52004DC0030

SECOND REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 laying down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

Under Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 the Commission is to present to the European Parliament and the Council every three years a report on the implementation of the beekeeping aid scheme.

The Commission hereby presents the second report. In its conclusions, the Commission proposes that a new Regulation be adopted in order to adapt the objectives in the beekeeping sector to the current situation.

The aim of this proposal is to improve the conditions for the production and marketing of honey in the European Union. This objective may be achieved by means of three-year national programmes which include measures in the field of technical assistance, control of varroasis, rationalisation of transhumance, restocking hives and applied research in the field of beekeeping and apiculture products.

The control of varroasis is not an eradication measure but aims to reduce the economic impact of this disease caused by a parasite on the profitability of production.

In order to be eligible for the Community part-financing for the national programmes, the Member States must draw up and forward to the Commission a study on the structure of the sector, the production and marketing of the products and on the measures they plan to carry out.

The Member States must also send the Commission statistical data on these programmes.

SECOND REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 laying down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey

The annexes to this report are to be found in a separate document available in French and English from DG Agriculture on paper or on the DG Agriculture web site http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/ markets/honey/index_fr.htm.

1. Introduction

In February 2001, the Commission adopted the first report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 [1], evaluating the first three years of its implementation.

[1] COM(2001) 70 final.

In June 1997 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 [2] with a view to improving the production and marketing of honey in the European Union. Under this Regulation, the Member States voluntarily drew up annual national programmes (hereinafter referred to as "honey programmes") based on the following five priorities: technical assistance, control of varroasis, rationalisation of transhumance, measures to support laboratories carrying out analyses on honey, and applied research to improve the quality of honey.

[2] OJ L 173, 1.7.1997, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2070/98 (OJ L 265, 30.9.1998, p. 1).

In November 1997, the Commission laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2300/97 [3] implementing rules on the contents of the honey programmes, the date on which programmes were to be notified, the allocation of Community part-financing and details of the studies of the structure of the sector, among other things.

[3] OJ L 319, 21.11.1997, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1438/2000 (OJ L 161, 1.7.2000, p. 65).

The Member States carried out studies of the structure of the sector, focusing in particular on production structures, marketing and price formation.

Under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1221/97, the Commission must present a report to the European Parliament and the Council every three years on the implementation of the Regulation. This report fulfils that obligation.

2. World situation

The world's major producer region is Asia, followed by Europe and Northern and Central America (Table 1). In the context of world trade, China is the major exporter and the European Union is the major importer.

2.1. Production

According to FAO statistics (Table 1), world honey production in 2002 totalled 1 268 000 tonnes. It increased by 6.8% in the period 1998-2002.

In 2002 the European Union was the third largest producer, with 112 000 tonnes, after China (258 000 tonnes) and the Newly Independent States (136 000 tonnes) (Table 2). Other major producers are the United States (100 000 tonnes) and Argentina (85 000 tonnes).

2.2. Trade

World trade accounts for about one third of total honey production according to FAO and Comext figures.

2.2.1. Exports

Global exports of honey were 360 000 tonnes in 2001 (Table 3). China exported 41% of its output in 2001, accounting for 30% of total world trade.

The main markets for Chinese honey are, in order of importance, Japan, the United States and Germany. However, health restrictions imposed on Chinese honey following the discovery of banned substances in animal products from China, and smaller harvests in the past few years, have contributed to changes in world export flows.

2.2.2. Imports

World honey imports amounted to almost 360 000 tonnes in 2001 (Table 4). The main import market is the European Union, which absorbed 44% of global honey imports in 2001. Almost 75% of the EU's total honey imports in 2001 went to Germany (92 000 tonnes) and the United Kingdom (23 000 tonnes) (Table 6).

Global imports have been rising steadily since the end of the 1970s (Figure 2) with increased consumption of natural and dietary products, efforts on the part of certain traders to introduce speciality honey, or low-price honey, usually in the form of blends, and increased industrial use of honey in certain countries.

3. Situation in the European Union

3.1. Supply balance

The EU has a honey deficit and must usually import about half of the honey consumed, self-sufficiency in 2001/02 being 45.9% (Table 5).

The Union's three major honey producers are Spain, Germany and France, with 33 000 tonnes, 26 000 tonnes and 25 000 tonnes of honey respectively in 2001/02. Honey production in the European Union was steady from 1999 to 2002.

While honey imports remained stable in 1998-2002 overall, Argentina became the EU's leading supplier, accounting for 36% of total Community honey imports in 2002, and China slipped into fourth place (9%), behind Mexico (12%) and Hungary (10%) (Table 6).

The Community exports about 8 000 tonnes, representing just 6% of output in 2002 (Table 7).

3.2. Inventory of producers

According to data notified by the Member States, the total number of beekeepers in the Community in 1999 was 460 000, 14 350 of whom were declared as professional beekeepers. Professional beekeepers, in this context, are those who operate at least 150 hives.

In 2003, according to the same sources, the total number of beekeepers was 470 000, 15 270 of whom were professionals, meaning an increase of 2% in the total number of Community beekeepers and a 6.4% rise in the number of professionals (Table 8). Over the period 1992 to 1999, however, the total number of beekeepers had increased by 5.7%, giving an extra 25 010.

In the 1999-2003 period, the number of hives increased by 2.5% to 8 877 209. Professional beekeepers operate more than 3 880 000 hives, or 43.7% of all European hives. The Member State with the largest number of hives is Spain (almost 2 400 000), followed by Greece (1 380 000) and France (almost 1 300 000).

In terms of the ratio of the number of hives operated by professionals to the total number of hives, the highest rate of professional beekeeping is found in Spain (74%), followed by Greece and Portugal (over 50%). These three Member States together account for 74% of professionally-operated hives in the European Union.

In absolute terms, professional beekeepers are concentrated in three Member States: Spain (29% of the total number of professional beekeepers), Greece (26%) and France (19%).

To conclude, there has been a real increase in the sector, although some experts claim the increase observed is due to improved beekeeping statistics. On average, the number of professionally operated hives in the European Union has increased by 5.7% in the period 1999-2003, while the professional beekeeping rate has remained stable (42-44%), indicating a slight trend towards expansion of professional bee farms.

4. Implementation of honey programmes

In the first report on the implementation of honey programmes, the Commission pointed out that these programmes had had a qualitative impact on the beekeeping sector, that it would be desirable to reinforce collaboration between the authorities in certain Member States and the beekeepers' representative organisations and cooperatives, and that it appeared necessary to simplify the management of the honey programmes.

Following these conclusions, the Commission adopted an amendment [4] to Regulation (EC) No 2300/97 to allow the Member States to continue their honey programmes from the previous year simply by notifying any amendments or adjustments.

[4] Regulation (EC) No 704/2001 (OJ L 98, 7.4.2001, p. 14).

4.1. Expenditure forecasts

As provided for in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2300/97, the Member States notify their programmes to the Commission by 15 April each year. The programmes notified must state estimated costs and provide a financing plan.

On the basis of the Member States' expenditure forecasts, available funds are distributed as a function of each Member State's share in the total number of beehives in the Community, as shown in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2300/97. The decisions approving the honey programmes come into force on 1 September each year.

In 2001-2003, the four Member States with the largest bee population (Spain, France, Greece and Italy) used more than 70% of the Community funds available each year. For the 2003 programme, Spain planned expenditure corresponding to 26.5% of Community funding, France 16.2%, and Greece and Italy 14% each (Table 11).

Control of varroasis is the largest expenditure item in most Member States, accounting for 41% of programmed expenditure at European level. Technical assistance comes next with 26%, and then transhumance with 20%, followed by honey analyses (6%) and applied research projects (7%).

In 2001-2003, expenditure forecasts for the five types of measure did not show much change at Union level (Figure 3). However, there was a more marked increase in forecasts for technical assistance and transhumance, a smaller increase for varroasis control and a decrease for analyses and applied research.

In 2003, Greece and Italy applied for 34% and 17% respectively of total Community expenditure on technical assistance for beekeepers. Of the total requested for varroasis control in 2003, Spain applied for 28%, Portugal 14% and France 11%. Spain accounted for 50% of total Community expenditure on the rationalisation of transhumance, Italy 24% and France 18%. As for measures to support laboratories carrying out analyses, France accounted for 34% of the total Community expenditure and Spain 25%. France accounted for 47% of total Community expenditure on research projects to improve the quality of honey, and Italy and Germany 14%.

4.2. Expenditure

The honey programmes must be implemented before 31 August each year, and the relevant payments made by 15 October, as provided for in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2300/97. At the time of drafting this report, final data for the 2003 programme was not available.

In 2002, execution of measures under the Member States' programmes amounted to 83% of total planned expenditure (Table 12). Two Member States implemented the full amount: Denmark and Finland. Among the Member States that account for the bulk of the budget, Spain implemented 90.2% of planned expenditure and Italy 90%. However, a large share of the budget in both Greece and France remained unutilised, with implementation at 77.8% and 68% respectively of estimated expenditure. While the rate of implementation of the honey programmes has noticeably improved in some Member States, 15-17% of the budget allocated remains unused.

4.3. Assessment

4.3.1. Objectives of the measures

While the overall objective is to improve the production and marketing of honey, the specific objectives differ according to the priority measures.

Technical assistance is designed to enhance the efficiency of production and marketing, by introducing better techniques. Courses and other training measures for beekeepers and those responsible for groupings or cooperatives relate in particular to such areas as breeding and disease prevention, collection and packaging, storage and transport of honey and marketing. Most of the Member States considered that the resources of the beekeeping associations should be reinforced to enable them to respond to the great demand for these courses.

The aim of control of varroasis and related diseases is to reduce the expenditure incurred in treating hives. The disease is caused by a parasite and is severely diminishing the honey yield in the European Union, leading to the loss of entire bee colonies if not treated. Colonies weakened by varroasis are also prone to related diseases now emerging [5]. As varroasis cannot be completely eradicated, the only way to avoid its consequences is to treat hives with approved products (those that do not leave any residue in the honey). A financial contribution was also considered necessary to ensure that beekeepers do not treat hives with unauthorised chemicals or ineffective remedies.

[5] The term 'related diseases' refers to secondary infections whose transmission is directly linked to varroasis (e.g. Acute Viral Paralysis, AVP).

Aid for the rationalisation of transhumance is intended to assist with managing the movement of hives in the Community and with providing locations for the strong concentration of beekeepers during the flowering season. Transhumance management can be facilitated by such measures as a transhumance register, investment in equipment and maps of honey varieties.

Support measures for carrying out analyses of honey are intended to improve the marketing of honey. Financing of analyses of the physico-chemical properties of honey according to its botanical origin provides beekeepers with precise knowledge of the quality of the honey harvested, and enables them to get a higher price for their product.

The opportunity provided by the Regulation for including specific applied research projects for improving honey quality in the honey programmes, and dissemination of the results of such projects, can help to increase producer incomes in particular regions.

4.3.2. Analysis of expenditures by measure - results achieved

On average over the 2001-2003 period, forecasts of expenditure by type of measure (Figure 3) show that the control of varroasis absorbed a key share (41%) of expenditure programmed by the Member States. Technical assistance came next with 26%, and then transhumance with 20%, followed by honey analyses (6%) and applied research projects (7%) (Table 11).

The breakdown of implementation of expenditure by type of measure in 2002 (Table 13) shows that control of varroasis absorbed 46% of total expenditure under the Member States' programmes, followed by technical assistance (23%) and rationalisation of transhumance (19%). Applied research projects accounted for 7% of total expenditure, and analyses of honey 5%.

The comparative study of the implementation of expenditure in 1998-2002 shows a stabilisation in the level of expenditure after an initial, more unstable period in implementing the honey programmes. As stated, much of the budget goes to varroasis control, followed by technical assistance and the rationalisation of transhumance.

The data provided by the Member States, although incomplete, helps to assess the measures as a whole.

Technical assistance is planned in 11 out of the 15 programmes presented by the Member States. The main technical assistance measures planned are training for beekeepers and technical advisors, dissemination of information and studies, and practical demonstrations of beekeeping techniques (Table 14-A).

Of the four Member States planning to spend most funding on this field (Greece, Italy, France and Spain) only Italy and Spain have communicated comparable figures for 1998-2000 and 2001-2003. A study of these figures shows a fall in the number of courses and information brochures in Spain and a rise in Italy.

For varroasis control, the wide variety of measures applied by the Member States can be classified into three main types of approach: aid for the application of chemical treatments, experiments and research into alternative methods of control, and on-site monitoring by bee experts (Table 14-B). On average, the number of hives treated in Spain and Germany almost tripled from 1998-2000 to 2001-2003, while in Austria and Portugal it fell by 16% and 7% respectively.

Rationalisation of transhumance seems to have been successful in certain Member States which invested in special equipment for this method of production or in restocking hives (Table 14-C). Although this measure is the least requested by all Member States, it actually shows the largest rise in forecast expenditure.

Honey analyses and research projects to improve honey quality account for smaller percentages of total expenditure. However, these measures help beekeepers to add value to their honey on marketing. The main focuses are assistance for honey analyses and for research into analysis methods and the detection of residues (Table 14-D and E).

4.3.3. Suggestions made by the Member States

All Member States have submitted national honey programmes since this Regulation entered into application.

The main suggestions made by the Member States are:

- improved statistics (Spain, France, Italy). However, this scheme already requires Member States to present a study on the sector in order to be eligible for part-financing. Precise criteria are set out in the implementing regulation. Nevertheless, it might prove necessary to update some of these criteria after several years of implementation;

- control of other bee diseases (Greece, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands). It must be clear that it is not the goal of this scheme to create a health policy in the sector. This would be the responsibility of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General (DG SANCO);

- multiannual management of honey programmes (Greece, Ireland and Italy) to simplify programme management. However, as this scheme comes under market policy, and budget management is carried out on an annual basis, expenditure forecasts and implementation would have to be kept on an annual basis;

- aid for breeding (Greece, France, Netherlands). Following an increase in mortality of bees over several years, some programmes provide aid for restocking hives. Moreover, Community beekeepers are unable to raise sufficient numbers of breeding stock to meet the sector's needs. Assistance to encourage beekeepers to specialise in this type of production would appear to fill this vacuum;

- include all products of the hive in the scheme and extend the field of application of applied research (Spain, Ireland). After several years of implementation of the honey programmes, it would appear that other products of the hive should be included in this scheme to respond more fully to the difficulties in the beekeeping sector;

- some Member States propose new measures such as advertising campaigns (Greece, Spain), investments in holdings (Italy) and direct aids to promote beekeeping (Italy).

5. Difficulties and demands

The sector's comments can be summarised as follows.

As a rule, Community beekeepers believe that the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 are not sufficient to guarantee the profitability of bee farms or to prevent the disappearance of professional beekeeping.

Community beekeeping is threatened by bee diseases which are more and more difficult to treat (resistance to the few products authorised) thus increasing production costs. Moreover, contamination by certain pesticides in many EU Member States has led to the disappearance of a large part of the bee population (restocking hives is extremely difficult and expensive) and to falls in productivity.

There is a substantial difference between the prices of imported honeys and producer prices for high-quality European honey, which may increase further with the opening up of the markets (China's entry into the WTO, preferential agreements, etc.).

Under these circumstances, beekeeping is no longer an attractive activity, even though Community production covers under 50% of EU demand. Even part-time beekeepers are no longer motivated.

The following suggestions have been made by the sector.

Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 should be amended as follows:

- extend the deadline for implementing eligible measures,

- guarantee the repopulation and development of hives,

- introduce a pollination premium,

- improve inventory, price and production cost statistics,

- compulsory application of this Regulation with 100% financing and publication of a guide so as to reduce the disparities between Member States,

- revise the procedure for approving plant health products to take greater account of the precautionary principle and their impact on bee populations,

- introduce an income premium to compensate income lost due to imports.

High-quality European honey should also be promoted under internal promotion policy, and by using PDOs, PGIs and TSGs.

Moreover, beekeepers in some Member States regret that most efforts have been focused on measures which do not directly benefit beekeepers, and are calling for the involvement of associations in drawing up the programme.6. Outlook and proposals

6.1. Outlook

The honey production sector has been characterised in recent years by stable production and a slight increase in imports. Average prices of imports increased by 38% in 1998-2002 (Table 10). Average prices weighted at the different stages of marketing (Table 9) do not follow import prices in most Member States.

European beekeeping is dependent on external suppliers since internal consumption is twice Community output. The Union is the world's major import market, absorbing 44% of all honey imports.

There is a trend towards concentration of holdings as the number of hives operated by professionals is increasing faster than the total number of hives in the European Union. In any event, the number of hives has increased.

Control of varroasis remains the sector's priority. Confusion with health legislation measures should be avoided. The conclusions of the group of experts in this field [6] show that:

[6] Meeting of beekeeping experts on 24.10.2003.

- chemical treatments are effective, provided they are rotated,

- harmonised and simplified procedures for the approval of new active ingredients would appear necessary,

- alternative treatments depend on weather conditions and the production system, and

- research into the selection of bees resistant to varroasis should be stepped up.

6.2. Proposals

Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 to improve production and marketing of honey in the European Union seems to have helped the beekeeping sector. This sector is characterised by a wide diversity of production conditions, and by the dispersion and variety of players both at the production and at the marketing stage.

The priority measures in the Regulation, although limited from the budget point of view, have been valuable in terms of quality. The most popular measures in order of importance are the control of varroasis, technical assistance and the rationalisation of transhumance.

It would appear appropriate to draw up national programmes for three-year periods and thus recognise that, in practice, there is a strong degree of similarity between programmes from one year to the next.

Some of the priority measures should be redefined in order to avoid misinterpretations when implementing them, and to adapt them to the current situation in European beekeeping. In this context, a new measure would appear necessary to promote the repopulation of hives in decline in some regions. The honey analyses measure could be abolished.

The Commission therefore considers it appropriate to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 in line with the following proposal.