255

Notes

1 Introduction

1. References are not given for most of the material in this chapter since it is basically a summary of the topics covered in the following chapters, which will be fully documented.

2. While environmental provisions are a relatively minor part of FTAs, they and other trade-related matters, such as labor, are becoming important aspects of many trade agreements. For a more general discussion of the trade agree-ments negotiated in recent decades see Lynch (2010).

3 Background Issues

1. Although Mexico won the dispute, it did not attempt to enforce the ruling and the US negotiated with tuna-fishing nations to protect the dolphins. As a consequence, the estimated number killed declined from over 139,000 in 1988 to around 2,000 in 1998 (NOAA 2002). However, the Marine Mammal Protection Act was amended in 1995 to make it comply with the GATT dis-pute panel ruling.

2. Most economists and other free trade advocates recognize that there are potential conflicts between multilateral environmental and trade agree-ments. They often blame these problems on trade and/or policy failures.

3. Many environmentalists and environmental organizations oppose free trade agreements and have been part of the protests that erupted in and that have plagued subsequent international meetings and trade liberaliza-tion efforts. For statements of four major environmental organizations see: Friends of the Earth (2001), National Wildlife Federation (2000), Sierra Club (2001) and World Wildlife Fund (2002a); see also Sampson (2000) and Naím (2000).

4. While Bhagwati is a very strong free trade advocate, he recognizes many of the problems and issues involved in the implementation of freer trade regimes, including those resulting from preferential or regional trade agree-ments. In addition to the paper cited (Bhagwati 2000), see also his book, Free Trade Today, for a succinct presentation of his views (Bhagwati 2002), as well as his In Defense of Globalization (Bhagwati 2004).

5. The development of ISO 14000 standards on the environment may offer a long-run approach to handling environmental issues in international trade since these will provide a common set of standards for industries to utilize in developing and implementing environmentally appropriate pro-cedures (UNCTAD 2001). Schaper (2000, p. 34) indicates that there was a large increase in ISO 14000 certified firms during the 1990s, especially in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico.

256 Notes

5 Environment and GATT/WTO

1. The trade disputes are documented on the WTO’s dispute settlement website: http://www. wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm

6 FTA Trade Provisions

1. Chaytor (2009, pp. 3–11) uses the following four categories: 1) scope of envi-ronmental provisions, 2) environmental cooperation, 3) reference to interna-tional environmental agreements and 4) national laws on environment, but with various topics under each. For example, under “scope” are: references to sustainable development, natural resources and the environment, other the-matic areas and general exception clauses. National laws include enforcement where the parties: “agree not to encourage trade or foreign direct investment to enhance or maintain a competitive advantage by: (a) lowering the level of protection provided by domestic environmental and public health legisla-tion; (b) derogating from, or failing to apply such legislation.”

2. Less and Kim (2008), Less and Gigli (2008) and Gigli (2009) are updates to the OECD (2007) publication, a comprehensive analysis of environmental provision in FTAs.

3. The EC (or European Union) consists of the following nations: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Finland, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The CARIFORUM States are Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago.

4. EFTA consists of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.5. SACU (Southern African Customs Union) is composed of Botswana, Lesotho,

Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland.6. CAFTA consists of the Central American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador,

Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

7 US Trade Agreements

1. Big-leaf mahogany is listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endanger Species (CITES) as an endangered species and the activities are to include a strategic plan for its management and preservation, including the financing of the activity.

2. TEPAC (Trade and Environmental Advisory Committee) noted, in its report on the agreement, that the language with respect to expropriation could be confusing since it included a provision allowing some types of indirect expropriation. However, the final part of that section stated that environ-mental measures could not be considered expropriations except in rare cir-cumstances (TEPAC 2007).

3. A number of factors have contributed to the failure of the FTAA negotia-tions. First is the sheer magnitude of the project, with some 34 countries

Notes 257

with differing situations with respect their economies and other factors; sec-ond is the nature of the negotiations with a situation similar to that which has prevented convergence in the Doha Round of negotiations with US and developing countries taking strong and mutually inconsistent positions, and finally there was a change in leadership in a few Latin American countries with strong left-leaning governments in Venezuela and Bolivia, who took strong anti-American positions (the strong opposition to the Iraq war could also have contributed to a deterioration of trust).

8 FTAs in the Americas

1. Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración (ALADI) consists of Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. It was created by the Treaty of Montevideo in 1960, which also created the Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA) origi-nally including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, but now with the 12 members listed above for ALADI.

2. The European Free Trade Area (EFTA) consists of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

3. The three are General System of Trade Preferences (GSTP), Latin American Integration Association (ALADI), and Protocol for Trade Negotiation (PTN). See Table 9.3 for membership in these organizations.

4. The Chile–EU FTA has extensive provisions for cooperation covering many areas in addition to environmental cooperation. Title I of the agreement is concerned with cooperation (Title IV is on trade). The agreement, thus, is much broader than just trade.

5. Venezuela was to become a full member in 2006 but its membership has not been approved by one of the members (Paraguay) due, at least in part to the anti-American attitude of Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chávez (Fast Facts 2007).

9 European Trade Agreements

1. See Chapter 6, Note 3.2. See Chapter 6, Note 3.3. Original OCT members, as listed on the WTO RTA database, were French

Polynesia, French Southern Territories, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Wallis and Futuna Islands. Current mem-bers are: Anguilla, Aruba, British Indian Ocean Territory, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), French Polynesia, French Southern Territories, Greenland, Mayotte, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Virgin Islands, British [Virgin Islands] and Wallis and Futuna Islands.

10 Trade Agreements in ROW

1. APEC is composed of the following countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines,

258 Notes

Singapore, Thailand, United States, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Hong Kong, China, People’s Republic of China, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Peru, Russia and Vietnam.

2. SPARTECA consists of the following countries: Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

3. The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership includes Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore.

11 Environmental Impact Analysis

1. The case was Public Citizen v. Office of US Trade Representative, filed by the organizations Public Citizen, Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth in the District Court of Washington, DC (782 F. Supp. 139 (1992)). Judge Richey ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on January 7, 1992 and ordered a NEPA-style EIS. However, the government appealed and the Circuit Court reversed the opinion in a ruling decided September 24, 1993 (5 F. 3rd 549 (1993)). The plaintiffs had filed an earlier suit, in 1991, but it was dismissed as they did not have standing.

2. The TPSC is the: “Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC), established under section 242 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, 19 USC section 1872, is the principal staff-level mechanism for interagency decision making on US trade policy. The current participants in the TPSC process with respect to the implementation of these Guidelines include all agencies with relevant environmental, economic and foreign policy expertise.”

3. The descriptions of each stage are taken from the initial environmental assessment of the Canada–Panama FTA.

4. The United States does carry out other analyses, including labor impacts, as well as considering other factors through a series of advisory committees.

5. The claim of developing the SIA methods from scratch should be viewed skep-tically, since the approaches used by Canada, the US and others were factors in the development of the EU’s assessment procedures; see, e.g., Kirkpatrick and George (2006, p. 326) who say “The initial methodology for SIA of trade agreements was developed in early 1999 ... building on earlier North American experience of assessing the environmental impacts of trade policy.”

6. Several different CGE models are available and have been used. These include GTAP, Berkeley, Michigan, Baylor, US Model and RUNS (Gallagher et al. 2001).

12 Impacts of Environmental Provisions

1. Chantal Carpentier, at the time of the article, was head of the Economy and Trade Program of the CEC.

2. The interactive atlas is located on the CEC website at http://www.cec.org/Page.asp? PageID=924&SiteNodeID=495

3. The CEC maintains a registry of submissions wherein a complete record of each citizen submission is fully documented. See http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=751&ContentID =&SiteNodeID=250&BL_ExpandID=

Notes 259

4. “The Submitters alleged that the appropriate authorities failed to effectively enforce environmental laws during the evaluation process of the project ‘Construction and Operation of a Public Harbor Terminal for Tourist Cruises on the Island of Cozumel, State of Quitana Roo’.” See http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=924Site NodeID=543

5. The OAS (2009, p. 4) reported: “The suspension of Honduras from the exercise of its right to participate in the OAS, and the decision of the US Government to suspend development aid for Honduras, including support for CAFTA-DR environmental standards has caused significant delays in the execution of programs and has considerably affected regional programs.”

6. The GAO report was prepared by Nathan Associates but heavily edited by GAO and published as a GAO document.

7. The Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery was the office in charge of trade negotiations for CARICOM. It is now the Office of Trade Negotiations (OTN).

260

References

Abbott, Frederick M. “The Political Economy of NAFTA Chapter 11: Equity before the Law and the Boundaries of North American Integration.” Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 23(1999–2000), 303–9.

Ackerman, Frank. “The Shrinking Gains from Trade: A Critical Assessment of Doha Round Projections.” Working Paper No. 05–01, Medford MA: Tufts University, Global Development and Environment Institute, http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae, 2005.

Ackerman, Frank and Kevin P. Gallagher. “The Shrinking Gains from Global Trade Liberalization in Computable General Equilibrium Models: A Critical Assessment.” International Journal of Political Economy 37:1 (Spring 2008), 50–77.

Ackerman, Frank, Luke Ney, Kevin Gallagher and Regina Flores. “Environmental Impacts of the US–Mexico Corn Trade under NAFTA.” http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/ ECONOMY/tufts-corn=e-en.pdf, 2002.

Agüero, Raquel. “Environmental Legislation in MERCOSUR”, in M. E. Di Paola (ed.), 1st International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in Latin America – Proceedings. Buenos Aires, 2002, pp. 113–20.

Alanis-Ortega, Gustavo and Ana K. González-Lutzenkitchen. “No Room for the Environment: The NAFTA Negotiations and Mexican Perspective on Trade and the Environment”, in Carolyn L. Deere and Daniel C. Esty (eds), Greening the Americas: NAFTA’s Lesson for Hemispheric Trade. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press, 2002, pp. 41–60.

Alf, Lisa, Claudia Assmann, Marianne Bauer and Jenny Weinkopf. “Toward a Transatlantic Dialogue on Trade and Environment: A Comparison of Approaches in Environmental Impact Assessments of Trade Agreements.” Bologna Center Journal of International Affairs 13 (Spring 2010), 1–12, http://bjournal.org/2008/toward-a-transatlantic-dialogue-on-trade-and-environ-ment?

America.gov. “Deal with Congress Likely to Advance Free Trade Agreements.” http://www. america.gov/st/washfile-english/20070511172000saikceinawz0.028, May 11, 2007.

Anderson, Kym. “Environmental and Labor Standards: What Role for the WTO?”, in Anne O. Krueger (ed.), The WTO as an International Organization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Anderson, Kym and Chantal Pohl Nielsen. “GMOs, Food Safety and the Environment: What Role for Trade Policy and the WTO?” Policy Discussion Paper No. 0034, Centre for International Economic Studies, University of Adelaide, September 2000, https://www. gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/691.pdf

Andersen, Mark C., Heather Adams, Bruce Hope and Mark Powell. “Risk Assessment for Invasive Species.” Risk Analysis 24:4 (2004), 787–93.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). “International Services.” http://www. aphis.usda.gov/international_safeguarding/index.shtml, accessed August 30, 2010.

References 261

Anríquez, Gustavo. “Trade and Environment: An Economic Literature Survey.” WO 02–16, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. University of Maryland, College Park, http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=5580&fty=.pdf, 2002.

Araya, Mónica. “Mexico’s NAFTA Trauma: Myth and Reality”, in Carolyn L. Deere and Daniel C. Esty (eds), Greening the Americas: NAFTA’s Lessons for Hemispheric Trade. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press, 2002, pp. 61–78.

Arrow, Kenneth, Bert Bolin, Robert Costanza, Partha Dasgupta, Carl Folke, C. S. Holling, Bengt-Owe Jansson, Simon Levin, Karl-GSran Miler, Charles Perrings, David Pimentel. “Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment.” Ecological Economics 15 (1995), 91–5.

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Environmental Ministerial Meeting on Sustainable Development.” Toronto, Canada, June 9–11, 1997, http://www.apec.org/apec /ministerial_statements/sectoral_ministerial/environment/1997_environment.html

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Marine Science and Technology.” http://www.apec.org/apec/.../2002.MedialibDownload.v1.html?...1, 2002

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Mission Statement.” http://www.apec.org/ apec/about_apec/mission_statement.html, accessed September 25, 2010.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). “The ASEAN–Japan Plan of Action.” http://www.aseansec.org/15502.htm, 2010.

Audley, John.“Environment and Trade: The Linchpin to Successful CAFTA Negotiations?” Issue Brief, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, July 2003, http://www.carnegie endowment.org/pdf/files/TED_CAFTA_Audley_July2003.pdf

Audley, John J. “The Evolution of United States Trade and Environment Policy.” Bridges 8:6 (2004), 16–19.

Bailey, James E. “Free Trade and the Environment: Can NAFTA Reconcile the Irreconcilable?” American University Journal of International Law and Policy 8 (1992–93), 839.

Baldwin, Richard and Patricia Low (eds). Multilateralizing Regionalism: Challenges for the Global Trading System. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Barnesrichardson.com. “Congress and Administration Announce New Trade Policy.” http:// www.barnesrichardson.com/news/overview.aspx?NewsID= 323735705, May 11, 2007.

Batra, Ravi, Hamid Beladi and Ralph Frasca. “Environmental Pollution and World Trade.” Ecological Economics 27 (1998), 171–82.

Beghin, John, David Rolan-Hoist and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe. “A Survey of the Trade and Environmental Nexus: Global Dimensions.” OECD Economic Studies No. 23. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Winter 1994.

Bhagwati, Jagdish. “The Case for Free Trade.” Scientific American (November 1993), 42–9.

Bhagwati, Jagdish. “On Thinking Clearly About the Linkage between Trade and the Environment.” Environment and Development Economics 5:4 (2000), 485–96.

Bhagwati, Jagdish. Free Trade Today. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.

