LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: NAFTA TAKES ENVIRONMENTAL STEPS

To the Editor:

If decisions were easy, they wouldn't be decisions. In weighing the environmental pros and cons of the NAFTA and the side agreements we don't find a clear black and white picture; we find shades of gray.

The Sierra Club, one of the leading environmental organizations of the country (of which I am a member), has led the fight against the NAFTA.

The Sierra Club argues:

-- It will make U.S. local and state laws vulnerable to international challenge if they are deemed to reduce free trade. Fuel efficiency standards and recycling laws, for example, might be judged in this category.

-- The appeal procedure shuts both the public and experts out of the review process.

-- It fails to address the problem of a highly polluted Mexico-U.S. border.

-- U.S. businesses may move to `pollution havens' south of the border and increase toxic waste production.

-- Indirect pressure from businesses threatening to move might cause local and state governments to reduce environmental protection.

-- It would prevent sanctions against environmentally damaging products, e.g. Mexican tuna caught in dolphin-dangerous nets could not be banned from importation into the U.S.

Other leading environmental groups such as the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and the Audubon Society (both of which also enjoy my membership), meanwhile support the NAFTA. The NWF argues:

-- It specifically states that nations can establish levels of environmental protection that they deem appropriate, and that the U.S. can maintain environmental laws that are more stringent than international standards.

-- It requires that if a discrepancy occurs among the standards of the signatory nations, the most environmentally friendly standards should have priority.

-- It commits member nations to increased environmental protection and to the enforcement of their own environmental laws.

-- It promotes both public input and the participation of experts in the process when appropriate.

-- $8 billion are designated to promote border clean-up.

The Sierra Club sees a lack of public input and a threat to the regional environment. The NWF sees cooperation and upward harmonization of environmental laws to equal those of the U.S.

It is impossible to predict exactly how the articles will be interpreted and the procedures conducted. Interpretation and action are human endeavors where decisions are based on philosophy, judgment, values, and political pressures. Maybe the worst fears of the Sierra Club will be realized, but maybe the best hopes of the NWF will. Given this dilemma, we can't know whether the NAFTA would be an environmental plus or minus. The best we can do is weigh the argument, make a judgment, dare to be wrong, and reverse direction if we find out we made a mistake.

In the absence of NAFTA, international trade among the three countries of North America will continue to be governed by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Such a situation would undoubtedly be worse for the environment than NAFTA since GATT completely excludes environmental considerations. It has been used, for example, by the U.S. against Canada in connection with container deposit laws and by Mexico against the U.S. to challenge sanctions against tuna caught without dolphin protection.

Environmentally, the only better alternative to the current NAFTA would be a NAFTA with greater emphasis on equalizing legislation and internationalizing U.S. standards. But would this happen? And if so, how soon?

Ultimately, for developing nations two problems must be overcome in order for environmental protection to be enhanced. The first is controlling the population. The second is developing a tax base adequate to fund environmental enforcement. Economic development, undertaken with a commitment to ecological and economic sustainability, is a necessary prerequisite to solving these problems.

Is the NAFTA a mechanism for promoting appropriate economic development in Mexico? It may not be perfect. But, it does take steps in the right direction, and it represents one of very few major international trade agreements that place heavy emphasis on environmental improvement.

Initially I was concerned about NAFTA's potential environmental impact. I still am! However, on further examination of the documents and arguments, I find the interpretation of the National Wildlife Federation is the most persuasive; the NAFTA provides an opportunity to improve environmental conditions in our region of the globe. And, if the worst fears of the Sierra Club become reality, we can always withdraw later.

Alan R.P. Journet

Cape Girardeau