Agriculture is by far economics’ most complex issue. Albeit this was true even before the era of free trade and environmental challenges. So it’s not surprising that the design and application of national and international agricultural policies reflect the same degree of complexity. As such, the WTO simply can’t deal with agriculture the same way it does with the aerospace or automobile industries, as demonstrated by the complex discussions held in Hong Kong.

Why is this? First, because agriculture is shaped by two inescapable variables : temperature and climate. Temperature decides if the harvest is going to be good or bad, and climate either prohibits or permits certain plant production in any specific country. Other industrial activities aren’t faced with any such constraints. Furthermore, agriculture has an intrinsic relationship with the land it occupies, to rurality and, consequently, to a way of life. And finally, since the need for food is undeniably critical, everything that affects it can take on dramatic proportions, particularly in some countries where this essential need is not always met.

So it’s clear that some movement towards trade liberalization, which is a good thing for most sectors, can’t be fully transposed into agriculture without some risk. Neither can liberal capitalism, no more than yesterday’s communism could to that specific era. We simply can’t allow the fate of agriculture to fall into the exclusive hands of supply and demand, nor can we let farmers single-handedly take on environmental issues that are essentially a collective problem.

That’s why all countries, even those that claim to be ultra-liberal, are interventionists when it comes to agriculture. Such is the case with America with its massive and sometimes brutal approach. And the European Union’s common agricultural policy is not without its own set of tough measures just as those enacted to various degrees in most developed economies.

From this perspective, Québec’s situation is very interesting since it approaches the problem in a manner that is more civilized and intelligent than almost anywhere in the world. In fact, our supply management mechanisms represent an ingenious search of a middle ground between the rules of supply and demand and their reasonable modulation to protect producers and consumers. Thusly, we avoid the market’s ludicrous subsidies as well as its unstoppable mechanics. We’ve successfully created and operated this system, so it’s entirely expected that we should want to fight to keep it, and the focus of the WTO shouldn’t be on our supply management system, but rather on the real problem at hand : the overall agricultural distress of poverty-stricken countries who are rightfully frustrated.

For a long time now, they’ve been buying technological or industrial value added products from us yet we close our doors to their agricultural exports, often the only ones they’re capable of realizing.

This is a question of justice and human fellowship more than one of economics. We can perfectly accommodate African countries and a few others without having to sacrifice the best of our agricultural policies to the gods of liberal standardization. Fortunately, Canada, which was negotiating for us in Hong Kong, was indeed able to reconcile its good conscience for the planet with the interests of Québec’s farmers while focusing on real problems. To treat poverty-stricken countries with greater consideration and advocate the end of any false competition against their product will help them without hurting us. We will continue to manage supply without injury to any party and since we don’t produce cotton, peanuts or bananas, helping Africa by any other means could very well be done without threatening Québec’s agriculture.