The Border Institute, a series of predictive and backcasting fora, enables senior level local, state, national, and international planners and decision-makers to meet; become informed of issues and options; and discuss best alternatives for the future of the U.S.-Mexican border region. The series is organized by the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP), the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the Border Trade Alliance. Border Institute I, held at Rio Rico in December 1998, focused on demographic, environmental, and economic characteristics of the region. The current population of border cities and counties and municipalities of 12.5 million will likely double by 2020, education levels, employment rates, wages, and tax revenue bases will remain low relative to the rest of the United States. The current direction of population and economic growth will produce a significant deterioration in the border environment by 2020 unless new strategies are implemented. Business as usual will bring a decline in quality of life for U.S. and Mexican border residents. In light of these conclusions, Border Institute I adopted the following vision for the border’s future:
| VISION FOR THE BORDER: A healthy sustainable natural environment with an involved binational community, ensuring proper resource management as a basis for a secure and adequate quality of life for all border inhabitants. A sustainable and responsible border economy that provides all its residents enhanced employment education and business opportunities. |
The Border Institute series explores how to bring about that vision.
Border Institute II (April 2000) reaffirmed this vision and then investigated the challenges of:
THE CURRENT BORDER ECONOMIC SITUATION. The economic situation of the border includes persistent asymmetries across the border, periodic peso devaluations and inflation, and increasing economic linkages and integration between Mexican and U.S. border communities. The regional economies along the border are significantly different, ranging from the highly developed metroplex of San Diego-Tijuana to rural communities and smaller cities of the lower Rio Grande Valley. The promise of NAFTA was to increase trade and investment in the border and to raise standards of living. While the Mexican parts of the border are economically better off than Mexico as a whole, the U.S. border communities continue to fall farther behind the U.S. average. NAFTA has not brought a significant increase in high value added jobs in U.S. border communities. The following table shows how the U.S. border communities have fared under NAFTA.
| Annual Change Population | Annual Change Income | Period Change Employment | Unemployment Rate | |||||
| Pre- NAFTA | Post- NAFTA | Pre- NAFTA | Post- NAFTA | Pre- NAFTA | Post- NAFTA | Pre- NAFTA | Post- NAFTA | |
| U.S. Side of Border | 2.33 % | 1.87 % | 2.99 % | 2.74 % | 0.99 % | 1.86 % | 10.2 % | 7.6 % |
| United States Averages | 1.11 % | 0.96 % | 2.69 % | 3.66 % | 0.41 % | 1.67 % | 6.9 % | 4.5 % |
RECOMMENDATION. Economic and environmental indicators and monitoring systems are needed to inform and motivate new investments and improvements.
REINVENTING THE ECONOMY AND NATURAL CAPITALISM. The border economies need to be reinvented to increase prosperity, improve competitiveness, and to support environmentally sustainable development. Border Institute II discussed current practices in border economies where ecosystem services and natural resources are utilized but are not valued or protected. These include cooling from trees; flood control by wetlands; erosion control by root systems; purification of air and water by living resources; storage and recycling of nutrients by biomass; sequestration and detoxification of human-generated wastes by wetlands and groundwater filtration; pest and disease control by natural organisms; production of fish, food, fuel, fiber, and fertilizers; formation of topsoil; and maintenance of soil fertility. Natural capitalism offers ways to reinvent local economies and develop competitive businesses and economic activities while protecting natural resources for future generations.
RECOMMENDATION. Economic development in the future is urged to address long-ignored needs such as raising real incomes of all sectors and to value ecological services, the community, and individual health which lie at the base of any economic potential. Depletion of resources and pollution have costs that have not been integrated into the overall economic engine. In addition, Institute participants recommended that a sourcebook of successful examples of natural capitalism actions that can be used by the private sector and public officials in border communities.
|
Ojinaga as an Example of Natural Capitalism Ojinaga, a small Mexican community in the Big Bend region of the Rio Grande, is losing jobs and people because the land was so heavily irrigated that it is now lost to agriculture due to salinated soils. Partially treated wastewater is redirected away from its traditional sink, the Rio Grande, to recover the soils, raise trees, and recharge the groundwater. The pulp from the tree farm is harvested by the local community for a local paper mill replacing biomass from natural forests. New habitat is created both for native animals and tourism and greenhouse gases are captured. The community, economy, and environment all win. |
INADEQUATE BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE. Sustainable economic development is seriously limited by a deficit in environmental infrastructure (water supply, treatment, and distribution; wastewater collection, treatment and disposal; solid and hazardous waste handling, storage, and safe elimination; and air quality monitoring equipment and emissions reduction programs). NAFTA-enabled transborder trade, transportation, industrial development, and energy demand have exacerbated the trends. Border communities, particularly smaller U.S. communities and Mexican municipalities are overwhelmed with the challenges of providing environmental infrastructure. The current border environmental infrastructure deficit is between $5.8 billion and $10.8 billion as the table below indicates. It is likely that the cost of meeting the current deficit and addressing needs generated by growth to 2020 will be $20 billion.
|
Past Border Environmental Infrastructure Needs Assessments Number of Studies - 9 Range - $5.804 to $10.404 billion Mean - $8.498 billion |
These estimates reflect current use of traditional technologies requiring expensive capital construction. However, alternative approaches, technologies and reorganizations of existing functions can both save money in the mid-term and serve various environmental, community, and economic needs. Partial on-site treatment, for example, makes water available for flushing toilets, landscaping, and agriculture. Industrial pre-treatment prevents introduction of new toxins and contaminants to treatment systems unready for such components. One alternative concept is to combine multiple tasks into a single design. For example, sewage can be mined (and treated, if necessary in satellite mini-plants or natural ponds and lagoons) as it flows past locations where it is needed.
RECOMMENDATION. Alternative and sustainable technologies provide cost effective options for many border communities and have significantly lower capital costs and operating costs, including energy efficiencies.
INADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY. Many border communities have inadequate potable water supplies, water quality, or wastewater treatment and face significant deficits in the future. Some communities have inefficient distribution systems, losing up to half of the supply through leaks in the system from the water source to the consumer. Repair and proper maintenance of existing systems is thus a first priority. Implementation of user fees with higher rates for higher volume use will encourage conservation. User fees will also provide incentives for large volume users in industry and agriculture to use water more efficiently. Water reuse also offers great potential for border communities, with conversion of wastewater to different grades for various residential, agricultural, and industrial uses. Increasing supply within and from outside is recommended only after these internal accommodations are made.
RECOMMENDATION. Demand side management, conservation, and reuse are priorities.
MUNICIPAL WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM REORGANIZATION. In many border communities functions relating to the following are often managed totally independently:
Close coordination in the management of these services can produce synergies, improve efficiencies, and reduce the need for some expensive infrastructure costs. For example, coordination of water and wastewater services through decentralized treatment and reclamation facilities can significantly reduce energy costs and can provide reclaimed water where needed for green areas and natural areas. Both large and small communities need to better coordinate provision of services.
RECOMMENDATION. BECC and NADBank are the appropriate institutions to encourage reorganization of environmental management administrative structures in border communities.
EFFORTS OF THE BORDER ENVIRONMENT COOPERATION COMMISSION (BECC) AND THE NORTH AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK(NADBANK). The BECC and NADBank are critical to helping border communities address environmental infrastructure problems. Technical assistance, community involvement, developing workable loan packages, a growing emphasis on sustainable and alternative technologies, and assistance on professionalization of utility operations are examples of the growing role of these binational agencies.
RECOMMENDATIONS.
ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING MECHANISM. It was clear to Border Institute II participants that planned and anticipated transfers from the two federal governments will not be adequate to meet the environmental infrastructure needs for the region. While NADBank will play an important role in financing, new sources and mechanisms must be developed for U.S. and Mexican border communities for the necessary environmental infrastructure. Most important is the need to restructure local border economies to improve real incomes and to enhance to ability to finance needed infrastructure. Implementation of user fees is also important, both as an aid to more rational use of resources and as a revenue stream to retire infrastructure loans. For example, if two million households in the border region each paid $10 per month for water infrastructure, that would generate $240 million per year or $4.8 billion over twenty years. Wider use of user fees would be a powerful financial tool for meeting the border’s infrastructure needs.
Mexican border cities face special challenges of a structural nature. Their ability to capture taxes from real estate and industry, including the maquiladoras, is limited. Tax resources need to remain with local jurisdictions to address local problems. Mexican local governments also lack the legal authority to issue bonds for financing of infrastructure.
Finally, options such as contracts to private companies for construction and operation of environmental infrastructure need to be evaluated.
RECOMMENDATIONS.
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING. Environmental accounting, which considers both the positive and negative contribution of economic activities to environmental health and ecological services, can be used by jurisdictions to help evaluate the long-term environmental costs of new industry and other economic activities. Environmental accounting can justify environmental defense expenditures for intrinsic and returned value. They can be used to investigate "what if" scenarios and defuse binational tensions by focusing on hard facts. For example, in United States, most environmental investment goes to defensive water and green issues while in Mexico it goes to more basic treatment of human environmental health problems. While the methods and use of environmental accounting is new to the border, this approach offers the possibility of quantifying the costs and benefits of specific development projects as well as government policy decisions. Environmental accounting will be a useful tool for local and state governments, the BECC and NADBank, and other stakeholders in the border region.
RECOMMENDATION. Border Institute II participants urged extensive efforts to develop environmental accounting applications for border communities and other stakeholder.
MISCELLANEOUS THEMES AND ISSUES. In addition to the topics summarized above, participants addressed other subjects and made several recommendations that are listed below.
MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS.
For more information on Border Institute II, please contact Rick Van Schoik, Managing Director of SCERP:
Tel: (619) 594-0568
E-mail: scerp@mail.sdsu.edu
Border Institute II Participants
Jorge Aguirre, Fundación
México-Estados Unidos para la Ciencia
Carlos Angulo Parra, Border Trade Alliance
Oscar Arizpe C., Universiada Autónoma de Baja California Sur
Graciela Barajas, Tohono O'odham
Martha Benze, Kemet de México
Barbara Bradley, CH2M HILL Tibaldo Cáñez, Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality Nicole Carter, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, U.C. San Diego
Ricardo Castañón, Border Environment Cooperation Commission
Octavio Chávez, InfoMexus
Gedi Cibas, New Mexico Environment Dept.
Norris Clement, San Diego State University
Kim Collins, California Center for Border and Regional Economic Studies
Bob Currey, Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy
Lynda Y. de la Viña, U.S. Treasury Department
Sandra Dibble, Border Affairs Tijuana Bureau, San Diego Union-Tribune
Placido Dos Santos, Arizona Deptartment of Environmental Quality
David W. Eaton, Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey
Chris Erickson, New Mexico State University
Jóse Escamilla, Starr Camargo Bridge Company
David C. Fege, San Diego Border Liaison Office, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Guillermo Fernández de la Garza, Fundación México-Estados Unidos para
la Ciencia
Craig Forster, University of Utah
Paul Ganster, Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias, San Diego State
University
Louis Guassac, Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians
Rafael J. Guerrero, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Alan Hecht, Office of International Activities, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Bertha Hernández, Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias, San Diego
State University
Eric Hutson, Border Environment Cooperation Commission
Michael Jerrett, McMaster University
Noelle Jue, Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy
Michael Kinsley, Rocky Mountain Institute
Jerry Kurtzweg, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wendy Laird-Benner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
Jim Lamb, Green Valley News Jack Lehman, North American Development Bank
Elena Lelea, Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias, San Diego State
University
Francisco Bernal, Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas
Cheryl Mason, Employment Development Department, State of California
William Mc.Leese, Office of Mexican Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Suzanne Michel, San Diego State University
Víctor Miramontes, North American Development Bank
Patricia Muñoz, Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo
Integral Regional
Abraham Nehmad, SEMARNAP
Sergio Nuñez, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Estella O'Hanlon, Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University
Charlotte Ochiqui, Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias, San Diego
State University
Cecilio Ortiz, University of Texas, El Paso
David Pijawka, Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University
Gordon Plishker, Texas Research Institute for Environmental Studies, Sam Houston
State University
Paul Rasmussen, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Serge Rey, San Diego State University
Mike Richmond, Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein
Carlos Rincón, Environmental Defense Fund
Raúl Rodríguez, North American Development Bank
Erin Ross, Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy
Daniel Rubio Díaz de la Vega, Instituto Municipal de Planeación, Tijuana
Dean Saito, California Air Resources Board
Lori Saldaña, Border Environmental Cooperation Commission
Adel Sarofim, University of Utah
Elsa R. Saxod, Katz & Associates, Inc.
Luis Felipe Siqueiros, Planning Institute for Ciudad Juárez
Hector Solis, Starr County Industrial Foundation
Mark Spalding, University of California, San Diego
Darrin Swartz-Larson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6
Alan Sweedler, Center for Energy Studies, San Diego State University
Antonio P. Tirado, County of Imperial
Ann Torrence, University of Utah
Víctor Urquidi, El Colegio de México
Nan Valerio, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
Rick Van Schoik, Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy
Gina Weber, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Patrick Whelan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Misty Wickizer, Border Trade Alliance
Mike Wilken, Native Institutes of Baja California (CUNA)
Edward J. Williams, University of Arizona
Albert Zapanta, United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce
Return to SCERP's home page • Contact the SCERP webmaster • Site map
Last updated 8/09/00