Canada’s divided agricultural industry is out in force in Geneva this week, trying to influence trade negotiators from close to 150 countries who are struggling to agree to the framework for a new world trade agreement by next week that will affect the future prosperity of many Canadian farm sectors.
Defenders of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly and supply management say the future of these policies and institutions hangs in the balance over the next week. Current proposals could kill them.
Canadian free trade advocates insist farmers will benefit by grasping the chance to embrace a sharp reduction in trade distorting policies.
Read Also
Interest in biological crop inputs continues to grow
It was only a few years ago that interest in alternative methods such as biologicals to boost a crop’s nutrient…
The Canadian government remains non-committal, insisting it wants a deal but hopes for changes in current proposals.
“Our position is that we want this negotiation to succeed and we see this as a step forward but we will be negotiating for changes,” said Jacqueline LaRocque, director of communications for trade minister Jim Peterson.
Late last week, in a bid to find common ground on a negotiating framework before the end of July, the World Trade Organization produced a draft text that will be the basis of round-the-clock negotiations until the end of next week.
Future agenda
If a text is affirmed, it will set the goals for WTO negotiations that many trade experts say could end by 2005 or 2006 if this month’s pressure-packed Geneva rush is successful.
If no deal is struck this month, WTO officials say the negotiation that was launched in 2001 and foundered in Cancun, Mexico, last September could be in trouble.
The agricultural portion of the Geneva text, shepherded through the process by New Zealand free trader and agriculture negotiations chair Tim Groser, calls for sharp subsidy and tariff cuts, an end to export subsidies and tighter controls on state trading enterprises such as the wheat board, including a negotiation over whether state trading monopoly powers are an unfair trade policy.
In Canada, farm interests on both sides of the divide – those who want aggressive free trade rules and those who want rules that advocate more trade but allow domestic institutions such as the CWB and supply management – agree that the proposed rules would be a clear win for the more aggressive free traders.
In Geneva, their representatives are trying to influence Canada’s negotiators over whether to sign if significant changes are not made.
“We don’t think this is perfect but it is clearly an improvement and we think the government should consider this an opportunity and endorse it,” said Cam Dahl, executive director of Grain Growers of Canada.
“I believe product-specific subsidy caps would be a limit on the U.S. ability to subsidize.”
Ontario oilseed producer Liam McCreery, president of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, said rejection of the draft framework text would be a mistake.
“We strongly urge the Canadian government to resist the temptation to retreat into protectionism and negativity when considering the framework.”
From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the wheat board and supply management sectors came the opposite message. The draft framework, if not sharply altered, must be rejected.
They warned that proposals on market access would force supply managed sectors to open up more of their markets and reduce over-quota tariffs while the wheat board would be undermined by not being able to guarantee sales while seeing its monopoly power placed on the negotiating table.
The gap between damaging foreign subsidies and Canada’s support levels would not be closed.
“Canada’s negotiators can’t even think of signing this paper in its current form,” said CFA vice-president and Saskatchewan grain farmer Marvin Shauf.
“There will have to be a lot of work done to make this even remotely acceptable.”
Emma Dillon, public affairs co-ordinator for Canada’s five supply management agencies, said the proposed rules would destabilize the poultry and egg sectors.
“I just don’t see the flexibility there to keep the system going.”
The wheat board sent a letter to CWB minister Reg Alcock imploring him to convince the government to reject the draft if it is not changed. It is an agreement between Canada’s competitors in Europe, the United States and Australia to diminish the effectiveness of the CWB, board chair Ken Ritter said in the letter.
Added CWB communications director Louise Waldman in an interview: “It’s really asking western Canadian farmers to give up their advantage for no concessions in return.”
A government trade official predicted that by the end of next week, ministers may be summoned to make political decisions on issues that negotiators could not decide.
