 |
Sharing State Environmental Information Electronically in the Mexico-United States Border RegionNovember 1997 |
A Report by the Western Governors' Association Prepared for the Environmental Directors' Ten State Retreat Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by Andrea Guerrero, a consultant to the Western Governors' Association. Ms. Guerrero can be reached at 2812 Ellsworth Street, Berkeley, California 94705 U.S.A. By telephone she can be reached at 510-843-0516 and by e-mail at frontera@uclink4.berkeley.edu.
Ms. Guerrero would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance with this report: Rodolfo Garza, Ecologia, Coahuila; Fabian Lozano, Instituto Tecnologico de Monterrey; Carlos Valdes, Instituto Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Guaymas; Richard Wright, San Diego State University; Bob Parrot, San Diego Association of Governments; Garri Dryden, University of Arizona; Chip Groat and Nancy Lowery, University of Texas El Paso; Charles Palmer and Miguel Pavon, Texas Natural Resource Information System; Jackie Locket, Border Information Solutions Network; Tyrus Fain, Texas General Land Office; Ken Osborn, United States Geological Survey; and Maria Elisa Christie, a consultant to the Western Governors' Association.
The Western Governors' Association (WGA) can be reached at 600 17th Street, Suite 1705 South, Denver, Colorado, 80202-5452 U.S.A. The WGA telephone is 303-623-9378, fax is 303-534-7309 and web is www.westgov.org. WGA Counsel Paul Orbuch (porbuch@westgov.org) manages the WGA's Border Environment Dialogue program under the auspices of which this report was developed. Texas Governor George W. Bush is WGA's Lead Governor for the Border Environment Dialogue, and support for the program is generously provided by the Ford Foundation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Introduction
Connecting To the Internet
Accessing Internet Service
Meeting Hardware, Software, and Training Needs
Recommended Ten State Action
Sharing Information Over the Internet
Determining What Can Be Shared
Removing Prohibitive Costs
Recommended Ten State Action
Building a Compatible Information Network
Linking Organizations on a Home Page
Developing a Transboundary Information Network
Recommended Ten State Action
Appendix: Selected World Wide Web Sites
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is an outgrowth of the first Ten State Retreat of the Environmental Directors of the ten U.S.-Mexico border states that took place in Austin, Texas in November of 1996. At that time, the participants resolved to jointly develop a border-wide electronic environmental information sharing mechanism, to support development of Geographic Information System databases, and to pursue compatible methods and measures to enable information sharing.
This report identifies short-term and long-term steps that border states can take individually and collectively to execute this objective. This report is intended to serve as a resource guide and as a catalyst to overcome barriers and further information exchange between and among the border states. The barriers to effective information exchange, described in the report, include (1) Connecting to the Internet, (2) Sharing Information over the Internet, and (3) Building a Compatible Information Network.
Connecting to the Internet
States must have access to available Internet service to make a connection to the Internet. Though Internet service is quickly expanding in the border region, gaps still exist in Internet service and telecommunications infrastructure. In the absence of accessible Internet service, several alternatives are proposed. First, states could connect through a partner such as another agency in the state, an academic institution, or a non-governmental organization which already has an Internet connection. Second, states could encourage Internet providers to service their state agency. Third, states could encourage the development of telecommunications infrastructure in their region.
If access is available, technically connecting to the Internet requires states to acquire hardware, software and training. Each state has different technical needs and several mechanisms are proposed for states to meet their respective needs. First, states could solicit funding through the public appropriations process, and incorporate the costs of acquiring or updating hardware, software, and training into program budgets. Second, states could establish a donation program which solicits and matches donations to hardware, software, and training needs. Third, states could enter a longer-term collaborative venture with other agencies, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations, that could encompass Internet connection as well as information production.
The following collective actions of the ten states may be more effective than the effort of an individual state.
1. Establish a donation program coordinator to meet hardware, software, and training needs in all the states.
2. Negotiate collectively for Internet access with Internet service providers, telecommunications companies, and governmental agencies.
Sharing Information Over the Internet
A first impediment to sharing information over the Internet is in determining what can be shared. In recognizing different perspectives on what can be shared, several mechanisms could be employed to facilitate the free exchange of information. First, states could list available information and detail procedures for reviewing or acquiring such information. Second, states could disseminate information in a public version, in summary or illustrative form. Third, states could secure limited access to privileged information.
