How Did Nafta Affect Mexico

NAFTA’s Impact on Mexico
In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect between Mexico, Canada and the U.S. The Sierra Club opposed NAFTA at the time because we were concerned that the environmental provisions in the agreement would not adequately protect the environment or the health of our families and communities. Fifteen years later, NAFTA has created a legacy where corporate profits are promoted at the expense of environmental safeguards, health protections, and workers’ rights. While NAFTA’s impacts have been felt in all three countries, Mexico has been most negatively affected.

Increased Pollution and Decreased Wages
NAFTA was initially publicized as the best way to bring economic development – as well
In preparation for NAFTA, Mexico was required to change its constitution to allow foreign ownership of this land and allowed these plots to be sold or seized by creditors. In addition, NAFTA opened the door for the dumping of large amounts of subsidized U.S. agricultural goods on the Mexican market – lowering prices and endangering the livelihood of peasant farmers. For example: Corn is the primary crop in Mexico, but post-NAFTA farmers received 70% less for their harvests because U.S. corn imports into Mexico more than quadrupled since 1993. 12 Unable to compete with U.S. prices and with no employment prospects in their rural communities, more than 2 million Mexican farmers have been forced off their land since NAFTA was enacted. These disenfranchised farmers have migrated to the already overcrowded and heavily polluted cities and manufacturing zones of Mexico, worsening existing environmental and health conditions. It is estimated that NAFTA created only 700,000 manufacturing jobs in Mexico - far too few to absorb the 2 million displaced farmers and the 130,000 jobs lost in domestic manufacturing due to the replacement of formerly domestically produced goods by imports. 13 Mexican farmers have called for a suspension of NAFTA tariff reductions, and a re-negotiation of NAFTA’s agriculture provisions, but to no avail. With no employment prospects and worsening living conditions, many
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Kevin Gallagher, Economic Progress, Environmental Setback: Are the Benefits of Free Trade Worth the Cost? Americas Program, Interhemispheric Resource Center, Global Development and Environmental Institute, Tufts University. May 1, 2002. U.S.-Mexican Border Health Commission, Demographical Profile of the U.S.-Mexico Border, http://www.nmsu.edu/%7Ebhcom/, Dec.9, 2003 Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Study Supports Improvements to Mexican Air Quality Standards, October 2003. Kevin P. Gallagher, Free Trade and the Environment: Mexico, NAFTA, and Beyond, Americas Program, Interhemispheric Resource Center, September 17, 2004. Lyuba Zarsky and Kevin P. Gallagher, NAFTA, Foreign Direct Investment, and Sustainable Industrial Development in Mexico, Americas Program, Interhemispheric Resource Center. Public Citizen, The Mexican Economy, Agriculture and Environment. Delia Valles, Bonnie F. Daily & James Bishop. An Environmental Education Program For Reducing Thermoplastic Waste in the El Paso-Ciudad Juarez Area, 2004. Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research & Policy. INEGI, Mexican Economic and Ecological System Accounts for 1999-2004. Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, et al, “Mexicans Unable to Live on Sweatshop Wages”, June 2001. CorpWatch, Corporate Globalization Fact Sheet, March 22, 2001 Shorris, Earl. The Life and Times of Mexico. p. 531 Washington Office on