The true dimensions of the beef crisis for the Irish farmer and the taxpayer are becoming clearer. The intervention arrangement agreed in Luxembourg earlier this month has proved to be even less effective than the worst pessimists imagined, and Mr Yates is under severe pressure from the Irish Farmers' Association and the Opposition in the Dail to get a better deal from Brussels.
It is easy to sympathise with the Minister. Not more than three weeks ago, he was riding high as the political head of one of the more successful government departments. The BSE scare changed all that, almost overnight, and he now faces a stern test of his negotiating ability in Europe and of his cool headedness in dealing with the contrary pressures at home those from the farmers, many of whom are likely to lose their livelihoods if the market is not restored soon, from the processing industry where jobs are under threat as a result of the knock on effects of the collapse of demand, and from the taxpayers who may feel they will find themselves, once again, having to foot an open ended subsidy to support the beef industry. In all three cases, the perceived danger may not accord with reality, but they add up to a formidable political challenge.
Signs of possible consumer opposition in Britain to Irish beef and the uncertainty in Egypt and elsewhere cast a shadow over the short term prospects of revival, and the best hope is in the possibility that the worldwide ban on British exports imposed by the European Union, which is the core factor in the problem of confidence affecting exports from all other EU member states to external markets, may not be maintained for much longer.
Any decision to lift the ban, however, will depend in the first place on the adequacy of British proposals to eliminate BSE, and secondly on the willingness of EU ministers to reassess the evidence of market resistance to beef, which may be already on the wane. If Brussels is preparing to consider a complete removal of the prohibition on British exports in less than a month's time, there will be a general welcome for what will be seen as the best possible indication that the long haul back to normal has begun.
How far, and in what way, the effects of the BSE crisis will reshape the future of animal production will not be possible to judge immediately. The threatened closure of the rendering factories illustrated the interlocking nature of the industry and the extreme sensitivity outside the beef sector to the possible dangers of using offal derivatives. There has been a large element of shadow boxing in the way the rendering crisis developed, and Mr Yates's hopes of persuading pig and poultry producers to use bone meal again may provide a solution. If not, the chances of avoiding a radical change in the economic basis on which the beef industry has been built are limited, and smaller producers are likely to face a bleak future. There will also be serious environmental problems if no alternative can be found to burying or burning animal residues.
One way or another, it is not possible to discount the possibility that one of the State's basic industries is facing a total reorientation, more profound than anything that was envisaged in the reconstruction of the EU's common agricultural policy. Short term measures are needed to deal with the immediate problem, but the crisis may be part of a more general trend in the consumer led market.