This is a subscriber-only article
While it is the trade committee of the parliament that takes the lead on trade issues, agriculture is usually the sticking point of trade deals and therefore the agriculture committee has more than a passing interest.
The reports
The reports prepared by Rapporteurs Andrieu on Australia and Northern Ireland MEP Jim Nicholson on New Zealand were presented to members and highlight similar issues.
Both reports focused on the export nature of the agricultural sector in both countries and offers few opportunities in return for EU agricultural exports.
Particular warning was given on the risk of agriculture being sacrificed in return for lucrative industrial and service exports.
Effect for farmers
The most sensitive sectors received particular attention, namely beef and sheep meat, with further access having disastrous consequences for EU farmers.
Reference was made to the cumulative impact assessment which was carried out by the EU on the impact of previous trade deals. This is a study of what effect trade deals and the opening up of the EU market to outside suppliers would mean for different sectors of EU agriculture.
The reports also reflected the fact that the future EU27 market would not have the capacity to handle the same volume of agricultural produce in the absence of the UK and this also needed to be reflected in the negotiation.
There was, however, recognition that there could be some benefit for the EU from relaxation of tariff barriers on processed products and recognition of GIs.
Irish contributions
MEPs Luke Ming Flanagan, Mairead McGuinness, Matt Carthy and Jim Nicholson from Northern Ireland contributed to the discussion on the draft reports.
Luke Ming Flanagan saw a potential deal as causing ships to pass each other on the ocean and the impossible squeeze on producers to deliver agricultural produce at lower and lower prices was causing undue stress to farmers.
Mairead Mc Guinness
McGuinness pointed out that the reports were an opportunity to give an agricultural perspective, not voting for or against. She said she was not against trade agreements but the Commission needed to be made aware of the sensitive issues (around access to the EU for agricultural produce).
Matt Carthy
Carthy was critical of the committee for not standing up for agriculture and farmers in other trade discussions such as CETA, TTIP and Mercosur and said that vulnerable sectors should be excluded.
John Clarke
Clarke, a senior official from DG Agri, pointed out that complete exclusion of categories was not realistic and that there were other tools that could be used to protect agriculture.
He suggested tariff rate quotas and long transition periods and referred to a cumulative impact assessment carried out by the Commission on a range of trade deals at various stages of progression including the possibility of Australia and New Zealand.
He also recognised that the departure of the UK should be reflected as it represented 40% of the EU import market for sheep meat.
Jim Nicholson
Nicholson, who was Rapporteur on the New Zealand report, pointed out forcefully that the EU itself wrecked beef and sheep meat production by switching from production-based support to an area-based payment system.
Early days
This is very much a preliminary discussion in parliament and the general consensus of the agriculture committee to their trade committee colleagues ranged from proceed with caution to down right hostile.
SHARING OPTIONS: