February 26th 2000

Concern over future of direct payments

The debate over whether direct payments should be paid to farmers in countries joining the EU has intensified. Speaking in Brussels, Fine Gael MEP Avril Doyle said that there cannot be a Euro cheque scheme in Western Europe and none in these Eastern European countries. She believes that farmers in the EU will be weaned off the Euro cheque scheme over a period of up to ten years. She was critical of the current policies which have raised a generation of farmers who look at where the largest cheque comes from and not where the production comes from.

Fianna Fail MEP Liam Hyland accepts that a situation where these direct subsidies would be paid in existing EU member states and not in new countries, is not sustainable. Mr Hyland said that long term there will have to be convergence. He believes that there will be transition periods for these countries that join, when Agriculture can be supported through Rural DEVELOPMENT FUNDING.

Avril Doyle expects these new countries to benefit from objective one structural funds and like Liam Hyland she anticipates lengthy transition periods to allow farmers in these countries to meet the quality standards and food safety standards that currently exist in the European Union.

The UK Socialist MEP Gary Titley is in favour of renationalising Agricultural policy. He sees a situation developing in the future, where a basic set of trade rules would be laid down and then, it would be left up to individual governments to implement their own policies.

This idea was first floated during the reform negotiations last year but was rejected by Agricultural ministers. The Irish industry is particularly concerned about such a move as they fear that it could lead to an unlevel playing pitch with the larger and richer states in a better position to support their farmers.

Mr Titley pointed out that if the existing subsidies were extended to Poland when they join, then the EU agricultural budget would have to increase by fifty per cent and no government would be prepared to fund that. Mr Titley questioned whether the huge amounts of money that are currently paid to keep farmers in business can be justified.

He pointed to the Amsterdam Treaty where it states that a high level of consumer protection should be integrated into all EU policies. Mr. Byrne believes that this approach should be reflected in international trade as well.

These comments will be of interests to the farming organisations who have for years played a major role in shaping European Agriculture and food policy.

On the other hand, consumer organisations have been slow to organise themselves and lobby the appropriate powers to get their ideas taken on board.

But that seems to be rapidly changing and the Commission are now more open to listening to consumer groups.

Commissioner Byrne believes that transparency begins in the shopping basket and if the consumer wants to know, then the consumer should be told, irrespective of the fact that the product in question posses no health risk.

The Commissioner is clearly pointing towards providing further labelling of foods. Given that Ireland is so dependent on exporting its food products, many in the industry are concerned that labels can be misleading and provide a advanatge to our competitors.

Some European countries have used labels as a means of renationalising their markets, particularly for beef when country of origin is included.

Mr. Byrne is convinced that a balance has to be struck between the interests of trade liberalisation and the avoidance of trade protectionism and objectives such as health, environment and consumer protection. Finding that balance may prove to be difficult.

All one has to do is look at the long running beef hormone dispute where the US and Europe have failed to agree the risks or otherwise posed by these products. A ruling by the WTO on this issue still hasn't resolved it. In relation to the trade in genetically modified foods, the balance that Commissioner Byrne speaks of still has to be found.