Mountains and Microchips: The Environment and Trade in Cascadia
The North American Free Trade Agreement in particular, and the process of globalization in general, have had significant implications for border regions. On the border between Canada and the United States, NAFTA has enhanced the historically interdependent links that were already considerably strengthened by the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA) of 1987. The purpose of this task force has been to identify the effects of NAFTA and globalization on trans-border regions and to propose trans-border regional policy on the basis of our findings. This chapter will identify the level of environmental interdependency that exists in the trans-border region of Cascadia. The impacts of increasing trade interdependence and growth, as direct results of NAFTA, on the environment of the Cascadia region will then be assessed.
Cascadia has been identified as a dynamic regional entity in the post-NAFTA (post-NAFTA refers, in this chapter, to the period of time since the signing of NAFTA) North American context, both economically and socially. The economic effects of NAFTA in this region have had significant environmental ramifications. The Cascadia trade corridor, comprising the metropolitan centers of Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, and Portland, linked by Interstate 5, is the center of the Cascadia transnational region. Despite various definitions of the Pacific Northwest region (some enlarged to include Alaska, northern California, and even Utah and Alberta) it is most useful and practical to confine the analysis of Northwest environmental interdependency to the geographically similar territories of Washington State, Oregon, and British Columbia. These areas share a much greater sense of history and geography among themselves than with any of the other areas that have been mentioned above. Also, it should be noted that the great majority of transnational or cross-border trade and general interaction, as well as environmental damage, occurs in Washington and British Columbia, most notably at the Bellingham and Spokane area border crossings. To fully understand the importance of the effects of post-NAFTA population growth and increased cross-border trade, an examination of the role of the environment in regional life and identity is essential.
It is often said that British Columbians identify environmentally, politically, and economically much more strongly with the inhabitants of Washington and Oregon than with the citizens of other Canadian provinces, and certainly more than with the federal government in Ottawa. In fact, the regional identity of Cascadia was originally founded on the recognition of a shared bioregion that could not be divided by any arbitrary political border. Kirkpatrick Sale has defined a bioregion as:
. . . a part of the earth's surface whose rough boundaries are determined by natural rather than human dictates, distinguishable from other areas by attributes of flora, fauna, water, climate, soils and landforms, and human settlements and cultures those attributes give rise to. The borders between such areas are usually not rigidónature works with more flexibility and fluidity than thatóbut the general contours of the regions themselves are not hard to identify, and indeed will probably be felt, understood, sensed, or in some way known to many inhabitants, and particularly those still rooted in the land.
Cascadia, originally identified as a bioregion, became, under the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, a banner of trans-border regionalism that was increasingly flown with enthusiasm by free-trade economists and local business elites (see Map 1).
The implementation of NAFTA has led to even greater conflict between two visions of Cascadiaóbioregion versus free-trade region. These conflictual bases for regional interdependence have been increasingly obvious in the wake of NAFTA. In order for NAFTA to succeed in the long-term, these two visions, environmental quality and free-trade/economic growth, must be reconciled.
The Clinton administration has made considerable progress on the international free-trade front. The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a symbol and a component of this progress, it is a blueprint for policy. At this point it is meaningless to debate the logic of free trade regimes like NAFTA; they are here to stay. Instead, attempts must be made to focus on problem-solving in an international system that is increasingly centered on the philosophy of neoliberal free-trade. And, while an international norm of free-trade offers considerable opportunities and potential benefits, it should be recognized that free-trade also constrains the ability of nation-states to protect their citizens from outside effects and trends. Thus, while free-trade may be 'right' and protectionism may be 'wrong', it is nonetheless clear that, regardless of value-judgements, international agreements on free-trade (as well as many other types of agreements) leave governments with fewer options in the policy-making process. Yet, as the first purpose of government is to protect its citizens from harm and to secure "common goods," our goal should be to determine the best course for the United States government in the post-NAFTA international system.
