Farm Economics brief

Transcription

1 Farm Economics brief N 1 Income developments in EU farms June 211 Contents The economic crisis disrupted the increasing trend in farm income Differences in income situation among Member states, regions, types of farming, farm size Main factors influencing the trend in income A great volatility of farm income Introduction This brief analyses income developments of EU farms over the last decade. Farm income is compared between Member States and among regions. We analyse also the main drivers influencing the trend in income. Differences in income levels reflect differences in orientation of production in Member States and regions, the significant diversity in farm structures, farm technical strategy and natural conditions. During most of the last decade, significant gains in labour productivity, driven by structural adjustments (reduction in the labour force, in the number of farms and increase in the average farm size) have offset the unfavourable trend in output and input prices, allowing income to increase. But the commodity price bubble and the economic crisis disrupted the continuity of the small increasing income trend and introduced significant volatility. Results indicate that direct payments play a crucial role in farm profitability. When taking into account the costs for own and external factors of production (land, labour, capital), many farms are not profitable with market revenues alone. Direct payments increase significantly the share of farms able to cover their total costs. The main data source in this brief is the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN). The FADN is an annual sample survey collecting structural and accountancy data on farms. The brief summarises the following two reports: This publication does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Contact: DG Agriculture & Rural Development, Microeconomic analyses of EU agricultural holdings agri-rica-helpdesk@ec.europa.eu Internet: European Communities, 211. Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged as "European Commission EU FADN", save where otherwise stated. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction, such permission shall cancel the above mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use. When data/information are adapted or modified by the user, this shall be explicitly stated at a suitably prominent place in the work.

2 1. The economic crisis disrupted the increasing trend in farm income During the last decade, farm income 1 per worker increased in nominal terms for all EU groups up until 27 (Figure 1). However the commodity price bubble of 27 and the economic crisis resulted in sharp declines of gross margins for major EU agricultural products (income and gross margin are defined in Box 1 in the annex). As a result, the farm income trend was interrupted with a significant drop in 29, but the recovery of agricultural prices in 21 led to the recovery of average farm income as well (Figure 2). The level and trend in farm income are very different among EU Member State groups: EU-2 and EU-1 average farm income corresponded to 1 % and 3 % of the EU average respectively. But Member States that joined the EU recently are gradually bridging the gap: the average annual increase is 3,9 % in the EU-15, 11,4 % in the EU-1, and 25 % in the EU-2 between 27 and 28 (more details about the methodology in Box 2 in annex; for data by Member State, see Table 8 in annex). Figure 1: Trend in income and some gross margins per unit of product (nominal terms) EU-27 Income - EUR/AWU EU-1 Income - EUR/AWU EU-27 Gross margin CEREALS - index 1=27 EU-27 Gross margin MILK - index 1=27 EU-27 Gross margin BEEF - index 1=27 EU-27 Gross margin PIG - index 1=27 Index 1 = 27 /Annual Work Unit (nominal terms) EU-15 Income - EUR/AWU EU-2 Income - EUR/AWU e* 29e Source: EU FADN DG AGRI, Models for the allocation of costs. 28e*: observed values for income and for pig gross margin (without Italy), estimates for the others. 29e: estimate. Figure 2: Index of EU 27 agricultural income per annual working unit (2=1) * Agricultural income at real prices Agricultural income at curent prices Source: EUROSTAT Economic Accounts for Agriculture elaboration DG AGRI. *: provisional data. 1 Unless otherwise stated, in this brief, farm income refers to the Farm Net Value Added (also named factor income), i.e. to total output (total production value), plus direct payments minus intermediate consumption and depreciation (Box 1 in the annex). Farm economics brief Page 2 / 12

3 2. Differences in income situation There are big differences in income between Member States (Figure 3). For example in 27, the Member State with the highest average income per worker was Denmark, followed by the Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom and Luxemburg. In the EU15, six Member States had average farm income that exceeds at least twice the EU average. On the other extreme, Portugal and Greece - two Member States which are characterised by a large number of small farms were the only two EU-15 Member States with incomes per worker below the EU average. All Member States of EU-12 had average incomes below the EU-27 average, with Romania, Bulgaria and Slovenia posting the lowest income per worker. Compared to the EU-27 average, the EU15, EU-1 and EU2 averages were 57 % higher, 53 % lower and 85 % lower, respectively. Significant farm income differences also exist between regions (Map 1 on p.5). The regions that exhibit the highest agricultural income per worker (> EUR 4 per year) are mainly located in Benelux, northern Germany, northern Italy and the UK. Most regions with low incomes (< EUR 15 per year) are located in Eastern Europe. Greece and Portugal also have low average incomes. However, nominal income growth between 24 and 27 was highest in Eastern Europe while income decreased in Southern Italy and Southern Greece. Several Member States with high incomes in Northern Europe, such as Belgium, Denmark, Germany (North-West) and the Netherlands showed only a moderate increase in income over this period (although this was mainly due to the importance of pig production in these regions, which was hit by unfavourable market conditions in 27). Figure 3: Income per worker by Member State EUR/AWU Income per worker EU-27 Income per worker EU-27 Income per worker DK NL BE UK LU SE DE FR FI AT IT IE ES MT CZ EE HU EL LT SK LV CY PT PL SI BG RO Source: EU FADN DG AGRI. FNVA/AWU: Farm Net Value Added per Annual Work Unit (see methodological box). Farm economics brief Page 3 / 12

4 Figure 4 illustrates the widespread distribution of income in the EU-27: 7 % of farms have a negative income, with 1 % below -1 EUR/AWU, while a third of farms receive between and 5 EUR/AWU. On the other end of the scale, 3 % of farms obtain more than 7 EUR/AWU. While income varies largely between EU-15 farms, the differences are less pronounced in EU-1 and EU-2 where incomes range mainly between -5 and 25 EUR/AWU. It is interesting to notice that the 3 % of farms with the highest income represent 18 % of the agricultural output whereas the 33 % of farms obtaining between and 5 EUR/AWU produce only 7 % of agricultural output (Figure 5). Agricultural income also differs between farm types and farm sizes (Figure 6 on p.5). On average for the EU-25, the income per worker is the highest in pig and poultry farms while it is the lowest in mixed farms (based on 24-26). Income per worker increases with farm size. On average, the income per worker of the largest farms (size class with > EUR 12 potential gross margin 2 ) was about EUR 35, which is more than 1 times the figure for the smallest farms. This is largely explained by differences in farm structure. In the largest size class, the average amount of land (168 ha) is 2 times higher than in the smallest, while the number of workers is only 4 times greater. Figure 4: Distribution of farms by class of income in the EU-27 average Share of EU-27 farms EU 15 EU 1 EU 2 4.% 35.% 3.% 25.% 2.% 15.% 1.% 5.%.% ]Low,-1] ]-1,-5] ]-5,] ],5] ]5,1] ]1,15] ]15,2] ]2,25] ]25,3] ]3,35] ]35,4] Income class ( /AWU) ]4,45] ]45,5] ]5,55] ]55,6] ]6,65] ]65,7] ]7,High[ Source: EU FADN DG AGRI. Figure 5: Distribution of total agricultural output by class of income in the EU-27 average Share of EU-27 total output 2% 18% 16% 14% 12% 1% 8% 6% 4% 2% % ]Low,-1] ]-1,-5] ]-5,] EU 15 EU 1 EU 2 ],5] ]5,1] ]1,15] ]15,2] ]2,25] ]25,3] ]3,35] ]35,4] Income class ( /AWU) ]4,45] ]45,5] ]5,55] ]55,6] ]6,65] ]65,7] ]7,High[ Source: EU FADN DG AGRI. 2 To compare farms of different sizes with very different types of production - such as wheat, milk, flowers under glass, or wine - the size of the farm is measured in economic terms (potential gross value added) as established in the EU typology of farms. Farm economics brief Page 4 / 12

5 Map 1 Source: EU FADN DG AGRI Figure 6: Income per worker by farm type and by economic size in the EU-25 - average /AWU 4 35 /AWU Pig & Poultry Milk Wine Horticulture Grazing livestock Field crops Other permanent crops Mixed < >12 Economic size (potential gross margin in 1 ) Source: EU FADN DG AGRI. Farm economics brief Page 5 / 12

6 3. Main factors influencing the trend in income Farm income per worker has increased over the last decade thanks to great gains in labour productivity driven by structural adjustments, i.e. the reduction in the labour force employed in agriculture, the decrease in the number of farms and the increase in the average farm size. Another crucial factor driving EU farm income developments was the gradual shift from market price support to direct payments, more directly transferred to income. The share of direct payments in farm income differs between EU15 and EU12 (Figure 7) and between farm types (Figure 8). In particular, the share of direct payments in income of field crop farms and grazing livestock farms was 43 % and 54 %, respectively, much greater than the average (31 %). After subtracting wages, rents and interests paid from farm income, the share of direct payments in this new value called family farm income rose to more than 65 % in the EU-27 in 29. In recent years, the positive income growth path has been reversed as the labour productivity gains were not sufficient to compensate for the deterioration of the terms of trade in agriculture as a result of unfavourable developments in farm output and input prices. Costs of production have risen due to the increase in input prices (see Farm Economics brief N 2), whereas on the long-term agricultural prices are decreasing in real terms. With the recent economic crisis, the divergent development of input and output prices has been accelerated, squeezing significantly the farmers margin and therefore income (Figure 9). 4% 35% 3% 25% 2% 15% 1% 5% % Figure 7: Share of direct payments in income * EU 27 EU 25 EU 15 EU 12 Source: EUROSTAT Economic Accounts for Agriculture elaboration DG AGRI. *: provisional data Figure 8: Share of direct payments in income by farm type in the EU-25, average % 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % 54% 46% 43% 33% Grazing Mixed Field crops Milk livestock Source: DG AGRI EU FADN. Figure 9: Revenues and costs for milk and cereals, EU-27 14% 12% EU-25 average 31% 4% 3% OtherGranivoresWine Horticulture permanent crops Cereals and milk - /t Cereals revenues Cereals operating costs Milk revenues Milk operating costs milk gross margin cereals gross margin estimate 29 estimate Source: DG AGRI EU FADN, models of allocation of costs. Farm economics brief Page 6 / 12

7 So far, with farm income it was referred to the amount of income available to remunerate the production factors: land, labour and capital. The profitability problem of the agricultural sector and its dependency on direct payments become even more visible when the costs for own and external production factors are taken into account 3. To illustrate Table 1 and Table 2 provide with information on the share of variable and total costs in market revenue. It is shown that on average variable costs (intermediate consumption) are lower than market revenue (the share is below 1 %). Thus, farms are generally able to cover variable costs with market revenue. However, this is not true for total costs as the share of total costs in market revenue is in most cases bigger than 1 %. This is true in particular in the cases of field crop, milk, grazing livestock and mixed farms. Although the gap between costs and revenue diminishes with increasing size even large farms are on average not profitable based on market revenue alone. Table 1: Share of variable costs in market revenue by farm type and size class EU-25, average Farm size (potential gross margin in 1 EUR ) Type of farming < >12 Total Field crops 53 % 47 % 55 % 61 % 63 % 62 % 6 % Horticulture 52 % 43 % 41 % 42 % 47 % 51 % 48 % Wine 31 % 31 % 28 % 33 % 36 % 34 % 34 % Other permanent crops 6 % 58 % 55 % 6 % 61 % 6 % 6 % Milk 6 % 58 % 55 % 6 % 61 % 6 % 6 % Other grazing livestock 79 % 65 % 65 % 69 % 69 % 66 % 68 % Granivores 77 % 74 % 73 % 67 % 67 % 66 % 67 % Mixed 64 % 6 % 59 % 66 % 69 % 68 % 67 % Total 59 % 44 % 51 % 56 % 6 % 59 % 57 % Table 2: Share of total costs in market revenue by farm type and size class EU-25, average Farm size (potential gross margin in 1 EUR ) Type of farming < >12 Total Field crops 168 % 163 % 159 % 145 % 131 % 119 % 133 % Horticulture 17 % 12 % 14 % 94 % 95 % 93 % 94 % Wine 199 % 167 % 138 % 113 % 99 % 88 % 13 % Other permanent crops 187 % 139 % 124 % 17 % 95 % 93 % 112 % Milk 164 % 154 % 138 % 134 % 121 % 18 % 118 % Other grazing livestock 288 % 196 % 171 % 157 % 136 % 112 % 147 % Granivores 98 % 97 % 15 % 12 % 96 % 91 % 94 % Mixed 181 % 154 % 134 % 135 % 122 % 113 % 123 % Total 171 % 152 % 142 % 132 % 119 % 15 % 119 % 3 Data on the costs of own production factors are not available in the FADN data base. In order to estimate the profitability of farms these costs components are imputed based on estimates of the opportunity costs for labour, land and capital. Farm economics brief Page 7 / 12

8 These, however, are only averages. The situation on farm level is more complex. To illustrate this, Table 3 and Table 4 provide with information on the share of farms in the EU-25 which are able to cover respectively, variable and total costs based on market revenue alone. It is shown that variable costs are covered by more than 9 % of farms while only 2 % of farms would be able to cover total costs without receiving Pillar I and Pillar II payments. Not covering total costs means that farmers are not able to remunerate family labour and assets as in the other sectors of the economy. The situation would be particularly difficult for field crop, grazing livestock and mixed farms. In these sectors even the vast majority of large farms would not be profitable as only 2-25 % of these farms would be able to cover total costs. Large farms in the pig & poultry, horticulture and permanent crop sectors are more profitable and rely less on direct payments. This situation is addressed by the CAP as field crop, grazing livestock and mixed farms are the ones who receive the highest amount of direct payments (Table 7). Furthermore, it has to be noted that the amount of direct payments increases considerably with the size of farms. Table 3: Share of farms where variable costs are covered by market revenue by farm type and size class EU-25, average Farm size (potential gross margin in 1 EUR ) Type of farming < >12 Total Field crops 89 % 9 % 84 % 84 % 89 % 94 % 88 % Horticulture 99 % 99 % 99 % 99 % 98 % 99 % 99 % Wine 95 % 89 % 98 % 97 % 97 % 99 % 95 % Other permanent crops 89 % 98 % 97 % 98 % 98 % 98 % 97 % Milk 94 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 98 % 99 % 97 % Other grazing livestock 7 % 82 % 81 % 8 % 86 % 91 % 81 % Granivores 97 % 96 % 98 % 98 % 97 % 96 % 97 % Mixed 93 % 96 % 94 % 89 % 94 % 98 % 94 % Total 89 % 93 % 91 % 89 % 93 % 97 % 92 % Table 4: Share of farms where total costs are covered by market revenue by farm type and size class EU-25, average Farm size (potential gross margin in 1 EUR ) Type of farming < >12 Total Field crops 9 % 12 % 15 % 17 % 18 % 21 % 14 % Horticulture 22 % 37 % 41 % 49 % 47 % 51 % 44 % Wine 1 % 14 % 19 % 32 % 43 % 57 % 27 % Other permanent crops 11 % 23 % 29 % 4 % 5 % 54 % 27 % Milk 6 % 13 % 22 % 18 % 16 % 29 % 18 % Other grazing livestock 3 % 6 % 15 % 19 % 18 % 24 % 14 % Granivores 29 % 22 % 23 % 37 % 5 % 58 % 39 % Mixed 4 % 7 % 16 % 25 % 19 % 24 % 13 % Total 8 % 15 % 2 % 25 % 25 % 34 % 2 % Table 5: Amount of direct payments per AWU by farm type and size class in the EU-25, average EU-25, average Farm size (potential gross margin in 1 EUR ) Type of farming < >12 Total Field crops Horticulture Wine Other permanent crops Milk Other grazing livestock Granivores Mixed Farm economics brief Page 8 / 12

9 Thanks to the reception of Pillar I and Pillar II payments the profitability of farms increases significantly (see the two following tables). The share of farms covering variable costs increases to almost 1 % and the share of profitable farms (which cover total costs) increases from less than 2 % to 35 %. Profitability of field crop, mixed and other grazing livestock farms improves the most. This is true in particular for large farms. For instance the share of large profitable field crop, grazing livestock and mixed farms jumps from slightly more than 2 % to over 6 %. Overall this shows that in particular land based production systems such as field crop and grazing livestock farms which ensure that the bulk of the agricultural area is kept in good agricultural and environmental condition depend the most on direct payments. Table 6: Share of farms with positive gross farm income by farm type and size class EU-25, average Economic size (potential gross margin in 1 EUR ) < >12 Total Field crops 98 % 99 % 97 % 98 % 99 % 99 % 99 % Horticulture 1 % 99 % 99 % 99 % 98 % 99 % 99 % Wine 98 % 99 % 98 % 98 % 98 % 99 % 98 % Other permanent crops 96 % 99 % 99 % 99 % 99 % 99 % 99 % Milk 99 % 99 % 1 % 99 % 1 % 1 % 99 % Other grazing livestock 96 % 98 % 98 % 98 % 99 % 99 % 98 % Granivores 97 % 98 % 99 % 98 % 98 % 98 % 98 % Mixed 98 % 99 % 99 % 98 % 99 % 1 % 99 % Total 98 % 99 % 98 % 98 % 99 % 99 % 99 % Table 7: Share of profitable farms by farm type and size class EU-25, average Economic size (potential gross margin in 1 EUR ) < >12 Total Field crops 19 % 22 % 3 % 38 % 49 % 61 % 32 % Horticulture 29 % 39 % 44 % 51 % 5 % 53 % 47 % Wine 16 % 16 % 24 % 37 % 5 % 63 % 32 % Other permanent crops 16 % 33 % 37 % 51 % 6 % 64 % 36 % Milk 21 % 29 % 38 % 38 % 45 % 62 % 42 % Other grazing livestock 13 % 21 % 34 % 42 % 5 % 65 % 35 % Granivores 32 % 26 % 34 % 51 % 61 % 68 % 49 % Mixed 9 % 16 % 35 % 44 % 48 % 63 % 27 % Total 15 % 25 % 34 % 42 % 49 % 62 % 34 % Farm economics brief Page 9 / 12

10 Average agricultural income has fluctuated over time. The graphs below show that the income of EU-15 pig and poultry farms was the most volatile. In 27 for instance, they suffered a significant drop in income due to high input prices (the previous low in their income in 1998 was due to exceptionally low prices for pork). The income of pig and poultry farms in that year was indeed the lowest of all farm types. Pig production is characterised by cyclical fluctuations of supply and prices. This is due to the breeding time between the reaction of the farmer to higher prices (investment to increase the production) and the time when animals arrive on the market. In the EU-1, fluctuations are not apparent due to the rather short time-series. 4. A great volatility of farm income However, the volatility of income is even higher at farm level: over the period , income changed on average in about 54 % of cases by more than 3 % in comparison with the average for the previous three years. In general, income volatility was more pronounced in small farms than in large farms (the change in income was greater than 3 % in 64 % of small farms and in 45 % of large farms) (see graphs below). This is understandable as the income of small farms is in most cases very low, so that small changes in revenue or costs can cause high relative changes in income. Figure 1: Trend in income per worker by farm type (nominal terms) Fieldcrops Horticulture Wine Milk Other grazing livestock Granivores 6 /AWU EU Fieldcrops Horticulture Wine Milk Other grazing livestock Granivores /AWU EU Figure 11: Volatility of farm income (average change in agricultural income compared to the average for the previous 3 years in the EU-25, ) 3 Small farms (2-4 ESU) Big farms (above 1 ESU) more than - 1% -1 to -7% -7 to - 3% -3 to % to 3% 3 to 7% 7 to 1% more than 1% more than - 1% -1 to -7% -7 to - 3% -3 to % to 3% 3 to 7% 7 to 1% more than 1% Source: DG AGRI EU-FADN Farm economics brief Page 1 / 12

11 Box 1: Definitions Annex The following income indicators are used in this brief: Gross Farm Income corresponds to total output (total production value), plus direct payments minus intermediate consumption (see the schema below); Farm Net Value Added (FNVA) equals Gross Farm Income minus depreciation. It corresponds to the amount available to remunerate all fixed production factors (land, labour and capital), either owned or rented by the farm; Economic profit equals FNVA minus external factors (wages, rent and interest paid) and imputed family factors. It represents the amount remaining after remuneration of all production factors. These indicators are expressed per Annual Work Unit (AWU) to take account of the differences in the total labour force remunerated on the holding. All income indicators are calculated before deduction of income taxes and expressed in current EUR. Gross margins per unit of product are also calculated by deducting the operating costs allocated to the product concerned from the total revenues from this product (market revenues and coupled payments). Income indicators Gross margin Market revenues Market revenues per unit - Intermediate consumptions = Gross Farm Income + Balance subsidies & taxes + Coupled payments per unit - Depreciation = Farm Net Value Added = Total revenues per unit - External factors + Balance subs. & taxes on invest. - Operating costs per unit - Imputed family factors = Economic profit = Gross margin per unit Box 2: Methodology The brief is based on Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) database. The FADN is a European system of sample surveys that take place each year and collect structural and accountancy data relating to farms; their aim is to monitor the income and business activities of agricultural holdings and to evaluate the impacts of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The scope of the FADN survey covers only those farms exceeding a minimum economic size so as to cover the most relevant part of the agricultural activity of each EU Member State (MS), i.e. at least 9 % of the potential agricultural production covered in the Farm Structure Survey (FSS, EUROSTAT). For 27, the sample consists of approximately 81 holdings in the EU-27, which represent 5.4 million farms (39 %) out of a total of some 14 million farms included in the FSS. It allows covering 95 % of the EU agricultural production, 86 % of the agricultural area and 94 % of the livestock units. The applicable rules are aimed at providing representative data along three dimensions: region, economic size and type of farming. FADN is the only harmonised source of micro-economic data, which means that the accounting principles are the same in all EU MS. For further information see: Farm economics brief Page 11 / 12

12 Table 8: Medium term development in agricultural income (base year 25) BE 15,5 19,3 1, 123,5 134, 19,2 17,7 134,3 BG 87,4 1, 97,5 98,8 161,2 125,3 158,7 CZ 55,2 93,2 1, 12,7 118,6 125,1 98,5 113,9 DK 81,3 98,8 1, 14,2 16,4 66,6 5,3 78,7 DE 69,6 111,9 1, 18,9 134,9 128,8 11,8 124,6 EE 29, 94,8 1, 1,4 142,1 112,1 94,5 138,2 IE 73,3 8,4 1, 84, 94,3 87, 67, 85,4 EL 119, 99,3 1, 98,3 99, 88,2 89,6 86,5 ES 99,8 113,2 1, 95,5 17,3 97,4 93,8 11,7 FR 112,9 15,2 1, 111,4 121,2 16,2 86,6 116,3 IT 124,3 114,6 1, 96,3 93,7 94,3 86, 83,6 CY 125,5 96,6 1, 9,4 9,2 85,7 92,3 92, LV 39,2 96, 1, 131,8 137,8 117,2 12,4 127,8 LT 64,3 92,5 1, 89, 133,4 123,4 16,6 121,8 LU 11,2 19,2 1, 94,7 116,1 85,8 57,4 7,2 HU 77,5 99,2 1, 16,6 114,3 153,4 17,2 123,3 MT 88,3 82,6 1, 97,5 94,5 9,3 11, 114,4 NL 123,4 11,1 1, 122,6 121,1 99,1 87,9 122,1 AT 85,4 12,3 1, 11,3 123,2 119,3 93,9 16,9 PL 6,1 11,3 1, 11,5 135, 18,9 134,7 145,2 PT 111,9 18,7 1, 14,4 1,2 14,2 1,6 19,3 RO 8,8 175,2 1, 99,3 76,8 114,4 92,4 89,1 SI 63,2 99,5 1, 97,4 19,6 99,1 86,7 92,8 SK 85,6 17,3 1, 122,1 128,9 143,5 11,5 115,2 FI 81, 9,1 1, 98,5 111,6 93,1 18,6 17,8 SE 77,4 83,9 1, 113,5 135,7 124,2 94,8 121,8 UK 83,1 11,2 1, 13,9 11,8 143,5 129,6 121,3 EU27 11,2 1, 14, 114,8 19,9 98,9 111,2 EU15 12,7 16,7 1, 13,3 112,1 15,6 93,8 16, NMS12 122, 1, 14,4 112,2 12,6 112,7 12,6 Source: EUROSTAT - Economic Accounts for Agriculture Farm economics brief Page 12 / 12