Conditions on the US-Mexico border are often so deplorable that they seem "made for TV." Air and water pollution blighted northern Mexican cities long before NAFTA was a glimmer on the political horizon. Not surprisingly, when NAFTA became a political reality, environmentalists reacted. They argued, among other things, that commercial competition would weaken environmental standards in all three countries, and that industrial growth in Mexico would further damage its weak environmental infrastructure. The demands for action against current and potential abuses posed a serious obstacle to the completion of NAFTA negotiations. A side accord -- the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) -- helped alleviate some of these concerns. But in the aftermath of NAFTA's economic success, poor living conditions persist in most of Mexico. Many environmental groups blame NAFTA and, drawing on its experience, now oppose new trade initiatives.
Does the NAFTA record on the environment since 1994 justify its criticism? Seven years is too short to redress decades of environmental abuse, but it is not too soon to assess NAFTA's achievements and shortcomings in meeting its environmental objectives. In this analysis, the authors review (1) the environmental provisions of the NAFTA; (2) the NAAEC; (3) the situation at the US-Mexican border; and (4) the trends in North American environmental policy. They emphasize that the environmental problems of North America were not the result of NAFTA nor was the NAAEC devised to address all of them. But with its huge success in expanding free trade, NAFTA has concentrated population and environmental abuse at the US-Mexico border -- where it ismost visible to Americans.
The authors offer recommendations to better NAFTA's environmental dimension in all three countries, and improve living conditions where economic growth is greatest -- at the US-Mexican border. It makes more sense to tackle the shortcomings than t
