EnviReform Website, University of Toronto

Third Annual EnviReform Conference

Sustainability, Civil Society and International Governance:
Local, North American and Global Perspectives

Summary in English

8:30 a.m. Opening Remarks
8:45 a.m. Session I: Local and Transboundary Networks and Cooperation
Rodney White, Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, Chair Ken Ogilvie, Pollution Probe, Presenter
Debbie Field, Foodshare, Presenter
Stephen Clarkson, Stefanie J. Bowles, Ian Thomas MacDonald and Jennifer Leah Mullen, University of Toronto, Authors Virginia Maclaren, Sonia Labatt and Angela Morris, University of Toronto, Authors (absent)
The first speaker was Pollution Probe's Ken Ogilvie. He conceptualized the environmental movement as having various dominant principles in given decades. The 1960s were a time when no institutional capacity existed to deal with the environment; environmental ministries emerged in the 1970s. Ogilvie referred to the 1980s as a decade of backlash, when the cost of removal of pollutants was discussed and market mechanisms were explored. The 1990s saw the "globalization hit" start to come to the fore - a decade characterized by the principle of sustainable development. The present decade can be characterized as dominated by the precautionary principle.
In Ogilvie's response to the paper by Stephen Clarkson et al., ("Continentalism from Below"), he wondered whether the ideological bifurcation regarding NAFTA truly undermines the effectiveness of the movement. What are the reasons for some groups supporting NAFTA and others resisting it.
Comparing U.S. and Canadian environmental policies, Ogilvie pointed out that there were less clear lines laid out for the process in Canada. He also noted the relative weakness of Canadian environmental groups versus those in the U.S.
In closing, Ogilvie stressed the importance of horizontal networks for coalition building with a variety of groups, including environmental, industry, nongovernmental organizations, municipalities and so forth.
Foodshare's Debbie Field began by posing the question of how to build social movements as politics move to a global level. Social movements need to recognize the need for a strategy that both is internal and crosses boundaries. She pointed to the women's movement, which she characterized as the most successful of the past century because it was related to a politics that works from the grass roots up to the nation-state, thereby finding quick solutions and legal frameworks.
Responding to the paper by Clarkson et al., Field said that the labour movement had demonstrated the most successful links relative to other social movements because of the resources that had become available to it. The labour movement is aided by strong, well-financed unions. However, its strengths also stem from a clear concept of strategy and planning that is easily translatable globally. Field said that the environmental movement must mimic aspects of the labour movement.
Field also pointed out that change occurs not when elites decide to make change, but in response to pressure from the public. Thus it is important to mobilize and educate the majority of society. A movement should be as radical as necessary while still recognizing the importance of a broad base of support.
In response, Stephen Clarkson reflected on whether there was any continentalism occurring in the wake of NAFTA. He pointed to Europe where an obvious constitutionalization is occurring. Is something like this happening in North America.
In response to Ogilvie's question about the division amongst environmental groups regarding NAFTA, Stefanie Bowles said that so many large NGOs in the U.S. endorsed NAFTA because of the side agreement on the environment. This agreement, she said, does not address core issues of the environmental trade nexus. NAFTA secures a continuation of large oil and gas subsidies. It is also ambiguous in its support for products produced in ways that harm or sustain the environment. Bowles said it is important for enviromental issues not to be treated as an afterthought, as with they are with NAFTA, and possibly also in the negotiations of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. Trade-offs must be negotiated at the outset. Finally, she pointed out that infighting within the environmental movement has been problematic.
Ian MacDonald commented that labour has been very successful because of shared resources and the ability to mobilize its members as a group.
An audience member who had been a member of the original Joint Public Advisory Committee on the NAFTA side agreement said that such an agreement was indeed a big step, as this was the first time a trade agreement related to labour and environment. It opened up new opportunities for civil society in Mexico to bring forth views and participate in a tri-party setting. Although it was nonetheless a "toothless tiger," it was successful in bringing issues to the fore, and those issues were picked up by the media.
Another audience member commented that it might be worthwhile to think more broadly to create a North American sustainable development fund or bank so that citizens in local communities can have access money to solve real problems.
In response to audience comments, Field said that trade agreements have been bad for helping the environmental movement to do simple things at the local level. The last five years have really been about "ratcheting down" rather than "ratcheting up" as far as fighting social causes and improving rights goes.
Field said that differences in the environmental movement are not primarily about NAFTA but about how groups see environmental issues. The diversity can be exciting but also divisive. "We need to agree to agree on some level," she said.
Notes taken by Elizabeth Ben-Ishai.
10:15 a.m. Session II: North American and Hemispheric Experiences
Adele Hurley, Programme on Water Issues, Munk Centre for International Studies, Chair
Chris Tollefson, member, Canada's NAAEC National Advisory Committee; Faculty of Law, University of Victoria, Presenter
Jamal Khokhar, Fellow, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Presenter
Stephen Clarkson, Sarah Davidson Ladly, and Carlton Thorne, University of Toronto, Authors
Alan Rugman, Indiana University, Author
Julie Soloway, Davies, Ward, Phillips and Vineberg LLP, Author
Chris Tollefson, from the University of Victoria's Faculty of Law and the NAAEC National Advisory Committee, spoke of the lessons learned from NAFTA with respect to civil society participation and transparency. He said that the citizen participation provision under the side agreement serve some useful purposes. The citizen submission process has shone the spotlight on government compliance and enforcement.
Tollefson noted that the Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) is a key NAFTA institution that has played an important role in holding parties to account. However, we need to address assymetry in the NAFTA regime - the broad rights of investors versus the limitations on civil society perspectives and national policy preferences. The continued use of the citizen submission process by nongovernmental organizations shows that these organizations retain some faith in the process. Domestically, Mexican and Canadian laws provide limited opportunities for environmental groups to challenge governments' failures to meet environmental regulations. .
Tollefson expressed the hope that a joint trade and environment ministerial meeting will take place in 2003. It is regrettable, he noted, that this cooperation has not yet occurred.
NAFTA's Chapter 11 has been criticized for turning the "polluter pays" paradigm on its head. The associated tribunals have been cloaked in secrecy and involved minimal public participation. Tollefson pointed to the possibility that they may decide issues of domestic law, ignore parties reliance on Article 14, impose onerous requirements not spelled out in the agreement and make unsubstantiated legal conclusions that extend beyond international and domestic law.
With regard to the Metalclad case, Tollefson described three lessons. First, a binding statement need to be made on what Chapter 11 means for governments. Second, a more judicial process must be established with a permanent expert trilateral report. Third, the first principles need to be revisited to determine whether the disciplines of Chapter 11 extend too far, as Tollefson believes.
Jamal Khokar, from Harvard University's Weatherfield Center for International Affairs, reflected on his experience working on trade policy in Washington and on how civil society engagement informed the debate in that capacity. In terms of at what stage of the process consultations should be undertaken, he said, the sooner the better.
Khokhar calls for a clarification of the distinction between transparency and civil society engagement. Civil society engagement is more dynamic, and members expect their views to resonate. But those discussions must have representative legitimacy. The context for them has been influenced by the erosion of public confidence in large institutions. Society is questioning the role of government as the ultimate arbitrator of public goods.
Referring to Julie Soloway's paper, Khokar wondered about an adequate framework for public participation. Although Soloway refers to the conflict between the lack of transparency in the post-war trading system and democratic principles, there was little debate in Washington over the desirability of openness.
Khokar said that the creation of a standing appellant mechanism would provide greater predictability and consistency on issues of transparency. Parties would then have the benefit of advance notice of infractions and could rein in "rogue decisions."
Questions from the floor followed. One audience member asked how to decrease the antagonism among government, business and civil society, since it is to the advantage of business to encourage participation of civil society. Tollefson responded that JPAC and organizations like it (such as the national advisory committee he serves on) can help. But those differences do not enter into this debate - members move outside their boxes to think laterally and creatively. More organizations like these are needed, as is a joint trade and environment minister meeting.
In response to a question from the internet about whether NAFTA, FTAA negotiations, and WTO undermine Canadian sovereignty, Khokhar said that trade agreements involve a common set of rules and standards that remove from play the indiscriminate political behaviour that has traditionally dominated trade. Ministers are elected by citizens. Governments are given a certain right to work on their behalf. Governments enter into the agreements and negotiate them - this is an exercise in sovereignty.
Tollefson added that the assumption that these agreements trump rights to the environment is defeatist. Many arguments have not yet been made in tribunals. There is a new era of scholarship on making agreements as environmentally benign as possible. We are moving towards a more balanced approach.
