Commission Report to the Council on evolution of the hop sector (under Article 18(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 on the common organisation of the market in hops)
Date: 2003-09-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural production policy, agricultural situation, agricultural statistics, common organisation of markets, economic analysis, hops, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 30.9.2003
COM(2003) 571 final

COMMISSION REPORT TO THE COUNCIL

on evolution of the hop sector

.

(under Article 18(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71
on the common organisation of the market in hops)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4

1.

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.

2.1

2.2

Structure of hops CMO regulations ............................................................................. 4

Production aid .............................................................................................................. 4

Producer groups ........................................................................................................... 4

Special measures .......................................................................................................... 5

Product certification..................................................................................................... 5

External trade ............................................................................................................... 6

Budget costs ................................................................................................................. 6

General overview of sector .......................................................................................... 6

World hop production .................................................................................................. 6

Hop production in European Union ............................................................................. 7

2.2.1

Areas ............................................................................................................................ 7

2.2.2

Production .................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.3

Yields ........................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.4

Structure of production ................................................................................................ 9

2.2.5

Production costs and returns ........................................................................................ 9

2.2.6

Variety groups grown................................................................................................... 9

3.

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

4.

5.

5.1

5.2

6.

Market situation ......................................................................................................... 10

Marketing ................................................................................................................... 10

Prices .......................................................................................................................... 11

Stocks held by growers .............................................................................................. 11

Trend of trade............................................................................................................. 12

Post-accession outlook............................................................................................... 13

Assessments ............................................................................................................... 13

Operation of market ................................................................................................... 13

Operation of CMO ..................................................................................................... 14

Conclusions................................................................................................................ 16

2

ANNEX I - History of the CMO (1971 – 1997) ...................................................................... 18

1

1.1

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

1.5.

2

First 20 years .............................................................................................................. 18

Production aid ............................................................................................................ 18

Varietal conversion aid .............................................................................................. 18

Certification procedure............................................................................................... 18

Producer groups ......................................................................................................... 18

External trade ............................................................................................................. 18

Adjustments made in 1992......................................................................................... 19

ANNEX II - Technical data on hops ........................................................................................ 20

ANNEX III - Statistical tables ................................................................................................. 22

3

INTRODUCTION

Article  18  of  the  basic  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1696/71  on  the  common  organisation  of  the
market in hops1 requires the Commission to send the Council, before 31 December 2003, an
assessment report on the sector together with any appropriate proposals for the future. This is
that  report.  Annex  I  gives  the  history  of  the  CMO  and  Annex  II  technical  information  on
hops.

1.

STRUCTURE OF HOPS CMO REGULATIONS

The CMO at present in force is as reformed in 19972.

The key objectives of the reform were to make the rules more consistent and flexible in the
context  of  the  dynamics  of  the  market  and  user  requirements  and  to  simplify  their
administration.

1.1

Production aid

The cornerstone of the CMO is the production aid. This was set for a period of five years at a
single rate for all varieties. In 2001 this arrangement was extended for three years (to include
the 2003 harvest).

The single aid rate was set at €480/ha with effect from the 1996 harvest and has not been
changed since. At the moment it accounts for around 8% of a grower's average gross return.

Growers  wishing  to  receive  it  must  declare  the  areas  planted  by  31  May  of  the  crop  year
(exception  for  United  Kingdom:  30  June)  and  submit  their  aid  application  through  their
producer group by 31 October of that year.

Controls on hops fall within the scope of the Integrated Administration and Control System.

If the market is disturbed the aid can be modulated or granted on only a part of the area under
hops the decision being taken by the Council acting on a proposal from the Commission.

1.2

Producer groups

The  1997  reform  boosted  the  role  of  producer  groups  in  order  to  pursue  the  aim  of
encouraging adjustment of production quality to market trends.

They have in fact a double role:

1.

1

2

They  carry  out  the  product  marketing.  Some  flexibility  is  however  permitted  at
group level: a  group  can authorise  its members  to  market  some  of  their  production
themselves. In such cases it has a right to monitor the level of selling prices. In the
event  of  disagreement  on  the  prices  proposed  the  group  is  obliged  to  buy  the  hops
itself at a higher price and find a new buyer.

OJ  L  175,  4.8.1971,  p.  1.  Regulation 
(OJ L 201, 26.7.2001, p. 8).
Council Regulation (EC) No 1554/97 (OJ L 208, 2.8.1997, p. 1).

last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1514/2001

4

                                                
It may be of interest to mention the German national contract management system set up at
producer group level to encourage quality production.
The buyer has to pay the group the price contracted with the grower. The group has a quality
analysis  carried  out  by  an  independent  agency  and  part  of  the  price  is  paid  to  the  grower
using  a  bonus/penalty  system.  The  parameters  set  are  water  content,  percentage  of  leaves,
stems and waste matter, percentage of cone cover leaves and alpha acid content.

2.

A  package  of  structural  measures  is  financed  by  means  of  a  deduction  on  the
production  aid  up  to  a  maximum  of  20%3.  This  resource  is  managed  at  producer
group level.

The  money  is  used  to  support  varietal  conversion  and  for  rationalisation  and
mechanisation  of  cultivation  (notably  harvesting),  adoption  of  common  production
methods  (cultivation  techniques,  fertiliser  use,  varieties  etc),  marketing  and
accompanying  market  measures,  quality  improvement,  research  etc.  It  can  also  be
used to provide additional support for resting and grubbing-up.

1.3

Special measures

In 1998 the sector was confronted with a big imbalance between production and the market's
actual  quantitative  and  qualitative  needs.  It  had  become  imperative  to  adjust  production  by
selective cutting of the areas under hops in the Union.

Special  temporary  measures  were  adopted  for  five  years  (1998-2002)4  and  subsequently
extended to include the 2003 crop. These measures are temporary resting and grubbing-up
of  hop  plants.  They  are  optional  for  both  Member  States  and  producer  groups  and
participation by individual growers is voluntary.

Resting is decided on for one year at a time, the decision whether to keep in rest or return the
hop field to production depending on the market situation and outlook. This measure permits
qualitative adjustment of supply and can be selective by variety.

For grubbing-up there is a requirement that the area concerned cannot be replanted with hops
before the end of 2003.

For both measures compensation of €480/ha is granted, i.e. the production aid rate. Certain
good agricultural practice requirements must be met, notably for maintenance of fields being
rested.

1.4

Product certification

The CMO requires that before being marketed hops go through a certification procedure to
ensure that the minimum quality requirements have been met.

The certificate also states the location where the hops were grown and the crop year. It must
be issued before any processing is carried out and before 31 March of the post-harvest year. It
accompanies  the  hops  and  their  derived  products  right  along  the  production  and  marketing
chain until the final stage, i.e. brewing.

3

4

It  is  compulsorily  20%  in  Germany  since  the  producer  groups  do  not  market  all  their  members'
production. In the other Member States except France it is less than 20% and varies from year to year
depending on need. In France there is no reduction, i.e. growers receive the full aid.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/98 (OJ L 157, 30.5.1998, p. 7).

5

                                                
Imports  into  the  Community  can  be  made  only  under  cover  of  a  certificate  recognised  as
equivalent to the Union's.

1.5

External trade

Ad valorem customs duties are imposed on hop imports into the Union and protective action
can be taken in the event of market disturbance.

On exports there are no provisions.

However,  hops  and  hop  products  cannot  be  imported  or  exported  unless  they  present
qualitative  characteristics  at  least  equivalent  to  those  adopted  for  hops  and  hop  products
harvested and processed (and certified) in the Community. The quality guarantee for imported
hops is provided by equivalent certification issued by the relevant department of the country
concerned.

1.6

Budget costs

Budget expenditure on the hops CMO has been:

1997
1998
1999
2000

€13.0 million
€12.8 million
€12.6 million
€12.5 million

2001
2002
2003

€12.5 million
€12.5 million
€13.0 million

Thus expenditure has been stable since the 1997 reform even though areas have been falling.
The explanation is that the same payments are made on areas to which the special measures
(resting, grubbing-up) have been applied as on those from which crops are taken.

2.

2.1

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF SECTOR

World hop production

For  the  period  2000-2002  mean  world  production  of  hop  cones  was  97 125  tonnes,
25 467 tonnes (21%) lower than for 1995-1997 (see Table 1.B).

The world area under hops fell by 26% between these same periods (see Table 1.A).

The  Union  of  Fifteen  is  the  leading  world  producer  with  40%  of  production.  The
forthcoming enlargement will see this proportion rise to more than 50%.

In second place is the United States with 27% of production.  Its areas fell by  22% between
1995-1997 and 2000-2002 (EU -17%). Its production of hop cones fell by 16% between these
periods (EU -15%).

