- Mission [1]
- The Government Advisory Committee (GAC) supports the agency’s mission of protecting human health and the environment. Its
advice assists the EPA Administrator on achieving the goals of safeguarding the natural environment--air, water, and land,
via trilateral activities in the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The CEC is a trilateral institution created
by the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and funded by the Governments of the United States, Mexico
and Canada. The GAC provides the EPA Administrator with policy perspectives from academia, the private sector and environmental
NGOs. Their advice is useful to the U.S. Government as it negotiates the cooperative Operational Plan with Canada and Mexico
and prepare for the outcomes of the Environment Ministers annual meeting. Each year the committee reviews and provides advice
on two major CEC products. One is the tri-annual Operational Plan and secondly is the CEC’s Annual Council Session. The Operational
Plan sets tri-lateral priorities for environmental management in North America, such as enhancing environmental information,
the sound management of chemicals, and conserving biodiversity. The Operational Plan undergoes tri-lateral review on an annual
basis. The committee plays an important role in helping define the themes and outcomes of the annual June Council Session.In
fiscal year 2011, the GAC completed two advice letters and six recommendations to EPA on a variety of North American environment
and trade policy issues related to the CEC. The committee met twice in fiscal year 2011. In addition, the EPA Administrator
met in person with representatives of the committee at the CEC 2011 Council Session in Canada. The main accomplishments of
the Committee are summarized below:The committee’s December 22, 2010 advice letter contains recommendations on three major
topics: 1) Project Ideas within the Three Priorities 2) Supplemental Funding for CEC Activities and 3) Creation of a Tribal
Nations Standing Committee. The U.S. Government (USG) replied to the GAC with a letter on February 28, 2011 addressing their
recommendations. First, it thanked the committees in general for their thoughtful and comprehensive comments on how best to
translate the priorities into activities and programs with measurable outcomes and finite objectives. The USG replied to advice
#1 agreeing that the “NAPECA grants program can be a means to overcome the challenges relating to undertaking water activities
in a trilateral setting,” and described a recently funded grant to the Red Lake Band of the Chippewa that addresses water
issues. It also declared that the U.S. will support the broader definition of NAPECA and that the water projects suggested
by the GAC will be tabled by the U.S. in their negotiations with the other Parties. Similarly, the US agreed with supporting
NAPECA activities related to waste management, specifically cross border waste disposal activities. The U.S. responded that
it will determine appropriate next steps in the future related to greenhouse harmonization efforts. Regarding advice #2, on
supplemental funding, the U.S. responded that “it did not think the idea would be embraced by their North American partners,
mainly due to the fact that Article 43 of the NAAEC calls for equal contributions….and any additional resources from one Party
could be perceived as augmenting that Party’s influence.” The U.S. replied to advice # 3 on the tribal committee, by ensuring
U.S. commitment to tribal representation on the GAC and NAC and also encouraging developing synergies with the American Indian
Environment Office at EPA. Overall, the US thanked the committees for their advice and their hard work and concrete knowledge
of the business of government…The committee’s May 16, 2011 advice letter contains recommendations on three topics related
to the draft 2011 CEC Operational Plan: 1) Format and Presentation 2) General Advice and 3) Project-Specific Recommendations.
The U.S. Government (USG) replied to the GAC with a letter on June 9, 2011, addressing their recommendations. The USG replied
to advice #1 by thanking the committees for their valuable advice. The USG agreed to the inclusion of an executive summary
and that such an approach would “place the new process in a broader context and thereby would provide additional transparency
and clarity.” The U.S will propose this approach to its North American partners. Next, it also agreed with providing a matrix
showing critical information about all the projects in a single page. The US also agreed to provide a life cycle chart for
current and proposed projects in the final Operational Plan. The USG responded to advice #2, by concurring with the inclusion
of the larger context and rationale for the selection of the projects. It also agreed that a graphic slide depicting the process
would help tell the story of the project. The U.S. agreed to first concentrate on establishing rational comparability in the
ways that Parties collect, analyze… and reporting .. for climate change programs. It will consider adaptation projects in
the future. The U.S. also agreed that it would make every effort to use new cost savings technology in conducting the business
of the Secretariat. The USG responded to advice #3 with detailed responses on each of the fourteen projects found in the CEC
draft Operational Plan. Overall, the USG acknowledged the committee’s thoughtful advice.
|
