Egypt Agricultural Export Strategy Report - Full - IMC EGYPT

FINAL REPORT 

Egypt Agricultural Export Strategy 

Cairo 

October, 2007 

This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and 

information of the client to whom it is addressed.

This report outlines the agriculture export promotion plan for 

Egypt, which addresses current sector performance challenges 

and leverages lessons from best-in-class exporters 

Egypt Agricultural Export Strategy Objectives 

� Baseline Egypt’s agricultural export performance and identify key competitive advantages, as well as major 

impediments to overall growth 

– World-wide agricultural commodities export market 

– Current and potential performance for Egyptian agricultural exports 

– Local and global trends that could affect Egypt agriculture export trade 

– Competitive positioning vs. other countries (by Egyptian export-crop category) 

– Egypt’s main trade agreements 

– Key competitive advantages and main impediments along the export value chain 

� Present lessons learned from best-in-class agricultural exporters 

– Benchmarking methodology 

– Export promotion agencies 

– Leveraging small farmers potential 

– Transportation 

– Government agricultural regulations 

– Agriculture capacity building programs 

� Estimate Egypt’s agricultural export market potential 

– Identify strategic crops for Egypt agricultural exports and estimate associated targets in volume and value 

– Analyze the competition landscape, by assessing market share distribution and comparing import prices 

� Develop an export promotion plan for Egypt agricultural products for the next 10 years 

1 

Proprietary & Confidential

Table of Contents 

� Egypt Agriculture Export Baseline 

� Lessons Learned from Best-in-Class Agricultural Exporters 

� Egypt’s Agricultural Export Market Potential 

� Five-year Export Promotion Plan 


Egypt Agriculture Export Baseline 

� Market Definition and Methodology 

� Egypt Agricultural Commodities Export Performance 

� Crop-specific Export Performance and Market Assessment 

� Competitive Advantages and Challenges in the Export Value Chain 


Egypt exports of agricultural commodities were classified under 6 

groups, which comprise one or more standard Food and 

Agriculture Organization (FAO) categories 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Horticulture 

Fruits 

Pulses 

Cereals 

Sugar Crops 

Oil Crops 

Agricultural Commodities Categories * 

�Strawberries, �Strawberries, oranges, 

tangerines, citrus fruit, bananas, 

dates, guavas, mangoes, 

avocados, kiwis, grapes, etc. 

�Beans, �Beans, cassava, chick peas, 

lentils, broad beans, lupins, 

vetches 

�Rice, �Rice, barley, oats, rye, millet and 

sorghum, maize and wheat 

6 

�Sugar �Sugar cane, sugar beet, molasses “SSF” 

Spices, 

Stimulants & 

Flowers 

�Cottonseed, �Cottonseed, groundnuts, 

sunflower seed, sesame seed, 

palm kernel equivalents, almonds, 

etc. 

Note (*): Current scope of study does not cover livestock, forestry, fisheries, forage crops 

Source: FAOSTAT; UN Comtrade 

4 

5 

Vegetables 

Roots & 

Tubers 

Cotton 

�Onions, �Onions, garlic, lettuce, cauliflowers, 

tomatoes, leguminous vegetables, 

cabbages, cucumbers, artichokes, 

spinach, green pepper etc. 

�Potatoes, �Potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, etc. 

�Cotton �Cotton 

�Anise, �Anise, chamomile, badian, basil, 

henna, corian, fennel, clovers, 

cinnamon, pepper, cut flowers bulbs, 

trees etc. 


We have assessed the agriculture sector’s performance across the 

whole value chain to better understand the challenges and 

opportunities facing Egyptian agricultural exporters 

Production and 

Harvesting 

Key Stakeholders along the Agriculture Export Value Chain 

Packaging, 

Labeling 

and Storage 

Vertically integrated producers / exporters 

Sale to 

Foreign 

Market 

5 

Transportation 

Pack houses and 

Farmers 

and 

Farmers 

Exporters 

mills 


Transportation agents 

mills 

� Production 

planning 

� Soil inputs 

purchasing 

� Harvesting & 

Post- 

Harvesting 

Handling 

Farming cooperatives, farmers associations 

� Cleaning 

� Carton & pallets 

Packing 

� Labeling 

� Cooling 

� Sanitary testing 

� Marketing to 

foreign market 

� Price and terms 

setting 

� Coordination of 

logistics to 

purchaser 

� Post-delivery 

support 

Land transport 

companies 

Export Logistics 

and Customs 

Procedures 

Air and maritime transport companies 

� Procure transport 

capacity 

� Local transportation 

from pack-house to 

various ports or 

airports 

� International 

transport through 

land, air, or 

maritime shipping 

Customs, Taxes 

& Quarantine 

� Customs clearance 

handling 

� Quality control 

(quarantine) 

� Export control 

(customs) 

Distribution in 

Foreign 

Markets 

Foreign 

wholesalers and 

retailers 

Sponsors 

� Goods reception 

� Distribution 

through terminal 

centers 

� Distribution 

through retail 

chains national 

distribution 

centers 


To that end, we have interviewed around 60 stakeholders who 

operate as exporters, transporters, retailers, agriculture experts,… 

IMC, AEC and Exporters 

�� Adham Nadim – IMC Deputy Executive Director 

�� Helmy Aboul Aish – Sekem Group 

�� Tarek Tawfik – Farm Fritz, Marketing Director 

�� Sherif Rashed – AEC Executive Director 

�� Cherifa Rashad – Organic Crops Committee, Chairwoman 

�� Alaa Diab – Pico, AEC Strawberries committee 

�� Ahmed Al Wakil – Wakalex, AEC Rice committee 

�� Hussein Al Aguizy – Al Aguizy Export Company 

�� Abd El-Hamid El-Demerdash – MAFA CEO 

�� Sherif El Beltagi – Belco 

�� Wahib Abdel-Malik Narouz – AEC Inputs, Customs and 

Taxes Committees 

�� Magdy Abdul Messih – Daltex, Export Director 

�� Sara Salama – Daltex, Sales Executive 

�� Ayman Korra – Consukorra, Managing Director 

�� Hamed Ahmed El Shiaty – Shoura Exports, Chairman 

�� Houssam Mahmoud Shalaby – ESHEDA 

�� Ayman Nassar - Alcotexa 

�� Ahmed Al Boussaty – Alcotexa 

�� Mohamed Samir Sharaf El-Din – ATEC 

List of Interviewees 

6 

Transporters and Retailers 

�� Asaad Derwish – Egypt Air, AEC Air Cargo Committee 

�� Essam Ali – ABX Logistics, Sales Manager 

�� Samia Ahmed – Venus International Transport, Chairman 

�� Ahmed Fouad – Venus International Transport, Marketing 

Manager 

�� David Browne – Maersk Egypt, General Manager 

�� Mohamad El Hawary – Hyper One, Chairman 

�� Emad El Hawary – Hyper One, Advisory Board 

�� Hussein Sabry – CMA-CGM, Sales Director 

�� Tareq Fahmi – MSC Egypt, Managing Director 

Agricultural Experts 

�� Bob Acord – SPS Expert 

�� Josse Dorra Fiani – Fiani & Partners / Kompass Egypt, 

chairperson & CEO 

�� Arthur Westneat – Agriculture Marketing Expert 

�� Amit Kapoor – Retailing Expert 

�� Gamal Siam – Cairo University – Professor of Agricultural 

Economics 

�� Dr Aqila – Food Security Agency 

�� Dr Mohamed Omran – Consultant 

�� Saad Al Nassar - Consultant 


… as well as key public sector institutions, and various 

associations involved in the sector 

Public Sector Institutions 

�� Amin Abaza – Ministry of Agriculture, Animal and Fish 

Wealth and Land Reclamation, Minister 

�� Youssef Amin Wally – Deputy Prime Minister – Minister of 

Agriculture, Animal & Fish Wealth & Land Reclamation 

�� Madhat Meligy – Special Advisor the Minister - Minister of 

Agriculture, Animal & Fish Wealth & Land Reclamation 

�� Mohamed Gomaa – Head of Land Reclamations - Minister 

of Agriculture, Animal & Fish Wealth & Land Reclamation 

�� Hussein El-Atfy – Ministry of Water Resources and 

Irrigation, Sector Head in Minister’s Technical Office 

�� Tarek Hussein El Baz – Ministry of Foreign Trade and 

Industry, Senior Assistant to First Assistant to the Minister 

�� Sahar Mounir – Ministry of Foreign Trade and Industry, 

Undersecretary 

�� Mohamed Ragui – Export Development Fund, Executive 

Director 

�� Ahmed Wissam – General Authority for Export & Import 

Control (GOEIC), Chairman 

�� Samir El Gammal – General Authority for Export & Import 

Control (GOEIC) 

�� Barbara Stacher – Economic Modernization in the EC 

Delegation, EU Trade Counsellor 

�� Thomas Viot – Economic Modernization in the EC 

Delegation, EU Trade and Agriculture Expert 

List of Interviewees 

7 

Farmers/Exporters Associations 

�� Dinah Hamdy – Egyptian Agribusiness Association 

�� Osama Khier El-Din – UPEHC, Chairman 

�� Yasser Aly Khayal – UPEHC, IT Specialist 

�� Amr El-Tonsy – HEIA, Executive Director 

�� Mostafa Tawfek – HEIA, Information Department 

�� Douglas Anderson – ACDI/VOCA, Egypt Country 

Representative and Chief of Party 

�� Ali El Saied – ACDI/VOCA, Director of Programs 

�� Herb Williamson – AERI, Business Development Services 

(BDS) staff 

�� Tom Herlehy – AERI, El Shams Project, Chief of Party 

�� Ayman Abdel Salam – AERI, Care project 

�� Peter Wetzel – AERI, Care project 

�� Mohamed Samy – AERI, MUCIA, Project coordinator 

�� Ayman Abou Hadid – E-traceability project, Consultant 

�� Kelly Harrison – EmmeFlor, Previous Manager of ATUT 


Additionally, the team has reviewed past projects conducted for 

the Government of Egypt by various international and nongovernmental 

organizations, … 

NON- NON- 

EXHAUSTIVE 

EXHAUSTIVE 

Agriculture Outlook, Reforms & Competitiveness 

�� Egypt Country Profile – Economist Intelligence Unit – 2006 

�� Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed Annual Report – EU, 2005 

�� Pre-clearance Programs – APHIS, 2005 

�� SGS Annual Report, 2005 

�� Value Chain Report Egypt – Rates, 2005 

�� Monitoring, Verification and Evaluation Unit Agricultural Policy Reform 

Program – Abt Associates, 2002 

�� Assessment of Egypt’s Agricultural Sector Competitiveness – 

Development Alternatives, 2002 

�� Egypt Country Strategy Paper – Euro- Med Partnership, 2002 

�� Accomplishments in in Agricultural Policy Reform – Abt Associates, 2001 

�� Towards Agricultural Competitiveness – World Bank, 2001 

�� Social and Structural Review – World Bank, 2001 

�� The Harmonization of Agricultural Health and Quality Standards 

between Egypt, Jordan, Israel Palestine – IPCRI, 2001 

�� Agricultural Sector Model of Egypt – CIHEAM, 2000 

�� Country Assistance Evaluation – World Bank, 2000 

�� The Structural Adjustments Programmes in in Egyptian Agriculture – 

CIHEAM 1995 

�� An Agricultural Strategy – World Bank, 1993 

Agriculture Commodities 

�� Cotton World Markets and Trade – USDA, 2007 

�� Oilseeds World Market and Trade – AFS-USDA, 2006 

�� Grain World Market and Trade – AFS-USDA, 2006 

�� OECD FAO Agricultural Outlook 2005-2014 – FAO, 2005 

�� The Seed Industry in in Jordan – NCART, 2002 

�� Risk Management Prospects for Egyptian Cotton – World Bank, 1993 

List of Reports and Studies 

8 

Agriculture Trade and Exports 

�� Trade, Agriculture and Development – OECD, 2006 

�� Trade and Development Aspects of Logistics Services – UNCTAD, 2006 

�� Enabling Small Commodity Producers and Processors in in Developing 

Countries to Reach Global Markets – UNCTAD, 2006 

�� Logistic Study for Agricultural Trade Flow between Egypt and Europe – 

Eureopaid, 2006 

�� Arab Republic of Egypt, Upper Egypt Challenges and Priorities for Rural 

Development – World Bank, 2006 

�� Food Export Strategy Study – IMC, 2006 

�� Egypt Freight Transport Report – Business Monitor, 2006 

�� Review of Agricultural Policies Brazil – OECD, 2006 

�� The Retail Distribution Channel – IBM, 2005 

�� Tackling Trade in in Agriculture – OECD, 2005 

�� Egypt’s Export Puzzle, Future of Egypt-US Economic Relation, Egypt 

Trade Liberalization – ECES, 2005 

�� Global Agricultural Trade and Developing Countries – World Bank, 2005 

�� ExpoLink Final Evaluation – Development Associates, 2005 

�� Arab Logistics and Freight Forwarding – The National Investor, 2005 

�� Informal Export Barriers and Poverty – World Bank, 2004 

�� Strengthening the Cold Chain in in Upper Egypt to Enhance Horticultural 

Exports – USAID, 2003 

�� Export Promotion Benchmarking – USDA, 2002 

�� The impact of Euro- Mediterranean Partnership on Jordan’s and 

Palestine’s agricultural sectors from a water perspective – Institut de la 

Mediterranee, 2001 

�� Agricultural Trade and the New Trade Agenda – UN, 2001 

�� WTO and International Trade Prospects – CATI, 2001 

�� Egypt’s Export Strategy – ADR, 1993 

�� The Future of Egyptian Agricultural Foreign Trade – CIHEAM, 1990 


… And compiled a comprehensive data repository of agricultural 

exports based on cross-reference from multiple sources, and 

adopted core principles to ensure data consistency 

Data Source 

FAOSTAT 

UN Comtrade / ITC 

WDI 

CAPMAS/ MOFTI 

Alcotexa 

Ministry of 

Agriculture and 

Land Reclamation 

GOEIC 

Eurostat 

Cotlook 

ESI 

Data Sources and Guiding Principles 

Information Extracted 

�� Production, yield, area harvested 

�� Export / Import values and volumes 

�� Consumption, feed, seed and other uses 

�� Active population in agriculture 

�� Breakdown of exported/ imported value by destination/ 

origin * 

�� GDP, population 

�� Agricultural Land 

�� Cotton exported Value 

�� Cotton destination countries 

�� Cotton produced and exported volumes 

�� Cropped area, reclaimed lands, yield, production 

�� Cost of production, producer price (farm gate price) 

�� Old lands vs. new lands 

�� Exported volumes to EU 

�� Cotton world wide price 

�� Fertilizers consumption, water quality and quantity 

Core Guiding Principles 

�� Rely as much as possible on one 

data source to provide 

consistent and comparable 

export figures 

�� Cross-check trade data with 

alternative data sources 

�� Prefer mirrored data sets over 

single-source 

�� Complement missing information 

with statistical regression and 

interpolation 

�� Assume under-reporting of 

export figures. As a result, 

choose higher volume for 

conflicting export figures 

(*) Wheat and maize exported value and volume have been extracted from UN Comtrade; Egypt’s exports to GCC countries have been also extracted from UN Comtrade 

Proprietary & Confidential 

9







Egypt’s agricultural commodities exports have grown rapidly over 

the past 5 years, to reach US$ 1.2 billion in value in 2004 – 

Outpacing most other agricultural exporting countries 

280,258 

290,050 

104,918 97,850 

34,813 35,601 36,764 

Global Agricultural Commodities Exports* 

(2000-2004, Million $) 

307,479 

109,217 

364,342 

132,467 

20,235 19,515 23,592 28,728 

Note: (*) Agricultural Exports included in the scope of the document; 

(**) CAGR stands for compound annual growth rate calculated by taking the nth root of the total percentage growth rate, where n is the number of years in the period 


Source: FAOSTAT; ITC http:/www.intracen.org for cotton exported value; CAPMAS for Egypt’s 11 cotton values, 

41,920 

153,573 

45,721 

28,875 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Market 

Share(%) 

37% 

11% 

EU - 25 

USA 

CAGR** 

(2000-2004) 

419,307 World 11% 

38% Other 13% 

10% 

7% 

5% China 9% 

2.5% Australia 7% 

1.5% 

0.8% 

0.28% 

Turkey 

Chile 

Egypt 

14% 

8% 

24% 

0.25% Israel 8%

Cotton, horticulture and cereals represent over 90% of Egypt’s 

exports in value - Sugar cane molasses have grown significantly 

over the last years 

487 

13 

125 

136 

Breakdown of Egypt Agricultural Commodities Exports Value by Commodity Type 

(2000–2004, Million $) 

553 

32 

144 

168 

190 183 

681 

33 

114 

174 

320 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Source: FAOSTAT ; CAPMAS for cotton value; Cotton International export; UN Comtrade for wheat and maize 

830 

41 

163 

211 

370 

12 

1,170 

63 

245 

339 

479 

21% 

29% 

41% 

Total 

CAGR 

(2000-2004) 

24% 

Oil Crops - Mainly seeds 15% 

Spices, Stimulants & Flowers 15% 

Sugar Crops (mainly molasses) 49% 

Cereals (mainly rice) 

Horticulture (mainly potatoes, 

oranges, onions) 

Cotton 

16% 

26% 

26% 


The European Union still represents over a third of Egypt’s 

agriculture commodities destination markets – However, Far East 

and CIS countries have replaced GCC as secondary trade partners 

13% 

Relative Share of Destination Markets* for Egypt Agricultural Commodities Exports 

(2000-2004, %) 

34% 36% 

2% 

12% 

6% 3% 

13% 14% 

29% 33% 

3% 

6% 

5% 

22% 

3% 

5% 

5% 

22% 

34% 33% 35% 32% 36% 

Note(*): Far East includes Japan, India, China, Singapore, Korea, Hong Kong, Philippines, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Taiwan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka 

CIS stands for Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia 

Source: FAO STAT ; UN Comtrade; ITC for breakdown of countries importing; Alcotexa 


13 

24% 

4% 

5% 

5% 

27% 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Total 

CAGR Exports 

(2000-2004) 

24% 

Others 13% 

Main 

Trade Commodity 

CIS 175% Horticulture 

GCC -4% Horticulture 

USA 

14% 

Cotton 

Far East 45% Cotton 

EU - 25 23% Horticulture

To analyze the evolution of agricultural exports, we have broken 

down the Export Value into three components: Volume exported, 

FOB price in LE, and Currency Exchange rate 

2004 

Ratio 

Source: FAOSTAT ; UN Comtrade; CAPMAS 

Exported Value Breakdown and Dependencies 

Exported Value 

($) 

EV 


(M $) 

1,170 

X 2.4 

= Volume X FOB Price X 

Exported (Ton) (LE per Ton) 

14 

FX Rate 

($ per LE) 

V F C 

Volume 

(M Ton) 

6.08 

X 2.62 

FOB Price 

(LE per Ton) 

1,196 

X 1.58 

FX Rate 

($ per LE) 

2000 487 

2.32 

755 

0.28 

0.16 

X 0.57 


The rise in Export Value from 2000 to 2004 was primarily driven by 

growth in exported volumes, with the rise in FOB price mostly 

offset by the Egyptian Pound devaluation to the dollar 

487 

Component Marginal Analysis of Egypt Agricultural Exports Value* 

(Million $) 

(2000- 2004) 

Exported Value 2000 Increase in Exported 

Volume 

+225 -166 -34 % 

1,170 

+46 % 

+624 +128 % 

Cumulative 

Effect 

140 % 

Increase in LE FOB Decrease in Currency 

Exchange Rate 

Exported Value 2004 

Note: (*) to impact respective impact of each component, the following mathematical approximation was used: “ EV / EV = V/V + FOB/ FOB + FX/ FX “ 

Source: FAOSTAT; UN Comtrade for wheat and maize values, Alcotexa and CAPMAS for cotton exported volumes and value; FX History for the conversion Proprietary rate & Confidential 

15

Greater export volumes were largely the result of an increase in 

production, coupled with a drop in local consumption 

Year 

2000 

Year 

2004 

Egypt Agricultural Commodities Trade Balance (Excluding Cotton and Flowers) 

(2000–2004, in Million Tons) 

64.3 

Production Feed, Seed and Other 

Imports Consumption Exports 

- + - = 

Use 

+ 4.3 

(+2%) 

68.7 

- 19.1 

-1.3 

(2%) 

- 20.5 

Production - Feed, Seed and Other 

Use 

+ Imports - Consumption = Exports 

Note: (*) Supply chain and the store consumer relationship are improving, then wastage is dropping which partially explains the increase in production 

Source: FAOSTAT 

16 


17.3 

-3 

(-5%) 

14.3 

14.3 

- 60.3 

+3.8 

(-2%) 

- 56.5 

2.2 

+ 3,8 

(+28%) 

6 

Export Volume

Agricultural production is driven by available agricultural land, 

cropping intensity, and crop yield 

Production 

Volume 

Production Volume 

(Ton) 


Agriculture Commodities Production Drivers 

Available 

Agricultural 

Land 

Average Crop 

Yield 

Average 

Cropping 

Intensity 

� Available land for agricultural use (excludes urban and 

rural areas, desert, natural parks, etc.) 

� Overall agriculture commodities harvested in ton per 

feddan cultivated 

� Ratio of yearly harvested area (including all agricultural 

commodities) to overall agricultural land 

� Short-growing seasons allow use of same physical 

areas multiple crop rotation 

= Agricultural Land X Average Crop Yield X Average Cropping Intensity 

(Feddan) 

(Ton/Feddan) 

(%) 

17 

Export Volume 


Egypt’s land reclamation efforts have brought up total agricultural 

land to 8.4 million feddans in 2004 – Ambitious projects envisage 

an additional 3.4 million feddans by the year 2017 

8,200 

1996 

1997 

Egypt Total Agricultural Lands* 

(in ‘000 Feddan) 

1998 

1999 

CAGR 0.3% 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

Estimated 

CAGR 3% 

8,400 

Note: (*) Agricultural lands include alfalfa, orchards, palms area and field crops with the latter representing 8 M Feddan 

Source: CAPMAS Table 9-19, Winter Agricultural Statistics 2004 p 29; Oxford Business Strategies; 18 Ministry of Irrigation 

2004 

17% 

11, 625 

2017E 

Reclaimed 

Lands 

(40%) 

Old Lands 

83% (60%) 

Key Ministry of Agriculture Reclamation Projects 

Main 

Projects 

Toshka 

Sharq Al 

Awaynat 

Darb El 

Arabaeen 

Al Salam 

Canal 

Location 

Southern 

part of the 

western 

desert 

South west 

of the 

western 

desert 

Western 

desert 

Date of 

Start 

Increase 

in ‘000 

Feddan 

Source of 

Water 

1997 540 Nile 

1997 254 

1997 12 

Sinai 1997 619 

Ground 

water 

Ground 

water 

Nile and 

Drainage 

Water 

… … … … … 

Total 3,400 by 2017 



Agriculture yields have steadily increased since 2000, and rank 

high compared to international benchmarks 

6.2 

Yield (Ton per Feddan) 

CAGR 

1% 

3.8 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.1 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

11.0 

0.36 

6.1 

11.4 

0.41 

6.1 

11.5 

0.43 

0.41 

0.42 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

45 45 

53 

46 46 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, FAO STAT, ITC, CAPMAS 

6.1 

10.8 

6.3 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

11.9 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Average 

Yield 

Rice 

Horticulture 

Cotton 

Sugar 

Crops 


USA 

Spain 

Morocco 

Turkey 

Italy 

China 

Philippines 

India 

World 

Israel 

Israel 

Syira 

Turkey 

Greece 

China 

Spain 

Brazil 


USA 

Pakistan 

India 

19 

Rice Yield 

(Ton per Feddan)(2004) 

0 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

Cotton Yield 


0.1 

0.2 

0.6 

0.6 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.4 

0.4 

0.3 

4 

Israel 

USA 


Spain 

Italy 

Morocco 

South Africa 

Turkey 

China 

World 

India 


Morocco 

Spain 

China 

USA 

India 

Italy 

Turkey 

World 

Cuba 

8 

7 

6 

12 

12 

11 

11 

11 

10 

17 

32 

29 

27 

25 

25 

19 

18 

17 

15 


Horticulture Yield 


20 

Sugar Crops Yield 



46

This is partly explained by an intensive use of agricultural land and 

heavy reliance on fertilizers 

0.1 0.1 

Australia 

2 3 5 

Sudan 

South 

Africa 

Nigeria 

0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 

USA 

Yemen 

Cropping Intensity (Area Harvested by Agricultural Land)* 

(2004) 

World 

Average Annual Fertilizer Consumption** 

(In Kilogram per Feddan of Agricultural Land) 

(2001-2003) 

17 21 34 39 45 47 55 

Morocco 

Morocco 

Australia 

UK 

Kuwait 

China 

Jordan 

0.4 

Greece 

KSA 

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 

Note: (*) Area harvested refers to the area a crop is gathered, the area is counted as many times as the area is harvested; Agricultural lands refers to arable lands (under temporary 

crops, meadows), under permanent crops (such as cocoa, coffee planted for several years) and lands under permanent pastures (mainly forage planted for 5 years) 

Egypt’s high cropping intensity is due to the fragmented land ownership, as the small farmers have high incentives to turn over their small lands 

(**)Fertilizers products cover nitrogenous, potash and phosphate fertilizers; the metric measures the quantity of plants nutrients used per unit of agricultural land 

Source: FAOSTAT for area harvested, WDI for agricultural land and ESI 2005 for average Proprietary & Confidential 

20 

annual fertilizer consumption 

France 

USA 

Israel 

World 

Turkey 

71 

Europe 

Italy 

95 

France 

Germany 

109 

Israel 

Japan 

128 

Japan 

0.9 

India 

153 

UAE 

1.0 

Philippines 

192 



1.4 


1525 

Taiwan

In parallel, the drop of maize and wheat imports, whose local 

production continues to be encouraged by the Government, has 

impacted overall agricultural imports 

Cereals 

-2,295 

Drop in total 

agricultural imports 

by 5% over the 

2000-2004 period 


Change in Agriculture Imported Volumes 

(2000-2004, in Thousand Ton) 

-932 

-532 

-74 

Horticulture 

Oil Crops 

Maize 

Wheat 

Sugar Crops 

Spices & 

Stimulants 

169 

556 

CAGR 

(2000-2004) 

-15% 

-3% 

-8% 

-32% 

8% 

3% 

21 

Horticulture 

Wheat 

-238 

Sugar Crops 

Oil Crops 

Change in Agriculture Production Volumes 


Rice 

Spices & 

Stimulants 

0 

198 

352 

Maize 

614 

495 

Cereals 

The government 

maintained 

subsidies of 

maize and wheat 

2,921 


CAGR 

(2000-2004) 

3% 

2% 

1% 

-1% 

1% 

0% 

5% 


Finally, the drop in domestic consumption in Egypt is mainly 

attributed to a substantial decrease in the use sugar crops, which 

have been diverted to export markets 

-3,130 

Decrease in Volume 

Consumed = 3.8 M Tons 

Change in Consumption Volume 


-1,042 

-890 

-63 

Horticulture** 

Sugar Crops* 

Oil Crops 

-2Cotton 

-13% 26% 

1,335 

CAGR 

(2000-2004) 

CAGR 

(2000-2004) 

(*) The decrease in sugar crops consumptions could be attributed to the decrease of subsidies which led to an increase in sugar price 

(**) Horticulture stands for vegetables, fruits, pulses, roots and tubers 

Source: FAO STAT ; Alcotexa for cotton volumes, MOFT for 2003 and 2004 

22 

-5% 

29% 

Cereals -2% 32% 

-12% 

20% 

Aromatic -13% -14% 

2% 

-7% 

Sugar Crops* 

Horticulture** 

Cereals 

Cotton 

Oil Crops 

Aromatic 

Change in Exported Volume 


-4 

77 

54 

612 

1,317 

1,731 


Increase in Volume 

Exported = 3.8 M Tons 


Competitive pricing of Egyptian agricultural commodities 

compared to world markets have significantly contributed to 

boosting exports and world market share capture 

1,198 

World Average and Egypt FOB Price Differential versus Egypt Exported Volumes* 

($ per Ton, ‘000 Ton, 1995-2004) 

1,575 

1,018 

25 87 19 

1,768 

68 

1,549 

55 

2,217 

3,275 

Notes: (*) Excluding Cotton 

(**) Egypt’s Agricultural commodities market share stands for the percent of volumes exported by Egypt among the total volumes exported in the world 

Source: FAO STAT 


23 

141 

3,332 

122 

4,402 

166 

5,894 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

0.13% 0.17% 0.11% 0.18% 0.15% 0.21% 0.31% 0.29% 0.38% 0.46% 

103 

170 

Egypt Exported 

Volume 

(Thousand Ton) 

World Average and 

Egypt FOB 

Differential 

($ per Ton) 

CAGR 

(1995-2004) 

+19% 

+24% 

Egypt Agricultural 

Commodities World 

Market Share** 

FOB Price

800 

400 

Devaluation of the LE against the USD partly accounts for the 

export price differential, as it helped exporters maintain stable FOB 

prices in USD, while earning higher revenues in LE 

$ or LE per Ton 

0 

Egypt Average Agricultural Commodities FOB in LE and $ vs. Currency Exchange Rate 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Source: FAO STAT; Fx History 

24 


(LE per Ton) 


($ per Ton) 

LE in $ 

0.4 

Currency Exchange Rate 

(LE in $) 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

CAGR 

(1995-2004) 

-2% 

-6% 

-8% 

Currency Exchange Rate 

CAGR 

(2001-2004) 

15% 

-13% 

0% 


This has contributed to increasing agricultural Egyptian exporters 

profit margins since year 2000 

881 

32% 

68% 

739 

27% 

73% 

Exporter Profit for Egypt Agricultural Commodities (Excluding Cotton) 

(1995 – 2004) 

889 

35% 

65% 

FOB Price 

(LE per Ton) 

686 

19% 

81% 

Source: FAOSTAT, UN Com trade; Agricultural Statistics 

615 

21% 

79% 

Producer Price 

= + 

(LE per Ton) 

20% 

80% 

25 

12% 

88% 

Exporter Margin 

(LE per Ton) 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

513 

483 

518 

20% 

80% 

636 

31% 

69% 

741 

38% 

62% 

Margin 

(LE per Ton) 

Producer Price 

(LE per Ton) 

FOB 

(LE per Ton) 


However, a large proportion of Egyptian agricultural export 

volumes are concentrated in low margin staples, such as cotton, 

rice and sugar cane 

Average 

Profit Margin 

(41%) 

Volumes Growth and Profit Margin for Egypt Leading Agricultural Export Products** 

[Profit Margin %,2004]= 

[(FOB / Producer Price -1), 2004] 

Garlic 

500% 

Green 

Beans 

Spices (5) 

Tomatoes 

100% 

Guavas (7) 

Beans (8) 

Beans (3) 

Cotton 

Sunflower 

Seed 

Onions 

Potatoes 

(2) 

Rice Sugar Beet 

Average Volume Growth (32%) 

Oranges 

Artichokes 

Grapes Tangerines (4) 

High Volume Growth and 

High Relative Margin 

Lemons, 

Limes 

Vegetables nec (1) 

Sugar Cane 

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 

(6) 

Decrease in Exported Volume and 

Negative Profit Margin 

Egypt Export Volume CAGR (2000-2004) 

-100% 

(*) Some commodities such as strawberries have not been included due to lack of data 

(**) Egypt Agricultural Exports Selected = 99% of (Total Export Volume in 2004) 

Groundnuts 

Bubble Proportional to 


(1) Maize green, okra, cassava leaves, chicory roots (2) Onions including shallots and green; (3) Beans including cow peas, dry; (4) Tangerines, clementines, and mandarins; 

(5) Anise, badian, fennel, corian; (6) Molasses ; (7) Mangoes and mangos teens; (8) Broad beans and horse beans dry; 

Source: FAOSTAT; Alcotexa; CAPMAS; Agricultural Statistics for cotton producer price; UN Com Trade 

26 


400%

Overall, almost all Egyptian export commodities have steadily 

gained market share over the past years 

Growth of Egyptian Export and International Demand for Egypt’s Leading Agricultural Export Commodities 

Underachievers 

(Losers in Growth Market) 

World Import Value CAGR 

(2000-2004) 

20% 

10% 

Dry Beans (4) 

-20% 

0% 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

-10% 

Vegetables nec (7) 

Diagonal of 

Constant Market Share 

Rice 

Spices (3) 

Potatoes 

Guavas (1) 

Cotton 

Onions (2) 

Oilseeds (6) 

Losers in Declining Markets Winners in Declining Markets 

Green Beans 

Sugar Beet 

(5) 

Grapes 

Egypt Export Value CAGR (2000-2004) 

Champions 

(Winners in Growth Markets) 

Lemon 

& Limes 

Bubble Scale = 

US$ 100 Million 

Egypt Agricultural Exports Selected = 

95% of (Total Export Value in 2004) 

Strawberries 

(1) Guavas, mangoes and mangosteens; (2) Onions including shallots and green; (3) Anise, badan, fennel, corian (4) Beans including cow peas, dry; (5) including string beans 

(6) safflower, melon seed and poppy seed; (7) Maize green, okra, cassava leaves, chicory roots; 

Source: FAOSTAT; ITC for cotton world imports; CAPMAS for cotton exported values; UN Comtrade, “Toward Agricultural Competitiveness” – World Bank (2001) 


27 

Sugar 

Cane 

Oranges

A similar analysis by destination market reveals that Egypt has 

consolidated its export volumes towards Europe, with CIS markets 

confirming their growth potential 

Growth of Egyptian Exports Value and International Demand by Destination Market* 



GCC (3) 

UAE 

World Import Value CAGR 

(2000-2004) 

30% 

E U 

20% 

10% 

Diagonal of 


Spain (1) 

Romania 

Saudi 

Arabia 

Indonesia 

Japan 

Syria 

0% 

-20% 20% 

Kenya 

60% 

Losers in Declining Markets 

-10% 

Winners in Declining Markets 

Others USA 

European 

Union 

Czech 

Greece 

Far East 

Jordan 

Italy 

Switzerland 

Germany 

Austria 

Turkey Netherlands 

Poland 

USA 

France 

Portugal 

UK 

Israel (2) 

Egypt’s Export Value CAGR (2000-2004) 

Champions 


CIS (4) 

Russia 

200% 

Belarus 


Importing Countries Selected 

(*) Excludes cotton 


= 87% of (Export Value in 2004) 

(1) Spain imports rice, flowers and onions from Egypt; (2) Israel mainly imports vegetables nec HS 0709 and rice; (3) GCC negative export growth from Egypt is due to the decrease 

of citrus imports (oranges mainly); (4) Egypt export growth to CIS countries is only due to the increase in citrus growth 

Source: ITC; UN Comtrade; FAOSTAT for Import values; “Toward Agricultural Competitiveness” 28 – World Bank (2001) 


300% 

CIS Far East GCC

Trade agreements with Arab countries, EU and the USA have 

facilitated access to agricultural export markets … 

EFTA-Iceland, Liechtenstein, 

Norway and Switzerland 

�� Since January 2007 

�� Trade liberalization in industrial and 

processed agricultural products 

�� Protection of IP rights, competition 

and technical cooperation 

QIZ (USA) 

�� Since 2004 

�� Special trading advantages to 

products made in 3 IZ in Egypt 

entering the USA without customs 

�� Conditions: Egyptian raw material 

in a range from [ 35% to 88%] with 

an Israeli component of 11% 

EU Agreement 

�� Since 2004 

�� 15 years agreement on preferential 

treatment of certain quotas of 

agricultural products 

�� Import tariffs cut substantially 

�� Subject to liberalization 

�� Confirmation of rights and 

obligations under WTO and GATS 

�� Traceability and compliance to 

standards prerequisite for EU to 

import Egypt’s agricultural products 

Note: (*) Egypt has also signed bilateral free trade agreements with Turkey 

Source: MOFTI 

Egypt Main Trade Agreements* 

COMESA 

�� Initiated in 1982 

�� Adoption of a common external tariff and 

standards, free movement of labor, capital 

and goods, quality control procedures, tax 

harmonization, 

�� Common External tariff of 5% for raw 

materials 

�� Exports of originating goods from member 

states (with a minimum local value added 

of 45%) exempted from customs duties 

29 

MAFTA (Maghreb FTA) 

