Trending Now

Building a Resilient Supply Chain with Advanced Predictive…

New Articles

Are You Prepared for the Outcome of the U.S.-China Trade War?

U.S.-China trade
Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade, Stories

Are You Prepared for the Outcome of the U.S.-China Trade War?

Leave a comment

For exporters, importers, manufacturers and investors who are heavily involved in U.S.- China trade, the recent agreement provides potentially immense benefits – but still doesn’t end their uncertainty or anxieties about what the future may bring.

Every participant in U.S.-China trade should now be reassessing his or her own expectations and strategic plans for not only surviving the trade war but, as importantly, for maximizing business success.

Clearly, preparation is essential for businesses to thrive and avoid suffering substantial harm at a time when critical political, economic and legal factors beyond a company’s control are constantly changing.

To help business owners and senior executives shape business and legal strategies tailored to their company operations, I’ll first clarify what the U.S. and China have decided and what is still in play. I’ll then lay out possible scenarios and the strategic approaches that executives should consider taking to protect themselves and position their businesses for future success.

The New Phase 1 Agreement

Under the signed agreement China will:

-Buy at least $200 billion of additional US exports in goods and services over the next two years, on top of amounts it imported in 2017, in the following areas:

-$78 billion of manufactured goods including vehicles and industrial machinery

-$52 billion of energy products, including crude oil and LNG

-$32 billion of agricultural and food products

-$38 billion of financial and business services

-Open its financial sector by abolishing limitations on foreign ownership of Chinese securities by April 1, 2020 and ensure market access on a non-discriminatory basis for US securities, insurance and fund management companies.

-End its longstanding practice of requiring US companies to transfer technology to Chinese companies as a condition for obtaining market access.

In exchange, the U.S.:

-Suspended a planned tariff scheduled to go into force on December 15th covering $156 billion of apparel products (Tranche 4B) and lowered the tariff rate from 15 percent to 7.5 percent on another group of apparel products (Tranche 4a)

The signed Phase 1 deal also requires China to:

-Adopt an action plan to make major structural changes for protecting US intellectual property

-Implement a dispute resolution mechanism that puts in place “strong procedures” for the US and Chinese parties to resolve disputes fairly and expeditiously

Under the Phase 1 agreement, the U.S. will maintain its current tariffs of 25 percent on $250 billion in Chinese products and 10 percent on an additional $300 billion of Chinese consumer goods.

FUTURE SCENARIO #1:

The U.S. and China Reach a  Phase 2 Deal & Comprehensive Settlement

Without question, the Phase 1 agreement signed on January 15th is a game-changer for U.S.-China trade relations – the likely beginning of the end of the trade war.

Phase 1 represents the first time since the opening shots of the trade conflict, approximately 20 months ago, that the parties have found common ground and enshrined it in a binding legal agreement. With public expectations for a complete settlement raised by both President Trump and President Xi, negotiators are now incentivized to reach agreement on the remaining U.S. and Chinese demands.

Even though most previously existing tariffs still remain in place, it is now realistic to anticipate a broad negotiated settlement in a Phase 2 deal that includes a sharp reduction in tariffs, Chinese implementation of necessary reforms, and a far more balanced U.S.-China trade relationship. A settlement of this kind would significantly expand business opportunities for American companies to export more products to China and to import more Chinese products to the United States.

Consequently, both exporters and importers can and should now formulate and implement plans as part of their business strategies for improved trade relations with China that seemed highly unlikely and unrealistic only a few weeks ago.

U.S. Importers

To prepare for the possible elimination of high tariffs imposed by the U.S. and China during the trade war as well as other beneficial reforms, key  executives of U.S. importers should  ask the following questions:

-How can we expand the quality and quantity of Chinese products we import?

-To what extent will a sharp reduction of tariffs improve the competitiveness of the products we import in various S. market sectors?

-If Chinese companies curtail their practice of forcing transfer of U.S. intellectual property, how will this help us expand our China-based supply chain?

-If the Chinese government significantly reduces its subsidies for competitive Chinese companies, what kind of openings for increased imports will this create?

-In what ways can and should we encourage our Chinese business partners to invest in the U.S. by building factories here for which our company could handle marketing and distribution?

U.S. Exporters

To  take advantage of China’s Phase 1 agreement to buy $200 billion in U.S. export products during the next two years on top of amounts it imported in 2017 as well as to prepare for the elimination of high tariffs in Phase 2, key  executives of U.S. exporters should ask  the following questions:

-How can we expand the quality and quantity of products we export to China?

-In what sectors of the Chinese market will the products we export become more competitive?

-How will the potential reduction of government subsidies to our Chinese competitors allow us to penetrate the China market more effectively?

-In what areas should we explore new relationships with Chinese companies for producing finished products that include the American intermediary goods we export?

-To what extent will a full Phase 2 settlement of the trade war and the reforms accompanying it enable the U.S. government to modify the controls it currently imposes on specific exports?

FUTURE SCENARIO #2:

The U.S. and China continue their negotiations for a Phase 2 deal but find it difficult to reach agreement

Despite agreement on a Phase 1 deal, the tensions and uncertainty of U.S.-China negotiations mean the U.S. and China may face complications and delays reaching a meaningful Phase 2 deal requiring new Chinese commitments and an end to high U.S. tariffs.

Factors that could slow down the process of reaching a Phase 2 agreement include various threats by the Trump administration:

-Delisting Chinese companies from S. stock exchanges

-Blocking a range of public and private pension funds and university  endowments  from making certain investments in China

-Putting other capital controls on U.S. private sector investment in China to protect against opaque Chinese company accounting and business practices

-Broadening scrutiny of potential Chinese investments in the United States on national security grounds

-Expanding checks by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of Chinese companies that do business in the S.

-Disrupting the flow of capital between Hong Kong and mainland China if China does not adequately respect the autonomy of Hong Kong

Each of the U.S. measures described above would likely cause China to take reciprocal retaliatory actions – just as China has responded to U.S. tariffs with reciprocal tariffs of its own on American products.

At stake in the Phase 2 negotiation are issues that will determine whether the Trump administration achieves its core objectives in the trade war, including:

-Stricter rules to strengthen information security for cross-border data flows of American companies that do business in China

-Limiting the subsidies by China’s government to state-owned companies which facilitate unfair competition

The issue for Phase 2 that is likely of greatest importance to American importers is whether an agreement removes U.S. tariffs on more than $500 billion in Chinese products that threaten the well-being of their businesses.

Given the uncertainty of reaching a follow-on Phase 2 agreement, key executives of U.S. importers and exporters should ask the following questions:

U.S. Importers

-If a Phase 2 agreement with China does not materialize, how should we plan to modify the sourcing of products we currently import from China to avoid high tariffs?

-What kind of exploratory discussions with suppliers outside China should we initiate as a hedge against uncertainty and continuing tension in S.-China trade relations?

-To prepare for a possible shift in import strategy, should we participate in the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) program that reduces the number of Customs examinations, accelerates Customs processing times and expedites border crossing privileges?

-What measures can we take to lower cost and raise efficiency to improve the competitiveness of Chinese-origin products in the S. market?

-Does our supply chain include middlemen who resell products to us at a marked-up price? If so, can we utilize the established “first sale rule” under U.S. law that allows us to avoid paying any duty on the amount of the mark-up?

U.S. Exporters

In light of continuing uncertainty about the Phase 2 negotiations, exporters should ask themselves:

-How can we modify the quantity and type of our exports to China in light of unfair competition from state-owned companies receiving government subsidies?

-If existing Chinese tariffs remain in place for the foreseeable future, how will that affect sales of our products in the Chinese market?

-How will increased U.S. controls on exports of American products to China affect our business strategy?

-If the U.S. imposes new tariffs on China and China retaliates, how can we manage and mitigate the likely negative impact on our sales in China?

-In light of the trade obstacles we now face and may continue to face, how should we modify our export strategy for China?

FUTURE SCENARIO #3:

The U.S. and China break off discussions on a final Phase 2 settlement of the trade war after negotiations fail and they pursue hostile trade policies toward each other

If the U.S. and China cannot reach a meaningful trade agreement in 2020, it is likely they will break off negotiations and pursue hostile trade policies toward each other. In this case, some or all of the following economic and political developments are likely to occur:

-The trade war will evolve into a major, multifaceted dispute – the equivalent of a cold war – that involves geopolitical and security disputes as well as trade issues

-Both the U.S. and China will find it difficult to stop a vicious cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation on trade and other issues

-China and the S. will strive to consolidate their own trade blocs that exclude the other country – potentially decoupling the U.S. and Chinese economies/financial sectors

-China will enhance the role of its state-owned businesses using increased subsidies

-The U.S. will significantly expand its restrictions on trade with China by delisting Chinese companies from U.S. exchanges, blocking public and private U.S. investments in China, enacting much more restrictive export controls, ending most Chinese investment in the United States, exercising greater scrutiny by the SEC of Chinese companies and taking other restrictive measures

Outlook for Importers and Exporters

While future events could potentially reignite the trade war and eventually lead to a breakdown in U.S.-China relations, this dire prospect should not be the immediate focus of planning and preparation by importers, exporters, manufacturers and investors. The collapse of normal economic and trade relations represented by Scenario #3 is only likely to occur after China and the U.S. go through an extended period of uncertainty, tension,  and deterioration in trade relations described in Scenario #2.

Companies involved in U.S.-China trade should therefore base their business and legal planning on the high probability that the trade war will likely evolve either toward a settlement of most outstanding issues or toward continuing uncertainty characterized by the inability of negotiators to resolve remaining differences.

It would be a major mistake at this time to take a “wait and see” approach or bet exclusively on either Scenario #2 or Scenario #3 coming to pass.

For this reason, importers, exporters, manufacturers and investors should focus on modifying their business/legal strategies to take advantage of the potentially immense benefits of the Phase 1 agreement and preparing contingency plans for either a Phase 2 agreement or the occurrence of Scenario #2 in trade negotiations with China – the two scenarios that are most likely to materialize between now and the end of 2020.

______________________________________________________________

Donald Gross  is  founding  partner  of  Donald  Gross  Law,  an international trade law and strategy advisory firm in Washington, D.C. (https://www.donaldgrosslaw.com). He participated in U.S. negotiations with China as a Senior Adviser for International Security Affairs at the State Department from 1997 to 2000, and as Counselor of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1994 to 1997. He is the author of “The China Fallacy: How the U.S. Can Benefit from China’s Rise and Avoid Another Cold War” (Bloomsbury, 2013). He can be reached at don@donaldgrosslaw.com.

molluscs
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Molluscs Market in the EU Bounced Back to $4.6B

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – Molluscs (Scallops, Mussels, Cuttle Fish, Squid And Octopus) – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the molluscs market in the European Union amounted to $4.6B in 2018, growing by 2.4% 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).

Consumption By Country in the EU

The countries with the highest volumes of molluscs consumption in 2018 were Spain (174K tonnes), Italy (148K tonnes) and Germany (136K tonnes), together comprising 53% of total consumption. The UK, Poland, Portugal, Greece, Romania, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Hungary lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 38%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of molluscs consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Portugal, while molluscs consumption for the other leaders experienced mixed trends in the consumption figures.

In value terms, the largest molluscs markets in the European Union were Spain ($996M), Germany ($901M) and Italy ($878M), with a combined 61% share of the total market. Poland, Portugal, Romania, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Hungary, Greece and the UK lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 29%.

The countries with the highest levels of molluscs per capita consumption in 2018 were Portugal (4,386 kg per 1000 persons), Spain (3,727 kg per 1000 persons) and Italy (2,479 kg per 1000 persons).

Production in the EU

In 2018, the amount of molluscs (scallops, mussels, cuttle fish, squid and octopus) produced in the European Union stood at 588K tonnes, remaining stable against the previous year. In general, molluscs production continues to indicate a mild shrinkage.

Production By Country in the EU

The countries with the highest volumes of molluscs production in 2018 were Germany (131K tonnes), the UK (128K tonnes) and Spain (115K tonnes), with a combined 64% share of total production. These countries were followed by Poland, Romania, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Slovakia and Portugal, which together accounted for a further 29%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of molluscs production, amongst the main producing countries, was attained by Portugal, while molluscs production for the other leaders experienced mixed trends in the production figures.

Exports in the EU

In 2018, exports of molluscs (scallops, mussels, cuttle fish, squid and octopus) in the European Union amounted to 162K tonnes, remaining relatively unchanged against the previous year. Overall, molluscs exports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The volume of exports peaked at 180K tonnes in 2011; however, from 2012 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure. In value terms, molluscs exports amounted to $1.1B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

Spain dominates molluscs exports structure, recording 100K tonnes, which was near 62% of total exports in 2018. Portugal (10,117 tonnes) took the second position in the ranking, followed by the Netherlands (10,007 tonnes), the UK (9,837 tonnes) and Italy (7,423 tonnes). All these countries together occupied approx. 23% share of total exports. Belgium (6,244 tonnes) and France (4,941 tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

Spain experienced a relatively flat trend pattern with regard to volume of exports of molluscs (scallops, mussels, cuttle fish, squid and octopus) exports. At the same time, Portugal (+7.8%) and the Netherlands (+7.7%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Portugal emerged as the fastest-growing exporter exported in the European Union, with a CAGR of +7.8% from 2007-2018. Italy experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, Belgium (-4.0%), the UK (-4.9%) and France (-10.0%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period.

In value terms, Spain ($630M) remains the largest molluscs supplier in the European Union, comprising 57% of total molluscs exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by the UK ($94M), with a 8.5% share of total exports. It was followed by Belgium, with a 6.4% share.

Export Prices by Country

The molluscs export price in the European Union stood at $6,816 per tonne in 2018, rising by 2.9% against the previous year. Over the last eleven years, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.5%.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Belgium ($11,342 per tonne), while the Netherlands ($4,729 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports in the EU

In 2018, approx. 445K tonnes of molluscs (scallops, mussels, cuttle fish, squid and octopus) were imported in the European Union; standing approx. at the previous year. In value terms, molluscs imports totaled $2.7B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +2.2% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Spain (160K tonnes) and Italy (149K tonnes) were the main importers of molluscs (scallops, mussels, cuttle fish, squid and octopus) in the European Union, together reaching near 70% of total imports. Portugal (45K tonnes) held a 10% share (based on tonnes) of total imports, which put it in second place, followed by Greece (4.9%). France (14K tonnes), the Netherlands (9.1K tonnes) and Croatia (8.4K tonnes) occupied a minor 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 the Netherlands, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Spain ($967M), Italy ($920M) and Portugal ($236M) were the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, with a combined 78% share of total imports. These countries were followed by Greece, France, the Netherlands and Croatia, which together accounted for a further 11%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the import price for molluscs in the European Union amounted to $6,121 per tonne, increasing by 3.7% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.3%.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was France ($7,013 per tonne), while Croatia ($4,110 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

quinoa
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Rising Demand in the U.S., Canada, and Europe Drives Global Quinoa Exports

Leave a comment

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

The global quinoa market revenue amounted to $410M in 2018, rising by 5.1% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). Overall, quinoa consumption continues to indicate strong growth.

Consumption By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of quinoa consumption in 2018 were Bolivia (40K tonnes), Peru (34K tonnes) and the U.S. (29K tonnes), with a combined 71% share of global consumption.

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

In value terms, the largest quinoa markets worldwide were Bolivia ($114M), Peru ($91M) and the U.S. ($84M), together accounting for 70% of the global market.

In 2018, the highest levels of quinoa per capita consumption was registered in Bolivia (3,578 kg per 1000 persons), followed by Peru (1,057 kg per 1000 persons), Canada (285 kg per 1000 persons) and Australia (109 kg per 1000 persons), while the world average per capita consumption of quinoa was estimated at 19 kg per 1000 persons.

Production 2007-2018

In 2018, the amount of quinoa produced worldwide totaled 167K tonnes, jumping by 9.3% against the previous year. In general, quinoa production continues to indicate a resilient increase. The general positive trend in terms of quinoa output was largely conditioned by prominent growth of the harvested area and a relatively flat trend pattern in yield figures.

Production By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of quinoa production in 2018 were Peru (86K tonnes), Bolivia (73K tonnes) and Ecuador (3K tonnes), with a combined 97% share of global production.

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

Harvested Area 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 188K ha of quinoa were harvested worldwide; growing by 8.6% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the quinoa harvested area continues to indicate a resilient increase.

Yield 2007-2018

Global average quinoa yield amounted to 888 kg per ha in 2018, approximately reflecting the previous year. In general, the quinoa yield continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Exports 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 105K tonnes of quinoa were exported worldwide; rising by 8.9% against the previous year. Overall, quinoa exports continue to indicate strong growth. Over the period under review, global quinoa exports attained their peak figure in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term. In value terms, quinoa exports totaled $273M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

Peru was the largest exporter of quinoa exported in the world, with the volume of exports recording 52K tonnes, which was approx. 49% of total exports in 2018. It was distantly followed by Bolivia (33K tonnes) and the Netherlands (6.7K tonnes), together generating a 38% share of total exports. The U.S. (4,434 tonnes), Ecuador (2,250 tonnes), Italy (1,869 tonnes) and France (1,848 tonnes) took a little 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 Italy, while exports for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Peru ($126M), Bolivia ($81M) and the Netherlands ($23M) were the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2018, together comprising 84% of global exports. These countries were followed by the U.S., France, Italy and Ecuador, which together accounted for a further 12%.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average quinoa export price amounted to $2,611 per tonne, declining by -4.4% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the quinoa export price continues to indicate a measured contraction. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2013 an increase of 39% y-o-y.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was France ($3,748 per tonne), while Ecuador ($1,898 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 global leaders experienced mixed trends in the export price figures.

Imports 2007-2018

Global imports totaled 83K tonnes in 2018, picking up by 10% against the previous year. Overall, quinoa imports continue to indicate a remarkable increase. In value terms, quinoa imports amounted to $211M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The U.S. represented the major importer of quinoa imported in the world, with the volume of imports finishing at 34K tonnes, which was approx. 40% of total imports in 2018. Canada (10,559 tonnes) ranks second in terms of the total imports with a 13% share, followed by France (11%), the Netherlands (5.6%), Italy (5.4%) and the UK (4.9%). Australia (2,736 tonnes), Israel (1,963 tonnes), Brazil (1,799 tonnes), Chile (1,645 tonnes) and Austria (1,270 tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

Imports into the U.S. increased at an average annual rate of +16.2% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, Italy (+23.6%), the Netherlands (+19.5%), Australia (+17.3%), the UK (+16.7%), Austria (+16.5%), France (+16.3%), Canada (+16.0%), Israel (+15.0%) and Brazil (+13.0%) displayed positive paces of growth.

In value terms, the U.S. ($87M) constitutes the largest market for imported quinoa worldwide, comprising 41% of global imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Canada ($29M), with a 14% share of global imports. It was followed by France, with a 10% share.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average import price amounted to $2,533 per tonne, falling by -2.2% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the quinoa import price continues to indicate a noticeable descent.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Austria ($3,385 per tonne), while Italy ($1,656 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

flour
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

The EU Non-Wheat Flour Market To Continue Moderate Expansion

Leave a comment

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

The revenue of the non-wheat flour market in the European Union amounted to $1.1B in 2018, remaining stable against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). Overall, non-wheat flour consumption continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. In 2013, the non-wheat flour market reached its peak level of $1.3B. From 2014 to 2018, the growth of the non-wheat flour market remained at a lower figure.

Consumption By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of non-wheat flour consumption in 2018 were Italy (622K tonnes), Germany (508K tonnes) and Poland (254K tonnes), with a combined 51% share of total consumption. These countries were followed by Romania, Greece, France, Spain, the UK, Sweden, Portugal, Finland and Austria, which together accounted for a further 37%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of non-wheat flour consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by the UK, while non-wheat flour consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Italy ($278M), Germany ($169M) and France ($83M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of market value in 2018, with a combined 50% share of the total market.

The countries with the highest levels of non-wheat flour per capita consumption in 2018 were Greece (13,832 kg per 1000 persons), Finland (12,601 kg per 1000 persons) and Italy (10,447 kg per 1000 persons).

Market Forecast to 2030

Driven by increasing demand for non-wheat flour in the European Union, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to retain its current trend pattern, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +0.9% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 3M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production in the EU

In 2018, approx. 2.7M tonnes of cereal flours (excluding wheat) were produced in the European Union; going up by 1.7% against the previous year. In general, non-wheat flour production continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Production By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of non-wheat flour production in 2018 were Italy (650K tonnes), Germany (538K tonnes) and Poland (262K tonnes), together comprising 53% of total production. Romania, Greece, France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, Austria and the Netherlands lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 35%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of non-wheat flour production, amongst the main producing countries, was attained by the Netherlands, while non-wheat flour production for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Exports in the EU

In 2018, the amount of cereal flours (excluding wheat) exported in the European Union totaled 489K tonnes, going up by 3.1% against the previous year. The total exports indicated measured growth from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.7% over the last eleven-year period. The volume of exports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the near future. In value terms, non-wheat flour exports stood at $298M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

The exports of the five major exporters of cereal flours (excluding wheat), namely the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Belgium and France, represented more than two-thirds of total export. Poland (25K tonnes) held a 5.2% share (based on tonnes) of total exports, which put it in second place, followed by Spain (4.9%).

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

In value terms, the largest non-wheat flour supplying countries in the European Union were Italy ($55M), the Netherlands ($55M) and Germany ($51M), together accounting for 54% of total exports. Belgium, France, Spain and Poland lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 29%.

Export Prices by Country

The non-wheat flour export price in the European Union stood at $608 per tonne in 2018, surging by 11% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.1%. The export price for cereal flours (excluding wheat) reached their maximum at $654 per tonne in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, export prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Italy ($825 per tonne), while Poland ($386 per tonne) was 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.

Imports in the EU

In 2018, the amount of cereal flours (excluding wheat) imported in the European Union totaled 460K tonnes, standing approx. at the previous year. The total imports indicated a resilient increase from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.3% over the last eleven-year period. In value terms, non-wheat flour imports stood at $287M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The Netherlands (62K tonnes), Belgium (57K tonnes), Germany (53K tonnes), France (53K tonnes), Italy (38K tonnes), the UK (36K tonnes) and Spain (35K tonnes) represented roughly 72% of total imports of cereal flours (excluding wheat) in 2018. The following importers – Poland (17K tonnes), Portugal (15K tonnes), Romania (11K tonnes), Slovenia (11K tonnes) and Austria (9.9K tonnes) – together made up 14% 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 Romania, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest non-wheat flour importing markets in the European Union were the Netherlands ($39M), France ($37M) and Germany ($36M), together comprising 39% of total imports. These countries were followed by Belgium, Spain, the UK, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Austria, Romania and Slovenia, which together accounted for a further 48%.

Import Prices by Country

The average non-wheat flour import price in the European Union stood at $625 per tonne in 2018, increasing by 11% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.9%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 an increase of 23% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the import prices for cereal flours (excluding wheat) attained their maximum at $652 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, import prices failed to regain their momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Austria ($918 per tonne), while Slovenia ($387 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

culture
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Special Reports

What Happens When Leaders Forget the Culture That Made Their Company Great?

Leave a comment

Many business leaders view their corporate culture as so important that they make it a point to hire people who are a good fit for that culture – and jettison any employees who aren’t.

But what happens when it’s the leaders themselves – for profits, for expediency, for getting the next deal done – who toss aside the culture and plow ahead with decisions that go counter to what made the company a success?

Trouble, that’s what happens, says Bill Higgs, an authority on corporate culture and the ForbesBooks author of the Culture Code Champions: 7 Steps to Scale & Succeed in Your Business (www.culturecodechampions.com).

“Your company’s culture should inform everything you do,” he says. “When you start straying from the practices that got you where you are, you run the risk of making decisions that will cost you in the long run.”

One example that surfaced recently involved Boeing, which posted its first full-year loss in more than two decades. The company was already reeling from two Boeing 737 Max crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 passengers in Indonesia and Ethiopia, and forced the company to ground its entire fleet of Max jetliners.

According to news reports, the origins of the company’s woes can be traced all the way back to 1997 when Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas, a merger that immediately led to a clash of cultures. At Boeing, engineers were king. At McDonnell Douglas, the bottom line ruled.

In the end, the McDonnell Douglas culture prevailed.

“Mergers and acquisitions are always fraught with danger both financially and culturally,” says Higgs, a founder and former CEO of Mustang Engineering who recently launched the Culture Code Champions podcast. “Financial concerns get the focus while management figures, incorrectly, that culture will just work itself out.”

But in any organization – with or without a merger – it’s paramount that the leaders take charge of maintaining the culture. Higgs says some steps crucial to establishing a company culture and keeping it on course include:

-Encourage communication. Higgs is fond of saying that all problems ultimately are communications problems. In any organization, there can be communications breakdowns. “The most important way to improve execution and efficiency is to foster and maintain a spirit of inclusion, where everyone who has any contact at all with a particular project feels they are involved and is kept in the loop,” Higgs says.

-Knock down silos. Too often silos emerge in large organizations where departments become insulated from each other. They fail to share ideas and resources, and an attitude of competition replaces a spirit of collaboration.

-Make sure employees know they are respected and valued. This is the real key to building a successful organization and making sure your best people stay with you, Higgs says. Leaders should communicate regularly with employees to make sure they understand how valued they are. He says employees should also know it’s all right to speak up if they see something problematic.

“When I was at Mustang Engineering and we had grown from a small to a huge company, I still had drafters who were comfortable jumping five levels in the organization to let me know they would have to put out substandard work if the schedule or cost were not changed,” Higgs says.

“I always told them I would handle the issues internally with engineering and externally with clients or suppliers, but they should stay the course on quality.”

______________________________________________________________

Bill Higgs, an authority on corporate culture, is the ForbesBooks author of Culture Code Champions: 7 Steps to Scale & Succeed in Your Business. He recently launched the Culture Code Champions podcast (www.culturecodechampions.com), where he has interviewed such notable subjects as former CIA director David Petraeus and NASA’s woman pioneer Sandra Coleman. Culture Code Champions is listed as a New & Noteworthy podcast on iTunes. Higgs is also the co-founder and former CEO of Mustang Engineering Inc. In 20 years, they grew the company from their initial $15,000 investment and three people to a billion-dollar company with 6,500 people worldwide. Second, third and fourth-generation leaders took the company to $2 billion in 2014. Higgs is a distinguished 1974 graduate (top 5 percent academically) of the United States Military Academy at West Point and runner up for a Rhodes scholarship. He is an Airborne Ranger and former commander of a combat engineer company.

slavery
Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

“Free” Trade and Modern Slavery

Leave a comment

Modern Slavery

It’s more common than you might think. Seeking a means to provide for themselves and their families, millions of people routinely put their fate in the hands of brokers who promise factory, fishing, farming, hospitality or healthcare jobs overseas. They leave their country, greeted in a strange land not by honest employers but by traffickers. They are now bonded laborers who are told they must work to pay off their debt under threat of violence. Sometimes that “work” is commercial sex. Against their will, by force, fraud or coercion, they have become slaves.

The International Labor Organization estimates that 20.9 million men, women and children are victims of forced labor at any point in time. Although a person does not need to be physically transported to be subject to slavery, 29 percent of victims end up in forced labor after moving across international borders.

$150 Billion in Illicit Profits – Every Year

In small numbers, we should be concerned. But this is no small problem. According to the Alliance to End Slavery and Human Trafficking, human trafficking is one of the largest criminal enterprises in the world, generating an estimated $150 billion in illicit profits annually.

In the United States, January has been designated National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. To recognize the 20th anniversary of the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), the White House held a Summit on Human Trafficking on January 31.

The summit culminated in the signing of an executive order to improve prevention, increase prosecutions, and strengthen protections for victims in the United States, recognizing that “millions of individuals are trafficked around the world each year — including into…the United States.”

To combat it requires a comprehensive government effort involving labor and criminal enforcement, public services to aid victims, counter-trafficking policies and programming in overseas assistance, intelligence and diplomatic coordination – and trade policy.

Human Trafficking Across Borders Stat

Trade Policy and Trafficking

As far back as the Tariff Act of 1930, the United States prohibits the importation of foreign goods made by means of slave labor. But more recently, Congress has debated whether the United States should grant trading privileges to governments that do not respect human rights or fail to combat trafficking. That question featured in the annual debate over whether to grant “most favored nation” trading status to China before it entered the WTO. It arose again when some Members of Congress questioned whether Malaysia should be included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.

