NAFTA Cases Show Problems. U.N. and EEC Treaties on Toxic Waste

On the U.S.-Mexico border near Tijuana, a lead smelter operated by Metales у Derivados was abandoned in 1992. Today about 6,000 metric tons of lead slag and other chemicals are poisoning the drinking water of nearby communities.

Although the CEC has investigated, nothing has happened to the site. Since 1995 citizens' petitions concerning thirty other sites have been filed with the CEC concerning NAFTA-related complaints. Half have been dismissed, one has had a factual record prepared, and the rest are pending. Environmental advocates have seen these cases as a reflection of the failure to protect the environment under NAFTA.

Another NAFTA case involved a U.S. company, Metalclad, which was in the process of opening a hazardous waste landfill in the Mexican state of San Luis Potosi. In 1996 the governor made the site an ecological preserve, effectively blocking the landfill project. A NAFTA arbitration panel found for the company, and Mexico was compelled to pay Metalclad $16.7 million compensation.

A U.S.-Canadian NAFTA case involved Canada's ban on exports of PCB wastes to the United States. A NAFTA arbitration panel ordered Canada to pay $8.2 million to S. D. Meyers, Inc., which had contracted to treat the wastes. Canada argued that its status as a Basel treaty member posed a direct conflict with NAFTA but still agreed to pay the compensation.

Two other cases show the extent of NAFTA's dominance over environmental law. Methanex Corp. of Vancouver, Canada, sued to recover almost $1 billion in damages because of the state of California's plans to ban the additive MTBE (the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether, which has had adverse effects on groundwater) from the state's gasoline. That suit was not resolved in early 2003. Finally, the Canadian government had to compensate the Ethyl Corp. after banning a dangerous gasoline additive called "MMT."

All in all, experience with NAFTA shows the difficulty of harmonizing regional free trade agreements with international environmental agreements. In contrast, environmental agreements in Europe have been a springboard for full international environmental treaties, and European Economic Commission (EEC) initiatives cannot be considered separately from U.N.- backed international treaties.

U.N. and EEC Treaties on Toxic Waste. The two major U.N. initiatives concerning toxic waste mentioned earlier have been under development as part of broader initiatives to control environmental pollutants.

The Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-Boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal aims to control trade of toxic waste from industrial to developing nations, and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants aims to restrict and phase out some of the world's most dangerous chemicals—pesticides such as DDT and chlordane, industrial chemicals such as PCBs, and byproduct chemicals such as dioxins.

Like many other international agreements, the Basel and Stockholm conventions began as U.N. initiatives and evolved into working conventions. Delegates from U.N. member nations work in conventions that are often named for the cities where they meet, such as Basel, Switzerland, or Stockholm, Sweden.

When the delegates recommend treaties and amendments to treaties, their own nations must ratify them. Consequently, the results of some conventions become international treaties rather quickly, whereas others may never attain the full force of international law.