A second impediment to sharing information involves the prohibitive costs of information acquisition. Though some agencies do not charge for their data, other agencies interested in cost recovery do charge for their data. Several mechanisms are proposed to facilitate cost recovery without jeopardizing mutual interest in sharing information. First, states could establish cost sharing mechanisms whereby collaborative institutions would contribute equipment, personnel, funds, and data to meet the costs of information production and dissemination. Second, states could provide specialized information services, whereby agencies would make raw data available at little to no cost, and could then provide specific analysis of data at a greater cost.
The following collective actions of the ten states may be more effective than the effort of an individual state.
1. Consolidate and disseminate lists of available information and provisions for acquiring or reviewing information, to the ten states.
2. Discourage prohibitive acquisition costs, and encourage cost sharing or data sharing agreements.
Building a Compatible Information Network
To build a compatible information network in the border region, state agencies and other organizations must be linked through one or more home pages. Several mechanisms exist to facilitate the linking of organizations. First, states could create individual home pages and locate and maintain the home page in their agencies or in a collaborating institution. Second, states could provide language translation of information on the home page. Where translation is not cost-effective, states could provide a bilingual summary of information, or states could collaborate with universities to employ interns to translate materials.
Beyond organizations, to effectively share information states must develop a transboundary information network. Linking information, and Geographic Information System (GIS) data in particular, is a complex process which will take substantial resources and energy. Several mechanisms exist to facilitate the development of an effective information network. First, states could collaborate with agencies and institutions in other states to establish common or translatable data standards, on a project level. Second, states could dedicate personnel to maintain information on an Internet link. Third, states could work with agencies and institutions to establish information clearinghouses that would function as common points of information collection and dissemination.
The following collective actions of the ten states may be more effective than the effort of an individual state.
1. Develop a common home page to provide a forum for states without a home page, connect existing home pages, and educate the public on the ten state border
environmental initiative.
2. Incorporate common platforms to facilitate information access.
3. Support and participate in initiatives to develop transboundary information networks.
INTRODUCTION
This report is an outgrowth of the first Ten State Retreat of the Environmental Directors of the ten U.S.-Mexico border states that took place in Austin, Texas in November of 1996. At that time, the participants resolved to jointly develop a border-wide electronic environmental information sharing mechanism, to support development of Geographic Information System databases, and to pursue compatible methods and measures to enable information sharing. This goal was subsequently adopted by the Border Governors' Conference participants at their June 1997 meeting in Saltillo, Coahuila and was supported by the Western Governors' Association in their resolution 97-011 adopted in Medora, North Dakota in June 1997.
This report identifies short-term and long-term steps that states can take individually and collectively to execute the recommendation of the Border Governors. This report describes barriers to sharing information, assesses mechanisms to overcome those barriers, and recommends state action to pursue appropriate mechanisms. The mechanisms discussed in this report are not exhaustive, but rather are illustrative of solutions that may be applicable to individual states or to the states as a collective whole. This report is intended to serve as a resource guide and as a catalyst to overcome barriers and further information sharing between border states.
The methodology used to identify barriers and assess mechanisms to overcome those barriers, began with the author's own observations from working two years in the area of environmental information sharing. Building on these observations, she presented questions to individuals working in state agencies, federal agencies, universities, and non-profit organizations in the border region, all of whom have an interest or expertise in the sharing of environmental information. The questions presented elicited information about what efforts were underway to mitigate barriers to information exchange. These responses were then supplemented with additional research.
The themes which evolve from this report include a recognition that resources are limited and different institutions have different areas of expertise. To make best use of resources and expertise, collaborative ventures are proposed. Collaborative ventures with other public agencies, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations strengthen state agencies in several ways. First, information technology capabilities that are built by multiple institutions are likely to be more permanent because they are less vulnerable to personnel or resource changes in any one institution. Second, in a collaborative venture, resources and personnel can be used more effectively and efficiently to concentrate on one aspect of building information technology capabilities.
CONNECTING TO THE INTERNET
Two sets of barriers must be overcome to effectively connect to the Internet. First, Internet service must be accessible and available. Second, hardware, software, and training needs must be met so that border states can take advantage of Internet accessibility.
Accessing Internet Service
Internet connection requires available and accessible Internet service. Though expected to expand with increased demand, Internet service in the border region is presently limited on both sides of the border. Internet service providers are multiplying rapidly in Mexico and the United States, but continue to be concentrated in major metropolitan areas such as Mexico, D.F. and Washington, D.C. which each have approximately 15 local Internet service providers. In contrast, the entirety of the largely rural border region has only a handful of local Internet service providers, concentrated mostly in the larger cities such as San Diego and Monterrey. Where Internet service is provided, Internet use is concentrated in the universities and private sector, and is not readily accessible by state and municipal agencies.
One of the impediments to the establishment of local Internet service providers and to access to providers outside of the region has been the lack of telecommunication infrastructure. According to the Border Information Solution Network (BISN) which conducted an assessment on information and telecommunications, Internet connections are not practical in areas where more advanced fiber optic cables, Integrated Switched Data Networks (ISDN), digital cellular, and other telecommunications technologies are not being developed due to low demand. BISN concluded that low demand stems from low levels of education and economic activity in the rural border region, which suggests a circular problem requiring intervention by non-profit, government, or other temporary forces until markets for improved services develop naturally. In the absence of accessible Internet service, several mechanisms exist that include connecting through a partner, encouraging providers to service a state agency, and encouraging local infrastructure development.
1. Connecting through a partner: In the instance that another public agency, university, or non-profit organization has access to the Internet, state environmental agencies could partner with these institutions. The partnership could take the form of sharing a computer already connected to the Internet or a more creative solution could involve relaying through short-wave radio to a computer acting as a server. For example, in the Sonora-Arizona border region, telecommunications infrastructure is insufficient for widespread connection to the Internet. To overcome this obstacle, the Sonoran Desert Alliance commissioned a study which recommended using a computer with an existing connection to the Internet, located at the Organ Pipe National Monument, to function as a transboundary regional server, relaying information through short-wave radio to other computers in the binational desert region.
Universities which are finding creative ways to link to the Internet, may be important partners for state agencies. For example, the University of Texas at Brownsville (UTB) and the Institute of Technology of Matamoros are connecting higher education institutions in Texas and Mexico, via satellite. Millions of dollars are being invested to run this university network, and state agencies may benefit by linking to the Internet through this network. UTB expects to receive its U.S. license to operate the netlink in November of 1997.
2. Encouraging providers to service state agencies: States could actively encourage Internet service providers to develop or locate in the vicinity by demonstrating the actual and potential demand for Internet service. If the infrastructure supports high-tech communication, states could also encourage providers outside of the region to offer reduced rate (local rate as opposed to long-distance rate) service to the state agency. Local or non-local service providers would benefit from early entrance into the market and could work in conjunction with state agencies to develop the demand for Internet use.
3. Encouraging infrastructure development: States could encourage the development of infrastructure capable of supporting high-tech communication. In encouraging such development, States could work with the telecommunication companies which are operating or have expressed interest in operating in the border region. These companies include Telefonos de Mexico (Telmex) which maintains concessions that encompass the entire border region, and Sprint which has an agreement with Telmex to provide cross-border service. Other companies, MCI and Grupo Financiero Banamex-Accival (Banacci) have entered into a joint venture Avantel, S.A. to build and operate a fiber-optic telecommunications network. In addition, AT&T, GTE Corporation, Bell Atlantic, and Southwestern Bell are operating or have expressed interest in entering the telecommunication market across the border.
Meeting Hardware, Software, and Training Needs
If access to the Internet is available, connecting also requires hardware consisting of a computer and modem. In addition, connection capability requires software that provides Internet browsing and electronic mail capability. Finally, the configuration, effective use, and maintenance of hardware and software requires trained or knowledgeable personnel, such as computer support staff.
Each of the border states has a different level of need to be met to be capable of connecting to the Internet. In the Mexican states these needs are detailed in state strategic plans. In some states, hardware, software, and trained personnel are available but limited to a single location. In this case, effective use of the Internet requires additional connection capability within an agency or in the municipalities that collaborate with the agency. In other states, hardware and software are older and slower and not efficient to use, thus requiring updating or replacement. For instance, agencies with slow modems may benefit greatly from replacing these modems with high speed modems in order to use the Internet in a time and cost efficient manner. Finally, trained or knowledgeable personnel may leave the agency or be committed to other projects within the agency, thus requiring the training or hiring of additional personnel.
To meet hardware, software, and training needs in each of the states, several mechanisms are considered. These mechanisms include soliciting funding, establishing a donation program, and entering into a collaborative venture.
1. Soliciting funding: Private funds are not generally available to state agencies for operational expenses, and public funds are largely limited to appropriations of state funds. In the United States, agencies are able to include hardware, software, and personnel costs in program budgets which are submitted for state appropriations. However, appropriations are subject to economic downturns and competing priorities. In Mexico, state funds can be constrained by a struggling economy. Soliciting public appropriations for hardware, software, and training may be effective if Internet connection capability is recognized as instrumental to performing other functions and is integrated into program budgets.
