Facilitators:
Michael Stahl, US Environmental Protection Agency
Wijarn Simachaya, thailand Pollution Control Department
Gene Lubieniecki, US Environmental Protection Agency

Although various methods exist to establish priorities, it is unclear whether one method leads to better results than others. Barriers to establishing priorities include: institutional resistance (people are often tied to old ways) and lack of information (e.g., upon which to do comparative risk assessments). There are various challenges to maintaining a well-trained cadre of inspectors. In some countries there is high turn over (due to industry hiring them away from government jobs) and in others, retirements are resulting in a loss of institutional knowledge. Countries are taking various steps to deal with this and to provide training to inspectors to develop expertise.

Countries employ a variety of approaches to establish priorities although there is no clearly preferable approach. (OECD may come out with a recommendation on this in November.) Approaches range from a sophisticated scoring system (used in the UK) to considerations such as history of non-compliance, environmental impacts of the violations (or benefits to be gained by achieving compliance), environmental affects of the facility, geographic area, affected population, etc. The benefits of establishing priorities include a better, more focused use of resources and better environmental gain from actions taken. Various tools can and should be used to address priorities, Different problems have different solutions. Strategies should be written to define types of tools to be used. Use the priority focus as a basis for describing accomplishments in terms of environmental benefits and improvements to human health.

Participants in the workshop recommended these actions for follow up:

1) Establish a forum on the INECE web site for Strategic Management of Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Programs. The forum would provide a place for practitioners to provide or seek ideas about practices and issues to improve the effectiveness o their programs.

2) Conduct e-dialogues for practitioners to periodically discuss specific steps to focus their programs on key environmental problems and non-compliance patterns.

3) Develop a guidance document for ECE practitioners to help them adopt best practices identifying key environmental problems, establishing priorities among these problems, and measuring progress in reducing or eliminating problems.

The three steps above are designed to create a community of practice to encourage strategic management of environmental compliance and enforcement programs.

Facilitators:
Alex Wang, Natural Resources Defense Council, China
Tony Oposa, The Law of Nature Foundation, The Philippines
Daniel Taillent, Center of Human Rights and the Environment, Argentina

The role of citizen engagement in the monitoring and detection environmental crimes is of vital importance. Participants considered cases of successful partnerships with the public (individuals, institutions) to detect and provide evidence on cases of non-compliance. Participants evaluated the effective activities countries use to engage the public in citizen monitoring and the variety of tools (hotlines, internet forms).[draft]

Facilitators:
Henk Ruessnik, VROM, The Netherlands
Nancy Isarin, Ambiendura, Portugal
Robert Heiss, US Environmental Protection Agency

The facilitators outlined the goals of project as preventing illegal movements of waste by:

• Promoting Compliance
• Fostering national and international collaboration
• Offering support to field inspectors

To reach these goals a Seaport Environmental Security Network was formed in order to facilitate information exchange, capacity building for compliance and enforcement. The initial focus will be on transboundry movement of wastes.

Three years ago an IMPEL-led Seaport Project had its beginning and through targeted enforcement that identified a 48% non-compliant rate for exports from specific ports. The concern is that there is a similar problem worldwide. There is also a concern that developing countries lack the resources and capacity to identify and deal with non-compliant imports. A lively discussion ensued, noting that the issue of exporting and importing non-compliant goods has multiple causes and will require multiple solutions. Further, that some of those solutions are outside the realm of law enforcement.

The group proposes a "kick-off" meeting with representatives from exporting and importing countries to identify strategies to expand the network of concerned investigators, to include customs agents; to identify deliverables (e.g. manuals) to improve enforcement; and to identify the minimal capacity necessary developing countries require being effective partners, and then assessing the current situation.

The group proposes to present a rough draft of the way forward to the INECE general group by the conclusion of this conference. The way forward includes INECE developing a strategic plan that defines the magnitude of the problem, summaries what already exists, and a strategic approach involving not only port inspections, but other ways and initiatives addressing and dealing with the problem.

The group will continue meeting during the week to develop and refine a workplan.

Facilitators:
Jason Bell, International Fund for Animal Welfare
Prof. Rudi van Aarde, University of Pretoria

The purpose of this workshop is to critically evaluate the expanding range of wildlife conservation activities across different land-use forms and/or international boundaries, with a particular focus on the enforcement challenges.

Participants agreed that current conservation models need more dimensions e.g. political, economic, law and enforcement. These models also need to account for the political realities of the areas.

The conclusions were that enforcement needed to be constantly brought on the conservation agenda and that this needed to be accomplished through working in partnerships. It was also suggested that INECE could promote regional treaties to facilitate enforcement of violations of laws that occurred across borders. In bringing this on the agenda, INECE should approach the CITES and Convention on Migratory Species Secretariats.

Facilitators:
Ken Macken, Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland
Jan van den Heuvel, Environmental Protection, The Netherlands

This workshop examined the concepts of mitigation and adaptation, considered how national targets could be translated into sectoral and local level targets and discussed the need to develop measurement tools that deliver reportable and verifiable results.

In summary the key points that emerged were:

1. National emissions targets need to be broken down to sectoral level;
2. Targets must be measurable, reportable and verifiable; and
3. The task in (2) will be complex because there are many variables and differing levels of capability and capacity.

Opportunities for INECE were identified as:

1. The possibility of developing a pilot project to develop an indicator set for an industry sector.
2. The potential to conduct a review of existing national obligations with respect to climate change including both binding and non-binding targets.
3. The possibility of developing a set of principles regarding the compliance aspects of developing and implementing systems for national climate change measurement.

