Within the period of the bill’s examination and adoption in the RF State Duma prices for milk were fluctuating and the greatest swings occurred at the moment when it became clear that the law would be passed. Retail prices were the first to rise. Their growth was not conditioned by higher prices for raw natural milk since at the same time the prices received by farm producers became much lower. This can be well traced at Fig. 5: by the moment of the Regulation’s adoption prices paid for milk to farm producers fell sharply. Their drop could not be attributed to the seasonal growth of milk production since usually no such swings took place in summer. After the traditional rise in autumn-winter 2008-2009 prices received by farm producers had not even reached the level of 2007.
Prices received by farm producers Prices received by processor for packaged milk (3.2% fat content) Consumer prices for packaged milk (3.2% fat content) Source: www.mcx.ru Fig. 5. Prices for milk at different stages of product chain Retailers complain about lower demand but during the crisis average retail prices for packaged milk surged from 26 rubles per liter (January 2008) to 34 rubles per liter (February 2009). In January 2010 one liter of packaged milk with 3.2% fat content cost 31.8 rubles.
Within this time the share of farm producers in the retail price for milk dropped from 54.5% in 2008 to 37.6% by January 1, 2009 and then increased to 38.6% by the start of 2010 (Fig.
6). However, this change in the cost structure should be examined not in the context of crisis developments but in the context of enforcement of the Technical Regulation for milk. After its adoption in the first reading there was a real threat that the demand for products out of dry RUR/litre RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks milk would fall while milk processing plants had already bought this input. As a result before the enforcement of the Technical Regulation prices paid to farm producers for whole milk were cut down to 5-6 rubles per liter while dry milk from stocks was used for manufacturing milk. Until the expiry date one could sell it without indicating that it was made out of dry milk. Within the period from the Regulation’s adoption to its enforcement (from May to December 2008) and then till the expiration of shelf life of the already produced milk (up to months), i.e. till the middle of 2009 the demand of milk processors for domestically produced whole milk was lower affecting prices received by farm producers.
120,100,80,60,40,20,0,2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 processor retailer farm producer Source: www.mcx.ru Fig. 6. Structure of retail price for milk by stages of product chain as of January The introduction of protective measure – the Technical Regulation – and the consequent reduction of milk imports resulted in the worsening of situation for domestic producers in the short run: from April 2008 to the middle of 2009 prices for milk were extremely low. Only after the sale of milk drink (made out of dry milk) under the name of “milk” became illegitimate and product inspections started, the price for whole milk began to grow very slowly. In November prices received by farm producers surged by more than 20%1 and the government felt pressure to change the Technical Regulation (to abolish the required indication “milk drink” on the label of product reconstituted from dry milk) and to encourage larger imports of dry milk. If the government sustains the pressure, one can expect a gradual growth of domestic milk production benefiting from state support to the livestock sector.
Similar situation – the lowering of prices for raw agricultural output and the rise of prices for processed products – can be observed on other commodity markets as well. (The exception is products whose producers are also their typical processors: poultry meat, pork and eggs.) For instance, purchase prices for wheat actually didn’t change from the crisis’ start till November 2009. Meantime prices for flour out of this wheat grew by 18% from 2008 to 2009.
One could attribute it to higher prices for electricity, fuels and other inputs. But this supposition does not stand up to scrutiny since agriculture faces the same problem. The more likely http://www.profnavigator.ru/tmpl2.phpPN=doct.php&dout=text&dsubj=10&dtype=4&nid=Section The Real Sector explanation is that agriculture is demonopolized while processing and marketing are relatively monopolized (as compared with the farm sector). For instance, six dairy companies account for over 60% of the domestic output of dairy products1. According to the Russian antimonopoly legislation such concentration is not an indicator of market monopolization. But these 6 companies producing 60% of dairy products (and accordingly buying about 60% of domestic milk output in case import of this item is restricted) are unquestionable monopolists when compared with dozens of thousands of corporate farms, hundreds of thousands of individual private farmers and entrepreneurs and millions of individuals engaged in farming. The situation with processors and traders of other agricultural commodities is similar.
3.5.2. Production of other food products Beginning from February 2008 food industry demonstrated the slowing down of growth rates. From October 2008 the output of food products was smaller than in 2007 – by December the decrease exceeded 6% (Fig.7).
2008 Source: Rosstan.
Fig. 7. Production of food products as % of the corresponding period previous year In the last three months of 2009 production grew as compared with the corresponding periods of 2008.
Table 3 demonstrates the change of output by groups of commodities as compared with 2008. In 10 months 2009 a general growth was observed in the groups of meat, fish, fat and oil, flour-and-cereals and starch products. Production of dairy products, processed fruit and vegetables and other products reduced (Table 4).
http://marketing.unipack.ru/352/ as % of the previous year r l t y y i y h y l e r r er er er c b r b b b une Ju uar Ap Ma m o J m m nua ugus Ma e ct ve A ce ebr Ja O pt e F No D Se RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks Table Production of food products by groups in 2009 as compared with 2008, % Products and product groups 2009/Production of meat and meat products 104. Meat including 1st category subproducts 114. incl. beef 86.pork 126.poultry meat 114. Sausage products 92.Processed and canned fish products 102.Processed and canned potatoes, fruit and vegetables 92.Production of vegetable and animal fats and oils 117.incl. vegetable oils 132.Production of dairy products 99.incl. whole milk products 101.high-fat cheeses (including brinzen) 101.Production of flour-and-cereals industry products, starch and starch products 103.incl. flour 100.cereals 109.Production of other food products 97.incl. bread and bakery products 96.granulated sugar 86.incl. made out of sugar beets 95.made out of imported raw sugar 73.Pasta products 100.Natural coffee 143.Production of beverages 96.incl. vodka and alcoholic beverages 92.cognac 127.Source: Rosstat.
Production of meat products was up 4.2% as compared with 2008. However, structural changes occurred within the group: production of more expensive products, e.g. beef and sausages, reduced by 13% and nearly 8%, respectively. Meantime the output of cheaper products not requiring deep processing and made out of domestic raw inputs increased quite noticeably: that of pork – by 26%, of poultry meat – by 14.9%. The decrease of sausage production was due to lower solvent consumer demand during the crisis. The same factor conditioned smaller production of beef: as can be seen from the analysis of situation in agriculture, this decrease could not be attributed to the reduction of domestic slaughter cattle production. Beef accounted for the largest share in meat imports and during the crisis the price for imported beef rose due to the growth of dollar and euro exchange rates relative to ruble.
Production of processed and canned fish products grew by almost 3% as compared with the previous year despite higher retail prices and smaller sales. The 17.8% increase in the group of vegetable and animal fats and oils was due to a significant growth of vegetable oil production (by 32.6%) while the output of more expensive margarine products reduced by 9.1%.
The reduction of dairy output was minor but its structure also changed: production of less expensive products except cheese was growing in this group as well (output of whole milk products and high-fat cheeses was up 1.5%). Production of other dairy products fell, the decrease ranging from 3.8% for canned products to 40% for dry milk. A sharp drop of dry milk production was due to the enforcement of Technical Regulation for milk whose requirements actually lead to smaller demand for products out of dry milk since their labels should contain a special corresponding indication.
The output of processed potatoes, fruit and vegetables decreased by almost 7.7%. The biggest drop was observed in production of canned tomatoes (by 14.5%), canned fruit and vegeSection The Real Sector tables (by 9.8%) and fruit juices (by 13.9%) while production of cheaper canned vegetables grew (by 15%) as well as that of quick-frozen vegetables and fruit.
Production in flour-and-cereals industry has not reduced. Within the group trends differed by products: production of cereals increased by 9.3% while production of bread and confectionery fell by about 4%, that of tea – by nearly 15%, of coffee drinks – by 48%, of sugar – by 14% (especially of the one made out of imported raw sugar – by 27% as different from sugar made out of domestic sugar beets whose output reduced by less than 5%). The decrease of coffee drinks’ production was accompanied by the growth of production of coffee (by over 40%).
Output of beverages decreased by more than 3%. The decrease was observed in production of all items out of brewer’s malt (by about 20%), vodka and alcoholic beverages (by 7.3%) and grape wine (by 0.2%). The exception was production of cognac (up 27.7%) and fruit wines (up 7.3%). Growth of output of fruit wines can hardly be regarded as a positive trend given their notorious reputation but their total output is insignificant.
The analysis revealed that with some exceptions the share of products with higher degree of processing is shrinking while that of cheaper products made out of domestic agricultural inputs is expanding in all the commodity groups.
3.5.3. Trends in the structure of food sales In 2009 the share of foodstuffs including beverages and tobacco products in the structure of retail sales amounted to 48.6% while that of non-food commodities – to 51.4% (in 2008 – 46.8% and 53.2% accordingly)1. This means that in the crisis situation population spends the main part of its money funds on purchasing food products – an indirect sign of falling personal incomes or of the respective expectations. The dynamics of food sales is presented in Table 4.
Fruit and berries, thou- 2567 3183 3533 3982 4416 5008 5568 n.a.
sand tons * - 9 months in comparable prices.
Changes in the structure of foodstuffs’ production corresponded to the changes in the structure of their sales. The decline of total sales of meat items was primarily due to smaller http://www.gks.ru/bgd/free/B09_00/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d12/3-1.htm RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks sales of processed meat products, first of all sausage products and canned meat. Production of pork and poultry meat increased noticeably as well as sales of meat. Growth was also observed in the sales of vegetable oils, dairy products, eggs, cereals, fresh vegetables (including potatoes) and fruit corresponding to trends in production. Meantime sales (as well as production) of butter, sugar, confectionery, tea, salt, flour, bread and bakery products reduced as compared with the previous year. In general, changes in the structure of food sales evidence improvements in the structure of food consumption (Table 5).
Table Trends in sales of basic food products in January-September 2009 in comparable prices As % of Jan.-Sept. As % of Jan.-Sept.
In 2009 the growth of consumer prices for food in Russia averaged 4.9%1. This is the highest indicator as compared with the EU countries (EU-27). Russia is followed by Poland where the growth was smaller (3.4%) and Hungary (1.3%). In several countries – Italy, Luxemburg, Romania and Sweden – prices rose by less than 1%. In all other countries prices of December 2009 were generally lower than those of December 2008. The dynamics of prices for selected food products is presented in Table 6.
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.