Tag Archives: Primary Sector

Carbon Footprint – NZ v UK primary industry

Useful video on Food’s true carbon cost from the FT – mentions New Zealand apples being sold in the UK not necessarily having a greater global footprint. Apples kept in cold storage would cause a greater carbon footprint than apples being shipped from New Zealand.

Previously food miles (the total distance traveled as food is transported from its place of origin to the consumer’s plate) was one measure of the global footprint and New Zealand is particularly vulnerable due its large quantities of agricultural exports and its geographical isolation. However, transport had been taken out as it was difficult to single out one part of the food system and conclude that because it has come from thousands of miles away it is automatically less sustainable. Therefore, the food miles argument for favouring domestic produce was only valid if food is produced using identical processes around the globe.

In order to reduce CO2 emissions, merely taxing imported food can’t be seen as the answer. As CO2 is emitted at roughly all stages of the process of transporting food to the dining room table, an appraisal of the environmental cost of devouring food from different countries should assess CO2 emissions throughout the product’s complete lifecycle. Stages in a food’s lifecycle include sowing, growing, harvesting, packaging, storage, transportation and consumption. Every phase uses energy and consequently create CO2. These include; Direct Inputs, Indirect Inputs, and Capital Inputs. A simplified flow chart representation of these inputs and the farm outputs, including environmental impacts, but excluding the transport occurring outside the farm gate is shown in Figure 1. Although it was done in 2006 a study by Saunders et al assessed the total CO2 emissions released in the supply of four New Zealand and UK food products to British markets. The report showed (see Table 1 for report data) that in the case of dairy and sheepmeat production NZ is by far more energy efficient even including the transport cost than the UK, twice as efficient in the case of dairy, and four times as efficient in case of sheepmeat.

In the case of apples NZ is more energy efficient even though the energy embodied in capital items and other inputs data was not available for the UK. Onions – where transport emissions account for around two-thirds of all CO2 resulting form the supply of New Zealand crops – are the only product for which UK consumers can reduce CO2 emissions by favouring domestic produce.

A major contributor to New Zealand’s relative CO2 efficiency in dairy production is that New Zealand agriculture tends to apply less fertilisers (which require large amounts of energy to produce and cause significant CO2 emissions) and animals are able to graze year round outside eating grass instead large quantities of brought-in feed such as concentrates. European dairy farms involve housing animals for extended periods of time. The fact that New Zealand farmers do not require subsidies to be internationally competitive, unlike their British counterparts, indicates these efficiencies of production.

UK farmers get a double hit: COVID-19 and Brexit

As COVID-19 absorbs most of the headlines worldwide there are other concerns in the UK like Brexit. The farming industry has been impacted by both:

  • COVID-19 – shutdown of the service that serves the farming industry – 1/3 of the lamb market has gone.
  • Brexit – a deal needs to be negotiated with the EU.

Brexit and lamb exports to the EU – when the UK was part of the EU it was part of a custom union where there was no tariff between member states but there was a Common External Tariff (CET) which meant that countries outside the EU have to pay the same tariff when they export into any EU member state. For Britain leaving the EU without a deal has serious consequences for the farming sector. Over 90% of lamb exports in the UK have gone to the EU but with no longer being a member state the industry will no have to pay a CET which will undoubtedly make UK exports more expensive in the EU market. The FT visit a farm in Wales to look at the importance of the Brexit negotiations – a lamb is valued around £80 but if the EU charges the going rate of tariff between 40-80% that would bring up the price of lamb to between £112 – £144 in EU countries. This would make it very hard for farmers to remain financially viable. Furthermore it is not just the farming sector as the UK’s overall trade with the the EU is significant:

2018 – 45% of all UK exports go to the EU – $291bn
2018 – 53% of all UK imports from the EU – $357bn

The UK produces approximately 60% of what is required to feed its population with the remainder being imported. The UK’s £110bn-a-year agriculture and food sector is deeply integrated with Europe relying on the bloc for agricultural subsidies of £3.1bn ($4bn) under the CAP – Common Agricultural Policy (explained later in the post). The government has promised to pay the equivalent of the CAP subsidies up to 2022, no one is certain what will happen after that. There lies ahead some major challenges in the UK and not just for the farming sector. The video from the FT below is very useful for explaining the impact of trade barriers and CET.

What is CAP?

At the outset of the EU, one of the main objectives was the system of intervention in agricultural markets and protection of the farming sector has been known as the common agricultural policy – CAP. The CAP was established under Article Thirty Nine of the Treaty of Rome, and its objectives – the justification for the CAP – are as follows:

1. Raise and maintain farm incomes, through the establishment of high prices for food. Such prices are often in excess of the free market equilibrium. This necessarily means support buying of surpluses and raising tariffs on cheaper imported food to give domestic preference.
2. To reduce the wide flutuations that often occur in the price of agriculutural products due to uncertain supplies.
3. To increase the mobility of resources in farming and to increase the efficiency of all units. To reduce the number of farms and farmers especially in monoculturalistic agriculture.
4. To stimulate increased production to achieve European self sufficiency to satisfy the consumption of food from our own resources.
5. To protect consumers from violent price changes and to guarantee a wide choice in the shop, without shortages.

CAP Intervention Price

An intervention price is the price at which the CAP would be ready to come into the market and to buy the surpluses, thus preventing the price from falling below the intervention price. This is illustrated below in Figure 1. Here the European supply of lamb drives the price down to the equilibrium 0Pfm – the free market price, where supply and demand curves intersect and quantity demanded and quantity supplied equal 0Qm. However, the intervention price (0Pint) is located above the equilibrium and it has the following effects:

1. It encourages an increase in European production. Consequently, output is raised to 0Qs1.
2. At intervention price, there is a production surplus equal to the horizontal distance AB which is the excess of supply above demand at the intervention price.
3. In buying the surplus, the intervention agency incurs costs equal to the area ABCD. It will then incur the cost of storing the surplus or of destroying it.
4. There is a contraction in domestic consumption to 0Qd1
Consumers pay a higher price to the extent that the intervention price exceeds the notional free market price.


Figure 1: The effect of an intervention price on the income of EU farmers.

The increase in farmers’ incomes following intervention is shown also: as has been noted, one of the objectives of price support policy is to raise farmers’ incomes. The shaded area EBCFG indicates the increase in the incomes of the suppliers of lamb.

Throughout most of its four decades of existence, the CAP has had a very poor public relations image. It is extremely unpopular among consumers, and on a number of occasions it has all but bankrupted the EU.

New Zealand primary sector holding up but challenges remain

With countries around the world imposing a lock down for its population the global economy is entering a recessionary phase. Levels of unemployment not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930’s are anticipated – in the US 10 million people now looking for unemployment benefit. With this level of unemployment the demand side of the economy takes a hit and consumers who are worried about job security ‘batten down the hatches’ and start to be a lot more conservative with their spending – only essential items. One significant advantage for New Zealand is the fact that we have large primary sector which allows us not only to feed the population but also export – Fonterra exports 95% of local production to 140 countries. The panic buying that was seen in supermarkets around the country led to a government advertising campaign saying that we have plenty of food (and toilet roll) so no need to stockpile necessities. However this panic buying seems to have eased off and although doing the shop at the supermarket maybe slower than normal, people are getting their food okay – Good Friday tomorrow sees the supermarkets shut so they can restock.

On world markets New Zealand’s major primary export product prices have been declining as a percentage (see graph above) but what is encouraging is that this decline has been from a strong position which is unlike those in other sectors of the global economy. Meat and dairy sales surged prior to coronavirus with sales values rose 7.4% ($649 million), to $9.5 billion in the 2019 December quarter. On the contrary stock markets around the world have taken a significant hit with some declining over 20% but also coming from much weaker positions.

Other factors that help the primary sector

NZ dollar
The 11% decline in the NZD/USD exchange rate gives the primary industry some protection against the fall in global food prices. Remember a decline in the value of the NZD makes our exports cheaper.

Oil prices
The cheaper oil prices have been passed on at the pump and this has reduced costs for the primary sector.

Inelastic good
Food is a necessity good as people need to eat – i.e. very inelastic. Therefore food related products are expected to holdup better than most. Even in the worst of downturns there will still be demand for food.

Restaurants, bars and cafes

With the closure of eating establishments during the lock down the profile of global food demand has changed as people buy more provisions from the supermarket. This has meant that supply chains have had to adjust and reallocate resources to online etc. When the country comes out of the lock down there is a supply issue for firms to get up and running again but let’s not forget the demand side. Will consumer behaviour have changed? Will people still want to go to restaurants and bars as before? One interesting statistic to lookout for will be the activity in these areas.

Not all rosey
Even though the points above suggest that things might not be too bad for the primary sector, one has to be aware of the recent drought conditions in the North Island and parts of the South Island which were classified as a large-scale adverse event by Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor. Also with Covid-19 and border restrictions there are labour shortages in some industries with up to two-thirds of the workforce coming from overseas, half on Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) visas and half backpackers. Further concerns are the transport links into Asia for exports as the airline industry cuts back on international schedules. Important to remember that the vast majority of commercial flights carry cargo.

All that being said I think we are quite lucky to be in New Zealand.

Source: BNZ Rural Wrap – 9th April 2020

EU’s uncommon Common Agricultural Policy

At the outset of the EU, one of the main objectives was the system of intervention in agricultural markets and protection of the farming sector known as the common agricultural policy – CAP. Throughout most of its four decades of existence, the CAP has had a very poor public relations image. It is extremely unpopular among consumers, and on a number of occasions it has all but bankrupted the EU. The EU’s seven year budget (2021-2027), also known as the ‘multi-annual financial framework (MFF) is currently being discussed and agricultural subsidies are once again a controversial issue although have been reduced from previous years – 70% of the EU budget in 1980 to 37% in 2018 – see graph right from The Economist.

The aim of discussions is to reduce the amount to between 28% and 31% of the MFF. EU support levels are very high when compared to other countries. The graph below shows the support that other countries receive – producer support estimate (PSE), as a share of total farm income. EU is 20.% (2018) above the OECD average and well ahead of China, USA, Russia, Canada, Brazil, and Australia. Norway is at 62.36% whilst New Zealand is 0.48%.

Source: https://www.cgdev.org/publication/new-estimates-eu-agricultural-support-un-common-agricultural-policy

Who gets what from EU farm subsidies?

Source: https://www.cgdev.org/publication/new-estimates-eu-agricultural-support-un-common-agricultural-policy

There is wide variation in the support provided to agriculture within the “Common” agriculture policy. Latvia does the best of any country in the EU with a lot of other more recent eastern European entrants into the EU – of the top 10 Greece and Finland are the only non East European countries. The Netherlands gets a mere 7% of their income from EU support and traditional supporters of agriculture spend like Ireland, Luxembourg, Italy, and Poland are all below the EU average

  • Despite being a vocal critic of the CAP (and receiving a separate rebate) UK support is broadly the same as the EU average
  • France’s support is only just above average, while Germany’s is in the bottom quarter
  • In terms of the “market price support” element—which inflates EU food prices—Belgium, Hungary, Malta, Poland, and UK producers benefit most

The variation seen here reflects a combination of factors, few of which relate to a policy objective. Most payments are distributed on the basis of a farm’s size in hectares—though per hectare rates vary and were often based on the historical value of production. Other payments relate to sustainability of farming methods, numbers of young farmers, or how much farms produce. With agriculture seen as a significant contributor to global emissions should subsidies be tied to those farmers reducing their impact on climate change?

The economics behind CAP intervention price

An intervention price is the price at which the CAP would be ready to come into the market and to buy the surpluses, thus preventing the price from falling below the intervention price. This is illustrated below in Figure 1. Here the European supply of lamb drives the price down to the equilibrium 0Pfm – the free market price, where supply and demand curves intersect and quantity demanded and quantity supplied equal 0Qm. However, the intervention price (0Pint) is located above the equilibrium and it has the following effects:

  1. It encourages an increase in European production. Consequently, output is raised to 0Qs1.
  2. At intervention price, there is a production surplus equal to the horizontal distance AB which is the excess of supply above demand at the intervention price.
  3. In buying the surplus, the intervention agency incurs costs equal to the area ABCD. It will then incur the cost of storing the surplus or of destroying it.
  4. There is a contraction in domestic consumption to 0Qd1
    Consumers pay a higher price to the extent that the intervention price exceeds the notional free market price.

Figure 1: The effect of an intervention price on the income of EU farmers.

The increase in farmers’ incomes following intervention is shown also: as has been noted, one of the objectives of price support policy is to raise farmers’ incomes. The shaded area EBCFG indicates the increase in the incomes of the suppliers of lamb.

Sources:

  • https://www.cgdev.org/publication/new-estimates-eu-agricultural-support-un-common-agricultural-policy
  • The Economist: 23-11-19 – Milking taxpayers

Brexit and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

With the 29th March deadline approaching UK farmers are particularly opposed to a no-deal Brexit; customs hold-ups at the borders could ruin fresh produce. And there is concern that new trade deals with countries like New Zealand could lead to a flood of cheap imports and therefore making it harder for British farmers.

The EU bloc receives receives about 60% of UK food exports with 70% of the UK food imports come from the EU bloc. Lamb and beef exports could face export tariffs of at least 40% if the UK reverted to World Trade Organization rules under a no-deal exit. The UK produces approximately 60% of what is required to feed its population with the remainder being imported. The UK’s £110bn-a-year agriculture and food sector is deeply integrated with Europe relying on the bloc for agricultural subsidies of £3.1bn ($4bn) under the CAP – Common Agricultural Policy. The government has promised to pay the equivalent of the CAP subsidies up to 2022, no one is certain what will happen after that.

What is CAP?

At the outset of the EU, one of the main objectives was the system of intervention in agricultural markets and protection of the farming sector has been known as the common agricultural policy – CAP. The CAP was established under Article Thirty Nine of the Treaty of Rome, and its objectives – the justification for the CAP – are as follows:

1. Raise and maintain farm incomes, through the establishment of high prices for food. Such prices are often in excess of the free market equilibrium. This necessarily means support buying of surpluses and raising tariffs on cheaper imported food to give domestic preference.
2. To reduce the wide flutuations that often occur in the price of agriculutural products due to uncertain supplies.
3. To increase the mobility of resources in farming and to increase the efficiency of all units. To reduce the number of farms and farmers especially in monoculturalistic agriculture.
4. To stimulate increased production to achieve European self sufficiency to satisfy the consumption of food from our own resources.
5. To protect consumers from violent price changes and to guarantee a wide choice in the shop, without shortages.

CAP Intervention Price

An intervention price is the price at which the CAP would be ready to come into the market and to buy the surpluses, thus preventing the price from falling below the intervention price. This is illustrated below in Figure 1. Here the European supply of lamb drives the price down to the equilibrium 0Pfm – the free market price, where supply and demand curves intersect and quantity demanded and quantity supplied equal 0Qm. However, the intervention price (0Pint) is located above the equilibrium and it has the following effects:

1. It encourages an increase in European production. Consequently, output is raised to 0Qs1.
2. At intervention price, there is a production surplus equal to the horizontal distance AB which is the excess of supply above demand at the intervention price.
3. In buying the surplus, the intervention agency incurs costs equal to the area ABCD. It will then incur the cost of storing the surplus or of destroying it.
4. There is a contraction in domestic consumption to 0Qd1
Consumers pay a higher price to the extent that the intervention price exceeds the notional free market price.

CAP Int Price
Figure 1: The effect of an intervention price on the income of EU farmers.

The increase in farmers’ incomes following intervention is shown also: as has been noted, one of the objectives of price support policy is to raise farmers’ incomes. The shaded area EBCFG indicates the increase in the incomes of the suppliers of lamb.

Throughout most of its four decades of existence, the CAP has had a very poor public relations image. It is extremely unpopular among consumers, and on a number of occasions it has all but bankrupted the EU.

Global Dairy Prices down but why does NZ have such high milk prices?

On the 21st August the GDT Price Index continued its decline and dipped 3.6pc, with an average selling price of $3,044 per tonne. Whole milk powder was down 2.1% at $2,883 – see graph below:

How does the GDT work?

GlobalDairyTrade trading events are conducted as ascending-price clock auctions run over several bidding rounds.  In each auction a specified maximum quantity of each product is offered for sale at a pre-announced starting price. Bidders bid the quantity of each product that they wish to purchase at the announced price. If the price of a product increases between rounds, to ensure their desired quantity a bidder must bid their desired quantity at the new, higher price. Generally, as the price of a product increases, the quantity of bids received for that product decreases. The trading event runs over several rounds with the prices increasing round to round until the quantity of bids received for each product on offer matches the quantity on offer for the product (as shown in the diagram below). Each trading event typically lasts approximately 2 hours.

Why are prices so high in NZ?

Fonterra is responsible for 30% of the world’s dairy exports with revenue exceeding NZ$20 billion and is New Zealand’s largest company. With New Zealand being one of the biggest producers you would expect prices for New Zealand consumers to be lower than what they are – a litre of fresh milk in Germany was selling for the equivalent of $1.51, compared to $2.37 in New Zealand.

Milk being inelastic in demand and is an essential part of the typical family shopping basket. Up until 1976 the price of milk was set by the government and producers were subsidised the loss that they incurred by a set price. The subsidy was completely removed in 1985 and by 1993, milk could be sold at any price. In January 1994, two litres was selling for the modern equivalent of $3.95. Consumer NZ estimates that for every $3.56 bottle of milk (an average retail price at present), about $1.19 would go to the farmer, $1.91 to the processor and retailer and 46c to GST.

Who gets what?

Because Fonterra take over 80% of what farmers produce it is difficult for the market to decide what an appropriate price to pay farmers. Therefore they work out what they believe is the highest sustainable price it can pay its farmers. It looks at the global dairy trade auction price and operating costs and capital costs to determine the farm gate price.

GDT price – Operating Costs – Capital Costs = Farm Gate Price

So farmers in New Zealand are at the mercy of the global market not how much is demanded in NZ supermarkets.

NZ Supermarket Prices

Supermarkets buy their milk from local distributors, either direct from Fonterra or other processors such as Synlait, or from suppliers who had value along the way. They then add their own costs to give a final price to the consumer but New Zealand food retailing effectively is a duopoly. Milk in Germany is much lower in price because of the high levels of competition with multiple chains operating there. In New Zealand however the price consumers pay reflects the concentrated nature of the market. Domestic milk market is dominated by one big supplier, Fonterra (see graph below), and two big supermarket chains – Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises – which means there’s little competition for your dairy dollar.

Dairy debts make NZ Banks vulnerable

New Zealand dairy farmers are making banks worried about their ability to keep up with their mortgage payments. Four recent issues haven’t helped the cause:

1. Falling produce prices making it harder for farms to service debt
2. Mycoplasma bovis cutting productivity and profitability of the sector
3. Regulatory changes  – restrictions on foreign ownership and therefore reducing the value of dairy farms
4. Environmental regulations – increasing operating costs for farms

Whilst the last two might improve the long-term sustainability of the dairy sector they could reduce the profitability of highly indebted farms and their equity buffers.

Banks are closely monitoring about 20% of their dairy farm loans because of concerns about the borrowers’ financial strength. Although a dairy downturn is unlikely to threaten the solvency of the banking system, it does weaken their position if there is another external shock like another GFC. Bank lending in the dairy sector has been consistent over the last few year years but the proportion of loans on principal and interest terms has increased from 6% in January 2017 to 12% in March this year.

Although the average mortgage for most farm types has decreased in dollar value over the past six months, the average mortgage amount increased in the dairy farms – see graph below. The average mortgage for dairy farms is the highest at $5.1 million for the first time since the survey began in August 2015.

The table below shows the average current mortgage by sector over the years shown. Dairy farmers continue to hold the largest proportion of mortgages in excess of $2 million. They are also more likely to have a mortgage over $2 million – 62.5% of all dairy farms – and $20 million – 3.4% of dairy farms.

Source: Federated Farmers of New Zealand – Banking Survey – May 2018

China stops subsidising farmers

In 2000 the Chinese government introduced price supports for farmers with the floors raised annually to stimulate production even when global prices fell. There were three reasons for price supports:

  1. ensure production of key commodities
  2. provide a degree of food security
  3. improve the well-being of farmers

China starts to abolish minimum prices

The last three years has seen the Chinese authorities start to abolish minimum prices for the following commodities – cotton, soybeans, corn and sugar. Without the minimum price the supply on the domestic market has dropped – grain production fell for the first time in 13 years. Remember with the minimum price being above the equilibrium it encourages producers to supply more but the demand will drop at the higher price.

