New Articles

Despite Ranking only Fifth in Terms of Market Size, the Netherlands Leads European Chicken Egg Exports

egg

Despite Ranking only Fifth in Terms of Market Size, the Netherlands Leads European Chicken Egg Exports

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

In 2019, the EU chicken egg market decreased by -2.1% to $12.7B for the first time since 2016, thus ending a two-year rising trend. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 with an increase of 8.7% against the previous year. The level of consumption peaked at $15.8B in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2019, consumption failed to regain the momentum.

In physical terms, the volume of consumption amounted to 6.3M tonnes which remained relatively stable against the previous year; over the last decade, it increased gradually with some slight fluctuations in certain years.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of chicken egg consumption in 2019 were Germany (1.1M tonnes), France (881K tonnes) and Spain (761K tonnes), together accounting for 44% of total consumption. Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Hungary and Sweden lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 44%.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of chicken egg consumption, amongst the key consuming countries, was attained by Belgium, while chicken egg consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest chicken egg markets in the European Union were Germany ($2.3B), France ($2B) and Spain ($1.4B), together comprising 45% of the total market. These countries were followed by Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, Sweden, Romania, Austria, Portugal and Belgium, which together accounted for a further 40%.

The countries with the highest levels of chicken egg per capita consumption in 2019 were the Netherlands (31 kg per person), Austria (17 kg per person) and Spain (16 kg per person).

Market Forecast to 2030

Driven by increasing demand for chicken egg in the European Union, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to retain its current trend pattern, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +1.0% for the period from 2019 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 7M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production in the EU

Chicken egg production reached 6.4M tonnes in 2019, stabilizing at 2018 figures. Over the period under review, production, however, showed a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2013 when the production volume increased by 9.2% y-o-y. As a result, production reached the peak volume of 6.6M tonnes. From 2014 to 2019, production growth remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Production by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of chicken egg production in 2019 were Germany (852K tonnes), France (845K tonnes) and Spain (841K tonnes), with a combined 39% share of total production. Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Belgium, Portugal, Hungary, Austria and Sweden lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 48%.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of chicken egg production, amongst the leading producing countries, was attained by Austria, while chicken egg production for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Producing Animals in the EU

The total number of hens for egg production stood at 458M heads in 2019, approximately equating 2018 figures. Over the period under review, the number of producing animals continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 with an increase of 5.5% y-o-y. As a result, the number of producing animals attained the peak level of 461M heads. From 2011 to 2019, the growth of this number failed to regain the momentum.

Yield in the EU

The average chicken egg yield dropped slightly to 14 kg per head in 2019, approximately equating the year before. Over the period under review, the yield saw a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2013 when the yield increased by 7.2% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the chicken egg yield reached the peak level at 15 kg per head in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2019, the yield failed to regain the momentum.

Exports in the EU

In 2019, the amount of chicken eggs exported in the European Union fell modestly to 1.1M tonnes, declining by -2% against the year before. Overall, exports saw a abrupt curtailment. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 with an increase of 2.4% year-to-year.

In value terms, chicken egg exports dropped modestly to $2.1B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. Over the period under review, exports saw a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2013 with an increase of 17% year-to-year. The level of export peaked at $2.3B in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, exports failed to regain the momentum.

Exports by Country

The Netherlands was the largest exporting country with an export of around 396K tonnes, which accounted for 34% of total exports. It was distantly followed by Poland (214K tonnes), Germany (130K tonnes), Spain (87K tonnes) and Belgium (85K tonnes), together mixing up a 45% share of total exports. France (34K tonnes), Latvia (22K tonnes), Italy (19K tonnes), Bulgaria (18K tonnes) and the Czech Republic (18K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Spain, while shipments for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the Netherlands ($743M) remains the largest chicken egg supplier in the European Union, comprising 35% of total exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Poland ($284M), with a 13% share of total exports. It was followed by Germany, with a 13% share.

In the Netherlands, chicken egg exports plunged by an average annual rate of -3.0% over the period from 2007-2019. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Poland (+13.0% per year) and Germany (-1.6% per year).

Export Prices by Country

The chicken egg export price in the European Union stood at $1,845 per tonne in 2019, approximately mirroring the previous year. In general, the export price recorded strong growth. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2013 when the export price increased by 28% against the previous year. Over the period under review, export prices reached the maximum at $1,875 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, export prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2019, the country with the highest price was the Czech Republic ($2,582 per tonne), while Latvia ($1,259 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Belgium, while the other leaders experienced mixed trends in the export price figures.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

canned food

The EU Canned Food Market Picks Up the Momentum

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

After two years of decline, the EU canned food market increased by 3.6% to $7.7B in 2019. Over the period under review, consumption, however, continues to indicate a mild downturn. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2016 when the market value increased by 7.7% against the previous year. The level of consumption peaked at $8.9B in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2019, consumption remained at a lower figure.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of canned food consumption in 2019 were Germany (445K tonnes), France (380K tonnes) and the UK (357K tonnes), together accounting for 50% of total consumption. These countries were followed by Spain, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands, which together accounted for a further 31%.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of canned food consumption, amongst the leading consuming countries, was attained by Ireland, while canned food consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest canned food markets in the European Union were Germany ($1.5B), France ($1.3B) and Ireland ($1.2B), with a combined 52% share of the total market.

In 2019, the highest levels of canned food per capita consumption was registered in Ireland (40 kg per person), followed by the Netherlands (9.33 kg per person), France (5.78 kg per person) and Germany (5.43 kg per person), while the world average per capita consumption of canned food was estimated at 4.65 kg per person.

Market Forecast 2019-2030

Driven by rising demand for canned food in the European Union, the market is expected to start an upward consumption trend over the next decade. The performance of the market is forecast to increase slightly, with an anticipated CAGR of +0.2% for the period from 2019 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 2.4M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production in the EU

After two years of decline, production of canned food increased by 2.9% to 3M tonnes in 2019. In general, production continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2016 when the production volume increased by 15% year-to-year. As a result, production reached the peak volume of 3M tonnes; afterwards, it flattened through to 2019.

In value terms, canned food production stood at $11.2B in 2019 estimated in export prices. Overall, production saw a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2016 when the production volume increased by 12% year-to-year. The level of production peaked in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in years to come.

Production by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of canned food production in 2019 were France (510K tonnes), Germany (462K tonnes) and Spain (382K tonnes), together comprising 46% of total production. These countries were followed by the Netherlands, Ireland, the UK, Poland and Italy, which together accounted for a further 41%.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of canned food production, amongst the leading producing countries, was attained by Ireland, while canned food production for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Exports in the EU

In 2019, exports of canned food in the European Union expanded to 1.6M tonnes, with an increase of 3.5% on the previous year’s figure. Total exports indicated a temperate expansion from 2007 to 2019: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.8% over the last twelve-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2019 figures, exports increased by +59.8% against 2010 indices. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 when exports increased by 16% y-o-y. The volume of export peaked in 2019 and is likely to see gradual growth in the near future.

In value terms, canned food exports rose to $9.1B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. Overall, exports posted a buoyant increase. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 with an increase of 28% year-to-year. Over the period under review, exports hit record highs in 2019 and are likely to continue growth in the immediate term.

Exports by Country

The biggest shipments were from the Netherlands (313K tonnes), France (228K tonnes), Spain (221K tonnes), Germany (165K tonnes), Ireland (150K tonnes) and Poland (137K tonnes), together amounting to 76% of total export. Italy (58K tonnes), Denmark (48K tonnes), Belgium (46K tonnes), the UK (36K tonnes) and Austria (28K tonnes) took a minor share of total exports.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of shipments, amongst the main exporting countries, was attained by Spain, while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the Netherlands ($3.2B) remains the largest canned food supplier in the European Union, comprising 35% of total exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by France ($1.3B), with a 15% share of total exports. It was followed by Ireland, with a 11% share.

From 2007 to 2019, the average annual growth rate of value in the Netherlands stood at +15.4%. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: France (+7.9% per year) and Ireland (+2.4% per year).

Export Prices by Country

The canned food export price in the European Union stood at $5,724 per tonne in 2019, remaining stable against the previous year. Over the last twelve years, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.1%. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2008 when the export price increased by 10% against the previous year. Over the period under review, export prices attained the maximum in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in the immediate term.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was the Netherlands ($10,124 per tonne), while Spain ($2,617 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by the Netherlands, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in the EU

In 2019, approx. 1M tonnes of canned food were imported in the European Union; increasing by 6.2% in 2018. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.1% over the period from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Over the period under review, imports attained the peak figure in 2019 and are expected to retain growth in years to come.

In value terms, canned food imports reached $3.5B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +3.7% over the period from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years.

Imports by Country

The UK (151K tonnes), Germany (149K tonnes), the Netherlands (122K tonnes), France (98K tonnes), Italy (75K tonnes) and Belgium (75K tonnes) represented roughly 66% of total imports of canned food in 2019. The following importers – Spain (44K tonnes), Ireland (43K tonnes), Sweden (42K tonnes), Poland (39K tonnes), Austria (26K tonnes) and the Czech Republic (23K tonnes) – together made up 22% of total imports.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Germany, while purchases for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest canned food importing markets in the European Union were Germany ($602M), the UK ($529M) and the Netherlands ($432M), with a combined 44% share of total imports.

Germany recorded the highest growth rate of the value of imports, among the main importing countries over the period under review, while purchases for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

In 2019, the canned food import price in the European Union amounted to $3,500 per tonne, which is down by -3.9% against the previous year. Overall, the import price, however, showed a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2008 when the import price increased by 7.1% year-to-year. The level of import peaked at $3,673 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, import prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Austria ($4,650 per tonne), while Belgium ($2,162 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by France, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

electrical insulator

The EU Electrical Insulator Market Slipped Back Slightly

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – Electrical Insulators – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

For the third consecutive year, the EU electrical insulator market recorded decline in sales value, which decreased by -6.8% to $692M in 2019. In general, consumption recorded a perceptible contraction. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2011 with an increase of 3.1% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the market attained the peak level at $1.1B in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2019, consumption remained at a lower figure.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of electrical insulator consumption in 2019 were Germany (17M units), Italy (12M units) and Spain (12M units), with a combined 36% share of total consumption. Romania, France, Poland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, the UK, Belgium, Sweden and Austria lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 50%.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of electrical insulator consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Romania, while electrical insulator consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Germany ($168M) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Belgium ($64M). It was followed by France.

The countries with the highest levels of electrical insulator per capita consumption in 2019 were Romania (575 units per 1000 persons), the Czech Republic (564 units per 1000 persons) and the Netherlands (384 units per 1000 persons).

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of electrical insulator per capita consumption, amongst the leading consuming countries, was attained by Romania, while electrical insulator per capita consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Market Forecast 2019-2030

Driven by rising demand for electrical insulator in the European Union, the market is expected to start an upward consumption trend over the next decade. The performance of the market is forecast to increase slightly, with an anticipated CAGR of +0.1% for the period from 2019 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 115M units by the end of 2030.

Production in the EU

In 2019, after three years of decline, there was growth in production of electrical insulators, when its volume increased by 3% to 132M units. In general, production, however, recorded a slight decrease. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2015 with an increase of 9.2% y-o-y. The volume of production peaked at 166M units in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2019, production failed to regain the momentum.

In value terms, electrical insulator production amounted to $967M in 2019 estimated in export prices. Overall, production, however, continues to indicate a pronounced reduction. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2011 when the production volume increased by 4.4% against the previous year. The level of production peaked at $1.4B in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2019, production remained at a lower figure.

Production by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of electrical insulator production in 2019 were Italy (23M units), Spain (21M units) and Germany (20M units), together accounting for 49% of total production. Romania, Poland, Portugal, France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 47%.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of electrical insulator production, amongst the leading producing countries, was attained by Romania, while electrical insulator production for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Exports in the EU

In 2019, after three years of decline, there was growth in shipments abroad of electrical insulators, when their volume increased by 2.1% to 100M units. Over the period under review, exports, however, showed a mild contraction. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2014 with an increase of 4.7% y-o-y. The volume of export peaked at 123M units in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2019, exports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, electrical insulator exports declined to $890M (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. In general, exports, however, continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Exports by Country

In 2019, Italy (24M units), distantly followed by Spain (15M units), Germany (15M units), Poland (7.3M units), Portugal (6.6M units), Romania (6.3M units), Slovakia (5.3M units) and the Czech Republic (4.6M units) represented the major exporters of electrical insulators, together making up 84% of total exports.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Poland, while shipments for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Germany ($250M), Italy ($150M) and Portugal ($48M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2019, together comprising 50% of total exports. These countries were followed by Spain, the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania and Slovakia, which together accounted for a further 18%.

Poland saw the highest growth rate of the value of exports, among the main exporting countries over the period under review, while shipments for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

The electrical insulator export price in the European Union stood at $8.9 per unit in 2019, declining by -5.9% against the previous year. Overall, the export price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 an increase of 14% year-to-year. As a result, export price reached the peak level of $9.5 per unit, and then fell in the following year.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Germany ($17 per unit), while Slovakia ($2.8 per unit) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Germany, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in the EU

In 2019, approx. 82M units of electrical insulators were imported in the European Union; which is down by -6.4% against 2018 figures. Over the period under review, imports recorded a slight curtailment. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2010 when imports increased by 13% y-o-y. Over the period under review, imports hit record highs at 95M units in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2019, imports failed to regain the momentum.

In value terms, electrical insulator imports contracted to $600M (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. In general, imports continue to indicate a mild decline. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2018 with an increase of 11% year-to-year.

Imports by Country

In 2019, Italy (13M units), Germany (11M units), France (8.4M units), Sweden (6.5M units), Spain (5.3M units), the UK (4.9M units), the Czech Republic (4.7M units), Poland (4.1M units), the Netherlands (2.9M units), Portugal (2.7M units), Romania (2.3M units) and Austria (2.2M units) represented the major importer of electrical insulators in the European Union, mixing up 83% of total import.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of purchases, amongst the key importing countries, was attained by Romania, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Germany ($116M), Italy ($59M) and the UK ($56M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2019, together accounting for 38% of total imports. These countries were followed by France, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Austria, Sweden, Portugal and Romania, which together accounted for a further 46%.

Austria recorded the highest rates of growth with regard to the value of imports, among the main importing countries over the period under review, while purchases for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

The electrical insulator import price in the European Union stood at $7.3 per unit in 2019, approximately mirroring the previous year. In general, the import price showed a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2008 an increase of 9.3% year-to-year. As a result, import price reached the peak level of $8 per unit. From 2009 to 2019, the growth in terms of the import prices failed to regain the momentum.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2019, the country with the highest price was Austria ($12 per unit), while Sweden ($3.9 per unit) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by the Netherlands, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

honey

The EU Honey Market Slipped Back Slightly to $1.4B

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

In 2019, after two years of growth, there was significant decline in the EU honey market, when its value decreased by -6.1% to $1.4B. The market value increased at an average annual rate of +3.8% over the period from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 with an increase of 17% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the market attained the peak level at $1.5B in 2018, and then declined in the following year.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of honey consumption in 2019 were Germany (69K tonnes), France (52K tonnes) and the UK (45K tonnes), with a combined 38% share of total consumption. These countries were followed by Spain, Poland, Italy, Greece, Romania, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Czech Republic and Croatia, which together accounted for a further 47%.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Croatia, while honey consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest honey markets in the European Union were Germany ($214M), France ($184M) and Greece ($133M), with a combined 37% share of the total market. These countries were followed by the UK, Italy, Spain, Romania, Poland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Portugal, which together accounted for a further 45%.

