MEETING SUMMARY
of the
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
December 13, 2000
Arlington, Virginia
Meeting Summary Accepted By:
Wendy Graham
Office of International Activities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Designated Federal Official
Alberto Saldamondo
Vice-Chair
-------
CHAPTER SEVEN
MEETING OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The International Subcommittee of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
conducted a one-day meeting on Wednesday,
December 13, 2000, during a four-day meeting of
the NEJAC in Arlington, Virginia. Because Mr.
Arnoldo Garcia, National Network for Immigrant
and Refugee Rights, who continues to serve as
chair of the subcommittee, was unable to attend
the meeting, Mr. Alberto Saldamondo, General
Counsel, International Indian Treaty Council and
vice-chair of the subcommittee, served as acting
chair. Ms. Wendy Graham, Office of International
Activities (OIA), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), continues to serve as the
Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the
subcommittee. Exhibit 7-1 presents a list of the
members who attended the meeting and identifies
those members who were unable to attend.
This chapter, which provides a summary of the
deliberations of the International Subcommittee, is
organized in six sections, including this
Introduction. Section 2.0, Remarks, summarizes
the opening remarks of the vice-chair and the
DFO. Section 3.0, Dialogue on Trade and the
Environment, summarizes the subcommittee
members' discussions about issues related to
trade and the environment and includes
summaries of presentations by representatives of
the United States Trade Representative (USTR)
and the U.S. Department of State (State
Department). Section 4.0, Presentations and
Reports presents an overview of each presentation
and report, as well as a summary of relevant
questions and comments from the subcommittee.
Section 5.0, Public Dialogue, summarizes the
discussions of the subcommittee related to public
comments referred to the subcommittee by the
Executive Council of the NEJAC. Section 6.0,
Action Items, summarizes the action items
considered and adopted by the subcommittee.
2.0 REMARKS
Mr. Saldamondo opened the subcommittee
meeting by welcoming the members present, Ms.
Graham, and Mr. Haywood Turrentine,
Birmingham (Alabama) Urban Impact Board and
chair of the NEJAC, whom Mr. Saldamondo said
he had asked to monitor the morning presentation
Exhibit 7-1
NAME OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
Members Who Attended the Meeting
December 13, 2000
Mr. Alberto Saldamondo, Vice-Chair
Ms. Wendy Graham, DFO
Mr. Jose Bravo *
Ms. Beth Hailstock
Mr. Tseming Yang
Members
Who Were Unable To Attend
Mr. Albert Adams
Mr. Fernando Cuevas
Mr. Arnoldo Garcia, Chair
Mr. Robert Holmes
Ms. Caroline Hotaling
Ms. Maria del Carmen Libran
* Mr. Bravo served as proxy for Mr. Garcia
on trade and the environment. Mr. Saldamondo
explained that Mr. Turrentine's presence indicated
the interest the NEJAC had taken in issues related
to trade policy.
Mr. Saldamondo also expressed disappointment
that many members of the subcommittee had
been unable to attend the meeting. For that
reason, he noted, the meeting would focus on the
presentations to be offered and on concerns
related to the topics of those presentations, rather
than the activities and direction of the International
Subcommittee.
Ms. Graham commented that Mr. Garcia had
expressed regret that he had been unable to
attend the meeting, which would have been his last
as chair. Mr. Garcia served on the NEJAC for four
years and as the chair of the International
Subcommittee for the past two years, she said.
Ms. Graham added that Mr. Saldamondo was to
become the next chair.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-1
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
3.0 DIALOGUE ON TRADE AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Tseming Yang, Vermont Law School and
member of the International Subcommittee,
introduced the discussion of issues related to trade
and the environment by welcoming the
representatives of USTR and the State
Department. In August 1999, he then reported,
the NEJAC and EPA jointly sponsored the
Roundtable on Environmental Justice on the U.S.-
Mexico Border, held in National City, California. At
that meeting, environmental and public health
problems affecting communities were discussed,
said Mr. Yang. Participants involved in those
discussions acknowledged the causal relationships
between increased development, traffic, and
industrialization in the border region and
environmental and public health effects, he
explained. Since the roundtable meeting, EPA had
begun to address such issues in a serious manner,
said Mr. Yang, adding that many issues (such as
the development of infrastructure, rising population
growth in the border region, failure to enforce
existing laws, the effects of industrialization, and
exploitation of resources), however, have been
determined to be outside the scope of EPA. Mr.
Yang then declared his hope that the discussion to
be conducted during the current meeting would
prove mutually educational for both the members
of the USTR and the State Department and the
members of the International Subcommittee.
Mr. Turrentine added that, as moderator, his role
should be one that would facilitate the process,
rather than one in which he would take an active
part in the discussion. He then provided the
representatives of USTR and the State
Department with background information about the
framework and function of the NEJAC in general
and the International Subcommittee in particular.
Mr. Turrentine added that he would work with the
members of the International Subcommittee to
build an understanding of both the opportunities for
collaboration between the Executive Council of the
NEJAC and the USTR and State Department and
the limitations on such collaboration.
Dr. Alan Hecht, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, OIA, identified what he considered
four important areas to be addressed in
discussions of trade policy and the environment:
• The participation of all Federal agencies in
environmental justice issues
• A better understanding on the part of all
parties involved that the public can and should
provide input through a clearly defined process
• The overall process by which trade policy is
set
• Examination of issues in the border region and
review of the lessons learned through the
implementation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
3.1 Overview of the Functions of the United
States Trade Representative
Ms. Carmen Suro-Bredie, Office of the USTR,
began her presentation with a description of the
history of trade policymaking, citing the Boston Tea
Party and relating that event to the protests against
the World Trade Organization (WTO) that had
occurred earlier in the year in Seattle, Washington.
The results of the Boston Tea Party protests, she
explained, were "massive" trade sanctions against
England and the birth of the concept of "no
taxation without representation."
Today, trade policy is under the control of
Congress, she continued, explaining that the
power to create a trade tariff in the form of a tax on
imported goods falls to Congress. Under the Fast-
Track trade act, legislation that had expanded the
President's power to negotiate trade deals with
other nations, that authority is lent temporarily to
the Executive branch and only for a specific
purpose, she said. Ms. Suro-Bredie stated that,
during negotiations of trade agreements, the
Executive Branch often wants the authority to
negotiate with other countries terms beyond simple
increases or decreases in tariff levels. Simply
stated, she continued, under fast-tracking, which
Congress failed to renew in 1997, the Executive
Branch effectively is able to change law, because
the President is able to present to Congress
legislation approving and implementation trade
agreements on which Congress votes without
amendment and within a fixed period of time.
Those conditions are important because the other
country or countries involved in the negotiation
would be skeptical about changes in the
agreement made by Congress, she said. She
added that countries wish to have timely resolution
of the negotiation process.
The system works, she continued, although
difficulties arise when the system is forced to move
quickly. To try to alleviate the "push and pull," she
continued, USTR is attempting to give more
advance notice to the various trade subcommittees
of Congress of the issues and to allow more time
for negotiators to step back and think through the
effects of various stipulations on domestic
programs, industry, and policies. Exhibit 7-2
7-2
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
Exhibit 7-2
OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
In 1974, the United States Congress established the private-sector advisory committee system to ensure that U.S.
trade policy and the objectives of trade negotiations adequately reflect the commercial and economic interests of the
United States. In three subsequent trade acts, Congress expanded and enhanced the role of the system. The advisory
committees provide and advice about U.S. negotiating objectives and bargaining positions before the nations enter
into any trade agreements, about the operation of any trade agreements once entered into, and about other matters
relating to the development, implementation, and administration of U.S. trade policy. The system is arranged in three
tiers:
The system is structured in three tiers:
• The President's Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations (ACTPN), which is mandated by law,
considers issues related to trade policy in the context of the overall national interest. In the past, the membership
of the committee consisted primarily of representatives of business and labor; currently, the one third of the
members represent environmental, academic, or consumer concerns. The President appoints 45 members for
two-year terms. The 1974 Trade Act requires that the membership of the ACTPN broadly represent key
economic sectors affected by trade.
• Representatives to six policy advisory committees are appointed solely by the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) or in conjunction with other Cabinet officers. Those committees that are managed solely
by the USTR are the Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee and the Trade Advisory Committee on
Africa. Policy advisory committees managed jointly with the U.S. departments of Agriculture, Labor, and
Defense and EPA are, respectively, the Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee, the Labor Advisory
Committee, the Defense Policy Advisory Committee, and the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory
Committee. Each committee provides advice based on the perspective of its specific area.
• Twenty-six advisory committees, which are authorized by law, are organized in two areas: industry and
agriculture. Representatives are appointed jointly by the USTR and the secretaries of Commerce and
Agriculture. Each sectoral or technical advisory committee represents a specific sector or commodity group
(such as textiles or dairy products) and provides specific technical advice about the effect that trade policy
decisions may have on that sector. Four functional advisory committees provide cross-sectoral advice on
customs, standards, issues related to intellectual property, and electronic commerce. Previously, committees in
this tier had included representatives of business and industry; no environmental or labor interest groups were
represented. Currently, representatives of environmental organizations are assigned to each of the committees.
Such groups include the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and other groups that have exclusive environmental
focuses that may not include environmental justice.
provides an overview of the trade policy advisory
system the Congress established in 1974.
Ms. Suro-Bredie then introduced Mr. Dominic
Bianchi, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Public Liaison, USTR, who presented information
about the role of his office. He expressed his hope
that the role of the liaison office would be defined
more precisely during the upcoming Administration
than it had been previously. The USTR, he
continued, had been created by Congress, but its
negotiating capabilities had been "lent" to the
Executive Branch. Although the power of the
Executive Branch is limited - it does not have the
power to regulate commerce - Congress provides
authority to the Executive Branch within specified
parameters, he explained. Exhibit 7-3 presents
additional information about Executive Order
13141, which addresses the environmental review
of trade agreements.
Citing recent lawsuits and the protests against the
WTO that occurred in Seattle in May 2000, Mr.
Bianchi stated his personal belief that the system
of private-sector advisory committees does not
function as it should and that the USTR and the
new administration should engage Congress on
how to include stakeholders more effectively when
making trade policy. He also added that the USTR
and the new administration would need the help of
Congress to effectively address the public's
concerns about how the USTR receives advice
from all affected stakeholders. However, Mr.
Bianchi stated, Congress had been "shying away"
from re-examining process.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-3
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Exhibit 7-3
GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13141:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF TRADE AGREEMENTS
On December 13, 2000, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the White House Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) released final guidelines for implementing the provisions of Executive Order 13141:
Environmental Review of Trade Agreements. The Executive order, signed by President Clinton in November 1999,
commits the United States to careful assessment and consideration of the environmental effects of future trade
agreements, including written reviews of certain major trade agreements.
Executive Order 13141 institutionalizes the use of the environmental review as an important policy tool for helping
to identify the potential environmental effects of trade agreements, both positive and negative, and for helping to
facilitate consideration of appropriate responses when such effects are identified. The order requires review of
certain major trade agreements: comprehensive multilateral trade rounds, multilateral or bilateral free-trade
agreements, and major new agreements affecting natural resource sectors. Environmental reviews also may be
warranted for other agreements on the basis of such factors as the significance of reasonably foreseeable
environmental effects, although the USTR anticipates that most sectoral liberalization agreements will not require
review.
In developing the environmental guidelines, the USTR and the CEQ sought to involve all interested stakeholders.
Draft guidelines implementing the Executive order were published in July. The views of the public, identified
through a series of public workshops, a public hearing, and public comment periods, played a significant role in
shaping the final product. The USTR and the CEQ also consulted closely with key members of Congress and the
various trade advisory committees, including the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee. Other federal
environmental, economic, and foreign affairs agencies also collaborated with the USTRs and the CEQ in developing
the guidelines.
The final guidelines provide for the integration of environmental considerations into the development of trade policy
objectives. They provide significant opportunities for public participation, including early public outreach and
consultations about what the U.S. objectives in trade agreements should be, an open and public process for
determining the scope of the review, and opportunities to comment on draft reviews. The guidelines have been
posted on the USTR Web site: .
Previously, the United States had conducted environmental reviews of several major trade agreements, including the
North American Free Trade Agreement in 1992 and 1993 and the Uruguay Round Agreements in 1994. In
November 1999, the United States prepared a study of the economic and environmental effects of the proposed
Accelerated Tariff Liberalization Initiative with respect to forest products.
The USTR is completing review of the Jordan Free Trade Agreement concluded in October and is conducting
environmental reviews of the Free Trade Area of the Americas and the Singapore and Chile free trade agreements
currently under negotiation.
The USTR, Mr. Bianchi continued, is attempting to
make the process by which trade rules and
standards as transparent as possible and to
establish a system that includes points of contact
are adopted who can provide information to the
public and conduct briefings throughout
negotiations. Transparency refers to the visibility
and clarity of the laws, regulations, and
procedures, he explained.
The USTR, Mr. Bianchi reminded the
subcommittee, is a small agency, composed of
180 employees with approximately 20 to 40
individuals on loan from other agencies. In
addition, he continued, the USTR is affected by the
decreases in the budgets of other Federal
agencies. Because of those budget cuts, he
explained, fewer individuals are loaned on "detail."
For example, he said, fewer people from EPA who
have expertise in trade and the environment are
available to the USTR when such expertise is
needed. Roughly 80 to 85 percent of the annual
budget of the USTR, or approximately $25 million,
is allocated for salary, with the remainder allocated
for travel, he pointed out. The USTR has three
offices, continued Mr. Bianchi, with the primary
office in Washington, D.C.; two employees in
Geneva, Switzerland; and one employee in
Brussels, Belgium.
7-4
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
Mr. Bianchi then described how trade policy had
changed in the 50 years since Congress created
the USTR. At that time, he explained, trade
accounted for less than 10 percent of the gross
national product (GNP) of the United States, and
only a few people were interested in trade policy.
That scenario changed over the decades, and
changed radically over the most recent decade, he
continued. He added that trade currently accounts
for almost one-third of the United States GNP.
The effects of trade, he explained, have become
magnified as trade has come to play an
increasingly significant role in the world economy.
To include public participation in the process, Mr.
Bianchi continued, the USTR had prepared an
Internet Web site that focuses on providing
information about trade to individuals who, in the
past, have expressed interest in trade issues. The
USTR also conducts briefings for the general
public at which information about priority issues is
disseminated, he said. The USTR also posts
notices in the Federal Register, he stated. In
response to Mr. Yang's question about the location
at which such briefings are held, Mr. Bianchi stated
that public hearings usually are held in
Washington, D.C.; however, during the months
leading to the WTO conference in Seattle, the
USTR held briefings in six locations around the
country to solicit advice in preparation for that
meeting, he said.
After Mr. Bianchi's presentation, Mr. Saldamondo
commented that he held a different view of the
USTR and that his view was similar to the view of
the Seattle protesters. Communities, he
explained, experience the negative effects of
trade. For example, he continued, people living in
maquiladoras, U.S. manufacturing plants, in
Mexico suffer from adverse health effects, and the
indigenous people of Chile are losing their land.
Mr. Saldamondo stated that he was pleased that
no one had claimed that higher wages will benefit
the very people who have become marginalized by
trade agreements. Trade agreements, he
declared, create more poverty, and that poverty
tends to affect racial minorities more than other
segments of society.
Mr. Saldamondo explained that words such as
"disproportionate" or "minority" used in the
environmental justice context are not appropriate
in the international context because indigenous
people may not be minorities within their native
countries. In international cases, he suggested,
the race of the polluter and the race of the victim
should be considered when defining environmental
racism. When those factors are examined, he
stated, one must recognize the reality of
environmental racism. In fairness to the USTR, he
added, USTR staff "do not intend to increase
cancer rates or increase the loss of species and
habitats ... To them business is business."
However, Mr. Salamondo added, the USTR must
be aware of the damage that it creates through
trade agreements. One-third of the United States'
GNP accounts for much prosperity, but that
prosperity is not shared and is gained at the
expense of others, he said. Citing the Metales y
Derivados site located in Tijuana, Mexico as an
example of this exploitation, he declared that the
economic trade model used by the USTR does not
serve communities nor does it take into
consideration the value of good health, a forest, or
a baby's life. Free trade has been a disaster, Mr.
Saldamondo exclaimed.
Mr. Jose Bravo, Just Transition Alliance, clarified
Mr. Saldamondo's comments about free trade
stating that the members of the International
Subcommittee do not oppose trade, but rather
support a just trade policy that considers people.
He added that he believes the USTR often uses
the Fast-Track process to circumvent opposing
views. Ms. Beth Hailstock, Director,
Environmental Justice Center, Cincinnati
Department of Health, commented that she had
been pleased to hear representatives of the USTR
acknowledge that simply publishing notices in the
Federal Register was not an effective means of
communicating with the public. She then
suggested that the USTR follow the guidelines
published in the NEJAC document on public
participation to increase community involvement in
the process.
Mr. John Audley, EPA, commented that he had
once been an active member of the Sierra Club
and had created that organization's trade
department. In his current position with EPA, he
continued, he endeavors to exert pressure on the
USTR to consider environmental consequences of
trade policy. However, he added, no focus on
stakeholders was included when the USTR was
created because, at that time, Congress was not
aware that such a focus was needed. Mr. Audley
pointed out that, because of the existence of
Haztraks, a program created jointly by the United
States and Mexico to track the movement of
hazardous waste between the United States and
Mexico, Congress has exercised increased
oversight of NAFTA, and more problems have
come to light. What the United States
subsequently has negotiated through its monitoring
process, he continued, overshadows the
implications of NAFTA. EPA is the only Federal
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-5
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
agency that has a trade policy, stated Mr. Audley,
and EPA continued to play an active role on ten
trade advisory subcommittees despite reductions
in EPA's budget. That level of participation
illustrates EPA's commitment to the issue, he
stated.
Mr. Yang commented that it is important to provide
comment on and substantive contributions to the
trade policy process. It is the responsibility of the
government to actively seek to identify and
consider outcomes of trade agreements, he
stated, rather than considering only the effects on
industry. In addition, said Mr. Yang, the United
States has a global responsibility to the extent that
it induces change through trade agreements.
In response to a comment made by Ms. Suro-
Bredie in which she recommended to the
members of the International Subcommittee how
to best influence the USTR as a "new interest
group," Mr. Bravo commented that the members of
the subcommittee are not a "new group" and that it
"irks" him that other interest groups have been
recognized while the interest groups that represent
the people most affected have not.
Mr. Hecht then commented that he believes that
the discussions had been beneficial and that the
issues are challenging. He then reminded the
participants that environmental review of trade
policy as a process is important because it targets
the societal impact on indigenous populations.
EPA had built enormous capacity to target trade
issues and currently was building an in-house staff
to help with community outreach programs and
dissemination of information. In 1989, Mr. Hecht
pointed out, it would have been difficult to find a
region more neglected than the U.S.-Mexico
border. NAFTA, he continued, put a spotlight on
the area, and the Border Environmental
Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North
American Development (NAD) Bank were created;
people have benefitted, he explained. Funds for
programs that train people for new jobs were
included in the NAFTA agreement. Under NAFTA,
a means of facilitating economic change and
preparing for change has never been easy, he
observed. Around the world, Mr. Hecht concluded,
environmental agencies are weak; the goal, he
declared, is to strengthen those agencies and
create a platform for discussion.
Mr. Bianchi pointed out that the majority of
members of Congress had not been present
during debates about the NAFTA; today, there is a
new Congress and a new administration. The best
means of exerting influence, he recommended, is
through Congress. Because of the change of
administration and the magnitude of the issues,
Mr. Bianchi predicted, such discussions would be a
multiyear debate.
Mr. Bianchi stated that industry that moves into
countries which environmental and enforcement
mechanisms lax may have a competitive
advantage. Often however, he stated, countries in
which laws are enforced poorly do not have
infrastructure sufficient to attract trade. Mr. Bravo
then stated that trade agreements, as they
currently stand, allow certain types of
contamination. For example, he explained, it is not
required that labels on containers identify the
contents as hazardous waste, but such labels
instead can indicate that the contents will be
reused or recycled. That problem in labeling, he
added, led to the contamination at the Alto Pacifico
and Metales y Derivados sites, where stockpiles of
hazardous waste accumulated and no one was
accountable because the contents had been
labeled for "reuse" or "recycling." There is no
language in the NAFTA agreement, he added, that
creates real enforcement mechanisms to prevent
such problems because laws are enforced poorly
and maintenance of records of the transportation
of materials across the border is a voluntary
activity. The laws themselves are not weak, but
enforcement is, Mr. Bravo declared. The
infrastructure that supports enforcement and
cleanup should be better funded, he stated.
The border area provides the clearest example of
the ways in which trade and environmental issues
come together, Mr. Bravo continued. During
NAFTA discussions before the act was enacted,
he explained, people believed that displacement at
the border would be minimal. However, he
continued, farm workers worried that the United
States would sell corn to Mexico, even though
Mexico grows enough grain to meet its needs.
Soon after NAFTA was enacted, he stated, the
U.S. sold corn to Mexico. In addition, the people
living in the maquiladora region have suffered
discrimination on the basis of gender and age, and
families have been uprooted and displaced. What
are the mechanisms for enforcing environmental
compliance in the region, who is responsible for a
polluting company located in Tijuana the profits of
which go to other countries, and what are the
incentives for compliance, Mr. Bravo asked.
Mr. Hecht responded that several problems affect
the border area. Repatriation of hazardous waste
is based in part on the agreement between the
United States and Mexico under NAFTA, and that
process will continue, he said. The accountability
7-6
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
of multinationals, in relation to the Mexican
government, should be explored in light of the new
border plan that will replace the Border XXI
Framework scheduled to expire in 2000. Most
multinational companies, Mr. Hecht continued, will
endeavor to operate at a world standard; however,
because many of these companies are located
farther away from the border region, they may be
"divorced" from the sensitivity of such issues.
Ms. Mary Lattimer, Trade Representative, U.S.
Department of Commerce, responded that she
believes that many of Mr. Bravo's concerns had
been addressed in the Jordan Free Trade
Agreement. She acknowledged that comments
received from members of the International
Subcommittee are representative of the concerns
the USTR must consider if change is to be
implemented. Sustainable development, she
continued, has three aspects:
• Economic effects
• Environmental protection
• Social development
The three aspects are of equal importance, and all
must be supported in trade policies, she stated.
The Jordan agreement, she added, had been the
first agreement written to support the WTO
provision for a transparent dispute resolution
process and to encourage discussion of
environmental issues with nongovernment
organizations. Included in the Jordan model, she
continued, were provisions for securing
commitments from countries that they would
enforce their own existing laws, provided those
laws were deemed adequate. Ms. Lattimer added
that she believed the obligation of each country to
enforce its own laws was being honored.
3.2 Overview of the Activities of the U.S.
Department of State
Mr. Michael Shelton, State Department, briefly
explained how international financial assistance
helps developing countries improve environmental
justice. He also described the role played in that
process by multilateral development banks (MDB)
and various bilateral programs and policies. The
MDBs include the World Bank; the Global
Environment Facility; and the five regional
development banks, the Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB), the African Development
Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and
the NAD Bank. In 1999, he continued, the MDBs
lent $65.2 billion to developing countries,
compared with $9.6 billion in assistance provided
by the United States in fiscal year 1999. However,
he added, all U.S. bilateral assistance is provided
on a grant basis.
Loans from MDBs help improve the environment in
developing countries in two ways, continued Mr.
Shelton, either by funding projects that directly
improve the environment or by funding institutions
that establish and enforce environmental
standards. One example of the first form of
assistance, he explained further, would be a recent
$130 million loan made by IDB to Brazil for the
expansion of the potable water supply, sanitary
sewerage and wastewater treatment facilities in
Brazil's Federal District. An example of the
second form of assistance, he said, is the
upcoming loan to Paraguay to establish a national
environmental system that will integrate public
agencies and private-sector organizations into a
single system under which implementing
environmental policies are to be implemented, he
said.
Mr. Shelton continued, explaining that MDBs
require that countries borrowing monies review the
effects of their projects on the environment.
Environmental impact assessments (EIA) are
required for all projects that have some effect on
the environment, he said, adding that countries
borrowing funds are obliged to describe in detail
what they will do to mitigate the negative effects of
proposed projects. Resettlement action plans also
are required for dams and highways and other
projects that displace people, Mr. Shelton stated.
He added that governments engaged in such
projects must specify the compensation and other
assistance that will be provided to those who are
displaced.
Mr. Shelton reported that the United States
opposes all MDB loans for projects that will have
substantial effects on humans if an EIA has not
been written and released to the public at least 120
days before the day the board of the lending bank
is scheduled to vote on that loan. The reason for
maintaining such a policy, he explained, is to help
ensure that persons affect by projects are aware of
the changes the project will bring about. Even
when an EIA, complete with mitigation measures,
has been prepared, the United States still may
vote against a loan if the United States determines
that the project will cause irreparable harm to the
environment, he stated. Mr. Shelton
acknowledged that a comment period of 120 days
does not provide adequate time for a thorough
public review of proposed projects.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-7
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
For example, Mr. Shelton continued, the United
States recently opposed loan to a government in
Asia for a highway because the United States
considered the threat to biodiversity by the
proposed highway to be too great. He stated that
opposition on the part of the United States alone
usually is not sufficient to block approval of a loan
because the weight of each member's vote is
determined by the amount of that member's
contribution to the paid-in capital of the fund.
However, in cases in which the environment was
quite severe, other donors had joined the United
States to block approval of a loan, he said.
Consequently, developing countries are learning
how to evaluate projects and developing an
understanding of what constitutes acceptable
international standards, Mr. Shelton said.
Mr. Shelton then described the activities of the
NAD Bank, the smallest MDB supported by the
United States. He remarked that the bank, created
in 1995 under the NAFTA agreement, lends funds
only for environmental projects along the U.S.-
Mexico border. Specifically, it provides loans to
communities to help finance water, wastewater
and solid waste projects, he explained. Mr.
Shelton acknowledged that, although the fund had
allocated $262 million in grants through the Border
Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), which is
funded by EPA, it had lent only $11 million. The
problem, he explained, is that, in the past, the NAD
Bank was lent funds only at commercial interest
rates and the small communities along the border
cannot afford to pay those rates. Recently, he
continued, the board of directors of the bank
agreed to allocate $50 million for loans at less than
market rate for infrastructure projects in water,
wastewater, and solid waste. They also agreed to
consider loans for other types of environmental
infrastructure projects.
Continuing, Mr. Shelton stated that the U.S.
Export-Import Bank evaluates the expected effects
on the environment of all capital projects before
the bank provides funding for those projects.
Currently, he added, the United states is
attempting to convince the other G-7 Countries
and the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) member countries to
impose similar requirements on their export credit
agencies and is requesting that each agree to use
similar qualitative and quantitative standards.
Mr. Shelton reported that the various bilateral
assistance programs sponsored by the United
states and administered by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (U.S. AID) also help
developing countries improve local environments.
He explained that U.S. AID seeks to protect the
environmental by working to achieve five broad
objectives: 1) reducing the threat of global climate
change; 2) conserving biological diversity; 3)
helping to manage urbanization, including
management of pollution; 4) promoting
environmentally sound energy services; and 5)
managing natural resources on a substantial basis.
He observed that, from the point of view of
environmental justice, one of the most interesting
U.S. AID programs is its work through regional
urban development organizations (RUDO). U.S.
AID, he continued, works through RUDOs in India,
Indonesia, South Africa, Guatemala, and Poland to
deliver environmental services and to create jobs
in 150 municipalities.
4.0 PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
This section summarizes the presentations made
and reports submitted to the International
Subcommittee. The International Subcommittee
heard presentations and reports on the following
topics: the United Nations (UN) World Conference
Against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance; the Border
XXI program, a program whose mission is to
identify and address environmental factors, in a
binational framework, that pose the highest risk to
human health so that exposure to such factors
may be reduced; pesticide training initiatives; tribal
community outreach programs, and pilot Internet
projects related to the global environment.
4.1 UN World Conference Against Racism,
Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and
Related Intolerance
Ms. Sharon Kotok, State Department and Agency
Representative, White House Interagency Task
Force on Racism, opened her presentation by
describing the preparation necessary for a UN
world conference. Such conferences, she began,
focus on a single issue or problem, with the
ultimate goal of identifying recommendations for
addressing that problem. The UN Conference
Against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, she
explained, scheduled to be held August 31 through
September 7, 2001 in South Africa, will focus on
five areas:
• Sources of racism
• Victims of racism
• Possible redress
• Measures for the prevention of racism
• Actions to overcome racism
7-8
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
The goals of the conference are to acknowledge
the progress made in addressing the issues of
concern and increasing awareness, examine the
obstacles that remain to be overcome, and
recommend specific actions, Ms. Kotok added.
The conference, organized by the UN High
Commissioner on Human Rights, would be
"forward-looking and action-oriented," she
explained. Representatives of governments and
NGOs are expected to work together to address
disparities related to such issues as environmental
benefits and burdens, health care, economic
status, and education. However, she added, it is
not the intention of the conference to single out
violators or to point an accusatory finger, but rather
to provide an opportunity for participants to
evaluate their own actions and policies.
Ms. Kotok noted that planners were modeling the
conference after the United Nations Fourth World
Conference on Women held in Beijing, People's
Republic of China, in 1995. Strong
recommendations, as well as new legislation and
legal measures, resulted from that conference, she
pointed out. She explained that the Beijing
Conference was "so successful" because of the
strong collaboration between participants in the
conference and NGOs. Representatives of NGOs
also had been included throughout the planning
process and assisted in writing the documents
generated as a result of the deliberations
conducted during the conference, she continued.
Ms. Kotok asked that the members of the
subcommittee provide comments on two
documents, Excerpted Material Developed by the
U.S. Interagency Task Force on the United
Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance (Draft) and the UN World Conference
Against Racism (WCAR) - The Environment
Position Paper (Draft), prepared by the White
House Interagency Task Force on Racism. Ms.
Mary O'Lone, EPA Office of General Counsel,
reiterated that the documents had been submitted
as placeholders and that the task force hoped to
receive comments on the documents before the
January 15 and 16, 2001 planning conference to
be held in Geneva, Switzerland. Ms. O'Lone
requested that comments or questions about the
documents be forwarded to her by electronic mail
(e-mail) at: olone.mary@epa.gov.
In response to Ms. O'Lone request for comments,
Mr. Saldamondo stated that the members of the
International Subcommittee would need time to
discuss the position of the subcommittee, but that
they did have an interest in the issue. He
observed further that recognition of incidents of
discrimination against "vulnerable groups" is
valuable. For example, he remarked, the
governments of Chile and Uruguay do not
recognize that indigenous populations live within
their borders. Those people are not recognized
legally by their own governments, he declared,
adding that such discrimination is particularly
evident in the cases of people of African descent
and indigenous peoples living in Central and South
America.
Mr. Saldamondo then described the inadequacies
of the domestic U.S. concept of environmental
justice when it is applied in an international
context. He stated that he believes the United
States should redefine the elements of racism in
an international context and revise language that is
"U.S.-centric". The term "racial minorities," he
explained, may not present an accurate picture of
the victims of racism, particularly in those countries
in which indigenous populations are in the majority
but lack control over their environment. What also
is lacking, he continued, is the participation of "civil
society" and those people who are the victims of
racism. There is a difference, he stated, between
civil society and stakeholders; stakeholders often
include groups, such as industry, that the civil
society would consider part of the problem.
Certainly, industry does have a role in the process,
but acknowledging and considering the concerns
of groups that are affected is crucial, he urged.
Ms. Mildred McClain, Citizens for Environmental
Justice, added that there is a need for a link
between "participating in" and "influencing"
decision-making. Efforts to increase participation
alone are not sufficient, she stated; language
should be developed that supports increases in
both the participation and influence of civil society
or the general public at the world conference, she
urged. The concept of environmental racism also
should be well defined before the conference is
convened, she advised. She added that she would
take the responsibility of circulating the two draft
documents in various environmental justice
communities to solicit their views. Ms. McClain
recommended that the White House task force
also seek the "buy-in" of NGOs for the two
documents.
Mr. Yang then pointed out that most documents
that address environmental issues on an
international level focus primarily on pollution.
Issues related to the marginalization of community
groups and the use of natural resources are not
addressed, he said. Environmental justice also
has economic implications, he continued, adding
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-9
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
that the flow of goods and benefits, and the
accompanying externalization of the burdens
related to environmental costs that tend to be
"inflicted" on developing countries, should be
addressed.
4.2 Update on U.S.-Mexico Cooperation and
the Border XXI Program
Dr. Hecht provided the members of the
International Subcommittee with an update on the
Border XXI Program and the new priorities
established by Mexico's Federal environmental
secretariat for the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC). He announced that Mr. Victor
Lichtenger recently had been named the Minister
of Mexico's newly renamed Secretaria de Medio
Ambiente Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT),
formerly known as the Secretaria de Medio
Ambiente Recursos Naturales y Pesca
(SEMARNAP). Mr. Lichtenger also was named
the first executive director of the CEC, he
continued. Dr. Hecht then reported that
SEMARNAT had announced a series of priorities
for the CEC, including:
• Develop, under articles 14 and 15 of the North
American Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation, procedures by which citizens can
submit to the CEC petitions about the failure of
the Mexican government to effectively enforce
environmental laws that are "expeditious,
open, and transparent."
• Strengthen the CEC's Joint Public Advisory
Committee (JPAC) to serve as a "true organ"
of public participation in the CEC's decision-
making process and to "democratize" the CEC
by giving JPAC a "real role" in the
development of the CEC's budget and work
program. In addition, a new position with
responsibility for the promotion of public
participation has been created in the CEC.
• Conclude negotiations on an "equitable"
agreement on Environmental Impact
Assessment in a Transboundary Context
which stipulates the obligations of parties to
assess the environmental impact of certain
activities at an early stage of planning.
Mr. Lichtenger had pledged to emphasize the
importance of maintaining the independence of the
CEC in processing petitions of private citizens to
addressed environmental problems, reported Mr.
Hecht. He commented that such a commitment is
"a good sign" because citizen redness has been a
source of friction among the United States,
Mexico, and Canada.
In a nod to the subcommittee's concerns about
trade and the environment, Mr. Lichtenger had
announced strong support for the CEC's
cooperative work program. He particularly had
emphasized its trade and environment program, in
light of the importance of the North American
experience, in the negotiation of a free trade
agreement of the americas, said Dr. Hecht.
Mr. Lichtenger was to meet with Mexico's new
"Border Czar", Mr. Ernesto Ruffo, to stake out a
strong, common Mexican position to confront what
he characterized as "lack of political will," said Dr.
Hecht.
Dr. Hecht then reported that the preparation of the
Border XXI Transition Paper and consultations
with states and regions was ongoing. States and
tribal communities were working together more
closely, he observed; a series of meetings had
produced recommendations for the new border
plan, he said. In addition, changes had been
made within lending institutions, including the NAD
Bank, the mandate of which had been, he
continued. He added that issues related to money
and funding are important in drafting the new
border plan.
Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 6, commented that, in 1999, he had
attended a meeting of the BECC in Monterrey,
Mexico. He stressed that the transparency
provisions of the BECC that mandate transparency
must be met. Issues that must be addressed
under the new border plan, he declared, include
strengthening of the role and participation of the
states in the process, creation of an exclusive
public participation process, and expansion of
infrastructure to support the effort deal with all
issues.
Mr. Saldamondo reminded those present that the
recommendations developed by participants in the
Roundtable on Environmental Justice on the U.S.-
Mexico Border, which had been sponsored jointly
by the NEJAC and EPA, had included calls for an
increase in the participation of indigenous
communities residing on the Mexican side of the
border and for enforcement of accountability on
the part of polluters.
Mr. Enrique Manzanilla, EPA Region 9,
commented briefly on the success of four pilot
projects that EPA had chosen because they
offered opportunities to explore domestic aspects
7-10
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
of environmental concerns. He explained that the
cities had been selected to address issues other
than that of transboundary waste.
Ms. Olivia Balandran, Environmental Justice
Coordinator, EPA Region 6, distributed to the
members of the International Subcommittee
information about projects that EPA Region 6 has
undertaken. She asked that the members of the
International Subcommittee provide their views on
the direction Region 6 has taken with those
projects.
4.3 Update on the Metales y Derivados Site
Mr. Bravo presented the written statement of Mr.
Cesar Luna, Environmental Health Coalition
(EHC), who had been unable to attend the
meeting. In his statement, Mr. Luna noted that in
October 1998, a petition to the CEC charged that
the Mexican government had failed to enforce
articles 134 and 170 of Mexico's general
environmental law. The petition, which EHC had
filed, cited Mexico's failure to pursue extradition of
the owner of the Metales y Derivados site who
currently resides in San Diego, California,
explained Mr. Luna. However, the CEC does not
have the authority to extradite the property owner,
he continued. Residents of the affected
community believe that the owner had "gotten
away free," said Mr. Luna.
In his statement, Mr. Luna expressed EHC's fear
that, with the change of administration in Mexico,
the case will be forgotten. He requested that the
International Subcommittee recommend that the
NEJAC urge EPA to:
• Oversee the release to the CEC of
documentation related to the case by entities
on both sides of the border
• Serve as a liaison with the State Department
and the U.S. Customs Service, U.S.
Department of the Treasury
• Establish the Metales y Derivados site as a
pilot project for a binational cleanup and
enforcement effort
Dr. Hecht remarked that Mexico had agreed to
allow the CEC, through a contractor, to conduct
sampling of contaminated surface soils at the
Metales y Derivados site characterizing that
decision as a good sign of cooperation on the part
of the Mexican government. Previous analysis had
shown that lead levels at the site, an abandoned
maquiladora owned by a U.S. citizen, were not as
high as those at locations in the city, he stated. In
June 2000, the case had been brought before the
CEC council on the grounds that the Mexican
government allegedly had failed to clean up the
site and determine which laws are applicable and
whether any laws had been broken, he continued.
Information still was being gathered, said Dr.
Hecht. He suggested that another month would
pass before the case is taken to the Council again.
Because of time constraints thoroughly, the
members of the subcommittee did not discuss the
case of the Metales y Derivados. The members
agreed to discuss the case during upcoming
conference calls of the subcommittee.
4.4 Update on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Pesticide Training
Initiatives
Ms. Delta Valente, Project Manager, Farm Worker
Health, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS), EPA, and Ms. Carol Parker,
OPPTS, EPA, provided the members of the
International Subcommittee with an update about
the activities of the EPA Pesticide Worker
Protection Branch. They distributed examples of
literature about pesticide training and awareness
that is available free through OPPTS's Web site:
. Previously,
pesticide training and awareness had focused on
occupational hazards, Ms. Parker explained,
adding that current programs also focus on issues
related to pesticide drift, contamination of well
water with pesticides, and the effects of pesticides
on children. One of the primary concerns of EPA's
Office of Pesticide Program's (OPP) is increased
protection of the public, especially children, she
continued. Children's health has high priority, she
explained, because children are more vulnerable
to pesticides than adults. Ms. Parker stated that,
to protect children from risk in the home and in the
workplace, OPP seeks to educate parents who are
exposed to pesticides in the workplace.
Ms. Parker also announced that, through a
collaboration among EPA, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services,
various states, farm workers, and farmers,
implementation and enforcement of the agricultural
worker protection program was to be reviewed and
programmatic improvements in the strategic plan
for worker protection was to be developed. A
series of workshops to be held in Sacramento,
California (December 2000); Orlando, Florida (May
2001); and Washington, D.C. (fall 2001) will
provide the basis for the collaborative effort, she
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-11
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
continued. Ms. Parker reported that the key
themes expressed at the Austin, Texas
stakeholder workshop held in June 2000 were
issues related to training, enforcement, complaint
and retaliation, communications, and children's
health. She recommended that the members of
the subcommittee obtain copies of the full report at
the OPP Web site:
< www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/workers/workers. h
tm>.
Ms. Parker reported that EPA, in a collaborative
effort with states and industry, had developed
basic pesticide safety materials, as well as
supported broad-scale training of farm workers in
pesticide safety. For example, she explained, the
National Farm Worker Environmental Education
Program, conducted by the Association of
Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP) in
partnership with the AmeriCorps Community
Service Program, is the largest national pesticide
safety education program for farm workers in the
nation. AFOP has trained more than 250,000 farm
workers in the United States in pesticide safety,
she continued, noting that AFOP, a recipient of an
EPA grant, also had produced five novella-style
radio mini-dramas in Spanish.
Ms. Valente then described a training initiative
directed at children. The initiative is a weekend
program in which students from the University of
Texas at Brownsville teach children about the
harmful effects of pesticides, she said. Through
the program, children from farm worker families
also are flown to Washington, D.C. to learn how
the Federal government operates, she continued.
Ms. Valente, who displayed photographs of
children who have participated in the program,
commented that she hoped the program would
continue to grow and soon would include a
component that offers an internship in
Washington, D.C.
Ms. Valente also described EPA's Pesticides and
National Strategies for Health-Care Providers,
established 1996 to ensure that health-care
providers become better aware of and educated
and trained in the area of health problems related
to exposure to pesticides, particularly those
affecting child laborers in agriculture.
Mr. Bravo asked whether there were ways to train
farm workers before their arrival in the United
States about the dangers associated with
exposure to pesticides. He observed that any
worker who comes to the United States to work
should have the opportunity to be protected and to
make a decent wage. However, it is not unheard
of, he continued, for workers to be paid in alcohol
or marijuana instead of U.S. dollars. Mr. Bravo,
who stated that members of his family had
migrated to the United States to work on farms,
remarked that each of them had to complete the
U.S. Department of Labor's HZA agricultural guest
workers program in Ciudad, Juarez, Mexico.
Completion of the paperwork required from one to
two days to complete, he said. He then suggested
that the waiting period could provide an noting that
this time would be an excellent opportunity to
deliver training in pesticide safety.
Mr. Bravo reported on the work of the University of
California at Berkeley in training farm workers.
The training classes, he explained, now cover how
to read a material safety data sheet, understand a
map of risk analysis and exposure pathways, and
use appropriate personal protective equipment.
He and Mr. Saldamondo identified several
grassroots organizations that are active in training
farm workers, including Lideres Campesinos;
Indigenous People of Mexico; and the Pesticide
Action Network, which has produced several
Spanish-language videos that Mr. Saldamondo
described as "very informative." The videos
examine dangers that pesticides pose to
communities.
Mr. Saldamondo commented that he had been
disappointed that funding for pesticide training is
provided to individual states because many states
do not consider pesticide training to be a top
priority. In response, Ms. Valente stated that,
under the new border plan, pesticide awareness
could become a focus area. In September 2001,
OPP will have launch a web-based strategy aimed
at health-care providers that individuals in all
countries will have access to, she announced.
Mr. Saldamondo stated that he had found "a lot
wrong" with EPA's risk assessment model. He
suggested that the NEJAC should recommend that
the EPA administrator support the international
convention on the rights of migrants, which
currently had been signed by only 12 states.
Mr. Yang commented that, during the entire
discussion of environmental enforcement, no one
had raised the issue of suspension of state
programs for noncompliance. How much
consideration, he asked, had EPA given to the
registration status of "adverse effects" on the
environment. In addition, he asked Ms. Valente
and Ms. Parker to determine why the agency's
legal memorandum on statutory authorities to
implement environmental justice failed to include
7-12
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), although earlier drafts of
the memorandum had done so.
In response to the comments of Mr. Saldamondo
and Mr. Yang, Ms. Parker explained that EPA was
beginning to look at various risk assessment
models. She acknowledged that the current model
does not consider the cumulative effects of several
pathways, but stated that work to further refine the
model was ongoing. Ms. Valente added that each
state has a different definition of what constitutes
an inspection, adding that such issues are being
addressed during that ongoing conference calls
with states.
4.5 Overview of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Tribal Community
Outreach Programs
Mr. Alan Sielen, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
OIA, provided the members of the International
Subcommittee with an overview of the tribal
community outreach programs EPA recently had
implemented to improve integration of tribal views
into EPA decisions. The focus of the
communications, he continued, had been on tribes
living along the U.S.-Mexico border, the border
region between Canada and the Arctic, and other
regions of the globe, such as areas that are
affected by persistent organic pollutants, climate
change, and biodiversity issues.
Mr. Sielen described one outreach effort under
which EPA had initiated a series of telephone
conference calls designed to inform participants
about issues that affect them regionally and to
create a forum through which to solicit comments
in the early stages of the decision-making process.
The calls, he explained, which are open to anyone,
are informal and informational. The last an hour
and feature a subject-matter expert who provides a
briefing before the call is opened to comments and
questions, he continued. Each regional office
notifies individuals who have expressed an interest
in environmental issues when the calls are to be
conducted, he added.
Mr. Sielen reported that EPA had held two calls.
The first call focused on general environmental
issues, while the second call focused on mercury
contamination, he said. The second call, he
added, which focused on a single topic, will serve
as a model for future calls. The next call, her
continued, was scheduled for mid- to late-January
and was to focus on the effect on tribes of issues
trade on the environment, he announced.
Mr. Saldamondo commented that the members of
the International Subcommittee were interested in
the conference calls. He noted that the members
also were concerned about including tribal
members who live in Mexico. For example, in the
case of the Tohono O'odham tribe, a
"transboundary tribe" located in Arizona and
Mexico, it is difficult to secure the participation of
the Mexican members of the tribe. Mr. Sielen
agreed that it would be important to include in the
calls tribal members living in Mexico and
responded that he would explore mechanisms for
increasing their participation. However, he
remarked, their participation in the conference
calls might not be feasible.
Mr. Sielen then asked the members of the
International Subcommittee their views on ongoing
negotiations related to persistent organic pollutants
(POP). Mr. Saldamondo responded that, in his
experience once the State Department had
adopted a position, its representatives come to
meetings with instructions from which they rarely
deviate. With regard to POPs, he continued,
methylbromide will not be placed on the list of
substances to be banned from the United States
until another economically viable alternative has
been selected.
4.6 Update on the Activities of the South
African Work Group
Mr. Mark Kasman, Senior International Information
Officer, OIA, provided the members of the
International Subcommittee with an update about
the activities of the South Africa Work Group
carried out since the meeting of the NEJAC in
Atlanta, Georgia in May. He commented that the
meeting between the NEJAC and its South African
counterpart had created lasting relationships.
Since May, the South Africa Work Group had been
working together to increase media awareness of
environmental justice and publicize the issue within
South Africa, he reported. The publicity, added Mr.
Kasman, had gained more credibility and
legitimacy for environmental justice South Africa.
In addition, the work group had been assisted its
South African counterpart in its attempt to obtain
funding for its programs.
Mr. Kasman also announced that Ms. Elsie
Motubatse, Swarananag, a community group from
the northern provinces of South Africa, was named
the Committee Organizer of the Year, a high honor
in South Africa. President Nelson Mandela
personally presented the award to Ms. Motubatse,
he said.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-13
-------
International Subcommittee
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
4.7 Overview of Internet Projects
Mr. Kasman and Mr. Lionel Brown, OIA, provided
the members of the International Subcommittee
with an overview of several new Internet projects
on which the OIA currently was working. They
reported that pilot projects include revision of
EnviroSense, a Web site at
that designed to provide links to information,
increase public participation, and provide
information about mechanisms for obtaining
funding for implementation of projects. Executed
in several different languages, the Web site
provides regional information to many countries in
eastern and central Europe, Asia, Africa, and the
Americas, they noted. Currently, OIA is working to
include regional information pertinent to South
Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda, they reported.
The goal of these Internet projects is to increase
public participation and access to information, Mr.
Brown stated.
Mr. Brown reported that, in response to complaints
by various African community groups that available
information about policy issues related to climate is
insufficient, OIA also is developing a proposal for a
climate network Web site. Initially, the project is to
collect information about three countries to be
used populate the database on the Web site, he
continued. Mr. Brown added that training in how to
use the information, as well as funding for Internet
access, will be provided. If the project is
successful in the three pilot countries, the model
will be extended to other countries throughout
Africa, he continued. EPA is to provide the seed
money for the project, he said, adding that OIA
anticipates a decision in January 2001. The funds
to expand the project beyond the three pilot
countries would come from outside the agency,
possibly, he suggested, from the U.S. AID.
Mr. Kasman added that OIA was pursuing an
Education Democracy Initiative in Africa to
encourage the attendance of girls in middle school,
and to promote education as a whole. He
remarked that the initiative might provide an
excellent opportunity to "spin" an environmental
justice focus into the program. Mr. Brown added
that companies such as Microsoft and Hewlett
Packard have been participating as partners in
these initiatives.
Mr. Brown also asked the members of the
International Subcommittee to provide their views
on the initiatives he had described. He then
offered to provide the subcommittee updates about
the initiatives.
5.0 PUBLIC DIALOGUE
This section summarizes the presentations offered
during a public comment period provided by the
subcommittee, as well as the discussion among
the subcommittee that those presentations
prompted.
5.1 Ms. Betsy Boatner, Amazon Alliance,
Washington, D.C.
Ms. Betsy Boatner, Amazon Alliance, requested
that the members of the International
Subcommittee help with the wording of her
recommendation to the EPA administrator about
Plan Columbia, a U.S.-backed plan to destroy drug
plants by deforesting parts of Columbia. Outlined
in her letter were specific questions about the
manner of application, the type of chemicals and
quantities that would be applied, and the aircraft
that would be used to spray them. The
information, once received, Ms. Boatner explained,
would be used by the World Wildlife Fund to
assess the true environmental and social effects
and any plans to monitor those effects. Chapter 2,
Public Comment Period, Section 2.2.x of this
report provides a summary of the comments Ms.
Boatner's made before the Executive Council of
the NEJAC on December 12, 2000.
Ms. Boatner also asked that the members of the
International Subcommittee submit her letter to the
Executive Council of the NEJAC. In her letter, she
asked that the NEJAC assist her organization in
obtaining information from the agency or agencies
that would be responsible for implementing Plan
Columbia, she explained.
5.2 Ms. Madeline Pepin, Our Lady of the Lake
University, San Antonio, Texas
In response to the recommendation of the
Executive Council of the NEJAC that the members
of the International Subcommittee address the
comments made by Ms. Madeline Pepin,
Professor of Philosophy, Our Lady of the Lake
University, before the Executive Council of the
NEJAC. Mr. Saldamondo suggested that Ms.
Pepin's comment would be addressed most
effectively by the Interagency Work Group (IWG)
on Environmental Justice. Ms. Pepin's public
comment, Mr. Saldamondo explained, focused on
what Ms. Pepin termed the failure of the U.S.
Department of Defense and the U.S. Department
of Energy to communicate with residents of the
community near Kelly Air Force Base, Texas,
whose first language is not English. Mr.
Saldamondo explained that the IWG could
7-14
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
-------
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
International Subcommittee
address the issue and work directly with those
agencies to encourage the recognition of
languages other than English in agency outreach
and community relations programs. Chapter 2,
Public Comment Period, Section 2.2.x of this
report presents a summary of Ms. Pepin's
comments.
6.0 SIGNIFICANT ACTION ITEMS
This section summarizes the action items adopted
by the subcommittee. Ms. Yang also quickly
mentioned that the letter about the Committee on
the Elimination or All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD) prepared by him would be
sent by email to the members of the International
Subcommittee for comment. A final draft of the
letter would be submitted to the NEJAC Executive
Council after comments are incorporated, he said.
The action items adopted include:
/ Requested that the International
Subcommittee of the NEJAC participate in
follow-up dialogues with the Department of
State and the USTR about issues related to
trade and the environment.
/ Suggested that the USTR invite and include
representatives of all stakeholders in
discussions of issues related to trade and the
environment to ensure representation of a
broad range of affected stakeholders, the
USTR should adopt the definition of
constituents set forth in the NEJAC Model for
Public Participation.
/ Requested that the International
Subcommittee distribute and review the
Excerpted Material Developed by the U.S.
Interagency Task Force on the United Nations
World Conference Against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance (Draft) and the UN World
Conference Against Racism (WCAR)/The
Environment Position Paper (Draft) and
provide comments on those documents to the
White House Interagency Task Force on
Racism. The comments should be submitted
before the next conference, scheduled to be
held in January 2001 in Geneva, Switzerland.
/ Requested that the International
Subcommittee review and provide comment
on the EPA draft document Addressing EJ
Issues on the U.S.-Mexico Border.
/ Agreed to review and provide comments on
the letter about the Committee on the
Elimination of all Forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD); once changes have
been incorporated in response to the
comments of the International Subcommittee,
the letter is to be forwarded to the NEJAC
Executive Council for review.
/ Requested that EPA explain why the legal
memorandum on statutory authorities to
implement environmental justice did not
mention the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), although earlier
drafts had done so.
/ Requested that the NEJAC forward to the EPA
Administrator a request for EPA's assistance
in identifying specific details of the proposed
Plan Columbia project to destroy drug plants in
Columbia.
/ Requested that the NEJAC persuade EPA to
continue exploring cleanup options at the
Metales y Derivados site located near Tijuana,
Mexico.
/ Agreed to ask the NEJAC Executive Council to
forward to the IWG the request of Ms.
Madeline Pepin, Our Lady of the Lake
University, because her concerns focus on the
limited awareness and recognition by Federal
agencies of communities in which English is
not the primary language.
Arlington, Virginia, December 13, 2000
7-15
------- |