When the minimum price was in operation the Chinese authorities had been stockpiling significant amounts of food and have been able to compensate for the reduction in supply from the farming community. However once these stockpiles have been diminished the only other alternative will be to import food which will be a positive for farmers from Brazil, US and Thailand. This might be sooner than later as the Chinese government is facing capacity challenges as warehouses and silos are overflowing but still China is not able to meet its domestic needs. According to the US Department of Agriculture, China is sitting on 54% of the world’s cotton stocks, 45% of the world’s corn and 22% of the world’s sugar reserves, but many analysts think that a lot of this stock is starting to perish.

Self-sufficiency in feeding the Chinese population still remains a priority for Beijing but after 2014 authorities have stated that they need to make rational use of the global agricultural market and import various food products. However China still spends a lot on supporting its agricultural sector:

2016 – $246.9 billion = 2.2% of GDP. Four times the average of OECD countries.

Although money is still spent on price supports a growing share is going into ways to improve productivity with R&D etc. China is in a position that they could revert back to the price supports if they feel the pain of reform is too great, but analysts think that they will be more accepting of global supply.

Source: China Cut Agricultural Subsidies and American Farmers Have a Lot to Gain


EU example

This policy of subsidising farmers is not unlike that of the European Union – see previous blog post ‘CAP reforms unlikely to benefit New Zealand farmers.’ – with the introduction of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). At the outset of the EU, one of the main objectives was the system of intervention in agricultural markets and protection of the farming sector has been known as the common agricultural policy – CAP. The CAP was established under Article Thirty Nine of the Treaty of Rome, and its objectives – the justification for the CAP – are as follows:

1. Raise and maintain farm incomes, through the establishment of high prices for food. Such prices are often in excess of the free market equilibrium. This necessarily means support buying of surpluses and raising tariffs on cheaper imported food to give domestic preference.
2. To reduce the wide fluctuations that often occur in the price of agricultural products due to uncertain supplies.
3. To increase the mobility of resources in farming and to increase the efficiency of all units. To reduce the number of farms and farmers especially in monoculturalistic agriculture.
4. To stimulate increased production to achieve European self sufficiency to satisfy the consumption of food from our own resources.
5. To protect consumers from violent price changes and to guarantee a wide choice in the shop, without shortages.

CAP Intervention Price

An intervention price is the price at which the CAP would be ready to come into the market and to buy the surpluses, thus preventing the price from falling below the intervention price. This is illustrated below in Figure 1. Here the European supply of lamb drives the price down to the equilibrium 0Pfm – the free market price, where supply and demand curves intersect and quantity demanded and quantity supplied equal 0Qm. However, the intervention price (0Pint) is located above the equilibrium and it has the following effects:

CAP Int Price1. It encourages an increase in European production. Consequently, output is raised to 0Qs1.
2. At intervention price, there is a production surplus equal to the horizontal distance AB which is the excess of supply above demand at the intervention price.
3. In buying the surplus, the intervention agency incurs costs equal to the area ABCD. It will then incur the cost of storing the surplus or of destroying it.
4. There is a contraction in domestic consumption to 0Qd1
Consumers pay a higher price to the extent that the intervention price exceeds the notional free market price.


 

 

 

European Farmers expanding output

Living in a rural area you tend to get a lot of free newspapers with a agricultural bent. Skimming the pages of NZ Farmer (March 28 2016) I came across a very informative article by Keith Woodford about European farmers expanding their value-add dairy production and its impact on New Zealand.

Up toCAP Int Price April 2015 European farmers were protected by production quotas and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which provided large production subsidies which led to over-production. At the outset of the EU, one of the main objectives was the system of intervention in agricultural markets and protection of the farming sector.

An intervention price is the price at which the CAP would be ready to come into the market and to buy the surpluses, thus preventing the price from falling below the intervention price. This is illustrated opposite. Here the European supply of lamb drives the price down to the equilibrium 0Pfm – the free market price, where supply and demand curves intersect and quantity demanded and quantity supplied equal 0Qm. However, the intervention price (0Pint) is located above the equilibrium and it has the following effects:

1. It encourages an increase in European production. Consequently, output is raised to 0Qs1.

2. At intervention price, there is a production surplus equal to the horizontal distance AB which is the excess of supply above demand at the intervention price.

3. In buying the surplus, the intervention agency incurs costs equal to the area ABCD. It will then incur the cost of storing the surplus or of destroying it.

