Response Letter, February 2004

February 2, 2005

Dolores Wesson
NAC Vice-Chair
Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
La Jolla, CA 92093-0202

Dear Ms. Wesson:

Thank you for the National Advisory Committee's (NAC) November 4 advice in follow-up to your October meeting. Your advice on the new strategic direction for the CEC, including the draft strategies proposed under the Puebla pillars and the criteria and evaluation of ongoing activities, was considered in great depth over the last several months as we have been in the process of negotiating the 2005 CEC Operational Plan. As you are aware, we are still in the process of negotiating this plan, and we have been in regular discussions with the NAC over the last several months to continue to request and incorporate your advice throughout the development of the plan, including, as you requested, follow up meetings with Jerry Clifford, our Alternate Representative to the CEC. On behalf of the EPA Administrator and the United States, we offer the following response to your advice.

Proposed Projects under the Puebla Pillars

We have carefully considered your advice on the draft strategies under development in each of the Puebla pillars. While we appreciate your suggestion to have the three pillars fit together as a "triangle" in which information and capacity building support the trade and environment pillar, we have chosen to have the three pillars stand independently and to have individual strategic goals for each. Of course, all three pillars will need to be connected to one another as work proceeds, and we consider this an important organizational principle to be reflected in the new work.

With regard to the trade and environment pillar, we also are very encouraged by and supportive of the work that the 10.6 Working Group is undertaking in developing a strategic plan on trade and the environment. We agree that as part of this process, and in prioritizing among possible initiatives, we should be aware of any environmental problems that have arisen due to NAFTA implementation or that are identified in future environmental assessments of NAFTA. We also agree that initiatives or projects that the CEC undertakes to implement a strategic plan on trade and the environment should benefit North America as a whole. Indeed, as we continue to refine and focus the specific areas and projects for inclusion in the strategic and operational plans, we expressly consider whether the CEC is the appropriate home for those areas or projects. Given the CEC's limited resources, we do not believe that the CEC should undertake projects that are bi-national in focus or that are duplicative of working being undertaken in other fora.

In the area of information for decision-making, while this pillar is still under negotiation, we do appreciate and agree with your recommendation that the CEC continue to build partnerships with UNEP, and other appropriate agencies in the US, to achieve these goals.

In regard to your advice under the Capacity Building pillar, we appreciate your recommendation to include many avenues of cooperation in Mexico in order to build capacity throughout Mexican society as a whole. We are working to incorporate numerous stakeholders into the needs-assessment project under this pillar, as you suggested.

We continue to agree with your view that the CEC should serve as a catalyst for country work, and that hand-offs and conclusions of projects must be designed into new and existing projects. We are working to incorporate this understanding into projects to be approved in the 2005 Operational Plan.

Evaluation and Criteria for CEC Activities

Your input on our US-proposed criteria for ongoing activities is well-taken, and we have considered your suggestions in the process of judging ongoing projects of the CEC. Although we agree in principle with your interest in securing a strategic vision and objectives before evaluating specific projects and activities, as you understand, time pressures have required us to explore existing projects at the same time as we have been designing goals and objectives for the new pillars.

The Secretariat's proposal for new and existing project funding in 2005 incorporates some existing projects into the new pillars. It also includes phase-out plans for existing projects that do not fit into the new pillars or do not support the Council's vision of the Secretariat acting as a facilitator or catalyst for work that will be implemented by the Parties or other stakeholders. We are currently assessing individual projects on a trilateral basis, based on a template that does address many of the criteria discussed at our last meeting.

Publication of the Maize Report

We appreciate your concern for the publication of the Article 13 Maize report. As you know, the report was published in November, after a party review which was less than the normal 60-day guideline, consistent with Article 13.3.

Thank you again for your thoughtful advice on strengthening the work of the CEC, and your ongoing work to address environmental challenges in North America. I look forward to your continued involvement with the CEC in the coming years.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Cough
Director, Office of International
Environmental Policy

cc: NAC Members

Response Letter, February 2004

Local Navigation