FEATURE
Profiling the Commission for Environmental Cooperation By facilitating cooperation and public participation, the organization is fostering conservation, protection, and enhancement of the North American environment. DEBORAH
SCHOEN
I
n the course of the fast-track negotiations for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1991, the environmental consequences of liberalized trade emerged as a pivotal issue in the ratification of the agreement, leading to what became known as the "greening of NAFTA." Negotiators i n c l u d e d provisions intended to prevent backsliding on domestic environmental standards and to discourage the proliferation of pollution havens—regions attracting industry because of lax environmental regulation or enforcement. In addition, ratification of NAFTA by Mexico, the United States, and Canada became conditional upon the negotiation and adoption of a sideinitiative, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). NAAEC provided the means to address environmental problems with causes and consequences transcending national borders. The institution created to implement NAAEC provisions is the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) Two responsibilities of the CEC specified by NAAEC—investigating citizen complaints regarding nonenforcement of environmental standards and assessing environmental effects of liberalized trade— have led the press to refer to the commission as the NAFTA environmental watchdog agency. Although the moniker is not entirely inappropriate, it implies an adversarial role that the commission strives to avoid. With respect to such issues as transboundary chemical management, long-range atmospheric transport of pollutants (see Figure 1), or conservation of biodiversity, for example, CEC managers underline the commission's role as a convener of diverse interests and expertise as a clearinghouse for reliable information and as a catalyst for action rather than an enforcement body. Following the ratification of NAAEC in 1994, many observers regarded the CEC as an important opportunity to advance environmental protection in North America (1-3). Five years later, the results of the institution's early programs are open for scrutiny, as the debate continues on whether environmental protection and liberalized trade are indeed reconcilable.
Balancing interests The work of the CEC is managed by the secretariat, headquartered in Montreal, and governed by a council, made up of the environment ministers from the three countries (the EPA Administrator in the United States). In addition, a 15-member joint public advi4 1 6 A • OCTOBER 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
© 1999 American Chemical Society
sory committee, with equal representation from the three countries, advises the council. The executive director of the secretariat is chosen for a three-year term, with appointments rotating among the three countries. The first executive director was Mexican economist Victor Lichtinger, followed by the current interim executive director, Canadian Janine Ferretti, an environmental policy expert and former director of the Toronto-based environmental organization Pollution Probe. The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n has b e e n carefully balanced, but some NAFTA analysts have noted that the three parties came into the CEC with less than equal enthusiasm. For example, an independent review committee, which was mandated to evaluate the performance of the CEC over its first four years, observed that "the negotiation of NAAEC and the creation of the CEC were U.S. conditions for its adoption of NAFTA, a result of U.S. domestic opposition to the trade agreement alone." Canada accepted NAAEC, but did not seek it, whereas Mexico felt that it had little choice but to accept NAAEC in order to remain part of NAFTA [4). In one important sense, however, the commitment to the institution is entirely equal among the three parties. Each contributes one-third to its operating budget, currently pegged at 10 million U.S. dollars. Ferretti sees the commitment on other levels as well. "All three countries value the institution
and perceive what they can gain from it," she explained. "There are differences in priorities—that's to be expected. But all together those differences make up what is a North American environmental agenda."
