harelb@cabot.dartmouth.edu (Harel Barzilai) (06/19/91)
"Horror stories abound in this region deemed 'a virtual cesspool'
by a 1990 American Medical Association study [...] In 1988, a
General Motors subsidiary was discovered dumping hundreds of
barrels of toxics at a desert waste site less than two miles from
a public beach in Matamoros. [...] Border infrastructure has been
strained to the maximum by the growth promoted by these tax-exempt
industries."
"Mexican ecologists warn that the exclusion of ecological concerns
from the upcoming trade negotiations, insisted upon by both Bush
and Salinas, will extend the border model of "distorted
development" to the entire country. They suggest that Bush's dream
of "trade without barriers" refers more to freedom from labor and
environmental legislation than to national protectionism, which
has already been dropped uni-laterally by Mexico."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 44 Guardian analysis forthcoming
dbarkin carnet.mexnews 9:06 pm May 14, 1991
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>From mam Mon May 13 07:14 PDT 1991
To: guardian
Subject: Mexican Environment-Free Trade
Cc: agduna an cdavidson dbarkin labornotes oso sipro
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For possible use in a box or sidebar:
[Confidential cable from John Dimitri Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador
in Mexico to Secretary of State Bernard Aronson last month, a
photocopy of which was published in the May 13, 1991 edition of
Mexican weekly PROCESO.
"The FTA process can also be helpful in dealing with
environmental, labor and other "flank" issues but within carefully
defined limits. There is no doubt that an FTA process with
momentum will promote the harmonization of standards used by our
respective bureaucracies and regulatory agencies: whether these
issues are dealt with in or outside of an actual FTA document.
The very proximity of our two countries encourages such a process:
dramatic increases in trade accelerate it.
But in discussin of these issues I think we face two dangers. One
is promising too much in the way of progress on "flank" issues.
We don't want to promise either for inclusion in the FTA or for
coincidental achievement in a parallel process things which we
can't deliver or whose failure to achieve would be grounds for
delaying the FTA itself. ]
** ** **
Faced with the rapid integration of the North America Free Trade
Area, environmentalists in Mexico are working with their
Canadian and U.S. counterparts to oppose "fast track"
negotiations, and to develop proposals & mechanisms to ensure
environmental quality in the tri-national region. As Homero
Aridjis, of the Group of 100 Artists and Intellectuals for the
Environment, stated April 23 in testimony to the U.S. Senate
Sub-Committees on Labor and the Environment, "I am here not only
to defend my country, but yours as well... If our goal is
sustainable development, the environment is a trade issue."
With 20 years' experience as a free trade zone, the 2000 mile
Mexico-U.S. border area is an oft-cited example of the disastrous
consequences of separating environmental concerns from trade
liberalization. According to Aridjis, "Multinationals are turning
a desert into an industrial center without thinking about
tomorrow... The border is a danger zone, on its way to becoming
an environmental war zone."
Though the Border Industrialization Program has existed since
1965, not until 1983 did the U.S. and Mexico sign their first
General Agreement on Cooperation for the Protection and
Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area (known as the La
Paz Agreement), covering the 100 km inside each country. An
agreement requiring U.S. companies to seek Mexican approval before
exporting toxic wastes to Mexico was not signed until 1986.
In the opinion of many, these measures have come too little, too
late. Even Secretary of Ecology and Urban Development Patricio
Chirinos recently admitted that the much-lauded Environmental
Equilibrium Law of 1988 has been inadequate to deal with the
"explosive and disordered growth" of the maquiladoras (assembly
for export plants), of which there are now 2000 along the border.
A recent Colegio de la Frontera Norte study of 772 maquiladoras
found that 86% use toxic substances, including highly toxic
chlorohydrins, asbestos, silicon, freon, acetone, hydrogen
fluoride, fiberglass.... According to Colegio investigator Dr.
Roberto Sanchez, the use of toxic substances is growing as border
production processes move beyond the light-industry, sub-assembly
operations into more complex processes.
By law, U.S. maquiladoras (non-maquila U.S. companies are exempt)
must export their hazardous wastes to the U.S., or "donate them to
charities for re-cycling". The U.S. government must accept these
wastes and must cover the cost of any damage resulting from
illegal disposal in Mexico. However, according to Dr. Sanchez,
"The cost of waste disposal is so high in the U.S. and so cheap in
Mexico, that companies are tempted to 'forget'" to export their
wastes."
Horror stories abound in this region deemed "a virtual cesspool"
by a 1990 American Medical Association study. In 1983, a Cobalt-60
pump used for radiation treatment was sold as scrap metal in
Ciudad Juarez and melted down into construction beams. It was
finally tracked down and buried in La Pedrera, Chihuahua.
In 1988, a General Motors subsidiary was discovered dumping
hundreds of barrels of toxics at a desert waste site less than two
miles from a public beach in Matamoros. In October, 1989, 175
leaking drums of PCBs were found by El Paso Texas health officials
in an inner city neighborhood two blocks from the US-Mexican
border.
Border infrastructure has been strained to the maximum by the
growth promoted by these tax-exempt industries. Ciudad juarez has
more than doubled its population in the last 10 years; Tijuana has
five times the population it had in 1960. According to the AMA
study: 46 million liters of raw sewage are flowing annually into
the Tijuana river in Baja California, 76 million into the New
River at Calexico- Mexicali, and 84 million into the Rio
Grande/Rio Bravo on the Texas-Mexico border.
According to a recent report by the Texas Center for Policy
Studies and the Border Ecology Project, many border areas are
pumping groundwater at a rate 20 times faster than their acquifers
can recharge. In 1988, the Texas Water Comission found
significant levels of copper, selenium and mercury in the tissue
of fish from the Rio grade River near Laredo Texas. The Ciudad
Juarez/El Paso border area suffers from serious air pollution, and
the groundwater shared by Nogales, Texas and Nogales, Sonora is
contaminated with industrial solvents.
The La Paz ammendment regarding collaboration in case of accidents
is strictly voluntary. Arjidis considers the border "a potential
Bo Pahl" (where a Union Carbide chemical accident killed over
2800). In July, 1990, thousands of Mexicali residents were
evacuated when a Mexicali plant released a mushroom cloud of
sulfuric and hydrochloric acid; U.S. officials were not informed
til three days later.
Enforcement of environmental laws has been difficult: SEDUE has a
total of 140 technicians to cover the entire country. According
to Efrain Rosales Aguilera of the Mexican environmental agency
SEDUE, some 250,000 tons of toxic substances have been approved
for dumping in Mexico since the passage of the 1986 law. SEDUE
head Rene Altamirano remarked at a recent border trade conference
that only 35% of U.S.- owned factories are believed to be
complying with Mexican environmental laws.
Mexican ecologists warn that the exclusion of ecological concerns
from the upcoming trade negotiations, insisted upon by both Bush
and Salinas, will extend the border model of "distorted
development" to the entire country. They suggest that Bush's dream
of "trade without barriers" refers more to freedom from labor and
environmental legislation than to national protectionism, which
has already been dropped uni-laterally by Mexico.
The 1989 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement serves only to confirm
their fears: Canadian subsidies and incentives to abate acid
pollution and to promote reforestation are now vulnerable to U.S.
attack as barriers to trade. Canadian industry is calling for
reduced pollution standards which it claims as necessary in order
to compete in the new trade environment.
According to Aridjis, U.S.-Mexican trade relations are currently
permeated with a "double standard". He cites the fact that the
Mexican market is flooded with fruits and vegetables which have
been refused import into the U.S. because they bear residues of
banned pesticides produced by U.S. companies in Mexico.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fears that Free Trade will only speed the
exploitation of Mexico's natural resources.
According to a recent World Bank report, 2500 square kilometers of
Mexican forests are being destroyed a year. Unless serious measures
are taken, Aridjis warns, more than 2.5 million acres of forests and
agricultural land will be gone by the end of the century.
