![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Response Letter 2006
M. Dolores Wesson
Chair, U.S. National Advisory Committee
Coastal Observing Research and Development Center
Marine Physical Laboratory
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
La Jolla, CA 92093-0202
Dear Ms. Wesson:
Thank you for the National Advisory Committee's (NAC) November 16 advice
in follow-up to your October, 2005 meeting. Your advice on the involvement
of the private sector in the CEC work, CEC budget reforms, the future role
of working groups, CEC publications reform, and the status of the 2005 and
2006 Operational Plans and budgets has been considered in great depth over
the last several months.
On behalf of the EPA Administrator and the United States, we offer the following response to your advice:
Private Sector Involvement
Thank you very much for your efforts and recommendations regarding private
sector involvement in the CEC, and for your support of our efforts
on greening the supply chain. As you know, following recommendations
from the NAC and the GAC, the United States sponsored a Private Sector
Initiative meeting on January 5th, facilitated by the Secretariat,
with representation from Canadian, Mexican, and US Industries and business
councils, as well as government officials.
As a result of this meeting, we have developed a draft strategy focusing on greening supply networks across North America in the automotive and electronics sectors. We are currently refining this strategy and assessing resource needs, milestones and expected outcomes. We will also consider the NAC's other recommendations on the elements and scope of this program, including connections with academic institutions in the three countries.
We appreciate the NAC's interest in participating in this project through an ad hoc committee of its members. While perhaps a white paper would take too long to prepare to be relevant for this active project, we welcome the NAC's continuing participation as this project develops.
Budget Reform
In regard to your advice on CEC Budget Reform, we appreciate your support
of our efforts to ensure that CEC financial information is provided
in a mutually agreed-upon manner. Over the last few months, we have
developed new budget documents and formats with the CEC Secretariat
that facilitate disclosure, transparency, and accountability. We plan
to continue refining these documents to meet the Council's information
and transparency needs while minimizing unnecessary reporting. We are
also planning to develop performance measures over the course of 2006
and incorporate them in the 2007 Operational Plan.
Working Groups
Thank you for your advice regarding the CEC Working Groups under Article
9(5). Unfortunately, due to the urgency of other matters before the
CEC, the issue of the future of working groups (WGs) has not yet been
discussed by the three Parties.
At present, five Council-created WGs under Article 9(5) support various aspects of the CEC's work: the Sound Management of Chemicals WG (SMOC), the North American Air Working Group (NAAWG), the Biodiversity Conservation Working Group (BCWG), the Enforcement Working Groups (EWG), and the 10(6) WG on Trade and Environment. Several other ad hoc expert groups, committees and task forces have been created to contribute to and guide the work of the CEC on more specific topics.
The current position of the United States is that the 10(6) WG should be integrated into the Trade & Environment pillar; and the Pollutant Release and Toxic Registry (PRTR) ad hoc expert group should be included under the Information pillar. Thus, four WGs would remain: SMOC, NAAWG, BCWG and EWG. As a counterpoint to the substantive WGs (which are substantive areas that are clearly identified in the NAAEC as objectives for enhanced cooperation among the three Parties), the United States is also proposing to create three Pillar "Expert" groups, which would be responsible for ensuring that the projects and activities proposed by the WGs further the strategic objectives of the three CEC priorities. This would create a matrix management approach to the annual CEC work plan. The intent of this matrix structure is to encourage collaboration between programs within each pillar, while still allowing for expert management of individual programs.
We agree with the NAC's advice that all working groups should have clearly defined charters, terms of reference as well as reporting lines and procedures that are clear to all. Our proposed structure is attached, with more details regarding roles and responsibilities. Of course, we look forward to clarifying this matter with Canada and Mexico as soon as possible.
CEC Publications
Regarding your advice on CEC Publications, we appreciate your recognition
of the fundamental need for quality in CEC documents. Following conversations
with the governments and the advice of the NAC and GAC, the CEC Secretariat
is currently working on developing one set of quality management guidelines
for all projects, activities, and publications, based on the Quality
Management Framework developed by the Information Experts. Regarding
publications, these guidelines will help identify different types of
publications, levels of Council participation and review, and approvals
required before publication. The publication procedures within these
guidelines will be based on the "publications reform guidance" previously
shared by the United States. The Secretariat expects to finalize the
draft document for Party review by the end of March 2006. We hope that
this new document will bring clarity to the issue.
2005-2006 Operational Plans and Budgets
In response to your advice regarding the status of the CEC Secretariat
Operational Plans and Budgets, we recognize that the operational plan
and budget are key to the implementation of the work of the CEC. Timeliness
is critical and so is content and quality. A limited 2005 Operational
Plan was approved in September 2005 due to time constraints and budget
uncertainty. For 2006, the GSC has been working hard to develop a quality
operational plan that incorporates the direction provided by the Council
in the Puebla Declaration.
However, unexpected circumstances have delayed negotiations and consensus on budget and contents of the operational plan. The Alternate Representatives approved 11 projects in the 2006 Operational Plan on March 2, and we expect that remaining projects and budget for 2006 will be approved by the end of March 2006. In future years, we expect to complete and approve budgets and operational plans well in advance of the corresponding year.
As always, the United States appreciates the advice of the National Advisory Committee, which helps us to understand the views of the public on critical environmental issues in North America. In preparation for your upcoming meeting, we would particularly appreciate your continued advice on the private sector initiative, and your advice on best practices for peer review. We also invite your reflection on CEC's activities and the best way to make the most significant impact in North America, working through the current CEC Strategic Plan.
We look forward to further collaboration with you as the 2006 Operational Plan and work program is implemented.
Sincerely yours,
Barbara McLeod
Acting Office Director
Office of International Environmental Policy
| cc: | Plácido dos Santos, Chair, U.S. Governmental
Advisory Committee Carlos Sandoval Olvera, Chair, Joint Public Advisory Committee Members of the U.S. National Advisory Committee |