1_sauceda

Sergio Sauceda

Rhetoric

November 9, 2000

The Mexican Environment: Losing Party in

the NAFTA Agreement

Ever since the European Common Market (ECM) was established, keeping up with a global economy and market seemed impossible for a single country. In 1992 a law between three countries made it possible for competing in a world market. The law was called the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and its main purpose was to facilitate commerce between each country to keep a competitive edge in a global market. Negotiations to pass the agreement between Mexico, Canada, and the United States encountered almost no difficulties. All the aspects of a major agreement were taken into consideration: monetary, territorial, labor and the environment. There were some speculations about the impact of the agreement on the environment, and some negotiators believed that NAFTA would not affect the environment in a negative way. To make sure that environmental issues were addressed, laws concerning the environment were implemented, but were lenient in order to promote trade between each country. Eight years have passed since the signing of NAFTA, and some environmental issues have not been addressed. NAFTA was a bad idea because the Mexican environment is suffering the consequences of a trade gone wrong.

When the discussion about a free trade agreement was made, a great deal of publicity and controversy was generated. "Both proponents and critics believed that the agreement would have a significant impact on the economies of the countries involved given the volume of trade, differences in the rates of return on capital and wage rates, and opportunities due to the differences in employment, living, and environmental standards," according to Mario F. Bognanno (1). This plan was written so that a country taking advantage of the agreement would benefit. On the economical side, "the per capita income of the United States, Canada, and Mexico increased, and trade was facilitated due to the abolishment of tariffs from country to country" (12). This meant more money for people who were working under NAFTA. Also, "maquiladoras along the US-Mexican border brought in 3.2 billion dollars to the Mexican economy" (15). That was the best Mexico had done in years.

Stricter laws involving the environment were also passed to promote NAFTA in each of the three countries. An example of this is given in Jack I. Garvey's report when the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was passed in 1991 (441). The MMPA banned imports of tuna caught with purse-seine nets to prevent inadvertent dolphin deaths (442). This act helped ease environmental concerns involving NAFTA, for a while. According to David Vogel, "only a year after the MMPA was passed, the act was reversed by an adjudicating panel under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (472)." By reversing the MMPA, leniency toward environmental acts increased in order to promote NAFTA. No longer was the environment an important issue, only money.

Also, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADBank) were developed in order to meet environmental standards according to Delal Baer (23). According to Sidney Weintraub "BECC is intended to promote environmental cooperation at the U.S.-Mexican border to certify projects for environmental improvement to make them eligible for financial assistance from NADBank" (74). This showed some improvement toward environmental issues, but Anne O. Kruger a reporter for The Washington Post says, "institutions like BECC and NADBank have been trying to stop pollution from maquiladoras and textile factories without cooperation from Mexican officials." Environmental issues have been addressed, but there are people who believe in making more money than having a healthy environment. Garvey believes that NAFTA has been focused almost exclusively on economic interests (439). Steps to improve the environment have been taken, but not enforced.

While everyone was enjoying the economic benefits of NAFTA, it was evident that the Mexican environment was starting to suffer due to the misuse of its natural resources. Carol Wise says four years before the signing of NAFTA " Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari had declared a NAFTA-style agreement as "not feasible" and contrary to Mexico's short-and-medium term interests" (459). During this time the Mexican President was finishing his term and was having problems with his presidency, which led to his statement as being non valid. Hermann Von Bertrab says that "Mexico was in the first stages of developing an awareness of environmental problems and faced many other claims on its limited resources," that is before NAFTA came along (10).

Mexico was not ready for NAFTA; it signed before it was ready to take on a big responsibility such as NAFTA. When Mexico signed the agreement, "the principal complaint about Mexico was not its lack of health and environmental laws, but the lack of enforcement of its laws and the related endemic corruption of its legal system" (Garvey 442). Mexico was suffering from an economic depression and a corrupt system, this made Mexico desperate to find solutions to its numerous problems. NAFTA was a way to generate income and Mexico took advantage of it to help itself from economic problems, without thinking about the consequences. Mexico was almost forced to sign NAFTA because its economic problems needed a remedy. In regards to NAFTA, trade law theorist, Thomas J. Shoenbaum states, "even when such standards are found to be justifiable and necessary, the very fact that different countries have different policies, standards and regulations is itself a barrier to international trade" (716). In other words, this agreement was bound to fail even before it was passed because of the different laws each country had. NAFTA was said to be the first free trade agreement of a continental scope between developed nations and a state with a developing economy such as Mexico (420).

This agreement was like an experiment, there was no guarantee everyone was going to benefit from it. Jack I. Garvey says, "Mexico would have a competitive advantage due to its alleged low environmental standards and weak enforcement of existing rules" (437). Since Mexico did not have strict policies concerning the environment as the United States, many American companies came to Mexico to take advantage of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations. GE, AT&T, GM and Tyco to name a few came to Mexico to take advantage of cheaper labor and relaxed environmental regulations (Bognanno 56). As a matter of fact, the number of maquiladoras grew from 1,795 in 1990 to 2,078 in 1992 (14). It was an intelligent move for American companies to move to Mexico because " industries in the free trade zone would have higher costs in Canada and the US than in Mexico, where the expense of meeting environmental standards would presumably be lower due to less stringent laws and weaker enforcement of the law" (191).

The Maquiladora region is a 250,000 square mile region with a population of about 5 million people. According to the environmental researcher, Terry L. Anderson, " the crowding along the border is arguably exacerbating pollution problems there, since the natural environment has a limited capacity to absorb and process waste" (39). Also a study done by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OTR) in 1996, found that emissions of carbon dioxide and ozone levels along the border exceed US standards (Anderson 98). This problem persists in both parts of the border and should be addressed before consequences become great. This represents a hazard for the generations to come and to the struggling wildlife that fights for survival.

The North American Free Trade Agreement was the worst thing that could have happened to the Mexican environment. Mexico had the opportunity to prosper economically, and took it, but at a high price. Weak enforcement of laws and pollution contributed to NAFTA's failure to the environment. After analyzing what has happened since the signing of NAFTA in 1992, the Mexican people should consider that NAFTA was a mistake. Eight years of misusing the environment and it resources is enough. Jobs and the economy did increase, but the environment was affected in a bad way. Is having a stable economy and jobs as important as the environment? Jobs and economies change but not the environment. Now, the consequences are great, and the countries involved in the trade will have to dedicate more time to the environment if they want to preserve it. NAFTA was a bad choice and should be dealt away with for the good of the environment and of future generations to come.

Works Cited

Anderson, Terry L. NAFTA and the Environment. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute

for Public Policy, 1993.

Baer, Delal. The NAFTA Debate: Grappling with Unconventional Trade Issues. Boulder:

Center For Strategic and International Studies, 1994.

Bertrab, Herman Von. Negotiating NAFTA: A Mexican Envoy's Account. Westport:

Praegor Publishers, 1997.

Bognanno, Mario F. The North American Free Trade Agreement: Labor, Industry, and

Government Perspectives. Westport: Quorum Books, 1993.

Garvey, Jack I. "Trade Law and Quality of Life: Dispute Resolution under the NAFTA Side

Accords on Labor and the Environment." American Journal of International Law

89.2 (June 1995): 439-453.

Kruger, Anne O. "How to Wreck Trade." Washington Post 10 June 2000: A22.

Schoenbaum, Thomas J. "Free International Trade and Protection of the Environment:

Irreconcilable Conflict." American Journal of International Law 86.4 (Oct. 1192):

700-727.

Vogel, David. "Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy."

The American Political Science Review 90.2 (June 1996): 472-473.

Weintraub, Sidney. NAFTA at Three: A Progress Report. Washington, D.C: The Center

for Strategic and International Studies, 1997.

Wise, Carol. "The Origins and Sustainability of Mexico's Free Trade Policy." International

Organizations 48.3 (Summer 1994): 459-483.









