The discussion throughout this piece provides what we believe to be a prudent prescription for addressing the region’s sustainability challenges. Below we briefly review some of the most important ones.
1. It is imperative that both nations come to grips with the importance of the region’s sustainability as part of their quest to promote our joint competitiveness and security. While the three are considered to be indi- visible, the policies set forth by the federal governments do not reflect an equal standing for the three objectives. Moreover, environmental protec- tion continues to be conceived of as a gracious concession or a goodwill action, instead of approaching environmental enhancement as an integral part of promoting regional security and prosperity.
2. In that regard, programs and policies aimed at improving sustainability, particularly those of the state and local governments, need to become more visionary and holistic and less reactive. True to its vision, or that expressed by decision makers while compiling the Strategic Guide- lines document in 2009, water conservation must be applied as part of an overall strategy to reduce dependency and energy intensity due to imported water and to provide for environmental flows for ecosystem en- hancement. States and municipalities must also strengthen their ability to monitor and enforce environmental compliance.
4. State and federal environmental agencies cannot afford to remain silent about the foreseeable impacts the border wall will have on sensitive eco- systems and endangered species. Security measures currently in place will become very costly unless counterweighed by proactive policies to mitigate environmental impacts.
5. Bilateral water agreements between the U.S. and Mexico are turning a corner. At the closing of this publication, both countries had signed Minute 319, the most recent amendment to the 1944 International Water Treaty which incorporates common water markets, mechanisms for water exchanges and the creation of environmental flows for the Colo- rado River. The agreement comes as evidence continues to accumulate regarding the future of water supply in North America in the face of increasing global warming and climate variability.
6. The stakeholders within the U.S.-Mexico transborder area have so far failed to act on the region’s enormous potential for generating renewable energy. The level of science, economic development and complementary features that the juxtaposition of these two nations provide, together with the wealth of solar incidence in deserts and desert-based cities can make it a world leader in solar and other renewable energy development. The region can ill-afford to pass up this “natural mandate” if it is to seri- ously seek world class competitiveness and sustainability.
Endnotes
1 Border Governors Conference, Stratetgic Guidelines for the Competitive and Sustainable Development of the U.S.-Mexico Transborder Region (El Colegio de la Frontera Norte and the Woodrow Wilson Center Center for Scholars, Mexico Institute: Washington, 2009). 2 The formal name is the Agreement Between the United States of America and the Unit-
ed Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environ- mental in the Border Area (La Paz, BCS, Mexico. August 14, 1983).
3 Border Environment Cooperation Commission, 2008.
4 The Integrated Border Environment Plan (1988), Border xxI (1994), Border 2012 (2003), and Border 2020 (2012)
5 Ana Cordova and Carlos A. de la Parra, “Transboundary Conservation between the United States and Mexico: New Institutions or a New Collaboration?” Conservation of Shared Environment: Learning from the United States and Mexico ( Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2009).
6 Survey done for the document “Strategic Guidelines for the Competitive and Sustainable Development of the US-Mexico Transborder Region”.
7 Ley General del Equilibrio Ecologico y Proteccion al Ambiente de 1988. Diario Oficial de la Federación (2012).
8 Ana Cordova and Carlos A. de la Parra, “Transboundary Conservation between the United States and Mexico: New Institutions or a New Collaboration?” Conservation of Shared Environment: Learning from the United States and Mexico.
9 Stephen Mumme, Appropriating Groundwater Beneath the U.S. Mexico Border: Ob-
stacles and Alternatives (La Jolla, CA: UCSD Center for US Mexican Studies, UC Press,
1988).
10 Roberto Sanchez, “Manejo tranfronterizo de residuos toxicos y peligrosos: Una amaneza para países del tercer mundo,” Frontera Norte 2(1990); 91-113.
11 The Border Field Coordinating Committee (FCC) included the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Mines, Bureau of Reclamation, Minerals Man- agement Service, US Geological Survey and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. For more information on the FCC, see http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/fcc/docs/goals.pdf.
12 D. Rick Van Schoik, “A Verification and Meta-Analysis of Past Border Environmental Infra- structure Needs Assessments, The U.S.-Mexican Border Environment:Now and in 2020,” SCERP Monograph 3 (2002).
13 R.E.H. Sims et. al, Energy supply. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007).
14 Duncan Wood, et. al., Wind Energy Potential in Mexico’s Northern Border States (Wash- ington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2012).
15 Hugo Riemann, “Ecological Risks Involved in the Construction of the Border Fence,” A Barrier to our Shared Environment: The Border Fence between the United States and Mexico (Mexico: Colegio de la Frontera Norte, 2007).
16 Roberto Sanchez, “Binational Cooperation and the Environment at the U.S.-Mexico Border,” A Mexican Perspective, in Trans- boundary Environmental Management Issues
Facing Mexico and the United States (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002).
17 The four cities that have independent State Water Utilities Commission are Ensenada, Mexicali, Tecate and Tijuana.
18 Margarito Quintero- Nuñez et, al., “Issues Related to Air Quality and Health in the Cali- fornia-Baja California Region,” U.S. Mexican Border Environment: Binational Air Quality Management (2006).
19 Gabriela Muñoz-Melendez, Margarito Quintero- Nuñez, and Ross Pumfrey, “Air Quality at the U.S.-Mexico Border Current State and Future Considerations towards Sustainability”
SCERP Monographic Series no. 16, The U.S. Mexico Border Environment: Progress and Challenges for Sustainability (2012).
20 Roberto Sanchez, “Manejo tranfornterizo de residuos toxicos y peligrosos: Una amenaza para los paises del tercer mundo,”1-2.
21 Elizabeth Rozenthal, “Report Faults U.S. of Mexican Battery Recycles,” The New York Times, February 9, 2013.
22 Final Report. Project Title: Flows and Regional Risk Assessment of Transporting Hazard- ous Waste in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region. SCERP Project Number: HW95-1. Principal Investigators: Suleiman A. Ashur, Ph.D, P.E.
23 USEPA-SEMARNAT, State of the Border Region. Border 2012: U.S.-Mexico Environmen-
tal Program Indicators Report 2005 (2006).
24 USEPA-SEMARNAT, Border 2012: U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program: State of the Border Region. Indicators Report 2010/Situación de la Región Fronteriza ( Secretaría de