| Montreal, 24/12/2003 – On 17 December 2003, the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America (CEC) recommended to the CEC Council that a factual record be developed for the Ontario Logging submission (SEM-02-001). The submission alleges that Canada is failing to effectively enforce Section 6(a) of the Migratory Bird Regulations (MBR) adopted under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 in regard to clearcut logging in Ontario. Section 6(a) of the MBR makes it an offence to disturb, destroy or take a nest or egg of a migratory bird without a permit.
Sierra Legal Defence Fund filed the submission with the CEC on 6 February 2002, on behalf of several Canadian and US environmental groups. By correlating projected harvest figures for 59 forest management units with available bird census data, the Submitters estimated that clearcutting activity in 2001 destroyed over 85,000 migratory bird nests in central and northern Ontario forests. They alleged that Environment Canada, through its Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), has taken virtually no action to enforce section 6(a) of the MBR in regard to this logging activity. Canada responded to the submission on 25 April 2002, denying that it had made a sweeping policy decision not to enforce s. 6(a) of the MBR with regard to logging operations, and stating that a factual record was not warranted because the Submitters never brought a complaint to the CWS regarding a specific violation of s. 6(a) and because no specific, documented cases were mentioned in the submission.
On 12 November 2002, the CEC Secretariat notified the Council that it recommended preparation of a factual record to gather additional, relevant information regarding Canada's enforcement of s. 6(a) of the MBR in the harvest areas referenced in the submission. On 22 April 2003, in Council Resolution 03-05, the Council deferred its consideration of the Secretariat's recommendation pending receipt within 120 days of "the requisite sufficient information in support of the allegations set forth in SEM-02-001" and the Secretariat notifying the Council whether it recommends the preparation of a factual record after considering both the Submitters' new information and Canada's response. The Submitters provided additional information to the Secretariat on 20 August 2003. Canada responded to the additional information on 17 October 2003.
In their supplemental submission, the Submitters provided information obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and logging companies regarding areas actually harvested in 2001 under forest management plans identified in the original submission. Based on this information, the Submitters revised their estimate of the number of nests destroyed in violation of s. 6(a) of the MBR down to 43,700. In its response to the supplemental submission, Canada stated that the additional information allowed Canada to provide a meaningful response. Canada stated that CWS compliance promotion workshops with industry and other stakeholders have produced a draft framework for migratory bird conservation within the forestry context, one that would require regulatory changes to allow the CWS to issue approvals for destruction of nests that may result from industrial operations. The response states that CWS wants to focus its efforts on species of conservation priority and continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders to sustain viable populations of migratory birds within the forests of Canada. Canada noted that the Submitters did not provide information regarding any complaints to the CWS during the period covered by the submission regarding alleged violations of s. 6(a) of the MBR.
The Secretariat has determined, after reviewing the supplemental submission in light of Canada's response, that central questions remain open regarding whether Canada is failing to effectively enforce s. 6(a) of the MBR in connection with logging in Ontario. The Secretariat has therefore again recommended that a factual record be developed to gather relevant information necessary for a consideration of the effectiveness of CWS enforcement and compliance promotion activities in securing compliance with s. 6(a) of the MBR during logging in 2001 in the forest harvest areas mentioned in the submission. The CEC Secretariat informed the Council of its determination on 17 December 2003, and now, five business days later, is able to provide public notification of the determination and to place the rationale for the determination in the public registry. The full text of the original submission, Council Resolution 03-05, the supplemental submission, Canada's responses and the Secretariat's factual record recommendations are available on the CEC web site, at <http://www.cec.org/citizen>.
Article 14 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) provides that the CEC Secretariat may consider a submission from any person or nongovernmental organization asserting that a Party to the NAAEC is failing to effectively enforce an environmental law. Where the Secretariat determines that the NAAEC Article 14(1) criteria are met, it may then proceed with a process that can lead to the development of a factual record on the matter.
The CEC was established under the NAAEC to address environmental issues in North America from a continental perspective, with a particular focus on those arising in the context of liberalized trade. The CEC Council, the organization's governing body, is composed of the top environment officials of Canada, Mexico and the United States. |
