Top of Page
Previous page | ToC | Next page
This section presents two levels of findings: those specific to the CEC and those specific to Canada's participation in the organization. We note that unlike the Canada-related findings, which are presented by evaluation issue (i.e., relevance, success, design and delivery and cost-effectiveness), the section on CEC-specific findings highlights the key themes that emerged during the evaluation in regard to this international organization. This presentation is intended to help the reader gain a better understanding of Canada's participation in the organization. The CEC-specific findings will be referred to, as applicable, in the section covering findings specific to Canada's participation.
This section presents the evaluation's findings related to the CEC.
Previous CEC assessment report findings (IRC (1998) and TRAC (2004)) are still relevant today. These findings are: i) CEC continues to advance North American environmental cooperation especially in the area of information sharing and capacity building; ii) decision-making at the CEC remains challenging; iii) ongoing need to focus work and generate concrete and measurable results.
The CEC's progress in the environmental cooperation area has been a key finding of the present evaluation.29 The CEC has developed and is developing work programs on a number of common issues of relevance to North America. Interviewees emphasized that in addition to the organization's progress in assembling a substantial body of information on the shared North American environment, the CEC provided an important forum for discussion between the three countries.
Of particular interest are those projects that have been sustained since the early days of the CEC, particularly in the areas of information disclosure and comparability and in capacity building. Most notably cited examples of projects in the area of information disclosure and comparability included the Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTR) and the Taking Stock report as well as the work on Children's Health and the Environment. Examples cited in the area of capacity building included the Sound Management of Chemicals (SMOC) and the Strengthening Wildlife Enforcement Capacity. The evaluation also found that, despite ongoing challenges in identifying truly trilateral issues, the CEC is continuing to address issues of regional concern in a context of increased economic integration. The recent partnership with the North American Auto Sector project, the promotion of the North American Renewable Energy Market, and the work on improving private and public sector environmental performance represent key examples of projects reflective of the North American environmental and economic realities (e.g., increased level of fossil-fuel based energy trade, increased competitive pressures from new and emerging trading partners).
A second finding that appears to be resurfacing relates to challenges in decision-making within the organisation.30 Key contributing factors identified by the evaluation were the asymmetries across countries (e.g., different interests, capacities, and economic configurations) as well as domestic politics. These factors are continuing to contribute to the different interests and/or priorities that are brought to the table. The evidence suggests that the challenges in decision-making appear to be impeding the organisation's effectiveness, including the timeliness of actions/activities. Past negotiations of the work program as well as the SEM process are illustrative examples of the challenges in decision-making.31 Efficiency in decision-making has also been affected by the changes in governments in all three countries. The fact that CEC Council members have delegated much of their involvement in the CEC to their Alternate Representatives and, in turn, to subordinate officials (e.g., the GSC) has also been identified as an ongoing factor impeding timely decision-making (i.e., many decision levels).32 Interestingly, one of the main reasons for entering into regional trade agreements like the NAFTA is the ease of negotiating with a fewer number of countries.33 The CEC experience, however, indicates that despite the advantages of negotiating with fewer countries, having to deal with complex horizontal issues (i.e., environmental, economic and social) has proven to be challenging.
Finally, despite the desire by the CEC to establish a performance measurement framework, the evaluation has not found any evidence suggesting that this is a formalised business activity within the organization. Despite the emphasis over the past years on the need to produce and measure results as well as to assess progress in achieving these, the overall measurement approach (e.g., aligning organisational-wide outcomes with work program projects and the SEM process outcomes, defining roles and responsibilities, establishing the measurement frequency and a reporting strategy) remains to be defined.34
To help narrow its priorities and streamline its work program, the CEC focused its work program on the three Puebla priorities. There is, however, a sense among interviewees that the CEC work remains broad, highlighting the fact that the Puebla priorities themselves were broadly defined as well as cross-cutting. On the latter, it was often mentioned that aspects of individual priority areas may be found across CEC projects despite the fact that they are itemized under a single priority area. The sense that the CEC work remains broad was reflected by the finding that most interviewees were familiar with only a single work area of the CEC and/or that they ignored or found it challenging to assess CEC's contribution in other work areas as well as at the broader corporate level. Interestingly, both of the IRC and TRAC reports indicated that the breadth of the NAAEC contributed to the difficulties in achieving a well defined work program.
The evaluation also identified some questions about the trade and environment area. In particular, findings from the TRAC and IRC reports, interviewees' responses and the document review indicated that part of the ongoing work and/or activities in this area was faced with challenges. Key factors included most notably, the unrealistic initial expectations about the possibility of cooperation between the CEC and the Free-Trade Commission or the environment and trade communities in general, the methodological (e.g., isolating environmental effects of NAFTA from effects of economic growth) and at times political challenges of considering the environmental impacts of NAFTA, and the existence of other fora where similar work is conducted (e.g., OECD work on trade and use of market-based instruments, WTO for resolution of trade disputes). Also, unlike recent efforts that the NAFTA has made to adapt to the changing global dynamics (e.g., emerging trade partners); it is not clear how the CEC is adapting its own efforts to address such a change.35 Interestingly, the IRC report indicated that the CEC needed to "strive to broaden the general understanding of the term 'trade and environment' beyond the controversial exercise to identify the environmental effects of NAFTA".
The CEC's way of conducting business has evolved over time, particularly in terms of: i) new organization-wide planning efforts, ii) an increasing level of Parties' oversight in the Secretariat, and, iii) the desire to improve corporate communications.
New organization-wide planning efforts were adopted by the Puebla Declaration commitment to develop a five-year strategic plan. The Strategic Plan of the CEC 2005-2010 represented an effort to further strengthen planning at the CEC by linking the Strategic Plan with the CEC operational planning cycle.36 Interviewees indicated that the planning exercise was an arduous one as previous work program activities now had to be examined under the new Puebla priorities and the latter's own set of goals and objectives.37 The exercise was all the more demanding as discussions, particularly those related to project selection or more generally to work program content, were not supported by any formal guiding criteria.38 The absence of project selection criteria leaves decision-makers without the tools needed to discern between the different proposals. The evidence also indicated that discussions drifted away from content-based ones given Parties' preoccupations on a number of CEC financial and budgetary issues (discussed below).