262 References

Bhagwati, Jagdish. In Defense of Globalization. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Bhagwati, Jagdish. Termites in the Trading System: How Preferential Agreements Undermine Free Trade. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Blackwelder, Brent and Carl Pope. “Letter to Congress.” Friends of the Earth and Sierra Club, March 12, 2008, http://www.foe.org/pdf/ColombiaStatement.pdf

Blum, Jonathon S. “The FTAA and Fast Track to Forgetting the Environment: A Comparison of NAFTA and MERCOSUR as Models for the Hemisphere.” Texas International Law Journal 35 (2000), 436–57.

Böhringer, Christoph. “Sustainability Impact Assessment: The Use of Computable General Equilibrium Models.” Économie internationale 99 (2004), 9–26.

Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC). BECC Annual Report 2008: Integrating Environmental Solutions for the U.S.–Mexican Border. 2009.

Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC). “BECC and NADB: Successful Bi-National Cooperation.” http://www.cocef.org/english/index.html, accessed May 3, 2010a.

Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC). “Program 5. Public Participation and Capacity Building.” http://www.cocef.org/english/index.html, accessed May 3, 2010b.

Borregaard, Nicola. “Trade Liberalization in Chile: What Is the Evidence of Its Effects and How Can Sustainable Development Be Safeguarded?” Discussion Paper Number 5, Working Group on Development and Environment in the Americas, June 2004, http://ase.tufts. edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Borregaard%20Draft.doc

Bottari, Mary. “NAFTA Investor ‘Rights’: A Corporate Dream, A Citizen Nightmare.” The Multimedia Monitor 27:4 (2001), http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01april/corp1. html

Bouët, Antoine and David Laborde. “Eight Years of Doha Trade Talks: Where Do We Stand?” Washington, DC: IFPRI Issue Brief 61, November 2009.

Bouët, Antoine, Simon Mevel and David Orden. “More or Less Ambition in the Doha Round: Winners and Losers from Trade Liberalization with a Development Perspective.” https;//www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/2508.pdf, 2007.

Bourgeois, Jacques, Kamala Dawar and Simon J. Evenett. “A Comparative Analysis of Selected Provisions in Free Trade Agreements.” Brussels: DG Trade, October 2007, http://trade .ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2008/march/tradoc_138103.pdf

Boza, Rafael T. “Protecting Andean Traditional Knowledge and Biodiveresity Perspectives under the U.S.–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.” Current International Trade Law Journal 16 (2007–08), 76–93.

Brack, Duncan. “Balancing Trade and the Environment.” International Affairs 71:3 (1995), 497–514.

Brack, Duncan and Kevin Gray. Multilateral Environmental Agreements and the WTO. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, September 2003.

Bravo Vera, Gonzalo. “Border Environmental Cooperation Commission.” World Bank/WBI’s CBNRM Initiative, http://www.cocef.org/english/index.html, February 6, 1998.

References 263

Business Roundtable. “U.S.–Dominican Republic/Central America Free Trade Agreement Myths and Realities.” http://trade.businessroundtable.org/trade_2005/cafta_dr/myths.htm, accessed August 7, 2010.

CAFTA–DR. “CAFTA–DR Environmental Cooperation: Regional Program Highlights.” http://www.state.gov/g/oes/env/trade/caftacooperation/142691.htm, April 2010.

Cairns Group. “Communiqué: 35th Cairns Group Ministerial Meeting, Punta del Este, Uruguay.” April 19–20, 2010, http://cairnsgroup.org/media/100420_communique.htmlcommunique.html

Cameron, H. “The Evolution of the Trade and Environment Debate at the WTO”, in A. Najim, M. Halle and R. Melendez-Ortiz (eds), Trade and Environment: A Resource Book. International Institute for Sustainable Development, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, and Regional International Networking Group, http://www. trade-environment.org, 2007.

Canada–Chile Commission for Environmental Cooperation. “2005 Report from the Canada–Chile Commission for Environmental Cooperation.” Ottawa, 2005, http://www.ec.gc.ca/can-chil/default.asp?lang=En&n=11CB3CE0–1&printerversion=true

Canada–Chile Commission for Environmental Cooperation. “Meeting Outcomes Statement: Canada–Chile Commission for Environmental Cooperation Council’s Tenth Session.” Ottawa, May 4, 2010, http://www.ec.gc.ca/can-chil/AB668882–287D-41DA-B8C0- 866FDF0D15FF/JointStatementFinal(eng)v1.doc

Canada Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). “Framework for Conducting Environmental Assessments of Trade Negotiations.” February 2001, http:// www.international.gc.ca/enviro/assets/pdfs/EnvironA/overview/FinalFramework-e.pdf

Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA). “International Trade Agreements – Commentary.” http://www.cela.ca/collections/other/interna-tional-trade-agreements-commentary, accessed May 23, 2010.

Canada–Peru Committee on the Environment. “First Canada–Peru Committee on the Environment Meeting.” November 24–5, 2009, Lima, Peru, http://www.ec.gc.ca/ caraib-carib/default.asp?lang=En&n=7F710D18–1

Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM). “Update on the CARIFORUM–EC Economic Partnership Agreement.” Presented to the 88th Session of the ACP Council of Ministers, Brussels, December 14–18, 2008, http://www.acpsec.org/en/council08/ CARIFORUMl.doc

CARICOM Secretariat. “CARIFORUM–EC Dialogue on Regional Integration & Cooperation: Operational Conclusions.” Guyana, July 21, 2009, http://www.caribbeanpressreleases. com/articles/5326/1/CARIFORUM-EC—Dialogue

Carpentier, Chantal L. “Cooperation: Ongoing Assessment of Trade Liberalization in North America.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24:4 (December 2006), 259–72.

Carrington, Edwin W. “Remarks: CARIFORUM Council of Ministers.” Barbados, June, 15–16, 2009, http://www.caribbeanpressreleases.com/articles/5217/1/CARICOM-SG-Remarks- CARIFORUM-Council-of-Ministers-15–16-June-2009-Barbados/Page1.html

Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1962.Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “Results and

Recommendations of the EU’s Sustainability Impact Assessments must

264 References

Feed into Trade Policy-making and Negotiations.” http://ciel.org/Tae/SIA_Recommendations_28Mar06.html, March 2006.

Charnovitz, Steve. “No Time for NEPA: Trade Agreements on Fast Track.” Minnesota Journal of Global Trade 3 (1994), 195ff.

Charnovitz, Steve. “Trade and the Environment in the WTO.” Journal of International Economic Law 10 (September 2007); GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 338; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 338, available at SSRN, http://ssrn. com/abstract=1007028

Chaytor, Beatrice. Environmental Issues in Economic Partnership Agreements: Implications for Developing Countries. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), September 2009.

Chile Dirección de Relaciones Económicos Internacionales (DIRECON). “Se Constituyó Comision Coordinadora de Cooperación Ambiental Vinculada a Los Acuerdos De Comercio Suscritos por Chile.” http://rc.direcon.cl/noticia/2680, September 21, 2010.

Claro, Edmundo, Nicolas Lucas, Mehesh Sugathan, Mario Marconini and Enrique Lindo. Trade in Environmental Goods and Services and Sustainable Development: Domestic Considerations and Strategies for WTO Negotiations. Policy Discussion Paper. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 2007, http://www.trade-environment.org/page/outputs/egs/compendium_dec_2007.pdf

Clinton, William J. “Executive Order 13141: Environmental Review of Trade Agreements.” Office of the President, Washington, DC, 1999.

Colyer, Dale. “Agriculture and the Environment in Free Trade Agreements.” Journal of Food, Agriculture and the Environment 1 (2003a), 145–7.

Colyer, Dale. “Agriculture and Environment Issues in Free Trade Agreements.” The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Policy 4:2 (2003b), 123–43.

Colyer, Dale. “Environmental Issues in the FTAA.” Agriculture, Trade and the Environment in the Caribbean and the Americas: Proceedings of the 24th West Indies Agricultural Economics Conference. The Caribbean Agro-Economic Society, St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, December 2003c.

Colyer, Dale. “Environmental Provisions in Trade Agreements.” Paper Presented at the short course “Trade and the Environment: Dealing with Pollution and Natural Resource Management in a Globalizing World.” Washington, DC: World Bank, December 8, 2004.

Colyer, Dale. “Agriculturally Related Environmental Issues in Free Trade Agreements.” Poster Paper at the 26th Conference of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, Gold Coast, Australia. 2006a.

Colyer, Dale. “The Role of Science in Trade Agreements.” The Estey Centre Journal of Law and Trade Policy 7:1 (2006b), 84–95.

Colyer, Dale. “Green Trade Agreements: Comparison of Canada, US and WTO.” Paper presented at the CAES/NAREA meeting, Quebec City, June 29–July 1, 2008.

Colyer, Dale. “Environmental Provisions in Recent Regional Trade Agreements (2008 and 2009). The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 11:1 (2010), 321–35.

Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambient (CONAMA) “Reforma a la Institucionalidad Ambiental.” http://www.conama.cl/portal/1301/property-value-15546.html, July 2, 2010.

References 265

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). Assessing Environmental Effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): An Analytic Framework (Phase II) and Issues Study. Montreal, 1999.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “Internal Review of the North American Fund for Environmental Cooperation (NAFEC).” Montreal, June 2000, http://www. cec.org/Storage/52/4456_nafec2000eval_en.pdf

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The North American Mosaic: A State of the Environment Report. Montreal, 2001.

Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “Internal Review of the North American Fund for Environmental Cooperation (NAFEC).” Montreal, June 2002.

Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “Ten Years of North American Environmental Cooperation: Report of the Ten-year Review and Assessment Committee to the Council for Environmental Cooperation.” Montreal, June 2004.

Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “Registry of Citizen Submissions.” http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=751&SiteNodeID=250&BL_ExpandID=99, accessed May 1, 2010a.

Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC). “Framework for Public Participation in CEC Activities.” http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=937&SiteNode ID=536&BL_ExpandID=, accessed September 8, 2010b.

Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE). “Agenda of the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment.” http://www.Wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/cte00_e.htm, April 27, 2002.

Common Frontiers. “‘Free’ Trade and the Environment in the Americas.” 1998, http://www. commonfrontiers.ca/Current_Activities/Free_Trade_Kit/Environ.html

Conservation VIP. “Conservation VIP Patagonia Project.” http://patagonia.conservationvip.org/ The_Park.html#0, accessed August 2010.

Cooper, Richard N. “Comment.” pp. 20–24 in Jeffrey J. Schott, ed., Free Trade Agreements: US Strategies and Priorities. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2004.

Copeland, Brian R. and M. Scott Taylor. Trade and the Environment: Theory and Evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003a.

Copeland, Brian R. and M. Scott Taylor. “Trade, Growth and the Environment.” Working paper 9823, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, July 2003b, http://www.nber.org/ papers/w9823

Copeland, Brian R. and M. Scott Taylor. “Trade, Growth, and the Environment.” Journal of Economic Literature 42 (March 2004), 7–71.

Corn, M. Lynne, Eugene H. Buck, Jean Rawson and Eric Fischer. Harmful Non-Native Species: Issues for Congress. CRS Report RL30123. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, April 1999.

Council of Environmental Quality and US Trade Representative (CEQ and USTR). “Guidelines for Implementation of Executive Order 13141.” Washington, DC, December 2000.

Council of the European Union (CEU). “2009 Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy.” Presidency Report, Brussels, December 2009,

266 References

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri= CELEX:52006 DC0567:EN:NOT

Daly, Herman E. “The Perils of Free Trade.” Scientific American (November 1993), 51–5.

Dasgupta, Susmita, Benoit Laplante, Hua Wang and David Wheeler. “Confronting the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Journal of Economic Perspectives16:1 (Winter 2002), 142–68.

De Gucht, Karel. “Aid 2 Trade.” Paper presented at the EU Trade Policy Towards Developing Countries Conference, Brussels, March 16, 2010.

Deere, Carolyn L. and Daniel C. Esty (eds). Greening the Americas: NAFTA’s Lesson for Hemispheric Trade. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press, 2002.

Defenders of Wildlife “Multilateral Environmental Agreements.” http://www.defendersof wildlife.org/programs_and_policy/international_conservation/multilateral_environmental_agreements/index.php, accessed March 24, 2010.

Del Gatto, Fillipo, Bernado Ortiz-von Halle, Braulio Buendía and Chen Hin Keong. “Trade Liberalization and Forest Verification: Learning for the US–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.” Verifor Briefing Paper, http://www,verifor.org/RESIURCES/briefing-papers/9-perutradeliberalizatio.pdf, February 2009.

Denniston, Lyle and Carl M. Cannon (eds). “Trade Pact Faces New Hurdle: U.S. Judge Orders Environmental Review of NAFTA.” Baltimore Sun. July 1, 1993, http://articles.baltimore sun.com/1993–07-01/news/1993182027_1_nafta-treaty-pact

Drajem, Mark. “U.S. Seeks to Push Ahead with Trade Deal on Green Technologies.” Bloomberg. Com, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= 20670001sid= aDhH44bc0mak, April 26, 2010.

Echandi, Roberto. “The New Generation of International Investment Agreements: Recent Developments in the Asia–Pacific Region.” Asia Europe Journal 7:1 (2009), 127–44.

Ederington, Josh. “Should Trade Agreements Include Environmental Policy?” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 4:1 (Winter 2010), 84–102.

Eglin, Richard. “Trade and Environment”, in Jagdish Bhagwati and Mathias Hirsch (eds), The Uruguay Round and Beyond: Essays in Honor of Arthur Dunkel. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999.

Environmental Law Institute (ELI). “Inter-American Environmental Program.” http://www. eli.org/Program_Areas/ interamerican4.cfm, accessed September 22, 2010.

Esty, Daniel C. Greening the GATT: Trade, Environment and the Future. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 1994.

Esty, Daniel. “Bridging the Trade-Environment Divide.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15:3 (2001), 113–30.

Esty, Daniel and Maria H. Ivanova. “Key Functions Are Currently Not Being Provided or Are Inadequate”, in D. Esty and M. Ivanova (eds), Global Environmental Governance: Options & Opportunities. New Haven; Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2002.

European Commission (EC). “Global Europe: Competing in the World.” Brussels, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0658en01.pdf, 2006a.

European Commission (EC). Handbook for Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment. Brussels: European Commission, External Trade, March 2006b, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib /docs/2006/march/tradoc_127974.pdf

References 267

European Commission (EC). “Mexico: Country Strategy Paper 2007–2013.” Brussels, 2007, http://eeas.europa.eu/mexico/csp/07_13_en.pdf

European Commission (EC). “Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment of the Negotiations on a Free Trade Area between the EU and Ukraine: Position Paper.” Brussels, April 2009a,http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/may/tradoc_143165.pdf

European Commission (EC). “CARIFORUM – Technical Co-operation Facility (TCF).” CRIS Decision No. 2009/021–428, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/doc-uments/aap/2009/ af_aap_2009 _caribbean.pdf, 2009b.

European Commission (EC). “Commission Services Position Paper on the Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment of the Association Agreement between the EU and Central America.” http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/june/tradoc_146262.pdf, June 6, 2010a.

European Commission (EC). “EU Launches Major New Trade Relationship with Latin America.” Brussels, May 18, 2010b, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/ index.cfm?id=573

European Commission (EC). “Firewood Certification in Chile.” http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/ documents/case-studies/chile_firewood-certification_en.pdf, accessed October 16, 2010c.

European Free Trade Association (EFTA). “The EFTA States and Canada sign Free Trade Agreement.” January 26, 2008, http://www.efta.int/free-trade/free-trade-news/2008–01-26 -efta-canada-sign-fta.aspx

European Union (EU). “EU and Chile Settle WTO/ITLOS Swordfish Dispute.” http:// europa-eu-un.org/home/print.asp?1=1&1g=5, January 24, 2001.

Evans, Edward A. “Economic Dimensions of Invasive Species.” Choices (Second Quarter 2003), 5–9.

Fast Facts 2007. “MERCOSUR.” (http://www.exportvirginia.org/fast_facts/FastFacts2007 /FF_Issues_Mercosur_07.pdf), May 2007.

Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). “Mexico: Situation and Cooperation.” http://www.bmz.de/en/what_we_do/countries_regions/lateinamerika/ mexiko/zusammenarbeit.html, accessed October 17, 2010.

Fernandez, Linda. “Transportation Services, Air Quality, and Trade.” Paper presented at the Fourth North American Symposium on Assessing the Environmental Effects of Trade, Phoenix, AZ, April 23, 2008, http://www.cec.org/Storage/61/5410_Fernandez- Transportation-Symposium08–21apr_en.pdf

Fernandez, Linda. “Environmental Implications of Trade Liberalization on North American Transport Services.” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 10 (2010), 133–45.

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. “Framework for Conducting Environmental Assessments of Trade Negotiation.” http://www.international.gc.ca/tradeagreements-accords-commerciaux/ds/Environment.aspx?lang=en, 2001.

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. “Canada–Peru Free Trade Agreement Negotiations.” http://www.international.gs.ca/trade-agreements-accords- comerciaux/agracc/andean-andin/can-peru-perou.aspx, 2008.

Frankel, Jeffrey. “The Crusade for Free Trade: Evaluating Clinton’s International Economic Policy.” Foreign Affairs (March–April 2001), http://www.foreignaf-fairs.com/print/ 36875?page+show

268 References

Frankel, Jeffrey A. and Andrew K. Rose. “Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 87 (February 2005), 85–91.

Freeman, Elyse M. “Regulatory Expropriation under NAFTA Chapter 11: Some Lessons from the European Court of Human Rights.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 42 (2003–04), 176–215.

Friends of the Earth. “Trading Away Our Environment: The Free Trade Area of the Americas.” Position Paper, Washington, DC, 2001, http://www.foe.org/international/ftaabrief.html

Friends of the Earth. “The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and Environmental Protection.” http://www.foe.org/camps/intl/greentrade/CAFTA Environmental factsheet.pdf, nd.

Gallagher, Kevin. Free Trade and the Environment: Mexico, NAFTA, and Beyond. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004.

Gallagher, Kevin. “Industrial Pollution in Mexico: Did the NAFTA Matter?”, in Carolyn L. Deere and Daniel C. Esty (eds),, Greening the Americas: NAFTA’s Lesson for Hemispheric Trade. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press, 2006, pp. 119–42.

Gallagher, Kevin P. and Robin Taylor. “International Trade and Air Pollution: The Economic Costs of Air Pollution by Waterborne Commerce Vessels in the United States.” Working Paper 03–08, Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, September 2003.

Gallagher, Kevin, Frank Ackerman and Luke Ney. “Environmental Review of Trade Agreements: Assessing the North American Experience.” Study pre-pared for the North American Committee for Environmental Cooperation, December 2001.

Gallagher, Peter and Ysé Serret. “Environment and Regional Trade Agreements: Developments in 2009.” OECD Working Paper 2010/1, Paris, April 29, 2010.

Garber, Peter M., ed. The U.S.–Mexico Free Trade Agreement. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993.

Gigli, Simone. “Update on Regional Trade Agreements and Environment: Developments in 2008.” Paris: OECD, March 24, 2009.

Gilmore, David. “Expanding NAFTA to Include All of the Western Hemisphere: Making Chile the Next Member.” Journal of International Law & Practice 3 (1994), 413ff.

Gonzalez, George R. and Maria E. Gastelum, “Overview of the Environmental Laws of Mexico.” Haight, Brown & Bonesteel LLP, http://www.natlaw.com/pubs/spmxen13.htm, 1999.

Gray, Denice, Barry Krissoff and Marinos Tsigas. “Trade and Environmental Linkages for Food and Agriculture”, in D. R. Henderson, C. R. Handy and S. A. Neff (eds), Globalization of the Processed Food Market. AER No. 472, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, September 1996.

Greenpeace International. “Oil Spills – Philippines, Indian Ocean, and Lebanon.” http://www. Greenpeace.org/international/news/recent-oil-spills, accessed March 16, 2010.

Grossman, Gene M. and Alan B. Krueger. “Environmental Impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement.” Working Paper No. 3914, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MS, November 1991.

References 269

Grossman, Gene M. and Alan B. Krueger. “Environmental Impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement”, in Peter M. K. Garber (ed.), The U.S.–Mexico Free Trade Agreement. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993.

Grossman, Gene M. and Alan B. Krueger. “Economic Growth and the Environment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 (May 1995), 353–77.

Grote, Ulrike and Stefanie Kirchoff. “Environmental and Food Safety Standards in the Context of Trade Liberalization Issues and Options.” ZEF Discussion Paper No. 39, Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, June 2001.

Gundlach, Eric R. and Miles O. Hayes. “Vulnerability of Coastal Waters to Oil Spill Impacts.” Marine Technology Society Journal 12:4 (1978), 18–27.

Hartigan, James C. (ed.). Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group, 2009.

Hertel, Thomas, David Hummels, Maros Ivanic and Roman Keeney. “How Confident Can We Be in CGE-Based Assessments of Free Trade Agreements?” GTAP Working Paper No. 26, Purdue University, May 2003.

Hochstetler, Kathryn. “Fading Green? Environmental Politics in the MERCOSUR Free Trade Agreement.” Latin American Politics and Society 45:4 (Winter 2003), 1–32.

Hoekman, Bernard and Kym Anderson. “Developing Country Agriculture and the New Trade Agenda.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 49 (October 2000), 171–80.

House of Representatives. “Dominican Republic–Central America–United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.” 109th Congress, 1st Session, Report 109–182, July 25, 2005.

Howse, Rob and Petrus van Bork. “Options for Liberalising Trade in Environmental Goods in the Doha Round”, Issue Paper No. 2. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 2006, http://www.ictsd.org/pubs/ictsd_series/env/EGSHowse _Bork.pdf

Huang, Haixiao and Walter C. Labys. “Environment and Trade: A Review of Issues and Methods.” Research Paper 2001-1, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University, 2001.

Huang, Haixiao and Walter C. Labys “Environment and Trade: A Review of Issues and Methods.” International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 2 (2002), 100–60.

Hudson, Darren, Diane Hite, Abdul Jaafar and Fatimal Kari. “Environmental Regulation Through Trade: The Case of Shrimp.” Journal of Environmental Management 68:3 (2003), 231–8.

Hufbauer, Gary C. and Jeffrey J. Schott. NAFTA Revisited: Achievements and Challenges Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2005.

Hufbauer, Gary C., Daniel C. Esty, Diana Orejas, Luis Rubio and Jeffrey Schott. NAFTA and the Environment: Seven Years Later. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2000.

Huff, Karen. “Developing Country Concerns and Multilateral Trade Negotiations.” CATRN Paper 2000–02, http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=3966& ftype=.pdf, 2000.

IEA Database. “IEA Project Content.” International Environmental Agreements Database Project, http://iea.uoregon.edu/page.php?queryt=home-contensts.php, accessed March 23, 2010.

270 References

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “WTO Environment Committee Allows ad-hoc Attendance to MEA Secretariats.” Bridges 7:6:1–2 (February 19, 2003), http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/03-02-19/story4.htm

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “WTO Environmental Committee Makes Slow Progress.” Bridges: Trade BioRes 4:12 (June 25, 2004), http;//www.ictsd.org, 2004.

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Fish Subsidies Talks Resume, With Focus On Role Of FAO.” Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 10:43 (December 20, 2006), http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/6417/

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) “Environment: WTO Members Discuss Information Exchange with MEAs.” Bridges: Weekly Trade Digest 11:8 (March 7, 2007a), http://www.ictsd.org/pubs/weekly/07-03-07/wtoinbrief.htm

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) “Environment Negotiations Low on Priority List of WTO Members.” Bridges: TRADE BioRes 7:1 (January 19, 2007b), http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-03-16/story3.htm

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICSTD). “Environment Negotiations Low on Priority List of WTO Members.” Bridges: TRADE BioRes 7:1 (January 19, 2007c), http://www.icstd.org/biores/07-03-16/story3.htm

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “The Dawn of a New Era: Caribbean Signs EPA with EU.” Trade Negotiations Insights 7:9 (November 2008a).

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “WTO Ag Chairs New Text: Gradual Progress on Market Access, ‘Headline Numbers’ Unchanged”, “New NAMA Text Urges Members to Examine Tradeoffs between Formula, Flexibilities.” Bridges Weekly Trade Digest 15:5 (February 13 2008b), http://www.ictsd.weekly /08-02-13/story1.htm

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Breakthrough Still Elusive in Doha Round.” Bridges Monthly 12:1 (February 2008c), http://www.icstd.org/ monthly/bridges/BRIDGES_12.1.pdf

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Environmental Negotiations Low on Priority List of WTO Members.” Bridges Trade BioRes 7:1 (January 19, 2008d), http://www,icstd.org/biores/07-01-19/inbrief.htm

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Members Remain Divided on Fisheries Draft Text.” Bridges: Trade BioRes 6:6 (April, 2008e), http://www. ictsd.org/biores/08-04-04/story3.htm

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Cautious Welcome, Some Criticism for Revised WTO Ag Text” and “Long Standing Differences Resurface in Talks on NAMA Text.” Bridges: Weekly Trade News Digest 12:19 (May 28, 2008f).

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Peru Signs Free Trade Agreements with Singapore and Canada.” Bridges: Weekly Trade News Digest 12:20 (June 4, 2008g), 10.

References 271

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Doha ‘Stocktaking’ Outcome: More of the Same.” Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 14:12 (March 31, 2010a)., http://ictsd.org/i/news.bridgesweekly/73389

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “What Ambition for Doha?” Bridges 14:2 (May 2, 2010b), http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridges/75431/

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “US Continues to Push to Open Trade in Environmental Goods.” Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 14:15 (April 28, 2010c), http://ictsd.org/i/news.bridgesweekly/74759

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “CTE Searches for Way Forward on Environmental Goods.” Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 14:40 (November 17, 2010d), http://ictsd.org/i/news.bridgesweekly/96500

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). “Amid Discord, WTO Members Explore Compromises on Environmental Goods.” Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 15:6 (February 24, 2011), http://ictsd.org/i/news.bridgesweekly/101382

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). “Doha Round Briefing Series: Trade and Environment.” Vol. 1, No. 11, http://www.ictsd.org/pubs/dohabriefings/index.htm, February, 2003.

Irwin, Douglas A. Free Trade Under Fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.

Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). “JBIC Signs Loan Agreement to Promote CDM in Vietnam.” Tokyo, November 21, 2008, https://www.jbic.go.jp/en/about/ press/2008/1121-01/index.html

Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). “JBIC Provides Project Finance and Political Risk Guarantee for Paiton Thermal Power Plant Expansion Project in Indonesia.” https: //www.jbic.go.jp/en/about/press/2009/0308-02/index.html, March 8, 2010.

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). “The Second Study on Development Assistance for the Environment.” Tokyo: Institute for International Cooperation, August 2001.

Japan Journal, The. “Clean Development.” Tokyo, November 2006, http://www.japanjournal.jp/ tjje/show_art.php?INDyear=06&INDmon=11&artid=32762314b14b2553e1d7cdae011ba84a

Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (JMOFA). “Japan–Vietnam Joint Statement Toward a Strategic Partnership for Peace and Prosperity in Asia.” Tokyo, 19 October 2006, http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/vietnam/joint0610.html

Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (JMOFA). “Joint Statement by Japan and the Republic of Indonesia on the Enhancement of the Cooperation on Climate Change, Environment and Energy Issues.” Tokyo, http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/pmv0708/joint.html, August 20, 2007.

Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (JMOFA). “Japan–Malaysia Cooperation Initiative for Environment and Energy.” Tokyo, http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/malaysia/ pdfs/ environ-energy1004.pdf, accessed August 14, 2010.

272 References

Jha, Veena. Trade in Environmental Goods: A Reality Check. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), 2008.

Jones, Davis. “The Relationship between Trade and Effective Enforcement.” Proceedings of the International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement’s (INECE) Eighth International Conference, Linking Concepts to Actions: Successful Strategies for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement. Cape Town, South Africa, April 5–11, 2008.

Josling, Tim. “Agricultural Trade Disputes in the WTO”, in James C. Hartigan (ed.), Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group, 2009, pp. 245–82.

Kanargelidis, Greg and Elysia Van Zeyl. “Canada Concludes Two New Free Trade Agreements.” Blakes Bulletin on International Trade, January 2008, http://www.blakes. com/english/legal_updates/international_trade/jan_2008/FTAs.pdf

Kang, Sang In and Jae Joon Kim. “A Quantitative Analysis of the Environmental Impact Induced by Free Trade Between Korea and Japan.” Paper presented at the 7th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis on Trade Poverty and Environment, Washington, DC, June 17–19, 2004.

Kibel, Paul S. “The Trade–Environment Junction in North America.” The Encyclopedia of Earth, March 13, 2007, http://www.eoearth.org/article/North_American_Free Trade Agreement %28NAFTA%29

Kirkpatrick, Colin and Clive George. “Methodological Issues in the Impact Assessment of Trade Policy: Experience from the European Commission’s Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) Programme.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24:4 (December 2006), 325–34.

Krugman, Paul. “What Should Trade Negotiators Negotiate About?” Journal of Economic Literature 35 (March 1997), 113–30.

Lamb, Henry. “Sovereignty No Match for WTO.” Sweet Liberty webpage, http://www. sweetliberty.org/sovereigntywto.htm, July 4, 2000, accessed May 9, 2002.

Lamy, Pascal. “Globalization and the Environment in a Reformed UN: Charting a Path to Sustainable Development.” Speech to the 24th Session of the Governing Council/Global Environmental Forum, Nairobi, Kenya, February 5, 2007a, http://www.wto.org/english/ news/_e/sppl_r/sppl54_e.htm

Lamy, Pascal. “The WTO and Its Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Speech, New Haven, CT: Yale University Globalization Center, http://www.wto.org/english/news/ sppl79_e.htm, 2007b.

Less, Cristina T. and Joy A. Kim “Checklist for Negotiators of Environmental Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements.” Paris: OECD Trade and Environment Working Paper 2008-02, September 2008.

Less, Cristina T. and Simone Gigli. “Update on Environment and Regional Trade Agreements: Developments in 2007.” Paris: OECD Trade and Environment Working Paper No 2008-02, February 18, 2008.

Levine, Jonathon M, and Carla M. D’Antonio. “Forecasting Biological Invasions with Increasing Trade.” Conservation Biology 17:1 (February 2003), 322–6.

Lewis, Bradley N. “Biting without Teeth: The Citizens Submission Process and Environmental Protection.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 155 (2006–07), 1229–68.

Liptak, Adam. “NAFTA Tribunals Stir US Worries.” New York Times, April 18, 2004, http:// www.bilaterals.org/spip.php?page=print&id_article=91

References 273

Lovell, Sabrina J. and Susan F. Stone. “The Economic Impacts of Aquatic Species: A Review of the Literature.” NCEE Working Paper # 05-02, Washington, DC, January 2005.

Lowe, S., M. Browne, S. Boudjelas and M. De Poorter. 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species: A Selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. Auckland: The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), 2000.

Lucas, Caroline. “Delivering Sustainable Trade: SIA in EU Trade Policy”, in World Wildlife Fund (WWF), “Changing the Balance of Trade: A Seminar on Sustainability Assessments of EU Trade Policy”. Brussels, July 9–10, 2002, pp. 36–9.

Lynch, David A. Trade and Globalization: An Introduction to Regional Trade Agreements. London: Rowland and Littlefield, 2010.

Mann, Howard. “Assessing the Impact of NAFTA on Environmental Law and Management Processes.” Paper presented at the First North American Symposium on Understanding the Linkages between Trade and the Environment, North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation, Washington, DC, October 11–12, 2000.

Marcotullio, Peter J., Eric Williams and Julian D. Marshall. “Faster, Sooner, and More Simultaneously: How Recent Road and Air Transportation CO2 Emission Trends in Developing Countries Differ From Historic Trends in the United States.” The Journal of Environment & Development 14 (2005), 125–48.

Matsushita, Mitsuo, “Legal Aspects of Free Trade Agreements: in the Context of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994”, in M .Matsushita and D. Ahn (eds), WTO and East Asia: New Perspectives. London: Cameron May, 2004, pp. 497–514.

MERCOSUR. Acuerdo Marco sobre Medio Ambiente MERCOSUR, http://www medi-oambiente. gov.ar/mercosur/entradavigor_acuerdomarco.htm, 2001.

MERCOSUR. “Entrada en Vigor: Acuerdo sobre Medio Ambiente, 27 de junio de 2004.” http:// www.medioambiente.gov.ar/mercosur/dececisiones/decision2_o1/anexo.htm, 2004.

Mitchell, Ronald. “The International Environmental Agreements Project: Structure, Analytic Goals, and an Example from Fisheries.” Paper presented at the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 1, 2005, http://www.allacademic. com/p41938_index.html

Monkelbaan, Joachim. International Transport, Climate Change and Trade: What are the Options for Regulating Emissions from Aviation and Shipping and what will be their Impact on Trade? Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, October 2010, http://ictsd.org/downloads/2010/10/bunkers-background-paper.pdf

Murillo Rodríguez, Carlos. “Environmental Opportunities in the FTAA Negotiating Groups”, in Robin L. Rosenberg (ed.), Environmentally Sound Trade Expansion in the Americas: A Hemispheric Dialogue. Coral Gables, FL: North-South Center Press, 2000.

Naím, Moisés. “Lori’s War.” Foreign Policy (Spring 2000), 29–55.National Invasive Species Council (NISC). “Invasive Species Definition Clarifica-

tion and Guidance White Paper.” Washington, DC, April 27, 2006, http://www.invasivespecies.gov/ global/ISAC/ISAC_documents/ISAC%20Definititions%20White%20Paper%20%20-%20FINAL%20VERSION.pdf

274 References

National Wildlife Federation. “NWF Comments on Environmental Provisions in the Free Trade Area of the Americas.” Washington, DC, 2000, http://www.nwf.org/trade/ftaacomment. html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). “International Dolphin Conservation Program.” Washington, DC, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/ readingroom/tunadolphin/idcp.pdf, accessed, May 1, 2002.

Neumayer, Eric. “Does Trade Openness Promote Multilateral Environmental Cooperation?” The World Economy 25:6 (June 2002), 815–32.

Nogales, Francisco S. “The NAFTA Environmental Framework, Chapter 11 Investment Provisions, and the Environment.” Annual Survey International and Comparative Law 8 (2002), 97–149.

Nordström, Håkan and Scott Vaughan. Trade and the Environment. WTO Special Studies 4. Geneva: World Trade Organization, 1999.

North American Development Bank (NADB). “Loan Policies and Procedures.” San Antonio, TX, 2009.

North American Development Bank (NADB). “Project Development Process.” http://nadb.org /projects/projdevelopment.html, accessed May 3, 2010a.

North American Development Bank (NADB). North American Development Bank 2009 Annual Report. San Antonio, 2010b

NZ Ministry for the Environment. “Looking Back on 2009 and Looking Forward to 2010.” Trade Links Newsletter, December 2009, http://www.mfe.govt.nz/ publications/about/trade -links/trade-links-issue5.pdf

NZ Ministry for the Environment. “Trade Links.” http://www.mfe.govt.nz/ publications/about/trade-links/trade-links-200811.html, accessed May 5, 2011.

Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress (OTA). Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States, OTA-F-565 Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, September 1993.

Olson, Lars J. “The Economics of Terrestrial Invasive Species: A Review of Literature.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35:1 (April 2006), 178–94.

Orellana, Marcos. “The EU and Chile Suspend the Swordfish Case Proceedings at the WTO and International Law Tribunal of the Sea.” ASIL Insights, February 2001, http://www.asil .org/ insight60.cfm

Organization of American States (OAS). “Monitoring Progress of the Environmental Cooperation Agenda in the CAFTA–DR Countries: First Evaluation Report.” September 30, 2009, http://www.oas.org/dsd/EnvironmentLaw/DOCUMENTS/FIRST_ Evaluation_Report_CAFTA-DR_en.pdf

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Trade and Environment: Processes and Production Methods. Paris, 1994.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Regional Trade Agreements and Environment. Paris, online version dated March 12, 2007.

Ostry, Sylvia. “Sustainable Development and Energy Security: The WTO and the Energy Charter Treaty.” Paper for the Pre-G7 Conference, Moscow, June 30, 2006, http://www.g8. utoronto.ca/conferences/2006/mgimo/ostry_mgimo.pdf

Oxfam. “Signing Away the Future.” Oxfam International, http://www.newsandpub-lications/publications/briefing_papers/signing-away-thefuture/?searchterm =trade%20agreements, 2007.

Palmer, Alice and Richard Tarasofsky. “The Doha Round and Beyond: Towards a Lasting Relationship between the WTO and International Environmental

References 275

Regime.” London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs, http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk, 2007.

Palmeter, David. “National Sovereignty and the WTO.” The Journal of World Intellectual Property 2:1 (2005), 77–91.

Peel, Jacqueline. “Avenues for Participation by NGOs in Dispute Resolution at the European Court of Justice and World Trade Organization.” Colorado Journal of International Law and Policy 12 (Winter 2001).

Perrings, Charles. “Introduction: Linking Trade and the Environment.” Environment and Development Economics 5:4 (2000), 483–4.

Peru Environmental Cooperation Commission (PECC). “United States–Peru Environmental Cooperation 2009–2010 Work Program.” http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/ 133528.pdf, accessed August 10, 2010.

Pimentel, David, Roldolfo Zuniga and Doug Morrison. “Update on the Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Alien-Invasive Species in the United States.” Ecological Economics 52 (2005), 275–88.

PLANISTAT-LUXEMBOURG and CESO-CI. “Sustainable Impact Assessment (SIA) of the Trade Aspects of Negotiations for an Association Agreement between the European Communities and Chile.” http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2005/february /tradoc_112362.pdf, October 2002.

PricewaterhouseCoopers. “Sustainability Impact Assessment of the EU–ACP Economic Partnership Agreements – Key Findings, Recommendations and Lessons Learned.” Paris, PricewaterhouseCoopers, May 2007.

Public Citizen. NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor -to-State Cases: Bankrupting Democracy. September 2001, http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACF186.pdf

Public Citizen. “Table of NAFTA ‘Chapter 11’ Foreign Investor-State Cases and Claims.” http://www.citizen.org/documents/Ch11CasesChart-2009.pdf, January 2009.

Public Citizen. “Free Trade Area of the Americas.” http://www.citizen.org/trade/ftaa/, accessed September 4, 2010.

Raghavan, Chakravarthi. “GATT, WTO, Media and Transparency.” Geneva, February 25, 1994, http://www.sunsonline.org/trade/process/towards/02250094.htm

Ranald, Patricia. “The Australia–US Free Trade Agreement: a Contest of Interests.” Journal of Australian Political Economy 57 (June 2006), 30–-56.

Ranné, Omar. “More Leeway for Unilateral Trade Measures? The Report of the Appellate Body in the Shrimp–Turtle Case.” Intereconomics (March–April 1999), 72–83.

Reed, Cyrus and Mary Kelly. “Expanding NAD Bank’s Mandate: Pros and Cons.” Updated, August 18, 2000a.

Reed, Cyrus and Mary Kelly. “Expanding the Mandate: Should the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and North American Development Bank go beyond Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste Management Projects and How Do They Get There?” Texas Center for Policy Studies, July, 2000b.

Repetto, Robert. “Avoiding Trade and Environment Conflicts.” Environment and Development Economics 5:4 (2000), 516–19.

Richardson, Sarah, “A ‘Critique’ of the EC’s WTO Sustainability Impact Assessment Study and Recommendations for Phase III.” March 2000, Oxfam GB, WWF-European Policy Office, Save the Children, ActionAid, http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/trade/ downloads/wto_sustainability.rtf

276 References

Roberts, Donna, Timothy E. Josling and David Orden. A Framework for Analyzing Technical Barriers to Trade in Agricultural Markets. Technical Bulletin No. 1876. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, March 1999.

Rosen, Howard. “Free Trade Agreements as Foreign Policy Tools: The US–Israel and US–-Jordan FTAs”, in Jeffrey Schott (ed.), Free Trade Agreements: US Strategies and Priorities. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2004, pp. 51–76.

Rosenberg, Robin L. and Michael L. Miller. “Introduction”, in Robin L. Rosenberg (ed.), Environmentally Sound Trade Expansion in the Americas: A Hemispheric Dialogue. Coral Gables, FL: North-South Center Press, 2000.

Ryan, Daniel E. “Consideraciones sobre el Proceso de Liberlización Comercial Regional y la Problimátic Ambiental: Desafíos y Oportunidades”, in Nicolás J. Lucas (ed.), Hacia una Agenda Regional de Comercio y Ambiente. Buenos Aires: Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN), February 2000, http://www.farn.org.ar/docs/p17.pdf

Salzman, Jim. “Executive Order 13141 – Environmental Assessments of Trade Agreements.” International Environmental Law Committee 3:3 (December 2000). http://www.abanet. org/environ/committees/intenviron/newsletter/dec00/salzman.html

Sampson, Gary P. Trade, Environment and the WTO: The Post-Seattle Agenda. Washington, DC: Overseas Development Council, 2000.

Sarkar, Shyamalandu. “A Study of the Environmental Issues Associated with the Dominican Republic–Central American Free Trade Agreement.” International Business and Economic Research Journal 8:1 (January 2009), 113–18.

Schaper, Marriane. “Impactos Ambientales de los Cambios en la Estructura Exportadora de los Países de América Latina y el Caribe”, in Nicolás J. Lucas (ed.), Hacia una Agenda Regional de Comercio y Ambiente. Buenos Aires: Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN), February 2000, http://www.farn.org.ar/docs/p17.pdf

Schmidt, Andrea R. “A New Trade Policy for America: Do Labor and Environmental Provisions in Trade Agreements Serve Local Interests or Special Interests?” Indiana International Law and Competition Review 19 (2009), 167–201.

Schott, Jeffrey, J. (ed.). Free Trade Agreements: US Strategies and Priorities. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2004a.

Schott, Jeffrey J. “Free Trade Agreements: Boon or Bane of the World Trading System”, in Jeffrey J. Schott (ed.), Free Trade Agreements: US Strategies and Priorities. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2004b, pp. 3–19.

Sheikh, Parvaze A. “Illegal Logging: Background and Issues.” CRS Report for Congress, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, March 19, 2007.

Shiner, Josette. 2002. “Remarks to the International Environmental Forum.” Washington, DC, 2002, http://www. ustr.gov/speech-test/assistant/2002-11-20-shiner.pdf

Sierra Club. “Responsible Trade, Spread the Spirit of Quebec, Stop the FTAA: Make Trade Clean, Green, and Fair.” Gland, Switzerland, and Washington, DC, 2001, http://www.sierraclub.org/ trade/ftaa/stopftaa.asp

Sierra Club and Shelia Holbrook-White. “NAFTA Transportation Corridors: Approaches to Assessing Environmental Impacts and Alternatives.” Paper

References 277

Presented at the North American Symposium on Understanding the Linkages between Trade and Environment, Washington, DC, October 11, 2000, http://www.cec.org/programs_projects/trade_ environecon/pdfs/sierra.pdf

Sindico, Francesco “The GMO Dispute before the WTO: Legal Implications for the Trade and Environment Debate.” Milan: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Nota Di Lavoro 11.2005, January 2005.

Smith, V. Kerry and J. Andres Espinosa. “Environmental and Trade Policies: Some Methodological Issues.” Discussion Paper 96-18, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, April 1996.

Soloway, Julie A. “Environmental Regulation as Expropriation: The Case of NAFTA’s Chapter 11.” Canadian Business Law Journal 33 (2000), 92–123.

Speth, James G. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004.

Steinberg, Richard H. “Trade–Environment Negotiations in the EU, NAFTA, and WTO: Regional Trajectories of Rule Development.” American Journal of International Law 91 (1997), 231–67.

Stevens, Candice. “Synthesis Report: Trade and Environment: PPM Issues”, in OECD, Trade and Environment: Processes and Production Methods. Paris, 1994.

Teehankee, Manuel A. J. “Committee on Trade and Environment Special Session: Report by the Chairman.” WTO Document TN/TE/19, March 22, 2010, http://www.wto.org/english /news_e/news10_e/chairreport_tnte19_e.doc

Tejeda-Honstein, Dzoara D., Juan M. Cardona-Carrizalez and Gerado M. Mejia-Valezquez. “Impact of NAFTA on Mobil Source Emissions along the Dallas Saltillo Corridor”, in J. A. Raynal, J. R. Nuckols, R. Reyes and M. Wards (eds), Environmental Engineering and Health Sciences. Highland Ranch, CO: Water Resources, 2000.

Thinkquest.org. “Oil Spills.” http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0215471/oil_spills.htm, accessed March 16, 2010.

Trade and Environmental Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC). “The U.S.–Korea Free Trade Agreement: Report of the Trade and Environmental Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC).” Washington, DC, April 25, 2007.

Troje, Suzanne. “WTO Tribunal Upholds French Asbestos Ban, But Uses Damaging Reasoning.” Harmonization Alert 2:2 (September/October 2000), 1–4, http://autodealerscam.org/ documents/septoct00.pdf

Tsigas, Marinos E., Denice Gray and Thomas W. Hertel “How to Assess the Environmental Impacts of Trade Liberalization.” Paper presented at Sustainable Development and the General Equilibrium Approach, 5th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis organized by the Center of Sustainable Development at the National Tsing Hua University, 5–7 June 2002, Grand Hotel, Taipei.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Food and Quality Standards: Definitions and Role in International Trade. UNCTAD/DITC/COM/34, December 3, 2001.

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). “Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.” http://www.unep.org, 1972.

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). “Trade Related Measures and Multilateral Environmental Agreements.” Geneva, 2007.

278 References

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). “Belgrade Process: Moving Forward with Developing a Set of Options on International Environmental Governance.” First Meeting of the Consultative Group of Ministers or High Level Representative on International Environmental Governance, Belgrade, June 27–28, 2009a.

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). “Information Note on Environment in the UN System, Preliminary Draft.” October 2009b.

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). “Caribbean Hub Sub-component - Capacity Building related to Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Countries.” http://www.cari-com.org/jsp/community_organs /sustainable_development/capacity_build-ing_mea_project_document.pdf, March 2009.

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). “Multilateral Environmental Agreements.” http://recomap-io.org/index.php?id=6, accessed March 24, 2010.

US Agency for International Development (USAID). “Midterm Assessment of the Program to Support Environmental Compliance under CAFTA–DR.” http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs /PDACO373.pdf, September 2008.

US Department of State (USDOS). “United States–Australia Joint Statement on Environmental Cooperation.” http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/131489.pdf, Washington, DC, May 18, 2004.

US Department of State (USDOS). “CAFTA–DR Environmental Cooperation: Regional Program Highlights.”http://www.state.gov/g/oes/env/trade/caftaco-operation/ 142691.htm, October 1, 2009 .

US Department of State (USDOS). “Joint Communiqué of the United States – Chile Environmental Affairs Council and Joint Commission for Environmental Cooperation.” http://www. state.gov/documents/organization/139626.pdf, Washington, DC, January 20, 2010a.

US Department of State (USDOS). “U.S.–Chile Joint Commission for Environmental Cooperation: 2009–2011 Work Program.” Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, June 17, 2010b, http://www.state.gov/g/oes/env/trade/chile/ 145543.htm

US Department of State (USDOS). “United States and Peru Hold First Environmental Affairs Council Meeting.” Washington, DC, February 18, 2010c, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/ 2010/02/136884.htm

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Capacity-Building Programs Under CAFTA–DR.” http://www.epa.gov/oia/regions/sa/caftadr.html, accessed August 8, 2010a.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “International Programs: Latin America and Caribbean.” http://www.epa.gov/oia/regions/sa/index.html, accessed August 10, 2010b.

US Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Four Free Trade Agreements GAO Reviewed Have Resulted in Commercial Benefits, but Challenges on Labor and Environment Remain.” GAO-09-439, Washington, DC, 2009.

US Trade Representative (USTR) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). “Guidelines for Implementation of Executive Order 13141: Environmental Review of Trade Agreements.” Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, 2000.

References 279

US Trade Representative (USTR). “Environment and the FTAA: Public Summary of the U.S. Position.” http://www.ustr.gov/regions/whemisphere/ftaa.shtml, accessed October 12, 2001a.

US Trade Representative (USTR). “U.S. Wins WTO Case on Sea Turtle Conservation.” http://www.ustr.gov/releases/2001/10/01-87.pdf, accessed October 29, 2001b.

US Treasury. “North American Development Bank (NADBank).” http://www.ustreas.gov/ offices/international-affairs/intl/fy2003/tab10_nadb.pdf, accessed May 3, 2010, 2003.

Valente, Marcela. “Mercosur: Integration, Environment and Pragmatism.” http://www.tierra america..net/2001/00408/iaritculo.shtml, 2001, accessed May 23, 2010.

van Veen-Groot, Daniëlle B. and Peter Nijkamp. “Globalization, Transport and the Environment: New Perspectives for Ecological Economics.” Ecological Economics 31 (1999), 331–45.

Varady, Robert G., David Colnic, Robert Merideth and Terry Sprouse. “The U.S.–Mexican Border Environment Cooperation Commission: Collected Perspective on the First Two Years.” Journal of Borderland Studies (University of Arizona) 11:2 (Fall 1996).

Villa, Juan C., Dan Middleton, Jeffery E. Warner, Jolanda Prozzi and Jorge Prozzi. “Integration and Consolidation of Border Freight Transportation Data for Planning Applications and Characterization of NAFTA Truck Loads for Aiding in Transportation Infrastructure Management: First Year.” College Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, December 2007.

Villarreal, M. Angeles. “U.S.–Peru Economic Relations and the U.S.–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement,” CRS Report for Congress RL34108. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2007.

Vilos-Ghiso, Silvana J. and Diana M. Liverman. “Scale, Technique and Composition Effects in the Mexican Agricultural Sector: The Influence of NAFTA and the Institutional Environment.” Research Paper presented at the Third North American Symposium on Assessing the Environmental Effects of Trade, Montreal, November 30–December 1, 2005.

Voituriez, Trancrède, Paul Ekins, Hernán Blanco, Ingmar Von Homeyer and Dirk Scheer. “Making Trade Sustainable Impact Assessment More Relevant to Trade Negotiations.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24:4 (December 2006), 335–42.

Water Encyclopedia. “Oil Spills: Impact on the Ocean.” http://www.waterebncy-clopedia.com/ Oil-Sills-Impact-on-the-Ocean,html, accessed March 16, 2010.

Weinstein, Michael M. and Steve Charnovitz. “The Greening of the WTO.” Foreign Affairs 80:6 (November–December 2001), 147–56.

Whaley, John and Ben Zissamos. “Making Environmental Deals: The Economic Case for a World Environmental Organization”, in D. Esty and M. Ivanova (eds), Global Environmental Governance: Options & Opportunities. New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2002.

Wilson, Graham K. “Dolphins and Tuna, Shrimp and Turtles: An American Tale or Policy Making Goes Global?” La Follette Institute for Public Policy, University of Wisconsin, 1999, http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/fav=cultystaff/wilson/dolphins_and_tuna.htm, accessed March 8, 2010.

280 References

Wilson, Graham K. “Globalization, Internationalization and U.S. Interest Groups.” A Paper for the Annual Convention of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 2001.

Wold, Chris. “Evaluating NAFTA and the Commission on Environmental Cooperation: Lesson for Integrating Trade and Environment in free Trade Agreements.” St Louis University Public Law Review 28 (2008–09), 201–52.

Wold, Chris. “Taking Stock: Trade’s Environmental Scoreboard after Twenty Years of ‘Trade and Environment’.” Wake Forest Law Review 45 (2010), 319–54.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). “Balanced Process, Balanced Results: Sustainability Assessments and Trade.” Washington, DC, http://www.ems.org/ftaa/sustaina-bilityassessments.pdf, accessed March 8, 2002a.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). “Changing the Balance of Trade: A Seminar on Sustainability Assessments of EU Trade Policy”. Brussels, July 9–10, 2002b.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). “Problems: Ocean Pollution.” http://wwf.panda.org/about_our _earth/blue_planet/problems/pollution/, accessed August 31, 2010.

World Trade Organization (WTO) “Committee on Regional Trade Agreements.” Geneva, WT/L/127, February 7, 1996.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “WTO Report: The Need for Environmental Cooperation.” World Trade Organization, Press Release 8 October 1999, http://www.wto.org/english/ tratop_e/envir_e /stud99_e.htm

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Draft Ministerial Declaration.” WT/MIN(01)/DEC/W/1, November 14, 2001.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreements.” Geneva, December 18, 2006.

World Trade Organization (WTO) “Existing Forms of Cooperation and Information Exchange between UNEP/MEAS and the WTO.” TN/TE/S/2/Rev.2, Geneva, http://docsonline. wto.org /DDFDocuments/t/tn/te/S2R2.doc, 2007.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Committee on Trade and Environment: Report of the Meeting Held on 10 July 2009.” http://docsonline.wto.org/GEN_highLightBottom. asp?qu=+%28+%40meta%5FSymbol+W..., August 31, 2009.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Early Years: Emerging Environment Debate in GATT/WTO.” http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/hist1_e.htm, accessed May 4, 2010a.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.” http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e /region_e/regatt_e.htm#understanding, accessed August 17, 2010b.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Legal Texts: the WTO Agreements: Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.” http://www.wto.org/english/ docs_e/legal_e/ursum_e.htm#Understanding, accessed May 8, 2010c.

World Trade Organization (WTO), “The GATT Years: from Havana to Marrakesh.” http://www. wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact4_e.htm, accessed September 1, 2010d.

References 281

World Trade Organization (WTO). “A Summary of the Final Act of the Uruguay Round.” http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/ursum_e.htm#Understanding, accessed September 22, 2010e.

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Lamy Calls for Acceleration of Negotiations.” http://www.wto.org, Geneva, February 22, 2011

WTO Secretariat. The WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures, 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Yul, H. M. “Call To Uphold Brunei’s Green Image.” http://my.opera.com/Brunei_Darussalam/ blog/?startidx=120, 2007.

283

Author Index

Abbott, Frederick M., 33, 72Ackerman, Frank, 13, 155–7, 197Adams, Heather, See AndersonAgüero, Raquel, 121Alanis-Ortega, Gustavo, 75Alf, Lisa, 154, 188America.gov, 92Andersen, Mark C., 17Anderson, Kym, 19, 24, 27, 62, 76Anríquez, Gustavo, 7Araya, Mónica, 72Arrow, Kenneth, 19Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

(APEC), 143Assmann, Claudia, See AlfAssociation of Southeast Asian

Nations (ASEAN), 230Audley, John, 91, 158, 220

Bailey, James E., 30, 68, 89Baldwin, Richard, 20Barnesrichardson.com, 97Batra, Ravi, 9, 14Bauer, Marianne, See AlfBeghin, John, 13Beladi, Hamid, See BatraBhagwati, Jagdish, 5, 19–20, 23–4, 26,

71, 184, 241–2, 244Blackwelder, Brent, 94Blanco, Hernán, See VoituriezBMZ, See Federal Ministry for

Economic Cooperation and Development

Böhringer, Christoph, 156–7, 185Bolin, Bert, See ArrowBorder Environmental Cooperation

Commission (BECC), 46, 207Borregaard, Nicola, 181Bottari, Mary, 55Boudjelas, S., See LoweBouët, Antoine, 13, 59Bourgeois, Jacques, 64, 67Boza, Rafael T., 104

Brack, Duncan, 25, 28Bravo Vera, Gonzalo, 45–6Browne, M., See LoweBuendía, Braulio, See Del GatoBuck, Eugene H., See CornBusiness Roundtable, 213

Cairns Group, 60Cameron, H., 51Canada Department of Foreign

Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), 153, 165–9

Canada-Chile Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 223–4

Canada-Peru Committee on the Environment, 225

Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), 113

Cannon, Carl M., 153Cardona-Carrizalez, Juan M.,

See Tejeda-HonsteinCaribbean Regional Negotiating

Machinery (CRNM), 226CARICOM Secretariat, 227Carpentier, Chantal L., 195–8, 202,

247Carrington, Edwin W., 224Carson, Rachel, 48Center for International

Environmental Law (CIEL), 186

Charnovitz, Steve, 22–3, 59, 155Chaytor, Beatrice, 64, 67, 125, 133Chile Dirección de Relaciones

Económicos Internacionales (DIRECON), 118

Claro, Edmundo, 54Clinton, William J., 30Colnic, David, See VaradyColyer, Dale, 49, 63–4, 67, 87Comisión Nacional del Medio

Ambient (CONAMA), 216, 218

284 Author Index

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), 39–42, 196, 200, 202, 205, 208

Common Frontiers, 113Cooper, Richard N., 20–1Copeland, Brian R., 7–8, 12–13, 24, 243Corn, M. Lynne, 44, 116Costanza, Robert, See ArrowCouncil of Environmental Quality

and U.S. Trade Representative (CEQ and USTR), 158

D’Antonio, Carla M., 12, 15DFAIT, See Canada Department of

Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Daly, Herman E., 19, 25, 241Dasgupta, Partha, 24Dasgupta, Susmita, See ArrowDawar, Kamala, See BourgeoisDe Gucht, Karel, 125, 227De Poorter, M., See LoweDeere, Carolyn L., 89, 195Defenders of Wildlife, 26Del Gatto, Fillipo, 103Denniston, Lyle, 155Drajem, Mark, 58

Echandi, Roberto, 34Ederington, Josh, 25–6 Eglin, Richard, 22, 26–7, 30, 49Ekins, Paul, See VoituriezEnvironmental Law Institute (ELI), 217EPA, See US Environmental Protection

AgencyEspinosa, J. Andres, 12Esty, Daniel C., 22, 25, 27, 29, 49, 90,

195European Commission (EC), 126,

171–2, 175, 187–8, 227, 229European Free Trade Association

(EFTA), 111European Union (EU), 63Evans, Edward A., 15Evenett, Simon J., See Bourgeois

Fast Facts, 256n8.5Federal Ministry for Economic

Cooperation and Development (BMZ), 229

Fernandez, Linda, 198Fischer, Eric, See CornFlores, Regina, See AndersonFolke, Carl, See ArrowFrankel, Jeffrey, 13, 23Frasca, Ralph, See BatraFreeman, Elyse M., 33, 72Friends of the Earth, 25, 99, 255n3.3

Gallagher, Kevin P., 13–14, 64, 148, 156–7, 167, 184–5, 195, 197, 208, 258n11.6

GAO, See US Acountabilty OfficeGastelum, Maria E., 199–200George, Clive, 181, 185–7, 191Gigli, Simone, 64, 67, 256n3.2Gilmore, David, 111 Gonzalez, George R., 199–200González-Lutzenkitchen, Ana K., 72Gray, Denice, 26Gray, Kevin. 28Greenpeace International, 10Grossman, Gene M., 8–9, 24, 154Grote, Ulrike, 25Gundlach, Eric R., 10

Halle, B., See CameronHartigan, James C., 62Hayes, Miles O., 10Hertel, Thomas W., 157, 185Hin Keong, Chen, See Del GatoHite, Diane, See HudsonHochstetler, Kathryn, 128Hoekman, Bernard, 19, 27, 26Holbrook-White, Shelia, 15, 197Holling, C.S., See ArrowHope, Bruce, See AndersonHouse of Representatives, 99Howse, Rob, 54Huang, Haixiao, 7Hudson, Darren, 22, 50Hufbauer, Gary C., 30–3, 195, 197,

200, 203, 208Huff, Karen, 27, 76Hummels, David, See Hertel

IEA Database, 28International Centre for Trade and

Sustainable Development (ICTSD), 29, 53, 55–6, 60, 125

Author Index 285

Irwin, Douglas A., 26Ivanic, Maros, See HertelIvanova, Maria, 20

Jaafar, Abdul, See HudsonJansson, Bengt-Owe, See ArrowJapan Bank for International

Cooperation (JBIC), 210Japan International Cooperation

Agency (JICA, 227Japan Journal, 230Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs

(MOFA), 230Jha, Veena, 54Jones, Davis, 213Josling, Timothy E., 62

Kanargelidis, Greg, 111Kang, Sang In, 183Kari, Fatimal, See HudsonKeeney, Roman, See Del Gato; HertelKelly, Mary, 46Keong, Chin Hin, See Del GatoKibel, Paul S., 41Kim, Jae Joon, 183, 256n6.2Kirchoff, Stefanie, 25Kirkpatrick, Colin, 58, 181, 184–7,

191Krissoff, Barry, See Gray, DeniceKrueger, Alan B., 8–9, 24, 254Krugman, Paul, 25

Laborde, David, 59Labys., Walter C., 7Lamb, Henry, 70Lamy, Pascal, 28, 52Laplante, Benoit, See DasguptaLess, Cristina T., 64, 67, 256n6.2Levin, Simon, See ArrowLevine, Jonathon M., 12, 15Lewis, Bradley N., 101Lindo, Enrique, See ClaroLiptak, Adam, 33Liverman, Diana M., 8, 13Lovell, Sabrina J., 17Low, Patricia, 20Lowe, S., 11Lucas, Caroline, 184Lucas, Nicolas, See ClaroLynch, David A., 5

Mann, Howard, 24Marconini, Marco, See ClaroMarcotullio, Peter J., 249Marshall, Julian D., See MarcotullioMatsushita, Mitsuo, 20Mejia-Valezquez, Gerado M., See

Tejeda-HonsteinMelendez-Ortiz, R., See CameronMERCOSUR, 121Merideth, Robert, See VaradyMevel, Simon, See BouëtMiddleton, Dan, See VillaMiler, Karl-GSran, See ArrowMiller, Michael L., 25Mitchell, Ronald, 28MOFA, See Japanese Ministry of

Foreign AffairsMonkelbaan, Joachim, 9–10Morrison, Doug, See PimentelMurillo Rodriguez, Carlos, 108

NADB, See North American Development Bank

Naím, Moisés, 22National Invasive Species Council

(NISC), 11National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), 22, 49, 255n3.1

National Wildlife Federation, 25, 255n3.3

Neumayer, Eric, 29Ney, Luke, 157Nielsen, Chantal Pohl, 62Nijkamp, Peter, 9–10, 14NISC, See National Invasive Species

CouncilNOAA, See National Oceanic and

Atmospheric AdministrationNogales, Francisco S., 33Nordström, Håkan, 13, 19, 51North American Development Bank

(NADB), 46, 206–7NZ Ministry for the Environment,

231

OAS, See Organization of American States

OECD, See Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

286 Author Index

Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress (OTA), 16

Olson, Lars J., 99Orden, David, See RobertsOrejas, Diana, See HufbauerOrellana, Marcos, 63Organization for Economic

Co-operation and Development (OECD), 27, 64, 67, 88, 256n3.2

Organization of American States (OAS), 209, 259n12.5

Ortiz-von Halle, Bernado, See Cameron

Ostry, Sylvia, 50OTA, See Office of Technology

Assessment, U.S. CongressOxfam, 99

Palmer, Alice, 53Palmeter, David, 70PECC, See Peru Environmental

Cooperation CommissionPeel, Jacqueline, 63Perrings, Charles, 26Peru Environmental Cooperation

Commission (PECC), 219Pimentel, David, 11, 16PLANISTAT-LUXEMBOURG and

CESO-CI, 175Pope, Carl, 94Powell, Mark, See AndersonPricewaterhouseCoopers, 174Prozzi, Jolanda, See VillaProzzi, Jorge, See VillaPublic Citizen, 33–4, 108

Raghavan, Chakravarthi, 78Ranald, Patricia, 102Ranné, Omar, 50Rawson, Jean, See CornReed, Cyrus, 46Repetto, Robert, 25Richardson, Sarah, 184Roberts, Donna, 18Rolan-Hoist, David, See BeghinRose, 13Rosen, Howard, 93Rosenberg, Robin L., 25Rubio, Luis, See HufbauerRyan, Daniel E., 27

Salzman, Jim, 154Sampson, Gary P., 22, 25, 50,

255n3.3 Sarkar, Shyamalandu, 100Schaper, Marriane, 255n.3.5Scheer, Dirk, See VoituriezSchmidt, Andrea R., 92Schott, Jeffrey J., 20, 195, 197, 200,

214Serret, Ysé, 64, 148Sheikh, Parvaze A., 103Shiner, Josette, 91, 158Sierra Club, 15, 25, 197, 255n5.3Sindico, Francesco, 62 Smith, V. Kerry, 12Soloway, Julie A., 33Speth, James G., 28Sprouse, Terry, See VaradySteinberg, Richard H., 49, 123Stevens, Candice, 27Stone, Susan F., 17Sugathan, Mehesh, See Claro

Tarasofsky, Richard, 53Taylor, Robin, 7–8, 12–14, 24, 243Teehankee, Manuel A. J., 57–8Tejeda-Honstein, Dzoara D., 15, 197Thinkquest.org., 10Trade and Environmental Policy

Advisory Committee (TEPAC), 256n7.2

Troje, Suzanne, 62Tsigas, Marinos E., 157

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), 98, 209

U.S. Department of State (USDOS), 210, 215, 218, 221

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 216

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), 218, 220–1, 247

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), 22, 50, 90, 155, 158

U.S. Treasury, 46United Nations Conference on Trade

and Development (UNCTAD), 255n3.5

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), 28–9, 226

Author Index 287

Valente, Marcela, 121van Bork, Petrus, 54van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique,

See Beghinvan Veen-Groot, Daniëlle B., 9, 14Van Zeyl, Elysia, 111Varady, Robert G., 46Vaughan, Scott, 13, 19, 51Villa, Juan C., 198Villarreal, M. Angeles, 94Vilos-Ghiso, Silvana J., 8, 13Voituriez, Trancrède, 184, 186Von Homeyer, Ingmar, See Voituriez

Wang, Hua, See DasguptaWarner, Jeffery E., See VillaWater Encyclopedia, 10

Weinkopf, Jenny, See AlfWeinstein, Michael M., 23Whaley, John, 29Wheeler, David, See DasguptaWilliams, Eric, See MarcotullioWilson, Graham K., 50Wold, Chris, 195, 208, 233World Trade Organization (WTO), 21,

48, 51–2, 57, 60–1World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 10, 184,

255n3.3WTO Secretariat, 60

Yul, H.M., 230

Zissamos, Ben, 29Zuniga, Roldolfo, See Pimntal

289

Subject Index

Africa, 3, 6, 133, 152–3, 174–6, 244African Free Trade Zone (AFTZ), 152African FTAs, 88, 131, 141, 150, 152,

244; environmental provisions, 150, 152–3; list of FTAs, 152; See also EU, US; individual country FTAs

African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries (ACP), 125, 131, 174–6, 226

agriculture, 17, 183; cooperation on, 74, 117, 122, 129, 131–2, 218; environmental impacts, and, 130, 165, 169, 180, 183, 193–4, 196–7, 202, 245; GATT agreement on, 51; WTO negotiations, 56

air pollution, 10, 14, 180, 183–4, 197, 221, 235

Albania, 83, 123–4, 129–30, 134–5, 137

Algeria, 124, 132, 137Andean trade pact, 102Andorra, 129Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS), 17animal and plant life and health, 34,

51, 82, 136, 138, 142, 144, 146–7Argentina, 57, 62, 114, 116, 120, 137ASEAN 141, 149–51; environmental

programs, 141–2, 151; ASEAN–Australia–New Zealand FTA, 183; ASEAN–China FTA, 142; ASEAN-Japan FTA, 144, 229, 230; members, 141

Asian Free Trade Area (AFTA), 141, 149–51

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), 54, 59, 118, 142–3

Asia-Pacific Region, 6, 143, 146, 151Australia, 11, 16, 58, 90, 93Australian FTAs, 141, 146; ASEAN,

142; Chile FTA, 67, 102, 116–17, 146; environmental provisions, 57, 93, 117; New Zealand FTA, 21, 182;

Singapore FTA, 146; SPARTECA FTA, 146, 151; US FTA, 57, 67, 77, 81, 87, 101–2, 146, 162–3, 217

Bahrain, 90, 104–6, 162, 165, 217barriers to trade, See non–tariff trade

barriersBasel Convention, 29, 31, 53, 119, 130Bhagwati–Daly debate, 19, 25, 241Biosafety Protocol of the Convention

on Biodiversity, 29Bolivia, 114, 116, 120, 137border area, US-Mexico, 31, 44, 154;

Border Economic Cooperation Commission (BECC), 37, 44–6, 206–7; Border Environmental Cooperation Agreement (BECA), 35; Border Environmental Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), 46; Location of, 44; North American Development Bank (NADB), 37, 44–6, 206–7

Bosnia and Herzegovina, 124, 129, 137

Brazil, 11, 20, 54, 62, 88, 114, 116, 120, 122, 137, 191

Bretton Woods, 3, 47Brunei Darussalam, 72, 80, 83–4, 116,

141, 144–5, 151, 229–31Bush, George H.W., 30Bush, George W., 91–2, 102, 106,108,

158

CAFTA-DR-US FTA,90, 94–97, 229; citizen submissions, 80, 100, 106, 210, 213–14; criticisms of, 99–101; environmental assessment, 159–61, 188–90; environmental cooperation, 97–8, 247; impacts, 209–15; public participation, 95–6, 98

Cairns Group, 60Cambodia, 141, 151

290 Subject Index

Cameroon, 124, 131–2, 137, 176Canada-Chile Commission for

Environmental Cooperation, 223–4Canada, Doha negotiations, 57–8Canada-US Trade Agreement

(CUSTA), 21, 62, 65, 89, 104Canadian environmental impact

assessments (EIA), 3, 125, 165–7; Cabinet Directive, 166; Criticisms of, 186; Comparisons with EU and US, 171; findings on impacts, 169–71, 174, 196; framework for, 155, 166–9; objectives, 167; procedures, 166–9, 181

Canadian environmental provision’s impacts, Administration of, 87, 223, 248; Chile cooperation impacts, 222–5, 246, 248, 253; Chili citizen submissions, 22–3; Costa Rica FTA, 222, 225, 253; NAFTA, 196–9, 201, 208, 235–38, 248; Peru cooperation, 225

Canadian FTAs, 5–6,23, 65, 110–13, 135, 155; countries with, 111, 112–13; criticisms of, 113–14; environmental provisions, 68–70, 76, 78, 81, 87, 104, 108; EFTA FTA, 110–11; FTAA, 108; Israel FTA, 110–11; pending agreements, 112–13

capacity building, 17,43, 45, 56–7, 66, 75, 103, 128, 133, 164, 203, 208, 210, 217–18, 222–6, 226, 230, 248

Caricom, 82, 111, 226–7CARIFORUM States, 74, 79–80, 84–5,

88, 122, 124, 226–7; See also EU CARIFORUM FTA

Carrington, 227Chilean FTAs, 88, 113, 115–18,

137, 151; Australia, 67, 102, 156; Canada, 69–70, 87, 110–11; China, 150; Colombia, 116–17; countries with (list), 116; effectiveness, 218–20; EFTA, 134–5; environmental impacts, 215–18; environmental provisions, 14, 67–70, 72, 84–5, 87, 94, 102, 105, 115–18, 135, 139; environmental reviews, 162, 165, 175, 181, 190–1;

EU, 68, 91; Japan, 144; MERCOSUR, 120–1; Mexico, 114; Panama, 116–17; public participation, 117, 218; US, 14, 77, 84–5,90, 94, 104–5

Chile, trade disputes, 62–3China, 27China’s FTAs, 141, 149–51; ASEAN,

142; Chili, 116; cooperation, 142, 149, 230–1; countries with (list), 150; environmental provisions, 68, 76, 82, 122, 142, 147–8; EU, 192; New Zealand, 82, 147–8, 182, 230–1; Peru, 68, 76, 122

CITES, 29, 31, 53, 57, 92, 119, 211–12, 220

citizen submissions, See Canada–Chile FTA, NAFTA, CAFTA–DR–US FTA

Clinton, William J., 30, 89, 92–3, 107, 157

Colombian FTAs, 84; ALADI (LAIA), 114, 116, 137; Andean Pact, 102; Canada FTA notified, 111–12, 170; Chile FTA, 116; environmental cooperation, 107; environmental provisions, 92, 106–7, 117; environmental reviews, 162, 170; MERCOSUR associate member, 120; US pending, 84, 90, 92, 106–107

Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), See North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE), See Doha Round negotiations

Committee on Trade and the Environment, Special Session (CTE-SS), See Doha Round negotiations

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), 150–2

composition effects, See environmental impacts of trade

Convention on Biodiversity, 29, 53, 57, 104

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, See CITES

cooperation on environment, See specific country FTAs

Subject Index 291

Costa Rica FTAs, CAFTA-DR, 94–8, 209; Canada, 110–12, 202, 225, 253; Caricom, 82; Chile, 116, 119; Mexico, 114; Taiwan, no FTA, 119

Cote d’Ivoire, 124, 131–2Cotonou agreement, 67, 127, 131Croatia, 124, 134, 137Cuba, 19, 90, 114, 116, 137customs union, 20, 134, 152

Daly, 19, 241Darussalam, See Brunei DarussalamDavos, 111Decision on Trade and the

Environment, 51Denmark, 132, 176disguised restriction on trade, 49,

82–3, 135–6Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), 1,

60–2dispute settlement procedures, 57, 66,

80–1, 92, 97, 208, 245dispute settlement, GATT/WTO, See

trade disputesDoha Ministerial Declaration, 52–3Doha Round, 1, 2, 5–6, 13, 19, 21,

28–9,51, 53, 56, 58, 60, 138, 171, 174, 181, 241, 244, 249

Doha Round Environmental Negotiations, 6, 13, 21, 28, 50–9; CTE, 1, 51, 52, 55–8, 241; CTE-SS, 52–7, 59; environment and development, 51–2, 55–6, 58, 60; environmental goods and services, 52–4, 56–9; environmental provisions and market access, 52, 54–6; fisheries subsidization, 52–3,56; intellectual property rights, 51–2, 55–6; information exchanges with MEAs, 52–3, 56–8; observer status, 52–3, 56–8; relationships with STOs of MEAs, 57, 251

dolphins, 1, 22, 27, 49, 242Dunkel, Arthur, 50

East African Community (EAC), 152Economic Community of West

African States (ECOWAS), 150, 152

EFTA, See European Free Trade Association

Egypt, 72, 88, 116, 124, 124–5,137, 193

El Paso, 15El Salvador, 71–2, 111, 114, 116,

118–20, 209, 212, 214El Salvador- Honduras-Taiwan FTA,

71–2, 118–19endangered species, 22, 24, 31, 43,

47, 49, 53, 57, 106,109, 119, 212, 229–31; See also CITES

energy, 112; cooperation on, 74, 115, 127, 129, 132, 230, 245; efficiency, 46, 53; FTA provisions, 65, 78–80,83–4,130, 144–6, 153, 245; in SIAs, 178, 194; renewable, 46, 58, 115, 130, 138–9, 202, 229, 231; Singapore declaration on, 141; use in transportation, 14

Environmental Affairs Council, 105, 107; CAFTA–DR-US, 96; Chile–US, 215, 239–40; Peru-US, 218

environmental benefits, 7, 225, 227Environmental Cooperation

Agreements, 148, 218–20, 229, 250, 253

environmental cooperation See individual FTAs

environmental damages, 2, 9, 37environmental goods, 52–4, 56,

58–9, 75, 121, 128, 133, 138–9, 144–5, 182; environmental impact analyses, 154, 181; Chile, 181; Japan-Korea, 181, 183; New Zealand, 181–4; See also Canadian Environmental Impact Assessments, EU Sustainability Impact Assessments, US Environmental Reviews

environmental impact analyses, critiques of, 184; content, 184–5; general, 187–8; methodology, 185–6; participation, 486; utilization, 186–7

environmental impacts of trade, 2, 7; composition effects, 7–8, 12–13, 182, 243; scale effects, 7–9, 12–13, 174, 183, 192, 208, 233, 243;

292 Subject Index

technique effects, 8–9, 12–13, 182, 243; transportation effects, 9–10, 174; pests and invasive species, 11–12

environmental Kuznets curve (EKC), 13, 24, 242, 250

environmental labeling, 47, 52, 55–7, 128

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 46, 211–12, 215–16, 240

environmental provisions in FTAs, 64; location in FTAs, 65; reasons against, 23–5, 27, 29; reasons for, 25–6, 64–5; types of,65–9; See also individual country FTAs

environmental side agreements, 3, 65, 68–9, 108, 187, 241; Canadian FTAs, 111–12, 114; NAFTA, 1, 4–5, 30–1, 35, 45, 73, 86, 93, 133, 154, 196, 213, 222, 25; See also Environmental Cooperation Agreements

Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory, 224–5

EU CARIFORUM FTA, 4, 122, 124–5; environmental cooperation, 74, 84; Council, 80, 88, 127; disputes, 128, environmental chapter, 127–8; environmental provisions, 67, 74, 79, 83, 86, 126–7; financing, 13, 227–8; road map, 226; sustainable development, 126; Technical Assistance Facility, 228; Training/capacity building, 128, 133

EU Environmental Cooperation, 228; Chile, 229; CARIFORUM, See EU CARIFORUM FTAs; EU-Mexico, 229

EU FTAs, 123, 136, 138–9; contrasts with US and Canadian FTAs, 132–3; environmental cooperation, 125–32, 135–6, 139–40,156, See also EU-CARIFORUM FTAs; environmental provisions, 126–7; impacts, 225–9; partner countries (list), 124; sustainable development emphasis, 125–8; See also EU CARIFORUM FTA

EU sustainability impact assessments (SIA), 171, 246; consultants,

use of, 171–4; critiques of, See environmental impact analysis, critiques of; economic and social aspects, 171–5, 178, 180; findings, 174–5, 178–81, 192; principles of, 172; procedures, 171–4; SIA Handbook, 171, 186; SIAs reviewed, 191–2, 192–4; WTO SIA, 181

Europe, other FTAs, 136; FTAs (list), 137; environmental provisions, 136, 138–9; Switzerland-Japan, 138–9; Turkey’s FTAs, 136; Ukrainian FTAs, 136, 138

European Commission (EC), 3, 75, 80, 85, 123–4, 125, 128, 137, 171–3, 186–7

European Development Fund (EDF), 131, 227–8

European Free Trade Association (EFTA), 6, 123, 136, 138; EFTA members, 124, 133, 37; EFTA’s trade policy, 133–4; EFTA-Tunisia cooperation, 139–40; environmental provisions, 72, 75, 134–6, 139; partner countries, 110–11, 134

European Union, See EUexceptions to prohibited trade

restrictions, 65, 95, 106, 114, 117, 135, 138, 144, 146–7, 149, 232, 245; Article XX, 3, 34–5, 49, 51–2, 82–3, 95, 110–11, 119–20, 132, 138, 142,144, 190, 244; other exceptions, 82–3, 102, 132, 136; See also individual FTAs

expert committee, 128experts, use of, 37, 41, 74, 117, 156,

172, 184–6expropriation, 72, 112;

environmental laws not, 34, 72, 95, 101, 105, 112–13,120, 122, 142, 232, 245; NAFTA, 33–4,72; See also individual FTAs

externalities, 8, 178

Faeroe Islands, 124, 129, 132, 134, 137–8

Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA, 13Fisheries, 52–3, 56, 83, 122, 126, 129,

131–2, 152, 202, 248

Subject Index 293

Florida, 12, 197Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO), 15Foreign Affairs and International

Trade Canada (DFAIT), 5, 166–7foreign direct investment (FDI), 25forestry, 86, 103, 106, 165, 219;

Agreement on, 102; cooperation on, 117, 122, 218, 246, 247; deforestation, 13, 100, 129, 152, 175, 179–80, 214; fires, 230; FTA impacts on, 179, 181, 183, 218; illegal logging, 84, 92, 103, 179, 219, 230, 250; management/governance, 219; protection, 219; reforestation, 230

Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), 89–91, 104, 107–8, 122, 168

GATT negotiations, See Uruguay Round, Doha Round

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 1–3, 5, 19, 24, 48, 78, 89, 241–4; GATT Article XX, See exceptions to prohibited trade restrictions; GATT Article XXIV, 3, 20

General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), 3, 20, 51–2, 62–3, 119–20

Georgia, 136–7Georgia-Kazakhstan FTA, 138–9Guatemala, 86–7, 94, 96, 111, 114,

118–20, 209, 212, 214–5Guatemala–Taiwan FTA, See Taiwan–

Central America FTAs

Hawksbill sea turtle, 213hazardous waste, See Basel

ConventionHonduras, 94, 111, 114, 118–20, 209,

214Hong Kong, 147, 150

Iceland, 114, 116, 124, 129, 133–4India, 137; WTO negotiations, 19,

54; FTAs, 116, 121, 123, 142, 146, 149–51; SIAs, 178, 192

Indonesia, 73, 78, 80, 83, 88, 137, 141, 144–5, 151, 229–30

institutional provisions See specific FTAs

intellectual property and TRIPS, 51–2, 55–6, 83, 91, 135–6, 143

International Monetary Fund, 348International Trade Organization

(ITO), 3International Tropical Timber

Organization (ITTO), 54invasive species,2, 12, 17, 201;

costs of, 15–17; definition, 11; environmental impacts, 8; environmental reviews, in, 163–4; examples of, 11; numbers, 11, 15; SPS/TBT and, 17–18; trade and, 15, 17, 18, 243, 246

Israel, 21, 89–90, 92, 104, 110–11, 114, 116, 121, 124, 131, 134, 137, 219

Japanese FTAs, 141, 143, 252; environmental cooperation, 142, 144–6, 229–30; environmental impacts, 181, 183–4; environmental provisions, 71, 73–4, 78, 80, 84, 115, 138, 144; partner countries, 114, 116, 134, 137–8, 144, 146, 149, 252; partner countries, list, 144; MOFA, 5; WTO negotiations, 55; trade disputes, 62

Japan-Korea FTA, proposed, 181, 183–4

Johannesburg Declaration, 67, 126Joint Public Advisory Committee

(JPAC), 37; Canada–Chile FTA, 224; NAAEC, 37–9, 41–3, 204–5

Jordan, 89; Canadian FTA, pending, 111–12; EFTA FTA, 134; EU FTA, 124, 131; US environmental impacts, 217, 219–21; US environmental review, 161; US FTA, 90–4, 104–5, 164–5, 108–9

Juarez, Mexico, 44

Korea, Republic of, 141, 151; APTA, 127, 150; Canada, 111; Chile, 116; EFTA, 134–5; environmental impacts, 178, 183–4; EU, 122–3; GSTP, 127; India, 149; 149; Japan, proposed, 181, 183–4; SIA, 192; US pending, 90, 92, 106–7

294 Subject Index

Krygyz Republic, 150

Lamy, 59–60Laos, 141, 150Laredo, Texas, 15, 197, 207Latin American Integration Association

(ALADI), 110, 114, 116, 137Lebanon, 10, 124, 129, 131, 134legal basis of FTAs, 201Liechtenstein, 111, 114, 116, 124, 129,

135

Macao, 150Macedonia, 123–4, 130, 134, 137–8 Malaysia, 137, 141, 144, 148–9, 151,

183, 229–31Marine Mammal Protection Act, 22,

26–7, 49–50, 242Marrakesh agreement, 50–1MERCOSUR, 120; associate members,

120; environmental agreement, 121; environmental SIA, 175, 191; environmental provisions, 120–2, 244; members, 120; MERCOSUR FTAs, 121, 149; regional trade agreement, 5; Treaty of Asunción, 120

Mexican FTAs, (non-NAFTA), 114, 137; cooperation, 115, 145, 226, 229–30; environmental provisions, 114–15, partner countries, 114–16, 124, 134, 144; See also NAFTA

