Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies have been received from Deputies Crowe and Quinn. I remind members and those in the public Gallery to ensure their mobile phones are switched off completely for the duration of the meeting because, even when in silent mode, they cause interference with the recording equipment in the committee rooms.

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider two motions, referred to the select committee by Dáil Éireann, on the economic partnership agreement between west African states, the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, and the West African Economic and Monetary Union, UEMOA, of the one part and the European Union and its member states of the other part. The second motion is the economic partnership agreement between the CARIFORUM states of the one part and the European Union and its member states of the other part. Under the terms of the Dáil motion of 11 November 2015, the select committee must consider the matter and report back to the House not later than 26 November 2015.

On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for development, trade promotion and North-South co-operation, Deputy Sherlock, and his officials. I congratulate him and the Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, on their superb work in recent weeks. We know it has been very difficult to get them because they have been in Belfast. It is good that the Stormont talks were successful and I congratulate our delegation from the Irish Government which took part in the talks.

We will hear an opening presentation from the Minister of State and then take questions from members.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman for his expression of congratulations. I will be sure to convey the message to the Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, and the team involved in the talks at Stormont House.

I am joined by Ms Dympna Hayes and Ms Mary Barrett from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Ms Lorraine Benson from the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. If there are any very technical questions which I am not able to answer, we have three experts here. I thank the Chairman and members for this opportunity to discuss the two motions before us, which have been referred to the select committee for consideration. The motions seeks Dáil approval of the terms of the EU’s economic partnership agreements with 15 Caribbean countries and with 16 west African states and their two regional economic organisations.

As members of the committee are aware, the agreements in question involve mixed competence. This means they cover matters falling within the exclusive competence of the European Union, such as the common commercial policy, as well as issues which remain within the competence of member states, such as development co-operation. For this reason, each EU member state is a party to these two agreements and they can only formally enter into force after they have been ratified by all member states. In Ireland’s case, the approval of Dáil Éireann is required prior to ratification whenever the terms of the agreement involve the possibility of a charge on public funds.

As it can take a considerable length of time before ratification procedures are completed in all 28 member states, arrangements are usually made for some aspects of agreements such as these to be applied on a provisional basis pending their formal entry into force at a later date.

These two agreements are significant in that they are the first full economic partnership agreement, EPA, signed between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific, ACP, countries. Members of the committee will recall that historically ACP countries benefited from unilateral trade preferences with the EU. However, these were deemed to violate World Trade Organization, WTO, rules on the basis that they established unfair discrimination between developing countries.

In 2000, the EU and 77 ACP states concluded an agreement known as the Cotonou Agreement. This provided for a new trade and development framework based on EPAs. These are a new type of multilateral agreement combining both trade and wider development issues in a unified framework and containing reciprocal preferences in trade between the EU and ACP states. On this basis, in 2001 the WTO agreed to give a waiver to the EU to continue the unilateral preferences until 31 December 2007 when these agreements were expected to come into effect. The original intention was for the EU to conclude comprehensive EPAs with the six regional groupings of ACP states.

Following protracted and difficult negotiations, only the Caribbean was in a position to initial a full EPA before the December 2007 deadline. Twenty-one other ACP countries initialled interim agreements in smaller subgroups or individually. In west Africa, two interim EPAs were concluded with Ghana and the Ivory Coast. The interim agreements have been acting as building blocks to full EPAs, negotiations on which have been ongoing in Africa and the Pacific. Last year, a full EPA was signed with west Africa and negotiations were concluded on two full EPAs with the east African community and southern African development community EPA states.

These EPAs are pioneering agreements in the international trading system. They are the first genuinely comprehensive north-south trade agreements which seek to promote sustainable development, build a regional market among developing countries and help eliminate poverty. The agreements seek to put trade at the service of development. The EU’s trade and development partnership with the ACP states stretches back more than 30 years. These agreements build on that partnership. The aim is to make it easier for people and businesses from the EU and the Caribbean and west Africa to invest in and trade with each other, thus helping Caribbean and west African countries grow their economies and create jobs.

I will now introduce the EU-CARIFORUM economic partnership agreement to the committee for approval. The agreement is between the EU and its member states and the Caribbean forum of African, Caribbean and Pacific states, CARIFORUM. The CARIFORUM members party to this agreement are Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago. The agreement was signed in the Caribbean on 15 October 2008 and Guyana signed on 21 October 2008. It entered into provisional application on 29 December 2008. The EU worked together with the Haitian authorities to adjust some of that country’s tariff commitments in light of its specific needs as a least developed country. This made it possible for Haiti to sign the agreement on 10 December 2009. As of now, it has been ratified by 17 EU member states and eight CARIFORUM states.

The agreement comprises six parts. Part I, trade partnership for sustainable development, sets out the objectives of the agreement with specific articles on sustainable development, regional integration and monitoring. It recognises development co-operation as an essential factor of the agreement with the EU to support implementation of the agreement via the European Development Fund and other relevant instruments. EU member states undertake to provide support via its development policies and instruments, in accordance with complementarity and aid effectiveness principles.

Part II, trade and trade related matters, removed tariffs and quotas on CARIFORUM exports to the EU immediately. From the Caribbean side, there is a gradual opening of markets covering 61.1% of the value of CARIFORUM imports from the EU over ten years, 82.7% over 15 years and 86.9 % over 25 years. The agreement contains considerable flexibility for the Caribbean countries to exclude sensitive products and industries from liberalisation. The main exclusions from tariff cuts are agricultural and processed agricultural products, some chemicals, furniture and other industrial products. The agreement provides for rephasing of the CARIFORUM liberalisation schedule if serious difficulties arise in respect of specific imports. It also provides for possible modification of the CARIFORUM commitments, having regard to the special development needs of nine of the CARIFORUM countries.

Part II also includes provisions on investment, trade in services and electronic commerce. The EU is making substantial concessions in the services sector, opening up new markets for Caribbean companies, investors and professionals to offer services in the EU in areas like international phone calls, banking and architectural services, including new services sectors such as entertainers, chefs de cuisine and fashion models. In turn, CARIFORUM countries have also made offers, in particular in export-oriented and infrastructure sectors key for their development, such as telecommunications, transport, tourism, manufacturing and environmental services.

Part II covers trade defence instruments and non-tariff measures. It includes provisions to support WTO and other multilateral compliance and co-operation with regard to customs and trade facilitation, agriculture and fisheries, technical barriers to trade as well as sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The agreement seeks to improve the business climate and boost trade. To this end, Part II also covers commitments in trade related issues such as competition, innovation and intellectual property, public procurement and the protection of personal data, along with complementary co-operation and assistance. There are provisions to protect and uphold environmental standards and workers’ rights while guaranteeing the rights of the CARIFORUM countries to regulate and manage their own affairs.

On the trade aspects of the agreement, under Protocol I, Caribbean countries now benefit from improved rules of origin that support the development of industries that import materials to make goods for onward export to the EU. This is important for industries such as processed food or fisheries which might import raw materials from outside the Caribbean.

Part III outlines the procedures for dispute avoidance and settlement. Part IV provides for general exceptions, for example, in the areas of security and taxation. Part V provides for supervision and monitoring of the agreement via a ministerial council and three committees comprising senior officials, parliamentarians and civil society representatives. Part VI covers sundry general and final provisions.

Last July, the Caribbean EPA ministerial joint council reviewed the first five years of implementation of the agreement. A study conducted as part of the review found that efforts to implement the EPA were hampered by the global recession which hit just as it was being signed in 2008. Our Caribbean EPA partners are all small island developing states and were particularly impacted, given their openness to the global financial and economic system and high dependence on a narrow range of income-generating sectors such as tourism. Nonetheless, the study found a positive EPA effect for some agricultural and industrial exports from the Dominican Republic and for products such as rice, frozen shrimp, citrus and rum in the other CARIFORUM countries.

The study identified five big ticket items to be addressed. The first of these is ratification by all CARIFORUM and EU states.

With my attendance at the committee today, I hope Ireland can play its part in addressing the recommendation. Other actions recommended are continued support to the regional and national EPA units and substantive discussion on a regional development fund, and continued engagement with the private and public sector on the EPA. The other two recommended actions have already been addressed, namely, the establishment of a sub-committee on development and the convening of the consultative committee, and the establishment of a monitoring task force. The July EPA CARIFORUM-EU ministerial council concluded that in spite of the challenges which had so far confronted implementation, the EPA has tremendous potential for contributing to the sustainable development of CARIFORUM states.

Between 2008 and 2013, the EU, including Ireland through our contributions to the European Development Fund, supported a €75 million EPA implementation programme for governments and businesses. This was part of a wider €165 million EU package promoting regional integration in the Caribbean. Additional support was provided bilaterally by the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain. From 2014 to 2020, the EU will provide a further €102 million for region-wide development programmes, with regional integration and EPA implementation among their main goals. This is one of three focal sectors in a package of €346 million, the others being climate change and crime and security. Implementation in all three sectors will be boosted by the work of the Caribbean Investment Facility, which will receive €135 million to blend grant resources with additional funding, notably from European and regional finance institutions and the private sector, to facilitate the mobilisation of much-needed key infrastructure investment.

I introduce the EU-West African EPA to the committee for approval. The agreement is between the EU and its member states and the west African states, the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS and the West African Economic and Monetary Union, UEMOA. The 16 west African states are Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo. The agreement was signed by Ireland on 12 December 2014 and in west Africa on 15 December 2014. All EU member states and 13 of the 16 west African states have signed. Gambia, Nigeria and Mauritania have yet to sign. The agreement comprises seven main parts. Part I, entitled "Economic and trade partnership for sustainable development," sets out the objectives and principles of the agreement, with specific articles on economic growth, sustainable development and regional integration. Part II, entitled "Trade policy and questions concerning trade," removes tariffs and quotas on west African exports to the EU immediately. West Africa will liberalise 75% of tariff lines over 20 years, with no liberalisation in the first five years. A wide range of west African goods considered most sensitive are permanently excluded from the requirement to liberalise, ranging from agricultural goods to industrial goods and including the following: meat and poultry; processed meat; fish and fish products; milk and milk products; eggs; cocoa and cocoa preparations; cement; and textiles and apparel. At the same time, the progressive elimination of tariffs on goods such as equipment and other inputs will make them cheaper for local businesses. In addition to this gradual and controlled liberalisation, west African countries will be able to avail of safeguards if imports of liberalised products are increasing too quickly and jeopardising local markets or where food security is threatened. Special protection is also foreseen for infant industries. In addition, the agreement recognises the special development needs of west African countries and provides scope to change their tariff commitments.

Part II of the agreement also covers trade defence instruments and non-tariff barriers. It includes provisions to support WTO and other multilateral compliance and co-operation with regard to the following: technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary measures; facilitation of trade, customs co-operation and mutual administrative assistance; and agriculture, fisheries and food security. Specifically on agriculture and fisheries, the EU will not subsidise exports of EU farm products to the region, and a high-level dialogue on agricultural policies will be established, creating transparency and improving coherence on agricultural matters within the region and with the EU. In conclusion, on the trade aspects of the agreement, under Protocol 1, west African countries will benefit from improved rules of origin which will allow them to source materials from other countries to produce duty-free exports to the EU.

Part III of the agreement, entitled "Cooperation for implementation of development and achievement of the objectives of the EPA," provides for support from the EU via the European Development Fund and other relevant instruments and from EU member states in accordance with aid effectiveness, co-ordination and complementarity principles. The agreement links support to the EPA development programme, known by its French acronym PAPED. The PAPED was developed during the negotiations by the west African parties. The conclusions of the EU Council of Ministers of 10 May 2010 and 17 March 2014 confirmed the commitment of the EU and its member states, with more than €8.2 billion provided in the period 2010 to 2014 and a commitment by the EU to provide at least €6.5 billion for the period 2015 to 2020. The latter amount corresponds to the existing needs as estimated by the west African authorities.

Of the €3 billion to be delivered by the EU institutions, the delivery of almost €1.2 billion by 2016 has already been committed to. Following discussions with west African countries, support will focus on key priority sectors relating to trade, including agriculture, infrastructure, energy and capacity building for developing civil society. The European Commission is in discussions with member states and the west African countries to co-ordinate the response to the PAPED, and Ireland is taking part in these ongoing discussions to determine how we can best assist in implementation of the agreement.

Part IV of the agreement outlines the procedures for dispute avoidance and settlement. Part V provides for general exceptions - for example, in security and taxation. Part VI provides for supervision and monitoring of the agreement via a ministerial council and three committees comprising senior officials, parliamentarians and civil society representatives. Part VII covers final provisions. These include a provision for the suspension of trade benefits where any party fails to fulfil its obligations on human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance under the Cotonou Agreement. There is also a revision clause providing for the agreement to be assessed or reviewed every five years while also allowing review as required.

I thank the committee for its time. I am happy to recommend these two agreements for approval. They present a strategy to assist our Caribbean and west African partners to build larger markets and foster trade in goods and services as well as stimulate investment. They reaffirm the EU's commitment to a close trade and development partnership with the two regions. I encourage the committee to recommend to Dáil Éireann that the two proposed motions be approved so that Ireland is in a position to notify the Council of the completion of its ratification procedures. I am happy to take questions, and if there are any very difficult questions that I cannot answer, I have a very competent team of experts with me.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his very detailed presentation. In his introductory remarks, the Minister of State referred to the promotion of sustainable development, building a regional market among developing countries and helping to eliminate poverty. In his concluding remarks, he referred to sustainable development and a close trading and development partnership between the Caribbean and west African regions and the EU. We fully concur with these aims and recognise the potential for development for the benefit of both partners.

It is not just the text of the agreements that is critical, it is their implementation and mechanisms to review their workings as well are necessary. Flexibility is important as well in the implementation of the agreements. What safeguards are in the agreement to ensure its fair implementation to suit the needs and capabilities of both the European Union and west African countries? It was clearly outlined that the agreement will seek to facilitate EU food exports to the west African region. As eradication of global poverty is a cornerstone of Irish foreign policy, could the Minister of State confirm whether research has been conducted into the impact of the exports on the ability of local agricultural interests, both farmers and producers, to engage with their local and regional markets? It is clear to us that a worthwhile agreement should not be about displacement of local produce or industry which would in the long term continue to restrict overall growth in the local economy. We must be very cautious in that regard. I hope at the level of the Council of Ministers and at the exchange at official level with the European Commission that the agreements would be examined sector by sector to see how they are working out. Recent comments in the early part of this month by the trade Commissioner were brought to my attention. She said that the West Africa- EU economic partnership agreement, EPA, protected west African producers in the poultry sector. I take that as an example of where the very opposite is happening to what the Commissioner told the rest of the world.

Based on current trends the export of poultry products is likely to destroy livelihood opportunities not only for tens of thousands of local poultry producers but also for hundreds of thousands of cereal producers who provide the animal feed for the local poultry farmers. A few statistics were brought to my attention in regard to this sector. Between 2004 and 2014, consumption of poultry meat in sub-Saharan Africa increased by 99%. However, local production grew only 57% while imports from the EU grew 209%. By 2014, imports of poultry meat accounted for 44% of sub-Saharan African consumption compared to less than 30% in 2014. There is increased consumption but the share of the market by local producers is in decline and the European Union is displacing local producers. That is the type of issue on which we must keep a very close eye. Ongoing reviews are necessary of the mechanisms and workings of the agreement. The poultry sector is a very small one from a European Union point of view but it is a hugely important sector for so many impoverished farmers and producers in impoverished regions in the area. I could not emphasise enough the need for flexibility and for considerable oversight to ensure the spirit of the agreement is followed, with which all of us agree, in terms of trying to grow trade and improve the economic fortunes of people in less-developed areas. It is very important that the mechanisms are in place to do that.

The other issue that was brought to my attention was Article 34 of the agreement which deals with the agrifood sector and the export of food. Could the Minister of State indicate whether there is provision in the agreement for the transfer of knowledge to build up the capacity in those regions to grow their own local agricultural sector and to grow the food industry there?

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ordinarily, I would be very supportive of proposals of this nature and I wish to be supportive but I am a little bit at sea as to the detail. The Minister of State is probably relaying what is in the general agreement and we may not find out the detail until a later stage. We have had one bad experience in relation to a similar agreement in the past, namely, the termination of the sugar regime in Europe. The selling point at the time was that sugar would become cheaper for consumers all over Europe and it would be hugely beneficial to the individual farmers in Africa to whom the Minister of State referred, rightly so if that were to happen, but that did not happen. In fact, the reverse happened. It was of huge benefit to multinational corporations who seized the opportunity not only to replace the poor indigenous farmers in African and other countries but also to improve and enhance their position in the European sugar market. I do not want such an outcome to be hidden somewhere in the fuzz that goes along with agreements.

I am also aware of the large European dairy companies that have made major acquisitions which will be of huge benefit to them in the context of this particular agreement. They readily admit that African producers will not be able to compete with them and it was never intended that they should compete with them. Problems will arise.

Another issue to which we referred in the past is the concept of trade for aid. Ireland is one of the very few countries which does not employ a policy of aid for trade. Rightly so, but as you well know, Mr. Chairman, we have visited certain African countries where there was ample evidence of aid only for trade to the detriment of the poorer countries. I would like to see much more detail. I would like to know, for example, to what extent engagement took place with the small producers in the African countries with a view to asking them how the agreement would affect them or how beneficial it would be for them, if they expect to enhance their trade and would it be trade with no strings attached. I would also like to know the extent, if any, to which the whole concept of aid for trade was advanced in the course of the preparation of the agreements. In addition, I would like to know the extent, for example, to which producers in this country and across Europe – the ordinary small producers, not the multinational corporations – are likely to be affected or are being affected in the context of the agreements.

I am fully in favour of removing barriers to trade. We talked about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, and other such matters in the past. There are benefits from it accruing to the poorer nations and all participants. However, I am very concerned about the extent of the detail that may be wrapped up in the context of the two agreements which spread very wide. Two Continents are covered by them, and there will be an impact on both Continents. I am concerned that some of those issues might be of negative content from the point of view of first, the people for whom the help is intended, and second, the producers in this country, for example, the poultry sector, and the impact it might have on the agrifood sector.

I wish to be supportive. The concept is a good one but I am deeply suspicious. I have many bad memories. I was one of the very few people in a previous incarnation of this committee who asked the question about the doubtful benefits of the cessation of the sugar regime in Europe. Deputy Denis Naughten, who was spokesperson in a different incarnation at the time, also raised concerns. In fact, the implications were not recognised by the people who were directly affected, either in this country or in the countries for whom the intention was to assist.

I do not wish to be negative but I am happy about the agreement until I see a much greater level of detail trotted out. I would love to meet and greet some of those people such as FrieselandCampina, Danone and other companies that have launched major investment programmes throughout Africa and made major acquisitions throughout Europe recently and continue to do so. That is all I wish to say at this stage. I will not read the list into the record but I will do so at another point.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call the Minister of State to respond to those questions raised by Deputies Smith and Durkan.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will address those questions but there are technical aspects to them with respect to poultry, sugar and so on. In terms of how we trade with developing countries, I am satisfied that this country's foreign policy with respect to Irish Aid policy is clearly structured in a way that ensures we trade on the basis of such trade being a sustainable relationship. That feeds into our position in terms of an EU position on these negotiations.

Specific reference was made to sugar and I want to make a broad point in response to that. I hail from the town of Mallow and if people check the historical debates of this House, they will note my surname is possibly synonymous with some of those historical debates. A political decision taken at Council of Ministers level on the future of that industry. I take the point made by Deputy Durkan regarding the ACP Cotonou Agreement with respect to the broader sugar industry, globally speaking. The global market for sugar has transpired in a way in which it was not sold to us at the time. I would make that objective point.

I want to defer to Ms Mary Barrett. Dare I say it, the people accompanying me are global experts on these agreements and we are lucky to have the benefit of their expertise here. If there is further political response needed, Ms Barrett can defer to me.

Ms Mary Barrett:

I will respond first to Deputy Smith's questions. He raised the question of flexibility and asked if there will be oversight of these agreements. We can see from the example of how the Caribbean European partnership agreement is already being implemented that this is the case. The five yearly review was held and a joint ministerial council meeting was held last July to review that. It found there were areas that implementation has not proceeded as expected because of the global economic circumstances. That review, and the recommendations flowing from it, shows that there are systems in place once these agreements are being implemented. There is the joint ministerial council, the trade and development committee, which is made up of senior officials, the parliamentarians group, which is made up of the Caribbean and EU parliamentarians, and a consultative committee, which is made up of civil society. All these parties are involved in reviewing the agreement and feeding into how it can be improved in the future. That is the oversight. There are also examples of flexibility given that so far some Caribbean countries, because of the legislative procedures involved, have not been able to meet all the targets on reducing their tariffs. It is not a case of the EU coming in with heavy boots and saying they have not met the deadline. The EU is talking to the countries involved and listening to the issues they have. It is not pushing the issue but rather is taking it on board as part of this five yearly review.

The Deputy referred to safeguards in the agreement to ensure fairness. As the Minister of State mentioned in his opening statement, there are safeguards in place whereby in the case of too much of a product being imported into a country and that affecting local markets, the country can avail of the safeguard in the agreement. Also, infant industries are protected by safeguards. These safeguards are more flexible than one would get at the World Trade Organization. They have been specially designed for these development agreements.

The Deputy asked about studies that have been done. The European Centre for Development Policy Management did a study for us in Irish Aid in 2012 on trade liberalisation and fiscal adjustment. It examined previous studies and showed that the fiscal loss impact has been overestimated in many studies, but nonetheless it stated that of all regions west Africa would be more affected than others by fiscal losses. It is for that reason the negotiators, as the negotiations were proceeding, recognised that west Africa would be more affected. That is the reason the PAPED was developed. The west African countries got together and in a participatory way came up with the EPA development programme and they pointed out the issues that would need to be addressed for such an agreement to be successful. The European Council of Ministers came up with conclusions and said they would address those in 2010 and last year. Also, a more recent study by the World Bank, specific to Nigeria, has shown that there will be very limited fiscal losses, marginal welfare gains for consumers, and increased jobs and profits for the majority of manufacturing firms in Nigeria from the EPA.

The Deputy raised the issue of poultry. The EPA has not come into effect yet. Therefore, difficulties in the poultry sector are not caused by the EPA. The poultry sector is excluded from liberalisation under the EPA. The Deputy mentioned the issue of local production, which I have addressed with regard to the safeguards. Article 34 deals with the prohibition of quantitative restrictions. If there are any difficulties with that provision, the safeguards will kick in. The Deputy asked about the transfer of knowledge, and that is exactly what PAPED is all about. It is about providing assistance in order that the west African countries can build up their trade capacity and move into more intermediate products rather than depending on basic commodities. We in Irish Aid hope we are playing our part in this. For example, our support for the international trade centre helps countries build up trade strategies. It works with the private sector and helps those countries to move into higher value products and to export to the EU and all around the world.

I will now respond to Deputy Durkan's questions. He raised the question of milk. Milk is excluded under the liberalisation schedule as a sensitive product.

The Deputy also mentioned how aid for trade was advanced in the negotiations. Sometimes the phrase "aid for trade" can be a misnomer. The Deputy was correct in what he said, namely, that there is very much a separation in Ireland between aid and trade in that we provide aid but it is totally separated from trade. There is an agenda at the WTO and it is called for aid for trade agenda. It seeks to build up the capacity of developing countries. For example, at the WTO we support interns at the missions of least developed countries and they provide great support. They can learn about WTO mechanisms, and when they return to their home countries, they know how to use the safeguards in these agreements and in WTO agreements. PAPED came about from how aid for trade was advanced. The west African countries said that to implement this agreement, they would need assistance to build up our trade capacity. There is where that comes from.

On the question of what this agreement will bring to small producers in Europe, it would bring them potential increased markets. However, we must recognise that when the Caribbean EPA was being brought in, there were estimates that there would be increased exports from the EU, but because of the economic crisis, that has not come to pass to date. There was an increase in exports at one stage but then it declined again. Over the course the Caribbean EPA, the volume of exports from the EU has gone up and down and then levelled off. Trade agreements in themselves do not ensure something will happen. They provide a framework and then the companies need to inform themselves about the framework that is in place and take advantage of it. It can take a while for that to happen. Such agreements create a framework, an opportunity and clarity for business, and then that opportunity must be grasped. That is the idea of PAPED and the development co-operation for the west African side, namely, to help them grasp that opportunity.

For example, Irish Aid has given €800,000 to the International Trade Centre in Geneva this year. It produced a guide to the agreement for the Caribbean businesses. Such initiatives will help businesses grasp the opportunities these agreements present.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These motions are presented to us in a way that is totally positive and suggest this will be a wonderful success. Page 7 of the Caribbean agreements refers to the positive EPA effect for some agricultural and industrial exports from the Dominican Republic and some other projects. That does not come across as a glaring success of what is happening in the Caribbean. In the previous Dáil, the now President, Michael D. Higgins, was most critical of EPAs and the lack of debate in the Parliament on them. We should have a full and frank debate in the Dáil on these issues.

Deputy Durkan spoke about how people in west Africa feel about this. There was an open letter from west African farmers to the European Parliament. Another document was produced an amalgamation of NGOs, called CONCORD. The common concerns coming from them was that instead of lifting people out of poverty it will plunge them further into poverty, which will lead in turn to further migration to Europe; that there will be massive impacts on local markets and on long-term food security; and, very significantly, that it will undermine our development aid programme. We were discussing climate change this morning where we seem to be giving with one hand and taking with the other because of our lack of real commitment on climate change. I think there is a further element of that with these EPAs.

We know the saying that to give a person a fish allows them to feed for a day but teaching them how to fish or giving them a boat has potential. Cynically one could say it would be a lost opportunity for the home base. Therefore, how serious are we with helping Africa to feed itself and lift itself out of poverty?

The letters from the west African farmers and from civil society make us wonder why we are not on the same side as those people in addressing these issues. Is there something significant in the fact that the most populous of the west African countries, Nigeria, has not signed this yet? The EU Commission is carrying out a trade policy review but EPAs do not seem to come under that review.

Page 11 refers to the final provisions which sound vague and woolly. The Minister of State said that there would be a revision clause providing for it to be assessed or reviewed every five years while also allowing review as required. Is there not a need for much more stringent monitoring of this? We know it will pass here. Where is the role for this committee in such monitoring? Will the Minister of State come back here on that one?

The Taoiseach has said that developing countries across the world have a growing thirst for dairy products, especially infant formula. However, much of the milk powder that we export is fat filled, meaning that the valuable cream has been extracted and has been replaced with cheaper vegetable fats. It is also taking from those programmes, including Scaling Up Nutrition, that promote breast feeding, which has been found to have the potential to reduce deaths in infants by double-figure percentages. This is where I see the contradiction. That is just one small example. If we go into it further, we could see other contradictions.

There are very serious concerns here. I do not think the safeguards are sufficiently rigid or stringent. Much more active oversight is needed.

On the Caribbean agreement, I do not know whether Cuba wants to be part of it, but I presume the embargo is preventing it from even being there.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Generally speaking, I would be in favour of trade agreements and economic partnership agreements. I am sure the Minister of State is somewhat surprised to find so much negativity coming from this side of the table. These agreements are with some of the poorest countries in the world and traditionally the relationship between rich sophisticated Europe and poor Africa has been an uneven relationship. As other speakers have said, we have received a certain amount of correspondence from civil society groups expressing concerns about the agreement's contents.

For instance, one concern is about the non-tariff barriers to trade which are being eliminated straight off, as far as I understand. I presume that refers to all products. It may be protected products; it is not clear. They are being retained while the tariff barriers, the import duties, are being gradually and partially reduced. However, the countries have traditionally depended on the non-tariff barriers to protect their indigenous industries and particularly their agrifood sector.

The other major point they have been making is that trade with Europe is not necessarily the best thing for Africa. The population of Europe is falling and the population of Africa is growing. The demand in the future will be in Africa and they feel that promoting trade between us and Africa is thwarting the development of inter-regional development in Africa.

The objectives of this agreement include improving governance, sustainable development, increasing capacity, regional integration and eradication of poverty. One could not be against those. I am reluctant to argue in any way with what the Minister of State refers to as global trade experts. However, we want some reassurance the progressivity on liberalisation will be dependent on the progress in implementing the commitments that we, Europe, have made. Irish Aid has always had the tradition of trying to work for the benefit of the countries with which we trade, but that might not necessarily be the agenda of the entire EU. We need some assurances that we are aware of these pitfalls.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister of State wish to answer those and then I will call Deputies Byrne and Mac Lochlainn?

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Chairman might take us all.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There might be questions overlapping. The officials might want some time to prepare to answer the questions. I call Deputy Byrne so.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unlike Deputy Durkan I do not want any more documentation. I have attempted to read these agreements, which are quite substantial, and the Minister of State's contribution. It is all contained in the documentation if one can fully understand it. It is terribly technical.

It is very important to be reassured that the Minister of State is the person arguing in favour of these agreements. The Minister of State covers a very important portfolio, encompassing overseas development aid. If we were to be fearful of what he is trying to implement on behalf of Ireland within the EU, it would beg the question as to whether he is being honest with us parliamentarians given that we are very enthusiastic about and supportive of the Irish Aid development programmes on which we engage with the Minister of State.

The last time I was involved in this type of debate was when we discussed similar agreements with Colombia, Peru and Europe. One must respect the role of NGOs in the field and their perspective of what is happening with big brother, big governments or big regional authorities. I would hate the wrong image to go out from this meeting to the ambassadors of the seven African countries who meet this committee once a year as a group. When they appear before the committee they insist that they want Africa to be seen as a trading area, they do not want this old image of poor quality agriculture production. They want to be seen as a continent that is growing and bustling, and wants and is arguing in favour of trade. Who am I to tell the west African countries that they have it wrong because NGOs have pointed to some possible negative effects?

The Minister of State will know that I am a fanatical supporter of one of the agencies he supports financially. It is called Fair Trade produce. I only buy fair trade bananas and a wide range of fair trade produce, including coffees and other products. When I give my imprimatur to this deal, I want the people to know that I support it and I want the Minister of State to convey our support for the development of fair trade in the real sense of fairly trading.

I want to ask two questions. Who am I to argue against these agreements when so many African nations are arguing for and signing up to them? From reading this documentation, the missing link in the context of the agreement is Nigeria, which is the biggest country we are talking about and which is conspicuous by its absence. Yesterday, I was attended the Latvian national day celebrations and I called over and had a chat with the Nigerian ambassador. It may not be appropriate but I told him that we would be debating this issue and asked him if he had any preliminary direction on his country's thinking in respect of it. He said that it would be favouring it. If one looks at the documentation, Nigeria is one of the three countries that have not yet signed the agreement. The other two are Gambia and Mauritania. The governments of these states do not need me to shout on their behalf but I will make the case for them, especially those in west Africa. If I have read the documentation correctly, I see that there is an East African Community and Southern African Development Community EPA. If we imagine Africa as a continent and see that at least two of its big regional power brokers have already negotiated, signed and sealed EPAs with Europe, who are we to dictate to the west African countries that somehow or other we know more than they do about the implications of this? Therefore, if my interpretation is correct, we are saying that we will not ratify it even though their competitors on the continent of Africa have ratified these two agreements.

Where do I get my sense of security? Many of these documents refer to the role of the International Labour Organisation, ILO, which can and is likely to be consulted. There are also provisions to protect and uphold workers' rights and environmental standards, which is very important. It says that the ILO can be brought in to advise on labour rights. I do not want to sound as though I have swallowed this whole document in one clean swoop but I would appreciate the Minister of State's opinion on these two key issues. Why has Nigeria not yet signed up? How can we talk about west Africa without the biggest and most important of all the countries in the region being party to it? Can the Minister of State confirm that the neighbours on the continent, the Southern African Development Community and the East African Community, have already signed up to these agreements?

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have two speakers. I will bring them in now because there could be overlapping questions.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I listened to the Minister of State's presentation. I have read the CONCORD assessment which, as the Minister of State is aware, is the umbrella group of NGOs across Europe working in development aid and assistance. From reading its paper and listening to the Minister of State's presentation, one would almost think there were two different agreements.

I must to put a number of issues to the Minister of State. These agreements operate outside the framework of the WTO. They go further in terms of liberalisation by including services, investment and procurement alongside goods. West Africa had been opposed to this. This goes further in terms of impacting on its ability to protect its key public services from privatisation. Twelve of the 16 west African countries are in the least developed countries, LDCs. They would, therefore, have been entitled to trade with Europe under the Everything But Arms system but Europe has opposed this. It appears that we have a situation where Europe wants to go further than this. I see the Minister of State nodding his head. The reality is that the wealthiest economic region in the world is engaging in a trade agreement with one of the poorest economic regions in the world. We have a situation where it would clearly be better for many of those countries to trade with each other and trade within their regions rather than being in competition with the established stronger global corporations. Many of these trade agreements are negotiated in Europe against the best interests of civil society in west Africa. West African farmers have spoken out on their concerns about this matter. The Minister of State has presented it almost as if it is benign. Everybody supports the idea of trade between Africa and Ireland and Africa and Europe and we want to turn the investment we have made in development aid to the point where the countries involved will eventually move toward prosperity and trade with the world. They need to trade with each other and meet their own market needs first, particularly in terms of agriculture. How can the Minister of State give the presentation he has given today and not be cognisant of the concerns in the report from CONCORD? One quote that really alarmed me is from Günter Nooke, Angela Merkel's adviser on Africa, who is a pretty important person. He says:

Part of the German and European taxes are devoted to various development programmes in Africa. The new economic agreement concluded between the EU and certain African governments will have the effect of cancelling the impact of these programmes.

That is a pretty big statement for the individual who is an adviser to Angela Merkel - the most key political leader in Europe on Africa - to make. The Minister of State is asking us, as parliamentarians, based on a debate in this meeting, to pass this agreement and to put the imprimatur of the Irish people on it. Our reputation has been a proud one of world leaders in investment in overseas development aid and assistance and the Minister of State is asking us to put it on the line for this agreement without any debate in the Dáil or Seanad on the matter. He has the ability to remove this motion from a vote. I assume it will be put before the Dáil tomorrow and I ask the Minister of State to withdraw it and make time for debating it in the Dáil and Seanad and to include the voices of the NGOs that work on the ground, not only those of civil society leaders in Europe. Every umbrella group of European NGOs working in Africa is deeply opposed to this. They say that the support of trade with Africa can be achieved without going down the road of these agreements which are outside the framework of the WTO. They go further than the WTO would want.

What is the Minister of State's response? Has he read this document? Who benefits from the EPA between the EU and west Africa? Has he read this, as the Minister of State with responsibility in the area? If he has, what is his rebuttal of the points that are made? Will he agree to a debate in the Dáil and Seanad on this vitally important issue which puts the reputation of our State and people on the line before we go down the road of this agreement?

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not a member of this committee but I have an interest in this matter and I welcome the debate. I think trade is good. We are probably one of the more forward-thinking countries in the world because we have now brought overseas development aid and trade together. That is an innovative step. Hopefully, whatever the composition of the Government that enters office after the election, I hope those two sections remain together because it is vitally important. It is an area that Ireland can have a big say in. Trade agreements are vital. They are vital for these developing countries to get access into premium markets in Europe. No deal is better than a bad deal. It is not the African countries that are saying that but our own farmers here in Ireland on TTIP, which is another trade agreement in which we are involved.

Our own farmers and people are saying one thing while Ministers and the European Commission, who are negotiating this, are saying something completely different. Both groups cannot be right. The proof of that will be in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP. Across Europe there are governance issues in governments and parliaments. It is the same in Africa and the developing world. We are relying on the belief that governments will fight for their citizens and get the best deal for them. That reminds me of a negotiation in the early 1970s, when our Government negotiated with the European Economic Community, EEC, as it was known at the time, on an economic partnership and hung our fisheries industry out to dry. To this day, Deputy Mac Lochlainn and many of his peers on the western seaboard say that was a fundamental mistake. When the French Minister for foreign affairs or trade brought it to the French Parliament at the time and a member of that parliament asked about the fishermen in Ireland, he was told that the Irish Government was dealing with it. We have seen the effects of this.

It is not the case that individual governments will always focus on the issues and the impacts of policies on the ground. Our Government told us the price of sugar was going to collapse but now it is called white gold. The end of our sugar industry was supposed to benefit the developing countries. The African, Caribbean and Pacific, ACP, countries, through the Everything but Arms agreement, have not had preferential access, and they, along with Irish farmers, have been the big losers in this, as the Minister of State knows better than anyone. The problem with EPAs is that they are far too focused on EU net exports rather than economic stability in these developing countries.

I made the point in the Dáil last week that leaders across Europe are wringing their hands about migration from Africa, but in tandem with that the EU is pushing through these trade agreements that are loaded against local farmers. The EPAs are leading to food insecurity in some of these countries and to conflict, which forces people to migrate from there to Europe. The EPAs in some cases are pouring fuel on the fire of migration. We need to take that into account when we consider and negotiate the EPAs, but that has not happened to date.

In respect of the west African EPA, the Senegalese Minister of Commerce has criticised the lack of effectiveness of the safeguards in the EPAs that should be written into them. Poultry is not part of this EPA, yet the legs and wings of European chickens are literally being dumped on the West African markets, completely undermining the sector there. The sector will find it hard to recover from that. The farmers have moved to the cities where they cannot get jobs. They see a better life in Europe, and they move to North Africa, get on dinghies and end up being drowned in the Mediterranean. That is what can happen if the agreements are badly structured.

The Caribbean EPA is a good example, because it was implemented seven years ago, and we can see whether the EU delivered on its part of the bargain in these negotiations. One of the issues arising now are the para-tariffs, special levies that are not official import duties but that are a huge source of revenue for these island communities, making up to 15% of government revenue in some of them. Those Caribbean countries have to eliminate the tariffs by the end of this year. That will undermine the economic stability of some of them. Part of this agreement was to do with knowledge transfer. Members of the European Commission have been coming here for the past few years. Love them or loathe them, they have been providing advice and assistance to the Government and the public service on how to bring about reform. That has not happened in these Caribbean countries. The Commission has not advised them on how to replace these para-tariffs with something else. Have we as a country worked with some of these countries to explain the Irish experience in bringing in foreign direct investment and using a low corporation tax rate as an incentive to drive economic development?

Ms Barrett mentioned Haiti. She is right in that there are particular challenges there, but the EU has not been prepared to provide the type and scale of assistance that Haiti needs to reform its structures. It is the least developed country in the Caribbean agreement. If as a community we are not prepared to bend over backwards and facilitate one of the poorest countries in the world, what hope do the four least developed countries in the east African EPA have, or the 12 least developed countries in the west African EPA, or the two poorest countries in the south African EPA? The European Commission is saying one thing but failing to deliver on it in these bilateral agreements. It undermines the EU responsible trade policy, which aims to introduce flexibility into these agreements, particularly where there are economic issues at play. One example is the sanitary and phytosanitary provisions which are standard in these agreements. It is all well and good to say we will open up trade from these countries into Europe and reduce the tariffs for a certain amount of goods or for all of a particular product, but we are putting up other trade barriers in the way of sanitary and phytosanitary provisions. As someone from the most rural constituency in the country I know how important it is to have disease protections in place. I am not talking about that, but in the Caribbean agreement in respect of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, one condition was that the EU would build an airport so that the people could export goods from their islands into the European Union. The promised investment was delayed, but hopefully by the end of this year the airport will be opened. The export of flowers to Europe, particularly into the United Kingdom, is a market with huge potential for them, but to do that they must send 200 consignments a year for three years into the EU before they will get a reduction on their inspection charges. Those inspection charges over the next three years are 400 times the inspection charges of other established export countries into the EU. They are in effect a barrier. If for some reason they do not get 200 consignments next year - because the airport will only open, hopefully, next month - that will kick the agreement another year down the road, making it four years before they get approval for reduced inspection fees. Those inspection fees are a further tariff on export to the European Union.

Irish farmers have been very critical of how the EU rules are interpreted and implemented, because it is creating additional barriers. That is the problem with the EPAs and that is the frustration we find in talking to NGOs and organisations working with communities on the ground.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With your permission, Chairman, we will reply as a team. I wish to make a broad point about EU trade policy, to which we subscribe. I refer members to "Trade for All: Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy", a document published last month by the European Commission. It contains a foreword by Cecilia Malmström, the EU Trade Commissioner. The new approach "also involves using trade agreements and trade preference programmes as levers to promote, around the world, values like sustainable development human rights, fair and ethical trade and the fight against corruption. We will use future EU agreements to improve the responsibility of supply chains." In terms of seeking to have a debate on the issue, and referring to Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan's point, I agree that there is a need to discuss the wider EU policy implications of trade agreements of this nature in the House and in this committee. I will do anything I can to facilitate such discussions. If one is to interpret this forward, there is definitely a shift in the thinking by the Commission on trade policy and I encourage members to engage with that document.

I am aware of the position of CONCORD in respect of the west African farmers' organisation. I note that Germany, one of the countries that was mentioned, has signed up to this agreement. The focus of CONCORD with regard to the west African farmers was on unfair competition from EU agricultural products, fiscal losses, trade diversion towards the EU and the undermining of regional integration.

On unfair competition from EU agricultural products, west Africa decided internally to exclude almost all agricultural products from liberalisation. We are confident that if difficulties arise, the agreement also contains robust safeguards which west African countries can use.

Mary Barrett referred previously to the Irish Aid report which kicked the tyres, as it were, on this. That was in 2012. On the issue of fiscal losses, there was a general tendency to over-estimate the direct fiscal losses resulting from an EPA, but it was found that the greatest fiscal impacts were to be expected in west and central Africa. The report suggested possible strategies to address this. One was playing with liberalisation schedules in the EPA, second was direct compensation, third was accompanying assistance leading to higher tax collection through economic growth and fourth was using EPAs as a catalyst for wider tax reform to broaden the tax base and increase compliance. All of these strategies have been accommodated with the agreement with the west African countries, taking sensitivity for revenue purposes into account in their excluded product lists, and the EPA development programme, or PAPED, to deliver assistance in this regard and provision for dialogue on tax reforms and associated support from the European Union. It was the recognition of potential for fiscal losses to be a bigger issue in west Africa that led to the detailed discussions on the PAPED and the associated commitments outlined in the Council Conclusions in 2010 and 2014. The European Commission has clearly stated in its latest fact sheet on the EPA that the amount allocated under the PAPED corresponds to the existing needs as estimated by the west African authorities and that the EU will continue helping west Africa throughout the implementation process. The EU support will continue beyond 2019.

On trade diversion, which was another point raised by CONCORD, under the agreement west African states have agreed to grant each other at least the same treatment as they are granting the European Union, which speaks to a point made by Deputy Eric Byrne. This is designed to encourage regional integration and prevent trade diversion by EU products. On the issue of undermining regional integration, the negotiation of the EPA actively supported integration in west Africa as the 16 countries and two regional organisations define common positions and policies on the issues at stake. The west African market access offer to the EU is fully aligned with the ECOWAS common external tariff adopted in October 2013 which lays the basis for the ECOWAS customs union. The implementation of the EPA and the ECOWAS-CET are going hand-in-hand and they will mutually reinforce each other. Regional integration will be enhanced as the agreement's provisions make customs procedures easier and more efficient.

Issues were raised regarding the Irish dairy sector, exporting certain types of products and whether those products had been lessened in quality in any way. That is something on which we need further engagement. If there are specific and concrete examples of that, we would wish to hear about them. I am confident, and I speak objectively on this, that there is transparent production from farm to fork with anything we export. We adhere to the highest standards in that regard and we are bound by EU rules regarding the standards of those products, whether they are exported within the European Union or externally. The use of the farm to fork motto is something Deputy Smith might have fashioned when he was Minister with responsibility for agriculture.

My central point is that we must be careful about assertions being made about Irish product going to third countries. If there is a contention that some of those products are being undermined or devalued in any way to meet export goals and bottom line and profit margins, we must engage further on that. However, we are absolutely clear in terms of Irish Aid policy and Irish foreign policy. Irish Aid policy has always been about ensuring that whatever we bring to internal trade negotiations, in terms of an Irish position vis-à-visa final EU position, it has been on the basis that the best rules of probity apply and that it is not a paternalistic trade relationship but a relationship of equals. That is inherent in Irish Aid and in Irish foreign policy.

Integrating values into EU trade policy also means using trade policy as a lever to promote European values with all parties around the world. Trade agreements and trade preference programmes can be vehicles to enhance respect for sustainable development human rights, fair and ethical trade and the fight against corruption. The Commission is saying that it will use future EU agreements to better address those issues. For example, for the first time the Commission has proposed to include anti-corruption rules in EU free trade agreements. I hope we will have more time in this committee to debate that policy, "Trade for All: Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy".

With regard to TTIP, before engaging on the current Irish farmers' response to TTIP, it is important, with the Chairman's indulgence, to give a technical brief as to the current position of those trade negotiations.

Sometimes there is a perception that it has been locked down and absolutely concluded but that is not the case. There are some political points in respect of the concerns of Irish farmers with regard to the TTIP rules. If I may defer to Ms Benson, she might give a current overview of TTIP.

Ms Lorraine Benson:

I understand that there will be statements in the Dáil on TTIP in December. We just heard that news today. To give an overview of where we are on TTIP, negotiations commenced in 2013 under the Irish Presidency. Ireland has a big interest in TTIP because we stand to gain hugely by virtue of the volume of trade we have with the US. This has been demonstrated in an economic impact study which we conducted and published earlier this year. The negotiations have reached the 11th round. It is difficult to know if it is at the half way mark and we have another half to go, or if the glass is half full or half empty, but the negotiations continue apace. They are heavily detailed and cover many areas and not just market access, including market access for agriculture products. They also cover, for instance, public procurement rules and regulatory standards, so there is a vast area of work yet to be done.

The council of trade Ministers will be discussing TTIP with the European Commissioner on the 27 November. Following that meeting, the TTIP statements in December will probably be a good opportunity to have that information on a political level progress report from the Minister in the Dáil.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Ms Barrett wish to say something?

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Barrett might address some technical issues that were raised.

Ms Mary Barrett:

Deputy O'Sullivan spoke of the Caribbean agreement not being a great success. I do not think the Minister of State, in his opening statement, claimed that it was. There is a recognition that the global economic crisis had an impact on implementation. As I said, trade agreements just provide a framework and there is a recognition that both sides have to work very hard to reap the benefits they can potentially bring. In saying that, the Caribbean agreement is showing us the way these agreements can work. The overseeing committees are in place and taking on board the concerns raised by the Caribbean side. The Caribbean side has brought forward issues about the timing of the tariff lifting and the EU is listening and trying to accept longer phasing and so forth. The Minister of State addressed some of the points Deputy O'Sullivan raised on CONCORD, west Africa and so forth. I will, therefore, address the Cuba point. Cuba is not a signatory of the 2000 Cotonou agreement. The EPAs flow from the 2000 Cotonou agreement, which gave the mandate for the negotiations agreed by both sides. This means that Cuba is not party to the EPAs.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does that come from the American embargo?

Ms Mary Barrett:

The 2000 Cotonou agreement is much bigger than trade. It has other issues in it and Cuba would have made the decision not to sign up to it. That being said, the EU is currently negotiating a bilateral EU-Cuba political dialogue and co-operation agreement and hopes to finish it next year. That agreement will increase political dialogue and economic relations. Deputy O'Sullivan also mentioned an EU trade review and EPAs not being included in it. I will ask Ms Benson to say something about it because she deals with the trade review.

Ms Lorraine Benson:

The trade strategy covers a whole range of different aspects. As stated by the Minister of State, the new emphasis in the European trade strategy is on European values, sustainable development and ethical trade supply chains. It certainly is a new departure in emphasis on the part of the Commission.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do EPAs form part of that review?

Ms Lorraine Benson:

EPAs are reviewed under the terms of their own mandates. They are reviewed every five years and there is also the possibility to review them as needs be.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are we closing the door after the horse has bolted to a certain extent?

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to keep moving or otherwise we will be asking these questions over and back.

Ms Mary Barrett:

Deputy Mitchell had concerns about non-tariff barriers to trade but, again, there are safeguards built into the agreement. She also mentioned regional integration. The Minister of State addressed that point and noted the provision on the treatment they would give each other. On the reassurance on Europe's commitments, the commitment to the west African EPA in the Council conclusions in 2010 and 2014 is at the highest level. The commitment made in 2010 was exceeded. It was for €6.3 billion but more than €8 billion was given in the heel of the hunt. We are hoping a similar outcome will arise for the next phase of the EPA development programme, PAPED.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My query was not just about financial commitments but the commitments within the agreement, including the various sections of the agreement on sustainable development and so on. Ms Barrett said earlier that there would be reviews.

Ms Mary Barrett:

Yes, there will be reviews. If the five yearly review does not suffice, there is a specific provision in the west Africa agreement that it can be reviewed as issues arise.

Deputy Eric Byrne asked about Nigeria. The position with Nigeria is that there were elections earlier this year but there has been a big gap between the elections and the appointment of the cabinet. The cabinet was appointed last week. In light of the very positive World Bank study last year, which showed the benefits of the EPA, we are very hopeful that Nigeria will be ready to sign now that it has a new cabinet in place. The committee has received good feedback from the Nigerian ambassador in that regard.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The ambassador brought us up to date in his briefing.

Ms Mary Barrett:

Deputy Byrne also mentioned the east African community and the southern African development community. Those have not got to the stage we are at with the west Africa community yet. Last year, all the negotiations concluded in respect of the west Africa, east Africa and southern Africa communities. The west Africa community agreement was then quickly put through legal scrubbing and translation. The EU member states and most of the west African states were ready to sign last December. The east Africa community and southern Africa development community agreements have been through legal scrubbing, which is where the wording is fine tuned. The negotiators would have been working late at night so the lawyers on both sides collaborate and agree the final agreements. That has now been concluded. It went a bit longer than usual in respect of those two regions but they are now being translated and the next step will be for the EU to bring them to the member states. We will then proceed to sign and revert to the committee on them in due course.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I read the document incorrectly so.

Ms Mary Barrett:

We did not go much into the document.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are aware of that, Deputy Byrne.

Ms Mary Barrett:

The Minister of State addressed Deputy McLoughlin's question on CONCORD in general and the better trade regionally. I heard Deputy McLoughlin's concern on going further than the WTO. The Caribbean EPA does go further than the WTO because it has extensive sections on services but that is because Caribbean countries wanted those provisions. They are interested in services such as tourism services. They are the lifeblood of their countries. They were, therefore, very keen to move forward on services. In respect of the west Africa agreement, those countries want more time to go into the area of services, competition and those other elements.

The west Africa agreement deals only with goods. The other areas will be discussed in due course.

Reference was made to the LDCs being entitled to everything but arms, which is the case. The LDC countries are not obliged to sign up to EPAs but some have opted to do so. Our key partner country, Sierra Leone, and another partner country, Liberia, have signed up to them. We are keen to show our willingness to implement these agreements given those countries have signed up to them. Outside of west Africa, Mozambique wants to move beyond basic trade into the area of services and so it is keen to move forward on those issues. While some countries want to move forward on issues which go beyond the WTO framework, others do not. For this reason, there are a few clauses in the EPAs which allow for the countries that are not keen to get involved to be parked and dealt with later.

Deputy Naughten referred to Senegal. It has signed up to the agreement. Irish Aid is attempting to do its bit in respect of sanitary and phyto-sanitary conditions by way of supporting the standards and trade development facility at the WTO. That facility supports projects in-country. For example, it assisted in the food flight project to help west African countries deal with such problems. The EPAs should further efforts in this regard because they include specific sections on sanitary and phyto-sanitary matters to increase European co-operation with the countries in this regard. Where difficulties are identified in a particular country, the European Union is willing to send veterinary officers to help resolve them. The EU does not want technical issues to stop trade between countries. I hope that answers the Deputy's question.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Minister of State like to make a final comment?

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was stated that oversight is a matter for the trade commission and the Council of Ministers? Do the international development Ministers have any oversight in respect of these agreements?

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Development Ministers are often at the mercy of Ministers for Finance. That would be a fair comment to make about most EU member states. We would have regard to all of these issues as they arise.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do they attend at Council of Ministers meetings when oversight discussions take place? In other words, is there a joint Ministerial Council meeting in that regard?

Ms Mary Barrett:

I have attended some of the committees under the Caribbean EPA. People from the development side can attend-----

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Along with colleagues from enterprise and so on.

Ms Mary Barrett:

Yes. It is open to us to attend and we do so. The trade and development committee under each EPA reports to the joint ministerial council. It is open to trade and development Ministers.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do both Commissioners attend the Council of Ministers meetings?

Ms Mary Barrett:

Yes.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Further to my question on sanitary and phyto-sanitary provision, Ms Barrett is correct that where a problem is identified, the EU and the Department are proactive in that regard. My concern relates to the countries in respect of which no problem has been identified such as, for example, Saint Vincent, to which 200 consignments must be sent each year for three years despite that it has been shown that it does not have a problem. The cost involved in that makes it prohibitive to get involved in the trade. Perhaps some of the EU or Irish overseas development aid could be used to cover the cost of the additional levies until such time as the countries involved - subject to there not being any identified health or disease problems - have open market access. For a country that has been given a clear bill of health, getting the access is a challenge.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Point well made.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can engage further with the Deputy on that issue if he wishes. I thank members for their engagement on these issues. I also thank my officials who have provided much of the real technical assistance in terms of responses to questions. We are lucky to have such expertise within the Civil Service.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their constructive engagement with the select committee.