(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.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
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.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Forecasters Are Sharpening Their Pencils
(Video: Bloomberg TV • Story: Export Development Canada)
It is the forecaster’s prerogative to revise the outlook. And whether it’s the weather, a flight arrival or the economy, the closer we are to the event, the clearer the forecast becomes. Recent turmoil has prompted sizable changes to the near-term economic outlook. What are pundits now saying?
At the beginning of last year, forecasters were quite bullish about prospects for 2008. The world’s largest economies, together accounting for half of global output, were expected to average growth of 2.5%, roughly in line with long-run trend performance. One year later, the outlook was scaled back to 1.9%, and by mid-2008 was trimmed further to just 1.5%. By any standard, that’s a pretty dramatic revision, putting certain economies at or close to recession levels. Will forecasts be downgraded further? Not likely. The 2008 cake is getting more firmly baked; the year is half over, and barring a substantial surprise, what the prophets now see is probably what we’ll get.
Sights have turned to 2009, and what is unfolding is more disquieting. Back in January, the seers were optimistic that prospects in the big economies would improve, collectively predicting growth would accelerate to 2.3%. Since then, revisions have been fast and furious. The 2009 forecast has been reduced by as much as the 2008 forecast was, but in just one-third of the time. At present, large-economy growth is pegged at just 1.3%, now a shade lower than the call for 2008.
Changed prospects for the US economy have played a big role in the overall revisions. Following a weak first quarter, the average projection was chopped by 1.2% to a meagre 1.5%. But the US is not alone; UK growth was halved to just 1%, Spain’s outlook fell from 2.4% to just 1.1%, and Ireland suffered a larger-than-average reduction. All of the large Western economies participated in the downward revision, and most are facing slower prospects in 2009 than at present.
Canada is a rare exception to the rule. On average, forecasters believe that, after a sluggish 2008, growth will nearly double next year. EDC Economics’ Summer 2008 Global Export Forecast sees Canadian economic growth of 1.1% this year and 2% in 2009, as exports stabilize and domestic demand remains firm. Low activity levels will keep exporters on their toes in 2009, but a slightly weaker Canadian dollar will provide some relief.
What about the rest of the world? Other industrialized countries are generally expected to see growth slow in 2009 as well. The trend is also affecting emerging markets. Following torrid growth just under 12% in 2007, China’s growth slowed to 10.1% in the second quarter of this year. Reactions to rising inflation, a deteriorating current account and fiscal concerns threaten India’s near term outlook. In addition, South America saw first quarter growth weaken, owing to tighter monetary policy, currency appreciation and softer trade performance. In fact, economies that are not sharing in the slowing trend are in rare company.
The bottom line? A slim minority just a year ago, those who believe that the slowdown is truly global have become a large majority in the forecasting community. And most have also swung over to the view that the recovery isn’t imminent. Under these circumstances, exporters should brace for lean times and be selective about near term international ventures.
Capture Progress and Continue Work, WTO Members Say
(World Trade Organization)
Issues settled in nine days of talks among ministers should be preserved and work in the Doha Round should continue despite the ministers’ talks collapsing the previous day, WTO members said on 30 July 2008.
They were speaking on the record, in a formal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee, the forum for the full membership to oversee the negotiations. The focus was on the talks among ministers, which broke down on 29 July when a small group of them could not agree on details of a new “special safeguard mechanism” for developing countries (explained below).
The members were echoing WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy’s opening comments in the meeting.
He spoke of “a collective responsibility” to reflect on next steps. The progress made in agriculture, non-agricultural market access and other subjects should be preserved, Mr Lamy said. “This represents thousands of hours of negotiation and serious investment by all the members of the WTO. This should not be wasted.”
Special safeguard mechanism
The talks among minister broke down on 29 July over the special safeguard mechanism (SSM). What exactly was the problem?
This is not about protecting poor farmers in general – that is already covered by what has been agreed on the formula for cutting tariffs, smaller or no cuts for “special products”, different treatment for small and vulnerable economies, recent new members and special cases such as Bolivia, exemptions for least-developed countries. It was not even about the SSM itself. This is about one particular circumstance.
The SSM would allow developing countries to raise tariffs temporarily to deal with import surges and price falls. The blockage was only about import surges, and in a particular instance of that.
Agreed already: All WTO members have agreed that developing countries will have an SSM. They have more or less agreed on how big the import increase would be to trigger the temporary tariff rise, and they have agreed on how high the rise should be in general.
The blockage is about the situation where the SSM raises tariffs above commitments countries made in the 1986–94 Uruguay Round – the “pre-Doha Round bound rates”. In the case of new members, that means commitments made in their membership agreements.
So, essentially, the blockage is about the SSM reaching into a disputed zone: above pre-Doha bound rates. More details can be found here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
