Trending Now

Temu Loses Momentum as Global Regulation Tightens

New Articles

The Landed-Cost Variables New Importers Commonly Miss

global trade cargo importers
Global Logistics, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports, International Trade, Ocean Ports

The Landed-Cost Variables New Importers Commonly Miss

Leave a comment

A first import quote can look reassuringly simple: unit price multiplied by quantity, plus freight. That total may be enough to decide whether a supplier conversation should continue, but it is not enough to decide whether the shipment will make money. Landed cost is more than complete arithmetic. It is the financial expression of how specific goods move from a defined seller location to a defined buyer location, under a defined allocation of responsibility. Until those details are fixed, two quotes that look comparable may describe materially different transactions.

Read also: Tariffs at Great Depression Levels: Why Predictability is the New Lifeline for Importers

New importers often focus on the visible numbers and treat everything else as a small contingency. The surprises rarely come from one mysterious charge. They come from ordinary variables that were never converted into usable shipment data: an undefined delivery point, a different case pack, incomplete carton dimensions, an unverified tariff classification, or a destination service that one quote includes and another omits. A reliable estimate therefore begins with scope, not a spreadsheet formula.

Define the transaction before comparing the total

The first question is not simply, “What is the freight cost?” It is, “Freight from where, to where, and with whose obligations ending at which point?” The International Chamber of Commerce’s Incoterms rules help allocate transport responsibilities, costs and risk between seller and buyer, but the rule must be paired with a named place and the applicable version. “FOB” by itself is not a complete pricing instruction, and a delivered quote to a port is not the same as a delivered quote to a buyer’s warehouse.

Every comparison should identify the origin handoff, destination point, mode, currency, validity period and services included. It should also say whether duties, import taxes, customs brokerage, terminal handling and final delivery are inside or outside the quoted amount. When those boundaries are absent, the lower total may merely stop earlier in the journey.

Packaging turns purchase quantity into chargeable cargo

A purchase order is usually expressed in pieces, but transportation is priced from physical cargo. The bridge between the two is the packing configuration. Minimum order quantity, units per inner pack, units per export carton, carton count, outer dimensions, gross weight and palletization determine what is actually booked. A supplier that packs 240 units into 10 cartons has not offered the same logistics proposition as one that needs 20 cartons, even when the product price and freight mode appear identical.

This is especially important for air and parcel shipments. Carriers commonly compare actual weight with dimensional weight and charge the higher result. A lightweight but bulky product can therefore cost much more to move than its scale weight suggests. Ocean freight also depends on the shipment’s physical configuration, whether the cargo moves as less-than-container load or fills a container. Packaging changes can alter freight, handling, storage and final-mile economics at the same time. If carton data is estimated, the landed-cost result should be labeled provisional rather than presented as a firm unit cost.

Classification, origin and customs value are separate decisions

A supplier may provide a Harmonized System code, but importers should not assume that the full code transfers unchanged into the destination country. The first six digits are internationally harmonized; additional digits, legal descriptions and duty rates are country-specific. Small differences in material, composition, construction or intended use can move a product into another tariff line. Country of origin can also affect duties, trade remedies, documentation and admissibility.

Classification is only one part of the customs calculation. Customs value is not always identical to the commercial invoice total. Under U.S. transaction-value rules, the price paid may require statutory additions such as certain packing costs, assists, selling commissions, royalties or proceeds, while international freight and insurance may receive different treatment. Other markets apply their own valuation and tax rules. Tooling supplied without charge, buyer-provided materials, license fees, discounts and related-party transactions should therefore be disclosed before anyone treats an invoice value as the duty base.

A broker can advise and file an entry, but outsourcing the filing does not eliminate the importer’s responsibility for accurate information. The practical lesson is to verify classification, origin, valuation and product requirements early, while there is still time to change the order or documentation.

Destination charges are conditional, not imaginary

Duty and tax usually receive attention because they are easy to name. Less visible destination charges may include brokerage, government user fees, document fees, terminal or warehouse handling, examination, storage and final delivery. Depending on the route, there may also be appointment, chassis, liftgate or limited-access charges. Detention and demurrage are time-related charges, so a delay in collecting cargo or returning equipment can turn an operational problem into a cost problem.

These costs should not all be inserted as if they are guaranteed. That would inflate the estimate. Instead, separate committed charges from conditional exposure. Record the free-time assumptions, who controls customs clearance, which party receives arrival notices, what documents must be ready and what happens if cargo is selected for inspection. A useful landed-cost model makes uncertainty visible rather than silently converting every unknown to zero.

A better RFQ produces comparable answers

The most effective control is a pre-RFQ data pack that every bidder receives. It should define the exact product and specification, order quantity, minimum order and case pack; provide carton count, dimensions and gross weight or clearly identify them as pending; state origin, proposed classification and known compliance requirements; and specify the Incoterm, named place, destination postal code, mode, service scope, currency and quote validity. It should also require bidders to state whether duties, taxes, brokerage, origin handling, destination handling and final delivery are included.

The returned quotation should preserve assumptions instead of hiding them. A freight estimate based on preliminary dimensions should say so. A duty estimate should identify the classification and origin used. A delivered price should define whether unloading, appointments or remote-area service are included. When a supplier cannot yet provide final packing data, buyers can compare a range of plausible scenarios, but they should not mistake the midpoint for a commitment.

