Opening Comments to 6th International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement
Introduction to INECE Co-chairs, Strategic Plan, and Opening Conference Statement
April 15, 2002
San Jose, Costa Rica

Thank you, Mr. Ulate for your warm welcome and hospitality. On behalf of the three INECE co-chairs, Gerard Wolters from the Netherlands, Charles Sebukeera from Uganda, and myself, I extend our heartfelt thanks to you for agreeing to host this conference in Costa Rica. Costa Rica is widely recognized as a country that acknowledges and embraces the benefits and importance of environmental protection, and all my colleagues here from around the world and I salute your leadership. As you may know, on Wednesday we will have the opportunity to see first hand some of the environmental success stories here in your beautiful country. We look forward to it.

My name is Sylvia Lowrance, and, in addition to being one of the three co-chairs of INECE, I am the Acting Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in the US Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to our domestic work to protect the environment and human health, the US EPA works worldwide to help build the capacity of environmental programs and to build relationships that help protect and improve our global environment. We have been and commit to continue to be a strong supporter of international partnerships.

Networking among enforcement officials is critically important in today’s world.

• Industries are global and fluid in their movements;
• Trade in environmentally-regulated products is an integral part of this new global economy; and,
• Transboundary pollution and natural resource pressures are known to create public health problems and constrain economic growth.

We in the United States have benefited tremendously from networking. For example, the U.S. and Mexico have a long history of transboundary cooperation. So when we learned that a Mexican company with a U.S. parent was illegally sending hazardous waste into the U.S., the U.S. and Mexico worked swiftly on an investigation which resulted in a penalty being paid by the company and the company instituting a training program -- overseen by PROFEPA -- for other companies on transboundary waste shipment requirements of the two countries.

Similarly, we have benefited by our networking with Canada, particularly, in the area of illegal CFC refrigerant trafficking. In one of our many cases, we secured criminal pleas in connection with illegal importation of 75 tons of CFC refrigerants. Without close partnership with Mexico and Canada, these and many other cases would simply not have been possible.

As you can see, INECE and its success is important to us all - as public servants and as private citizens. Let me now turn to INECE and how it can help us meet this need. First, its history. While the name and organization was not formalized until 1997, the International Network of Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, known as INECE, truly began at our first conference in the Netherlands in 1990. In the twelve years that followed, the organization has grown to well over 84 counties and at least 15 NGO’s you find represented here today. Through the hard work and commitment of many of you we now have an organization that goes beyond borders and which has increased the awareness worldwide of the importance and necessity of environmental compliance and enforcement as a component of any country’s framework for environmental protection.

Ten years ago in Rio de Janeiro, the world’s leaders wrote “Agenda 21”, setting ambitious goals for a sustainable future. That framework was influenced by INECE partners and Chapter 8 of Agenda 21 specifically directs that States develop their compliance and enforcement capacity. This awareness of the role of environmental enforcement and compliance is especially evident now, as the international community prepares for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg this fall. Environmental compliance and enforcement is an integral part of discussions on good governance and the role of civil society in sustainable development. As our countries prepare for Rio + 10 this August, INECE is in a unique position to help build the capacity for good governance. For example, INECE has been asked by UNEP to co-sponsor a Global Judges Symposium on Environmental Law and Sustainable Development in South Africa as a side event to the WSSD, and we have been asked to become involved in the ENVIROLAW 2000 conference also related to the WSSD.

Much has happened in INECE since the fifth conference in Monterey California four years ago: We publish a high quality newsletter, and have published an index of all the papers and proceedings from each of the previous conferences into one reference guide. After this conference, the Executive Planning Committee will take new papers from this conference, the best of the papers from previous conferences, and a few special papers, and publish a book to serve as an additional tool for environmental compliance and enforcement.

INECE also has continued to work with partner organizations on many events, both regionally and globally, to help build international capacity to conduct enforcement and compliance activities. These events include distance learning courses through the World Bank Institutes, inspector training workshops in Asia and other parts of the world, judicial and prosecutor awareness symposia with the United Nations Environment Programme, and a wide range of activities from the different regional networks. I can only mention a few Regional activities such as the IMPEL conference in 2000 for members of the European Commission, and NICECEN’s recent conference in Azerbaijon for the newly independent states from the former Soviet Union.

In addition, INECE has established a dynamic and continually improving internet site to help facilitate global communication among the partners. This web site includes several topical forums for real-time discussion among practitioners in different parts of the world to foster increased sharing of knowledge and issues, and contains links to partner organizations. Improvements to the website will be presented this week during the conference for your comments and suggestions. This website will become a crucial part of our network. In fact, you can view and comment on the draft conference statement by the co-chairs on behalf of INECE on the website and the website will be used for our conference follow-up.

As we look to the future, we are working to expand the role of Regional Networks and to make INECE a more proactive partnership that becomes a continual supplier of information and capacity building assistance. As stated in the recently adopted terms of reference, we need to work to effectively interlock in-country, regional, and global networks with four goals: 1) create a visible and seamless net to deter and detect environmental violations; 2) support cooperation to protect shared resources and address common environmental problems caused by violations of environmental law; 3) provide easy access to contacts, experts and capacity building resources; and 4) periodically assess country, regional and global progress and capacity building needs.

One of the outcomes of this conference will be a conference statement that goes beyond a summary of the proceedings and demonstrates INECE’s commitment to the role of enforcement and compliance in sustainable development. This statement will be a message to the World Summit on Sustainable Development about environmental compliance in the twenty-first century.

We also will work this week on an important building block of a long-term strategic plan for INECE. You have for review a list of projects that have been suggested. We need to hear from you what the most important needs are for global and regional networks. Your work will be used to plan our work for the next three years and beyond.

Let me note that we all owe a debt of gratitude to Durwood Zaelke, Ken Markowitz, Carolina Mauri, and all the staff at the INECE Secretariat for working long hours to ensure a successful conference.

For this conference and our network to succeed, we must all participate fully and contribute ideas. This is not meant to be a series of lectures. Instead, the conference will focus on the workshops each day that are designed to guide the EPC as we go forward. We have planned ample opportunities for you to get to know each other, and certainly hope that everyone has a pleasant experience and leaves invigorated with newfound energy as you return home to do the extraordinarily important work you do to ensure a safe, clean, sustainable future for our world and the generations to follow.

Now let me pass the podium to Michele de Nevers, who will be moderating the first panel discussing the Role of Institutions and Networks in Environmental Enforcement.

FULL TEXT OF KEYNOTE ADDRESS OF MINISTER ULATE OF COSTA RICA

Plenary 1 - ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS AND NETWORKS IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT

This plenary session assessed the role of networks and international institutions in environmental enforcement, concluding that they have a critical role to play in rising to the challenges inherent in any effort to restrain the wide array of environmental violations occurring across the globe. These networks and institutions can help develop and implement environmental policy, provide information and training, and serve as sources and conduits of funding to level the playing field for countries and regions with vastly disparate capacities and needs, especially in the face of the constantly changing face of environmental insults and excursions. Both have the important ability to bringing together people that are specialists in different areas of the environment science and environmental enforcement worlds.  INECE, in particular provides and excellent opportunity for professionals from varied disciplines to learn from each other and have the ability to work together to address similar, if not common problems. While these networks and institutions have achieved significant success both internationally and regionally, more enhanced and streamlined institutions are needed as well as additional networks of informal networks, springing from national and regional efforts to enhance enforcement capacities and measures. There is a need for these efforts to include working with other areas of law, particular with bodies and institutions involved in international environmental agreements and regional regulatory initiatives.  This is important in areas of monitoring, reporting and other areas of compliance which are particularly critical for success of these agreements. The role of the European Commission in building environmental networks and especially in preparing for the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development was also discussed.  INECE can help all institutions raise the importance of compliance and enforcement and realize that this is a shared responsibility of all nations. The success of the EU’s Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law, or known as IMPEL network, was discussed as an excellent example of a successful network. The value to individual environmental practitioners is also significant, the group was told. Successes, challenges, and networking experiences were also detailed as part of the discussion period. The overall value of networking and institution commitments to environmental enforcement appeared to be significant.

Plenary 2 - REGIONAL NETWORK EXPERIENCE
Mr. Azuela addressed the enforcement of environmental law in North America.  He noted that Canada and the U.S. had moved quickly to develop environmental legal regimes beginning in the early 1960s.  In contrast, Mexico did not begin to seriously develop its environmental regimes until the 1980s.  The negotiations for a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among the three countries highlighted these differences.  The increased focus on environmental protection and the use of the U.S. regulatory model in policy discussions regarding Mexico’s environmental laws and regulations resulted in a “culture shock” for Mexico.  One of the more significant outcomes of the NAFTA process was Mexico’s decision to form the Federal Bureau of Environmental Protection (“PROFEPA”) which  enjoys broad administrative enforcement powers and has proven to be an effective administrative mechanism for enforcing environmental laws in Mexico In addition to NAFTA, Mexico also concluded an environmental side agreement with the United States and Canada: the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)   Among other things, this agreement provides an important mechanism for the NAFTA countries to coordinate environmental policies and priorities.  The NAAEC also provides a citizen submission process that provides an international forum for any citizen in the three countries to challenge the alleged failure of one of the governments to enforce its environmental laws.  All three countries have been challenged under the citizen submission process.  The result is a regional process that promotes cooperation among the governments and encourages citizen and NGO participation.

Mr.  Alloty provided an African perspective on regional networks.  He noted that Ghana established an Environmental Council in 1974, shortly after the Stockholm Conference and was therefore viewed as an environmental leader in Africa.  The Council had advisory functions within the government initially.  In 1994 the Council was converted to the Environmental Protection Agency and given new regulatory powers.  Enforcement was initially handled through the Attorney General’s office where environmental enforcement cases were not often a priority.  In response, Parliament recently gave the EPA new enforcement responsibilities.  The Agency is now developing an environmental enforcement and compliance network with the participation of the police and other enforcement authorities.  Ghana coordinates closely with several other African states, including Gambia, Tanzania, Namibia, Uganda and Benin.  Ghana also serves as the Secretariat for Capacity and Linkages in Environmental Impact Assessment in Africa, which serves as a forum for African governments.  He noted that a continent-wide African network could emerge from these and other regional groupings.

Mr. Michalak  addressed the topic of regional networking from an Eastern Europe and Central Asia perspective.  He noted that Europe had several enforcement and compliance networks aimed at promoting compliance and enforcement and exchanging experiences on best practices.  One of these networks, the Newly Independent States (NIS) Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network (NISECEN)  grew out of a meeting of NIS environmental inspectors in 1999.  Countries in the region share many common experiences, including the development of new policies and institutions over the past ten years, and the challenges of overcoming economic pressures and a culture of “non-compliance.”  The long-term objective of the NISECEN is to increase the effectiveness of enforcement agencies in the NIS and promote compliance with environmental requirements.  One of the strengths of the network is that it brings together and uses a mixture of Western, CEE and NIS experience and expertise.

The discussion focused on the availability of resources to support active and effective networks. Mr. Michalak noted that it was important to retain links to policy makers so as to ensure future political support for the networks.  The NISECEN has a small staff supported by the OECD and works to explain to Ministers and institutional funders the importance and value of the network. In response to a question on obstacles to building effective networks, Mr. Azuela noted that in the case of Mexico, the political dynamic among the NAFTA countries places an emphasis on border-related environmental problems making it difficult for Mexico to divert governmental resources to pressing environmental problems in other parts of the country.  Mexico’s environmental agenda is thus greatly influenced by the larger political dynamic among the NAFTA countries.

John Cruden of the US Department of Justice described the framework of enforcement in the USA as a pyramid. The broad base level consists of the people "in the field," being the investigators of the governmental bodies and non-governmental organizations and the citizens. The middle level is the people in the state agencies dealing with administrative matters. In the top level of the pyramid both civil and criminal enforcement are situated. Enforcement is important to protect human health and environment, to protect the good companies and to deter non-compliers. Last but not least enforcement is important within the framework of "Good Domestic Governance," because

• Citizens need to have confidence that non-compliers are dealt with in a proper way;
• Businesses need to have confidence that government is acting consistently, and
• Government takes responsibility. By setting a good example and by consistent enforcement, Good Governance must be noticeable in behavior of government, businesses and all the citizens.

