An Assessment of Citizen Submissions to the nafta commission icon

An Assessment of Citizen Submissions to the nafta commission


Загрузка...
страницы:   1   2
An Assessment of Citizen Submissions to the NAFTA Commission

for Environmental Cooperation


Edelgard Mahant

Glendon College (York University)

2275 Bayview Avenue

Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M6

Telephone: (416) 736 5111, ext. 88599

Fax: (416) 487 6852


e-mail: mahant@glendon.yorku.ca


Paper read to the Conference of the:

International Studies Association

Hong Kong University


July 26-28, 2001


17/08/01

Though the relationship between trade and the environment is a relatively recent topic, it has generated a huge literature as well as a small number of empirical studies. Proponents of freer trade claim that higher incomes and diffusion of technology will lead to a better environment for all, whereas some environmentalists insist that freer trade will cause a race to the bottom as firms - and countries - with the lowest environmental standards undercut those with higher standards. Whether there is in fact a race to the bottom or instead, a California effect, meaning that jurisdictions with lower environmental standards will be pressured to adopt the higher standards of nearby jurisdictions has been the subject of much debate (Cloutier, 1999). It is not a debate that I will summarize in this paper.1 Rather I will try to deal with the specific effects one of the environmental provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

When the administrations of Prime Minister Mulroney and Presidents Bush and Salinas were negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, the opponents of this agreement predicted that its implementation would lead to environmental degradation throughout the continent. Mexico would continue not to enforce its own environmental laws and regulations as Mexican industries attempted to maintain their competitive advantage over their American and Canadian counterparts. American and Canadian jurisdictions would be under pressure to lower environmental standards so as to compete with the Mexicans. And Canadian and American firms would be induced to move to Mexico, where environmental standards were lower, and then export goods, which could be produced more cheaply there, back to Canada and the United States. (For an excellent summary of the claims and counter-claims with respect to the possible environmental effects of NAFTA, see Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 1996.)

To counter such criticisms, the negotiators included a number of environmental provisions in the NAFTA agreement itself. The preamble to the agreement commits the parties to strengthen the development and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. Though the preambles of international agreements are not legally binding, commentators have interpreted this provision to mean that the three governments agree to harmonize environmental standards in an upward direction (Lazega, 1999; Porras, undated). Article 104 of the NAFTA mentions five international environmental agreements whose terms will supersede those of the NAFTA if they conflict with it.2 Chapter Seven of the NAFTA allows each of the three countries to set its own sanitary and phytosanitary standards, and Chapter Nine allows for the setting of other standards. Chapter Eleven states that governments must not lower environmental standards to attract investment, though in the absence of a test case, it remains to be seen how such a provision could be enforced (Kirton, 1996; Housman, 1994). In addition to the provisions of the NAFTA itself, the United States and Mexico have negotiated a special agreement for dealing with the environmental problems of the Mexican-American land border area (Housman, 1994; Hogenboom, 1998).

However, before NAFTA could be ratified by the three governments, the United States and then Canada held elections which resulted in changes of government in January and October 1993, respectively. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, replaced, George Bush, a Republican in January 1993; Jean Chrétien, a Liberal, replaced Brian Mulroney, a Conservative, in October 1993. During the election campaigns both the Clinton and the Chrétien teams had denounced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiated by their predecessors as insufficient on several grounds, and having come to office, they felt a need to remedy these perceived shortcomings. This was especially true in the United States, where the NAFTA needed congressional approval, whereas in Canada the overwhelming Liberal majority in the House of Commons meant that approval was a formality.

As a result, the two new governments (Mexicos government did not face an election until 1994) sent their negotiators back to the negotiating table.3 They then produced two so-called, side, in fact supplementary agreements, one dealing with labour issues and the perceived threat to Canadian and American wages and working conditions, the other dealing with environmental issues: the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), signed on September 14, 1993 and ratified with the main agreement.

This Agreement has five substantive parts. Parts One and Two are fairly general in nature and commit the three governments to the ideal of sustainable development, high and continuously improving levels of environmental protection and the transparency of the relevant domestic legal processes, among other good things. Part Three creates a tri-national Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) and describes its composition and powers. Part Four requires the parties to notify one another of proposed changes in environmental measures, and Part Five creates a special dispute resolution procedure for environmental disputes (Appleton, 1994; Housman, 1994; Kirton, 1996).

