Trending Now

Building a Resilient Supply Chain with Advanced Predictive…

New Articles

EU Compliance Developments That Parent Companies Should Tackle in 2023

score diversity cultural employee compliance
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Uncategorized

EU Compliance Developments That Parent Companies Should Tackle in 2023

Leave a comment

Foreign parent companies, including US parent companies, are increasingly subject to extraterritorial legislations and are likely to face new compliance challenges coming from the European Union in 2023. Similarly, US subsidiaries of French groups should beware of both the applicable US rules and French compliance framework that they are subject to. Compliance regulations have exploded this year with 11 successive waves of EU sanctions issued against Russia. The French Anticorruption Agency (the “AFA”) has issued several publications which clarify the position of the French administration. We could not explain all these new major developments in this short article, but have selected three important topics which we dive into below.

I) The need to update the anti-corruption investigation procedures for companies owned by a French parent company

Who is concerned? Since December 2016,  French Sapin II[1] law makes internal anti-corruption compliance procedures mandatory for French companies with 500 employees and consolidated sales in excess of €100 million. This includes foreign and French subsidiaries when their head office is located in France with consolidated annual sales of more than 100 million euros.

Authorities may take serious civil, criminal and administrative sanctions both against the company and  individuals (legal representatives and directors) who are noncompliant with the Sapin II Law and/or with the French Criminal Code regarding active or passive corruption and influence peddling.

What is new? Internal measures and strong compliance procedures have been in force since June 2017. Companies can rely on the guidelines from the French Anti-Corruption Agency (AFA) to implement the required anti-corruption measures which, since 2021 are based on the following three pillars:

  • The commitment of the management body to compliance. The choice of executives’ commitment as the first pillar reflects the AFA’s emphasis that the implementation of the compliance program is the responsibility of its leaders.
  • Precise risk mapping for the group. Providing detailed information of the risks to which the group entities in each country are exposed to for each type of business activity; and
  • the management of these risksby means of prevention, detection and remediation measures and the issuance of adapted compliance procedures such as the Code of Conduct.

The French Anticorruption Agency (the “AFA”) and the French National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (the “PNF”) collaborated to publish on 14 March, 2023 a guide relating to internal anti-corruption investigations. The guide aims to support companies in implementing their relevant internal investigations and to assess facts that shall trigger investigations. The goal of these authorities is to encourage companies to fully cooperate and to report non-compliant facts. Like in the USA, the French authorities are also placing cooperation from companies at the heart of their new criminal policy.

II) The need to conduct corporate sustainability due diligence: The French and EU duty of care (“devoir de vigilance”)

Foreign companies can be caught under French law for breaches of the duty of care provided by the “Law on the duty of care of parent companies and ordering companies”[2]. Indeed, the French duty of care is binding on companies employing (i) at least 5,000 employees in their own organization and in subsidiaries with head offices located in France, or (ii) having at least 10,000 employees in their own organization and in subsidiaries with head offices located in France or abroad.

Foreign parent companies which meet these criteria shall be required to implement a corporate sustainability due diligence plan which complies with five pillars provided by French Law[3], including risk mapping and relevant implementation procedures. Non-compliance with these rules can lead to a court order to put in place an efficient due diligence plan, but more importantly, compensation for the damage caused as a result of the lack of an adequate due diligence plan and reputational damage.

A number of companies have already been subject to formal notice on this basis in France for various reasons, including: (i) Total for climate objectives insufficient to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement” in relation to business activities in Russia where sanctions are imposed and its oil project in Uganda; (ii) Truck transport and logistics multinational XPO Logistics Europe (a subsidiary of the American group XPO Logistics) concerning workers’ rights in the truck transport multinational’s subcontracting chain, and (iii) McDonald’s France concerning workers’ rights in Brazil and France.

No doubt future litigation will shape this particular area of law. Big companies should therefore carefully draft their corporate sustainability due diligence plan since they can be held liable on this basis.

In the European Union, only France and Germany have adopted laws on duty of care. However,  duty of care should be implemented at the EU level in the following months, once adopted by the EU Council.  Indeed, on 1st June 2023, the European Parliament adopted a proposal for a Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence which aims to establish harmonized European legislation on the duty of care, in an effort to improve corporate respect for human rights and to strengthen environmental protection.

This EU duty of care will target more companies than the French one with decreased thresholds of applicability, i.e. (i) European companies employing more than 250 people on average and generating more than 40,000,000 euros in sales or (ii) companies that are the ultimate parent company of a group that employed 500 persons and generates more than 150,000,000 euros in sales worldwide during the last financial year.

 Thus, contrary to French law, the EU duty of care should also apply to big SMEs. In addition, this new Directive should lead to the adoption of new sanctions against companies for non-compliance with the due diligence framework, and the creation of a new regulator to monitor compliance with the EU duty of care.

III) Implementation of the GDPR

The well-known General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) applies to any organization established in the EU territory which processes personal data, as well as those the activity of which directly targets European residents. Foreign companies should therefore pay particular attention to these very specific rules, the violation of which can result in severe sanctions.

Companies must guarantee protective rights to persons whose data is being processed, whether employees or customers. The GDPR also binds foreign companies as it places regulations on the transfer of data outside the EU, which is of particular interest to international groups.

The CJEU ruled in its Court judgment (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020, Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Schrems that the GDPR requires data exporters to assess the conditions framing transfers and to put in place suitable measures to ensure that such data is subject to protection substantially equivalent to that guaranteed in the European Union. Both data controllers and data processors transferring data are accountable for these requirements.

Since the invalidation by the CJEU on the 16 July 2020 of the EU-US Privacy Shield, the data transfer agreement between the EU and the US, such transfer has become a sensitive operation and required the implementation of strict safeguards ensuring sufficient guarantee, such as, according to the text of the GDPR, the implementation of Binding Corporate Rules and Standard Contractual Clauses.

However, it seems that the respect of these rules is not sufficient since the Irish Data Protection Authority has very recently stated, on Monday, May 22, 2023, that META’s recourse to “standard contractual clauses” was insufficiently protective of data transfers and fined it 1.2 billion euros, as well as ordering the US firm to cease all transfers of data from European Internet users to the USA as of October 12. The data collected since 2020 must also be repatriated to European data centers by November 12.

It appears in practice that organizations transferring data under U.S. surveillance legislation are the first to be affected by this ruling and that the strengthening of their data protection procedure is urgent whenever they are transferring personal data from the EU to the U.S.

Conclusion: Foreign parent companies are responsible for ensuring that their subsidiaries in France and the EU are able to meet these multiple compliance challenges, and must navigate a complex and international compliance framework.

[1] Law n°2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 on transparency, fight against corruption and modernization of the economic life.

[2] Law n° 2017-399 of 27 March 2017 on the duty of care of parent companies and ordering companies

[3] Article L225-102-4, I, of the French Commercial Code)

nuclear ukraine putin united NATO
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News, War

How Will the Russia-Ukraine War Reshape the World? (Part 2)

Leave a comment

A double cold war

Peace talks between Russia and Ukraine have been deadlocked for several months, as the Ukrainians held out hope that new Western military supplies would tip the balance of the conflict in their favor. But with several Ukrainian cities turned into rubble, it becomes clear that no one can truly win the war.

France and Germany make new efforts to get both sides to consent to a peace deal in which Ukraine would become a neutral country akin to nonaligned Austria, agreeing to excise the goal of NATO membership from its constitution contingent on the total pullout of Russian troops from the country. The harder issues, such as a permanent status for Russian-annexed Crimea and the two breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, are tabled for the moment. After several unsuccessful attempts, Zelenskyy and Putin strike a ceasefire deal under pressure from not just Paris and Berlin but also Washington. The European Union (EU) offers increased humanitarian and development assistance to Ukraine and some reduction in sanctions against Russia so long as the Kremlin removes all its troops from Ukraine except those in contested areas of the country. The EU also helps with the resettlement of refugees in their homes in Ukraine.

With the ceasefire holding and Russia beginning to withdraw its forces, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz propose a broader peace conference that would jumpstart arms-control talks between NATO and Russia. Their intent is to avoid a new cold war in Europe. Washington, however, is opposed to the idea of the conference, with many US foreign-policy elites believing that Putin has not paid enough for his unjustified invasion of Ukraine. Leading members of Congress from both parties urge the president to not lift even some of the stiffest financial sanctions on Russia—a step Macron and Scholz believe is needed to strengthen the tenuous peace. The US position is bolstered by opposition to the Franco-German initiative among several of the EU’s eastern members.

While the US administration refuses to bow to congressional pressure to revoke the New START nuclear arms-reduction treaty with Moscow, it does not feel in this climate that it can back Franco-German efforts to launch NATO-Russian negotiations on placing restrictions on conventional weapons. Heeding growing calls by Eastern European allies for reinforced support against Russia, the United States and its Western European allies begin adding new forces along the new East-West divide at the borders of Poland and the Baltic states. Russia and Belarus mirror these moves.

Having followed through on his plans for fortifying Germany’s armed forces, Scholz urges stronger EU defense. Macron reiterates his proposal to extend France’s nuclear weapons as a European deterrent against any aggressors.

Oil prices come down but remain in the range of seventy-five to ninety-five dollars per barrel. Europe accelerates its efforts to bolster renewable-energy sources, including nuclear energy. EU economic growth, after a recession in 2022-23, amounts to less than 1 percent on an annual basis following the war, while the United States experiences higher growth at 2 percent and China drops below 5 percent. As global growth plunges below 4 percent, there is a growing realization that the world may be mired in an extended period of slow economic development. Price spikes and riots escalate in parts of Africa and the Middle East that were dependent on Ukrainian wheat exports.

Russia, meanwhile, becomes increasingly dependent on Chinese and other Asian markets for its sluggish economic recovery, and speeds up the export of its energy eastward. China expands its Cross-Border Interbank Payment System to allow the two neighboring powers to increasingly bypass the Belgium-based SWIFT international payment system. Russia and China settle more trade in digital yuan, reducing the need for dollars. China also launders Russian gold reserves, which are believed to be worth some one hundred billion dollars, by converting them into yuan that Russia can use to buy Chinese goods.

In light of China’s support for Russia, Washington widens the new cold war that’s emerging to Beijing in addition to Moscow. The United States sanctions some Chinese banks and calls on its allies to blacklist an expanding list of Chinese technology firms. European leaders, for their part, are reluctant to take on China but don’t feel they are well-positioned to resist US demands. The United States cuts off exports of semiconductor chips to China as well, causing distress to its own industry and accelerating China’s efforts to build technological self-reliance. The US government also ends its posture of “strategic ambiguity” on Taiwan, declaring that it would intervene militarily in response to any Chinese aggression against the island, while the Taiwanese debate declaring independence from China. Moscow and Beijing, in turn, deepen their political cooperation.

Xi sees advantages to the expanding cold war with the United States. He revs up his nationalistic rhetoric, rallying support for the regime’s fight with the West and suppressing growing unease with his rule among those in the Communist Party who want to introduce market reforms to boost the country’s shaky economy and find an accommodation with the United States.

In this environment, an informal bloc of nonaligned nations emerges that includes India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Turkey, and Brazil. Most of these countries maintained good relations with Russia during the Ukraine war despite Western pressure to isolate Moscow. Dependent economically on their trade with China, they also want good relations with Beijing.

International cooperation on everything from climate change to common economic challenges, global tech standards, and development assistance for poorer countries becomes harder. The internet further splinters, as the increasing US-China rivalry leads each power to recruit as many countries as possible to its side on digital matters. Global economic growth continues its downward trend and de-globalization advances. International multilateral institutions, from the United Nations to the World Trade Organization and World Health Organization, go into decline.

data transfer
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

New Compliance Obligations for Cross-Border Data Transfers

Leave a comment

For several years, cross-border data transfers functioned similar to airport security checks for international travel, with the Privacy Shield operating as a fast check-in lane. After the European Union (EU) Court invalidated the Privacy Shield in July 2020 (Schrems II decision), EU-U.S. data transfers faced greater uncertainties. While other mechanisms existed, Privacy Shield was a common compliance tool. Given the inability to utilize the Privacy Shield concept, the EU introduced an update to an alternative mechanism, new standard contractual clauses (New SCC), which replace the 2010 version and facilitate post-Schrems II cross-border data transfers.

Beginning September 27, 2021, most organizations will need to amend their commercial agreements with the New SCC for transatlantic data transfer. These new processes will add significant compliance obligations for customers and vendors to assess, document, and implement to ensure additional safeguards for protecting EU personal data.


Why the EU Invalidated the Privacy Shield

Before July 2020, more than 5,000 companies transferred EU personal data to the U.S. through the Privacy Shield framework approved by the U.S. and the EU. For 15 months following the Schrems II decision, companies have been struggling with this “Suez Canal moment” that places severe hurdles for transatlantic data transfer. Similar to the Evergreen container ship’s accidental blockage of the Suez Canal in 2021, the impasse in cross-border data transfer jeopardizes EU-U.S. trade at an estimated $1 trillion per year.

The EU-U.S. friction over cross-border data transfer arises because of their differing approaches in privacy and data protection: while the U.S. considers data privacy important, the EU sees it as inalienable and sacred. Edward Snowden’s revelation about U.S. surveillance programs further demonstrated that the U.S. federal government can compel companies such as Facebook to turn over EU residents’ data. In response, the EU court found that U.S. laws undermine the protections of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The court noted in its opinion that U.S. national security laws do not afford individuals sufficient rights when their personal data is intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Options for Cross-Border Data Transfers

U.S. organizations must undergo a thorough case-by-case assessment of cross-border data transfers, known as a transfer impact assessment (TIA). Other options are binding corporate rules (BCR); however, these are generally not favored by most organizations.

When to Amend Existing Agreements with the New SCC

For contracts signed before September 27, 2021 under the old SCC, companies have until December 27, 2022 to amend with the New SCC. The New SCC comes in one document with four separate cross-border transfer scenarios or modules:

1. Controller to controller,

2. Controller to processor,

3. Processor to processor, and

4. Processor to controller.

A business must select the applicable module before initiating the transfer based on the executed New SCC. A key step for the TIA outlined below is that the business must also adopt supplementary measures, in addition to the New SCC, to provide GDPR-equivalent data protection to EU residents.

The Six Steps for a Transfer Impact Assessment

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB), the EU body responsible for GDPR implementation, directed businesses exporting EU personal data to the U.S. perform the following six-step assessment:

Step 1: Perform data mapping for cross-border data transfer.

Step 2: Identify appropriate transfer tools, i.e., the New SCC or a few other mechanisms.

Step 3: Assess whether the GDPR will be undermined under any laws and/or practices in the third country (i.e., the U.S.) that are applicable to the specific data being transferred based on relevant, objective, and publicly available information.

Step 4: Identify and adopt appropriate contractual, technical, and organizational measures (supplementary

measures) if the third country’s laws lack GDPR-equivalent protection.

Step 5: Take formal procedural steps to adopt supplementary measures.

Step 6: Re-evaluate at appropriate intervals the protection afforded to the EU personal data transferred.

Whether organizations choose the New SCC or other transfer tools for cross-border transfers, they should involve their data privacy counsel to conduct the six-step TIA mandated by the EDPB.

The good news is an organization does not need to repeat the assessment every time it transfers the same specific categories of personal data to the same country outside the EU. For example, if a company regularly transfers to the U.S. a dataset with EU residents’ names, emails, and job titles, the company must complete and document a TIA specific to transferring this type of dataset to the U.S. in order to comply with the EDPB guidelines. For this specific scenario, the company can rely on the documented TIA without repeating the same process each time it transfers the data, subject to the following conditions:

-The transfer involves the same specific type of data from the EU to the same third party, i.e., the U.S. in this case,

-It continues to implement the necessary supplementary measures, and

-It re-evaluates and monitors the level of data protection afforded to this specific dataset by keeping continuous vigilance of the third country laws and practices.

Conclusion

Similar to the 2021 Suez Canal blockage that disrupted global trade, companies will feel the rippling impacts of the Schrems II decision as they operationalize and implement the New SCC. Most U.S. organizations will now need to rely on the New SCC as the primary tool for cross-border transfers. The New SCC provides a mechanism to facilitate trade, while imposing complex, ongoing contractual obligations for data protection. All organizations should thoroughly review the terms and implement supplementary measures or risk cross-border data transfers on tenuous grounds.

_________________________________________________________________

Vivien F. Peaden, CIPP/US, CIPP/E, CIPM is a technology and privacy attorney at law firm Baker Donelson. She brings her previous in-house counsel experience with one of the world’s largest management consulting firms to deliver business-oriented and practical advice on a wide range of technology transactions, data privacy, and cybersecurity issues that impact her client’s bottom line. She can be reached at vpeaden@bakerdonelson.com.

glass fibres
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

The European Glass Fibres And Wool Market Reached $2.3B, Decelerating After Three Years of Solid Growth

Leave a comment

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

In 2019, the EU glass fibres and wool market increased by 0.3% to $2.3B, rising for the fourth consecutive year after two years of decline. The market value increased at an average annual rate of +2.3% over the period from 2013 to 2019; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations in certain years.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of glass fibres and wool consumption in 2019 were the UK (255K tonnes), Belgium (131K tonnes) and Germany (128K tonnes), together comprising 56% of total consumption.

From 2013 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Belgium, while glass fibres and wool consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest glass fibres and wool markets in the European Union were Germany ($550M), the UK ($349M) and Belgium ($224M), together comprising 50% of the total market.

In 2019, the highest levels of glass fibres and wool per capita consumption was registered in Belgium (11 kg per person), followed by Denmark (5.06 kg per person), the UK (3.78 kg per person) and Germany (1.56 kg per person), while the world average per capita consumption of glass fibres and wool was estimated at 1.80 kg per person.

Production in the EU

In 2019, the amount of glass fibres and glass wool produced in the European Union reached 923K tonnes, rising by 4.3% compared with the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.7% from 2013 to 2019; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. Over the period under review, production hit record highs in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in the near future.

Exports in the EU

In 2019, the amount of glass fibres and glass wool exported in the European Union expanded modestly to 254K tonnes, growing by 2.5% against 2018 figures. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.8% over the period from 2013 to 2019. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 with an increase of 13% against the previous year. In value terms, glass fibres and wool exports contracted slightly to $997M (IndexBox estimates) in 2019.

Exports by Country

The shipments of the three major exporters of glass fibres and glass wool, namely Germany, Belgium and Spain, represented more than half of total export. It was distantly followed by Sweden (14K tonnes), making up a 5.5% share of total exports. The following exporters – Lithuania (11K tonnes), the UK (11K tonnes), France (10K tonnes), Denmark (9.2K tonnes) and Italy (9.1K tonnes) – each accounted for a 20% share of total exports.

From 2013 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of shipments, amongst the leading exporting countries, was attained by Lithuania (+163.2% per year), while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Germany ($313M) remains the largest glass fibres and wool supplier in the European Union, comprising 31% of total exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Spain ($110M), with an 11% share of total exports. It was followed by Denmark, with an 8.6% share.

Export Prices by Country

In 2019, the glass fibres and wool export price in the European Union amounted to $3,931 per tonne, shrinking by -4.1% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the export price recorded a mild setback. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2016 when the export price increased by 17% y-o-y. As a result, export price attained the peak level of $4,614 per tonne. From 2017 to 2019, the growth in terms of the export prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Denmark ($9,270 per tonne), while Belgium ($1,359 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

customs
Archives, EU Trade, Global Trade Daily

Simplifying Customs Procedures in the Post-Brexit Period

Leave a comment

Anyone who has ever arrived at an airport outside of his or her home country knows all too well the chaotic, tedious, and time-consuming process of going through customs and immigration.

Now imagine that, instead of people, the lineup was made up of tractor-trailers full of time-sensitive goods and was several kilometers long because there aren’t enough customs officials to process the backlog of required paperwork. Somewhere far away from the lineup is a business owner impatiently waiting for those goods and becoming far more open to the idea of finding a new supplier. Now you’ve got a sense of what the borders of the UK and EU will be like come January 1, 2021. The total volume of import and export declarations entries is anticipated to balloon to approximately 400 million annually after Brexit, adding about £13 billion a year in cost to businesses. What’s more, British officials estimate only about one in three small-to-medium-sized businesses are prepared for the customs changes compared with about 70% of large businesses.

The good news is that for those businesses engaged in trade across the English Channel (small or large), there will be some relief in the form of a fast pass. It doesn’t let you skip the queue, but it does allow you to join it with far less fuss.

With the Brexit deadline fast approaching, this is the time for traders to embrace the UK’s customs simplifications for their future business activities.

What is CFSP?

CFSP was first introduced in 2001 to enable the import of shipments by traders from third countries to be completed in two stages – an initial declaration with reduced content is submitted at the port, and a second supplementary declaration containing full data is submitted weeks later (or months later in the case of phase one of the Brexit import declaration program). The use of CFSP provides a trader with greater certainty of the receipt of goods and cash flow savings.

During the first phase of Brexit, traders of non-controlled goods who wish to defer the finalization of their import declaration for six months may elect to use Entry in the Declarant’s Records (EIDR) rather than the submission of a full or initial port declaration. This process allows importers to use their commercial records to have goods clear customs without being required to complete a full custom import declaration or the initial CFSP declaration. However, the commercial records must be supplemented with additional information required by H.M. Revenue and customs using a Supplementary Declaration via CFSP within six months of the date of import.

An importer who uses the CFSP deferred declaration process can also participate in the Postponed Value-Added Tax (VAT) accounting scheme.

Who can apply for it?

A customs broker can be authorized for CFSP and provide this on an importer’s behalf; however, more complex import operations would benefit from an importer obtaining his or her own authorization.

If an importer decides to become authorized for CFSP in their own right, an application in advance of importing must be submitted and approved and 120 days should be allowed for the approval of the application. One key factor for importers to consider when applying for CFSP is that it is not merely a matter of applying for and being granted authorization. Applicants will also require software to produce supplementary declarations to the authorities.

To be eligible for CFSP, an importer must:

-Fulfill a set of criteria and comply with any additional criteria for the simplified procedure(s) required for his or her business model.

-Maintain and retain records for all shipments processed under CFSP.

-Keep a clear audit trail, and ensure all records are backed up and kept secure.

The requirements of CFSP for an importer in their own right can be costly and time-consuming, and as such should be weighed against an intermediary completing such activities on an importer’s behalf and using their CFSP authorization.

It is imperative that controls are in place by importers to validate customs declarations made on their behalf to ensure errors are captured and corrected.

