Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 26 May 2010
27 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture; Fisheries and Food the efforts he has made to oppose the proposed Mercosur trade deal; the discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22296/10]
View answerI conveyed our Government's serious reservations about the decision to re-engage in negotiations with Mercosur directly to Commissioner Ciolos when I spoke to him on Monday, 17 May. In my discussion with him, I expressed our deep concerns over the decision to relaunch the negotiations and the threat which these negotiations could pose for Irish and European agriculture, at a time of great sensitivity in the context of discussions on the CAP post 2013, and in the context of the significant challenges already facing the sector.
Ireland has been to the forefront in urging caution in relation to the resumption of these talks. Having sought the inclusion of Mercosur as an AOB point for the Agriculture Council, Ireland helped to draft a joint paper which was co-signed by France, Austria, Finland, Greece, Hungary and Poland, raising concerns on the resumption of the talks, the possible concessions on agriculture that will be required to achieve an agreement and seeking clarification and assurances in relation to any future talks. The concerns expressed in that joint paper were also echoed by many other member states in the Council.
At the Agriculture Council, we highlighted the serious losses for European agriculture and the greater market access concessions that could result from an EU-Mercosur free trade agreement. The importance of agriculture as the largest indigenous manufacturing industry in the context of Ireland's economic recovery was stressed. The impact such an agreement would have on the beef sector and in particular on the high quality beef cuts market in the EU was detailed in our intervention. I have specifically requested a detailed analysis from the Commission of the social, economic and environmental impacts of the anticipated outcome of these negotiations, a request supported by many member states in the Council.
While the talks have been relaunched, it is in effect a reopening of talks that were originally opened a number of years ago but which were effectively suspended in 2004 after 16 rounds of negotiations, arising from major differences between the two sides in terms of expectations across a range of headings including industrial goods, agriculture, services and intellectual property. Doubts still remain among many member states that there is a sound basis for a positive engagement or outcome in these talks.
Will the Minister agree that the general sense of relief within the Irish agrifood sector when Mr. Peter Mandelson packed his bags in Geneva and the WTO talks collapsed some 18 months ago is now misplaced? This has happened as a result of an internal initiative within the European Union to conduct bilateral trade talks with the Mercosur countries. If there is one thing worse than a bad agreement on tariffs and trade, it is a series of bilateral trade agreements within which it appears that similar to the general agreement on tariffs and trade, GATT, food and agriculture is always the sweetener thrown in to pave the way for consensus in other areas.
I accept the Minister's bona fides on this issue, but what is the possibility of securing a fair deal in these negotiations where equivalence is the corner stone? In other words, if they want access to our markets, can the Minister insist that the Commission in conducting these negotiations ensures that they meet the same production standards that are critical for Irish and European farmers?
As Deputy Creed quite rightly says, we are all very concerned about this proposal. It is no secret, and it has been in the public domain, that President Barroso, head of the European Commission, has been the driving force behind this particular initiative to re-open these talks. It is no secret either that there were robust discussions at the college meeting of the Commissioners in early May when this issue arose. It is in the public domain as well that three Commissioners, namely, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Commissioner for Innovation, Research and Science, Michel Barnier, Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, and Dacian Ciolos, Commissioner for Agriculture, made particularly strong interventions in opposition to the proposal that was being put forward by President Barroso, and they were supported by the other Members of the Commission as well. Indeed, that is indicated in the meetings of the college on that particular day.
At the recent EU-Latin American Summit in Madrid, the Taoiseach was quoted in one of the newspapers the following day as outlining our concerns in relation to the difficulties that would arise for the beef sector in this country. I believe the points Deputy Creed made earlier are well taken regarding the need to ensure that Europe is not putting more up for offer, with the danger that we could lose even further. I would be very opposed to that in the event.
Has the Minister invoked the help of the Taoiseach to ensure, given the fact that fully fledged negotiations are now under way, any deal is based on the principle of equivalence? In other words, if they want access to our markets, they must meet exactly the same standards under which we operate. Would the Minister accept that the fact that the new Agricultural Commissioner Ciolos was bowled over by the President of the Commission's commitment to this deal does not augur well for his ability to secure an adequate budget for the CAP?
I would not underestimate the commitment or the capacity of the new Commissioner, who is totally committed to the agriculture sector and to maximising the best possible budget we all want post-2013 towards an adequately resourced CAP. At the Council of Ministers, Ireland, together with France, Austria, Finland, Greece, Hungary and Poland, submitted a joint paper which was discussed at the Agriculture Council on 17 May. Some 19 member states intervened in that particular debate and most of them echoed the concerns outlined in the paper we co-authored. Commissioner Ciolos reassured member states at the meeting that he was very well aware of their concerns and said he would be vigilant, to say the least, in ensuring that EU agriculture was properly protected. He pointed out that the recent decision was merely to reopen negotiations. The original mandate given by member states had not changed, he said, and there would be further opportunities for them to influence negotiations.
For Deputy Creed's benefit, this is a Commission initiative and it is within the competence of the Commission to reopen these negotiations. It is not a matter for the Heads of Government, unfortunately.
