Trading to our strengths

Was Mercosur opposition ever about lower standards, potential antibiotic or hormone contamination, or even the loss of rainforest? Or was it about price and competition? Our Government voted against ratification ostensibly because of those issues. It was an immaterial act, as there was a substantial majority of EU Member States votes to ensure the trade agreement with the South Americans was ratified. The food safety standards built into the Mercosur agreement are being implemented, with no beef imports from Brazil currently allowed into the EU because of serious shortcomings in the standards required. If the totality of opposition to Mercosur beef imports was based on quality deficits, there is a legitimate argument that the built-in safeguards made that opposition to ratification unnecessary.
Then, we come back to the reality that our farm organisations must protect their members’ interests. That legitimate goal, presumably, includes doing everything possible to reduce competition in vital EU markets for our beef. While the agreed beef import tonnages are relatively small in the context of the EU’s overall beef production and consumption, a small percentage can ultimately depress producer prices.
What should be considered is the always necessary trade off between gains and losses from any trade agreement. In general, trade agreements are good for Irish food and drink producers. We produce surpluses far beyond indigenous consumption needs across several vital production lines including dairy, meat and whiskey. Without viable trade agreements our production base would be decimated. Not all our production can be traded within Europe, so we are also reliant on global export markets to buy our produce. We have seen all too clearly how trade interruptions in the form of higher tariffs can impact prices and volumes. What those Trump-initiated trade stand offs also show is the need to continuously expand our export options. That should, logically, include trade expansion with the huge and increasing middle-class consumer base across the Mercosur countries. It should also include ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union. This is long anticipated but not yet completed.
The only way to protect our food and drink producers from the quid pro quo of increased two-way trade is to oppose expansionist trade agreements entirely, because no trade agreement will come without a potential downside for some sector. That is neither realistic nor sensible. Neither is it viable for a country of five million people which produces multiple times what we consume in beef and dairy. What we can and do offer is a superior product, and one that must aim at the premium end of the market. Easier said than done, but we do have advantages which we must promote at every opportunity. The Kerrygold brand delivers a premium for butter. Our meat-processing sector regularly wins awards for individual steak cuts. Our whiskies are sold as Irish, an instantly recognisable provenance in that drinks category, with differentiations across the taste spectrum being promoted by our whiskey distillers. Instead of attempting the futile exercise of holding back the trade winds, we need to compete on our strengths. 'Grass fed' is so commonplace in our meat and dairy production system, we accept it as a given, not a bonus. It is quite a unique attribute with, at most, 10 per cent of global dairy produced outdoors on a pasture-based diet. We need to continue, through Bord Bia and other promoters, to drive this unique selling point (USP) towards the millions of global consumers who can afford to pay above the odds for their food, whether that is for environmental reasons or simply because they have the discretionary income to spend on premium produce and doing so gives them satisfaction.