EC Project EUMERCOPOL D11
Competitiveness of Dairy Agri-System Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay Coordinators: Hildo Meirelles de Souza Filho (GEPAI/UFSCar) Mário Otávio Batalha (GEPAI/UFSCar)
Research Team: Danilo Rolin Aguiar (GEPAI/UFSCar) Eugenia Muchnik (Fundación Chile) Gonzalo Gutiérrez (UdelaR) Oscar Saavedra (Fundación Chile) Pablo Caputi (UdelaR) Mónica Mateos (FCA/UNMdP- EEA INTA Balcarce)
São Carlos, April 2008 1
Index
1. 2. 3.
Introduction ...............................................................................................................3 World Consumption, Production and Trade Flow ....................................................5 Mercosur Agri-Systems Competitiveness ...............................................................10 3.1 - Mercosur Production, Consumption and Trade ..............................................10 3.2 - Brazil ...............................................................................................................12 3.3 - Argentina .........................................................................................................17 3.4 - Uruguay ...........................................................................................................23 3.5 - Chile ................................................................................................................28 4. Critical Issues from SWOT Analysis ......................................................................34 5. Final comments, indication of actions and investment areas ..................................38 6. Eumercopol texts.....................................................................................................39 7. Bibliography............................................................................................................40
2
1. Introduction This report comprises the main results of the analyses for the dairy agrisystems, as part of the research project "Analysis of the competitiveness of Mercosur's key agri-food sectors, comparison of policies and the ex-ante impacts of EU-Mercosur trade liberalisation ". Its main goal is to evaluate the capacity of dairy agri-systems of four Mercosur countries – Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay – to respond to a possible free trade agreement between the European Union (EU) and Mercosur.1 This report focuses mainly on milk powder, the most important commodity of dairy agri-system in the international trade flow. A large number of farmers in the Mercosur are suppliers of raw milk, which is bough by local or multinational processing companies to produce fresh pasteurized milk, cheese, butter, yogurts, and other dairy products, including powder milk. These two segments of the agri-system, farm production and processing, are the main focus of this study. The methodology relies on the concept of agri-system and competitiveness. Competitiveness of an agri-system takes into account the verticality of the economic system and the combined impact of several factors. These factors are taken as drivers of competitiveness, and are closely related to the efficiency and efficacy of an agri-system. Taking the economic, organizational and technological environments, nine drivers of competitiveness were evaluated in this study: International trade policies, Industry programs and special policies, Domestic taxation, Food safety and inspection services, Technology, Market structure and governance structure, Firm management, Inputs, and Storage and transport. These drivers also guided the identification of strengths and weaknesses of the agri-system in order to take advantage of possible opportunities of increasing export to EU in face of scenarios of trade agreement, which is a SWOT analysis.2 1
A more thorough analysis of each country’s agri-system can be found in individual reports available on the Project EUMERCOPOL web page (www.eumercopol.org). 2 SWOT is a planning tool that was used in this study to identify the major factors affecting competitiveness and capacity to trade. Eumercopol researchers, after taking into consideration their own
3
Next section presents a summary description of the international context in which the production, consumption and commercial flow of the agri-system’s main commodity are inserted. Section 3 presents the main aspects of dairy agrisystem competitiveness in the four countries studied. In section 4, the SWOT evaluation of the critical elements of this agri-system in Mercosur countries is presented. Section 5 provides final comments and indication of actions and investment areas in order to improve competitiveness.
analysis of competitiveness drivers and experts evaluation, presented their perception of critical points of the agri-system.
4
2. World Consumption, Production and Trade Flow The global apparent consumption of milk grew about 14% between 1995 and 2003 (Table 1). India and United States are the main consumers, with a share of 28% of total consumption, while the ten largest consumers reach 60%. Data in the table show that the consumption has risen above the world average rate in some countries (China, Pakistan and India). In USA, Brazil and the United Kingdom consumption has followed the global average, while in Germany, France, Italy, and Russia there was a fall. Table 2 shows production and consumption of powder milk, which have also increased between 2001 and 2005. Brazil and Argentina have 215 of world production capacity. Table 1. Apparent milk consumption (1) in the world and in major countries (thousand tons) Year
World
India
USA
Russia
Pakistan
Brazil
Germany
France
China
U.K.
Italy
1995
525.628
65.320
68.933
42.324
19.097
20.219
24.320
21.106
10.280
15.262
16.380
1996
529.165
66.852
69.165
38.405
23.064
21.231
23.848
19.891
10.902
15.973
17.213
1997
534.638
70.705
69.891
38.689
23.638
20.906
23.525
20.327
11.569
15.147
17.514
1998
542.823
74.107
71.112
35.747
24.305
21.391
23.210
21.005
12.272
15.122
17.667
1999
552.928
78.253
73.403
33.540
24.992
21.872
23.678
20.907
13.012
15.958
17.585
2000
557.957
80.838
74.999
33.215
25.636
22.144
22.852
20.621
13.788
15.617
17.778
2001
570.318
84.743
73.947
34.888
26.292
21.937
22.578
20.986
14.602
16.229
16.463
2002
583.590
86.805
76.249
35.433
27.045
23.680
24.965
21.007
15.456
15.572
16.250
2003
597.819
89.395
76.263
36.103
27.969
23.447
24.130
20.143
16.354
16.534
16.530
2004
s/d
90.856
75.623
34.845
28.843
24.355
22.507
19.956
17.299
16.297
16.167
2005
s/d
91.281
80.220
33.568
29.750
23.624
22.051
20.804
18.298
16.859
15.543
Source: FAOSTAT, data base (1) milk, excluding butter (1) It must be explained the differences between the figures of production and consumption for FAOSTAT. Production considers only bovine milk, while consumption considers bovine and from other sources milk. Moreover, the apparent consumption of milk excludes butter.) In 2005, world production of cattle milk reached nearly 530 million tons, with an annual growth rate of only 1.3% in the period of 1995/2005 (Table 2). About 70% of world production is concentrated in the European and American continents, with the largest production in Europe. Besides these, it is also 5
expressive Asian production, and much reduced the shares of Oceania and Africa.
Table 2. Production and consumption of whole milk power, main countries (thousand tons) Main Countries
Production
Consumption
2001
2005
2001
2005
China
610
918
608
956
UE-25
918
840
416
352
New Zealand
480
585
1
1
Brazil
345
440
420
443
Argentina
185
270
90
90
Australia
205
189
25
25
Source: USDA/FAS (2006)
Data in Table 3 allows divide the countries in groups. There is the group of countries where production grows (China, detaching with a growth rate of 15%, besides Brazil, India, New Zealand and US), the group of countries with stable to slightly decreasing production (Germany, France and UK), and the group of countries with significant reduction of production (Russia and Ukraine). It can be noticed yet that the first ten countries represent nearly 55% of the world total, with a share of about 30% to USA and all the main European producers. The contribution of EU (25) reaches 25%. In 2004, world trade in dairy products involved a huge number of countries: 142 exporters and 178 importers. However, there is a strong market concentration. Analyzing exports values (Table 4 and 5), it appears that about half of the market was dominated by only four countries, and about three quarters of it fit the ten largest exporters. Concerning imports, market is also concentrate, although in a lesser degree (Table 4 and 6). The share of the four largest importers is 31.44% of the total value imported in world, and the ten largest importers are responsible for 55.82%.
6
Table 3 World production of cattle milk and key countries (thousand tons) Year
World
USA
India
Russia
Germ.
France
China
Brazil
New
U.K.
Ucran.
Argent.
1995
464.432
70.439
26.700
39.098
28.607
25.438
6.082
16.985
Zea. 9.285
14.844
17.060
8.771
1996
466.910
69.855
26.837
35.522
28.779
25.109
6.610
19.089
10.010
14.808
15.592
9.140
1997
469.425
70.801
29.127
33.835
28.702
24.917
6.342
19.245
11.058
14.841
13.540
9.372
1998
475.486
71.414
30.454
32.955
28.378
24.834
6.960
19.273
11.380
14.632
13.532
9.842
1999
483.558
73.804
32.800
32.001
28.334
24.892
7.514
19.661
10.881
15.014
13.140
10.649
2000
491.235
76.023
34.000
31.959
28.331
24.999
8.632
20.380
12.235
14.488
12.436
10.121
2001
497.573
75.068
35.600
32.596
28.191
24.903
10.601
21.146
13.119
14.707
13.154
9.769
2002
510.082
77.139
36.200
33.209
27.874
25.197
13.356
22.315
13.866
14.869
13.847
8.793
2003
518.443
77.289
36.500
33.085
28.350
24.614
17.818
23.315
14.354
15.010
13.340
8.197
2004
523.245
77.475
37.500
31.664
28.124
24.358
22.929
23.320
14.780
14.555
13.458
9.169 ¹
2005
529.833
80.150
38.500
30.600
27.600
25.282
24.530
23.320
14.625
14.577
13.485
9.493 ¹
Source: FAOSTAT, data base. (1) Updated by data from the SAGPyA. It is remarkable that four countries - Germany, France, Netherlands and Belgium - are among the five largest exporters as among the five largest importers. In other words, four of the largest exporters, buy and resell part of what they bought, although two of them - Germany and France - are also among the largest dairy producers. It can still be noticed that the main importers are European countries, to which are added China and Algeria. Besides these, it must be highlighted Mexico, Russia, Philippines and Indonesia. Therefore, it appears that the market for milk powder has its demand strongly linked to developing countries, with a growing presence of Asian countries. Concerning exporters, besides European countries, Australia, New Zealand, USA and Argentina stand out.
Table 4. Total value of milk imports and exports from the ten main countries in 2004
7
Imports
Exports
Value (US$ 1.000)
Market Share (%)
Country
Value (US$ 1.000)
1º. Italy
1.679.283
9,45
Germany
3.290.202
18,08
2º. Holland
1.403.780
7,90
New Zealand
1.972.785
10,84
3º. Germany
1.291.974
7,27
France
1.864.783
10,25
4º. Belgium
1.213.864
6,83
Holland
1.573.567
8,65
5º. France
971.266
5,46
Belgium
1.376.921
7,57
6º. China
764.390
4,30
Australia
930.180
5,11
7º. Algeria
747.867
4,21
U.K.
804.512
4,42
8º. Spain
728.222
4,10
USA
761.085
4,18
9º. U.K.
615.140
3,46
Austria
500.004
2,75
507.721
2,86
Argentina
420.419
2,31
Position Country
10º. Mexico
Market Share (%)
Source: prepared from data of FAO (2006). Table 5 Exports of powder milk, main countries (thousand tons) Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
World 1.304 1.325 1.516 1.578 1.587 1.606 1.736 1.748 1.938 1.912
UE -25 (1)
New Zealand
759 778 770 756 822 728 740 759 802 793
Australia
311 345 361 364 371 465 466 578 581 586
100 109 128 161 189 159 204 132 129 106
Argentina 56 64 98 145 98 85 136 100 177 162
Source: UN- COMTRADE y (1) FaoStat- database
Table 6 Imports of powder milk (thousand tons) Year
World
UEU-25 (1)
Algeria
China
Mexico
Filipinas
Brazil
Indonesia
Argentina
8
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
526 756 866 1.073 1.180 1.141 1.244 1.184 1.260 1.073
212 188 178 208 246 232 259 264 272 291
52 73 97 98 90 111 116 123 154 154*
28 36 24 56 71 80 62
32 42 47 37 57 67 45 44 34 44
56 47 41 43 51 35
95 130 143 105 42 95 12 6 27
23 26 16 21 24 24
6 11 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 3
Source: UN- COMTRADE y (1) FaoStat- database *estimación según USDA
9
3. Mercosur Agri-Systems Competitiveness 3.1 - Mercosur Production, Consumption and Trade Figure 1 shows that Brazil, Argentina and Chile are the main dairy producers in South America. Brazil, alone, produces more than the other countries together. However, as Brazil has a huge domestic consumption (Figure 2), the exportable surplus of Argentina are higher, so that this country has greater importance in international market for milk and related products. Figure 1. Milk production in the main producing countries of South America (thousand tons)
Source: CEPAL, 2006. Trade potential of each country can be illustrated by Figure 3. It can be noticed that since the beginning of 2000, Brazil, Chile and Paraguay have consumed much of what are produced, with small surpluses in some years and, eventually, small deficits. Bolivia is usually a net importer. Moreover, Argentina and mainly Uruguay had exportable surpluses in each year of the sample. Although the surpluses percentages of Uruguay are larger, must be remembered that its production is well below of Argentine production, which makes of the total surplus of Argentina substantially higher.
10
Figure 2. Domestic consumption in major milk producing countries of South America (thousand tons) (1)
(1)Production = Consumption - Exports + Imports – waste Source: Calculated with information from CEPAL, 2006.
Figure 3. Participation of domestic consumption in the domestic production of fresh milk (%)
Source: Calculated with information from CEPAL, 2006. Argentina appears as the major exporter of South America, with more than 4% of total value of world exports (Figure 4) followed by Uruguay with a share of just 1% of world exports, and by Brazil, which in the first year of more intensive participation as exporter (2004), reached 0.5% of the value of world
11
exports. Data from CONTRADE accounted for a larger share of this country in the world exports. In this case Argentina accounted for 8% of the world exports. Figure 4. Participation of major dairy producing countries of South America in world exports of milk powder (%)
Source: Calculated with information from CEPAL, 2006.
3.2 - Brazil In Brazil, the dairy processing industries can be divided into two subsystems: the traditional and the modern. The traditional subsystem serves only the domestic market, with popular products and of poorer quality, where many ranchers sell milk and cheese directly to consumers. The modern subsystem serves both domestic as external market with products of high quality. The annual average per capita consumption of milk in Brazil grew 35% between 1980-84 and 2000-2004, reaching 128.1 liters (the World Health Organization recommends 210 kg), but it has been stable since 1996. Concerning the product, prevails consume of its fluid form (92% of total consumption). The low level of per capita consumption can be explained mainly by the limitations of income as highlight the differences in consumption for different strata of income: per capita consumption of families with income of
12
5 to 8 Minimum Wages is double the consumption of families with income up to 2 Minimum Wages. On the other hand, Brazilian dairy production has grown substantially since the mid 1990: between 1995 and 2005 there was a growth of 50%, going from 16.474 billion liters for 24.677 billion liters. Between 2000 and 2005, there was growth at an annual average rate of 11.7%. Maintaining this rate, Brazilian production will reach more than 40 billion liters in 2010. Brazilian production is located throughout all the territory, but 66% of it, is in South and South West regions. Stand out the states: Minas Gerais (28% of production), Goias, Parana and Rio Grande do Sul (nearly 10% for each one of the latter). Several factors have encouraged the expansion of production. The availability of land is very high and the prices of land for pasture are low. However, other inputs are also important for the dairy production: the feeding participation in the operational costs of production varies between 23.4% (system of low technology) and 38.9% (system of high technology) and the cost of labour force participation varies from 11.5% (high-tech) to 20.3% (low tech). But input prices are not barriers to the increase in dairy production. Brazil has two additional advantages in dairy production: (a) use of tropical pastures, which are more productive than the temperate grassland, and (b) great availability of agricultural products (grains, sugar cane etc) which allows a mix for feeding the herd according to these products prices. However, there are limitations in qualified labour, capable in performing the necessary tasks for certified production (food safety). This can be a barrier to a significant increase in production. Another major obstacle stems from the effects on the dairy quality transported in trucks, caused by the bad conditions in which are the main highways of the country. Adding to it the inadequate infrastructure of ports
and
its
high
operating
cost,
which
affects
Brazilian
exports
competitiveness concerning as much as cost as the preservation of products quality. The availability of production factors associated to improvement on the standards of technology in production has allowed substantial gains in
13
productivity. Herd’s productivity grew 50% between 1995 and 2005; this increase is more evident when observing data for dairy cows. Although a comparison to other countries may suggest that the average dairy production in Brazil is still low, ranchers whom produce more than 1,000 liters/milk a day has a similar productivity of New Zealand and Argentina. The main R&D efforts carried in the country seek to adapt production systems to different regions, through genetic improvement and new varieties of grasses. The main techniques in need of large diffusion in the country are: (a) artificial insemination (b) supplementary feeding the flock, and (c) cooling of milk in the property. Adoption of these technologies, or even intensification, is straight correlated to the property size. In Brazil, R&D is highly dependent on the public sector, while diffusion of techniques is mostly done by the private sector. This takes to worry about the growth continuity of R&D once public investments in research have been reduced more and more. The priority lines of research according consultation and market players are: (a) prevention, detection, control and analysis of biological contamination of products, (b) control of diseases affecting the herd, (c) mechanisms of traceability along the dairy agri-system, and (d) research to adapt the products to more demanded parameters of European consumer and by world market. Concerning international trade, in 2004, Brazil became a net exporter. In that year, the country held to 38th position among importing countries and to 32nd position among exporters. About 90% of Brazilian imports are concentrated in milk powder and whey from milk, the share of cheese is around 9%. Imports proceed from Argentina and Uruguay (70 to 80%), the remaining is shared between France, New Zealand and USA. Concerning Brazilian exports, about 94 to 95% are of milk powder and cheese, with more than 70% to milk powder. Destinations of Brazilian exports are quite dispersed, the plot of the four largest importers is only 42% and the share of the eight largest is 65%. The main destinations are African and American countries, and to the Middle East (with a tiny participation of European countries).