Middle East, 6, 150–1Migratory birds, 161, 224, 237, 248Minera San Xavier, 254, 237Montenegro, 124, 137Montreal Protocol on Ozone-

Depleting Substances, 29, 31, 57, 92, 102, 119

Morocco, GSTP,137; EFTA, 134; environmental cooperation, 164, 217; environmental impacts, 220–1; environmental review, 162–3; EU, 124, 193; Turkey, 137; US FTA, 70–1, 75, 90, 104–5

most favored nation (MFN), 20, 29Multilateral Environmental

Agreements (MEA), 28; Adequacy of, 2, 25–6, 242–3, 251–2; disputes,

potential for, 29, 251; Doha Round and, 52; FTA provisions on, 31, 66, 76, 78, 92, 97, 102, 106, 179, 210, 226, 245; information exchanges with WTO, 52, 56–7; Numbers of, 26, 28; observer status at WTO CTE meetings, 52, 56–7; Specific Trade Obligations (STO) in, 29, 52–3, 56–7, 251; Trade Promotion Act and, 91; UNEP role in, 28

Myanmar, 137, 141, 151

NAFTA cooperation, See North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

NAFTA’s environmental impacts, 42–3, 195, 202–3; agriculture, 196–7, 202; BECC and NADB activities, 45–6, 206–7; CEC responsibility, 195; citizen submission, 203–4, 208, 235–8; environmental information, 43, 201–2; environmental grants, 42–3, 200; environmental laws, 198–202; industrial sector, 197–8, 200; pollution haven, 196, 247; public participation, 199, 200, 204–6; projects, 203

NAFTA’s environmental provisions, 1, 3–5, 15, 23, 27–8, 30; Bush and Clinton impacts on, 30; Chapter 11, 32–3,70, 72, 105, 112, 232; citizen submissions, 38–9, 40–2; commitment to enforce laws, 32; environmental side agreement, 4, 30–1,35, 37; institutions, 37–9, 44–6; not to relax laws to attract investment, 32–3; public participation, 36–9; regional trade agreement, 4; tuna–dolphin case, effects on, 27–8

National Invasive Species Council (NISC), 11, 15

New Zealand environmental reviews, 182; Framework for Integrating Environment Issues, 182; general approach, 182; findings, 182–3; National Interest Analysis (NIA), 182; regulatory,

Subject Index 295

product structure and scale effects, 156, 183

New Zealand FTAs, 21, 141; Closer Economic Partnership Agreements, 147; environmental cooperation, 147–9, 230–1; environmental cooperation agreements, 147–8; environmental provisions, 72, 82, 142, 147–9; institutional arrangements, 149; partner countries, 116, 146, 149–51; trade and environmental policies, 147

New Zealand, invasive species, 16Nicaragua FTAs, 88; CAFTA-DR-US,

44, 209, 212, 215; Canada, 111; GSTP, 137, exico, 114–15; Taiwan, 67–8, 71–5, 77, 79, 81, 85, 87, 118–19

non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 37, 63; CAFTA-DR-US, 210, 215; Canada-Chile FTA, 224; CEC, NAFT, 37, 43, 203; environmental assessments, 186, 202; environmental cooperation, 232, 245, 247, 249, 250–1, 254; Nicaragua-Taiwan FTA, 74; See also specific NGOs

nontariff trade barriers, 3, 24, 25; See also Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), 35; border issues, 44–5; budget and resources, 39–40; citizen submissions, 40–2; basic provisions, 35–7; critique if CEC activities, 208; environmental grants, 42–3; environmental impacts, 36; environmental information, 43; environmental institutions, 37–9, 44–7; environmental projects and activities, 38; objectives, 35; public participation, 43–4, 78

North American Development Bank (NADB), See border area

North American Free Trade Agreement, See NAFTA

North American Fund for Environmental Cooperation (NAFEC), 42–3, 200

Norway, 111, 114, 116, 124, 139, 133nuclear safety, 129–30

Obama administration, 92, 106oil spills, 10Oman, 81, 90, 163, 217Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD), 5, 13, 53–4, 154

Organization of American States (OAS), 5, 209; SICE, 64

Overseas Countries & Territories (OCT), 124, 129, 131–2

Pakistan, 6, 117, 149–51 Palestinian Authority, 124, 132, 134,

137Panama’s FTAs; Canada FTA,

pending, 111–13; Canada, environmental impact results, 169–70; Taiwan FTA, 118–20; US FTA, pending, 84, 90, 92, 106–7

Peru and WTO environmental goods, 56

Peru’s FTAs, 58; Annex on Forestry, 102–3; environmental cooperation, 218–19, 222, 225; environmental provisions, 4, 68–9, 76, 78, 80–1, 83–4, 90, 82, 94, 102–4, 110–12, 114, 116, 122, 137, 149–50; environmental reviews, 163–4, 170; MERCOSUR, 120–1; number of, 68; partner countries, 111, 120, 122; TPA and, 92; US FTA approved, 92

pesticides, 57, 84, 196–7pests, 19, 15, 17, 152Philippines, 73; environmental

cooperation, 73, 148, 229–30; environmental provisions, 144; oil spills, 10; partner countries, 73, 116, 137, 141, 144, 151; WTO negotiations on environmental goods, 54–5

pollutants, 8–10, 13–14, 24, 26–7, 29, 39, 47, 57, 109, 183, 197–8, 201–2, 248

296 Subject Index

pollution haven hypothesis, 13, 26, 71, 196, 247

precautionary principle, 62, 128, 143, 243

processes and production methods (PPM), 27

proliferation of trade agreements, 20, 23, 88, 241, 244

public participation, See NAFTA, NAAEC; individual FTAs

race to the bottom, 2, 25, 33, 68, 101, 154, 196, 241

regional trade agreements (RTA), 5, 20–1, 23, 52, 57, 64, 81, 90, 133, 149, 153, 243–4

rest of the world (ROW), 6, 141Rotterdam Convention, 29, 57RTA database, 3, 5, 64, 88, 90

SACU, See Southern African Customs Union

San Antonio, Texas, 44San Marino, 124, 129sanitary/phytosanitary (SPS), 3; FTA

SPS provisions, 31, 65, 119, 147; GATT/WTO Agreements, 3, 17, 49, 51–2; Invasive species and pest control, 17

Saudi Arabia, 55scale effects, See environmental

impacts of tradeSecretariat for Central American

Economic Integration (SIECA), 96, 98

Serbia, 155, 190shrimp-sea turtle dispute, See trade

disputesSICE database, 5, 64Sierra Club, 155, 190Singapore, 141; early notification for

Canada FTA, 111; environmental cooperation, 147–8, 220–1; environmental goods in WTO negotiations, environmental impacts of FTA, 217, 220–1; environmental provisions in FTAs, 72, 79, 94, 104–5, 122, 134–5, 144, 146–7, 149; environmental reviews,

163, 182; partner countries, 90, 116, 134, 137, 141, 144, 146, 149, 150–1

Singapore Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, 221

South Africa, 10, 124, 132, 134, 176South Korea, See Korea, Republic ofSouthern African Customs Union

(SACU), 75, 134–5, 152Southern African Development

Community (SADC), 150, 152, 176–7

Sovereignty, 24, 66, 68, 70, 148, 232special safeguards, 59specific trade obligations (STO), 29,

52–3, 57, 251Stockholm Convention on Persistent

Organic Pollutants (POPs), 29, 57Stockholm Declaration, 28, 40sustainable development, 3, 28, 51,

91, 143, 234; CUSTA undermining of, 89; environmental cooperation, 35, 118, 226–8; environmental reviews/assessments, 158, 164–6, 171, 173, 187–8, 144; FTA/ECA objective, 39, 45–6, 84–5, 125–6, 131, 148; FTA environmental provisions and, 31, 67–8, 73, 84–5, 125–6, 131, 148; NAFTA undermining, 89; SDS of EU, 3, 28, 65, 125–6; trade policies and, 143, 147; WTO negotiations and, 28, 56

sustainability impact assessments (SIA), See EU sustainability impact assessments

Switzerland, 111; EFTA members, 111, 114, 116, 133; non–EFTA FTA provisions, 124, 29, 134, 137–8, 144; WTO negotiations, 56; WTO Ministerial Meeting, 59

Syria, 124, 129, 132, 137

Taiwan, 119; environmental cooperation, 74–5; environmental provisions, 67–8, 71–3, 77–9, 81, 85, 87, 119; partner countries, 78, 118

Tariffs, 125; common for Customs Unions, 5; environmental reviews, 156, 169, 185, 187; FTA effects on,

Subject Index 297

100; legal aspects of GATT for FTAs, 20; no discrimination based on PPMs, 27; penalty in trade disputes, 61; reducing/eliminating for environmental goods, 58, 138

Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT), 51; environmental aspects of GATT agreement, 3, 27; exceptions (GATT), 49,52; FTA provisions for, 31–2, 119–20, 147; labeling and, 57; PPMs and, 27; trade disputes and,62

technique effects, See environmental impacts of trade

Thailand, 141; environmental cooperation, 148, 230–1; environmental provisions in FTA/ECAs, 144, 147–9; environmental reviews of FTAs, 182–3; partner countries, 117, 141, 144, 147, 151

tourism, 245; citizen submissions involving, 204; cooperation on, 129, 148; ecotourism, 117; environmental reviews and, 174, 178; provisions in FTAs, 66, 74, 83–4, 129, 132, 245

toxic substances, 10, 36, 109, 148, 152, 196, 201

trade disputes, GATT/WTO,60, 62; Appellate Body, 61; Article XX and 83; dispute panels, 61; Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), 60–1; Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), 60–1; environmental cases, 62; environmental provisions as potential cause of, 24; findings and implications, 62–3; procedures, 61–3; shrimp turtle case, 27, 22, 27, 50, 62; tuna-dolphin case, 1, 22–3, 26–7, 48–51, 62–3; See individual FTAs for their dispute settlement provisions

Trade Promotion Act of (TPA), 65, 89, 93; environmental provisions required, 65–6, 91, 104, 164; environmental reviews required, 156, 158, 161, 202; FTAs named Trade Promotion Agreements, 92

Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership, 72, 116, 147, 148, 150–1

transportation in FTAs, 130–1; cooperation on, 129–30; in SIAs, 174, 181

transportation effects, See environmental impacts of trade

TRIPS, See intellectual property and TRIPS

Tuna-Dolphin Case, See trade disputesTunisian FTAs, environmental

cooperation, 139; environmental provisions, 135–6, 138; partner countries, 116, 124, 134, 137; SIA findings about, 193

Turkey’s FTAs, 123, 136; environmental provisions, 83, 129,136; partner countries, 116, 124, 137

US Department of Agriculture (USDA), 15, 17, 248

US environmental reviews, 91, 161, 181; comparison with other reviews, 155, 170; criticism of the reviews, 164; See also environmental impact anqlyses, critiques of; findings of reviews, 161–4, 170; legal framework, 155, 157, 161; methodology, 155–7; NAFTA, 154; procedures, 158–61; public participation, 161, 164–5, 190–1; transboundary and global effects, 158, 161, 163

US FTAs (non-CAFTA and NAFTA), 89; Congressional impact on, 89–92; effectiveness, GAO report, 218–21, 247; environmental cooperation, 93–8; environmental impacts, 208–22; environmental provisions, 92–7; partner countries (list), 90; pending agreements, 92, 106; TPA requirements, 91; See also NAFTA’s environmental provisions, US-CAFTA-DR FTA impacts, US-Chile FTA’s environmental impacts

US-CAFTA-DR FTA, 94; criticisms, 99–101; environmental chapter,

298 Subject Index

95–7; environmental cooperation, 97–8; impact analysis, 159–61; legal context, 188–90; ratification of, 94

US-CAFTA-DR FTA impacts, 209; building environmental capabilities, 210, 212; citizen submissions, 95–6; environmental cooperation, 948; financing, 98, 210; implementation issues, 209–10; public participation, 211, 214, 216–18

US-Chile FTA’s environmental impacts, 25; environmental cooperation, 215–16, 218; GAO report on effectiveness, 218; information exchange and collaboration, 215–18; park conservation activities,217–18; training workshops, 217–18; work plans, 215

US-Israel MOU on Environment, 104US-Peru environmental cooperation,

102–3, 218–19US Trade Representative (USTR), 5,

22, 58–61, 210, 233, 239Ukrainian FTAs, 123, 136–8, 175, 178,

188, 191UN Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC), 54, 230

Uruguay, 114, 116, 137Uruguay Round, 1, 19–20, 22–3,

48–51, 60, 89, 241, 244

Vietnam, 137, 141, 144, 151, 229–30

Ways and Means Committee, US Congress, 91, 99, 189

West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA), 152

West African Monetary Zone (WAMZ), 152

World Bank, 3, 48World Environmental Organization,

proposed (WEO), 29World Trade Organization (WTO), 1,

23, 28, 137; Committee on RTAs, 21; CTE formed, 51, 241; dispute settlement, 26, 50, 70, 81; See also trade disputes, GATT/WTO; Doha Round, 28; environmental issues and, 5, 27–8, 48, 51; environmental negotiations, See Doha Round environmental negotiations; environmental study, 19; fast track and, 91; formation of, 21, 48, 51,89, 241; FTA provisions on, 27–8, 66, 76–8, 89, 133, 136, 143, FTAs undermine, belief in, 20, 32, MEA relationships with, 28, 66, 76–8, 105, 168, 171; membership, 148, 153; notifications of FTAs, 11, 123, 143,183; policies on RTAs, 21; RTA database, 3–5, 64, 88, 90; SIA of Doha Round, 171, 181, 191

World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 10, 25, 188, 190

WTO Committee on Trade and Development, 21, 56

WTO environmental negotiations, See Doha Round, Uruguay Round

WTO Group on Environmental Measures and International Trade (EMIT), 48–51

WTO Ministerials, Davos, 51; Doha, 52–3; Geneva, 59; Seattle, 2, 22, 59, 181

WTO Rules Committee, 21WTO Transparency Mechanism, 21