If Canada
were to adopt the US system
instead, and provide government guarantees, we could quickly jump our herd
sizes three fold and produce ample milk, butter and cheese to dump into the US market. In fact it would permit a massive expansion
of the Canadian Dairy industry to perhaps equal to the total volume now
produced in the USA . We certainly could dominate the Great Lakes
basin and the Ohio
valley. It quickly becomes a business of
going big or going home.
In any event the Kiwi success
suggests that a complete rethink of industry strategy is both timely and
healthy. The conditions of two
generations ago have ended and most of the industry is professional in terms of
management and finance. As we learned
through our experience in the free trade agreement change is actually very
profitable.
Kiwis put Canada ’s
dairy supply scheme to shame
NEIL REYNOLDS
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Last updated Tuesday, Apr. 24, 2012 8:17PM EDT
Holstein cows outside of the Saugeen County Dairy in Grey County, Ont. Canada
(population: 33 million) exports $250-million in dairy products a year. New Zealand
(population: four million) exports 10 times as much, $2.5-billion. (Steve
Jenkinson for The Globe and Mail)
In the worldwide food shortages that developed at the end of the Second
World War, tiny New Zealand
grew fabulously rich. The country fed Britain ,
New Zealand
dairy farmer Thomas Lambie recalled years later in an essay published by the Cato Institute. “[We] had the
second-highest per-capita income in the world. … Farmers had it made.”
In the ensuing years, New
Zealand ’s government moved decisively to
protect the country’s farmers from marketplace risks – supply fluctuations,
declines in prices, foreign competition. It didn’t hurt that, as Mr. Lambie put
it, almost every cabinet minister was a farmer. The country adopted supply
management in all its forms: marketing boards, controlled prices, import
tariffs and import quotas.
When finished protecting dairy farmers, governments proceeded to
protect everyone else. “We locked out the foreign competition,” Mr. Lambie
wrote. “We ‘protected’ people’s jobs and we had virtually no unemployment.”
‘
Fortress New Zealand ,
as it was dubbed, did well for more than 20 years. In 1973, however, Britain entered the European Economic Community
– and New Zealand
farmers lost their primary market. In 1979, the first of the oil shocks struck.
The country was compelled to borrow to sustain its protectionist devices. Huge
deficits followed, accompanied by spiralling debt. The country hit the wall
early in the 1980s with simultaneous financial crises in public and private sectors.
New Zealand had no choice but to dismantle the Fortress, and farming
was the first industry liberated. An industrial revolution followed. Rather
than please government, Mr. Lambie said, farmers realized that they needed to
please consumers. Rather than pass along price increases, they realized that
they needed to operate more efficiently. With supply management, sheep farmers
tended 70 million sheep; after supply management, they produced the same amount
of meat with 40 million sheep. With supply management, productivity increases
averaged 1 per cent a year. After supply management, they averaged 4 per cent.
Within six years, moribund New Zealand was ready to take on
the world. “We now live in one of the most open and unregulated economies in
the world. Other than a few tariffs … we are completely open at the border for
everything.” So it remains to this day. The Heritage Foundation’s 2012
Index of Economic Freedom lists New Zealand
as the fourth-freest country in the world (behind Hong Kong ,
Singapore and Australia ). Canada
is sixth.
This difference in ranking comes down to supply management, the means
by which Canadian dairy farmers (and others) are permitted to fix the prices of
their products – actions that, in any other industry, could land them heavy
fines or imprisonment. It’s a big difference. Canada (population: 33 million)
exports $250-million in dairy products a year. New Zealand (population: four
million) exports 10 times as much, $2.5-billion. Canada
exports only a marginal percentage of its production of milk and milk products;
New Zealand
exports 95 per cent.
Many countries protect their dairy industries through one form of
supply management or another. Only 7 per cent of the world’s production of
dairy products is traded on the global market. Yet these closed-door
restrictions make New
Zealand ’s global success all the more
impressive.
It isn’t only Canada
that can’t compete with New
Zealand . Neither can the United States or Europe .
U.S. milk producers are now lobbying hard for an exemption from the pending
negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free-trade zone that would
include countries from North America, South America and Asia, including New Zealand and Australia .
But even 7 per cent of the global dairy market is an enormous amount of
milk. New Zealand , the first
country to sign a free-trade agreement with China
(in 2008), now holds preferred trading status in many (actually, 90) goods and
services in China ,
including dairy products. New Zealand is a truly global leader, as its statistics
show.
New Zealand has five million dairy cows; Canada, 1.4 million. New
Zealand’s average dairy herd is 336 cows; Canada, 72 cows. New Zealand sells
almost half of the global trade in butter; with 80 per cent of Canadian dairy
production, Ontario and Quebec
“export” butter only to the rest of Canada – where, though heavily
subsidized, it is largely considered, and priced, as a luxury product.
In Canada ,
incidentally, the price of butter increased 9 cents per kilogram this year –
the supply management “support price” rising to $7.28 per kilogram from $7.19.
In New Zealand ,
the open-market price fell 44 cents, to $3.86 per kg from $4.30. So much,
exchange rate fluctuations aside, for Canada ’s biggest protection racket.
No comments:
Post a Comment