14
Several trade policies affect both imports and exports of Brazilian dairy products. Concerning import policies, trade liberalization and implementation of Mercosur, in the 1990's, led to an increase in the volume of imports. Currently, the common external tariff (TEC) on Brazilian imports is: 27% for milk and mozzarella cheese; and 16% for yogurt, butter, cream cheese and other cheese. About exports policies, the highlight is the Kandir Law, which exempts VAT of exports of primary products, so milk powder is exempt of VAT and other federal taxes. There are also protectionist policies by the importing countries. The lowest rates are for export to Colombia (17.6%), whereas for other countries, depends on the kind of product. For example, for Mexico the rates vary from 10% to 128%. Concerning the European Union, there are 13 different tariffs for the entry of Brazilian dairy products, ranging from “16.80 EURO / 100 kg + 1.62 EURO / kg for the dairy material” to “161.9 EUROS/100 kg” (Taric and Worldbank / UNCTAD - Competitiveness Database). Other protectionism forms present in this market are: subsidies for production, export subsidies, subsidized credit for importing countries and barriers related to the product quality or to the way of production. Concerning quality, Brazilian products, and in particular milk powder, are well accepted in the world market. Brazil has as advantage the heterogeneity of its dairy products, being able to meet the demands of importers distinct markets: those who prefer products more clear, those who prefer products more yellowish, those who prefer stronger flavors, etc. Programmes of supporting for the domestic dairy production have less scope than in the market for grains. The rural credit to the dairy industry reached in 2005, $ 1.6 billion (= $ 657 million), (34%) for operating cost, (34%) for trading, and (32%) for investments. The credit availability to the dairy processing industry is considered insufficient and inadequate. The available credit conditions are inappropriate, given the low profitability and the long period of return of the activity. The main taxes that affect the dairy processing industry are the VAT (ICMS), the Social Integration Program (PIS / PASEP ) and the Contribution to
15
Financing the Social Security (Cofins). Adding these three taxes, the taxation reaches 20% for milk powder, and 40% for cheeses (CNA). There are exemption from the PIS/Pasep and Cofins for the following products: (a) 6 kinds of cheese, full and skimmed full milk powder, and (b) types of milk pasteurized and UHT (since 2004). Besides the tax on the products, the dairy processing industry is affected by the taxation over inputs: the cost of milk production had an increase of 11.65% due to the tax reform of 2003. Quality of dairy produced in Brazil improved considerably in the last 10 years in modern subsystem, due to: (a) adoption of better strategies of private dairy industries and cooperatives for its suppliers, and (b) payment methods that offer bonuses according to volume and quality of milk. Government Instruction No. 51 (IN 51), implemented since 2005, must further improve the quality of milk in both subsystems. This statement establishes regulations for production, identity and quality of milk, for collecting and transport of raw milk in bulk, and requires monthly analysis of milk from each supplier in laboratories accredited by Brazilian Network Labs of Control of Milk Quality, also suppliers of each company are registered. With implementation of IN 51 it is expected that more and more farmers are forced to incorporate the modern subsystem. Thus, it would be easier to the dairy industries to find raw material (milk) with the quality required. An obstacle to deployment of IN 51 is the deficient inspection on products domestically traded. Even the federal inspection system faces difficulties due the lack of fiscal agents and other resources that would be required to make a strict surveillance throughout all national territory. Although inspection on the domestic market is deficient, it extremely strict for exported products. Another limitation to the implementation of IN 51 is the lack of capable laboratories for the milk analyses accredited by Brazilian Network. Investments in new units of laboratory and on training of technicians for such labor must be done. The average size of dairy producing farms has increased in Brazil. Available data show that the dairy companies (including co-operatives) have reduced the number of suppliers and increased the average amount collected by supplier. In
16
the 1990’s, the market became more concentrated, although this trend has been reduced since 2001. The five largest dairy industries are Nestle, Itambé, Elegê, Parmalat and Paulista. Together, these five companies were responsible for the processing of almost 23% of national production, in 1997, that plot was reduced to about 15.5% in 2005. While these values may seem small compared to other oligopolies, it must be considered they underestimate each company power in local markets. Currently, cooperatives of farmers are responsible for about 40% of processed dairy in Brazil. However, their participation has been reduced in the market, favoring private processing companies. In the international market for milk powder, although there is a strong concentration, there is no significant barrier to entry, which reduces much of the exporters’ power. In domestic market, it is notable the product differentiation increases dairy companies market power among retailers and, consequently, along to consumers. Market relations between farmers and dairy processing industry went through great changes since the 1990’s: (a) In 1991, ended the government control on milk price , (b) the payment system of “quota and extra-quota” has been abandoned , and (c)there was an increase in the use of "price-base + bonus", which pays a bonus by quantity, or quality. Until 2005, there were virtually only bonus for quantity; since then bonuses for the adoption of quality have been more frequent. The dairy processing industry is politically represented by bodies such as National Confederation of Agriculture (CNA) and Brazilian Confederation of Milk Cooperatives (CCBL), among others. To help in coordinating the agrisystem there is also the Sectorial Board of Dairy Agri-system and its Derivatives, established in 2003 by Agriculture Ministry. The Board has representatives of all links of processing industry and advises the government on policies. 3.3 - Argentina
17
In 2005, Argentina was in 15th position in world consumption of milk, with an apparent consumption of nearly seven million tons, which represents about 1% of global consumption. The per capita domestic consumption of milk has been of nearly 200 liters / person / year, floating between 180 and 220 liters per capita per year, depending on economic fluctuations in the country and on international prices. Yet in 2005, Argentina hold the 12th position in the ranking of milk producers countries, with a production of nearly 9.5 million tons (equivalent to 2% of world production, 2005), and registered a growth of 8% between 1995 and 2005. There are 15250 farms with milk production, with a herd of average of 165 heads. The primary dairy production is mostly located in the Pampas region. Three provinces (Buenos Aires, Cordoba and Santa Fe) concentrated 71.9%of producers and 90.5% of the herd. Among these, there is a difference in producers’ profile with greater participation of largest farms exploration in Buenos Aires than the ones in Cordoba and Santa Fé. Productivity per cow in Argentina has been close to productivity of European Union, Australia and New Zealand. Meanwhile, the productivity per cow in provinces shows differences that reach 15% (between provinces of Santa Fe and Cordoba), which suggests there is potential to increase the average productivity in the country. Data from 2002 Agricultural Census shows that adoption of rotation and rest in grazing ranges from 70% (Province of Buenos Aires) to 90% (in Santa Fe and Cordoba), and it is of even greater percentages if considered herds of more than 200 heads. The diffusion the use of grains for feed is smaller and also shows differences between provinces, reaching 46% in Buenos Aires and 64% in Santa Fe and Cordoba. However, the use of concentrates ranges from 40% in Buenos Aires to 25% in Cordoba; these latter two techniques are more frequent in larger properties (201 to 350 head). Artificial insemination is not so diffused, predominating in stratum of property with 201 to 350 head, being more diffused in the province of Buenos Aires (41%) and less in Cordoba (26%).
18
A study done by Gambuzzi, Zehnder and Chimicz, (2005) shows that 50% of producers receive permanent technical assistance, while 30% receives it only eventually. The main priorities of R&D in the sector are: improvement of efficiency in the conversion of feeding into milk in production based on grazing and supplementation, as well as the increase of milk quality. In the segment of milk powder, technological level is advanced, since much of the production takes place in new factories: the plants installed from 1994 to 1997 allowed an increase of 70% in production capacity (from 6 to 10 million liters / day). In 2004, production reached to 11.5 million liters. In the production of powder milk, the basic technology is mostly imported, especially by large companies. On going projects in 2007 would increase 25% of processing capacity, as a consequence of favorable international prices. Up to 1994, 13% of milk production was devoted to powder milk production. This figure increased to 25%, currently. In properties with production system of medium technology, more than 40% of the cost production is due to feeding, coming secondly the cost of milking (including labour), with a share of 28%. In the cost of processed dairy products, raw material (milk) represents 50% of it, followed by the cost of labour-(about 15%) and freight (about 8%). Considering only powder milk, it is estimated the cost of production (processing only, cost of raw milk not included) is around $ 300 per ton. Argentina faces no shortage of land for feed production, but there is a natural competition with other sectors of agriculture. There is also good availability of good labour, although the qualifications requirements are increasing. Resuming, conditions for the increase of dairy production in Argentina are related to the competition with other activities. In milk powder trade, Argentina stands out as a net exporter: in 2005, the country produced 270 thousand tons, but consumed only 90 thousand tons. During 1996/2005, Argentina almost tripled the volume exported (of 56 to 162 thousand tons). So, the country has, since 2003, the third position in world trade of milk powder, with 8% of the value of world exports. Argentine exports
19
increased nearly from 140 to 370 million dollars, between 1996 and 2005. So, in world trade of milk powder, while the main exporter (EU-25) has its share of the market reduced, Australia maintains its participation, and Argentina grows, along with New Zealand. Brazil was the destination of 70-80% of the total exported by Argentina until 2000. However, in recent years such participation was reduced to nearly 10% due to the increase in Brazilian production. In this decade, Argentine exports of powder milk reach more then 100 countries. In 2005, the main destinations were: Algeria (27.8%), Venezuela (17.5%), Brazil (11.5%), Mexico (3.9%) y 40% others. The main existing tariff barriers in milk powder trade are imposed by EU (specific tariff) and Mexico (ad valorem). Another group of countries impose ad valorem tariffs which range between 3 and 17.5%, being that, Algeria, the main current importer of Argentina, apply a rate of 5%. Among the non-tariff barriers applied by importing countries, stand out those of commercial type, which are required mainly by Latin American countries (except the minimum import prices that are applied by Algeria and Brazil). Colombia is the country with the greatest number of measures as well as the Argentina's competitor for the market of Venezuela. Non-tariff barriers which involve aspects of protection of human and animal health are applied by several countries, including European Union. By the end of the decade of 1990, Argentina had no differentiated policies for dairy farming, having only general measures aimed promoting Argentine goods abroad and ensures food safety. After 2002' crisis, there was a return to sector policies with the institution of the National Program for Dairy Policy. Public policies aim mainly domestic control of prices on basic dairy products (fluid milk, yogurt, white cheeses), considering its importance in Argentines’ diet and in the goods basket that comprise the Index of Consumer’s Price (IPC). Among the measures, there are tariff on exports of milk powder and cheeses applied from 2002. A maximum export price is determined by government; the difference between this maximum price and the FOB export price becomes a variable levy, which is incorporated to a compensation fund. In
20
July 2005, this levy rose from 5% to 15% in milk powder market and from 5% to 10% for the cheeses. In August 2006, both rates were reduced to 5% as part of negotiations with the industry for the maintenance of domestic prices. Among the main measures adopted recently there are: (a) the "reference price", adopted from 2005 which is a result of agreements between the government, industry and supermarkets, aiming to ensure low prices for dairy products, and, (b)"program for stabilization of prices of dairy products destined to domestic market ", which started in February 2007 and seeks to compensate the increase of costs in production as well as to catch part of the improvement of prices in export of diary products. There is also a program of credit to increase yields at farm level, with interest rates of about 7% annually, in addition to other credit programs designed to agriculture in general. Taxation is also very relevant in dairy sector in Argentina, once in production and in marketing there is incidence of national, provincial and municipal taxes. Among the first stands out Value Added Tax, with a rate of 21%, this is refunded on exports. Moreover, since 2002, there is a tax on exports of primary and processed products, whose value for milk powder reaches 10%. The others national, provincial and municipal taxes end up having a relative weight of 4.6% in the dairy price, according to studies. Concerning food safety, Argentina is a signatory of the CODEX Alimentarius. The decree 815/99 provides that the certification of exports of dairy products in bulk or packaged is responsibility of SENASA (National Service for Health and Quality of Agrifood). Argentine exports of dairy products are certified by SENASA in accordance with requirements of each import country. The three largest companies had a share of 57.8% of gross value of production and of 48.3% of the employees, according to data of the economic census of 1994. In 2001, the group of the 9 largest companies accounted for almost 90% of the value of production and absorbed 75% of workers. In industry, co-exist large national and multinational companies, in addition to small and medium firms, using technologies which range from the most modern internationally existing to hand made production.
21
As much as what occurs in dairy production sector, 77% of processing industries are concentrated in the three provinces of the Pampas region. But, Buenos Aires holds more than 40% of gross value of production, where the larger firms and the biggest market are located. Concerning
milk
powder
production,
the
three
largest
industries
(Mastellone, Sancor and Nestlé) were responsible for 68.5% of country’s processing capacity in 2002. However, the level of concentration has decreased with the entry of medium-sized to large industries: between 2002 and 2004, the share of the seven largest industries in the country’s productive capacity decreased from 90% to 65%. Also in exports, the concentration of milk powder market has declined. Between 2000 and 2004, the share of the four largest exporters decreased from 82.8% to 65.3%. The market relations prevailing in dairy agri-system consist of agreements between farmers and processing industry, and the integration system held by farmers’ cooperatives. In Santa Fe and Cordoba provinces, cooperatives assume greater relevance, but even in these provinces more than 50% of trade is held by companies. In Buenos Aires, the participation of farmers’ cooperatives is very low (around 7%), with more than 80% of dairy marketed by industrial companies. As happened to others Latin American countries, Argentina has gone through a process of deregulation in dairy market in the 1990's, which led to prices to be defined by direct agreements (informal) between farmers and processing companies. Agreements on price have been held with the acceptance of bonuses for volume and quality of milk, which has contributed to improve quality and efficiency. Depending on period and the company, the bonuses for quality and volume have reached more than 50% of the value obtained by farmers. Existence of historical conflicts between dairy farmers and processing industry, led to improvements in the structures of representation of the agents in the agri-system. Aiming to promote integration of the several agents in the dairy agri-system, it was established in 2002 the "National Program of Dairy Policy", which among other things, institutionalizes the instances of
22
negotiations and set strategies for the dairy agri-system. Although there is still a lack of representatives from retailers sector, consumers and workers of the sector, the "program" is a major breakthrough for improving coordination of dairy agri-system in Argentina. It is still of a low level of diffusion the use of management tools in farms. Data from the Census of 2002 show that about 20% of producers in major dairy producing provinces adopt techniques of dairy control and around 5% adopt traceability. The use of dairy control exceeds 50% of properties when considered farms with more than 500 head in Buenos Aires and Santa Fe, or 1000 head in Cordoba. Concerning traceability, the maximum adoption is of 33% when considered herds with more than 4000 heads in province of Cordoba. For the use of technical-economical management tools, the use of techniques for economic analysis happened in a maximum of 30% of the farms, the use of computer in maximum of 20%of them and Internet access oscillated between 11% and 16%. So, a lot still needs to be improved concerning management of dairy production In dairy processing, it is quite frequent the use of management tools related to product’s control of quality and to financial and logistic aspects; and this has allowed efficient management to this level of the dairy agri-system.
3.4 - Uruguay The dairy industry in Uruguay was organized to adequately provide goods to the domestic market, but exports have grown recently. Domestic consumption remains stagnant for more than 30 years, ranging between 415 and 450 million liters (3), of which about 215 million correspond to fluid milk and the remaining in dairy products (Direction of Agricultural Statistics”,
23
DIEA). Exports show strong upward trend, exceeding in recent years two million liters annually. Uruguayan dairy production is organized in dairy basins, the most important is concentrated in the southwest region of the country. The traditional basin, which surrounded the capital, extended to the west as international market gained relative importance. Once it depends on grasslands, dairy production in Uruguay shows strong seasonality, with high production in spring and summer. This behavior is similar to what happens in Argentina and Brazil, and has been reduced with introduction of new technologies related to conservation of fodder and to feed supplementation. Considering production factors, Uruguay has good natural conditions for dairy production, in both, weather conditions and soil quality. Uruguay is in a better position than most of its competitors (except Argentina, which has a similar situation), if considered human resources available, as a result of the good standard of schooling, historically found in the country (access to education, high rate of literacy etc.). Currently the sector has high yields, close to the most efficient world producers (New Zealand, Australia and Argentina). Large farms show better yields (3,947 liters/cow/year), while small farms are in the worst position (from 20 to 49 hectares, 3,082 liters/cow/year). Yields in the agri-system have increased, especially in large farms (areas larger than 500 hectares), which have adopted scale economy technological packages. Productivity gains of Uruguayan dairy livestock are based on uninterrupted growth in reproductive efficiency of the herd, characterized by increasing the proportion of dairy cows in relation to the total number of cows, as well as improving the nutrition of livestock. It shall be emphasized that 100% of milking is mechanically done and this is also the percentage of use of cooling tanks and of collecting milk in bulk. Also, the processing industry for milk powder uses the most advanced technology. Historically, several government programs have affected dairy agri-system in Uruguay. The first one launched with the creation of CONAPROLE in 1935,
24
aimed to encourage increasing dairy production and the supply of pasteurized milk. For this, a fixed price was established (based on production cost), which should be paid to producers whose productions were destined for pasteurized milk. This price, through the establishment of quotas, was paid to all dairy farmers to provide milk for pasteurization. Thus, each farmer has a milk quota which undertakes to daily deliver during the year, getting for it a higher price than market price. Milk destined to other purposes has its prices defined by market. The importance of quotas policy for pasteurized milk decreases as participation of pasteurized milk in total dairy products decreases. In 2007, pasteurized milk was only 14% of the total received by dairy processing industry. Another important program is the Milk Quality Program, which entered into force in 1997. This program includes a system of classification of milk, leading to more efficient use of indicators for evaluating quality, based on total count of colony and of somatic cells. Based on these parameters, the program defined three classes of milk (A, B and C). However, the system became obsolete. The processing industries increased their demand for quality levels, as happened in Brazil and Argentina, and have adopted a system of bonuses payments to encourage quality improvements. Allied to quality issues are aspects of food safety. In Uruguay, control for the safety of dairy products is done by a government agency: the Dairy Health Control Department. This body’s duty is promoting sanitary-hygienic improvement in milk and dairy products, aiming to preserve Public Health and meet the requirements of the more demanding exports markets. It performs hygienic-sanitary control of farmers, dairy processors and dairy products, and by fulfillment of animal health programs and of standards (national and international) in force (Mercosur, Codex, O.I.E). In 2002, it was created the Fund for Financing Dairy Activity (FFAL), formed by taxing of milk consumption in US$ 0.03 / liter. The funds were used to finance farmers who supplied milk for pasteurization. The implementation of this fund has been successful for several reasons. First, it fulfilled its role by
25
alleviating the financial situation of production, which allowed it to resume its historic rates of growth and capitalize for the current phase of growth in international market. Moreover, it allows agricultural activities to access the capital market. The success of FFAL led to the creation of FFAL II, which implies in the imposition of a customs tariff on imports of both, fluid milk as dairy products. These resources are used to reduce the interest rate paid by farmers in FFAL I. Dairy industry in Uruguay faces up several taxes, such as income taxes and contributions to research and improvements in rural areas. Taxes are reduced if compared to taxation in the competing countries. Concerning milk, the sum of these taxes reached 2.6%. There are also taxes on land, 1.2% of the value, and, contributions to social security. The indirect taxes do not reach dairy production, though affecting inputs used in this activity. Exports have reached several markets and have submitted a change of pattern. By the end of 90s, Brazil purchased more than 80% of Uruguayan exports. However, as Brazil was going out of its deficit, Uruguay needed to seek new partners. In 2005, Uruguay exported to 13 countries, with major destinations: Chile (29.6%), Brazil (19.0%), Mexico (15.6%), Algeria (8.4%), Morocco (6.8%), Singapore (3.4%), Ghana (3.2%), Egypt (2.9%), Bolivia (2.7%), Nigeria (2.7%), Peru (2.5%), South Africa (2.2%) and Lebanon (1.2%). There are no exports of milk powder to Europe and North America. Market structure of dairy industry in Uruguay follows the behavior patterns recorded worldwide. In production, market seems to be optimized, but with trend of gradual reduction in producers’ number in the last 30 years. Between 1987 and 2005 farmers’ number fell 50% from 6,720 to 3,312 (DIEA, 1998, 2006). This reduction is similar to what has been experienced in other producing countries and is due to scale economies. Consequently, the average size of properties increased between 1991 and 2006 (of 166 hectares to 187 hectares), the average number of cows per farm almost doubled (from 32 to 61 cows) and the average amount of milk delivered by farm tripled (from 332 liters to 936 liters per day). The result of such structural change was a significant yield gain.
26
In dairy processing industry, a group of 11 companies, which receive nearly 95% of total milk in the country, sell in both domestic and foreign market. It is CONAPROLE that stands out receiving about 70% of milk of the country. Although high, level of market concentration has decreased. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (H) of the sector fell from 0.66 in 1990 to 0.48 in 2004. The high level of market concentration is a result of high scale economies in processing of milk powder and of the still low level of production in the country. For better understanding, although CONAPROLE process 70% of the total milk in the country, this amount represents about 10% of production of “Fonterra”, the main processing industry in New Zealand. Therefore, Uruguayan companies do not benefit much of scale economies as their main competitors in the world market. When the market for milk powder is examined, the concentration level becomes even greater. Only two companies have drying towers, together, both have a processing capacity of 12 tons of powder/hour. The share between them is nearly 75% for CONAPROLE and 25% for Ecolat (ex-Parmalat). Meanwhile, the good prospects shown by the industry have encouraged establishment and expansion of drying plants. Companies that currently do not participate in the market are building new plants for production of milk powder, while leaders companies are also promoting expansions. In Uruguay, the efficiency degree in management of several segments in dairy agri-system is very high. A process of technological diffusion in the livestock and increasing in qualification of agents has taken place in the sector. Management improving has been driven mostly by CONAPROLE, which sought to stimulate modernization of its more than 2.200 suppliers. To better understand, CONAPROLE has brought forward a monitoring and economic recording program, which includes nearly a thousand farmers. Other programs are still going on, such as, dairy control systems of Uruguayan Agricultural Association and of the Institute for Dairy Improvement. These systems offered services such as monitoring of yields and information for the management of production.
27
3.5 - Chile In Chile, domestic consumption of fresh milk is low. Chilean per capita consumption of fresh milk was not more than 150 kilo/year from 1995 to 2005, below the recommended level by World Health Organization. Production increased slightly more than 24% between 1995 and 2005, from 1.85 billion liters to 2.3 billion liters. Chile share in world production reached only 0.45% in 2005. Once production has grown and consumption has been stable, the country has managed to have a positive balance in its worldwide trade. In Chile, the share of domestic consumption in production of fresh milk has been reduced from over 105.2% in 1994 to 99.5% in 2003, which indicates a tendency of aiming production for the foreign market. Chilean dairy production is highly concentrated in the southern region of the country, mainly in X region, in which, area for dairy livestock reached 1.3 million hectares (38.8% of dairy livestock area in the country) and the number of dairy cows is almost 379 thousand (61.5% of country's dairy herd). Just as it happens in other countries of southern hemisphere, Chilean production of fresh milk is of a high seasonality, concentrating mainly in months of spring and summer. Milk processing is growing, from about 1.36 billion liters in 1995 to 1.72 billion liters in 2005. In Chile, there are no major restrictions concerning land availability to expand dairy activity, particularly in the South region. Moreover, the country has a north-south net of roads available to transit throughout year, which has facilitated developing of dairy sector in the southern region. Alsio, climate and soil conditions are better in this region. Although there are adequate transport infrastructure, transportation costs between production areas and processing plants may represent more than 10 to 12% of the base price of milk, which can make unfeasible the participation of small farmers. Because of this, many processing companies do not buy milk from distant small farmers during winter.
28
In 2004, the total cost of fresh milk reached US $ 0.18 / liter, from which expenses with feed concentrates, fertilizers and with animal health are the most important. Much of Chilean growth in dairy production is explained by productivity gains in the industry. In south region of the country, yields measured in liters per hectare, increased 28.5% between 2001 and 2005, from 9,432 liters/hectare to 12,125 liters/hectare. This increase was possible by incorporating new technology in production systems. Cows for double purpose (milk and meat) still predominate in dairy livestock of Chile. But, improvements in supplementary feeding of the herd have brought greater efficiency. Mechanical milking system predominates in the main producing regions, reaching an average use of 94.2%. The diffusion of new technologies has occurred also for milk collection and processing, which has allowed quality improvement. Cooling tanks are used by more than 80% of producers. Unlike to what happens in most other countries of Mercosur, Chile private sector has significant participation in R&D. In 2004, from the 21 R&D projects held in Chile, only two of them were held by a public institution, the Institute for Agricultural Research (INIA), while the other 19 projects were held by private institutions. Chilean exports of some dairy products are not charged with ad valorem tariffs in countries such as Malaysia and Mexico, but in other countries and regions exports face specific tariffs, as in European Union (with quotas for some products). Besides, in Chile, exported goods are exempt from customs taxes. In Chile, there is no public or private credit policy for dairy farmers. Moreover, the program for agricultural insurance does not cover the dairy industry. One of the main supporting policies for small farmers, including dairy farmers, correspond to subsidies awarded by the National Institute of Agricultural Development (INDAP). These subsidies are intended only for small farmers and ethnic minorities. Programs for food quality and safety are also of crucial importance and Chile has shown progress in the area. The country had to adapt and create
29
specific rules, since international market demands tough requirements for food safety and quality. Government agricultural policy for the period 2000-2010 includes clean agriculture and quality products in its main objectives. In May 2006, it was signed an agreement to develop a sector analysis and policy proposals for clean production in the dairy sector of the region's X of the Lakes, aiming to improve environmental and production standards. This agreement also aims to increase farmers’ cooperation and commitments with public sector, especially with inspection bodies, in order to improve compliance with environmental law. In Chile, inspection service is linked mainly to institutions such as the Ministry of Health (MINSAL) and the Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI). Taking advantage from the natural geographical barriers in the country, the Ministry of Agriculture (through the Agricultural and Livestock Service - SAG) and the private sector have been able to contain most of animals diseases considered relevant worldwide, such as BSE and foot and mouth disease. Moreover, SAG has also developed specific programs to control and eradicate brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis. In 2004, SAG started the implementation of Official Program of Animal Health Traceability, which aims to conduct epidemiological investigations and establish corrective actions. This program is applied mainly to the bovine meat agri-system for beef exports, but ends by generating positive gains for the dairy industry. Concerning international trade, the year of 2001 marked the moment when the Chile turned from a net importer of dairy products to a net exporter; once this year recorded imports of US$ 35.2 million and exports of US$ 44.9 million, a positive balance of US$ 9.2 million. Between the years 1997 and 2004, the main exported products were: milk and non edulcorated powder cream (040221), milk and cream sweetened and concentrated (040299). Chilean exports of fresh milk have low participation in world exports, although it is still higher than participation of other countries of Mercosur: they reached 3.8% of world exports in 2004. Yet, Chilean exports of milk powder have participation even lower: 0.2% of world exports in 2004. The main
30
destinies of Chilean exports of fresh milk have been Mexico, Bolivia, Cuba and Peru, countries which concentrated about 89% of Chilean exports. In the milk powder market, the main focus of this study, Chile has presented deficit in international trade. In 2005, Chile exported 306.5 tons, receiving almost US$ 998 thousand, and imported 6,446 tons, paying US$ 14.65 million. Exports destinations were: El Salvador (64.8%), Panama (24.5%), Bolivia (6.9%) and Honduras (3.9%). Chilean imports came from: Uruguay (47.8%), Argentina (35%), Brazil (17%) and Canada (0.2%). The use of good management tools has been diffused in this agri-system. In the case of dairy production controlling systems, studies show that they are used by about 70% of dairy ranchers, established in the main dairy regions and which has herds greater than 50 heads. Management of product quality has also improved with the greater diffusion of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP): plants quality, pest control, health management, feeding and water, livestock transportation, register and animal identification, animal welfare, good labor conditions and environmental management. Chilean milk powder processing companies have adopted products certification as well as management systems. Concerning products, the main standard is Kosher, and for management systems it is highlighted GMP certification. Among all products elaborated by dairy processing industry, milk powder is in third place, with a production of about 64,000 tons in 2004, accounting for 9% of total dairy elaborated that year. The main products are: fluid milk (42.37%), typically UHT, and yogurt (22.7%). Concerning regionalism, it can be noticed that production of fresh products, such as fluid milk and yogurt, is concentrated in the central region of the country (Metropolitan Region), while in the southern region (Region X) a greater quantity of milk powder and cheeses is produced. In 2004, there were 16 dairy processing companies in Chile, of which only 9 companies processed milk powder. Nestlé Chile S.A. and Watt’s S.A. are the largest, with market-share of 58.28%. If considered the companies Soprole and Surlat S.A., it appears that the four largest companies hold 79.2% of market-
31
share. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (H) presents value of 0.24 in 2004, which features a quite oligopoly structure. The total processing capacity of milk to produce milk powder is 5.9 million liters per day, concentrated in Region X (84%). La Union, of the Colun Company, is the unit with the greater capacity for processing milk powder, with a capacity equal to 24.4% of total processing capacity of the country. The average processing capacity of the country is 496,683 liters / day. The market relations between dairy farmers and processing companies depend on the production capacity of farmers. Medium and large farmers sell mainly to the major dairy and cheese plants (nearly 87% of these farms’ production). Small farmers, although most of their production is also sold to dairy and cheese plants, do not have large processing plants as their main market (they sell only 34.9% of their production to large plants). The majority of medium and large dairy ranchers (approximately 61%), participates in existing farmers’ organizations, but the small producers have usually a low participation. At the processing level, it must be highlighted the establishment of the Association of Dairy Products Exporters (Exporlac). Exporlac involve 16 companies representing 97% of the processed milk and 95% of dairy exports. Exporlac aims are: represent the dairy exporter sector to public and private bodies; developing a image for Chile as "dairy country"; represent its members face to international bodies and other countries, participating actively of negotiation of trade agreements; coordinate quotas distribution for exports of dairy products; encourage dairy products exports by diffusing
technological
innovations,
market
information
and
business
opportunities, and providing assistance in the promotion of exports, congresses, fairs, exhibitions and others. The Operating Plan for Exports of Dairy Products started in 2002, aiming to consolidate Chile as net exporter of these products. This plan was a result of a joint work between public and private sector, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Exporlac, and Chile Foundation, among others. Among its aims is identification and elimination of unnecessary barriers, change legislation, procedures and tools, and other aspects that preclude industry efficiency.
32
33
4. Critical Issues from SWOT Analysis Some critical points can be object of public and private efforts to increase the competitiveness of these agri-systems, and to meet the possible future expansion of production and exports. As seen in Table 3, each country has its own set of priorities, which are not necessarily common. In this sense, seven critical points can be pointed out in this agri-system: technology, logistics, food safety, market structure, special programs, firm management and taxation. Table 3. Critical issues from SWOT analysis in the dry milk chains of Mercosur countries Drivers of Competitiviness
Brazil
Argentina
Uruguay
Chile
Technology
++
++
++
+
Logistics
--
-
+
+
Food Safety and Quality
+
++
++
++
Market Structure
0
-
0
0
Special Programs
+
0
+
+
Firm Management
-
+
+
0
Taxation
--
--
-
0
Inputs ++ ++ + ++ very favourable; + favourable; 0 neutral; - unfavourable; -- very unfavourable
++
Technology: All countries of the region have shown significant yield gains in the last decade, and these gains are directly related to generation and dissemination of technology. The production systems adopted are based on pasture, which results high seasonality in all countries. The use of supplementary feeding has been developed and diffused. Concerning Brazil, although the average yield is much lower than in other countries, levels of technology and yields found in its modern subsystem are similar to the major producing countries. As there are still differences between technological levels of different farmers and regions, in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, yields can be highly increased by diffusion of technology. Therefore, this factor is very conducive to competitiveness in these 34
three countries. Mechanical milking, cooling tanks and transport in bulk are used in the processing industry for export. The diffusion of artificial insemination is still relatively low. At the processing level, it can be mentioned that the recent investments in the Argentine placed its industry in a world top position in terms of technology. Logistics: This factor is favorable for the competitiveness of Uruguay and Chile, once their production is located close to processing plants and port infrastructure. However, it could be an even more conducive factor if there were investments for improving ports infrastructure in these countries. For Argentina, logistics is and unfavorable factor due to the worse conditions of road infrastructure. For Brazil, logistics becomes crucial issue for competitiveness because production is disperse over a large territory. The very bad conditions of many roads and deficiencies relative to ports make logistics the second most serious obstacle to Brazilian competitiveness. In short, in every country competitiveness can be increased by improving the logistic conditions, but in Argentina, and mainly in Brazil, this is a more critical factor. Food safety: This factor appears favorable in all countries. In Uruguay and Chile, homogeneous production conditions, clustering, and the natural barriers preventing diseases, favor monitoring and control. In Argentina and Brazil, on the contrary heterogeneity in their production systems makes inspection difficult. In both countries, although food safety legislation has significantly improved, there are still shortcomings in the inspection of products aimed to domestic market. Notwithstanding, export products come from modern production systems and are subject to strict supervision by government agencies. Market structure:
35
Overall, the market structure of dairy agri-system in MERCOSUR countries is formed by oligopolies in dairy processing industry and by competitive markets in primary production. Concentration in the processing segment tends to be higher in countries where the market is smaller (Uruguay and Chile). Moreover, all countries are going through a process of concentration in primary production, which reduced the number of producers and increased the average scale of production. Anyway, in both farming and processing, the companies still do not have sizes which enable them to take advantage of scale economies as New Zealand’s enterprises. There is room for improvement, mainly in market relations between farmers and processing companies.
The use of
pricing systems with bonus for quantity and quality has increased, but there is room for further diffusion of these systems. Special programs: The industry is less supported in Argentina, while there is special programs in Brazil, Uruguay and Chile. Usually, the programs give support to small farmers. In Brazil, in particular, there is lack of adequate credit (interest rates and repayment period) for dairy activity, mainly to medium and large farmers. Firm management: In all countries, the use of management tools is more frequent in processing than in farm production. This is more evident in Brazil, because of the heterogeneity in its production systems. In Uruguay and Argentina this aspect was better evaluated. Driven by requirements from international market, processing industries are increasingly stimulating diffusion of management tools among their suppliers, as well as giving preference to more efficient farmers and better quality milk. Thus, quality management, in all levels of agrisystem has shown great improvements in all countries. Also, in all countries studied sector organizations are making a move to improve the agri-system coordination, through chambers involving the agents from several segments of the system. This is the first step to effective traceability systems be deployed.
36
Taxation: Taxation is not beneficial to the competitiveness of any agri-system, but because of the different levels of taxation, its effects vary from country to country. The least affected is Chile, where taxation on the industry is very low, the same happens to Uruguay. Argentina is in an intermediate position. Brazil is the most affected, once, in addition to the impact of taxes on inputs, there are differentiated taxes between the states, causing major distortions. Another still evident effect in Brazil is the informality in traditional subsystem, most resulting by the very high rates that companies would have to pay to stay in formality. Inputs: An element that leverages competitiveness of dairy agri-system in all countries is the availability of production factors. Only Uruguay faces a closer limit, due the small size of the country and the competition for land with grains production. In the other countries, there is still plenty of land that can be used for dairy production. In Brazil and Argentina there are also plenty of grains which can be used in the supplementation of the herd. The most worrying factor is the shortage of skilled resources, which would be a barrier to increase quickly and significantly production in any of the countries.
37
5. Final comments, indication of actions and investment areas Mercosur is a net exporter of dairy products and is able to expand substantially its participation in the market worldwide. The improvements in efficiency and quality of production in agri-systems of the region have been driven by the demands from importing countries and have been assimilated by actions started by the processing industries. However, some additional attitudes need be taken to further leverage the competitiveness of Mercosur’s dairy agri-system. The main ones are listed below: 1. Investing heavily in improvement of roads that connect producing regions to ports, as well as in alternative forms of transport (waterways and railroads) that reduce logistic cost. Improvement of port infrastructure would reduce shipment time and port costs. 2. Harmonize the taxation which incurs on products of dairy agri-system in several states of the federation (Brazil) and reduce the tax burden on the industry. 3. Investing massively in inspection, equipping the inspection bodies and hiring more inspectors. 4. Encourage coordination mechanisms which allow an more effective traceability of dairy production. 5. Expand the resources for rural credit with compatible interest rates, not restricting them to micro and small farmers. 6. Increase resources for R&D is essential for countries increase their marketshare in the dairy market worldwide, by using efficiently and in a sustainable way their natural endowments. 7. Continuously harmonize legislation related to food safety - standards and control systems - to the demands of the international market, and formalize agreements on sanitary control (equivalence) with countries outside the bloc. 8. Promote labor training.
38
6. Eumercopol texts Aguiar, D.R., Agrosistema do leite GEPAI/UFSCar, São Carlos, 2008.
no
Brasil.
Projeto
EUMERCOPOL,
Mateos, Mónica Cadena de Lácteos en Argentina. Unidad Integrada Balcarce (FCA/UNMdP- EEA INTA Balcarce). Balcarce, 2008 Muchnik, E. & Saavedra, O. Estudio de los rubros de leche fresca y leche en polvo en Chile. Proyecto EUMERCOPOL, Area Agroindustria, Fundación Chile, Santiago, 2007. Gutierrez, G. & Caputti, P. Complejo Agroindustrial Lechero en Uruguay. Proyecto EUMERCOPOL, Universidad de la Republica (UdelaR), Montevideo, 2008.
39
7. Bibliography Argentina Arzubi, A; Schilder, N. (2006): Una observación de los sistemas de producción de leche desde la eficiencia, presentado XXXVII Reunión Anual de la Asociación Argentina de Economía Agraria. Batalha, M. (1999) Gestao Agroindustrial. Sistemas agroindustriais: definiçôes e correntes metodológicas. GEPAI: Grupo de Estudos e Pesquisas Agroindustriais. Volumen I. Brazil. Bisang, R.; Gutman, G., Cesa, V. (2003): La Trama de Lacteos en la Argentina, Proyecto BID/CEPAL/ Ministerio de Economía. Castignani, H.; Castignani, M.; Osan, O; Cursack, A.y Comerón, E. (2004): Competitividad del tambo y la agricultura en la cuenca central Santa Fe- Córdoba: Estudio de Caso en Empresas Mixtas en www.inta.gov.ar/rafaela Castignani, H.; Zehnder, R.; Gambuzzi, E. y Chimicz,j. (2005): Caracterización de los sistemas de producción lecheros y de sus principales cuencas. Trabajo presentado en la XXXVI Reunión Anual de la Asociación Argentina de Economía Agraria. CEP: Estadisticas del Sector Productivo. Fichas sectoriales en www.cep.gov.ar CFI (2006): Informe Final .Creación y distribución de valor en la cadena láctea. Prov. de Buenos Aires, Cordoba, Entre Rios , La Pampa y Santa Fe. Fundación ArgenInta - CFI CIL (2006): La lecheria en la República Argentina en www.cil.org.ar Comerón, E.; Orosco, D.; Lauxmann, A. (2001): ¿La calidad se paga?, Infortambo Nº145 y en www.inta.gov.ar/rafaela FAS-USDA (2006): Dairy: World Markets and Trade. Circular Series FD-06 July Bragachini, Mario (2006): Mecanización agrícola en Argentina. Presente y Futuro. Innovaciones tecnológicas previsibles. INTA. EEA Manfredi. CEP (Centro de Estudios para la Producción) (2005): Costos de transporte y logística: una clave en el negocio exportador. Buenos Aires, Argentina Depetris, E.; Rossini, G. (2006): Competitividad y bloques regionales en el comercio mundial de leche en polvo, 1990-2004. Presentado XXXVII Reunión Anual de la Asociación Argentina de Economía Agraria. Farina, E.; Gutman, G et al (2005): Private and Public milk Standars in Argentina and Brasil. Food Policy Nº30 Gambuzzi, E.; Zehnder, R.; y Chimicz,j. (2005): Análisis de los sistemas de producción lechera , 2001-2002 y 2001-2003 Ghezan, G. et al. (1999). Análisis Prospectivo de la demanda Tecnológica en el Sistema Agroindustrial. Servicio Internacional para la Investigación Agrícola Nacional (ISNAR) La Haya, Países Bajos. Gouin, D. (2004): Supply management in the dairy sector, still an appropriate regulation method. GREPA, Université Laval en www.go5quebec.ca
40
Gutman, G.; Guiguet E.; Rebollini, J:(2003): Los ciclos en el complejo lácteo argentino. Análisis de políticas lecheras en países seleccionados.SAGPyA, Publicaciones lácteos en www.sagpya.gov.ar INTA (2002) :Perfil tecnológico de la Producción Agropecuaria Argentina. Instituto de Economía y Sociología de INTA INTA (1996) :Perfil tecnológico de la Producción Agropecuaria Argentina. Instituto de Economía y Sociología de INTA INTA (1992) :Perfil tecnológico de la Producción Agropecuaria Argentina. Instituto de Economía y Sociología de INTA Hybel , Diego (2007): Crecimiento de la industria de la maquinaria agrícola nacional en las ventas totales al mercado interno. www.iade.org.ar INDEC (2002), Censo www.indec.gov.ar
Nacional
Agropecuario
2002.
Resultados
definitivos
INDEC, Complejos exportadores, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Varios volúmenes y años. Mateos, M (1997): «Argentina: Cadena Agroalimentaria de Lácteos», en Mapeo Tecnológico de Cadenas Agroalimentarias en el Cono Sur. PROCISUR/IICA. Montevideo, Uruguay. Mateos, M. (2002):"Las transformaciones en el subsistema lácteo argentino y su impacto en la articulación grandes empresas - productores lecheros". En Solari Vicente, Andrés (coord.) Desarrollo local, innovación y redes empresariales, Universidad Michoacana, México. Mateos, M. (2003): “La innovación tecnológica como estrategia de crecimiento de la industria láctea argentina” En Pereira Pessoa Bergamasco, S.; Archanjo Sampaio, M.(organizadoras): “Sistemas Agroalimentarios: Análises e Perspectivas para a América Latina”. UNICAMP. FEAGRI. Campinas,San Pablo. Mateos, M. (2003):"PyMES industriales lácteas de la Cuenca Mar y Sierras: limitantes y posibilidades de desarrollo", En CD Terceras Jornadas Interdisciplinarias de Estudios Agrarios y Agroindustriales, FCE, UBA. Mateos, M. (2006): “ La industria láctea: Heterogeneidad estructural y Comportamiento tecnológico” en Ghezán, G.; Acuña, A.; Mateos M. (Coord.) Estrategia y dinámica de la Innovación en la Industria Alimentaria Argentina. Ed. Astralib Miller, J.; Blayney, D. (2006) : Dairy backgrounder. USDA Electronic Outlook Report from Economic Research Service LDP- M145-01, www.ers.usda.gov OCDE (2004):Agricultura, comercio y medio ambiente. Sector lechero resumen en www.oecd.org/bookshop Portillo, J. (2006) : El caso de las mesas de lechería en el sector agroalimentario argentino: conformaciones sociotécnicas en VII Congreso Asociación Latinoamericana de Sociología Rural, en www.alasru.org SAGPyA: Dirección de Alimentación sitio web cadenas alimentarias de lácteos estadísticas y análisis de la cadena www.alimentosargentinos.gov.ar/lacteos/ SAGPyA (2006): Guía básica para exportar leche y productos lácteos en www.sagpya.gov.ar, noviembre. SAGPyA (2006b): Panorama Tentativo del Uso y Consumo de Fertilizantes en Argentina.
