The Border XXI Program


The EPA says there is no "link" between the Border XXI Program

and the United Nations or the President's Council on Sustainable Development.

Local elected officials in the border states asked Sovereignty International, Inc.

to review the program. Here is that review.

Sovereignty International, Inc., has reviewed the Border XXI Program Framework Document (EPA 160-R-96-003) and the 1996 Implementation Plans (EPA 160-R-004). In our judgment, the program should be stopped immediately for a variety of reasons that arise from both the process through which the plan was developed and is now being implemented, and from the substance of the plan itself.

Agenda 21: The Basis for Border XXI

The Border XXI Program is heavily influenced by Agenda 21 -- as the name suggests. The Framework Document admits that "Border XXI promotes sustainable development" in accordance with the concepts of "Agenda 21, a series of international environmental objectives which emerged from the United Nations Conference on Environmental (sic) Development (UNCED), held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, [which] provides guiding principles for sustainable development on a global basis."1

Sustainable development is defined as development which "...meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The definition is quoted from page 43 of Our Common Future, the report of the UN's 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development, which was chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, then Prime Minister of Norway and Vice President of the International Socialist Party.2

Agenda 21 is a "soft-law," or non-binding document. Its principles and recommendations are enforceable only when incorporated into international treaties. Three international treaties have emerged which translate the "soft-law" policy recommendations into international law:

  • the Convention on Biological Diversity;
  • the Convention on Desertification;
  • the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Only the Convention on Climate Change has been ratified by the U.S. Senate, and its provisions are voluntary; there are no binding requirements in the treaty in its present form. Neither the Convention on Biological Diversity nor the Convention on Desertification has been ratified by the U.S. Senate.

Neither the Congress of the United States, nor the legislatures of the four border states affected by the Border XXI Program have enacted legislation which authorizes or defines a policy of "sustainable development." The Framework Document and the Implementation Plans of the Border XXI Program reflect sustainable development policy recommendations of the United Nations -- not policies adopted by the duly elected officials empowered by the U.S. Constitution to establish public policy.

The United Nations does not have -- nor does it need -- authority or the resources to impose its policy recommendations on the United States. The Administration, through its various departments, has embraced the policy recommendations of the United Nations as expressed through Agenda 21 and the international treaties listed above, and is now implementing those policies to promote the UN's version of sustainable development -- despite the absence of a Congressionally defined and authorized national policy on sustainable development.

The absence of Congressional and/or State legislative authorization is sufficient reason to stop the Border XXI Program, because without such authorization, there is no clearly defined, legal meaning of the term "sustainable development." The UN's concept of sustainable development, is quite clear, and was articulated by Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the 1992 UNCED at which Agenda 21 was adopted. He said:

"It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles and small electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing -- are not sustainable (emphasis added)."3

Gro Harlem Brundtland, who also served as Vice Chair of the UNCED, provides further insight into the UN's concept of sustainable development. She told the delegates:

"The North, as well as the rich in the South, will have to change consumption and production patterns. Fair distribution of wealth and opportunity must be provided. We must curb population growth. The environmental threats and poverty...are cross-cutting, long-term, predictable and unavoidable unless we establish a world order of burden-sharing, common perceptions and common responsibility. And if national governments are basically unilateral in their attitudes towards global problems, anarchy will prevail over international governance and world order. What should be our global village may turn into a global jungle."4

Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, who attended the UNCED, reported that Brundtland, in response to a question from a Brazilian reporter "...freely acknowledged that the Earth Summit agenda was based upon the International Socialist Party's platform."5

The concept of sustainable development rests upon the assumption that human consumption patterns have caused such severe global biological degradation that the human population now exceeds the earth's carrying capacity. "The world's biotic systems simply cannot accommodate an ever-growing claim on primary productivity to meet further growth in human population and consumption."6 This assumption is widely challenged throughout the scientific community by such noted scientists as Colin Clark, of the Agricultural Economic Institute at Oxford University, and Roger Revelle, of the Harvard Center for Population Studies.7

The issue of whether or not population has exceeded the earth's carrying capacity has not been addressed by the Congress of the United States, and therefore the need for remedial policy has not been established. The administration should not implement policies based upon assumptions of the United Nations; Congress should hear all the evidence and establish national policy based on its findings.

The solution to the alleged problem of global biological degradation, according to the United Nations, is a series of policies which integrate "sustainable" development activity, environmental protection, and social justice. This notion is reflected in Agenda 21's Declaration on Environment and Development:

"In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it (Principle 4). All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development...."(Principle 5).8

Neither of these principles, nor the other 25 published principles upon which Agenda 21's policy recommendations rest, have been addressed or adopted by the Congress of the United States.

There is strong public opinion that the real problems confronting society can be solved far more effectively by the creativity of individuals operating through free markets -- than by federal programs of integrated management based on principles established by the UN. Policies based on Agenda 21 should not be implemented anywhere in the United States without Congressional authorization, and/or legislative authorization by the state or county governments that are affected by those policies.

The Border XXI Program seeks to implement a range of policy measures based on Agenda 21 -- without authorization by Congress, State Legislatures, or County governments -- which is described by the EPA as recommending no "new legislation nor replacement of any local or State laws."9 The inference to be drawn from the EPA's statement is that existing legislation authorizes the actions recommended in the Border XXI Program. Authorities cited by the EPA include 14 binational agreements and Memoranda of Understanding, and three international treaties:

  • (1) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES - 1973);
  • Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (1940); and
  • Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially Waterfowl Habitats (RAMSAR - 1973).10

Administrative rules promulgated pursuant to the various Agreements, require no Congressional approval. Legislation enacted pursuant to the three international Treaties does not address the concept of sustainable development which emerged in 1987. If existing legislation is being used for legal authority to implement the sustainable development principles of Agenda 21 -- as implied by the EPA -- the laws are being used for purposes well beyond their original intent.

NAFTA was approved by Congress; the Side Agreement which created the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) was not. Congress did appropriate the initial capital for the North American Development Bank (NADBank), for projects needed in the border region. The plan by which those funds are to be used, however, was not available to Congress when the appropriation was made. Congress should now reexamine the appropriation in the light of the Framework Document and the 1996 Implementation Plans and require that elected officials of local and state governments participate in the priority-setting, planning, and implementation of any projects funded by the NADBank. As the program now stands, five appointed individuals, assisted by a 25-member, appointed advisory council, establish the criteria for eligibility, and "certification" to the NADBank for projects funded with tax dollars. Moreover, the BECC has the authority to impose fees and other charges for their services.11 The Border XXI Program is seriously flawed in both process and substance.

Border XXI: The Process

The process used by the Border XXI Program to develop public policy follows quite closely the recommendations of Agenda 21, which calls for:

"national...and regional capacities and capabilities for sustainable development with involvement of the non-governmental sectors [and] consensus at all levels of society on policies and programmes needed ...to implement its Agenda 21 programme. This consensus should result from a participatory dialogue of relevant interest groups...."12 (Emphasis added).

The President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), created by Executive Order 12852, June 29, 1993 responds to the call for "national" capacity; Border XXI, a product of the October, 1993 NAFTA "Side Agreement" between the United States and Mexico, represents a "regional" capacity for sustainable development. In May, 1994, the President issued Executive Orders 12915 and 12916, which committed the NAFTA Side Agreement to the principles of Agenda 21:

"The Agreement shall also be implemented to advance sustainable development...environmental justice, ecosystem protection, and biodiversity preservation...."13 Agenda 21 and the PCSD, call for a "new collaborative decision process,"14 which leads to "consensus at all levels of society" with the "involvement of the non-governmental sectors." Both the United Nations and the PCSD utilize the "consensus process" which is described as "a simple, straight forward method for persuading virtually any group of people that they all share a particular opinion."15 Agenda 21 also specifies that "...rules affecting...participation by non-governmental organizations...with the implementation of Agenda 21 must apply to all major groups."16

Rules for NGO participation in UN activities evolve from Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Resolution 1296 of May 23, 1968, and subsequent amendments, including Resolution 1996/31 July 25, 1996. Accreditation, or permission to participate, is based upon demonstrated agreement with the goals and objectives of the United Nations Activity.17 The benefits of accreditation may also be conferred upon national and local chapters or affiliates of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) "listed" by accredited NGOs.

Organizations that are not accredited by the UN, or affiliated with NGOs that are accredited, are considered to be "populist activist" groups by the UN, which have "the potential to strike down the carefully crafted products of international deliberation, usually on the grounds of nationalism."18 The PCSD, too, has learned that success with the consensus process requires the selection of the "right" stakeholders.19 The process by which the Border XXI Program has evolved appears to have followed the UN practice of allowing participation by only those individuals known to be in support of the overall activity.

The process by which Border XXI has produced both its Framework Document, and its Implementation Plans, is deliberately structured to utilize the "new collaborative decision process," called for by the PCSD, to achieve "consensus" on policies recommended in Agenda 21. The Advisory Council to the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) is chaired by the Texas director of the Environmental Defense Fund, an NGO accredited to the UN, and consists of:

  • 9 representatives of federal agencies;
  • 5 representatives of NGOs (at least two of which are affiliated with NGOs accredited by the UN);
  • 3 academicians;
  • 2 county employees;
  • 2 state employees
  • 1 banker;
  • 1 entrepreneur;
  • 1 Chamber of Commerce president;
  • 1 representative of indigenous populations.

The Border XXI Program consists of specific projects implemented by nine Border XXI Workgroups coordinated by the EPA and its Mexican counterpart. Each Workgroup is co-chaired by an employee of the EPA and a comparable employee of the Mexican government.20

Conspicuously absent from those chosen to participate, are representatives from any of the elected governing bodies of the counties within the border region, or representatives from the elected legislatures of any of the border States. The very people who are empowered by the U.S. and State Constitutions to establish public policy were systematically excluded from the bodies created to develop and implement public policies in the border region. Also excluded, are representatives from numerous agricultural organizations, land owner organizations, and other civic organizations -- that are not affiliated with NGOs accredited by the UN -- all of whom represent constituencies that will be governed by, and forced to pay for, the policies decided by the BECC and its advisory council. Elected officials are directly accountable to the people governed; the people chosen to serve on the BECC advisory council -- the decision makers -- are not accountable to the people governed.

While Agenda 21, the PCSD, and the Border XXI Program claim to "ensure public involvement," the process, in fact, ensures involvement of only "selected" members of the public. The appearance of broad public participation is ensured after the fact, by referring to 11 "public meetings" to which elected officials are said to have been invited. (A survey is now underway to determine how many elected officials in the border region are aware that they were invited to attend those public meetings). An invitation extended is not the same as broad public participation. The surprise expressed by elected officials and by the general public, when the Border XXI Program documents were presented, strongly suggests that any efforts to secure broad public participation were, at best, a dismal failure.

The result of the process is the creation of a Framework Document, and Implementation Plans, by which Administrative agencies of the federal government will implement policies established by the United Nations, in states and counties whose duly elected policy makers -- and the vast majority of citizens -- have been systematically excluded from the process.

Border XXI: The Substance

The EPA says "There are no found links to the UN or PCSD."21 The substance of the Border XXI Program is, in fact, the substance of Agenda 21, and the "collaboration-consensus" process used is the process called for by the PCSD. Even though the U.S. Senate has chosen not to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the recommendations of Agenda 21 are non-binding, the Administration, through the Border XXI Program, is implementing many of the requirements and recommendations voluntarily.

For example, the first objective of the Border XXI Framework Document, is: "Biodiversity and Protected Areas: Improve and expand the protection of species and habitats in the border zone.

  • Identify biological corridors that permit the free movement of species....
  • Identify habitats in need of protection.
  • Reintroduction of populations into their former range of distribution....
  • Strengthen law enforcement capabilities....
  • Educate communities on both sides of the border...."22

This objective reflects a land management philosophy that has not been examined, debated, nor adopted by the Congress of the United States. The concept of protected areas -- land management on the landscape or ecosystem scale -- connected by corridors of wilderness to permit the free movement of species, emerged through three generations of publications produced jointly by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and the World Resources Institute (WRI): World Conservation Strategy (1980); Caring for the Earth (1991); and Global Biodiversity Strategy (1992). The Global Biodiversity Assessment, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, represent the UN's latest iteration of this land management philosophy.

UNESCO first applied this concept of land management to its new and rapidly expanding World Wide Network of Biosphere Reserves, of which 47 are located in the United States, two within the Border XXI region.

"Reserves designated after 1980...were based on studies to identify complementary sites which, when joined together, could best implement the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) strategy. Connected by corridors judiciously linking different ecological units...could provide the most viable means for the long-term protection of biodiversity."23

The concept was incorporated into the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in which Article 8 requires each nation to adopt a "system of protected areas."

Article 25 of the Convention calls for a global biodiversity assessment, which was produced by the United Nations Environment Programme, coordinated by Robert Watson, then a White House advisor, with major assistance from the World Resources Institute, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the IUCN. Released in 1995, the 1140-page document devotes an entire Section (Section 13), more than 100 pages, to describing "a system of protected areas" sufficient to "conserve biological diversity." The plan is summed up with this statement:

"This basic design is central to the recently proposed Wildlands Project in the United States (Noss 1992)."24

The Wildlands Project was developed by Dr. Reed F. Noss with grants from The Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society,(24A) both affiliated with NGOs accredited by the UN.

The Wildlands Project says:

"...at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should be encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones (essentially extensions of core reserves) within the next few decades.... Nonetheless, half of a region in wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take to restore viable populations of large carnivores...assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zone. Eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region...with human habitations being the islands. The native ecosystem and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."25

This land management concept has not been authorized by the Congress of the United States. The U.S. Senate, under the leadership of George Mitchell (D-ME), chose to not vote on the Convention on Biological Diversity, rather than to engage in debate about the land management concept and other controversial ideas contained in the Convention. Nevertheless, the Border XXI Program lists as its first objective, the identification of corridors to permit species to move freely among protected areas. Two UN Biosphere Reserves (protected areas) already exist in the border region: the recently expanded International Sonoran Desert Alliance, consisting of more than 3.8 million acres, and the Chihuahuan Desert Biosphere Reserves, consisting of three interconnected reserves, the Jornada Range, and Big Bend National Park in the U.S., and the Reserva De Biosfera Bolson De Mapimi in Mexico.26

Meeting in Seville, Spain, March 20-25, 1995, UNESCO's International Conference on Biosphere Reserves adopted a revised strategy which instructs participants to "Incorporate biosphere reserves into plans for implementing Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity."27 The Global Biodiversity Assessment declares that "National biodiversity strategies, action plans, or programs -- as called for under Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity and in Agenda 21 -- are intended to identify appropriate conservation and sustainable use measures and specify how they will be implemented."28 The implementation of the Border XXI Program appears to implement the policy recommendations of Agenda 21, the requirements of Articles 6 and 8 of the unratified Convention on Biological Diversity, and the principles of land management advanced in the Global Biodiversity Assessment.

The EPA continually describes the Border XXI Program as "benign," and one which "does not subvert the sovereignty of either nation in any way." The implementation of UN policies -- without the specific authorization of Congress -- is, in fact, a subversion of national sovereignty. The policies of the United Nations are, in no way, "benign" for American citizens who must be governed by them. The underlying UN policy on land management evolves from the 1976 UN Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I). The preamble to Agenda Item 10, "Land," says, in significant part:

"Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."29

Agenda 21 defines land not only in its "topography and spatial nature," but in a "broader integrative view [which] also includes natural resources: the soils, minerals, water and biota that the land comprises." A specific objective of Agenda 21 is:

"(10.5)...to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.

"(a) develop policies to support the best possible use of land and the sustainable management of land resources.

"(c) ...restrict the transfer of productive arable land to other uses."30

The Global Biodiversity Assessment recognizes that:

  • Ecosystem conservation measures seek to limit human activity;
  • "Serious obstacles" that must be overcome include: inadequate number and distribution of "protected areas," conflicts with local people, ineffective management, and a limited appreciation of sustainable development;
  • Corridors should permit the flow of biota from site to site;
  • Zoning should denote the various uses and purposes to which land may be put, including areas that are zoned out of human visitation. In sum, "The most effective and efficient way of conserving biodiversity...is to prevent conversion or degradation of habitat to begin with."31

The Border XXI Program seeks to:

  • initiate management and protection programs that concentrate on biodiversity and the sustainable use of resources;
  • promote sustainable management of natural resources in the entire border zone;
  • adopt ecosystem management principles that further sustainable development;
  • restrict road construction and urban sprawl;
  • mitigate adverse impacts from natural resource exploitation, tourism, and other human influences;
  • enforce permit compliance;
  • regulate and enforce marine and freshwater sport fishing activities.32

The Border XXI Program appears to be a manifestation of agencies of the federal government being used to implement policies and programs of the United Nations -- without approval of the appropriate legislative authorities -- using a process that effectively removes accountability to the people governed from the decision makers. This brief analysis examines only the first objective of the Framework Document. The entire program can be directly related to policies and principles that originated, and have emerged, through the United Nations system. Those policies and principles are frequently at odds with concepts and values such as private property rights, free markets, and other American values. Therefore, the Border XXI Program should be stopped immediately.

That is not to say that efforts to protect the environment and improve the quality of life for the people in the border region should stop. To the contrary. The federal government has demonstrated its ability to produce money to achieve those objectives through the creation of the North American Development Bank (NADBank). To ensure that those resources are used responsibly, however, it is imperative that projects funded by the NADBank be approved by the appropriate governing body in whose jurisdiction the project will exist -- rather than by the BECC or its advisory council -- an entity consisting of appointed individuals who have neither responsibility nor accountability to the people who must pay for and be impacted by those projects. The Border XXI Program includes many high and noble objectives which elected officials at the local and state level may well wish to incorporate into their county or state plans -- if given the opportunity in a more effective way than an invitation to attend a public meeting. Full participation by elected officials, however, would likely alter the outcome substantially. Elected officials tend to believe their election to public office gives them more authority to make public policy than is possessed by appointed agency employees, or NGO activists.

Border XXI: The Remedy

To avoid wasting the work and money already invested, the Administration should:

  • Stop all Border XXI activity immediately.
  • Convene a meeting with the chief elected officers and the leadership of the legislatures of each border state, and the elected officials in each border county, for the purpose of developing a satisfactory mechanism for a total review of the Program.
  • The review process should include public sessions convened jointly by state and local governments and conducted in communities in the border region, in a time frame sufficient for local residents to become familiar with the plan. Public comments should be taken from each review session.
  • The Administration must be prepared to alter the plan to accommodate the wishes of elected officials and suggestions and input from all sectors of the public.
  • The plan should be modified to give only elected officials at the appropriate level, the authority to approve specific projects that involve the expenditure of public funds or in any way restrict land use or other development activity.

As an alternative to the suggested remedy, the Administration could submit for approval, the Border XXI Program as it now stands, to each of the state legislatures and each of the governing bodies within the border region. Ratification of the plan would make elected officials accountable and the plan could proceed. Failure to ratify by any governing body should preclude any further implementation within that jurisdiction.

Endnotes

1. US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document, October 1996 (EPA 160-R-003), pp. 1.1 - 1.2.

2. Dixy Lee Ray, Environmental Overkill, (Washington, D.C., Regnery Gateway, 1993), p. 5.

3. Ibid, p. 4.

4. Statement by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Norway, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Volume III, Rio de Janeiro, June 3 - 14, 1992, pp. 191-193.

5. Dixy Lee Ray, Op. Cit., p. 5.

6. Global Biodiversity Assessment, United Nations Environment Programme, (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1995), Section 11.2.3.2, p. 772.

7. Jacqueline Kasun, War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of Population Control, (San Francisco, Ignatius Press).

8. Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, United Nations Publication -- Sales No. E. 93.1.11, ISBN: 92-1-100509-4, p.9.

9. EPA letter from Alan D. Hect to Congressman Joe Skeen (undated).

10. Framework Document, Op. Cit., Appendix I, pp. 1.6 - 1.7.

11. "Border Environment Cooperation Commission and North American Development Bank: Background and Issues," Congressional Research Service Report 95-184-ENR, January 20, 1995, p. 21.

12. Agenda 21, 37.3-5, pp. 270-271.

13. Congressional Research Service Report 95-184 ENR, "Border Environment Cooperation Commission and North American Development Bank: Background and Issues," January 20, 1995, p. CRS-2.

14. Sustainable America: A New Consensus, Report of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, February, 1996, p. v.

15. Richard H. Graff, The Technique of Consensus, (self-published), 1996, distributed at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT II), Istanbul, June, 1996, p.10.

16. Agenda 21, 23.2, p. 219.

17. ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, July 25, 1996, Part IV.

18. Our Global Neighborhood, the Report of the Commission on Global Governance, (New York, Oxford University Press, 1995) p. 308.

19. Lessons Learned from Collaborative Approaches, Report of the New National Opportunities Task Force, President's Council on Sustainable Development, April, 1997, p.5.

20. Framework Document, Op. Cit., pp. I.5, Appendix 2.1f.

21. EPA Letter, Op. Cit., Answer to question 6, p. 6.

22. Framework Document, Op. Cit., pp. III.10-11.

23. Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program, Biosphere Reserve Directorate, U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program, U.S. Department of State, 1994, p.5- 9.

24. Global Biodiversity Assessment, Op. Cit., p. 993.

24A. The Nature Conservancy is listed as a "Partner" to the Border XXI Natural Resources Workgroup, and the Executive Director of the Tucson Audubon Society is a member of the BECC Advisory Council.

25. Reed F. Noss, "The Wildlands Project," Wild Earth, Special Issue, 1992, pp. 13-15.

26. Biosphere Reserves in Action, "Case Studies of the American Experience," United States Man and the Biosphere Program, June, 1995, pp. 17, 37.

27. "Biosphere Reserves: The First Twenty Years," the Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, March, 1995, p. 1.

28. Global Biodiversity Assessment, Op. Cit., p. 927.

29. Report of the UN Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I), Vancouver, British Columbia, May 31 - June 11, 1976, Agenda Item 10.

30. Agenda 21, Op. Cit., pp. 84-85.

31. Global Biodiversity Assessment, Op. Cit., Sections 13.4.2 - 13.4.2.1.2, pp. 984 - 994.

32. Framework Document, Op. Cit., pp. III.10-13.