• Home

  • Español

  • Contact Us

  • About Us

  • Publications

  • Videos

  • Reports

  • Free Trade Agreements

  • Online Presentation

  • Globalization: A Threat to Animals & The Environment

  • Action Alerts

  • Take Action in Your Community!

  • Volunteering and Internships

  • Make a Donation

  • Links

  • The U

    The U.S.Peru Trade Promotion Agreement :

    Protecting Investors Rights To Exploit Animals & The Environment

    by T. Matheson

    As neoliberalism spreads throughout the Americas, Peru is next on the list with a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States. In an already overexploited region, Peru’s delicate environment and diverse wildlife are facing an even greater risk to their existence by this new bilateral trade agreement. Animal agriculture, fishing, mining, lumber, oil drilling, and wildlife hunting will all increase as the country is “developed.” An increase in one of these areas, let alone all of them, will further habitat destruction and exploitation of sentient and already endangered animals. This agreement is a serious detriment to the welfare of animals in Peru and, if approved, it will most likely have long-lasting consequences that cannot be rectified. This essay will focus on the harm that will be caused to animals in particular (there are many important labor and environmental costs inherent in this agreement as well, so this essay should not be considered all inclusive).

    U.S. Poultry Exports To Increase

    Poultry exports to Peru are one of three industries expected to benefit the most, by percent, from the implementation of the FTA. Currently, Peru applies high tariffs to any foreign imports of poultry. Peru has agreed to allow up to 12, 000 tons of chicken ‘dark meat,’ without tarrifs as well as increase it annually by 960 tons until it will reach nearly 24,000 tons within 10 years[i]. Poultry is the main protein source for Peruvians and, though they do have some large producers, the majority of chicken is raised by small scale farmer especially in coastal areas[ii]. A study of Andean poultry-raising found that the majority of these chickens are free range and live among the residents of the communities[iii]. Though these people are poor, they say they do not raise chickens merely for economic reasons, but that they have an aversion to the hormones and chemicals used in factory farmed chickens and egg production. Meanwhile, the U.S. Grains Council, a strong supporter of the Peru FTA, has been meeting with the Peruvian Poultry Association (APA) to promote egg consumption “with a goal to increase it by 40 percent over the next 10 years[iv].” Peru has agreed to provide a market for 800,000 metric tons of grain to supply their large poultry producers. It is in the best interests of the U.S. grain industry to expand factory farming in Peru in order to sell more of their grain to Peru as livestock feed. The impact created from flooding the Peruvian market with cheap chicken from the U.S. as well as pressure from the grain and APA coalition to increase demand could have a number of negative results. Peruvians consumption of cheap factory-farmed chicken from the U.S. will increase, replacing the consumption of locally raised free range chickens. The other result is that that through the help of U.S. Grains Council to increase consumption of chickens and eggs, more factory farms will be created in Peru to supply the demand and increase profits. Lastly, many Peruvians depend on agriculture as their main livelihood. Human rights groups believe the FTA will result in job loss in the agricultural sector as the U.S. exports gain Peruvian market access[v]. Florida Fair Trade says that “Peruvian farm organizations and religious leaders express certainty that the agricultural rules…will push hundreds of thousands of small farmers into bankruptcy[vi].” There is a trend in countries where FTAs are passed in which the displaced, rural poor move to the cities. Rather than raising their own animals, these people will provide a market for cheap U.S. imports of factory-farmed meat and eggs that are sold in the cities. In addition, the transport of meat products across borders requires much more resources, such as fuel, than it does to creat food locally and is therefore less sustainable.

    Agreement Lowers Sanitary Measures

    In recent years, Peru had banned importing poultry from the U.S. because of our Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, which they thought were not up to par due to some incidences of avian influenza and Newcastle Disease[vii]. In 2004, avian flu was detected in a flock of 7,000 chickens in Texas as well as in New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware. In addition, there was a case of transmission to a human in New York a year before[viii]. The United States currently has embargos on countries, mostly Asian, where avian flu is present in domestic poultry. It is hypocritical for the United States to put embargos in place for some countries while calling Peru’s ban unscientific[ix], especially when the U.S. has documented cases of bird flu. Under the Peru FTA, this market will be reopened and Peru will accept USDA standards. This should be seen as a lowering of global sanitary measures. Over 70% of protein consumed in Peru comes from bird-raising[x]. The transmission of bird flu to Peru could be disastrous and effect public health, agriculture and sustainable rural development.

    Animal Fighting Not Prohibited

    Though it may seem like a highly specific issue, Peru does take part in animal fighting as entertainment which is legal there. Bullfighting and cockfighting are popular and considered cultural tradition. Under the trade in live animals section of Peru’s tariff schedule is listed pure bred and breeding animals “for fighting[xi].” The Peru FTA will remove any tariffs for poultry and beef. The live animals that the U.S. exports to Peru can be used for fighting since it is legal and this includes cockfighting and bullfighting. As to humane laws protecting animals from cruelty, “Peruvian legislation specifically exempts bull fighting, cock fighting, and activities that have been deemed cultural from these provisions[xii].” HSUS claims that cockfighting has been linked to the spread of Newcastle Disease in poultry[xiii]. Unfortunately, there are no measures in the Peru FTA to ban animal fighting or prevent our exported livestock from being used in this manner once it reaches Peruvian territory. In addition, if Peruvian animal welfarists were to propose a law against importing animals for fighting, the Peru FTA would allow industry corporations to challenge the prohibition as a trade barrier.

    U.S. Beef & Pork Exports To Increase

    The other largest increase in U.S. exports, by percent, will be pork products. Removal of high tariffs will expand U.S. market penetration and create a competitive advantage for U.S. pork products in Peru. There will be a “significant, positive effect on total U.S. exports of beef and pork to peru[xiv].” Currently, their beef and poultry industries are made of “small and indigenous producers that produce for household and local consumption[xv].” The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) strongly supports the agreement saying that when the FTA is fully implemented will be extremely beneficial to U.S. pork producers increasing exports and U.S. hog prices by 83 percent per head. Producer profits are estimated to increase by 7 percent. This is of concern because the influx of cheap imports of pork “will seriously affect a huge number of Peruvian national producers[xvi].” Pork is the least consumed meat in Peru[xvii] mostly because it is considered less healthy[xviii] though the USITC expects that the low price of U.S. pork will compete with the local poultry and fish causing an increase in consumption[xix].

    In 2004 and 2005, Peru banned much of U.S. beef due to the incidence of mad cow disease. The Peru FTA will reopen the market by acceptance of USDA SPS measures and it is expected to set a precedent for future FTAs[xx]. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) strongly supports the FTA and says that it will allow us to provide beef there at a lower price, giving U.S. grain-fed, feedlot cattle an advantage over the local producers which are primarily grass-fed[xxi]. Animal advocates may consider grain-fed cattle production crueler than grass-fed since the former spends less time living outdoors before slaughter.

    PERU and the United States Violate CITES and Endangered Species Act

    The Peru FTA does not increase the tariff of US imports of big leaf mahogany which has been recommended by TRAFFIC in order to conserve these threatened forests[xxii]. In fact, the United States is already facing a lawsuit by environmental and Peruvian groups that charge the U.S. is in violation of both the Endangered Species Act and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) for continuing the importation of mahogany from Peru[xxiii]. A Duke University study found that the Peruvian government was not enforcing national forestry laws and logging bans, that there was widespread illegal logging in national parks amongst indigenous communities, that Peruvian countries are mixing illegal and legal timber together for export, and that loggers have been shooting and killing indigenous people who try to protect their forests with bows and arrows[xxiv]. U.S. Fish & Wildlife is accused of having a lax attitude by accepting invalid export permits for mahogany and Defenders of Wildlife have stated, “This wood is illegal as a matter of both U.S. and international law. It is illegal to trade in it, to import it, and to possess it. Even so, the Bush administration has done nothing to stop Peruvian mahogany from entering the country[xxv]

    Intensive and illegal harvesting is driven by U.S. demand and felling of trees require more road building through forests contributing to habitat destruction[xxvi]. The roads are later converted into farmlands, further exacerbating the problem and threatening even more animal and plant species. CITES lists big leaf mahogany as an endangered species and requires export regulations through permits. The Peru FTA’s environmental provisions only require the enforcement of previously existing environmental laws. However, Peru has not passed or implemented sufficient laws to regulate illegal harvesting. “ ‘Millions of dollars worth of Peruvian mahogany enters U.S. ports every year in violation of U.S. and international law,’ said Ari Hershowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a Washington-based environmental group.” Peru is now the main source for international trade in mahogany and the United States consumes eighty percent[xxvii]. Peruvian experts have stated that 30-40% of all lumber logged, transported, and traded is illegal[xxviii].

    Lack of Environmental Enforcement and Investor Regulation Destroy Wildlife & Habitat

    A conservation site claims that “Illegal loggers steal into the Amazon, extract trees from the forest web, hunt monkeys and birds, and leave behind clearings soon filled by settlers, road builders and farmers[xxix].” In Madre De Dios, the Mississippi based Newman Lumber Company entered into a joint contract with an Amazonian milling company and took part in “illegal logging in prohibited areas, accumulated small-scale logging concessions as a means to evade large-scale logging prohibitions, constructed unauthorized logging roads, and violated a prohibition on operations by foreign-owned companies within 50 km of border[xxx].” Investigations and legal battles have shown government corruption and a lack of environmental law enforcement as well as the government’s initial unquestioning acceptance of the foreign investment. When the state finally halted the logging activity, the US embassy and Trent Lott lobbied on behalf of Newman Lumber. Under the new FTA, foreign investors will be able to challenge environmental laws in “secret international arbitration”[xxxi] as well as apply the new FTA rules to previous investor agreements. It may create an opportunity for Newman Lumber and the U.S. embassy to challenge Peru’s ban on their mahogany logging in Madre De Dios.

    Logging Leads To Habitat Destruction and Wildlife Hunting

    Much of the logging occurs in the Tahuamanu Rainforest, which is the habitat to endangered species such as the giant otter, the squirrel monkey, and the macaw[xxxii]. These protected forests where illegal logging occurs are in areas that are considered irreplaceable biological hotspots and Tahuamanu is listed as one of the twelve most threatened wildlands in the Americas by the NRDC[xxxiii]. They are home to thousands of species of butterflies, birds, endangered and endemic wildlife such as the giant river otter, the giant anteater, and the yellow-spotted side neck turtle. A 1996 study found that loggers were causing the extermination of local populations of animals in the Madre De Dios, the same area where the American Newman Lumber Company was illegally logging. Subsistence hunting was resulting in the local extermination of large mammal populations[xxxiv]. Over 86,000 wild animals were killed by lumber personnel including over 54,000 long-haired spider monkeys and red howler monkeys. The study stated that, “local extinction is inevitable for some species if this rate of extraction is maintained” and that overhunting is causing an inverse in mammalian biomass and leads to landscape changes in habitats and fauna. Fifty-two percent of the hunted animals are mammals while 47 percent are birds. The Peru FTA does not require countries to abide by international environmental agreements such as CITES.

    Mining & Investment Can Challenge Environmental Protections

    The number one increase in U.S. exports expected to result from the Peru FTA is machinery such as Caterpillar used for mining projects. There are hydrocarbon reserve in Northern coast as well as in the jungle, which investors are planning to explore[xxxv]. Peru is the second largest producer of silver, sixth in gold and copper, and a significant source of zinc and lead. The majority of Peru’s exports to the U.S. are in minerals. As to the effects this trade agreement will have, an article titled “Peru seen as FTA Gateway” by the Nation says “The Peruvian private sector hopes that the FTAs would encourage foreign investors to participate in a number of mineral and forestry concessions in the country[xxxvi].” The Lima Chamber of Commerce is also hoping for foreign investment in the famous mountains of Cusco where there are reserves of natural gas and iron ore. The U.S. International Trade Commission states that the largest increase of U.S. imports, by value, will be in Peruvian gold, copper and aluminum[xxxvii].

    The U.S. International Trade Commission stated in a report that the investment provisions of the FTA will most likely effect the mining industry, which makes, with oil, about half of U.S. investment in Peru[xxxviii]. These provisions will also pertain to all investment agreements prior to the FTA. Oxfam America says the agreement would give foreign investors the right to challenge environmental laws, which could hinder local communities effort to regulate the mining industry. In 2004, Newmont Mining, a Denver based company and long-time polluter who ran the Yanacocha gold mine, attempted to open another mine on the Cerro Quilish. The community protested aggressively and Newmont eventually backed down. It is believed that if the FTA had been in effect at that time, “Newmont could have sued the Peruvian government for untold amounts of cash for having abandoned its plans[xxxix]…in a poor country like Peru, such fines -- or even the threat of them -- could scare the government away from passing strong public-health or environmental laws that could jeopardize corporate profits.” Newmont specifically has both a dirty and shady history in which environmental activists claimed the mining, which used large amounts of cyanide, contaminated local water sources as well as using a corrupt Peruvian official to affect a court decision on investment[1].

    In March 2006, a group of environmental groups including Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club and Earthjustice sent a letter to Congress explaining how the Peru FTA is worse than CAFTA environmentally:

    "CAFTA gave investors the right to file suit against alleged breaches of natural resources contracts," the letter reads. "The U.S.-Peru FTA expands these rights by broadly defining natural resources contracts to include every aspect of the extractive, productive, and marketing processes. These new rights would enable multinational corporations to attack legitimate attempts by communities to protect their health and environment even if their activities are only tangentially related to natural resource extraction."[xl]

    Mining waste and their runoff into watersheds are destroying habitats in Peru and new projects are being planned in the North for open pit mining of copper and molybdenum. Endangered mountain tapirs are moving out of protected due to industrial noise where they are then killed by miners, hunters and their dogs, and stolen by live-animal traffickers. The World Conservation Union says that ecological future of the entire region is at risk as these mining concessions are granted in watersheds throughout the country[xli]. Tropical fish populations are also threatened from mining pollution. Industrial gold mining operation that has turned the Rio Huaypetue into a large pit of mud, sand, and chemicals. Runnoff from the mine flows down a much-diminished version of the Rio Huaypetue and eventually into the Amazon River[xlii].” Peru has signed the Basel Convention, which was an international agreement to prevent inter-country waste aimed at silver mining. They focus on byproducts of production which cause ecological damage, acute toxicity in humans and infectious disease. Unfortunately, Peru continues to ignore the agreement. Like CITES, the Peru FTA does not require that it is enforced[xliii].

    Trade Deficit and International Debt Leads To Foreign Exploitation of Environment

    The US International Trade Commission expects Peru’s trade deficit to increase as they begin to import more goods. They estimate that Peru must export more to balance trade, but that they can allow more foreign investment to “balance international payments[xliv].” International debt is nothing new for Peru. In fact, the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) funded millions of dollars worth of development and investment in the infamous Yanacocha mine run by the American Newmont Mining Corporation. A Colombian environmental firm found that the company was destroying the surrounding environment by contaminating water sources with runoff killing off amphibians and fish, causing industrial air pollution, and was the cause of a toxic mercury spill[xlv]. Newmont said they could not have opened Yanacocha, Latin America’s largest and most profitable gold mine, without the help of the World Bank. In contrast, a local citizen says, "The water that comes down from the mountains is now brown, full of sediments. The trout are dying. "We have also lost our traditional medicinal plants - they used to grow on the lands that are now being mined - and the animals have been scared away[xlvi]."

    Trade Rules & Token Environmental Provisions

    The Peruvian free trade document states that the agreement affirms obligations under the World Trade Organization established under the Marrekesh agreement in 1994. The WTO is well known among environmental and labor organization as not being transparent during decision-making processes and putting economic profit above any environmental or human rights standards. It has given one government the power to sue another government if their laws caused economic losses or prevent trade. This includes laws originally created to protect workers, nature, or animal welfare. The agreement contains token environmental guidelines that are realistically unenforceable. For example, it states that a country should not promote trade in a way that weakens environmental protections; but afterwards states in a disclaimer, “Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to empower a Party’s authorities to undertake environmental law enforcement activities in the territory of another party.”[xlvii] If we were to stop trade, under the Marrekesh agreement, they can sue our government for lost profit.[xlviii] The reverse is also true. In addition, countries are only duty bound to obey preexisting environmental laws. The main problem is that there are few of them to begin with. You cannot break a law that has not been created. There are technical regulations allowing opportunity for redress if a regulation of one party does not meet the standard of another; but it also states that any environmental laws proposed by another country must be voluntary, flexible, and incentive-based.[2]

    Other Wildlife Threatened by Development

    The Amazonian Manatee is considered vulnerable, which has been caused by subsistence and commercial hunting as their bodies have been used for meat, oil, fat, and hide. Their populations have also declined because manatees become caught and drown in commercial fishing nets. In addition, their food supply is degraded from soil erosion resulting from deforestation. Their numbers are steadily declining.

    The Boto[xlix] Amazon river dolphin in particular is also considered a vulnerable species. Their habitats are being destroyed by hydroelectric development, deforestation, pollution from agriculture, industry and mining and dolphins are commonly killed when caught as bycatch in commercial fisheries.

    A region in NorthWest Peru called the Tumbesian Endemic Bird Area is home to many birds that are found nowhere else on Earth and is being destroyed and fragmented by deforestation (less than 5% remains forested).[l] BirdLife International has called for “immediate conservation action.” They have stated that, “of the more than 800 bird species that inhabit the Tumbesian region, 82 are endemic. Of the 82 endemic species, eight species are endangered… The Tumbesian avifauna is affected by five primary threats: most important is deforestation and understorey degradation, but also of significance is hunting, trade and tiny range sizes.”[li] This year BirdLife International stated in a press release, “Unless the international conservation community moves quickly, species will continue to become extinct in the ‘forgotten’ forests of the Tumbesian region of northern Peru, BirdLife warns.”[lii]

    This Tropical Andean Hotspot is also home to 253 species of amphibians and reptiles of which 20% are endemic. As the lumber industry continues to expand in Peru, the situation in the Tumbesian region will become dire. The animals that may be lost as a result are likely to be species that can never be replaced even if the area is eventually reforested. In addition, the Peruvian trade agreement lists many birds to be exported to the U.S. probably for the pet trade. CITES has limits on the number of these species that can be exported. However, these numbers are still very high which include thousands of parakeets as well as 5,000 live iguanas yearly. [liii] The IUCN lists the Blue Headed Macaw as endangered mainly due to habitat loss, hunting, and the cage-bird trade.[liv] IUCN also list the Galapagos Petrel, as of 2006, as being Critically Endangered. Their population may have declined up to 81% in just the last four years.[lv] This is due to agricultural crops, livestock, and fisheries. The Peruvian Tern is also endangered from these same industries. The Titicaca Flightless Grebe may soon be uplisted to Critically Endangered due to fisheries and habitat loss.[lvi]

    The United States is the leading consumer of wildlife products including yearly up to 10,000 primates; 250,000 live birds; 2 million reptiles and 200 million tropical fish as stated by the World Conservation Union.[lvii]

    Supplying Primates for Animal Experimentation

    The American Society of Primatologists stated that 12,000 to 15,000 monkeys are still imported yearly from a variety of countries including Peru. Many of these are used in animal experimentation and include rhesus monkeys, cynomolgus monkeys, squirrel monkeys, and owl monkeys.[lviii] CITES excludes limits on animals exported for scientific experiments. As these animals are exported for research, other populations of primates are losing the habitats in which they live. The IUCN has listed the following threatened primates in Peru: Goeldi's Marmoset (vulnerable), Pygmy marmoset, Bare-faced tamarin (endangered), Mantled Howling Monkey, and the Bald headed ucari (vulnerable).[lix]

    TRAFFIC estimated that 80-90% of researchers still depend on wild populations of primates for research purposes. In 1975 the NIH made an agreement with the Pan American Health Organization to create a primate-breeding station located in Iquitos, Peru in an attempt to preserve populations numbers and focus on captive-breeding. The article also states that the U.S. imported almost 400 monkeys in 1983 many of which were squirrel monkeys.[lx] Some were bred and others were wild-caught. Since the primate trade is a small number of countries, any trade ban greatly affects world supply. Since Paraguay and Panama both banned primate exports, it makes sense that the U.S. is still depending on Peru for these animals. Any support of the Peruvian trade agreement will make it easier for researchers to obtain even more numbers of these animals including those taken out of the wild. However the biggest threat this trade agreement creates is an ability to stop legislation that protects animals. If animal advocates in Peru proposed legislation to stop the export of primates for experimentation or otherwise, American corporations could sue Peru and possibly stop the prohibition by citing that it is a barrier to trade. Under NAFTA, situations like these are common and the ability of corporations to sue governments has negatively affected a country's willingness to pass environmental, labor and human protections out of fear of economic reprecussions.

    [1] (A 2005 Frontline and New York Times investigation found a taped conversation between a Newmont executive and a corrupt Peruvian official later found guilty of bribes and embezzlement who was also on a CIA payroll. The conversation indicates that Newmont was trying to use him to effect a Peruvian courts decision on an investment)

    [2] The agreement states that safeguards stopping a trade can only be done during the transitions period, and only if it will result in damaging a domestic industry or causing serious injury. The party applying the safeguard must agree to trade liberalizing compensation in the form of concessions having equal trade effects or equivalent to the value of the additional duties expected to result. Serious injury means causing domestic insecurity. Transition period is only within 10 years.

    [i] Loudon, Tom. Quest For Peace Staff. Analysis: Peruvian-US Free Trade Agreement <http://quest.quixote.org/andean/peru/ftaanalysis>

    [ii] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Livestock Sector Brief. 2005. <http://www.fao.org/AG/AGAInfo/resources/en/publications/sector_briefs/lsb_PER.pdf>

    [iv] U.S. Grains Council. President’s Mission Visits Markets With Potential. Feb. 2, 2004. <http://www.grains.org/page.ww?name=February+2%2C+2004+-+News+Release§ion=Latest+News+Archive+2004


    [vi] Florida Fair Trade Coalition. Resolution calling on the U.S. Congress to renegotiate free trade agreement reached with the Andean countries. 1 July 2006.

    [vii] U.S. Trade Representative. Foreign Trade Barriers. <>

    [viii] Center for Disease Control. Past Avian Influenza Outbreaks. <http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/outbreaks/past.htm#h7n2newyork


    [ix] ATAC Report on U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. February 2006. <http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Reports/asset_upload_file430_8966.pdf >

    [x] Diplomacy Monitor. http://www.diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dma1.nsf/tr/ttB4A2F741FD72BD8585257165001EB876

    [xi] APEC Database. Peru Economy Information, Tariff Headings for Chapter 01. Live Breeding Animals.

    [xii] World Small Animal Veterinary Association. Animal Abuse: Legislation in North America & Latin America. World Congress, Vancouver, 2001. <http://www.vin.com/VINDBPub/SearchPB/Proceedings/PR05000/PR00019.htm>

    [xiii] The Humane Society of the United States. International Animal Fighting Campaign. <http://www.hsus.org/about_us/humane_society_international_hsi/international_animal_fighting_campaign.html>

    [xiv] U.S. International Trade Commission. U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral Effects. p.57 June 2006. <http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf>

    [xv] U.S. International Trade Commission. U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral Effects. p.57 June 2006. <http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf>

    [xvi] Loudon, Tom. Quest For Peace Staff. Analysis: Peruvian-US Free Trade Agreement <http://quest.quixote.org/andean/peru/ftaanalysis>

    [xvii] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Livestock Sector Brief. 2005. <http://www.fao.org/AG/AGAInfo/resources/en/publications/sector_briefs/lsb_PER.pdf>

    [xvii] Domestic Poultry-Raising Practices in a Peruvian Shantytown. 2003. <


    [xviii] U.S. International Trade Commission. U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral Effects. p.82 June 2006. <http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf>

    [xix] U.S. International Trade Commission. U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral Effects. p.80 June 2006. <http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf>

    [xx] U.S. International Trade Commission. U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral Effects. p.108 June 2006. <http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf>

    [xxi] U.S. International Trade Commission. U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral Effects. p.81 June 2006. <http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf>

    [xxii] TRAFFIC. Mahogany & CITES. <http://www.traffic.org/mahogany/us.html


    [xxiii] Associated Press. Group Seeks To Halt Peru Mahogany Imports. 6 June 06. <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/06/national/w131907D93.DTL


    [xxiv] American Chronicle. Illegal Mahogany From Peru On Market. 18 April 06. <http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=336


    [xxv] [xxv] American Chronicle. Illegal Mahogany From Peru On Market. 18 April 06. <http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=336


    [xxvi] TRAFFIC. Mahogany & CITES. <http://www.traffic.org/mahogany/us.html

    [xxvii] Natural Resources Defense Council. Latin American Wildlands In Danger. 13 May 05. <http://www.nrdc.org/international/flamerica.asp


    [xxviii] TRAFFIC. Mahogany & CITES. October 2001. < PERU http://www.traffic.org/mahogany/legis.html


    [xxix] National Resources Defense Council. Save BioGems. Save the Tahuamanu Rainforest. <http://www.savebiogems.org/tahuamanu/>

    [xxx] Edinburgh, GB. Project Las Piedras: A socio-ecological investigation into the impact of illegal logging activity in Las Piedras, Madre de Dios, Peru. 2003. <http://www.peruforests.org/documents/Studies/LCLasPiedrasFinalReport.pdf


    [xxxi] Grist Magazine. Beans For Lima: Activists are fighting a new agreement between U.S. and Peru. 11 May 2006. <http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/11/hearn/>

    [xxxii] Natural Resources Defense Council. Latin American Wildlands In Danger. 13 May 05. <http://www.nrdc.org/international/flamerica.asp

    [xxxiii] Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC'S 2005 BIOGEMS: TWELVE MOST THREATENED WILDLANDS IN THE AMERICAS. 8 March 2005.

    [xxxiv] Edinburgh, GB. Project Las Piedras: A socio-ecological investigation into the impact of illegal logging activity in Las Piedras, Madre de Dios, Peru. 2003. <http://www.peruforests.org/documents/Studies/LCLasPiedrasFinalReport.pdf

    [xxxv] Export.gov Increased Market Access To Peru. <http://www.export.gov/fta/complete/Peru/MarkAccess.pdf


    [xxxvi] The Nation. Peru Seen As FTA Gateway. 17 June 2004. <http://www.tusbc.org/whats_new/2004/June/English/the%20Nation%2017Jun04.doc


    [xxxvii] U.S. International Trade Commission. U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral Effects. p.44 June 2006. <http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf>

    [xxxviii] U.S. International Trade Commission. U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral Effects. p.115 June 2006. <http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf>

    [xxxix] Grist Magazine. Beans For Lima: Activists are fighting a new agreement between U.S. and Peru. 11 May 2006. <http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/11/hearn/>

    [xl] Grist Magazine. Beans For Lima: Activists are fighting a new agreement between U.S. and Peru. 11 May 2006. <http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/11/hearn/>

    [xli] Environment News Service. Conservationists Risk Their Lives For Peru’s Highland Headwaters. 23 February 2005. <http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2005/2005-02-23-02.asp>

    [xlii] Butler, Rhett A. Exploring freshwater fish habitats in the Rainforests of Peru. Mongabay.com 27 November 2005. <http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1127-biotope.html>

    [xliii] American University. TED Case Studies: Trade and Environment, Peru Mining. < http://www.american.edu/TED/perumine.htm#r5


    [xliv] U.S. International Trade Commission. U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-Wide and Selected Sectoral Effects. p.57 June 2006. <http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3855.pdf>

    [xlvi] BBC News. Aid Case Study: Peru’s Yanacocha Gold Mine. 15 March 02. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1874369.stm


    [xlviii] Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Technical Barriers to Trade, Article 7.5: <http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Final_Texts/asset_upload_file29_8693.pdf>.

    [l] Birdfair Raises Record Funds For Peru Project http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2005/02/birdfair.html


    [li] BirdLife International 2003 BirdLife's online World Bird Database: the site for bird conservation. Version 2.0. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. Available: http://www.birdlife.org (accessed 6/6/2006) http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/ebas/index.html?action=EbaHTMDetails.asp&sid=47&m=0

    [lii] BirdLife International 2006. Efforts Launched to protect Peru’s ‘forgotten’ forests. <http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2006/03/peru.html>


    [liii] Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species. Peru. Export Quotas for 2005. http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/quotas/2005/peru.shtml

    [liv] IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 06 June 2006.

    [lv] IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 06 June 2006.

    [lviii] American Society of Primatologists. Research Questions and Answers. http://www.asp.org/research/faq.html

    [lx] TRAFFIC, USA, Washington, D.C. Lynn Gray-Schofield and Jeri Lynn Chandler. Trends in Primate Imports into the United States: 1983 and Comments on World Trade.

    Global Justice for Animals and the Environment is a project of:
    Wetlands Activism Collective
    Phone: (718) 218-4523
    Fax: (501) 633-34761
    activism @ wetlands-preserve.org