A member of the audience asked Alan Rugman whether Canadians are living in a bilateral or trilateral world 10 years after NAFTA was implemented. Rugman responded that businesses are the actors that do regional and economic integration. The world has an equal degree of regional integration in Europe, Asia and North America. Rugman compared NAFTA, within which 56% of trade is intra-regional, and Europe, which has similar numbers. Asia also exhibits a similar amount of intra-regional trade. Europe has a deep institutional regime, but North America does not have a consistent set of rules to govern the continentalism that already exists. Asia, in turn, has no trade agreement. There need to be better rules for govern existing continentalism.
Another question from the internet asked Tollefson to speak more about establishing a judicial approach to implementing Chapter 11. He answered that he is still considering a suitable model, although there is a recommendation to create a court with members from all three NAFTA parties to resolve environmental as well as trade issues. The current model does not work well, he said, and many have no confidence in the tribunal structure.
A member of the audience asked who makes the rules regarding NAFTA and how are they made. NAFTA rules were made with total exclusion of civil society. He wondered if there is any reason to expect civil society to be included in a power-based system that writes the rules.
Khokhar disagreed on the lack of civil society engagement, saying there are several entry points to provide input. The processes themselves evolve, as can be seen in the negotiations of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. Power relationships are not necessarily linked to the size of a country or economy - Canada has made strong contribution to rules.
Julie Soloway responded by saying that there is some scope for a more developed institutional architecture. NAFTA trumps the right to misuse environmental rights in an abusive or protectionist way, rather than trump those environmental rights themselves.
Notes taken by Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
11:45 a.m. Break
12:00 p.m. Keynote address Honourable Bill Graham, Minister of Foreign Affairs
2:00 p.m. Session III: The Multilateral Trade and Finance System
Robert Johnstone, Chair
Michael Cloghesy, Conseil Patronat de l'environnement du Québec, Presenter
Scott Vaughan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Presenter
Michael Trebilcock, University of Toronto, Author
Sylvia Ostry, University of Toronto, Author (absent)
Louis Pauly, University of Toronto, Author
Michael Cloghesy gave a presentation titled "The Globalization of the Marketplace as a Positive Factor in Improving the Environmental Quality of Life in Developing Countries."
There is a correlation between environmental protection and standard of living, he said. As a country gains more wealth, the standard of living among its populace improves. As standard of living improves, the importance of protecting the environment increases. Globalization, in the context of open market transactions, creates wealth through investment and thereby raises the standard of living, thus enabling governments to ensure the necessary infrastructure for environmental protection. Countries that do not embrace free trade do not see their environmental quality of life improve.
Hence, with the objective of improving quality of life and thereby improving the environment, developing countries need good governance in order to attract foreign investment.
Because trade can create losers, it is the role of the government to ensure that those who lose from trade liberalization are looked after. The character and extent of such reforms depend on governments. A government should act in the interests of its people. For example, 15 years ago Mexico had poor legislation on environmental issues, but since NAFTA it has enacted a world-class set of environmental legislation and regulations.
To eliminate corruption at the government level in developing countries will be difficult, because many governments are not forthcoming. It is civil society's role to pressure governments to establish good governance measures and thereby foster the conditions for improved environmental quality.
Scott Vaughan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, responded to the papers by Michael Trebilcock, Louis Pauly and Sylvia Ostry. He said they demonstrate an active debate about strengths of the Washington consensus and the implications of this debate on the social agenda.
There are no universal ingredients for economic growth, said Vaughan. Performance indicators in developing countries are not encouraging. China is used as the poster child for the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. However, China has not followed Washington consensus in many ways. There is a new wave of criticism of the IMF and the World Bank pointing out the flaws in the essence of the Washington consensus model. This critique is also coming from inside these institutions.
Vaughan said that the correlation of economic growth and trade liberalization with environmental quality of life is unfounded. Trade liberalization often entails constraints in domestic spending, which includes reduced government spending and thus less money for environmental protection, as well as reduced spending on health and education. In Canada, more liberalization has resulted in decreased real spending on environmental protection. As a result, Canada has become a pollution haven, especially for the U.S.
Michael Trebilcock's paper shows the lively debate in World Trade Organization about the expansion of its core mandate and what that mandate is. Is the WTO stretching its authority too far with its trade and agenda?
Sylvia Ostry's paper discussed the balance between what is perceived to be the illegitimacy of the structure of the WTO and how civil society is working to open up this process. There is possible paralysis of the WTO's decision-making process if there is too much involvement of non-state actors. The WTO may become as slow at decision-making as the United Nations. But it is important to consider the WTO will constrain agendas to regulate or protect the environment.
On the subject of the trade of green goods and services, with the acceleration of international tariff reduction on environmental goods and services the problem of defining environmental goods and services arises. Definitions that focus on capital technologies are needed. In this the West considers developing countries as a potential export market for green goods and services, but fails to recognize that developing countries often have environmentally safe ways of production, such as agriculture without pesticides. The WTO will perhaps be caught on how to introduce the trade of these green goods and services.
In commenting on Cloghesy's presentation, a member of the audience pointed out that there is no middle class in many developing counties so the wealth developed there will benefit few people. Trade liberalization results in cash crops and slave labour because of multinational corporations. Changes must be made and the transparency of WTO improved. Cloghesy responded that in this imperfect world, countries and multinationals are in the business of making profit, and that market forces will deal with unethical practices.
Cloghesy also responded to Vaughan's comments, saying that issues of environmental goods and services are not core environmental issues. Issues regarding clean air, clean water, carbon dioxide, climate change will not see positive results from regulation in the short run.
An audience member observed that an increase in gross domestic product does not necessarily reflect an increase in real income. Cloghesy responded that Mexico, as an economy in transition, has a more even distribution of wealth than has been seen in previous years.
A member of the audience wondered if there are any examples of good domestic policies that demonstrate how trade liberalization has helped improve environmental protection, and pointed out that despite most of Canada's trade liberalization being bilateral, there is little bilateral institutional capacity for environmental protection. Should there be external to NAFTA institutions for transnational protection?
Three factors are relevant to this debate: the role of market forces, the role of civil society, and the role of regulatory framework of institutions and governments. Is there a way that these three things could come together in a solution for environmental protection?
Vaughan responded that there are often uneven trade effects, some of which will be environmentally bad. Countries with liberalized trade tend to specialize and specialization results in extensive and intensive agricultural activities. Such agricultural activities lead to ecological disasters.
He said governments respond to civil society's calls for environmental protection, so it is important for civil society to consistently call for high levels of environmental protection.
A member of the audience asked about the role of national governments in environmental protection. Vaughan answered with a question - what is the scope of external legal bodies influencing domestic policy? He used as an example the question of whether NAFTA will constrain the Canadian government's ability to ensure health care or environmental protection. The parameters of such influence remain fuzzy.
An audience member asked how trade-related decisions represent the interests of the masses when crucial decisions are being made by WTO officials and bureaucrats and not elected parliamentarians. Cloghesy said that each country should be able to set certain standards and should not be trumped by trade law. Certain countries sometimes abuse regulations to protect certain markets, as can be seen in Europe's ban on genetically modified organisms. It is up to governments to establish regulations and infrastructure where the market does not provide.
In his comments, Michael Trebilcock wondered about the appropriate mandate of the WTO in policing these boundaries. Good governance is not a clear concept, he said, nor is it any easier to achieve than what the Washington consensus set forth. Poor institutions perhaps lead to poverty, yet equally plausible is the idea that poverty causes poor institutions. When we assert that developing countries need create good institutions, we need to have a good handle on where these institutions are going to come from. Good institution as a precondition for environmental protection, and are not going to emerge overnight.
Trebilcock said that the WTO should define a modest presence for itself in these areas. Otherwise it should allow countries to do whatever they choose domestically.
Lou Pauly observed that two issues came up in the three background papers: the security agenda and economic growth. Economic growth is a challenge now that we face problems of environmental sustainability, but the idea that we could cease being on economic-growth bandwagon is unfeasible.
The IMF, the World Bank and those who want more capital flows from developed to developing countries want more structural conditionality. Reformers in developing countries also want it to promote good governance. These two institutions are sometimes mistaken, but they are not misguided by design. The debate represented by Jeffrey Sachs and Joseph Stiglitz shows how only the loud are heard. It is a good debate, nonetheless, but if pushed it too far there will be unintended consequences, such as the abolition of the IMF and the World Bank.
Notes taken by Amy Schwartz.
3:45 p.m. Session IV: The G8 and United Nations Systems
Steven Bernstein, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, Chair
Christine Lucyk, LEAD, Presenter
Désirée McGraw, McGill University, Presenter

