Title of Regulatory Initiative
Phase-out of Lead from Gasoline

Description and Objectives of Initiative
In September 1988, the Ministers of Health and Environment announced that lead would be effectively eliminated from motor fuel effective December 1, 1990. The ban had been set for December, 1992, however growing evidence on the detrimental effects of lead on child brain development led the government to act earlier. The Federal Government implemented a tax differential of 1 cent/litre in April 1989 to 'discourage the use of leaded fuel'.

Sector(s) Affected
Oil & Gas Refiners, Consumer Health - particularly children, Transportation

Involvement of/Impact on Other Jurisdictions or Federal OGDs
Some provinces also implemented taxes on leaded fuel to encourage earlier use of unleaded gasoline by consumers. Ontario increased the tax by 3 cents/L. As a result of the tax increase, the imminent federal ban and retrofits of the pumps by the marketers, leaded gasoline demand in Ontario dropped from 25- 33% to 10-12% a year later, and to 1-3% by 1990.

Key Stakeholders
See Sectors Affected

Assessment of the Initiative
The tax was implemented as a complement to regulation and both resulted in the elimination of leaded gasoline. The tax was instrumental in motivating industry and consumers to switch quickly.

Title of Regulatory Initiative
Methyl Bromide Tradable Permits Scheme

Description and Objectives of Initiative
In January 1995, Environment Canada introduced a small 'cap and trade' scheme to phase out the consumption of Methyl Bromide, a fumigant and powerful ozone-depleting substance scheduled for complete phase out by 2005. Starting in 1998, allowances have acquired a value on the market.

On a yearly basis, EC allocates transferable allowances to 100 users, based on historical use. The regulated entity receives a free share of the total consumption allowances, which it can use or sell. The overall cap is ratcheted downwards yearly. Permits are not bankable and there is no government price tracking system for these permits. Some 50 trades have taken place, mostly between companies operating in different sectors.

Sector(s) Affected
Pesticide producers and users, farmers, importers and exporters of Methyl Bromide

Involvement of/Impact on Other Jurisdictions or Federal OGDs
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Pest Management Control Agency

Key Stakeholders
Pest Control, Farmers, Flour Mills and others using Methyl Bromide fumigants

Assessment of the Initiative
This has been a successful experience. While the price of Methyl Bromide has increased over the years, the transfer of allowances has enabled a smoother, less costly transition. Moreover, the combined pressure of limited quantities of methyl bromide, higher prices, and the value of the allowances, has encouraged users to look for alternatives and reduce usage. This system has introduced a low-cost alternative to more traditional abatement tools, and has encouraged users to look for alternatives to Methyl Bromide.

Title of Regulatory Initiative
Tax Incentives for Ethanol-Blended Fuel

Description and Objectives of Initiative
Since 1992, the ethanol portion of gasoline blended with ethanol has been exempt from the federal excise tax ($0.10/L of gasoline). The federal excise tax exemption instrument was used to develop the commercial fuel ethanol industry and to encourage consumer purchases of ethanol blended fuels. The reduction in the federal excise tax was designed so that retailers could sell the ethanol- blended fuel at competitive prices while still satisfying the green fuel objective.

Sector(s) Affected
Agriculture, Ethanol Producers, Oil & Gas Marketers

Involvement of/Impact on Other Jurisdictions or Federal OGDs
Provinces - most provinces matched with tax exemptions of their own, NRCan, AAFC

Key Stakeholders
Ethanol Producers, Farmers, Consumers, refiners, Oil & Gas Industry, Retailers, ENGOs

Assessment of the Initiative
This policy is working as intended. The instrument has helped to maintain competitive retail prices while increasing the market share of ethanol-blended gasoline to over 200 Million Litres of ethanol sold annually (around 1% of the Canadian gasoline market.) The program also encourages the provinces to revise their tax policies on the motor fuel tax. Currently, ethanol plants operate in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, Quebec, and Ontario. The long-range goal is for the ethanol market to be self-sustaining. The excise tax break will not be required indefinitely: it is a temporary measure used to encourage the development of this infant industry.

Title of Regulatory Initiative
Solvent Degreasing Regulations

Description and Purpose of Initiative
The purpose of the regulations is to reduce consumption of trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PERC) in solvent degreasing operations. These reductions will be attained through issuing consumption units to companies. The regulations will mandate a three-year freeze based on historical consumption, followed by a 65% reduction in use. It will provide an indirect incentive for companies to recover and recycle used solvents, and will allow flexibility for companies to apply a pollution prevention approach by switching to alternative less harmful cleaning solvents and technologies.

