This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Second Review of the Canada–Chile Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (2004-2009)

Back to Introduction

1. Introduction and context
2. The institutional structure of the Canada-Chile Commission for Environmental Cooperation
3. Budget
4. Evolution of the Cooperative Work Program

5. Citizen submissions filed under the Canada-Chile Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
6. Conclusions

Annex I:  Cooperative activities (20042008)
Annex II: Project Proposal Template for Cooperation under the Canada–Chile Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

1.    Introduction and context

The Canada–Chile Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (CCAEC, the Agreement) entered into force in 1997, in parallel to the Canada–Chile Free Trade Agreement. The Agreement’s main objectives are to strengthen both the environmental cooperation between the two countries and the effective enforcement of domestic environmental laws and regulations. Other objectives include: the promotion of sustainable development; cooperation to better conserve, protect and enhance the environment; and the promotion of economically efficient and effective environmental measures. One fundamental aspect of the Agreement is the promotion of transparency and public participation in environmental management, including through the processing of citizen submissions about perceived non-enforcement of environmental laws. 

An initial review of the Agreement was undertaken in 2004 in accordance with Article 10 (1) (b), which states that the Council (the governing body of the Canada–Chile Commission for Environmental Cooperation--see section 2 below) is required to “review its operation and effectiveness in the light of experience” within three years after the date of entry into force. Since that first review, economic ties between Canada and Chile have strengthened, and both governments have developed stronger ties in the area of environment. 

Over the past six years, the Agreement has been considered an effective tool for bilateral cooperation on the environment. During his visit to Santiago, Chile on July 17, 2007, Prime Minister Harper and then President Michelle Bachelet signed the Canada–Chile Partnership Framework, under which both leaders committed to the “continued development of biennial Work Programs under the Canada–Chile Environmental Cooperation Agreement to better conserve, protect and enhance the environment.”

Although this second review is not required by the Agreement, it was deemed appropriate to undertake as Canada and Chile continue to build on their strong bilateral relationship and vigorously pursue a Free Trade Agreement agenda with others. As both countries move to implement the environmental provisions of new Free Trade Agreements and acknowledge that the details of each agreement must be tailored to the circumstances of the specific relationship, the experience acquired through the CCAEC could be used as a model for the implementation of cooperative activities under new Free Trade Agreements in the Americas.

National Secretariats have worked with the Joint Public Advisory Committee (established under the CCAEC) on this latest review of the implementation of the Agreement.

Top of Page

2.    The institutional structure of the Canada–Chile Commission for Environmental Cooperation

The CCAEC establishes the Canada–Chile Commission for Environmental Cooperation, which comprises the following bodies:

  • The Council (the governing body) comprises the federal Ministers of the Environment from both countries, or their designees. On March 28, 2007, Chile created the post of Minister of the Environment, thus replacing the Executive Director of Chile’s National Commission for the Environment (CONAMA) as the counterpart to Canada’s Minister of the Environment. Since its entry into force, the Council has held nine sessions, two of which were led by Ministers.
  • National Secretariats in each country and housed within each environment agency support the Council. In Canada, this Secretariat comprises Environment Canada officials. In Chile, this Secretariat comprises CONAMA officials.
  • The Joint Submission Committee (JSC), an independent two-member Committee, one from each Party, assists the Commission in evaluating submissions on enforcement matters. The current JSC members are Jorge Correa Sutil from Chile and Julio N. Arboleda from Canada.
  • The Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) provides advice to the Council on any matter within the Agreement’s scope and meets at least once per year at the time of the annual session of Council. The JPAC comprises six non-governmental members, three from each Party, and serves as the bridge for public input on the work of the Commission. Appointments are for indeterminate terms.  The current members are Andrés Varela and Raúl O’Ryan from Chile, and Robert Fraser, Eduardo Quiroga and Dominique Bellemare from Canada.

The JPAC has made progress in defining its role in the implementation of the Agreement, although it does not have permanent logistical support and does not have a budget to undertake activities. 

The JPAC has insisted, through its letters to Council, that the implementation of the Agreement is seriously underfunded and that this devalues their efforts.

Since 2007, JPAC has been working with the National Secretariats to develop better project management systems in order to improve monitoring and reporting under the agreement.

Top of Page

3.    Budget

Canada and Chile have managed to accomplish key goals and advance environmental cooperation in an efficient and cost-effective manner.  The costs of implementation have been shared equitably, with both Canada and Chile making financial and in-kind contributions.

Estimated expenditures since 2004 can be summarized as follows:
Fiscal YearIn-Kind  Contributions (CAN$)Financial Contributions (CAN$)
2004–05100,000 to 130,00073,500
2005–06160,000 to 180,00081,000
2006–07160,000 to 180,00088,000
2007–08120,000 to 175,00083,987
2008–09140,000 to 205,000108,500

Top of Page

4.    Evolution of the Cooperative Work Program

The Agreement has evolved over its 12 years of existence, and three main phases of implementation appear to have emerged, as indicated below.

Phase I (1997–2003): Identification of gaps in Environmental Management Systems (EMSs), based on high-level exploratory discussions.

Shortly after the Agreement’s entry into force, Canada and Chile focused their initial consultations and attention on projects and forums that assisted in defining a bilateral agenda of environmental cooperation. The National Secretariats shaped the first three annual Work Programs around initiatives intended to improve mutual understanding of EMSs (e.g., enforcement and compliance frameworks, analysis of enforcement activity successes, and reports on the state of public participation in environmental decision-making). Work was then expanded to issues linking trade and the environment, such as environmental assessments of trade negotiations and the environmental impacts of the mining industry. Finally, work included discussions on the implementation of multilateral conventions (e.g., Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal) and the relationship between health and environment, including the development of air quality indicators and examination of the health effects of air pollution on vulnerable populations, a project that spanned the three Work Programs.

Phase II (2003–2007): Addressing gaps in EMSs by concentrating on key building blocks and matching Chilean needs with Canadian expertise.

This phase of implementation of the CCAEC was characterized by the creation, development and implementation of projects and activities with respect to gaps noted as areas of concern during the first phase of implementation of the Agreement, and for which Canadian expertise could be tapped into to meet Chilean needs.

Work Programs also became biennial. This measure allowed the countries to undertake a better assessment of potential issues for bilateral cooperation and, more importantly, establish a realistic implementation calendar.

The structure of the Agreement’s Fourth (2003–2005) and Fifth (2005–2007) Work Programs (see Annex I) mirrored the structure of the first three Programs by dividing activities into four main themes: (1) Enforcement and Compliance; (2) Participation of Civil Society in Environmental Management; (3) Trade and Environment; and (4) Health and Environment. Of particular note during this period, Canada and Chile consolidated bilateral environmental cooperation as Canada assisted Chile in the development of basic building blocks for EMSs, specifically a Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) as well as public participation within Chile’s environmental decision-making process, including within Chile’s Environmental Impact Assessment system. Finally, cooperation was undertaken regarding corporate social responsibility in relevant sectors such as the forestry industry.

Phase III (2008–present): Maturity of the Agreement with a focus on environmental priorities beneficial for both Parties.

Once basic EMSs were in place, the Parties turned to mutually beneficial projects that supported environmental policy priorities. A new modus operandi under the Agreement was initiated in 2008, consisting of a new thematic structure for its Sixth Work Program (2008–2010) based on shared key governmental priorities: (1) Wildlife and Biodiversity; (2) Chemicals Management; (3) Information and Indicators; and (4) Climate Change. For this Work Program, the countries focused and continue to focus on a limited number of results-oriented and cost-effective projects. Initiatives such as the Evaluation Program for Environmental Effects of Pulp Plants on Bodies of Water in Chile have generated valuable information for Canadian specialists as Best Available Technologies currently used by Chile in this field are unavailable for study in Canada.

