Minister’s appearance at JCAFM on 10 June 2014
Opening Statement
Introduction
Next week’s Council will be the final Council presided over by the Greek presidency. Next month Italy will assume the Presidency role. As with all end-of term Councils, the agenda is quite long. This reflects the custom at the end of each rotating presidency to take stock of developments over the previous six months. The bulk of the items for discussion are progress reports outlining the state of play on dossiers discussed since January last or conclusions drafted by the Presidency for approval by the Council on those dossiers.
I am happy to go through the agenda, point by point, but I should say that many of the issues on next week’s agenda are still being discussed in the preparatory body for the Council. The Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) is meeting as we speak to prepare the way for the Council, clearing up technical issues and reaching agreement on the less political points. This means that the final agenda for next week’s meeting may change in the light of developments in Brussels today and we might bear that in mind as we go through the issues.
Future of milk policy
From Ireland’s viewpoint, the key issue for discussion is item 8, the report of the Commission on the development of the market situation in the dairy sector.
Under the terms of the milk package – this was the set of accompanying measures agreed back in 2011 to complement the exit from milk quotas – the Commission is obliged to submit a report to the Council by the end of June on the milk market situation and the functioning of the Milk Package. This report will only be released today so I am unable to brief you on it but the key focus of discussion is likely to be on the Presidency’s proposed Council Conclusions on the future of the dairy sector. A draft of these Conclusions is being discussed today at the SCA, so we will need to see what emerges from that before we know what will be put before the Council.
The situation in the dairy sector has been discussed at every Council under the Greek Presidency. The position is that the Council is divided on the steps that should be taken in the run-up to and after the abolition of quotas. Ireland is among a growing number of Member States that are arguing that the soft landing envisaged for expiry of quotas is not happening in all Member States. We have lobbied for measures to be taken to address this, notably through an adjustment of the butterfat correction coefficient. Our allies on this include Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Poland, Luxembourg, Estonia, Belgium and Latvia. However another large group of Member states including France, Spain, UK, Sweden and Italy are opposed to taking action. Some, together with the Commissioner, insist on linking this issue to the policy direction to be taken after quotas expire and there are subtle hints that some, at least, would like to see the reintroduction of some form of supply control. Needless to say, I will be arguing strongly at next week’s Council for immediate action to address the short term issue and I will be unequivocal in my opposition to reintroduction of any form of supply control.
To run briefly through the other points on the agenda:
School fruit and school milk schemes
Items 4 and 5 concern the Commission’s proposal to merge the two separate funded EU funded school schemes, the School Milk Scheme promoting consumption of fresh milk and the School Fruit Scheme promoting consumption of fruit & vegetables among schoolchildren. The Presidency will present a progress report on this proposal. The key issues outstanding are the scope of products that should be eligible for these schemes and how funding for the school milk element will be allocated in future between Member States. We favour broadening the scope of products, to include cheese and yogurt. We also believe funding for the milk element should be allocated on an objective basis according to the population of schoolchildren as a proportion of the overall population. This is already the case for school fruit, but some Member States would prefer allocation based on the historical use of funds.
Producer Organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector
Next, the Presidency will present draft Council conclusions on how the producer organisation provisions in the fruit and vegetables sector have worked since the regime was reformed in 2007. The draft conclusions welcome the Commission report, share its assessment of the uneven degree of organisation of Producer Organisations across the EU and highlight the need for clear, unambiguous and simple rules, for the sharing of best practice and for the effective use of market management measures. We fully support the text.
Optional quality term – product of island farming
The Presidency also intends to present draft Council conclusions on the case for an optional quality term – product of island farming. Notwithstanding that a Commission report was sceptical about the benefits of such a term, some Member States are keen on the idea. There has not been a demand to date from island communities here for a particular labelling structure of this kind. My own view is that if island communities did wish to promote their products they would be more likely, based on the way islands are promoted for tourism purposes, to seek to promote individual named islands rather than a general “product of island farming” label. In fact I would have some reservations that a ‘product of island farming ‘definition might have an adverse impact on applications for Geographical Indication registration of products from Irish islands [e.g. Achill Island Lamb].
Trade in organic products
A possible item for discussion and adoption is a draft decision authorising the opening of negotiations on agreements between the EU and third countries on trade in organic products. This is all about ensuring mutual recognition of organic production systems between the EU and third countries, with a view to enhancing the EU’s export opportunities and protecting against imports that are not authentically organic.
Implementation of CAP reform
Ministers will also have an exchange of views about plans for implementation of CAP reform at national level and I will be outlining Ireland’s plans in that regard. I think my decisions and proposals for implementation of the CAP reform agreement have been well publicised over the last number of months. I have made a number of detailed announcements concerning both pillar 1 direct payments and our rural development plan.
Just to update you on where we are now with the rural development plan, our draft plan is well advanced. The Strategic Environmental Analysis is underway and the consultation period for that closes on Monday next. We are aiming to submit the draft RDP to the Commission by the end of this month and thereafter there will be a period of negotiation and discussion with the Commission before the plan is approved.
Fisheries
There are two fisheries items on the agenda of relevance to Ireland. Both are essentially state of play discussions. The first is with regard to the ‘omnibus’ regulation which is a limited series of changes to take account of the introduction of the landing obligation under the new CFP. This is still being discussed at preparatory level this week and the Presidency hopes to reach agreement at that level.
The second fisheries item of relevance to Ireland is an update from Member states on progress to date in preparing for the implementation of the landing obligation for pelagic fisheries in January 2015.
Other business at Council
There are also a number of “other business” items listed on the agenda – mainly progress reports from the Presidency on the state of play of various dossiers discussed during the Greek presidency or information items from the Commission and the Presidency.
That completes what I have to say about next week’s meeting of the Council of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers.
Turning now to some other issues, I might just briefly mention the recent beef roundtable and the situation with regard to trade negotiations.
Beef roundtable
The Beef Roundtable I established in April had its second meeting last week and we are making good progress. My aim is to build positive relationships between operators along the supply chain so that the sector as a whole can prosper. Our discussions are robust but I sense a common desire to tackle the issues that are detracting from the development of the sector. Again, I would like to reserve further comment until we are further on in the process but I would be happy to take any questions you might have.
Trade negotiations
Finally, I want to mention the issue of trade negotiations.
In my view, trade negotiations are about creating and maintaining jobs and Ireland, as an open trading economy, has a key dependence on exports to drive its economic recovery. As with all negotiations, Ireland, like other countries, has offensive interests. Indeed we have substantial interests in growing trade in the agri-food sector, particularly in the areas of milk and milk products, beverages and prepared foods.
Of course, we also have some sensitivities, such as the beef sector, where substantial beef quotas into the EU market are being proposed as part of the concessions in the negotiations. I have a particular concern about the current negotiations with the MERCOSUR group of South American countries and the impact major concessions could have on Irish and EU beef production.
I have repeatedly expressed my concerns about the threat to the EU and Irish beef industry from a badly handled Mercosur deal. I have worked with other Member States, in particular France (but also with Austria, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Poland on different aspects of the issue) to raise our concerns. This matter has been raised in both the EU Trade Policy Committee and the Agriculture Council and we have had several meetings with the EU Commission both at Ministerial and official level. My Colleague Minister Bruton has also conveyed these views to the EU Trade Commissioner and the Taoiseach has raised the matter with the president of the Commission.
I have made clear our view that the EU beef offer to MERCOSUR should not be increased, should be structured to avoid a focus on high value cuts, should fully respect equivalence and should include in-quota tariff rates. It is well known that MERCOSUR are currently attempting to put the finishing touches to an offer and I will be seeking to ensure that the Commission response to any offer made by the MERCOSUR group is balanced and takes account of Ireland’s interests.
Of course, MERCOSUR is not the only potential free trade agreement on the horizon. We have significant offensive interests in regard to the current trade negotiations with Japan, Thailand, India, Vietnam, and, of course, the United States and have been very supportive of these trade negotiations. I am well aware that we have defensive interests too. My job together with that of my colleagues in Government will be to ensure that we achieve a proper balance that benefits the country as a whole.
Specifically regarding the US, conclusion of a free trade agreement is still some way off. The US Secretary for Agriculture will visit Ireland next week and we will have wide ranging discussions with him about the proposed free trade agreement and the differences and commonalities between EU and US agriculture. I intend to showcase some progressive Irish beef and dairy farms and to outline to him the sustainability concept that underpins our entire agriculture. The following week I will lead a trade mission to the US. Against this background, I look forwardto the upcoming negotiations on a trade agreement with the US.
There are a myriad other issues that I could cover today but I will stop there to allow sufficient time for questions.
ENDS
1