In January 2018, Senators Menendez and Portman introduced the Anti-Trafficking Act to suspend countries from U.S. trade preference programs for one year for failing to address trafficking.

The U.S. State Department spearheads an annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report to assess the extent to which our and other governments are making efforts to meet minimum standards to eliminate human trafficking. On that basis, countries are placed into one of three tiers or on a watch list. “Tier 1” countries are deemed compliant with minimum standards under TVPA for making “serious and sustained efforts” to eliminate human trafficking.

On the other end of the spectrum, governments on “Tier 3” do not fully meet the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so. A country in Tier 3 may be restricted from receiving certain U.S. foreign aid, though the president may issue a partial or full waiver, particularly if withholding such assistance would cause adverse effects to vulnerable populations. The concept of withholding benefits to Tier 3 countries has also been applied to trade.

A “Principal” Trade Negotiating Objective

The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 as amended (the legislation that gives the executive branch its trade negotiating mandate and authority) added a principal trade negotiating objective on human rights. The expedited voting procedures afforded to trade deals under the Act can be conditioned on progress toward achieving this objective.

Principal negotiating objective smaller font

More powerful a lever, the Act explicitly prohibits applying so-called “fast track” voting on trade agreements with countries ranked on Tier 3 of the TIP Report.

Tier 3 exception smaller font

However, the Act was amended to allow the President to submit a waiver to Congress. The waiver is not meant to rest its case on new, untested commitments. Rather, it should describe “concrete steps” that country has taken to implement recommendations in the TIP report and should include supporting documentation. To date, no country has been denied a trade deal on this basis.

Free Trade Begins with Free

Trafficking in humans is an abomination and the worst form of illicit trade. Some policymakers believe that trading with the United States is a powerful incentive to government action and is therefore an effective tool to deploy as a punishment or carrot to improve human rights. Others argue that engagement in trade opportunities should not be withheld, lest it hold back economic progress in places and for people who need it the most.

Human rights as customary international law came into being and “grew up” alongside the international trade regime after WWII. The primacy of human rights over trade liberalization obligations is consistent with trade law itself, which explicitly provides exceptions where necessary to protect human life.

Wherever the debate comes out on how to use trade agreements and policies to promote human rights, we can all agree that free trade begins with free. The human right to be free will always come prior to free trade.

Dive Deeper: Trafficking in Persons Report 2019

________________________________________________________________

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

This article originally appeared on TradeVistas.org. Republished with permission.
chromium
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Global Chromium Exports Soared Over the Last Two Years, Reaching $447M

Leave a comment

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

Exports 2007-2018

In 2018, the amount of chromium exported worldwide amounted to 44K tonnes, stabilizing at the previous year. Over the period under review, chromium exports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2010 with an increase of 62% year-to-year. The global exports peaked at 44K tonnes in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, exports failed to regain their momentum.

In value terms, chromium exports totaled $447M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. After bottoming out from 2015-2016, it increased robustly over the last two years. Based on 2018 figures, chromium exports increased by +26.1% against 2015 indices.

Exports by Country

Russia represented the major exporter of chromium exported in the world, with the volume of exports resulting at 19K tonnes, which was approx. 44% of total exports in 2018. The UK (7,145 tonnes) took a 16% share (based on tonnes) of total exports, which put it in second place, followed by France (15%), the Netherlands (8.1%) and China (5.2%). The following exporters – Germany (1,723 tonnes) and Spain (683 tonnes) – together made up 5.5% of total exports.

Exports from Russia increased at an average annual rate of +3.4% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, the Netherlands (+7.1%) and Germany (+1.5%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, the Netherlands emerged as the fastest-growing exporter exported in the world, with a CAGR of +7.1% from 2007-2018. Spain and the UK experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, France (-1.2%) and China (-4.8%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period.

Russia (+14 p.p.) and the Netherlands (+4.3 p.p.) significantly strengthened its position in terms of the global exports, while France and China saw its share reduced by -2% and -3.7% from 2007 to 2018, respectively. The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, Russia ($182M) remains the largest chromium supplier worldwide, comprising 41% of global exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by the UK ($87M), with a 20% share of global exports. It was followed by France, with a 15% share.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average chromium export price amounted to $10,267 per tonne, increasing by 16% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.0%. The global export price peaked at $11,904 per tonne in 2011; however, from 2012 to 2018, export prices remained at a lower figure.

Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, major exporting countries recorded the following prices: in the UK ($12,237 per tonne) and France ($10,733 per tonne), while Spain ($8,533 per tonne) and China ($8,635 per tonne) were amongst the lowest.

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

Imports 2007-2018

In 2018, the global chromium imports stood at 36K tonnes, approximately reflecting the previous year. In general, chromium imports continue to indicate a slight decrease. In value terms, chromium imports stood at $403M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The countries with the highest levels of chromium imports in 2018 were the U.S. (7,870 tonnes), Germany (6,673 tonnes) and Japan (4,613 tonnes), together accounting for 54% of total import. The Netherlands (2,708 tonnes) ranks next in terms of the total imports with a 7.6% share, followed by Belgium (5.2%) and South Korea (4.5%). The following importers – the UK (1,492 tonnes), Austria (1,106 tonnes), India (1,017 tonnes), Taiwan, Chinese (938 tonnes), Italy (878 tonnes) and Canada (596 tonnes) – together made up 17% 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 India, while imports for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest chromium importing markets worldwide were the U.S. ($101M), Germany ($72M) and Japan ($57M), with a combined 57% share of global imports. The Netherlands, the UK, South Korea, Belgium, India, Austria, Italy, Canada and Taiwan, Chinese lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 30%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average chromium import price amounted to $11,275 per tonne, rising by 24% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.5%.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Canada ($14,680 per tonne), while Belgium ($6,096 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

countervailing duty
Archives, Global Trade Daily, In The News

Commerce Modifies Countervailing Duty Regulations to Address Currency Undervaluation

Leave a comment

The Commerce Department issued its final rule amending the countervailing duty regulations to address potential currency undervaluation. This revision to Commerce’s regulations will take effect in 60 days and will apply to all new investigations and administrative reviews that begin on or after April 6, 2020. The new rules would effectively clear the way for the U.S. to start applying punitive tariffs on goods from countries accused of having undervalued currencies.

Under the revised regulations, Commerce in the conduct of its countervailing duty proceedings will now have the authority to take into consideration the real effective exchange rates to determine the extent to which a currency is undervalued. They will also be able to seek the Treasury Department’s formal, non-binding evaluation on whether the foreign government’s actions were responsible for the undervaluation. If Commerce determines that there is undervaluation of the currency and that the undervaluation resulted from government action, Commerce will then potentially consider currency exchanges by the exporters and/or traders to be a subsidy given that the exporter or trader would effectively receive more domestic currency in return for their exchanges of U.S. dollars than they otherwise would have been able to receive under the old rules.

In the conduct of its countervailing duty investigations and reviews, Commerce will now look at each individual exporter’s currency exchanges, and specifically, the amount of additional domestic currency received in exchanges due to undervaluation. It will then potentially add the currency subsidy amount to the exporter’s overall countervailing duty rate. The move would give new muscle to U.S. complaints about currency manipulation that have in the past targeted economies like China and Japan and thus turn the more than $6 trillion-a-day global currency market into a new battlefield in the Trump administration’s trade wars. The new rule was opposed by the Treasury Department when it was first proposed in May 2019 as it would allow U.S. companies to file trade complaints with the Commerce Department over specific imported products by treating undervalued currencies as a form of an unfair subsidy.

The new regulations have far-reaching effects as it would allow the U.S. to impose countervailing duties on goods from countries accused of manipulating their currencies, even in cases where they were not officially found to be a currency manipulator by the U.S. Department of Treasury. Previous administrations have examined this issue but have delayed or resisted efforts to take such actions as it could potentially lead to currency wars amongst trading partners.

Commerce’s announcement is the result of campaign promises from the 2016 election. “This Currency Rule is an important step in ensuring that unfair trade practices are properly remedied,” said Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross in a statement. “While successive administrations have balked at countervailing foreign currency subsidies, the Trump Administration is taking action to level the playing field for American businesses and workers.”

In a question and answer section attached to Monday’s announcement, the Commerce Department said it would preserve the final power to make any determination about whether a currency’s value presented an unfair subsidy for that country’s exporters. The statutes governing Treasury’s mandate to monitor currencies and Commerce’s power to impose anti-subsidy duties had different criteria, Commerce said.

“Hence, the two processes may result in different outcomes as to a particular country, theoretically including the possibility of applying countervailing duties to a country that does not meet the criteria for designation under the laws Treasury administers,” the statement said.

Commerce also said the new rule would allow it to specifically impose currency-related tariffs against China even if the Treasury did not label it a currency manipulator. The Treasury last month lifted a designation of China as a manipulator just days before Trump signed a “Phase One” trade deal with China that included language on currencies, though the new rule appears to give the U.S. powers to act that go beyond what was included in last month’s deal.

The Commerce Department put some purported caveats on its powers, saying it would “not normally include monetary and related credit policy of an independent central bank or monetary authority” in determining whether foreign governments had acted inappropriately to weaken currencies. “Commerce will seek and generally defer to Treasury’s expertise in currency matters,” it said.  This statement, however, leaves a lot of room open for potential unilateral action by Commerce, as Commerce has reserved for itself the authority to find that undervaluation exists, even if Treasury in its bi-annual report makes a determination that a particular currency is artificially weak but not undervalued. This type of broad authority is similar to Commerce’s authority to conduct Particular Market Situation (“PMS”) investigations resulting in contested decisions and appeals to the Court of International Trade.

vegetables
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Exports of Prepared Frozen Vegetables in Europe Undergo a Buoyant Expansion

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – Frozen Vegetables And Mixtures Of Vegetables (Excluding Dishes) – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the prepared frozen vegetables market in the European Union amounted to $954M in 2018, remaining stable against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). Overall, prepared frozen vegetables consumption, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Consumption By Country in the EU

The countries with the highest volumes of prepared frozen vegetables consumption in 2018 were Italy (149K tonnes), France (116K tonnes) and the UK (55K tonnes), with a combined 59% share of total consumption.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prepared frozen vegetables consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Italy, while prepared frozen vegetables consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Italy ($239M), France ($209M) and the UK ($107M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of market value in 2018, with a combined 58% share of the total market. Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Poland, Greece and Romania lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 30%.

The countries with the highest levels of prepared frozen vegetables per capita consumption in 2018 were Italy (2,497 kg per 1000 persons), Sweden (2,341 kg per 1000 persons) and France (1,769 kg per 1000 persons).

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in the EU

Driven by increasing demand for prepared frozen vegetables in the European Union, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to accelerate, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +2.1% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 690K tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production in the EU

In 2018, approx. 592K tonnes of frozen vegetables and mixtures of vegetables (prepared or preserved) were produced in the European Union; reducing by -4.8% against the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.1% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years.

Production By Country in the EU

The countries with the highest volumes of prepared frozen vegetables production in 2018 were Italy (165K tonnes), Belgium (86K tonnes) and France (76K tonnes), together comprising 55% of total production.

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

Exports in the EU

The volume of exports stood at 429K tonnes in 2018, going up by 2.3% against the previous year. Overall, prepared frozen vegetables exports continue to indicate a buoyant expansion. The volume of exports peaked in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term. In value terms, prepared frozen vegetables exports stood at $821M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

In 2018, Belgium (118K tonnes), distantly followed by the Netherlands (76K tonnes), Germany (51K tonnes), Spain (47K tonnes), Portugal (32K tonnes), France (31K tonnes) and Italy (29K tonnes) were the major exporters of frozen vegetables and mixtures of vegetables (prepared or preserved), together mixing up 90% 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 Portugal (+51.9% per year), while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Belgium ($228M), Germany ($124M) and the Netherlands ($110M) were the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2018, together comprising 56% of total exports. Spain, France, Italy and Portugal lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 32%.

Export Prices by Country

The average export price for prepared frozen vegetables in the European Union stood at $1,913 per tonne in 2018, picking up by 5.6% against the previous year. Overall, the prepared frozen vegetables export price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 when the export price increased by 12% year-to-year.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was France ($2,457 per tonne), while Portugal ($1,412 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 mixed trends in the export price figures.

Imports in the EU

The imports amounted to 376K tonnes in 2018, increasing by 5.9% against the previous year. Overall, prepared frozen vegetables imports continue to indicate remarkable growth. In value terms, prepared frozen vegetables imports amounted to $679M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The countries with the highest levels of prepared frozen vegetables imports in 2018 were France (70K tonnes), Germany (55K tonnes), Belgium (45K tonnes), the UK (36K tonnes), Portugal (29K tonnes), the Netherlands (28K tonnes), Spain (25K tonnes) and Sweden (19K tonnes), together amounting to 82% of total import.

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

In value terms, France ($125M), Germany ($91M) and Belgium ($77M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, together accounting for 43% of total imports. These countries were followed by the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Portugal and Spain, which together accounted for a further 37%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the prepared frozen vegetables import price in the European Union amounted to $1,806 per tonne, growing by 4.9% against the previous year. Overall, the prepared frozen vegetables import price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2017 when the import price increased by 11% y-o-y.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Sweden ($2,540 per tonne), while Spain ($1,458 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

sawnwood
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Sawnwood Market in the Middle East Lost its Growth Momentum

Leave a comment

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

The revenue of the sawnwood market in the Middle East amounted to $1.7B in 2018, coming down by -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 +1.0% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2014 when the market value increased by 16% year-to-year. In that year, the sawnwood market attained its peak level of $2B. From 2015 to 2018, the growth of the sawnwood market remained at a lower figure.

Consumption By Country in the Middle East

The countries with the highest volumes of sawnwood consumption in 2018 were Saudi Arabia (907K tonnes), Turkey (816K tonnes) and Iran (489K tonnes), with a combined 55% share of total consumption.

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

In value terms, the largest sawnwood markets in the Middle East were Saudi Arabia ($423M), Turkey ($222M) and the United Arab Emirates ($206M), with a combined 51% share of the total market.

Production in the Middle East

The sawnwood production amounted to 8.3K tonnes in 2018, approximately reflecting the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.9% from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. Turkey (8.2K tonnes) remains the largest sawnwood producing country in the Middle East, comprising approx. 99% of total volume.

Exports in the Middle East

In 2018, the amount of sawnwood exported in the Middle East totaled 106K tonnes, jumping by 24% against the previous year. Overall, sawnwood exports, however, continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. In value terms, sawnwood exports stood at $57M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

The United Arab Emirates represented the key exporter of sawnwood exported in the Middle East, with the volume of exports accounting for 69K tonnes, which was approx. 65% of total exports in 2018. It was distantly followed by Turkey (24K tonnes), making up a 23% share of total exports. Oman (4,182 tonnes), Lebanon (3,923 tonnes) and Saudi Arabia (1,838 tonnes) took a little share of total exports.

From 2007 to 2018, average annual rates of growth with regard to sawnwood exports from the United Arab Emirates stood at +3.0%. At the same time, Oman (+42.8%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Oman emerged as the fastest-growing exporter exported in the Middle East, with a CAGR of +42.8% from 2007-2018. By contrast, Saudi Arabia (-1.0%), Turkey (-1.2%) and Lebanon (-13.9%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period.

In value terms, the United Arab Emirates ($36M) remains the largest sawnwood supplier in the Middle East, comprising 64% of total sawnwood exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Turkey ($12M), with a 20% share of total exports. It was followed by Lebanon, with a 5.1% share.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the sawnwood export price in the Middle East amounted to $532 per tonne, remaining stable against the previous year. In general, the sawnwood export price continues to indicate a slight contraction.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Lebanon ($729 per tonne), while Turkey ($479 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Lebanon, while the other leaders experienced a decline in the export price figures.

Imports in the Middle East

In 2018, the imports of sawnwood in the Middle East stood at 4.1M tonnes, shrinking by -13.2% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.5% from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. Over the period under review, sawnwood imports reached their maximum at 4.7M tonnes in 2017, and then declined slightly in the following year. In value terms, sawnwood imports stood at $1.7B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

Saudi Arabia (909K tonnes) and Turkey (832K tonnes) represented the main importers of sawnwood in 2018, recording approx. 22% and 20% of total imports, respectively. The United Arab Emirates (508K tonnes) held the next position in the ranking, followed by Iran (489K tonnes) and Israel (464K tonnes). All these countries together held approx. 35% share of total imports. The following importers – Lebanon (132K tonnes), Kuwait (122K tonnes), Jordan (118K tonnes), Oman (112K tonnes), Yemen (106K tonnes), Qatar (90K tonnes) and Iraq (81K tonnes) – together made up 19% 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 Turkey, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Saudi Arabia ($423M), the United Arab Emirates ($247M) and Turkey ($224M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, together comprising 52% of total imports.

Import Prices by Country

The sawnwood import price in the Middle East stood at $414 per tonne in 2018, increasing by 14% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the sawnwood import price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Yemen ($717 per tonne), while Turkey ($269 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform