Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Paul Dillon will make a presentation on our concern over COM (2014) 180. The committee proposed that it warranted further scrutiny. The Secretary General subsequently communicated by letter and brought the committee up to date. We fully supported the Department’s position and agreed to invite the departmental officials, who are present, to inform the committee of any significant developments regarding the proposal.

Mr. Paul Dillon:

By way of background, the first EU legislation on organic farming was adopted in 1991. Council Regulation No. 2092/91 provided a legal definition of organic farming through production rules, defined control and labelling requirements and introduced a regime for importing organic products. This legislation was substantially revised with the adoption of Council Regulation No. 834 in June 2007, and the Commission implementing regulation, No. 889/2008, which defined the detailed technical rules of organic production. The regulation linked the organic control system to the official food and feed controls provided in Regulation No. 882/2004 and made obligatory the accreditation of private certifying bodies. Organic aquaculture was added to the list of organic products in 2010.
When adopting Council Regulation No. 834/2007, the EU Council identified a series of issues, regarding in particular the scope of the legislation, the prohibition of the use of GMOs and the functioning of the internal market and control system. The Commission was required to submit a report on these issues to the European Parliament and the Council after having reviewed the experience gained from the application of Regulation No. 834/2007. This report was submitted to the Council and Parliament in 2012.
The Council, under the Irish Presidency in 2013, adopted conclusions on the report at its meeting on agriculture and fisheries on 13 and 14May 2013on the basis of the Commission's report. These included a call to develop the organic farming sector at an ambitious level by reviewing the current legal framework, with a view to improving its usability while providing for a period of stability and certainty, and aiming at further clarification and simplification and addressing the current outstanding issues requiring further development.
In 2013, the EU Commission initiated an impact assessment of the organic sector that included a wide-ranging consultation process. The Commission concluded in the impact assessment that the current regulations are not sufficiently fit for purpose to allow the sector to develop. It chose to overhaul radically the current regulations with the objective of removing obstacles to the sustainable development of the sector, further strengthening the Single Market by guaranteeing fair competition for producers, protecting the integrity of organic products and improving consumer confidence in the production system.
Three possible legislative policy options were identified. First, the improved status quo option notably includes clarifications in the scope of the legislation and simplifications in the labelling rules and addresses some gaps in the legislation. Second, the market-driven option aims at providing the conditions to respond dynamically to further market developments thanks to a more product-oriented scheme with flexible production rules. Third, the principle-driven option aims at re-focusing organic farming on its principles. Production rules are to be strengthened, the control system is to be fully risk based, and import rules are to be overhauled. The preferred option is the principle-driven model, which entailed a complete overhaul of the existing regulation and culminated in the regulatory proposal currently under discussion and the subject of our meeting here today.The proposal must also be aligned to the Lisbon treaty, which requires the agreement of the co-legislators – the Council and EU Parliament – to the allocation of delegated powers to the Commission.
The EU Commission introduced the proposal to the Council in early 2014 under the Greek and Italian presidencies. The proposal completed its first reading on 15 October. The EU Parliament, as co-legislator, will begin discussions on the proposal in January.
The discussions are difficult, with many contentious issues arising, and progress is slow. While there are many elements in this proposal that are welcomed, every member state, without exception, has issues of concern. Some key issues have emerged about which we share concerns. These include a series of issues of a political and technical nature. Among them are a Lisbon treaty alignment exercise, involving the transfer of decision-making powers to the Commission via the delegated Acts; the scope of the proposal, which involves determining what organic products are included in the regulation and, just as important, what is left out; the transfer of organic controls to the new official controls regulation, currently under discussion by the EU Council; and the introduction of a risk-based control regime and the removal of the requirement of an annual inspection by the control bodies.

Other factors include harmonisation of residue sampling, analysis and action and establishing a minimum threshold for pesticide residues above which the product cannot be sold as organic and introducing the possibility for member states to pay compensation.
In terms of mixed holdings, we are concerned at the removal of the current flexibility whereby a farm can produce organic and non-organic produce in the same holding. We are also concerned about the proposedsevere restriction in the reduction of the conversion period as well as the proposals to include within the control regime all retailers who sell organic products and to exclude the possibility to label in-conversion products as organic. The proposals to remove or severely restrict flexibility to allow member states to provide, under very exceptional circumstance, for the introduction of non-organic breeding stock, seeds and propagation material onto organic farms are of concern. Difficulties also arise with regard to the proposed expansion of the import regime to organic imports fully in compliance with the EU organic standards.
The Commission is holding firm but the Italian Presidency is preparing a compromise text.I welcome any questions committee members may have for us.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the removal or severe restriction of flexibility in the context of the introduction of non-organic breeding stock, seeds, etcetera, onto organic farms open the door to genetically modified products?

Michael Comiskey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a question on mixed holdings. What is proposed with regard to farmers who produce organic products on one part of their farm and non-organic products on other parts?

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I chaired a meeting last week where this issue came up repeatedly. The eastern European countries in particular seem to have serious concerns about this because organic farming is seen there as a way to achieve higher-value production. The issues of mixed use, conversion and labelling are causing most concern. The issue of genetically modified organisms did not come up much at the aforementioned meeting.

Our ambition is to get to 5% organic farming from our current 1%, which is a five-fold increase. One would have to say that some of the issues identified here are not going to speed up that process; if anything, they will slow it down.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A number of issues are relevant in the context of trying to reach the 5% target and supports are very important in that regard. These proposals contain a lot of stipulations or potential stipulations and it is clear that it is not going to be easy to reach agreement on these matters. Does Mr. Dillon have any idea what type of compromise text is being prepared? Labelling, in particular, is very important and the role of retailers as well as producers must be considered in all of this.

Mr. Dillon made reference to the transfer of organic controls to the new official controls regulations - what will that mean in practice? Will it be another bureaucratic quango which will only be a hindrance to the achievement of targets? Will the imports regime be developed in parallel with the development of the labelling regime or will we end up with a situation similar to that which pertains to products being labelled as Irish which were only given a light dusting of something here?

This is a very complex and technical area and it will be interesting to see what proposals emerge from the Italian Presidency.

Mr. Paul Dillon:

As I said, there are a number of issues here which are a cause of serious concern for us as well as for other member states. The flexibility to take in additional breeding stock is recognised as a key measure for those organic farmers who want to grow. If we take away that derogation, we are restricting them severely because of the limited availability of breeding stock. Partial conversion is also a serious issue, as is the transfer of control to the European control body. At the moment, control is vested in the certifying control bodies, with the Department carrying out a small number of inspections but the proposal here is to take control away from those bodies. They are serious issues of concern.

It is important to understand, however, that there is a long way to go with this process. It will be quite slow. There has been a lot of change in the Commission and the process has taken a lot longer than was originally envisaged. At the recent meetings, at both official and Council level, several member states have indicated that they are not happy with the proposals as they stand. A lot of work has yet to be done.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The draft compromise proposals from the Italian Presidency will form the basis of the next phase of the process. In that context, I suggest that we draft a political contribution on this matter. The officials have outlined the key concerns in the document before us and if members feel we should add to that, we can do so and then send it on to the European Parliament, the Commission, the Irish MEPs and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

While it is not for everybody, organic farming has a role to play but we have no hope of getting beyond 1% or 2% of total share if we tie ourselves up in too many impractical restrictions before we even get any momentum behind it.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some key issues have emerged here about which we are all concerned, particularly the transfer of powers to the Commission.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That will form the basis of our political contribution.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure in my own mind that the proposals around non-organic breeding stock relate to GMOs.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the officials for coming in today. As anticipated, one issue dominated the meeting. I thank them for engaging with us so comprehensively. We hope that in the context of commonage, they will take on board the fact that members of this committee have a fairly in-depth understanding of the situation on the ground.

We will keep an eye on the progress with regard to the Commission proposal on organic farming. It is the only proposal that we decided warranted further scrutiny by this committee. We are grateful that the officials came before us and highlighted the issues of concern in such a detailed manner and we are in agreement with them on the matter.

As there is no further business, the meeting is now adjourned.