�� Since 2005 

�� Free movement of ingredients, raw 

materials for further processing before 

exporting to the EU 

AGADIR-Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt 

�� Since 2004 

�� Removal of all tariffs on trade 

�� Covering government procurement, 

financial services and dispute settlement 

Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Syria 

�� Bilateral agreements 

�� Might be absorbed by GAFTA 

GAFTA (Greater Arab FTA) 

�� Since 1998 

�� 17 members 

�� Dismantle customs tariffs by 10% points 

annually over a decade 

�� Free trade with zero tariffs 

�� Comparative advantage for Egypt when 

compared to oil rich Arab countries with 

limited agricultural industry 

�� Possible abuse of certificates of origin 


… However, these agreements do not seem to be adapted to actual 

demand for Egyptian agricultural exports, as evidenced by some 

commodities significantly exceeding their export quotas 

Ratio of Egyptian Agricultural Exports-to-Quota for EU 15 

Most horticulture products are exported much below the quotas 

Pears, quinces 

Plums and Sloes 

Cabbages, cauliflowers 

Foliage, branches 

Potatoes 

Carrots, Turnips 

Cut Flowers 

Garlic 

Cucumbers, gherkins 

Leguminous Vegetables 

Source: EU Egypt Agreement; GOEIC Data ware house department 

Other Melons 

Sweet Potatoes 

Oranges 

30 

3 

Lettuce 

Few Commodities Exceed Quotas 

5 

Other Live Plants 

3 

Onions 

3 

Rice 

3 

4 

Peaches, Nectarines 

8 

3 

Strawberries 

22 

Bulbs, tubers 

Suggests that demand 

for some Egyptian 

agricultural commodities 

in EU are much higher 

that quotas 

Export Quota to EU 

2004 

2005 

2006 


All in all, Egypt’s export performance remains well below its 

potential, given its agricultural production, size of economy, 

population, and arable land 

1 

% of Agricultural Commodities Exports vs. Production* 

(2004) 

France 

Spain 

Israel 

Italy 

South Africa 

USA 

Turkey 

Morocco 


India 

China 

Israel 

Italy 

France 

Spain 


Turkey 

USA 

India 

China 

South 

Morocco 

2% 3% 

65 

45 

16 

14 

12 

12 

11% 

9% 

9% 

142 

277 

(*) Cotton not included 

Source: WDI; FAOSTAT, ITC; UN Com trade 

26% 

24% 

441 

33% 

Egypt focuses 

on self 

sufficiency 

599 

45% 

40% 

40% 

3 Agricultural Commodities Export Value 

4 

per Feddan of Agricultural Land ($ per Feddan, 2004) 

763 

The largest 

impediment to growth 

is availability of land 

and scarcity of water 

of source 

31 

2 

Agriculture Commodities Export Share of GDP 

(2004) 

Turkey 

Spain 

Morocco 

France 


South Africa 

Italy 

India 

China 

Israel 

USA 

France 

Spain 

Italy 

Israel 

USA 

Turkey 

South Africa 

Morocco 


China 

India 

Agricultural Commodities Export per Capita 

($ per Capita, 2004) 

86 

64 

27 

16 

15 

7 

0.4% 

161 

154 

0.9% 

1.9% 

1.7% 

1.5% 

1.5% 

1.3% 

1.3% 

1.1% 

1.0% 

2.0% 

384 

517 

490 


A high-level correlation analysis of export to GDP, agricultural 

land, and population suggests a potential value of $6 billion for 

Egyptian exports in 2004, compared to the actual $1.2 billion 

INDICATIVE 

INDICATIVE 

Dependent 

Variables 

GDP 


Land 

Population 

Egypt Agricultural Commodities Export Potential* 

Rationale 

� Encapsulates overall labor and 

factor productivity 

� Correlates with human capital 

stock and innovation 

� Agricultural production (hence 

export) are limited by available 

arable land out of overall land lost 

to urbanization or desertification 

� Larger population given arable 

land probably discourages export 

in favor of local consumption 

� On the other hand, larger manual 

labor force positively influence 

agricultural production 

Predicted Export Value for 2004 = $ 5.9 Billion 

Note(*): statistical regression on sample of 24 agricultural exporter countries with R-square of 0.55 

2004 GDP 

($ Billion) 

China 1,932 

Egypt 79 

India 695 

Israel 117 

Italy 1,678 

Morocco 50 

South Africa 215 

Spain 1,040 

Turkey 303 

USA 11,712 

Algeria 85 

Australia 637 

Belgium 352 

Brazil 604 

Canada 978 

Denmark 241 

France 2,047 

Germany 2,741 

Greece 205 

Japan 4,623 

New Zealand 99 

Philippines 90 

Switzerland 358 

UK 2,124 

Population 

(Million) 


Land 

('000 Fed) 

Current Export 

($ million) 

Predicted Export 

($ million) 

(**): Assuming a growth rate of 2% for population, 4% for arable land and 5% for GDP, the predicted export value stands at $6.2 billion in 2017 

Source: WDI; FAOSTAT; ITC 

32 


1,288 

71 

1,064 

7 

58 

29 

46 

42 

71 

291 

32 

20 

10 

181 

32 

5 

60 

83 

11 

128 

4 

80 

7 

60 

1,358,953 

8,400 

475,758 

1,384 

36,756 

72,333 

238,034 

72,732 

94,941 

1,024,171 

95,118 

1,054,043 

3,589 

631,470 

176,325 

6,424 

70,839 

41,416 

20,543 

12,745 

41,407 

29,217 

3,745 

40,638 

19,250 

1,170 

7,453 

1,056 

22,007 

840 

2,883 

20,165 

6,198 

45,721 

42 

10,312 

15,061 

19,835 

14,109 

3,764 

31,247 

22,349 

2,333 

2,406 

2,276 

1,731 

2,230 

15,338 

18,302 

5,975 

9,063 

6,168 

11,012 

6,402 

7,980 

9,362 

7,235 

47,444 

6,654 

14,795 

6,885 

11,539 

9,892 

6,580 

12,348 

14,197 

6,555 

19,590 

6,389 

6,133 

6,908 

12,380

Moving forward, global trends point to a further decline in 

commodity prices in real terms, putting pressure on agricultural 

export prices 

Source: OECD- FAO Agricultural Outlook 2005-2014 

Forecast of Agricultural Commodities Prices in Real Terms 

Global Demand and Supply Equilibrium 

�� Global demand for agricultural commodities 

will be largely driven by two main factors 

– Real GDP Growth: 3% annual increase 

between 2004 and 2014 

– Population Growth: 2% annual increase 

between 2004 and 2014 

�� Global supply of agricultural commodities, on 

the other hand, will strongly pick-up and overtake 

global demand due to several factors: 

– Productivity yield growth (expected to be 

very high in the non-OECD countries) 

– Agricultural Land growth 

– Growing number of low-cost suppliers 

1.6 

1.2 

0.8 

0.4 

33 

1994 

1996 

1998 

Outlook for World Crop Prices 

(Index of Nominal Prices) 

2000 

2002 

2004 

2006 

2008 

2010 

2012 

2014 

CPI 

Wheat 

Rice 

Oil seeds 


Raw Sugar

1985 

A rapidly growing population, coupled with a fluctuating exchange 

rate, continue to pose a threat to Egypt agricultural export potential 

46 

Egypt Past and Projected Population Growth 

(Million) 

1990 

(*) 

Source: WDI; EIU 

1995 

CAGR 

3% 

2000 

2005 

80 

85 

2010 

Projected 

34 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

Egypt Past and Projected Exchange Rate 

(LE in $) 

1995 

2000 

2005 

2010 

Projected 


Finally, environmental issues, such as water supply and pollution, 

are emerging as a key threat to further growth of agriculture 

production… 

-1.14 

-1.31 

Guyana 

Canada 

-0.57 

-0.82 

-0.83 

Water Quantity Index (1) ESI Water (2) Quality Index (3) 

Ranking 

Ranking 

(out of 146 countries) (out of 146 countries) 

Australia 

USA 

-0.21 

0.34 

France 

Italy 

Japan 

UK 


UAE 

0.77 

1.79 

2.96 

�� Water quantity metric measures the per 

capita volume of available water resources 

�� Water quantity reflects the country’s ability to 

support the needs of the population 

1 

11 

29 

43 

67 

98 

122 

123 

140 

146 

“Best” 

Notes: (1) Internal renewable resources: rain, surface and groundwater 

(2) Freshwater and groundwater 

(3) Water Quality index measures the level of pollution of fresh and groundwater 

Source: Environmental Sustainability Index, 2005 

“Worst” 

35 

2 

5 

8 

17 

15 

57 

75 

91 

113 

146 

-1.46 

-0.46 

Finland 

Canada 

Japan 

-0.24 

UK 

Australia 

Kuwait 

-0.01 

0.16 

Greece 

Jordan 


Morocco 

0.92 

0.84 

1.2 

1.06 

1.61 

�� Egypt ‘s fresh and groundwater are polluted prior to 

any treatment, which implies water eutrophication 

�� Freshwater and groundwater are contaminated by 

– Extensive use of fertilizers 

– Industries’ emission of pollutants 


… as measured by a study by ESI covering fresh and ground water 

availability as well as various chemicals concentration 

Sub 

Metric 

Objective 

Methodology 

Data 

Source 

Water Quantity Index Water Quality Index* 

Freshwater Availability Groundwater Availability 

�� Country’s ability to 

support its population 

needs’ 

�� Probability that a country 

can sustainably manage 

its groundwater 

�� Sum of internal renewable 

�� Groundwater data per 

resources per capita : 

capita 

runoff, precipitation 

�� Center for Environmental 

Systems Research 

�� FAO 

�� Aquastat 

Notes: (*) Water Quality index measures the level of pollution of fresh and groundwater 

Source: Environmental Sustainability Index, 2005 

36 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Concentration 

�Eutrophicatio 


n level 

�Level �Level of 

dissolved 

oxygen 

�UNEP �UNEP 

�OECD �OECD 

�EEA �EEA 

Electrical 

Conductivity 

�Metal �Metal 

concentration 

and salinity 

Phosphorus 

Concentration 



n level 

Suspended 

Solids 

�Water �Water 

turbidity 

�Conductivity �Conductivity �Concentration 

�Concentration �Concentration 

�Concentration 

of PH 

of suspended 

solids 


�GEMS �GEMS 

�EEA �EEA 


�GEMS �GEMS 

�OECD/EEA 

�OECD/EEA 









6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

We have analyzed the selected specific agricultural categories 

along a fact sheet covering basic production/export information, 

margins, pricing and key characteristics 

0 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

T Ton 

1995 

Agricultural Commodity Production and Export Volume 

$ per 

Ton 

1995 

EXAMPLE EXAMPLE 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

1% 

1% 

2001 

2002 

(*) Margin is defined as the difference between the FOB and the producer price divided by the producer price; 

38 

2003 

2004 

Agricultural Commodity FOB Egypt vs. World Average 

EXAMPLE 

EXAMPLE 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

Produced 

Volume 

Exported 

Volume 

CAGR 

(1995-2004) 

World 


0% 

-2% 

LE per Ton 

1000 

500 

1995 


1996 

Agricultural Commodity Exporter Profit 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

CAGR 

(1995-2004) 

FOB 

Producer 

Price 

Margin* 33% 20% 19% 2% -2% 22% -3% 7% 14% 15% -9% 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

Agricultural Commodity Key Characteristics 

�� Key comments on Egypt’s competitive positioning in world 

markets 

�� Notable Government financial assistance and intervention 

�� Key information about market structure (e.g., main 

stakeholders, producers and exporters fragmentation, 

competition among exporters) 

�� Main destination markets 

4% 

6% 


M Tons 

30 

20 

10 

Horticulture exports in volumes have far outpaced production 

growth – although Egyptian produces are still sold at a discount, 

gross margins for exporters remain comfortable 

0 

500 

300 

100 

1995 

$ per 

Ton 

1999 

1996 

Horticulture Production and Export Volume 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

Horticulture FOB Egypt vs. World Average 

2000 

2001 

4% 

10% 

2002 

2003 

(*) Margin is defined as the difference between the FOB and the producer price divided by the producer price; 

Source: ITC; FAOSAT; Interview Notes 

39 

2003 

2004 

2004 

Produced 

Volume 


Volume 

CAGR 

(1999-2004) 

World 


2% 

-4% 

LE per Ton 

1000 

500 

1995 

1996 

1997 

Horticulture Exporter Profit 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

X 2 

2004 

FOB 

CAGR 

(1995-2004) 

Margin 

Producer 

price 

Margin* 38% 35% 47% 42% 32% 13% 12% 23% 63% 101% 12% 

Horticulture Key Characteristics 

1/6 

Horticulture 

2% 


-2% 

�� Horticulture has been Egypt’s success story since 1995 and 

has led the way of agricultural export growth 

�� Mostly grown along the newly reclaimed lands of the Western 

Desert Road 

�� Egypt’s products still sell its products at a significant discount to 

world prices 

�� However margins for exporters have increased considerably in 

particular since 2001 (mostly as a result of the pound 

devaluation) 

�� Organic horticulture is fast growing in European markets

Egypt concentrates most of its horticultural exports – mainly 

potatoes and oranges – towards Europe 

Horticulture Egypt Export Value per Destination 

(M$, 2004) 

339 

9% 

3% 

10% 

11% 

66% 

2004 

Others 

GCC – Mainly onions, lemons and limes (1) 

USA – Mainly grapes 

Far East – Mainly oranges, potatoes 

CIS – Mainly oranges 

EU – 25 – Mainly potatoes, oranges 

Horticulture World Import Market Breakdown 

(M $, 2004) 

(1) HS 0703, onions, shallots and garlic; According to UN Comtrade in 2004, Egypt exported lemons and limes HS 080530 to GSS where as in the previous years, it used 

to export to GCC oranges 

Source: ITC; UN Comtrade 


40 

81,058 

20% 

3% 

13% 

13% 

19% 

31% 

2004 

Others 

GCC 

CIS 

Far East 

USA 

1/6 

EU Extra EU - 25 

EU Intra EU - 25 

Horticulture

In addition, export growth has also been focused to Europe where 

Egypt has been gaining substantial market share 



Growth of Egypt’s Horticulture Export Value vs. International Demand Per Country 

World’s Horticulture Import Value Growth 

(2000-2004) 

30% 

GCC (1) 

UAE 

20% 

10% 

Diagonal of 


Champions 


-20% 

Saudi 

Arabia 

0% 

Japan 

20% 

Kenya 

60% 

200% 300% 

Egypt’s Horticulture Export Value Growth 

Losers in Declining Markets Turkey Winners in Declining Markets 

(2000-2004) 

-10% 

(1) Egypt’s horticultural CAGR (EV) to GCC Is negative because of the decrease of oranges export to GCC (2) CAGR (EV) to CIS is positive because of the increase of oranges exports 

Source: ITC; UN Comtrade; FAOSTAT, “Toward Agricultural Competitiveness” – World Proprietary & Confidential 

41Bank 

(2001) 

Czech 

Far East Syria 

Malta Italy 

Netherlands Austria 

UK 

Jordan 

Indonesia 

Israel 

Poland 

France 

Germany 

USA 

Switzerland 

Others 



Greece 

Slovakia 

Spain 


= 88% of (Export Value in 2004) 

1/6 

Horticulture 

Russia 

Belarus 

USA EU-25 CIS Far East GCC 

CIS (2)

Despite its recent growth, Egypt’s positioning remains as a niche 

supplier… 

% USA 

Imports 

35% 

12% 

10% 

6% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

0% 

% GCC 

Imports 

18% 

15% 

8% 

8% 

6% 

6% 

5% 

5% 

3% 

Mexico 

Chile 

Canada 

Costa Rica 

Guatemala 

Ecuador 

India H 

Peru 


India 

USA 

Turkey 

Chile 

Jordan 

China 

Syria 

Pakistan 


Source: FAO STAT ; ITC 

Largest Exporters of Horticulture to USA vs. Egypt % EU 

Imports 

4 

392 

294 

268 

643 

512 

34 

1,218 

1,039 

53 

50 

65 

61 

77 

77 

148 

3,699 

USA Imports 

= $ M 10,495 

Largest Exporters of Horticulture to GCC vs. Egypt 

182 

GCC Imports from 

Outside GCC = $ M 1,007 

42 

11% 

9% 

7% 

6% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

4% 

1% 

% CIS 

Imports 

23% 

11% 

11% 

10% 

7% 

6% 

5% 

4% 

2% 

USA 

Turkey 

Chile 

Morocco 

Costa Rica 

Argentina 

Ecuador 

Israel 


Ecuador 

Poland 

China 

Turkey 

Argentina 

Morocco 

Spain 

Netherlands 

Largest Exporters of Horticulture to EU vs. Egypt 


37 

224 

79 

70 

93 

118 

710 

681 

660 

754 

184 

179 

171 

938 

1/6 

1,035 

Horticulture 

1,382 

376 

1,747 

EU Imports from 

Outside EU 

= $ M 15, 215 

Largest Exporters of Horticulture to CIS vs. Egypt 

CIS Imports from 

Outside CIS = $ M 1,647 


… exporting mostly to the EU during the window opportunity 

between on and off-season growing seasons 

EU Market (2002-2003) 

20% annual growth in fresh vegetables imports; 

28% annual growth in fresh fruits imports 

Overall Production and Trade of Horticulture 

Equator 

Southern Hemisphere 

Northern Hemisphere 

GCC Market (2002-2003) 

-3% annual growth in 

fresh vegetables imports; 

15% annual growth in 

fresh fruits imports 

Source: Douglas A. Anderson, “Missing European Business Export Opportunities – Where Egypt Needs to Focus” (December 2006) 

43 

1/6 

Horticulture 

Off-season 

supplier 

Tropical 

supplier 

Niche supplier 


6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

Although Egypt’s main cereal export crop, rice remains a key 

subsistence crop – because of its water consumption, the 

Government continues to regulate its production 

T Ton 

1995 

$ per 

Ton 

1995 

1996 

1996 

Rice Production and Export Volume 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

1% 

1% 

2001 

2002 

Rice FOB Egypt vs. World Average 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2003 

2004 

2004 

World 

Produced 

Volume 


Volume 

CAGR 

(1995-2004) 


0% 

-2% 

LE per Ton 

Rice Exporter Profit 

Rice Key Characteristics 

�� Key subsistence crop mostly grown in the delta 

�� Because of its high water usage and ground desalination 

properties, yearly zoning maps are published. Rice growing 

outside these regions requires official licensing 

�� Rice export dominated by top 4 private exporters (Egyptian 

Traders, Al Fawakih Al Tasga, Al Walili, Wakalex represents 

40% of exports as of 2005) 

�� Egypt’s famous for short-medium grain variety, in great demand 

in Far East countries. Europe imports long-grain variety 

�� Rice exports from 2004 to 2006 exceeded the quotas agreed 

upon with EU countries; as such at least twice the quota has 

been exported (Quotas 32 Thousands Ton) to EU 

(*) Margin is defined as the difference between the FOB and the producer price divided by the producer price; (**) The price support given is almost 80% which limits the market potential 

Source: FAOSTAT; FAPRI 2004 Agricultural Outlook 


44 

1000 

500 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2/6 

2003 

Cereals 

2004 

CAGR 

(1995-2004) 

FOB 4% 

Producer 

Price 

Margin* 33% 20% 19% 2% -2% 22% -3% 7% 14% 15% -9% 

6%

Egypt’s main destination for rice is Syria where the Government 

purchases the vast majority of imports – to date EU and CIS 

markets have been underserved by Egyptian exports 

Source: ITC 

Cereals Egypt Export Value Per Destination 

(M$, 2004) 

245 

21% 

2% 

6% 

8% 

14% 

12% 

37% 

2004 

Others – Rice 

CIS 

EU – 25 – Rice 

GCC – Rice 

Far East – Rice 

Turkey – Rice 

Syria - Rice 

Syria Government 

purchases 60% of 

overall imports of 

rice as a main 

subsistence crop 

45 

Cereals World Import Market Breakdown 

(M $, 2004) 

47,380 

37% 

2% 

4% 

31% 

6% 

14% 

2004 

Others 

USA 

CIS 

GCC 

Far East 

2/6 

Extra EU - 25 

Intra EU - 25 

Cereals 


Cereals’ export growth is concentrated towards Syria and Jordan – 

EU markets, such as Spain and UK, have recently posted 

substantial growth 

Growth of Egypt’s Cereals Export Value vs. International Demand Per Country 

World’s Cereals Import Value Growth 

(2000-2004) 


30% 


20% 

Russia 

10% 

Turkey 

0% 

-20% 20% 60% 

150% 200% 

Kenya 

Egypt’s Cereals Export Value Growth 

(2000-2004) 



-10% 

Source: ITC; FAOSTAT; UN Comtrade, “Toward Agricultural Competitiveness” – World 46Bank 

(2001) 

Diagonal of 


Champions 


EU 

Others EU-25 CIS Far East GCC 



GCC 

Jordan 

Saudi Arabia 

Kuwait 

Syria 

2/6 


= 87% of (Cereals Export Value in 2004) 

Cereals 

Spain 

UAE UK 

Israel 


Despite its recent growth, Egypt’s market share of cereals exports 

in USA, EU, GCC and CIS countries remains marginal 

% USA 

Imports 

50% 

22% 

7% 

5% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

0% 

% GCC 

Imports 

35% 

20% 

14% 

12% 

7% 

6% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

Largest Exporters of Cereals to USA and Egypt 

(M$,2004) 

Canada 

Thailand 

Chile 

India 

Sw eden 

Argentina 

China 

Finland 


Source: ITC; FAOSTAT; Un Comtrade 

0 

27 

24 

22 

15 

42 

66 

195 

Largest Exporters of Cereals to GCC and Egypt 

India 

Australia 

Pakistan 

Argentina 

USA 

Canada 

Russia 


Netherlands 

20 

10 

44 

129 

105 

221 

446 

USA Imports = $ M 889 5% Thailand 163 EU Imports Extra EU 

5% 

India 160 

= $ M 3,100 

5% Russia 143 

262 

364 

GCC Imports 

Extra GCC = $ M 1825 

659 

47 

% EU 

Imports 

22% 

18% 

11% 

10% 

4% 

0% 

% CIS 

Imports 

22% 

14% 

11% 

11% 

7% 

6% 

6% 

5% 

2% 

Largest Exporters of Cereals to EU and Egypt 

(M$,2004) 

USA 

Canada 

Argentina 

Brazil 

Australia 


Lithuania 

Denmark 

Thailand 

China 

USA 

Germany 

Viet Nam 

Sw eden 


15 

5 

124 

14 

19 

18 

21 

330 

311 

31 

34 

41 

2/6 

552 

Largest Exporters of Cereals to CIS and Egypt 

(M$,2004) 

Cereals 

669 

65 

CIS Imports 

Extra CIS = $ M 297 


M Tons 

20 

10 

0 

40 

30 

20 

10 

Sugar crops exports – mostly molasses - have grown substantially, 

in the past 10 years - Government intervention in production and 

processing continues to affect export profit margins 

1995 

$ per 

Ton 

1995 

1996 

Sugar Crops Production and Export Volume 

1997 

1998 

1999 

3% 

39% 

2000 

2001 

2002 

Sugar Crops FOB Egypt vs. World Average 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

(*) Margin is defined as the difference between the FOB and the producer price divided by the producer price 

Source: FAOSTAT; 

48 

2003 

2002 

2004 

Produced 

Volume 


Volume 

CAGR 

(1995-2004) 

World 2% 


2003 

2004 

-6% 

LE per Ton 

150 

100 

50 

0 

1995 

1996 

1997 

Sugar Crops Exporter Profit 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

CAGR 

(1995-2004) 

FOB 3% 

Producer 

Price 

Margin* 49% 3% 18% -35% -48% -52% -13% -9% -2% 30% - 5% 

Comments 

�� Vast majority of export is molasses used in sugar industry 

processing 

�� Production largely liberalized but localized around 

Government-owned sugar cane factories. Export still controlled 

largely by Government. As a result of state intervention, market 

still significantly distorted; between 1998 and 2003 average 

profit margins were negative 

�� Water demanding crop: consumes 6% of the cultivated area, 

18% of the total water and contribute to 9% of the value add 

3/6 

Sugar Crops 


1%

A third of Egypt’s sugar crops export, mainly sugar cane, is sent to 

Kenya – another third is exported as molasses to the Far East 

Sugar Crops Egypt Export Value Per Destination 

(M$,2004) 


63 

6% 

1% 

8% 

21% 

31% 

34% 

2004 

Others 

USA 

GCC – Mainly molasses 

EU – 25- Mainly molasses 

Far East – Mainly molasses 

Kenya- Mainly sugar cane 

49 

Sugar Crops World Import Market Breakdown 

(M $, 2004) 

20,745 

29% 

3% 

6% 

10% 

15% 

10% 

27% 

2004 

Others 

GCC 

CIS 

USA 

Far East 

3/6 

EU 25 - Extra EU 

EU 25 - Intra EU 

Sugar Crops 


Egypt’s sugar crops export industry seems to be losing out on the 

growing EU and Turkey market while concentrating export growth 

and volume on Kenya 

Growth of Egypt’s Sugar Crops Export Value vs. International Demand Per Country 



World’s Sugar Crops Import Value Growth 

(2000-2004) 

80% 

EU 

Spain 

Turkey 

40% 

Italy 

Portugal 

USA France 

Taiwan 

UK 

Netherlands 

UAE 

Korea 

0% 

Israel KSA 

Oman 

Kenya 

Indonesia 

-100% -60% -20% 20% 60% 100% 140% 180% 

-40% 

-80% 

-120% 

Source: ITC; UN Comtrade; FAOSTAT, “Toward Agricultural Competitiveness” – World Bank (2001) 

50 

Diagonal of 


Champions 


Egypt’s Sugar Crops Export Value Growth 

(2000-2004) 

Losers in Declining Markets Jordan 


Others USA 

GCC 

EU-25 Far East 


US$ 2.5 Million 

3/6 

Sugar Crops 


= 97% of (Sugar Crops Export Value in 2004) 


Sugar crops main import markets – USA and EU – are dominated 

by large players, such as Canada or Mauritius 

% USA 

Imports 

26% 

15% 

6% 

5% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

0% 

% GCC 

Imports 

74% 

7% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

Largest Exporters of Sugar Crops to USA vs. Egypt 

(M$, 2004) 

Canada 

Mexico 

Brazil 

UK 

Dominican* 

Guatemala 

China 

Colombia 

Germany 

China 

Turkey 

Indonesia 

Spain 

India H 

Netherlands 


12 

9 

7 

7 

6 

6 

5 

37 

91 

84 

78 

77 

135 

112 

(*) Dominican Republic; (**) Serbia and Montenegro 

Source: ITC 

314 

549 

USA Imports = $ M 2,120 


Largest Exporters of Sugar Crops to GCC vs. Egypt 

(M$, 2004) 

Brazil 

373 

GCC Imports from 

Outside GCC= $ M 507 

51 

% EU 

Imports 

21% 

7% 

6% 

6% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

1% 

% CIS 

Imports 

52% 

27% 

4% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

Largest Exporters of Sugar Crops to EU vs. Egypt 

(M$, 2004) 

Mauritius 

Fiji 

Sw aziland 

Jamaica 

Serbia** 

Guyana 

Pakistan 

Israel 

91 

70 

117 

114 

98 

154 

125 

445 

EU Imports Extra EU 

= $ M 2,078 


Largest Exporters of Sugar Crops to CIS vs. Egypt 

(M$, 2004) 

Brazil 

Cuba 

Poland 

Thailand 

El Salvador 

Colombia 

Netherlands 

Germany 


11 

11 

0 

19 

17 

15 

39 

265 

3/6 

Sugar Crops 

519 

CIS Imports from Outside 

CIS = $ M 990 


Oil crops have experience substantial growth since 1995 – exporter 

margins have been comfortable 

Tons 

1,200 

600 

0 

1995 

$ per Ton 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

1999 

1996 

Oil Crops Production and Export Volume 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

Oil Crops FOB Egypt vs. World Average 

2000 

2001 

3% 

29% 

2002 

2003 

(*) Margin is defined as the difference between the FOB and the producer price divided by the producer price 


52 

2003 

2004 

2004 

Produced 

Volume 


Volume 

CAGR 

(1999-2004) 


World 

-10% 

3% 

1000 

LE per Ton 

0 

1995 

1996 

1997 

Oil Crops Exporter Profit 

1998 

1999 

2000 

Oil Crops Key Characteristics 

�� The government reduction of subsidies to oil crops producers 

from 1995 to 1999 (LE 0.5 Billion) led to the increase of its 

producer price 

�� Nuts and oil crops consume less than 2 % of the land, 

insignificant amount of water and benefit from a high producer 

price compared to the cost of production per Feddan 

2001 

2002 

2003 

4/6 

2004 

Oil Crops 

CAGR 

(1995-2004) 

FOB 1% 

Producer 

4% 

Price 

Margin* 47% 45% 55% 7% 51% 106% 91% 66% 47%18% - 10% 


The EU absorbs almost 2/3 of Egypt’s ground nuts exports – the 

large Far East markets are clearly underserved 

Oil Crops Egypt Export Value Per Destination 

(M$, 2004) 

21 

20% 

2% 

6% 

13% 

58% 

2004 

Note (*): Estimate based on UN Comtrade 

Source: UN Comtrade; FAOSTAT; ITC 

Others 

Far East 

GCC 

Morocco – Mainly Oil Seeds 

Syria – Mainly Ground Nuts 

EU – 25 – Mainly Ground Nuts 

53 

Oil Crops World Import Market Breakdown * 

(M$, 2004) 

3,164 

21% 

30% 

45% 

2004 

Others 

GCC 

CIS 

USA 

EU - 25 

Far East 

4/6 

Oil Crops 


Growth of Egypt’s oil crops exports is concentrated on Europe – 

Italy in particular 

Growth of Egypt’s Oil Crops Export Value vs. International Demand Per Country 

World’s Oil Crops Import Value Growth 

(2000-2004) 

60% 



Morocco 

-10% 60% 130% 

Egypt’s Oil Crops Export Value Growth 

(2000-2004) 


-20% 

Source: UN Comtrade; FAOSTAT, “Toward Agricultural Competitiveness” – World Bank 54(2001) 

EU 

Greece 

20% 

Netherlands 

Italy 

Germany 

Portugal 

Turkey 

UK 

Belgium 

Switzerland 

Saudi Arabia 

Diagonal of 


Spain 

France 

Syria 


Others 

GCC 

US$ 1 Million 


= 94% of (Oil Crops Export Value in 2004) 

Champions 


Tunisia 

4/6 

Oil Crops 

Algeria 

EU-25 


Oil crops main import market in the EU is dominated by South 

American countries, in particular Brazil 

% USA 

Imports 

33% 

12% 

8% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

4% 

3% 

0% 

% GCC 

Imports 

29% 

16% 

16% 

9% 

8% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

Largest Exporters of Oil Crops to USA vs. Egypt * 

(M$, 2004) 

Canada 

China 

India H 

Netherlands 

Mexico 

Germany 

Chile 

Japan 


2% Egypt 0 

Note (*): Estimate based on UN Comtrade 


0 

5 

7 

6 

6 

9 

13 

20 

55 

USA Imports = $ M 167 

Largest Exporters of Oil Crops to GCC vs. Egypt 

(M$, 2004) 

USA 

China 

Brazil 

Argentina 

Singapore 

India H 

Netherlands 

Spain 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

4 

4 

7 

GCC Imports Extra GCC 

= $ M 24 

55 

% EU 

Imports 

44% 

22% 

5% 

5% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

% CIS 

Imports 

27% 

22% 

11% 

7% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

3% 

0% 

Brazil 

USA 

Paraguay 

China 

Argentina 

Canada 

Uruguay 

Australia 


China 

Germany 

Netherlands 

USA 

France 

Turkey 

India H 

Denmark 


0 

26 

23 

19 

11 

46 

46 

35 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

221 

5 

438 


= $ M 1,000 

Largest Exporters of Oil Crops to CIS vs. Egypt 

(M$, 2004) 

6 

4/6 

Largest Exporters of Oil Crops to EU vs. Egypt 

(M$, 2004) 

Oil Crops 

CIS Imports Extra CIS 

= $ M 22 


200 

2500 

1500 

500 

As its main export, Egypt’s extra long staple remains a niche 

product sought for its quality in textile manufacturing 

T Ton* 

0 

1995 

$ per Ton 

1995 

1996 

1996 

Cotton Production and Export Volume 

1997 

Cotton FOB Egypt vs. World Average 

1997 

1998 

1998 

1999 

1999 

2% 

-1% 

2000 

2000 

2001 

(*) Thousands Ton 

Source: Cotlook, Alcotexa, CAPMAS, CEO of Shura Exports; WB report in 1998 

2001 

2002 

2002 

2003 

2003 

2004 

2004 

Produced 

Volume 


Volume 

CAGR 

(1995-2004) 

Egypt 15% 

World -3% 

56 

Cotton Key Characteristics 

5/6 

Cotton 

�� Cotton is a key export crop for Egypt and represents 40% of 

its export value in 2004 

�� Export value has been growing at an annual rate of 14% for 

the last ten years 

�� Cotton consumes about 6% of the cultivated area, 6% of 

the total water and contributes to about 9% of the total 

farmer value add – Its farm gate price is twice as much as 

its costs of production partly because cotton is subsidized 

(the government guarantees a minimum price to buy the 

exceeding cotton) 

�� Egypt is one of the largest producer of cotton of high quality 

(around 280,000 T). Extra Long Staple ELS is famous and 

highly demanded by several designers (Tommy Hilfiger, 

Armani, Gap, etc…) 

�� ELS is being increasingly used as a mix with cheap imports 

(e.g., Greece, Sudan). New chemical compounds are 

starting to emerge that could provide a cheaper alternative 

than ELS 

�� In addition, since the Multi-Fiber Agreement, China and India 

are increasing their dominance in textile and increasingly 

putting pressure on Europe but also Egypt’s local industry 


Egypt exports 44% of its cotton to Far East, while the EU and the 

USA absorbs another 24% which basically matches overall world 

import markets breakdown 

Cotton Egypt Export Value Per Destination 

(Million $)(2004) 

479 

33% 

9% 

18% 

40% 

2004 

Others 

USA 

EU - 25 

Far East 

Source: ITC; Cotton International export; CAPMAS 

57 

Cotton World Import Market Breakdown 

(Million $)(2004) 

46,530 

29% 

1% 

4% 

9% 

11% 

44% 

2004 

Others 

CIS 

GCC 

USA 

EU Extra EU - 25 

EU Intra EU - 25 

Far East 

5/6 

Cotton 


Demand for cotton is shifting from European and American to Far 

East markets, that are increasingly dominating the textile industry 




Growth of Egypt’s Cotton Export Value vs. International Demand Per Country 

World’s Cotton Import Value Growth 

(2000-2004) 

EU 

30% 

20% 

-20% 

10% 

Greece 

Italy 

0% 

Italy 

Germany USA 

20% 

Switzerland 

Korea Japan 

Thailand 

India 

Pakistan 

300% 

60% 

Egypt’s Cotton Export Value Growth 

(2000-2004) 

-10% 

Indonesia 

-20% 

Turkey 

Diagonal of 


(*) According to CAPMAS, Egypt did not export cotton in 2004 to GCC and CIS Countries 

Source: ITC for cotton import value; CAPMAS; Alcotexa, “Toward Agricultural Competitiveness” 58 – World Bank (2001) 

China 

Champions 


Far East 


Others EU-25 CIS Far East GCC 



5/6 

Cotton 


= 91% of (Cotton Export Value in 2004) 


In all major markets, Egypt remains a niche supplier of cotton – 

Pakistan and Turkey dominate the industry with market shares 

over 20% 

% USA 

Imports 

24% 

9% 

9% 

6% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

% GCC 

Imports 

26% 

23% 

13% 

9% 

4% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

0% 

Source: ITC 

Largest Exporters of Cotton to USA vs. Egypt 

(M$, 2004) 

