Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na Teachtaí Timmy Dooley, Johnny Brady, Mary Alexandra White agus Martin Mansergh. Beidh deich nóiméad agam agus cúig noiméad an duine ag na Teachtaí eile. Tugaim lán-tacaíocht don leasú ar an rún atá curtha chun cinn ag an Rialtas, mar atá molta ag mo chomhghleacaí an tAire Talmhaíochta, Iascaigh agus Bia, an Teachta Máire Ní Chochláinn. Gabhaim buíochas leis an bhFreasúra as an deis comhcainteanna an WTO a phlé anseo. Chomh maith le cearta daonna, tá cursaí bia is ganntanas bia mar ceisteanna mhóra eacnamaíochta do feirmeoirí na tíre, agus go hidirnáisiúnta. Tá ionadh orm nach bhfuil níos mó daoine den bhFreasúra anseo nó i nGailearaí na gCuairteoirí chun an díospóireacht a chloisint, ach sin scéal eile.

As Deputy Bannon is aware, I know his area of Longford well. He knows a number of my farming relations there. I am very conscious of the sensitivities of this debate and the amount that rests on it and that needs to be done to ensure we can look forward to a more hopeful scenario than that painted by Deputy Bannon.

As we have already heard, this round of WTO negotiations has reached another critical stage on what has turned out to be a long road to achieving a final agreement. The current intensive, ongoing efforts aim to conclude a full and final agreement before the end of 2008. We are, therefore, very aware that negotiations will intensify further in the coming weeks and we must be very vigilant to ensure Irish interests in these negotiations are fully represented and realised. I assure the House that the Government is fully committed to achieving these goals and realising an acceptable outcome for Ireland in the final agreement. We must achieve an outcome that is balanced across all the negotiating pillars and provides real benefits not just for Ireland but for global food security, on which newspapers increasingly report. I have one from last December which reads, "World faces surging food prices, falling production, report warns". Every day we are getting it, not just in the financial and farming media but throughout the news. To paraphrase a report from the International Food Policy Research Institute published on 4 December 2007, the world faces surging food prices due to falling production unless we build up national food production resilience to insulate ourselves from less food imports being available as fossil fuel and agri-chemicals become more expensive and scarce. This is an enormous challenge and we must all pull together on it. It will not be met by political points scoring.

Food self-sufficiency, now called food sovereignty, was one of the fundamental objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy when it was devised over 40 years ago. This key objective remains vitally important and even more so when we consider the current situation on world agricultural markets and the huge demand for food globally. As the CAP has been reformed over the years this fundamental principle has remained at the heart of the policy and it is equally, if not more, important now as we reflect on the food supply situation in the world today.

The food sovereignty approach is being taken increasingly seriously by respected experts and forms the basis for collaboration between the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN, which I have visited, and farmers groups, whom I regularly meet and others in civil society as announced by the Food and Agricultural Organisation's Secretary General, Mr. Jacques Diouf, at the 2002 World Food Summit.

It is in this context that the current round of WTO negotiations represents a significant challenge for EU agriculture. We must ensure the EU model of agriculture and food sovereignty is not undermined. We must recognise the fundamental requirement for the EU to feed its citizens. Indeed, my Green Party colleague from England, Dr. Caroline Lucas, MEP, has published an excellent report called Stopping the Great Food Swap — Relocalising Europe's Food Supply, which highlights the absurdity of what has developed in terms of food which is exported from one country and then imported by the same country, as if it were going across the sea on an outing. That level of wastage must be addressed as it is using unnecessary amounts of energy. I commend that report to all interested in food security.

We must not create an environment within the EU whereby we are over-reliant on imports of agricultural products from third countries, the supplies of which we have no control over. This is the fundamental reason the 2003 reformed CAP cannot be undermined by a WTO agreement.

I note that Mr. Pascal Lamy, Director General of the WTO, has said that a successful conclusion of the Doha Round would stabilise uncertain financial markets. However, if the resulting deal makes food more energy intensive in the face of peaking oil production, then greater instability, instead, would be the result.

The EU must safeguard its production base so that it can meet the natural demand of its population for food, feed and bioenergy, while at the same time being in a position to assist least-developed countries to meet their growing food needs.

As to the details, the EU has moved away from trade-distorting production and price supports to decoupled supports. This is a major contribution to these negotiations and other WTO members must now make equivalent contributions to facilitate a balanced final agreement. Given the WTO focus on removing supports, it is ironic but worth remembering that no country currently considered developed got that way without government supports for agriculture.

I have touched on the need for the EU to assist developing countries in meeting their needs in terms of food production. I assure the House that the Government remains very aware that this WTO round of negotiations is a development round. The Government believes very strongly that the CAP is compatible with achieving a strong development round. We must refute criticism that we are seeking to protect EU agriculture at the expense of developing countries. It is worth stating that the EU is already by far the largest importer of agricultural products from developing countries, importing products worth approximately €35 billion at zero or very low tariff, compared with €18 billion for the US. The EU imports more from developing countries than the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand put together. It absorbs about 85% of Africa's agricultural exports and 45% of Latin America's. The EU has also introduced the Everything But Arms, EBA, initiative, a unilateral gesture by the EU to allow into the EU market, duty free and quota free, all products except arms from the 49 least-developed countries.

Within the WTO negotiations we support the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries. This provision will result in lower levels of reduction commitments and longer implementation periods for developing countries when the agreement is finalised. This will be an important element of the final agreement and the Government recognises fully that developing countries require more time to adjust to the implications of further liberalisation of trade.

As part of the agreement reached in the 2005 Hong Kong ministerial conference, the EU secured agreement that other developed countries and those emerging developing economies in a position to do so would provide full quota and duty free access to their markets for almost all exports of products from the least-developed countries. This is in line with the EU's EBA initiative and represents a major potential benefit for the poorest and least-developed countries.

In addition to these provisions, the EU is seeking a positive outcome to the trade facilitation negotiations and a comprehensive aid for trade package including a broad financial envelope, which compensates for possible loss of preferences by least-developed countries.

We must recognise that it is important that a final WTO agreement is realised. However, the final agreement must be a balanced one. The WTO must take on board the reality that most of civil society campaigning on trade issues has strong positions against patents on food and in favour of the right of nations to use the precautionary principle when it comes to genetically engineered organisms and food. Deputy McHugh should read the findings of the International Assessment on Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, which is made up of over 4,000 scientists from around the world. Its report basically concludes that genetically modified crops will not help global food security. That report merits careful study. We must be discussing the facts and the science on this issue. Deputy Sherlock has probably read more on the issue and seems to be tuned in to the difference between the science and the deception, which is the public relations element of the debate.

The EU and particularly EU agriculture cannot be sacrificed for the sake of a final WTO deal. The other major WTO negotiating partners must now make appropriate contributions to match those already made by the EU. We have reformed our income supports to farmers by moving to non-trade-distorting decoupled payments, committed to the elimination of export subsidies and made a significant offer regarding market access.

It is now clearly time for others to match these contributions to ensure that a final agreement, which will deliver benefits to the EU and to the least developed countries in the world, is achieved. I reiterate to the House that the Government will not accept an agreement which sacrifices EU agriculture for the sake of a deal. All members of the Government will continue to express this position in all of our meetings with our EU counterparts and representatives of countries outside of the EU, in the interests of Irish farming and global food security.

See this speech in context