Facilitators:
Iwona Rummel Bulska, United Nations Environment Programme
Rosalind Reeve, Chatham House

Iwona Rummel-Bulska presented a brief history of national implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, noting how MEAs played a leading role in stimulating enactment of national environmental legislation in much of the developing world. She noted the important role convention secretariats have played in helping parties develop and implement national laws and highlighted the role of UNEP in this regard, noting particularly the 2002 UNEP Guidelines on Compliance with and Enforcement of MEAs. In conclusion, Ms. Rummel-Bulska outlined three important issues for workshop discussion:

1. The advantages and drawbacks associated with verification of MEA compliance through reporting and other "self policing" by the parties.
2. The adequacy of national legal provisions for liability and damages under MEAs, particularly in developing countries.
3. The adequacy of MEA national focal points for communication and coordination, particularly in developing countries.

Rosalind Reeve presented a brief history of MEA national implementation plans (also referred to as national compliance plans). She also discussed the CITES National Legislation Project that, since 1992, has helped evaluate national laws and assist parties with developing effective legislation that adequately implements CITES. Ms. Reeve outlined two important points:

1. There is a gap between MEA requirements and national laws.
2. Many MEAs do not have adequate resources to promote implementation (the obvious exceptions being the Ozone and Climate regimes). This is especially true for pre-Rio (1992) MEAs, which have little, if any, dedicated funding mechanisms.
3. The UNEP Guidelines, while valuable, are just a starting point.

A lively discussion ensued that drew input from each workshop participant. While touching on a number of specific points, the following were the recurring themes:

1. There is an urgent need to provide assistance to countries, particularly in the developing world, to build national capacity to implement MEA commitments.
2. Many countries join MEAs without first evaluating their ability (or even the domestic political will) to comply.
3. There is little coordination or prioritization of environmental policy at the level of MEAs or national implementation.
4. In instances where adequate substantive requirements have been enacted in national law, there is often still a deficit in enforcement provisions (such as civil, administrative, and criminal remedies).

The participants in the workshop recommended the following actions for follow-up:

1. Build national capacity to improve coordination and prioritization with regard to MEA commitments, stressing the need to evaluate the ability (and wiliness) to accept new international commitments.
2. Study gaps in national implementation of MEAs with the goal of identifying common problems that can be meet with common solutions.
3. Review, and identify strategies to improve, the role of civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement in compliance with MEAs.

Facilitators:
Catherine Wright, Environmental Agency of England and Wales
Terrence Shears, Environmental Agency of England and Wales
Bebet Gozun, Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network
Joe Woodward, NSW Dept. of Environment and Climate Change

Summary

Laws need to be drafted in a manner such that they are capable of being adapted in a timely manner to changing conditions.

Regulatory instruments should not be cumbersome as this does not provide the best service to regulatees.

Consultation with CEOs of regulated sectors during the drafting stage of regulation may have the effect of producing more effective regulatory processes that balance market-based incentives with command and control instruments.

Similarly, consultation with the public can assist regulators in determining their priorities in relation to optimising risk-based responses to environmental problems. This approach may be effective in creating optimal synergies between national priorities and local issues by promoting public acceptance / support for the given regulatory approach.

Regulations must support best industry practices and their regulatory process must be open and transparent. This approach strengthening the extent to which the regulators are capable of being held to count in relation to continuous improvement.

The process of continuous improvements will likely require regulators to develop performance indicators in order to ensure that regulations are in fact producing the desired outcomes. Some countries have moved to a rating system such that the regulated community is rated. A rating system may provide efficiencies in terms of providing incentives to regulate to work harder to improve their performance (e.g. fewer inspections, more opportunities for self-monitoring). Self-monitoring may be an approach that is appropriate in certain circumstances but the framework for such activities must be correctly designed and should incorporate checks and balances.

Similarly, positive reinforcements mechanisms should recognise those regulatees that perform at superior levels.

Finally and where possible, regulators should attempt to use multi-media / agency approaches which minimize to the extent possible the perceived (or real) degree of interference to industry. Regulations, must be flexible to the extent possible in order to adapt to changing technological advances.

Actions
The workshop identified areas for further work and collaboration within INECE:

A programme to develop alternative tools to inspection and enforcement – what tools are available, how and when to use alternative approaches and sharing global best practice; to include providing advice on how:

• To make self-monitoring by business effective;
• Regulators can encourage the improvements of environmental compliance throughout the supply chain.

Facilitators:
Luc Lebel, Environmental Enforcement Division, Environment Canada
Manon Bombardier, Environmental Enforcement Division, Environment Canada
Frances Craigie, Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, South Africa

The purpose of the workshop is to explore strategic prioritizing models for compliance inspections in different regulatory environments. Canada (Canada Environment) and South Africa (Gauteng Dept. of Agriculture, Conservation & Environment) both presented their systems of prioritizing inspections. The workshop objectives were twofold:

• To provide a forum for dialogue amongst INECE participants to exchange information, knowledge, and learn from each other’s experience on tools/approaches currently being used/developed for targeting of inspections
• To work together in the development of a “toolbox” and identify the key lessons learned/barriers in implementing each tool, such that Compliance and Enforcement practitioners working in newly established programs can make use of approaches/methodologies developed by others and transfer them to the situation in their own country.

The results of the workshop were to provide an overview of available tools and recommendations to INECE for facilitating further development of prioritizing tools. Approaches include developing specific tools and focusing on specific sectors. These include:

Tools

• Across sectors/regulations:
  • Matrix based on a number of criteria including risk, compliance rate, expert support
    • Prioritizing across a variety of sectors/regulations
    • Tiered approach (national priorities, collateral, regional focus)
  • Intelligence led (watch list approach)
  • Financial benefits for non-compliance
  • IMPEL guidance book for planning of environmental inspections
• Within a given sector
  • Risk based scoring system against list of criteria
  • Intelligence-led targeting
  • Partnerships with other agencies and other authorities such as customs and police

A Specific recommendation for INECE is to create an area on the INECE website to share information, good practices and experiences on this issue.

Facilitators:
Maria Comino, Department of Water and Energy, Australia
Alejandro Iza, IUCN Commission of Environmental Law
Laura Yoshii, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

During the transboundary water enforcement workshop, participants identified the main challenges facing their regions on fresh water management – in terms of quality and quantity - and assessed how best practices on enforcement cooperation at the basin level can help protect the environmental quality of water systems. Participants agreed that sufficient attention has not been given to promoting the existence of transboundary processes that stimulate environmental compliance and enforcement and agreed to work collaboratively as INECE to promote a greater recognition of environmental compliance and enforcement aspects of good water governance.

Outcomes:

Although the entry point is the basin level, when analyzing its effectiveness, it is necessary to look its level of formalization.

Some critical questions:

• Is there a formalized legal arrangement in place (convention, treaty, protocol)?
• How is this legal arrangement being implemented?
• What (if) are the constraints for the deficient implementation of these arrangements?
• What can be done to enhance the implementation in terms of public participation, access to decision-making, information, and other mechanisms?
• What is the role of States in facilitating the implementation of the legal arrangements at the basin level? Individually, as well as collectively vis a vis other basin States

Recommended Next steps

Establish a collaborative process that will result in the establishment of a discussion platform tentatively entitled "Making Water Law Work," which will look at water law and governance implementation at the transboundary level.

Facilitators:
Elizabeth Mrema, United Nations Environment Programme
Christine Akello, National Environment Management Authority, Uganda

Synergies among MEAs are possible at the international, regional, national, and local levels. This workshop examined approaches to identifying and leveraging synergies among biodiversity-related MEAs and, on the basis of lessons learned, suggested practical ways for further encouraging synergies, with a focus on national level compliance. [draft]

Facilitators:
Kunihiko Shimada, Ministry of Environment, Japan
Peter Storey, PPL International
Kenneth Markowitz, Consultant to INECE Sercretariat, Akin Gump LLP

Peter Storey provided a private sector view of what Technology Transfer means, emphasizing that it lies at the center of current Climate change negotiations. His view is that doubts concerning the current extent of Technology Transfer result mainly from current restrictive definitions (and are also possibly part negotiating position). He informed the group that last year $3-7 billion investment had occurred, and emphasized the continued need for private sector funding as the public sector cannot provide the amounts required.

Ken Markowitz raised the necessity to ensure a meaningful level of Technology Transfer in order to deliver the necessary emission reductions. He also raised the potential problem of IPR (intellectual property rights).

Kunihiko Shimada suggested that a critical need is to be able to measure compliance against the requirements of the three key articles in UNFCCC and KP dealing with this issue. He informed the group that the EGTT (Expert Group on Technology Transfer) is working to develop a suitable performance indicator.

The general discussion then concentrated on a number of issues:

1. Identification of opportunities to enhance uptake of technologies (possible role for INECE here).
2. How to ensure appropriate finance is available (particularly at the early stages of trying to introduce a new technology to market)
3. While there are plenty of opportunities for Technology Transfer, nonetheless the need to create an enabling environment (removal of barriers and possible scope for incentives) is critical.
4. The need to ensure the resources and skills are available to maintain and operateany new technology.

The workshop identified the following actions going forward:

1. INECE to create a web-based Technology Transfer resource (with specific case studies etc.)
2. Possible additional role for INECE in ensuring a level regulatory playing field.

Facilitators:
Tony Oposa, The Law of Nature Foundation, The Phillipines
Brahim Zyani, Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in the Maghreb Region

Society must find new tools to promote old values that address new problems. Workshop participants discussed ways that traditional, ethical and/or religious values can be used to engage civil society to support environmental enforcement activities and to promote compliance before enforcement is needed. [draft]

Facilitators:
Michael Stahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
José Pablo González, Costa Rica Environmental Prosecutor's Office
Bebet Gozun, Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network

The workshop was designed to give practitioners a set of best practices to help them use performance indicators as a tool to manage and improve their programs. [draft]

Facilitators:
Andy Lauterback, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Phil Snijman, Consultant, South Africa
Mark Measer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The goals of this workshop were to identify protocol(s) to address conflicts between organizations during events requiring collection and maintenance of forensics evidence. Conflict often exists between organizations involved in incidents that require collection and maintenance of forensics samples. For instance, during emergencies, the response actions of first responders may compromise and/or destroy evidence. Likewise, during crimes involving living organisms, maintained/shipment, etc. of the organisms can often create conflict, expense, etc.

This work shop discussed the balance and competing interests between the various responsible organizations involved in emergency response, and crimes involving living (and dead) wildlife. Many examples of actual conflicts were discussed. Success stories, where there was excellent cooperation resulting in conviction were also addressed. The following protocols/concepts were suggested as ways to address these conflicts: safety comes first, the “police” control crime scenes, train emergency response personnel regarding forensics needs, have prosecutors present on-scene, have enforcement officers also be the emergency response personnel (cross designation), develop effective communications between potentially responsible parties, have memorandums of understandings outlining responsibilities, conduct exercises to test protocol.

Facilitators:
Walker Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Arwyn Jones, Environment Agency for England and Wales
Cora Steffens, Province North-Brabant, The Netherlands

The group looked at the challenges we face in regulating the international imports and exports of goods. These included:

• The number of stakeholders
• The volume of exports/imports
• Difficulty in defining waste versus products
• Soliciting cooperation between all regulatory authorities
• Defining the supply chain so that you know where best to intervene

It identified the range of actions currently undertaken to ensure appropriate environmental standards are met. These ranged from traditional enforcement activities through to more market-based interventions such as processes, standards, suppliers, retailers etc.

Finally it looked at other actions that can be taken to ensure compliance with environmental standards and laws and what is needed to undertake the other actions. Essentially, this was that we should properly identify the risk and underlying problems from which we can identify options giving a range of activities and interventions

As a result, the workshop was able to provide a picture of problems and potential solutions to tackle issues arising from transboundary movements of environmentally detrimental goods.

Facilitators:
Bill Clark, Israel Nature and Parks Authority
Stephen Kisamo, Lusaka Agreement Task Force
Jacques Du Toit, Gauteng Dept. of Agr., Conservation, and Environment

The workshop began with a talk by a ranger from Kenya who gave a personal account of a situation in which several of his fellow Kenyan rangers were attacked and killed by poachers during an operation. He provided insight into the difficulties faced on a daily basis by these officials. This was followed by a presentation by the facilitators of their work and recommendations for improving wildlife law enforcement.

The primary recommendations that resulted from both the facilitators presentations and the contributions of the participants were the following:

1. Training
   • Focus of training for wildlife enforcement officers needs to be focused on the correct individuals;
   • Authorities need to look at programmes that focus on train the trainer;
   • Programmes should also look at training officials from other enforcement agencies that are involved in investigation of wildlife crimes;
2. Awareness raising
   • Examples of products of the various CITES species should be made available for awareness training and use by investigators so that officials involved in these matters are able to recognize these products;
   • Existing manuals and guidelines should be loaded onto the INECE website to ensure that these resources are shared;
3. Online network containing information such as:
   • Verdicts and prosecutor arguments;
   • Smuggling techniques;
   • Specie product layout;
4. Media:
   • There is a need to make use of the media to make people aware of the significant impact that wildlife crime (although we need to be careful about focusing on the value of the products as this could fuel the illegal trade)
5. Research
   • Encourage NGO’s to understand the other species that are being targeted for illegal trade (such as reptiles) so that more research can be done internationally and attention and resources can also be diverted to these species
6. Use of existing enforcement structures:
   • More countries in Africa should get involved in the structures created for co-operation by the Lusaka Agreement and the work of the LA Task Force;
   • More parties need to be involved in the Interpol Wildlife Working Group and make use of the Eco-messages.

Facilitators:
Howard Leberman, Environment Agency for England and Wales
Edwin Aalders, International Emissions Trading Association

Need for supporting evidence that governance of Emissions Trading Schemes is reliable. Governance is vital for weighing up consequences for environment and consequences for companies. Transparency of system required. Essential issues as to what INECE can do in the next two/three years:

• Administrative rules are problematic: ad hoc decision-makers and need for expert decision-making. No clear provisions in a market worth billions of dollars. This must be investigated and recommendations made.
• The risks and shortcomings must be reviewed and recommendations must be made especially as regards the UN system.
• All Dublin recommendations still stand - now about bringing the experts together - these should be discussed and unpacked through different approaches. Progression and implementation of Dublin recommendations therefore required.
• INECE could establish links between different stakeholders and involved people.
• INECE could look to the ICAP organization, forge links and strengthen each other.

Facilitators:
Kate Mumladze, Inspection for Environmental Protection, Georgia
Olya Melen, Environment-People-Law, Ukraine
Larry Sperling, US State Department

Corruption is the single greatest obstacle to economic and social development. It undermines development by distorting the rule of law and weakens the institution on which economic grow depends. The harmful effects of corruption especially hurt the poor. For tackling corruption it is important to go beyond the symptoms.

For as far as we know there is no definition set in any convention about corruption. There are a lot of widely spread ideas about the factors that increase the risk of corruption, like mentality, low salary (although not all the participants agree) and poverty. In the chain from policymaking to enforcement there are different occasions in which corruption could occur. It is hard to say which occasion is the most uncertain. One of the greatest impacts of corruption is the credibility of the system in a whole. Next to this big impact on the society there are various impacts, such as political impact, economical, environmental, human development opportunities and security. There are some strategies to prevent corruption. What is most important to make things work is that the government sets and example within its own ranks. You can do everything from legislation to culture-lessons, but when the government is corrupt, this will undermine the rule of law and spread corruption.

INECE can do several things to support the fight against corruption. INECE offers some training, and in these trainings should be sure to include discussions about corruption. In addition to these trainings, it may be possible to make a platform at the webside with best practices and some links to conventions. In addition it would be beneficial if INECE could make some brochures about the subject.

Delegates visited a selection of famous areas of Table Mountain National Park (TMNP), beginning with the Groote Schuur Estate and the Mount Pleasant Complex, for a tour of the medicinal garden. Delegates then traveled south to the Cape Point Nature Reserve, over Chapman’s Peak Drive, a spectacular road, hugging the near-vertical face of the mountain from Hout Bay to Noordhoek.

Cape Point Nature Reserve is perhaps the most scenically spectacular park in South Africa. The narrow finger of land with its beautiful valleys, bays and beaches is surrounded by the waters of the Atlantic Ocean in the west and the warmer waters of False Bay and has within its boundaries two world-renowned landmarks - majestic Table Mountain and the legendary Cape of Good Hope. The Park is recognized globally for its extraordinarily diverse and unique fauna and flora. With rugged cliffs, steep slopes and sandy flats, is a truly remarkable natural, scenic, historical, cultural and recreational asset both locally and internationally. Nowhere else in the world does an area of such spectacular beauty and such rich biodiversity exist almost entirely within a metropolitan area.

The reserve protects many endangered animal and plant species, including four whale species, three dolphin species, four tortoise species, 250 bird species, and a reasonable selection of big game: stately-looking eland and the more startlingly patterned bontebok antelope, scampering baboons and dashing ostriches can be also seen on a drive through the pristine bush. For the botanist, a staggering 1016 species of plants have been recorded here, but this is a mere 11% of the 9 000 plant species that make up the fynbos - 'fine bush' - found in the Cape, which forms the smallest but most diverse of the world's six floral kingdoms.

Cape Point itself is one of the greatest landmarks in the world, jutting like a rocky knife into the Atlantic ocean. It was here that Bartholomeu Diaz, the Portuguese navigator, first rounded the Cape in 1488, searching for a trade route to India and the East. The large stone cross in the reserve commemorates his achievement. Having narrowly avoided being shipwrecked by the Cape's famously unpredictable weather, Diaz named it Cabo Tormentosa, or Cape of Storms.

Delegates participated in a discussion led by Robin Adams of TMNP Marine Section on the challenges and solutions in the fight against environmental marine crime in the TMNP Marine Protected Area (MPA), focusing on abalone poaching.

Facilitators:
Marcia Mulkey, US Environmental Protection Agency
Angelique van der Schraaf, VROM, The Netherlands
Angela Bularga, OECD
Machteld Brokerhof, VROM-Inspectorate, The Netherlands
Grant Pink, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Australia

The workshop focused on designing and operating a sound training program with primary emphasis on training needs analysis. Participants undertook an exercise involving use of a Strategic Knowledge Map. This Map assisted participants to identify important themes, that influence environmental compliance and enforcement in their countries, at a more strategic and long term level than had previously been incorporated into training.

Through use of, another practical tool, the Individual Knowledge Chart participants were able to assess the current level of knowledge in their organization. By then combining these two methods (the strategic knowledge map and the individual knowledge chart) participants were able to identify what was their organizations knowledge gap. This then enabled the progression towards development of a tailor made curriculum for the practitioners in the three years to follow.

A tangible benefit for participants was that they were able to leave the workshop with concrete action items. It is recommended that these items should be used as the catalyst to put into practice the learning’s from the workshop.

Facilitators:
Gene Lubieniecki, US Environmental Protection Agency
Richard Charette, Environment Canada
Troy Collings, Dept of Natural Resources & Water, Australia

This workshop focused on techniques for detection and analysis used to improve environmental inspections and investigations. The workshop facilitators provided examples of techniques and tools they use in inspections and investigations for both pollution control and remediation issues as well as wildlife and habitat protection.

Remote sensing is a powerful tool for monitoring the compliance status of regulated entities and gathering evidence for enforcement case develop. Remote sensing can involve relatively simple activities, such as visual observations, to the use of sophisticated technologies such as satellite imagery. The use of remote sensing in any particular situation is dictated by numerous factors including available technologies, resources, and time.

In addition to visual observations and satellite imagery, the use of magnetometers, infrared cameras and remote sensing techniques were also presented and discussed. In addition, methods such as the use of bull horns, dyes and smoke to identify the discharge points of illegal waste water discharges were discussed.

Some of the outcomes of the discussions were that INECE should:

1. Explore ways to facilitate the sharing of information on technology used to collect enforcement evidence.
2. Continue to build networks between individuals and organizations, particularly in terms of identify needs and assisting in the development of needs assessments.
3. Develop a reference library targeted to appropriate programmatic areas.
4. Look for ways to facilitate the exchange equipment
5. Provide a forum to pose questions/get answers on technology issues.
6. Share strategies to show how technologies will allow inspectors to do more with less. This can act to justify spending the money upfront on technology.

Facilitators:
Marta Szigeti Bonifert, Regional Environmental Center, Hungary
Mihail Dimovski, REC for Central and Eastern Europe
Jenny van Houten, VROM, The Netherlands
Gustavo Alanis, CEMDA, Mexico
Peter Murtha, US Environmental Protection Agency

Jenny Van Houten presented as a case study a shipment of municipal waste claimed to be waste paper for recycling that originated from the UK, was sent to two European countries, with a bogus destination in Hong Kong, for likely delivery to China. The shipment was stopped and ultimately returned, and a fine of 1500 pounds was obtained.

Van Houten observed that there is an incentive to ship waste to China, since it has a substantial need for raw materials, and containers are empty on return to China after delivery of manufactured goods in western countries.

