perturbations des marchés agricoles européens plan d`action pour

PR(14)7651:5 – AP/CG/DDJ/DA/mvs
Bruxelles, le 3 septembre 2015
PERTURBATIONS DES MARCHÉS AGRICOLES
EUROPÉENS
PLAN D'ACTION POUR SOUTENIR LE REVENU
AGRICOLE
Le Copa-Cogeca a salué la réponse proactive de la Commission au mois de juillet dernier en
réaction à l’annonce de la poursuite de l’embargo des autorités russes. Les agriculteurs européens
et leurs coopératives estiment que la communauté agricole en Europe ne peut attendre qu'une
nouvelle crise sévère frappe pour que l'UE entame le débat sur de nouvelles mesures de soutien.
Le présent document énumère les actions prioritaires qui doivent être mise en œuvre à court
terme par les institutions européennes afin d’anticiper une crises encore plus grave dans le
secteur agricole. Le revenu agricole n’a pas évolué depuis 2011 et a subi une baisse de 1,7% en
2014. Cette baisse a été enregistrée dans 20 Etats membres sur les 28 de l’UE. De plus l’indice de
confiance des agriculteurs reste très prudent sur l’avenir de leur secteur (Baromêtre du CopaCogeca – (Econ(15)4384).
Dans ces conditions, le Copa et la Cogeca ont orienté leurs propositions sur le soutien du revenu
des agriculteurs à court terme, notamment en soulageant la trésorerie des exploitations et en
renforçant le pouvoir de négociations des agriculteurs au sein de la chaine alimentaire. L’objectif
est de faire en sorte que les agriculteurs ne cessent pas leurs activités durant cette période difficile
et puissent par la suite bénéficier de la reprise des marchés agricoles.
Ce document n’est pas exclusif d’autres mesures que la commission devrait développer dans le
cadre d’une réflexion à long terme notamment sur la place de la politique de promotion mais
aussi des mesures pour faire face à la volatilité des marches agricoles.
Copa - Cogeca | European Farmers European Agri-Cooperatives
61, Rue de Trèves | B - 1040 Bruxelles | www.copa-cogeca.eu
Numéro de registre CE | Copa 44856881231-49 | Cogeca 09586631237-74
SECTEUR DE LA VIANDE PORCINE
L'UE-28 produit chaque année 22,3 millions de tonnes de viande porcine. Près de 10% du total de
la production est exporté. La production européenne a baissé au cours des dernières années,
passant de 22,9 millions de tonnes en 2011 à 22,3 millions de tonnes en 2013, en raison de
nouvelles normes de production dans l'UE. La production a récupéré pendant 2014 et le premier
semestre de 2015. Les producteurs de viande porcine sont également aux prises avec les
conséquences de l'embargo russe depuis la fin du mois de janvier 2014. La Russie a interdit les
importations de presque tous (96%) les porcs et produits à base de viande de porc provenant de
l'ensemble de l'Union européenne. Pendant la même periode, le secteur de la viande de porc de
l'UE a perdu le marché biélorusse (86 mille tonnes en 2013) et une partie du marché ukrainien
(moins de 55000 tonnes au cours des trois dernières années).Aujourd'hui, il y a encore une
longue liste de pays tiers qui imposent des restrictions aux produits de l'UE concernant la peste
porcine africaine (ASF), tels que le Belarus, la Chine, l'Equateur, Côte-d'Ivoire, le Japon, le
Kazakhstan, Corée, Singapour, Taiwan, Ukraine, Ouzbékistan.
I. ÉVOLUTION DU MARCHÉ
L'UE exporte en moyenne 800 000 tonnes de produits à base de viande de porc vers la Russie
pour un total de 1,4 milliard d'euros (soit 24% de la valeur totale des exportations de viande
porcine de l'UE). En termes de volume, les principaux exportateurs sont l'Allemagne, le
Danemark, l'Espagne, la France, les Pays-Bas et la Pologne qui approvisionnent le marché russe
avec un total de 625 000 tonnes, soit 80% des exportations européennes de viande porcine vers la
Russie.
Les prix de marché ont résisté durant la période estivale mais les opérateurs ont stocké de
grandes quantités de produits de faible valeur tels que la graisse et les abats, pour lesquels il n'a
pas été possible de trouver des marchés vraiment alternatifs pour certains des volumes envoyés
sur le marché russe. Néanmoins, certains de ces produits ont été adaptés à ces marchés (par
exemple, à haute teneur en matières grasses) et il a été difficile de trouver d'autres marchés pour
eux ou, dans certains cas, ils ont été vendus à d'autres marchés, à une fraction du prix; En outre,
la Commission a omis de fournir de nouveaux marchés dans les 18 derniers mois, à l'exception du
Chili. La majorité des produits exportés de l'UE vers la Russie se compose de viande congelée
(43%), de saindoux (32%) et d'abats (15%).
En dépit de l'introduction du régime de stockage privé, les prix ont baissé et restent à des
niveaux critiques, ce qui a un impact majeur sur les marges des producteurs et de la
durabilité de leurs fermes. Au cours des 12 derniers mois, le prix de la viande de porc est
resté € 0,15 à € 0,25 en dessous du prix moyen des 5 dernières années (2010-2014) qui est
qui est un prix de référence faible pour le marché de l'UE. Selon les projections de la Copa
et la Cogeca, les marges resteront négatifs et la production UE est estimée à réduire
légèrement dans la seconde moitié de l'année. Le prix devrait diminuer de 12% à 18% par
rapport à la même période de 2014. A l'effondrement de la production de viande de porc
de l'UE auront également un impact sur le secteur des céréales parce que 30% de l'aliment
composé produit dans l'UE est dédié à la production de viande de porc.
II. PRINCIPALES PISTES
A - Mesures à court terme
1. Les ministres de agriculture devraient donner à la Commission une indication très
claire et le mandat de relancer les négociations techniques pour l'ouverture des produits
qui ne relèvent pas dans le embargo politique de Aout 2014 (embargo SPS). Plus
spécifique les graisses et lard de porc (produits 0209) et sous-produits comestibles de
porcs (produits 0206). Jusque cette mesure permettrait de rétablir la confiance et
l'équilibre dans le marché de la viande porcine de l'UE.
2 | 13
2. Il est fondamental de faciliter l'élimination des quantités élevées de produits de faible valeur
qui sont stockées pour le moment, comme le lard et les abats de porc (0206 3000 et 0209 10 –
lard) qui ne sont plus aptes à la consommation humaine afin de libérer la capacité de stockage qui
sera nécessaire dans les prochains mois. Selon les estimations, le marché russe a absorbé près de
350 000 tonnes de ces produits par an (poids carcasse). En plus de cela, le prix du marché pour
les produits gras a diminué, passant de 1.50 € / kg à € 0,45 / 0,50 par kg. Les experts prédisent
que l'attribution de 200.000 tonnes (0,40 € / kg) de graisse coûterait 40 millions €. Cette mesure
constituerait une solution immédiate et fait sur mesure pour les produits les plus touchés par
l'interdiction russe. Actuellement, 5 millions de tonnes de graisses animales sont utilisés pour
produire du carburant liquide. Assez biodiesel est produit à partir de graisse pour alimenter
chaque année 650 mille voitures, correspondant à 15% des émissions de gaz de serre de diesel
fossile, donc la technologie et les infrastructures sont en place.
L'UE devrait élaborer une mesure d'urgence pour permettre à ce type de produit d'être utilisé à
des fins non alimentaires, comme pour la production de biocarburants.
3. Nouveaux marchés alternatifs et levée des obstacles sanitaires et phytosanitaires
·
Lever les obstacles sanitaires et phytosanitaires et accélérer la procédure
d'approbation (par exemple en augmentant le nombre d'inspecteurs qui peuvent
agréer les abattoirs). Les pays prioritaires sont lePeru, Colombia , le Mexique. et les
marchés qui ont imposé des restrictions (par exemple le Japon, Chine) suite à
l'apparition de la peste porcine africaine dans les pays touchés (par exemple en
Pologne)
·
Développer toutes les pistes de soutien pour aider les entreprises de production
porcine à exploiter les marchés mondiaux alternatifs (par exemple accélérer le
processus pour les certificats sanitaires et d'exportation).
·
Accroître la compétitivité sur les marchés bien établis par la négociation de meilleures
conditions d'accès.
Par exemple, les négociations UE-Japon que sont une priorité pour la chaîne agroalimentaire de l'UE, peuvent souffrir un retard en comparaison aux négociations du
TPP. Ce délai peut placer les entreprises de l'UE à un désavantage concurrentiel pour
plusieurs années.
·
Coordonner un plan européen en vue d'analyser de nouveaux marchés
d'exportation. Les zones prioritaires sont l'Amérique du Sud, l'Inde (accord de
libre-échange en cours de négociation) et l'Amérique centrale, particulièrement
les pays qui ont signé des accords de libre-échange avec l'UE.
4. Promotion
La promotion est essentielle pour accroître la visibilité sur le marché. La promotion
devrait mettre en évidence le haut niveau des normes en termes de sécurité alimentaire,
l'environnement, la santé et le bien-être des animaux dans l'UE PPA(15)4 (rev.3).
·
Accélérer l'approbation des programmes de promotion qui ont été présentés avant le
30 avril.
·
Approuver le cofinancement de la promotion générique pour la viande porcine sur le
marché intérieur, comme la campagne de promotion générique pour la viande ovine.
La promotion de produits de viande porcine ne devrait pas être limité aux IGP.
·
Inclure les produits à base de viande porcine dans la liste prioritaire pour les
nouveaux régimes de promotion VP(13)9952 (rev.3). La nouvelle politique de
promotion devrait entrer en vigueur en décembre 2015 mais elle pourrait être
anticipée et renforcée en augmentant la flexibilité:
Ø augmenter le cofinancement européen de 50% à 85%;
Ø adapter les procédures administratives aux opportunités commerciales.
3 | 13
4. Les coûts de conformité et d'administration et donnes statistiques
Tous les nouveaux initiatives et en cours qui peuvent nécessiter des investissements du
secteur ou que vont ajouter des coûts supplémentaires de production devraient être
reportées jusqu'à ce que la situation économique du secteur améliore.
Mettre en place un groupe de haut niveau avec les représentants des différents secteurs et
des différents États membres pour analyser les couts de travail et administration dans le
diffèrent états membres.
Mettre en place une étude sur la façon d'améliorer la disponibilité et la qualité des
données utilisées par la Commission; et
Convoquer des réunions extraordinaires du groupe de prévision en cas de perturbation de
marché (tous les 2/3 mois).
4 | 13
THE DAIRY SECTOR
Russia was EU’s main destination for dairy products, representing 13% of EU dairy exports in
terms of volume (tonnes) and 13.4% in terms of value. Significant quantities of cheese have been
previously exported to Russia (257,000 tonnes in 2013, accounting for 33% of total EU cheese
exports). 37,000 tonnes of butter were exported in 2013 (28% of total EU butter exports). EU
milk and milk product imports accounted for 37.4% of Russian imports from all destinations.
In the absence of Russia, US has been the main outlet for EU cheese exports (22% increase
compared to last year) due to increased demand, followed by Japan (+58%). EU also exported
cheese to Switzerland, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, however without been able to fully replace
this destination nor Russia to fully replace the EU. The main destinations for EU butter are Saudi
Arabia, Egypt and the US.
In terms of world demand, besides Russia which has imported -64% butter, -62% cheeses and21% WMP, China has also considerably reduced its imports (-54% for WMP, -40% for butter, 31% for SMP), greatly impacting New Zealand which is their traditional milk powder supplier and
thus the world market. This will intensify the competition of New Zealand with the EU on other
markets. EU statistics show Chinese WMP imports during the first five months of 2015 were
down to 223,000 tonnes from 486,931 tonnes in the same period of 2014. In June, Chinese
imports of WMP were 85,000 tonnes, down from 100,000 tonnes in May. Chinese imports of
whey powder and cheeses were stable. With no real figure on Chinese powder stocks, it is difficult
to say when they will be back on the market. Even if they are back on the market, this will not be
to the same extent as before due to the stock situation and stronger domestic milk production.
Meanwhile, US, Mexico and Egypt have increased their butter imports and US, South Korea and
Mexico have increased their cheese imports. Japan is currently an important player in the
international dairy market, with more skimmed milk powder and cheeses imported.
I. MARKET SITUATION
In the first six months of 2015, EU milk production was 0.8% higher than in 2014.
Milk prices are still under pressure, weighted EU average price for June 2015 being 30 €/100 kg.
The EU average prices for dairy products have continued their decreasing trend, although less
accentuated for butter. EU SMP price has reached the intervention level and even went below it.
This is now at a similar level as in 2009.
The following quantities are now in storage:
-
butter under Public intervention: 0 tonnes
-
skimmed milk powder under public intervention: 8 859 tonnes (in particular from
Belgium, Lithuania, Poland, UK and Germany)
-
butter under Private storage: 138 510 tonnes offered into private storage, with a stock
level of ~75 000 t (NL, IE, FR, DE, BE, UK, LT, ES, PL, AT)
-
skimmed milk powder under Private storage: 43 637 tonnes offered into private storage,
with a stock level of ~17 000 t (DE, ES, LT, IE, NL, UK, BE)
-
cheese under Private storage (finished in September 2014): 100 803 tonnes (IT, IE NL,
SE, FR, AT, LT, DE, LV), with only half contracted
Looking at the global situation, in the first month of the 2015/16 season, New Zealand increased
its milk production by 8.1%. Australia has increased its milk production by 2.6% for the
2014/2015 season which finished in June. In the first six months of 2015, milk production in the
5 | 13
USA increased by 0.2%.
At world level, prices have followed a similar decreasing trend, except for butter, going down to
2009 levels. Oceania is the most competitive. In the USA, butter and cheese prices are increasing.
The GDT auction of 18th August was positive (+14.8%). Hopefully, we would see more of these.
II. PRINCIPLE AVENUES
Copa and Cogeca members are working in the current legal framework after almost 10 years of
adaptation to the end of dairy quota.
COPING WITH CURRENT MARKET DISTURBANCE: CASH FLOW – A PRIORITY
1. CAP support
- facilitate the advancement by Members State of all or part of the direct payments’
envelope before 1st of December.
According to the direct payments regulation, the Commission may allow Member States to
advance the direct payments to 16th October. In the current context, this would provide shortterm liquidity to dairy farmers.
- Ensure the return of the 2014/2015 super-levy money to the sector
In the framework of the 2016 budget, no financial resources should exit the CAP funds, with
up to 900 million € to be paid by dairy farmers to the EAGF budget for milk quota exceeding.
This money should be used as a priority for the 1st pillar (paid out as direct support to all milk
producers distributed through Member States, used to supplement the envelope for the
promotion scheme or keep part of it for public intervention in order to avoid using the crisis
fund which is formed by a cut in direct payments, should the difficult situation continue in
2016).
The direct payments will help farmers if paid in advance but alone will not be able to entirely
compensate for the losses suffered. Milk producers need additional cash to be able to survive
these difficult times and avoid going out of business.
2. Market access (looking for new market opportunities)
- Obtain access to alternative markets (Iran, Eastern Asia) to replace loss in
from Russia and China.
demand
- Target SPS or anti-dumping measures that could limit the accessibility of third
country markets for European products (for example anti-dumping measures on butter and
milk powder from Brazil) and accompany this by strong promotion campaigns.
- Support businesses’ new export strategies under promotion campaigns. The risk with these
new markets should be covered through export credit insurance.
3. A better functioning of the safety net
- Public intervention and private storage have been kept open by the Commission to give
confidence to the operators that these schemes are available for as much as the market needs
them and this is welcome (in particular the decision of the Commission to extend the public
intervention and private storage schemes beyond September).
- However, the European Commission should be more proactive and better use the available
market management tools in order to address the current market pressure. The intervention
price system allows price to be paid to dairy farmers bellow the safety net. This is
unacceptable. This is not the aim of public intervention, which is to set a price floor at farm
level.
We thus call for an assessment, together with a small group of experts, on how
the intervention price could be made more efficient in order to see an increase in the
price paid to farmers. Milk prices paid to farmers below 21 cts/L in milk price equivalent are
6 | 13
hardly economically viable for milk producers when production costs have gone up also as a
result of new regulations and administrative burdens.
