|
|
Compendium for Improving Environmental Regulation: An Environment
Canada Perspectives Paper
A. Regulatory Instruments
Economic Instruments - Key Experiences
Phase-out of Lead from Gasoline Using the Tax System
to Accelerate Environmental Action
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. |
Methyl Bromide Tradable Permits Scheme Smoothing the Transition and Reducing Costs
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. |
Tax Incentives for Ethanol-Blended Fuel Using Taxes to Level the Economic Playing
Field
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. |
Solvent Degreasing Regulations Reducing Toxics with an Economic Instrument
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. |
Information Based Instruments - Key Experiences
National Pollutant Release Inventory Using Information
to Engage the Public
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. |
Pollution Prevention (P2) Plans Encouraging Better Environmental Management
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. |
Other Instruments - Key Experiences
Metal Mining Effluent Regulations Adaptable Regulations
with Clear Objectives
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. |
The 1992 Federal Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Control Framework Monitoring Effects
to Assess and Improve Regulations
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. |
Habitat Stewardship Program Economic Incentives
for a Voluntary Approach
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:
- securing or protecting important habitat to protect species at risk and support
their recovery;
- 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:
- private landowners*,
- land and resource users (individuals* or companies);
- not-for-profit organizations such as charitable and volunteer organizations, professional
associations and non-governmental organizations;
- Aboriginal organizations, associations, and wildlife management boards;
- educational institutions;
- local organizations such as community associations and groups, seniors. and youth
groups, and service clubs;
- private individuals* and companies that lease Crown lands or have lease agreements
or permits for resource use and exploitation; and
- 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. |
Canada-Wide Standards Inter-jurisdictional Cooperation
on the Environment
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). |
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Effective Conservation Using a Non-Regulatory Instrument
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:
- Almost 100 corporations, including, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries, Brunswick
Mining & Smelting, Monsanto Canada, Weyerhaeuser and Pan Canadian Petroleum Limited.
- Several educational institutions, including the University of Alberta and Simon
Fraser University,
- 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. |
|