41
Schaller, A.: Leche en polvo. Análisis de Cadena Alimentaria varios años en www.sagpya.gov.ar SECyT (1999): Plan plurianual de Ciencia y Tecnología 2000 -2002. Foro de la cadena Agroindustrial de lácteos. Política Federal de Ciencia y Tecnología. Rafaela. Mimeo SENASA (2006): Establecimientos lácteos con habilitación internacional y HACCP. Coordinación de Lácteos y Avícolas Versión 03 al 18/04/2006 en www.senasa.gov.ar Taverna, M. et al (2001) Caracterización de la calidad higiénico-sanitaria de la leche producida en la cuenca lechera central de la Argentina, presentado en el 24° Congreso Argentino de Producción Animal, Rafaela y en www.inta.gov.ar/rafaela Vicién, C. (2005): El sistema institucional de sanidad y calidad agroalimentaria en Argentina. Banco Mundial, Argentina www.worldbank.org
Brazil
AGUIAR, D.R.D. & CONNOR, J.M. The effects of changes in regulatory and trade policies on the structure, conduct and performance of the Brazilian dairy processing industry. Staff Paper 97-15. West Lafayette, IN: Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, October 1997. BANCO CENTRAL DO BRASIL. Anuário estatístico do crédito rural – 2005. Disponível em www.bcb.gov.br. Acesso em 15 fev. 2007. BÁNKUTI, F.I. Determinantes da informalidade no sistema agroindustrial do leite na região de São Carlos / SP. 2007. 175 p. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de Produção) – Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, 2007a. BÁNKUTI, S.M.S. Análise das transações e estruturas de governança na cadeia produtiva de leite: uma comparação de casos no Brasil e na França. 2007. 366 p. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de Produção) – Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, 2007b. BARROS, G.S.A.C.; GALAN, V.B.; GUIMARÃES, V.D.A.; BACCHIA, M.P.R. Estrutura do sistema agroindustrial do leite no Brasil. Piracicaba, CEPEA, fevereiro de 2000. CASTRO, L.T.; TEIXEIRA, L. & CALDEIRA, M.A. Comportamento do consumidor de leite e iogurte. In: Cônsoli, M.A. & Neves, M.F. (Coordenadores). Estratégia para o leite no Brasil. São Paulo: Atlas/Pensa, 303 p., 2006.
42
CNA. Pecuária de Leite – produtor de leite obtém preço mínimo de referência. Brasília, Confederação Nacional da Agricultura e Pecuária, Informativo Técnico Gleba, 2003. Disponível em www.cna.org.br/Gleba03/JanFev/leite.htm. Acesso em 12 set. 2006. COELHO, A. B. A demanda de alimentos no Brasil, 2002/2003. 2006. 210 p. Tese (Doutorado em Economia Aplicada) – Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, 2006. FAEMG. Diagnóstico da pecuária leiteira do estado de Minas Gerais em 2005: relatório de pesquisa. Belo Horizonte: Federação da Agricultura de Minas Gerais, 2006. 156 p. FAO. Informações diversas. Food and Agriculture Organization. Disponível em www.fao.org. Acesso em 17 jan. 2007. FERNANDES, R.A.S. & AGUIAR, D.R.D. Mudanças estruturais e desempenho da indústria láctea brasileira, 1997-2005. Viçosa, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, 2007. 24 p. (mimeografado). IEA. Banco de dados. São Paulo, Instituto de Economia Agrícola. Disponível em www.iea.sp.gov.br/out/index.php. Acesso em 12 mar. 2007. LEITE BRASIL. Associação Brasileira dos Produtores de Leite. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 13 ago. 2006. LOPES, F.F.; L.T.; CAMPOS, E.M. & ROMEU, J.C. Insumos agropecuários. In: Cônsoli, M.A. & Neves, M.F. (Coordenadores). Estratégia para o leite no Brasil. São Paulo: Atlas/Pensa, 303 p., 2006. MAPA. Informações diversas. Brasília, Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária. Disponível em www.agricultura.gov.br. 2006a. Acesso em 12 ago. 2006. MAPA. Instrução Normativa n. 51 de 18 de setembro de 2002. Ministério da Agricultura e do Abastecimento, Secretaria de Defesa Agropecuária – MAPA. 2006b.
Disponível
em:
. Acesso em: 12 nov. 2006. MARTINS, P.C.; ROSOLEN, J.E.; MARTINS, M.C.; BARROSO, M.G.; NOGUEIRA NETTO, V. Políticas de longo prazo para a cadeia produtiva do leite no Brasil. Brasília: Câmara Setorial da Cadeia Produtiva do Leite e Derivados, 2006, 40 p.
43
NOGUEIRA, M.P.; TURCO, C.P.; PAIVA, H.A.B. & LOPES, M.B. Produção leiteira. In: Cônsoli, M.A. & Neves, M.F. (Coordenadores). Estratégia para o leite no Brasil. São Paulo: Atlas/Pensa, 303 p., 2006. ROMANO, A. Perspectivas para o agribusiness – 2006/2007: pecuária de corte e leiteira. São Paulo, Seminário Perspectivas para o agribusiness – 2006/2007, maio de 2006. Chile Banco Central de Chile. 2006. Base de datos estadísticos. Tasa de interés de política monetaria. Disponible en: http://si2.bcentral.cl/Basededatoseconomicos/951_455.asp?f=M&s=TPM Banco Central de Chile. 2006. Base de datos estadísticos. Tipo de cambio del dólar observado. Disponible en: http://si2.bcentral.cl/Basededatoseconomicos/951_455.asp?f=M&s=TC-OBS-MES Canales, C., Alvear, J. y Leporati, M. 2005. Subsidios a la pequeña agricultura en Chile bajo los acuerdos de la Organización Mundial de Comercio (OMC). División de Planificación y de Sistemas. Instituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario (INDAP). Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). 2006. Base de datos de competitividad del proyecto EUMercoPol. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). 1999. El complejo productivo lácteo en Chile. En apertura económica y (des)encadenamientos productivos. Parte III: los estudios de caso de Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Argentina, Comarca Lagunera, México y los Países Bajos. Disponible en: http://www.eclac.cl/publicaciones/xml/3/13493/LCG2122P_IIIa.pdf Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). 1998. El clúster lácteo en Chile. Disponible en: http://www.eclac.org/ddpeuda/publicaciones/xml/1/8211/LCR1858.pdf Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (CONICYT). 2006. Estadísticas de los distintos fondos y programas de CONICYT. Disponible en: http://www.conicyt.cl/estadisticas/internas Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente (CONAMA). 2006. Normas de emisión. Disponible en: http://www.conama.cl/portal/1255/propertyvalue-10317.html Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente (CONAMA). 1998. Guía para el control y prevención de la contaminación industrial en la fabricación de productos lácteos. Disponible en: http://www.conama.cl/rm/568/article-1016.html Comité de Seguro Agrícola (COMSA). 2006. Estadísticas del seguro agrícola en el año 2005. Disponible en: http://www.seguroagricola.com/demo/interior/estadisticas/estadisticas_2005_12.p df Consejo Nacional de Producción Limpia. 2006. Productores de leche de la X Región firman convenio para diagnóstico de APL. Disponible en: http://www.pl.cl/noticias.asp?cod_not=176 Departamento de Propiedad Industrial (DPI). 2006. Base de datos de marcas y patentes. Disponible en: http://www.dpi.cl/dpi_web/Frm_Login_default2.htm
44
Dirección General de Relaciones Económicas Internacionales (DIRECON). 2006. Cuadro resumen de los acuerdos de libre comercio suscritos por Chile. Disponible en: http://www.direcon.cl/index.php?accion=cuadro_resumen Dirección Meteorológica de Chile. 2006. Clasificación de climas. Disponible en: http://www.meteochile.cl/climas/climas_clasifica.html Eguillor, P. 2004. Inocuidad de los alimentos: más que buenas prácticas agrícolas. En Temporada Agrícola Nº 23, Diciembre de 2004. Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias (ODEPA). Esnaola, V. 2006. Situación del sector lechero chileno y perspectivas. Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias (ODEPA). Disponible en: http://www.sna.upsystem.cl/modulos/estudios/archivos/est_167.pdf Federación Nacional de Productores de Leche (FEDELECHE). 2006. La silenciosa reestructuración de Soprole en el preámbulo de la alianza con Nestlé. Disponible en: http://www.fedeleche.cl/pub/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=486 &Itemid=40 Federación Nacional de Productores de Leche (FEDELECHE). 2006. Promolac. Disponible en: http://www.fedeleche.cl/pub/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49& Itemid=47 Federación Nacional de Productores de Leche (FEDELECHE). 2006. Socios. Disponible en: http://www.fedeleche.cl/pub/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78& Itemid=32 Fundación Chile. 2005. Las certificaciones que exigen los mercados de destino. En revista Agroeconómico Nº 84. Enero de 2005. Disponible en: http://www.agroeconomico.cl/articulos_detalle.php?articulo=4356 Fundación Chile. 2004. Propuestas para mejorar el acceso al crédito. En revista Agroeconómico Nº 80. Mayo de 2004. Disponible en: http://www.agroeconomico.cl/articulos_detalle.php?articulo=2765 Fundación Chile. 2002. Competitividad de la agroindustria hortícola chilena. Disponible en: http://www.agrogestion.cl/docs-agro/Cad_AgroIn_Horticola.pdf Fundación Chile. 1999. Fichas técnico económicas ganadería: leche Región Metropolitana y leche X región. Disponibles en: http://www.agrogestion.com/fichas.cfm Fundación para la Innovación Agraria (FIA). 2006. Base de datos nacional de proyectos de innovación agraria. Disponible en: http://www.fia.cl/db_nac_proyectos.asp Fundación para la Innovación Agraria (FIA). 2005. Base de datos de investigadores en agricultura. Disponible en: http://www.fia.cl/investigadores_agricultura.asp Fundación para la Innovación Agraria (FIA). 2003. Boletín de caprinos N° 4. Mayo de 2003. Disponible en: http://www.fia.gob.cl/difus/boletin/bcaprino/bcaprinomayo2003.pdf Fundación para la Innovación Agraria (FIA). 2003. Bovinos de carne y leche. Resultados y experiencias del Programa de Giras Tecnológicas y Consultores Calificados 1996-2003. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE). 2005. Estadísticas del trabajo y previsión. Compendio estadístico año 2005. Disponible en: http://www.ine.cl/ine/canales/chile_estadistico/compendio_estadistico/pdf/2005 /5.pdf Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE). 2005. Estudio de la ganadería bovina en la agricultura familiar campesina. Regiones del Maule, del Biobío, de La Araucanía y de Los Lagos
