Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

The importance of agriculture to the economy is illustrated by the fact that 10% of our trade is in agricultural produce. The greater proportion of that is within the European Union.

The potential danger to Irish trade presented by the approach that Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson is adopting in the WTO negotiations is illustrated by the fact that at present over 60% of our exports and 60% of our imports are within the EU, with approximately 20% of exports going to the United States and over 10% of our imports originating there. Therefore, a comparatively small proportion of our trade is with the developing world.

That could change dramatically if the more radical proposals before the WTO come into effect with a potentially massive influx of food produce, particularly beef, from outside the EU, the greater part of that from Latin America. That would undermine the entire agricultural sector in the EU and would quite possibly destroy our beef producing sector. There is also the danger presented by further concessions on the importation of lamb from New Zealand.

Curiously, while Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson is now an advocate of concessions by the EU on agriculture he was singing a different tune two years ago at the negotiations in Hong Kong. At that time, despite the changes made to CAP in 2003 and despite the offer of further concessions, Mandelson stated:

The problem is that whatever we offer is not enough for the highly competitive, very aggressive agricultural producers and exporters like Brazil, Australia, New Zealand and the United States.

At the time he clearly recognised that those states were intent on forcing open the EU to their products at a potentially devastating cost to European farmers.

He went on to claim that whatever the spin being put out by those countries on fair trade, the reality was that a victory for them would damage the interests of the most developing nations to the extent that agricultural trade between African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and the EU might be wiped out.

Indeed, it has been recognised by many economists that the liberalisation of agricultural trade does not bring benefits to developing countries, and least of all to farmers in those countries. It has also been argued that protection of agriculture in the EU is not a significant factor in the problems of the developing countries.

While some argue that opening EU to Latin American meat would be an act of trade justice, in reality the only beneficiaries would be the multinational corporations that control the trade and the large ranchers who produce the meat and who do not have to comply with EU standards of animal health and safety, nor indeed with EU standards of worker protection or regard for the natural environment.

Unlike 2005, it would appear that Commissioner Mandelson is now willing to make those concessions if it will secure an overall deal. This begs the question as to who he represents, given that France and other member states have been strongly critical of his stance on agriculture. If the proposed concessions are deemed harmful to Irish agriculture, as is the general consensus, then the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, and her Government colleagues need to make this argument strongly and in alliance with other European Union states whose interests are similarly under threat. While such may be what is happening in the corridors of Brussels, they should not be behind the door about coming out publicly in the same way as the French Government has so clearly done.

As we face into the referendum on the Lisbon treaty this issue is a timely reminder of how much control over our own affairs we have surrendered to the European Union and to a Commission that at times appears to act as though it was the sovereign power and not the supposed representative of member states, or that puts the interests of the major industrial nations and of the major corporations ahead of European farmers and of those states more dependent on farming.

Indeed, it is interesting to note that last week the IFA, which has been consistently and enthusiastically in favour of previous proposals on European Union enlargement and centralisation, hinted that farmers and their families could not be expected to support the Lisbon treaty referendum if their livelihood was being undermined by the EU Commission in the WTO negotiations.

It is clear that Irish farmers are beginning to realise that any guarantees made during the last reform of the Common Agricultural Policy on income security and the commitment of the EU to preserving family farming are contingent on bigger issues such as the WTO which threaten to totally undermine them. During the 2003 reform of CAP farmers were assured by then Commissioner Fischler and by the Commission overall that agreeing to decoupling would satisfy the demand being made through the WTO to reduce the level of direct subsidies tied to production, and that by so doing farmers would enjoy considerably more freedom on what to produce and with some income security provided by the single farm payment. Farmers therefore accepted the reform in good faith. Only now do they discover that what was accepted in 2003 is not only under renewed assault, but the EU Commission itself appears to be party to that assault by its stance on the forthcoming negotiations. Farmers therefore have the right to feel aggrieved and to expect that the EU will also act in good faith to defend the reformed CAP.

There are other issues on the WTO, perhaps most notably the matter of genetically modified food products. There has been massive pressure on the European Union from the United States Government, acting in the interests of the giant corporations, to license genetically modified products within the EU. That has encountered considerable resistance and I understand all polls of popular opinion within the EU to date have indicated rejection of GM food products, and yet the Commission has persistently attempted to foist these products on farmers and consumers even though there is no evidence that they bring any benefits and, indeed, much more seriously, there remains considerable doubt over their safety.

I noted that the Greens have affected some change in Government policy on this issue and Irish officials no longer consistently vote in favour of every pro-GM proposal. It is still a long way from consistent opposition, as is the stated policy of both Sinn Féin and, indeed, the Green Party.

It is to be hoped that the Government maintains a close eye on any proposals regarding genetically modified food products that may arise at the World Trade Organisation negotiations and that they oppose any further efforts to liberalise the availability of such products within the EU.

See this speech in context