EUROPEAN MARKET OBSERVATORY
FOR FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS
RESULTS OF
PROJECT PHASE 1
- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY –
APRIL 2011 This study was conducted by:
In partnership with:
This study is financed by the European Commission, DG-MARE. The views and conclusions presented in this executive summary reflect the opinion of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Commission or of its officers.
i
CONTENTS
1 Overarching objective and work plan ...... 1
2 Specific objectives of the EUMOFA ...... 1
3 Methodology adopted for the “state of play” analysis ...... 2
4 Survey results and data feeding proposals by stage of the supply chain ...... 3
4.0 Overall findings which could limit future data gathering ...... 5
4.1 First sale stage ...... 6 4.1.1 Results of the survey and most relevant sources identified ...... 6 4.1.2 Data feeding structural options, by project objective ...... 8
4.2 Wholesale stage ...... 16 4.2.1 Results of the survey and most relevant sources identified ...... 16 4.2.2 Data feeding structural options, common proposals for the 3 Project Objectives ...... 16
4.3 Import/Export stage ...... 20 4.3.1 Results of the survey and most relevant sources identified ...... 20 4.3.2 Data feeding structural options, by project objective ...... 21
4.4 Processing stage ...... 23 4.4.1 Results of the survey and most relevant sources identified ...... 23 4.4.2 Data feeding structural options, by project objective ...... 24
4.5 Consumption stage ...... 28 4.5.1 Results of the survey and most relevant sources identified ...... 30 4.5.2 Data feeding structural options, by project objective ...... 31
4.6 Structural options for achieving the project’s Objective 4 ...... 37
4.7 Proposal for the setting up of a “European Antennas System for Fishery” ...... 39
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Existence of weekly prices from sales notes/auctions by MS and source ...... 9 Table 2 - Pros/cons analysis of option FS 1.1-fishery...... 9 Table 3 – Existing aquaculture monitoring initiatives by MS and species ...... 10 Table 4 - Pros/cons analysis of option FS 1.2-Aquaculture ...... 11 Table 5 - Existence of monthly prices and volumes from sales notes/auctions by MS and source ...... 12 Table 6 - Pros/cons analysis of option FS 2.1-Fishery ...... 13 Table 7 – Sources proposed for preliminary figures, by MS ...... 14 Table 8 - Pros/cons analysis of option FS 3.1-Fishery ...... 15 Table 9 - Pros/cons analysis of option FS 3.2-Aquaculture ...... 15 Table 10 - Proposed sources for the first group of MS (FR, IT and ES)* ...... 17 Table 11 - Pros/cons analysis of the options for the wholesale stage, for the MS of group 1 ...... 18 Table 12 – Proposed sources for the second group of MS ...... 19 Table 13 - Pros/cons analysis of options for the wholesale stage, for the MS of Group 2 ...... 19 Table 14 - Pros/cons analysis of option IE – 1A ...... 22 Table 15 - Pros/cons analysis of option IE – 2A and option IE - 3A ...... 22 Table 16 – Sources for Production and Sales data on a yearly basis ...... 25 Table 17 - Pros/cons analysis of option P 3-A ...... 25 Table 18 - Sources for economic and financial data on a yearly basis, by MS ...... 26 Table 19 - Pros/cons analysis of option P 3-B ...... 27 Table 20 – Sources for retail prices by MS ...... 32 Table 21 - Pros/cons analysis of option C 1-A ...... 32 Table 22 - Pros/cons analysis of options C 2-A and C2-B ...... 34 Table 23 - Pros/cons analysis of option C 2-C ...... 34 Table 24 - Pros/cons analysis of option C 3-A and C3-B ...... 36 Table 25 - Pros/cons analysis of option C 3-C ...... 36
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Food Balance of fish and fishery products (% in volume) ...... 4 Figure 2 - Catches and aquaculture production broken down by fishing area (% in volume - 2007) ...... 4 Figure 3 - Comparison of “intra EU” vs “extra EU” Imports ...... 20 Figure 4 – Processed fish production by status (% on total volumes of final products - 2007) ...... 23 Figure 5 – Group Analysis approach ...... 26 Figure 6 - Consumption of F&A products by status (% in volume – only MS where data are available) ...... 28 Figure 7 - Domestic versus HORECA consumption (F&A products; % in volume ; only MS where data are available) .... 29 Figure 8 - Distribution channels referring to F&A products (% on sales – only MS where data are available) ...... 30
iii
List of sources acronyms
Association Des Entreprises de Produits Alimentaires Elaborés - Association of Food Processing ADEPALE Companies - France Associazione Nazionale Conservieri Ittici e delle Tonnare - National Association of Seafood processing ANCIT Companies - Italy ANFACO Canning industry organization - Spain BLE Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung - Germany CMR Centrum Monitorowania Rybolówstwa - Fisheries Monitoring Centre in Gdynia - Poland CBS Central Statistic Bureau - Latvia DFD Danish Fishery Directorate - Denmark DFMR Department of Fisheries and Marine Research Ministry of Agriculture - Cyprus DGPA Direcção-Geral das Pescas e Aquicultura - Portugal Docapesca Auction markets manager - Portugal DPMA Direction des pêches maritimes et de l´aquaculture du Ministiere de l´agriculture et de la pêche - France FDVO The Fisheries Department of the Vlaamse Overheid - Belgium FGFRI Finnish Game and Fisheries Research institute - Finland FIDIR Directorate of Fisheries - Norway Fiskistofa Directorate of Fisheries - Iceland GUS Central Statistical Office - Poland INE Instituto Nacional de Estatística - National Institute of Statistics - Portugal INE Instituto Nacional de Estadística - National Institute of Statistics - Spain Istituto di Ricerche Economiche per la Pesca e l'Acquacoltura - Institute of Economic Research in Fishery IREPA and Aquaculture - Italy ISMEA Istituto di Servizi per il Mercato Agricolo Alimentare - Services Institute for the Agri-Food Market - Italy MARM Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino - Ministry of Agriculture - Spain MMM Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry - Finland MMO Marine Management Organisation - UK MoA Ministry of Agriculture - Latvia NIS National Institute of Statistics - Romania NR Norges Råfisklag, groundfish species sales organisation - Norway NSS Norges Sildesalgslag, pelagic sales organisation - Norway P.Vis Mussel Productschap Vis - Processors Organisation - Netherlands RSF Reiknistofa fiskmarkaða - Computer services company for the Icelandic Fish Aauctions - Iceland SBF Swedish Board of Fishery - Sweden SFPA Sea Fisheries Protection Authority - Ireland Statbel Statistics institute - Belgium SUROFI Sunmøre og Romsdal Fiskesalgslag, groundfish species sales organisation - Norway VAFD Veterinary Affairs and Fisheries Division - Malta
iv
1 Overarching objective and work plan
In Communication 453 of July 20081 to the European Parliament and the Council, the European Commission - Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG-MARE), proposed the establishment of a price monitoring system as one of the specific objectives of the new Common Market Organisation. The European Parliament supported this initiative. In December 2009, following an open call for tenders2, DG-MARE commissioned COGEA - the lead of a specialised and international group of companies set up for this project and composed of Almaviva (IT), AND International (FR), Eurofish (DK), Kontali Analyse (NO) - to pave the way for a European Market Observatory for fisheries and aquaculture products (EUMOFA). The project started in January 2010 and the overall duration is, at present, 30 months. The overarching objective of the Observatory is to give stakeholders, administrations and researchers a better understanding of the European fisheries markets at the local and international levels. This Observatory should provide “Market intelligence support” on fishery and aquaculture products all along the supply chain stages (first sale, wholesale, import/export, processing, consumption) in the 27 EU Member States plus Iceland and Norway3. The implementation of the Observatory is divided into three phases, each one organised in stages with specific and well-defined aims.
The project is developed in relation to the food price monitoring exercise that is being carried out by the European Commission under the leadership of DG AGRI.
2 Specific objectives of the EUMOFA
Objective 1 – Collection and swift dissemination of price data for selected species and selected market places at different stages of the supply chain.
Priority is given to rapidity of information delivery and therefore no data harmonisation tasks will be performed for this objective. Similar data from Norway and Iceland should be collected as far as possible, using them as benchmarks at the first-sale level.
Objective 2 – Continuous market trend analysis, based on the collection and harmonisation of price and volume data, covering all species and market places, at different stages of the supply chain.
1 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0453:FIN:EN:PDF. 2 Ref.: Contract notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union S/146 of 01/08/2009 (ref. 2009/S 146-213226). 3 The possibility of gathering data from Norway and Iceland should be explored, as far as possible, because they represent the largest suppliers of fresh fish and aquaculture products in the EU market, and are the main competitors for the export of small pelagic species, which are the most exported commodities in terms of value
1
For this objective, a trade-off between rapidity of data delivery and exhaustiveness of data is necessary in order to ensure regular information delivery. Information on volumes is also essential in order to get weighted data and understand the overall market situation. The frequency of delivery should depend on the stage of the supply chain and could be monthly or quarterly. Aggregated data at the European level will be provided, complementing data broken down by NUTS 0 and 1. Similar data from Norway and Iceland will be provided as far as possible, using them as benchmarks at the first-sale level. Trends in the international context (seafood supply and price, fuel price, currency exchange rates, general economic situation) need to be taken into account. Objective 3 – Yearly structural geographic market analysis by product, based on the consolidated and exhaustive price and volume data collected at all stages of the supply chain. This objective should provide an economic description of the whole European fishery and aquaculture industry as well as a structural analysis in comparison with other food industries, including a description of the specific national or regional markets. It should reply to questions such as “what is produced/exported/imported?, when and where?”, “What is consumed?, by whom? When and where?”, “What are the time trends?” etc. Objective 4 – Price formation simulation tool, illustrating price formation along the supply chain for different representative segments in order to explain the underlying factors of divergent price trends. The fourth objective is complementary to the others. First of all, a weekly or monthly comparison of first-sale, wholesale, import and retail prices could make it possible to detect pricing anomalies along the supply chain. Secondly, a model based on yearly average prices, costs (handling, processing, packaging, transportation, marketing, etc.) and margins at different stages of the supply chain should allow to assess how certain variations in market conditions can affect prices.
3 Methodology adopted for the “state of play” analysis
As provided for in the Tendering Specifications, this Project’s phase 1 has focused on: • Identifying all the data needed to ensure the proper functioning of the market Observatory; • Exploring the existence/availability of data relevant for each MS and supply chain stage; • Carrying out an analysis, in terms of validity and reliability, of the relevant data already available,: (i) at the EU level4; (ii) from international organisations5 (iii) from pan-European associations or transnational sources6 , and (iv) from national public bodies and private actors. • Detecting any possible lack of data which could hamper the proper functioning of the Observatory; • Providing possible short- and long-term remedies to compensate for the lack of data; • Developing structural options for EUMOFA data feeding by supply chain stage, by project objective and by MS.
4 Through the following: TAXUD Surveillance System (TSS) Council Regulation (EC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987, Common Fishery Policy (CFP) Control system as defined in the Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Data Collection Framework (DCF) as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, the EUROSTAT database concerning Fisheries and aquaculture production, imports/exports, retail price index, etc., Fisheries Data Exchange Server (FIDES) as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000. 5 Such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) – Globefish. 6 Such as: the European Association of Fishing Ports and Auctions (EAFPA); the Pan European Fishing Auctions (PEFA); the Electronic Fish Information Center Europe (EFICE).
2
In order to carry out the above-mentioned tasks, the following methodological approach has been adopted: 1) A group of “Country experts” of the COGEA Work Team has investigated the “information scenario” of the fishery and aquaculture industry, in each of the 27 EU Member States plus Iceland and Norway, by means of specific “direct interviews” with a selection of stakeholders and sector operators, relevant at both the national and regional levels. These interviews have been carried out on the basis of structured “interview guidelines” in such a way to obtain a homogeneous scenario for all the countries analysed. 2) By using a specific “data entry” tool, the results of each interview (compiled in a structured questionnaire) have been merged into a single EU aggregate database. 3) A Pros/Cons analysis of each relevant data set, by supply chain stage, has been carried out. 4) An “Experts Group” formed by DG MARE and COGEA’s experts has been created, and a “discussion session” for each supply chain stage has been conducted. 5) The results of all the analyses and findings have been reported, allowing the COGEA Work Team to develop and propose a set of structural options, by supply chain stage, to achieve each of the four objectives of the Project.
4 Survey results and data feeding proposals by stage of the supply chain
The five stages of the supply chain (First sale, Wholesale, Import/Export, Processing, Consumption) and their relative data feeding structural options will be examined in five separate subsections. The structural options for the EUMOFA data feeding system will be presented within each subsection by the first three project objectives. It has been decided to examine the fourth Objective (Price Formation Simulation Tool - PFST) apart from the others, since it is complementary to all of them. A final sub-section will report the findings and proposal for the “European Antennas System for Fishery” (see § 4.7). The survey has pointed out four key elements, which should be taken into consideration when discussing the effectiveness of the various market intelligence tools, proposed for the setting up of the EUMOFA: 1) As we proceed from first sale to the end of the supply chain, the availability of public data decreases. However EU, supranational and trans-national sources may well compensate for a possible lack of data. 2) For each supply chain stage, a good number of EU information systems and databases have been detected. FIDES-MIS, ERS, EUROSTAT and its databases COMEXT and PRODCOM, DG-TAXUD all represent extremely valid and reliable sources which can be used to collect and/or complete the information in their respective areas of interest. 3) Although the scenarios differ widely from MS to MS, the “Food Balance of fish and fishery products”7 at the EU level largely depends on imports to EU markets (see the figure below).
7 The food balance equation is: Production + Imports + Stocks variations = Exports + Non–food uses + Availability for consumption (or total food supply).
3
Figure 1 - Food Balance of fish and fishery products (% in volume)
Source: FAO 2007 4) Relevance of the production method (catches vs aquaculture) and structural characteristics of the first-sale stage vary to a great extent from country to country, and in most cases there are also differences between the sale of fisheries and aquaculture products. For instance, in some Countries the majority of fisheries products is sold through auction markets, while, in other, directly at landing places. On the other hand, in the majority of MS sales of most aquaculture products do not take place at first sale auctions, but are the subject of direct transactions between two parties. In the case of aquaculture, nevertheless, EU law only requires that MS provide statistics on a yearly basis, and consequently there are far less data available. The figure below reports how the production is distributed between fishery and aquaculture in each MS.
Figure 2 - Catches and aquaculture production broken down by fishing area (% in volume - 2007) 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK IS NO
Inland Waters Mediterranean and Black Sea North-East Atlantic Oceanic excluding North-East Atlantic Aquaculture Source: EUROSTAT 2007
4
4.0 Overall findings which could limit future data gathering
During the survey phase, it has become apparent that there are several factors which might hinder the functioning of the Observatory, as well as its reliability and validity as a Market Intelligence tool. Below is a list of the crucial ones: • All the data collected by DG-MARE are submitted by MS under specific Regulations; any other use which is not provided for by a Regulation is not permitted to the EUMOFA without a specific authorisation by each MS. • As far as information at the MS level is concerned, almost the entire scenario relies on Public Bodies and National Research Organisations, which provide publicly available data. Sector Associations only play a marginal role. A continuous and regular data flow from national sources to the Observatory can be ensured only through formal agreements between the related National bodies (Organisations and/or Ministries) and DG MARE. • As regards legal constraints to using data provided by private information providers to national bodies, it has clearly emerged that, on the one hand, a negotiation with private information providers will be necessary, and, on the other, possible limits to dissemination may arise. • There is scant availability of data on costs and margins of fish-processing companies and their relative sector Associations. Fish-processing companies are reluctant to disclose the costs underlying price formation, and have expressed some concerns about their involvement in the Observatory, lest it might have a negative impact on their market strategies and compliance with competition rules. Possible remedies to cope with these limits to future data gathering will be proposed in “project phase 2” by analysing previous EU experiences in managing these types of information.
A possible way to tackle the first two limits could be to establish the EUMOFA legal basis in such a way as to include it in the Common Market Organisation.
5
4.1 First sale stage
4.1.1 Results of the survey and most relevant sources identified
In the first-sale stage of the supply chain, fishery and aquaculture have been analysed and reported separately given the differences that exist between them, while in all the other stages of the supply chain they have been treated without distinction.
Fishery sector Due to the differences of the first sale stage in the various MS, our survey has pointed out that the existence and availability of data on prices and volumes at this stage are highly heterogeneous. However, among the different types of sources, five have been considered as the most relevant, valid and reliable to fulfil the objectives of the Observatory:
1. National management bodies of sales notes and/or auction data (for obj. 1 and 2);
2. Management bodies of first-sale auction markets (for obj. 1 and 2);
3. Pan-European and transnational associations of auction markets (for obj. 1 and 2);
4. The Fisheries Data Exchange Server (FIDES-MIS) (for obj. 2);
5. EUROSTAT (for obj. 3)
As regards “sales notes” data management, it has to be remembered that within the framework of Council Regulation No 1966/2006 on ERS (Electronic Reporting System) each MS is obliged to upload sales notes on a web-service, also available to the Commission8. A new control Regulation (No 1224/2009)9 partly amended Regulation No 1966/2006, and an “Implementing Regulation” is being drafted, and was not yet approved at the end of 2010.
In spite of the requirements laid down in Council Regulations No 199/ 2006 and 1224/2009, when looking at the availability of data from the fisheries authorities, the situation among the 27 Member States is still quite diversified. This is especially the case when it comes to the coverage and time lag of the weekly data deriving from sales notes. This may well be the result of large differences in both the fleet structure and the structure and size of registered buyers and auctions. Furthermore small-scale operations limit the amount of data that can be reported electronically; this operations represent a large share of the total marketed production. In addition, the availability of data and information seems to be related to the importance of the seafood sector within member states.
Some MS (in 2007, around 50%) are already developing ERS for some specific Market Places but, in some other cases, sales notes are accessible only with a level of aggregation which may not be in line with the needs of the Observatory. As regards frequency, some MS carry out harmonisation, processing and cross- checking tasks in order to assess the quality and validity of sales notes, with a frequency not compatible with the “swift delivery” requested by the Observatory. As regards the different sources providing auction data, the first sale of fisheries products often occurs through auction markets. Therefore, a large amount of swiftly–disseminated data is available directly from
8 At the end of 2010, 14 out of 27 MS manage sales notes data. 9 Article 63 of Council Regulation No 1224/2009 requires that the national fisheries authorities establish a system for electronic registration of sales notes data, which contributes to more frequent and more extensive data collection in the Member States.
6 the auction markets management bodies or through auction networks, National management bodies, pan- European and transnational sources. In Denmark, the UK, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Italy there is a wide range of auctions, most of which are periodically monitored through auctions networks such as Mercapesca in Spain, National management bodies such as ISMEA in Italy, pan-European and transnational sources such as the Pan European Fishing Auctions (PEFA) in SE, DK, NL, BE and IT the Electronic Fish Information Center Europe (EFICE) in NL and BE. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that there is the European Association of Fishing Ports and Auctions (EAFPA) which has members in BE, UK, FR, PT, ES, NL, DK, IE, DE, SE, PL, IT and EL, although at present does not carry out any monitoring activities. The Fisheries Data Exchange Server (FIDES-MIS) is an electronic data transmission system between Member States and the Commission which has been introduced within the framework of the management of the Common Fisheries Policy (FIDES II system), and is meant to be used for the purposes of collecting the information required by Commission Regulation (EC) No. 248/200910. The European Commission Statistical Service (EUROSTAT) is one of the main sources of information feeding DG-MARE’s database. It provides annual data on catches and landings of fishery products deriving from official national sources11.
Aquaculture sector As mentioned above, in most Member States the first sale of aquaculture products differs considerably from that of fishery products; as a result, when it comes to the aquaculture sector, the availability of data on the first-sale level is both scarce and scattered. This is especially the case of weekly data. Nonetheless, it should be considered that this issue could be mitigated by the fact that, since, differently from fishery, aquaculture is carried out under controlled conditions, sold volumes – and therefore prices – tend to be rather stable. However, there are a few private and public initiatives which monitor some of the largest traded species (listed below in Option FS 1.2) and most of them are carried out on a monthly basis. Monthly, or even less frequently, data are collected also by fisheries or agricultural authorities since all Member States are required to provide statistics to EUROSTAT on a yearly basis, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 762/2008. However, the purpose of this data collection does not necessarily guarantee that the data are sufficiently timely, from a market monitoring perspective. As specifically regards yearly data, several potential sources could be used12. Among them are, on the one hand, EUROSTAT provides annual figures on the aquaculture production for all 27 MS and, on the other, two European producers’ Associations, the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP)13 and the Association Européenne de Producteurs de Mollusques (AEPM)14, collecting aquaculture data from their members.
10 Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 248/2009 states that for a limited number of species listed in Annexes I and IV of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, which are the species subjected to the “withdrawal regime”, Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities landed, sold, withdrawn and carried over throughout their territory, together with the value of quantities sold, in each quarter, no later than seven weeks after the quarter in question, in the various regions defined in Table 1 of Annex VIII to this Regulation (basically a geographic identification at NUTS1 level). 11 FAO also produces annual figures on catches, but it has not been included in the EUMOFA selection of sources, due to the long delivery time lag of these data. 12 FAO also produces annual figures on aquaculture, but it has not been included in the EUMOFA selection of sources, due to the long delivery time lag of these data. 13 FEAP covers 17 of the EU MS: BE – CY – CZ – DK – FI – FR – DE – EL – HU – IE – IT – MT – NL – PL – PT – ES – UK. 14 AEPM covers 7 EU MS: FR – UK – IE – ES – DK – NL – IT.
7
4.1.2 Data feeding structural options, by project objective
Objective 1 Fishery sector
Two appropriate types of sources have been identified in order to fulfil Objective 1 within existing structures. In particular, sales notes and auction data on price registrations could be the swiftest and most realistic solution to meet the requirements of the Objective. Depending on the existence and degree of coverage these structures have on their national markets, this solution can be used to cover nearly all MS with coastal borders. For Romania and Bulgaria, at present, the compiling system is manual and based on paper reporting, therefore a weekly delivery is considered unfeasible in any case. For Greece, the survey of data availability is still on going. MS with no or limited coastal borders (Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Slovenia) are not particularly remarkable both in terms of first sale volumes. Therefore, deliveries of data on a weekly basis from these countries may not be necessary. Therefore the option proposed for Objective 1 - fishery products, is the following: Option FS 1.1-fishery: Use of sales notes and auctions reports for weekly price data concerning: • The top 15 species by value and the top 15 species by volume in each MS • Where possible, price data on the top 15 species to be selected for the 2-3 most important auctions/markets/regions. The selection of appropriate market places should be carried out on the basis of specific analyses at the MS level. For both auctions and providers of sales notes data, information available on a daily basis should be sought compiled into weekly data
It should be noted that the species selections represent a share of the total value of landings, varying from a minimum of 53% for ES to a maximum of almost 100% for EE, FI, LV, LT, MT, NL, SE. The “Experts Group” discussion, which has been helpful for the development of the present proposal, has also considered both (a) the possible request of remedy actions to the identified sources, where no other appropriate data set has turned out to be available; (b) top priority has been given to the delivery of weekly data by MS. The possibility of providing the EUMOFA with weekly prices deriving from sales notes or auctions depends on the specific MS. As regards the specific sources which could provide sales notes and auction data for objective 1: (i) Sales notes could be provided by the National management bodies which are in charge of collecting sales data; (ii) Auction data could be provided by the auction markets management bodies, auction networks or National management Bodies. In some MS, there would also be the possibility to use pan-European networks (PEFA and EFICE)15 or associations (EAFPA)16. Table 1 gives a snapshot of the existence of these types of data in each MS17.
15 PEFA could provide data for: BE – NL – SE; EFICE for: BE – NL. 16 At present EAFPA does not carry out any monitoring activities. However, they have presented a monitoring proposal, which, if accepted, could provide data for: BE – UK – FR – PT – ES – NL – DK – IE – DE – SE – PL – IT – EL. 17 EL is not included in the table, since the survey of data availability is still on going.
8
Table 1 - Existence of weekly prices from sales notes/auctions by MS and source Group 4f Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 limited/no sales notes (s.n) only sales notes data only markets data landings and not and markets data (m.d.) available data BE [s.n.] FDVOb EE Ministry of Agricultureb CY DMFRb, e AT [m.d.] PEFAb FI MMMb DK DFDb BG [m.d.] EFICEb FR FranceAgriMera NL PEFAb CZ DE [s.n.] BLEb IE SFPAb EFICEb HU [m.d.] Bremerhavena, c LV Ministry of Agricultureb PT Docapescab LU IT [s.n.] ISMEAa LT Ministry of Agricultureb ES Mercapescaa RO [m.d.] ISMEAb MT VAFDb MARM (PMO) a SK SE [s.n.] SBF d PL CMRb IS RSFa SI [m.d.] PEFA (Smögen Mkt.) b NO NRa [m.d.] Göteborg Mkt. SUROFIa UK [s.n.] MMOb NSSa [m.d.] Grimsby b [m.d.] Peterheadb [m.d.] Shetlandb a Sources which can provide price data on a weekly basis either through sales notes or market data. b Sources for which a short-term remedy action is requested (the effects of the remedy action can be operative within the period of the contract of the present project). The most frequent remedy consists in the management of data on a weekly basis. c Bremerhaven auction for Redfish imported from Iceland. d SBF is not available in compiling the data on a weekly basis, EUMOFA could make the aggregation by itself. e Weekly data are not available. Monthly data on prices satisfy Obj. 1 needs. f This group comprises: the 6 MS whose inclusion within the option is not strictly necessary (AT, CZ, HU, LU, SK, SI); RO and BG for which weekly delivery are considered not feasible. Table 2 - Pros/cons analysis of option FS 1.1-fishery Analysis components Pros Cons The most important species will be covered. The A) Information Species selections might be subject to annual solution is easy to manage and the price effectiveness reviews.. information should be complete. Good. Public national bodies, and single market B) Reliability for data management bodies or networks are considered feeding reliable. Difficulties may occur for weekly data to be provided by MS which do not already have Good for most countries. Generally only short- C) Information availability appropriate collection systems, or where the term remedy actions are needed. management of data on a weekly basis is requested. D) Costs of data feeding Where requested, remedy actions could entail No expected cost for data use/collection. for the EUMOFA additional costs for their implementation. Geographic coverage is good. 18 MS included in the collection, plus Norway and Iceland. Greece E) Information relevance could also be included, depending on information in relation to Project availability. For most MS the frequency of data objective delivery, possibly improved through remedy actions, will be in line with the objective.
Aquaculture sector
As mentioned above, there is scant availability of data on the first sale of aquaculture products, with prices and volumes generally not collected on a weekly basis, but in a few cases. For these reasons, it would be very difficult to have total coverage and frequent deliveries of first-sale prices of aquaculture products at a reasonable cost. Therefore, the most realistically achievable solution could be to periodically provide price data on a large scale, by using already existing price monitoring initiatives together with new information gathered through the setting up of a benchmarking system covering a selection of species/MS. Benchmarking is a methodology based on a systematic comparison between products, performances or processes of different organisations, that is generally carried out by means of direct interviews with operators.
9
The choice of which specific species/markets to focus on should be based on the balance between costs versus usage of setting up such a system. It should be noted that, through our proposal of a benchmarking system, the main species of fin-fishes farmed at EU level would be covered. As regards bivalves, among the main species, it would be possible to collect data on mussels, on the other hand it would not be possible to monitor oysters, because their production is highly fragmented, and because the high market power of a few producers might compromise the reliability of the monitoring system In light of the findings on the Aquaculture information scenario, reported in paragraph 4.1.1, it might be more appropriate to set up the proposed benchmarking system based on monthly data, rather than weekly. Therefore the option proposed is the following : Option FS 1.2-Aquaculture: Use existing price monitoring initiatives on aquaculture, and set up benchmarking systems on a monthly basis to provide the EUMOFA with price data:
- Existing initiatives: (a) Seabream in Italy, Spain; (b) Seabass in Italy; (c) Fresh Atlantic salmon in Norway ; (d) Trout in France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Spain and Denmark; (e) Mollusks/Mussels in Italy, Spain, Netherland; (f) other finfish in Italy.
- Benchmarking systems: (a) Seabass and Seabream in Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, Spain (Seabass only), (b) potentially fresh Atlantic salmon in United Kingdom and Ireland, and (c) potentially fresh Trout in UK and Finland.
The existing initiatives mentioned above should feed the Observatory, with the frequency and time lag currently available, and without any attempt to harmonise or alter the specifications or methodologies already adopted. This implies, for instance, that price observations for the same species may not be equally detailed down to sizes or presentation, nor equally representative, and nor will they necessarily be comparable between various MS. The following table reports the exiting initiatives by MS and species:
Table 3 – Existing aquaculture monitoring initiatives by MS and species Seabass & Rainbow Trout Atlantic Salmon Mollusks/mussels Other finfish Seabream IT ISMEAa FR Aller Aquaa NO NOS Clearingb IT ISMEAa IT ISMEAa ES MARMb, c IT Aller Aquaa ES MARMb ISMEAa NL P.Vis Musselb DE Aller Aquaa PL Aller Aquaa ES MARMb DK Aller Aquaa a Monthly price data b Weekly price data c Only Seabream As far as the benchmarking system is concerned, its nature implies that the provider in charge of the system (to be selected by EUMOFA management body) has to be able to offer a valuable bargaining chip to aquaculture producers (e.g. confidential information on prices, market trend, etc.) and should be an acknowledged “authority” in the field. That is to say either (i) a Professional Association at transnational level or (ii) a highly specialised subject with an internationally established reputation, which has already succeeded in carrying out similar initiatives. These are fundamental preconditions for reaching the goal of overcoming producers’ possible reluctance to disclose the information requested.
10
Table 4 - Pros/cons analysis of option FS 1.2-Aquaculture Analysis components Pros Cons
Main farmed finfish species and mussels, A) Information production would be covered. Geographic Inland aquatic production is not covered. effectiveness coverage would be assured.
Good. Existing initiatives are carried out by Some actors might not be willing to participate. B) Reliability for data reliable sources, and the benchmarking system Data consistency may vary according to the feeding will be assigned to a private provider specialised source. in this kind of service. The setting up of the benchmarking systems The time lag of the benchmarking system could would require even up to 10-30 months to C) Information availability be tailored to the needs of the EUMOFA . It will activate the mutual exchange of data. The be easy to gather data from existing sources. agreements have to be set up from scratch.
D) Costs of data feeding Setting up a benchmarking system can be very Free for existing initiatives. for the EUMOFA costly.
Monthly frequency can be considered adequate for the objective, and in any case better than what is currently available. The information E) Information relevance resulting from this option would provide data on Despite being costly, this option does not have a in relation to Project a group of highly-standardised products, predetermined likelihood of success.. objective allowing a comparison between the various MS. The benchmarking system will provide an high added value to the existing information scenario.
Objective 2 Fishery sector Similarly to Objective 1, our approach has been aimed at taking advantage of existing structures. Sales notes and auction data have once again turned out to be the most relevant sources to feed the EUMOFA. The Fisheries Data Exchange Server (FIDES-MIS) should also be taken into account as a potential source for objective 2, with the concrete possibility for the EUMOFA to adopt FIDES-MIS quarterly data on volumes and values for some MS, and specifically in order to cope with the possible lack, at national level, of both “sales notes data” and “market data”. However, it should be noted that at present FIDES-MIS does not completely meet the purposes of the EUMOFA18. Further expected improvements in data reporting from MS to FIDES-MIS could make these data more suitable for the purposes of the Observatory. As regards the requirement of geographic breakdown for first sale data, “Experts Group” discussion session has pointed out that the subdivision into NUTS 1 might not be always flexible enough to provide information consistent with the scope of the Observatory. As a matter of fact, there is a number of MS where NUTS 1 does not represent any improved level of information compared to NUTS 0, because the NUTS subdivision was not specifically designed to take fisheries activities into account. As a consequence, where possible, it would be more useful to gather data subdivided by sea basin more useful from a market intelligence perspective, such as the “geographic areas” covered by the Regional Advisory Council, set out in Annex 1 of the Council Decision (2004/585/EC) of 19 July 200419.
18 At present 17 MS are reporting data on a selection of species to FIDES-MIS on a quarterly basis. In the most recent data sample, containing the 4 quarters of 2009, the data on volumes and values proved to be consistent with “the top 15 species by MS” (as reported by EUROSTAT data on landed species), for a limited number of species (1 to 8 species by MS) and only for 10 MS. 19 For the landings of fresh fisheries products the most relevant areas are defined as (a) the Baltic Sea, (b) the Mediterranean Sea, (c) the North Sea, (d) north-western waters, and (e) south-western waters.
11
For Romania and Bulgaria, at present, the compiling system is manual and based on paper reporting, therefore a monthly delivery is considered unfeasible before the EUMOFA handover to DG-MARE. For Greece, the survey of data availability is still on going. Equally to Objective 1, 6 MS might not be included within the proposed option (Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Slovenia), considering they are not particularly remarkable in terms of first sale volumes. The proposed option is therefore as follows:
Option FS 2.1-fishery: Use of monthly price and volume data deriving from sales notes or auction data on the First sale of F&A products: - “as they are”, for the MS where data collection is already carried out on a monthly basis or - after the implementation of possible improvement actions for those MS where routines are adequate but data are not currently published on a monthly basis or need to be enhanced.
Considering the limited range of useful FIDES MIS data, for the purposes of the EUMOFA, at present FIDES- MIS could be considered only as an additional source, although limited to a few species (1 to 6 species by MS) and MS (BE-DK-FR-DE-LT-NL-PT-SE-UK). As already mentioned for Objective 1, sales notes could be provided by the National bodies which are in charge of collecting landings data, while auction data could be provided either by the management bodies of the auction markets, auction networks, National management Bodies or pan-European/transnational sources (PEFA and EFICE)20. DG-MARE FIDES MIS could be considered as a potential source to provide quarterly data. The possibility of providing the EUMOFA with monthly prices and volumes deriving from sales notes or auctions depends on the specific MS. Table 5 gives a snapshot of the existence of these types of data in each MS21.
Table 5 - Existence of monthly prices and volumes from sales notes/auctions by MS and source Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4c sales notes (s.n.) only sales notes data only markets data limited/no and markets data (m.d.) landings and not available data BE [s.n.] FVDOb EE Ministry of Agricultureb CY DMFRb AT [m.d.] PEFAb FI MMMb DK DFDa BG [m.d.] EFICEb FR FranceAgriMera FIDES CZ FIDES FIDES NL PEFAb HU IT [s.n.] ISMEAa IE SFPAa EFICEb LU [m.d.] ISMEAb LV MoAa FIDES RO SE [s.n.] SBF a LT Ministry of Agricultureb PT DGPAb SK [m.d.] PEFA (Smögen) b FIDES FIDES SI FIDES MT VAFDa IS Fiskistofab PL CMRa NO FIDIRa DE BLEb FIDES ES MARMb UK MMOa FIDES a Sources which can provide price data on a monthly basis either through sales notes or market data. b Sources for which a short-term remedy action is requested (the effects of the remedy action can be operative within the period of the contract of the present project). The most frequent remedy consists in the management of data on a monthly basis. For DE and ES the breakdown of data by sea-basin is requested. c This group comprises: the 6 MS whose inclusion within the option is not strictly necessary (AT, CZ, HU, LU, SK, SI); RO and BG for which monthly deliveries are considered feasible only in the long term.
20 PEFA for: BE – NL – SE; EFICE for: BE – NL. 21 EL is not included in the table, since the survey of data availability is still on going.
12
Table 6 - Pros/cons analysis of option FS 2.1-Fishery Analysis components Pros Cons A) Information Good, all the species would be covered effectiveness Good. Public national bodies, and single market Given the plurality of sources, data B) Reliability for data management bodies or networks are considered harmonisation may turn out to be particularly feeding reliable. difficult. Difficulties may occur for monthly data to be provided by MS which do not already have Good for most countries. Generally only short- C) Information availability appropriate collection systems, or where the term remedy actions are needed. management of data on a monthly basis is requested. D) Costs of data feeding Where requested, remedy actions could entail No expected cost for data use/collection. for the EUMOFA additional costs for their implementation. Geographic coverage is good. 18 MS included in the collection, plus Norway and Iceland. Greece E) Information relevance could also be included, depending on information in relation to Project availability. For most MS the frequency of data objective delivery, possibly improved through remedy actions, will be in line with the objective.
Objective 2 Aquaculture sector
Existing initiatives regarding the collection of first-sale volumes and prices are so limited that the most reasonable remedy action to have a complete picture of the MS situation, to be in line with the requirements of Objective 2 would be: Option FS 2.2a - aquaculture: Implementation of a legal basis obliging MS to collect and publish data on a more frequent basis than the annual information currently available. This remedy could be reached only in the long term, and would require a previous agreement with EUROSTAT.
The implementation of a new legal basis would determine (i) a completely different information scenario than the one analysed and (ii) an unpredictable set of operative specifications on data gathering for the purposes of the EUMOFA . Therefore neither option specifications nor pros/cons analysis are proposed. Since option FS 2.2a-aquaculture could be operative only in the long term and on the other hand considering that, unlike fisheries, the production volume for aquaculture products is quite steady over the year, and changes from quarter to quarter are generally limited, a second option is proposed in the short term: Option FS 2.2b – aquaculture: Establish a system for reporting prices and volumes on a quarterly basis. This system is meant to be an extension of the existing initiatives and the benchmarking system proposed for objective 1-aquaculture. The benchmarking system should also monitor volumes whenever the existing initiatives only survey prices.
For the Pros/Cons analysis see the results reported for Option 1.2-aquaculture. In addition to these Pros and Cons it should be considered that this option entails further risks, summarised as follows: - The information coverage of this option (extension of monitoring system proposed for prices only in Objective 1) would be sufficient for giving a meaningful price indicator but would not be enough to provide an exhaustive and detailed estimate on “volume of sold production” as requested for Objective 2. In fact, even a limited monitoring effort may well provide a reliable reference price, while, on the other hand, an adequate estimate of volume figures could be obtained only through a wide coverage of sold volumes. This would imply high costs.
13
- Producers might be reluctant to participate in the benchmarking system, especially with regard to volume data, considered as very “confidential”. Therefore the setting up of further benchmarking systems aimed at completely meeting Objective 2 (exhaustiveness of products/markets and volume information on a quarterly basis), has to be evaluated on the basis of (a) the uncertainty of the outcome, and (b) the limited “added value” of exhaustive quarterly volume data compared with other possible “Market Intelligence solutions” (e.g.: “indices or trends” on production volumes, which could be estimated from Objective 1 data gathering).
Objective 3 Fishery sector
Landings figures from EUROSTAT are proposed as the main source of yearly data, since EUROSTAT is the statistical office of the EU. EUROSTAT compiles information on captured and landed quantities in the MS of the EU, plus Norway and Iceland. Both datasets can be available for the Observatory on a yearly basis. Nevertheless, “EUROSTAT’s landings” database should be the preferred source for Objective 3 since in “EUROSTAT’s catches” database fish products’ presentation and values are not available. However, EUROSTAT’s reporting of data on fisheries and aquaculture products is less timely compared to some national sources and organisations in 8 MS22 plus Norway and Iceland. For this reason, it is proposed that other sources be considered too in order to collect figures which could be used as “preliminary indicators”, before EUROSTAT’s data sets are published (6 months after the reference period). . On the contrary, the use of FAO figures is not proposed, since their time lag is too long (16 months after the period of reference). Like objective 2, where possible, data should be gathered and broken down by the same “geographic areas” covered by the Regional Advisory Council, set out in Annex 1 of the Council Decision (2004/585/EC) of 19 July 2004. As a conclusion, the proposed option is the following:
Option FS 3.1-fishery: Use of both: - MS annual data as preliminary “indicators” until EUROSTAT data are published. - EUROSTAT annual landings data, as soon as available (usually six months after the year of reference).
The following table reports the national sources of annual data, which can be used as “preliminary figures”:
Table 7 – Sources proposed for preliminary figures, by MS Source CY DMFR DK DFD FR France AgriMer, DPMA IT ISMEA, IREPA PT DGPA, INE ES MARM SE SBF UK MMO IS Fiskistofa NO FIDIR
22 CY – DK - FR – IT – PT – ES – SE – UK.
14
Table 8 - Pros/cons analysis of option FS 3.1-Fishery Analysis components Pros Cons A) Information National market representativeness is adequate, as effectiveness data should present all the species monitored by MS. Good, data are gathered from national public sources B) Reliability for data as preliminary information, and from EUROSTAT as final feeding figures. Data from both EUROSTAT and national sources are C) Information availability available with a time lag in line with the objective.. D) Costs of data feeding for Data are reliable and available, so no further Human the EUMOFA Resources costs should be considered. E) Information relevance in Data will be regarded as “preliminary”, relation to Project until EUROSTAT data are available. objective
Objective 3 Aquaculture sector Even in the case of aquaculture, EUROSTAT is proposed as the source of yearly data, since its figures are based on official national data23. Since EUROSTAT’s reporting of data on fisheries and aquaculture products is less timely than those of FEAP and AEPM, data from these two sources could be used as “preliminary indicators”, before EUROSTAT’s data sets are published (12 months after the reference period). However, agreements with the FEAP and the AEPM should be established in order to improve the quality of their data and the current delivery time lag. In particular, as mentioned in section 4.1.1, AEPM covers 7 MS but has no systematic data dissemination routines. The proposed option is therefore the following: Option FS 3.2-Aquaculture: Use of both
- FEAP and AEPM annual data as preliminary “indicators”, until EUROSTAT data are published.
- EUROSTAT annual data from the “Aquaculture production” database as soon as available (usually within 12 months after the year of reference)
Table 9 - Pros/cons analysis of option FS 3.2-Aquaculture Analysis components Pros Cons
Good coverage. National market A) Information representativeness is adequate, as data should effectiveness present all the species monitored by MS.. B) Reliability for data Good, as far as data from EUROSTAT and FEAP For AEPM at present there are no systematic feeding are concerned. data dissemination routines. Data from FEAP are available with a time lag in For AEPM at present there are no systematic C) Information availability line with the objective. Final figures from data dissemination routines. EUROSTAT are publically available. D) Costs of data feeding Data are reliable and available, so no further for the EUMOFA Human Resources costs should be considered. Geographic coverage is good, considering the fact that FEAP and AEPM members would E) Information relevance represent the majority of producers in the EU. Data from FEAP and AEPM will be regarded as in relation to Project The annual figures from FEAP are released more “preliminary” until EUROSTAT data are available. objective swiftly than EUROSTAT data for the year of reference.
23 FAO data are also based on official national data but are published with a time lag longer than Eurostat’s figures
15
4.2 Wholesale stage
4.2.1 Results of the survey and most relevant sources identified
The Wholesale Stage in EU MS entails a very differentiated set of economic agents, and is basically composed of wholesale market places and/or private intermediaries and traders, which directly sell to processing, HORECA and Large-Scale Retail companies, without using physical market places, where monitoring tasks could take place. For this reason, it is not possible to identify a homogeneous profile of the Wholesale Stage in all EU MS. According to the survey results, this stage presents different degrees of organization across MS, with corresponding levels of data availability. Albeit schematically, the 27 MS could be grouped in three categories, according to the degree of organisation of their wholesale stages: - Group 1 (including France, Italy and Spain) – the wholesale stage is well-defined, relevant in terms of product flows within the supply chain; data and information have different frequencies and different levels of availability; several subjects (public or private) perform trend analysis or market monitoring activities. - Group 2 (including Germany, Poland and the United Kingdom) – it is possible to detect the existence of the wholesale stage in general, but there is a very unclear borderline between first sale, wholesale and the other stages of the supply chain, and appropriate information is not available at present. - Group 3 (including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden) – the wholesale stage is not significant either due to the specific market organisation or to the small amount of marketed product. As regards data sources, the most relevant which have been identified during the survey phase are market management bodies (single or networks) and public bodies. Both provide officially validated information on prices and, occasionally, volumes. Prices are monitored on a daily or weekly basis and are often considered by the operators as a benchmark which can also be valid to regulate exchanges occurring outside the markets. These sources cover a considerable share of product trade in France, Italy and Spain where wholesale exchanges represent 10% or more of the total apparent consumption. In all the other MS, exchanges occurring in wholesale markets do not even reach 10% of the national trade of fishery products, and data are not available throughout the various sources. As regards major wholesalers that do not use market places, it would be very difficult for the EUMOFA to acquire information from them, since private companies are often reluctant to disclose their data because of confidentiality and competition issues. Furthermore, these data may only give a partial description of the national market, and strategic behaviour by firms could influence their representation. As far as the value-adding process taking place in the wholesale stage is concerned, it will be dealt with in the section dedicated to Objective 4.
4.2.2 Data feeding structural options, common proposals for the 3 Project Objectives Objective 1, 2 and 3
The structural options have been developed on the basis of the three above-mentioned groups of MS. Furthermore, since in a given country the same data source is often proposed for all three objectives, for
16 the sake of brevity, the structural options will be presented by group of countries, rather than by single objectives. Group 1
Considering the structure of the wholesale stage and the availability of private/public monitoring networks, the data feeding options that best meet Objectives 1, 2, and 3 would require the combined use of various sources, with different degrees of integration, as follows : Options W 1-A, W 2-A and W 3-A24 As regards obj. 1, 2, and 3: The collection of wholesale weekly, monthly, and yearly price data (and volumes for Obj. 2 and 3) from national monitoring bodies and from single market management bodies (or networks where available) is proposed. Nomenclature harmonisation is proposed for obj. 2 and 3. Options W 3-B As regards obj. 3 only: The harmonisation of data concerning a list of selected products, according to a standard classification based on preservation state and presentation is proposed.
Data from the selected sources are often provided only on a daily and/or weekly basis or are not differentiated by market place. Similarly to the first sale stage, the identified sources are not always able to provide data which fully meet the Observatory requirements. Therefore, different remedies may be necessary also for the wholesale stage. Furthermore, in a few cases information on volumes is missing. In all these instances, the remedy may be to reach direct agreements with the selected source in order to manage data on a weekly/monthly/yearly basis. The following table reports the sources which have been identified as potential providers of wholesale data for France, Italy and Spain.
Table 10 - Proposed sources for the first group of MS (FR, IT and ES)*
Public institutes Markets managing bodies or networks
[Obj. 1, 2, 3] Infomercati (redistribution [Obj. 1, 2, 3] ISMEAa (redistribution markets: markets covered: Roma, Milano, Firenze, IT Roma, Milano and Torino; Mixed markets: IT Torino, Trieste, Cagliari) Catania, Chioggia, Molfetta, Trieste) [Obj. 1, 2] Veneziab redistribution market
[Obj. 1, 2, 3] MARM-PMO (data based on Mercasac, but no complete correspondence [Obj. 1, 2, 3] Mercasac (managing a network ES ES between the species covered by PMO’s which consists of 23 MERCAS) reports and Mercasa weekly bulletin)
[Obj. 1, 2, 3] FranceAgrimerd (covers the two FR major wholesale markets: Rungis and Rouen). * the main markets are in boldface a ISMEA: the collection (except Turin, already published), and management of data on volumes on a monthly and yearly basis is requested for Objective 2 and 3 only. b Venezia market: if it is not included within Infomercati, the management of data on a weekly and monthly basis will be requested. c MARM-PMO: the collection and management of data on volumes on a monthly and yearly basis is requested for Objective 2 and 3 only. Mercasa: management of daily price data on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis. Volume data collection and management on a monthly and yearly basis. The main 5 Mercas covered by Mercasa are: Mercamadrid, Mercabarna, Mercabilbao, Mercasevilla and Mercavalencia. d Rouen: management of price data on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis. Publishing of volume data on a monthly basis (yearly publication already available). Rungis: request for volume data collection on a monthly basis. Management of monthly price and volume data on a yearly basis.
24 MS of Group 1 are also included in four other options (W 1-B, W 2-B, W 3-C and W 3-D), which entail the extension of the survey to the MS of Group 2. However these options are not mentioned in this section since, as far as Group 1 is concerned, they do not differ from those presented here (W 1-B=W 1-A, W 2-B=W 2-A, W 3-C=W 3-A and W 3-D=W 3-B).
17
Table 11 - Pros/cons analysis of the options for the wholesale stage, for the MS of group 1 Analysis components Pros Cons
A) Information Data cover the major species, and are representative of
effectiveness national markets. Data are provided by official authorities, market B) Reliability for data management bodies or markets networks, and thus could feeding be considered considered very reliable. The time lag of delivery will be in line with the three C) Information availability Objectives. Data from FranceAgriMer – SNM are available via paid subscription. D) Costs of data feeding Data from ISMEA, MARM-PMO and Mercasa are free Additional costs might be needed for for the EUMOFA those sources which do not collect volumes. E) Information relevance Geographic coverage is good; the 3 MS where the in relation to Project wholesale stage is well-defined are covered. objectives
Group 2
Germany, and the United Kingdom at present at present are not surveyed. On the contrary, in Poland, there is a a private provider which carries out a monitoring activity limited to MAKRO, while GUS provides monthly wholesale average prices for carp and trout. Considering the high fragmentation of the sector in these 3 MS25, and the high cost that the EUMOFA would have to bear to survey these MS, a solution could be not to cover these three MS at all.26 On the other hand, considering that F&A products are rather relevant for these Countries, a collection27 of data from these 3 MS could be proposed as follows:
Options W 1-B, W 2-B and W 3-C28 As regards obj. 1, 2, and 3: The collection of wholesale weekly, monthly, and yearly price data (and volumes for Obj. 2 and 3) from national monitoring bodies, single market management bodies, and private information providers is proposed. Nomenclature harmonisation is proposed for obj. 2 and 3. Options W 3-D As regards obj. 3 only: The harmonisation of data concerning a list of selected products, according to a standard classification based on preservation state and presentation is proposed.
