They can now rest easy because the U.S. is no longer negotiating those types of pacts, much to the chagrin of U.S. farm groups.

Virginia Houston, director of government affairs with the American Soybean Association, says president Joe Biden’s administration feels FTAs pit U.S. domestic industries against one another.

That was one of the messages U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai delivered to Congress when she testified in front of the House and Senate this April.

“One thing she said multiple times is that while farmers and agriculture benefit from traditional FTAs, workers do not,” said Houston.

“They feel that the traditional FTAs tend to disadvantage domestic manufacturing.”

However, U.S. farm groups are lamenting the loss of FTAs. The last one was the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement that took effect May 15, 2012.

“U.S. agriculture wants more traditional free trade agreements because FTAs include tariff reduction measures and they also include codified market access,” she said.

“Without those, it’s hard to gain footholds into new markets.”

That is why 33 U.S. farm groups recently sent a letter to Tai urging her to recommit to an aggressive trade agenda that includes FTAs.

“Export markets are essential for our survival, and comprehensive trade agreements and elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers help ensure that U.S. agriculture can compete on an even playing field in our export markets,” stated the letter.

Tai also received another letter from 21 U.S. senators making the same point.

“While the Biden administration continually refuses to pursue traditional free trade agreements, China, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom and others continue to ink trade pacts that diminish American export opportunities and global economic influence,” stated that letter.

Michael Harvey, executive director of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, is pleased Canada continues to negotiate FTAs while the U.S. has stopped.

“It can be an advantage for us if we work on these agreements where there is solid market access,” he said.

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is a good case in point.

The U.S. bowed out of that pact, which gives Canadian exporters a leg up in some key markets as long as signatories to the agreement work hard to ensure market access provisions in the deal are upheld and enforced.

Canada is also negotiating agreements with Indonesia and ASEAN nations that could prove advantageous.

Harvey said the anti-FTA stance of the U.S. dates back before Biden taking office.

“We’ve definitely seen that the last three American administrations have not been interested in market access the way administrations used to be,” he said.

The Democratic Party has always been skeptical about international trade due to its strong ties to trade unions.

“But the Republicans have moved in a more nationalist direction too and are a lot more skeptical than they used to be,” said Harvey.

Both parties are fed up with China’s notorious trade practices, which is influencing their trade policies.

People are also blaming trade agreements for reduced employment in the manufacturing sector rather than pinning the blame on the real culprit, which is technological advancements, said Harvey.

He believes the Canadian government needs to take the offensive to ensure the same anti-trade sentiments don’t creep across the border. Ottawa needs to remind Canadians of the economic benefits of trade.

“People are forgetting how much trade is contributing to our standard of living,” said Harvey.

That is why he is pleased Canada recently opened its Indo-Pacific Agriculture and Agri-Food Office in Manila, Philippines, to encourage trade in that important region.

In the meantime, U.S. farm groups are hopeful their government recommits to negotiating and signing FTAs because the current tactics are not cutting it.

Houston is encouraged that many members of Congress are onboard with their lobbying effort.

“We do know our voice is being heard,” she said.

The post U.S. shuns free trade agreements appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

They’re protesting in advance of the United Kingdom’s acceptance into the Comprehensive Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The “Say ‘no’ to a bad deal” campaign implores the federal government to delay approving the U.K.’s acceptance to the pact until a fair meat trade deal is negotiated between that country and Canada.

“The Canadian beef and pork industry believes that an agreement with the U.K. that leaves a significant barrier in place and politicizes food safety decisions … does not meet the standard of the CPTPP,” says a news release by the Canadian Cattle Association, Canadian Meat Council and National Cattle Feeders’ Association.

“Therefore, the U.K.’s bid to become a member should be delayed until they can do better to meet the progressive trade principles of the CPTPP.”

The dispute is based on an anti-microbial product, peroxyacetic acid, that Canada uses on meat carcasses to prevent E. coli. The U.K. doesn’t use this on meat, and has leveraged Canadian use to refuse meat. Meanwhile, the interim CPTPP agreement allows the U.K. to access the Canadian meat market.

The Canadian meat lobby calls this is a technical, non-tariff trade barrier.