The regulations, based on stakeholder recommendations, prescribe:

• the control of the quantities of TCE and PERC consumed in solvent degreasing operations;
• a three-year freeze at a selected baseline based on historical consumption; and,
• a 65% reduction in use after the three-year consumption freeze.

Assessment of the Initiative
These Regulations have been written to allow the addition of other solvents, degreasing processes, thresholds, dates, percentage reductions to the schedules at a future date if necessary. It also allows trading of consumption units as well as on-site recycling.

Other alternatives were considered - such as performance-based regulations, technology-based controls and voluntary measures - but a market-based approach (consumption units and trading) was the preferred option.

It has been difficult to anticipate every possible situation that could arise since solvent degreasing is an integral part of such a variety of manufacturing processes, large and small. It was also a challenge to design and explain the concept of consumption units based on historical consumption levels and trading concept works.

Other Comments
The Regulations are expected to be published in Canada Gazette Part II in Summer 2003.

Ecological Gifts Program Using the Tax System to Protect Habitat

Title of Non-Regulatory Initiative
Ecological Gifts Program

Description and Objectives of Initiative
The Ecological Gifts Program was established by Environment Canada in 1995 as a means to directly engage Canadians in conserving Canada's environmental heritage. The Program's objective is to secure and protect ecologically sensitive lands across Canada through the provision of special income-tax benefits to landowners who donate land or interest in land that is deemed to be ecologically sensitive.

Between 1995 and 1999, the Program operated on a modest scale with an annual funding level of $25,000. In 2000, the Federal Budget announced significant revisions to the Program and allocated $10.3 million, over the four-year period 2000-2004, to implement the proposed revisions.

This program deals with the donation of lands and conservation easements or covenants owned by private citizens or corporations. Recipient agencies may be municipalities, Crown agencies, and any one of about 125 non-government environmental charities. Donors of land receive a tax receipt for the value of each gift, resulting in lower federal and provincial income taxes. In 1995, donors of ecologically sensitive lands were first exempted from net income limits on tax assistance for donations.

Under the new provisions of Budget 2000, all ecological gifts will now benefit from a 50% reduction of the normal portion of capital gains that are subject to tax. This will mean that only one third of any deemed capital gain associated with a donation will be taxable.

Sector(s) Affected
Natural Heritage - Wildlife Habitats - Species at risk, Woodlot owners

Involvement of/Impact on Other Jurisdictions or Federal OGDs
The EGP is implementing provisions of the Income Tax Act of Canada.

NRCan (Forests)

Key Stakeholders
The EGP is administered by EC in cooperation with dozens of partners, including other federal departments, provincial and municipal governments, and environmental non-governmental organizations.

• Some provincial departments and ENGOs certify in the name of the Minister of the Environment a property as ecologically sensitive.
• Landowners make donation of land or partial interest in land.
• Federal, provincial and municipal governments, and environmental nongovernmental organizations receive and manage the donation.

A Canadian representative Appraisers Review Panel recommends to the Minister of the Environment the fair market value of each donation.

An interdepartmental working group (CCRA, Finance, PWGSC, PCO and EC) share federal needs and concerns and give advice to the EGP National Secretariat.

Assessment of the Initiative
The instrument has been very successful. Established under the Income Tax Act of Canada in 1995, this program has fostered around 220 donations, covering almost 30,000 hectares valued in excess of $33 million. This program results in the protection of habitats critically important to wildlife. Donors have identified that the habitats of species at risk are present on about one third of these gifted lands.

Habitat protection is key to wildlife acts such CWA, MBCA or SARA. Landowners play a vital role in habitat conservation. The EGP contributes by providing a cost effective alternative to legal intervention; it is likely that (1) a strong legal approach would actually create strong disincentives for landowner participation in conservation under EGP, and (2) would cost the federal government considerably more to achieve conservation objectives. EGP balances legal and regulatory tools by providing economic incentives for taking a voluntary approach.

Title of Regulatory Initiative
National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI)

Description and Objectives of Initiative
Environment Canada's National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) is a legislated, nation-wide, publicly accessible inventory of pollutants released to the environment. It provides Canadians with information on pollutant releases from facilities located in their communities and the quantities sent to other facilities for disposal, treatment or recycling.

