which consists of payments for

ongoing equipment leases. It is important to note that a substantial proportion of the

amounts listed under this category correspond to indirect program costs.

Departmental Operations

This budget element has also been restructured to reflect the realities of the

Commission. The salaries included under this rubric are those of staff whose activities

relate directly to Council, JPAC, executive management, administration and accounting,

and public outreach. Also included are Council sessions, JPAC meetings and sessions,

the Eco Region newsletter, CEC Internet homepage and a substantially reduced contingency fund. Typical costs to be found under these items are travel, rental of facilities and

interpretation services.

NAFEC 

This item will be used for grants of up to $100,000 (CAN), for a discretionary fund for

projects not exceeding $10,000 (CAN), and has been restructured to include fund

management costs.

Contingency Fund

A substantially reduced amount, as compared to 1996, has been set aside for unforeseen needs.
Annual Program

at-a-glance

Environmental Conservation

P97-01 Habitat and Species

97.01.01 Cooperation in the Conservation of North American Birds to

develop a strategy and action plan for the conservation of birds in North America

as well as to promote a North American Network of Important Bird Areas.

BUDGET: $200,000

97.01.02 North American Biodiversity Information Network to improve

access to information about species by promoting data compatibility and information

exchange.

BUDGET: $100,000

97.01.03 Cooperation on the Protection of Marine and Coastal Area

Ecosystems to continue work in two pilot projects (the Southern California

Bight and the Gulf of Maine) that will help implement the Global Program of

Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities

in North America.

BUDGET: $255,000

97.01.04 Cooperation for the Conservation of Monarch Butterflies to

promote the protection of Monarch butterfly sites.

BUDGET: $100,000

Protecting Human Health 

and the Environment

P97-02 Reducing Risk

97.02.01 Sound Management of Chemicals to limit use and emissions of dangerous substances in North America. Work continues on Regional Action Plans for

PCBs, mercury, chlordane and DDT. 

BUDGET: $250,000

97.02.02 North American Pollutant Release Inventory (NAPRI) to continue

publishing a series of reports on North American pollutant releases and transfers

using the most current, publicly available data. The project aims to further cooperation on compatibility of methodologies and data.

BUDGET: $105,000
65

97.02.03 North American Air Monitoring and Modeling to provide information

required for policy planning, decision making and management related to shared

airsheds and transboundary air pollutants.

BUDGET: $150,000

97.02.04 Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TEIA) to

provide States with a cooperative framework to better enable them to address

potential transboundary environmental problems.

BUDGET: $100,000

P97-03 Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

97.03.01 North American Cooperation on GHG Emissions Trading to

evaluate economic instruments and a potential North American emissions trading

system to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

BUDGET: $100,000

P97-04 Capacity Building

97.04.01 Capacity Building in Environmental Management to raise capacity

levels for state environmental management in Guanajuato, Mexico; to enhance

pollution prevention in small- and medium-sized enterprises; and to implement

regional action plans under the CEC’s Sound Management of Chemicals project.

BUDGET: $382,000

Environment, Trade and Economy

P97-05 Trade and the Environment

97.05.01 NAFTA Environmental Effects to complete a study of the intergovernmental institutions created or inspired by NAFTA and update the assessment

methodology developed that, through an examination of specific sectors, will study

the effects of NAFTA on the environment.

BUDGET: $250,000

Looking ahead Annual Program and Budget
P97-06 Technology Cooperation

97.06.01 Technology Clearinghouse to develop a database that will provide

information on environmental technologies and services available in North America

to help promote compliance with environmental laws and regulations while allowing

companies to improve production efficiency and remain competitive.

BUDGET: $125,000

Enforcement Cooperation and Law

P97-07 Enforcement Cooperation and Law

97.07.01 Enforcement Cooperation Program to continue to act as a forum,

through the North American Working Group on Environmental Enforcement and

Compliance, for sharing enforcement-related strategies and information, facilitate

trilateral enforcement cooperation initiatives, and help monitor enforcement and

compliance indicators.

BUDGET: $320,000

97.07.02 New Approaches for Improving Environmental Performance to

help raise the standard of environmental performance in North America in the public

and private sectors by developing principles to guide a new generation of environmental regulatory and other management systems.

BUDGET: $100,000

Information and Public Outreach

P97-08 North American Greenlane

97.08.01 North American Integrated System for Environmental

Management to compile physical, socioeconomic and ecological data which will be

presented in the context of a series of maps of the ecological regions of North

America to provide the public with information necessary to promote sustainable

development and sound environmental management.

BUDGET: $150,000

ANNUAL PROGRAM BUDGET TOTAL: US $2,687,000
1997 Budget - general

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (US$)

DIRECT PROGRAM COSTS: 5,212,000

1) Direct Project Costs 2,687,000

2) Salaries 1,570,000

3) Specific Obligations under NAAEC 420,000

4) Publications and Reports 375,000

5) CEC Resource Center 100,000

6) Common Program Related Expenditures 60,000

COMMON OPERATIONS:* 724,000

1) Technical Editing 210,000

2) External and Temporary Support 179,000

3) Telecommunications 110,000

4) Assets 65,000

5) Rent 60,000

6) Relocation & Orientation 40,000

7) Office Equipment & Supplies 40,000

8) Professional Development 20,000

DEPARTMENTAL OPERATIONS: 2,256,000

1) Salaries** 1,376,000

2) Public Outreach 310,000

3) Council 180,000

4) Executive Management 90,000

5) Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) 300,000

CONTINGENCY FUND 150,000

NAFEC 1,600,000

TOTAL $9,942,000

* A substantial proportion of the amounts listed under this category correspond to indirect program costs

** Including: Public outreach, Council, Executive Management, JPAC and Administration and Accounting.

67

Looking ahead Annual Program and Budget
1997 Budget - Summary

1997 Revenues

1997 CEC Budget - Graphic Overview

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (US$)

Direct Program Costs 5,212,000

Common Operations 724,000

Departmental Operations 2,256,000

NAFEC 1,600,000

Contingency Fund 150,000

TOTAL $9,942,000

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (US$)

Party Contributions 9,000,000 

Roll-over resources from 96

(Max: 5% of Budget) 198,000 

CEC Levy 571,000*

Interest on Short-Term Investments/Others 173,000*

TOTAL $9,942,000

* Estimated 

O VERALL CEC B UDGET FOR 1997

Direct Program Costs

Departmental Operations

NAFEC

Common Operations

Contingency Fund

2%

7%

16%

23%

52%
5

Annex:

Enforcement

Reports
Annex: North American report 

on Environmental 

Enforcement

Canada

Part A

> What’s New? 72

Part B

> Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste 73

> Air Pollution 75

> International Trafficking in Flora and Fauna 77

Mexico

Part A

> What’s New? 80

Part B

> Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste 81

> Air Pollution 82

> International Trafficking in Flora and Fauna 85

United States

Part A

> What’s New? 88

Part B

> Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste 89

> Air Pollution 91

> International Trafficking in Flora and Fauna 93

Appendices

> Summary of Relevant International and Bilateral Agreements 96

> North American Working Group on Environmental 

Enforcement and Compliance Cooperation 101
Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

71

Introduction

This report is presented by the Parties in compliance with their common obligation under the

North American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) article 12 (2)(c) to report

on the actions taken to effectively enforce their respective environmental laws and regulations

through appropriate government action. A report on trilateral initiatives by the Parties to cooperate

in environmental enforcement is provided in the main text of the 1996 Annual Report under the

Enforcement Cooperation and Law Program.

This report includes the country reports by each Party on their respective domestic environmental

enforcement programs and activities. It was prepared for the Parties under the direction and

coordination of the North American Working Group on Environmental Enforcement and

Compliance Cooperation with the assistance of the CEC Secretariat. For the purpose of the 1996

report the Working Group selected three priority areas, which are also the subject of ongoing

cooperative activity. These areas include the enforcement of laws regulating the transboundary

movement of hazardous wastes, air pollution and the trade in wild flora and fauna. It is the intention

of the Parties to provide regular updates on areas of significance to the three countries. A summary

of related international and bilateral agreements is provided in the appendices. This report also

provides a brief update on related legislative or policy initiatives since the 1995 report.

It may be noted that the 1995 Annual Report on Enforcement provided an overview of the

environmental enforcement and compliance policies, programs and strategies adopted by each

country and may provide useful reference material for review of this report.
Annex: North American Report 

on Environmental Enforcement

Canada

Part A What’s New?

This second annual report covers three themes mutually agreed

upon by the NAFTA partners. The first report covered the legal

and constitutional framework for environmental enforcement and

compliance promotion. Additionally, it provided an overview of

environmental enforcement and compliance policies, programs and

strategies. This report deals with the enforcement and compliance

promotion activities of Environment Canada and those of the

province of Alberta. By next year the provinces of Quebec and

Manitoba should be included.

The proposed Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA)

amendments will give priority to pollution prevention and to

removal of toxic substances from the environment. It contains

enforcement provisions that will strengthen the powers of inspectors, establish a new class of officer–“CEPA investigator”–and

provide for alternative measures to prosecution.

The Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of

International and Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA)

came into force in May 1996. It replaces and strengthens legislation that was previously used to implement the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and

Flora (CITES). In addition, it prohibits trade in wildlife which

has been taken illegally or transported illegally from one

province or territory of Canada to another, as well as prohibiting the importation of species which are harmful to Canadian

ecosystems. The legislation provides for high penalties. For

minor offenses, courts may impose fines of up to $25,000 or

imprisonment of up to six months for each offense. For serious

offenses, courts may impose fines of up to $150,000 and five

years imprisonment. For corporations or second and subsequent offenses, the maximum fines are doubled.

The proposed Canada Endangered Species Act was tabled in the

House of Commons on 31 October 1996. When passed, it will

be the first-ever legislation to give comprehensive protection to

endangered species under federal jurisdiction in Canada. It

applies to migratory birds, fish and marine mammals, species

that range across international boundaries and all species on

federal lands. The Act will introduce tough new penalties: fines

of up to $500,000 for corporations for each specimen of a

species that is harmed; fines of up to $1,000,000 for repeat

offenders; and fines of up to $250,000 and five years imprisonment for an individual. At the same time, federal and

provincial ministers have agreed in principle to a National

Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, which commits

provincial governments to pass complementary legislation and

programs to ensure that endangered species are protected

throughout all jurisdictions of Canada.

The federal, provincial, and territorial governments under the

auspices of the CCME have agreed in principle to a harmonization

agreement that would, subject to specific subsequent bilateral

agreements, see pollution inspections related to both federal

and provincial environmental legislation performed by the best

situated government. 

In Alberta, through its Regulatory Reform Action Plan, Alberta

Environmental Protection has developed a simpler, more efficient

and cost-effective regulatory system. The numbers and types of

approvals required for air and water activities, chemical

assessment and management, and land reclamation have been

reduced and replaced with codes of practice, and/or guidelines.

These activities will continue to be regulated and subject to

more focused and timely enforcement responses.
Canada Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

73

Part B Transboundary Movement 

of Hazardous Waste

BACKGROUND Hazardous waste management is regulated

at both the federal and provincial/territorial levels in Canada.

Provincial and territorial governments establish requirements

for waste management activities within their borders, including

the generation, transportation, recycling and disposal of hazardous

wastes. The federal government is responsible for controlling

the international and interprovincial movement of hazardous

wastes. Environment Canada (EC) is the lead federal department

with the assistance of Revenue Canada (Customs). Controls for

transboundary movements are established in accordance with

Canada’s international obligations as set out in Table 1.

Canada generates approximately 5.9 million metric tonnes of

hazardous wastes annually including both wastes for final disposal

and recycling. As well, in 1995, a total of approximately

609,000 tonnes of hazardous wastes were imported into or

exported from Canada. Of the 383,134 tonnes imported in

1995, 71% was destined for recycling, and 29% for disposal.

Nearly 99% of the imports were from the United States. 

By comparison, of the 225,989 tonnes of hazardous wastes

exported in 1995, 56% was destined for recycling and the balance for final disposal–all to sites located in the United States.

The Export and Import of Hazardous Wastes (EIHW)

Regulations, made pursuant to the Canadian Environmental

Protection Act (CEPA), set out the conditions that must be met

before any international shipment of hazardous waste can

occur. Table 2 sets out the key requirements of the EIHW

Regulations. Other federal regulations control certain aspects of

the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes: the PCB

Waste Export Regulations contain controls specific to PCBs;

and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations establish

transportation safety requirements including the labeling,

packaging and placarding of shipments.

Under the EIHW Regulations, EC maintains lists of hazardous

wastes, reviews all documentation presented prior to shipment

to ensure that wastes will be managed in an environmentally

sound manner, acts as an intermediary between exporters/agents

and the import authorities, tracks transboundary movements,

undertakes compliance promotion activities, and enforces the

legislation. Revenue Canada (Customs) checks and collects

Table 1: Canada’s International Commitments Respecting the

Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES / REQUIREMENTS

Promotes the disposal of hazardous wastes in their county of origin; prohibits

shipments of the wastes to countries unable to manage them in an environmentally sound manner; establishes the controls on exports and imports of wastes;

and promotes cooperation in the exchange of hazardous waste information.

Classifies hazardous recyclables into three categories: green, amber and red

based upon a series of hazard and risk criteria.

Ensures that transboundary movements of hazardous wastes between Canada

and the United States are handled in an environmentally sound manner, and

that they are shipped to facilities that are authorized by the importing jurisdiction.

This is achieved through a comprehensive notification, approval, manifest and

monitoring program.

AGREEMENT

Basel Convention on the Control of the

Transboundary Movement of Hazardous

Wastes and Their Disposal, United

Nations multilateral agreement ratified by

Canadian government in August 1992.

OECD Council Decision C(92)39

Concerning the Control of Transfrontier

Movements of Wastes Destined for

Recovery Operations, Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development

multilateral agreement adopted in March

1992, and supported by Canada.

Canada-US Agreement on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste,

bilateral agreement, signed by Canada in

November 1986.
copies of the required documents from shippers, forwards documents collected at the border to Environment Canada, and

identifies inconsistencies for inspections by EC regional

enforcement officers.

COMPLIANCE PROMOTION, VERIFICATION AND

ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AND ISSUES Following

the introduction of the EIHW Regulations in 1992, guides

and factsheets were distributed, and workshops held to inform

the industry of its responsibilities under these regulations.

Presentations, workshops and meetings continue to be held,

and EC staff is available by phone, fax and the Internet to deal

with information requests from industry and enforcement

partners (e.g., Customs officers.) The newsletter “Resilog” is

used to highlight hazardous waste activities and to update industries on transboundary movement of hazardous wastes issues.

The report is distributed to approximately 3000 subscribers

biannually.

Figure 1 illustrates compliance records collected by EC for the

period 1992–1994. It is important to note that this period is

early in the implementation of the regulations. Compliance by

exporters was lower than by importers. Since Canadian

exporters represent a large and diversified group with irregular

shipping patterns, they are more of a challenge to identify,

communicate with and to monitor. By comparison, there are

relatively few Canadian importers, and most of these are large

enterprises with established shipping patterns. These companies

are generally well aware of the EIHW requirements, and present

proper documentation upon arrival at the border. 

Between 1992 (the first full year that the EIHW regulations

were in existence) and 1995 the number of manifests received

by Environment Canada had doubled. Although data for

1995–1996 has not been completely analyzed, improvements

have been noted in manifest and certificate compliance.

REQUIREMENT

Notice & Consent

Manifest

Insurance

Contracts

Certificate of Disposal/Recycling

Environmentally Sound

Management

Figure 1: Compliance with Selected Regulatory

Provisions (Nov. 1992 - Dec. 1994)

Doct. on Site: complete documentation available and included with 

shipment at point of departure/receipt. 

Doct. at Border: complete documentation available at border crossing.

Table 2: Selected Requirements under the EIHW Regulations

DESCRIPTION

Written notification to EC, and consent from the importing country or province is

required prior to shipment.

The manifest identifies the parties involved in the shipment, and contains details

respecting the type and amount of waste being shipped, special handling precautions,

and the storage and/or disposal requirements for the waste at its destination. The manifest accompanies the shipment and tracks the waste from its departure point to its

specified destination. Three copies of the manifest (consignor, border, consignee) are

forwarded to EC for compliance monitoring.

The Canadian exporter or importer, and the carrier must be insured such that sufficient

funds are available, if an incident occurs, to redress the situation.

There must be a signed contract between the exporter and importer, submitted at the

time of notification.

This certificate must be forwarded to EC by the receiving disposal/recycling firm. The

certificate is matched to copies of the manifest to ensure that the hazardous waste was

treated, disposed of or recycled as per the notification.

The Canadian importer or exporter is required to take all practicable measures to

ensure that the hazardous waste will be managed in a manner that protects human

health and the environment.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Notification Manifest Doct. Doct. Certificate

on Site at Border

% COMPLIANCEIMPORTSEXPORTSTRANSIT
Canada Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

75

Since assessing these results, EC has focused its communication

efforts on areas of non-compliance with positive results. 

In addition to its regular monitoring and investigation activities,

EC undertakes enforcement blitzes at major border crossings.

These activities have resulted in the laying of several charges

since adoption of the regulation. In 1995, there were 156 inspections and 15 follow-up investigations. Four (4) warnings were

issued, and 3 prosecutions under the EIHW Regulations led to

one (1) conviction.

In March 1996 an Alberta firm, Philip Environmental Services,

was fined $100,000 and an employee sentenced to three

months in jail under Alberta’s Environmental Protection and

Enhancement Act for the unlawful disposal of 75,000 kg of 

hazardous waste in a City of Edmonton landfill. Alberta was able

to confirm with the State of Texas that 180 drums of waste with

similar characteristics were shipped by the firm in November

1993 to a broker in Texas using a hazardous waste manifest. 

NEXT STEPS As part of the renewal of CEPA, the Canadian

government intends to enhance controls on the movement of

wastes, including requirements for exporters to submit plans

for reducing their exports of hazardous wastes for disposal.

Efforts are also underway to harmonize federal and

provincial/territorial definition criteria for hazardous waste and

recyclables, and a protocol on the listing and delisting of wastes.

To improve compliance with the regulations, a promotion

strategy is being developed that includes targeting manifest

compliance. As amendments are made to federal laws and

regulations, additional communication tools will be developed

to facilitate continued and improved compliance.

To improve its communications with exporters, importers and

partner agencies, EC set up a database system capable of realtime dial-up access to inspectors, and an enhanced electronic

transfer of notice information. At present, a pilot project is

being undertaken to facilitate the electronic transfer of notice

information between Environment Canada, the provinces/territories, and US authorities.

Enforcement of the EIHW regulations is an enforcement priority.

Environment Canada and Revenue Canada are working with

international partners to determine the potential and extent of

illegal shipping via all modes of transport.

REFERENCES

• Environment Canada’s Green Lane http://www.ec.gc.ca 

(or) enviroinfo@ec.gc.ca 

• Environment Canada. Compliance and Enforcement Report -

Volume 1: Six Regulations under CEPA and the Fisheries Act;

1995, Ottawa.

• Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 1995 CEC

Annual Report, Annex I and Annex II; 1995, Montreal.

• Environment Canada. Canadian Environmental Protection Act:

Enforcement & Compliance Policy; 1994, Ottawa.

• Environment Canada. Export and Import of Hazardous Wastes

Regulations: User’s Guides (Implementation, Classification,

Manifest and Notice); 1993, Ottawa.

• Environment Canada. Bulletin: Export Import Regulations;

December, 1992. (Topics: Basel Convention, OECD

Decision, Export-Import of Hazardous Wastes, Manifests.)

• Environment Canada. Resilog (a biannual newsletter). 

• Alberta Environmental Protection. Enforcement of the

Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, January 1 to

December 31, 1996.

Part B Air Pollution

BACKGROUND Air quality is managed at both the provincial/territorial and federal levels in Canada. The major management responsibilities of domestic point source air pollution

rests with the provincial governments. The development and

enforcement of air quality legislation is largely the jurisdiction

of the provinces which oversee the protection and management

of natural resources within their boundaries. In all provinces and

territories, the legislative and regulatory authority for air quality is based primarily on the control of point sources, especially

industries and fossil fuel power. Additional air quality controls

may be imposed at the municipal level; however, these are

uncommon. In general, the federal government’s role is focused

on addressing transboundary issues and managing potential federal sources of air pollution.

Air pollution has serious short and long-term effects on the

health of humans and ecosystems. There are many different

types of air pollutants, including volatile organic compounds

(VOCs), sulphur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)

which originate from vehicle and industrial emissions, and that

contribute to problems such as acid rain, smog, and inhalable

particulates (a major cause of asthma.) Also of concern are

persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals which

accumulate in the food chain and thus threaten the health of

human and animal populations. And, of global importance,

because of their ability to reduce the protective ozone layer in

the atmosphere, is the release of ozone-depleting substances

(ODS) and the resulting impacts on plants and animals from

increased exposure to ultra violet radiation. Furthermore,

global emissions of greenhouse gases are causing our climate

to change and are linked to more frequent and severe weather

events. Canada is working to address all of these issues through

a variety of voluntary and regulatory means.
International

In 1987, Canada hosted the international conference which led

to the Montreal Protocol to control ODS, and was one of the

first countries to ratify it. Canada is also signatory to the UN

Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution

(LRTAP), which has five protocols aimed at reducing transboundary acid rain and smog through emission controls on

sulphur dioxide (SO2), NOx and VOC. Canada will be commencing international negotiations concerning new protocols

for heavy metals, POPs and nitrogen oxide emissions including

ammonia. Canada is also signatory of the UN Framework

Convention on Climate Change.

Under the Arctic Council, formed in 1996, and the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, the eight Arctic countries, including Canada, are committed to protect the Arctic environment.

At present, Canada is leading discussions on the formulation of

specific recommendations for a global POPs management strategy

to be considered at the 1997 sessions of the United Nations

Environment Program (UNEP) Governing Council and the

World Health Assembly. 

Canada is also party to a number of North American agreements

governing air quality control. In 1991, Canada and the United

States signed an Air Quality Agreement which is intended to

establish “a practical and effective instrument to address shared

concerns regarding transboundary air pollution.” The Great

Lakes Water Quality Agreement is also relevant to the management of air quality as sections of the agreement specifically

address the research, surveillance and monitoring, and pollution

control measures for airborne toxic substances. In keeping with

these objectives, Canada and the United States are working

together to develop a Strategy for the Virtual Elimination of

Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes.

Finally, Canada is responsible for managing the World Ozone

Data Centre on behalf of the World Meteorological Office, and 

also operates the Canadian Global Emissions Interpretation

Center, collecting and summarizing information from around

the world. 

National

The principal federal legislative vehicles for managing air quality

are summarized in Table 1. In addition, the federal government

has several relevant policies, plans, and programs including the

Toxic Substances Management Policy, the Pollution Prevention

Strategy, the Arctic Environmental Strategy, and the National

Pollutant Release Inventory.

Coordination between the federal government and the

provinces/territories is achieved through the Canadian Council

of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) and the Council of

Energy Ministers. In 1993, the CCME and the Council of

Energy Ministers, and the CEPA Federal Provincial Advisory

Committee (CEPA/FPAC) jointly signed a Comprehensive Air

Quality Management Framework for Canada. The Framework

established a mechanism for coordinating actions on regional,

national and international issues, especially those with transboundary or global effects. It also provided for the establishment

of common goals and objectives.

COMPLIANCE PROMOTION, VERIFICATION, ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AND ISSUES As noted above,

in Canada, the majority of air pollution legislation and therefore

enforcement activities take place at the provincial/territorial

level. In nearly all provinces and territories, legislation or

regulations require the owners or operators of industrial facilities

to obtain operating permits or approvals which can contain

emission limits or requirements for all atmospheric pollutants.

Emission limits and requirements are most often set for common

air pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide and particulates, and

heavy metals, such as lead and cadmium. Emissions of POPs are

controlled when appropriate. The majority of provinces and

territories also have legislation governing pesticides.

LEGISLATION

Canadian Environmental

Protection Act (CEPA)

Pest Control Products Act

Motor Vehicle Safety Act (MVSA)

Table 1: Federal Air Quality Legislation

DESCRIPTION

Controls fuel quality, toxic chemicals including ODS, heavy metals, and POPs;

establishes ambient air quality objectives for common air pollutants such as ozone,

NOx and SO2; allows for national emissions guidelines for major air pollution sources

such as power plants.

Regulates pesticides and ensures their safe use.

Regulates emissions from cars and trucks, and establishes standards for carbon monoxide,

nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and diesel particulates.
Canada Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

77

Canada has promoted compliance with air quality requirements

and encouraged “good practice” by using non-regulatory

approaches to complement traditional regulatory methods.

Several CCME initiatives include the use of non-traditional

methods including the NOx/VOC Management Plan, the

Regional Smog Management Plans, and the Cleaner Vehicles

and Fuels Initiative. As well, the federal government has promoted

the use of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), and other

voluntary agreements to commit particular industrial sectors to

improvements, as well as codes of practice and guidelines. For

example, a MOU has been signed with Canadian fuel producers

to limit the content of sulphur in their diesel products.

Both the provinces and the federal government have inspection

programs to ensure that air quality requirements are met and

that there is compliance with legislation, regulations and permit

conditions. These programs include responses to complaints as

well as regular inspections, and are administered by regional or

district offices of the federal, provincial or territorial departments

of the environment.

Recent enforcement activities in Alberta led to the prosecution

of Dow Chemical Canada on 18 November 1996 under the

Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act for

two unauthorized CFC releases, and failure to report all circumstances surrounding the first release. During the two events, a

total of 486 kilograms of Freon 11, and 1,800 kilograms of

Freon 12 were released from the company’s Fort Saskatchewan

complex. A provincial court judge levied a $150,000 fine and

ordered the company to set up two $75,000 trust funds: one

for the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Engineering to be

directed towards air pollution prevention or reduction, or

remediation of the environment with respect to air quality; the

second to be administered by the Environmental Law Centre for

the development of a two-year Community Monitoring Program.

In November 1996, a Burlington, Ontario, company, Amcast

Industrial Ltd., pleaded guilty and was fined $25,000 for

importing a cleaning product that contains CFC-113. The

product, Switch and Contact Cleaner, was imported during the

period of March 1993 to June 1995, contrary to provisions of

the Ozone-depleting Substances (Products) Regulations made

pursuant to CEPA.

In April 1996, Werner’s Wholesale Inc., doing business under

the name of D.S. Fraser, was fined $9,000 in the New

Brunswick and Nova Scotia provincial courts, after pleading

guilty to 10 charges of offering for sale and selling products

containing CFCs, contrary to the Ozone-depleting Substances

(Products) Regulations pursuant to CEPA. The company has

also agreed to be responsible for the disposal of the product in

an environmentally safe manner.

NEXT STEPS

• Continue to develop ambient air quality objectives, including

a revised objective for particulate matter with a diameter of

less than 10 microns (PM10), ground-level ozone, and objectives

for selected hazardous air pollutants and particulate matter

with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns. (Canada-wide

standards for certain of these substances are to be put in

place over the coming 18 months.)

• Implement a National “Next Steps” Smog Management

Strategy and National Acid Rain Strategy.

REFERENCES

• Environment Canada’s Green Lane at http://www.ec.gc.ca

• Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment at

http:/www.ccme.ca/ccme/index.html

• Environment Canada, National Urban Air Quality Trends

1981–1990 (October 1994), Report EPS 7/UP/4

• National Environmental Indicator Series, Environment

Canada, 1996 (Acid Rain; Stratospheric Ozone Depletion;

Urban Air Quality; Climate Change; Toxic Contaminants in

the Environment.)

• Chemicals Control Fact Sheet: Federal Regulations on

Ozone Depleting Substances, Environment Canada, 1996.

Part B International Trafficking 

in Flora and Fauna

BACKGROUND International trafficking of flora and fauna

contributes significantly to the loss of biodiversity by reducing

the world’s populations of threatened and endangered species,

and by introducing non-native species into foreign ecosystems.

In response to a more restrictive market for these goods, illicit

trade in exotic wildlife is on the increase. Illegal traders realize

considerable profits since many countries of origin lack the

financial resources to deal with this burgeoning problem.

Canada is party to three international conventions on the

protection of wildlife: the Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the

Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Migratory Birds

Convention. Canada is also subject to the environmental

requirements of the North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Canada is both a source and destination of legally and illegally

procured specimens that enter into illegal trade. It also serves

as a transit route for wildlife goods moving to and from other

countries, and is home to dealers with market links in other

countries. In order to address this challenge cooperation and

coordination are required among agencies including Revenue
Canada (Customs), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

(RCMP), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and Parks Canada,

as well as provincial and territorial wildlife agencies. EC also

cooperates with sister organizations in the United States and

Mexico, with Interpol, and with the World Customs

Organization in the enforcement of national and international

laws respecting the transboundary movement of flora and fauna.

The main vehicle used by Canada to implement the intent of

CITES is the new Wild Animal and Plant Protection and

Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act

(WAPPRIITA), and its implementing regulations, the Wild

Animal and Plant Trade Regulations, proclaimed in May 1996.

Other pieces of federal legislation used to control the trade of

wildlife are the following:

• Migratory Birds Convention Act – prohibits trafficking in

migratory birds;

• Fisheries Act – general regulations govern the fish trade;

Marine Mammal Regulations control the possession and

transport of marine mammals;

• Health of Animals Act and Plant Protection Act – provide for

the inspection of animals and plants coming into Canada;

• Customs Act – provides for customs officers to make inspections and detentions for violations under other legislation.

Import and export permits are administered by three groups:

The Environmental Conservation Service of Environment

Canada issues CITES import permits, export permits for

CITES cultivated plants, as well as export permits for all covered

specimens leaving the Province of Alberta, and temporary trade

and scientific certificates; the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans (DFO) issues export permits for fish and marine

mammals; and the provinces and territories (except Alberta)

issue export permits for items leaving their jurisdiction. 

COMPLIANCE PROMOTION, VERIFICATION, ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITES AND ISSUES Over the past five

years, Environment Canada has increased its efforts to 

promote compliance through the following activities:

• launching public awareness campaigns using newspaper

articles, posters, brochures, and videos on CITES (many

prepared in several languages);

• sending regular information mailings to user groups (e.g.,

traditional medicine importers, and horticultural societies);

• posting CITES displays in airports and other public buildings; 

• hosting information sessions for the public, user groups, and

other interested parties such as travel agencies and commercial

importers (e.g., pet trade industry);

• promoting awareness at trade shows and conferences;

• producing manuals on the identification of flora and fauna

covered under CITES; 

• providing training to staff at Canada Customs, the RCMP, and

to provincial/territorial officials in the enforcement of

Canada’s regulations.

Despite these activities, voluntary compliance with international

wildlife trade laws has improved only slightly and many

enforcement agencies perceive that illegal trade in protected

species by international criminal organizations is on the rise.

While compliance with import regulations has improved, overall

compliance still needs improvement.

Accordingly, EC’s five regional offices are engaged in more

inspecting and monitoring now than they were in previous

years. Activities include the following:

• the review of CITES permits and other export/import permits;

• inspections at international ports;

• exchanging and cross-referencing information from Customs

and other national and international agencies;

• spot-checks or routine inspection of wildlife businesses (e.g.,

taxidermists, outfitters, guides, etc.);

• monitoring hunting;

• cultivating sources of information, intelligence gathering;

• investigating allegations from the public, other agencies, and

other countries (e.g., through Crime Stoppers).

While the definition of illegal trafficking is not standardized, in

1995–1996 Environment Canada conducted 3,369 inspections

related to international wildlife trafficking. As well, approximately 207 investigations, both independently and in cooperation

with partners, were carried out related to illegal commerce in

wildlife. These activities were performed under the Migratory

Birds Convention Act, the Export and Import Permits Act and

some provincial legislation. Seventeen convictions were

obtained during 1995–96.

* In many cases, prosecutions are handled by other agencies and are

not reported by Environment Canada.

** Some convictions obtained from prosecutions initiated in previous

years.

Fiscal year Inspections Investigations Prosecutions Convictions

1994–95 1,083 93 20* 43**

1995–96 3,369 207 46* 17**

Table 1: Summary of Enforcement Activities
Canada Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

79

Recent illustrative examples of prosecutions involving

provincial wildlife legislation:

• As a result of a covert operation, an Alberta resident was convicted on 15 January 1996 of three counts of trafficking in

wildlife contrary to the Alberta Wildlife Act. Three transactions

occurred involving purchases by the accused of a total of 70

black bear claws destined for sale in the United States as

souvenirs and trinkets. A fine of $4,500 was assessed.

• On April 3, 1996 an Edmonton, Alberta resident was found

guilty under the Alberta Wildlife Act of possession of four

pieces of carved elephant ivory from Hawaii, USA. The accused

was assessed a penalty of $2,500 and five months in jail.

• Following a covert operation, an Ontario resident was convicted

in Saskatchewan in July 1996 on five counts of possession and

trafficking under Saskatchewan’s Wildlife Act. Items seized

included hawk head and feet, eagle feet, bundles of eagle and

hawk feathers, bear claws and teeth, an alligator foot and an

alligator tooth knife, all intended for sale at US powwows. A

fine of $5,000 was levied.

Since enactment of the WAPPRIITA in May 1996, Environment

Canada has carried out approximately 20 investigations.

Illustrative examples of prosecutions are:

• A foreign seaman was convicted in an Ontario court for

unlawfully importing four elephant tusks into Canada, and

was sentenced to 23 days in jail.

• A foreign national was convicted for unlawfully importing

232 live Indian Star Tortoises into Canada and was fined

$10,000 and ordered to forfeit the tortoises, valued at up to

$250,000.

NEXT STEPS The Canadian government intends to continue

its efforts to control and reduce the illicit trade in flora and

fauna through the following activities:

• proceeding with phase two of WAPPRIITA regulations,

particularly to provide for personal exemptions;

• amending the National Parks Act to address the enforcement,

anywhere in Canada, of offences arising under the Act;

• continuing to inform the public and appropriate businesses

of legal requirements; and

• continuing efforts to educate the judiciary in the seriousness

of wildlife crimes.

REFERENCES 

• Environment Canada’s Green Lane at http://www.ec.gc.ca.

• Your guide to WAPPRIITA: Information on Canada’s Law to Control

Trade in Wild Animals and Plants (Environment Canada, 1996).
Annex: North American Report Mexico

on Environmental Enforcement

Part A What’s New?

The Decree amending the General Law on Ecological Equilibrium

and Environmental Protection (LGEEPA) was published in the

Official Gazette of the Federation on 13 December 1996;

this legal reform was the outcome of an extensive consultation

process among federal and local authorities, business organizations and social and academic institutions, which started in the

early months of 1995 and was convened both by the Secretariat

for the Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries and the

Ecology and Environment Commissions of the House of

Representatives and the Senate who jointly prepared the draft

amendments which summarized the consensus on the goals underlying the process.

The main objective behind the reform was to introduce in the

legislation the guidelines of the new environmental policy based

on the principle of sustainable development. Likewise, the

specific goals pointed at initiating the process of decentralization

of those environmental issues of local concern; reducing the

discretionary powers of environmental authorities; broadening

the opportunities for citizen involvement in environmental

management; strengthening and enriching environmental policy

instruments; and removing those regulatory obstacles to

economic activity that do not result in environmental benefits.

To this end, the amendments to the General Law on Ecological

Equilibrium and Environmental Protection include significant

changes in the following areas:

1. DISTRIBUTION OF JURISDICTION

Under this topic, the responsibilities of the federal, state and

municipal levels of government are more clearly and accurately

defined, based on the criterion that improved efficacy will result

from the handling of environmental issues at the local level. 

2. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

In this area, the reform is based both on the principle of “polluter

pays” and on incentives granted to those who undertake activities

dealing with environmental protection and preservation.

2.1. Economic Instruments; these are statutory and

administrative mechanisms of a fiscal, financial or market

nature, aimed at encouraging private parties to undertake

actions that may benefit the environment, through which such

parties are held accountable for the environmental costs and

benefits generated by their economic activities. 

2.2. Voluntary Compliance Mechanisms (Self-regulation

and Environmental Audit); these mechanisms are intended to

foster private sector initiatives aimed at enhancing its environmental performance beyond what is required under the prevailing

Mexican legislation.

3. BIODIVERSITY

The principles embodied in the Biodiversity Convention are

incorporated into the General Law on Ecological Equilibrium

and Environmental Protection. 

3.1. Wild Flora and Fauna; criteria governing the exploitation

of species are ascertained and control mechanisms for the

exploitation of the wild flora and fauna for biotechnological

purposes are devised.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

4.1. Prevention and Control of Air Pollution; the new law

defines with greater accuracy the grants of jurisdiction to the three

government levels, thereby providing private parties with a greater

degree of certainty in terms of potential actions by the authority.

4.2. Hazardous Materials and Wastes, and Environmental Risk; in regard to these issues, some provisions

intended at rendering the management of hazardous materials

and wastes, both by authorities and private parties, more efficient,

are contemplated.

5. INVOLVEMENT OF SOCIAL SECTORS

5.1. Involvement of Social Sectors in Environmental

Management; for each one of the instruments of environmental policy, the law sets forth the mechanisms through which

interested parties may take part in the decision-making process

regarding the preservation of ecological equilibrium and

environmental protection.

5.2. Access to Information Rights; all persons are granted

the right to access environmental information, while that

information which is protected by law or only concerns its

possessor is safeguarded.
Mexico Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

81

5.3. Revision Recourse for Communities Affected by

Offenses under Environmental Laws; under the amended

Law, those juridical persons and individuals from communities

that are affected by violations committed by facilities or activities,

the implementation of ecological planning programs, declarations

of protected natural areas or the issuance of regulations and

Mexican official standards arising from the Law, are granted a

revision recourse and the right to request that such actions,

deemed necessary in order for the applicable legal provisions to

be complied with, be undertaken, providing they can prove that

harm to natural resources, wildlife, public health or quality of

life has been or is about to be caused. 

6. CLASS ACTION

Some provisions aimed at strengthening relevant procedures are

included in the chapter devoted to class actions, in order to establish a more effective mechanism that may address the concerns

of the various social sectors in regard to environmental issues.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENSES

These types of violations are included in the Criminal Code in

order to make it possible for those actions which are harmful to

the environment, natural resources, flora and fauna, public

health and biodiversity in general to be prosecuted.

Part B Transboundary Movement 

of Hazardous Waste

BACKGROUND The last few years have witnessed a significant increase in the number of facilities located along the

United States-Mexico border. The majority of them are set up as

maquiladoras which produce significant quantities of hazardous

wastes that are subject to a temporary import regime provided

under applicable environmental and customs legislation,

according to which the said hazardous wastes must revert back

to the country of origin. As a result of this regime being

enforced, the transboundary passage of hazardous wastes has

increased dramatically, thereby requiring stiff control measures

and extensive coordination between the authorities of both

neighboring countries.

Hazardous wastes are included under the LGEEPA, the

Regulation under the latter dealing with Hazardous Wastes, the

Regulation for the Surface Transportation of Hazardous

Materials and Wastes, the Basel Convention on the Control of

Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and various

Mexican official standards.

Mexico, as a party to the Basel Convention, has built into its

regulatory framework the provisions of this international

document, and has also implemented the necessary measures

to fulfill the commitments agreed through the Convention,

seeking the reduction, environmental sound management and

control of hazardous waste.

Chapter VI of Part Four, Environmental Protection of the

LGEEPA grants jurisdiction to the various secretariats concerned with hazardous materials and wastes and includes

provisions governing the handling of such substances.

Section 153 regulates the import and export of hazardous

materials and wastes including imposition of ecological control

and surveillance issues, permits, import and export limitations,

and transport across the domestic territory.

Specifically, in regard to the import of hazardous materials and

wastes, subsections II and III provide that such activities shall

only be allowed for the purpose of treating, recycling or reusing

the said hazardous substances. Any imports intended at their

final disposal or simple deposit, storage or confinement in the

national territory is forbidden.

The Regulation empowers Semarnap to authorize any operation

dealing with the handling of hazardous wastes, including their

import and export. Under section 9, handling is defined as any

procedure involving the storage, collection, transportation,

reuse, treatment, recycling, burning and final disposal of hazardous wastes. Likewise, the Regulation includes requirements,

obligations and prohibitions governing the transportation of

hazardous wastes, including their import and export. Section 43

states that the Secretariat is responsible for intervening at border crossing posts, seaports and airports and, in general, anywhere in the country for the purpose of controlling the import

and export of hazardous wastes and enforcing safety measures

intended to avoid the contamination of the environment and

the degradation of the ecosystems. 

On the other hand, the Regulation for the Surface Transportation

of Hazardous Materials and Wastes provides that the Secretariat

for Communications and Transport is responsible for enforcing

the Regulation along highways, roads and service areas.

This Regulation contains the classification of hazardous substances as well as the provisions that must be observed when

bottling, packing, labeling and marking such substances; the

characteristics of the containers and cargo arrangement; and, in

general, all the safety procedures dealing with the ground transportation of hazardous materials and wastes.
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ENFORCING COMPLIANCE

WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON HAZARDOUS

WASTES In accordance with the provisions of section 32 bis,

subsections IV and V, of the Organic Law for the Federal Public

Administration, Semarnap is responsible for setting the

Mexican official standards on hazardous materials and wastes

and controlling, in conjunction with the federal, state and

municipal authorities, that the laws, regulations, standards and

programs regarding the environment and the other matters

under its jurisdiction, are complied with. In addition,

Semarnap has the power to impose the applicable sanctions.

The Semarnap Bylaws provide, under subsections II and VII of

section 59, that the General Division of Materials, Wastes and

Hazardous Activities of the National Ecology Institute (INE) is

in charge of authorizing the installation and operation of systems

for the collection, storage, transportation, reuse, treatment,

recycling, incineration and final disposal of hazardous wastes, as

well as the transboundary movement of hazardous materials and

wastes in accordance with applicable laws.

The Bylaws also provided, under section 62, subsections I and

XII, that the Profepa is responsible for, among other things:

ensuring that the applicable legal provisions relating to the

prevention and control of environmental pollution are complied

with; establishing the mechanisms, instances and administrative

procedures aimed at fulfilling such goals; and bringing to the

attention of the Federal Prosecutor those illicit actions, omissions or facts implying that an offense has been or is about to be

committed, in order to protect and safeguard the environment.

The control of compliance with the prevailing legislation

regarding air pollution and hazardous wastes is performed by

the Subprocuraduría for Industrial Inspections. Likewise, the 31

Delegation Bureaus of Profepa located in each state of the

Mexican Republic are granted jurisdiction over inspection and

supervision issues. Their administrative structure includes a

Sub-delegation for Industrial Inspections.

These administrative Sub-delegations rely on teams of inspectors

who are responsible for verifying that the fixed sources under

federal jurisdiction abide by the statutory provisions governing

both air pollution and hazardous wastes.

In the next section on air pollution, the overall program for

inspection and surveillance for industrial facilities is outlined in

detail and compliance statistics are presented for all media.

Part B Air Pollution

BACKGROUND Air pollution is regulated under the Political

Constitution of the United States of Mexico, the General Law

on Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection, the

Regulation, adopted thereunder, dealing with the Prevention

and Control of Air Pollution (Air Law) and the Mexican official

standards.

As stated in section 1, subsection VI, the General Law on

Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection

(LGEEPA), which implements the Political Constitution in this

regard, aims at regulating the protection and rehabilitation of

the ecological equilibrium and the protection of the environment

by, among other things, laying the groundwork for the prevention and control of air, water and soil pollution.

The LGEEPA provides that the powers granted to the State, on

environmental issues, be jointly exercised by the Federation, the

federate entities and the municipalities. In this regard, subsection

XII of section 5 states that the regulation of air pollution resulting

from emission sources of any type, as well as the prevention and

control regarding areas or fixed or mobile sources under federal

jurisdiction, shall be the responsibility of the federal government.

On the other hand, section 7 provides that the States shall be in

charge of the prevention and control of air pollution generated

by those fixed sources that operate as industrial facilities and

those mobile sources that do not fall under federal jurisdiction.

With regard to municipalities, subsection III of section 8 states

that the prevention and control of air pollution generated by

fixed sources that deal with commercial activities of goods and

services, as well as the emissions of contaminants into the

atmosphere arising from mobile sources which are not under

federal jurisdiction, are the responsibility of this government level.

In addition, Part Four contains a chapter that deals with atmospheric pollution and sets the criteria for its prevention and

control, while stating that the air must be of a satisfactory quality

and contribute to the well-being of the population; this is why

emissions of pollutants, from both artificial and natural sources,

fixed or mobile, must be reduced and controlled.

Finally, the LGEEPA prohibits the discharge into the atmosphere

of those contaminants that cause or might cause ecological

imbalances or environmental damage.

The Regulation adopted under the Air Law contemplates two

types of contaminating sources: fixed and mobile sources. Fixed

sources are defined as facilities established in a single site for the

purpose of carrying on industrial and commercial operations
Mexico Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

83

and processes, services or activities that generate or might generate contaminating emissions into the atmosphere.

Mobile sources are listed as follows: planes, helicopters, railways,

street cars, tractor trailers, buses, trucks, cars, motorcycles,

boats, mobile equipment and machinery with combustion or

similar engines, which, by virtue of their operation, generate or

might generate contaminating emissions into the atmosphere. 

In both cases, the Regulation states that odor and gas emissions as well as solid and liquid particles discharges must not

exceed the maximum emission levels allowed under the

Mexican official standards. Twenty-six of these standards are

currently in force regarding these issues, encompassing those

emissions generated both by fixed and mobile sources whether

under federal, state or municipal jurisdiction. The Regulation

imposes liability on those responsible for emission sources and

provides sanctions where offenses are committed.

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ENFORCING COMPLIANCE

WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS REGARDING AIR

POLLUTION According to subsection V of section 32 bis of

the Organic Law of the Federal Public Administration, the

Secretariat of the Environment, Natural Resources and

Fisheries (Semarnap) is responsible, among other things, for

securing compliance with the laws, regulations, standards and

programs related to the environment, as well as imposing the

applicable sanctions, where warranted.

Along the same lines, under the LGEEPA, the Semarnap is given

responsibility, among other duties, for setting the criteria for the

prevention and control of air pollution, deciding on the use of

technologies aimed at reducing the emissions of contaminants

by motor vehicles, designing and implementing the policy on

environmental rehabilitation, adopting the measures deemed

necessary for the prevention and control of environmental

contingencies, and issuing the Mexican official standards governing these issues.

On the other hand, under section 62 of the Bylaws of the

Semarnap, the Federal Attorney General’s Office for Environmental Protection (Profepa) is empowered to supervise the

enforcement of and compliance with environmental law.

Profepa is responsible for supervising compliance with the

applicable legal provisions dealing with the prevention and control

of environmental pollution, as well as cooperating with the

federal, state and municipal authorities in the control of the

enforcement of all environmental statutory provisions. In order

to protect and safeguard the environment, Profepa may conduct

investigations on offenses under environmental laws, advising

concerned authorities of their outcome, and bring to the

attention of the Federal Prosecutor those illicit actions, omissions

or facts indicating that an offense has been committed. Finally,

section 70 of the Semarnap Bylaws asserts that the General

Division for Industrial Inspections is in charge of supervising

compliance with the environmental laws, regulations, standards and programs regarding the prevention and control of

air pollution.

VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION The key national programs

carried out by the Profepa, through its Subprocuraduría for

Industrial Control, include inspection and control of industrial

pollution sources and inspection of new vehicles at assembly

plants. In the metropolitan area of Mexico City several programs

are implemented simultaneously, specifically those relating to:

environmental contingencies, aerial surveillance and

impoundment of highly contaminating vehicles. The latter is

carried out in conjunction with the Secretariat for

Communications and Transport, the Federal District and the

Government of the State of Mexico. In addition, a series of

complementary support programs have been devised.

a) Program for the Inspection and Control 

of Industrial Pollution Sources 

With the objective of ensuring compliance with environmental

legislation, the Profepa has since August 1992 been implementing a comprehensive program of inspection and surveillance over

industry. The program involves inspections of contaminating

sources under federal jurisdiction, mainly directed at those

facilities which are more likely to generate pollution. It also

addresses complaints and charges made by the community.

In 1996, the Profepa performed 13,108 inspection and verification visits to facilities nationwide. Of these, 8,368 were

inspection visits, while the remaining 4,740 were verification

visits.1

For the total number of visits (verification and inspection), the

findings were the following:

Compliance with the law Number of facilities Percentage

Serious irregularities 233 1.78%

Slight irregularities 9,503 72.49%

No deficiencies found 3,372 25.73%

Total 13,108 100%

1 It is important to note that the figures presented here include the inspection and surveillance of the industrial sector where compliance with the

legislation governing atmospheric pollution, hazardous waste, risk and noise is verified; since these activities are performed in an indivisible manner within the firm as opposed to a by-subject approach, there are no statistics in this regard. 
As far as sanctions are concerned, the following were imposed

during 1996: 233 closures were ordered and 9,736 fines

imposed. 3,372 of the visits did not bring about any sanctions.

In particular, 3,326 visits were made during the course of 1996

in the border states of Northern Mexico. In the six states

considered, the visits were distributed as follows:

In terms of compliance with the law, the following findings

were made:

b) Aerial Surveillance 

This program is carried out on a yearly basis during the winter

(December to March). During this season, helicopters belonging

to public safety institutions of the Federal District and the State

of Mexico fly over the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City and its

vicinity for the purpose of detecting those industrial facilities

which generate emissions of contaminants beyond the maximum

permissible levels set forth in the Mexican official standards.

Once they are detected, an inspection visit is performed.

In the winter of 1995–1996, 116 polluting sources were located,

of which 66 are under the jurisdiction of Profepa. Of the

facilities involved, 8 were ordered to implement emergency

remedial actions and 30 were confronted with irregularities,

while the remaining 28 did not show any deficiencies.

c) Response to Environmental Emergencies in the

Metropolitan Area of Mexico City (MAMC)

Because of its location, the MAMC presents climatic conditions

which favor the increase in the concentration of pollutants,

particularly in ozone, which trigger the declaration of environmental emergencies. In order to address such emergencies,

several authorities are implementing actions aimed at reducing

the emissions of contaminants. The industrial facilities of the

MAMC, under the supervision of Profepa, are among those

targeted by such actions.

Whenever an emergency is deemed as Phase I, facilities must

reduce by 30 to 40% those productive processes that discharge

contaminants into the atmosphere. In Phase II such processes

are reduced by 70%, while in Phase III production activities

stop altogether. In the event that environmental emergencies

are declared, the teams of inspectors from the Profepa assess

the compliance status of the 599 facilities with greater potential

for polluting.

The purpose of the program is to verify that industrial facilities

have actually curtailed their production levels. During the

course of last winter (1995–1996) two environmental emergencies were declared, during which 814 visits were performed

in 792 facilities; 349 of such facilities were not operating and

405 had complied with the mandatory slowdown in their

production processes; as for the remaining 38, they were subjected to a comprehensive inspection process which resulted in

the detection of 29 irregularities and the imposing of the

applicable sanctions.

Throughout the period from spring to autumn of this year,

two environmental emergencies were declared, the first one in

October and the second one in the first days of November.

During these emergencies, 685 inspection visits were performed

in the same number of facilities; 665 facilities had complied

with the cutback in their production processes, while 20 had

not and thus were subjected to legal assessment in order for the

appropriate sanctions to be imposed.

The results obtained pursuant to inspection and surveillance

actions undertaken in the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City

are worth mentioning, for this area is identified as having the

highest level of recurrent environmental problems in terms of

atmospheric pollution. 

Border state Large Medium Small Micro business Total

Baja California 155 203 248 260 866

Chihuahua 191 103 209 67 570

Coahuila 136 86 272 433 927

Nuevo León 58 62 116 77 313

Sonora 49 30 66 107 252

Tamaulipas 131 72 107 88 398

Total 720 556 1,018 1,032 3,326

Sizes of the facilities visited in the border states in 1996

Compliance with the law Percentage

Serious irregularities 1.50%

Slight irregularities 72.25%

No deficiencies found 26.24%
Mexico Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

85

Of the 13,108 inspection and surveillance visits performed

throughout the nation during the course of 1996, 2,800 were

carried out in the MAMC (381 in large facilities, 363 in mediumsize companies, 1,164 in small-size enterprises and 892 in

micro businesses).

In terms of compliance with the law, the findings were the

following:

In addition, the following sanctions were imposed: 13 facilities

were shut down and 1,828 facilities were given fines; the

remaining 959 were not sanctioned. 

d) Impoundment and Removal of Highly

Contaminating Vehicles 

This program has been set up in the Metropolitan Area of

Mexico City with the joint cooperation of the Secretariat for

Communications and Transport, the Federal District

Department, the Government of the State of Mexico and

Semarnap, through the Profepa which acts as the coordinating

agency.

The program has been in place since the winter of 1992–1993,

and operates from 1 December to 31 March of each year, with

30 checking posts along the access roads into Mexico City, at

bus stops and at other strategic sites within the Metropolitan

Area. The posts are assigned in the following way: 11 are under

the control of the Secretariat for Communications and

Transport, 14 belong to the Federal District Department and

the remaining 5 are under the responsibility of the Government

of the State of Mexico. In the course of the winter of

1995–1996, 14,010 seizures of motor vehicles were performed, of which 9,069 concerned non-approved vehicles and

4,941 related to approved ones.

e) Inspection of New Motor Vehicles at Assembly Plants

The purpose of this program is to inspect motor vehicles at

assembly plants in order to ensure that regulations and standards regarding the emission of gases, combustion particles and

noise are complied with before the vehicles are out in the market for sale. During 1996, 24 facilities which assembled 157

types of engines were inspected.

Part B International Trafficking 

in Flora and Fauna

BACKGROUND In Mexico, the exploitation of the wild

flora and fauna dates back to the pre-Hispanic cultures.

Traditionally, numerous wild species have been exploited, mainly

by indigenous groups and rural communities, for medicinal,

religious and subsistence purposes.

As a member State of the Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) since

1991, Mexico has registered flows of imports, exports and

re-exports of flora and fauna specimens, as well as their parts

or derivatives.

Part II, Biodiversity of the LGEEPA, deals with the regulation of

wildlife, and establishes the applicable provisions regarding the

following issues:

Criteria for the preservation and exploitation of the

wild flora and fauna. These criteria deal, among other issues,

with the respect towards the continuity of the evolution process

of species; the survival of those species which are endemic,

endangered or driven to extinction; the fight against the illegal

trafficking of species; and the promotion and development of

related research.

Hunting restrictions. This instrument aims at the preservation,

promotion, propagation, distribution, acclimatization and

refuge of specimens. The issuance of regulations on these

matters require that they be supported and justified by specific

research. 

Exploitation of wildlife species. These provisions make it

mandatory that a specific authorization be obtained prior to

engaging in the sustainable exploitation of terrestrial and aquatic

wildlife species, or of their genetic material. 

Import and export of wildlife species. These activities also

require that an authorization be obtained before specimens may

be transported across border lines.

On the other hand, the issues regarding the preservation of

species are also contemplated under the Federal Hunting Act

and the CITES. The purpose of the Federal Hunting Act is to

guide and warrant the preservation, rehabilitation and promotion

of the wild fauna which roam freely within the domestic territory, by regulating exploitation. According to the provisions

contained in section 2 wild fauna is defined to include those

animals that live in freedom, with no control from human

beings, and those domestic creatures that, as a result of being

Compliance with the law Number of facilities Percentage

Serious irregularities 13 0.46%

Slight irregularities 1,828 65.29%

No deficiencies found 959 34.25%

Total 2,800 100%
abandoned, turn wild and are thus exposed to being captured

and appropriated.

The Act contains provisions regarding wildlife protection,

acclimatization, propagation, hunting and refuge areas. It also

deals with the exercise of hunting rights and administrative

violations. In particular, sections 24 and 25, pertaining to the

transportation of wild animals, their products and remains,

make it compulsory to obtain the relevant permit, notwithstanding the fact that other legal provisions regarding animal

health and sanitation must be observed as well.

Moreover, in regard to the trafficking of species, section 26

prohibits the export of hunted animals, either alive or dead, as

well as that of their parts and derivatives. However, an exception

is contemplated for those hunted animals, or parts thereof,

obtained by foreigners residing in the country, and applies only

to the quantity authorized under the corresponding permit.

Additionally, the CITES is a part of the leading legislation, thus

being incorporated into the several laws, regulations and provisions specialized on species that are threatened, endemic,

endangered, or under special protection.

The protection of species is regulated by trade legislation on

such species, in accordance with specific appendices. Appendix

I includes all those endangered species that are or may be

affected by trade. Such trade is subject to particularly stringent

regulations, and authorized under exceptional circumstances

only, including prior grant and presentation of an import permit and either an export permit from the country of origin or

a re-export certificate. 

Appendix II comprises all those species which, although not

necessarily now threatened with extinction may become so, as

well as those species not affected by trade but which must be subject to regulation in order that their trade may be brought under

effective control. The import of these species requires the prior

presentation of either an export permit from the country of origin or a re-export certificate.

Finally, Appendix III pertains to all those species which any

Party to CITES identifies as being subject to regulation under its

jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting their

exploitation and require the cooperation of other Parties in

order for their trade to be controlled. The presentation of both

a certificate of origin and an export permit is required prior to

importing such species, whenever their trade originates in a

member State which has caused the inclusion of the species

referred to in the Appendix.

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ENFORCING COMPLIANCE

WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON WILDLIFE

ISSUES Pursuant to section 32 bis, subsections IV, V and XX

of the Organic Law for the Federal Public Administration,

Semarnap is responsible for: setting forth the standards for the

sustainable exploitation of natural resources and the terrestrial and

aquatic resources of the wild flora and fauna; imposing the

restrictions regarding the circulation or transit of wild flora and

fauna specimens, originating from abroad or destined to foreign

markets, within the domestic territory; and ensuring, in conjunction with the federal, state and municipal authorities, that

the laws, regulations, standards or programs regarding terrestrial

and aquatic wildlife, are complied with. 

On the other hand, section 57, subsections VII and VIII of the

Bylaws of Semarnap, empowers the Wildlife General Division

of the INE to authorize the research, reasonable exploitation,

capture, collection, use, possession, handling, import, export

and circulation or transit of wild flora and fauna specimens

within the domestic territory, as well as those subject to a special

protection regime whenever they originate from or are destined

to foreign markets.

Likewise, under section 62, subsections I, IV and XII, that the

Profepa is responsible for: ensuring that the applicable legal

provisions relating to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife are complied

with; establishing the mechanisms, instances and administrative

procedures aimed at fulfilling the established goals; cooperating

with the federal, state and municipal authorities in the

enforcement of the legal provisions pertaining to the environment; and bringing to the attention of the Federal

Prosecutor those illicit actions, omissions or facts implying that

an offense has been or is about to be committed, in order to

protect and safeguard the environment and the natural resources.

Finally, section 73 provides that the General Division for the

Inspection and Control of Forests, Wild Flora and Fauna has

the duty to secure compliance with statutory provisions relating

to terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna. 

VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION In the period between July

1995 and August 1996, the following flows of international

trade in wild flora and fauna, duly endorsed by CITES certificates issued by the INE, acting as the Mexican Management

Authority, were registered:
Mexico Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

87

For the purpose of verifying compliance with wild flora and fauna

regulations, 2,069 inspections were carried out during the course

of 1996; 1,009 administrative proceedings were launched as a

result of uncovered offenses; 26,623 specimens were seized and

fines in the amount of 670,990 pesos were levied.

Here are the details of the inspections conducted for

wild flora and wild fauna:

As previously mentioned, Profepa has delegation bureaus in

each of the 31 States of the Mexican Republic. Each Delegation

Bureau has a Sub-delegation for Natural Resources which is

directly responsible for the undertaking of Inspection and

Control activities over the trade of wild flora and fauna specimens, their parts and derivatives.

In addition to the regular staff of the State Delegation Bureaus,

Profepa has a special team of 80 inspectors posted at 44 seaports,

airports and border crossings, who are responsible for carrying

out phytosanitary inspections on imported wood as well as visual

inspections of all export and import shipments of wildlife

specimens.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS The profepa now relies on a

computerized system, known as SIRENA, which contains the

data base where information on offenders, wildlife species and

subspecies and their parts and derivatives is stored, along with

that relating to their origin, trafficking routes and the methods

used for capturing or collecting specimens. The information is

geographically linked to a system containing cartographic data

covering the entire country, which may be automatically

accessed at any given time.

As well, the Profepa and the Ecology Institute, A.C. in Jalapa,

Veracruz, have entered into an agreement for the purpose of

setting up a permanent training center for inspectors in the

headquarters of the Ecology Institute. As a result of this, the

support of specialized inspectors in every wild flora or fauna

category under commercial pressure is now at hand.

The Profepa carries out special operations, investigations and

monitoring throughout the Republic on a permanent basis,

with the aim of fighting the illegal trafficking of wild species of

flora and fauna, their parts and derivatives. 

Description Quantity

Exports of live plants 393,264 plants

Imports of live plants 12 plants

Exports of flora parts 30,400 units 

Exports of wood 100 tons

Exports of wood 1,475,347 m3

Re-exports of wood 50.74 m3

Wild Flora

Description Status Number

Live mammals Imports 812 animals

Exports 51 animals

Re-exports 37 animals

Live birds Imports 7,150 animals

Exports 47 animals

Re-exports 7 animals

Live reptiles Imports 729 animals

Exports 18 animals

Cowboy boots made 

of exotic skins Re-exports 57,350 pairs

Other wild fauna parts Re-exports 700,600 units

Exports 504 units

Imports 1,501,902 units

Wild Fauna

Compliance with 

the law Wild flora Wild fauna

Number of 

inspections 240 1,829

Administrative 

proceedings 172 837

Specimens seized 15,499 11,124

Products seized 461 8.5 kg of skins

118 kg of meat

Derivatives seized 13 3,139

Pieces of equipment

seized 738

Monetary sanctions 39,715 pesos 831,275 pesos
United States Annex: North American Report 

on Environmental Enforcement

1 An environmental or wildlife protection law enacted by a state, local or tribal government must provide at least as much protection as the

corresponding national law. 2 “Operating Principles for an Integrated EPA Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program” issued 27 November 1996 provides an upto-date summary of the EPA program. 3 For additional data on national and state enforcement actions and other information, please see References section at the end of the report. 4 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) enacted 29 March 1996.

Part A What’s New?

During 1996, the United States, through the efforts of the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of

Justice, the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the

Interior, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of

the Department of Commerce, and other national and state

enforcement officials, has continued its tradition of vigorously

enforcing its environmental and wildlife protection laws. It has

also sought to promote compliance with those laws by the regulated

community and others. State, local and tribal governments

continue to initiate most enforcement actions and have been active

in enforcing their respective environmental and wildlife protection

laws.1 They have also worked cooperatively with the national

government on enforcement, especially under those statutes in

which they share concurrent jurisdiction with the national government

or administer nationally approved programs.

EPA has reaffirmed that formal law enforcement will continue

to be the central and indispensable element of its efforts to

ensure compliance.2 While there has been an increase in the use

of compliance promotion and assistance activities since the

1994 reorganization, this year EPA initiated the highest number

of criminal actions ever. The total FY96 dollar value of criminal,

civil judicial and administrative penalties assessed in actions

brought by the national government was approximately

$173,000,000; the dollar value of injunctive relief was

$1,430,000,000; and the dollar value of Supplemental

Environmental Projects (SEPS) was $66,000,000. In addition,

state agencies assess a large amount of penalties.3 National and

state enforcement case settlements increasingly require violators

to pay for the cleanup and protection of the environment. In

addition, penalties are included to level the economic playing

field. It is EPA’s policy to ensure that responsible citizens and

companies who make the necessary expenditures to comply

with the national laws are not placed at a competitive disadvantage

compared to those who do not. 

There has been increased national interest and legislation enacted

assuring that small businesses are treated fairly in enforcement

of and compliance with national regulations.3 EPA reflects this

emphasis in its 1996 “Policy on Compliance Incentives for

Small Businesses,” which is intended to promote environmental

compliance among small business by providing them with special

incentives to participate in compliance assistance programs or

to conduct environmental audits, and then to promptly correct

violations. To facilitate dissemination of compliance information

to businesses, EPA has established its four Compliance

Assistance Centers, made the 18 Industry Sector Notebooks

available on the Internet, and distributed various guidance

documents as needed.

EPA’s ability to measure the results of the United States’

compliance and enforcement program is evolving. More

detailed information is being gathered on the types and quantities

of chemicals reduced and the qualitative benefits to human

health and ecosystem protection as a result of enforcement

actions. Collection of this type of data was piloted in 1995 and

is now established as a standard reporting requirement.

The Office of Environmental Justice in EPA’s Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance leads national efforts

to ensure that no one suffers disproportionately from the effects

of environmental violations and highlights the importance of

including environmental justice considerations in enforcement

and compliance decisions.

Among other things, the Fish and Wildlife Service increased

interaction and cooperation with its law enforcement counterparts

in Mexico and Canada. This resulted in increased enforcement

and wildlife inspection activity. Also, cooperative training sessions

were conducted with Environment Canada and Mexico’s

Profepa on illegal trade in birds and fur and the use of forensics in

such investigations.
United States Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

89

5 A ”maquiladora” is a facility operating in Mexico under Mexico’s “in-bond” program, pursuant to which a company may import raw materials

for use in manufacturing or assembly processes without paying import tariffs under Mexican law, provided the resulting finished products and

hazardous wastes are returned to the country of origin of the raw materials.

Part B Transboundary Movement 

of Hazardous Waste

BACKGROUND

Definition

In the United States, the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA) defines the term “hazardous” for purposes of the

hazardous waste export and import requirements. A waste can

be hazardous if it exhibits one of four characteristics (ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity and toxicity) or if it is listed as a hazardous

waste by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The

RCRA regulations exclude certain waste material if it is used as

an ingredient to make a product or used as an effective substitute

for a commercial product (i.e., it is “reused”). 

Conventions/International Agreements

In 1992, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) adopted a decision establishing a control

system for the transboundary movements of wastes destined for

recovery operations among OECD member countries. It

supersedes requirements of the Basel Convention applicable to

these wastes. The rule establishes a waste management scheme

of notifications, consents, tracking documentation, and contracts with different controls depending on whether the wastes

are classified as “green,” “amber” or “red.” There are different

requirements and controls for each level of waste. Effective

11 July 1996, new RCRA regulations implemented the requirements of the OECD decision. 

The United States has bilateral agreements with Canada and

with Mexico, which govern the transboundary shipment of

hazardous waste. Trade with these two countries proceeds

under the terms of these bilateral agreements and complementary

RCRA requirements, but not the OECD requirements. These

agreements will qualify as valid pre-existing agreements under

Basel Convention if and when the United States becomes a party.

Legislation/regulations 

Section 3017 of RCRA provides that “no person shall export

any hazardous waste ... unless ... the government of the receiving

country has consented to accept such hazardous waste” and the

exporter meets specified requirements. The relevant regulations

establish a system for tracking the required notifications and

reporting for export of hazardous waste. Importers of hazardous

waste must observe notice and comment requirements of

international agreements for waste streams from foreign sources

for wastes regulated under RCRA. They must also comply with

special manifest requirements under RCRA.

In March of 1996, EPA entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) with the Customs Service to facilitate

the enforcement of national environmental laws and regulations,

international environmental agreements, and cooperation

between the agencies with regard to materials imported and

exported. The agreement includes provisions regarding training

of Customs inspectors and staff and procedures for delivery to

EPA of manifests and other documentation that the Customs

Service receives from importers and exporters.

COMPLIANCE PROMOTION AND ENFORCEMENT

ACTIVITIES AND ISSUES

National context

Although the vast majority of US imports of hazardous waste

are from Canada or Western Europe, some hazardous waste is

received from Mexico as well. In addition, the United States

imports hazardous waste generated from maquiladoras in

Mexico. The maquiladora5 program generally requires that such

waste be returned to the United States if the United States was

the source of the raw materials.

Commencing in 1996, the United States began developing an

improved database known as the Waste International Tracking

System (WITS). This system currently tracks imports of RCRA

hazardous wastes and PCBs and runs on a desktop computer.

Also, the United States is participating in a pilot program with

Environment Canada, British Columbia, and a private company

to evaluate the potential uses of Electronic Data Interchange

(EDI) for the transmission of information.

Importance of Interagency and 

International Cooperation

The enforcement of national and state laws concerning the

transport of hazardous waste and other dangerous substances

involves cooperation between a number of agencies, including

the US EPA, US Department of Justice, US Customs Service

and US Department of Transportation, various state agencies,

task forces, and regional enforcement networks. EPA provides

support to the US Customs Service in the training and detection

of illegal waste shipments. Various national and state agencies

have also worked to develop international cooperation and

outreach, including coordinated border crossing inspections

and information exchanges with Canada and Mexico. Another

important component of the US enforcement program is the

working relationship that has been developed with the

International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) and

its 173 member nations.
Compliance Promotion Efforts 

In March 1996, a compliance promotion effort in the United

States and Mexico border area began at the request of Mexico’s

Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (Profepa). EPA

sent letters to 70 US parent corporations of maquiladoras located

in Chihuahua encouraging them to comply with Mexican regulations governing the transboundary shipments of hazardous

waste. Hazardous waste transporter training courses were also

conducted at Mexican facilities in Chihuahua. In several other

ongoing border pollution prevention efforts, EPA has teamed

up with the Texas National Resource Conservation Commission

(TNRCC) and Profepa to conduct site assessments and followup visits to determine opportunities to implement pollution

prevention and clean technology for Mexican industrial facilities.

The newest cooperative effort to protect and improve the

environment of the US-Mexico border area is the Border XXI

Program. Border XXI is a cooperative effort of the US and

Mexican national, state and local governments to identify

environmental objectives for the border region through the

year 2000, as well as mechanisms and strategies for fulfilling

those objectives.

COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION PROCESS

Compliance Monitoring Based on Record Keeping 

and Reporting

National compliance monitoring is based on the US record

keeping and reporting requirements for exports of hazardous

waste and, to a limited extent, for imports. EPA’s Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance maintains an

import/export information management system to track submissions of notifications of intent to export, acknowledgments

of consent, and annual reports. Most of the import/export

enforcement actions taken by the United States were developed

after detecting violations of these documentation requirements.

To track the thousands of tons of hazardous waste from

maquiladoras crossing the US-Mexico border each year and to

further effective compliance monitoring, EPA’s regional office

in Dallas, Texas, developed a US-Mexico Hazardous Waste

Tracking System (HAZTRAKS). The database tracks the shipment

of hazardous waste from generation to disposal, reports transboundary activity, allows efficient corroboration of industry

reporting, and allows the United States and Mexico to identify

waste streams, detect violations, and obtain reports on the

previous history of imported shipments. HAZTRAKS also

provides a means to focus investigation and inspection activities

based on information captured in the database. The system is

being expanded to include information on shipments to and

from Canada.

ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES The United States responds

to different types of violations with different levels of enforcement

responses. In the case of a minor violation, a response such as

the issuance of a Notice of Violation and a schedule for returning

to full compliance may be appropriate. If the violator fails to

address the violation following an informal enforcement

response, the violation might then become the object of a formal

enforcement response. There are also circumstances under

which a formal enforcement response is generally appropriate,

including those where: the violation poses a substantial threat to

health or the environment; the violator is a chronic or recalcitrant

violator; or the violation represents a substantial deviation from

RCRA requirements. A formal response may consist of an

administrative, civil, or criminal action against the violator that

results in an enforceable agreement to return to compliance.

Such a response will generally include economic sanctions in

the form of penalties which seek to recover the economic benefit

of non-compliance plus an amount reflecting the gravity of the

violation. Additional punitive measures may include, as appropriate, suspension and debarment from government contracts,

pollution prevention projects, permit decisions, or receivership.

Recent Cases

• For their violations of US laws, two persons were each sentenced to one year in prison and were ordered to serve three

years of supervised release for their convictions on charges of

conspiring to transport hazardous waste without the appropriate paperwork, conspiring to export hazardous waste to an

African country without permission of the receiving country

and wire fraud. In addition, one of the defendants was

ordered to pay a $2,000 fine.

• In a case brought by the national government, Pollution

Solutions of Canada, Inc. (PSOC) pled guilty to illegally

transporting 625 tons of lead-laced sandblasting grit from

Quebec to an unpermitted landfill in Coventry, Vermont. The

company president arranged the illegal shipments with

knowledge that a laboratory analysis commissioned by the

Quebec government established that the sandblast residue

contained a lead concentration which greatly exceeded the

hazardous waste threshold. The company paid a $60,000 civil

penalty in settlement of the case.

• An international electronics company manufacturing computer

parts as a “maquiladora” company pled guilty to violating

California state laws for smuggling hazardous waste for disposal

to a facility in California which did not have a permit. As part

of the settlement, the company paid $300,000 in fines,

contributions and penalties. Those contributions supported

such activities as further education and training for investigators and backup support for environmental prosecutions

throughout California.
United States Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

91

NEXT STEPS The United States, Mexico and Canada will

continue to work to improve the monitoring of transborder

movements of hazardous wastes and toxic substances and to

promote pollution prevention and waste reduction practices.

Some of the planned projects include: (1) conducting training

courses in the Binational Field Sampling and Lab Capability

Project training series to improve the ability to detect violations

of hazardous waste management and import/export regulations

along the US-Mexico border; (2) conducting training courses

with Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE) and Profepa on hazardous waste management; (3) determining waste disposal and

collection needs of border communities along the Texas border

and improving municipal waste management practices through

public education, focusing on compliance assurance in order to

eliminate illegal dumping; (4) repeating the successful training

courses for Customs Inspectors from the United States, Mexico

and Canada on detecting illegal transboundary hazardous waste

and hazardous materials shipments; (5) holding a technical seminar for US and Mexican industries to stimulate participation by

border industries in Mexican and US environmental auditing

programs; and (6) creating an integrated working group of technical experts, academics and agency specialists of both countries

who will work together to establish technologicalcriteria for the

phases of design, construction of new and monitoring of existing facilities for the storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes.

Part B Air Pollution

BACKGROUND

Legislation/Regulations

In the United States, the Montreal Protocol has been implemented through the Clean Air Act (CAA). Provisions which

implement, or which are related to the implementation of the

Montreal Protocol, include the ban on chlorofluorocarbons

(CFCs) that went into effect in the United States. during 1996

and imposition of restriction on their import and export. The

United States has also taken steps to reduce air pollution that

go beyond the requirements of the Montreal Protocol. The

Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) rule is scheduled for

promulgation in July 1997. It will satisfy the requirements for

monitoring and compliance certification in the 1990 CAA

Amendments. The rule requires sources to monitor the operation of pollution control equipment and to take corrective

action when the equipment begins to operate outside a predetermined range of operating parameters. This range must be

set in order to provide a reasonable assurance that the source is

in compliance with emission limitations and standards. This

rule will require a source owner to pay close attention to the

operation of pollution control equipment and to take corrective

action if the operation begins to degrade. The CAM rule also

allows a source to certify that it is in compliance with its emission limits based on the equipment parameter data, not on

actual emission data.

The Risk Management Programs Rule (promulgated in June

1996) applies to stationary sources where an extremely hazardous

substance is present in a process in a quantity greater than a

specified threshold. It requires that owners or operators of such

sources identify hazards, take steps to prevent accidental releases

of these extremely hazardous substances into the air, and take

steps to minimize the impacts of any releases. The rule specifies

the steps to be taken to meet the requirements. Compliance is

required by 21 June 1999.

COMPLIANCE PROMOTION AND ENFORCEMENT

ACTIVITIES AND ISSUES Source owners of multiple

sources of air pollution are being required to identify all

applicable requirements in one permit, and to report their

compliance status with respect to each requirement to the EPAapproved state permitting authority. Some owners are finding

that they are not in compliance with all applicable requirements

as they identify their requirements and determine their compliance status. They are, therefore, reluctant to submit permit

information to state agencies for fear of enforcement action. In

order to provide an inducement for such sources to come into

the permit program, some states are granting periods of

amnesty during which sources can submit their permits and

disclose noncompliance without the fear of becoming the

subject of enforcement. Some state governments in the United

States are enacting more general amnesty laws as an inducement

for source owners to report violations. At the national level,

EPA is concerned that significant violations will go unaddressed

if such amnesty programs become widespread. 

EPA is currently developing three compliance tools to assist in

implementing the international agreements on CFCs. These are

a compliance assistance outreach tool for businesses that buy,

replace, or service equipment with CFCs; a database to track

compliance and enforcement activities; and a national compliance

strategy aimed at achieving compliance with the CFC regulations

by the regulated community. 

New Direction Towards More Risk-based Enforcement

The risk-based enforcement project is developing enforcement

cases against the violators which create the greatest risk to

human health and the environment. The project involves a

number of steps. The first is to gather and assess air pollution

data, asking the question, “What air pollutants pose the greatest

risk to human health and the environment?” Resources both

within EPA and in the scientific community will be used in this
step. After identifying the most dangerous air pollutants, the

second step is to identify the sources of those pollutants. The

third step is to assess the feasibility of taking enforcement action

against those sources, since not all sources of the identified

pollutants will be subject to emission limitations or standards.

The fourth step is to initiate the enforcement actions themselves,

which will involve close cooperation with state air pollution

control agencies.

COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION PROCESS

Record Keeping and Reporting

National compliance is monitored utilizing state and federal

inspectors who conduct on-site investigations. Their review is

supplemented by analysis of source-conducted monitoring,

record keeping and reporting requirements for emissions of air

pollutants. Sources must notify the appropriate state and/or

national agency when new construction is begun or when significant modifications are made to ensure that proper control

equipment and procedures are put in place. Major sources of

air pollution must obtain a Title V permit and submit semiannual progress reports, including excess emission reports and

annual certifications of compliance.

Compliance Monitoring Based on Record Keeping

To track compliance with CAA requirements, many sources

must install continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMs)

and in some cases, such as acid rain monitoring, this data is

reported directly to a national database. Other sources of

monitoring information are kept in state databases and reports

are made to EPA Regional offices so that a national perspective

on compliance can be obtained. The United States’s main

compliance database is the Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS/AFS).

ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES Air enforcement staff have

a number of tools at their disposal to ensure compliance and to

punish violators appropriately. Criminal and civil judicial lawsuits

may be prosecuted (see the examples below). Administrative

penalty actions may be brought before a less formal administrative

tribunal where penalties are statutorily limited to $200,000 and

the violations must have occurred within one year of the filing

of the administrative penalty order (demand). These “caps” can

be waived with approval of the Department of Justice. A new

“field citations” program is nearing completion, which will

allow inspectors in the field to issue “traffic tickets” for fines up

to $5,000 per violation. These citations may be appealed in

court. Other remedies available include Notices of Violation

(NOVs) and Administrative Orders (AOs). If the source does

not respond to NOVs or AOs by returning to compliance, EPA

will consider seeking court action to mandate a return to

compliance. As in other environmental programs, compliance

must be achieved, the economic benefit of noncompliance must

be recouped and punitive measures, including suspension and

debarment in addition to penalties, should be taken where

called for. Based on national policy, penalties may be offset by

Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), including pollution

prevention measures.

The investigation of illegal importation of Ozone Depleting

Substances into the United States has become the fastest growing

part of EPA’s criminal caseload. Working with the US Customs

Service, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of

Justice, this effort has resulted in 12 defendants being convicted

and sentenced to more than 145 months of incarceration and

several millions of dollars in fines and restitution. This national

interagency effort to interdict CFC smuggling and related

criminal violations of the CAA will continue to be a priority in

the year ahead.

Recent Cases

• The Georgia-Pacific Corporation will be required to spend

more than $35 million in injunctive relief, penalties and SEPs

to settle allegations that it illegally poured tons of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) annually into the air at its wood

product factories in eight southeastern states. The settlement

of this action brought by the national government will

reduce ozone-forming emissions from these plants by at

least 90 percent, which translates into 10 million pounds of

harmful air pollution per year. 

• In settlement of an enforcement action brought by the

United States, the Colorado Public Service Co. will be

required to spend $140 million – the second largest expenditure in CAA history – to install “state-of-the-art” pollution

controls to reduce particulate, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen

oxide emissions at its facility in the Yampa Valley near

Steamboat Springs, CO. This settlement will dramatically

reduce acid levels and improve visibility in the scenic Mt.

Zirkel wilderness area.

• Working in conjunction with officials from the US Marshals

Service, US Customs, the Internal Revenue Service,

INTERPOL, and Costa Rican authorities, the United States

accomplished the first-ever extradition of an individual

charged with environmental crimes in the United States. The

individual was convicted and sentenced to one year in prison

with credit for time served, a fine of $75,000, and required

to pay excise taxes owed to the United States for conspiracy,

violation of the CAA, and tax evasion for his role in a scheme

to import more than 19,000 thirty-pound cylinders

(approximately 288 tons) of CFC-12, a refrigerant gas

commonly known as Freon.
United States Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

93

• In a settlement over alleged violations of Ohio state air pollution control requirements, a steel castings company agreed

to pay $275,000 to the state and donate $65,000 for an

urban tree planting project. Further, the company agreed, as

part of a SEPs package, to install new equipment in its facility

in lieu of paying additional penalties.

NEXT STEPS EPA will continue its work to reconcile and

integrate data from several of its databases to evaluate and

compare the environmental performance of facilities in five

industrial sectors: petroleum refining, iron and steel, pulp mills,

nonferrous metals, and automobile assembly. This Sector

Facility Indexing Project is designed to provide more complete

and accurate information in areas such as production capacity,

toxicity of pollutant releases, compliance history and demographic data pertaining to each facility. In 1996, EPA also began

and will continue an in-depth analysis of compliance problems

at iron and steel mills, based on file data from state, local and

regional agencies and inspector interviews. This study, the Root

Cause Analysis, is designed to highlight recurring problems and

specific patterns of non-compliance – information which will

be useful in developing and improving the Agency’s compliance

and enforcement efforts. Similar analyses will soon be underway

in the nonferrous metals and petroleum-refining sectors. 

Part B International Trafficking 

in Flora and Fauna

BACKGROUND This section describes the fish and

wildlife enforcement program administered under the

United States Department of the Interior by the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the

Department of Commerce.

Conventions/International Agreements/Legislation

The Service relies upon various environmental statutes, regulations, and international treaties to regulate the trade in flora

and fauna. The pertinent statutes not discussed in the 1995

Annex I North American Report on Environmental

Enforcement are: the Bald Eagle Protection Act, which prohibits

all commercial activities and some noncommercial activities

involving Bald or Golden eagles, including their feathers or

parts; the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which establishes a

national responsibility to conserve marine mammals by

establishing a moratorium on the taking and importation of live

marine mammals, their parts and products; and the Wild Bird

Conservation Act, which is a significant new step in international conservation efforts to protect birds subject to trade. The

latter Act focuses on bird species listed in the Appendices to the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora.

The US-Canada Fisheries Enforcement Agreement, signed in

1990, established guidelines for communications, coordination,

and cooperation for dealing with illegal fishing by vessels of each

country in the waters of the other country.

COMPLIANCE PROMOTION AND ENFORCEMENT

ACTIVITIES AND ISSUES The Service and NOAA utilize a

broad range of programs to enforce the provisions of the significant national legislation that controls the import and export of

wildlife and fish or fish products. These include: the designation

of specific ports of entry for wildlife; the staffing of these ports

with wildlife and fisheries inspectors to monitor wildlife and

fish shipments; the licensing of commercial wildlife importers

and exporters; the development of a national computer system

to analyze importation and exportation data; the use of international intelligence to monitor wildlife trade; and cooperation

with national and international government agencies in the

interdiction of illegal wildlife shipments.

Since the early 1970s, the Service has designated only certain

ports of entry for the importation and exportation of wildlife.

This consolidation provides efficient service and reduces

operating costs to the public. In addition to the current total of

12 designated ports, certain ports along the Canadian and

Mexican border have been authorized to accept importations

and exportations of wildlife from these countries. 

The Service also uses various types of outreach approaches to

inform and educate the general public about wildlife trafficking

and the extent of the illegal wildlife trade. Such outreach projects

may entail giving presentations at schools, sportsmen clubs,

customs brokerage associations and nongovernmental organizations. The Service also conducts outreach programs to

address a specific part of a community. For example, recognizing

that the world’s wild tigers and rhinos were perilously close to

extinction, the Service initiated an education program in Los

Angeles concerning the dramatic increase in Asian medicinals

containing parts of endangered species.

To further compliance and enforcement, NOAA Fisheries

Enforcement has begun meetings with Mexico’s Profepa to

explore areas of mutual concern regarding illegal fishery activities.

NOAA Fisheries Enforcement and Profepa also work to enhance

collaboration on a variety of subjects including: specific
enforcement problems; remote sensing and surveillance technologies; and systems to improve communications through

increased information exchanges. 

COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION PROCESS Compliance

verification is a necessary component of monitoring the trade in

fish and wildlife. The Service and NOAA have developed a specialized cadre of professional employees to handle this function.

There are currently 79 wildlife inspectors and 25 fisheries

partrol officers assigned to designated border ports throughout

the United States. 

Wildlife inspectors and NOAA fisheries patrol officers spend a

significant amount of time working in the area of import-export

control. They often work closely with the US Customs Service

to monitor border operations. Duties include the examination

of document packages that accompany shipments, the physical

inspection of the contents of shipments, the proper handling of

seized property and the administrative duties associated with

the inspection and the clearance or seizure of wildlife imports

and exports.

Complementing the fish and wildlife inspection force are the

Service’s 250 Special Agents and NOAA’s 105 Special Agents

stationed at various locations throughout the United States,

Guam, and Puerto Rico. The Special Agents’ activities include:

protecting fisheries resources, marine mammals and endangered

species and their habitat; investigating the illegal use of

contaminants and toxins; investigating complex commercial

conspiracies exploiting wildlife in interstate and foreign commerce; and protecting our migratory birds resources.

Most individuals who import or export wildlife or wildlife

products must file a US Fish and Wildlife Service Form 3-177

(Declaration for Importation or Exportation of Fish or

Wildlife) with the Service at the time of importation or exportation. Also, any wildlife imported from a country regulating its

taking, possession, transportation, exportation or sale has to be

accompanied by documents verifying compliance with that

country’s laws.

ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES In enforcing natural

resource laws, the United States utilizes various enforcement

response options that address a wide array of infractions–from

minor violations to very serious crimes. Such responses can

range from immediate action at ports of entry by Service and

NOAA enforcement personnel to prosecutions for criminal violations by the Department of Justice. For example, fish and

wildlife inspectors can utilize methods of dealing with prohibited

imports of fish and wildlife or fish and wildlife products.

These methods include: refusal of clearance, the offering of

abandonment to the importer, seizure of the contraband, bonded

release of the contraband, and transfer of the import to a

Customs warehouse. In certain situations, the facts surrounding

such encounters are presented to Service special agents who

evaluate the situation for follow up investigation. Such investigation may result in referral to the Department of Interior

Regional Solicitor or NOAA General Counsel for evaluation of

civil penalty proceedings or to the Department of Justice for

evaluation of criminal or civil proceedings.

Recent Cases

• The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Customs

Service conducted a cooperative investigation of an operation

that smuggled neotropical (also called Amazon) parrots from

Central America and Mexico into the United States along the

Rio Grande Valley in Texas. The investigation concluded with

the Department of Justice’s successful prosecution of 12 members of the smuggling ring on felony conspiracy or smuggling

offenses, or endangered Species Act offenses. Together, the

defendants received over 200 months imprisonment and

approximately $27,500 in fines and forfeited birds worth

several hundred thousand dollars.

• The US Fish and Wildlife Service has been conducting a

long-term undercover operation into organized groups which

transported exotic birds or their viable eggs into the United

States from Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and South

America. One of the convictions resulting from the investigation

was: An internationally prominent writer and lecturer on the

plight of endangered parrots in the wild pled guilty to two

federal felonies: conspiring to violate wildlife and customs

laws and filing a false income tax return. He admitted

participating in a conspiracy lasting between 1986 and 1991,

to smuggle or to attempt to smuggle into the United States

various species of protected macaws, parrots and conures

trapped in South America. The birds included more than 50

Hyacinth macaws worth as much as $12,000 each to collectors

in the United States He was sentenced to 82 months

imprisonment and fined $100,000.

• As a result of this action brought by the national government,

a Seattle-based fishing company pled guilty to violating the

Lacey Act by falsifying fish tickets in an attempt to hide the

company’s illegal overcatch of pollock. The defendant was

sentenced to pay a fine of $100,000 and to make a 30-second

public service announcement on television urging others to

comply with the law.

NEXT STEPS Pressure on fish and wildlife resources is

increasing nationally and worldwide. Opportunities for law

enforcement to positively impact these resources are also
United States Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

95

increasing. A primary goal of the Service enforcement initiative

will be to maintain and improve cooperative enforcement

efforts with over 7,500 state and tribal conservation officers to

maximize effectiveness of investigations. Likewise, the Service

and NOAA will continue to solidify cooperative efforts with

foreign enforcement agencies, especially those representing

Canada and Mexico. The Service and NOAA will continue their

efforts to ensure proper utilization of our fish and wildlife

resources from a conservation perspective while aggressively

pursuing those who illegally benefit from illegal fish and

wildlife trade.

REFERENCES

• Compendium of EPA Binational and Domestic US-Mexico

Activities http://www.epa.gov/region09.

• Compliance Assistance Centers and EPA Sector Notebooks

- http://es.inel.gov/oeca/compassi.html

• Cradle-to-Grave Compliance Tracking of U.S./Mexican

Transboundary Hazardous Waste Shipment: The Haztraks

Tracking System, Joseph Schultes, USEPA Region 6, 

Fountain Place, Suite 1200, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202-2733.

• Environmental Justice - www.epa.gov/oeca/oej.html

• FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Accomplishments Report - 

http://es.inel.gov/oeca/accomplish/

• FY 1995 State-By-State Enforcement Data Summaries, 

contact Karen Ashe at (202) 564-4121 at USEPA, 

401 M Street, S.W., Mailcode 2222A, Washington, 

DC 20460.

• OECD Final Rule, 61 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) Fed. Reg. 16290 (April 12, 1996).

• “Operating Principles for an Integrated EPA Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance Program”, US Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, November 27, 1996, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Mailcode: 2201A, Washington, DC 20460.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - http://www.fws.gov. To

obtain FY 1995 Wildlife Inspection Activity, Investigative

Caseload FY 1993 - FY 1995, or Annual Violation Statistics

FY 1993 - FY 1995, contact: Chief, Division of Law

Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. 3247,

Arlington, VA 22203.
Annex: North American Report 

on Environmental Enforcement Appendices

AGREEMENT

Basel Convention on the

Control of Transboundary

Movement of Hazardous

Wastes and their Disposal

(1989)

Hazardous Waste Management

System of the OECD:

Decisions / recommendations

of the Council of 5th June

1986; 27th May 1988; 31st

January 1991; and 12th March

1992.

STATUS

Canada and

Mexico are parties 

to the Convention.

United States has

signed but not ratified the Convention.

Canada is not a party

to the 1995 amendments. 

Canada, Mexico and

the United States are

members of the

OECD.

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES / REQUIREMENTS

• Seeks to reduce the generation and the transboundary movement of

hazardous waste and to ensure environmentally sound management

practices.

• Provides procedures for the import and export of hazardous waste

(Notification and response provisions, tracking documents, duty to

re-import, etc.). 

• Promotes technical cooperation and exchange of information. 

• Bans export of hazardous waste to countries that have prohibited by

law or if there are reasons to believe that the waste will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner.

• Provides that signatories may enter into bilateral, multilateral and

regional agreements for the environmentally sound management of

hazardous waste regarding transboundary movement.

• 1995 amendments ban hazardous waste exports, for disposal and

recycling purposes, from industrialized countries to developing countries as of 31 December 1997.

• 1986 Decision prohibits movements of hazardous wastes to a final

destination in a non-member country without the consent of that

country and the prior notification to any transit countries of the

proposed movements.

• 1988 Decision establishes a classification system for wastes subject to

transfrontier movements: the International Waste Identification

Code (IWIC). The IWIC can be used to designate waste subject to

transboundary movement in the Prior Informed Consent (PIC)

procedure under the Basel Convention.

• 1991 Decision sets guidelines concerning reduction of transfrontier

movements of wastes.

• 1992 Decision on transfrontier movements of wastes destined for

recovery operations within the OECD subjects different types of

recyclable wastes to different levels of control (green list, amber list,

red list). Applies to OECD countries only for hazardous and nonhazardous wastes.

Appendix A Summary of Related International and Bilateral Agreements

Transboundary Movement 

of Hazardous Wastes 
Appendices Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

97

AGREEMENT

Agreement Between 

the Government of Canada

and the Government of the

United States of America 

concerning the Transboundary

Movement of Hazardous Waste

(1986)

Annex III to the Agreement

between the United States 

of America and the United

Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection 

and Improvement of the

Environment in the Border

Area: Agreement of

Cooperation Regarding the

Transboundary Shipment 

of Hazardous Wastes and

Hazardous Substances 

(La Paz Agreement (1987)

STATUS

Canada and

United States 

are parties.

Mexico and

United States 

are signatories.

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES / REQUIREMENTS

• Provides procedures for the export and import of hazardous wastes

(notification and responses provisions, readmission of exports, etc.).

• Each Party will cooperate to ensure that all transboundary shipments

of hazardous waste comply with the applicable legislation of each

country and of the Agreement.

• La Paz Agreement provides for the establishment of an administrative

structure (national coordinator, annual meetings, meetings of

experts, etc.).

• Annex III provides procedures for the export and import of hazardous

wastes (notification and responses provisions, readmission of

exports, etc.). 

• Each Party shall ensure that its domestic laws and regulations are

enforced with respect to transboundary shipments of hazardous

waste and substances and that they cooperate in monitoring transboundary shipments.

• Maquiladora companies must return all generated wastes, when

imported raw material is used, to their countries of origin, and the

exporter country must receive the wastes in accordance with

applicable national policies, laws and regulations.

AGREEMENT

United Nations Convention on

Long-Range Transboundary

Air Pollution (LRTAP) (1979)

Vienna Convention for the

Protection of the Ozone Layer

(1985)

STATUS

Canada and 

United States 

are parties to the

Convention.

Canada, Mexico 

and United States 

are parties to the

Convention.

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES / REQUIREMENTS 

• Promotes the limitation, reduction and prevention of air pollution,

including long-range transboundary pollution, and the development

of policies and strategies to combat the discharge of air pollutants.

• Promotes the cooperation for the exchange of information and the

conduct and review of policies, scientific activities and technical

measures on the discharge of air pollutants.

• Has protocols aimed at reducing transboundary acid rain and smog

through emissions controls on sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOx and VOC.

• Parties must adopt appropriate legislative or administrative measures

and cooperate in harmonizing appropriate policies to control, limit,

reduce or prevent human activities that have or are likely to have

adverse effects on the ozone layer.

• Parties should cooperate in the formulation of agreed measures,

procedures and standards for the implementation of this

Convention and with competent international bodies to implement

this Convention and protocols.

• Parties shall facilitate and encourage the exchange of scientific,

technical, socio-economic, commercial and legal information relevant

to this Convention.

Air Pollution 
AGREEMENT

Montreal Protocol on

Substances that Deplete 

the Ozone Layer (1990)

(Adopted pursuant to the

Vienna Convention)

Agreement between the

Government of the 

United States of America 

and the Government of

Canada on Air Quality (1991)

Agreement between the

United States of America 

and Canada on Great Lakes

Water Quality (1978)

Annex V to the Agreement

between the United States 

of America and the United

Mexican States on

Cooperation for the Protection

and Improvement of the

Environment in the Border

Area: Agreement of

Cooperation Regarding

International Transport 

of Urban Air Pollution 

(La Paz Agreement) (1989)

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES / REQUIREMENTS 

• Progressive ban on import/export of identified substances that

deplete the ozone layer.

• Progressive reduction of consumption and production of identified

substances that deplete the ozone layer.

• Progressive control of trade with non-parties on substances that

deplete the ozone layer.

• Parties must establish specific objectives for emissions limitations

or reductions of air pollutants and adopt the programs and other

measures to implement them.

• Parties shall assess proposed actions and activities that might have a

significant transboundary impact, and notify and consult the other

party on such projects.

• Parties shall cooperate with state and provincial governments to

implement the Agreement.

• Seeks to strengthen efforts to address the contamination of the

Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem by toxic substances which enter from

air, ground water infiltration, sediments and run-off of non-point

sources.

• Provides for General Objectives and the adoption of Specific

Objectives which represent the minimum levels of water quality

desired. More stringent standards can be established by the Parties.

• Parties, in cooperation with state and provincial governments, shall

continue to develop and implement programs and other measures

to fulfill the purpose of the Agreement and the General and Specific

Objectives and shall ensure that water quality standards and other

regulatory requirements of the state and provincial governments are

consistent.

• Provides that the International Joint Commission and joint institutions assist in the implementation of the Agreement. 

• Parties shall develop mechanisms for further international cooperation.

• La Paz Agreement provides for the establishment of an administrative

structure (national coordinator, annual meetings, meetings of

experts, etc.).

• Annex V seeks to ensure a reduction in air pollution concentrations.

• Parties shall study, monitor and compile data on the emissions of

selected pollutants.

• Parties shall jointly explore ways to harmonize, as appropriate, their

air pollution control standards and ambient air quality standards.

Air Pollution 

STATUS

Canada, Mexico 

and United States 

are parties to the

Protocol.

Canada and

United States 

are parties.

Canada and

United States 

are parties.

Mexico and

United States 

are signatories.
Appendices Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

99

AGREEMENT

Framework Convention on

Biological Diversity

(1992)

Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species

of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES) (1973)

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES / REQUIREMENTS 

• Processes and activities which have or are likely to have significant

impacts on the conservation and sustainable use of biological

diversity must be regulated, managed and properly assessed.

• Requires Parties to adopt national strategies, plans, and programs

for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

Parties are to take legislative measures or other measures to facilitate

the access of Parties which provide genetic resources, particularly

developing countries, to technologies making use of the resources.

• Access to genetic resources may be regulated by national legislation.

• Results of research and development and benefits arising from the

commercial and other utilisation of resources must be shared in a

fair and equitable way with the Contracting Party providing the

resources, upon mutually agreed terms.

• Establishes a general obligation for all Parties to provide and facilitate

access to and transfer of particular kinds of technology. Transfer of

technology must be provided on terms which are consistent with

the protection of intellectual property rights.

• Establishes an international scheme for regulating trade in plant and

animal species that are, or may become, threatened with extinction.

• Convention has three appendices which list the regulated species.

Trade in these species is prohibited or strictly controlled.

• Permit and certificate must be issued by the importing or exporting

country, or both, if trade in a particular species is allowed.

• Convention merely directs each party to enforce the treaty and deal

with violations according to applicable domestic laws.

• Enforcement is the responsibility of member States, which are

required to establish Management Authorities and Scientific

Authorities. Custom officers are usually given the task of enforcing

CITES regulations. Governments are also required to submit

reports, including trade records, to the CITES Secretariat.

International Trafficking 

in Flora and Fauna

STATUS

Canada and Mexico

are parties.

Canada, Mexico 

and the United States

are parties.
AGREEMENT

Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) 

establishing the

Canada/Mexico/United States

Trilateral Committee for

Wildlife and Ecosystem

Conservation and Management

(April 1996)

Protocol between the

Government of Canada and

the Government of the United

States of America amending

the 1916 Convention between

the United Kingdom and the

United States of America for

the Protection of Migratory

Birds in Canada and the

United States (1995)

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES / REQUIREMENTS 

• General objective is the conservation of species and the ecosystems

on which they depend by establishing a Trilateral Committee for

Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management to facilitate

and enhance coordination, cooperation and the development of

partnerships among wildlife agencies of the three countries.

• Replaces the Mexico-US Joint Committee on Wildlife and Plant

Protection (1975) and the Tripartite Committee for the

Conservation for the Migratory Birds and Their Habitats (1988).

• Updates the 1916 Convention but reaffirms its purposes and

objectives.

• Seeks to ensure long-term conservation of migratory birds and

migratory bird populations.

• Means to pursue these objectives may include: monitoring, regulation,

enforcement, compliance, cooperation, education, information,

development, sharing and use of best scientific information, etc.

• Provides for the use of aboriginal and indigenous knowledge,

institutions and practices.

• Provides a list of migratory birds included in the terms of the

Convention.

• Convention prohibits or restricts hunting of migratory birds and

prohibits the taking of nests and eggs of migratory birds

• Parties shall take appropriate measures to preserve and enhance the

environment of migratory birds.

• Parties can allow, through a permit system, the killing of some

migratory birds that become seriously injurious. 

International Trafficking 

in Flora and Fauna

STATUS

Canada, Mexico 

and the United States

are parties.

Canada and the

United States are 

signatories.
Appendices Annex: North American Report on Environmental Enforcement

101

Appendix B Permanent North American Working Group on Environmental Enforcement 

and Compliance Cooperation (PWG)

CANADA

Federal

Dale Kimmett

Director of Enforcement

Environment Canada

351 St. Joseph Boulevard

Place Vincent Massey, 17th Floor

Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3

TEL: (819) 953-1523

FAX: (819) 997-0086

Daniel Couture

Deputy Director 

Office of Enforcement

Environment Canada

351 St. Joseph Boulevard

Place Vincent Massey, 17th Floor

Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3

TEL: (819) 953-1173

FAX: (819) 953-3459

Paul Gavrel

Legal Counsel

Legal Services Environment Canada

Department of Justice

351 St. Joseph Boulevard

Place Vincent Massey, 17th Floor

Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3

TEL: (819) 953-0762

FAX: (819) 953-3459

Provincial

Fred Schulte

Director, Pollution Control Division

Alberta Environmental Protection

Oxbridge Place, 11th Floor

9820 - 106th Street

Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6

TEL: (403) 422-2560

FAX: (403) 427-3178

MEXICO

Lic. Javier Cabrera Bravo

Coordinador de 

Asuntos Internacionales

Procuraduría Federal de 

Protección al Ambiente (Profepa)

Periférico Sur 5000

Colonia Insurgentes, Cuicuilco, 

C.P. 04530, Delegación Coyoacán

México, D.F.

TEL & FAX: (525) 528-5515

Lic. Miguel Angel Cancino Aguilar

Jefe de la Unidad de Asuntos Jurídicos

Procuraduría Federal de Protección 

al Ambiente (Profepa)

Blvd. Pipila No. 1, Edificio Principal, P.B.

Tecamachalco, Naucalpan de Juarez

Edo de México C.P. 53950

TEL: (525) 589-0166 OR 589-8311

FAX: (525) 589-4011

Lic. Víctor Ramírez Navarro

Subprocurador

Procuraduría Federal de Protección 

al Ambiente (Profepa)

Periférico Sur 5000

Colonia Insurgentes, Cuicuilco,

C.P. 04530, Delegación Coyoacán

México, D.F.

TEL: (525) 665-0757

FAX: (525) 528-5565

Ing. Carlos González Guzmán

Director de Auditorías y Peritajes

Subprocuraduría de Auditoría Ambiental

Procuraduría Federal de Protección 

al Ambiente (Profepa)

Periférico 5000- 4 piso

Col. Insurgentes, Cuicuilco

C.P. 04530, Deleg. Coyoacán

México, D.F.

TEL: (525) 666-9468

FAX: (525) 666-9460 

Lic. Artemio Roque Àlvarez

Director General 

Procuradoría Federal de Protección 

al Ambiente (Profepa)

Blvd. Pipila No.1, Edificio A, 1er piso

Tecamachalco, Naucalpan de Juarez

Edo de México C.P. 53950

TEL: (525) 294-5576

FAX: (525) 589-4204

UNITED STATES

Federal

Sylvia Lowrance

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator

Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

US Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code 2201

401 M Street SW

Washington, DC 20460

TEL: (202) 564-2450

FAX: (202) 501-3842

Michael S. Alushin

Director, International Enforcement 

and Compliance Division

Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance

US Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code 2254

401 M Street SW

Washington, DC 20460

TEL: (202) 564-7137

FAX: (202) 564-0070

Russell Smith

Attorney

Policy, Legislation & Special 

Litigation Section

US Department of Justice - Room 2136

9th St. and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

TEL: (202) 514-0279

FAX: (202) 514-4231

Carl Mainen

Supervisory Special Agent

Division of Law Enforcement

US Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 3247

4401 North Fairfax Drive, 5th Floor

Arlington, VA 22203

TEL: (703) 358-1949

FAX: (703) 358-2271

State

David W. Ronald

Criminal Division

Office of the Attorney General

State of Arizona

1275 West Washington

Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926

TEL: (602) 542-8505

FAX: (602) 542-5997
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Victor Lichtinger

Executive Assistant

Louise Morgan

Tel: (514) 350-4302

e-mail: lmorgan@ccemtl.org

Directors

Greg Block

Tel: (514) 350-4320

e-mail: gblock@ccemtl.org

Janine Ferretti

Tel: (514) 350-4317

e-mail: jferrett@ccemtl.org

Division Heads

Law and Enforcement

Cooperation

Linda Duncan

Tel: (514) 350-4334

e-mail: lduncan@ccemtl.org

Science Division

Andrew L. Hamilton

Tel: (514) 350-4332

e-mail: ahamilto@ccemtl.org

Capacity Building

Hernando Guerrero

Tel: (514) 350-4321

e-mail: hguerrer@ccemtl.org

Technical Cooperation

Lisa Nichols

Tel: (514) 350-4323

e-mail: lnichols@ccemtl.org

Special Legal Projects 

and Procedures

Marc Paquin

Tel: (514) 350-4324

e-mail: mpaquin@ccemtl.org

Ecosystem Protection

Irene Pisanty

Tel: (514) 350-4335

e-mail: ipisanty@ccemtl.org

NAFTA/Environment

Sarah Richardson

Tel: (514) 350-4336

e-mail: srichard@ccemtl.org

Conservation

Martha Rosas

Tel: (514) 350-4326

e-mail: mrosas@ccemtl.org

Transboundary Issues

Roberto Sánchez

Tel: (514) 350-4331

e-mail: rsanchez@ccemtl.org

Global Strategies and Program

Liaison Coordinator

Cristóbal Vignal

Tel: (514) 350-4333

e-mail: cvignal@ccemtl.org

Communications and Public

Outreach Coordinator

Rachel Vincent

Tel: (514) 350-4308

e-mail: rvincent@ccemtl.org

Information Center Manager

Marcos Silva

Tel: (514) 350-4348

e-mail: msilva@ccemtl.org

NAFEC Coordinator

Janice Astbury

Tel: (514) 350-4353

e-mail: jastbury@ccemtl.org

JPAC Coordinator

Manon Pepin

Tel: (514) 350-4305

e-mail: mpepin@ccemtl.org

Mexico Representative

Beatriz Bugeda

Tel: (525) 661-2061

e-mail: ccamxbb@mpsnet.com.mx

Contracts

Michel Bonnardeaux

Tel: (514) 350-4330

e-mail: mbonnard@ccemtl.org

Administrator

Manuel Pacheco

Tel: (514) 350-4354

e-mail: mpacheco@ccemtl.org

Controller

Jack Person

Tel: (514) 350-4356

e-mail: jperson@ccemtl.org

CEC Secretariat Directory
Disponible en français

Disponible en español

CREDITS

Design

Mosaïc Design Communication Inc.

Prepress 

and Printing

Imprimerie Quebecor Graphique-Couleur

PRINTING INFORMATION 

Paper 

Cover-Rolland Evolution 100 / 160 m, frost

Text-Rolland Evolution 100 / 140 m, frost

The paper used in this annual report is 100% recycled 

with 75% post-consumer fiber

Inks

Vegetable oil based inks containing 

no chlorine or heavy metals

Fountain Solution

No isopropyl alcohol / less than 4% VOCs

Press washes

Low VOC press washes used

Printed in Canada
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

Internet: http://www.cec.org