From the Sector

Reset
3 results
Photo: Mark Stebnicki, pexels
16.08.2022

USDA presents new study of Chinese Cotton Textile Industry

  • Growing geographic separation between cotton production and textile manufacturing since the 1990s

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a comprehensive study about Chinese cotton in August 2022. The authors, Fred Gale and Eric Davis, concentrate on textiles, imports and Xinjiang.

China is the world’s largest textile manufacturer and the largest cotton consumer, but changes in China’s economy are reshaping the geography of its cotton-textile sector. Nearly all of China’s cotton is produced in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), also known more simply as Xinjiang.

  • Growing geographic separation between cotton production and textile manufacturing since the 1990s

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a comprehensive study about Chinese cotton in August 2022. The authors, Fred Gale and Eric Davis, concentrate on textiles, imports and Xinjiang.

China is the world’s largest textile manufacturer and the largest cotton consumer, but changes in China’s economy are reshaping the geography of its cotton-textile sector. Nearly all of China’s cotton is produced in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), also known more simply as Xinjiang.

Their study reviewed the regional patterns of China’s cotton textile industry development and identified growing geographic separation between cotton production and textile manufacturing since the 1990s using data from Chinese sources. The study investigated spatial patterns of demand for imported cotton by analyzing lists of Chinese companies applying for a share of the import quota from 2016 to 2022. Multiple regression analysis was used to control for potentially confounding influences when investigating whether companies in coastal provinces were more likely to use imported cotton than similarly sized companies in other regions.

Textile manufacturers — the main consumers of cotton — are concentrated in coastal and central regions where the share of China’s cotton production fell from over 50 percent to 10 percent during 2011–21. These geographic changes are a factor influencing global trade in cotton and textiles. Additionally, the use of forced labor in Xinjiang attracted more attention to the industry, prompting the United States and other countries to ban products produced in the region.

This study reviews the economic, geographic, and policy factors reshaping the industry and influencing the global trade of cotton and textile products. The study also examines data on Chinese companies applying for a share of China’s cotton import quota to gain insight about the demand for imported cotton.

China became the world’s largest producer, consumer, and importer of cotton soon after joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. Despite adopting a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) system for cotton imports and issuing supplemental quotas in most years, the large number of cotton goods manufacturers that request shares of the quota suggests demand for imported cotton exceeds  the quota.

While the TRQ was intended to protect China’s cotton farmers, many farmers abandoned the labor-intensive crop as wages rose rapidly in many other industries and other crops produced higher returns. In response, officials encouraged cotton production in the relatively remote region of Xinjiang to prevent China from becoming reliant on imported cotton. Xinjiang growers receive a subsidy payment for cotton, and subsidies for machinery and seeds. A transportation subsidy induces textile manufacturers in eastern and central regions to purchase cotton from Xinjiang, which is about 2,200 to 2,900 miles from most of the country’s textile manufacturers. Financial support and other incentives encourage manufacturers to shift operations to Xinjiang.

Textile manufacturers in China are highly interested in importing cotton due to its lower price and quality. China imports about 20 percent of its cotton, and the United States is a chief exporter of cotton to China. While imported cotton is used in all provinces, manufacturers near the eastern seaboard show a greater propensity for imports. Nevertheless, in all regions, domestic cotton has the largest share of mill use.

Between 2016 and 2022, 1,581 companies applied for a share of the TRQ, and 265 companies applied in all 7 years. Most of these companies also applied for supplemental quotas issued with slightly higher tariffs. This large number of applicants suggests that imports could be even greater if quotas did not limit them. The operation of the quota application process is not public information, but data submitted by applicants suggests access to imported cotton is uneven. About 14 percent of applicants said imported cotton comprised over half of the cotton they used. Another 20 percent of companies requesting import quota did not use any imported cotton, suggesting that many applicants are unable to import. Textile manufacturers coped with limits on cotton imports by increasing their use of synthetic, chemical-based fibers or by importing cotton yarn. From 2000 to 2020, China’s yarn imports doubled from under 1 million metric tons to around 2 million metric tons with Vietnam supplying about 45 percent of that total in 2020.

The number of textile manufacturers in Xinjiang applying for a share of the cotton import quota rose from 37 to 68 between 2016 and 2022. However, imports constituted less than 2 percent of  the cotton Xinjiang applicants reported using—and 66 percent of them reported using no imported cotton—suggesting that applications from Xinjiang textile companies were often denied.
Analysis found that applicants in coastal provinces used more imported cotton than similarly sized applicants in other regions. Each location of a multi-plant company must apply separately for tariff-rate quotas. Textile manufacturers in Xinjiang that requested a share of the import quota included branches of some of China’s largest textile companies, but the analysis found that Xinjiang applicants used less imported cotton than similar manufacturing plants located in other regions. China’s role as a cotton importer appears to have peaked, while other countries are increasing their share of imports.

USDA baseline projections suggest that by 2030 Vietnam, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Turkey will together account for 47 percent of the world’s cotton imports while China will only account for 24 percent. The study cam be downloaded from the USDA website.

More information:
cotton Cotton USA China Xinjiang
17.06.2022

"Lifting Tariffs Would Cement China’s Dominance of Global Manufacturing"

Textile Groups Urge U.S. to Maintain Penalty Tariffs on Finished Products

The Biden administration should maintain Section 301 penalty tariffs on finished textiles and apparel or risk reversing once-in-a-lifetime nearshoring trends and undermining critical investments and jobs in the U.S. and Western Hemisphere, three key American textile manufacturing groups said today.

In a formal submission to the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) office, which is conducting a four-year statutory review of the tariffs, the associations expressed strong support for the continuation of penalty tariffs on imports from China and warned of the consequences associated with removing the tariffs.

“A key aspect of [the Biden administration’s trade] policy is the need to maintain Section 301 tariffs, absent substantive improvements in China’s pervasive, predatory trade practices,” the groups said. Lifting the tariffs “would also do nothing to achieve the administration’s goal of easing inflationary pressures, as apparel prices out of China continue to hit rock bottom even with the Section 301 tariffs,” they noted.

Textile Groups Urge U.S. to Maintain Penalty Tariffs on Finished Products

The Biden administration should maintain Section 301 penalty tariffs on finished textiles and apparel or risk reversing once-in-a-lifetime nearshoring trends and undermining critical investments and jobs in the U.S. and Western Hemisphere, three key American textile manufacturing groups said today.

In a formal submission to the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) office, which is conducting a four-year statutory review of the tariffs, the associations expressed strong support for the continuation of penalty tariffs on imports from China and warned of the consequences associated with removing the tariffs.

“A key aspect of [the Biden administration’s trade] policy is the need to maintain Section 301 tariffs, absent substantive improvements in China’s pervasive, predatory trade practices,” the groups said. Lifting the tariffs “would also do nothing to achieve the administration’s goal of easing inflationary pressures, as apparel prices out of China continue to hit rock bottom even with the Section 301 tariffs,” they noted.

The submission was filed by the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO) and the Narrow Fabrics Institute (NFI) and Industrial Fabrics Institute (USIFI) – both divisions of the Advanced Textiles Association (ATA).  The associations represent the entirety of the U.S. textile production chain.

“For decades, China’s illegal actions have undermined virtually every domestic manufacturing sector and contributed to the direct loss of millions of U.S. jobs. These devastating state-sponsored practices include intellectual property theft as well as pervasive state-ownership of manufacturing, industrial subsidies, and abhorrent labor and human rights abuses in the Xinjiang region,” they noted. “Cancelling these tariffs would create further unhealthy dependence on Chinese supply chains and embolden future systematic trade abuses as bad actors know that the U.S. will not hold them accountable.”

The tariffs were imposed on China beginning in 2018 in response to China’s continuing IP and related trade violations. China has since failed to comply with an agreement it reached with the United States in 2020.

More information:
NCTO Tariffs China
Source:

NCTO

02.12.2021

NCTO President & CEO Kim Glas testified on Supporting U.S. Industry

NCTO President and CEO Kim Glas testified at a hearing on “Supporting U.S. Workers, Businesses, and the Environment in the Face of Unfair Chinese Trade Practices” before the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee.

In written testimony submitted to the committee, Glas outlines China’s rise to dominance of global textile and apparel production and its adverse impact on the U.S. textile industry, details ways to strengthen onshoring and nearshoring of supply chains, and provides recommendations on the critical policies needed to address these illegal trade practices and rectify inequities.

“China holds the dubious distinction of being the world’s leading purveyor of illegal trade practices that are designed to unfairly bolster a blatantly export-oriented economy,” NCTO President and CEO Kim Glas says. “These predatory practices take many forms, from macroeconomic policies that grant across-the-board advantages to their manufacturers, to industry specific programs intended to dominate global markets in targeted areas. The U.S. textile industry has been a longstanding victim of China’s predatory export practices.”

NCTO President and CEO Kim Glas testified at a hearing on “Supporting U.S. Workers, Businesses, and the Environment in the Face of Unfair Chinese Trade Practices” before the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee.

In written testimony submitted to the committee, Glas outlines China’s rise to dominance of global textile and apparel production and its adverse impact on the U.S. textile industry, details ways to strengthen onshoring and nearshoring of supply chains, and provides recommendations on the critical policies needed to address these illegal trade practices and rectify inequities.

“China holds the dubious distinction of being the world’s leading purveyor of illegal trade practices that are designed to unfairly bolster a blatantly export-oriented economy,” NCTO President and CEO Kim Glas says. “These predatory practices take many forms, from macroeconomic policies that grant across-the-board advantages to their manufacturers, to industry specific programs intended to dominate global markets in targeted areas. The U.S. textile industry has been a longstanding victim of China’s predatory export practices.”

“China’s virtually unlimited and unrealistic pricing power coupled with its subsidies and lack of enforceable labor and environmental standards strips benefits and undermines policy objectives throughout the U.S. free trade and preference program structure,” Glas further notes.

“A program of maximum pressure must be developed and fully enforced to reconfigure textile and apparel sourcing patterns that currently place an unhealthy and heavily weighted dependance on China,” Glas adds. “With a strong trade policy holding China accountable, the opportunities are ripe to unlock further domestic and regional investment to bolster this critical textile and apparel production chain because of the important rules of origin for this sector.  We can nearshore more production, help address the migration crisis, and assist in addressing the urgent issue of climate change and create a win-win-win for workers in the United States, workers in the region, and consumers.”

Glas outlines key policy recommendations to the committee, including:

  • Enact tax incentives and other targeted critical investments to strengthen Western Hemisphere trade relationships and re-shore manufacturing
  • Close the Section 321 De Minimis Tariff Loophole
  • Step up enforcement of forced labor of Uyghurs and others in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR)
  • Firmly maintain Section 301 penalty duties on China for finished textiles and apparel products
  • Immediately pass the MTB to help manufacturers with a limited list of critical inputs not made in the U.S. and review/close the mechanism in the MTB renewal which allows for finished products
  • Strengthen buy-American practices for PPE and other essential products
  • Block expansion of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) to include textile and apparel products
  • Use trade enforcement in free trade agreements to mitigate transshipment schemes by unscrupulous importers seeking to illegally circumvent duties