As announced after the public meeting of the BECC Board of Directors on April 30, 1996, in Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua, the BECC has gathered comments from the members of the public who were not given an opportunity to present during the meeting. The following comments have been provided to the BECC Board of Directors and Advisory Council, published on the BECCNET, and included in the official record of the meeting. To ensure that general public comments will not be excluded from future public meetings, the BECC has added a General Comments section to its public meeting agenda.

As with other international treaties, The O'Odham in Mexico were not a part of the negotiations process that led to NAFTA. The establishment of an international border in the middle of traditional O'Odham land, as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 and the Gadsen Purchase of 1853, has caused major economic, social, and religious depravations for the O'Odham people as a whole. Once nomadic with summer and winter villages within the greater northern Sonoran desert, subsequent to the enforcement of the international boundary, each generation lives with families divided between two countries without their rights to land and free passage over the border restored.

The establishment of the border diminished many traditional activities of the O'Odham, these activities are rooted in a land based culture. Only by passports or special immigration passes can O'Odham visit two major sacred sites known to be primary locations for religious observances. O'Odham who live in Mexico do not have access to a site within O'Odham lands on the northern side of the international border, and O'Odham lands in the U.S. do not have free passage to a site on the southern side of the border. Religious expression that is controlled by immigration officials is a loss of religious freedom.

The Mexican Government is apparently so eager to usher in some kind of economic activity in northern Sonora that they are willing to give multinationals' mining concessions without requiring them to fully adhere to the permitting process. While the Federal Mexican Government is not enforcing the requirement for legal permits, an indigenous O'Odham community is effectively loosing its "surface rights." This is of benefit to one of the goals of NAFTA - increasing trade. "The Mexican government wants us to mine. They have been there to help instead of looking for ways to stop you. It is a productive bureaucracy." (said by Hecla spokesman, Bill Booth, Ted Bardacke, "The Mexican Goldrush." El Financiero Internacional, 9/27-10/3, 1993.

This process has not been productive for the O'Odham in Mexico. Traditional O'Odham life is threatened in Mexico due to these and other actions which involve lacked and non-enforcement of Mexican environmental law.

Therefore it is with interest that the EPA Office of Federal Activities now invites tribes to participate in the Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TEIA) process of making recommendations to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) for the drafting of the content of Article 10.7 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.

There are people on both sides of this border who would have us turn the boundary into a wall, people with the kind of mentality that thrives on fear, distrust and race hatred, people who for purposes of self-promotion or political gain spend their time fomenting discontent, advocating narrow political factionalism, and excluding those who disagree.

The NAFTA created an opportunity to prevent the kind of negative capability inherent in walls and the BECC offers an opportunity to bypass the negativity raised by those who would make the border a wall. The BECC offers us an opportunity to integrate, not to segregate; an opportunity to cooperate, not to separate. In the BECC we now have an opportunity to work together on problems of mutual concern and to focus on what we have in common.

Working together around and within the BECC occurs on a number of levels. One is the Board of Directors, potentially a truly innovative binational decisionmaking body. The Board cannot afford to sacrifice to nationalistic political and economic agendas its mission of serving the needs of the border communities.

In my opinion, two things are extremely important about the way NGOs work with the BECC. First, while continuing to address specific projects in our own backyards, we also need to get more involved in BECC policy issues, because those are going to affect everybody on the border. Second, NGOs need to maintain their integrity in regard to the BECC; we will lose our leverage, if the line between who is BECC and who is NGO becomes blurred.

Congratulations for Naco--as others mentioned, model of how BECC process can work to improve projects in terms of cost, effectiveness, and natural resource conservation. I hope this project makes clear to all that public participation and technical assistance should not be viewed as buzzwords but as valuable tools in project design and implementation. Congratulations also for renewing your commitment to international leadership in making sustainability an operational reality. Director Taylor's announcement that you will contract with experts to help you incorporate principles of sustainability in your criteria this summer is most welcome. As she noted, I believe you'll find few, if any, examples to follow; such is the fate of leaders.

I would like to note one significant problem with today's meeting. In January you certified the FINSA and Nogales projects with conditions. In trying to ascertain whether those conditions had been met, I was told by BECC staff that I had to wait until the next public meeting. Now I find that you are not even going to inform the public on the status of these projects at your public meeting. NADBank Deputy Manager Victor Miramontes only cursorily touched FINSA, and he completely ignored Nogales. But that's NADBank's problem; you bear responsibility for your failure to report on the satisfaction of your own conditions, and for the consequent undermining of what little credibility your conditions carried in the first place.

The prepared portion of my comments relates to the policy you are developing for certification of private-sector projects. I strongly support the sentiments expressed earlier by Al Jacquez of Representative Esteban Torres's office, which allow me to abbreviate my remarks. No one involved in this process is talking about excluding private-sector capital from playing an important role in building border environmental infrastructure. Encouraging and harnessing entrepreneurial energy and capital to contribute to solving environmental and public health problems should be a goal of the BECC/NADBank. Indeed, the NADBank--which will primarily serve to channel private financing to deserving projects--is predicated on the belief that the private sector can and should contribute to the public good.

On the other hand, the environmental legacy of largely unregulated, private-led development on the border has taught us that we cannot rely strictly on market actors: planning, coordination, and effective regulation are also needed. That is why BECC was created and why it was given the lead role over the NADBank. Given its mandate and the border's history, BECC should not shy from paying special attention to privately sponsored projects.

A second reason to develop a private-projects policy so is encapsulated in the "polluter pays" principle of sustainable development. For a market-based economy to begin to respond to societal goals, the costs of private activities must reflect the costs of those activities to society. In the case of environmental protection, the costs of pollution prevention should be fully incorporated into investment plans and reflected in product pricing. Any public subsidization of private pollution prevention shifts investment decisions away from less-polluting alternatives. If private companies are willing to go through the BECC application process, it is because NADBank funds represent a lower-cost option than the market. That is one definition of a subsidy. We should be sure, then, that such subsidies are used to deal with problems of a public nature, and to the extent possible leave the costs of abating privately-caused pollution to their private sources.

And there is a practical reason to develop a private-projects policy: BECC has a huge job to do with very limited staff time. Hundreds of plant- or industrial park-level project applications would swamp your staff. But the policy that is developed need not be discriminatory. Well-designed private projects could easily be more deserving than poorly planned municipal ones. I encourage you to incorporate the policy into your certification criteria, where it could apply to all applications.

The key element in the policy must be a focus on the public good. Municipal water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste facilities, if well designed, are clearly in the public interest, respond to collective problems, and their project sponsors are either publicly accountable or contracted by publicly accountable agencies. It should make no difference to BECC whether such a project is sponsored by a private firm or a public agency or both.

Other projects, for example, a small-scale facility to recycle locally generated solid waste or one that would convert sewage into fertilizer, could also be deserving of BECC's technical assistance and NADBank's financial support, again whether their sponsors are private firms or not. In these cases, the profit motive can be harnessed for public and private benefit.

A few things have become clear to me in the process of working with NGOs interested in the BECC, and the following are those which concern the Board specifically:

Regarding the most recent meeting, I sent invitations to several nations in Arizona. Two Tohono O'Odham, Ken Williams and Julian Rivas, and an environmental officer from the Quechan (Fort Yuma), Earl Hawes, were able to make it to the meeting. I would like to see the BECC expand participation to include Native American representatives from Tamaulipas/ Texas to Baja California Norte/ California. As a starting point, I have compiled a list of Native American contacts in Arizona who have expressed an interest in the BECC, which I will pass on to the BECC.

However, opinions on the application of that definition vary widely, and we need to discuss binationally how the BECC can maximize sustainable development through its review process. We are looking forward to reviewing the sustainable development draft which the BECC is working on.

The influence that the BECC has on projects is during the pre-certification period. That is when the project design should be modified and improved, to include community benefits, so that it will qualify as a category #1 or #2 project (see above categories). The BECC will have difficulty if it attempts to impose requirements after certification, such as financial compensation to certain community representatives. The NADBank is mandated to develop financing packages for all projects that the BECC certifies but what obligation does NADBank have to enforce payments to community groups? The BECC could be setting itself up for failure, or conflict with the NADBank, by requiring such side-payments from project sponsors. The better alternative would be to incorporate health or environmental benefits for the community into the project before certification.

For several years, with Ford Foundation support, the University has worked to bring regional experts together to find solutions to water related problems in the El Paso/Cd. Juarez/Las Cruces region. One of the most critical areas that needs considerable further attention is groundwater. The binational communities share groundwater resources in two bolsons, the Hueco and Mesilla/Conejos Medanos, which are heavily used to support both municipal and industrial interests. The ability of the region to continue to sustain itself is intricately tied into the health of these bolsons, and to their interaction with the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo.

Although numerous projects have been or are being carried out, there is still much that is not known about this resource. In order to effectively plan for the future, decision makers must have access to appropriate information regarding the bolsons. Accordingly, the Center for Environmental Resource Management (CERM) is hosting a binational forum to present available technical information on the bolsons. The forum will allow policy makers, planners, and researchers the opportunity to assess data/information needs and provide recommendations as to the future focus of binational data gathering efforts.

In order to make this forum successful we are asking for your participation. The forum will be held May 7, 1996, on the University of Texas at El Paso Campus, Tomas Rivera Conference Center. To cover the cost of lunch and breaks we are charging a $30 registration fee. Should you wish to attend, or need more information, please contact Nancy Lowery at (915) 747-5145.

With respect to the organization of the April 30th meeting, particularly when the Naco, Sonora project was presented, I would have liked to have heard the opinion from someone from the Naco community, because although the technical presentation was very important, as well as the presentation of the person from the municipality, I would have liked to have heard the thoughts of a person directly affected by the problem and its desired solution.

I am sorry about the situation that happened at the end of the meeting, because I also was among the people who asked to comment, but I understand that it was an involuntary error.

In my opinion, the 8th Public Meeting for certification of BECC projects, on April 30, 1996, in Cd. Juarez, was positive.

One of my principle concerns as I expressed publicly, during the public meeting in Nogales, Sonora, was that the project certification process was losing the general public's credibility and confidence as well as that of the NGO's on both sides of the border. This was due to the quick pace in which projects were being certified, and also in large part because the majority of which did not comply with all of the BECC criteria, and to be considered for financing from the North American Development Bank (NADBank).

Another great concern was the fact that the certified projects presented by the private sector did not propose a direct benefit to the community in the affected area. The beneficiaries of these projects are generally the project sponsors themselves and the ones directly affected by the project is the rest of the community.

And, finally, the fact that none of the projects have adequately addressed the issue of sustainability. Generally the concepts handled in this subject matter have very little or nothing to do with the true meaning of sustainability, and within ten years we will be looking for solutions to the problems that are created by these projects.

I feel that all of these issues were more than adequately addressed.

With regard to Mr. Victor Miramontes' comments, Asst. Managing Director of NADBank, he stated that they were in no hurry to finance projects that had been hastily developed and that did not comply with all the criteria. Furthermore, that they were not interested in financing projects that would result in increased rates and thus affect the already harmed economic conditions of the community. And finally he reported that they would seek to finance true community project in each of the border states.

The meeting, like others, did have its difficult times, which I basically feel were the following:

First, when they gave a presentation on the Rules of Procedure and the changes made to it, specifically regarding an article. This presentation was only done in English. This was totally inadequate, specially since the public meeting was being held in México, where the official language is Spanish. If the presentation could not have been made in that language, someone should have been there to translate it as was done in Nogales, Sonora, even if there was simultaneous interpretation available. This is a very sensitive issue and there was no opportunity to make any comments regarding this issue.

The other issue related to the fact that the public was not provided a time frame to provide public comments or address general matters. Dr. Bustamante closed the meeting abruptly, arguing that he was not aware of any list of persons who had requested to make comments. Though all of us know that in these types of meetings, the point on the agenda to address general matters is where there is the most public participation in general. And I fail to see why on this occasion there had to be an exception to the rule.

From experiences in past public meetings, we know that it is at this point in time when most of the recommendations, suggestions, and differences between NGO's and BECC are presented. This process has proven to have productive results in the certification process.

The fact that there were almost 10 of us registered to present our comments or make a recommendation and then, without any prior notice, Dr. Bustamante closed the meeting, resulted in us not being given the opportunity to present our comment or recommendation.

The majority of the persons present felt offended and did not accept the excuse that it had been a technical mistake.

I would personally recommend being much more careful in this regard, since a comment made earlier during the meeting reflected the exemplary nature of the meeting. These kinds of actions might affect the best intentions but cast doubt on the process' reliability and transparency.

After the September 28th meeting in Brownsville, Texas and with regard to the FINSA Wastewater Treatment Project and its $1 million dollar loan request for a project to benefit the park and the maquiladora industries located at the park, I would like to offer the following comments:

We were not pleased at the September 28th meeting, the November meeting in El Paso, and the January 18th meeting in Nogales, with your refusal to certify the FINSA project; though it has been certified since then.

We continued our discussion (re: project) in Reynosa on March 7, 1996, at the meeting held with NADBank as well as at the meeting in Juarez on April 30. At these meetings the colonia leaders once again called upon the BECC and NADBank Directors to comply with the agreements reached in Nogales, (January 18).

Our request to provide public comments at the last meeting held in Cd. Juarez, was to present the following questions in a public forum:

2. As of October 1995, the colonia leaders have strived to hold weekly meetings as well as entrusted the environmental project applicants to provide them with benefits in order to improve the quality of life and health conditions of the colonia residents. They are motivated to continue working on obtaining these benefits since they feel slighted by FINSA which has promised environmental projects on 3 occasions and has failed to keep its promise.

The colonia residents would like to know if you can support them with their sustainable development projects and applications in order address problems related to solid waste, sewage, and flood control, which occurs in the colonias every time it rains.

The minimum salaries (earned by the residents) are not going to help us implement the necessary projects since they barely suffice to purchase the basic staples and the maquiladoras are going to benefit even more with this project.

We feel the BECC fundamental criteria are to promote sustainable projects and not just private only projects, such as the FINSA project.

The 13 colonias have established the "Committee for Environmental Grass Roots and Community Participation" under the Environmental Community of Matamoros, A.C.

The local government has limited resources and if you should support us by including us in your Seed Resources Program for Project Planning and Project Implementation as well as your technical assistance program, together we will be able address sewage and solid waste problems. With recycling efforts we can obtain a cleaner environment, improved health conditions as well as generate jobs.

We would like to once again extend our invitation to have the Directors come and visit our community in order to discuss any of our questions concerns regarding the project. We look forward to setting up a date for your visit.

My name is Tootsie Herndon. I am representing the City of Spofford, Texas. To our understanding, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission was founded to protect the Border Region, NOT to destroy it.

Adobe Eco-Systems, Inc, has applied for a $16 million dollar loan from the NADBank to construct a maquila landfill half mile from the City of Spofford.

I would like to go on record that if this 16 million dollar loan is certified by the BECC for Adobe, the door will open for many and all other dump companies to dump their wastes on the Border Region and everywhere else.

This will destroy the Rio Grande communities on both sides of the border.

This is in complete violation of the La Paz Agreement between Mexico and the USA. It would be a slap on the face for the citizens of the Border Region.

We cannot tolerate this abuse. Even though this is a very poor and forgotten part of the state, we intend to fight this injustice with all our strength.

We have a right to be safe and secure in our homes and work places. We have the right to bring up our children and live free from harm imposed by toxic substances that have been brought into our communities, neighborhoods, work places, schools, and land by others without our knowledge and without our consent.

We have the right to clean air, clean water, uncontaminated food, and a safe place to live, work, and play.

We have the right to require our government to be accountable, and industry to be responsible. We have the right for action and to public policy, which will restore to us that which has been take away and to stop the needless and unjustifiable attack on our present and our future.

4. I oppose the certification of private projects that are for-profit enterprises. I do feel it is appropriate for the BECC to consider projects of non-profit organizations.

The organizations here representing La Red del Suroeste para la Justicia Ambiental y Económica emphatically declare that the process created by the North American Free Trade Agreement to try to remedy the negative environmental impacts on the U.S.-Mexico border is totally incapable of achieving its mission.

Taking into consideration the impacts as a consequence of NAFTA on the environment and the economy, this sad gesture that you make here with this meeting of the BECC is no more than an intention to cover reality.

The reality is that the principal goal of the Commission is to enrich private companies, known as developers. The initial mission was to clean our water and build infrastructure for the entire length of the border, which has been left by the wayside. We know this because of the number of times you have ignored citizen participation and in the bad manner in which you have dealt with public opinion.