Watching for lax enforcement Although NAAEC gives the CEC much discretion in the development of its work plan, the agreement specifies certain obligations as well. The most visible of these has been the processing of citizen complaints concerning lack of enforcement of domestic environmental legislation. Examples of the 20 allegations filed to date are listed below: • A harbor terminal on the island of Cozumel, which "presents an immediate danger for the survival and development of both the Paradise Reef and the Caribbean Barrier Reef," received a construction permit without the environmental assessment required by Mexican law. • The Canadian government has not protected fish habitat in British Columbian rivers from "ongoing and repeated environmental damage by hydroelectric dams," as required by its Fisheries Act. • U.S. EPA regulations developed to control dioxins, mercury, and o t h e r p e r s i s t e n t toxic substances emitted from solid waste and medical incinerators do not fulfill the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the Pollution Preven-
FIGURE 1 Ecological regions of North America Each of the 15 mapped regions, most of which extend across national boundaries, are characterized by distinctive biological, physical, and human characteristics. Environmental impacts to these regions also extend across national boundaries, for example, via long-range transboundary transport of environmental pollutants. CEC activities are providing a foundation for a common perspective of environmentally protective management opportunities. (Courtesy Commission for Environmental Cooperation)
OCTOBER 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS " 4 1 7 A
tion Act, and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements negotiated with Canada. Among the unmet obligations cited in the submission are those of the Canada-U.S. Strategy for the "virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes" (5). If a submission meets NAAEC Article 14.1 criteria, the secretariat can, with council approval, recommend developing a factual record. Thus far, only one factual record, that regarding the harbor terminal on Cozumel Island, has been prepared, and a second, concerning the alleged lax enforcement of the Canadian Fisheries Act in British Columbia, is under way. The complaint regarding U.S. incinerator emissions was judged as falling outside the scope of Article 14 1 which is limited to Cctses of failure to force environmental standards and does not cover potential inadequacies in the standards themselves. The CEC also rejected 11 other The provisions s u b m i s s i o n s as n o t meeting the criteria, relating t o the factual while six cases are still under review. record reach an odd Given the rigors of getting to the factual procedural dead end. record stage, some submitters may be disThey are not attached appointed with the final product; the fact o any dispute settletual record is just that m e n t procedures. and provides no conclusion as to whether Steve Charnovitz the party is or is not its laws. In a Yale University enforcing 1994 review of NAAEC, Steve Charnovitz, director of the Global Environment and Trade Study at Yale University, wrote, "The provisions relating to the factual record reach an odd procedural dead end They are not attached to any dispute settlement procedures" (6) Charnovitz points out, however, that the publication of "an objective ascertainment of facts" may still lead to an improvement in environmental protection in the defendant country, depending on what further steps, if any, the council decides to take (6), or, as the independent review committee noted, the public pressure created by the record encourages an environment minister to act (4).
Focusing on transboundary issues The secretariat also can prepare factual records on issues of its own choosing, without council approval. At present, the development of a record concerning groundwater use and aquifer overdraft in the San Pedro River basin is under way. The ecosystem of the river, which originates in Sonora, Mexico, and flows north into Arizona, constitutes a critical migratory corridor for songbirds. CEC Director Greg Block explained that, on issues like these, the commission is in a unique position to respond to transborder environmental problems. "The commission's mandate under NAAEC is 4 1 8 A • OCTOBER 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
much broader than trade, and this gives us flexibility to identify priority issues. Although we don't have the operational capacity on the ground that a domestic agency would, we can convene governments, as an honest broker, to come to terms with serious problems. We're also a repository for information and objective science." In the case of the San Pedro initiative, honest brokering has meant commissioning an independent technical report on "the physical and biological conditions required to sustain and enhance the riparian migratory bird habitat" of the basin (7). This was followed by a review by a 13-member advisory panel, made up of individuals with diverse interests but strong ties to the area (8). From the perspective of environmental policy, the two reports are unusual in that they address what might be done in both U.S. and Mexican jurisdictions for a common watershed, while making their recommendations to an organization the CEC with direct influence in the two countries.
At the core of the CEC The bulk of CEC activities centers on long-term programs. Some of these relate directly to trade and economic policy, whereas others, as in the case of conservation of biodiversity or pollutants and health, focus on significant transcontinental environmental issues (9). One core program, whose success was highlighted in the independent review of the CEC (4), is the Sound Management of Chemicals (SMOC) initiative (20). This consists of the development of North American Regional Action Plans for selected persistent and toxic substances. To date, the working group, made up of two senior officials from each country whose expertise is in toxic chemical management, has developed action plans for polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT, chlordane, and mercury. Dioxins and furans are targeted for the near future. The plans include goals for the elimination or reduction in the use of the chemicals, along with specific actions required in the three countries. In the of chlordane, for example, registered uses were phased out as of 1998, in conjunction with the development of alternative termite control methods in Mexico. The use of DDT in ^lexico for malarial control is to be reduced by 80% by 2003 as compared with 1998 levels The mercury goal is ultimately "to prevpnt or minimize anthropogenic inputs of mercurv to the environment" with specific targets to be set later this year {ID The SMOC initiative grew out of a council resolution signed in October 1995 defining the principles of the initiative and establishing the working group. Andrew Hamilton, scientific director at the CEC, credits this support at the ministerial level for moving the program forward. With senior regulatory officials forming the working group, SMOC is an intergovernmental effort, he explained, with the secretariat playing the role of coordinator and catalyst. "If you really want to make things happen you have to have governments agree, and committed to moving in different ways than they have in the past."
Is NAFTA good for the environment? The responsibility for answering this question was given to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) through Article 10.6 of North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, under which the commission is mandated to assess the linkages between trade and the environment. Although the CEC still has no direct answer, a team of lawyers, economists, environmentalists, academics, and business representatives from the three countries has developed a methodology for assessing the repercussions of trade on the environment for a particular industry (12). This methodology consists of starting with a direct consequence of NAFTA, such as a rule change or a change in transborder investment flows, and tracking its effects through specific "environment linkages," including changes in production, physical infrastructure, social organization, and government policy. The end repercussions on air, water, land, or the biota can then be evaluated. Three case studies were evaluated by the team: maize production in Mexico, feedlot production of cattle in the United States and Canada, and the electricity sector across North America. In the feedlot production case study, for example, the United States had a comparative advantage initially, which was reinforced by NAFTA tariff concessions, with more young cattle shipped up from Mexico to large feedlots in the U.S. Midwest. The environmental impacts could be either positive or negative, depending on how local governments respond, noted CEC Director Greg Block. On the one hand, the concentration of feedlot production brings with it an increased potential to contaminate water bodies such as the Mississippi River. On the other hand, as the lots are concentrated, that region is in a good position to control these discharges. Although the mandate of the CEC is to identify NAFTA effects, in Block's view, the value of the exercise of analyzing trade and environment linkages is in being able to understand the root causes of environmental impacts. The causes, he explained, may be linked to NAFTA, or they may relate to increased trade with Asia or to nontrade factors such as currency fluctuations. "We don't want to concentrate on a fairly irrelevant NAFTA effect and overlook a huge effect coming from somewhere else."
Allied with the SMOC initiative is the air quality program, which includes projects aimed at developing specific tools for North American pollution reduction programs. Activities slated for 1999-2001 include reduction of mercury in waste streams, development and analysis of a mercury transport model, and continental modeling of dioxin emissions (9). With regard to the dioxin project, the larger problem is developing a modeling tool to evaluate the long-range transport of persistent organic pollutants to a given tirea. The esse study in progress, for example, concerns sites in Nunavut, Canada. The goal, explained pr02r3.n1 manstier Nick Nikkila, is to do a back-apportionment, in order to focus on the major contributors to that particular problem for that area. "And that's a real tool for regulators," he noted, in that pollution control efforts can be directed at the bieeest sources A major issue that surfaces throughout CEC programs is the need to improve the infrastructure across North America for environmental research, monitoring, and laboratory analysis and to increase the availability of pollution control technologies. Thus, many of the programs include actions for capacity building, particularly in Mexico. With regard to pollution prevention, for example, the CEC has supported demonstration projects in diverse industries, sponsored a Web site containing information about technologies, consultants, and related institutions (www.ine.gob.mx), and created a fund to finance pollution prevention initiatives in small- and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). "About 97% of the enterprises in Mexico are SMEs," explained Hernando Guerrero, program manager for Capacity Building and Mexico Office Liaison. "The businesses usually don't know about the pollution prevention philosophy and do not have the economic, technical, and human resources to deal with it." He adds that the large number of enterprises makes enforcement of government regulations difficult, and for this reason, voluntary initiatives may be more efficient for reducing pollution. How the CEC measures up According to John Kirton, a political scientist at the University of Toronto (3), judgments as to the CEC's performance over the past five years have ranged from disappointment and skepticism to "sober enthusiasm" (see sidebar above). Skeptics see little positive environmental benefits from NAFTA and the CEC, in part, because the CEC "has insufficient funds to address the large need for new environmental infrastructure." Enthusiasts, on the other hand, recognize that the success of CEC programs depends on multiple factors but have been impressed with the ability of the CEC to "initiate major and popular programs of trilateral environmental cooperation." The NAFTA "green provisions" and NAAEC were negotiated with much fanfare, and increasingly, critics are arguing that the initial claims with respect to the environmental safeguards were unwarranted, particularly in light of recent challenges to environmenOCTOBER 1, 1999/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS * 4 1 9 A
tal regulations launched under investor protection provisions of the agreement (see related news story, page 404A). Charnovitz, who has written extensively concerning what he regards as the hyperbole that infused the NAFTA debate, noted that "many of NAFTA's putative proenvironment provisions are neutral or constraining of environmental regulation. The thesis that the NAFTA is 'green' is based on a perception that merely affirming environmental sovereignty within a trade agreement is a notable achievement" {12}. Still, Charnovitz does view the CEC as a positive step, concluding that "the strongest aspect of the NAAEC is its creation of a regional environmental organization" [11). The significance of the CEC's regional status is underlined as well by Pierre Marc Johnson, lead author of The Environment and NAFTA (2) and currently with the Montreal law firm Heenan Blaikie. "On the long term, we're looking at an integration of Mexican, Canadian, and U.S. economies, and that's going to bring with it notions of further integration," said Johnson. "That's why the CEC is so important. It's the first trilateral institution which has some depth, which has public outreach, which has cooperative processes, and a big network of people. All of that is under the umbrella of an institution in which the three ministers are deciding on issues. The three countries have voluntarily accepted some limitation to their sovereignty even though it's very timid. But it's the first institution where that's being done "
References (1) Magraw, D. Environment 1994, 36 (2), 14-20, 39-45. (2) Johnson, R M.; Beaulieu, A. The Environment and NAFTA Understanding and Implemeniing the New Continental Law; Island Press: Washington, DC, 1996. (3) Kirton, J. The American Review of Canadian Studies 1997, Autumn, 459-486. (4) Bendesky, L.; Bramble, B.; Owen, S. Four-Year Review of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation: Report of the Independent Review Committee; The CEC: Montreal, 1998 (accessible from www. cec.org). (5) Public Files of Citizen Submissions. Center for Environmental Cooperation, www.cec.org/english/citizen/ index.cfm?format=2 (accessed June 1999). (6) Charnovitz, S. Temple Intl. Comp. L.J. 1994, 8, 257-314. (7) San Pedro Expert Study Team. Sustaining and Enhancing Riparian Migratory Bird Habitat on the Upper San Pedro River, The CEC: Montreal, 1998 (accessible from www.cec.org). (8) Upper San Pedro Advisory Panel. Advisory Panel Report on the Upper San Pedro River Initiative; The CEC: Montreal, 1998 (accessible from www.cec.org). (9) Commission for Environmental Cooperation. North American Agenda for Action, 1999-2001; The CEC: Montreal, 1999 (accessible from www.cec.org). (10) Commission for Environmental Cooperation. The Sound Management of Chemicals Initiative; The CEC: Montreal, 1998 (accessible from www.cec.org). (11) Charnovitz, S. Law & Policy in International Business 1994, 26, 1-77. (12) Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Assessing Environmental Effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); The CEC: Montreal, 1999 (accessible from www.cec.org). Deborah Schoen is a science writer based in Quebec, Canada.
Montreal,
COUNT ON US—the source you can rely on
NIST-JANAF Thermochemical Tables, Fourth Edition Malcolm W. Chase, Jr., Editor When lives depend on the accuracy and reliability of your calculations, you want tKor/ oughly reviewed and tested information, not theory. For over 35 years, scientistsAnd yengineers have chosen the NIST-JANAF Thermochemical Tables as the authority \Q[( / depend on for definitive thermodynamic values over a wide range of tempe'i/ai'ufes// This latest edition of the NIST-JANAF Thermochemical Tables gathers in orie reso/jfee^ / j *• , i • ^, u , kl uL/7 new and meticulously revised key temperature-dependent thermochemical properties including heat capacity, enthalpy, entropy, Gibbs' energy function, enthafpywjorraation, Gibbs' (free) energy of formation, transition data, fusion data, vaporization-p»tavsublimation data, and the logarithm of the equilibrium constant of formation for oveY 47 elements and their associated compounds. These 1800+ tables cover the crystal/liquid, or ideal gas states for single and multi phases of many inorganic substances and organic substances with one or two carbon atoms. NIST-JANAF Thermochemical Tables, Fourth Edition, Parts I and II Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data Monograph No. 9 (Part I and Part II) 1952 pages, August 1998, Hardcover ISBN: 1-56396-831-2 $195.00
Each table • Critically evaluates the data for each substance • Provides the references upon which the table is based • Includes the dates of the last significant revision • Is set up for easy cross referencing All values are given in SI units with a standard state pressure of 1 bar (100 000 Pa). Notation is consistent with IUPAC recommendations.
ORDER F R O M : Publication Support Services, American Chemical Society, 1155 Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A. Phone:1-800-227-5558 (in the U.S.A. only) or 1-202-872-4376; FAX: 202-872-6325; E-mail:
[email protected]. Shipping and handling is not included. All individual orders must tb prepaidd
4 2 0 A • OCTOBER 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
The NIST-JANAF Thermochemical Tables, Fourth Edition are published by the American Chemical Society and the American Institute of Physics for theNational Institute of Standards and Technology.
