By Coral Davenport, January 15, 2014
WASHINGTON
— The Obama administration is retreating from previous demands of
strong international environmental protections in order to reach
agreement on a sweeping Pacific trade deal that is a pillar of President
Obama’s strategic shift to Asia, according to documents obtained by WikiLeaks, environmentalists and people close to the contentious trade talks.
The
negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would be one of
the world’s biggest trade agreements, have exposed deep rifts over
environmental policy between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim
nations. As it stands now, the documents, viewed by The New York Times,
show that the disputes could undo key global environmental protections.
The
environmental chapter of the trade deal has been among the most highly
disputed elements of negotiations in the pact. Participants in the
talks, which have dragged on for three years, had hoped to complete the
deal by the end of 2013.
Environmentalists
said that the draft appears to signal that the United States will
retreat on a variety of environmental protections — including legally
binding pollution control requirements and logging regulations and a ban
on harvesting sharks’ fins — to advance a trade deal that is a top
priority for Mr. Obama.
Ilana
Solomon, the director of the Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program,
said the draft omits crucial language ensuring that increased trade will
not lead to further environmental destruction.
“It
rolls back key standards set by Congress to ensure that the environment
chapters are legally enforceable, in the same way the commercial parts
of free-trade agreements are,” Ms. Solomon said. The Sierra Club, the
Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Wildlife Fund have been
following the negotiations closely and are expected to release a report
on Wednesday criticizing the draft.
American officials countered that they had put forward strong environmental proposals in the pact.
“It
is an uphill battle, but we’re pushing hard,” said Michael Froman, the
United States trade representative. “We have worked closely with the
environmental community from the start and have made our commitment
clear.” Mr. Froman said he continued to pursue a robust, enforceable
environmental standard that he said would be stronger than those in
previous free-trade agreements.
The draft documents are dated Nov. 24 and there has been one meeting since then.
The documents consist of the environmental chapter as well as a “Report from the Chairs,”
which offers an unusual behind-the-scenes look into the divisive trade
negotiations, until now shrouded in secrecy. The report indicates that
the United States has been pushing for tough environmental provisions,
particularly legally binding language that would provide for sanctions
against participating countries for environmental violations. The United
States is also insisting that the nations follow existing global
environmental treaties.
But many of those proposals are opposed by most or all of the other Pacific Rim nations
working on the deal, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico,
Chile, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Peru. Developing
Asian countries, in particular, have long resisted outside efforts to
enforce strong environmental controls, arguing that they could hurt
their growing economies.
The
report appears to indicate that the United States is losing many of
those fights, and bluntly notes the rifts: “While the chair sought to
accommodate all the concerns and red lines that were identified by
parties regarding the issues in the text, many of the red lines for some
parties were in direct opposition to the red lines expressed by other
parties.”
As
of now, the draft environmental chapter does not require the nations to
follow legally binding environmental provisions or other global
environmental treaties. The text notes only, for example, that pollution
controls could vary depending on a country’s “domestic circumstances
and capabilities.”
Earlier
pacts like the North American Free Trade Agreement included only
appendices, which called for cooperation on environmental issues but not
legally binding terms or requirements. Environmentalists derided them
as “green window dressing.”
But
in May 2007, President George W. Bush struck an environmental deal with
Democrats in the Senate and the House as he sought to move a free-trade
agreement with Peru through Congress. In what became known as the May
10 Agreement, Democrats got Mr. Bush to agree that all American
free-trade deals would include a chapter with environmental provisions,
phrased in the same legally binding language as chapters on labor,
agriculture and intellectual property. The Democrats also insisted that
the chapter require nations to recognize existing global environmental
treaties.
Since
then, every American free-trade deal has included that strong language,
although all have been between the United States and only one other
country. It appears to be much tougher to negotiate environmental
provisions in a 12-nation agreement.
“Bilateral
negotiations are a very different thing,” said Jennifer Haverkamp, the
former head of the United States trade representative’s environmental
office. “Here, if the U.S. is the only one pushing for this, it’s a real
uphill battle to get others to agree if they don’t like it.”
But
business groups say the deal may need to ease up. “There are some
governments with developing economies that will need more time and
leeway,” said Cal Cohen, president of the Emergency Committee for
American Trade, a group of about 100 executives and trade associations
that lobbies the United States trade negotiator on the deal. “When you
think about the evolution of labor provisions, you realize how many
centuries the development of high standards took.”
Since
the trade talks began, lawmakers and advocacy groups have assailed the
negotiators for keeping the process secret, and WikiLeaks has been among
the most critical voices. The environment chapter is the third in a
series of Trans-Pacific Partnership documents released by WikiLeaks. In
November, the group posted the draft chapter on intellectual property.
In December, the site posted documents detailing disagreements between
the negotiating parties on other issues. The site is expected to release
more documents as the negotiations unfold.