INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT IN DECISION
(AGENDA 21, CHAPTER 8: EFFECTIVE USE OF ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS AND MARKET AND OTHER INCENTIVES)
Prepared by Sara J. Wilson, Canadian Nature Federation

INTRODUCTION
Canada has set up consultative processes and committees to develop sustainable development policies and strategies that will integrate environment and development into economic decision-making. There have been achievements over the last decade such as legislated environmental assessment, national and provincial round tables on the environment and economy, sustainable development plans, sustainable development strategies for federal departments, and the establishment of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. However, Canada, like many countries, has not succeeded in integrating these concepts into economic policy decision-making and practices.

INDICATOR - Ecological Fiscal Reform (EFR)
Scale: No Action (1) - Limited Use (2) - Actively Pursuing (3) - Incorporated (4)
Canada's Score = 2

BACKGROUND
In Chapter 8, Agenda 21 calls for the effective use of economic instruments and market and other incentives in order to integrate environment and development into decision-making. The objectives are:
1. To incorporate environmental costs in the decisions of producers and consumers, to reverse the tendency to treat the environment as a "free good" and to pass these costs on to other parts of society, other countries, or to future generations;
2. To move more fully towards integration of social and environmental costs into economic activities, so that prices will appropriately reflect the relative scarcity and total value of resources and contribute towards the prevention of environmental degradation;
3. To include, wherever appropriate, the use of market principles in the framing of economic instruments and policies to pursue sustainable development.

RATIONALE
According to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, ecological fiscal reform (EFR) is " a strategy that redirects a government's taxation and expenditure programs to create an integrated set of incentives to support the shift to sustainable development." The main purpose of EFR is to internalize environmental costs and/or to reward more sustainable behaviour and practices. Ecological tax reform comprises two of the three main components of EFR, referring to increasing or imposing new taxes on environmentally-damaging activities, and reducing existing taxes on income, savings and capital. The third component of EFR is the elimination of existing environmentally-perverse subsidies. For this report, the main focus is on ecological tax reform because of the information that is readily available. A better measurement of EFR for future reference would be the percent of tax revenues from ecological tax reform and the percent of perverse subsidies removed.

STATUS
The federal government's approach to implementing economic instruments for environmental protection has been limited, however there have been some measures implemented. For example, Canada has introduced a tradable allowance system to eliminate methyl bromide (ozone-depleting), a pilot greenhouse gas emissions trading project, differentiated excise taxes on leaded and unleaded gasoline, excise tax exemptions for alternative fuels (e.g. Ethanol), tax benefits for gifts of ecologically significant land, and most recently, a production incentive for wind energy producers and a tax roll-over for intergenerational transfers of private woodlots were introduced.

GLOBAL CONTEXT
In comparison, European countries have been much more actively pursuing EFR (primarily ecological tax reform). Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, the U.K., Italy, Germany, and Belgium (among other countries), have all launched ecological tax reform, as steps towards EFR. These have included carbon, fuel, waste or energy taxes, generally accompanied with reductions in already existing taxes (i.e. revenue recycled).
Canada still is comparatively behind in adopting such measures. The OECD concluded in its 2000 Economic Survey of Canada that,
"there is a need to increase the use of economic instruments (for instance, charges on toxic emissions and waste, and disposal fees for products containing toxic substances) to reinforce the polluter-pays principle."

TARGET FOR 2012
Comprehensive ecological fiscal reform at federal, provincial and municipal levels.

ACTION NEEDED
1. Strengthen capacity in public (including civil society) and private sector to integrate environment, economic and social policy decisions
a. Continue to implement mechanisms of interdepartmental, public - private sector consultation and decision-making concerning environmental, economic and social policies; and,
b. Continue to develop a complete and reliable system of information on the state of the environment and develop data on related economic issues (public and private expenditures, employment, sustainable development, production and consumption patterns, environment and sustainable development indicators).

2. Improve alignment of economic signals with environmental policy goals
a. Set up a green fiscal reform committee to complete a comprehensive review and analysis of the current state of incentives created by the fiscal system as it relates to the environment, and move to correct the mis-alignments.
b. Implement specific fiscal reform projects to shift incentives towards behaviours that protect the environment, reward environmental and eco-efficiency choices according to the polluter pays principle, the user pays principle, and the precautionary approach (e.g. introduction of a domestic emissions trading system for GHGs by 2008);
c. Actively pursue the use of economic instruments to prevent pollution and conserve natural resources, in association with regulatory instruments; and,
d. Remove direct and indirect subsidies that are environmentally perverse (i.e. encourage the use of resources that result in fewer environmental and health damages).

Note: Another potential indicator is the development of solid environment and sustainable development indicators (i.e. to complement, and eventually supplement, the GDP) so that progress is measured not only in limited terms of economic growth, but measured based on quality of life (including strong economy, healthy environment and good social conditions).

PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
By Anne Mitchell, Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy

INDICATOR
For this brief review, we chose the indicator - Does Canada have a sustainable development strategy and a plan to implement its strategy? We have chosen this indicator otherwise, we may, as Yogi Berra said 'not know when we get there'. We committed in 1992 at the Earth summit in Rio to develop a plan toward sustainable development (SD). This commitment, we undertook along with most other nations in the world.

STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 1992
In 1992, four government funded institutions were tasked with the objective of delivering Canada's sustainable development plan.

STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 2002
By 2002, 28 federal agencies and departments, mandated by the Auditor General Act, had developed sustainable development strategies. By 2012 the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (CIELAP) would like to be a participant in sustainable development planning in Canada using a process which articulates the SD objective, identifies goals and a means to measure progress.

TARGETS FOR 2012
Canada needs to develop the action plan that it committed to do, ten years ago. We need to make our action plan a road map to the future. As hard as it may be for some Canadian political and business leaders to imagine a prosperous future based on ecological sustainability, the alternative promises to be a great deal worse, as well as costly. This involves new ways of thinking and doing. Working collaboratively - and sustainably - takes time. The institutions and organizations who are committed to moving on to a more sustainable path need to have the capacity to participate.

CIELAP's research in sustainable development has shown us that achieving demonstrable success in sustainable development initiatives in Canada may involve nothing more radical than putting the steps of the process in the right order and permitting participants in the process - especially cities, local communities and small and medium enterprises - to play to their strengths.

CIELAP in its discussion paper Sustainable Development in Canada: A New Federal Plan proposes that demonstrable results toward achieving sustainable development can be had through the application of a four-step process: i) identify the sustainable development objective; ii) set goals and targets and develop rules and tools; iii) measure and evaluate; and iv) test for sustainable results.

ACTIONS NEEDED TO GET THERE BY 2012
The Rio conference raised great hopes that the world would rally against a common cause and forge a global society promoting harmony among human beings and between humanity and nature. Instead, ten years after the Rio conference, Canadians and all the people of the world still look for signs that the promise of Rio has not dissipated into thin air.

Ten years ago, the then conservative government of Brian Mulroney mandated four organizations in Canada to deliver Canada's sustainable development plan. These are the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME); the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD); the International Development Research Centre (IDRC); and the National Roundtable for the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). During the past ten years, what have we accomplished? Many of the provincial governments also set up provincial roundtables for the environment and the economy. None of these exist today. The NRTEE is working on a proposal to develop indicators for sustainable development. The IDRC is funding research for sustainable development. The IISD is doing research on international and trade agreements for sustainable development. But as far as we are aware, there has been no evaluation of their progress towards helping Canada and the world reach sustainable development. Other organizations and communities, for example, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives - and there are others - are trying their best to develop sustainable development planning and programming but there has been no concerted effort or leadership in this direction in Canada.

Canada has as poor a record as any developed country on sustainable development. The most glaring example of underachievement is our failure to address the intense threat of climate change and to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Canada's poor performance on sustainable development arises from two separate problems. The first is a challenge confronting all of the northern democratic states with capitalist economies - how to implement sustainable development? The second problem is idiosyncratic to the country itself. Canada's federal structure limits federal government involvement in matters under provincial jurisdiction, such as resource management, land-use planning, public education, health care, primary jurisdiction over lakes and rivers and many other areas intrinsically connected to sustainable development.

The greatest challenge for countries such as Canada is that sustainable development requires that we take steps towards a destination that we cannot currently imagine. While leaders from all parts of Canada can envision a prosperous economic future for the country, they cannot envision one that differs very much from the status quo. Sustainable development by contrast proposes that we find ways to live that meet our needs but that do not compromise the capacity of future generations to meet their needs. Unfortunately, current generations have already compromised the capacity of future generations to meet their needs. There is much less clean water, clean air, and untouched wilderness, than there was even a generation ago. There are fewer viable fisheries, viable forests, accessible fossil fuel resources and much less arable land.

GLOBAL CONTEXT
A key objective of sustainable development is the belief that we can restore damaged ecosystems while also preventing further damage to the ecosphere. The fundamental conundrum sustainable development poses for the Canadian government is how to maintain this standard of living - let alone improve it - when to the best of our understanding it is simply not sustainable. To impose on the planet the burden of 8.5 billion people living in the same way as 400 million North Americans do now would dramatically increase rather than reduce the threat to future generations. The answer most often offered for solving this conundrum is to maintain current standards of living in wealthy countries while reducing the "footprint" created by this lifestyle through improvements in resource use, urban design etc. However, while this answer appears to be straightforward there are no programs currently in place to reduce the Canadian "footprint".

Policies and programs designed to reduce consumption of Canadians to help us implement sustainable development are difficult to propose, let alone adopt, either as a political position or a policy presumption. Instead, our government appears to hope that sustainable solutions will arise largely through market forces and require no significant changes to the economic status quo. Will it be possible for our government to see a future that is both sustainable and as prosperous as today? Promoting energy efficiency is a way forward.

CONCLUSION
We invite the federal, provincial and municipal governments of Canada, the industry and business sector, and the non-government organization sectors and communities to participate in a process that will define our top three sustainable development outcomes that we hope to achieve over the next ten years; work together to create the means and the capacity to achieve these outcomes; and evaluate and check up on our strategies for effectiveness. To kick start the process we would like to suggest three possible sustainable development outcomes for Canada over the next ten years: 1) to develop an emissions reduction program to reduce CO2 emissions to six percent lower than 1990 levels by 2012 (Kyoto targets); 2) to develop a national food policy which will include the preservation of agricultural land to protect food sources and ensure food security; 3) to develop a national housing policy and program so that no Canadian needs to be homeless.

To do this, the Prime Minister needs to lead the process. The Finance Minister needs to budget for the process. All departments of the government of Canada, provincial governments, municipal governments, businesses and industry, non government organizations and communities need to get behind the process. The first step is to agree on the objectives. We have the resources and we have the knowledge for the task. Do we have the leadership and the political will?

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
By Peter Duck

THE INDICATOR
The indicator selected for this category is the degree to which sustainability is being incorporated into environmental impact assessment in Canada. Three components of this indicator have been selected to trace progress over the last ten years. First, are we assessing all development proposals and activities that threaten the environment? Second, for those proposals that are assessed, are we ensuring that we are assessing the need for the proposal and sustainable alternatives for implementing the proposal? And finally, is the public being involved in federal environmental assessment processes in a meaningful way? Due to the variety of environmental assessment regimes among provincial and territorial jurisdictions, examination of the indicator focuses on the federal regime because of its potential to be a trend setting process across the country.

STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 1992
In 1992 federal environmental assessment was conducted under the Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order (EARPGO). This order was formally put in place through an order in council in 1984 although less formal requirements for federal environmental assessment had been in place since 1973.

The EARPGO addressed the first component of the indicator by requiring federal departments to assess any initiative, undertaking or activity for which the federal government had a decision-making responsibility. All development projects and even policies and programs, therefore, required some level of environmental assessment. Allowance was made to both exclude projects with known insignificant environmental effects and to require independent 'public review' of projects with known significant adverse effects on the environment. The second component of the indicator was addressed under the Order through the option for ministerial approval to allow for a consideration of the need for the project and an assessment of the technology involved. However, no specific direction was given to assess alternative ways of meeting the need for the proposal or alternative ways of implementing the proposal that may have less adverse effects on the environment. The final component of the indicator was addressed by Section 4(1) b of the EARPGO. This section required that the concerns of the public be considered for each proposal. No details of how this 'consideration' should happen were included except for proposals that required public review. The public review panel had discretion in whether or not to allow the public to participate in defining the terms of reference for the environmental impact statement. Other requirements for holding the public review were also incorporated directly into the Order.

STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 2002
In 1995, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) came into force as the statute that directed environmental assessment of projects under federal jurisdiction. This Act provides much more detail on the factors that are required to be considered in an assessment and the process that federal assessments should follow. While the triggers (definitions for federal responsibility) for requiring assessments under the CEAA are similar to the EARPGO, the new legislation restricts the assessment of proposals to a specific definition of 'project'. With this definition fewer projects become subject to environmental assessment. Assessed projects are restricted to defined physical works or physical activities specified in a regulation known as the Inclusion List. The assessment of programs and policies and many other non-physical federal activities, which have strong influences on planning for sustainability, no longer require assessment.

The CEAA does require that the purpose of the project and alternative means of carrying out the project be considered for projects that require a more detailed level of assessment. This consideration remains discretionary for screening level assessments, which comprise more than 95 percent of the projects assessed under the Act.

While the types of federal activities that require assessment are reduced under the CEAA the opportunities for public involvement are stronger for projects that require public review. Strengthening takes the form of mandatory notice of the completion of assessment reports and specifying that a hearing must be held in a manner that facilitates public participation. The Act also greatly improves public participation by establishing a funding program for qualifying public intervenors and setting up a public registry of information relating to environmental assessments. Unfortunately, these improvements, with the exception of the registry, are restricted to the most detailed levels of assessment. Public involvement is still optional for screening level assessments.

TARGETS FOR 2012
Improvements in all three components of the indicator should be made for 2012. A most important step toward sustainable development can be made by requiring that federal policies and programs be subject to the CEAA. This change would move federal environmental assessment beyond its current project level focus to strategic assessments that have a better capacity to address sustainable development issues. Another improvement will be to ensure that the assessment of the need for the project, alternative ways of meeting the need and alternative ways of implementing the preferred project is required for all projects assessed under the Act. This is necessary if the CEAA is to nurture a culture of sustainable development rather than the current regulatory hurdle perspective on the Act. If the equity and democracy principles of sustainability are to be addressed by the CEAA then drastic improvements to public participation are required. First, the Act must require some level of public involvement for all levels of assessment. Second, the Act must be more specific on requirements for the timing of public involvement (e.g. in the early notification and scoping stages). The nature of public participation must also be specified in legislation in a manner that ensures that consultation with public interests is meaningful. Finally, decisions stemming from environmental assessments must be required to reference the manner in which public concerns have been addressed.

WHAT ACTIONS ARE NEEDED?
The CEAA is currently under review with amendments before Parliament. It remains to be seen how far the amendments will go towards addressing sustainability issues. In the mean time the following continuing actions are recommended.
· Continue to work closely with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to encourage the adoption of amendments to the Act and regulations that promote sustainable development.
· Continue to participate in initiatives that offer opportunities to promote sustainable development through environmental assessment (e.g. Minister's Regulator Advisory Committee).
· Continue to press sustainable development issues through individual CEAA project reviews.
· Lobby for periodic review and amendment of the CEAA in order to provide windows of opportunity to incorporate sustainability elements into federal environmental assessment.

THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
Canada's recent role in encouraging sustainability through environmental assessment in the international context is not encouraging. The trend is towards avoiding or reducing the level of assessment conducted below the level required in a domestic context. Examples over the last 10 years include attempts to avoid assessment and to defer to less credible and less democratic processes. Nuclear reactors sold to China and Cabinet's recent decision to rely on the Export Development Corporation's environmental assessment review process rather than the more democratic CEAA are notable examples. International agreements such as the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context are only initial steps to ensure sustainability planning is incorporated into international environmental assessment scenario.

It should be noted that account does not address the type of decision making that results from the information provided through the federal environmental assessment process. Since compliance is inconsistent and there is no requirement in the CEAA to base decisions on specified sustainability principles, actual progress towards sustainability is subjective and questionable.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
By Mike Simpson, One Sky

"The Government will increase overseas development assistance and use these new investments to advance efforts to reduce international poverty and to strengthen democracy, justice and social stability worldwide."
Feb, 2001 Speech from the Throne

"Actual international target for development assistance countries is 0.7%"
"Actual percentage of Canadian ODA to GNP in 2000/01 was 0.27%"
"Actual percentage of Canadian ODA to GNP in 2001/02 was 0.27%"
"Actual percentage of Canadian ODA to GNP for 2002/03 is 0.28%"

THE INDICATOR
The most common indicator used to measure international cooperation efforts is the percentage of Official Development Assistance (ODA) a developed country makes in relation to Gross National Product (GNP). This ratio of ODA/GNP was first proposed by the World Council of Churches in 1958 who proposed that 1% of GNP of developed nations should be loaned or granted to the developing world. The Pearson Commission in 1969 based the target of 0.7% ODA for developed countries on the need for developing nation economies to grow at a sustained rate of 6% and this was adopted by the United Nations in 1970. All of the 22 countries of the OECD that make up the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) combined have never been able to achieve more than 0.4% and this ratio has steadily declined since 1969 with an even more dramatic drop during the 1990's of almost 21% in real terms. However, some particularly responsible individual countries have met and even exceeded the target such as Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands.

There are some significant faults in the indicator as much of Canada's ODA has questionable results for poverty eradication and may, in fact, contribute to a less environmentally sustainable world simply because the notion of "development" as it is defined by Canada's lead ODA agency (the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA) often has detrimental environmental impact. The financing of dams, supporting overseas mining operations and the investment in non-renewable or outright unsustainable energy resources such as coal and nuclear power is not a contribution to an environmentally sustainable world so much as an investment in Canadian private sector interests. There have been some key advancements such as the recently initiated Climate Change Program.

CANADA'S PERFORMANCE OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS
Unfortunately Canada's performance, which peaked in 1988 at 0.5% has also seen a steady decline throughout the 1990's and our ratio now stands at a dismal 0.27% which is the lowest level since 1968/69. This represents a cut to less than half of what we were able to contribute in 1988 and it is less than a third of the international target. The Prime Minister announced at the March 2002 Financing for Development conference that Canada will increase its aid budget by at least 8% per year for the next several years.

Less than a quarter of our overall gross bilateral ODA went to the least developed countries in 1997-98 (halfway since the 1992 Rio Declaration). Many organizations would argue that our efforts are not being specifically directed at either poverty eradication or creating an environmentally sustainable world. About 70 cents of every official development assistance dollar is returned to Canada through jobs and the purchase of our goods and services. The jobs of more than 33,000 Canadians are sustained by our aid program and 2,000 Canadian businesses receive aid-related contracts.

Canada, by any analysis, has not only dismally failed to reach the United Nations(UN) target, its performance has actually plummeted over the last ten years to less than half of what it once was. Even tiny Ireland contributed more to international cooperation. Canada's reputation as a generous country willing to both make peace and contribute to sustainable development has long been ill deserved.

Even some specific environmental and sustainable development (ESDP) programs of CIDA which were initiated at Rio lost considerable momentum over the decade. The ESDP program, which is the international cooperation "environment" flagship program of CIDA, has been cut by over 50% and represents a mere 0.0007 percent of the ODA budget (1.25 million out of 1800 million). CIDA does engage in other environmental initiatives and has significantly scaled up its policy capacity with some emerging programs in West Africa that merit attention. The 20:20 initiative of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is another area in which the government appears to be committed in principle. The 20:20 initiative encourages donor countries to allocate at least 20 percent of foreign aid to human priority goals, such as primary education, primary health care, safe drinking water and sanitation. CIDA has implemented a program of "Social Development Priorities" that will shift a considerable amount of resources toward four areas including health and nutrition, basic education, HIV/AIDS and child protection.

TARGETS
The Canadian Council for International Cooperation (CCIC) and the Canadian Ecumenical Jubilee Initiative have called upon the government of Canada to commit itself to a timetable to rebuild Canadian Official Development Assistance to at least 0.35 percent of GNP by 2005/06 and to more directly target these funds toward poverty eradication. We now stand at 16th among 22 donors down from our position of 6th in 1995. The CCIC has set a target of increasing the ODA budget by 400 million dollars over each of the next four years.

Members of the Canadian Environmental Network's International Program have called for an effective environmental policy matrix or filter to significantly weed out environmentally harmful or detrimental projects within the ODA framework and more directly target environmentally sustainable development with grass roots approaches including the use of appropriate technologies. An example would be to see our support for hydroelectric dams shift toward investments in renewable energy. The issue of reducing unsustainable consumption is tied to poverty eradication and this relationship needs to be reflected in the type of programming that our ODA dollars support.

In addition Canada needs to increase its proportion of aid to least developed countries and increase its proportion of funding to Canadian civil society to deliver this which is the most effective manner possible. This should include the proposed 500 million dollar Africa Fund. Decisions on how our aid program should develop, such as the most recent "Strengthening Aid Effectiveness" policy paper should priorize the role of civil society in shaping our international cooperation and development initiatives.

EDUCATION, PUBLIC AWARENESS AND TRAINING FOR SUSTAINABILITY - CHAPTER 36
By Amelia Clarke, Sierra Club of Canada and Dalhousie University

Education for sustainable development was first defined in Agenda 21 but was discussed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a concept for many years before . There are three main parts to Agenda 21's Chapter 36: improve basic education, reorient existing education to address sustainable development and develop public understanding of sustainable development. Chapter 36 is based on the fundamental challenge of "education for all" while embracing different types of learning, value development and lifestyles. Education for sustainable development also includes the implementation of this knowledge, where people assume responsibility as global citizens. This concept includes the three pillars (environment, social and economic) of sustainable development, and is not limited to, but includes environmental education.

UNESCO was tasked as the key actor in the follow-up on Chapter 36 and began their program in 1994. In 1996, the UN Commission for Sustainable Development decided to initiate an international work programme on education, public awareness and training for sustainability, and outlined priority areas and encouraged participants and alliances. A work programme was adopted in 1998 consisting of 7 sub-programmes and 23 tasks.

INDICATORS
% of the population that understands and implements the concept of sustainable development
% of the population trained to live a sustainable lifestyle

The Commission for Sustainable Development has chosen the following indicators :
Driving force indicators:
- rate of change of school-age population
- primary school enrollment ratio (gross and net)
- secondary school enrollment ration (gross and net)
- adult literacy rate
State indicators:
- children reaching the grade 5 of primary education
- school life expectancy
- difference between make and female school enrolment ratios
- women per hundred men in the labour force
Response indicator:
- GDP spent on education

The NGO Education Caucus of the Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) has critiqued the concept that basic education is sustainable development education. There is disconnect between the UNESCO approach and the CSD approach as seen by the CSD proposed indicators listed above.

STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 1992
In 1992 in Canada there was environmental education, some of which included social and economic aspects, but it was not specifically called education for sustainability. In December 1991, Dalhousie University hosted a conference on University Action for Sustainable Development which included a follow-up declaration (the Halifax Declaration) and an action plan to implement sustainability into campus operations and academic curricula. In 1992, York University hosted a conference on eco-education where participants defined education as a tool, a means or a resource to reach sustainable development. Many Canadian environmental educators still do not agree with this concept of education for sustainability because they educate for human development which may lead to sustainable development.

STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 2002
The Council of the Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) created a pan-Canadian science curricula that has sustainability learning outcomes throughout. The Atlantic and other provinces are using some or all of this curricula or offering content on sustainability in their curricula. CMEC also produced a report on "Educating for Sustainability: The Status of Sustainable Development Education in Canada" in 1999 which outlines achievements in formal education grades K through 12 . The organization Learning for Sustainable Future was instrumental in helping the CMEC and provinces develop their materials.

There are environmental or sustainability courses in most universities and some colleges in Canada. For example Dalhousie University has an environmental concentrations in Management, Business, Engineering, Environmental Studies and Law degrees. There is also a Masters level Environmental Studies, Environmental Science, or Resource Management degrees at numerous Canadian universities. The Professional Engineering Society of Canada requires a sustainability course as part of the Engineering degree at all schools. York University created a UNESCO Chair for Reorienting Teacher Education Towards Sustainable Development. Some universities and colleges are implementing campus wide environmental policies and environmental management systems in order to practice what they preach. To date there has been no study of percentage of students who graduate in sustainable lifestyle fields.

Within the Government of Canada, Environment Canada was given the mandate for Chapter 36 of Agenda 21. In the last two years a large-scale national consultation was done for a national environmental and sustainability education strategy and to build an alliance of environmental educators. The results of the consultation are online, and the alliance continues to build. The next step will be to draft the strategy and submit it back to Canadians for comment . This initiative has not been given sufficient profile or funds. Environment Canada is only responsible for informal environmental education, and so partnerships must be built as part of the national strategy development. Implementation must include all federal departments, the CMEC, national university and college associations, museums, provincial governments, environmental education associations, teacher's unions, NGOs, local governments and school boards.. Other than the strategy, different federal departments fund non-governmental organizations to do environmental educational efforts. These programs are linked to federal priorities (such as climate change). The government funds environmental education and education for sustainable development, but has yet to focus on the fundamental reform of education for sustainability .

Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have taken on related projects. Green Street, a program of the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation is a partnership between 12 environmental NGOs to reach grades 7 to 12 with environmental education. The youth and student movements are particularly focused on education. The Sierra Youth Coalition runs a Sustainable Campus Project with involvement from students in over 35 Canadian universities. The Canadian Network for Environmental Education and Communication (EECom) holds an annual conference of environmental educators and produces a journal. The Natural Step has been working with municipalities and businesses to educate them on a sustainability framework.

These are some of the many, under-funded, initiatives going on in Canada. They are succeeding in educating and training a small percentage of the population in sustainability. A greater, more comprehensive effort is needed to achieve success in the proposed indicators.

The Youth Summit Team did a survey of over 1,000 Canadian youth ages 15 to 29 in 2002 to determine how many had heard of the term sustainable development. Despite all of the educational initiatives, less than 50% had heard of the term, and even less knew what it meant.

TARGETS AND STRATEGIES FOR 2012
By 2012, education for sustainability in Canada should be throughout the formal education system, and a plan implemented for informal education. All students in any level of school over grade 4 should understand the general concept of sustainability. At least 50% of the rest of the population should understand and practice sustainable development.

Provinces need to integrate the sustainability learning outcomes from the pan-Canadian Science Curricula into their provincial systems. Success of these learning outcomes could be evaluated through the pan-Canada equivalency testing.

Universities, colleges and other training institutions should work to include sustainable lifestyle training into all relevant programs, and monitor the success of these programs. Canada should legislate environmental management systems for educational institutions just as they have done for health and safety.

The Sierra Youth Coalition has a list of nine actions they think the Government of Canada, and others should take to further implement Agenda 21, Chapter 36. These include funding for non-governmental organizations working on the challenge of education for sustainability, and educator training for sustainability teaching .

GLOBAL CONTEXT
The draft report of the Secretary-General for the second preparatory meeting of the WSSD admits that "Few successful working models of education programmes for sustainable development currently exist" . The current focus is better financial provision, especially for basic education, educating the poor, revising teacher education, and more emphasis on the non-formal sector. Establishing Educators as the tenth major group might help increase awareness and implementation of education for sustainability at a global level.

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY By Duff Conacher, Democracy Watch INDICATOR In Agenda 21, Chapter 30, Strengthening the Role of Business and Industry, paragraph 30.8, governments are called upon to "identify and implement an appropriate mix of economic instruments and normative measures such as laws, legislations and standards" to promote the use of cleaner production and responsible entrepreneurship. As part of this regulatory process, paragraph 30.10 states that "Business and industry, including transnational corporations, should be encouraged to report annually on their environmental records, as well as on their use of energy and natural resources; and to adopt and report on the implementation of codes of conduct promoting the best environmental practice". In simple terms, the indicator is whether governments have regulated corporate responsibility through laws (including having corporations report annually on their environmental records and adopt and report on the implementation of codes of conduct) and encouraged compliance through various financial subsidies and penalties. STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 1992 In 1992, various environmental laws in Canada existed, but overall enforcement was very weak and penalties for violators or other financial incentives provided by governments were not high enough to encourage compliance with the various laws. As governments across Canada have cut their spending in the 1990s, enforcement of environmental laws has been generally weakened as well. Penalties have not been increased across the board to compensate for the lack of enforcement, and as a result compliance has become largely optional for many environmental laws. For example, an investigation by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund found that polluters broke Ontario's water protection laws 10,000 times from 1996 to 1999 but only 11 companies were charged. If the companies charged faced very high penalties, then these penalties would have a general effect of encouraging compliance. Relatively low penalties combined with a low possibility of getting caught has instead created a system that actually encourages companies to violate the laws, take the chance of getting caught, knowing that the penalty for violating the law will not be as high as the cost of making changes needed to comply with the law. STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 2002 The federal government has explicitly rejected proposals to enact an effective overall system that aligns with the Agenda 21 objectives. First, on the indicator concerning requiring corporations to disclose their environmental records - While the federal government created the National Pollutant Release Inventory, it is limited in scope and application, and has not been copied in other areas of use of energy and natural resources. No other federal or provincial government programs or databases (certainly not easily accessible to the public) have been created tracking companies effects on the environment. Second, there has also been little progress on the indicator of governments encouraging companies to adopt and report on the implementation of codes of conduct promoting best environmental practice. According to a report released by Stratos Inc. in late 2001, "the vast majority of Canadian companies, large and small, still do not produce environmental, social or broader sustainability reports". The Stratos study found that only 57 companies (out of the more than 500,000 companies in Canada) produced such reports in 2000-2001. Through the 1990s, the federal government was considering changes to the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) which regulates 155,000 corporations, including half of the 500 largest corporations in Canada. A bill amending the CBCA was introduced in early 2000, and finally passed by the federal Parliament in June 2001. The new law lowered some of the barriers to shareholders putting forward proposals to other shareholders about perceived irresponsible activities of corporations (including environmental practices), and lowered some of the barriers to shareholders voting on these proposals. This was a step forward because shareholders had been prevented by executives at various corporations from proposing changes to corporate activities. In the past, the executives used various technical and questionable ways to reject proposals, and now the ability of executives to do this has been restricted by the new law. TARGETS AND STRATEGIES FOR 2012 The federal government has committed to changing specific sector laws through which some companies are set up (for example, banks are set up under the federal Bank Act). This process should be completed well before 2012. All provincial and territorial governments should follow the federal government in lowering the barriers to shareholder proposals in all their corporate laws as soon as possible, and definitely before 2012. However, in making changes to the CBCA, the federal government rejected recommendations made by many stakeholders, led by Democracy Watch's Corporate Responsibility Coalition, to change the law in the following ways, all of which are reasonable and align with the stated objectives of Agenda 21 set out above: * require corporations to report on any violations of any law, including their environmental records, to a government-maintained, searchable database available on the Internet; * require corporate directors and executives to take into account stakeholders (workers, suppliers, communities, and the environment) when making decisions and undertaking activities; * enact a full whistleblower protection system for anyone who reports any violation of any law by a corporation; * require corporations to adopt and report on the implementation of codes of conduct on environmental, labour, human rights and other areas on which corporations have an impact; * prohibit corporations that are repeat violators of laws from receiving any government subsidy or contract; * require corporations to facilitate the creation of citizen watchdog groups to watch each industry sector by requiring corporations to enclose, periodically, in their mailings to customers a one-page pamphlet that invites customers to join the citizen watchdog group (as has been done for utilities in the United States); and * change the corporate crime standard to make it easier to hold corporate directors, and the corporation, liable for violations of laws committed by employees while at work. The federal government rejected these proposals despite their alignment with Agenda 21 objectives, and despite national surveys in the past few years that have all shown that Canadians support regulating corporate responsibility. Most recently, a survey of 2,006 Canadians conducted in November 2001 by Vector Research found that 75% of shareholders and 80% of the public at large want the government to establish social responsibility standards and to require corporations to report on how they are meeting those standards. No provincial or territorial government has enacted any of these measures either since 1992. No Canadian governments have even enacted voluntary codes for any corporate sector in these areas. These recommendations should definitely be adopted and implemented by 2012. GLOBAL CONTEXT The UN established the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in 1997, aimed at increasing the commitment of business and industry to reporting on key indicators (the first GRI Guidelines were released in 2000). In 1999, the UN established the Global Compact Initiative, aimed at increasing the commitment of business and industry to acting responsibly. In addition, the OECD first introduced Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises in 1976 but updated them in many ways in 2000. However, the development of all of these international codes, not surprisingly, has been dominated by business and industry lobbyists and as a result all have set very low standards that are voluntary in the GRI Guidelines released in 2000. In 1996, the Danish government required specific companies to publish a report on the environmental records, and Norway and The Netherlands have followed this model. In 2000, Britain amended pension fund regulations to require disclosure of whether ethical, social and environmental issues are considered in investment decisions. Over the past 2 decades, half of the states in the U.S. have changed their state incorporation laws (equivalent to Canada's federal CBCA) to allow corporate directors to take into account stakeholder interests in specific situations. This change has not been strong enough to change corporate decision-making practices generally, but has been a first step. In England, the Companies Act (again, the equivalent of Canada's CBCA) has for several years required company directors to take into account the interests of employees when making decisions and undertaking activities, and this requirement has had an effect on some decisions made by some corporations. In the U.S., 22 federal laws provided whistleblower protection about specific violations, and 12 U.S. state laws gave general protection to all private sector whistleblowers who report any violation of any state or federal law, regulation or rule. The laws in three of these states also protect whistleblowers who report violations of codes of conduct or ethics codes. In Canada, only New Brunswick has a law that protects whistleblowers who report any violation of any law. Just before his term as U.S. President finished, Bill Clinton proposed a measure that would prohibit corporations that are repeat violators of laws from receiving any government subsidy or contract. However, the measure was not implemented by Clinton, and has not (not surprisingly) been enacted by the Bush administration. The other measures listed above have not been enacted by any governments in the world, as far as Democracy Watch has been able to determine in its research. HARMONIZATION: THE CASE OF MERCURY STANDARDS By Bruce Lourie and Leah Hagreen, Pollution Probe Harmonization refers to policy guidance that used to make local, regional or national regulations and rules work in line with higher-level plans such as international agreements including multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). Harmonization has its roots in trade policy and specifically the OECD Guiding Principles Concerning the International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies of 1972 that recommend harmonization of environmental standards where valid reasons for differences do not exist and where there are significant obstacles to trade. One of the principles of harmonization is to harmonize 'upwards' to the highest standard, using regulatory measures or targets as minimum standards or 'floors' instead of 'ceilings.' Critics of harmonization point to the potential for downward harmonization, where pressures from jurisdictions with the lowest standard result in a general move to 'the lowest common denominator.' In Canada, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) signed the Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization, in January 1998. A sub-agreement to the Accord, the Canada-Wide Environmental Standards (CWS) is a framework to set priorities, develop non-regulatory standards in consultation with stakeholders, and implement work plans to address potentially toxic substances. The CCME endorses "the principles of sustainable development, pollution prevention and the precautionary principle" to manage toxic substances, however the standards are generated by the stakeholders in the process. INDICATOR The CCME does not have the authority of the federal government to set national requirements for action, but rather provides for "regional flexibility" and allows jurisdictions to use a "variety of regulatory and voluntary measures" to achieve set goals. These provisions, however, do not always result in significant sector-wide reductions. Five areas of priority have been established for CWS development: benzene; mercury; dioxins and furans; petroleum hydrocarbons; and, particulate matter and ozone. The setting of Canada Wide Standards for mercury reduction has been selected for this report as an indicator of the environmental effectiveness of harmonization in Canada. Mercury was selected for this analysis, and by the CCME process, due to the scientific and public policy consensus regarding the need to take serious action to control uses and releases. Mercury fits the CCME definition for the most harmful substances - persistence in the environment, bioaccumulative and toxic - this would normally require it to be addressed through virtual elimination. Mercury, however, is naturally occurring, which according to Canadian environmental policy invokes "sound management" throughout its life cycle, including generation, use and disposal, in order to minimize releases. This distinction presents a serious challenge for policy makers given that the physical properties of mercury make it very difficult to manage use without release to the environment. The challenge is made even greater given the lack of a mercury management infrastructure in Canada. To date, there are no known examples where the use of mercury is being managed in Canada to minimize releases. The Canada Wide Standards process is attempting to overcome this challenge. STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 1992 Mercury is released incidentally through the refining of metals and the burning of fossil fuels, the two most significant sources of mercury released to the atmosphere in Canada, comprising nearly half of Canada's mercury pollution. Mercury is also used deliberately in hundreds of industrial, commercial and medical applications, from large electrical relays to vehicle switches, thermometers, vaccines and dental amalgam. Releases during manufacturing, use and disposal from mercury-containing products account for the remaining mercury pollution in Canada. Prior to the Harmonization Accord and the initiation of the CWS process, however, the only two regulations in Canada with respect to mercury use or emissions concerned its release from chlor-alkali plants and a restriction on the use of mercury in the paint on children's toys. STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 2002 CWSs have been developed for several sources of mercury emissions, including base metal smelting (BMS), waste incineration, dental amalgams and fluorescent lamps. The smelting standard was achieved in advance the CWS process and the mercury reduction represents a "business-as usual" co-benefit resulting from process changes in the industry. Canada's mercury emission reductions from this sector have been very significant, down 94% from 1988. Mercury emissions from incineration have been reduced 60% (two tonnes) since 1990. The proposed standards are among the most stringent anywhere, and if implemented across the country will reduce emissions by 1200kg/yr, or more than 70% by 2006. The standard is achievable in a "business-as usual" scenario based on projected mercury reductions in the waste stream due to the effects of product legislation in the United States and Europe. A CWS for mercury in fluorescent lamps was signed in May 2001 requiring the average mercury content in lamps sold in Canada to be reduced by 70% by 2005 and 80% by 2010 from 1990 levels. These reductions have largely been met by manufacturers to date and the standard reflects the "business as usual" scenario presented by the lamp manufacturing industry. The CCME estimates that 1150kg/yr of mercury enters landfills from discarded fluorescent lamps but this release is not to be managed, other than encouraging individuals to do so. In contrast, the dental amalgam standard addresses only the capture of mercury in drains prior to entering the sewer system, no standard for mercury use reduction has been contemplated. In neither case has the stated principle of "life-cycle management" been adopted. Mercury emissions from the burning of fossil fuels remain as the largest, most challenging and potentially costly initiative. The goal of the CCME is to set a standard for electricity production to be announced in 2002. MERCURY IN 2012 There has yet to be an example of mercury being properly managed throughout its life cycle in Canada. It is used in many products without restriction and can be disposed of through the consumer waste stream with few restrictions. Limiting emissions through life-cycle management must include both eliminating unnecessary uses and ensuring that proper disposal practices are available and followed to prevent mercury emissions from landfills and incinerators. By 2012, mercury should not be permitted in any consumer products and reductions from incidental releases, including coal-burning, should be 90 percent below present levels. ACTIONS TO ACHIEVE 2012 TARGET Measurable mercury reductions can be achieved in Canada with a strategic focus on sectors where near-term reductions are possible, combined with a long-term goal of elimination of emissions. In addition to the identification of target sectors and the development of a comprehensive mercury reduction and recovery program, there are a number of regulatory and policy issues that need to be addressed. These include: 1. The adoption of a virtual elimination framework for mercury. 2. The creation of a supportive regulatory structure to address mercury use, release and disposal: a. Restrictions on the use of mercury in non-essential products, or where viable alternatives exist, such as mercury switches, thermometers and thermostats. b. Requirements for proper labeling and disposal of mercury-containing products, including permanent retirement options for mercury. 3. Multi-pollutant standards on coal-burning that consider cost-accounting on the environmental and health costs associated with coal, with the goal of reducing mercury emissions by 90 percent from this sector. GLOBAL CONTEXT Canada is lagging behind the United States and Europe in establishing a policy framework to address mercury use and releases. The harmonization process and related Canada Wide Standards have done little more than to confirm in writing industry commitments to follow-though on their plans. To date, a significant portion of the achievements seen in Canada's reductions in mercury use and release have stemmed from regulatory actions outside of Canada and "business as usual" technology changes. At least 14 US states have implemented regulations limiting the use and/or disposal of mercury-containing products. The European Union has implemented directives to eliminate the use of mercury in many applications. The United Nations Environment Program is undertaking a global assessment of mercury and its compounds, including an inventory of current programs and regulations, to be presented to the UNEP Governing Council in 2003. This assessment may highlight Canada's limited efforts to date to address domestic mercury use and releases. It may also point to Canada's reliance on international actions that contribute to Canada's domestic reductions. Conclusion Clearly, Canada has failed over the past decade to develop sustainably. We emerged from Rio ten years ago as leaders amongst our peers, in process if not in action. Today these echoes of process have been silenced by the resounding absence of concrete actions. This report identifies some of Canada's successes and remaining challenges over the past decade in an effort to move forward with a sense of commitment and effectiveness. Throughout the report several consistent themes emerge: · Canada needs to improve environmental governance and harmonize federal and provincial jurisdictions regarding regulations and standards. · Canada must cease its increasingly obstructionist role in international negotiations. · Canada lacks national inventories and databases particularly with environmental information that show trends over time. · Canadians need to reduce their ecological footprint in numerous areas through sustainable production and consumption patterns. · Canada lacks concrete implementation and monitoring strategies to effectively play its part in implementing Agenda 21. For Canada to develop sustainably we need national leadership and a solid plan of action. Where we have been obstructionist we need to now ratify and implement existing multilateral environmental agreements. Specifically this report calls for ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Basel Convention. In order to monitor and make informed decisions we need a renewed commitment to environmental reporting and the establishment of national inventories. Repeatedly the report calls for us to uphold the precautionary principle and to reduce our unsustainable consumption patterns. We are challenged to become leaders in renewable energy and zero waste. Many of these challenges are not new and what the report makes clear is that if the next ten years are going to move beyond the last we will need clear targets, timelines, means of implementation and monitoring. In 1992 we were given a compass and a map. Today we are still climbing but our steps have slowed, our motivation is lagging. Although we have made some progress and we still agree on the direction established at Rio, the journey toward sustainable development has clearly become more difficult. The World Summit on Sustainable Development is a key point in history, a chance to get back on track. With the right leadership, and honest conviction, Canada could play the crucial role required to move us forward…to reach the summit of our international aspirations. As the WSSD approaches, it is time for the Prime Minister of Canada to step forward and show leadership. We hope that the WSSD will inspire the political will and renewed commitments required to move us towards sustainable societies in a sustainable world. Our hope is that this report will serve as a tool toward that goal and to greater successes when we look back in 2012.