The countries with the highest levels of honey per capita consumption in 2019 were Croatia (2.59 kg per person), Greece (2.47 kg per person) and Romania (1.13 kg per person).

Market Forecast 2019-2030

Driven by increasing demand for honey in the European Union, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to retain its current trend pattern, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +1.8% for the period from 2019 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 533K tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production in the EU

For the third year in a row, the European Union recorded growth in production of honey, which increased by 3.1% to 257K tonnes in 2019. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.8% from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 with an increase of 22% year-to-year. The volume of production peaked in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in the near future.

In value terms, honey production shrank to $1.1B in 2019 estimated in export prices. The total output value increased at an average annual rate of +3.9% from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

Production by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of honey production in 2019 were Spain (37K tonnes), Romania (31K tonnes) and Hungary (29K tonnes), with a combined 38% share of total production. These countries were followed by Poland, Greece, Germany, France, Bulgaria, Portugal, Croatia, Italy and the Czech Republic, which together accounted for a further 52%.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of honey production, amongst the main producing countries, was attained by Croatia, while honey production for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Exports in the EU

Honey exports expanded to 165K tonnes in 2019, surging by 2.5% on 2018. Total exports indicated a measured increase from 2007 to 2019: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.1% over the last twelve years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2019 figures, exports decreased by -4.7% against 2017 indices. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2013 when exports increased by 20% against the previous year. The volume of export peaked at 173K tonnes in 2017; however, from 2018 to 2019, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, honey exports shrank to $693M (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. Total exports indicated prominent growth from 2007 to 2019: its value increased at an average annual rate of +4.1% over the last twelve-year period.

Exports by Country

In 2019, Germany (26K tonnes), Spain (22K tonnes), Hungary (21K tonnes), Belgium (18K tonnes), Poland (17K tonnes), Bulgaria (12K tonnes) and Romania (11K tonnes) was the largest exporter of honey in the European Union, achieving 78% of total export. Portugal (6.5K tonnes), Italy (5K tonnes), France (4.9K tonnes), the UK (3.7K tonnes) and Denmark (3.3K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of shipments, amongst the leading exporting countries, was attained by Poland, while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest honey supplying countries in the European Union were Germany ($138M), Spain ($89M) and Hungary ($85M), together comprising 45% of total exports. These countries were followed by Belgium, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, France, the UK, Italy, Denmark and Portugal, which together accounted for a further 46%.

Export Prices by Country

In 2019, the honey export price in the European Union amounted to $4,192 per tonne, with a decrease of -7.8% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2019, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.0%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 when the export price increased by 17% year-to-year. The level of export peaked at $4,844 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, export prices failed to regain the momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was the UK ($7,966 per tonne), while Portugal ($1,918 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by the UK, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in the EU

In 2019, after two years of growth, there was decline in purchases abroad of honey, when their volume decreased by -1.2% to 345K tonnes. Total imports indicated notable growth from 2007 to 2019: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.8% over the last twelve-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2013 with an increase of 13% year-to-year. The volume of import peaked at 349K tonnes in 2018, and then shrank in the following year.

In value terms, honey imports contracted to $994M (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. Total imports indicated a strong expansion from 2007 to 2019: its value increased at an average annual rate of +3.8% over the last twelve years.

Imports by Country

In 2019, Germany (75K tonnes), distantly followed by the UK (49K tonnes), France (39K tonnes), Poland (30K tonnes), Spain (27K tonnes), Belgium (25K tonnes), Italy (25K tonnes) and the Netherlands (17K tonnes) were the largest importers of honey, together achieving 83% of total imports.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Poland, while purchases for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest honey importing markets in the European Union were Germany ($228M), France ($138M) and the UK ($111M), with a combined 48% share of total imports. These countries were followed by Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland and Spain, which together accounted for a further 33%.

Import Prices by Country

The honey import price in the European Union stood at $2,879 per tonne in 2019, which is down by -9.3% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2019, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.6%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 an increase of 27% year-to-year. The level of import peaked at $3,633 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, import prices failed to regain the momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was the Netherlands ($4,051 per tonne), while Poland ($2,084 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Germany, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

section 301

USTR Initiates Section 301 Digital Services Tax Investigations Covering India, the European Union and Several Other Countries

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) announced on June 2, 2020 that it is initiating Section 301 investigations on Digital Services Taxes (“DSTs”) adopted or under consideration by Austria, Brazil, Czech Republic, the European Union (“EU”), India, Indonesia, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom (“U.K.”). The Section 301 DST investigations could lead the U.S. to impose new punitive tariffs and could significantly raise global trade tensions.

USTR is soliciting public comments from parties and these must be submitted no later than July 15, 2020. Written comments should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov under docket number USTR-2020-0022. According to the Federal Register notice, the USTR invites comments with respect to:

-Concerns with one or more of the DSTs adopted or under consideration by the jurisdictions covered in these investigations.

-Whether one or more of the covered DSTs is unreasonable or discriminatory.

-The extent to which one or more of the covered DSTs burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.

-Whether one or more of the covered DSTs is inconsistent with obligations under the WTO Agreement or any other international agreement.

-The determination required under section 304 of the Trade Act, including what action, if any, should be taken.

Over the last couple of years, various governments have enacted or considered taxes on revenues generated by companies from providing digital services within those jurisdictions. While the proponents of DSTs argue that the tax corrects corporate taxation to cover previously untaxed or undertaxed revenues, the position of the Trump administration, including the USTR, is that DSTs unfairly discriminate against “large, U.S.-based tech companies” such as Amazon and Google. USTR’s announcement provides a brief but detailed overview of the current status of each of the named jurisdictions’ enacted or proposed DSTs.

USTR’s initiation of Section 301 investigations follow a period of intermittent tensions between the U.S. and some of its trading partners over proposed DSTs. In December 2019, the U.S. and France nearly began a trade war over the DST adopted by France, which USTR described as “unreasonable, discriminatory, and burdensome on U.S. commerce.” However, these tariffs were never implemented on imports of products from France. In January of this year, the Trump administration had also threatened the U.K. with tariffs on imports of British cars if the U.K. pressed forward with its DST.

A possible result of these new investigations will be the institution of additional tariffs on imports of products from each of the named countries but that remains to be seen and will depend in large part on the support or opposition to the institution of trade remedies in the comments filed on the record of these investigations.

Husch Blackwell continues to monitor the Section 301 investigations on Digital Services Taxes and will provide further updates as more information becomes available. We encourage clients and companies to review the USTR’s announcement and Federal Register notice.

_________________________________________________________________

Nithya Nagarajan is a Washington-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. She practices in the International Trade & Supply Chain group of the firm’s Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation industry team.

Grant Leach is an Omaha-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP focusing on international trade, export controls, trade sanctions and anti-corruption compliance.

Cortney O’Toole Morgan is a Washington D.C.-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. She leads the firm’s International Trade & Supply Chain group.

Camron Greer is an Assistant Trade Analyst in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington D.C. office.

fish

EU Dried and Smoked Fish Market is Driven by Rising Demand in Germany

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

In 2018, the value of the dried and smoked fish market in the European Union contracted slightly to $5.8B.

The countries with the highest volumes of dried or smoked fish consumption in 2018 were Portugal (87K tonnes), Germany (71K tonnes) and Spain (62K tonnes), with a combined 45% share of total consumption.

From 2008 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of dried or smoked fish consumption, amongst the key consuming countries, was attained by Germany, while demand from the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, France ($1.2B), the UK ($926M) and Germany ($905M) were the countries with the highest levels of the market value in 2018, with a combined 53% share.

In 2018, the highest levels of dried or smoked fish per capita consumption was registered in Portugal (8.44 kg per person), followed by Spain (1.32 kg per person), Poland (1.11 kg per person) and Italy (0.95 kg per person), while the  average per capita consumption was estimated at 1 kg per person.

Production in the EU 2008-2018

The dried or smoked fish production dropped slightly to 399K tonnes in 2018, falling by -2% compared with the previous year. Overall, dried or smoked fish production showed a decrease. The volume of dried or smoked fish production peaked at 441K tonnes in 2008; however, from 2009 to 2018, production remained at a lower figure.

Exports in the EU

In 2018, the amount of dried or smoked fish exported in the European Union amounted to 285K tonnes, standing approx. at the year before. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.7% from 2008 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 with an increase of 19% against the previous year. Over the period under review, dried or smoked fish exports hit record highs at 296K tonnes in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, exports failed to regain their momentum.

In value terms, dried or smoked fish exports declined modestly to $3.1B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

The shipments of the five major exporters of dried or smoked fish, namely Poland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany, represented more than two-thirds of total exports. Lithuania (19K tonnes) ranks next in terms of the total exports with a 6.7% share, followed by Spain (5.9%).

From 2008 to 2018, the biggest increases were in the Netherlands, while shipments for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Poland ($920M) remains the largest dried or smoked fish supplier in the European Union, comprising 29% of total dried or smoked fish exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Germany ($396M), with a 13% share of total exports. It was followed by Denmark, with a 11% share.

Export Prices by Country

The dried or smoked fish export price in the European Union stood at $11,046 per tonne in 2018, rising by 5.1% against the previous year.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Lithuania ($16,189 per tonne), while Spain ($7,247 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

wooden

Global Wooden Frame Market – U.S. ($330M) Is the Largest Market for Imports, with a 37% Share

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Wooden Frames For Paintings, Photographs, Mirrors Or Similar Objects – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The global wooden frame market is estimated at $5.2B in 2018, an increase of 5.4% against the previous year.

Global Wooden Frame Imports 2014-2018

In 2018, approx. 234M units of wooden frames for paintings, photographs, mirrors or similar objects were imported worldwide; waning by -2.3% against the previous year. Over the period under review, wooden frame imports continue to indicate a moderate drop. The global imports peaked at 262M units in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, imports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, wooden frame imports amounted to $889M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Overall, wooden frame imports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2018 when imports increased by 10% year-to-year. Over the period under review, global wooden frame imports reached their maximum at $915M in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, imports failed to regain their momentum.

Imports by Country

The U.S. represented the key importer of wooden frames for paintings, photographs, mirrors or similar objects in the world, with the volume of supplies accounting for 80M units, which was near 34% of total imports in 2018. The UK (22M units) held a 9.6% share (based on tonnes) of total imports, which put it in second place, followed by Germany (9.3%) and Australia (5%). The following importers – France (8.5M units), Canada (8.1M units), Japan (7.5M units), the Netherlands (7.5M units), Spain (6.8M units), Belgium (6.5M units), Italy (5.4M units) and Sweden (5.2M units) – together made up 24% of total imports.

From 2014 to 2018, average annual rates of growth with regard to wooden frame imports into the U.S. stood at -3.4%. At the same time, Australia (+11.7%), the Netherlands (+3.9%), the UK (+2.1%) and Spain (+1.8%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Australia emerged as the fastest-growing importer imported in the world, with a CAGR of +11.7% from 2014-2018. By contrast, Canada (-1.4%), Sweden (-2.5%), France (-4.5%), Italy (-4.7%), Germany (-4.7%), Belgium (-6.5%) and Japan (-10.4%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. Australia (+1.8 p.p.) significantly strengthened its position in terms of the global imports, while Japan, Germany and the U.S. saw its share reduced by -1.8%, -2% and -5.1% from 2014 to 2018, respectively. The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, the U.S. ($330M) constitutes the largest market for imported wooden frames for paintings, photographs, mirrors or similar objects worldwide, comprising 37% of global imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Germany ($87M), with a 9.8% share of global imports. It was followed by the UK, with a 7.1% share.

Import Prices by Country

The average wooden frame import price stood at $3.8 per unit in 2018, going up by 13% against the previous year. Over the period from 2014 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.2%.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Japan ($4.7 per unit), while Australia ($2.3 per unit) was amongst the lowest.

From 2014 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Germany, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

global tea

Global Tea Market Overcame $25B, Growing Robustly Over the Last Decade

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

The global tea market revenue amounted to $25.9B in 2018, picking up by 7.7% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). Overall, the total market indicated a strong growth from 2007 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +4.3% over that period. Global tea consumption peaked in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Consumption By Country

China (2.3M tonnes) constituted the country with the largest volume of tea consumption, comprising approx. 35% of total volume. Moreover, tea consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, India (1.1M tonnes), twofold. Turkey (258K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total consumption with a 3.9% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of volume in China amounted to +9.2%. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: India (+2.7% per year) and Turkey (+1.6% per year).

In value terms, China ($10.7B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by India ($3.4B). It was followed by Turkey.

The countries with the highest levels of tea per capita consumption in 2018 were Kenya (4,903 kg per 1000 persons), Turkey (3,164 kg per 1000 persons) and Viet Nam (2,663 kg per 1000 persons).

Market Forecast 2019-2025

Driven by increasing demand for tea worldwide, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to decelerate, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +2.9% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 9.3M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production 2007-2018

Global tea production totaled 6.7M tonnes in 2018, surging by 5.5% against the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.3% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The general positive trend in terms of tea output was largely conditioned by a strong expansion of the harvested area and a relatively flat trend pattern in yield figures.

Production By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of tea production in 2018 were China (2.7M tonnes), India (1.4M tonnes) and Kenya (740K tonnes), together accounting for 71% of global production.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of tea production, amongst the main producing countries, was attained by China, while tea production for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Harvested Area 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 4.2M ha of tea were harvested worldwide; picking up by 4% against the previous year. The harvested area increased at an average annual rate of +3.6% over the period from 2007 to 2018, which largely made the strong growth of tea production feasible.

Yield 2007-2018

In 2018, the global average tea yield stood at 1.6 tonne per ha, stabilizing at the previous year. Over the period under review, the tea yield continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Exports 2007-2018

In 2018, the global tea exports stood at 2M tonnes, increasing by 4.1% against the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.4% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. In value terms, tea exports stood at $8.4B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

The exports of the four major exporters of tea, namely Kenya, China, Sri Lanka and India, represented more than two-thirds of total export. The following exporters – Viet Nam (77K tonnes), Argentina (74K tonnes), Indonesia (49K tonnes), Malawi (43K tonnes) and the United Arab Emirates (34K tonnes) – together made up 14% of total exports.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main exporting countries, was attained by India, while exports for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, China ($1.7B), Sri Lanka ($1.6B) and Kenya ($1.4B) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2018, together accounting for 56% of global exports.

Export Prices by Country

The average tea export price stood at $4,134 per tonne in 2018, going up by 3.3% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.6%.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was the United Arab Emirates ($8,419 per tonne), while Argentina ($1,254 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of export prices was attained by China, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports 2007-2018

In 2018, the amount of tea imported worldwide amounted to 2M tonnes, rising by 3.6% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.4% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations in certain years. In value terms, tea imports amounted to $7.7B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The imports of the twelve major importers of tea, namely Pakistan, Russia, the UK, the U.S., Egypt, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Poland, represented more than half of total import.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by Viet Nam (+50.2% per year), while imports for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Pakistan ($570M), Russia ($497M) and the U.S. ($487M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, with a combined 20% share of global imports. The UK, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Iraq, Viet Nam and Poland lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 31%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average tea import price amounted to $3,878 per tonne, jumping by 1.9% against the previous year. Over the last eleven years, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.3%.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Saudi Arabia ($6,921 per tonne), while Viet Nam ($2,062 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of import prices was attained by Egypt, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

UK

UK TAKES A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON TRADE

It seems that studies on the effects of free trade agreements on the U.S. economy have increasingly become exercises in checking a box, with groups for and against simply waiting on a punchline. Surely, we can do better to undertake public-facing intellectual analyses that are both accessible and potentially interesting to a wider swath of the general public – something more akin to what the United Kingdom (UK) has done to prepare for free trade agreement negotiations with the United States.

What’s good for the goose

Reflecting for a moment on U.S. free trade agreement negotiations with Central American countries in 2003, I recall we simultaneously worked with the Central American governments to build their institutional capacity to implement an eventual agreement. We also nudged the governments to engage their public on aspects of the agreement early in the negotiations. (Full disclosure, I was the Director for Central America at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative at the time.)

Our contention then was that only a very limited segment of the population would be tuned into any calls for input through the countries’ “Diario Oficial,” their version of the Federal Register where the U.S. Government publishes notices of regulatory changes and opportunities for public comment. The Central American negotiators set out to conduct a series of roundtables, even engaging women in rural Guatemala about how their traditional handicrafts could benefit from intellectual property rights and exports under the agreement.

It could have been a moment for introspection on our part, but it wasn’t. After all, interested parties in the United States are very familiar with the process of submitting comments and appearing at a public hearing to express views on a free trade agreement.

But there’s always room for improvement, isn’t there?

A fresh take on public engagement in trade

The UK Department for International Trade has provided an example of how to reinvent the process of public consultation on trade. After all, it had to. The UK hasn’t needed to lead on trade policy development for the last 50 years. Brexit, by definition, means the public is seeking a bigger voice in its affairs, including trade.

The Department’s report titled simply, UK-US Free Trade Agreement, runs about 110 surprisingly readable pages, not including the helpful Glossary of Terms and a detailed summary of feedback from public consultations. It begins where it should, by making the “strategic case” for a free trade agreement with the United States – a clear exposition on the “why”. Then it turns to the “how” with an outline of key components of an agreement. With that as context, the report explains how the government undertook 14 weeks of public consultations that included use of a new online portal, 12 “town halls,” a national Public Attitudes to Trade Tracker, and a series of roundtable events throughout the UK. These engagements were in addition to forming standing advisory committees similar to those the U.S. government relies on for expert perspectives from industry and civil service representatives.

Having presented that material, the remainder of the report is comprised of two pieces. First and importantly, is the government’s response to public input – “we heard you” and here’s how we’ll use your input in the negotiations. And second, is a relatable presentation showing the results of standard econometric modeling to understand the potential effects of a free trade agreement with the United States on the UK economy and workers.

UK-US Economic Impacts of FTA

A great example of effective policy communications

The UK’s Scoping Assessment concluded a broadly liberalizing FTA with the United States would boost UK exports to the United States by 7.7 percent and UK imports from the United States by 8.6 percent. This would induce a 0.5 to 0.36 percent gain in the UK’s productivity, sustained over time. In the long run, almost all sectors of the UK economy would increase output as they more efficiently allocate resources.

The explanation of the modeling’s output breaks down impact to GDP across its components: consumption expenditure, investment, government expenditure and net trade (C+I+G+(X-IM)=Y is the one and only equation I remember from economics classes, so I found that part of the report interesting). The report explains the limitations and imprecision of modeling – in other words, we should not fight over trade policy based on debatable numbers, but rather over directional gains versus losses.

Rather than only present economy-wide effects (after all, everything smooths out in the long run), the report indicates which UK nations and regions stand to gain most (Scotland, Wales, the North East, East Midlands and West Midlands of England) versus those that would expand the least (London, the South West and East of England). This recognizes that employment and industry vary across regions. The report even takes into account the effects on the UK’s trading partner (in this case, us), and developing countries that have a stake in access to both the UK and the United States, but which would be excluded from a UK-US FTA (impact negligible).

Workers affected by US-UK trade

Focusing on jobs

The report is direct in explaining the implications for some workers that would need to find employment in growing sectors. It also concludes workers are expected to experience increases in overall real wages and outlines how those gains are derived. The report breaks down potential changes in average wages by type of occupation and skill level. It also identifies sectors likely to add jobs so that the government and businesses can better prepare workers for shifts into growth areas.

