I thank the Chairman and members for inviting us to attend this meeting today. We appreciate the support we received from this committee during previous meetings on separate issues such as the WTO, beef premiums and so on.
I wish today to focus on our visit to Brazil from 4 to 11 May. Members will be aware that an issue of concern to the IFA for the past number of years has been imports entering the EU from Third World countries and the standards applied in these countries as compared with the EU. In that regard, we decided to investigate the matter ourselves. The delegation which visited Brazil included myself, Mr. Kevin Kinsella and Mr. Justin McCarthy of the Irish Farmers’ Journal.
We made brief visits to Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. However, we focused mainly on Brazil because it is the country about which we have the greatest concerns. We examined the standards there and how they relate to those in the EU. It is accepted that the EU, in respect of food produced by its member states, sets the highest standards in the world. There is a concern that equivalent standards do not apply elsewhere. We concentrated on the two provinces of Mato Grosso do Sul and Parana. There has been a recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in those provinces, even though they were previously cleared for exports to the EU. Brazil is currently lobbying very hard to have them cleared again.
The picture on screen is one of the more shocking. It shows the standards that apply there. Every animal in the EU must be tagged from birth until death and there must be 100% traceability. Animals that die must be collected and accounted for through government-approved abattoirs. In Brazil, however, animals that die are left in the fields for birds to eat. We were told at the farm we visited that four cattle were being killed every week to supply the local restaurant trade.
We went to examine farming standards. We are not vets, but we looked at the standards as they apply at farm level. We concentrated on a number of issues. The first of these was foot and mouth disease control because there have been a number of outbreaks in Brazil recently. The second issue was traceability, such as tagging, central databases, registration and so on. We also considered the environmental standards that apply, concentrating on matters such as the rain forests and social issues. The church bodies and others have expressed serious concerns about the piratically slave-level standards that apply to farm labourers.
The findings from our trip were shocking. Most of the committee will have seen the articles in the Irish Farmers’ Journal relating to it. We found that the foot and mouth disease controls were completely inadequate. At all stages, they are relying completely on vaccination. We met Professor Augusto Pinto, who is one of the senior advisers to the Brazilian Government. He stated that its vaccination programme is not up to standard because many of the farmers are not vaccinating completely and are purchasing certificates. He is also concerned about the fact that there are 3 million wild buffalo in Brazil. The latter, which are not vaccinated, interact with the fixed herds in the country and foot and mouth disease is endemic. He was very concerned about border controls. We met officials from DG SANCO and they are willing to accept that the border controls with Paraguay are not adequate. Foot and mouth disease exists in Paraguay and it is not approved for export into the EU.
Professor Pinto highlighted the length it took from the initial outbreak until the time it was diagnosed. This was evident in Parana last year, where the outbreak occurred in October or November but was not confirmed until February. That was a long period and it provided ample time for the disease to spread. Professor Pinto was very clear that Brazil does not have proper controls and does not have the necessary systems and procedures in place. He was exceptionally concerned about the country's lack of proper laboratories and technicians. The Food and Veterinary Office report highlights the fact that money has not been spent to put proper procedures in place. Training is required to allow people to deal with matters such as the control of foot and mouth disease.
The lack of traceability was the most noticeable aspect of our trip. We visited 11 cattle farms. We went in at random when we saw farms with big herds of cattle. It was obvious that, with the exception of one farm, there was no traceability. On the farm to which I refer, the tags were repeated and there was no link back to the farm of origin. Two of the other ten farms had a limited form of traceability in the past but the farmers there had abandoned it. Instead of standards improving, which is what we were led to believe, it is clear that they are declining. There is no belief at farm level that traceability is of any benefit or that there is an ability to put it in place. We informed the officials from DG SANCO that we did not see any level of training and education. A farmer in Ireland has a level of school education and he will undertake training provided by Teagasc and so on. There is much training involved in reaching a stage where traceability is right, which includes maintaining herd registers and a central database. That is the minimum requirement for a robust traceability system. However, it does not exist in Brazil. It is a long way from being put in place. Farmers there do not understand the need for it.
The EU has a regionalisation policy in place for the control of foot and mouth disease in Mato Grosso do Sul and Parana. However, if there is no traceability, how can it be controlled? There is no way to control regionalisation. In the US, the stock approved for export to the EU is worth 30% to 50% more than the stock that is not approved. With very low weaning rates and unrestricted movement of cattle, it is obvious that it is impossible to control regionalisation. This means that regionalisation just does not work.
We also examined environmental standards. When European farmers have a quality control system linked to European supermarkets, the supermarket owners insist on information regarding traceability, animal welfare, animal health and so on. None of these standards exist in Brazil, so we wanted to consider the environmental standards. We visited a farm that was part of the rain forest only five years ago. There is a policy of slash and burn in place. The commercial timber is pulled out and the remainder is burned. Everybody is concerned about global warming but in Brazil there is a policy of expanding beef production at the expense of the rain forest, despite the long-term environmental damage that will do the rest of the world. Every inch of Mato Grosso do Sul was rain forest 30 years ago. In the picture on screen, members can see the burned stones and the grass regenerating. In recent years, they have been burning an area the size of Munster. Mato Grosso do Sul is much bigger than France. The proposals under the WTO are for a drastic increase in beef production in Brazil. If that is to take place, they will be obliged to burn an area of rain forest the size of Europe. The consequences of that are frightening.
We also examined the social issues. The international church bodies refer to landless people. In Mato Grosso do Sul, we met people living in plastic huts at the side of the road. There are 24,000 people living in these conditions. They were displaced as beef production expanded. They would have been called small tenant farmers 100 years ago in Ireland. They are sharecroppers who used to own approximately eight hectares and they shared 20% of the production with the Brazilian Government or the landowner. Much of the land in Brazil still belongs to the Government. The hut in the picture is probably much smaller than the middle ring of this room, yet we counted 20 children in it. That hut was on one of the ranches we visited.
The employment standards are atrocious. The workers are on slave wages. We travelled 27 km along a dust track and all of those children we saw will grow up in dire poverty. It is not true to say that getting access to the European markets improves living standards to the poor in Brazil. The people living on the side of the road and those living in that hut are certainly not benefiting from it. Many of the ranches are owned by big business people in America and in the cities. In Ireland, farming is understood in terms of a family farm of 40 hectares to 60 hectares. In the places we visited, a businessman might own 2,000 hectares to 6,000 hectares.
The conclusions drawn from our trip are clear. First, foot and mouth disease controls are inadequate and are far from being so. The main reason is that any control programme must have systems in place. However, the systems in Brazil are simply not up to scratch. This is partly due to a lack of education and partly to a lack of investment in laboratories and trained staff.
As for traceability, it is far from being a reality because any level of traceability must start at farm level. However, there is no willingness or degree of training or education at farm level. Moreover, the next link in securing traceability requires a central database in the relevant department. This is not in place and is not close to being so.
The story with regard to environmental controls is frightening. In 2005, Brazil exported 350,000 tonnes of beef to the EU and Argentina exported a further 150,000 tonnes. That is a total of 500,000 tonnes. Commissioner Peter Mandelson's initial proposal is to allow these exports to increase to 1.3 million tonnes. However, Argentina cannot produce the extra beef because its population is rising and its beef production is stable or falling slightly. Hence, the only place from which this extra production can come is Brazil and the only way in which the requisite additional land can be found is by burning the rain forest, which is frightening.
The argument being made at the WTO talks in respect of social issues or similar matters is far from the truth. As we have seen, the ending of the beet industry in Ireland has done nothing for poor farmers in Africa. Similarly, an increase in Brazilian beef production will not do anything for poor people in Brazil.
We decided to raise this matter at every level and appreciate the opportunity afforded to us by the joint committee. We have spoken to the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, in this regard and she has forwarded our report to Commissioner Fischer Boel. We have spoken twice to the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection, DG SANCO, about this matter because it is responsible for accepting the imports. Yesterday, Mr. Kinsella and I met top officials from DG SANCO, including the assistant chef de cabinet, in Brussels. He was quite willing to state on the record that Brazil is a subject of serious concern and is at the top of Commissioner Kyprianou’s agenda. The latter is so concerned that he has sent many more missions there. The missions sent in 2003, 2004 and 2005 all highlighted serious shortcomings, none of which have been rectified. The directorate general’s most recent report was issued last week and highlighted the fact that its visits of late November and December 2005 and early this year revealed that nothing was getting better and, if anything, matters were becoming more serious.
Yesterday, the assistant chef de cabinet was willing to state on the record that the directorate general is so concerned that it has sent its inspector back to Brazil to seek immediate answers. He stated that unless satisfactory answers are provided and Brazil can offer some proof that it is in a position to make huge changes in this regard, the directorate general will be obliged to extend the ban. He further stated that the directorate general is so concerned about the lack of border controls and sanitary provisions between Paraguay and the states of Mato Grosso do Sul and Parana, that it certainly will not lift the temporary ban on those states. As members are aware, in view of these serious shortcomings we have asked for a total ban on Brazilian imports.