Waltraud Petek of the Federal Ministry for Environment, Youth, and Family Affairs in Austria described the process of defining and developing environmental requirements. The regulatory chain for setting environmental requirements goes through legislation - implementation - compliance control - compliance promotion - enforcement - and assessment and feedback. The development of clearly defined environmental requirements needs careful constitutional, legislative and administrative policies. In this law making process a thorough analysis of the problem and identification op possible solutions based on the most recent knowledge and technologies need to be identified, whereas in the decision making all relevant stakeholders need to be involved, so that the relevant interests are considered. To act effectively the enforcement authorities must have the proper tools, including procedures, compliance monitoring mechanisms, statutory reporting requirements, and criminal and civil sanctions.

Mr. May noted that Canada relies on several external indicators in evaluating its effectiveness and measuring results.  North America has several important reporting schemes, including the State of the Great Lakes Basin reporting, Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC) reports, Auditor General of Canada reports and periodic environmental NGO reports.  All of these provide an opportunity to measure the results of Canada’s compliance and enforcement efforts.  Many Canadian laws provide a wide-range of sentencing and sanctions, allowing for creative sentencing and court orders.  These often allow authorities to impose penalties that go beyond the payment of fines to include community and local capacity building projects.  Canada also looks to anecdotal intelligence on the reaction of the regulated community to measure its  impact.  Communicating enforcement and compliance results to stakeholders and other  agencies, through for example, press releases has also proven to be an important element of education and awareness raising.  Practical recommendations for governments include: 1) measuring enforcement, promotion and partnering accomplishments; 2) using key environmental indicators to target future activities; and 3) using external assessments to continuously improve operations

Workshop 1A-1 - MEASURING SUCCESS THROUGH PERFORMANCE DEFINING ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

The Panel on Measuring Success Through Performance Indicators conducted a general discussion of experiences and efforts with indicators and provided a cursory of the proposed INECE project on indicators. During the workshops vibrant discussion of their current experiences with indicators. An initial point was made that it is important to separate reporting on state of the environment indicators from performance or other types of indicators. It was also discussed why there is a need for indicators, for both purposes but especially for quantifying performance of enforcement and compliance bodies. However it is important to keep indicators practical by developing while keeping the end user in mind. In regards to the INECE Indicators Project Proposal, which is very ambitious but may be very useful, but needs to involve regional networks and specific countries early on, in the development of the proposal and indicators. This process should involve the consideration of existing projects and pay specific attention to the issue of funding and sustainability of the project. In developing and using environmental compliance indicators there are many challenges and pressures that a party faces including: consistency of data and purpose of indicators.

Workshop 1A-II - MEASURING SUCCESS THROUGH PERFORMANCE DEFINING ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS 

Facilitators: Durwood Zaelke and Doug Wright
Rapporteur: Peyton M. Sturges
Workshop Goals: Consider the role of enforcement indicators in environmental compliance and enforcement initiatives generally and the INECE Enforcement Indicators Proposal for a multiyear INECE project

Questions presented by Facilitators:
1. How do we ensure relevance to all nations internationally?
2. Who are the stakeholders and how do we secure or assure their involvement?
3. Are the principles set forth in the project proposal appropriate or do we need to include additional principles?
4. Does the model set forth in the proposal need modification or enhancement?
5. Is the methodology set forth in the proposal satisfactory?
6. What additional case studies are needed?

Papers Presented or Discussed: The INECE Enforcement Indicators: Executive Summary and Annotated Outline for a Multiyear Project

Discussion
At the facilitators' suggestion, the participants first discussed the preceding panel presentations by Mike Stahl and Brad May, then reviewed the INECE Enforcement Indicator Project using a series of questions that were written on the flip chart. The questions included how best to address the different needs of developing and developed countries, who the stakeholders were, what principles should guide the development of indicators, what model should be used, what methodology, and what case studies would be most useful.

The participants then proceeded to discuss the panel presentations, including the developing/developed country differences. The participants discussed the critical role of performance indicators for a wide range of enforcement applications including measuring progress toward attaining empirical environmental quality goals, engendering support, both public and financial, for investments in enforcement resources, and generally to demonstrate to the public, government officials, and the regulated community that enforcement initiatives and resources are properly directed. The participants agreed that enforcement measures designed for one country or region may not be viable for other larger, smaller, or less developed countries or regions. There was also agreement that the process for developing enforcement was relevant for all countries, and that output measures and outcome measures were both useful.

The ability of enforcement indicators to provide a feedback loop was discussed, and it was noted that such feedback would be useful for enforcement managers to determine how effective their efforts were, and to legislators, policy makers, and the public. The need to link enforcement indicators to improvements in environmental quality was stressed, as was the difficulties of attributing any particular enforcement action or program to specific improvements in environmental quality. It was suggested that there was a spectrum of enforcement indicators that would be useful, ranging from output measures of activities, to intermediate measures-such as the additional funding invested by companies in the wake of an enforcement effort or the rate of recidivism-to measures of environmental quality, with much of the most useful work initially focused on the outputs and intermediate measures.

Participants also stressed the need to describe indicators in terms that were easily communicated to the public, such as the number of days public beaches are closed due to pollution. The participants concluded that the utilization of a range or variety of performance measures is not an either/or proposition; that enforcement entities are best advised to adopt that combination of performance measures that suit the specific needs and considerations of the entity adopting them.

With respect to the INECE Enforcement Indicators Project, the participants responded strongly that the project was important and should move forward, in response to the question whether the project was appropriate for INECE. It was noted that it would be very useful to identify a sort of "best practices" for enforcement, as the IMPEL network has done for minimum criteria for inspectors. The value of having an international, non-governmental body prepare enforcement indicators was stressed, and it was noted that such international indicators can assist enforcement agencies advocate for improving their programs.

The principles presented in the Secretariat's background paper were discussed next. One participant noted that the principle that the indicators should be "comparable" should not be used as an excuse not to move forward immediately, although there is of course value in ensuring that at least some indicators are comparable. The suggestion was offered for a new principle of "feedback." Another participant noted that in addition to "policy relevance," the indicators should have "political relevance," which could, for example, include the approach noted by Mr. Stahl who explained that much of the motivation for US EPA indicators came from the Government Performance and Results Act. Another principle suggested was "synergy" among environment, economic, social, and sustainability. "Environmental quality" was suggested as another principle, and it was noted that "technological sophistication" was appropriate in some instances, although other indicators must be more basic-perhaps a core set. The participants also suggested that the indicators should stress the positive benefits from enforcement and compliance, which, it was noted, can often exceed costs.

WORKSHOP 1B - ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS

There is surprising convergence regarding a minimal definition of “administrative enforcement.”  However, there is a truly remarkable variety in the powers and procedures used by various administrative regimes.  A critical assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of various combinations of these powers and procedures will need a more careful analysis then can be accomplished merely from the sharing of anecdotal evidence.

The ideas expressed as recommendations are noted in the order discussed, without regard to any order of priority.

1.Explore opportunities to enforce administrative/civil judgments across national borders.

2. Consider conducting an inventory and analysis of existing administrative “tools” to the end of creating a more useable categorization and analyzing their effectiveness.  It was noted unanimously that such a project would: 1) have to consider tools that were more usually reserved to civil judicial systems as well as those typically offered to administrative systems: and 2) be procedurally dependant in that the effectiveness of a “tool” can only be analyzed in specific procedural contexts.

3. Recognizing the usefulness of an international inventory of civil environmental violators (Is it fair to assume that there already exists an actual, or inchoate, inventory of criminal violators?), we might want to consider somehow making the various national inventories more easily available and searchable.

WORKSHOP 1C - BUILDING EFFECTIVE IN-COUNTRY NETWORKS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

• a champion - someone to spark action and give the network its drive
• human interaction and trust between participants
• good information exchange
• clear common purpose or interest.

WORKSHOP 1D - THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS LEADING TO COMPLIANCE

Facilitators: T om Maslany & Antonio Oposa

The workshop began with a discussion of the questions posed by facilitators. These included: How is negotiation used around the world to achieve compliance? What are the barriers to the use of environmental compliance negotiations? And what can INECE, as a world network of environmental compliance  professionals, do to help address these barriers?  Comments from participants led to broadening the scope of the discussion to include negotiations for determining environmental standards. The facilitators further specified that the discussion should focus on sharing experiences of national negotiation, as opposed to international.  Participants shared experiences from Europe, South Asia, Africa, South America, Central America, and the United States.  The discussion highlighted differences in government resources necessary throughout  the negotiation process.  Specifically, technical expertise on environmental topics, human resources necessary for enforcement, the judicial culture in dealing with civil and criminal cases, and the general acceptance of negotiation as a means to resolve environmental compliance issues.

The next portion of the workshop focused on how negotiation applies in different contexts, focusing on what elements are necessary for effective negotiation and how to overcome common barriers.  Participants highlighted the flexibility of negotiation in terms of concurrently addressing multiple issues and including public participation at the negotiation table.  The discussion emphasized the necessity of effective deterrents to strengthen the negotiation process.  In many countries, companies readily violate environmental laws despite judicial sanctions – an alternative that is not threatening due to minimal fines or the availability of corruption.  Participants recommended numerous creative solutions for governments that could accompany substantive and procedural reforms to remedy this problem. 

In conclusion, the group offered a number of recommendations for INECE both to address the above-mentioned difficulties and to strengthen the application of negotiation as a method for addressing environmental compliance and enforcement issues.  Specifically, INECE should further develop their website to bolster the availability of expertise necessary in effective negotiations.  The website could include a chatroom (listserv) for discussion or a list of professionals within the INECE network to answer questions on negotiation.  INECE can facilitate negotiation training through web-based courses, compiling information on where training is available, strengthening training programs, and providing guidance for members on what kinds of training they need. 

Workshop 1E - TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR COMPLIANCE INSPECTORS

Facilitators: Markku Hietamaki - Finland, Ministry of the Environment and Erin Heskett - United States, International Fund for Animal Welfare
Rapporteur: Davis Jones, United States, Environmental Protection Agency
Workshop Goals: Determine the immediate and future role of INECE in developing and implementing compliance programs for inspectors and discuss whether INECE can develop a product that will serve inspectors better in the future.

Questions presented by Facilitators:
1. Are the circumstances so similar that general requirements can be set (regarding a) Environmental Laws and b) Practices (May be deeply rooted in people or organizations))
2. Should we (INECE) have a general framework under which some countries could identify their training needs and other countries could identify their possibilities to give training? Should INECE help determine the needs by regions or country, and how can INECE help?
3. INECE doesn't have many resources, but does have networks, contacts in Regions. INECE needs to see how that feature can be used. How can we start the work?

Papers Presented: Terry Shears made a presentation on IMPEL's work regarding Training and Qualification of Environmental Inspectors. The notes from his presentation are attached, and the full report is available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/impel.

Discussion
Question 1. Are there enough similarities between programs to create a common training course?

One possible way to develop a model inspector training methodology would be to use a particular countries to help define a framework for inspector training, either directly or through regional networks, and then INECE, or the Regional Network should ask the individual countries to identify their training needs. This survey should not attempt to catalogue all needs, but seek the two to three priority areas in that country. INECE should then look at the results and concentrate their activities where there are the greatest regional or topical similarities.

Similarly, this survey should also ask countries with developed programs what type of training they provide to their own inspectors and what they could provide to other countries, either directly or indirectly by supplying course material. INECE is in a unique position to bring together needs and possibilities.

IMPEL is a key regional organization which promotes and offers training in member countries of the European Commission and ascension countries seeking to join the EC. Inga Larsson stated that IMPEL only works with specific industries that fall under the European Commission's environmental permitting program. Their training efforts do not include conservation or endangered species inspections or enforcement, but some of the basic skills are the same.

Many developing countries do have common needs for training and a common set of qualifications for their inspectors, but have not yet developed a training program to implement these conclusions. In Europe, there are many different countries doing the same thing to achieve the same ends but conducting things in very different ways.

George Wamukoya responded that INECE can use different regional network approaches as examples for cooperation on inspector training. In different parts of the world, regional blocs exist to harmonize laws and approaches across borders. We are able to learn from the successes in other countries in the same region, and transfer that information into your own program. Need to relate training to meet minimum criteria, and need to list who has received training and meet qualifications. These qualifications may include many factors including the educational or professional background of the inspector, their personality, and their sense of professionalism. Training can bring someone up to a minimum level, but individual inspectors may need more than a minimum level of training to truly succeed.

Terry Shears stated that in the EC, member countries jealously guard certain responsibilities, such as training their own inspections. IMPEL can suggest key elements or a common framework for a training program, but countries would not be so receptive to IMPEL actually providing the training as an outside provider. Inga Larsson added that you can not always use the same model across countries. Different countries may have different administrative structures, legal requirements, cultures, etc. For this reason, you can not always have the same content in training courses for different countries. A framework must establish a core of common elements, but retain flexibility so actual training courses can be customized to suit the audience's specific needs. Each course will need to be modified for specific issues in each country.

Erin Heskett used the example of training for endangered species trafficking as an example. CITES has a common framework worldwide due to the common treaty obligations. However, learning techniques vary worldwide, so any global training efforts they have done must be modified for each country or culture to accommodate different ways people learn.

Santos Carrasco asked how to address the complexity of multimedia inspections? How does anyone have all the necessary competencies to conduct multimedia inspections? How do you establish a training program to address these complexities? Will you implement training in phases depending on needs? Or try to develop and implement everything at once?

Terry Sears responded that IMPEL serves more as a carrot than a stick - they can't demand countries do specific things, or even prioritize between states, but the EC could. They have recognized that one course can't provide for all the needs for diverse issues. You must look at minimum qualifications to bring the inspection program up to a satisfactory standard. Member states need to decide individually how they will meet those standards. David Geisbacher agreed that specific issues may need specialized training. General issues may be common across borders, but specific legal or regulatory issues don't always cross boundaries. The focus of regional or global training should be on specific parts of the activities that are common.

Question 2: How can INECE help with inspector training?
David Yitzhak suggested that as one country develops a course, INECE can ask that country to share the material and open up attendance at the course to other countries in needs. INECE could also sponsor Train-the-trainer courses for facilitators from various countries or regions. Once we have a general framework for the course, INECE should then ask other participating countries if that framework meets their needs, and possibly adapt framework. An example of this type of effort in the Middle East occurred when Cyprus offered a course on marine protection and opened it up to other countries to meet regional needs.

George Wamukoya suggested that INECE could be instrumental in developing a framework with key elements and key components of inspections. This could serve as an "IDEAL" or "Principles" of inspections. Then move into particular region and address unique aspects of that region that go beyond the common principles. INECE's role should be to set general principles that can then be reduced to a regional or country approach. Gets it from national policy level to implementation.

In Europe there is a training course offered in the Netherlands only once a year with representation from all over the Region. Now, they have created a regional advisory council to tailor the course, and each country has further tailored the material to the national level.

Erin Heskett asked if INECE should convene a working group to develop a general framework? Markku Hietamaki responded with questions about funding; INECE has very limited resources, so we must think about who would fund this activity.

David Yitzhak suggested that INECE begin by taking what is already done and ask others for comments. However, someone has to be coordinator for the review. Davis Jones responded that INECE could begin with an existing country's framework and distribute it as a strawman for international applicability. Development of various framework laws has been similar.

Markku Hietamaki suggested that a group be formed to develop a large scale list of competencies and skills required by inspectors.
· Prepare questionnaire to identify needs and offerings
· Framework of competencies and skills
· Test the questionnaire in some countries
· Sell the idea to donors and sponsors
· Carry out the questionnaire and assess the results
· Look for donors, sponsors and those to do the training
· Organize training, assess the results and report to donors/EPC/Networks

Markku suggested that to do this, we would need to ask for more responsibility from recipients of the training courses. INECE can collect ideas and make assessment by the recipients must inform the process and outline their needs and specific concerns.

George Wamukoya offered a compromise based on work under CITES. First, don't assume the audience doesn't know what inspections are all about. Everyone is doing something, so we don't have to begin with a zero knowledge base. Second, IFAW has done similar work with CITES - they've already conducted training in different Regions - INECE should look at those efforts and the principles that inform those trainings to help with this effort. Finally, INECE should focus on the common threads and investigate how to expand those trainings (CITES) to bring in holistic/multi-sectoral approach.

For the IFAW training, they were able to use one model and one needs assessment for other regions. However, CITES is a specific agreement based on border activities. By design, 2 or more parties must agree on common activities. Conventional industrial inspections are free to vary according to country's ideas and objectives, so it is harder to find a common framework.

Markku discussed the Dutch model for offering training assistance - they finance the travel costs for inspectors to go to training. In addition, some countries buy training courses from different vendors who customize the course to suit their needs. INECE could develop a list of providers for countries that need training to adapt to their situation, this will help ensure that the training is not driven by the donor's model. Regional training is valuable, but how many donors are ready to finance that type of training? Can INECE help combine resources?

Santos Carrasco suggested that as a conceptual point of view, we should not assume financing is always outside the abilities of the country of need. In-country help may be available and, in some way, should be expected. If the recipients won't help themselves, how effective will the efforts be? If a country can pay they will have fewer doubts about service paid for and provided, and will give the effort more importance. Countries may want to learn from the experience of developed countries, but financing not always an option.

Markku asked, in those situations, what is the INECE role? Bilateral exchanges don't need an international network - one country provides a service and the receiving country funds the effort and gets what they pay for. Santos and Erin both replied that INECE can provide the connections between countries, and can also help spread the course elsewhere. They can post the proceedings or training material on the internet, help share the material elsewhere, or otherwise make it available for those that are developing their programs so they don't have to reinvent the course.

George Wamukoya emphasized that we should try to identify a niche for INECE. INECE is is a unique position to bring different expertise from all over the world to add value. Bilateral arrangements are by nature more restrictive, since the expertise is only from the donor and recipient. Don't assume that any general principles provided by INECE will not be edited by local needs within their framework. There is room to blend local needs with general principles. Markku agreed that there should be enough local thinking about how to formulate training. In too many cases, providers who have a long history in how to adopt training to local needs still tend to push the same course despite saying they will adapt.

Conclusion:
We recognize two different types of countries that want to use INECE as umbrella to get training:
1. Countries that can identify their own needs and finance (at least in some way) training, but need INECE for identifying sources/contacts.
2. Countries that cannot identify training needs due to lack of knowledge of the minimum standards for inspectors, nor sources of financing for training. INECE should provide a mechanism for them to express their needs, and INECE should seek sponsors/donors and providers. INECE can find linkages and support as it can.

INECE should try to create a model for training and identify two different levels of needs, as well as the situations that fall between. INECE should primarily use Networks that already exist, rather than individual countries going directly to INECE. However, we need to look at the suitability of each network and see whether it can provide that service for this audience. Some networks are not currently able to handle new role, so INECE needs to evaluate its networks to see if they can accomplish this function before setting the expectation.

WORKSHOP 1F - ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENSES: CRIMINAL OFFENSES: CRIMINAL AND CIVIL

Facilitators: Mr. Jose Gonzalez Montero and Mr. James Lofton

The twenty participants plus facilitators and rapporteur from Latin America, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States and the United Kingdom agreed upon the following statement of conclusions and recommendations;

“We support promoting environmental compliance through the use of all enforcement mechanisms options – administrative, civil, and criminal with the possibility of penalties, civil damages, and criminal fines and sentences -- to deter effectively environmental offenses, promote environmental compliance, protect public health and the environment, and restore environmental and public damage.  We also emphasize the importance of environmental education at all levels, especially in law schools and in training for the judiciary.”

The discussion points included analysis of the differences and similarities between criminal, administrative and civil law in common law and civil law jurisdictions, with a focus on the role of criminal law.  It was pointed out that the concepts of proportionality and deterrence vary markedly between the United States and other jurisdictions but that protection of human health and the environment is more nearly an absolute.  It was also pointed out that there is full agreement as to the use of all enforcement mechanisms with respect to industrial activity, while damage to the environment which is poverty related and arises from a lack of education requires a different approach from criminal prosecutors.