Gerard Greenfield
Two weeks ago (August 25) the NAFTA Tribunal for the case of Metalclad Corp vs. Mexico ruled in favour of Metalclad, ordering the Mexican government to pay US$16.7 million in compensation.
It is the first ruling in an investor-to-state lawsuit under NAFTA.
BOX 1: Metalclad vs. Mexico
In October 1996, Metalclad Corporation, a US waste-disposal company, accused the Mexican government of violating Chapter 11 of NAFTA when the state of San Luis Potosi refused it permission to re-open a waste disposal facility. The State Governor ordered the site closed down after a geological audit showed the facility would contaminate the local water supply. The Governor then declared the site part of a 600,000 acre ecological zone. Metalclad claimed that this constituted an act of expropriation and sought US$90 million in compensation.
An earlier suit against the Canadian government by US-based Ethyl Corp. was settled before a ruling was made.
BOX 2: Ethyl Corp vs. Canada
In 1997 the US chemicals giant, Ethyl Corp, used NAFTA Chapter 11 to sue the Canadian government for a ban imposed on MMT, a gasoline additive produced by Ethyl which is toxic and hazardous to public health. Ethyl claimed that the ban "expropriated" its assets in Canada and that "legislative debate itself constituted an expropriation of its assets because public criticism of MMT damaged the company's reputation." Ethyl sued the Canadian government for US$250 million. A year later, in June 1998, the Canadian government withdrew environmental legislation banning MMT, and paid Ethyl Corp US$13 million to settle the case.
Three more suits are outstanding against the Canadian government, three against the Mexican government and two against the US government.
The case against the US by a Canadian corporation, Mexthanex, also gained attention on the weekend, with an article in The National Post (September 5) announcing that Methanex will seek US$970 million in compensation from the US government for environmental laws in Califorina which are "tantamount to expropriation."
All of these cases are based on the "rights" of investors guaranteed in NAFTA's Chapter 11, where a broad definition of "expropriation" is combined with the right of investors to directly sue governments for compensation (under 'investor-to-state' dispute resolution).
An article in the The Globe & Mail (September 1) on the Metalclad ruling (again) drew attention to the threat posed by NAFTA Chapter 11 to government regulations protecting the environment and public health. Similar articles will be published in the coming weeks. This may even add to the ongoing (though low-key) debate on whether the wording of investment rules under Chapter 11 should be revised.
However, it is important to understand the Metalclad ruling in its wider context. It is not only significant in terms of the assault on environmental regulation, but in the politics of government regulation as a whole.
In most reports on the Metalclad vs. Mexico case the 'problem' was that state legislation caused Metalclad to lose the value of its investment. The debate is then carried out in terms of the validity of the legislation in protecting the environment and public health.
However, we should remind ourselves that this kind of legislation does not just appear out of thin air. Nor is it the result of the kindness of government officials or 'common sense.' As with most social and environmental regulation protecting the rights and interests of working people, it was the result of sustained local struggle.
BOX 3: "Metalclad wants to re-open and expand a toxic dump site in Guadalcazar County in the northern part of the north-central state of San Luis Potosí. That the company might succeed in doing so - despite the opposition of many local officials and citizens - has kept Guadalcazar residents on edge. Residents do not trust the federal government to enforce environmental laws. When the Mexican company that Metalclad bought its toxic dump from refused to obey federal orders to close down in 1991, local residents - brandishing machetes - enforced the order themselves."
Multinational Monitor (October 1995)
BOX 4: "When local authorities ignored the complaints of outraged community members, citizens brandishing machetes mobilized in September 1991, preventing tractor trailers from unloading more toxic wastes."
Multinational Monitor (October 1995)
From this perspective it is clear that the 'problem' began not with the environmental regulations banning the toxic waste disposal plant planned by Metalclad, but with a well-organised protest by the local community. This struggle from below forced the municipal government of Guadalcazar to impose the ban, which in turn forced the state governor to respond.
What this means is that the NAFTA ruling in favour of Metalclad is not just an assault on environmental regulation. It is an assault on the original local struggle that brought this legislation into being.
BOX 5: People vs. Metalclad
In another case, it was reported that "... peasants held a week-long sit-in at the end of September 1998, at Metalclad's construction site for the latest proposed industrial toxic waste site in Mexico, in El Llano, Aguascalientes."
Another important political implication concerns the relationship between national and sub-national regulations.
From the very beginning the federal government of Mexico supported Metalclad's investment project and attempted to force the state of San Luis Potosi to reverse its ban. Even though the NAFTA ruling against Mexico means that the federal government must pay compensation to Metalclad, the federal government can still treat it as a 'victory' against the state of San Luis Potosi and a warning to other states.
This not only appiles to the case of Mexico. In the US and Canada the reality is that federal governments are often willing to lose these cases in order to discipline provincial, state or municipal governments which have adopted progressive social and environmental policies. Where federal governments do not have the legal or political power to reverse such legislation, it can allow the 'external' intervention of NAFTA to act on its behalf.
Over the last 10 years the concept of 'regulatory expropriation' has become an important part of the neoliberal or 'free trade' agenda. It is well known that this agenda involves breaking down barriers to trade and investment, creating more freedom for corporations to pursue profits at any social or ecological cost. These barriers include the regulation of corporate activities by governments, such as laws on employment, environmental protection and public health. It also includes government regulation in the form of public sector services and utilities, where private industry is excluded.
From the perspective of corporations, this kind of government regulation reduces the value of their potential profits. In other words, it prevents them from making even higher profits.
This then is tied to the concept of expropriation. According to a strict legal definition, expropriation is understood as the taking of private property (land) by the government. For example, if a government builds a highway that goes through private property, then the 'taking' of the land is considered an act expropriation. Usually compensation is paid to the private land owner as a result.
However, NAFTA and other recent international treaties use an expanded definition of expropriation. There are three important aspects of this expanded definition:
In this way the neoliberal attack on government regulation is combined with a very broad definition of expropriation to produce the new legal-political concept of regulatory expropriation:
Any national or sub-national government regulations (laws, treaties, administrative measures, policies) which reduce or limit the value of the private commercial property can be considered a form of regulatory expropriation.
Regulatory expropriation not only changes the meaning of expropriation, adding to the list of foreign investors' rights, but redefines the meaning of government regulation. A wide range of government policies, administrative measures and laws which restrict, moderate, guide, adapt or deter the activities of foreign investors can now treated as acts of taking away the property of these corporations.
It is important to recognise that regulatory expropriation is not just a new concept in international trade and investment treaties, but is a political project of a well-organized corporate movement. This movement started in the US under the Reagan administration and is referred to as the 'takings movement' or 'takings project.'
Under Reagan, right-wing judges and lawyers used a series of supreme court cases to redefine the meaning of the 'takings clause' in the Fifth Ammendment of the US Constitution. This clause in the Constitution reads: "... nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
By applying an expanded definition of 'private property' and 'taking', it was ruled that government regulations which limited the commercial value of investment projects or restricted profit earnings could be treated as acts of expropriation.
Most of these cases concerned lawsuits by property developers against local and state governments for their laws on ecological zoning and environmental protection. Property developers claimed that this kind of legislation negatively affected their commercial value (including future profits). As a result local governments were forced to pay compensation to these companies for "regulatory takings" (expropriation).
In some states laws were passed to protect companies against "regulatory takings." However, by the end of the 1980s attempts to pass this kind of legislation were less successful. When attempts to pass federal laws on "regulatory takings" failed, this right-wing judicial/corporate movement shifted its focus to NAFTA.
One of the most important outcomes of the 'takings movement' was that local governments were forced to do a 'takings assessment' before introducing new laws. Draft laws were being watered down or revised to avoid the possibility of expensive lawsuits in the future. This fear of being sued for expropriation by corporations became part of the law-making process.
NAFTA has had a similar effect at a tri-national level.
A Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) negotiating group on investment rules was formed in 1998 and is currently drafting the investment chapter of the FTAA. This will be ready by January 2001 at the latest, and will be finalised in Argentina in April 2001 immediately before the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City.
Despite opposition to the inclusion of NAFTA Chapter 11 or MAI-like rules in the FTAA, there are strong indications that this is going ahead.
Although an investor-to-state complaint system might be successfully opposed, there is a real risk that the expanded definition of expropriation will be included.
It is important to recognise that the US 'takings movement' and NAFTA model of an expanded definition of expropriation has already been included in several new bilateral investment agreements in the region.
The US has signed such agreements with Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, and Trinidad & Tobago.
Canada has signed such agreements with Argentina, Barbados, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela and Trinidad & Tobago. The vague wording "tantamount to expropriation", "equivalent to expropriation"or "expropriation, nationalization or measures which have a similar effect" allows a broad definition of acts of expropriation to include government regulations.
As part of the broader fight against free trade and investment regimes, we must fight to exclude the concept of regulatory expropriation from international agreements.
This involves reinstating the primacy of national regulations on public health, health care, education, environment, community development, employment protection, trade union and labour rights, natural resources (e.g. water), genetic resources (e.g. seed), etc, over and above trade agreements.
This means effectively excluding the above-mentioned social sectors from the overall terms of trade agreements.
With regard to investment rules on regulatory expropriation, in the short-term we must: