New Articles

Asia’s Ginger Market 2019: UAE Is Expected to Be the Fastest-Growing Export Market

Asia’s Ginger Market 2019: UAE Is Expected to Be the Fastest-Growing Export Market

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

The revenue of the ginger market in Asia amounted to $3.2B in 2018, rising by 14% 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).

In general, ginger consumption continues to indicate a prominent expansion. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2010, with an increase of 56% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the ginger market attained its peak figure level in 2018, and is expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Production in Asia

The ginger production amounted to 2.7M tonnes in 2018, surging by 6.9% against the previous year. The total output indicated a strong increase from 2008 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +6.8% over the last decade. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, the ginger production increased by +93.7% against 2008 indices. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2011, with an increase of 24% against the previous year. The volume of ginger production peaked in 2018, and is likely to continue its growth in the near future. The general positive trend in terms of ginger output was largely conditioned by a strong growth of the harvested area and a modest increase in yield figures.

Imports in Asia

The imports amounted to 410K tonnes in 2018, going up by 4.4% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.3% over the period from 2008 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, ginger imports stood at $385M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Pakistan (93K tonnes), Japan (68K tonnes), the United Arab Emirates (47K tonnes), Malaysia (45K tonnes), Bangladesh (42K tonnes), Saudi Arabia (28K tonnes) and India (24K tonnes) represented the main importers of ginger in Asia, generating 85% of total import.

From 2008 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by the United Arab Emirates, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Japan ($103M), Pakistan ($83M) and the United Arab Emirates ($42M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, together accounting for 59% of total imports.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the ginger import price in Asia amounted to $939 per tonne, remaining stable against the previous year. The import price indicated a moderate growth from 2008 to 2018: its price increased at an average annual rate of +2.6% over the last decade. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, the ginger import price increased by +25.2% against 2016 indices.

Import prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest import price was Japan ($1,513 per tonne), while Bangladesh ($279 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2008 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of import prices was attained by India, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Vietnam

Why Washington Shouldn’t see Vietnam as the Next China

In a recent Senate Finance Committee report, U.S. Trade Czar Robert Lighthizer opined that Vietnam must take action to curb its growing trade surplus with the U.S., including removing barriers to market access for U.S. companies.

While it is true that Vietnam’s trade surplus has grown significantly in 2019, much of it is the result of the trade war between the U.S. and China that has prompted importers to source from Vietnam as an alternative to China.

Rather than attempt to stunt Vietnam’s trade surplus through tariffs or other trade actions, Washington should be establishing alliances with countries in Southeast Asia as part of its quest to ensure balanced trade and market stability.

Lighthizer’scomments were in response to queries from the Committee and echoed previous statements made by White House administration officials who have identified Vietnam as one of several countries to watch with respect to trade activity. And while there hasn’t been a direct threat of imposing tariffs on Vietnamese imports, the recent implementation of a 400% duty on Vietnamese steel imports and the recent rhetoric in Washington regarding transshipment has many businesses nervous that their new safe haven may be the President’s next target for trade action.

Troublesome to United State Trade Representative (USTR) is that the surplus thus far in 2019 is already more than 30% higher than it was at this time last year, making Vietnam the leading nation in terms of percentage increase of import value in 2019.

Hastening trade imbalance

Washington has been at least somewhat complicit in hastening Vietnam’s growing trade surplus. Since the U.S. began imposing tariffs on China-origin goods, many U.S. companies (and some Chinese companies) have been looking to shift production to neighboring markets in Asia. A recent poll of U.S. companies by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in China showed that more than 40% of American companies with production in China were looking to move to a neighboring country if they hadn’t already done so. These include the likes of Dell, HP, Steve Madden, Brooks and others. Even non-U.S. companies, like Japan’s Nintendo and China’s own electronics giant TCL are looking to shift production out of China and into Vietnam.

Vietnam was an obvious choice for many of these manufacturers looking to circumvent Washington’s onerous tariffs. For years, Vietnam has been investing heavily in improving its roadway and port infrastructure, as well as augmenting its pool of high-skilled laborers so that it can attract large hi-tech giants. The advancements were well-timed to coincide with increasing wages and regulatory restrictions in China that were driving up costs and forcing foreign producers to look elsewhere for low-cost manufacturing alternatives. This was taking place well before the current administration in Washington began cracking down on China’s questionable trade practices.

To be fair, Washington does have some cause for complaint. It’s one of Asia’s worst kept secrets that Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand have become convenient transshipment hubs for Chinese companies looking to circumvent quotas and, more recently, tariffs by making minor tweaks in neighboring countries to products almost wholly manufactured in China and sending them along to the U.S. as “Vietnamese” or “Malaysian” exports. In the end, there is little monetary gain for Vietnam and much opportunity for reputational damage. Hanoi’s incentive for playing along is purely political; it wants to placate China, its much larger neighbor and regional hegemon.

Hanoi has already said it will crackdown on Chinese transshipments labeled as being of Vietnamese origin. Nikkei Asian Review is reporting the Vietnamese government is considering new rules that would require 30% of a good’s price to be comprised of Vietnamese manufacturing for it to be considered as being of Vietnamese origin. Whether or not this will pacify the USTR remains to be seen.

Yet while Chinese transshipments may have been a catalyst to Vietnam’s soaring trade surplus, the ongoing U.S-China trade war has unquestionably accelerated the development of a trend that was only in its infancy a few short years ago.

If Washington is looking to penalize Vietnam for a trade surplus born out of Washington’s trade war with Beijing, where will the cycle of tariffs end?

Options for low-cost sourcing plentiful

Let’s assume Washington succeeds in quelling the growth of Vietnam’s trade surplus by imposing tariffs in the same manner it has with China, the EU and other entities. The likely outcome will be that U.S. companies then look to Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh or Cambodia (as many have already) to replace or supplement their production in China.

Let’s assume that Washington then imposes similar tariffs on imports from those countries. The likely outcome will be that U.S. companies then shift their attention to India, Mexico or any other country that offer lower cost labor and limited regulatory burden. And on and on it goes.

Washington wants to see production repatriated back to the United States, but only six percent of American companies moving production out of China are looking at reshoring their manufacturing facilities. One of the key reasons is that the facilities currently in China are intended to support regional exports and reshoring production to the U.S. would result in unnecessary transport costs and time in transit. In other cases, the cost of moving production to the U.S. could be too onerous to allow companies to compete globally.

A battle worth waging – along with friends and allies

This is not to suggest Washington’s war on China’s unsavory trade practices is unjust or futile. On the contrary, China’s history of misappropriating intellectual property through technology transfer, cybersecurity incidents and other trade violations requires America to act. But tariffs only punish American companies that will continue to shift their production as necessary to reduce their landed costs.

Instead of reprimanding and punishing countries like Vietnam with tariffs in response to growing trade surpluses, Washington should be working with them to forge alliances that will ensure China is forced to play by the rules.

If the U.S. truly wants to stave off bad actors such as China from continuing to abuse the global trade’s rule-based system, it will need the support of friends and allies in the eastern and western hemispheres. Acting alone and imposing unilateral restrictions only throws Washington into a battle of wills for which collateral damage is certain, but the outcome remains unknown.

_________________________________________________________________

Cora Di Pietro is vice president of Global Trade Consulting at trade-services firm Livingston International. She is a frequent speaker and lecturer at industry and academic events and is an active member of numerous industry groups and associations. She can be reached at cdipietro@livingstonintl.com.

sanitary paper

U.S. Sanitary Paper Product Market – Chinese Imports Rose 15% to $677M in 2018, Despite a Trade War

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. Sanitary Paper Product Market. Analysis And Forecast to 2025’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In 2018, the revenue of the sanitary paper product market in the U.S. amounted to $12B. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price).

Overall, sanitary paper product consumption continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 when the market value increased by 2.3% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the sanitary paper product market attained its maximum level at $12.2B in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, consumption remained at a lower figure.

Sanitary Paper  Production in the U.S.

In value terms, sanitary paper production (disposable diapers and similar disposable products, and sanitary tissue) totaled $11.1B in 2018.

Exports from the U.S.

In 2018, the amount of sanitary paper product exported from the U.S. amounted to 128K tonnes, going up by 5.6% against the previous year. Over the period under review, sanitary paper product exports, however, continue to indicate a mild reduction. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2014 with an increase of 8.7% against the previous year. In that year, sanitary paper product exports reached their peak of 153K tonnes. From 2015 to 2018, the growth of sanitary paper product exports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, sanitary paper product exports amounted to $373M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, sanitary paper product exports, however, continue to indicate a measured decrease. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2018 with an increase of 8.4% year-to-year. Exports peaked at $443M in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure.

Exports by Country

Japan (17K tonnes), Belgium (16K tonnes) and the Dominican Republic (10K tonnes) were the main destinations of sanitary paper product exports from the U.S., with a combined 34% share of total exports.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main countries of destination, was attained by Belgium (+77.9% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Japan ($50M), Belgium ($38M) and the Dominican Republic ($29M) appeared to be the largest markets for sanitary paper product exported from the U.S. worldwide, with a combined 31% share of total exports.

Belgium recorded the highest rates of growth with regard to exports, among the main countries of destination over the last five years, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average sanitary paper product export price amounted to $2,904 per tonne, going up by 2.7% against the previous year. Overall, the sanitary paper product export price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 when the average export price increased by 2.7% year-to-year. The export price peaked at $2,943 per tonne in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, export prices failed to regain their momentum.

There were significant differences in the average prices for the major foreign markets. In 2018, the country with the highest price was South Korea ($3,747 per tonne), while the average price for exports to Belgium ($2,352 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to Guatemala, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports into the U.S.

In 2018, the sanitary paper product imports into the U.S. stood at 451K tonnes, going up by 10% against the previous year. In general, the total imports indicated a strong expansion from 2013 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +10.6% over the last five-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, sanitary paper product imports increased by +65.6% against 2013 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 with an increase of 15% y-o-y. Over the period under review, sanitary paper product imports attained their peak figure in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, sanitary paper product imports amounted to $920M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +10.0% from 2013 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2014 when imports increased by 18% against the previous year. Imports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Imports by Country

In 2018, China (367K tonnes) constituted the largest sanitary paper product supplier to the U.S., with a 82% share of total imports. Moreover, sanitary paper product imports from China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest supplier, Indonesia (17K tonnes), more than tenfold.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of volume from China amounted to +10.3%.

In value terms, China ($677M) constituted the largest supplier of sanitary paper product to the U.S., comprising 74% of total sanitary paper product imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Indonesia ($25M), with a 2.7% share of total imports.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value from China stood at +11.3%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average sanitary paper product import price amounted to $2,041 per tonne, surging by 4.7% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the sanitary paper product import price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2018 an increase of 4.7% y-o-y. The import price peaked at $2,171 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, import prices failed to regain their momentum.

Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major supplying countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was China ($1,842 per tonne), while the price for Indonesia totaled $1,454 per tonne.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by China.

Companies Mentioned in the Report

Johnson & Johnson, Georgia-Pacific, Marcal Manufacturing, Hoffmaster Group, Professional Disposables, Cascades Tissue Group – North Carolina, Attends Healthcare Products, Principle Business Enterprises, Royal Paper Converting, First Quality Baby Products, Orchids Paper Products Company, U.S. Alliance Paper, Associated Hygienic Products, Allied West Paper Corp., Cascades Tissue Group – Pennsylvania, Playtex Products, Leaf River Cellulose, Rose’s Southwest Papers, Playtex Manufacturing, Tambrands Sales Corp., The Procter & Gamble Paper Products Company, The Tranzonic Companies, Tz Acquisition Corp., First Quality Products, Marcal Paper Mills, Soundview Paper Mills, Soundview Paper Holdings, Omganics

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

imports

U.S. Imports of Fats And Oils Refining and Blending Doubled over the Last Five Years

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. Fats And Oils Market. Analysis And Forecast to 2025.’ Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In 2018, the revenue of the fat and oil market in the U.S. amounted to $10.6B. 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, fat and oil consumption continues to indicate a decrease. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2016 when the market value decreased by -4% year-to-year. Fat and oil consumption peaked at $18.6B in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, consumption stood at a somewhat lower figure.

U.S. Fat And Oil Production

In value terms, fat and oil production totaled $10.5B in 2018. In general, fat and oil production continues to indicate a decline. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2016 with a decrease of -4% year-to-year. Over the period under review, fat and oil production reached its peak figure level at $18.6B in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, production stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, shortening and cooking oils ($9.1B) constituted the leading product category. The second position in the ranking was occupied by margarine, butter blends, and butter substitutes ($1.3B).

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of the production volume of shortening and cooking oils stood at -11.4%. With regard to the other produced products, the following average annual rates of growth were recorded: margarine, butter blends, and butter substitutes (-6.6% per year) and other fats and oils refining and blending (+20.4% per year).

Exports from the U.S.

In 2018, the amount of fats and oils exported from the U.S. stood at 22K tonnes, surging by 47% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the total exports indicated a strong expansion from 2013 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +6.8% over the last five-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, fat and oil exports increased by +126.1% against 2015 indices. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2018 when exports increased by 47% year-to-year. In that year, fat and oil exports attained their peak and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, fat and oil exports stood at $26M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Over the period under review, the total exports indicated strong growth from 2013 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +6.8% over the last five years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, fat and oil exports increased by +115.0% against 2015 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 when exports increased by 39% against the previous year. In that year, fat and oil exports reached their peak and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Exports by Country

Libya (5.9K tonnes), Egypt (3.1K tonnes) and India (3K tonnes) were the main destinations of fat and oil exports from the U.S., with a combined 55% share of total exports.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main countries of destination, was attained by India (+270.1% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Libya ($5.1M) emerged as the key foreign market for fat and oil exports from the U.S., comprising 19% of total fat and oil exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by India ($2.3M), with a 8.6% share of total exports. It was followed by Egypt, with a 8.2% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value to Libya was relatively modest. Exports to the other major destinations recorded the following average annual rates of exports growth: India (+201.4% per year) and Egypt (0.0% per year).

Export Prices by Country

The average fat and oil export price stood at $1,210 per tonne in 2018, going down by -5.7% against the previous year. Over the last five-year period, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.1%. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2015 an increase of 23% year-to-year. The export price peaked at $1,283 per tonne in 2017, and then declined slightly in the following year.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was South Korea ($4,008 per tonne), while the average price for exports to Egypt ($690 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to South Korea, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports into the U.S.

In 2018, the fat and oil imports into the U.S. stood at 55K tonnes, increasing by 18% against the previous year. In general, fat and oil imports continue to indicate a skyrocketing expansion. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2014 with an increase of 42% y-o-y. Imports peaked in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, fat and oil imports totaled $154M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Over the period under review, the total imports indicated remarkable growth from 2013 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +20.1% over the last five-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, fat and oil imports increased by +80.1% against 2013 indices. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2018 when imports increased by 18% y-o-y. In that year, fat and oil imports reached their peak and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Indonesia (16K tonnes) constituted the largest supplier of fat and oil to the U.S., with a 29% share of total imports. Moreover, fat and oil imports from Indonesia exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest supplier, Spain (6.1K tonnes), threefold. India (5.9K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total imports with a 11% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume from Indonesia stood at +105.7%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: Spain (+81.4% per year) and India (+8.4% per year).

In value terms, Indonesia ($49M) constituted the largest supplier of fat and oil to the U.S., comprising 32% of total fat and oil imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Malaysia ($15M), with a 10% share of total imports. It was followed by India, with a 7.6% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of value from Indonesia stood at +113.3%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: Malaysia (+52.6% per year) and India (+9.8% per year).

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average fat and oil import price amounted to $2,774 per tonne, flattening at the previous year. Over the period under review, the fat and oil import price continues to indicate an abrupt decline. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2016 an increase of 26% year-to-year. The import price peaked at $3,840 per tonne in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, import prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Germany ($7,513 per tonne), while the price for Ecuador ($1,043 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Malaysia, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

foreign trade zones

FOREIGN TRADE ZONES, PORTS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FORCES CREATE AMERICAN SUCCESS STORIES

The U.S. Foreign Trade Zones Board’s Annual Report to Congress is bullish on FTZs, finding that after several years of decline in zone activity largely related to a downturn in the petroleum sector, strong increases in all major categories were logged in 2017, the last year for which data are available.

Foreign trade zones provide economic incentives to companies importing or exporting international goods. Duty-free treatment is accorded to items that are re-exported, and duty payment is deferred on items sold in the U.S. market, thus offsetting customs advantages available to overseas producers who compete with producers on American soil.

Businesses can use FTZ space a variety of ways, including warehousing and distribution of non-ferrous metals for sale on the London Metal Exchange, warehousing spirits and alcohol and storing vehicles before they are sold in the domestic marketplace.

The value of merchandise received at America’s FTZs increased by 9.6 percent in 2017, to $669.2 billion, according to the report that was presented to Congress this past December. Merchandise received at warehouse/distribution operations increased by 15.5 percent, to $259.1 billion, while that received at production operations increased by 6.2 percent, to $410.1 billion.

Foreign-status inputs to FTZs increased by 11.2 percent, to $250.6 billion, and the value of FTZ imports accounted for 10.6 percent of all goods imported into the U.S. in 2017. The majority of merchandise admitted to FTZs (63 percent) is of domestic origin. The value of exports from America’s FTZs increased by 15.1 percent in 2017, to $87.1 billion, which represents 5.6 percent of the value of all goods exported from the U.S. Exports from FTZ production facilities accounted for two-thirds of all exports from FTZs. Employment at America’s 191 active FTZs increased by approximately 7 percent in 2017, to a new record of 450,000 workers at 3,200 firms that used FTZs during the year.

