This article examines and compares decentralization initiatives for environmental protection along Mexico's northern and southern borders. It suggests that in the north, environmental protection policy concerns tend to be human centered and urban oriented whereas in the south, the government's environmental protection effort is directed at managing natural resources and biodiversity. Furthermore, in the north, the international border functions as a catalyst, creating an external push for binational cooperation with environmental protection. In the south, the international borders are associated with social conflicts that complicate binational efforts to advance cooperation for environmental protection. These stark differences point to the need for Mexico to tailor environmental decentralization policies to the realities of particular regions and reduce urban bias.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Banamex. (2001a). The indigenous law. Review of the Economic Situation of Mexico: Economic and Social Research, 77, 209-212.
2.
Banamex. (2001b). Socio-political indicators: Census 2000. Review of the Economic Situation of Mexico: Economic and Social Research, 77, 258-262.
3.
Banamex. (2002). Plan Puebla-Panama: A regional economic concentration approach. Review of the Economic Situation of Mexico: Economic and Social Research, 78, 25-30.
4.
Beletsky, L. (2000). Environmental threats and conservation in southern Mexico. Tropical Mexico: The ecotravellers' wildlife guide. Retrieved November 5, 2001, from www.planeta.com/planeta/00/0004mexicotropics.html
5.
Bookchin, M. (1988). Social ecology versus deep ecology. Socialist Review, 88(3), 129-129.
6.
Bookchin, M. (1990). Remaking society: Pathways to a green future. Boston: South End.
7.
Border Assembly. (2002). Industry tips. Retrieved March 20, 2002, from www.borderassembly.com
8.
Border Environment Cooperation Commission. (1996, November 9). Project certification criteria. Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico: Author.
9.
Bramwell, A. (1994). The fading of the greens: The decline of environmental politics in the west. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
Cabrera-Mendoza, E. (2000). Mexico's local governments in transition. American Review of Public Administration, 30, 374-388.
11.
Carter, N. T. (1999). Performance of drinking water and wastewater assistance programs for the U.S.-Mexico border region. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the Committee of Graduate Studies, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
12.
Center for Studies in the Private Sector for Sustainable Development. (2001). Indice de sustentabilidad ambiental: Sustentabilidad ambiental comparada en las entidades Federativas de Mexico [Index of environmental sustainability: Environmental sustainability compared among the states of Mexico]. Mexico, D.F.: Centro de Estudios del Sector Privado para el Desarrollo Sustentible.
13.
Cohen, J. M. & Peterson, S. B. (1999). Administrative Decentralization: Strategies for Developing Countries. West Hartford: Kumarian Press, published for the United Nations.
14.
Dahl-Bredine, P. (2001, July/August). Plan Puebla-Panama. Global Concerns, 1-1.
15.
Daly, H. E., & Cobb, J. B. (1994). For the common good: Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Boston: Beacon.
16.
Dobson, A. (1995). Greening political thought (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
17.
Environmental Law Institute. (1996). Decentralization of environmental protection in Mexico (Research Report No. 931500). Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.
18.
Haenn, N. (2000). Biodiversity is diversity in use: Community-based conservation in the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve (Working Paper No. 7). Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, Latin America and Caribbean Region, International Conservation Program.
19.
Hardin, G. (1968, December 13). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.
20.
Hardin, G. (1978). Political requirements for preserving our common heritage. In H. P. Bokaw (Ed.), Wildlife and America (pp. 310-317). Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.
21.
Harvey, N. (1998). The Chiapas rebellion. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
22.
Howard, P., & Homer-Dixon, T. (1998). The case of Chiapas, Mexico. In T. Homer-Dixon & J. Blitt (Eds.), Ecoviolence (pp. 19-66). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
23.
Instituto Nacional de Ecologia. (2001). Tratados y convenios internacionales en materia ambiental signados por Mexico [International environmental treaties and agreements signed by Mexico]. Mexico, DF: Author.
24.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geographía, y Informática. (2000). Sistema de cuentas nacionales de México. Producto interno bruto por entidad federativa, 1993-1999 [National accounting system of Mexico. Gross national product by state, 1993-1999]. Mexico, DF: Author.
25.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geographía, y Informática. (2001). Tabulados basicos: Estados Unidos Mexicanos. XII censo general de población y vivienda, 2000 [Basic tables. United States of Mexico. XII general census of population and housing, 2000]. Mexico, DF: Author.
26.
Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente. (1997). Mexico, DF: Editorial Porrua, Decimoquarto Edicion.
27.
Liverman, D. M., Varady, R. G., Chavez, O., & Sanchez, R. (1999). Environmental issues along the United States-Mexico border: Drivers of change and responses of citizens and institutions. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 24, 607-643.
28.
Lybecker, D. (2001). Administrative decentralization of environmental policy in Mexico's northern border states of Baja California and Sonora: Capacity building through legal frameworks.La Jolla, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. Retrieved from www.usmex.ucsd.edu/
29.
McLaughlin, A. (1993). Regarding nature: Industrialism and deep ecology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
30.
Meisenhelder, S. (2001, July/August). Plan Puebla-Panama: NAFTA-like promises for southern Mexico. Frontera Norte-Sur. Retrieved November 2, 2001, from www.nmsu.edu/%7Efrontera/feat2.html
31.
Mumme, S. P. (1992). Managing resources across borders: The case of the United States-Mexico and Mexico-Guatemala boundaries. In L. Herzog (Ed.), Changing boundaries in the Americas (pp. 133-150). La Jolla, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
32.
Mumme, S. P. (1995, November/December). The new regime for managing U.S.-Mexican water resources. Environmental Management, 19, 827-838.
33.
Mumme, S. P. (2000). Sustainable development and environmental decentralization on the border: Some insights from Sonora. In L. Herzog (Ed.), Shared space: Rethinking the U.S.-Mexico border environment (pp. 101-128). La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
34.
Murphy, D. (2001, August). Mexico tightens own southern border. Christian Science Monitor, 24, 1-1.
35.
Nacional Financiera. (2001). Plan Puebla-Panama. Mexico, DF: NAFINSA Securities. Retrieved November 2, 2001, from www.nafinsa.com/planpueblapanama.htm
36.
O'Brien, K. L. (1998). Sacrificing the forest: Environmental and social struggles in Chiapas. Boulder, CO: Westview.
37.
Ophuls, W., & Boyan, A. S., Jr. (1992). Ecology and the politics of scarcity revisited: The unraveling of the American Dream. New York: Freeman.
38.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1998). Environmental performance review: Mexico. Paris: Author.
39.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Ostrom, E. (1995). Constituting social capital and collective action. In R. Keohane & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Local commons and global interdependence: Heterogeneity and cooperation in two domains (pp. 125-160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Pacific Council on International Policy. (2001). A country divided [Study Group on Mexico]. Retrieved November 2, 2001, from www.pacificcouncil.org/
42.
Paehlke, R. C. (1989). Environmentalism and the future of progressive politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ponce de Leon, A., & Rodriguez, H. M. del C. (1997, spring). Elementos para la integración de programas estatales para el fortalecimiento de la gestión ambiental municipal [Elements for the integration of state programs for strengthening municipal environmental management]. Gaceta Ecologica, p. 42-42.
45.
Press, D. (1994). Democratic dilemmas in the age of ecology: Trees and toxics in the American West. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
46.
Red Mexicana de Acción Frente al Libre Comercio. (2001). Plan Puebla-Panama. Retrieved November 7, 2001, from www.rmalc.org.mx
47.
Rodriguez, V. E. (1997). Decentralization in Mexico. Boulder, CO: Westview.
48.
Rodriguez, V. E., & Ward, P. (1994). Political change in Baja California: Democracy in the making? [Monograph Series 40.] La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
49.
Romero-Lankau, P. (2000, December). Sustainability and public management reform: Two challenges for Mexican environmental policy. American Review of Public Administration, 30, 389-399.
50.
Rondinelli, D. A., Nellis, J. R., & Shabbir Cheema, G. (1984). Decentralization in developing countries: A review of recent experience. Washington, DC: World Bank.
51.
Ruffo Appel, E. (2001, August 15). El desarrollo integral de la frontera Norte: La cronica de Baja California [Development of the northern border]. Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. Retrieved October 30, 2001, from http://la-cronica.com.mx
52.
Secretariat for Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries. (2000a). Estadisticas del medio ambiente. Mexico 1999, Tomo I [Environmental statistics, Mexico 1999, Vol. 1]. Mexico, DF: SEMARNAP and INEGI.
53.
Secretariat for Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries. (2000b). Programa de trabajo, 2000 [Work program, 2000]. Mexico, DF. Retrieved November 5, 2001, from www.semarnap.gob.mx/programa2000/documento/capitulo3B.htm
54.
Smith, J. F. (2001, September 2). Mexico curbs neighbors' migrant flow. Los Angeles Times, p. 1-1.
55.
Szekely, F. (2001). SEMARNAT en Chiapas [SEMARNAT in Chiapas]. Retrieved October 30, 2001, from www.semarnat.gob.mx/estados/
56.
Umlas, E. (1998). Environmental networking in Mexico: The Comité Nacional para la Defensa de los Chimalapas. Latin American Research Review, 33, 161-190.
57.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Man and the Biosphere. (2001). Retrieved November 19, 2001, from www2.unesco.org/mab/br/brdir/directory/contact.asp?code=mex
58.
U.S. Department of State. (2001, June 15). UN announces agreement reached on implementing Puebla-Panama Plan. Retrieved October 29, 2001, from Usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/usandum/01062004.htm
59.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996, October). U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program framework document (160-R-96-003). Washington, DC: Author.
60.
U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission. (2000). Strategic plan, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, United States Section. El Paso, TX: Author.
61.
Verduzco Chavez, B. (2001). Ambientalismo y sociedad civil en la frontera Mexico-Estados Unidos [Environmentalism and civil society on the Mexico-United States border]. Region y Sociedad, 13(22), 3-48.
62.
Warren, M. (1992). Democracy and self-transformation. American Political Science Review, 86, 8-23.
63.
World Bank. (2001). Mexico data profile. Retrieved October 20, 2001, from devdata.worldbank.org/external/dgprofile.asp?rmdk=82525&w=o&l=e
64.
Zabin, C. (1997). Nongovernmental organizations in Mexico's northern border zone. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 12, 41-72.
65.
Zuniga, D. (2001, July 23). Plan Puebla-Panama at risk because of ecological inviability, warns CESPEDES. La Jornada. Retrieved November 27, 2001, from www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/mexico/news/jornada072301.html