Top of Page

Key lessons learned

Phased approach to Cooperative Work Program is beneficial in the long term.

As noted above, three main phases of implementation for the cooperative Work Program appear to have emerged from the past 12 years.

Although it may be tempting upon the entering into force of an Environmental Cooperation Agreement to launch into a series of short-term, mutually beneficial projects to protect the environment (e.g., migratory bird conservation), gaining an understanding of respective EMSs that can support environmental protection projects is deemed more beneficial in the long term. While the former may make it easier for governments to show results and can be easier for citizens to understand, the latter will ensure the basic building blocks are in place to secure long-term success in environmental protection.

Multiple-phase initiatives obtain better results.

The Agreement has been successful in addressing structural and capacity issues of concern in Chile’s EMSs, such as enforcement, chemicals management, and protection of migratory species. Projects that have proven most successful are those structured as multiple-phase initiatives, spread throughout several consecutive Work Programs (e.g., cooperative work on Chile’s PRTR, initiatives on air quality indicators, sustained cooperation on migratory birds). On the other hand, there have been a few instances of one-time discussions during which issues were noted but no plan for action and remediation was undertaken (e.g., past discussions on environmental impact assessment or environmental indicators).

Diverse sources for project proposals optimizes line-up of Work Program projects.

Throughout the Agreement’s three phases of implementation, the countries have structured their list of bilateral projects for each Work Program drawing on four main sources of ideas: (1) governmental priorities highlighted during Council sessions; (2) brainstorming between both National Secretariats; (3) brainstorming by National Secretariats with their national experts; and (4) public sessions chaired by the JPAC in Chile, in which Chilean environmental non-governmental organizations, representatives from academia, and corporate sector delegates participated.

Systematic monitoring systems ensures greater accountability.

In view of a weak performance-tracking record, a new monitoring and accountability framework was developed and applied in 2008–2009 in the design and assessment of all projects implemented under the Agreement. More specifically, a results-based management guide developed by the JPAC was used and terms of reference were systematically applied for each project in the 2008–2010 Work Program (new project-design template included as Annex II). The next step will be the development of a project report template to ensure consistency in project wrap-up and public information sharing. These new operational improvements are intended to ensure greater accountability in the implementation of projects, and to ensure that a systematic feedback system, indicating areas of success or difficulty, becomes a key resource to guide the design and implementation of future projects.

Political contexts in both countries make flexible Work Programs indispensable.

Another challenging aspect for the Agreement has been changes in political priorities (e.g., successive minority governments in Canada) and difficulties experienced by Chile’s Government as they attempted to move forward with new environmental institutions and legislative frameworks. A flexible Work Program can allow the Parties to adapt as needed while ensuring cooperation continues.

Top of Page

Main accomplishments

Looking beyond the three main phases of implementation noted above, the key accomplishments indicated below are particularly noteworthy and could be of interest in the development of Work Programs under the umbrella of environmental cooperation agreements that Canada or Chile may enter into with other partners.

Chile’s Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR)

One of the fundamental aspects of the Agreement is the promotion of transparency and public participation in environmental management. Thus, in 2002, CONAMA and representatives of the public and private sectors, academia and non-governmental organizations started work on cooperation with Canada on developing a PRTR.

From late 2003 to early 2004, in the main design phase, the “Involvement of Civil Society in PRTR Design and Implementation” project was developed. This project was conceived as the first phase of the process of involving civil society in the national PRTR. At that time, work was begun on disseminating the Register among non-governmental organizations and the public, compiling important background information and feedback that was used in improving the PRTR design.

Within the framework of the 2005–2007 Work Program, a workshop was held to create capacities in non-governmental organizations to manage pollutant release and transfer register information. This helped Chile optimize this area of focus as its government completed the implementation of its PRTR.

