hans-wilhelm windhorst, iec statistical analyst patterns of …€¦ · europe 9,4809,86617.4...
TRANSCRIPT
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014 1
Hans-Wilhelm Windhorst, IEC Statistical AnalystPatterns of European egg production and egg trade after the banning of conventional cages in the EU
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 20142
The particular situation of the European egg industry
Introduction Objectives
In contrast to other continents, the European egg industry has been confronted with
particular challenges over the past 25 years.
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 process in these countries led to a considerable decrease in egg
production. New independent countries were established 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 orientated production and trade systems,
others are still struggling.
In the middle of the transformation process they were confronted with another
challenge, the banning of conventional cages from 2012 onwards, or even earlier
in Austria and Germany from 2010. It is estimated that the implementation of
Directive 1999/74/EU resulted in investments between five and six 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. So there was not much time left to adapt to the
directive and to start the change to other housing systems.
A new problem arose from the economic and financial crisis in several Southern
European countries. Their argument was that because of the lack of capital they would
not be able to meet the requested deadline of December 31st, 2012. According to
historical data from the EU Commission, about 43 million laying hens were still kept
in conventional cages in June 2012. So it was a surprise for many observers when the
EU Commission published data early in 2013 which showed that the implementation
of Directive 1999/74/EU had been completed successfully in December 2012
The main objectives of this report
are:
• to present an overview of the
changing contribution of European
countries and the EU to global egg
production between 2000 and 2012,
• to analyse the dynamics of egg
production in the European sub-
regions between 2000 and 2012,
• to document the time-spatial
transformation of conventional
cages to alternative housing
systems in the EU and to present an
overview of the present situation,
• to analyse what impact the
political and socio-economic
transformation in the USSR and
Eastern Europe and the banning of
conventional cages had on the trade
patterns of eggs,
• to present trade flows for
the leading egg exporting and
importing countries in the EU (27),
• to discuss possible impacts of the
new challenges for the egg industry
in the EU (27).
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 measure-ment “t” means “tonnes” and “mill.t” means “million tonnes”.
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014 3
1PART The changing contribution
of Europe to global egg production between 2000 and 2012
Until 1988 Europe was the leading continent
in global egg production it was then surpassed
by Asia. Figure 1 shows that in the early 1990s
European production volume decreased
considerably due to the collapse of the political
and economic systems in the former USSR and
Eastern Europe. Despite the recovery of egg
production since 2000, the total production
volume is still about 1 mill. t lower than in the
late 1980s.
Between 2000 and 2012 egg production in
Europe increased from 9.5 mill. t to 10.5 mill.t
or by 11.1%. Nevertheless, the contribution of
European countries to global egg production
decreased from 18.6% in 2000 to 16.1% in 2012.
This is a result of the fast growth in Asia of
almost 7.7 mill. t in the analysed time period and
1.6 mill. t in Central and South America (Table
1). In total, global egg production grew by over
14.4 mill. t or 28.3%.
TABLE 1
FIGURE 1
The changing contribution of the continents to global egg production between 2000 and 2012; data in 1,000t Source: FAO database
The development of global egg production between 1970 and 2012Source: FAO
database
2000 2005 2012CONTINENT PRODUCTION SHARE PRODUCTION SHARE PRODUCTION SHARE (%) (%) (%)
Africa 1,888 3.7 2,212 3.9 2,820 4.3Asia 29,009 56.8 32,587 57.6 38,691 59.1Europe 9,480 18.6 9,866 17.4 10,531 16.1N America* 7,159 14.0 7,758 13.7 8,190 12.5 CS America 3,313 6.5 3,941 7.0 4,965 7.6Oceania 199 0.4 205 0.4 289 0.4
World **51,049 100.0 **56,570 100.0 65,486 100.0
* Canada, Mexico, USA** sum does not add because of rounding
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
*
Egg
prod
uctio
n (m
ill t)
Africa Asia Europe North America Central & South America Oceania *Preliminary
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014
1
4
PART
In the EU (27), the production volume increased
from 6.6 mill. t to 7.0 mill. t or by only 6.3%
between 2000 and 2012. This documents that
the recovery of European egg production was
mainly a result of the dynamics in some Eastern
European countries. The contribution of the EU
(27) to global egg production fell from 13.0% in
2000 to only 10.7% in 2012.
A closer look at the dynamics at a country level
shows (Table 2) that the ten leading countries
contributed 9.1 mill. t or 64.5% to the global
growth in the analysed time period, China’s
contribution alone was 5.5 mill. t. In 2000, three
European countries ranked among the top ten
egg producing countries, Russia, France and
Germany; in 2012, it was still three countries but
Germany was replaced by Ukraine. The regional
concentration decreased, for the ten leading
countries shared 70.6% of the global production
in 2000, but only 69.1% in 2012.
In contrast, the regional concentration in
Europe grew from 80.2% to 82.3% between
2000 and 2012. This was due to the increase of
the production volume in most of the leading
countries. Only in France (-180,000 t) and
Germany (-93,000 t), was a downward trend
observed (Table 3). In Germany this was the
result of the earlier banning of conventional cages
(from 2010), but in France it reflects the general
crisis in the French poultry industry. It is worth
mentioning that the highest absolute and relative
increase was shown by Ukraine with 583,000 t or
117%. In this country, the egg industry showed a
considerable upward trend, however this has not
yet had a large impact on the role of Ukraine in
egg exports. Obviously, the production growth is
mainly the result of a growing domestic demand.
The same is true for the Russian Federation, for
the increase in the production volume of almost
440,000 t has not led to higher exports.
World egg production 2012
65,486,000 tonnes
European contribution to world egg production 2012
10,531,000 tonnes
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014 5
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
The ten leading egg producing countries in 2000, 2005 and 2012Source: FAO database
The ten leading European countries in egg production in 2000, 2005 and 2012Source: FAO database
2000COUNTRY PRODUCTION SHARE (1,000 t) (%)
China 18,547 36.3USA 4,998 9.8Japan 2,535 5.0India 2,035 4.0Russia 1,895 3.7Mexico 1,788 3.5Brazil 1,509 3.0France 1,038 2.0Germany 901 1.8Turkey 810 1.6
10 countries 36,056 *70.6
World 51,049 100.0
2000COUNTRY PRODUCTION SHARE (1,000 t) (%)
Russia 1,895 20.0France 1,038 10.9Germany 901 9.5Italy 686 7.2Netherlands 668 7.0Spain 658 6.9UK 569 6.0Ukraine 497 5.2Poland 424 4.5Romania 263 7.8
10 countries 7,599 *80.2
Europe 9,480 100.0
China 20,724 36.6USA 5,333 9.4India 2,568 4.5Japan 2,481 4.4Russia 2,050 3.6Mexico 2,025 3.6Brazil 1,675 3.0France 930 1,6Indonesia 856 1.5Germany 795 1.4
10 countries 39,437 *69.7
World 56,570 100.0
Russia 2,050 20.8France 930 9.4Germany 795 8.1Ukraine 748 7.6Italy 722 7.3Spain 708 7.3UK 609 6.2Netherlands 607 6.2Poland 536 5.4Romania 355 3.6
10 countries 8,060 81.7
Europe 9,866 100.0
2005COUNTRY PRODUCTION SHARE (1,000 t) (%)
2005COUNTRY PRODUCTION SHARE (1,000 t) (%)
2012COUNTRY PRODUCTION SHARE (1,000 t) (%)
2012COUNTRY PRODUCTION SHARE (1,000 t) (%)
China 24,000 36.6USA 5,435 8.3India 3,500 5.3Japan 2,507 3.8Russia 2,334 3.6Mexico 2,318 3.5Brazil 2,037 3.1Indonesia 1,180 1.8Ukraine 1,075 1.6France 854 1.3
10 countries 45,240 *69.1
World 65,486 100.0
Russia 2,334 22.1Ukraine 1,080 10.2France 854 8.1Germany 808 7.7Italy 765 7.3Spain 693 6.6Netherlands 672 6.4UK 630 6.0Poland 530 5.0Romania 312 3.0
10 countries 8,678 82.3
Europe 10,531 100.0
* sum does not add because of rounding
* sum does not add because of rounding
PART
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 20146
2The dynamics of egg production in the European sub-regions between 2000 and 2012
Between 2000 and 2012 European egg
production increased from 9.5 mill. t to 10.5
mill. t (Table 4). As can be seen from Figure 2,
the decrease since the early 1990s was mainly the
result of the new political and economic situation
in Eastern Europe. The downward trend lasted
until 1996, from then on several countries
showed an increase in their production volume.
In Western Europe, a fall in egg production can
be observed between 2000 and 2011. It was not
before 2012 that the production volume showed
an upward trend again. The steering factors
behind this dynamic will be analysed in detail in
a later chapter. Egg production in Northern and
Southern Europe has fluctuated less even though
a decrease in the production volume can be
observed in some Southern European countries
since 2004. Recent data shows that because of the
banning of conventional cages and the economic
crisis, egg production decreased considerably in
several Southern European countries in 2012.
In the following paragraphs, the European
sub-regions will be analysed in detail. This will
make it possible to characterise the dynamics and
recent patterns more precisely.
Eastern Europe
Eastern European countries1 contributed
40.1% to European egg production in 2000
but 46.5% in 2012. Because of the political and
socio-economic transformation processes the
production volume decreased rapidly between
1990 and 1996. The adaption process to the
new economic situation lasted several years and
differed from country to country. Between 2000
and 2010, egg production in Poland increased
by 195,000 t, but decreased again by 47,000 t
between 2010 and 2012 (Figure 3). In Romania,
egg production grew by 94,000 t between 2000
and 2006 and then decreased by 45,000 t until
2011, after this in 2012 a new growth phase
began. Hungary lost 53,000 t of its production
volume between 2000 and 2011. Despite a
considerable growth of 398,000 t between 2000
and 2011, the production volume in Russia
was still about 48,000 t lower than in 1992.
Quite obviously, the contrasting development
had impacts on European egg trade. Poland, for
example, became a major egg exporting country,
mainly supplying the German market.
A closer look at the ranking of the Eastern
European countries according to the volume of
their egg production shows (Table 5) that the
Russian Federation was in a dominant position
in 2012 with a share of 47.7%, followed by
Ukraine and Poland. The regional concentration
in Eastern Europe is very high, as a result of the
dominant position of the Russian Federation. The
three leading countries contributed 80.5% to the
overall egg production of this sub-region.
Western Europe
In 2000, Western European countries shared
30.9% of the European egg production; by 2012
their contribution had fallen to 25.2%. This
decrease is a result of both the fast recovery of egg
production in Eastern Europe and the stagnating
production volume in Western Europe. It was
not before 2011 that egg production increased
again. More recent data shows, however, that the
banning of conventional cages in EU member
countries from 2012 onwards may have stopped
the upward trend in this sub-region and initiated
a phase of stagnation.
A closer look at the development in selected
countries shows the remarkable dynamics
(Figure 4). In France, egg production decreased
by 198,000 t between 2000 and 2008 before it
started to grow again. But the peak it reached in
2009 with 918,000 t could not be maintained,
the production volume fell by almost 80,000 t
until 2011 before it started to increase again
by 14,000 t in 2012. This reflects the general
crisis in the French poultry industry for similar
dynamics can also be observed in the poultry
meat sector. In Germany, a first drastic decrease
of egg production occurred in the early 1990s as
a result of the collapse of many large state farms
in the former German Democratic Republic.
The situation stabilised between 1993 and 2000,
but from then on, a continuous shrinking of the
production volume can be observed. The latter
is mainly due to the banning of conventional
cages two years earlier than in most of the other
EU member countries. The lowest production
volume of only 662,000 t was reached in 2010
when all conventional cages had to be abandoned.
The self sufficiency rate fell to 55.1% in 2010 and
the import volume of shell eggs for consumption
reached 8.3 billion eggs. But the German egg
1In FAO statistics, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova are counted as European countries.
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014 7
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
The development of egg production in the European sub-regions between 2000 and 2012; data in 1,000 tSource: Own
calculations
Development of egg production in the sub-regions of Europe between 1990 and 2012Source: FAO database
Development of egg production in Poland, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria between 1990 and 2012Source: FAO database
Development of egg production in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium-Luxembourg and Belgium between 1990 and 2012Source: FAO database
The ranking of the Eastern European countries in egg production in 2012Source: FAO database
YEAR NORTHERN EASTERN SOUTHERN WESTERN EUROPE EUROPE EUROPE EUROPE EUROPE
2000 967 3,799 1,789 2,925 9,4802005 1,038 4,318 1,869 2,640 9,8662012 1,093 4,894 1,885 2,653 10,525
Change (%) +13.0 +28.8 +5.4 -9.3 +11.0
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Europe Northern Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe Western Europe
1,000 t
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Poland Romania Hungary Bulgaria
1,000 t
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
France Germany Netherlands Belgium-Luxembourg Belgium
1,000 t
COUNTRY PRODUCTION SHARE (%) (1,000 t)
Russian Federation 2,334 47.7Ukraine 1,075 22.0Poland 530 10.8Romania 312 6.4Belarus 215 4.4Hungary 131 2.7Czech Republic 115 2.3Slovakia 75 1.5Bulgaria 72 1.5Moldova 35 0.7
Eastern Europe 4,894 100.0
PART
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014
2
8
industry recovered faster than expected. In
2012, the self-sufficiency rate reached 68.3%
and the production volume was higher than
in 2008. Between 2000 and 2003, Dutch egg
production decreased by 205,000 t because
of the influenza outbreak in 2003. From then
on the egg industry has been recovering from
this blow (see Windhorst 2010a). In 2011, the
production volume was 24,000 t higher than in
2000 but decreased by 20,000 t in the following
year. Egg production in Belgium fluctuated
between 213,000 t in 2001, 153,000 t in 2009
and reached 165,000 t in 2012.
A closer look at the contribution of the Western
European countries to the egg production volume
of this sub-region and their ranking (Table 6)
shows that France, Germany and the Netherlands
were in a dominant position. In 2012, they
shared 88.0% of the production volume of
Western Europe all other countries were of
minor importance. This is especially true for
Luxembourg, Austria and Switzerland. The two
latter countries have become major egg importing
countries over the past years.
Southern Europe
The contribution of Southern European
countries to egg production in Europe did not
change very much between 2000 and 2012, it
remained at a level of between 18% and 19%.
Italian egg production reached a first peak
in 1997 (Figure 5). In the following years the
production volume fluctuated considerably, as a
result of various influenza outbreaks in northern
Italy. Another peak was reached in 2009 with
812,500 t. The sharp increase should be viewed
in close relation to the development of the egg
industry in Germany where the banning of
conventional cages led to rising imports. But
this high level could not be maintained, for the
production volume fell by 57,000 t until 2011
before it grew again in 2012 by 10,000 t.
The Spanish egg industry has shown remarkable
dynamics since the late 1990s (see Windhorst
2010b). Between 1999 and 2004, egg production
increased by almost 200,000 t. The main steering
factors behind this were a fast growing per capita
consumption and increasing exports. When the
Netherlands had to reduce their exports during
the influenza outbreak in 2003, new markets
for Spanish egg producers opened in Germany,
France and the United Kingdom. With the
recovery of the Dutch egg industry and the new
role of Poland as a major egg exporting country,
the Spanish egg industry lost important markets.
The main steering factors behind the sharp
reduction of egg production between 2004 and
2005 were rising production costs due to higher
feed costs, the devaluation of the English pound,
high investment costs to control Salmonella
infections in layer herds, and a drastic reduction
of the per capita consumption because of high
egg prices. Since 2006 egg production has been
fairly stable at about 800,000 t. In 2012, the
production volume fell by 125,000 because of the
necessary transformation process of the housing
systems and the tense economic and financial
situation in the country. Whether a fast recovery
will be possible for Spain is still an open question.
Egg production in Portugal and Greece is much
lower than in Spain and Italy. In Portugal an
increase in the production volume of 5,000 t
between 2000 and 2005 can be observed. In
Greece egg production hovered around 100,000 t
for the past few years.
As can be seen from the data in Table 7, Spain
and Italy shared 77.4% of the production volume
of this sub-region. The contribution of all other
countries to egg production in this sub-region
was much lower.
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014 9
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
The ranking of the Western European countries in egg production in 2012Source: FAO database
The ranking of the Southern European countries in egg production in 2012Source: FAO database
COUNTRY PRODUCTION SHARE (%) (1,000 t)
France 854 32.2Germany 808 30.5Netherlands 672 25.3Belgium 165 6.2Austria 106 4.0Switzerland 46 1.7Luxembourg 2 0.1
Western Europe 2,653 100.0
COUNTRY PRODUCTION SHARE (%) (1,000 t)
Italy 765 40.6Spain 693 36.8Portugal 125 6.6Greece 102 5.4Serbia 79 4.2Croatia 35 1.9Albania 33 1.8Slovenia 26 1.4Bosnia & Herzegovina 19 1.0Malta 4 0.2Montenegro 4 0.2
Southern Europe 1,885 *100.0
* sum does not add because of rounding
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Spain Italy Portugal Greece
1,000 t
FIGURE 5
Development of egg production in Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece between 1990 and 2012Source: FAO database
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014
2
10
PART
Northern Europe
Northern European countries contributed 10.4%
to European egg production in 2012, 0.2% less
than in 2000. From Figure 6 one can see that
egg production has not changed very much
during the analysed time period in Denmark,
Finland and Norway. In contrast, the production
volume of the United Kingdom has fluctuated
considerably since 1998 when a peak was
reached. This dynamic is closely related to the
decision of several food retailers to no longer list
eggs from cage production. Farmers who were not
willing to invest in alternative housing systems
for laying hens had to cease production. On the
other hand, several new free range farms, some of
them of a remarkable size, and farms with ‘colony
nests’ (a form of enriched cage) were built. Even
though free range eggs are preferred by English
consumers, eggs from colony nests gained market
share over the past years. Between 2000, when
the lowest production volume of 569,000 t
was reached, and 2012, egg production grew by
almost 61,000 t. The high production volume
reached in 2010 could not be maintained, as a
result of the necessary transformation process in
the housing systems.
Whereas Latvia was able to expand its egg
production from 24,400 t in 2000 to 42,500 t
in 2012, Estonia lost over 4,000 t of its former
production volume. Lithuania s egg production
increased by 14,000 t between 2000 and 2007
to 55,000 t but this high level could not be
maintained and the production volume decreased
by 11,000 t by 2012.
With a share of 57.6%, the United Kingdom was
the dominant egg producing country in this sub-
region. It was followed by Sweden, Denmark and
Finland. Together they contributed 81.2% to the
overall production volume of Northern Europe
(Table 8).
A ranking of the European countries according
to their egg production volume shows (Table 9)
that in 2012 82.4% of the overall production was
concentrated in the ten leading countries. With
a share of 22.2% Russia was in a leading position.
Four of the top ranked countries were located in
Eastern Europe, three in Western Europe, two
in Southern Europe and only one in Northern
Europe.
The main results of the preceding
two steps of the analysis can be
summarised as follows:
• Global egg production increased
from 51.0 mill. t in 2000 to 65.5
mill. t in 2012 or by 28.3%. Europe s
egg production volume grew from
9.5 mill. t to 10.5 mill. t or by 11.0%
in the same time period.
• The contribution of European
countries to global egg production
fell from 18.6% in 2000 to 16.1%
in 2012.
• The dynamics in the sub-regions
differed considerably. The highest
absolute growth with 1.1 mill. t
was in Eastern Europe, followed by
Southern Europe with 100,000 t.
• Western Europe was the only
sub-region with a decreasing egg
production. Between 2000 and
2012 the production volume fell by
272,000 t or 9.3%.
• The highest relative growth was
found in Eastern Europe with
28.8%, followed by Northern
Europe with 13.0%.
• The ten leading countries shared
82.4% of the total egg production
volume in Europe, the top two
countries, Russia and Ukraine, had
a combined total of 32.4%.
• The regional concentration was
very high in all sub-regions. The
two or three leading countries
contributed between 70% and 80%
to the total egg production in their
respective sub-region.
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014 11
FIGURE 6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
United Kingdom Denmark Finland Sweden Norway
1,000 t
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
The ranking of the Northern European countries in egg production in 2012Source: FAO database
The ten leading countries in European egg production in 2012Source: FAO database
COUNTRY PRODUCTION SHARE (%) (1,000 t)
United Kingdom 653 57.6Sweden 116 10.6Denmark 79 7.2Finland 63 5.8Norway 60 5.5Ireland 45 4.1Lithuania 44 4.0 Latvia 42 3.8Estonia 11 1.0Iceland 3 0.3
Northern Europe 1,093 *100.0
* sum does not add because of rounding
COUNTRY SUB-REGION PRODUCTION SHARE (%) (1,000 t)
Russian Federation Eastern Europe 2,334 22.2Ukraine Eastern Europe 1,075 10.2France Western Europe 854 8.1Germany Western Europe 808 7.7Italy Southern Europe 765 7.3Spain Southern Europe 693 7.0Netherlands Western Europe 672 6.6United Kingdom Northern Europe 630 6.0Poland Eastern Europe 530 5.0Romania Eastern Europe 312 3.0
10 countries - 8,673 *82.4
Europe - 10,525 100.0
* sum does not add because of rounding
Development of egg production in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway between 1990 and 2012Source: FAO database
PART
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014
3
12
The author of this report has dealt with the
regulations of Directive 1999/74/EU in a number
of publications (Windhorst 2010c, 2011) so
this part of the analysis will only deal with the
impacts on the housing systems for laying hens,
the changes in the number of laying hens and on
egg production in the EU (27).
On July 19th, 1999 the EU Commission passed
Directive 1999/74/EC in which minimum
standards for the protection of laying hens
were laid down. The directive decided that
from January 1st, 2012 all conventional cages
would be prohibited and that from January 1st,
2003 onwards it would be prohibited to install
conventional cages in EU member countries. It
was also decided that member countries could
decide to ban cages earlier, which Austria and
Germany did by prohibiting such cages from
2010. Before the final implementation of the
directive, additional scientific studies were
undertaken to analyse the impacts on the welfare
of laying hens and the economy of production.
In 2007, the results of the scientific studies were
available (www.laywel.eu).
The banning of conventional cages in the EU (27) and its impacts on housing systems and egg production
Parallel to the dynamic development
and spatial shifts in egg production, the
volume and trade flows in shell egg trade
changed considerably between 1970
and 2010.
Based on these results, in 2008 the Commission
decided that the regulations of the directive
would not be changed and the deadline of the
implementation would not be extended. It
had taken almost nine years before the final
decision regarding the housing systems which
would be permitted in future was published.
Within this time period, almost no investments
were made because nobody was sure about
the final regulations of the directive. After the
Commission had decided, there was not much
time left for the member countries to implement
the directive. Requests from several member
countries from Eastern and Southern Europe
to extend the deadline were rejected by the
Commission.
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 were still kept in conventional
cages (Figure 7) according to non official data of
the EU Commission. Of these, 30 million layers
were located in Spain and Italy. It is not surprising
that most of the conventional cages were still to
be found in Southern Europe for these countries
were severely affected by the economic and
financial crisis.
Early in 2013, the EU published data about
the status of the transformation process. As
can be seen from Figure 8, no conventional
cages were listed any longer. Obviously, all
member countries had been able to complete the
transformation process in due time, even though
the data is still challenged. From Figure 8 one can
easily see that the preference of the permitted
housing systems differs considerably between
the member countries. In Austria, Germany,
the Netherlands and Sweden the barn system is
preferred, free range systems reach 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, this includes colony nests and
the German Kleingruppenhaltung, dominate. In
thirteen countries 70% or more of the layers were
kept in this housing system in December 2012.
The transformation of the housing systems had
considerable impacts on the number of laying
hens and on egg production. Figure 9 and Table
10 document the development of layer flocks in
the EU (27) between January 2011 and February
2014. It is obvious that the implementation of
Directive 1999/74/EC had far reaching impacts
on the hen population in the EU (27). 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.
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014 13
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 8
Laying hens in EU member countries in conventional cages in June 2012; data in million hensSource: EU Commission
Development of potential layer flocks in the EU (27) between January 2011 and February 2014Source: EMA 11/2013
Housing systems in laying hen husbandry in EU member countries in December 2012Source: EU Commission
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% LT PT ES PL EE LV CZ SK RO HU IT CY FI FR BE IE BG DK SI UK SE NL DE AT
Organic Free range Barn Enriched cage
Num
ber o
f lay
ing
hens
(in
mill
ions
)
400
390
380
370
360
350
340
330
320
310
300 January February March April May June July August September October November December
2011 2012 2013 2014
TABLE 10
The development of the laying hen flock in the EU (27) between January 2011 and February 2014Source: EMA 12/2013
DATE NUMBER OF INDEX LAYING HENS (1/11=100) (1,000)
Jan 2011 364.1 100July 2011 352.9 97Dec 2011 334.1 92Jan 2012 357.3 98July 2012 363.3 100Dec 2012 381.7 105Jan 2013 381.4 105July 2013 397.0 109Dec 2013 385.2 106Jan 2014 377.4 104Feb 2014 375.7 103
Cyprus 0.1
Italy 17.3
France 1.5
Netherlands 1.6
Portugal 2.7
Belgium 3.5
Spain 12.7
Greece 1.8
Poland 2.3
PART
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014
3
14
From September 2013 onwards, the number
of layers decreased sharply and fell to 376 mill.
birds in February 2014. 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.
When, however, the flocks increased again, prices
reached an unforeseeable minimum (Table 11).
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
(27) continued in the first quarter of 2014.
A complete overview on the impacts of
the banning of conventional cages and the
transformation to alternative housing systems
on the production volume of shell eggs cannot be
given at this time because of an incomplete data
set for all member countries. Preliminary data
supplied by the FAO to the author of this report
shows that the production volume decreased
from 6.716 mill. t in 2010 to 6.590 mill. t in
2012. In contrast, other sources, such as MEG
(2013) or EMA (2013), show a more or less stable
production volume.
In some of the major egg producing countries
the transformation obviously led to a short term
decrease in the production volume. In Germany,
egg production decreased from 782,000 t in
2008 to only 656,000 t in 2010 because of the
banning of conventional cages two years earlier
than in other EU member countries. In Spain,
egg production fell from 937,000 t in 2011 to
862,000 t in 2012; in France, from 954,000 t
in 2010 to 856,000 t in 2012 (MEG 2013).
Different dynamics can be observed in the
Netherlands. Here, the production volume grew
from 644,000 t in 2008 to 710,000 t in 2011
before it decreased to 691,000 t in the following
year. This remarkable volatility is a consequence
of the earlier banning of conventional cages in
Germany and the resulting egg shortage. Dutch
egg producers increased their production to
supply the German market, when, however,
the German egg industry recovered faster than
expected, production had to be adapted to the
new situation. In combination with the necessary
implementation of Directive 1999/74/EC egg
production decreased considerably.
The situation in Germany has to be explained
in more detail. The German government had
decided, according to the possibility as expressed
in Directive1999/74/EC that member countries
were permitted to ban cages earlier than 2012,
to ban conventional cages in 2010. In 2011, the
German government proposed a legal regulation
which had the aim to also phase out enriched
cages and colony nests (Kleingruppenhaltungen).
But the federal government and the governments
of the states (Bundesländer) could not agree
on the time span to phase out this housing
system which had already been implemented by
several egg producers. So the single states had
to decide when such systems would no longer
be permitted. Up to now, the legal situation is,
to express it moderately, confusing as none of
the states have presented a final deadline. Egg
producers in Germany had expected that the
developed Kleingruppenhaltung would become
the housing system of the future, but in addition
to the legal initiatives, as mentioned before, a
new situation originated when the leading food
retailers decided that they would no longer list
shell eggs printed with a “3”. Their argument
was that the consumer could not distinguish
between eggs produced in enriched cages or
colony nests and eggs that were still produced
in conventional cages in other EU member
countries. This decision was mainly a reaction
to the increasing pressure of NGOs not to
sell eggs that were produced in conventional
cages any longer, a housing system which was
prohibited in Germany. Initiatives to use a “4”
for the old conventional cages were rejected by
the EU Commission. The result was that many
egg producers who had planned to install colony
nests had to change their decision. Most of
them switched to the barn system. In 2012, this
housing system shared 67.4% of all layer places,
free range 15.2%, colony nests 9.9%, and organic
systems 7.5%. Recent developments show that
egg producers replace colony nests with the barn
system as it is difficult to sell eggs printed with a
“3” as shell eggs for consumption in Germany.
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014 15
TABLE 11
The development of shell egg prices in the Netherlands and Germany between January 2011 and December 2013Source: EMA 2/2014
THE NETHERLANDS GERMANYDATE €€€€€€€€-CENTS DATE €€€€€-CENTS PER EGG* PER EGG**
Jan 2011 3.38 Jan 2011 4.17July 2011 4.14 July 2011 5.18Dec 2011 6.16 Dec 2011 7.65Mar 2012 9.98 Mar 2012 12.80July 2012 6.39 July 2012 8.35Dec 2012 7.68 Dec 2012 9.04Mar 2013 5.62 Mar 2013 5.95Sept 2013 4.74 Sept 2013 5.50Dec 2013 5.07 Dec 2013 6.10
* size class M, barn system; producers price
** size class M, enriched cage, wholesale price
The main results of this part
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 onwards and the
implementation of such cages
from 2003 on.
• It was, however, not before
2008 that a final decision
about the future housing
systems in the EU was
published.
• Whether the
transformation process in
all member countries was
realised within the due time
is challenged, for in June 2012
about 43 million layers were
still kept in conventional
cages.
• In about half of the member
countries, enriched cages and
colony nests are the dominant
housing system. Only in four
countries (Austria, Germany,
the Netherlands and Sweden)
are more than 50% of the
birds kept in barn systems.
• In Germany, a particular
situation resulted from the
banning of cages in 2010 and
the decision of the leading
food retailers to no longer sell
eggs printed with a “3”.
PART
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014
4
16
Changing patterns of egg trade in Europe
The next part of the analysis will focus
on what impacts the changing socio-
economic situation in Eastern Europe and
the banning of conventional cages in the
EU had on global and European egg trade.
On a global scale, only data for 2011 is
available so far, for the EU (27) data for
2012 is available. So the impacts of the
banning of cages can only be documented
at the EU level.
In a first step, the dynamics of the egg trade
between 2000 and 2011 will be analysed on
a global scale in order to get an impression of
how the contribution of Europe to exports and
imports of shell eggs changed.
Between 2000 and 2011 global exports of shell
eggs increased from 945,000 t to 1.8 mill. t or by
91.4%, imports from 886,000 t to 1.7 mill. t or by
89.7%. Compared to the global trade volume of
pig meat and beef, the percentage of eggs which
go into trade is very low with only 2.8%. This
is due to the fact that shell eggs cannot be deep
frozen which limits the possibility to trade them
over long distances (see also Windhorst 2013).
As can easily be seen from the data in Tables 12
and 13, Europe is still the dominant continent
in global egg trade but has lost shares to Asia and
North America in exports and to Asia and Africa
in imports. In 2011, over 90% of the global trade
volume was concentrated in Europe and Asia.
A more detailed analysis at a country level reflects
the growing importance of Asian countries in
egg trade (Tables 14 and 15). Whereas in 2000
only China and Iran ranked among the ten
leading egg exporting countries with a combined
share of 11% of the global export volume, in
2011 four Asian countries were ranked on the
list, China and newcomers Turkey, Malaysia
and Saudi Arabia. Together these four countries
contributed 26.8% to the global export volume.
The Netherlands was still in first place with a
share of 21.4%, but Turkey already ranked as
number two with a contribution of 11.4%. In egg
imports, Germany was still the most attractive
market in 2011. Of the ten leading egg importing
countries six were located in Europe and four in
Asia, with Iraq in second position. Together the
four Asian countries already shared 23.6% of the
global import volume.
TABLE 12
TABLE 13
TABLE 14
TABLE 15
The development of egg exports by continent between 2000 and 2011; data in 1,000 tSource: FAO
database
The development of egg imports by continent between 2000 and 2011; data in 1,000 tSource: FAO
database
The ten leading countries in egg exports in 2000 and 2011; data in 1,000 tSource: FAO
database
The ten leading countries in egg imports in 2000 and 2011; data in 1,000 tSource: FAO
database
2000 2005 2012CONTINENT EXPORTS SHARE (%) EXPORTS SHARE (%) EXPORTS SHARE (%)
Africa 6 0.6 6 0.5 7 0.4Asia 204 21.6 250 22.5 553 30.6Europe 641 67.8 754 67.9 1,119 61.9N America* 67 7.1 76 6.8 103 5.7CS America 26 2.8 23 2.1 24 1.3Oceania 1 0.1 1 0.1 4 0.2
World 945 100.0 **1,111 **100.0 **1,809 **100.0
2000 2005 2012CONTINENT IMPORTS SHARE (%) EXPORTS SHARE (%) IMPORTS SHARE (%)
Africa 26 2.9 42 3.8 63 3.7Asia 236 26.6 269 24.6 559 33.3Europe 557 62.9 713 65.2 991 59.0N America* 36 4.1 38 3.5 39 2.3CS America 30 3.4 30 2.7 28 1.7Oceania 1 0.1 2 0.2 2 0.1
World 886 100.0 1,094 100.0 **1,681 **100.0
2000 2011COUNTRY EXPORTS SHARE (%) COUNTRY EXPORTS SHARE (%)
Netherlands 296 31.3 Netherlands 381 21.4Belgium 76 8.0 Turkey 206 11.4Germany 67 7.1 Poland 174 9.6China 65 6.9 Germany 139 7.7USA 64 6.8 Malaysia 138 7.6Spain 48 5.1 China 100 5.5France 44 4.7 Spain 96 5.3Iran 39 4.1 USA 94 5.2Belarus 37 3.9 Belarus 46 2.5Denmark 13 1.4 Saudi Arabia 42 2.3
10 countries 749 79.3 10 countries 1,416 *78.3
World 945 100.0 World 1,809 100.0
2000 2011COUNTRY IMPORTS SHARE (%) COUNTRY IMPORTS SHARE (%)
Germany 220 24.8 Germany 417 24.8Hong Kong 81 9.1 Iraq 188 11.2Italy 63 7.1 Netherlands 156 9.3France 61 6.9 Hong Kong 103 6.1Netherlands 56 6.3 Singapore 75 4.5Singapore 40 4.5 France 63 3.7UK 33 3.7 Belgium 57 3.4Belgium 29 3.3 Switzerland 32 1.9UAE 24 2.7 UK 31 1.8 Switzerland 24 2.7 Iran 30 1.8
10 countries 831 *71.2 10 countries 1,152 68.5
World 886 100.0 World 1,681 100.0
* Canada, Mexico, USA ** sum does not add because of rounding
* Canada, Mexico, USA ** sum does not add because of rounding
* sum does not add because of rounding
* sum does not add because of rounding
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014 17
TABLE 16
TABLE 17
The ten leading European countries in egg exports in 2000 and 2011; data in 1,000 tSource: FAO
database
The ten leading European countries in egg imports in 2000 and 2011; data in 1,000 tSource: FAO
database
A closer look at the situation in Europe reveals
that the regional concentration of egg exports
and imports was very high in 2000 (Tables 16
and 17). The ten leading egg exporting countries
contributed 97.4% to the overall export volume
and the ten leading egg importing countries
94.1% to the import volume. In 2011, the regional
concentration was much lower, a consequence of
a better integration of several Eastern European
countries into the international market for shell
eggs.
In 2000, only two Eastern European countries,
the Czech Republic and Hungary, were ranked
among the leading egg exporting countries in
Europe with a combined share of 1.4%. Eleven
years later, four countries were to be found in the
list of the top ten exporting countries, Poland,
Ukraine, Belarus and Slovakia. Together they
shared 22.7% of the European export volume.
In 2000, ten years after the beginning of the
socio-economic and political transformation
process in the former USSR and Eastern Europe,
none of these countries played a major role in
egg imports. This may be a result of the recovery
of the egg industry in these countries, but
also of a low per capita consumption and still
comparatively low personal incomes. Even in
2011, only three Eastern European countries,
the Czech Republic, Russia and Poland, were
listed as numbers eight, nine and ten among the
ten leading egg importing countries in Europe.
Together they shared 7.0% of the overall imports.
Germany, the top ranked importing country,
even increased its share in the analysed time
period and imported 42.1% of all shell eggs traded
2000 2011COUNTRY EXPORTS SHARE (%) COUNTRY EXPORTS SHARE (%)
Netherlands 296 50.8 Netherlands 381 32.0Belgium 76 13.0 Poland 174 14.6Germany 67 11.5 Germany 139 11.7Spain 48 8.2 Spain 96 8.1France 44 7.5 Belgium 46 3.9Denmark 13 2.2 Ukraine 39 3.3UK 10 1.7 Belarus 37 3.1Finland 6 1.0 France 33 2.8Czech Rep. 4 0.7 Italy 21 1.8Hungary 4 0.7 Slovakia 20 1.7
10 countries 568 *97.4 10 countries 986 82.9
Europe 583 100.0 Europe 1,189 100.0
2000 2011COUNTRY IMPORTS SHARE (%) COUNTRY IMPORTS SHARE (%)
Germany 220 39.4 Germany 417 42.1Italy 63 11.3 Netherlands 156 15.7France 61 10.9 France 63 6.4Netherlands 56 10.0 Belgium 57 5.8UK 33 5.9 Switzerland 32 3.3Belgium 29 5.2 UK 31 3.1Switzerland 24 4.3 Italy 28 2.8Denmark 20 3.6 Czech Rep. 27 2.7Austria 10 1.8 Russia 22 2.2Sweden 9 1.6 Poland 21 2.1
10 countries 525 *94.1 10 countries 833 84.1
Europe 558 100.0 Europe 991 100.0
* sum does not add because of rounding
* sum does not add because of rounding
PART
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014
4
18
Figures 11, 12 and 13 (overleaf) show the spatial
patterns of egg exports, egg imports and the
balance of trade with shell eggs for the European
countries in 2011. The high trade surplus in
the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Belgium
is obvious, also the high deficits in Germany,
Italy, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Austria
and the Czech Republic. Germany, as the main
egg importing country is located close to the
countries with a high egg surplus and so it is not
surprising that close trade relations developed
over the past decade. Tables 21 and 22 list the
countries with the highest surplus and deficit in
egg trade in 2000 and 2011. The trade surplus of
the Netherlands has not changed very much in
the analysed time period, but Turkey has become
a major competitor. It can also be seen that the
recovery of the egg industry in several Eastern
European countries has led to a considerable
trade surplus. It can be expected that Ukraine
will in future become an important competitor
in the EU egg market as some of the recently
built farms meet the requirements of Directive
1999/74/EU and enable egg producers to export
into the EU once they can demonstrate that the
herds from which these eggs stem are free from
Salmonella.
exports were less important, the transformation
process had only minor impacts. The dramatic
decrease in Spain seems to be closely related to
the economic problems and the lack of capital to
invest in new housing systems. This may also be
the reason for the comparatively sharp decline of
the Polish export volume. For most of the EU (27)
member countries the banning of conventional
cages seems to have been only of minor or short-
term importance regarding necessary imports.
In Germany, the increase of the import volume
by 155,000 t between 2008 and 2010 was
completely compensated for by the recovery of
egg production, and by 2012 egg imports had
once again dropped to the considerably lower
level of 2008. In Spain, egg production fell by
75,000 t between 2011 and 2012; the result was
not only a remarkable decrease in the export
volume but also an increase of egg imports by
120,000 t. How long it will take the Spanish
egg industry to stabilise again, is still an open
question.
in Europe in 2011. This increase is mainly the
result of the rapidly growing imports after the
banning of conventional cages in 2010. As can
be seen from Figure 10, the self-sufficiency rate
dropped to 55.1% in 2010 and almost 8.3 billion
shell eggs had to be imported, of which over 70%
came from the Netherlands. When, however,
the transformation process was concluded
in 2011, egg imports decreased again and fell
to 6.2 billion eggs in 2012 (Table 18) and the
self-sufficiency rate climbed to 68.3%. Quite
obviously, several egg exporting countries in the
EU had underestimated the speed of the German
implementation of new housing systems and
the recovery of egg production which led to an
oversupply of eggs and low egg prices in the first
half of 2011 (see Table 11, page 15). It was not
before the beginning of the transformation of
housing systems in all EU member countries that
prices began to recover again. But in the first half
of 2013 prices began to fall drastically again in
parallel to the increase of the layer flocks in the
EU (see Figure 9, page.13), obviously too many
eggs were in the market. If imports from non-EU
(27) member countries played a decisive role or
the fact that some countries had not concluded
the transformation of housing systems or that old
conventional cages were still used in parallel to
enriched cages is almost impossible to decide.
The impacts that the implementation of
Directive 1999/64/EC had on the development
of egg exports and imports in selected EU
member countries is shown in Tables 19 and
20. In the Netherlands, Poland and Spain, the
export volumes decreased considerably because
of the changes in the housing systems and the
fact that for some time the number of laying
hens fell abruptly. In other countries in which
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014 19
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012*
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
Impo
rt v
olum
e of
she
ll eg
gs (i
n bi
llion
pie
ces)
Self
suffi
cien
cy ra
te (i
n %
)
67.4
74.974.0
71.270.7 70.6
68.5 68.6
66.0
68.3
54.9 55.1
67.8
Import volume of shell eggs
Self sufficiency rate
*Forecast
6.2
4.44.7 4.6
4.9 5.3
5.7 5.9 6.0 6.0
7.5
8.3
6.7
FIGURE 10
TABLE 18
TABLE 19
TABLE 21 TABLE 22
TABLE 20
The development of Germany´s egg imports between 2010 and 2012Source: MEG 2013
Development of the self-sufficiency rate for eggs and of egg imports by Germany between 2000 and 2012Source: MEG various
years
The development of egg exports by selected EU (27) member countries between2008 and 2012; data in 1,000 tSource: MEG 2013
The ten countries with the highest surplus in egg trade in 2000 and 2011; data in 1,000 tSource: own
calculations
The ten countries with the highest deficit in egg trade in 2000 and 2011; data in 1,000 tSource: own
calculations
The development of egg imports in the selected EU (27) member countries between2008 and 2012; data in 1,000 tSource: EMA 2013/
MEG 2013
COUNTRY OF 2010 2012 CHANGEORIGIN MILLION EGGS MILLION EGGS MILLION EGGS %
Netherlands 5,814 4,320 -1,494 -25.7Poland 679 958 +279 +41.1
Total 8,271 6,206 -2,065 -25.0
COUNTRY 2008 2010 2012
Netherlands 365 421 394Poland 121 151 70Germany 104 109 107Italy 11 26 31Spain 109 114 22United Kingdom 4 4 4Latvia 8 19 15Lithuania 14 11 12Portugal 5 11 11Romania 3 6 9
2000 2011COUNTRY SURPLUS COUNTRY SURPLUS
Netherlands 240 Netherlands 226China 64 Turkey 205USA 61 Poland 153Malaysia 56 Malaysia 138Belgium 47 China 100Spain 45 USA 90Iran 38 Spain 86Belarus 36 Saudi Arabia 39India 11 Belarus 36Russia 9 Ukraine 36
2000 2011COUNTRY DEFICIT COUNTRY DEFICIT
Germany 153 Germany 278Hong Kong 81 Iraq 188Italy 62 Hong Kong 102Singapore 40 Singapore 75Switzerland 24 Switzerland 32UAE 24 France 30United Kingdom 23 Iran 27Canada 21 Angola 25France 17 United Kingdom 23Iraq 11 Canada 21
COUNTRY 2008 2010 2012
Germany 355 510 352Spain 21 31 150Netherlands 141 148 126United Kingdom 52 34 26France 65 86 45Belgium/Luxemb’g 43 56 39Italy 17 37 36Czech Republic 21 23 18Poland 16 15 7Portugal 10 12 8
PART
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014
4
20
FIGURE 11
FIGURE 12
Development of egg exports between 2010 and 2011
Development of egg imports between 2010 and 2011
Egg exports (in 1,000 t)
Egg imports (in 1,000 t)
382
191
96
420
210
105
0 500 1000 km
0 500 1000 km
Increase
Decrease
No data in 2010
Increase
Decrease
Egg exports by European countries in 2011 and development since 2010Source: FAO database
Egg imports by European countries in 2011 and development since 2010Source: FAO database
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014 21
FIGURE 13
Balance of trade (in 1,000 t)
278
139
70
0 500 1000 km
Surplus
Deficit
Balance of trade with shell eggs in European countries in 2011Source: Own calculations
PART
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014
4
22
A closer look at the development of the balance
of trade of shell eggs on the basis of the European
sub-regions reveals that the negative balance in
Western Europe increased considerably. Whereas
this sub-region had a positive balance in 2000,
growing imports by Germany, the Netherlands
and Switzerland led to a negative balance from
2005 onwards. In 2011 it had already reached
a deficit of 137,000 t. On the other hand, the
surplus in Eastern Europe grew constantly, a
consequence of the recovery of the egg industry.
Similar dynamics can be stated for Southern
Europe, a result of the fast growth of egg exports
by Spain. However, it was shown in a preceding
paragraph that Spain was not able to maintain
the high export volume during the course of the
transformation of the housing systems. Northern
Europe still has a negative balance of trade, but
was able to reduce the deficit. For Europe as a
whole, the positive balance of trade of shell eggs
expanded by 45,000 t. It must not be forgotten,
however, that most of the eggs are traded within
Europe and that exports to countries outside this
continent as well as imports into Europe are of
only minor importance.
Eastern Europe
255,000 t
Increase in export volume shell eggs 2000-2011
Western Europe
124,000 tSouthern Europe
75,000 tNorthern Europe
24,000 t
In a final step, the development of egg trade
in the sub-regions of Europe between 2000
and 2011 will be analysed (Table 24). The total
export volume of shell eggs in Europe increased
by 478,000 t or almost 75% in the analysed time
period. The highest absolute and relative growth
was shown by Eastern Europe with 250,000 t or
411.3%. In Western Europe, exports increased
by 124,000 t or 25.7% and in Southern Europe
by 75,000 t or 125.0%. The absolute growth rate
in Northern Europe was comparatively low with
only 24,000 t, but because of the low level in
2000, the relative growth rate reached 66.7%.
In egg imports, the sub-region Western Europe
showed the highest absolute growth with
342,000 t or 85.1%. This remarkable dynamic
is mainly due to the fast growth of imports in
Germany because of the impacts of the banning
of conventional cages in 2010. The highest
relative growth rate was, however, to be found
in Eastern Europe with 776.9%. Whereas in
2000 only 13,000 t had been imported, in
2011 the import volume reached 114,000 t.
Southern Europe was the only sub-region with
decreasing egg imports. This is the result of
a considerable growth in egg production in
some countries, but also it is due to the lasting
economic crisis in several countries which led to
lower consumption. In Northern Europe imports
remained fairly stable over the past decade.
Very close relationships in egg trade developed
between the Netherlands and Germany. This
is documented in Table 23. Of the 6.6 billion
shell eggs which the Netherlands exported in
2012, 4.7 billion or 71% went to Germany (PVE
2013). On the other hand, 4.3 billion or 69.6%
of the 6.2 billion eggs which Germany imported
in the same year, came from the Netherlands.
Poland has also become a very important source
for Germany s egg imports. In 2012, Poland
exported 3.1 billion shell eggs for consumption.
Of these, 1.1 billion or 34% had Germany as the
country of destination. It was the most important
market for the Polish egg producers, followed by
the Netherlands with a share of 21.3%. In 2010,
Spain exported 463 million eggs to Germany,
sharing 6.6% of the German import volume and
ranked as number three behind the Netherlands
and Poland. Spain could not maintain this
position however, for the total export volume
decreased sharply as can be seen in Table 19
(page.19). In 2012, it only exported 98 million
eggs to Germany, a contribution of only 1.6% to
the total German imports (MEG 2013).
23
Northern Europe
24,000 t
The main results of part 4 of this
analysis can be summarised as
follows:
• The political as well as economic
adaption processes in several Eastern
European countries and the Russian
Federation in addition to the banning
of conventional cages in the EU from
2012 onwards had considerable
impacts on the development of the
intra-continental egg trade.
• Export volume increased by
478,000 t or 75%, mainly as a
result of the sharp increase in
Western and Eastern Europe. The
growth in Western European egg
imports originated from the fast
growth of imports by Germany, the
Netherlands and Switzerland and
that of Eastern Europe due to the
increasing imports by the Czech
Republic, Russia and Poland.
• The banning of conventional cages
in Germany in 2010 and in the rest
of the EU in 2012 had remarkable
impacts on the European egg trade.
• In Poland and Spain, egg exports
decreased considerably between 2010
and 2012 whereas the Netherlands
expanded their export volume in
2010 to over 420,000 t because of the
high deficit in Germany.
• With the exception of Western
Europe, all other European sub-
regions showed a positive balance of
trade of shell eggs in 2011.
• How the balance of trade of eggs
developed in 2012 and 2013 in the
four sub-regions cannot be answered
yet due to the lack of reliable data for
countries outside the EU (27).
TABLE 23
Countries of destination for Dutch egg exports and countries of origin of German egg imports in 2012; data in million piecesSource: MEG 2013,
PVE 2013
EXPORTS BY THE NETHERLANDS IMPORTS BY GERMANYCOUNTRY OF EXPORTS SHARE COUNTRY OF IMPORTS SHAREDESTINATION (%) ORIGIN (%)
Germany 4,661 71.0 Netherlands 4,320 69.6Belgium/Lux. 295 4.5 Poland 958 15.4France 230 3.5 Belgium 398 6.4Switzerland 197 3.0 France 158 2.5UK 164 2.5 Spain 98 1.6
5 countries 5,547 84.5 5 countries 5,932 95.5
Total 6,565 100.0 Total 6,206 100.0
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014
TABLE 24
The development of egg trade in the sub-regions of Europe between 2000 and 2011; data in 1,000 tSource: FAO database
EXPORTSYEAR WESTERN EASTERN SOUTHERN NORTHERN EUROPE EUROPE EUROPE EUROPE EUROPE TOTAL
2000 483 62 60 36 6412005 482 105 122 45 7542011 607 317 135 60 1,119
Increase (%) 25.7 411.3 125.0 66.7 74.6
IMPORTSYEAR WESTERN EASTERN SOUTHERN NORTHERN EUROPE EUROPE EUROPE EUROPE EUROPE TOTAL
2000 402 13 76 67 5582005 537 74 30 72 7132011 744 114 62 71 991
Change (%) +85.1 +776.9 -18.4 +6.0 +77.6
BALANCE OF TRADEYEAR WESTERN EASTERN SOUTHERN NORTHERN EUROPE EUROPE EUROPE EUROPE EUROPE TOTAL
2000 +81 +49 -16 -31 +832005 -55 +31 +92 -27 +412011 -137 +203 +73 -11 +128
Change (1,000 t) -218 +154 +89 +20 +45
PART
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014
5
24
Part 5 of the analysis will deal with future
challenges for the egg industry in Europe
and especially the EU (27).
The hope that the egg industry might enter a
quieter phase after the banning of conventional
cages did not come true. There are several new
challenges which the egg industry will have to
deal with in the coming years, and again, the
discussion has its origin in a limited number of
EU member countries.
One hot topic which is currently discussed
in several EU member countries is the beak
trimming (- treatment) of laying hens. In some
member countries, for example Austria, most of
the laying hens are no longer beak trimmed, this
is also the case for all layers in organic housing
systems and in most colony systems. In Austria,
problems with feather pecking and cannibalism
are controlled through light dimming, a practice
which is not permitted in Germany. In Denmark
only hens in colony nests are not beak trimmed.
In general a considerable scepticism against the
banning of beak treatment can be observed in
most EU (27) member countries. Nevertheless,
it can be expected that within a short time
period this practice will be challenged in the EU
in general. In Germany, beak treatment may be
prohibited by 2016, according to plans in Lower
Saxony and Northrhine-Westphalia.
A second hot topic is the stunning of one day old
chicks. When in the late 1950’s, hybridisation
in the USA produced the first breeds that were
characterised by a high laying performance and
a good health, it soon became apparent that the
male chicks were not suited for meat production
due to their poor feed conversion. For this
purpose other breeds were reared which reached
a high slaughtering weight in a short time at a
relatively low feed consumption. At the same
time, the keeping of laying hens in large flocks
resulted in the necessity to cull the males shortly
after hatching. Because of the growing opposition
against this practice, various research projects
were initiated to distinguish the future sex of a
chick either before or shortly after the beginning
of the hatching process. The technology to do this
is available but it is still too time-consuming and
cost-intensive.
In addition research is going on to find an
alternative use for the male chicks. Some
companies have presented a new dual-purpose
breed which is supposed to combine a high laying
performance of hens with sufficient fattening
characteristics of males. At the moment, the
laying performance lies, however, at only 250
eggs which is much lower than the average of
310 to 315 eggs of laying hybrids. Added to this
is the fact that the feed requirements are also
much higher so that feed costs per egg can be
assumed to be 30 to 40% above the average in
hybrid flocks. After 56 days, the weight of the
males reaches only 2.3 kg, a fattening hybrid
weighs already 3.2 kg after the same growing
time. This, and the fact that males have less
breast meat, limits their competitiveness. A quick
changeover of market-oriented egg producers to
the new breed is therefore not to be expected.
Future challenges for the egg industry in Europe and the EU (27)
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014 25
So a technological solution will have to be found
within the next three to five years to make the
culling of male chicks unnecessary.
Additional problems for the egg industry in the
EU, especially in the post-industrial societies
in Northern and Western Europe, is a growing
opposition against large production facilities
and the environmental issues arising from the
regional concentration of intensive poultry
production in several regions in Central and
Western Europe.
It can be predicted that if the egg industry in
the EU does not find solutions to the above-
mentioned problems in due time, then policy will
step in and pass regulations which may result
in the loss of the license to produce in existing
systems.
Future challenges
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 201426
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
CSR
INTERNATIONAL EGG COMMISSION SPECIAL ECONOMIC REPORT MARCH 2014 27
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.
EMA-Marktbilanz 2013: Eier. Bonn 2013.
FAO database: www.faostat.fao.org
Directive 1999/74/EC: http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=OJ:L:1999:203:0053:0057:EN:PDF
MEG-Marktbilanz Eier und Geflügel 2013.
Stuttgart 2013.
PVE (ed.): Livestock, Meat and Eggs in the
Netherlands. Annual Survey 2012. Zoetermeer
2013.
Windhorst, H.-W.: Like Phoenix from the ashes.
The recovery of the Dutch egg industry. In:
Zootecnica 32 (2010a), no. 1, S. 36-42.
Windhorst, H.-W.: Eierwirtschaft in Spanien
– ungewöhnlich dynamisch. In: Deutsche
Geflügelwirtschaft und Schweineproduktion 62
(2010b), DGS-Magazin, Februar, S. 27-33.
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 2010c, S. 4-9.
Windhorst, H.-W.: Banning of cages in
Germany and after. In: Zootecnica 33 (2011),
no. 3, S. 40-43.
Windhorst, H.-W.: The Globalisation of Egg
Production and Egg Trade. ( IEC Special
Economic Report April 2013. London 2013.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Mr. Nicolas Sakoff (FAO,
Rome) for his support in collecting data for egg
production and egg trade on the global and
European scale. I also wish to thank Mrs. Anna
Wilke, my research associate, for preparing the
maps and graphs for this report.
PART
1
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
The IEC Support GroupWe would like to thank the following for their support
Interested in joining the IEC Support Group? Become a member of the IEC
The International Egg Commission89 Charterhouse StreetLondon EC1M 6HRUnited Kingdom
Phone: +44 (0) 20 7490 3493Fax: +44 (0) 20 7490 3495Email: [email protected]: www.internationalegg.com