As regards the environment, the inadequacies of Mexican policies on water, forestry, land use, fisheries, alternative energy sources, public transportation, urban growth, regional development, and — not least important-population growth are becoming acute as these problems overwhelm the government's ability to address them. . . Air and water pollution, encroaching urbanization, and inadequate disposal of industrial and household waste continue unabated.
Victor Urquidi, 2003149
During the last forty years of the twentieth century, Mexico lost 30 percent of its forest and jungle and continues to lose between 600,000 and 800,000 hectares a year. Roughly 95 percent of this loss is due to the clearing of land for cattle raising or for poor peasants to farm.150
Erosion resulting from deforestation causes the loss of millions of tons of soil annually. In the Sierra Petatlan y Coyuca de Catatlan region in Guerrero, the erosion rate more than quadrupled as a result of deforestation. Denuded hillsides shed water much more quickly, and flood waters rise higher as river channels silt up. In 1999, after a week of storms in southeastern Mexico, at least 373 were confirmed dead from flooding. In 2007, massive flooding in Tabasco cost an estimated $3.1 billion. In addition to exacerbating flooding, deforestation results in lost biodiversity and huge releases of carbon dioxide. An estimated quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions result from forest clearing.151
In 2000, the value of Mexico’s standing forests was 6.5 times the value of timber harvested. The value of standing timber results from trees mitigating flooding and evening out water flow. Despite forests playing this vital role, Mexico spends only a minuscule 0.11 percent of GDP to maintain forests. Given this minimal commitment to preservation, as the economy expanded under NAFTA there was, not surprisingly, a significant increase in deforestation.152
Roughly 66 percent of Mexico’s land area shows some signs of degradation and 36 percent is classified as desertified—the most degraded. In addition, 35 percent of irrigated land has been abandoned a due to erosion or its being hopelessly contaminated. The amount of arable land in the Mixtec region of Oaxaca has been reduced by 70 percent due to erosion. The result is massive job loss and out-migration of the area’s indigenous population.153
Mexican rivers are often contaminated by silt, raw sewage, and residue from the 15,000 tons of pesticide applied annually. Rivers are further abused by the extraction of water for irrigation and municipal use. One of the most abused rivers is the Lerma, which rises west of Mexico City. It is born in a weakened state since its headwaters are diverted to supply Mexico City. The Lerma later accumulates raw sewage, industrial waste, and silt from land that has been eroded due to overgrazing and illegal logging. It is further weakened by the extraction of irrigation water before eventually flowing into Lake Chapala, south of Guadalajara. The volume of the lake, which once covered 428 square miles, has been substantially reduced. This loss of volume results from the multiple demands on water in the Lake Chapala basin, including supplying the 5 million residents of Guadalajara.154
Mexicans rely on aquifers to supply water for irrigation and domestic use. Some 41 percent of this water is pumped from aquifers that are being depleted faster than they are being recharged. Each year the stock of water available in Mexican aquifers declines by eight cubic kilometers. Irrigation consumes 80 percent of this water, which is often supplied by the government at highly subsidized prices, so there is little incentive to conserve.155
As aquifers are exhausted, the need to import food is likely to rise. Global warming may also lead to the need for increased grain imports. According to one model, the percentage of Mexico’s area suitable for unirrigated corn production will decline from 40.0 percent to 18.5 percent as a result of global warming. This would not be so worrisome if world per capita grain production were still increasing. However, production peaked in 1985 at 343 kilograms per capita and has been declining since.156
Mexico is not blameless in global warming, since hydrocarbons meet 80 percent of its energy needs. Even though it lags far behind the U. S. rate of 19.0 tons of annual carbon-dioxide
Emissions per capita, its rate of 3.97 tons per capita is increasing rapidly. Between 2000 and 2006 hydrocarbon emissions increased rapidly, as the demand for gasoline increased by 35 percent and for diesel by 21 percent. This demand increase was driven by heavy fuel subsidies and by massive road construction projects. In addition, by international standards Mexico uses energy
Inefficiently.157
Studies predict that global warming will have a particularly detrimental effect on Mexico. The severest impacts will be increased temperature in the north and northwest and reduced rainfall in this already arid area. Rising sea levels and more severe hurricanes are other negative effects. By one calculation, global warming could cost Mexico 30 percent of its GDP by 2100.158
NGOs have attempted to steer Mexico on a less environmentally destructive path. They have had some defeats and some victories. Their outstanding defeat was the failure to prevent the construction of the Laguna Verde nuclear power plant in Veracruz. One of their outstanding victories was blocking the construction by Mitsubishi of the world’s largest salt factory on the Laguna de San Ignacio in Baja California. This protected natural area is the last untouched calving grounds for the California gray whale. A well-coordinated campaign against the salt works resulted in 750,000 letters arriving at Mitsubishi headquarters in Tokyo, a growing consumer boycott, and a coordinated alliance of fifty Mexican environmental groups that had solid foreign support. One letter in opposition to the project, signed by thirty-three scientists, including seven Nobel-prize winners, questioned trading the survival of the whale for the production of salt. The 1,000 residents of nearby of Punta Abreojos, which would have been overwhelmed by the project, joined the opposition to the salt works. After visiting the site and viewing the whales, President Zedillo declared, “Taking into account its national and world importance and its singularity, I have made the decision to instruct representatives of the Mexican government. . . to propose a permanent halt to the project.”159
The government has set aside large areas for preservation. However, given the lack of strong government protection, these natural areas fall victim to squatters, illegal loggers, traffickers in plants and animals, and drug dealers who plant marijuana and opium poppies. Just to cite one example, the preserve set aside in Michoacan to protect the monarch butterfly lost 20 percent of its forest cover in twenty-five years due to illegal logging.160
An alternative to simply decreeing land to be protected has been to allow communities to manage their forests. By the middle of the twentieth century, the notion arose that communities could manage their forests as well as their farmland. Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, many communities assumed responsibility for forest management. Residents established agro-forestry enterprises that supported the community. Over the years, forests managed by communities have fared as well as, if not better than, those simply decreed to be protected. This led environmental studies professor David Barton Bray to comment, “The forest communities in Mexico are demonstrating that they are excellent custodians of the forests and that they deserve the support of the government and of the populace in their efforts to manage forests in a sustainable manner.”161
In the early 1990s, as the possibility of Mexico joining NAFTA was being discussed, the environmental impact of such an agreement was sharply debated. NAFTA promoters claimed that the treaty would lead to increased per capita income in Mexico. They claimed the resulting affluence would make Mexicans willing to sacrifice to fight environmental degradation. In contrast, NAFTA opponents warned that the agreement would allow dirty industries to move to Mexico to escape more stringent environmental regulations in the United States and Canada.
As it turned out, neither NAFTA critics nor its proponents were correct. Those who felt that polluting industries would migrate to Mexico were mistaken. Such industries did not move south since the costs of relocating large facilities was too high and many dirty producers wished to remain close to their markets. As Mexican exports almost doubled during the first seven years of NAFTA, exports by less polluting industries such as apparel increased more rapidly than did those of highly polluting industries such as chemicals. However, as exports soared, total production increased, leading to increased pollution. In 2000, Mexico produced nearly 9 million tons of hazardous waste, but had only one safe waste disposal facility, with a capacity of 550,000 tons.162
Even though Mexico has many sound environmental laws on the books, they are not vigorously enforced due to corruption, poor administration, or high short-term economic cost. In the decade after NAFTA went into effect, the number of plant-level inspections dropped precipitously, suggesting that Mexico had become less assiduous about enforcement. The average OECD country spends six times more per capita on environmental enforcement than Mexico does. In 2005, economist Kevin Gallagher described the result of poor environmental infrastructure and lax law enforcement:
Here in Mexico, just about every environmental measure has worsened since about 1985. If you look at levels of soil erosion, municipal solid waste, urban air pollution, urban water pollution, they’ve all grown faster than the economy itself and population growth in Mexico. According to the Mexican government’s own estimates, that environmental degradation has cost the Mexican government about 10 percent of its GDP each year or about $45 billion each year in a country where half its hundred million people live in poverty, less than two dollars a day.163
World History