Pakistan 

China 

Italy 

Korea 

Japan 

India 

Turkey 


Brazil 

Pakistan 

India 

China 

UK 

Indonesia 

USA 

Turkey 

Italy 


0 

43 

31 

12 

63 

17 

12 

97 

87 

28 

114 

61 

179 

172 

476 

USA Imports = $ M 2,000 3% Indonesia 109 EU Imports from Outside EU 

3% 

USA 104 

= $ M 4,000 

Largest Exporters of Cotton to GCC Countries vs. Egypt 

(M$, 2004) 

93 

168 

188 


= $ M 720 

59 

% EU 

Imports 

21% 

12% 

8% 

7% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

% CIS 

Imports 

21% 

16% 

14% 

9% 

8% 

4% 

4% 

1% 

0% 

Turkey 

India 

Pakistan 

China 

Syria 


Thailand 

Germany 

China 

Kyrgyzstan 

Turkey 

Italy 

France 

Pakistan 

UK 


Largest Exporters of Cotton to EU vs. Egypt 

(M$, 2004) 

1 

4 

88 

74 

9 

123 

10 

235 

23 

22 

280 

414 

37 

41 

5/6 

Cotton 

57 

746 

Largest Exporters of Cotton to CIS Countries vs. Egypt 

(M$, 2004) 


= $ M 270 


80 

40 

2,000 

Exports of Spices Stimulants & Flowers has been stable over the 

last few years – since the devaluation, gross margins for exporters 

have started to dramatically increase 

500 

Spices and Stimulants Production and Export Volume 

Thousands Tons 

0 

1995 

$ per Ton 

Spices and Stimulants FOB Egypt vs. World Average 

1999 

1996 

1997 

2000 

1998 

2001 

1999 

(*) FOB divided by the Producer Price 

Source: FAOSTAT; Interview Notes 

1% 

0% 

2000 

2002 

2001 

2003 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2004 

World 


Produced 

Volume 


Volume 

CAGR 

(1999-2004) 

-5% 

10% 

60 

LE per Ton 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

1995 

1996 

Spices and Stimulants Exporter Margin 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

X 4 

2001 

2002 

2003 

X 7 

2004 

SSF 

CAGR 

(1995-2004) 

FOB 13% 

Margin 

Producer 

Price 

FOB/ PP* 3 3.2 3.6 2.9 2.5 2.9 4.2 6.1 9 7.3 10% 

6/6 

Spices and Stimulants Key Characteristics 

�� Spices is a growing sector in Egypt (mostly grown in 

cooperation with small farmers that supply most of export 

quantities) 

�� Aromatic consume insignificant areas of cultivated land, water 

but experience a high value add with its producer price (price 

sold on the local market) being twice as much the cost of 

production per feddan 

�� The devaluation of the Egyptian pound has led to the increase 

of the FOB in local currency and, as a result, to greater margin 

for exporters 


2%

Egypt’s spices, stimulants and flowers mainly exported to EU, 

Jordan and Morocco represent 0.1% of the total market 

S S F Egypt Export Value Per Destination 

(M$, 2004 

22 

35% 

4% 

5% 

11% 

43% 

2004 

Others- Mainly Jordan, Syria, 

Turkey – Mainly tea 

CIS – Mainly tea 

Far East- Mainly plants and caraway seeds 

USA – Mainly fennel seeds 

(2) 

GCC – Mainly plants live and tea 

EU- 25 – Mainly plants, live (1) 

(1) Stands for HS 0602 Live plants, roots, cuttings, mushroom spawn, includes roses and trees 

(2) Stands for HS 0902 Green and dark tea 

Source: FAO STAT ; ITC; UN Comtrade 

61 

S S F World Import Market Breakdown 

(M $, 2004) 

29,090 

18% 

2% 

3% 

10% 

16% 

21% 

31% 

2004 

Others 

GCC 

CIS 

Far East 

USA 

6/6 

EU Extra EU 

EU Intra EU 

SSF 


Spices, stimulants and flowers export growth are aligned with each 

country’s import potential 

Growth of Egypt’s SSF Export Value vs. International Demand Per Country 

World’s SSF Import Value Growth 

(2000-2004) 

20% 



10% 

Germany 

France 

Ital 

UAE 

Netherlands 

Spain 

-10% 

Israel 

0% USA 

y 

Jordan 

Turkey 

30% 70% 

-10% 

Saudi Arabia 

Diagonal of 

Constant Market Shares 


Others European 

Union 


US$ 1 Million 

(*) Syria is a main importer of Egypt’s SSF with 1.6 M$, however we are missing its growth of import value of SSF 

Source: ITC; UN Comtrade; FAOSTAT, “Toward Agricultural Competitiveness” – World 62Bank 

(2001) 

EU 

Champions 


Greece 

6/6 

SSF 

182% 

Egypt’s SSF Export Value Growth 

(2000-2004) 

CIS Far East GCC 


= 70% of (SSF Export Value in 2004) 

CIS 

Russia 


The USA and EU are served by a multitude of players that include 

Egypt at the bottom of the lost 

% USA 

Imports 

20% 

10% 

9% 

6% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

0% 

% GCC 

Imports 

26% 

25% 

10% 

8% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

0% 

Source: ITC 

Colombia 

Canada 

Brazil 

Netherlands 

Guatemala 

Indonesia 

Costa Rica 

Mexico 


Largest Exporters of S S F to USA 

(M $,2004) 

3 

248 

233 

216 

204 

295 

395 

447 

Largest Exporters of S S F to GCC 

(M $,2004) 

Sri Lanka 

India 

Guatemala 

China 

Kenya 

Yemen 

Netherlands 

Syria 


1 

17 

16 

11 

22 

40 

51 

932 

USA Imports = $ M 4,600 4% 

4% 

Indonesia 

China 

243 

226 


= $ M 6,200 

4% 

Costa Rica 195 

0% Egypt 10 

129 

125 


= $ M 500 

63 

% EU 

Imports 

17% 

10% 

7% 

7% 

6% 

% CIS 

Imports 

28% 

16% 

11% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

4% 

3% 

0% 

Brazil 

Kenya 

Viet Nam 

Colombia 

India 

Sri Lanka 

Netherlands 

India 

Poland 

Ecuador 

Indonesia 

Colombia 

China 


Largest Exporters of S S F to EU 

(M $,2004) 

0 

339 

452 

446 

625 

6/6 

Largest Exporters of S S F to CIS 

(M $,2004) 

31 

28 

25 

41 

36 

82 

121 

SSF 

1,054 

218 


= $ M 780 








Egypt’s strategic location, favorable climate, international politics 

weight and economic situation are key levers to expand further its 

agricultural exports 

Strategic Location Favorable Climate 

� Ideal geographical location to supply shelf-life 

sensitive crops to Europe, Middle East, Africa 

� Large inbound sea shipping volume provides 

sufficient dry-container capacity to export nonperishable 

agricultural products 

� Access to 1.5 billion consumers with substantial 

disposable income (e.g., EU, GCC, CIS) 

� Egypt’s weight in international politics was 

beneficial to obtain favorable agreements with 

US, Europe and other political entities 

� Egypt has also received substantial aid money 

from Western donors to help the agriculture 

sector development 

65 

� Favorable soil condition, water supply and 

climate provide an open-air greenhouse for 


� Egypt’s latitudinal span offers ideal conditions 

to expand growing seasons windows (e.g., 36 

micro-climates between Lower and Upper 

Egypt governorates) 

International Politics Leverage 


Exports 

Competitive 

Advantages 

Economic Situation 

Source: ACDI/VOCA; Booz-Allen Analysis 

Egypt’s Agricultural Exports Competitive Advantages 

� Egyptian pound devaluation has promoted to 

substantial increase of agricultural exports, 

especially from 2001 to 2004 

� Large supply of low-wage labor for nonmechanized 

agricultural exports 

� Egypt’s economic liberalization policies since 

1990’s has vastly improved competitiveness of 

overall export sector 


Egypt’s agricultural export sector faces six key challenges 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Major Challenge 

Lack of demand-driven 

orientation 

Lack of coordination among 

exporters 

Untapped potential of small 

farmers 


Inadequate regulations 

Capacity issues 

Source: BAH Analysis, Interviews 

66 

Description 

�� Little market intelligence conducted to understand customer demand 

�� Poor promotion of Egyptian exports 

�� Inadequate competitive pricing 

�� Little leverage of all distribution channels to provide Egyptian produces 

�� Fierce competition among Egyptian exporters 

�� Little lobbying by private sector of Government during trade negotiations 

�� No effective body to coordinate efforts of public-private agriculture export stakeholders 

�� Large untapped potential from small growers towards export 

�� Substantial human capital development needs for small farmers 

�� Poor transportation infrastructure in Upper Egypt 

�� Insufficient reefer container capacity 

�� Excessive maritime transportation delays from Egypt to key destination markets 

�� High air shipping prices charged by quasi-monopolistic cargo operator 

�� Capacity issues for air cargo during peak export seasons 

�� Uncompetitive inputs import restrictions and Government regulations 

�� Support to state-owned enterprises contribute to market distortions 

�� Inefficient Government financial assistance that misallocates scarce natural resources 

�� Lack of robust sanitary infrastructure in Egypt 

�� Weak Government extension services 

�� Inadequate educational system and vocational training 

�� Capacity building needs for certification, e-traceability and SPS 


1. Lack of Demand Driven Orientation 

A successful demand-driven strategy must rely on market 

intelligence to identify target markets and offer a product with 

adequate characteristics, promotion, pricing and distribution 

Demand-oriented 

Market Intelligence 

� Assess key target markets 

& trends 

� Survey direct competitors 

� Understand key 

stakeholders in the value 

chain 

Sources: BAH Analysis 

Demand-Driven Strategy Components 

Product 

Characteristics 

Product Promotion 

Product Pricing 

Product Distribution 

�� Understand end-customers tastes and regional preference for 

agricultural commodities in various target markets 

�� Provide overall service level that meets client’s expectations. For 

instance, fresh produce retailers expect quality products but also , 

reliable, predictable and flexible supply 

�� Differentiate commodity offering through branding association (e.g., 

Israel’s Carmel) 

�� Launch advertising campaigns to raise export country’s profile with 

end-customers and purchasers 

�� Determine optimal pricing that considers willingness to pay in various 

target markets and competitors offering 

�� Apply dynamic pricing, yield management and elasticity research to 

optimize exporters’ profitability 

�� Analyze optimal distribution channel that minimizes cost and increase 

overall reach 

�� Determine most appropriate transportation mode (e.g., land, sea, air) 

67 



Better market intelligence could help Egyptian exporters reduce 

their dependence on a few target markets 

% Share 

HS070200- Tomatoes 

1.6 M$ 

10% 

15% 

18% 

56% 

7 TT 

9% 

8% 

8% 

70% 

% of 

Volume 

Others 

UK 

Saudi 

Arabia 

Source: UN Comtrade 

Netherlands 

Market Distribution of Selected Egyptian Agricultural Commodities 

(2004) 

HS070310- Onions, Shallots 

36 M $ 

45% 

11% 

15% 

29% 

% Share 

351 TT 

33% 

8% 

12% 

47% 

% of 

Volume 

Others 

Russia 

Lebanon 

Saudi 

Arabia 

6.4 M$ 

29% 

8% 

23% 

40% 

% Share 

HS080610- Grapes 

68 

8.5 TT 

35% 

8% 

22% 

35% 

% of 

Volume 

Others 

Italy 

Belgium 

Netherlands 

HS08010- Oranges 

45 M$ 

27% 

9% 

27% 

37% 

% Share 

160 TT 

31% 

8% 

26% 

35% 

% of 

Volume 

Others 

Greece 

Belarus 

Russia 

HS080540- Guavas, 

Mangos 

1.3 M$ 

21% 

12% 

31% 

35% 

% Share 

2.9 TT 

35% 

17% 

32% 

31% 

% of 

Volume 

Others 

Kuwait 

Saudi 

Arabia 

Korea 



In addition to high-quality agricultural products, retailers are 

increasingly demanding predictable, flexible and reliable service 

delivery 

High Quality 

Product 

Predictable, 

Flexible and 

Reliable 

Service 

Delivery 

Product and Service Requirements of Agriculture Commodities Importers 

�� Retailers are increasingly requiring high quality products by imposing certain certification standards 

(e.g., Eurepgap, BRC) 

�� Failure to adopt and enforce quality standards, sterilization and laboratory checks is contributing to 

the perception of Egyptian products as commodities, and allowing competitors to gain most of the 

added value for their products 

�� Given the number of recent food scares, product traceability has also become a key stepping stone 

of their supply chain 

�� Predictability: Whereas the demand is variable, irregular, and changes from one day to another, 

retailers expect that their changing requirements would be predicted by their suppliers 

�� Flexibility: The retailers prefer not to commit to purchase specific quantities. Retailers such as 

Carrefour try to order the agriculture crops that they need few days in advance 

�� Reliability: On-shelf availability is one of the top priority fore retailers. Retailers are very sensitive 

about time. They want to track the status of their crop order, and to make sure that delivery would be 

on-time 

69 


Stock Level (Days) 


For instance, food produce retailers in the UK are reducing their 

inventory stock levels and as such require more flexible and 

frequent deliveries from their suppliers 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

UK EXAMPLE 

EXAMPLE 

Average Retailer Stock Level 

(in Day) 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Year 

Sources: IGD Research, Retail Logistics 2006 

Retail Logistics Trends 

(2006) 

CAGR 

(1996-2005) 

BWS 

Non 

Foods 

SMG 

FMG 

Frozen 

-0.7% 

-6.3% 

-1.8% 

-1.2% 

-3.4% 

70 

Category 

Average Delivery Frequency from Distribution Center 

per Category per Week 

Non Foods 

Slower Moving 

Grocery 

Frozen 

Beers, Wines 

and Spirits 

Chilled / Fresh 

Meats 

Fast Moving 

Grocery 

Produce 

3.6 

4.6 

5.1 

5.1 

7.5 


9 

9.8 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

Delivery Frequency


Except for cotton, Egyptian producers and exporters have not 

managed to promote their products which are perceived as 

simple commodities, with inadequate quality standards 

Weak 

Branding 

Limited 

Promotion 

Campaigns 

Sources: Interviews; BAH Analysis 

Promotion Issues Impacting Egyptian Agricultural Exports 

�� Except for cotton, Egyptian agriculture exporters are positioning their products on the lowest rung 

of the supply chain. Egyptian products are being perceived as commodities 

�� Agriculture producers did not manage to brand their crops as “Made in Egypt” 

�� Agriculture producers are not leveraging the Fair Trade trends. They are not associating their 

products to the natural heritage of specific regions, and not emphasizing the role of small farmers 

in producing the crop 

�� Limited number of export promotion events are organized annually to promote exports of field 

and horticultural crops. They mainly are handled by: 

– Development agencies 

– Export associations 

�� Few advertising campaigns are launched to promote Egyptian agriculture products in export 

markets 

71 



Egyptian agricultural commodities pricing could be optimized to 

compete more effectively with direct competitor countries on major 

terminal markets 

Price of 250g of Strawberries 

(New Covent Garden, UK) (in US$) 

1.98 

Pricing of Egyptians Fruits and Vegetables in Global Terminal Markets 

(Jan 29 th , 2007) 

1.59 

Spain Egypt 

Price of 15 Kg of Lemons 

(Rotterdam, The Netherlands) (in US$) 

11 10.67 10.35 

Egypt Tunisia Spain 

Price of 5Kg of Peppers 


17.84 

Sources: Fresh Produce Journal, England; Service des Nouvelles des Marches, France; Tricop, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; ZMP, Hamburg, Germany; BAH Analysis 


72 

11.89 

Egypt Spain 

Price of 15 Kg of Oranges 

(Rotterdam, The Netherlands) (in US$) 

11.65 

9.7 

9.06 

Morocco Egypt Spain 

Price of 9/250g of Cherry Tomatoes 


9.91 

8.92 8.92 

Egypt Israel Spain 

Price of 5Kg of Peppers 

(Hamburg, Germany) (in US$) 

23.45 

11.72 11.07 

Israel Egypt Spain


Agricultural commodities are typically distributed to retailers – 

through category managers – or to wholesalers, mostly on a 

consignment basis 

Retailers 

(Category 

Managers) 

Wholesale 

Market 


Agricultural Commodities Distribution Channels 

�� In Western European countries, fresh produce imports is now dominated by retail chains 

�� To handle year-long supply of food produces, retailers employ dedicated category managers, 

who serve as interface with various international exporters 

�� Those category managers typically charge exporters 8% of retail price 

�� Contractual arrangements are typically done on a consignment basis. As a result, most of the 

commercial risk is borne by the exporters. In some cases, however, weekly arranged prices can 

be agreed for certain high-value crops (e.g., strawberries in UK) 

�� Category Managers distribute products to retail chains’ national and regional distribution centers 

�� Wholesale channels continue to dominate distribution channels in most countries 

�� Retailers source their products from these large terminal markets 

�� Contract typically organized under a consignment arrangement 

�� The share of wholesale sales in developed countries began to decline, since part of the value 

added has been appropriated by producers and large retailers with retailers integrating 

backwards and producers forward 

73 



Egyptian agricultural products are not widely distributed in major 

global terminal markets 

Terminal Market 

Fruit/Vegetable 

Presence of Egyptians Fruits and Vegetables in Global Terminal Markets 

(January 2007) 

New Covent Garden 

(UK) 

Rungis 

(France) 

Rotterdam 

(Netherlands) 

Hamburg 

(Germany) 

Grapefruit Israel, Tunisia Israel, Tunisia 

Lemons Spain Spain EGYPT, Spain, Tunisia 

Oranges Morocco, Spain Spain EGYPT, Morocco, Spain 

Tangelos Israel, Spain, Tunisia EGYPT, Israel, Tunisia 

Raspberries Spain Spain 

Strawberries EGYPT, Spain Morocco, Spain 

Avocados Spain 

Grapes Spain Spain 

Kiwi Spain 

Beans Morocco 

Peas Green EGYPT 

Peppers Radishes 

EGYPT, Spain Spain EGYPT, Israel, Spain 

Squash Morocco Morocco 

Tomatos Spain Morocco, Spain Israel, Spain 

Cherry tomatoes EGYPT, Israel, Spain 

EGYPT, Israel, 

Morocco, Spain 

Fruit or vegetable available in Terminal market 

Country Egypt or a direct competitor exporting in market 

Sources: Fresh Produce Journal, England; Service des Nouvelles des Marches, France; Tricop, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; ZMP, Hamburg, Germany 


74


In order to improve their supply delivery system, retailers such 

as the Compass Group are creating distribution centers to 

bypass wholesalers and reach directly the farmers 

Grower 

1 

Retailer 

Depot 1 

Optimization of Food Service Supply Chain 

Fragmented Supply Channels Retailer-Controlled Supply Channels 

Grower 

2 

Wholesaler 

Grower 

3 

Retailer 

Depot 2 

Grower 

4 

Consolidation 

Depot 

Decoupled Logistics Provider 

or 

Decoupled Wholesaler 

Grower 

5 

Retailer 

Depot 3 

75 

Grower 

1 

Retailer 

Depot 1 

Grower 

2 

Grower 

3 

Grower 

4 

Retailer –Controlled 

Distribution Center 

Retailer 

Depot 2 

Grower 

5 

Retailer 

Depot 3 


2. Lack of Coordination Among Exporters 

Egyptian agricultural exporters do not cooperate effectively to 

influence Government’s policies or negotiation terms for 

international trade agreements 

Fierce Internal 

Competition 

Little Active 

Government 

Lobbying 

Low 

Negotiation 

Bargaining in 

Trade 

Agreements 

Sources: Interviews, BAH Analysis 

Lack of Coordination Among Exporters 

�� Egyptian exporters’ seem to be competing among each other rather than addressing threats pose 

by formidable agricultural export competitors such as Turkey, Israel, Morocco and other 

competitors 

�� Egyptian exporters have not sufficiently pooled their resources to promote the overall sector growth 

�� Due to their fragmentation, exporters do not sufficiently put forward recommendations to the 

Government 

�� Only the horticulture and rice sector have managed in the past to effectively lobby for favorable 

Government policies 

�� According to exporters, various agreements were badly negotiated: 

– Under the EU-Egypt Association agreement, quotas for produces that are not extensively grown 

in Egypt (e.g., plums, cauliflower) are generous whereas quotas for potatoes, strawberries and 

citrus have already been reached 

– The EU-Egypt Association Agreement also extended grapes export window towards Egypt’s off 

seasons 

– Citrus continue to be banned altogether from US markets, as APHIS imposed stringent SPS 

controls on imports 

76 



This lack of coordination may be exacerbated by a fragmented 

agricultural export sector, especially when benchmarked to 

international competition 

Top 5 


Remaining 


Top 5 Exporters Market Share of Total Export In Various Developing Countries (2004) 

Total = 

1,497 

5 

1,492 

No. of 


Egypt Israel 

Chile 

Total = 

100% 

15% 

85% 

% of 

Exports Value 

Total = 

350 

5 

345 

No. of 


Total = 

100% 

Total = 

600 

No. of 


Total = 

100% 

Source: General Organization for Export and Import Control (GOEIC), 2006; Ministry of Trade – Israel,, Chilean Fresh Fruit Association, ProChile Database 


77 

80% 

20% 

% of 

Exports Value 

5 

595 

52% 

48% 

% of 

Exports Value


In addition, Egyptian exporters organizations – whether private or 

public – operate mostly independently of each other … 

Cooperatives 

� Consolidate and 

standardize 

production efforts 

� Share best 

practices among 

members on pest 

control 

� Contribute to 

higher bargaining 

power for growers 

compared to 

exporters 

Public Associations 

UPEHC 

� An association of 

agriculltural 

exporters 

� Its aim is to 

support small 

exporters and 

growers with 

information, and 

consulting to 

improve their 

production quality 

and boost exports 

Source: ODEPA/MINAGRI Chile, Lit Search, ASOEX, FedeFruta, Booz Allen Analysis 

Egypt – Main Stakeholders in Export Development 

AEC 

� An association 

of Egypt’s 

agricultural 

exporters 

� Aims at 

identifying 

improvement 

initiatives for 

Egypt’s 

agricultural 

sector 

Public-Private Associations 

78 

EAGA 

� An agricultural 

association 

aiming at 

increasing 

interaction 

beteween 

different 

stakeholders 


agricultural 

sector through 

seminars, and 

workshops etc. 

Expolink 


that aims at 

matchmaking 

local exporters 

with international 

buyers to 

improve 

Egyptian exports 

Private Associations 

HEIA 



agricultural 

exporters 

� Aims at training 

growers, and 

increasing 

awareness on 

latest export 

standards / 

requirements of 

the export market 

Associations 

� El-Shams project 

(operated by 

Egypt-Care) has 

created 100 

farmer 

associations in 

Upper Egypt to 

promote modern 

agriculture 

practices and 

boost export 

potential 



… which contrasts with other successful agricultural export 

countries that have setup an overall coordination body to oversee 

private and public efforts to promote exports 

� Coordinates the export 

promotion effort of the 

different stakeholders 

Source: ODEPA/MINAGRI Chile, Lit Search, ASOEX, FedeFruta, Booz Allen Analysis 

Chile – Main Stakeholders in Export Development 

Pro Chile 

ASOEX FedeFruta Dole Del Monte Del Curto 

� Private 

assoc. of 

fresh fruit and 

vegetable 

growers of 

Chile 

� Founded in 

1935 

� Non profit 

trade union 

related with 

public and 

private sector 


1985 

Public and Private Associations 

� Subsidiary of 

USA Dole 

Food 

� Started in 

Chile in 1981 

as Standard 

Trading 

79 

� Former UTC 

(United 

Trading 

Company) – 

acquired by 

USA Del 

Monte Fresh 

in 1997 

Govt. Export Promotion 

Bureau (part of Min. of 

Foreign Affairs) 

Founded in 1974 

Private Companies 

� Largest 

100%-Chilen 

capital 

exporter 


1950 


3. Untapped Potential of Small Farmers 

While most large exporters adopt a vertically integrated model to 

mitigate supply risks, small exporters often rely on uncertain 

supply from fragmented farmers and packers 

Production and 

Harvesting 

Source: Interviews, BAH Analysis 

Packaging, 

Cooling 

and Storage 

Sale to 

Foreign 

Market 

Vertically integrated producers / exporters 

80 


Pack houses and 

Small 

and 

Small Farmers Small Exporters 

mills 


Transportation agents 

mills 

Farming cooperatives, farmers associations 

Large Exporters 

�Large �Large exporters are normally vertically integrated along 

the whole supply chain, and have their own production 

lands, packing houses and export contracts 

�The �The rationale behind their business model is to: 

– Reduce supply risk and dependency on the large 

number of small size farmers 

– Better control cost and quality of crops produced 

�Large �Large exporters base their business on supplying major 

international retail chains 

Large Exporters vs. Small Exporters 


companies 

Export Logistics 

and Customs 

Procedures 

Customs, Taxes 

and Quarantine 

Air and maritime transport companies 

Distribution in 

Foreign 

Markets 

Wholesalers and 

retailers 

Sponsors 

Small Exporters 

�Small �Small exporters mainly focus on selling crops produced 

by the multitude of small producers operating in the 

sector 

�Small �Small exporters depend on dealers and packing houses 

to supply them with their needs of export volumes 

�The �The level of profitability for small exporters in much lower 

than large ones since they pay for the mark-ups of all 

player upstream of the supply chain (Farmers and 

packers) 


3. Untapped Potential of Small Farmers 

The potential from small growers towards exporting agricultural 

commodities has not been fully leveraged because of 5 main 

impediments 

11 

Lack of coordination 

among small farmers 

22 

33 

44 

55 

Lack of Education 

and Training 

Weak Financial 

Capabilities 

Little Export Market 

Orientation 

Local Transportation 

challenges 

Challenges in Leveraging Egypt’s Small Growers Potential for Export 

�� The majority of small growers is currently grouped in largely inefficient parastatal cooperatives. As a 

result ,Government-wide programs to build capacity fail to reach out effectively to all players 

�� Fragmentation stokes information asymmetry between large exporters and small farmers and fuels 

distrust between parties in terms of margins and product quality 

�� Most small farmers lack formal or technical training in modern farming techniques: 

− Little marketing capability in growing varieties in demand for export 

− Lack of sanitary infrastructure to ensure quality necessary to pass strict SPS controls 

− Little awareness on irrigation and farming techniques that enhance cropping yield 

�� Because of weak property rights, small farmers lack sufficient collateral to borrow working capital for 

farming inputs (e.g., fertilizers, seeds) 

�� There is little awareness on forward contracts that could help finance operating costs 

�� Micro-credit models for small farmers have not yet gained ground in Egypt 

�� There is no institutionalized information link between international agricultural markets and small 

farmers 

�� Most small farmers focus their cropping for the local market with little attention to the potential of 

export 

�� Many small farmers operate in Upper Egypt, with little modern road connection to ports or airports 

�� Even existing road infrastructure cannot accommodate low-cost container-based trailers and 

requires archaic transportation, prone to farming loss 

81 


4. Transportation 

Transportation represents a significant portion of agricultural 

exports cost structure, and could reach 43% of total costs for 

some crops 


Grapes Exported by Sea 

From Egypt to UK 

23% 

20% 

11% 

31% 

13% 

Total Costs 

Cost Structure for Large Integrated Exporters 

(2006) 

Sea shipping 

Packing 

Labor, insurance, 

customs clearance 

Tax, interests and 

financing expenses 

SG&A 

82 

Strawberries Exported by Air 

From Egypt to EU 

43% 

15% 

7% 

25% 

10% 

Total Costs 

Air transport 

Packing 

Labor, insurance, 

customs clearance 

Tax, interests and 

financing expenses 

SG&A 



Air and land transportation represent a small fraction of Egyptian 

agricultural products transportation – maritime represents more 

than 90 % of the total… 

Sources: Interview with Egypt Air, BAH Analysis 

Volume and Value of Agriculture Products Exported by Egypt 

per Transportation Mode (2004) 

6.08 million tons $ 1,170 million 

1% 

99% 

Volume of Exported Agricultural 

Crops (in million tons) 

83 

9% 

91% 

Value of Exported Agricultural 

Crops (in $ million) 


Air transport 

Maritime transport 



… and is concentrated towards European market, with a strong 

emphasis on Italy 

TOTAL: 6,847 TEU 

Key export markets: 

5,743 TEU 

Remaining destinations: 

1,104 TEU 

NORTH AMERICA: 188 TEU 

New York: 123 TEU 

Montreal: 32 TEU 

UK: 695 TEU 

Portbury: 411 TEU 

Felixstowe: 246 TEU 

Source: Maritime companies operating in Egypt (2007) 

Egypt Reefers Key Export Markets 

(2006) (in TEU) 

NETHERLANDS: 137 TEU 

Rotterdam: 137 TEU 

SPAIN: 182 TEU 

Valencia: 170 TEU 

ITALY: 2,736 TEU 

Salerno: 1,124 TEU 

Vado Ligure: 916 TEU 

Ravenna: 219 TEU 

Venice: 186 TEU 

Trieste: 168 TEU 

84 

EGYPT 

KSA: 958 TEU 

Jeddah: 910 TEU 

Dammam: 48 TEU 

GREECE: 181 TEU 

Thessaloniki: 122 TEU 

Piraeus: 59 TEU 

CYPRUS: 118 TEU 

Limassol: 118 TEU 

TURKEY: 104 TEU 

Kumport: 104 TEU 

UAE: 444 TEU 

Jebel Ali: 436 TEU 

Main Carriers and 

Destinations 

GUILNAVI 

�Salerno: �Salerno: 1,088 TEU 

�Vado �Vado Ligure: 916 TEU 

ITALIA MARITIMA 

�Thessaloniki: �Thessaloniki: 118 TEU 

�Valencia: �Valencia: 118 TEU 

�Rotterdam: �Rotterdam: 114 TEU 

MAERSK 

�Jeddah: �Jeddah: 734 TEU 

�Jebel �Jebel Ali: Ali: 436 TEU 

�Kumport: �Kumport: 104 TEU 

MSC 

�Portbury: �Portbury: 411 TEU 

�Felixstowe: �Felixstowe: 246 TEU 

�Ravenna: �Ravenna: 219 TEU 

�Jeddah: �Jeddah: 174 TEU 

�Trieste: �Trieste: 154 TEU 

ZIM 

�Venice: �Venice: 186 TEU 



In Egypt, the supply chain from exporter to consignee for maritime 

transport is fragmented and, as a result, suffers from capacity 

issues and long transportation delays 

Exporter 

Capacity 

Constraints 

Long 


Delays 

Source: Interviews; BAH Analysis 

3PL / Freight 

Forwarder / 

Customs 

Agent 

Origin 

Ground 


Traditional Shipping Value Chain 

Origin 

Port / 

Terminal 

Sea 

Shipping 

Carrier 

85 

Shipping Agent 

Destination 

Port / 

Terminal 

Destination 

Ground 

Transportationn 

Outbound Cargo Flow Inbound Cargo Flow 

3PL / Freight 

Forwarder / 

Customs 

Agent 

Consignee 

�� Because of a fragmented supply chain and poor information dissemination, exporters and 

shipping lines fail to synchronize properly on expected capacity needs 

�� Little regulation of small and unreliable freight-forwarding agents exacerbates mistrust between 

exporters and shipping lines and deters appropriate investment in capacity 

�� The complex transportation processes and customs procedures are creating major delays in 

sea shipping. For example, the delivery of agricultural products to Eastern Europe takes 7 to 10 

days: 2 local trucking days, 1 day for customs, 4 to 7 days for transportation 

�� Lack of dedicated investment into Egypt-based lines to main target markets requires multiple 

stopovers that negatively affect transportation time 



In addition, sea transport from Egypt is on average 20% more 

expensive than comparable competitors when exporting to Europe 

Distance 

in Km 

1,100 

3,300 

3,300 

3,600 

3,700 


Comparison of Transport Costs for Shipping 20ft Container by Sea 

to UK (in $ per Km per Container) (2006) 

Morocco - Tangier to 

London 

Egypt to London (Peak) 

Egypt to London (Off- 

Peak) 

Israel - Tel Aviv to 

London 

Jordan - Aqaba to 

London 

0.56 

0.54 

0.67 

0.76 

Freight Charges in US $ per Km per Container 

86 

2.09 

Morocco mainly 

relies on trucking for 

exporting to Europe 



Egypt has initiated a few projects to address the recurring lack of 

capacity and transportation delay issues with a number of 

container port terminal and ro-ro vessel dedicated lines 

Development of 

Container Port 

Terminals 

ro-ro Vessels 

between Egypt 

and Europe 

Recent Developments in Egypt Sea Shipping Sector 

�� The Alexandria International Container Terminals (part of the Hutchison Port Holding) is 

developing two general cargo terminals into modern container handling facilities, in the ports of 

Alexandria and El Dekheila. With the first phase of the project scheduled for completion in 2007, 

the development would enhance the export capabilities of the two ports 

�� Damietta International Ports Authority will start operating a new container terminal by 2008 in 

Damietta. This will attract giant vessels to Egypt 

�� The Suez Canal Container Terminal (SCCT) has established in 2006 a world-class container 

terminal in Port Said, equipped with 12 large quayne cranes that can handle large vessels 

afloat. This initiative could turn SCCT into an important regional hub. 

�� Ro-ro vessels are being introduced between Egypt and Italian and Slovenian ports to facilitate 

reefer cargo 

�� Egyptian Container Line (ECL) launched in 2005 a twice-weekly multipurpose service between 

ports in Egypt and Koper (Slovenia), deploying two ro-ro vessels. Trieste may be added at a 

later stage. The operation lifts conventional cargo plus Egyptian perishable export cargoes in 

refrigerated containers 

�� Champion Ferries, a major Greek ro-ro operator, partnered with Falcon to establish a maritime 

route between Alexandria and Piraeus. During trial shipments in 2006, the line carried up to 50 

trailers per sailing. However, operations are facing challenges due to lengthy and complex 

customs procedures 

87 



Air transport of agricultural commodities exports constitute 56% of 

total Egypt Air freight volume and is mainly targeted at European and 

Middle Eastern markets 

Vegetables and fruits 

Vegetables, 

fruits and flowers 

(as % of exports) 

Vegetables, 

fruits and flowers 

(as % of total volume) 

Transit 

Other exports 

Flowers 


32.1 

7.2 2.3 

3.1 8.4 

0.6 

21.3 

29.4 

0.3 

18.4 

Egypt Air Exports in 2006 

(in Million Ton) 

11.4 

7.1 

3.1 

1.2 

Europe Middle East Africa Far East America 

87.7% 69.0% 

28.1% 

4.2% 

3.3% 

68.1% 63.7% 

10.7% 

1.5% 

2.8% 

88 

0.4 

1.9 

1.5 

TOTAL 

72.0% 

55.7% 



Egypt Air has dedicated 4 planes to transport perishable agricultural 

products such as cut flowers, green beans, strawberries and grapes 

Machinery 

and Other 

Textile 

Perishables 

160 

20% 

20% 

60% 

Annual Volume of 

Cargo Leaving Cairo 

(in Thousand Ton) 


Distribution of Egypt Air Annual Cargo Capacity 

(2006) (in Thousand Tons) 

96 186 Egypt Air Cargos 

6% 

46% 

20% 

29% 

Annual Exported 

Perishables Volume 

(in Thousand Ton) 

89 

15% 

36% 

20% 

30% 

Annual Exported 

Perishables Value (in 

Million $) 

Cut Flowers 

Green Beans 

Strawberries 

Grapes 

�� Egypt Air has 4 planes 

dedicated for cargos 

�� Egypt Air rents space 

on commercial flights 

when additional 

capacity is needed 

�� Cargo operates 2-3 

flights to Europe with 

45 tons capacity each, 

and smaller loads for 

commercial flights 

�� Main destinations for 

cargos are: Hahn 

(Germany), Ostend 

(Belgium), Stansted 

(UK), Chateauroux 

(France), Jeddah 

(KSA), etc. 



Egypt Air relies on government subsidies in order to match prices 

offered by other airlines 

Other 

SG&A 

Maintenance 

Fuel 

15% 

12% 

30% 

43% 

Egyptair Cost 

Structure 

Government 

Subsidy 

Egypt Air Cost Structure and Prices – Destination to UK 

(2006) (in $ per kg) 

Egypt Air Costs Egypt Air Prices 2.0 

Competitor 

Prices 

1.43 -0.2 


1.23 1.2 

Egyptair 

Subsidized 

Cost 


Price, Cairo- 

EU in Oct. 


