AN agreement on the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations would be
a critical step toward improving the economic well-being of farmers
in the developing world and saving its deteriorating farm lands. It
also would bring environmental and economic benefits to the United
States.
Every day millions of poor farmers are forced to make an
unenviable decision - protect the productivity of the land for
future generations or over-exploit the land in order to feed their
children today. Not surprisingly, the environment is generally the
loser. The results are devastating and felt worldwide.
Global warming, fueled by deforestation, could cause dramatic
weather shifts and a rise in sea levels around the world, both with
dire economic consequences. And the loss of biological diversity
may destroy the chances of discovering new pharmaceuticals and
other useful products.
Environmental degradation in developing countries often occurs
because they lack the financial resources to protect land.
Governments not only lack the means of teaching farmers to use
environmentally sustainable methods, but, desperate for foreign
exchange to service debt, they create incentives that encourage
deforestation.
A destructive cycle is perpetuated: Land is depleted and
abandoned for more productive land, which is itself eventually
depleted and abandoned. Sustainable development - using resources
responsibly today so they will be available in the future -
requires a long-term outlook and adequate financial resources. Many
developing countries lack both.
Agricultural trade liberalization, one goal of the Uruguay
Round, would open new markets to developing countries. These
markets could provide financial resources for developing countries
to pursue sustainable development. Liberalization would also
benefit the US, which already conducts at least one-third of its
trade with developing countries and could export much more to
healthier economies.
Removing trade barriers in developed countries would generate
significant income for developing countries. US protectionism in
the sugar industry alone now costs developing countries roughly
$800 million annually. The new revenues could be used to maintain
the productivity of land and to prevent permanent land degradation.
TRADE liberalization would also allow many developing countries
to diversify their agriculture. Their dependence on environmentally
destructive traditional cash crops such as cotton and cassava, as
well as cattle ranching, could be reduced in favor of tree crops,
fruits, vegetables, cut flowers, and other more environmentally
benign products.
The current system of price supports, subsidies, and import
barriers in industrial countries distorts global agricultural
production and denies financial resources to developing countries. …