The final comparison belongs at the saleable-unit level, after expected loss or damage where relevant, not merely at the purchase-unit level. It should also keep one-time charges separate from repeat-order costs and test the assumptions most likely to move, such as exchange rates, cargo dimensions or delivery timing. This is not about producing a perfect forecast. It is about ensuring that competing quotes use the same boundary and that the largest unknowns are visible before the order is placed.

The cheapest supplier quote can still be the best choice. It simply has to remain the cheapest after the transaction is described completely. For a new importer, the most valuable landed-cost discipline is not a more complicated calculator. It is refusing to let missing shipment facts masquerade as savings.

Author bio

Steven Yang writes for Elosung, a ready-stock wholesale platform operated by Yiwu Diyasi Clothing Co., Ltd., on cross-border sourcing and landed-cost planning.

goods uyghur
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act: Why and What Importers Need to Know

Leave a comment

When you go shopping for a new product, what influences your final purchasing decision? Price? Availability? Quality? Brand? 

For many people, the decision comes down to some balance of these common factors. However, a rising number of consumers now say they also consider the wider societal and environmental impacts of their purchases. Where was the product manufactured? Were the materials ethically sourced? Is this brand known for supporting fair labor practices? 

These kinds of considerations hold heavy weight for today’s shoppers who value sustainability. Whether they’re purchasing clothing, food, electronics, or any other type of goods, they want to buy from companies with similar values. They’re even willing to pay more to do so. In one recent survey, 40 percent of consumers agreed that their purchases are influenced by societal factors—like how a company supports human rights. Other research has found that more than 83 percent of consumers would pay more for a product they could be sure was ethically sourced. 

Similarly, many investors now prioritize companies that demonstrate strong Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics. More than 25 percent of global investors say ESG is “central to their investment approach.” Overall, it’s abundantly clear that ethical, sustainable business practices are good for business, good for people, and good for the planet. 

Unfortunately, many companies are still unaware—or worse, turn a blind eye—when it comes to serious human rights violations across their supply chains. 

Taking steps to eradicate human rights abuses 

As of 2021, an estimated 50 million people were living in modern slavery—with 28 million of those people working under forced labor conditions. Though awareness is rising, abuses like slave labor, child labor, and inhumane working conditions remain prevalent in the global supply chain. 

Now, governments around the world are issuing policies designed to tackle modern slavery and drive businesses to adopt ethical supply chain practices. These regulations hold companies more accountable for conducting proper due diligence when working with external partners, purchasing materials, and importing and exporting goods. One of the most recent policies is the United States’ Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA). This legislation marks a big step to strengthen U.S. policy on importing goods from China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), where forced labor is all too prevalent. 

A timeline of forced labor in China’s Xinjiang region 

The XUAR is a large territory in Northwest China. The area is rich in natural resources, including industrial materials like oil, natural gas, coal, and polysilicon. It is also a significant source of agricultural products that enter the global supply chain. In fact, Xinjiang produces a whopping 85% of China’s cotton supply and 20% of world’s cotton supply. Unfortunately, all these resources are entwined with conflict and human rights abuses. 

The XUAR is home to about 12 million Uyghurs. They are a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority with their own cultural, religious, and political practices—completely distinct from those of the Han people, China’s ethnic majority. Over the past few decades, the region has been filled with inter-ethnic friction, where acts of repression, intrusive surveillance, and horrific violence have been inflicted on the Uyghur people and other minorities by the Chinese government. 

Since 2017, the Chinese government has involuntarily detained more than a million Uyghurs in what it calls “voluntary vocational education and training centers.” In reality, they are forced labor camps. There, Uyghurs are forced to work without pay, while subjected to political indoctrination and inhumane punishments. Families and communities are being separated, as some are shipped to factories throughout other areas of China. The oppression is so widespread that any business sourcing materials from Xinjiang is almost certainly capitalizing on forced labor and supporting severe exploitation. 

Guilty until proven innocent 

As reports of injustices against the Uyghurs gradually spread, governments around the world began to take action. On December 23, 2021, President Biden signed the UFLPA into law. And on June 21, 2022, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) began enforcing the act. 

The UFLPA establishes a rebuttable presumption that any goods mined, produced, or manufactured (either wholly or in part) in the Xinjiang region are a product of forced labor—and thereby prohibited from U.S. importation unless importers can prove otherwise. Put simply, it’s a matter of “guilty until proven innocent.” 

Importers now need to either: 

  • Provide documentation to CBP proving that their goods are were sourced completely from outside Xinjiang 
  • Or, request an exemption backed definitive evidence that their goods were not made with forced labor 

Without the proper documentation, goods may be subject to seizure and forfeiture. Any business found in violation of the UFPLA may face severe penalties. And that’s not to mention major damage to brand reputation that comes along with associations to forced labor. 

However, the complex and fragmented nature of today’s global supply chains make it a big challenge for importers to conduct proper due diligence. Take a fashion retailer, for instance. That company may import finished pairs of jeans from a factory in Mexico, and it can show documented proof. But where did that factory source its denim? And where did that entity source its cotton? Product provenance gets more complicated and clouded the farther you look back up the supply chain. 

Using technology to support global trade compliance 

To help U.S. companies navigate UFLPA compliance, the government has issued an updated version of the Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory. The advisory outlines risks businesses should consider when conducting human rights due diligence. It also emphasizes the need for end-to-end supply chain visibility, traceability, and documentation. 

