GAC Advice Letter October 25, 2004

October 25, 2004

The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Administrator Leavitt:

The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to the U.S. Representative to the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) met on October 14 and 15, 2004, in Washington, D.C. It is my pleasure to submit to you the following report from our meeting. This letter provides advice on three major topics: 1) the Draft Strategies based on Puebla Pillars, 2) the Draft U.S. Government Criteria and Template for Assessing CEC projects, and 3) on increasing private and public participation in the CEC.

First, we would like to express our appreciation to all of the government officials who organized and provided valuable information on the CEC’s work from EPA’s Office of Cooperative Environmental Management and the various presenters from the Office of International Affairs, and from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the State Department. The information they provided was very useful in developing our advice. Doug Wright’s presentation on behalf of the CEC Secretariat was also very useful in understanding the current status of the Operational Plan and the CEC’s strategic direction. We would also like to thank the Joint Public Advisory Committee for participating in our meeting. In addition, we would like to thank EPA for involving the committees in the discussions leading to the various Alternate Representative meetings this Fall aimed at operationalizing the pillars in the Puebla Declaration.

We spent most of our time discussing the current status of the three strategies being developed by the trilateral working groups, i.e., the strategies for trade and environment, capacity building, and information for decision-making. Because the Alternative Representatives to the CEC Council will be discussing the five year strategy on October 27th, we were encouraged to provide an immediate response. As a result, we provided EPA a two-page draft response at the close of our meeting, on October 15.

We look forward to returning to these issues as they continue to be considered by the U.S. government. In particular, we welcome Jerry Clifford’s suggestion that he might hold a conference call to discuss the outcomes of the Alternative Representatives’ meeting in October.

We hope our advice is useful in developing the CEC 2005 Operational Plan and the CEC Strategy for the next five years.

Sincerely,

Stephen M. Mahfood, Chair
Governmental Advisory Committee

cc: Judith Ayres, Assistant Administrator for International Affairs
     Jerry Clifford, Deputy Assistant Administrator for International Affairs
     John Knox, Chair, U.S. National Advisory Committee
     Donna Tingley, Chair, Joint Public Advisory Committee
     Jean Perras, Chair, Canadian National Advisory Committee
     Members of the U.S. Governmental Advisory Committee:

Charles Collette	Sarah D. Lile
Michael Colvin	James R. Matz
Lisa Gover	Ricardo Martinez
Robert Huston	Harvey Rubin
Karl Kalbacher	Placido Dos Santos
	Colin Soto

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

Advice 2004-5: Response to Draft Strategies based on Puebla Pillars

The Committee was very pleased with all the hard work that has gone into the development of the strategies for trade and environment, capacity building, and information for decision-making. We commend the Alternate Representatives and the trilateral working groups for developing a first draft. However, we consider the goals and objectives in draft form and so would like to refrain from providing specific advice. We hope to see a more cohesive goal statement for all the three strategies before commenting more extensively. Currently, our advice would be to spend more time developing the five year CEC strategy and then ensure that the goals and objectives fit the larger strategy. Below is our advice for focusing each of the three strategies.

We recognize that the trade and environment strategy has heightened trilateral sensitivities. The GAC supports the six elements contained in the Puebla Declaration under trade and environment. In addition, the committee recommends that the strategy address issues that are at the core of the trade and environment nexus. Some of this issues include: promotion of clean fuels, assessing the environmental effects of power plants in North America, water management, and hazardous waste management, treatment, storage, and disposal.

Under the Capacity Building Strategy, the GAC strongly recommends that the CEC’s Operational Plan for 2005 include a comprehensive review of available mechanisms (i.e., business sector, universities, technical schools, local governments, NGO’s, media etc.) for achieving the capacity building strategy. A comprehensive review will allow the CEC to take advantage of current resources already available. Since most of the economic boom in Mexico has occurred in the border, the GAC recommends that the U.S. support creating a capacity building model project in the U.S.-Mexico border region. We believe the principal focus of the pilot projects should be their stated rationale, which should be strongly supported, emphasized and implemented with strong community and financial support. The CEC should not be the driver but the convener of capacity-building activities.

We support the development of the information for decision-making strategy. We think the standardization of environmental data throughout North America is a worthwhile goal. The CEC has done extensive work on this area in the past, i.e., attempting to merge OECD environmental indicators with those in the CEC’s State of the Environment report. Therefore, we recommend reviewing the previous work done by the CEC on the Annual Reports and on the State of the Environment Report to ensure building on previous investment on this topic.

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

Advice 2004-6: Response to Draft U.S. Government Criteria & Template
for Assessing CEC Activities/Projects

The draft U.S.G. criteria presented to us at the meeting were very thoughtfully crafted and we applaud EPA’s staff for their hard work. However, the GAC recommends streamlining the criteria. The committee recommends:

Criteria #1 stay the same. “#1 Activity/project falls within the scope of the three pillars as described in the Puebla Declaration”
Criteria 2, 3, and 4 be combined since they represent the foundation of activities. The new criteria would read as follows: “ Activity/project fits within the priorities of the three strategic plans, encompasses a North American view, and has the support of all or most Parties to the NAAEC.
Criteria #8, become #3. We recommend adding whether a bilateral organization, a state/province, tribe or other institution and entity could undertake the project. The new criteria would read as follows: Identity whether the CEC or another bilateral organization, state, tribe or other institution is the best-suited forum to deal with the issue addressed by the activity/project.
Criteria #7 become #4 and replace “coordinates” with “collaborates with other relevant institutions and entities.” The new criteria would read as follows: Activity/project collaborates with other relevant institutions and entities.
Criteria #5 be changed by adding “clear concrete …timeframe, and “sufficient funding will be committed for completion.” The new criteria would read as follows: Activity/project demonstrates clear concrete action, will produce results within a set time-frame, and sufficient funding will be committed for completion.
Criteria #6 leave as is, since this criteria is important for making sure projects are SMART i.e., Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic and Time-bound.
#6 Secretariat’s role in terms of the activity project is a catalyzing one. The Secretariat is facilitating the work and not implementing it, and the activity/project will either be concluded or transferred within a set-time frame.
Criteria #9 becomes #7. Modify by adding “the beneficiary, and how the capacity building will be institutionalized i.e., to ensure longevity and incorporation into the larger society.” The new criteria would read as follows: The activity/project is developing capacity in Mexico and identifies the capacity it is building, the beneficiary, and how the capacity building will be institutionalized i.e., to ensure longevity and incorporation into the larger society.”
Criteria #10 stays the same and becomes #8. “The capacity created is institutional and not individual.”

On a related note, he GAC believes it is premature to address the Template for Reorganizing under the New CEC Pillars, given that the CEC Five Year Strategy has not been completed and that the criteria discussed above is not yet completed.

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

Advice 2004-7: Increasing Private and Public Participation in the CEC

The GAC supports including the private sector, NGO’s, academia and other institutions and entities into the development of the three Puebla Pillars. Furthermore, at the request of EPA, the Committee would be interested in hosting a meeting with representatives from the public and private sectors to develop a framework and identify partners for developing a capacity building strategy for the CEC. We realize this requires prior funding approval and considerable planning.

GAC Advice Letter October 25, 2004

Local Navigation