“The FTZ Board’s latest report confirms that the program continues to be a vital component of America’s trade policy,” says Erik O. Autor, president of the National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones (NAFTZ), which boasts 650+ members. “The competitive advantage for companies operating in an FTZ has enabled them to boost exports and employment, continuing their strong recovery from the recession.”

The Trade Partnership, a Washington, D.C.-based trade research firm, in February provided case studies on the success of FTZs as part of an NAFTZ-commissioned report. “This study measures, both quantitatively and qualitatively, the economic effects of FTZs on the communities in which the zones operate, which we refer to as Zone Economic Communities (ZECs),” states The Trade Partnership introduction to the research, which examined the economic impacts of FTZs in community employment, wages and value added. 

The study concluded the economic impacts of the U.S. FTZ program on communities in which FTZs are located are positive,” The Trade Partnership President Laura M. Baughman said during NAFTZ’s annual Legislative Summit in Washington on Feb. 12. “Many companies have the option to operate inside or outside the United States,” she noted. “They will make that decision based in part on the relative costs of doing business in the United States or abroad. To the extent the Foreign-Trade Zones program can provide positive financial reasons for a U.S. location, it should merit the support of U.S. policymakers.”

“We are very pleased that The Trade Partnership’s analysis has concluded that the U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones program has demonstrable positive economic impacts on the communities in which FTZs are located,” says NAFTZ Board of Directors Chairwoman Eva Tomlinson, who is also director of FTZ Solutions for UPS Trade Management Services Inc. “These real community impacts are in addition to the value that U.S. firms realize from using the FTZ program.” 

The survey included some individual success stories that follow:

FTZ-38 

(Spartanburg, South Carolina; Inland Port Greer; Port of Charleston) 

BMW broke ground on its first American automobile factory in 1992 in Greer, South Carolina, and the first cars rolled off the line in 1994. Before the German automaker’s arrival, Spartanburg was a ghost town of former textile plants and roughly 60,000 lost manufacturing jobs. BMW’s investment in South Carolina changed all that. Today, BMW employs more than 10,000 workers and produces around 400,000 vehicles annually, more than 70 percent for export to 140 global markets (with China the largest foreign destination, followed by Germany). Inputs imported by BMW duty-free under the FTZ program supplement inputs from 235 U.S. suppliers, 40 of whom are in South Carolina.

“As a consequence of this investment, BMW directly and indirectly adds $6.3 billion annually to South Carolina’s economy and leads to the employment of 36,285 people there,” says the German automaker. “The overall footprint in the U.S. is even larger, with value added by BMW of $15.77 billion and employment of 120,855. In each case, this includes both the direct contribution of BMW and the contribution via purchases of BMW and its employees that would not exist if BMW were not established in the United States.”

Earlier this year, BMW Manufacturing, citing Commerce Department data, said it led the U.S. in automotive exports by value for the fifth consecutive year. More than $8.4 billion in cars and SUVs were assembled in Spartanburg before passing through the Port of Charleston in 2018.

FTZ-154

(Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Greater Baton Rouge Port; Port of South Louisiana)

ExxonMobil is a leading example of a company making use of FTZs to import crude petroleum and process it into downstream products, mainly for domestic use in the U.S. but also for export. The oil company has three FTZ subzones in operation, two in Texas (Baytown and Beaumont) and one in Louisiana, where within FTZ-154, ExxonMobil operates a main refinery complex, a petrochemical plant, a tank farm storage facility and a plastics plant in East Baton Rouge Parish, a lubricants plant and a tank farm in West Baton Rouge Parish and the Sorrento Salt Dome in Ascension Parish. The company employs more than 6,600 employees and contractors in the Baton Rouge area, with payroll totaling $491 million.

Despite the exemptions from state and local ad valorem taxes made possible by the FTZ, ExxonMobil’s activities in the Baton Rouge generate millions in annual state and local tax revenue, from property taxes ($33.2 million in East Baton Rouge alone in 2015), to direct sales taxes ($26.3 million in East Baton Rouge), to other state and local taxes (more than $100 million, after credits and rebates). According to a 2017 study, one out of every eight jobs in the Baton Rouge area can be traced back to ExxonMobil. 

FTZ-26

(Newnan, Georgia; Georgia Ports Authority; Port of Savannah)

Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corp. of America (YMMC), which has corporate offices in Cypress, California, and Kennesaw and Marietta, Georgia, decided in 2011 to take advantage of more efficient production that would result from a centralized location, including one that benefits from the efficiencies offered by the FTZprogram. Thus began the transfer of nearly all YMMC mid- and large-engine ATV production from overseas facilities to Newnan, Georgia. Yamaha directly employs about 3,400 workers in the U.S., but more than 2,000 of them are in Georgia alone, with approximately 1,600 within FTZ-26.

Newnan’s factories spend over $170 million annually at more than 100 U.S. parts suppliers, 30 percent of which are located in Georgia. By 2018, Yamaha had invested more than $354 million in its Newnan facility, with that spending rippling through the local community and beyond. Meanwhile, savings YMMC reaps within FTZ-26 have been fed back into the local community, including Yamaha-sponsored environmental projects for schools, youth character-building initiatives, scholarships for high school students and support for local teachers. 

FTZ-86

(Tacoma, Washington; Northwest Seaport Alliance; Port of Tacoma)

Helly Hansen imports from Asia specialty water-resistant cold weather apparel and footwear for professionals working in extreme environments. The Helly Hansen brand had a strong presence in Canada when its Norwegian owners looked to expand beyond the Great White North to all of North America. Savings afforded by the U.S. Foreign-Trade Zone program tipped the scales in favor of making Auburn, Washington, which is within the Port of Seattle’s FTZ-5, the location for Helly Hansen’s U.S. warehouse in 2011.

Four years later, growth spurred the need to open a bigger warehouse and a location was found within the Port of Tacoma’s FTZ-86, where all operations consolidated. About 55 percent of Helly Hansen’s imports into Tacoma are re-exported to Canada, and the company pays no duties on those products. It does pay U.S. import duties on products destined for the U.S. market, when they exit the FTZ for U.S. sale, but while products wait at the warehouse, the company saves money from deferred duty (the value of tighter cash flow and reduced interest costs) and reduced processing fees. The Canadian Tire Corp. purchased Helly Hansen in 2018, and the company now employs 103 people in Tacoma, up from about 50 in Auburn in 2011. Indirectly, the company supports jobs at the port processing 400-500 containers a year, containers that would otherwise go directly to Canada. 

FTZ-18 and FTZ-45

(San Jose, California; Port of Oakland; Portland, Oregon; Port of Portland)

Fremont, California-based Lam Research Corp., a global supplier of innovative wafer fabrication equipment and services to semiconductor manufacturers around the world, creates, assembles, repairs and distributes equipment within San Jose’s FTZ-18 (since 2010) and Portland’s FTZ-45 (since 2016). Around 6,000 employees work in zone-based activities. Components and materials sourced from abroad are admitted free of duty under the FTZ program; those duties would otherwise range from zero to 10.7 percent. Lam estimates that program benefit alone saves the company a significant amount of its import costs. But the FTZ has also helped Lam manage fluctuations in supply chain and international trade. The company has poured zone savings into research and development throughout the U.S.

FTZ-25

(Oakland Park, Florida; Port Everglades)

ProdecoTech, which makes electric bicycles that retail for $1,000 to $5,000 each, was founded in 2008. It would not now employ about 100 people in Oakland Park, Florida, were it not for the FTZ program. ProdecoTech bikes used to be finished abroad, but that changed in 2015, when the company began taking components imported from China, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere in the U.S. to assemble the rides in Oakland Park.

Thank the benefits from being within FTZ-25, which allowed ProdecoTech to avoid paying import duties that can range up to 10 percent. Keeping final assembly stateside as opposed to overseas is now saving the company about 4 percent per bike. And that has allowed ProdecoTech to sell goods 30 percent below what its competition charges. Because American workers are doing the assembly, ProdecoTech has a tighter rein on quality control. 

FTZ-272

(Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; Port of Philadelphia)

Piramal Critical Care Inc. was a U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturer that could no longer compete paying tariffs on imported inputs while its foreign competitors shipped finished products here duty free. That put a target on the jobs of 95 employees in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, where they manufactured and distributed inhalation anesthetics from chemicals and other materials sourced from abroad, primarily India.

After toying with eliminating 70 high-skilled positions and moving production abroad, Piramal launched a Hail Mary by applying for FTZ benefits in 2012. The application was approved, and it has saved Piramal hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in duties. Not only was the company able to stay in Bethlehem, it went on to add even more jobs, modernize its facility and increase capacity three-fold. Piramal today employs about 120 workers and exports to more than 100 countries. 

FTZ-176

(Rockford, Illinois; Port of Rockford)

UniCarriers Americas, which was previously known as Nissan Forklift Corp., sought approval to manufacture rider-type forklift trucks in Rockford, Illinois’ FTZ-176 in 2005. Imported components, which accounted for about 48 percent of the finished forklift truck’s value, were charged duties as high as 9 percent. After contending FTZ benefits would improve UniCarriers’ competitiveness in export markets, the company won approval in 2006. That has gone on to save UniCarriers about $2 million a year, according to the company, which adds employee time spent on handling and filing documents daily for U.S. Customs and Border Protection was eliminated. That’s a win-win when you consider a booming U.S. economy and e-commerce have created strong demand for forklift trucks.

Fortunately, UniCarriers has redirected some duty savings into adding space and employees as well as funding training for a workforce operating ever more sophisticated new equipment. Whereas many manufacturers are replacing workers with robots, UniCarriers is retraining and redeploying employees to work and train alongside automation, according to CEO and President James J. Radous III. He cites figures that show UniCarriers has increased its automation capabilities by 50 percent while doubling its number of employees from about 300 to 600 over the past five years. 

The preceding were the success stories cited in The Trade Partnership report, but there are also other foreign trade zone success stories out there that include the following:

FTZ-84

(Houston, Texas; Port Houston)

FTZ-84 was on a roll in 2017, adding 13 companies, which is no surprise when you consider the Houston region’s rapid growth. As a result, more large importers and exporters are taking the advantage of the financial benefits of using FTZ-84.

One company reaping such benefits is Houston-based Dixie Cullen Interests, which specializes in steel, machinery and other industrial materials. “We are excited about the opportunity that it has opened up for us,” says Dixie Cullen’s President Catherine James. “And we know that Port Houston is where we need to be.” That’s especially true when you consider Port Houston, which owns or operates eight terminals, has committed to invest $1 billion-plus during the next several years in expansion and improvement projects. About two-thirds of all containers in the U.S. Gulf move through Houston, whose port is one of the world’s largest.

FTZ-87

(Lake Charles, Louisiana; Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance; Port of Lake Charles)

The five parish area bordered by Southeast Texas and the Gulf of Mexico is anchored by Sulphur and Lake Charles, where companies from the U.S., Europe, Africa and Asia have staked claims in industrial growth expansion totaling $97 billion.

An extensive rail network makes its way through Southwest Louisiana with Union Pacific and Kansas City Southern servicing the area. Interstates 10 and 210 service a combined 100,000 motorists a day and complete routes between America’s Pacific and Atlantic Coast. And Lake Charles Regional Airport is served by United Airlines, whose hub is in Houston, and American Airlines with its Dallas/Fort Worth hub. But the region has more going for it than simply location, according to George Swift, CEO and president of the Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance. “Our people and companies are making history,” he says. “Each day that passes, companies from across the globe are calling to learn about development and expansion possibilities while others call about the tens of thousands of temporary and permanent jobs that are going to be generated by industrial expansion.”

FTZ-74

(Baltimore, Maryland; Baltimore Development Corp.; Port of Baltimore)

FTZ-74 is one of the most active and largest zones in the United States, which is fitting considering the Port of Baltimore is among America’s 10 busiest ports. With merchandise such as cars, paper and steel, total FTZ-74 international revenue rose from $44 million in 2016 to more than $396 million in 2017, a whopping 800 percent increase! The total value of shipments through Baltimore’s FTZ was more than $19.9 billion in ’17. That only figures to rise as Maryland recently approved a contract to complete the fill-in of a wet basin at the Helen Delich Bentley Port of Baltimore’s Fairfield Marine Terminal.

That project will create more land to help handle the port’s surging auto and roll on/roll off (farm and construction machinery) cargo. Among those as pleased as a Baltimore Bang cocktail over this development is Maryland Governor Larry Hogan. “The Port of Baltimore is the number one auto port in the nation and continues to break cargo records every month,” Hogan says. “Our administration is committed to furthering this growth and strongly supports our great port and its thousands of hardworking men and women handling the millions of tons of cargo coming in throughout the year.”

FTZ-196

(Fort Worth, Texas; AllianceTexas; Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport)

Known as the Alliance Foreign-Trade Zone, FTZ-196 in North Fort Worth sees more action than any other general purpose FTZ in the country. AllianceTexas is a 17,000-acre, master-planned community anchored by the world’s first industrial airport. Also within its boundaries are the Alliance Global Logistics Hub, Circle T Ranch, Heritage, Alliance Town Center, Saratoga and Monterra Village projects. A total of 265 companies that have created more than 30,000 jobs. Among them are Cinram, Hyundai, LEGO, Motorola, GENCO ATC, Callaway Golf and Alliance Operating Services.

Since its inception, AllianceTexas has generated a $40.65 billion economic impact for the North Texas region. Steve Boecking, vice president of Hillwood Properties, the Perot company that developed the Alliance brand, says of the $4 billion in annual FTZ-196 imports: “Regional efforts to strengthen international relationships and to build new global trade partnerships have also resulted in an increased volume of foreign goods being shipped through North Texas.” 

THE POWER OF POSITIVITY

The National Association of Foreign Trade Zones study found the following positive economic measures when examining each of 251 Zone Economic Communities (ZECs) to determine the impact of foreign trade zones:

-Employment, wages and value-added increased in the broader zone community following the establishment of an FTZ. Those gains are the greatest in the early years for employment and wages, and throughout the period for value added. This increased economic activity is also evident once a decision is made to form an FTZ.

-The establishment of an FTZ caused a positive increase in employment growth in the surrounding ZEC (up 0.2 percentage points), wage growth (up 0.4 percentage points), and value-added growth (up 0.3 percentage points), typically eight years and later, after establishment of the FTZ. The impacts begin sooner, in years six and later, for wages and value added in small- and medium sized ZECs.

-Company access to FTZ benefits had a substantial ripple effects through the companies’ supply chains, which are typically located nearby. 

Downloaded the complete report at www.naftz.org.

plum

Global Plum And Sloe Market Reached $15.7B in 2018

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

The global plum and sloe market revenue amounted to $15.7B in 2018, going up by 12% 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 +4.7% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2011 with an increase of 13% y-o-y. Global plum and sloe consumption peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Consumption By Country

China (7.1M tonnes) constituted the country with the largest volume of plum and sloe consumption, accounting for 59% of total consumption. Moreover, plum and sloe consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the world’s second largest consumer, Romania (453K tonnes), more than tenfold. The U.S. (420K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total consumption with a 3.5% share.

In China, plum and sloe consumption expanded at an average annual rate of +3.6% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Romania (+1.8% per year) and the U.S. (+1.7% per year).

In value terms, China ($10B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by the U.S. ($757M). It was followed by Iran.

The countries with the highest levels of plum and sloe per capita consumption in 2018 were Serbia (33 kg per person), Romania (23 kg per person) and Morocco (5,363 kg per 1000 persons).

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of plum and sloe per capita consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Morocco, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Market Forecast 2019-2025

Driven by increasing demand for plum and sloe worldwide, 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 +1.8% for the seven-year period from 2018 to 2025, which is projected to bring the market volume to 14M tonnes by the end of 2025.

Production 2007-2018

Global plum and sloe production amounted to 12M tonnes in 2018, going up by 2.9% against the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.3% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations over the period under review. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2009 when production volume increased by 6.3% y-o-y. Global plum and sloe production peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future. The general positive trend in terms of plum and sloe output was largely conditioned by a measured expansion of the harvested area and a slight increase in yield figures.

In value terms, plum and sloe production totaled $16.3B in 2018 estimated in export prices. In general, the total output indicated a strong expansion from 2007 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +2.3% over the last eleven year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, the plum and sloe production increased by +25.6% against 2016 indices. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2018 with an increase of 16% year-to-year. In that year, global plum and sloe production reached its peak level and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Production By Country

China (7M tonnes) constituted the country with the largest volume of plum and sloe production, comprising approx. 58% of total production. Moreover, plum and sloe production in China exceeded the figures recorded by the world’s second largest producer, Romania (441K tonnes), more than tenfold. The U.S. (430K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total production with a 3.5% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume in China stood at +3.5%. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Romania (+1.5% per year) and the U.S. (+1.6% per year).

Harvested Area 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 2.7M ha of plums and sloes were harvested worldwide; increasing by 1.6% against the previous year. The harvested area increased at an average annual rate of +1.2% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2013 with an increase of 4.8% year-to-year. In that year, the global plum and sloe harvested area reached its peak figure of 2.7M ha. From 2014 to 2018, the growth of the global plum and sloe harvested area remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Yield 2007-2018

Global average plum and sloe yield totaled 4.6 tonne per ha in 2018, therefore, remained relatively stable against the previous year. The yield figure increased at an average annual rate of +1.1% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2009 when Yield increased by 4.8% year-to-year. Over the period under review, the average plum and sloe yield attained its maximum level in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Exports 2007-2018

In 2018, the global exports of plums and sloes stood at 615K tonnes, leveling off at the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.2% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2011 when exports increased by 12% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global plum and sloe exports attained their maximum at 689K tonnes in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, plum and sloe exports totaled $776M in 2018. The total export value increased at an average annual rate of +1.9% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being observed throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 with an increase of 16% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global plum and sloe exports reached their peak figure at $838M in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure.

Exports by Country

In 2018, Chile (121K tonnes), distantly followed by Spain (73K tonnes), South Africa (58K tonnes), Moldova (53K tonnes), Italy (45K tonnes), China, Hong Kong SAR (43K tonnes), the U.S. (33K tonnes) and Uzbekistan (28K tonnes) represented the largest exporters of plums and sloes, together making up 74% of total exports. Serbia (16K tonnes), Turkey (14K tonnes), France (13K tonnes) and the Netherlands (11K tonnes) occupied 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 Moldova, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Chile ($174M), Spain ($113M) and South Africa ($78M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2018, with a combined 47% share of global exports. These countries were followed by China, Hong Kong SAR, the U.S., Italy, Moldova, the Netherlands, Uzbekistan, France, Turkey and Serbia, which together accounted for a further 39%.

Moldova experienced the highest rates of growth with regard to 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

In 2018, the average plum and sloe export price amounted to $1,262 per tonne, surging by 3.7% against the previous year. In general, the plum and sloe export price continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2008 an increase of 11% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the average export prices for plums and sloes attained their maximum at $1,317 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, export prices failed to regain their momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was the Netherlands ($1,862 per tonne), while Moldova ($528 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 575K tonnes of plums and sloes were imported worldwide; dropping by -6.6% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.1% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2016 with an increase of 12% y-o-y. Over the period under review, global plum and sloe imports reached their peak figure at 659K tonnes in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, imports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, plum and sloe imports totaled $721M in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +1.0% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being observed in certain years. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2016 when Imports increased by 16% y-o-y. Over the period under review, global plum and sloe imports attained their maximum at $849M in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, imports remained at a lower figure.

Imports by Country

China (93K tonnes) and Russia (77K tonnes) represented roughly 30% of total imports of plums and sloes in 2018. It was distantly followed by the Netherlands (38K tonnes), Germany (32K tonnes) and the UK (30K tonnes), together committing a 17% share of total imports. The U.S. (23K tonnes), Kazakhstan (19K tonnes), Brazil (16K tonnes), Canada (15K tonnes), China, Hong Kong SAR (13K tonnes), Egypt (13K tonnes) and Saudi Arabia (12K tonnes) occupied 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 Kazakhstan (+59.5% per year), while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, China ($155M) constitutes the largest market for imported plums and sloes worldwide, comprising 21% of global imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Russia ($56M), with a 7.8% share of global imports. It was followed by the Netherlands, with a 7% share.

In China, plum and sloe imports increased at an average annual rate of +24.0% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Russia (+3.9% per year) and the Netherlands (-3.2% per year).

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average plum and sloe import price amounted to $1,255 per tonne, standing approx. at the previous year. Over the period under review, the plum and sloe import price continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 when the average import price increased by 3.5% year-to-year. Over the period under review, the average import prices for plums and sloes reached their maximum at $1,328 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, import prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Canada ($1,901 per tonne), while Kazakhstan ($722 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

lemon and lime

Global Lemon & Lime Market 2019 – South Africa Overcomes Argentina In The Top-Exporter Ranking

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

The global lemon and lime market revenue amounted to $18.3B in 2018, going up by 6.4% 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 +3.2% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2008, with an increase of 16% year-to-year. Over the period under review, the global lemon and lime market attained its maximum level in 2018, and is expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Production 2007-2018

In 2018, the global lemon and lime production totaled 17M tonnes, remaining constant against the previous year. Over the period under review, lemon and lime production continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Exports 2007-2018

Global exports stood at 3.1M tonnes in 2018, growing by 1.9% against the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.5% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. In value terms, lemon and lime exports stood at $3.4B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Over the period under review, the total exports indicated a strong growth from 2007 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +3.5% over the last eleven years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

Based on 2018 figures, the lemon and lime exports increased by +69.5% against 2012 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008, with an increase of 21% year-to-year. Global exports peaked in 2018, and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Exports by Country

Mexico (718K tonnes), Spain (529K tonnes), Turkey (465K tonnes), South Africa (315K tonnes) and Argentina (269K tonnes) represented roughly 74% of total exports of lemons and limes in 2018. The following exporters – the U.S. (116K tonnes), Brazil (97K tonnes), Chile (88K tonnes), the Netherlands (73K tonnes) and Germany (69K tonnes) – together made up 14% of total exports. From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main exporting countries, was attained by Germany, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth. In value terms, the largest lemon and lime markets worldwide were Spain ($783M), Mexico ($678M) and Turkey ($341M), with a combined 54% share of global exports. South Africa, Argentina, the U.S., Chile, the Netherlands, Germany and Brazil lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 35%.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average lemon and lime export price amounted to $1,083 per tonne, going up by 5% against the previous year. Over the last eleven years, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.8%. Export prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest export price was the U.S. ($1,748 per tonne), while Turkey ($735 per tonne) 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. 3M tonnes of lemons and limes were imported worldwide; stabilizing at the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.6% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. In value terms, lemon and lime imports totaled $3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The U.S. represented the key importer of lemons and limes in the world, with the volume of imports finishing at 731K tonnes, which was near 25% of total imports in 2018. Russia (222K tonnes) occupied the second position in the ranking, followed by the Netherlands (209K tonnes), France (190K tonnes) and Iraq (141K tonnes). All these countries together held near 26% share of total imports. Spain (115K tonnes), Saudi Arabia (100K tonnes), Germany (87K tonnes), the UK (84K tonnes), Canada (82K tonnes), the United Arab Emirates (75K tonnes) and Italy (70K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders. From 2007 to 2018, average annual rates of growth with regard to lemon and lime imports into the U.S. stood at +4.9%.

At the same time, Spain (+9.2%), Iraq (+8.8%), the United Arab Emirates (+5.6%), the Netherlands (+5.4%), France (+4.2%), Canada (+3.2%) and Saudi Arabia (+3.1%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Spain emerged as the fastest growing importer in the world, with a CAGR of +9.2% from 2007-2018. Russia experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, the UK (-1.3%), Italy (-2.3%) and Germany (-4.3%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. Germany (1.8%) significantly strengthened its position in terms of the global imports, while France, Spain, Iraq, the Netherlands and the U.S. saw its share reduced by -2.3%, -2.4%, -2.9%, -3.1% and -10.1% from 2007 to 2018, respectively.

The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period. In value terms, the U.S. ($652M) constitutes the largest market for imported lemons and limes worldwide, comprising 22% of global imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by France ($270M), with a 9.1% share of global imports. It was followed by the Netherlands, with a 6.6% share.

Import Prices by Country

The average lemon and lime import price stood at $1,003 per tonne in 2018, waning by -11.6% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.0%. There were significant differences in the average import prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest import price was Germany ($1,734 per tonne), while Iraq ($324 per tonne) was amongst the lowest. From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of import prices was attained by the U.S., while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Report: Ice Cream Market in the USA – Key Insights

IndexBox has just published a new report, the U.S. Ice Cream And Frozen Dessert Market. Analysis And Forecast to 2025. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the ice cream market in the U.S. amounted to $8.1B in 2018, leveling off at 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). In general, ice cream consumption continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

The growth pace was the most rapid in 2014, with an increase of 2.6% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the ice cream market reached its maximum level in 2018, and is expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

In 2018, per capita ice cream consumption in the U.S. was estimated at 10 kg per person. Over the analyzed period, per capita consumption ranged in the interval from 10 kg per person in 2013 to 11 kg per person in 2008. In value terms, per capita ice cream consumption in the U.S. showed mixed trend pattern, finally falling from $26 in 2008 to $25 in 2018.

Ice Cream Production in the USA

In value terms, ice cream production totaled $8.2B in 2018. Overall, ice cream production continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014, when the the output figure increased by 2.8% y-o-y.

Ice Cream Exports
Exports from the USA

In 2018, ice cream exports from the U.S. amounted to 75K tonnes, surging by 10% against the previous year. In general, ice cream exports continue to indicate a strong increase.

In value terms, ice cream exports stood at $249M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

Mexico (18K tonnes) was the main destination for ice cream exports from the U.S., accounting for a 24% share of total exports. Moreover, ice cream exports to Mexico exceeded the volume sent to the second major destination, Australia (7.1K tonnes), threefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Canada (6.7K tonnes), with a 8.9% share.

From 2008 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume to Mexico stood at +2.5%. Exports to the other major destinations recorded the following average annual rates of exports growth: Australia (+40.5% per year) and Canada (+6.2% per year).

In value terms, Mexico ($52M), Australia ($26M) and Saudi Arabia ($23M) were the largest markets for ice cream exported from the U.S. worldwide, together comprising 41% of total exports. Canada, the UK, the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Brazil, Trinidad and Tobago, South Korea, Bahamas and China lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 34%.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average ice cream export price amounted to $3.3 per kg, growing by 7.2% against the previous year. Over the last decade, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.8%.

Export prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest export price was the UK ($4.3 per kg), while the average price for exports to Mexico ($2.8 per kg) was amongst the lowest.

From 2008 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of export prices was recorded for supplies to the United Arab Emirates (+6.4% per year), while the export prices for the other major destinations experienced more modest paces of growth.

Ice Cream Imports
Imports into the USA

Ice cream imports into the U.S. amounted to 29K tonnes in 2018, increasing by 13% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.4% from 2008 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. In value terms, ice cream imports stood at $86M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Over the period under review, imports of ice cream in the U.S. were negligibly small compared to the production volumes. Therefore, the share of imports in the total market was practically nonexistent, both in volume and in value terms. This situation has remained constant over the period under review, which means that domestic producers entirely meet the domestic demand for ice cream.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Mexico (9.8K tonnes) constituted the largest ice cream supplier to the U.S., accounting for a 34% share of total imports. Moreover, ice cream imports from Mexico exceeded the figures recorded by the second largest supplier, Canada (2.8K tonnes), threefold. South Korea (2.6K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total imports with a 9% share.

From 2008 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of volume from Mexico totaled +14.3%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: Canada (-10.4% per year) and South Korea (+6.6% per year).

In value terms, Thailand ($13M), Italy ($9M) and South Korea ($7.7M) were the largest ice cream suppliers to the U.S., with a combined 35% share of total imports. These countries were followed by Canada, Hungary, South Africa, Germany, Australia, Mexico, France, Israel and India, which together accounted for a further 52%.

Import Prices by Country

The average ice cream import price stood at $3 per kg in 2018, rising by 15% against the previous year. Over the last decade, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.5%.

Import prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest import price was Thailand ($7.6 per kg), while the price for Mexico ($344 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2008 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of import prices was attained by Mexico (+11.1% per year), while the import prices for the other major suppliers experienced more modest paces of growth.

Companies Mentioned in the Report

Wells Enterprises, Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Blue Bell Creameries, The Jel Sert Co, Friendly’s Ice Cream, Hershey Creamery Company, Fieldbrook Foods Corporation, Dianne’s Fine Dessert, Chobani Idaho, Baldwin Richardson Foods Company, Edy’s Grand Ice Cream, Graeter’s Manufacturing, Perry’s Ice Cream Company, House of Flavors, Talenti I, Hain Refrigerated Foods, Rocky Mountain Pies, Ice Cream Specialties, Shenandoah’s Pride, TLC-Lc, Blue Bell Creameries Usa, Ffc Holding Corporation and Subsidiaries, Vasari, WEI Sales

Source: IndexBox AI Platform