Trending Now

Building a Resilient Supply Chain with Advanced Predictive…

New Articles

Smoked Salmon Market in the EU Reached $4.2B and Is Set To Expand Further

salmon
Archives, EU Trade, Global Trade Daily

Smoked Salmon Market in the EU Reached $4.2B and Is Set To Expand Further

Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – Smoked Pacific, Atlantic And Danube Salmon – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the smoked salmon market in the European Union amounted to $4.2B in 2018, remaining relatively unchanged against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). The market value increased at an average annual rate of +2.0% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. Over the period under review, the smoked salmon market reached its maximum level in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the near future.

Consumption By Country in the EU

The countries with the highest volumes of smoked salmon consumption in 2018 were Germany (40K tonnes), the UK (22K tonnes) and France (18K tonnes), together comprising 39% of total consumption.

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

In value terms, France ($694M), Germany ($661M) and the UK ($637M) were the countries with the highest levels of market value in 2018, with a combined 48% share of the total market.

The countries with the highest levels of smoked salmon per capita consumption in 2018 were Denmark (1,303 kg per 1000 persons), Belgium (745 kg per 1000 persons) and the Netherlands (594 kg per 1000 persons).

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in the EU

Driven by rising demand for smoked salmon in the European Union, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next seven-year period. The performance of the market is forecast to increase moderately, with an anticipated CAGR of +1.5% for the period from 2018 to 2025, which is projected to bring the market volume to 232K tonnes by the end of 2025.

Production in the EU

In 2018, approx. 223K tonnes of smoked pacific, atlantic and danube salmon were produced in the European Union; approximately mirroring the previous year. Overall, smoked salmon production continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2013 with an increase of 7% y-o-y.

Production By Country in the EU

Poland (57K tonnes) constituted the country with the largest volume of smoked salmon production, comprising approx. 26% of total volume. Moreover, smoked salmon production in Poland exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, the UK (23K tonnes), twofold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Lithuania (19K tonnes), with a 8.4% share.

In Poland, smoked salmon production expanded at an average annual rate of +1.5% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: the UK (+5.9% per year) and Lithuania (+8.7% per year).

Exports in the EU

In 2018, approx. 110K tonnes of smoked pacific, atlantic and danube salmon were exported in the European Union; surging by 6.2% against the previous year. The total exports indicated resilient growth from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +5.7% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Over the period under review, smoked salmon exports reached their peak figure at 111K tonnes in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, exports failed to regain their momentum. In value terms, smoked salmon exports amounted to $2B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

Poland was the major exporter of smoked pacific, atlantic and danube salmon exported in the European Union, with the volume of exports accounting for 46K tonnes, which was approx. 42% of total exports in 2018. Lithuania (17,147 tonnes) held a 16% share (based on tonnes) of total exports, which put it in second place, followed by Germany (12%), Denmark (7%), the Netherlands (4.8%) and the UK (4.6%). France (4,161 tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2007 to 2018, average annual rates of growth with regard to smoked salmon exports from Poland stood at +6.5%. At the same time, Lithuania (+10.2%), the Netherlands (+9.0%), Germany (+6.0%), the UK (+1.6%) and France (+1.4%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Lithuania emerged as the fastest-growing exporter exported in the European Union, with a CAGR of +10.2% from 2007-2018. Denmark experienced a relatively flat trend pattern.

In value terms, Poland ($800M) remains the largest smoked salmon supplier in the European Union, comprising 41% of total smoked salmon exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Lithuania ($297M), with a 15% share of total exports. It was followed by Germany, with a 13% share.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the smoked salmon export price in the European Union amounted to $17,657 per tonne, standing approx. at the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.5%. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2017 when the export price increased by 18% year-to-year. In that year, the export prices for smoked pacific, atlantic and danube salmon attained their peak level of $17,917 per tonne, and then declined slightly in the following year.

Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, major exporting countries recorded the following prices: in the Netherlands ($19,500 per tonne) and Denmark ($18,414 per tonne), while the UK ($13,242 per tonne) and Lithuania ($17,300 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 leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in the EU

In 2018, approx. 96K tonnes of smoked pacific, atlantic and danube salmon were imported in the European Union; remaining constant against the previous year. The total imports indicated a remarkable increase from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +7.3% over the last eleven years. The volume of imports peaked at 100K tonnes in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, imports remained at a lower figure. In value terms, smoked salmon imports stood at $1.6B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

Germany was the largest importer of smoked pacific, atlantic and danube salmon imported in the European Union, with the volume of imports resulting at 38K tonnes, which was near 40% of total imports in 2018. It was distantly followed by Italy (17K tonnes), France (9.5K tonnes) and Belgium (6.9K tonnes), together creating a 35% share of total imports. The following importers – the UK (4,228 tonnes), Spain (3,752 tonnes), the Netherlands (3,362 tonnes), Austria (2,826 tonnes), Denmark (2,183 tonnes), Sweden (1,724 tonnes) and Poland (1,646 tonnes) – together made up 21% of total imports.

From 2007 to 2018, average annual rates of growth with regard to smoked salmon imports into Germany stood at +7.0%. At the same time, Poland (+20.4%), the UK (+19.8%), Spain (+13.8%), Sweden (+8.8%), France (+7.9%), Italy (+7.5%), the Netherlands (+7.0%), Denmark (+4.9%), Belgium (+3.5%) and Austria (+3.5%) displayed positive paces of growth.

In value terms, Germany ($644M) constitutes the largest market for imported smoked pacific, atlantic and danube salmon in the European Union, comprising 39% of total smoked salmon imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Italy ($294M), with a 18% share of total imports. It was followed by France, with a 11% share.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the smoked salmon import price in the European Union amounted to $17,170 per tonne, rising by 3.3% against the previous year. Over the last eleven years, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.6%.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Austria ($21,395 per tonne), while Spain ($11,716 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

trade deals
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Stories

Is It Just a Phase? Redesigning Trade Deals in the Age of Trump.

Leave a comment

Comprehensive is Out, “Phased” is In

Within the first few months of the Trump Administration in 2017, the U.S. Trade Representative issued a report identifying intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer as crucial sources of China’s growing technological advantage at the expense of U.S. innovation. Tariffs would be applied until a trade deal to address these practices could be reached.

