TRANSITION / POLITICAL CHANGE AND INSTABILITY / … · 1The IEC Annual Review 2014 only shows 103.5...

Hans-Wilhelm Windhorst, IEC Statistical Analyst

The European Egg Industry in Transition

TRANSITION / POLITICAL CHANGE AND INSTABILITY /CONTINUING ECONOMIC CHALLENGES / DIRECTIVE 1999/74/EC - THE BANNING OF CONVENTIONAL CAGES / EFFECTS OF AVIAN INFLUENZA

INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT SEPTEMBER 20152

The changing political and economic situation in Europe

Introduction

Figures used in this document are stated in United Kingdom format with a “,” to separate 000s and a “.” to denote

decimal places. In all cases for units of measurement “t” means “tonnes” and “mill.t” means “million tonnes”.

Over the past 25 years, the political and economic situation in Europe has changed considerably and it seems that this transformation process has not yet come to an end. The ongoing economic

and financial crisis in Southern Europe, especially in Greece, is a threat to the political stability in the EU and to the future of the Euro.

The situation in Ukraine at the eastern rim of Europe is a danger to the political stability in this part of the continent and could lead to

long term repercussions.

The trade ban of the EU, the USA and other countries on the Russian Federation has already had considerable impact on the trade of

poultry products and may have even more severe impact in the future if the problems in Ukraine cannot be solved. Ukraine, one of the

leading egg producing countries in Europe, has already lost some of its former strength. The largest egg company in Europe was severely

affected by the political unrest. According to recent reports it lost a considerable number of its production facilities in the eastern parts

of the country.

The political and economic transformation processes had started earlier however. In 1990, the political and economic system of the

former USSR and most of the Eastern European countries collapsed. The necessary political and socio-economic transformation

processes in these countries led to a considerable decrease of egg production. New independent countries originated and the EU

expanded. Not all new member countries have been able to reach a production volume comparable to that before the beginning of the

economic transformation process. Some were successful in their integration into market oriented production and trade systems, others

are still struggling.

A second challenge was the banning of conventional cages from 2012 onwards, or from 2010 in Austria and Germany. It is estimated that

the implementation of Directive 1999/74/EC resulted in investments of between 5 and 6 billion euros. A particular problem was caused

by the fact that it was not before 2008 that the EU Commission decided that the legal regulations as expressed in the Directive would

not be changed and the deadline would not be extended as some countries in Eastern and Southern Europe had requested. By the end of

2013, the transformation from conventional cages to alternative housing systems was completed in the EU. This resulted in a new spatial

pattern of housing systems in Europe which the author analysed in detail in the report prepared for the Vienna Business Conference in

2014.

A further burden is the ongoing economic and financial crisis in several Southern European countries, especially in Greece. The crisis

had, and still has, an impact on egg production and trade patterns as will be shown in a later chapter. It is the author’s impression that the

EU has reached a threshold, a new phase of its political, economic and financial foundation and the following one or two years will decide

not only the political and economic future of the 29 member countries but also the future of Europe as a continent.

Objectives

The main objectives of this report are:

• to present an overview on

the changing contribution of

European countries and the

EU to global egg production

between 2000 and 2013,

• to analyse the dynamics of egg

production in the European sub-

regions between 2000 and 2013,

• to present a short overview on

the present situation of housing

systems for laying hens in

Europe,

• to analyse what impacts the

political and socio-economic

transformation in the former

USSR and Eastern Europe as well

as the banning of conventional

cages had on the production

patterns of the EU and on

countries outside the EU,

INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT SEPTEMBER 2015 3

• to demonstrate in three

country studies what impact the

banning of conventional cages

had on egg production and egg

trade in and between these

countries and

• to present a short outlook on

the new challenges for the egg

industry in the EU and possible

economic impacts.


1

4

PART

Europe was the leading continent in global egg

production until 1988 before it was surpassed by

Asia. In the early 1990s, the European production

volume decreased considerably because of the

collapse of the political and economic systems

in the former USSR and Eastern Europe.

Despite the recovery of egg production, the total

production volume in 2000 was still about 1 mill.

t lower than in the late 1980s.

Between 2000 and 2013 the global laying hen

population increased from 5.0 to 7.0 billion birds

or by 39.8% (Table 1). The lowest relative growth

rate was in North America and the highest was

in Asia. In Europe, the laying hen flock grew by

226 million birds or 32.9%, mainly as a result

of the recovery of the egg industry in Eastern

Europe. With the exception of Asia and Central

and South America all other continents could not

maintain their contribution to the global laying

hen population which they had in 2000 (Table 2,

Figure 1). The ten European countries with the

highest number of laying hens are documented

in Table 3. The number of laying hens as reported

by FAO for the Russian Federation and Ukraine is

not realistic, however1. This changes the ranking,

as according to the data as presented in Footnote

1, the Russian Federation was still in first place in

2013, followed by Ukraine2.

Global egg production grew from 51.2 mill. t in

2000 to 68.3 mill. t in 2013 or by 33.3%. The

highest absolute increase was shown by Asia with

almost 10.8 mill., the highest relative growth

rates were in Central and South America and

Africa. In Europe, the production volume was

about 1.5 mill. t higher in 2013 than in 2000;

nevertheless, Europe had the lowest relative

growth rate of all continents (Table 4). The

contribution to global egg production fell by

2.5% in the same time period and reached only

16.0% in 2013. North American countries were

also not able to maintain their share of global egg

production and lost 1.4% (Table 5).

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

The development of the global laying hen population between 2000 and 2013; data in mill. birds(Source: FAO database)

The changing contribution of the continents to the global laying hen population between 2000 and 2013; data in %(Source: Own

calculations)

CONTINENT 2000 2010 2013 INCREASE (%)

Africa 378 505 515 36.2Asia 3,091 4,146 4,494 45.4Europe 687 788 913 32.9N America* 496 567 571 15.1CS America 361 477 520 44.0Oceania 18 18 21 16.7

World 5,030 6,501 7,034 39.8* Canada, USA, Mexico

CONTINENT 2000 2010 2013 CHANGE (%)

Africa 7.5 7.8 7.3 -0.2Asia 61.5 63.8 63.9 +2.4Europe 13.7 12.1 13.0 -0.7N America* 9.9 8.7 8.1 -1.8CS America 7.2 7.3 7.4 +0.2Oceania 0.4 0.3 0.3 -0.1

World **100.0 100.0 100.0 -* Canada, USA, Mexico ** sum does not add because of rounding

The changing role of Europe and the EU in global egg production between 2000 and 2013

The first part of the report will deal with the dynamics of global egg production between 2000 and 2013. As the period between 1990 and 2000 was analysed in detail in preceding reports (Windhorst 2012 and 2014), the analysis will start in 2000.

1The IEC Annual Review 2014 only shows 103.5 mill. layers for Russia. Norbert Mischke (IEC

rapporteur) reported to the author only 98 mill. layers for Ukraine. These figures are more

realistic when comparing them to the production volume (see Table 8). In the number of laying

hens, as reported by FAO, pullets and parent stock for broiler production seem to have been

included.

2Despite the data problems as mentioned in Footnote 1, data is not changed in Tables 1, 2 and

3 as this would make it necessary to recalculate the whole data set as reported by FAO not

only for Europe but also at a global level. In the special report for the IEC Business Conference

Lisbon, which dealt with housing systems, the lower figures for the layer flocks in the Russian

Federation and Ukraine were used.

!"?$%

@'"?$%

&)"&$%

?"!$%

!"'$%

@'"($%

&'"*$%

?"&$%

!"+$%!"?$%

@'"?$%

&)"&$%

?"!$%

!"'$%

@'"($%

?"&$%

!"+$%!"?$%

@'"?$%

&)"&$%

?"!$%

!"'$% !"?$%

@'"?$%

&)"&$%

?"!$%

!"'$% !"?$%

@'"?$%

&)"&$%

?"!$%

!"'$% !"?$%

@'"?$%

&)"&$%

?"!$%

!"'$% !"?$%

@'"?$%

&)"&$%

?"!$%

!"'$%7.5

13.7

61.5

9.9

7.2

0.4 0.3 0.3

63.9

13.0

7.4 7.3

8.1

7.8

63.8

12.1

8.7

7.3


TABLE 4

TABLE 5

FIGURE 1

TABLE 3

The development of global egg production between 2000 and 2013; data in 1,000 t(Source: FAO database)

The changing contribution of the continents to global egg production between 2000 and 2013; data in %(Source: FAO database)

The changing contribution of the continents to the global laying hen population between 2000 and 2013 (Source: FAO database)

The ten European countries with the highest number of laying hens in 2000, 2010 and 2013(Source: FAO database)

CONTINENT 2000 2010 2013 INCREASE (%)

Africa 378 505 515 36.2Asia 3,091 4,146 4,494 45.4Europe 687 788 913 32.9N America* 496 567 571 15.1CS America 361 477 520 44.0Oceania 18 18 21 16.7



Africa 1,916 2,668 3,082 60.9Asia 29,211 37,485 39,982 36.9Europe 9,480 10,472 10,933 15.3N America* 7,159 8,222 8,595 20.1CS America 3,249 4,471 5,355 64.8Oceania 199 254 315 58.3



Africa 3.7 4.2 4.5 + 0.3Asia 57.0 59.0 58.6 + 1.6Europe 18.5 16.5 16.0 - 2.5N America* 14.0 12.9 12.6 - 1.4CS America 6.3 7.0 7.8 + 1.5Oceania 0.4 0.4 0.5 + 0.1

World **100.0 100.0 **100.0 -


Africa 7.5 7.8 7.3 -0.2Asia 61.5 63.8 63.9 +2.4Europe 13.7 12.1 13.0 -0.7N America* 9.9 8.7 8.1 -1.8CS America 7.2 7.3 7.4 +0.2Oceania 0.4 0.3 0.3 -0.1

World **100.0 100.0 100.0 -* Canada, USA, Mexico ** sum does not add because of rounding

2000 2010 2013 LAYING HENS SHARE LAYING HENS SHARE LAYING HENS SHARECOUNTRY (1,000) (%) COUNTRY (1,000) (%) COUNTRY (1,000) (%)

Russian Fed. 128,800 18.5 Russian Fed. 155,906 19.8 Ukraine* 191,300 21.0France 63,600 9.1 Ukraine 109,300 13.9 Russian Fed.* 173,838 19.0Italy 63,289 9.1 Italy 68,000 8.6 Italy 71,000 7.8Germany 50,300 7.2 Spain 52,000 6.6 France 58,694 6.4Spain 46,443 6.7 France 51,310 6.5 Poland 49,893 5.5Poland 43,398 6.2 Poland 48,727 6.2 UK 46,064 5.0Ukraine 40,900 5.9 UK 47,000 6.0 Romania 44,870 4.9UK 38,148 5.5 Romania 44,504 5.6 Netherlands 44,816 4.9Netherlands 32,573 4.7 Netherlands 34,845 4.4 Spain 44,668 4.9Romania 32,022 4.6 Germany 34,036 4.3 Germany 43,470 4.8

10 countries 539,473 *77.4 10 countries 645,628 81.9 10 countries 768,613 84.2

Europe 697,087 100.0 Europe 788,013 100.0 Europe 913,088 100.0* see footnotes 1 and 2 on page 4

2000Total 5.0 billion

■ Africa ■ Asia ■ Europe ■ N America* ■ CS America ■ Oceania

* Canada, USA, Mexico



* Canada, USA, Mexico ** sum does not add because of rounding


1

6

PART

A comparison of the dynamics in egg production

at a global level and in Europe and the EU (28)

shows that European countries lost 2.4% of their

contribution to the global production volume

between 2000 and 2013 and EU member

countries 2.7% (Table 6). This is a result of the

high growth rates in Asia, South America and

even in Africa. While Europe still held the first

rank in 1988, it fell back to rank three in 2013

behind Asia and the Americas (see also Figure 2).

FIGURE 2

The changing contribution of the continents to the global egg production between 2000 and 2013 (Source: FAO database)

3.7

57.0

18.5

14.0

6.3

0.4

4.2

59.0

16.5

12.9

7.0

0.4

4.5

58.6

16.0

12.6

7.8

0.5

TABLE 6

The development of egg production in Europe and the EU (28) between 2000 and 2013 compared to global egg production(Source: FAO database)

2000 2010 2013 PRODUCTION SHARE PRODUCTION SHARE PRODUCTION SHAREREGION (1,000) (%) (1,000) (%) (1,000) (%)

World 51,214 100.0 63,572 100.0 68,262 100.0Europe 9,480 18.5 10,472 16.5 10,933 16.1EU (28) 6,662 13.0 6,830 10.7 7,010 10.3

2000Total 51.2 million t

■ Africa ■ Asia ■ Europe ■ N America* ■ CS America ■ Oceania

* Canada, USA, Mexico




Patterns and dynamics of egg production in Europe

and the EU

In a further step, the dynamics of egg production

in the European sub-regions and the EU (28) will

be analysed in more detail.

Figure 3 and Table 7 document the development

of egg production in the European sub-regions.

Eastern Europe showed the highest absolute

growth in the analysed time period with 1.13

mill. t or 30.0%, followed by Northern Europe

TABLE 7

The development of egg production in the European sub-regions between 2000 and 2013; data in 1,000 t(Source: GAO database)

2000 2010 2013 PRODUCTION SHARE PRODUCTION SHARE PRODUCTION SHAREREGION (1,000) (%) (1,000) (%) (1,000) (%)

Eastern Europe 3,799 40.1 4,844 45.9 4,938 45.2Western Europe 2,924 30.8 2,589 24.6 2,871 26.2Southern Europe 1,789 18.9 1,993 18.9 1,965 18.0Northern Europe 967 10.2 1,117 10.6 1,159 10.6

Europe 9,479 100.0 10,543 100.0 10,933 100.0

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Europe Eastern Europe Northern Europe Southern Europe Western Europe

1000t

FIGURE 3

The development of the number of laying hens in the European sub-regions between 1990 and 2013 (Source: FAO database)

with 192,000 t (+ 19.9%) and Southern Europe

with 176,000 t (+ 9.8%). Egg production in

Western Europe decreased between 2000 and

2010 by 335,000 t or 11.5%. Despite the recovery

since 2010, the production volume in 2013 was

still 53,000 t lower than in 2000.

A closer look at the graphs in Figure 3 reveals

some differences in the production dynamics in

the single sub-regions. The continuous upward

trend in Eastern Europe is obvious, also the

downward trend in the other sub-regions as a

consequence of the banning of conventional

cages. In Western Europe, the lowest figure was

reached in 2009 because of the earlier ban in

Germany and Austria, in Northern and Southern

Europe in 2012. While in Northern Europe the

production volume stagnated in the following

year, it slowly recovered in Southern Europe.


1

8

PART

in the other leading countries. Between 2000

and 2010 it fell by 240,000 t or 26.3%. In

2013, it almost reached the level of 2000 again.

France, Spain, Poland and Hungary were also

not able to completely compensate the losses

in their production volumes as a consequence

of the banning of conventional cages. Figure 4

shows that about three quarters of the total egg

production in the EU was contributed by only

seven member countries.

The analysis at country level shows some

remarkable changes in the composition and

ranking of the ten leading countries (Table 8).

In 2000, the Russian Federation ranked in first

place with a production volume of 1.9 mill. t and

a contribution of 20.0% to the overall European

egg production. It was followed by France,

Germany and Italy. Ukraine ranked in eighth

place with a share of 5.2%. Ten years later, it had

already risen to second place with a contribution

of 9.3% which expanded further to 10.3% in

2013. Germany showed considerable changes

in production and ranking. While it ranked as

number three in 2000, it fell to sixth place in

2010 because of the banning of conventional

cages two years earlier than in most of the other

EU member countries but climbed back to rank

four after the transformation to alternative

housing systems was completed. Spain lost two

ranks between 2010 and 2013, a consequence of

the ongoing economic crisis and a drastic decrease

of exports. This will be analysed in more detail in

the third part of this analysis.

In the EU (28), the volume of egg production

grew by 340,000 t between 2000 and 2013. The

regional concentration remained almost at the

same level as can be seen from Table 9. France

was the leading country over the whole analysed

time period, followed by Germany in 2000 and

2013 and by Spain in 2010. The fluctuation of

egg production in Germany was higher than

FIGURE 4

The seven leading EU member countries in egg production (2013) (Source: MEG 2014)

16.6

10.0

13.5

12.711.1

9.6

8.0

24.5

Chart in %Total egg production 7.010 mill. t

■ Spain

■ Netherlands

■ France

■ Germany

■ Italy

■ UK

■ Poland

■ Others


TABLE 9

The ten leading EU (28) member countries in egg production in 2000, 2010 and 2013(Source: FAO database)

2000 2010 2013 PRODUCTION SHARE PRODUCTION SHARE PRODUCTION SHARECOUNTRY (1,000) (%) COUNTRY (1,000) (%) COUNTRY (1,000) (%)

France 1,038 15.6 France 947 13.9 France 944 13.5Germany 901 13.5 Spain 840 12.3 Germany 893 12.7Italy 686 10.3 Italy 737 10.8 Italy 775 11.1Netherlands 668 10.0 Germany 664 9.7 Spain 743 10.6Spain 658 9.9 Netherlands 631 9.2 Netherlands 703 10.0UK 569 8.5 UK 619 9.1 UK 672 9.6Poland 424 6.4 Poland 618 9.0 Poland 558 8.0Romania 263 3.9 Romania 298 4.4 Romania 308 4.4Belgium 194 2.9 Belgium 189 2.8 Belgium 174 2.5Czech Rep. 188 2.8 Hungary 152 2.2 Hungary 139 2.0

10 countries 5,589 *83.9 10 countries 5,695 83.4 10 countries 5,909 *84.3

EU (28) 6,662 100.0 EU (28) 6,830 100.0 EU (28) 7,010 100.0

* sum does not add because of rounding

TABLE 8

The ten leading European countries in egg production in 2000, 2010 and 2013(Source: FAO database)

2000 2010 2013 PRODUCTION SHARE PRODUCTION SHARE PRODUCTION SHARECOUNTRY (1,000) (%) COUNTRY (1,000) (%) COUNTRY (1,000) (%)

Russian Fed. 1,895 20.0 Russian Fed. 2,261 21.6 Russian Fed. 2,284 20.9France 1,038 10.9 Ukraine 974 9.3 Ukraine 1,121 10.3Germany 901 9.5 France 947 9.0 France 944 8.6Italy 686 7.2 Spain 840 8.0 Germany 893 8.2Netherlands 668 7.0 Italy 737 7.0 Italy 775 7.1Spain 658 6.9 Germany 664 6.3 Spain 743 6.8UK 569 6.0 Netherlands 531 6.0 Netherlands 703 6.4Ukraine 497 5.2 UK 619 5.9 UK 672 6.1Poland 424 4.5 Poland 618 5.9 Poland 558 5.1Romania 263 2.8 Romania 298 2.8 Romania 308 2.8

10 countries 7,296 *80.2 10 countries 8,589 *82.0 10 countries 9,001 82.3

Europe 9,480 100.0 Europe 10,472 100.0 Europe 10,933 100.0



1

10

PART

The main results of the first part of this report

can be summarised as follows:

• Between 2000 and 2013, European countries

lost 2.4% of their contribution to global egg

production despite an increase of the total

production volume by almost 1.5 mill. t.

• The dynamics in the four European sub-

regions differed considerably.

• After several years of a stagnating or even

decreasing production, the egg industry in

Eastern Europe recovered considerably.

• Western Europe was the only sub-region with

a decrease of the production volume between

2000 and 2010, a result of the banning of

conventional cages from January 1st, 2010 in

Austria and Germany. Even in 2013, overall

production in this sub-region was still 53,000

lower than in 2000.

• In the other two sub-regions, the impacts of

the banning of conventional cages were much

lower. In Northern as well as in Southern Europe,

egg production increased by 19.9% and 9.8%

respectively.

• In all four sub-regions, the regional

concentration was very high. Only two or three

countries dominated egg production.

• The self-sufficiency rate regarding egg demand

differed considerably between EU member

countries. With 308%, the Netherlands had the

highest rate, Germany with only 71% the lowest.

The regional concentration in the four European

sub-regions differs considerably as can be seen

from a comparison of the data in Tables 10 to

13. In Eastern Europe, 80.3% of the overall

egg production is concentrated in only three

countries. In Western Europe, the three leading

countries shared 88.5% of the production volume

of this sub-region. Italy and Spain, ranked in

first and second place in Southern Europe,

contributing 77.2% to the egg production in this

sub-region. In Northern Europe, the United

Kingdom was in an absolutely dominant position

with a contribution of 58.0% to the overall

production volume.

For the three case studies in Part 3 it is important

to compare the self-sufficiency rate of selected

EU member countries. Table 14 reveals the

immense differences. While the Netherlands

had the highest rate with 308%, the domestic

production in Germany could only cover 71%

of the demand. So it is not surprising that very

close trade relations developed between these

two countries as will be shown later. During the

phase of influenza outbreaks in the Netherlands

in 2003, exports decreased considerably so

that Germany had to look for other exporting

countries. Spain and Poland became important

partners in Germany's egg imports, even though

this was for a limited number of years. This

is especially true for Spain. What impacts the

fluctuating exports had on the Spanish egg

industry will also be dealt with in Part 3.

100%

Neth

erla

nds

308%

Germ

any

71%

200% 300%

Self-sufficiency Lowest and highest in the EU 2013

400%


TABLE 14

The self-sufficiency rate regarding egg consumptionin selected EU member countries in 2013(Source: MEG 2014,

p. 108)

COUNTRY SELF-SUFFICIENCY RATE (%)

Netherlands 308Poland 125Belgium 116Finland 112Spain 111Portugal 107Italy 100

Czech Rep. 85Austria 84Ireland 81Germany 71

EU (27) 102

TABLE 10

TABLE 11

TABLE 12

TABLE 13

The ranking of Eastern European countries in egg production in 2013(Source: FAO database)

The ranking of Western European countries in egg production in 2013(Source: FAO database)

The ranking of Southern European countries in egg production in 2013(Source: FAO database)

The ranking of Northern European countries in egg production in 2013(Source: FAO database)

COUNTRY PRODUCTION SHARE (1,000 T) (%)

Russian Fed. 2,284 46.3Ukraine 1,121 22.7Poland 558 11.3Romania 308 6.2Belarus 220 4.5Hungary 139 2.8Czech Rep. 124 2.5Slovakia 76 1.5Bulgaria 74 1.5Rep. of Moldova 35 0.7

Eastern Europe *4,938 100.0



France 944 32.9Germany 893 31.1Netherlands 703 24.5Belgium 174 6.1Austria 107 3.7Switzerland 49 1.7Luxembourg 2 0.0

Western Europe 2,871 100.0


UK 672 58.0Sweden 129 11.1Denmark 82 7.1Finland 67 5.8Norway 65 5.6Ireland 47 4.1Lithuania 43 3.7Latvia 40 3.5Estonia 12 1.0Iceland 3 0.2

Northern Europe *1,159 *100.0



Italy 775 39.4Spain 743 37.8Portugal 125 6.4Greece 103 5.2Serbia 88 4.5Croatia 36 1.8Albania 32 1.6 Bosnia & Herzegovina 21 1.1Slovenia 19 1.0Macedonia 12 0.6Malta 5 0.3Montenegro 4 0.2

Southern Europe *1,965 *100.0



2PART The transformation of

housing systems and its impact on the laying hen population in the EU

Italy 17.3

Spain 12.7

Belgium 3.5

Portugal 2.7

Poland 2.3

Greece 1.8

Netherlands 1.6

France 1.5

Cyprus 0.1

FIGURE 6

Laying hens in conventional cages in EU member countries (June 2012); data in mill. hens(Source: EU Commission)

FIGURE 5

Share of housing systems in EU laying hen husbandry (2009)(Source: MEG 2010, p. 97)

The negotiations between EU member countries

finally led to the passing of Directive 1999/74/

EC on July 19th, 1999. But it is still necessary

to remember that from January 1st, 2012 all

conventional cages were prohibited in the EU

and that from January 1st, 2003 no conventional

cages could be installed in EU member countries.

It was also decided that member countries could

ban cages earlier, as Austria and Germany did by

prohibiting such cages from 2010 onwards.

In 2009, only one year before the banning of

conventional cages in Austria and Germany

and three years before the deadline for this

housing system in all member countries, 74.4%

or 253 mill. laying hens (Figure 5) were still

kept in conventional cages in the EU (25). From

the data in Table 15 one can easily see that the

highest share of conventional cages was to be

found in countries in Southern Europe, Eastern

Europe and the Baltic countries. Only in six

countries, the majority of laying hens were kept

in alternative housing systems with the lowest

percentage in Germany and Austria. This was

to be expected, however, because these two

countries had decided to ban conventional cages

from January 1st, 2010.

Even in June 2012, when only six months were

left to complete the transformation process

from conventional cages to alternative housing

systems, 43.4 million layers or about 8% of

the total layer flock in the EU was still kept

in conventional cages (Figure 6) according to

non-official data of the EU Commission. Of

these, 30 million layers were located in Spain

and Italy alone. It is not surprising that most of

the conventional cages were still to be found in

Southern Europe because these countries were

severely affected by the economic and financial

crisis which limited the capital availability for

investments in alternative housing systems.

In 2013, the EU published data on the status of

the transformation process. As can be seen from

Figure 7, no conventional cages were listed any

longer with the exception of Croatia. Obviously,

all member countries had been able to complete

the transformation process in due time, even

though this was challenged for some Eastern and

Southern European countries. Figure 8 shows

that in 2013 the share of permitted housing

systems according to Directive 1999/74/EC

differed considerably between the member

countries. In Austria, Germany, the Netherlands

and Sweden the barn system was preferred, free

range systems reached the highest percentage

in the United Kingdom and Ireland, organic

egg farms in Denmark, Sweden, Austria and

Germany. In most of the member countries,

enriched cages and colony nests dominated. In

thirteen countries 70% or more of the layers

were kept in this housing system in 2013, in 20

countries more than 50% of the layers.

FIGURE 7

Share of housing systems in EU laying hen husbandry (2013)

(Source: MEG 2014)

In several papers and special reports to the IEC, the author dealt with the impacts of Directive 1999/74/EC on egg production and egg trade and also with the advantages and disadvantages of the various housing systems so it will not be necessary to repeat the results of the preceding studies.

Conventional cages74.4%

Conventional cages 0.2%

Free range 16.0%

Enriched cages57.4%

Barn systems14.3%

Barn systems26.4%

Free range and organic systems

11.4%


TABLE 15

Laying hens kept in conventional cages in EU member countries (2009)

(Source: MEG 2011, p.

103; FAO database)

COUNTRY LAYING HENS SHARE (%) IN LAYING HENS IN TOTAL CONVENTIONAL CONVENTIONAL (MILL.) CAGES CAGES (MILL.)

Portugal 6.51 98.0 6.38Lithuania 2.46 97.0 2.39Czech Republic 5.35 96.6 5.17Spain 44.03 95.8 42.20Greece 5.00 94.6 4.73Poland 33.91 92.3 31.30Slovakia 6.39 88.2 5.64Latvia 2.15 97.0 2.09Romania 6.59 83.7 5.52Hungary 5.53 82.4 4.56Italy 46.57 81.3 37.86Cyprus 0.49 79.4 0.39France 46.00 80.8 37.18Estonia 0.80 79.1 0.63Belgium 8.85 78.6 6.96Finland 4.09 77.9 3.19Slovenia 1.09 74.2 0.81Bulgaria 3.23 73.4 2.37Ireland 2.14 61.3 1.31Denmark 3.52 55.3 1.95United Kingdom 37.08 49.9 18.50Netherlands 31.61 43.2 13.66Sweden 5.90 39.0 2.30Germany 43.30 36.8 15.93Austria 4.97 4.8 0.24

Total 357.56 70.8 253.26

10

0

40

30

20

50

60

70

80

90

100%

LT

■ Conventional cages ■ Enriched cages ■ Barn systems ■ Free range

PT ES EE SK PL LV HR CZ EL RO HU CY FR FI IT BE IE DK BG SI UK SE NL DE AT LU

FIGURE 8

Share of housing systems in laying hen husbandry in EU member countries (2013) (Source: MEG 2014)

Total 380.5 million hens

■ Enriched cages

■ Barn systems

■ Free range

■ Conventional cages


2PART

Table 16 documents the situation in December

2013 in detail. Of the 380.5 mill layers which

were kept in EU member countries, 219.1 mill.

or 57.6% were held in enriched cages, including

the 1.8 mill. in conventional cages in Croatia.

About 100 mill. layers or 26.4% were held in barn

systems, this includes aviaries, and 60.8 mill. or

16.0% in free range systems. The highest number

of laying hens in enriched cages were in Italy,

Spain, Poland and France. These four countries

shared 65% of the total number of laying hens in

this housing system. Germany, the Netherlands

and Italy contributed 70% to the number of

layers in barn systems; the United Kingdom,

Germany and France 69% to the layers kept in

free range systems.

The situation in European countries outside

the EU cannot be presented completely because

of missing data for some countries. Personal

information to the author on the preferred

housing systems in the Russian Federation,

Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova showed that in

these countries mainly conventional cages are still

used in market-oriented egg production.

The situation in Europe as of December 2013 is

shown in Figure 9. The spatial pattern reflects

the transformation of housing systems in the

EU member countries and the prevalence of

conventional cages in non-EU countries in

Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Switzerland

is an exception because the country does not

permit any cage systems in laying hen husbandry.

In Norway 35% of the 3.5 million laying hens are

housed in enriched cages, 62% in barn systems

and the rest in free range systems.

