GLOBAL JUSTICE for ANIMALS
The US-Peru Free Trade Agreement:
Protecting Corporate Investors'
"Right” To Exploit Animals & the Environment
by Tamara Matheson, Alex Ross, and Joseph Martinez
Continuing its agenda to create a free trade zone
throughout the Americas, the
Bush administration has negotiated a free trade agreement with Peru. Signed on April 12, 2006, and revised on June
25, 2007, the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) must now be ratified by Congress in
order to become law. This agreement, if
approved, will be detrimental to the
welfare of animals and may have long-lasting consequences that will cause
irreversible damage to the environment in both countries.
Already an overexploited region, Peru's delicate
environment and diverse wildlife are facing an even greater risk to their
existence by this new bilateral trade agreement, which threatens to increase
fishing, mining, lumber, oil drilling, factory farming and wildlife hunting.Added
environmental provisions in the June revision of the agreement fall far short
of addressing these concerns, and not one animal protection or environmental
organization has chosen to support the agreement based on these changes.
CITES
Like most prior FTAs, the initial form of the Peru Trade
Promotion Agreement called for scant regard to environmental protection or
labor standards. One of the key
improvements in the June revision was an obligation for Peru and the United
States to implement changes in order to enforce the CITES (Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species) Act, especially in regard to illegal
logging of protected Mahogany trees. Peru had signed onto CITES years ago but did
little to actually enforce these laws.1 Historically, illegal Mahogany was still sold
to the United States
and other countries. The USTR (Office of
the United States Trade Representative) estimates that Peru has already lost
13% of their native forest, and the rate of destruction is between 200,000 and
300,000 hectares a year.2
Most studies assert that despite a ban on Mahogany logging altogether by
the Peruvian government in 2001, at least 30-40% of Peru's timber exports still
derive from illegal logging, but many aver that the proportion is much higher
(up to 80%).3 Given Peru's
serious problems enforcing CITES and its own environmental regulations in the
past, the small homage to enforcement in the revised FTA provides little
comfort. The opening of even greater
trade in lumber would prove catastrophic for the Peruvian rainforest .
Risk of Impunity
Time will show whether Peru
and the U.S.
do enforce CITES or whether this is an empty promise, but we are risking
irreplaceable native forests on the faith in these two governments, both of
which have long histories of treating forests as commodities without inherent
value. The USTR says, "Peruvians
consider many of these resources to be important for agriculture, forestry and
new medicines."4 Previous studies have shown that logging not
only reduces habitat for animals, but also leads to increased hunting of
animals as well as the extermination of entire populations of large mammals.5 In one study, researchers found that over
86,000 wild animals were killed by lumber personnel including over 54,000
long-haired spider monkeys and red howler monkeys. The study stated, “Local extinction is
inevitable for some species if this rate of extraction is maintained"6
and that overhunting is causing an inverse in mammalian biomass and leads to
landscape changes in habitats and fauna.
52% of the hunted animals are mammals, while 47% are birds.
Increased Foreign Investment
Aside from the CITES changes, the amendments do close to
nothing in terms of protecting Peru's natural environment from foreign
investment. The US Trade
Representative's Interim Environmental Review admits that "economic
development has led to a variety of pressing environmental issues that include:
deforestation, water and air pollution, soil erosion, desertification, loss of
biodiversity, damage to ecologically sensitive areas."7 They
also go on to say, "Mahogany forests, marine resources and marine water
quality are particularly threatened.8 The USTR openly admits, "The FTA may
further increase investment, trade and production in the region, which may be
associated with further pressure on the environment."9 The U.S. believes
the mining sector will benefit the most by implementation of the FTA. An article titled “Peru seen as FTA Gateway” by the
Nation says “The Peruvian private sector hopes that the FTAs would encourage
foreign investors to participate in a number of mineral and forestry
concessions in the country.10
With a new FTA, we can expect many more
resource-extractive investment projects in Peru similar to the recent Camisea
Project, a natural gas pipeline, which has been described as "one of the
most destructive projects around." Mother Jones explains further:
“The Camisea project has already
caused irreversible damage to the environment.
Massive erosion, sedimentation, and biodiversity loss have already
occurred. Long-term impacts also include
open access to a region previously protected by natural barriers and the
project threatens one of Latin Americas most important marine reserves.”11
Companies benefiting from this venture include Hunt Oil
Company (fundraiser for President Bush), KBR (formerly Kellogg Brown and Root
and former subsidiary of Halliburton) who invested $1 billion in the project12 In addition to destroying Peru's environment,
promoting neoliberal economic development in Latin America, and funding war
profiteers, projects like these also increase our dependence on nonrenewable
resources at the expense of the natural environment and further global warming
and air pollution. This will all be done
at the expense of the people and animals living in the region which include an
indigenous population of a few thousand. Near the coast, another processing
plant is planned for the buffer zone around the Paracas National Reserve, home
to such rare species as Humboldt penguins and green sea turtles."13 The USTR says environmental concerns from the
project include, "effects on biodiversity from the construction and
operation of the pipeline, as well as pollution of the Urubamba River."14
Factory Farm Poultry Exports To Increase
The poultry industry is one of three industries expected
to benefit the most, from the implementation of the FTAs. Currently, Peru applies high tariffs to any
foreign imports of poultry. Peru has
agreed to allow up to 12,000 tons of 'dark meat' chicken imports tariff-free,
increasing the annual import by 960 tons until it will reach nearly 24,000 tons
within 10 years.15 Poultry is
the main protein source for people of Peru, and though there are some large
producers, the majority of chicken is raised by small-scale farmers, especially
in coastal areas.16 A study
of Andean poultry-raising found that the majority of these chickens are
free-range and live among the residents of the communities.17 Though these people are poor, they do not
raise chickens merely for economic reasons; they also seem to have an aversion
to the hormones and chemicals used in factory-farmed chickens and in egg
production. Meanwhile, the U.S. Grains
Council, a strong supporter of the Peru FTA, has been meeting with the Peruvian
Poultry Association (APA) to promote egg consumption “with a goal to increase
it by 40 percent over the next 10 years.”18 Peru has agreed to provide a market
for 800,000 metric tons of grain to supply their large poultry producers. It is in the best interests of the U.S. grain industry to expand factory farming in
Peru in order to sell more
of their grain to Peru
as livestock feed. The impact created
from flooding these markets with cheap chicken from the U.S. as well as
pressure from the grain and APA coalition to increase demand could have a
number of negative results. Consumption
of cheap factory-farmed chicken from the U.S. will increase, replacing the
consumption of locally raised free-range chickens. The other result is that that through the
help of the U.S. Grains Council to increase consumption of chickens and eggs,
more factory farms will be created in Peru to supply the demand and
increase corporate profits.
Many Peruvians depend on agriculture as their main
livelihood. Human rights groups believe
the FTA will result in job losses in the domestic agricultural sector of these
regions as the U.S.
exports gain market access.19
Florida Fair Trade says that “Peruvian farm organizations and religious
leaders express certainty that the agricultural rules…will push hundreds of
thousands of small farmers into bankruptcy.”20 There is a trend in
countries where FTAs are passed in which the displaced rural poor move to the
cities. Rather than raising their own
animals, these displaced farmers will provide a market for cheap U.S.
imports of factory-farmed meat and eggs that are sold in the cities. In addition, the transport of meat products
across borders requires greater resources, such as fuel, than it does to
produce food locally and is therefore less sustainable.
Agreement Lowers Sanitary Measures
In recent years, Peru
has banned importing poultry from the U.S.
because of our Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, which they thought were
not up to par due to some incidences of avian influenza and Newcastle Disease.21 In 2004, avian flu was detected in a flock of
7,000 chickens in Texas, as well as in New Jersey, Maryland and
Delaware. In addition, there was a case of transmission
to a human in New York a year before.22 The United States currently has embargoes on
countries, mostly Asian, where avian flu is present in domestic poultry. It is hypocritical for the United States to levy embargoes against some
countries while calling Peru’s
ban unscientific,23 especially when the U.S. has documented cases of bird
flu. Under the FTAs, this market will be
reopened and Peru
will accept USDA standards. This should
be seen as a lowering of global sanitary measures. Over 70% of protein consumed in Peru comes from bird-raising.24 The transmission of bird flu to Peru
could be disastrous and effect public health, agriculture and sustainable rural
development. Peru
was the epicenter of a hemisphere-wide cholera outbreak in 1991 and, with far
worse infrastructure for water filtration than the United States, faces the potential
for a public health crisis from factory farm water contamination.
Agreement Supercedes Proposed FDA Regulations on Product Labeling
Aside from the problems associated with increased
exportation of potentially contaminated U.S. meats, concerns have arisen
over importation of products containing carmine. Also called “Crimson Lake,”
“Cochineal,” and “Natural Red 4,” among other names, carmine is a pigment of a
bright red color obtained from the carminic acid produced by scale insects,
such as the cochineal. With uses ranging
from food additives to rouge, carmine is included in a variety of goods. However, the public health advocacy group the
Center for Science in the Public Interest is concerned about the potential
health problems that this pigment has caused.25 In addition to dietary concerns for
vegetarians and those that abide by kosher and halal laws, the colorings have
caused allergic reactions that range from hives to life-threatening
anaphylactic shock. Consequently, this
health organization has long pressured the Food and Drug Administration to
change its requirements for food labels so that they can more clearly state
ingredients that could conflict with people's diets or trigger allergies.26
If the FDA decides to require companies to declare carmine
use in their products, its ruling would ultimately conflict with regulations
stated in the Peru FTA.
Animal Fighting Not Prohibited
The cruel bloodsports of bullfighting and cockfighting,
which have been banned in 48 U.S.
states27, are popular and considered cultural tradition in Peru. Under the trade in live animals section of Peru’s
tariff schedule is listed purebred and breeding animals “for fighting.”28
The Peru FTA will remove any tariffs for poultry and beef. The live animals that the U.S. exports to Peru can be used for fighting since
it is legal and this includes cockfighting and bullfighting. As to humane laws protecting animals from
cruelty, “Peruvian legislation specifically exempts bullfighting, cockfighting,
and activities that have been deemed cultural from these provisions.”29
Cockfighting has been linked to the spread of Newcastle Disease in poultry.30 Unfortunately, there are no measures in
the Peru FTA to ban animal fighting or prevent our exported livestock from
being used in this manner once it reaches foreign territory. In addition, if animal welfare advocates were
to propose a law against importing animals to Peru for fighting, the FTAs would allow
industry corporations to challenge the prohibition as a trade barrier.
Feedlot Beef & Factory Farm Pork Exports To Increase
The other largest increase in US animal agriculture
exports, by percent, will be pork products.
Removal of high tariffs will expand U.S.
market penetration and create a competitive advantage for U.S. pork
products. There will be a “significant,
positive effect on total U.S.
exports of beef and pork to Peru.”31
Currently, their beef and poultry industries are made of “small and
indigenous producers that produce for household and local consumption.”32
The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) strongly supports the agreement
saying that when the FTAs are fully implemented, they will be extremely
beneficial to U.S. factory
farm pork producers, increasing exports and U.S. hog prices by 83% per
head. Producer profits are estimated to
increase by 7%. This is of concern
because the influx of cheap imports of pork “will seriously affect a huge number
of Peruvian national producers.”33 Pork is the least consumed meat
in Peru34 mostly because it is considered less healthy35
though the USITC expects that the low price of U.S. pork will compete with the
local poultry and fish, causing an increase in consumption.36
In 2004 and 2005, Peru
banned much of U.S.
beef due to the incidence of mad cow disease.
The FTAs will reopen the market by acceptance of USDA SPS measures, and
it is expected to set a precedent for future FTAs.37 The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
(NCBA) strongly supports the FTAs and says that they will allow us to provide
beef there at a lower price, giving U.S. grain-fed feedlot cattle an advantage
over the local producers which are primarily grass-fed.38 From an animal welfare perspective, feedlot
production of beef represents a more inhumane option than pasture-raised beef,
because feedlot cattle have less freedom on movement and live significantly
shorter lives.
Lack of Environmental Enforcement and Investor Protection Destroy
Wildlife & Habitat
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council,
“Illegal loggers steal into the Amazon, extract trees from the forest web, hunt
monkeys and birds, and leave behind clearings soon filled by settlers, road
builders and farmers.”39 In Madre De Dios,
the Mississippi-based Newman Lumber Company entered into a joint contract with
an Amazonian milling company and took part in “illegal logging in prohibited
areas, accumulated small-scale logging concessions as a means to evade
large-scale logging prohibitions, constructed unauthorized logging roads, and
violated a prohibition on operations by foreign-owned companies within 50km of
border.”40 Investigations and legal battles have shown government
corruption and a lack of environmental law enforcement as well as the
government’s initial unquestioning acceptance of the foreign investment. When the state finally halted the logging
activity, the US
embassy and Trent Lott lobbied on behalf of Newman Lumber. Under the new FTA, foreign investors will be
able to challenge environmental laws in “secret international arbitration”41
as well as apply the new FTA rules to previous investor agreements. It may create an opportunity for Newman
Lumber and the U.S. embassy
to challenge Peru’s ban on
their mahogany logging in Madre De Dios.
Migratory Marine & Bird Species Survival at Risk By U.S.
Investment
Peru
is host to a number of important nesting and foraging sites for migrating
populations of sea turtle. All of these
five species of turtles are listed on the U.S. Endangered Species Act as well
as the most protective listing of CITES.42 This includes green turtles, leatherbacks and
loggerhead turtles which have all been subject to capture by fishing
trawls. These animals could face more
impact if development increases along coastlines and contributes to more water
pollution like in the case of the Camisea Project natural gas pipeline. The USTR environmental report states that the
U.S. could also
"experience secondary effects connected with the alteration of spawning
areas that feed marine populations that spend significant life stages in the
Gulf of Mexico or other U.S. Waters" thereby threatening U.S. species
with lack of food sources.43
The USTR admits in their environmental interim report of
the Peru FTA, "many bird species face both direct and indirect threats to
survival, many of which are human-caused"44 and Peruvian
regions are "recognized widely as one of the highest global
priorities...since it holds exceptionally high biodiversity and is suffering
from acute habitat loss. Declines in
populations of many species have been a cause for growing concern."45 The report lists that twenty-nine are
considered "Birds of Conservation Concern" according to U.S. Fish
& Wildlife and the IUCN Red List consider five birds to be of global conservation
concern (including the Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Elegant Tern, Olive-sided
Flycatcher, Golden-winged Warbler and Cerulean Warbler.46 Large exports of coffee to the U.S. are
already a factor in the deforestation threatening these animals. Now they are facing increased investment
activity and resource extraction which could also destroy their habitats. The USTR says that "investment in
sectors such as agriculture, whose activities may affect migratory bird
habitat, may be either positive or negative."47 It is irresponsible and inappropriate to
willingly risk the existence of entire species on a trade agreement.
Mining & Investment Can Challenge Environmental Protections
The number-one increase in U.S. exports expected to result
from the Peru FTA is machinery such as that made by Caterpillar used for mining
projects. There are hydrocarbon reserves
on the Northern coast as well as in the jungle which investors are planning to
explore.48 Peru is the second
largest producer of silver, sixth in gold and copper, and a significant source
of zinc and lead. The majority of Peru’s exports to the U.S. are in minerals. As to the effects this trade agreement will
have, an article titled “Peru seen as FTA Gateway” by The Nation says, “The Peruvian private sector hopes that the FTAs
would encourage foreign investors to participate in a number of mineral and
forestry concessions in the country.”49 The Lima
Chamber of Commerce is also hoping for foreign investment in the famous
mountains of Cusco where there are reserves of
natural gas and iron ore. The U.S.
International Trade Commission states that the largest increase of U.S. imports,
by value, will be in Peruvian gold, copper and aluminum50
The U.S. International Trade Commission stated in a report
that the investment provisions of the FTA will most likely effect the mining
industry, which makes, with oil, about half of U.S. investment in Peru.51 These provisions will also pertain to all
investment agreements prior to the FTA.
Oxfam America
says the agreement would give foreign investors the right to challenge
environmental laws, which could hinder local communities’ efforts to regulate
the mining industry. In 2004, Newmont
Mining, a Denver-based company and long-time polluter who ran the Yanacocha
gold mine, attempted to open another mine on the Cerro Quilish. The community protested aggressively, and
Newmont eventually backed down.
According to journalist Kelly Hearn, if the FTA had been in effect at
that time, “Newmont could have sued the Peruvian government for untold amounts
of cash for having had to abandon its plans…in a poor country like Peru, such
fines -- or even the threat of them -- could scare the government away from
passing strong public-health or environmental laws that could jeopardize corporate
profits.”52 Newmont specifically has both a dirty and shady history
in which environmental activists claimed the mining, which used large amounts
of cyanide, contaminated local water sources as well as using a corrupt
Peruvian official to affect a court decision on investment.53
In March 2006, a coalition of environmental groups
including Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club and Earthjustice sent a letter to
Congress explaining how the Peru FTA is worse than CAFTA environmentally:
"CAFTA gave investors the right to file suit against
alleged breaches of natural resources contracts," the letter reads. "The U.S.-Peru FTA expands these rights
by broadly defining natural resources contracts to include every aspect of the
extractive, productive, and marketing processes. These new rights would enable multinational
corporations to attack legitimate attempts by communities to protect their
health and environment even if their activities are only tangentially related
to natural resource extraction."54
Mining waste and their runoff into watersheds are
destroying habitats in Peru
and new projects are being planned in the North for open pit mining of copper
and molybdenum. Endangered mountain
tapirs are moving out of protected areas due to industrial noise, where they
are then killed by miners, hunters and their dogs, and stolen by live-animal
traffickers. The World Conservation
Union says that the ecological future of the entire region is at risk as these
mining concessions are granted in watersheds throughout the country.55 Tropical fish populations are also threatened
from mining pollution. “Industrial gold
mining … has turned the Rio Huaypetue into a large pit of mud, sand, and
chemicals. Runnoff from the mine flows
down a much-diminished version of the Rio Huaypetue and eventually into the Amazon River.”56 Peru has signed the Basel
Convention, which was an international agreement to prevent inter-country waste
generated by silver mining. They focus
on byproducts of production which cause ecological damage, acute toxicity in
humans and infectious disease.
Unfortunately, Peru
continues to ignore the agreement. Like
CITES, the Peru FTA does not require that it is enforced.57
Trade Deficit and International Debt Leads To Foreign Exploitation
of the Environment
The US International Trade Commission expects Peru’s trade
deficit to increase as they begin to import more goods. They estimate that Peru must export more to balance
trade but that they can allow more foreign investment to “balance international
payments.”58 International
debt is nothing new for Peru. In fact, the World Bank’s International
Finance Corporation (IFC) funded millions of dollars worth of development and
investment in the infamous Yanacocha mine run by the American Newmont Mining
Corporation. A Colombian environmental
firm found that the company was destroying the surrounding environment by
contaminating water sources with runoff, killing off amphibians and fish as
well as causing industrial air pollution and a toxic mercury spill.59 Newmont said they could not have opened
Yanacocha, Latin America’s largest and most profitable gold mine, without the
help of the World Bank. In contrast, a
local citizen says
"The water that comes down from
the mountains is now brown, full of sediments.
The trout are dying.
"We have also lost our
traditional medicinal plants - they used to grow on the lands that are now
being mined - and the animals have been scared away."60
Bio-Piracy Laws
The forest being cut down in Peru provides invaluable resources
for the Peruvian people, including traditional medicines to help heal wounds
and cure diseases. 50% of Peruvians do
not have health care; 25% lack access to health care entirely.61 They rely on folk remedies and generic
medicines, but medicine still accounts for 44% of all household spending. In
times of crisis such as the cholera epidemic in 1991, the costs can grow even
beyond that.62 Not only will
the FTA raise prices for generic medicines over 44% within 7 years of
implementation according to the Health Ministry of Peru, but it will provide
pharmaceutical companies with retrogressive intellectual property laws, which
will allow them to claim any generic or traditional medicine using an
ingredient patented in the U.S. as in violation of their rights. The Health Ministry of Peru believes that
this will create a shift in the market share of pharmaceutical products as
brand-label drugs will grow from 17% to 69% of all available products, while
generic drugs will fall from 88% to 31% of available medicines.63 Concomitantly, prices will rise across the
board, particularly for brand-label drugs, which will rise in cost to 72% after
7 years, and 132% after 12 years.64
Indigenous populations who have no chance of affording medicine will
have to rely more heavily upon traditional and folk medicines, but those
medicines, often retrieved from the forest, are becoming extinct along with
many other species being eradicated with the inordinate scale of logging that
is taking place today. Even if the
people are able to obtain the diminishing resources they need to fight
ailments, they risk being fined or sued for bio-piracy if their community is
unfortunate enough to have been using an ingredient for centuries that has
recently been patented by a multinational pharmaceutical company. In the Peru FTA, there is no mention of the
Doha Talks, or the promises of the G7 to assure access to medicine for
all. Instead, there are only draconian measures
protecting pharmaceutical companies at the expense of lives.
Trade Rules & Token Environmental Provisions
The Peruvian free trade document states that the agreement
affirms obligations under the World Trade Organization established under the Marrakesh agreement in
1994. The WTO is well-known among
environmental and labor organizations as not being transparent during
decision-making processes and putting economic profit above any environmental
or human rights standards. It has given
one government the power to sue another government if their laws caused
economic losses or prevent trade. This
includes laws originally created to protect workers, nature or animal
welfare. The agreement contains token
environmental guidelines that are realistically unenforceable. For example, it states that a country should
not promote trade in a way that weakens environmental protections; but
afterwards states in a disclaimer, “Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed
to empower a Party’s authorities to undertake environmental law enforcement
activities in the territory of another party.”65 If Peru was to stop trade under the Marrakesh agreement, the U.S. would be allowed to sue for
lost profit.66 The reverse is
also true. In addition, countries are
only duty bound to obey preexisting environmental laws. The main problem is that there are too few of
them to begin with. You cannot break a
law that has not been created. There are
technical regulations allowing opportunity for redress if regulations governing
one party do not meet the standards of another, but it also states that any
environmental laws proposed by another country must be voluntary, flexible and
incentive-based.67
Exacerbation of Climate Change
The stipulations of the FTA adumbrate further promises of
global climate change. Climate change is
caused by greenhouse gases emitted by inordinate human consumption,
particularly by burning fossil fuels and by expanding the structural necessity
of factory farms worldwide. According to
the U.S. governmental agency the Energy Information Administration, pollution
through the combustion of fossil fuels account for 82% of anthropogenic
greenhouse gases, which have proven commensurate with the increase in global
temperature and the extreme weather patterns in recent years.68 The Peru FTA lays the groundwork for massive
corporate investment into the country's infrastructure, which will lead to the
creation of roads, airstrips and canals through the forests of Peru. The cost of these roads will not only be
suffered in deforestation, which will remove a vital means of converting
greenhouse gases into valuable oxygen, but it will also lead to greater
transportation of products from farm to market via trucks, airplanes and ships,
which will emit large quantities of greenhouse gases.
Consequential to pressure from low prices related to increased
U.S. cattle production, the
farms planted in Peru
will also lead to further greenhouse gas emissions. According to the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization, each cattle farm "generates [sic] 65% of human-related
nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of
CO2."69 The shift in
diet from vegetable-based to animal-based is a foregone conclusion for the
Peruvian people if the FTA is passed, since farmers in the domestic sector will
lose their livelihoods due to massive importation of food, including poultry
and beef, into the nation; and they will be forced into the cities wherein they
will form a market for cheap, factory-farmed products. By creating a job vacuum, the FTA model leads
to increasing illegal activity and emigration; one has only to look at Mexico,
where NAFTA has created a mere 650,000 maquiladora jobs compared to the 1.3
million farm jobs lost since its implementation.70 FTAs are geared to factory farmers and
multinational companies, twisting the majority of the public into a vicious
cycle of further poverty, degradation and urbanization as climate change
spirals out of control.
Invasive Species
When trade increases, so does the unintentional and
intentional movement of animals and plants to new habitats. These species consume food and space that
native species have spent thousands of years relying on for survival. As native species nesting sites and food
sources are depleted, they begin to die out.
Meanwhile, the invasive species may flourish because they do not have
natural predators in the area. Commonly
known animals that have destroyed natural environments and ecology due to human
introduction include starlings in the U.S.
and mice and rabbits to Australia. Violent programs of extermination commonly follow
to try and restore ecological balance, but at the expense of the liberty and
life of individual animals.
The IUCN has listed a number of invasive species in the United States which originated in South America, including the cane toad, fire ant and ornamental
fish. The USTR report also admits that
the U.S. has been a source
of invasive species for Latin America and that
the export of grain "is a pathway for invasive species, largely through
the inclusion of weed seeds. Weeds may
be introduced through spillate (e.g., in the vicinity of ports or railroad
yards) even where the grain is destined for food or feed rather than
sowing."71 One of the
main bodies pushing for the Peru FTA is the U.S. Grains Council, which plans to
greatly benefit from the trade agreement when Peru imports more tariff-free grain
for animal feed. The FTA is not going to
require any changes to a country's management or introduction of invasive
species or require regulation, such as prohibiting or regulating trade
"for the purpose of protecting against the introduction of agricultural
pests or diseases."72 In
a very clear disclaimer, the USTR admits the FTAs would neither address nor
take responsibility for harmful invasive species in the U.S., Peru
or Panama:
"Nor will it require (or, for
that matter, prevent) adding any regulations to protect against the
introduction of pests or diseases that may threaten wild native forest or
grazing lands, protected natural areas or legislatively designated
wilderness... Our preliminary assessment
suggests that there is a risk that invasive species may move between the Andean
region and the United States. Experience with species that have already
moved between the two regions demonstrates that such a risk is genuine and
potentially significant."73
Mangrove Forests Destroyed
for Unsanitary Shrimp Farms
Farming shrimp
for export, the shrimp industry provides a generous income for the government
and corporations operating within Peru. Despite past outbreaks of
Shrimp Viral Disease, the U.S.
imports large amounts of shrimp with relatively relaxed phytosanitary and
sanitary protections, inspecting less than 2% of total seafood imports. New
investor capital introduced as a result of the free trade agreement will expand
the already economically successful Peruvian shrimp industry.74
Expansion of the shrimp industry will lead to the uprooting of the mangrove
forests, as farmers search for new fertile waters. Not only do Mangrove Forests
provide unique ecosystems that serve as the habitats of endangered species of
migratory birds and other flora and fauna such as Manatees and Western
Sandpipers, but they also provide barriers to hurricanes and tropical storms,
and a conduit for the translation of carbon dioxide into oxygen. The shrimp
farms that would replace the forests create pollution in the form of waste, and
they also create conditions responsible for the spread of disease. Thus, the
Free Trade Agreement will lead to destruction of irreplaceable ecosystems in
order to expand a shrimp industry that remains unsatisfactorily regulated,
unhealthy, and unsanitary.
While Peru exports shrimp, it will be compelled by the
FTA to import subsidized produce and factory-farmed meat from the U.S. Once
barriers to trade are reduced and phytosanitary and sanitary measures dropped, U.S.
agricultural commodities will appear on the Peruvian markets with prices
cheaper than the produce farmed by the domestic sector. Factory farmed food is
cheap, because the welfare of animals are sacrificed for profit. Chickens are constrained
to battery cages smaller than their bodies; pigs are made to fattened in small
cages coated in their own feces; dairy cows are forcefully impregnated to
produce milk. The health of animals is an expense of Free Trade, as many are
infected by diseases caused by hormones, unsanitary living standards, and
disturbing cruelty and neglect. The ‘opening’ of markets will profit these
factory farms at the cost not only of the animals, but of small farmers as
well, who comprise significant portions of the Peruvian population. Previous
FTAs such as NAFTA and CAFTA have created striking joblessness in the domestic
sector, leading to increased migration, drug trafficking, and illegal logging.
For all the pretext of environmental stipulations there is still no reason to
believe that the cycle of displacement will not reoccur should the FTAs pass.
Supporting free trade agreements like the Peru and Panama
Trade Promotion Agreements means the continuation of an unsustainable,
exploitive and environmentally destructive global economy from which first
world companies profit at the expense of all other inhabitants of the
Earth. This is what legislators,
monocrop agriculturalists and business executives are willing to risk by supporting
the FTAs:
- Deforestation and water pollution due to increased
foreign investment for resource extraction such as new mining projects by US companies.
- The loss and pollution of habitats for many species,
including migratory marine animals and birds that live in Panama, Peru and the
U.S. as well as the displacement of indigenous human populations from their
ancestral homelands in the name of “development.”
- Expected introduction of invasive species to the United States and Peru that will threaten local
ecology.
- Altering spawning areas which marine species in U.S.
rely on to survive.
- U.S.
and Peruvian governments bargaining to enforce CITES prohibitions on the
logging on Mahogany, which has been ignored for years in return for an
agreement that will also damage the environment.
- Weakening Sanitary Standards in Peru and Panama, which some feel will
increase the risk of outbreaks such as bird flu.
- An increase in the U.S. exports of beef and pork,
boosting the profits of these already cruel and unsustainable industries.
- American agribusiness, such as the U.S. Grains Council, influencing
Peruvians and Panamanians to take up environmentally destructive
factory-farming practices in their own country.
References
1 U.S.
Trade Representative: Andean TPA Interim Environmental Review. pg. 16. 28 February 05. http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Section_Index.html
2 U.S.
Trade Representative: Andean TPA Interim Environmental Review. pg. 17.
28 February 05. http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Section_Index.html
3 Fraser, Barbara.
illegal-logging.info. "Peruvian
Logging Stands Under Attack." 31 January 06. http://www.illegal-logging.info/item_single.php?item=news&item_id=1230&approach_id=1
4 U.S.
Trade Representative: Andean TPA Interim Environmental Review. pg. 9.
28 February 05. http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Section_Index.html
5 Study on Logging and Subsistance Hunting. Edinburgh, GB. Project Las Piedras: A socio-ecological
investigation into the impact of illegal logging activity in Las Piedras, Madre de Dios, Peru. 2003. http://www.peruforests.org/documents/Studies/LCLasPiedrasFinalReport.pdf
6 Study on Logging and Subsistance Hunting. Edinburgh, GB. Project Las Piedras: A socio-ecological
investigation into the impact of illegal logging activity in Las Piedras, Madre de Dios, Peru. 2003. http://www.peruforests.org/documents/Studies/LCLasPiedrasFinalReport.pdf
7 U.S. Trade Representative: Andean
TPA Interim Environmental Review. pg.
14. 28 February 05. http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Section_Index.html
8 U.S. Trade Representative: Andean
TPA Interim Environmental Review. pg.
25. 28 February 05. http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Section_Index.html
9 U.S.
Trade Representative: Andean TPA Interim Environmental Review. pg. 39.
28 February 05. http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Section_Index.html
10 Jeerawat Na Thalang.
The Nation. "Peru
Seen As FTA Gateway" 17 June 2004. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-95624233.html
11 Mother Jones Magazine.
"A Piece of the Amazon Pie."
6 August 2003. http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/08/we_522_03c.html
12 Mother Jones Magazine.
"A Piece of the Amazon Pie."
6 August 2003. http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/08/we_522_03c.html
13 Mother Jones Magazine.
"A Piece of the Amazon Pie."
6 August 2003. http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/08/we_522_03c.html
14 Office of US Trade Representative. INTERIM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW U.S. / PANAMA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT. June 2004.
pg. 29
15 Loudon, Tom.
Quest For Peace Staff. Analysis:
Peruvian-US Free Trade Agreement http://quest.quixote.org/andean/peru/ftaanalysis
16 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. Livestock Sector Brief. 2005. http://www.fao.org/AG/AGAInfo/resources/en/publications/sector_briefs/lsb_PER.pdf
17 Domestic Poultry-Raising Practices in a Peruvian
Shantytown. 2003. http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:C2YOMEVQ5iQJ:webdrive.jhsph.edu/pwinch/SAHarvey_Acta_Tropica_2003.pdf+peru+poultry&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
18 U.S.
Grains Council. President’s Mission
Visits Markets With Potential. Feb. 2, 2004.
http://www.grains.org/page.ww?name=February+2%2C+2004+-+News+Release§ion=Latest+News+Archive+2004
19 Oxfam America
President To Congress: Vote No On US-Peru FTA.
19 July 2006. http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/campaigns/ft_agreements/news_publications/feature_story.2006-07-19.1227905046/print.html
20 Florida
Fair Trade Coalition. Resolution calling
on the U.S. Congress to renegotiate free trade agreement reached with the
Andean countries. 1 July 2006.
21 U.S.
Trade Representative. Foreign Trade
Barriers. http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:YiNmYd7jloUJ:www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2004/2004_National_Trade_Estimate/2004_NTE_Report/asset_upload_file205_4790.pdf+peru+%22avian+influenza%22+trade&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5
22 Center for Disease Control. Past Avian Influenza Outbreaks. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/outbreaks/past.htm#h7n2newyork
23 ATAC Report on U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion
Agreement. February 2006. http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Reports/asset_upload_file430_8966.pdf
24 Diplomacy Monitor.
http://www.diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dma1.nsf/tr/ttB4A2F741FD72BD8585257165001EB876
25 Center For Science and Public Interest. http://www.cspinet.org/new/200601271.html
26 Food Chemical News.
"U.S.
Exporters Ask FDA to Reconsider Carmine/Cochineal Labeling." 10 July 2006.
27 Massey, Barry.
"Richardson Vows to Outlaw
Cockfighting" The Albuquerque
Tribune. 28 Dec. 2006. http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/dec/28/richardson-vows-outlaw-cockfighting/
28 APEC Database. Peru
Economy Information, Tariff Headings for Chapter 01. Live Breeding Animals.
29 World Small Animal Veterinary Association. Animal Abuse: Legislation in North America
& Latin America. World Congress,
Vancouver, 2001. http://www.vin.com/VINDBPub/SearchPB/Proceedings/PR05000/PR00019.htm
30 The Humane Society of the United States. International Animal Fighting Campaign. http://www.hsus.org/about_us/humane_society_international_hsi/international_animal_fighting_campaign.html
31 U.S.
International Trade Commission. U.S.
Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral
Effects. p.57 June 2006. http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf
32 U.S.
International Trade Commission. U.S.
Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral
Effects. p.57 June 2006. http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf
33 Loudon, Tom.
Quest For Peace Staff. Analysis:
Peruvian-US Free Trade Agreement http://quest.quixote.org/andean/peru/ftaanalysis
34 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. Livestock Sector Brief. 2005. http://www.fao.org/AG/AGAInfo/resources/en/publications/sector_briefs/lsb_PER.pdf
35 U.S.
International Trade Commission. U.S.
Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral
Effects. p.82 June 2006. http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf
36 U.S.
International Trade Commission. U.S.
Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral
Effects. p.80 June 2006. http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf
37 U.S.
International Trade Commission. U.S.
Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral
Effects. p.108 June 2006. http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf
38 U.S.
International Trade Commission. U.S.
Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral
Effects. p.81 June 2006. http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf
39
National Resources Defense Council. Save
BioGems. Save the Tahuamanu
Rainforest. http://www.savebiogems.org/tahuamanu/
40 Edinburgh, GB.
Project Las Piedras: A socio-ecological investigation into the impact of
illegal logging activity in Las Piedras, Madre
de Dios, Peru. 2003. http://www.peruforests.org/documents/Studies/LCLasPiedrasFinalReport.pdf
41 Grist Magazine.
Beans For Lima: Activists are fighting a
new agreement between U.S.
and Peru. 11 May 2006.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/11/hearn/
42 U.S.
Trade Representative: Andean TPA Interim Environmental Review. pg. 38.
28 February 2005. http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Section_Index.html
43 U.S.
Trade Representative: Andean TPA Interim Environmental Review. pg. 39.
28 February 2005. http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Section_Index.html
44 U.S.
Trade Representative: Andean TPA Interim Environmental Review. pg. 25.
28 February 2005. http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Section_Index.html
45 U.S.
Trade Representative: Andean TPA Interim Environmental Review. pg. 21, 25.
28 February 2005. http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Section_Index.html
46 U.S.
Trade Representative: Andean TPA Interim Environmental Review. pg. 22.
28 February 2005. http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Section_Index.html
47 U.S.
Trade Representative: Andean TPA Interim Environmental Review. pg. 22.
28 February 2005. http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Section_Index.html
48 Export.gov Increased Market Access To Peru. http://www.export.gov/fta/complete/Peru/MarkAccess.pdf
49 The Nation. Peru
Seen As FTA Gateway. 17 June 2004. http://www.tusbc.org/whats_new/2004/June/English/the%20Nation%2017Jun04.doc
50 U.S.
International Trade Commission. U.S.
Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral
Effects. p.44 June 2006. http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf
51 U.S.
International Trade Commission. U.S.
Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral
Effects. p.115 June 2006. http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf
52 Grist Magazine.
Beans For Lima: Activists are fighting a
new agreement between U.S.
and Peru. 11 May 2006.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/11/hearn/
53 A 2005 Frontline and New York Times investigation found
a taped conversation between a Newmont executive and a corrupt Peruvian
official later found guilty of bribes and embezzlement who was also on a CIA
payroll. The conversation indicates that
Newmont was trying to use him to effect a Peruvian courts decision on an
investment.
54 Grist Magazine.
Beans For Lima: Activists are fighting a
new agreement between U.S.
and Peru. 11 May 2006.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/11/hearn/
55 Environment News Service. Conservationists Risk Their Lives For Peru’s
Highland Headwaters. 23 February
2005. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2005/2005-02-23-02.asp
56 Butler,
Rhett A. Exploring freshwater fish
habitats in the Rainforests of Peru.
Mongabay.com 27 November 2005. http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1127-biotope.html
57 American University.
TED Case Studies: Trade and Environment, Peru Mining. http://www.american.edu/TED/perumine.htm#r5
58 U.S.
International Trade Commission. U.S.
Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral
Effects. p.57 June 2006. http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf
59 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanacocha
60
BBC News. Aid Case Study: Peru’s
Yanacocha Gold Mine. 15 March 02. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1874369.stm
61
Chapter Eighteen of Peru
Trade Promotion Agreement: http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Final_Texts/asset_upload_file852_8712.pdf
62
Processo de Comunidades Negras en Colombia (PCN). "Letter to Congressman Charles
Rangel" 18 January 2007.
63 Citizen's Trade
Campaign. "Open Letter on Access to
Medicines and the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement"
64 Health Ministry
of Peru. "Evaluation of Potential Effects of the
Free Trade Agreement Being Negotiated With the United States on Access to
Medicines." April 2005. (unofficial
translation)
65 Health Ministry
of Peru. "Evaluation of Potential Effects of the
Free Trade Agreement Being Negotiated With the United States on Access to
Medicines." April 2005. (unofficial
translation)
66 Peru Trade
Promotion Agreement Technical Barriers to Trade, Article 7.5: http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Final_Texts/asset_upload_file29_8693.pdf
67 The agreement states that safeguards stopping a trade
can only be done during the transitions period, and only if it will result in
damaging a domestic industry or causing serious injury. The party applying the safeguard must agree
to trade liberalizing compensation in the form of concessions having equal
trade effects or equivalent to the value of the additional duties expected to
result. Serious injury means causing
domestic insecurity. Transition period
is only within 10 years.
68 Environmental Information Agency. "Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and
Energy." 19 July 2007.
69 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. "Livestock a Major Threat to
Environment" 29 November 2006.
70 Dallas
Morning News. "Finding the Promised
Jobs That Never Turned Up" 11 July 2007.
71 U.S.
Grains Council. President’s Mission Visits
Markets With Potential. 2 February
2004. http://www.grains.org/page.ww?name=February+2%2C+2004+-+News+Release§ion=Latest+News+Archive+2004
72 Peru
Trade Promotion Agreement: http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Final_Texts/asset_upload_file852_8712.pdf
73 Peru
Trade Promotion Agreement: http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Final_Texts/asset_upload_file852_8712.pdf
74
Public Citizen. "New Report Reveals How Pending Trade Agreements
Will Worsen Imported Food Safety Problem by Increasing Food Imports While
Replicating Limits on U.S. Food Safety Policy From Past Trade Deals" http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0725-07.htm
