Spices exports up 22% in FY'13 to 7 lakh tonnes

The nutrition post

NEW DELHI: Spices exports rose by 22 per cent to 6,99,170 tonnes during 2012-13 on account of sharp jump in garlic shipments.

Total exports stood at 5,75,270 tonnes in the previous fiscal, as per the data of Spice Board of India.

In terms of value, spices exports increased by 14 per cent to Rs 11,171.16 crore during last fiscal from Rs 9,783.42 crore in 2011-12.

The exports, in terms of both quantity and value, were higher than the target. The board had fixed the spices exports target at 5,66,000 tonnes and Rs 8,200 crore for 2012-13.

According to the data, there was almost ten-fold jump in the exports of garlic to 24,000 tonnes in 2012-13 from 2,200 tonnes in 2011-12. In terms of value, garlic exports jumped more than four times to Rs 74.49 crore in the current fiscal from Rs 14.15 crore a year ago.

Exports of chili, which is the biggest contributor to the total exports of spices in terms of quantity, rose by 17 per cent to 2,81,000 tonnes during 2012-13 from 2,40,000 tonnes in the previous fiscal.

Besides garlic, fennel and cumin also recorded increase in the exports during 2012-13.

Shipments of fennel increased by 80 per cent to 14,575 tonnes in 2012-13 from 8,100 tonnes a year ago valued at Rs 114.02 crore.

Cumin exports increased by 76 per cent to 79,900 tonnes in 2012-13 from 45,500 tonnes previous year valued at Rs 1093.17 crore.

However, exports of pepper and cardamom registered a decline of 40 per cent and 52 per cent, respectively, in 2012-13 as compared to the previous fiscal.

India is the world's leading spice producer, exporter and consumer.

Source: economictimes.indiatimes.com

Uncompetitive imports call for relook at India's China trade policy

KOLKATA: Is India enriching China and allowing it to occupy our land?

A study shows India pays more for goods from China that it could buy from elsewhere at a lower price since the era of cheap Chinese goods appears to be coming to an end. The land of dragons has struggled to keep its cost competitiveness going because of rising wages, land prices and taxes. The ascent of the renminbi or yuan has also made the world's largest manufacturer more expensive. The Sino-Indian bilateral trade took off during the last decade to nearly $70 billion (about 4.2 lakh crore) at the end of 2012 and is expected to touch $100 billion (about 6 lakh crore) in 2015. It certainly looks impressive, but the magnitude of uncompetitive imports calls for a relook at the bilateral trade policy, argues Prof SK Mohanty, who did a study on Sino-India trade relationship on behalf of the Reserve Bank of India

The volume of uncompetitive imports from China rose from $4.49 billion in 2007 to $7.15 billion in 2008, but declined to $6.6 billion in 2009. The relative size of this to total imports was very high, ranging from 18.6% in 2007 to 25.4% in 2008. In fact, nearly one-third of 3,876 items imported by India in 2009 proved costlier.

"It is a matter of concern as the share of uncompetitive products in total is increasing over a period of time. They are both in terms of the number of products imported and also in value terms," says Prof Mohanty of Research and Information System for Developing Countries in the study titled 'India China Bilateral Trade Relationship'.

Uncompetitive imports are concentrated in four sectors -- chemicals, textiles, base metals and machinery with about 75-80% share of total uncompetitive imports during 2007-09. Imports of minerals, plastics, gems & jewelleries, and automobile parts from China have also turned out to be uncompetitive. The combined share of these eight sectors exceeded 93% of total uncompetitive imports during 2007-09.

Many believe the rising labour cost in China is to be blamed primarily. In fact, China is gradually withdrawing from the lower end of the textile sector, and if the trend continues, the production base of textiles and clothing will slowly shift to other countries, as has been the case with the textile industries of a number of East Asian countries in the past.

This could prove a blessing for India which has a large textile sector. Prof Mohanty suggests India should start preparing itself by getting into partnership with foreign firms to establish production centres on its shore for mass production of garments. "The Chinese phase-out from the garment industry may be an opportunity for India to replace it in the global market in a phased manner."

The automobile industry both in India and China has expanded rapidly during the last two decades and India enjoys a competitive edge in auto components, small-cars and two-wheeler segments. However, the study showed that India's imports from China in these product segments are turning out to be uncompetitive, and imports of these products can be managed efficiently from other competitive suppliers. India is also emerging as competitive player in the niche area of auto designing, which is related to the IT sector.

These trends indicate Indian firms can venture into the Chinese market in certain segments though they are likely to face strong competition from various domestic firms and also from other foreign competitors. The distribution of uncompetitive imports was skewed across various technology intensive sectors. While uncompetitive import growth was 43% per annum for medium-tech, similar estimates for the high-tech sector was 102.2% during 2007-09. India's imports in these two sectors are likely to grow in future in view of the current emphasis on industrialisation as discussed in the country's new manufacturing policy.

As an emerging country, India's import of intermediate products has been important for fostering industrialisation, meeting domestic demand and addressing its export needs. India is likely to gain from its engagement with China, but a realignment of the product basket may be needed to preserve India's long-term interests. This requires restructuring of India's domestic and external policies in the first place.

Source: economictimes.indiatimes.com

Obama's Ambitious Trade Agenda

By Patrick Christy

At a time when the U.S. economy is struggling to recover, President Obama has thrown his support behind talks for two ambitious trade deals aimed at reducing trade and investment barriers in the Asia-Pacific and Europe. While the two free-trade agreements are far from completion, both would strongly benefit the United States economically and strategically.

Friends with Economic Benefits
First, the United States and the European Union are set to start negotiations for a comprehensive trade and investment pact sometimes known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). With the two sides exchanging roughly $2.7 billion in goods and services each day, American and European economies already make up the world's biggest and most prosperous market – roughly 54 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) in terms of value, or 40 percent of global GDP in terms of purchasing power.

At a time when the 27-nation European Union is still grappling with residually high unemployment and stagnant growth, further reduction of America's and Europe's already low tariff levels and trade barriers could reinvigorate elements of both economies. A study conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce suggest that eliminating transatlantic tariffs alone "would boost U.S.-EU trade by more than $120 billion within five years."


In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Stormy-Annika Mildner of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs and Claudia Schmucker of the German Council on Foreign Relations add: "Eliminating tariffs could, in the long run, add 1.33 percent annually to U.S. GDP and 0.47 percent to EU GDP, according to the research firm Ecorys. Substantially lowering non-tariff barriers would add 0.28 percent annually to U.S. GDP and 0.72 percent to EU GDP."

Second, the United States is engaged in negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement that would promote economic integration and liberalization with 11 other countries – namely, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The proposed pact would level the playing field throughout portions of the Pacific Rim for American goods by reducing tariffs from member states over a ten year period.
A number of Asian economies would also be forced to decrease support for state owned businesses, opening new markets for a number of U.S. companies. The TPP's eventual goal would be to create vast free-trade zone across the entire Pacific that would encompass approximately two-fifths of the world economy.

Friends with Strategic Benefits
In addition, these two agreements would enhance U.S. strategic interests.
The TPP is a key component of the Obama administration's "rebalance" to the Asia-Pacific. Similar to the U.S.-South Korean free-trade agreement (enacted in 2012), the TPP would strengthen long-term strategic ties with key allies and partners, and ensure America's economic presence in the region for years to come. At the same time, new market opportunities would decrease the region's overreliance on trade with China

Equally important, the agreement would encourage further economic and political reforms among TPP nations, notably non-democratic Vietnam. Asia's post-World War II history shows that close economic cooperation with emerging nations can profoundly advance America's pro-democracy agenda – look no further than Japan and South Korea, both of which once had militaristic regimes. As President Obama stated in his November 2011 address to the Australian Parliament, "over the long run, democracy and economic growth go hand in hand. And prosperity without freedom is just another form of poverty."

The U.S.-E.U. agreement would reinvigorate relations between Europe and the United States at a time when many European leaders worry  that the Obama administration's "rebalance" to the Asia-Pacific will come at the expense of transatlantic ties. Despite occasional differences on both sides of the Atlantic, the United States and Europe are bound by history, common interests, and shared values.
In particular, European nations who are aligned with NATO remain America's strategic partners of "first resort" – countries that the United States works with in concert on key international matters. Indeed, NATO's 2011 mission in Libya and ongoing efforts in Afghanistan reflect these common interests and shared values.

Rising Challenges and Opportunities
In order to realize the economic and strategic benefits of these two agreements, there are important steps that policymakers and lawmakers in Washington should take.

First, the Obama administration must genuinely lead on the trade agenda. Trade negotiations can be long, difficult and sometimes frustrating, even more so when they involve multiple countries. TPP negotiations are still behind schedule, despite President Obama's 2009 words of support for the TPP and 16 rounds of multilateral talks.

Without strong and proactive U.S. leadership on trade, talks with the European Union could get bogged down as well. French trade minister Nicole Bricq is already urging negotiators to move at a slower pace. President Obama must make clear that these two pacts are key pillars of his second term agenda. Failure to do so risks endless delays and fewer economic opportunities – and jobs – for Americans.
Second, lawmakers should use congressional oversight hearings, public statements, and even legislation to make clear to the Obama administration that these two trade pacts are top priorities. Despite political gridlock in Washington, trade enjoys broad support on Capitol Hill. For example, when President Obama finally submitted free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea for congressional approval in 2011, lawmakers moved quickly to ensure their passage with bipartisan support.

Third, lawmakers should renew the White House's trade promotion authority (TPA). House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp has argued TPA would give the President "the tools to move more job-creating trade agreements." Previous "fast-track" authority – which expired in 2007 – had authorized the President to enter into trade agreements with foreign nations and required lawmakers vote on those agreements, without amendments, within 90 days of being submitted to Congress. However, Democrats in the House of Representatives changed the rule in April 2008 in order to block consideration of President Bush's free-trade agreement with Colombia, effectively shelving the agreement for the next three years.
President Obama noted in his State of the Union address that free-trade deals with Europe and the Asia-Pacific are in America's economic and strategic interests. With Democrats and Republicans behind him, the White House should work quickly to ensure both agreements become reality.

Source: usnews.com

3 Key Trade Trends the U.S. Can't Ignore

By Edward F. Gerwin Jr

When America debated the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, Groundhog Day – a film about doing the same things over and over – was a box office hit. Since then, our trade debates have often been like Groundhog Day, with trade supporters and critics repeatedly recycling well-worn talking points. But before everyone dusts off old scripts for upcoming debates about trade deals with Asia and Europe, it's worthwhile to consider what America might learn from more recent trade developments – especially those currently happening outside the United States.

The Jersey Journal, Reena Rose Sibayan /AP Photo

Three trends in global trade highlight why it's more vital than ever that America continue to play a strong role in writing robust rules for trade.


1. America's Not the Only Game in Town. As America works to conclude a Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and to ramp up new trade talks with the European Union, it's important to remember that other major economies are also pursuing a bevy of new trade deals.

There are already hundreds of trade agreements in force among groups of countries that don't include the United States, with many more under negotiation. The EU, for example, is negotiating agreements with Canada, India and Japan. And China, Japan and South Korea have begun talks on a pact that would boost trade among the world's second-, fourth- and twelfth-largest economies. These three countries – together with 13 regional neighbors – are also negotiating a massive Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership that would tie together 16 countries with a combined GDP of over $26 trillion. For the United States, the implications of growing trend are clear – if we don't continue to engage in developing new norms for global trade, global competitors like China surely will.

2. Not Everyone Shares America's Priorities. In negotiating for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade initiatives, America traditionally seeks comprehensive agreements that cover the full range of trade-related challenges in the global economy: expanding market access for American goods and services, advancing rules to protect U.S. investments and intellectual property, eliminating non-tariff barriers and promoting important ideals like labor rights and environmental protection.

In contrast, other countries often take a much more limited, low-standard approach to the role and content of new trade agreements, frequently excluding a wide range of products and services and ignoring vital issues. Take the new China-Japan-Korea trade negotiations: When they recently outlined the key topics for their trade talks, China, Japan and Korea did not include issues that the United States regards as critical, such as information technology, the environment and labor and employment.
For American businesses, workers and consumers, this means that we can't count on others to forge new trade rules that reflect our priorities and values.

3. Other Countries Lack America's Leverage.  Over the last two decades, America has concluded comprehensive trade deals with 20 countries. We've significantly opened up foreign markets and advanced U.S. commercial interests – and key values – by employing our significant leverage in two ways:

• First, access to our $15+ trillion economy provides a major inducement to other countries to eliminate barriers, adopt fair rules and enforce environmental and social protections.

• Second, because U.S. trade agreements are comprehensive – with few carve-outs or exclusions – our negotiating partners must broadly open their markets if they want to reach a trade deal with the United States.

The many other countries currently negotiating new trade deals often have much less leverage than the United States. Smaller countries that share important values with the United States have often had less success in advancing these principles because they offer only limited market access. And larger economies that take large numbers of products and issues off the negotiating table often lose the leverage they need to get the concessions they want. This is likely one reason, for instance, why Japan was recently unsuccessful in including labor and the environment as priority issues in its trade talks with China and Korea.

The United States brings substantial leverage to trade negotiations. But to maximize this leverage our own trade offers must remain truly comprehensive, and we must resist the urge to keep protected sectors off the negotiating table.

The global economy will continue to see a proliferation of new trade agreements in the years ahead. But who will write them? What will they say? Will countries like China increasingly be able to advance low-standard deals that ignore commercial priorities and values that are critical to America? Or will America stay in the game, work with like-minded nations, and use our considerable leverage to forge deals that reflect our key interests and vital principles?

As America prepares for important trade debates, it's time to revise our scripts to ensure that they answer these critical new questions.

Source: usnews.com

What Paintbrush Makers Know About How to Beat China

By  ADAM DAVISON Published: June 18, 2013

As I toured Israel Kirschner’s Bronx paintbrush factory earlier this month, I couldn’t stop feeling amazed that it was still in business. Many days, Kirschner feels the same way. The charming, energetic 69-year-old joked about his ancient equipment (“That could be 100 years old,” he said of a bristle-cleaning machine); his two least-committed employees, his son and daughter (“They come late, they leave early”); and how his business has been increasingly undercut by Chinese manufacturers. After introducing me to his star brush maker, Fermin Gil, a Mexican immigrant who “can just see” when a brush isn’t right, Kirschner handed me a one-inch boar-bristle brush with a wooden handle. A Chinese manufacturer sells it for 30 cents. If he made it himself, he told me, it would cost significantly more. 

Chinese manufacturers long ago wreaked havoc on the U.S. textile, apparel, toy and electronics industries, but the disruption came slowly to the brush business. There are simply so many types of brushes for so many applications that many Chinese manufacturers thought the business wasn’t worth the hassle. For decades, China lagged behind in the main categories (toothbrushes, brooms, mops and, of course, paintbrushes) and only dominated the lowest rung of the business — extracting bristles from boars. “It’s dirty, smelly, foul work,” David Parr, executive director of the American Brush Manufacturers Association, told me. “Nobody wants to go to West Texas to try to catch a boar and figure out how to get the bristles off him.”

Illustration by Jasper Rietman

The collapse of the housing market in 2007 and the subsequent recession turned out to be a boon for China’s brush exports. With far less construction and far fewer jobs, not as many people needed paintbrushes (or brooms or toothbrushes). Those who did need them chose cheap imports over more expensive products made in America. Retailers, who stood to make more from the cheaper products, jumped at the opportunity to sell them. Now everyone in the business has to account for the Chinese.

That’s a familiar story for U. S. manufacturing. The strange thing here is that there are still more than 200 brush, broom and mop makers in the U.S. These companies have employed two strategies to stave off Chinese competition: 1) change everything all the time, or 2) don’t ever change a thing. Kirschner hasn’t changed a thing. He makes brushes the very same way, employing many of the same machines, that his father did 50 years ago. He told me that he sticks with the old ways because, unlike with toys and T-shirts, a big chunk of the brush business caters to professionals who aren’t merely shopping for price but rather for quality. 

Michael Wolf, who runs the Greco Brush Company, a supplier to professional house painters, told me that his customers need to know before each job that every single bristle on every single brush will be attached properly. One loose fiber left on a wall can damage a painter’s reputation, which in turn can hurt Wolf’s too. Wolf said that he can buy brushes for between a quarter and a dollar cheaper in China, but he is never sure exactly what he’ll get. Some orders are shoddy; others never arrive. So Greco sticks with the company he knows. “My father did business with his father back in the ’50s,” Wolf told me. “We’re keeping it going, the two of us.”

At the other end of the business is Lance Cheney, 53, the fourth-generation president of Braun Brush, who told me that he would close his company rather than make the same kind of brush, the same way, for 50 years. He is constantly creating innovative brushes so that he never has any competition. Cheney makes a beaver-hair brush that’s solely for putting a sheen on chocolate. He sells an industrial croissant-buttering brush and a heat-resistant brush that can clean hot deep fryers. His clients, he said, now include General Mills (he made a brush for their cereal-manufacturing line) and the energy industry (a line of expensive brushes for cleaning pipes in nuclear reactors). He even developed Brush Tile, fuzzy panels used in artistic wall hangings. He said his proudest creation is a tiny brush that helped Mars rovers dust debris from drilling sites. When 

Cheney sees other firms making one of his brushes, he often drops the product rather than enter a price war. Braun Brush, he said, has grown at 15 to 20 percent annually for the past five years.

Kirschner’s don’t-change-a-thing strategy has not brought anything like this kind of growth. Last year, he says, “was a disaster.” As was this spring. But June, so far, has been “unbelievably good.” Many of his customers are governmental agencies that prefer “Made in the U.S.A.” products or have precise needs that Chinese imports can’t yet fill. Some of the paint on New York City subways and Texas prisons, for example, was applied by Kirschner brushes. 

(Extract)

Sourse: ntymes.com 

Japanese, Australian Stock Futures Advance on U.S. Retail Sales

Japanese and Australian stoc futures rose after a report showed U.S. retail sales unexpectedly advanced in April, buoying the earnings outlook for Asian exporters.

American Depositary Receipts of Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) a Japanese carmaker that gets 75 percent of its revenue overseas, rose 1.1 percent from the closing share price in Tokyo. Those of Nomura Holdings Inc. (8604), Japan’s biggest brokerage by market value, gained 1.3 percent after its shares surged yesterday to the highest level since 2008. ADRs of BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP), Australia’s biggest oil producer, fell 0.7 percent after crude slid for a third day.

Futures on Japan’s Nikkei 225 Stock Average (NKY) expiring in June closed at 14,870 in Chicago yesterday compared with 14,820 in Osaka, Japan. They were bid in the pre-market at 14,850 in Osaka at 8:05 a.m. local time. The Nikkei has been the top-performing major equity gauge since mid-November, surging more than 70 percent amid unprecedented monetary easing from the Bank of Japan. Futures on Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 Index added 0.3 percent today. New Zealand’s NZX 50 Index was little changed.

The U.S. retail sales report “indicates that perhaps sequester spending cuts haven’t had a bigger impact on the underlying economy than expected and that’s a good thing,” said Stephen Halmarick, Sydney-based head of investment markets research at Colonial First State Global Asset Management, which oversees about $150 billion. “BOJ quantitative easing is still going to have a big impact on Japanese markets, driving equities higher and potentially driving bond yields higher.”

RWI/ISL Container Throughput Index increased in May

Essen, 06/25/2013
The seasonally adjusted RWI/ISL Container Throughput Index increased to 115.7 in May after a corrected 115.1 in April. However, the increase was not strong enough to even out the previous month’s decrease. All in all, the index indicates that the trend underlying world trade remains weak.

The April value of the index was corrected upwards by 0.4 point since last month. This was first and foremost a result of the recalibration of seasonal factors. The unadjusted index was increased by a mere 0.1 per cent, a minor revision compared with the to-date average. Just like last month, the current flash forecast for May is based on a sample of 41 ports handling roughly 75% of the traffic represented in the Index.

The Index is based on data of 73 world container ports covering approximately 60% of worldwide container handling. The ports are continuously monitored by the ISL as part of their market analysis. Because large parts of international merchandise trade are transported by ship, the development of port handling is a good indicator for world trade. As many ports release information about their activities only two weeks after the end of the respective month, the RWI/ISL Container Throughput Index is a reliable early indicator for the development of international merchandise trade and hence for the activity of the global economy.

Source: internationaltradenews.com