Vol. 510 No. 3
74 Mr. J. Brady asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the preparatory work, if any, undertaken for the defence of CAP and, in particular, the benefits from Agenda 2000 in the forthcoming World Trade Organisation negotiations; the activity being taken to form alliances and receive support from countries with similar economic interests; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22338/99]
83 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development his Department's views on the possibility of a new agreement on agriculture arising from the meeting of the World Trade Organisation in November 1999 in Seattle; if he will ensure that the interests of the developing countries are protected in the context of any new agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22425/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 29, 74 and 83 together.
There are no proposals for cuts in export refunds before the EU Council of Ministers at present. I understand that the Commission intends to present a report to the Council in the near future on the implications for export refunds of the obligations imposed by the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement of the EU budget constraints.
The World Trade Organisation's ministerial conference in Seattle from 30 November to 3 December 1999 aims to take the decisions necessary to launch a new round of trade negotiations, including agriculture. I expect that a new WTO round, including a new agreement on agriculture, will be launched and that the negotiations will take a number of years to complete. Ireland will participate in the Seattle conference and in the subsequent negotiations as a member of the European Union.
The EU has been preparing its overall position for the Seattle conference for some time and I have been actively involved in that process. The position adopted by the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers on 27 September 1999 and confirmed by the General Affairs Council provides that: the negotiations on agriculture will be based on the mandate provided in Article 20 of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture which conditions the long-term objectives of trade liberalisation by other concerns, notably the experience and effects of implementing the commitments agreed in 1994, non-trade concerns, special and differential treatment of developing countries and the objective to establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system; the EU position will be based on the full Agenda 2000 package decided by the European Council in Berlin in March 1999; the EU will be prepared to negotiate reductions in support provided the concept of the "blue and green" boxes will continue; similar instruments to the peace clause and the special safeguard clause will be needed in the future; the EU will take forward the multifunctional role of agriculture, food safety, food quality and animal welfare; and the EU will actively promote special and differential treatment for developing countries, especially for the least developed countries.
I understand the Minister is taking three questions together. In that case he has six minutes to conclude his reply and discussion on these questions may continue until 4.15 p.m.
It is not easy to keep up with changes in procedure. I will complete my prepared reply and I thank you, Sir, for drawing this matter to my attention.
While the EU position stresses the fundamental importance of safeguarding the future of the European model of agriculture, it also recognises that the interests of developing countries need to be protected and, in particular, that the new round should provide benefits to developing countries and assist the integration of those countries, particularly the least developed countries, into the international trade system.
As part of the preparations at EU level for the opening of the WTO negotiations and in addition to the normal multinational meetings, consultations have taken place at ministerial and official level between Ireland and other EU member states. The agricultural attaché in Geneva, who is seconded from my Department, is participating fully in the preparations for the Seattle conference which are taking place in Geneva and is in continual contact there with representatives of both EU and non-EU members of the WTO. This process of consultation with other countries will continue and intensify when the new round of trade negotiations has commenced. The EU Council of Agriculture Ministers will, of course, maintain an active role in the forthcoming negotiations.
Where does the European Union stand on export refunds? These must be paid on the basis of agreed procedure within the EU and it is important for Ireland that we know, not alone where the Minister stands but what the EU stance on this matter will be. What input will the Minister have into this very important issue?
Deputy Connaughton has hit the nail on the head. The single most important matter for Ireland in these negotiations is to protect export refunds. The second consideration, which is almost equally important, is the protection of direct payments. We will be insisting on the blue box to protect any reductions in direct payments, as we did the last time. We will do the same with regard to export refunds. At the last meeting of the Council of Ministers in September we agreed that the multifunctional role of agriculture in the EU would form the thrust of our negotiating position. We want to insist on export refunds being maintained because we have very large exports outside the EU and we want to protect them. Those are the two critical issues. These are the two things which the Cairns Group and the other countries involved in the WTO wish to reduce and emasculate. The negotiations will be quite tough and will continue until 2003. As a state more dependent on exports than any other member state, we want to make sure our position is protected.
The Minister is acutely aware of the problems in the sheepmeat industry. This matter will be of great concern at the forthcoming WTO negotiations. What steps will the Minister take to ensure there is no increase in the importation of lamb from New Zealand and other non-EU countries? Does the Minister agree that these imports have contributed significantly to the problems which sheep farmers are experiencing? The importation of 247,000 tonnes of sheepmeat contributes to making the EU 103 per cent self-sufficient in sheepmeat. What is the cost in EU subsidisation of this level of imports and what impact has it had on the income of Irish sheep farmers? Does the Minister agree that any further increase in sheepmeat imports would signal the demise of Irish sheep farming?
Imports into the European Union are a major problem for Europe and for Ireland. The agricultural sector has two particularly difficult problems at present, the sheepmeat and pigmeat sectors. In both cases, there is a substantial level of imports into the EU and Ireland. For example, approximately 35,000 tonnes of pigmeat are imported into Ireland while our domestic requirement is only 135,000. A quarter of our annual requirements is being imported. Every effort will be made to ensure that there is no disruption of the European market, but the present New Zealand quota is 206,000 and that is an enormous amount of sheepmeat. Quite a substantial amount of this comes in chilled form and is very competitive while previously it was imported in frozen form.
We have the additional difficulty of the explosion in the number of sheep. A few years ago we had between three million and four million sheep whereas we have eight million now. The problem is similar in the UK. We used to export live sheep to Spain and Portugal but those countries are now exporters themselves. For a relatively small economy such as Ireland the WTO round of negotiations will be critically important. Any gains or copper-fastening of the position of the CAP reform will be severely tested. We will have to make every effort to ensure that the industry – farmers and processors – have a secure future in the first decade of the next millennium.
I am delighted to hear the Minister give a commitment to support the blue box question in the forthcoming WTO talks. Is the Minister aware that a great deal of negotiation is going on between other European countries with regard to the green box? I understand there is now an amber box appearing. I hope the Minister will not be fooled into supporting the green box in preference to the blue box for Irish farmers.
A question please, Deputy.
The Deputy should come down to the front.
I want the Minister to give an assurance to the House that he will vehemently oppose the green box and the amber box. I want him to give his full support and to get the support of his European counterparts, if possible, for the blue box regulations to be adopted in the forthcoming world trade talks. Will the Minister give that assurance? Is he aware that he is also faced with an amber box?
We do not want to see the white flag?
The Deputy is well briefed.
What about the black box? They will be looking for a black box for the information.
I am pleased my constituency colleague, Deputy Sheehan, has brought these important matters to the attention of the House because, while the blue box is extremely important to protect indirect payments, there is a concern about the green box and the amber box. While we go to a great deal of trouble to ensure Irish consumers of poultry products, for example, are protected from antibiotics and various residues, there is a large number of poultry coming into Ireland and we do not know what has gone into the process. We want to ensure in the WTO round that the phytosanitary aspects of it are fully taken into account. If our producers and industry adhere to certain standards, importers would have to adhere to the same standards. It is not good enough that some countries use BST to boost milk production which gives them an economic advantage. We do not allow that in Ireland. We want a level playing pitch and I am glad my colleague brought this matter to the attention of the House.
Deputy Sheehan is a colourful character.
The Minister of State will go colour blind now.
On a related question which I tabled, we are all very concerned about sheep farmers who are going through a difficult time. I hope the Minister does everything in his power to prevent the EU from being flooded with meat from New Zealand and other international suppliers.
I understand that, according to the CSO figures, 1,699 tonnes of sheep meat were imported into Ireland in 1998, and more was imported last year. Every possible effort will be made in this regard. I am meeting the Irish Farmers' Association delegation on sheep meat on Thursday.
The Minister would not meet the ICMSA today.
Please allow the Minister to speak without interruption. Deputy Creed, your colleagues are anxious to ask supplementary questions and we are rapidly running out of time. I ask you to refrain from interrupting.
The Minister could not give away a mountain ewe.
I remind my colleague again that there was a very nice profile of me in the Southern Star last week with a very rare breed of sheep from the west Cork region which we are trying to promote.
It has six legs.
The industry generally is going through a difficult time, although on my way to Dublin this morning I was pleased to read that the market is picking up. It is not before time.
That would not be hard.
At least there are fairly substantial payments going to the sheep meat industry – £132 million in the past year – whereas the pig meat industry is outside the Common Agricultural Policy and they get no payments. They are going through an inordinately difficult time.
The Minister has had total control and did nothing.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
