(CBC News – The Canadian Press/AP)
Health officials in the U.S. and Canada are debating setting standards for food allergy warnings, amid increasing concern that consumers are so confused they’re starting to ignore the warnings.
It’s one of the biggest frustrations of life with food allergies: That hodgepodge of warnings that a food might accidentally contain the wrong ingredient.
The warnings are voluntary – meaning there’s no way to know if foods that don’t bear them really should. And they’re vague: Is “may contain traces of peanuts” more reliable than “made in the same factory as peanuts?”
“Really, the safest thing you can do is make all your food at home from scratch, period,” says Margaret Sova McCabe of Sanbornton, N.H., whose son Tommie, almost eight years old, is allergic to peanuts, dairy, wheat and five other ingredients.
But she doesn’t find that practical – and repeatedly has spotted longtime favourite “safe” foods suddenly bearing new warnings that accidental contamination is possible after all.
“Sometimes we buy the product anyway, and sometimes we don’t,” says McCabe, who is a law professor and questions how often the warnings signal liability protection rather than true risk. “What does this really mean? Can I count on it, as a consumer, to really have any meaning?” she asks.
The Food and Drug Administration will ask those same questions at a public hearing on September 16, a first step toward developing what it calls “a long-term strategy” to clear the confusion. Read more.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Privacy Group: US Border-Crossing Database Raises Concerns
(Grant Gross — IDG News Service/Networkworld)
A plan by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect personal information on every traveler coming into the country and keep that information in a database for 15 years could have huge privacy implications for U.S. residents, one privacy group said.
The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), in comments filed Monday, said CBP's plan raises serious privacy concerns. CBP is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The CBP proposal, published as a federal notice in late July, represents a “vast scope of data collection,” because data wasn't formerly kept for U.S. citizens crossing into the country by land, the CDT said.
In addition, the 15-year retention period for the data is “excessive,” wrote Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel at CDT. “It cannot be justified as necessary for determining whether the record subject is admissible or is dangerous or is the subject of an outstanding criminal warrant,” he wrote in the CDT filing.
The CBP plan also allows for the agency to share the information with other federal, state, local, tribal or foreign government agencies for a wide variety of reasons, Nojeim wrote. The CBP proposal allows information to be shared with government agencies responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing or implementing a “statute, rule, regulation, order or license” when CBP believes that information would help the enforcement of civil or criminal laws or regulations.
In the past, CBP could only share information when it became aware of a violation or potential violation of laws or regulations, Nojeim noted. Read more.
A plan by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect personal information on every traveler coming into the country and keep that information in a database for 15 years could have huge privacy implications for U.S. residents, one privacy group said.
The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), in comments filed Monday, said CBP's plan raises serious privacy concerns. CBP is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The CBP proposal, published as a federal notice in late July, represents a “vast scope of data collection,” because data wasn't formerly kept for U.S. citizens crossing into the country by land, the CDT said.
In addition, the 15-year retention period for the data is “excessive,” wrote Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel at CDT. “It cannot be justified as necessary for determining whether the record subject is admissible or is dangerous or is the subject of an outstanding criminal warrant,” he wrote in the CDT filing.
The CBP plan also allows for the agency to share the information with other federal, state, local, tribal or foreign government agencies for a wide variety of reasons, Nojeim wrote. The CBP proposal allows information to be shared with government agencies responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing or implementing a “statute, rule, regulation, order or license” when CBP believes that information would help the enforcement of civil or criminal laws or regulations.
In the past, CBP could only share information when it became aware of a violation or potential violation of laws or regulations, Nojeim noted. Read more.
Inventory’s New Dimensions
(Traffic World – William Hoffman)
Shippers and their service providers relied for years on low-cost transportation to help keep inventories lean. Now that higher energy prices have made pure shipping costs an item that can’t be taken for granted, more logistics planners are turning to advanced technology to manage inventories by matching the sophistication of supply chain strategies to the basics of day-to-day execution.
For shippers, the move to better inventory management tools has been the result of a shift over the last five years in the balance of costs throughout the supply chain to the point where, from a financial standpoint, it’s become more important than ever to keep inventory at a minimum. Industry studies such as the Council of Supply Chain Management Professional’s “State of Logistics” report show inventory carrying costs making a steady climb in recent years.
Inventory carrying rates last peaked in 1989, at 28.1%, hitting a low of 20.1% in 2003, before accelerating to 24.1% in 2007. Inventory as a percentage of GDP was 5.4% in 1985, the first year CSCMP started keeping track, hit its low of 2.8% in 2003, and rebounded to 3.5% in 2007.
“Inventory optimization is again a key issue,” said Rosalyn Wilson, the independent researcher and author of the CSCMP report. A bellwether of the new regime - the absolute volume of wholesale inventories exceeded that of retail inventories for the first time in December 2007, while inventory turnover rates that year began to fall.
“It seems like the more we evolve this (supply chain) industry, the more problems come back to the same key areas,” Wilson said in presenting her report in June. “Inventory optimization was paramount in the 1980s and 1990s, and we conquered it. Now it is at the forefront again, but the issues are much more complex and difficult to solve.”
The causes of the reversal in inventory management fortunes are not hard to find.
Fuel costs have more than tripled since the 1990s. Price and wage inflation in offshore production markets, especially but not exclusively in China, have eroded the competitive advantage shippers used to get by sourcing outside North America. A weak dollar and faltering U.S. economy mean unsold freight has accumulated across lengthy and increasingly brittle supply chains.
Obviously there is no alternative to reasserting control over supply chains to bring inventory costs back down, or at least to slow their advance. Yet technology vendors said the next steps in inventory management – already undertaken by savvy shippers and a small but growing cadre of logistics providers – will require participants to collaborate in an increasingly uncertain and even hostile macroeconomic environment. Read the complete article.
Shippers and their service providers relied for years on low-cost transportation to help keep inventories lean. Now that higher energy prices have made pure shipping costs an item that can’t be taken for granted, more logistics planners are turning to advanced technology to manage inventories by matching the sophistication of supply chain strategies to the basics of day-to-day execution.
For shippers, the move to better inventory management tools has been the result of a shift over the last five years in the balance of costs throughout the supply chain to the point where, from a financial standpoint, it’s become more important than ever to keep inventory at a minimum. Industry studies such as the Council of Supply Chain Management Professional’s “State of Logistics” report show inventory carrying costs making a steady climb in recent years.
Inventory carrying rates last peaked in 1989, at 28.1%, hitting a low of 20.1% in 2003, before accelerating to 24.1% in 2007. Inventory as a percentage of GDP was 5.4% in 1985, the first year CSCMP started keeping track, hit its low of 2.8% in 2003, and rebounded to 3.5% in 2007.
“Inventory optimization is again a key issue,” said Rosalyn Wilson, the independent researcher and author of the CSCMP report. A bellwether of the new regime - the absolute volume of wholesale inventories exceeded that of retail inventories for the first time in December 2007, while inventory turnover rates that year began to fall.
“It seems like the more we evolve this (supply chain) industry, the more problems come back to the same key areas,” Wilson said in presenting her report in June. “Inventory optimization was paramount in the 1980s and 1990s, and we conquered it. Now it is at the forefront again, but the issues are much more complex and difficult to solve.”
The causes of the reversal in inventory management fortunes are not hard to find.
Fuel costs have more than tripled since the 1990s. Price and wage inflation in offshore production markets, especially but not exclusively in China, have eroded the competitive advantage shippers used to get by sourcing outside North America. A weak dollar and faltering U.S. economy mean unsold freight has accumulated across lengthy and increasingly brittle supply chains.
Obviously there is no alternative to reasserting control over supply chains to bring inventory costs back down, or at least to slow their advance. Yet technology vendors said the next steps in inventory management – already undertaken by savvy shippers and a small but growing cadre of logistics providers – will require participants to collaborate in an increasingly uncertain and even hostile macroeconomic environment. Read the complete article.
Canada’s Economy Doing Better Than GDP Numbers Suggest, Desjardins Economist Says
(CEP News – Geoff Matthews)
Canada’s economy is faring far better than the country’s gross domestic product numbers suggest, says Desjardins senior economist Benoit P. Durocher.
It is difficult to believe that Canada’s economy is currently on the verge of a recession, Durocher wrote in a research note for publication on the Desjardins website.
“Except for certain manufacturing industries, we get the impression that economic activity across the country is in pretty good shape,” he said. “The unemployment rate is hovering close to its historic low, wages are increasing rapidly, and consumer spending and investment are doing rather well despite a recent slowdown.”
The increase in prices for raw materials exported by Canada is boosting income while lower prices for imports, due in part to the loonie’s rise, are cutting expenses, he said. “In short, Canadians get more while paying less.”
Using gross domestic income (GDI) instead of GDP as the benchmark gives a more realistic view of the strength of the Canadian economy, Durocher said.
The real GDI takes into account changes in purchasing power and production, he said, and corrects exports and imports using the same price index.
This alternative benchmark seems to be gaining in popularity, Durocher said, noting that the most recent Monetary Policy Report Update issued by the Bank of Canada signalled that real gross domestic income increased by an annualized rate of 2.4% in the first quarter, owing to a further 8.1% improvement in Canada’s terms of trade.
Canada’s real GDI has grown by 21.4% since early 2003, compared to only 13.8% growth in the real GDP, he said. “In short, the real GDI has presented a much more positive picture of the Canadian economy for some time now.”
Durocher said Canada can’t abandon GDP as an economic measure, given its widespread global acceptance. However, using real GDI “still allows us to assess the health of Canada’s economy under a different angle that can be particularly useful in a context of widely fluctuating terms of trade, as is currently the case in Canada.”
By taking into account the wealth effect associated with sudden movements in trade terms, GDI “provides a more complete overview of the health of our domestic economy,” he added.
Real GDI also paints a much more optimistic portrait of Canada’s economy and collective well-being than the most recent real GDP would lead one to believe, Durocher said. “This observation does not favour additional key interest rate cuts from the Bank of Canada, unless the economic situation deteriorates further.”
Canada’s economy is faring far better than the country’s gross domestic product numbers suggest, says Desjardins senior economist Benoit P. Durocher.
It is difficult to believe that Canada’s economy is currently on the verge of a recession, Durocher wrote in a research note for publication on the Desjardins website.
“Except for certain manufacturing industries, we get the impression that economic activity across the country is in pretty good shape,” he said. “The unemployment rate is hovering close to its historic low, wages are increasing rapidly, and consumer spending and investment are doing rather well despite a recent slowdown.”
The increase in prices for raw materials exported by Canada is boosting income while lower prices for imports, due in part to the loonie’s rise, are cutting expenses, he said. “In short, Canadians get more while paying less.”
Using gross domestic income (GDI) instead of GDP as the benchmark gives a more realistic view of the strength of the Canadian economy, Durocher said.
The real GDI takes into account changes in purchasing power and production, he said, and corrects exports and imports using the same price index.
This alternative benchmark seems to be gaining in popularity, Durocher said, noting that the most recent Monetary Policy Report Update issued by the Bank of Canada signalled that real gross domestic income increased by an annualized rate of 2.4% in the first quarter, owing to a further 8.1% improvement in Canada’s terms of trade.
Canada’s real GDI has grown by 21.4% since early 2003, compared to only 13.8% growth in the real GDP, he said. “In short, the real GDI has presented a much more positive picture of the Canadian economy for some time now.”
Durocher said Canada can’t abandon GDP as an economic measure, given its widespread global acceptance. However, using real GDI “still allows us to assess the health of Canada’s economy under a different angle that can be particularly useful in a context of widely fluctuating terms of trade, as is currently the case in Canada.”
By taking into account the wealth effect associated with sudden movements in trade terms, GDI “provides a more complete overview of the health of our domestic economy,” he added.
Real GDI also paints a much more optimistic portrait of Canada’s economy and collective well-being than the most recent real GDP would lead one to believe, Durocher said. “This observation does not favour additional key interest rate cuts from the Bank of Canada, unless the economic situation deteriorates further.”
Canada Concludes Free Trade Negotiations with Jordan
(DFAIT)
On August 25, 2008, the Government of Canada concluded negotiations on a free trade agreement (FTA) with Jordan, as well as on parallel agreements on labour cooperation and the environment. This year, the Government of Canada has also concluded FTA negotiations with Colombia and Peru.
“We welcome this opportunity to expand Canada-Jordan trade relations,” said the Honourable Michael M Fortier, Minister of International Trade. “This bilateral free trade agreement will open up significant opportunities for Canadian companies in this growing economy, as well as elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa. It demonstrates our government’s continuing commitment to expand opportunities for Canadian exporters.”
An FTA with Jordan will improve market access for both agricultural products and industrial goods, and help to ensure a level playing field for Canadian exporters vis-à-vis competitors that already have preferential access to Jordan’s markets. Trade between the two countries totalled $76 million last year.
Upon implementation, this FTA will eliminate tariffs on the vast majority of current Canadian exports to Jordan, directly benefiting Canadian exporters. For example, in 2007, electrical machinery was subject to roughly $293,000 in duties (up to 30 percent on some products) on exports of $3 million to Jordan.
The parallel labour and environment agreements will help to ensure progress on labour rights and environmental protection.
“This labour cooperation agreement between Canada and Jordan will ensure that economic progress goes hand in hand with the rights of workers,” said the Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. “The successful conclusion of these negotiations marks the beginning of a long-term cooperative relationship between our two countries.”
“The Canada-Jordan Agreement on the Environment marks another milestone in our two countries’ joint commitment to protecting our most vital of assets, our shared environment,” said the Honourable John Baird, Minister of the Environment. “We see this partnership as an opportunity to create and strengthen environmental laws and policies as a legacy for future generations.”
This FTA also demonstrates Canada’s support for a key partner in the pursuit of regional peace, security and stability. These negotiations follow on the successful conclusion of negotiations for a new bilateral air services agreement and a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with Jordan.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed Canada to exploring the possibility of an FTA with Jordan when he met King Abdullah II in July 2007.
Before signing the agreements and making them public, Canada and Jordan will undertake a detailed legal review of the FTA texts in English, French and Arabic. Following formal signature, the treaties will be tabled in the House of Commons for a period of 21 sitting days for Members of Parliament to review and debate. Following the 21-day period, the Canadian government will introduce draft legislation to implement the agreements.
On August 25, 2008, the Government of Canada concluded negotiations on a free trade agreement (FTA) with Jordan, as well as on parallel agreements on labour cooperation and the environment. This year, the Government of Canada has also concluded FTA negotiations with Colombia and Peru.
“We welcome this opportunity to expand Canada-Jordan trade relations,” said the Honourable Michael M Fortier, Minister of International Trade. “This bilateral free trade agreement will open up significant opportunities for Canadian companies in this growing economy, as well as elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa. It demonstrates our government’s continuing commitment to expand opportunities for Canadian exporters.”
An FTA with Jordan will improve market access for both agricultural products and industrial goods, and help to ensure a level playing field for Canadian exporters vis-à-vis competitors that already have preferential access to Jordan’s markets. Trade between the two countries totalled $76 million last year.
Upon implementation, this FTA will eliminate tariffs on the vast majority of current Canadian exports to Jordan, directly benefiting Canadian exporters. For example, in 2007, electrical machinery was subject to roughly $293,000 in duties (up to 30 percent on some products) on exports of $3 million to Jordan.
The parallel labour and environment agreements will help to ensure progress on labour rights and environmental protection.
“This labour cooperation agreement between Canada and Jordan will ensure that economic progress goes hand in hand with the rights of workers,” said the Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. “The successful conclusion of these negotiations marks the beginning of a long-term cooperative relationship between our two countries.”
“The Canada-Jordan Agreement on the Environment marks another milestone in our two countries’ joint commitment to protecting our most vital of assets, our shared environment,” said the Honourable John Baird, Minister of the Environment. “We see this partnership as an opportunity to create and strengthen environmental laws and policies as a legacy for future generations.”
This FTA also demonstrates Canada’s support for a key partner in the pursuit of regional peace, security and stability. These negotiations follow on the successful conclusion of negotiations for a new bilateral air services agreement and a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with Jordan.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed Canada to exploring the possibility of an FTA with Jordan when he met King Abdullah II in July 2007.
Before signing the agreements and making them public, Canada and Jordan will undertake a detailed legal review of the FTA texts in English, French and Arabic. Following formal signature, the treaties will be tabled in the House of Commons for a period of 21 sitting days for Members of Parliament to review and debate. Following the 21-day period, the Canadian government will introduce draft legislation to implement the agreements.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Legislation May Have ‘Seller Beware’ Philosophy
(Law Times – Julius Melnitzer)
In its 2007 throne speech, the Conservative government promised to “introduce measures on food and product safety to ensure that families have confidence in the quality and safety of what they buy.”
With the introduction in May of bill C-51, which amends the Food and Drugs Act, and bill C-52, the proposed Consumer Product Safety Act, the government was well on its way to fulfilling that promise – in spades. The legislation, if enacted, will substantially change the regulatory regime for food, therapeutic products (including drugs, natural health products, and medical devices), cosmetics, and other consumer products.
The legislation has a very wide reach, with implications for pharmaceutical, medical-device and other health-product companies, food manufacturers, and anyone that manufactures, imports, advertises, or sells consumer products.
“The breadth of the legislation really does impact on everyone by adding an enormous level of infrastructure throughout the supply chain,” says Martha Healey of Ogilvy Renault LLP’s Ottawa office. “But it also goes so far as to affect individuals to the extent they give away or sell products at garage sales.”
