Summary of the matter addressed in the submission:

The Submitter asserts that Mexico is failing to effectively enforce its environmental law with respect to the operation, closure and dismantling of a paint pigment manufacturing plant operated by BASF Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. (BASF) in Cuautla, in the state of Morelos.

In submission SEM-06-004 (Ex Hacienda El Hospital III), the Submitter reiterates assertions contained in submission SEM-06-003 (Ex Hacienda El Hospital II), to which the Secretariat requested a response from Mexico on 30 August 2006. In addition, he alleges that the Federal Attorney General for Environmental Protection (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente-Profepa) did not act upon learning the results of its own sampling efforts and of third-party studies revealing soil contamination allegedly caused by BASF.

Summary of the response provided by the Party:

In its response, Mexico asserts that it ordered soil assessment and restoration actions, that it applied sanctions to BASF, and that it ordered the closing of the building occupied by the company. It further states that it followed up on the recommendations contained in an environmental audit and that it gave timely attention to citizen complaints filed in relation to Ex Hacienda El Hospital. The response asserts that the owner of the building occupied by BASF obstructed the site restoration process.

Invoking NAAEC Article 14(3)(a), Mexico maintains that the Secretariat should give no further consideration to the submission because it is the subject of a pending administrative proceeding. Mexico indicates that information concerning criminal law enforcement in relation to BASF was not provided to the Secretariat because it is confidential.

Names and citations of the environmental laws in question:

Articles 414, 415 (paragraph I), 416 (paragraph I), 420 quater and 421 of the Federal Penal Code (Código Penal Federal -CPF).

Articles 4, 5, 6, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 150, 151, 151 bis, 152, 152 bis, 160, 161, 162, 167, 167 bis, 167 bis 1, 167 bis 3, 167 bis 4, 168, 169, 170, 170 (paragraph III), 170 bis, 171, 172 173, 174, 191, 192 and 193 of the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente-LGEEPA).

NOM-052-ECOL/93

NOM-053-ECOL/93

Articles 68, 69, 75, 78, 101, 103 and 106 of the General Law for Waste Prevention and Comprehensive Management (Ley para la Prevención y Gestión Integral de Residuos - LGPIR).

Articles 8 (paragraphs II, III, VI, VII and IX), 14, 15 (paragraphs II, VII) and 17 (paragraph II) of the hazardous waste regulation (Reglamento de Residuos Peligrosos).

Articles 29 (paragraph VI) and 119 (paragraphs VI, V

Submitter(s):

Mr. Roberto Abe Almada

Submission Timeline

September 22, 2006

The Secretariat received a submission and began a preliminary analysis of it under the guidelines.

Acknowledgement - Communication to Submitter(s) authored by Secretariat on 25/09/2006

Submission - Submission authored by Submitter(s) on 15/09/2006

September 28, 2006

The Secretariat determined that the submission related to the same facts and the same asserted failure to enforce an environmental law as another submission already under consideration by the Secretariat. Under guideline 10.3, the Secretariat consolidated the submission with the following submission, which on this date was at the following stage of the process.

September 28, 2006

The Secretariat determined that the submission met the criteria of Article 14(1) and requested a response from the concerned government Party in accordance with Article 14(2).

Determination - Secretariat Determination under Article 14 (1) and 14 (2) authored by Secretariat on 28/09/2006

January 10, 2007

The Secretariat received a response from the concerned government Party and began considering whether to recommend a factual record.

Party Response - Response from the Party under Article 14 (3) authored by Mexico on 10/01/2007

Acknowledgement - authored by Secretariat on 16/01/2007

May 12, 2008

The Secretariat informed Council that the Secretariat considers that the submission warrants development of a factual record.

Recommendation - Secretariat Notification to Council under Article 15(1) authored by Secretariat on 12/05/2008

June 15, 2012

The Council voted to instruct the Secretariat to develop a Factual Record.

Resolution - Council decision concerning the development of a Factual Record authored by Council on 15/06/2012

August 9, 2012

The Secretariat placed a work plan on its web site or otherwise made it available to the public and stakeholders.

Workplan - Overall workplan for Factual Record authored by Secretariat on 09/08/2012

August 29, 2012

The Secretariat posted a request for information relevant to the factual record on its web site.

Secretariat Information Request - Document related to the preparation of a Factual Record authored by Secretariat on 29/08/2012

October 17, 2013

The Secretariat submitted a draft factual record to Council, for a 45-day comment period on the accuracy of the draft.

November 27, 2013

The Secretariat received comments from Mexico.

Document related to the preparation of a Factual Record - Document related to the preparation of a Factual Record authored by Mexico on 27/11/2013

December 24, 2013

The Secretariat received comments from Canada.

February 12, 2014

The Secretariat submitted a final factual record to Council for Council's vote on whether to make the final factual record publicly available.

May 15, 2014

Council voted to instruct the Secretariat to make the final factual record publicly available.

Resolution - Council decision on whether the factual record will be made publicly available authored by Council on 15/05/2014

May 16, 2014

The final factual record was publicly released.

Final Factual Record - Final Factual Record authored by Secretariat on 12/02/2014