New Articles

U.S. Decaffeinated Coffee Price Fluctuated Mildly over 2022

coffee and tea market U.S. Decaffeinated Coffee

U.S. Decaffeinated Coffee Price Fluctuated Mildly over 2022

U.S. Decaffeinated Coffee Import Price per Ton July 2022

In July 2022, the decaffeinated coffee price per ton amounted to $6,601, growing by 2% against the previous month. Over the period from January 2022 to July 2022, it increased at an average monthly rate of +2.4%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in March 2022 an increase of 13% m-o-m. The import price peaked at $6,602 per ton in May 2022; afterwards, it flattened through to July 2022.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In July 2022, the country with the highest price was Colombia ($6,656 per ton), while the price for Vietnam ($3,492 per ton) was amongst the lowest. From January 2022 to July 2022, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Colombia (+4.3%), while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced more modest paces of growth.

U.S. Decaffeinated Coffee Import Prices by Type

Prices varied noticeably by the product type; the product with the highest price was roasted decaffeinated coffee ($20,453 per ton), while the price for unroasted decaffeinated coffee stood at $5,687 per ton.

From January 2022 to July 2022, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by unroasted decaffeinated coffee (+2.5%).

U.S. Decaffeinated Coffee Imports

Decaffeinated coffee imports into the United States amounted to 8.8K tons in July 2022, with an increase of 15% on the month before. Overall, imports continue to indicate a modest expansion. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in April 2022 with an increase of 20% against the previous month. As a result, imports attained the peak of 9.1K tons. From May 2022 to July 2022, the growth of imports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, decaffeinated coffee imports soared to $58M (IndexBox estimates) in July 2022. The total import value increased at an average monthly rate of +3.4% over the period from January 2022 to July 2022; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in March 2022 when imports increased by 32% m-o-m. Imports peaked in July 2022.

U.S. Decaffeinated Coffee Imports by Type

In July 2022, unroasted decaffeinated coffee (8.2K tons) was the main type of decaffeinated coffee supplied to the United States, accounting for a 94% share of total imports. Moreover, unroasted decaffeinated coffee exceeded the figures recorded for the second-largest type, roasted decaffeinated coffee (543 tons), more than tenfold.

From January 2022 to July 2022, the average monthly rate of growth in terms of the volume of import of unroasted decaffeinated coffee was relatively modest.

In value terms, unroasted decaffeinated coffee ($47M) constituted the largest type of decaffeinated coffee supplied to the United States, comprising 81% of total imports. The second position in the ranking was held by roasted decaffeinated coffee ($11M), with a 19% share of total imports.

U.S. Decaffeinated Coffee Imports by Country

Brazil (1.8K tons), Germany (1.5K tons) and Mexico (1.3K tons) were the main suppliers of decaffeinated coffee imports to the United States, together accounting for 52% of total imports.

From January 2022 to July 2022, the biggest increases were in Brazil (with a CAGR of +7.1%), while purchases for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Brazil ($9.6M), Germany ($8.8M) and Colombia ($8.5M) appeared to be the largest decaffeinated coffee suppliers to the United States, with a combined 47% share of total imports.

Colombia, with a CAGR of +10.3%, saw the highest growth rate of the value of imports, among the main suppliers over the period under review, while purchases for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.


trade protectionism

Trade Protectionism Won’t Help Fight COVID-19

Countries around the world are limiting international trade and turning inward, seeking to produce nearly everything — especially medical supplies — themselves.

The Trump administration, for instance, is considering a “Buy American” executive order that would require federal agencies to purchase domestically made masks, ventilators, and medicines. And over two dozen countries — including France, Germany, South Korea, and Taiwan — have banned domestic companies from exporting medical supplies.

The scramble for self-sufficiency in medical supplies and medicines needed to fight the coronavirus is make-believe. It is neither feasible nor desirable, and will only deepen the pain felt amidst this pandemic.

Governments around the world have responded to COVID-19 by imposing export restrictions on things like ventilators and masks. In mid-April, Syria became the 76th country to follow suit. The import side of things isn’t much better. The World Trade Organization (WTO) reports that tariffs remain stubbornly high on protective medical gear, averaging 11.5 percent across the 164 members of the Geneva-based institution, and peaking at just under 30 percent.

This is no way to fight a pandemic.

It’s not that COVID-19 caused this bout of trade protectionism. It’s just that COVID-19 offers up a useful narrative to promote trade protectionism.

The Trump administration, for instance, has been touting its “Buy American” executive order as a move to spur local manufacturing. Canada has also considered going it alone in ventilators and masks, but recently acknowledged it can’t possibly achieve self-sufficiency in medicines. No one can.

The way many governments see it, the only thing standing in the way of greater self-reliance in medical equipment and medicines is the will to pay for it. The story is that ventilators might be more expensive if made domestically, but that’s the cost of going it alone. It’s only a matter of getting Bauer and Brooks Brothers, for example, to make personal protective equipment, rather than hockey gear and clothing.

But there’s a reason Bauer makes skates instead of surgical masks. It’s better at it, and skates are a much more lucrative business. Bauer didn’t misread the market. It’s heartwarming to hear that Bauer is stepping in to help out, but the company knows that making surgical masks in the US is five times more expensive than making them in China. That’s why 95 percent of the surgical masks in the US are imported.

The absurdity of self-sufficiency in medicines is even more glaring. The US is a major exporter of medicines, but the raw chemicals used to make them are imported. Nearly three-quarters of the facilities that manufacture America’s “active pharmaceutical ingredients” are overseas. To reorient supply chains to produce these ingredients domestically would take up to 10 years and cost $2 billion for each new facility.  Consumers would pay at least 30 percent more at the pharmacy.

The last plug for self-sufficiency in medical equipment and medicines is that it’s not a good idea to depend on adversaries to keep us healthy. We don’t. What’s striking about medicines, medical equipment, and personal protective products is that market share is highly concentrated among allies. For example, Germany, the US, and Switzerland supply 35 percent of medical products sold worldwide. True, China leads the top ten list of personal protective products, at 17 percent market share, but the other nine, including the US at number three, are all longstanding allies. To be sure, the untold story of China is that it depends on Germany and the United States for nearly 40 percent of its medical products.

This past week, the WTO and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) called for an end to the folly of trade restrictions during this pandemic. The communique should have — but obviously couldn’t — call out governments around the world for maintaining, on average, a 17 percent tariff on soap. That tariffs on face masks average nearly 10 percent is baffling. That 20 countries in the WTO have no legal ceiling on the tariffs they impose on medicines is unforgivable.

Self-sufficiency in medical supplies and medicines is a political sop. It’s a narrative that can’t deliver anything but misery. If governments want to fight COVID-19, they should spend more time looking at how they’re denying themselves access to medical necessities, and less time on how to deny others the tools to save lives.


Marc L. Busch is the Karl F. Landegger professor of international business diplomacy at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a nonresident senior fellow in the Atlantic Council.

arms trade


Hotter Since the Cold War

For obvious reasons, trade in arms is not governed by the same global trade rules as selling a doggy snood on Etsy. The rules of engagement are different and global flows of arms tell stories not of lighthearted fashion trends but of the enduring reality of global conflicts, the escalating and diffusing of tensions – the arming and disarming that reflects the current and projected state of international security.

Governments, formal military alliances and international organizations procure and sell arms for defense, for peacekeeping operations, and to engage in conflict. Conflicts today routinely intertwine regular military forces, militias and armed civilians. After a decade of steady increase, the volume of arms trade by 2012 had reached levels not seen since the end of the Cold War.

Up in Arms

2018 saw the continuation of armed conflicts throughout the Middle East and North Africa in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. In sub-Saharan Africa, armed conflict raged in eleven countries including Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Afghanistan remains among the world’s most lethal states after decades of fighting.

India and Pakistan, Myanmar and other countries in Southeast Asia experienced armed conflict throughout the year and Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine remains unresolved. Colombia’s peace process hit rough patches, armed gangs threaten security in Central America, and Venezuela remains turbulent. This list is long, incomplete, and in flux, fueling demand for arms in conflict areas. At the same time, some sixty multilateral peace operations were active in 2018.

For fifty years, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has gathered original data on world military expenditure and international arms transfers, analyzing trends in conflict, arms production and arms controls. In all, SIPRI estimates global military expenditure at $1.8 trillion and puts the total value of the global arms trade in 2017 at some $95 billion with weapons exports valued around $27.6 billion.

Arms transfers between 2009 and 2013 were 23 percent higher than in the period between 2004 and 2008. In the period 2014-2018, arms transfers reached the highest level since the end of the Cold War.

Global Weapons Exports

Who Sells and Who Buys in the War Economy

Official reporting is scant. Government to government transfers occur through varying types of complex and opaque arrangements. Pinning down numbers is also complicated by the existence of covert trade in arms. Within the realm of what SIPRI can track, the market is dominated jointly by the United States and Russia. According to SIPRI’s numbers, 202 states, 48 non-state armed groups, and five international organizations received arms shipments sometime in the last five years.

The United States, Russia, France, Germany and China are the five largest exporters of major arms, accounting for 75 percent of all arms exports, but SIPRI has identified as many as 67 countries that exported major arms in the last five years. The United States and Russia together comprise 57 percent of the total. The five largest importers were Saudi Arabia, India, Egypt, Australia and Algeria, together accounting for 35 percent of total arms imports between 2014 and 2018. The political alignments can be seen by matching the buyers and sellers.

Buyers and Sellers of Arms

Notably, advanced combat aircraft accounted for more than half of all U.S. major arms exports over the last five years and will remain the main driver with nearly 900 orders in the pipeline. Guided missiles accounted for 19 percent of U.S. major arms exports and the United States is the primary exporter of ballistic missile defense systems.

Russia’s exports declined over the last five years as sales to India and Venezuela dropped by 42 percent and 96 percent respectively. Over the same period, Russia’s sales to the Middle East increased 19 percent, mainly to Egypt and Iraq. SIPRI reports that China supplies relatively small volumes of major arms spread across 53 countries, up from 41 five years ago. At the same time, China is the world’s sixth largest importer of arms. Russia supplied 70 percent of China’s arms imports over the last five years.

Under Control

Seven of the world’s largest defense companies by arms sales are American. They include Lockheed Martin with international arms sales worth $40.8 billion in 2016, and Boeing at a distant second with $29.5 billion in sales. Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics come in the next tier with sales between $19 and $23 billion. Among the top 100 firms, U.S. companies accounted for 58 percent of total global arms sales in 2016.

When it comes to production and trade in military supplies, the WTO steps out of the way. Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade provides a national security exemption:

“…nothing in this Agreement shall be construed…to prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of essential national security interests…relating to the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment.”

Trade in conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies (those with both military and commercial applications) is regulated through other policies that include government defense procurement regulations, national export control licensing regimes and embargoes. In the United States, under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, exports of defense materials and services by U.S. firms are tightly controlled through licensing approvals.

Wassenaar Arrangement

Forty-two member countries maintain national export controls in conformance with items included on the 1996 Wassenaar Arrangement’s two control lists. As part of the Arrangement, members also agree to voluntarily and confidentially exchange information about transfers to non-Wassenaar countries of conventional weapons and dual-use goods and technologies on these lists. Weapon categories to be reported include armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery, military aircraft, missile systems, small arms and light weapons.

Wassenaar members are encouraged to use non-binding criteria to help determine whether potential arms exports could lead to “destabilizing accumulations,” and to guide their disposal of surplus military equipment. Wassenaar and other efforts to restrain arms transfers through international treaties and multilateral embargoes suffer, however, from low levels of national government engagement by important producers and importers of weapons.

Military-Industrial Complex-ity

Governments seek to procure technologically advanced weaponry for their own national security. At the same time, they must prevent the sale of such weapons to others who would use them against the state or who would deploy them to fuel conflicts that run counter to national security interests.

In balancing these objectives, national export control regimes have struggled against the pace of technological innovation and the proliferation of technologies that have dual commercial and military applications. The defense industry itself is defined by this paradox – it is propelled forward by government protected from competition but also shaped by market forces that induce innovation, specialization and consolidation.

As the costs and complexity of developing and manufacturing advanced weapons increase, firms specialize in facets of production. Interdependence among firms has deepened as global supply chains tend to be anchored by a handful of large tier-one firms. The industry has consolidated, including by merging across borders. In circular fashion, these developments make it harder for governments to regulate foreign investment and maintain appropriate controls on arms transfers.

Adding the complexity of this unique industry, firms that enjoy a special status under trade rules for military production also have commercial products and sales for which the normal rules apply. It’s a heavy invisible hand in the market for arms. Global trade rules need not apply.


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 Republished with permission.


As global trade continues to grow (albeit at a slower pace than the World Trade Organization initially projected for 2018), there are some ports that are already processing an impressive number of twenty-foot-equivalent units (TEUs). A TEU is a unit of measurement given to cargo capacity, based upon the volume of a 20-foot-long container. Height does not factor in when determining TEUs, though most containers range between four feet, three inches and 9 feet, six inches. When a port processes a TEU, one container counts as one TEU. When a port processes 9.3 million TEUs in a year like the Port of Los Angeles, that earns them the No. 1 spot on Global Trade’s Top 50 North American Container Ports.

But while some ports are already doing big business, a greater push for more efficient container ports is being applied across the continent. While many larger ports are already equipped to handle large vessels, many simply cannot accommodate the newer, larger Panamax-sized ships which are becoming increasingly more common thanks to new larger size limits allowed by the Panama Canal expansion. Super Panamax, Post Panamax and Neo Panamax vessels got their name from the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) in 1914, but newer requirements were enacted on June 26, 2016, when the Panama Canal opened its most recent set of locks.

Whether a vessel is Panamax, Neo Panamax, Super Panamax or Post Panamax is based upon the Panama Canal’s initial lock chamber dimensions of 1,050 feet long by 110 feet wide by 41.2 feet deep. These guidelines allow the ACP to determine whether a ship can pass through the canal, by factoring in the width and depth of the water in the available locks, as well as by the height of the Bridge of the Americas, which these ships must pass under on their way through the canal.

But Super, Post and Neo Panamax ships aren’t just larger, they’re more efficient, too, thanks to their ability to carry more cargo per trip. Unfortunately, all that efficiency is for naught if a port can’t accommodate that size vessel. The good news is that an increasing number of ports are expanding to accommodate these ships, investing millions of dollars to dredge deeper waterways and wider locks, expanding docks, adding cranes, extending existing rail and much more. Among those ports, many of the top 50 have gone above and beyond to expand and improve, earning them spots among the top 50 container ports by TEU in North America.

The Big Guys

The two largest ports by TEU are both located in the Golden State of California. With more than 9.3 million TEUs in 2017 alone, the Port of Los Angeles is the No. 1 port by volume in North America, with the Port of Long Beach not far behind with 7.5 million TEUs the same year.

So, what’s bringing so much cargo to the Left Coast? In addition to its capacity for larger Panamax ships and high volume shipments, the Port of LA’s proximity to Asian markets such as China, Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan that make it so popular. In fact, the 7,500-acre Port of LA alone processes 20 percent of the foreign cargo entering the United States.

Just nine miles south of the Port of LA, No. 2 ranked Port of Long Beach prides itself on being a popular cruise ship port as well as one of the “greenest” ports in the world. With its Green Port Policy initiative and more than 20 years of environmental protection programs, the Port of Long Beach strives to reduce its environmental footprint, encourage sustainability and protect the greater community from environmental impacts the port may make. As such, the port has invested $4 billion dollars toward efforts to become a zero-emissions port in the coming years.

Changing Infrastructure

One way North American ports are accommodating the new Super and Neo Panamax ships is by changing infrastructure and expanding ports to allow larger vessels to maneuver through locks with ease. The Port of Miami (No. 18) recently invested $1 billion into a major port overhaul and expansion, complete with channel widening (from 50 to 52 feet), $50 million dollars in rail improvements, and several super Panamax-capable cranes with 22-container outreach that are the biggest in the entire Southeast United States.

A $350 million-dollar expansion at the Port of Virginia (No. 7) is slated to be completed in 2019 and will include a brand new, 26-lane motor carrier gate, rail mounted gantry cranes (RMGs) to allow for higher container stacks, and various rail improvements. Not far up the coast, the Port of Baltimore is investing in several port-related projects around the city, including replacing the dilapidated Colgate Creek Bridge, which will expand access from the port to Interstate 95 for larger logistics trucks. A recent purchase of 70 acres of land will enable the port to store and process the increased amount of cargo coming off Super Panamax vessels. The expansion is expected to generate 1,650 new jobs for the city.

This past September, the Port of Georgia (No. 4) announced it would be investing $2.5 billion over the next 10 years to jump from its current capacity of 5.5 million, 20-foot TEUs to an impressive 8 million. It’s part of a whopping $14.1 billion in investments over the next five decades. For each dollar invested, the Port of Georgia expects a profit of $7.3 dollars to the U.S. economy.

Not too far north, the South Carolina Port Authority has committed $2.4 billion to deepen the Port of Charleston (No. 11) to 52 feet, making it the deepest port on the East Coast by the year 2021, and capable of an 8 million TEU capacity by 2028. Furthermore, the port plans to double its rail capacity by the year 2020. With a planned 180,000 additional feet of rail, the project is part of a strategy to cut 24 hours off transit time to the Midwest.

The Port of Philadelphia (No. 24), now known as PhilaPort, doesn’t just carry cargo but a rich history dating back to 1701 and the days of William Penn. But the 300+-year-old PhilaPort is anything but dated. Today, the port is undergoing improvements as part of a $300-million expansion authorized in 2016. The funds will be used to double PhilaPort’s container capacity, improve their PAMT terminal and increase the terminal’s capacity from 485,000 to 900,000.

Philaport is also undergoing a channel expansion which will bring the main channel from its current 40 feet to 45 feet to accommodate larger Super and Neo Panamax ships.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (No. 3) is in the midst of a $4-billion expansion and improvement project that will make room for Super Panamax vessels, as well as their increased cargo load.

International Ports

The U.S. is not the only country with ports making big changes—and doing big business—in North America. Canada is also home to two notable ports. The Port of Vancouver (No. 6), which is the largest port in Canada and the sixth-largest in North America, boasts a decidedly global hub, while the Port of Montreal (No. 12) does much of its business with Europe.

The Port of Vancouver processes about 2.9 million TEUs each year. Located on Canada’s west coast in picturesque Vancouver, British Columbia, the Port of Vancouver contributes $24.2 billion CDN to Canada’s economy each year, supplying about 92,600 jobs in British Columbia and an additional 115,300 jobs across Canada.

On Canada’s east coast, the Port of Montreal processes more than 1.5 million TEUs annually and has recently entered a partnership with the Centre for Technological Entrepreneurship (CENTECH) and École de technologie supérieure (ÉTS) to create a “port logistics innovation unit.” The aim is to help address modern issues facing the port such as cybersecurity, supply-chain visibility and decarbonization and process improvement. The innovative program will be the first of its kind in North America.

The Port of Montreal also happens to be the closest port to Europe, and as such offers the shortest direct route of any North American port from Europe and the Mediterranean.

South of the U.S. border in the State of Colima, Mexico, is the Port of Manzanillo (No. 8), which processes more than 2.8 million TEUs per year. The largest port in Mexico, the Port of Manzanillo is the only container port from the country in the top ten. The port generates most of its business from iron ore, pectin, pickles (yes, pickles), cement and seafood products such as giant squid, swordfish, tuna and even shark.

Teaming Up

Much like the No. 3 ranked Port of New York and New Jersey, the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma have merged to create the Northwest Seaport Alliance, which has rounded out the top of the list at No. 5. In 2017, the Northwest Seaport Alliance processed more than 3.6 million TEUs, with a 15.6 percent increase in September 2018 over the prior year—the biggest increase in September volume since 2005. The port hopes to increase its annual TEUs from its current rate of 3.6 million annually to 6 million by the year 2025, generating 14,600 new jobs in the process.

In addition to being a major gateway for cargo from Asia and a major distribution point for cargo from Asia heading to the Eastern United States, the Northwest Seaport Alliance is also home to the Puget Sound, which has the strategic position of being an important gateway to Alaska. In fact, according to the Northwest Seaport Alliance, more than 80 percent of total trade volume between Alaska and the rest of the U.S. passes through the alliance’s North and South harbors.

New Ownership

This past September, the Port of Wilmington (No. 27) in Wilmington, Delaware, was sold to Gulftainer, a United Arab Emirates-based port operator on a 50-year concession. Gulftainer plans to invest $600 million into the improvement of the port. No stranger to North American ports, Gulftainer also currently operates Florida’s Port of Canaveral.

Of Gulftainer’s planned $600-million investment, $400 million would go toward a new, 1.2 million TEU container facility. Currently, the Port of Wilmington can process 600,000 TEUs. A new cargo terminal and training facility are also slated for development with the new concession.


Everything’s Bigger in Texas

The State of Texas is home to several major ports, including the Port Houston (No. 9) and Port Freeport (No. 39), both of which are undergoing expansions of their own.

Port Freeport is planning a major expansion which will deepen the port from its current 45 feet to 55 feet. It also will be lengthened to 2,200 linear feet to accommodate larger Post Panamax vessels. There are also plans at Port Freeport to expand operations from 125,000 TEUs to 800,000 TEUs each year with the addition of 90 acres of land that will be developed for container operations in the coming years.

Another current Port Freeport development is the Velasco Container Terminal, which upon completion will include another 130 acres of land where 1.5 million to 2 million TEUs will be processed annually. The Velasco Container Terminal will eventually house five Post-Panamax gantry cranes.

North of Port Freeport is inland Port Houston, which is undergoing some big changes of its own. Thanks to a $314 million budget approved in 2016 by the Port Commission, Port Houston is slated to undergo numerous repairs on existing properties. Current projects include rehabilitating Wharf Three to accommodate 100-gauge, ship-to-shore cranes, construction of 6,500 feet of railroad track and the demolition of several buildings and Lash Dock.

In addition to these improvements, Container Yard 7, which will span 50 acres of land, is being constructed at Port Houston. According to the facility’s website, the yard will boast reinforced and roller-compacted concrete pavement and will be fully equipped with water and sewer, stormwater collection, communication conduit and high-mast lighting.

Future plans for Port Houston include adding five security cameras, installing numerous drainage systems and conducting general repairs around the port.

Looking Ahead

These 50 North American container ports are leading the way in TEUs and making way for anticipated growth in the future. From updating security systems to survive in an increasingly “cyber” world, to fixing irrigation issues and repairing dilapidated structures, more and more ports are turning their focus to customer service, making their facilities more modern, efficient and comfortable.

Additionally, many ports are dredging deeper and wider channels to make room for larger Post Panamax, Super Panamax and Neo Panamax ships that are quickly becoming the norm. These ships don’t just enable shippers to ship more product at once, they also create a major savings in time and money for both the shipper and the ship. Plus, with fewer ships in the water, this larger class of Panama ships allows for a greener footprint, reducing emissions. Larger ships also mean more work unloading, and thus have the potential to generate more jobs, boosting local economies—and isn’t that what trade is all about?