3 It is determined by Ankara Agreement and additional protocol but mainly defined ..... of Obs. 60. 60. 60. R2. 0,71. 0,66. 0,53. The numbers in parentheses are ...
Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness: A Case Study for Turkey towards the EU Competitiveness of Turkish Fruit and Vegetable Sectors in EU Market Vildan Serin1 Abdulkadir Civan2
Abstract This paper seeks to quantify the extent to which Turkey has a comparative advantage on tomato, olive oil, and fruit juice industries and how this has changed over the period between 1995 and 2005 in the EU market. To study Turkey’s competitiveness and its progress two widely used indexes are calculated, revealed comparative advantage (RCA) and comparative export performance (CEP). Moreover; import demand functions of EU are estimated for rival countries. In this regression analysis our hypothesis is that if Turkey is competitor for these countries, its price will have statistically significant effect on export demand functions. Both index and regression results indicate that Turkey has a strikingly high comparative advantage in fruit juice and olive oil markets in the EU but not in tomato market.
Key words: agriculture, fruit and vegetable industry, competitiveness, revealed comparative advantage, comparative export performance, EU, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Italy.
Introduction Turkey signed Customs Union Agreement with the European Union in 1995.3 Customs Union has been applied for industrial and processed agricultural products since January of 1996. However, The Customs Union does not cover some essential areas, such as traditional agriculture to which bilateral trade concessions apply. Concerning processed agricultural products; the parties have agreed on the establishment of a system in which Turkey would differentiate between agricultural and industrial components of the duties applied on these products similar to the model applied in the Community. (Yörük 2005) Therefore Turkey’s tariffs and levies on imports of industrial products from the EU were eliminated. Turkey has also begun to apply the Union’s common external tariff on imports from the third countries. Turkey has reduced the average protection level from 10,9% to 5. (Bekmez and Genç 2002) Another criterion for the goods which are included by the CU is the place of origin. The Association Agreement provided that “ The Association shall likewise extend to agriculture
1
Fatih University, Büyükçekmece 34900, İstanbul, Turkey. Fatih University, Büyükçekmece 34900, İstanbul, Turkey. 3 It is determined by Ankara Agreement and additional protocol but mainly defined by 1/95 decision of the Association Council. The Customs Union between Turkey and the EU has been in force since the beginning of 1996It is more than a typical Customs Union, which foresees arrangements on areas including competition, state aids, technical legislation and intellectual property rights. ( Kabalioğlu 1999) 2
1
and trade in agricultural products , in accordance with special rules which shall take into account the Common agricultural Policy of the Community( Kabalioğlu 1999). European Union is the largest export market for the Turkish fruit and vegetable processing industry goods. In the last ten years Turkey’s agricultural exports to the EU increased by almost 10 percentage points4. Turkey is one of the most important agricultural trade partners of the EU. Turkey exports more than half of its fruit and vegetable volume to the EU. This partnership will be stronger if Turkey will become a member of the EU. The food manufacturing sector is of notable importance, with a 19 per-cent share of Turkey’s total production of manufactured goods and an 11 percent share of Turkey’s total exports5. The food manufacturing sector, the fruit and vegetable processing industry is the second largest industry, covering almost one-half of Turkey’s total food industry exports (State Planning Organization 1998). However, there are concerns about the recent enlargement of the European Union on Turkey’s agricultural exports. Many new member countries of European Union have great similarities with our country in terms of both the shares of the exports of agricultural goods within the total exports, and ratios of the exports of these countries to those of the EU. Due to the membership of new member countries, the community preference principle of the CAP is expected to work beneficially for the exports of the agricultural products of these countries and disadvantageously for the agricultural exports of our country. A similar development has been seen previously during the EU expansion including the accession by Spain, Greece, and Portugal6. In 1980s, numerous studies were conducted to examine the effects of full membership by these countries to the union on the agricultural exports. Accordingly, the agricultural products exports of our country were significantly adversely affected by the membership of Mediterranean countries. For the 1977-1984 period, the share of exports of cereals, animal and vegetable oils from Turkey to the Union within the total exports was 8 percent in 1977 while it decreased to 1 percent in 1984. On the other hand, the share of exports of the same products from Greece to the Union increased from 1.7 percent in 1977 to 33.9 percent in 1984. A similar impact was experienced following the accession by Spain in 1986. Thus, it can be argued that accession to the EU by 12 new countries, having significant similarities with our country in terms of exports to the EU will have trade diversion effects. The community preference principle of the CAP is one of the most important factors aggravating this trade diversion effect. Karakaya and Özgen (2002) studied the potential trade effects of economic integration for Turkey and EU. They also used revealed comparative advantage index to analyze Turkey’s effect on southern EU member countries. They concluded that Turkey and southern EU countries are remarkably different so that Turkey does not jeopardize the rival countries’ trade positions. In a similar study Akgüngör et all (2002) measured the competitiveness of Turkish agriculture in EU market. They found that Turkey’s competitive power is higher than Spain, Portugal and Greece in some processed vegetable and fruit products.