Data reported to the NPRI are collecting under the authority of subsection 46(1) of CEPA 1999. Owners or operators of facilities that meet the prescribed criteria, criteria for one or more of the NPRI-listed substances, are required to report to the NPRI. This includes facilities in all sectors, not just industrial facilities, although certain types of activities are not required to report (e.g. research and development).

Data are collected and published on an annual basis in a number of formats.

Assessment of the Initiative
A stakeholder committee provided recommendations to Environment Canada on the initial design of the program and on ongoing changes. Broader public and stakeholder consultation has always been an integral part of the program as well. Environmental groups have cited NPRI's consultation process as an excellent model for stakeholder engagement.

The NPRI is also an example of federal-provincial cooperation and government- industry partnership. It is used to provide one-window pollutant inventory reporting for other levels of government, other EC programs and for some voluntary programs such as Environment Canada's Environmental Performance Agreements and the Canadian Chemical Producers Association pollutant reporting for its Responsible Care program.

Title of Regulatory Initiative
Pollution prevention (P2) planning provisions under Part 4 of CEPA 1999.

Description and Purpose of Initiative
CEPA 99 identifies the use of P2 Plans as a possible management instrument for toxic substances. One example of pollution prevention planning under CEPA 1999 is the current development of a P2 notice for Municipal Wastewater Effluents (MWWE). The notice intends to address the risk associated with Ammonia dissolved in water, Inorganic Chloramines and Chlorinated Wastewater Effluents, all found to be toxic under CEPA. Pollution prevention planning and the development of P2 plans is, in this case, a first step as part of a long-term risk management strategy for these substances. The preparation and implementation of a plan will shift the initial focus from pollution control to pollution prevention activities that municipalities may be able to take (ex: installation of chlorine-free disinfection methods), and will also encourage source-control of the substances. Depending on the results obtained versus the risk management objectives initially set in the notice, other measures or instruments may or may not be necessary.

The P2 Plan Notice for acrylonitrile is directed at synthetic rubber manufacturers who use and release acrylonitrile to the environment. Only one company is expected to be targeted by this notice. The risk management objective of this initiative is to reduce releases of acrylonitrile from this source to the lowest achievable levels by the application of best available techniques economically achievable by December 31, 2005. This would bring the emission controls in line with the U.S. standards.

This instrument is considered the best choice taking into account the scope of the issue, and that only one company accounts for the majority of the emissions and focus has been placed on reducing those emissions. In addition, it allows a flexible approach to achieve the Risk Management objective as stated above. As well, the company has taken prior voluntary action to reduce emissions and is amenable to further action.

Assessment of the Initiative
Since its beginning, the Pollution prevention (P2) planning program has been used to manage the risk associated with various substances. As noted above, the first ever Final Notice was published in the Canada Gazette, Part 1 on May 17, 2003. It requires the preparation and implementation of pollution prevention plans for Acrylonitrile, a substance found to be toxic under CEPA. Another Final

Notice for Dichloromethane is schedule for publication in June 2003. Environment Canada also intends to publish Proposed Notices for Municipal Wastewater Effluents and Textile Mills Effluents/Nonylphenol in June 2003. P2 notices are also underway for Nonylphenol in products and wood preservers. Finally, this instrument is also being considered to manage the risk associated with Ethylene Oxide and for the releases from Cu and Zn smelters/refineries. It is expected that as the program grows and experience is gained with this instrument, P2 planning will be used extensively, where it is the most appropriate instrument.

Title of Regulatory Initiative
Metal Mining Effluent Regulations

Description and Purpose of Initiative

The New Regulations
These new regulations under the Fisheries Act replaced the Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations (MMLER), in place since 1977 and repealed the Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations, which were promulgated in 1979.

The new Regulations apply to all operating metal mines in Canada (approximately 100), while the MMLER only applied to about one third of Canada's metal mines - those that began operation after 1977, and those which do not use cyanide in the milling process.

The Regulations strengthen the requirements of the MMLER by:

• adding limits for cyanide to the original MMLER limits for arsenic, copper, lead, zinc, nickel and radium 226;
• including an upper limit on pH;
• lowering the limit for total suspended solids (TSS);
• requiring that mines conduct Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) programs; and
• requiring the production of effluent that is non-acutely lethal to rainbow trout.

Environmental Effects Monitoring
The metal mining Environmental Effects Monitoring program builds on the experience of the Environmental Effects Monitoring program developed and implemented under the 1992 Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations.

The program will help evaluate the effectiveness of current and future pollution prevention and control technologies, practices and programs within the mining sector.

The objective of EEM is to evaluate effects of effluent on aquatic environment, specifically fish, fish habitat and the use of fisheries resources. Results will be used to determine if better protection of fish, fish habitat and fisheries on a site- specific basis is required.

EEM Program is Flexible and Site-specific
Each mine owner or operator is required to develop, conduct, and report the findings of a site-specific Environmental Effects Monitoring program that monitors key components of the aquatic ecosystem.

Program allows use of historic data and data from programs required by other regulatory agencies.

Program is tiered: the design of monitoring for a site is determined, in part, by results of previous monitoring.

If effects are identified, then subsequent EEM studies will be more intensive, to determine magnitude, extent and cause of effects.

If there are no effects, then frequency of some monitoring activities may be reduced.

Once an effect has been identified and magnitude, extent and possible causes known, follow up actions will be determined on a site-specific basis.

Assessment of the Initiative
There are a number of aspects of the MMER which make these Regulations an example of progressive, or smart, legislation:

The EEM program is flexible, and site-specific, so that monitoring can be tailored to the unique conditions of each mine site.

The results of EEM program will provide a 'feedback loop' to assess the effectiveness of the Regulations.

The MMER rewards good performance:

• Regulations permit a reduction in frequency of testing for deleterious substances under specified conditions; and
• The frequency of acute lethality testing may be reduced under specified conditions. But, if a sample is acutely lethal, frequency of testing must be increased.

MMER also include provisions for recognized closed mines, including a requirement, which never ends, that the owners or operators of recognized closed mines notify Environment Canada any time that the ownership of a recognized closed mine is transferred.

• This requirement will ensure that the ownership of all recognized closed mines is known. This will help to avoid future problems with orphaned sites of unknown ownership.

Other Comments
The MMER, particularly the EEM requirements of the MMER, have been recognized by the Mining Association of Canada as an example of progressive, SMART legislation.

Title of Regulatory Initiative
The 1992 Federal Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Control Framework

Description and Purpose of Initiative
The 1992 Federal Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Control Framework was a package of regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Fisheries Act to eliminate the environmental effects of pulp and paper mill effluent.

In the 1980's there was concern over the negative environmental effects of pulp and paper mill effluent. The 1971 Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations under the Fisheries Act did not set limits for dioxins and furans - very toxic components of the effluent of mills that used chlorine to bleach their paper.

In 1991, dioxins and furans were declared toxic under CEPA. The Minister of the Environment asked the National Water Research Institute to launch research studies to identify what substances in the effluent was causing the problem, how to eliminate them, and what the short and long term environmental effects would be.

In 1992, the Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans Regulations were implemented. These regulations required the reduction of dioxins and furans below measurable levels.

Also put in place were the Pulp and Paper Defoamer and Wood Chip Regulations to deal with precursors that could lead to the formation of dioxins and furans in effluent of mills using chlorine bleaching. These regulations also required very low allowable concentration of dioxins and furans.

Direction was provided to pulp and paper mills on acceptable performance. The limits were based on performance by mills having sound pollution prevention and control practices in place. Regulatees could choose themselves what technologies to apply.

The regulations also required mills to perform Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM). The Environmental Effects Monitoring program provides scientific data to continually evaluate the effectiveness of the regulations, and to provide a basis to remedy any deficiencies at individual sites.

Assessment of the Initiative
All mills have been subject to the limits in the package for over 5 years.

Positive results are shown with declines of 99% for chlorinated dioxins and furans; 94% for biochemical oxygen demand, and 70% for total suspended solids.

Positive environmental improvements are being observed under the EEM program. For example declines in dioxin discharges have lead to lower levels in fish, and nearly half of the shellfish harvesting areas previously closed to commercial and recreational harvesting have been re-opened. Nearly all of the fin-fish consumption advisories have been lifted.

As well, EEM has demonstrated that the improved controls have resulted in smaller areas of the benthic community near mills being affected by the effluent.

EEM, along with focused research, have documented continued effects on fish populations around some pulp and paper mills. These observations provide the foundation for further work to delineate the ecological significance of the effects and to understand why they are occurring and what might be done to reduce or eliminate them.

Environment Canada is committed to work with the pulp and paper industry, Environmental Non-Government Organizations, and others to continually improve Canada's management of pulp and paper mill effluent.

In summary, the regulatory package has resulted in demonstrable improvements to fish and fish habitat. The EEM program provides an ongoing evaluation of the regulations and the measures included, as well as vital scientific information to address any gaps seen at individual sites.

Title of Regulatory Initiative
Habitat Stewardship Program: Supports the federal-provincial-territorial Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk and provisions of the Species at Risk Act (SARA).

Description and Objectives of Initiative
The Accord specifically calls for stewardship as a strategy for recovery of species at risk; the preamble and s.10 of the SARA call for a stewardship action plan, and s.11 of SARA allows stewardship agreements to be established to meet provisions of the Act. S.13 of SARA allows funding to be provided to support the development of s.11 agreements. These provisions of SARA allow stewardship to broadly support implementation of the Act, and specifically refer to stewardship agreements in SARA's prohibition sections as a potential means to avoid the need to apply the Act's habitat prohibitions on non-federal lands.

The Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk (HSP) is a funding program that supports the Accord and SARA implementation (s.10, s.11, s.13). By supporting a stewardship approach, the program helps Canadians take initiative to protect species at risk and their habitats. The program fosters land and resource use practices that maintain habitat that is necessary for the survival and recovery of identified species at risk by enhancing existing conservation activities and encouraging new ones.

Protecting habitat and contributing to the recovery of species at risk are the main goals of the Habitat Stewardship Program. The program focuses on results in three key areas:

1. securing or protecting important habitat to protect species at risk and support their recovery;
2. mitigating threats to species at risk caused by human activities; and sporting the implementation of other priority activities in recovery strategies or action plans, where these are in place or under development.

The Habitat Stewardship Program generates its results by funding projects in collaboration with partners and communities of interest. According to the original Treasury Board submission, eligible participants in the Program include:

1. private landowners*,
2. land and resource users (individuals* or companies);
3. not-for-profit organizations such as charitable and volunteer organizations, professional associations and non-governmental organizations;
4. Aboriginal organizations, associations, and wildlife management boards;
5. educational institutions;
6. local organizations such as community associations and groups, seniors. and youth groups, and service clubs;
7. private individuals* and companies that lease Crown lands or have lease agreements or permits for resource use and exploitation; and
8. provincial, municipal and local governments.^*

* Note - While these recipients are eligible under the original Treasury Board submission, financial authorities do not allow for signing of contribution agreements with individuals.

In addition to the above objectives, the program aims to achieve 2:1 leveraging on funds that it invests, so that for every $1 provided by HSP, $2 are raised by project recipients.

Sector(s) Affected
Natural heritage - wildlife habitats - species at risk; agricultural sector; forestry sector (including pulp and paper); municipalities (urban development); energy (oil and gas, electricity), mining; conservation groups and environment non- government organizations

Involvement of/Impact on Other Jurisdictions or Federal OGDs
Other federal agencies directly involved in the program include: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Heritage (Parks Canada Agency); provincial agencies are involved in program governance through Regional Implementation Boards; other provincial agencies also involved through the species at risk program as a whole.

Key Stakeholders
ENGOs and resource industries; all eligible recipients

Assessment of the Initiative
The regulatory issue is habitat protection and mitigating threats to species at risk. More broadly, the issue is recovery; although there is no direct legal mandate for this, it is implied in the Species at Risk Act. A mix of instruments was considered (legal, financial, voluntary). It is likely that (1) a strong legal approach would actually create strong disincentives for landowner and resource user participation in conservation for Species At Risk, and (2) would cost the federal government considerably more to achieve conservation objectives. HSP balances legal and regulatory tools by modest economic incentives for taking a voluntary approach. The Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk and the Species at Risk Act both acknowledge this.

Title of Regulatory Initiative
Canada-Wide Standards agreements under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME).

Description and Objectives of Initiative
The Canada-wide Environmental Standards Sub-Agreement under the CCME's Harmonization Agreement is a framework for federal, provincial, and territorial Environment Ministers to work together to address key environmental and health issues that would benefit from common environmental standards across the country. Ministers establish priorities for standards, and jurisdictions work together to develop the appropriate type of standard for the contaminant or issue. Canada-wide Standards (CWS) generally contain:

• a numeric limit (e.g., ambient, discharge, or product standard)
• a timetable for attainment, and
• a framework for monitoring progress and reporting to the public.

