The Rural Voice, 2006-09, Page 10"Our experience
assures lower cost
water wells"
106 YEARS' EXPERIENCE
Member of Canadian
and Ontario
Water Well Associations
• Farm
• Industrial
• Suburban
• Municipal
Licensed
by the Ministry
of the Environment
at
4
vt'I
IIIII
pr
•�4
„4
PpgrA
J,I
°7 1
•
1
' i -
I - ■
DAVIDSON
WELL DRILLING LTD.
WINGHAM
Serving Ontario Since 1900
519-357-1960 WINGHAM
519-664-1424 WATERLOO
SCHMIDT'S
FARM DRAINAGE
1990 LTD.
• FARM DRAINAGE
• EROSION CONTROL
• BACKHOEING & EXCAVATIONS
• GPS MAPPING
Frank Fischer, Harriston
519-338-3484
"We install
drainage tubing. °
6 THE RURAL VOICE
Keith Roulston
Is Third World povertl lour fault?
Keith
Roulston is
editor and
publisher of
The Rural
Voice. He
lives near
Blyth, ON.
Believe it or not, I have actually
read accusations that you, the farmers
of the First World, are to blame for
the millions of people who live in
shantytowns and barrios of the Third
World.
The theory is that farmers are
being driven from the land in poor
countries by the destruction of local
agricultural markets through the
dumping of subsidized food surpluses
from Europe and the United States —
and Canada. They have no choice but
to crowd into cities looking to make a
living.
There are actually a few cases
where subsidized farm commodities,
dumped into small countries by major
traders, have impoverished local food
producers, but in the broad picture,
these cases are probably a small
factor in the problem of rural
dislocation. It's likely that restrictions
imposed by the International
Monetary Fund and World Bank have
had more effect.
This supposition, however, plays
nicely into the hands of those who
understand little but the theory of
agricultural trade: influential
columnists like Jeffrey Simpson and
John Ibbitson of The Globe and Mail,
or that paper's editorial board for that
matter. All three have been critical of
the Canadian government for not
pulling the plug on supply -managed
farm commodities in order to show
Canada's willingness to lower trade
barriers and encourage trade. And
when supply management is equated
with a subsidy, and subsidies are
creating starvation in the Third
World, it's indefensible that our
greedy, obstinate farmers insist on
preserving trade barriers like supply
management.
But reading the Christian Farmers
Federation newsletter in our last
edition makes one wonder whether
the whole Third World poverty issue
isn't just a smokescreen. If there is
greater free trade in food, will people
in the Third World benefit or be
worse off?
As the newsletter pointed out,
we're really talking about just 10 per
cent of the world's food production
that trades between countries. While
this is of major importance to grains,
oilseeds, beef and pork farmers in
Canada, on the world scale, it's a tiny
amount.
What we've generally learned in
Canada is that more trade does not
necessarily mean more money for the
primary producers. Canada's food
exports are at all time highs but our
farmers' net income has been at an
all-time low. The money goes to the
traders, not the producers.
So if there is more free trade in
farm commodities, who's likely to
gain, the Third World peasant or the
multinational trading company? I'm
not betting there will be a rush back
from the barrios to the farms because
free trade makes farming profitable.
Similarly, is freer trade in food
likely to improve food security in
these countries? No likely. Even
accepting the argument that the
dumping of subsidized First World
surpluses has undermined local food
production, isn't there likely to be
more depressed prices if there's more
trading? Surpluses will continue
whenever the weather's good in some
part of the world and the crops are
bigger than local market needs. That
10 per cent of the food that's traded is
the hammer that nails down the lid on
prices in shortage situations. If we
have a corn crop failure in Ontario,
for instance, the price will not rise
beyond the cost of transporting a
surplus from Iowa.
Trade rule changes are generally
not made for the little guy. They may
benefit the consumer with cheaper
products but for the most part, they
benefit the traders who don't make
money unless things are moving from
one part of the world to another. The
faces of the poor are being used to
help these traders reshape the rules so
they can become richer.°