Earlier this week, an arbitration panel at the World Bank
heard the first round arguments of the first environmental case under the
investor-to-state arbitration mechanism of the Central America Free Trade
Agreement (CAFTA) to date. The case
stems from Pacific Rim’s bid to establish a gold mine in the basin of El Salvador's
largest river, Rio Lempa. Pacific Rim planned to use hundreds of tons of cyanide and
hundreds of millions of liters of water per year to recover the gold from the
ore, threatening the water resources that thousands of people rely upon.
Initially Pacific Rim
possessed a permit to conduct exploration activities near Rio Lempa, but regulations
required it to submit a feasibility study and gain government approval before
it could begin actual exploitation of the mine. Although Pacific Rim
applied for an exploitation permit, it failed to submit the feasibility study. In the face of growing opposition, Pacific Rim
never completed a feasibility study necessary to obtain an
exploitation permit for its mine and the government did not issue the
exploitation permit.
In December 2008, Pacific Rim formally launched a CAFTA
claim for hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, claiming that El Salvador’s
actions constituted discriminatory treatment and expropriation of its
investment. CAFTA’s investor-to-state
dispute settlement provision is very similar to NAFTA’s investor-to-state
provision in which foreign corporations can claim damages if a government
action, including environmental regulations, constitutes expropriation of an
investment or discriminatory treatment. Under NAFTA, several environmental and
public interest laws have been challenged in the United
States, Canada,
and Mexico
(see our page on these cases here for
more info). It seems that trade
negotiators did not learn the lesson from NAFTA and included this
investor-state provision in CAFTA, opening the door to outrageous challenges to
essential environmental laws like we now see in the Pacific
Rim case.
On Monday and Tuesday the tribunal at the World Bank heard
Pacific Rim and El Salvador
wrangle over El Salvador’s
preliminary objections to the case proceeding. Lawyers for El Salvador argued that El Salvador was
properly following its own mining laws and that these laws apply equally to all
mining companies so they cannot be discriminatory. Lawyers for Pacific Rim,
on the other hand, mostly argued procedural questions. The arbitration panel is expected to render
its decision by August 2nd, at which point either the case will be
dismissed or hearings on jurisdiction and standing will proceed. A video of the
hearings can be viewed here.
You can take action to ask President Obama to exclude these
investor-to-state arbitration provisions from future trade agreements here.
Thanks for your comments! See our Pacific Rim page for the latest updates about this important issue: http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=4212
Posted by: Amy Bruno | October 07, 2010 at 10:40 AM