Funding is available to the Mexican border states through the World Bank Program to meet hardware, software, and training needs. Yet, these funds, which are administered by the Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (INE) and Hacienda, are not disbursed immediately to states and may not be available in a timely manner to meet unanticipated or pressing needs.
2. Establishing a donation program: A donation program could be established on a case by case basis to meet the particular needs of each border state. Having determined their particular needs, states could solicit donations of equipment from hardware and software companies which have philanthropy programs, or from other state agencies or organizations with surplus equipment. States could solicit volunteer training from the same companies, agencies, or organizations, as well as from universities.
3. Entering a collaborative venture: Partnerships could be established between local or regional universities, non-profit organizations, private businesses, and state environmental agencies. Such a partnership would differ from a donation program in that the collaborative venture would encompass a longer-term relationship and might also include the production, management, and dissemination of information. Partnerships with universities in particular, would be constructive since universities already have or are developing the expertise in Internet connectivity and information exchange. Universities and other local and regional partners contributing equipment, training, or personnel would benefit from a more efficient state agency that is better able to generate and share information.
Recommended Ten State Action
Though border states would be effective in adopting individual solutions, such as those described above, to meet hardware, software, and training needs and to obtain access to the Internet, collective action by all of the border states would be effective in overcoming barriers that are widespread in the border region. In acting collectively, the border states may be able to overcome barriers that they would not as individual states be able to resolve. Recommended ten-state action to mitigate obstacles to Internet connection include establishing a donation program coordinator and negotiating collectively for Internet access.
1. Establishing donation program coordinator: A donation program coordinator could gather information on hardware and software companies which have philanthropy programs and could identify other sources of equipment that meet the cumulative needs of the ten states. By providing such information, the donation coordinator would facilitate the matching of equipment to hardware and software needs, and could similarly identify volunteers to provide training. In addition, a donation program coordinator could work to ensure that the software, hardware, and training acquired were not out-dated and were appropriate to meet specific state needs.
2. Negotiating collectively for Internet access: The ten states could jointly negotiate with federal regulatory agencies and Internet service providers to ensure access in the border region. In the telecommunications chapter within the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the United States and Mexico agree to mutually ensure access to and use of any public telecommunications transport network or service on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The argument could be made that the border region has historically been neglected and under-served by public telecommunication services in both countries, and given the growing populations and economies of the border states, high priority should be given to the development of telecommunications infrastructure.
The telecommunications industry in both Mexico and the United States is in the process of decentralization. However, in Mexico, the Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT) retains broad powers over the telecommunications industry, including the power to grant concessions for the installation and operation of telecommunication services. The SCT and parallel state and federal agencies in the United States such as the FCC could be encouraged to grant permits or provide incentives to telecommunications companies to develop infrastructure in the border region as a high priority. Further study of the changing telecommunications industry and its regulations would be needed if the states chose to move forward on this front.
Where infrastructure does exist but local service providers do not, the ten states could negotiate with Internet providers located outside of the region to sponsor subsidized or free access through a toll free number. This would offset the cost of long-distance phone calls until local providers are established. As an example, in Texas, some border area educators and students are able to get on-line through the state-sponsored Texas Education Network (TENET) via an 800 number. Using the same principle, the ten states could appeal to the large Internet providers to service state agencies with a connection in support of the effort to develop a border-wide environmental information sharing mechanism.
SHARING INFORMATION OVER THE INTERNET
Two sets of barriers preclude the sharing of information over the Internet. These barriers include differing perceptions of what information should be shared, and the prohibitive costs of information acquisition.
Determining What Can Be Shared
The extent to which information is shared differs between Mexico and the United States and also differs between state and federal agencies, universities, and non-profit organizations. Different perceptions of what information should be shared can prohibit free exchange of important information. As a new generation of information becomes more cost efficient and new technology increasingly facilitates its exchange and use, the culture of sharing may become more widespread.
Under right-to-know laws in Mexico and the United States, information generated in state agencies is generally made available upon request. In the Mexican states however, information is often made available for review only, that is information may not be taken out of the state agency in its original form or as a copy. Mexican state agencies have expressed concern that the release of some kinds of information over the Internet will be misused. This concern may be heightened as information moves across state and federal boundaries. Since different agencies have different agendas and use information for different purposes, Mexican state agencies have expressed concern that the release of information may jeopardize their interpretation and use of the information for a particular purpose.
Comfort in sharing information with other state agencies may only come with trust over time that the information will not be misused. However, comfort in sharing information over the Internet with the public at large, may only come with an understanding that the risk of information misuse is outweighed by the benefit of informed decisions made possible by freely available and readily accessible information. Mechanisms which recognize state concerns while facilitating the free exchange of information include listing available information, disseminating information in public versions, and securing limited access to privileged information.
1. Listing available information: Because different agencies have different information which is made available through various means, listing this information would facilitate the sharing of information. States could list on the Internet the information available in their agencies or on-line, and could detail the procedures for reviewing or acquiring such information.
2. Disseminating information in public version: Information which some states may not wish to fully disclose to the public, could be posted on the Internet in a public version. A public version may entail a summary or a demonstrative sample of information. For example, though the Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografiae Informacion (INEGI) does not make all census data readily available over the Internet, it does provide selected census information such as the population distribution by sex and age for each state in Mexico. In the same manner, agencies could post selected information useful in describing the state of the environment and environmental programs.
3. Securing limited access to privileged information: With technological advances, information can now be made available to a restricted audience over the Internet by employing a password system. Access to information that state agencies are not willing to share with the general public but are willing to share with other agencies, could be limited through an electronic security system. From the same Internet location, states could access publicly available information, as well as privileged information restricted by one or more passwords.
Privileged information which was protected by a copyright or licensing agreement that limited its use would remain protected once shared with state agencies across the border. For example, in the INEGI-USGS aerial mapping initiative along the border, the data that INEGI shares with USGS for the purpose of review only, is protected by copyright. According to USGS, if a right-to-know claim were brought against USGS for review of the Mexican data, USGS would not be obliged to distribute the data but rather would only be obliged to direct the claimant to where the information would be available, which in this case would be INEGI.
Removing Prohibitive Costs
When information is made available for acquisition, but only for a fee, the cost of acquiring information may inhibit information sharing among states. Public agencies may feel compelled to charge for information because they are economically driven to recover the costs of generating and maintaining information. At the federal level, INEGI, the principal generator of data and geospatial data in Mexico, charges for much of its information. In contrast, the United States Geological Survey and many other agencies only charge for the cost of reproducing the data. As the border states and municipalities continue to develop their capacity, they too are generating information which is costly to produce and may seek to recover costs by charging for acquisition. For example, unlike the federal agencies, many local government agencies in California are trying to recover costs of not only providing data but also maintaining the data. Recovering costs is of particular concern with Geographic Information System (GIS) data.
Charging for data acquisition may inhibit the exchange of information between state agencies. Recognizing the economic disparity in the border region, the cost of data acquisition may be more burdensome to states in Mexico than in the United States. In such a case the recovery of costs by Mexican states from U.S. states may be viewed as economically equitable. However, charging for information may deter the sharing of information between border states within Mexico, and may discourage a culture of sharing in the border region. Mechanisms which may facilitate cost recovery without jeopardizing mutual interest in sharing information include establishing cost sharing mechanisms and providing specialized information services.
1. Establishing cost sharing mechanisms: Public interest in the dissemination of information may be significant enough to warrant the creation of a cost-sharing mechanism whereby collaborative institutions would contribute equipment, personnel and funds to cover the costs of information production and dissemination. Collaborative institutions could include universities, non-profit organizations, private businesses, and other state and federal agencies. Contributing institutions could absorb the cost of information production in the interest of providing widely accessible information over the Internet.
States might also want to consider data sharing agreements both within their states, and between and among other states. In a data sharing agreement, institutions and agencies would exchange data rather than paying for it.
2. Providing specialized information services: States could also distinguish between raw data and processed data. States could make raw data readily available at little to no cost, and could then provide specific analysis of data at a greater cost. In charging for specialized information services, State agencies could recover the cost of generating information. For example, in California, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) which is comprised of city and county governments, has created a non-profit corporation which offers data analysis to private businesses and other agencies. The non-profit corporation contracts with SANDAG staff to perform the work, and the revenues are reinvested into the generation of additional data.
Recommended Ten State Action
Though border states may be effective in adopting individual solutions to determine what information can be shared and how information costs can be recovered, collective action by the ten states would be effective to facilitate the exchange of information border-wide. Recommended ten state action to facilitate sharing mechanisms include consolidating lists of available information and discouraging prohibitive acquisition costs.
1. Consolidating lists of available information: The listing of information available in each environmental agency as well as the provision of procedures for acquiring or reviewing this information, would greatly facilitate the sharing of information. Lists could be consolidated and distributed to the border states, and could be made available over the Internet through existing or new home pages.
2. Discouraging prohibitive acquisition costs: Though different states may maintain different cost recovery policies, the ten states could encourage each state to eliminate acquisition costs or keep them low enough for other border states so that they do not impede the sharing of information in the region. In addition, the ten states could encourage alternative cost recovery structures that are consistent with making information widely available and accessible over the Internet. The states could institute a data sharing agreement which could take the form of among other things, a club where members could join by providing data or dollars, and could obtain each others data at reduced costs.
To curtail acquisition costs at the federal level in Mexico, the ten states might consider negotiating collectively with INEGI for a cost reduction to acquire data in bulk, particularly geospatial data. As new satellite imagery and aerial photography becomes available for the border region, the ten states may benefit from soliciting imagery critical to the foundation of a Geographic Information System all at one time.
BUILDING A COMPATIBLE INFORMATION NETWORK
Two sets of barriers impede the building of a compatible network for information exchange. These barriers include linking organizations over the Internet and developing a transboundary information network.
Linking Organizations on a Home Page
To efficiently share information over the Internet, state agencies must be linked through one or more home pages. Presently, only half of the border states maintain a home page and those that do maintain a page do not have links to other state pages directly or indirectly through an independent home page. In addition, each home page is organized differently and someone seeking information on environmental education or on landfills may locate this information in different parts of the home page or not at all in different states. Finally, information presented on a home page is often monolingual and an alternative English or Spanish version is not provided. Actions which individual states can take to facilitate the linking of state agencies over the Internet include creating individual home pages and providing language translation.
1. Creating individual home pages: State agencies which are capable of connecting to the Internet could create their own home pages and locate and maintain the pages in their agencies or in a collaborative institution, such as a university or non-profit organization. Creating a home page requires additional software and knowledgeable personnel to build and maintain the page. Agencies which do not have the expertise to build and maintain a page could collaborate with other institutions, particularly universities or contract individuals which do have the expertise. A home page in each agency would provide an efficient medium to disseminate information to other state agencies and to the public.
2. Providing language translation: Providing information in both English and Spanish is integral to facilitating communication and understanding among border states. Where translation of particular information is not cost-efficient, a translated summary of information would prove helpful. In addition, the translation of the home page table of contents and topic headings would facilitate navigation through the home page. States could collaborate with universities or other academic institutions to provide internships for students learning to be translators thereby lessening the cost.
Developing a Transboundary Information Network
Though organizations may be linked with relative ease over the Internet through the development of individual and common home pages, the linking of information, and in particular geospatial data used in a Geographic Information System (GIS), is more complex. The building of an effective and efficient transboundary information network is precluded by several factors. First, data in Mexico and the United States is compiled using different measurement standards which include different scales and different classifications of information. Different standards impede the understanding of information as well as the integration of information into a GIS.
Second, no standards exist between countries for quality control of geospatial data in particular. Subsequently, recipients of data spend a significant amount of time correcting for data gaps and inaccuracies and ensuring that data meets state or agency quality control standards. In the United States, border states are encouraged to comply with National Geospatial Data Standards, but these standards are not consistent with quality control standards in Mexico which are promulgated by INEGI. Third, information disseminated over the Internet must be maintained and updated to continue to be useful to its recipients. Maintaining information over the Internet requires personnel dedicated partially or fully to the upkeep of information on a home page. Mechanisms which may facilitate an efficient and effective information network include establishing common or translatable data standards, securing resources to maintain information on an Internet link, and establishing information clearinghouses.
1. Establishing common or translatable data standards: The problem of establishing common data standards across boundaries plagues the international community and needs to be addressed comprehensively at a broader level. For example, each type of GIS data, such as vegetation and climate, carries with it a set of problems that must be addressed by GIS and subject matter experts if the data are to be satisfactorily integrated and shared. Short of comprehensive standards which can be used to harmonize or translate data, individual states can work to establish common or translatable standards on a small scale, at a project level. Working in collaboration with other state agencies or institutions across the border, state agencies can explore ways of integrating data or presenting data to binational communities in a seamless manner.
Two initiatives are presently underway which may be instructive in sharing data across the Mexico-US border. First, in the Tijuana River Watershed, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, San Diego State University, and a number of supporting institutions are collaborating to create a seamless database for the drainage basin that straddles the California-Baja California border. Second, in the Ciudad Juarez-El Paso area, INEGI and USGS are collaborating to create a cross-walk which will translate data that is shared across the border. This INEGI/USGS effort has constituted a breakthrough in the abilities of the agencies to prepare and utilize seamless transboundary digital geospatial data.
Other initiatives which are not specific to the border but may still be instructive include the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata standards which all state and federal agencies in the United States, as well as other generators of information, are encouraged to employ. In addition, the North American Industrial Classification Code, which replaces the use of the Standard Industrial Classification, may provide an example of establishing standards among Canada, the United States and Mexico. Finally, the Inter-American Geospatial Data Network is looking at extending information clearinghouse searches across the Americas and may provide a framework for creating international standards.
2. Maintaining information and Internet link: States could allocate knowledgeable personnel within their agency to update their home page as time and resources allow. If knowledgeable personnel do not exist within the agency, states could contract individuals or collaborate with institutions with the expertise to maintain a home page. Low-cost collaborative efforts could include working with universities to provide opportunities for students to develop and maintain a home page for academic credit or a financial award. In Coahuila, for example, the state environmental agency contracts with the university to develop the expertise in environmental issues needed in the agency. The same principle could be applied to develop the expertise to update information and maintain an Internet link.
3. Establishing information clearinghouses: States could establish an information clearinghouse to function as a common point of information collection and dissemination. Different agencies and universities within a state could pool their resources and centralize the movement of information in a single agency or institution, thereby lessening the burden to individual institutions to collect or disseminate information. For example, the Texas Natural Resource Information System (TNRIS) serves as an information clearinghouse for state agencies and universities in Texas. In addition, TNRIS has established the Texas/Mexico Borderlands Data and Information Center, which provides natural resource and demographic data for both sides of the border and is available to both U.S. and Mexican data users. States could make use of existing clearinghouses, and could establish additional clearinghouses that serve different parts of the border region. As clearinghouses develop, they could be linked through a transboundary information network.
Recommended Ten State Action
The ten states could collectively undertake to facilitate the building of a compatible information network by developing a common home page, incorporating common platforms for information access, and supporting initiatives to develop transboundary border-wide information networks.
1. Developing a common home page: The ten states could allocate personnel, contract individuals, or collaborate with institutions with appropriate expertise to develop a bilingual common home page which could serve several purposes. First, a common home page could provide a forum for states which have not yet developed a home page to post information. Second, a common home page could function as a connector between existing home pages. Third, a common home page could provide general information about the ten border-state initiative and other pertinent information for the public to better understand the natural resources and environmental issues in the border region. The person or persons assigned to develop and maintain a common page could also serve as a resource to each of the ten states to assist them with their individual home pages.
In developing a common home page, the ten states can draw ideas from a number of home pages, and in particular from two binational multi-state home pages. These home pages include the Great Plains Partnership and the Transboundary Resource Inventory Project (listed in the Appendix). Both pages provide general information about their respective border regions as well as providing links to institutions within those regions.
2. Incorporating common platforms for information access: A common platform would entail parallel organization of information on different home pages to facilitate access. The home pages need not be identical, but might encompass common themes or headings, so that similar information could be easily found on different pages. Common themes or headings might include topics such as water quality, pollution prevention, solid waste, protected areas, and environmental education. A parallel platform might also entail a common visual icon under which a description of border environmental sharing initiatives could be provided. A common visual icon might also constitute a link or point of entry into other state home pages or into a common home page.
3. Supporting initiatives to develop transboundary information networks: One initiative underway to develop an information network, consists of the Border 21 working group on environmental information resources. A subgroup of this working group has been charged with addressing problems associated with sharing geospatial data in the border region.
The ten states could encourage the Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to convene the binational information working group and the geospatial data subgroup to address pressing problems, such as incompatible data standards, which impede the sharing and effective use of information among border states. Because the border states have the greatest stake in overcoming obstacles to information exchange, the ten states could encourage SEMARNAP and EPA, to elevate the information working group and subgroup goal of information exchange to a high priority within the Border 21 process. Once recognized as a high priority which will facilitate the work of other groups, SEMARNAP and EPA could be encouraged to allocate resources to ensure binational progress on this front. An integral part of this progress should include the funded participation of all border states, as well as other relevant federal agencies and institutions with subject matter expertise.
