Copy

EBMA Brussels

Monthly Newsletter on Trade:
March 2021

26th March 2021
Update: You can find all EBMA newsletters on our webpage at www.ebma-brussels.eu 

US and China hurl accusations at start of Alaska meeting

US and Chinese officials engaged in a fiery exchange at the start of the first-high level meeting between Washington and Beijing since Joe Biden took office in January.

Antony Blinken, US secretary of state, accused China of undermining global stability with its actions towards Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Taiwan at the start of the two-day event in Alaska.

“Each of these actions threaten the rules-based order that maintains global stability,” Blinken said in his opening remarks, sitting across the table from Yang Jiechi, his Chinese counterpart.

“The alternative to a rules-based order is a world in which might makes right and winners take all,” he added. “That would be a far more violent and unstable world.”

Yang fired back by accusing the US of having a “cold war mentality”, and saying Washington had used its military and financial clout to “suppress” other nations and to “incite some countries to attack China”. He added that many Americans no longer had confidence in their democracy due to the treatment of minorities in the country and incidents of racism.

“We do not believe in invading, through the use of force or to topple other regimes . . . or to massacre the people of other countries,” Yang said in comments that lasted more than 15 minutes.

Yang conceded that his response to Blinken was extraordinary but said the secretary of state’s comments were not “normal”.

Blinken has in the past accused China of committing “genocide” over its repression of 1m Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

A US official later accused Yang of violating a protocol agreement that limited each speaker to two minutes, saying he was “grandstanding, focused on public theatrics and dramatics over substance”.

Media were supposed to leave the room after both sides gave their short opening remarks. But Blinken asked reporters to remain after Yang spoke so that they could hear his response, in a highly unusual move that underscored the tensions.

Blinken said his diplomatic counterparts around the world had expressed “deep satisfaction that the US is back” and “deep concern” about China’s actions. He also responded to Yang’s criticism of America’s domestic challenges, saying the US was engaged in a “constant quest to form a more perfect union and that quest acknowledges our imperfections and acknowledges that we’re not perfect”.

Zhao Lijian, a spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry, sharply criticised the US approach. “The US side spoke too long and attacked China's domestic and foreign policies, picking fights for no reason,” he said.

“When Chinese delegates arrived in Anchorage, not only did they feel the cold weather of Alaska, but also the [cold] way the US treated their guests.”

While expectations of the meeting had been low, the blunt exchange suggested relations could plummet further.

Elisabeth Braw, a national security expert at the American Enterprise Institute think-tank, said Yang’s remarks showed China was increasingly willing to abandon the kind of protocols that normally make the public part of diplomatic meetings staid. 

“The Chinese government clearly feels it doesn’t need to adhere to long-established standards,” she said. “It feels it has the upper hand and it also doesn’t mind being seen as violating written and unwritten rules. That’s very dangerous.”

Victor Gao, a former Chinese diplomat, said Yang had no choice but to reply forcefully. “He wanted to make sure his Chinese audience, including his bosses, knew he had responded on these important issues,” he said. “How can you invite Chinese guests to Alaska and then open up the meeting by accusing the other side like this?”

US officials had suggested that the meeting would be tough and that they had no intention of refraining from addressing issues such as human rights and democracy, stressing that Washington was not interested in engaging China just for the sake of dialogue but wanted to see “deeds, not words”.

Yang and Wang Yi, China’s foreign minister, came to Alaska for the talks with Blinken and Jake Sullivan, national security adviser, in hopes of a reset.

In a recent speech, Yang blamed the Trump administration for the dismal state of US-China relations, which are at their lowest point in four decades, and expressed hope for some improvement in ties. 

But he also warned the Biden administration not to cross any “red lines”, in a reference to criticisms about China’s crackdown on the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, human rights abuses in Xinjiang and aggressive Chinese military activity near Taiwan.

Biden and his team have repeatedly ignored the Chinese warnings. Two days before the Alaska meeting, he imposed sanctions on 24 Chinese and Hong Kong officials over a law that eviscerates the limited democracy enjoyed in the territory by cutting the proportion of lawmakers directly elected by the population.

Source: Financial Times, 19/03/2021

Brussels seeks to win round critics of EU-China deal

Brussels is poised to reveal the full details of its controversial market-access deal with China, as it seeks to build a case for an accord that has come under attack because of Beijing’s human rights record. 

Business has been waiting eagerly to know what precisely the agreement — struck at the end of 2020 — offers to EU companies operating in the Chinese market. Brussels sees it as a breakthrough that “will give European businesses a major boost” and put them on a level playing field with US rivals.

It will remove some barriers to EU companies hoping to invest in China. Industries where Brussels has secured improved terms of access include the automotive sector, private healthcare, cloud computing and ancillary services for air transport.

Publication of the technical annexes to the deal is set to come within days. It will be the prelude to what are likely to be fierce EU debates over ratification of a treaty that has been denounced by human rights advocates given Beijing’s repression of Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang and its suppression of the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong.

A coalition of 36 civil society organisations, including trade unions, wrote to EU chiefs earlier this year calling for the investment agreement to be reopened to add “enforceable human rights clauses”. However, Brussels argues it has already secured unprecedented commitments.

Backers of the deal, such as French president Emmanuel Macron, have said it will give the EU leverage in pushing China on human rights, and that the bloc will be vigilant in making sure Beijing honours provisions on labour standards.

This message was repeated last week by French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who stated that “our commercial partnership will not be built on a disregard for human rights, and we will be particularly attentive to this”.

But MEPs have warned that approval of the deal by the European parliament — an essential ratification step expected in early 2022 — is not assured. It will depend on the EU adding to the arsenal of measures at its disposal to tackle human rights violations and unfair trading practices. 

“We defend our principles and we need all the measures to defend our principles,” said Inma Rodríguez-Piñero, lead MEP on China trade issues for the parliament’s large centre-left bloc. Speaking to the Financial Times, she also warned that China needed to provide a “clear roadmap” for implementing International Labour Organization conventions against use of forced labour. 

China agreed in the investment treaty with the EU to “make continued and sustained efforts” to adopt the conventions.

Rodríguez-Piñero’s warnings closely parallel those of Iuliu Winkler, lead MEP on China for the parliament’s trade committee and a member of the assembly’s biggest group, the centre-right European People’s party. 

He noted that the deal offered clear benefits to EU companies, but “forced labour is a no-go, this is our message”.

In 2019, the European Commission described China as a “negotiating partner with whom the EU needs to find a balance of interests, an economic competitor in the pursuit of technological leadership, and a systemic rival”. But, having negotiated the deal on behalf of the EU, it insists it has not been naive. 

It has underlined that the deal “is the first time that China agrees to such ambitious provisions [on labour rights] with a trade partner”. Officials also point to Brussels’ recent success in pushing South Korea to honour ILO commitments in its trade deal with the EU as an example of what can be achieved.

The EU argues that it is the clear winner in the deal when it comes to benefits for business, and that the accord nonetheless increases the bloc's leverage over China on human rights.

But critics insist that existing enforcement measures available against China are too weak. Rodríguez-Piñero said she and other MEPs had a lengthy list of priorities that they want the EU to pursue “in terms of trade defence instruments, in terms of autonomous instruments, in terms of human rights”.

They include active use of a “global human rights sanctions regime”, approved by EU governments in December, that allows the bloc to collectively target state and non-state actors responsible for human rights violations, no matter where they occurred.

MEPs on Wednesday also formally called on the commission to press ahead with plans for legislation on corporate due diligence.

The planned rules would require companies to make sure forced labour is not used in their supply chains — something already in place in the US and Canada.

Luisa Santos, deputy director-general at BusinessEurope, an association representing EU employers, said that companies backed the EU-China investment deal because it would help to “correct the unbalanced situation we have right now in the market”.

But she said business also supported the creation of new measures, legally separate from the agreement, to protect human rights and address market distortions.

“It will be more beneficial to Chinese interests if we scrap the deal than the other way around,” she said. “But the agreement should not be the only tool in our bilateral relationship.”

For MEPs, the fate of the investment treaty may lie as much in the EU and China’s actions between now and the ratification vote as in the content of the deal itself.


Source: Financial Times, 11/03/2021

The new EU trade strategy: What’s actually new?

The recently adopted new EU trade policy contains much that is good. It reiterates the intention to support decent work and social fairness. It also includes strong references concerning the fight against climate change and the loss of biodiversity.

The Paris Climate Agreement will be considered an essential element of future trade and investment agreements. The narrative is greener than in the past, which is welcome.

The intention with the new strategy is to ensure international trade contributes to growth in Europe post-COVID. Well-being and the reduction of inequality should be the core objective of post-COVID policies. Whether or not there is growth doesn’t really matter.

More and more voices argue that GDP growth – producing more – is not an adequate measure of progress as it doesn’t capture essential things such as environmental and climate damage generated by our overconsumption and production model; or the massive unpaid care and domestic work, carried out for free mostly by women, and without which the economy couldn’t thrive.

Women’s unpaid care work has increased during the pandemic, with children at home and sick relatives to take care of.

These objectives have been captured by the EU Trade Commissioner with three words: Open because we want to keep boosting exports. Sustainable because trade needs to be greener and fairer. Assertive because we are going to better promote the interests of EU businesses in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and make sure imports comply with all EU standards and are not subsidised by third countries.

Assertive? Making sure imported goods fully comply with all health, safety, animal welfare and other standards applied in the EU is most welcome. Avoiding imported products that are subsidised in countries where they are made is also logical, though the same should apply the other way round, one of the most obvious examples being in the field of agriculture.

So far, Europe has always secured WTO rules to its advantage, so that massive European subsidies for agriculture are considered acceptable and fair, in spite of the fact that most developing countries don’t have the resources to subsidise their own agriculture. As a result, local producers can’t compete with dumped European agriculture products flooding into their markets.

Open? To generate this growth, the Commission is proposing a stronger emphasis on creating market access opportunities for green goods and services produced in Europe and regulating digital trade at global level. The green and digital economy are going to be massively subsidised by the EU through the post-COVID recovery plans, which is welcome. Making sure European companies can better access foreign markets in these sectors makes sense.

However, nothing is said about least developed countries – which are struggling to pay back skyrocketing debt aggravated by their public spending for health and social protection in response to the pandemic. These countries do not have the resources to invest in these promising sectors. We believe these countries deserve a differentiated approach, with technology transfer, waivers on intellectual property rights, a focus on local industrialisation and important levels of protection for their own nascent industries.

Sustainable? Making sure labour and other human rights are respected in countries with which we have trade agreements was already prominent in the previous trade strategy adopted six years ago, though nothing significant has happened since then. It remains an objective of the new EU trade policy, which refers to two upcoming legislative proposals that have been called for by civil society organisations for years.

First, an EU law on corporate governance and accountability that should be tabled in June. If well designed and ambitious enough, it will improve respect for human rights and the environment in global supply chains of companies operating in the EU.

Second, an EU law to ensure that products contributing to deforestation can’t be imported in Europe. These are fundamental and long-awaited pieces of legislation, but they were in the pipeline well before the new trade strategy.

The third proposal is also not new as it was announced already more than a year ago: The appointment of a chief enforcement officer, to deal with complaints in case of violation of labour and other human rights, or environmental abuses happening in trading partner countries.

The expectation is that this person will “level-up social, labour and environmental standards globally” – an unrealistic expectation in view of the systematic and widespread abuses of labour and trade unions rights in so many countries with which we have trade agreements. In fact, low wages, restrictions on workers’ right to organise and lax environmental standards keep prices low – including for the raw material we need to produce goods in the EU.

But it gets even worse: Nowhere is there any reference to the fact that our trade agreements themselves contribute in many cases to human rights violations in partner countries.

It does so by restricting the right of farmers to traditional seeds, imposing intellectual property rights that restrict access to medicines and vaccines, dismantling the protection for local economic actors in developing countries whose industries are not ready to face global competition, exporting heavily subsidised agricultural products such as powder milk or poultry with devastating consequences for local producers in developing countries.

These adverse impacts have been shown again and again to have disproportionate effects on women. As long as European countries continue to ignore the adverse impacts of EU trade deals on people living in developing countries, trade will not be fair and women will continue to be exploited through paid and unpaid care work – making the wealthiest richer, and the powerful more powerful.

Something new? One new opening is to be noted, however. The Strategy announces that future trade agreements will include a chapter on sustainable food systems.

Let’s hope that this specific chapter will be based on the understanding that trade agreements should stop incentivising an unsustainable model of agriculture – intensive monocultures for export – and should protect local food systems and short food supply chains in Europe and in partner countries.


Source: Euractiv, 18/03/2021

SPRING IS COMING

NEW BEGINNING: A renewed transatlantic love is in the air: At the end of last week, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen spoke over the phone with U.S. President Joe Biden, with a considerable détente in trade relations one outcome; Commissioner Thierry Breton followed up with White House COVID coordinator Jeffrey Zients on vaccines on Monday; and that same day, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris spoke in the European Parliament.

Exclusive invite: Biden’s climate envoy John Kerry is the next top act to come to Brussels — and his visit will include a meeting with the whole College of Commissioners at their meeting on Wednesday.

Message from Harris: The first female American vice president urged European leaders to “build a world that works for women” in her address to MEPs. She said systemic inequalities persist for women globally, pronouncing: “Simply put, our world does not yet work for women as it should.” More efforts are needed, Harris argued, to ensure “safety at home and in every community,” including “access to high-quality health care,” “dignity at work” and an “equal voice in decision-making.” Write-up here by Maïa de La Baume, and Harris’ video here.

RESTART BUTTON: With the new U.S. administration, “there are good conditions to try to reform some of those things that Europe has been struggling with quite lonely the last years,” Cecilia Malmström, a former EU trade commissioner, told me on Monday. She mentioned reform of the World Trade Organization as one example — and more generally a post-Trump approach that doesn’t equate trade with war.

Let’s try once more: When it comes to the transatlantic relationship, “I think there are very good possibilities for a strong friendship,” Malmström said. “It will not look exactly the same, but it is being defined right now, and I think it will be as strong as ever.”

But not yet: Still, any rejuvenated relationship won’t involve a fresh attempt to strike a trade deal any time soon, as “I think none of us are ready,” Malmström said. “I don’t think a trade agreement or a new TTIP is on the agenda for quite some time,” she added, but suggested the EU and U.S. “try to find small concrete items where we can cooperate.”

Incremental steps case in point: The U.S. and the EU have agreed on the bloc’s new post-Brexit agricultural quotas at the World Trade Organization, covering “dozens of quotas and billions of euros of trade including for beef, poultry, rice, dairy products, fruits and vegetables and wines,” the Commission said in a statement.

VIENNA’S WAR ON TRADE: “For us, the impact of the EU-MERCOSUR trade agreement on the climate crisis is a deciding factor,” wrote Austrian Vice Chancellor Werner Kogler in a letter to Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa, which was published after it was delivered. “Against this background, the Austrian Federal Government has agreed to do its utmost to oppose the signature.”

No tricks please: Kogler, from the Green party, invited the Council presidency in an even more uncommonly aggressive move to “ensure that the vote on the EU-MERCOSUR trade agreement can take place openly, without any political manoeuver, and with full public attention.” More for POLITICO Trade, Sustainability and Agri and Food Pros.


Source: Politico, 09/03/2021

Don’t expect shipping costs to buoy inflation

Greetings from Frankfurt, where much of the chatter is about the European Central Bank’s policy vote tomorrow.

The focus will be on how officials respond to the rise in governments’ borrowing costs in recent weeks. While that particular issue has caused difficulties for policymakers, there are grounds for optimism on trade. The export boom that began in the second half of this year has helped prop up growth in the region, notably in Germany (more on which in tomorrow’s Trade Secrets).

However, manufacturers here have not been immune to the supply chain disruptions that have emerged during the pandemic. In today’s main piece, we look at whether one of these pressures — a surge in freight rates — will eventually lead to problems for central bankers here and elsewhere in the form of higher inflation. 

Freight costs and inflation
A year into the pandemic and shipping costs remain buoyant. After rising steeply over the course of the second half of last year, they’re still not sinking — as some had expected them to do over the Chinese new year period when factories there are usually shut, lowering demand for container space.

For those looking for an alternative to shipping, air freight has kept up its gains in the second half of the fiscal year (though the rise has been a lot less extreme and prices remain way below where they were before the pandemic). 

In the next few weeks, expect a Trade Secrets investigation into what’s happening to rail freight too.

Stepping back, there’s a lively debate among investors and economists about the possibility of the long-dormant inflation monster returning once pandemic-related restrictions begin to ease. The argument goes that, after years of subdued price pressures, costs will begin to rise as a wave of pent-up demand (and in the case of the US) eye-watering amounts of fiscal stimulus are unleashed. So will the rise in manufacturers’ freight costs contribute to this? We don’t think so — at least the sort of spiralling wage and price dynamics we associate with the 1970s and early 1980s.

There is the possibility that, as vaccination drives take hold and economies reopen, demand will increase and manufacturers will pass on the higher transportation costs to their customers. But that demand may well lead to more spending on services. For instance, once restaurants reopen, people may want to venture out on a bike ride and eat a nice schnitzel watered down with the local beer at a guest house overlooking the river Main instead of shelling out on a Peloton. Services are, by their nature, largely local and therefore require less spending on transportation. As cases dwindle, ports and warehouses, which have faced bottlenecks in part due to workers having to socially distance or quarantine, will see pressure drop, easing the logjams we’ve seen develop throughout the supply chain, and quickening turnround times for vessels. And while prices remain sky high, they have stopped rising.

Patrik Berglund, chief executive of Xeneta, a platform for ocean and air freight rates that provided us with the data for the charts, buys this argument too. And he notes that multiyear contracts are being offered at substantially better rates than one-year ones, which suggests we will see prices fall over the coming quarters. “Vaccinations and reopenings will lead to more spending on services, and less on consumer durables. I also expect to see insolvencies rise, which should also weigh on demand,” he said. “And at some point, containers will start to return to east Asia. Low margin commodities cannot be shifted at these price levels, and shipping companies will eventually want to lower costs to appeal to them.”

However, he thinks shipping costs are likely to sink slowly and are unlikely to fall back to the level they were before the pandemic when the shipping industry saw margins shrink and had to resort to a series of alliances to prevent more bankruptcies from occurring after the failure of South Korea’s Hanjin.

It’s worth remembering that falls in shipping costs have been among the deflationary forces emanating from world trade in recent decades. Others include the utilisation of cheaper (largely Asian) labour, and advances in technology and logistics, all of which have helped keep a lid on price rises for exactly the sort of consumer durables for which demand has boomed during the pandemic.

Neither cheap labour nor technological advances are likely to disappear just yet. But we suspect the shipping logjams and supply shortages will focus minds a little about the way in which logistics have been handled. The chip shortages that have halted car production, including here in Germany, may well lead to more building up of inventories and less reliance on just-in-time production, as well as more supply chain diversification. A poll of more than 300 supply chain professionals by supply chain automation platform Centersource and logistics media consultancy Charlie Pesti that hit our inbox yesterday found almost 90 per cent of shippers either had or were planning to diversify suppliers. There’s also talk of reshoring, which Trade Secrets has written about here.

None of that will come cheap. Trade won’t be inflationary, but current patterns of logistics and shipping might have to adjust if it is to remain the force it was in keeping costs in check.

Source: Financial Times, 10/03/2021

EU Court of Auditors:
Measures on Bicycles & E-bikes are positive examples of TDI use

The European Court of Auditors concluded in its special report on the use of Trade Defence Instruments (TDI) that the EU COM has been successful in enforcing the EU trade policy and SMEs should make more use of Trade Defense https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR20_17/SR_trade_defence_instruments_EN.pdf

The European Court of Auditors brings as a positive example of TDI use by the EU COM the EU Bicycle, E-bike and Bike Components Industry:

A clearly positive impact for the e-bikes sector. Without the measures, production in Europe would probably have ceased. Furthermore, TDI measures on normal bikes and bike parts have been vital in enabling EU bike producers to invest in and develop their e-bike production.

The report also mentions that "The products concerned are usually industrial (rather than consumer) products, with bicycles being a notable exception."

The Court further referred to the high investigation and legal costs: "Given the extent of the information required and the need for most parties to hire lawyers, the cost of filing a complaint can be very high. While companies and associations – in particular, inexperienced users of TDIs and fragmented industries – have problems gathering some of the requested information, our audit work confirmed that DG TRADE needs that information."

 
Further, our Industry is shown in the European Court of Auditors’ video on LinkedIn:  “TDI supported the EU e-bike production

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/evangelia-anevlavi-862313123_eutrade-trade-activity-6694137885836361728-M6wo

 EU PROTECTS
AN EQUAL FOOTING:
HOW THE EU KEEPS THE WHEELS OF FAIR TRADE TURNING

An equal footing: How the EU keeps the wheels of fair trade turning
 

Europe is open for business, but everyone must play fair. EU trade rules stop artificially cheap imports from flooding the EU market and pushing European companies out of business. When European bicycle manufacturers suspected that some of these rules had been broken, EU trade investigators and customs officers jumped into gear to protect the future of a whole sector.

You can see the full publication here:
http://https://europa.eu/euprotects/our-society/equal-footing-how-eu-keeps-wheels-fair-trade-turning_en
and the relevant video here: 
https://youtu.be/uN4j4GxUjPA

 


Monika Božíková

 

Electric bicycles (e-bikes) are a faster and greener mode of transport for people of all ages. From 2016, bicycle companies across Europe began to struggle to compete with massive e-bike imports from China. These cheaper e-bikes, arriving on the EU market en masse, threatened to wipe out 90,000 jobs in Europe in just a few years.

Alerted by European bicycle manufacturers, the European Commission investigated the exports from China and the state of the industry in Europe. In the space of a few months, the EU’s investigation teams had collected enough evidence to prove that imported e-bikes were being sold at an unfair price on the EU market. Meet the EU trade investigators, customs officers and companies that made sure Chinese e-bike importers played by the rules.

Moreno Fioravanti

Italian, European Bicycle Manufacturers Association

Belgium

“I received calls from bicycle companies all over Europe. They couldn’t compete with an influx in imported e-bikes at what appeared to be unfair prices.”

 

“Electric bikes are popular, and they appeal to everyone. But this invention counts for nothing if the rules of fair trade are not respected. If we hadn’t got EU trade investigators involved, there wouldn’t be a European e-bike industry today.”

"We alerted the European Commission to protect our sector's 800 small businesses and 90,000 jobs"
- Moreno Fioravanti

Michał Struk

Polish, Trade department, European Commission

Belgium

“The European Bicycle Manufacturers Association asked us to investigate the possible dumping of e-bike imports onto the EU market. My team visited 5 e-bike manufacturers in Europe to verify whether their complaints about unfair competition were founded. We also visited 5 European importers of Chinese e-bikes to see how our measures would affect their businesses.”

“After one year, we had enough evidence that European bike producers had experienced decreases in market share. But our investigation into the unfair trading of e-bikes didn’t end there.”

"We confirmed the negative effect on the European bike industry. But we needed to know more about the cause."
 - Michał Struk

Arto Leppilahti

Finnish, Trade department, European Commission

Belgium

“While our colleagues investigated in Europe, we had just a few months to visit several e-bike manufacturers in China, as well as a supplier of e-bike engines. We found out that these companies got support from the Chinese government in the form of cheap loans, bicycle parts and even land to build factories and expand their business for exports. This explained how these e-bikes could be sold at prices much lower than EU prices.”

“To do our job properly we had to investigate the activities of Chinese companies and look into the role of the Chinese economic and trade authorities. Back in Brussels, based on all the evidence collected in Europe and in China, we decided to impose special taxes on these e-bike imports. This helped restore fair trade in the EU.”

"We make sure EU trade rules are respected. We won't allow unfair price advantages to change the game."
- Arto Leppilahti

Oliver Christ

Customs, Port of Hamburg

Germany

“We complete up to 500 checks a day. If somebody declares a container of e-bikes, for example, we’ll cross-check them in an electronic database. We make sure they comply with EU trade rules or, if they don’t stick to them, pay anti-dumping duties.”

“We deal with a range of businesses and products. Over the years, I’ve developed an eye for identifying and stopping imports that break the rules and threaten the European market.”

"After a trade investigation is successfully completed, we step in to makes sure extra import duties are paid."
- Oliver Christ

 

Monika Božíková
Kenzel bicycle company

Slovakia

"My brother and I grew up surrounded by bicycles. To this day, we're a family-run business and we see suppliers from Europe and beyond."

"We employ 80 people and recently invested in a new production site. But we could never compete against unfairly priced imports. EU trade rules protect our future and allow our community to thrive."

 

"Europe has really played an important role in giving small businesses like mine a voice. When we join forces, we can better protect our industry."
Monika Božíková

 

Did you know?      

Pedal to the metal

Electric bicycles (e-bikes) come in different sizes, styles and their battery-powered electric systems relieve the burden, whether you're pedaling up or across any terrain. Newer models can even communicate with other vehicles, alerting them when they get too close.

E-fficiency

E-bike manufacturers in Europe pride themselves on reducing their carbon footprint. If all e-bikes sold in the EU were imported from China, C02 and other dangerous emissions could increase by 2 million tonnes.

800

The number of innovative European SMEs that make up the European bike manufacturing industry, which employs some 90,000 workers.

1 million

The number of e-bikes produced by European manufacturers every year.

Electric services

The EU-funded project Pro E-Bike promotes the public use of electric bikes and scooters as an attractive alternative to conventional (fossil-fueled) vehicles. The project is underway in Italy, Sweden, Croatia, Spain, The Netherlands, Portugal and other countries.

AEGIS Europe News wrap-up

www.aegiseurope.eu
The Industry Alliance AEGIS Europe promotes sustainable manufacturing, investment, employment, growth & innovation in Europe
AEGIS Europe brings together nearly 30 European associations representing a broad variety of industries including traditional industries, consumer branches, SMEs and renewable energy sectors, accounting for more than €500 billion in annual turnover and millions of jobs across the EU. This industry alliance, made up of leaders in sustainable manufacturing and social and environmental responsibility, is committed to European manufacturing as the fundamental driver of innovation, growth and jobs in Europe.
THE JOINT DECLARATION FOR AN AMBITIOUS EU INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY HAS BEEN SIGNED BY MORE THAN 140 ASSOCIATIONS
The full declaration can be found  here 
Follow us on Twitter
EBMA
Moreno Fioravanti 
Contact us here






This email was sent to <<Email Address>>
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
European Bicycle Manufacturers Association · Rue Archimede 77 Boite 64 ap.7D · Brussels 1000 · Belgium

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp