In one recent and well written op-ed, readers were assured that environmental protections are stronger under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) than in past trade agreements. The implication is that we have nothing to worry about. The problem is there is little evidence to support that claim.

A close read of the TPP text reveals exhortations to protect this and that environmental asset, but little of it is enforceable. For example, the TPP says "each Party shall take measures to control" the production and consumption of ozone-killing substances. While TPP nations shall "adopt, maintain and implement" laws and regulations to prevent trade in endangered species, they need only "endeavour to implement" resolutions to protect and conserve species "whose survival is threatened by international trade." This sort of weak, essentially unenforceable language pervades the TPP's environmental chapter.

And enforcement? Sure, if the government is up to it: The TPP stipulates in several locations that "each Party retains the right to make decisions regarding the allocation of administrative, investigatory and enforcement resources." Though laws must be passed, there is no concrete obligation to enforce them. A similar lack of enforceability is borne out in earlier agreements. For example, the 2010 bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Peru is loaded with language to stop the export of illegally logged hardwoods to the U.S. Yet, four years after implementation, the Peruvian government admitted more than three-quarters of wood exported to U.S. customers was illegally cut. The U.S. has not taken action against Peru. In fact, the U.


S. has never sued anyone over environmental issues under a trade agreement. On the other hand, the U.S. was recently forced to repeal its dolphin-safe tuna labeling law after Mexico sued under NAFTA, another agreement that allegedly contained robust environmental protections.

Kirk Cunningham