Special thanks to our co-sponsors for making this conference possible:

U.S. Department of Labor (National Administrative Office)
Commission for Labor Cooperation
Government of Canada/Gouvernement du Canada
North American Integration and Development Center, UCLA
Institute for Industrial Relations, UCLA
UCLA Law School
Center for Latin American Studies, UCLA
International Studies and Overseas Programs, UCLA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank Delmira Iñiguez, Maribel Larios, Fernando De Paolis, Shea Cunningham, and Melanie Myers who provided generous time and skills in the preparation of the report. Special thanks go also to Irasema Garza, Lewis Karesh and John Mondejar of the National Administrative Office of the U.S. Department of Labor. We also wish to acknowledge Lauren Aiko Kawasaki for lending us precious technical equipment. Finally, thank you to all conference participants who offered insightful comments to the on-going discussion on the role of the new NAFTA institutions.

FOREWORD

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

The Right Honorable Kim Campbell

Congressman Esteban Torres

THEME 1: CHALLENGES OF THE NEW NAFTA INSTITUTIONS

Rapporteur's Report

The NAFTA Spirit: Combining Domestic Rules with International Procedures

THEME 2: FOUR YEARS LATER - NAFTA AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Rapporteur's Report

Four Years Later: NAFTA and the Environment

THEME 3: FOUR YEARS LATER - NAFTA AND LABOR COOPERATION

Rapporteur's Report

I) FOUR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE UNDER THE LABOR SIDE AGREEMENT (NAALC)

What Role Have the NAOs Played in the NAFTA Process? (U.S. Perspective)

Building Cooperation: The Canadian Experience

II) ONE OF THE FIRST CASES UNDER THE NAALC: SPRINT

The Participation of the Sindicato de Telefonistas de la República Mexicana in the Sprint-La Conexión Familiar case

III) PLANT CLOSINGS AND LABOR RIGHTS: A STUDY

Plant Closings and Labor Rights: A Summary of the Report by the Secretariat of the Commission for Labor Cooperation

The Insufficiency of Present Legislation in Addressing the Challenges of a Rapidly Evolving Labor Market

THEME 4: FOUR YEARS LATER - NAFTA AND TRADE ADJUSTMENT

Rapporteur's Report

I) THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE WITH TRADE ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS

The US Community adjustment and investment program (CAIP)

The NAFTA-Transitional adjustment assistance program of the US Department of Labor (NAFTA-TAA)

II) THE MEXICAN REACTION TO THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF TRADE LIBERALIZATION

III) THE CANADIAN EFFORTS TO COPE WITH GLOBALIZATION'S PRESSURES ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC LIFE

The Limits of Labor Policies and Programs with Respect to the Informal and "Quasi Formal" Sectors in North America

CONCLUSION: BEYOND THE CONFERENCE

Next Steps for Transnational, Inter-Institutional, and Cross-Issue Cooperation

Potential Future Agendas of the NAFTA Institutions for Further Cooperation

ABOUT THE CONFERENCE SPEAKERS

CONFERENCE PROGRAM

TABLE OF BOXES
BOX 1: The Commission for Labor Cooperation
BOX 2: The Commission for Environmental Cooperation
BOX 3: The Border Environmental Cooperation Commission
BOX 4: The North American Development Bank
BOX 5: Rio Declaration on Sustainable Development, excerpts
BOX 6: Tools for public participation in North American Environmental Institutions
BOX 7: Institutional Development Cooperation Program (IDP) of the NADB
BOX 8: The Labor Principles of the NAALC
BOX 9: North American Environment: Needs and Possibilities of the NAFTA Institutions

FOREWORD

The purpose of this conference was to comparatively assess the effectiveness of all the newly created NAFTA institutions: the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), the Commission for Labor Cooperation (CLC), the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC), and the North American Development Bank (NADB). In particular, the organizers were interested in evaluating the incorporation of a key feature that has recently been placed high on the agenda of international organizations: public participation and accountability. Building on this evaluation, the organizers also wanted to create a forum for discussing potential future agendas for transnational, inter-institutional, and cross-issue cooperation in North America. Looking to the future, the conference focused on the challenges of sustainable and equitable development, transnational institution building, and enhancing the role of civil society. In addressing these issues, we sought to take advantage that this conference's character served as a unique milestone opportunity that brought together for the first time the heads of all these new NAFTA-related institutions, with unions, NGOs, academics, and concerned citizens from all three countries.

The idea for this conference emerged through discussions among researches at the UCLA NAID Center and the staff of the Commission for Labor Cooperation and the US National Administrative Office. The debate surrounding President Clinton's fast-track authority to negotiate further trade agreements was raging. Most of the allies of the "NAFTA Plus" coalition that was created before the congressional approval of NAFTA in 1993 did not support President Clinton's request for fast-track authority in 1997. ⁽¹⁾ Four years after the implementation of the new NAFTA institutions, an overarching and honest review was seen as very timely. The conference has brought together all the NAFTA institutions gave them the opportunity to jointly exchange experiences with one another as well as collectively exchange evaluation of these institutions with the public.

What have we learned so far about the formation and the implementation of these various institutions under NAFTA? As was made clear in the conference presentations, all these institutions emerged from the a very unique political dynamic that brought forth on their agenda a new set of actors that were not traditionally part of trade agreements. These new actors pushed for dealing with issues of labor, environment, and economic development as an integral part of transnational trade agreements. How have these various institutions met these challenges of meeting their administrative mandates as well as establishing a working relationship with civil society constituents? In many ways both the formation and the implementation phases of these institutions faced common challenges of dealing with the deficits of international cooperation on labor, environmental, and border development issues. But they also faced a common unique political context in which institutions have had to respond to the technical and political challenges raised by new constituents, and therefore have had to create mechanisms for interactions with civil society as part of their ongoing activities.

Starting from a comparative analysis of the experience of each of the organizations, we then focused on the elaboration of means of collaboration between the institutions. Each of the new institutions has focused on one or another of the issues that needed to be addressed as a part of North American integration: labor, environment or economic development. None of the institutions, however, has an overall perspective that links these various issues as part of their day-to-day operations. The institutions have yet to be charged by their governments with elaborating explicit ways of cooperating to comprehensively link-up the diverse questions of labor and environment, for example, or economic adjustment with health and safety issues.

Not only do these institutions face the challenge of establishing creative means to foster public participation at different levels, but they have to find effective ways to interact with national governments. These new institutions are multilateral, but they operate in a context of national sovereignty. National governments were not very clear from the beginning as to the long-term mission and future expectations for these institutions. After all, this type of institution building is still a very uncharted domain in the North American context. As these new institutions develop interests of their own, however, they are now beginning to be actors themselves in the arena in which governments interact with one another, and in the way in which civil societies interact with one another. I dare say that we are now entering into a next phase in the formation of these institutions where a long-term vision for North America can come from the institutions themselves, in cooperation with governments and civil society. This emerging dynamic is really what this conference was all about. Where do we go from here? The report offers some suggestions that I hope will be useful for all actors: NAFTA institutions, governments, NGOs, unions, businesses, researchers, and citizens alike.

Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda
Research Director, NAID Center, UCLA

1. Hinojosa Ojeda, Raul, "The Labor Market Impacts of North American Economic Integration on Latino, Black and White Workers." In Antonio Gonzalez (ed), A Latino Review of NAFTA, Part 1: NAFTA and the Side Agreements on Labor and Environmental Standards. U.S.A.: William C. Velásquez Institute. July 1997. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda "North American Integration Policy Formation From the Grassroots Up: Transnational Implications of Latino, Labor, and Environmental NGO Strategies" UCSD Conference July, 1998

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

The Right Honorable Kim Campbell
The Consul General of Canada, Former Canadian Prime Minister

Consul General Campbell opened the conference with very insightful remarks outlining the background to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the special qualities of the side agreements. While they responded to a political need, these institutions represent a new form of international democracy, which gives citizens of one nation the standing to seek to ensure enforcement of the laws of other countries. Negotiations of the labor and the environmental side agreements took place in a changed political environment. The new Clinton Administration in the United States brought a new dynamic to which Canada responded with good will. Civil society also took an increasingly important role and pushed for further development of NAFTA to include concerns about labor and the environment. Civil society was already an important element in the way the governments were developing NAFTA, even before it became increasingly visible in the context of the side agreements. Consul General Campbell indicated that the side agreements are fully consistent with the political climate reflected in the preamble of NAFTA, which states that the three governments resolved to "promote sustainable development; strengthen the development and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations; and protect, enhance and enforce basic workers' rights."

In this new era of globalizations, governments face the challenge of promoting competitiveness and opening to the world economy. NAFTA provides a tool to this end. Consul General Campbell characterized NAFTA as bringing economic integration, but little political integration, and noted that trade policy increasingly impacts people in the areas of domestic regulation as well as bringing down trade barriers. The changed environment for the enforcement of domestic law as a result of the institutions created by NAFTA enabled citizens in one country to have the legal standing to intervene in the law enforcement of other countries. Consul General Campbell drew attention to this innovation inherent in the side agreements, and mentioned that while it pressures government to demonstrate continuing transparency, it does not impede national sovereignty as long as governments keep abiding to the rule of law.

Consul General Campbell concluded her remarks by pointing out a double challenge facing governments. On the one hand, governments need to elaborate economic policies promoting competitiveness in the global economy. And on the other hand, governments are required to be responsive to civil society and encourage public participation.

Congressman Esteban Torres
U.S. Representative, U.S. House of Representatives, District 34th

The focus of this conference could not be more timely or important. This past year we have already witnessed a heated debate over whether to grant the President new Fast Track trade negotiating authority. In the next few weeks, the Congress will vote on an international financing package to replenish the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has been severely depleted by the ongoing financial crisis in Asia. We will also soon be voting on extending Most Favored Nation status to China. The disturbing monetary problems that currently beset the Yen and, earlier this year the Ruble, only heighten the sense of urgency with which we undertake these debates.

While these international policies differ in many significant respects, their impacts on the world's economies, and on our own communities in the United States, cannot be denied. In an ever expanding global economy, we no longer have the luxury of ignoring international policy and economic trends. These policies and trends affect virtually every segment of our daily lives. They affect the price of food we eat, the type of jobs we work, the wages we earn, and the very health and safety of the communities in which we live.

But there is fundamental tie that binds all of these issues. There is a thread that runs through every international agreement and debate since the passage of the NAFTA. It is the reason why we are all here today. For the tie that binds all of our efforts is the recognition that the international movement of goods and capital cannot be controlled or promoted without also addressing its impact on human rights, its impact on labor, and its impact on the environment.

Whatever you think of NAFTA, no one can deny that it has forever changed the way in which we view international cooperation. Never again, will the United States enter into a trade agreement, without first insisting that the rights of workers are secured and that our environment is protected. Never again, will the United States participate in multilateral efforts to stabilize faltering economies, without first insisting that those efforts be transparent and democratic.

One simply has to look at NAFTA's institutions to see how the international debate on policy and trade has been changed. The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) is a prime example. It represents the first time in this country's history that labor standards accompany a trade agreement. For the first time, the United States institutionally recognizes that labor conditions in one country have an impact on the domestic concerns of another. For the first time a trade agreement acknowledges that unless workers are free to select the union of their choice, they will not be adequately represented and will not be able to negotiate collective bargaining agreements that require employers to pay adequate wages and benefits.

I am not saying that the manner in which these issues are addressed will always be sufficient. In fact, there are many people who believe that NAFTA did not provide adequate labor and environmental protections. Some of NAFTA's most vocal critics are here today. I include myself among those critics, particularly as it relates to the implementation of some of its provisions. But I am confident that the protections provided by NAFTA are only the foundation from which future agreements will have to build. I also believe that any efforts that fall short of these benchmarks, are doomed to failure.

Unfortunately, President Clinton learned this lesson the hard way. Last Fall, President Clinton tried to obtain Fast Track authority to negotiate new trade agreements with Chile and the rest of Latin America. The President was warned that the effort would fail unless he proposed legislation that strongly addressed labor and the environment. But he moved forward with a proposal that was limited in these areas, and the proposal was defeated. His efforts failed for two simple reasons: he sought legislation providing fast track authority that fell short of the minimum labor and environmental standards established by NAFTA.

Instead of working to ensure that the institutions created by NAFTA were diligently implemented, the Administration allowed some of them to languish in bureaucratic limbo. Instead of heeding the lessons of experience gained with NAFTA, the Administration bowed to the wishes of the Republican majority in Congress who sought to roll back the worker and environmental protections provided by the Agreement. I know it was not easy for the President to work against the majority of Democrats in Congress on this issue. It was difficult for us to work against him. But the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. The rights of workers and the protection of the environment are too important for partisan politics to prevail.

Some say that the Fast Track debate was a stinging defeat for the President and the Republican majority in Congress. Perhaps they are right. But I look at the debate another way. I look at the debate as a victory, not a defeat. It was a victory for working men and women. It was a victory for our environment. It was a victory for progress. The defeat of Fast Track was a victory because it solidified the notion that protecting workers and the environment could never again be disregarded as a fundamental element of global trade.

The lesson learned during the debate over Fast Track is one that will not soon be forgotten. Already we have seen the redoubling of efforts to ensure that the institutions created by NAFTA are given every opportunity to succeed. More resources are being provided and unprecedented attention is being paid to the institutions that are so important to our future trade relations. I only regret that this lesson was learned so late. Because these institutions have proven that if properly implemented and enthusiastically supported, they can work. They must work. They will work.

A prime example of this progress is the NADB's environmental office. The NADB was created to help finance environmental infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexico border and to provide economic assistance to communities suffering job loss due to NAFTA. The NADB's environmental office has made slow but steady progress. It has had to overcome numerous structural and legal impediments endemic to the communities in which it operates. But the Bank's staff has diligently and creatively sought practical solutions to these fundamental problems. I believe that today the NADB's environmental office is on its way to fulfilling the promise of its founders.

The history of the NADB's Domestic Window is another story altogether. The day President Clinton unveiled his Fast Track proposal, the Domestic Window had not approved a single loan. More than four years after the NADB had been established, the Domestic Window was a complete failure.

Congress had fulfilled its commitment by fully funding the Bank within its first four years of existence. But the Administration allowed the institution to languish. Why did this occur? I firmly believe that the Domestic Window was not fully implemented because the Administration feared it would highlight the loss of jobs caused by NAFTA. It feared that this attention would harm future trade efforts. The fast track debate demonstrated that this was a shortsighted view.

Since the defeat of Fast Track, an amazing change has taken place with the Domestic Window. Loan guidelines have been finalized, eligibility criteria has been established and loans have finally begun to be approved. Today, more than 100 loans have been approved in 17 states, for over $50 millions dollars. These loans have saved or created more than 2,500 jobs. All of this activity occurred in just the past six months. You could say the Fast Track debate was a lesson well learned.

This lesson is also being heeded in the IMF debate. As I stated earlier, Congress will soon vote on an international financing package that would replenish the IMF. But unlike the Fast Track bill, the legislation is a model of progress. It will increase transparency and accountability within the IMF. It will provide greater labor protections and pay more attention to the environment. The IMF debate is not over. But we have already succeeded in helping to shape all future international policy debates.

Because of NAFTA and the institutions it created, there will never be another debate about international trade or financial policy that does not take into account issues of worker displacement, wage depression or the impact of such policies on health, safety and the environment. The establishment of institutions whose very missions are to seek cooperation and agreement is indeed historic. I also believe that such institutions will be a necessary element of all future international discourse.

This conference represents a timely opportunity for the leaders of the NAFTA institutions to collectively reflect, on who are together in one place for the first time, and on how the promise of free trade and economic integration can be fulfilled. The men and women participating in this conference have the knowledge, the expertise and the experience of the past five years to build upon the foundation for progress NAFTA has provided. The reality is that these institutions provide blunt instruments with which to promote and protect workers and the environment. It is your responsibility to hone these tools so that we can continue to progress.

THEME 1: CHALLENGES OF THE NEW NAFTA INSTITUTIONS

Rapporteur's Report

As NAFTA negotiations illustrated, North American integration poses important challenges for labor, the environment, and economic development. The result was the creation of a set of new North American institutions to address these challenges. The institutions were designed to address specific needs, and range from trinational, to bilateral, and to national organizations. For the first time, four years after NAFTA, representatives of these institutions were gathered around the same table to share experiences in institutional-building, and to share knowledge on their respective domain of action. This session offered a comparative analysis of the structure and performance of these institutions. The ultimate goal of this conference was to think about strategies for further cooperation between the three NAFTA countries, the different institutions, the three societies, as well as to cross-fertilize domains of action that are often considered distinct: labor, environment, trade, and economic development.

In the months preceding the final vote on NAFTA by the House of Representatives in the United States, a contingent of new actors interested in labor and environmental impacts, struck a pact with the U.S. leaders in the NAFTA negotiations. The agreement would have probably failed if governments had not agreed to sit at the table and include issues usually considered independent from trade negotiations: labor, the environment, and economic development.

Out of these pressures rooted in civil society, emerged the new NAFTA institutions. What was particularly important in the United States at the time, was that pressures from civil society seized the opportunity to go beyond a simple rejectionist stance and proposed instead an alternative policy structure to address the effects of economic integration on labor, the environment, and local economic development. These institutions were sold to the public as being part of the solution to the problems caused by trade liberalization. Expectations were quite high. Conferees were asked to reflect on possible ways to bridge the gap between these promises and the enormous challenges faced by new institutions with the clear mandate of establishing close links with civil society. Six general themes came out of this discussion:

"There is tremendous pressure to ensure that this investment results in tangible environmental improvements and there is a tremendous pressure from the public to ensure that these institutions actually help make a difference." - Janine Ferretti, Commission for Environmental Cooperation "I think you have all seen a few articles over the past years about how the NAFTA institutions have failed to provide everything that was promised [...] Everybody believed there was $3 billion in cash available and that the Bank just wanted to give it out. First of all, we don't have $3 billion in cash, we have the power to lend $3 billion in cash, and therefore, we must borrow it first. It is not free; you need to pay for it [...] The dilemma is that there were tremendous needs, tremendous expectations, especially after the political debate on NAFTA. But there was no money to address these needs. Political consensus cannot happen in a vacuum. It happens when someone takes a lead to develop a solution." - Victor Miramontes, North American Development Bank

Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda raised the important issue of the mandate of the new NAFTA institutions. Each institution has focused on very particular dynamics -labor, environment, economic development- but none of them has developed an overall perspective built into their day-to-day operations. This conference was an attempt to begin to identify ways to frame the broader nature of the challenges posed by economic integration. How can these institutions work together on issues that are clearly intertwined?

Four years after the creations of the NAFTA institutions, criticisms abound. But, as Javier Cabrera from the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) indicated, it is easy eliminate newly created institutions. It is more difficult, however, to build the institution from ground zero. Between different peoples and communities, expectations and needs differ. These new institutions kept open the possibility to express in one's own language what these needs were. Institution building is not an easy process, but four years later, it can be observed that "institutions have a life of their own, they can do things, they have capacity, they have potential," to paraphrase John McKennirey from the Commission for Labor Cooperation (CLC). To create new institutions is a big challenge. "It is not easy to leverage both resources to implement programs as well as create a momentum for other institutions working in the same area," said Janine Ferretti of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). In the case of the North American Development Bank (NADB), Victor Miramontes highlighted the gap between the promises of the agreement and the reality of building-up the institution. The Bank had to secure the capital before being able to fulfill its mandate of lending money for infrastructure projects. This was particularly difficult because of the reliance on grant funding, on multiple co-financiers, and the necessity to plan for the long term.

"By definition environmental issues are local issues, by definition they are democratic because they touch people every day. But at the same time, there is a challenge for institutions such as a North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation to mean something, to be relevant to people." -Janine Ferretti, Commission for Environmental Cooperation "I have always believed that border communities can and will continue to teach federal governments [...] how to resolve certain local issues. This recognition differentiates the BECC and the NADB from other institutions [...] Solutions do not come from capitals, but from the participants in the problem [...] You have to be there. You have to understand the problem. You have to prove to the community that you are there for their interest, and not to apply a solution that they have no bought into." - Victor Miramontes, North American Development Bank

John McKennirey subtitled his remarks "Building New Public International Institutions in North America", a very accurate description of the mandate of all these institutions. Public participation is entrenched in the mandate of the two trinational and the two binational NAFTA institutions. This is a unique feature when compared to older public institutions. The public has been calling very loudly for participation in an international trade context. The CEC, CLC, BECC, and NADB had to build appropriate structures to respond to the public. ( See Box 6 for more details on public participation in the CEC, the BECC, and the NADB, and Box 1 for details on the CLC ).

One of the most interesting features of these institutions and of NAFTA in general is their unique way to address both the issues of national sovereignty and transnational cooperation . As John McKennirey pointed out it "combines domestic rules with international procedures." In the context of increased globalization, these public institutions play the essential role of providing support to national governments in enforcing their own domestic laws despite the pressures of multinational corporations, which have the ability to displace investments and employment in other countries. At the same time, unlike a political union like in Europe, the new NAFTA institutions are designed to respect different histories and political cultures supporting domestic laws. For institutions like the CLC and the CEC, this poses the exciting challenge of keeping a trinational perspective. As Janine Ferretti pointed out, there have been strong historical ties between Canada and the United States, and between Mexico and the United States. But the weakest link has always been between Canada and Mexico, and this is an essential link to keep in mind for a genuine trinational perspective.

These new institutions face the enormous challenge of being relevant at the local level, in the lives of people and communities. Trinational institutions like the CLC and the CEC are operating at the macro level. Part of their role is to foster a sense of common heritage in North America through cooperative activities. As Janine Ferretti indicated, "the most important result has been the development of a sense that there is a North American environment, a common heritage and a community of individuals, of people, who are willing and who are now able to reach across political and cultural distinctions and work together to improve the environment." In complement to these trinational institutions, the BECC and the NADB are acting at the local level. The relevance of their work is perhaps more directly visible in the communities affected.

Some concerns were raised about the fact that these institutions do not address structural problems that cause environmental degradation and lower working conditions. The institutions are designed to react to problems rather than being pro-active.

"I have been in conferences where people say that the problem with the labor agreement is that you can't order the reinstatement of a worker to his job, you can't order the recognition of a union, or other corrections to some problems that occurred somewhere in North America [...] What we have in these institutions are actually very substantial steps in what can be done at the international level, and that can feed back into domestic systems of government, of law, of democratic procedures, and of administration. These are feasible and meaningful steps that support the rule of law throughout this whole vast continent. [...] These institutions are really doing something significant in terms of information, channels that were never there before. Countries are questioning and reviewing one another in their performance in enforcing their laws as governments. It's troubling; it's difficult; it's hard work; it's new; and I think that ultimately will be very significant." - John McKennirey, Commission for Labor Cooperation

BOX 1: The Commission for Labor Cooperation STRUCTURE: The Commission for Labor Cooperation (CLC) was created under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). It consists of: A Ministerial Council that oversees the implementation of the NAALC; supervises the activities of the Secretariat; and promotes trinational cooperative activities in areas of labor law, labor standards, labor relations, labor markets A Secretariat that provides information through research and public reports on labor law and administrative procedures, trends and administrative strategies related to the implementation and enforcement of labor law, labor market conditions, human resources development issues such as training and adjustment programs; and acts as the general administrative arm of the Commission Three National Administrative Offices (NAO) that were created within the Department (or Ministry) of Labor in each country. The NAOs serve as points of contact and sources of information, and they receive and respond to public communications regarding labor law issues arising in another NAFTA country MANDATE: "Through NAFTA's labor supplemental agreement, the continental trading partners seek to improve working conditions and living standards and commit themselves to promoting eleven labor principles to protect, enhance and enforce basic workers' rights. To accomplish these goals, the NAALC creates mechanisms for cooperative activities and intergovernmental consultations, as well as for independent evaluations and dispute settlement related to the enforcement of labor laws." (Source: www.naalc.org/english/info/broch_1.htm) Under the NAALC, each country has the obligation to: provide for high labor standards consistent with high quality and productivity workplaces effectively enforce its labor laws ensure access, transparency and due process of law ensure public information and awareness participate in cooperative activities between countries provide for NAO reviews, cooperative consultations and evaluations ACTIONS: Information and research: The Secretariat had to establish from ground zero a publication system to translate, publish, and distribute reports in 3 countries; research support capacity; and a network of contacts with researchers, governments and academic centers Evaluation of Committee of Experts: No committees have been set up yet, but they will be charges with conducting trinational reviews, in a "non-adversarial manner," of patterns of practice of labor law in all three countries in North America Initial work plan for the Secretariat (3 volumes): The Secretariat has been working on a thorough description of labor laws in each of the three countries and organized under the 11 principles of the NAALC. This document incorporates the statutory and jurisprudence in these areas and the administrative mechanisms of enforcement of those laws Labor market information: The Secretariat produced a report providing comparative labor market information Focus on Plant Closings and Labor Rights has been published Focus Study in the garment sector (still in progress) Four-Year Review: Article 10 of the NAALC calls for a review of the Agreement within four years of its entry into force. The Secretariat has gathered comments from the public, the NAOs, an international committee, academics, and academic literature. These comments will form part of a public report by the Council.

BOX 2: The Commission for Environmental Cooperation STRUCTURE: The Commission for Environmental Cooperation was created under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAEEC) to address regional environmental concerns, help prevent potential trade and environmental conflicts and promote the effective enforcement of environmental laws. The Agreement complements the environmental provisions established in the NAFTA. It is composed of: The Council, which is the governing body of the Commission and is composed of the highest-level environmental authorities from each of the three countries. The Council meets once a year (part of this meeting is open to the public) The Secretariat, which implements the annual work program and provides administrative, technical, and operational support to the Council. The Secretariat has a budget of about US $9 million The Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC), which is composed of 15 citizens appointed by the governments (five from each country). The JPAC advises the Council on any matter within the scope of the Agreement. It is expected to meet once a year or more around the time of the Council meeting. The JPAC is empowered to provide relevant technical, scientific, or other information to the Council, including annual program and budget. It can conduct public consultations. In 1995, it met five times. It held three public consultations in 1996. In brief, it is charged with much of the Council's public outreach. National Advisory Committees in each country to advise Council members Government Advisory Committees to advise on the implementation and further elaboration of the NAAEC (only Canada and the United States have established these committees) The Council can establish ad hoc committees and working groups MANDATE: "The CEC facilitates cooperation and public participation to foster conservation, protection and enhancement of the North American environment for the benefit of present and future generations, in the context of increasing economic, trade and social links among Canada, Mexico and the United States." (Source: www.cec.org) In other words the broad mandate of the CEC is to: Cooperate on environmental issues of common concern to the three countries Promote the enforcement of environmental law Address trade and environmental issues ACTIONS: Develop consensus on policies among joint parties and other key players Research: database, technical reports Addressing common environmental concerns such as pollutants and human health; and biodiversity Enforcement: Each country has its own standards and enforces them Environmental-trade: Take a more pro-active stance to facilitate the meeting of certain environmental objectives through trade; research on the impacts and relationship between NAFTA and the environment; establish clearing house on environmental technologies to ensure that they can be used appropriately in North America Environmental Fund for Cooperation: available to citizens groups across North America to pursue projects that are supportive of the agreement

BOX 3: The Border Environment Cooperation Commission STRUCTURE: The Governments of Mexico and the United States agreed on arrangements to assist communities on both sides of the border in coordinating and carrying out environmental infrastructure projects related to water pollution, wastewater treatment, municipal solid waste and related matters. The Border Environmental Cooperation Commission consists of: A Board of Directors, which is responsible for the certification of environmental infrastructure projects in accordance to criteria of sustainable development General Manager and staff both in Mexico and in the United States Advisory Council "The BECC is the first binational institution that has staff in both countries. It is the first institution in the border region that operates within the institutional framework created by NAFTA. It is unique in that its advisory council is composed of representatives from the federal, state, municipal, and civil society levels. That is to say that its advisory council is not dominated exclusively by federal interests and opinions. This is very important. There is a strong civil society presence." - Javier Cabrera, Border Environmental Cooperation Commission MANDATE: "The purpose of the Commission shall be to help preserve, protect and enhance the environment of the border region in order to advance the well-being of the people of the United States and Mexico. In carrying out this purpose, the Commission shall cooperate as approprate with the North American Development Bank and other national and international institutions, and with private sources supplying investment capital for environmental infrastructure projects in the border region." (Source: www.cocef.org) ACTIONS: The BECC has been assisting states, localities, and other public and private entities in: coordinating environmental infrastructure projects in the border region; repairing, developing, implementing, and over seeing environmental infrastructure projects in the border region, including the design, sitting and other technical aspects of such projects analyzing the financial feasibility or the environmental aspects, or both, of environmental infrastructure projects in the border region; evaluating social and economic benefits in the border of environmental infrastructure projects in the border region organizing, developing and arranging public and private financing for environmental infrastructure projects in the border region; and certifying applications for financing to be submitted to the North American Development Bank

BOX 4: The North American Development Bank (San Antonio) STRUCTURE: Located in San Antonio, Texas, the North American Development Bank (NADB) is responsible for facilitating financing for the implementation of environmental infrastructure projects certified by the BECC. The NADB has a binational Board of Directors consisting of six members, with equal representation from both countries. The Bank's Managing Director is elected by the Board of Directors and must be a U.S. or Mexican national, while the Deputy Managing Director is a national of the member country not represented by the Managing Director. As of May 1998, the NADB had 31 staff members, with an approximate balance between U.S. and Mexican nationals. In addition, the Bank also designates funds for community adjustment and investment programs in the United States and Mexico in support of the purposes of NAFTA. Each government is responsible for developing its own program, independent of NADB operations in San Antonio. MANDATE: The mission of the Bank is to serve as a binational partner and catalyst in communities along the U.S.-Mexico border in order to enhance the affordability, financing, long-term development and effectie operation of infrastructure that promotes a clean, healthy environment for the citizens of the region. As a pioneer institution in its field, the Bank is working to develop integrated, sustainable and fiscally responsible projects with broad community support in a framework of close cooperation and coordination between Mexico and the United States. ACTIONS: The NADB's primary role is to facilitate financing for BECC-certified projects related to water supply, wastewater treatment and municipal solid waste management located within 100 kilometers north and south of the U.S.-Mexico border. The NADB frequently serves as an advisor, providing basic guidance to communities that may require assistance with comprehensive, long-term infrastructure planning. As an investment banker, the NADB works to structure the most affordable and equitable financial package possible by locating funding from both public and private sources, as well as developing innovative and flexible financial instruments that can be tailored to the specific needs of each community. As a lender or guarantor, the NADB provides loans intended to fill financing gaps not covered by other sources, while its guaranties are designed to encourage financing from other lenders. To help make projects more affordable, the NADB also administers grant resources as a complement to its loan and guaranty program.

The NAFTA Spirit: Combining Domestic Rules with International Procedures
By John McKennirey

A) NAALC in Comparison to NAFTA

The parallel I want to make is this: when looking at the North American Free Trade Agreement, there is a certain pattern that combines domestic rules with international procedures. An example of this is the dispute-resolution process in chapter 19, which is copied from the previous dispute-resolution process in the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement. I think the Canadians are the ones who brought this forward. They were complaining against anti-dumping and subsidy issues. When this was the case, the Canadians could bring their complaints to American trade authorities in order to have the possibility to bring the case to American courts. However, Canadians felt the process was unfair and biased because complaints about U.S. behavior were judged under the American system. A binational resolution seemed more appropriate. Therefore, a system of binational panels dealing with trade issues was negotiated in the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement. This mechanism was transposed in chapter 19 of NAFTA. It uses domestic trade laws, as well as a binational panel that interprets domestic trade law and renders the decision. Thus, it combines an international procedural mechanism with national rules.

There is also the example of the chapter on intellectual property rights. There is a reliance on domestic intellectual property protections that are provided for domestic intellectual property interests. There are some general principals expressed in this NAFTA chapter, but the actual enforceable protections are domestic property law protections. Nevertheless, there are procedures by which governments can consult with each other and even resolve disputes as to whether or not the other countries' intellectual property protections are being applied consistently.

The chapter on technical barriers to trade uses yet again a similar approach. In order to avoid using product standards as artificial trade barriers, the countries did not decide to set up a common set of technical standards. Each country continues to set its own products standards, but there are new procedures for assuring compatibility, equivalency, and for facilitating the resolution of problem areas. The central point is that there is a general commitment to avoid using technical barriers to trade. Here again, it indicates a reliance on domestic rules as well as international procedures.

This kind of approach is used in the labor and environment side agreements as well. They rely on domestic authority for the rule making. But there are also new international procedures to resolve problems based on general commitments about enforceability and efficiency of domestic rules.

The NAFTA sets a context for these other agreements. It is the context of a free trade agreement and not one of a customs union. In customs union, each country accepts to have a common external tariff, which of involves setting a common international trade policy. We do not have this in NAFTA. Each country defines its own international trade policy outside the framework of NAFTA. Each country can sign free trade agreements with other parties if they choose to do so. Thus, NAFTA is more limited than a customs union, even within the area of free trade. Moreover, it is clear that NAFTA is not a political union such as the European Union, which is composed of the European Commission, the Council, the Parliament, the Courts, and so forth. It is important to bear this in mind, this is the context in which the side agreements were negotiated.

B) International support for the rule of law

The Labor side agreement provides an international support for the rule of law. This is very important in the current context. Many people are arguing that globalization gives corporations, who can operate multinationally or transnationally, the ability to move around employment and investments, thus escaping domestic or national jurisdictions. Furthermore, it is often argued that corporations pressure their own government not to enforce the law through the threat of closing down. The academic literature provides such cautionary notes about globalization. The purpose of the side agreements in North American is to have an international level of support for the application of the law. To encourage each party to the agreement and to support them in fully applying their laws, the side agreements serve as a counter-balancing pressure enabling governments to ensure that the public good is served in the application of law. The side agreements serve to ensure the formation of a zone, at least in North America, where a common commitment to the rule of law is protected from the negative pressures of globalization. This notion is one of the really excellent innovations in this agreement. It really does underpin the responsibility of governments, their own constitutional responsibilities to enforce their laws, in a new way and in a new international sense. And yet it does not conflict with their domestic sovereignty to make their own rules and to enforce them.

THEME 2: FOUR YEARS LATER - NAFTA AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Rapporteur's Report

In this accelerated phase of globalization, the global environment is often mentioned as an example to illustrate the necessity of transnational cooperation to address issues that clearly ignore national borders. Yet, at the same time, the environment is a very local issue. Clean-up projects, toxic catastrophes, health and safety conditions, endangered species, over-population, or clear-cutting, are just a few examples of environmental transformations whose consequences are felt locally.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), being part of the process of economic globalization, had to face these environmental challenges. The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), known as the Environmental side agreement, was designed to address regional environmental concerns. The Commission for Environmental Commission (CEC) was created under this agreement, and is the only trinational institution addressing ecological issues. However, the NAFTA negotiations also prompted the development of binational institutions on the US-Mexico border, the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADB). What is interesting about this set of institutions is their complementarity. Whereas the CEC focuses on trinational cooperation and information dissemination, the BECC and the NADB emphasize local sustainable infrastructure development.

The new North American environmental institutions were created to respond to political pressures. Nevertheless, after four years of implementation, more and more entities worldwide are looking at North America to find some interesting ideas on how to manage economic integration without harming the environment.

Conferees were asked to reflect on these new institutions; to identify the challenges they are facing and possible solutions to help reduce the gap between their promises four years ago and their accomplishments; and to reflect on strategies for further cooperation. These institutions follow the principles outlined in the Rio Declaration on sustainable development adopted during the 1992 Earth Summit. But from principles to reality, a gap needs to be bridged by institutional developments such as those witnessed in North America. This session was very useful in pinpointing major challenges. The CEC, the BECC, and the NADB are designed around three broad principles:

The CEC, the BECC, and the NADB are mandated to seek public participation in their different projects. This can mean access to information, public hearings, petitions, or advisory committees.

All three institutions have to provide new and useful tools to foster sustainable development. This can take the form of promotional work, dispute-resolution or petition channels to ensure the effective enforcement of domestic environmental laws, infrastructure development, institutional capacity-building, or research.

All three institutions ought to develop means to work on a cooperative basis with the other NAFTA countries, within each country between trade and environmental sectors, and between people in all three countries.

BOX 5: Rio Declaration on Sustainable Development, excerpts Sustainable Development: ...development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs... Rio 1992 The Rio Declaration outlines several principles such as: The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations. In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it. States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and innovative technologies. Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided. States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied by some countires may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries. (Source: gopher://gopher.un.org:70/00/conf/unced/English/riodecl.text)

The workshop highlighted the formidable task of responding to these three broad principles enshrined in the North American environmental institutions:

In terms of public participation, people from the non-governmental sector raised questions about co-optation. To institutionalize environmental principles in conjunction with a trade agreement is very good; to mandate these institutions to seek public participation is even better; but the challenge arises to avoid too much bureaucratization and diversion of resources from the grassroots level to this institutional level. Moreover, non-governmental organizations often work with limited resources. Thus, to research and prepare a petition to the CEC is not accessible to all. Jorge Bustamente mentioned that it was difficult to establish a dialogue between different political structures, in which concepts like public participation mean completely different things, from "clean elections" to citizens' initiatives. The CEC, the BECC, and the NADB developed tools to remedy these shortcomings: broader access to information, grants to grassroots organizations, local community meetings, cooperative spirit ( Please see Box 6 ).

In terms of the promotion of sustainable development, participants raised some concerns about the effectiveness of the new NAFTA institutions. NGOs mentioned that the progresses of these institutions are going at a rate much slower than the severity of the needs. People are looking forward for "real action" and "concrete measurable outcomes." But on the other hand, it was argued that four years to accomplish all of what these new institutions did, is uniquely effective according to international standards. Beyond the issues of time and institutional-building, participants discussed the working of the institutions and their effectiveness as tools to promote sustainable development. There have been criticisms in the media and in the academic literature about the lack of governments to act. Furthermore, Stephan R. Barg from the International Institute for Sustainable Development, indicated that these new instruments need to be evaluated in the context of other kinds of instruments, because a single instrument is rarely enough to solve problems.

"I sense a feeling of despair about the shortcomings of these alternative instruments. Being a unionist, believe me it's the triumph of hope over experience, I want to point out that we have advanced some ways. First of all of the principle of enforcing domestic laws is very good for Mexico because we have environmental laws, but we didn't have a lot of domestic enforcement. We have had shocking cases. For example a city near Mexico City where they paved the streets with waste which was highly toxic and created a lot of problems. We need awareness, organization, and community-involvement, these are the elements that can change things." - Alicia Sepulveda Nuñez, Sindicato de Telefonistas de la República Mexicana "When you come into the international arena, trying to impose your legal system on a country that has a totally different system, it just doesn't work. The sovereignty issue comes up all the time. So you sign treaties or agreements, or other leveraging, instruments that attempt to solve the problem without necessarily penalizing somebody. Where I was coming from when I did my "No Beef, No Teeth" criticism is that institutions are created to cover environmental problems, but they aren't empowered to do anything about them. But what I have learned in the BECC process is that one you have that information, you can use it as leverage and pressure to get the country to do the right thing. That actually works more effectively. There will always be sovereign countries with their own systems and we have to figure out a way to achieve global standards, and ways of working together that makes sense globally." - Lynda Taylor, member of the BECC Board, and of the NGO Southwest Research and Information Center

In response to criticisms that these institutions do not produce enough "concrete measurable outcomes", the BECC and the NADB are designed to act locally and thus in a very concrete and visible way. In this sense the CEC and the BECC/NADB are complementing each other. To effectively promote sustainable development locally, the NADB has developed an Institutional Development Cooperation Program (IDP) that aims to develop local managerial skills and institutional capacity within the community. This is necessary for the long-term vision of sustainable development, especially when some communities do not have the legal and financial networks needed to sustain infrastructure projects.

Some participants urged the institutions to clearly define what is meant by cooperation. Are we talking about cooperation between agencies, between local communities, and between governments? Mark J. Spalding, from the University of California San Diego (UCSD) mentioned that the legal text of the side agreement does not insist on cooperation as much as it defines mechanisms of dispute resolution, thus making it difficult to clearly and publicly define what cooperation should be.

"In the agreement that created the CEC, it is noticeable that the anticipation of the drafters was a brave new world in which everybody was fighting. It's about 30 pages long, and most of it deals with dispute-resolutions. We cover disputes between countries; we cover disputes brought by individuals; we cover how you handle those all in articles 14 and 15, and 22 et. seq. The cooperation stuff is primarily in articles 20 and 21. We also have earlier articles, articles 6 and 7 with the idea that there would be fighting internally, that you as a citizen in North America should be able to sue your own country [...] but, if you chip away all of those things that have to do with fighting, you don't have a lot of cooperation language left. Now interestingly the institution spends most of its time, I think, doing cooperation." - Mark J. Spalding, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California San Diego

"How to bring the private sector at the border into our institutions. Because this whole idea of accountability requires presence [...] The real task is to address the motives and incentives of the private sector, which is taking advantage in many cases of our history." - John Bernal, member of the BECC Board of Directors and US Commissioner for the International Boundary and Water Commission

These institutions, most participants agreed, are playing an important role in facilitating communication between many parties at all levels of government and between different agencies and civil society. There was a consensus that more involvement was needed, both within the institutions and at conferences like this one. Some NGOs were concerned by the fact that the NAFTA institutions did not specifically develop principles of corporate ethics and accountability.

The CEC criticized the fact that there still have not been a meeting between environmental and trade ministers that would help bridge the gaps between trade and the environment.

"What we are trying to do through increasing cooperation between the government officials, is not only to bring the three countries together, but bring together two ministries within one country. Get them talking about common issues [...] My final point is that cooperation is occurring at all levels. Some of it is formal; some of it informal; some of it overt and public; some of it less public. There is a community-building effort going on in North America. It's occurring within the evironmental community. It's occuring between communities, within countries and between countries." - Sarah Richardson, Commission for Environmental Cooperation

Four Years Later: NAFTA and the Environment
By César Luna

The objective of this presentation is to provide a critical discussion of the work of the NAFTA institutions related to the environment. Such discussion is directed at issues of transnational cooperation and cooperation between supranational, national, local institutions, and non-governmental organizations (NGO's). The role of NGO's in this analysis is fundamental because as in the case of Environmental Health Coalition, they often interact in local issues and have a direct perception of "real" progress or lack thereof with respect to cooperative environmental issues.

The Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) is a grassroots environmental organization dedicated at the protection of human and environmental health in San Diego-Tijuana Region. Some of its principal objectives are the protection, prevention and reduction of human and environmental threats created by toxic use and, the education and empowerment of communities affected by toxic pollution. For 18 years, EHC has been at the forefront of local environmental issues facing the Tijuana-San Diego border environment. Through community assistance and empowerment, binational policy advocacy and technical support, EHC has achieved a great deal of knowledge and experience, as well as success. EHC, as a non-governmental organization, welcomes further discussion on the role of the NAFTA institutions and their effectiveness four years after their creation. The underlying theme in this presentation is to challenge the NAFTA environmental institutions to take a more effective approach at solving border environmental problems. It is the position of the EHC that at the present time, the NAFTA institutions have produced only minimal results to protect, correct or improve the severe environmental and human health conditions along the U.S.-Mexico border. With the current industrial growth along the border, these problems will only increase in number and in complexity if effective and hones binational cooperation is not reached. The following case studies illustrate this lack of effective and hones cooperation to correct an environmental problem.

Case Study #1: Metales y Derivados

Background:

Metales y Derivados was a lead smelter and recycler of lead-based batteries located in the city of Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico. It operated in Mesa de Otay Industrial Park from 1982 until its closure in 1994. Its parent company, a U.S.-based wholesale metals corporation by the name of New Frontier is a San Diego, California-based company still in existence. New Frontier's principal operation in Mexico under Metales y Derivados consisted of recovering lead, copper and phosphorous through the smelting of used lead acid batteries and other scrap materials that were brought from the United States into Mexico as recyclable products.

The owners and operators abandoned the company in Tijuana after continuous complaints from the nearby residents and repeated sanctions by the government, leaving piles of hazardous waste behind. It is estimated that Metales y Derivados accumulated approximately 6,000 metric tons of lead slag, waste pole of by-products, sulfuric acid, and heavy metals such as antimony, arsenic, cadmium, and copper.

Lead affects almost every organ and system in the human body. It is a well-documented neurotoxin, which most severely affects young children. Lead predominantly affects the central nervous system and some of its harmful effects include premature births, smaller babies, decreased mental ability in the infant, learning difficulties, and reduced growth in young children. In adults, lead can cause abortion and damage to the reproductive system. It may also decrease reaction time, cause weakness in fingers, wrists, ankles, and can affect memory. At high levels, lead can cause kidney dysfunction, coma and even death. (See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)( Lead Fact Sheet, CAS# 7439-92-1 April, 1993).

Sulfuric acid is commonly used as an electrolyte in batteries. It is a strong or absolute irritant chemical. Due to its strong dehydrating and corrosive properties, sulfuric acid reacts with many organic materials with which it comes into contact. This reaction causes, upon contact, immediate and severe tissue damage, respiratory damage as well as irreparable eye damage. Low level exposure to sulfuric acid causes irritation to the eyes and mucous membranes such as nose and respiratory tracts. Frequent respiratory infections, emphysema, and digestive disturbances have been related to long term exposure to sulfuric acid. (See Toxological Profile for Sulfur Trioxide and Sulfuric Acid, Draft for Public Comment, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ATSDR September, 1997).

Arsenic is found as an impurity in many metals and is a by-product of lead smelting operations. Arsenic compounds are corrosive to the skin. Skin abnormalities may be attributed to arsenic exposure such as discoloring or spots on the skin, and skin cancer. Other effects related to arsenic include liver and kidney injury, impaired nerve function and birth defects. (See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Public Health Statement, Arsenic, March, 1989). All of these hazardous wastes remain on the site completely exposed to the natural environment as the result of Metales' toxic reckless operations and abandonment. Seasonal winds and rainfall can carry these wastes to nearby communities.

Colonia Chilpancingo, one of those communities, is located approximately 150 yards from the Metales site. The community rests down hill from the toxic site and Petitioners contend that health problems can be caused or are being exacerbated by the Metales hazardous waste site.

Role of NAFTA Institutions:

Metales y Derivados operated in the midst of the creation of the La Paz Agreement. This Agreement called for the return of hazardous wastes from U.S. companies operating in Mexico. Later, in 1988, the La Paz Agreement was incorporated into Mexican law under the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (General Law). The owners and operators of Metales, recklessly disregarded these and other laws and left a toxic nightmare in Mexico.

In 1994, the NAFTA institutions were created: the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), the North American Development Bank (NADB), and the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC). To date, none of the institutions have addressed issues related to illegal toxic waste sites such as binational enforcement, cleanup technology exchange and emergency response communication similar to the Metales y Derivados case despite the severity of the environmental and health damage they pose.

BECC and NADB

The BECC and NADB were created to finance environmental infrastructure projects along the border. Besides the notable interagency's current lack of effective cooperation in fulfilling their funding purpose (as only 2 projects have been financed out of 28 certified), these institutions have other limitations. Most importantly, they were not designed to finance projects that could not be repaid, as in the case of Metales y Derivados and other toxic waste clean up projects despite the dire need to clean up existing sites and prevent new ones from being created.

CEC

The CEC on the other hand, offers different approaches to address environmental issues in a cooperative way. Its 1996 Annual Program incorporates language that could justify direct CEC activities to in cases such as Metales y Derivados. The Program states in part: "[t]he CEC approach to protecting human health and the environment focuses on reducing pollution risks and minimizing the impact of existing pollution across the continent." (CEC 1996 Annual Report, pg. 15). This means that the CEC could potentially focus resources to address the clean up of toxic waste sites. However, so far it has been up to the people to "request" the CEC to act pursuant to its Annual Program rather than the CEC acting pro-actively. The citizen's petition process under Article 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) provides the avenue for people to complain when a NAFTA country may not be effectively enforcing its environmental laws. However, this process is exhausting on the part of the petitioner who bears the burden of proof, is lengthy, is highly discretionary on the part of the CEC to issue responses and follow ups, and even on the best case scenario, it only has the power to conduct a "factual record". Even when the Secretariat prepares a factual record (which is not a decision), the CEC has the discretion to publish it or not.

Accordingly, A Metales y Derivados petition would face great obstacles before the CEC can render a favorable determination. Under the actual CEC process, it is unlikely that any remedial action would take place in a short term as the result of a citizen's petition under the NAAEC.

Case #2: Pacific Treatment Environmental Services

On July 6, 1997, a mixture of chemical substances ignited into flames from Pacific Treatment, a U.S.-owned company that operated a transfer station for hazardous maquiladora waste. Firebombs exploded in the air over the neighboring factories of Otay Mesa Industrial Park in Tijuana, Mexico. Over two hundred tons of hazardous waste burned, including organic solvents such as toluene, acetone and xylene, paint dust, solid materials contaminated with solvents and paint, dirt contaminated with oil and empty chemical drums. The fire released toxic fumes that blew directly into residential neighborhoods fewer then 300 yards away. Based on the type of businesses serviced by Pacific Treatment, it is likely that chlorinated solvents were also present and burned.

The negligent operations by Pacific Treatment created another environmental nightmare for the nearby residents of Colonia Chilpancingo. Ironically, Pacific Treatment was located across the street from Metales y Derivados.

The incident highlighted several serious breakdowns in binational environmental cooperation. The public became aware for the first time the Tijuana lacks the necessary basic infrastructure to adequately respond to chemical emergencies. For example, in Mesa de Otay Industrial Park, one of the largest and oldest industrial parks in the city, not one single fire hydrant was operational to fight the fire. Moreover, the Tijuana fire department did not have the proper equipment to respond to a chemical fire and did not have any information about the type of chemicals and wastes stored at Pacific Treatment.

Residents in the surrounding community complained of strong odors during the fire and in the days that followed. Neighborhood residents reported health problems such as headaches, vomiting, eye and skin irritation and inability to sleep. Exposure to the chemicals released is known to produce long term health effects ranging from reproductive problems to damage of internal organs and nervous system. But the actual damage to the environment and to public health, as the result of the negligent operations of Pacific Treatment remains unknown.

The Role of NAFTA's Institutions

The NAFTA institutions were not originally designed nor are currently equipped to respond to emergency situations such as the Pacific Treatment case. However, these institutions should promote further cooperation among local, state and national entities responsible for emergency preparedness. Instead, the Pacific Treatment case highlighted the lack of effective and honest binational communication and cooperation. For instance, U.S. environmental authorities learned about the fire from the media, rather than from their Mexican counterparts despite the fact that existing protocol requires both countries to notify one another when a chemical accident occurs along the border.

Conclusions

The NAFTA environmental institutions were viewed by the public as the institutions that would cure the region's environmental problems. After four years since their inception, they are far from achieving such monumental task. Here in the San Diego-Tijuana border region, we are able to see their deficiencies through concrete cases such as Metales y Derivados and Pacific Treatment.

To bring about greater cooperation and consequently greater effectiveness in solving transnational environmental problems, these institutions must first recognize their own limitations. By recognizing their limitations, these institutions may better educate the public and may avoid creating false expectations that often lead to the loss of credibility. Only then, can these institutions focus on providing real options to cooperative environmental protection efforts.

The NAFTA institutions must also define "cooperation" and must be able to measure its progress. Communities affected by pollution are becoming more frustrated when these institutions proclaim solid cooperative relationships while cases such as Metales y Derivados and Pacific Treatment prove otherwise.

Perhaps fewer but specific projects can bring measurable outcomes. The full implementation of a clean up project, a pollution prevention program or even an effective tracking mechanism for the movement of hazardous wastes and materials across borders can all provide definite measurable outcomes of cooperation.

Finally, the issue of corporate responsibility and how it is to be addressed by the NAFTA institutions remains for further discussion. It is an underlying theme of outmost importance because it is here where most of the change will need to take place. So long as corporations consider labor and environment as a cost rather than as a long term investment, they will continue to find ways to undermine environment and health to maximize profits. The NAFTA institutions will have to undertake the issue and begin a shift in consciousness as we further expand free global markets.

THEME 3: Four Years Later - NAFTA and Labor Cooperation

Rapporteur's Report

Four year's later, passionate arguments for and against NAFTA need to be reassessed. Labor is an area that has indeed prompted very passionate debates. This conference provided the opportunity to discuss three aspects of NAFTA-related labor debates: I) the labor side agreement (NAALC); II) one of the first cases under the agreement - Sprint; and III) the Secretariat's study on plant closure and freedom of association. In all of these, the difficulties of unionization have been stressed by conferees. The newly created NAFTA labor institutions seek to specifically address the issues of labor rights in a cooperative spirit. This entails looking at labor issues within an interdependent web of judicial (or legal), economic, political, and social contexts unique to each of the three countries, but ultimately influencing the other parties to the agreement. Conferees highlighted several challenges facing labor cooperation in North America:

"I think we have to admit that it is unrealistic to expect that an international agreement like the NAALC can be a kind of side or back door mechanism for changing domestic labor law. Reforming labor law in the United States to provide greater protection for workers is a job for the people of the United States and for the working people of the United States. It requires political struggle, it requires obtaining the necessary majority in our Congress to pass laws that will protect workers and will remedy some of the deficiencies in our law. In the same way that it is the responsibility of Mexican workers working through their Congress to undertake whatever labor law reform they feel they need, and for Canadian workers in their national and provincial governments." - Lance Compa, Cornell University "Of course, we can't do away with national sovereignty. Countries are going to have to decide for themselves just how they are going to legislate, just how they are going to change their laws and so forth. But, it seems to me that increasingly we have the opportunity to look outside our own boundaries and to educate ourselves as to what other countries are doing to deal with similar problems. Of course, one can't transplant intact a law or a system from foreign country, which reflects all kinds of specialized factors. You can't transplant that to foreign soil and expect it to grow, but what you can do is to study these other laws and systems and as a result of that begin to ask yourselves new questions about your own system, which might otherwise not have occurred to you. Here, in the United States in particular, we have been virtually solipistic in our approach to these problems, thinking of ourselves as the center of the universe and not realizing that in many ways, we are the odd man out, we have the system that everybody else thinks is a little goofy. Only by studying other systems can we come to realize that we have to look at our problems with a new perspective. That is the great advantage of comparative labor studies." - Benjamin Aaron, University of California, Los Angeles

The tension between multilaterally-agreed principles and domestic labor law: Because the NAALC establishes that each country is sovereign in its own domestic realm, the Secretariat of Commission for Labor Cooperation cannot investigate particular cases. This would infringe national sovereignty. What the Secretariat can and ought to do, however, is to study each country's domestic laws in comparative perspective. This tension has been fruitful in many respects, and particularly in terms of influence on national labor law reforms. In fact, it has demonstrated the interdependence between domestic legal and economic systems in a globalized context. Despite sovereignty, policies in one country ultimately affect the other two countries. As Irasema Garza of the U.S. National Administrative Office says, "Labor conditions in one country impact on the domestic concerns of the other. This is really the epithet behind the creation of this agreement."

"Like many governments around the world, the loss of jobs is a big deal and this in turn puts pressure in the reconciliation process in Mexico. The unions are told of the necessity to diminish their demands and reconsolidate towards the interest of the company. Many times this "necessity" could be true, but I would not believe the employers too much, being that they have their strategies with naturally more information, investigation, and other resources that allow them much greater economic capacity then that of the unions." - Patricia Kurczyn, Facultad de Derecho de la UNAM "The fundamental problem when the plant closure occurs is that we do not have a complete system of social security. [...] We have to be much stricter in conserving the stability of the worker because it is about family sustenance. When the wage levels are as low as they currently are, they create economic conflicts, not only in Mexico, but also in the entire world. We need to understand that defending welfare systems is very important. There are no savings in the homes of Mexican workers. When the worker ends up without a job, he/she will only have social security for up to eight weeks. This obligates us to be stricter in the defense of the stability of employment. The effects transcend into the political arena." - Patricia Kurczyn, Facultad de Derercho de la UNAM

Utilizing the full potential of the NAALC: The labor side agreement is large in scope. Not all its possibilities have been activated yet. As John McKennirey, from the Secretariat of the Commission for Labor Cooperation indicated, "What we have should not be a straight jacket for what we can do. What we can do is really limited only by the imagination and the wealth of the participants, including the initiatives coming from the outside." In the case of Canada, a first step towards the promotion of the possibilities opened by the agreement will be to convince more provinces to adhere to it. Some have suggested, moreover, to consider harmonizing the treatment of the eleven labor principles to make them all subject to proceeding through all the various stages of the mechanisms set by the NAALC ( Please see contribution by Alicia Sepulveda Nuñez ).

Defining cooperation: Cooperation sounded very well on paper and at the negotiating table of the labor side agreement, but four years later, how has it been implemented? Conferees stressed the importance of specifying what each actor involved meant by cooperation. How did the new labor institutions develop tools to build cooperation? ( Please see contribution by May Morpaw for Canadian examples ).

The tension between the need for jobs and the rights of workers: The Secretariat's study on plant closures addresses this tension directly by examining labor law in each of the three countries ( Please see contribution by Leoncia Lara Sáenz ). The use of threats of plant closure to avoid unionization is a pervasive problem all over North America. Commentators have stressed the importance of good social security measures to maintain labor stability in the case of plant closures ( Please see comments by Stephanie Bernstein ).

The problem of co-optation and corruption: Patricia Kurczyn highlighted problems co-optation of union leaders and sometimes of lack of internal democracy within the unions, "there is no reason to hide this being that it does exist, therefore we must fight this type of behavior." However, these problems are often used as an argument to convince governments of the "dangers" of unionization.

Access to information: Unions have access to considerably less information and resources than businesses. It is more difficult for them to defend their case. As Lance Compa of Cornell University indicated, "the report also points out the inherent advantage of employers in these plant closing cases. The employers can always find the necessary accountants and other financial experts who can massage the books and massage the financial data to demonstrate that they company was losing money and they had to close for economic purposes. Workers and unions don't have access to that type of information. They might be able to make a critique of it by using their own experts, but they really can't get at the heart of the kind of financial information that the employer can generate to defend its position in this kind of plant closing cases, where the essential issue is one of motivation. Did the company close to break a union organizing effort? Or did they close the plant because it was losing money and economically it was necessary to close the plant?" The Secretariat of the Commission for Labor Cooperation plays a crucial role in providing information, not so much on specific cases, but on the legal and economic frameworks.

I) FOUR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE UNDER THE LABOR SIDE AGREEMENT (NAALC)

What Role Have the NAOs Played in the NAFTA Process? (U.S. Perspective)
By Irasema Garza

The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) is a historic agreement. In the United States it represents the first time in which labor standards accompany a trade agreement. The agreement has been severely criticized by various constituencies in the U.S. Labor groups have argued that the agreement is too weak and does not afford protections for individual rights. The business community thinks it is too intrusive and interferes with the ability of companies to conduct business. Regardless of these opposing view points, the fact is that the agreement has gained notoriety and more and more organizations are turning to the agreement as a means to address labor concerns arising in any one of the NAFTA countries.

In general, the NAALC institutions were created to promote labor rights in North America. The NAOs are the domestic institutions that were created by the agreement (as opposed to the international institution which is the Commission for Labor Cooperation). The NAOs are mandated to carry out a number of functions. Specifically, the agreement calls for the receipt and review of public communications or submissions. The submission process has been the area that has been very active with the U.S. NAO. Given the time constraints, I will limit my remarks to this area.

In the area of submissions, each NAO has evolved differently, primarily because the agreement itself (art. 16.3) envisions that each NAO shall review matters according to its domestic procedures and also because there have been great differences in the number of cases that have been presented to each respective NAO. In the United States, the NAO has received nine submissions; all submissions have dealt with labor law issues arising in Mexico. With the exception of one, all submissions have raised industrial relations issues, that is issues concerning freedom of association and the right to organize.

In the United States, public hearings are a standard means by which our government provides a forum so that citizens can raise concerns to government officials. Following this tradition, the U.S. NAO routinely conducts public hearing as a means of gathering information to assist us in the review of submissions.

What have been the contributions made by this review process in the promotion of labor rights in North America?

The labor conditions in one country impact on the domestic concerns of another. This was really the impetus behind the creation of the agreement. For example, we see that in the current GM/UAW situation, the UAW is accusing GM of wanting to move operations to Mexico, where wages are not only lower, but where independent unions have had difficulty in gaining registration and recognition. Of course, the UAW's underlying concern is the same as those voiced during the NAFTA debate. The belief is that unless workers in the NAFTA countries are free to select the union of their choice, they will not be able to negotiate collective bargaining agreements that require employers to pay adequate wages and benefits. Employers, will therefore, relocate, leaving thousands of workers in the United States unemployed, while at the same time, not meeting their obligations to workers in Mexico. Without addressing the merits of this argument, I would just like to point out that it is not surprising, therefore, that almost all of the cases brought before the U.S. NAO have raised issues of freedom of association.

Some of the features of the agreement:

The agreement authorizes the country reviewing the submission to assess whether the country in question is abiding by the terms of the NAALC. The agreement is premised on the basis that through cooperation and dialogue the NAFTA countries should be able to address labor issues and remedy areas of concern. The Agreement also provides for a dispute resolution process to deal with cases that cannot be resolved through consultations. In cases of raising minimum wage, health and safety and/or child labor issues, and where a government fails to cease violating the agreement that government can be subject to fines and suspension of trade benefits.

The agreement has created an international forum so that citizens of the NAFTA countries can bring forward labor concerns. It forces governments to address labor law issues and explain to the international community why it treats issues in a particular way. This has in turn contributed to domestic dialogue and debate that is often already taking place within a country. It provides transparency and sunshine. There has been substantial media attention given to a number of the cases brought before the NAOs. Prior to the enactment of the NAALC, there did not exist a forum to address these issues nor was there substantial amounts of U.S. media attention devoted to labor cases in Mexico (or vice-versa).

The review process places these issues on the agenda of high level government officials, who are obligated to address them.

What the agreement does not provide for

The NAALC does not impose harmonized labor standards on the countries. Each country agrees to enforce its own laws and to promote a set of eleven fundamental principles.

It creates institutions and a process which can be used by any person to raise labor concerns arising in the territory of another NAFTA country. This means that U.S. citizens cannot raise labor law concerns arising in the United States with the U.S. NAO. This is because the NAOs do not replace the domestic institutions (NLRB) created to address labor disputes. Because the agreement preserves sovereignty, the NAOs are not empowered to adjudicate individual rights. The existing domestic legal institutions are not replaced by our review process. This is an important point and one that is often not understood by constituents who believe that the NAALC institutions can remedy individual rights. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that issues raised are reviewed in the context of cases arising in a specific company, where individual workers may have been wronged.

Obviously, the changes we have witnessed in Mexico cannot be attributed entirely to the NAALC process; however, I believe that the process contributed to these changes.

Ongoing challenges

We have encountered a number of challenges throughout the implementation process, and these will undoubtedly continue. They are all somewhat related:

(1) Somewhat of a contradiction in the Agreement is that it recognizes that the NAFTA countries are sovereign nations and that they maintain that sovereignty, while at the same time it allows international oversight of domestic labor law enforcement. Creating a system which balances these two interests has been challenging. This tension has not necessarily been negative. It has enabled countries engaged in the review process to creatively address issues.

(2) Some groups, particularly in the United States, would like the role of my office to include adjudication of individual rights in the submissions presented to us. Obviously, this would offend notions of sovereignty to say the least; this fact has made it difficult to sell the benefits of this agreement. On the other hand, some in the business community view our role in the review of submissions as too intrusive in the affairs of other countries and interfering with the ability of business to function in the other countries. But as I stated earlier, the Agreement is gaining recognition, and internationally, it is often mentioned as an option by workers engaged in labor dispute.

(3) Mexico's primary concern in the implementation of the agreement has been that the review of submissions, in particular, will have a negative impact on foreign investment. The challenge that will continue is how do we go forward with this important dialogue on labor standards given these concerns.

Finally, since we are all represented here today, it is important we focus on how we can fully utilize and coordinate all of the NAFTA institutions in order to assure that working conditions and living and environmental standards are maintained and improved as trade and economic integration increase throughout the Hemisphere.

BOX 8: The Labor Principles of the NAALC Under the NAALC, the United States, Mexico, and Canada have committed themselves to promoting the following labor principles: 1) Freedom of association and protection of the right to organize 2) The right to bargain collectively 3) The right to strike 4) Prohibition of forced labor 5) Labor protections for children and young persons 6) Minimum employment standards 7) Elimination of employment discrimination 8) Equal pay for women and men 9) Prevention of occupational injuries 10) Compensation in cases of occupational injuries and illnesses 11) Protection of migrant workers The NAALC creates four levels of treatment of "labor law matters" as defined in the Agreement. These four levels and their subject matter jurisdiction are: 1) NAO REVIEW AND CONSULTATION Scope of NAO Review: "Labor law matters arising in the territory of another Party" (the definition of "labor law matters" covers Labor Principles 1-11) Scope of NAO Consultation: "The other Party's labor law, its administration, or other labor market conditions in its territory" Individuals, unions, employers, non-governmental organizations or other private parties may file submissions seeking NAO reviews in accordance with the domestic procedures established by the country's NAO. 2) MINISTERIAL CONSULTATIONS Scope: "Any matter within the scope of this Agreement" The labor minister of any NAALC partner may request consultation with another minister, with regard to any labor law matter reflecting Labor Principles 1-11. 3) EVALUATION COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS (ECE) Scope: "Patterns of practice by each Party in the enforcement of its technical labor standards" (technical labor standards are defined as labor law matters related to Labor Principles 4-11) A single country may initiate the establishment of an Evaluation Committee of Experts following a Ministerial Consultation. The ECE performs independent, non-adversarial analysis and recommendations covering all three NAALC countries' labor law enforcement in the particular subject area raised in the request for an ECE. 4) DISPUTE RESOLUTION BY AN ARBITRAL PANEL Scope: "Alleged persistent pattern of failure to effectively enforce occupational safety and health, child labor or minimum wage technical labor standards." The 5-member Arbitral Panels examine effective enforcement of laws related to Labor Principles 5, 6, and 9, and develop an "action plan" to remedy a persistent pattern of failure. Failure to implement the plan may result in fines or trade sanctions. NOTE: Matters subject to Evaluation and Dispute Resolution must be trade-related and/or covered by mutually recognized labor laws. Source: www.naalc.org/english/info/broch_7.htm

Building Cooperation: The Canadian Experience
By May Morpaw

First of all, cooperation is such a pleasant, positive word. It just rolls off our tongues very nicely. And we don't think about what's behind it. But it is not a superficial word, it does require a lot of effort. We are talking about building consensus on issues that are very sensitive. We are talking about positive engagement among equals, each from our own national perspective. Together, we are trying to forge something new that we call cooperation. And it must go beyond the surface if it is to last in the longer term.

It was launched almost over night, with no history. We did not even know each other as officials. There was no history between the labor officials in Canada and Mexico. There was a bit of history between Canada and the U.S., but primarily on industrial relations issues and between our labor boards.

I think in four years, we have gone from birth to toddler. I don't think we have gone beyond the toddler stage and maturity will come later in the relationship. We do have a new institution in an age where governments are reluctant to fund new bodies. We have growing pains right now, and that is normal. We may have fewer in the upcoming years. But there are, or should be, or could be, however you wish to look at it, difficult issues coming ahead. The question will be: Will the institutions survive and should they survive? Are they accomplishing what they were meant to, or doing something different that is just as valid?

There is tension within the agreement and tension between the three countries. You have two conflicting objectives, one of cooperation and one of resolving disputes, albeit resolving disputes in a cooperative fashion. I think that it healthy.

Areas of cooperation in the NAALC

(1) Council: The Council consists of three ministers who had no shared history of working together. There are elections and there are cabinet shuffles. Ministers move around. They may have little opportunity to create an in-depth relationship. Ministers have met every year and they are discussing more than this agreement. The goal is to develop a vision of a joint approach. The Council Designees bear the burden of day-to-day management of the Agreement. As senior officials, they are responsible for the work program of the Secretariat and develop the strategies needed to meet set goals. In four years, they have created a functioning institution. I didn't say it was perfect and I didn't say it was mature. But its functioning. And we are told that it has in fact been setting records in terms of how fast it was established and began to function. Information sharing is critical as well as to know who the players are.

(2) Secretariat: The Secretariat is in charge of promoting the agreement, make it better known and making sure actors know what they can do under it. It is also expected to produce a comparative body of knowledge on labor law and labor markets.

(3) National Administrative Offices: The NAOs don't exist in the environmental cooperation agreement. They are in charge of cooperative activities and receiving public communications. In terms of the cooperative work program, I think we have been very ambitious. We held over 30 activities in four years. But, as could be expected, we have been a bit unfocused. I think this is understandable in that early on we wanted to do as many activities as possible, we wanted to show we were there and working. We were not necessarily strategic about it. I think that is not a bad thing either in the sense that it let us build a common base, the knowledge, the understanding and a bit of getting to know each other and being comfortable working with each other. We have this knowledge; we need to be more strategic in the longer term. We are currently completing a four-year review of the implementation of the Agreement and taking stock of both results to date and expectations for the future.

Challenges for Canada

In Canada, Environment Canada, Human Resources Development Canada, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, have been in constant interaction. Ever since the early days of negotiations, we keep each other informed and we do meet and talk. We try to have some coherence to our external position on labor and to carry this position forward in terms of the labor agreement here, but also with Chile in terms of labor cooperation, the World Trade Organization, the MAI, the ILO, and other international organizations. We face some challenges:

In Canada, 90% of the workforce is under provincial jurisdiction. I think it's necessary to say, provincial jurisdiction does not mean one legislation, it means ten different sets of legislation, one in each of the provinces. And provinces have governments of different political stripes. It was necessary to create an internal agreement which every province is invited to sign. Every province participated in the design of the model of the agreement, but today only three provinces have signed it. We continue to promote adherence but have not been successful yet everywhere. That means that all provinces can participate in our governmental committee, although only the consensus. But there are limitations on dispute resolution procedures in response to public communications as a result of not having specific percentages of the work force covered.

We have established a network with labor unions, academics, labor practitioners and other interested groups, but business participation is not as strong as we would wish it to be. Although we did not have a formerly announced advisory committee until fairly recently, we have had an ad hoc committee, and in addition any time we plan a public event we had a steering committee with business and labor and academic representatives who help us in defining the program, the themes, identifying speakers, promoting the agreement to each other, and encouraging participation.

Just looking ahead, Kim Campbell yesterday mentioned civil society, John McKennirey talked about public international participation. Canada has already chosen to extend the model we have here. We signed the Canada-Chile agreement on labor cooperation in February 1997 and it came into effect July 6 of the same year. We are already undertaking research, study, and cooperative activities with Chile. We have also been strong proponents of the need to hear the views of Civil Society within the Free Trade Area of the Americas process and to promote labor cooperation within the Summit of the American initiative. In Canada, we have had a lot of discussion lately about what we mean by civil society, what we mean by public participation. The counter to public participation is often what we see as self-selected groups. Here you can think of some NGOs, some other organizations who represent one point of view. When they speak to the government, they represent their own interest. But the government has the obligation to hear what the broader society has to say. What the public has to say. New instruments are appearing from the public. We need to hear from both.

ONE OF THE FIRST CASES UNDER THE NAALC: SPRINT

The Participation of the Sindicato de Telefonistas de la República Mexicana in the Sprint-La Conexión Familiar case
By Alicia Sepulveda

On February 15, 1992, the principal telecommunication unions of North America, that is former CWC but now CEP of Canada, CWA of the United States, and STRM, formed a solidarity alliance for mutual help. The alliance aims at strengthening our respective organizations by forming a systematic and permanent union working relationship enabling better exchange of information, knowledge and experiences, as well as the realization of conjunctive activities and coordination of organization and mobilization. This alliance established a precedent of international solidarity with full union autonomy. Furthermore, during the NAFTA negotiations, these unions have developed labor strategies, which have permitted us to face the challenge of increasing economic integration. It is important to note that there are different opinions on what the best way of achieving this would be. But in brief, this alliance has been formalized with the exchange of experiences through formal visit to the two other countries.

"It's an amazing story to understand what the workers felt. It was disbelief, basically, they recount to us. They collected their things in a little box they were given, and they spilled down to the street. As luck would have it, the local was right there. So, they went over to the local to say: This is what's happened! Well, it was a shock to the local and to myself that the company had done this. And, to this day, I remember very vividly, of course, how these workers reacted to this." - Virginia Rodriguez-Jones, Communication Workers of America

At the end of 1994, our friends from the CWA informed us about the attitude adopted by Sprint - partner of TELMEX - towards the unionization intentions of a group of Latino workers, mostly female heads of household, working at La Conexión Familiar (LCF), a telemarketing plant offering services to the Hispanic population. Workers were paid about $7.00 an hour, $5.00 less than Sprint workers that were doing the same work. Workers at La Conexión Familiar did not receive their commission fully. The unionization campaign organized by CWA was received positively by the 235 workers.

In overt violation of a basic civic right, freedom of association, the plant closed down on July 14, 1994, exactly one week before the union vote. This election took place on July 22. Sprint sent loudspeakers to notify the workers they were dismissed. The plant justified its gesture by arguing that LCF was losing money, when a few months earlier it had hired a new President who was paid about $225,000 for the duration of his contract, on top of additional benefits and $800,000 for remodeling expenses of administrative offices. This closure was openly violating United States law, which require sending a prior notice of 60 days and severance pay.

In the weeks preceding the closure of the plant, there was a deplorable work ambience, according to the statements of affected workers and the reading of Judge Gerald A. Wacknov in case 20-CA-26203. In this case, the employers recognize having instructed supervisors to report workers who sympathized with the union. During many occasions, company representatives made sensitive comments on the fact that Sprint was a company "union-free" and ought to stay that way. Judge Wacknov ruled that Sprint was guilty of violating the law when threatening its employees of closing the plant because of union activities. Moreover, he ruled that disloyal practices were conducted. He further asked the company to send a copy of the resolution forcing the company to cease its anti-union activities to each worker's house. The Judge also instructed the company to refrain from threatening the workers, in written or oral form, from closing down the plant because of unionization; from questioning them about their union activities; from asking them to distribute anti-union material; from creating the impression it monitors union activities; from implementing changes in working conditions; or from intervening, coercing or restraining the full exercise of workers' rights.

In spite of CWA's documentation and verification of more than 50 charges of illegal activities conducted by Sprint, and despite the fact that the company recognized having violated the law when its Vice-President falsified documents in order to "demonstrate" that Sprint was considering closing LCF much before union activities started, the sentence only required Sprint to send the written citation. It didn't consider the restitution of work or the payment of lost salary and benefits. The punishment did not represent the gravity of the legal violations that had been committed.

It was striking at the reading of the citation how severely the Judge criticized workers' declarations, which he considered poorly reliable since many of them used the same figures of speech, and since there were errors of pronunciation and syntax. On the other hand, the company's testimony was given full credit, despite the use of a "falsified" document by one of its Vice-Presidents intending to demonstrate that the company had financial problems and needed to close down the plant because of this, and not because of union activities. Moreover, other public officials have recognized "having perfumed the pig" by presenting financial data as optimistically as it was ethically possible. I wonder if this attitude would have been the same if most workers had not been Latinas or if they had relied on university studies.

Given the gravity of this, the CWA and STRM met in Mexico City in January 1995. They discussed, amongst other issues, the necessity of filing the case with the National Administrative Office (NAO) of the NAALC signed by Canada, the United States, and Mexico in 1993. The National Assembly of STRM representatives unanimously approved this decision. The complaint was presented to the Mexican NAO on February 9, 1995. On May 31, 1995, the Mexican NAO, amongst other activities, emitted a notice making two recommendations: 1) to deepen the analysis of the relationship between freedom of association and the right to organize with plant closures; and 2) to conduct a ministerial consultation with Robert B. Reich of the United States and Santiago Oñate of Mexico.

On February 27, 1996, public hearing were held in San Francisco. Francisco Hernandez Juárez, General Secretary of the STRM, stated he was confident in the unity and solidarity of workers and their organizations, as well as in equal dialogue, in negotiations, in justice, in the rule of law, and in the institutions as the best means to resolve employer-employee problems. He manifested his preoccupation with the fact that LCF was a small example of the systematic anti-union attitude adopted by Sprint, a multinational with which Telmex maintained a strategic alliance. He further argued that multinationals ought to adapt to codes of conduct promoted by diverse organizations such as the Post, Telegraph and Telephone International (PTTI), now the Communications International (CI). He asked that the current case be resolved favorably for the workers and that Sprint should not be able to open a plant in Mexico if it did not respect the rights of organizations and workers. Many other union representatives from all levels were present and exposed similar concepts. As suspected, Sprint representatives maintained that there were no violations of the law.

Current situation

Although many instances have given reason to the 177 workers, Sprint spent millions of dollars to avoid that justice be made. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordered Sprint to re-hire the workers and pay back salaries and benefits. This ruling was revoked by the Federal Appeal Court. The struggle continued nevertheless.

On July 14, 1997, to commemorate the third anniversary of the dismis