EU Commissioner Fischler's proposals for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) under the Agenda 2000 negotiations, have been rejected by the Government and farming organisations on the grounds that, in their present form, they would seriously damage Irish agriculture and the Irish economy. A parallel proposal for co-financing of the CAP, made by net contributor countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, received a similar negative response.
Intensive negotiations and consultations with other EU States by both the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Walsh, in recent days, have made considerable progress. It is now believed the co-financing scheme, under which member-states would have to pay 25 per cent of domestic agricultural subsidies, will be rejected. And support is growing within Europe for a French proposal of "degressivity" under which Commissioner Fischler's blunt price-cutting mechanisms would be amended. According to this idea, small producers would be exempt from price cuts while direct aid payments to larger farmers would be clawed back in line with increased productivity. Some of this money would be used for rural development. In negotiations, the Government will seek to amend these proposals further by raising the ceiling of £3,900 in direct aid payments at which farmers would become liable for claw-backs. And it will argue the special case of Irish grass-based agriculture, where 80 per cent of production is exported, when talks begin in Brussels next week.
Protests against Commissioner Fischler's proposals took place in 28 towns and cities across the State yesterday as the Irish Farmers Association (IFA) brought its members onto the streets to complain about possible damage to farm incomes and rural communities. The traffic disruption and consequential economic loss suffered by many people arising from the political agitation must be deplored. The IFA leadership had been granted access to the highest level of Government; had been assured that its concerns were fully understood and had been given commitments that EU negotiations would reflect that situation. In those circumstances, the orchestration of yesterday's protests by the IFA - some of them poorly attended - could be seen as venting the frustration of farmers at their present unhappy circumstances, rather than as a useful contribution to their future wellbeing.
Urban and city dwellers have enormous sympathy for the plight of those unfortunate farmers who do not have sufficient fodder to feed their stock at this time and who stand to lose significantly if they sell them. Efforts by the Government to relieve the fodder shortage have helped. But the present crisis was waiting to happen because of serious overstocking. It has also underlined the need for better husbandry practices and improved stock quality.
It is clear that difficult and intensive negotiations lie ahead. Agriculture is still our single largest employer and the beef and milk sectors account for 70 per cent of output and 4 per cent of our GDP. But there is a general recognition that change must come and that the industry must be reformed if it is to remain vibrant in the new millennium. In the Dail yesterday, the Minister for Agriculture set as his immediate negotiating objectives a reduction in proposed price cuts; higher compensation payments for beef, milk and arable crops and a non-discriminatory allocation of extra milk quotas. He should be wished well in his efforts.