4. There is a contraction in domestic consumption to 0Qd1

Consumers pay a higher price to the extent that the intervention price exceeds the notional free market price.

Production quotas in Europe were eliminated in April 2015 and from April to November European milk production increased by 4% with a 6% increase in December from the previous year. However, as with the reduction in subsidies in New Zealand in 1984, they will be a lot of pain for European farmers as their ‘safety net’ has now been taken away.

The Europeans are producing as much cheese, butter, infant formula and cream as they can, with cheese being more important than liquid milk.  The Europeans are also selling increasing quantities of UHT and infant formula to China.  With both products, they are out-marketing New Zealand.

Chinese infant formula statistics for 2015 show European countries with 78 per cent market share of imported product, compared to New Zealand at 8 per cent.

#1 – Holland – 34%

#2 – Ireland – 15%

The Europeans would like to decrease their production skim milk powder (SMP), but with butter and cream being profitable, they keep producing the SMP as a by-product.   However, the European production of whole milk powder (WMP) has been drifting down in response to low prices.

The European producers have protection from some of the Global Dairy Auction process through their reliance on value-add products.  Also, apart from Ireland, all European dairy systems are 12-month-a-year production systems.  These 12 month production systems can lead to higher production costs, but they also lead to lower processing costs through better utilisation of processing infrastructure. This then feeds back into higher farm-gate prices.

Buffer Stocks

The Europeans have been putting limited quantities of skim milk powder (SMP) into what are called intervention stocks. At the end of January 2016, there were about 50,000 tonnes of SMP in a public intervention store. The intervention quantities could reach a new limit of 218,000 tonnes over coming months. The main benefit of the SMP intervention is a smoothing of commodity prices. So if the price is too high stocks are released into the market and when they are too low authorities buy stock in order to reduce supply and therefore increase the price to a specific level.

European Farmers and the future

There is a good chance that in the longer term European milk production will further increase, as some farms become bigger and fewer in number.  Poland has become one of the largest milk producers in the EU become a major milk producer with its flat terrain, very fertile soil, low feed and labour costs. Furthermore compared to other EU members it doesn’t have the pressure on land for residential use. Since joining the EU in 2004, the informal dairy sector is also still considerable in Poland, but the 2015 quota lift has seen these farms absorbed into the formal sector which in turn are expected to expand quickly without quota impediments.

Conclusion

For this longer term, the Europeans are not going to try and compete with New Zealand with WMP.  Europeans regard WMP as an outlet for product with no other immediate use. And they know that, in low-priced volatile commodity markets for long-life products, they lack competitive advantage relative to New Zealand. 

Global Dairy Trade – how it works?

While milk production in New Zealand is lower this summer the global milk supply over the last year is strong with a 2.2% growth in Europe and 1.2% in the USA. This strong supply growth and the reduction in demand from China has led to downward pressure on prices.

New Zealand Federated Farmers Dairy chairman Andrew Hoggard said the disappointingly weak GDT result would put more pressure on Fonterra’s “poor” forecast payout of $4.60 a kilogram of milksolids.

 “With another poor result I expect various people might try to jump on the bandwagon and try to the lay the blame somewhere, this is simply economics 101, supply is too high and demand is weak. … If we want to look at anything to blame, then the answer lies offshore with subsidised production in other countries hiding economic realities from farmers offshore who keep increasing production despite the market telling them the opposite.”

These prices are generated by the GlobalDairyTrade which is an auction platform for internationally traded commodity dairy products. How does it work?

GlobalDairyTrade trading events are conducted as ascending-price clock auctions run over several bidding rounds.  In each auction a specified maximum quantity of each product is offered for sale at a pre-announced starting price. Bidders bid the quantity of each product that they wish to purchase at the announced price. If the price of a product increases between rounds, to ensure their desired quantity a bidder must bid their desired quantity at the new, higher price. Generally, as the price of a product increases, the quantity of bids received for that product decreases. The trading event runs over several rounds with the prices increasing round to round until the quantity of bids received for each product on offer matches the quantity on offer for the product (as shown in the diagram below). Each trading event typically lasts approximately 2 hours.

Bidders cannot join a trading event part way through: they must participate in round 1 and can only maintain or decrease their total bid quantities from that point. Products can be purchased over different delivery time periods, known as contract periods.

Click below for more information.

GlobalDairyTrade