CCME identifies a champion jurisdiction to lead the development of the CWS through a Development Committee chaired by a representative of the champion jurisdiction. Provinces and territories participate in the Development Committee on a voluntary basis. CWS represent policy commitments by jurisdictions and as such CWS agreements are signed by CCME Ministers. For the federal Environment Minister, CWS agreements fall under CEPA Part 9 that deals with administrative agreements. While CWS agreements set the outcome and timeframe, they allow individual jurisdictions to use the instrument that is most appropriate to achieve the target.

Ministers have endorsed Canada-wide Standards for: fine particulate matter; ground-level ozone; benzene; mercury from incineration and base metal smelting; dioxins and furans for waste incinerators, pulp and paper boilers burning salt-laden wood, iron sintering and steel manufacturing; petroleum hydrocarbons in soil; and mercury in lamps and dental amalgam waste. Additional CWSs are being developed for dioxin and furan emissions from conical waste burners and mercury emissions from electric power generation.

Sector(s) Affected
Affected sectors vary depending on the particular substance covered by the CWS.

Involvement of/Impact on Other Jurisdictions or Federal OGDs
The development and implementation of CWS is a joint federal-provincial- territorial initiative. CWS agreements are based on the 'best situated to act' principle. They also allow for other jurisdictions to take action if a jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to take action. Interested federal departments are involved in federal work related to the CWSs.

Key Stakeholders
A range of stakeholders has been involved in the CWS process. Key stakeholders vary according to the CWS.

Assessment of the Initiative
CWS agreements are a successful example of cooperation between the two levels of government. Because implementation is the responsibility of individual jurisdictions, it respects jurisdictional authority, and allows for more flexibility to account for regional differences. CWS have led to provincial actions (regulations, permits and licensing, phase out policies) that have resulted in the significant achievement of environmental results without specific federal actions. For example, Ontario amended its Certificate of Approvals for municipal solid waste incinerators to refer to the CWS targets and put in place a regulation to phase out existing hospital incinerators by December 2003. Several CWSs have begun or are about to begin their first review phase (PM and Ozone; dioxins and furans; PHCs).

Title of Non-Regulatory Initiative
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) was signed in 1986 between the US and Canada. Mexico signed on in 1994.

Description and Objectives of Initiative
The NAWMP (Plan) is aimed at restoring and sustaining waterfowl populations in North America to 1970s levels by securing, enhancing and managing key wetland and associated habitat across the continent. It supports federal legislative mandate and responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Convention Act

Sector(s) Affected
The Plan waterfowl priority habitats overlap with areas of significant agricultural, forest and mining activity, in particular the western Prairie Pothole area, the northern Boreal Forest, British Columbia and Atlantic Canada, as well as areas of coastal, rural and urban activity and development across the continent. For this reason, the Plan partners have recognised from the beginning the need to plan and implement at the landscape-level and through regional multi-sector partnerships involving the full range of stakeholders on the landscapes, including landowners.

Involvement of/Impact on Other Jurisdictions or Federal OGDs
Internationally, the Plan is implemented and funded through regionally based habitat and species Joint Ventures involving federal, State, provincial/territorial and regional government agencies, non-government organisations, the private sector and landowners.

In Canada, over 50 provincial and territorial departments or agencies and more than 20 regional and local governments are involved in Plan implementation. Federal government departments or agencies include Environment Canada, Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Heritage Canada (Parks Canada) and Natural Resources Canada.

Key Stakeholders (NGOs)
Canadian NGO Plan partners include:

1. Almost 100 corporations, including, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries, Brunswick Mining & Smelting, Monsanto Canada, Weyerhaeuser and Pan Canadian Petroleum Limited.
2. Several educational institutions, including the University of Alberta and Simon Fraser University,
3. More than 70 not-for profit organizations such as Ducks Unlimited Canada, Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Fondation de la faune du Québec, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Nature Trust of B.C., Wildlife Habitat Canada, Canadian Nature Federation, and Canadian Cattlemen Association.

Assessment of the Initiative
The Plan is an example of an effective way to achieve significant conservation objectives without the use and application of legislative instruments. For example, Canadian and US NAWMP partners have, over the last 17 years, contributed over $837 M to secure and enhance 1.8M hectares of waterfowl and associated habitat in Canada (53% of goal) while incurring only 29% of the expected cost. This represents a 5:1 level of partner contribution for every federal dollar spent on NAWMP programs in Canada since 1986.