Trending Now

Navigating the Long-Term Consequences of the Red Sea Crisis for…

New Articles

State Economies Most Dependent on Agriculture

agriculture agricultural foreign
Archives, Global Trade Daily, State Spotlight

State Economies Most Dependent on Agriculture

Leave a comment

The past few years have been challenging ones for the agriculture industry. The threat of global climate change has continued to produce warmer temperatures and more extreme weather events that threaten crops and livestock, and this summer, the U.S. is currently experiencing serious drought in some of its key agricultural regions in California, the upper Midwest, and the Southeast. Trade policies under the Trump Administration reduced agricultural exports and incomes while raising costs on imports of key equipment and supplies. The COVID-19 pandemic brought additional uncertainty to commodity markets and has continued to disrupt the supply chains that farmers rely on to sell their products.

These recent difficulties have made it harder than ever to prosper as a farmer, particularly on smaller-scale farms. But long-term trends suggest that agriculture’s role in the economy has been shifting for much longer. What has historically been one of America’s most important industries now has a starkly diminished role in terms of job creation and GDP.

Farm employment has steadily decreased in the postwar era—as far back as the BEA’s data goes—but really for more than a century. As more of America moved out of rural areas and into denser, more economically varied communities following the Industrial Revolution and the growth of manufacturing and other industries, fewer people remained working on farms. This trend has continued in the modern era even more rapidly as agricultural processes have become more efficient and economic opportunities in other sectors have grown.

Agricultural activities have also dropped as a share of GDP in recent decades. After reaching nearly 3.5% of GDP in the early 1970s, farming today represents 0.63% of the economy. One of the reasons for this decline is that farming’s economic value has simply been outstripped by growth in other sectors.

But the downward trends in agriculture as an employer and economic engine in the U.S. should not be taken as signs that the industry is going away. By the measure of total factor productivity—essentially a ratio of agricultural inputs like land, labor, capital, and materials to outputs of crops and livestock—farms today are far more productive than they have ever been, part of a long-running trend dating back to at least the late 1940s.

One of the main factors behind this growth in productivity has been technological innovation in the agricultural sector. Improved seeds and fertilizers, pesticides and other crop protection techniques, and more efficient tools for harvesting and processing agricultural products have all contributed to increased yields and productivity. Farms have also increasingly shifted toward monoculture, producing fewer types of crops or livestock, to achieve economies of scale.

While these shifts over time have moved the U.S. away from a heritage of small, independent farmers, agriculture remains big business and a leading industry in many states. Many of the U.S.’s rural states around the Great Plains region remain highly reliant on agriculture, as their abundant land, good soil, and climate provide favorable conditions for raising crops and livestock.

To identify the states most dependent on agriculture, researchers at Commodity.com used data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis to calculate the percentage of total state GDP accounted for by farms in each state. Farms include establishments engaged in crop and animal production mainly for food and fiber. Researchers also calculated the farm industry’s share of total employment, and reported that data alongside the total GDP from farming and total farm employment in each state.

Here are the state economies most dependent on agriculture.

State Rank      Farming share of GDP   Farming share of total employment   Total farming GDP  

Total farming employment
South Dakota   1 5.78% 5.07% $3,174,300,000 31,273
Nebraska   2 4.62% 4.07% $6,005,200,000 54,700
North Dakota   3 4.46% 4.85% $2,551,300,000 28,484
Iowa   4 4.30% 4.24% $8,374,200,000 88,874
Idaho   5 4.28% 3.93% $3,583,400,000 42,154
Montana   6 3.23% 4.30% $1,711,600,000 29,879
Kansas   7 2.55% 3.23% $4,501,000,000 62,910
Wyoming   8 1.66% 3.58% $671,800,000 14,781
New Mexico   9 1.28% 2.49% $1,347,600,000 28,135
Mississippi   10 1.27% 2.42% $1,478,000,000 39,132
Minnesota   11 1.27% 1.97% $4,880,500,000 75,401
Oklahoma   12 1.26% 3.27% $2,547,100,000 76,389
Wisconsin   13 1.25% 2.31% $4,358,500,000 86,560
Vermont   14 1.13% 2.11% $385,600,000 9,316
Kentucky   15 1.06% 3.21% $2,282,200,000 82,641
United States   – 0.63% 1.28% $136,080,000,000 2,601,000

 

For more information, a detailed methodology, and complete results, you can find the original report on Commodity.com’s website: https://commodity.com/blog/state-economies-agriculture/

supply chain
Archives, Global Logistics, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

Navigating the 12 Pitfalls of the Global Supply Chain

Leave a comment

With over 30+ years of international trade experience, I have witnessed numerous and repeated errors made by Sales, Purchasing, Logistics Managers, Supply Chain, and International Business Executives.

There are tremendous opportunities and benefits to be derived through global sourcing and foreign business development. Along with these opportunities are considerable challenges, obstacles, and pitfalls. In order to succeed in international business, management must mitigate these concerns through gaining knowledge and implementing processes and controls over import and export operations, including the development of robust training for all personnel.

The following section contains twelve steps companies can take to manage the solutions that will allow the navigation through these challenges and delivering success to the international operation.

These twelve steps create a pathway forward in a concise, straightforward methodology and time-tested process to ensure management accomplishes their desired corporate goals of profits, growth, and sustainability.

Avoid the following:

Step 1: “We have no personal liability”.

There is significant personal liability for individuals who operate in global supply chains.

U.S. Government enforcement agencies, such as but not limited to:

– Department of Justice

– Customs and Border Protection

– Departments of State, Commerce and Treasury

– Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

– United States Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration

All above are a few of the agencies that will prosecute both organizations and individuals who are seriously out of trade compliance with their import and export regulatory responsibilities.

While criminal prosecution is a rare occurrence … it does happen every day in the supply chain, somewhere in the world of international trade.

Trade Compliance Management in companies with an international footprint is a necessary evil that needs to be managed and integrated into the fabric of the organization’s culture and business model.

Step 2: “The FOB Term is Always a Safe Incoterm to Utilize”.

The FOB Incoterm has three deadly areas of concern:

-It is used in domestic trade

-It is a gray area in the loading process

-There can be ambiguity when the point in time responsibility and liability shift from the seller to the buyer (exporter to importer).

It is used in domestic trade

For domestic trade in the United States, the UCCP (Uniform Commercial Code of Practice) currently (though in contention) utilizes the FOB term as a “term of sale or purchase”, where there are two primary options FOB Origin and FOB Destination.

Within the UCCP, FOB is defined as:

Uniform Commercial Code › U.C.C. – ARTICLE 2 – SALES (2002) › PART 3. GENERAL OBLIGATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT

2-319. F.O.B. and F.A.S. Terms.

Unless otherwise agreed the term F.O.B. (which means “free on board”) at a named place, even though used only in connection with the stated price, is a delivery term under which:

(a) when the term is F.O.B. the place of shipment, the seller must at that place ship the goods in the manner provided in this Article (Section 2-504) and bear the expense and risk of putting them into the possession of the carrier; or

(b) when the term is F.O.B. the place of destination, the seller must at his own expense and risk transport the goods to that place and their tender delivery of them in the manner provided in this Article (Section 2-503);

(c) when under either (a) or (b) the term is also F.O.B. vessel, car, or another vehicle, the seller must in addition at his own expense and risk load the goods on board. If the term is F.O.B. vessel the buyer must name the vessel and in an appropriate case, the seller must comply with the provisions of this Article on the form of a bill of lading (Section 2-323).

The UCCP Term allows any mode of transit or conveyance.

Some sources claim that FOB stands for “Freight on Board”. This is not the case. “Freight On Board” is not mentioned in any version of Incoterms, and is not defined by the Uniform Commercial Code in the USA.[10] Further to that, it has been found in court that “Freight On Board” is not a recognized industry term.[11] The use of “Freight on Board” in contracts is therefore very likely to cause confusion. The correct term is “free onboard”.

Keep in mind that a huge amount, if not a clear majority of domestic commercial transactions, are sold or purchased on a FOB basis and moved by truck, rail, or air. This would be ok if the FOB Term was the UCCP intent and not intended utilization under Incoterms 2020.

There is a very clear line of confusion between the domestic and international “FOB” terms in selling and purchasing. It is only when it causes a problem when it is seen as an issue.

Free on Board, or FOB is an Incoterm, which means the seller is responsible for loading the purchased cargo onto the ship, and all costs associated with same. At the point, the goods are safely onboard the vessel, the risk transfers to the buyer, who assumes the responsibility of the remainder of the transport.

FOB is the most common agreement between an international buyer and seller when shipping cargo via sea. This Incoterm only applies to sea and inland waterway shipments.

The 2020 edition of Incoterms opened the door for domestic utilization of the FOB term. The FOB UCCP term varies greatly from the FOB Incoterm.

Under Incoterms 2020, the preferred term for domestic utilization, since that door was opened, is FCA (Free Carrier At).

It is a gray area in the loading process

Under Incoterms 2000 and prior, the FOB term transferred risk and cost from the seller to the buyer once the goods passed the ship’s rail.

This factor was changed in the 2010 edition of Incoterms and continues in the 2020 edition. The term now read “…passes when the goods are on board the vessel”.

However, “on board” is not clearly defined. Is that when the goods are placed on the deck, in the hold, not yet secured, secured, etc.?

We had a case in our office, where a U.S. exporter, sold a huge piece of equipment, (25 Tons, $11m in value) to a customer in Europe. It was going to be shipped via ocean, secured in a cargo hold under deck.

During the loading process, the goods were being lifted onto the vessel by a crane and longshoreman crew. In the handling, the equipment was laid down on the deck of the hold several times, while the longshoreman positioned the cargo.

In that repositioning process, the freight was damaged. The issue now became who is responsible, based upon the Incoterm of FOB Port Elizabeth – the seller or the buyer?

Were the goods actually “on board” when they were damaged? The maritime judicial system will eventually resolve that issue and court precedence will be established.

But today there is an ambiguity in defining “on board” in the FOB Incoterm. There are references to being “secured in place”, but it appears ambiguous.

Sellers and buyers need to address these specific concerns in the contract of sale and attempt to minimize the gray areas of liability, that may present themselves when using the FOB term.

There can be ambiguity when the point in time responsibility and liability shift from the seller to the buyer (exporter to importer).

This is the explanation of the FOB term from the Incoterms 2020 edition.

A2 (Delivery)

The seller delivers by placing the goods on board the vessel nominated or provided by the buyer on the agreed date, or within the agreed period as notified by the buyer, or if there is no such time notified then at the end of that period.

There is still a belief that the ship’s rail is the defining point, i.e.: before the notional vertical line above the rail is the seller’s cost and risk, and after is the buyer’s cost and risk. A court ruled that the delivery point was when the goods were on the deck but that then caused the question was the notional vertical line replaced with a notional horizontal one in line with the deck itself and what if the goods were being placed below deck? This ship’s rail concept was removed in the Incoterms® 2010 version. Typically, then, “on board” is taken to mean when the goods are safely on the deck or in the hold. If the cargo needs to be then further secured for transportation such as being lashed or separated with some material or spread evenly throughout the hold for bulk goods like grain the seller and buyer should agree in their contract what is needed and at whose cost and risk this is done.

B2 (Delivery)

The buyer’s obligation is to take delivery when the goods have been delivered as described in A2.

FOB A3 / B3: Transfer of Risk

A3 (Transfer of risk)

In all the rules the seller bears all risks of loss or damage to the goods until they have been delivered in accordance with A2 described above. The exception is loss or damage in circumstances described in B3 below, which varies depending on the buyer’s role in B2

B3 (Transfer of risk)

The buyer bears all risks of loss or damage to the goods once the seller has delivered them as described in A2.

If the buyer fails to inform the seller of where and when the vessel will be presented or if the vessel fails to arrive on time, or it fails to take the goods so that the seller cannot deliver, then the buyer bears the risk of loss or damage to the goods from the agreed date or at the end of the agreed period.

On an operational level, the seller delivered the goods to the terminal, carrier, or other agreed named place, and the goods were not loaded on board as anticipated for an array of reasons, such as but not limited to the carriers having vessel timing or loading issues and the seller appropriately notified the buyer than delivery has been made and risk of loss and damage has passed from the seller to the buyer.

The important aspect to note here is that the buyer expected to take delivery “on board” and now that did not occur as the buyer will take delivery and assume all risks at a point short of “on board”.

In general, Incoterms need to be understood in their entirety including the consequences associated with using the incorrect Incoterm or not understanding the specific responsibilities as the buyer or seller. Incoterms training is a must for all personnel engaged in global trade and more particularly those operating in Procurement, Sales, Operations, Finance, and Customer Service.

Companies involved in international trade using best practices will switch Incoterms 2020 rules in quotations, purchase orders, contracts, commercial invoices, and other commercial documentation when determining the level of responsibilities and costs they want to take on; dividing the responsibilities for risk transfer, costs, and responsibility for carrier selection between the buyer and the seller.

Step 3: Contracts Override Relationships

In international trade, relationships trump contracts. Relationships will drive a successful deal and a long tenure. I have always extolled “you can contract out risk”, but you can seriously minimize and mitigate risk by establishing favored relationships that allow the best opportunity for problem resolution and working out issues that will likely occur over time and trade.

Contracts are important to make the deal have legal standing, but it is foolish to believe that the contract eliminates any risk in the transaction. In fact, sometimes contracts can cause risk when a false sense of security is at hand.

Obtaining legal support is prudent but spending money and time at building relationships with suppliers, vendors, agents, and customers will go a long way in mitigating many of the risks in global trade.

Step 4: Service Providers are Experts in all Aspects of the Global Supply Chain

Just not so! While a small percentage of service providers are clearly experts, professionals, and aligned with teams of knowledgeable staff the majority have serious limitations.

While many have the expertise to arrange affreightment, pick up and delivery many lacks:

-the necessary local connections in all foreign markets

-trade compliance knowledge

-an understanding of how best to eliminate risk and cost from the supply chain

A high degree of scrutiny, vetting, and discerning should take place when choosing service providers, 3PL’s, freight forwarders, and customhouse brokers.

Areas of evaluation:

Service providers can be very valued partners in your global supply chain. Just because they hang out a shingle does not mean they can provide real benefit. Scrutinize robustly and vet diligently. It will pay off in the long run. Having a quality partner will make your job easier and with a greater ability to meet all the challenges successfully.

Step 5: Manage the Supply Chain with Robust Technology

Supply chains that have expansive technology in every aspect of the operation will gain great leverage in performance metrics.

Areas of technology in the supply chain are:

Technology creates efficiency, ease of operations, robust information flow, security, and other benefits. It allows for the highest levels of performance in any organization, but more particularly in the global supply chain. Technology advances forward and expands every day. Keeping contemporary is a challenge that all supply chain executives face.

Cyber Security has grown to be a significant threat. It must be contemplated and managed in every moment and keystroke of the day. There are cybersecurity solutions that must be integrated into all aspects of operation, where there is a technology interface.

Step 6: We have been doing it this way … for over 5 years with no problems.

We hear this often and clearly because a company has not encountered a specific problem, does not necessarily mean things are being done correctly.

A volcano is not a problem until it erupts. The underlying problem is waiting for emergence. Dealing with potential issues proactively and anticipating “what ifs” are a much better option.

Potential problems along with potential betterments must be proactively pursued to assure you do not have serious issues and are doing all possible to reduce risk and cost and/or business process improvements.

Continually updating a logistic SWOT Analysis, risk management assessments and process evaluations are all necessary steps in mitigating any unanticipated problems in the future.

Because no one is complaining does not mean everything is ok. You must be proactive in making sure everything is ok, without assumptions. Err to the side of conservativism as it will prevent future headaches.

The pandemic was a complete disaster and disruption to all global supply chains. Having said that, some good came out of it as companies had time for internal introspection at risk and threats leading to proactive steps in mitigation.

Step 7: We Handed it to the Carrier, so it must be “on board”

Tracking and tracing need to be accomplished at a very detailed and exhaustive level.

Just because you have confirmation that a carrier has received freight, does not assure it made it on board the vessel, aircraft, railcar or truck.

You need affirmation that in fact the goods have actually made it on board the conveyance with an updated ETA, followed up with daily frequency, in case of any unanticipated delays, which occur all the time.

Step 8: We Always Check the Denied Parties List

Many international executives believe their companies are consistently checking and reviewed the various lists making up the “Denied Party Screening” regulations for importers and exporters.

In many years of auditing companies engaged in global trade, only a small percentage is fully compliant with the review, checking and compliance responsibilities associated with Denied Party Screening.

There are available direct connections into the government agencies and numerous third-party technology companies with DPL Screening Capabilities.

Step 9: I am the Ultimate Consignee on these Goods, but not the Importer of Record.

Many companies who are the recipients of imported merchandise who are not participative in the import process believe they have no import responsibilities.

That is potentially and totally incorrect! Customs (CBP) has the right to evaluate any import situation and determine that the ultimate consignee could be considered the “importer of record” and therefore has all the responsibilities as the “importer of record”. This would then require adherence to all import regulations HTSUS, valuation, recordkeeping, etc.

Step 10: Domestic Packing will work for my International Shipments

Claims for loss and damage on international shipments occur every day and a major cause is inadequate packing, marking and labeling.

Just check with any marine insurance companies they will advise of the frequency and the severity of claims occurring on import and export shipments directly attributed to inadequate packing marking and labeling which could jeopardize marine cargo insurance coverage as an implicit or explicit warranty.

Step 11: Do we really need to ensure the shipment?

Loss and damage to international freight is a daily occurrence worldwide. In the overall cost of the global supply chain, marine insurance is an inexpensive purchase offering a high value of the return.

Just looked at what happened this year in the Suez Canal, with the grounding of the Ever Given (Evergreen Lines) which potentially caused losses in excess of $ 1billion.

Direct claims in delays and damage and indirectly caused by a General Average Claim. The fines, penalties, delays and lost cargo is still mounting, as only in early July, has the vessel finally exited the Suez Canal.

Marine cargo insurance is a solid, responsible, value-driven, and best practice purchase for any company shipping goods internationally.

“All Risk”, “Warehouse to Warehouse” with contemporary customized underwriting terms under standard policies are available.

Step 12: Do I need to train my global supply chain team?

The challenges of the global supply chain are numerous and daunting. These challenges can only be met by experienced well-trained managers and staff. The training needs to be consistent, contemporary and robust. Key areas to include are:

-Compliance

-Documentation

-Negotiating Freight

-Sourcing Management

-Logistics Management

-Technology Management

-Warehousing & Distribution

-International Contracts

-Risk and Spend Directives

-Foreign Trade Zones

These outlined above show a handful of the necessary skill sets required for import and export personnel to master. And “training” is the pathway to successful global supply chain management.

Summary:

The twelve examples outlined above provide a synopsis and evidence that mistakes based upon a lack of knowledge and skillsets can cause great disruption in import and export activity in the global supply chain.

Developing resources, providing training, and implementing procedures will assist in mitigating the problems and challenges identified in the above article.

Resources in international business and supply chain management will provide informed intelligence that will allow for making better decisions.

Training and skill set development will better prepare supply chain, import & export executives, managers, and staff to better deal successfully with all the challenges of global trade.

Procedures, protocols, and disciplines in management are always critical to a company’s success in business. In the global supply chain, SOPs are an integral component of freight, logistics, trade compliance, foreign sales, and overseas procurement that assure a company’s success in its international footprint.

The author can be reached at: tomcook@bluetigerintl.com for questions and comments.

sorghum
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Global Sorghum Production is Booming Due to Strong Demand in China

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Sorghum – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In 2021, global sorghum production will grow by 5%, boosted by growing supplies to China. Sorghum imports to the country are expected to rise by 28% compared to the previous year, driven by the increasing demand for animal feed. Prices will continue to rise in line with other cereals, following accelerated food inflation. The advantage of sorghum as a more drought-tolerant crop will allow this product to compete seriously with corn and will further stimulate market expansion.

Key Trends and Insights

In 2021, global sorghum production is expected to increase by 5% y-o-y to 61.2M tonnes, thanks to the expansion of cropland and expected favorable weather conditions. The largest crop gains are expected in Argentina (+30% y-o-y), where the crop area increased by 27% y-o-y, as well as in the U.S. (+14% y-o-y) and Mexico (+17%), which expanded sorghum fields by +14% y-o-yand 4% respectively.

Global sorghum exports are expected to grow by 23% y-o-y, primarily driven by China’s continued massive grain purchases for animal feed. According to USDA forecasts, imports to China will increase by 28% y-o-y by the end of 2021 due to the increased demand for animal feed.

In the context of strong demand, prices for sorghum are expected to rise alongside other rising grains. Global food inflation is accelerating due to rising demand for food and animal feed, as well as the increased ethanol and renewable fuel production. In the U.S., a leading producer country that supplies 74% of sorghum to the global export market, the season-average farm price per product increased from $103 per tonne in September 2020 to $155 per tonne in April 2021.

According to forecasts by IndexBox, the sorghum market will continue to grow during the next decade, primarily due to the growing demand for livestock feed worldwide. An increase in demand for gluten-free products in a growing population may be an additional stimulus for market development since sorghum is the main component in such products. Sorghum can compete with corn as an alternative and more drought-resistant crop, which in the context of global climate change is also becoming a stimulus for the development of the sorghum market.

Global Sorghum Production

Global sorghum production stood at 58M tonnes in 2020, therefore, remained relatively stable against 2019. In value terms, sorghum production skyrocketed to $30.5B in 2020 estimated in export prices.

The countries with the highest volumes of sorghum production in 2020 were the U.S. (8.4M tonnes), Nigeria (6.5M tonnes) and Ethiopia (5.6M tonnes), together comprising 35% of global production. From 2012 to 2020, the biggest increases were in Ethiopia, while sorghum production for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Global Sorghum Imports

In 2020, purchases abroad of sorghum increased by 22% to 6.6M tonnes, rising for the second consecutive year after six years of decline. In value terms, sorghum imports skyrocketed to $1.6B (IndexBox estimates) in 2020.

China dominates sorghum import structure, reaching 4.8M tonnes, which was approx. 73% of total imports in 2020. It was distantly followed by Japan (382K tonnes), making up a 5.8% share of total imports. Mexico (232K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

In value terms, China ($1.2B) constitutes the largest market for imported sorghum worldwide, comprising 71% of global imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Japan ($85M), with a 5.2% share of global imports. It was followed by Mexico, with a 4.4% share.

In 2020, the average sorghum import price amounted to $249 per tonne, approximately mirroring the previous year. Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Mexico ($313 per tonne), while Spain ($205 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

Source: IndexBox Platform

global buckwheat
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Russian Export Ban Could Lead to a Shortage on the Global Buckwheat Market

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Buckwheat – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In the immediate term, the global buckwheat market may face a shortage due to an export ban introduced in Russia. The country, being the largest producer and exporter of buckwheat, restricted exporting unprocessed buckwheat, coarsely ground buckwheat groats, and crushed buckwheat grain from June 5, 2021, to August 31. Russia took this step to preserve the volumes of the buckwheat grain for its domestic consumption and prevent a spike in prices inside the country. China, Latvia and Ukraine featured the most prominent increases in imports from Russia in 2021. 

Global Buckwheat Imports

In 2020, overseas purchases of buckwheat decreased by -4.4% to 174K tonnes, falling for the second year in a row after two years of growth. In general, total imports indicated notable growth from 2012 to 2020: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.5% over the last eight years. In value terms, buckwheat imports skyrocketed to $112M in 2020.

In 2020, Ukraine (32K tonnes) and Japan (32K tonnes) represented the largest importers of buckwheat in the world, together recording approx. 37% of total imports.

In value terms, Japan ($23M), Ukraine ($15M) and Italy ($8.4M) were the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2020, together accounting for 41% of global imports.

In 2020, the average buckwheat import price amounted to $640 per tonne, growing by 23% against the previous year. There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2020, the country with the highest price was the U.S. ($929 per tonne), while Lithuania ($309 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

Buckwheat Exports from Russia

In 2020, shipments abroad of buckwheat decreased by -8.1% to 59K tonnes, falling for the second consecutive year after two years of growth. In value terms, buckwheat exports surged to $29M in 2020.

Ukraine (16K tonnes), Latvia (12K tonnes) and China (6.8K tonnes) were the main destinations of buckwheat exports from Russia, together comprising 58% of total exports.

In value terms, Latvia ($6.9M), Ukraine ($6.3M) and Japan ($3.7M) appeared to be the largest markets for buckwheat exported from Russia worldwide, with a combined 59% share of total exports.

The average buckwheat export price stood at $489 per tonne in 2020, picking up by 67% against the previous year.

Source: IndexBox Platform

lettuce
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Robust Demand for Salad Kits and Organic Food Drives the U.S. Lettuce Market

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. – Lettuce And Chicory – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

During the pandemic, demand for lettuce in the HoReCa sector fell but was offset by growth in sales to the retail segment. The balance between supply and demand on the market was maintained due to a large lettuce harvest in 2020, an increase in imported supply, and a decline in exports. This enabled prices to remain stable. For the past five years, the share of organic lettuce on the market doubled, reaching 7% and will continue to grow. 

Key Trends and Insights

In the U.S., 2020 was the year of the harvest for leaf lettuce and Romaine lettuce. According to the USDA, production grew by 25% and 11% y-o-y, respectively, while iceberg lettuce production decreased by 8% due to hot weather conditions.

During the pandemic, demand for leaf lettuce in the HoReCa sector fell but was completely balanced out by increased sales in the retail segment. Pre-packaged lettuce was in high demand from households amid lockdowns and the related trend towards increased home cooking. Salad kits with various flavors, herbal aromas and seasonings have been strengthening as a promising trend in the food industry.

Imported lettuce also enjoyed high demand. In 2020, the amount of lettuce and chicory imported into the country rose by 3.1% y-o-y to 376K tonnes. Mexico remains the dominant supplier of lettuce to the U.S., fulfilling 91% of deliveries. Canada provides 8.5% of the total supply, and these two countries nearly cover the entire demand for imported lettuce.

For the past five years, the share of organic lettuce on the American market doubled, reaching approximately 7%. The heightened attention to healthy eating habits is to keep the increase in organic food consumption buoyant throughout the mid-term.

The average retail price for lettuce in 2020 was $0.72 per kg for non-organic and $1.08 per kg for organic. It is forecast that as of yearend 2021, the average price for non-organic lettuce will not surpass 2020 levels, while the price for organic lettuce will slightly increase due to high demand and growing popularity of organic food.

The main driver for market expansion will be due to increased consumption from the growing U.S. population. Further increases in demand for lettuce will be boosted by the HoReCa segment returning to work upon lifting COVID restrictions. Rapidly developing home food-delivery services on the backdrop of the suburb construction boom should also contribute to the market growth.

U.S. Lettuce and Chicory Production

Lettuce and chicory production in the U.S. amounted to 3.6M tonnes (IndexBox estimates) in 2020, standing approx. at the previous year. In value terms, lettuce and chicory production totaled $6B in 2020. The total output value increased at an average annual rate of +1.4% from 2012 to 2020; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

U.S. Lettuce and Chicory Imports

In 2020, lettuce and chicory imports amounted to $424M in 2020.

Mexico ($369M) constituted the largest supplier of lettuce and chicory to the U.S., comprising 87% of total imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Canada ($50M), with a 12% share of total imports.

In 2020, the average lettuce and chicory import price amounted to $1,128 per tonne, with an increase of 5.6% against the previous year. Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major supplying countries. In 2020, the country with the highest price was Canada ($1,545 per tonne), while the price for Mexico stood at $1,079 per tonne.

Source: IndexBox Platform

dry peas
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Strong Demand for Livestock Feed Propels the Chinese Dry Peas Market

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘China – Peas (Dry) – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The Chinese dry peas market is becoming an attractive export destination for overseas suppliers. In 2020, China increased the volume of imports of dry peas by 45%, as the country is actively recovering its livestock reserves after an outbreak of swine fever and is in dire need of crops for animal feed. Against the background of rising grain prices, peas are becoming a more affordable alternative component in animal feed.

Key Trends and Insights

China remains the largest consumer of dry peas in the world with a 35.9% (IndexBox estimates) share of the global market. In 2020, the country’s consumption of dry peas jumped up by 20% due to increased use in animal feed. China continues to actively restore its livestock population after the swine fever epidemic, with the need for feed increasing significantly. Dry peas have become an excellent alternative replacement with the scarcity of corn and other more expensive grains such as soybeans and barley.

China is the second-largest pea-producing country. In 2020, the harvest in the domestic market exceeded the indicators of the previous year by 2.5% and reached 3M tonnes. Despite this, the country’s production cannot fully meet the growing domestic demand, and China remains the world’s leading importer of dry peas. In 2020, the country increased the volume of imports by 45% to 2.9M tonnes. About 94% of imported dry peas are sourced from Canada, and almost all of the remainder comes from the U.S. (4.3%).

In 2021-2022, Ukraine and Russia could challenge those leading suppliers in the Chinese import market, as pea yields are growing rapidly in these countries, and as work is underway on phytosanitary agreements to access the Chinese market.

The growing demand for food products in the context of an increasing population will remain a primary market driver. The demand for feed and fodder in China will further stimulate the market, but as the pig population recovers, the increase in demand in this segment will slow. Taking this into account, the market is expected to grow at an average annual rate of +2.8% and reach 7.7M tonnes by 2030.

Market Size

In 2020, approx. 5.9M tonnes of dry peas were consumed in China, picking up by 20% compared with the previous year’s figure. In general, consumption recorded a resilient expansion.  Over the period under review, consumption attained the maximum volume in 2020 and is expected to retain growth in the near future.

For the third consecutive year, the Chinese dry peas market recorded growth in sales value, which increased by 20% to $10.3B in 2020. In general, consumption posted a strong increase.

China’s Dry Peas Imports  by Country

In 2020, the volume of dry peas imported into China soared to 2.9M tonnes, rising by 45% compared with 2019 figures. In value terms, dry peas imports skyrocketed to $821Min 2020.

In 2020, Canada (2.7M tonnes) was the main supplier of dry peas to China, with a 94% share of total imports. Moreover, dry peas imports from Canada exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest supplier, the U.S. (125K tonnes), more than tenfold.

The average import price stood at $282 per tonne in 2020, declining by -2.9% against the previous year. Average prices varied noticeably amongst the major supplying countries. In 2020, the country with the highest price was France ($345 per tonne), while the price for Canada ($278 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

Source: IndexBox Platform

pistachio
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Record Pistachio Harvest in the U.S. Will Rise Up Exports and Stabilize Prices

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. – Pistachios – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In 2021, production of pistachios in the U.S. will break previous years’ records thanks to large yields and an increase in the bearing average. This will enable an expansion of exports, primarily to the EU and China, and retaining stable prices on the domestic market. Heading into 2022, the U.S. will strengthen its position in the global market as its closest competitor, Iran, faces a lower yield that will cause it to deplete its pistachio reserves.

Key Trends and Insights

The U.S. expects a record harvest of pistachios in 2021. The USDA forecasts that production will grow from 352K to 454K tonnes of in-shell nuts, which is equivalent to 230K tonnes of shelled produce. According to the Administrative Committee for Pistachios (ACP), the average yield per acre in 2020 gained by 30% y-o-y, bearing acreage increased by 21.6K acres. A large harvest should keep prices stable on the domestic market.

Exports from the U.S. are expected to rise by 40% in 2021. The EU and China are expected to be the primary markets for American pistachios, despite the cloudy trade relations with the latter. With a global market share of 33%, China will remain the largest importer of pistachios.

The U.S. will continue to hold its position as the global leader in pistachio production with a slight lead over Iran, the second-largest producer. Unlike in the U.S., Iran forecasts a decline in yield in 2021, but the country will retain its level of exports due to supplies from last year’s reserves. As Iran depletes its reserves, the U.S. is expected to strengthen its position in the global export market in 2022 and seal its status as the leading global provider.

The increase in demand for pistachios will be mainly driven by the growth in the global population. During the pandemic, retail sales of pistachios have been declining amidst a fall in real income as people rejected expensive and non-essential food. This larger trend is the primary factor hindering growth in the market. As quarantine measures are being gradually lifted, the HoReCa segment will begin to recover, boosting demand in the B2B sector and expanding the pistachio market.

U.S. Pistachio Production

In 2020, production of pistachios in the U.S. was estimated at 352K tonnes, increasing by 4.9% in 2019. Over the period under review, production posted perceptible growth. Pistachio production peaked at 448K tonnes in 2018; however, from 2019 to 2020, production remained at a lower figure. Pistachio output in the U.S. indicated a temperate increase, largely conditioned by a pronounced expansion of the harvested area and a perceptible curtailment in yield figures. In value terms, pistachio production expanded notably to $2.9B in 2020.

U.S. Pistachio Exports

In 2020, overseas shipments of pistachios decreased by -22.7% to 178K tonnes for the first time since 2015, thus ending a four-year rising trend. In value terms, pistachio exports shrank dramatically to $1.5B in 2020. In general, exports, however, recorded a prominent increase over the last decade.

China (46K tonnes), Germany (25K tonnes) and Belgium (22K tonnes) were the main destinations of pistachio exports from the U.S., together comprising 52% of total exports. These countries were followed by Hong Kong SAR, Spain, Viet Nam, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Italy, the UK, France and Israel, which together accounted for a further 33%.

The average pistachio export price in the U.S. stood at $8,325 per tonne in 2020, with an increase of 3% against the previous year. Over the last eight-year period, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.6%. Average prices varied somewhat for the major overseas markets. In 2020, the countries with the highest prices were Spain ($9,350 per tonne) and Italy ($9,279 per tonne), while the average prices for exports to Viet Nam ($7,267 per tonne) and China ($7,615 per tonne) were amongst the lowest.

Source: IndexBox Platform

milk market
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports, News

The U.S. Milk Production Rises on Strong Domestic and Export Demand for Processed Dairy Products

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. – Milk – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

USDA forecasts that milk production in the U.S. will rise by 2.1% in 2021 thanks to gains in yield per cow as well as a slight increase in the number of milk cows. The average yearly price received by farmers for cow milk in 2021 is predicted to grow by 3.9% y-o-y amidst a rally in prices for animal feed. Rising consumer demand for cheese and butter continues to drive the market on the backdrop of lower demand for beverage milk. Demand in Asia for imported dairy products features as another factor boosting milk processing in the U.S.

Key Trends and Insights

According to IndexBox, in 2020, U.S. milk production increased by 1.3% y-o-y to 100M tonnes, and it is forecast to rise at the same pace for the next two years due to demand from the growing population.

The average number of milk cows in the U.S. rose from 9,337 heads in 2019 to 9,388 heads in 2020 but remains below the 2017-2018 figures. In the second half of 2021 and into 2022, farmers are expected to accelerate the pace of butchering and decrease the total head of cattle as they respond to higher costs of feed resulting from summer droughts. The expected decline in milk due to fewer cattle should be offset by increased milk production per cow.

The USDA estimates that as of year-end 2021, the average yearly farmer’s price will grow by 3.9% y-o-y to $0.43 per liter due to rallying feed prices. In 2022, the cost of milk should fall by 2.4% in comparison with 2021 to $0.42 per liter thanks to the expected increase in production but will remain higher than the 2020 figures ($0.41 per liter).

Over the last decade, the per capita milk consumption in the U.S., incl. both fresh milk of all kinds and milk used for processing, grew by 6.7% and in 2020 reached 354 kg/person, but the structure of the demand has been changing. Americans continue drinking less milk while consuming more cheese and butter. This long-term shift towards processed dairy products will drive market growth for milk in the mid-term. In Asia, imported produce is becoming highly sought after and this should expand exports of American cheese and other dairy products, while additionally driving demand for milk.

U.S. Milk Production

In 2020, approx. 118M tonnes of milk were produced in the U.S.; picking up by 1.6% compared with 2019 figures. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.3% from 2012 to 2020; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2014 when the production volume increased by 2.7% year-to-year. Milk production peaked in 2020 and is expected to retain growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, milk production expanded significantly to $127.8B in 2020. The total output value increased at an average annual rate of +4.4% over the period from 2012 to 2020; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. Milk production peaked at $130.4B in 2017; however, from 2018 to 2020, production remained at a lower figure.

U.S. Milk Imports

For the third consecutive year, the U.S. recorded growth in purchases abroad of milk, which increased by 7.2% to 19K tonnes in 2020. Overall, imports recorded buoyant growth. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2016 when imports increased by 51% against the previous year. Over the period under review, imports hit record highs in 2020 and are expected to retain growth in years to come (IndexBox estimates).

In value terms, milk imports dropped rapidly to $22M in 2020. Overall, imports posted a strong increase. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2018 when imports increased by 24% year-to-year. As a result, imports reached a peak of $30M. from 2019 to 2020, the growth of imports remained at a lower figure.

In 2020, whole fresh milk (31K tonnes) constituted the largest type of milk supplied to the U.S., with a 68% share of total imports. Moreover, whole fresh milk exceeded the figures recorded for the second-largest type, skim milk of cows (14K tonnes), twofold.

Canada (25K tonnes), Mexico (16K tonnes) and New Zealand (818 tonnes) were the main suppliers of milk imports to the U.S. In value terms, Mexico ($35M), Canada ($25M) and New Zealand ($1.9M) appeared to be the largest milk suppliers to the U.S.

In 2020, the average milk import price amounted to $1,157 per tonne, waning by -21.3% against the previous year. There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2020, the country with the highest price was New Zealand ($2,270 per tonne), while the price for Canada ($997 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

Source: IndexBox Platform

genset
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Utilities

Commercial Gensets Market: Top Regional Factors Augmenting the Industry Forecast 2027

Leave a comment

The global commercial gensets market size is poised to expand at substantial CAGR during the forecast period as the need for a reliable and infallible power supply has been towering amidst the COVID-19 pandemic situation. Apart from an alarming increase in the frequency of natural disasters, several parts of the world are facing unpredictable weather.

This has left hospitals, clinics, laboratories, offices, department and medical stores, and shopping complexes dealing with the persistent problem of power failure. As these commercial spaces have been seeking effective power backup solutions to mitigate losses, the market for hybrid generator sets, electric generator sets, and gas generator sets is likely to see considerable growth through the forthcoming years.

The following eight factors have been pushing the global commercial gensets market forecast:

Low up-front costs of diesel commercial generator sets

Thanks to the need to invest a lesser amount when compared with electric or hybrid generator sets, the deployment of diesel commercial generator sets has been rising across the commercial sphere in Asia. By 2027, APAC commercial gensets market share will have gained considerably owing to their weather-independent, flexible, and scalable operations. As diesel is an easily available fuel even in underdeveloped areas of the emerging economies, diesel commercial gensets appear to be an ideal solution for end-users who want to achieve higher productivity at lower costs.

330 kVA – 750 kVA rated generator sets across Asia

330 kVA – 750 kVA rated commercial generator segment is expected to see substantial growth through 2026, on account of the ability of these solutions to ensure a constant power supply during power failures and interruptions, preventing massive losses. Hospitals, hotels, telecom towers, educational institutes, and construction sites find these generator sets suitable due to their compact designs and superior power density.

Asia Pacific commercial gensets market might also benefit from the rising funding from private and local entities, who have been looking for robust machinery and equipment to address the need for an uninterrupted electricity supply.

Favorable government policies in India

With favorable government policies backing the fast-paced infrastructural activities in the region, the Indian market is likely to contribute consistently toward the overall Asia Pacific commercial gensets industry share through 2027. The booming telecom industry has been pushing the market. For instance, according to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the Indian subcontinent saw over 1,171.80 million telephone subscriptions as of October 2020. The development of several smart cities across the country is paving the way for further growth.

Work from home trend to accelerate demand

The North America commercial gensets market size is expected to grow steadily since several private as well as federal government employees have been working remotely owing to the focus toward curbing the spread of COVID-19 infection, constant power supply has become more crucial than ever. Heavy losses can be incurred due to power cuts. Moreover, as natural disasters including hurricanes have been hampering electricity supply more frequently, 50-125 kVA rated gensets are likely to see higher adoption across enterprises, cafeterias, shared workspaces, and home offices alike.

Reopening of commercial spaces in North America

As several regions are recording a lesser number of COVID-19 cases, the reopening of shopping malls, cinema halls, public libraries, offices, and showrooms is expected to trigger demand across North America’s commercial gensets industry forecast. The travel industry particularly has been recovering from the coronavirus fast this summer. As domestic flights resume, airports and hotels might see more product adoption. The vaccine rollout has revived numerous industries, who have been seeking to recover from financial losses by installing technologically advanced equipment.

Rising infrastructure investments toward healthcare in Europe

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the fortification of the healthcare infrastructure, with the EU, governments, and private organizations focusing on optimum digitalization. As Europe has been facing a rising number of COVID-19 cases, the need for advanced solutions such as advanced monitoring and smart control systems across healthcare facilities has been spiraling. The surging geriatric population coupled with the adoption of IoT-enabled devices across hospitals and laboratories is fueling Europe commercial gensets market forecast.

Growing demand from European agriculture sector

As the agriculture sector is undergoing considerable transformation for the last few years, modern farmers are more inclined to install effective power backup solutions than ever before. Manual farming techniques are replaced with mechanized practices, which has increased the dependence on machines and ultimately, electricity. Thus, for the modern farmer, absence of uninterrupted electricity means lower productivity. Consequently, Europe commercial gensets industry forecast is set to gain from the thriving animal husbandry and agriculture sector in the region.

Benefits of gas-powered commercial gensets

With the European Union promoting the use of clean energy fuels in collaboration with several regional governments, the adoption of gas-powered commercial gensets is likely to soar through the next five years. These gensets are not only environmentally compliant due to their lower carbon footprint, but also cost-efficient. They have a high lifespan and a reliable performance. Simultaneously, Europe commercial gensets market outlook can benefit from the trend of installing ecofriendly, gaseous powered equipment across the industrial sector in the region.

Some of the leading commercial gensets manufactures and suppliers in the global market include Kirloskar Oil Engine, SDMO, Powermax, Mahindra Powerol, Powerica, Yamaha Corporation, Cummins, Mitsubishi Power, Kohler, Ingersoll Rand, Siemens, Caterpillar, Siemens, and Generac Holdings.

food systems
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Special Reports

Striving for Sustainability in Global Food Systems

Leave a comment

As the global community gears up for the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, it is significant that preparations are also underway by Global Reporting Initiative to deliver a new sector reporting standard for agriculture, aquaculture, and fishing. The Summit aims to leverage the power of food systems to deliver progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Yet, unlocking the contribution of companies in the food production sectors will be impossible without clarity on their sustainable development impacts.

As part of GRI’s Sector Program, which aims to deliver 40 Sector Standards over the coming years, the exposure draft version of the Sector Standard for Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Fishing is currently out for public comment. The Sector Program has a remit to provide the global best practice for transparency within sectors, helping organizations meet stakeholder expectations for comprehensive and comparable sustainability reporting.

We are prioritizing agriculture, aquaculture and fishing because these sectors provide for basic and essential societal needs: food, most obviously, but also raw materials, such as fibers and fuels. They also have shared and overlapping materiality, which steered our rationale for bringing them under one umbrella.

The Standard will add to the reporting landscape for the sectors, bridging the gap on sector topics where stakeholder expectations are evolving and scrutiny is increasing. It will deliver disclosures that consider biodiversity and natural resources, measures to mitigate climate change, as well as how to adapt farming and fishing practices in ways that minimize their negative impacts.

This focus closely dovetails with the objectives of the Food Systems Summit, for which the pre-summit activity starts in July. The UN articulates the aims as ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all; shifting to sustainable consumption patterns; boosting nature-positive production; advancing equitable livelihoods; and building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress.

Research and rationale

The draft Standard’s content is the culmination of more than 12 months of rigorous research by our Sector Team, drawing on authoritative sources and a multi-stakeholder process. A 19-member expert working group was instrumental in developing the exposure draft. Reflecting diverse backgrounds, it includes representatives from five continents and constituencies, with a unique combination of sectoral skills and organizational experience, including crop and animal production, aquaculture, and fishing.

The proposed Sector Standard will help companies increase recognition and understanding on their shared sustainability challenges. It includes relevant reporting topics that are covered by GRI’s (sector-agnostic) topic-Specific Standards – for example, climate adaptation, biodiversity, waste, food safety, and occupational health – as well as introducing seven new topics.

By including topics not covered by existing GRI Standards, we have expanded the breadth of reporting guidance for agriculture, aquaculture, and fishing organizations to identify their most significant impacts – thereby supporting decision-useful data that can be a catalyst for the adoption of more sustainable practices.

The seven new topics

The newly introduced topics in the draft Standard are:

1. Food security recognizes the sectors’ central role in food production, guiding organizations to describe commitments to ensure their operations contribute to the stability of food supply and access to food, including how they work with other organizations.

2. Land and resource rights calls on companies to report how they respect individuals’ and communities’ land rights (including those of indigenous people). It also asks about their operations and suppliers whose access or rights to natural resources cannot be assured.

3. Living income addresses whether companies provide enough for workers and producers supplying to them to afford a decent standard of living. The topic also deals with reporting on the proportion of employees paid above living wage.

4. Natural ecosystem conversion covers policies, commitments and monitoring tools to reduce or eliminate activities that change natural ecosystems to another use or profoundly change an ecosystem’s structure or function.

5. Soil health guides reporting on soil management plans and fertilizer application.

6. Pesticides use focuses on how organizations manage and use chemical or biological substances for controlling pests or regulating plant growth.

7. Animal health and welfare addresses the approach to animal health planning and use of welfare certification schemes or audits, as well as disclosing the use of any medicinal or hormone treatments.

Grounded in the SDGs

With positive and negative impacts that link to the SDGs, all of the topics covered in this Sector Standard, and the way it is structured, will make it easier for businesses to understand their contribution to the achievement of the SDGs – and how they can contribute towards solutions.

Perhaps more than any other sector, agriculture, aquaculture, and fishing organizations have wide-ranging impacts that touch on all of the 17 SDGs. In particular, this new Standard makes multiple linkages between topics and goals on ending poverty (Goal 1); ending hunger (Goal 2); ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation (Goal 6); promoting decent work for all (Goal 8); reducing inequalities (Goal 10); ensuring sustainable consumption and production (Goal 12); taking climate action (Goal 13); protecting life below water (Goal 14) and life on land (Goal 15); ensuring peace and justice (Goal 16); and building partnerships (Goal 17).

We need your input

The global public comment period to gather feedback on the exposure draft for Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Fishing Sector Standard closes on 30 July. We encourage you to channel your considerations on this draft’s feasibility, completeness, and relevancy by completing an online questionnaire. The more input from all interested groups and stakeholders, the more we can do to ensure the delivery of a Standard that is fit-for-purpose.

Our hope for the final Standard, which we intend to launch in 2022, is to empower organizations to achieve meaningful and consistent sustainability reporting that supports sustainable food systems and encourages responsible fishing and farming practices. We all know that companies within these sectors are essential for providing the food and resources that human wellbeing depends on. Let’s ensure that they can do so in a way that contributes to lasting and sustainable solutions.

___________________________________________________________

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Margarita Lysenkova joined GRI Standards Division in 2019 and has been instrumental in the development of the new Sector Program, contributing to the GRI Oil and Gas Sector Standard and leading the pilot project for the Sector Standard for Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Fishing.

With a professional background in corporate, UN and non-for-profit sectors across four countries, Margarita’s expertise spans international labour standards and sustainability. Previous roles include working for the International Labour Organization in Geneva, and in financial reporting with a Belgian multinational. Margarita holds degrees in economics (Saint Petersburg University of Economics & Finance) and business management (ESC Rennes School of Business).

ABOUT GRI

Global Reporting Initiative is the independent, international organization that helps businesses and other organizations take responsibility for their impacts, by providing the global common language to report those impacts – the GRI Standards.