The European Frozen Freshwater Fish Market Decreased Slightly to $0.7 Billion

December 14th, 2020 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

In 2019, after three years of growth, there was a decline in the EU frozen freshwater fish market, when its value decreased by -2.4% to $732M. In general, consumption saw a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2017 with an increase of 4.8% year-to-year. Over the period under review, the market hit record highs at $750M in 2018 and then declined slightly in the following year.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of frozen freshwater fish consumption in 2019 were Germany (49K tonnes), the UK (40K tonnes), and Spain (23K tonnes), together accounting for 48% of total consumption (IndexBox estimates). France, the Netherlands, Italy, Belgium, Poland, Romania, Portugal, the Czech Republic, and Greece lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 35%.

From 2013 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of frozen freshwater fish consumption, amongst the leading consuming countries, was attained by Poland, while frozen freshwater fish consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the UK ($146M), Germany ($122M), and Spain ($84M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of market value in 2019, with a combined 48% share of the total market. These countries were followed by France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Romania, Poland, and Greece, which together accounted for a further 36%.

The countries with the highest levels of frozen freshwater fish per capita consumption in 2019 were Belgium (755 kg per 1000 persons), the Netherlands (672 kg per 1000 persons), and Portugal (615 kg per 1000 persons).

Production in the EU

In 2019, frozen freshwater fish production in the European Union contracted to 164K tonnes, reducing by -11.4% on the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.3% from 2013 to 2019; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2018 with an increase of 10% against the previous year. As a result, production reached a peak volume of 185K tonnes and then fell in the following year.

Production by Country

The country with the largest volume of frozen freshwater fish production was Germany (52K tonnes), comprising approx. 32% of the total volume. Moreover, frozen freshwater fish production in Germany exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, Spain (23K tonnes), twofold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by the UK (21K tonnes), with a 13% share.

In Germany, frozen freshwater fish production expanded at an average annual rate of +1.2% over the period from 2013-2019. The remaining producing countries recorded the following average annual rates of production growth: Spain (-2.6% per year) and the UK (+1.3% per year).

Exports in the EU

In 2019, the amount of frozen whole freshwater fish exported in the European Union declined to 101K tonnes, reducing by -13.1% compared with the year before. In general, exports recorded a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 when exports increased by 8.1% y-o-y. Over the period under review, exports hit record highs at 117K tonnes in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2019, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure. In value terms, frozen freshwater fish exports reduced to $291M (IndexBox estimates) in 2019.

Exports by Country

The Netherlands (25K tonnes) and Spain (24K tonnes) represented roughly 49% of the total exports of frozen whole freshwater fish in 2019. Portugal (15K tonnes) took a 15% share (based on tonnes) of total exports, which put it in second place, followed by Germany (8.6%), Belgium (6.5%), and Estonia (5.1%). Latvia (3K tonnes) and Poland (2.4K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2013 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Latvia, while shipments for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest frozen freshwater fish supplying countries in the European Union were the Netherlands ($89M), Spain ($65M), and Portugal ($48M), with a combined 69% share of total exports. Germany, Belgium, Estonia, Poland, and Latvia lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 17%.

Latvia recorded the highest growth rate of the value of exports, in terms of 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 frozen freshwater fish export price in the European Union stood at $2,893 per tonne in 2019, remaining constant against the previous year. Over the last six-year period, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.6%. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2018 when the export price increased by 17% y-o-y. As a result, export price attained the peak level of $2,916 per tonne, leveling off in the following year.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2019, the country with the highest price was the Netherlands ($3,578 per tonne), while Latvia ($916 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by the Netherlands, while the other leaders experienced mixed trends in the export price figures.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

EU Releases New Complaint System to Address Trade Deal Violations and Market Barriers

November 19th, 2020 Nithya Nagarajan, Turner Kim, and Camron Greer Leave a comment

On November 16, 2020, the European Commission (“EC”) debuted their new complaints system for stakeholders to report harmful trade barriers and violations to European Union (“EU”) trade agreements. The “Single Entry Point” complaints system allows member states, companies, trade associations, civil society groups and EU citizens to report any market access barriers and non-compliance of Trade and Sustainable Development (“TSD”) commitments which are part of EU trade agreements or under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (“GSP”).

Executive Vice-President and Commissioner for Trade Valdis Dombrovskis said that the EC “has made enforcement a top priority” and that, notably, under the new system, complaints related to “sustainable development commitments” will receive the same level of attention as complaints related to market access barriers.

As outlined in the published operating guidelines, received complaints will be prioritized based on three criteria:

1. The likelihood of success for resolving the issue;

2. The legal basis for the complaint;

3. The seriousness or degree of economic/systemic impact of the alleged market access barriers or violations of TSD/GSP commitments.

The new system has two separate complaint forms, one for market access barriers and another for non-compliance with TSD/GSP commitments. Both of the forms require that the complainant provide the legal basis and a full description of the issue being reported. Additionally, if the commission finds that enforcement action is necessary, they will inform the complainant and issue an enforcement action plan tailored to the specific violation or trade barrier.

___________________________________________________________

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.

Turner Kim is an Assistant Trade Analyst in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington, D.C. office.

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

Archives, EU Trade, Global Logistics, Global Trade Daily

How to Mitigate the Burden of Brexit Disruption

November 19th, 2020 David Merritt Leave a comment

It’s difficult to believe, but after nearly six years of debate and disruption, the end of the Brexit saga is close at hand. There are less than two months left until the official departure of the UK from the EU, and with each passing day the possibility of a mutually agreeable free trade arrangement between the two parties becomes less likely.

For businesses engaged in trade across the English Channel and the Irish Sea, this is likely to mean significant disorder in the form of long queues at customs checkpoints, a deluge of new documentation with which to reckon and the expense of new taxes and tariffs. Just as an example, the total volume of customs declarations is due to rise by 20% after Brexit Day.

For their part, the governments in London and Brussels are doing what they can to provide relief to those businesses that will inevitably experience adversity with the onset of Brexit. As part of this, the British government has introduced a new process called Entry in Declarants Records or EIDR. It is being made available only to those businesses that do not trade in controlled goods, such as food, chemicals, medicines, etc.

Why It Matters to Trading Businesses

As noted above, businesses engaged in trade will face a series of setbacks as the UK and EU part ways, the foremost of which will be border delays. The EIDR allows businesses to import goods into the UK without providing a full or even partial customs declaration at the point of import. That means quicker and easier release of shipments and, in turn, shorter delays. It also allows for the deferral of Value-Added Taxes (VATs) using the introduction of Postponed Accounting for VAT (PVA) and duties, as well as the deferral of supplementary declarations for individual or bulk shipments. This not only provides financial relief in the short term, but also a smoother transition into the customs regime.

What’s the Catch?

It’s not so much that there’s a catch, but there are limitations and requirements. EIDR allows traders to obtain the release of goods from a third country to a customs procedure and can be used to enter goods into:

-Free circulation;

-Customs warehousing;

-Processing;

-Specific use or;

-For export/re-export purposes

However, in order to import goods through EIDR, businesses are required to use the Customs Freight Simplified Procedure (CFSP) to complete the reporting process through the submission of a supplementary declaration. EIDR will be accessible to traders without the need for authorization until June 30, 2021.

A supplementary declaration must be completed up to six months after the date the goods were imported. If a Trader elects to use EIDR after this date, an application to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) will be required.

If those last two paragraphs left you shaking your head and craving alphabet soup, the good news is EIDR doesn’t require the documentation to be submitted directly by the importer, so trading businesses can lean on their customs brokers for the heavy lifting on documentation and process.

What are the Limitations?

Goods that cannot be declared using EIDR includes but is not limited to:

-Items on the Controlled Goods List – which also includes but is not limited to Excise goods, Fisheries, Endangered species, Anti-dumping duty and countervailing duties.

-ATA Carnet

-Personal Effects

-Special procedures e.g. Inwards Processing (IP) by import declaration.

What are an Importer’s Responsibilities?

Like all other documentation and duty deferral programs around the world, the EIDR will require importers to apply diligent record-keeping to ensure they are able to document their transactions and keep logs of relevant information in the event they are audited or a miscalculation occurs.

All businesses using EIDR to trade goods must:

-Maintain records for no less than 4 years.

-Ensure records are backed up and kept secure.

-Obtain the use of a CSFP software package or the services of a CFSP authorized customs agent.

-Maintain a clear audit trail of temporary imported goods.

Although EIDR will allow faster release of goods, use of simpler customs declarations and provide potential cashflow benefits to traders; these benefits could be outweighed by fees and software costs.

Make it a Supply Chain Conversation

Businesses would be well served to discuss with their trade partners and supply chain vendors precisely how they intend to operate in the post-Brexit period. In addition, they should work with their vendors, including freight forwarders, customs and freight brokers and trade consultants to conduct a thorough cost analysis to enable an informed decision on the process to be used.

Doing this today has the potential to mitigate border disruption, reduce landed costs and lessen the burden of documentation requirements, allowing businesses to focus more on what they do best and less on the minutiae of customs processes.

______________________________________________________________

David Merritt is a director in the Global Trade Consulting division of trade services firm Livingston International. He can be reached at dmerritt@livingstonintl.com.

Archives, EU Trade, Global Trade Daily, News

EU Imposes Tariffs on U.S. Following WTO Decision on Subsidies to Boeing

November 17th, 2020 Julia Banegas, Emily Lyons, and Camron Greer Leave a comment

The European Union (EU) has imposed additional tariffs on approximately $4 billion worth of U.S. goods, after a World Trade Organization (WTO) decision last month authorized proportionate retaliation against the U.S. for its subsidies to Boeing.

According to the European Commission’s (EC) Implementing Regulation (“the Regulation”), published in the Official Journal of the European Union on November 9, 2020, negotiations with the U.S. to settle the dispute over subsidies to their respective aircraft industries “have so far not yielded results,” while the U.S. still maintains tariffs on approximately $7.5 billion worth of European goods as a result of a parallel WTO decision authorizing U.S. retaliation against the EU.

Effective upon the date of publication, the EC has adopted duty rates of 15% for civil aircraft and aircraft parts under the tariff codes 8802.40.0013, 8802.40.0015, 8802.40.0017, 8802.40.0019, and 8802.40.0021. A rate of 25% was adopted for all other listed U.S.-origin imports. The list of goods subject to 25% tariffs, with product descriptions, can be viewed here. The rates of 15% and 25% reflect the rates currently imposed by the U.S. on imports of EU-origin goods.

In U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer’s statement in response to the EU’s announcement of retaliatory tariffs, he expressed disappointment and noted that the main subsidy to Boeing—a Washington State Business & Occupation tax break—that was alleged at the WTO was repealed earlier this year.

_______________________________________________________________

Julia Banegas is an attorney in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington, D.C. office.

Emily Lyons is an attorney in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington, D.C. office.

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

Archives, EU Trade, Global Trade Daily

Sweet Dream or a Logistical Nightmare?

November 10th, 2020 Sophie Phillips Leave a comment

Uncertain; unforeseen; unprecedented; unexpected: 2020 has been the most turbulent of years, politically, socially, and medically.

Amongst it all, the UK’s negotiations with the EU have continued. The current transition period ends on 31 December 2020, at which point the UK will leave the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union. At present, it’s not clear what the UK’s new independent trade policy will entail, but the logistics industry will be acutely aware of the potential impact of a ‘No-Deal Brexit’ on the availability of workers, not to mention customs issues and the sheer volume of administration that all add time to an already time-sensitive industry. Michael Gove, Minister for the Cabinet Office, has publicly estimated a worst-case scenario of lorry drivers being delayed at the Dover-Calais crossing for up to two days.

Logistics companies are being advised to prepare thoroughly and carefully to avoid delays and to ensure the timely passage of goods in to and out of Europe, but also to cushion the blows of duties that may be incurred alongside increases in the cost of materials combined with currency devaluation. Companies that have previously relied on ‘just-in-time’ deliveries of goods and stock from the EU, where parts may arrive a matter of hours prior to being used, are now having to look for other ways of securing their supply chain.

