Present:
Allen, John
Arbour, Joe
Ayer, William
Borland, William
Brillant, Sean
Butler, Michael
Cameron, Andrew
Clarke, John
Daborn, Graham
Evans, Alison
Ferretti, Janine
Hartman, David
Harvey, Janice
Hawboldt, Stephen
Karau, John
Keeley, David
Laughlin, Thomas
List, Henrietta
Mercer Clarke, Colleen
Murphy, Michael
Naug, Jason
Pacheco, Percy
Perley, Ronald
Rosas, Martha
Rutherford, Robert
Shelley, Peter
VanderZwaag, David

Braasch, Eugenia
Brady, Peg
Eichbaum, William
Incze, Lewis
Janson, Roger
Kearney, John
Milewski, Inka
Paul, Darrel
Pederson, Judith
Person, Pam
Rainer, Rob
Ramírez-Flores, Oscar
Smith, Jan

(See Attachment A: Contact List)

The meeting opened with welcoming remarks by Janine Ferretti, Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). Ms. Ferretti commented on the strong history of cooperation in the Gulf of Maine region as was demonstrated by the participants at the Durham, New Hampshire Workshop held in November 1996. Reflecting on the expertise and resources reflected in the Ad Hoc Committee membership, Ms. Ferretti posed the following questions to the group:

• What objectives will this Committee pursue?
• What actions will it take to meet these objectives?
• How will the Committee administer and support these actions?

Martha Rosas, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, welcomed Members and Observers to the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, and outlined the expected activities and products for the two day meeting, which included.

(See Attachment B: Meeting Agenda)

Members of the Committee, and Observers provided brief personal introductions.

Colleen Mercer Clarke, Ad Hoc Committee Liaison noted that the Ad Hoc Committee (as designated to date) will develop the program of action and decide which of the identified objectives are to be addressed with available resources. The Committee may decide to strike sub-committees or working groups to advance specific initiatives, or to develop other creative means of accessing and applying resources.

The morning session continued with an overview of the Global Programme of Action (GPA) for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities and a review of activities to date.

Tom Laughlin, Office of International Affairs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), reviewed the methodology as set forth in the GPA, and provide a brief overview of American activities since the adoption of the GPA in Washington in 1995. Laughlin stressed the need for problems to be resolved at both local and regional levels.

John Karau, Environment Canada, reviewed Canada’s progress in the development of a national plan for implementation of the GPA, which is being developed with regional chapters and sub-regional components. He also stressed the need for co-operative management approaches, which are not based strictly on areas of jurisdiction. In addition to new sources of funding, working within existing programs and resources could help to finance new actions.

Martha Rosas, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, provided an update on the CEC-GPA Pilot Project at work in the Bight of the Californias where the project has involved a large group (150-200) of persons from non-governmental and government organizations, but not the private sector. The first two meetings of the Bight of the Californias Ad Hoc Committee have generated a lot of enthusiasm. The Committee has drafted an implementation plan and has divided into task groups to address topics that include education, monitoring, financing, information clearinghouse, and a homepage. The process in this region is expected to take some time due to a lack of existing bi-regional agreements and working relationships. The next meeting of the Committee will take place in October/November at which time the action plan will be reviewed and commitments to implement will be defined. Tom Laughlin noted that the 1998 Monitoring Program will be the first transboundary program of its kind in this region.

The question of scheduling for the Gulf of Maine (GOM) Pilot Project was raised, as approximately one and one half years of the proposed three-year CEC program has already passed. The CEC is prepared to address a request from the Ad Hoc Committee for the schedule for the GOM Pilot Project to be extended past the original closing date. Discussion continued to include the need to examine all opportunities to sustain the GPA Pilot Project into the future, for as long a time period as is effective.

Martha Rosas also provided a brief overview of the proposed Communications and Outreach Strategy as provided to Members of the Ad Hoc Committee. The proposal deals with both regional Pilot Projects, but little has yet been addressed for the GOM Pilot Project. It is recommended that a Task Group to focus on communication be established within both regional Pilot Projects.

David VanderZwaag, Dalhousie University, provided a brief overview of the deliberations and findings of the Durham, New Hampshire Workshop (November 1996). He noted that it had been hard to define the conclusions and products from Durham especially those areas in which there was a general consensus. There were six proposals for work that include:

1. Defining the socio-economic and environmental benefits of implementing the GPA
2. Supporting continued assessment and management of regionally significant habitats and species
3. Strengthening a regional information clearing house
4. Improving existing inventories of land based sources of pollution, and facilitating their use
5. Convening a workshop on strengthening regional arrangements for managing land based activities
6. Developing an effective approach to sustainable community involvement in coastal zone management

The Durham Workshop concluded with some challenges outstanding including:

• no clear agreement on project priorities
• no discussion of project budgets and trade offs
• a lack of operational details - responsible persons, budgets, schedules, outputs etc.
• a need to place the Workshop recommendations before the Gulf of Maine Council
• no clear adoption of the precautionary approach to management
• a need to review the status of GPA priority pollutants such as sewage in the context of regional impacts, long-range transport, technological advances and the role of regulatory authorities.

In the ensuing discussion the following points were raised:

• At the Durham Workshop the notes of Working Group 2 were lost – significantly affecting the reporting of discussion and conclusions, and leaving open the potential that former members of Working Group 2 report to draw out some potential projects.
• Differences between the products of the Working Groups could have been due to differences in the approach applied to addressing the GPA, but the information from both groups must be considered as relevant.
• There was a concern for the role of science, applied science and the private sector in advancing the GPA.
• There is a need to identify critical issues
• There was concern that the Durham roster of projects not unduly influences further project decision-making.

There is a need for a pragmatic approach to activities intended to improve understanding of environmental quality in the Gulf of Maine especially as relates to the overall lack of resources for implementation. Through the Gulf of Maine Council, and others, there is already in place:

• RARGOM Workshop on Science and Management (June 1997) document is about to be released.
• There is a need to continue examination of the role played by deposition of air-borne contaminants. Funding for these initiatives is limited.
• Huntsman Marine Laboratory is working on a number of related initiatives including:
• Mapping habitat requirements for critical species - integrating.
• Developing protocols for the protection of marine and freshwater biodiversity – (ACTION: – ALLEN – forward protocols to the Bight of the Californias Project)
• Monitoring effects of floating cage aquaculture systems
• Studies on stream environmental quality that address insect and parasite populations
• Collections of aquatic organisms dating to 1900’s

• The Centre was founded to coordinate research in Bay of Fundy and to allow other groups to work collaboratively sharing facilities
• Research indicates that the Bay of Fundy is an important/unique ecosystem, but recent changes are not understood
• Note that although ecosystem science is an important component of Gulf of Maine Programs, research in the social sciences is also critical.
• Need to link all players in a virtual institute

• For the most part the private sector is the pollutant generator, but has limited representation to initiatives of this kind
• Priorities for environmental protection will vary between sectors and organizations
• Priorities of the CEC GOM Pilot Project MUST be the agreed priorities of industry
• Reduction of overlap is important
• Message to industry – do better than you are doing now
• Accessible inventory of available information is important to prevent over-lap
• New methodologies in pollution prevention are as important and cost-effective as pollution control
• The use of artificial test environments or "mesocosms" may provide an alternative technology to adult fish surveys in Environmental Effects Monitoring programs.

• Involved in many projects related to GOM and with community groups, including GIS mapping
• Realize the importance of social issues in coastal zone management

• Improving volunteer role in environmental monitoring – 15 Program Coordinators in 5 Jurisdictions – strong resource, strong voice
• Communicating among groups to build capacity for habitat monitoring of salt marshes, biotoxins, macro algae, and the sustainability of shellfish populations
• Holding workshops on organization and capacity building
• Assisted GOM Council with GOM Website
• Developing data reliability protocols

• Chiefs do not have available funds to participate in the GPA pilot project but would like to be involved
• Notes the proposed SOEP– gas pipeline project
• Concerns related to participate by First Nations include issues related to Treaty Rights and land claims

Conservation Council of New Brunswick (CCNB)

• Only Member from advocacy oriented NGOs (later joined by Conservation Law)
• Undertaking a Gulf of Maine Estuaries Restoration Project with the Island Institute and the Conservation Law Foundation. The Project will assess the state of estuarine habitat and provide a conservation blueprint for restoration
• As part of the Ecological Fisheries Project the CCNB is looking at habitat for key commercial fish species
• Have written a report on the effects of finfish aquaculture on the local marine environment (to be released in October 97)
• Difficulties encountered with public access to privatized information
• No funding support has been received for the formal organization of a Gulf of Maine Alliance of advocacy organizations, but groups will continue to work informally

The morning session adjourned at approximately 12:30 PM.

The afternoon session convened at 1:30 PM with a review of the CEC’s GPA Project Budget Status and of Funding Sources for Regional Action provided by Martha Rosas, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, assisted by Thomas Laughlin, Office of International Affairs, NOAA and John Karau, Environment Canada.

Martha Rosas summarized the CEC GPA Pilot Project as having the following primary objectives:

• establish an Ad Hoc committee
• draft a plan to facilitate the implementation of GPA
• enhance regional outreach and communications

For each CEC Pilot Project (Californias and GOM) $US 127,000 has been designated by the CEC. $US 65 000 is available for use in support of implementation activities. It is expected that the Committee’s will look for additional support to supplement the CEC contribution. Fiscal year end for the CEC is December.

Comments on the presentation included:

• the need to access additional government resources from existing programs
• the need for an attractive plan to interest potential partners – marketing by Members
• the need to solicit private sector assistance especially to help organize local initiatives, promote alternative treatment policies and technologies etc.
• pollution prevention programs becoming more effective
• investments must be more than just financial
• some activities may be eligible for additional CEC funding from alternative programs such as the $2 million North American Fund for Environmental Cooperation (Max $100,000 per project)
• use existing institutional mechanisms to the best advantage of the GPA
• need to get a more comprehensive representation of all important players ( i.e. Farmers, Aquaculturists) – (ACTION: ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS)

There was some discussion on the appropriateness of continuing the Pilot Project in its current structure if CEC had only $US 65,000 to provide for initiatives. However, there was no consensus achieved and further discussion appeared to validate the process, placing less emphasis on the willingness or ability of the CEC to support the bulk of financial costs and more on the need for a group that would assist in advancing the objectives of the GPA in this Region.

The next session was initiated by Joe Arbour, Gulf of Maine Council Ad Hoc Committee Advisor – Canada, who led members in a review and discussion of the proposed Ad Hoc Committee Terms of Reference. The following points emerged from the discussion:

• Members reaffirmed that the Ad Hoc Committee will enhance existing initiatives in the GOM and promote new activities but will not represent an alternative to established regional management organizations
• The primary goal of the Committee was confirmed as : "the Ad Hoc Committee will assist in the implementation of the GPA as it relates to the Gulf of Maine"
• Another role of the Committee may be to define gaps in existing activities
• Information exchange is important, that lessons may be learned to apply elsewhere, generate energy, focus on the big picture and/or to assist with trans-boundary issues
• The Committee should focus on those issues/activities that are not already the responsibility of an existing authority/organization
• The Committee could also examine the effectiveness of existing initiatives
• The Committee could ‘turn on the lights’ by bringing focus and attention to identified issues
• The Committee could use the CEC contribution as seed funding to leverage other resources

The Committee ratified a final version of the Terms of Reference (See Attachment C: Terms of Reference). Included in Attachment D is a list of points, which emerged during the discussion.

Considerable discussion ensued as to the validity of adopting the projects identified by Group One at the Durham Workshop as the basis for the Committee’s proposed Action Plan. There were arguments made for and against, with the greatest concerns revolving around the lack of time to adequately discuss the projects at Durham, and the potential that critical issues and needs identified by Durham Group Two would be overlooked. Henrietta List volunteered to examine the proposed projects against the issues identified by Durham Group Two and report to the Members at the opening of the morning session.

Members accepted Ms. List’s generous offer and adjourned the meeting till the following morning.

The meeting reconvened with a review by Henrietta List of the proposed changes to the suite of six projects (See Attachment E: Revised Suite of Projects). Discussion following the review of the revised document included:

• Most of the new information generated would be primarily from Project 4
• Concerns raised with overall passive nature of list of projects
• The project list is optimistic given the Committee’s resources, but could use business plan approach to address any one project
• Should available funding be used to do a project instead of a program, and thereby provide tangible results
• Effort should be spent involving the people who are doing the polluting
• Need for capacity building and representation with possible workshops on partnerships
• Members have yet to decide on a priority problem list and this must be done
• Members need to focus on an achievable initiative
• Two focuses – one on habitat use/protection and the other on pollutants

At 10:30 am it was decided to break Members into two Working Groups to address habitat and pollution and to identify priority action for the Ad Hoc Committee in these two areas, based on the needs of the GPA

At 11:30 the Task Groups reconvened as a plenary with a report on progress by Chairs Henrietta List – Habitats, and William Borland – Pollution.

The Group determined that a priority initiative in implementing the GPA in the Gulf of Maine is the control of pollutants. The Group proposes to convene a Workshop on Pollutants in the spring of 1998, based on the following objectives:

• participation by all sectors – science (including social); industry, community First Nations, and government
• a focus on area management
• development of local solutions
• science led presentation on the state of the environment in the Gulf of Maine
• industry led presentation on problems and pollutants
• community led presentation on the sources of land based pollutants
• presentations on successes related to implementation of the GPA

A proposal to organize the event has been solicited from ACAP Saint John to be presented at the September Committee meeting. The Committee agreed to entertain other proposals as well. Funding assistance for the event will be sought from CEC and others. A short scoping paper on the State of the Environment in the Gulf of Maine will be prepared through the RARGOM group for circulation prior to the Workshop.

Members of the Working Group agreed to co-ordinate the attendance of the private, research and community sectors.

Members of the Science community in the region meet in the fall and may provide a review paper specific to multiple, local and emerging issues in the Gulf of Maine.

The Group determined that there is a need to identify regionally "significant’ habitats in the Gulf, including social and cultural criteria as well as ecological criteria. They propose to support a nominating process for habitats initiated at the community level and inclusive of areas of environmental concern. The Group will explore existing mechanisms for habitat designation and protection and make further recommendations to the Committee.

As with Working Group One, there is a need to identify and publicize existing success stories and to analyze the continued performance of these initiatives and their mechanisms for success.

The Group felt strongly that there is a need to support the identification and training of leaders at the community level. A program of mentoring, apprenticeship and direct training is needed.

The Group is concerned that the jurisdictional aspirations related to watershed management that have been initiated over the past five years are achieving measurable success. It proposes to identify these activities and evaluate their progress.

There is an ongoing need for assistance to community groups in the management of information and the devolution and application of knowledge from science and government to communities.

There is a lack of public access to privatized or commercially confidential information.

The proposed activities presented by the two Chairs were accepted as a basis for a Regional Action Plan.

Draft Minutes of the July meeting will be circulated early in August to all Members for comment and revisions. Included will be the Terms of Reference as adopted by the Members.

The Second Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee was proposed for the 24 and 25^th of September at a location in the USA

The meeting adjourned at 12:10 PM.