Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 295: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the proposals currently being proposed by the EU as part of the World Trade Organisation talks in respect of agriculture; and the concessions being considered by the EU negotiating team in relation to milk, beef, cereals and other sectors affecting agriculture here. [15213/08]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In relation to the agriculture negotiations, the proposals currently under discussion are those tabled by the Chairperson of the WTO Agriculture Committee in his latest draft modalities paper in February 2008. This 59 page paper identifies the outstanding issues in the agriculture negotiations and sets out all of the current proposals under discussion in the three Agriculture negotiating pillars of Domestic Supports, Export Competition and Market Access. It includes a significant amount of text in square brackets to indicate where agreement is still outstanding. The main elements of the proposals of direct relevance to Ireland are as follows:

On domestic support, the proposal is to establish three bands for categorising overall trade-distorting domestic support levels and to reduce support levels in the top band by 75 to 85%, in the second band by 66 to 73% and in the third band by 50 to 60%. An implementation period of five years is envisaged with a first instalment reduction of one-third on day one. Additional commitments are sought in respect of product specific domestic support and payments categorised as "blue box". In addition, it is proposed to amend the definition of the Green Box in relation to decoupled and investment subsidies.

The EU undertook major reform of the CAP in 2003, moving away from trade distorting domestic support towards decoupled payments. In these circumstances, the range of reductions under discussion is unlikely to have any serious implications for EU domestic support programmes, although, if agreed, could reduce the margin for manoeuvre in the event of a crisis in the market. The changes mooted to the definition of the Green Box are more serious and I would be concerned that they could have implications for the Single Farm Payment, particularly in respect of changes in payment models and new entrants.

On market access, the proposal is to establish four bands for categorising import tariffs and to reduce tariff levels in the top band by 66 to 73%, in the second band by 62 to 65%, in the third band by 55 to 60% and in the fourth band by 48 to 52%. An additional commitment is envisaged whereby a minimum average cut in tariffs is proposed. The paper moots the possibility of the application of smaller tariff reductions to between 4 to 8% products that may be declared as sensitive by Members and contains a series of proposals for the treatment of such products. It proposes that the deviations that may be made to the tariff cuts for such products may range from one-third, to one-half to two-thirds of the full tariff cut. In such cases, to compensate for claiming sensitive product status, is suggested that an additional import quota must be established. The paper also contains a series of options for addressing tariff simplification, tariff escalation, tariff quota administration and other related issues.

The market access area is one where I have deep concerns. Beef and most milk products are categorised in the top band and would therefore be subject to the deepest tariff cuts. In this regard the proposals on sensitive products are critical. It is essential that such status would deliver meaningful protection for the key Irish and EU production sectors. As regards export competition, the paper proposes that direct export subsidies be eliminated by 2013 and contains a series of texts to introduce disciplines into other forms of export subsidies such as export credits, food aid and the monopoly powers of State Trading Enterprises. My view is that there must be parallelism in the dismantling of all forms of export competition and that the phasing out process must provide all flexibilities required.

This paper is the subject of intensive negotiations in Geneva at present. The EU Commission represents the twenty-seven EU Member States in these negotiations. Discussions are continuing with a view to the Chair being in a position to produce a revised paper by the end of April. This revised paper could form the basis for an agriculture modalities paper which would be considered by WTO Ministers at a Ministerial meeting at some time in May 2008. As I have stated and indeed informed the House on many occasions recently, I am very concerned about some of the proposals circulating in Geneva. I am particularly concerned about the methodology for applying reduction commitments for export subsidies, the criteria for defining non-trade distorting domestic supports, the so called WTO Green Box payments and the market access proposals in relation to tariff reductions and the treatment of sensitive products.

I have concerns also about non-trade issues insofar as they affect trade in agriculture products and the need to ensure that there is equivalence in standards of production within the EU and on product being imported. On a general level, I am concerned that the issue of food security — which is high on the world agenda — is taken into account. I have and will continue to raise these concerns with the Commission to ensure that they secure an outcome that will not place a disproportionate burden on EU or Irish agriculture. I will also continue to pursue an outcome which does not undermine the 2003 reforms of the CAP and ensures that Irish and EU agriculture can compete on world markets.