===================================
[ . . . c o n t i n u e d . . . ]
===================================harelb@cabot.dartmouth.edu (Harel Barzilai) (06/19/91)
"According to Aridjis, U.S.-Mexican trade relations are currently
permeated with a 'double standard'. He cites the fact that the
Mexican market is flooded with fruits and vegetables which have
been refused import into the U.S. because they bear residues of
banned pesticides produced by U.S. companies in Mexico."
"According to a study by the National University of Mexico, U.S.
oil reserves are sufficient to cover national consumption for 9
years (at 1989 production rates); Canada has enough for 11 years;
and Mexico, 59. By "pooling" access to the oil as a region, the
US could post-pone a serious consumption crisis for 11 years, but
Mexico's crisis would be hastened by 39 years."
"[environmentalists] propose for inclusion in the Free Trade
Treaty: that environmental standards be "harmonized" to the
highest levels in any of the three countries; that countries
mutually grant free access to their court systems for redress of
injuries; that a country's right to use trade restrictive measures
for conservation purposes be explicitly guaranteed as part of the
agreement; that products banned domestically be banned from
export; that any country which fails to abide by international
environmental agreements be subject to trade sanctions."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 44 Guardian analysis forthcoming
dbarkin carnet.mexnews 9:06 pm May 14, 1991
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
=================================
[ . . . c o n t i n u e d . . . ]
=================================
Perhaps the most hotly debated free trade issue is oil. Mexico
currently exports 60% of its total production to U.S. Ignacio
Peon of the Pacto de Grupos Ecologistas is convinced that oil will
be key to the Tri-Lateral Negotiations "whether it is on the
table, or under it". According to a study by the National
University of Mexico, U.S. oil reserves are sufficient to cover
national consumption for 9 years (at 1989 production rates);
Canada has enough for 11 years; and Mexico, 59. By "pooling"
access to the oil as a region, the US could post-pone a serious
consumption crisis for 11 years, but Mexico's crisis would be
hastened by 39 years.
The 1989 Canada-U.S. Agreement prohibits Canada from charging
higher prices for export than for domestic consumption, and from
reducing the proportion of oil, gas, and water dedicated to
export, even in cases of shortages. Two major export-oriented
energy development projects have been approved since the
Agreement: a hydroelectric power plant in the James Bay area, and
a natural gas pipeline across the Canadian Arctic (87% for
export).
A dearly held 1937 Constitutional ammendment reserves direct
ownership of Mexican oil to the State, and government
spokespersons insist repeatedly that "negotiations will not
violate the Constitution". However, precedents exist for getting
around the provision: In the tense negotiations following
Mexico's August 1982 announcement that it could no longer make
payments on its foreign debt, the Mexican government agreed to
sell $1 billion worth of crude to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum
Reserve.
[Experts suggest that "creative arrangements" will be developed to
by-pass the ammendment: that PEMEX may be re-organized into a
type of holding company, or that major U.S. oil companies may
lend PEMEX badly needed exploration capital in exchange for a
share of the oil discovered.]
The Mexican environmental movement is in a different stage and
circumstances than its U.S. and Canadian counterparts. Key
spokespersons stressed the difficulty of access to the press;
three mentioned that they have received death threats. "U.S.
Congressional delegations are always impressed with our labor and
environmental laws," noted Ignacio Peon of the Pacto de Grupos
Ecologistas, "but what they don't realize is that in our one-party
system we don't have the checks and balances to ensure that
they're enforced." Homero Aridjis ratified: "We can not resolve
our ecological crisis unless we resolve our 'democracy crisis'."
Faced with the new challenges presented by the fast-advancing
economic integration of the North American region,
environmentalists in the three countries are taking the tack that
"the best defense is a good offense". They suggest that the three
governments draw up a long-term management plan such as the one
currently being developed by the European Economic Community.
They propose for inclusion in the Free Trade Treaty: that
environmental standards be "harmonized" to the highest levels in
any of the three countries; that countries mutually grant free
access to their court systems for redress of injuries; that a
country's right to use trade restrictive measures for conservation
purposes be explicitly guaranteed as part of the agreement; that
products banned domestically be banned from export; that any
country which fails to abide by international environmental
agreements be subject to trade sanctions.
The border areas are taking the lead in developing bi-national,
non-governmental coordination to defend the environment. The Texas
Center for Policy Studies is part of a growing network of
non-governmental organizations in southern Texas and the northern
Mexican states of Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas and Sonora. The Toxic
Wastes Campaign has been working with Mexican and U.S. border
communities to document and confront environmental deterioration
there.
On April 7, 1991, on the eve of Bush-Salinas's consultation, some
21 Canadian, Mexican and U.S. national organizations and
coalitions held press conferences in their respective capitals to
propose that "the environmental issues raised by the proposed Free
Trade Agreement be addressed in the agreement itself", and then
enforced by a tri-lateral commission of government, industry, and
non-governmental representatives.
For now, the issue is awaiting the fateful June 1 "fast track"
decision by U.S. Congress. Its likely approval would limit
Congressional involvement to a simple yea or nay to the final
agreement. Fearing that opposition will defeat "fast track" or
even the treaty itself, proponents are promising parallel bi- or
tri-lateral agreements to address environmental and labor
concerns.
In Mexico, the Treaty must be approved by the Senate, 54 of whose
60 members belong to the official party.
remain optimistic. Pointing to growing bi-lateral cooperation
along the border, Sanchez affirms that "we are not starting from
zero now as we were 20 years ago." Alfonso Gonzalez of the
Ecological Analysis Group asserts that: "The inevitable
integration of the North American region means that our work
towards participatory planning and sustainable development has
suddenly become international... We may not be able to get the
guarantees we need in this agreement, but the story isn't over
yet."
For more information on Mexico-U.S.-Canada environmentalist
coordination regarding Free Trade, contact:
Mexico--Homero Aridjis, Grupo de los Cien,
tel: 011-525-540-7379;
U.S.-- Stewart Hudson, National Wildlife Federation,
202-797-5444;
Canada--Janine Ferretti, Pollution Probe,
416-926-9876. harelb@cabot.dartmouth.edu (Harel Barzilai) (06/19/91)
"According to Aridjis, U.S.-Mexican trade relations are currently
permeated with a 'double standard'. He cites the fact that the
Mexican market is flooded with fruits and vegetables which have
been refused import into the U.S. because they bear residues of
banned pesticides produced by U.S. companies in Mexico."
"According to a study by the National University of Mexico, U.S.
oil reserves are sufficient to cover national consumption for 9
years (at 1989 production rates); Canada has enough for 11 years;
and Mexico, 59. By "pooling" access to the oil as a region, the
US could post-pone a serious consumption crisis for 11 years, but
Mexico's crisis would be hastened by 39 years."
"[environmentalists] propose for inclusion in the Free Trade
Treaty: that environmental standards be "harmonized" to the
highest levels in any of the three countries; that countries
mutually grant free access to their court systems for redress of
injuries; that a country's right to use trade restrictive measures
for conservation purposes be explicitly guaranteed as part of the
agreement; that products banned domestically be banned from
export; that any country which fails to abide by international
environmental agreements be subject to trade sanctions."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 44 Guardian analysis forthcoming
dbarkin carnet.mexnews 9:06 pm May 14, 1991
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
=================================
[ . . . c o n t i n u e d . . . ]
=================================
Perhaps the most hotly debated free trade issue is oil. Mexico
currently exports 60% of its total production to U.S. Ignacio
Peon of the Pacto de Grupos Ecologistas is convinced that oil will
be key to the Tri-Lateral Negotiations "whether it is on the
table, or under it". According to a study by the National
University of Mexico, U.S. oil reserves are sufficient to cover
national consumption for 9 years (at 1989 production rates);
Canada has enough for 11 years; and Mexico, 59. By "pooling"
access to the oil as a region, the US could post-pone a serious
consumption crisis for 11 years, but Mexico's crisis would be
hastened by 39 years.
The 1989 Canada-U.S. Agreement prohibits Canada from charging
higher prices for export than for domestic consumption, and from
reducing the proportion of oil, gas, and water dedicated to
export, even in cases of shortages. Two major export-oriented
energy development projects have been approved since the
Agreement: a hydroelectric power plant in the James Bay area, and
a natural gas pipeline across the Canadian Arctic (87% for
export).
A dearly held 1937 Constitutional ammendment reserves direct
ownership of Mexican oil to the State, and government
spokespersons insist repeatedly that "negotiations will not
violate the Constitution". However, precedents exist for getting
around the provision: In the tense negotiations following
Mexico's August 1982 announcement that it could no longer make
payments on its foreign debt, the Mexican government agreed to
sell $1 billion worth of crude to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum
Reserve.
[Experts suggest that "creative arrangements" will be developed to
by-pass the ammendment: that PEMEX may be re-organized into a
type of holding company, or that major U.S. oil companies may
lend PEMEX badly needed exploration capital in exchange for a
share of the oil discovered.]
The Mexican environmental movement is in a different stage and
circumstances than its U.S. and Canadian counterparts. Key
spokespersons stressed the difficulty of access to the press;
three mentioned that they have received death threats. "U.S.
Congressional delegations are always impressed with our labor and
environmental laws," noted Ignacio Peon of the Pacto de Grupos
Ecologistas, "but what they don't realize is that in our one-party
system we don't have the checks and balances to ensure that
they're enforced." Homero Aridjis ratified: "We can not resolve
our ecological crisis unless we resolve our 'democracy crisis'."
Faced with the new challenges presented by the fast-advancing
economic integration of the North American region,
environmentalists in the three countries are taking the tack that
"the best defense is a good offense". They suggest that the three
governments draw up a long-term management plan such as the one
currently being developed by the European Economic Community.
They propose for inclusion in the Free Trade Treaty: that
environmental standards be "harmonized" to the highest levels in
any of the three countries; that countries mutually grant free
access to their court systems for redress of injuries; that a
country's right to use trade restrictive measures for conservation
purposes be explicitly guaranteed as part of the agreement; that
products banned domestically be banned from export; that any
country which fails to abide by international environmental
agreements be subject to trade sanctions.
The border areas are taking the lead in developing bi-national,
non-governmental coordination to defend the environment. The Texas
Center for Policy Studies is part of a growing network of
non-governmental organizations in southern Texas and the northern
Mexican states of Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas and Sonora. The Toxic
Wastes Campaign has been working with Mexican and U.S. border
communities to document and confront environmental deterioration
there.
On April 7, 1991, on the eve of Bush-Salinas's consultation, some
21 Canadian, Mexican and U.S. national organizations and
coalitions held press conferences in their respective capitals to
propose that "the environmental issues raised by the proposed Free
Trade Agreement be addressed in the agreement itself", and then
enforced by a tri-lateral commission of government, industry, and
non-governmental representatives.
For now, the issue is awaiting the fateful June 1 "fast track"
decision by U.S. Congress. Its likely approval would limit
Congressional involvement to a simple yea or nay to the final
agreement. Fearing that opposition will defeat "fast track" or
even the treaty itself, proponents are promising parallel bi- or
tri-lateral agreements to address environmental and labor
concerns.
In Mexico, the Treaty must be approved by the Senate, 54 of whose
60 members belong to the official party.
remain optimistic. Pointing to growing bi-lateral cooperation
along the border, Sanchez affirms that "we are not starting from
zero now as we were 20 years ago." Alfonso Gonzalez of the
Ecological Analysis Group asserts that: "The inevitable
integration of the North American region means that our work
towards participatory planning and sustainable development has
suddenly become international... We may not be able to get the
guarantees we need in this agreement, but the story isn't over
yet."
For more information on Mexico-U.S.-Canada environmentalist
coordination regarding Free Trade, contact:
Mexico--Homero Aridjis, Grupo de los Cien,
tel: 011-525-540-7379;
U.S.-- Stewart Hudson, National Wildlife Federation,
202-797-5444;
Canada--Janine Ferretti, Pollution Probe,
416-926-9876.
##################################################################