Here I am primarily concerned with the CEC, which consists of three parts. There is a Council, which meets at least once a year and consists of the cabinet level official responsible for the environment in each of the three federal governments, a Secretariat, headed by an Executive Director, and located in Montreal (Canada), which administers the NAAEC and a Joint Public Advisory Committee which consists of fifteen private individuals, five from each of the three member states. Articles 14 and 15 of the NAAEC allow private groups and individuals in any one of the three member states to file a submission (in fact a complaint) alleging that one of the governments is not implementing its own environmental legislation and describe how the CEC shall deal with such complaints. The process for dealing with complaints is complex. It involves an initial review by the tri-national Secretariat (Four-Year Review, 1998). If the complaint survives this stage, the accused government has a chance to reply. If the Secretariat still finds it worthwhile to proceed, it needs the approval of the Council to publish a factual record which will expose the accused governments failure to act. What is significant about this procedure is that (1) only two of the three governments need to agree to the publication of a factual record; that is a government can be outvoted, making this a supranational institution; (2) private citizens can appeal to a transnational authority, another indication of supranationalism (Four-Year Review, 1998) (3) the transnational Secretariat can determine whether or not a complaint is well-founded enough to warrant further investigation (Four-Year Review, 1998); (4) there are no sanctions more severe than the publication of a factual record.

Article 15 of the NAAEC provides for an intergovernmental dispute resolution procedure, under which governments can accuse one another of persistent failure to enforce environmental legislation. A pattern of Article 14 cases could thus become evidence for an Article 15 panel. Under Article 15, the judges are not a Secretariat or Council, but a panel of five experts in environmental law. If a government is found not to have enforced its own environmental laws and to have done so consistently, it can be fined in the case of the Canadian government, or face trade sanctions in the case of the American and Mexican governments (Housman, 1994).4 As of July 2001, no government has invoked this dispute resolution method.

This paper revisits the issue of a race to the bottom leading to the creation of pollution havens by examining the trade in the goods of so-called dirty industries among NAFTA countries. (On the relationship between the concepts of a race to the bottom and pollution haven, see Jacott, Reed and Winfield, 2001). The paper continues with a summary of the citizens submissions to the CEC, with a view to determining whether the solution conceived by the drafters of the NAAEC has contributed to the solution of the perceived problem, that is the creation of pollution havens. A last section briefly examines a new kind of migration, that of environmental issues from Article 104 and the NAAEC to a new legal basis in Chapter 11 of NAFTA, the investment chapter.

^ Trade in the Products of Dirty Industries

There is a widespread belief that free or freer trade in goods will cause environmentally damaging industries to migrate to jurisdictions where environmental laws and regulations are lax and thus cheap to obey. This belief relies on the distinction between so-called dirty industriesand other industries. Dirty industries have been variously defined as forms of production which cause above average environmental stress even with the use of end of the pipe treatment. (Janicke et al, 1997) This definition, however, is difficult, if not impossible, to operationalize. Estimates of the damage done by a belching smoke stack or the effluent of a paper bleaching facility are difficult and time consuming to produce and are likely to result in widely different calculations, depending on the purposes for which the estimate is made. Economists have, therefore, come up with another definition, which while easy to operationalize, contains more than an element of circular logic not to mention cultural bias. Dirty industries, according to this point of view, are those incurring the highest level of pollution abatement and control expenditures in the United States. (Low and Yeats, 1992)

The assumed migration of so-called dirty industries has been the subject of at least two empirical studies. Low and Yeats (1992) studied the time period from 1965 to 1988 and found that over that time period the proportion of the products of dirty industries in world trade decreased from 19 to 15% . There was, however, a shift of some 3.5% in the origin of such products; by 1988 the proportion exported from developing countries (chiefly in South East Asia) had increased by 3.5%. Abimanyu (1996), studying APEC and ASEAN, tried to determine the extent to which liberalization of trade has contributed to an increase in trade in the products of dirty industries, which Abimanyu defines as the paper, chemical, iron and steel and non-ferrous metal industries (a somewhat less inclusive definition than that used by Low and Yeats). Abimanyus study, useful and original as it is, does not mention that there has been little trade liberalization within ASEAN and APEC as such, much less any attempt to create a free trade area (Mahant, 2001). What liberalization there has been has occurred on a global level, through the GATT/WTO system. Nevertheless, if the pessimists are right, one would expect there to be some migration of dirty industries to a country with lower environmental standards in case of the creation of a free trade area, perhaps even in anticipation of the creation of such an area. Abimanyus study did not find such evidence, though he did find some evidence of an increased tendency on the part of Thailand and Malaysia to import the products of dirty industries.

This paper tries to determine if there has been an increase in the trade in the products of dirty industries among NAFTA countries since the creation of NAFTA. Tables 1 to 6 give a brief summary of overall trade among the three countries compared to trade in the products of six of the so-called dirty industries. In each case, the trade in the products of the dirty industries are set at 100 for 1991 and then calculated as proportion of that base number for succeeding years. I tried to include most of the industries included by Low and Yeats, and Abimanyu, data permitting, but left out petroleum because extreme price fluctuations can make the figures misleading. The first line of each table shows the total imports or exports between the dyad in question. I then compared trade in the dirty industries, which follows, to overall trade within that dyad. This comparison is necessary in order to determine whether the growth in the trade in the products of a dirty industry is due to a scale effect, that is to the growth in trade overall, or to a composition effect, that is to growth in the trade in that product line (Jacott, Reed and Winfield, 2001).

A brief examination of trade statistics in Tables 1-6 shows no particular trend toward increased trade in the products of dirty industries. Tables 1 and 2, showing American and Canadian imports from Mexico are the most important here. There are only two categories of dirty products which showed a significantly faster rate of growth than trade overall, pulp and paper, and paper products. While this trend may be significant in that Mexico is developing an industry which is known to pose many environmental hazards, it is also true that new technologies now permit the making of paper from tropical woods. So the change is due as much to changes in technology as it is to the migration of industries.

Tables 3 and 4 show Canadian exports to the US and Mexico. Some Canadians had expressed feared that under NAFTA they might become hewers of wood and drawers of water, that is that low-valued added or environmentally hazardous industries might move to Canada whereas Americans would keep the better industries for themselves. Table 3 does not show any evidence of such trends. The only group of dirty products which showed growth in trade significantly higher than trade overall was paper articles, and that growth appears to have been compensated for by a drop a drop in sales of pulp and paper. So it appears that more processing took place in Canada. As for Canadian sales to Mexico (Table 4), the quantities of most of the dirty products sold was so low that it is difficult to identify any trends. The only exception is fertilizers, where there have been unexplained variations in shipments from year to year. But even here the overall trend does not exceed the growth in trade in all goods.

As for American exports to both Mexico and Canada (Tables 5 and 6), the statistics do not show any strong trends toward a concentration in the trade of dirty products. The only exception is mineral tars, the export of which from the US to Canada and Mexico has increased significantly since 1991. In the case of US exports to Canada, there was a steep increase the year after NAFTA was first discussed (1992), culminating in a dramatic rise over 1995-1997, the first years that NAFTA was in force. After 1997, there was a decrease, but even by 2000, the total value of the mineral tars exported from the US to Canada was more than four times what it had been in 1991. In the case of US sales to Mexico, the increase was less dramatic, but nevertheless significant, especially over the years 1995-1997.

The fact that the US may be exporting to Canada, and to a lesser extent to Mexico, hazardous wastes for treatment or storage in Canada has received some publicity in recent months. A study by a Texas think-tank claims that Mexico has increased both the rigour and the enforcement of environmental laws, particularly those which relate to the hazardous wastes, whereas the Canadian provinces, especially Ontario, Quebec and Alberta, have licensed facilities intended for the treatment of hazardous wastes from the US (Jacott, Reed and Winfield, 2001; Mittelstaedt, 2001). The former report cites two successive Ontario Ministers of the Environment as saying that NAFTA limited their ability to block the import hazardous wastes from the US.

Preliminary investment trends confirm what the trade statistics suggest. According to the race-to-the-bottom hypothesis, it was feared that Canadian and especially American firms might rush to move polluting industries to Mexico, so as to avoid more stringently enforced environmental regulations in Canada and the US. If this hypothesis holds, investment should be expanding most rapidly in relatively pollution intensive ... sectors. In fact, preliminary studies indicate, that

From 1993 to 1996 US FDI flows into Mexico were low in the automotive sector, steady in computers, household appliance, and textiles, but negative in chemicals (where US investment declined 47 percent over the period) and printed products..... There is thus no general tendency for US investment to flow into sectors that are relatively high polluting. (CEC, 1999)

Thus, neither trade nor preliminary investment statistics support the predictions of an increased tendency for polluting industries to locate in Mexico and export their products from that supposed pollution haven. On the other hand, there may be a trend toward the treatment and thus shipment of hazardous wastes from the US to Canada and to a lesser extent to Mexico. Such a trend would conform to Abimanyus (1996) finding that efforts to free trade in Southeast Asia caused Thailand and Malaysia to export more of the products of dirty industries.

^ Citizens Submissions to the CEC

When the Clinton and Chrétien administrations were trying to deal with a perceived problem, that, as the result of the implementation of NAFTA dirty industries would migrate to pollution havens, one of the solutions their negotiators devised was that of giving groups and individuals the opportunity to formally launch complaints about the non-enforcement of environmental laws and regulations (Tollefson, 2000; Wilson, 2000). It is the thesis of this paper that the solution devised provides an inappropriate solution to the perceived problem. The solution is likely to result in inappropriate action because the individuals and groups launching complaints are likely to be concerned not with the basic environmental needs of the population but with post-materialist concerns such as biodiversity or genetically modified plants.

The above categorization refers to the question, sometimes discussed among environmentalists and development experts, which asks whether the protection of the environment is a basic need, necessary for health and survival, or whether it is an extra, a post-materialist concern occupying the time and attention of those who have met their basic needs. The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), which coined the phrase 

sustainable development represents the first point of view.5 Ronald Inglehart, in his book^ The Silent Revolution (1977) and in his later works (Inglehart, 1990; Abramson and Inglehart, 1995) pioneered the concept of the environment as a post-materialist concern.

It remains to determine the extent to which the NAAECs institutional innovation of citizens submissions deals with basic needs or post-materialist wants. Such a distinction, though without the labels I have attached to the categories, can be found in the NAAEC itself. Article 45.2 of the NAAEC defines an environmental law as one

... the primary purpose of which is the protection of the environment, or the prevention of a danger to human life or health through


(i) the prevention, abatement, control of the release, discharge or emission of pollutants or environmental contaminants,


(ii) the control of environmentally hazardous or toxic chemicals, substances, materials and wastes, and the dissemination of information related thereto, or


(iii) the protection of wild flora or fauna, including endangered species, their habitat, and specially protected natural areas in the Partys territory.... (North American Agreement, undated)

Adopting the distinctions between environmental laws as defined in points (i) and (ii) and point (iii). I here define any environmental issue that deals directly with the pollution of or a threat to the pollution of the air, water and the food supply as one which threatens a to a basic need. All other issues, for example, those relating to biodiversity, the ozone layer, climate change or the protection of fauna or flora are classified as post-materialist. Furthermore, I assume that so-called dirty industries pose a threat to basic needs, whereas post-materialist environmental issues deal with more long-term effects.

Table 7 provides a summary of all the citizens submissions received by the end of June 2001. Table 8, which follows below, summarizes the data from Table 7.


Table 8

A Summary of the Types of Submissions Received by the Commission on Environmental Cooperation, 1995-2001

^ Type of Issue Addressed:


Government complained of:


Basic Needs


Post-materialist


Country Total


Canada


2


8


10


Mexico


7


6


13


US


3


5


8


Category Total


12


19


31



The table confirms the expected majority of submissions of the post-materialist type, though there appears to be a trend over time toward more complaints dealing with basic needs. All the complaints received over the course of the year June 2000 to June 2001, for example, dealt with basic needs, whereas all seven of the complaints filed during the first two years, that is 1995 and 1996, were of the post-materialist type. (For details of cases over time, see Table 7.) Interestingly, post-materialist submissions have come from all three countries, with Canada showing the largest number. Indeed, given the fact that Canada has a population less than one third that of Mexico and one-ninth that of the US, on a per capita basis Canada produced an overwhelmingly large proportion of submissions. This finding is counter-intuitive since Canadians pride themselves on their advanced environmental standards and since one would expect that Canadas large area (It is larger than the US and hence much more thinly populated.) would produce few complaints. One possible explanation for the large number of Canadian complaints is the location of the CECs offices. They are in Montreal, and thus Canadians may be more aware of the CECs existence than are Mexicans and Americans.

More than half the complaints alleging damage to basic needs were complaints made against the Mexican government, though the numbers are small. Of the seven complaints, six were by Mexican groups or citizens. The seventh was by a group in California claiming that an abandoned mine near Tijuana was posing a threat to the health of people across the border in California. (SM-98-007 on Table 7) Of the remaining basic needs complaints, three complained of the actions of regional governments; (California and Quebec), and only one (SM-00-01) dealt with the actions of a specific private firm, Molymex S.A. There is thus no evidence of a large number of complaints against the actions of foreign firms, or even Mexican firms. Indeed, Hogenboom (1998) finds that it is public sector firms (petrochemicals, fertilizers) which have contributed the most to increasing pollution levels in parts of Mexico.

It remains to point out that the great majority of the complaints were turned back by the CEC or withdrawn after initial scrutiny. Of the 31 complains filed, only three have made it to the stage of the ultimate sanction available to the CEC, that is the publication of a factual report outlining the accused governments failings. In two cases, it was the Mexican government. A complaint in 1996, that the Mexican government failed to enforce environmental laws when it permitted the construction of a pier in Cozumel resulted in such a factual record (SM-96-001) as did the failure of the Mexican government to prosecute a US firm which abandoned a lead smelter in Tijuana (SM 98-007) The third case was filed by a coalition of environmental and fisher groups in British Columbia. It accuses the government of Canada of not enforcing laws designed to protect fish habitat during the construction of hydro-electric dams (SEM 97-001). So of the three cases which have received the ultimate sanction, only one, that of the abandoned lead smelter, deals with basic needs.

In three other cases (SEM 98-006, 98-004 and 99-002), one directed against each of the three governments, the Secretariat has recommended but the Council has not yet adopted a factual record. All three are of the post-materialist type. Council adoption of a secretariat recommenda-tion is no mere formality. In the case of the Quebec hog farmers, for example (SEM 97-003), the Council voted not to adopt the factual report prepared by the secretariat. It remains to be seen whether the Council will be so supranational as to defy geopolitical logic and condemn the US for its failure to protect migratory birds (SM 99-002).

Thus among the six complaints which have or may yet receive the ultimate sanction, five are clearly of the post-materialist type. The pattern of Secretariat and Council action thus clearly intensifies the overall pattern, that is post-materialist submissions have been more successful than have those dealing with basic needs.

^ Chapter 11 and Environmental Issues

Chapter 11 of the NAFTA was meant to protect foreign investors in any of the three countries from unfair expropriations, which in this case includes the right to earn money from investment made, in accordance with accepted international rules and procedures. Some firms and their lawyers have interpreted the right to earn a profit to include the right not to be subject to some environmental regulation. As of the spring of 2001, about half of the cases brought to arbitration (or in some cases settled before arbitration) under Chapter 11 have had an environmental component. The first and widely publicized case concerned the American based Ethyl Corporations claim that the Canadian governments ban of the gasoline additive MMT discriminated unfairly against foreign investors since it banned the import, but not the use or manufacture of the additive. The Canadian government settled before the arbitration by paying Ethyl US$19.3 million in compensation (Dumberry 2001).

The second case was that of an American firm, Waste Management Inc., which had a contract to clean the streets and dispose of garbage in Acapulco. When the firm did not do what it had promised, the Mexican government cancelled the contract. The firm then tried to pursue the case in both the domestic courts in Mexico and before an international tribunal. The tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction, since the firm had chosen to take the case to courts in Mexico (Dumberry 2001).

The third case concerns Metalclad, a US firm which the Mexican government had authorized to build a hazardous waste treatment facility near the city of Guadalcazar in Mexico, only to have the permit refused by the municipality. The tribunal ordered the Mexican government to pay Metalclad compensation of US $16.685 million. Mexico tried to appeal the case to a Canadian court, but, according to the Los Angeles Times, has since agreed to pay a somewhat lower amount (Dumberry 2001; Sharma 2001).

The fourth case was launched by the S.D. Myers firm against the government of Canada. It claimed that the governments temporary ban on the export and treatment of PCBs deprived the firm of the right to do this work. The Tribunal found in favour of the firm with the exact amount of compensation to be decided later. In the meanwhile, the government of Canada has appealed the award to the Federal Court of Canada (Dumberry, 2001). The fifth case, which has not yet been heard, has been launched by the Canadian firm Methanex against the government of California and thus the US. The firm is contesting a California ban on the gasoline additive MTBE. Methanex dos not itself produce MTBE, but produces methanol, a major ingredient of MTBE (Dumberry 2001).

The number of environmental issues raised by Chapter 11 cases has surprised most observers. Both the Canadian and American governments would like to redefine the Chapter 11 provisions to limit them to strictly investment issues. However, the Mexican government does not wish to reopen negotiations on this chapter (Dumberry 2001).

^ Conclusions/Further Research

This study has not revealed any particular tendency for dirty industries to migrate to Mexico and export their products back to the US or Canada. The only exception is the export of organic chemicals from Mexico to Canada. There is, however, some indication of the increased export of dirty products from the US to Mexico and especially to Canada. Case studies such as those by Jacott, Reed and Winfield (2001) and by Canadas federal Ministry of the Environment (Mittelstaedt 2001) are beginning to explain this trend.

This brief introductory study only suggest where further research might follow. A more detailed study of trade in dirty industries is needed. Case studies of specific industries where there has been a significant increase in trade and those where there has not been such an increase would also be interesting, as would case studies of specific dirty industries as against the rather general categories used here. A more detailed investigation of investment trends might also be enlightening. Direct investment trends by industry and by country would require a special data analysis from Statistics Canada. Further studies of the diffusion of technology might help to determine if there has been a California effect, as against a race to the bottom. At the micro-level, students of business may want to do case studies of the selling, buying and investment decisions of individual firms. Such case studies would help to explain the general trends revealed in the statistics.

With respect to the citizens submissions, further work on the intriguing trend of the initial flurry of post-materialist submissions which became a preponderance of basic needs submissions in recent years is needed.. This finding is counter-intuitive. One would surely expect basic needs to be the initial concern. This may be a field of study for sociologists. The educated upper middle classes, whose basic needs are for the most part met, may have been the first to be aware of the CEC and the citizens complaints procedure. Publicity about the initial cases may have led others, less endowed with intellectual and financial resources, to take up further cases.

Finally, the relationship of Chapter 11 (investment) cases to environmental issues merits further investigation. To date, the two have been studied mostly in isolation, or in some cases have become the subject of polemical denunciations. The possibility exists that a firm which has been found to have acted illegally as the result of a citizens submission and the publication of a factual record would then become the subject of sanctions by the national government, which would, one would hope, try to act in accordance with its own laws. Once the government thus prodded took action, the firm affected could then file a Chapter 11 case, claiming that the enforcement measures were depriving the firm of the right to earn money from its investment. Such a situation would provide interesting material for further study.

TABLE 1


US Imports from Mexico, Select Dirty Products Compared to all Goods

Percentage Change, 1991-2000



Product/Year


1991


1992


1993


1994


1995


1996


1997


1998


1999


2000


All goods


100%

(31 130)1


113


128


159


199


239


276


304


352


437


Fertilizers


100%

(15)1


88


97


275


574


575


212


186


123


62


Mineral tars


100%

(4)1


194


260


372


139


248


152


218


205


191


Paper articles


100%

(128)1


113


111


148


203


262


336


392


426


460


Pulp and paper


100%

(2)1


233


342


356


391


345


395


456


274


503


Ferrous metals


100%

(57)1


80


79


85


107


106


132


108


119


116


Organic chemicals


100

(255 426)1


125


87


111


145


136


158


141


148


147


1. Amount in millions of US$.


Source: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrkti/tdst/tdo/tdo.php (June 30,2001)

TABLE 2


Canadian Imports from Mexico, Select Dirty Products Compared to all Goods

Percentage Change, 1991-2000




Product/Year


1991


1992


1993


1994


1995


1996


1997


1998


1999


2000


All goods


100%

( 2 252)1


102


128


147


173


197


225


230


285


362


Fertilizers


100%

(.035)1


02


02


201


257


965


158


150


5836


251


Mineral tars


02


02


02


02


02


02


02


02


02


02


Paper articles


100%

(968)1


324


732


869


1161


901


1271


2064


2462


2689


Pulp and paper


02


02


02


02


02


02


02


02


02


02


Ferrous metals


100%

(0.454)1


24


337


7


53


340


237


306


947


734


Organic chemicals


100

(9)1


114


195


292


655


642


386


292


300


219


1. Amount in millions of US$

2. negligible quantities


Source: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrkti/tdst/tdo/tdo.php (June 19, 2001)