Environmental protection is one obvious area that is affected by the current free-trade regime. However, despite ongoing arguments to the contrary, environmental protection and free-trade are not irreconcilable. William B. Henkel states, "[I]t is dizzying to flip back and forth between the business media's interpretation of Cascadia and the literature on bioregionalism. They read as if they were just a word or two away from one another, and yet each would stand the other's world on its head." It is this tension which the contradictory visions of Cascadia reflect. There is, in the Pacific Northwest, a kind of tug-of-war being staged between extremists on both sides of the debate. There are many groups, however, that have made it their overarching goal to pursue an intermediate vision of regional identity based on the principle of sustainability. Sustainable development is a particularly viable option in Cascadia where most environmental problems are potential rather than actual (the situation is reversed in the Great Lakes region). Prevention, therefore, will be the key to any policy prescriptions for this region, although there are pressing environmental problems that need immediate solutions. We must, in the context of free-trade, focus on setting a practical and adequate agenda for the maintenance of environmental quality.
Environmental interdependency at the regional level occurs without regard for political boundaries. In Cascadia, the states of Washington and Oregon and the province of British Columbia are irreversibly interlinked through their common geography and environment. The flow of air and water across national borders is something that cannot be controlled politically. In a sense the border between Canada and the United States has always been "open" in terms of the environment. With the implementation of NAFTA the border between these two nations is increasingly "open" in other areas, most notably in the realm of trade. As trade flows increase the regionally shared environment is necessarily effected. Although, increases in trade often negatively effect the environment, protectionism is no longer a viable option. Rather, a compromise must be reached between free trade and the environment; it can no longer be one or the other. Thus, national governments in a period of increasing globalization and interdependence have fewer and fewer options to impose environmental and socio-economic controls.
This analysis of NAFTA's impact on environmental interdependency and identity in Cascadia will begin by examining the history of regionalism in Cascadia and then will briefly summarize the growth trends that the previous chapter discusses. Growth in trade and population will then be discussed in terms of environmental impacts. Next the existence of environmental interdependence will be assessed and analyzed in the areas of resource sharing, water, air quality, and development. In the next section the benefits and costs of regional environmental quality and preservation of the regional ecosystem, as well as potential benefits and costs will be identified and discussed. Finally, the conclusion will attempt to assess the relationship between the environment and NAFTA in Cascadia. This will include a discussion of the areas in which environmental controls under NAFTA have been most, and least, successful.
The region that comprises the two Pacific Northwest states of Washington and Oregon and Canada's westernmost province, British Columbia, shares a common identity that has political, environmental, social, and economic dimensions. One commonality that transcends all of these categories is frustration with the geographically distant national power centers. Physical distance has been translated over the centuries into emotional and psychological differences that have led to a lack of understanding and sympathy between the east and the west in both countries. Regional interdependence has created more complex tensions between Cascadia and the centers of decision-making. Yet, with the signing of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement in 1987 and the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1992 regional interdependence has only grown.
It should be noted here that regional interdependence in a transnational context does not imply the existence of, or the desire for, separatism. It is highly unlikely that residents of British Columbia would leave Canada to merge with Washington and Oregon or vice versa. Interdependence in Cascadia means that success for the region is linked to success on both sides of the border. In other words, the fate of Washington and Oregon depends on the fate of British Columbia. Cascadia is a region of mutual dependence socio-economically and environmentally. As The Economist stated, "A peaceful history, common geography, and interlocked economies have produced similar ways of life, beliefs and values. One of these is greenery: environmentalists are as thick on the ground as moss. That does not mean Cascadians oppose development, but they want it to be sustainable, not destructive."
The ecosystem of Cascadia is the historical foundation for the economic and social interdependence that is increasingly evident today. The geographic unity of the region has always been in conflict with political divisions. In a sense, the varied history of the region has been a result of this tension.
This continuing conflict between geographical and political forces has shaped the history, landscape and attitudes of what until the 1960s was very much a frontier region. . . . The region offers a spectacular array of natural and built environments, with wilderness and ocean coexisting in relative harmony with sophisticated urban centres. The defining physical characteristic of the area is its mountainous nature. While geography and politics has created many boundaries, and the international border divides two national identities, the residents of the region have much in common.
The elements of a regional identity that cross international political barriers in Cascadia are the result of a shared history. As Alan F. J. Aritibise has argued, the region, whether before European discovery or after European settlement, was not divided by any type of political boundary.
The region was tied together first by a common Native-American identity and culture and then later by common settlement by Europeans. "The Washington state of today was for many years ruled by the British Hudson's Bay Company as part of British Columbia, and the region had dual American and British sovereignty for several decades of the 19th century."
The economic nature of the region was also founded historically on natural resource extraction including logging, fishing and mining industries. Frontier isolation from the eastern civilized centers was a fact of life as late as the 1960s. Thus a sense of regionalism was built on a notion of isolation and necessity; a sense that was intertwined with the character of the natural environment and its role in the daily life of every citizen. "Integration was also fueled by a strong sense throughout Cascadia that the natural and built environments, the economy of the region, and the socio-cultural characteristics of the residents had more in common than any part of the region had with other areas in either Canada or the United States." Thus, while Cascadia has had a historical tradition of resource extraction and exploitation, the natural environment of the region has also been a source of pride and separateness for regional residents. In a sense, Cascadia has always been torn between the economy and the environment, but now the problems that arise from this relationship have become immediate and increasingly obvious.
The debate between bioregionalism and neoliberalism has been particularly potent and divisive in Cascadia. For many, the contradictions between these two visions of Cascadia are irreconcilable. The argument that these visions are permanently at odds with each other, however, leaves the region with few viable options for sustainable development. For these two groups it is either the environment or the economy; there is no equilibrium to be reached.
Bioregionalists believe that regional identity is tied to geography and "place" rather than to any economic, political, or ideological system. The citizens of Cascadia should be bound together by a sense of identification with the Pacific Northwest bioregion, rather than through common economic or political goals. Bioregionalism, clearly, offers a powerful argument against the "unnatural" existence of political boundaries where nature has created continuity and the background for a commonly forged identity.
However, since the signing of CUFTA and NAFTA, the promotion of a regional identity in Cascadia has been increasingly advocated by the business community. While this is not surprising in the wake of enormous strides in the realm of free trade, it has caused considerable resentment in the bioregionalist camp. Hence, greater friction between advocates of the environment and neoliberals has caused a sense of crisis in Cascadia.
Still, it is increasingly obvious that such meaningless and unresolvable debates between extreme visions is only a detriment to the region in the long-run. The environmental and social problems that exist in Cascadia, and other trans-border regions, must be solved, but they must be solved within the framework of free trade and globalization.
The role of the environment is a central consideration in any plan for the continued development of Cascadia. Not only is the environmental integrity of the region a key feature, but the economic implications of the environment are also essential to a better understanding of regional dynamics. Foreign immigration and domestic in-migration to Cascadia occur in large part due to the recreational and social dimensions of the regional environment. Residents cite environmental quality as a major motivation for moving to the Pacific Northwest. This is in contrast to the often held view that people move principally for economic reasons. Gundars Rudzitis contends that public awareness and concern in the area of the environment in Cascadia often takes precedence over a variety of economic concerns. In fact, surveys have even shown that Cascadia's citizenry would be willing to conserve the environment even if that means a loss in jobs or economic growth. Thomas M. Power has also argued that environmental quality is a reason for economic growth throughout the region. He argues that the same trends are present in both the American portion and the Canadian portion of Cascadia.
In a 1993 survey of Washington state residents, 57 percent considered themselves environmentalists and the number taking some environmental action was increasing. . . . In another survey of a Washington county a majority of the migrants, when asked to indicate the importance of a number of factors in their move to the county, mentioned non-economic attributes such as landscape/scenery (83 percent), environmental quality (81 percent), pace of life (77 percent) and climate. By contrast, only 17 percent of migrants cited employment opportunities as an important reason for moving to the county. . . . The high quality of the environment, spectacular scenery and access to public lands results in a high satisfaction with life in the area.
Thus, it is clear that life in the region of Cascadia is tied to an ecosystem that does not comply with international boundaries. It is also quite apparent that the growth of the region and its sustained, long-term economic success is intertwined with the regional nature of environmental quality. It is useless to discuss sustainable development and environmental quality regulation unless it attempts to deal with the region as a single entity. The shared bioregion that is the foundation of Cascadian regional identity and economic success is also the overwhelmingly central focus of trans-border interdependency.
The next section of this chapter will look at the current regional growth trends that have resulted from the implementation of a free-trade regime in North America. An analysis of the implications of these trends for the environment of Cascadia will then be presented. Finally, specific consideration will be given to three areas of regional environmental interdependency: 1) resources and land use; 2) water; and 3) air quality.
In 1995, the population of Cascadia was over 7 million people, with the main populations centers located in Seattle, Portland and Vancouver, B.C.. These urban centers alone accounted for over 75 percent of the population. Between 1960 and 1990 the Puget Sound region experienced a population growth of over 80 percent. In addition,
Planners throughout the region expect population growth to be strong in the foreseeable future. By 2020, the Puget Sound region is expected to grow by 1.2 million people, the Greater Vancouver region by 1.2 million, and the Metropolitan Portland area by 700,000. This means the region can expect a 50 to 75 percent population increase over the next 25 years.
The population of Cascadia is also experiencing significant changes in demographic composition. Older populations and smaller households are leading to a demand for smaller housing options. This also means that fewer people will occupy the same number of units in any given area. The heightened demand for housing due to both extraordinarily rapid population growth and changes in the characteristics of the regional population are placing ever-greater demands on the urbanized areas of Cascadia. The rise of more and farther-flung suburbs has led to inefficient land use. Thus, the urban centers, rather than becoming more dense, have begun to spread outward geographically. This type of growth is particularly evident in the Puget Sound region surrounding Seattle. In this area there is little non-developed land from Tacoma in the south to Everett in the north. As Pivo has pointed out, larger consumer demand for housing is the main cause of this trend.
Thus, while cities are growing they are engulfing more and more land as the building of new housing is moving outward. The outward growth of residential centers is, in turn, bringing more businesses and employers into the suburbs and away from denser city centers. In the Puget Sound region this has meant that the amount of developed land has grown much faster than population. According to Pivo, "[s]tudies by several different planning agencies have confirmed the fact that over the past few decades the amount of developed land has grown by two to three times as much as population."
Of course, these trends are only an abstract manifestation of facts and figures without an examination of the impacts they have had on the environment of the region and on the concerns of citizens. Gundars Rudzitis has stated that, "The importance of maintaining environmental quality at a high level, and the perception that a lifestyle based on a low population was currently being threatened by continuing population growth, was cited as a cause for alarm." The environmental effects of these trends are most outwardly obvious in the growth of traffic congestion and a greater reliance on private transportation rather than on public transportation systems. Part of the problem, of course, stems from the lack of rapid investment in transportation infrastructure, but the root of the problem is the growth in population coupled with low-density, sprawling development.
The Puget Sound Bioregion, or Western Washington and Western British Columbia, has been experiencing rapid growth for the last 50 years. Public perception that a crisis was looming came only recently, as the characteristic landscape rich with forests, salmon, rural valleys and islands became noticeably impacted. . . . Land lying between existing urban centers was rapidly disappearing to a voracious type of sprawling commercial development, as were rural areas to a cellular residential pattern that threatened to fill in all undeveloped zones.
The economy of the Pacific Northwest region has historically been based on the extraction and export of natural resources. The frontier culture that is tied to mining and forestry industries has provided Cascadia with strong ties to the land. Yet, the idea that the region's economic well-being depends on resource extraction is increasingly less representative of the local economy's real base.
Gundars Rudzitis and Thomas M. Power have both argued that the economic benefits of environmental quality are fast supplanting (or have already supplanted) the economic benefits of resource extraction. The nature of resource extraction as an economic base is problematic for several reasons. First, resource dependence subjects the regional economy to sudden and often wild fluctuations. Second, resources are limited in any one particular area and resource extraction industries are mature and increasingly apt to substitute technology for human labor. Both of these characteristics suggest that a local economic dependence on resource extraction will not be viable as a provider of long-term economic support and vitality. Third, areas which have experienced the environmentally deleterious effects of resource extraction (i.e. clear-cutting) are less likely to attract an adequate labor supply and will tend to promote the flow of export-earnings generated by resource extraction out of the local economy.
The economic value of resource extraction has therefore been overestimated, while the economic benefits of environmental quality have been underestimated or ignored. Regional identities of the Pacific Northwest, while rooted in the idea of the land as a provider, are also tied to a recognition of the value of the non-commercial attributes and advantages of a livable environment. In this sense there is the perception among many of the region's citizens that these two visions are invariably at odds with each other. However, as Thomas M. Power has argued, the economic importance of resource extraction, in particular lumber and mining activities, is far less than the economic importance of service industries, tourism, retirement income generation, and high-tech industries. Despite the fact that resource extraction income has declined rapidly and significantly for more than a decade, the economies of Cascadia are increasingly vital and prosperous. The large growth rate that the region has experienced is not due to any economic opportunities in resource dependent industries. Rather, growth has been fueled by the extraordinary landscape and social advantages of the region, and non-resource dependent industries, i.e. Boeing and Microsoft. "Our economic well-being is not primarily tied to the extraction of natural resources . . . The role of extracted commercial resources in determining our well-being has declined dramatically and will continue to decline." Environmental quality has replaced resource extraction as the base for further economic development and growth in Cascadia. While the economic life of the Pacific Northwest region continues to depend on physical geography, it is now a dependence that will promote sustainability, stability, and social well-being. As Power states, the movement away from an economy based on resource extraction,
. . . should not be interpreted to mean that the importance of natural landscapes in determining our well-being is declining. What has changed is the economic role those natural landscapes now play. Our natural landscapes are increasingly important as the source of a diverse set of . . . services that contribute directly to our well-being. These environmental services include clean water, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, fisheries, clean air, climate stabilization, gene pools, scenic beauty, etc. The economic role of our natural landscapes has shifted dramatically from the provision of commercial extracted natural resources to the provision of flows of non-commercial environmental services.
Thus the impact of growth in the region, which can be attributed in large part to the growth in trade that has resulted from NAFTA and CUFTA, has already had a positive, though indirect, environmental impact. As in-migration and investment continue to increase their flow into Cascadia, the sectors of the regional economy that deplete the natural environment are constantly declining in importance. The environmental interdependence that exists between Washington/Oregon and British Columbia will help to insure equal development on both sides of the border, since environmental quality is a regional attribute. The economic and environmental future of Cascadia depends on the ability of regional and national policy-makers to recognize the transformation that is taking place and to act appropriately and swiftly.
Bioregionalism in Cascadia is, in large part, focused on a mythical regional image of a water rich land. Cascadia takes its name from the Cascade mountain range, which was named by David Douglas to reflect his vision of a land of waterfalls and rivers. Throughout its history, Cascadia has been identified with water resources. Salmon, hydroelectricity, and pristine recreational areas are an integral part of the regional conscience and economy. The preservation of these assets is in the interests of both the environmentalists and the economists as they seek to promote sustainable development.
The fluidity of water over the earth shapes a whole series of interactions: the leaping, flowing, recycling process of life. Hydrology, climate, and geology define plant and animal communities, which in turn determined human settlement patterns. Native cultures grew and evolved within their regime of water, climate, geology, and coursing life. In the rainy Northwest, water has become an especially moving analogy. 'Cascadia,' David McClosky writes, 'is a land of falling water.'
Water is a particularly important issue in any interdependent, trans-border region. The Native-Americans of the Pacific Northwest, in a time when there was no political boundary, settled in the area according to the availability of natural resources, particularly water. European settlers also sought out areas with abundant sources of water, in the interest of necessity and easy transport. While the political make-up of the Cascadian bioregion has changed dramatically over the centuries, the physical geography has not; the end result is that two politically distinct nations must share water resources that cannot be divided in the same way as land can be partitioned (although that too is problematic).
The Canada-US Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement have offered a forum in which more highly coordinated, bi-national management of resources, particularly free-flowing water resources, can be developed to protect the mutual interests of Canada, the United States, and the region of Cascadia. To illustrate the types of problems that have existed or continued to exist post-NAFTA this section will offer an analysis of two specific water issues that illustrate environmental interdependence in Cascadia: 1) salmon and 2) sewage treatment.
First, the health of Cascadia's salmon population is effected by many different trends that have accompanied development of the region. Despite NAFTA and regional trans-border interdependence, international disputes over salmon are still quite common and troublesome. Part of the problem is due to the fact that Salmon spawning in US waters have declined severely, while the salmon runs in British Columbia, though less productive in recent years, are more productive than their American counterparts. In June 1994 The Economist reported that disputes over salmon catches were becoming more frequent and more intense. The Economist article concluded,
As usual, few have stood up on behalf of the salmon. Fished and dammed to near-extinction along the west coast of the United States, they remain numerous farther north: but possibly not for long. Although British Columbia remains a fruitful spawning ground for sockeye salmon, runs of chinook and coho salmon have been severely depleted in recent years. . . . In time the argument could end as it has on the east coast, where there are no cod left to squabble over.
Salmon populations of the Pacific Northwest are also affected by urban development and construction through the loss of watershed forests and through urban runoff and groundwater contamination. Continued low-density development has put increased land-use and development pressure on many rural communities. In Washington State alone, this type of development and other side-effects of regional growth, " . . . were contributing to over 500 miles of rivers and streams, over 100 square miles of estuaries, and over 70,000 acres of lakes being incapable of fully supporting beneficial uses like fishing and recreation."
The increasingly obvious threat to the Northwest's salmon population has become a point of focus for responsible development advocates. The use of salmon as a symbol of the damage to Cascadia's environment has been far more effective than the spotted owl. The salmon is a symbol of regional culture both for Native-Americans and the rest of Cascadia's population on both sides of the border. A threat to the salmon of the region is a threat to the long-term success of the Northwest as a whole. One of the biggest threats to the salmon population is the regional development of hydroelectric dams, which, "[i]n the Columbia system, [are] regarded as the cause of up to 90 percent of salmon mortality."
A 1995 National Academy of Science report found Pacific salmon extinct in 40 percent of their historic range, and threatened or endangered in another 27 percent. . . . Only in 16 percent of the salmon's former homeland was it not declining. The American Fisheries Society in 1991 identified 214 troubled native Pacific salmon runs, with 101 at high risk of extinction, 58 a moderate risk and 54 of special concern.
Clearly, without appropriate cross-border efforts and initiatives, salmon, one of the regions most important resources will be irretrievably decimated. In the post-NAFTA political environment, some common ground must be found to mitigate the environmentally harmful effects of unmitigated development in Cascadia.
The second threat to water quality in the Pacific Northwest in the 1990s has been the dispute over treatment and dumping of raw sewage into the shared water-ways of the Puget Sound and Canada's Georgia Strait, particularly in the international Strait of Juan de Fuca. Since 1991, there has been intense concern on the American side of the border, specifically in Washington State, over sewage treatment practices in British Columbia's capital, Victoria.
The Economist reported in April 1991 that the city of Victoria had been dumping its sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The mix of human waste, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals was being shot untreated into the Strait. This was particularly troublesome to near-by Washington residents, not only because of the perceived health risks, but also because they were already being required to spend a considerable amount of money on sewage-treatment by the Environmental Protection Agency.
International efforts were made on the part of US representatives but, as the Journal of International Environmental Affairs reported, little progress was made despite attempts to negotiate with the Canadian government and to introduce the International Joint Commission into the dispute. In 1992, the matter gained in intensity and finally the B.C. government decided to require Victoria's Capital Regional District (CRD) to implement measures for secondary treatment of Victoria's sewage. Yet, despite an environmental cooperation agreement between Washington State and British Columbia in 1992, efforts to block the requirement by Victoria will likely mean a significant delay in any new sewage treatment practices.
Tempers flared on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border: in Washington state because of the rejection of sewage treatment despite a May 1992 environmental cooperation agreement between the state and the province; and in B.C. because of American involvement and pressure during the plebiscite campaign and the threat of a tourist boycott following the result.
The problems of dispute resolution in Cascadia have clearly not been aided by the increased international cooperation (in this case under CUFTA, although NAFTA negotiations were underway) introduced through the lowering of barriers to trade. Recognition of environmental interdependence and the identification of appropriate measures to deal with environmental problems that affect the entire region is necessary if sustainable development is to be achieved.
Air quality in Cascadia has, like water, become an increasingly important issue in the past few years. Problems with air quality can be directly traced to the impacts of increasing cross-border trade and regional population growth and development. As Pivo has pointed out, the geography of Cascadia leaves the region particularly prone to air pollution. "The mountains and valleys along mainstreet Cascadia help trap air pollution and increase the region's vulnerability to air pollution problems."
The principle cause of air pollution in Cascadia is automobile emissions, although the industrial areas in the region are also contributors to air pollution in the forms of small particulates. However, the pollution from industry has tended to decline over the past couple of years, while pollution from traffic congestion is rapidly increasing.
Sprawling development and increased transport across the border between Washington and British Columbia have led to an increase in auto dependence and travel distances, as well as frequency of trips. The lack of growth in infrastructural input in the region has exacerbated the effects of growth and development in Cascadia. "Changes in population size and character are . . . contributing to the growth in auto dependence. Not only are there more people but people are traveling more. . . . Urban growth patterns are another factor in growing auto dependence. Segregation and dispersion of land uses has increased the distance people must travel . . .."
Because air pollution is the most difficult type of environmental problem to contain within political boundaries, any efforts to control air pollution must involve both sides of the border. As a direct effect of the increases in trade, population, and development that have arrived in the wake of CUFTA and NAFTA, air pollution must be addressed in the realm of prevention before attempts at protecting air quality become extremely costly for both Canada and the United States.
The on-going process of globalization has been strengthened on the North American continent by the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement and the subsequent North American Free Trade Agreement. The effects of these agreements have been strongly felt in the trans-border regions shared by the US and Canada and by the US and Mexico.
This chapter has attempted to identify the significant environmental impacts which have been experienced in one particular American-Canadian transnational region, Cascadia, as a result of the increasingly open flow of goods and people across international political borders. The environmental interdependency in Cascadia has served to amplify the negative effects of free-trade in the region, but interdependency has also made it easier for regional governments and communities to find common ground through cooperation.
Cascadia is characterized by its shared environment. The awareness among the region's citizens has led to the creation of a host of environmental organizations, both bioregionalist movements and movements that attempt to reconcile business concerns with concerns about environmental degradation. The problem, therefore, has not been a lack of information or organizations, but rather a lack of coordination that permeates the plethora of groups with different goals and agendas. The governments and people of Cascadia, however, have made an important step in recognizing the problems that exist and that have been exacerbated by the signing of CUFTA and NAFTA.
The historical regional isolation from the power centers of both the United States and Canada has also tended to blunt the effects of cooperation across the Washington-British Columbia border. The region has objectives towards which it would like to strive, but the lack of interest, awareness, and ability of the national governments to address regional problems, especially for a geographically and psychologically distant region, has prevented extensive, coordinated progress.
Still, some progress has been made in the problematic areas which have been discussed in this chapter. The most successful have been a plan to create an international park that would preserve the biospheric integrity of the region's environment. An international park plan recognizes the fact that political borders do not often, and certainly not in the case of Cascadia, coincide with natural boundaries. There have also been promising efforts to deal with urban sprawl and traffic congestion. The plan for a high-speed rail link between Portland and Vancouver, B.C. would, in some measure, mitigate the effects of regional population growth and increased development. Portland's effort to create a workable plan for the future of land use in the metropolitan and surrounding areas also holds promise and is something which Seattle is now attempting to adopt. These successes underscore the fact that regional planners have recognized that the only way to preserve economic vitality and growth in a livable environment is through a concerted policy of sustainable development.
Yet, it is also clear that there is a long way to go toward reconciling the competing visions of Cascadia. The problems of declining salmon population and water pollution have been recognized, but have not been properly addressed due to a lack of adequate enforcement mechanisms and incentives. There is considerable hope, however, that concern over salmon, a symbol of northwest life and identity, will motivate local and national governments to act more quickly and effectively in the future.
The essential lesson of this chapter is that in the "age of globalization" national governments must come to recognize the value and importance of cross-border regions. The future of every nation-state has become increasingly intertwined with the fate of its neighbors, whether geographically near or distant. With the signing of NAFTA, the United States, Canada, and Mexico demonstrated their recognition of the irreversible trend toward globalization. These countries must now realize that integration does not stop with the signing of a free trade agreement. Long-term success for NAFTA and for each of these nations on an individual level depends on the willingness of national governments to invest in the most dynamic centers of economic growth. As Gabriel Grant argues in his introduction to this task force, these areas, because of globalization, have become increasingly prevalent along the northern and southern borders of the United States. In order for NAFTA to succeed these regions must be allowed to reach their full potential without regard for political boundaries in both the environment and the economy.