Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to appear at the committee today to discuss what will happen at the next AGRI FISH Council on 15 and 16 December. The AGRI FISH Council on 15 and 16 December will be the final Council presided over by the Italian Presidency, with Latvia assuming the Presidency role from 1 January 2015. It is customary for the outgoing Presidency to take stock of developments over the previous six months and this has been reflected in the long agenda for Italian Presidency's final Council meeting. As is customary in December, Council will be heavily dominated by negotiations on the total allowable catches and fishing quotas for 2015. Aside from fisheries, the bulk of the items for discussion are progress reports from the Presidency on the state of play of various dossiers discussed during the Italian Presidency or information items from the Commission and the Presidency.

The fisheries items are of major significance to Ireland. Discussions will focus on the proposed total allowable catches, TACs, and fishing quotas for 2015. These discussions are expected to be lengthy, with intense negotiations between member states, prior to agreement on the second day of Council.

In preparation for the Council, the Department undertook a consultation process with stakeholders seeking their comments on the Commission’s proposal for 2015 fishing opportunities, and I arranged a meeting with the stakeholders on Wednesday last, 26 November, to further inform the process. In line with the programme for Government, I will present a sustainable impact assessment, SIA, to the committee, which will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The SIA takes account of the Commission's proposal and the views provided via the public consultation process for all stakeholders. I will have more to say on this later.

Turning to agriculture, debates or progress reports are envisaged on a proposed revision of the EU regulations on organics, the school fruit and vegetables and school milk schemes, and the four-part package of proposals on animal and plant health law. There is also a possible item flagged on the future of the dairy sector. The Council is also expected to adopt conclusions concerning measures to assist young farmers in the EU – an issue on which Ireland has been to the forefront - and regarding error rates on expenditure on the CAP – an issue in which we also have a keen interest. Under other business, a number of member states will raise the impact of the Russian import ban on EU agrifood products.

I will be brief on organics as my officials recently provided an update on the progress of this proposal to this committee. Since then, the Italian Presidency has produced a substantially revised text covering matters such as mixed organic and conventional farming, recourse to non-organic seed and breeding animals and the control regime. In addition, the incoming Commissioner has indicated a willingness to have a fresh look at its original proposal. What that means, in practical terms, is that the Presidency will seek at Council to obtain agreement from the Council on these particular issues so that it can open discussions with the European Parliament.

As to the school fruit and school milk schemes, the Commission proposes to combine the two separate EU co-funded school schemes. The proposal was introduced under the Greek Presidency, with discussions continuing throughout the Italian Presidency. There are three main issues outstanding. There is a difference of opinion between the Commission and the Council as to which article of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union is the correct article for the fixing of the level of aid. All member states, including Ireland, believe this should be the sole preserve of the Council, while the Commission favours co-decision with the European Parliament. There are differing views between member states on the scope of products to be eligible for the schemes. Ireland favours expanding the scope of dairy products to include cheese and yoghurts and fully supports the Commission’s proposal to restrict the list of products to fresh fruit and vegetables for the scheme. There are also differing views on the allocation of funding. This concerns the method for allocation of EU funding for the milk element of the scheme. Ireland’s view is this funding should be allocated on an objective basis according to the population of school children as a proportion of the overall population, as opposed to allocation based on the historical use of funds, as favoured by some member states who would do well out of it. These three issues have been the subject of debate for some months without any resolution and it is difficult to see a breakthrough happening at the December Council.

The Council will also deal with a number of progress reports, the most notable of which are reports on the four-part animal and plant health package. In May 2013, the Commission launched a legislative package of four regulations dealing with animal health, plant health, seeds and propagating material, and official controls. The aim was to consolidate existing legislation in these areas into a single legislative framework and, in the course of doing so, to modernise and replace outdated provisions. The file on animal health is close to being agreed by Council and work is continuing on the plant health and official controls proposals. After the proposal on seeds and propagating material ran into difficulty in the European Parliament earlier this year, the Commission undertook to engage in extensive redrafting.

I am aware that a number of Agriculture Councils have taken place since I addressed the committee last May and I would like to mention some of the issues that have dominated proceedings since then. Since September, the main focus of the Council has been on the impact of the Russian ban on agrifood products from the EU. The sectors most affected are the dairy and fruit and vegetables sectors. Mackerel is also heavily affected. The Commission has taken a number of steps to assist producers in these sectors, including, most recently, a compensation package for dairy farmers in the Baltic member states. The main issue arising was the funding of these measures.

Ireland was the first member state to make the point that EU farmers were disproportionately affected by a decision taken on security policy and political grounds. Thus, funding should not be confined to the EU agricultural budget lines. Along with 20 other member states, we vehemently opposed the Commission’s proposal to deploy the agricultural crisis reserve to pay for these measures. I am pleased to report that the Commission subsequently withdrew this proposal.
On milk quotas, earlier in the year there was a concerted attempt by a number of member states, including Ireland, to ensure a more effective soft landing in all member states in the run-up to the expiry of milk quotas next March. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to reach agreement on this in the Council and we are now facing the unpalatable situation whereby Irish producers gearing up for the abolition of milk quotas, in all likelihood, will face a bill for a super-levy next year. At this point, I urge dairy farmers to manage their production so as to minimise that bill. Obviously, we will do what we can to make sure that any super-levy that must be paid will be paid over a manageable period.
With regard to climate change, in October we had a very useful exchange of views on climate change and agriculture, focused on the need for recognition of the special position of the agriculture sector and the need for coherence between policies on climate change and food security. Ireland can claim credit for that discussion. We were the first to raise the issue at the Council last May but it was not long before we were joined by other member states. Following the exchange at the October Council, the European Council took on board the conclusions of EU agriculture Ministers in their decisions on the climate energy framework to 2030 at the end of October. This was a pretty good success from our perspective.
The Council had a number of exchanges on current trade negotiations in which I reiterated Ireland’s position on the Mercosur and TTIP negotiations. To be clear, we have both offensive and defensive interests in relation to the proposed agreement with the United States. However, when it comes to Mercosur, I have serious concerns about the impact of an agreement on Irish agriculture, particularly on the beef sector. We should proceed with extreme caution in that regard.
As I said, much of what is being raised on the formal agenda from an agricultural point of view the week after next really comprises an update on technical issues. There will be an effort to get a number of those issues over the line. Some proposals will succeed and some of the more controversial ones probably will not. The main focus will be on fishing and quotas for next year. If members have any questions on the agriculture issues, we will try to answer them.