The evaluation also noted an increasing level of oversight by the Parties in a number of areas which for the most part were previously managed by the CEC Secretariat alone. This suggests a lack of confidence between the Parties and the Secretariat, a key theme that arose out of the interviews.39 First, the recent CEC quality assurance document establishes an unprecedented role for Parties in the CEC.40 In addition to having Parties review the majority of CEC products, Council is notified of final products and release dates only once clearance has been obtained from all Parties. The document also includes a provision allowing a Party to use a disclaimer to clarify that a product may not necessarily reflect the views of the respective governments. While disclaimers are a common practice in international organizations (i.e., countries remain sovereign), the review of a number of CEC publications indicates that the practice has been widely used by the Parties. It was also the general perception of interviewees' that the use of the disclaimers is an indication of Parties lack of commitment to the CEC. Second, Parties have also been increasingly engaging the Secretariat in discussions on CEC budgeting and financial practices. These have resulted in more detailed budget and formatting requests and increased monitoring of finance-related decisions.41 Third, Parties have been more actively involved in CEC Secretariat professional staffing activities (e.g., for the position of Executive Director and in assessing needs of Secretariat professional staff). There is a sense that the increased level of Parties' oversight in the areas mentioned above may be viewed as due diligence on the part of the Parties to enhance the accountability of, and consistency in CEC practices.
Finally, the evaluation identified a desire to improve CEC corporate communications and outreach, suggesting the need for change in this CEC business area. The Puebla Declaration, for one, emphasized the CEC as a catalyst for action and as a provider of credible, policy relevant and timely information. In this regard, however, interviewees generally indicated that the media coverage of the CEC does not reflect the Puebla vision or the CEC's purpose/mandate in general suggesting the need to better inform the general public and/or specific stakeholder groups of the CEC as well as of its contributions. The evaluation's review of the media coverage of the CEC for the last four years indicated that only a few CEC products/activities were discussed (i.e., Taking Stock report, SEM process). This review also revealed that the organization is often mis-portrayed, generally tagged as a "watchdog" or "the NAFTA tribunal". Interestingly, while the 2004-2006 Operational Plan emphasized the importance of corporate communication practices (e.g., described as "integral to the operations and success of the CEC" and corporate-wide communication objectives were provided), the subsequent 2006-2008 did not formally refer to corporate communications or to the previously stated objectives.42 Rather, emphasis was given to different communication approaches at the project level (e.g., improving understanding of specific reports, engagement of specific stakeholder groups, and development of special fact sheets/brochures and other media and information materials). Efforts to use corporate communications to enhance awareness of CEC's contributions to the public, however, are evidenced in the 2007-2009 Operational Plan which stresses that "effective communication of the results of CEC activity is integral to the CEC's success".
Some operational factors create challenges in addressing an evolving context and/or in maintaining an efficient organisation. These factors most notably concern: i) CEC human resource planning, ii) the comprehensiveness and clarity of CEC administrative policies and practices, and iii) the transparency of budgeting and financial processes.
By virtue of its mandate and associated activities (delivery of a cooperative work program and other substantive activities like the SEM process), the CEC spends a large percentage of its total budget on salaries.43 Human resource aspects, in particular those regarding the CEC Secretariat, are hence fundamental to CEC's capacity to deliver results. There was overall consensus among interviewees on the professionalism and central role of the CEC Secretariat staff. Nevertheless, interviewees' responses as well as the evaluation's documentation review indicated that some human resource management issues at the CEC appear to be posing some challenges.
First, changes in leadership at the CEC Secretariat, brought about by rotating Executive Directors, have tended to yield different management approaches.44 Examples of notable areas include communications, interactions with CEC bodies/committees/groups, project implementation and operational practices. A second challenge is in regard to the absence of a formal human resource plan or strategy to help ensure that professional staffing requirements are met on a continuous basis. For instance, while it is not unusual for an international organisation to hire professional staff on a three-year contract basis, CEC projects generally go beyond a three-year timeframe and some are ongoing.45 This fact coupled with the recurring vacancies and staff turnover at the junior staff level appear to be impeding on project delivery. It is also unclear why the CEC has historically relied on contract services for the delivery of the work program, begging the question of the organisation's overall approach to developing in-house capacity versus relying on external consultants.46 The absence of any human resource plan may also diminish the Secretariat's capacity to present the need for professional staff to the Council following usual Secretariat's support functions regarding budgeting. A key challenge here, emphasized by CEC Secretariat staff, relates to the fact that the market for the high-skill labour required for CEC work (i.e., defining issues, providing scientific expertise, offering technological and other solutions) is tight.47 Finally, it is worth noting that the last three Operational Plans do not address any staffing discussion. The 2004-06 Operational Plan did dedicate a section to staffing but the discussion remains broad and untied to any human resource plan or strategy.
The evaluation's review of CEC administrative policies, rules and procedures indicated that the most important administrative and financial functions appear to be covered by a policy, rule or procedure.48 There is, however, room for improvement in regards to their comprehensiveness and clarity. Several of the rules, policies and procedures reviewed do not appear to be written as clearly as they should be, leaving room for interpretation and flexibility on the part of CEC Secretariat management as well as providing an unclear picture of segregation of duties.49 The examination of documents governing travel and contract support services also confirmed the lack of clarity and/or comprehensiveness, particularly in regards to authority levels and criteria definitions.50 The review of the CEC procurement manual (June 16, 1995) indicated that the manual provided a comprehensive and detailed framework to manage the contracting process. However, a few discrepancies in the dissemination of contracting information were encountered.51 Finally, while policies are generally communicated at hiring, as part of the employment contract, the evidence collected indicated some differences between the content of policies and actual practices.52
In the area of financial budgeting and reporting, the evaluation found that budgetary information appears adequate. Information at the activity, project and task level as well as at the expenditure type level (e.g., travel, contracts for professional services, overhead) may be provided upon request.53 It was also found that budgets presented over the last 5 years have followed different structures, making comparisons across years challenging, particularly in regard to the comparability of budgets with annual financial statements.54 Since 2006, however, there have been major improvements in the comparability of these two documents in that the presentation of annual financial statements follows the same structure as the one adopted in the approved budget. The format of the Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) also follows the same structure as the approved budget and is modified to reflect budgetary changes. The QFR format is very detailed and complete, for example, through presenting the breakdown of the budget, budget modifications, expenses, commitments, variances and unspent budget, by "Area of activities"; "Individual projects"; and "Type of expenditures".
While detailed variances (composed of 13 financial tables) are provided in the QFR, it is worth noting that comparisons and variance analyses are considerably limited. In particular, variance analyses are provided only at a high level, in generic terms, and reasons or explanations are not provided. Moreover, even if the latter was provided, the analysis would be limited as the CEC financial documents use arbitrary rules to explain changes in expenses in the year.55 It is worth noting here that the new information system (hereafter MOOSE) is intended to help the CEC improve its financial management, including variance analysis, given the system's capacity to register and deliver detailed financial commitments and expenses at multiple levels.
It appears, however, that certain planning-related factors may impede the effectiveness of MOOSE. These factors include: absence of full scoping of project costs at the budgeting phase, late project implementation with different timeframes, reliance on contracting, insufficiently communicated programming shifts and/or related costs, long and/or ongoing project lifespan, inter-related project/tasks and cross-cutting priorities, and complex planning coordination (e.g., between Secretariat and working groups). Furthermore, while CEC operational plans are intended to be updated annually to reflect key changes (e.g., shifts in programming and associated budget impacts, including key reallocations, new risk and/or opportunities); there is little explanation of key changes and/or of the CEC operational environment in general.56 The evaluation found that depictions of organisational risks (internal, external, financial-related or work program-related) have generally not been covered in the planning process.57 Taken together these factors are also creating limitations to the transparency and effectiveness of CEC's administrative environment.
This section presents the findings relative to Canada's participation in the CEC. The findings are presented following the four evaluation issues (relevance, success, design and delivery and cost-effectiveness).
The CEC is addressing a Canadian need in terms of its potential to help the federal government to integrate its environment and economic agendas. The fact that such effort is addressed in an economically integrated North America, by way of intergovernmental collaboration and with emphasis on public participation and transparency makes the CEC all the more relevant.
The CEC is addressing a Canadian need in terms of the organization's potential to help the federal government integrate its environment and economic agendas.58 A number of policy documents reviewed in the evaluation indicated that federal government agendas have stressed the need to better reconcile our capacity to address the environment while enhancing economic prosperity.59 The mandate of the CEC focussing on environmental issues in an increasingly integrated economic context makes it uniquely situated to contribute to this. The economic integration of the three countries is responsible for and continues to be attributable to the NAFTA. Moreover, it is widely accepted that Canada's increased economic prosperity is partly attributable to NAFTA.60 With this economic integration has come environmental pressures and opportunities, some of which are directly and indirectly related to trade and occurring beyond country-specific borders. As indicated previously, the CEC has made progress in addressing topics of concern.61 As Parties to the NAAEC are typically the case study of work done by the CEC, this work may bring about a relatively rich set of information.62
There was consensus among interviewees on the value of the CEC as an institution. In particular, they are supportive of its mandate and see potential for it to contribute to environmental cooperation between Canada, Mexico and the U.S through an inter- governmental forum. In this regard and as indicated previously, the CEC is thought to have made the most progress in assembling a substantial body of information on the shared North American environment and in providing a forum for discussion between the three countries. The fact that governmental agendas in Canada are increasingly focussed on North American issues also adds to the CEC's relevance. The evaluation came across numerous agreements at both the provincial and federal level which are an expression of the need to address North American issues. Efforts to increase institutional capacity focussed on North America are also pervasive (e.g., EC's America's Branch, DFAIT's North America Branch).
The CEC has also generally been praised by interviewees for the transparency with which the Secretariat and the Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) operate and for its efforts to encourage stakeholder participation. The fact that this forum is dedicated to public participation and transparency also fits with the Canadian government's focus on the principles of modern governance. Among the principles of the recent Federal Accountability Act, accountability at all levels, demonstration of concrete results, and efficient management of resources and transparency are key.
A concern generally shared by interviewees, however, was the belief that the CEC's potential has not been realized. Of primary concern was the CEC's limited impact on decision-making, which many feel reflects a lack of support in the organisation by the federal government. Support from the other two governments was also alluded to in order for the CEC to be successful and to realize its full potential.
While the greatest benefits to Canada's participation appear to be in the environmental cooperation area, the evidence indicates that there is room for improvement in regard to policy improvements, work on broader economy-environment fronts and participation by the Canadian public.63
There was general consensus among all interviewees on the benefits of the enhanced North American environmental cooperation for Canada.64 The responses reflected two broad areas. First, at the enabling level, the CEC is recognized for its progress in assembling a substantial body of information on the shared North American environment.65 The dissemination and comparability of environmental information and the sharing of best practices which are leading to implementing environmental management practices were particularly valued. Second, at the institutional level, interviewees have generally referred to the important enhancements in public sector capacity and connectedness within the three countries. In this regard, interviewees consistently indicated that Canada has played a stabilizing and bridge-builder role throughout the life of the CEC, but that more leadership was needed on the part of the federal government, particularly in regard to being a more active supporter of the organization.
Linking Canadian policy improvement to CEC activities is challenging. The evaluation found that, despite the policy-related NAAEC objectives and the number of policy-related CEC reports, sponsored events and discussions, the number of policy improvements in Canada that may be attributable and/or traced back to the CEC is not notable.66 The evaluation also found that the CEC was not an often-cited organization by the federal government. In contrast, other international organizations in which Canada participates have received much more attention.67 Moreover, while NAAEC's objective regarding the promotion of mutually supportive environmental and economic policies is reflected in domestic policy discussions and objectives, federal government citations on efforts in such an area by other international organizations often comes from the OECD. Finally, there was consensus among all interviewee groups that the limited impact of the CEC on decision-making in general and on policy improvements in particular was attributed to the lack of overall support from the federal government for the CEC.
In terms of improvements on enforcement matters, the evaluation's review of the Canadian-related submissions resulting from CEC's citizen submissions on enforcement matters (SEM) process as well as the related interviewees' responses indicated that there were various Canada-related learnings on enforcement matters.68 There is, however, no domestic mechanism and/or work to identify these and integrate them into the policy-making process. This was a concern widely shared among the interviewees and especially in light of the learnings and internal agency discussions that arose as a result of the SEM process. The evaluation's review of the Government of Canada website regarding the NAAEC, which is the "single window" for information on Canadian activities in implementing the NAAEC in Canada, did not find any activities on enforcement matters specific to Canada.69
As indicated in the CEC-specific findings section, hopes for having the public and other stakeholders such as NGOs look to the CEC as a valuable mechanism to enhance enforcement of and compliance with environmental laws appear to have diminished in light of the fact that submissions have not been processed in a timely manner. Furthermore, as will be discussed later, there is consensus among the Canadian stakeholder groups interviewed that while the CEC is felt to have made the most difference in environmental enforcement matters, this has been done mostly by raising public attention rather than by prompting any quantifiable change in environmental practices. In particular, the SEM process is seen by some to be primarily a communication tool.70
The NAAEC represented a novel approach for addressing environmental concerns that may arise in the context of a free trade agreement: the signing of an environmental side agreement to one that is economic. There is consensus from the responses from the interviews on the unprecedented nature of this agreement, which has also gathered the attention of other economic regions of the world (i.e., Europe) that look to the NAAEC-NAFTA arrangement as a way to link the environment and trade agendas. It is worth noting, however, that while the NAFTA itself included some environmental provisions in its text, the key provisions are not in the trade agreement but in a separate one. In some sense, this suggests that environmental concerns are not dealt with on the same footing as the economic arrangements, which would not be the case if the environmental provisions were included in the trade agreement itself. Nevertheless, the evaluation found that Canada's approach to trade and environment has been influenced by the NAAEC-NAFTA model. For example, some aspects of environmental side agreements to free trade agreements that have been developed since 1994 have been modeled after the NAAEC (and CEC provisions). The most notable examples include the environmental side agreements to the two free trade agreements between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Republic of Costa Rica and Chile.71 It was also generally noted that research resulting from CEC's North American symposia on "Assessing the Environment Effects of Trade" have influenced Canada's methodology in conducting strategic environmental assessments of trade and investment negotiations.
In terms of work performed by the CEC in the trade and environment area, a number of factors appear to be diminishing expectations on the benefits of this work. Despite the NAAEC's provisions on the need to enhance collaboration between trade and environmental officials on a number of matters, the evidence suggests that the collaboration at the domestic level remains low. The institutional linkages between the Canadian trade and environment communities remain limited. Interviewees often referred to the two communities as "two solitudes".72 The analysis of relevant NAFTA data also indicates that Canada's trade and investment (particularly with the U.S.) is almost dispute-free.73 Interestingly, among the disputes, the environment dimension was most present in the investment-related disputes (i.e., NAFTA Chapter 11 cases) rather than in the trade-related ones.
It also appears that Canadian government officials are not utilizing the CEC work on trade and environment, as it is not resonating with the evolving policy debate in Canada. According to key federal government policy documents of the past years, this policy debate has since turned to a broader direction, focusing on the numerous and complex linkages between the economy and the environment rather than on solely trade and environment issues. Broader environment-economy themes that have or are emerging include the role of economic growth, pattern and rate of natural resource development and how this relates to employment, sustainable consumption, productivity and competitiveness through technological change. Trade, at least as it relates to the environment does not appear to be a particular focus. In this regard, certain interviewees explained that Canadian policy community's interest in focusing on broader economy and environment linkages was related to the fact that the anticipated widespread negative outcomes (i.e., race to the bottom, pollution havens) did not emerge as an outcome of the economic integration of North America. Key reasons for why there was no real race to the bottom, identified by interviewees and documents reviewed, included the importance of other factors of production in investment decision-making and the fact that the costs of compliance with environmental regulations are relatively small to significantly factor into a typical firm's location decisions.
The evaluation found that public participation with the CEC in Canada appears somewhat limited. Participation has manifested itself mostly through the SEM process and attendance at JPAC meetings. The review of CEC documents indicates that while the SEM process is intended to help enhance the enforcement of and compliance with environmental law and regulations, the process also appears to be intended to contribute, as is the case for the JPAC, to the promotion of transparency and public participation in the development of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Despite the opportunity created by the SEM process to engage the public, there was consensus among the interviewees that the SEM process has become highly "technical and legalistic" and that this was negatively contributing to uptake. The absence of any follow-up measures or discussions and the fact that submissions have not historically been processed in a timely matter were also key reasons raised by interviewees regarding the SEM uptake.74
In assessing Canadian public participation in the CEC, the evaluation found (through the interviews and document review) that participation in JPAC meetings as well as in CEC-sponsored events appears targeted to mostly ENGOs, indicating that key segments of the Canadian population, including the general public, aboriginal communities and the private sector were not being reached. Finally, many lines of evidence suggested that the CEC is not a well-known or understood organization in Canada. Factors that appear to be contributing to this perception include the multi-faceted structure of the CEC work, the fact that there is no proactive commitment or usage/mention of the CEC work by the federal government, and the Canadian media's narrow portrayal of the CEC. In this regard, the CEC's desire to improve corporate communications and outreach will be instrumental in enhancing awareness of the CEC. As mentioned in Section 3.2.3 and as will be discussed under the evaluation issue of design and delivery, the lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the CEC was also illustrated by a low response and interest from Canadian stakeholders for participation in the evaluation's interviews.
The Canadian federal government's involvement in the CEC tends to focus on operational rather than content-related discussions. In addition to the relevant findings previously presented, the focus away from content- related discussions tends to be caused by key features, including: i) absence of a mechanism to develop Canadian positions at the CEC, ii) absence of performance monitoring of Canada's involvement, and iii) increased administrative and financial oversight of the Parties. In terms of delivery, Canadian stakeholder groups generally believe that the full potential of the CEC has not been realized and that the federal government could be a more active supporter.
Various lines of evidence indicated that the Canadian federal government's involvement in the CEC is characterized by operationally-related discussions rather than content- related ones (e.g., Canadian priorities that are brought to the table, how the CEC work is integrated into the Canadian policy-making process). The evidence indicated that this is the case for EC senior management as well as for EC and DFAIT Governmental Standing Committee (GSC) officials. The governance of Canada's involvement in the CEC helps to explain why this situation has arisen.
First, there is no formal mechanism to develop Canadian positions at the CEC. In this respect, Canadian ministerial involvement in the CEC has been limited.75 The previously mentioned finding regarding the lack of engagement of senior management in the CEC (i.e., CEC Council members have delegated much of their involvement to their Alternate Representatives and, in turn to subordinate officials) was also identified by interviewees as a factor contributing to the challenges in developing Canadians positions to be brought to the CEC. The evidence also suggests that the key Canadian advisory forum, the National Advisory Committee (NAC), has not been effectively used and has had little impact on decision-making despite the NAC advice on a number of topics of relevance to Canada. The summary of records of the annual Canadian NAC meetings and advice to the Governmental Committee (for the last 4 years) indicated that a number Canadian- related topics were raised (e.g., role of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), CIA sign-on, enforcement matters, and content of CEC work program). It was also found that NAC advice rarely led to ministerial level meetings and has been limited to correspondence. Finally, most of the advice provided by NAC was on its own initiative (i.e., the Governmental Committee has rarely requested advice from the NAC). Responses from interviews have also indicated the lack of use of the NAC by senior level management.
Second, the fact that lines of communication across Government of Canada officials involved in CEC work are not regularized and that there is no overall mechanism to link Canadian interventions in other international fora with those of the CEC were also key design shortcomings identified. The absence of formal communication lines regarding the CEC is in contrast to the federal government's approach to the OECD. Canadian officials receive regular intra- and inter-departmental debriefs of OECD activities/decisions. The evidence also suggests that communication lines regarding the CEC work are important given that many of EC officials are involved in the CEC and that there are numerous CEC-related working groups and committees. As will be discussed later, the link between Canadian positions and/or activities undertaken in other fora and those in the CEC appears important given the similarities and/or synergies of the CEC work with other international organisations.
Third, Parties' increased attention on CEC administrative and operational aspects (discussed previously) has also contributed to the shifting of attention away from more substantive discussions. Furthermore, much of the effort deployed by Canadian GSC officials is spent on the smallest CEC budget areas (Art. 13, 14 &15).76 Finally, it is worth noting here that Canada's participation in the CEC has not been framed by any performance monitoring of its involvement in this international organisation.77 In this respect, when EC officials bring CEC work to the attention of senior management, interventions typically deal with but a few CEC products (e.g., publication of the Taking Stock report or Article 13 reports) and on reporting CEC-specific activities and outputs rather than on actual outcomes. Interviewees also generally indicated that Canadian federal officials are often in defensive mode rather than acting as environmental stewards of the CEC.
In terms of delivery, the results of the interviews with Canadian stakeholder groups reveal that stakeholders generally believe the CEC has value as an institution. Most consider the CEC to be a truly unique institution whose mandate and objectives do not directly overlap with those of any other organization.78 Canadian stakeholders (as well as other interviewee groups), believe that the CEC has made at least some progress towards meeting its overall objectives, but that, as mentioned previously, the full potential has not been realized.79 Of primary concern is the CEC's limited impact on decision-making, which many feel reflects a lack of support from the federal government. Stakeholders look to Canada to play a leadership role in supporting the CEC and its mandate. The CEC is felt to have made the most difference in improving compliance and enforcement of environmental laws, but (as indicated previously) mostly by raising public attention rather than by prompting any measurable change in environmental practices. In particular, the citizen submission process is seen by some to be primarily a communication tool, prevented from making a greater difference by a lack of concrete results.
The CEC is also praised for the transparency, professionalism, and accountability with which the Secretariat and the Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) operate and for their efforts to encourage stakeholder participation. Canadian stakeholders typically characterize their organization's interactions with the CEC as positive, and consider the CEC to have been reasonably responsive to their input. The only exception is private sector organizations who, while they have few concerns about their direct interactions with the CEC, consider the CEC to be "enviro-centric". Stakeholders, however, are critical of the Council considering it to be less transparent, less accountable and overly political in nature. It is also generally believed there is much room for improvement in the level of cooperation between the three key bodies of the CEC.
The extent of involvement with the CEC varies both across and within stakeholder groups. In general, academics are the most supportive of the CEC and its work. In contrast, aboriginal organizations and the private sector are less favorable toward and are more detached from CEC work. Environmental NGOs offer mixed opinions. While understanding of the CEC generally varies by organization, it appears that academics are the most knowledgeable about the organization. CEC outreach is perceived to have been most successful with an audience of those most interested or engaged in the types of issues addressed by the CEC, but missing from this audience are aboriginal organizations, industry, and the general public. There is also a segment of stakeholders who are not truly engaged in the CEC due to a lack of knowledge about the organization, suggesting that it would be worthwhile to improve communications of its successes and relevance.80
Although not exclusively focused on North America, key organisations in which Canada participates cover similar activity areas to the CEC, which as indicated under the evaluation issue of design and delivery, suggests opportunities for enhanced alignment of Canadian interventions in the CEC with those made in other international fora. In light of the similarities and/or synergies between the CEC work and the work conducted in other organisations as well as the regularity of CEC funding by three governments, there appears to be opportunities for the CEC to further develop work niches to uniquely position its contributions and to increase collaboration and leverage financial and in kind resources.
The evaluation's analysis of other organisations' program activities indicates that there are some synergies, but overlaps with the CEC work also exist. Examples of potential overlap and/or synergies were particularly pervasive in the trade and environment, chemical management and environmental reporting areas.81 Overlap with the work conducted at the OECD in the areas of trade and environment and chemical management were particularly common for the methodological-related work. This overlap also suggests that there are opportunities to focus more on those matters on which the CEC can make a real difference.
At the domestic level, while notable differences between the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the CEC were raised by interviewees, there is a sense that the differences (e.g., the SPP is not an institution, has no regularity in funding, is broader focused, and has more senior level leadership) and/or potential links of the two fora need to be better communicated and/or explored. First, like the CEC, the SPP has an environmental work program with specific initiatives and of a North American scope. These initiatives are also linked to the prosperity agenda.82 Second, there are potential opportunities in using the CEC to assist in the elaboration or implementation of SPP work. In this respect, some interviewees indicated that there was little political will to do so. Last, there also appears to be potential opportunities in learning from the SPP's efforts in gathering private sector input in light of the CEC desire to engage this sector in the CEC activities and/or to use them as drivers of future projects.83
The evaluation established that a number of partnerships between the CEC and international organisations, as well as with the private sector, exist. Most of these partnerships are/were found to be directly linked to CEC projects and activities.84 However, three out of the six partnerships with the international organisations have ended. It also appears that, while the six partnerships with the private sector have no termination date, they appear to be localised and lack the presence of key business sectors in North America. The evaluation also found that the CEC has not been actively leveraging financial resources.85 There appears to be opportunities to increase external funding sources, particularly in light of the aforementioned potential links or synergies with projects/programs undertaken in other organisations as well as the regularity of CEC funding by the three participating governments. The enhanced collaboration (in kind and financial) would benefit the CEC through increasing the recognition of its work, strengthening its capacity and reinforcing the benefits of regional cooperation.86
29 This finding is supported by the interviewees' responses as well as by the evaluation team's review of past and current work conducted by the CEC. The TRAC report also found that the CEC was making progress on the North American environmental cooperation front. The IRC report indicated that after only four years of existence, the CEC had already taken significant steps toward achieving its purposes and in some areas (i.e., capacity building), the CEC has "catalysed on-the-ground action by the three Parties".
30 The lines of evidence supporting this finding included the IRC and TRAC reports, interviewees' responses and the document review. Challenges facing the CEC in regard to decision-making mentioned in both the IRC and TRAC reports included the trilateral nature of the CEC (i.e., small number of countries accentuating any disagreements) and the lack of attention of individual Parties to the needs of others.
31 It took two years of discussion to approve the work program under the new Puebla priorities. It is worth noting here that it took approximately three months to approve the work program included in the current 2007-2009 Operational Plan. Most of the projects included in the work program, however, represent a continuation of the implementation of those projects that were approved in the previous Operational Plan. In terms of the SEM process, it was found that there is a fair amount of variability in the voting patterns of Council regarding the preparation of a factual record by the Secretariat (ranging from approximately 650 days to as little as 40 days) and that no set timeline for such votes exists (e.g., in some cases waiting for consensus by the Council has caused delays in actions). Interviewees generally attributed the delays in the SEM process to the effectiveness of the Council and/or to the political will of the Parties to bring issues to closure.
32 In many instances, interviewees also alluded to the different levels of effort of the Parties, in particular in regard to the size of the "GSC teams" within each country, as a factor contributing to the challenges of decision-making.
33 See Harris (2006), Economic Impacts of the Canada-U.S. FTA and NAFTA Agreements for Canada: A Review of the Evidence, in NAFTA@10 Series.
34 Key documents stating the CEC's intention to formalize its performance measurement effort include the Puebla Declaration, the CEC's five-year Strategic Plan and the Operational Plans covering the past four years. These documents are discussed later.
35 For example, while the CEC project on the ongoing environmental assessment of NAFTA in the 2007- 2009 Operational Plan indicates that "a decade of experience shows that the environmental effects of the NAFTA are difficult to isolate from those stemming from global trends toward trade liberalization and that the work is not focused on the NAFTA effects alone", it is not clear how existing project tasks will address this. Recent NAFTA efforts to enhance North American competitiveness include work on the reduction of export- related transaction costs (e.g., liberalising NAFTA rules of origin), the recognition of professional credentials, and the promotion of further regulatory cooperation.
36 The three-year operational planning cycle, updated annually, that was introduced by the CEC in 2003 represented a departure from the individual program plans of previous years, where each program (i.e., Pollutants and Health; Conservation of Biodiversity; Environment, Economy and Trade; and Law and Policies) was structured around its own goals, objectives, and priorities. The cooperative work program in the 2004-2006 Operational Plan for the CEC was driven by a set of four goals and related objectives.
37 The five-year goals and objectives for respective priorities are defined 2005-2010 Strategic Plan.
38 The evaluation identified a draft document (August 16, 2004) to help guide the development of the CEC's cooperative program and included possible criteria (e.g., regional priority, value-added to uniquely position the CEC work, leveraging). It appears, however, that the document was not finalised or formally used. Correspondence records also indicated a lack of consensus on project selection criteria still existed in 2006. The evaluation has been informed that the topic of criteria was however something that the Parties and the existing Executive Director are trying to address (i.e., the topic was discussed at an October 2006 Alternate Representative meeting). There are hopes that criteria will be in place for the development of the next Operational Plan. Finally, we note here that the IRC report recommended that a consistent set of criteria should be applied in the development of the work program.
39 We note here that the issue of confidence regarding the Parties in the Secretariat was also raised in the IRC and TRAC reports.
40 The Quality Assurance Policy and Procedures: Publication and Information Products (October 2006) document presents the principles for ensuring the quality of CEC's research and information products as well as the various review stages and reviewers for each product.
41 Notable lines of evidence supporting this finding include minutes to Alternate Representatives meetings, correspondence of GSC members, and CEC budgeting and financial information.
42 The area of corporate communications is also not formally addressed in the Strategic Plan 2005-2010. It is worth noting here that the evaluation found that some parts of the CEC website were out-of-date.
43 Salaries account for about 35% of the total CEC budget for the last five years. About $6 million is expected to be spent on salaries (in-house) out of a total budget of $11.9 million in 2007. Organisations like the OECD and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) also spend a fair amount of their total budgets on salaries given the nature of their work (i.e., research and capacity building-related).
44 Executive Directors have typically rotated every three years since 1994.
45 The last two operational plans indicate that of the total number of projects (17 in 2007-2009 and 16 in 2006-2008), 5 are ongoing and 9 are projected to be implemented in the 4 to 6 year range.
46 About half of the CEC budget is spent on the work program. Close to half of the work program-related expenses over the past five years have been spent on contracting professional services. In 2006, the amount spent on contracting was greater than the work program salaried staff. In comparison, the OECD has made investments in modelling tools for ongoing work areas.
47 The CEC may seek experts on a North American scale, which broadens the pool of potential candidates. Due regard, however, must be paid to the recruitment of an equitable proportion of the professional staff from among the nationals of each Party, which may limit prospective candidates.
48 We refer the reader to Section 3.2 which provides the methodological basis for the evaluation's examination of CEC administrative and financial processes.
49 The examples include: travel; procurement and acquisition of goods and services; budget controls and budget reallocations; financial responsibilities and authorities; payments; bank accounts, income, receivables, deposits and blank cheques; hospitality; recruitment, promotions, performance appraisal, salary increments.
50 For example, travel policy and procedures are governed via three different documents, which are at times confusing, particularly in regard to travel authorization and criteria definition.
51 There exist two versions of the Manual. The one posted on the CEC website (dated October 1996) is different and significantly less complete than the June 1995 version. The website version lacks important elements (e.g., definitions, delegated authorities, contract amendments, roles and responsibilities). Furthermore, several clauses of the June 1995 are not written clearly (e.g., absence of criteria defining the conditions for non-competitive contracting, unclear approach for amending contracts). The existence of two versions does raise the question as to employees' accessibility to the more comprehensive version.
52 Employees are required to sign to confirm that they have read the policies. Secretariat staff interviewees have indicated, however, that guides, training sessions, and other materials have not generally been provided. The Secretariat is currently aiming to make available all policies on line via the new web-based application system adopted by the Secretariat in 2005 and currently being piloted (also discussed below). The system called Management for Organisational Operations and System of Expenses (or MOOSE), centralizes the information on all CEC activities.
53 CEC annual budgets are submitted to the Council for approval and are presented within the CEC Operational Plans (which are public documents). Details on expenditures are not included in the annual budgets that are submitted to the Council.
54 The CEC financial statements are submitted annually within the CEC Annual Report and were audited by the firm Samson Bélair & Touche for the years covered by the evaluation. The cross-year comparison challenges also concern the changes in the budget breakdown (e.g., new categories; work program is itemized by CEC priorities).
55 For example, travel expenditures in the QFRs are shown under activities and projects against "best estimates" or "educated guesses" and total travel and contracts expenses in the annual financial statements are divided by 12. We note here that variance analysis of expenditures, including those related to travelling and contracting, is also limited as the annual budgets that are submitted to Council for approval do not include any detail on type of expenditures. We note that as of 2006, the Secretariat has presented to the Council, a budget by type of expenditures. The latter is part of the budget sent to Council for approval. The detailed budget information is presented at the project level. This supplementary detailed information is not published in the Operational Plan.
56 Interestingly, in contrast to the last two operational plans (2006-2008 and 2007-2009), the 2004-2006 Operational Plan did include a discussion of CEC's operational environment, including key changes and covering topics such as budgetary and organizational issues.
57 While risks are sometimes mentioned at the project level, there is no overall corporate entity level assessment. This may be partly attributable to the fact that the area of risk management is not to be covered by any policy or rule.
58 We remind the reader that two of the NAAEC objectives concern the promotion of "mutually supportive environmental and economic policies" and of "economically efficient and effective environmental measures".
59 The most notable examples include past and recent Government of Canada Speeches from the Throne; Budget's and Economic and Fiscal Updates and EC's Departmental Performance Reports and Reports on Plans and Priorities.
60 Trade among the three countries has more than doubled in ten years to reach over US$621 billion. Canada's merchandise trade with its NAFTA partners has increased 122% since 1994, reaching $598.5 billion in 2005. Altogether, our NAFTA partners account for close to 85% of Canada's total merchandise exports. The U.S. is Canada's largest trading partner, purchasing 78% of our exports. Canada is also Mexico's second main trading partner (after the U.S.). See Harris paper in the NAFTA@10 series.
61 In addition to the examples mentioned in section 4.1, other examples include the CEC work on pollution related to transportation corridors and on impacts of economic activities on migratory species.
62 This is in contrast to an organisation like the OECD which addresses more generic topics.
63 We refer the reader to Section 3.1, which presents the basis for the following headings (i.e., directly or indirectly linked to specific NAAEC objectives). Once again, we note that the trade and environment area was included in light of the importance of this area in past and current CEC work and activities.
64 We refer the reader to Section 4.1 as well as the evaluation issue of relevance which covered similar lines of evidence and topics.
65 Notable examples at the project level include the PRTR (and the fact that Mexico participates in it), environmental enforcement at borders, and SMOC.
66 In addition to the policy-related NAAEC objectives, the goals established under the Puebla priority's and included in the Strategic Plan for the CEC 2005-2010 also explicitly refer to policy improvements. Most of the CEC publications reviewed by the evaluation found numerous references to policy, including explicit policy references in the recommendation sections of the publications.
67 For example, the NAFTA and OECD are regularly quoted in key relevant speeches, in federal budgets and/or economic and fiscal updates, and in NRTEE reports. In some sense, this may not be surprising given that the roles of the OECD and NAFTA are much more focused on fostering economic activity.
68 Examples of learning areas include: enforcement matters in Canada concern both provincial and federal governments; influence on negotiation of new environmental side-agreements; capacity (including financial) to enforce; enforcement issues not directly related to trade but to natural resources management and extraction (mining, logging, hydro). Key laws, regulations, agreements addressed in the Canadian SEM include: Fisheries Act, Department of Environment Act, SARA, CEPA, International Boundary Waters Treaty 1909, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), National Energy Board Act, UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Canada-US Agreement concerning transboundary movement of Hazardous Waste 1986, Great Lake Water Quality Agreement; Migratory Bird Convention Act 1994. Provincial laws were also addressed.
69 The Government of Canada website regarding the NAAEC, called The NAAEC-Canadian Office indicates that the NAAEC is about environmental cooperation as well as the effective enforcement of environmental laws. See www.naaec.gc.ca.
70 It is worth mentioning that the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development's (CESD) Petitions Review project (2001) was an informative example about a means to move forward in terms of learnings from citizen-based petition-like processes. The 2001 project found, among other things, that concerns raised by the public seem to disappear in a black box. New initiatives that have since been developed, in particular to enhance uptake and confidence in the process included the creation of a petition catalogue, the monitoring and auditing of replies and commitments, and the tracking of trends.
71 While these environmental side agreements are different from the NAAEC, they nevertheless include some of the NAAEC's principles (e.g., transparency and public participation). The Canada-Chile (1997) agreement, in particular, also created a commission with an established Council and a JPAC as well as a Joint Submission Committee to address functions dealing with SEM-related provisions. Finally, we note that the other side accords to the Canada-Chile and the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreements on labour also included principles and/or provisions of the NAALC which, as indicated earlier, was negotiated in parallel to the NAFTA.
72 The difficult task of developing an Agenda for potential meetings between the Ministers of the environment and trade was also raised in several instances, noting in particular the challenges in identifying discussion issues of common concern. However, it was also mentioned that the North American symposia on "Assessing the Environment Effects of Trade" have to some extent increased the collaboration between trade and environment officials.
73 About 95% of Canada's bilateral trade and investment relationship with the U.S. is dispute-free. This has been facilitated by the rules-based trading system of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as well as of the NAFTA. See Canada's International Market Access Priorities 2006 - Opening Doors to North America at www.International.gc.ca/tna-nac/2006/5_06-en.asp.
74 There have been 25 Canada-related submissions since 1994. It was also found that the total number of CESD environmental petitions (another mechanism allowing the Canadian public to formally bring their concerns to the government about environmental issues, including environmental enforcement) received between 1995 and November 15, 2006 was approximately 215. Of that number, the evaluation found that a large number of these petitions were directed to EC for reply and that many concerned environmental enforcement issues. It is important to note that unlike the requirements of the SEM process (e.g., many legal aspects) or of other traditional petition processes (e.g., numerous signatures required), the CESD petition process is much simpler (i.e., a letter is enough). These figures as well as the interviewees' responses do, however, raise some questions about the public's accessibility to the SEM process.
75 Ministerial participation has been limited to the annual regular sessions of the CEC Council. While an important part of these sessions is the holding of a public discussion with the ministers of the three counties, this event was led by respective countries' Alternate Representatives at the last annual Regular Session held in Washington, DC in June 2006.
76 Article 13, 14 &15 represent a small portion of CEC total budget (ranging from 3% to 9% over last 5 years).
77 As mentioned earlier, EC has in the past been exempted from developing a RMAF and no alternative results-based management and accountability tool or practice has been used. It has been stated by governmental official interviewees that the fact that the CEC has had a late start on performance measurement (covered previously) has not helped.
78 There are some perceptions of partial overlap, in particular, in regard to environmental reporting activities with national and regional governments and departments in the three countries and with other bilateral and trilateral institutions. This was also raised by other interviewee groups.
79 On this front, academics are the most positive (as is the case on other fronts) and private sector organizations less so.
80 As indicated previously, a notable number of Canadian stakeholders declined to participate because they did not feel sufficiently knowledgeable about the CEC.
81 Examples in the trade and environment area include work within: the OECD (e.g., in the area of environmental effects of trade, use and/or promotion of market-based instruments) and IISD's trade, investment and sustainable development program. Examples regarding work on information standards, comparability and compatibility were found at the OECD, World Resource Institute, World Conservation Union, and the IISD. As indicated previously, there was also are some perceptions among the Canadians stakeholder groups and other interviewee groups of partial overlap, in particular, in regard to environmental reporting activities with national and regional governments and departments and with other bilateral and trilateral institutions. Examples in chemical management initiatives include: OECD, Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management, Stockholm Convention, and Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, UNEP's Global Mercury Program, Global Environmental Facility and PAHO.
82 SPP environmental initiatives at the time of the evaluation included: migratory species surveillance and biodiversity, air quality, invasive species, some ocean issues (marine and ocean stewardship), and avian flu. Another on the table at the time of the evaluation was water quality.
83 The North American Competitiveness Council, launched in March 2006, is an SPP initiative that comprises 30 senior private sector representatives (10 from each country) and has a mandate to provide governments with recommendations on issues such as border facilitation and regulation, as well as the competitiveness of key sectors including automotive, transportation, manufacturing and services. This Council is intended to meet annually with security and prosperity ministers and to engage with senior government officials on an ongoing basis.
84 The six key CEC partnerships with international organisations are: an MOU with UNEP related to UNEP's Global Environmental Outlook (GEO) Series (1997 to date); an MOU with UNEP on regionally-based assessment of priorities for persistent toxic substances in North America (2001-2003); a partnership with GEF/PAHO to transfer to Central America CEC's success in phasing-out DDT (1999 to date); a partnership with WHO, PAHO and International Joint Commission (IJC) in implementing the Cooperative Agenda for Children's Health and the Environment in North America (2002-2004); an MOU with the World Bank to undertake a POPs/Metal Bio-monitoring study to identify population risk and environmental hotspots in North America (2003-2004); and a Letter of Intent with the IJC to better formalise cooperation between the CEC and the IJC (signed in 2003). There have been six CEC partnerships with the private sector since 1995.
85 The evaluation found that over the last six years, grants received by the CEC from external sources totalled about $598,000.00.
86 In particular, some of the CEC partnerships with international organisations have contributed to helping the organisations (e.g., World Bank) demonstrate the value of regional cooperation to other parts of the world. We also note here that the evaluation's interviewees indicated that the valued participation of external stakeholders in working group discussions was related to the CEC being a regularised forum.