Increased interdependence in North America, and its transformation into a more integrated economic unit, suggests the movement away from national to a regional level of political activity. NAFTA's goal of a single North American market based on the liberalization of trade and investment implies a breaking down of borders in so far as they serve as impediments to the free flow of commerce. This scenario suggests that economic transactions, and therefore accompanying environmental and social problems, can no longer be bound by political jurisdictions. (1) As trade and business activity increasingly occurs within the context of a regional trade agreement, it follows that environmental problems must be viewed and managed as shared concerns between the three countries. From this perspective, environmental issues, especially those closely linked to increased cross-border transactions, cannot be viewed as solely Mexican, U. S. or Canadian problems. Such problems are unusually severe in border lands because these areas are zones of greatest contact and interaction in an increasingly interdependent North America.
The potential for NAFTA to play a significant role in improving environmental problems in North America and elsewhere is strong. According to former EPA administrator, William K. Reilly, NAFTA is considered to be the greenest free trade agreement ever negotiated. By encouraging cooperation and setting common standards this agreement presents opportunities in all three countries to reduce environmental degradation. This paper argues that although some strides have been made toward this effort, the full range of opportunities have not been taken advantage of, as seen in the maquiladora borderland region of Mexico. Trade liberalization has fostered rapid growth of the maquiladoras, thus environmental problems must be seen as a North American, not a Mexican problem. Air and water pollution, toxic dumping, and chemical contamination are just a few of the problems that North Americans, as a whole, must face as equal contributors and stake holders in the future. Although the focus is the Mexico-U.S. borderland, environmental problems are the result of integration driven transactions and these cannot be limited to a spatially defined border region. (2)
The borderlands are a 60 mile range, that include six border states; Chihuahua, Baha California Norte, Sonora, Coahulla, Norte Leon, and Tamaulipas running north-south, along the United States and Mexico border stretching approximately 2,000 miles from east to west. (3) In 1965, a formal agreement was reached which officially introduced the maquiladora program along the borderlands. (4) The region was designed to reduce tariffs and encourage trade. The further reduction of trade barriers between the US and Mexico, in turn increased the growth of the maquiladora industry by 50 percent in the first three years of NAFTA's inception. (5)
There is a direct relationship between the increase in industry and negative environmental impacts that have heightened health risks in the region. Those who support NAFTA argue the maquiladora region existed and caused similar problems long before 1994. But, the promise of NAFTA to improve the environment has not been fulfilled. A study conducted in 1995, by the consumer group, Public Citizen, reported that environmental conditions have gotten worse [in the borderland region]. (6) Although NAFTA does have the institutional capacity to help improve the environment, many obstacles still exist. One obstacle is the increasingly dominant economic model proposed by neo liberal economists which maintains that over-restrictive laws hinder productivity. For example, in the U.S., business groups claim firms are constrained by strong environmental laws from competing in international markets. However, other studies provide evidence that this is not the case. These studies based on economic models, on net exports, overall trade flows have produced estimates that are small, statistically insignificant (7) and demonstrated that environmental laws have little impact on productivity. Although economists and environmentalists often stand on opposite sides; strengthening NAFTA's side accords is a sentiment expressed by government agencies, non-government organizations, and moreover coalitions that are gaining political importance with an increased ability to sway public opinion and policy. In short, environmental laws, as part of trade accords, are not going away and in fact, may be improving to represent many interests and satisfy many needs. Still, efforts and energy should not only be spent on future improvements, but on improving the present situation.
Lax enforcement of environmental regulations in Mexico is a serious problem. Weak environmental enforcement acts as a subsidy for manufacturers, allowing them to externalize polluting costs. Nevertheless, environmentalists who criticize enforcement need to consider the small economic and human resource base available in Mexico to adequately promote environmental standards. At one point, the country's environmental agency had seven inspectors assigned to 15,000 industries in Mexico City. (8) Many Mexican citizens and influential groups have asked for more accountability by government and industry to monitor harmful environmental practices. This is problematic, not because there is a real effort being made on the part of concerned citizens, but because many people still see these problems as singularly national. There is evidence that NAFTA has served to bring together multi-national groups bound by common trade issues, and thereby extending their examination to globally important environmental issues. Institutions such as BECC and the NAD Bank were created as cooperative North American efforts to provide much needed infrastructure and financing assistance in border cleanup activity. There exist the ability to impact and improve the borderlands and ultimately the rest of North America, but little has been done thus far. In fact, according to the Green peace Quarterly, no cleanups have been funded. (9)
It is because many citizens still do not view issues globally; which cross their own political and geographical borders, but instead look to their own nation for blame and solutions, that transboundary environmental issues must be linked with free trade agreements such as NAFTA. Not only is it true that as almost every factor of production-money, technology, factories, and equipment-moves effortlessly across borders, the very idea of an American economy is becoming meaningless, it is true a Mexican environment is also meaningless (or an American or a Canadian). (10) Moreover, transboundary environmental problems existed long before free trade agreements. For example, the disaster at Chernobyl in 1986, sent millions of radioactive particles into the environment. Traces of the particles were found to have traveled as far as Canada within five days of the accident. (11) Industrial activities resulting in acid rain, pollutant traces in the Arctic, and chlorofluorocarbons depleting the ozone layer are all environmental dangers which are not constrained to their immediate surroundings. Similarly, citizens share the same water, the same air, the same pollution, and the same diseases,---none of which have any respect for that line drawn on the map that does little to separate our population. (12) The borderland area, because of its increased industrialization since the implementation of NAFTA, is worth examining since environmental impacts are especially severe and transboundary in nature.
At the inception of the maquiladora program in 1965 there were approximately 3,000 workers employed by trans-national companies in the borderlands. By 1970 it jumped to 20,300. By 1980, it rose to 119,600 in 620 factories. (13) The direct relationship between employment and the maquiladora program is significant. However, since the implementation of NAFTA employment in the borderlands has increased more rapidly. There were 546,588 Mexican workers in the maquiladoras right before NAFTA and by October of 1995 it had jumped to 689,420 employees in approximately 2136 factories. (14) Between 1994 and 1996 the growth increased 20%. This increase in employment is the result of Mexican citizens in search of higher wages and a better quality of life. There are also strong incentives for American companies to transport their industry south to take advantage of weak environmental regulation enforcement already mentioned. The weak enforcement acts as a subsidy and this is economically distorting and unfair as any financial subsidy, thereby creating a comparative advantage. Significant segments of California's furniture industry moved to the Mexican Borderlands. The U.S.-owned furniture plants fled newly enacted restrictions on the use of solvent-based paints and requirements to install spray chambers to contain fumes. (15) This setting exacerbates the trend of environmental degradation already underway and produces environmental externalities which are not assumed by the polluting firms.
The main goal of NAFTA was to increase the trade activities occurring between member nations and thereby increasing the overall North American standard of living. Proponents argued the standard of living, specifically in Mexico in the long run, would be raised enough to allow for Mexican citizens to insist on better environmental conditions. Proponents of free trade argue that it will benefit the environment by generating the resources necessary for environmental protection and enhancement. (16) The fact is that the per capita income of Mexicans is much lower than that of U.S. citizens. Citizens of Mexico, therefore choose to consume a lesser amount of all goods, environmental quality being one. This is not to say that third-world nations and lower-income citizens value a clean environment less than highly industrialized nations and high-income individuals, but that lower-income individuals must address other issues of greater concern. Workers in Mexico are earning less than they did in 1980 by 37%. In 1995, approximately 19% of Mexicans worked for less than minimum wage. (17) U.S. business continues to be attracted by these incentives to employ cheap labor, while Mexicans are attracted to the opportunity to work no matter how bad conditions may be. The large influx of Hispanic people has strained the already weak sewage and water systems for the area. (18) Also, [it was] found that the birth weights of infants of female maquiladora workers are significantly below internationally accepted standards. The findings were attributed to harsh working conditions, including exposure to toxins, long working days, and physically demanding work. (19) New born babies born to women working in the Tijuana garment industry averaged 653 grams less and women working in the electronics industry averaged 337 grams less than those who worked in the service-industry. This is significant because there are over 35,000 women working in the maquiladora industry in childbearing age. (20) Moreover, in spite of poor working conditions and increased health risk, families are encouraging their children to work, which is a violation of child labor laws. (21) American executives say they adopt Mexican practices to be competitive. (22) These Mexican practices are perceived as advantageous to competition, however there is a trade off.
The world consists of many interdependent ecosystems; even small disruptions have lasting and long-range impacts. For instance, every time a car is driven, no matter how efficient its exhaust system, it is adding to the air pollution problem, especially in population centers like Los Angeles and New York. Trade-related environmental impacts transcend North American borders. Big Bend National Park in Texas, one of the most remote areas in the U.S., is experiencing some of the smoggiest air of any park in the West. (23) Studies done by the U.S. government blame a coal-fired electric plant located in Mexico, 125 miles away, for the smog. Transboundary pollution homogenizes the worldís responsibility. Free trade agreements, even with weak environmental regulation enforcement capacity still provide necessary links for cooperative management among member countries.
Because liberalized trade has led to an increase in industry which has severely heightened the health risk to American and Mexicans alike, cooperative management must be more productive and capable of addressing issues in a pro-active manner. An EPA official, Joe Schultes, stated that surveys from U.S. water wells at the border indicated a 30% increase in hazardous waste traveling across the border for Mexico in 1995. (24) Also, sulfate concentrations were nearly two times higher than the legal limit for drinking water in border communities. (25) Rivers, such as the Rio Grande, which supply water to American and Mexican citizens, have been deemed unsafe for contact with skin. Tested contamination levels from illegal dumping of hazardous wastes by the maquiladoras, has, in some places, been 100 times the legal safety limit. Forty-six million liters of raw sewage are dumped in the Tijuana River each day. (26) Companies, excited by the ability to externalize polluting costs, inaccurately estimate the cost such polluting will have on the local communities.
The statistics linking these industries with such negligible, illegal environmental practices is alarming. Studies have indicated that seven million tons of toxic waste are illegally dumped down drains and out to sea each year. (27) Numerous reports document the [maquiladora] industry's unsafe and illegal disposal practices. They include a case where children were exposed to toxic waste at a dump in Ciudad Juarez by sniffing green rocks covered with a solvent containing toluene, a hazardous chemical. (28) In 1996 it was discovered only 70 out of 352 industries were utilizing proper disposal of their toxic waste in Ciudad Juarez. At the same time, there is little inspection or corrective measures taken in the borderlands to change the situation. But citizens must be more informed and work to be connected with various levels of society to create publicity, share information, and generate public support to create more meaningful participation. Regional planning by community based organizations strengthens important dialogue among groups of people most closely impacted by these issues. And this in turn, not only deepens personal investment in the condition of the local environment, but it strengthens community-based coalitions who could influence and pressure legislative leaders. It seems much time is spent on collecting and releasing data. For example, studies have indicated that soil along the borderlands is also in danger from toxic dumping. In Tijuana on the Otay Mesa, near the production site of several maquiladoras run by U.S. businesses, soil samples reveal that heavy metal concentrations are 40,000 times the safe level. (29) More alarming, is that at least 25 percent of all toxic waste is not accounted for. But information is limited in scope, and does not always translate into appropriate action. Thus, more holistic approaches must be determined by governments to create more sound models for improving the environment, especially where there is strong evidence that infers a relationship between environmental problems and health risks. Information must be disseminated and channeled to serve citizens more greatly impacted by illegal dumping in their immediate geographic area. For example, Anencephalic births were discovered in the Brownsville-Matamoros region, where an open and unlined chemical dump site was recently tested and found to contain the toxic zylene at 50,000 times the level deemed to be safe in drinking water. (30) There are other places along the border which also have documented cases. (31) These diseases, along with spina bifida and other birth deformities have never been directly associated with the toxic chemicals, but the high incident rate along the industrialized border region gives strong persuasion that it is associated. (32) This information needs to be distributed to citizens and government so informed and immediate decisions can be made.
The health conditions of the residents reveal the impact accelerated manufacturing and industrial activity have on health. Hepatitis A, AIDS, tuberculosis, shigellosis, measles, cholera, typhoid, and other amoebic and diarrheal diseases are spreading quickly over the border region as a result of a weak infrastructure. (33) Hepatitis and tuberculosis are the most documented of communicable diseases in the region. In research done by the El Paso, Texas and Juarez, Mexico health departments, the spread of tuberculosis is significant. The largest number of cases in Juarez have been in the 25-44 year old age group. The second largest, was children five years of age and younger. Moreover, state Representative, Ron Coleman (D-TX), concluded fifteen percent of families in the borderland have at least one family member with diarrhea every week. (34) A commission established to review environmental projects for NAFTA, stated that approximately 40% of the population in the borderlands lacks adequate sewers, portable water, or both. (35) The infrastructure in the borderlands must be improved to slow down the spread of infectious diseases. Coordinated efforts between the participating countries are necessary to provide a dialogue and strategy to answer transboundary environmental issues.
The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and subsequently the Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC) were the product of separate agreements over the environment during the negotiations of the NAFTA. Concerns raised by various groups, especially non-governmental organizations (NGOs), forced the placement of environment on the agenda of debate. Then House Majority leader, Richard Gephardt, stated in a letter to President Bush, neither Mexico nor Canada nor America is benefited by a system that benignly looks upon massive air pollution, poisonous pesticides and child labor as comparative advantages. (36) As a result, NAFTA is vested with powers to ensure environmental protection. The NAAEC and the CEC were created in order to provide an atmosphere of a shared perception of common interest and reciprocity (37) between the participating nations. Since all countries have equal interests in environmental concerns, a sense of shared accountability and vulnerability was thought to motivate a coordinated effort to not only pro actively, but also reactively, insure environmental protection.
The main goal of the institutions was to open communication between the three nations and provide a forum to discuss environmental problems and how to deal with them. This was a novelty since previous trade agreements almost completely ignored the environmental implications which may emerge from them. Another hope of those who promoted the side accords was to encourage public awareness and participation into the decision making process of NAFTA since public participation is an important component of sustainable development. (38) These institutions are also present to act as an outside party to arbitrate disputes and frame a uniform process of dispute resolution. In a sense, a level playing field was set in this environmental context so that no one nation was given preferential treatment. Lastly, the CEC, though granted no real enforcement powers, is in place to regulate the proper application of national environmental laws in order to ensure that countries do not gain unfair trade advantage by compromising environmental protection. (39)
Much criticism has been aimed at the environmental side accords and particularly the CEC. Environmentalists claim that the assurances of environmental protection are too strong in some areas and too weak in others. For instance, there is heavy influence to lower environmental regulations in order to entice investment to locate within a country. Mexico's attempt to eliminate environmental impact assessment requirements for investments in sectors including petrochemicals, refining, fertilizers, and steel is an example of this weakening trend. (40) The CEC has no enforcement authority to properly ensure the integrity of standards and this is also seen as a weakness. Mexico seems to be the main focus of blame concerning lax enforcement, but there have been instances where the U.S. and Canada have come under fire as well. Most recently, the investigation of the EPA showed their inadequate regulation of a U.S. General Motors plant dumping in the St. Lawrence River which borders Canada and the U.S. The CEC has been accused of inefficiency and that little has come from its brief existence. This can be blamed in part, on vague instructions as to its role and it is reported that the executive director of the CEC complained that the organization was not given a clear direction or sense of priority. (41) Few complaints brought before the CEC have resulted in investigations, which can be attributed to the lack of resources and incentives. Despite all of the criticism, important strides in environmental protection have occurred due to the presence of NAFTA and its environmental institutions.
The CEC was instrumental in reducing the use of the harmful chemical DDT in Mexico, when it created the North American Regional Action Plan on DDT in 1997. This chemical was banned in the U.S. in 1972 because of environmental and health concerns, but its use was wide spread prior to this time. The ban on DDT in the U.S. was accompanied by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 (FEPCA) which regulates the use of pesticides. One concern surrounding DDT was that researchers found it to be one of the most potent pesticides; eradicating almost all insects in treated areas. Since most pesticides do not eliminate specific pests, other organisms, which are sometimes beneficial are killed. Insects and animals are not constrained by borders and pollinators may be eliminated on one side of the border which may be essential on the other side of the border. Pollinators, like bees are not excluded from the effects of pesticides. Since one third of all food plants are pollinated by insects or animals, pesticides are severely weakening this relationship. They also linked the chemical to an increased health risk to human safety. DDT is considered moderately toxic and a probable human carcinogen . (42) A high level of leukemia is found among farm workers in daily contact with pesticides. Moreover, DDT has a very long half-life and remains in the environment for a long period of time. In Mexico, the use of DDT at one point reached 1500 tons on an annual basis. (43) Even though Northern Mexico discontinued the use of DDT on agriculture to conform to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as the EPA standards, Mexico continues to use 100 tons per year of DDT to control malaria outbreaks. However, the CEC has proposed alternative techniques based on research to control malaria and the North American Regional Action Plan states that the use of DDT will be reduced by 80% in the next five years and completely abandoned in ten years. Also, the illegal use of DDT in agriculture will be eliminated. (44) Although the complete ban of DDT will not happen immediately, continued pressures from the U.S. and Canada forced Mexico to curb its use in the last ten years. This was an example of shared strategies that serve environmental interests working toward a common objective. Of course, addressing complex transboundary issues takes time and there are still many problems that need to be corrected.
Has NAFTA helped to ensure appropriate protection of the environment in the overall region and prompted a concerted effort between the partner nations? In some areas, NAFTA has served a useful role in illuminating environmental issues and drawing officials together to make improvements. As to whether NAFTA has made a great deal of difference, some, such as President Clinton, are saying that it is too early to judge. There is much room for debate as to whether conditions have improved or worsened in the border region between the U.S. and Mexico and more specifically, the maquiladora corridor. Those claiming that conditions have gotten better point out that the number of federal inspections within the maquiladora region have increased dramatically and some new infrastructure projects have been built. Mexico in 1997 saw the completion of a waste water treatment facility in the Tijuana River Valley. These are steps in the right direction but did NAFTA help in the development of these projects? The water treatment plan was primarily funded by the U.S. EPA, not the NAD Bank which is supposed to finance such projects. Of the 98 public projects proposed by NAFTA, only 16 have been granted financing and some experts believe that those budgets are woefully insufficient. (45) However, those maintaining that NAFTA has little impact on the environment also claim that Americans and Canadians cannot impose their standards on environmental policies and protection on Mexican citizens. Standards that are common in the U.S. and Canada are made possible because they are industrialized, developed countries. Unlike Mexico, the U.S. and Canada are not exposed to vector-borne diseases like malaria and do not have to rely on chemicals such as DDT to control them. In instances of controlling diseases like malaria, the use of these harmful chemicals may be warranted, but in order for them to be used safely and effectively, they need to be properly regulated. Because Mexico is a developing nation, chemicals are recklessly used in part because they are necessary, but also because of the lack of education and resources. In 1992, the US passed legislation requiring agricultural employers to take measures to ensure the safety of workers who are exposed to harsh pesticides. According to the EPA, it would cost up to $60 million for companies to comply with these new laws. (46) Even without adjusting for inflation and considering the peso devaluation, that is a substantial amount of money to be asking from an economy already struggling for resources.
Secure funding for necessary resources to ensure environmental and human protection is needed. Either the NAD Bank needs to be solidified or the developed countries need to contribute more resources directly. Not only does enforcement in developing countries need to be enhanced, but education and alternative measures for unsustainable practices is also required. Because the clean up of the environment and improvements in the infrastructure are vital to development, finances must be made available to the city governments. Improvements to the water and sewage systems will counter the many diseases affecting the borderland residents. Many of these illnesses would be incredibly reduced if the hygiene of the home and working environment and workers themselves were improved. Currently, the maquiladoras do not pay taxes that could be directly spent on environmental improvements that would decrease the health risks to people residing near the factories. Companies doing business in the borderland regions should have to pay taxes to support infrastructure instead of city governments because this puts a large drain to provide for the people while utilizing a scarce amount of money. (47) Internal taxation is not a trade barrier, but a basic function of any government. Financial assistance is also necessary to care for the poorest residents of the borderlands. Approximately 4 percent of the Mexican population of 90 million is able to purchase private health care. At the same time, private health care firms, doctors, and other health providers have gone into Mexico searching out this elusive minority of the population. (48) But public healthcare improvements seem impeded by the difficulty in establishing new and certified doctors and hospitals to the poorest parts of the nation. (49) Also, available vaccines are limited. In April 1991, Juntos: A demonstration Project on Tuberculosis Control Along the U.S. - Mexico Border -- A Binational Strategy was introduced. This project has worked to vaccinate and treat affected residents of the El Paso, Texas and Chihuahua, Mexico area through a collaborative effort. A three phase program was set up to reach out to the community. Phase one included the improvement of the Juarez Public Health Center. Phase two included staff training and the upgrading of equipment. Phase three implemented aggressive door-to-door visits and treatment. Through binational cooperation and aggressive treatment strategies only 12.5% of cases have been lost. The average in Mexico is 25%. (50) Healthcare is essential for the residents. Until the basic needs of the people are met, other issues such as clean water and sewage will not be addressed. Shared responsibility is crucial to address the issues of interdependency so governments can better manage and address transboundary issues. NAFTA and its side accords have the potential to provide the initial dialogue and subsequent funding for this effort.
With its current environmental side agreements and institutions, NAFTA has done a much better job including the environment in the agenda compared with other trade agreements. Some argue that it is the greenest trade agreement ever but further improvement is necessary in order to carry out its objectives to harmonize environmental standards in an upward fashion. Certain issues like DDT have actually seen upward harmonization, while other are experiencing no improvement and possibly downward harmonization. NAFTA should contain either in its text or in the text of the side agreements explicit and enforceable minimum environmental standards. Instead of theoretically striving for harmonization, it should set specific guidelines through outright banning of certain practices, or their gradual phaseout. The continued phaseouts of toxic pollutants like DDT is a must whether or not it is outlined in NAFTA. A critical policy change in the NAFTA is strengthening the CEC. Proper authority and legitimacy in enforcing environmental regulations is needed to ensure that environmental laws do not face the trend of downward harmonization.
Problem definition and forums of debate need to be addressed also. For example, in the Big Bend National Park situation, the problem is apparent to the U.S., but Mexico is denying responsibility. Since both nations do not agree that there is a problem, the U.S. has no legal recourse as far as NAFTA is concerned. An investigation by a NAFTA panel is not even warranted unless both parties consider a problem is occurring and guidelines to correct these kinds of circumstances are needed.
NAFTA may be following the pattern which other free trade agreements have set in affecting the environment and laws governing it unfavorably. Most recently, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that the U.S. Clean Air Act discriminated against foreign oil refiners and was therefore acting as a barrier to trade. (51) The WTO, formerly known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), also ruled in an earlier case concerning Mexican fishing practices and trade sanctions imposed by the U.S. In this case, the U.S. opposed the use of purse-seine nets by the Mexican fishing industry which killed thousands of dolphins accidentally while catching tuna. GATT ruled in favor of Mexico, which deemed the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act an extraterritorial application of U.S. environmental standards, and that nations may not differentiate between goods on the basis of how they are processed or manufactured. (52) The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA) bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada was reached prior to NAFTA, presided over instances of national regulations seen as trade barriers also. The ban of asbestos in the U.S. was challenged by Canada, spearheaded by the province of Quebec in which asbestos is mined. CUFTA sided with Canada and the decision was even upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals because the EPA had rejected alternatives that were less burdensome to industry. (53) Pesticides laws in Canada which are even more stringent than those in the U.S. were also subject to deregulation under CUFTA. Whether or not this is the direction in which the NAFTA is headed is yet to be seen.
Because most improvements promised through NAFTA have yet to happen, concerned citizens on both sides of the border have been active in developing strategies for environmental improvement. Representatives from congress, such as Marcy Kaptur (R-Ohio), presented a bill in 1996, called the NAFTA Accountability Act. It would require that The NAFTA promises of increased jobs, improved border environment, and better standard of living, be certified as completed, or the U.S. would be required to withdraw from the agreement. Surprisingly, this bill had 108 cosponsors. (54) Mexican citizens are also mobilizing to help solve some of the problems exacerbated by NAFTA. Although Congress has been making most of the noise on these issues, Mexican groups too have been using the leverage provided by the congressional debate to advance their own agenda. The Group of 100, led by former Mexican ambassador Homero Aridjis, has been pressing the Mexican government for more than a decade to address the environmental problems of Mexico City. Other groups have been doing similar work on the U.S.-Mexican border. (55) NAFTA has been instrumental in creating partnerships between countries to focus on common environmental issues and develop strategies to solve these problems.
The individual countries of North America are no longer environmentally independent of one another. The maquiladora region illustrates the increased interdependence and effects that pollution has on, not only the originating country, but those nations which are economically interconnected. Each country's citizens can no longer depend on the environmental protections instituted within their own borders. An integrated effort must be made to coordinate and finance environmental protection and NAFTA is the vehicle to accomplish this goal. Through taxation, upward harmonization of environmental regulations, and greater capability to enforce them, NAFTA and its side accords will facilitate communication, safeguard the overall environment, and improve the quality of life for all residents of North America.