Retailers regret farmers' lobby continuing to focus on wrong issues in the food supply chain
Reacting to the
debate in the European Parliament hearing on the report of the
Agricultural Markets Task Force today, retailers expressed deep regret
that the debate continued to focus on the misleading and
mistaken belief that EU legislation on trading practices can resolve
the problems of farmers in the supply chain. They repeated their strong
support for helping farmers to provide competitive produce which
consumers want to buy, but stressed that this was
not the way to achieve this.
Retailers want and
need a vibrant agriculture sector in Europe that can produce a reliable
and competitive supply of food. They support many of the recommendations
of the Task Force report, for instance on
encouragement of producers cooperating more closely to improve their
bargaining power, use of risk management tools, access to finance and
contractualisation.
They however
reiterated their clear conviction that EU-level legislation on trading
practices will distort the supply chain, harm consumers and do nothing
to help farmers.
EuroCommerce Director-General Christian Verschueren said:
“Diverse,
high-quality food is Europe’s unique strength, and what retailers need
to attract consumers to come to their stores. We want to work with
farmers and their organisations to make it easier for
farmers to supply what consumers want. We therefore regret that, once
again, hard-working farmers are being given a misleading promise that
their problems will be solved at a stroke by legislation on trading
practices, based on arguments which those putting
them forward must know are simply not true. This approach to farmers'
problems diverts attention away from where policy could really help
farmers flourish.”
Verschueren set out why calls for EU legislation are aimed at the wrong target:
·
retailers buy very little direct from farmers:
on average across Europe, food retailers buy less than 5% of their
products direct from farmers. The price
paid for a processed product by a retailer, often to a chain of
multiple intermediaries, has almost no effect on what the farmer gets
for his produce. The practices identified by the Task Force affect
contracts with large suppliers with already high net
margins relative to retailers, and do not have any significant
relevance to farmers.
·
no added value of an EU-level legislation:
20 Member States have legislation on UTPs. Over 80% of retailers'
contracts for foods are for products supplied
nationally. Even where a product is sourced cross-border, the contract
will always stipulate which national jurisdiction applies. All of these
national laws have provisions to protect parties against any unfair or
unilateral breach of contract. This, in our
view, points to the absence of any need for EU legislation.
·
the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI) has encouraged dialogue and positive behaviour:
the SCI cannot and does not seek to replace national legislation, but
rather supplement it by applying common principles, which were agreed
with and signed by farmers' representatives four years ago, and by
encouraging dispute resolution in a way that facilitates the
continuation of business relationships. The SCI is currently
looking at ways to strengthen its independence and other aspects of its
work in response to Commission recommendations.
Christian Verschueren concluded:
“Commissioner
Hogan has stressed the commitment of the EU to a market-oriented CAP. He
should help farmers to organise themselves, to strengthen their
position in the supply chain and respond to market
demand. Proposing EU-level legislation covering trading practices which
relate almost exclusively to negotiations with large multinational
manufacturers, does nothing to create a sustainable farming sector that
everyone wants – and instead will simply pile
on further costs for hard-pressed consumers.”
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento