The $US362 billion ($804 billion) of subsidies paid to overseas farmers in 1998 would enable every one of the 56.3 million cows in the OECD to fly around the world first class - with $1500 spending money.
In 1999, subsidies rose by another $54 billion, and several of New Zealand's biggest customers for agricultural exports - the US, the European Union and Japan - led the field in writing cheques to send even more mythical cows on holiday.
Subsidies paid to farmers in OECD countries are back to the level they were 10 years ago.
This startling fact, let alone the huge figure it represents - $US416 billion - should give us pause for thought, since New Zealand sells 80 per cent of its agricultural exports to OECD countries.
And as we repeatedly heard in the lead-up to the much-hyped and historic Gatt agreement on agriculture back in 1993 - the agreement that seemingly was going to deliver us from all this subsidy evil - protection distorts trade and damages the interests of agricultural exporting nations like New Zealand.
Has New Zealand, with the lowest level of support to producers of all OECD countries, forsaken its protection too soon?
Agriculture Minister Jim Sutton would say no, but he recently acknowledged that it was "time to get a sense of perspective."
The Government has frozen our few remaining tariffs, enabling it to undertake further reductions "on the basis of properly structured trade negotiations which are mutually beneficial and under which our trading partners are also making reductions," he said.
Sutton acknowledged he had been told that other countries saw "no point in negotiating with New Zealand because we have already reduced our tariffs so much."
So what do we have left in the negotiating arsenal?
Horticulturalists at a recent pan-industry conference were given a hint. They were told: "You've got to play by the rules, whatever the rules are. Read the rules and work within them to the maximum."
The advice came from top Sydney lawyer Rod McGeoch, the dynamo who led Sydney's successful bid for the Olympic Games and whose law firm has established a special department just to assist exporters to work within (read: push to the limit) international trade rules.
Countries did not have to be big, powerful, or battle like with like, he advised, and gave the example of Ecuador, which, when threatened with the exclusion of its bananas from Europe, retaliated by saying it would not recognise European intellectual property rights. Ecuadorian bananas are now selling in Europe.
New Zealand's experiment of leading by example in reducing industry protection has not paid the hoped-for big dividends.
As many other countries again increase their subsidies, it's time to add another string to the bow and work those trade rules "to the maximum."
<i>Between the lines:</i> OECD farmers in clover
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.