Annexes to COM(2013)593 - Implementation of the measures concerning the apiculture sector of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2013)593 - Implementation of the measures concerning the apiculture sector of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2013)593  |
| date | August 16, 2013 |
In 2011, six Member States (Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Finland and Sweden) forecasted expenditures below their respective budget in function of the number of hives. The corresponding amount of EU funds was redistributed among the rest of Member States.
In 2011, the five Member States with the largest number of hives got a combined allocation for 55 % of the available EU budget. The Member States with the largest number of hives are therefore the largest users of the programme.
4.3.2. Execution of the budget
According to the figures communicated by the Member States on the implementation of the budget per type of measure, overall usage rates in the 27 Member States are very high (93% in 2010, 89% in 2011 and 89% in 2012). The decrease in the execution rate from 2010 to 2011 can be explained by the fact that the budget allocated to apiculture programme increased from 26.3 million to 32 million between these 2 years. In general, the rate tends to be lower the first year of the programme and increases towards year three.
In 2010 and 2011, the greatest beneficiaries (Spain (93%, 84%), Greece (97%, 92%), France (90%, 88%), Italy (96%, 92%), and Romania (100%, 85%) were very effective in their use of the budgets. This was also the case in 2012 (Greece (97%), France (92%), Italy (93%), and Romania (98%) with the exception of Spain where only 69% of budget was used.
4.4. Expenses incurred by type of action per Member State
The analysis of expenses incurred is based on the figures provided by Member States each year as required by Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 917/2004. For the period 2010-2012, the two more widely supported measures were control of varroasis and technical assistance. Expenses for these 2 measures were systematically the largest and have been relatively stable over the successive programmes, accounting on average for 27-30% for the control of varroasis and 24-28% for technical assistance.
More in particular, varroasis control measures have been used by all Member States in 2010; this reflects the fact that varroasis is endemic in the Union and is perceived as the main threat for bees' survival according to the answers to a questionnaire launched by the EU Reference Laboratory for Bee Health[7]. It is also due to the relative high cost of treatments against varroa, estimated to represent between 10 to 20% of production costs according to beekeepers. Member States making the largest use of this measure were Spain, Hungary and Poland. However, it should be noted that Greece ceased to use this measure in 2011 and 2012 due to the inflation of treatment costs, the resistance of varroa to treatments, the risk of residues' presence in apiculture products and the hot climatic conditions which are favourable to the development of brood all year around and the persistence of varroa.
Technical assistance measures are used by the vast majority of Member States. Considering the number of non-professional beekeepers and the changing conditions of the sector, there is a need for continuous action focused on dissemination of information. Both the beekeeping sector and Member States consider the technical assistance measures as having highly beneficial effects on production. The main users of this measure in 2011 and 2012 were Italy, Greece, France, Germany, Czech Republic, Poland and Spain. It should be noted that there were changes in the allocation per Member State of expenses for technical assistance between the two apiculture programmes: in 2010, the Netherlands, Bulgaria and Romania did not use this measure at all, while in 2011 and 2012 Bulgaria and Romania started using it. Poland increased six times its expenses for technical assistance between 2010 and 2011-2012. Spain almost doubled its expenses between 2010 and 2011-2012.
Measures designed to ensure rationalisation of transhumance continues to be the third most common supported measures, accounting for 16-20% of expenditure. Mostly Southern European countries such as Greece, Spain and Romania with diversified vegetation and a long period of flowering are using this measure. Other Member States such as Germany supports transhumance because of its importance for pollination.
Hive restocking measures came in fourth place. The use of this measure represented 19% of expenditure in 2010 and decreased to 16% in 2012. Romania, Bulgaria and Poland are the main users. Beekeeping organisations, which are involved in the preparation of the programmes, are very interested in these measures to offset the loss of bee colonies and rising prices of swarms. Nevertheless the beekeeping sector feels that supporting the restocking of hives is, to a certain extent, only a short-term solution and that the causes of bee mortality should be further researched and acted upon.
Measures on applied research came in the fifth place (4-6 % expenditure). France continues to be the Member State allocating the largest budget to applied research, with approximately 1.4 million in 2012; this represents more than half of the total sum allocated to this measure in the Union. For example, applied research measures were used in France to carry out a study on exposure of honey bees to a neonicotinoid systemic pesticide[8].
Finally expenses for honey analysis are the least used by the Member States and decreased. In 2010, they represented 6% of the expenses then they decreased to 4% in 2011 and to 3% in 2012. Spain, which was one of the countries with the highest budget for honey analyses between 2007 and 2009, decreased its expenses in 2010 and again in 2011 and 2012. Poland also reduced its expenses between 2010 and 2011 while Bulgaria increased its expenses in 2011 and 2012 compared to 2010. These variations could be due to the fact that once a network of laboratories is established, expenses are less important. It should be noted that the support of laboratories' analyses is particularly appreciated by honey packers and distributors as it enables beekeepers to internalise this cost.
5. EVALUATION OF MEASURES FOR THE APICULTURE SECTOR
In 2012, the Commission charged an external consultant to perform an evaluation of measures for the apiculture sector.
The study evaluated:
– To what extent the six measures of the apiculture programmes affected the production, marketing and trade of honey as well as the keeping and trade of live bees.
– To what extent the measures contributed to support economic activity and the income of professional beekeepers.
– To what extent the measures contributed to price stability for honey.
The study was finalized in July 2013.
The study concluded that the national apiculture programmes have contributed to stabilise honey production levels in the EU in a context of rising production costs, threats to bee survival and fierce international competition by honey imports from third countries.
The measures contributed to curbing the surge in production costs (in particular for varroa treatments and restocking of hives) and therefore limited the impact of these costs on the income of beekeepers. The six measures are complementary to each other; conclusions on the effect of each individual measure should be interpreted carefully and should take into account the synergies existing between the measures.
Beekeeping activity was rendered more productive by inducing structural improvements into the sector through technical assistance, rationalisation of transhumance, control of varroasis, modernisation and mechanisation of beekeeping activity, trainings and dissemination of information.
The measures allowed for the support of the production of EU high-quality of honey as well as ensure that lower-end production remains competitive. The high-quality and added value of the honey produced in the EU allows for the wide gap between average export unit value of EU honey and the average import unit value of honey from third countries.
Furthermore the measures have had an indirect positive impact on both rural development and the environment. By reducing costs, inducing structural improvements and supporting the income of beekeepers the measures have helped to maintain the beekeeping activity in rural areas which is essential for pollination and hence for agriculture. The measures also encouraged more sustainable beekeeping practices particularly for the control of varroasis.
Finally, the study highlighted that the beekeeping sector, the honey industry and Member States all agree to consider that the national apiculture programmes are very useful to support the sector.
Nevertheless the study concluded that further progress could be made by optimising the use of the existing measures in order to promote honey, encourage further the cooperation between beekeepers, improve the dissemination of information on applied research projects and diversify the sources of income of beekeepers through the development of high value apiculture products such as royal jelly, pollen and propolis.
In view of the sector's needs and the national disparities among the Member States, the contractor recommended also a clearer direction from the Union on apiculture programmes since the choice of the concrete measures is currently made at national or even regional level. Synergies between the Union research programmes and national applied research should also be found to ensure a better link between fundamental and applied research and also avoid potential overlaps.
6. SUGGESTIONS BY MEMBER STATES AND THE SECTOR
In October 2012, the Commission required Member States and the sector representatives to provide their views on the apiculture programmes for the purpose of preparing this report.
Overall, as shown by the evaluation study, Member States expressed their satisfaction with the way the programmes are run and pleaded for their continuation as they consider these measures a great help for beekeeping and honey production.
The following suggestions for adjusting the measures were expressed by Member States:
- Germany and Luxemburg suggested aligning the apiculture year with the calendar year. Currently, the annual exercises of the apiculture programmes are established from 16 October each year to 15 October of the following year (Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 917/2004) while the measures eligible for co-financing must have been implemented by 31 August of the year in question (Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 917/2004); it is therefore difficult to finance actions implemented during the month of September and first half of October. For the 2014-2016 apiculture programmes, the Commission intends to address this issue by proposing to amend the dates of the implementation of the measures in Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 in order to ensure that apiculture measures can be implemented all year round.
- Germany asked for the simplification of the administration and control measures as the control effort required seems disproportionate. Member States are responsible to monitor and assess the programmes. Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 obliges Member States to notify these measures according to a precise timeframe but leaves a lot of flexibility to the Member States to implement the controls in accordance with the general principle of subsidiarity and risk assessment. For the apiculture programmes 2014-2016, the notifications to the Commission are simplified and entered directly through the Information System for Agricultural Market Management and Monitoring.
- Germany suggested supporting additional measures relating to beekeeping, improving bee health, controlling the damage resulting from varroasis, honey marketing and honey flora. All these measures can already be supported to a certain extent by the current apiculture programmes. Additional specific measures to improve bee health[9] are funded by the EU outside the apiculture programmes.
- Regarding technical assistance, Germany asked for a clearer description of the eligibility for support of equipment for beekeepers, e.g. in the form of a Commission list of goods eligible for support. The Commission considers that a fixed list of goods would remove some of the flexibility necessary to take into account the variability of the structures of the sector across Member. Moreover, investments by beekeepers can be financed already within rural development programmes containing measures for modernisation and innovation of agricultural holdings.
Finally, Lithuania suggested providing support to enable small beekeepers to renew their equipment for extraction of honey and making combs. Such support can already be provided under the measure for technical assistance.
The Commission did not receive any written comments from the sector following its request in October 2012. However, the external evaluator consulted the sector comprehensively via case studies carried out in four Member States[10], interviews and web-based surveys, and concluded that the support provided by the measures was highly appreciated by the beekeepers and beekeepers' associations as it allowed to reduce production costs in a sector under pressure. However, beekeepers and their associations highlighted the need to develop more effective treatments to fight varroa and to curb their costs. They also noted that although the measure for restocking of hives allow to compensate partly for bee colonies'' loss, this is only a short term solution and the causes of bee mortality should be researched and acted upon.
7. CONCLUSION
The national apiculture programmes aim to improve the production and marketing of honey in the European Union. In all Member States, they provide direct support to apiculture, one small sector in terms of output but essential for agriculture through pollination.
Both from the point of view of the Member States and the operators, the national apiculture programmes have been beneficial for the beekeeping sector. The measures allow for the maintenance of the production of high quality honey in the EU despite a difficult context with rising production costs, threats to bee survival and fierce international competition by cheap honey imports from third countries.
In light of the information presented in this report and the outcomes of the evaluation of the apiculture measures, the Commission does not envisage to modify the list of measures eligible for apiculture in Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. However, the Commission will propose to amend the implementing Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 in order to ensure that apiculture measures can be applied and funded all year round and to improve their management.
In addition, the Commission will work towards a better coordination between the national applied research projects and the Union research projects in order to optimize the use of their results and to improve their dissemination to the beekeeping sector.
Finally, the Commission will seek to improve further the efficiency of the existing measures by looking for potential synergies between the apiculture measures and the rural development programmes. This could involve rural development measures such as supporting young beekeepers' installation and modernisation of holdings as well as the use of agro-environmental measures to increase the availability of melliferous plants for honey bees.
[1] OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.
[2] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0267:FIN:EN:PDF.
[3] OJ L 163, 30.4.2004, p. 83.
[4] http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/market-and-income-reports/index_en.htm.
[5] http://wcmcom-ec-europa-eu-wip.wcm3vue.cec.eu.int:8080/agriculture/honey/index_en.htm
[6] OJ L 10, 12.1.2002, p. 47.
[7] http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/eu_ref_lab_bee_health_en.htm.
[8] "A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees" in Sciencexpress/http://sciencemag.org/content/early/recent/ 29March 2012/ Page 1/ 10.1126/science.1215039.
[9] http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/bee_health_en.htm.
[10] Spain, Germany, Hungary and Greece.