The second parallel agreement is the North American Environmental Cooperation Agreement (NAAEC), which established the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. The CEC is responsible for strengthening regional cooperation in the environmental field, reducing potential trade and environmental conflicts and promoting effective enforcement of environmental legislation. It also facilitates public cooperation and participation in efforts to promote conservation, protection and improvement of the North American environment. It consists of three main components: the Council (Minister of the Environment), the Joint Advisory Committee of Governments (JPAC) and the Secretariat, which is headquartered in Montreal. It has an annual budget of $9 million, with Canada, Mexico and the United States contributing $3 million per year and settled by consensus (non-majority). According to a 2012 study on tariff reductions on NAFTA, trade with the United States and Mexico increased by only 11% in Canada, compared to a 41% increase in the United States and 118% in Mexico. :3 In addition, the United States and Mexico benefited more from the rate reduction, with an increase in social benefits of 0.08% and 1.31%, with Canada recording a decrease of 0.06%. :4 Nevertheless, NAFTA has been a recurring objective in the broader free trade debate. President Donald J. Trump says it undermines U.S. jobs and manufacturing, and in December 2019, his administration finalized an updated version of the pact with Canada and Mexico, now known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The USMCA received broad support from all parties on Capitol Hill and came into force on July 1, 2020.
Since NAFTA, trade between the United States and its North American neighbors has more than tripled and grown faster than U.S. trade with the rest of the world. Canada and Mexico are the top two destinations for U.S. exports, with a share of more than one-third. Most estimates conclude that the agreement has increased U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by less than 0.5%, which equates to an additional $80 billion over the U.S. economy, with full implementation or several billion dollars of additional growth per year. Additional ancillary agreements have been adopted to allay concerns about the potential impact of the treaty on the labour market and the environment.
Critics feared that U.S. and Canadian companies in Mexico would have generally low wages, which would lead to a shift of production to Mexico and a rapid reduction in manufacturing employment in the United States and Canada. Meanwhile, environmentalists were concerned about the potentially catastrophic effects of rapid industrialization in Mexico, which does not have experience in implementing and enforcing environmental legislation. Possible environmental problems were raised in the North American Environmental Cooperation Agreement (NAAEC), which established the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. According to a 2018 Sierra Club report, Canada`s NAFTA and Paris Agreement commitments have been met. The Paris commitments were voluntary and NAFTA was mandatory.  The Clinton administration negotiated an environmental agreement with Canada and Mexico, the North American Environmental Cooperation Agreement (NAAEC), which resulted in the creation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. In order to allay concerns that nafta, the first regional trade agreement between a developing and two developed countries, would have negative effects on the environment, the Commission was tasked with carrying out an ex post-post environmental assessment it created one of the first ex-post frameworks for the environmental assessment of trade liberalization, which was to provide a certain amount of evidence regarding the initial assumptions concerning NAFTA and the environment.
, such as the fear that NAFTA could create a “race to the bottom” of environmental regulation between the three countries or that NAFTA would put pressure on governments toNo tags for this post.