Free trade agreements – new & revised The impact of new trade agreements being reached by the UK and EU, separately rather than together, is another variable which feed suppliers are having to address this year and next. Depending on who you listen to and, more crucially, who you happen


to believe, the future is either vibrant and exciting or fraught with danger. The obvious players on the Brexit side have no doubt whatsoever, as UK International Trade Secretary, Liam Fox, and International Development Secretary, Penny Mordaunt, revealed in a joint statement, released in mid-April. Timed to coincide with the opening of the Commonwealth Heads


of Government Meeting in London, they described the Commonwealth as a true melting pot of countries, cultures and communities, which they said had enjoyed a shared history of values and institutions and is now working towards a shared future for the next generation. “Our unique opportunity, to pursue greater mutual prosperity and


trade that is fair and open to all, means the Commonwealth is more relevant today than ever before,” they said. “And this is firmly in our interests too as champions of free trade, with opportunities to forge new, and deepen existing, trading relationships, which will bring benefit to both businesses and consumers in the UK.” Pointing out that 44 of the UK’s 52 Commonwealth partners benefit


from “development-friendly preferential access to the UK market” they also commented: “Our first priority is to deliver continuity in these trading arrangements as we leave the EU. We know how crucial it is that these trading relationships are not disrupted and, in March, we reached an agreement with the EU to provide continuity for trading partners during the Implementation Period. “But this is not the limit of our ambition. When we have left the EU


we will look to see how we can improve these trade arrangements for our mutual benefit.” Not that the present day is all that shabby, again according to Fox


and Mordaunt. “We are all stronger when the world is more prosperous,” they said. “This week alone (April 16-20), up to £1.5 billion worth of contracts will be signed between UK and Commonwealth countries, from Antigua to Zambia, covering deals in healthcare, food and drink and digital. This is good for our Commonwealth partners, but it’s good for British companies too.”


EU-wide protein plan That’s the global background, constantly shifting and adjusting, against which the development of the EU’s protein plan is taking place. As I said, it’s an important piece of work, even if viewed largely as a first step into the future. The European compound feed sector is, according to FEFAC,


the largest industrial user of proteins of vegetable origin, a fact which illustrates clearly how crucial it will be to devise a plan which is well thought through before it’s published in late 2018. What the immediate marketplace will look like then, of course, is anyone’s guess. For the moment, however, the Federation’s current assessment is


that the availability of protein will increasingly become a limiting factor for the global agricultural commodity market, a prospect which makes the development of a European Protein Plan ‘timely and necessary’. In addition, even with advances in plant breeding, cultivation and processing technology, Europe will not be able to reach self-sufficiency


PAGE 12 MAY/JUNE 2018 FEED COMPOUNDER


as concerns vegetable protein supplies, leading FEFAC to conclude that a strong reliance on protein imports from third countries is ‘here to stay for the foreseeable future’.


Key recommendations For those who haven’t already studied FEFAC’s key protein plan recommendations, there are seven priorities which Federation members are urging the European Commission to incorporate in its final document. 1. Develop a comprehensive long-term action plan regarding the competitiveness of EU protein production, while still meeting EU commitments to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.


2. Develop new or improved assessment tools to better analyse policy impacts. These are essential to accurately evaluate all relevant EU policies which could potentially impact on the supplies of home-grown protein sources used in animal nutrition. FEFAC’s ‘relevant policies’ examples include: the CAP (post 2020); the Renewable Energy Directive; the implementation of the COP21 agreement (GHG reduction targets) in the livestock sector; the Circular Economy policy; plant breeding technology policy and EU legislation on crop protection.


3. Make the EU FeedMod modelling tool operational. FEFAC also wants the existing EU FeedMod to be updated routinely and used to assess trends in animal nutrition, demand for proteins and the amino acids requirements of the EU livestock population.


4. Include forage production and grazing in the EU protein balance sheet. These are the most important sources of vegetable proteins for the feeding of ruminants.


5. Develop a regional supply and demand protein model. This addresses the fact that the potential feed uptake of home-grown vegetable proteins depends to a large extent on local/regional solutions reflecting demand patterns at local /regional level. Adding a regional supply and demand model into the core plan would help capture the impact of the EU’s greening measures on protein production while also tracking the usage of locally/regionally produced protein.


6. Foster pre-competitive research in animal nutrition and plant breeding science. Joint EU research projects are already required to link animal nutrition science with plant breeding science to address protein quality challenges and FEFAC wants the scope of such research to be expanded.


7. Create a level playing field for the ‘non-GM’ feed market. “The signatories of the ‘EU soy declaration’ fail to recognise the absence of a harmonised EU legal definition of ‘non-GM’ feeding requirements and the use of respective claims for animal products,” said FEFAC. “The EU should assess the best options to ensure a level playing field for the ‘non-GM’ feed market niche and related product claims for products of animal origin.” FEFAC also stressed, however, that while the GM vs non-GM


debate has no impact on protein quality and requirements for farm animals, such discussion may negatively affect the competitiveness of EU feed production due to the higher costs attached to the sourcing of non-GM protein sources. So there it is – a pretty good starting point despite the challenging


background of the global industry. Certainly a PP1 prospect to embrace later this year.


Comment section is sponsored by Compound Feed Engineering Ltd www.cfegroup.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68