TABLE 16

Share of housing systems for laying hens in the EU (2013), data in 1,000 hens(Source: EUROSTAT,

MEG 2014)

EU MEMBER ENRICHED BARN FREE TOTALCOUNTRY CAGES* RANGE

Austria 165 4,072 1,705 5,962Belgium 5,116 2,262 1,064 8,442Bulgaria 2,109 1,770 116 3,995Croatia 1,757 271 25 2,053Cyprus 307 66 54 427Czech Republic 4,662 862 39 5,563Denmark 1,781 687 836 3,304Estonia 906 39 53 998Finland 2,826 1,137 188 4,151France 32,741 3,152 11,148 47,041Germany 5,639 31,539 12,725 49,903Greece 3,082 470 239 3,791Hungary 4,219 1,378 74 5,671Ireland 1,611 31 1,185 2,827Italy 40,952 17,008 2,352 60,312Latvia 2,284 333 48 2,665Lithuania 2,367 107 5 2,479Luxembourg 0 90 13 103Netherlands 5,103 20,940 6,881 32,924Poland 32,905 3,915 829 37,649Portugal 6,764 340 131 7,235Romania 4,987 1,522 80 6,589Slovakia 2,518 314 20 2,852Slovenia 687 757 23 1,467Spain 35,682 960 1,767 38,409Sweden 1,721 4,450 882 7,053United Kingdom 16,225 2,088 18,313 36,626

EU total 219,136 100,560 60,795 380,491

Share (%) 57.6 26.4 16.0 100.0

* includes conventional cages for Croatia


0 1000 2000 km

■ Conventional cages ■ Enriched cages ■ Barn systems ■ Free range

Number of laying hens in millions

FIGURE 9

Housing systems in European laying hen husbandry (2013) (Source: EUROSTAT, FAO database, IEC rapporteurs, national data)

Housing systems

■ Enriched cages

■ Barn systems

■ Free range systems

■ Conventional cages

■ No data

EU MEMBER ENRICHED BARN FREE TOTALCOUNTRY CAGES* RANGE

Austria 165 4,072 1,705 5,962Belgium 5,116 2,262 1,064 8,442Bulgaria 2,109 1,770 116 3,995Croatia 1,757 271 25 2,053Cyprus 307 66 54 427Czech Republic 4,662 862 39 5,563Denmark 1,781 687 836 3,304Estonia 906 39 53 998Finland 2,826 1,137 188 4,151France 32,741 3,152 11,148 47,041Germany 5,639 31,539 12,725 49,903Greece 3,082 470 239 3,791Hungary 4,219 1,378 74 5,671Ireland 1,611 31 1,185 2,827Italy 40,952 17,008 2,352 60,312Latvia 2,284 333 48 2,665Lithuania 2,367 107 5 2,479Luxembourg 0 90 13 103Netherlands 5,103 20,940 6,881 32,924Poland 32,905 3,915 829 37,649Portugal 6,764 340 131 7,235Romania 4,987 1,522 80 6,589Slovakia 2,518 314 20 2,852Slovenia 687 757 23 1,467Spain 35,682 960 1,767 38,409Sweden 1,721 4,450 882 7,053United Kingdom 16,225 2,088 18,313 36,626

EU total 219,136 100,560 60,795 380,491

Share (%) 57.6 26.4 16.0 100.0

* includes conventional cages for Croatia

Countries

■ EU member countries

■ Non EU countries104

52

26


2

16

PART

The transformation of the housing systems had

considerable impact on the number of laying

hens and on egg production (Table 17). Figure 10

and Table 18 document the development of layer

flocks in the EU (27) between January 2011 and

May 2015. It is obvious that the implementation

of Directive 1999/74/EC resulted in a strong

fluctuation of the hen population in the EU.

Between January 2011, when over 364 million

layers were kept, and January 2012, when the

transformation of housing systems entered the

critical phase, the number of layers decreased by

almost 33 million birds. Then it recovered and

almost reached its former volume in July 2012.

Between July and September 2013 a peak was

reached with 397 mill. hens. From September

2013, the number of layers decreased sharply and

fell to 359.9 mill. birds in May 2014. After a short

phase of increasing numbers, layer flocks began

to decline again and are expected to reach only

354.5 mill. birds in May 2015. The congruency

between egg prices and the development of the

number of laying hens is obvious. When, due

to the necessary transformation process, the

number of birds decreased in the last months of

2011, egg prices showed a continuous upward

trend and reached a peak in December 2012.

When, however, the flocks increased again,

prices reached an unforeseeable minimum in

September 2013 (Table 19). To stabilise the

market, less eggs were hatched and pullets placed.

Quite obviously, egg producers were pessimistic

towards the end of 2013 regarding the future

price development, for the downward trend of

the hen population in the EU continued until

May 2014. Lasting low prices for the producers

led to another reduction of hatching eggs and

chicken placements. It is expected that the

number of laying hens will stabilise around 350

mill. birds in the second quarter of 2015 and

hopefully also result in higher prices for the egg

producers.

The main results of Part 2 can be summarised as

follows:

• In July 1999, the EU Commission passed

Directive 1999/74/EC which laid down

minimum standards for the protection of laying

hens.

• This directive prohibited conventional cages

from 2012 and the implementation of such cages

from 2003.

• In 2009, 70.8% of all laying hens in the EU

were still kept in conventional cages, especially in

member countries in Southern Europe, Eastern

Europe and in the Baltic states.

• In December 2012, the EU Commission

declared that Directive 1999/74/EC had

been successfully implemented in all member

countries.

• In 2013, 219 mill. laying hens or 57.6% of the

total EU hen population was kept in enriched

cages, 26.4% in barn systems and 16.0% in free

range systems.

• The transformation from conventional cages

to alternative housing systems had far reaching

impacts on the number of laying hens, egg

production and on the price development for eggs

in several countries.

OF LAYERS DECREASED BY ALMOST 33 MILLION BIRDS.

WHEN THE TRANSFORMATION OF HOUSING SYSTEMS

ENTERED THE CRITICAL PHASE, THE NUMBER


300

320

340

360

380

400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Janu

ary

Num

ber o

f lay

ing

hens

in m

illion

s

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June

July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

Octo

ber

Nove

mbe

r

Dece

mbe

r

FIGURE 10

Development of potential layer flocks in the EU (28) between January 2011 and May 2015 (Source: EMA 2/2015)

TABLE 17

TABLE 18

The development of egg production in selected EU member countriesbetween 2010 and 2013, data in 1,000 t(Source: MEG 2011 and

2014)

The development of the laying hen flocks in the EU between January 2011 and May 2015(Source: EMA 12/2013,

EMA 2/2015)

COUNTRY 2010 2011 2012 2013

France 954 873 856 918Spain 918 937 862 900Germany 656 774 825 847UK 709 703 671 711Netherlands 692 710 690 704Italy 745 723 698 691

DATE NUMBER OF INDEX LAYING HENS (1/11 = 10 (1,000)

1/11 364.1 1007/11 352.9 9712/11 334.1 921/12 357.3 987/12 363.3 10012/12 381.7 1051/13 381.0 1057/13 395.1 10812/13 379.7 1041/14 370.5 1025/14 359.9 999/14 369.7 10212/14 360.3 991/15 353.7 975/15* 354.5 97* projected

TABLE 19

The development of shell egg prices in the Netherlands and Germany betweenJanuary 2011 and December 2014(Source: EMA 12/2014)

THE NETHERLANDS GERMANY DATE € €-CENTS PER EGG* DATE €-CENTS PER EGG**

1/11 3.38 1/11 4.177/11 4.14 7/11 5.1812/11 6.16 12/11 7.653/12 9.98 3/12 12.807/12 6.39 7/12 8.3512/12 7.68 12/12 9.043/13 5.62 3/13 5.959/13 4.74 9/13 5.5012/13 5.07 12/13 6.103/14 5.34 3/14 6.007/14 4.74 7/14 5.7512/14 5.78 12/14 7.64

* size class M, barn system; producers price ** size class M, enriched cage; wholesale price


3

18

PART The dynamics of egg production and egg trade in Germany, Spain and the Netherlands – impacts of the banning of conventional cages

The third part of this report will deal with the impacts which the banning of conventional cages and the necessary transformation to alternative housing systems had on the development of layer flocks, egg production and egg trade. As case studies, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands were chosen. The implementation of Directive 1999/74/EC severely affected the egg industries in these countries. Germany had to begin the transformation to alternative housing systems two years earlier than most of the other member countries. It will be shown that this led to a drastic reduction of the number of laying hens and of egg production and a sharp increase of shell egg imports. The Netherlands and Spain stepped in and expanded their exports considerably. However, when Germany completed the transformation and the egg industry recovered faster than expected, imports fell considerably in only two years and led to a surplus of eggs in Spain and the Netherlands. Both countries had to look for alternative markets or were forced to reduce their production. The main goal of the case studies is to show the close interdependence of the dynamics in the egg industries of these three countries.

Germany – struck by the earlier banning of

conventional cages

The German government utilised the option in

Directive 1999/74/EC to ban conventional cages

earlier than 2012. It was decided that this housing

system would be prohibited from January 1st,

2010. The decision had far reaching impacts

on the development of the number of laying

hens, egg production and imports of shell eggs

and also affected the egg industries in other EU

member countries because of the dominant role

of Germany in shell egg imports.

Compared to other branches of animal

production, the value of egg sales at farm level

is comparatively low in Germany as can be seen

from Table 20. In 2013, egg sales contributed

only 5% to the total value of animal products

sold whilst poultry meat shared 13.7%. The

dominance of pork and beef sales is obvious.

Nevertheless, the egg industry is an important

economic factor in the centres of the poultry

industry in the state of Lower Saxony. So it is not

surprising that this state was severely struck by

the earlier banning of conventional cages.

Exceptional dynamics in the development of the

laying hen population

When it became obvious to German egg farmers

that they would have to give up conventional

cages by 2010, they started to implement

alternative housing systems. In 2007, 67.6%

of the 41.4 mill. laying hens were still kept in

conventional cages, two years later the share

was down to 36.8% (see Table 15). During these

years a special housing system was developed in

Germany, the so called ‘Kleingruppenhaltung’

or colony nest.3 It was assumed that in the

future this would be the main housing

system in Germany. But in the middle of the

transformation process, the leading food retailers

decided to no longer list eggs printed with a “3”

which indicates cage systems. They argued that

the consumer could not distinguish between eggs

produced in conventional cages and enriched

cages according to Directive 1999/74/EC. As it

would no longer be possible for the egg producers

to sell large amounts of eggs from the colony nest

system, they had to change their strategy. Most of

them switched to barn system (see Table 16 and

Figure 8). To get permission to build new farms

with barn systems took some time, and so the

number of large egg farms (> 3,000 places) and of

laying hens fell dramatically between 2000 and

2010 (Table 21 and Figure 11).

3For details see the Special Report for the 2015 Business Conference

in Lisbon: Housing Systems in Laying Hen Husbandry.

Germany


FIGURE 11

Development of the number of layer farms (> 3,000 places) and the number of laying hens in Germany between 2000 and 2013 (Source: MEG 2003, 2008, 2011, 2014)

55000

50000

45000

40000

35000

30000

25000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Num

ber o

f hen

s in

1,00

0s

Num

ber o

f lay

er fa

rms (

>3,

000

plac

es)

53,3

00

49,4

00

48,6

00

45,5

00

44,3

00

43,5

00

43,2

00

42,4

00

41,4

00

41,4

00

41,3

00

36,7

00

33,4

00

39,2

00

1,3241,268

1,208

1,326

1,1961,246 1,274

1,239 1,2141,133 1,114

1,1981,245

1,333

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

TABLE 20

The role of the egg industry in Germany's animal production (2013)*

(Source: DESTATIS)

PRODUCT VALUE OF SHARE (%) OF PRODUCTION ANIMAL (MILL. €) PRODUCTION

Pork 5,701 43.6Beef and veal 4,165 31.9Poultry meat 1,792 13.7Eggs 651 5.0Sheep meat 210 1.6Others 550 4.2

Total 13,069 100.0* without milk and dairy products

TABLE 21

The development of the number of egg farms and of laying hens in Germany between 2000 and 2013

(Source: ZMP 2003,

2008; MEG 2011, 2014)

NUMBER INDEX TOTAL INDEX IN FARMS INDEX (2000 = 100) (2000 = 100) 3,000 PLACES (2000 = 100)

2000 1,324 100.0 53,300 100.0 35,211 100.02001 1,326 100.1 49,400 92.7 35,008 99.42003 1,208 91.2 45,500 85.4 32,330 91.82005 1,246 94.1 43,500 81.6 32,038 91.02007 1,239 93.6 41,400 77.7 32,326 91.82008 1,214 91.7 41,300 77.5 32,191 91.42009 1,133 85.6 36,700 68.9 29,056 82.52010 1,114 84.1 33,400 62.7 27,156 77.12011 1,198 90.5 39,200 73,5 32,476 92.22012 1,245 94.0 41,400 77.7 35,510 100.82013 1,333 100.7 43,200 81.1 37,350 106.1

YEAR EGG FARMS >3,000 PLACES LAYING HENS (1,000)


A closer look at the data in Table 21 and the

graphs in Figure 11 shows the strong fluctuation

in the number of laying hens. Between 2000 and

2002, the number of laying hens decreased from

53.3 mill. to 48.6 mill. or 8.8%. This trend is also

a result of the increasing laying rate (see Table 23)

and a decreasing per capita consumption from

223 to 217 eggs. The sharp decrease in 2003 to

only 44.5 mill. birds was a consequence of the

influenza outbreaks in the Netherlands. In the

following years, the laying hen flocks further

decreased and reached 41.4 mill. hens in 2007.

The transformation to alternative housing

systems began in 2008. Between 2008 and

2010, 100 farms with > 3,000 places stopped

production, at least for a few years, and the

number of laying hens fell to 33.4 mill. or by

almost 20%. But the egg industry recovered

faster than expected. In 2012, the same number

of hens as in 2007 was once again reached and

by 2013, it was even surpassed by 1.8 mill. In

parallel, the number of egg farms with > 3,000

places climbed from 1,114 to 1,333 or by 19.7%.

The growing per capita consumption from 210

eggs in 2009 to 218 in 2013 in combination with

an increase of the laying rate to 296 eggs in 2012

resulted in a constant growth of egg production.

A comparison of the dynamics of the total hen

population with that in larger farms (Table 21)

reveals that smaller farms were more severely

affected by the enforced banning of conventional

cages. This is reflected in the sharp decrease of

the total number of egg farms from 72,883 in

2007 to only 56,286 in 2013. While only 94

farms with > 3,000 places closed or stopped

egg production, 16,597 smaller farms or 22.8%

decided to give up because of the necessary

investments in new housing systems and low egg

prices (see Table 19).

The regional concentration of laying hen flocks

and of egg production in Germany was and is

very high. Lower Saxony is the dominant centre

as can be easily seen from Figure 12. In 2013,

34.9% of the egg farms, 36.4% of the laying hens

and 37.3% of the German egg production were

located in this state.

Table 22 documents the dynamics of the laying

hen population between 2007 and 2013 for

the four leading states. Between 2007, one year

before the transformation of the housing systems

began, and 2013, the number of laying hens in

Lower Saxony decreased by 36.4%, in North

Rhine Westphalia by only 5.1%, in Bavaria by

23.0% and in Saxony by 27.7%. In 2013, the

number of laying hens in Lower Saxony and

North Rhine Westphalia was higher than before

the implementation of alternative systems. In

North Rhine Westphalia, the laying hen flocks

were 1 mill. birds higher. In contrast, Bavaria

and Saxony had not returned to the previous

numbers. Quite obviously, several egg farms

used the chance to expand their capacities when

replacing the old conventional cages.

Strong fluctuations in egg production

The sharp reduction of the number of laying

hens between 2008 and 2010 and the recovery

in the following years affected imports as well as

production.

It was mentioned before that the decrease in

the hen population in the early years of the

past decade was closely related to the influenza

outbreaks in the Netherlands. This also affected

egg production as can be seen from the data

in Table 23. The considerable downward

trend between 2007 and 2010 is obvious; the

production volume fell by almost 2 billion eggs or

15.7%. Despite the fast recovery, the production

volume in 2013 was still 5.1% lower than in 2000.

A decrease of the average laying rate from 296

3PART

eggs in 2012 to 292 eggs in 2013 is one reason,

another, the lasting low prices. The lower average

laying rate is a result of the growing number

of laying hens in barn and free range as well as

organic housing systems.

At state level, remarkable differences can be

observed (Table 22). In Lower Saxony and in

Saxony, egg production decreased by 25.6% and

30.0% respectively between 2007 and 2010.

In contrast, the production volume increased

by 6.3% in Bavaria and by 2.5% in North Rhine

Westphalia. These two states had and have a

higher number of smaller egg farms which were

able to complete the transformation to alternative

housing systems faster than the large farms of the

vertically integrated agribusiness companies in

Lower Saxony and Saxony. While egg production

in Saxony was still 7.7% lower in 2013 than in

2007, the production volume in North Rhine

Westphalia and Bavaria was 42.8% and 30.9%

higher. While this reflects the development of the

number of egg farms in North Rhine Westphalia,

it is surprising at first sight for Bavaria as in this

state the number of laying hens in 2013 was 6.4%

lower than in 2007. Obviously, the transfer to

larger farms and an intensified production with

higher laying rates per hen made this possible.

Germany


16

0 km 100 200

84

No data

16

0 km 100 200

84

No data

16

0 km 100 200

84

No data

FIGURE 12

Laying hens in farms with > 3,000 places in Germany (2013) (Source: MEG 2014)

TABLE 22

The development of the number of laying hens* in selected German states between 2007 and 2013; data in 1,000 hens(Source: ZMP 2008; MEG

2011, 2014)

STATE 2007 2008 2010 2013 CHANGE (%)

Lower Saxony 13,388 10,962 8,515 13,604 +1.6North Rhine Westphalia 3,258 2,976 3,093 4,265 +30.9Bavaria 3,760 2,876 2,894 3,521 -6.4Saxony 3,233 3,325 2,336 3,090 -4.4

4 states 23,639 20,139 16,838 24,480 +3.6

Share (%) of Germany's 58.9 62.6 62.0 65.5 -hen population * in farms with > 3,000 places

TABLE 23

The development of German egg production between 2000 and 2013(Source: ZMP 2003,

2008; MEG 2011, 2014)

YEAR EGG PRODUCTION INDEX LAYING RATE (MILL. PIECES) (2000 = 100) (EGG PER HEN AND YEAR)

2000 14,400 100.0 2762002 14,144 98.2 2742003 13,186 91.6 2772005 12,709 88.3 2782007 12,553 87.2 2852008 12,617 87.6 2872009 11,171 77.6 2812010 10,586 73.5 2922011 12,502 86.8 2952012 13,313 92.5 2962013 13,665 94.9 292

Laying Hens (mill.)in farms >3,000 places


3

22

PART

The rising per capita consumption of eggs

resulted in a stable domestic consumption of eggs

and led to a remarkable increase in egg imports.

Figure 13 documents the dynamics of the self-

sufficiency rate and egg imports between 2000

and 2013. The reduction of the number of laying

hens and the decreasing production volume

caused a lower self-sufficiency rate in the early

years of the past decade. Despite the recovery

of the production volume between 2004 and

2007, the self-sufficiency rate further decreased

due to the rising per capita consumption and

resulted in higher imports. When, during the

transformation process, the number of laying

hens decreased by 7.9 million birds, the self-

sufficiency rate dropped to just 54.9% in 2010.

To meet the domestic demand, 8.3 billion eggs

had to be imported. Parallel to the growing layer

flocks and egg production, the self-sufficiency

rate climbed to 71.0% again within only three

years causing the import volume drop to 5.9

billion eggs, 1.2 billion less than in 2008.

Dynamics in egg trade and its impacts on the

egg industry in the main countries of origin of

Germany's egg imports

What impacts did this dynamic have on the trade

flows of shell eggs?

The Netherlands has been the leading egg

exporting country for decades and Germany the

number one egg importing country. Between

these two adjacent countries close trade relations

regarding egg trade have developed over the years.

Germany was and is the leading market for the

Dutch egg surplus and The Netherlands was and

is the main country of origin for Germany's egg

imports. This situation did not change during

the considerable increase of egg imports between

2008 and 2010. The Dutch egg industry was not

able to deliver all requested eggs, so Germany had

to look to other countries with a considerable egg

surplus (see Table 14).

Table 24 documents the changes in Germany's

egg imports between 2008 and 2013. Between

2008 and 2010, the import volume increased by

almost 2.2 billion eggs and then decreased again

by 2.4 billion eggs until 2013. The three most

important questions are: Which countries could

benefit from the fast and sharp increase? Which

countries were affected by the fast and drastic

decrease of the import volume? What impacts

did the dynamics in Germany's egg imports have

on the countries which benefitted or suffered

from the fluctuating import volume? The

answers to these questions will be given partly in

this case study but also in the case studies which

deal with The Netherlands and Spain.

Table 25 shows that between 2008 and 2010

Dutch exports to Germany grew by 1.2 billion

eggs or 26.8%, followed by imports from Poland

(+242 mill. or 55.7%) and Spain (+220 mill. or

90.5%). These three countries had the highest

benefit from the rising German demand.

Between 2010 and 2013, the export volume of

The Netherlands to Germany fell by almost 1.5

billon eggs or 25.0%, that of Spain by 317 mill.

eggs or 68.5% and that of France by 179 mill. eggs

or 81.0%. In contrast, Poland was able to secure

its position as one of the major countries of origin

for Germany's imports. The export volume grew

by 57 mill. eggs or 8.4%. The three countries

which were most affected by the falling German

imports were The Netherlands, Spain and France.

It can be expected that the development of the

egg industries in The Netherlands and Spain will

reflect the sharp rise and decline of the German

import volume within only six years. That is

why these two countries were chosen for the

additional case studies.

The main results of the first case study can be

summarised as follows:

• Germany banned conventional cages in 2010,

two years earlier than most of the other EU

member countries.

• This earlier date had far reaching impacts on

the development of the number of laying hens, of

egg production and of egg imports.

• Within only six years, between 2008 and 2013,

the number of laying hens fell from 41.3 mill.

in 2008 to only 33.4 mill. in 2010 and increased

once again to 43.2 mill. in 2013.

• This dynamic is reflected in the volume of egg

production which decreased from 12.6 billion in

2008 to only 10.6 billion in 2010 and then rose

again to 13.7 billion in 2013.

• As a result of this situation, egg imports grew

from 6.1 billion in 2008 to 8.3 billion in 2010

and then fell again to 5.9 bill. in 2013.

• These ups and downs in the export volumes

had far reaching impacts on the egg industries in

the leading countries of origin of Germany's egg

imports.

Germany


TABLE 24

TABLE 25

The development of egg production* in selected German states between 2007 and 2013; data in 1,000 hens(Source: ZMP 2008; MEG

2011, 2014)

The development of Germany's shell egg imports between 2008 and 2013; data in mill. pieces(Source: ZMP2008; MEG

2011, 2014)

STATE 2007 2008 2010 2013 CHANGE (%)

Lower Saxony 3,431 3,372 2,554 4,093 +19.3North Rhine Westphalia 836 839 857 1,194 +42.8Bavaria 795 811 845 1,041 +30.9Saxony 1,024 1,037 717 945 -7.7

4 states 6,086 6,059 4,973 7,273 +19.5

Share (%) of Germany's 48.5 48.0 47.0 53.2 -egg production * in farms with > 3,000 places

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 CHANGE (%)

Netherlands 4,586 5,777 5,814 4,816 4,528 4,359 -5.0Poland 436 593 679 892 1,005 736 +68.8Belgium/Lux. 235 346 431 243 371 301 +28.1Spain 243 357 463 183 101 146 -40.0Czech Republic 71 56 59 54 26 59 -16.9France 154 159 221 56 35 42 -72.3Lithuania 56 18 9 5 4 11 -80.4Others 312 203 595 419 249 499 +59.9

Total 6,093 7,509 8,271 6,668 6,319 5,883 -3.4

FIGURE 13

Development of the self-sufficiency rate for shell eggs for consumption and of egg imports in Germany between 2000 and 2013 (Source: MEG 2003, 2008, 2011, 2014)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Impo

rt of

eggs

(in

billi

on p

iece

s)

Self-

suffi

cienc

y rat

e (in

%)

4.4 4.

7

4.6 4.

9 5.3 5.

7 5.9

6.0 6.

1

7.5

8.3

6.7

6.3

5.9

1,333

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

50

55

60

65

70

80

7574.0

67.4

74.0

71.0 71.0 71.0

68.567.8

68.6

59.4

54.9

66.1

68.2

71.0


3

24

PART

The Netherlands – leading in egg exports

The Netherlands play an exceptional role

in European poultry trade. In 2013, they

contributed 41.4% to the shell egg exports of the

EU and 23.6% to the poultry meat exports. They

have been the leading egg exporting country for

decades and contributed over 20% to the global

export volume.

The main goals of this case study are to document

the recovery of egg production and egg trade after

the influenza outbreaks in 2003 and to analyse

the dynamics of the egg trade between Germany

and the Netherlands between 2000 and 2013.

The role of the poultry industry in Dutch

agriculture

Despite the exceptional position of the

Netherlands in egg exports, the contribution of

this sector to the overall agricultural production

is remarkably low. In 2012 (more recent data

is not available) poultry meat and eggs shared

only 4.9% of the total value of agricultural

production. This was far behind the value of the

dairy industry (15.7%) and that of swine and pork

production (11.1%).

Regarding the value of exported poultry

products, the contribution of the poultry

industry is much higher. In 2012, the value of all

animal products exported by the Netherlands

was as high as 14.6 billion euros. To this, the

dairy industry contributed 5.2 billion euros,

pork 3.2 billion euros, poultry meat 2.6 billion

euros and eggs 900 mill. euros. Together, poultry

products shared 24.0% of the value of exported

animal products while their contribution to the

production value was only 12.5%. This data alone

shows the important role which the poultry

industry plays in Dutch exports of animal

products.

Dynamics and patterns of laying hen husbandry

and egg production

The number of egg farms decreased considerably

between 2000 and 2014 as can be seen from

Table 26. The influenza outbreaks in 2003

resulted in a sharp decrease, followed by a

short phase of recovery until 2006. From then

on, a new phase of continuous reduction can

be observed. This was the consequence of

continuing low egg prices and the fast reduction

of egg exports to Germany.

The impacts of the influenza outbreaks on

the number of egg farms are reflected in the

dynamics of the laying hen population (Table

27). Between 2000 and 2003, the laying

hen population fell by 31%. The banning of

conventional cages in Germany from January

1st, 2010 resulted in a massive decrease of the

country’s self-sufficiency rate to only 55% and

necessitated imports of 8.3 billion shell eggs,

to which The Netherlands contributed 5.8

billion or 69.9%. Dutch egg farmers reacted

with a fast expansion of the layer flocks. The

decision of the German food retailers to no

longer list eggs printed with a “3” (cage eggs) led

to the preference of the barn system because

eggs from this housing system could not be

produced in Germany in the requested volume.

Egg farmers in Germany had assumed that the

Kleingruppenhaltung (colony nest) would be the

housing system of the future. The German egg

industry recovered much faster than expected

however, and reached a self-sufficiency rate

of 71% in 2013. A surplus of barn eggs on the

EU market and continuing low prices forced

the farmers to cut back hatching and pullet

placements. Considerably higher placements in

2014 caused another phase of low egg prices in

mid-2014 at farm gate and considerable financial

losses of the egg farmers (see Table 19).

The influenza outbreaks in 2003 caused a

considerable decline of the number of egg

farms and of the laying hen population. As can

be seen from Table 28, egg production fell by

25% and it took about 3 years to recover from

this blow. Despite the lower number of laying

hens, the production volume increased in the

following years because of higher laying rates.

The contribution of 12.2% in 2000 to EU egg

production could not be reached again, however,

because of the growing production volumes

in several other EU member countries. This

added to the lasting phase of low egg prices

and considerable financial losses of the egg

industry. The high self-sufficiency rate of 308%

in 2013 forced the Dutch egg farmers to export

despite the perspective of financial losses. One

possible way out of the critical situation was

the exploration of new markets outside the EU,

especially in Africa and Asia, as will be shown

later.

High regional concentration in the egg industry

Egg farms are concentrated in the four eastern

provinces of Gelderland, Noord-Brabant,

Limburg and Overijssel (Figure 14). The location

far from the urban agglomeration of Randstadt

and close to the important German market

is obvious. The regional concentration of egg

farms has a parallel in the spatial distribution

of the layer flocks (Table 29, Figure 15). In 2014,

almost two thirds of the total Dutch laying

hen population was concentrated in the three

provinces Gelderland, Limburg and Noord-

Branbant. A comparison of the average flock size

in the five leading provinces reveals considerable

differences. The highest average shows Limburg

with 68,766 hens per farm, the lowest, Overijssel

with only 25,117.

The Netherlands


TABLE 26

TABLE 27

TABLE 28

TABLE 29

The development of egg farms in the Netherlands between2000 and 2014

The development of the number of laying hens in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2014

The development of the Dutch shell egg production between 2000 and 2013

(Source: ZMP 2003 and

2008; MEG 2014)

The five leading provinces with the highest number of laying hens in the Netherlands in 2014 and the average size of the flocks

YEAR EGG FARMS INDEX (2000 = 100)

2000 2,290 100.02003 1,360 59.42006 1,610 70.32010 1,440 62.92013 1,220 53.32014 1,170 51.1

YEAR LAYING HENS INDEX (1,000) (2000 = 100)

2000 44,036 100.02003 30,498 69.32006 41,642 94.62010 47,907 108.82013 44,816 101.82014 46,570 105.8

YEAR PRODUCTION INDEX SHARE (%) OF SELF-SUFFICIENCY (1,000 T) (2000 = 100) EU PRODUCTION RATE (%)

2000 614 100.0 12.2 2282003 463 75.4 6.5 1802006 615 100.2 8.7 2212009 665 108.3 9.6 3132012 690 112.4 10.0 3072013 704 114.7 9.9 308

PROVINCE LAYING HENS SHARE (%) AVERAGE FLOCK (1,000) SIZE (HENS)

Gelderland 11,146 23.9 29,802Limburg 10,590 22.7 68,766Noord-Brabant 8,905 19.1 49,472Overijssel 3,014 6.5 25,117Drenthe 1,621 3.5 28,439

5 provinces 35,276 75.7 39,860

Netherlands 46,570 100.0 39,803

37418794

0 km 40 80

37418794

0 km 40 80

37418794

0 km 40 80

FIGURE 14

FIGURE 15

Farms with laying hens in the Netherlands (2014)(Source: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek)

Number of laying hens in the provinces of the Netherlands (2014)(Source: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek)

12,835

6,4183,209

0 km 40 80

12,835

6,4183,209

0 km 40 80

12,835

6,4183,209

0 km 40 80

(Source: Cantraal Bureau voor de Statistiek)


Farms with laying hens Number of laying hensin 1,000



Dynamics and patterns of egg trade

The Dutch foreign trade benefitted from the

high egg surplus and the leading role in global

egg exports in phases of high egg prices but

it became a burden when the markets were

saturated and the prices low. A special focus of

the following analysis is laid on the bilateral trade

with Germany, the most important country of

destination. Between these two countries close

trade relations have developed over the past

decades.

Table 30 documents the sharp decrease of shell

egg exports between 2000 and 2003, resulting

from the influenza outbreaks. The export volume

fell by 116,600 t or 36.5%. It took several years

before the volume of the year 2000 was reached

again. From 2006 on, egg exports increased

continuously, but seem to have reached a plateau

in 2013. Because of lower imports, the export

surplus also grew.

A closer look at the trade flows reveals

immediately that Germany is by far the most

important country of destination for the Dutch

exports (Table 31). Germany's share of the total

export volume increased from 64% in 2000 to

79% in 2010 and fell back to 71% in 2013. The

main steering factor behind this fluctuation

was the early banning of conventional cages in

Germany, as was already mentioned.

On the one hand, the Dutch egg industry was

and is highly dependent on its exports to the

neighbour country; on the other side, Germany

also depends on imports from the Netherlands

to meet the domestic demand. Table 32 shows

that at the beginning of the past decade Germany

was extremely dependent on imports from

the Netherlands. Because of the impacts of

the influenza outbreaks and the lower export

volumes, Germany had to look for other trade

partners. For a few years, Spain, Poland and

France could benefit from the higher German

import volume (see Table 25). The decrease of

German imports after the completion of the

transformation process to alternative housing

systems forced the Dutch egg farmers to look for

new countries of destination for their exports.

Table 33 shows that in 2013 Angola and the

United Arab Emirates were listed among the

ten leading countries with a combined share of

2.7% of the overall export value. But the data also

shows the exceptional importance of Germany as

the leading importer for the Dutch egg industry

and the high dependence on this market.

3PART

The main results of the second case study can be


• Since 2000, a fast consolidation process

in the Dutch egg industry can be observed.

The influenza outbreaks in 2003 and the

implementation of alternative housing systems

after the banning of conventional cages were the

main steering factors behind this process.

• The influenza outbreaks caused a considerable

decrease of the laying hen flocks, of the

production volume and of egg exports. In the

meantime, the industry has recovered from this

blow.

• The high self-sufficiency rate for shell eggs is on

the one hand a benefit for the Dutch egg industry

but can also become a burden in phases of an

oversupply and lasting low egg prices.

• Over the past decades, close trade relations

have developed between the Netherlands and

Germany. Both countries are to a very high

degree dependent on the possibility to export to

the neighbour country and to import from the

neighbour country.

The Netherlands

IS ON ONE HAND A BENEFIT FOR THE DUTCH EGG INDUSTRY BUT CAN ALSO BECOME A BURDEN

HIGH SELF-SUFFICIENCY FOR SHELL EGGS

€ € €


TABLE 30

The development of the Dutch exports and imports of shell eggs for consumptionbetween 2000 and 2013; data in t


YEAR EXPORTS IMPORTS EXPORT SURPLUS

2000 319,752 54,782 264,9702003 203,083 105,104 97,9792006 293,800 100,600 193,2002009 375,960 131,875 244,0852012 393,000 127,938 265,0622013 393,900 125,000 268,800

Increase (%) 23.2 128.2 1.5

TABLE 31

TABLE 32

TABLE 33

The leading countries of destination for Dutch shell eggs for consumptionexports in 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2012; data in mill. pieces

(Source: PVE 2013,

p. 50)

The development of the German shell eggs for consumption imports from the Netherlands between 2000 and 2013; data in mill. pieces

(Source: ZMP 2003,

2008; MEG 2014)

The ten leading countries of destination for Dutch shell egg exports in 2013

COUNTRY OFDESTINATION 2000 2005 2010 2012

Germany 4,067 4,275 5,553 4,661Belgium 215 217 337 302France 373 148 119 230Switzerland 120 177 197 197United Kingdom 386 211 92 164Others 1,164 672 722 1,011

Total 6,325 5,700 7,020 6,565

YEAR IMPORTS SHARE (%) OF TOTAL IMPORTS

2000 3,993 91.62003 3,177 65.12006 3,834 77.32009 5,771 76.92010 5,814 70.32011 4,816 72.22012 4,528 71.62013 4,359 73.9

COUNTRY OF EXPORT VALUE SHARE (%) OFDESTINATION (1,000 €) TOTAL EXPORTS

Germany 422,050 69.0Belgium 40,351 6.6Italy 33,257 5.4Switzerland 27,061 4.4Poland 18,213 3.0France 12,380 2.0Angola 10,045 1.6Denmark 6,752 1.1United Kingdom 6,683 1.1United Arab Em. 6,442 1.1

10 countries 583,234 *95.4

Total 611,387 100.0* sum does not add because of rounding



Spain – egg sector hit by the financial and

economic crisis

Spain is one of the leading countries in EU egg

and poultry meat production. In 2013, Spain

contributed 12.7% to the shell egg production of

the EU (28), 10.2% to broiler meat production

and 9.0% to turkey meat production. After

several years of a remarkable growth (Windhorst

2009), the Spanish poultry industry was

confronted with a critical economic situation

because of the lasting financial and economic

crisis. In this third case study the impacts of this

crisis on egg production and egg trade will be

analysed in detail. A focus is laid on the impacts

of the fluctuating egg imports by Germany on the

Spanish egg industry.

The poultry industry – an important branch of

Spain's agriculture

The poultry industry is an important sector of

Spanish agriculture. Table 34 shows that the

contribution of poultry meat production to the

value of agricultural production increased from

4.6% in 2008 to 5.8% in 2012, but lost 0.5%

by 2013 due to the economic crisis. The value

of egg production was considerably lower and

fluctuated considerably in the past years. While

the egg industry shared 2.9% of the overall value

of agricultural production in 2009 and 2012, the

share dropped to only 1.8% in 2013. Between

2012 and 2013, the value of egg production fell

by 420 mill. euros. This shows impacts of the

recent economic crisis which severely hit the egg

farmers.

Sharp decrease of laying hen flocks and egg

production

The lasting financial and economic crisis in Spain

is reflected in the decrease of the number of

layer farms, the laying hen population and of egg

production. Between 2007 and 2013, the number

of layer farms dropped from 1,796 to only 1,097

or by 39.0%. The laying hen flock decreased from

51.1 mill. in 2010 to only 38.4 mill. layers in 2013

or by 24.9% (Table 35). Despite this decrease,

the average flock size grew from 28,115 birds

(2007) to 35,013 birds (2013), an indicator of the

continuous sectoral concentration. Obviously,

smaller egg farms were not able to meet the

economic challenges and stepped out. The spatial

distribution of the laying hens in 2013 is shown

in Figure 16.

A closer look at the steering factors behind the

increase of the laying hen population between

2008 and 2010 and the drastic decrease in

the following years leads to the following

explanation.

The considerable increase of the laying hen

population until 2010 was closely related to

the earlier banning of conventional cages in

Germany. It was already documented that

this resulted in a fast increase of egg imports

by Germany to 8.3 billion eggs (see Table 25).

Countries with a high egg surplus, such as

the Netherlands, Poland and Spain, were able

to meet the growing demand in Germany.

When, however, the transformation process to

alternative housing systems in Germany was

completed and the self-sufficiency rate reached

71% again in 2013, imports fell sharply. This

also hit Spain. The considerable surplus of

eggs led to lasting low prices and high financial

losses of the egg farmers. This critical situation

occurred parallel to the necessary investments

in alternative housing systems. As the Spanish

egg farmers were permitted to use their old

housing systems parallel to the new ones, the

laying hen population remained fairly high in

2011, but dropped sharply in the following years.

An additional negative impact was the fact that

the laying hen population in the EU reached a

maximum in mid-2013 (see Table 3 and Figure

10). Obviously, many egg farmers used the

transformation to alternative housing systems

to increase their laying hen flocks. In Spain,

the economic crisis with decreasing average

incomes led to a considerable reduction of the

per capita consumption from 239 eggs in 2012

to only 206 eggs in 2013. This drastic decrease

was a consequence of the fact that the volume

of eggs for further processing fell by 35.8%. The

demand for products with a high content of eggs

decreased considerably. The egg industry tried to

compensate this by higher exports.

Table 36 shows that the dynamics in the

laying hen population were reflected in the

development of egg production. A maximum

was reached with 13.3 billion eggs in 2010;

then, the production volume fell considerably

by 2.5 billion eggs or 19.7% until 2013, when the

production volume dropped below 11 billion

eggs.

3PART

Spain


TABLE 34

The development of the contribution of the Spanish poultry industry to the value of agricultural production between 2008 and 2013(Source: MAPA 2014)

EGGS POULTRY MEAT TOTALYEAR MILL. € SHARE (%) MILL. € SHARE (%) SHARE (%)

2008 990 2.4 1,901 4.6 7.02009 1,110 2.9 1,899 5.0 7.92010 939 2.3 1,909 4.7 7.02011 978 2.4 2,238 5.5 7.92012 1,205 2.9 2,448 5.8 8.72013 782 1.8 2,333 5.3 7.1

TABLE 35

TABLE 36

The development of the Spanish laying hen population between 2008 and 2013(Source: MAPA 2014)

The development of the Spanish egg production between 2008 and 2013(Source: MAPA 2014)

YEAR LAYING HENS INDEX (1,000) (2008 =100)

2008 49,995 100.02009 50,593 101.22010 51,109 102.22011 49,494 99.02012 43,643 87.32013 38,409 76.8

YEAR EGG PRODUCTION INDEX (MILL.) (2008=100)

2008 12,896 100.02009 13,166 102.12010 13,339 103.42011 12,995 100.82012 11,409 88.52013 10,845 84.1

FIGURE 16

Number of laying hens in the autonomous regions of Spain (2013) (Source: Subdireccíon General de Productos Ganaderos 2014)

11,351

5,676

0 km 100 200

2,83811,351

5,676

0 km 100 200

2,838

11,351

5,676

0 km 100 200

2,838

Number of laying hensin 1,000


Strong fluctuation in trade with shell eggs and egg

products

Spain is one of the leading egg exporting

countries in the EU. From 2008 to 2010 it

ranked in third place behind the Netherlands and

Poland. In the following years exports dropped

considerably and in 2013 Spain ranked in fifth

place according to MEG (2014, p. 111) data.

Table 37 shows the development of total egg

exports and those to EU member countries.

While the growth rates were similar between

2008 and 2009, exports to EU countries dropped

faster in the following years.

In 2010, Spanish egg exports were focused on

France and Germany. About two thirds of the

total export volume was directed to these two

countries. In 2013, the situation had changed

considerably. France still ranked in first place

with a share of 34.2%, but Germany only ranked

in fifth place with a share of 9.1% (Table 38).

Table 39 documents the considerable changes

in Germany's egg imports from Spain between

2008 and 2013. Between 2008 and 2010, the

import volume grew by 71.3%, then until 2013

it decreased by almost 17,900 t or 67.4%. A

similar development in shown in the egg exports

to France. Exports to this country also fell by

15,800 t or 28.3%.

To compensate the losses of market shares in the

EU, the Spanish egg industry changed its export

strategies. One strategy was the development of

new markets outside the EU, another, to change

the composition of the export products. Table

40 shows that the export volume to developing

countries increased by 5,400 t between 2000 and

2013; African countries became new countries

of destination. While in 2010 shell eggs for

consumption contributed 82.8% to the total

export volume, their share dropped to 40.8% in

2013. In the same time period, the contribution

of hatching eggs to the total export volume

increased from 4.6% to 33.4% and that of the

shell egg equivalent for egg products from 12.6%

in 2008 to 35.6% in 2011, but in 2013 it dropped

to 25.7%. The increase of egg products for export

was able to partly compensate the sharp decrease

of the domestic demand for these products.

These strategies alone were not sufficient,

however, to stabilise egg prices. To reduce the

oversupply, the egg industry drastically reduced

the placements of pullets from 36.7 mill. birds

in 2012 to 27.4 mill. in 2013 (EMA 2014), a

decrease of 25.4%. Even though the placements

increased again in 2014, they were still 7 mill.

birds lower than in 2012. It is a still open question

if the reduction of pullet placements will be able

to stabilise egg prices and initiate a new phase of

profitable egg production.

The main results of the third case study can be


• The Spanish egg industry is confronted with

a critical economic situation. This is as a result

of the lasting economic and financial crisis of

the high investment costs to fulfil Directive

1999/74/EC.

• The decrease of the number of egg farms, of the

laying hen population and of egg production was

a result of the lower domestic demand for eggs

and egg products and of the strong fluctuation in

the export volumes.

• With the development of new egg markets

outside the EU, a change in the composition of

the exports and a reduction of pullet placements

the industry tried to stabilise egg prices. It

remains, however, an open question if these

means will be sufficient for a return to profitable

egg production.

3PART

Spain

THE SPANISH EGG INDUSTRY IS CONFRONTED WITH A

CRITICAL ECONOMIC SITUATION


TABLE 38

TABLE 40

The leading EU member countries of destination for Spanish egg exports in 2010 and 2013(Source: MAPA 2014)

The leading countries of destination outside the EU for Spanish egg exports in 2010 and 2013(Source: MAPA 2014)

2010 2013COUNTRY OF EXPORTS SHARE (%) OF COUNTRY OF EXPORTS SHARE (%) OFDESTINATION (T) TOTAL EXPORTS DESTINATION (T) TOTAL EXPORTS

France 55,771 41.7 France 39,994 34.2Germany 29,075 21.7 Italy 28,366 24.3Italy 11,895 8.9 Portugal 12,800 10.9Portugal 11,710 8.8 United Kingdom 12,248 10.5United Kingdom 11,197 8.4 Germany 10,596 9.1Netherlands 2,619 2.0 Netherlands 10,410 8.9

Others 11,460 8.6 Others 2,547 2.2

Total 133,737 100.0 Total 116,961 100.0

2010 2013COUNTRY OF EXPORTS SHARE (%) OF COUNTRY OF EXPORTS SHARE (%) OFDESTINATION (T) TOTAL EXPORTS DESTINATION (T) TOTAL EXPORTS

Libya 2,358 33.5 Angola 2,379 19.2Andorra 774 11.0 Mauretania 2,316 18.6Russian Federation 737 10.5 Libya 1,971 15.9Israel 709 10.1 Israel 1,152 9.3Philippines 657 9.3 Andorra 708 5.7

Others 1,807 25.7 Others 3,893 31.3

Total 7,042 *100.0 Total 12,419 *100.0


TABLE 39

The development of the Spanish shell egg exports to Germany between 2008 and 2013(Source: MAPA 2014)

YEAR EGG EXPORTS INDEX (MILL. PIECES) (2008 = 100)

2008 234.3 100.02009 356.9 146.72010 462.9 197.62011 182.8 78.02012 101.6 43.42013 145.7 62.2

TABLE 37

The development of total Spanish shell egg exports and exports to EU member countries between 2008 and 2013(Source: MAPA 2014)

YEAR TOTAL EGG INDEX EGG EXPORTS TO INDEX EXPORTS (T) (2008 = 100) EU COUNTRIES (2008 = 100)

2008 156,280 100.0 144,053 100.02009 164,019 105.0 154,042 106.92010 144,287 92.3 133,737 92.82011 159,454 102.3 139,406 96.82012 116,784 74.7 105,437 73.22013 143,462 91.8 116,961 81.2


3

32

PART

The three case studies showed that the earlier

banning of conventional cages in Germany in

2010 not only had far reaching impacts on the

laying hen population, egg production and egg

imports in this country but also affected the egg

industries in several other EU member countries.

This is especially true, as documented, for the

Netherlands and Spain. Both countries raised

their pullet placements in order to participate

in the growing egg imports of Germany in 2010.

When, however, the German egg industry

recovered faster than expected, both countries

suffered from an egg surplus and low prices. In

contrast to the Netherlands, the Spanish egg

industry has to cope not only with decreasing

exports but also with the lasting financial

and economic crisis and a considerably lower

domestic demand.

ANIMAL WELFARE DISCUSSION WAS THE MAIN DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE CHANGES IN HOUSING SYSTEMS IN THE EU

New challenges and perspectives

The preceding analysis showed that the animal

welfare discussion was the main driving force

behind the changes in housing systems in the EU

from conventional cages to alternative housing

systems. According to EU data, 219 mill. hens

or 57.6% of the total laying hen population

of the EU (28) were housed in enriched cages

and colony nests, 100 mill. or 26.4% in barn

systems and 61 mill. or 16.0% in free range

systems in 2013. The example of the EU shows

impressively that only when food security is

no longer a problem, animal welfare aspects

can gain in importance and initiate a change

in the attitudes of the society towards keeping


animals. As Directive 1999/74/EC was limited

to EU member countries, conventional cages still

dominate in most non-member countries with

the exception of Switzerland, where no cages at

all are permitted, and Norway, where 35% of the

3.5 mill. laying hens are kept in enriched cages

and 62% in barn systems. It can be expected that

especially in the Russian Federation, Ukraine

and Belarus, the most important egg producing

countries outside the EU in Eastern Europe,

conventional cages will remain the dominant

housing systems for years.

The expectation that after the banning of

conventional cages the discussion about animal

welfare in laying hen husbandry would calm

down was not fulfilled. The most important

animal welfare challenges for the egg industry in

the EU are beak treatment and the killing of male

layer chicks. A solution must be found for these

challenges. In some countries, beak treatment

and the killing of male layer chicks will be

prohibited by law within a few years. The three

case studies in Part 3 demonstrated that decisions

in one country can have far reaching impacts in

other countries (Windhorst 2010). This lesson

should convince politicians and law makers to

find unanimous solutions to these challenges at

least in the EU.

CHALLENGES FOR THE EGG INDUSTRY

THE MOST IMPORTANT

Beak treatment

Male chick culling

Windhorst, H.-W.: The Role of the Egg Industry in the Global Poultry Industry. London: International Egg Commission 2012. 27 S.

Windhorst, H.-W.: Global Egg Production and Dynamics – Past, Present and Future of a Remarkable Success Story. London: International Egg Commission 2014. 35 p.

ZMP-Marktbilanz Eier und Geflügel. Bonn. Verschiedene Ausgaben.


About the author References

Professor Hans-Wilhelm Windhorst

Professor Windhorst is the IEC Statistical

Analyst and was Director of the Institute

for Spatial Analysis and Planning in Areas

of Intensive Agriculture at the University

of Vechta, Germany until April 2009, an

institute that he founded in 1990.

In October 2012, he founded the Science

and Information Centre Sustainable Poultry

Production (WING) of the University of

Vechta, of which he is the Scientific

Director. Much of his work involves

investigating regional and sectoral patterns

in the egg industry.

He studied at the University of Muenster

and gained a PHD in 1969 and then gained

a postdoctoral qualification in 1977.

Professor Windhorst has had a long-

standing involvement with the IEC, and

together with Peter van Horne is developing

the Economic and Statistical service that

the IEC provides to members.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Desiree

Heijne, Aline Veauthier and Ursula Welting

(all WING colleagues) for the design of the

graphs and maps in this report.

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Den Haag. http://statline.cbs.nl.

EMA-Europäische Marketing Agentur (Hrsg.): Markübersicht Eier. Bonn: 15. Dezember 2014.

FAO database: www.faostat.fao.org.

MEG-Marktbilanz Eier und Geflügel 2011. Bonn 2011.

MEG-Marktbilanz Eier und Geflügel 2014. Bonn 2014.

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino (MAPA), Subdirección General de Productos Ganaderos (Hrsg.): El Sector de la Avicultura de Puesta en Cifras. Madrid 2014.

Produktschapen Vee, Vlees en Eieren: Vee, Vlees en Eieren in Nederland. Uitgave 2013. Zoetermeer 2013.

Windhorst, H.-W.: The extraordinary recent dynamics of the Spanish egg industry. In: Zootecnica 31 (2009), no. 11, S. 12-22.

Windhorst, H.-W.: Banning of cages in Germany and after. First results of the largest economic field experiment in the egg industry. In: International Egg Commission (ed.): International Egg Market. Annual Review 2010. London 2010, S. 4-9.


The International Egg Commission, on behalf of the global egg community, defines social responsibility as balancing the needs of people, animals and the planet.

When evaluating our social responsibility, we are passionate about:

1. Producing safely, the highest quality protein.

2. Feeding the growing population, and ensuring food affordability.

3. Providing choice.

4. Caring for the environment.

and

5. Ensuring the health and wellbeing of our hens.

IEC Statement on Corporate and Social Responsibility

IEC Global Headquarters 89 Charterhouse StreetLondon EC1M 6HRUnited Kingdom

Phone: +44 (0) 20 7490 3493Fax: +44 (0) 20 7490 3495Email: [email protected]: www.internationalegg.com

World Egg Organisation Incorporating:International Egg CommissionEgg Processors InternationalInternational Egg Foundation International Egg Nutrition Consortium

IEC Beijing OfficeNo. 20-2 Jinghai 2nd RoadEast District E & T Development AreaBeijing 100023P.R. China

As a part of the egg industry, your business will increasingly need to be in touch with what is

happening locally, nationally and on the world stage.

With issues and opportunities happening fast in today’s global environment, access to a

reliable information stream and talking to the right people is crucial.

The organisation to facilitate this is the International Egg Commission - join today.

Call +44 (0) 20 7490 3493 or visit the website on www.internationalegg.com

The IEC Support Group provides a unique

opportunity to promote your company through

IEC publications, the IEC website and through

our annual conferences.

If you are interested in joining, please contact

Caron Floyd on +44 (0) 20 7490 3493

Interested in joining the IEC Support Group? Become a member of the IEC

The IEC Support GroupWe would like to thank the following for their support

IEC Bangkok OfficeUnit 4703, 47th Floor1 Empire TowerSouth Sathorn RoadYannawaSathornBangkok 10120 Thailand

TRANSITION / POLITICAL CHANGE AND INSTABILITY / … · 1The IEC Annual Review 2014 only shows 103.5...

Documents

Transcript of TRANSITION / POLITICAL CHANGE AND INSTABILITY / … · 1The IEC Annual Review 2014 only shows 103.5...