Entire Book - Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research ...
Entire Book - Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research ...
Entire Book - Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Environmental</strong> Regulation and the Border<br />
NADBank is not currently making loans to finance air quality<br />
projects, but may decide to become active in the future. One possible<br />
role <strong>for</strong> NADBank would be to finance projects that result in<br />
emission reductions, and then sell these emission reductions credits<br />
to defray lending costs, thus allowing NADBank to lend at more<br />
favorable terms. Such a program would be particularly attractive in<br />
dealing with small and medium businesses. NADBank would be able<br />
to package several small emission reductions into larger, more marketable<br />
securities.<br />
BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS<br />
The history of cooperation between the United States and Mexico<br />
on border environmental issues is mixed. The La Paz Agreement, 4<br />
signed in 1983, serves as the legal basis <strong>for</strong> cooperation. It gives<br />
responsibility <strong>for</strong> coordinating border environmental policy to the<br />
Mexican and U.S. environment agencies, SEMARNAT and EPA.<br />
Each country is required to designate a specific official as the contact<br />
person <strong>for</strong> border issues—currently those are the administrator<br />
of EPA <strong>for</strong> the United States and the secretary of SEMARNAT <strong>for</strong><br />
Mexico. The La Paz Agreement allows SEMARNAT and EPA to<br />
negotiate directly on border issues, develop comprehensive plans,<br />
and <strong>for</strong>m working groups.<br />
A number of official programs have been adopted under the<br />
authority of the La Paz Agreement, with mixed results. The<br />
Integrated Border <strong>Environmental</strong> Plan (IBEP, also commonly<br />
referred to as the Border Plan) was the first of these. IBEP established<br />
six workgroups, each dedicated to an aspect of the border<br />
environment, including those <strong>for</strong> water and air. The working groups<br />
sought to develop border-wide responses, but many criticized this<br />
approach, pointing out that the border is a diverse area that requires<br />
local responses to local problems. The lack of local focus was not the<br />
only criticism of IBEP—it was also criticized <strong>for</strong> lack of public<br />
involvement because it was initiated with few public hearings and<br />
had limited mechanisms <strong>for</strong> public input. Many observers cite the<br />
lack of public involvement as the most important limitation of IBEP<br />
(CDC 2000).<br />
61