Canada, Mexico, and the United States signed the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) as a parallel (side) agreement to NAFTA. The goal was to link trade integration with cooperation on environmental protection and enforcement. This created a regional framework meant to reassure the public that freer trade would not weaken environmental law enforcement.
NAAEC entered into force on the same day NAFTA took effect. It committed each country to maintain high levels of environmental protection and to effectively enforce its own environmental laws. It also created new institutions for cooperation and a public process to raise concerns about enforcement.
NAAEC established the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) to support cooperation among the three countries. The CEC’s structure includes a Council (top environmental officials), a Secretariat (based in Montréal), and a Joint Public Advisory Committee (citizen advisers). This institutional setup became the platform for regional projects and for handling public submissions about enforcement.
Civil society groups filed a Submission on Enforcement Matters (SEM) alleging Mexico failed to effectively enforce environmental laws related to a cruise ship pier project on Cozumel. The case tested how NAAEC’s Articles 14 and 15 would work in practice, including questions about timing and whether older events could be reviewed. It helped establish the SEM process as a visible public accountability tool.
After reviewing the submission and Mexico’s response, the CEC Council voted to instruct the Secretariat to prepare a factual record. A factual record is a documented account of relevant facts about alleged enforcement failures; it is not a court judgment. This step mattered because it showed the SEM process could move beyond initial screening to deeper fact-finding.
A coalition of organizations filed a submission alleging Canada failed to enforce parts of the Fisheries Act and related authorities to protect fish and fish habitat from impacts linked to hydroelectric dams. The submitters also argued that weak enforcement could create an unfair competitive advantage in electricity markets. The filing showed how SEMs could connect enforcement concerns to economic competition themes under a trade-linked agreement.
The CEC publicly released its final factual record for the Cozumel submission. Publication made the record available to the public as a transparency and accountability outcome, even though it did not impose penalties. The Cozumel record became an early reference point for how the SEM process could document enforcement issues in North America.
Following the Secretariat’s review and recommendation, the CEC Council voted to instruct preparation of a factual record for the BC Hydro submission. This marked another high-profile move into the factual-record stage, indicating the process was not limited to one country or one type of environmental issue. It also highlighted how the Council’s vote is a key decision point in moving SEM cases forward.
Community and environmental groups filed a submission alleging Mexico failed to effectively enforce environmental laws regarding hazardous waste left at an abandoned lead smelter site in Tijuana, Baja California. The case focused on health and environmental risks from contaminated materials and the government response to an abandoned industrial site. It became one of the most cited SEM matters because it tied local public health concerns to cross-border waste and enforcement responsibilities.
After the Secretariat’s review and recommendation, the CEC Council instructed the Secretariat to develop a factual record on the Metales y Derivados submission. This decision pushed the case into detailed fact-finding about enforcement actions and government responses over time. The step also showed that SEM matters could address ongoing contamination and remediation, not just one-time permitting disputes.
The CEC publicly released the final factual record for the BC Hydro submission. The release provided a public, documented account of relevant facts about the enforcement issues raised, supporting transparency even without a formal sanction. It also demonstrated that SEM cases could run for years from filing to final publication.
The CEC made the final factual record on the Metales y Derivados case publicly available. Publication brought sustained public attention to hazardous waste management and enforcement challenges near the U.S.–Mexico border. The case became a major example of how the SEM process could document environmental enforcement issues affecting local communities.
The CEC Council voted to instruct the Secretariat to prepare a factual record for a submission about alleged failures to enforce environmental law on air pollution in Hermosillo, Sonora. The case reflected continued public use of the SEM process to raise enforcement concerns tied to human health, such as air quality monitoring and control programs. It also shows that, by the 2010s, the SEM process remained active and used across different issue areas.
The CEC published updated Guidelines for Submissions on Enforcement Matters (SEM) under NAAEC Articles 14 and 15. These guidelines help explain how submissions are filed, screened, and (in some cases) moved toward a factual record. Updating guidance is part of keeping the process usable and consistent as cases, institutions, and public expectations evolve.
The CEC Council voted not to instruct preparation of a factual record for the Alberta Tailings Ponds submission (SEM-10-002). The decision highlighted that the SEM system includes clear limits: even if a submission raises serious concerns, the Council can decide not to proceed to a factual record. This outcome illustrated the political and procedural realities of NAAEC’s public enforcement mechanism.
North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and Enforcement Actions (1993–2015)