Not Now, NAFTA - Chile and the North American Free Trade Agreement - Brief Article

Chile's economy may be ready for free trade, but its environment is not

One of the few things President Clinton and the Republican leadership in Congress agree on is their desire to bring Chile into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). They've got allies in Chile, where business interests are eager to hitch South America's strongest economy to the free-trade bandwagon. But in September Congress killed "fast track" legislation, which would have given the president the power to negotiate trade pacts with minor congressional input. At issue was the bill's silence on environmental and labor concerns. Environmentalists above and below the equator celebrated.

During the early 1990s, after military dictator General Augusto Pinochet reluctantly ceded power to an elected government, Chile's entry into NAFTA seemed a done deal. Chilean government and business leaders viewed the agreement as a kind of world seal of approval of the country's new political structure and free-enterprise economy. But U.S. environmental groups--led by the Sierra Club--have consistently blocked fast track, effectively stalling NAFTA. In the meantime, Chile has signed a trade agreement with Mexico and is negotiating with other Latin American countries and the European Union. In 1997 it signed an accord with Canada that is virtually a carbon copy of NAFTA, right down to the toothless promise that each country will enforce its own environmental laws.

That's why Chilean environmentalists dread NAFTA. Because Chile's environmental laws are often only statements of good intentions, international corporations could run roughshod over their country. In 1994, for example, Chile's Congress passed its "Environmental Framework Law." But until a Chilean Supreme Court decision in March 1997, compliance with its key provisions--including a requirement to conduct environmental impact studies--was voluntary. A national parks system theoretically protects almost 20 percent of Chile, but regulations have yet to be implemented.

"There's an almost pathetic lack of enforcement," says Miguel Stutzin, who heads the Committee for the Defense of Flora and Fauna. "We have over a thousand laws and regulations covering the environment. But there's no political will to make them work."

Chile's forests would be the first to feel NAFTA's effects. Only one-third of this string-bean-shaped country is suitable for forestry, and Chilean firms have already planted the most accessible land with pine and eucalyptus. What remains are remoter areas blanketed with rare natives like the graceful alerce, the Southern Hemisphere's version of the California redwood.

Officially, clearcutting of these native forests is illegal. But last July, Santiago's daily El Mercurio published a front-page photograph showing land once covered by coigue, lenga, and other species unique to Chile that had been cut and burned. "The law always leaves a loophole," says Stutzin.

Even government environmental authorities admit the system exists not to reject projects but to "improve" them. It's no wonder U.S. companies such as Boise Cascade and Trillium Corporation are planning major logging projects here.

Chile's attitude toward pesticides is similarly lax, and their use could greatly increase under NAFTA. Pesticide imports more than doubled when Chile's fruit- and wine-export industry boomed in the 1980s. In 1995, labor ministry studies revealed that most workers--some of them children, and many illiterate--don't follow standard safety procedures when handling pesticides. Aerial spraying is largely uncontrolled. Three of the "dirty dozen" pesticides banned throughout the world--paraquat, pentachlorophenol, and parathion--are used routinely in Chile. Entry into NAFTA is expected to make pesticides cheaper, worsening a bad situation.

Three out of four Chileans believe that their laws don't adequately protect the environment. When asked to rate protecting the environment against the need for economic growth, 59 percent choose the former, while growth at all costs is preferred by only 17 percent.

Over the past five years, Stutzin has watched NAFTA live up to warnings of increased pollution, ineffectual enforcement, and attacks on existing environmental law, and he worries that NAFTA's "seal of approval" comes at too high a price. "We just don't have the measures in place to protect our environment," he says. "We're not ready for NAFTA."

* When Congress convenes in January, labor and environmental groups (including the Sierra Club) will lobby for a new "right track" trade policy that will protect the environment and jobs from the ravages of unmitigated free trade. To get involved, contact Dan Seligman, director of the Club's Responsible Trade campaign, at (202) 675-2387, dan.seligman@sierraclub.org, or visit the campaign's Web page at www.sierraclub.org/trade.

COPYRIGHT 1999 Sierra Magazine
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group