Jump to main content.

GAC Response Letter, February 16, 2006

February 16, 2007

Plácido dos Santos
Chair, U.S. Governmental Advisory Committee
Border Environmental Manager
Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality
400 W. Congress Street, Suite 521
Tucson, AZ 85701

Dear Mr. dos Santos:

On behalf of Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, I would like to thank you for the Governmental Advisory Committee's (GAC) November 30, 2006 letter reporting on its October 2006 meeting and providing valuable advice to the United States on the CEC Operational Plan for 2007-09. I'd also like to take a moment to thank you personally for your service as chair of the GAC. Your leadership and insights were quite valuable during this important time for the CEC. I wish you much success in your future pursuits.

We appreciate the GAC's advice on the CEC Operational Plan, including specific comments on the projects related to Tracking Pollutant Releases and Transfers in North America; Mapping North American Environmental Issues; Sound Management of Chemicals; Building Local Capacity for Integrated Ecosystem Management, Conservation of Critical Species and Spaces; Encouraging Green Purchasing; and Renewable Energy; and general issues related to the plan and future GAC meetings.

We appreciate your attention to these specific projects, as we requested in the "charge questions" provided before the meeting. We realize that the meeting would have benefited from more detailed information on these projects, and program experts to answer any questions. If we use a similar format for an agenda in the future, we will make sure to provide sufficient materials in advance to provide for a more robust discussion.

Your advice has been considered by our CEC coordinating team, and by U.S. experts and program coordinators, as we conclude the 2007 Operational Plan. The advice will also be considered further as the new Operational Plan takes effect in the coming year. Your comments will also be very helpful as we begin to revise the format and structure of the CEC Operational Plan, in our negotiations for 2008.

On behalf of the EPA Administrator and the United States Government, I am pleased to offer the following response to the GAC's advice:

Tracking Pollutant Releases and Transfers in North America
Thank you for your advice regarding Tracking Pollutant Releases and Transfers in North America. We look forward to addressing your ideas for potential target audiences at your next meeting, as a part of the next meeting's focus on increasing the resonance of the CEC.

Regarding the matter of strengthening emergency response along the U.S.-Mexican border, these activities are undertaken by our EPA colleagues who work on the Mexican border. Annex II of the La Paz Agreement established a Joint Response Team (JRT), which has developed a Joint Contingency Plan (JCP) for cooperative measures for preparing and responding to oil and hazardous substance incidents along the border, including emergency response planning, exercises, and training. More recently, Border 2012 created the Emergency Preparedness and Response Border-Wide Workgroup (BWWG), which is working on a host of activities to improve emergency response on the border. More information on the BWWG's activities can be found at http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/borderwide/emergresponse.html.

In places where data uniformity is lacking, we appreciate your recommendation to report both the information that exists and the information differences, to support informed engagement related to the countries' tracking and reporting systems. The PRTR project, in particular the Action Plan for Comparability and the Taking Stock reports, describes all three country's programs and outlines the commonalities as well as the differences. The Parties and the Secretariat will continue this work.

Mapping North American Environmental Issues
Thank you for your advice on the North American Atlas program. Regarding your request for Environmental Quality Data, our experts responded that the Atlas is at a very early stage. The most important first step for the three mapping organizations involved in its production was to create harmonized frameworks of basic cartographic data sets upon which thematic data (such as environmental quality) could be mapped. This serves as the accurate and reliable foundation for all mapping activities. These frameworks are now complete and available to researchers, and integrated data themes will be the next step.

Currently, environmental quality data are available on a national basis for the three nations, and servers are in place for researchers to find, get, and use these data. We expect the environmental quality data to be mapped by researchers in the Atlas, but without harmonized continental standards. A researcher would, therefore, need to be cautious in comparing this data, as they were gathered using national rather than continental standards. A continental standards activity that would provide consistent and comparable environmental quality data across all three Nations is beyond the scope of the CEC's current efforts. The mapping organizations of the three nations will concentrate their consolidated efforts on maintaining the basic cartographic frameworks while producing new thematic data sets for which harmonized continental standards are available.

Regarding your advice on Metadata, all data contained within the North American atlas are and will be documented in compliance with national and ISO standards. These metadata are prepared in English, Spanish, and French. One cannot download our cartographic data without also downloading its metadata. Users can also review the metadata prior to downloading via National Atlas Web sites in Canada and the United States. Regarding the creation and sustenance of a metadata catalog, this is a good idea but may be beyond the current abilities of the CEC, at least at this early time. All data can currently be found in existing catalogs, including the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Clearinghouse, the Geospatial One Stop, and Canada's Geoconnections. It makes sense to use existing catalogs to promote the discovery and assessment of our data.