“We want fair trade that includes the U.K. accepting Canada’s full food safety system so that the beef and pork sectors can have viable access to the U.K. market,” says the release.

“Failing that, we are asking Parliament to ensure producers and processors are fairly compensated for the damages and losses that will result.”

The Canadian government has already given support to the U.K.’s bid to join the CPTPP, although the meat lobby says it did so “without first achieving viable access for Canadian beef and pork to the U.K.”

The campaign is contrary to Canada’s history of compliance with international trade agreements, said an official with the CCA.

“We haven’t just said to (the federal government) ‘We’re not going to support you implementing this.’ We’ve said, ‘We are going to oppose you and we are opposing you,” said John Masswohl.

“We sat down with the minister’s staff. We told them our concerns. They said, ‘we hear your concerns, we’re very aware of your concerns, we tried to address your concerns, but we’re going ahead anyway.’”

The good news, said Masswohl, is that the agreement still requires approval in the House of Commons.

“I think what we have to do is work with the opposition parties, and that is why we have launched this campaign: to let cattle producers and other farmers all across the country know that this is a battle. This can happen in Ottawa and we need all these farmers across the country to tell their Members of Parliament to vote against the bill that will ratify this agreement.”

Masswohl noted inconsistencies with the interim meat trade agreement between the two countries.

One is that the U.K. allows the use of peroxyacetic acid to attack bacteria in most of its food, excluding meat.

“You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say it’s safe for this thing that matters to us and it’s not safe for that thing that matters to you,” he said.

“I think they’re dead in the water if they try that argument. I would say it’s certainly worth a WTO (World Trade Organization) sanitary and phytosanitary case, and I think we would win it handily.”

Ironically, Canada accepts meat from the U.K. on which other methods are used to satisfy Canadian E. coli standards, which essentially require no E. coli at all.

Masswohl said peroxyacetic acid doesn’t have to be used to effectively control E. coli, but Canada’s food safety system considers it risky not to do so.

“You can meet the E. coli standard without using it most of the time. But if we were to test (UK beef) – and I think we probably should be testing all their meat that comes here – I think we will probably find that they have a higher reject rate than we would expect.”

There seem to be different expectations of consumer behaviour between the U.K. and Canada where it comes to meat, said Masswohl.

“The legal context in which we operate in Canada and North America is different than the legal context in which they operate. In the U.K. and in Europe generally, they expect the consumers to cook the meat properly. If the consumer gets sick from not cooking properly or improper meat handling or kitchen hygiene, it’s (the consumer’s) fault.

“Here, if somebody gets food poisoning because they didn’t properly cook their meat — because cooking it will kill the E. coli and most bacteria — or they don’t wash their hands and they cross-contaminate their kitchen, it’s the company’s fault. Legally, the company can be sued.”

Brodie Haugen, chair of Alberta Beef Producers, supports the trade stance of the national groups. Alberta may not send much beef to the U.K., but if it ever does, the province’s beef producers will bear the brunt of unfair trade policies, he said.

“Alberta makes up the majority of the cattle industry,” said Haugen. “We’re home to 65 per cent of the breeding cow herd and we’re 70 to 80 per cent of the feeding sector.

“We believe that you need to have fair, honest trade negotiations that are based on science. And if you aren’t able to have that conversation, it’s better to not have a deal than to have a bad deal.”

Canada can’t afford to have bad deals with any potential market, he said. According to Canfax, the U.K. was the sixth largest importer of beef and veal in 2022.

“The Canadian market is so dependent on trade that any trade discussions, be it maybe a smaller market or an average-sized market, are still very valuable to our industry because every market typically has a very unique product that they’re looking for and different price points that they’re looking for,” said Haugen.

“Every discussion that we can have and every market we can open is extremely valuable for Canadian beef and therefore extremely important for Alberta beef.”

The post Canadian meat lobby says no deal better than bad deal appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Canada requested the talks on Tuesday, according to Bloomberg, a day after the U.S. requested formal trade consultations over its objections to Mexico’s plans to limit imports of GM corn and other agricultural biotechnology products.

“Canada will always work with the U.S. and Mexico to strengthen our trade relationship and grow a clean, green agriculture sector,” a spokesperson for Canada’s Trade Minister Mary Ng said in a statement.

The Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade (CUSMA) “has the ability to hold technical consultations to better understand how our policies are to be implemented under this agreement,” the spokesperson said, without explicitly confirming the report.

Mexico plans to regulate GM corn for human consumption, which U.S. officials say puts some US$5 billion of U.S. corn exports to Mexico at risk and could stifle biotechnology innovation.

Canada, however, is not a major corn exporter and Ottawa is concerned overall about Mexico putting arbitrary prohibitions on agriculture produced using biotechnology, Bloomberg reported.

It is also concerned about Mexico’s lack of respect for the CUSMA trade pact, according to the report.

A spokeswoman for Mexico’s economy ministry did not respond to a request for comment on the report.

Mexico says GM seeds can contaminate the country’s age-old native varieties and has questioned their impact on human health. U.S. officials have criticized Mexico’s plans as not being science-based and warn that any restriction of genetically modified corn could morph into an all-out trade dispute under CUSMA.

— Reporting for Reuters by Ismail Shakil in Ottawa and Cassandra Garrison in Chicago.

The post Canada reported seeking formal talks with Mexico on GMO rule appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The U.S. Trade Representative’s office announced the request for technical talks after months of informal discussions with Mexican officials over their plans to ban GMO corn for human consumption failed to satisfy U.S. trade officials.

The consultations are the first formal step toward a U.S. request for a dispute settlement panel under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade (CUSMA) that could ultimately lead to retaliatory U.S. tariffs if no resolution is reached.

The dispute could further strain U.S.-Mexico relations. U.S. officials say it puts some $5 billion of U.S. corn exports to Mexico at risk and could stifle biotechnology innovation at a time of high food inflation as increasingly severe weather threatens crop production (all figures US$).

“Mexico’s policies threaten to disrupt billions of dollars in agricultural trade and they will stifle the innovation that is necessary to tackle the climate crisis and food security challenges if left unaddressed,” U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai said in a statement.

“We hope these consultations will be productive as we continue to work with Mexico to address these issues.”

Mexico’s economy ministry said in a statement that it viewed the U.S. request as seeking a solution in a “co-operative way,” and would use the consultations to show that its policies have caused no trade harm.

The Mexican government has previously described Washington’s disagreement with its policies as politically motivated.

The U.S. has previously threatened to take the issue to a trade dispute panel under the trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada over the plan, which would ban genetically modified corn for human consumption.

The U.S. and Mexico have also been in talks since July to resolve a separate dispute over Mexico’s state-driven energy policies, which USTR says discriminate against U.S. companies.

‘Not grounded in science’

Washington will do whatever is necessary to ensure U.S. farmers and exporters have “full and fair access” to the Mexican market, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement.

“We remain firm in our view that Mexico’s current biotechnology trajectory is not grounded in science, which is the foundation of (CUSMA).”

The consultations are requested under CUSMA’s chapter on food safety, which requires a science-based approach to national regulations.

USTR officials declined to speculate on potential retaliatory measures that could be taken under CUSMA enforcement rules if the dispute remains unresolved, saying they were focused on the consultations leading to a satisfactory outcome for both countries.

“The core resolution that we’re seeking really is transparent and predictable access to the Mexican market — to be able to continue to export the types of products that we have exported for decades, and that Mexico recognizes the safety of these product,” one of the USTR officials told reporters.

Mexico’s limits on genetically modified corn threatens “serious harm to U.S. farmers and Mexican livestock producers,” the official added.

USTR said the United States exported $28 billion in agricultural goods to Mexico in 2022, with about $43 billion in ag imports from Mexico.

Corn for food use comprises about 21 per cent of Mexican corn imports from the United States including both white and yellow corn, a representative from the National Corn Growers Association said, citing U.S. Grains Council data.

The corn growers’ lobby group called on the USTR to expedite the process under CUSMA.

“Mexico’s position on biotech corn is already creating uncertainty, so we need U.S officials to move swiftly and do everything it takes to eliminate this trade barrier in the very near future,” said NCGA president Tom Haag.

USTR’s move won praise from a number of U.S. lawmakers who have been clamoring for the Biden administration to take a harder stand on the issue.

“I’m grateful USTR has chosen to take a stand for American trade and begin the dispute process with Mexico over its ridiculous GMO corn ban,” Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, himself an Iowa farmer, said in a statement.

— Reporting for Reuters by David Lawder and Rami Ayyub in Washington and Tom Polansek and Cassandra Garrison in Chicago; additional reporting by Adriana Barrera and Raul Cortes in Mexico City; writing by David Lawder.

The post U.S. demands formal trade talks with Mexico over GMO corn dispute appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Canadian agriculture and food safety officials announced Aug. 10 that talks with Seoul on import rules and certifications had concluded to allow registered Canadian cherry packers to export to Korea effective Aug. 1.

Up until Aug. 1, no Canadian fresh cherries could be exported to South Korea, as negotiations for phytosanitary conditions had not yet been completed, ag officials said via email.

However, they added, the bilateral Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement in place since 2015 included an agreed-upon tariff reduction schedule for fresh cherries, “negotiated with the expectation that Canadian industry would eventually have access to the market.”

That means the tariff rate on exports of Canadian cherries to South Korea, which otherwise would have been 24 per cent, will be just 4.8 per cent this year, with duty-free access already scheduled for Jan. 1, 2024, officials said.

Canada’s cherries didn’t yet have access to the Korean market when CKFTA talks were underway but “it was a priority for the Canadian government and industry stakeholders to secure a tariff phase-out with a view to eventual access,” AAFC officials said, noting that negotiating access for any ag commodity is “a lengthy process that can take several years to be achieved.”

South Korea’s annual imports of fresh cherries from other countries were valued at over $208 million in 2021, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada said Aug. 10.

Canada’s annual cherry exports to other countries, meanwhile, were valued at $78 million in 2021, AAFC said.

And, “as the region in North America with the latest-growing cherries, British Columbia exporters have a competitive advantage when the cherries are ready to go to market in August and September.”

Given recent expansions in acres and production volume and rising global demand, sweet cherries have already become Canada’s second-largest exported fruit crop, behind blueberries, AAFC said, and the opening of the Korean market marks “a timely opportunity for the Canadian cherry industry to develop new business.”

“Our growers and industry partners look forward to building long-lasting relationships with Korean customers and cannot wait to see cherries branded with the maple leaf in stores across South Korea,” B.C. Cherry Association president Sukhpaul Bal said in the government’s release Aug. 10. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post B.C. cherries cleared for export to Korea appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

In just the first two years of the three-year-old Trans-Pacific trade deal, member nations upped their buys of Canadian beef by a third and by even more this year, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association said in a recent release hailing the prospect that China, Taiwan and the U.K. may soon join the deal.

And the best is yet to come, said CCA president Bob Lowe.

“We expect the Asian region to hold the largest potential for growth in beef demand over the next 25 years and securing further access to key Asian markets is a priority for us,” said Lowe, a Nanton-area rancher and feedlot owner.

The trade deal with the unwieldy name (officially the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership but widely called CPTPP) is “an excellent story,” said Fawn Jackson, the CCA’s director of policy and international affairs.

“This year, we’re expecting to hit another third record when it comes to trade,” she said. “This is attributed to the progressive nature of CPTPP, particularly Japan being a good market for us.”

While the U.S. is (by far) the biggest buyer of Canadian beef and veal, countries that are either members of the Trans-Pacific agreement or thinking of joining occupy the next five spots — and all have upped their purchases dramatically this year.

Sales to Japan jumped 36 per cent — to $287 million — as of the end of August, according to Canada Beef data. During that same period, Mexico more than doubled its purchases (to $127 million) as did China ($122 million). Meanwhile sales to Vietnam nearly quadrupled (to $60 million) while South Korea purchases were also up substantially (to $55 million).

Japan and Mexico are original members of the deal, China, Taiwan and the U.K. have all officially applied to become members, and South Korea is thinking of applying.

“It’s an interesting time for CPTPP because of all the new interest in it,” said Jackson. “As countries look at economic recovery, it’s undeniable that trade plays a very significant role in that. With the U.K., South Korea, Taiwan and China all interested, there are going to be many conversations that are going to be had about the value of trade.”

But the main one is likely to be along the lines of ‘don’t mess this up.’

“We are encouraged to see other countries’ interest in joining CPTPP, as long as they meet the ambitious nature of the trade agreement, which should open and expand exports for Canadian beef farmers and ranchers,” Lowe said.

A failure to launch

The Trans-Pacific deal stands in sharp contrast to the one with Europe.

Although the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement — a.k.a. CETA — is older (it was signed five years ago), it’s largely been a bust in terms of boosting exports. Last year, just $33 million worth of Canadian beef was exported to all of Europe, with half of that going to the U.K., which is no longer a member of the European Union.

“It’s a slow process with lots of bureaucracy,” said Doug Sawyer, co-chair of the CCA’s foreign trade committee.

“It’s been very frustrating for me, personally, in how slow they have been to respond to the spirit of the agreement. And trying to get them to live up to the spirit of the agreement has not been easy.”

The Pine Lake rancher is a big believer in trade deals but he points to the U.K. and says it will be much better having that nation in the Trans-Pacific pact — and out of the European one.

“I think that will be a huge bonus to us,” he said. “That (Trans-Pacific deal) is straightforward — either you comply with the terms of your agreement or you’re not in.

“With CETA, they are not living up to the whole spirit of the agreement.”

In theory, the trade deal should have seen a boom in beef exports to Europe. The agreement gave Canada 50,000 tonnes of tariff-free quota but only 835 tonnes were sent to the EU last year.

A big part of the reason is so-called non-tariff barriers, which can range from specific production protocols to meeting documentation requirements.

The pandemic hasn’t helped, whether that’s in terms of negotiations with EU trade officials or having face-to-face meetings with potential buyers. However, personal relationships tend to play a large role in winning sales in Asian and Pacific markets, noted Sawyer, and yet sales to that region are continuing to climb sharply.

“In that Pacific Rim, it’s about relationship building — it is in CETA as well, but it’s not the same,” he said. “It’s about relationships and trust and that carries forward. What you run the risk of in this extended pandemic is that people change seats. That’s what the risk is to us — we’ve got a relationship with this person, and then that person moves on, and you have to start the relationship again.”

But Canada’s reputation for quality has helped a great deal, he added.

“That reputation that we’ve built over decades is the only reason we’re able to move forward.”

Despite the slow going, no one is writing off the trade deal with Europe — and officials note it is both a different market and a valuable one. And that’s reflected in the trade stats.

While the U.S., Japan, Mexico, China, Vietnam and South Korea are the Top Six in terms of total sales, none are near the top of the list when it comes to price paid per kilogram. While the former all pay about $7 to $9 a kilo — this year the Netherlands has paid an average of more than $21 a kilogram, Italy $17 and Belgium nearly $14, albeit on small volumes (each had only imported a couple of hundred thousand kilos of Canadian beef as of August).

High prices are partly a necessity because exporters need “to cover the other costs of doing the audit and hormone free and all those sorts of things for the European beef,” said Jackson.

But it also reflects the fact that European buyers will pay more to get what they want.

“It’s a market that appreciates high-value, high-quality beef,” she said. “It’s one we are going to continue working on, particularly we’re going to focus on making the audit process more streamlined.

“We’ll continue to have conversations with them that will hopefully lead to better outcomes in the future.”

The post A tale of two trade agreements appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Just a day before the new standards were due to go into force, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said Canada would be able to continue with the current canola export regime, while a longer-term solution was worked out.

China is Canada’s top export market for the oilseed, and Ottawa has taken an increasingly strong line in talks on a new standard, which industry participants say would significantly raise costs for exporters.

While only temporary, the exemption for Canada will be seen as a small victory for Trudeau. The import dispute has taken centre stage during his visit to China.

China has said the tougher import rules were necessary to prevent the spread of blackleg disease from Canadian canola into Chinese rapeseed crops.

“China itself is a large producer of canola, but China has no intention of keeping its doors closed to other exporters,” Li told a joint news conference with Trudeau at his side.

“But it’s also true that Chinese canola producers have their own worries, hoping that imported canola will not carry with it any disease. Chinese consumers also have that issue on their mind,” Li added.

Both sides should take a flexible attitude on the canola issue, he said.

Industry participants say the new standard, under which China will reduce the amount of foreign matter allowed per shipment to no more than one per cent from 2.5 per cent, would significantly raise costs for exporters.

China in 2009 blocked imports of Canadian canola citing concerns over transmission of blackleg to Chinese rapeseed. Canola shipments later resumed to designated ports, while Canada and China agreed to run joint research on the disease and its transmission.

Negotiating teams from the two countries were currently meeting in Beijing, Canada’s Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland said.

“We are now working on achieving a long-term agreement on terms of Canadian canola shipments and, as the prime minister said, we are working to achieve that in the coming days and weeks,” she told reporters.

China imported 3.8 million tonnes of Canadian canola last year, valued at $2 billion, making the crop Canada’s single most valuable export to China, according to the Canola Council of Canada.

China has also been keen to start talks on a free trade agreement with Canada, similar to the pacts Beijing has sealed with Australia and New Zealand, although a senior Canadian government official said last week there is no near-term chance of agreement.

Li said both countries had agreed to start feasibility talks on a free trade pact at an early date, although Trudeau made no mention of this in remarks in front of reporters.

— Reporting for Reuters by Ben Blanchard and Beijing Monitoring Desk. Includes files from AGCanada.com Network staff.

The post China delays new canola rules in late reprieve for Canada appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland signed the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA) Monday in Kyiv. CUFTA negotiations wrapped last July under the previous Harper government.

Canada and Ukraine must each go through their “respective domestic legislative processes” to ratify and implement the deal now that it’s been signed, the government said.

The signing follows an uptick in Canada/Ukraine bilateral trade, which reached $278 million in 2015, up 13.9 per cent from 2014, but down from $322 million in 2013.

Canada’s exports alone to Ukraine totalled over $210 million in 2015, including pharmaceuticals, fish and seafood, and coking coal, the government said. Imports from Ukraine in 2015 reached over $67 million, including fertilizers, iron and steel, and anthracite coal.

Canadian trade officials have previously described Canada’s trade with Ukraine as as “modest commercial relations,” and noted the Ukrainian economy “in general remains underdeveloped, weak, energy-inefficient and resource-based, yet… quite diversified.”

Listing “sector-specific” opportunities and challenges for agriculture and foods, trade officials have said the “greatest opportunities” exist for beef and dairy cattle producers, sheep and goat producers and beef, pork and poultry packers and processors.

In their 2015-17 market access plan, published last year, staff at Global Affairs Canada also noted “significant opportunities for the full range of agricultural machinery” such as zero-till equipment, along with artificial insemination and “livestock management” technologies.

“Political strife” in Ukraine “may affect the agriculture and processed foods sector, but to a lesser extent than other sectors such as oil and gas,” department staff noted.

Global Affairs staff have also noted that while Ukraine has a long history of doing business with other former Soviet countries, those “historic trade linkages” have started to break down, due mainly to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the formation of the Russian-dominated Eurasian Customs Union.

Thus, the government said, Ukraine’s diversification of trade markets may create opportunities for Canadian companies, particularly in food and agriculture as well as manufacturing and aerospace.

The two governments on Monday also announced an agreement between Kyiv’s Borsch Ventures, E-Farmer and the International Finance Corporation to invest $500,000 in setting up eFarmer 360°, a platform that addresses farm business management needs of farmers and credit risk assessment requirements of banks.

The agreement and two other deals signed Monday “are proof of the ever-growing commercial ties between Canada and Ukraine, and highlight the great potential of CUFTA,” the government said in a separate release. — AGCanada.com Network

The post Ukraine free trade deal signed, goes to vote appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay and Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland announced the Korean government’s decision Thursday.

South Korea had re-imposed its ban on Canadian beef after the discovery of Canada’s Case 19 — an Alberta beef cow and the first case of BSE to be born in Canada after an “enhanced” federal feed ban took effect in 2007.

Case 19 didn’t affect Canada’s status as “controlled risk” for BSE, as per World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) standards for beef safety, but Korea and a handful of other countries put up temporary bans pending the results of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s BSE investigation.

South Korea had been Canada’s fourth-biggest export market for beef in 2002, prior to the discovery of Canada’s first domestic case of BSE — after which Korea closed its ports to Canadian product until 2012.

In 2014, South Korea was Canada’s sixth biggest beef buyer, taking $25.8 million in imports, which made Canada the fourth-biggest shipper of beef into the South Korean market after Australia, the U.S. and New Zealand.

“South Korea holds huge potential for beef and especially cuts and offals that are underutilized here at home,” Canadian Cattlemen’s Association president Dave Solverson said in the federal government’s release Thursday.

“Korea is a market that will pay more for those select items and that helps to increase the overall value of the animal for producers.”

“South Korea is an important market for Canadian exporters and this positive development is a testament to our close commercial relationship,” Freeland said in the same release, noting Jan. 1, 2016 marks the one-year anniversary for the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

Combined with the free trade pact, Seoul’s announcement “allows Canadian beef and veal exporters to begin the process of reclaiming a greater share of the important Korean market,” Matt Gibney, chair of the beef, veal and lamb committee of the Canadian Meat Council, said in a separate release Thursday.

With 50 million “mostly middle-income” consumers, and beef and veal import demand worth US$1.7 billion per year, the South Korean market is “highly coveted by all of the globe’s major beef exporting nations,” he said.

CMC executive director Jim Laws, in the same release, noted projections that South Korea will import over 400,000 tonnes of beef and veal during 2016.

“Successful completion of the technical discussions (to lift the ban) permits this country’s packers and processors to not only renew, but also to further intensify our relationships with Korean importers and consumers,” Laws said. — AGCanada.com Network

The post Korea’s temporary ban on Canadian beef lifted appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Tuesday, during a visit from Ukraine’s Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, that trade negotiations between the two countries wrapped up in Kiev on July 9, and now go to the respective governments for ratification votes.

A further timeline wasn’t released, except to say the two countries aim “to have the agreement in force as soon as possible.” Negotiations had been ongoing since 2009.

The agreement, as announced Tuesday, calls for elimination of “the vast majority” of Ukraine’s tariffs on Canadian agricultural and agri-food imports, the government said. That includes duty-free access for Canadian beef, pulses, grains, canola oil, processed foods and animal feed.

Canadian pork producers will benefit from improved access to Ukraine’s market by way of a “large” tariff rate quota (TRQ), an agreed-upon level under which frozen pork may enter Ukraine duty-free.

“We look forward to the upcoming visit by Ukrainian government inspectors which should allow additional Canadian pork processing plants to become eligible to export to Ukraine,” Canadian Pork Council chair Rick Bergmann of Steinbach, Man. said in a separate release Tuesday.

The pork sector, he said, has estimated the value of duty-free access for Canadian pork up to the TRQ at between $30 million and $40 million.

When fully implemented, a Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement will provide duty-free access to Ukraine for an “unlimited quantity” of beef and veal, duty-free access for 20,000 tonnes of frozen pork, and duty-free access for an unlimited quantity of fresh chilled pork, the Canadian Meat Council said in a separate release.

In 2014, by comparison, Canada’s meat exports to Ukraine included 25 tonnes of beef and veal products, valued at $47,000 and 2,031 tonnes of pork, valued at $4.4 million, the CMC said.

“A survey of Canada’s meat processors has confirmed the existence of a long-term interest in trade with Ukraine,” CMC president Joe Reda said, “not only as a supplier of high-quality protein to Ukraine’s 45 million citizens, but also in the context of Ukraine’s access to the European Union and its trade with the countries of eastern Europe.”

Across all sectors, the government said Tuesday, the deal would see Canada’s exports to Ukraine increase by $41.2 million per year, while Ukraine is expected to see a $23.7 million expansion in exports to Canada, mainly in textiles, apparels and metal products. — AGCanada.com Network

The post Talks wrap on Canada/Ukraine free trade pact appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.