But expectations had to be reset early in the negotiations – China’s offenses cannot be pinpointed to one set of laws, regulations or practices, and so the complex wiring of China’s national approach cannot be untangled or rewired in one pass, in one agreement, even if China shared that goal. An agreement this ambitious would have to be built in phases.

In presenting the “Phase One” agreement signed between the United States and China on January 15, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said the deal represents “a big step forward in writing the rules we need” to address the anti-competitive aspects of China’s state-run economy. And it is a serious document.

Beyond its detailed provisions, the strategic and commercial impact of the deal will take more time to evaluate. What is clear in the meanwhile, is that this administration has departed from the standard free trade agreement template.

Comprehensive agreements are out. Partial or phased agreements are in.

Something Agreed

It’s common in trade negotiations to whittle down differences, leaving the hardest issues to the end. Early wins keep parties at the table, building a set of outcomes in which the parties become invested and more willing to forge compromises around the remaining difficult issues. One way to avoid settling for deals that leave aside the most meaningful – and often hardest – concessions is to stipulate that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

For this administration, however, the art of the deal is – quite simply – closing the elements of the deal available. With China, that may be the best and only way for the United States to achieve a deal. And it may very well represent significant progress. At turns, a larger deal looked as if it would collapse under its own political weight in China. Some things agreed is probably a better outcome than nothing agreed.

A Way Out or a Way Forward?

The deal lays down tracks for more detailed intellectual property rights and newer prohibitions on forced technology transfer. Among other commitments, the deal also breaks ground on previously intractable regulatory barriers to selling more U.S. agricultural and food products in China including dairy, poultry, meat, fish, and grains. But it does not address subsidies provided to China’s state-owned enterprises, a complaint shared by all of China’s major trading partners, Having dodged the issue for now, China may have created an advantage by stringing out its commitments over phases.

The Trump administration brought China to the table with billions in tariffs on imported goods. While compelling, it is not a durable approach. The U.S. macroeconomy is withstanding the self-inflicted pain, but tariffs have real and negative effects on U.S. farmers and business owners who will vote in November. Even a temporary tariff détente is a welcome respite, but uncertainty remains. And while we wait to see if the provisions on intellectual property and technology transfer prove fruitful, what of the lost agricultural sales for U.S. farmers and sunk costs for U.S. businesses?

As part of the deal (a part that gets phased out), China committed to shop for $200 billion in American goods and services over the next two years, including more than $77 billion in manufactured goods, $52 billion in energy products, $32 billion in agricultural goods and $40 billion in services. If fulfilled, the purchases in Phase One would appear to solve the problem of waning U.S. exports to China, but that was a problem of our own making so the administration might only merit partial credit for this part of the deal.

Journey of a Thousand Miles

Of course, the Trump administration’s phased and partial approach to reaching trade deals may simply stem from impatience or a focus on the transactional – comprehensive deals take too long to complete. But the approach may also make sense if these deals are stepping-stones in a bigger, longer game.

In a June 2018 report, the White House offered a taxonomy of 30 different ways the Chinese government acquires American technologies and intellectual property, including through U.S. exports of dual-use technologies, Chinese investments in the United States, and the extraction of competitive information through research arms of universities and companies in the United States.

Ambitious as it is, the administration is not limiting itself to the new Economic and Trade Agreement to solve all the problems it identified. The Department of Justice has initiated intellectual property theft cases, the Department of Commerce is expanding controls over the export of dual-use technologies, and the Treasury Department oversees a process to tighten reviews of proposed inward investments.

A Chinese proverb says that “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” Concerns the administration will not limit or end its quest with Phase One were evident in the letter from President Xi read aloud at the signing which urged continued engagement to avoid further “discriminatory restrictions” on China’s economic activity in the United States.

Just a Phase?

Beyond engagement with China, the administration has nearly consistently favored partial deals, with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement (USMCA) the exception. NAFTA needed to be modernized. Our economies have changed too much for the deal to keep pace without some upgrades. Could the modifications have been achieved without replacing the deal? Probably, but perhaps not politically, or it might have been done years sooner. NAFTA’s facelift as USMCA offered a chance for the administration to fashion provisions it intends for broader application, such as those on currency and state-owned enterprises. Though it replaced NAFTA, USMCA changes constitute a partial re-negotiation.

With Japan, the administration set much narrower parameters, hiving off-market access and digital trade as an initial set of deliverables. Last September, President Trump finalized a partial trade deal with Prime Minister Abe that went into effect on January 1. Limited in scope, it encompasses two separate agreements that only cover market access for certain agriculture and industrial goods and digital trade.

The White House characterized the partial deal as a set of “early achievements,” with follow-on negotiations on trade in services, investment and other issues to commerce around April this year. But crucially, the partial deal enabled the United States to avoid addressing its own tariffs on autos and auto parts, which comprise nearly 40 percent of Japan’s merchandise exports to the United States, while securing access to Japan’s market for U.S. agricultural exports.

The United States also restarted talks in 2018 on a partial trade agreement with the European Union that is stalemated over whether to include agriculture.

Walking Alone?

Preferential market access deals are an exception to WTO commitments. WTO members have agreed that free trade agreements outside the WTO should cover “substantially all trade” among the parties and that staging of tariff reductions are part of interim arrangements, not an end state. But with comprehensive negotiations stalled in the WTO itself, members are trying new negotiating approaches such as focusing on single sectors, like information technologies.

Although there was little mention of state-owned enterprises and subsidies in the U.S.-China Phase One deal, something important happened on the margins of that ceremony that received little attention: The trade ministers of Japan, the United States and European Union released a joint statement proposing ways to strengthen the WTO’s provisions on industrial subsides, which they called “insufficient to tackle market and trade distorting subsidization existing in certain jurisdictions,” a reference to China. The statement proposed elements of new core disciplines – a first phase if you will in launching more formal negotiations among WTO members.

The deal signed with China this week envisions reforms to China’s laws, regulations and policies as they apply to any foreign company operating in China, not just the American ones. Perhaps our trading partners see it (only partially) as a go-it-alone strategy and partially as a way to create a corps of provisions that can be migrated to the WTO.

Phase One trade deal - foundation for future US-China trade relations?

Construction Phases: Trump’s Real Estate Mindset

How is the real estate business like trade policy? It isn’t, except in the mind of Donald Trump. Buildings can be demolished or imploded in seconds. A giant hole is dug before its replacement is built. The builder then pours the concrete foundation constructs the frame long before wiring the interior and installing the finishes.

Maybe a phased trade deal represents the opportunity to reset the footing and frame out a solid structure for the future of US-China trade relations – and the finishing touches will come later.

Access the full agreement.

_______________________________________________________________

 

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.
global trade
Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

Global Trade: 2019 Wrap-Up and 2020 Forecast

Leave a comment

Looking back at this year, 2019 saw a multitude of global economic growth disruptors from the escalation of the trade war between the U.S. and China, to Germany’s manufacturing and automotive decline and Brexit.

Consequentially, global trade growth has almost come to a standstill, and while it’s not quite at recession levels, nearly every market and sector, as well as businesses within those sectors, have felt the impact of policies and decision making.

Even with the possibility that trade growth could rebound in 2020 to a modest 1.5%, economic policy uncertainty remains high and if it abates, it is likely only to do so to a limited extent into 2020. What factors are at play? Let’s take a look.

Trade war with China. Despite the recent conclusion of ‘phase one’ of a U.S.-China trade deal, uncertainty remains high. The underlying reason for the trade war is not resolved and is unlikely to be resolved soon either: it regards fundamental issues such as the influence of China on the global economy and theft of intellectual property. Although tensions may temporarily soften, as they seem to do now, we see no end in sight for the trade war with China and with the current administration in the White House for one more year, another rocky year is forecasted. The trade war alone is affecting no more than almost 3% of global trade — currently approximately $550 billion of goods — but it is sending a ripple effect around the globe from business investment to value chains and trade flows. If it expands to other economies in Asia and Europe, which is very possible, we could see an even more pronounced slowing in trade.

Brexit. The self-imposed economic hardship has caused much uncertainty and plummeting fixed investments in the business sector. With Boris Johnson elected to Prime Minister in the December election and Brexit a certainty come January 31, policy uncertainty has been lessened, but some will remain until a new trade relationship with the EU is shaped. While the clout of those favoring a no-deal Brexit has been diminished, a no-deal Brexit is still possible. If this occurs, it would throw chaos into supply chains across Europe.

Business insolvencies and market pressure. The U.S. is expected to lead the number of business insolvencies with a 3.9% increase in 2020, far above the global average of 2.6% expected next year. This is due to the fact that there’s been lower business investment, lower external demand (especially from China), and higher import and labor costs. Those sectors feeling the most pressure include steel, which is dealing with an overcapacity issue, automotive, and businesses dealing in aircraft, which have seen a 20% market share loss. U.S. businesses dealing in vegetable and animal products and agriculture won’t see any relief soon either, and all U.S. businesses that have typically relied on imports from China (as well as businesses in China relying on imports from the U.S.) are now facing higher costs, which are resulting in insolvencies.

Despite all the economic doom and gloom, there are a few bright spots. Indeed, the ‘phase one’ agreement between the U.S. and China provides at least hope. Moreover, the U.S. signed trade agreements with Japan, Canada, and Mexico, and a few countries, like India and China, which are pulling their weight with a 6% GDP growth rate, are providing some positive impact on the global figure as they continue to grow at rapid pace, that is to say above 5% per annum.

Further, the consumer outlook looks positive with household consumption in both North America and Europe ending on a high note, thanks to low unemployment. Unfortunately, this alone cannot support economic growth. Low-interest rates and the amount of money floating around the U.S. as well as Europe could give rise to turmoil in the markets and the economy – both pillars of global growth – and any detriment to consumer confidence could put the economy in a downward spiral, reversing the modest growth expectations set for 2020.

There is much at stake and a low likelihood of that changing for 2020. If economic and political developments continue to sour, economic growth could be hampered even more than it already is.

__________________________________________________________________

John Lorié is Chief Economist at Atradius Credit Insurance, having joined the company in April 2011. He is also affiliated to the University of Amsterdam as a researcher. Previously, he was Senior Vice President at ABN AMRO, where he worked for more than 20 years in a variety of roles. He started his career in the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. John holds a PHD in international economics, masters’ degrees in economics (honours) and tax economics as well as a bachelor’s degree in marketing.

usmca
Archives, Global Trade Daily, In The News

Sizing up the USMCA Compromise Package – How Various Industries Will be Impacted

Leave a comment

On December 10, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Trump administration, along with leaders in Mexico and Canada, announced a compromise to the new North American trade deal, known as the U.S. Mexico and Canada Agreement.  Eleventh-hour concessions by the Administration and Mexico are likely to result in a win for labor, President Trump, and ultimately market stability.

The final deal gives Democrats in Congress a few big wins in the pharmaceutical and labor industries, as well as environmental standards, and gives President Trump the victory of having his new trade deal on the path to ratification by all countries involved. Canada managed to receive much of what they requested, despite the slight opening of the Canadian dairy market to U.S. producers.

One of the biggest changes from the original draft USMCA in the compromise trade agreement is the negotiated labor monitoring and penalties for noncompliance. While the original draft required Mexico to change its laws to make it easier for workers to unionize, the compromise created an interagency committee that will monitor Mexico’s labor reform, established benchmarks and penalties for Mexico’s labor reform process, and established labor attachés in Mexico for on-the-ground reporting about Mexico’s labor practices.

Below is an outline of the changes to the USMCA – the House is expected to vote on the deal next week, though the Senate will likely not address the bill until the impeachment process has concluded:

For workers, language was removed that made it difficult to prove that trading partners are not protecting workers from violence in their respective countries. Now, Mexico has agreed to a “rapid-response labor mechanism” (see ANNEX 31-A) that allows independent, multinational three-person panels to investigate Mexican factories. Mexico, too, can have a panel investigate factories in the U.S. If a violation of union rights is found, a complaint can be filed, and the country making the accusation can determine the period of time that the accused county can have to address the concern. Provisions against Forced Labor also remain strong in the agreement. The deal is expected to also create 176,000 new jobs in the U.S. (See Article 23.3-23.4, ‘Labor Rights.)

For the environment, Democrats have promised that the deal has an added commitment that all the countries will have seven multilateral environment agreements (MEAs), alongside language that will allow the list to grow over time. Provisions include prioritization and monitoring of MEA commitments, and maintain and strengthen the protection of endangered species, the Montreal Protocol, prevention of pollution from ships, regulation of whaling, protection of the Ozone Layer and more (Article 1.3 Amendment and Article 24.9 Amendment)

For the pharmaceutical industry, the deal’s former provision that gave biologics a 10-year exclusivity period on the market is now entirely taken out. Democrats argued against the exclusivity period, concerned it could increase the cost of drugs, and succeeded in eliminating language that allows patent evergreening – when brand-name drug manufactures extend patents an additional to maintain power in the market when a new or related drug is created. (See the deletion of Article 20.49 ‘Biologics’)

For the internet, a Democratic concession led to maintained protections in the USMCA for technology companies, giving legal immunity for content posted by their users, as well as legal protections when these companies seek to moderate platforms. These provisions remain the same from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of the USMCA.

For the steel industry, while the deal already exempted the Canada and Mexico from steel and aluminum tariffs, the revised agreement has strict rules of origin in the automotive industry. The deal states that seven years after entry into the USMCA, all steel manufacturing must occur in one or more of the countries involved, except for the refinement of steel additives. Ten years after the agreement, the countries will consider appropriate requirements in the interest of all parties for aluminum to also be considered. (See Chapter 4, ‘Rules of Origin’)

For Canada and dairy, the U.S. will be able to export 3.6% of Canada’s dairy market, currently at 1%. Dairy companies in the U.S. can sell their products into Mexico duty-free, with access to common-named cheeses, while Canada is opening its market with more duty-free quotas for U.S. dairy products. The deal eliminates Canada’s 6/7 milk pricing system, and holds Canadian export of dairy to the standards of international trade rules.

And for the auto industry, in order to avoid tariffs, a car or truck must have 75% of its components made in the U.S., Mexico or Canada, up from 62.5% today.  Also, workers making the cars or trucks, at least 30% of the work, must be earning at least $16 an hour. By 2023, that number is 40% of the work done on cars.

With the United States positioning itself to negotiate several more trade deals, labor hopes that these last-minute changes set a benchmark for labor standards and enforcement moving forward and, likewise, the President hopes it demonstrates he can close a major trade deal.

___________________________________________________________

Note: Ryan Bernstein, formerly chief of staff to Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) is a senior vice president with McGuireWoods Consulting federal public affairs group.Mariam Eatedali is a research associate at McGuireWoods Consulting; she previously consulted with former representatives and senators to address foreign economic and diplomatic concerns while she was a fellow for the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress

trade
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Trade and the Impact on Imports and Exports in 2020

Leave a comment

Significant and sustained increases in the world trade index (an index measuring the number of times the word uncertainty or its variants are mentioned in Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) reports at a country level) should be a worry for many as “the increase in trade uncertainty observed in the first quarter could be enough to reduce global growth by up to 0.75 percentage points in 2019”[1]

In August, the US Institute for supply management[2] latest report shows a contraction in production, purchasing, and employment indices.

Ahir, H, N Bloom, and D Furceri (2019), “The global economy hit by higher uncertainty”, VoxEU.org. https://voxeu.org/article/trade-uncertainty-rising-and-can-harm-global-economy

 

Uncertainty generated from Brexit, the US-China trade war, Japan – South Korea trade wars, and general discontentment with global trend towards widening income inequality is creating a toxic mix for politicians to deal with. The irony is the conventional approach of blaming your trading partners for your problems is only likely to exacerbate a general lack of confidence and increase further uncertainty.

The current round of the G7 summit in Biarritz concluded with support “to overhaul the WTO to improve effectiveness with regard to intellectual property protection, to settle disputes more swiftly and to eliminate unfair trade practices.” In essence, it’s signaling a need to strengthen the capabilities of the WTO to act faster and more decisively in resolving disputes that are even more political than structural in nature, requiring a more multi-faceted engagement approach. Whilst this may help in the long-run, in reality, companies will have to contend with uncertainty in global trade for some time to come as well as the impacts on the real economy from these disputes.

And all of this is happening as IMO 2020 approaches, the January 1, 2020, date by which the International Maritime Organization mandates a switch to lower sulfur fuels in order to achieve an 80% reduction in sulfur emissions leading to significant cost increases in the shipping goods via ocean freight (initial estimates between 180USD – 420 USD per TEU dependent on routing, base fuel costs, carrier).

So given the significant uncertainty around global trade agreements, the increasing use of trade as a political football, the increasing costs to trade and the shortening of product lifecycles as customers want faster, newer more differentiated offerings. Is it still worth it?

Of course this is very much dependent on what industry you are in. Whether you’re a global manufacturer or a wholesaler sourcing goods, your perspectives may be different based on investments made, sensitivity to current trade/tariff measures, customer demands, your markets, and the degree to which you are exposed to political debate and targeting.

However, I would offer that the benefits of specialization, economies of scale and unique factors of production that have underpinned global trade still exist as Adam Smith put it in 1776:

“By means of glasses, hotbeds, and hot walls, very good grapes can be raised in Scotland, and very good wine too can be made of them at about thirty times the expense for which at least equally good can be brought from foreign countries. Would it be a reasonable law to prohibit the importation of all foreign wines, merely to encourage the making of claret and burgundy in Scotland?”[1]

Today this simple analogy still holds true in skills, competences, capabilities, and access to markets and insights so that over time the expectation is that trade will prevail.

While the recent outlook has been gloomy, opportunities for 2020 include a resolution to a number of ongoing disputes and a final settlement on Brexit (we hope). Additionally, the maturation in technologies such as blockchain, process automation, forecasting and demand management solutions can also offset costs associated with IMO and support greater agility in the uncertain supply-chain world that we currently live in.

Indeed, if 2019 was the year of trade uncertainty, 2020 could be a restorative year in our ability to execute global trade.

Partnering with an experienced supply chain leader will be essential to minimizing cost increases while ensuring the efficient flow of your company’s goods and services.

_____________________________________________________

[1] World Economic Forum:https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/how-trade-uncertainty-is-impacting-the-global-economy/

[2]https://www.instituteforsupplymanagement.org/ismreport/mfgrob.cfm?SSO=1

[3]Adam Smith: Wealth of nations 1776

Neil Wheeldon is the Vice Presidents Solutions, BDP International.

USMCA
Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

A Vote on USMCA is a Vote for Predictability

Leave a comment

For all their legal nuance, trade agreements are written to make commerce more predictable. The rules are meant to increase business confidence, boost investment and spur job creation. It’s time for Congress to show bipartisan support for a more predictable North American market, and pass the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

USMCA is a much-needed upgrade of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a text that was largely copied over from the US-Canada bilateral trade agreement signed in 1988. To say that NAFTA is outdated is an understatement. Canada and Mexico have concluded trade deals with other countries that do things NAFTA could have never anticipated 25 years ago. USMCA is needed just to keep up.

Three chapters of USMCA deserve far more attention than they’ve received.

First, the chapter on health and safety standards is a must for US agriculture. The biggest threat to our ranchers and farmers is a lack of science-based import regimes abroad, not tariffs.

Tariffs are a tax on trade, whereas health and safety standards, applied in a non-scientific or in a discriminatory way, can act as a ban trade. US agricultural exporters have long demanded more science-based approaches to what are called sanitary and phytosanitary standards, and USMCA delivers on this. USMCA also puts forward a number of consultative mechanisms that will help prevent certain market access problems from arising in the first place.

US agriculture needs Chapter 9 of the USMCA.

Second, the chapter on technical barriers to trade is essential for US manufacturers. It covers the regulatory measures that impact over 90 percent of goods exports from the United States. This is fertile ground for protectionism. Governments can easily use regulatory measures, or ways of assessing conformity with them, that shield domestic producers from import competition. In fact, they can completely shut down trade with a few strokes of the legislative pen.

In USMCA, American manufacturers have more of a voice in the regulatory process in Canada and Mexico concerning their exports. Importantly, USMCA also calls on the three countries to recognize that, in setting technical specifications, performance, and not the provenance of the regulation, is what should matter. This is a longstanding US demand, and USMCA represents a tangible win for US exporters in this regard.

American manufacturing needs Chapter 10 of USMCA.

Third, the chapter on intellectual property is upgraded to reflect the needs of a building a creative economy. The list of international agreements that inform USMCA is striking; many didn’t exist in 1994, never mind in 1988. Copyright protections are modernized, as are those for biologics, a type of drug that could not have been imagined when NAFTA was negotiated. Whereas patents, alone, could help stimulate investment in small molecule drugs, they aren’t enough for the living systems that define biologics. USMCA brings Canada and Mexico closer to the US standard, and in this regard increases protection of American IP abroad.

Other IP provisions will assist a variety of America’s creative industries, from film to fashion to iPhones. These modernized rules, along with consultative mechanisms to ensure a level playing field, will provide the kind of protections that inventors need to bring their ideas to market. This is a win.

America’s creative industries need Chapter 20 of USMCA.

Still, there are some who, while recognizing the benefits of USMCA, worry that the deal cannot effectively enforce labor and environmental standards. They shouldn’t be. The provisions are as good as anything in the EU-Mexico trade agreement, for example, and Europe is renowned for having high expectations on both fronts, both domestically and internationally.

Polls show that, regardless of party, American voters are more supportive of free trade now than ever before. Democrats, Independents and Republicans converge around 80 percent in favor. Polls also show that USMCA has bipartisan backing.

The United States is part of a North American market that thrives on predictability. It’s time for Congress to unite behind USMCA and deliver predictability.

_________________________________________________________

Marc L. Busch is the Karl F. Landegger Professor of International Business Diplomacy at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.

USMCA
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Has Move to Impeach President Trump Pushed Aside the USMCA?

Leave a comment

The momentum to impeach in Washington, D.C., is not only hurtling Congress and President Donald Trump toward a potential constitutional crisis, but the prospect of reaching a solution to the ongoing trade standoffs has dimmed considerably.

That’s the opinion of leading international trade lawyer Clifford Sosnow, who notes the time frame for passing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)—and thereby revamping the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—is growing shorter by the day, denting plans for global companies that rely heavily on exports.

“With impeachment officially on the table and the hyper-partisan climate in the lead-up to next year’s elections, there is serious concern whether the USMCA is dead in the water,” says Sosnow, an Ottawa-based partner with Canadian law firm Fasken.

“It’s unclear how much of a window is even left for approval of the USMCA. There are also high odds of failure post-election, especially if the Democrats win. The party has not shown any enthusiasm for the USMCA in its current form.”

Sosnow is not shooting from the hip in an easy chair. He has appeared before NAFTA and WTO panels and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, and he has numerous clients affected by tariffs as well as any decisions on NAFTA, including automobile manufacturers, banks, service companies, IT companies, large retailers, manufacturers, agriculture business, aerospace firms, and transportation companies.

drugs biopharmaceutical
Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Banking

WHAT TODAY’S USMCA DEBATE HAS TO DO WITH THE DRUGS OF TOMORROW

Leave a comment

The political winds seem to be blowing in favor of a Congressional vote on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA) yet this fall. But before they vote, some Members of Congress want to talk over a few issues with the Trump administration’s negotiators. They are pressing the administration to lower intellectual property protections for the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry because they say the agreement’s provisions protecting original data generated by pharmaceutical inventors will drive up the price of prescription drugs.

Their arguments strike a political nerve but don’t offer a complete picture of this complex and evolving industry. The USMCA debate reflects a domestic difference in views. While the United States works to develop its regulatory framework for newer drugs, many other markets are further behind. As important as it is, the issue of data protection for biologic drugs is not well understood. We’ll try to cover the top lines.

Pieces of the Intellectual Property Puzzle

For American innovators of biopharmaceuticals, gaining access to overseas markets requires not only securing regulatory approvals; the policy environment must also be conducive to marketing their products, which includes a value-based approach to pricing, procurement, reimbursement policies – and intellectual property protections.

There are various facets to the intellectual property (IP) protections needed to incentivize massive investments in pharmaceutical innovation and to enable the recovery of those costs once a drug is commercialized. Patents are part of the package and so is the protection of proprietary data, the issue at the fore in discussions about USMCA.

These protections are particularly important to American companies. The intellectual property attached to 57 percent of the world’s new medicines was created in the United States. That’s no accident. Research and development activities flourish in countries where IP frameworks are well developed and enforced.

70% drug dev

What is Data Protection?

To achieve marketing approval from a regulatory oversight agency such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and its counterparts in other countries, innovator pharmaceutical companies submit data on the outcomes of their research and years of clinical trials demonstrating the drug is effective and safe. The cost and risks of developing the original data and product fall to the inventor.

When a generic producer or producer of a “biosimilar” seeks approval, they are often afforded the short cut of relying on the inventor’s data. To ensure a balance between incentivizing drug discovery and development while also providing opportunities for lower-cost copies to become available, the inventor’s data may be protected for a period of time against disclosure to generic or biosimilar producer. During this time, any competitor is free to undertake their own data and seek marketing approvals on that basis.

For How Long?

Provisions on data protection are not new in domestic regulations or in trade agreements. Since the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) in 1995, World Trade Organization (WTO) members have agreed not to disclose clinical data submitted to regulatory authorities to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical products, thereby protecting such data “against unfair commercial use”.

Negotiators of the TRIPS Agreement contemplated specifying that data protection should be no less than five years, but ultimately refrained from including a specific timeframe, leaving it to the discretion of WTO members in their national regulations. NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, provides a minimum of five years.

Enter a New Type of Drug

The timing of these provisions is relevant to the debate today. The TRIPs and NAFTA provisions apply to new “chemical entities,” meaning small molecule drugs – that is, most drugs on the market to date. These types of drugs are capable of being replicated through chemical synthesis to make generic drugs. For this reason, regulators tend to agree that requiring duplicate data from generics would be an inefficient use of resources and unnecessary testing of patients, as long as the generic product is proven “bioequivalent” to its reference product.

Biologics are newer medicines. They are large, complex molecules that are made from living cells to produce the required proteins. This manufacturing process is vastly more complex. A follow-on product is not identical, but rather structurally similar and thus called a “biosimilar”. An exact replica is not possible, and patients cannot automatically be switched from a biologic to its biosimilar without risk of adverse effects.

Given the differences between biologics and small molecule drugs, they are regulated differently, and the IP protections have been applied differently. Biologics are largely defined by their manufacturing processes and regulatory approval of biosimilars does not require identity with the reference product, so biologics must often rely only on process patents versus a product patent. Innovator companies argue a longer term of data protection is needed to bridge the differences in patent protection or to offset the lack of patent protections in some countries, while allowing them to recover the increased cost of generating the original data.

New Trade Provisions for Biologics

Given the longer innovation cycle and the increased cost and complexity of biologics, many governments have provided longer periods of data protection for biologics than for small molecule drugs.

In the United States, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act signed into law by President Obama in 2016, provides for a 12-year period of regulatory data protection for biologics. American companies have sought the same standards from trading partners.

With new agreements in the WTO largely stalled, the focus of trade negotiations over the last decade has shifted to bilateral and regional trade agreements where provisions are often more detailed and tailored. In negotiations toward the Transpacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), the United States pushed for 12 years, but agreed to eight years for biologics from the date of first marketing approval and allowed flexibility in how data protections could be administered. When the United States withdrew from the TPP, the remaining members suspended the relevant provisions.

In the USMCA, American biopharmaceuticals again did not get everything they wanted. Canada and Mexico do not have to match the United States in providing 12 years but agreed to increase the duration of data protection to 10 years from the current standard of five years in Mexico and eight years in Canada.

10 years in USMCA

Why Push Trading Partners to Increase Data Protections?

Beyond North America, the so-called “pharmerging” markets (generally the large developing countries) are growing faster than the stable developed markets. China is by far the largest emerging market for pharmaceuticals. In many developing countries, patent systems are weak or poorly enforced. Regulatory data protection provides some buffer against IP exposure, making it viable and more attractive for companies to introduce their products in that market.

Less data protection and lack of enforcement diminish the potential for U.S. exports. It also leaves the door open for competitors to access unprotected U.S. data without the originator’s authorization. Trade agreement obligations help guard against the unfair commercial use of proprietary data and expand the degree of IP protections in global markets, which is a precursor to greater diffusion of innovative drugs to patients worldwide.

Back to the Core Concerns – Availability and Costs to Patients

Critics of USMCA’s provisions argue data protections keep the prices of biologics high by delaying the introduction of biosimilars. The first biosimilar product was approved in the U.S. market in March 2015. By March 2019, 18 had been approved. Many experts suggest biosimilars have lagged in the U.S. market due to slower changes to the U.S. regulatory system and patent litigation as the industry goes through the same growing pains it did with generic regulation.

As well, drug development is an inherently expensive and risky business, characterized by high failure rates. On average, the process of discovery and commercialization takes 10-15 years at a cost of $2.6 billion. Less than 12 percent of drug candidates make it all the way from lab to patient.

Because of the complexity and high fixed costs required to develop the capacity to manufacture biosimilars, it takes eight to 10 years for biosimilars to come to market, there are fewer entrants than is the case with generics, and the cost savings realized are 10 to 30 percent off the brand, versus an average of 80 percent achievable by generics. Considering the length of time normally required to achieve safe and reliable production of biosimilars, the data protection period in USMCA is unlikely to be a cause of undue delay in getting them to market. Data protection terms are also often less than the remaining patent term.

Your Loss is My Gain

The prominent healthcare research firm, IQVIA, forecasts the biopharmaceutical industry stands to lose $121 billion between 2019 and 2023 as periods of market exclusivity end. Eighty percent of that impact, or loss for innovators, will be in the U.S. market as nearly all of the top branded drugs will have generic or biosimilar competition.

IQVIA says competition among biosimilars is on a path to grow three-times larger in 2023 than it is today. If that’s so, savings over branded biologics could produce approximately $160 billion in lower spending just over the next five years, even as overall spending on biologic drugs grows.

This is part of the business cycle of the pharmaceutical industry and why the innovators maintain strong pipelines because they have limited exclusive time in the market before competitors arrive. That’s good for patients. The data protections in USMCA are not likely to materially impact this cycle or spending. When Canada and Japan lengthened their duration of data protection, drug spending as a percentage of GDP remained nearly flat.

ME losses

Reason for Optimism

Biologics are called the drug of tomorrow. They comprise nearly 70 percent of the innovation pipeline which includes some 4,500 drugs in development in the United States and another 8,000 globally.

Breakthrough products are expected for cancer treatments, autism and diabetes. This is great news, but specialty and niche products tend to come at a higher price so spending may increase as these new drugs enter the market. According to IQVIA, average spending on the brand versions will nonetheless decline from 8.2 percent of the U.S. market to 6.7 percent, a demonstration there’s a healthy market for originals and copies.

There would be no copies without the originals, which is why pharmaceutical regulatory and legal frameworks are full of public policy trade-offs to strike a balance that will support return on innovation while not impeding the availability of affordable drugs. As we make scientific progress, the systems that include IP protections must evolve to accommodate new types of drugs, new capabilities in data analytics and clinical practices, and even changing business models. Not doing so can imperil the pace of progress at precisely the moment when breakthroughs are on the horizon.

___________________________________________________________

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.
USMCA
Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

How a Footnote in the USMCA Undermines Economic Liberty

Leave a comment

House Democrats are holding up ratification of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) until U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer agrees to make some changes. While a number of the big concerns about the new NAFTA, such as enforcement, biologic drugs, and the implementation of Mexico’s labor laws have received a lot of attention, there is another issue that has flown under the radar, perhaps in part because it’s buried in a footnote.

Chapter 7 of the USMCA, “Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation,” includes a section on “Express Shipments.” These are goods of low or negligible value that are shipped by courier or express mail services in large volume. Think about that pair of shoes you just ordered from France. That’s an express shipment.

Because there are so many of these packages coming through customs facilities, and it’s such a burden to process them, most countries have what is called a de minimis threshold, that is a set value below which imported goods are both sales tax and duty free. The United States has the highest de minimis threshold in the world, allowing individuals and businesses to make purchases from abroad up to $800 with no duty or tax collected by customs.

As Gary Hufbauer, Euijin Jung, and Lucy Lu explain, high de minimis thresholds are not only good for consumers, who do not have to deal with the complexity and time delays in processing customs duties and sales tax on the things they buy, but also for small businesses, because of the importance of intermediate inputs, as well as cross-border sales for their profits.

As part of the USMCA, Canada and Mexico both raised their de minimis thresholds, which not only helps small businesses in the United States but also consumers in both countries as well. Canada raised its de minimis threshold to $150 CAD from its original $20 CAD limit, and sales tax cannot be collected until the value of the product reaches at least $40 CAD. Mexico increased its de minimis from $50 USD to $100 USD, with tax free de minimis on $50 USD.

While the U.S. did not alter its de minimis threshold in USMCA, there is a curious footnote in Chapter 7 that should be cause for concern. It reads:

Notwithstanding the amounts set out under this subparagraph, a Party may impose a reciprocal amount that is lower for shipments from another Party if the amount provided for under that other Party’s law is lower than that of the Party.

Now we are all well aware of this administration’s distorted concept of reciprocity, and they seem to be applying it here as well. What this footnote suggests is that the U.S. could potentially lower its de minimis threshold to match what Canada or Mexico have agreed to. To put this in perspective, in 2016, the United States increased its de minimis level to $800 from $200. This footnote would allow the de minimis to drop even below the 2016 limit. This is not only an attack on economic liberty for American citizens, but it would be an enormous step backward on a policy where the United States has been a leader for liberalization.

Back in June, Robert Lighthizer was directly asked about this footnote by multiple members of the House Ways and Means Committee during a hearing on the 2019 trade policy agenda. While a number of excellent questions were raised, I highlight two below. First, Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), noting bipartisan support for the current de minimis threshold, stated:

In 2016, Congress raised the U.S. de minimis threshold to $800 in the bipartisan Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act. This change enjoys wide bipartisan support in Congress and throughout the e-commerce landscape. The current threshold benefits millions of American small businesses, across all sectors, including manufacturers, who rely on low-value inputs for the production of U.S. exports. As a result, American small businesses now enjoy more rapid border clearance, reduced complexities and red tape, and lower logistics costs, while American consumers benefit through faster, less expensive access to a wider range of goods.

Given the benefits of the current de minimis threshold to American small businesses and the U.S. economy as a whole, and that Congress legislated on the U.S. de minimis level only a few years ago, I remain extremely concerned over the Draft Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) on the U.S.- Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) transmitted to Congress on May 30. This draft SAA includes language suggesting that you may seek changes to the U.S. de minimisthreshold through the USMCA implementing bill. As you know, last December, Rep. Kind and I led a bipartisan letter urging you not to seek to lower the U.S. de minimis threshold. My position has not changed.

I strongly oppose including any language in the USMCA implementing bill that would lower the U.S. de minimis level or that would delegate this authority to the Executive Branch. As you work with Congress to finalize the USMCA implementing legislation, will you commit to not seeking authority to lower the U.S. de minimis threshold?

Rep. Daniel Kildee (D-MI) also emphasized how this change would undermine Congress’s authority to regulate commerce:

In 2016, Congress raised the U.S. de minimis threshold to $800 in the bipartisan Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act. The current threshold benefits millions of American small businesses, across all sectors, including manufacturers, who rely on low-value inputs for the production of U.S. exports. As a result, American small businesses now enjoy more rapid border clearance, reduced complexities and red tape, and lower logistics costs, while American consumers benefit through faster, less expensive access to a wider range of goods.

Given the benefits of the current de minimis threshold to American small businesses and the U.S. economy as a whole, I was curious to see the Draft Statement of Administrative Action on the U.S. Mexico Canada (USMCA) includes language that you may seek authority for the Executive Branch to set U.S. de minimis thresholds. Congress must maintain its Constitutional authority to set tariffs – including de minimis thresholds.

As you work with Congress to finalize the USMCA implementing legislation, can you commit not to seek the derogation or authority to derogate from the current U.S. de minimis threshold?

Amb. Lighthizer’s comments to all questions on the de minimis threshold remained the same:

As noted in the Administration’s submission to Congress on changes to existing law and the draft Statement of Administrative Action, we identified this as an issue for consultation with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House and the Committee on Finance of the Senate. These consultations are underway. I look forward to continuing those conversations with you and other Members on this important issue.

Congress should continue to press the administration for the removal of this footnote from the USMCA. It may seem like a small part of the broader USMCA debate, but Congress should not be fooled. This is representative of the broader attempts by the executive branch under this administration to expand its power into areas where the Constitution gives Congress express authority. Congress should not give up its authority to regulate foreign commerce, and should actively push to rein in the abuses of the executive in trade policy. By pushing for this on de minimis, we can get one step closer to ensuring that the Trump administration’s trade policy remains as its own small footnote in the history of U.S. trade policy.

__________________________________________________________-

Inu Manak is a visiting scholar at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

USMCA Sunset Clause Offers Potential Resolution to Ratification Impasse

Leave a comment

Those who have been closely following the saga of revamped free trade in North America will know well that the fate of the United States-Canada-Mexico Agreement (USMCA) could very well be decided on the degree to which lawmakers are able to suspend their cynicism over labor reforms in Mexico to buy into the labor-enforcement provisions set out in the agreement.

Democrats in Congress want to see labor-enforcement provisions within the USMCA made stronger, clearer and part of the actual agreement (as opposed to a side letter). Their demands stem from the fear the USMCA will do little to curb the flight of manufacturing jobs from the United States and into Mexico where workers are paid less and there are fewer regulations with which to contend.

These concerns are fair and warranted, but both Mexico and Canada have unequivocally stated they do not intend to reopen negotiations. Mexico in particular, which just recently passed a labor reform bill that will allow workers to vote on unions and their labor contracts via secret ballot, has said no further concessions will be made.

All three parties have dug in their heels, making ratification of the USMCA seem unlikely in the near term. And yet the agreement’s ratification is crucial to the ongoing prosperity of all three countries’ economies and to North America’s status as the world’s largest trading bloc. Failure to ratify the USMCA won’t simply mean that free trade will revert back to NAFTA. The president has stated repeatedly that if the USMCA isn’t ratified, he will unilaterally withdraw from NAFTA, pitting himself against lawmakers in Congress and putting the future of free trade in North America in jeopardy.

Sunset can brighten gloomy outlook

While each party presents a valid position, digging in on labor provisions (and, more peripherally, environmental ones) that prolong trade uncertainty in the largest trading bloc in the world is entirely unnecessary.

There are valid mechanisms in place that Democrats can use to ensure the enacted labor reforms are enforced and that Mexico is holding up its end of the bargain with respect to labor practices.

When the USMCA was signed in November 2018, it included a sunset clause that had been a source of tension and controversy during the negotiation period. The purpose of the clause was to force the parties to revisit the deal periodically to ensure it is working as it should for all involved. In its final iteration, the clause would see the USMCA automatically terminated 16 years after its implementation. However, six years after implementation, a joint review of the agreement would take place, at which time the parties could unanimously choose to extend the sunset period to 16 years from the six-year review, with another joint review to follow six years later. Failure to achieve unanimity at any six-year interval would require additional reviews to take place each year thereafter until the initial 16-year period concludes or until a consensus is reached on how to address the complainant party’s concerns.

If that sounds awfully and unnecessarily complicated, that’s probably because it is, particularly since the USMCA allows for any one party to withdraw from the agreement at any time with a six-month notice, making a sunset clause gratuitous. Nevertheless, it is how the current text of the agreement reads and, barring the unlikely possibility of the USMCA’s renegotiation, is how the agreement will be implemented.

Drifting off into the sunset

Assuming no one party relents, the most obvious way around the impasse would be for Democrats to ratify the agreement as it is currently written with the intent to watch closely how its labor provisions are enforced in Mexico. (Precisely how the monitoring of enforcement will take place is a separate but related disagreement between the White House and Congressional Democrats.)

After six years, there will be an opportunity to review the agreement and put Mexico on notice that it will need either to better enforce the labor provisions set out in the USMCA or see the U.S. exit the agreement when the 16-year period closes. In the event the annual review gets bogged down in bureaucratic inefficiency, lawmakers and the president of the day will have the withdrawal clause at their disposal to expedite compliance.

Unfortunately this will put U.S. industry in a Catch 22 position. Those businesses invested heavily in Mexican production will have to choose either to remain steadfast in their support of Mexico’s existing cost-effective labor regime or align with USMCA detractors in Congress at that time to exert pressure on Mexico to improve enforcement of labor provisions with the understanding that their failure to do so could put free trade in North America in danger.

Relying on the sunset clause may seem to be the equivalent of kicking the can down the road. However, the interim period would offer tremendous benefit. It would provide businesses the opportunity to adapt to the agreement’s new provisions and reconfigure their supply chains to make optimal use of the USMCA. It would allow production practices in Mexico to adjust to new labor and environmental provisions. It would offer Mexican officials the chance to demonstrate to the U.S. government that they intend to honor their USMCA commitments (not just in spirit, but in practice), and would demonstrate to Mexican officials that U.S. lawmakers are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Most importantly it would allow for stability to return to North America’s trade environment and the businesses and consumers who rely on it for prosperity and cost efficiency.

It may not be a perfect solution, but it is a viable alternative to the current options of lingering trade uncertainty, or worse yet, quashing the USMCA altogether and potentially precipitating a presidential decree to withdraw from NAFTA and with it a lengthy legal battle over the president’s legal authority to do so.

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