Which means the legislation may be impacting on a host of organizations that don’t realize they’re affected until it’s too late.
“Under the present wording, even a product that is only occasionally used for non-commercial purposes could be covered,” says Elizabeth McNaughton of Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP’s Toronto office. “You could, for example, have a company that sells commercial stoves to restaurants with the occasional sale to a consumer, and that makes the stove a consumer product.”
Doubtless, the fact that product recalls and public notices of voluntary withdrawal are at a record high in Canada has made product safety and quality a leading issue for consumers and retailers.
Yet there are lingering questions about the scope of the legislation, namely whether all these effects were intended or whether the proposed laws are just another instance of legislative overkill.
“Everyone’s for child safety,” Healey says, “But it’s odd that someone could be held liable if they give their neighbour a used baby stroller that turns out to be defective and an injury occurs.”
Indeed, bill C-52 creates a general prohibition on manufacturing, importing, selling, or advertising any “consumer product” that poses a danger to human health or safety. “Consumer product” is very broadly defined as “a product, including its components, parts or accessories, that can reasonably be expected to be obtained by an individual to be used for non-commercial purposes, including for domestic, recreational and sports purposes.” Read the complete article.
In its 2007 throne speech, the Conservative government promised to “introduce measures on food and product safety to ensure that families have confidence in the quality and safety of what they buy.”
With the introduction in May of bill C-51, which amends the Food and Drugs Act, and bill C-52, the proposed Consumer Product Safety Act, the government was well on its way to fulfilling that promise – in spades. The legislation, if enacted, will substantially change the regulatory regime for food, therapeutic products (including drugs, natural health products, and medical devices), cosmetics, and other consumer products.
The legislation has a very wide reach, with implications for pharmaceutical, medical-device and other health-product companies, food manufacturers, and anyone that manufactures, imports, advertises, or sells consumer products.
“The breadth of the legislation really does impact on everyone by adding an enormous level of infrastructure throughout the supply chain,” says Martha Healey of Ogilvy Renault LLP’s Ottawa office. “But it also goes so far as to affect individuals to the extent they give away or sell products at garage sales.”
Which means the legislation may be impacting on a host of organizations that don’t realize they’re affected until it’s too late.
“Under the present wording, even a product that is only occasionally used for non-commercial purposes could be covered,” says Elizabeth McNaughton of Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP’s Toronto office. “You could, for example, have a company that sells commercial stoves to restaurants with the occasional sale to a consumer, and that makes the stove a consumer product.”
Doubtless, the fact that product recalls and public notices of voluntary withdrawal are at a record high in Canada has made product safety and quality a leading issue for consumers and retailers.
Yet there are lingering questions about the scope of the legislation, namely whether all these effects were intended or whether the proposed laws are just another instance of legislative overkill.
“Everyone’s for child safety,” Healey says, “But it’s odd that someone could be held liable if they give their neighbour a used baby stroller that turns out to be defective and an injury occurs.”
Indeed, bill C-52 creates a general prohibition on manufacturing, importing, selling, or advertising any “consumer product” that poses a danger to human health or safety. “Consumer product” is very broadly defined as “a product, including its components, parts or accessories, that can reasonably be expected to be obtained by an individual to be used for non-commercial purposes, including for domestic, recreational and sports purposes.” Read the complete article.
Scrapping Food-Labelling Approval Is Dangerous, Says Food Industry
(Canwest News Service – Sarah Schmidt)
Industry leaders call the move dangerous, but the Conservative government is trying to sell a controversial decision to scrap a food-labelling approvals system as a way to help companies “take the lead in fulfilling their responsibility for consumer protection,” according to internal talking points obtained by Canwest News Service.
The decision to eliminate the Canadian Food Inspection Agency program requiring companies to get all labels approved for meat and processed fruit and vegetable products before they get to market was made quietly last November. Treasury Board also supported changes to the way meat is inspected as part of a strategic review of the agency.
Although no official announcement about eliminating the program was made, the agency in June prepared talking points “for internal distribution only.”
Robert de Valk, a food-regulation consultant specializing in labelling, says the reasoning doesn’t hold up. After reviewing details of the plan supported by Treasury Board, he said the decision to terminate the pre-market label approval for domestic and imported products is the “most dangerous part” because it undermines consumer confidence.
The former member of a food policy group advising the agriculture minister said “we are taking something that works and creating confusion in the consumer’s mind. When you create confusion in the consumer’s mind, their confidence drops, and that’s dangerous.”
De Valk, Canadian representative with the North American Meat Processors Association, joins a growing list of industry leaders opposing the move, even as the government tries to sell it as a business-friendly move to “reduce the regulatory burden by eliminating the requirements for mandatory label registration,” according to the taking points.
The Food Processors of Canada says the decision to cut the program is like “playing Russian roulette with the Canadian public.” President Christopher Kyte said the label review unit is composed of about eight people who play a vital role in food safety.
“They prevent mislabelling and unsafe products from ending up on store shelves. They catch things like illegal chemicals and misleading health claims. What we want to do is prevent these products from reaching the marketplace. To chase down these products in grocery stores doesn’t seem like a good use of our inspectors.”
In the talking points, the agency says ending the label registration program, which is expected to save $87,000 annually, is “in line” with other efforts to “refocus the available resources to ensure a greater level of compliance at distribution or retail level for the investments made.”
De Valk says this is a dubious argument. “It doesn’t make sense to do away with pre-market review to save $87,000,” he said, arguing it’s wiser to employ a handful of people to ensure labels are accurate instead of asking hundreds of frontline inspectors to review labels on store shelves. Read the complete article.
Industry leaders call the move dangerous, but the Conservative government is trying to sell a controversial decision to scrap a food-labelling approvals system as a way to help companies “take the lead in fulfilling their responsibility for consumer protection,” according to internal talking points obtained by Canwest News Service.
The decision to eliminate the Canadian Food Inspection Agency program requiring companies to get all labels approved for meat and processed fruit and vegetable products before they get to market was made quietly last November. Treasury Board also supported changes to the way meat is inspected as part of a strategic review of the agency.
Although no official announcement about eliminating the program was made, the agency in June prepared talking points “for internal distribution only.”
Robert de Valk, a food-regulation consultant specializing in labelling, says the reasoning doesn’t hold up. After reviewing details of the plan supported by Treasury Board, he said the decision to terminate the pre-market label approval for domestic and imported products is the “most dangerous part” because it undermines consumer confidence.
The former member of a food policy group advising the agriculture minister said “we are taking something that works and creating confusion in the consumer’s mind. When you create confusion in the consumer’s mind, their confidence drops, and that’s dangerous.”
De Valk, Canadian representative with the North American Meat Processors Association, joins a growing list of industry leaders opposing the move, even as the government tries to sell it as a business-friendly move to “reduce the regulatory burden by eliminating the requirements for mandatory label registration,” according to the taking points.
The Food Processors of Canada says the decision to cut the program is like “playing Russian roulette with the Canadian public.” President Christopher Kyte said the label review unit is composed of about eight people who play a vital role in food safety.
“They prevent mislabelling and unsafe products from ending up on store shelves. They catch things like illegal chemicals and misleading health claims. What we want to do is prevent these products from reaching the marketplace. To chase down these products in grocery stores doesn’t seem like a good use of our inspectors.”
In the talking points, the agency says ending the label registration program, which is expected to save $87,000 annually, is “in line” with other efforts to “refocus the available resources to ensure a greater level of compliance at distribution or retail level for the investments made.”
De Valk says this is a dubious argument. “It doesn’t make sense to do away with pre-market review to save $87,000,” he said, arguing it’s wiser to employ a handful of people to ensure labels are accurate instead of asking hundreds of frontline inspectors to review labels on store shelves. Read the complete article.
Turnabout on the Atlantic: As Volumes Soar, Exporters Pay More
(Shipping Digest – Peter T. Leach)
Freight rates on imports fall as volumes drop
The dramatic decline of the U.S. dollar against the currencies of its major trading partners in Europe over the last year continues to drive the reversal of fortune on the trans-Atlantic trade lanes, as U.S. products become more competitive in Europe, while European products grow more expensive in the U.S.
Eastbound ships are stacked to capacity with containers filled with U.S. goods bound for Europe, while westbound ships are only running a little more than 80% full. But the dollar’s decline appears to be leveling off, as major European economies stutter and the euro and the pound begin to lose steam. That could stem the decline in U.S. imports in the next year and slow U.S. export growth, but forecasters’ crystal balls are still a bit murky on this point.
The space shortage has eased a bit this month because much of Europe is on vacation. “So there’s not a lot of cargo moving in mid-August,” said Ron Bailey, manger of Brewster Lines, a St. Louis-based non-vessel-operating common carrier. In addition, the dollar has been getting stronger – on August 13, the exchange rate was $1.49 to the euro, compared to $1.59 at its weakest point.
“That’s starting to take a hit. So as a result, there’s more space available, more equipment, less demand,” Bailey said. That translates into shorter waiting times, but shippers may have to wait several weeks for a booking, depending on the origin and destination ports.
Beset by declining volumes and freight rates on the westbound leg of the trade in the first few months of the year, carriers have largely completed the reductions in vessel capacity they thought necessary to stabilize rates. They expect no further cuts. But even in the face of tight capacity on the eastbound, or backhaul leg, and expectations of some improvement in westbound volumes by the fourth quarter, carriers don’t plan to add capacity. Carriers plan further rate increases in the eastbound trade where demand is strong and supply is limited. Read the complete article.
Freight rates on imports fall as volumes drop
The dramatic decline of the U.S. dollar against the currencies of its major trading partners in Europe over the last year continues to drive the reversal of fortune on the trans-Atlantic trade lanes, as U.S. products become more competitive in Europe, while European products grow more expensive in the U.S.
Eastbound ships are stacked to capacity with containers filled with U.S. goods bound for Europe, while westbound ships are only running a little more than 80% full. But the dollar’s decline appears to be leveling off, as major European economies stutter and the euro and the pound begin to lose steam. That could stem the decline in U.S. imports in the next year and slow U.S. export growth, but forecasters’ crystal balls are still a bit murky on this point.
The space shortage has eased a bit this month because much of Europe is on vacation. “So there’s not a lot of cargo moving in mid-August,” said Ron Bailey, manger of Brewster Lines, a St. Louis-based non-vessel-operating common carrier. In addition, the dollar has been getting stronger – on August 13, the exchange rate was $1.49 to the euro, compared to $1.59 at its weakest point.
“That’s starting to take a hit. So as a result, there’s more space available, more equipment, less demand,” Bailey said. That translates into shorter waiting times, but shippers may have to wait several weeks for a booking, depending on the origin and destination ports.
Beset by declining volumes and freight rates on the westbound leg of the trade in the first few months of the year, carriers have largely completed the reductions in vessel capacity they thought necessary to stabilize rates. They expect no further cuts. But even in the face of tight capacity on the eastbound, or backhaul leg, and expectations of some improvement in westbound volumes by the fourth quarter, carriers don’t plan to add capacity. Carriers plan further rate increases in the eastbound trade where demand is strong and supply is limited. Read the complete article.
Doha Post-Mortem: The Outlook for Trade After the Collapse of the WTO Talks
(World Trade Interactive)
Since the most recent collapse of the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round negotiations in late July, there has been much speculation about how the failure to secure a new trade liberalization agreement will affect the future of global commerce. Some say the talks effectively died years ago and that there are simply too many fundamental differences to overcome to achieve any type of meaningful agreement. The fallout, they say, could be a rise in anti-globalization sentiment that translates into not only greater economic protectionism but also a decline in international cooperation in general. Others counter that the talks merely faltered in Geneva over a technical issue, that a breakthrough agreement is in fact closer than ever, and that much like the Uruguay Round before it the Doha Round will pick up again in a year or two and come to a successful conclusion. The real news, they say, is how the rise of the advanced developing countries will affect trade policymaking in the years ahead.
Despite the hand-wringing over the outcome of the July 21-29 ministerial meeting, many participants said negotiators were close to a breakthrough on agriculture and non-agricultural market access that could have paved the way for a final agreement covering issues such as services, trade remedies and intellectual property rights as well. “We really made tremendous progress” during the meeting, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said as the ministerial ended. “We probably moved the ball further forward in the last 10 days than we have in the last eight years.” Virtually all involved have expressed an interest in preserving that progress somehow in hopes that formal negotiations will resume sooner rather than later. Click here for the complete article.
Since the most recent collapse of the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round negotiations in late July, there has been much speculation about how the failure to secure a new trade liberalization agreement will affect the future of global commerce. Some say the talks effectively died years ago and that there are simply too many fundamental differences to overcome to achieve any type of meaningful agreement. The fallout, they say, could be a rise in anti-globalization sentiment that translates into not only greater economic protectionism but also a decline in international cooperation in general. Others counter that the talks merely faltered in Geneva over a technical issue, that a breakthrough agreement is in fact closer than ever, and that much like the Uruguay Round before it the Doha Round will pick up again in a year or two and come to a successful conclusion. The real news, they say, is how the rise of the advanced developing countries will affect trade policymaking in the years ahead.
Despite the hand-wringing over the outcome of the July 21-29 ministerial meeting, many participants said negotiators were close to a breakthrough on agriculture and non-agricultural market access that could have paved the way for a final agreement covering issues such as services, trade remedies and intellectual property rights as well. “We really made tremendous progress” during the meeting, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said as the ministerial ended. “We probably moved the ball further forward in the last 10 days than we have in the last eight years.” Virtually all involved have expressed an interest in preserving that progress somehow in hopes that formal negotiations will resume sooner rather than later. Click here for the complete article.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Government Takes Further Action on Substances as Part of World-Leading Chemicals Management Plan
(Health Canada)
The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health, and the Honourable John Baird, Minister of the Environment, today [Saturday] released preliminary findings for 19 chemical substances identified as high priorities for action under Batch 3 of the Chemicals Management Plan.
Out of the 19 substances assessed, four are proposed “toxic” to human health. In addition, the Government is also proposing to create a provision for four other substances so that any proposed new use of these substances (which are no longer used or are used in extremely low quantities in Canada) would be subject to notification of the federal government. With this provision the government would be able to set conditions or prohibit the use of these substances if their use would increase exposure to Canadians or environmental organisms.
Following the extensive assessment, the 11 remaining substances are proposed “not toxic.”
The notices containing summaries of draft screening assessment reports for all Batch 3 substances will be published in Canada Gazette, Part I on August 23.
Public summaries, which contain information about how all Batch 3 substances are used in Canada are available on the new Chemicals At A Glance Web page. draft screening assessments as well as risk management scope documents for Batch 3 substances proposed “toxic” can be found on the Chemicals Management Plan website. Interested parties can submit comments on these documents until October 23, 2008. Final screening assessments for Batch 3 substances will be published on or before February 21, 2009.
The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health, and the Honourable John Baird, Minister of the Environment, today [Saturday] released preliminary findings for 19 chemical substances identified as high priorities for action under Batch 3 of the Chemicals Management Plan.
Out of the 19 substances assessed, four are proposed “toxic” to human health. In addition, the Government is also proposing to create a provision for four other substances so that any proposed new use of these substances (which are no longer used or are used in extremely low quantities in Canada) would be subject to notification of the federal government. With this provision the government would be able to set conditions or prohibit the use of these substances if their use would increase exposure to Canadians or environmental organisms.
Following the extensive assessment, the 11 remaining substances are proposed “not toxic.”
The notices containing summaries of draft screening assessment reports for all Batch 3 substances will be published in Canada Gazette, Part I on August 23.
Public summaries, which contain information about how all Batch 3 substances are used in Canada are available on the new Chemicals At A Glance Web page. draft screening assessments as well as risk management scope documents for Batch 3 substances proposed “toxic” can be found on the Chemicals Management Plan website. Interested parties can submit comments on these documents until October 23, 2008. Final screening assessments for Batch 3 substances will be published on or before February 21, 2009.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Restocking the Loading Dock
(Traffic World – John Gallagher)
Truckload carriers forced to reassess their business as they work through one of the longest freight downturns in decades are finding renewed appreciation for the non-asset side of the trucking industry.
A stronger focus on dedicated fleet operations, more reliance on intermodal rail, and freight brokering are keeping big and small fleets from skidding too far off the road as fuel costs continue to take a large bite out of profits.
“We’re seeing some of the freight indicators going up slightly, and at the same time there’s the impact of carriers going out of business” on capacity, said Duff Swain, president of Trincon Group, an industry consulting firm.
“In dry freight, we’re seeing dedicated continue to grow. It’s very strong right now, because shippers are moving into more stable relationships with their carriers. They realize that when the economy comes back there’s going to be less capacity in the marketplace, as well as a shortage of drivers. If the economy improves by the fourth quarter, there’s going to be an upswing in supply and demand as we move from a buyer’s to a seller’s market.” Read the complete article.
Truckload carriers forced to reassess their business as they work through one of the longest freight downturns in decades are finding renewed appreciation for the non-asset side of the trucking industry.
A stronger focus on dedicated fleet operations, more reliance on intermodal rail, and freight brokering are keeping big and small fleets from skidding too far off the road as fuel costs continue to take a large bite out of profits.
“We’re seeing some of the freight indicators going up slightly, and at the same time there’s the impact of carriers going out of business” on capacity, said Duff Swain, president of Trincon Group, an industry consulting firm.
“In dry freight, we’re seeing dedicated continue to grow. It’s very strong right now, because shippers are moving into more stable relationships with their carriers. They realize that when the economy comes back there’s going to be less capacity in the marketplace, as well as a shortage of drivers. If the economy improves by the fourth quarter, there’s going to be an upswing in supply and demand as we move from a buyer’s to a seller’s market.” Read the complete article.
Revised Memorandum: D15-2-35
(CBSA)
Memorandum D15-2-35: Certain waterproof footwear and bottoms of plastic or rubber originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of ChinaApplication of anti-dumping duty
1. This memorandum refers to the application of anti-dumping duty to importations of certain waterproof footwear and bottoms of plastic or rubber originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China.
2. The memorandum is divided into 12 sections under “Guidelines and General Information.”
3. A description of the goods is provided.
4. The milestone dates of the investigation are provided, along with the applicable classification numbers.
5. Information regarding the normal value of subject goods and anti-dumping duties is provided.
6. This memorandum replaces and supersedes Memorandum D15-2-35, dated February 20, 2007.
Full Document available here.
Memorandum D15-2-35: Certain waterproof footwear and bottoms of plastic or rubber originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of ChinaApplication of anti-dumping duty
1. This memorandum refers to the application of anti-dumping duty to importations of certain waterproof footwear and bottoms of plastic or rubber originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China.
2. The memorandum is divided into 12 sections under “Guidelines and General Information.”
3. A description of the goods is provided.
4. The milestone dates of the investigation are provided, along with the applicable classification numbers.
5. Information regarding the normal value of subject goods and anti-dumping duties is provided.
6. This memorandum replaces and supersedes Memorandum D15-2-35, dated February 20, 2007.
Full Document available here.
First Sale Declaration Requirement
(CBP)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s trade office on Thursday advised the trade community of new reporting requirements to ensure that importers comply with the new declaration requirements passed in the Farm Bill related to transaction value of imported merchandise.
Effective August 20, importers are required to provide CBP with an “F” indicator next to the declared value at the line level on CBP Form 7501, or the electronic equivalent, when the declared transaction value of the imported merchandise is determined on the basis of the price paid by the buyer in a sale occurring earlier than the last sale prior to the introduction of the merchandise into the United States. This element must be submitted for each line on the entry summary, CBP form 7501. Under the Farm Bill, the declaration requirement is effective for a one year period.
Due to the complexity of the programming changes required, CBP is delaying the reporting of the First Sale Declaration Requirement for 30 days to allow the Trade time for software programming changes. However, entries subject to the First Sale Declaration Requirement that were not reported between August 20 and September 19, will require amendment. CBP will provide further guidance describing the amendments shortly. Additional information is available here.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s trade office on Thursday advised the trade community of new reporting requirements to ensure that importers comply with the new declaration requirements passed in the Farm Bill related to transaction value of imported merchandise.
Effective August 20, importers are required to provide CBP with an “F” indicator next to the declared value at the line level on CBP Form 7501, or the electronic equivalent, when the declared transaction value of the imported merchandise is determined on the basis of the price paid by the buyer in a sale occurring earlier than the last sale prior to the introduction of the merchandise into the United States. This element must be submitted for each line on the entry summary, CBP form 7501. Under the Farm Bill, the declaration requirement is effective for a one year period.
Due to the complexity of the programming changes required, CBP is delaying the reporting of the First Sale Declaration Requirement for 30 days to allow the Trade time for software programming changes. However, entries subject to the First Sale Declaration Requirement that were not reported between August 20 and September 19, will require amendment. CBP will provide further guidance describing the amendments shortly. Additional information is available here.
Japan to Mandate Carbon Labelling
(The Age, Melbourne)
Japan is to enforce carbon footprint labelling on food packaging and other products in an ambitious scheme to persuade companies and consumers to do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The labels will appear on food, drink, detergents and electrical appliances from next year, providing detailed breakdowns of each product’s carbon footprint under a calculation and labelling system being formulated by the Trade Ministry.The ministry said the labels would show emissions produced by the manufacture, distribution and disposal of each product.
To promote the scheme, the ministry released details of the carbon footprint of a packet of chips. One bag produces 75 grams of carbon dioxide: 44% from growing potatoes, 30% in production, 15% from the packaging, 9% during delivery and 2% from disposal.
Last month, the Government vowed to reduce total carbon emissions by up to 80% by 2050.
Japan is to enforce carbon footprint labelling on food packaging and other products in an ambitious scheme to persuade companies and consumers to do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The labels will appear on food, drink, detergents and electrical appliances from next year, providing detailed breakdowns of each product’s carbon footprint under a calculation and labelling system being formulated by the Trade Ministry.The ministry said the labels would show emissions produced by the manufacture, distribution and disposal of each product.
To promote the scheme, the ministry released details of the carbon footprint of a packet of chips. One bag produces 75 grams of carbon dioxide: 44% from growing potatoes, 30% in production, 15% from the packaging, 9% during delivery and 2% from disposal.
Last month, the Government vowed to reduce total carbon emissions by up to 80% by 2050.
RAND: Railroads May Not Be Able to Handle Increased Freight
(American Shipper)
The volume of U.S. freight is expected to double over the next 30 years, and a new study said while railroads have improved productivity in recent decades, continued incremental improvements may be insufficient to handle freight volume increases.
The study by nonprofit research organization RAND Corp. said, “Increased use of rail freight is seen as a way to accommodate increased volumes while minimizing congestion on the highway system. However, the U.S. railroad network consists of many fewer track miles than it did several decades ago, and there is concern that it has become congested and incapable of handling additional volume.”
“Concern about railroad capacity constraints appears to be justified. However, capacity is determined by many factors, including operating practices, signaling technology, and car availability, in addition to miles of track,” RAND said. “Given the complexity of the system, there isn’t enough information available today to determine whether rail performance is now stable, declining or improving.”
The report three areas for further research:
• Improved reporting and public dissemination of railroad system and performance statistics to support transportation policy.
• Continued examination of public and private cost tradeoffs between shipping freight by truck and by rail.
• Development of a national freight strategy that balances the private interests of the shippers and the railroads with the public interest associated with the relative social costs of different modes of freight transportation.
The study, The State of U.S. Railroads: A Review of Capacity and Performance Data, is available online at the RAND website.
The volume of U.S. freight is expected to double over the next 30 years, and a new study said while railroads have improved productivity in recent decades, continued incremental improvements may be insufficient to handle freight volume increases.
The study by nonprofit research organization RAND Corp. said, “Increased use of rail freight is seen as a way to accommodate increased volumes while minimizing congestion on the highway system. However, the U.S. railroad network consists of many fewer track miles than it did several decades ago, and there is concern that it has become congested and incapable of handling additional volume.”
“Concern about railroad capacity constraints appears to be justified. However, capacity is determined by many factors, including operating practices, signaling technology, and car availability, in addition to miles of track,” RAND said. “Given the complexity of the system, there isn’t enough information available today to determine whether rail performance is now stable, declining or improving.”
The report three areas for further research:
• Improved reporting and public dissemination of railroad system and performance statistics to support transportation policy.
• Continued examination of public and private cost tradeoffs between shipping freight by truck and by rail.
• Development of a national freight strategy that balances the private interests of the shippers and the railroads with the public interest associated with the relative social costs of different modes of freight transportation.
The study, The State of U.S. Railroads: A Review of Capacity and Performance Data, is available online at the RAND website.
Customs Clearance to be Simplified in Japan
(CIFFA eBulletin – ITJ)
The Japanese ministry of Finance is currently holding discussions with the USA and the European Union. The talks aim to simplify customs clearance procedures for all participants that have been granted the internationally valid status of authorized economic operator (AEO).
Japan hopes to come to an agreement with the USA and EU by March next year. Such a pact could accelerate European exporters’ traffic with Japan by a day.
The Japanese ministry of Finance is currently holding discussions with the USA and the European Union. The talks aim to simplify customs clearance procedures for all participants that have been granted the internationally valid status of authorized economic operator (AEO).
Japan hopes to come to an agreement with the USA and EU by March next year. Such a pact could accelerate European exporters’ traffic with Japan by a day.
Weakness from Within in South Korea
(Export Development Canada – Peter G. Hall)
The story is getting all too familiar: yet another economy joining the ranks of those succumbing to the slowdown that began in the large economies. Scoping the reach of the slowdown has turned a lot of attention to bellwether trading economies in the Asia-Pacific zone. In this context, recent softening in South Korea shouldn’t be surprising – is it just a rerun of the unfolding global story?
Trade plays a huge role in the South Korean economy. Exports accounted for 61% of economy-wide output in 2007, a share that has swelled in recent years from just 24% in the mid-1990s. Imports are also a large share of activity, but South Korea’s real trade surplus has surged from a deficit position in the mid-1990s to a whopping 11% of economic output in 2007. The bulk of the surge occurred in the post-2002 period, when trade chipped in half of the economy’s total growth.
Such trade-dependence sounds like a prescription for a shake-up in today’s environment. But so far, South Korea is bucking the global trend in a big way. Real export growth has risen steadily since 2005, clocking 16% annualized growth in the April-June period. Monthly exports were up 37% in July compared with a year ago, in spite of much slower activity to the US and Eurozone markets. Surging shipments to top customer China, and also Japan, Southeast Asia and the GCC region, more than made up for the weaker destinations. In sum, export activity remains robust.
Even so, trade’s overall contribution seems to be faltering. Recent import growth has also accelerated, knocking South Korea’s nominal trade balance into deficit last December, where it remained in July. Normally an indication of potentially dangerous red-hot growth in the domestic economy, this turn of events is more about high commodity prices. As a large importer of commodities, South Korea’s import tab has taken a big bite out of the export bonanza.
Oddly, South Korea’s internal economy is where the key concern lies. Domestic demand slowed to a crawl in the second quarter as plunging consumer confidence halted spending activity abruptly. Moreover, difficulties in the housing market put the brakes on investment spending. Increased government outlays were not significant enough to offset weakness in the other categories. As such, in spite of the vigorous export picture, overall growth slowed to a 3.4% annualized pace in the second quarter, down from 5% in 2007.
The mix of growth is not comforting. It has become increasingly difficult for larger economies – particularly trade-dependent ones – to dodge the bullet of slowing global growth. While the spread of weakness has been more protracted than expected, it has been persistent. And the wave now seems to be hitting Japan, China and other key South Korean customers. With the bulk of pundits now expecting world economic problems to continue in 2009, hopes for a timely, rapid reversal of the current trend are fading. In this context, South Korean exporters will find it difficult to pass on rising input costs to customers, putting the squeeze on corporate profits.
The bottom line? The current source of South Korean weakness is surprising. With export activity soon likely to feel the effects of the softer global slowdown, and no domestic economy to fall back on, South Korea’s economy is highly vulnerable to a swift change in its fortunes.
The story is getting all too familiar: yet another economy joining the ranks of those succumbing to the slowdown that began in the large economies. Scoping the reach of the slowdown has turned a lot of attention to bellwether trading economies in the Asia-Pacific zone. In this context, recent softening in South Korea shouldn’t be surprising – is it just a rerun of the unfolding global story?
Trade plays a huge role in the South Korean economy. Exports accounted for 61% of economy-wide output in 2007, a share that has swelled in recent years from just 24% in the mid-1990s. Imports are also a large share of activity, but South Korea’s real trade surplus has surged from a deficit position in the mid-1990s to a whopping 11% of economic output in 2007. The bulk of the surge occurred in the post-2002 period, when trade chipped in half of the economy’s total growth.
Such trade-dependence sounds like a prescription for a shake-up in today’s environment. But so far, South Korea is bucking the global trend in a big way. Real export growth has risen steadily since 2005, clocking 16% annualized growth in the April-June period. Monthly exports were up 37% in July compared with a year ago, in spite of much slower activity to the US and Eurozone markets. Surging shipments to top customer China, and also Japan, Southeast Asia and the GCC region, more than made up for the weaker destinations. In sum, export activity remains robust.
Even so, trade’s overall contribution seems to be faltering. Recent import growth has also accelerated, knocking South Korea’s nominal trade balance into deficit last December, where it remained in July. Normally an indication of potentially dangerous red-hot growth in the domestic economy, this turn of events is more about high commodity prices. As a large importer of commodities, South Korea’s import tab has taken a big bite out of the export bonanza.
Oddly, South Korea’s internal economy is where the key concern lies. Domestic demand slowed to a crawl in the second quarter as plunging consumer confidence halted spending activity abruptly. Moreover, difficulties in the housing market put the brakes on investment spending. Increased government outlays were not significant enough to offset weakness in the other categories. As such, in spite of the vigorous export picture, overall growth slowed to a 3.4% annualized pace in the second quarter, down from 5% in 2007.
The mix of growth is not comforting. It has become increasingly difficult for larger economies – particularly trade-dependent ones – to dodge the bullet of slowing global growth. While the spread of weakness has been more protracted than expected, it has been persistent. And the wave now seems to be hitting Japan, China and other key South Korean customers. With the bulk of pundits now expecting world economic problems to continue in 2009, hopes for a timely, rapid reversal of the current trend are fading. In this context, South Korean exporters will find it difficult to pass on rising input costs to customers, putting the squeeze on corporate profits.
The bottom line? The current source of South Korean weakness is surprising. With export activity soon likely to feel the effects of the softer global slowdown, and no domestic economy to fall back on, South Korea’s economy is highly vulnerable to a swift change in its fortunes.
Politics Builds a Border Roadblock
(Detroit Free Press – Steve Tobocman)
Steve Tobocman of Detroit represents the 12th District in the Michigan House and is the majority floor leader.
Michigan’s economic recovery is not just one of the top issues facing our state; it’s the only issue. The Detroit-Windsor international trade route represents one of our state’s most important assets in growing our economy. With more than $160 billion in annual cross-border trade, the Michigan-Ontario connection is twice as valuable as all U.S. exports to Japan. No other land border in the United States is even half as valuable as Detroit-Windsor.
When it comes to fighting for special interests and political donors, however, U.S. Reps. Joe Knollenberg, R-Bloomfield Township, and Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Detroit, have put helping their friends and donors at the Ambassador Bridge ahead of growing the Michigan economy.
On July 13, 2007; April 21, 2008; and May 30, 2008, the Kilpatrick-Knollenberg duo weighed in with letters to U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters on the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) study without checking in with southeast Michigan’s businesses and job producers.
In short, the Kilpatrick-Knollenberg team has joined forces to ensure that the Ambassador Bridge’s monopoly on Detroit-Windsor international trade’s truck traffic is continued. Reps. Kilpatrick and Knollenberg appear committed to protecting this monopoly no matter how much it hurts job growth in Michigan.
Given the critical nature of international border trade, it is shocking that the July 2007 Kilpatrick-Knollenberg letter would demand that Secretary Peters direct the Federal Highway Administration and the Michigan Department of Transportation “to cease participation in the DRIC (study),” while the April and May 2008 joint letters would seek a six-month delay in the study.
The Michigan-Canadian border is our nation’s and continent’s most important international trade infrastructure asset. That is why every single U.S. private sector advocacy organization that has weighed in on the matter, except for the Ambassador Bridge, supports completing the DRIC study and moving forward with a plan to ensure Michigan has adequate capacity to facilitate growing international trade and to meet the homeland security needs of a post-9/11 world.
In fact, according to Sen. Michael Fortier, Canada’s Minister for International Trade, the DRIC study represents the most important infrastructure investment for economic development in Canada.
It could be the isolation of working inside the Beltway that is affecting Knollenberg and Kilpatrick. Or it could be the thousands of dollars of personal political donations they have received from executives of the privately owned Ambassador Bridge. But Knollenberg and Cheeks-Kilpatrick forgot to ask the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, Automation Alley, Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, the United Auto Workers, the Michigan Department of Transportation, the Michigan Manufacturing Association, the Automotive Alliance or, even, Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson, Michigan’s most ardent private sector business advocate, for their thoughts on the matter.
Let’s hope that Knollenberg and Kilpatrick use this current in-district work period to talk to the job makers in southeast Michigan and get the straight story on the DRIC.
Steve Tobocman of Detroit represents the 12th District in the Michigan House and is the majority floor leader.
Michigan’s economic recovery is not just one of the top issues facing our state; it’s the only issue. The Detroit-Windsor international trade route represents one of our state’s most important assets in growing our economy. With more than $160 billion in annual cross-border trade, the Michigan-Ontario connection is twice as valuable as all U.S. exports to Japan. No other land border in the United States is even half as valuable as Detroit-Windsor.
When it comes to fighting for special interests and political donors, however, U.S. Reps. Joe Knollenberg, R-Bloomfield Township, and Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Detroit, have put helping their friends and donors at the Ambassador Bridge ahead of growing the Michigan economy.
On July 13, 2007; April 21, 2008; and May 30, 2008, the Kilpatrick-Knollenberg duo weighed in with letters to U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters on the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) study without checking in with southeast Michigan’s businesses and job producers.
In short, the Kilpatrick-Knollenberg team has joined forces to ensure that the Ambassador Bridge’s monopoly on Detroit-Windsor international trade’s truck traffic is continued. Reps. Kilpatrick and Knollenberg appear committed to protecting this monopoly no matter how much it hurts job growth in Michigan.
Given the critical nature of international border trade, it is shocking that the July 2007 Kilpatrick-Knollenberg letter would demand that Secretary Peters direct the Federal Highway Administration and the Michigan Department of Transportation “to cease participation in the DRIC (study),” while the April and May 2008 joint letters would seek a six-month delay in the study.
The Michigan-Canadian border is our nation’s and continent’s most important international trade infrastructure asset. That is why every single U.S. private sector advocacy organization that has weighed in on the matter, except for the Ambassador Bridge, supports completing the DRIC study and moving forward with a plan to ensure Michigan has adequate capacity to facilitate growing international trade and to meet the homeland security needs of a post-9/11 world.
In fact, according to Sen. Michael Fortier, Canada’s Minister for International Trade, the DRIC study represents the most important infrastructure investment for economic development in Canada.
It could be the isolation of working inside the Beltway that is affecting Knollenberg and Kilpatrick. Or it could be the thousands of dollars of personal political donations they have received from executives of the privately owned Ambassador Bridge. But Knollenberg and Cheeks-Kilpatrick forgot to ask the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, Automation Alley, Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, the United Auto Workers, the Michigan Department of Transportation, the Michigan Manufacturing Association, the Automotive Alliance or, even, Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson, Michigan’s most ardent private sector business advocate, for their thoughts on the matter.
Let’s hope that Knollenberg and Kilpatrick use this current in-district work period to talk to the job makers in southeast Michigan and get the straight story on the DRIC.
‘The Longer We Put It Off,’ the Worse Things Will Get
(New Brunswick Business Journal – Matt McCann)
Key pieces of Canada’s infrastructure are crumbling, and a $200-billion investment is needed to maintain our standard of living, says a public policy researcher.
In a paper released today by the Institute for Research in Public Policy, James Brox, an economics professor at the University of Waterloo, said facilities such as roads, highways, bridges, ports, and water systems need the money – $72 billion for new facilities and $123 billion to repair and upgrade those already built – as soon as possible.
Add to that a sustained, 10% annual increase in infrastructure spending, and manufacturing unit production costs could be reduced by five per cent per year, he said, the equivalent of a five per cent increase in productivity.
The funding increase, Brox said, would help narrow the Canada-U.S. manufacturing productivity gap, and enhance the manufacturing sector’s competitive profile.
“New Brunswick’s a bit better off because the infrastructure is more recent, but in a few years it’ll be in the same position Ontario’s in,” Brox said. “The longer we put it off, the worse things are going to get,” he said, adding that the more systems wear down, the more they cost to repair.
Since the 1970s, responsibility for these infrastructure projects has gradually been shifted down to the municipal level.
But cities, Brox said, rely heavily on property taxes for money, an area that’s difficult to increase, and as such, infrastructure has gone neglected or is not even built in the first place.
“Right now, the municipalities don’t have a stable, long-term source of revenue that’s sufficient to fund the infrastructure that they’re really required to provide if we’re going to effect the productivity of the country,” he said.
In addition to lower costs and higher productivity, Brox said infrastructure investments could also translate into a 0.6% increase in jobs relative to baseline trends. David Plante, vice-president of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters for New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, said investments in infrastructure are essential to New Brunswick. It is the most export-dependent province, with 75% of its GDP relying on domestic and international exports.
“We’re in a situation where some of our existing infrastructure is deteriorating, but by the same token, we don’t have the same level of infrastructure in much of the rest of Canada and in the United States.” Plante said that every $1 spent on public infrastructure equals 17 cents in cost savings for manufacturers. Those savings translate into a 0.2% increase in GDP.
Citing figures from Statistics Canada, Plante said that all of the money spent on public infrastructure between 1961 and 2000 was responsible for 18% of all business productivity gains. “Infrastructure has to be a clear priority for the federal government,” he said.
Key pieces of Canada’s infrastructure are crumbling, and a $200-billion investment is needed to maintain our standard of living, says a public policy researcher.
In a paper released today by the Institute for Research in Public Policy, James Brox, an economics professor at the University of Waterloo, said facilities such as roads, highways, bridges, ports, and water systems need the money – $72 billion for new facilities and $123 billion to repair and upgrade those already built – as soon as possible.
Add to that a sustained, 10% annual increase in infrastructure spending, and manufacturing unit production costs could be reduced by five per cent per year, he said, the equivalent of a five per cent increase in productivity.
The funding increase, Brox said, would help narrow the Canada-U.S. manufacturing productivity gap, and enhance the manufacturing sector’s competitive profile.
“New Brunswick’s a bit better off because the infrastructure is more recent, but in a few years it’ll be in the same position Ontario’s in,” Brox said. “The longer we put it off, the worse things are going to get,” he said, adding that the more systems wear down, the more they cost to repair.
Since the 1970s, responsibility for these infrastructure projects has gradually been shifted down to the municipal level.
But cities, Brox said, rely heavily on property taxes for money, an area that’s difficult to increase, and as such, infrastructure has gone neglected or is not even built in the first place.
“Right now, the municipalities don’t have a stable, long-term source of revenue that’s sufficient to fund the infrastructure that they’re really required to provide if we’re going to effect the productivity of the country,” he said.
In addition to lower costs and higher productivity, Brox said infrastructure investments could also translate into a 0.6% increase in jobs relative to baseline trends. David Plante, vice-president of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters for New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, said investments in infrastructure are essential to New Brunswick. It is the most export-dependent province, with 75% of its GDP relying on domestic and international exports.
“We’re in a situation where some of our existing infrastructure is deteriorating, but by the same token, we don’t have the same level of infrastructure in much of the rest of Canada and in the United States.” Plante said that every $1 spent on public infrastructure equals 17 cents in cost savings for manufacturers. Those savings translate into a 0.2% increase in GDP.
Citing figures from Statistics Canada, Plante said that all of the money spent on public infrastructure between 1961 and 2000 was responsible for 18% of all business productivity gains. “Infrastructure has to be a clear priority for the federal government,” he said.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
It’s Time to Strengthen the Ties That Bind Us – EU Commissioner
(Embassy – Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Commission)
Benita Ferrero-Waldner is the member of the European Commission in charge of external relations and European neighbourhood policy.
The next EU-Canada Summit, which will be held in Montreal on October 17, will be an opportunity for the leaders of Canada and the EU, represented by the Presidency, currently France, and the European Commission and Council, to agree to move forward in a number of areas, such as trade and investment, where both sides want to strengthen our economic partnership.
In preparation, we have undertaken a joint study to set out the parameters of such an economic partnership. If we decide to launch a new economic agreement with Canada, the EU would hope for an ambitious agenda going far beyond a classic trade agreement – one that can help us both address the challenges of the new globalized economy of the 21st century.
As a first step towards strengthening our bilateral economic relations, at the end of last year we launched negotiations for an EU-Canada “Open Skies” Air Services Agreement. Our goal is to sign an agreement with Canada whereby any airline could fly from anywhere in Canada to anywhere in the European Union, and vice versa. Our experience within Europe has demonstrated that such an agreement would open up new destinations and routes to both EU and Canadian airlines, while increasing efficiency and reducing fares.
The EU is fully committed to this process and we are prepared to conclude the Open Skies Agreement as soon as possible. It is an agreement where the travelling public will see immediate and tangible results.
At the summit in Montreal, we will also compare notes on climate change, one of the big challenges of our time, which must be addressed – and with all countries on board. Despite the high costs and the sacrifices, we have made significant progress in Europe, and we have an exemplary and operational carbon-trading scheme in place.
As well, we will discuss global stability, security and our military missions, including Afghanistan, where both the EU and Canada are working closely to bring peace, stability and prosperity to the region. In addition to the military missions, under NATO, the EU – in close co-operation with Canada – is actively engaged in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, as well as in humanitarian endeavours, in order to improve the lives of the people of Afghanistan.
I would like to express our appreciation to Canada, which provides the largest contingent of police to the EU-led police mission to Afghanistan, which is training and assisting the local Afghan police forces.
Our efforts to bring peace, security and prosperity to Afghanistan come naturally, as that has been our goal in Europe since we established our common institutions and policies in Europe in the period after the Second World War.
From six countries in the early 1950s, the European Union has now grown to 27 Member States, in the process creating not just peace, security, stability and prosperity, but an integrated economic and political entity. Also, the European Union as such has gradually become a major international actor, both economically as the largest trading bloc and politically.
We act in partnership with countries such as Canada, which share our values of democracy, freedom, economic enterprise, justice and the rule of law.
Lastly, I would like to emphasize how much the European Union appreciates Canada lifting the visa requirements for our new Member States in Central and Eastern Europe. These countries suffered much during the Second World War and were then subjected to a totalitarian Communist regime behind the Iron Curtain for 40 years. Today they are free, members of the EU, and have the highest growth rates in Europe. I hope the citizens of Bulgaria and Romania too will soon also enjoy visa free travel to Canada.
In conclusion let me extend my congratulations on the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City this year. Mes sincères félicitations!
Benita Ferrero-Waldner is the member of the European Commission in charge of external relations and European neighbourhood policy.
The next EU-Canada Summit, which will be held in Montreal on October 17, will be an opportunity for the leaders of Canada and the EU, represented by the Presidency, currently France, and the European Commission and Council, to agree to move forward in a number of areas, such as trade and investment, where both sides want to strengthen our economic partnership.
In preparation, we have undertaken a joint study to set out the parameters of such an economic partnership. If we decide to launch a new economic agreement with Canada, the EU would hope for an ambitious agenda going far beyond a classic trade agreement – one that can help us both address the challenges of the new globalized economy of the 21st century.
As a first step towards strengthening our bilateral economic relations, at the end of last year we launched negotiations for an EU-Canada “Open Skies” Air Services Agreement. Our goal is to sign an agreement with Canada whereby any airline could fly from anywhere in Canada to anywhere in the European Union, and vice versa. Our experience within Europe has demonstrated that such an agreement would open up new destinations and routes to both EU and Canadian airlines, while increasing efficiency and reducing fares.
The EU is fully committed to this process and we are prepared to conclude the Open Skies Agreement as soon as possible. It is an agreement where the travelling public will see immediate and tangible results.
At the summit in Montreal, we will also compare notes on climate change, one of the big challenges of our time, which must be addressed – and with all countries on board. Despite the high costs and the sacrifices, we have made significant progress in Europe, and we have an exemplary and operational carbon-trading scheme in place.
As well, we will discuss global stability, security and our military missions, including Afghanistan, where both the EU and Canada are working closely to bring peace, stability and prosperity to the region. In addition to the military missions, under NATO, the EU – in close co-operation with Canada – is actively engaged in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, as well as in humanitarian endeavours, in order to improve the lives of the people of Afghanistan.
I would like to express our appreciation to Canada, which provides the largest contingent of police to the EU-led police mission to Afghanistan, which is training and assisting the local Afghan police forces.
Our efforts to bring peace, security and prosperity to Afghanistan come naturally, as that has been our goal in Europe since we established our common institutions and policies in Europe in the period after the Second World War.
From six countries in the early 1950s, the European Union has now grown to 27 Member States, in the process creating not just peace, security, stability and prosperity, but an integrated economic and political entity. Also, the European Union as such has gradually become a major international actor, both economically as the largest trading bloc and politically.
We act in partnership with countries such as Canada, which share our values of democracy, freedom, economic enterprise, justice and the rule of law.
Lastly, I would like to emphasize how much the European Union appreciates Canada lifting the visa requirements for our new Member States in Central and Eastern Europe. These countries suffered much during the Second World War and were then subjected to a totalitarian Communist regime behind the Iron Curtain for 40 years. Today they are free, members of the EU, and have the highest growth rates in Europe. I hope the citizens of Bulgaria and Romania too will soon also enjoy visa free travel to Canada.
In conclusion let me extend my congratulations on the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City this year. Mes sincères félicitations!
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
GAO Says 100% Scanning Threatens Global Cargo Security Efforts
(World Trade Interactive)
A new Government Accountability Office report argues that the statutory requirement for 100% scanning of U.S.-bound container cargo by 2012 could threaten efforts to fashion international supply chain security standards and may actually provide a lower level of security than the current risk management approach.
According to the report, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been at the forefront of efforts to develop and implement the World Customs Organization’s Safe Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade. The SAFE Framework in large part internationalizes the concepts first promulgated under CBP’s Container Security Initiative and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. As in CSI, the standards in the customs-to-customs pillar of the SAFE Framework state that members should use a risk-management system to target and identify potentially high-risk cargo. Member customs administrations are urged to provide for joint targeting and screening, the use of standardized sets of targeting criteria and compatible communication and information-exchange mechanisms. In addition, as with C-TPAT, the WCO customs-to-business pillar provides that customs administrations should design validation processes for their respective authorized economic operator programs that offer incentives to participating businesses.
Widespread acceptance of the core principles of the SAFE Framework and implementation of its standards could have numerous benefits, the report states.
• the focus of international customs administrations would be shifted from primarily revenue collection to include enhanced security
• cooperation between customs administrations would be strengthened, improving their capability to detect high-risk cargo
• port shopping by terrorists or smugglers looking for seaports with more lax or nonexistent security standards could be reduced
• programs for ensuring that customs administrations are free of corruption could be improved
• CSI-like customs security practices could be implemented at non-CSI foreign seaports and customs administration reform and modernization could be enhanced
• companies could avoid the burden of addressing different sets of requirements as a shipment moves through the supply chain in different countries
However, the report warns, these benefits are being threatened because of the focus on 100% scanning under the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, which runs counter to the risk management approach employed by the SAFE Framework, CSI and C-TPAT. WCO officials are concerned that 100% scanning could have an adverse impact on several of the organization’s core instruments, which include not only the SAFE Framework but also the Revised Kyoto Convention, an international customs agreement to which the U.S., the European Union and 52 others have acceded. Some countries are reluctant to implement AEO programs since they believe such programs would not be necessary with 100 percent scanning, and some companies are reluctant to join AEO programs since one of the main benefits of membership, a reduced likelihood of examination, would no longer apply if all containers are required to be scanned.
In addition, the report states, CBP, WCO and EU officials assert that 100% scanning may actually provide a lower level of security than existing programs. The risk management approach directs resources to where they are most needed, officials say, whereas 100% scanning directs too many resources to one activity and diminishes the focus on those container shipments that pose the highest risk. Customs officers currently review the scanned images of high-risk containers in a very thorough and detailed manner, one WCO official said, but reviews may not be as thorough if all containers are scanned due simply to the sheer volume of work, leading to a degradation of security. In addition, a European customs official noted, 100% scanning could have a negative impact on the flow of international commerce, which under the 9/11 Act may be grounds for granting a two-year, renewable extension to the 100% scanning requirement at individual seaports.
A new Government Accountability Office report argues that the statutory requirement for 100% scanning of U.S.-bound container cargo by 2012 could threaten efforts to fashion international supply chain security standards and may actually provide a lower level of security than the current risk management approach.
According to the report, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been at the forefront of efforts to develop and implement the World Customs Organization’s Safe Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade. The SAFE Framework in large part internationalizes the concepts first promulgated under CBP’s Container Security Initiative and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. As in CSI, the standards in the customs-to-customs pillar of the SAFE Framework state that members should use a risk-management system to target and identify potentially high-risk cargo. Member customs administrations are urged to provide for joint targeting and screening, the use of standardized sets of targeting criteria and compatible communication and information-exchange mechanisms. In addition, as with C-TPAT, the WCO customs-to-business pillar provides that customs administrations should design validation processes for their respective authorized economic operator programs that offer incentives to participating businesses.
Widespread acceptance of the core principles of the SAFE Framework and implementation of its standards could have numerous benefits, the report states.
• the focus of international customs administrations would be shifted from primarily revenue collection to include enhanced security
• cooperation between customs administrations would be strengthened, improving their capability to detect high-risk cargo
• port shopping by terrorists or smugglers looking for seaports with more lax or nonexistent security standards could be reduced
• programs for ensuring that customs administrations are free of corruption could be improved
• CSI-like customs security practices could be implemented at non-CSI foreign seaports and customs administration reform and modernization could be enhanced
• companies could avoid the burden of addressing different sets of requirements as a shipment moves through the supply chain in different countries
However, the report warns, these benefits are being threatened because of the focus on 100% scanning under the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, which runs counter to the risk management approach employed by the SAFE Framework, CSI and C-TPAT. WCO officials are concerned that 100% scanning could have an adverse impact on several of the organization’s core instruments, which include not only the SAFE Framework but also the Revised Kyoto Convention, an international customs agreement to which the U.S., the European Union and 52 others have acceded. Some countries are reluctant to implement AEO programs since they believe such programs would not be necessary with 100 percent scanning, and some companies are reluctant to join AEO programs since one of the main benefits of membership, a reduced likelihood of examination, would no longer apply if all containers are required to be scanned.
In addition, the report states, CBP, WCO and EU officials assert that 100% scanning may actually provide a lower level of security than existing programs. The risk management approach directs resources to where they are most needed, officials say, whereas 100% scanning directs too many resources to one activity and diminishes the focus on those container shipments that pose the highest risk. Customs officers currently review the scanned images of high-risk containers in a very thorough and detailed manner, one WCO official said, but reviews may not be as thorough if all containers are scanned due simply to the sheer volume of work, leading to a degradation of security. In addition, a European customs official noted, 100% scanning could have a negative impact on the flow of international commerce, which under the 9/11 Act may be grounds for granting a two-year, renewable extension to the 100% scanning requirement at individual seaports.
WTO Case Against EU Duties on High-Tech Products Advances
(World Trade Interactive)
A World Trade Organization case against the European Union’s tariffs on certain information technology products moved forward this week when the U.S., Japan and Taiwan requested that the WTO establish a dispute settlement panel to examine the matter. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative reports that the three countries took this step after consultations with the EU in June and July failed to resolve the dispute. The panel request will be taken up by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body at its next meeting Aug. 29.
The U.S. case alleges that the EU has violated its obligations under the WTO’s Information Technology Agreement by imposing new duties on cable boxes that can access the Internet, flat-panel computer monitors and certain computer printers that can also scan, fax and/or copy. The U.S. believes these products are covered under the ITA and should therefore receive duty-free treatment when imported into the EU. However, the USTR states, the EU “claims it can now charge duties on these products simply because they incorporate technologies or features that did not exist when the ITA was concluded.” This approach threatens to “impair continued technological development in the information technology industry and raise prices for millions of businesses and consumers,” the USTR adds.
A World Trade Organization case against the European Union’s tariffs on certain information technology products moved forward this week when the U.S., Japan and Taiwan requested that the WTO establish a dispute settlement panel to examine the matter. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative reports that the three countries took this step after consultations with the EU in June and July failed to resolve the dispute. The panel request will be taken up by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body at its next meeting Aug. 29.
The U.S. case alleges that the EU has violated its obligations under the WTO’s Information Technology Agreement by imposing new duties on cable boxes that can access the Internet, flat-panel computer monitors and certain computer printers that can also scan, fax and/or copy. The U.S. believes these products are covered under the ITA and should therefore receive duty-free treatment when imported into the EU. However, the USTR states, the EU “claims it can now charge duties on these products simply because they incorporate technologies or features that did not exist when the ITA was concluded.” This approach threatens to “impair continued technological development in the information technology industry and raise prices for millions of businesses and consumers,” the USTR adds.
New Study Highlights Supply Chain Risks
(Canadian Transportation & Logistics)
A new study by the Aberdeen Group research firm has revealed that 99% of companies surveyed have suffered a supply chain disruption over the past year.
Those disruptions resulted in financial losses in 58% of the cases, the study found. As a result, Aberdeen says there are major risk management gaps within the supply chain.
“Growing global operations are forcing companies to more proactively evaluate and address their supply chain risks. Companies are sourcing from and selling to more new regions, often adding new carriers, forwarders, logistics, and distribution partners to their network. At the same time, customers are continuously demanding improved service levels,” said Viktoriya Sadlovska, research analyst, Aberdeen. “These trends, coupled with increased security concerns that have imposed a new level of regulation on global shippers, are driving firms to increase their focus on supply chain risk management and adopt new processes and technologies to make their supply chains more risk-resilient.”
The most frequent types of supply chain disruptions were: supply capacity didn’t meet demand, 56%; raw material price increases/shortages, 49%; unexpected changes in customer demand, 45%; and shipment delayed/damaged/misdirected, 39%.
The study found that best-in-class companies were much more likely than average companies (or laggards), to manage and assess: logistics congestion and capacity; risk profile of suppliers; fuel prices; risk profile of countries; and non-environmental catastrophic events. To read the full report, go here.
A new study by the Aberdeen Group research firm has revealed that 99% of companies surveyed have suffered a supply chain disruption over the past year.
Those disruptions resulted in financial losses in 58% of the cases, the study found. As a result, Aberdeen says there are major risk management gaps within the supply chain.
“Growing global operations are forcing companies to more proactively evaluate and address their supply chain risks. Companies are sourcing from and selling to more new regions, often adding new carriers, forwarders, logistics, and distribution partners to their network. At the same time, customers are continuously demanding improved service levels,” said Viktoriya Sadlovska, research analyst, Aberdeen. “These trends, coupled with increased security concerns that have imposed a new level of regulation on global shippers, are driving firms to increase their focus on supply chain risk management and adopt new processes and technologies to make their supply chains more risk-resilient.”
The most frequent types of supply chain disruptions were: supply capacity didn’t meet demand, 56%; raw material price increases/shortages, 49%; unexpected changes in customer demand, 45%; and shipment delayed/damaged/misdirected, 39%.
The study found that best-in-class companies were much more likely than average companies (or laggards), to manage and assess: logistics congestion and capacity; risk profile of suppliers; fuel prices; risk profile of countries; and non-environmental catastrophic events. To read the full report, go here.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Globalization and the Costs of International Trade: 1870 to the Present
(Resource Investor – David Jacks et al.)
Analysts suggest that rising oil prices will sharply reduce international trade. This article argues to the contrary, noting that transport costs constitute a limited share of trade costs. Moreover, evidence from the first wave of globalisation suggests that higher shipping costs are unlikely to significantly dampen international commerce – only protectionism would seriously threaten trade.
Most countries trade more on international markets today than ever before – both in absolute terms and as a proportion of their national output. How can we explain this phenomenal increase in international trade over the past few decades? Will the recent rise in oil prices reverse this trend of globalisation?
History provides us with a natural comparison. Beginning in the nineteenth century, the world saw a remarkable rise in international trade that came to a grinding halt during World War I and later on in the wake of the Great Depression. This “first wave of globalisation” from about 1870 until 1913 led to a degree of international integration – measured by trade-to-output ratios – that many countries only achieved again in the mid-1990s.
Taking a comparative perspective, we juxtapose the first wave of globalisation from 1870 to 1913 and the second wave after World War II. We also study the retreat of world trade during the interwar period from 1921 to 1939. We are interested in the driving forces behind these trade booms and trade busts. Was it changes in global output or changes in trade costs that explain the evolution of international trade? Read the complete article.
Analysts suggest that rising oil prices will sharply reduce international trade. This article argues to the contrary, noting that transport costs constitute a limited share of trade costs. Moreover, evidence from the first wave of globalisation suggests that higher shipping costs are unlikely to significantly dampen international commerce – only protectionism would seriously threaten trade.
Most countries trade more on international markets today than ever before – both in absolute terms and as a proportion of their national output. How can we explain this phenomenal increase in international trade over the past few decades? Will the recent rise in oil prices reverse this trend of globalisation?
History provides us with a natural comparison. Beginning in the nineteenth century, the world saw a remarkable rise in international trade that came to a grinding halt during World War I and later on in the wake of the Great Depression. This “first wave of globalisation” from about 1870 until 1913 led to a degree of international integration – measured by trade-to-output ratios – that many countries only achieved again in the mid-1990s.
Taking a comparative perspective, we juxtapose the first wave of globalisation from 1870 to 1913 and the second wave after World War II. We also study the retreat of world trade during the interwar period from 1921 to 1939. We are interested in the driving forces behind these trade booms and trade busts. Was it changes in global output or changes in trade costs that explain the evolution of international trade? Read the complete article.
Relax Trade Barriers and Reap Rewards, Prentice Tells Americans
(The Canadian Press – Steve Rennie)
Industry Minister Jim Prentice touted Canada’s “stable” supply of oil and gas to an audience of American politicians and heads of industry Monday as he called for a relaxing of barriers that hinder cross-border trade.
Speaking at the Americas Competitiveness Forum in Atlanta, Ga., Prentice said freer trade is vital to economic prosperity in the Western Hemisphere. Otherwise, he warned, there’s a risk the Americas will be left out while others prosper. “We need to make trade logistics and border infrastructure a priority in the short term or lose opportunities to other global competitors who are better organized to facilitate trade,” he said.
Prentice echoed the findings of a Canadian government-appointed panel of experts which released a major report in June calling for, in part, the elimination of all internal barriers to trade.
The industry minister lauded the North American Free Trade Agreement as a model that can be adopted both regionally and across the hemisphere.
His remarks come as the Republican and Democrat hopefuls for the White House send mixed signals on the future of NAFTA.
Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee for the Democrats, said in March he would renegotiate NAFTA if elected U.S. president. He now says he supports free-trade agreements, albeit with stronger worker and environmental protections. Republican presidential nominee John McCain has vowed to strengthen NAFTA and has called for harmonization of Canada-U.S. energy policies.
Prentice said NAFTA has helped Canada’s energy exports to the United States total close to $100 billion each year. “On oil alone, Canada has been the largest supplier to the U.S. since 1999 – not Saudi Arabia, not Kuwait, nor any other producer from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries,’’ he said. “Canada is a stable supplier of energy to the U.S. – whether it is gas and oil in the west or integrated electricity grids in the east. And being close means lower delivery costs than most other power suppliers.”
Oil tumbled last week to its lowest price in three months after the U.S. greenback surged and OPEC forecast demand for oil will slump next year its lowest point since 2002. On Monday, crude oil for September delivery fell to $113.20 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Also attending the two-day conference in Atlanta are Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Research in Motion co-chief executive officer Jim Balsillie, and Eduardo Castro, president of Wal-Mart Stores U.S.A.
Industry Minister Jim Prentice touted Canada’s “stable” supply of oil and gas to an audience of American politicians and heads of industry Monday as he called for a relaxing of barriers that hinder cross-border trade.
Speaking at the Americas Competitiveness Forum in Atlanta, Ga., Prentice said freer trade is vital to economic prosperity in the Western Hemisphere. Otherwise, he warned, there’s a risk the Americas will be left out while others prosper. “We need to make trade logistics and border infrastructure a priority in the short term or lose opportunities to other global competitors who are better organized to facilitate trade,” he said.
Prentice echoed the findings of a Canadian government-appointed panel of experts which released a major report in June calling for, in part, the elimination of all internal barriers to trade.
The industry minister lauded the North American Free Trade Agreement as a model that can be adopted both regionally and across the hemisphere.
His remarks come as the Republican and Democrat hopefuls for the White House send mixed signals on the future of NAFTA.
Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee for the Democrats, said in March he would renegotiate NAFTA if elected U.S. president. He now says he supports free-trade agreements, albeit with stronger worker and environmental protections. Republican presidential nominee John McCain has vowed to strengthen NAFTA and has called for harmonization of Canada-U.S. energy policies.
Prentice said NAFTA has helped Canada’s energy exports to the United States total close to $100 billion each year. “On oil alone, Canada has been the largest supplier to the U.S. since 1999 – not Saudi Arabia, not Kuwait, nor any other producer from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries,’’ he said. “Canada is a stable supplier of energy to the U.S. – whether it is gas and oil in the west or integrated electricity grids in the east. And being close means lower delivery costs than most other power suppliers.”
Oil tumbled last week to its lowest price in three months after the U.S. greenback surged and OPEC forecast demand for oil will slump next year its lowest point since 2002. On Monday, crude oil for September delivery fell to $113.20 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Also attending the two-day conference in Atlanta are Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Research in Motion co-chief executive officer Jim Balsillie, and Eduardo Castro, president of Wal-Mart Stores U.S.A.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Clarification of Import Requirements for Pet Food
(Canadian Food Inspection Agency)
Recently, there has been a change in the animal health status of Brazil and Chile. Both Countries’ classification has changed from negligible risk to a controlled risk for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD). As a result, pet food, some pet chews and pet treats from these countries require an import permit.
It has come to our attention that product of Brazil in particular is being imported to Canada via the United States without the proper documentation. It is therefore important to clarify certain issues regarding country of origin:
• If an animal product such as pet food is legally imported into the United States from a third country and is released into commerce in the U.S., the pet food cannot be considered a U.S. product.
• Repackaging and re-labelling a product originating in a country other than the U.S. and shipping to Canada does not qualify as product of the U.S.
• To qualify as a product of the U.S., the item must undergo sufficient processing in the U.S. Sufficient processing means a significant change, such as re-processing the product. Sections 41.1(1) and 52.(1) of the Health of Animals Regulations refer to sufficient processing “in such a manner that it would not introduce and spread exotic animal diseases in Canada”.
• Any product originating in a third country and transhipped through the U.S. requires an import permit and must meet all the import requirements of Canada with regard to the entry of the product.
Please consult the Automated Import Reference System (AIRS) for import requirements. AIRS can be accessed here.
Recently, there has been a change in the animal health status of Brazil and Chile. Both Countries’ classification has changed from negligible risk to a controlled risk for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD). As a result, pet food, some pet chews and pet treats from these countries require an import permit.
It has come to our attention that product of Brazil in particular is being imported to Canada via the United States without the proper documentation. It is therefore important to clarify certain issues regarding country of origin:
• If an animal product such as pet food is legally imported into the United States from a third country and is released into commerce in the U.S., the pet food cannot be considered a U.S. product.
• Repackaging and re-labelling a product originating in a country other than the U.S. and shipping to Canada does not qualify as product of the U.S.
• To qualify as a product of the U.S., the item must undergo sufficient processing in the U.S. Sufficient processing means a significant change, such as re-processing the product. Sections 41.1(1) and 52.(1) of the Health of Animals Regulations refer to sufficient processing “in such a manner that it would not introduce and spread exotic animal diseases in Canada”.
• Any product originating in a third country and transhipped through the U.S. requires an import permit and must meet all the import requirements of Canada with regard to the entry of the product.
Please consult the Automated Import Reference System (AIRS) for import requirements. AIRS can be accessed here.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Seals on Maritime Containers Must Meet ISO/PAS 17712 Standard
(CBP)
The purpose of this notice is to inform you that the requirement for Container Seals on Maritime Cargo was published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2008 and will become effective on October 15, 2008. The statute requires all containers to be sealed with a seal meeting the International Organization for Standardization Publicly Available Specification 17712 (ISO/PAS 17712), Freight Containers-Mechanical Seals. This specification addresses seal strength and durability so as to prevent accidental breakage, early deterioration, detect tampering, as well as advises each seal be clearly and legibly marked with a unique identification number. All containers (maritime) in transit to the United States must be sealed with an ISO/PAS 17712 mechanical seal no later than October 15, 2008.
The statutory requirement applies to loaded containers, including freight remaining on board, arriving by vessel at U.S. ports of entry. Exceptions, however, include tanks, non-standard containers (such as open top containers), and those containers incapable of being affixed with such a seal. U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will ensure compliance with this new requirement as part of normal seaport container inspection activities and does not envision new activities aimed simply at seal verification.
Vessel carriers are reminded, pursuant to 19 CFR 4.7(b) (2) and 4.7a(c) (4) (xiv), to transmit via the Vessel Automated Manifest System all seal numbers to CBP 24 hours before cargo is laden aboard a vessel at a foreign port. In addition, enforcement action in accordance with 19 CFR Section 4.7 concerning Advance Filing of Cargo Declaration Requirements for failure to transmit accurate information, remains in effect.
Vessel carriers are advised that CBP will begin the phasing in of penalty assessments for violation of the container sealing requirements. CBP will consider 6 U.S.C to be violated if a loaded container that is subject to the sealing requirements arrives by vessel at a port of entry in the United States on or after October 15, 2008, either with no seal, or with a seal that fails to meet the ISO/PAS 17712 standard. CBP may assess a civil penalty against the party responsible for the violation of 6 U.S.C. § 944 under 19 U.S.C. Section 1595a (b) for the attempted introduction of merchandise into the United States contrary to law.
The purpose of this notice is to inform you that the requirement for Container Seals on Maritime Cargo was published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2008 and will become effective on October 15, 2008. The statute requires all containers to be sealed with a seal meeting the International Organization for Standardization Publicly Available Specification 17712 (ISO/PAS 17712), Freight Containers-Mechanical Seals. This specification addresses seal strength and durability so as to prevent accidental breakage, early deterioration, detect tampering, as well as advises each seal be clearly and legibly marked with a unique identification number. All containers (maritime) in transit to the United States must be sealed with an ISO/PAS 17712 mechanical seal no later than October 15, 2008.
The statutory requirement applies to loaded containers, including freight remaining on board, arriving by vessel at U.S. ports of entry. Exceptions, however, include tanks, non-standard containers (such as open top containers), and those containers incapable of being affixed with such a seal. U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will ensure compliance with this new requirement as part of normal seaport container inspection activities and does not envision new activities aimed simply at seal verification.
Vessel carriers are reminded, pursuant to 19 CFR 4.7(b) (2) and 4.7a(c) (4) (xiv), to transmit via the Vessel Automated Manifest System all seal numbers to CBP 24 hours before cargo is laden aboard a vessel at a foreign port. In addition, enforcement action in accordance with 19 CFR Section 4.7 concerning Advance Filing of Cargo Declaration Requirements for failure to transmit accurate information, remains in effect.
Vessel carriers are advised that CBP will begin the phasing in of penalty assessments for violation of the container sealing requirements. CBP will consider 6 U.S.C to be violated if a loaded container that is subject to the sealing requirements arrives by vessel at a port of entry in the United States on or after October 15, 2008, either with no seal, or with a seal that fails to meet the ISO/PAS 17712 standard. CBP may assess a civil penalty against the party responsible for the violation of 6 U.S.C. § 944 under 19 U.S.C. Section 1595a (b) for the attempted introduction of merchandise into the United States contrary to law.
Friday, August 15, 2008
CBP Advises Importers of Softwood New Lumber Act Reporting Requirements
(CBP)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s trade office today [Thursday] advised the trade community of new reporting requirements to ensure that importers comply with the Softwood Lumber Act of 2008.
The new law requires importers to provide additional data elements to CBP for all importations of softwood lumber and softwood lumber products, as described in the act. The changes are to take effect on August 18, 60 days after the enactment of the legislation.
Importers are required to provide CBP three additional data elements: an export price, estimated export charge, if any applies, and an importer declaration. These elements must be submitted for each line of imported softwood lumber and softwood lumber products subject to the Softwood Lumber Act of 2008 on the entry summary, CBP form 7501.
CBP Form 7501 and any supporting documentation must be retained by the importer in accordance with CBP record keeping requirements and be produced upon request. These requirements apply to all shipments of softwood lumber and softwood lumber products described in the Softwood Lumber Act of 2008, regardless of country of origin or export.
Lawmakers have indicated that the purpose of the importer declaration program is to ensure that importation of softwood lumber into the United States is consistent with America’s international trade agreements.
New Data Elements Required for Importation of Softwood Lumber Effective August 18 is available here.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s trade office today [Thursday] advised the trade community of new reporting requirements to ensure that importers comply with the Softwood Lumber Act of 2008.
The new law requires importers to provide additional data elements to CBP for all importations of softwood lumber and softwood lumber products, as described in the act. The changes are to take effect on August 18, 60 days after the enactment of the legislation.
Importers are required to provide CBP three additional data elements: an export price, estimated export charge, if any applies, and an importer declaration. These elements must be submitted for each line of imported softwood lumber and softwood lumber products subject to the Softwood Lumber Act of 2008 on the entry summary, CBP form 7501.
CBP Form 7501 and any supporting documentation must be retained by the importer in accordance with CBP record keeping requirements and be produced upon request. These requirements apply to all shipments of softwood lumber and softwood lumber products described in the Softwood Lumber Act of 2008, regardless of country of origin or export.
Lawmakers have indicated that the purpose of the importer declaration program is to ensure that importation of softwood lumber into the United States is consistent with America’s international trade agreements.
New Data Elements Required for Importation of Softwood Lumber Effective August 18 is available here.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
NFTC Publishes Global Supply Chain Study
(International Trade Law News)
The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) recently released a new study entitled “Connecting the Dots: The Global Economy and Supply Chain Management” that analyzes the trade and investment environments of 117 countries based on data from OECD and the World Bank, among others.
The NFTC’s study is an extremely valuable tool for companies to use in evaluating and structuring their supply chain.
Structured as a country-by-country analysis of supply chain performance, each country was evaluated in comparison to benchmark nations and “exemplars.” The study evaluated countries based on the following six criteria:
1. National policies for openness in trade and markets
2. Best practices for international trade
3. Infrastructure for a global economy
4. Financial services for cross-border commerce
5. Human capital
6. Effective legal and enforcement systems
The top ten highest scoring countries were Singapore, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Norway. The lowest scoring nations were Angola, Burkina Faso, Zambia, Rwanda, Burundi, Guinea, Mali, Venezuela, Algeria and Benin.
In addition to a detailed country analysis, the study also contains a regional analysis.The PDF version of the NFTC’s study is available here (PDF format, 138 pgs.).
The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) recently released a new study entitled “Connecting the Dots: The Global Economy and Supply Chain Management” that analyzes the trade and investment environments of 117 countries based on data from OECD and the World Bank, among others.
The NFTC’s study is an extremely valuable tool for companies to use in evaluating and structuring their supply chain.
Structured as a country-by-country analysis of supply chain performance, each country was evaluated in comparison to benchmark nations and “exemplars.” The study evaluated countries based on the following six criteria:
1. National policies for openness in trade and markets
2. Best practices for international trade
3. Infrastructure for a global economy
4. Financial services for cross-border commerce
5. Human capital
6. Effective legal and enforcement systems
The top ten highest scoring countries were Singapore, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Norway. The lowest scoring nations were Angola, Burkina Faso, Zambia, Rwanda, Burundi, Guinea, Mali, Venezuela, Algeria and Benin.
In addition to a detailed country analysis, the study also contains a regional analysis.The PDF version of the NFTC’s study is available here (PDF format, 138 pgs.).
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Stalled Free Trade Talks Hoping for Some Help
(Embassy – Lee Berthiaume)
Trade Minister Michael Fortier’s assertion that Canada is going bilateral has the world wondering what will really change
Diplomats from countries with which Canada has been engaged in long free trade negotiations are encouraged by Trade Minister Michael Fortier’s assertion that the collapse of the Doha round of World Trade Organization talks will see Canada become more active on bilaterals. However, while hoping the push will include greater flexibility, including a move away from demanding the same treatment as the United States, there appear to be few signs as yet that any substantial change has taken place.
Two weeks ago, Mr. Fortier was in Geneva when the Doha talks were declared dead. In a conference call with reporters, the minister declared that while multilateral trade liberalization had taken a blow, Canada would become more aggressive in pursuing bilateral deals. “In terms of opening trade corridors for our exports, we want to continue down the path of bilaterals,” he said, adding the government will be “knocking on doors around the world to create new opportunities for our farmers and exporters.”
The Conservative government had already been much more active on free trade agreements and other bilateral deals than previous governments, launching talks with Peru, Colombia, Jordan, the Dominican Republic, Panama and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). It had even concluded negotiations with a four-member bloc of European countries, Peru and Colombia.
However, free trade talks with Singapore, South Korea and a bloc of four Central American countries – all launched by the Liberals earlier this decade – have barely moved even with the Conservatives at the helm.
While the Department of International Trade said yesterday it stands ready to conclude a “balanced agreement” with the four Central American countries, questions sent to it last week as to how the government will move ahead following the collapse of Doha and whether it will change its trade deal negotiating tactics were not answered by press time.
Canada Wants U.S.-Style Deals
Canada launched negotiations with South Korea in July 2005, and have so far seen 13 rounds come and go. The discussions have become extremely sensitive given implications for the Canadian automobile and shipbuilding industries. However, the South Koreans have also taken issue with Canada’s insistence that it get as good a deal as the Americans did last year.
Youn-Jung Kim, second secretary at the South Korean Embassy, said last week that she was encouraged by Mr. Fortier’s statements following the collapse of the Doha round, and that both countries “are very much interested in concluding a FTA.” She said another round has been planned – the last one was in March – but she was unaware of any dates. At the same time, “the official statements said that Canada will be more active with the bilateral negotiations, but I have not seen detailed orders or actions.”
Ms. Kim said the Canada-South Korea talks have reached a point where political will is essential for reaching a successful conclusion, which could be a factor with Doha gone. However, “I think it’s somewhat early to say that Canada will be more positive or too active, that they’ll make concessions.”
Canada launched free trade talks with four Central American countries – El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua – in November 2001 and 10 rounds were held until talks officially stalled in February 2004. Since then, there have been unofficial visits and meetings, but, as yet, dates for an 11th round of so-called Canada-CA4 talks have yet to be set.
Carolina Calderon, minister counsellor at the Embassy of El Salvador, said there have been tentative plans to get negotiators back together for September, and she expressed hope that Mr. Fortier’s support for completing bilateral deals will include the CA4.
Ms. Calderon said when the negotiations were launched, Canada made strong demands and was unwilling to really bend on key issues of importance to the Central American countries, like refined sugar and textiles. Part of the reason was Canada was worried any concessions made to the CA4 would also have to be given to other countries in the hemisphere through the Free Trade Area of the Americas.
By the time talks stopped, Ms. Calderon said, “we were very keen to negotiate and Canada seemed to be hesitant.”
The Central American countries turned to the United States and completed a deal in 2005 before meeting with Canadian officials to discuss relaunching talks.
“Canada comes to us and says ‘We want more or less the same treatment as you’ve given the United States’ and we said no,” Ms. Calderon said. “That’s not possible because, first of all, the United States is the main partner of Central America, main trading partner, and the relationship with the United States, I’m not saying it’s better, but we have more trade with the United States than we have with Canada.” Read the complete article.
Trade Minister Michael Fortier’s assertion that Canada is going bilateral has the world wondering what will really change
Diplomats from countries with which Canada has been engaged in long free trade negotiations are encouraged by Trade Minister Michael Fortier’s assertion that the collapse of the Doha round of World Trade Organization talks will see Canada become more active on bilaterals. However, while hoping the push will include greater flexibility, including a move away from demanding the same treatment as the United States, there appear to be few signs as yet that any substantial change has taken place.
Two weeks ago, Mr. Fortier was in Geneva when the Doha talks were declared dead. In a conference call with reporters, the minister declared that while multilateral trade liberalization had taken a blow, Canada would become more aggressive in pursuing bilateral deals. “In terms of opening trade corridors for our exports, we want to continue down the path of bilaterals,” he said, adding the government will be “knocking on doors around the world to create new opportunities for our farmers and exporters.”
The Conservative government had already been much more active on free trade agreements and other bilateral deals than previous governments, launching talks with Peru, Colombia, Jordan, the Dominican Republic, Panama and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). It had even concluded negotiations with a four-member bloc of European countries, Peru and Colombia.
However, free trade talks with Singapore, South Korea and a bloc of four Central American countries – all launched by the Liberals earlier this decade – have barely moved even with the Conservatives at the helm.
While the Department of International Trade said yesterday it stands ready to conclude a “balanced agreement” with the four Central American countries, questions sent to it last week as to how the government will move ahead following the collapse of Doha and whether it will change its trade deal negotiating tactics were not answered by press time.
Canada Wants U.S.-Style Deals
Canada launched negotiations with South Korea in July 2005, and have so far seen 13 rounds come and go. The discussions have become extremely sensitive given implications for the Canadian automobile and shipbuilding industries. However, the South Koreans have also taken issue with Canada’s insistence that it get as good a deal as the Americans did last year.
Youn-Jung Kim, second secretary at the South Korean Embassy, said last week that she was encouraged by Mr. Fortier’s statements following the collapse of the Doha round, and that both countries “are very much interested in concluding a FTA.” She said another round has been planned – the last one was in March – but she was unaware of any dates. At the same time, “the official statements said that Canada will be more active with the bilateral negotiations, but I have not seen detailed orders or actions.”
Ms. Kim said the Canada-South Korea talks have reached a point where political will is essential for reaching a successful conclusion, which could be a factor with Doha gone. However, “I think it’s somewhat early to say that Canada will be more positive or too active, that they’ll make concessions.”
Canada launched free trade talks with four Central American countries – El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua – in November 2001 and 10 rounds were held until talks officially stalled in February 2004. Since then, there have been unofficial visits and meetings, but, as yet, dates for an 11th round of so-called Canada-CA4 talks have yet to be set.
Carolina Calderon, minister counsellor at the Embassy of El Salvador, said there have been tentative plans to get negotiators back together for September, and she expressed hope that Mr. Fortier’s support for completing bilateral deals will include the CA4.
Ms. Calderon said when the negotiations were launched, Canada made strong demands and was unwilling to really bend on key issues of importance to the Central American countries, like refined sugar and textiles. Part of the reason was Canada was worried any concessions made to the CA4 would also have to be given to other countries in the hemisphere through the Free Trade Area of the Americas.
By the time talks stopped, Ms. Calderon said, “we were very keen to negotiate and Canada seemed to be hesitant.”
The Central American countries turned to the United States and completed a deal in 2005 before meeting with Canadian officials to discuss relaunching talks.
“Canada comes to us and says ‘We want more or less the same treatment as you’ve given the United States’ and we said no,” Ms. Calderon said. “That’s not possible because, first of all, the United States is the main partner of Central America, main trading partner, and the relationship with the United States, I’m not saying it’s better, but we have more trade with the United States than we have with Canada.” Read the complete article.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Energy Exports to U.S. Rise as Trade Surplus Expands to $5.8 Billion in June
(The Canadian Press)
Energy exports to the United States increased as Canada’s trade surplus with the world expanded to $5.8 billion in June from $5.2 billion in May. Statistics Canada reports companies exported merchandise worth $43.2 billion in June, up 3.1% from the previous month.
Prices increased 4.5% while volumes declined 1.4%. Overall, export prices have been on the rise for the past eight months, while volumes have been trending downward.
Imports rose two per cent to $37.4 billion, the third straight monthly increase. Prices rose 2.6%, while volumes declined 0.6%.
Exports to the United States rose 5.3% to $32.8 billion. Imports also increased, but to a lesser extent, yielding a trade surplus with the United States of $9.6 billion, up from $8.1 billion.
The trade deficit with countries other than the United States expanded to $3.9 billion from $2.9 billion in May, largely due to increased imports of crude petroleum.
Canadian International Merchandise Trade report is on the Statistics Canada website and Export and Import Price Indexes report is here.
Energy exports to the United States increased as Canada’s trade surplus with the world expanded to $5.8 billion in June from $5.2 billion in May. Statistics Canada reports companies exported merchandise worth $43.2 billion in June, up 3.1% from the previous month.
Prices increased 4.5% while volumes declined 1.4%. Overall, export prices have been on the rise for the past eight months, while volumes have been trending downward.
Imports rose two per cent to $37.4 billion, the third straight monthly increase. Prices rose 2.6%, while volumes declined 0.6%.
Exports to the United States rose 5.3% to $32.8 billion. Imports also increased, but to a lesser extent, yielding a trade surplus with the United States of $9.6 billion, up from $8.1 billion.
The trade deficit with countries other than the United States expanded to $3.9 billion from $2.9 billion in May, largely due to increased imports of crude petroleum.
Canadian International Merchandise Trade report is on the Statistics Canada website and Export and Import Price Indexes report is here.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Concern Grows Over Looming EU Customs Changes
(Transport Intelligence)
More flexibility is needed from the European Union (EU) regarding implementation of the next stage of its overhaul of European customs procedures. Otherwise, there is a risk of major disruption to supply chains when the planned changes take effect in mid-2009.
That, at least, was the warning sounded by the chairman of UK freight industry software organisation Agency Sector Management (ASM), Peter MacSwiney, in a statement published yesterday (August 11). He said he was echoing industry-wide concerns that businesses would not have enough time to get ready for the pre-arrival and pre-departure information submission requirements when the EU’s new Import and Export Control Systems became live on July 1, 2009.
“We are concerned that the full technical specifications for the new systems are not yet fully established,” said MacSwiney. “It is now just under a year away from the date by which companies must provide the required data to the relevant customs authority as part of the Pre-Arrival and Pre-Departure (PAPD) security declaration programme, leaving us only one year to make the substantial and necessary changes to systems and procedures.”
MacSwiney said the EU claimed that member states were well advanced with their implementation plans for exportation (ECS2) and transit (NCTS4) which would facilitate the submission by trade of pre-departure data. However, it had expressed concerns with the plans to implement across the EU member states an Import Control System (ICS) which would enable pre-arrival data to be submitted and checked for security clearance.
“The ongoing delay in the provision of these specifications almost guarantees the implementation next July will be problematic, risking a potential brake on EU-wide export activity that can only harm the EU’s bottom-line,” warned MacSwiney. “In light of this, ASM is asking the EU to consider taking a more flexible approach over the imposition of the new ICS/ECS regime.”
More flexibility is needed from the European Union (EU) regarding implementation of the next stage of its overhaul of European customs procedures. Otherwise, there is a risk of major disruption to supply chains when the planned changes take effect in mid-2009.
That, at least, was the warning sounded by the chairman of UK freight industry software organisation Agency Sector Management (ASM), Peter MacSwiney, in a statement published yesterday (August 11). He said he was echoing industry-wide concerns that businesses would not have enough time to get ready for the pre-arrival and pre-departure information submission requirements when the EU’s new Import and Export Control Systems became live on July 1, 2009.
“We are concerned that the full technical specifications for the new systems are not yet fully established,” said MacSwiney. “It is now just under a year away from the date by which companies must provide the required data to the relevant customs authority as part of the Pre-Arrival and Pre-Departure (PAPD) security declaration programme, leaving us only one year to make the substantial and necessary changes to systems and procedures.”
MacSwiney said the EU claimed that member states were well advanced with their implementation plans for exportation (ECS2) and transit (NCTS4) which would facilitate the submission by trade of pre-departure data. However, it had expressed concerns with the plans to implement across the EU member states an Import Control System (ICS) which would enable pre-arrival data to be submitted and checked for security clearance.
“The ongoing delay in the provision of these specifications almost guarantees the implementation next July will be problematic, risking a potential brake on EU-wide export activity that can only harm the EU’s bottom-line,” warned MacSwiney. “In light of this, ASM is asking the EU to consider taking a more flexible approach over the imposition of the new ICS/ECS regime.”
Trading Places: Canada Should Look to the EU for a Bilateral Deal
(Roy MacLaren & Perrin Beatty — The Globe & Mail)
The recent disappointing ministerial failure in Geneva has put into question when — or even if — the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization can be concluded. The multitude of obstacles that stand in the way of moving forward means that, for now, the more than $130-billion per year in global tariff savings that could result from a successful round will have to wait.
Pending an eventual resumption of these WTO negotiations, member nations will turn increasingly to bilateral and regional free trade agreements as an early means of realizing the manifold benefits of liberalized trade and investment.
For Canada, this would ideally mean the conclusion of a North Atlantic agreement. Unfortunately, in the past, Brussels and Washington have been unwilling to consider seriously a regional North Atlantic free trade agreement, contending that the WTO offered progress while, at the same time, pursuing regional and bilateral agreements around the world. Since there is no reason to expect a change in the European or U.S. positions, Canada and Europe’s pre-eminent opportunity is clearly a Canada-EU agreement. (Ottawa having already successfully completed a free trade agreement with the remaining members of the European Free Trade area.) It is important to move quickly while the Doha Round pretext can no longer be put forward by Brussels, and while both parties are looking to demonstrate their ability to negotiate successfully good deals.
The failure in Geneva demonstrates important power shifts in the global economy. The developed world is losing its economic dominance over Asian rivals — notably India and China — and the major players have been unable to negotiate an acceptable outcome of the Doha Round. There has also been a singular failure to find common cause with Asia. Worse, the West now risks being left outside the grand free trade arrangements that are being designed among themselves by China, India and other Asian and African countries.
A Canada-EU agreement could provide the template for a full transatlantic agreement that would be impossible to ignore — fundamentally transforming the international economic dynamic. Such an agreement would place, perhaps for the last time, ineluctable pressure on China, India and others to negotiate seriously with a transatlantic bloc for fear of losing their competitive access to a newly integrated — and massive — North Atlantic economy. It might also just be the wakeup call that is needed to save the world trading system from drifting to the periphery for the next several years.
That alone is reason for Brussels to welcome the prospect of an EU-Canada agreement. American companies would be prompt in recognizing the fact that their Canadian competitors had gained preferential access to the world’s largest market, with all the trade and investment advantages that go with it. The U.S. government would face pressure from its business community to strike a similar transatlantic agreement, as it did in response to the Canada-Chile free trade agreement a decade ago.
The economic arguments for transatlantic liberalization of trade and investment should now be self-evident to both Canada and Europe, which are already major trading and investment partners. All studies indicate that removing obstacles, including regulatory barriers, would spur trade between Canada and Europe in goods, services, and investment. Read the complete article.
The recent disappointing ministerial failure in Geneva has put into question when — or even if — the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization can be concluded. The multitude of obstacles that stand in the way of moving forward means that, for now, the more than $130-billion per year in global tariff savings that could result from a successful round will have to wait.
Pending an eventual resumption of these WTO negotiations, member nations will turn increasingly to bilateral and regional free trade agreements as an early means of realizing the manifold benefits of liberalized trade and investment.
For Canada, this would ideally mean the conclusion of a North Atlantic agreement. Unfortunately, in the past, Brussels and Washington have been unwilling to consider seriously a regional North Atlantic free trade agreement, contending that the WTO offered progress while, at the same time, pursuing regional and bilateral agreements around the world. Since there is no reason to expect a change in the European or U.S. positions, Canada and Europe’s pre-eminent opportunity is clearly a Canada-EU agreement. (Ottawa having already successfully completed a free trade agreement with the remaining members of the European Free Trade area.) It is important to move quickly while the Doha Round pretext can no longer be put forward by Brussels, and while both parties are looking to demonstrate their ability to negotiate successfully good deals.
The failure in Geneva demonstrates important power shifts in the global economy. The developed world is losing its economic dominance over Asian rivals — notably India and China — and the major players have been unable to negotiate an acceptable outcome of the Doha Round. There has also been a singular failure to find common cause with Asia. Worse, the West now risks being left outside the grand free trade arrangements that are being designed among themselves by China, India and other Asian and African countries.
A Canada-EU agreement could provide the template for a full transatlantic agreement that would be impossible to ignore — fundamentally transforming the international economic dynamic. Such an agreement would place, perhaps for the last time, ineluctable pressure on China, India and others to negotiate seriously with a transatlantic bloc for fear of losing their competitive access to a newly integrated — and massive — North Atlantic economy. It might also just be the wakeup call that is needed to save the world trading system from drifting to the periphery for the next several years.
That alone is reason for Brussels to welcome the prospect of an EU-Canada agreement. American companies would be prompt in recognizing the fact that their Canadian competitors had gained preferential access to the world’s largest market, with all the trade and investment advantages that go with it. The U.S. government would face pressure from its business community to strike a similar transatlantic agreement, as it did in response to the Canada-Chile free trade agreement a decade ago.
The economic arguments for transatlantic liberalization of trade and investment should now be self-evident to both Canada and Europe, which are already major trading and investment partners. All studies indicate that removing obstacles, including regulatory barriers, would spur trade between Canada and Europe in goods, services, and investment. Read the complete article.
Friday, August 8, 2008
CPIA Signs Agreement with Export Development Canada
(eSource Canada Business News Network)
The Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) and Export Development Canada (EDC) have entered into an agreement that they believe will better help serve Canadian companies who export their products.
The agreement will establish a framework where EDC and CPIA will partner on a number of key strategic initiatives in 2008 and 2009. The initiatives include collaboration on domestic and international industry trade show events, a sharing of industry related market intelligence and engagement in a variety of outreach activities such as speaking engagements, and leveraging Canadian capabilities through exploration of global matchmaking opportunities.
“EDC has been an important supporter of Canadian plastics exports for many years,” said CPIA president and CEO Serge Lavoie. “Formalizing a partnership with the agency creates more opportunities to not only increase exports, but to develop valuable positions within expanding global value chains.”
According to the two groups, the goal of the partnership is to better understand the trends and challenges within the industry, so that both parties can provide value-added services in this segment.
“The Canadian plastics industry has unique exporting needs, and today’s agreement speaks to the important of this key manufacturing sector,” said Eric Siegel, president and CEO of EDC. “By working together, EDC can provide even more targeted solutions to the manufacturing sector, which is vital during a time of slowing global growth and tightening credit conditions.”
The Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) and Export Development Canada (EDC) have entered into an agreement that they believe will better help serve Canadian companies who export their products.
The agreement will establish a framework where EDC and CPIA will partner on a number of key strategic initiatives in 2008 and 2009. The initiatives include collaboration on domestic and international industry trade show events, a sharing of industry related market intelligence and engagement in a variety of outreach activities such as speaking engagements, and leveraging Canadian capabilities through exploration of global matchmaking opportunities.
“EDC has been an important supporter of Canadian plastics exports for many years,” said CPIA president and CEO Serge Lavoie. “Formalizing a partnership with the agency creates more opportunities to not only increase exports, but to develop valuable positions within expanding global value chains.”
According to the two groups, the goal of the partnership is to better understand the trends and challenges within the industry, so that both parties can provide value-added services in this segment.
“The Canadian plastics industry has unique exporting needs, and today’s agreement speaks to the important of this key manufacturing sector,” said Eric Siegel, president and CEO of EDC. “By working together, EDC can provide even more targeted solutions to the manufacturing sector, which is vital during a time of slowing global growth and tightening credit conditions.”
Origin Labeling Rule Generates Many Questions
(ThePacker.com – David Mitchell)
Now that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has published its interim final rule on country-of-origin labeling, the produce industry has to figure out what it all means.
“There’s a lot of confusion about what’s covered and what ‘processing’ means,” said Kathy Means, vice president of government relations and public affairs for the Newark, Del.-based Produce Marketing Association. “Another thing people are very confused about is how information should be delivered.”
About 4,000 retail companies with an estimated 36,000 stores will be affected when COOL regulations take affect September 30, but growers and shippers are responsible for supplying product information to those stores.
USDA is allowing origin information to be provided on master containers, documentation or the product itself. In a best-practices document created by PMA and Western Growers, suppliers are encouraged to use all three methods if possible.
“Pay particular attention to products that can’t be labeled, like green beans and a lot of other bulk vegetables,” Means said.
PMA and Western Growers played host to a Web seminar with USDA officials August 6. Numerous questions were fielded about what products are covered by the new law.
Fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables are included, but there are exceptions for processed products. Processed, according to USDA, includes items that have been cooked, smoked or cured. While that might be straightforward enough, processing also could include packaging multiple covered commodities together, such as a bagged salad that includes lettuce and carrots.
Commingled product also raised questions. Erin Morris, assistant deputy administrator of USDA poultry programs, said that a single commodity with different origins can be mixed in a bin, but all the places the products came from must be listed on a sign or in some other fashion.
She said it was acceptable to use the word “and” in such signs, but “or” and the phrase “may contain” could not be used. “The origin declaration has to be definitive,” she said.
Lloyd Day, administrator of the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, said it had not yet been determined what percentage of bulk product would have to be labeled. “We have to look at a reasonable number,” said Day, who is scheduled to participate in a session about COOL on Oct. 24 during PMA’s Fresh Summit in Orlando.
Day said USDA will focus on education and outreach, not enforcement, during the first six months after regulations take effect.
The industry can submit comments until September 30. PMA’s best practices document and its analysis of COOL regulations are available online here. The association also has a COOL white paper available on its Web site and has a forum on the topic scheduled September 11 during its Washington Public Policy Conference.
Now that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has published its interim final rule on country-of-origin labeling, the produce industry has to figure out what it all means.
“There’s a lot of confusion about what’s covered and what ‘processing’ means,” said Kathy Means, vice president of government relations and public affairs for the Newark, Del.-based Produce Marketing Association. “Another thing people are very confused about is how information should be delivered.”
About 4,000 retail companies with an estimated 36,000 stores will be affected when COOL regulations take affect September 30, but growers and shippers are responsible for supplying product information to those stores.
USDA is allowing origin information to be provided on master containers, documentation or the product itself. In a best-practices document created by PMA and Western Growers, suppliers are encouraged to use all three methods if possible.
“Pay particular attention to products that can’t be labeled, like green beans and a lot of other bulk vegetables,” Means said.
PMA and Western Growers played host to a Web seminar with USDA officials August 6. Numerous questions were fielded about what products are covered by the new law.
Fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables are included, but there are exceptions for processed products. Processed, according to USDA, includes items that have been cooked, smoked or cured. While that might be straightforward enough, processing also could include packaging multiple covered commodities together, such as a bagged salad that includes lettuce and carrots.
Commingled product also raised questions. Erin Morris, assistant deputy administrator of USDA poultry programs, said that a single commodity with different origins can be mixed in a bin, but all the places the products came from must be listed on a sign or in some other fashion.
She said it was acceptable to use the word “and” in such signs, but “or” and the phrase “may contain” could not be used. “The origin declaration has to be definitive,” she said.
Lloyd Day, administrator of the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, said it had not yet been determined what percentage of bulk product would have to be labeled. “We have to look at a reasonable number,” said Day, who is scheduled to participate in a session about COOL on Oct. 24 during PMA’s Fresh Summit in Orlando.
Day said USDA will focus on education and outreach, not enforcement, during the first six months after regulations take effect.
The industry can submit comments until September 30. PMA’s best practices document and its analysis of COOL regulations are available online here. The association also has a COOL white paper available on its Web site and has a forum on the topic scheduled September 11 during its Washington Public Policy Conference.
U.S. Customs Brokers File for Tariff Exemption
(Outsourced Logistics)
The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America (NCBFAA) filed a petition with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) seeking an exemption from the requirement to publish rate tariffs.
If granted, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) would no longer be required to publish, in tariff form, any rates negotiated with individual shippers as long as those agreed upon rates were somehow memorialized in written form, said NCBFAA. That form could range from a formal contract to a simple exchange of e-mails.
“One aspect of current FMC regulatory policy that carries undue and totally unnecessary burdens is the requirement that NVOCCs publish and maintain rate tariffs,” said Mary Jo Muoio, president of NCBFAA. These published rate tariffs are almost never reviewed or used by customers, said Muoio.
The NCBFAA urged the FMC to grant the requested relief which would, said NCBFAA, incorporate the following principles:
• The exemption would be voluntary rather than mandatory.
• The exemption would relate only to rate tariffs. Rules tariffs would still need to be published and maintained.
• Negotiated NVOCC rates would be governed solely by contract law considerations.
• NVOCCs with NVOCC Service Agreements (NSAs) would continue to file those with the FMC.
• To quality, these negotiated rates would need to be documented. The FMC staff would continue to have access to these negotiated agreements and the files of NVOCCs.
• The exemption would not be construed so as to convey antitrust immunity on NVOCCs.
• The exemption would be applicable only for licensed or registered NVOCCs. Any companies unlawfully providing NVOCC services would not be able to engage in these activities.
The NCBFAA represents nearly 800 member companies with 100,000 employees serving more than 250,000 importers and exporters.
The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America (NCBFAA) filed a petition with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) seeking an exemption from the requirement to publish rate tariffs.
If granted, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) would no longer be required to publish, in tariff form, any rates negotiated with individual shippers as long as those agreed upon rates were somehow memorialized in written form, said NCBFAA. That form could range from a formal contract to a simple exchange of e-mails.
“One aspect of current FMC regulatory policy that carries undue and totally unnecessary burdens is the requirement that NVOCCs publish and maintain rate tariffs,” said Mary Jo Muoio, president of NCBFAA. These published rate tariffs are almost never reviewed or used by customers, said Muoio.
The NCBFAA urged the FMC to grant the requested relief which would, said NCBFAA, incorporate the following principles:
• The exemption would be voluntary rather than mandatory.
• The exemption would relate only to rate tariffs. Rules tariffs would still need to be published and maintained.
• Negotiated NVOCC rates would be governed solely by contract law considerations.
• NVOCCs with NVOCC Service Agreements (NSAs) would continue to file those with the FMC.
• To quality, these negotiated rates would need to be documented. The FMC staff would continue to have access to these negotiated agreements and the files of NVOCCs.
• The exemption would not be construed so as to convey antitrust immunity on NVOCCs.
• The exemption would be applicable only for licensed or registered NVOCCs. Any companies unlawfully providing NVOCC services would not be able to engage in these activities.
The NCBFAA represents nearly 800 member companies with 100,000 employees serving more than 250,000 importers and exporters.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Answering Questions on Border Laptop Searches
(Leadership Journal, DHS – Jason Ahern, CBP)
We’ve received several comments from readers regarding my recent post about laptop searches at the border. I’d like to take a few minutes to try to answer some of your questions and set straight some misinformation that is circulating with regard to this long-standing policy.
First, it’s important to note that for more than 200 years, the federal government has been granted the authority to prevent dangerous people and things from entering the United States. Our security measures at the border are rooted in this fundamental fact, and our ability to achieve our border mission would be hampered if we did not apply the same search authorities to electronic media that we have long-applied to physical objects--including documents, photographs, film and other graphic material. Indeed, there are numerous laws that apply to such material at the border including laws regarding intellectual property rights, technical data that can be imported or exported only under state department license and child pornography.
In the 21st century, terrorists and criminals increasingly use laptops and other electronic media to transport illicit materials that were traditionally concealed in bags, containers, notebooks and paper documents. Making full use of our search authorities with respect to items like notebooks and backpacks, while failing to do so with respect to laptops and other devices, would ensure that terrorists and criminals receive less scrutiny at our borders just as their use of technology is becoming more sophisticated.
This result would be ironic given that this same technology actually enables terrorists and criminals to move large amounts of information across the border via laptops and other electronic devices. At the end of the day, we have a responsibility to search items – electronic or otherwise – that are being transported across our borders and that could potentially be used to harm our nation’s citizens or that are otherwise contrary to law.
Second, this is not a new policy. We’ve been searching laptops of those who warrant a closer inspection for years. In fact, we’ve taken the unprecedented step of posting online (PDF 5 pages - 161 KB) a policy that would typically be reserved for internal purposes. This information is not new and has been publicly debated countless times. Indeed, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently confirmed the constitutionality of suspicionless laptop searches at the border.
This brings me to my third point, which is that travelers whose laptops are searched represent a very small number of people. As Secretary Chertoff noted in a recent op-ed, “Of the approximately 400 million travelers who entered the country last year, only a tiny percentage were referred to secondary baggage inspection…[and] of those, only a fraction had electronic devices that may have been checked.”
This number is less than one percent of people entering the United States. Contrary to some media accounts, we’re not rolling out a new strategy and screening an exorbitant number of travelers. We’re simply following a common sense border policy that has been in place for years, and has been reaffirmed by the courts.
And finally, to allay any concerns the business community or others may have that their personal or trade information might be put at risk by traveling with their laptops, I urge you to look at our track record. Every day, thousands of commercial entry documents, shipping manifests, container content lists, and detailed pieces of company information are transmitted to CBP so we can effectively process entries and screen cargo shipments bound for the United States. This information is closely guarded and governed by strict privacy procedures. Information from passenger laptops or other electronic devices is treated no differently.
Our Customs and Border Protection officers are trained professionals with a defined mission, and they have neither the time nor the desire to search travelers’ personal belongings for any reason other than to ensure compliance with our customs and related laws and to protect the United States. As the policy’s provisions make abundantly clear, officers are subject to numerous policy restrictions regarding the retention, sharing, and scrutiny of travelers’ documents and information.
I hope this has helped answer some of your questions. One of the lessons 9/11 taught us was that we must adapt to 21st century risks and anticipate rather than react to new threats. Our CBP officers are on the front lines every day ensuring that these lessons are heeded. We trust that travelers understand the need for these sensible security measures.
We’ve received several comments from readers regarding my recent post about laptop searches at the border. I’d like to take a few minutes to try to answer some of your questions and set straight some misinformation that is circulating with regard to this long-standing policy.
First, it’s important to note that for more than 200 years, the federal government has been granted the authority to prevent dangerous people and things from entering the United States. Our security measures at the border are rooted in this fundamental fact, and our ability to achieve our border mission would be hampered if we did not apply the same search authorities to electronic media that we have long-applied to physical objects--including documents, photographs, film and other graphic material. Indeed, there are numerous laws that apply to such material at the border including laws regarding intellectual property rights, technical data that can be imported or exported only under state department license and child pornography.
In the 21st century, terrorists and criminals increasingly use laptops and other electronic media to transport illicit materials that were traditionally concealed in bags, containers, notebooks and paper documents. Making full use of our search authorities with respect to items like notebooks and backpacks, while failing to do so with respect to laptops and other devices, would ensure that terrorists and criminals receive less scrutiny at our borders just as their use of technology is becoming more sophisticated.
This result would be ironic given that this same technology actually enables terrorists and criminals to move large amounts of information across the border via laptops and other electronic devices. At the end of the day, we have a responsibility to search items – electronic or otherwise – that are being transported across our borders and that could potentially be used to harm our nation’s citizens or that are otherwise contrary to law.
Second, this is not a new policy. We’ve been searching laptops of those who warrant a closer inspection for years. In fact, we’ve taken the unprecedented step of posting online (PDF 5 pages - 161 KB) a policy that would typically be reserved for internal purposes. This information is not new and has been publicly debated countless times. Indeed, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently confirmed the constitutionality of suspicionless laptop searches at the border.
This brings me to my third point, which is that travelers whose laptops are searched represent a very small number of people. As Secretary Chertoff noted in a recent op-ed, “Of the approximately 400 million travelers who entered the country last year, only a tiny percentage were referred to secondary baggage inspection…[and] of those, only a fraction had electronic devices that may have been checked.”
This number is less than one percent of people entering the United States. Contrary to some media accounts, we’re not rolling out a new strategy and screening an exorbitant number of travelers. We’re simply following a common sense border policy that has been in place for years, and has been reaffirmed by the courts.
And finally, to allay any concerns the business community or others may have that their personal or trade information might be put at risk by traveling with their laptops, I urge you to look at our track record. Every day, thousands of commercial entry documents, shipping manifests, container content lists, and detailed pieces of company information are transmitted to CBP so we can effectively process entries and screen cargo shipments bound for the United States. This information is closely guarded and governed by strict privacy procedures. Information from passenger laptops or other electronic devices is treated no differently.
Our Customs and Border Protection officers are trained professionals with a defined mission, and they have neither the time nor the desire to search travelers’ personal belongings for any reason other than to ensure compliance with our customs and related laws and to protect the United States. As the policy’s provisions make abundantly clear, officers are subject to numerous policy restrictions regarding the retention, sharing, and scrutiny of travelers’ documents and information.
I hope this has helped answer some of your questions. One of the lessons 9/11 taught us was that we must adapt to 21st century risks and anticipate rather than react to new threats. Our CBP officers are on the front lines every day ensuring that these lessons are heeded. We trust that travelers understand the need for these sensible security measures.
Bilaterals Only Game in Town as Doha Dies
(Embassy Magazine – Jeff Davis)
With the World Trade Organizations’ Doha round of trade negotiations now lying flat on its face, it seems bilateral trade deals are the only game in town for Canada and other nations. However, private sector representatives and experts expressed deep concern that Doha’s death will put Canada at a severe disadvantage, as it will be hard-pressed to ink one-on-one deals with the world’s strongest economic powers.
This last round of WTO talks, launched in Geneva on July 21, was billed as a “do-or-die” effort to complete the deal that negotiators have been reaching for since the talks were launched six years ago. Nine days later, though, talks had run aground.
The negotiations collapsed under the weight of disagreements over agricultural subsidies. Many developing countries, most notably India, pushed hard for special safeguards that would afford their poor farmers protection from cheap, subsidized agricultural imports.
The United States, which heavily subsidizes its agricultural industry, would not accept the requirements, and stood by its 2008 Farm Bill, which plans to see cotton subsidies maintained or increased over the next five years.
By July 29, even the WTO’s most ardent supporters were mourning the death of the talks. “There is no escaping the fact that this meeting has failed,” said WTO Director General Pascal Lamy, adding that the multilateral trading system came away “dented.” “What members have let slip through their fingers this time is a package worth more than $130 billion a year in tariff savings by the end of the implementation period,” he told reporters in Geneva.
Canada Going for Bilats
The day talks collapsed, International Trade Minister Michael Fortier and Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz held a teleconference with reporters from Geneva.
“There’s no doubt that this is a significant setback, especially for our farmers and exporters given the economic benefits they and Canada stood to achieve from a positive outcome,” said Mr. Fortier. “Talks may have stalled at this time, but we remain committed to more liberalized trade, a rules-based system, and the overall objectives of the Doha negotiations.”
Mr. Fortier said that his government remains dedicated to forging a multilateral consensus on trade. “When you are able to close these transactions, you can accomplish a lot of work through multilaterals, which may take several bilaterals to accomplish,” he said.
However, with multilateral talks stalled, Mr. Fortier said Canada would be aggressively pursuing bilateral agreements. “In terms of opening trade corridors for our exports, we want to continue down the path of bilaterals,” he said, adding the government would be “knocking on doors around the world to create new opportunities for our farmers and exporters.”
Mr. Fortier did not hint as to which bilateral deals he plans to pursue next, except to affirm Canada’s interest in pursuing a trade deal with the European Union during the next Canada-EU summit, planned for October 17 in Montreal. “I have talked about the EU. That is a negotiation that we would be very keen in launching as soon as possible,” Mr. Fortier told reporters.
Concern All Around
Members of the Canadian business community greeted the news with disappointment.
“This isn’t good news for Canada,” said Shirley-Anne George, head of policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. “Canada as an exporting and trading nation needs the WTO. We need an agreement on what the rules for trade are, and we need more countries to reduce barriers to products we want to sell them.”
Canadian Council of Chief Executives president Thomas d’Aquino agreed. “I think that this further collapse is very sad news,” he said. “Canada is a trading nation and we’re very trade dependant. For Canada to have a multilateral system that really works, with rules, is to our advantage.”
Mr. d’Aquino also lamented the ramifications the collapse will have for struggling farmers in developing countries. After all, he said, Doha was the so-called “development round,” and aimed from its inception to help “bridge the gaps between the rich and poor.”
While the government says it will pursue more bilateral trade deals, some fear getting a square deal for Canada will likely be harder in one-on-one talks.
“It’s very difficult for small trading nations like Canada,” said Debra Steger, a former senior negotiator for Canada at the WTO and professor at the University of Ottawa law school. “We don’t have enough bargaining power to negotiate good bilaterals all over the place.” She said that in bilateral negotiations, the overwhelming size and economic clout of a United States, China or European Union can make negotiations very difficult for mid-sized countries.
But mid-size countries are not alone in facing tough negotiations, she says, adding that even big players don’t always get what they want. Ms. Steger said the United States has failed in its efforts to get South Korea to make certain concessions in the auto sector in advance of a possible FTA. Canada has also been unable to budge the Koreans on autos in ongoing Canada-South Korea talks.
Read the rest here.
With the World Trade Organizations’ Doha round of trade negotiations now lying flat on its face, it seems bilateral trade deals are the only game in town for Canada and other nations. However, private sector representatives and experts expressed deep concern that Doha’s death will put Canada at a severe disadvantage, as it will be hard-pressed to ink one-on-one deals with the world’s strongest economic powers.
This last round of WTO talks, launched in Geneva on July 21, was billed as a “do-or-die” effort to complete the deal that negotiators have been reaching for since the talks were launched six years ago. Nine days later, though, talks had run aground.
The negotiations collapsed under the weight of disagreements over agricultural subsidies. Many developing countries, most notably India, pushed hard for special safeguards that would afford their poor farmers protection from cheap, subsidized agricultural imports.
The United States, which heavily subsidizes its agricultural industry, would not accept the requirements, and stood by its 2008 Farm Bill, which plans to see cotton subsidies maintained or increased over the next five years.
By July 29, even the WTO’s most ardent supporters were mourning the death of the talks. “There is no escaping the fact that this meeting has failed,” said WTO Director General Pascal Lamy, adding that the multilateral trading system came away “dented.” “What members have let slip through their fingers this time is a package worth more than $130 billion a year in tariff savings by the end of the implementation period,” he told reporters in Geneva.
Canada Going for Bilats
The day talks collapsed, International Trade Minister Michael Fortier and Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz held a teleconference with reporters from Geneva.
“There’s no doubt that this is a significant setback, especially for our farmers and exporters given the economic benefits they and Canada stood to achieve from a positive outcome,” said Mr. Fortier. “Talks may have stalled at this time, but we remain committed to more liberalized trade, a rules-based system, and the overall objectives of the Doha negotiations.”
Mr. Fortier said that his government remains dedicated to forging a multilateral consensus on trade. “When you are able to close these transactions, you can accomplish a lot of work through multilaterals, which may take several bilaterals to accomplish,” he said.
However, with multilateral talks stalled, Mr. Fortier said Canada would be aggressively pursuing bilateral agreements. “In terms of opening trade corridors for our exports, we want to continue down the path of bilaterals,” he said, adding the government would be “knocking on doors around the world to create new opportunities for our farmers and exporters.”
Mr. Fortier did not hint as to which bilateral deals he plans to pursue next, except to affirm Canada’s interest in pursuing a trade deal with the European Union during the next Canada-EU summit, planned for October 17 in Montreal. “I have talked about the EU. That is a negotiation that we would be very keen in launching as soon as possible,” Mr. Fortier told reporters.
Concern All Around
Members of the Canadian business community greeted the news with disappointment.
“This isn’t good news for Canada,” said Shirley-Anne George, head of policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. “Canada as an exporting and trading nation needs the WTO. We need an agreement on what the rules for trade are, and we need more countries to reduce barriers to products we want to sell them.”
Canadian Council of Chief Executives president Thomas d’Aquino agreed. “I think that this further collapse is very sad news,” he said. “Canada is a trading nation and we’re very trade dependant. For Canada to have a multilateral system that really works, with rules, is to our advantage.”
Mr. d’Aquino also lamented the ramifications the collapse will have for struggling farmers in developing countries. After all, he said, Doha was the so-called “development round,” and aimed from its inception to help “bridge the gaps between the rich and poor.”
While the government says it will pursue more bilateral trade deals, some fear getting a square deal for Canada will likely be harder in one-on-one talks.
“It’s very difficult for small trading nations like Canada,” said Debra Steger, a former senior negotiator for Canada at the WTO and professor at the University of Ottawa law school. “We don’t have enough bargaining power to negotiate good bilaterals all over the place.” She said that in bilateral negotiations, the overwhelming size and economic clout of a United States, China or European Union can make negotiations very difficult for mid-sized countries.
But mid-size countries are not alone in facing tough negotiations, she says, adding that even big players don’t always get what they want. Ms. Steger said the United States has failed in its efforts to get South Korea to make certain concessions in the auto sector in advance of a possible FTA. Canada has also been unable to budge the Koreans on autos in ongoing Canada-South Korea talks.
Read the rest here.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Industry Canada Publishes “Key Small Business Statistics”
(Industry Canada)
This semi-annual publication provides information on the most frequently asked questions pertaining to small businesses in Canada. Several sections have been updated including data on the number of businesses in Canada, the number of people that work for small business, job creation, earnings of small business employees, the contribution of small businesses to Canada’s gross domestic product, as well as the number of self-employed individuals, the number of hours they work and their contribution to job creation. View the publication here or download it here (PDF format, 45 pages).
This semi-annual publication provides information on the most frequently asked questions pertaining to small businesses in Canada. Several sections have been updated including data on the number of businesses in Canada, the number of people that work for small business, job creation, earnings of small business employees, the contribution of small businesses to Canada’s gross domestic product, as well as the number of self-employed individuals, the number of hours they work and their contribution to job creation. View the publication here or download it here (PDF format, 45 pages).
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
U.S. ITC Releases “The Year in Trade 2007”
(U.S. International Trade Commission)
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) today released The Year in Trade 2007, its annual overview of the previous year’s trade-related activities.
The ITC’s The Year in Trade is one of the government’s most comprehensive reports of U.S. trade-related activities, covering major multilateral, regional, and bilateral developments.
The publication provides a practical review of U.S. international trade laws and actions in 2007, a summary of the operation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and an overview of U.S. free trade agreements and negotiations and of U.S. bilateral trade relations with major trading partners.
The Year in Trade 2007 includes complete listings of antidumping, countervailing duty, safeguard, intellectual property rights infringement, and section 301 cases undertaken by the U.S. government in 2007. In addition, the 2007 report covers:
• the operation of the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the Andean Trade Preference Act, and the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act;
• U.S. textile and apparel imports and developments in textile and apparel trade with selected partners;
• significant activities in the WTO, including its dispute settlement mechanism; the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum;
• developments in U.S. free trade agreements, including the agreements signed in 2007 with Panama and Korea, and activities under the North American Free Trade Agreement; and
• bilateral trade issues with major U.S. trading partners, including the European Union, Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and India.
Statistical tables highlight U.S. bilateral trade with major trading partners and trade under U.S. trade preference programs. In addition, data on U.S. private services trade are included in this edition of the report (PDF format, 229 pages).
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) today released The Year in Trade 2007, its annual overview of the previous year’s trade-related activities.
The ITC’s The Year in Trade is one of the government’s most comprehensive reports of U.S. trade-related activities, covering major multilateral, regional, and bilateral developments.
The publication provides a practical review of U.S. international trade laws and actions in 2007, a summary of the operation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and an overview of U.S. free trade agreements and negotiations and of U.S. bilateral trade relations with major trading partners.
The Year in Trade 2007 includes complete listings of antidumping, countervailing duty, safeguard, intellectual property rights infringement, and section 301 cases undertaken by the U.S. government in 2007. In addition, the 2007 report covers:
• the operation of the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the Andean Trade Preference Act, and the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act;
• U.S. textile and apparel imports and developments in textile and apparel trade with selected partners;
• significant activities in the WTO, including its dispute settlement mechanism; the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum;
• developments in U.S. free trade agreements, including the agreements signed in 2007 with Panama and Korea, and activities under the North American Free Trade Agreement; and
• bilateral trade issues with major U.S. trading partners, including the European Union, Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and India.
Statistical tables highlight U.S. bilateral trade with major trading partners and trade under U.S. trade preference programs. In addition, data on U.S. private services trade are included in this edition of the report (PDF format, 229 pages).
IATA Gripped by Visions of Doom
(Transport Intelligence)
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has released a pessimistic report on the air cargo sector showing a fall in global freight volumes during June alongside a big hit on general air transport industry profits.
The organisation’s director general, Giovanni Bisignani, described the overall airline industry as being “in trouble” and stated that “losses this year could reach US$6.1bn, more than wiping out the $5.6bn that airlines made in 2007”.
According to IATA’s monthly international traffic data, global air cargo actually fell in June, compared with the same month last year, for the first time in three years. Year-on-year overall freight volumes, measured in FTK (freight tonne kilometre) terms, shrank by 0.8% in June driven down by a fall of 4.8% in the crucial Asia Pacific market. North American traffic grew more slowly, but still respectably, at 4%. Growth was marginal in Europe at 0.7%, whilst the small Middle East market leapt at an annualised rate of 12%. South America, however, shrank by 12.7%.
The overall global air cargo sector performance in June was worse than that of the passenger market which expanded at an annualised 3.8% in terms of ‘revenue per passenger kilometre’. However, although the latter sector still grew in June, the rate was far less than the 5.5% seen in the same period of 2007.
Both parts of the air transport business have been affected by high oil prices but it is the freight sector that is the most concerning. The major reduction in Asia Pacific traffic suggests a fall in demand caused either by customers switching to other cheaper transport modes or simply moving lower volumes.
Bisignani suggested that the economic conditions were “reshaping the (airline) industry”. He demanded “urgent action” to survive the crisis. He also stated that: “Airports and air navigation service providers must come to the table with efficiencies that deliver cost savings. Labour must understand that efficiency is the only path to job security. And governments must stop crazy taxation and give airlines the freedom to merge and consolidate where it makes business sense.”
The IATA press release and link to data can be found here.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has released a pessimistic report on the air cargo sector showing a fall in global freight volumes during June alongside a big hit on general air transport industry profits.
The organisation’s director general, Giovanni Bisignani, described the overall airline industry as being “in trouble” and stated that “losses this year could reach US$6.1bn, more than wiping out the $5.6bn that airlines made in 2007”.
According to IATA’s monthly international traffic data, global air cargo actually fell in June, compared with the same month last year, for the first time in three years. Year-on-year overall freight volumes, measured in FTK (freight tonne kilometre) terms, shrank by 0.8% in June driven down by a fall of 4.8% in the crucial Asia Pacific market. North American traffic grew more slowly, but still respectably, at 4%. Growth was marginal in Europe at 0.7%, whilst the small Middle East market leapt at an annualised rate of 12%. South America, however, shrank by 12.7%.
The overall global air cargo sector performance in June was worse than that of the passenger market which expanded at an annualised 3.8% in terms of ‘revenue per passenger kilometre’. However, although the latter sector still grew in June, the rate was far less than the 5.5% seen in the same period of 2007.
Both parts of the air transport business have been affected by high oil prices but it is the freight sector that is the most concerning. The major reduction in Asia Pacific traffic suggests a fall in demand caused either by customers switching to other cheaper transport modes or simply moving lower volumes.
Bisignani suggested that the economic conditions were “reshaping the (airline) industry”. He demanded “urgent action” to survive the crisis. He also stated that: “Airports and air navigation service providers must come to the table with efficiencies that deliver cost savings. Labour must understand that efficiency is the only path to job security. And governments must stop crazy taxation and give airlines the freedom to merge and consolidate where it makes business sense.”
The IATA press release and link to data can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
