May 1, 2002
Last November, by a single vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a fast-track bill that gives the Bush administration free reign to negotiate trade deals, even if they give short shrift to the environment. With critical negotiations looming for the World Trade Organization and a hemispheric free-trade pact, the Senate should correct this when considering its version of fast track later this month.
The House bill is guided by the tired free-trade mantra on the environment: Free trade will lead to rising incomes -- triggering citizen demands for a cleaner environment and increased overseas investment, which will mean greater use of clean technologies in developing countries.
The Senate doesn't need to travel far to see how misguided this mantra can be. Recent statistics from Mexico's National Institute for Statistics, Geography and Information Systems (INEGI) document how environmental degradation has taken a big bite out of the benefits of trade-led economic growth in Mexico -- the very nation that the Bush administration holds up as free trade's success story. According to INEGI figures, almost every major environmental problem has worsened since Mexico began liberalizing its trade policies in the 1980s. The institute estimates, for instance, that municipal solid waste has increased by 85 percent; air pollution by 71 percent; and soil erosion by 62 percent since 1988. What's more, INEGI reports the costs of this environmental degradation as averaging $36 billion a year during the 1988-1999 period. In 1999 alone, the price tag came in at a whopping $47 billion.
This destruction has occurred faster than (and despite) the rising incomes that were supposed to offset environmental contamination. The economic cost of this environmental damage overwhelms the benifits of Mexico's economic growth, which has been just 2.5% annually over the same period, or $14 billion per year. At the same time, since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, real spending by the Mexican government on environmental protection has declined by $200 million, according to INEGI figures.
A major factor underlying this stark reality: The proper mechanisms were not put in place to help Mexico manage its economic growth in an environmentally sustainable manner. The environmental "side" institutions created by NAFTA were not equipped to come to the rescue. Their meager budgets are dwarfed by the $47 billion price tag of environmental degradation in Mexico.
One lesson clearly stands out: The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) that the Bush administration seeks with the proposed fast-track authority is a major step backward for U.S. trade policy on the environment. Unlike the recent U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement -- which incorporates environmental provisions in the heart of the trade agreement itself -- the draft FTAA lacks even the limited environmental provisions that were included in NAFTA.
The FTAA text also includes controversial NAFTA-like investment provisions that allow private foreign investors to sue governments for domestic environmental regulations that are deemed "tantamount to expropriation." Again, here Mexico serves as an example of what awaits the Americas under the FTAA. Under NAFTA's investment rules, Mexico was forced to pay the U.S.-based Metalclad corporation $16.7 million because local elected authorities refused to allow the company to build a toxic waste dump in an environmentally sensitive location.
Senate environmental leaders such as Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., James Jeffords, I-Vt., Joseph Leiberman, D-Conn., and Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., have done little to bring a greener fast-track bill to the Senate floor. These Senators should not leave their environmental hats at the door when debating this trade bill. They should push for a greener trade bill, including mechanisms for the United States and its trading partners to steer trade-led economic growth in a sustainable direction, and prevent foreign investors from suing trading partners over environmental regulations.
Kevin Gallagher, a research associate at the Global Development & Environment Institute at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, is a contract analyst for the Interhemispheric Resource Center.
This article was produced by the Americas Program at the Interhemispheric Resource Center, a nonprofit think tank that focuses on U.S. foreign policy.
More Information on Globalization of the Economy
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
