US tariff tussles stuff of nightmares for Bordeaux winemakers
EU head Ursula Von der Leyen said the bloc still hoped to secure further so-called 'zero-for-zero' agreements, notably for alcohol, which she hoped to be 'sorted out' in the coming days.
Philippe Tapie, chairman of regional traders' union Bordeaux Negoce, which represents more than 90% of the wine trade in the Bordeaux area, is worried by the uncertainty.
'One day, it is white, the next it is black - the US Administration can change its mind from one day to the next and we have no visibility,' he told AFP.
In mid-March, Trump had threatened Brussels with 200% tariffs on alcohol in response to a proposed EU tax on US bourbon.
Then in April he brandished a new threat of 20% across the board on EU products, a threat ultimately suspended.
Since then, the level first held at 10% but, in late May, the US leader threatened to revert to 50% before pivoting to 30% starting August 1, the deadline for the negotiations with the EU that led to a preliminary accord after Trump and Von der Leyen met in Scotland.
In vino, veritas is unpredictability
'At 10% or 15%, we'll find solutions. At 30%, no. End of story,' Tapie warned just ahead of the announcement as he criticised a 'totally unpredictable American Administration'.
To export wine, 'there's a minimum of 30 days by boat. If you go to California, it's 60 days. We can't think in terms of weeks,' says Tapie, who says he has 'never been confronted with such a situation' in 30 years of business.
Twins Bordeaux, one of Bordeaux's leading wine merchants, also laments the tariffs' impact.
'The American market represents about a third of our turnover, or around €30m,' explains Sebastien Moses, co-director and co-owner of Twins, which usually ships upwards of a million bottles a year to the US.
Since January, 'our turnover must have fallen by 50% compared to last year,' he says.
'So far, we've managed to save the situation, because as soon as Donald Trump was elected we anticipated this and sent as much stock as possible to the US,' explains Moses, though longer term he says this is not a 'stable' strategy.
Fly it out?
As an attempted work around Twins Bordeaux even shipped cases of around 10,000 bottles by air in March.
'But only very expensive wines, at no less than €150-200 per bottle, because by air it's at least two and a half times the price of shipping by sea,' he said.
For Bordeaux wine merchant Bouey, the US market represents less than 10% of its exports.
'We have long since undertaken a geographical expansion. Faced with the global chaos, commercial strategies can no longer be based on a single- or dual-country strategy,' Jacques Bouey, its chief executive, told AFP in April.
The tariffs come with the industry already struggling with declining consumption that has led to overproduction and a collapse in bulk prices.
By early 2023, a third of Bordeaux's approximately 5000 wine growers admitted to being in difficulty.
'We're starting to become world champions in terms of accumulating problems,' complained Tapie.
-Agence France-Presse
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
42 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
NZ corporate bond issuance shifts overseas, local market slows
That's partly down to banks being better positioned, so corporate treasurers are skewing their funding mix more towards bank lending, he says. The New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), which raises funds for councils, has recently begun issuing offshore debt, which has added another 'swing factor' away from the local market, he says. 'But it's not just LGFA. There is a kind of dynamic where treasurers are getting better pricing landed back into Kiwi dollars if they issue offshore,' he said. 'That's something we would see as being likely to persist, so it's a bit of a change.' Kāinga Ora (formerly the Housing Corporation) is absent from the corporate debt market after the Government in 2022 announced that future funding would be through New Zealand Debt Management – part of the Treasury. He said corporates are hedging funds raised overseas back into New Zealand dollars on quite favourable terms. 'In previous years, typically there is more issuance done domestically than offshore, but this year, a multiple of what's been done onshore has been done offshore. 'Borrowers probably see it as being reasonably positive, but from a fund manager's perspective, we would like to see more issuance in New Zealand,' Pannett said. 'Typically they will get a bit more tenor [longer duration] offshore, and price is a pretty significant motivator also.' But Pannett said it's too early to say if the local market risked becoming a backwater for corporate bond issuance. 'I would need to see a bit more evidence of that first, because it may just be that pricing has moved so much that that is where we are at this point. 'But to call it a real trend, you might need some more evidence.' Overseas bond issuance has been split between Australian, US, Swiss and European markets, with smaller deals done in Japan. Pannett said the trend of raising funds in overseas markets was 'strikingly different' from previous years, when domestic issuance came out on top. The trend means more fund managers, including those managing KiwiSaver funds, are looking overseas for opportunities. 'It's fair to say that they [fund managers] have been looking offshore to fill the void left by limited domestic corporate bond issuance,' Pannett said. Simon Eckhoff, director for syndicate and debt capital markets at ANZ Markets, Institutional, said hedging costs have been favourable throughout this year, which has resulted in New Zealand issuers tapping overseas markets. For corporate issuers in the year to date, ANZ estimates that for every $1 raised in New Zealand dollars, there has been the equivalent of $2 raised in overseas markets – in sharp contrast with history. 'There have been several factors touted as key drivers for the current dynamics, such as the comparative value of the likes of New Zealand government bonds to that of corporate bonds as well as prevailing hedging levels. 'These factors could be perceived as effectively shrinking the investible universe in New Zealand dollar debt,' Eckhoff said. 'While the New Zealand debt market has faced some challenges recently, markets typically normalise,' he said. 'In the interim, offshore debt offers New Zealand issuers an opportunity to enhance their funding diversification,' Eckhoff said. Jamie Gray is an Auckland-based journalist, covering the financial markets and the primary sector. He joined the Herald in 2011.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Soaring food prices prove the Gaza famine is real – and will affect generations to come
By Ilan Noy of Palestinians crowd at a lentil soup distribution point in Gaza City in the northern Gaza Strip on July 27, 2025. Photo: AFP / Omar Al-Qattaa Analysis: The words and pictures documenting the famine in the Gaza strip are horrifying. The coverage has led to acrimonious and often misguided debates about whether there is famine, and who is to blame for it - most recently exemplified by the controversy surrounding a picture published by the New York Times of an emaciated child who is also suffering from a preexisting health condition. While pictures and words may mislead, numbers usually don't. The Nobel prize-winning Indian economist Amartya Sen observed some decades ago that famines are always political and economic events, and that the most direct way to analyse them is to look at food quantities and prices. This has led to decades of research on past famines. One observation is that dramatic increases in food prices always mean there is a famine, even though not every famine is accompanied by rising food costs. The price increases we have seen in Gaza are unprecedented. The economic historian Yannai Spitzer observed in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that staple food prices during the Irish Potato Famine showed a three- to five-fold increase, while there was a ten-fold rise during the Great Bengal Famine of 1943. In the North Korean famine of the 1990s, the price of rice rose by a factor of 12 . At least a million people died of hunger in each of these events. Now, the New York Times has reported the price of flour in Gaza has increased by a factor of 30 and potatoes cost 50 times more. As was the case for the UK government in Ireland in the 1840s and Bengal in the 1940s, Israel is responsible for this famine because it controls almost all the Gaza strip and its borders. But Israel has also created the conditions for the famine. Following a deliberate policy in March of stopping food from coming in, it resumed deliveries of food in May through a very limited set of "stations" it established through a new US-backed organisation (the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation), in a system that seemed designed to fail. Before Israel's decision in March to stop food from coming in, the price of flour in Gaza was roughly back to its prewar levels (having previously peaked in 2024 in another round of border closures). Since March, food prices have gone up by an annualised inflation rate of more than 5,000%. The excuse the Israeli government gives for its starvation policy is that Hamas controls the population by restricting food supplies. It blames Hamas for any shortage of food . However, if you want to disarm an enemy of its ability to wield food supplies as a weapon by rationing them, the obvious way to do so is the opposite: you would increase the food supply dramatically and hence lower its price. Restricting supplies and increasing their value is primarily immoral and criminal, but it is also counterproductive for Israel's stated aims. Indeed, flooding Gaza with food would have achieved much more in weakening Hamas than the starvation policy the Israeli government has chosen. The UN's top humanitarian aid official has described Israel's decision to halt humanitarian assistance to put pressure on Hamas as "cruel collective punishment" - something forbidden under international humanitarian law. Cormac Ó Gráda, the Irish economic historian of famines, quotes a Kashmiri proverb which says "famine goes, but the stains remain". The current famine in Gaza will leave long-lasting pain for Gazans and an enduring moral stain on Israel - for many generations. Ó Gráda points out two main ways in which the consequences of famines endure. Most obvious is the persistent memory of it; second are the direct effects on the long-term wellbeing of exposed populations and their descendants. The Irish and the Indians have not forgotten the famines that affected them. They still resent the British government for its actions. The memory of these famines still influences relations between Ireland, India and the UK, just as Ukraine's famine of the early 1930s is still a background to the Ukraine-Russia war. The generational impact is also significant. Several studies in China find children conceived during China's Great Leap Forward famine of 1959-1960 (which also killed millions) are less healthy , face more mental health challenges and have lower cognitive abilities than those conceived either before or after the famine. Other researchers found similar evidence from famines in Ireland and the Netherlands , supporting what is known as the "foetal origins" hypothesis, which proposes that the period of gestation has significant impacts on health in adulthood. Even more worryingly, recent research shows these harmful effects can be transmitted to later generations through epigenetic channels . Each day without available and accessible food supplies means more serious ongoing effects for the people of Gaza and the Israeli civilian hostages still held by Hamas - as well as later generations. Failure to prevent the famine will persist in collective memory as a moral stain on the international community, but primarily on Israel. Only immediate flooding of the strip with food aid can help now. Ilan Noy is the chair in the Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Te Herenga Waka - Victoria University of Wellington. This story was originally published on The Conversation.
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Opinion: NZ is looking for a deal over Trump's new tariffs – that could come with a high political price
Labour's trade spokesperson has declared the lack of a deal for lower tariffs – along similar lines to ones struck by the European Union and United Kingdom – a 'major fail'. But politicians should be careful what they wish for. Bigger countries have already caved in to Trump's demands, signing vague deals at a high political and economic price with no real guarantees. Trump's economic rationale Trump has a long-expressed love for tariffs as leverage over countries that depend on US markets. Essentially, these are taxes the US charges on imported goods. It's not New Zealand exporters who 'pay' these taxes, it is US importers, and likely their customers. Similarly, New Zealand exporters don't 'save' millions from tariff cuts. Trump hopes making imports more expensive will spur domestic production, support local business and create jobs, and the trade imbalance with the US would decline. As a bonus, in June alone, tariffs earned the United States US$26 billion in revenue, partly compensating for massive tax cuts contained in Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. By imposing tariffs unilaterally, Trump breaches the US tariff limits at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and its 'most-favoured-nation' rule of treating all countries equally. But the US has already paralysed the WTO's dispute system. US tariff limits and other trade rules in US free trade agreements are also being ignored. Domestically, Trump has used the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify bypassing Congress to impose tariffs, on the basis that threats to the US economy constitute a 'national emergency'. This was ruled unlawful by the Court of International Trade and is currently under appeal at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the tariffs continue. The Trump-friendly Supreme Court would likely endorse them. US economist Paul Krugman predicts this approach will not be rolled back by future administrations and will become 'the new normal'. Exaggerated claims, few guarantees The various bilateral 'deals' other countries have sought to mitigate Trump's tariffs look vague and precarious. The talks and the outcomes remain secret. The vaguely worded 'frameworks' – not signed agreements – lack detail and allow Trump to make exaggerated claims at odds with the other country's statements. Krugman describes these 'understandings' as, for the most part, 'vapourware'. Take the European Union's promise to buy goods worth US$250 billion a year for three years, mainly in fossil fuels such as liquefied natural gas. One commentator described this as 'delusional' and 'totally unrealistic', given EU imports of energy in 2024 were only worth about $65 billion. The EU also admits it lacks the power to deliver on a promise to invest $600b in the US economy, because that would come entirely from private sector investment over which Brussels has no authority. Nor is there any guarantee Trump will uphold his part of the deal or not demand more. The EU said its landmark regulations on Big Tech survived unscathed; Trump says they remain on the table as further 'non-tariff barriers' – trade-speak for anti-business regulations. To take another example, Japan has said its 15% tariff deal operates from August 1, while the US gives no start date. The White House said 'Japan will invest $550 billion directed by the United States to rebuild and expand core American industries' to be spent at 'President Trump's direction'. The investment will be in a list of industries, including energy, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals and shipbuilding, with the US retaining 90% of the profits. Bloomberg reports Japan expects only 1-2% of that $550 billion to be actual investment, with the rest made up of loans, and makes no reference to Trump having control. Trump's political agenda Trump's demands are not just about trade. His strong-arm tactics – which Brazil, China and France have termed economic blackmail – aim to punish political foes and damage competing powers, notably China and Russia. They are also a form of retaliation over other countries' foreign policy decisions (such as Canada's intention to recognise Palestinian statehood), a way to exploit foreign natural resources (such as Pakistan's oil), and to remove obstacles to corporate donors (such as Canada's digital services taxes). What will Trump demand, and get, from New Zealand in these secret negotiations? Governments face high political costs as they navigate their own domestic processes to 'secure' such deals. At the very least, New Zealand's negotiations need to be transparent and consulted on before commitments are made. More broadly, the country will need to rethink its trade strategy in the light of the new international realities.
