POLICY DESCRIPTION FOR THE CANADIAN/AMERICAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT SOLUTION

2

POLICYDESCRIPTION FOR THE CANADIAN/AMERICAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENTSOLUTION

The dispute brought about by the agreement is evidently affectingthe lumber producers from Canada. The unfair manner with which theagreement was reached negates the need to come up with ways of endingthe truce in a way that helps the Canadian producers who are mostaffected by the agreement. A solution needs to be provided in form ofa policy that will seek to avert the adverse effects felt by thelumber producers in Canada. The situation presented by the dealevidently shows that Canada has to make difficult choices when itcomes to helping the producers (Roger, Midgley, and Edenhoffer 2015)

Possible policy solutions

The first eminent solution is to create a policy that subjects theCanadian trade ministry officials go directly to the World TradeOrganization to address the issue. Even though previously the casehas gone to the WTO, there is a need to launch a new petition thatwill seek the revisit of the agreement so that the producers get areprieve out of the issue (Leger, 2015). If need be, they can bypassNAFTA and let the world organization take control of the issue1.The policy should aim at highlighting the plight of the lumberproducers so that the agreements made be revisited for purposes offair trade. The decision to seek the services of the World TradeOrganization emanates from the fact that they will find peaceful waysto resolve the issue. Focus should be on ensuring that a ruling isobtained from the World Trade Organization2.Through such a measure, it will be possible to eliminate the endlesscontroversies witnessed every time a deal is agreed upon by the twocountries.

Policy can also be introduced that seeks to get recognition from thetwo countries. Emphasis would be on having the United States, andCanada put collective efforts when it comes to coming up with asolution. The policy that identifies mutual recognition will serve tohighlight the rights that each government has when it comes to thelimitation of exports and imports alike. Also, there is a need toidentify that as the policy comes into operation, it must not besubject to any of the trade sanctions. Each of the two countries mustagree upon eliminating the chances of introducing sanctions to eitherof the traders. The policy regarding mutual recognition seeks toemphasize the fact that either of the countries producers may sufferif amicable solutions are not determined. They should acknowledgethat working together and finding a solution is the only option thatthey may be having.

A policy of competitive bidding may be introduced. Softwood lumberproducers from Canada should be given the opportunity of biddingcompetitively in the market with the United States counterparts. Thedecision to introduce the system will make it possible for theproducers to look for markets in a fair manner without having anyparty complain that they have an unfair trade system.

Conclusion

The Softwood Lumber Agreement is an issue that needs to bedeliberated. The Canadian lumber producers are fairly untreatednegating the need to come up with an amicable solution for the same.The losses experienced by the producers, not only affect them but itaffects the country regarding revenue. Canadian authorities must takeresponsibility to help the producers out of the menace byimplementing some of the policies mentioned.

List of Bibliography

Hayter, Roger,Ryan Midgley, and Klaus Edenhoffer. &quotThe Canada-US SoftwoodLumber

Dispute, Phase4: Location Adjustments by BC’s Lumber Firms.&quot TheIndustrial

Geographer12 (2015): 1-20.

Leger,C. (2015). The Beyond the Border Declaration under the perspectivesof Historical

Analysisand International Relations Theory.

1 Leger, C. (2015). The Beyond the Border Declaration under the perspectives of Historical Analysis and International Relations Theory.

2 Hayter, Roger, Ryan Midgley, and Klaus Edenhoffer. &quotThe Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute, Phase 4: Location Adjustments by BC’s Lumber Firms.&quot The Industrial Geographer 12 (2015): 1-20.