Price, Cairo- 

UK in Oct. 

90 

1.3 

1.1 


Price, Cairo- 

EU in June 

1.2 


Price, Cairo- 

UK in June 


Price, Kenya- 

EU 

Egypt Air cargo rates defined annually by the Government 

1.25 

Lufthansa 

Price, Cairo- 

EU 



After the introduction of subsidies to Egypt Air cargo, the air traffic 

volume of Venus grew at 21% annually, mainly through charters and 

Egypt Air cargos 

Distribution of Export Air Traffic Volume for Perishable Agricultural Products 

Shipped through Venus International Transport 

(2001-2003) (in Ton) 

5,627 

9,430 


24,516 

Introduction of 

Subsidies for Egypt Air 

in April 2002 

34,113 

9,975 

15,607 

9,459 8,531 8,662 

91 

36,109 

11,260 

16,187 

2001 2002 2003 

CAGR 

(2001-2003) 

Total 21.4% 

Charters 41.5% 

Egypt Air 31.0% 

Scheduled Airlines -4.3% 


In Tons 


The volume exported by air exhibits seasonality patterns, with 

peaks in November-December and May-June that exceed the 

average capacity of Egypt Air 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Monthly Volume of Fresh Produce Exported by Air 

From Egypt to Europe 

(2001-2004) (in Ton) 

Nov 

Dec 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar 

Apr 

May 

Jun 

Jul 

Aug 

Sep 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar 

Apr 

May 

Jun 

Jul 

Aug 

Sep 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar 

Apr 

May 

Jun 

Jul 

2001 

2002 2003 2004 

Note: (*) Egypt Air has an annual capacity of 60,000 tons leaving Cairo. Fresh produce constitute around 60% of this volume. 


92 

Average 

monthly 

capacity of 

Egypt Air * 



During peak periods, agriculture exports face capacity problems that 

are usually addressed by using charters or re-routed freighters at 

very high costs 

Air Freighter Prices during Peak Periods 

(2006) (in $ per kg) 

Type of Freighter Description Approximate Price per Kg 

�� Egypt Air Freigher �� Egypt Air has 4 freighters with a 

capacity of 40 tons each 

�� Full charter �� A charter goes from origin city A to 

Cairo, loads the freight, then flies to 

destination city B. Finally, it it returns 

to origin city A 

93 

�� Egypt Air operates its freighters 

between Cairo and Europe at $1.2 

per kg 

�� The exporter has to pay for two 

additional legs, which is very 

expensive 

�� Re-routed freighter �� A freighter going from city A to city B, 

�� The re-routed freighter would cost 

is re-routed to pass by Cairo and 

around half the price of a full charter, 

load freight, then fly to destination 

city B 

up to $2 per kg 




Foreign air carriers do not find economic incentives to transport 

Egypt’s export volume surplus during peak times, as the country 

does not fall along the major air cargo routes 

North America 

23.5 

3.0 

13.0 

12.4 

0.1 

Latin America 

2.7 

Primary Air Freight Flows 

(2004) (in Bn FTK) 

1.7 

Source: MGI Global Air Freight Flow Model (Merge Global Inc.), Boeing 

Europe 

1.3 

2.9 

2.0 3.4 


0.1 

Africa 

94 

2.0 

14.2 

12.4 

2.5 

Middle East 

Asia Pacific 

Latin America 

6% 

16.3 

9.7 

29.4 

Major Air Cargo Routes 2003 

Indian Sub- 

continent 5% 

Intra Asia 9% 

Other 13% 

Europe - North 

America 14% 

Asia - North 

America 21% 

Asia Europe 

18% 

Domestic 

North America 

14% 



In-land transports tariffs from Egypt seem in line with other Arab 

countries 

0.56 

Sources: BAH Benchmarking 

0.66 

0.77 

Land Transport Tariffs to Neighboring Countries 

(in USD per Ton per Km) (2005) 

0.90 

1.00 

1.17 

Syria Egypt Lebanon Qatar Jordan KSA 

95 

1.83 

2.32 

20’ Container 40’ Container 

1.50 

2.40 

1.77 

3.96 


5. Inadequate Government Regulations 

Strict Government regulations on seed imports and Government 

control on fertilizers and pesticides are hurting the 

competitiveness of Egyptian agriculture exporters 


International 

Benchmarks 

Egypt’s Government Inputs Import Restrictions and Regulations 

Seeds Import Control Fertilizers, Pesticides Regulations 

�Lengthy �Lengthy procedures: Horticulture Research 

Center can take up to 18 months to validate new 

seeds (although new regulations reduced lead 

times to 2 growing seasons) 

�Positive �Positive restrictions: Government restrictions on 

all seeds except authorized list 

�High �High costs: Approval process costs up to $6,000 

and require substantial quantity of test seeds 

(e.g., up to 20 kg) 

�Opportunity �Opportunity cost: Particular variety of crops are 

key to enter certain markets (e.g., out of 16 

variety, only one broccoli type is imported into 

European markets) 

�� Serbia’s Ministry of Agriculture provides a preapproval 

process that authorizes new seeds to 

be imported within 7 days. Unless stated 

otherwise, pre-approval is considered final after 6 

months 

�� Canadian Food Inspection Agency sets some 

specific requirements related to seed import: the 

importer must provide a signed statement 

justifying the names, the need, the certificate of 

analysis, sign a declaration form and obtain 

approval from the Import Service Center 

�Availability: �Availability: Drastic regulations are hampering 

access to key fertilizers and pesticides (e.g., 

recent bans on urea and nitrogen used for 

“fertigation”) 

�High �High costs: 

– Restrictive import regulations (e.g., 

distribution through PBDAC encourages 

black market for fertilizers) 

– Additionally, Government ownership of most 

fertilizer factories hampers well functioning 

and development of a competitive markets 

– As a result, fertilizers prices are sometimes 

40% above world market prices 

�In �In Indonesia, fertilizers imports can be conducted 

only by “Registered Fertilizers Importers” and 

require to have an import license; However a 

ceiling price for urea fertilizer has been set by 

the Ministry of Agriculture 

�In �In Australia, fertilizer imports must also meet strict 

Australian Quarantine regulations administered by 

the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service 

(AQIS). Most fertilizer products require an import 

permit and are required to conform to import 

conditions 

Source: Interviews; DAI “Assessment of Egypt’s Agricultural Sector Competitiveness” (2002); “Seed Industry in Jordan” – NCART (2002); BAH Analysis 


96


Government’s control of production and downstream processing 

for strategic crops – cotton, rice, sugar cane – induces an antiexport 

bias and an unfair competitive environment 

Production 

Regulations for 

“Strategic” 

Crops 

Downstream 

Processing 

Government 

Control 

Egypt’s Government Agriculture Production and Processing Regulations 

�� Cotton production still controlled by Government to 

ensure consistent quality within growing seasons 

�� Rice zones are assigned to various Governorates 

(around 1 million feddan) to limit water-consumption and 

combat soil salinity. In other Governorates, farmers need 

specific licensing in order 

�� Sugar Cane agricultural lands typically limited around 

Government-owned factories 

�50% �50% of cotton production is bought by Governmentowned 

ginning and trading companies (e.g., Port Said 

Cotton Company, Alexandria Commercial) to supply local 

spinning & weaving industry 

�Sugar �Sugar Cane processing is fully owned by Governmentowned 

factories that also organizes overall marketing and 

export effort 

Sources: Interviews; DAI “Assessment of Egypt’s Agricultural Sector Competitiveness” (2002); BAH Analysis 

97 

Description Impact 

�� Anti-Export Bias: Government 

decisions for food-security and 

local industry protection 

purposes on local supply can 

dramatically affect local prices. 

Depending on world market prices, 

producers would have little 

incentives to export vs. selling on 

local markets 

�� Unfair Competitive Environment: 

By purchasing commodities at 

subsidized prices, Governmentowned 

downstream factories 

present unfair competition to 

private-sector traders and 

exporters, with stricter profit/losses 

requirements 



In addition, Government’s financial assistance discourages 

efficient allocation of scarce natural resources and does not 

promote investments in long-term capacity building 

Water 

Infrastructure 

Support 


Export 

Financial 

Assistance 

Egypt’s Government Financial Assistance Programs 

�� Government currently finances most of the water 

infrastructure (irrigation canals), pumping equipment, fuel 

and costs in old lands 

�� However, in newly reclaimed lands, the Government 

has introduced cost-sharing arrangements for 

infrastructure with the private sector 

�� In all cases, water is provided free of charge to 

agriculture lands 

�Between �Between 2002 and 2006, Egypt Government has provided 

direct payments to promote exports depending on the 

type of crops (on average LE 100/Ton) 

�Financial �Financial help was not tied to any concrete long-term 

investment to create a sustainable competitive advantage 

for Egyptian exporters 

�Overall, �Overall, over LE 300 million were distributed to exporters 

through the Export Development Fund (Ministry of Trade 

and Industry) 

Sources: Interviews; DAI “Assessment of Egypt’s Agricultural Sector Competitiveness” (2002); BAH Analysis 

98 

Description Impact 

�� Scarce Natural Resources 

Misallocation: current export mix 

does not price-in the cost of scarce 

water resources. For instance, rice 

and sugar cane consumes a 

disproportionate amount of 

resources given their share of 

export value-add 

�� Short-term Financial Assistance: 

− Most Government’s financial 

help was passed as price 

discounts to importers 

− Private sector exporters are 

now lobbying the Government 

for tax breaks to compensate 

for lost financial assistance 



For instance, as a result of Government water policy, rice 

represents 35% of water consumed but contributes only 21% to 

export value vs. respectively 16% and 30% for horticulture 

Other 

Cotton 

Sugar crops 

Horticulture 

Cereals - Rice 

Contribution of Commodities to Value Added and Exports 

Vs. Water Used (2004) * 

26% 28% 

6% 

17% 

16% 

35% 

7% 

8% 

43% 

14% 

43% 

6% 

30% 

21% 

% Water Used % Value Added ** % Export Value *** 

Notes: (*) The commodities were selected as to cover 99% of exported value in 2004. Clover was not included in the analysis 

(**) % Value add is defined as the percentage profit made by the farmer (Value Add = Producer price – Cost of production) 

(***) % Export value corresponds to contribution of the category/ crop to the overall export value 

Sources: FAOSTAT; Agricultural Statistics, CAPMAS N9-3; World Bank Report 

99 



Additionally, to simply offset previous financial assistance, 

exporters are now lobbying the Government to provide sales and 

custom tax breaks 


Production cost per Ton of Crop 

(in LE) 

Tax and Customs 

(as % of production cost) 

Previous Government Assistance 

(as % of production cost) 

Source: Interviews; BAH Analysis 

Example of a Proposed Replacement of Government Direct Assistance 

with Sales & Custom Tax Breaks 

56 

Previous 

Government 

Assistance 

52 

52 

27 

25 

27 

25 

Proposed 

Sales & 

Customs Tax 

Breaks 

Previous 

Government 

Assistance 

100 

207 

Proposed 

Sales & 

Customs Tax 

Breaks 

Previous 

Government 

Assistance 

4,048 7,150 

36,850 

1.3% 1.9% 

1.1% 

1.4% 2.9% 

0.6% 

257 

150 

Proposed 

Sales & 

Customs Tax 

Breaks 

Citrus Grapes Strawberries 

207 

407 

Sales Tax 

Customs 


6. Capacity Building Requirements 

In spite of the various development initiatives aimed at building 

capacity within the agricultural sector… 

Sources: interviews, BAH Analysis 

Agricultural Sector Development Initiatives 

Initiative Description Select Achievements 

APRP 


Policy Reform 

Program 

ALEB 

Agriculture-Led 


Businesses 

ATUT 


Technology 

Utilization and 

Transfer 

AERI 


Exports and 

Rural Incomes 

Traceability for 

EU Market- 

Unido 

The Green 

Corridor Italy 

�� Set up a framework of agricultural rules 

�� Promote reductions in in protection and trade-distorting support 

�� Established through USAID to enhance global competitiveness 

of Egyptian food processing companies and increase their 

exports 

�� Focus on developing efficient and competitive export capability 

for a selected group of fresh, high value, non-traditional export 

oriented horticulture products 

�� Work with large growers / exporters having the financial 

capacity to invest in in capital intensive and high-risk venture 

�� BDS program: Develop farmers business through improving 

access to credit financing, high quality seeds, fertilizers, and 

pesticides 

�� El Shams/Care program: Improve farmers’ growing, and 

harvesting practices to achieve high production yields 

�� MUCIA: Support to small farmers 

�� Build capacity of Egyptian exporters to comply with adoption of 

traceability scheme for all food and ingredients traded within 

the European Union 

�� Enhance the production of exportable crops in in West Nubariya 

area, and assist in in exporting the agricultural products to Italy 

101 

�� Agriculture research 

undertaken 

�� Institutions and unions 

created for cotton, rice, 

wheat, etc. 

�� Market information and trade 

counseling provided to large 

exporters 

�� Relationship strengthened 

between large exporters and 

importers 

�� Creation of HEIA 

�� Technical and management 

training provided 

�� Marketing knowledge 

disseminated 

�� New Law prepared for 

farmers associations 

�� Capacity enhancement of 

small and medium farmers, 

and link to large exporters 

�� Development of survey for 

exportable horticultural crops �� Expected to export about 

3000 tons of agriculture 

products to Italy 

Project Timeline and 

Budget 

�� Timeline: 1995-2003 

�� Budget of $ 301 million 

�� Timeline: 1999-2005 

�� Timeline: 1995-2002 

�� Budget of $60 million 

�� Timeline: 2002-2007 

�� Budget of $ 57.3 million 

�� Timeline: 2003 

�� Budget of $ 1.2 million 

�� Timeline: 2006-2007 

�� Budget of Euro 250 thousand 



… Egypt still needs substantial development efforts, necessary to 

exploit its full export potential 

Lack of Robust 

Sanitary 


Weak Extension 

Services 

Unreliable 


Statistics 

Inadequate 

Education System 

and Vocational 

Training 

Sources: Interviews, BAH Analysis 

Egypt’s Key Capacity Building Requirements 

� Government regulations, human and infrastructure resources to control agriculture production and export 

quality control 

� Little current capacity to fully trace agriculture commodities along the value chain 

� Extension services are key to developing adequate exporters’ expertise in new growing, handling and 

packaging techniques that are suitable to exports. They provide particular 

� Egypt's current extension services are inefficient, over staffed and do not provide sufficient expertise to 

exporters and farmers 

� Statistical information reported by different bodies (e.g., CAPMAS, Export Associations, NGOs, Customs 

Office, GOEIC) report significantly different numbers and use inconsistent reporting formats 

� Such repository is key to assess the overall local market dynamics and enable long-term as well as shortterm 

planning for Government, exporters and growers alike 

� Current education system does not sufficiently teach commercially-oriented competencies (e.g., 

autonomous decision-making, team work). According to certain exporters, it takes “almost 3-4 years 

before recruits can actually operate independently and make good-judgment decision on their own” 

� Despite recent efforts (e.g., AERI’s MUCIA), vocational training by Government or private organizations 

still requires substantial investments and efforts 

102 



For instance, due to a lack of robust control on “spot trading”, 

Egypt’s exports rank poorly against other countries in food safety 

record, which damages the overall Egyptian export sector 

Note (*): RASFF: Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed 


Lack of Government Quality Control on Agricultural Exports 

Spot Trading EU RASFF Reports by Country (2005) * 

� � “Spot trading” is typically carried out by small 

exporters that serve as intermediary between local 

growers and foreign importers 

�� Because of the lack of rigorous Government 

control, some of the small traders are tempted to 

turn quick profits by exporting unsanitary products, 

especially towards the end of growing seasons 

�� The most significant sanitary problem with the EU 

concern the brown-rot in potatoes; exports from 

Egypt are consistently tested positive year after 

year 

Overall Impact on Egypt Export Sector 

103 

24 

17 

15 15 

11 

Egypt Tunisia Chile Morocco South 

Africa 

�� As a result, risk assessments from international sanitary organizations (e.g., DG Sanco, APHIS) 

still rank Egypt low because of inability to provide sufficient and consistent sanitary standards 

�� Lack of sanitary control damages Egypt’s image abroad among importers 

9 

Israel 



As a result, private sector players are actively involved in providing 

inspection, testing, certification and verification services for 

Egyptian exporters 

EXAMPLE 

EXAMPLE 


Example of Private Sector-provided Quality Assurance in Egypt 

Société Générale de Surveillance 

�� Private sector company, founded in 1878 

in Rouen as French grain shipment 

inspection house, specialized in quality 

assurance 

�� Operates a network of 1,000 offices and 

laboratories around the world 

�� Provides services across industries, such 

as agricultural, automotive, food and 

forestry 

�� Services cover all steps along the value 

chain from raw materials to finished 

products. 

104 

Inspection 

Services 

Testing 

Services 

Certification 

Services 

Verification 

Services 

� Inspects and verifies quantity, 

weight and quality of traded goods 

at manufacturer’s/supplier’s 

premises 

� Tests product quality and 

performance against various 

health, safety and regulatory 

standards through own laboratories 

� Certifies that products, systems or 

services meet requirements of 

standards set by governments, 

standardization bodies or importers 

� Ensure products and services 

comply with global standards and 

local regulations 


Lessons Learned from Best-in-Class Agricultural Exporters 

� Benchmarking Methodology 

� Export Promotion Agencies 

� Leveraging Small Farmers Potential 

� Transportation 

� Government Agricultural Regulations 

� Agriculture Capacity Building Programs 


Benchmarking Methodology 

The benchmarking analysis focused on seven key dimensions 

directly addressing challenges facing Egypt’s agricultural export 

sector 

Egypt Agriculture 

Export Challenges 

(Baseline Section) 

Benchmarking 

Dimensions 

Lack of demanddriven 

orientation 

Lack of coordination 

among exporters 

Untapped potential 

of small farmers 


Inadequate 

regulations 

Capacity issues 

Benchmarking Dimensions Mapping Against Agriculture Export Challenges 

I II II 

III IV VV VI VII VIII 


Promotion 

Agencies 

Leveraging 

Small 

Farmers 

Potential 

Transport Subsidies 

Water 

Policy 

Agriculture 

Input Policy 

R&D / 

Intellectual 

Property 

Capacity 

Building 

Programs 

106 

Government Agricultural Regulations 



A combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria were selected 

to identify relevant countries for benchmarking 

Egypt: 

1.3 

0.7 0.7 

5.1 

7.1 

Quantitative 

Agricultural Export Growth (%, 2000-2004) 

15% 

Portugal South 

Africa 

12% 11% 11% 

9% 9% 9% 8% 

17.5 

19.2 

30.2 

33.9 

Pakistan India South 

Africa 

Chile Portugal Israel Italy France Australia 

(1) % of Export Value from Crops that Make 80% of Egypt’s Export Value – 2004 

Source: IMF; FAOSTAT; Lit Search; BAH Analysis 

6% 

India Italy Australia Chile France Israel Pakistan 

Agricultural Export Overlap with Egypt (%, 2004) (1) 

88% 

Pakistan South 

Africa 

68% 61% 60% 44% 44% 42% 42% 41% 

GDP per Capita ($, 2005) 

Chile Portugal India Israel Italy Australia France 

Country Selection Framework 

34.7 

107 

� Mix of On, Off and 

Niche agricultural 

exporters 

� Target market overlap 

for agricultural exports 

Qualitative 

Seasonality and Target Markets 

Scarcity of Natural Resources 

� Challenges related to scarcity of natural agricultural 

resources – e.g. water, arable land 

� Best-in-class examples in overcoming resourcescarcity 

Rural Society Structure 

On 

Season 

Niche 

Season 

Off 

Season 

� Structure of land distribution – dominance of large or 

small farmers and implications for agricultural sector 

� Existence of associative solutions within each 

scenario (dominance of large / small farmers) 



As a result, Chile, Israel and South Africa were selected as main 

benchmarking targets – however, when applicable best practices 

from other countries were also analyzed 

Chile 

Israel 

South Africa 

Others 

Benchmarked Countries 

� Chile’s exports have a high level of overlap with Egypt’s exports (same crops) 

� The country is one of the main fruit and vegetable supplier to Europe 

� Chile is recognized as having a distinguished institutional structure to support export activities 

� Chile has invested in small farmers despite large concentration in land ownership 

� Chilean water policies are seen as a role model for other countries 

� Israel represents formidable competition to Egypt and share similar growing seasonality 

� Israel’s export promotion agencies have established a strong positioning in Europe 

� Israel faces important environmental restrictions, especially in available water resources 

� Transportation arrangements are considered of international standards 

� South Africa has significantly developed its agricultural exports internationally, growing at 12% 

� Crops exported by South Africa overlap significantly with Egypt and present similar logistics 

requirements (e.g., cold chain) 

� South Africa faces severe scarcity of resources (e.g., land, water) 

� Seed and fertilizer policies (Spain, Serbia, Australia, Indonesia, Canada) 

� Transportation infra-structure for small farmers (Brazil) 

� Product pricing tools (Serbia, USA) 

� Intellectual Property protection (Brazil) 

108 










I. Export Promotion Agencies 

Most countries around the world have invested in an Export 

Promotion Agency (EPA), which number has almost tripled over 

the last decades 

Number of Countries with EPAs (1980-2000) 

�� Algeria 

�� Egypt 

�� Jordan 

�� Lebanon 

�� Malta 

�� Morocco 

�� Tunisia 

�� West Bank 

and Gaza 

�� Yemen 

40 

116 

1980s 2000s 

Geographic Distribution of EPAs (%, 2006) 

Middle East and North 

Africa – 12% 

OECD (2) 

17% 

Sub-Saharan 

Africa 

20% 

x3 

Latin 

America 

And 

Caribbean 

26% 

Asia (1) 

25% 

Objective 

� Help potential exporters find markets for their 

products, as well as provide them with a 

better understanding of products demanded 

in different export markets 

� Coordinate overall export promotion efforts 

among existing agencies 

� Promote country image building, advocating 

and taking part in promotional initiatives 

� Provide export support services, namely 

− Training and Technical Assistance 

− Capacity Building and Regulatory 

Compliance 

− Dissemination of information on logistics, 

customs, packaging and pricing 

� Execute marketing initiatives (trade fairs, 

business missions, follow-up by representatives 

abroad) 

� Perform market research (gather and generate 

market information and referral databases on the 

general, sector and firm levels) 

(1) World Bank classifies European developing countries under Asia; (2) OECD comprises 30 member countries, mainly developed European and Asian countries, and North America 

Sources: Export Promotion Agencies: What Works and What Does Not (2006) – World Bank; Booz Allen Analysis 


110 

Roles 

Objective and Roles of EPAs


Export Promotion Agencies play a decisive role in improving 

exports – each US$ 1 invested can boost total exports by about 

US$ 320 depending on the region 

Export Promotion Agencies – 

Impact in Total Exports for Each US$ 1 Invested 

$96 

Middle 

East / 

North 

Africa 

$137 

Sub- 

Saharan 

Africa 

$160 

$227 

$490 

OECD (1) Asia (2) Latin 

America 

& 

Caribbean 

$320 

Median 

Relevance and Best Practices for EPAs 

�� Results of Export Promotion Agencies over countries’ 

exports are statistically significant (R-square > 50%) 

– Average of US$ 320 increase for each US$ 1 

invested in export promotion 

– Heterogeneity exists across regions, 

depending on levels of development and types 

of instruments 

�� Exporters who leverage on Export Promotion 

Agencies’ initiatives tend to have higher profitability 

than those who do not 

�� Countries achieve better results by having fewer 

stronger EPAs than disperse numerous organizations 

�� Support to non-traditional sectors has usually better 

outcomes 

(1) OECD comprises 30 member countries, mainly developed European and Asian countries, and North America; (2) World Bank classifies European developing countries under Asia 



111


This result was derived from studies which assessed export 

promotion impact both from a country and an internal organization 

structure dimensions 

Steps Description 

Step 1 – 

Country 

Variables 

Step 2 – 

Endogenous 

EPA 

Variables 

World Bank EPA Study – Overview of Statistical Procedures 

� Impact assessment from broad 

economic and trade-related 

variables on country’s exports 

� Correlation of all variables and 

value of total exports were 

determined 

� Resulting variables’ weights 

measure positive or negative 

impact on exports 

� Assessment of impact 

from internal EPA 

organization and general 

practices on country’s 

total exports 

� Statistical procedures 

similar to the above 

described 

� EPA budget per capita 

� GDP per capita 

� Import trade restrictiveness to rest of world 

� Export trade restrictiveness from other 

countries 

� Exchange rate volatility 

Note: Different levels of information for countries were adequately treated through random selection statistical procedures 

Source: Export Promotion Agencies: What Works and What Does Not (2006) – World Bank; Booz Allen Analysis 

112 

Variables 

� Days to comply with export regulation 

� Executive board seats to private sector 

� Degree of decentralization of agencies devoted to export promotion 

� Share of agency budget spent of non-export promotion activities 

� Strategy focuses on non traditional exports or sector specific 

� Share of EPA funding from public sources 

� Shares in EPA’s expenditure 

− Country image activities 

− Export support services 

− Large clients 

− Established Exporters 

� Representation offices abroad 



However, empirical studies indicate that returns on investment in 

EPAs are maximized within a certain range – under or over-funding 

can become detrimental to the agency’s efficiency 

ILLUSTRATIVE 

ILLUSTRATIVE 

Impact on Country’s Exports 

Very low 

levels of 

investment 

may lead to 

negative 

results 

Investment in Export Promotion (Total) 

Maximization of Impacts 

Zone of Maximum 

Efficiency 

0.60 2.70 

Level of Investment (Total US$ per capita) 

Excessive 

investments 

may have 

marginal or 

even declining 

results 


113 

Adequate Dimension of Export Promotion 

Agencies 

�� Efforts should have a minimum scale, and 

should not turn into excessively big initiatives 

– Very low or very high budgets for 

investments in export promotion may lead 

to lower efficacy 

– Maximum impact is achieved with total 

country investment (agriculture / other 

products) between US$ 0.60 and US$ 

2.70 per capita 

�� Three different structures for collection of private 

resources 

− Membership fees: paid periodically to 

regional and/or national entities, who 

forward resources to coordination bodies 

− Project-based fees: extraordinaire fees to 

fund specific projects (e.g. booth at Fruit 

Logistica for ProChile) – usually voluntary 

− Commission on sales: Agrexco works on 

a sales-commission base, differentiated 

by product 



The establishment of export promotion agencies improve demanddriven 

orientation and enforce coordination among exporters, two 

key export challenges identified in Egypt 

Issues Faced 

By Egypt 

Lack of 

Demand- 

Driven 

Orientation 

Lack of 

Coordination 

Among 


Sources: BAH Analysis 

Export Promotion Agencies – Issues Addressed and Implications 

Key Shortcomings Export Promotion Agencies’ Role 

� Little market intelligence 

conducted to understand 

customer demand 

� Poor promotion of Egyptian 

exports 

� Inadequate competitive pricing 

� Little leverage of all 

distribution channels to 

provide Egyptian produces 

� Fierce competition among 


� Little lobbying by private 

sector of Government during 

trade negotiations 

� No effective body to 

coordinate efforts of publicprivate 

agriculture export 

stakeholders 

� EPAs are decisive in providing the initial spark to sectorwide 

efforts - avoid market failures 

� Private sector does not have the incentives to give the initial 

step - e.g. pioneering new markets, making investments 

that might be leveraged by competitors 

� Through EPAs, scale necessary to establish international 

market intelligence networks is achieved 

− Essential source of target-market data for exporters 

− Efficient matchmaking between exporters and buyers 

� EPAs provide adequate representation of exporters’ 

interests before policy makers 

� Agencies play a catalytic role in pooling overall sector 

efforts to key market-development initiatives, that would 

most likely not take place without a coordination body – e.g. 

− Country branding initiatives 

− Effective marketing of products in international 

markets 

114 



Most best-in-class countries have a hierarchy of export promotion 

agencies organized along country, agricultural and crop-specific 

dimensions 

Overall Country 



Produce 

Crop / Product 

Oriented 

Country 

Overview 

Dimensions 

Broad 

Scope 

Focused 

Export Promotion Agency Hierarchy in Benchmarked Countries 

Chile Israel South Africa 

� Overall country EPA 

encompasses agriculture, 

manufacturing and services… 

� .. and coordinates effectively with 

agricultural produce entity 

� Crop-focused boards develop 

individual efforts focused on 

certification 

� Overall country EPA 

encompasses all sectors, 

however focusing on technology 

� Agrexco executes main country’s 

agricultural promotion efforts 

� Crop-oriented bodies develop 

own branding, however sell most 

produce through Agrexco 

115 

� DTI encompasses all sectors but 

agriculture 

� Agricultural produce entity plays 

incipient role in promotion 

� Crop-specific bodies formed a 

broader “product” oriented entity 

to coordinate and capture scale in 

marketing 



For the sake of illustration, we have selected to detail three EPAs 

that span a broad spectrum of ownership and focus 

Overall 

Country 



Produce 

Crop / 

Product 

Oriented 

Focused Focus Broad Scope 

�� Private company with Israeli government 

among shareholders 

�� Centralizes export activities and country’s 

branding strategy 

�� Not-for-profit institution – revenues are split 

among farmers 

Private Ownership 

Public 

Essentially 

Private 

Export Promotion Agency Map 

�� Producer and private company association 

to coordinate and capture scale in in 

marketing efforts 

�� Development of country fruit umbrella 

brand and specific crop brands 

�� Funding done primarily by private sector 

Private With Public 

Shareholding 

116 

Essentially 

Public 

�� Government body, formed to promote 

country’s overall exports 

�� Leads country broad branding strategy and 

coordinates / partially funds export 

promotion projects 



11 

22 

33 

EPA’s governance and funding are typically based on a publicprivate 

partnership – membership is voluntary and includes 

growers and exporters’ existing associations 

Governance 

& 

Organization 

Funding & 

Project 

Allocation 

Membership 

South Africa 

FRUIT SA 

� Fruit SA is led by the private companies’ 

representative body, in association with 

producers’ associations 

� Entity’s Board of Directors composed of 12 

people – 3 of each of the 4 component 

associations 

� Decisions are made in a consensus base, 

in monthly meetings 

� Main leaders are the members of 2 

component associations, who led 

formation of the entity 

– Role not based in formal rules 

– Mandates vary according to rules of 

component associations 

� Funding comes from two main sources: 

– Membership fees paid to component 

associations 

– Levies determined by country’s laws 

- tax on each carton of fruit sold 

internally or exported is held by 

Ministry of Agriculture and 

distributed to associations 

� Voluntary membership 

� Members mostly associations (grower or 

company) 

– Broad range of commercial farmers’ 

sizes, who are represented as 

members of associations 

– Mostly medium and large-sized 

companies 

Sources: Lit Search, Interviews, BAH Analysis 

� Agrexco’s decision processes ensure 

adequate representation of farmers and 

government – board of directors is evenly 

distributed between those two sectors 

– 8 government representatives 

– 4 representatives of farmer 

associations 

– 4 representatives of crop-specific 

marketing boards 

� Agrexco is held by government (50%), 

farmer cooperative (25%) and production 

boards (25%) 

� Funding is split between public and private 

sector, accordingly to shareholders’ equity 

� Not-for-profit institution – revenues are 

split among members 

� Voluntary membership 

� Members mostly farmer cooperatives and 

production boards who hold shares in 

Agrexco 

� Farmer cooperatives joint mostly small 

farmers who seek scale solutions through 

cooperative (from production to access to 

credit) 

117 

Israel 

AGREXCO 

Chile 

PROCHILE 

� Part of the Ministry of Trade Affairs 

� ProChile’s decisions are made in a 

consensus base, in periodic roundtables 

(each 2-3 months) with: 

– 1 member of ProChile 

– 1 member of SAG (Quality 

Assurance) 

– 1 member of Ministry of Agriculture 

– 1 member of INDAP (agricultural 

research) 

– 15 members of industry 

associations 

� Private companies provide funds (through 

membership fees and other levies) to 

sector associations, which transfer funds 

for ProChile as per projects’ financial plans 

� ProChile’s resources come from the 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs – not-for-profit 

institution 

� Membership is voluntary and associated 

with projects being undertaken by ProChile 

� Associations might nominate members to 

be registered in a database utilized by 

ProChile for matchmaking between 

exporters and international buyers (by 

request of either side) 



For example, ProChile’s governance centers on a public/private 

participatory process through decision forums – the organization 

relies on a matrix model to cater for specific projects initiatives 

Country 

Strategy 

Int’l 

Offices 

Regional 

Offices 

Promotion 

Support 

Pro Chile 

Support 

(Matrix) 

Sources: ProChile, Lit Search, Interviews, Booz Allen Analysis 

ProChile – Internal Structure and Decision Forums 

� Part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 

� Coordinates export promotion efforts 

through project approval and funding 

Financial Planning 

and Resource 

Allocation 

Coordination 

Industry Services 

Agriculture 


Promotion 

Projects 

Public / Private 

Decision 

Forums 

Private 

Sector 

118 

11 Organization and Governance 

Decision-Making Processes - Agriculture 

Organizational Details 

�� ProChile’s personnel are public employees – no preestablished 

mandate periods 

�� ProChile has highly qualified personnel – human resources are 

required to be specialized, and working for the entity actually is is 

a matter of status 

�� 4 departments under the agriculture sector directorate 

− Fresh produce 

− Agro-industry (e.g. frozen fruit) 

− Wine 

− Meat & Dairy 

Decision Forums - Governance 

�� Each market researcher conducts a periodical roundtable for 

discussion with industry representatives – each 2-3 months 

�� Members are accepted accordingly to sector directorate rules – 

no individual representatives (associations only) 

�� Decisions are made through consensus – no voting 

�� In each meeting, initiative stakeholders must present evolution 

of assigned initiatives – follow-up is is not open to general public 

�� Yearly, a public project selection is is held to decide on funding 

− Industry representatives must apply to (potentially) 

obtain funds to projects presented In roundtables 

− Funding cover maximum 4-6 year timeframes of 

projects – additional efforts must be undertaken with 

own resources by postulants 



Most EPAs also rely on a public/private funding model that helps 

catalyze industry-wide efforts while ensuring offered services are 

market-oriented 

Breakdown of Expenditures On Export Promotions by Source 

(Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Products – 2002) 

50% 

50% 

57% 

43% 

Chile European 

Union - Total 

63% 

37% 

82% 

18% 

USA Cairns Group - 

Total 

119 

97% 

3% 

South Africa 

Industry 

Funding 

Government 

Funding 

Note: Cairns Group includes Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Africa and Thailand 

Source: USDA – Export Promotion Benchmarking (2002); Booz Allen Analysis 

22 Funding 

Need for Public / Private Joint 

Funding 

�� Public funding creates catalyst 

for industry-wide efforts –on 

their own initiative, private sector 

will most likely not cooperate 

− Governmental presence 

avoids information 

asymmetry among 

members 

− Avoids market failures from 

lack of initial spark for 

efforts (e.g. international 

presence, pioneering 

ventures in new markets) 

�� Private funding incentivizes 

EPAs to deliver market-oriented 

services 

− Private sector pressures 

agency to provide useful 

and effective information 

− Makes viable to attract 

best-in-class personnel 

− EPAs depends on funding 

to maintain operations 

running 



As a coordination-only body, membership to Fruit SA is voluntary, 

includes existing associations, and accepts growers as well as 

exporters 

Coordination 

Founding 

Members 

Voluntary 

Members 

Deciduous Fruit 

Prod. Trust 

Apples, Grapes, 

Stone Fruits 

Source: Fruit SA; DFPT; CGA; Subtrop; FPEF, Lit Search, Booz Allen Analysis 

South Africa – Export Promotion Agency 

Citrus Growers 

Association 

Oranges, Lemons 

Regional 

Associations 

Farmers 

Fruit SA 

Crop-Specific Crop-Specific Crop-Specific 

Regional 

Associations 

Crop-Specific Associations (Private) 

120 

� Private association founded in 2000 

� Coordinates fruit marketing strategy for 

South Africa 

SA Subtropical 

Growers 

Association 

Avocadoes, 

Mangoes 

Regional 

Associations 

Fresh Produce 

Exporters Forum 

33 Membership 


Companies 

Company Associations 

(Private) 


A 

B 

C 

D 

E 


EPAs typically offer five types of services: market intelligence, 

product definition, promotion, pricing & financing, as well as 

distribution support 

Activities 

Gather and 

Disseminate 

Market 

Intelligence 

Information 

Support in 

Product 

Definition 

Develop and 

Execute 

Product 

Promotion 

Strategies 

Support 

Product 

Pricing & 

Financing 

Support 

Product 

Distribution 

South Africa 

FRUIT SA 

� Publication of monthly industry report, 

distributed to members and consumers 

� Specialized consultancy firm is hired under an 

umbrella contract to perform new market 

assessment and shared with members 

� Still incipient – Fruit SA will hold an international 

business mission in mid-2007 to establish 

networking with retailers and category manager 

in Europe to gather knowledge 

� Development of a country brand to be 

leveraged by individual private exporters 

(affiliated to Fruit SA member associations) 

� Participation in international trade fairs to 

promote brand – initiative led by private 

companies 

� No activity in this area 

– Pricing monitoring to start in mid-2007, in 

an ad-hoc basis, as a secondary goal for 

the international roadshow to be held 

– No credit lines available through Fruit SA 

� Specialized consultancy firm has extensive 

network of contacts in the logistics industry 

worldwide – provision of highly detailed logistics 

study, but no direct support in establishing 

distribution 

Sources: Lit Search, Interviews, BAH Analysis 

� Leveraging of global network of branches and 

agents to collect market information 

� Close relationships to media and retailers to 

keep track of new opportunities – varieties, 

packaging, competitors’ movements 

� “Panel” – category managers, distributors and 

wholesalers plan transport, storage and packing 

for each target destination 

� Leader in packaging development 

� Participation in international trade fairs under 

the Agrexco Carmel brand 

� Promoting organic vegetable brands, with a 

comprehensive marketing strategy – e.g. 

packaging is made of recycled paper 

� N/A 

� Distributes produce of diverse products and 

executes bulk distribution – 2 leased 

specialized reefer vessels to reach destination 

ports 

� Acts as category managers for major retail 

chains 

121 

Israel 

AGREXCO 

Chile 

PROCHILE 

� Periodic reports detailing new market potential, 

characteristics and recent evolution 

� Information shared directly with companies and 

associations (in context of projects or ad-hoc 

manner) 

� Investment in packaging development if a 

requirement for export promotion projects – e.g. 

sanitary regulation in a target market 

� Maintenance of database of Chilean exporters 

for matchmaking (exporters and international 

buyers) 

� Participation in international trade fairs, aiming 

at building awareness of the country umbrella 

brand – part of long-term export projects (4 to 6 

years) 

� Systematic support to growers via online 

database updated daily by specialized 

consultancy firm 

� Easier access to credit through partnerships 

with other government bodies 

� Support in overcoming exchange rate barriers 

� Direct support to small and medium-sized 

exporters in developing product distribution 



EPAs establish a network of international branches to gather local 

market intelligence – in addition to Government help, infrastructure 

can be financed by the private sector 

Network of 

Offices 


Financing 

Roles 

� 56 international offices, providing 

services to both sector and 

geographic directorates 

� ProChile – totally funded with 

governmental resources 

� Provide target market 

information and support in 

development of projects (e.g. 

local market sizing, consumer 

behavior, potential buyers, etc.) 

Sources: ProChile; Capespan; Agrexco; BAH Analysis 

Export Promotion Agencies International Network 

Chile – ProChile South Africa – Fruit SA Israel – Agrexco 

� All international branches are 

held by private companies 

� Information is shared in an adhoc 

basis through the FPEF 

structure 

� Private companies – e.g. 

Capespan 

� Provide support to private 

companies, mostly 

independently from Fruit SA – 

market information and direct 

contact with local buyers (e.g. 

retail chains) 

122 

A Market Intelligence 

Head Office 

Branch 

Sales Agents 

Distribution Center 

� 9 International branches in 

Europe and USA 

� 28 Sales agents in other regions 

� Distribution centers in Marseilles 

and Liege 

� Agrexco – funded with 

shareholders’ resources, 

according to equity shares 

� Source of market intelligence 

information 

� Category manager services for 

major retailers 

� Negotiation and sales 



Through market intelligence, Chile has identified a niche in 

European markets for blueberry despite little local consumption / 

awareness – ProChile and ASOEX play key roles in marketing 

Description 

Role of Export 

Promotion 

Agency 

Chile – Market Intelligence for Blueberry Export Development 

Background Current Status 

� Blueberries are not consumed in Chile – 

production was always targeted at export 

markets, leveraging: 

– Off-seasonality with main consumer 

market (North America) 

– Favorable climatic and sanitary 

conditions 

– Development of blueberry exports was 

prospected as the country looked for new 

profitable export products after the 1980s 

economic depression 

� The Chilean government at the time owned a 

50% stake in a profit-making venture 

capital organization (Fundación Chile) 

� Blueberry production experiments were 

funded by Fundación Chile and interested 

private Chilean companies – government 

research institutes also took part in the effort 

� Once production proved to be viable and 

profitable, Fundación Chile sold its stake to 

private companies 

A Market Intelligence 

� Main blueberry exporters are large Chilean 

companies and multinational subsidiaries 

� Virtually all other berry export activities 

(strawberry, raspberry) were converted to 

blueberry – higher profitability allows coping 

with high air transport costs 

� As the market is very concentrated in 6 

companies (85% of exports), the industry has 

been able to control market connections in 

other countries – international buyers are 

trading companies held by exporters 

� Intensive marketing activities 

to develop new markets – e.g. 

ASOEX / ProChile co-funding of 

UK “Eat the Blues” campaign 

– Aggressive sampling at 

radio stations and shows 

– Free 3-week distribution to 

premium health spas 

� Co-funding of R&D for improved quality 

standards and development of new 

varieties 

Sources: “The Emergence of New Successful Export Activities in Latin America: The Case of Chile” (IADB); Lit Search, Interviews, BAH Analysis 


123


To provide a marketable product, Agrexco uses a “panel”, 

including growers and distributors, that addresses production, 

transportation and packaging concerns 

Sources: Agrexco; Lit Search, BAH Analysis 

Agrexco – The “Panel” 

�� Agrexco Carmel’s produce is marketed through a 

board known as the “Panel” 

�� The “Panel” is composed of category managers, 

wholesalers and distributors who handle single or 

multiple varieties 

�� Most of Agrexco’s sales are done through a “full 

service” model – dimensions considered are: 

– Shipment and transit arrangements 

– Storage planning and management at 

destination 

– Specific consumer packaging 

– Distribution to warehouses and/or stores 

�� Eventually, growers, clients, the “Panel” and 

Agrexco management conduct negotiations jointly 

to make the intended process viable 

�� As a result, some growers end up producing 

exclusively for a single overseas customer – high 

level of customization 

Agrexco – Product Definition Process 

124 

B Product Definition 

Differentiated Retail Packaging 

“Taste, quality, appearance and 

shelf-life that you want” 



ProChile promotes an overall national umbrella brand for exports, 

while ASOEX focuses on agriculture and crop-specific category 

promotion… 

Scope Brand Owner 

National 

Brand 

Industry 

Brand 

Category 

Brands 

Private 

Company 

Brands 

Source: Chilean Fresh Fruit Association 

Chile – Brand Hierarchy for Fruits 

� ProChile 

� ProChile / 

ASOEX 

� ASOEX 

� E.g. Dole - 

Chile, Del 

Monte – 

Chile (ex. 

UTC), Del 

Curto 

125 

C Product Promotion 

Brand Hierarchy Functioning 

�� ProChile has established a 

national brand to all Chile’s 

exports – “All Ways Surprising” 

�� Fresh Fruit exports have specific 

brands, aligned to the major 

country brand – hierarchy of 

brands: 

– “All Ways Surprising” 

– “Fruta Fresca” 

– Specific fruit / country brands 

�� ASOEX leads the regional 

branding initiatives 

– Has two dedicated marketing 

managers 

– Hires local advertising 

agencies to develop focused 

brands 

�� The existence of umbrella brands 

allows capturing of synergies 

and enhancing of promotion 

cost-effectiveness 



.. That features different characteristics depending on regional 

markets’ preferences 

Asia 

Mexico 

United 

States 

� Cartoon-based visual communication – aligned 

with general Asian market branding characteristics 

� Development of an “umbrella-brand”, with a set of 

product “sub-brands” 

Source: Chile CFFA, Interviews, ODEPA/MINAGRI Chile; Booz Allen Analysis 

Chile – Geography-Driven Branding 

Region Description Brands / Logos 

� Image of premium quality products to corporate and 

retail buyers 

� Brand association with consumption of healthy food 

� Image of supplier of high quality summer produce 

during wintertime in North America 

126 

C Product Promotion 

EXAMPLES 

EXAMPLES 



Through ASOEX, Chilean exporters producers dispose of a highly 

sophisticated pricing monitoring system and market analysis 

Decofrut’s International Offices… 

�� Europe 

− Spain 

− England 

− Italy 

�� North America 

− USA – Los Angeles, 

Miami, Philadelphia 

− Mexico 

�� Asia 

− Hong Kong 

− Taiwan 

Source: ASOEX; Interviews; Booz Allen Analysis 

SIM-ASOEX (Market Information System) - Chile 

… gather and send data to 

Decofrut in Chile… 

127 

�� Weekly Market News 

�� Market Overviews 

�� Specific Studies 

�� European Retailer Contact 

Database 

�� Weekly Volume and Pricing 

Information for Main 

International Markets 

D Product Pricing 

… who updates an online system available 

to registered growers and exporters 

�� Developed jointly by 

ASOEX and Decofrut 



Other countries, like Serbia and the USA, have also established 

effective and innovative product pricing tools 

Overview 

Relevance 

to Industry 

Source: USAID; USDA; Booz Allen Analysis 

Agro SMS - Serbia 

� Through leveraging of information systems, the 

Serbian government created databases with 

produce prices in two main markets: 

– Internal wholesale (updated weekly) 

– Main European terminals (updated daily) 

� By sending SMS messages through mobile 

phones, Serbian producers have access to price 

data for their crops 

� Service provision is made at cost to producers 

(non-profit initiative) 

� The tool has allowed farmers to leverage on a 

powerful tool to maintain profitability 

– Avoid excessive margin losses in 

negotiations with buyers 

– Make quick and accurate decisions on 

product price points 

Serbia and USA – Product Pricing Tools 

128 

USDA FATUS - USA 


� The FATUS service provides historical prices for 

USA’s exports and imports, by crop and country 

of origin / destination 

– User-friendly interface, with updated information 

– Diverse breakdowns, allowing producers to even 

assess impact of customs and duties on 

market prices for their crops 

� Service is on-line and free of charge 

� Data is collected by US Customs Service 

� The tool allows producers to check trends and 

recent development of crops in international 

markets, and act accordingly 

– Monitor competitors’ positions 

– Assess and act on seasonal trends 



Recent exchange rate evolution has seriously affected agriculture 

exports in benchmarked countries – Only Chile and the US have 

come up with innovative responses 

Export Volume (‘000 Tons) 

16000 

14000 

12000 

10000 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0 

8,644 

South Africa – Export Volume and FX Rate 

(1995-2004)(‘000 Tons, US$) 

11,714 

14,671 

13,933 

11,756 

13,917 14,418 

12,033 

Source: Interviews; Oanda FX History; FAOSTAT; Booz Allen Analysis 

10,497 

9,945 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

129 

Exchange Rate (Rand / US$) – 1995=100 


Impact of Exchange Rates 

�� Exchange rates have recently revamped from 

historical devaluation trends, reducing 

exporters’ earnings in local currency – 

especially in South Africa and Chile 

�� None of the benchmarked countries seem to 

be pursuing strategies to mitigate negative 

effects, with the exception of Chile and USA 

– Chile’s exchange rates have fallen due to 

significant increase in copper exports 

(major US$ influx) – Farmers and 

exporters, negatively impacted by recent 

developments, have proposed the 

government to index their tax payments in 

dollars 

– In USA, export subsidies are adjusted 

according to international commodity prices 

– additional support conceived in case 

prices fall below certain boundaries 



E Distribution 

Distribution of agricultural commodities varies greatly depending 

on the target destination – Europe, in particular, is increasingly 

relying on retailers to the detriment of wholesalers 

Agricultural Commodities Distribution Channel Breakdown 

in Key Egypt Destination Markets 

(2005, %) 

33% 

67% 

USA 

Four chains account for 

73% of of grocery sales at at 

supermarkets 

10% 

90% 

UK 

Germany 

30% 30% 

70% 70% 

Holland 

Western Europe 

France 

50% 

50% 

Far East 

65% 

35% 

80% 80% 

Wholesalers 

20% 20% 

GCC 

Source: Interviews; FAO; The Economist (“ Big chains enjoy a buyer's market; Competition policy in the EU” – 2007); Lit Search; Booz Allen Analysis 


130 

CIS 

Retailers 

Implications 

�� Share of retailers in Western Europe and 

USA is becoming increasingly prevalent. 

However, GCC, CIS and Far East remain 

largely dependent on wholesale 

�� Product quality requirements are 

increasingly enforced by a few companies 

– e.g. Tesco (UK) has developed its own 

set of good agricultural practices to be 

implemented by supplier farmers 

�� Relationships with retailers and 

wholesalers are of different natures 

– Retailers demand year-round supply 

from nominated partners 

– In some countries (e.g. UK) exporters 

are referred to category managers to 

serve chains. In others (e.g. 

Germany, France), exporters deal 

directly with supermarkets 

– Wholesalers work with consignment – 

commercial risk is borne by exporters, 

who can, however, refuse to deliver 

should prices fall below profitable 

levels


In continental Europe, Agrexco has successfully developed direct 

relationships with retailers to provide them with year-long, 

predictable, volume and diversified fresh produce supply 

Long-Term 

Relationship 

with 

Retailers 

Retail 

Management 

Capabilities 

Year-Long & 

Predictable 

Supply 

Volume and 

Broad 

Product 

Portfolio 

Key Success Factors for Direct Access to European Retailers 

� Relationships with retailers take years to establish and persist over time 

– Compliance with quality requirements and optimization of supply 

chain mature over longer periods 

– Consumer behavior knowledge and deployment into product features 

(e.g. packaging) and marketing (e.g. promotions) also require time 

� Retailers rely on their supplier partners to manage in-store product flows 

and determine ideal shelf positioning and even pricing to maximize sales 

and profits 

� Category managers are also expected to plan and execute all 

promotional activities for products under their scope 

� Retailers nominate their fresh produce suppliers in an yearly basis – 

ability to provide year-long supply of crops is a must-have for players 

willing to compete 

� Suppliers must develop an international network of growers, so as to 

balance on and off-seasonality and guarantee predictable delivery 

� Providers need to able to supply volumes required by buyers 

� Preferred providers are those who deliver a broad year-long portfolio of 

crops to retailer – optimization of supply-chain costs and centralization of 

relationship 

Source: Interviews; FAO; Booz Allen Analysis 

131 

E Distribution 

Benefits for Agrexco 

�� Israel’s Agrexco has 

succeeded in 

positioning itself as a 

category manager 

for major 

international retailers 

�� Agrexco then 

benefits from 

extensive knowledge 

on consumer 

behavior, and has 

channels to quickly 

test and introduce 

innovations (e.g. 

new packages) 

�� Retailers also 

conceive Agrexco 

with privileged 

opportunities for instore 

campaigns and 

access to local 

media 


I 

II II 

III 


In summary, an Export Promotion Agency can play a decisive role in 

promoting Egyptian exports, provided its governance, organization 

and focus are carefully designed 

Institutional 

Governance 

Organization 

Structure 


Promotion 

Focus 

Key Lessons Learned for Egypt from Export Promotion Agencies Benchmarks 

� Export promotion agencies (EPAs) must actively involve the private sector in their governance to 

ensure a focused and efficient provision of services – in particular, a majority of board seats should be 

reserved to industry executives 

� EPAs must be funded jointly by private and public sector resources to balance the need for 

appropriate allocation of financial resources and the need to jump-start collective industry efforts 

� Export promotion programs should be limited in time so as to not become “addictive” subsidies 

� Proliferation of small agencies disperse overall efforts and limit the efficiency of these programs – 

as such, promotion efforts should be funneled as much as possible through a few key entities 

� Branding for agricultural products is often integrated within an overall pyramidal promotion 

structure, handled by the EPA (e.g., country level, industry-specific) 

� Export promotion agencies’ size must fall within a certain range to avoid become too small and 

inoperative or oversized and inefficient 

� Membership to export promotion agencies must be recursive in nature to co-opt existing 

organizations with little required sector reorganization 

� Personnel within export promotion agencies must be highly qualified and customer-oriented 

� Export promotion agencies’ role in business development requires international offices that provide 

exporters with “on-the-ground” intelligence on market opportunities 

� Export promotion agencies typically also help exporters in defining their marketing mix 

� EPAs tend to perform better when focused on non-traditional/ innovative sectors 

132 










II. Leveraging Small Farmers’ Potential - Associations 

ProChile promotes associative solutions to incorporate small 

farmers into agricultural export sector – private sector accounts for 

a majority of the funding 

Internationalization of Small Farmers (INTERPAC) 

Overview 

Stages 

Source: ODEPA; Interviews; Booz Allen Analysis 

� Develop farmers’ capabilities to manage 

export projects and participate in marketdevelopment 

initiatives led by ProChile (e.g. 

international business missions) 

� Phase I: Project Design 

– Selected growers join a pool of 

potential exporters, and are expected 

to voluntarily form groups with other 

farmers 

– Once group is formed, an expert from 

ProChile is assigned to perform 

market assessment 

� Phase II: Set-Up 

– Once potential is assessed, a second 

expert joins the group to develop a 

project to be presented to ProChile for 

funding and implementation 

assistance 

� After Phase II, ProChile ends direct 

assistance programs 

134 

Mobilization 

of Private 

Resources 

Orientation 

to Export 

Markets 

Principles 

� Projects are not entirely 

funded by governmental 

resources – public 

investment is aimed at 

“adequately mobilizing 

private resources” 

– 90% private in Phase I 

– 85% private in Phase II 

� ProChile only funds 

projects related to crops 

with export potential – 

according to international 

market opportunities 

identified 


II. Leveraging Small Farmers’ Potential – Contract Farming 

Contract farming has developed around the world as a mutually 

beneficial commercial agreement between large producers / 

exporters and small farmers 

Description 

Pros and 

Cons 

Contract Farming – Overview and Key Success Factors 

Overview Key Success Factors 

� Agreement between farmers and processing 

and/or marketing firms (“sponsor”) for the 

production and supply of agricultural 

products under forward agreements 

– Farmers provide commodity in predetermined 

quantities and quality 

– Sponsors offer training, inputs and 

managerial support 

� Payments usually have a fixed and a variable 

component 

� For sponsors: 

– Overcoming of eventual land constraints; 

shared risk; more reliable production and 

consistent quality 

– Cons: sometimes inadequate small farm 

land tenure conditions; eventually high 

support-activity costs 

� For farmers: 

– Pros: access to credit for inputs; access 

to training in technology and quality 

standards; reduced risks 

– Cons: need previous market knowledge 

to avoid exploitation from sponsors 

(prices, expected yields, etc.) 

Source: Interviews: “Contract Farming – Partnerships for Growth” (FAO – 2001) 

135 

Market 

Knowledge 

Infra- 

Structure 

Government 

Support 

� Sponsors must have an extensive market 

information – ensures profitability and 

sustainability 

� From farmers’ point of view, time investment 

must provide adequate economic and 

technological (e.g., managerial) returns 

� Contact farming demands basic infrastructure 

to perform adequately 

– Transport infrastructure (e.g., roads) 

– Adequate utilities (e.g., electricity) for 

farmers to comply with sanitary and 

quality requirements 

� Legal system must recognize contract 

formats and provide sufficient guidance on 

conflict resolution 

� Governments should shy-away from strong 

regulatory role 

� Technical advice and training provided by 

Governmental agriculture extension 

services 


II. Leveraging Small Farmers’ Potential – Access To Credit 

In order to improve farmers’ access to capital, South Africa has 

developed a model based on financial intermediation at the local 

level through “Village Banks” 

Background 

Overview 

Service Offering 

South Africa Village Banks 

� South Africa’s farmers had difficulty in 

accessing credit through commercial banks 

– Distance from branch networks 

– Lack of collateral 

– Moral hazard and adverse selection 

� Government did not offer customized credit 

lines for small farmers 

� Village Banks project was funded by USAID, 

with additional resources from World Bank 

� “Savings-first” institutions – concession of 

credit only when volume of savings allowed it 

� Institutions owned by member farmers – 

controlled by local communities 

� Decentralized services at local level 

� Typically negligible loss ratio 

� Different products according to farmer 

segments (defined by gender and source of 

income) – e.g. women farm workers, 

unemployed rural poor, small scale 

employers, etc. 

� Bank revenue is generated by interest on 

loans and depositing of resources in the 

nearest commercial bank branch (“link bank”) 

Source: Lit Search; Booz Allen Analysis 

136 

Savings 

Phase 

� Rotating 

savings 

associations 

(saving of 

specified 

amounts to give 

lump payouts to 

each member) 

� Deposit and 

withdrawal 

services for 

local producers 

� Self-regulated 

with no 

government 

interference 

� Small size and 

profits – staff is 

motivated 

through variable 

earnings 

Village Bank Evolution 

Loans 

Phase 

� Loans to 

community 

authorities as 

well as for 

individuals for 

entrepreneurial 

and targeted 

investment 

activities 

� Only achieved 

after savings 

assets are at 

the level of 

supporting loan 

portfolio 

Commercial 

Phase 

� Provision of 

insurance and 

fund 

transferring to 

producers 

� At this stage, 

link to the 

formal financial 

sector is 

stressed – 

eased 

regulations to 

become formal 

institutions (e.g. 

lower 

capitalization 

requirements) 


II. Leveraging Small Farmers’ Potential - Infrastructure 

In Brazil, access to road infrastructure was a major challenge for 

small farmers – one of the country’s largest states developed a 

prioritization model to invest specific “logistical” funds 

CLIENT CLIENT EXAMPLE EXAMPLE 

Baselining 

Prioritization 

Small Farmer Accessibility Studies Description 

Source: Booz Allen Project – “RumoS 2015” (Government of Rio Grande do Sul State – Brazil); Booz Allen Analysis 

137 

� Small farmers’ accessibility to major logistics network in Brazil was 

evaluated through studies funded by government 

– Assessment of time and distance to main transportation backbones 

helped determine which areas required investments 

– Qualitative aspects, such as pavement conditions, were also 

considered 

� Results of baselining stage were a set of logistics infrastructure 

interventions required to enhance accessibility of small farmers to 

transportation backbones, with cost estimates and eventually forecast of 

return rates (based on production and trade flow estimates) 

� Portfolio was prioritized considering a “cost per capita” metric – projects 

with lower cost per capita were the first to be completed 

� Indicators for completion of projects were incorporated to the state’s 

overall performance metrics – accessibility of small farmers to logistics 

network became part of the state’s strategy and has specific budget 

allocation 

� A letter of commitment was signed by local representatives and state’s 

authorities, so as to ensure continuity of projects past government 

mandates (4 years) 


II. Leveraging Small Farmers’ Potential –Training 

The Growers’ Association of Chile has developed “Capfruta” as an 

initiative aimed at pooling training for small farmers and 

streamlining Government tax exemptions 

Source: Fedefruta; Booz Allen Analysis 

General Description 

� Chilean companies are allowed, up to a 

certain limit, to deduct training expenses from 

income tax 

� Fedefruta (National Fruit Grower Association) 

has developed Capfruta 

− Large farmers and exporters pay 

Capfruta a payment equivalent to their 

income tax deduction 

− Capfruta centralizes responsibility for 

training among all participating 

companies 

− Target audience are small farmers, 

working in cooperation with large 

farmers/exporters 

� Capfruta provides companies with 

Government-authorized tax certificates – 

trained staff must provide to authorities a 

declaration that they had effectively attended 

courses 

Capfruta Training Initiative (Chile) 

138 

For Large 

Exporters/ 

Farmers 

For Small 

Farmers 

Benefits 

� Reduced bureaucracy – Capfruta 

provides support to companies in: 

− Properly registering training 

initiatives to authorities 

− Adequately performing 

accounting procedures to 

deduction 

� Better usage of tax exemption 

possibilities – credits now also cover 

internal indirect costs, instead of only 

direct expenses from trainings 

� Economies of scale and scope in 

training initiatives are properly 

captured 

� Provide with up-to-date technical and 

managerial training 

� Potentially broader range of trainings 

available 


II. Leveraging Small Farmers’ Potential 

In sum, tapping into small farmers’ potential typically rely on 

cooperatives, contract farming, road infrastructure, access to 

credit, and adequate training 

I 

II II 

III 

IV 

V 

Critical Mass 

Through 

Cooperatives/ 

Associations 

Contract 

Farming 

Training 

Key Lessons Learned for Egypt from “Leveraging Small Farmers’ Potential” Benchmark 

Access To 

Credit 

Access to 

Transport 


� Access to international markets require small farmers to pool capabilities through cooperatives or 

associations, in order to reap scale benefits 

� In addition, export promotion agencies have typically stepped in to foster cooperation between small 

growers and large exporters by providing on-the-ground technical and managerial support 

� Contract farming provides an affordable financing tool for small farmers and reduces delivery 

uncertainty risk for exporters 

� Innovative forward contracts agreements also provide small farmers with access to training on 

quality assurance and marketing capabilities 

� Micro-credit initiatives have been successful in overcoming adverse selection and moral hazard 

challenges for lenders to small farmers – especially when no borrowing collateral is available 

� Micro-credit is typically run in “pools” to increase peer pressure for reimbursement, utilize local staff 

to closely monitor operations and focus on small and practical investments 

� Access to adequate and economical transport infrastructure is key to linking small farmers to 

international agricultural markets 

� Master-planning and prioritization of infrastructure efforts in remote areas must be carefully crafted 

by Government authorities to ensure fairness and focus on an adequate return on investment 

� Cooperation between established private exporters can be effective in reaping economies of scale 

for large-scale “on-the-farm” technical training programs for small farmers 

� These trainings can be effectively supported by the Government intervention through tax-break 

incentive 

139 










Increased shelf-life 

Less transportation requirements 

Reduced Shelf Life 

Stronger Transportation Requirements 

III. Transportation 

Agricultural commodities shelf-lives typically require various 

transportation modes 


Commodities Type 

11 

22 

33 

Non- 

Perishable 

Perishable 

Short-shelf 

life 

Perishable 

Agricultural Cargo Types and Transportation Alternatives 

Description 

� Crops that may be stored for longer 

periods of time (around 12 months) and 

that don’t need to undergo a cold chain 

during transportation and storage 

� Examples: most types of grains (rice, 

maize) and cereals (wheat, oat, barley) 

� Crops that require handling in controlled 

atmospheres (temperature / humidity) 

after harvesting 

� Under controlled atmospheres, crops might 

be stored and transported for periods of 

time between four and twelve weeks 

� Examples: apples 

� Crops that require cold storage after 

harvesting 

� Even under those conditions, those crops 

have very limited shelf-life – up to 21 

days maximum 

� Examples: cut flowers, strawberries 

(1) International transportation – does not encompass inland transit 

Source: Interviews; Booz Allen Analysis 

141 

Transportation Time & 

Means (1) Means (1) 

� Transportation time 

within weeks 

� Sea transportation 

in dry containers or 

bulk carrier ships – 

no refrigeration 

needed 


between 0 to 4 weeks 

� Reefer containers 

(refrigerated units) 


between 0 to 8 days 

� Three main 

possibilities: 

– Air cargo 

– Reefer vessels 

– Ro-Ro vessels 

Market Characteristics 

and Trends 

� Major international 

shipping lines 

handle the bulk of 

cargo 

� System operates 

within a “hub and 

spoke” model 

� More players move 

towards offering of 

door-to-door 

logistics services, 

streamlining the 

transportation chain 

� System seeks optimal 

equilibrium between 

cost and speed in sea 

shipping 

� Air cargo is last 

resort – costs still 

prohibitive for majority 

of crops 



For agricultural commodities, the transportation system operates 

within a “hub and spoke” model, with major shipping lines 

operating the bulk of cargo among main global hubs 

ACTUAL ACTUAL EXAMPLE EXAMPLE 

Source: Maersk 

15 weekly dep. 

to Asia, 3 weekly 

dep. to Oceania 

HUBS 

FEEDER 

LINES 

VALPARAISO 

CHARLESTON 

4 weekly dep. 

btw. South 

and North 

America 

Maersk Line – Main Routes Served 

10 weekly dep. 

btw. Europe 

and North 

America 

BARCELONA 

6 weekly dep. 

btw. South 

America and 

Europe 

SANTOS 

14 weekly dep. from Europe 

to Asia, 11 weekly + 2 biweekly 

dep. btw. Africa and 

FELIXSTOWE Europe 

ROTTERDAM 

1 weekly 

dep. btw. 

Africa and 

North 

America 

PORT SAID 

ABIDJAN 

2 weekly dep. btw. 

South America and 

Africa 

142 

MARSEILLES 

BOMBAY 

3 weekly dep. btw. Asia and 

South America 

SHANGHAI 

6 weekly 

dep. btw. 

Oceania and 

Asia 

MELBOURNE 

15 weekly dep. to 

North America 

14 weekly dep. from 

Asia to Europe 

3 weekly departures 

to North America 

1 weekly dep. btw. 

Oceania and Europe 


11 

22 

33


Although sea shipping has been dominated by traditional 

container service operators, new integrated players have 

become more preponderant… 

Global Sea Freight Forwarding Breakdown 

(% of tons) 

Kinetsu 2% 

SDV 1.9% 

Expeditors 2.3% 

Nippon Express 3% 

Panalpina 4% 

Schenker / 

BAX 4.1% 

Integrated 

Players 

Kuehne & 

Nagel 7.3% 

DPWN/ 

Exel 8.4% 

Market Shares and Dynamics Global Sea Freight 

Traditional 

Container 

Service Operators 

Traditional Container Service Operators 

– Top Players – 

Hanjin/DSR- 

Senator 

Note: AP Moeller acquired P&O Nedlloyd in Feb 06, All AP Moeller figures excluding P&O 

Source: HELVEA, Logistics – A Long-Term Growth Strategy (March 2006), UNCTAD Review of Maritime Transport (2006) 

MSC 

COSCO 

NYK 

Container 

Operator 

A.P. Moller Group 

(acquired P&O 

Nedlloyd in 02/06) 

Evergreen 

CMA-CGM Group 

NOL/APL 

China Shipping 

143 

Fleet 

399 

264 

150 

192 

106 

108 

116 

77 

107 

TEU 

cap 

(000) 

1,005 

713 

450 

427 

322 

304 

300 

296 

287 

Market Dynamics 

�� The sea-freight market is 

highly fragmented with freight 

forwarders only having about 

20%-30% of the market 

�� There is ongoing M&A activity 

in the sector with some major 

takeovers in recent years 

– AP Moeller / P&O 

Nedlloyd (Feb 2006) 

– DPWN / Exel (2005) 

�� Key drivers 

– Customer demand for 

end-to-end services and 

complete visibility 

– rising volumes of trade 

flows 

– shifting trade pattern 

towards containerization 

Proprietary & DRAFT Confidential REPORT 

11 

22 

33


… and offer door-to-door service from producers to distributors 

Traditional vs. Integrated Transportation Process 

Trucker 

Producer 


Forwarder 

Warehouse 

GSA or 

Port wholesaler 

Ship 

Port 

Warehouse 

Customs 

Broker 

Trucker 

Forwarder's 

Agent 

Importer 

Distributor 

Source: Transport Intelligence (2006) 

Reefer Capacity – Streamlining of Transportation Chain 

Integrated Process 

Integrated Service 

Producer 

Trucker 

Warehouse 

Port 

Ship 

Port 

Warehouse 

Customs 

Broker 

Trucker 

Distributor 

144 

Recent Trends 

�� Excessive number of interfaces along 

transportation is a cause of delays and suboptimal 

system operation 

�� Demand increases for more integrated service – 

players expand the scope of their operations and 

start offering integrated door-to-door service – 

e.g.: 

– Kuehne & Nagel acquisitions of Haering Group 

and Pracht Spedition in Germany, USCO 

Logistics in US 

– UPS & FedEx establishing NVOCC 

relationships with ocean carriers (UPS Supply 

Chain Solutions and FedEx Freight) 

�� For customers, motivation is maintenance of 

quality and elimination of delays 

�� Integration of services provides additional benefits 

to be captured 

– Holistic management of the system allow better 

resource allocation – transportation system is 

optimized 

– Increased scale drive cost reductions which 

eventually extend customers possibilities in 

negotiations 


11 

22 

33


For short shelf-life perishables, companies must strike a balance 

between speed and cost when selecting air cargo, dedicated or 

traditional reefer vessels as well as ro-ro ferries 

Advantages 

Disadvantages 

Air Cargo 

� Reduced transit time 

� Smoother handling 

requires simpler 

packaging, with lower 

costs 

� Good alternative for 

market management – 

e.g. South Africa uses 

air cargo to increase 

grape exports in early 

harvesting seasons (sell 

more at higher prices) 

� Higher costs than other 

transport alternatives 

� Reduced cargo capacity 

vs. ships 

� Requires cooling infrastructure 

at airports, 

operating in smaller 

scales than in ports 

Traditional & 

Specialized Reefer 

Vessels 

� Significantly lower 

loading times vs. 

containerized cargo 

� High speed makes 

easier handling of 

delays (“buffers” in the 

route) 

� Flexible usage of 

capacity increase 

possibility of 

backhauling 

agreements (e.g. cars 

for Agrexco) 

� Storage of empty pallets 

is an additional 

operational issue, as 

they have to return to 

producer to be reutilized 

� Pallets have high 

maintenance costs 

� High investments in 

boats 

Ro-Ro Ferries 

� Easy and fast loading 

and unloading operation 

� Flexible use with no 

major customization 

required 

� Reasonable costs and 

ease to load and unload 

make Ro-Ro vessels an 

interesting option for 

fresh produce exports – 

especially those with 

controlled atmosphere 

(up to double shelf-life) 

� Elevated ship 

maintenance costs and 

accident rates (complex 

water insulation 

systems) 

� Usage of containers 

makes difficult usual 

inspection processes 

Speed 

Speed vs. Costs 

Reference: Agrexco’s Exports – 

Ashdod to Liege 

� 5-hour flight 

� ~ US$ 1,000 / ton 

Notes: (1) Air Cargo and Specialized Reefer Vessels Costs obtained through interviews; 

(2) Ro-Ro Ferry cost consider 26 pallets @ 0.7 ton each (Agrexco avg.) - € 7.2k from Ashdod to Greece, considering trucking to Marseilles 

Source: Interviews; Port to Port Logistics Portal; Logistics Study for Agricultural Flow – Egypt / Europe; Lit Search; Booz Allen Analysis 


145 

Air 

Cargo 

Ro-Ro 

Ferries 

Specialized 

Reefer 

Vessel 

Cost 

Competitiveness 

11 

22 

33 

� 3 days 

� ~US$ 400/ton 

� 4-5 days 

� ~US$ 200/ton


To deliver shelf-life sensitive crops, Agrexco uses mostly 

specialized reefer vessels while air cargo and conventional 

reefer vessels make up the rest 

TO USA 

DISTRIBUTION 

IN 

EUROPE 

Agrexco’s Routes and Breakdown of Exports 

AMSTERDAM 

MARSEILLES 

COLOGNE 

KOPER 

PIRAEUS 

Conventional 

Reefer 

Vessels 

16% 

Air 

Cargo 

19% 

ASHDOD 

Source: Interviews; FAO - Global Agricultural Marketing Management (1997); Booz Allen Analysis 

146 

Specialized 

Reefer 

Vessels 

65% 

LEGEND: 

Air 

Truck 

Sea (Spec. Reefer) 

Sea (Conv. Reefer) 

Sea Shipping 

� From Ashdod, virtually all products go to 

Marseilles – there, Agrexco has a 

distribution center 

� All transportation since then is made by 

truck to every destination in Europe 

� In peak seasons, Agrexco utilizes ports 

in Koper (Slovenia) and Piraeus 

(Greece) to reach Europe – the latter is 

the only route in which there are ro-ro 

vessels available 

Air Cargo 

� About 45% of the air cargo lands at the 

distribution center in Cologne (GER) – 

rest is directly sent to various 

destinations 

� From Cologne, produce is transported 

by truck to client destinations 

� To USA (main market after Europe), air 

cargo is utilized from Amsterdam 

– From Israel, produce goes by sea to 

Marseilles and truck to Amsterdam 

– Total transit time to USA is 6 days 


11 

22 

33


Israel’s Agrexco has two custom-built reefer vessels, that 

account for 65% of the company’s export transportation 

Overview 

Economics 

Routes and 

Markets 

Served 

Time and 

Capacity 

Mgmt. 