45
Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE). 2005. Síntesis geográfica nacional. Compendio estadístico año 2005. Disponible en: http://www.ine.cl/ine/canales/chile_estadistico/compendio_estadistico/pdf/2005 /2.pdf Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE). 2003. Estudio de la ganadería bovina. Regiones del Maule, del Biobío, de La Araucanía y de Los Lagos. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE). 1997. VI Censo Nacional Agropecuario. Disponible en: http://www.ine.cl/canales/chile_estadistico/censos_agropecuarios/xls/2005/censo agropecuario.xls Instituto Nacional de Normalización (INN). 2006. Catálogo de normas. Disponible en: http://www3.inn.cl/ventas/normas/portada/index.php Lácteos Mulpulmo S.A. 2007. Ficha técnica del producto leche en polvo. Disponible en: http://www.mulpulmo.cl/leche.html Ministerio de Salud. 2007. Reglamento Sanitario de los Alimentos (Decreto Supremo N° 997/96). Disponible en: http://www.minsal.cl/ici/S_1/salud_ambiental/Ds977.pdf Navarro, C. 2006. Fondo de promoción a las exportaciones agropecuarias. Disponible en: http://www.agricultura.gob.cl/subsec/relevantes/fondo_promocion_agropecuarias _1_2006.pdf Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias (ODEPA). 2006. Agricultura chilena 2014: una perspectiva de mediano plazo. Disponible en: http://www.odepa.gob.cl/serviciosinformacion/publica/Agricultura2014.pdf Oficina de Estudios Políticas Agrarias (ODEPA). 2006. Boletín de la leche edición anual año 2004. Disponible en: http://www.odepa.gob.cl/odepaweb/serviciosinformacion/Lacteos/Leche-2004.pdf Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias (ODEPA). 2006. Leche: producción, recepción, precios y comercio exterior. Enero-Noviembre de 2006. Disponible en: http://www.odepa.gob.cl/odepaweb/serviciosinformacion/Lacteos/Informe_lacteo-1106.pdf Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias (ODEPA). 2006. Salvaguardia definitiva a las importaciones de lácteos. Disponible en: http://www.odepa.gob.cl/odepaweb/servlet/contenidos.ServletDetallesScr?idcla=1 &idcat=5&idn=1879 Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación (FAO). 2006. Base de datos FAOSTAT. Disponible en: http://faostat.fao.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=291&lang=es Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI). 2006. Clasificador internacional de patentes. Disponible en: http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/ipc8trans/es/ipcpub/ Otondo, F. 2006. Cuánto falta para ser potencia ¿el nuevo sueldo de Chile? En Revista del Campo Nº 1.539. Diario El Mercurio. 9 de Enero de 2006. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (PUC). 2006. Razas bovinas de leche y sus características. Disponible en: http://www.puc.cl/sw_educ/prodanim/mamif/siii8.htm ProChile. 2006. ¿Qué es la certificación? Disponible en: http://www.prochile.cl/servicios/medioambiente/certificarse.php ProChile. 2006. Catastro de normas certificables por sector productivo. Disponible en: http://www.prochile.cl/servicios/medioambiente/catastro_normas.php ProChile. 2006. Incentivos a las exportaciones. Disponible en: http://www.prochile.cl/servicios/exportar_paso_a_paso/incentivos_indice.php
46
Rojas, G. 2006. Apuntes de clases del curso Comercio Internacional Silvoagropecuario (AGL 270). Departamento de Economía Agraria. Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Rojas, G. y Silva, F. 2004. Acuerdos comerciales bilaterales y la agricultura chilena: 1992-2003. Serie informe económico Nº 152. Libertad y Desarrollo. Disponible en: http://www.lyd.com/biblioteca/serie/Economico/152_serie_informe_economico.p df Rosende, F. 2006. Tipo de cambio, competitividad e impuestos. En Economía y Negocios. Diario El Mercurio. 18 de Abril de 2006. Disponible en: http://www.economiaynegocios.cl/noticias/noticias.asp?id=86825&tipo=2&column ista=3 Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG). 2006. PABCO. Disponible en: http://www.sag.gob.cl/portal/page?_pageid=133,1713835&_dad=portal&_schema= PORTAL Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG). 2006. PABCO Bovino. Disponible en: http://www.sag.gob.cl/portal/page?_pageid=133,1716940&_dad=portal&_schema= PORTAL Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG). 2006. PABCO Bovino A, lácteos Unión Europea. Disponible en: http://www.sag.gob.cl/portal/page?_pageid=133,1767387&_dad=portal&_schema= PORTAL Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG). 2006. Proyectos financiados por el Fondo de Mejoramiento del Patrimonio Sanitario (FONDOSAG). Disponible en: http://www2.sag.gob.cl/fondo_sag06/index.htm Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG). 2001. Manual del ganadero. Disponible en: http://magallanes.sag.gob.cl/man_gan.htm Smith, R., Moreira, V. y Latrille, L. 2002. Caracterización de sistemas productivos lecheros en la X región de Chile mediante análisis multivariable. Agricultura Técnica, vol.62, no.3, p.375-395. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S036528072002000300004&script=sci_arttext Superintendencia de Bancos e Instituciones Financieras (SBIF). 2006. Colocaciones por actividad económica. Informe para el mes de Febrero de 2005 para el sistema financiero y por cada banco. Disponible en: http://www.sbif.cl/sbifweb/servlet/InfoFinanciera?indice=4.1&idCategoria=564&ti pocont=567 Superintendencia de Bancos e Instituciones Financieras (SBIF). 2006. Tasa de interés corriente y máxima convencional. Disponible en: http://www.sbif.cl/sbifweb/servlet/InfoFinanciera?indice=4.1&idCategoria=555&ti pocont=556 Superintendencia de Valores y Seguros (SVS). 2005. Informe seguro agrícola. Disponible en: http://www.svs.cl/sitio/html/merc_seguros/estadisticas/est_seguro_agricola/inf o_%20seguro_agricola04.doc Tecnoalimentos. 2006. Normativa nacional de la industria alimentaria. Disponible en: http://www.tecnoalimentos.cl Tecnología de Procesos Industriales S.A. 2001. Mastitis y salud de la ubre. Disponible en: http://www.tpi.cl/pdf/biblioteca/predial/mastitis.pdf Tobar, P. 2003. Evolución del precio de la tierra y de la rentabilidad de la agricultura chilena entre el periodo 1983 y 2002. Memoria de título presentada como parte de los requisitos para optar al título de Ingeniero Agrónomo. Escuela de Agronomía. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad de Talca. Disponible en: http://dspace.utalca.cl/retrieve/2976/PTobarC.pdf
47
Todoagro S.A. 2006. Resultados del Centro de Gestión Agrícola año 2005. Publicación N° 9 Octubre de 2006. Todoagro S.A. 2005. Resultados del Centro de Gestión Agrícola año 2004. Publicación N° 8 Octubre de 2005. Todoagro S.A. 2004. Resultados del Centro de Gestión Agrícola año 2003. Publicación N° 7 Septiembre de 2004. Todoagro S.A. 2003. Resultados del Centro de Gestión Agrícola año 2002. Publicación N° 5 Julio de 2003. Todoagro S.A. 2002. Resultados del Centro de Gestión Agrícola año 2001. Publicación N° 3 Julio de 2002. Vargas, G. y Foster, W. 2000. Concentración y coordinación vertical en la agricultura chilena. Disponible en: http://www.rimisp.cl/getdoc.php?docid=835 Watts’s S.A. 2006. Catálogo de productos Watt’s. Proceso de producción de leches en polvo. Disponible en: http://catalogo.watts.cl/ficha.aspx?posicion=&IdMarc=9&IdCat=63&IdProd= Zamora, M. 2006. El desafío: Chile exportador de lácteos. Presentación seminario Chile Lácteo 2005. Uruguay Caño Guiral, M. (1993). Competitividad y eficiencia en la cadena láctea uruguaya. Universidad de la República. Departamento de economía de la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Documento de Trabajo. Diponible en http://decon.edu.uy/publica/publicac.htm#DOCUMENTOS%20DE%20TRABAJO DIEA (2006). Estadísticas del Sector Lácteo - AÑO 2005. Disponible en: http://www.mgap.gub.uy/Diea/Encuestas DIEA (1998). Estadísticas del Sector Lácteo - AÑO 1998. Disponible en: http://www.mgap.gub.uy/Diea/Encuestas Peyrou, J. y Vidal, M. (1999). La Industria de Transformación de Productos Agropecuarios. Capítulo III: “Productos Lácteos”. Disponible en http://www.mgap.gub.uy/opypa/PUBLICACIONES/Litpa/Productos_lacteos/Pr oductos_lacteos.htm MAF (Ministerio de Agricultura y Forestación de Nueva Zelanda) (2001). Contribution of the Land-based Primary Industries to New Zealand’s Economic Growth. “Dairy”. Disponible en http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/profitability-andeconomics/contribution-of-land-based-industries-nz-economicgrowth/contribution07.htm MGAP (2002). Informe trimestre octubre - diciembre / 2002. Disponible en: http://www.mgap.gub.uy/FONDOS/FFAL/Informes/Informe_Oct_Dic_2002.pdf Ley 17.582, Poder legislativo (2002). Fondo de financiamiento de la actividad lechera. Disponible en: http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=17582&Anchor= Peyrou, J y Sáder, M.(2002). Anuario OPYPA 2002. Fondo de financiamiento de la actividad lechera. Disponible en: http://www.mgap.gub.uy/opypa/index.htm USDA; Dairy: World Markets and Trade, Diciembre de 2006. Disponible en: http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/dairy/dairy.asp
48