When it comes to job losses, the agreement is not likely to cause any disproportionate change to what different segments of workers would naturally experience in terms of job loss as the economy churns – with one exception. Jobs held by 16-24-year-olds appear to be disproportionately concentrated in sectors where employment could fall. The government responds to this challenge by stating it already increased funding in education for 16-19-year-olds, funding for STEM, technical and digital skills, and new technical qualification programs to address the impact. This a staggeringly different approach than waiting to catch workers with a safety net when they fall.

Importantly, the report was written so that any reader could understand how the analysis was arrived at, what it means for them based on where they work and live, and what the government was prepared to do with the information – and, that the analysis would be updated and repeated to inform negotiations as they proceed.

Most trade reports are Greek to everyone but economists

Why is the UK report so readable? Because it was written to be read by the general public, not merely by congressional staffers who glance at an Executive Summary or economists who perform modeling themselves. This is not a knock on the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) which produces U.S. reports, though its report on the economic effects of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement was 376 pages and did contain Greek lettering.

USITC reports are first-rate analyses deploying industry-standard methodologies. A paragraph at the beginning, however, offers a good indication the reports intend to stick to their congressional mandate:

“[The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015] requires the Commission to assess the likely impact of USMCA on the U.S. economy as a whole and on specific industry sectors, including its impact on the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP); exports and imports; aggregate employment and employment opportunities; the production, employment, and competitive position of industries likely to be significantly affected by the agreement; and the interests of U.S. consumers.”

So, smart USITC economists set about to use a standard economy-wide computable general equilibrium (CGE) model based on the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model, among other modeling extensions, to fulfill its analytical mandate, with all the same caveats about econometric modeling limitations the UK describes. The USITC also conducts interviews with industry representatives and collects testimony from a public hearing and written submissions from interested parties.

Greek in USITC report

But the end result is a document that fulfilled a requirement rather than one that informs the negotiations. Neither does it resemble a government strategy to leverage the benefits of a trade agreement or mitigate the negative impacts on some workers. And it is unlikely that most of the general public would feel compelled to read such a report to gain understanding of a major component of national trade policy. Again, this outcome is because that is not what the USITC was asked to do.

Being too careful about what you ask

Everyone has a stake in the direction and outcome of trade policies, but not everyone cares enough to have their say. Nonetheless, the main complaint about trade policymaking is that large organizations with Washington representation know when and how to provide their input. The rest of us do not. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and U.S.-U.K. Business Council recently published comments on what their groups – that represent millions of workers – would like to see in a U.S.-UK deal.

A big conversation is coming about the value of global trade, which at TradeVistas we think is generally a source of strength and resiliency, not a vulnerability. Perhaps the time has come for the U.S. government to evolve and expand its approach to engage the public on trade before the deal is done, rather than pitch it to the public after the fact.

Given the potential for growing public skepticism, we can’t afford to wait to build awareness, understanding – and support – for trade deals like the one the administration is embarking on with the UK, one of our most longstanding and important allies, and a deal that will likely bring broad benefits to the citizens of the United States.

____________________________________________________________

Andrea Durkin is the Editor-in-Chief of TradeVistas and Founder of Sparkplug, LLC. Ms. Durkin previously served as a U.S. Government trade negotiator and has proudly taught international trade policy and negotiations for the last fifteen years as an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University’s Master of Science in Foreign Service program.

This article originally appeared on TradeVistas.org. Republished with permission.

optical fiber cable

EU’s Optical Fiber Cable Market – Germany Dominates the European Trade

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – Optical Fiber Cables And Bundles – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the optical fiber cable market in the European Union amounted to $2.8B in 2018, rising by 8% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). The market size increased at an average annual rate of +3.3% over the past five years.

Exports in the EU

In 2018, the optical fiber cable exports in the EU totaled $2.7B (IndexBox estimates). The total exports indicated a prominent increase from 2013 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +10.6% over the last five years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, optical fiber cable exports increased by +30.0% against 2014 indices.

Exports by Country

The largest optical fiber cable supplying countries in the European Union were Germany ($515M), France ($409M) and the Netherlands ($343M), together comprising 47% of total exports. Poland, the UK, Romania, Spain and the Czech Republic lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 32%.

Romania experienced the highest rates of growth with regard to the value of exports, among the main exporting countries over the period under review, while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in the EU

In 2018, optical fiber cable imports totaled $2.7B (IndexBox estimates). The total imports indicated a remarkable increase from 2013 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +12.8% over the last five years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, optical fiber cable imports increased by +41.2% against 2016 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 with an increase of 21% y-o-y. Over the period under review, optical fiber cable imports reached their peak figure in 2018 and are likely to see steady growth in the immediate term.

Imports by Country

Germany ($427M), France ($413M) and the Netherlands ($288M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, together accounting for 42% of total imports. The UK, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Romania, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Austria lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 43%.

Ireland experienced the highest rates of growth with regard to the value of imports, in terms of the main importing countries over the period under review, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform