Advice Letter June 17, 2003

Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation

June 17, 2003

The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Governor Whitman:

      The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to the U.S. Representative to the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) met in Washington, D.C. on May 8 and 9, 2003. This meeting marked a transition in the membership of the GAC, as eight new members have been appointed since our last meeting. This letter provides recommendations for this year’s Council Session.
Since our meeting, we have learned about your resignation as EPA Administrator and we would like to thank you for your attention and dedication to the GAC during your tenure. We would also like to wish you the best in your future endeavors. As the Council Session approaches, we look forward to meeting with you in Washington, D.C.
      The GAC would like to compliment EPA for its organizational efforts and valuable resources that were provided during the course of our two day meeting. The speakers made available to us were of the highest caliber and quality, providing a most informative approach to the different and varied components of the CEC’s work. Their presentations provided us with a wealth of information that served as a useful springboard from which to frame our advice in this letter. EPA staff clearly used its resources diligently to assure that the best possible experts were available with minimal notice, and the GAC strongly applauds their superior effort on this score.
      We would like to praise the Secretariat for its efforts to develop a strong strategic plan for the Commission for Environmental Cooperation via the program planning, monitoring, and evaluation process, as well as the ten-year review of the NAAEC. The GAC believes that with its limited resources, the CEC should focus on thinking strategically, bringing constituents together to share strategies, and encouraging other groups to move specific CEC priorities forward. As a catalyst for new ideas and the development of a North American constituency, the CEC is poised to be an agent of positive change and innovation in North America. However, the CEC could be more efficient in its work if it allows other groups to carry on the policy recommendations developed by the CEC. A continued theme throughout our advice letter is for the CEC to make use of the existing institutions carrying out similar environmental goals.
      We look forward to the announcement on the new CEC Executive Director. Although Mr. Vic Shantora has been performing an excellent job as Acting Executive Director, we believe it is important that the new Executive Director be in place as soon as possible. We think the new Executive Director should be intimately involved in the CEC’s internal planning, monitoring, and evaluation process, as well as in the ten-year review of the NAAEC.
      We hope our recommendations are useful in developing the final agenda for this year’s Council Session. Our advice on seven specific areas is attached to this cover letter, and we look forward to your response to our advice. We are ready to assist you as you continue your deliberations on the Council Session outcomes.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Denise Ferguson-Southard
Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee

Attachments

cc: Judith Ayres, Assistant Administrator for International Activities
     John Knox, Chair, U.S. National Advisory Committee
     Gustavo Alanis-Ortega, Chair, Joint Public Advisory Committee
     Jean Perras, Chair, Canadian National Advisory Committee
     Mexican National Advisory Committee
     Members of the U.S. Governmental Advisory Committee

Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation

GAC Advice No. 2003-1: Children’s Health

First, the GAC would like to extend its endorsement of the Cooperative Agenda for Children’s Health and urge Council to approve and commit to populating the set of indicators of children’s health and the environment in North America.

We reviewed the list of indicators in the publication titled, Recommendations for the Development of Children’s Health and the Environment Indicators in North America , and we think the indicators are appropriate for North America and could set the stage for better health decisions. However, we recommend that under the “water-borne diseases priority area” there be a criteria for measuring the number of children that depend on subsistence fishing in water bodies which exceed metal standards and their propensity to develop high levels of mercury or lead in their bloodstream. The subsistence fishing criteria is very important in determining the health of our most disadvantaged “at risk” populations, such as poor rural and urban children.

On another note, the GAC sees a need to improve the flow of information between environmental regulatory agencies and public health entities related to children’s health. For example, the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) has formed a working group to encourage more data flow between local and state health organizations and state environmental agencies to ensure that health protection, particularly in children is maximized. ECOS is also working with the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers (ASTHO) to increase data sharing. In addition, we would also encourage the CEC to work with the Indian Health Service Office under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to facilitate information exchanges regarding Indian children’s health statistics. The idea of sharing information between these agencies could be added to the Children’s Health Indicators Report.
We also recommend that the CEC indicators develop synergy with other state indicator projects such as the Environmental Protection Indicators for California Project (EPIC), being developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). EPIC is a collaborative effort of Cal/EPA, the Resource Agency, the Department of Health Services and external advisory groups consisting of representatives from business, public interests groups, academia and local governments.
Finally, the GAC supports the initiative to examine risk assessment processes by targeting specific chemicals, such as lead, mercury, or a pesticide, and examining their effects on the environment and children ’s health.

Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation

GAC Advice No. 2003-2: Strategic Plan for North American Cooperation in the Conservation of Biodiversity

We reviewed the 5th Draft of the Strategic Plan for North American Cooperation in the Conservation of Biodiversity and urge Council to approve it. However, during our meeting, we were left with the impression that there might be an overlap in responsibilities between the recommendations of the Biodiversity and Conservation Working Group (BCWG) and the functions of the Trilateral Committee. We recommend that an evaluation be made to assess whether the Trilateral Committee might be positioned to take the lead on the biodiversity strategy and allow the CEC to contribute to its efforts. The GAC in general believes in using current institutional frameworks that already exist rather than creating new ones. Therefore, we think there should be better coordination among the CEC and the Trilateral Committee in order to maximize resources.

We understand there was a joint meeting held between the BCWG and the Trilateral Committee at the end of April 2003. We encourage similar meetings in the future. We think these types of joint meetings will enhance coordination and prevent duplication of efforts. It is our hope that these two groups will eventually be working on various elements of a single North American strategy for the conservation of biodiversity.

Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation

GAC Advice No. 2003-3: Options for a CEC Role in the Sustainable Use
and Conservation of Freshwater

We reviewed the Draft Options for a CEC role in the Sustainable Use and Conservation of Freshwater in North America , and have several comments and recommendations.

Under project one: Affordable Techniques to Restore Aquatic Ecosystems, the rationale suggests looking at “creation of new water for human uses and for restoration,” but the examples given all focus on water conservation. The problem seems to be a lack of focus and unclear identification of the specific target projects in terms of restoration or improving water management. We recommend that the focus be on better utilization and maximization of the water supply for all purposes, including the goal of restoration. The sentence that captures our idea is on page 16 of the document, which states that “ the emphasis is on techniques that create new water for both future human uses and water for environmental restoration....”

Under project two: Sustainable Watershed Management, we think the problem of contamination from agricultural runoff is not being adequately addressed. Agricultural practices play an important role in watershed management. All forms of runoff pollution from non-point sources in a watershed should be mentioned as an issue.

In addition, we recommend that any discussion of freshwater protection needs to also address the issue of salt water intrusion in coastal areas as a result of rising sea levels due to climate change.

Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation

GAC Advice No. 2003-4: North American Air Working Group

We understand the resolution on the North American Air Working Group , was established to provide guidance to the Council and facilitate future cooperation on air-related issues. Furthermore, the Group is to conduct a comparative study of the air quality standards, regulations, planning, and enforcement planning of the national, state, and local levels in the three countries. We fully support the creation of this working group and its mission.

However, we are concerned that the group has not met yet. We recommend that the Air Working Group meet and move forward rapidly so it can target and prioritize its activities. We recommend focusing on analyzing regulatory differences between countries, especially Mexico and the U. S., in the mobile sources of air pollution. While harmonization of the standards would be ideal, identifying the effects of existing inconsistencies in regulations between the countries should be the first step.

We also continue to support broad-base involvement of state, tribal, and local governments on both the U.S.-Mexico and US-Canada border. We recommend discussions on how to implement, at the local level, air pollution and fuel emission standards that are proposed at the national level. On the U.S.-Mexico border we recommend turning to existing organizations such as the: 1) Western Governors Association and in particularly the Western Regional Air Partnership group; 2) the El Paso del Norte Airshed Joint Advisory Committee, which includes state and local officials from Texas, New Mexico, and the Mexican state of Chihuahua; and 3) the informal organization of the environmental commissioners from each of the ten U.S./Mexico border states (“the Ten State Group”). In the U.S.-Canadian border we support the inclusion of other regional entities that are addressing the issues of transboundary air pollution.

Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation

GAC Advice No. 2003-5: Environmental Enforcement Working Group

We are very supportive of the development of a long-term strategic vision for the North American Working Group on Environmental Enforcement and Compliance Cooperation and look forward to receiving a draft copy for review and comment. Given the importance of enforcement and compliance, we have several recommendations for strengthening the CEC’s work in this area.

We think it is very important that the enforcement and compliance program plan include collaboration with the U.S. and Canadian Regional Environmental Enforcement Associations, which are alliances of regulatory and law enforcement from 48 states, two U.S. Territories and four Canadian Provinces. The Associations promote the effective enforcement of state and local environmental statutes and regulations, with a strong emphasis on criminal enforcement. In addition, they provide state and local environmental enforcement professionals with a forum for training and networking, and with formal mechanisms for the exchange of information. For more information see: www.regionalassociations.org

Furthermore, the CEC FY 2004-05 program plan shows budgetary support for a variety of public meetings. We would recommend that one of the meetings be with these regional environmental enforcement associations. In the criminal enforcement area, capacity-building could be enhanced by cross jurisdictional training.

Finally, the GAC supports efforts to follow-up on Article 14-15 factual records. The EWG could study how factual records affect changes in compliance and enforcement in the North American landscape. In the past, we think bringing the facts to light via the citizens submission process has resulted in some governmental changes.

Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation

GAC Advice No. 2003-6: Environment and Trade

Under the rubric of environment and trade we have several recommendations. First, we continue to support the development of an agenda for a potential Environment and Trade Ministerial meeting.
Secondly, we support the National Advisory Committee’s proposal on facilitating the approval of technologies with environmental benefits. We support having the NAFTA parties work together to speed up the regulatory process so that there could be quicker and wider adoption of new technologies. We recommend studying existing certification schemes for new technologies under the Green Goods and Services project of the CEC’s work program and finding opportunities for reciprocity among the three countries.

Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation

GAC Advice No. 2003-7: Articles 14-15 Citizen Submissions

The GAC supports submissions being processed expeditiously on their individual merit so that the citizen submission process lives up to its fullest potential as contemplated by the NAAEC. The GAC believes there is still a need to determine what the appropriate follow-up will be after the issuance of a factual record, consistent with the Joint Public Advisory Committee’s outstanding advice to Council on the Articles 14 and 15 processes. After reviewing resolution 00-09 it seems that if Council is not following the resolution, then the issue should be revisited.

Advice Letter June 17, 2003

Local Navigation