Cooperation on migratory birds

The Agreement has facilitated, over the course of three consecutive Work Programs, the connection between conservation efforts for 41 shared species of migratory birds undertaken in the Northern Hemisphere by Canada with those taking place in the south by Chile. In an initial phase, representatives from Environment Canada and CONAMA identified the development of a conservation strategy for shared migratory birds of concern and initiated the required follow-up work. In its later phases, this successful bilateral cooperation has covered areas such as bird banding training, conservation of endangered migratory birds in their nesting habitat in Chile, and the integration of Chile into the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.

Top of Page

Other bilateral activities

A select few bilateral activities between Chile and Canada are undertaken in a few fora outside the scope of the Agreement, but National Secretariats are kept apprised as needed. For example:

Montreal Protocol

Canada has been a key financial supporter of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, the main financial means through which industrialized countries help developing nations comply with Protocol objectives to phase out ozone-depleting substances. Environment Canada’s bilateral cooperation with Chile in this domain, valued at US$1,167,519 between 1994 and 2008, is part of Canada’s contribution to this international success story.

For example, the Refrigeration Management Plan project in Chile aimed at phasing out chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) consumption for the servicing of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. Key achievements include: the training of 1650 refrigeration technicians in good practices to reduce emissions of CFCs when servicing equipment; the development of a Code of Good Refrigeration Standards and Practices, which has also been incorporated into educational institutions’ curricula; and the provision of CFC recovery and recycling equipment to over 129 selected institutions, refrigeration companies and refrigeration technicians in Chile. Through these projects, and other past and ongoing initiatives, Chile met the 85 percent CFC reduction target for 2007 required under the Montreal Protocol and is on its way to achieving the mandatory 100 percent CFC reduction in 2010.

Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)

Other activities, not purely bilateral but also regional in nature, have been undertaken by CIDA in Chile, in areas such as sustainable energy (in cooperation with the Latin America Energy Organization [OLADE]) and corporate social responsibility in the oil and gas sector (in cooperation with the Regional Association of Oil and Natural Gas Companies in Latin America and the Caribbean [ARPEL]).

Top of Page

5. Citizen submissions filed under the CCAEC

Articles 14 and 15 of the Agreement (see Annex I) outline the process to handle citizen submissions on enforcement. The National Secretariats undertake an initial evaluation of submissions. JSC members are then responsible for determining if a submission from the public merits a response from the Party and whether the submission, in view of any response provided by the Party, warrants the development of a factual record by an expert in environmental matters.

A submission (SEM-08-01) was filed on June 12, 2008, by Mr. Marcelo Castillo Sánchez, lawyer for the Estudio Jurídico Etcheberry, on behalf of Chilean Patagonia Without Dams (Patagonia Chilena sin represas). The petitioners assert that Chile is failing to effectively enforce its environmental laws with respect to a proposed hydro project (Proyecto HydroAysén) in two waterways close to the Chile–Argentina border (the rivers Pascua and Baker). At the time of writing, the submission was being reviewed by the JSC.

SEM-08-01 was the first submission received since 2002, when submission A14-2002-01 was filed. At the time of writing the previous review of the CCAEC, Chile was in the process of preparing a response to questions formulated by the JSC. Subsequently, the Committee considered that, in view of the Government of Chile’s response, the submission did not warrant the development of a factual record.

Top of Page

6. Conclusions

The ongoing cooperation between Canada and Chile twelve years after the CCAEC’s entry into force is a testament to the two countries’ commitment to the Agreement. Despite the CCAEC’s modest scope in financial and logistical terms, Canada and Chile can point to a list of concrete and results-oriented accomplishments, which bolsters the Agreement’s continued relevance. Additionally, the current submission against Chile, filed in June 2008, is evidence of the continued relevance of this Agreement for Chilean civil society.

Canada and Chile have created a strong foundation for environmental cooperation, and demonstrated that trade and environmental issues can be addressed in a positive manner, free of disputes.  As described in section 4, we have identified a number of key lessons learned from the past five years of cooperation:

  • A phased approach to cooperative work programs is beneficial in the long-term;
  • Multiple-phase initiatives obtain better results;
  • Diverse sources for project proposals optimizes the line-up of Work Program projects;
  • Systematic monitoring systems ensures greater accountability, and;
  • Political contexts in both countries make flexible Work Programs indispensable.

As both National Secretariats start their work toward the creation of the 2010–2012 (Seventh) Work Program of the CCAEC, a wide range of experiences and lessons can be applied to its successful design and implementation, including, among others, the need to remain results-focused and resource-efficient, while at the same time improving evaluation of the activities pursued under our bilateral cooperation to better assess their effectiveness in solving pending and emerging environmental challenges in both countries.

In summary, the CCAEC has improved environmental law enforcement and institutional capacity in both countries, and proven to be an active bilateral mechanism for environmental cooperation, thus fulfilling the original purpose of the Agreement. Furthermore, this sustained bilateral cooperation continues to strengthen relations between our governments. Canada and Chile remain committed to the Agreement and look forward to its continued success in future.

Top of Page

Annex I

Cooperative activities (2004–2008)
Theme One: Enforcement and Compliance with Environmental Legislation
ActivitiesDescriptionDate and location
03.1.1 National Enforcement Management Information System and Intelligence System (NEMISIS) Phase IIIDuring the second phase, CONAMA conducted an internal feasibility study to assess the applicability of NEMISIS in the Chilean context and to identify important considerations that would need to be taken into account if a similar platform were to be transferred to Chile.September 13–17, 2003 Ottawa, Canada
03.1.2 Environmental IndicatorsFacilitate the Chilean Environmental Information System implementation process through sharing technical material developed in Canada.November 26–29, 2005
Cancún, Mexico
03.1.3 Management of Migratory BirdsThe workshop’s key objectives were to discuss experiences, help develop a banding program in Chile, and improve cooperation between the two countries in the conservation of migratory shorebirds. Other objectives included training Chilean wildlife biologists and experts in migratory bird management and banding; helping prioritize the actions required to protect shorebirds; developing a list of shared species; and increasing awareness of measures taken to protect migratory birds.

November 22–24, 2004

Santiago, Chile

03.1.4 Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI)An official from Environment Canada gave a presentation on EVRI to a visiting delegation of officials from CONAMA and Chile’s Ministry of External Relations.October 25, 2004
05.1.1 Evaluation of Capabilities and Requirements for the Consolidation of a National Protected Areas SystemPostponed 
5.1.2 Management and Protection of Migratory Birds– Training Chilean Workers Responsible for Protecting and Banding Migratory BirdsThis intense program, which included in-the-field practice, formal classes and specialized talks, allowed participants to learn about and analyze bird monitoring techniques such as the proper handling of catching nets, body evaluation, banding, age determination through plumage, molting cycles and sampling techniques.October 8–12, 2006 Veracruz, Mexico
05.1.3 Workshop on the Management of Sites Contaminated with Pentachlorophenol and Recovery of Contaminated Urban Sites (Brownfields)The workshop made it possible to create communication and experience-sharing links between CONAMA and Environment Canada in the area of chemical-substance and contaminated-site management, which will allow greater sharing of experiences among their professionals in the future.January 16, 2007 Santiago, Chile
05.1.4 Technical Exchange and Cooperation Workshop on Sustainable Development IndicatorsPostponed 
05.1.5 NEMISIS Phase IVPostponed 

Cooperative activities (2004–2008)
Theme Two: Participation of Civil Society in Environmental Management
ActivitiesDescriptionDate and location
03.2.1 Public Participation in Environmental Impact AssessmentDuring the seminar, delegates from academia, business, non-governmental organizations, the public sector, and civil society in general, as well as Canadian representatives of organizations in charge of environmental assessment in Canada and Chile, reviewed the environmental impact assessment systems and the characteristics of public participation in the mechanism, for both public and private projects. In addition, delegates discussed experiences in conflict management and instances of claims.November 30, 2004 Santiago, Chile
03.2.2 Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR)–Phase IIOfficials from Chile and Canada met to discuss the potential implementation of some features and technical aspects of Canada’s PRTR, the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI).September 13–14, 2005 Ottawa, Canada
03.2.3 Dissemination of Information on Environmental ManagementWeb exchange of information on community action and sharing best practices for programs and policies.Web page created by September 1999 and updated regularly
03.2.4 Building Capacities in Non-Governmental OrganizationsTwo representatives of Chilean environmental non-governmental organizations attended the international conference of the Canadian Environmental Network. The visit’s intention was to help establish mutually beneficial relationships between Chilean and Canadian environmental non-governmental organizations.

September 23–24, 2005

Montreal, Canada

05.2.1 Workshop to Create Capacities in Non-Governmental Organizations to Manage PRTR InformationThe workshop provided a venue to present Canada’s experience in the area of capacity generation and PRTR information dissemination. There was intense discussion among the participants on the various topics touched upon in the workshop, which were of great interest to the 34 Chilean participants.

January 2007

Santiago, Chile

05.2.2 Training Public Officials in Citizen Participation and Environmental Conflict Management Methodologies and Strengthening of Non-Governmental Organizations within the Citizen Participation Framework in ChileThe seminar was very useful to Chile, as it was an opportunity to learn from several years of experience and see that some environmental impact assessment instruments and mechanisms can be replicated in Chile in order to improve the environmental management system in this country.

April 24–25, 2008

Santiago, Chile


Cooperative activities (2004–2008)
Theme Three: Trade and the Environment
ActivitiesDescriptionDate and location
03.3.1 Seventh Round Table on Trade and EnvironmentOfficials of CONAMA, Chile’s Ministry of External Relations, Environment Canada and Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs met to discuss corporate social responsibility in the forestry sector.November 26, 2004 Santiago, Chile
03.3.2 Seminar on Clean Development MechanismA workshop was held to explore emerging opportunities related to carbon credits. It built on a workshop entitled ”The Carbon Market: Business Opportunities between Canada and Chile under the Clean Development Mechanism,” held in 2001 in Santiago. This workshop provided an opportunity to introduce participants to the concept of the Clean Development Mechanism as defined in the Kyoto Protocol.

March 2004

Santiago, Chile

05.3.1 Promoting Environmental Sustainability in the Aquaculture SectorA central activity of this cooperation involved an exchange of professionals. Canada was represented by officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, who worked at Chile’s Department of Aquaculture of the Subsecretariat of Fisheries from July to December 2005 and December 2005 to March 2006. Likewise, officials of Chile’s Subsecretariat of Fisheries’ Department of Aquaculture worked in the offices of Fisheries and Oceans Canada from June to November 2005.2005
05.3.2 Climate change–Presentations on Clean Development MechanismsCancelled. 
05.3.3 Workshop on Energy Efficiency

Econoler International, a Canadian firm specializing in energy efficiency, delivered the training sessions as part of the energy efficiency event of the energy conservation incentive program (Programa País de Eficiencia Energética) of CONAMA and the Ministerio Chileno de la Economía.

During the workshop, participants were introduced to the following topics: (1) designing a long-term energy demand management strategy in an industrial plant, the energy master plan; (2) promotion and consciousness creation on efficient technologies and environmental conservation in an enterprise; (3) typical energy conservation measures in the solid wood industry and the process to identify such opportunities; and (4) method to assess the multiple benefits (economic, environmental and social) of the energy conservation opportunities.

January 17–18, 2007 Santiago, Chile
Cooperative activities (2004–2008)
Theme Four: Health and Environment
ActivitiesDescriptionDate and location
03.4.1 Second Policy Forum on Health and EnvironmentPolicy forum to discuss key emerging issues in the area of health and environment. The focus of these meetings was: “Healthy Environments, Healthy Children.”

August 2005, Santiago, Chile

November 14–16, Buenos Aires, Argentina

03.4.2 Air Quality Index

An official from Health Canada carried out the following activities in cooperation with CONAMA:

1.     Definition of criteria and methodologies for the integration of databases in order to create air quality indicators associated with health.

2.     Construction of databases with the relevant variables for mortality, air quality and meteorology for subsequent validation by Health Canada.

3.    After validation of this information, the analysis that enables the statistically relevant mortality variables regarding air quality and meteorology to be determined was performed.

April 10–16, 2005

Santiago, Chile

05.4.1 Air Quality Index–

Phase II

Health Canada’s second visit to Santiago facilitated the process of generating air quality indicators and incorporating health variables in the database prepared by the CONAMA Metropolitan Region in 2005.January 23–27, 2006 Santiago, Chile

Top of Page

Annex II

Project Proposal Template for Cooperation under the Canada–Chile Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

Area/Title of project (choose one):
Area One: Wildlife and Biodiversity
Area Two: Chemicals Management
Area Three: Information and Indicators
Area Four: Climate Change

Proposed by: Either Chile or Canada
Date: When the proposal was submitted
Key contact: Key working-level contacts

Proposed to: Either Chile or Canada
Key contact: Key working-level contacts

Background of the project area/issues:

  • Describe what led up to this problem or issue.
  • Describe how it has evolved over the years. (This section should be chronological, working backward from where the current status left off. Only include information that will help the reader understand the current situation. Try to keep this section under one third of a page.)

Objectives of the project:

  • Identify issues that the project will address.
  • Identify specific, clear, tangible results that will be achieved and how progress toward each result will be measured over time, as well as annual targets for these measures. The goal of all projects shall be to support the efforts of the Parties to conserve, protect and/or enhance the environment in Chile/Canada.
  • Explain the relevance of the project to enhance environmental management by the two Parties.
  • Define the target population (who benefits directly from the project?):
    • Projects that propose to develop information for decision-making shall: identify a decision-making audience; ensure that the decision-making audience is receptive and capable of using the information; and identify what decisions are to be informed, and how this will be done.
    • Project proposals that aim to build capacity shall identify whose capacity is being developed and how that capacity will yield benefits for both Parties.
  • Where such linkages exist, identify any relation to trade and environment. For example, mitigating the environmental impact of trade or stimulating the development of environmental policies that promote positive impacts on trade.
  • Identify all relevant stakeholders who will be involved in project implementation, explain why the involvement of each stakeholder group is required for the project’s success, and describe how the stakeholders will be involved in project implementation.
  • Identify linkages with projects undertaken by other government/multilateral institutions, if applicable, with a view to avoiding duplication and potentially creating synergies.

Outputs: Identify the product of this project (e.g., a workshop, seminar, research paper, etc.).


  • Identify what contribution is being sought toward achieving a long-term benefit
  • Identify what indicators will prove the success of the project
  • Identify the baseline data from which to measure progress against; and, given the scale of the project
  • Identify any immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes being pursued.

Outline of the project: Describe the activities that will be carried out, namely, the actions that are both necessary and sufficient for the production of a given output.

Preparation required:

  • Funding/resources: Indicate the overall cost of the project, where the funds are coming from, and the necessary steps to secure this funding. Please itemize expected expenditures.
  • Timeline: Describe the different implementation stages for the project and its activities. Proposals shall include a target end date, and allow the Parties to modify it mid-stream if necessary or beneficial to do so.

Tasks and responsibilities: Describe who will be in charge of each of the project’s activities. Also, describe who will write the project report, and who will assess the success of the project against its intended outcomes.

Project proposals should not exceed four pages in length.

Top of Page

Date modified: