Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
April 2008
Page i
Management briefing
April 2008
Published by
Aroq Limited
Seneca House
Buntsford Park Road
Bromsgrove
Worcestershire
B60 3DX
United Kingdom
This report is provided for individual use only. If you would like to share this
report with your colleagues, please order additional copies or sign up for a
multi-user licence by contacting:
Kathryn Wedgbury
Research manager, just-style.com
Tel: +44 (0)1527 573 604
Email: kathryn.wedgbury@just-style.com
Copyright statement
This publication, or any part of it, may not be copied, reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or be transmitted in any form by any means electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written
permission of Aroq Limited. This report is the product of extensive research
work. It is protected by copyright under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988. The authors of Aroq Limited’s research reports are drawn from a wide
range of professional and academic disciplines. The facts within this report are
believed to be correct at the time of publication but cannot be guaranteed. All
information within this study has been reasonably verified to the author’s and
publisher’s ability, but neither accept responsibility for loss arising from
decisions based on this report.
We understand the pressure your research budget is under and price our
reports realistically. You won’t find our reports with four, or even five-figure
price tags, but you will find that they make some of the competition look
expensive. Each title is available to you on a single-user basis, supplied on the
strict understanding that each title is not to be copied or shared. Alternatively,
titles can be shared within departments or entire corporations via a cost-
effective multi-user licence. Multi-user licences can also save you money by
avoiding unnecessary order duplication. To further add value, all multi-user
just-style.com membership
Contents
Contents.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
The US .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Russia ............................................................................................................................................ 10
South Korea................................................................................................................................... 15
Introduction
With the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Doha Development Round being
slow to proceed since its 2001 launch – and only this year approaching
something resembling an end-game – free traders wanting to encourage
global commerce have looked to bilateral and regional trade deals.
There have been a lot of these, with the US being particularly keen to secure
agreements with key trading partners. And why not? After all, most countries
are keen to trade with the world’s biggest economy. And generally, even
protectionists have to admit that, in an ideal world, a reduction of tariffs and
subsidies does tend to increase trade and hence wealth.
However, for the clothing and textile sector, life is not quite that simple. For
rich, high-wage economies, the reduction of tariff barriers has tended to reduce
the amount of domestic textile and clothing production, by opening the doors to
cheaper imports. Even low-wage producers, such as those in South Asia, have
found free trade to be risky, where cheap and high-quality competition from
producers such as China has eroded even local market share.
The US
Last year, US textile producers suffered the largest drop in output since the
government started publishing data on the topic in 1972, and free trade deals
are getting the blame. According to the Federal Reserve, ‘US textile mill’
(companies transforming fibre, such as wool, cotton or polyester, into yarns
and fabrics) production decreased by 12.1% in 2007.
Other sectors of the industry saw declines, too. The output of ‘US textile
product mills’ (manufacturers of non-apparel products, such as curtains,
sheets, towels, canvas products, carpets and rugs) fell by 4.9% and apparel by
2.5%. US apparel is down some 59.8% since 1994.
Ask just about any textile manufacturer the reason for such devastating figures
and they will answer with one word – China. Many Chinese imports are now
entering the US through the backdoor as a result of a plethora of bilateral and
regional trade agreements signed under the Bush administration (with
countries other than China). Loopholes allow components to be sourced from
outside the free trade areas, and China – with a high capacity to produce and
transport – is happy to supply.
Despite its unilateralist image, the promotion of free trade has been a
consistent aspect of the Bush administration. In 2002, President George W
Bush pressed Congress to enact the Trade Act, granting him fast-track
negotiating authority, with the resulting deals getting a straight ratification vote
in Congress without having to be mauled and amended by committees. The
result was a profusion of trade pacts drawn up in record time.
American markets, which was implemented between 2006 and 2007. While
the admittedly more important North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) took seven years to negotiate, this deal took just one.
Meanwhile the Bush administration has also struck free trade agreements
(FTAs) with Chile and Singapore (in 2003), and Australia, Bahrain and
Morocco (in 2004), and there are others in the works. FTAs with Oman and
Peru are waiting implementation. FTAs with Colombia, Panama and South
Korea are pending congressional approval.
Some of these agreements have had little effect on textile producers. The
Australia deal has even delivered opportunities. However, CAFTA-DR has
been a “dead loss”, according to the National Textile Association’s David
Trumbull. “We have not seen it deliver for the US in the way it was promised…
It was badly written, and is going to take years to sort out,” he said.
Loopholes allow Chinese fabric (for example that used in boxer shorts, bras
and nightwear) to enter the US, via finished product imports assembled within
CAFTA-DR member countries, he added. At the same time, US textile
producers cannot import Chinese yarn, which would make their product
cheaper. The pocketing fabric industry thought pocketing material would be
required to originate in the CAFTA-DR zone but a change to the deal entailing
that concession was only passed in December. In the meantime, the pocketing
business had moved to China, resulting in redundancies in the US. North
Carolina-based Copland Industries has laid off 40 people in its pocketing
division since 2005, for instance.
Only high-end textiles producers who make quality and design paramount are
thriving, says Karl Spilhaus, president of the Cashmere and Camel Hair
Manufacturers Institute. “Bilateral agreements have opened the floodgates to
lower-positioned goods…but for our one cashmere sweater maker in the US,
people trust his product, and continue to buy it,” he said.
Rhode Island-based Cranston Print Works, which dates back to 1824 and is
the US’ oldest textile printer, was battered in the 1990s, as a result of NAFTA.
Having shifted to serve the home sewing market (making materials for quilts
and other craft items), the company has been less affected by the latest
agreements.
But there have been winners in the free trade rush. The National Retail
Federation “broadly welcomes” the agreements, as members can import more
cheaply and expand abroad. CAFTA-DR has allowed Wal-Mart to become one
of Central America’s largest chains – the retailer is now a leading lobbyist for
quick approval of Latin America FTAs.
Latin America
Latin America has been buffeted by numerous regional and international trade
deals in recent years, many of which have affected the textile and apparel
industries. In September 2007, the Southern Cone Common Market Group
(Mercosur), including Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, issued draft
regulations proposing the establishment of certain labelling requirements for
textile and apparel products produced in, or imported for, consumption into a
member country. Such requirements enable the group to protect and unite
member nations while regulating outside investment. In September 2007, the
trade bloc also adopted an increase of applied tariffs on selected textile
fabrics, clothing products, and textile made-ups and carpets. The move,
encouraged by the Brazilian government, is widely seen as an attempt to curb
further imports from China. Analysts also suggest that a new ‘experimental’
safeguard regime introduced in 2006 will reduce unilateral restrictions within
Mercosur and aid regional integration.
This aim of limiting competition from Asia was also seen as a key benefit for
the Latin American members of 2006’s CAFTA-DR. However, the pending
removal of US temporary restrictive import quotas on Chinese clothing and
textiles, due to expire at the end of 2008, may have been responsible for a
drop in imports to the US from CAFTA-DR countries during the third quarter of
last year, according to a report by EmergingTextiles.com1. The fall was mainly
attributed to a sharp decrease in apparel imports from the Dominican Republic,
which lost 41% in volume terms and 35% in US dollar terms, according to the
report. Meanwhile, imports from Honduras rose 2.18%, where the trade deal
has helped the apparel generate international investment, said the report.
1
US Apparel Imports from CAFTA-DR Countries in 3rd Quarter 2007, published in January 2008
and remove an additional textile and clothing imports tax. The EU and Mexico
have an FTA that has liberalised trade in a number of sectors, including
textiles and clothing. In the six years following the entry into force of the FTA,
bilateral trade between the EU and Mexico grew by nearly 90%, according to
both parties’ imports data.
Chile, which prides itself on being the nation with the most free trade
agreements, has FTAs with many foreign nations, including both the US and
the EU. In the textile industry, this has brought in foreign investment. “There is
a list of some 25 businesses that have been installed in the last two or three
years,” Mario Rosales, head of the Chilean negotiating team, told the Spanish-
language magazine Textiles Panamericanos in the spring of 2006. “I am
convinced that with the agreement with the US, as with the agreement with
Europe, there will be new incentives for other businesses to invest in Chile.”
Local manufacturers are also exploring opportunities abroad. Monarch, a
Chilean manufacturer of socks and stockings with annual sales of more than
US$15m, has embarked on an ambitious investment plan to offer products that
will appeal to outside consumers.
competitive sectors [within Latin America],” says Tom O’Keefe, president of the
Washington-based Mercosur Consulting Group, “that usually employ unionised
and therefore highly vocal workers.”
At present the EU has free trade agreements (FTA) with South Africa, Mexico
and Chile which Marchi complains have “been imposed on us by the EU
Commission”. Similar FTAs are being negotiated with South Korea, India, and
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The EU is expected to
press for reforms in investment, services and intellectual property in the
ASEAN countries, which in turn will be looking for improved market access in
the EU.
Also, a European Partnership Agreement has been reached with the African,
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) which will allow increased EU market access in
those countries, though Marchi said: “We won’t gain a lot of tariff cuts, even in
15 years.” Discussions leading towards a “deep and comprehensive free trade
area” have begun with the Ukraine.
Russia
The bilateral basis for EU relations with Russia is the Partnership and Co-
operation Agreement (PCA) which came into force on 1 December 1997
initially for ten years, and is now extended beyond 2007 on an annual basis.
Textiles and clothing, however, are excluded from the most favoured nation
(MFN) regime established by the PCA, which effectively ensures EU duties on
Russian exports are kept as low as those of countries with which the EU has
the closest trade relations. Instead, a separate Textiles Agreement was
concluded in 1998, providing for the lifting of all quantitative restrictions applied
to trade in textile products, a liberal situation that now applies to all WTO
members – which as yet does not include Russia.
However, importers and exporters trading clothing and textile goods between
the EU and Russia do still pay duties. According to DG Trade, the average
Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) duty for fabrics on imports into the
EU from Russia is currently 6.4%. For imports of fabrics from the EU into
Russia a 10% duty is applied on average. So there is room for improvement.
Complete data for 2007 is not yet available but according to the EC, imports
into the EU of textiles and clothing from Russia shrunk by 6% between 2005
and 2006, when they were worth EUR181.2m. They were expected to fall
sharply again in 2007. EU exports to Russia of textiles and clothing rose by
29% between 2005 and 2006 to EUR3.1bn, however. The export figure for the
first ten months of 2007 had already succeeded the 2006 figure at EUR3.6bn
making clothing and textiles a useful counterweight to the huge EU balance of
payments deficit with Russia, mainly because of energy exports.
Uncertainty still remains: while textile trade between the EU and Croatia
remains duty free, the level of, or absence of duty with – for instance – Serbia
– is subject to what Marchi described as “political will”.
For the past five to eight years textile goods and exports from Western Europe
to Russia have witnessed double-digit growth. “Russia is a peculiar case,” said
Marchi. “Despite the big difficulties that exporters to Russia face in terms of
bureaucracy this is a very profitable market. It is booming in both sales of
finished products and raw materials – Russia is the most important market for
EU textile manufacturers right now.”
upmarket companies flourish, but the reality is that most of the benefits are
seen by EU producers.”
China’s low labour prices have kept companies manufacturing clothes based
in the country, with many exports destined for Japan. But as the Chinese
industry moves upmarket, and demand for quality increases, this trading
relationship could change, with other Asian countries also supplying Japan
with clothes and textiles – and an impending free trade deal could make this
happen faster.
In May 2008, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Japan
are expected to sign a trade agreement which will result in the immediate
repeal of tariffs on 90% of imports from ASEAN. In return, ASEAN members
will eliminate their tariffs on 90% of imports from Japan, but these reductions
will be phased in – possibly over 18 years for some ASEAN members.
“China used to sell in bulk but Japanese companies don’t want to buy in large
quantities,” said Loic Bizel, a Tokyo based fashion consultant. “Trends are
constantly changing here and companies are doing six to seven collections a
year. Because of this they need to import smaller quantities.” The reduction in
import duties, from proposed trade agreements, will help Japan source goods
from other nations.
At the higher end of the Japanese market, top European brands look set to
reap the benefits of a proposed European Union (EU)-Japan deal. “The
strength of the euro has raised the prices of designer brands here,” explained
Bizel. “They have been forced to raise their prices as the [strong] euro is killing
their margin. If an FTA is reached the retailers will benefit.”
Within the clothing and textile sector the gift towel market and leather market
are the most protected within Japan. The reason behind the high level of
protection of the domestic leather trade is not typically disclosed formally, as it
is more of a social reason than an economic one. High tariffs protect the
Burakumin, descendants of Japanese outcast communities, who work in the
leather business. To help them, the country has put in place an import quota
system for leather goods, which makes it difficult for foreign countries
exporting leather to compete here.
As for the towel market Bizel commented: “The gift towel market is a big
industry here and Japan wants to protect it by manufacturing here and selling
towels here. But companies are going to China as it is cheaper.”
India and Japan hope to sign an FTA by mid-2008, while South Korea and
Japan also expect to resume talks (which have been at a standstill since 2004)
this year.
South Korea
As for the US market, South Korea is currently vying for space between high
quality Japanese and cheap Chinese products, reported financial paper Donga
on 12 February 2008.
Assuming it is finally ratified by a Congress that has tepid enthusiasm for free
trade deals, the Korea-US FTA should increase Korea’s textile and apparel
exports to the US by US$180m in the short run, says the Korea Trade
Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA). It has also stated that if the FTA
comes into effect, current US tariffs on textiles will be stopped, contributing to
an anticipated 8% growth in South Korean exports.
South Korea currently has trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, the
European Free Trade Association (EFTA, comprising Norway, Switzerland
Liechtenstein and Iceland) and ASEAN. All the existing pacts have largely
boosted the level of exports of Korean textile and apparel, although the record
is not 100% every year. The Korea-Chile pact came into affect in 2004 for
instance, and South Korean exports have been unsteady, having decreased
by 10.4% in 2006 before increasing by 27% in 2007 (according to Korean
International Trade Association [KITA] statistics). Exports to Singapore, EFTA,
and ASEAN have increased since signing, while imports from EFTA and
Singapore have decreased.
The ASEAN agreement has been beneficial to both parties with South Korea’s
textile and apparel exports increasing by 10.1% in 2007, and ASEAN by 12.3%
in the same year.
Bilateral and regional FTA agreements have been a mixed bag for the Middle
East clothing and textile sector. Turkey has benefited greatly from its formal
membership applicant status with the EU (a customs union has been in place
since 1995), as well as bilateral trade agreements with Syria and Egypt, where
the Turkish sector is sinking money into both countries to establish factories.
For Turkey this cuts overheads and allows manufacturers to export products
from Syria to Europe with ‘Made in Turkey’ labels. In Egypt, where there are
some 200 Turkish-owned factories, this allows manufacturers to utilise Egypt’s
FTA with the US, which allows goods from Egyptian economic zones to enter
the US duty-free.
“For the EU there is an advantage to export finished goods, but for me, I don’t
feel the usefulness of this Euro-Med agreement,” said Charles Arbid, vice
president of the Association of Lebanese Industrialists.
He claimed free trade has also not benefited much of the clothing sector in the
Arab Middle East, with the exception of retailers. “China has benefited, but not
the Arabs,” said Mezannar, citing the problem of dumped goods from the Far
East.
However, trade statistics are not so gloomy. The end of the WTO’s Agreement
on Textiles and Clothing and the subsequent disappearance of import quotas
among member states from 2005 has been a boon for Arab nations,
particularly for Tunisia, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco and Jordan, which saw exports
to the EU in 2007 increase around 20% on 2006 figures.
The recently created Gulf Cooperation Council Common Market could also
boost Arab clothing manufacturers and retailers, with barriers to be removed
as the GCC moves towards an EU-style policy of freedom of movement of
goods.
South Africa
The introduction of four bilateral and regional trade agreements since the turn
of the century have had a mixed effect on South Africa’s clothing and textile
exports over the past seven years, according to industry experts.
Statistics for the period show that despite the abolition of a wide range of
textiles and clothing tariffs for lines traded between South Africa and its
neighbouring countries, as well as the EU and the US, exports in the former
category have risen moderately while the latter have fallen dramatically.
The South African government had hoped that signing the March 2001 Africa
Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) with the US, the January 2000 FTA with
the EU, and the September 2000 Southern African Development Community
trade protocol would actually increase exports.
However, according to the country’s Textile Federation, while last year’s South
African textiles exports amounted to US$562.6m compared to US$392m in
2001, exports of clothing fell, being recorded at US$95.6m in 2007 compared
to US$222.4m in 2001.
The problem, said Textiles Federation spokesman Brian Brink, was that while
his industry had indeed benefited from South Africa’s trade agreements, the
fluctuating nature of the South African rand compared to the US dollar had
weakened the competitiveness of exports, even as their prices were reduced
through the removal of duties.
“There have been some advances in terms of greater exports under these
agreements, especially under AGOA, but when the rand strengthened
between 2003 and 2007 our competitive edge was taken away,” he said.
“Although exports of apparel from South Africa to the US did grow 38% in the
first year after the introduction of AGOA in 2001, export growth was limited by
the restrictive rules of origin. Once buyers realised the limitations, their interest
declined,” he explained, before adding that currency volatility was also an
added factor.
But Dr Ron Sundry, a senior research fellow at the Trade Law Centre for South
Africa said there were also other reasons for the industries ongoing problems.
“Our regional agreements are a joke really. South Africa signed up – to drop its
tariffs – early as a sign of good faith. But many of the other countries, like
Angola, DRC [the Democratic Republic of the Congo] and Zimbabwe, are so
messed up they have been unable or unwilling to follow suit.
“But the real problem is why can Asian producers expand and South African
ones cannot? The answer is productivity. We are not as productive as other
countries and until we get that right we will remain behind,” he concluded.