We have statistics from the last few years that show roughly half of the new actives we've reviewed have been done jointly with the United States. That is better than the experience from ten years before. So joint reviews are improving access at the same time to both Canada and the United States. Indeed, there's a consensus that the number of joint reviews will increase.
In doing that, we're clear that we have the authority to make our decisions and the Americans have the authority to make their decisions. We are doing the scientific review work in partnership, so some of my staff in PMRA will do certain parts of the evaluation, the U.S. staff will do certain parts of the evaluation, and then notes will be compared. The experience has been that when we do that we make the same decision at the same time.
We also know that in the United States, the IR-4 program is responsible for the majority of submissions for minor uses in the United States compared to Canada. Agriculture Canada is working with IR-4 now, but we're working to try to bring as many of those submissions for minor uses to Canada that are appropriate to Canada.
On the nature of our scientific reviews, the easiest area to explain the difference is the environment. Our act says we have to consider other Canadian laws and policies. So we have to consider the impact of the Species At Risk Act, whereas our colleagues in the U.S. EPA need to consider the Endangered Species Act.
Quite clearly, there are situations in regions where you're going to have different elements of the ecosystem at risk in Canada versus the United States, and it may lead to differences in decisions. But it will likely be at a specific level rather than at a broad, enabling level.