Natural Gas Exports To Mexico will loom large in NAFTA negotiations
The North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) entered into force some 23 years ago and in simple terms, the Treaty created a free trade zone between Canada, the United States and Mexico. At the time, NAFTA was viewed as a pathway to integrate Mexico into the highly developed economies of the U.S. and Canada. By doing so, however, it guaranteed there would be winners and losers as Mexico’s less-developed economy would attract U.S. industries to set-up shop there in order to take advantage of much lower labor costs. Indeed, small farmers and auto workers in the U.S. were two groups most impacted by labor cost disparity from south of the border.
President Trump’s mantra of “America First” does not bode well for NAFTA as he has called it “the worst trade deal ever.” Upon taking office, President Trump vowed to withdraw from NAFTA. However, due to intense lobbying from the business sector, the President reversed his plan to withdraw from NAFTA and on July 17th, the Trump administration gave Congress official notice that it planned instead to renegotiate NAFTA with the U.S. Trade Representative Office’s publication of a Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation. The tri-nation negotiations are slated to begin shortly with the U.S. negotiations being led by Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. Trade Representative. Lighthizer is a former senior trade official in the Reagan Administration who advocates greater trade protectionism. He is joined in this view by other senior Trump officials such as Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. Ross has spoken out publicly against the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing sector from NAFTA and Bannon would like to see NAFTA supply chains repatriated to the U.S.
The president’s decision, however, to renegotiate NAFTA instead of its withdrawal sends a strong signal that NAFTA will survive in good measure. The tri-nation supply chains which have been developed over some two decades simply prove too costly and disruptive to overturn. Natural gas exports to Mexico are a prime example.
Mexico imports nearly all of its natural gas from the U.S. and exports to Mexico are expected to double by 2019, with Texas fields being the primary source. At least 17 pipelines currently carry four billion cubic feet of natural gas a day from Texas to Mexico, with four additional cross-border pipelines in the works. Mexico’s demand for U.S.-sourced natural gas has been a boon to domestic producers as it has greatly offset the oversupply of natural gas production. Without this outlet to Mexico, natural gas producers in the U.S. will face a severe downturn with wells shut, job losses and investment curtailed.
The U.S.-Mexico natural gas symbiotic relationship is just one example of the tri-nation supply chain intricacies and complexities forged under NAFTA. There are countless others, such as deep supply chains in agriculture, construction materials and autos to name a few.
The extent to which NAFTA will be modified remains to be seen. However, from a legal standpoint, there are two sections of NAFTA which will certainly be squarely in the crosshairs of the U.S. Trade Representative. These provisions relate to the remedies available should a NAFTA nation’s exports injure the domestic market of another NAFTA member.
Specifically, under Section 302 of the NAFTA Implementation Act, the U.S. International Trade Commission determines whether increased imports from Canada or Mexico are a substantial cause of serious injury or threat of serious injury to a U.S. industry. If the ITC makes an affirmative determination, it makes a remedy recommendation to the President, who makes the final remedy decision. Section 302 investigations are similar procedurally to investigations under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.
This is referred to under NAFTA as the “Safeguard Section” as it provides the U.S. the ability to seek redress via the ITC for damaging levels of NAFTA imports. The Trump administration however views the ITC as an impediment to taking action against NAFTA import abuses since the ITC has a high threshold of proving “actual injury.” Hence, the U.S. proposes to terminate the ITC’s jurisdiction in these cases, and instead transfer them to the Commerce Department which is a lot more biased toward U.S. interests.
Similarly, the US Trade Office will seek to eliminate NAFTA’s Chapter 19 dispute settlement mechanism. This Section establishes a mechanism to provide an alternative to judicial review by domestic courts of final determination in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, with review by independent bi-national panels of trade experts. A Panel is established when a Request for Panel Review is filed with the NAFTA Secretariat by an industry asking for a review of a domestic investigating authority’s decision involving imports from a NAFTA country.
These two changes will allow the Trump administration to unilaterally take direct action against NAFTA imports where it finds them to be injurious to U.S. commerce. This is completely in line with the protectionist leanings of the Trump administration.
Canada and Mexico will no doubt object to any proposal to eliminate these Sections as they prefer the non-interference protections afforded and want to have a buffer against U.S. unilateral decision-making. The stage is set therefore for some very intense and difficult negotiations. At the end of the day, however, natural gas will continue to flow from Texas to Mexico and if necessary, it will be made an exclusion from any final decision upon NAFTA’s fate. These exports are too vital for both countries as U.S. producers need the Mexican market and Mexico needs the gas.
[View source.]
