The citizen submission process administered by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation was one of the key concessions made to the environmental movement by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in their effort to build political support for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993. The environmental groups that subsequently endorsed the new trade agreement believed a firm commitment had been made that this process would give ordinary citizens an effective tool for strengthening the enforcement of environmental laws. A review of the operation of the process reveals a number of problem areas, the most important of which have resulted from various actions taken by the three governments over the past several years. It is argued here that these actions threaten to undermine the credibility of the citizen submission process, even among environmentalists who supported NAFTA, and that the resulting disillusionment could strengthen opposition to future trade agreements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, D. (2000a, June 12). Letter from the Minister of the Environment to Denis Bergeron, Directeur général, Centre Québécois du Droit de L'Environnement, Montréal. (Copy on file with author).
2.
Anderson, D. (2000b, April 27). Statement by the Honourable David Anderson, Minister of the Environment, Regarding the Commission on Environmental Cooperation. Available at www.ec.gc.ca/minister/speeches/000428_s_e.htm
3.
Andrews, R. N. L. (1998). Environmental regulation and business “self-regulation.” Policy Sciences, 31, 177-197.
4.
Audley, J. J. (1997). Green politics and global trade: NAFTA and the future of environmental politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Barde, J.-P., & Opschoor, J. B. (1994). From stick to carrot in the environment. OECD Observer, 186, 23-27.
7.
Barde, J.-P., & Smith, S. (1997). Do economic instruments help the environment? OECD Observer, 204, 22-26.
8.
Bolinger, C. N. (1997). Assessing the CEC on its record to date. Law & Policy in International Business, 28, 1107-1132.
9.
Bowman, J. (2001). Citizen submission process proves valuable in BC Hydro case. Trio: Newsletter of the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, (5), 8.
10.
Bugeda, B. (1999). Is NAFTA up to its green expectations? Effective law enforcement under the North American Agreement On Environmental Cooperation. University of Richmond Law Review, 32, 1591-1617.
11.
Caldwell, D. J. (2002a). Civil society and the environment: An environmentalist's agenda for sustainable trade and investment in the Americas. In C. L. Deere and D. C. Esty (Eds.), Greening the Americas: NAFTA's Lessons for hemispheric trade (pp. 291-305). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Center for International Environmental Law. (2001a, May 12). Bush administration considers blocking investigation into migratory bird law violations. E-Wire Press Release. Available at http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/May01/14May0107.html
17.
Center for International Environmental Law. (2001b, October 17). CIEL's letter to the Joint Public Advisory Committee. Available at www.ciel.org/Announce/CEC_JPAC_Letter.html
18.
Charnovitz, S. (1994). NAFTA's social dimension: Lessons from the past and framework for the future. International Trade Journal, 8, 39-72.
Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (1999c, July 19). Secretariat. Notification to Council that development of a factual record is warranted. Available at www.cec.org/files/pdf/sem/97-6-ADV-E.pdf
24.
Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (2000, December 15). Secretariat. Article 15(1) Notification to Council the Development of a Factual Record is Warranted. Available at www.cec.org/files/pdf/sem/ACFA30.pdf
Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (2002a, February 7). Secretariat. Metales y Derivados Final Factual Report (SEM-98-007). Available at www.cec.org/files/pdf/sem/98-7-FFR-e.pdf
Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (2002c, March 8). Summary Record: Joint Public Advisory Committee Session No. 02-01. Available at www.cec.org/files/pdf/JPAC/sr02-01e-fin.pdf
Condon, B. J. (1995). The impact of the NAFTA, the NAAEC, and constitutional law on environmental policy in Canada and Mexico. In S. J. Randall & H. W. Konrad (Eds.), NAFTA in transition (pp. 281-294). Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press.
33.
Deere, C. L., & Esty, D. C. (2002a). Trade and the environment in the Americas: Overview of key issues. In C. L. Deere & D. C. Esty (Eds.), Greening the Americas: NAFTA's lessons for hemispheric trade (pp. 1-27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
Deere, C. L., & Esty, D. C. (2002b). Trade and the environment: Reflections on the NAFTA and recommendations for the Americas. In In C. L. Deere & D. C. Esty (Eds.), Greening the Americas: NAFTA's lessons for hemispheric trade (pp. 329-354). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35.
Defenders of Wildlife. (2000, May 19). Letter to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, from Kevin Scott, Director of Canadian Programs. (Copy on file with author)
Environmental Health Coalition. (2002, February 13). Tri-national report corroborates toxic problem at abandoned Tijuana lead smelter: NAFTA's fundamental flaws exposed [Press Release]. Available at www.environmentalhealth.org/pr-021202-CECreportReleased.html
38.
Environmental implications of NAFTA before Congress, House, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 103rd Cong. 1 (1993, November 10) [testimony of Ann Richards, Governor of Texas].
39.
Esty, D. (1994). Greening the GATT: Trade, environment, and the future. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
Ferguson-Southard, D. (2001, October 19). Letter to the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator, from the Chair of the Government Advisory Committee to the U.S. Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Available at www.epa.gov/ocempage/gac/gac_advice_101901.pdf
42.
Ferriss, S. (1998, March 2). Environment lost in NAFTA translations: Lawbreakers face no penalty. The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), n.p.
43.
Fox, A. B. (1995). Environment and trade: The NAFTA case. Political Science Quarterly, 110, 49-68.
44.
Friends of the Oldman River. (2001, November 19). Friends of the Oldman River's NAFTA environmental submission gets go ahead [Media Release]. Available at www.cen-rce/new/oldman.html
45.
Garver, G. (2001). Factual record helped in Cozumel pier case, says submitter. Trio: Newsletter of the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, (4), 1.
46.
Garvey, J. (1995). Trade law and the quality of life: Dispute resolution under the NAFTA side accords on labor and the environment. American Journal of International Law, 89, 439-453.
47.
Gibson, R. E. (Ed.). (1999). Voluntary initiatives: The new politics of corporate greening.Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview.
48.
Gilpin, A. (2000). Environmental economics: A critical overview. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
49.
Graubart, J. (2001). Giving meaning to new trade-linked “soft law” agreements on social values: A law-in-action analysis of NAFTA's environmental side agreement. UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Policy, 6, 425-462.
50.
Greene, A. (2001, October 15). Letter to the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator, from the Acting Chair of the National Advisory Committee to the U.S. Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Available at www.epa.gov/ocempage/nac/nac_advice_101501.pdf
51.
Harrison, K. (1995). Is cooperation the answer? Canadian environmental enforcement in comparative context. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 14, 221-244.
52.
Harrison, K. (1998). Talking with the donkey: Cooperative approaches to environmental protection. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2, 51-72.
53.
Helm, D. (2000). Objectives, instruments, and institutions. In D. Helm (Ed.), Environmental policy: Objectives, instruments and implementation (pp. 1-28). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
54.
Hockenstein, J. B., Stavins, R. N., & Whitehead, B. W. (1997). Crafting the next generation of market-based environmental tools. Environment, 39, 13-20, 30-33.
55.
Housman, R. (1994). The North American Free Trade Agreement's lessons for reconciling trade and the environment. Stanford Journal of International Law, 30, 379-422.
56.
International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development. (2000, June 20). Environmental, citizens' groups claim victory after NAFTA environment ministers meet.BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest, 4(24). Available at www.ictsd.org/html/weekly/story2.20-06-00.htm
57.
Johnson, P. M., & Beaulieu, A. (1996). The environment and NAFTA: Understanding and implementing the new continental law. Washington, DC: Island Press.
58.
Keohane, N. O., Revesz, R. L., & Stavins, R. N. (1999). The positive political economy of instrument choice in environmental policy. In A. Panagariya, P. R. Portney, & R. M. Schwab (Eds.), Environmental and public economics (pp. 89-125). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
59.
Knight, C. F. (1995). Voluntary environmental standards vs. mandatory environmental regulations and enforcement in the NAFTA market. Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, 12, 619-635.
Lynes, J., & Gibson, R. (1998). Voluntary corporate initiatives for environmental improvement. Alternatives Journal, 24, 18-19.
65.
Malkin, E. (2000, May 29). Commentary: Taking the green out of NAFTA. Business Week (International Edition), n.p.
66.
Markell, D. L. (2000). The Commission for Environmental Cooperation's citizen submission process. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 12, 545-574.
67.
Markell, D. L. (2001). NAFTA's citizen spotlight process. Environmental Forum, 18, 32-43.
68.
Mayer, F. W. (2002). Negotiating the NAFTA: Political Lessons for the FTAA. In C. L. Deere & D. C. Esty (Eds.), Greening the Americas: NAFTA's lessons for hemispheric trade (pp. 97-116). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
69.
McIlroy, A. (1998, March 2). Environment official forced out: NAFTA commission head embarrassed three governments. Globe and Mail (Toronto), n.p.
70.
McKenna, B. (2000, May 18). Environmental probes derailed by NAFTA nations. Globe and Mail (Toronto), n.p.
71.
Mumme, S. P., & Duncan, P. (1996). The Commission on Environmental Cooperation and the U.S.-Mexico border environment. Journal of Environment & Development, 5, 197-215.
72.
Mumme, S. P., & Duncan, P. (1997/98). The Commission for Environmental Cooperation and environmental management in the Americas. Journal of International Studies & World Affairs, 39, 41-62.
73.
National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, & Natural Resources Defense Council. (1991, May 10). Consensus Position by National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and Natural Resources Defense Council regarding President Bush's action plan for addressing environmental issues related to the North American Free Trade Agreement [Mimeograph].
74.
National Wildlife Federation. (1991, March). Environmental principles related to trade agreements [Mimeograph].
75.
National Wildlife Federation. (1993, September 14). America's Largest environmental group supports NAFTA [Mimeograph].
76.
The North American Free Trade Agreement and Its Environmental Side Agreement before Congress, Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 103rd Cong., 1 (1993) (testimony of Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator).
77.
Raustiala, K. (1995). The political implications of the enforcement provisions of the NAFTA environmental side agreement: The CEC as a model for future accords. Environmental Law, 25, 31-56.
78.
Saunders, J. O. (1994). NAFTA and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation: A new model for international collaboration on trade and the environment. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law & Policy, 5, 273-304.
79.
Sicard, H. (2000, May 26). Letter from Hélène Sicard, Présidente, Centre Québécois du Droit de L'Environnement to CEC Council. (Copy on file with author)
Smith, N. (2002b, June 14). Letter from Norine Smith, Alternative Representative for Canada to Jon Plaut, JPAC Chair. Available at www.cec.org/files/PDF/JPAC/L-Counreply.pdf
82.
Spalding, M. (1995). Resolving international environmental disputes: Public participation and the right-to-know. Journal of Environment & Development, 4, 141-154.
Statement taken from U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor: Special NAFTA briefing before the White House. (1993, September 24). Retrieved June 13, 2003, from the LEXIS-NEXIS database.
85.
Strassman, N. (2000, June 12). NAFTA group focus of meeting. The Fort Worth Star-Tele-gram, n.p.
86.
Thomas, C., & Tereposky, G. A. (1993, October 19). The NAFTA and the side agreement on environmental co-operation. Journal of World Trade, 27, 5-36.
87.
Van Putten, M. (2000, April 27). Letter to David Anderson, Carol Browner,and Julia Carabias from the President and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. Available at www.nwf.org/trade/naftamvpletter.html
88.
Vogel, D. (2000). The environment and international trade. Journal of Policy History, 12, 72-100.
89.
Washington Post. (2000, June 10). How to wreck trade [Editorial]. Washington Post, n.p.
90.
Wirth, J. D. (2001, February 26). NACEC and issues of dispute settlement. Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools. Available at www.aals.org/am2001/mat_wirth.html
