GATT, Agriculture and the Environment:

The US Double Zero Plan

by Mark Ritchie

The US Government, backed up by corporate interests, is using the GATT Uruguay Round to push through a drastic series of measures to deregulate global trade in agricultural and related products. The US proposals would devastate small farmers around the world and massively increase the control of big business over the production

of and trade in food and other natural products. The right of national and regional legislatures to implement environmental and health protection regulations would also be

seriously compromised.

In October 1989, the Bush Administration presented to all GATT member nations the final version of their comprehensive agricultural proposal, the socalled "double zero" plan.1 Although there are over a dozen major areas under negotiation at GATT which have serious implications for the environment, the agricultural talks in general, and the US plans for "global deregulation" in particular, are the most far-reaching. I f accepted, the US proposal would alter the rules governing world trade in food, natural fibres, fish and forestry products and would seriously limit the right of GATT member nations to implement a wide range of natural resource protection laws at local, provincial and national levels.2

Agricultural Programmes

One of the main objectives of the "double zero" plan is to force a sharp reduction in, or the elimination of, domestic farm support programmes around the world. Grain traders and agrochemical firms see these programmes as impediments to their ability to maximize profits on a global basis, and have worked hard to convince President Bush to use GATT as a way of attacking these programmes.

The reduction or elimination of all farm programmes could put an end to a wide variety of government-paid environmental protection and conservation programmes, reforestation efforts and measures which provide assistance to farmers making the transition to more environmentally-sustainable methods of produc-

Mark Ritchie is at the Institutefor Agriculture and Trade Policy, 213, 3rd Avenue North, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55401, USA.

tion. The damage which this would do to small and medium-sized family farmers could have a number of major environmental consequences: • Increase in land under cultivation.

Current farm policy in the US, Europe and elsewhere has allowed many farmers to leave unproductive more than 100 million acres over the past few years, both to control production and to protect the environment. I f farm programmes are phased out under the US proposal, much of this now idle land could go back into production. • Farm and pasture land would be

managed much more intensively, primarily through the use of more chemicals and fertilizers. In the words of the head of the USbased Fertilizer Institute, the reductions of farm prices, which would occur under the US GATT proposal, "will provide incentives for farmers to improve their productive efficiency". In other words, price cuts will force farmers to buy and use more chemicals in the hope of boosting production enough to make up for the fall in prices. • Falling farm prices will leave small

and medium-sized family farmers with less income. I f the GATT talks result in the elimination of farm programmes, most family farmers will end up with less income. This will make it financially difficult or impossible for them to take the risks necessary to make the conversion to more sustainable practices and less able to invest in vital soil and water conservation improvements.

• Conservation-orientatedfarm pro­

grammes could be eliminated. A number of farm programmes are combined or linked with conservation efforts, such as wetlands and wildlife habitat protection schemes. Operation of these may become difficult or impossible without subsidies. • Families farming the land could be

replaced by absentee landlords and corporations. Under the US GATT proposal, it is likely that a large number of farm families and peasants around the world will be forced out of business, even i f they cut corners and intensify production to their maximum ability. Some of these producers will be replaced by absentee or corporate owners who have the capital necessary to increase fertilizer and chemical use enough to survive. • Diversified livestock producers

will be replaced by large-scale feedlots and confinement operations. The reduction in feed prices anticipated under the US plan will put large livestock producers at an enormous competitive advantage over smaller, diversified family operations who grow their own feed. Not only will this squeeze out smaller producers, it will also mean even greater environmental problems caused by manure run-off from these huge operations. The concentration of livestock into large units brings additional problems with diseases leading to an increased reliance on antibiotics and the use of nuclear irradiation to

214

The Ecologist, Vol. 20, No. 6, November/December 1990
control threats to human health. Large-scale producers are also the major advocates of the legalization of growth hormones and stimulants.

• Small producers who have survived

by growing specialty crops will be pushed out by large producers entering their markets. Global deregulation of agriculture would allow some large-scale producers to shift their production into new, specialty crops, now grown mostly by smaller, more environmentally-sound farms. This could result in a collapse of market prices for these specialty crops, driving the smaller producers out of business. • Conversion of farmland into indus­

trial and commercial uses. The displacement of family farmers and peasants under the double zero plan could lead to an acceleration in the conversion of greenbelts and farms into factories, roads, shopping malls, housing, landfills and other commercial developments.

Import Controls on Raw Materials One of the most important features of the US GATT proposal is the demand that nations could no longer limit the volume of agricultural or other raw material products which they import. Al l existing import quotas would be subjected to a process termed "tariffication", where they are converted into import taxes, called tariffs, and then phased down or out within 5-10 years.

Many poor countries now use import controls, often in the form of quotas, to protect their local agriculture and fisheries from being wiped out by cheap imports from industrialized countries like Australia, Canada, the US or Europe. I f these countries are prohibited from imposing import quotas, local farmers will be forced to use ever more intensive and environmentally damaging methods of production in an attempt to survive. Those farmers who are not able to intensify will be eventually pushed off their land, leading to the consolidation of smallholdings into huge corporate-style farms.

Prohibiting import controls in the North would also have social and environmental consequences. For example, environmental organizations which are

Under the US GA TT proposal, It Is likely that a large number of family farms will be forced out of business, even if they cut corners and intensify production. It is likely that they will be bought-up by large corporate landowners or paved over.

calling for a ban on the import of tropical hardwoods are concerned that the US proposal to eliminate quantitative import controls is an attempt to insure that GATT rules will prevent a tropical timber ban from ever being adopted in the US or elsewhere.

Fast food hamburger restaurants in the United States are pushing to use GATT to overturn existing US beef import controls, which now strictly limit the amount of beef allowed into the country. I f they are successful, there will be a sharp rise in imports into the US, much of which will be produced on pastures cleared from rainforests in Central and South America, by taking over land which is now used by small farmers. Similarly, confectionery and soft drink companies, like Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Mars, are pushing to open US borders to unlimited imports of sugar. Contrary to the claims by these corporations that ending sugar import controls would help poor people in the Third World, the majority of the sugar imported into the US comes from huge plantations which are often on land that was formerly used by small farmers to grow food for their families. The sugar workers are often treated like little more than slaves. More sugar imports will only lead to more and more land being seized from peasants, and will therefore create more hunger and poverty and environmental destruction.

Export Controls on Natural Resources Article XI of the current GATT treaty gives all countries the right to impose

export restrictions on food and other critical resources in times of shortage. This is designed to prevent corporations from exporting desperately-needed food in order to sell it for a higher price somewhere else. The Bush Administration is proposing that this provision of GATT be abolished to ensure that US corporations, no matter where they are operating in the world, have unrestricted access to all the raw materials they need or want.

Ironically, many citizens in the United States, especially in the Pacific northwest states of Washington and Oregon, have come out in strong opposition to this proposal. Legislatures in both states have passed outright bans on the exports of raw logs, both for ecological reasons and to protect jobs in local sawmills. Japanese importing corporations, who have come to be dependent on raw log exports from this region, have bitterly objected, claiming that this violates the US "free trade" position at GATT. The Bush Administration is hoping that the GATT talks can give them the power they need to preempt and overturn these state laws.

Weakening Environmental and Health Safety Standards

Few issues have caused as much conflict in this round of agricultural trade talks as the wide differences between each nation's food safety and environmental standards.2 Corporations are lobbying for new GATT rules which could both limit the right of nations to set stricter standards and allow federal governments to preempt state pesticide and food safety legislation. The "double zero" plan will

The Ecologist, Vol. 20, No. 6, November/December 1990

215