TABLE 3


Canadian Exports to US, Select Dirty Products Compared to all Goods

Percentage Change, 1991-2000




Product/Year


1991


1992


1993


1994


1995


1996


1997


1998


1999


2000


All goods


100%

( 95 740)1


109


122


140


158


171


184


190


217


253


Fertilizers


100%

(833)1


105


110


121


119


119


135


147


1536


149


Mineral tars


100%

(37)1


57


35


52


127


148


138


106


125


203


Paper articles


100%

(680)1


124


156


186


257


291


322


355


391


446


Pulp and paper


100%

(66)


97


105


119


166


177


191


188


169


196


Ferrous metals


100%

( 179)1


97


123


152


203


222


246


248


187


193


Organic chemicals


100

(753 785)1


111


114


142


196


170


171


153


169


244


1. Amount in millions of US$.


Source: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrkti/tdst/tdo/tdo.php (June 19, 2001)

TABLE 4

Canadian Exports to Mexico, Select Dirty Products Compared to all Goods

Percentage Change, 1991-2000



Product/Year


1991


1992


1993


1994


1995


1996


1997


1998


1999


2000


All goods


100%

( 509) 1


132


126


156


166


181


181


194


213


269


Fertilizers


100%

(833)1


02


207


164


159


42


75


67


62


184


Mineral tars


100%

(31)1


153


99


357


02


65


24


02


02


4


Paper articles


100%

( 10)1


17


10


19


10


14


14


28


38


90


Pulp and paper


100%

(0.2)1


100


02


02


29


23


169


380


728


77


Ferrous metals


100%

(1.6)1


02


02


02


116


02


02


197


02


02


Organic chemicals


100

(1.56)1


205


121


142


118


137


144


112


139


89


1. Amount in millions of US$

2. negligible quantities


Source: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrkti/tdst/tdo/tdo.php (June 19, 2001)

TABLE 5


US Exports to Mexico, Select Dirty Products Compared to all Goods

Percentage Change, 1991-2000



Product/Year


1991


1992


1993


1994


1995


1996


1997


1998


1999


2000


All goods


100%

(33 277) 1


122


125


153


139


171


215


237


262


336


Fertilizers


100%

( 53)1


149


225


283


133


280


265


274


282


300


Mineral tars


100%

(23)1


100


133


233


411


316


411


269


272


352


Paper articles


100%

(712)1


124


134


164


155


174


178


200


220


254


Pulp and paper


100%

(113)1


88


84


124


167


107


138


153


146


202


Ferrous metals


100%

(296 929)1


119


116


134


121


150


172


159


174


193


Organic chemicals


100

(740 487)1


115


121


144


154


164


204


192


213


276


1. Amount in millions of US$


Source: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrkti/tdst/tdo/tdo.php (June 19, 2001)

TABLE 6


US Exports to Canada, Select Dirty Products Compared to all Goods

Percentage Change, 1991-2000




Product/Year


1991


1992


1993


1994


1995


1996


1997


1998


1999


2000


All goods


100%

(75 424) 1


106


117


133


146


153


177


182


192


205


Fertilizers


100%

(182)1


96


102


98


110


128


119


131


121


163


Mineral tars


100%

( 9)1


436


591


674


1364


1047


1260


707


470


448


Paper articles


100%

(2 127)1


106


111


120


141


142


155


157


163


170


Pulp and paper


100%

(119)1


88


103


132


226


148


166


161


181


245


Ferrous metals


100%

(146)1


124


158


177


186


154


173


151


142


138


Organic chemicals


100

(1 168)1


102


112


136


141


155


183


185


194


196




Download 387.36 Kb.
leave a comment
Page1/2
Date conversion03.10.2011
Size387.36 Kb.
TypeДокументы, Educational materials
Add document to your blog or website

страницы:   1   2
Be the first user to rate this..
Your rate:
Place this button on your site:
docs.exdat.com

The database is protected by copyright ©exdat 2000-2017
При копировании материала укажите ссылку
send message
Documents

upload
Documents

Рейтинг@Mail.ru
наверх