A fight we can win

Don't expand NAFTA to Central America

Based on the flawed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) would put our communities at risk by limiting our government's authority to protect public health and the environment. CAFTA would threaten the health of our families and communities by allowing foreign corporations the right to challenge environmental and public-health protections in secret trade tribunals. CAFTA also threatens the rich biodiversity of Central America, including ecologically sensitive areas. The American people want trade that is safe, clean, and fair. The Bush administration's proposed CAFTA is a step in the wrong direction.

CAFTA faces an uphill battle in Congress. The Bush Administration could have brought CAFTA up for a vote since it was signed in May of 2004, but has not had sufficient votes to ensure passage. We know that CAFTA is a key priority for the business community and the Republican leadership, and expect a consolidated push for CAFTA this spring.

Under CAFTA, global corporations could sue governments for cash damages if they perceive public-interest laws to interfere with profits. Central American communities would be at increased risk from polluting factories, sprawling resort developments, increased logging of ancient forests, and extractive industries that destroy the land and coastal areas alike. This "investor-state" lawsuit provision was created under NAFTA, and has led to over two dozen corporate NAFTA cases against the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, with over a billion dollars in claims.

Trade and sprawl

Trade agreements can impact almost every aspect of our lives, and one example is how current trade negotiations in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and elsewhere could make it more difficult for communities to implement smart-growth solutions and curb sprawl.

Many common local land use or zoning policies could be threatened by trade rules.

• Zoning policies which protect scenic or environmentally sensitive areas could be challenged as trade barriers because they could limit the number of hotel, housing, and retail-service suppliers.
• Limitations on the number of "big box" stores, or laws that exclude such operations, could be in violation of trade agreements.
• Procurement rules that give purchasing preferences to locally owned businesses could come under attack.
• Restrictions on store hours could be challenged because they limit the total value of service transactions.

A local, state, or federal initiative aimed at curbing sprawl could be challenged if another country feels it violates the trade agreement. In the WTO there is a dispute settlement system where three panelists are appointed to hear a case, without any public participation and without giving the local jurisdiction a chance to defend itself. The hearings are held behind closed doors, and in previous cases environmental concerns have not been given much weight. Once the panel reaches its verdict, the country is essentially faced with two choices: change its law or face trade sanctions.

What You Can Do

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Walnut Creek) is undecided on CAFTA and needs to hear from her constituents (and the rest of us too) about our concerns. Contact her at (202) 225-1880 or:

House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Tell her that we need responsible trade agreements that protect the environment and workers, and urge her to oppose CAFTA.

For more information visit www.sierraclub.org/trade or