Action for Community and Ecology in the Regions of Central America GREEN PAPER 3: Freedoms That Are Abolished

Table of Contents Introduction 1) Trade and Investment: a little history 2) What is in the FTAA Agreement? Biotechnology and the FTAA Protecting Intellectual Property Free Flowing Capital What about Free Flow of People? Militarization and Globalization in the Americas Free Trade and Economic Developmen 3) Making the FTAA a Reality Corporate Globalization in the Americas Dry Canal Megaprojects and the FTAA Dry Canal Megaprojects and the FTAA 4) The FTAA and the Future of the Hemisphere Protecting Corporate Profits FTAA Attacks the Forests 5) Is THIS What Democracy Looks Like? The FTAA's Threat to Democracy North American First Nations: Going Corporate? Free Trade and the Proliferation of Sweatshops 6)THIS is What Democracy Looks Like Free Trade and the Proliferation of Sweatshops 7) What You Can Do Sources Acronym List download this document (488k). ACERCA

Protecting Corporate Profits Hazardous Waste for Mexico In January 1997, California-based Metalclad sued the Mexican government because the governor of the state of San Luis Potosí ruled that a hazardous waste dump could not be constructed. Metalclad bought the facility from another corporation that left the county's groundwater contaminated due to improper storage techniques.19 Upon purchase of the facility, Metalclad guaranteed they would clean up the contaminated land, instead they decided to expand the dump area without the promised cleanup. An environmental impact assessment determined that the site was an "ecological[ly] sensitive underground alluvial stream". This finding caused the Governor of San Luis Potosí to declare the area a 600,000-acre ecological zone. This area became protected and Metalclad was forbidden to build their hazardous waste dump.20 This decision did not sit well with Metalclad and they sued the state of San Luis Potosí for $90 million. The company claimed that the zoning law was a seizure of the company's property and impeded their right to their investment. Under NAFTA, if property rights are seized the restricting government must pay compensation fees to the company. A NAFTA tribunal decided that San Luis Potosí would have to pay Metalclad $16.7 million (U.S.) in compensation fees.21 Grant Kesler, Metalclad's CEO, expressed disappointment in this settlement because he only received money for the loss of property, not the company's potential profit losses.22 MMT and Canada Another case that went before the NAFTA tribunal, which ruled in favor of corporations and against the environment, dealt with the gasoline additive MMT. Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl (MMT) is a gasoline additive that U.S.-based Ethyl Corporation uses as a substitute to lead and to lower knocking sounds in engines. Manganese is suspected to cause brain damage in children.23 MMT is also known to inhibit the function of pollution control devices, like catalytic converters.24 In April 1997, the Canadian Parliament banned importation and trade between provinces of MMT.25 The state of California also banned the use of MMT and the state of Michigan strongly urged producers not to use MMT until further research was conducted on the health side effects.26 MMT is rarely used in U.S.,27 but the U.S.-based Ethyl Corporation sued Canada for $250 million because of their ban on the additive. Ethyl claimed that the ban was "indirectly expropriating their anticipated profits" (lowering their potential profits) and damaging their reputation, which would have further consequences for the company.28 It became evident that Canada would loss under the NAFTA tribunal, so they decided to settle outside of the tribunal. Canada overturned their ban on MMT and payed Ethyl Corporation $13 million in compensation fees.