The Irish Farmers' Association yesterday issued a document rejecting globalisation and defended the Common Agricultural Policy against its critics in the World Trade talks.
IFA President, Mr John Dillon, said those who sought to blame the CAP for many of the problems of developing countries were ignoring the facts in both Europe and those developing nations.
"The reality is that the EU offer on agriculture in the WTO negotiations goes a very long way to meet the interests of the developing countries," he said.
The document, "The CAP, developing country issues and globalisation", was released yesterday on the fringes of the Dublin Horse Show.
"The alternative to the EU strategy is the globalisation strategy of the Cairns group of countries and the US, to some extent, which would be extremely negative for both the developing countries and the EU," Mr Dillon said.
The so-called Cairns group includes countries that promote trade liberalisation and oppose support measures such as those in the CAP. "The critics are failing to acknowledge the major reforms made to the CAP, including the switch from price supports to direct payments and the recent decision on decoupling," Mr Dillon said.
He said these changes were designed to make the CAP compatible with the WTO and responded, in particular, to the interests of developing countries.
The facts, he said, were that the EU was by far the largest importer of agricultural products from developing countries.
It had offered free and full access to all imports from the 49 least-developed countries, under the "Anything But Arms" deal.
"As regards the problems facing developing countries, the major factors preventing development . . . are not trade issues but internal problems, including conflict and undemocratic and corrupt government," he said.
Mr Dillon warned that if the ultimate conclusion from the WTO negotiations was the globalisation of agriculture, then farmers in all countries, developed or developing, would lose.
"The only winners will be the multinational trading firms who will force down producer prices and maximise their profits by maximising their power in the market and expanding the volume of international trade."
The alternative outcome from the WTO, in line with the EU proposal, was an acknowledgement that developed and developing countries needed agricultural policies to suit their circumstances, he said.
The IFA's chief economist, Mr Con Lucey, said international trading in agriculture was far more complex than trading televisions or washing machines. He said the EU, in the Luxembourg reforms, had cut export refunds from 37 per cent of its budget to only 8 per cent. The EU imported €35 billion worth of agricultural products from developing countries, and this was more than the combined total of such products imported by the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
Mr Lucey said agricultural growth generally preceded or accompanied economic growth in developing countries. Many such nations had no favourable policies for their agricultural sector. The priorities in developing countries were to seek increased productivity through research, the diffusion of technology, a better balance between state and private sector, and a greater recognition of the role of women in development.