Sheila Risbud, Senior Policy Advisor, Environment Canada (Presenter)
Laurence Blandford, Deputy Director (G8), International Economic Relations and Summits Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Presenter) Peter Hajnal, University of Toronto (Author)
John Kirton, University of Toronto (Author)
Christine Lucyk
  • How do we make G8 and international governance household words?
  • There's no single measure of democracy and yet we use it a reference point and touchstone
  • What is the value in celebrities like Bono in Genoa? Celebrity statues has certain cache, politicians like to be associated with them and they like to be related to political and social issues
  • Are we allowing civil society to mind environmental issues?
Desiree McGraw
  • Missing in the title of this conference is "national" - what about governance with government, Canadian gots role with these issues
  • Kyoto is a wonderful case study for all three of these issues (local, regional, international): example of what happens if there is not effective and timely engagement of civil society
  • What can we do in Canada to ensure that international institutions are more democratic and transparent?
  • Need to look at the role of our government: elected representatives
  • People who are not elected are being lobbied, instead of focus on elected officials; democratic deficit in parliamentary system; non-elected officials are the ones involved in trade/multilateral decisions
  • Johannesburg conference, overseen by civil servants not parliamentarians; engaged citizens for preparatory process
  • Guidelines needed for preparatory process, stronger role for parliamentarians
  • Involving parliamentarians will nullify anti-globalisation protestors
  • Protestors have legitimated these summits: the protests are legitimate and increase importance of summits
  • Media must also get involved by looking at the critique, part of which is trade liberalization
  • We need more globalisation but with global standards so that security trumps trade and trade trumps environment
  • In terms of G8 as the world's leading democracies: need to engage with citizens in more meaningful ways, especially if calling for good governance in African countries (better do it right at home)
Sheila Risbud
  • Presented case study on the G8 Environment Ministers meeting at Banff in April 2002; based on series of assessments with local authorities, and nongovernmental organizations, etc
  • Ministerial summits help to shape leaders' discussions: environment ministers, health ministers, etc.
  • Attempted to involve civil society to avert protest
  • Location at a retreat-like setting in a national park was controversial because of delicate environmental status of Banff
  • Townspeople worried about impact on environment and vandalism, reputation of tourist town
  • Needed outreach strategy for two audiences: local business and stakeholders, and protestors
  • Youth forum: sponsored by Environment Canada. Youth drafted declaration, gave youth-positive relationship with RCMP and government/G8
  • Involved local decision makers so they felt like hosts
  • Making the meeting green: Canada's environmental leadership
  • Important that outreach and stuff not be a tokenism by federal government
  • Further though on how host communities can take role in hosting, this integral component which Canada did well
Laurence Blandford
  • In preparation for G8 summit, DFAIT held meetings with a range of people from students, governments, NGOs and communities, private sector
  • As part of the political process DFAIT provided financial support for dialogue to occur
  • Were successful at raising the level of debate
  • In many ways protestors protest because G8 is not doing enough with the power it has but at the same time they question the of what the G8 does
  • The U.S. influence is strong but not disproportionate: Canada influenced the agenda a lot this year
  • Civil society not necessarily anti-globalization: although some are anti-capitalist, anti-corporatists, etc
  • Democracy means that there is political process
  • Perception of government: media focuses on negativity of protest and government, with little coverage that engages protest movement and civil society in meaningful ways
  • We can impose conditionality if it is morally right: i.e. liberalization is bad but environmental moralizing is good
  • Kirton's idea of permanent website good: role of parliamentarians, at same time, this may not dictate that interest are their own, it is not up to executive. Important for parliamentarians to engage citizens
Q: Are these examples of civil society acts of tokenism? People want to feel as though they have input in process.
Blandford: We met thousands of people across the country, but didn't try to aim at representativity as though they represented the will of all the people.
Having Africa at the top of the agenda reflects a response to civil society. G8 Africa Action Plan contains parts that come from civil society's pushing. The resolutions and solutions to those issues are tricky: issues are on the agenda because they being raised not just by civil society but by those in system too, such as the Drop the Debt campaign.
Risbud: This was the first time civil society was included in these preparations, etc.
McGraw: I don't agree with the Africa analogy, because its presence on the agenda was result of Fowler's agenda. As long as meetings are non-transparent, we need guidelines we can trust, no matter how progressive the G8 gets. Dialogue with civil society is important, token consultation is not enough. Rio was the innovation in global governance. One thing the UN does well is the preparatory process and engaging society, which G8 can learn from.
Q: There is a laboratory experiment in relations between civil society and government and advertising, which relates to corporate sector: the Kyoto process in Canada. In addition to government and environmental groups, now there is a advertising campaign. People with money have changed debate. Will this undermine a consensus?
Lucyk: The goal of the media has been influential: it is complex, and there is no middle ground on some of these things. There is not simple answer to Kyoto, but process is not by most of civil society in Canada. It has become a western versus less developed country issue. When do citizens come on board to something like Kyoto? At what point do we meaningfully engage citizens on international issues?
Q: Where is civil society in Canada on concrete issues such as a carbon tax and other incentives that could be put in place by our government?
Alan Rugman (in audience): The U.S. doesn't care about Kyoto, so why should we? The U.S. is concerned only with September 11, which has changed the way the U.S. thinks about the world. Canada's relevance internationally is its energy in Alberta; therefore, we need to listen to Alberta. Business is part of the issue, but politics is important too. Kyoto is too technical. To discuss any useful Canadian interactions, we should research into what is different in the U.S. because of September 11.
Q: In view of the fact that there is little public understanding of climate change and Kyoto, there is an effort to educate the public in short period. This is political minefield. Governments don't know how to allocate burden and what is fair equitable solution, which is why process failed.
Q: Does part of the problem with inclusiveness in G8 stem from a lack of understanding of the structure of G8, and the problem of allowing input of civil society?
Blandford: The prime minister communicated his priorities for the summit early. Civil society is influential at the end of line, in influencing the agenda-setting political process. Decisions are taken at political level.
John Kirton:
Summits are important agenda-setting mechanisms and attention-getting opportunities. Getting George Bush to pay attention to Africa was a precedent. Summits make decisions, which is why so many pay attention to them. Implementation, however, is a problem. A 12th point in my 11-point program is where we are in implementation, which is a nicer term than compliance.
At the foreign ministers' meeting in Whistler, there was an effort for civil society dialogue, but no body came. At Quebec City, it was the people on the outside of fence that mattered. On attention getting, civil society can make changes happen. The problem with ministerials is that they are not open to stakeholders; the historical progression of how the ministerials developed is the opposite of what would be generated by civil society.
Civil society is all self-selected: people who have actually been doing things up to that time. Since the Birmingham and Cologne summits, we know who civil society is in mainstream so inviting them is easy. By having them, you would get moderate mainstream, and those prone to violence would fall to one side.
Peter Hajnal:
We need politicians and civil society to accomplish policy objectives, and we need universal stakeholders to participate in policy making.
Civil society prefers to rally bureaucrats and not parliamentarians. On the civil society/intergovernmental organization nexus, it does not always have to be on the government's terms.
I'm uncomfortable saying that everything that happens in the street is protests. To what extent do protestors represent civil society? They represent one particular type of action on whole continuum of actors.
Some ministerial meetings for more hospitable to civil society than others. It is more difficult for civil society to make contact with G7 finance ministers than environment ministers.
Media coverage is always problematic: people want to sell newspapers and television. It is more interesting to film or write about groups breaking windows or fighting than to report on people compiling statistics. In Kananaskis, the media focused on G6B Summit and civil society events. Depending on the host and the location of the summit, media organizations have to use people on the spot, and some are less qualified than others.
Notes taken by Amy Schwartz
5:30 Adjournment

Complete Schedule  |   Registration Information   |   Conference Organizers
Links to Archives of Conference Webcast from 2001
RealPlayer software information for webcast viewing  |   Prospectus

EnviReform gratefully acknowledges the funding of SSHRC
(Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada)

This information System is provided by the University of Toronto Library
and the EnviReform Research/Web Group at the University of Toronto.

Please send comments to: g8@utoronto.ca
All contents copyright © 2002. University of Toronto unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved.

This page was last updated .

EnviReform gratefully acknowledges the funding of SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada)

This Information System is provided by the University of Toronto Library and the
EnviReform Research/Web Group at the University of Toronto.

Please send comments to: g8@utoronto.ca
All contents copyright © 2000-2001. University of Toronto unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved.

This page was updated