Globalisation, trade and the environmentprecautionary principle. Thus there is a sharp divide between the minority
of states who want clear and explicit rules to exempt MEAs from a WTO
challenge, and a majority who want no further environmental compromise
of trade rules (Mason 2004 ;Eckersley2004b: 33). Consequently, with little
prospect of the stalemate being resolved, it seems that, on balance, the
environmental cause remains poorly served by the WTO, although its neg-
ative impact is perhaps not quite as devastating as many environmentalists
suggest.
Critical question 3
Would trade be greener without the WTO?
◗ North American Free Trade Agreement
If the WTO has struggled to reconcile tensions between trade and the envi-
ronment, to what extent have they been resolved by regional trading agree-
ments such as NAFTA and the EU (seenext section)? NAFTA was negoti-
ated between Canada, Mexico and the USA in the early 1990s, and is often
described as a ‘green’ trading agreement because it addresses the environ-
ment explicitly both in the preamble and in several chapters of the text
(Sanchez 2002 ). The bargaining process took place at a time of high concern
about environmental issues and generated heated debates, with several envi-
ronmental NGOs, including the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, and some trade
unions complaining that it favoured corporate interests. The Clinton admin-
istration was therefore prepared to offer concessions to the green lobby.
Thus the agreement states explicitly that the trade provisions in certain
MEAs – including CITES, the Basle Convention on Hazardous Wastes and
the Montreal Protocol – take precedence over NAFTA. It also includes an
innovative side agreement, the North American Agreement on Environmen-
tal Cooperation (NAAEC), specifically on the environment (although it is not
formally partof NAFTA) and established the Commission on Environmen-
tal Cooperation (CEC) to oversee NAAEC. The CEC has some limited powers,
including reporting on various environmental issues (such as the life-cycle
of products), acting as a disputes panel on the enforcement of environmen-
tal laws related to trade and the right to impose fines (on Canada alone)
or trade sanctions for failure to implement environmental laws. Unlike the
WTO, environmental NGOs have the right to participate, by making submis-
sions and advising the CEC. NAFTA seeks to prohibit a member state from
lowering environmental regulations to become a ‘pollution haven’.
Although NAFTA included these environmental provisions, in practice few
of the mechanisms have worked as environmentalists had hoped (Sanchez
2002 :1388). The environmental provisions in NAFTA, the NAAEC side agree-
ment and the CEC have not generated a broader discussion of trade and
environmental interactions. After their successes in the initial bargaining