The howling of lat. forty-nine: Assessing collaborative wildlife management efforts along the western Canada-U.S. border

Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 55-89

  Jernigan, Clayton ^a  

^a Supreme Court of Montana ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NATURE CONSERVATION; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT;

CANADA; NORTH AMERICA;

EID: 33645768755     PISSN: 13880292     EISSN: 15481476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13880290500536466     Document Type: Article

References (156)

1. As of December 18, 2005, the U.S. has not ratified the Convention on Biodiversity. Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, available at http://www.biodiv.org/world/parties.asp (site visited on Dec. 18, 2005).
2. As of 2001, there were 125 species listed in Canada by Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), and 33 listed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as being at risk of extinction whose populations exist in both countries. Alan Nymark, Canada-U.S. Environmental Cooperation, 28:27 CAN.-U.S. L.J. 27, 28-29 (2002).Moreover, there is a noticeable concentration of species listed in Canada along the U.S. border, including the southern borders of British Columbia and Alberta, and particularly in the Columbia River basin. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, 2004, Species At Risk Web Mapping Application at http://www.sis.ec.gc.ca/ec_species/ ec_species_e.phtml (site visited on Apr. 10, 2005).
3. See, e.g., Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Strategic Plan for North American Cooperation in the Conservation of Biodiversity 11 (2003) (identifying the Pacific Coast of Washington and British Columbia, the Rocky Mountains of Montana, Idaho, British Columbia and Alberta, and the grasslands of North Dakota, Alberta, and Saskatchewan as Priority Conservation Regions of North America).
4. Moreover, the source populations of many of the larger shared species at risk are presumably located on government owned land, such as national or provincial parks, or national forest.
5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Summary of the Conservation Status of Selected Forest-Related Species with US/Canada Ranges (Jan., 2001)
6. Letter from Barry T. Hill, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, United States General Accounting Office, to Senators Max Baucus and Lincoln Chaffee 37-47 (Oct. 31, 2002) available at, www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/ getrpt?GAO-03-211R (site visited on May 3, 2005)
7. Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Defenders of Wildlife, Greening the Trade in Trees: Solutions to the US-Canada Softwood Lumber Dispute 20-27 (2002), available at http://www.ecosystem.org/BC/solutions.html.
8. A recent and compelling example of this is the conflict between Canada's desire to protect the transboundary caribou, Rangifer tarandus herd that migrates between Alaska and the Yukon, and Congress' recent decision to open the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge ("ANWR"), calving grounds to the herd of roughly 123,000 animals (according to a population estimate completed in 2001), to oil and gas extraction. See, e.g., Congress Opens ANWR for Oil Drilling, Cleveland Indy Media Center, Mar. 19, 2005, available at, cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2005/03/15161.php. On the other hand, the importance of legal instruments in promoting conservation of shared species is undermined by the fact that Congress decided to open ANWR to oil and gas extraction despite an existing agreement between the U.S. and Canada to conserve the habitat of the Porcupine Caribou herd. Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, art. 3, July 17, 1987, U.S.-Can.
9. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, 2004, Species At Risk Web Mapping Application at http://www.sis.ec.gc.ca/ec_species/ ec_species_e.phtml (site visited on Apr. 10, 2005).
10. North American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation, Jan. 1, 1994, U.S.-Can.-Mex. (NAAEC)
11. Framework for Cooperation Between the U.S. Department of the Interior and Environment Canada in the Protection and Recovery of Wild Species at Risk, Apr. 7, 1997, U.S.-Can.
12. Memorandum of Understanding Establishing the Canada/Mexico/United States Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management, Apr. 9, 1996, U.S.-Can.-Mex.
13. The mission statement reads, in part, "[c]ombining science and stewardship, we seek to ensure that the world-renowned wilderness, wildlife, native plants, and natural processes of the Yellowstone to Yukon region continue to function as an interconnected web of life, capable of supporting all of the natural and human communities that reside within it, for now and for future generations." Available at, http://www.y2y.net/overview/default.asp.