4
(http: dtm.gov.tr/ab/rakamlar/genel) (http: dtm.gov.tr/ab/rakamlar/genel) 6 Table 1 compares several agricultural indicators of Turkey, Spain, Italy, and Greece. 5
2
Table 1: Selected Agricultural Indicators Share of Agriculture in GNP (%)
Countries
Share of Agriculture in Exports (%)
Share of Agriculture in Imports (%)
Share of Population Employed in Agriculture in Active Population (%)
Total Agricultural Land (1000 ha.)
Employment in Agriculture (1000 people)
1998
2003
1998
2003
1998
2003
1998
2003
2003
2003
Italy
2,5
2,2
6,8
7,2
11,2
9,4
6,4
4,7
15.097
1.040
Greece
5,8
5,4
27,4
22,7
13,9
11,2
17,7
16,3
3.897
654
Spain
3
3,6
14,7
14,6
9,8
8,3
7,9
5,6
25.270
934
EU (25)
1,5
1,6
7
6,5
7,7
6,4
4,7
5,2
163.479
10.082
Turkey
17
11,5
10
10,3
4,6
6,1
43
32,7
26.578
Source: http://www.tarim.gov.tr/arayuz/1/icerik.asp?efl=uretim/istatistikler/istatistikler.htm 16.02.2006)
6.799
(accessed
on
To understand potential effects of new member countries on Turkish agricultural sector, we studied the performance patterns of Turkey and Spain, Italy and Greece in the 1990s and early 2000s for both EU Trade and World Trade in three product categories, tomato, olive oil, and fruit juice. Better understanding of these interactions might enable us to predict future of Turkish agriculture. We used two indexes, revealed comparative advantage (RCA) and comparative export performance (CEP). The basic logic behind RCA is to evaluate comparative advantage on the basis of a country’s specialization in exports relative to some reference group countries. CEP deals with a similar concept but use the whole world instead of only intra-EU trade. We have chosen to use data on intra-EU trade plus trade between the EU and our sample countries in this study. We also used the same approach on World trade as far as gatherable data enables. Trade volume and price data is collected from Eurostat, WTO, and FAO datasets. Moreover at the last section we estimated a particular form of import demand functions of EU for rival countries. The degrees of substitutability of Turkish fruit and vegetables are estimated on these regressions. Revealed Comparative Advantage Index
In the light of an increasingly competitive international environment, it is useful to examine where Turkey’s comparative advantage lies. Comparative advantage is the term used to describe the tendency for countries to export those commodities that they are relatively adept at producing, vis-a`-vis the rest of the world. In other words, if a country can produce a good at a lower relative cost than other countries, then with trade, that country should devote more of its scarce resources to the production of that particular good. Through trade, that country can obtain other goods at a lower price (opportunity cost), in exchange for the good in which it has a comparative advantage. In the literature several techniques are used to measure countries’ weak and strong sectors. One of the most widely used methods involves the concept of “revealed comparative advantage” developed by Balassa (1965). Balassa Index basically measures normalized export shares, with respect to the exports of the same industry in the group of reference countries.
3
Although pros and cons of the Balassa index are still debated in the literature, it stands as the most widely used revealed comparative advantage index.7 In literature numerous empirical studies used Balassa index to identify a country’s strong sectors.8 The index is not satisfactory as cardinal or ordinal measures but provides a useful tool to detect comparative advantages of Turkey in particular sectors. Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) Index is measured by this formula RCA = ln (XiB /XB) /(XiA/XA ), where XiB : Turkey’s exports of good i to the European Union; XB : Turkey’s total exports to the European Union; XiA : the rival country’s exports of good i to the European Union XA : the rival country’s total exports to the European Union. A positive value of RCA might be interpreted as an indication of Turkey’s comparative advantage against the rival EU country in the EU market. Table 2 lists the Balassa Index values calculated for olive oil, tomato, and fruit juice. Table 2: Revealed Comparative Advantage Index RCA SPAIN GREECE ITALY RCA
Olive oil 1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
0.227
-0.872
-1.361
-1.662
-2.540
-0.858
-2.279
-1.074
-2.189
-2.257
-3.069
-2.902
-3.323
0.213 -2.442
-4.168
-2.246
-3.073
-2.341
-2.365
1.205
0.537
0.506
0.117
1.071
-1.229
0.552
-0.597
0.375
-0.611
Tomato 1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
0.650
1.373
0.880
0.576
0.338
-0.060
-0.481
-0.697
-0.545
-0.650
GREECE
-1.769
-1.119
-1.811
-2.285
-2.171
-2.545
-2.821
-2.727
-2.392
-2.461
ITALY
-0.340
0.171
-0.350
-0.749
-0.855
-1.282
-1.777
-1.874
-1.597
-1.651
SPAIN
RCA
Fruit juice 1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
SPAIN
0.530
0.762
0.562
0.218
-0.209
-0.168
-0.710
-0.534
-0.837
GREECE
0.354
1.370
0.698
0.358 -0.133
0.572
0.050
0.701
0.545
0.861
0.753
0.666
0.514
0.166
0.150
0.710 -0.275
1.283
ITALY
0.029
0.941 -0.289
Note: Bold fields indicate comparative advantage of Turkey for that product category.
In the olive oil markets, Greece has significant comparative advantage over Turkey measured by Balassa Index. On the other hand Turkey has comparative advantage over Italy until year 1999, after that year the comparative advantage changes hands yearly between Turkey and Italy. Annual fluctuations of harvest quality of olives might be responsible for this interesting observation. see Kunimoto (1977), Hillman (1980), de Benedictis (2005) 8 Some examples are Ariovich (1979), Reza (1983), Peterson(1988), Amiti (1999), and, Fertö,
Many studies have used Balassa Index and/or modified versions of revealed comparative index to measure competitiveness of particular Turkish sectors. Some examples are Hatırlı and Fert (2004), Akgüngör et al. (2002), Yılmaz (2003), Tutkulu and Seymen (2004)
Imre & Hubbard, L. J. (2003).
4
For tomato, Turkey has the upper hand over Spain until 1999, however, lost its edge starting with the year 2000 whereas Greece and Italy have always (excluding 1996) been superior over Turkey in terms of tomato exports. Exports of tomato are decreasing since 19961. When it comes to fruit juice Turkey has the comparative advantage in general terms, excluding 1998 and 1999 Turkish fruit juice sector has always performed better than fruit juice sector in Greece and as for Italy goes, apart from the years 2002 and 2004 Turkey has always been superior over Italy. For Spain beginning by the year 2000 Spain has performed better against Turkey. Turkey’s exports stays the same within that period and the ratio decreases since exports increase, but Italy is ascending every year in terms of Fruit Juice exports to EU. Comparative Export Performance (CEP) Index Another index used to measure comparative advantage is Comparative Export Performance Index (CEP). It is slightly modified version of Balassa Index. It measures the extend of the export specialization of the country for particular product groups. Its formula is below CEP = ln (XiB /XB) / (XiA /XA) where XiB : country B’s exports of good i XB : country B’s total exports XiA : the world total exports of good i XA : total world exports. An index value of Turkey higher than the index value of country r indicates relative comparative advantage of Turkey against country r. Table 3: Comparative Export Performance (CEP) Index Olive Oil 1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Turkey
2.485
1.916
1.951
1.973
2.552
1.453
2.457
1.758
2.131
1.585
Greece
1.758
2.131
1.585
2.457
1.758
2.131
4.181
4.42
4.103
3.534
Italy
1.59 2.875
1.645 2.952
1.594 3.099
1.575 3.026
1.721 2.738
2.069
1.836 3.105
2.001
3.539
1.819 3.108
CEP
Spain CEP
3.117
3.08
Tomato 1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Turkey
1.855
2.148
2.176
2.151
1.943
1.874
1.801
1.822
2.175
2.002
Greece
2.483
2.551
2.877
2.813
2.436
2.11
2.417
2.576
2.35
2.088
Italy
1.243 2.061
1.386
1.431 2.289
1.504
1.597 2.176
1.522 2.1
1.658 2.184
1.823
2.093 2.616
1.948 2.412
Spain
2.113
2.096
2.311
CEP
Fruit Juice 1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Turkey
2.507
1.591
1.601
1.838
1.551
1.292
1.542
1.052
0.909
0.765
Greece
0.439
0.592
0.23
1.03
0.234
0.787
0.745
0.462
0.567
0.78
Italy
-0.627
-0.562
-0.538
-0.38
-0.684
0.917
1.052
1.189
1.308
-0.969 1.434
-0.87
Spain
-0.864 1.565
1.138
1.021
-0.811 1.025
-0.952 1.055
Note: Bold fields indicates that the competitiveness of Turkish exports is higher than the rival country’s exports
5
For Tomato, Spain and Greece have always been better whereas Turkey is better than Italy except years 1996 and 1999. Although Italy is better and Spain is worse than Turkey in EU trade, it turns upside down in world trade while Greece has really a competitive advantage according to Turkey. Although Italy has a comparative advantage to Turkey in EU Trade, Turkey has edge on Italy since Italy exports nearly half of its tomatoes to EU countries. Spain is exporting three times more tomatoes to non-EU countries but this ratio is much higher for its total exports. As for fruit juice, Turkey has always performed better than others excluding 2003 and 2004. For Spain apart from the years 2002 and 2004 Turkey has the edge until recent years. The Index is completely similar to EU Index, pointing that the countries have slight exports differences in between that does not change according to the partnering region. Turkey has competetive advantage on Greece and Italy for olive oil product.
Regression Analysis In this part, we wanted to study the extend of interactions of the Turkish, Greek, Italian and Spanish exports markets to European Union. . If Turkey has a competitive power, and therefore substitutes for products of rival countries we expect that the EU exports from these countries will be significantly affected by the Turkish export prices. Thus our maintained hypothesis is that if Turkey is competitor for these countries, its price will have statistically significant effect on export demand functions for selected product groups. Akgüngör et all (2002) used a similar methodology to estimate competitiveness of Turkish processed tomato and fruit products. A particular form of import demand functions of EU for Spain, Greece and Italy for olive oil, tomatoes and fruit juice is estimated. The effects of own price, price of rival countries’ export price, and the per capita income of European Union is modeled. Since we are interested short term effects, differences are used. Moreover, because seasonal effects are significant for goods in our data, monthly differences are for their corresponding levels in the same month last year. Thus our dependent variable is the difference between the level of export of Good A from country X to European Union at this month and the same month last year. Similarly the independent variables are the change in the own-price and rival’s price and per capita income of EU. Our hypothesis is that if Turkey is competitor for these countries, its price will have statistically significant effect on export demand functions. Regression results are presented in table 4. First column in Table4.A represents the export demand for Greece; second and third columns are export demands for Spain and Italy. Loglog specification is used, thus coefficients are estimated elasticities. According to our results Turkish olive oil is significant substitute for Greek and Italian olive oils, though its effect on Greek export is much bigger, its coefficient is 0, 21; implying a 100% rise in Turkish olive oil price increases the Greek exports to EU by 21 %. Table 4.B presents the export demands for fruit juice. The results imply that, Turkish fruit juice price has significant effects on export levels of Spain and Italy. A 100% rise in Turkish fruit juice price increases the Spanish exports by 24%. However, the results presented in table 1.C indicates, Turkish tomatoes is not a good substitute for Greek, Italian or Spanish tomatoes.
6
Table 4A: Export Demand of Tomatoes Dependent Variable Change in Greek OliveChange in Spanish OliveChange in Italian OliveOil Exports to EU Oil Exports to EU Change Oil Exports to EU Change in Olive-Oil 0,21 -0,21 0,09 Price of Turkey (1,91) (-4,27) (3,23) Change in Olive-Oil -0,91 0,22 -0,02 Price of Greece (-6,70) (3,81) (-0,78) Change in Olive-Oil 1,51 -1,99 0,42 Price of Spain (2,84) (-7,22) (3,25) Change in Olive-Oil -6,75 1,19 -1,52 Price of Italy (-3,71) (2,17) (-5,31) Change in per capita -19,25 6,16 -1,14 Income of EU (-3,07) (2,34) (-2,69) Constant 0,27 0,02 0,09 (1,50) (0,27) (4,81) # of Obs. 60 60 60 0,71 0,66 0,53 R2 The numbers in parentheses are Newey-West standard errors
Table 4B: Export Demand of Tomatoes Dependent Variable Change in Greek Fruit Change in Spanish Fruit Change in Italian Fruit Juice Exports to EU Juice Exports to EU Change Juice Exports to EU Change in Fruit Juice -0,20 0,24 0,08 Price of Turkey (-0,54) (4,47) (4,22) Change in Fruit Juice -1,04 0,09 -0,01 Price of Greece (-3,78) (2,84) (-0,31) Change in Fruit Juice -1,60 0,03 0,10 Price of Spain (-1,38) (0,15) (2,00) Change in Fruit Juice 10,15 -0,48 -0,62 Price of Italy (6,61) (-2,34) (-7,99) Change in per capita -12,36 0,26 1,85 Income of EU (-2,04) (0,53) (5,89) Constant 0,41 0,11 -0,02 (2,12) (3,82) (-1,24) # of Obs. 60 60 60 R2 0,23 0,24 0,15 The numbers in parentheses are Newey-West standard errors
7
Table 4C: Export Demand of Tomatoes Dependent Variable Change in Greek Change in Spanish Change in Italian Tomatoes Tomatoes Exports to Tomatoes Exports to Exports to EU EU EU Change Change in Tomatoes -0,13 -0,30 -0,05 Price of Turkey (-0,68) (-2,00) (-0,91) Change in Tomatoes -1,00 0,19 0,01 Price of Greece (-7,45) (2,93) (0,21) Change in Tomatoes 0,32 -0,70 -0,21 Price of Spain (0,88) (-1,62) (-1,42) Change in Tomatoes 0,57 1,65 -0,39 Price of Italy (1,81) (8,60) (-2,28) Change in per capita 3,00 5,11 1,18 Income of EU (1,86) (4,07) (1,58) Constant -0,19 -0,8 -0,03 (-,311) (-1,71) (-1,48) # of Obs. 60 60 60 0,12 0,38 0,24 R2 The numbers in parentheses are Newey-West standard errors
Conclusions This paper has presented an analysis of competitiveness of Turkey’s fruit juice, olive oil and tomato sectors against its main rivals in EU market, Spain, Italy and Greece for the period between 1995 and 2004. The empirical findings suggest that Turkey has a comparative advantage in fruit juice and olive oil sectors, but not in tomato sector, against its main rivals in EU market. However, the results also showed that advantages of Turkey have been declining starting from 2000. Thus the new enlargement of the Union and new rivals for Turkish agrofood industry might further lower competitiveness of Turkey in these sectors. However, since revealed comparative and comparative export performance indexes only measures observed trade data, this observation alone doesn’t substantiate significant problems for Turkey. Distortions from both Turkish and European Union regulations might have contributed to declining competitiveness. Moreover; our import demand estimations imply that Turkish prices significantly determine the market shares of the rival countries in the EU market. The econometric import demand of EU model reveals that relative export prices matter in determining Turkey's competitive power in the EU olive oil and fruit juice sectors.
8
References Akgüngör, S., F. Barbaros and N. Kumral (2002), “Competitiveness of the Turkish Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industry in the EU Market”, Russian and East European Finance and Trade, 38(3), May-June. Amiti, M. (1999), “Specialization patterns in Europe” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 135: 573 - 593. Ariovich, G. (1979), “The Comparative Advantage of South Africa as Revealed by Export Shares.” South African Journal of Economics 47(2): 188-97.
Balassa, B. (1965). “Trade Liberalization and Revealed Comparative Advantage.” The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies 33:99-123. Bekmez S. , Genç , İ. (2002) “The Political Economy of Turkish European Union Relations and the Macroeconomic Impact of full Membership.” American Review of Political Economy, 1(1): 28-51 Fertö, Imre & Hubbard, L. J. (2003) “Revealed Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness in Hungarian Agri–Food Sectors.” The World Economy 26 (2):247-259. Hatırlı, S.A., B. Ozkan and C. Fert. (2004) "Competitiveness of Turkish Fruits in the World Market", XIVth International Symposium on Horticultural Economics and Management, 29th August-3th September, Berlin-Germany, 357-364 (2004). Hillman, A.L. (1980). “Observation on the Relation between Revealed Comparative Advantage and Comparative Advantage as Indicated by Pre-Trade Relative Prices.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 116:315-321 http://devdata.worldbank.org/data-query/ http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,45323734&_dad=portal&_schema http://www.imf.org/external/data.htm http://isi.cbs.nl/ http://www.intracen.org/tradstat/welcome.htm http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK Kabalioğlu, H. (1999) “Turkey and European Union Converging of Drifting Apart.” Marmara Journal of Eurpean Studies 7(1-2):109-163. Karakaya, E., Özgen, F.B. (2002), “Economic Feasibility of Turkey’s Economic Integration with the EU: Perspectives from Trade Creation and Trade Diversion.” METU VI. International Conference in Economics, September 11-14, 2002, Ankara
9
Kunimoto, K. (1977): Typology of Trade Intensity Indices. Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics 11:15-32. Luca D. B., (2005) “Three Decades of Italian Comparative Advantages.” The World Economy 28(11):1679-1709. Peterson, J., (1988), “Export Shares and Revealed Comparative Advantage, a Study of International Travel.” Applied Economics 20(3): 351-65. Reza, S., (1983), “Revealed Comparative Advantage in the South Asian Manufacturing Sector: Some Estimates”, Indian Economic Journal 31(2): 96-106.
Tutkulu, U., Seymen D. (2004) “Trade, Competitiveness and Revealed Comparative Advantage: Evidence for Turkey towards the EU”, European Trade Study Group 6th Annual Conference, ETSG 2004, 9-11 September, 2004 Yılmaz, B. (2003), “Turkey’s Competitiveness in the European Union: A Comparison with Five Candidate Countries – Bulgaria, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania – and the EU15”, Ezoneplus Working Paper, No.12, February. Yörük K. P., (2005), An Evaluation of Critical Approaches to the Customs Union Between Turkey and the EU, Marmara University, European Community, İstanbul 2005, p29 Master thesis )
10
Appendix I – EU TRADE DATA SHEETS1 TOTAL EXPORTS
TURKEY SPAIN GREECE ITALY
(Mil $)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
9,245
10,184
11,872
13,624
15,071
17,547
20,231
22,061
24,044
29,095
48,363
54,936
62,380
69,355
72,714
84,708
86,100
89,875
94,159
100,011
4,721
4,861
4,805
4,725
5,314
5,704
6,100
6,067
6,621
6,233
93,261
100,311
105,076
114,747
116,577
132,003
132,299
129,270
132,977
141,086
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
OLİVE OİL EXPORTS 1995 TURKEY
(Mil $) 1996
1997
76
48
39
25
109
11
74
27
84
41
SPAIN
317
613
797
671
424
652
748
1,084
958
1,254
GREECE
371
488
287
241
441
224
212
162
239
93
ITALY
230
274
208
187
288
274
280
290
318
365
2004
TOMATO EXPORTS
(Mil $)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
TURKEY
27
48
34
27
27
17
13
14
20
20
SPAIN
75
66
73
78
93
88
88
113
135
132
GREECE
82
70
83
93
84
71
64
58
60
50
387
400
422
486
492
465
491
528
545
506
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
ITALY
FRUİT JUİCE EXPORTS 1995 TURKEY SPAIN GREECE ITALY
(Mil $) 1996
1997
37
53
47
47
50
41
46
34
51
40
115
134
140
168
193
243
230
281
337
318
13
6
9
19
10
13
7
5
4
3
219
221
195
204
230
261
257
262
271
260
11
Appendix II – WORLD TRADE DATA Total Exports
(mil $)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
21,637
23,224
26,261
26,974
26,588
27,775
31,334
36,059
47,253
63,167
SPAIN
97,849
107,243
100,756
111,973
104,431
115,252
116,660
125,687
156,146
182,623
GREECE
11,054
11,711
11,326
10,867
11,069
11,751
10,244
10,414
13,382
15,322
ITALY
233,766
252,293
240,414
245,801
235,559
240,521
244,490
254,427
299,333
353,782
WORLD TOTAL EXPORT
4325000
5162000
5401000
5589000
5499000
5713000
6451000
6184000
6484000
7572000
TURKEY
*www.wto.org
Tomato Exports
(mil $)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
TURKEY
139.73
175.01
189.65
197.33
151.53
138.23
131.12
150.56
206.34
267.90
SPAIN
776.40
780.10
814.41
775.15
751.52
719.36
714.88
856.27
1059.66
1167.50
GREECE
133.75
131.97
135.03
154.14
103.27
74.05
79.25
92.47
69.57
70.79
ITALY
818.46
887.85
823.75
941.86
949.94
842.25
885.26
1063.49
1203.62
1421.82
4369
4541
4426
4759
4491
4367
4451
4177
3215
4337
Total World Export *www.intracen.org
Fruit Juice Exports
(mil $)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
TURKEY
20.05
23.7
26.58
26.75
22.42
18.81
25.79
20.3
25.25
27.54
SPAIN
50.27
63.82
67.52
65.34
89.25
89.89
64.11
68.6
93.69
106.39
GREECE ITALY Total World Export
3.52
4.4
2.91
4.81
2.5
4.8
3.8
3.25
5.23
6.78
25.63
29.89
28.65
26.51
17.74
16.97
18.04
25.22
28.62
27.7
888
1073
1102
882
983
1062
1136
1216
1395
1536
*www.intracen.org Olive Oil Exports
(mil $)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
153.94
112.47
116.86
104.27
194.16
55.14
169.25
76.37
216.72
207.54
SPAIN
942.09
1,386.45
1,489.99
1,210.08
980.13
1,188.59
1,199.00
1,583.42
1,928.46
2,677.54
GREECE
655.36
807.98
469.15
470.96
629.46
325.51
311.85
326.91
450.41
351.1
ITALY
670.35
931.35
741.95
628.76
747.15
884.35
708.37
0
1,005.25
1,760.82
3061
3852
3537
2955
3251
2996
2862
2369
4123
6189
TURKEY
Total World Export
12