In response to your questions about the scalability of the information, the scale of 1:10,000,000 was selected as an ideal scale at which to portray small-scale environmental conditions, patterns, and trends. This is the only scale that has been harmonized across Mexico, the US, and Canada. Our nations have agreed to produce new frameworks data in concert at the scale of 1:1,000,000. This effort will take at least two years to complete. When it's ready, we can offer both 10M and 1M data that cover the continent. Until then, only the smaller-scale data set is available. There is no consistent and comparable data at larger scales for our three countries, and we do not foresee anything beyond 1M data being offered.

Regarding your comments on the use of satellite imagery, we would welcome a more concrete suggestion for use of satellite imagery. A satellite imagery-derived land cover data set will be produced this year. Additionally, both the USGS and the EPA have existing working relationships with Google Earth, and we are not averse to publishing atlas data through other portals when the resources are available to do so.

Thank you for your thoughts about data security and confidentiality. Given the small scale of the data, we feel this is a relatively small concern. However, we recognize that the public right to know is balanced by legitimate national security and privacy concerns. The US atlas program has already demonstrated this concern by removing two data sets from nationalatlas.gov for national security reasons.

We agree with that GAC that there is a need to explore the long-term viability of the program and to determine where the completed Atlas should reside organizationally. We would welcome suggestions from the GAC on this topic.

Sound Management of Chemicals
Thank you for your advice regarding the Sound Management of Chemicals (SMOC). We welcome your ideas and interest in the SMOC project. In terms of your recommendation regarding "Chemical Laboratories in Mexico," let me inform you that representatives from Centro Nacional de Invenstigación y Capacitación Ambiental (CENICA) are an integral part of the SMOC Working Group and, to date, each North American Regional Action Plan (NARAP) has included technical support to laboratories to monitor chemicals of concern.

For example, in some particular cases, like dioxin, the anticipated laboratory needs will depend on the extent of the actual problem. Mexico recently established a dioxin air monitoring network to measure dioxin emissions and obtain a more comprehensive picture of the nature of its dioxin issue. Since Mexico is still collecting and assessing its dioxin data, at this point it is difficult to justify the expenditures associated with maintaining a dioxin laboratory. In the meantime, the U.S. and Canada, through the CEC, are providing Mexico with necessary technical assistance to assess the extent of the dioxin problem; in particular, the U.S. is assisting Mexico in its efforts to take environmental samples and analyze and interpret laboratory results.

One of the key components of the work under the Monitoring and Assessment NARAP is the long-term sustainability of the CEC activities; therefore, SMOC will be interested in ensuring that laboratories have the needed equipment and that there is a host country commitment for its continued use and maintenance within a larger national policy on environmental monitoring. Once the SMOC is able to analyze the Mexican dioxin data (expected in 2-3 years), Mexico and the CEC will be in a better position to determine the need for additional laboratory capacity.

Thank you for your encouragement regarding the stakeholders consultation currently planned for the week of April 16 in Monterrey, Mexico. We welcome project proposals from all stakeholders in the four proposed concept areas that constitute the new SMOC direction, including:

We invite you to visit the CEC web site where more information regarding the Spring meeting will be posted, as soon as it is available. We hope GAC members will be able to participate in the meeting or send their comments or proposals.

Finally, with respect to your last recommendation, please note that the U.S. Government Accountability Office produced the document GAO-06-217R "Chemical Regulation: Approaches in the United States, Canada and the European Union" (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06217r.pdf) (22 pp, 368K, About PDF). While there are many differences among these regulatory approaches, the fundamental issue in North America is to have a compatible management system among Canada, U.S. and Mexico. To this end, the new direction of SMOC is developing projects to "Establish a foundation for chemicals management in North America," with the aim to increase the comparability of chemical management protocols among the three countries by developing internationally recognized chemical management instruments. Our first project in this area is to provide technical assistance to Mexico to develop an inventory of chemicals that would provide Mexico with information on chemical identity, volume and use information. Such an inventory is one of the policy instruments that a country can select for its national chemicals management regime, which can influence its ability to respond to concrete problems affecting its population and the quality of its environment, as recommended by the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC), which includes UNEP, ILO, FAO, WHO, UNIDO and OECD. A Mexican inventory would assist in the identification of chemicals of common concern and protocols to share information on chemicals assessment and management.

Building Local Capacity for Integrated Ecosystem Managemet, Conservation of Critical Species and Spaces

Thank you for your advice that the CEC's biodiversity efforts be increasingly focused on species that migrate broadly throughout North America. The CEC's current project involves the implementation of North American Conservation Action Plans for humpback whales, the leather back turtle and the pink-footed shearwater; all are migratory species. A project on the monarch butterfly was approved for 2007, as well. As we make progress on these projects, the Parties will continue to evaluate opportunities for the conservation of shared biodiversity and their habitats in the context of trade and environment.

We appreciate your advice on Mexico's need for forensic biological laboratories for enhanced wildlife management. The CEC's project on "Strengthening Wildlife Enforcement" has a small project on forensic laboratories, to review and update the publication "North American Wildlife Forensic Laboratories," jointly published by the CEC and the North American Wildlife Enforcement Group (NAWEG). This project is intended to provide up-to-date and accurate information on this topic for others to use. No further work is planned on this item at this time, but we have shared your advice with the relevant experts for them to consider for the future.

Thank you for your advice on the value and importance of viewing human existence as being intertwined and inextricably linked to the conservation of species and ecosystems. We agree that information and education about the human/environment interaction and its impacts is critical to advance the work of the Parties and the CEC. The U.S. is exploring ideas currently to improve outreach and communication to various audiences and stake holders.

In addition, we are looking forward to more involved participation from North American indigenous representatives in the work of the CEC and our outreach and communication activities. Indigenous representatives are currently involved in the PRTR project and have expressed their interest in participating in other projects, such as the Renewable Energy and the Harnessing Market Forces projects. It is our intent to continue to engage indigenous representatives in all our work program projects, including biodiversity projects. Several of these projects offer opportunities to explore economic sustainability and preservation.

Building Local Capacity for Integrated Ecosystem Managemet, Conservation of Critical Species and Spaces
Thank you for your advice regarding biofuels. The current renewable energy priorities identified by the Parties and Mexico are to determine the potential for a renewable electricity market in Mexico and to explore the potential for trade of renewable electricity or its environmental benefits across the NAFTA countries. As we achieve our current goals and resources permit, we can explore opportunities for other fuels and their related trade and environmental benefits.

Biofuels and ethanol are not addressed by the current renewable energy project. One of our criteria for CEC projects is that the project be a priority for the three Parties. In the United States, ethanol is clearly a priority, but we do not know the position of the Mexican government on this issue. Therefore, our first step will be a discussion with our Mexican colleagues to understand their perspective on this issue, and to see if further activity is appropriate.

Other Issues
Thank you for your advice in regard to the CEC's Operational Plan. We agree with your recommendation that the Plan cite more deliverables and planned outcomes in its project description, and we are working to integrate these items and continuing to encourage the Secretariat to use these guidelines to strengthen their planning processes.

Regarding your recommendation for the CEC to create a public-friendly Annual Report, currently each party submits its own portion of the report, and the differences in styles and length, as well as time taken to prepare the report, presents certain challenges. We agree with your assessment and recommendation, and we will raise this item with the other parties. When the State of the Environment project reaches a point at which data may be shared, it may also be referenced in the report - but this data will likely be shared on a periodic basis, rather than annually.

Thank you for your recommendation for integrating CEC work with EPA's Border 2012 program. We recognize the opportunity for synergy between these two programs. To that end, we have recently held a meeting to explore how we can build relationships with our colleagues and related programs both on the Mexico border, and in Canada. We will continue to explore this connection and the best ways to share work and create synergies in the coming year.

Finally, thank you for your recommendation that the United States begin outreach with interstate environmental alliances such as the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. We are planning to schedule a meeting with ECOS in the near future.

Preparations for your Next Meeting
In preparation for your next meeting, thank you for your suggestions for topics and activities of interest to the GAC. We recognize that you valued the opportunity to engage the new CEC Executive Director, Adrian Vazquez. We also appreciated his presence, and recognize that it was useful for the NAC and GAC to hear his vision. We will continue to invite the Executive Director and Secretariat staff to participate in NAC-GAC meetings, and to provide the updates you requested, in the future.

We are interested in working with the GAC and the NAC in the proposed "visioning session" for your spring meeting. I have attached our working proposal for this session, and I hope the GAC will have the opportunity to work with EPA to provide feedback and develop an effective agenda for this meeting.

As always, the United States appreciates the advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee, which is helping us to build a cleaner, healthier, and more sustainable North American environment for future generations. We look forward to seeing you at your Spring meeting.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Judith E. Ayres
Alternate Representative for the United States of America

cc:

M. Dolores Wesson, Chair, U.S. National Advisory Committee
Carlos Sandoval Olvera, Chair, Joint Public Advisory Committee
Members of the U.S. Governmental Advisory Committee
 

 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.