WHEN the European Union offered recently to put billions of dollars in agricultural subsidies on the negotiating table, much of the rest of the world shrugged.
Middle power trading countries, such as Canada and Australia, greeted the news with an attitude of ‘we’ll believe it when we see it.’
The skepticism is no surprise.
What is surprising is the EU’s dismissive attitude toward past World Trade Organization agreements.
A comment from EU commissioner Franz Fischler sums it up: “All our export subsidies are effectively on the table,” he is quoted as saying.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
How’s that again?
Twenty-five members of the WTO, including the EU, promised to reduce spending on export subsidies by at least 36 percent during 1995-2000 compared to the 1986-90 base period. Instead, the EU has spent the last 10 years inventing new ways to circumvent the rules. It’s estimated that the EU still spends $3.3 billion US a year on export subsidies and more than $50 billion on various forms of farm aid.
While any attempts to jump start world agricultural trade talks are welcome, the timing of the EU offer raises suspicions about its true spirit.
On May 1, 10 new members, mostly Eastern European countries, joined the existing 15 members. Many of the new members, such as Poland, have large populations of poor farmers, which the EU now has to support.
Dare we suspect the new trade negotiation offer is based more on the continued affordability of farm subsidies after EU expansion than it is on any real desire to open up world agricultural trade?
As well, EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy has called on the U.S. to cut its subsidies and said Canada and Australia must do their part and reform their wheat marketing boards.
Canada must do no such thing. Officials in this country must make it crystal clear that the Canadian Wheat Board and other marketing boards are not subjects for discussion at future world trade talks.
Why should we lend the EU offer more credence, when it has shown little interest in living up to past promises about subsidies?
Canadian farmers paid their membership dues in the WTO when the government cut agricultural subsidies faster and deeper than required in the existing agreement. Officials argued that Canadian farmers would be better positioned to compete in world markets once other WTO members met the new regulations. But EU and U.S. subsidies stayed high and Canadian farmers have paid for it ever since.
Let’s not sell our farmers out again.
This time, the EU and U.S. must prove they are willing to go beyond talk before Canada even considers adding something new to the bargaining table.