4. A better functioning of the food chain
Given the continual pressure of the internal market on the dairy farmers who represent the
weakest link in the chain, solutions need to be identified in order to address this problem.
This is particularly relevant under difficult market conditions when experience shows that
under such conditions, there is a risk that the internal market drags the price down as much
as possible.
We call for a European framework for defining abusive practices, including accompanying
penalties.
POST MARKET DISTURBANCE
Faced with more and more episodes of extreme volatility, dairy farmers need to be able to cope
with these through a wide toolbox which should be made available to them.
It is important to work, together with the EIB, towards the development of a financial tool
available to producers who make investments in order to guarantee/protect their capital when
markets are volatile.
It is equally important to see if in times of extreme market volatility 21cts/l represents a safety
net for all milk producers and in relation to their production costs.
It is essential that an exchange between stakeholders and national authorities on new
proposals to help farmers hedge the extreme volatility risk is facilitated by the Commission.
Several concepts have already been built in some countries or others are starting to be built,
like for example fixed-price contracts or guaranteed milk prices, stabilisation funds….
7 | 13
THE FRUIT AND VEGETABLES SECTOR
I.
SITUATION 1
Russia is the main export market for EU fruit and vegetables production, currently importing
about one third (34%) of our fresh fruit exports (EUR 1,225 million) and one quarter (26%) of
fresh vegetable exports (EUR 734 million). Russia is the primary destination for many fruit and
vegetable products, such as cherries, mushrooms and cabbages (70% of extra-EU exports in terms
of quantity), pears, peaches, aubergines, tomatoes and carrots (60-64%), nectarines, strawberries,
apples and cucumbers (around 50%), and apricots, potatoes and sweet peppers (40%). One third
of lemon and table grape exports are also sent to Russia.
Between 2011 and 2013, exports to Russia significantly increased for some products, especially
apples, cherries, strawberries, melons, watermelons, tomatoes, cucumbers, sweet peppers,
cauliflowers, broccoli and aubergines. Yet exports decreased in other areas, for example pears,
peaches, nectarines, apricots, potatoes, cabbages and onions. In the same period, fruit and
vegetable production in the EU remained quite stable.
The main EU exporters of fresh fruit to Russia are Poland, Belgium, Lithuania and Spain. Poland
provides 41% of these exports, whereas the other three countries account for 10-13% each (in
terms of quantity). For vegetables, the main exporters to Russia are the Netherlands, Lithuania
and Poland, representing 34%, 25% and 16% of exports respectively (in terms of quantity).
Nonetheless, these figures (based on Comext data), do not always reflect the true origin of the
products (i.e. the producing country), as this is influenced by intra-EU trade. Indeed, Lithuania
produces comparatively little – compared to some EU countries, it mainly produces fruit for its
domestic market, whereas vegetable production is important for both the internal and external
markets. Nonetheless, it is an important channel for re-exports to Russia of fresh fruit and
vegetables, which are imported from other EU countries such as Spain, the Netherlands and
Germany. Poland and Belgium play a similar role for specific products. Without considering this
internal trade, the main EU suppliers of fresh fruit to Russia are Poland (7%), Spain (6%), Greece
(4%), Italy (3%) and Belgium (2%). For fresh vegetables, the main suppliers are the Netherlands
(10%), Poland (9%), Spain (8%) and Belgium (2%). All of these figures are in terms of value and
taken from the 2012/2013 average, based on Comtrade data.
The restrictions introduced by Russia on 7th August 2014 put a serious pressure on the EU
domestic fruit and vegetables markets because of the temporary loss of significant commercial
market (3% in quantities of the EU F&V production) and cascade effects leading to domestic
oversupply.
The EU fruit and vegetables sector has not been able to find new alternative markets in Third
Countries. The value of exports registered is still lower than compared to the period one year
before for most products, excepted for apples.
EU28 Agrifood exports
in value
1
Extra-EU 28
DG AGRI documentation
Russian Federation
8 | 13
(million
Euro)
Apples
(Fresh)
Pears(Fresh)
Mandarins
Tomatoes
Aug13May14
749
Aug14May15
755
%
Aug14May15
25
%
+0,8
Aug13May14
239
329
265
377
194
209
208
-41,0
-21,1
-44,8
180
54
216
13
4
24
-92,8
-92,6
-88,8
-89,5
II. Copa-Cogeca’s positions
On mid term, Copa and Cogeca call to
· Open new alternative markets. The Commission must be politically involved, so that it can
take the reins when it comes to removing plant health barriers in third countries. It must
also make the most of negotiations for trade agreements to break down barriers with the
signatory countries
·
Revise the maximum amounts of withdrawal compensation to reflect production costs per
period.
·
Allow producer organisations (POs) and their associations (APOs), as well as interbranch
organisations (IBOs) apply Article 222 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 for a maximum
of 6 months. Concerning market measures, the European Commission should allow POs,
APOs and IBOs to withdraw category II and III products from the market.
·
Increase the budgetary envelope allocated to the School Fruit Scheme for Member States
that have used up all available funding.
On short term, Copa-Cogeca call to adjust the regulation (UE) n°2015/1369 rapidly in case of
the market situation would be deteriorated.
In the Regulation (UE) N) 2015/1369, there is no justification in setting guaranteed quantities per
product category based on a reduction coefficient of 50% of the three-year average of exported
volumes, due to the variety of export markets. Indeed, the fruit and vegetables sector lost its main
export market outside of the EU and it is not easy to adapt to these new conditions. The Russian
Federation's satellite countries, such as Belarus and Kazakhstan, have absorbed larger volumes,
yet it is impossible to state with certainty whether this trend will continue into the next marketing
year. Moreover, tapping alternative markets principally depends on exchange rate fluctuations. It
is not possible to predict how the exchange rate between the Euro and other currencies may
change. Indeed, the Euro may become stronger in the months to come. Additionally, it is not
possible for agricultural production sectors that use perennial plants to adapt over a short period
of time. Secondly, products that were previously exported to the Russian Federation are not
covered by Article 1§2 of Regulation (EU) No 1031/2014, i.e. persimmons, watermelons, melons,
aubergines, etc. Consequently, these goods cannot benefit from the additional support measures.
Finally, the flexibility granted to the Member States may not suffice.
Copa and Cogeca therefore call on the EC to:
•
Set a coefficient that is higher than 50%, and take re-exports and Member States'
production levels into account when establishing maximum quantities.
•
Extend the list of eligible products under Article 1§2 to include all fruit and vegetables
exported to the Russian Federation.
•
Raise the volume for the Member States from 3,000 to 5,000 tonnes and grant them
9 | 13
flexibility.
•
Apply the rules retroactively from 1st July, seeing as Regulation (EU) No 1371/2014 came
to an end on 30/06/2015.
-------------------
10 | 13
THE BEEF AND VEAL SECTOR
Beefmeat represents 8% of the total value of agricultural production in the EU-28. With a total
yearly production of 7.7 million tonnes (2011-2013 average), the EU is the third largest global
producer of beef and veal, after the USA and Brazil. The EU's share of global beef and veal exports
amounts to 2% in terms of quantity and value, while its share of global imports represents 5% in
terms of quantity and 9% in value.
Between 2011 and 2013, the EU exported some 233,000 tonnes of beefmeat (which included
138,000 tonnes of live cattle). The largest shares went to Russia (29%, including 68,000 tonnes of
fresh and frozen beefmeat), Switzerland (13%) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (11%). Volumes to
Russia have also been on a downward trend since 2010, as South American beefmeat has been
becoming more attractive. Since August 2014, the Russian ban is in place and since October 2014,
the Russian market is also closed to EU offal from bovine animals. With the loss of the Russian
market, EU exports were oriented towards other markets. EU increased its exports to Hong Kong,
Western Balkans and the Philippines. In the first six months of this year, they are 5.8% up
compared to same period of last year. Lebanon has also been an important destination for EU’s
live bovine animals.
Turkey was the main destination for EU beefmeat and live animal exports in 2011 and 2012.
However, due to trade restrictions imposed on EU beefmeat exports, levels dropped by more than
90% in 2013. Since the beginning of the year, there were signs of reopening the Turkish market
but there was very little trade. When it comes to this market, there are still some problems with
BSE certificates.
I. MARKET SITUATION
Despite EU Beefmeat prices being relatively stable across the year, They do not longer cover
production cost, therefore Beef and veal margin are under pressure. World prices are expected to
continue to be high because of tight supply (including the temporary drop in the Australian
production potential due to a decapitalisation of their cow herd) and high demand in the US and
Asia.
EU beefmeat production has been decreasing since 2010, with a tendency of stabilisation and
even increase in 2014 and in the first months of 2015. The livestock herd has increased by 1% and
the number of dairy cows has risen by 1.7%.
Slaughterings increased in February and March, above last year, possibly as a result of the threat
in dairy quota overshot. It is to be seen to which extent the culling of the dairy cows will continue
due to the difficult situation in the dairy sector. In some countries, this is already happening.
In 2014, Australia and Brazil increased their exports to the EU market by +21% and +3%
respectively but in the first six months of this year, imports from Australia decreased while from
Brazil remained stable. However, lower demand in Brazil might lead to an increase in its export
potential. Even if our imports are rather stable, EU has imported at higher value.
II. PRINCIPAL AVENUES
As it stands, the market has been subject to the Russian ban, and has been impacted by the
situation in the dairy sector.
The number of dairy cows has also increased over the past year, bringing more veal on the
market. The difficult situation continues in the dairy sector, with no immediate signs of recovery
of the dairy market. It is to be seen how much slaughterings will go up due to the situation in the
dairy sector at the same time with the traditional increase in slaughterings (October and
November).
11 | 13
The market may be under pressure in the last quarter of 2015 and possibly beginning of 2016.
EU should have measures in place:
·
to increase the bargaining power of beef and veal producers
1. by ensuring that the guidelines on contractual negotiations in the beef and veal sector
do not limit the possibility to fully benefit from the provisions of the CMO Regulation. In
the beef and veal sector, there is no heterogeneity across the EU when it comes to POs,
including cooperatives, the degree of their development differing greatly. In addition, they
are of smaller size and concentration than the private processing companies.
In several countries, processors have more than 50% of the market share, therefore a
better bargaining power of producers is necessary and should be encouraged.
These rules should take account of the existence and role of cooperatives in the
organisation of the sector.
In order to get most benefits from these provisions, there is a need that:
o contractual negotiations for animals sold for fattening (and not only for slaughter)
are also regarded as eligible
o the relevant market is interpreted as in the basic act and not a reduced/segmented
market left at the latitude of the member state
o the activities conducted by the POs have to be taken together in order to evaluate if
they are « significant » as provided in the basic act
o other activities should be regarded as generating a high efficiency as generic
promotion, the management of IT tools, the payment guarantee, the technical and
economic support for livestock production.
·
to support our exports
2. by sustained efforts for the full reopening of the Turkish market. This may mitigate the
impact of adverse trade factors. However, more needs to be done regarding import
requirements (these are too strict and will only allow limited quantities of young cattle to
be exported from the EU).
3. by obtaining a full opening of the US market to EU’s veal and offal exports. Following
the USDA decision to bring American legislation in line with international standards for
BSE, EU beefmeat and other bovine products have theoretically open way to be exported
to the USA (the market has been closed since January 1998). The Commission should put
continuous pressure on the American authorities to ensure that this decision is
implemented in practice for all EU countries, since it will positively impact EU veal and
offal exports.
4. by reopening the Japanese market to several European countries. This would also boost
exports of more noble cuts of meat. Nonetheless, exporting offal is still just as complicated
and should be included as a discussion point during EU-Japan negotiations.
Many third countries are maintaining their import restrictions despite the outstanding
improvement of the epidemiological situation in the EU concerning BSE.
·
to relieve the pressure on farm income
5. by considering the possibility to open the private storage aid. Given that public
intervention price is set at a level below which there is no production capacity anymore,
the only tool which remains possible to be activated is private storage and this should not
be forgotten. If faced with an increase in slaughterings given the continuous difficult
situation in the dairy sector, private storage might be needed to help relieve the pressure
on the market.
6. within the current and future bilateral trade negotiations, there is a need to focus on the
12 | 13
impact assessments which are available and take into account the impact of the volumes
to be negotiated on the EU carcass price and consequently on the revenues of beef and
veal producers.
___________________
13 | 13