			Sergio Sauceda Rhetoric November 9, 2000 The Mexican Environment: Losing Party in the NAFTA Agreement Ever since the European Common Market (ECM) was established, keeping up with a global economy and market seemed impossible for a single country. In 1992 a law between three countries made it possible for competing in a world market. The law was called the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and its main purpose was to facilitate commerce between each country to keep a competitive edge in a global market. Negotiations to pass the agreement between Mexico, Canada, and the United States encountered almost no difficulties. All the aspects of a major agreement were taken into consideration: monetary, territorial, labor and the environment. There were some speculations about the impact of the agreement on the environment, and some negotiators believed that NAFTA would not affect the environment in a negative way. To make sure that environmental issues were addressed, laws concerning the environment were implemented, but were lenient in order to promote trade between each country. Eight years have passed since the signing of NAFTA, and some environmental issues have not been addressed. NAFTA was a bad idea because the Mexican environment is suffering the consequences of a trade gone wrong. When the discussion about a free trade agreement was made, a great deal of publicity and controversy was generated. "Both proponents and critics believed that the agreement would have a significant impact on the economies of the countries involved given the volume of trade, differences in the rates of return on capital and wage rates, and opportunities due to the differences in employment, living, and environmental standards," according to Mario F. Bognanno (1). This plan was written so that a country taking advantage of the agreement would benefit. On the economical side, "the per capita income of the United States, Canada, and Mexico increased, and trade was facilitated due to the abolishment of tariffs from country to country" (12). This meant more money for people who were working under NAFTA. Also, "maquiladoras along the US-Mexican border brought in 3.2 billion dollars to the Mexican economy" (15). That was the best Mexico had done in years. Stricter laws involving the environment were also passed to promote NAFTA in each of the three countries. An example of this is given in Jack I. Garvey's report when the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was passed in 1991 (441). The MMPA banned imports of tuna caught with purse-seine nets to prevent inadvertent dolphin deaths (442). This act helped ease environmental concerns involving NAFTA, for a while. According to David Vogel, "only a year after the MMPA was passed, the act was reversed by an adjudicating panel under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (472)." By reversing the MMPA, leniency toward environmental acts increased in order to promote NAFTA. No longer was the environment an important issue, only money. Also, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADBank) were developed in order to meet environmental standards according to Delal Baer (23). According to Sidney Weintraub "BECC is intended to promote environmental cooperation at the U.S.-Mexican border to certify projects for environmental improvement to make them eligible for financial assistance from NADBank" (74). This showed some improvement toward environmental issues, but Anne O. Kruger a reporter for The Washington Post says, "institutions like BECC and NADBank have been trying to stop pollution from maquiladoras and textile factories without cooperation from Mexican officials." Environmental issues have been addressed, but there are people who believe in making more money than having a healthy environment. Garvey believes that NAFTA has been focused almost exclusively on economic interests (439). Steps to improve the environment have been taken, but not enforced. While everyone was enjoying the economic benefits of NAFTA, it was evident that the Mexican environment was starting to suffer due to the misuse of its natural resources. Carol Wise says four years before the signing of NAFTA " Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari had declared a NAFTA-style agreement as "not feasible" and contrary to Mexico's short-and-medium term interests" (459). During this time the Mexican President was finishing his term and was having problems with his presidency, which led to his statement as being non valid. Hermann Von Bertrab says that "Mexico was in the first stages of developing an awareness of environmental problems and faced many other claims on its limited resources," that is before NAFTA came along (10). Mexico was not ready for NAFTA; it signed before it was ready to take on a big responsibility such as NAFTA. When Mexico signed the agreement, "the principal complaint about Mexico was not its lack of health and environmental laws, but the lack of enforcement of its laws and the related endemic corruption of its legal system" (Garvey 442). Mexico was suffering from an economic depression and a corrupt system, this made Mexico desperate to find solutions to its numerous problems. NAFTA was a way to generate income and Mexico took advantage of it to help itself from economic problems, without thinking about the consequences. Mexico was almost forced to sign NAFTA because its economic problems needed a remedy. In regards to NAFTA, trade law theorist, Thomas J. Shoenbaum states, "even when such standards are found to be justifiable and necessary, the very fact that different countries have different policies, standards and regulations is itself a barrier to international trade" (716). In other words, this agreement was bound to fail even before it was passed because of the different laws each country had. NAFTA was said to be the first free trade agreement of a continental scope between developed nations and a state with a developing economy such as Mexico (420). This agreement was like an experiment, there was no guarantee everyone was going to benefit from it. Jack I. Garvey says, "Mexico would have a competitive advantage due to its alleged low environmental standards and weak enforcement of existing rules" (437). Since Mexico did not have strict policies concerning the environment as the United States, many American companies came to Mexico to take advantage of cheaper labor and fewer environmental regulations. GE, AT&T, GM and Tyco to name a few came to Mexico to take advantage of cheaper labor and relaxed environmental regulations (Bognanno 56). As a matter of fact, the number of maquiladoras grew from 1,795 in 1990 to 2,078 in 1992 (14). It was an intelligent move for American companies to move to Mexico because " industries in the free trade zone would have higher costs in Canada and the US than in Mexico, where the expense of meeting environmental standards would presumably be lower due to less stringent laws and weaker enforcement of the law" (191). The Maquiladora region is a 250,000 square mile region with a population of about 5 million people. According to the environmental researcher, Terry L. Anderson, " the crowding along the border is arguably exacerbating pollution problems there, since the natural environment has a limited capacity to absorb and process waste" (39). Also a study done by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OTR) in 1996, found that emissions of carbon dioxide and ozone levels along the border exceed US standards (Anderson 98). This problem persists in both parts of the border and should be addressed before consequences become great. This represents a hazard for the generations to come and to the struggling wildlife that fights for survival. The North American Free Trade Agreement was the worst thing that could have happened to the Mexican environment. Mexico had the opportunity to prosper economically, and took it, but at a high price. Weak enforcement of laws and pollution contributed to NAFTA's failure to the environment. After analyzing what has happened since the signing of NAFTA in 1992, the Mexican people should consider that NAFTA was a mistake. Eight years of misusing the environment and it resources is enough. Jobs and the economy did increase, but the environment was affected in a bad way. Is having a stable economy and jobs as important as the environment? Jobs and economies change but not the environment. Now, the consequences are great, and the countries involved in the trade will have to dedicate more time to the environment if they want to preserve it. NAFTA was a bad choice and should be dealt away with for the good of the environment and of future generations to come. Works Cited Anderson, Terry L. NAFTA and the Environment. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1993. Baer, Delal. The NAFTA Debate: Grappling with Unconventional Trade Issues. Boulder: Center For Strategic and International Studies, 1994. Bertrab, Herman Von. Negotiating NAFTA: A Mexican Envoy's Account. Westport: Praegor Publishers, 1997. Bognanno, Mario F. The North American Free Trade Agreement: Labor, Industry, and Government Perspectives. Westport: Quorum Books, 1993. Garvey, Jack I. "Trade Law and Quality of Life: Dispute Resolution under the NAFTA Side Accords on Labor and the Environment." American Journal of International Law 89.2 (June 1995): 439-453. Kruger, Anne O. "How to Wreck Trade." Washington Post 10 June 2000: A22. Schoenbaum, Thomas J. "Free International Trade and Protection of the Environment: Irreconcilable Conflict." American Journal of International Law 86.4 (Oct. 1192): 700-727. Vogel, David. "Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy." The American Political Science Review 90.2 (June 1996): 472-473. Weintraub, Sidney. NAFTA at Three: A Progress Report. Washington, D.C: The Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1997. Wise, Carol. "The Origins and Sustainability of Mexico's Free Trade Policy." International Organizations 48.3 (Summer 1994): 459-483.