A second initiative to build a compatible information network is taking place under TRIP, a consortium of universities, non-profit organizations, and state and federal agencies. Collaborating institutions in TRIP have conceptualized a preliminary design for a Transboundary Resource Information Management System (TRIMS), which is described in a forthcoming report. TRIMS would operate as an Internet-based Geographic Information System which would link existing and new data layers from throughout the border region. Users of TRIMS would view a map of the border region on the Internet and would be able to select available data to view as one or more layers of the map. For example, a user could choose to view the location of hazardous waste sites in relation to population density and economic distribution in part or all of the border region.
Additional work is required to transform TRIMS or an equivalent information network into a reality. The ten states could collaborate with TRIP partners to develop the TRIMS design and collectively seek funding to support an expert team, with governmental and non-governmental representatives from border states, to complete the design and build a dynamic operational transboundary information network. Where the interests of Border 21 and TRIP are compatible, the effort, resources, and expertise to build a transboundary information network could be concentrated in one forum.
APPENDIX
Selected Internet Sites
State and Local Institutions
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality http://www.adeq.state.az.us/
Arizona State Land Department----http://www.state.az.us/gis3/asld/asldhome.html
California Environmental Protection Agency-----http://www.calepa.ca.gov
California Resources Agency-----http://ceres.ca.gov/CRA/
California State Lands Commission----http://www.slc.ca.gov/
Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de Sonora (IMADES)----http://www.cideson.mx/imades.html
New Mexico Environment Department------http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/
New Mexico State Land Office----http://baervan.nmt.edu/industry/slo.html
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)---http://www.sandag.cog.ca.us/
Texas General Land Office-----http://www.glo.state.tx.us/
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC)-----http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/
Texas Natural Resource Information System (TNRIS)-----http://www.tnris.state.tx.us/
Federal Institutions
Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (INE)--- http://uninet.mty.itesm.mx:800/
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografia e Informatica (INEGI) -----http://www.inegi.gob.mx/
Secretaria de Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP) ----http://semarnap.conabio.gob.mx
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)----http://www.epa.gov/
United States Geological Survey (USGS)---http://www.usgs.gov/
United States Department of Interior----http://www.usgs.gov/doi/
Academic Institutions
Arizona State University-----http://www.asu.edu/
El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (COLEF)---http://gort.ucsd.edu/mw/colef.html
Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios ----http://www.mty.itesm.mx.homedoc
Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM)---- mapa.html
ITESM Campus Guaymas-----http://campus.gym.itesm.mx/
ITESM Campus Juarez-----http://www.cdj.itesm.mx/
New Mexico State University-----http://www.nmsu.edu/
New Mexico Tech------http://www.nmt.edu
San Diego State University-----http://www.sdsu.edu
Science and Higher Education Research Center of Ensenada (CICESE)---http://www.cicese.mx/wcicese.html
University of Arizona-----http://www.arizona.edu/
Universidad Autonoma de Ciudad Juarez---http://www.uacuj.mx/
Universidad Autonoma Nacional de Mexico (UNAM)-----http://serpiente.dgsca.unam.mx.rectoria/htm/demo2.html
Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon---http://smfl.fciencias.unam.mx/dircata/uanl.html
Universidad Autonoma de Baja California---http://sunrec1.rec.uabc.mx/doctos.pdu207.html
University of New Mexico-----http://www.unm.edu/
University of Texas at Austin-----http://www.utexas.edu/
University of Texas at El Paso---- http://www.utep.edu/
University of Texas Pan American----http://panam.edu/
Multilateral Institutions and Initiatives
Borderlands Data and Information Center (Texas and Mexico)---http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/www/ blands/border_hp.html
Border Information and Solutions Network (BISN)(Texas and Tamaulipas)----http://www.triplesoft.com/bisn
Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network (CEISIN) ---http://www.ceisin.org
Great Plains Partnership (Canada, Mexico and United States)---- -http://www.greatplains.org/gpp/index.html
Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP)---http://www.civil.utah.edu/scerp/
Tijuana River Watershed Project (Tijuana and San Diego) ----http://typhoon.sdsu.edu/tjwater/ homepage/tjwnet.html
Transboundary Resource Inventory Program (TRIP)---http://www.glo.state.tx.us/infosys/gis/trip/links.html
Western Governors' Association (WGA)---http://www.westgov.org/
NAFTA and Border 21
Border 21 Document------http://www.epa.gov/region09/cross_pr/ border21/chpt1.html
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC/COCEF) ----http://cocef.interjuarez.com
Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC)--http://www.cec.org/
North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)----http://iisd1.iisd.ca/trade/NAAEC.HTM
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)--http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Publications/html/nafta.html
North American Development Bank (NADBank)--http://www.quicklink.com/mexico/nadbank/ning1.htm