A Review of the EU regime for the fruit and vegetables sector. Response to the public consultation on policy options and their impact assessment

Transcription

1 September 2012 A Review of the EU regime for the fruit and vegetables sector Response to the public consultation on policy options and their impact assessment by FRESHFEL EUROPE Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org

2 September 2012 A Review of the EU regime for the fruit and vegetables sector public consultation on policy options and their impact assessment Respondent information and preliminary remarks Freshfel Europe is the European fresh produce association, representing the interest of the fresh fruit and vegetables sector from production down to retailers. Freshfel is listed in the EU public register under reference number Freshfel Europe is an AISBL registered in Belgium. The contact details of the organisation are as per the letter head. The enclosed position is the official position of the professional organisation representing the various segments of the fresh fruit and vegetables sector, including production, shippers, wholesalers and distributors, importers and exporters as well as retailers. This position outlines the main aspects of jointly shared perspectives of the sector challenges. This position is not entering into the specific details of the functioning of PO s and/or crisis management tools which will be better covered by other organisations such as COPA/COGECA, AREFLH or PROFEL. It will focus on the critical steps that need to be undertaken and the new policy orientation which is required to enhance our struggling sector as a whole while stimulating a healthier diet among European consumers. Freshfel Europe s position has been coordinated by the Brussels based association s secretariat with a vertical and supply chain perspective represented in its membership across the EU. Freshfel Europe hereby consents to the publication of this contribution. Evaluation of problems and future challenges for the sector The European Common Market Organisation for fruit and vegetables has been in place in its current format since 1996, with some policy adjustments in 2007 through Council Regulation 1234/2007. The European Commission is now evaluating the benefit of a more in depth reform. This reform is launched on the background of several alarming and challenging factors as depicted by the Commission Review documents of the sector: a persisting weaknesses in organisation a low rate of organisation and still in many cases a small size of PO s a limited coverage of certain fruit and vegetables in PO s an increasing production uncertainty and risks for the environment and climate change a limited use of crisis prevention tools a widening gap between output and input prices a stagnating (or in most of the cases declining) consumption Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org

3 This inventory of concerns suggests that the current difficulties of the sector mainly result from an inefficiency of the current CMO instruments (PO s organization or crisis prevention). This analysis fails however to recognize some of the achievements of the current policy instruments and to underline some of its positive effects. It also fails to sufficiently broaden the scope of the challenges and to consider that comprehensive and innovative supply chain solutions are needed on top of reinforcing existing tools. Freshfel response to this consultation is elaborated under this perspective. The Freshfel analysis is backed by the Association statistical data (main trends of production, trade, gross supply and consumption as presented in Annex 1) which clearly show the worrying development for fruit and vegetables. Such a steady negative trend throughout the last decade demonstrates profound difficulties to position fresh produce as a successful category in the food chain. The reasons of the difficulties are profound. Besides some of the aspects reported in the Commission inventory, the following additional aspects should be highlighted and taken into account: the production and the trade are confronted with an ever increasing exposure to extreme climatic havoc as well as to cyclical market turbulences due to food safety crisis exposure or influence of climatic conditions on consumption. the increased constraints placed on production and trade with the limitation of plant protection products, uncertainties in regard to MRLs, the compliance with strict (non) regulatory requirements and related certification, etc. are all leading to increased safety but less competitiveness without guaranteeing a better image towards consumers. the costs increased in the chain (energy, certification, labour, etc.) while the fresh produce consumer prices deflate, exposing the sector to fringed margins. the discrepancies of organisations remain a point of difficulty and could lead to unbalances in relationships. While the retail and foodservice segments could not be blamed for moving into a competitive and concentrated environment, there are on-going significant differences in the level of concentration with the one registered at the supply and trade level. Efforts to address this specific point should not be discontinued without however leading to distortion of competition among operators. the difficulties to generate value in the chain despite the positive image of fresh produce and their attractive position in the supermarket shelf. the limited investments in research and innovation as well as in marketing compared to competing industries including the FMCG (fast moving consumers goods). The products features and tools to enhance more convenience for fresh produce require innovation and practical solutions to assist the sector to develop new market shares in the food services area as well as to reduce waste. There are many new opportunities to be explored for the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables away from home. The sector needs to be assisted to match requirements and competitiveness to supply these emerging market segments where fruit and vegetables are currently under represented. the fresh produce consumption is not only stagnating but in most cases declining. The latest Consumption Monitor of Freshfel Europe indicated that in the last decade average per capita consumption in Europe dropped by 20% while most of the Members States are below the minimum recommendation of 400 g/day/capita. Several reasons are behind this negative trend including changing lifestyles, economic crisis affecting purchasing attitudes, image issues with misperception of price, or appropriation of fresh produce positive assets by competing industries. The declining volume placed on the fresh market (close to 18 Million T in 10 years) is also often combined with reduced value, affecting the wealth of the sector as a whole. Within the fruit and vegetables sector, it is worth reminding that outlets on the fresh Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org Page 2

4 market are the most remunerative for growers and should therefore be stimulated to secure better return back to production. the sector has limited means for undertaking marketing and promotion actions. While enjoying many positive assets (see among others the sector cannot fully take the benefit of this positive image, while some competing sectors in the FMCG would often use fresh produce s image to sustain their sales of competing branded products (snacks, yoghurts, ice cream, etc.). More instruments need to be developed for assisting the fresh produce sector in increasing its communication and promotion towards the consumers, in parallel to new initiatives that should also be taken by public authorities. the recent business trends pointed out in the Freshfel Consumption Monitor indicate that export to third countries is the only segment developing positively in recent years (compared to production output and import). However, the growth is mainly resulting from higher intake by Russia and Ukraine. More efforts need to be undertaken to diversify export destinations with a coordinated export policy covering the various issues of market access (duty, non tariff barriers, marketing and promotion). Several emerging markets are, unlike the EU, still growing in consumption at a sustained pace. The EU fresh produce sector, with its quality produce and its experienced operators, is well positioned to take a significant part of this growth around the world, provided market access and other competitive hindrances are successfully addressed. On the other hand, it is to be noted that imports into the EU sharply declined in recent years, the EU market being less attractive for third country suppliers given high public and private requirements and competitive prices. Imports remain relevant for securing a diversified complement to EU produce compared to other emerging markets. Addressing these issues would require a reinforcement of the existing tools while contemplating in the reform new market oriented solutions for the benefit of the fresh produce supply chain to reinforce the sector and its products among the food categories. Solutions to the sector challenges The review of the challenges as made by the Commission services is contrasting with the limited scope of solutions proposed by the Commission in its questionnaire. The format proposed by the Commission for responding to the consultation is limited with too preselected and oriented options. Freshfel Europe is therefore opting for a written submission rather than providing its input through the on-line survey. The analysis of the situation as above clearly demonstrates that addressing the sector issues and finding adequate solutions go much beyond the PO s structure or addressing the low level of organisation in some specific parts of the EU. A reform will only be worth and successful if it has a broad and all-encompassing agenda of issues from production down to consumers. Fresh fruit and vegetables have strong assets for the European society: economic and social impact of the related activities, its environmental benefit as well as its health assets for consumers. Based on the review of challenges, the reform should have its focus of actions on three main pillars as described below: 1. Addressing specific issues related to production The EU initiated a policy in 1996 recognising the benefit of pooling production. Such a policy should not be discontinued and be the basis for reinforcing the European production in the supply chain. The support Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org Page 3

5 should primarily focus on enhancing producers to increase quality and food safety as well as enhancing GAP/IPM practices. The sector remains under strict surveillance of NGOs, often leading retailers to apply non regulatory requirements going beyond regulatory provisions. The PO s should remain the catalyst for moving towards high quality production to avoid the sector to be in breach of food safety requirements and/or be exposed to any food crisis outbreak. Pooling production could also reinforce the capacity of innovation and research to new varieties and more convenient products, improved quality and shelf life as well as better practices to match demand on the market in retail, as well as in the growing foodservices sector. This could be done in partnership with operators across the chain. Pooling production in PO s and APO s is important in particular to satisfy demand of customers in the retail sector. Other channels should not be disregarded for recognising the specific niche markets for local agriculture distributed within short supply chains. However there should be no misplaced expectations for local agriculture outreach. The enclosed annex 2 positions this debate in its context and highlights basic principles that should be complied with. The recent EHEC crisis demonstrated the weaknesses of the sector when exposed to a major food crisis. Reinforcing the production structure could prevent new crises to occur. The CMO should assist growers to comply without compromises to the stricter PPP, MRL and microbiological requirements. In this respect, a broader scope should be given to the CMO to cover e.g. sprouts products or any new products within the category, while ensuring that PO s could play a central role for stabilising the market and managing some of the most detrimental aspects of the crisis. In regard to specific aspects relating to the good functioning of PO s, operational programmes or crisis management, Freshfel would refer to detailed views of organisations such as COPA-COGECA and AREFLH. 2. Setting up new forms of cooperation within the chain The forthcoming reform, besides reinforcing existing tools for the management and quality of the production, should also be a unique opportunity to launch innovative supply chain cooperation and market oriented policies under the responsibilities of the CMO for fruit and vegetables. A significant improvement of the sector cannot be reached if several pre-requisites are not met in areas that are so far not covered successfully by EU policies. Freshfel has been arguing for a long time on the needs to refocus actions towards a series of new instruments which could stimulate the consumption (as detailed in the next section), but also insisted on several occasions on other aspects relevant for the supply chain, namely: As fruit and vegetables production are highly vulnerable to climatic conditions both at production and consumption level leading to high volatility, a European market observatory should be set up to allow operators to take informed decisions. The functioning of existing CMO tools should be improved insofar CAP and competition policies are concerned. Indeed, for the time being, cooperation at production level and within the chain is often hindered given lack of clarity of competition rules compared to the objective of the CMO. A greater compatibility between CMO rules and competition policy should be sought. The framework of operation for interbranch organisations should be clarified to allow this instrument to take the full benefit of its scope of actions. More details on a possible action plan in this respect could be found in the enclosed annex 3. Improved confidence and relationship in the chain should be considered by promoting/facilitating a greater interaction in the chain among all operators at EU level and enhance fair practices. The participation of all operators including retailers in the EU advisory groups could be one of the Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org Page 4

6 aspects, along with other initiatives already undertaken by the Commission services such as the platform for the good functioning of the supply chain. While exports to third countries were boosted in recent years, more efforts and new tools should be put in place to open new markets and diversify destinations. This would require introducing tools to address the issue of high tariffs remaining in place in many countries which for the most part penalise the European high value production. New mechanisms should also be in place to address SPS issues by reinforcing structures to assist production to negotiate SPS protocols to secure market access to new destinations, including those which often enjoy a large access to the EU market. A greater reciprocity of exchange should be in place, as EU produce often need to negotiate case by case the opening of third countries markets (which is not the case for imports into the EU). Finally and once access will be granted, stronger marketing tools should be available for operators to promote European fresh produce assets on third country markets. This could be made in partnership with public authorities, e.g. by facilitating the setting up of European Pavilions in targeted third country markets in line with growth of certain markets, the signing up of FTAs or the opening of a market following the positive outcome of a SPS hurdle, etc. 3. Stimulating consumption The consumption of fresh produce is declining and this trend remains steady throughout the last decade. Reversing this worrying situation should today be the central focus of attention on the occasion of a reform of the fruit and vegetables CMO. Actions to stimulate the consumption are of paramount importance for moving towards better balanced markets and more rewarding returns in the chain down to the production. In the process of stimulating the consumption, there is a dual responsibility with implications both for public authorities as well as for the sector. The following recommendations are made: Public authorities across Europe should undertake actions to spread health messages to move consumers towards a diet rich in fruit and vegetables. This is urgently recommended by WHO in response to the rapidly growing obesity challenge and other related chronic diseases. The sector besides reinforcing its supply of tasty and quality products should strengthen its communication on the assets of fresh produce regarding enjoyment, fun and fashion, convenience, consumption tips, etc. Freshfel already embarked in this direction by developing a dedicated website ( and These initiatives should be continued, and ideally reinforced, both in a collective and individual manner for all operators. Within EU population, the youngest are a group that needs to have the greatest attention in regard to stimulating the consumption. Since 2009, the EU has in place a scheme to distribute fruit and vegetables at schools. The phasing in of the scheme is progressive, but in the last three years the number of school children which benefit from the scheme doubled every year to reach today 8 million children. The growth needs to be continued and the scheme continuously reinforced. The SFS is already subject to a proposal to increase the efficiency of accompanying measures. This proposal made under the CAP reform is suggesting raising the EU SFS budget to 150 million. It is a crucial proposal to increase the visibility of the SFS. Freshfel is therefore looking forward to its prompt adoption by the Member States and the European Parliament. Separately and to maximize the efficiency and benefits of the SFS, new financial plans to secure that in the long term the scheme would allow for the daily distribution of fruit and vegetables, should be considered. For more details on the Freshfel perspective on enhancing the SFS, refer to the enclosed annex 4. The reform should also be an opportunity to reinforce the EU promotion programme for fruit and Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org Page 5

7 vegetables. Given the benefits of consuming fresh produce for the society, a positive discrimination towards healthier diet options should be introduced at EU level to provide more resources to programmes with a focus on healthier options. Other instruments could also be evaluated with the sector, such as the setting up of levies for a co-financed pan European generic promotion with the involvement of all. For more information on Freshfel position regarding promotion, see the association s answer to the Commission s GREEN PAPER on Promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products: a reinforced value-added European strategy for promoting the tastes of Europe found in the enclosed annex 5. While recognising the possible benefits of stimulating communication on specific quality features such as PGI/PGO, organic production, or even local products, the primary objective of communication should remain generic to have the largest possible outreach. Besides, the debate on new instruments could be prolonged by the Commission with the Member States to encourage them to consider a new taxation policy to stimulate the consumption of healthy options. This would include a VAT reduction on fresh produce and additional taxation on junk food. These unhealthy options often compete with fresh produce. New rules are coming into force at EU level in regard to nutrition and health claims. The sector, given its fragmentation, is probably in a weak position to submit claim dossiers to take the benefit of this new legislation. The agrifood sector, backed by strong corporate entities, will once again be better positioned to take advantage of the opportunities granted by this policy. In its study Where is the fruit?, ( _WHERE_IS_THE_FRUIT.pdf) Freshfel already raised difficulties of the sector in regard to the misuse by competing industries of the name and image of fresh fruit, to capitalise on fresh produce healthy assets. To take benefit of the new nutrition and health claims legislation will be a challenge, placing once again our sector at odds with the position of the agrifood sector. Overall, the success of actions to radically change the consumers attitude towards fruit and vegetables consumption needs to be tackled ambitiously and with a holistic approach. The above proposal should therefore be considered alongside to the Freshfel dedicated position paper, to be found in annex 6, submitted recently to the European Commission summing up in a business plan, actions that would be beneficial for improving the sector and its products image with a view to stimulate consumption. Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org Page 6

8 Conclusions The upcoming reform is a unique opportunity to address the main challenges of the sector. The perspective needs to be all encompassing to deliver efficiency and tangible results. Limiting the debate exclusively to the options set in the consultation document is only partially responding to the difficulties of the sector or focusing on some particular weaknesses of the current system in some Member States. As the Commission embarks in a reform process, the only option is to have an ambitious and holistic approach which would include supply chain, market oriented and consumption aspects alongside production specific issues. Budgetary issues might be at stake, but this reform is an opportunity to rebalance policies and budgetary allocation towards healthier consumption options for the European population. While contributing to 17% of the agricultural value, fruit and vegetables are merely allocated ca. 3% of the CAP budget. A rebalancing of resources should urgently be considered and the upcoming debate on the Multi Annual framework provides the opportunity to secure the necessary financial means required to position the European fruit and vegetable sector in a strong position for the coming years Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org Page 7

9 ANNEX 1 Fresh fruit and vegetable production, trade, supply & consumption data from the Freshfel Consumption Monitor 2011 Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org

10 Fresh fruit and vegetable production, trade, supply & consumption monitor in the EU-27 (covering ) With the support of:

11 C O N S U M C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R I TOTAL GROSS SUPPLY AND RELATED PRODUCTION & TRADE TRENDS EU Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

12 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R Taking into account that FAOSTAT production data does not distinguish between what is destined for fresh or transformed consumption (e.g. canned or pureed tomatoes, grapes for juice/wine, citrus fruit or apples for juice, canned stone fruit), and according to data provided by the sector, for grapes, citrus fruit and apples only 10%, 70% and 90% of production has been respectively considered as destined for fresh consumption. In the case of tomatoes, figures are based on the European Commission Working Group on Tomatoes document of 4 October 2011 (AGRI-C2/TOM18), providing data of supply of tomatoes destined for fresh consumption. In the case of stone fruit, figures are similarly based on the European Commission Working Group on Peaches and Nectarines document of 17 May 2011 (AGRI-C2/PEC18). The data behind the results of this report also takes into account produce wastage, which according to expert data by the sector accounts for an average of 20% of gross supply. Such percentage is therefore deducted from the total supply. In the country by country reports, reference is made to extra and intra data for imports and exports. Extra refers to produce from outside the EU-27 (in the case of imports) or destined for countries outside the EU-27 (in the case of exports). Intra refers to produce that is traded within the EU-27, regardless of its origin and provided that it is custom cleared in the EU-27 in the case of produce form third countries. When analysing exports and imports trends in the country by country section, only the extra imports and exports have been analysed, although graphics are provided for both extra and intra. For the purpose of clarity, this report uses tonnes in the metric system, that is 1 tonne (T) = Kg. Furthermore, the evolution of the gross per capita consumption takes into account the evolution of the population in the EU-27 Member States. Population data used in this report is from EUROSTAT. PRODUCTION Trends in EU fruit and vegetables production The EU does not publish reliable and timely information on the production of fruits and vegetables in Europe. We therefore used the FAOSTAT - database for the identification of production trends in the EU. The information is presented per calendar year. 13 Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

13 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R The comparison of the total production of fruit and vegetables shows that in 2010, the production of fruit in the EU decreased by 7.9% compared with 2009, to reach a total of 35.6 mln T. The decrease was mainly due to a decrease in the production of apples & pears (13.6%) and stone fruit (6.1%). Total fruit production remained below (7.1%) the average of the previous five years (38.3 mln T) average Trends in EU Fruit Production by product Trends in EU Fruit Production by country 14 Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

14 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R The production of vegetables experienced a 5.8% decrease in 2010 compared with 2009, reaching a total of 40.4 mln T. This is also a decrease (by 8.6%) compared to the average of the five previous years, which stands at 44.2 mln T. The decrease was mainly driven by a decrease in the production of leguminous vegetables (14.8%), tomatoes (7.1%), other vegetables (6.3%), onions shallots, garlic and leeks (5.3%) average Trends in EU Vegetables Production by product Trends in EU Vegetables Production by country 7% Trends in EU Vegetable Production by product 15 Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

15 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R TRADE Imports a) Imports of fruit originating in third countries remain stable in 2010, reaching a total of 11,2 mln T, resulting in a 0.1% decrease as compared to On a longer perspective, the 2010 import level is 1.3% below the average import volume of the previous five years, which stands at 11.3 mln T. After bananas (41.2%), citrus fruit remains the highest imported category (19.7%), followed by dates, figs & tropical fruit (13%). In 2010, compared to 2009, imports of stone fruit decreased by 17.8%, followed by apples & pears by 15.6%, while the imports of citrus fruit increased by 7.4%, dates, figs & exotics by 4.7%. Trends in EU Fruit Imports b) In 2010, imports of vegetables originating in third countries continued to decrease. The total volume imported vegetables amounted to 1,8 mln T, resulting in a decrease of 2.2% compared to 2009, and an increase of 7.2% compared to the average of the five previous years which stands at 1,7 mln T. Imports of cabbages, cauliflowers & similar increased by 32.8%, followed by lettuce & chicory by 21.7%, and onions, shallots, garlic & leeks by 7.8%, while imports of carrots, turnips & edible roots decreased by 20.3%, followed by cucumbers & gherkins by 15.9%. In 2010, tomatoes represented 27.9% of imports, while onions, shallots, garlic & leeks represented 22.3%. 16 Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

16 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R Exports a) Exports of fruit destined for third countries increased in 2010 to reach a total of 3.2 mln T, resulting in a 13.7% increase compared to The 2010 fruit export level is also 31.6% above the average import volume of the previous five years, which stands at 2.5 mln T. The highest increases were seen in stone fruit by 22.2% compared to After apples & pears (49%), citrus fruit remains the highest exported category (20.4%), followed by stone fruit (11.5%). Trends in EU Fruit Exports b) 2010 represents an increase of vegetable exports destined for third countries. Total external exports increased by 10.4% compared to 2009, reaching a total of 1,7 mln T. This volume is however 20% above the average of the previous five years, which stands at 1,4 mln T. Exports of carrots, turnips & edible roots increased by 69.8%, cabbages & cauliflowers by 20.3% while that of tomatoes decreased by 3.8%. In 2010, onions, shallots, garlic & leeks represent 46% of exports, while tomatoes represent 9.6%. Trends in EU Vegetable Exports 17 Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

17 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R EU Trade Balance and Comparison Imports/Exports of Fruits & Vegetables Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

18 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R EU Trade Balance and Comparison Imports/Exports of Fruits & Vegetables Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

19 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R TOTAL GROSS SUPPLY Putting the production and trade statistics together gives us an indication of the trends for the EU-27 gross supply (net domestic production and imported minus exported fruits and vegetables). Based on fresh fruit trends in EU-27: FRUIT %09/10 %05-09/10 Production 38.6 mt 35.6 mt -7.9% -7.1% Imports mt 11,17 mt -0.1% -1.3% Exports 2,9 mt 3.2 mt +13.7% +31.6% Total gross supply 46.9 mt 43.5 mt -7.3% -7.7% Margin waste 20% 9.7 mt 9.1 mt Total net supply 37.2 mt 34.4 mt -7.5% -8.4% EU Fruit Supply by product Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

20 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R Based on fresh vegetables trends in EU-27: VEGETABLES %09/10 %05-09/10 Production 42.9 mt 40.4 mt -5.8% -8.6% Imports 1.83 mt 1.78 mt -2.2% -7.2% Exports 1.5 mt 1.7 mt +10.4% +20% Total gross supply 43.2 mt 40.5 mt -6.2% -8.9% Margin waste 20% 8.1 mt 8 mt Total net supply 35.1 mt 32.6 mt -7.1% -9.3% 2007 EU Vegetables Supply by product 21 Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

21 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R EU-27 Gross per capita fruit consumption (in kg)/year Based on a net supply of 34.4 mln T, the per capita fruit supply stands at 85.8 kg in 2010, compared to the average total gross supply per capita of 94.7 kg for the previous five years ( ). The total gross supply of fruit in the EU-27 decreased in 2010 by 7.7% compared to the average of the previous five years, while the gross per capita consumption effectively decreased by 9.4%. This is explained by the evolution of population in the EU-27, which grew from 491. mln in 2005 to 501,1 mln in %09/10 %05-09/10 FRUIT gross supply -7.3% -7.7% Average gross consumption per capita, based on Eurostat s figures as regards the population in the EU-27. %09/10 %05-09/10 FRUIT kg/per capita -7.8% -9.4% EU-27 Gross per capita veg consumption (in kg)/year Based on a net supply of 32.6 mln T, the per capita vegetable supply stands at 81.2 kg in 2010, compared to the average total gross supply per capita of 90.6 kg for the previous five years ( ). The total gross supply of vegetables in the EU-27 decreased in 2010 by 8.9% compared to the average of the previous five years, while the gross per capita consumption also decreased by 10.3%, given the evolution of population in the EU, which grew from 491. mln in 2005 to 501,1 mln in %09/10 %05-09/10 VEG gross supply -6.2% -8.9% %09/10 %05-09/10 VEG kg/per capita -7.4% -10.3% Average gross consumption per capita, based on Eurostat s figures as regards the population in the EU Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

22 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R III.C. COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF CONSUMPTION TRENDS ACROSS THE EU-27 The tables on this page show the availability per Member State of fruit and vegetables in grams per capita per day in 2010 (in red those below the recommended 400g per day), and the evolution of population in the EU-27 Member States during the period On the next page, the graphs illustrate the ranking by Member States on kg per capita supply in 2010, and pages 28 and 29 show the variation in consumption levels in each individual Member State, between the most recent consumption data available (2010) and the average of the previous five years ( ). These graphs aim to compare consumption trends in relative terms and cannot be read as a comparison of absolute consumption levels. The graphs demonstrate that continued efforts are needed to increase consumption levels for fresh fruit and vegetables across Europe. I 26 Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

23 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R Fruit kg/per capita supply 2010 Veg. kg/per capita supply 27 Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

24 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R FRUIT CONSUMPTION (Variation 2010 compared with the average ) Variation on fruit consumption: country ranking 28 Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

25 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R I VEGETABLE CONSUMPTION Variation on vegetables consumption: country ranking 29 Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

26 C O N S U M P T I O N M O N I T O R I III.D. COUNTRY BY COUNTRY FRUIT & VEGETABLE SUPPLY I The graphs in this section illustrate the size of the market by ranking Member States according to total level of supply in tonnes for fruit & vegetables. The last graph illustrates total supply of fruit and vegetables in grams per day per capita, and compares this data with the FAO/WHO minimum recommendation of 400 grams per day/per person. Fruit & Vegetables supply in T(2010) Fruit & Vegetables supply in g per day WHO/FAO minimum intake recommendation 30 Copyright 2012 Freshfel Europe

27 ANNEX 2 Freshfel Europe statement on Local agriculture and short food supply chains Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org

28 April 2012 Freshfel Europe statement Local agriculture and short food supply chains Freshfel Europe, the European fresh produce association representing the fresh fruit and vegetable sector, is outlining its perspective in regard with to the Commission s initiative onlocal agriculture and short food supply chains. This statement intends to contrast this initiative with the perspective of existing opportunities and trade flow in fresh fruit and vegetables. Fresh produce sourcing: A very large percentage (close to 80% on average) of vegetables produced in a Member State are either processed or consumed fresh locally. This assertion is also valid in the case of fruit although to a lesser percentage (closer to 65%). The fresh produce business is therefore already primarily a local oriented business sector which already grants a significant part of its opportunities to growers within a local context. Fresh produce features: To cope with the perishability of fresh produce and therefore limit waste, fresh fruit and vegetables need to secure a market outlet within a short deadline. Therefore, to respond to these features, operators in the fruit and vegetables sector already operate within tight and sophisticated supply chains. As a consequence, a great part of the supply (in particular the most perishable vegetables and fruit) is being delivered overnight either in the neighborhood of its production location or across Europe. Existing trade channels provide the logistics expertise and solutions required while securing as appropriate information on the product (origin, seasonality, safety, handling, packaging...). Single market principles: The European Commission should foster and stimulate exchanges within the Single market for the European fresh produce production rather than segmenting the market. Open markets give incentives to meet high quality and safety requirements and stimulate growers to meet local expectations while being also in a position to compete on demanding and growing international markets; while local markets within the EU are rather stagnating. Supply chain and logistics: Given the urban structure of the European society, efforts to facilitate the distribution of fresh produce within a local environment are not allowing growers to have a large consumer outreach. To get access to urban population, growers will always require getting access to logistic services securing that produce is delivered within the right timing while coping with consumers safety and logistics expectations. Market requirements: The fresh produce sector is well aware of consumers expectations for specific market segments such as local, organic, fair trade, etc and already incorporates these specific sourcing in the range of products offered. Freshfel considers that the consumers should decide about their sourcing preference and there is with regard to origin or production method no direct role for public authorities to interfere in market demand. Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org

29 The role of the authorities is however quite important with regard to generically stimulating consumption and securing a healthy diet for European consumers. Healthy diet: The decline of overall consumption of fresh produce across Europe (in most of the Member States below the minimum WHO recommendation of 400 g/day/capita) represents a health challenge for the European population. A diversified and healthy diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables can only be achieved by the supply of a wide range of products sourced by the diversity of the Europe production, complemented by overseas imports. A focus on local seasonal products might unnecessarily limit the sorting of fresh produce offered to consumers and might be detrimental for a healthy balanced diet. Hygiene and safety requirements: Freshfel vigorously opposes to any derogation in regard to food safety or hygiene for products on local distribution. The weaknesses of control of organic local products led the sector to the recent EHEC crisis. The sector will always be as weak as its weakest segment and, in case of crisis all the sector has to bear the costs. In this process, there is always a dangerous trend of misinforming consumers, letting them believe that local products are safer, more environmentally friendly or grown organically. This perception might be seriously misleading and underestimating commitments of the fresh produce sector as a whole towards the supply of safe and tasty products. Terminology: Should this initiative be taken further, a definition of local in regard to agriculture and short food supply chains, will be needed. However, addressing this trend will be a difficult task which will only lead to confusion and misunderstanding, given different geographical situations across Europe, and taking into account current population structures which live in conurbation, where agriculture is not developped. This could make meaningless all the efforts put on this initiative. ********************************* Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org Page 2

30 ANNEX 3 A proposal to boost the role of interbranch organisations to improve the f&v supply chain Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org

31 With the coordination of: And the contributions from 3 Interbranch organisations: INTERBRANCH ORGANISATIONS IN THE FRUIT AND VEGETABLES SECTOR A PROPOSAL TO BOOST THE ROLE OF INTERBRANCH ORGANISATIONS TO IMPROVE THE F&V SUPPLY CHAIN INTRODUCTION INTERFEL, AILIMPO and HORTYFRUTA are interbranch organisations recognised by the European Union according to Council Regulation (EC) 2200/96 (now Council Regulation (EC) 1234/2007). During the last years, they have been developing a wide range of activities in order to improve the functioning of the sector, reaching agreements to carry on promotion activities, quality improving initiatives, draw up standard contracts, etc. More than ever today, joint efforts from public authorities and the sector are needed to achieve a better functioning of the fresh produce supply chain to offer consumers a wide range of quality products, while promoting at the same time healthy habits and satisfaction at a legitimate price. The European Commission recently presented its proposal to reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) within a financial framework The aim of this reform is to strengthen the competitiveness, sustainability and permanence of agriculture throughout the EU in order to secure for European citizens a healthy and high- quality source of food, preserve the environment and develop rural areas. In this context, various documents and reports from the Commission clearly state that interbranch organisations represent a key instrument in improving the current situation. To further enhance the role of interbranch organisations within this context, further amendments of existing legislation are needed to move from theory into practice and provide the tools for interbranch organisations to efficiently fulfil the responsibility assigned to them. THE F&V SUPPLY CHAIN The sustainability of the food supply chain has become one of the key issues on the agenda of the European Union. The main challenge is how to turn interbranch organisations into effective marketing tools in its member s hands. Positive and detailed answers need to be provided in the new regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Single CMO. It should set an improved framework for the day- to- day functioning of interbranch organisations while providing reinforced ambitions for the activities they can carry out for the benefit not only of the sector but also of the European society in general. The role interbranch organisations can play in order to establish communication and cooperation links between all the segments of the chain, according its different models, 1

32 With the coordination of: And the contributions from 3 Interbranch organisations: should also be acknowledged. Furthermore, interbranch organisations are a key tool in stimulating consumption and coordinating promotion campaigns, thus being the link between the sector and consumers. Improving the health of European consumers is a challenge. Fruit and vegetables interbranch organisations can facilitate the implementation of effective campaigns to stimulate among consumers a healthy diet rich in fruit and vegetables. WHY AN ESPECIAL APPROACH TO INTERBRANCH IN THE F&V SECTOR? A special approach should be considered in regard to the functioning of interbranch organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector. It should acknowledge the role of these organisations in achieving the above- mentioned objectives. It should also provide the necessary provisions in the future Single CMO Regulation to facilitate the conclusions of interbranch agreements and the implementation of these agreements, decisions or concerted practices taken by the interbranch organisations and to control the fulfilment of agreements made mandatory through the mechanism of the extension of rules. Finally it should also enhance the dialogue between actors in the supply chain and provide the necessary and practical tools to react to market crises. WHAT CAN INTERBRANCH ORGANISATIONS DO IN CASE OF CRISIS? The recent E- coli outbreak demonstrated the weakness of current CAP tools to address crises and the far- reaching implication of such crises across the chain. The Commission should take into account the lessons and experience from the crisis considering the role of interbranch organisations to monitor market developments, and to implement solutions by the way of interbranch agreements, decisions or concerted practices, especially via extension of rules. MORE TRANSPARENCY THROUGH INTERBRANCH ORGANISATIONS? In the framework of this new approach for the sustainability of the agro- food sector in general, and the fruit and vegetables sector in particular, it is important to make the market more transparent. To achieve this goal of transparency, monitoring of the market, statistical analyses and forecasting marketing models are an asset. Interbranches are well positioned to assist in this process. Promoting the contractual policy should also be explored on the basis of written contracts inspired by the example of the milk sector but considering the particularities of the fruit and vegetables sector. The situation of the sector and the short- term challenges urge a move towards these kind of initiatives in order to benefit from a convenient regulation. SEEKING COMPATIBILITY WITH COMPETITION REGULATIONS... Coherence is required between agriculture policy and competition policy. To secure the 2

33 With the coordination of: And the contributions from 3 Interbranch organisations: efficiency and success of the recognised actions of interbranch organisations in the CMO, the sector should be reassured of the compatibility of these actions with the competition requirements. This unambiguous clarification is crucial to achieve agility and effectiveness along the chain of interbranch activities. Competition law at a European level has to be adjusted significantly in order to foster a good organisation of the fruit and vegetables sector, ensuring that supply chains operate in a flexible manner, and providing legal certainty for operators members of the interbranch, and for the interbranch itself. This will result in a benefit of the chain, and for consumers, in terms of transparency, quality, offer, environment protection, research, etc. The use of statistical information is essential to observe and identify the problems and propose corrective measures to avoid problems in the future. Therefore competition regulations should be adapted to facilitate, among others, this objective. CONSIDERING THE SPECIFICITIES OF THE F&V SECTOR Reflecting the specific characteristics of the fruit and vegetables sector is a must that should be considered in the wording of article 145 in the text of the proposal. Surprisingly, the wording of this article in the proposal is exactly the same as the actual article in Council Regulation (EC) 1234/2007 (Single CMO Regulation). All the previous debates and reports insist on the importance of interbranch organisations but no innovative and positive breakthrough is included in the proposal although it is completely necessary to clarify the relationship between agricultural and competition authorities in order to secure that interbranches are fully operative and successful. AND SETTING UP EFFECTIVE AND PRACTICAL REGULATIONS More in detail, the period of 2 months set up to get the approval by the European Commission to enforce interbranch agreements, means in practice that it will not be possible for the sector to react successfully to solve situation of crisis. A swift and flexible procedure should be introduced, at least for a situation of crisis and/or for implementing agreements setting up dates to start/finish harvest, stricter production rules, rules on marketing (establishing suitable categories or sizes ) CONCLUSION Interbranch organisations must be reinforced and fostered through a reinforced framework for operations. A clear and ambitious European legislation is required to foster the role of interbranch organisations in each Member State. Reinforced legislation should ensure that interbranches can operate under effective and operational rules, so that they are not just granted with the status of observer of the sector situation, but are empowered as a real actor. The EU legislation should give interbranches the power to perform their tasks of market stabilisation, particularly by promotional activities, and ensure that these associations have more possibilities when cross- sector agreements are adopted. 3

34 With the coordination of: And the contributions from 3 Interbranch organisations: Interbranch Organisations in the Fruit and Vegetables sector make the following proposals to modify the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products: Article c.xi Promotion activities can not be restricted to third countries as the EU market accounts for more than 495 million consumers and taking into account the need to encourage a better and healthy style of life for the EU citizens, where fruit and vegetables play an essential role. Proposal: New wording in the internal market and in third countries Article The objectives detailed in letters a, b and c should not be restricted to the olive oil and table olive and tobacco sectors, and should also be applied to the fruit and vegetables sector considering that these aims reflect the essence of the interbranch existence. Proposal: New wording: 2. For interbranch organisations in the fruit and vegetables, olive oil and table olive and tobacco sectors, the specific aim referred to in point (c) of paragraph 1, may also include at least one of the following objectives: (a) concentrating and co- ordinating supply and marketing of the produce of the members; (b) adapting production and processing jointly to the requirements of the market and improving the product; (c) promoting the rationalisation and improvement of production and processing. Article 110 The derogation of the requirement laid down in Regulation 1234/2007 that an interbranch agreement shall have been in force for at least one marketing year in order to request an extension of rules is positive, represents an advance and will make possible to explore more in depth the possibilities of the extension of rules mechanism. In order to regulate the procedures to facilitate the control of fulfilment of agreements extended a new provision should be introduced in the text. In the same line provisions introducing a sanction regime in case of non- compliance should be considered. 4

35 With the coordination of: And the contributions from 3 Interbranch organisations: Article 112 Following the arguments exposed in Article 108.2, fruit and vegetables sector has to be considered in the wording. Proposal: New wording: Taking into account the need to encourage action by the organisations referred to in Articles 106 to 108 to facilitate the adjustment of supply to market requirements, with the exception of action relating to withdrawal from the market, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 160, concerning the fruit and vegetables, live plants, beef and veal, pigmeat, sheepmeat and goatmeat, eggs and poultrymeat sectors on measures: (a) to improve quality; (b) to promote better organisation of production, processing and marketing; (c) to facilitate the recording of market price trends; (d) to permit the establishment of short and long- term forecasts on the basis of the means of production used Article 113 Following the arguments exposed in Article and 112, fruit and vegetables sector has to be considered in the wording. Proposal: New wording: In order to improve and stabilise the operation of the common market in fruits and vegetables, wines, including the grapes, musts and wines from which they derive, producer Member States may lay down marketing rules to regulate supply, particularly by way of decisions taken by the interbranch organisations recognised under Article 108. Article 145 A quicker procedure should be considered in order to allow putting in effect interbranch agreements to guarantee its implementation successfully. Special consideration is needed for certain sort of agreements aimed at solving certain negative situations in the sector. In particular this extraordinary mechanism should apply to the following aims: (b) stricter production rules than those laid down in Union or national rules; (d) rules on marketing; (e) rules on protecting the environment; (k) definition of minimum qualities and definition of minimum standards of packing and presentation; 5

36 ANNEX 4 Briefing paper on Moving the European School Fruit Scheme into the future Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org

37 20 June 2012 Subject: Breakfast briefing - Moving the European School Fruit Scheme into the future The European School Fruit Scheme (SFS) has now been running for 3 years with a budget of 90 Mio per year. During the school year 2010/2011 more than 8 million children across Europe have benefitted from the scheme ( schools participating) thus improving their health and durably increasing their fruit and vegetable intake at a crucial age when eating habits are being formed. The evaluation of the scheme up until now, demonstrates its efficiency not only for the children, but also its positive impact on teachers, schools and parents. The European SFS is an innovative and much demanded instrument of the Common Agriculture Policy, as it: - Provides new opportunities of supply for growers and traders; - Makes the youngest familiar with new tastes and textures orienting their consumer preferences towards healthier choices; - Plays a key role at EU and national level in the fight against the obesity epidemic affecting today more than 22 million children across Europe; and - Creates visibility towards European tax payers of concrete actions taken for the benefit of EU citizens. On 24th March 2012, the joint meeting of the Management Committee on CMO and the Advisory Committee regarding the SFS, underlined the importance of strengthening the European SFS as well as its communication to raise awareness and increase the visibility of the scheme. For this policy instrument to yield its positive effects most efficiently in the long run, the system needs to be reinforced with the support of efficient tools and an ambitious budget. In its CAP 2020 reform proposals, the Commission is indeed proposing new financial resources (up to 150 Mio ) as well as an increase in the EU cofinancing to consolidate and further stimulate the scheme on a long term basis. Hence the call from the fresh produce sector, and the scientific community (EGEA and EU group of experts) to decision makers to give a new impetus to the SFS as it enters in its fourth year of operation by supporting: the budget increase proposed for the scheme by the Commission. the increased actions at the EU level on awareness and communication of the scheme at large. the increased visibility of the scheme at the Member State level through dedicated accompanying measures Stimulate Member States to take benefit of the operators expertise to facilitate the logistics and accessibility to a wide range of products all year round. Ideally clear targets should be set each year to reach more children while increasing the frequency of distribution and move to daily consumption

38 ANNEX 5 Freshfel Europe s answer to the Commission s GREEN PAPER on Promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products: a reinforced value-added European strategy for promoting the tastes of Europe COM (2011) 436 final Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org

39 Freshfel Europe s answer to the Commission s GREEN PAPER on Promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products: a reinforced value-added European strategy for promoting the tastes of Europe COM (2011) 436 final Answers to specific sections and questions raised in the Green Paper THE ADDED VALUE FOR EUROPE OF THE INFORMATION AND PROMOTION POLICY 1) To meet the new challenges in local, European and global markets and ensure the greatest possible added value for Europe, what should the aims of the agricultural product information and promotion policy be? In addition to measures already taken by other players (e.g. the private sector), what contribution should this policy make? The fresh fruit and vegetables sector is particularly supportive of a solid promotion policy. It should assist the sector which is mainly composed of SMEs to deal with its specific challenges both on the internal and the external market. On this background, the European promotion policy should be enhanced as one of the key tools of the CAP and be financed with an ambitious budget. This process could be facilitated as promotion instruments are WTO compatible. The European promotion policy would have the greatest possible added value by assisting the agriculture sector, including the fresh fruit and vegetables supply chain, to maintain its competiveness, reinforce the investment made by the sector or done at national level, in regard to both internal and external promotion. The EU added value is also being achieved by fostering the European consumers awareness of the high quality of EU produce, informing and encouraging consumers to adopt healthy consumption patterns. To assist European exporters to gain market share on third country market should also be set as a priority as it will help to gain market share, boost trade and improve the image of European products around the world. EU added value might not necessarily be understood similarly on the EU markets or on third country markets, even if in both cases the objective of the communication would be to enhance the European dimension. a. On EU markets, the objective of the policy should be to stimulate healthy eating and position EU agriculture products with all their quality assets. Separately, promotion and information campaigns could assist in fostering intra-eu trade and reinforce the strength of the single market. b. On third country markets, promotion should help taking position on new markets and assist EU products to compete within a tense trade environment while advocating for the quality of EU products. However, the EU should clarify what it understands as quality products. Indeed, recent Commission initiatives (e.g. Commissioner Trade visit in China) limiting the scope of quality products to PGI/PDO is inappropriate and unfair compared to the level of the quality of the overwhelming quantity of products which have not been opting for these quality scheme options. In fruit and vegetables PGI/PDO represents less than 1%. 1 EUROPEAN FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION A.I.S.B.L Av. de Broqueville 272 bte Brussels Belgium Tel: Fax: info@freshfel.org

40 More specifically, for the fresh fruit and vegetables sector, a strong promotion policy would lead to the following added value: 1) Obesity is today one of the major health challenges that Europe is confronted with. Freshfel is involved in the European Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. This Commission initiative has clearly identified that a balanced diet rich in fruit and vegetables is one of the remedies to counter obesity trends across Europe => Promotion should inform consumers of healthy consumption options and diet. 2) The fruit and vegetables sector is fragmented and operates with tight margins. Consequently, limited promotional activities are undertaken by the sector as a whole or by individual companies => Promotion policy should assist SMEs and sectors operating with tight margins to embark into promotion. 3) At the same time, fresh fruit and vegetables are competing today with a wide range of food categories, such as those of the fast moving consumers goods (FMCG), which have significantly larger marketing resources (as a point of comparison, FMCG spent in Spain in 2005 more than 30 times more on promotion than our sector) => Promotion policy should be limited to agricultural products and assist the marketing efforts of these products to compete with agrifood products. 4) Fruit and vegetables, despite their unquestioned health properties are regularly in the spotlight of NGO campaigns, challenging the safety of fresh produce and damaging long term the efforts undertaken by the sector to stimulate the consumption of fresh produce which are an essential part of a healthy diet. Equally, the recent E.coli outbreak, which unfairly identified fresh vegetables as the source of the outbreak, demonstrated how rapidly a steady positive image could be challenged by media, with far reaching implications on the consumption => Promotion policy should help sectors to inform consumers about its health features as well as quality initiatives while when appropriate allow to respond to specific crisis. Finally, some other remarks valid both for internal or external market could assist in providing greater added value: 1. The promotion budget should be at least doubled, hand in hand with the necessary improvements of the scheme to facilitate its access by operators. 2. The promotion policy should address the impossibility to implement centralised European programmes, under the responsibility of European organisations and under the direct management of the European Commission. The current framework limits the possibility of programmes with a real European outreach. This might be facilitated by making a distinction between purely information measures (that could be proposed and handled by European organisations in direct management with the Commission) and promotion actions on the ground (which would have to involve national partners and include access to products). 3. The lack of motivation for commercial operators to finance programmes given lack of brand recognition. Successful campaigns at point of sale should be attractive to all contributing operators and in particular to attract retailers support. 4. The lack of flexibility of the programme, to reposition priorities of the programme according to changing market conditions, both on the EU or third countries markets. 5. More initiatives should also be promoted on the external market to set up European commercial pavilions in international trade fairs in third countries. This would allow reinforcing the European cohesion of promotion initiatives. The same option should also be facilitated for the private sector under the responsibility of European trade organisations. The enhancement of programmes on third countries should not be to the detriment of internal market projects. 6. Difficulties to respond to emerging issues such as safety or health crisis which require prompt and strong response. 2 EUROPEAN FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION A.I.S.B.L Av. de Broqueville 272 bte Brussels Belgium Tel: Fax: info@freshfel.org

41 THE INTERNAL MARKET: PROMOTING THE SINGLE AGRICULTURAL MARKET THROUGH ITS PRODUCTS 2) What information and promotion measures should be put in place to develop stronger local and regional markets? (i) (ii) (iii) To develop local and regional markets is not necessarily providing an EU added value within the context of the European promotion policy. This kind of activity should rather be financed by other EU policies such as FEDER, INTEREG or more importantly by regional or national initiatives. At EU level, the communication/promotion activities should be limited to raise awareness in local areas about EU specific quality schemes such as PGI/PDO. It should be reminded that for certain products, including fruit and vegetables, PGI /PDO only represent a very small part of the production. Nevertheless, a stronger local or regional market could be developed by stimulating intra EU trade between neighbourhood regions from different Member States. The EU added value could be provided by assisting with information or promotion campaigns the development of this local intra EU trade (which could still be hampered by logistic or linguistic constrains). 3) What are the specific needs in relation to information on and promotion of European products and what should the aims be in the internal market? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) For most of the operators in the fruit and vegetable sector, the EU internal market remain the main market outlet, which moreover tends to stagnate and also be exposed to increased international competition. Consequently, information and promotion campaigns on the internal market should remain a priority of the EU. The European promotion and information policy should encourage a healthy diet. This policy should contribute to reverse the unbalance of CAP which has often in the past financed less significantly products, such as fruit and vegetables, which today are demonstrated to be a healthy diet option. Information and promotion campaigns should facilitate the consumer awareness of the high food safety features of European products. Consumers often ignore the quality assets and their assertion would be easily reverse in case of crisis. Whenever necessary, information campaigns should be available for the sector to counter NGO denigration campaigns or address consequences of safety/health crisis by reinforcing consumer confidence. Both events tend to extrapolate to an entire product category, a possible problem. Assist fragmented sectors to communicate as directly as possible with consumers and reach them with the appropriate tools (retail point of sales, television spots or other media.) Promotion programmes, if built with sufficient flexibility to adjust to emerging needs, could be used also to respond to market unbalance resulting e.g. from crisis or in case of overproduction. 4) What measures should be developed to achieve the aims set and thus optimise the European Union s intervention in the internal market? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) Information campaigns under the direct management of the Commission services (cooperation DG SANCO/DG AGRI) should be introduced to communicate with consumers to raise their awareness about a healthy diet. These programmes could be carried out in cooperation with European Organisations. A greater level of flexibility should be allowed to adjust programmes to emerging needs (safety or health crisis). Some level of brand recognition to encourage/facilitate involvement of all stakeholders, including retailers. A greater transparency of the decision process (greater public justification of accepted and rejected programmes) and greater information about accepted programmes. This would aim at improving synergies among programmes and raise awareness. A simplification of the administrative procedure, more flexibility to adjust to market opportunities or demands as well as greater transparency in the decision process would be relevant. Transparency would include an access to the main objective of all the accepted programmes, as well as reasons for rejecting some programmes. The promotion of certain segments, ways of production, should be proportional to what they represent in the market (e.g. specific focus given by COM on programmes highlighting PGI/PDO, organic...). 3 EUROPEAN FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION A.I.S.B.L Av. de Broqueville 272 bte Brussels Belgium Tel: Fax: info@freshfel.org

42 THE EVER MORE COMPETITIVE EXTERNAL MARKET: A PLACE OF CHOICE FOR THE PROMOTION OF EUROPEAN PRODUCTS 5) What are the specific needs in terms of information on and promotion of European products and what should the aims be in the external market? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) The EU market is often mature and saturated. Growth opportunities are often more significant on emerging third countries markets, where severe competition is however taking place. The EU promotion policy should assist its operators to gain visibility and market share on third country markets. A European export spirit could be stimulated through EU export enhanced programmes. The European promotion policy could contribute to this and generate a genuine EU added value among exporters while building simultaneously a European image. A close link should be established between the opening of new markets through Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and the promotion policy, without however excluding other markets which are currently not subject to such negotiations. Brand recognition will further enhance the efficiency of programmes. Often the interest to opening markets is in the hand of isolated operators or smaller companies taking the risks of opening up markets. These individual operators might not always be in a position to introduce EU programmes. Some flexibility should be considered to assist these operators and allow a centralised pool initiative to support these market opening initiatives. As interested operators might be located in a great number of Member States, programmes coordinated by European Associations under the direct management of the Commission should be facilitated. 6) What measures should be developed to achieve the aims set and thus optimise the European Union s intervention in the external market? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Assistance prior to the opening of the market (SPS protocol negotiation) and also some market analysis. Stimulate the setting of European Pavilions in trade fairs around the world. Facilitate the role of European Organisations to pool these pioneer and often isolated exporters across Europe to be pooled together in their efforts to gain new markets, alleviating also the EU markets. Multiply trade delegations under the responsibility of the Commissioner. Visits should be all encompassing and not exclusive to EU quality products understood as PGI/PDO products. A simplification of the administrative procedure, more flexibility to adjust to market opportunities or demand as well as greater transparency in the decision process would be relevant. Transparency would include access to the main objectives of all the accepted programmes, as well as reasons for rejecting some programmes. THE CONTENT AND METHODS OF MANAGEMENT FOR THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL MARKETS 7) Who should benefit? Should priority be given to certain beneficiaries? (i) (ii) While not challenging the current beneficiaries, Freshfel believes that a new framework should be set up to facilitate European Associations to present programmes with a European dimension/added value. These programmes should be under the direct management of the European Commission. This could also be a tool to remedy the current difficulties when presenting multi-country programmes under the coordination of a lead Member State. The co-financing of the Commission should in this case be higher as to cover also the part currently supported by the Member States (e.g. Commission contribution to be 75%). Beneficiaries should be primarily those who can convey industry wide messages. Multiplying the beneficiaries might dilute messages. 4 EUROPEAN FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION A.I.S.B.L Av. de Broqueville 272 bte Brussels Belgium Tel: Fax: info@freshfel.org

43 8) In order to develop more effective and more ambitious strategies for accessing local, European and global markets, are there any conceivable synergies between the various promotion and information tools available to the EU? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) The synergies should be mainly within the same product categories. Actions like The Tasty Bunch are unlikely to be successful as they mix up messages and objectives. The Commission intent to join forces between the fruit school scheme and the milk sector was inappropriate and demonstrated the weaknesses of such initiatives between products with different features and benefits. In this context, and particularly for the fruit and vegetables sector, synergies could exist between the promotional programmes and the EU School Fruit Scheme, since one of the basic elements of this is the inclusion of accompanying measures. These accompanying measures are not currently financed by the EU, whereas this possibility would increase the participation and impact of the scheme. Synergies between sectors might also be difficult, given type of operators, structure of organisations, objectives of campaigns... Synergies and best practices might however result from a greater awareness of programmes in place through better information about the selected programmes, their scope, objectives and actions. Such information should be gained through an annual join meeting of all stakeholders undertaking or taking responsibility in the selection, management or execution of the programmes. The Commission could also envisage a dedicated website with information on running programmes and contact details of involved stakeholders. Logistic synergies might clearly take place for operators in European Pavilions on third countries markets (experience of World Food Moscow in 2010). 9) Which agricultural and agri-food products should be eligible and what criteria should be used to decide? (i) (ii) (iii) The focus should remain on agriculture and horticulture products and avoid extending the support to manufactured agrifood products which are heavily branded and have major resources to finance their own marketing campaigns both on EU and third country markets. The single CMO product range could serve as a point of reference. The current list of products and themes provides specific emphasis on organic or PGI/PDO. This might create discrimination among growing techniques against other methods which are equally qualitative, while representing also the bulk of the volume. Defending the EU quality products should cover the whole spectrum on an equal basis depending on the priorities of each sector. Unavoidable budget constraints imply that the current basic agriculture and horticulture products should remain the core of the beneficiaries to maintain a critical budget to undertake actions. 10) To be more incisive, which means of promotion should be used? Should the focus be on promoting key messages, such as 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day or the taste of Europe, or on product ranges (such as cheese, wine, etc)? (i) (ii) (iii) A distinction could be made between information campaigns and promotion actions. While information campaigns could focus on general messages, such as 5 a day like campaigns, or general advices about product features (websites...), promotion actions would cover activities to boost sales of products. Rules of functioning of these two categories of programmes might be different. The promotion should primarily be by product category (e.g. fruit and vegetables) not excluding the use of generic messages such as 5 a day. It should be reminded that given cultural and language differences, some of these generic messages might vary among the Member States. To be more incisive in promotion, another aspect to take into account is the level of recognition of given to operators financing the programme. It will provide incentive for operators to co-finance such generic programmes, if their contribution is acknowledged. 5 EUROPEAN FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION A.I.S.B.L Av. de Broqueville 272 bte Brussels Belgium Tel: Fax: info@freshfel.org

44 11) Would it be appropriate to provide more space for the indication of origin of the product and what criteria should be used to decide? (i) (ii) The programmes within the European market should remain generic. Reference to origin should remain under the responsibility of regional or national programmes. On third country markets, the reference to origin and or a European brand combined with the reference to EU should be allowed. 12) Would it be appropriate to use brands as a promotion tool in the external market and what criteria should be used to decide? (i) Use of brands should be allowed, but a clear and transparent set of rules should be elaborated at European level to avoid confusion and debate. The reference to brands should be allowed but only as a support to a generic campaign but provide visibility for European operators and their products. 13) What is stopping the presentation and implementation of Multi-country programmes? What would need to be done to encourage these programmes with a greater European dimension? (i) (ii) (i) The coordination between operators and multiple Members States remains often complex as well as the difficulties linked to the appointment of the lead Member State to support the programme. At the present, even if there is a chef-de-file, the national law applies for each of the participants. It would be easier if for the whole project, only the law of the chef-de-file country would apply even in the territory of another Member State partner in the programme. The Commission has highlighted its preference for multi-country projects within the EU. Freshfel supports also this approach as it provides indeed an EU added value. In terms of its effectiveness and efficiency, such a large scale cooperation might attract a number of difficulties namely: a. Food promotion is very much subject to national and even regional habits, preferences and cultures; b. Difficulty dealing with communication campaigns on a multi language and cultural playing field; c. Different national stakeholders and agencies are forced to invest a lot of time and money in a common process while the requests are national and channelled through national governmental organisations; d. Budgets are mostly too small to achieve effectiveness and efficiency by international tenders; e. Difficulties linked to coordination between national administration and work with a chef de file Member States to run the project; f. Excessive financial burden; g. Responsibility for the organisation of the Member State acting as Chef de file. (iii) To enhance the elaboration of wider programmes with an EU added value and dimension, new schemes as proposed above should be introduced to allow European Associations to coordinate programmes under the direct management of the Commission, without the intervention of the national authorities. 14) Do any other types of programmes and/or tools need to be developed? (i) (ii) (iii) Networking and coordination among all stakeholders: This could enhance the efficiency of the programmes. It is proposed to hold a yearly meeting between Commission services (including not only DG AGRI but also DG TRADE, DG SANCO...) with representatives of the Member States and stakeholders. Short presentations of accepted programmes and discussion on management aspects of the regulation might be a great asset. The Commission could also envisage a dedicated website with information on running programmes and contact details of involved stakeholders. In regard to third countries markets, the scope of programmes could be widened to compensate the phase out of export refunds. Promotion will only be possible once market access is granted. The promotion scheme for third countries should be extended to a tool kit to facilitate the market access. This could include, for instance, programmes to elaborate Pest Risk Analysis, negotiate protocols, market analysis... 6 EUROPEAN FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION A.I.S.B.L Av. de Broqueville 272 bte Brussels Belgium Tel: Fax: info@freshfel.org

45 15) How can the selection and implementation of programmes be simplified and improved? (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) The Commission has already prepared some guidelines to be considered when assessing programmes. These guidelines should provide clear indications on the level of details to be included in the application regarding the programme specifics, in order to avoid excessive costs from the part of the applicants, while there is no guarantee of acceptance. Guidelines would also help providing a better and more transparent understanding on the decision process that the Commission services follow when making a decision on the approval or rejection of a programme. The guidelines should also clarify the distribution of administrative tasks and responsibilities on the followup of the programmes between the Commission and the Member States. Once the programme is running, there should be a clear collaboration between representatives of the three parties involved (Commission, Member States and industry). There should be a procedure to review the progress of the programmes and to give the opportunity to raise potential concerns on the running of the programme. While this seems to have occurred in certain Member States, there is no standard practice to follow. Operators would be in favour of shorter liquidating periods. At the present the liquidation is made on a yearly basis, which imposes a financial burden on the proposing organisation. In order for programmes to run more smoothly, these periods should be shortened at e.g. three-month periods. Besides strict compliance with the terms of the regulations, the Commission seems to use additional parameters to decide upon acceptance of programmes (e.g. minimum or maximum budget for a programme, whether proposing organisation is already running a co-finance programme ). In view of transparency, all criteria used for the selection should be explicit and operators should be informed of all the parameters which are relevant for the evaluation process by the Commission. Marketing campaigns require consistency and continuity. Not approving previously retained programmes leads to a suspension of promotional efforts, meaning that some of the benefits gained by the previous campaigns might be lost. It is also relevant to take into account that experiences or continuity will not assist the programmes in becoming self-sufficient. An on-going permanent support is therefore needed for some actions to have some long lasting effects on consumers and effectively change their habits towards healthy diets rich in fruit and vegetables. In practice, some of the costs incurred by the programme are not eligible. As a result, the balance of the percentage distribution is not respected. For programmes where the core activity consists in delivering fresh fruit and vegetables, these costs should also be eligible and are currently not under the DG AGRI project terms. Allowing only a 3% of the budget to monitor the results of the project is not sufficient to afford independent monitoring. Overall Freshfel would welcome for the fruit and vegetables sector an increased share of the project to be supported by the EU budget, and an extension of the eligible costs co-funded. With the reform of the Common Market Organisation of fruit and vegetables, there has been a political agreement of increasing to 60% the EU contribution on programmes targeting children. This possibility is still to be used since the conditions are too restrictive and would only apply if the actions are taking place within the school framework. The possibility should be made extensive to actions targeting children independently of the place where the action takes place. It is also important to make sure that this increase of EU contribution translates into a decrease of the part that the sector needs to take in charge, rather than that of the Member States. Further, the concerns expressed in the point before would still apply. CONCLUSION: PUBLIC DEBATE AND OTHER ACTIVITIES 16) Participants are invited to raise any questions concerning the information and promotion policy for agricultural products that have not been covered in this document (i) The budget for promotion should be increased both for the internal market and the external market. Indeed, even if currently the total budget has not been used, should the functioning rules be improved and clarified, it could stimulate the number of programmes presented and accepted. Besides should the scope be extended (allow European information campaigns under the European Association umbrella), or should a tool kit be introduced to support export to third countries, it would multiply the number of programmes. 7 EUROPEAN FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION A.I.S.B.L Av. de Broqueville 272 bte Brussels Belgium Tel: Fax: info@freshfel.org

46 (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Should there also be a greater level of acknowledgment of brands in the generic programmes, it would further motivate the private sector to co-finance programmes. To take into account the rapidly evolving market demands, the Regulation should introduce again the possibility of presenting programmes twice a year. The possibility of presenting programmes only once a year has not benefited operators that, in cases where they need to re-adjust the programmes, have to wait a whole year to re-introduce it. Therefore, it would be advisable to install the possibility of presenting the programmes twice a year again. Within the same context, a mechanism facilitating with short notice a revision of some of the terms of the programmes should be made available. Indeed, some important parameters might change between the moment the programmes are presented to the Commission and its approval/implementation (in particular for three-year programmes, from the presentation to its conclusion, 4 years elapse and conditions often change). Factors which might be altered include the geographical coverage of the programme, due to market access difficulties into third countries, change of market priorities due to competition from other suppliers (role of exchange rate), or new factors (production shortage or oversupply, climatic conditions, food safety scare...). These factors might have a huge implication on the efficiency of the programme and might therefore require short term adjustments given new circumstances. A scheme for emergency cases should be considered under exceptional circumstances following a major health or food safety crisis. The recent E.coli crisis demonstrated the inadequacy of existing rules to rapidly respond to a need of communication. While the crisis occurred in May 2011, the first programme to respond to the crisis will only be in operation in December Freshfel would also call on including an ex-post evaluation of the programmes, rather than a simple monitoring of implementation. Based on an ex-post evaluation of the programme, the effectiveness of the different projects could be evaluated and best practices identified. 8 EUROPEAN FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION A.I.S.B.L Av. de Broqueville 272 bte Brussels Belgium Tel: Fax: info@freshfel.org

47 EUROPEAN FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION A.I.S.B.L Av. de Broqueville 272 bte Brussels Belgium Tel: Fax: info@freshfel.org 9

48 ANNEX 6 Freshfel communication business plan to stimulate fresh produce consumption in the EU-27 Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org

49 February 2012 A communication business plan to stimulate fresh produce consumption in the EU-27 This position paper provides facts and figures about fresh produce consumption trends in the EU-27, demonstrating a steady and constant decline throughout the last decade. It determines a number of reasons behind this situation to best identify remedies. It proposes a business plan to improve communication and promotion for fresh produce. Background analysis The section below outlines the latest findings on consumption, analyses the reasons of the trends and reviews the assets of fresh produce. Results of the latest Freshfel Consumption Monitor: The Freshfel Consumption Monitor is a unique tool to analyse production, trade and consumption trends across the EU-27. The latest findings (released early February 2012) confirm that our sector has witnessed throughout the first decade of the 21 st century a permanent and steady decline of fresh fruit and vegetables consumption in the EU-27. Individually, most of the Member States also confirm this alarming trend. Based on the latest aggregate data, the EU average consumption dropped from 575 g/day/capita in 2000 to 457 g/day/capita in 2010, a decrease of close to 21%. This corresponds to a decrease on gross supply of 19.3 million T to reach 84 million T of fresh fruit and vegetables consumed in the EU on a yearly basis. The latest Freshfel report also confirms a further acceleration of this alarming trend with a decline of consumption by 7% in 2010 compared to Considering the impact of the EHEC crisis and the economic crisis across Europe, the situation will even be further aggravated in 2011 when final data will be consolidated. The first indicators available to us for 2011 are alarming. Today, while the EU average remains slightly above the 400 g per day minimum recommendation set by WHO, it is to be noted that most of the Member States are not even reaching this minimum daily recommendation. When considering the plethora of studies underlining the beneficial effect of fruit and vegetables intake to counter a series a major health concerns such as cardiovascular disease or cancer, as well as obesity, the current levels of consumption are not only a concern for the fresh produce sector, but also represent a major public health concern. Obesity on its own represents today a serious epidemic in Europe with over 25 million children (30% of the total) being affected by overweight, while over 5 million are obese. It is estimated that an absence of a balanced diet rich in fruit and vegetables represents a huge burden for social security in the Member States, estimated at more than 160 billion. Understanding the reasons behind the trend: There is a tendency to attribute the decline of consumption to simplistic grounds such as high consumer prices of fresh produce as well as to the related consequences of the economic and employment crisis. This is underestimating the complexity of the situation. The issue of price is obviously a clear misperception of the reality, as fresh fruit and vegetables is one of the cheapest food categories (compared to meat, fish, prepared food, etc). Besides, more expensive ready to eat fresh fruit and vegetables are often attractive to consumers and are developing sales. It is also worth underlining that during the last decade and unlike other agrifood products, fresh produce prices at consumer level might actually in most of the cases have deflated. Overall, adopting a 5 a day attitude would cost consumers between 1 to 2 /day, depending on the serving. Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org

50 A wide range of much diversified reasons must therefore be investigated behind the lack of a dynamic consumption. Changing lifestyles and eating habits, lower household expenditure for food, competition from other spending (leisure, electronics, etc.), heavy marketing and penetration of fast moving consumer goods (compared to a low margin of fresh produce and sector fragmentation with little brand marketing), lack of penetration of fresh produce in the food services sector, denigrating NGO campaigns challenging the safety image of fresh produce, long term impact on consumers of media food safety crisis such as EHEC, are just some of the economic and societal factors influencing this negative trend. Moreover and within the sector, some weaknesses should also be addressed to better satisfy consumer expectations, investing on taste, stable quality, better maturity and shelf-life control, better presentation and marketing at point of sales (POS) as well as education of both consumers and sales representatives at POS. Moreover, communication and promotion remain fragmented, with a proliferation of messages leading to inefficiency and confusion, while the limited number of brands and scarcity of resources and low margins lead to limited promotion campaigns. The decline of consumption, combined with increasing adverse climatic conditions expose the sector to a serious pressure, leading to lower return, often below costs of production which do not facilitate planning investment towards innovation and promotion. Highlighting the assets of fresh produce: The above trends are noted despite the recognised plethora of assets attributed to fresh produce. The sector experiences difficulties to capitalise on them despite a wide diversity of produce with great health, environmental and even cultural assets. Given its fragmentation, the sector has little corporate identity and hardly communicates to advocate these assets which are therefore often appropriated by other competing industrial manufactured products. The recent Freshfel study Where is the fruit? shows clear evidence of the misuse of the fresh produce image by competing sectors with huge marketing resources. (See the report on Urgent need to remedy initial steps undertaken by Freshfel: To address this serious problem, Freshfel has already taken a series of steps. Those could be further reinforced by developing a partnership with EU institutions: o o o o Freshfel elaborated a dedicated website which provides an overview of some of fresh produce s assets. The website is available on and is at this stage only available in English. This language limitation represents a barrier to its wider dissemination. A specific section for kids is under consideration (upon recommendation of DG SANCO). This Freshfel Enjoyfresh initiative on communication should now be moved into a platform for all stakeholders to exchange best practices across Europe and foster cooperation between those who carry out communication activities. Freshfel teamed up with EGEA to reinforce the links between the sector, public authorities and the scientific community ( This event, endorsed in the past by DG AGRI, should become institutionalised with the Commission becoming a major actor/leader for future events. Freshfel created an ad hoc Committee on promotion, communication and image to exchange best practices on promotion initiatives and other aspects related to the image of fresh produce. This instrument facilitates networking and exchange of best practices among operators but also with Commission officials. Freshfel is also chairing the EC Commission Advisory Group on promotion. Freshfel is a member of the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health and since 2005 already undertook several commitments (including joint commitments with health organisations) to value fresh produce. Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org Page 2

51 Public-private partnership tools to remedy the situation The fresh produce supply chain represented in Freshfel is seeking cooperation and partnership with European public authorities to reinforce the initial steps already undertaken and to create efficient tools to remedy this worrying situation. Several angles of cooperation are to be considered: Launch of a pan-european platform for stimulating consumption: To reinforce the communication and pool efforts, all stakeholders should join forces in a platform. Freshfel already took the lead to coordinate such a platform which should be the European catalyst for cooperation on fresh produce communication and image. The Freshfel s Enjoyfresh platform could be the vehicle for this initiative. Given limited resources in the sector, an EU programme should support the networking between all stakeholders to pool initiatives and ideas from industry representatives, 5 a day -like organisation representatives, service providers, Member States involved in fresh produce communication, specialised media, etc. The consolidation of such a platform is a priority and should be launched by mid It could serve to exchange best practices, seek synergies and boost promotion, image, and communication initiatives. Budget: This might require a budget of for a kick off awareness conference with all stakeholders. This might need to be continued on a more permanent basis ( per year) once an appropriate research budget line could be identified with the Commission support (the network could be similar to those set for programmes such as Progreens). Digital fresh produce community: A pan-european multilingual website should be the central tool for communicating the benefits of consuming fresh fruit and vegetables. Freshfel launched already an initiative ( which should be further enhanced with the cover of public authorities. Translation into several languages would also be an important step. The USA Agriculture administration already supports similar communication projects towards consumers ( with the support of key personalities such as Mrs. Obama. Budget: setting up such an interactive multilingual website would require for the start year a budget of including HR, centralisation of a multilingual positive content and the implementation of latest social media techniques. Once up and running, it would require up to a year for maintenance, interactive functionality and yearly updates. Generic communication on fresh produce assets: European public authorities have an important role to play and a significant responsibility to encourage consumers to adopt a healthy diet rich in fruit and vegetables. To get the CAP closer to its taxpaying citizens, the agriculture policy must reinforce among its objectives, incentive tools for a positive discrimination towards fresh produce and to stimulate consumers to adopt a healthy and balanced diet. Fresh fruit and vegetables are an essential part of this balanced diet and are below WHO targeted recommendations. Credibility and lack of vested interests better position public authorities to embark in such a campaign which will be beneficial for consumers but also a struggling sector of the EU agriculture. As a point of reminder, fruit and vegetables contribute up 17% of the EU agricultural output while historically only being granted 3% of the EU agriculture budget. In recent years, some of DG AGRI s generic communication efforts focused on very specific aspects of agriculture products such as PGI/PDO or organic production. These segments remain very marginal in terms of consumption in our sector. The EC Commission (including a partnership between AGRI and SANCO) should on a similar basis reinforce its communication towards healthy eating habits and a balanced diet. Communication on a healthy lifestyle including a balanced diet rich in fresh fruit and vegetables could e.g. be disseminated on the occasion of some of the large international sport events such as the football Champion s League, UEFA European championship, London Olympics, etc, to reach consumers at large. In the past, DG SANCO already developed an interesting partnership with the World Federation of Advertisers in the frame of the European Platform for Diet, Physical Activity and Health to Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org Page 3

52 disseminate a health / physical activity message during the break of Champion s League games in broadcasts on television. Better communication on the reasons to eat fresh fruit and vegetables and disseminating/raising awareness on materials such as those collated on the Enjoyfresh website should be considered as an essential strategic move to remedy the declining consumption. Budget: While it remains difficult to assess the effective cost of such a campaign, key marketing professionals consulted indicated an annual budget between million might be required to have a successful media campaign across Europe (above the line identification: TV, Radio, Press) to cover a basic package of communication and coordination within the European environment, while building dedicated materials to support roof communications will be a relatively smaller part of the costs. The operational way would be to involve the distribution and buy-in of all vertical integrated lines of all stakeholders of the fresh produce sector. Promotion: Freshfel contributed to DG AGRI s consultation on the Green Paper on promotion measures and information provision for EU agricultural products (see our contribution at the following link: An efficient promotion scheme at EU level is of significant relevance for our sector, witnessed by the wide range of quality programmes both on the internal and external markets already and successfully in place for fruit and vegetables. Our sector is nowadays one of the main beneficiaries of this policy. Without entering into the specifics of the promotion policy reshuffle, two important suggestions need to be highlighted to make these campaigns more relevant and efficient within an EU context: Facilitate the involvement and support of retailers within promotion campaigns to support sales of fresh produce; Facilitate a procedure for elaborating pan-european programmes, which in today s environment are hardly or not possible at all given the required co-financing/involvement of Member States. Coordination/support of several Member States (up to 27) is in practice unrealistic. While some specific communication might be required on different markets, a European umbrella scheme could lead to synergies and facilitate existing promotion efforts and information campaigns. Budget: The current list of projects undertaken under this policy demonstrates the eagerness of the sector for such programmes. It could be further boosted if a specific budget would be allocated for co-financed industry pan-european programmes under the direct management of the Commission services. Initially, a budget of 10 Million could allow to launch some projects with a real EU added value. School fruit scheme: Freshfel has since its inception been very supportive of the EU school fruit scheme (SFS), a tool of paramount importance to stimulate the consumption of fresh produce among children. Such a tool gets children acquainted with new tastes and textures, while contributing to address one of the mayor public health challenges among the youngest. While the phase-in of the SFS has been progressive, it should not be discontinued but further reinforced to fully reach its ambitious long term objective. The launch of the experts group could assist the Commission towards the success of this task. Important aspects for the good and long term functioning of the scheme include: SFS to strictly adhere to its initial public health objective. SFS to support in each of the programmes a compulsory distribution of a large diversified range of fresh produce to children to allow children to discover new tastes. SFS to get simplified procedure and have its logistics facilitated by larger volumes. Overtime a larger budget will be required to progressively move to daily intake. SFS communication needs to be improved dramatically to remedy the lack of awareness of the scheme among schools, teachers, children and parents. This includes the development of an interactive and attractive public website, containing not only administrative information about the SFS Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org Page 4

53 but also information on the benefits of consuming fresh produce. SFS to be further enhanced by a proactive communication. A Cie like LazyTown e.g. has already valuable material and media communication to further motivate schools to get involved. Budget: The current 90 million should be encouraged to be fully used. The proposal to increase the budget to 150 million by setting new financial incentives for Member States to participate and by allowing the financing of accompanying measures are also steps in the right direction. Reversing consumption trends is a multi-year investment and the SFS cannot be discontinued. Overtime, more resources (up to 500 Million ) should be made available to further raise the profile of the scheme to potential users and more importantly, progressively raise the number of produce distributed towards one piece per day as a milestone: The year 2012 will bring multiple opportunities to rectify policies and set more efficient innovative tools to stimulate healthier diets of European citizens. The 50 th anniversary of the CAP, the upcoming report on the fruit and vegetables sector, the reform of the promotion policy as well as the debate on CAP post 2013 and the financial package , are all opportunities to refocus the agriculture policy towards market actions that could influence consumers towards healthier eating habits. To validate the Freshfel analysis and gain additional input to fine tune actions, the Commission could undertake a Eurobarometer survey on fresh produce consumption trends and the reasons for the lack of consumption. A similar report was recently conducted in Germany by the German Fruit Trade Association (DFHV). This initiative at EU level would be a useful tool to validate actions and better adjust policies towards a positive discrimination for fresh produce and provide rationale in the current environment of budget constraints for the mobilisation of significantly higher resources to sustain fresh fruit and vegetables consumption Evolution of per capita consumption in g/day in EU-27 (source: Freshfel Consumption Monitor) 600,00 500,00 400,00 300,00 200,00 100,00 0, Rue de Trèves 49-51, bte Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +32 (0) info@freshfel.org Page 5