Although CFSP will allow faster release of goods, use of simpler customs declarations, and cashflow benefits to importers; these can be outweighed by the additional fees and software costs. Importers looking to make an informed decision regarding whether or not CFSP is worthwhile for their businesses should conduct a thorough cost and business-process analysis and an equally thorough review of services and cost benefits.

_______________________________________________________________

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.

wooden furniture
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Poland Strengthens its Leadership in the European Wooden Bedroom Furniture Exports

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.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of wooden bedroom furniture consumption in 2019 were France (14M units), the UK (11M units) and Germany (10M units), together comprising 56% of total consumption. Spain, Lithuania, Poland, the Netherlands, Romania, the Czech Republic, Portugal and Denmark lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 32%.

From 2013 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of wooden bedroom furniture consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Spain, while wooden bedroom furniture consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the UK ($1.1B), Germany ($1B) and France ($707M) were the countries with the highest levels of market value in 2019, with a combined 55% share of the total market. These countries were followed by Spain, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Portugal, which together accounted for a further 31%.

In 2019, the highest levels of wooden bedroom furniture per capita consumption was registered in Lithuania (1,619 units per 1000 persons), followed by France (209 units per 1000 persons), the UK (169 units per 1000 persons) and Denmark (167 units per 1000 persons), while the world average per capita consumption of wooden bedroom furniture was estimated at 123 units per 1000 persons.

Production in the EU

In 2019, the amount of wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom produced in the European Union totaled 77M units, surging by 7.4% against the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.5% from 2013 to 2019; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being observed in certain years. As a result, production reached the peak volume and is likely to continue growing in the immediate term.

Production by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of wooden bedroom furniture production in 2019 were Poland (16M units), France (12M units) and Germany (11M units), with a combined 50% share of total production. Lithuania, Spain, the UK, Italy, Denmark and Portugal lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 35%.

From 2013 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of wooden bedroom furniture production, amongst the main producing countries, was attained by Spain, while wooden bedroom furniture production for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Exports in the EU

In 2019, the amount of wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom exported in the European Union soared to 48M units, growing by 38% against the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +5.6% from 2013 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. In value terms, wooden bedroom furniture exports contracted to $3.5B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019.

Exports by Country

In 2019, Poland (13M units), distantly followed by Germany (8.4M units), Italy (5.4M units), Denmark (3.4M units) and Lithuania (2.8M units) represented the major exporters of wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom, together creating 69% of total exports. France (1.7M units), the Czech Republic (1.6M units), Portugal (1.5M units), the Netherlands (1.4M units), Romania (1.1M units), Sweden (1M units) and Austria (1M units) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2013 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of shipments, amongst the leading exporting countries, was attained by Austria, while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Poland ($897M), Germany ($576M) and Italy ($470M) were the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2019, together accounting for 56% of total exports. These countries were followed by Denmark, Lithuania, France, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Austria, the Netherlands, Romania and Sweden, which together accounted for a further 32%.

Export Prices by Country

The wooden bedroom furniture export price in the European Union stood at $73 per unit in 2019, reducing by -27.7% against the previous year.

Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major exporting countries. In 2019, major exporting countries recorded the following prices: in Austria ($101 per unit) and Italy ($87 per unit), while Sweden ($69 per unit) and France ($69 per unit) were amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by the Czech Republic, while the other leaders experienced a decline in the export price figures.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

brexit
Archives, EU Trade, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

THE ROAD TO BREXIT

Leave a comment

As Scott Miller wrote in one of our earliest articles, How Will Brexit Affect the UK’s Trade Relationships, the outcome of the UK’s exit from the European Union (EU) single market and customs union has broad implications for the UK economy and its terms of trade with the rest of the world.

On March 29, 2017, the UK’s notification of its intention to withdraw from the EU under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty triggered a statutory two-year clock for completion. That deadline was ultimately extended until January 31, 2020, when a transitional period began.

TradeVistas originally offered this timeline to summarize key events and milestones between 2015 and the first quarter of 2019, including the resignation of Prime Minister Theresa May and first term of Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It has since been expanded to reference the ongoing negotiations that continue in hopes of avoiding a “hard Brexit” on December 31, 2020, reverting to trade rules in the WTO.

For more narrative on how events have unfolded and why, we recommend the writing of Amanda Sloat at Brookings, who has followed the issue closely.

Download the infographic below updated as of October 16, 2020.

________________________________________________________________

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.

wood barrel
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

The European Wood Barrel Market Bounced Back to $1.2B

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – Casks, Barrels, Vats, Tubs, And Coopers Products Of Wood – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The EU wood barrel market expanded remarkably to $1.2B in 2019, picking up by 5.5% 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 value increased at an average annual rate of +2.5% from 2013 to 2019; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations throughout the analyzed period.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of wood barrel consumption in 2019 were the UK (85M units), France (48M units) and Spain (17M units), with a combined 75% share of total consumption. Ireland, Poland, Portugal and the Netherlands lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 15%.

From 2013 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of wood barrel consumption, amongst the key consuming countries, was attained by Portugal, while wood barrel consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, France ($589M) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by the UK ($269M). It was followed by Spain.

In 2019, the highest levels of wood barrel per capita consumption were registered in Ireland (3,326 units per 1000 persons), followed by the UK (1,260 units per 1000 persons), France (729 units per 1000 persons) and Portugal (410 units per 1000 persons), while the world average per capita consumption of wood barrel was estimated at 390 units per 1000 persons.

Production in the EU

In 2019, the production of casks, barrels, vats, tubs, and coopers products of wood was finally on the rise to reach 155M units for the first time since 2016, thus ending a two-year declining trend. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.4% from 2013 to 2019. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2014 when the production volume increased by 14% y-o-y. As a result, production attained the peak volume of 164M units. From 2015 to 2019, production growth remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Production by Country

France (72M units) constituted the country with the largest volume of wood barrel production, accounting for 46% of total volume. Moreover, wood barrel production in France exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, the UK (27M units), threefold. Spain (23M units) ranked third in terms of total production with a 15% share.

From 2013 to 2019, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume in France amounted to +1.1%. The remaining producing countries recorded the following average annual rates of production growth: the UK (+1.2% per year) and Spain (+5.0% per year).

Exports in the EU

In 2019, shipments abroad of casks, barrels, vats, tubs, and coopers products of wood increased by 1% to 77M units, rising for the third consecutive year after two years of decline. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.2% over the period from 2013 to 2019. The volume of export peaked in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in the immediate term. In value terms, wood barrel exports reached $729M (IndexBox estimates) in 2019.

Exports by Country

France was the main exporter of casks, barrels, vats, tubs, and coopers products of wood in the European Union, with the volume of exports reaching 39M units, which was approx. 51% of total exports in 2019. Spain (19M units) ranks second in terms of the total exports with a 24% share, followed by the UK (5.2%). Hungary (2.2M units), Lithuania (2.1M units), Luxembourg (2M units), Romania (1.8M units), Portugal (1.6M units) and Austria (1.3M units) followed a long way behind the leaders.

Exports from France increased at an average annual rate of +1.8% from 2013 to 2019. At the same time, the UK (+24.7%), Lithuania (+19.2%), Luxembourg (+17.5%), Austria (+16.6%), Spain (+9.1%) and Portugal (+8.2%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, the UK emerged as the fastest-growing exporter exported in the European Union, with a CAGR of +24.7% from 2013-2019. Hungary experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, Romania (-2.8%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period.

In value terms, France ($515M) remains the largest wood barrel supplier in the European Union, comprising 71% of total exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Spain ($109M), with a 15% share of total exports. It was followed by Austria, with a 2.1% share.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

acrylic polymer
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

The European Acrylic Polymer Market Hit Record Highs at $5.7B

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – Acrylic Polymers (In Primary Forms) – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

For the fourth year in a row, the EU acrylic polymer market recorded growth in sales value, which increased by 1.3% to $5.7B in 2019. The market value increased at an average annual rate of +3.1% from 2013 to 2019; however, the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations being recorded in certain years. Over the period under review, the market attained the maximum level in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in the immediate term.

Consumption by Country

The country with the largest volume of acrylic polymer consumption was France (876K tonnes), accounting for 28% of total volume. Moreover, acrylic polymer consumption in France exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, Italy (358K tonnes), twofold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Germany (311K tonnes), with a 9.9% share.

In France, acrylic polymer consumption increased at an average annual rate of +16.6% over the period from 2013-2019. In other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Italy (+10.9% per year) and Germany (+0.5% per year).

In value terms, France ($1B), Italy ($727M) and Germany ($695M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of market value in 2019, together comprising 43% of the total market. These countries were followed by Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK and Spain, which together accounted for a further 36%.

The countries with the highest levels of acrylic polymer per capita consumption in 2019 were Belgium (15 kg per person), the Netherlands (14 kg per person) and France (13 kg per person).

Production in the EU

Acrylic polymer production expanded notably to 3.8M tonnes in 2019, surging by 6.7% against 2018. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.7% from 2013 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years.

Production by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of acrylic polymer production in 2019 were France (1.3M tonnes), Germany (878K tonnes) and Belgium (476K tonnes), with a combined 71% share of total production.

From 2013 to 2019, the biggest increases were in France, while acrylic polymer production for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in the EU

In 2019, approx. 2.8M tonnes of acrylic polymers (in primary forms) were imported in the European Union; surging by 3.1% against 2018 figures. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.0% over the period from 2013 to 2019; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations in certain years. The volume of imports peaked in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in the near future. In value terms, acrylic polymer imports fell modestly to $5.8B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019.

Imports by Country

In 2019, Germany (495K tonnes), followed by Italy (313K tonnes), Poland (294K tonnes), France (267K tonnes), the Netherlands (237K tonnes), the UK (211K tonnes), Belgium (194K tonnes) and Spain (185K tonnes) represented the major importers of acrylic polymers (in primary forms), together committing 77% of total imports. Sweden (115K tonnes), the Czech Republic (109K tonnes), Austria (79K tonnes) and Finland (57K tonnes) held a relatively small share of total imports.

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

In value terms, Germany ($1.1B), Italy ($628M) and Poland ($555M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2019, with a combined 39% share of total imports. These countries were followed by France, the Netherlands, the UK, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Austria and Finland, which together accounted for a further 50%.

Import Prices by Country

The acrylic polymer import price in the European Union stood at $2,030 per tonne in 2019, shrinking by -7.7% against the previous year. Overall, the import price showed a noticeable reduction. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2018 an increase of 11% y-o-y. The level of imports peaked at $2,502 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, import prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major importing countries. In 2019, major importing countries recorded the following prices: in Belgium ($2,238 per tonne) and Germany ($2,191 per tonne), while the Czech Republic ($1,727 per tonne) and Sweden ($1,728 per tonne) were amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Austria, while the other leaders experienced a decline in the import price figures.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

mango
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Spain and France Emerged as the Most Promising Markets for European Mango Importers

Leave a comment

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

The EU mango and mangosteen market shrank slightly to $692M in 2019, standing approx. at the previous year’s level. 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 value increased at an average annual rate of +7.1% from 2013 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of mango and mangosteen consumption in 2019 were Germany (82K tonnes), the UK (77K tonnes) and France (52K tonnes), together comprising 63% of total consumption. Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Poland, Belgium, Austria and Sweden lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 30%.

From 2013 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of mango and mangosteen consumption, amongst the leading consuming countries, was attained by Belgium (+52.0% per year), while mango and mangosteen consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest mango and mangosteen markets in the European Union were Germany ($176M), the UK ($156M) and France ($108M), together accounting for 64% of the total market. Portugal, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Spain, Austria, Belgium and Sweden lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 28%.

The countries with the highest levels of mango and mangosteen per capita consumption in 2019 were Portugal (2,107 kg per 1000 persons), the UK (1,150 kg per 1000 persons) and Germany (1,001 kg per 1000 persons).

Imports in the EU

After six years of growth, overseas purchases of mangoes, mangosteens and guavas decreased by -1% to 651K tonnes in 2019. Total imports indicated a prominent increase from 2013 to 2019: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +7.9% over the last six years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2019 figures, imports increased by +58.1% against 2013 indices. In value terms, mango and mangosteen imports amounted to $1.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019.

Imports by Country

The Netherlands was the key importer of mangoes, mangosteens and guavas in the European Union, with the volume of imports amounting to 209K tonnes, which was approx. 32% of total imports in 2019. Germany (91K tonnes) held the second position in the ranking, followed by the UK (80K tonnes), France (70K tonnes), Spain (61K tonnes), Portugal (35K tonnes) and Belgium (33K tonnes). All these countries together occupied near 57% share of total imports.

Imports into the Netherlands increased at an average annual rate of +4.8% from 2013 to 2019. At the same time, Spain (+12.4%), France (+11.8%), Belgium (+9.1%), Portugal (+9.0%), Germany (+8.4%) and the UK (+6.0%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Spain emerged as the fastest-growing importer imported in the European Union, with a CAGR of +12.4% from 2013-2019.

In value terms, the largest mango and mangosteen importing markets in the European Union were the Netherlands ($335M), Germany ($198M) and the UK ($175M), with a combined 56% share of total imports. These countries were followed by France, Spain, Portugal and Belgium, which together accounted for a further 31%.

Import Prices by Country

The mango and mangosteen import price in the European Union stood at $1,936 per tonne in 2019, growing by 3.2% against the previous year. Over the period from 2013 to 2019, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.4%. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2017 when the import price increased by 9.9% against the previous year. The level of import peaked in 2019 and is likely to see gradual growth in years to come.

Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major importing countries. In 2019, major importing countries recorded the following prices: in the UK ($2,202 per tonne) and Germany ($2,164 per tonne), while the Netherlands ($1,600 per tonne) and Belgium ($1,702 per tonne) were amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Spain, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform