The increasing importance of ideas and practices of free trade in the world economy requires a better understanding of the role of trade in creating opportunities for development. This study analyzes new forms of governance created in the context of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It finds that environmental groups' participation in NAFTA's implementation has declined while market actors have become increasingly empowered. The study finds that 8 years after NAFTA's passage there are generally diminished expectations that the agreement's environmental provisions and institutional frameworks will help control negative environmental consequences of increased trade between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. This brings into question NAFTA's reputation as a “green” trade agreement. The narrow and technical interpretation of the NAFTA's provisions has been oriented toward avoiding trade barriers rather than understanding and improving the complex interactions between trade, the environment, and development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Audley, J. (1997). Green politics and global trade. NAFTA and the future of environmental politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
2.
Benton, L. (1996). The greening of free trade? The debate about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the environment. Environment and Planning A, 28, 2155-2177.
3.
Edwards, M. , & Hulme, D. (Eds.). (1996). Nongovernmental organizations—Performance and accountability. Beyond the magic bullet. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
4.
Esty, D. (1993). Integrating trade and environmental policy making: First steps in the North American Free Trade Agreement. In D. Zaelke, P. Orbuch, & R. Housmasn, (Eds.), Trade and the environment: Law, economics and policy (pp. 45-56). Washington, DC: Island Press.
5.
Finger, M. , & Tamlotti, L. (1999). New global regulatory mechanisms and the environment: The WTO and the ISO. IDS Bulletin, 30(3), 8-15.
6.
Ford, L. (1999). Social movements and the globalization of environmental governance. IDS Bulletin, 30(3), 68-74.
7.
Gandy, M. (1999). Rethinking the ecological leviathan: Environmental regulation in an age of risk. Global Environmental Change, 9, 59-69.
8.
Hoebing, J. , Weintraub, S., & Baer, M. D. (Eds.). (1996). NAFTA and sovereignty trade-offs for Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
9.
Hogenboom, B. (1998). Mexico and the NAFTA environment debate. The transnational politics of economic integration. Utrecht, the Netherlands: International Books.
10.
Independent Review Committee . (1998). Four-year review of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation: Report of the independent review committee. Montreal, Canada: North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
11.
Jeffery, M. (1996). The legal framework for environment regulation under the North American Free Trade Agreement. In S. Rubin & D. Alexander (Eds.), NAFTA and the environment. The Hague, the Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
12.
Johnson, H. , & Wilson, G. (2000). Biting the bullet: Civil society, social learning and the transformation of local governance. World Development, 28, 1891-1906.
13.
Johnson, P. M., & Beaulieu, A. (1996). The environment and NAFTA: Understanding and implementing the new continental law. Washington, DC: Island Press.
14.
Jordan, L. , & Van Tuijl, P. (2000). Political responsibility in transnational NGO advocacy. World Development, 28, 2051-2065.
15.
Karliner, J. (1997). The corporate planet: Ecology and politics in the age of globalization. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
16.
Kibel, P. (2000). The paper tiger awakens: North American environmental law after the Cozumel reef case [Electronic version]. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 39, 395.
17.
Kirton, J. , & Fernandez de Castro, R. (1997). NAFTA's institutions: Their environmental impacts and potential (Environment and Trade Series 5). Montreal, Canada: North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
18.
Lipschutz, R. (1997). From place to planet: Local knowledge and global environmental governance. Global Governance, 3, 83-102.
19.
Mann, H. , & Von Moltke, K. (1999). NAFTA's chapter 11 and the environment. Addressing the impacts of the investor-state process on the environment (Working Paper). Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
20.
Manning-Cabrol, D. (1995). The imminent death of the Calvo clause and the rebirth of the Calvo principle: Equity of foreign and national investors. Law and Policy in International Business, 26, 1169-1200.
21.
Morales, I. (1999). NAFTA: The governance of economic openness. Annals of the American Academy of Political Social Scientists, 565, 35-65.
22.
Mumme, S. , & Duncan, P. (1996). The Commission on Environmental Cooperation and the US-Mexico Border Environment. Journal of Environment and Development, 5, 197-215.
23.
Munton, D. , & Kirton, J. (1994). Environment cooperation: Bilateral, trilateral, multilateral. North American Outlook, 4, 59-87.
24.
Nadal, A. (1999). Issue Study 1. Some environmental implications of the North American Free Agreement (NAFTA). In North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (Ed.), Assessing environmental effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). An analytical framework and issue studies (pp. 65-182). Montreal, Canada: Environment and Trade Series.
25.
North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation . (1999). North American agenda for action 1999-2001. Montreal, Canada: Author.
26.
North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation . (2000). 2001-2003 proposed plan and budget. Montreal, Canada: Author.
27.
Paterson, M. (1999). Interpreting trends in global environmental governance. International Affairs, 75, 793-802.
28.
Rabe, B. (1999). Federalism and entrepreneurship: Explaining American and Canadian innovation in pollution prevention and regulatory integration. Policy Studies Journal, 27, 288-306.
29.
Reyes Heroles, F. (1996). Sovereignty: Concepts, facts, and feelings. In J. Hoebing, S. Weintraub, & M. Baer (Eds.), NAFTA and sovereignty trade-offs for Canada, Mexico, and the United States (pp. 69-85). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
30.
Rugman, A. , Kirton, J., & Soloway, J. (1999). Environmental regulations and corporate strategy. A NAFTA perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
Sanchez, R. (1994). NAFTA and the environment: Challenges and alternatives for Mexico. In V. Bulmer-Thomas, N. Craske, & M. Serrano (Eds.), Mexico and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Who will benefit? (pp. 95-118). New York: Macmillan.
32.
Schiller, D. (1997). Great expectations: The North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation review of the Cozumel pier submission. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 28, 437-477.
33.
Sklair, L. (1995). Sociology of the global system. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
34.
Soloway, J. (1999). Environmental trade barriers in NAFTA: The MMT fuel additives controversy. Minnesota Journal of Global Trade, 8, 55-95.
35.
Steinberg, R. (1995). Trade-environment negotiations in the EU, NAFTA and GATT/WTO: State power, interests and the structure of regime solutions (Working Paper 75). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy.
36.
Tracker, S. C. (1999). NAFTA coalitions and the political viability of neoliberalism in Mexico. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 41(2), 57-90.
37.
Wallach, L. , & Naiman, R. (1998). NAFTA: Four and a half years later. The Ecologist, 28, 171-177.
38.
Wapner, P. (1996). Environmental activism and world civic politics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
