The grass isn't always greener in New Zealand

As Brexiteers point to the sunlit uplands, they draw attention to the way in which New Zealand agriculture has flourished since the withdrawal of subsidies. A number of caveats are necessary. The original measures were accompanied by a devaluation of the New Zealand dollar and an end to restrictive practices in ports. Even so, some farmers did take a big hit and went out of business.

What strikes me today about the New Zealand economy today is how dependant it is on exports of dairy products and in turn how important the Chinese market is. Admittedly, the share of dairy products in exports peaked a couple of years ago at 35 per cent and has dropped to just under 30 per cent, but that is still a heavy reliance on one set of products. New Zealand does, of course, have an ideal climate for dairying, although there are environmental concerns about levels of water abstraction for irrigation and the pollution resulting from intensive dairy farming: Green image threatened .

The co-operative Fonterra is New Zealand's largest company and the world's biggest dairy exporter. It supplies almost a quarter of New Zealand's exports. China is its biggest customer, consuming a quarter of the milk produced by Fonterra farms.

It will be recalled that in 2008 Sanlu, in which Fonterra held a 45 per cent stake, was involved in a scandal involving infant feeding power which led to the deaths of six babies and left tens of thousands and others in hospital. The Chinese authorities did not hold back and executed two of those involved and jailed others. The scandal helped overseas companies dominate China's powdered milk market. Foreign brands account for about three quarters of powdered milk sales in China - worth $19.7bn a year.

Now Fonterra has lost out in a different way through its minority stake in Chinese infant formula manufacturer Beingmate. It has lost 70 per cent of its market value in three years and has made losses in the last two years, $152.5m in the year ending December 2017. There have been problems with pricing after a clamp down on price fixing, the distribution network and the discovery of counterfeit powder by the Shanghai police which hit revenues.

Farmer members of Fonterra are getting increasingly concerned and urging the co-operative to drop the investment.

Cows account for 4 per cent of greenhouse gases

The urgent need for a stronger climate change dimension to the CAP is emphasised by a report from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) which is a UN agnecy. If one takes account of everything from nomadic herds to processing plants, milk production accounts for 2.7 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. This rises to 4 per cent when meat processed from the dairy industry is added in.

Methane contributes most to the global warming impact of milk, accounting for 54 per cent of emissions. Nitrous oxide accounts for 27 per cent of emissions in developing countrues and 38 per cent in developing countries.

You can find the full report here: FAO

Back to butter mountains?

It's a familar scenario: the milk price falls; farmers come out to the street; and the Commission starts to panic.

Following a 'milk strike' across Europe, an emergency meeting is to be held by farm ministers on October 5th. Nineteen member states have signalled support for a Franco-German initiative for an aid package for dairy farmers. However, farm commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, insists that there is no prospect of reversing the decision to abandon dairy quotas as part of the CAP reform process.

Global prices surged in 2007, but this led to more production which came on to the market as the recession ended.

The simple fact is that there are too many inefficient dairy farmers in Europe. A slimmed down dairy sector would be more globally competitive. However, despite the opposition of Britain and Denmark, one suspects that a policy fudge is on the way.

Have milk prices turned the corner?

Problems in the EU dairy sector have led the Commission to resort to the tired old policy instruments of intervention buying of skimmed milk powder and export subsidies. To be fair to the Commission, they have had to resist a lot of political pressure for even more intervention, including backing off the planned phasing out of quotas which have ossified the EU dairy sector and made it less internationally competitive.

However, there are a few signs of an improvement in prices. In the UK the NFU believes the corner has been turned for dairy farmers supplying the liquid market after Robert Wiseman Dairies announced that it was raising its price by 0.3p a litre. This increase follows a period of better returns from the cream market and will take the standard litre price for about 900 direct suppliers to 24.3p before seasonality deductions.

Prospects for milk used in manufacturing are less good. Skimmed milk powder continues to flow into intervention stores throughout Europe. While President Obama enjoyed one of the best publicised beers in history, the USA continues to distort the world market with subsidised exports.

Prices on global commodity markets are still under pressure. Butter is quoted at about £1160/t, while skimmed milk powder has slipped back recently to £1227-£1288/t. EU prices are somewhat better and the butter price has climbed above the intervention level. But significant volumes of skimmed milk powder are still being sold into intervention at about £1450/t. These stocks will eventually have to be sold into the market with an inevitable depressing effect.

What is evident is that supermarkets have been creaming off profits. According to a new market situation report from the Commission, 'the pronounced fall in the prices of milk and dairy commodities since the end of 2007 has only triggered a slight decline in consumer prices for dairy products.'

Since the end of 2007, Commission figures show that the wholesale butter price has dropped by 39 per cent, skimmed milk powder by 49 per cent, cheese by 18 per cent and milk by 31 per cent. Yet the price consumers pay in the shops for dairy products has dropped by just 2 per cent.

The Commission's conclusion is that 'the EU dairy supply chain does not function efficiently.' The market power of supermarkets, particularly in Britain, but increasingly in other member states, is considerable.

Competition policy authorities seem reluctant to act. Admittedly, it is sometimes difficult to get hard evidence of exploitation of market power as suppliers feel they are vulnerable, even with guarantees of confidentiality.

However, there is also a broader political context as supermarkets help the less well off by holding down food prices. Given the importance to New Labour of working people and their families, it is not surprising that they are unwilling to back strong action, but I would not expect Dave Cameron to take a very different line when he is in charge.

Meanwhile, the Commission has proposed extending intervention purchasing for 13 months. Even more worrying, it has suggested allowing state aids of up to €15,000 per dairy farmers. This will do nothing to solve the industry's structural challenges.

CAP bonanza for big Irish dairy companies

Figures obtained through a freedom of information request to the Irish Department of Agriculture show that the country's top dairy companies did well in securing CAP money in the form of export refunds and intervention aid.

It was actually Greencore, which owns Irish Sugar, that topped the recipient's list with restructuring funds that amounted to a cool €84m.

However, the Irish Dairy Board received €6.5m, followed by Kerry Ingredients with €5.1m. In third place was the company behind Baileys cream liqueur, R & A Bailey, owned by the drinks giant Diageo, which received €2.9m. It is believed that most of the payments were for export refunds, but that the IDB received money for limited butter intervention in 2008.

Given that dairy markets were relatively strong in 2008, these payments are well down on the levels of 2007 and earlier years. Given the widespread current use of export refunds, the 2009 figures are likely to be significantly higher.

In all cases the companies have defended the payments, claiming that they were a mechanism used to support the milk price to farmers. However, it is unlikely that all the money reached farmers.

Fischer Boel defends export subsidies

Farm commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has reiterated the EU's commitment to phase out all export subsidies by 2013, but in the meantime has insisted on their use to defend EU market share. Responding to concerns that the dairy export refunds, reintroduced in January, mean 'dumping' cheap produce on developing countries, Fischer Boel said that the EU cannot risk losing its market share to other major exporters.

The return of the subsidies has been widely criticised by agricultural exporting countries such as Australia. But concern has also been expressed within the EU itself. Germany is known to have been concerned that the subsidies are creating a damaging dumping effect in some developing countries.

Fischer Boel explained that in countries such as the Dominican Republic, the impact of subsidised EU exports is not to directly harm domestic produce. These markets are in fact a battleground between the EU and other developed world exporters, she argued.

Of course the EU is not directly competing on the liquid milk market in these countries. However, I recall reading studies by Oxfam and Cafod relating to the Dominican Republic and Jamaica. Small local dairy farmers found that their market in local processing factories was driven out by skimmed milk powder from the EU.