The following table reports the sources which have been identified as potential providers of wholesale data for Germany, Poland and the United Kingdom
25 In Poland, the wholesale market is heterogeneous, and characterised by the presence of a differentiated set of economic agents. In Germany and the UK, there is no clear border between the various stages of the supply chain, with a high level of vertical integration. 26 Options W 1-A, W 2-A, W 3-A and W 3-B do not cover the MS belonging to Group 2. 27 Limiting wholesale monitoring: in PL and DE to the most relevant wholesalers such as: MAKRO in Poland, METRO and Deutsche See in Germany in UK to a single outstanding wholesale market, Billingsgate Market 28 MS of Group 1 are also included in four other options (W 1-B, W 2-B, W 3-C and W 3-D), which entail the extension of the survey to the MS of Group 2. However these options are not mentioned in this section since, as far as Group 1 is concerned, they do not differ from those presented here (W 1-B=W 1-A, W 2-B=W 2-A, W 3-C=W 3-A and W 3-D=W 3-B).
18
Table 12 – Proposed sources for the second group of MS
Public monitoring bodies Markets managing bodies Private information provider
[Obj. 1, 2, 3] Billingsgate [Obj. 1, 2, 3] BLEa: proposal for market: proposal for the [Obj. 1, 2] Wydawnictwo direct interviews to METRO and restoring the data MPR: weekly price data DE Deutsche See on a weekly basis. UK collection system on a PL from METRO chain. A Management of the data on a weekly basis. Management remedy action for monthly weekly, monthly and yearly basis. of the data on a weekly, volumes is requested. monthly and yearly basis. [Obj. 2, 3] GUS: monthly survey on wholesalers and few species. A remedy action for monthly PL volumes is requested. Management of data on a yearly basis. a BLE or a Private provider if BLE is not available for the setting up of the survey.
Table 13 - Pros/cons analysis of options for the wholesale stage, for the MS of Group 2 Analysis Pros Cons components A) Information BLE does not carry out any monitoring activity at Good products coverage for UK and PL effectiveness present, and it should be set up from scratch. GUS, MPR, and the Billingsgate market management B) Reliability for data Data gathering from a single provider might body have an acknowledged experience to provide feeding convey distorted information. reliable data. MPR and GUS already provide data with an C) Information acceptable time lag. In the case of BLE and the availability Billingsgate market management body, the delivery time lag could be defined in the agreement. As regards the UK and Germany, a cost has to be D) Costs of data feeding considered for data gathering and management. Limited costs in Poland. for the EUMOFA A possible cost is also to be considered for collection of volumes by GUS. E) Information relevance in relation to Sufficient geographic coverage. Project objective
Group 3 The wholesale stage is not detectable either due to the specific market organisation or to the small amount of marketed production. Therefore, no monitoring is proposed.
19
4.3 Import/Export stage
The Import/Export supply chain stage play a pivotal role in the EUMOFA market intelligence activity, considering that the Food Balance of fish and fishery products at EU level largely depends on imports. It is important to point out that a large part of intra EU flows are actually flows originally coming from third countries, and then re-exported in other MS, with an additional charge. In light of this consideration, it can be explained why, as reported in the following figure, in most MS, the share of intra-EU imports is far higher than the share of extra-EU imports.
Figure 3 - Comparison of “intra EU” vs “extra EU” Imports (F&A products - EUROSTAT-COMEXT classification HS-4 clusters; % in volume) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK intraEU - import extraEU - import
Source: EUROSTAT 2009
4.3.1 Results of the survey and most relevant sources identified
The overall EU information scenario concerning the Import/Export stage is basically obtained from three types of data sources: - National Statistical Institutes; - DG TAXUD Surveillance system (TSS); - EUROSTAT-COMEXT. Each of these subjects is based on a unique primary source: the National Customs Agencies. National Statistics Institutes as well as EUROSTAT-COMEXT process, harmonise and aggregate data by themselves using their internal methodologies. As a consequence, many discrepancies have emerged not only between National sources and EUROSTAT-COMEXT data, but also among MS, for the following reasons: (a) different use of the trade recording systems (“general trade” and “special trade”) among MS, (b) frequent exclusion of “goods in transit” from trade statistics (especially from national statistics), (c) different treatment of “country of origin” and “country of consignment” among EU MS29 (d) intra-EU asymmetries. It is not possible to overcome these discrepancies in the short term, since significant
29 Some Member States provide EUROSTAT with data on their main inward flows to on the basis of the country of origin, but publish them on the basis of the country of consignment. Other Member States adopt different criteria for the two publications, with respect to a particular limited category of goods.
20 improvements in collecting and processing methodologies should be made, and a “legislative intervention” would need to be carried out by the European Commission. As a matter of fact, discrepancies are sometimes the result of provisions laid down in EC Regulations (e.g. thresholds applied, general statistics vs special statistics, etc.). As specifically regards weekly data, the survey has shown that no weekly data are available at the National level as regards the Import/export stage (with the only exceptions of Portugal and Norway), while they are available at EU level through DG TAXUD Surveillance system. Nevertheless, it should be noted that TSS data have the following limits: - Only imports data from extra-EU countries are surveyed; - Not all imports are declared on a daily basis30 (for large imports, monthly clearing is allowed by regulation on data transmission from customs to national authorities) With respect to intra- and extra-EU flows on a monthly and yearly basis, both statistical institutes and EUROSTAT-COMEXT publish useful data. Finally, as far as the value-adding process taking place in the Import/Export stage is concerned, it will be dealt with in the section dedicated to Objective 4.
4.3.2 Data feeding structural options, by project objective
Objective 1
It emerged from the “Experts Group” discussion session that TSS data could be useful to feed the EUMOFA in line with the requirements of Objective 1. For the general purposes of the Observatory, it would be interesting to have a flexible list of species to follow all over the year through TSS data, because in specific Countries some products are subject to recurring seasonal changes. Indeed the market intelligence activity carried out by the EUMOFA should easily understand and adapt to fast changes occurring in the international scenario. For this reason, the Observatory should gather all the available data from TSS on a weekly basis (all imported species) and focus only on the species and information which can be considered as relevant and representative of imports of the former week. In addition to mere data, TSS also produces a very useful tool for market intelligence activities, the Weekly Alert, which each week highlights all remarkable prices fluctuations compared with the previous week, and could be taken into consideration to be disseminated also by the EUMOFA. The data feeding proposal is the following: Option IE 1-A: All weekly data on prices should be collected by the EUMOFA from DG-TAXUD Surveillance System (TSS), on extra–EU imports. Published data should be based on a “flexible” approach, which consists in selecting the relevant species from the former week, in order to pave the way for the adoption of a dynamic monitoring tool, which can easily adapt to rapid changes in EU imports.
It should also be pointed out that only data on “fresh and chilled fish products” should be taken into consideration in this section, given that processed products (i.e. frozen, canned, prepared and preserved) should pertain to the “Processing” stage.
30 For further detail, see Section 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1192/2008 of 17 November 2008 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 establishing a Community Customs Code.
21
Table 14 - Pros/cons analysis of option IE – 1A Analysis Pros Cons components Not every fresh product is reported on a weekly A) Information TSS data would make it possible to collect complete and basis. Intra-EU Imports are not included. Exports effectiveness representative data on extra-EU imports. are not covered B) Reliability for data TSS is reliable since data are based on official documents Weekly data are constantly readjusted (and they feeding (data from National Customs Agencies). change quite often) Data relating to the simplified declaration Data of the previous week are usually available on Fridays. C) Information system, are available 15 days after the month of TSS system is managed by DG-TAXUD, within the European availability reference. Some limits concerning confidential Commission. It should be easy to reach an agreement data may arise. No Human Resources costs for collection or quality checks D) Costs of data feeding since collection and checks are already carried out by DG- for the EUMOFA TAXUD E) Information relevance in relation to Extra-EU imports of all 27 EU MS are covered. Project objective
Objective 2 and 3
As far as monthly and yearly data are concerned, national statistics institutes and EUROSTAT-COMEXT have been identified as possible data sources, respectively at the national and EU level. Nevertheless, EUROSTAT-COMEXT has shown itself to be the most appropriate source to meet both Objective 2 and Objective 3, since data from National Statistics Institutes are further managed and harmonised by EUROSTAT. Moreover, collecting data at the national level would entail a double delivery by MS to different EU services. Therefore feeding options are the following:
Options IE 2-A and 3-A – Intra- and extra-EU trade data of all 27 EU MS should be gathered from EUROSTAT-COMEXT in all the available specifications (volumes, values) on a monthly and yearly basis.
Data periodically extracted from EUROSTAT–COMEXT database will be elaborated and presented in graphs and tables specifically designed for the EUMOFA purposes. In case a comparison of data from different sources is needed, the EUMOFA could adopt the code grouping system (EFTAP) developed by DG-MARE.
Table 15 - Pros/cons analysis of option IE – 2A and option IE - 3A Analysis Pros Cons components A) Information All species would be covered. Data would be
effectiveness complete and highly representative. B) Reliability for Source and data are reliable. Harmonisation is
data feeding performed by EUROSTAT Yearly data are delivered in time (even if they are It could take up to two years to have definitive C) Information provisional). data, since continuous reviews and validations availability EUROSTAT - COMEXT is an EU Service and it should occur over the year be easy to reach an agreement. D) Costs of data No costs since data will be provided directly by an EU feeding for the service. EUMOFA E) Information All “Reporter” and “Partner” Countries are surveyed. relevance in relation Data are harmonised using a single methodology to Project objective provided by EUROSTAT.
22
4.4 Processing stage
The seafood processing industry presents significant differences among MS, as Figure 4 shows. In order to report National figures for processed production as faithfully as possible we have grouped PRODCOM volumes of end products (according to the aggregation proposed by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries -STECF)31.
As the figure clearly shows, the most represented groups are “fresh and chilled”, “frozen”, “smoked” “dried and salted”, “prepared and preserved” and “other crustaceans/shellfish” which amount to more than 75% of total production in Ireland, Spain, Italy and Norway and more than 90% in the remaining Countries, with the only exception of Finland.
Figure 4 – Processed fish production by status (% on total volumes of final products - 2007) 100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% BE BG DE DK EE EL ES FI FR IE IT LT LV NL PL PT RO SE SK UK IS NO
fresh and chilled frozen smoked dried and salted flours, meals, pellets …. fish otherwise prepared and preserved crustaceans and other shellfish other crustaceans and other shellfish inedible products
Source: Our elaboration based on PRODCOM – EUROSTAT data – 2007
4.4.1 Results of the survey and most relevant sources identified
According to the survey phase, this stage has proved to be the weakest link of the supply chain in terms of data availability. Production costs, margin and price data are particularly poor for the processing stage. Furthermore, most public and private statistics are on a yearly basis, and analyse the fish processing industry as a whole32, therefore very little information is available on the different sub-sectors. At the international level, the most extensive monitoring system is managed by the FISH INFOnetwork, a FAO organization represented at the EU level by GLOBEFISH. At the EU level, Market monitoring initiatives and analyses concerning the processing industry are mostly carried out by professional or national organisations, or by sector-based “market analysis” specialists. Public bodies only collect macro-economic statistical information: ‐ Sector and branch structural statistics, based on two mandatory EU surveys, the Structural Business Statistics (SBS) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF); ‐ Volumes and values of marketed production, by type of product, within the EU mandatory PRODCOM survey, which is the only available tool in the EU, analyzing industrial production by
31 This aggregation is presented within the “Report on the Evaluation of Data Collection Related to the Fish Processing Sector” by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). 32 National statistics often consider the different activities coming under processing of fisheries and aquaculture products as a whole (NACE 1020 level).
23
segment (Frozen, Tuna canning, Sardine canning, Salmon smoking, Herring smoking, salting and drying, etc.). If we focus on the 5 main fish-processing MS of the EU, information is limited to national statistics in Germany, while in France, Italy, Spain and the UK professional organisations carry out yearly or half-yearly surveys. In the remaining 22 MS, statistical data are very poor and usually based on the PRODCOM system. Moreover, regardless of the Member State, it appears that: - Professional “observatories” focus on production and market data rather than on data describing the structure of the sector; - Segmentation by species and/or type of processing activity depends on the importance of the different activities in each MS; - Mixed processing activities such as delicatessen or prepared meals, incorporating aquatic raw materials to various degrees, are often poorly monitored; - Most systems function on a yearly basis and time lags varies from 4 to 7 months after the end of the year of reference. - Fish-processing companies have expressed some concerns about their involvement in the Observatory, lest this might have a negative impact on market strategies and “competition rules”. As far as the value-adding process taking place in the processing stage is concerned, it will be dealt with in the section dedicated to Objective 4.
4.4.2 Data feeding structural options, by project objective Objective 1 and 2
As far as Objectives 1 and 2 are concerned, it should be kept in mind that “no publicity on farm gate prices” is considered to be of strategic importance by fish-processing companies. Furthermore, in most MS public bodies do not publish farm-gate prices. As a consequence there are no available data to fulfil Objectives 1 and 2. A possible way to tackle the problem could be to use “helpful market intelligence markers”, as suggested below: Option P 2-A: Prices and volumes of Extra-EU imports, on a monthly basis, to be gathered from DG TAXUD TSS system, plus Globefish data (prices of imported/exported seafood products), by selecting for both sources the data relating to “raw-materials clearly destined for the processing industry”.
Objective 3
During the “Experts Group” discussion session it emerged that two essential kinds of data should streamline structural analysis, in order to better meet Objective 3, namely: A. Production and sales data based on PRODCOM, national public sources, processors associations statistics, and market analysis specialists (GLOBEFISH or private organisations); B. Economic and financial data (operating costs and margins), for the different sub-sectors and activities based on the annual accounts published by processing companies. Different data feeding proposals have been developed for these two kinds of data; nevertheless, they should not be considered as alternatives, since both kinds of information are complementary for the purposes of objective 3.
24
A) As regards production and sales data, the only option proposed is the following: Options P 3-A: developing a structural analysis of processing industry sub-sectors using data collected from PRODCOM (EU level), and from national public sources and national processors associations, after assessing their reliability, through the cross-analysis of different sources. Data and surveys of the processing stage from F&A market analysis specialists (Globefish or private organisations), or possibly coming from the Antennas System33, should be used as complementary sources.
The following table reports the national sources of yearly production and sales data:
Table 16 – Sources for Production and Sales data on a yearly basis Source DK Institute of Food and Resources Economics (cod - flatfish - salmon) FI Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institutea (FGFRI) (salmon - herring) FR ADEPALE (various products) IT ANCIT (Tuna) LV Central Statistical Bureau (CSB) PL Central Statistical Office (GUS ) PT Instituto Nacional de Estatistica (INE) RO Institutul National de Statistica (NIS) ES ANFACO (canning industry organization) UK Seafish a Reduce time lag for data publishing. It is also proposed that rough information be made available, not through the EUMOFA but through links to official sources’ websites.
Table 17 - Pros/cons analysis of option P 3-A Analysis Pros Cons components The use of different classifications of product A) Information PRODCOM covers all processing industry production. categories between MS and professional effectiveness associations may lead to heterogeneous data. Data reliability depends on the quality of B) Reliability for data information provided by the companies. Good, due to the sources involved. feeding Confidentiality on professional data remains a limit for data reliability. C) Information The time lag of delivery is good. The data gathering availability procedure is easy. D) Costs of data Most information is available for free. Information from feeding for the market analysis specialists could be available at a low EUMOFA cost. E) Information PRODCOM covers EU 27. Professional statistics should relevance in relation further complement information for some MS and to Project objective specific subsectors.
B) As far as economic and financial data are concerned, it has to be pointed out that data currently collected trough DCF and SBS surveys do not provide relevant information at sub-sector level (only macroeconomic data), and therefore they are not suitable for the EUMOFA purposes. For this reason, the option proposed (Option P 3-B) consists in the collection of individual companies’ accounts (on a systematic basis or through a sample of companies), broken down by sub-sector.
33 As analytically proposed in § 4.7
25
The annual financial accounts, published by processing companies34 could be collected and aggregated within the Observatory’s framework. This approach should make it possible to develop different kinds of group analyses, differentiated by type of activity (canning, smoking, etc.). The option proposed is the following: Options P 3-B: All available processing companies’ accounts, and financial/structural data, will be collected at national level from national public sources and supplemented by the purchase of a homogeneous dataset at EU level from a multinational info provider. A group analysis will be conducted in order to assess the average costs and margins indicators for each sub- sector
The following table reports the national sources of yearly economic and financial data:
Table 18 - Sources for economic and financial data on a yearly basis, by MS Source DK Institute of Food and Resources Economics EE Statistics Estoniaa UK Seafish a Reduce time lag for data publishing.
The group analysis approach is described in the chart below:
Figure 5 – Group Analysis approach
Considering that available national and Community business statistics do not provide information by sub- sector or species, analysing margins and economic performances of the different sub-sectors of the fish processing industry will require the development of specific activities within the Observatory.
34 It is estimated that the number of processing companies within the EU are between 3,500 and 4,000
26
Table 19 - Pros/cons analysis of option P 3-B Analysis Pros Cons components Data are complete (70% of companies are surveyed) and Processing companies’ activities are not always A) Information representative of the sector (80% of overall turnover). The perfectly characterized. Sector representativeness effectiveness group analysis allows to obtain sub-sector indicators on depends on information disclosure obligations. costs and margins. Source and data reliability are good (financial accounting B) Reliability for systems). Differences in EU accounting rules do not allow data feeding Data consistency is good at the EU level through a unique access to detailed costs- private source. C) Information Gathering data and setting up agreements will be easy if The data gathering procedure is complicated if availability data are purchased from a Pan-European database. carried out at the MS level. D) Costs of data Private data are not very expensive. No human resources feeding for the costs for collection or quality checks since quality checks are EUMOFA done by the source EU 27 and possibly Iceland, Norway, Turkey and other E) Information Eastern European countries will be covered. The relevance in information would be in line with Obj 3. This option makes it relation to Project possible to carry out sub-sector analysis (impossible with objective existing data)
It should be pointed out that options P3-A and P3-B are complementary in the short and medium term. In the medium-long term, and if possible, it could be proposed to cater to DCF requirements with the objective of providing disaggregated information at sub-sector level.
27
4.5 Consumption stage
A general picture of the stage can be obtained from three charts.
Figure 6 - Consumption of F&A products by status (% in volume – only MS where data are available)
SOURCES AND NOTES: ‐ BE (2000) – “Processed” is made up of conserved and marinated products (source: Ubifrance) ‐ BG – the reported values are rough percentages. Frozen fish (almost all imported) ranges between 50 and 60%, fresh fish (marine and fresh water, including farmed fish) between 30 - 40 %; Processed fish (prepared, incl. canned) between 15 - 20 %. Source: National Association of Fisheries and Aquaculture – Plovdiv (estimates are based on information from monitoring main trade points by Association experts at the end of 2008/2009) ‐ DE (2007), ES (2006), FR (2007), IT (2006), UK (2006), - “Processed” is made up of conserved and marinated products (source: Ernst & Young 200935) ‐ EL (2007) – Source: data from national statistics included in the report “Seafood Market in Greece” by GLOBEFISH (March 2010). “Frozen” corresponds to the sum of the two categories used in the mentioned report “Marine (fresh + frozen)” and “frozen”; our “processing” corresponds to its “other” (cans, smoked, etc.) ‐ FI (2010) . “Processed” is made up of conserved and marinated products (source: Finnish Food and Drink Industries’ Federation, ETL) ‐ HU (2009) –“fresh” includes “live, fresh or chilled products”, “processed” includes canned and preserved products. Source: Ministry of Rural Development ‐ NL (2009) –“fresh” includes “fresh and chilled products”, “processed” includes prepared/canned and others. Source: PVIS, GfK ‐ PL (2009) – Source: Seremak-Bulge J. (ed.), “Fish promotion strategy”, Warsaw 2010 (The calculation is based on estimates made by IERiGZ’s experts team). ‐ NO - processed from S. Flesland's data
This first chart, reporting the shares of consumed F&A products by status for Countries for which data are currently available36, shows that consumption habits differ from Country to Country, although it is possible to identify some similarities between groups of them: a) in the Mediterranean Countries (Spain, France, and Italy) plus Belgium and Finland fresh products represent 50-60% of consumed products. This share decreases to 30-50% in Bulgaria, Ireland, the UK, Netherlands and Hungary, and is even lower in Poland, Germany and Norway. b) as regards the share of frozen products, Germany, Poland and Bulgaria have the highest values. In the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands, the corresponding percentage is around 35%, while in Mediterranean Countries plus Belgium and Finland it is never higher than 25%. Norway, on the other hand, has the lowest share of frozen products. c) the share of processed products by volume is between 10% and 20% in Spain, Bulgaria, France and the Netherlands, and between 20% and 40% in all the remaining Countries. Norway, with a share of almost 75%, represents the only exception.
35 Analyse de l'approvisionnement et de la commercialisation des produits de la pêche et de l'aquaculture dans l’Union Européenne (http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/study_market/fap_part2_fr.pdf). As reported in this study “fresh products” include: smoked, fresh surimi and delicatessen; “frozen products” include also frozen surimi. 36 At the present time, data by volume for AT, DK, IE, LV, LU, PT, CZ, CY, MT, LT, LV, RO, SE, SI, SK and IS are not available
28
The second chart shows that, in all the Countries for which data are currently available37, the share of “domestic consumption” is higher than the share of “HORECA + social Ho.re.ca consumption”, with the only exception of Ireland. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in Italy the share of “extra-domestic” consumption is significantly higher than the corresponding shares in other Countries.
Figure 7 - Domestic versus HORECA consumption (F&A products; % in volume ; only MS where data are available)
SOURCES AND NOTES ‐ BE (2000) – HORECA includes social HORECA (source: Ubifrance) ‐ ES - MERCASA, La alimentación en España – 2009. As regards percentages in terms of value, according to Instituto Cerda (2006) domestic consumption amounts to around 77% ‐ FI (2010) - Finnish Food and Drink Industries’ Federation, ETL ‐ FR - FranceAgriMer – 2008. According to Ofimer (2006) domestic consumption amounts to around 66% in terms of value. ‐ IE - BIM, Irish Seefood Service Report, Oct 2008; we have included what the report indicates as “other destination” in “social HORECA” ‐ IT - ISMEA-ACNielsen – 2006 ‐ PL – HORECA includes social HORECA. These data derive from an estimation by the experts, because there are no precise data on HORECA in Poland. According to the experts’ opinion, the share is low, between 6% and 9%, depending on the estimation methodology. As regards percentages in terms of value, domestic consumption should add up to around 85%38 ‐ NO - processed from S. Flesland's data - 2006/2007 (ho.re.ca presumably includes social ho.re.ca)
The last chart gives the distribution of F&A product sales in different distribution channels in the Countries for which the data are currently available39: in most Countries the share of F&A products sold by large-scale retailers is considerably higher than that referring to products distributed traditionally. The highest values correspond to: Austria, Belgium, France Finland , Ireland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and the UK. Some relevant information, not specifically relating to F&A products but to a “broader concept of food sales” in some of the Countries not included in the chart, report that in CZ, FI, HU, NO, RO, SE, SK the share of “food sales” in LSR is over 65% for all of them.
37 At present, data for LU, PT, IS, DE, NL, BG, CY, CZ, DK, EE, HU, LT, LV, RO, SE, SI, SK, DE and IS are not available. For the UK, the corresponding shares are available only in terms of value and, according to Seafish, in 2005 “at home consumption” was around 45% of the total volume consumed. For Greece, at the end of the supply chain 75 per cent of seafood is purchased for domestic consumption and 25 per cent for use in the catering sector (GLOBEFISH, 2009). 38 Source: report “Analyse de l'approvisionnement et de la commercialisation des produits de la pêche et de l'aquaculture dans l’Union Européenne” (http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/study_market/fap_part2_fr.pdf) 39 At present, data for AT, LU, IS, NO, BG, CZ, CY, EE, HU, LT, MT, RO, SI, SK, SE are not available.
29
Figure 8 - Distribution channels referring to F&A products (% on sales – only MS where data are available)
SOURCES AND NOTES ‐ BE (2000) – Ubifrance ‐ DE, ES, FR, IT, UK (2006) - Ernst & Young (2009)40 ‐ DK – very rough value. Danish Fishmongers association ‐ EL - These data derive from an estimation by experts and refer to large cities. They are also confirmed by the above-mentioned research conducted by GLOBEFISH according to which, “purchases for the home are divided equally between modern channels (supermarket and hypermarket chains) and traditional outlets (fishmongers and street markets). ‐ IE (2009) – our estimation on BIM value “LSR” includes the discounters, while “traditional distribution and others” includes fishmongers and other outlets ‐ FI (2010) - Finnish Food and Drink Industries’ Federation, ETL ‐ LV – the reported percentages refer to purchases in large cities ‐ NL(2009) – traditional distribution includes: mobile shops, fishmongers and others (source: processed data on market shares of consumption channels from Dutch Fish Marketing and GfK41) ‐ PL – Source: Datamonitor, 2005 – Domestic retail market, share of food and beverage sales ‐ PT Portugal – the share of 80% refers to fresh, frozen and processed fish sold in large scale retail units. Source: the National Strategic Plan (NSP). The NSP was produced in 2007, so data are probably from 2006 (no source mentioned)
4.5.1 Results of the survey and most relevant sources identified
Data on the consumption of fish and fish products, as well as price data, are generally based on the following: - Household panels (or Consumer panels): managed either by international providers in most MS, or by domestic marketing research institutions/private actors in a few MS. Household panels provide volume and value data on fish product purchases, not always including fresh products. Data provided by multinational information providers are perceived to be sufficiently valid and reliable because of the intrinsic characteristics of their panels: high sample representativeness, family sampling stratification and sampling strategies. However, data comprehensiveness and frequencies of delivery vary to a great extent, depending on the Country. Data from private providers are widely used and published by public institutions as “national figures”. As regards the frequency of delivery, data purchased from private information providers could be available to the EUMOFA on a monthly basis, while data from national institutions are available either on a monthly or a quarterly basis, depending on individual cases.
40 “Analyse de l'approvisionnement et de la commercialisation des produits de la pêche et de l'aquaculture dans l’Union Européenne” (http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/study_market/fap_part2_fr.pdf) 41Bestedingen en marktaandelen’ http://www.hbd.nl/pages/14/Bestedingen-en-marktaandelen/Viswinkels.html?branche_id=35&hoofdonderwerp_id=14.
30
- Retail scanning: managed by international providers is available in most MS and provide volume and value data for fish product sales in the whole retail channel or only in Large Scale Retail (LSR). As regards the frequency of delivery, these data could be available for the Observatory needs on a monthly basis. - Retail price observations: provided by domestic public research institutions (especially central statistical offices), only in a few MS or by private actors. Usually these data consist of average values (price/per kg), and sometimes min and max prices as well. Data purchased from private information providers could be available to the EUMOFA on a weekly basis, while data from national institutions are available either on a weekly or a monthly basis, depending on individual cases. - HORECA surveys: mostly provided by international providers and/or in a few cases by domestic information providers. Data from private providers are used and published by public institutions as “national figures”. Data gathered from private information providers could be available to the EUMOFA on a yearly basis, while data from national institutions are available either on a quarterly or a yearly basis, depending on individual cases. - Balance sheets (live weight equivalent): usually provided by domestic public research institutions on a yearly basis. These data are often characterised by long or unspecified time lags, and are available only in the form of aggregate data. - Fish price indices: generally provided by National Statistical Institutes on a monthly basis. They relate only to general indexes with no further specifications on products. The general “Consumer price index for fish and seafood” (CP0113) is also available on EUROSTAT’S website for all MS, on a monthly basis with a time lag of 4 months. In addition, there are several secondary sources of information, which are based on the above-mentioned sources. Since, as reported above, most primary data on prices and volumes of fish and fish products consumed are collected by international private providers, it is important to make some preliminary remarks about data availability: as far as data from private domestic or international providers are concerned, they could be available to the EUMOFA only if specifically purchased, the availability of national data from public bodies depends on individual cases and, in most instances, their use by the EUMOFA will not be permitted if they are based on primary figures collected by private information providers. As far as the value-adding process taking place in the consumption stage is concerned, it will be dealt with in the section dedicated to Objective 4.
4.5.2 Data feeding structural options, by project objective
Objective 1
As mentioned above, fish retail prices are surveyed by private information providers covering most MS, or monitored in a limited number of MS by Public Bodies. This information is commonly reported on a weekly or monthly basis. Furthermore, some of the surveyed international providers which already collect retail data (by means of cash scanning or price observation) have expressed their availability to provide their services by: (i) reporting on a weekly basis, (ii) surveying prices in a selected and representative sample of each national market; (iii) including almost all MS in their surveys. Even though EUMOFA’s objective 1 is to collect data on a weekly basis, the conclusions of the “Experts Group” discussion pointed out that “monthly data could also be accepted if the time lag of data delivery were not too long”.
31
Therefore the data feeding proposal for Objective 1 should entail the complementary adoption of both sources, and for both frequencies, as follows: Options C 1-A: complementary use of: (1) Retail prices collected by means of “price observations”42, from Public Bodies or other national information providers, as available at present43 , on a weekly or monthly basis, in 9 MS : BE, CY, EE, ES, FR, HU, IT, MT, PL (2) Retail prices obtained by purchasing “price observations” on a weekly basis, from multinational Private Information Providers for the 18 MS which at present are not surveyed by Public Bodies or other national information providers.
This option endorses the concept of preferring the use of public sources (on a weekly or monthly basis), while private sources should be adopted where public data are not available. Furthermore considering the Objective 1 requirements: (a) price data should be considered as they are (no harmonisation) and (b) fish species, or product ranges, should be selected depending on the specific country. Data to be purchased should be collected through a representative sample of the national market, and the sampling technique should guarantee geographic representativeness (e.g. major cities or different regions). Table 20 shows the selected sources, broken down by “national sources” and “private providers”, of weekly and monthly retail prices by MS:
Table 20 – Sources for retail prices by MS
Group 1 Group 2 Data to be provided by national sources Data to be purchased from multinational Public source Private source private providers Price observation on a Price observation on a LSR cash scanning Price observation on Weekly data weekly basis monthly basis on a weekly basis a weekly basis FranceAgriMer- Wydawnictwo FR BE STATBELa IT ISMEA PL AT FI NL SE SNM MPR ES MARM-PMOa CY DFMRb BG EL PT UK Estonian Inst. of EE Ec. Res. a (open HU AKI CZ IE RO LT fish markets) MT NSOa DE LV SI DK Estonian Inst. EE of Ec. Res. a LU SK (fishmongers) PL GUSa
a Reduce time lag for data publishing. b Make the collected data publicly available (at present not published).
Table 21 - Pros/cons analysis of option C 1-A Analysis Pros Cons components The most important and representative species would be covered. A) Information Detailed status/form should be available from private information effectiveness providers. B) Reliability Both Public/National and Private/Multi-national providers are Available prices are not computed as for data reliable. “weighted averages”. feeding Data consistency: No need for data harmonisation C) Information Good for data purchased from private sources. Different frequency between the various
42 In Italy, price monitoring is available through Large Scale Retail cash-scan instead of price observation. 43 For more detailed information on retail price monitoring performed at the national level, please see Table 20.
32 availability national sources D) Costs of data feeding Low cost for data gathered from national sources. High costs of data to be purchased for the EUMOFA
E) Information Full EU-27 coverage. Weekly and monthly data compatible with relevance the objective.
Objective 2
In the case of Objective 2, consumer or household panels, and retail scanning or retail measurement, have turned out to be the most appropriate sources to feed the Observatory. Unfortunately, on the one hand private information providers do not have systems in place for all 27 MS44, while, on the other, national bodies carry out only household surveys45, and only in a few MS. Furthermore, there is only one Country, Spain, for which household panel data from the national source are appropriate for the purposes of the EUMOFA46. Therefore a high level of completeness could be reached only if a large amount of data were purchased from private information providers. However, purchasing data would entail significant costs, and possible budget constraints for the EUMOFA need to be taken into account. For this reason, it is suggested that data useful for both Objectives 2 and 3 be purchased, thus potentially taking advantage of economies of scale. Furthermore, as the survey showed, monthly household data are sometimes not highly reliable, because few validations are carried out, while quarterly data can be considered more reliable and valid. Taking into account these elements, the “Experts Group” discussion led to the conclusion that for this stage of the supply chain, “Continuous market trend analysis”, as required by Objective 2, should be carried out on a quarterly rather than monthly basis, with a consequent reduction of costs. In addition, where national data are not available, they should be complemented with data purchased from private information providers. Before presenting the option, some remarks are necessary to fully understand the structure and contents of the three data feeding proposals for Objective 2: 1. in order to guarantee data homogeneity between different Countries, either only data from household panels or only data from retail scanning should feed the Observatory for all MS; 2. quarterly data gathered for objective 2 could also be used for objective 3 after an aggregation on a yearly basis. This has to be considered for the final choice of both data feeding options for Objectives 2 and 3. In this sense, households panels would represent the best information source because they provide data which would fully meet Objective 3 requirements, simply through the aggregation of quarterly data on a yearly basis. On the contrary, LSR purchases would not be sufficient to also satisfy objective 3 (e.g. no information about consumer profiles would be available) and therefore, it would be necessary to purchase additional data to satisfy objective 3. 3. considering possible budget constraints, the “Experts Group” agreed that the aim of monitoring periodical and overall EU consumption trends could also be achieved by surveying this stage only in a
44 Household panel data are not available for: Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia. LSR cash scanning data are not available for: Cyprus, Finland, Luxembourg, Malta 45 Italy is an exception since LSR cash scanning is performed by the National Institute for Studies, Information and Research on the Agri-Food Market (ISMEA) 46 These data can be used for Objective 2 only if MARM agreed to release them on a monthly or quarterly basis. Besides Spain, other Countries already carry out household surveys (IT, FR, PL, IE and DE). However, they may not fully meet Objective 2 requirements or may not be available for use within the observatory.
33
selection of EU main markets which can be considered as representative of overall EU consumption trends. 4. as specifically regards the HORECA sector, no possible short-term improvements can be planned for frequent surveys of this sector, therefore it has been considered preferable to propose HORECA monitoring only within Objective 3. In light of the above, quarterly data should be gathered from national bodies in the MS whose national data are available and may be considered appropriate47 and complemented by data purchased from multinational private information providers, as proposed in the following alternative options:
Option C 2-A: household panels for the majority of MS with the exception of Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia – where no household panel is available. Option C 2-B: household panels for a selection of markets, limited for budgetary reasons to DE-FR-IT-UK- SE-PL-ES. Option C 2-C: LSR Cash scanning in the majority of MS with the exception of Cyprus, Finland, Luxembourg, Malta – where no LSR cash scanning is available
As specifically regards Option C 2-B, the 7 MS globally account for 81% of EU apparent fish consumption, and have been selected on the basis of (i) their importance in terms of contribution to total EU apparent consumption and (ii) their representativeness in terms of “fish consumption habits”. For all the options, data harmonisation should be performed by information providers, and possible limits - with respect to the level of detail (highly aggregated data) or time lag of delivery or restrictions for the most important products - could be negotiated in order to reduce the cost of data purchase.
Table 22 - Pros/cons analysis of options C 2-A and C2-B Analysis Pros Cons components A) Information All species covered. All retail sales regardless of sales location. High national Fewer details on product effectiveness market representativeness. preservation/presentation.
B) Reliability for Private data sources are reliable. Data are reliable and highly harmonised. data feeding
C) Information Good and depending on the agreements. availability D) Costs of data feeding High costs of data purchase. Low cost for harmonisation of data deriving from national sources. for the Lower costs for C2-B EUMOFA Option C2-B covers only 7 MS, although extremely E) Information Option C2-A covers most MS (up to 20 MS, where households panels are representative of both: EU market relevance provided). share and “fish consumption habits”.
Table 23 - Pros/cons analysis of option C 2-C Analysis Pros Cons components A) Information Most important species covered. Not all species are covered. Representativeness is effectiveness Data details available limited to the sales locations surveyed (mostly LSR) B) Reliability for Sources and data are reliable. Highly harmonised data. data feeding
47 At present, only Household panels in Spain (MARM) and LSR cash scanning in Italy (ISMEA).
34
C) Information Good and depending on the agreement availability D) Costs of data Low cost for harmonisation of data deriving from High costs of data purchase. It would be necessary feeding for the national sources. to purchase additional data for Objective 3. EUMOFA
E) Information Up to 23 MS would be covered. High effectiveness of relevance frequent data delivery.
Objective 3
It emerged during the “Experts Group” discussion session that in order to meet the Objective 3 aim of carrying out structural analyses, the production of the following basic outputs should streamline the process: a) Market shares of different distribution channels; b) Market shares (in volume and value terms) of the main groups of products (Fresh, Frozen, Canned, Smoked, Other processed products), within the various retail channels; c) Market shares by type of household (consumer profiles); d) Total fish and aquaculture product consumption in terms of volume48 (net weight, live weight equivalent) in all 27 MS and at European level; It should also be remembered that the choice of how to feed the Observatory for Objective 3 largely depends on what will be decided with respect to Objective 2 (potential economies of scale for the data feeding system). Furthermore, unlike surveys on household consumption, LSR cash scanning49 does not provide any information regarding “consumer profiles" or sales occurring in distribution channels other than “large scale retailing”. In view of the above, three structural options for EUMOFA data feeding were proposed in the following alternative options:
Options C 3-A to be considered only if option C 2-A were chosen Market and product shares analyses should be conducted in the majority of MS (except for CY, EE, LV, LT, LU, MT, SI), through household panels data as gathered for option C 2-A. Therefore a yearly aggregation of quarterly data would be entailed.
Options C 3-B to be considered only if option C 2-B were chosen Market and product shares analyses should be conducted in a selection of MS (ES-DE-FR-IT-UK-SE-PL) through household panels data as gathered for option C 2-B. Therefore a yearly aggregation of quarterly data would be entailed.
Options C 3-C to be considered only if option C 2-C were chosen Market and product share analyses should be conducted in the majority of MS (except for Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta, where no data on consumption are available) through LSR cash scanning data as gathered for option C 2-C Therefore a yearly aggregation of quarterly data would be entailed. In order to develop “consumer profiles” and take distribution channels other than large scale retailing into consideration, these data may be complemented with Household panels data or with specific information
48 Per capita consumption (live weight) could be also considered as an important part of Objective 3 - yearly structured data. 49 As proposed for Objective 2 structural option C 2-C
35
(e.g. consumer profiles) either provided by national bodies (as available at present in ES-FR) or purchased from private information providers for all MS, except for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia. Due to budgetary reasons, the purchase of additional information could be limited to a selection of MS, as proposed in options C 2-B and C 3-B (DE-ES-FR-IT-UK-SE-PL).
As far as data availability is concerned, data from National sources could be used to feed the EUMOFA for Objective 3 only for a few of the Countries surveyed. Therefore, for all the remaining MS not performing any consumption analysis or where existing analyses are incomplete with respect to Objective 3, data should be purchased from private information providers. Options C 3-A and C 3-B differ only in terms of the number of Countries to survey, since budgetary reasons could limit the survey (option C 3-B) to: DE-FR-IT-UK-SE-PL-ES, which globally account for 81% of the EU apparent fish consumption. For both options National data could be used only for FR (FranceAgriMer) and ES (MARM), because all the other household panels data have turned out to be unavailable or not suitable for the purposes of the EUMOFA. As specifically regards Option C 3-C, for Italy only, LSR cash scanning data could be provided by a national body (ISMEA). For all the options, data harmonisation should be performed by information providers and, as far as the HORECA sector is concerned, data should be purchased from a private information provider for almost all MS, since the only three countries where data provided by a national body may be used for Objective 3 are ES, FR and IE50. Table 24 - Pros/cons analysis of option C 3-A and C3-B Analysis Pros Cons components A) Information All species covered. All retail sales regardless of sales location. High national Fewer details on product effectiveness market representativeness. preservation/presentation.
B) Reliability for Private data sources are reliable. Data are reliable and highly harmonised. data feeding
C) Information Depending on the agreement. availability D) Costs of data feeding Data should be aggregated on a Human Resources costs for collection are low since data derive from Obj.2. for the yearly basis. EUMOFA Option C3-A would cover most MS (up to 20 MS, where household panels are Option C3-B would cover only 7 provided). MS, although extremely E) Information Both options would be the first monitoring service on the consumption of fish representative of both: EU market relevance products publicly available, with the possibility to aggregate data at the EU share and “fish consumption level and compare data at the MS level. habits”.
Table 25 - Pros/cons analysis of option C 3-C Analysis Pros Cons components A) Information Highly complete data. High level of representativeness. effectiveness B) Reliability for Sources and data are reliable. data feeding C) Information Depending on the agreement. availability
50 Data exist in the UK too, but, on the one hand (i) the methodology of data gathering is completely different compared with that used in other Countries (data refer to what is purchased by clients of the HORECA sector rather than by the HORECA sector itself) and, on the other, (ii) the national authority is not allowed to supply figures based on data purchased from private information providers.
36
D) Costs of data LSR data coming from Obj.2 should be integrated Data from private providers do not entail further costs for feeding for the with new data to be purchased. Data on LSR quality checks. EUMOFA should be aggregated on a yearly basis. Full range of information available for the majority of the relevant E) Information markets.. Possibility to aggregate data at the EU level and relevance compare data at MS level.
4.6 Structural options for achieving the project’s Objective 4
As already reported this objective is complementary to the others. Therefore the results of the survey for this Objective are not presented with a breakdown by supply chain stage because the information scenario has been already reported in the previous supply chain stages. Furthermore Objective 4 seeks to understand: (a) the value-adding process and (b) the underlying factors of divergent price trends, all along the supply chain. Therefore it has been decided to treat it in the most comprehensive way. In order to meet the objective, the feasibility of developing ready-to-use “price formation simulation tools” (PFST) at the EU level has been explored51. It has clearly emerged that: a) The implementation of PFST largely depends on the data feeding systems which will be set up for the other 3 Project Objectives and for each stage of the supply chain, since the fourth objective is complementary to the others. b) this kind of exercise requires the development of an analysis with a very high level of contextualisation, at the regional or MS level, and for specific products. A very solid “field analysis” of both the behaviour of operators and the economic relationships between price drivers forms the basis of this activity, while “in-depth direct interviews” with stakeholders all along the supply chain are the optimal data collection tool. It has become apparent that the high number of species, markets, channels and areas of consumption (local/regional, national, etc.) might hinder the development of the PFST. Moreover, there is a risk that any of the concerned stakeholders might question the final results of the PFST related to their own situation. Indeed this simulation tool only depicts a “proxy situation” and never the “actual single effects” for each operator. c) PFST sustainability will depend on two key points concerning data availability in the mid-term: (i) availability of prices and costs data in MS, at different levels of the supply chain; (ii) willingness of actors of the supply chain to provide information on their costs and margins. In light of these considerations, and as emerged during the “Experts Group” Discussion Session, responsibility for the concrete development of PFST should lie with the stakeholders in each MS (professionals or policy makers) while, in order to effectively support the ability of stakeholders to adopt and develop PFST where and when considered relevant, the PFST module of the EUMOFA should:
1) Provide guidelines for the development of concrete price formation analysis, examining the following key points : a. How to concretely use analysis/simulation methodology. To be integrated with specific solutions/examples for data collection, analysis and simulation. b. How to use the information provided by the EUMOFA, with specific reference to the limits of the PFST exercise. c. How to go further. Defining a framework for possible developments of the PFST at all levels
51 Starting from the exercise carried out by YKems – Protéis for OFIMER, 2006, Formation des prix des produits aquatiques frais.
37
(local, national, supranational). 2) Identify and develop an analytical framework to allow for concrete PFST exercises, relying on: a. Description of the structure of the major stages of the supply chain, providing both qualitative (overall organisation of the chain, origin of the products, type and role of the actors at the different levels of the supply chain, geographic coverage, etc.) and quantitative information (volume, value, market share of EU products, share of each distribution channel, etc.). b. Analysis of financial and industrial concentration. The EUMOFA should provide economic indicators (market shares of leading companies, concentration indexes, financial links between actors, vertical and horizontal concentration) and analysis on industrial concentration along the supply chain. c. Analysis of the commercial aspects and the nature of relationships between different players. The EUMOFA should provide datasheets containing information on the most relevant stages of the supply chain such as bidding systems in auctions, mid-term contracts, opportunistic buying on spot markets. In addition, a methodology framework for supply chain analysis, at local level and by product category, should be proposed. 3) Organise three relevant datasets for price formation analysis : a. Price series at different levels of the supply chain, to allow the comparison of data at different stages of the supply chain b. Costs and price drivers time series (e.g. inflation rates by MS, currency rates, cost of: labour, energy, feed, etc.) c. Average margins indicators (“standard” margins indicators estimated through group analysis of companies’ financial accounts). 4) Develop some case studies, based on the PFST methodology to : a. Develop new analyses for concrete and specific examples regarding certain products and/or markets, b. Update of existing PFST initiatives. 5) Disseminate and facilitate the adoption of the PFST tool, providing national bodies or “Antennas system” components with: a. a tutoring activity for the concrete adoption of the PFST at the national level, b. an information database (by products and by markets) containing the results of specific PFST exercises as developed at national level.
Such a system, based on the compilation and dissemination of available information on prices, costs and margins and the proposal of methodological tools, appears quite secure and, moreover, in tune with the willingness of concretely involving stakeholders in a “EU market intelligence” tool. Special focus should be given to the PFST for the Processing stage. A specific data feeding system for this purpose should mainly consist of the following: 1) Raw materials purchased by the processing industry: in the EU, fish processors often rely on imported raw materials, whose volumes and prices may be deduced from EU import/export flow monitoring systems (TSS or EUROSTAT-COMEXT). As regards first-sale purchases, the prices of small pelagic fishes expressly destined for the processing industry (sardines, herring, mackerel, etc.) will be selected from specific landing points. EC FIDES-MIS monitoring system data on volumes and prices (for fish benefiting from carry-over measures) could be used. Obviously products and landing points should be selected on the basis of their relevance for each major industry subsector.
38
2) Costs and margins of fish processing companies and ex-factory prices: it has emerged that these are not available within the EU52. Nevertheless, “average costs and margins of processing companies” could be estimated using publicly available information on companies’ accounts. 3) Retail prices of processed products: two solutions have turned out to be feasible: a. delivering available data from national sources, accepting the heterogeneity of information. This is the simplest and least expensive solution. b. defining a list of products representative of the EU processing industry, in terms of volumes sold53, within the “retail prices pan-European panel” as collected for Objective 3 of the Consumption stage. In conclusion, as emerged from the “Experts Group” discussion session, the proposal for the “PFST module” within Objective 4 is to provide the stakeholders with the largest possible toolbox, rather than a ready-to- use analysis, always imperfect from their points of view.
4.7 Proposal for the setting up of a “European Antennas System for Fishery”
The “Experts Group” discussion suggested that the possible setting up of a market intelligence tool, through constant observation of local/national markets by a network of national experts, so called “European Antennas System for Fishery”, might: be a concrete tool to provide “constant and homogeneous market intelligence”: at all stages of the supply chain, at all times, for all MS. Therefore it should not be interpreted as a tool aimed at compensating for the lack of quantitative data with qualitative information establish a communication platform between the EU Commission – DG MARE and the relative MS, in order to provide mutual and useful support to explain specific market phenomena. If deemed appropriate, this platform could be further extended through international networks of market monitoring fishery experts provide EUMOFA experts with elements for understanding and interpreting local/national market phenomena allow the use and dissemination of analysis tools, or data sets and study results (PFST), specifically developed by the EUMOFA to support policy makers at the national level. In order to set up such an “Antennas System”, it is necessary to obtain: (i) the participation of grounded and consolidated nationally-based structures, (ii) an agreement between Member States and European Commission services, in such a way as not to duplicate or bypass existing market monitoring initiatives. Such a system could generate some concerns about its sustainability from different points of view. It is therefore necessary to clarify and take into account that: (i) information quality will be guaranteed by the related nationally-based structure already involved in internal market monitoring activities. Its ability to interpret specific phenomena at the National level will ensure the needed quality to conduct such an activity; (ii) the communication channels between markets/experts/DG MARE will work effectively when a solid agreement between MS and EU services is reached, and when DG MARE efforts for this market monitoring activity are perceived as a complementary and not a substitutive tool; (iii) as concerns time and costs sustainability, the involvement of existing structures will have competitive costs (if any) for the setting up and functioning of this tool, and this will also produce, where properly adopted, high quality data feeding at all times.
52 Because these data are generally considered as strategic and confidential by members of the industry 53 This selection could be limited to the most relevant products e.g. preserves of tuna, preserves of sardines, preserves of herring, preserves of mussels, smoked salmon, other smoked fish, frozen fish fingers
39