The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) is a free trade and investment agreement being negotiated between the governments of North, Central and South America and the Caribbean -except Cuba. It is modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between North America, Canada and Mexico. The goal of the FTAA is to create a free trade and investment zone that extends from northern Canada to the southern tip of Chile. As with NAFTA, "free trade and investment" means reducing government regulations on corporations, opening markets to foreign competition and expanding trade in all products, including forest products.
The deal risks undermining forest and ecosystem health by accelerating industrial clear-cut logging, weakening standards aimed at preventing the spread of invasive species and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), binding the hands of countries from using various policy tools for the conservation of their natural resources including national efforts to protect forests and promote sustainable forestry. Forest protections that could be threatened include a ban on the export of raw logs from federal and most state lands to protect small local mills and reduce logging; federal and state green procurement laws such as those requiring the use of recycled paper; eco-labeling and certification laws used to identify environmentally friendly products such as sustainably harvested wood; and laws to protect against invasive species invasions.
The FTAA would cause these environmental impacts by embracing many of the most ecologically problematic elements of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) --and by embarking upon new international trade and investment terrain-- in its efforts to subjugate the health of the Americas' forests and ecosystems to the goal of trade and investment liberalization.
The chapter on Market Access of the draft text implies an increase of logging pressures on native forests, including the conversion of primary forests to tree plantations as a result of the elimination of tariffs on forest products. Furthermore, the Chapter on Agriculture considers the reduction, and eventual elimination, of tariffs on agricultural products such as beef and soybeans. That will promote the conversion of native forests to export-oriented agricultural uses, putting new pressures on forest regions, particularly the Amazon, as landless people are pushed further into untouched areas.
The FTAA would also impede the authority of governments to protect their forests or to provide standards, incentives, or quantitative restrictions aimed at ensuring sustainable forest management, allegedly "non-tariff" barriers to trade or competition. Foreign companies could be empowered to sue governments whenever they feel affected.
Countries would be prohibited from taking appropriate measures to protect the environment and natural resources in a broadly defined "service sector"--including energy, water, tourism, and waste disposal-- under proposed Chapter on Services, Article 7. This would prevent governments from adopting "limitations on the number of service suppliers" for hazardous waste facilities, oil and gas operations, mechanized vehicles used in heavy tourism areas, and water providers. As a result, local, state, and federal lawmakers would lose the ability to set specific limits on the number of facilities for these industries, potentially resulting in the loss of forests, coral reefs, and wetlands, disturbance to migration patterns, harm to wildlife, and intense localized pollution.
Another aspect of the proposed text is that it entails loss of democracy and public involvement. Through the provisions of dispute settlement, governments would surrender to unelected international tribunals the adjudication over their safeguards for forest protection. This applies broadly, not only to forest protection laws and regulations in which the FTAA is deemed to be "prejudiced" or "frustrated," but also "… when a Party considers that an actual [or proposed] measure of another Party is [or would be] inconsistent with the obligations of the FTAA Agreement [or, even if not inconsistent, could cause nullification or impairment of any benefit that a Party could reasonably have expected to accrue to it under this Agreement…]" The participation of non-governmental organizations in FTAA tribunals may not be permitted, even though the binding decisions by "neutral panels," are not subject to appeal and favor the removal of environmental laws where they conflict with the FTAA.
Precautionary measures aimed at preventing the spread of ecologically and economically destructive invasive plants and animals would be further impeded if proposed Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures are adopted. FTAA member countries would have the burden of providing costly scientific proof that measures were justified, if national safeguards exceed international standards adopted by industry-influenced, quasi-governmental organizations that are relatively closed to public scrutiny.
If the draft text is accepted by FTAA countries, they will be required to allow the patenting of genetically modified organisms, including genetically engineered vascular plant and tree species capable to disrupting native ecosystems.
Article based on information from: "Impact of the Free Trade Area of the Americas on Forests. A forest-specific analysis of the draft text of the FTAA" (full text available at: http://www.tradeandforests.org/documents/2001/FTAA_forests.pdf ), Jason Tockman, International Trade Program of American Lands Alliance, e-mail: tockman@americanlands.org ; "The Free Trade Area of the Americas: Hemispheric Forest Threat", American Lands Alliance, e-mail: wafcdc@americanlands.org , http://www.americanlands.org