14. http://www.y2y.net/overview/whatY2Y.asp
15. For instance, the WTO,GATT, and NAFTA each restrict the ability of the U.S. or Canada to impose trade barriers for environmental reasons. Indeed, the U.S. was recently found to be in violation of the WTO for imposing anti-dumping measures with respect to softwood lumber from Canada. See, e.g., World Trade Organization, United States-Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada: Report of the Appellate Body, AB-2004-2 (2004) available at http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tnanac/ documents/264abr_e.pdf.
16. See Robert Housman, The North American Free Trade Agreement's Lessons for Reconciling Trade and the Environment, 30 Stanford J. Int'l. L. 379, 406-07 (1994) (noting that "production process method" based restrictions are not included in NAFTA as "'legitimate objectives' that are protected from challenge")
17. See also, Pope & Talbot, Inc v. Gov't of Canada, Award on the Merits, available at http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/Award_Merits-e.pdf (site visited on Apr. 3, 2005) (relating to a challenge of the Softwood Lumber Agreement as an impermissible restriction on trade under Chapter 11 of NAFTA).
18. 16 U.S.C. §1531(b).
19. Cf. Craig Hansen, The Nation's First Multi-Species HCP for a Forested Landscape, XX:6 Edangered Species Bull. (Nov./Dec. 1995) (publicizing the first multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan for a forest ecosystem, which was endorsed by USFWS in 1995, and noting that the HCP takes a "habitat-based approach," endeavoring to ensure the persistence of listed species by retention of certain proportions of viable habitat). Although multi-species ecosystem based Habitat Conservation Plans have become more popular over the past decade, regional, ecosystem focused HCPs remain relatively scarce.
20. See, e.g., Jeffrey P. Cohn & Jeffrey A. Lerner, Integrating Land Use Planning & Biodiversity 46-51 (Defenders of Wildlife 2003) available at, http://www.biodiversitypartners.org/pubs/landuse/08.shtml (identifying six regional multi-species HCPs that are in effect in the southwestern U.S., which are bounded by political jurisdictions, rather than ecosystems or species' ranges).
21. Trevor Sandwith et al., Transboundary Protected Areas For Peace & Cooperation 3(IUCN-The World Conservation Union 2001).
22. Id. at 1.
23. See Figure 1, illustrating the importance of Waterton-Glacier Park and the surrounding region as a link between prime grizzly bear habitat in Canada and the U.S.
24. Montana Wilderness Association, The Transboundary Flathead: Portrait of a Treasured Landscape at 12-13, available at http://www.wildmontana.org/ transboundary.html. Sadly, this small, relatively isolated population of wolves has dwindled in recent years.
25. Renee VanCamp, Northwest Montana Wolves: Far from Recovered and Crucial to Recovery, at http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/wolves/ articles/nwmt_recovery.html.
26. Sandwith et al. supra note 18 at 4-5.
27. Id. at 7.
28. Id. at 8.
29. In forested areas, extremely imperiled species include woodland caribou, Rangifer tarandus caribou and certain isolated subpopulations of grizzly bears, notably the remnant population in the North Cascades Ecosystem. Large forest predators include wolves, grizzly bears, cougars, Felis concolor, and lynx, Felis lynx. Species that depend on large tracts of forested habitat include the northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. In addition, several grassland species, notably the swift fox, Vulpes velox and black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes could likewise benefit from the establishment of TBPAs.
30. Sandwith et al. supra note 18 at 4, 58. The area within British Columbia includes Cathedral Provincial Park, E.C. Manning Provincial Park, Skagit Valley Recreation Area, and Cultus Lake Provincial Park. The area in Washington includes North Cascades National Park and the Pasayden Wilderness National Forest.
31. Presently, very little is known about the NCE population of grizzlies. The best estimate of the population size is that it numbers fewer than 100 individuals, and is effectively isolated from surrounding populations. Kimberly A. Romain-Bondi et al. Density and Population Size Estimates for North Cascades Grizzly Bears Using DNA Hair-Sampling Techniques, 117 Biological Conservation 417 (2004). In such an ecosystem, it has been estimated that the minimum viable population size for a grizzly population to persist is 200-250 individuals.
32. Robert B. Weiglus, Minimum Viable Population and Reserve Sizes for Naturally Regulated Grizzly Bears in British Columbia, 106 Biological Conservation 381 (2001). Although U.S. and Canadian managers have endeavored to cooperatively study and manage the population, its situation has improved little, if at all, since USFWS published a recovery plan in 1997. Some of the threat facing the population has been attributed to the absence and lax enforcement of protective measures by the provincial government in British Columbia, Nature Canada, Species at Risk Provincial Report 2004: British Columbia, (2004) available at http://www.cnf.ca/species/report/pdf.html, as well to the reticence of USFWS to implement the recovery plan.
33. See, e.g., Associated Press, Lawsuit Filed in Delay Over Grizzly Bear Recovery, available at http://www.ecosystem.org/wildlife/grizzly/ press_6_04.html. Establishment of a TBPA might pressure both governments to collaboratively adopt more effective measures to ensure the persistence of such a visibly charismatic megafauna.
34. Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, & Natural Resources Defense Council, Solutions to the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Dispute: A Citizen's Forest Trade Alternative, Greening the Trade in Trees, 6, 25-26 (Winter 2002) available at http://www.ecosystem.org/BC/ solutions.html. Between 1992 and 2001, owl numbers declined by 49 percent in British Columbia, largely due to logging. Provincial laws that regulate logging do not afford protection to spotted owls. Under the Canadian Species at Risk Act, adopted in 2002, listed species, such as the spotted owl, receive mandatory legal protection only when on federal lands. Thus, they are presently unprotected within the provincial parks that would comprise the Canadian portion of an NCE TBPA, and would benefit from whatever additional protections accompanied its establishment.
35. Jim Allaway & Michael Medler, Environmental Implications of Transboundary Protected Areas & Matrix Lands 2 (2003) available at www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/03_proceedings/PAPERS/ORAL/2d_allaw.pdf.
36. Nature Canada gave British Columbia a grade of "F" for its provincial efforts to conserve at-risk species in 2004. Although it has the greatest number of listed at-risk species of any province, B.C. lacks stand-alone legal protection for such species. Species whose habitat is affected by timber harvest can receive limited protection, via designation of Wildlife Habitat Areas under the Forest and Range Practices Act. Such designations, however, are limited to an extent that would reduce timber harvest by no more than one percent within a region. Nature Canada, Species at Risk Provincial Report 2004: British Columbia, (2004) available at http://www.cnf.ca/species/report/pdf.html.
37. David Hunter, James Salzman & Durwood Zaelke, International Environmental Law & Policy 1225 (2nd ed. 2002).
38. NAAEC supra note 9, at Art. 1(a).
39. Id. at Art. 1(b).
40. Id. at, Art. 1(c).
41. Id. at Art. 1(e).
42. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, 2000 RPA Assessment of Forest and Range Lands 9-10 (2000).
43. See discussion infra Part 8
44. see also, Housman supra note 15.
45. NAAEC supra note 9, at Preamble (emphasis added).
46. Id. at Art. 9(5)(a).
47. Id. at Art. 9(5)(b).
48. Id. at Art. 10.
49. Id. at Art. 9(6).
50. Housman, supra note 15 at 406-07.
51. See, e.g., Food Marketing Institute, The Greening of Consumers: A Food Retailer's Guide (1997) (indicating that fewer than 10 percent of consumers would willingly pay the premium for certified organic foods).
52. NAAEC supra note 9, at Art. 22(1). One such complaint has been leveled against the Canadian government, alleging that it failed to enforce its Fisheries Act with respect to logging operations in British Columbia.
53. See infra Part VII for further discussion of the Secretariat's handling of this petition.
54. Id. at Art. 24(1).
55. Id. at Art. 34(4)(b).
56. Id. at Art. 45.
57. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, 2000 RPA Assessment of Forest and Range Lands 9-10 (2000) (indicating that the U.S. imports 40 percent of all imported sawwood that is internationally traded in the world, about 15 percent of all wood pulp for paper that is internationally traded, and that almost all of our softwood imports come from Canada).
58. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Strategic Plan for North American Cooperation in the Conservation of Biodiversity iii (2003) (Strategic Plan).
59. Id. at 11.
60. Id. at 12.
61. Id. at 19.
62. Id. at 16.
63. Id. at 14-15.
64. Id. at 18.
65. Id. at 15.
66. The species identified as SCCC are: Ferrigunous hawk, Buteo regalis; peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus; loggerhead shrike, Lanius ludovicianus migrans; piping plover, Charadrius melodus melodus; mountain plover, Charadrius monanus; burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia; northern spotted owl; Mexican spotted owl, Strix occidentalis lucida; golden-cheeked warbler, Dendroica chrysoparia; whooping crane, Grus americana; California condor, Gymnogyps californianus; black-tailed prairie dog, Cynomys ludovicianus; Sonoran pronghorn, Antilocarpa Americana sonorensis; lesser longnosed bat, Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae; black bear, ursus americanus (Louisiana and Mexico); and gray wolf.
67. However, the species may span the border without being a contiguous population. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Species of Common Conservation Concern in North America (October Working Draft) 5 (2000).
68. Id. at 5-6.
69. Interestingly, there has been international protection afforded to migratory birds since the ratification of the Migratory Bird Treaty in 1916, raising the question of why the CEC would make them a focal point. To speculate, the answer might be that they are a highly visible species with widespread and ardent conservation support from the ornithological community.Moreover, there is already a great deal of data existing on the populations of these species, so it is readily evident when numbers begin to decline. In addition, their migratory status makes it more difficult to easily discern the threats to a population, as it may be occurring in an extra-jurisdictional breeding or wintering ground.
70. Personal Communication with Susan Jewell, USFWS biologist and one-time co-chair of the Shared Species Working Table of the Trilateral Committee (Apr. 22, 2005) (indicating that the reasons the Shared Species Table focused on grassland species is that the grasslands extend from Mexico to Canada, and its constituent species have experienced "one of the most severe declines of any ecosystem['s species]").
71. United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Science Update: New findings about old-growth forests 7 (June 2003) available at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/ pubs/science-update-4.pdf (site visited on June 23, 2005).
72. NAAEC, supra note 9, Art. 45.
73. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, North American Agenda for Action 2003-2005 31 (2003).
74. Memorandum of Understanding Establishing the Canada/Mexico/United States Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management, Apr. 9, 1996, U.S.-Can.-Mex.
75. http://www.trilat.org/general_pages/background eng.html. Site visited on Apr. 11, 2005.
76. Susan Jewell, One Continent for All, Endangered Species Bull., Sept. 1999, available at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mOASV/ is_5_24/ai_59644039 (site visited on Apr. 9, 2005).
77. The agendas and minutes from the Shared Species working table meetings prior to 2000 are not available electronically.
78. See Annual Meetings Working Tables Summaries for the Shared Species table, available at http://www.trilat.org/annual_meetings_eng.htm (site visited on Apr. 11, 2005). There is a readily discernible focus on species that are shared by the U.S. and Mexico. In some ways, this makes perfect sense, because this is an area that generally contains a greater diversity of biota than does the U.S.-Canada border region.
79. Id.
80. Memorandum of Understanding Establishing the Trilateral Committee supra note 66, at Art. III(1)(a), Preamble.
81. Id.
82. Id. at Art. IV(1).
83. Id. at Art. IV(6). Indeed, Susan Jewell, once co-chair of the Shared Species Table, indicates that the lack of funding is one reason that the Shared Species Table has largely ignored forest ecosystems. Personal Communication with Susan Jewell supra note 62.
84. See, e.g., Michelle Desiderio, ESA Reform: Facing Hard Truths in Endangered Species Act: Law Policy and Perspectives 536, 533-553 (Donald C. Baur et al. eds., 2002).
85. Jurgen Hoth represented the CEC at the Shared Species Table during the 2004 meeting of the Trilateral Committee. See Report from the Shared Species Working Table from the 2002 and 2004 meetings, available at http://www.trilat.org/annual_meetings_eng.htm
86. See infra, Part VII (discussing the countries' divergent conservation priorities with respect to timber harvest).
87. Susan Jewell, One Continent for All, Endangered Species Bull., Sept. 1999, available at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mOASV/ is_5_24/ai_59644039 (site visited on Apr. 9, 2005).
88. See, e.g., Summary Report of the 2002 meeting of the Shared Species Table, available at http://www.trilat.org/annual_meetings_eng.htm (site visited on Apr. 11, 2005).
89. Framework for Cooperation Between the U.S. Department of the Interior and Environment Canada in the Protection and Recovery of Wild Species at Risk, Apr. 7, 1997, U.S.-Can.
90. Id., Preamble.
91. Id.
92. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Conserving Borderline Species 1 (N. 1) (2001) available at http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/publications/cbs/ default_e.cfm
93. Id. at 1.
94. Id.
95. Although the agencies tout these efforts as the fruitful efforts of cooperation facilitated by the Framework, most of them are extensions of cooperative programs that long predate the 1997 signing of the Framework.
96. Id. at 15. The Technical Committee, however, was formed in 1988, so its efforts cannot be attributed entirely to the existence of the Framework.
97. Id.
98. Id. at 9. The history of collaboration to recover grizzlies likewise predated the Framework, as evinced by the fact that the translocation of bears from Canada to Montana occurred in the early 1990's.
99. See, e.g., Singleton, P.H., W.L. Gaines, & J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2004. Landscape Permeability for grizzly bear movements in Washington and southwestern British Columbia. Ursus 15: 90-103.
100. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Conserving Borderline Species 7. Efforts to supplement the Selkirk caribou population began in 1986, and were suspended in 1998, however, so it is questionable whether they were furthered by the Framework at all.
101. Id. at 6.
102. See, e.g., "Y2Y and Local Communities" at http://www.y2y.net/people/communities/asp. (site visited on APR. 8, 2005).
103. Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, Conserving Critical Cores in the Y2Y Region, at http://www.y2y.net/action/default/asp. (site visited on Apr. 8, 2005).
104. Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, Y2Y Conservation Action: Targeted Critical Cores and Corridors, at http://www.y2y.net/action/ ccc-action.asp. (site visited on Apr. 8, 2005).
105. Id.
106. See Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Science Grants Program-Granted Projects at http://www.y2y.net/science/grants/ sciencegrants-grant-projectsummaries.asp (site visited on APR. 8, 2005).
107. See, e.g., Yellowstone to Yukon Framework Data Demonstration Project Final Report available at http://www.rockies.ca/framework/ (site visited on Apr. 9, 2005).
108. One should note, however, that Y2Y's focus on predators such as grizzlies, wolves, and wolverines is justified on the basis that these are keystone and umbrella species, the protection of which has considerable benefit for the overall health of the ecosystem.
109. Nature Canada, Species at Risk Provincial Report 2004: Alberta, (2004) available at http://www.cnf.ca/species/report/pdf.html. The present population of grizzly bears in Alberta is estimated to number only 500-1000 individuals.
110. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, 2004, Species At Risk Web Mapping Application at http://www.sis.ec.gc.ca/ec_species/ ec_species_e.phtml (site visited on Apr. 10, 2005).
111. Nature Canada, Species at Risk Provincial Report 2004: British Columbia, (2004) available at http:// www.cnf.ca/species/report/pdf.html.
112. The Species at Risk Act provides complete legal protection against the destruction of listed species' habitat only on federally owned lands. See Species at Risk Act: A Guide at http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/ the_act/HTML/Guide_e.cfm#20 (indicating that section 58 of SARA prohibits the destruction of critical habitat of a listed species when the habitat is found on federal lands, but that critical habitat on non-federal lands will be protected only after the Minister of Environment makes a specific determination that such protection is necessary in any given instance).
113. Nature Canada, supra note 103.
114. Global Forest Watch Canada, Canada's Forests at a Crossroads: An Assessment in the Year 2000, 46 (2000) available at http://www.globalforestwatch.org/common/canada/report.pdf.
115. Id.
116. Id. at 46.
117. Id. at 49.
118. Id.
119. Id. at 50.
120. Id. at 46.
121. Id. at 50.
122. Northwest Ecosystem Alliance et al. supra note 28, at 7.
123. Global Forest Watch supra note 106 at 51.
124. Id. at 29.
125. Id. at 29.
126. Id. at 21, 28.
127. Id.
128. 2. Id. at 32.
129. See, e.g., R. Mace and T. Manley, The Effects of Roads on Grizzly Bears: Scientific Supplement in South Fork Flathead River Grizzly Bear Project: Project Report for 1992 (1993).
130. Jim Robbins, Truth in the Wild: A Great Dad That Wanders Wide, N.Y. Times, Apr. 12, 2005, at D4
131. Global Forest Watch supra note 106 at 32.
132. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada: Technical report 1997, 9 available at http://www.ccfm.org/3_e.html. (site visited on Apr. 10, 2005).
133. See Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, 2004, Species At Risk Web Mapping Application at http://www.sis.ec.gc.ca/ec_species/ ec_species_e.phtml (site visited on Apr. 10, 2005) (illustrating that the major portion of the endangered subpopulation of spotted owls in British Columbia is isolated from the larger population in the Northwestern U.S.).
134. See Singleton, P.H., W.L. Gaines, & J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2004. Landscape Permeability for grizzly bear movements in Washington and southwestern British Columbia. Ursus 15: 90-103 (indicating that the North Cascades population is isolated from surrounding populations due to significant migration barriers that prevent individuals from more robust populations from accessing the dwindling North Cascades population).
135. See Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, 2004, Species At Risk Web Mapping Application at http://www.sis.ec.gc.ca/ec_species/ ec_species_e.phtml (site visited on Apr. 10, 2005) (illustrating that the woodland caribou herd in the Selkirk mountains is completely isolated from populations further to the north).
136. See, e.g., Russell Lande, Genetics and Demography in Biological Conservation, 241 Sci. 1455, 1456-58 (1988).
137. Northwest Ecosystem Alliance et al. supra note 28, at 9.
138. All the more so because, as Susan Jewell noted, Canadian Wildlife Services rely heavily on provincial wildlife agencies in implementing any conservation program. See Susan Jewell supra note 68.
139. Global Forest Watch supra note 106 at 82. This statement is underscored by the fact that in an independent audit of forestry code enforcement, the Ministry of Forests had not known of 13 out of 19 violations discovered by Forest Watch of British Columbia until being informed of them by the auditors. Moreover, they took no enforcement action in any of these cases after learning of the violations.
140. Id. at 81.
141. Nature Canada supra notes 101 and 103.
142. Commission for Environmental Cooperation Secretariat, Factual Record: BC Logging Submission (2003) available at http://www.cec.org/citizen/ submissions/details/index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=55.
143. Id. at 9.
144. Id. at 11, 13 ("in response to the BC Logging submission, filed with the CEC in March 2000, DFO reviewed the logging of the De Mamiel Creek cutblock"). Whether the NAAEC's enforcement provisions will prove more useful in other situations remains to be seen.
145. Northwest Ecosystem Alliance et al. supra note 28, at 14.
146. David Hunter et al. supra note 31, at 543.
147. Consider the U.S.' failure to ratify the Convention on Biodiversity and UNCLOS (because of resistance to provisions relating to deep sea bed mining).
148. See Global Forest Watch supra note 106 at 61.
149. Personal Communication with Susan Jewell supra note 62.
150. Harold H. Koh, Transnational Legal Process, 75 Neb. L. Rev. 181, 183-84 (1996). Koh also explicitly notes that non-state actors play an important role in this process.
151. Id. at 206-07.
152. Harold H. Koh, Why Nations Obey International Law, 106 Yale L.J. 2599, 2603 (1997).
153. Bella Sewall, The NAAEC and the Development of Transnational Legal Process for Environmental Law, CIEL Discussion Paper (APR. 2001)
154. as cited in Hunter et al. supra note 30 at 1236-38.
155. The IUCN even notes that a benefit of TBPAs is the added pressure that cooperation with a foreign government places on National governments to abide by their commitments. See Sandwith et al. supra note 18.
156. Nature Canada supra note 101.