She indicated that in misrepresenting the true nature of waste, a claim that waste is copper may conceal electronic waste, paper may be contaminated with soil, and second-hand goods was actually be televisions or vehicles.

As a necessary tool, Van Houten recommended the development of universal profiling standards to identify containers for inspection.

Marta Szigeti Bonifert described two cases: the towing of a vessel contaminated with PCBs and other wastes from France to Turkey for ship scrapping or ship breaking, and the illegal dumping of municipal waste from Germany on farms in the Czech Republic and Hungary. In the vessel case, an NGO was instrumental in identifying the problem. The municipal waste dumping case preceded the elimination of customs borders in the EU. A knowledgeable prosecutor was effective in pursuing the case. The two receiving countries now cooperate in dealing with this type of practice.

Mihail Dimovski discussed a transboundary shipment of powdered milk contaminated with radionuclides that moved from the Ukraine to Greece and was denied entry to Macedonia for six months. Ultimately the Macedonian ministry allowed entry and ordered the contaminated product to be landfilled at a cost of 200,000 Euros. The carrier was assessed an administrative fine of 1000 Euros. Although other penalties were not possible, the shipper suffered the loss of business from the use of its trailer for six months.

Gustavo Alanis proposed that countries develop directories for communication in emergencies, involve key political officials, revise and strengthen programs, establish permanent lines of communication with Customs, develop standard procedures between countries, promote public participation, and provide information to the public on whom to call about illegal activities they become aware of.

Peter Murtha cited the case of Pyramid Chemical as a example of successful cooperation between two governments, US and Dutch authorities, in the prosecution of an individual and company for the illegal export of hazardous waste that was claimed to be product to a fictitious purchaser in Nigeria. The recovery of restitution and fines in the criminal case totaled $2 million.

Facilitators:
Ambassador Alberto Szekely, Mexico
Stacey Mitchell, US Department of Justice

Despite efforts to advance the international environmental conservation agenda, as articulated formatively in the 1987 Brundtland Report entitled 'Our Common Future', and latterly through other international conservation mechanisms such as the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janerio (i.e. Agenda 21), it is apparent that a 'gradualism' approach to environmental conservation at global scale has not been as effective in producing the type of anticipated concrete results which many proponents of such an approach had originally foreseen. Accordingly, in 2008, we still face extremely significant challenges vis-à-vis achieving substantive progress on a number of critically important environmental issues; notwithstanding the notable success of certain international efforts, such as the reduction of ozone depleting substances pursuant to the 1987 Montreal Protocol. For example, the (Kyoto) Framework on Climate Change has not succeeded in marshalling the necessary international support which would have been required to adequately address the key issue of mitigating the adverse effects of highly elevated levels of green house gas emissions which increasingly threaten natural, social and economic capital vectors at global scale. This has led to the suggestion that international environmental law is failing to fulfill its anticipated and intended role as an effective vehicle of ensuring that the environmental security of future generations is adequately protected. One such example of the failure of our international environmental law to adequately mitigate such risks is inherent in the performance of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW); a convention which operates under the auspices of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Since the 1986 IWC declaration of a moratorium on commercial whaling, Japan is perceived to have defied and/or marginalized the overarching conservation principle of the ICRW by steadfastly continuing to commercially harvest whales under the guise of scientific research, as allowable pursuant to ICRW Article 8. Some consider that Japan’s activities in this regard, and including their alleged efforts to influence the IWC voting mechanism in their favour, constitute a subversion of international diplomacy. Unlike the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), within which environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) play an active and robust role, the IWC is not such a forum within which ENGOs have the opportunity to participate other than in the capacity of (non-voting) observers. Many would argue that this inability of ENGOs to substantively engage the IWC decision-making process represents a serious impediment to the achievement of its stated goals. Moreover, this view has been strongly reinforced in a report sponsored by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) as was published in 2006 by a panel of independent international law experts. Many believe that the scientific rationale which underpins Japan’s whale harvesting activities utterly lacks credibility; and especially given that non-lethal alternative scientific methodologies exist. This perception is supported by the argument that governments have yielded IWC responsibility to scientists and low-level diplomats who lack decision making capacity to effectively bring about change.

There is a current need to strengthen the integrity of international environmental conventions which operate in an overly-political fashion. Empowering ENGOs may be the only viable remedy to counter-balance the lack of resolve of certain governments in this regard. Inherent in the process of ENGO empowerment is the requirement for more effective access to the global media. INECE could foster this process by supporting the preparation of a report on the overall effectiveness of our international environmental conventions. Given that it is not mandated to act as an advocacy organization, one of the highest value contributions that INECE could make would be to provide impartial feed-back with respect to which international environmental conventions are deemed to be working well in achieving their stated goals; and, conversely, which are not.

Facilitators:
Kenneth Markowitz, Consultant to INECE Secretariat, Akin Gump LLP
Ana Maria Kleymeyer, Ministry of Environment, Argentina

Carbon sinks will play a critical role in global efforts to mitigate climate change. This workshop discussed the compliance challenges of reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and other types of emissions reductions through carbon sinks, both as part of emissions trading and project-based market mechanisms. Participants also considered the role of sustainable forestry management programs and other initiatives. [draft]

Facilitators:
Judge Susan Biro, US Environmental Protection Agency
Pradeep Bakshi, Asia-Pacific Jurist Association, India
Sedfrey Candelaria, Philippine Judicial Academy

The judiciary makes a fundamental contribution by upholding the rule of law and ensuring that national and international laws are interpreted and applied fairly, efficiently, and effectively. This workshop emphasized the vital importance of the judiciary in addressing enforcement and compliance of environmental laws. During this session, justices and practitioners from India, the Phillipines, the US and other countries discussed the role of the judiciary in strengthening environmental compliance and enforcement, and how enforcement programs can better represent themselves before the Court.

A number of recommendations were provided for INECE. INECE is in a unique position to provide significant support for the judiciary in helping to address environmental enforcement and compliance. The recommendation from the workshop participants is that INECE create a judicial network of judges, court administrators, lawyers and other practitioners to assist with training and other educational opportunities to advance environmental law issues. Further, INECE should work with the ICUN to develop a forum on environmental law which would allow for the sharing of learning tools among different countries that can be used as models of success. Other recommendations include: 1) Using different approaches for addressing environmental issues; 2) Strengthening legislation that the judiciary can use; 3) Training of the judiciary on environmental law; and 4) Using Alternative Dispute Resolution to encourage settlement of environmental law cases.

Facilitators:
Michael Stahl, US Environmental Protection Agency
Mihail Dimovski, REC for Central and Eastern Europe
Renjean de Ladurantay of Environment Canada

Background

The workshop is designed to give a framework for identifying important environmental problems and priorities, developing strategies to address those priorities, and measuring and evaluating effectiveness.

Workshop Discussion

The workshop facilitators began the session by posing a question about establishment of an INECE internet forum for discussion of strategic management issues and a potential guideline document on this topic. The forum would use the INECE indicators internet forum as a model. The guideline document could be developed from existing materials and experiences in several countries.

Mike Stahl presented a powerpoint on the concepts and principles of startegic management, covering definitions, rational, best practices, and the importance of the evolution of performance indicators. The main pillars on any such efforts are to 1) focus on important problems; 2) focus on use of effective tools; 3) provide for assessment of effectiveness

After Mike Stahl’s presentation, Renjean de Ladurantay gave a presentation about a Canadian project on inspections, focusing on improved understanding of the organization’s effectiveness and productivity. Diheail Dimovski then gave a presentation about the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe. He gave an overview about a project to develop indicators to evaluate the performance of these 10 countries and to benchmark based on best results/best performances.

Discussions probed the idea of an INECE Web-based forum on strategic management and priority setting as well as guidelines on the subject. The group was supportive of the project. Mr. Dimovski felt that such guidelines would be very useful in central and eastern Europe, encouraging guidelines on prioritization and problem identification which are simple and usable. Mr. Stahl believes that the guidelines could rely heavily on examples, particularly examples in actual implementation around the world. Ms. Mulkey and Mr. Stahl shared a colloquy on the ways in which the strategic management forum could be integrated/coordinated with the existing INECE forum on indicators.

There was also a related interest in some kind of standing internet based opportunity for practitioners to pose open questions in an internet forum, about these and other issues. Discussions also occurred on efforts in other parts of the world.

Outcomes

This workshop is expected to lead to development on an INECE internet-based forum on strategic management and of guidelines on strategic management of environmental compliance and enforcement programs.

Support for these further projects is sought from INECE, conference participants and national and international entities interested in improving environmental enforcement and compliance throughout the world.

Facilitators:
John Cruden, US Department of Justice
Prof. Jacobus de Ridder, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
René Craemer, The Netherlands

This workshop focused on minimizing potential pitfalls and offering suggestions for improving the communication and team effort between officers and prosecutors in the preparation of environmental cases.

John Cruden set the stage by offering a chart designed to provide common enforcement terminology the help provide clarity to the workshop.

René Craemer provided an in-depth description of recent (i.e., 2005) changes in the Dutch environmental crimes enforcement structure under which 19 Public Prosecutor’s Offices were consolidated into a single national office in which the Public Prosecutor had authority over the inspectors in all agencies relevant to the environment (broadly defined to include pollution, wildlife, livestock, marine, water use, etc.) Additionally, Rene pointed out that there are now 420 specialized environmental detectives at the national level dedicated to the investigation of all environmental crimes. Rene’s experience has been that although the system is imperfect, it nonetheless offers a high degree of coordination and communication and clear lines of authority. In particular, the Public Prosecutor is empowered to determine which cases are pursued criminally and those to be subject to administrative action, and selection of priorities to investigate and prosecute. One particular emerging trend from the new system is a focus on criminal networks and associated individuals.

Professor Jacobus de Ridder provided a framework for assessing the areas of potential conflict among prosecutors, police, and inspectors at the nexus between: (1) agency vs. agency, (2) administrative vs. criminal, (3) enforcement vs. prosecutions and (4) all enforcement mechanisms vs. the judiciary. The possibility of friction was discussed from both structural and cultural perspectives.

The lively discussion that ensued demonstrated that although many potential areas of potential friction, miscommunication and dysfunction exist, there are many mechanisms that help to overcome the obstacles and lead to successful and mutually satisfactory enforcement outcomes.

Facilitators:
Stacey Mitchell, US Department of Justice
Ross Galbraith, Environment Canada

There appears to be widespread noncompliance with the requirements of MARPOL Annex 1, which deals with vessel discharges of oil, resulting in significant ecological impacts (e.g., bird kills) (Mitchell, Galbraith, 2002 OECD study). Most cases involve deliberate discharges or intentional by passing of pollution control equipment couples with falsification of records (i.e., criminal misconduct) (Mitchell, Measer). Sophisticated new satellite detection systems can be used to detect and prove violations (Galbriath). INTERPOL has developed a very useful manual to help investigators detect violations (Galbraith, Measer).

This appears to be an area ripe for additional enforcement efforts. The work that has already been done in this area by INTERPOL should be built on. Satellite/radar detection capabilities can help with the detection of non-compliance and help build evidence needed for successful prosecution. International cooperation between governments can help track down and prosecute violators. There have already been examples of this type of successful cooperation.

INTERPOL has developed a very useful investigatory manual and is looking for funding to provide international training in this area. Perhaps this is something INECE can support. Generally, stronger ties between INTERPOL and INECE are encouraged to help support compliance and enforcement efforts in this area.

Facilitators:
Julius Kipng'etich, Kenya Wildlife Service
James Isiche, International Fund for Animal Welfare

This workshop examined how successful conservation and management of a national park is reliant on how well authorities are able to secure its land and with it, the integrity and long-term viability of the biological resources of the park. It examined this effort in the context of habitat destruction and rehabilitation in Meru National Park in Kenya.

Meru National Park is located 370 kilometers from Nairobi. It is the third largest wildlife conservation area and elephant habitat in Kenya. It became part of the National Park System in1967. In the mid-1970s and 1980s, heavily armed gangs of poachers invaded the park. They nearly wiped out all the wildlife and attacked tourist vehicles. The park’s elephant population, for example, plummeted from over 3,000 to a mere 251. Rangers were poorly equipped and some were killed. Tourists stopped coming to the park. The infrastructure began to fall apart. Meru continued to be a volatile area security-wise until the late 1990s.

In the 1990s, the Kenyan Wildlife Service (KWS) decided to try and restore Meru. Only about 2,000 tourists were coming to the Park. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) worked with the KWS to develop an action plan to restore Meru. Eventually, IFAW and the KWS signed a Memorandum of Agreement on funding and management of the park. The project worked to restore security in the park, relocate the park headquarters, repair and rehabilitate basic equipment, purchase field equipment, create tourist facilities, construct fences, develop a 20 year master plan, integrate community activities with wildlife conservation and translocate animals into the park.

A few of the key lessons of this effort are the absolute need for security in order for other program elements to fall into place, the need for donor support and public/private/NGO partnerships, and a formal agreement to show the obligation of all parties.

A group discussion followed in which participants suggested a number of possible roles for INECE to play in efforts to support the rule of law in parks around the world. The suggestions were to:

(1) Collaborate with IFAW on creating a list of “paper parks” (parks that exist in name only) around the world. Where they are?

(2) Look for avenues of cooperation between existing park systems of organizations such as the international federation of park rangers where INECE could help fill a niche on promoting exchanges and cooperation on law enforcement matters.

(3) Invite international community organizations to create partnerships on the ground and in the field.

(4) Examine the concept of buffer areas around parks where development is restricted but on-going traditional activities are allowed to continue. What laws and tools exists to support these efforts?

(5) INECE can play a role in developing and promoting enforcement models, particularly those where humans and protected animals are able co-exist in a protected area, such as in South Africa or Zambia. Examine not only successes but failures, also.

Click here to download the PDF version of the presentation used at this workshop.

Facilitators:
Kenneth Markowitz, Consultant to INECE Sercretariat, Akin Gump LLP
Ana Maria Kleymeyer, Ministry of Environment, Argentina

Negotiating a post-2012 climate treaty will raise a number of compliance challenges. This workshop discussed the compliance issues likely to emerge in negotiating and implementing a post-2012 climate treaty and looked to the compliance mechanisms of other multilateral environmental agreements, such as the Montreal Protocol. [draft]

Facilitators:
Phyllis Harris, Wal-Mart Stores
Melissa Fourie, DEAT, South Africa

Responsible corporations seek not only to comply with their own responsibilities, but also work to ensure that their vendors and suppliers produce their products in using environmentally-sound methods. This workshop presented examples of Wal-Mart's efforts to ensure that suppliers and vendors use environmentally-sound methods and perspectives from South Africa.

Phyllis Harris made the first presentation about supply chain compliance at the Wal-Mart. Ms. Harris presented the environmental strategy of Wal-Mart, which is to: explore new technologies; work on environmental issues with their suppliers; improve the environmental performance of Wal-Mart; improve and encourage the performance of their chain-partners.

To reach these goals, Wal-Mart seeks: a more energy efficient future; a supply chain for the future; and product innovation. In general Wal-Mart wants their products produced 25% more energy efficient. They are also working on fleet efficiency, supply chain organization, and a packaging scorecard. Completion was noted as the greatest driver for this attitude.

Melissa Fourie from South Africa's Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) gave insight to the general principles in South Africa and how they want to make break through in the status quo. Ms. Fourie noticed that companies become greater and larger all the time and there is an influence from benchmarking on a global scale. For the South African industries, it can roughly be said that 95 percent are not concerned with environmental issues and one should not expect spontaneous compliance. Ms. Fourie gave an example of DEAT's experiences with the Engen Refinery at Durban (SA). Inspections, education and a realization by the company that compliance could save money helped change the company culture.

The group discussed their perspectives on the influences of ISO 14001 and shareholders and consumers and the financial bottom-line on compliance behaviour.

The value of networks such as INECE, organizations such as OECD, and business organizations such as GEMI (www.gemi.org) were observed. It was also suggested that INECE be sure to include the private sector in its activities and that regulators and enforcers would benefit from the perspectives of businesses.