Moving forward, businesses will need to know their risks and really know their products. Having the right supporting technology will be crucial. A great place to start is with automated global trade compliance software. The software automates trade documents and electronic customs reporting, enabling companies to satisfy compliance requirements, minimize regulatory exposure, perform due diligence, and ensure documentation accuracy—eliminating the time, costs, and labor involved in handling it all manually. 

Here are four key tools to look for in an automated global trade compliance solution: 

  1. Restricted party screening: The U.S. government provides a list of entities in Xinjiang that mine, produce, or manufacture goods with forced labor. The entity list changes frequently, making it nearly impossible for companies to stay on top of changes through manual processes. Using Restricted Party Screening software, companies can automate compliance screening for due diligence. They can get automated alerts on any changes, create audit-ready electronic reports, and ultimately ensure their chosen partners are low risk. 
  2. Global trade compliance analytics: Businesses need ongoing insight into their compliance activities and data. Analytics tools can offer real-time visibility into compliance processing—including screening throughput, transactions under review, and failures. These tools can also monitor license and permit records expiration dates. Overall, these insights help business leaders to make smarter decisions in real time to support trade compliance. 
  3. Supplier relationship management: Many businesses still use spreadsheets and manual processes to manage and collaborate with their suppliers. But this approach is time consuming, costly, and leaves everyone open to risk. Supplier relationship management software serves a single, digital system for managing supplier information, improving supplier selection, and monitoring supplier performance. The software also automatically collects and organizes supplier documents required for regulatory compliance. 
  4. Import Management: By automating import processes, companies can prevent costly delays and clear their trade goods through CBP and other government agencies in a quick and efficient way. Import management software ensures imports are properly classified with the correct commodity codes, then proactively identifies any incoming goods with admissibility requirements. It can also automatically produce the proper import documentation, screen suppliers and supply chain parties from end up end, and much more. 

Supporting a sustainable future 

Government regulations like the UFLPA are undoubtedly a step in the right direction for combatting forced labor. But fully eradicating human rights abuses in the global supply chain will require the combined power of governments, consumers, and businesses alike. Armed with the right information and tools, U.S. businesses can begin to play their part in the effort to create ethical supply chains and a sustainable future for all. 

 

raspberry
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Raspberry and Blackberry Imports in North America and Europe Grow Tangibly

Leave a comment

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

Global imports of raspberry and blackberry jumped by +7% y-o-y to $3.4B in 2020. The U.S. remains the largest importer with the fastest-growing volume of imports. The Netherlands, Spain and Canada also feature solid gains in the imported volume. The average raspberry and blackberry import price dropped by -2.7% y-o-y in 2020. Mexico emerges as the largest exporter of raspberry and blackberry worldwide, dominating the U.S. import market.  

Global Raspberry and Blackberry Imports

In value terms, raspberry and blackberry imports rose by +7.1% y-o-y to $3.4B in 2020 (IndexBox estimates). Global imports of raspberries and blackberries rose significantly to 467K tonnes, increasing by +10% compared with 2019 figures.

In value terms, the U.S. ($1.5B) constitutes the largest market for imported raspberries and blackberries worldwide, comprising 45% of global imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Canada ($322M), with a 9.5% share of global imports. It was followed by Germany, with a 9.1% share.

In 2020, the U.S. (208K tonnes) represented the main importer of raspberries and blackberries, mixing up 45% of total imports. The U.S. was the fastest-growing in terms of raspberries and blackberries imports, with a +21.9%-increase. In 2020, the U.S. (+4.3 p.p.) significantly strengthened its position in terms of the global imports.

Canada (44K tonnes) took the second position in the ranking, followed by Germany (42K tonnes), the UK (37K tonnes), Spain (35K tonnes), the Netherlands (24K tonnes) and France (22K tonnes). All these countries together took near 44% share of total imports. In 2020, the Netherlands (+11.8% y-o-y), Spain (+10.5% y-o-y) and Canada (+5.5%y-o-y) displayed positive paces of growth in terms of import volume.

The average raspberry and blackberry import price stood at $7,273 per tonne in 2020, dropping by -2.7% against the previous year. Average prices varied noticeably amongst the major importing countries. In 2020, major importing countries recorded the following prices: in the UK ($7,669 per tonne) and the Netherlands ($7,508 per tonne), while France ($6,289 per tonne) and Spain ($6,301 per tonne) were amongst the lowest. In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Germany, while the other global leaders experienced mixed trends in the import price figures.

Major Suppliers of Raspberry and Blackberry Worldwide

Mexico (95K tonnes), Spain (64K tonnes), the U.S. (47K tonnes), Morocco (36K tonnes), Portugal (29K tonnes) and the Netherlands (24K tonnes) represented roughly 89% of total exports of raspberries and blackberries in 2020. In value terms, Spain ($516M), Mexico ($445M) and the U.S. ($346M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2020, with a combined 58% share of global exports.

In 2020, Mexico (205K tonnes) was the main raspberry and blackberry supplier to the U.S. with a 99%-share of total imports. Mexican and American suppliers occupied the Canadian import market.

Source: IndexBox Platform

psc
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Customs Announces Extension of Deadline to File Post Summary Correction (PSC)

Leave a comment

Customs has posted CSMS #43528998 (July 31, 2020) reminding the trade community that as per the modification to the Post Summary Correction (“PSC”) procedure announced in the Federal Register on August 14, 2019 (84 FR 40430), the deadline for filing a PSC has been extended in cases where an importer requests and is granted an extension of liquidation pursuant to 19 CFR 159.12.

Under this modified procedure, after an importer is granted an extension of liquidation, a PSC may be transmitted to CBP up to 15 days prior to the scheduled liquidation date as per the liquidation extension.  Accordingly, under the modified procedure a PSC must be transmitted to CBP within 300 days after the date of entry or up to 15 days prior to the scheduled liquidation date, whichever is earlier, except in situations involving an extension of liquidation, in which case a PSC must be transmitted to CBP up to 15 days prior to the scheduled extended liquidation date.

This change was made to increase the amount of time a filer has to submit a PSC in situations involving trade requested extensions of liquidation. Significantly, it may have particular applicability in situations where an importer receives an extension of liquidation in order to preserve its right to a refund in the event that the importer requests an extension of liquidation to accommodate a Section 301 duty exclusion or duty exclusion extension request.

In those instances, if the duty exclusion request or the exclusion extension request is granted, then if liquidation of the entry has also been granted, the importer would have additional time to submit the PSC to Customs and obtain a duty refund. Of course, if the importer misses the time period for submitting a PSC in order to obtain a refund then it is also possible that the refund could still be obtained by filing a protest within 180 days of the date of liquidation.

________________________________________________________________________

Robert Stang is a Washington, D.C.-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. He leads the firm’s Customs group.

optical fiber cable
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

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

Leave a comment

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

chocolate
Archives, EU Trade, Global Trade Daily

The Market For Filled Chocolate Bars in the EU Overcame $3.5B

Leave a comment

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

The revenue of the chocolate bars with filling market in the European Union amounted to $3.6B in 2018, surging by 3.3% 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 last three years, the market indicated a gradual but consistent growth both in value terms and in physical terms.

Consumption By Country in the EU

Germany (271K tonnes) remains the largest chocolate bar with filling consuming country in the European Union, comprising approx. 32% of total volume. Moreover, the volume of consumption in Germany exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, Italy (108K tonnes), threefold. The UK (101K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total consumption with a 12% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume in Germany totaled +2.6%. The remaining consuming countries recorded the following average annual rates of consumption growth: Italy (+7.6% per year) and the UK (-4.4% per year).

In value terms, the largest chocolate bar with filling markets in the European Union were Germany ($963M), Italy ($756M) and the UK ($411M), with a combined 59% share of the total market. These countries were followed by France, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Denmark, the Czech Republic and Spain, which together accounted for a further 27%.

The countries with the highest levels of chocolate bar with filling per capita consumption in 2018 were Germany (3,313 kg per 1000 persons), Denmark (2,703 kg per 1000 persons) and the Netherlands (2,165 kg per 1000 persons).

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in the EU

Driven by increasing demand for chocolate bars with filling in the European Union, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next seven-year period. Market performance is forecast to retain its current trend pattern, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +0.7% for the period from 2018 to 2025, which is projected to bring the market volume to 881K tonnes by the end of 2025.

Production in the EU

The volume of production of chocolate bars with filling in the EU stood at 937K tonnes in 2018, going up by 5.1% against the previous year. Overall, the volume of production continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 with an increase of 9.5% against the previous year. In that year, chocolate bars with filling production reached its peak volume of 968K tonnes. From 2015 to 2018, chocolate bars with filling production growth failed to regain its momentum.

Production By Country in the EU

Germany (386K tonnes) remains the largest chocolate bars with filling producing country in the European Union, comprising approx. 41% of total volume. Moreover, the volume of production in Germany exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, the Netherlands (178K tonnes), twofold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Italy (108K tonnes), with a 12% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume in Germany amounted to +3.7%. The remaining producing countries recorded the following average annual rates of production growth: the Netherlands (+0.5% per year) and Italy (+9.1% per year).

Exports in the EU

In 2018, approx. 649K tonnes of chocolate bars with fillings were exported in the European Union; jumping by 4.6% against the previous year. The total exports indicated a tangible increase from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.3% over the last eleven years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Over the period under review, the volume of exports attained its maximum in 2018 and isexpected to retain its growth in the immediate term. In value terms, chocolate bars with filling exports stood at $3.4B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

Germany (197K tonnes) and the Netherlands (185K tonnes) represented roughly 59% of total exports of chocolate bars with fillings in 2018. Poland (43K tonnes) occupied a 6.6% share (based on tonnes) of total exports, which put it in second place, followed by Austria (6.5%). Belgium (26K tonnes), the UK (21K tonnes), Italy (20K tonnes), Spain (17K tonnes), France (15K tonnes), Hungary (13K tonnes), the Czech Republic (12K tonnes) and Bulgaria (10K tonnes) occupied a relatively small share 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 Bulgaria, while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest chocolate bars with filling supplying countries in the European Union were Germany ($1.3B), the Netherlands ($813M) and Poland ($200M), together comprising 66% of total exports. These countries were followed by Italy, Austria, Belgium, the UK, France, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, which together accounted for a further 25%.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average export price for chocolate bars with filling in the European Union amounted to $5,297 per tonne, jumping by 3% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.6%.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Italy ($7,684 per tonne), while Austria ($3,567 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports in the EU

In 2018, the amount of chocolate bars with fillings imported in the European Union stood at 553K tonnes, increasing by 5.2% against the previous year. The total imports indicated a remarkable expansion from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.2% over the last eleven years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. In value terms, imports  of chocolate bars with filling totaled $2.6B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The imports of the five major importers of chocolate bars with fillings, namely the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Poland, represented more than half of total import. Belgium (22K tonnes), Romania (21K tonnes), Italy (21K tonnes), Sweden (20K tonnes), Austria (18K tonnes), Hungary (15K tonnes) and Denmark (15K tonnes) held a relatively small share of total imports.

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

In value terms, the largest importing markets for chocolate bars with filling in the European Union were the UK ($366M), Germany ($359M) and France ($294M), together comprising 39% of total imports. These countries were followed by the Netherlands, Poland, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Austria, Romania, Denmark and Hungary, which together accounted for a further 41%.

Import Prices by Country

The average import price for chocolate bars with filling in the European Union stood at $4,727 per tonne in 2018, rising by 3.5% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the import price continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the major importing countries recorded the following average prices: in Italy ($5,759 per tonne) and Sweden ($5,656 per tonne), while Hungary ($4,010 per tonne) and the UK ($4,028 per tonne) were amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Global Wine Market 2019 – Spain Retains Leadership in Exports Amid Buoyant Market Growth

Leave a comment

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

The global wine market revenue amounted to $130.3B in 2018, going down by -3.3% 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 +1.4% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2010, when the market value increased by 11% y-o-y. Global wine consumption peaked at $134.7B in 2017, and then declined slightly in the following year.

Production 2007-2018

Global wine production totaled 32B litres in 2018, surging by 2.3% against the previous year. The total output 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 being observed in certain years.

Exports 2007-2018

In 2018, the global exports of wine totaled 11B litres, going down by -4.5% against the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.1% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations in certain years. In value terms, wine exports amounted to $35.5B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

In 2018, Italy (2B litres), France (1.9B litres) and Spain (1.7B litres) represented the main exporters of wine in the world, achieving 52% of total export. Australia (815M litres) held a 7.7% share (based on tonnes) of total exports, which put it in second place, followed by Chile (6.2%). South Africa (442M litres), Germany (383M litres), the U.S. (351M litres), New Zealand (319M litres), Portugal (303M litres), Argentina (271M litres) and China (244M litres) occupied a relatively small share 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 China, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest wine markets worldwide were France ($11B), Italy ($7.3B) and Spain ($3.2B), with a combined 61% share of global exports. Australia, Chile, the U.S., New Zealand, Germany, Portugal, Argentina, South Africa and China lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 30%.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average wine export price amounted to $3,332 per thousand litres, rising by 7.8% against the previous year. Overall, the wine export price continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. There were significant differences in the average export prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest export price was France ($5,740 per thousand litres), while China ($1,464 per thousand litres) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 9.4B litres of wine were imported worldwide; going down by -20.1% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.2% from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. In value terms, wine imports amounted to $33.7B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The countries with the highest levels of wine imports in 2018 were the UK (1.3B litres), the U.S. (1.2B litres), Germany (1B litres) and China (681M litres), together amounting to 44% of total import. Canada (409M litres), the Netherlands (382M litres), Belgium (327M litres), China, Hong Kong SAR (300M litres), Japan (290M litres), Russia (278M litres), France (244M litres) and Sweden (209M litres) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by China, Hong Kong SAR, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest wine importing markets worldwide were the U.S. ($5.4B), the UK ($4B) and Germany ($2.7B), together accounting for 36% of global imports. These countries were followed by China, Canada, Japan, China, Hong Kong SAR, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Russia and Sweden, which together accounted for a further 36%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average wine import price amounted to $3,589 per thousand litres, rising by 18% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the wine import price continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. There were significant differences in the average import prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest import price was Japan ($5,777 per thousand litres), while Russia ($2,497 per thousand litres) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

global pepper
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Global Pepper Market Is Expected to Reach 840K Tonnes by 2025

Leave a comment

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

The global pepper market revenue in 2018 is estimated at $4.1B, a decrease of -1.7% y-o-y. 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). In general, pepper consumption continues to indicate a strong expansion. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2011 when the market value increased by 26% against the previous year. The global pepper consumption peaked at $4.2B in 2017, and then declined slightly in the following year.

Consumption By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of pepper consumption in 2018 were Viet Nam (166K tonnes), India (86K tonnes) and the U.S. (68K tonnes), with a combined 41% share of global consumption. These countries were followed by Bulgaria, Indonesia, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Germany, the United Arab Emirates and the UK, which together accounted for a further 33%.

In value terms, Viet Nam ($904M), India ($506M) and the U.S. ($374M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of market value in 2018, with a combined 43% share of the global market. These countries were followed by Indonesia, Singapore, China, Malaysia, Bulgaria, Sri Lanka, the United Arab Emirates, Germany and the UK, which together accounted for a further 33%.

The countries with the highest levels of pepper per capita consumption in 2018 were Bulgaria (7,641 kg per 1000 persons), Singapore (5,288 kg per 1000 persons) and Viet Nam (1,724 kg per 1000 persons).

Market Forecast 2019-2025

Driven by increasing demand for pepper worldwide, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next seven-year period. Market performance is forecast to decelerate, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +1.2% for the seven-year period from 2018 to 2025, which is projected to bring the market volume to 840K tonnes by the end of 2025.

Production 2007-2018

In 2018, the amount of pepper produced worldwide stood at 752K tonnes, jumping by 5.1% against the previous year. In general, the total output indicated a conspicuous expansion from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.2% over the last eleven years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, pepper production increased by +55.4% against 2012 indices. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2016 with an increase of 11% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global pepper production reached its maximum volume in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term. The general positive trend in terms of pepper output was largely conditioned by a tangible increase of the harvested area and a resilient expansion in yield figures.

In value terms, pepper production totaled $3.8B in 2018 estimated in export prices. Over the period under review, pepper production continues to indicate a remarkable increase. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2011 when production volume increased by 47% against the previous year. The global pepper production peaked at $4.6B in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, production remained at a lower figure.

Production By Country

The country with the largest volume of pepper production was Viet Nam (273K tonnes), comprising approx. 36% of total production. Moreover, pepper production in Viet Nam exceeded the figures recorded by the world’s second-largest producer, Indonesia (88K tonnes), threefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Brazil (80K tonnes), with a 11% share.

In Viet Nam, pepper production expanded at an average annual rate of +8.1% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Indonesia (+0.8% per year) and Brazil (+0.2% per year).

Harvested Area 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 570K ha of pepper were harvested worldwide; stabilizing at the previous year. Overall, the pepper harvested area, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2009 when harvested area increased by 8% against the previous year. The global pepper harvested area peaked at 622K ha in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2018, harvested area failed to regain its momentum.

Yield 2007-2018

Global average pepper yield amounted to 1.3 tonne per ha in 2018, surging by 4.8% against the previous year. In general, the yield indicated prominent growth from 2007 to 2018: its figure increased at an average annual rate of +4.0% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, pepper yield increased by +53.3% against 2012 indices. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2013 with an increase of 22% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the average pepper yield attained its maximum level in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Exports 2007-2018

Global exports totaled 392K tonnes in 2018, picking up by 6.5% against the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.1% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 with an increase of 7.9% y-o-y. Over the period under review, global pepper exports attained their maximum at 398K tonnes in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, pepper exports stood at $2B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Over the period under review, pepper exports continue to indicate strong growth. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2011 with an increase of 43% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global pepper exports reached their peak figure at $3.4B in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, exports failed to regain their momentum.

Exports by Country

Viet Nam represented the largest exporter of pepper in the world, with the volume of exports finishing at 142K tonnes, which was approx. 36% of total exports in 2018. It was distantly followed by Brazil (73K tonnes) and Indonesia (36K tonnes), together achieving a 28% share of total exports. India (17K tonnes), Germany (16K tonnes), Sri Lanka (15K tonnes), Malaysia (12K tonnes), Mexico (8.4K tonnes), the Netherlands (7.5K tonnes), France (6.8K tonnes) and the U.S. (6.8K tonnes) took a minor share 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 France, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Viet Nam ($743M) remains the largest pepper supplier worldwide, comprising 36% of global exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Brazil ($243M), with a 12% share of global exports. It was followed by Indonesia, with a 9.9% share.

In Viet Nam, pepper exports increased at an average annual rate of +9.6% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Brazil (+7.3% per year) and Indonesia (+2.9% per year).

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average pepper export price amounted to $5,214 per tonne, going down by -14.2% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the pepper export price, however, continues to indicate remarkable growth. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2011 an increase of 51% y-o-y. The global export price peaked at $8,660 per tonne in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, export prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was the Netherlands ($8,605 per tonne), while Mexico ($2,602 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports 2007-2018

Global imports totaled 414K tonnes in 2018, picking up by 8.6% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.9% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being observed in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2013 when imports increased by 9.8% y-o-y. Over the period under review, global pepper imports attained their maximum in 2018 and are likely to see steady growth in the near future.

In value terms, pepper imports amounted to $2.1B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Overall, pepper imports continue to indicate a strong expansion. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2011 when imports increased by 41% year-to-year. The global imports peaked at $3.3B in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, imports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Imports by Country

In 2018, the U.S. (75K tonnes), distantly followed by Viet Nam (35K tonnes), Germany (32K tonnes) and India (31K tonnes) were the major importers of pepper, together creating 42% of total imports. The following importers – the United Arab Emirates (16K tonnes), the UK (13K tonnes), France (11K tonnes), the Netherlands (11K tonnes), Spain (10K tonnes), Japan (9.5K tonnes), Pakistan (8.2K tonnes) and Russia (8K tonnes) – together made up 21% of total imports.

Imports into the U.S. increased at an average annual rate of +1.5% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, Viet Nam (+21.5%), India (+8.8%), the UK (+5.4%), the United Arab Emirates (+3.9%), Spain (+2.9%), Russia (+2.6%) and France (+2.0%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Viet Nam emerged as the fastest-growing importer in the world, with a CAGR of +21.5% from 2007-2018. Pakistan, Japan and Germany experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, the Netherlands (-2.7%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. From 2007 to 2018, the share of Viet Nam, India and the U.S. increased by +7.5%, +4.5% and +2.7% percentage points, while the shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, the U.S. ($391M) constitutes the largest market for imported pepper worldwide, comprising 18% of global imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Germany ($188M), with a 8.9% share of global imports. It was followed by India, with a 7.8% share.

In the U.S., pepper imports increased at an average annual rate of +5.5% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Germany (+4.8% per year) and India (+14.1% per year).

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average pepper import price amounted to $5,122 per tonne, shrinking by -18.3% against the previous year. In general, the pepper import price, however, continues to indicate noticeable growth. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2011 an increase of 45% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the average import prices for pepper attained their peak figure at $8,550 per tonne in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, import prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was the United Arab Emirates ($8,027 per tonne), while Viet Nam ($2,485 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

dates
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Global Date Market 2019 – Egypt Continues to Dominate the Market

Leave a comment

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

The global date market revenue amounted to $13.8B in 2018, jumping by 9.7% 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). The market value increased at an average annual rate of +1.8% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 when the market value increased by 9.7% year-to-year. In that year, the global date market attained its peak level and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Consumption By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of date consumption in 2018 were Egypt (1.6M tonnes), Algeria (1.1M tonnes) and Iran (1M tonnes), together accounting for 44% of global consumption. These countries were followed by Saudi Arabia, Sudan, India, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Iraq, Oman and Morocco, which together accounted for a further 39%.

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

In value terms, Egypt ($2.3B), Algeria ($2.1B) and Iran ($1.1B) were the countries with the highest levels of market value in 2018, together accounting for 40% of the global market. These countries were followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Oman, Morocco, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and India, which together accounted for a further 38%.

In 2018, the highest levels of date per capita consumption was registered in Oman (79 kg per person), followed by the United Arab Emirates (39 kg per person), Algeria (26 kg per person) and Saudi Arabia (19 kg per person), while the world average per capita consumption of date was estimated at 1.09 kg per person.

In Oman, date per capita consumption plunged by an average annual rate of -1.8% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: the United Arab Emirates (-10.1% per year) and Algeria (+5.1% per year).

Market Forecast 2019-2025

Driven by increasing demand for date worldwide, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next seven years. Market performance is forecast to retain its current trend pattern, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +2.3% for the seven-year period from 2018 to 2025, which is projected to bring the market volume to 9.8M tonnes by the end of 2025.

Production 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 8.4M tonnes of dates were produced worldwide; picking up by 2.3% against the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.7% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being observed over the period under review. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 with an increase of 6.4% against the previous year. The global date production peaked in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the near future. The general positive trend in terms of date output was largely conditioned by a modest increase of the harvested area and a relatively flat trend pattern in yield figures.

In value terms, date production totaled $13.2B in 2018 estimated in export prices. Overall, date production continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2012 when production volume increased by 25% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global date production attained its peak figure level at $14.4B in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, production failed to regain its momentum.

Production By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of date production in 2018 were Egypt (1.6M tonnes), Iran (1.2M tonnes) and Algeria (1.1M tonnes), with a combined 47% share of global production.

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

Harvested Area 2007-2018

In 2018, the total area harvested in terms of dates production worldwide amounted to 1.4M ha, jumping by 3.6% against the previous year. The harvested area increased at an average annual rate of +1.5% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations over the period under review. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2016 when harvested area increased by 6.9% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the harvested area dedicated to date production reached its peak figure in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the near future.

Yield 2007-2018

Global average date yield amounted to 6 tonne per ha in 2018, remaining constant against the previous year. Over the period under review, the date yield, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2015 when yield increased by 8.4% against the previous year. In that year, the average date yield attained its peak level of 6.6 tonne per ha. From 2016 to 2018, the growth of the average date yield remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Exports 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 1.1M tonnes of dates were exported worldwide. In general, date exports continue to indicate a buoyant expansion. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2018 with an increase of 39% y-o-y. In that year, global date exports reached their peak and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, date exports amounted to $1.7B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, date exports continue to indicate a buoyant expansion. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2018 with an increase of 39% against the previous year. In that year, global date exports reached their peak and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Exports by Country

Iraq (263K tonnes), Iran (180K tonnes), Pakistan (136K tonnes), Tunisia (115K tonnes), Saudi Arabia (104K tonnes) and the United Arab Emirates (97K tonnes) represented roughly 79% of total exports of dates in 2018. It was distantly followed by Israel (58K tonnes), committing a 5.1% share 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 the United Arab Emirates, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest date markets worldwide were Tunisia ($319M), Israel ($207M) and Iran ($176M), together accounting for 40% of global exports. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 31%.

The United Arab Emirates experienced the highest growth rate of exports, among the main exporting countries over the last eleven-year period, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

The average date export price stood at $1,530 per tonne in 2018, approximately reflecting the previous year. Over the period under review, the date export price continues to indicate a temperate downturn. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2012 when the average export price increased by 8.7% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the average export prices for dates reached their maximum at $2,031 per tonne in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2018, export prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Israel ($3,594 per tonne), while Iraq ($408 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Saudi Arabia, while the other global leaders experienced mixed trends in the export price figures.

Imports 2007-2018

Global imports amounted to 1.1M tonnes in 2018. Over the period under review, date imports continue to indicate a prominent expansion. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2009 with an increase of 32% against the previous year. The global imports peaked in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the near future.

In value terms, date imports stood at $1.6B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Overall, date imports continue to indicate a remarkable increase. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2010 with an increase of 26% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global date imports attained their maximum in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Imports by Country

India was the largest importing country with an import of about 423K tonnes, which finished at 38% of total imports. The following importers – Morocco (45K tonnes), the United Arab Emirates (41K tonnes), Indonesia (40K tonnes), Turkey (39K tonnes), the U.S. (37K tonnes), France (35K tonnes), Malaysia (31K tonnes), Bangladesh (30K tonnes), the UK (24K tonnes), Germany (22K tonnes) and Yemen (21K tonnes) – together made up 33% of total imports.

India was also the fastest-growing in terms of the dates imports, with a CAGR of +22.9% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, Turkey (+22.9%), Bangladesh (+16.5%), the U.S. (+14.2%), the United Arab Emirates (+11.7%), Indonesia (+8.9%), Yemen (+7.0%), Malaysia (+6.6%), Germany (+6.5%), the UK (+4.7%) and France (+2.2%) displayed positive paces of growth. Morocco experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. India (+34 p.p.), Turkey (+3.2 p.p.), the United Arab Emirates (+2.6 p.p.), the U.S. (+2.6 p.p.), Bangladesh (+2.2 p.p.) and Indonesia (+2.2 p.p.) significantly strengthened its position in terms of the global imports, while the shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, India ($275M) constitutes the largest market for imported dates worldwide, comprising 18% of global imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by the U.S. ($99M), with a 6.3% share of global imports. It was followed by France, with a 6.3% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value in India totaled +12.7%. The remaining importing countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: the U.S. (+20.6% per year) and France (+3.6% per year).

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average date import price amounted to $1,399 per tonne, stabilizing at the previous year. Overall, the date import price, however, continues to indicate a slight deduction. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 an increase of 16% against the previous year. In that year, the average import prices for dates attained their peak level of $1,862 per tonne. From 2009 to 2018, the growth in terms of the average import prices for dates remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Germany ($3,078 per tonne), while India ($651 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

dairy
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Dairy Spread Market in the EU – Key Insights

Leave a comment

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

The revenue of the dairy spread market in the European Union amounted to $827M in 2017, surging by 18% 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 +1.9% from 2007 to 2017; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2017, when it surged by 18% y-o-y. In that year, the dairy spread market attained its peak level, and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Production in the EU

In 2017, approx. 200K tonnes of dairy spreads were produced in the European Union; increasing by 9.1% against the previous year. The dairy spread production continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Dairy Spread Exports

Exports in the EU

In 2017, exports of dairy spreads in the European Union stood at 31K tonnes, flattening at the previous year. The dairy spread exports continue to indicate a perceptible curtailment.

In value terms, dairy spread exports stood at $138M (IndexBox estimates) in 2017. The dairy spread exports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. In that year, dairy spread exports reached their peak of $204M. From 2009 to 2017, the growth of dairy spread exports remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Exports by Country

Belgium was the main exporting countries with an export of about 9.5K tonnes, which amounted to 31% of total exports. Poland (4.5K tonnes) ranks second in terms of the global exports with a 15% share, followed by the UK (9.2%), Germany (8.4%), France (8.2%), Ireland (8%), Croatia (6.7%) and the Netherlands (4.8%).

Exports from Belgium decreased at an average annual rate of -2.0% from 2007 to 2017. At the same time, Poland (+31.2%), Croatia (+13.1%), the Netherlands (+5.5%) and France (+5.1%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Poland emerged as the fastest growing exporter in the European Union, with a CAGR of +31.2% from 2007-2017. Germany experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, Ireland (-4.7%) and the UK (-17.2%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. From 2007 to 2017, the share of the UK, Belgium and Ireland increased by 52%, 7.1% and 5% percentage points, while the Netherlands (-2%), France (-3.2%), Croatia (-4.8%) and Poland (-13.7%) saw their share reduced. The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, Belgium ($47M) remains the largest dairy spread supplier in the European Union, comprising 34% of global exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Germany ($17M), with a 12% share of global exports. It was followed by Poland, with a 9.3% share.

Export Prices by Country

The dairy spread export price in the European Union stood at $4.5 per kg in 2017, going up by 26% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2017, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.7%.

There were significant differences in the average export prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2017, the country with the highest export price was Germany ($6.5 per kg), while the UK ($2.6 per kg) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2017, the most notable rate of growth in terms of export prices was attained by the Netherlands (+4.9% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Dairy Spread Imports

Imports in the EU

The imports totaled 31K tonnes in 2017, waning by -30.2% against the previous year. The dairy spread imports continue to indicate an abrupt decrease. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2015, when the imports increased by 18% against the previous year. In that year, dairy spread imports reached their peak of 54K tonnes. From 2016 to 2017, the growth of dairy spread imports failed to regain its momentum.

In value terms, dairy spread imports amounted to $120M (IndexBox estimates) in 2017. The dairy spread imports continue to indicate a slight contraction. Over the period under review, dairy spread imports attained their maximum at $167M in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2017, imports remained at a lower figure.

Imports by Country

In 2017, the UK (7.1K tonnes), distantly followed by Germany (4.6K tonnes), France (2.6K tonnes), Portugal (2.6K tonnes), Slovakia (2.1K tonnes), the Netherlands (1.7K tonnes), Spain (1.5K tonnes) and the Czech Republic (1.4K tonnes) represented the main importers of dairy spreads, together mixed up 77% of total imports. The following importers – Greece (1.3K tonnes), Belgium (1.1K tonnes), Austria (726 tonnes) and Romania (651 tonnes) together made up 12% of total imports.

From 2007 to 2017, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by the Netherlands (+43.7% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the UK ($28M), Germany ($17M) and France ($13M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2017, with a combined 48% share of total imports. These countries were followed by Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Slovakia, Greece, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Romania, which together accounted for a further 41%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2017, the dairy spread import price in the European Union amounted to $3.9 per kg, picking up by 15% against the previous year. Over the last decade, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.6%.

Import prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest import price was Austria ($7.3 per kg), while the Netherlands ($2.2 per kg) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2017, the most notable rate of growth in terms of import prices was attained by France (+9.2% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform