There are a few clear and
simple truths when it comes to agreements governing the international
trade of agricultural goods. Whether trade agreements are worldwide,
regional or even bilateral in scope, there are always going to be
winners and losers.
There are a couple of ways to measure the ups and downs of trade agreements
– what I call the big and small scales. At the American Farm
Bureau Federation, we believe by far that the more accurate trade
measurement is attained using big scales that weigh the performance
of the whole of American agriculture and how we stack up against other
nations. But we also like to measure some potentially troubling sectors
with smaller scales to help highlight commodities that might benefit
from extra attentionduring the negotiation process.
This approach, I believe, is the chief reason our trade positions
continue to be credible and highly respected. At AFBF, we focus on
the big picture, while still keeping the smaller pictures in sight.
The Big
Picture
International trade touches each and every one of us in agriculture.
To say that trade is a challenging issue for a general farm organization
is a gross understatement. Unlike commodity-specific groups, AFBF
does not have the luxury of pre-judging trade agreements based only
on the expected effects on one single commodity.
AFBF must balance the effects of proposed trade agreements on a dozen
or more commodities. Just as it would be highly unlikely that AFBF
would ever support a trade agreement that allows one commodity sector
a windfall of benefit at the expense of all others, it is also highly
unlikely that we would ever oppose a trade agreement that offers genuine
opportunity for most all commodities even though it might mean some
increased competition in a few areas.
That context is exactly where a couple of AFBF trade policies –
approved in mid-January at our 85th annual meeting – come into
play. Since there is considerable interest – and some mischaracterization
– of our recently approved trade policy, I believe it is important
to put the provisions in their proper context.
The Delegates
Speak
On one hand, delegates basically said that U.S. trade negotiators
should work to minimize adverse impacts trade agreements may have
on import-sensitive crops. From my perspective, that policy may contain
new words, but in practice it isn’t much of a change from our
previous position. We always encourage our trade negotiators to seek
the best and fairest deal possible, and, yes, that has always included
asking them to secure provisions or concessions to mitigate the impact
of trade agreements on import-sensitive U.S. commodities.
On the other hand, delegates stated that all commodity sectors should
be on the table during trade negotiations, and they said that multilateral
trade negotiations through the World Trade Organization should be
the organization’s top trade priority. U.S. agriculture’s
best opportunity to address critical trade issues, such as market
access and domestic subsidies, they said, is through the multilateral,
worldwide arena, rather than through regional or bilateral talks.
So, there you have it. Rather than a shift in our trade policy, I’d
truly call it a sharpening. And, that is exactly what AFBF, as an
organization, needs as our nation heads toward crucial trade matters
such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a proposed bilateral
agreement with Australia and the chance of a new multilateral agreement
through the WTO.
Overall, our delegates approved a thorough and well-thought-out position
to guide AFBF in the trade arena this year. This comprehensive trade
policy will further build the organization’s integrity and respect
in regard to the many trade issues that lie ahead. That point is undeniable
– no matter which scale you might choose to measure agricultural
trade.
Bob Stallman is president of the American Farm Bureau.
