410 likes | 582 Views
Economic and Transitional Impact of Food Retail Investments: Evidence from the Czech Republic Liesbeth DRIES & Vlaho Kojakovic. WB-CEI-FAO Workshop on Agriculture, Agri-business and the Retail Sector in South-East Europe, Sarajevo, 24-26 May 2004. Introduction.
E N D
Economic and Transitional Impact of Food Retail Investments:Evidence from the Czech RepublicLiesbethDRIES & Vlaho Kojakovic WB-CEI-FAO Workshop on Agriculture, Agri-business and the Retail Sector in South-East Europe, Sarajevo, 24-26 May 2004
Introduction • Are CEEC experiencing a similar rapid retail transformation as observed in other developing regions since the start of transition?
Recent developments in other regions (L-Am; Asia; Africa) • Dramatic rise in market share of supermarkets and modern retail sector • Multinationalization • Inter-country as well as intra-country supermarket diffusion • Concentration • Important changes in procurementsystems
Rise of modern retail sector • Three phases: • Communist period: state owned retail and procurement system • Transition period: initial privatization and breakdown of highly concentrated system into separate units that soon start to merge and form small private chains. Very limited FDI inflows. • Globalization period: Extensive investments of foreign retail chains and rapid rise of modern retail sector • Transition and globalization period – difference between countries depends on reforms
Dynamic diffusion of FDI over CEE countries • Before global chains: retailers from neighbouring countries • First wave: Central Europe (CZ, PL, HU), Globalization period started second half 1990s; then Croatia: globalization period started 2000; then Russia: globalization period started 2001/2
Spread to secondary cities (and small towns) • Russian Federation: • Pyaterochka: Sint-Petersburg (1999) – Moscow (2001) – Regions (2002) • Perekrestok: Moscow (1995) – Moscow region (1999) • Sedmoi: Moscow (1994) – Moscow region (2003) • Spar: Moscow (2000) – Regions (2002/3) • Ramenka-Ramstore: Moscow (1997) – Moscow suburbs (2003) – regions (2003)
Consolidation - emerging • Expect acquisitions and mergers that will concentrate supermarket sectors. • ‘Weapons’ of competition: • Organizational change in procurement • Format diversification
Format Diversification • Russian Federation: • Perekrestok: SM(1995) – Discount (1998) – HM (2002) • Sedmoi: SM (1994) – HM (2003) • Spar: SM (2000) – HM (2002) • Metro: Cash & Carry (2001) – HM (2004)
What drove the “supermarket revolution” • Demand-side incentives: • Urbanization • Reduction of effective food prices (mass procurement & efficient merchandising) • Demand-side capacity: • Per capita income growth • Growing access to refrigerators, cars, ... • Supply-side: • Driven by mainly European retail investments following FDI liberalization & demand-side changes
The future: convergence? • CEE: Catching-up of lagging first wave and second wave countries
Change of procurement system – during transition • Dismantlement of the state-run and collectivized components of the retail procurement system • Private general-line wholesalers • Imports
Change of procurement system – globalization period • Initially: retailers buy from local wholesalers and importers • Shift to centralised procurement systems: Build distribution centra: • Czech Republic: Delvita (1995); Ahold (2001); Tesco (2003) • Russian Federation: Pyaterochka SPB (2002) & Moscow (2003); Metro (3DC in 2002); Ramenka (DC Moscow & regions)
Change of procurement system – globalization period • Shift toward cross-border systems: • Coordinate procurement over DCs in different countries of operation: • Ahold Central Europe • Ahold CEE Fresh • Wholesalers ‘follow’ retail chains over the borders • E.g. Ceroz (CZ) enters Slovakia in 1998
Change of procurement system – globalization period • Shift toward specialized/dedicated wholesalers (specialized in product category, dedicated to supermarkets): • First, offer services (packaging, quality control) • Second, from spot market to list of preferred suppliers to outgrower schemes • Third, JV retail chain-wholesale firm
Change of procurement system – globalization period • Shift toward preferred supplier systems to select producers meeting quality and safety standards and lower transaction costs • Shift toward private safety and quality standards • Differences between countries
Impact on farmers - evidence from the Czech Republic • Data: • Focus on FFV sector • Interviews with different actors in the food retail chain: food retailers, wholesalers, agricultural producers and producer marketing organisations. • Survey of 250 FFV growers, March-April 2004
The development of producer marketing organisations: PMO • Developments in Food Retail sector are main driving force behind organisation of farmers: • 4 out of 5 interviewed Producer Marketing Organisations for FFV indicate as main reason for their establishment: to gather sufficient quantity and product varieties to satisfy the requirements of big supermarket chains
Importance of PMO in FFV • Marketing of vegetables: • 5 PMO • 15% of total sales of vegetables • 85-90% sold to supermarkets • Marketing of fruits: • 3 PMO • 50% of total fruit sales • 60% sold to supermarkets
Potential benefits of PMO to growers • Bargaining power • Services • Extension service (55%) • Storage, sorting, packaging facilities (60%) • Access to information (73%) • Facilitated access to inputs through payment guarantee program with input suppliers • Preferred position to apply for bank loans (repayment certainty) • ...
BUT • Not all farmers may be able to become members of PMO: • ZN Fruit: new members are screened: quality is most important, SISPO label is required • CZ Fruit; Litozel: varieties/assortment of new members needs to fit requirements • Members with storage/sorting/packaging equipment preferred
Marketing of FFV • Supermarkets buy FFV from (Czech Republic): • 60% wholesalers • 5% direct from growers • 15% PMO • 20% Imports
Marketing of FFV • Grower survey: • Local market: 67% - relatively more FF • Industry: 50% - relatively more Ltd. • Wholesalers: 45% - relatively more Ltd. • Supermarkets direct: 8% - relatively more Ltd. • PMO 19% - relatively more coop/JSC • Other 6%
Contracts with WS / SM • 40% Ltd. have contract with SM/WS - other legal structures less than 30% • Types of contracts: • Preferred supplier • SM: quality; payment method; penalties; safety • WS: quantity & quality • Post-harvest • SM: quantity; quality; frequency of deliveries; price • WS: quantity; quality; frequency of deliveries; payment
Impact on Investments • A lot of investments – mainly with own resources • No supplier credit • Bank loan guarantees limited – mainly PMO not WS/SM • Growers supplying to PMO/WS invest more • Growers supplying local market invest less
Impact on Quality • Significant higher quality delivered to SM • Growth in high quality production 2000-2003 for growers supplying SM since 2000 • Decline in high quality production 2000-2003 for growers delivering to local market in 2000
Impact on Growth • No significant impact on growth in production for growers that supply to WS/SM/PMO
Concluding comments • Implications for policy-makers and international organizations are important, and the issues are complex • How to create a “win-win” situation ? • What role can governments play in this process ? • Which actions can international organizations take ?