Preference  is  given  in  the  United  States  to  varieties  that  are  very  rich  in  alpha  acid,  some
varieties yielding up to 15%.

China is in third place, at present accounting for 14%. From the statistics available it appears
that the mean quantity produced in the 2000-2002 period was 9% lower than for 1995-1997.
Nonetheless  China,  which  is  increasingly  opening  up  to  world  trade,  has  great  potential  for
increasing its production.

6

Figure 2.1.a: Breakdown of world hop production in 2002

4 New EU
11%

USA
27%

Rest o f the 
Wo rld
8%

EU15
40%

China
14%

Source: Compiled by DG AGRI using IHGC (International Hop Growers Convention) figures

Figure 2.1.b: Trend of world hop production

to nnes

-15%

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0

aver. 1995-1997

aver. 2000-2002

-16%

-38%

-9%

-46%

EU15

4 New EU

USA

Rest of
the World

China

Source: Compiled by DG AGRI using IHGC (International Hop Growers Convention) figures

2.2

Hop production in European Union

2.2.1

Areas

The  area  under  hops  in  the  Union  fell  between  the  periods  1995-1997  and  2000-2002  by
4 576 ha (17%).

Hopgrowing  is  in  decline  in  all  producing  Member  States  except  France.  The  fall  is
particularly  marked  in  Ireland,  Portugal  and  above  all  the  United  Kingdom  (-43%)  (see
Table 1.A).

Special  temporary  measures.  Five  Member  States  have  made  use  of  both  the  resting  and
grubbing-up measures: Belgium, Germany, Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom.

Grubbing-up.  It  appears  that  by  the  end  of  the  fifth  year  of  the  programme  (end
2002)  2 879  ha  had  been  grubbed  up.  Expectations  for  2003  bring  the  total  to
3 224 ha,  a  12%  reduction  on  1997.  To  this  must  be  added  the  area  of  some
1 454 ha grubbed up on which no aid has been granted.

Resting.  There  have  been  big  fluctuations  from  one  year  to  another,  i.e.  the
measure  has  rendered  production  potential  very  flexible.  The  areas  involved  have
however been relatively small. In the first year of application (1998) the area rested
was 1 393 ha, i.e. 5% of cultivated area. It has subsequently been in the range 400 to
700 ha.

7

Figure 2.2.1.a: Areas cropped and areas grubbed
up under the special temporary measures

Figure 2.2.1.b: Areas rested under the special
temporary measures:

Cumulated Grubbing

Harvested

1.393

27.000

24.000

18.000

15.000
Ha

802

1.578

2.117

2.406

2.879

3.224

21.000

26.785

24.371

22.686

22.695

23.026

22.152

21.674

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003
(Est.)

1.200

600

0

Ha

771

734

Rested Ha

413

385

63

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003
(Est.)

2.2.2

Production

Source: Member States' notifications

In 2002 the Union produced 38 380 tonnes of hop cones. These gave 3 466 tonnes of alpha
acid, a 9% yield (see Table 1.C).

Germany grew 32 271 tonnes of hops, 84% of Union production. The remainder was spread
over seven Member States, mainly the United Kingdom (6%), Spain (4%) and France (3%).

The  Union's  production  has  fallen  constantly  in  recent  years  but  not  so  strongly  as  total
world production. Mean production for the last three years (2000-2002) has been only some
86% of the mean for the period 1995-1997. But the actual production loss for alpha acid has
been  markedly  lower,  only  5%  over  the  last  six  years  (3 663  to  3 466  tonnes).  The
stabilisation  of  production  from  2000  has  been  the  outcome  of  a  degree  of  optimism  on
market  prospects  that  has  lasted  through  2001  and  2002.  During  the  last  three  years  the
market has shown momentary signs of upturn, notably thanks to export opportunities under a
favourable euro/dollar exchange rate.

Figure 2.2.2: Hop production trend in EU

x 1000 tonnes

46

36

36

52

42

37

47

42

38

Production

35

36

38

38

60

40

20

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Source: Member States' notifications

2.2.3

Yields

Comparison of the periods 1995-1997 and 2000-2002 shows a 2% rise in hop cone yields in
the Union, from 1.61 to 1.65 tonnes/ha. For the same periods the rise in the United States was
9%, from 1.96 to 2.14 tonnes/ha.

8

Comparison of alpha  acid yields  for  the  same  periods  shows  a  22%  increase  in  the  Union
and 28% in the USA. Average US alpha acid yields are much higher than in the Union (EU
156 kg/ha in 2002, USA 267 kg/ha) (see Table 1.D).

Figure 2.2.3: Trend of alpha acid yields in EU

160

120

80

40

kg/ha

133

137

117

113

140

140

156

117

88

61

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Source: Member States' notifications

2.2.4

Structure of production

Although the number of holdings  growing  hops has been in constant  decline (down 31%
from 4 123  holdings  in  1997  to  2 846  in  2002)  the  mean  area  per  holding  is  increasing  (up
20% from 6.5 ha in 1997 to 7.8 ha in 2002).

The figures vary very much from one Member State to another. The biggest holdings are in
the United Kingdom (mean size 11.62 ha in 2002), Germany (9.45 ha) and France (7.49 ha)
(see Table 2).

These are above all highly  specialised family enterprises in which two thirds  of the work is
done by the family members and one third by employees.

The  average  age  of  growers  is  rising,  from  47  in  1990  to  52  in  2000  according  to  FADN
figures for Bavaria, the biggest production region in the Union.

2.2.5

Production costs and returns

FADN  figures  for  the  years  1998  to  2000  show5  production  costs  in  Bavaria,  the  most
representative  region  for  Community  production,  of  €4 805/ha  on  average.  Returns  in  the
region were €5 537/ha (see Table 3).

2.2.6

Variety groups grown

Some  12 000  ha,  i.e.  55%  of  the  Union's  present  total  hop  area,  is  devoted  to  aromatic
varieties.

The  area  planted  with  bitter  varieties  can  be  considered  as  stable  in  recent  years  (around
10 000  ha).  Some  bitter  varieties  have  completely  disappeared  (these  were  of  minor
importance except for one in Spain) but the super alpha varieties have been rising strongly.

5

Figures calculated from the farm accounts collected by the FADN from a number of Bavarian holdings
for which hops account for more than 40% of income.

9

                                                
Figure 2.2.6.a: EU production of aromatic and bitter varieties in 2002

2002
varieties

aromatic
bitter
other

Total

areas (ha)

in %

12 260
9 835
56

22 151

55%
44%
0%

100%

production
(tonnes)

20 721
17 577
82

38 380

in %

54%
46%
0%

100%

yields
(t/ha)

1,69
1,76
1,46

1,73

% alpha

5,84%
12,81%
5,50%

9,03%

Source: Member States' notifications

CMO  varietal  conversion  measures  to  boost  the  spread  of  the  super  alpha  bitter  varieties
have had  a decisive impact.  The  main  result  has  been  conversion  away  from  the  traditional
bitter varieties Brewer's Gold and Northern Brewer, which were less and less able to compete
with the American super alpha varieties on the world market. Germany has also grubbed up
the aromatic variety Hersbrucker, for which there were no longer market outlets.

Over the period 1986 to 1997 3 241 ha, 12.4% of the 1987 Community area, was converted.
On about 71% of this area the change was to alpha and super alpha varieties.

Table 4 in the Annex summarises the varietal conversions between 1997 and 2002.

Figure 2.2.6.b: Union trends for aromatic and bitter varieties

20.000

16.000

12.000

8.000

4.000

0

ha

Aromatic

Bitter

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Source: Member States' notifications

3.

3.1

MARKET SITUATION

Marketing

Hops are sold either under contracts concluded in advance generally for from three to five
years or on the free market.

The volume of hops sold under contract in the Union fell from 72% in 1997 to 61% in 2002.
The  "contract"  market  is  declining  because  users  are  finding  increasingly  abundant
supplies  on  the  free  market  at  lower  prices  than  the  contract  prices.  The  contract  as  a
marketing tool continues however to be valued by growers mainly because the contract prices
are stable over longer periods.

Demand depends  on breweries that  are becoming ever  larger  and  are  changing  their  buying
policy  in  line  with  consumer  taste.  In  addition  they  often  have  stocks  from  previous  crops
about which the growers have no information.

10

3.2

Prices

We look at the trend of prices of the hop varieties sold under contract and on the free market
during the period 1993-2002 (see figure 3.2 and Table 5).

Contract  prices for  the  aromatic varieties rose until 1999, when  the  volume  of  sales  under
contract began to fall, and have themselves continued to fall up to 2002. For bitter varieties
under  contract  there  was  some  price  recovery  in  2001  and  2002  owing  to  a  more  positive
assessment of them and reduced availability on the world market6.

Free market prices varied more  markedly for  all  varieties  and more than doubled between
1993  and  2002.  As  already  indicated,  the  free  market  was  more  active  since  the  brewers,
enjoying  reduced  dependence  on  hops  were  increasingly  inclined  to  make  spot  market
purchases.

It should be noted that free market prices have grown much closer  to those for contract
transactions. The average free market price rose from 41% of the average contract price in
1993 to 79% in 2002.

The  aromatic  varieties,  giving  lower  yields  and  more  difficult  to  grow,  have  traditionally
commanded  higher  prices  than  the  bitter.  But  the  gaps  between  the  two  types  is  tending  to
narrow since demand for the aromatics is dropping and the new super alpha varieties have a
higher alpha acid yield and hence a higher market value.

Figure 3.2: Trend of Community prices by variety group

Euro/Tonne

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

Aromatic - contract

Bitter - contract

Aromatic - Spot

Bitter - Spot

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Source: Member States' notifications

3.3

Stocks held by growers

The figures sent in by the Member States show a strong rise in 2001 and 2002. Before this
stocks were insignificant (Table 6).

The increase is even more marked in 2002, accounting for 36.1% of production, which on its
part remained relatively stable. The stocks were divided equally between aromatic and bitter
varieties.

6

A fire destroyed part of the stocks held by the pools in the USA.

11

                                                
It should be noted that the stock figures are for the situation recorded in the month of March
each  year.  It appears from more recent hop trade information7 that these stocks have finally
been sold. The situation in 2001 and 2002 was certainly new and no doubt was the outcome of
marketing difficulties in recent years. That said, according to the trade there may also be big
stocks at present at the breweries.

3.4

Trend of trade

Since 1993 the Union's exports have been in the range 20 000 to 24 000 hop cone equivalent
tonnes8.  More  than  half  the  exports  have  been  in  the  form  of  compressed  hops  (pellets)  or
extracts.

Imports  on  the  other  hand  have  fallen  steadily  but  have  levelled  out  since  2000  at  around
11 500 cone equivalent tonnes (see Tables 7 and 8).

The  Union  is  thus  traditionally  a  net  exporter  and  above  all  is  the  hub  of  the  world  hop
market.  The  positive  balance  increased  in  1998  and  1999  and  since  then  has  been  around
10 000 tonnes.

The  USA  is  the  Union's  main  trading  partner  and  hence  the  second  player  on  the  world
market. It accounts for 45% (5 049 tonnes in 2002) of our imports and 17% (3 673 tonnes in
2002) of our exports. Around 50% of our exports are small quantities sent to a multitude of
countries whereas our imports come essentially from four countries.

The  two  other  main  purchasers  of  Community  hops  are  Russia  (3 733  tonnes  in  2002)  and
Japan (2 732 tonnes in 2002).

The  Czech  Republic,  Australia  and  Slovenia  with  2 000,  1 100  and  1 000  cone  equivalent
tonnes respectively are our other big suppliers.

Figure 3.4.a: Community hop imports

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

18.122

0

4.228

4.123

3.796

3.821

3.747

3.459

3.438

5.046

6.000

4.488

5.000

4.222

19.158

21.828

18.754

14.882

14.356

12.325

11.539

11.532

11.164

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Import Quant.

Euro/tonne

Source: EUROSTAT

7

8

Given by the growers at the Standing Group meeting on 12.6.2003.
Volumes  of  pellets  and  hop  extracts  are  turned  into  their  equivalent  in  hop  cones  in  order  to  keep
production figures comparable.

12

                                                
Figure 3.4.b: Community hop exports

6.317

6.240

6.448

6.298

5.621

4.363 4.697

5.408

6.181

5.317

23.478

22.536

21.903

23.988

21.491

23.586

22.471

20.974

21.751

35.000

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

20.370

0

7.000

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Export Quant.

Euro/tonne

Source: EUROSTAT

4.

POST-ACCESSION OUTLOOK

Accession  of  10  new  Member  States,  including  four  producers  (Czech  Republic,  Poland,
Slovenia, Slovakia) means a rise in the Community hop area of about 50% (10 000 ha) and in
production of about 29% (11 000 tonnes)..

The new Member States' production is  primarily  of  aromatic varieties but the trend  is to  an
increase in varieties rich in alpha acid. In Poland these are in fact now predominant.

Between 1997 and 2002 the area under hops in the 4 producers fell by 18%, a similar fall to
that recorded in the Union of 15, and actual production fell by 32%. The production share of
the alpha varieties rose from 5.4% to 13%.

5.

5.1

ASSESSMENTS

Operation of market

The nub of the hop market problem lies in the two outstanding trends of the last decade that
have become more acute in recent years.

1.

2.

The consumer's preference has moved to more lightly hopped beers. Hence demand
for hops has fallen.

Conversion to the high alpha acid varieties has led to an abundant supply of them on
a market where demand is in marked decline. The growers have been weakened by
introduction  of  the  new  alpha  rich  varieties,  which  have  brought  them  marginal
benefits  whereas  the  users  have  been  able  to  acquire  hops  with  a  richer  alpha  acid
content without paying a proportionately higher price.

It is this situation that brought about the need to reduce hop areas.

Nevertheless, in 2001 and 2002 the growers (and/or producer groups) were clearly somewhat
reluctant to follow this course. The immediate result was greater difficulty of disposal on the
market and a build-up of stocks.

13

Price  movements  on  the  "contract"  market  (share  about  60%)  and  the  free  market
(which has risen to 40%) continue to be connected. The outcome is a balance between the two
marketing  types  that  both  allows  a  viable  price  base  to  be  guaranteed  to  the  growers
(the contract prices) and allows the users to purchase supplies on the free market at attractive
prices. They continue to cover a large proportion of their requirements through contracts.

The  players'  positions  have  shifted.  The  users  are  in  a  stronger  position.  Their  lower  needs
and  continuing  abundant  supply  have  allowed  them  to  reduce  their  commitments  on  the
market and disinclined them from entering into longer term contract links with suppliers.

The  Union  market  continues  nonetheless  to  display  a  coherent  dynamic  in  that  supply  is
adjusting to gradually declining use. A new balance involving varietal conversion appears to
be attainable that will reflect changing industrial requirements.

The  Union  will  not  lose  its  importance  as  hub  of  the  world  market  and  enlargement  is
expected  to  boost  this  role.  In  the  new  hopgrowing  Member  States  the  need  for  conversion
will be accentuated. Integration into the Community market will bring marked advantages to
these countries' growers.

5.2

Operation of CMO

The production aid has certainly been a highly appreciated support to growers.

Its  importance  lies  in  the  possibility  it  affords  of  growing  hops  at  an  attractive  level  of
profitability  given  both  the  structural  and  managerial  investment  that  the  crop  demands.
Maintenance  of  a  level  of  profitability  acceptable  to  the  grower  has  restricted  abandonment
and preserved the sector's viability.

the survival of a crop that is a distinctive feature of the landscape of certain regions

Any assessment must also give due weight to the fact that the aid has had a decisive role in
(cid:1) 
(cid:1)  maintenance of a thriving local economy, and notably of employment on family farms, at
an aid rate acceptable from the budget standpoint (aid about 8% of return) and favourable
from the economic and social standpoint.

Producer groups are the mainspring of the CMO's operation.

Theirs is a preponderant role in providing technical assistance and guidance on growing and
marketing. They are a channel of dialogue between growers and users and in that capacity are
leading market players.

That  said,  the  possibility  afforded  to  growers  of  themselves  marketing  all  or  part  of  their
production has been widely appreciated and helped reaffirm the main market scenario.

14

Turning to the deduction from the aid and use of that resource, approaches have differed from
one  Member  State  to  another  and  this  raises  the  question  whether  the  provision  should  be
retained. In fact it is only in one Member State that this option of deducting and using part of
the aid at producer  groups  level has  been  regularly used.  Even  if  a  positive  judgment can be
made  on  how  the  deduction  has  been  used,  doubts  remain  whether  the  provision  gives  the
Community any added value. It is pointed out that
(cid:1) 
(cid:1) 

for transparency and simplicity payment of the entire aid to the grower is desirable.

the same aims and results could be pursued and achieved voluntarily. If necessary producer
groups could decide, in line with their own rules of organisation and national civil law, to
make  the  deduction  from  the  price  to  be  paid  to  the  growers.  This  would  significantly
simplify administration of the measure, notably on the verification side.

The  requirement  of  payment  of  the  aid  via  producer  groups  would  remain  inviolable.  This
would be quite sufficient to  guarantee the  grower's ongoing interest in being a member of a
group.

Certification  has  been  a  feature  of  the  CMO  since  it  was  launched  in  1971.  Hop  quality
improvement  is  one  of  the  CMO  aims  designed  to  ensure  respect  for  minimum  quality
standards.

The  certification  procedure  gives  a  guarantee  of  the  quality  of  the  products  marketed  and
contributes to market transparency. It is important to the grower since the price obtained on
the market depends on the quality and is also of great interest to the industrial user.

The special measures have indisputably had a role to play in the face of the need to

– 

– 

cope with the volatility of market demand

provide ongoing structural adjustment of production to market requirements.

Giving the same aid rate as for actual production has allowed part of the grower's shortfall and
conversion costs to be covered.

The  sole  reason  for  the  grubbing-up  measure  was  a  vital  need  for  structural  adjustment  of
production to demand on two counts: quantity  and  varietal  range.  This  unavoidable  need  to
seek balance is undoubtedly the reason why in  some Member  States  additional  grubbing-up
has occurred without support under this special measure.

The question whether there would have been the same volume of movement out of the sector
without  the  measure  is  certainly  relevant.  The  impression  is  that  conversion  to  e.g.  arable
crops  has  been  possible  because  the  hopgrower  has  with  the  grubbing-up  compensation
received a slightly higher degree of support than that provided by the direct aids received for
arable crops.

The  grower's  major  problem  over  conversion  is  to  find  an  alternative  offering  comparable
utilisation opportunities. Conversion to arable crops is attractive since it does not require big
investment or pose technical difficulties but it entails a marked  scaling down in intensity of
utilisation and hence in income.

Resting has been used more locally and more sporadically. It has nonetheless been genuinely
useful in resolving short-term market disposal difficulties owing to its selective impact on the
supply  side.  But  its  attraction  to  growers  has  been  limited  since  temporary  abandonment  of
production involves maintaining the hop field and raises the problem of the substitute use and
the market income reduction.

15

The two special  measures (each with its own  purpose)  have  in  combination  provided  an
effective response to the need for balance in the sector.

Are  they  still  relevant  as  at  presently  defined?  The  answer  is  probably  that  in  their  present
form  they  are  obsolete  but  could  be  relaunched  on  a  different  basis  better  geared  to  the
sector's future requirements.

6.

CONCLUSIONS

The hop market is oriented above all to the needs of the brewing industry, which is reducing
its  requirements.  This  dominant  trend  of  the  past  decade  also  dominates  the  immediate
outlook and will probably be a constant in the future.

Producers,  heavily  dependent on returns from  the  market, have  no  alternative  but  to  adjust
and continually seek new market equilibria.

The common market organisation has played a role consistent with market dynamics. The
production aid has been set at a level well geared to the principal aim of supporting producers
without creating a situation of dependence on the aid.

The  special  measures  have  facilitated  both  the  short-term  adjustment  (through  resting)  and
the  structural  adjustment  (through  grubbing-up)  required  for  rebalancing  of  supply  and
demand.

The  producer  groups  have  played  an  important  role  in  marketing  and  orientation  of
production.

Certification and quality standards have allowed the high quality of Community hops to be
maintained and permitted constant verification of the products put on the Community market.

Having  a  common  organisation  of  the  hop  market  becomes  of  even  greater  interest  in  the
context of enlargement of the Union: the sector will be bigger in terms of both production and
world trade.

Against the background of declining market demand the overall assessment on application of
the regulatory provisions for the hop sector and on operation of the market is positive.

The  question  that  arises  is  essentially  how  to  enable  the  market  organisation  to  cope
adequately with the projected medium and long-term situation.

The future system must meet three crucial requirements.

1.

Maintain the viability of production

Hopgrowing  must  continue  to  be  viable  on  two  counts;  production  quality  and
critical marketing volume. For success on both counts we need to retain:

a)

b)

the  product  certification  provisions,  which  are  a  benchmark  for  both  the
Community and the world markets;

the  central  role  of  the  producer  groups  in  marketing  and  orientation  of
production.  This  does  not  rule  out  some  flexibility  in  accommodation  of
producer group members who wish to sell some of their production themselves.

16

2.

Ensure economic conditions favourable to production

The  present  economic  position  of  hopgrowing,  in  particular  the  profitability  of
the  crop,  should  be  maintained  in  order  to  ensure  its  financial  interest  to  growers.
This  second  requirement  is  also  of  great  importance  in  the  context  of  sustainable
rural development, in particular for upkeep of the countryside and maintaining jobs.
Thus  it  will  be  necessary  to  ensure  that  hopgrowing  has  medium  and  long-term
prospects  by  safeguarding  the  stability  of  present  returns  by  means  of  an  aid
equivalent to the present aid and more efficient and direct transfer of the support.
This  will  encourage  growers  to  maintain  investment  in  hop  fields  and  to  pursue
varietal conversion.

3.

Accommodate the market trend

Alternatives  for  producers  must  be  available  as  they  also  are  of  importance  for
responding to short-term and structural market crises. The grower must be able both
to halt production temporarily and to quit it altogether to use the land for other types
of production.

The future arrangements should integrate these various components into a system that as far
as growers are concerned is simple, flexible and sustainable.

1.

Integration of hop production aid into the single payment system

Integration  of  the  production  aid  into  the  single  payment  system  introduced  by  the
CAP  reform  would  allow  the  objectives  indicated  above  to  be  attained.  Total
decoupling  of  the  aid  guarantees  stable  support  to  the  grower.  Were  the  market
situation  to  deteriorate  for  either  structural  or  short-term  reasons  he  would  be  able
freely to decide to halt production temporarily or grub up his hop fields and change
to other crops.

Member States would however have the option of maintaining a coupled aid up to
a  maximum  of  25%  of  the  production  aid  in  order  to  enable  them  to  cater  for
particular production conditions or specific features of a more regional character. To
encourage growers to organise Member States could decide to make part or all of the
coupled aid conditional on membership of a producer group.

2.

Modification of present CMO

The  rules  on  certification  and  trade  links  with  other  countries  would  be  retained.
Provisions on the role of producer groups should be included but in simplified form.

17

ANNEX I

HISTORY OF THE CMO (1971 – 1997)

1.

FIRST 20 YEARS

Common  organisation  of  the  hop  sector  market  commenced  in  1971  in  order  to  improve
product quality and guarantee an equitable standard of living to growers.

The primary  features  of  the  basic  Regulation,  which  were  then  detailed  in  separate  Council
and  Commission  Regulations,  were  the  production  aid  and  aid  for  varietal  conversion,  the
certification procedure, producer groups and the provisions on external trade.

1.1

Production aid

Each  year the Council  set  a  direct  aid  per  hectare  differentiated  by  variety  group:  aromatic,
bitter, other. The rate was set with reference to the market situation, projected trends, prices
on the external markets and costs. It was paid in the year following that of the harvest.

1.2.

Varietal conversion aid

To  encourage  growing  of  the  varieties  most  in  line  with  market  requirements  a  varietal
conversion  aid  was  introduced  in  1987.  This  special  aid9  was  ECU 2 500/ha  and  it  was
restricted  to  a  maximum  area  of  1 000 ha  per  Member State.  Its  period  of  availability  was
extended to the end of 1996.

1.3.

Certification procedure

Right  from  the  beginning  the  CMO  incorporated  a  certification  procedure  for  quality
purposes. Certification gave proof that all hops marketed met minimum quality standards.

1.4.

Producer groups

These  played  a  central  role  in  hop  marketing.  A  start-up  aid  for  new  producer  groups  was
available for a maximum period of ten years (until August 1981). It was jointly financed from
national  budget  resources.  When  Spain  and  Portugal  acceded  the  aid  was  available  for
five years,  and  likewise  for  the  east  German  Länder  and  for  Austria.  This  support  was
available up to 31 December 1999.

1.5.

External trade

Ad valorem customs tariff duties are levied on imports. Safeguard measures can be adopted if
on account of imports or exports the Community market is seriously disturbed. There are no
provisions on exports.

9

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2997/87 of 22 September 1987 (OJ L 284, 7.10.1987, p. 20). Regulation
last amended by Regulation (EC) No 423/95 (OJ L 45, 1.3.1995, p. 1).

18

                                                
2.

ADJUSTMENTS MADE IN 1992

One  of  the  recognition  requirements  for  producer  groups  was  that  they  marketed  all  the
production of their members.

It turned out in reality that a large proportion of producers had difficulty in conforming with
this  provision.  To  avoid  the  need  to  go  through  recognition  withdrawal  procedures  for  the
groups  in  default  the  provisions  were  made  more  flexible  in  1992  but  with  penalisation  by
progressive reduction of the aid.

Thus  the  basic  Regulation  as  amended  in  199210  stipulated  that  if  the  aid  was  granted  to  a
recognised  producer  group  that  did  not  market  all  of  its  members'  production  it  was  to  be
reduced by 4% for the 1992 crop, 8% for 1993, 12% for 1994, 15% for 1995 and 15% for
1996.  Producer  groups  had  to  be  marketing  all  of  their  members'  production  by
1 January 1997 at the latest.

The  temporary  provisions  required  that  at  least  15%  of  the  aid  granted  be  used  for  market
stabilisation action and for schemes for adjustment to market requirements and improvement
of production.

10

Regulation (EEC) No 3124/92 (OJ L 313, 30.10.1992, p. 1).

19

                                                
ANNEX II

TECHNICAL DATA ON HOPS

1.

Product description

Botanically  the  hop  (Humulus  lupulus)  belongs  to  the  same  family  as  hemp,  i.e.
Cannabinaceae,  and  to  the  order  Urticaceae.  It  is  a  dioecious  plant,  i.e.  each  plant  carries
only female or only male flowers. Only the female plants form fruits, known as cones. These
contain  lupulin,  a  yellow  substance  easily  seen  when  a  ripe  cone  is  crushed  between  the
fingers.

The root system remains functional for very many years (generally around 20) and the part of
the plant above the ground is cut each  year at cropping time.  It is  a  climbing plant  that  can
reach 7 metres hence needs a support structure (poles, wire, trellis). Dwarf varieties (reaching
around 2.5 m) have also been developed in recent years.

It has certain climatic and soil requirements, hence is generally grown between the 35th and
55th degrees of latitude of the northern and southern hemispheres.

The quality of the fresh hop deteriorates rapidly through oxidation and it can lose up to 30%
of its power of imparting bitterness in the 6 months following cropping. For that reason it is
immediately dried after cropping and either compressed and baled or processed into pellets or
hop extract. As the latter type of product is easier to store and handle  given  its  low  volume
and is qualitatively very stable, more and more brewers are opting for it.

2.

Hop varieties

These are in commercial practice divided into three groups:

– 

– 

– 

aromatic (low average alpha acid content),

bitter (high, sometimes very high, average alpha acid content),

other varieties including experimental varieties; these account for only 0.25% of the
Community hop area.

At present some 25 aromatic and 18 bitter varieties are listed in the Union. The new varieties
are the outcome of years of research and selection. It takes more than twelve years to develop
a new variety; a further three years to reach full production gives a total of 15.

Selection  is  targeted  at  yield  per  hectare  (affecting  the  grower's  income),  improved  disease
resistance  (contributing  to  high  yield  and  lowering  production  costs)  -  for  new  plantings
growers  are  increasingly  using  virus-free  plants  -  technical  features  (e.g.  time  of  ripening,
some  varieties  being  early,  some  being  late,  so  allowing  cropping  to  be  staggered),  good
growth  qualities  (climbing  ability,  ease  of  training)  and  content  of  aromatic  and  bitter
substances.

20

3.

Utilisation

Hops  are  used  principally  for  beer  production  and  secondarily  for  production  of  soaps,
shampoos and herbal teas of the calming type and to fill pillows.
In discussing hop use in beer the most important terms are alpha acid (a bitter component of
lupulin)  and  hopping  rate  (amount  of  alpha  used  per  hectolitre  of  beer).  Varietal
characteristics  are  also  very  important  for  production  of  beers  with  particular  tastes  and
aromas.

Although hops are important for conferring bitterness and flavour and for preservation of the
beer, very small quantities are required: between 40 and 200 grams of hops per hectolitre of
beer, depending on the alpha content of the hops (up to 14% for super alpha varieties) and the
hopping rate chosen.

Technical progress means that hopping rates are falling year on year: the figure calculated for
2002  is  5.3 grams  of  alpha  per  hectolitre.  For  world  beer  production  estimated  at
1 455 million hectolitres in 2003 around 7 566 tonnes of alpha acid is therefore required. Beer
consumption is rising slightly each year, the trend being particularly marked in Asia and Latin
America. In Western Europe it is falling slightly.

Consumer taste is moving to decreasingly bitter beers requiring ever less hops. It is interesting
to  note  that  hops  account  for  about  0.3%  of  beer  production  costs,  taxes  excluded  (source:
HOPS USA, June 2003).

21

ANNEX III

STATISTICAL TABLES

CONTENTS

page

Table 1 A – Hop areas in the European Community and in the rest of the world (1993-2002) .......................23

Table 1 B – Hop production in the European Community and in the rest of the world (1993-2002). .............24

Table 1 C – Alpha production in the European Community and in the rest of the world (1993-2002)............25

Table 1 D – Alpha yields in the European Community and in the rest of the world (1993-2002). ..................26

Table 2 – Structure of production in different hop regions of production (1997-2002)...................................27

Table 3 – Changes in returns and production costs in Bavaria (1997-2000)....................................................28

Table 4 – Changes in varieties (1997-2002).....................................................................................................29

Table 5 – Hops average contract and spot market prices (1993-2002).............................................................30

Table 6 – Evolution of hops production & unsold quantities (1990-2002) ......................................................31

Table 7 – Development of EU hops imports (1993-2002) ...............................................................................32

Table 8 – Development of EU hops exports (1993-2002)................................................................................33

Table 9 – Special temporary measures (STM) 1997-2003. ..............................................................................34

Table 10 – EU hops consumption (1993-2002)…............................................................................................35

22

TABLE  1 A

Hop Areas in the European Community and in the Rest of the World

Evolution 1993-2002

Area under hops (ha)

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

95-97/00-02 95-97/00-02

change 

% change

EC - Total

28.885

27.648

27.499

27.324

26.785

24.371

22.686

22.709

23.019

22.151

-4.576

Belgium
Germany
Spain
France
Ireland
Austria
Portugal
United Kingdom

Candidate Countries - 
Total

Czech Rep.
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia

409
23.015
1.142
670
13
211
96
3.329

384
21.930
1.156
670
13
238
100
3.157

374
21.885
1.102
670
8
244
121
3.095

341
21.813
930
710
7
247
128
3.148

305
21.381
883
774
7
248
123
3.064

264
19.683
814
799
7
250
104
2.450

255
18.299
808
814
7
225
64
2.214

255
18.598
822
815
2
216
42
1.959

251
19.020
815
816
2
220
37
1.858

232
18.352
670
816
2
217
37
1.825

-94
-3.036
-203
98
-5
-29
-85
-1.222

16.441

16.161

19.941

15.219

12.481

10.160

10.574

10.421

10.482

10.331

-5.469

10.400
2.391
1.200
2450

10.200
2.341
1.200
2420

10.070
6.401
1.100
2370

9.355
2.500
1.000
2364

7.036
2.480
800
2.165

5.697
2.080
450
1.933

5.991
2.200
450
1.933

6.095
2.200
350
1.776

6.075
2.250
350
1.807

5.968
2.197
350
1.816

-2.774
-1.578
-617
-500

Other countries   -  Total

45.795

42.977

38.693

34.424

31.024

25.581

24.592

25.892

25.004

23.518

-9.909

Australia
Bulgaria
China
New Zealand
Russia
South-Africia
U.S.A.
Ukraine
Yugoslavia
Other Countries

1.178
695
8.000
320
3.600
730
17.442
6.580
556
6.905

1.178
685
8.500
345
3.500
720
17.174
5.363
576
4.936

1.073
625
7.050
355
3.500
640
17.479
5.033
600
2.338

1.017
505
6.600
355
2.788
656
17.871
3.545
584
503

1.053
385
4.392
354
1.697
651
17.524
1.900
584
2.484

646
250
4.276
349
1.330
601
14.829
1.200
584
1.516

842
300
4.385
360
1.640
491
13.901
1.334
584
755

813
350
4.708
381
1.587
475
14.744
1.572
461
801

782
380
4.813
394
1.100
500
14.536
1.428
500
571

862
239
5.642
406
862
500
11.776
1.809
493
929

-229
-182
-960
39
-1.479
-157
-3.939
-1.890
-105

n/a

n/a

World total

91.121

86.786

86.133

76.967

70.290

60.112

57.852

59.022

58.505

56.000

-19.954

-26%

Source: Elaboration by DG Agri., based on MS communications, CICH, Hop Growers of America, Barth report

23

-17%

-28%
-14%
-21%
14%
-71%
-12%
-69%
-39%

-34%

-31%
-42%
-64%
-22%

-29%

-22%
-36%
-16%
11%
-56%
-24%
-22%
-54%
-18%

TABLE  1 B

Hop Production in the European Community and in the Rest of the World

Evolution 1993-2002

Cone production (Tonnes)

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

95-97/00-02 95-97/00-02

change 

%  change

EC - Total

52.036

37.053

42.004

47.578

41.873

37.795

34.620

35.909

37.562

38.380

-6.535

-15%

Belgium
Germany
Spain
France
Ireland
Austria
Portugal
United Kingdom

Candidate Countries - 
Total

Czech Rep.
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia

Other countries     -   
Total

Australia
Bulgaria
China
New Zealand
Russia
South-Africia
U.S.A.
Ukraine
Yugoslavia
Other Countries

585
42.428
2.093
1.071
19
341
39
5.460

562
28.434
2.068
1.105
17
331
97
4.440

603
34.054
1.692
1.104
10
336
127
4.078

584
38.704
1.184
1.420
8
339
158
5.181

550
34.052
1.158
1.149
9
379
102
4.476

510
30.859
1.436
1.269
10
385
56
3.271

432
27.912
1.569
1.317
8
316
59
3.007

481
29.298
1.413
1.683
4
289
42
2.700

416
31.576
1.396
1.212
2
347
53
2.559

434
32.271
1.220
1.550
3
301
57
2.545

-135
-4.555
-2
258
-6
-39
-78
-1.977

-23%
-13%
0%
21%
-67%
-11%
-61%
-43%

16.925

15.820

18.023

17.897

15.037

10.433

12.664

9.440

11.071

10.971

-6.491

-38%

9.603
2.872
940
3.510

9.220
2.200
900
3.500

9.913
3.265
1.035
3.810

10.126
3.400
825
3.546

7.412
3.175
800
3.650

4.930
2.100
400
3.003

6.454
2.650
400
3.160

4.865
2.550
220
1.806

6.621
2.200
300
1.950

6.442
2.127
302
2.100

-3.174
-988
-613
-1.717

-35%
-30%
-69%
-47%

68.457

68.450

68.094

61.990

55.282

46.383

48.166

51.263

50.509

46.271

-12.441

-20%

3.132
595
13.500
630
3.650
1.320
34.538
4.000
841
6.592

3.132
595
13.750
766
3.500
1.330
32.845
3.300
704
8.529

2.549
506
17.000
756
2.250
1.210
35.767
3.784
762
3.509

2.924
415
16.000
833
2.483
1.008
34.006
1.454
628
2.240

2.545
312
11.746
769
847
985
33.961
740
595
2.781

1.557
200
12.057
644
624
955
27.011
625
600
2.110

2.238
305
11.300
741
1.052
821
29.747
390
600
973

2.116
220
13.909
831
824
882
30.653
688
361
782

2.181
306
13.511
725
460
775
30.315
739
750
748

2.384
303
13.389
884
440
616
26.461
746
616
432

-446
-135
-1.313
27
-1.286
-310
-5.435
-1.269
-86
-2.189

-17%
-33%
-9%
3%
-69%
-29%
-16%
-64%
-13%
-77%

World total

137.417

121.323

128.121

127.465

112.192

94.610

95.450

96.612

99.143

95.622

-25.467

-21%

Source: Elaboration by DG Agri., based on MS communications, CICH, Hop Growers of America, Barth report

24

TABLE  1C

Alpha Production in the European Community and in the Rest of the World

Evolution 1993-2002

 Alpha production (tonnes)

1993

1994 *

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

95-97/00-02 95-97/00-02

change 

% change

EC - Total

3.369

1.696

2.419

3.631

3.663

2.854

2.554

3.181

3.213

3.466

Belgium
Germany
Spain
France
Ireland
Austria
Portugal
United Kingdom

Candidate Countries - 
Total

Czech Rep.
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia

Other countries     -   
Total

Australia
Bulgaria
China
New Zealand
Russia
South-Africia
U.S.A.
Ukraine
Yugoslavia
Other Countries

53
2.597
183
31
2
25
4
474

41
1.082
165
28
1
17
11
351

48
1.814
140
27
1
22
12
355

54
2.945
88
36
1
23
16
468

54
3.025
120
42
1
29
12
380

729

527

714

854

750

346
159
33
191

240
72
23
192

317
152
31
214

405
207
33
209

289
203
20
238

50
2.299
154
40
1
28
6
276

489

189
128
14
158

35
2.074
161
25
1
21
6
231

597

226
146
15
210

51
2.666
150
63
1
21
4
225

505

188
171
8
138

39
2.726
153
30
1
24
5
235

617

269
183
10
155

50
2.967
137
44
0
20
5
243

459

217
107
10
126

5.024

5.626

5.451

4.910

4.370

3.902

4.139

4.334

4.918

4.886

309
36

84

n/a

n/a
n/a

3.523
136
44

309
36
825
98
123
141
3.532
255
30

262
35
935
99
81
123
3.351
117
30

260
30
880
105
224
102
3.355
65
26

277
22
705
100
32
102
3.335
66
26

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

152
14
784
80
27
92
2.912
57
27

n/a

246
26
678
90
47
88
2.980
36
27

n/a

256
23
839
106
34
93
3.290
34
22

n/a

299
28
813
90
22
87
3.467
56
51

n/a

317
29
862
95
21
118
3.140
27
35

n/a

49

-5
192
31
11
0
-3
-9
-167

-246

-112
-34
-19
-81

-198

24
-2
-2
-4
-87
-10
-48
-44
9

2%

-10%
7%
26%
30%
-23%
-13%
-64%
-42%

-32%

-33%
-18%
-67%
-37%

-4%

9%
-8%
0%
-4%
-77%
-9%
-1%
-53%
32%

n/a

n/a

World total

9.097

7.849

8.584

9.395

8.783

7.245

7.290

8.020

8.748

8.811

-394

-4%

*  1994: particular climate conditions (draught) in Germany and Central Europe
Source: Elaboration by DG Agri., based on MS communications, CICH, Hop Growers of America, Barth report

25

TABLE  1 D

Alpha Yields in the European Community and in the Rest of the World

Evolution 1993-2002

 Alpha yields/ha (Kg)

EC - Total

Belgium
Germany
Spain
France
Ireland
Austria
Portugal
United Kingdom

Candidate Countries - 
Total

Czech Rep.
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia

Other countries     -   
Total

Australia
Bulgaria
China
New Zealand
Russia
South-Africia
U.S.A.
Ukraine
Yugoslavia
Other Countries

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

95-97/00-02 95-97/00-02

change 

%  change

117

130
113
160
46
154
118
42
142

44

33
66
28
78

61

107
49
143
42
77
71
110
111

33

24
31
19
79

88

128
83
127
40
125
90
99
115

36

31
24
28
90

133

158
135
95
51
143
93
125
149

56

43
83
33
88

137

177
141
136
54
143
117
98
124

60

41
82
25
110

109

131

141

143

141

n/a

n/a
n/a

262
52

263

202
21
79

262
53
97
284
35
196
206
48
52

244
56
133
279
23
192
192
23
50

256
59
133
296
80
155
188
18
45

263
57
161
282
19
157
190
35
45

117

189
117
189
50
143
112
58
113

48

33
62
31
82

153

235
56
183
229
20
153
196
48
46

113

137
113
199
31
143
93
94
104

56

38
66
33
109

168

292
87
155
250
29
179
214
27
46

140

200
143
182
77
500
97
95
115

48

31
78
23
78

167

315
66
178
278
21
196
223
22
48

140

155
143
188
37
500
109
135
126

59

44
81
29
86

197

382
74
169
228
20
174
239
39
102

156

215
162
204
54
134
90
143
133

44

36
48
29
69

208

368
121
153
234
24
235
267
15
71

26

35
30
72
8
241
-1
17
-4

0

-1
6
-2
-19

49

101
29
24
-39
-19
34
53
0
27

22%

23%
25%
61%
16%
176%
-1%
16%
-3%

0%

-4%
10%
-7%
-19%

35%

40%
51%
17%
-14%
-47%
20%
28%
-1%
59%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

World total

100

90

100

122

125

121

126

136

150

157

32

28%

Source: Elaboration by DG Agri., based on MS communications, CICH, Hop Growers of America, Barth report

26

TABLE 2
  HOPS: Structure of production in different hop regions of production (1997-2002)

Country Hop production areas

Belgium

Germany

Spain

France

Ireland

Austria

Portugal

U.K.

EU

Oost-Vlaanderen, Hainaut
West-Vlaanderen, Vlaams-Br.

Tettnang, Baden
Hallertau, Spalt, Hersbruck
"Elbe-Saale"
Rheinpfalz, Bitburg

Castilla y León
La Rioja

Nord
Alsace

Kilkenny

Niederösterreich
Steiermark
Oberösterreich

Braga, Bragança

Kent
Hereford and Worcestershire

Number of
producer
groups
1997
4

Number of
producer
groups
2002
2

5

2

2

2

1

5

2

2

2

2

1

4

Number

Number

June 2003

Average
area per

Average
area per

of holdings of holdings % variation holding (ha) holding (ha) % variation
1997/2002
-1%

1997/2002
-23%

2002
4,73

1997
64

2002
49

1997
4,80

2.790

1.943

-30%

7,70

9,45

23%

829

502

-39%

1,10

1,33

21%

131

109

-17%

5,90

7,49

27%

2

81

32

194

1

73

12

157

-50%

-10%

-63%

-19%

3,50

3,10

2,00

2,97

3,80

3,08

15,80

11,62

-43%

-4%

-19%

-26%

21

15

4.123

2.846

-31%

6,50

7,78

20%

Source: Elaboration by DGAGRI based on Member States communications

27

TABLE  3

Hops - changes in returns and production costs
in Bavaria (1997 - 2000)

Holdings specialising in hops

This Table relates to a limited number of Bavarian holdings with at least 40% of output from hops *

June 2003

EUR

(current prices)

Number of holdings examined

Degree of specialisation in hops

Area of holding (ha)

Area under hops (ha)

Total labour force (in labour units)

    of which "family" labour

Hop-growing (per hectare)

Total costs**

Returns (excl. aid)

Margin per hectare

Margin per holding - hops

Margin per labour unit

1997

1998

1999

2000

1998-2000

97-99/98-00

Average

% change

24

65%

22,3

10,3

2,40

1,62

4.308

5.045

738

7.573

3.155

28

65%

21,3

9,1

2,41

1,75

4.402

5.061

659

6.011

2.494

14

70%

20,9

9,9

2,20

1,38

4.898

5.170

271

2.684

1.220

15

77%

19,7

10,1

2,24

1,44

5.115

6.379

1.264

12.762

5.697

19

71%

20,6

9,7

2,28

1,52

4.805

5.537

731

7.152

3.137

-14%

6%

-4%

-1%

-2%

-4%

6%

9%

32%

32%

37%

 *  The degree of specialisation is calculated on the basis of the share of returns for each crop grown on the holding;
     the costs for each crop are calculated on the same basis.
 ** there has in fact been very little investment in the past few years.

Sources: Elaborated by DGAGRI based on FADN farm accountancy data, no data available from 2001

28

TABLE 4

Hops: changes in varieties 1997-2002 

Aromatic hops

AREA HARVESTED (HA)

AVERAGE PRICE per tonne (EUR)

June 2003

1997

2002

 change
1997/02

%  
 change

1997

2002

 change
1997/02

%
change

TOTAL

AROMATIC
VARIETIES

EU 15

16.183

12.260

-3.923

B

D
Fr
A
UK

90

13.311
708
247
1.827

34

10.169
771
210
1.076

-56

-3.142
63
-37
-751

-24%

-62%

-24%
9%
-15%
-41%

3.605

3.423

3.195
4.961
4.969
7.035

3.809

3.780

3.370
5.502
4.553
6.026

204

357

175
541
-416
-1.009

6%

10%

5%
11%
-8%
-14%

Bitter hops

AREA HARVESTED (HA)

AVERAGE PRICE per tonne (EUR)

1997

2002

 change
1997/02

%  
 change

1997

2002

 change
1997/02

%
change

TOTAL
BITTER
VARIETIES

EU 15
B
D
ES
FR
IRL
A
P
UK

9.984
214
7.454
883
66
7
1
123
1.236

9.835
197
8.143
670
46
2
7
37
733

-149
-17
689
-213
-20
-5
6
-86
-503

-1%
-8%
9%
-24%
-31%
-67%
554%
-70%
-41%

2.850
1.261
2.644
2.860
3.241
7.680
4.780
1.860
5.071

3.402
2.107
3.462
2.953
3.004
6.690
5.200
780
3.924

552
846
818
93
-237
-990
420
-1.080
-1.147

19%
67%
31%
3%
-7%
-13%
9%
-58%
-23%

Other varieties

AREA HARVESTED (HA)

AVERAGE PRICE per tonne (EUR)

TOTAL
OTHER
VARIETIES

EU 15

B
D
A
UK

310

0
308
0
2

56

0
40
0
15

-254

0
-268
0
13

-82%

0%
-87%
0%
663%

3.224

1.460
3.224
4.880
4.320

3.167

3.470
3.410

-57

2.010
186

-2%

138%
6%

2.991

-1.329

-31%

Source: Elaborat ed by DGAGRI based on Member St ates communications

29

TABLE 5

Hops average contract and
spot market prices 1993-2002

Sales under contracts

Average prices

 Aromatic varieties

   Bitter varieties

June 2003

Under

Under

contract

contract

Spot

Market

Under

contract

Spot

Market

Under

contract

Spot 

market

      Average prices

       Average prices

Total 

EC

Production

Tonnes

Under

contract

Tonnes 

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

51.695

37.038

42.004

47.303

41.873

37.795

34.620

35.907

37.562

38.380

31.982

29.742

34.293

32.897

29.986

27.510

25.825

24.921

23.639

23.268

%

62%

80%

82%

70%

72%

73%

75%

69%

63%

61%

*  Not including unsold quantities

Source: Elaborated by DGAGRI based on Member States communications

EUR/Tonne

EUR/Tonne

EUR/Tonne

1.311

2.460

2.800

1.960

1.280

1.840

3.120

5.400

3.445

2.908

3.491

3.540

4.200

4.100

4.260

4.220

4.200

3.957

3.902

3.861

1.416

2.580

3.140

1.940

1.240

1.620

2.900

4.899

2.996

3.001

2.682

2.780

3.580

3.540

3.660

3.480

3.260

3.295

3.427

3.429

1.206

2.260

2.500

1.960

1.320

2.060

3.400

5.971

3.745

2.731

3.166

3.220

3.940

3.880

4.040

3.940

3.820

3.682

3.692

3.667

30

Table 6:

Evolution of hops production & unsold quantities

June 2003

Harvest 
year

Production 
Tonnes

Unsold production
Tonnes

%

Unsold Aromatic
% 

Tonnes

Unsold Bitter
%

Tonnes

EU

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

35.750

45.539

36.367

51.695

37.038

42.004

47.303

41.873

37.795

34.620

35.907

37.562

38.380

17

89

135

170

148

221

1.345

1.036

260

135

400

6.882

13.853

0,0%

0,2%

0,4%

0,3%

0,4%

0,5%

2,8%

2,5%

0,7%

0,4%

1,1%

18,3%

36,1%

1

23

2

129

3

22

388

468

210

113

335

3.651

7.075

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,3%

0,0%

0,1%

0,8%

1,1%

0,6%

0,3%

0,9%

9,7%

18,4%

7

64

128

43

145

193

942

567

48

19

61

3.191

6.703

0,0%

0,1%

0,4%

0,1%

0,4%

0,5%

2,0%

1,4%

0,1%

0,1%

0,2%

8,5%

17,5%

Source: Elaborated by DGAGRI based on Member States communications

31

Table 7.  Development of EU Hops Imports

7.1. Imports : Quantity (tonnes - equivalent hop cones)

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

June 2003

%imp. 
2002

var. 
2002/  
1993

EXTRA-EU

18.122

19.158

21.828

18.754

14.882

14.356

12.325

11.539

11.532

11.164

100% -38%

Main countries

U.S.A.

Czech Republic

Australia

Slovenia

China

Poland

5.629

3.514

1.468

1.765

2.630

1.042

6.115

4.231

1.387

3.499

704

1.468

9.014

3.813

1.547

2.813

1.245

1.122

6.991

4.382

1.594

2.280

880

6.608

2.643

1.079

1.943

430

1.425

1.355

6.337

2.575

692

5.905

2.087

716

6.692

1.388

972

6.037

1.953

937

3.187

2.006

1.451

1.323

40

876

26

1.018

128

280

185

790

5.049

2.386

1.113

989

537

385

45%

21%

10%

9%

5%

3%

-10%

-32%

-24%

-44%

-80%

-63%

  Rest of world

2.074

1.754

2.274

1.202

824

649

567

628

307

705

6%

-66%

7.2. Imports : Value (x 1000 Euro)

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

%imp. 
2002

var. 
2002/  
1993

EXTRA-EU

76.618

78.995

82.863

71.664

55.762

49.354

42.635

48.718

58.189

50.100

100% -35%

Main countries

U.S.A.

28.411

28.936

35.530

29.038

27.176

27.593

22.946

31.816

39.182

25.455

Czech Republic

19.888

20.699

19.094

18.091

Australia

Slovenia

China

Poland

4.474

7.036

4.337

4.356

5.098

11.657

1.110

4.984

5.450

9.425

1.862

4.000

5.640

7.855

1.131

4.699

9.828

4.055

6.842

643

8.727

1.777

6.447

22

8.249

1.992

4.551

14

3.746

2.159

2.448

5.652

3.008

4.672

82

746

7.412

3.916

4.023

471

2.009

10.301

5.816

3.153

1.791

1.151

51%

21%

12%

6%

4%

2%

-10%

-48%

30%

-55%

-59%

-74%

  Rest of world

8.116

6.511

7.502

5.210

3.472

2.629

2.435

2.742

1.176

2.433

5%

-70%

7.3. Imports : Average value (Euro/tonne)

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

EXTRA-EU

4.228

4.123

3.796

3.821

3.747

3.438

3.459

4.222

5.046

4.488

Main countries

U.S.A.

Czech Republic

Australia

Slovenia

China

Poland

5.047

5.660

3.048

3.986

1.649

4.180

4.732

4.892

3.676

3.332

1.577

3.395

3.942

5.008

3.523

3.351

1.496

3.565

4.154

4.128

3.538

3.445

1.285

3.298

4.113

3.719

3.758

3.521

1.495

2.765

4.354

3.389

2.568

2.023

550

3.886

3.953

2.782

2.269

538

4.754

4.072

3.095

3.220

641

2.465

2.405

2.664

6.490

3.795

4.179

3.041

2.546

2.543

5.042

4.317

5.226

3.188

3.335

2.990

  Rest of world

3.913

3.712

3.299

4.334

4.214

4.051

4.295

4.366

3.831

3.451

Source: Eurostat  - Comext - May 2003

var. 
2002/  
1993

6%

0%

-24%

71%

-20%

102%

-28%

-12%

32

Table 8.  Development of EU Hops Exports

8.1. Exports : Quantity (tonnes - equivalent hop cones)

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

June 2003

%imp. 
2002

var. 
2002/  
1993

EXTRA-EU

20.370

23.478

22.536

21.903

21.491

23.988

23.586

22.471

20.974

21.751

100%

7%

Main countries

Russia

U.S.A.

Japan

Czech Republic

437

2.495

5.824

676

375

5.007

5.753

757

1.594

4.772

4.811

796

1.349

5.399

4.476

644

1.852

4.069

4.455

739

2.357

4.351

3.702

942

3.557

5.071

3.494

964

3.026

4.730

3.347

984

3.169

3.874

3.017

1.104

3.733

3.673

2.732

945

17% 754%

17%

13%

4%

47%

-53%

40%

  Rest of world

10.938

11.586

10.563

10.035

10.376

12.636

10.500

10.384

9.810

10.668

49%

-2%

8.2.  Exports : Value (x 1000 Euro)

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

%imp. 
2002

var. 
2002/  
1993

EXTRA-EU

128.671 146.501 145.317 137.949 120.804 104.661 110.781 121.534 129.636 115.647

100%

-10%

Main countries

Russia

U.S.A.

Japan

2.157

1.602

7.280

5.563

6.253

7.567

13.200

16.546

22.240

20.049

17% 829%

13.074

26.294

26.584

29.880

23.028

23.100

26.357

27.521

22.286

21.430

38.463

38.038

36.739

33.618

29.938

23.688

21.146

18.715

17.196

15.541

19%

13%

4%

64%

-60%

27%

Czech Republic

3.655

4.235

4.322

3.646

4.246

3.011

3.213

5.282

7.966

4.651

  Rest of world

71.322

76.332

70.392

65.242

57.339

47.295

46.865

53.470

59.948

53.976

47%

-24%

8.3. Exports : Average value (Euro/tonne)

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

EXTRA-EU

6.317

6.240

6.448

6.298

5.621

4.363

4.697

5.408

6.181

5.317

Main countries

Russia

U.S.A.

Japan

Czech Republic

4.936

5.240

6.604

5.407

4.272

5.251

6.612

5.594

4.567

5.571

7.636

5.430

4.124

5.534

7.511

5.661

3.376

5.659

6.720

5.746

3.210

5.309

6.399

3.196

3.711

5.198

6.052

3.333

5.468

5.818

5.592

5.368

7.018

5.753

5.700

7.216

5.371

5.834

5.689

4.922

  Rest of world

6.521

6.588

6.664

6.501

5.526

3.743

4.463

5.149

6.111

5.060

var. 
2002/  
1993

-16%

9%

11%

-14%

-9%

-22%

8.4. Balance Import and Export

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Average 
93-02

var. 
2002/  
1993

EU Balance

       (tonnes)

2.248

4.320

708

3.149

6.609

9.632

11.261

10.932

9.442

10.587

6.263

371%

       (value)

52.053

67.506

62.454

66.285

65.042

55.307

68.146

72.816

71.447

65.547

58.782

26%

with U.S.A.

       (tonnes)

       (value)

-3.134

-15.337

-1.108

-2.642

-4.242

-8.946

-1.592

842

-2.539

-4.148

-1.986

-4.493

-834

-1.962

-2.163

-1.376

-1.903

3.411

-4.295

-16.896

-4.025

-5.139

-56%

-74%

Source: Eurostat - May 2003

33

change in
planted areas
(Yearly)
outside STM

change in
planted areas
(cumulated)
outside STM

-219

-1.531

-160

+ 1.291

-750
-105

-3
-11
10
16
33
-3

-76
-1.262
95
1.336
-673
-45

2
-13
-2
1
0
-4

0
-4
-23
-18
-1
-40

-98
-250
-245
-44
37
-14

-69
-6
7
1
-141
-5

25
15
3
-1
-5
6

0
0
-5
0
0
0

-219

-1.750

-1.910

-619

-1.369
-1.474

-3
-14
-4
12
45
42

-76
-1.338
-1.243
93
-580
-625

2
-11
-13
-12
-12
-16

0
-4
-27
-45
-46
-86

-98
-348
-593
-637
-600
-614

-69
-75
-68
-67
-208
-213

25
40
43
42
37
43

0
0
-5
-5
-5
-5

country

year

Total EU15

Belgium

Germany

Austria

Portugal

United Kingdom

Spain* *

France* *

Ireland* *

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002
2003*
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003*
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003*
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003*
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003*
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003*
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003*
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002*
2003*
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003*

TABLE 9 
Special Temporary Measures (STM) 1997 - 2003
grubbed
areas
(Yearly)
with STM

grubbed
areas
(cumulated)
with STM

harvested
areas
(in hectares)

change in
harvested
areas

rested
areas

with STM

26.785

24.371

22.686

22.695

23.026

22.152
21.674
305
264
255
246
251
233
198
21.381
19.683
18.299
18.598
19.020
18.352
17.952
248
250
225
216
220
217
210
123
104
64
42
37
37
37
3.064
2.450
2.214
1.959
1.864
1.825
1.790
883
814
808
815
816
675
670
774
799
814
817
816
811
817
7
7
7
2
2
2
0

-2.414

-1.685

+ 9

+ 331

-874
-478

-41
-9
-9
5
-18
-35

-1.698
-1.384
299
422
-668
-400

2
-25
-9
4
-3
-7

-19
-40
-22
-5
0
0

-614
-236
-255
-95
-39
-35

-69
-6
7
1
-141
-5

25
15
3
-1
-5
6

0
0
-5
0
0
-2

802

776

539

289

473
345

27
7
14
11
56
34

569
587
384
208
356
300

0
4
6
5
1
3

15
17
4
4
0
-40

191
161
131
61
60
46

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
2

802

1.578

2.117

2.406

2.879
3.224

27
34
48
59
115
149

569
1.156
1.540
1.748
2.104
2.404

0
4
10
15
16
19

15
32
36
40
40

191
352
483
544
604
650

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
2

1.393

771

63

734

385
413

11
2
7
7
2
0

1.053
588
0
706
345
400

0
8
9
1
3
3

4
23
18
1
0
0

325
150
29
19
35
10

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

*  estimat ions for 2003
Source: Elaborated by DGAGRI based on Member States communications

* *  Spain, France, Ireland do not  apply special temporary measures

34

Table 10

EU Hops Consumption 1993-2002

10. Production/Imports/Exports (tonnes - equivalent hop cones): 

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

June 2003
?%    

Ø 1993-
1995

Ø 2000-
2002

1993-
1995/ 
2000-
2002

EU 15 Production

51.695

37.038

42.004

47.303

41.873

37.795

34.620

35.907

37.562

38.380

43.579

37.283

-14%

Import

18.122

19.158

21.828

18.754

14.882

14.356

12.325

11.539

11.532

11.164

19.703

11.412

-42%

Export

20.370

23.478

22.536

21.903

21.491

23.988

23.586

22.471

20.974

21.751

22.128

21.732

-2%

Total = 
"Usage"

49.447

32.718

41.296

44.154

35.264

28.163

23.359

24.975

28.120

27.793

41.154

26.963

-34%

Source: Elaborated by DGAGRI based on Member States communications and EUROSTAT

35