This round of trade negotiations began a decade ago. It was designed to address the failure of the Uruguay Round to address the needs of poor farmers in developing nations.
But it's helpful to go back to the reasons why agriculture was the focus of the Uruguay Round of negotiations. The reasons were more about the follies and expense of agriculture policies in the wealthy nations, especially Europe, North America and Japan than they were about helping developing nations, even though that was recognized as a clear benefit.
We still have agriculture policies that are far too expensive in North America, Europe and Japan. Agriculture continues to be the single biggest budget item for the European Union. Surely in this time of government deficit dangers, Europeans should be willing to reduce agriculture subsidies.
Likewise in the United States and Japan, both of them facing enormous debts and ongoing budget deficits, it should be a no-brainer to advocate for reducing farm subsidies.
While the politicians seem unable to face down their farmers' intensive lobbying, global trade negotiations provide an opportunity to work as a united group to embrace reforms that are obviously good public policy.
Subsidies were one part of the challenge addressed by the Uruguay Round. Another was trade barriers. That challenge was addressed by an agreement to transform the myriad of trade barriers into simple tariffs. Thus Article 11 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which Canada used to set quotas on imports of dairy and poultry products, was converted to tariff protection.
This was recognized as only a beginning. The goal was to then take steps to reduce those tariffs.
Poor people in developing nations would benefit in two ways. First, a reduction in farm subsidies would reduce the volume of cheap food dumped into world markets, so cheap that no farmer, no matter how poor, could hope to compete.
Second, the reduction in trade barriers and tariffs would open opportunities for them to market their harvests to wealthier nations, especially cotton, sugar and rice.
Many economists have concluded that achieving the goals of reducing tariffs and farm subsidies would be far more valuable to poor farmers in developing nations than all of the international aid we are providing, both government and charities.
It would be a hand up, not a hand out.
For these reasons, I continue to hope and pray that this Doha Round of negotiations will succeed in its aim to address the failure of the Uruguay Round to address the needs of poor farmers in developing nations.
And if that brings hardship for our millionaire Canadian dairy and poultry farmers, then so be it. They could always plead for one-time government bailouts because, after all, Canadian politicians of all stripes have, for at least 20 years, pledged their support for supply management.
In other words, if you want to be a dairy or poultry farmer in Canada, you have no choice. You must participate in supply management, whether or not you support the approach.a
But it's time to rein in the excesses of supply management, and more than time to join a global movement to reduce tariffs and trade barriers for agriculture and food.