Many are stockpiling goods, increasing demand for storage spaces of an appropriate type and in suitable locations. An acute shortage of warehouse facilities in major cities means that competition for suitable space is intense and the government’s focus on building more residential properties has led to concerns that urban logistics spaces will lose out to housing.

As if this wasn’t enough, there’s also Covid-19, which has led to an enormous increase in online commerce. This has meant, in turn, greater pressure on the existing logistics networks and heightened competition, particularly when it comes to replenishing stocks for retailers, storage of goods, and meeting increasingly high customer expectations. This is relevant for businesses of all shapes and sizes, from the biggest players in the market to SMEs, and companies are being forced – or incentivized, depending on how you look at it – to reposition their networks to make sure they are not only up to standard but are also resilient.

It’s not all bad news. As ever, with the biggest challenges come the biggest opportunities and the logistics market is seeing an influx of investment in urban logistics expansion, with a particular focus on last-mile warehouse markets in key metropolitan areas and what are sometimes known as gateway cities – anything that can get the suppliers closer to the consumer. Even the quickest of glances at current industry headlines show deal after deal as investors snap up properties close to consumers and key infrastructures such as airports, strategically important highways, and ports. It’s not just existing development sites either, as assets with the potential to be repositioned are being considered by logistics companies (and their investors) in an effort to ensure distribution networks are as efficient and fit for purpose as possible – although the urban infill market remains a favorite.

We at Bird & Bird have seen an increase in clients wishing to consolidate existing land stock and develop it into potentially more lucrative warehousing in response to the increased demand for storage space, and also from landlords looking to reclaim potentially high-value warehouse space. We expect to see a significant increase in requests for advice relating to the construction of warehouses with advanced technological capacity, with the aim of driving down operational costs and maximizing the use of space particularly in high value, low capacity areas.

Time to throw yet another straw onto the proverbial camel’s back. What about sustainability in an industry that is ultimately based around consumer desires? Can logistics ever be ‘green’?

It’s an interesting and ever-more pressing question. The logistics industry needs to grapple not only with consumer pressure to provide an environmentally responsible service and the fact that investors are increasingly considering sustainability as part of their investment decisions but also with the drive from the government.

The UK Parliament passed legislation in 2019 that requires all greenhouse gas emissions produced by the UK to be brought to net-zero by 2050 when compared to the levels recorded in 1990 (not to be confused with a ‘gross-zero’ target which would require reducing all emissions to zero). Innovation, off-setting, and the use of modern methods is a key part of this process, as the built environment is widely acknowledged as being critical to reductions in emissions goals. However, new buildings make up a fairly small percentage of the challenge and the focus has to remain on existing stock and how to remodel or retrofit it to make it more sustainable – whether that is by way of solar paneling, greater automation, or the use of robotics.

It’s worth noting that where construction can be carried out off-site, employers are often seeing an improvement in energy costs and reduced waste. Sustainable technology and ensuring a sustainable supply chain are other areas worth investing in.

This is a time of huge change and uncertainty. As with any challenge, the best defense is preparation, and making sure you have a competitive edge in an already competitive industry is key, as is staying on top of the consumer trends and trade negotiations which could have a significant impact on day-to-day management and the meeting of supply contracts. With consumerism ever on the rise, the demand for warehousing doesn’t seem to be an appetite that is going to be sated any time soon, whether there is a no-deal Brexit or not. Investors in logistics and industrial real estate are clearly already aware of this.

This is a chance for the logistics industry to recalibrate and position itself accordingly. It’s worth looking ahead too – whilst the Covid-19 pandemic will be over at some point (hopefully sooner rather than later) that does not mean the consumer habits picked up during the pandemic are going away and longer-term trends, such as the increasing urbanization of populations, the continued maturation of emerging economies, and increased consumer awareness of environmental concerns, will continue to dominate the narrative for many years to come.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Poland Strengthens its Leadership in the European Wooden Bedroom Furniture Exports

November 4th, 2020 IndexBox Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – Wooden Furniture Of A Kind Used In The Bedroom – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The EU wooden bedroom furniture market amounted to $5.1B in 2019, which is down by -12.8% 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). Over the period under review, the market hit record highs at $6.1B in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, consumption stood at a somewhat lower figure.