A Challenging Year
I would like to start off by congratulating you all for making it here this year as we have just gone through one of the toughest trading periods that any of us have ever experienced. Our businesses have done so by continuing to provide a high level of service to an ever increasing level of trade assurance.
For those of you who use the social networking sites, what would my speech say if it was a 140 character tweet on twitter?
“Dioxin crisis and threats from GMO approval process strengthens resolve of Northern Ireland Feed and Food chain participants.”
Since I joined the trade in 1990 there have not been many years where major change or a crisis has not been top of the agenda for any President.
This year is a bit different as we have a MAJOR opportunity. This opportunity has arisen because of the dioxin crisis pre-Christmas.
WHY is it an opportunity you may ask? Your initial reaction may have been like mine when at the FEFAC Dioxin workshop in February the Deputy Director General of DG SANCO, opened the discussions by congratulating and thanking the Irish for saving the European Pig Meat industry. After picking myself up of the floor, and as I recovered from my state of shock, I began to see where she was coming from.
If the Irish or the EU, whoever actually made the decision to recall 3 months of production, had not done so, then almost certainly major trading blocks around the world would have banned EU exports.
Now, we all have our own versions of the “truth” of how this whole incident occurred: The Key points being
•A Food recycling plant, processing bakery waste
•Involving direct flame drying
•and Changing fuel sources
How could one insignificant operation in the south east of Ireland push the EU Pig Meat industry to the point of extinction and possibly threaten large sections of the 150 million metric tonne EU animal feed market?
In the few weeks after the 5th of December, each of our businesses and the key agricultural industry bodies struggled with the communication process with the rumour mill running riot;
was it pork?
was it beef?
were we testing for PCB’s or Dioxins?
Was Lord Lucan cash selling the bakery waste?
Although none of our businesses were directly involved, we were having bi-lateral meetings trying to work out how this could have happened, and what were the systems and checks that should have prevented it? For a while we felt like Oliver Herford’s description of that one of God’s creatures that has formulated the perfect philosophy in life, the CRAB. “Whenever he is confronted by a great moral crisis, he first makes up his mind what is right and then goes sideways as fast as he can.”
The next few months for me were a bit of a personal journey, having meetings with industry bodies, going on fact finding missions such as the Dioxin workshop and subsequent meetings with government bodies. At the Dioxin Workshop it was interesting to note how different Member States were interpreting the food and feed legislation that had been updated in 2005.
For the Belgians who had experienced a major dioxin related problem 10 years ago, they appear to have run a major fact-finding project and now have the knowledge to inform their businesses of where the potential problems are, but have not gone further legislatively. Alternatively the Germans wrote to the EU Commission in 2006, as they are entitled to do, informing them that the EU laws were not strong enough with regard to Direct Flame Drying plants and that they were putting in controls and an approval process over and above those of the EU.
So travelling back from this workshop my views on the potential solution to this problem were clear, the Germans had run their HACCP on direct flame drying plants and decided that further controls and an approval process were the only solution. Why try and re-invent the wheel, legislation was the way forward!
Well it was until a stakeholder meeting with DARD and FSA, when it was indicated that there would be no gold plating of current legislation.
I must admit I had great trouble with this; why would we not legislate for something that had proved a few months earlier to have the potential to take down an EU wide industry?
Well, for this answer I went back to the ‘books’and found three important points that needed to be considered; the work of Geert Hofstede on Cultural Dimensions and his Uncertainty Avoidance Index, the Civil Libertarian Principle and the Competitive Enterprise Ethic.
Firstly; Geert Hofstede states in his work that Uncertainty Avoidance cultures try to avoid ‘different from usual’ situations by strict laws and rules, and it hence comes as no surprise that the Germans score thirty points higher than the British and the Irish on the index.
Second; The Civil Libertarian Principle, is a basic principle of our society and states that the only reason for exercising political power over a person is to prevent harm to others. Harm which a person may do to himself is no grounds for action.
Third; Our economy is based on the Competitive Enterprise Ethic which is essentially an ethic of individuals taking calculated risk. In essence, opposition to personal choice and to risk taking, is opposition to the free enterprise system.
So, initially, we may not like to be told by our authorities, that they don’t want to be seen to be gold plating legislation, but that will be the fact because of our cultural programming and the basic principles and ethics of our society in relation to risks of this nature. In effect, by not taking action our authorities are promoting the free enterprise system and we should be thankful that they do not want to get any deeper into our businesses than they already are.
So what does this mean for those of us competing with businesses or trading entities that may not be complying with legislation and are not working to the standards within the most recent trade assurances schemes? Really, just another day at the office, as Judge Baron Bowen of Colwood put it:
“The rain it raineth on the just And also on the unjust fella: But chiefly on the just, because The unjust steals the just’s umbrella”
So why then do we participate in the trade assurance schemes? If we go back to the aftermath of BSE, it was the prospect of the large retailers facing litigation under the Food Safety Act which gave the impetus to the development of these schemes. Hence by participating in the schemes we not only comply with all of the latest legislation but we also protect our shareholders and our customers businesses, whilst preventing each of the major retailers from having their own scheme and the penal costs of complying with such.
So, this is the opportunity I referred to a few minutes ago, the people and the industry bodies represented in the room this evening have been provided a great opportunity to work together to develop strong efficient supply chain solutions that will benefit all stakeholders, and marginalise the effects of any non compliant traders on our industries. None of us need to be reminded that our milk and meat sectors export 80% of their production, hence the integrity of our supply chain has got to be such to impress the most discerning of our export customers, probably someone with a high Uncertainty Avoidance score such as the Japanese or the Germans.
The other areas I would like to cover briefly are fertiliser and the joint topics of GMO’s and the EU’s zero tolerance policy which has now become part of the President’s job description.
On the linked theme of legislation, discussions have also been taking place with AIC on the Fertiliser Industry Assurance Scheme (FIAS), which was commenced in response to security issues surrounding Ammonium Nitrate in Great Britain. Referring again to the Civil Libertarian Principle, this issue is one where an individual or group of individuals can bring harm to others and hence is deserving of government legislation. As such Northern Ireland has had legislation in place for almost 40 years, legislation that is much higher than in Great Britain and most other parts of Europe including, believe it or not, Germany which is the other main C.A.N market. So just in case anyone was thinking that it is assurance schemes for assurance schemes sake, our position with AIC is firmly one of a legislative answer and to make it slightly more challenging, on an all island basis.
Last year, the President mentioned, in his speech, about the effect of the chinese farmer using one more bag of fertiliser being equivalent to total European demand. Well what a difference a year makes! The issue now seems to be what happens if the Chinese farmer uses 2 bags less. On the local front the NIGTA Fertiliser committee has been meeting with the Countryside Management Branch of DARD, exchanging information and agreeing on joint press releases; a massive improvement in relations from those days a few years ago when the battle lines were firmly drawn on the nitrate and phosphate directives. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Nicholas Morrsion and Tony McIvor for their input over the past year and for helping to widen the focus of the association.
On the issue of ASYNCHRONOUS APPROVALS for GM, earlier this year we had the fast tracking of approval for the Roundup Ready 2 event. This provided the trade with a bit of breathing space, whilst waiting for progress on the LOW LEVEL PRESENCE issue.
Earlier this year I was fortunate to accompany representatives from IGFA, FEFAC and COCEREAL to a meeting with DG SANCO Cabinet Members Ms Spanou and Ms Pinho. During the discussions we explained that the extra costs resulting from the zero tolerance policy were being borne primarily by 4 out of the 27 member states and that the people paying for it were those least able ie. the farmers within those member states. Nearing the end of the discussions Ms Spanou informed us that if the issue was kept to feed only, and food was not included, then a proposal would be issued from DG SANCO prior to the Greek Orthodox Easter. This timeline has slipped, probably due to the high political profile of this issue, and is now most likely to be discussed with the new Commission as from October.
So there is some light at the end of the tunnel on Low Level Presence, although certain elements from the food side may understandably be unhappy if a ‘feed –only’ solution is adopted.
One insight I have had over the last 7 months since taking on the Presidency is the level of co-operation between stakeholders within the greater agri-food industry, plus the serious amount of graft that goes on behind the scenes to ensure that our voices are heard and our needs are understood at all levels of government whether it be Stormont, Westminister or Brussels. I would like to take this opportunity to say a few thank you’s:
•To the MEP’s for their continued help on GM issues and all things in relation to DG AGRI.
•To Malcolm McKibbin and his team at DARD. We have always had a good working relationship and I am sure it will go from strength to strength as we work through some of the issues resulting from the Dioxin crisis.
•To the AIC for the continued help on a raft of issues on the feed side
•To Gerry McCurdy and his team at FSA Northern Ireland.
•And to Deirdre Webb from IGFA for our joint lobbying work and the invaluable direct line into Brussels.
In conclusion, to the representatives of Northern Irelands meat and dairy sectors sitting here this evening, we must take the opportunity afforded to us by the Dioxin crisis and close any loopholes that are in our supply chains. We must learn from experience. A father never wakes up his second baby just to see it smile!
Distinguished guests, Past Presidents, Ladies and Gentleman. Thank you very much for your attention and enjoy the rest of your evening.
NIGTA Annual Dinner 2009
