Canadian negotiators may be unable to assess the environmental impact of their trade negotiations at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City next April, according to a government official.

François Lasalle, a spokesperson for the department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, couldn't say if Canada's new Environmental Assessment Framework for Trade Negotiations will be ready for the next round of trade negotiations.

The Framework intends to help Canadian negotiators reposition themselves during international free trade negotiations if they foresee positive or negative environmental impacts produced by this agreement. A first draft was published in Sept. 2000 and the results of public consultations were published in December.

"The problem is whether or not the framework will be ready before the FTAA is implemented," Lasalle said.

The Summit will see the heads of 34 American states discuss a new Free Trade Area of the Americas, an extension of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement signed between Canada, the United-States, and Mexico.

The FTAA was originally intended to be completed for implementation by 2005. However, some countries, including Chile and the United States, are pushing to move the ratification date up to 2003. This would depend on how far negotiators get at the Quebec City Summit meeting, according to the Council of Canadians' latest publication authored by Council chair Maude Barlow, The Free Trade Area of the Americas and the Threat to Social Programs, Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice in Canada and the Americas. released on Jan. 18.

While Barlow does not mention the Framework in her report, she writes that, "the FTAA draft, as it now stands, contains no safeguards for the environment." She adds that while the FTAA originally contained sustainable development mandate, it was later dropped because "it was largely regarded as a failure."

"The whole process was badly underfunded and had no clear mandate for action ... As a consequence, the whole goal of sustainable development was completely dropped from the FTAA's new mandate at the Santiago Summit in 1998, and the tracks of trade and environment were completely separated," Barlow writes.

However, Lasalle warned that lumping environment and trade together is a rather complex affair.

"When a country changes its position during trade negotiations, it's very difficult to pin-point one specific reason for the problem. If negotiations changed on one specific point, chances are that environment wasn't the only reason," Lasalle said.

Moreover, he added that this Framework is not intended to rewrite whole trade agreements but rather to enable negotiators to change their position if they deem it necessary.

"This is not necessarily a framework to review trade agreements but rather to see if the environmental effects of trade agreements are understood and minimized," Lasalle said.

Also, this is Canada's framework and other countries do not have to follow Canada's position, Lasalle admitted.

But for Leslie Dickout, campaign manager for the Sierra Club who also coordinates for the Canadian Alliance on Trade and Environment, the discussion should take place at another level.

"With the FTAA, we're not talking countries, but corporations," Dickout said. "There should be a level of public consultation to all trade agreements," Dickout added.

While Environmental Assessment Framework for Trade Negotiations has undergone several public consultations, Dickout said that what is important is consultation for trade agreements that affect the sovereignity of states.

However, the public will continue to be kept in the dark, especially with respect to how negotiators use the Framework.

"Given the confidentiality of the negotiating process, re-evaluations during the negotiations would not be shared with the public, but would be documented in a final environmental assessment report issued at the conclusion of the negotiations," the Sept. 2000 draft said.

-30-