European Bank Subsidised Lidl Expansion with A$1200 million.
This article owes its origins to an intriguing report originally published by GRAIN. You will see why I found it intriguing when you get to it. I have spent some time on the Global Farmer discussing agricultural subsidies, little did I know and I’m sure you didn’t, that the Guardian Newspaper recently revealed German discount supermarket giant Lidl and its sister chain Kaufland have benefited from almost US$900 million (A$1200 million) in public development money over the last ten years. Is this just another form of subsidy to encourage the global expansion of European supermarkets and European food?
The companies, owned by the large retail company Schwarz Group and controlled by one of Germany’s wealthiest families, received loan funding from a little-known wing of the World Bank and from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). There is no suggestion there was anything ‘wrong’ with the funding, as you will see it is part of the specific mandate of these organisations funded by taxpayers and owned by governments to encourage local development, in this case in Europe.
The German Federal government, on their website has been heavily promoting both Lidl and Aldi in America to help it to become established in that country and, no doubt, sell food that has been made or produced in Germany. Lidl like Aldi, also sell a range of German made hardware, electrical goods and many other things.
Aldi already have stores in Australia and it is understood they plan many more. Lidl are also planning a chain of stores throughout Australia. In what seem like a few years in the UK they have secured over 10% market share and are causing both Tesco and Waitrose, the two biggest food retailers in the UK, to review their business plans.
They have made no secret about being ‘aggressive’ with their entry into America. Maybe interesting times for the Australian consumer, but what about the producers and what few processors are left, what of the future for them?
Below is an email I received on June 3 from Jay Horton from Strategis Partners, the company that is promoting Multi Peril Crop Insurance. I have attached a copy of the spreadsheet to the email I sent to you informing you of this article. I hope it works, if not then write me in the comments section at the end of this piece and I will forward it to you.
I circulated the email among consultant friends and I have to say that none have been enthusiastic. One said he could see ways of taking advantage of the proposition. Some of the comments I cannot repeat. Let’s say they were from non-believers. But here is a sample of the comments and questions about the commercial proposal to provide MPCI:
Fire and hail is only 1% or $5/ha compared to $$21/ha. Do not tell me that isn’t an extra cost.
It will happen(government assistance) and I wish I could have that sure bet on it.
Benefits are imaginative. In risky areas where the cover would be most useful the premium will reflect the risk.
I fail to see why interest is saved. We normally pay insurance (F + H) after harvest. I am sure they will require payment before.
What about the interest on extra inputs?
Real cost $32,000 net of saved insurance. You could get the yield by extra inputs anyway, nothing to do with insurance.
For every winner with forward pricing there is a loser. Is the farmer better at this than the speculator? In the end forward pricing is a COST. Frankly it has to be to pay for the broker of the deals. Otherwise everyone would be in on the act. It is only sensible when prices are towards to top decile as currently with wool. How much can you cover forward anyway, safely? (Remember this was written early June, just this morning wool has continued to go down and wheat up. It needs an expert to comment but I have noticed the Shanghai Stock exchange has taken a hit over recent times. Once again China controls the market this time in wool. Ed)
Only a % of the output is covered. 70% as I read it. To me that business will have a serious loss if only 70% of the proposed output is achieved.
Jay relies on security of income to make business decisions that could or might pay off. Returns from extra inputs. Forward pricing. True should they work but they are not assured. Observe Canola prices this year. Early pricing, which looked pretty safe has been eclipsed. Do you hedge currency as well?-you should at extra cost.
End of comments. I welcome comments from farmers and anyone else in agribusiness. If in this article I have missed something, then tell me. Same goes if you think I am wrong.
With yet another report of Australian cattle being mistreated in a foreign slaughterhouse, this time in Israel, the question must be asked whether the export of live animals from Australia is sustainable? Not only is it sustainable as far as numbers are concerned, particularly following the dreadful drought in Queensland and New South Wales, which has decimated numbers . We need to consider that between February 2012 and June 2015 there have been sixty ESCAS Regulatory Compliance Investigations. All have been or are being investigated. The Federal Dept of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (DAFF) who pick up the bill at present, have served notice on the exporters that they are going for cost recovery. In other words the exporters are going to pay. This is government policy throughout Australia—the user pays. No other country involved in the export of live animals has an Exporter Supply Chain Assurance scheme (ESCAS) type scheme.
The Australian Livestock Exporters Council (ALEC) CEO Allison Prescott has been telling the international press that a significant investment is being made in building and upgrading slaughtering facilities and feedlots in Vietnam and exporters from Australia were expecting the trade between the two countries to continue to grow into a long-term and sustainable market. The question must be asked, who pays for the upgrades? And where are the cattle going to come from?