![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Advice Letter October 28, 2003
Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
October 28, 2003
The Honorable Marianne L. Horinko
Acting Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Acting Administrator Horinko:
The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to the U.S. Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) met in Washington, D.C. on October 9 and 10, 2003. It is my pleasure to submit to you the following report from our meeting. This letter provides advice on five major issues: 1) the Operational Plan of the CEC 2004-2006, 2) the five initial U.S. strategic priorities, 3) the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Environmental Working Groups, 4) the ten-year retrospective review of the CEC, and 5) the Articles 14-15 citizen's submission procedures.
First, we would like to congratulate you on your appointment as the Acting EPA Administrator and wish you the best in your new position. We also want to commend EPA for its significant contribution to the selection of Dr. William Kennedy as the new Executive Director of the CEC. We met Dr. Kennedy for the first time at our meeting and were very impressed with his credentials, but more importantly, with his plans to lead the Secretariat in a very strategic manner. In addition, the GAC would like to compliment EPA for its organizational efforts and thank you for the valuable resources that were provided during the course of our two day meeting. The speakers 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.
We hope our recommendations are useful in developing the final U.S. position on the 2004-06 Operational Plan of the CEC. Our advice is attached to this cover letter. We look forward to your response. As always, we are ready to assist you as you prepare for your trilateral deliberations.
Sincerely,
Stephen Mahfood, 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
Daiva Balkus, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
Jean Perras, Chair, Canadian National Advisory Committee
Mexican National Advisory Committee
Members of the U.S. Governmental Advisory Committee
Members of the U.S. National Advisory Committee
Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
GAC Advice No. 2003-8: CEC 2004-06 Operational Plan
Overall, the GAC strongly supports the Secretariat's new strategic approach and vision for its 2004-2006 Operational Plan. It would have been better to have the full final draft of the Operational Plan prior to our meeting. However, given that we had the September 26th draft and the able presence of Dr. Kennedy at our discussions, we feel comfortable endorsing the framework of the Secretariat's strategic direction. Upon receiving the completed draft we may provide further advice.
The GAC supports the concept of the CEC being a catalyst, convener, and coordinator of North American environmental initiatives. As we said in our previous letter, "we believe that with its limited resources, the CEC should focus on thinking strategically, bringing constituents together to share and develop strategies, and encouraging other groups to move specific CEC priorities forward. As a catalyst ... the CEC could be most effective in its work if it allows other groups to carry on the policy recommendations developed by the CEC," particularly as programs become operationally mature.
In addition, we strongly support goal #1 in the CEC planning framework, objective "b," with the target of "developing a plan to increase communication with trade agencies and the Free Trade Commission." We recommend the new Executive Director of the CEC make contact with the senior government officials of the Free Trade Commission to discuss opportunities for greater collaboration. (See advice 2003-03 for specific recommendations).
Lastly, in reviewing the draft Operational Plan we noticed the term "indigenous peoples," in various sections. The GAC would recommend that the Secretariat not refer to Tribal Governments as "indigenous peoples." We prefer the use of the term "tribal governments" or "first nations " in CEC publications.
Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
GAC Advice No. 2003-9: U.S. Government Five Strategic Goals
During our meeting, Jerry Clifford, Assistant Deputy Administrator for EPA's Office of International Activities, representing Ms. Judith E. Ayres, the U.S. Alternate Representative, charged the committee with providing advice on five major U.S. priorities for the CEC which include:
• Preserving North American biodiversity;
• Protecting children's health and the environment;
• Reducing risks from toxics;
• Promoting and enhancing environmental enforcement and compliance and;
• Enhancing the linkages between trade and environment in North America.
The GAC endorses the five U.S. priorities in principle. However, we would like to see a more substantive distillation of them. In addition, the GAC believes "sustainable use and conservation of freshwater resources" should be another U.S. priority in the CEC's work. In our June 17th letter, we recommended that the water focus be on "better utilization and maximization of the water supply for all purposes, including the goal of restoration." We also support looking at how agricultural practices play a role in watershed management.
In reflecting further on the U.S. Government priority setting process, we recommend that EPA engage the U.S. interagency group in a strategic planning process similar to the one being conducted by the CEC Secretariat to develop specific goals and objectives, targets, and actions, for each of the U.S. priorities. We think that EPA, and in particular the Office of International Affairs, as the U.S. Representative to the CEC, should provide more resources and staff to coordinate the work of the CEC with the rest of the U.S. Government. As the U.S. lead for the CEC, we believe EPA could benefit from a renewed and robust interagency process dealing with the CEC portfolio.
Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
GAC Advice No. 2003-10: NAFTA Environmental Working Groups
At our meeting we received briefings on the status of four NAFTA Technical Working Groups: 1) the Technical Working Group on Pesticides (TWG), 2) the Committee on Standards and Related Measures (CSRM), 3) the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (CSPS), and 4) the Automotive Standards Council (ASC). The presentations were very informative and timely given the current review of the ten-year anniversary of the NAAEC, which includes an assessment of the environmental effects of the NAFTA. We want to congratulate our federal government for all the important work being done to harmonize so many crucial issues, such as the registering of pesticides in the TWG, fuel and heavy duty standards in the ASC and food safety requirements in the CSRM and the CSPS.
First, we recommend that the work of the NAFTA technical working groups be closely coordinated with relevant CEC programs and vice-versa. For example, the work of the ASC which is concentrating on harmonizing fuel and heavy-duty diesel engines in North America could benefit by reviewing the CEC's research on air quality in the NAFTA trade corridors. The ASC could also benefit from coordination with the North American Air Working Group, which was established to provide guidance to the Council and facilitate future cooperation on air-related issues. The mandate of the Air Group includes conducting a comparative study of the air quality standards, regulations, planning, and enforcement at the national, state, and local levels in the three countries.
Secondly, we recommend that Mexico's environmental officials attend the ASC meetings. We were informed that the ASC normally meets without the participation of SEMARNAT officials. We also recommend that during the Alternate Representative meeting in Montreal the U.S. raise the importance of Mexico's participation in the United Nations Working Party 29, where most of the international environmental fuel and engine standards are being discussed.
In conclusion, we learned at our meeting that the NAFTA Free Trade Commission (FTC) does not have a secretariat like the CEC Secretariat in Montreal. Consequently, we recommend that the FTC take advantage of the CEC's infrastructure to publicize the NAFTA environmental technical working group meeting dates, agendas and minutes. In addition, it would be helpful to make the group's terms of reference and guidelines for public comments available. The CEC has good public participation guidelines that could serve as a model for the FTC Ministerial meetings and the technical working group meetings. Increased transparency in the working groups could assist in demystifying the NAFTA processes, which do not seem to have robust public participation procedures. In short, the CEC could be used as a megaphone for announcing the great work being done on the upward harmonization of standards in North America.
Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
GAC Advice No. 2003-11:Ten-Year Review of the CEC
We were very pleased to have both Jennifer Haverkamp and John Mizroch, the U.S. members of the Ten-Year Review and Assessment Committee (TRAC), at our meeting. They were instrumental in providing us information on the TRAC's mandate, specific tasks, and time-line. We would like to applaud the Council for creating such an important committee given the ten-year anniversary of the NAFTA and the NAAEC. We feel reassured that the document, including an assessment of the environmental effects of NAFTA, will be reviewed thoroughly by the Council, JPAC, and the entire North American public prior to its publication at the June Council Session in Mexico.
Although we commend you for the extraordinary task given to the TRAC, we think the time-line is quite ambitious. We recommend the TRAC execute a complete review of the literature, since quite a few academics and think-tanks have been engaged in assessing the ten-year operation of the NAFTA and its environmental and labor side agreements. We recommend interviewing past CEC Executive Director's and NAFTA experts, and holding open public meetings in the U.S., Canada and Mexico to allow for public input.
Governmental Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Representative to the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
GAC Advice No. 2003-12: Articles 14-15 Citizen Submissions Process
We had a very productive session on the Articles 14-15 Citizen Submission procedures with representatives of the U.S. Government and the CEC Secretariat staff. From the GAC's perspective, the citizen's submission process has a great "public sunshine" value. Its light shines the brightest with the production of factual records, therefore the process should be operated in an efficient and timely manner with ample opportunity for public participation.
First, we would like to reiterate JPAC's view that "Articles 14 and 15 of the NAAEC plays a unique and indispensable role in fostering vigorous environmental enforcement but that it is still a source of much frustration for the North American public." We recommend that the implementation of this process be more timely, open, accountable and effective, and be followed by concrete follow-up through CEC programs.
The GAC will also stay involved in the JPAC's public comment period that started October 1, 2003 with the call to review: (a) the matter of limiting the scope of factual records, including recent decisions into interpreting what constitutes "sufficient" information to support an allegation of failure to enforce; and (b) reviewing the operation of Council Resolution 00-09 concerning the implementation and further elaboration of this citizen submission process.
Finally, per our June 17th advice letter, the GAC continues to support efforts from the Enforcement Working Group (EWG) 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. As in the past, we think bringing the facts to light via the citizens submission process has resulted in some important governmental changes.