Saving Subsidies

It's a tough call, isn't it? Every country needs its primary food producers, its farmers to thrive. What is a country without a viable agricultural base? When push comes to shove, it's the farmers, the producers of the country's food that should be of primary concern; that they are able to work the land, produce the food that the population requires, enabling a country to be reliant on the most vital of its internal food sources.

There are so relatively few people in developing countries still farming in the traditional way. The family farm is still there, but barely hanging on. In under-developed countries farming is a subsistence occupation, albeit a highly critical one. The farms of today are largely huge corporate affairs which have succeeded in sheer scale of purchase-power and crop yield through the use of mono crops and ability to transport yields internationally.

Countries of the world, recognizing the vital importance of a needed farming demographic, give subsidies to their farmers as encouragement, as guarantees of sustainability through state economic support. At times subsidies result in situations where successful yields equate with an over-abundance and farmers can be paid not to produce. Control is the issue; supply management.

There's another issue, that of international farming groups reaching agreement with developing nations to grow crops not generally grown for internal consumption; meant specifically for export. The national governing body reaps the benefit while the people see no benefit; land traditionally used to grow crops for home consumption given over to export yields.

The 9-day Doha round of talks in Geneva just concluded won no hard concessions from the gathered 153 countries represented by the World Trade Organization. The original aim was to help the poor nations of the world enter markets where they have been locked out due to farm subsidy protectionism by developed countries.

In the end the industrialized countries couldn't agree to give up their agriculture tariffs and subsidies.

Canada's position represented a philosophical conflict, if not a downright ingenuous hypocrisy. It's all for helping developing countries, but remained resolute that it would not surrender its protectionist policies that ensure dairy, poultry and egg farmers are well protected from cheaper imports. The government position was opposed by the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance which represents export-oriented sectors.

But the government had the last word. Despite that its position actually harms Canada's credibility in asserting it's prepared to bring down barriers in trade. Canada's a bit player, however, and it really came down to the United States and India, the real heavy-hitters, along with China, which balked at coming to mutual agreement.

India called for lower import surge levels to protect their millions of poor farmers from starvation. That didn't suit exporters. The United States is ardent about its farm subsidies, particularly on cotton. Trade restraint measures didn't fly. Common sense doesn't always prevail as countries do what they have always done; circle the wagons to fend off potential inroads by interests other than their own.

'Tis the way of the world.