Agrexco’s Specialized Reefer Vessels – Key Facts 

� Agrexco has two specialized reefer vessels bearing its name, delivered in 2003 

– 15-year usage contract with owner 

� The ships feature new technologies that allow flexibility in capacity usage – cars 

can be loaded into the refrigerated area, providing an important asset for backhaulage 

� During peak seasons, Agrexco charters two additional vessels, along with 

support ventilated liners 

� Average speed is 22 knots – almost twice as fast as any other reefer vessel 

� Capacity of 880 TEU (~60,000T) 

� Return business consists of cars back to Israel (to Israeli and Asian markets) 

� Agrexco products set sail from Haifa and Ashdod towards Europe (Marseilles 

and Valencia) 

– From Ashdod (loading port) to Marseilles, usually ships take 3 days 

– 80% of the produce go to the company’s distribution center in Marseilles 

– At Marseilles, new containers and cars are loaded into the vessel - two dayshifts 

for cargo loading 

– Ship heads to Valencia (additional cars are loaded) and after 14 days of 

departure, arrives back at Ashdod 

� The 14-day timetable is composed so that there is time to make up if delays 

occur due to bad weather – ships can be loaded at night, for an extra cost that is 

worth vs. fuel and other additional costs 

� Agrexco also charters capacity to 3rd party companies (round-trip contracts) 

Source: Interviews; Logistics Study for Agricultural Flow – Egypt / Europe; FAO - Global Agricultural Marketing Management (1997); Lit Search; Booz Allen Analysis 


147 

11 

22 

33


In summary, Egypt should provide a conducive environment for 

integrated logistics players, encourage long-term transport 

capacity planning and invest in transportation 

I 

II II 

III 

Attract Large 

Integrated 

Logistics 

Players 

Promote 

Long-Term 

Logistics 

Planning 

Invest in 

Dedicated 

Transport 

Modes 

Key Lessons Learned for Egypt from Transportation Benchmark 

� Large integrated logistics players provide substantial cost and effectiveness improvement by 

providing “door-to-door” transportation services, from farms to agricultural retailers 

� Governments can attract those large international players by providing “bureaucracy-free” 

regulatory and operational administrative export procedures 

� To secure sufficient international transport capacity (especially for perishable products), exporters 

associations typically help coordinate export volume projections with large logistics providers (i.e., 

air, ground, maritime) on a yearly basis, especially during peak seasons 

� To induce logistics provider to commit necessary capacity, exporters typically enter binding forward 

agreements, tied to flexible export volume targets 

� To adequately transport shelf-life sensitive crops, most best-in-class countries have invested in a 

range of transportation modes that balance cost and time to market: air cargo, traditional & 

dedicated reefer vessels as well as ro-ro ferries are the most common transportation means 

� In particular, dedicated reefer vessels have been a key success factor in enabling superior time-tomarket 

advantage for exporters to provide retailers with reliable and quality products (e.g., Agrexco) 

148 










1 

2 

3 

IV. Government Agriculture Regulations – Subsidies 

In 1994, WTO members signed the Agriculture Agreement to 

discipline international trade and progressively phase-out tariffs, 

domestic support and export subsidies by 2004 

Trade Tariffs 

Domestic 

Support 


Subsidies 

Source: WTO Agricultural Negotiations (2004) 

WTO Uruguay Round Agriculture Agreement 

� Most non-tariff barriers (e.g., quotas) are eliminated or converted to tariffs 

� Most tariffs are effectively “bounded” to avoid arbitrary increase from importers 

� While most non-tariffs barriers (e.g., quotas) are converted to tariffs, tariff-rate 

quotas for agricultural products are allowed (import tax escalation over a 

predetermined quantity) 

� Multi-Fiber Agreement plans textile trade liberalization by 2005 

� Financial assistance to growers through direct (price support) or indirect (water 

subsidies) are classified in 4 categories: 

− Green Box: acceptable as minimally trade-distorting (e.g., direct income 

supports targeted at particular products “decoupled” from production level) 

− Amber Box: discouraged as trade distorting (e.g., measures to support 

prices, or subsidies directly related to production quantities) 

− Blue Box: permitted as minimally trade-distorting (e.g., any support that 

would normally be “amber” but requires production limits) 

� Export subsidies include cash subsidies, export credit guarantees & insurance, 

state trading enterprises subventions, subsidized export marketing costs and 

special domestic transport charges. They can be further split into: 

− Uniform subsidies applied to every unit exported 

− Targeted subsidies applied to specific markets or products 

− Selective subsidies applied to certain industries (e.g., agriculture) 

150 

Topic 

Average 


Tariffs Cut 

Minimum 


Tariffs Cut 

Domestic 


Support Cut 


Subsidies 

Cut in Value 


Subsidies 

Cut in 

Volume 

Developed 

Countries 

(1995-2000) 

-36% 

-15% 

-20% 

-36% 

-21% 

Developing 

Countries 

(1995-2004) 

-24% 

-10% 

-13% 

-24% 

-14% 



The largest amount of assistance to agriculture and food sector is 

provided through trade tariffs and domestic support – export 

subsidies typically represent only a small fraction of the total 

43 

Estimates of Effective Support 

For Agriculture By Region By Instrument 

(US$ billion, 2001) 

75 

90 

Trade Tariffs Domestic Support Export Subsidies 

7 

Total Agriculture 

Subsidies = 

US$ 219 Billion 

3 

High Income 

Countries 

1 

* 

Estimates of Effective Support 

For Food Sector By Region By Instrument 

(US$ billion, 2001) 

Note (*): High-income countries include OECD, as well as newly industrialized East Asian customs territories of Honk-Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan 

Source: The Relative Importance of Global Agricultural Subsidies – World Bank (2006); GTAP (2006) 


151 

172 

82 

0 

Total Food 

Subsidies = 

US$ 280 Billion 

26 

0 0.1 

Trade Tariffs Domestic Support Export Subsidies 

Developing Countries


Indeed, applied trade tariffs facing agricultural exporters remain 

high when compared to other sectors 

18% 

14% 

16% 

Average Applied Trade Tariffs By Sector By Exporting Region * 

(%, 2001) 

8% 

7% 

8% 

Agriculture Food Textile Other 

High-Income 

Countries 

** 

Note (*): import-weighted averages of applied tariffs 

Note (**): High-income countries include OECD, as well as newly industrialized East Asian customs territories of Honk-Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan 

Source: Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda – World Bank (2006); GTAP (2006) 


152 

2% 

1% 

1% 

3% 

Developing Countries World 

3% 

3%


Egyptian Government support to farmers is very low when 

compared to OECD countries 

2% 2% 3% 4% 5% 


New 

Zealand 

Brazil 

Australia 

Russia 

8% 

China 

17% 

USA 

Producer Support Estimate 

2002-2004 

21% 22% 

Mexico 

Note (*): Support divided by production value evaluated at the producer price 

Source: OECD; FAO; FAOSTAT 

Canada 

153 

30% 34% 

OECD 

EU 

58% 

Japan 

Comments 

�� Producer Support Estimate 

(PSE) stands for gross annual 

monetary values to support 

agriculture producers, expressed 

a percentage of the gross farm 

receipts 

�� Egypt has been cutting its 

contribution to farmers, (e.g. 

support has been reduced from 

78 M$ in 1997 to 36 M$ in 1998) 

�� Egypt helps indirectly the farmers 

by not charging the water to its 

consumers 



26 WTO members can still subsidize agriculture exports – average 

amount totals US $4 billion per year – committed to reduce fully 

EU-15 

70% 

US 

4% Poland 

4% 

WTO Members Agriculture Export Subsidies Breakdown 

(2002) 

Mexico 

4% 

Switzerland 

Canada 

2% 

3% 

Israel 

Colombia 

2% 

2% 

South 

Africa 

2% 

Other 

7% 

Total = US $ 4 Billion 

Source: Agriculture and the New Trade Agenda – World Bank (2004/); Export Subsidies Trade Note – World Bank (2003) 

154 

New 

Zealand 

10% 

Turkey 

10% 

Hungary 

12% 

Norway 

9% 

Bulgaria 

15% 

Brazil 

7% 

Australia Slovak 

7% Republic 

6% 

Venezuela 

3% 

Indonesia 

2% 

Romania 

0% 

Iceland 

2% 

Uruguay 

0% 

Cyprus 

Czech 

1% 

Republic 

16% 



Over 30% of these export subsidies are used to support export 

promotion and marketing activities of agricultural products – 

especially dairy, meat and cereals 

EPAs 

38% 

Others 

62% 

Breakdown of Export Subsidies 

(2002) 

Alcohol 

3% 

Cereals 

15% 

Source: The Competition in 2002 – USDA (2002); TPR Israel – WTO (2006); Roadblock to Reform: The persistence of agricultural export subsidies – UNCTAD (2006) 


155 

Sugar 

10% 

Inc. Prod. 

12% 

Fruits and 

Vgtbls. 

2% 

Other 

1% 

Meat 

23% 

Dairy 

34%


Eliminating global support – in particular trade tariffs - would raise 

global economic welfare even though export subsidies cut would 

hurt non-OECD countries since they are net food importers 

Breakdown of Impact on Economic Welfare 

of Subsidies Liberalization by Region by Instrument 

(%) 

CONCEPTUAL 

CONCEPTUAL 

Trade 

Tariffs 

89% 

109% 

Domestic 

Support 

6% 

1% 

5% 


Subsidies 

-10% 

High Income 

Countries 

* 

Developing Countries 

Net Importers 

0.5 0.5 

0.4 

Note (*): High-income countries include OECD, as well as newly industrialized East Asian customs territories of Hong-Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan 

Source: The Relative Importance of Global Agricultural Subsidies – World Bank (2006); CIA Factbook; FAOSTAT; GTAP (2006) 


156 

7.6 

4.7 

2.6 

Food Trade Balance - Agriculture 

(Exports / Imports – 2004 US$ Value) 

1.4 

1.3 

1.3 

1.1 

1.1 

0.8 

0,6 

0.5 

Net Exporters 

Brazil 

Australia 

Chile 

India 

France 

S. Africa 

Turkey 

USA 

Germany 

Israel 

UK 

China 

Morocco 

Egypt


Eliminating global support – in particular trade tariffs - would 

benefit global economic welfare. Non-OECD farmers/exporters 

would also experience a raise in net income 

Breakdown of Impact on Net Farm Income 

of Subsidies Liberalization by Region by Instrument 

(%) 

Trade 

Tariffs 

-53% 

52% 

Domestic 

Support 

-44% 

38% 

-3% 


Subsidies 

10% 

High Income 

Countries 

* 

Agricultural GDP vs. Total GDP (2006 est.) 

Developing Countries 

Note (*): High-income countries include OECD, as well as newly industrialized East Asian customs territories of Honk-Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan 

Source: The Relative Importance of Global Agricultural Subsidies – World Bank (2006); GTAP (2006); CIA World Factbook; Booz Allen Analysis 


157 

19.9% 

14.7% 

11.9% 

8.0% 

5.9% 

3.8% 

2.6% 2.6% 2.2% 

1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 

India 


China 

Brazil 

Chile 

Australia 

Israel 

S. Africa 

France 

UK 

USA 

Germany

V. Government Agriculture Regulations – Water 

Egypt’s agriculture water consumption for agriculture irrigation is 

high compared to other countries and is not justified by the share 

of agriculture in the economy 

Water Withdrawn for Agriculture as % Renewable 

Water Resources 

(2000, %) 

In Egypt, water 

withdrawal for agriculture 

is twice as much as water 

required (2) required (2) 

1% 8% 12% 15% 22% 29% 49% 

92% 

643% 

Chile 90 Turkey China South India Tunisia Egypt KSA 

Developing 

Countries 

Africa 

Renewable Water 922 

Resources (Km 

317 229 154 50 1897 5 58 2 

3) 

Agriculture Share of GDP vs. Water Withdrawn for 

Agriculture as % Renewable Water Resources 

(2000, %) 

Notes: (1) Renewable water resources corresponds to the long-term average annual flow of rivers (surface water) and recharge of aquifers (groundwater) generated from precipitation 

(2) Water required corresponds to the level of water needed and absorbed by the crops, water withdrawal encompasses the water required, water losses and water evaporated 

Source: AquaStat; OECD; WDI 2003 

158 


100% 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

Sample Average 

Italy 


India 

South Africa 

China 

Turkey Cote d’Ivoire 

USA EU Kenya 

Chile 

Ghana 

Sample Average 

Congo 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 

% Agriculture Share of GDP


Most countries have adopted water resource management 

programs that integrate efforts from all stakeholders and focus on 

infrastructure, farm management, water allocation and pricing 

Promote Water Pricing 

� Introduce water pricing mechanisms to 

rationalize water usage and improve 

infrastructure maintenance 

� Estimate overall cost burden: operation and 

maintenance, capital charges, opportunity and 

economic externalities costs 

Source: World Bank 

Water Resource Management Typical Themes 

Modernize Infrastructure 

� Expand and rehabilitate major canal transmission 

� Modernize irrigation systems, tanks 

� Improve agricultural infrastructure including irrigation 

techniques, drainage systems, crop technologies, mainly 

through PPP 

� Introduce water metering and water control measures 

Integrate Water 

Resource 

Management 

� Coordinate overall Government agencies 

and stakeholders efforts 

Allocate Water Rights 

� Determine water allocation scheme ( water rights) 

− User group management institution implies collective decision 

making among water users (e.g. Australia) 

− Agency allocation ensures technical water control through 

technical expertise (e.g. Chile) 

− Water trading market creates incentives to conserve water (e.g. 

Chile) 

159 

Improve on Farm Management 

� Educate, train farmers on how to improve 

practices and optimize the tools they use 

� Set up an association to provide advisory 

services 

� Create irrigation training institutes providing 

courses on conveyance efficiency 



In particular, water resource pricing programs typically encompass 

five key components for success 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Determine Overall 

Cost Structure 

Involve Users in 

Defining Service 

Level & Pricing 

Assess Willingness 

& Capacity To Pay 

Determine 

Appropriate 

Charging Mechanism 

Promote Pricing 

Transparency 

Source: Water Pricing Experiences, The World Bank 

Key Success Factors in Water Pricing 

�� Determine components for cost of water supply: operation and maintenance, capital charges, 

opportunity, economic, social and environmental externalities costs 

�� Estimate costs by category (e.g., staff, material) and by services (e.g., irrigation, drainage) 

�� Disseminate cost structure information to beneficiaries to increase awareness (e.g. Mexico) 

�� Involve users in determining quantity, quality, timing and duration of irrigation requirements (e.g. 

in Mexico local water users associations prepare irrigation plans in coordination with irrigation 

agency) 

�� Use focus groups and participatory approaches to assess willingness to pay for services 

�� Assess benefits against increases in water charges (e.g. Philippines’s system rehabilitation cost 

30% less than incremental income by better water management during dry season) 

�� Design alternative source of funding to cater for poor harvesting seasons (e.g. China’s water 

users ‘ association) 

�� User Fees: typically proportional to irrigated area/ type of crop. Typically implemented in twopart 

tariff structure (fixed/variable) 

�� Property Tax: proportion of land value. Not transparently linked to the provision of irrigation 

services and recurrent land reevaluation creates significant administrative overhead 

�� In-Kind Distributions: farmers provide labor, material to maintain infrastructure 

�� Replacement of Assets: ensure sufficient attention to maintain existing infrastructure by 

including depreciation costs in pricing (e.g. Vietnam) 

�� Water Rights Trading: build buy and sell water access exchange markets that limit severe 

financial downside for farmers (as compared to actual user fees) 

�� Ensure a transparent cycle from fees collection to direct local investment in irrigation 

infrastructure (e.g. Philippines, India) in order to limit potential misappropriation 

160 


VI. Government Agriculture Regulations – Input Policy 

Spain Seed Import Regulations work under “certified origin” 

schemes – other countries also adopt solutions to facilitate seed 

and fertilizer imports 

Spain 

Other 

Countries 

Seed Import Regulations 

�Spain works under a “certified-origin” scheme. For 

varieties registered in the EU, some countries have 

(for specific types of seeds) same treatment as EU 

countries 

�Internal trade of imported varieties must be 

communicated to the Ministry of Agriculture 

(database of imported seed sellers, buyers and 

transactions) 

�Spain also adheres to OECD-sponsored seed 

scheme that harmonize regulations in order to 

facilitate the import and export of seed; typically 

through removal of technical trade barriers with 

recognized labels (e.g., passports for trade) 

�Serbia: Ministry of Agriculture provides a preapproval 

process – new seeds are imported 

within 7 days, and, unless stated otherwise, preapproval 

is considered final after 6 months 

�Canada: Food Inspection Agency sets specific 

requirements related to seed import – importer must 

provide a signed statement justifying the names, 

the need, the certificate of analysis, sign a 

declaration form and obtain approval from the Import 

Service Center 

Fertilizer Import Regulations 

�For fertilizers, imports also work under “certifiedorigin” 

and positive list approval 

– Fertilizers have to be previously registered 

at the Ministry of Agriculture to be allowed to 

enter Spain 

– Only fertilizers from certified plants are 

accepted – for countries outside the EU, 

importers are required to send Certification of 

Approval in country of origin and related 

legislation to be vetted by Spanish Authorities 

�Indonesia: imports can be conducted only by 

“Registered Fertilizers Importers” and require to have 

an import license; However a ceiling price for urea 

fertilizer has been set by the Ministry of Agriculture 

�Australia: fertilizer imports must also meet strict 

Australian Quarantine regulations administered by the 

Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS). 

Most fertilizer products require an import permit and 

are required to conform to import conditions 

Source: Interviews; Spain’s Ministry of Agriculture; DAI “Assessment of Egypt’s Agricultural Sector Competitiveness” (2002); “Seed Industry in Jordan” – NCART (2002); 

BAH Analysis 

161 


VII. Government Agriculture Regulations - R&D / Intellectual Property 

While, South Africa’s R&D efforts are handled both by public and 

private entities with little coordination… 

Areas of 

Focus 

Sources of 

Funding 

Agricultural Research 

Council 

� Technological research in 

seeds and production / 

harvesting techniques for: 

– Horticulture 

– Field crops 

– Livestock 

� Development of new crop 

varieties 

� Technology management – 

e.g. IT systems, e-commerce 

� Budget allocation by the 

Ministry of Agriculture 

Source: ARC, DFPT, SAPO, Booz Allen Analysis 

South Africa – Research Bodies 

SAPO 

South Africa Plant 

Improvement Org. 

� Production of certifiable 

propagation plant material 

� Phytosanitary and genetic 

upgrading of deciduous fruit 

plant material – e.g. virus 

elimination and testing 

� Supply of propagation plant 

material to deciduous fruit 

nurseries 

� Development of new plant 

varieties 

� Revenues from royalties paid 

by producers for plant 

improvement services and 

usage of varieties developed 

162 

Private Institutions 

DFPT Research 

� Development of new 

production and harvesting 

techniques for deciduous 

fruit 

� Improvement of cold storage 

technology 

� Support to independent 

researchers in taking new 

outputs to market 

� DFPT resources, from DFPT 

FIN – non-profit organization 

� DFPT members define 

budget and control 

expenditures 



… Israel sets up steering committee to include private sector 

representatives in order to set yearly national R&D priorities 

Independent 

Evaluation 

Committees 

Research Steering 

Committees 

� Private Sector 

Israel Agricultural R&D Structure 

(2006) 

Horticulture 

Livestock 

Ministry of of 

Agriculture 

Chief Scientist 

Agric. Research 

Organization (ARO) 

Regional R&D 

Centers 

Plant Protection 

Soil, Water & 

Environm. Quality 

Technology in in 

Storage 


Engineering 

Universities 

Product-Oriented Institutes Discipline-Oriented Institutes 

� Gilat 

� Newe Yaar 

� Araya Valley 

(1) Statutory Levies are collected by farmer associations and invested in research projects 

Source: Interviews, ARO, Lit Search; Booz Allen Analysis 

163 

Statutory Levies (1) 

Israel R&D Funding Breakdown 

(2006) 

8% 

Int’l Agreements 

13% 

Private 

Sector 

28% 

Ministry of 

Agriculture 

50% 

Prioritization and Funding Decision Process 

�� Chief Scientist allocates funds from Ministry of 

Agriculture under a national yearly R&D plan 

�� Research Steering Committees (comprised by 

researchers, extension personnel and farmers) 

suggest research priorities 

�� Independent evaluation committees assess 

suggestions and provide additional input in 

decision-making 

�� Researchers are required to periodically update 

steering committees on research progress 



In Chile, INDAP funds R&D efforts that are aligned with export 

priorities defined by ProChile and other private sector 

representatives 

Chile – Coordination Between Export Promotion Agency and Main Agricultural R&D Entity 

Background: INDAP 

� The INDAP (Institute for Agricultural Development) is 

part of the Ministry of Agriculture and focuses on 

developing agriculture through: 

– Funding of R&D projects 

– Support in implementation of quality assurance 

initiatives 

– Credit for implementation of agricultural 

development projects 

� INDAP manages financial resources earmarked by the 

Ministry of Agriculture, investing according to internallydefined 

criteria 

� INDAP has a specific export-oriented division, which 

interacts constantly with ProChile 

– Division carries out primary research required by 

the ProChile’s fresh produce export projects 

– Specific budget allocation for export-oriented 

R&D 

– Any credit requested by growers aligned to 

export projects is conceived directly by INDAP 

Source: Interviews; INDAP; Booz Allen Analysis 

164 

Definition of 

Export Strategies 

Deployment into 

Long-Term 

Projects 

Identification of 

Primary Research 

Requirements 

Follow-Up 

� ProChile and industry 

representatives define main 

export strategies – e.g. crops, 

target markets, research 

priorities 

� Strategies are deployed into 

projects with up to 5-year reach 

– Focus exclusively in export 

promotion 

– Decision on ProChile funding 

is made at this stage 

� Primary research requirements 

from export promotion projects 

are sent to INDAP’s exportoriented 

division 

� ProChile and INDAP review 

progress of research projects on 

a yearly-basis, providing input to 

overall export -project review 



UPOV agreements aim at protecting plant breeders’ rights 

internationally – most of Egypt’s competitors - South Africa, Israel 

and Chile - are now members 

General Description 

�� The UPOV Convention was established 

in 1961 to ensure that member states 

acknowledge the achievements of 

breeders of new plant varieties by 

making available to them exclusive rights 

for a given period of time 

�� Under UPOV agreements, materials 

protected in one country will also be 

protected in other affiliated countries 

(“reciprocity” principle) 

�� Countries might be affiliated to UPOV 

under two conventions – 1978 (now 

closed) and 1991 

�� UPOV advocates that its regulations: 

– Provide incentives for plant 

breeders to invest in research in 

different countries 

– Stimulate cooperation among 

member countries – sharing of 

experiences and testing on behalf of 

others 

– Reduce costs for obtaining 

protection in several territories 

Source: UPOV; Lit Search: Booz Allen Analysis 

UPOV Conventions – Overview 

1978 Convention 

1991 Convention 

Migration 

� Signed by South Africa and Chile, amongst other 23 countries 

� Covers commercial marketing, offering for sale and marketing of 

propagating material of a protected variety 

� Only seeds are protected – growers might save seeds for usage in 

following seasons, not having to pay rights 

� Varieties might be freely utilized for development of new species 

� Protection period: 15 years 

� New countries joining UPOV must do so under the 1991 convention 

� Signed by Israel, amongst other 36 countries 

� Covers, in addition to 1978 Convention’s scope, exporting, importing and 

stocking for the above purposes of protected material 

� Protection of harvested material 

– Royalties paid according to volume produced 

– Growers willing to save seeds to following seasons must pay additional 

royalties 

� Development of new varieties based on protected varieties is object of royalty 

payment – processes might also be patented (adjustment to comply with 

recent biotechnological progress) 

� Protection period: 20 years 

� Migration from the 1978 to 1991 Convention is in discussion in diverse countries 

– Might move unbearable costs to farmers, as they would have to buy 

protected propagating material for each season 

– However, the 1978 model makes it harder to adequately fund the plant 

breeding industry and is not fully aligned to new biotechnology requirements 

165 



Joining UPOV is increasingly becoming essential for agricultural 

exporters, especially to ensure access to new varieties – Egypt has 

already stated that it will join the entity as of 2008 

Reasons for Joining UPOV Implications for Egypt 

�� All agricultural exporters are likely to join UPOV 

in a near future – main exporters have already 

joined 

�� Outside of UPOV frameworks, alternative 

agreement structure for IPR protection are highly 

complex 

– Need for bilateral agreements with all countries 

involved in trade 

– Requirement for combined TRIPs, patents and sui 

generis regulatory procedures 

�� For countries not members of UPOV, access to 

foreign R&D investments and positioning as 

provider of technological services are hindered 

– If If breeding material is copied and exported from a 

non-UPOV country, it it is difficult to prosecute 

violators 

– If If material is taken from R&D centers in nonmember 

countries and replicated in other 

locations, prosecution is also difficult 

�� Farmers might face higher costs however 

membership provides access to crops of higher 

value-added and promotes R&D investments 

Source: BAH Interviews 

UPOV – Rationales for Membership and Egypt’s Situation 

166 

�� Egypt is expected to join UPOV as of 2008 – 

“Egypt has already stated over and over in 

international forums that it it will join UPOV” 

�� According to interviewees, Egypt has a history of 

non-compliance with Intellectual Property 

Protection that is hindering the country’s 

competitiveness – therefore justifying affiliation to 

UPOV 

– “Egyptian producers tried to export strawberries of 

protected varieties to France, without the 

adequate payment of royalties” 

– “European authorities have become much more 

vigilant over Egypt’s exports as a result” 

�� As affiliation to UPOV is increasingly becoming a 

“must have” for agricultural exporters, Egypt may 

also pursuit affiliation – “To export varieties desired 

by international markets, access to breeding material 

is required; that is much easier under UPOV 

regulations” 



To establish itself as leader in grains R&D, Brazil has followed 

three basic principles in adhering to intellectual property laws, as 

defined by UPOV 

No Overlap of 

Interests 

Stakeholder 

Association 

Protection of 

Economic 

Interests 

� Registrar of new varieties is handled by the Ministry of Agriculture, as affiliated member of UPOV 

� Registration of new varieties is entirely segregated from research institutes (especially 

Government-owned): the main agricultural research institution is a state-owned enterprise, also 

under the Ministry of Agriculture, but management is entirely separated 

� When establishing its laws for protection of Intellectual Property, the Ministry of Agriculture promoted 

the creation of an independent National Association of Plant Breeders, to: 

– Aggregate industry members’ interests to interact with the Government 

– Design a practical system for royalties of protected cultivars to be collected 

� The royalty collection system, as designed by the stakeholders, was successful – around 95% to 

98% of forecasted royalties were effectively collected 

� The government has added to the general legal framework regulations to protect general country’s 

economic interests – e.g. to avoid abuse of economic power or unfair market control 

� In predetermined cases – mostly for varieties developed inside the country – license is given to other 

entities to produce breeding material for a certain period of time with no royalty payment required 

� Small farmers are free to trade or donate to other small farmers seeds of protected varieties, 

however exclusively to non-commercial ends 

Source: EMBRAPA, JurisDoctor Website, Interviews: Booz Allen Analysis 

Brazil – Principles of Intellectual Property Protection Laws 

167 


IV-VII. Government Agriculture Regulations 

Egypt should apply the methods of countries that have reformed 

their subsidies regime, water and input policies, as well as their 

R&D & Intellectual Property frameworks, to promote its exports 

I 

II II 

Subsidies 

Water Policies 

III 

IV 

Input Policies 

R&D / 

Intellectual 

Property 

Key Lessons Learned for Egypt from Government Agriculture Regulations Benchmark 

� Most of trade distortions result from domestic support and direct export subsidies for farmers in developed 

countries. Outmatched, most best-in-class agricultural exporting countries in the “developing world” tend to 

focus their WTO negotiations on removing all barriers to trade 

� Full trade liberalization could lift both overall economic welfare for local consumers as well as net income for 

local farmers in most agricultural exporting countries 

� Faced with water shortages for their agriculture, most best-in-class exporting countries have embarked on 

reforms focusing on 5 key thrusts: integrated management, infrastructure investment, on-farm 

management, water policy rights attribution as well as pricing 

� Water pricing is key to ensure proper investment in productive infrastructure and restrain wastage. 

International experience provides a number of pricing options that can be tailored to country specificities 

� Input imports processes are key to enhance competitiveness in agriculture-exporting countries – new varieties, 

for instance, need to be introduced at reasonable costs and within adequate timeframes 

� In order to expedite seed and fertilizer import policies, best-in-class countries have adopted regulations such as 

pre-approval processes and certification of origin 

� R&D management in benchmarked countries rely significantly on the participation of the private sector in 

order to encourage applied research. In addition, some export promotion agencies play an active role in 

ensuring alignment of R&D investments to export promotion strategic objectives 

� To encourage innovation from the private sector, intellectual property must be strictly enforced. In 

particular, affiliation to UPOV has been a fixture of most best-in-class exporters to encourage local 

investment from private seed & fertilizer companies 

168 










VIII. Capacity Building Programs – Sanitary Infrastructure 

In Chile, ASOEX has championed the creation of ChileGAP, an 

internationally recognized quality certificate… 

Background 

Overview 

Objectives 

� To enter other main external markets (USA and Europe) countries, 

Chilean products need to carry certification either from: 

– PrimusLabs (USA) 

– EurepGAP (Europe) 

� Obtaining any of those certifications is very expensive for Chilean 

producers 

� ChileGAP is a private program for certification in Good Agricultural 

Practices (GAP) 

� Program has been developed by the FDF (Foundation for 

Development of Fruticulture) under the mandate of ASOEX 

� Certification is executed by ASOEX accredited and internally-trained 

agents, at cost-levels (no margin is earned from the service) 

� ChileGAP aims at harmonizing key requirements from main 

international certifications – covers 80% of PrimusLabs’ 

standards and fully complies with EurepGAP 

� Main objective is to improve access to external markets to 

Chilean producers, through less-costly quality certification 

procedures –expansion of access to internationally-accepted 

certification 

Source: ChileGAP; Booz Allen Analysis 

ChileGAP Certificate – Description 

170 

Steering 

Committee 

� Multi-disciplinary conduction of 

efforts – 12 representatives: 

– 4 exporters 

– 4 growers 

– 2 industrial 

– 2 academic 

Structure 

Executive 

Secretary 

Certification 

Bodies 

Technical 

Committee 

� Analyze, develop an propose to 

Steering Committee on 

certification processes and 

approval of certification bodies 

� 9 expert members (4 export, 4 

academic and 1 research) 

� Registrar of certification bodies, 

consultants and trainers 

Advisors 

Trainers 

Auditors 


VIII. Capacity Building Programs - Sanitary Infrastructure 

… which took 5 years to develop but reduced significantly 

certification costs for Chilean farmers 

ChileGAP Harmonization to EurepGAP – Process Description 

Development (3 Years) Benchmarking (2 Years) 

� Researchers and developers 

gathered key facts on 

EurepGAP requirements and 

adapted them to Chilean 

characteristics 

� Initial development process 

took about 3 years to be 

completed – 1 year of 

academic research / 2 years of 

field pilot programs with 

selected farmers 

� Funding was shared 

between public and private 

sector 

– 60% private sector 

(expert salaries and 

participation in forums) 

– 40% government 

(training and promotion) 

� After initial stages of 

development, an additional 1 

year was spent finalizing 

guidelines, which were then 

sent to EurepGAP for 

equivalence accreditation 

� EurepGAP offers a 

standardized benchmarking 

process, to be applied by any 

country seeking equivalence 

� EurepGAP spent around 8 

months evaluating 

ChileGAP’s benchmarking 

documents 

� “On-site” visits to Chile were 

then carried out by EurepGAP 

personnel (independent expert 

and approval certification staff) 

Marketing and Updating 

(Continuous) 

� Once Chile received the 

EurepGAP equivalence 

certificate, European retail 

chains (active members of 

EurepGAP management) 

logically recognized the new 

standard as acceptable (1) 

� ChileGAP management keeps 

track on EurepGAP updates 

and properly deploys 

implications into new 

standards 

� ProChile plays a role in 

promotion of ChileGAP in 

foreign markets through 

commercial missions to 

Europe and mainly USA 

� North-American retailers 

started to accept ChileGAP as 

quality certification, 

substituting PrimusLabs 

standards 

550-600 

(1) European chains can still require EurepGAP certification instead of ChileGAP – General Regulations impose no restrictions; however this has not happened to date 

Source: Interviews, EurepGAP; ChileGAP; UNCTAD; Lit Search, Booz Allen Analysis 


171 

ChileGAP 

Certification Costs 

(US$ / farm / year) 

900-1,000 900-1,000 

EurepGAP 

PrimusLabs

VIII. Capacity Building Programs - Sanitary Infrastructure 

PPECB is the quality assurance body for South Africa – it operates 

as a private entity with a public service mandate to inspect 

perishables products exports 

General 

Description 

Organization 

Services 

� South Africa’s official export certification agency for perishable 

products, mandated by the Government of South Africa – 

controls all agriculture and animal exports from the country 

– Defines rules and impose penalties 

– Negotiates with producers, shipping companies and other 

stakeholders 

� Independent service provider of quality certification and cold 

chain management services for producers and exporters 

� Board composed by representatives of main crop producers 

and largest exporter companies 

� 30 offices located in 11 production regions, reaching 1.500 

locations 

� Matrix accreditation units – crop-specific and functional 

specialization 

� Two main service streams, reflected in the organizational 

structure 

– Statutory services (Inspection & Cold Chain): governmentmandated 

activities 

– Non-Statutory Services (Customized Services): 

independent and profit-oriented service providing, with 

tailored solutions 

� Funds are acquired through a legislated levy placed on all 

exporters (fixed cost per carton exported, migrating to a 

differentiated levy by product type) 

Source: PPECB 

PPECB – Overview 

172 

Inspection 

Cold Chain 

R&D 

Cold Chain 

Services 

Protocols & 

Standards 

Inspection 

Services 

Citrus 

Grapes 

Pome & Stone 

SubTropical 

Official Food 

Safety 

Public Service Obligation 

Organizational Chart 

Chief 

Executive 

Customized 

Services 

Quality Mgmt. 

Systems 

Mycotoxin 

Analysis 

Pesticides 

Program (SAPIP) 

Certification 

Food Safety 

Specialized 

Services 

Conference 

Center 

Finance & IT 

HR 

Secretariat 

Support Areas 



PPECB performs inspections along the overall export supply chain 

guaranteeing sanitary compliance from farm to transport operators 

Farm/Orchard 

Container Depot 

8 

RRMT Registration 

4 

Cold Store 

Registration 

1 

Advice to 

Producer 

5 

Container Depot Inspection 

9 

Monitoring during Off-loading 

Sea Port Cold Store 

Airport Cold Store 

14 

Monitoring Prior to Loading 

Aircraft 

Source: PPECB 

3 

Export Notification 

Refrigerated Truck (RRMT) 

9 

Monitoring during Offloading 

& Loading 

PPECB – Inspection Process 

Pack-house or intake Depot 

6 

Container Cleanliness & Pre Trip Inspection 

Pallets 

Container Loading 

173 

4 

Cold Store Registration 

2 

Product Inspection 

Flatbed Truck with or without 

Refrigerated Container 

(depending on distance & product) 

12 

Vessel Inspection, 

Calibration & 

Carrying Instruction 

15 

Quality Monitoring Overseas 

Conventional Refrigerated Vessel 

Sea Port 

Container 

Terminal 

Container 

or Pallets? 

Inland Cold Store 

Container 

7 

Monitoring During Loading 

Rail Wagon with or without 

Refrigerated Container 

(depending on distance & product) 

11 

Container Monitoring 

Prior to Sailing 

Refrigerated Container Vessel 

13 

Product Temperature Management 

(During & after Voyage) 

10 

Container Checks in 

Sea Port Terminal 



Moreover, PPECB’s role had to be amended to account for market 

deregulation imperatives 

Background 

Implications for 

PPECB 

Market De-Regulation in South Africa 

� Before 1994, South Africa’s agricultural exports 

were done through government-regulated marketing 

boards 

– Government bought all the production and paid 

fixed prices for farmers… 

– … and sold pooled production in the 

international market 

� Between 1994 and 1996, a de-regulation process 

took place, as economic barriers to the country (due 

to Apartheid) were removed 

– Governmental marketing boards were abolished 

– Producers started to negotiate directly with 

buyers abroad, receiving prices defined by 

international markets 

� PPECB, who controlled quality in a centralized 

framework, along with the governmental marketing 

boards, had to deal with hundreds of producers 

� PPECB also had to assist a number of new players 

establish themselves in the market 

� Numerous producers encountered bankruptcy in the 

process, resulting in significant bad loans, absorbed 

by PPECB’s finances 

Source: South Africa Department of Agriculture; PPECB; Booz Allen Analysis 

174 

Internal 

Int’l Markets Producers 

PPECB’s Strategies During De-Regulation 

� Investment in IT systems to quickly build producer 

databases and manage status of quality audits 

� Training of accreditation personnel to deal with 

new geographical coverage demands 

� Promote local associations through liaising with 

farmers 

– Producers should push export agents towards 

quality-maintenance procedures 

– Exchange of best practices among producers, 

within associations, was an effective means of 

disseminating quality standards 

– Those associations, leveraging on the assets of 

former marketing boards, became important 

crop-oriented associations (e.g. DFPT) 

� Visited European farmers to discuss recent 

developments and sustain relationships during reorganization 

� Established inspectors at European harbors to 

enforce quality at destination to create confidence 

in PPECB in the interim period 



PPECB also acts as the Food Safety Agency for South Africa – 

initiatives are conducted individually and in partnership with 

international entities 

PPECB 

Initiatives 

Joint 

Initiative 

–SAPIP 

Source: PPECB, Booz Allen Analysis 

PPECB – Food Safety Initiatives 

� PPECB was mandated by the Department of Agriculture to define and ensure compliance to food safety 

standards, by conducting audits on all registered FBOs (Food Business Operators) 

� In terms of safety assurance, PPECB has developed the following initiatives: 

– Accreditation in diverse Good Agricultural Practice standards (e.g. EurepGAP, Tesco Nature’s Choice) 

– Biological analyses (e.g. Mycotoxin) in own internationally-certified laboratory network 

– On-site audits on HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points), according to internally-defined 

standards 

– Training and consulting services to growers and other operators in the supply chain to comply with food 

safety standards 

� The majority of South Africa’s fresh produce exports are destined for the European market – requirements 

for pesticide residues in products have become highly restrictive 

� The European Union has pro-actively approached its main suppliers to ensure compliance on pesticide 

requirements – the SAPIP (South African Pesticide Initiative Programme) was established as a result 

� The program has two main focuses: 

– Assist exporting producers to comply with food safety requirements 

– Develop small farmers through training and empowerment initiatives to grow South African export 

volumes to Europe 

� Activities developed involve dissemination of information, research on pesticide-free production methods 

and training of farmers 

� Funding is split 75/25 between European Union and the Department of Agriculture of South Africa – the 

PPECB is the mandated implementation agent 

175 



Developing countries exporters have negotiated with their main 

agricultural trade partners pre-clearance bodies to expedite 

custom & sanitary controls 

Reasons for Establishing Pre-Clearance Bodies 

Risk 

Mitigation 

Expedition 

of Trade 

Procedures 

� For importers, pre-clearance reduces 

risk of contamination – shipped products 

are certified on departure 

� For exporters, pre-clearance is an 

additional point of inspection that helps 

ensure export quality level 

� Minimize inspection requirement on 

arrival, allowing quicker access to 

destination markets – and, reducing 

overall delivery lead-time 

� Reduce rejection ratio (no transportation 

cost incurred for inadequate produces) 

Pre-Clearance Bodies – Overview 

176 

Steps for Establishing a Pre-Clearance Body 

� Formal invitation by host country (exporter) 

� Definition of scope (products covered and pests / 

organisms of concern, according to importer 

regulations) 

� Definition of participating organizations 

– Definition of inspection standards, documentation 

and technical parameters 

– Quality assurance and monitoring at each point of 

production and transportation chain 

– Liaison with farmers and producers 

– Funding of inspection procedures 

– Execution of inspections 

– Gathering of operating data and statistics 

– Definition of corrective actions in case of nonconformity 

Source: Work Plan for USDA Pre-Clearance Inspection and Cold Treatment of South Africa Deciduous Fruit Designated for Export to USA (2005); USDA / AHPIS Pre- 

Clearance Programs Overview; Booz Allen Analysis 



South Africa is currently in the process of establishing a preclearance 

body to USA, for its main export crops 

Scope 

Participating 

Organizations 

South Africa Pre-Clearance Body (USA Market) 

� South Africa’s pre-clearance body agreement with USA covers DFPT’s crops – apples, grapes, pears, stone 

fruits 

� Pests and organisms of concern were defined accordingly to USA standards for the selected crops 

� Definition of inspection standards, documentation and technical parameters – USDA (in accordance to US Federal 

Laws and USDA regulations 

� Quality assurance and monitoring at each point of production and transportation chain 

– DFPT (logistical support to inspection when required) 

– PPECB (biological analyses according to food safety procedures, quality inspection in pack houses, 

additionally to its cold chain inspection statutory activities) 

� Liaison with farmers and producers – DFPT (liaising of farmers and growers to ensure awareness and adherence 

to the program) 

� Funding of inspection procedures 

– DFPT (integral coverage of costs) 

– USDA (accounting and reporting to other involved institutions, at its own costs) 

� Execution of inspections 

– Conjoint work between professionals of USDA and Department of Agriculture of South Africa (DoA) 

– Through the PEECB, the Department of Agriculture will monitor Good Agricultural Practices at farms and 

schedule inspections 

– PPECB personnel will be certified by USDA to perform inspections 

– USDA will certify pack houses, vessels and calibrate equipment utilized in transportation 

� Gathering of operating data and statistics – Department of Agriculture 

� Definition of corrective actions in case of non-conformity – USDA (actions taken by DoA and reported to USDA) 

Source: Work Plan for USDA Pre-Clearance Inspection and Cold Treatment of South Africa Deciduous Fruit Designated for Export to USA (2005); Booz Allen Analysis 

177 


VIII. Capacity Building Programs – Agricultural Statistics 

Finally, Chile has built a central repository for agricultural statistics 

that provides not only comprehensive information but also data 

mining capabilities 

… 

Others 

Central Bank 

National Statistics 

Institute 

Environmental 

Resource Database 

Customs 

Source: ODEPA; Booz Allen Analysis 

Chile – Agricultural Statistics Repositories 

Statistical Data Inputs Main Outputs 

Own Research 

ODEPA 

Office of Agricultural 

Studies and Policies 

� Economic 

– Agriculture / Livestock 

GDP 

– Foreign Trade Balance 

(Nat’l Accounts) 

� Production – volumes and 

harvested areas 

� Market Info – recent pricing 

information for local markets 

� Price Series – historical 

product pricing information 

� Foreign Trade – detailed 

trade information (e.g. trade 

matrixes per product) 

� Dairy Market Info –data 

relevant to specific 

governmental projects 

� Detailed Foreign Trade Info 

(e.g. historical database of 

exports per company) 

178 

Benefits 

�� Ease in locating and 

accessing any required 

agricultural data 

�� Convergence of info 

under a single 

specialized unit allows 

development of more 

sophisticated analyses 

– especially to support 

market studies and 

policy assessment 

�� Reduced costs and 

improved data 

consistency 

– No duplicate inputs 

for same data 

– Other entities are 

provided with 

information by the 

central repository 

(e.g. ProChile) 


VIII. Capacity Building Programs - Education 

In South Africa, the Agriculture R&D leverage the extensive 

network of universities, organized by crop-specific areas of 

specialization 

ARC – Network of Universities and 

Research Focus 

Universities 

University of 

Pretoria 

University of 

Stellenbosch 

University of 

Orange Free 

State 

University of 

Natal 

Research Focus 

�Citrus and 

Ornamental Crops 

�Deciduous Fruit and 

Viticulture 

�Vegetables 

�Subtropical Crops 

and Vegetables 

Source: ARC; Lit Search; Booz Allen Analysis 

Joint Initiatives between ARC and Universities – 

Integration with Farmers 

Horticultural 

Training 

Project 

Database 

Field Work 

179 

� Two year diploma-course and training in 

horticulture for farmers, including 

management, marketing and negotiation 

of production 

� Conducted by the faculty of agriculture in 

each university and in other specific 

organization under supervision of ARC 

� Maintenance of a database of all current 

and completed research projects 

undertaken by ARC institutions 

� Communication tools such as periodic 

reports, scientific journals and national 

congresses to disseminate project 

information 

� Field research in association with farmers 

in technological projects of quick 

implementation – e.g. “fog harvesting” 

(high-performance fog water stowage) 


VIII. Capacity Building Programs 

Most benchmarked countries have focused their long-term 

capacity building efforts on a robust sanitary infrastructure, 

agricultural statistics repository and effective education system 

I 

II II 

III 

Robust 

Sanitary 


Accurate 


Statistics 

Effective 


Education 

Key Lessons Learned for Egypt from Capacity Building Programs Benchmark 

� Establishing Good Agricultural Practices through a robust sanitary infrastructure is a 

fundamental precondition to boosting commodities export. As such, quality assurance bodies 

have become increasingly critical in enforcing strict SPS standards for export 

� To avoid unnecessary bureaucratic burden, some benchmarked countries have established 

private companies to monitor export quality, with a strong supervisory role from the Government 

� Informed decision-making and strategic planning requires accurate, consistent and relevant data 

sources on agriculture statistics from production to export. This data repository provides exporters 

with market intelligence information, which enables them to build a demand-driven strategy 

� Most benchmarked countries have established an integrated institute that collects agriculture 

production/export data repository from all Governmental and non-Governmental reliable statistical 

sources in the industry 

� Building long-term competitive advantage for agricultural export require adequate investment in a 

superior educational system that prepares agri-graduates for their future employment 

� As such, most benchmarked countries have established a strong institutional link (e.g., traineeship, 

applied research grants) between University Excellence Centers and farmers to focus 

technological and managerial teachings on market demands 

180 


Egypt’s Agricultural Export Market Potential 

� Introduction 

� Identification of Strategic Crops for Egypt Agricultural Exports 

� Selected Market Analysis of Egypt Strategic Crops 

� Appendix 


To assess future Egypt’s commodity export, this document 

identifies high potential crops and provides a high level 

assessment of the competitive landscape in key target markets 

Objectives of Document 

� Identify strategic crops for Egypt agricultural exports, and estimate associated targets in volume and 

value, taking into account supply-side constraints, as well as new demand opportunities: 

– Conduct supply driven analysis to identify optimal crops produced by Egypt, that maximize the yield of 

natural resources 

– Conduct demand driven analysis to assess new crop export opportunities for Egypt 

– Develop the long-term export targets, in volume and value, for a combined list of crops which meets 

supply-side constraints, as well as new demand opportunities 

– Identify top 6-8 crops on which to focus export promotion efforts in priority 

� For the selected top 6-8 crops, and for the major importing countries, identify competing exporting 

countries, their market share, and import prices 

182 






� Appendix 


We have followed an approach of six worksteps to analyze Egypt’s 

strategic crops and their importing markets 

Supply Analysis 

11 

Demand Analysis 

Analyze current 

crop production 

mix for Egypt 

33 

Analyze crop 

categories that 

could be 

potentially 

produced by Egypt 

Approach for Analyzing Egypt Strategic Crops and Importing Markets 

22 

44 

Identify optimal 

crops that 

maximize yield of 

natural resources 

Identify top crops 

based on volume, 

value, and growth 

potential in major 

destination 

markets 

184 

Combined Analysis 

55 

Identify top 6-8 

crops, based on 

their forecasted 

export value, 

resource 

optimization and 

technical feasibility 

66 

Market Analysis 

Analyze importing 

country markets for 

the top 6-8 export 

crops 


A screening framework driven by supply and demand 

considerations was used to short-list Egypt top agricultural crops, 

based on their export value and resource yield optimization 

SUPPLY ANALYSIS 

Crops Produced in 


DEMAND ANALYSIS (1) 

Crop 

Categories 

HS-4 Code 

Import Volume, 

Value, and Growth 

in each Market 

Screening Framework for Identifying Egypt Strategic Crops 

Optimization of Land Use 

and Water Consumption 

Short-Listed Relative 

Crop Categories Significance in 

HS-4 Code Volume and Value 

COMBINED ANALYSIS 

Short-List A 

10-20 Crops 

HS-6 Codes 

Short-List B 

20-30 Crops 

HS-6 Codes 

Egypt Forecasted 

Export Value 

Crops Technical 

Feasibility and 

Resource 

Optimization 

6-8 Crops 

Note: (1) Given the amount of data required to analyze overall demand across a large number of countries and products, initial demand analysis had to be done at crop category 

level and then tailored to the crop-specific level 

185 


Currently, Egypt produces 69 crops (HS-6 code) distributed across 

6 major crop categories: horticulture, cereals, sugar crops, oil 

crops, fibers, and SSF (spices, stimulants and flowers) 

Horticulture 

Cereals 

Sugar Crops 

Oil Crops 

Fibers 

SSF 

� Potatoes 

� Tomatoes 

� Onions 

� Garlic 

� Cauliflowers 

� Lettuce 

� Carrots 

� Rice 

� Wheat 

� Rye 

�� Sugar cane 

�� Sugar beet 

�� Molasses 

�� Nuts 

�� Ground nuts 

�� Soybeans 

�� Cotton 

�� Flax 

�� Bulbs 

�� Cut flowers 

�� Live plants 

�� Foliage 

Egypt Agricultural Production (2005) 

� Cucumbers 

� Peas (1) 

� Beans (2) 

� Artichoke 

� Eggplants 

� Spinach 

� Olives 

� Barley 

� Maize 

� Sorghum 

� Walnuts 

� Linseed 

� Sunflower 

� Pepper 

� Anise 

� Badian 

� Coriander 

� Sweet Potatoes 

� Bananas 

� Dates 

� Figs 

� Avocados 

� Mangos 

� Guavas 

� Cotton Seeds 

� Sesamum Seeds 

� Cumin 

� Caraway 

� Fennel 

� Oranges 

� Tangerines 

� Lemon/ Limes 

� Grapefruits 

� Citrus 

� Grapes 

Notes: (1) Peas include chick peas and cow peas; (2) Beans include green beans, dry beans, broad beans, and horse beans 

186 


� Watermelons 

� Apples 

� Pears/ 

Quinces 

� Apricots 

� Peaches / 

nectarines 

� Plums 

� Strawberries 

� Raspberries 

� Cantaloupe 

� Pomegranate 

� Parsley 

� Dill 


Others (1) 

Onions 

Oranges 

Potatoes 

Tomatoes 

Horticulture represents the main crop category in production 

volume, followed by cereals and sugar crops – The breakdown of 

exports by category is similar to that of production 

27.7 

42% 

5% 

5% 

9% 

27% 

Others 

Rice 

Maize 

Wheat 

23.0 

27% 

33% 

36% 

Grapes 

Watermelon 

Breakdown of Egypt Agricultural Production 

Volume by Crop Category 

(2005, in Million Ton) 

Sugar 

Beet 

Sugar 

Cane 

20.4 1.0 1.0 0.1 73.1 

17% 

83% 

Others 

Dried Beans 

Onions 

Potatoes 

Oranges 

Rice 99% 

Horticulture Cereals Sugar Oil Crops Fibers SSF Total Horticulture Cereals Sugar 

Crops 

Crops 

Note: (1) Includes around 33 crops that each represents less than 3% of the total horticulture production 

Source: FAOSTAT, Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, UN Comtrade, AEC 

187 

1.4 

Others 

4% 

7% 

27% 

45% 

0.9 

0.5 

Sugar Beet 

Sugar Canes 11% 

Molasses 

89% 

0.04 


Breakdown of Egypt Agricultural Exports 

Volume by Crop Category 

(2005, in Million Ton) 

Flax 

Cotton 88% 

0.2 0.01 

3.0 

Oil Crops Fibers SSF Total 


The export value yield per land and water utilization was analyzed for 

the key 69 crops currently produced 

Metric Selected 

Methodology and Assumptions for Resource Yield Optimization 

188 


Export Value per Land Utilization Export Value per Water Consumption 

Export value per unit of area harvested 

Export value per unit of water consumed 

= FOB x Yield 

= FOB x Yield / Water consumed per Feddan 

Unit �� USD per feddan harvested for exports � USD per m3 � USD per m of water consumed for exports 

3 of water consumed for exports 

Source 

Assumption 

�� FOB: UN Comtrade; Ministry of Agriculture and 

Land Reclamation statistics 

�� Yield : FAOSTAT 

�� Costs per area harvested and per crop are 

constant for all crops 

�� Costs of new lands are not considered 

�� FOB: UN Comtrade; Ministry of Agriculture and 

Land Reclamation statistics 

�� Yield: FAOSTAT 

�� Water consumed: World Bank Report 1998 

�� Crop Seasonality: Ministry of Agriculture and Land 

Reclamation statistics 

Type of Crop 

Water Consumption per 

Area Harvested 

�� Summer crops 

� 4,485 m 

�� Winter crops 

�� All season crops 

�� Cotton 

�� Rice 

�� Sugar cane 

�� Potatoes 

�� Wheat 

�� Orchards 

3 per Fed 

� 1,400 m3 per Fed 

� 3,300 m3 per Fed 

� 3,180 m3 per Fed 

� 8,800 m3 per Fed 

� 12,000 m3 per Fed 

� 3,300 m3 per Fed 

� 1,600 m3 per Fed 

� 3,310 m3 � 4,485 m 

per Fed 

3 per Fed 

� 1,400 m3 per Fed 

� 3,300 m3 per Fed 

� 3,180 m3 per Fed 

� 8,800 m3 per Fed 

� 12,000 m3 per Fed 

� 3,300 m3 per Fed 

� 1,600 m3 per Fed 

� 3,310 m3 per Fed 

�� Water is subsidized and assumed to be at no cost 


7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 


per Water 

Consumed 

($ per m 3 ) 

Fennel 

Cotton 

$ 3,000 per Feddan 

Lettuce 

Flax 

Eggplant 

Cucumbers 

Cauliflowers 

Sweet potatoes 

Plum 

Bananas 

Sugar beet 

Garlic 

High Export 

Value per Water 

Consumed 

Watermelon 

Dates 

Peach 

Sugar cane 

Source: UN Comtrade; FAOSTAT; Ministry of Agriculture; World Bank Report 1998 

Egypt Agricultural Production Resource Optimization 

189 

Grapes 

0 4,000 8,000 12,000 

16,000 

Strawberries 

High Export 

Value per 

Land Used 

$1.1 per m 3 

Export Value per 

Land Used ($ per Fed) 


Fourteen crops produced in Egypt record the highest export value 

per resource consumption 

Export Value per Water Consumption vs. Export Value per Land Utilization 

Artichokes 

Tomatoes 

Short-List A of Crops 

�� Fourteen crops optimize 

the export value per land 

and water utilization : 

1. Strawberries 

2. Grapes 

3. Tomatoes 

4. Artichokes 

5. Garlic 

6. Flax 

7. Lettuce 

8. Watermelon 

9. Cucumbers 

10. Cauliflowers 

11. Peaches / nectarines 

12. Dates 

13. Eggplant 

14. Sweet Potatoes 


Demand for agricultural commodities was assessed in 49 major 

countries distributed along five key export regional markets: 

Europe, USA, CIS, GCC, and Far East 

EU-25 

�� Austria 

�� Belgium 

�� Cyprus 

�� Czech Republic 

�� Denmark 

�� Estonia 

�� Finland 

�� France 

�� Greece 

�� Germany 

�� Hungary 

�� Ireland 

�� Italy 

�� Latvia 

�� Lithuania 

�� Luxembourg 

�� Malta 

�� Netherlands 

�� Poland 

�� Portugal 

�� Slovakia 

�� Slovenia 

�� Spain 

�� Sweden 

�� UK 

Egypt Agriculture Export Regional Markets 

USA 

GCC 

�� Bahrain 

�� Kuwait 

�� Oman 

�� Qatar 

�� Saudi Arabia 

�� UAE 

190 

Far East 

�� China 

�� Hong Kong 

�� Japan 

�� Malaysia 

�� South Korea 


CIS 

�� Armenia 

�� Azerbaijan 

�� Belarus 

�� Georgia 

�� Kazakhstan 

�� Kyrgyzstan 

�� Moldova 

�� Russia 

�� Tajikistan 

�� Turkmenistan 

�� Ukraine 

�� Uzbekistan 


To analyze demand, the 62 crop categories (HS-4 code) available 

on UN Comtrade were ranked based on their volume, value and 

forecasted growth in destination markets 

TOTAL UN COMTRADE 

CROP CATEGORIES 

46 Crop 

Categories 

Actually 

Produced by 


16 Crop 

Categories 

Potentially 

Produced by 


62 Crop Categories 

A 

B 

List of of Crop 

Categories 

(HS-4 Code) 

HS 0803 

HS 0805 

HS 1001 

HS 1005 

HS 5201 

…… 

Demand Driven Selection Framework 

EU 

USA 

GCC 

CIS 

FE 

gro 

2005 gro gro 

2005 2005 gro gro 

wth 2005 2005 gro gro 

wth wth 2005 2005 gro gro 

wth wth 2005 2005 gro 

wth wth 2005 

wth wth wth 

Top Ranking Crop Categories 

in Volume and Volume Growth 

(2005) 

List of of Crop 

Categories 

(HS-4 Code) 

HS 0803 

HS 0805 

HS 0805 

HS 0806 

HS 5301 

…… 

EU 

USA 

GCC 

CIS 

FE 

gro 

2005 gro gro 

2005 2005 gro gro 

wth 2005 2005 gro gro 

wth wth 2005 2005 gro gro 

wth wth 2005 2005 gro 

wth wth 2005 

wth wth wth 

Top Ranking Crop Categories 

in Value and Value Growth 

(2005) 

191 

�Crop �Crop categories were ranked 

based on import volume in in 

each market. Categories that 

appeared among the top 10 in in 

at least 3 markets got selected 

�Then, �Then, crop categories were 

ranked based on import 

volume growth in in each 

market. Categories that 



�Crop �Crop categories were ranked 

based on import value in in each 

market. Categories that 



�Then, �Then, crop categories were 

ranked based on import value 

growth in in each market. 

Categories that appeared 

among the top 10 in in at least 3 

markets got selected 


C 

HS 1001 

HS 1005 

High volume 

and growth High value 

and growth 

HS 0602 

HS 0803 

HS 0804 

HS 0805 

HS 0808 

HS 0810 

HS 1006 

HS 1701 

HS 0713 

HS 0806 

HS 0901 

List of Highest Ranking 

Crop Categories across 

the Five Markets 


10 crop categories (HS-4 code) were retained based on their ranking 

in 2005 and on their forecasted growth for 2005-2017, in terms of 

import volume, in each of the five destination regional markets 

A 


Highest Ranking Crop Categories in Import Volume (2005) and Forecasted Growth (2005-2017) (1) 

List of Crop Categories 

(HS-4 Code) 

EU-25 USA GCC CIS Far East 

2005 Growth 2005 Growth 2005 Growth 2005 Growth 2005 Growth 

HS 0803 Bananas 4,862 2% 4,089 1% 257 7% 1,197 80% 1,744 4% 

HS 0805 Citrus Fruits 2,358 2% 522 10% 522 6% 1,214 45% 875 -3% 

HS 0808 Apples, Pears and Quinces 1,590 5% 201 3% 192 9% 997 78% 147 -5% 

HS 1001 Wheat and Meslin 7,864 2% 1,295 -3% 210 24% 360 36% 15,451 -3% 

HS 1005 Maize (Corn) 2,942 1% 282 1% 1,366 -2% 53 62% 20,722 -2% 

HS 1006 Rice 1,116 3% 408 9% 1,308 12% 535 54% 2,152 0% 

HS 1701 Solid Cane or Beet Sugar 2,446 -1% 2,088 -1% 916 17% 4,599 56% 5,628 -1% 

HS 0602 Live Plants nes 135 8% 128 0% 22 29% 60 -7% 497 49% 

HS 0804 Dates, Figs, Pineapples, 

Avocado, Guava 

1,282 10% 1,121 14% 79 40% 66 102% 400 7% 

HS 0810 Fruit nes (2) 


462 5% 265 6% 36 27% 102 116% 691 22% 

HS 0702 Tomatoes 334 3% 952 5% 248 11% 246 100% 10 6% 

HS 0806 Grapes 1,014 3% 636 5% 45 10% 264 104% 241 7% 

HS 1003 Barley 440 1% 120 -9% 6,026 -3% 251 1% 1,244 0% 

… 

Top ten HS-4 code crop category in specific market xxx Volume in thousand ton x% Forecasted growth in volume for 2005-2017 

Top 10 in 

volume in 

at least 3 

markets 

Top 10 in 

volume 

growth in 

at least 3 

markets 

Top 10 in 

less than 

3 markets 

Notes:(1) The forecasted value of import volume growth is based on historical growth from 1995 to 2005, and in few cases from 2003 to 2005 (when historical values were not available) 


(2) HS 0810 includes strawberries 

192

Similarly, 11 crop categories (HS-4 code) were retained based on their 

ranking in 2005 and on their forecasted growth for 2005-2017, in terms 

of import value, in each of the five destination regional markets 

B 


Highest Ranking Crop Categories in Import Value (2005) and Forecasted Growth (2005-2017) (1) 

List of Crop Categories 

(HS-4 Code) 

EU-25 USA GCC CIS Far East 

2005 Growth 2005 Growth 2005 Growth 2005 Growth 2005 Growth 

HS 0803 Bananas 4,057 3% 1,372 0% 104 8% 554 33% 826 4% 

HS 0805 Citrus Fruits 1,742 3% 434 19% 221 6% 566 32% 751 0% 

HS 0806 Grapes 1,680 5% 1,149 9% 27 4% 170 45% 362 5% 

HS 0808 Apples, Pears and Quinces 1,481 4% 232 7% 102 9% 421 37% 90 0% 

HS 1006 Rice 549 1% 261 8% 685 13% 135 15% 805 3% 

HS 1701 Solid Cane or Beet Sugar 1,577 0% 926 -3% 237 25% 1,229 -8% 1,403 20% 

HS 0901 Coffee 4,765 -6% 2,895 -4% 73 0% 116 31% 1,146 -6% 

HS 0602 Live Plants nes 318 7% 374 12% 22 16% 85 146% 129 6% 

HS 0713 Vegetables, Leguminous Dried 752 23% 183 14% 32 -25% 88 34% 157 33% 

HS 0804 Dates, Figs, Pineapples, 

Avocado, Guava 

1,587 9% 938 13% 43 27% 36 30% 349 7% 



870 7% 481 11% 30 -23% 68 73% 584 15% 

HS 0702 Tomatoes 361 4% 1,126 9% 31 9% 136 106% 13 8% 

HS 0703 Onions 227 4% 442 5% 64 11% 94 72% 1,560 1% 

… 

Top ten HS-4 code crop category in specific market xxx Value in million US dollars x% Forecasted growth in value for 2005-2017 

Top 10 in 

value in at 

least 3 

markets 

Top 10 in 

value 

growth in 

at least 3 

markets 

Top 10 in 

less than 

3 markets 

Notes:(1) The forecasted value of import volume growth is based on historical growth from 1995 to 2005, and in few cases from 2003 to 2005 (when historical values were not available) 


(2) HS 0810 includes strawberries 

193

Demand analysis resulted in the selection of 13 crop categories: 2 for 

their high import volume and growth, 3 for their high import value 

and growth, and 8 for their high import volume, value, and growth 

HS 1001 Wheat and Meslin 

HS 1005 Maize (Corn) 

C 

Selected List of Crop Categories (1) 

High Volume and Growth 

HS 0602 Live Plants nes 

HS 0803 Bananas 

HS 0804 Dates, Figs, 

Pineapples, Avocado, Guava 

HS 0805 Citrus Fruits 

HS 0808 Apples, Pears and 

Quinces 



HS 1006 Rice 

HS 1701 Solid Cane or Beet 

Sugar 

High Value and Growth 


HS 0713 Vegetables, 

Leguminous Dried 

HS 0806 Grapes 

HS 0901 Coffee 

2 Crop Categories 8 Crop Categories 

3 Crop Categories 

Notes: (1) The crop categories that were selected represent around 50% of total volume and value for all markets; (2) HS 0810 includes strawberries 

Source: BAH Analysis; UNComtrade 


194


The 13 crop categories (HS-4 code) translated into a list of 47 crops 

(HS-6 code), out of which we retained a Short-List B of 27 crops 

mostly based on relative value and volume considerations,… 

Top HS-6 Code Crops Selection 

HS-4 

Code 

Retained (HS-6 Code) Removed (HS-6 Code) 

HS-4 

Code 

Retained (HS-6 Code) Removed (HS-6 Code) 

HS 0602 

�� HS 060210 - Cuttings and 

slips 

�� HS 060220 - Trees 

�� HS 060240 - Roses 

�� HS 060230 – 

Rhododendrons and 

azaleas 

�� HS 060291 - Mushroom 

spawn 

�� HS 060299 - Plants live 

HS 0808 HS 0810 

�� HS 080810 - Apples 

�� HS 080820 - Pears and 

Quinces 

�� HS 081010 - Strawberries 

�� HS 081040 - Cranberries 

and blueberries 

�� HS 081020 - Raspberries, 

Blackberries, Mulberries,… 

�� HS 081030 - Currants and 

�� HS 071331 - Gram beans 

�� HS 071310 - Peas dried 

�� HS 081090 - Fruit, nes 

gooseberries 

HS 0713 

�� HS 071333 - Kidney and 

White Pea beans 

�� HS 071320 - Chickpeas 

�� HS 071332 - Red beans 

�� HS 090111 - Coffee, not 

roasted, not 

�� HS 090112 - Coffee, not 

roasted, decaffeinated 

�� HS 071350 - Broad and 

�� HS 071340 - Lentils dried 

decaffeinated 

�� HS 090122 - Coffee, 

HS 0803 HS 0804 

Horse beans 

�� HS 080300 - Bananas 

�� HS 080410 - Dates 

�� HS 080430 - Pineapples 

�� HS 080440 - Avocados 

�� HS 080450 - Guavas and 

�� HS 080420 - Figs 

HS 0901 

HS 1001 �� HS 100120 - Wheat and 

Meslin 

roasted, decaffeinated 

�� HS 090190 - Coffee 

substitutes 

�� HS 090121 - Coffee, 

Roasted, not decaf. 

�� HS 100111 - Durum wheat 

Mangoes 

HS 1005 �� HS 100590 - Maize �� HS 100510 - Maize seed 

�� HS 080510 - Oranges 

�� HS 080520 - Mandarins 

HS 0805 

� 

0805 

�HS HS 080530 - Lemon and 

limes 

�� HS 080540 - Grapefruits 

�� HS 080590 - Citrus, nes 

HS 0806 �� HS 080610 - Grapes 

Source: BAH Analysis; UNComtrade 

195 

HS 1006 

HS 1701 TOTAL �� HS 100630 - Rice, semimilled 

or wholly milled 

�� HS 170111 - Raw sugar, 

cane 

27 crops retained �� HS 100610 - Rice in the 

husk (paddy or rough) 

�� HS 100620 - Rice, husked 

�� HS 100640 - Rice, broken 

�� HS 170112 - Raw sugar, 

beet 

19 crops removed 


… And removed 18 crops that were insignificant in volume and 

value percentages within their category 

NON NON EXHAUSTIVE 

EXHAUSTIVE 

% Value 

40% 

20% 

0% 

40% 

20% 

Dates 

Figs 

HS 0804 Top Crops Selection 

Avocados 

Percentage of Value and Volume of Crops within each Crop Category (1) 

Mangos 

Pineapples 

0% 20% 40% 60% 


Grapefruit 

Mandarin 

Oranges 

Lemons and limes 

% Volume 

0% 

Citrus nes 

% Volume 

0% 20% 40% 60% 

% Value 


Cranberries 

Strawberries 

Currants 

Raspberry 

0% 50% 

Fruit, nes 

% Volume 

Note: (1) Similar analysis was undertaken on the categories HS-0602, HS-0713, HS-1701,HS-1001 and HS 1005 and lead to discarding 

xxx Removed 

Rhododendrons and Azaleas, Mushroom Spawn, Plants live, Peas dried, Chickpeas, Red beans, Lentils dried, drum wheat, maize seed Proprietary & Confidential 

and Raw Sugar Beet 

196 

40% 

20% 

0% 


% Value % Value 

Rice, semi-milled 

60% 

50% 

Rice in the husk 

Rice, husked 


0% 

Rice, broken 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 

% Volume

Thus, after combining the selected crops from the supply analysis 

(Short-List A) and the selected ones stemming from the demand 

analysis (Short-List B), a total of 38 crops (HS-6 code) was obtained 

Only Supply 

Analysis 

Outcome 

Both Supply 

and Demand 

Analyses 

Outcome 

Only Demand 

Analysis 

Outcome 

�� HS 070200 - Tomatoes 

�� HS 070320 - Garlic 

�� HS 070410 - Cauliflowers 

�� HS 070519 - Lettuce 

�� HS 070700 - Cucumbers 

�� HS 070910 - Artichokes 

�� HS 070930 - Eggplants 

�� HS 080410 - Dates 

�� HS 080610 - Grapes 

�� HS 081010 - Strawberries 

Supply and Demand Analysis Crop List 

197 

� HS 071420 - Sweet Potatoes 

� HS 080710 - Watermelons 

� HS 080930 – Peaches and 

nectarines 

� HS 530129 - Flax 

�� HS 060210 - Cuttings and slips 

� HS 080590 - Citrus, nes 

�� HS 060220 - Trees 

� HS 080810 - Apples 

�� HS 060240 - Roses 

� HS 080820 - Pears and Quinces 

�� HS 071331 - Gram beans 

� HS 081040 - Cranberries 

�� HS 071333 - Kidney and White beans 

� HS 081090 - Fruit, nes 

�� HS 071350 - Broad and Horse beans 

� HS 090111 - Coffee, not roasted, 

�� HS 080300 - Bananas 

not decaffeinated 

�� HS 080430 - Pineapples 

� HS 100120- Wheat except 

�� HS 080440 - Avocados 

durum wheat, and meslin 

�� HS 080450 - Guavas and Mangoes 

� HS100590- Maize except seed 

�� HS 080510 - Oranges 

� HS 100630 - Rice, semi-milled or 

�� HS 080520 - Mandarins 

wholly milled 

�� HS 080530 - Lemon and Limes 

�� HS 080540 - Grapefruits 

� HS 170111 - Raw sugar, cane 


11 

crops 

3 

crops 

24 

crops 

38 crops in total 

Short-List A: 

14 crops 

Short-List B: 

27 crops 


We also added cotton, potatoes and onions, since they represent 

around 31% of Egypt’s exported value in 2005, leading to a final 

combined list of 41 crops 

Guavas and Mangoes 

Others 

Flax 

1% Grapes 

14% 

2% 3% Strawberries 

Onions 

3% 

1% 

Potatoes 

6% 

Cotton 

24% 

Total Egypt 

Exports: 

$ 1,356 million 

in 2005 

Additional Crops based on 2005 Export Value 

22% 

Rice 

38 selected crops 

Crops added to the model 

Other crops that were not included in the model 

Source: UN Comtrade; Ministry of Agriculture and Statistics 

17% Oranges 

Selected Crops 

198 


Rationale and Conclusion 

�� The list obtained from the supply and 

demand analysis does not include 

cotton, potatoes, and onions, which 

represent around 31% of Egypt’s 

export value in 2005 

�� These crops were added to the model 

to allow their evaluation with the crops 

derived from the supply and demand 

analysis 

�� Thus, the final list of 41 crops includes 

– 38 selected crops 

– Cotton 

– Potatoes 

– Onions 


Furthermore, a number of crops mentioned in our interviews with 

key stakeholders were not selected in the top 41 list due to a 

combination of supply or/and demand limitations 

Crops Not Selected 

Pomegranate 

Herbs 

Olives 

Cut-flowers 

Other: Broccoli, 

Mungtouth, sugar 

snap peas 

Source: UN Comtrade; Ministry of Agriculture and Statistics 

Supply & Demand-Side Considerations For Some Non-Selected Crops 

Supply-Side Analysis Demand-Side Analysis 

� Pomegranate was not ranked among the top 

17 performers in yield of natural resources 

utilization 

� Herbs natural resources yield ranks poorly 

compared to other crops 

� Olives were not ranked among the top 17 

performers in yield of natural resources 

utilization ( land and water) 

� No available data on cut-flowers natural 

resources yield 

� There is no HS6 code standing for each of 

these crops, therefore these crops were not 

included in the supply analysis 

199 


� No available HS6 code 

� Highest demand for juice (processed 

food) 

� Herbs did not belong to the top 10 HS 4 

with the highest demand in volume , value 

or growth 

� Main demand market is processed food 

(e.g., canned olives, olive oil) and not raw 

commodities 

� Cut-flowers were not ranked among the 

top 10 performers in volume, value or 

growth demand 

� There is no HS6 standing for each of 

these crops, therefore these can not be 

singled out in the analysis 



The selected 41 crops had a 2005 total import market volume of 

120 million tons in the five regional destination markets – Egypt 

exported around 1.4 million tons of these crops 

Import Market Volume per Crop for the 41 Selected Crops 

By Destination Market (2005, in Thousand Ton) 

NON-EXHAUSTIVE 

NON-EXHAUSTIVE 

HS-6 

Code 

100120 

100590 

170111 

080300 

090111 

100630 

520110 

080510 

080810 

080710 

070310 

080610 

070320 

070190 

… 

Wheat except durum 

Maize except seed 

Rice 

Cotton 

Apples 

Onion 

Grapes 

Garlic 

… 

Crop Name 

Raw sugar, cane 

Bananas 

Coffee, not roasted (1) 

Oranges 

Watermelon 

Potatoes 

TOTAL 

Note: (1) Not decaffeinated 



Volume 

(2005) 

0 

0 

58 

0 

0 

895 

150 

594 

0.33 

10 

86 

26 

2 

363 

… 

1,441 

EU-25 

Market 

Imported 

Volume 

(2005) 

2,888 

6,003 

1,783 

4,862 

2,572 

254 

516 

1,042 

1,118 

507 

271 

692 

72 

603 

… 

30,490 

USA 

Market 

Imported 

Volume 

(2005) 

299 

952 

286 

… 

200 

611 

224 

896 

1,750 

4,089 

1,112 

370 

7 

69 

123 

908 

14,467 

GCC 

Market 

Imported 

Volume 

(2005) 

1,364 

156 

877 

257 

27 

1,191 

8 

369 

169 

25 

296 

37 

248 

34 

… 

5,454 

CIS Market 

Imported 

Volume 

(2005) 

32 

145 

4,251 

1,197 

50 

478 

7 

525 

683 

182 

338 

199 

246 

362 

… 

10,226 

FE Market 

Imported 

Volume 

(2005) 

31,646 

13,357 

4,251 

1,744 

531 

1,883 

3,141 

512 

136 

185 

531 

189 

10 

59 

… 

Total 

Imported 

Volume 

(2005) 

36.154 

20,556 

12,912 

12,149 

4,292 

4,176 

3,679 

2,517 

2,229 

1,807 

1,735 

1,728 

1,528 

1,344 

… 

59,796 120,434 


The 41 crops were further filtered according to forecasted export 

value, technical feasibility, and resources optimization 

Combined List of 

41 Crops 



Selection of 6-8 Strategic Crops for Egypt Exports 

Three Dimensional Filter 

Technical 

Feasibility 

6-8 Crops 

Resources 

Optimization 

(Yield of Natural 

Resources ) 

201 


Filtering Method Overview 

�The �The last filter ranks the 41 crops according to their: 

− Forecasted export value in 2017 

− Technical feasibility 

− Current resources optimization 

�Egypt �Egypt forecasted export value per crop and per 

regional market is based on the: 

− Projection of each regional market‘s demand in 

2017 

− Estimation of Egypt market share per crop in 

2017 

− Forecast of Egypt FOB per crop and per market 

in 2017 

�Technical �Technical Feasibility assesses qualitatively Egypt’s 

capabilities to produce, export and promote the 

crops 

�Current �Current resources optimization ranks the crops 

according to the current export value per resource 

utilization (land used and water consumed) 

�The �The final ranking of crops is derived from the 

consolidation of the three rankings, and leads to the 

selection of the top 6-8 crops 


An analytical model was developed to identify the top 6-8 strategic 

crops for Egypt exports, through five major steps 

Destination Market 

Import Volume per 

Crop 2005 


Import Volume 

Growth 

Egypt Market 

Share per Crop 

2005 


Share Growth 

Market Share of 

Egypt’s Main 

Competitor per 

Crop 2005 

Outcome 

Historical Trend 

and Studies 

Historical Trend 

a 


Market Share based 

on historical trends 

Targeting Regional Competitor Market Share 

b Target Egypt MS 

in 2012 = Competitor 

MS in 2005 per crop* 

11 

Analytical Model Structure 


Forecasted Import 

Volume 

22 

Forecasted Market 

Share of Egypt per 

Crop (as highest of 

a and b in 2017) 

Historical Trend and Studies 

Egypt FOB per 

Crop 

Egypt FOB Growth 

Forecasted Export Value 


FOB per Crop 

1&2&3 



per Crop 


Resource Optimization : 

Yield of Natural 

Resources 

55 

Ranking of the Crops 


Resources 

Note: (*) Egypt market share reached in 2012 is a function of the competitor’s current market share; (**) Measures technology growing requirements, Proprietary environment. & Confidential 

Market competition 

between suppliers and management requirements 

202 

33 

1&2 


Volume per Crop 

Weight of natural resources 

optimization is a variable 

which has to be validated by 

respective policy makers 

Technical Feasibility ** 

Ranking of Technical 

Feasibility 

Prioritization Prioritization Weight of 

Weight of Export Yield of Natural 

Value Resources and technical 

feasibility 

1&2&3&4&5 

List of 6-8 Crops with 

Optimizing Forecasted 

Export Value and 

Optimizing Resources 

Utilization 

44

11 

22 

33 

44 

55 

A number of assumptions were set to estimate conservatively 

volume and price growth rates 

Model Assumptions 

Inputs 

Destination 

Market 

Forecasted 

Import Volume 

Forecasted 

Market Share of 

Egypt per Crop 


Forecasted FOB 

per Crop 

Technical 

Feasibility 


Resources 

Data Source 

�UN Comtrade 

�Studies 



�Studies 

�Interviews 

�Experts 


�FAOSTAT 

�MoA 

�World Bank 

Source: BAH Analysis; UN Comtrade; FAOSTAT; Ministry of Agriculture statistics 

�Forecast Method: Market import volume growth is derived using historical growth or import trends/ forecast studies 

�Growth Rate Estimation: 

– The minimum between the short-term (2003-2005) and long-term (1995-2005) growth rate is selected 

– The effect of high yearly growth is attenuated as following: CAGR between 10% and 20% are reduced linearly 

between 10% and 15%; CAGR between 20% and 50% are reduced linearly between 15% and 25%; etc. 

�Egypt vs. Comparable Top Performing Country ( Importer within Egypt’s production window 

– If Egypt’s market share for a crop in 2017 is expected to be higher than the market share of the top competitor, 

then Egypt’s market share is forecasted using the historical growth 

– If Egypt’s market share for a crop in 2017 is expected to be lower than the market share of the top competitor, 

then 

� If Egypt’s current exported volume is null, then Egypt’s market share is expected to reach in 2012 the 

competitor’s 2005 market share without exceeding 20% market share 

� Otherwise, Egypt’s market share is expected to reach in 2012 the competitor’s 2005 market share without 

exceeding a 20% annual growth rate 





�Forecast Method: Egypt FOB is derived using the historical growth, as well as trends and forecast studies 





�The ranking assesses qualitatively Egypt’s capabilities to produce and export the crops. The ranking is based on a 

measurement of technology requirements for growing crops, shipping conditions and marketing environment 

�Assessment Method: The crops are assessed based on their 

– Current export value per unit of land used for exports 

– Current export value per unit of water consumed for exports 

203 

Assumptions 



The forecast of the destination markets’ import volume highlights 

the most demanded crops (among the selected 41 crops), with a 

large portion that could be potentially produced in Egypt 

45% 

Wheat 

9% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

Bananas 

11 Destination Markets Forecasted Import Volume 

(2017) 

Volume of Top Imported Crops in EU 

Volume of Top Imported Crops in FE 

(in %, 2017) 

(in %, 2017) 

Coffee, not 

R 

Pineapples 

Grapes 

Maize 

Volume of Top Imported Crops in USA 

(in %, 2017) 

18% 

9% 9% 8% 8% 

5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 

Bananas 

Roses 

Raw sugar, 

cane 

Avocado 

Pineapples 

Lemon and 

limes 

Coffee, not 

roasted 

Watermelon 

Garlic 

Grapes 

Peach 

Apples 

Imports of Top Crops = 80% of Total Imports 

of 47 M Tons 

Imports of Top Crops = 75% of Total 

Imports of 24 M Tons 

50% 

Raw 

Sugar 

22% 


Wheat 

Watermelon 

Volume of Top Imported Crops in GCC 

(in %, 2017) 

7% 7% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

Rice 

Maize 

204 

Garlic 

48% 

Wheat 

Oranges 

Onions 

17% 

Maize 



Bananas 

8% 6% 5% 5% 3% 

Raw 

sugar, 

cane 

Cotton 


Rice 

Fruit, 

nes 

Imports of Top Crops = 94% of Total Imports 

of 65 M Tons 

Volume of Top Imported Crops in CIS 

(in %, 2017) 

15%15%13% 10% 9% 6% 5% 5% 5% 

Watermelon 

Raw sugar, 

cane 

Bananas 

Apples, 

fresh 

Mandarin 

Pears 

Bananas 

Garlic 

Grapes 

Peach 




We assumed that Egypt would be targeting its top competitors’ 

market share by 2012, unless the historical trends lead to a larger 

market share in the long-term 

Egypt Market Share in EU 

Egypt MS based on 

Crop 


Top Competitor 

(% Volume, 2017) 

(HS-6 Code) 

MS 

Historical = Competitor 


Strawberries 

Carrots 

50% 

Flax 

Cucumbers 

Potatoes 

Mandarin 

Watermelon 

Oranges 

0% 

Onion Cotton Grapes 

Broad Beans 

Artichoke 


Historical 

0% 50% 



75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

Potatoes 


Avocado 

Market Share in GCC 

(% Volume, 2017) 


Artichoke 

Onion 

Strawberries 

Grapefruit 

Beans 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 

Forecasted Market Share ( MS) of Egypt per Crop (1) 

60% 

40% 

Artichoke 

Note: (1) Top competitors of Egypt are assumed to be Morocco, Spain and Israel 


22 



205 



100% 

Flax 

50% 

0% 

Citrus 

Market Share in CIS 

(% Volume, 2017) 

Rice 

Artichoke 

Flax 


Egypt Market Share in USA 

(% Volume, 2017) 

Cotton 

0% 50% 

100% 


20% 

0% 

Carrots 

Grapes 

Oranges 

Potatoes 

0% 20% 40% 60% 


Historical 



0% 



Oranges 

Lemons 

Potatoes Dates 


Historical 

Market Share in FE 

(% Volume, 2017) 

Strawberries 

0% 20% 40% 


Historical 


On average, FOB of exports to the EU would grow faster than FOB of 

exports to the GCC 

Forecasted 

CAGR of FOB 

to EU 

(2005-2017) 

Onion 

10% 

Potatoes 

-10% 

Cotton 

33 

Egypt FOB Growth, Volume Growth and Value per Crop 

Towards EU and GCC markets (2005-2017) 

206 


Egypt Exports Towards EU Egypt Exports Towards GCC 

Rice Oranges Grapes 

Kidney Beans 

$4 M Export value towards EU 

High Growth of Exported Volume and FOB 

Bananas 

Guavas, mangoes 

Dates 

Lettuce 

Tomatoes Cucumbers Eggplant 

Peaches and nectarines 

Watermelon 

Size of the bubble proportional to export value 2005 

40% 60% 

Forecasted CAGR of 

Volume Exported to EU 

(2005-2017) 


Forecasted 

CAGR of FOB 

to GCC 

(2005-2017) 

Artichoke 

Watermelon 

30% 

20% 

10% 

Garlic 

-20% 

Oranges 


Fruit, nes 

Grapefruit 

$10 -30% M Export value towards GCC 


Onion 

Broad Beans 

Strawberries 

Rice 

Grapes 

Peaches, nectarines 



Volume Exported to GCC 

(2005-2017) 


25%

FOB of Egypt main commodities exported to USA ( cotton) and CIS 

are expected to grow between 0% and 5%, with the exception of 

potatoes 

Forecasted 

CAGR of FOB 

to USA 10% 

(2005-2017) 

-10% 

5% 

33 

(*) Cotton corresponds to more than 90% of Egypt’s exports to USA 



Towards USA and CIS markets (2005-2017) 

207 


Egypt Exports Towards USA * Egypt Exports Towards CIS 

Cotton 


$3 M Export value towards USA 


Rice 

10% 20% 30% 40% 


Volume Exported to USA 

(2005-2017) 

Forecasted 

CAGR of FOB 

to CIS 

(2005-2017) 

Onion 

-20% 

Potatoes 

10% 

5% 

Flax 

-10% 

Rice 


$7 M Export value towards CIS 


Oranges 

Strawberries 

Mandarins 

Grapes 

20% 40% 60% 


Volume Exported to CIS 

(2005-2017) 


The Far East would offer high FOB growth opportunities for current 

Egyptian exports, particularly for horticulture products 

33 



Towards FE market (2005-2017) 

Forecasted 

CAGR of FOB 

to FE 

(2005-2017) 

-10% 

20% 

10% 

Cotton 

-10% 

Egypt Exports Towards FE 

10% 

Dates 


$2.5 M Export value towards FE 


Oranges 

208 

Strawberries 

20% 

Potatoes 

Grapes 

30% 


Volume Exported to FE 

(2005-2017) 



In sum, the FOB of most horticulture crops would have room for 

growth, with the exception of potatoes, onions and beans which 

would experience a decline in FOB 

Potatoes 

10% 

-10% 

Forecasted 

CAGR of FOB 

(2005-2017) 

Cotton 

33 



Towards the 5 Regional Markets (2005-2017) 


Oranges 

Kidney Beans 

Rice 

209 

Carrots 

Eggplant 

Watermelon 

Cuttings and slips 

Cauliflowers 


Cucumbers 

Dates 20% 40% 60% 

Onion 

Grapefruit 

Lettuce 


Artichoke 

Strawberries 

Mandarin 

Bananas 

Fruit, nes 

Size of the bubble proportional to Egypt export value in 2005 

$15 M Total export value 



Volume Exported 

(2005-2017) 


The combination of forecasts for import market size, Egypt’s 

market share, and FOB, are expected in an Egypt export value of 

$4.3 Billion in 2017 for the 41 crops 

Crops 

11 

22 

33 


Value 2005 

Towards 5 

Regional 

Markets 


Egypt’s Exported Value, Volume and Market Share in 2017 


Value 2017 

Towards 5 

Regional 

Markets 

Egypt Export 

Volume 2005 

Towards 5 

Regional 

Markets 


Volum e 2017 

Towards 5 

Regional 

Markets 

210 

5 Regional 

Markets Total 

Im port Volum e 

2005 

5 Regional 

Markets Total 

Im port Volum e 

2017 



Share in 

Volume 2005 


Share in 

Volume 2017 

M $ M $ K Tons K Tons K Tons K Tons % % 

Grapes 42 553 26 237 1,728 5,165 3% 5% 

Strawberries 32 339 18 109 126 659 22% 16% 

Oranges 225 751 593 1,669 2,517 3,533 40% 47% 

Artichoke 6 80 4 29 11 67 41% 43% 

Watermelon 7 72 10 79 1,807 8,190 1% 1% 

Guavas & mangoes 19 120 25 93 695 1,455 6% 6% 

Mandarin & clementine 3 61 6 67 947 4,111 1% 2% 

Cucumbers 0 70 0 90 541 1,439 3% 6% 

Onion 17 45 86 354 1,735 1,964 11% 18% 

Cotton 130 173 59 62 3,679 4,401 1% 1% 

Rice 54 257 158 595 4,176 6,782 8% 9% 

Tomatoes 0 5 0 4 491 1,085 0% 0% 

Dates 3 8 5 15 123 229 5% 7% 

Garlic 1 3 2 3 1,528 3,643 0% 0% 

Potatoes 73 45 363 274 1,344 1,106 30% 25% 

Peaches & nectarines 5 40 3 24 668 3,674 1% 1% 

Lemon and limes 3 21 13 41 1,267 3,665 1% 1% 

Eggplant 0 10 1 11 71 188 4% 6% 

Avocado 0 35 0 54 476 2,474 3% 2% 

Sweet potatoes 1 3 1 6 58 55 6% 12% 

Flax 2 1 2 2 7 4 47% 59% 

Pears and quinces, fresh 0 52 0 88 897 2,882 2% 3% 

Cauliflowers 0 2 0 4 30 30 4% 14% 

Lettuce 0 2 0 2 32 138 2% 2% 

Fruit, nec (inc. persimm.) 5 57 11 71 1,309 5,740 1% 1% 

Apples, fresh 0 9 0 26 2,229 5,578 0% 0% 

Kidney Beans 2 3 3 8 419 661 1% 1% 

Cranberries, blueberries 0 0 0 1 82 116 1% 1% 

Trees 3 11 6 33 14 520 19% 6% 

Gram Beans 1 1 1 1 80 120 1% 1% 

Broad Beans 2 1 6 5 31 73 33% 8% 

Raw sugar, cane 0 0 0 0 12,912 26,721 0% 0% 

Grapefruit 2 1 9 32 721 932 3% 3% 

Bananas, including planta 0 1 0 6 12,149 16,426 0% 0% 

Citrus 0 1 0 1 39 128 1% 1% 

Roses 0 1 0 6 10 2,306 1% 0% 

Coffee, not roasted, not de 0 0 0 0 4,292 5,158 0% 0% 

Cuttings and slips 0 0 0 1 31 67 1% 2% 

Pineapples, fresh or dried 0 0 0 1 1,582 5,071 0% 0% 

Maize 0 0 0 0 36,154 35,450 0% 0% 

Wheat 0 0 0 0 20,556 44,153 0% 0% 

Total 640 2,837 1,413 4,106 117,564 206,158 1% 2% 


A qualitative analysis of Egypt’s capabilities for production, export 

and promotion was conducted on each of the 41 crops to 

determine their feasibility 

44 

Crop Technical Feasibility 

Crops Rank 

Relevant 

Variety 

Grapes 4 Early varieties 

Strawberries H Fresh 

�Very �Very capital intensive 

�Old �Old chain management 

�Very �Very delicate product 

�Risky �Risky for small growers 

Cranberries, blueberries H Fresh �Requiring �Requiring specific conditions 

Onion 

Garlic 

4 

Dry Onions 

Green garlic 

Sweet Potatoes 4 - 

Artichoke 4 

Watermelon 4 

Source: BAH Analysis; Interviews with agriculture experts 

Seedless 

varieties 

211 


Constraints Advantages 

�Not �Not producing the right variety 

�Storage �Storage problem 

�Established �Established business 

�Easy �Easy to manage production 

�Sufficient �Sufficient resources to position Egypt 

�Advantageous �Advantageous market window: April - May 

�Advantageous �Advantageous market window: Nov- Dec 

for Europe, Jan- Feb- March for GCC and 

year round for CIS and FE 

�Easily �Easily shipped 

�Very �Very good product for small growers 

�Production �Production and export processes well 

mastered from a technical point of view 

�Easy �Easy to manage production 

�Interesting �Interesting for small growers 

�Requiring �Requiring very little resources 

�Market �Market window: year round, with the 

competitive advantage of winter seasons 

�Limited �Limited area to grow �Advantageous �Advantageous winter window 

�Cost �Cost competitive 

�Market �Market proximity 


�Right �Right growing conditions 

�High �High sensitivity to a disease 

�Lack �Lack of technological information 

e Low 4 High 




determine their feasibility ( Cont’d) 

Crops Rank 

Oranges 3 

44 

Mandarins 3 Easy peeler 

Dates 3 Dry, semi dry 

Flax 3 

Guavas & mangoes 3 Yellow mangoes 

Potatoes 2 Easy peeler 

Tomatoes 2 Cherry tomatoes 

Lemon and Limes 2 Limes 



Relevant 

Variety 


�Low �Low profit margin for the exporter 

compared to the other varieties of citrus 

�Established �Established business 

�Not �Not widely available as of now but could 

be easily planted (2~3 years) 

212 

�Production �Production and export processes easily 

managed 

�Not �Not producing the right variety that is highly 

�Optimal �Optimal growing conditions 

demanded ( dry and semi dry) 

�Easily �Easily shipped 

�Processing �Processing facilities and fiber extract 

�Labor �Labor Intensive crop 

techniques not available which reduces the 

market potential 

�Strong �Strong local consumption 

�Easy �Easy to manage crop 

�Not �Not producing the right variety ( move from 

�Potential �Potential growing areas: governorates of 

green production to yellow) 

Ismalia, Sharkyia, and Nobaria 

�Low �Low availability of root stock 

�EU �EU quotas restrictive �Well �Well established market 

�Little �Little competition during winter season 

�Salad �Salad tomatoes, crop expensive to export 

�Capital �Capital intensive in greenhouses 


�Cherry �Cherry tomatoes with high FOB 

�Cost �Cost effective 

�Labor �Labor intensive 

�Good �Good weather conditions 

e Low 4 High 





Crops Rank 

Avocado 2 

Rice 2 

44 

Relevant 

Variety 

213 




�Water �Water intensive 

�Local �Local consumption growing 

Cotton 2 �Challenges �Challenges due to changes in the textile 

manufacturing industry 

Raw sugar cane 1 

Kidney/ Broad Beans 1 Dried beans 

Peaches & Nectarines 1 

Grapefruit/ citrus nes 1 Easy peel 

Cucumbers/ Eggplant V 

Cauliflowers V 

Lettuce 1 Fresh 

Cuttings and slips 0 

Apples 0 

Pears & quinces 0 

Bananas 0 Fresh 



�High �High quality (long fiber) 

�Being �Being replaced with sugar beet �Good �Good opportunity in the future 

�Overlap �Overlap with the Italian season in general �Advantageous �Advantageous market window : early 

production 

�� Demanding chilling requirements for good 

quality apples 

�Overlap �Overlap with the Italian season 

�Water �Water intensive 

�Not �Not cost competitive with chiquita banana 

e Low 

4 High 

Proprietary e Low & Confidential 4 High




Crops Rank 

Coffee not roasted/ 

Pineapples 

0 

44 

Roses 0 Tea roses 

Fruits nes 0 


214 



Relevant 

Variety 

Constraints �Tropical �Tropical product not suitable for Egypt 

Advantages 

�Not �Not suitable growing conditions in Egypt 

�Very �Very high costs of productions 

�Lack �Lack of specification 

e Low 4 High 


When combining filtering criteria (on weighted basis), 7 strategic 

export crops were identified: grapes, strawberries, watermelons, 

oranges, artichokes, mandarin & clementines, and guavas & mangoes 

11 

22 

33 

Ranking of 


Value 

44 55 

Ranking of 

Crops 

Attractiveness 

Selection of Top Seven Crops * 

Ranking of Yield of Natural 

Resources 

Ranking Water 

Use 

Optimization 

(*) Prioritization weighting: 50% weight of the export value, 15% for land utilization, 10% for water and 

25% for crops technical feasibility 

Source: BAH Analysis; UN Comtrade; FAOSTAT; Ministry of Agriculture statistics; Interviews 215 with Experts 

Total 

Ranking 

Ranking Land 

Use 

Optimization (1= Best) 


Rationale 

Crops 

2017 

Grapes 2 1 6 2 1 

+ Highly demanded in EU and CIS 

+ Established business 

+ Highly demanded in EU 

Strawberries 3 2 1 1 2 + Optimal resources utilization 

Oranges 1 9 15 16 3 + Highly demanded in CIS, EU and GCC 

Artichoke 7 6 4 4 4 + Highly demanded in EU 

Watermelon & Other 

+ Efficient in land and water utilization 

Melons 8 8 8 8 5 

Guavas & Mangoes 6 11 17 18 6 + Highly demanded in EU and CIS 

Mandarin & clementine 10 9 18 19 7 + Highly demanded in GCC 

+ Efficient in water utilization 

Cucumbers 9 21 9 10 8 + Production and export processes well mastered 

+ Demanded in EU 

Onion 14 4 22 21 9 - Overlap with the Italian season 

+ Demanded in CIS 

Cotton 5 15 31 29 10 - Production of the wrong variety 

+ Efficient in land and water utlization 

Rice 4 19 34 28 11 + Optimal growing conditions 

+ Highly demanded in GCC 

Tomatoes 22 11 3 3 12 + Production and export processes well mastered 

+ Highly efficient in land and water utilization 

Dates 21 11 11 6 13 + Cherry tomatoes is the variety highly demanded 

+ Egypt's market share growing in GCC and CIS 

Garlic 25 4 2 9 14 - Water intensive 

+ Growing market share in EU 

Potatoes 13 15 21 25 15 - Water intensive 

Peaches & Nectarines 15 21 13 7 16 + Easily grown in Egypt with little resources 

Lemon and limes 17 15 23 22 17 + Efficient in land and water utilization 

+ Egypt's market share increasing in EU 

Eggplant 19 21 10 11 18 + Potential to focus production on exports 

- Egypt's market share decreasing 

Avocado 16 19 24 23 19 - EU quotas restrictive 

Sweet potatoes 24 6 14 14 20 + Egypt's market share growing in EU and FE 

Selected Crop + Advantages 


_ Constraints

11 

22 

33 

44 55 

Selection of Top Seven Crops * 

(*) Prioritization weighting: 50% weight of the export value, 15% for land utilization, 10% for water and 25% for crops technical feasibility 



When combining filtering criteria (on weighted basis), 7 strategic 

export crops were identified: grapes, strawberries, watermelons, 

oranges, artichokes, mandarin & clementines, and guavas & mangoes 

Ranking of 


Value 

Ranking of 

Crops 


Ranking of Yield of Natural 

Resources 

Ranking Water 

Use 

Optimization 

Total 

Ranking 

Ranking Land 

Use 

Optimization (1= Best) 

Rationale 

Crops 

2017 

Flax 28 11 5 13 21 

+ Highly demanded 

- Not specific 

Pears and quinces 12 32 19 20 22 - Overlap with the Italian season 

+ Efficient in land and water utilization, attractive 

Cauliflowers 26 21 12 12 23 - Flax processing not feasible in Egypt 

Lettuce 27 29 7 15 24 + Efficient in land and water utilization 

Fruit, nes 11 37 35 35 25 + Efficient in land and water utilization 

Apples, fresh 20 29 25 24 26 - Chilling requirements not met 

Kidney Beans 23 21 27 31 27 - Yield low, leading to inefficieny in land utilization 

- Stable demand 

Cranberries, blueberries 35 2 35 35 28 + Potential with the easy peelers variety 

Trees 18 32 35 35 29 + Market share growing in EU 

Gram Beans 31 15 30 33 30 - High competition and not cost competitive 

+ High potential 

Broad Beans 29 21 29 32 31 - Production to be initiatied 

+ Efficient in land utilization 

Raw sugar, cane 39 21 20 5 32 - Under replacement with sugar beet 

- Low demand and low efficiency in water and land 

Grapefruit 32 21 28 27 33 utlization 

- Low demand and low efficiency in water and land 

Bananas 33 37 16 17 34 utlization 

Citrus 34 29 26 26 35 - Lack of specifity 

- High costs of production 

Roses 30 32 35 35 36 - Not suitable growing conditions in Egypt 

Coffee, not roasted, not dec 36 32 35 35 37 - Not suitable growing conditions in Egypt 

Cuttings and slips 38 32 35 35 38 - Not suitable growing conditions in Egypt 

Pineapples 37 37 35 35 39 - Limited demand 

Maize 40 37 32 30 40 - Egypt highly dependent on maize imports 

Wheat 40 37 33 34 41 - Egypt highly dependent on wheat imports 

+ Advantages Proprietary & Confidential 

_ Constraints

The top crop selection is not highly sensitive to different criteria 

weighting scenarios 

Scenario A : 

“Highest � 70% Export Value in 2017 

Ranking” � 15% Crops Technical Feasibility 

� 15% Yield of Natural Resources 

Scenario B : Recommended 

� 50% Export Value in 2017 

� 25% Crops Technical Feasibility 


Scenario C : 

� 34% Export Value in 2017 

� 33% Crops Technical Feasibility 



“Lowest 

Ranking” 

Strawberries 

Grapes 

Artichokes 

Watermelon 

Oranges 

Garlic 

Peach 

Avocado 

Lettuce 


217 

(2) 

Guavas 

Potatoes 

(3) 

Pears (4) 

Onions 

Dates 

Eggplant 

Flax 

Cotton 

Lemon 

Cauliflowers 

(5) 

Tomatoes 

Mandarin 


(1) 

11 

13 

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

… 

Grapes 

Strawberries 

Oranges 

Watermelon 

Mandarin 

Cucumbers 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

13 

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

… 

(1) 

Peach (2) 

Artichokes 

Guavas 

Rice 

(3) 

Cotton 

Pears (4) 

Onions 

Dates 

Garlic 

Potatoes 

Lemon 

Eggplant 

Avocado 

Cauliflowers 

(5) 

Grapes 

Strawberries 

Oranges 

Mandarin 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Tomatoes 


Flax 

… 

(1) 

Cucumbers 

Peach 

Fruits nes 

(2) 

Artichokes 

Guavas 

Rice 

(3) 

Cotton 

Pears (4) 

Onions 

Potatoes 

Dates 

Lemon 

Avocado 

Eggplant 

Garlic 

(5) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

13 

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

Watermelon 

Tomatoes 


Apples 

Trees 

… 

Conclusions 

�� Scenarios A, B and C differ in their 

respective prioritization weighting 

of the export value in 2017, crops 

technical feasibility and the yield of 

natural resources covering the 

scheme from large to small 

growers 

�� Scenario B is the one 

recommended as maintaining a 

balance between the supply and 

demand analysis 

�� The three scenarios position 

grapes, strawberries, oranges, 

watermelon, mandarins & 

clementines, mangoes & guavas 

and artichokes as the top crops 

optimizing the export value, crops 

technical feasibility as well as the 

yield of natural resources 

(1) Mandarins, clementines& tangerines; (2) Peaches and nectarines (3) Guavas & mangoes; (4) Pears and quinces; (5) Lemon and limes; (6) Watermelon & Other Melons 


(6) 

Cauliflowers 

Lettuce 

Fruits nes 

Cucumbers 

Rice 

Broad Beans 

..

In conclusion, Egypt should focus on investing in the identified top 

7 crops – other crops could either be pursed opportunistically, or 

dropped altogether Top Egypt Agricultural Export Crop Selection 

Market Potential 

“Best ” 

(2017,M$) 

800 

Invest 

“Worst 

200 

“Worst 

Rice 

Cotton 

Guavas * 

Divest 

Watermelon *** Artichoke 

Cucumbers Mandarin ** 

Fruit, nes 

Lemon and limes 

Pears and quinces 

Avocado 

Onion 

Peach 

Gram Beans 

Potatoes 

Dates 

Eggplant 

35 

30 

Average Crops 


(*) Mangoes & guavas; (**) Mandarins, clementines, tangerines; (***) watermelon and other melons 

Source: BAH Analysis; UN Comtrade; FAOSTAT; Ministry of Agriculture statistics 218 

Oranges 

Invest 

Strawberries 

Pursue Opportunistically 

25 20 15 10 5 

1 

Crops attractiveness weights equally yield of natural resources and the technical feasibility 

Not Selected Crop Top 7 Crops 


Grapes 

Average Market 

Potential 

Crops 


“Best ” 


While focusing on these top 7 crops, Egypt’s agricultural export 

could reach $3.5 to $4.9 billion in 2017, with corresponding export 

volume varying from 4.7 to 7 million tons 

1,356 

Forecasted Egypt Exports Value 

(in Million USD) (2005-2017) 

Top 7 crops represented 

26% of 2005 exports and 

are expected to constitute 

57% of 2017 exports 

3,364 

2,239 

4,922 

3,480 

2005 2012 2017 

Total Exports (1) 

(Scenario 1) 

Grapes 

Oranges 

Notes: (1) Scenario 1 assumes that exports outside the 5 regional markets grow in line with those within the 5 regional markets 

(2) Scenario 2 assumes that the remaining crops export value remains constant from 2005 until 2017 

(3) Guavas and mangoes; (4) Watermelon and other melons; (5) Mandarins and clementines 


219 

2005 

2,408 


Forecasted Egypt Exports Volume 

(2005-2017) 

Volume (in K Tons) 

2012 2017 

4,964 7,036 

Volume CAGR 

2005-2017 

10% 

Total Exports (2) 

(Scenario 2) 

2,296 3,574 4,767 6% 

Guavas 26 67 93 12% 

Rice 

895 1,166 1,331 3% 

(3) 

Cucumbers 0 73 116 13% 

Watermelon 11 33 80 18% 

Artichokes 

4 13 29 18% 

Strawberries 26 73 116 13% 

Cotton 150 150 150 0% 

(4) 

Mandarins 6 23 60 21% 

(5) 

28 96 239 20% 

620 1,246 1,697 9% 


Egypt’s agricultural market exports would continue to be 

predominantly focused on EU – However GCC and CIS would gain 

in importance, with exports of selected top crops 

Forecasted Egypt Exports Value 

(in Million USD) (2017) 

3,483 

13% 

11% 

15% 

3% 

10% 

16% 

22% 

1,477 

30% 

25% 

34% 

Others 

Peach 

Potatoes 

Cucumbers 

Cotton 

Rice 

2,006 

6% 

18% 

28% 

38% 

Watermelon (2) 

Mandarins (1) 

Artichokes 

Guavas (3) 

Strawberries 

Grapes 

Oranges 

(1) Mandarins & Clementine (2) watermelon & other melons; (3) guavas and mangoes 


220 

Forecasted Egypt Exports Value of Top Crops per 

Regional Market 

(in Million USD) (2017) 

761 

29% 

20% 

49% 

556 

92% 

354 

120 

Oranges 

Grapes 

Straw- Guavas Water- Total 7 

berries Artichokemelon 

Mandarins 

1,696 239 116 93 29 80 60 


Volume 

(K Tons) 

EU USA CIS GCC FE Other 

80 

73 

62 

2,006 

15% 

70% 


Besides the 7 strategic crops, the EU would remain an important 

market for other crops in the top 20 list, with the CIS gaining in 

importance for rice and other horticulture products 


Value to 

EU 


Value to 

USA 

Breakdown of Target Export Value by Regional Market 

(in Million USD) (2012 and 2017) 


Value to 

GCC 


Value to 

CIS 


Value to 

FE 

E xport to 

Regional 

M arkets 



Value to 

EU 


Value to 

USA 


Value to 

GCC 


Value to 

CIS 


Value to 

FE 

E xport to 

Regional 

M arkets 

2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 

Oranges 203 0 129 171 2 505 376 0 152 221 2 751 

Grapes 176 0 4 6 2 188 514 0 15 17 7 553 

Straw berries 147 0 8 1 3 159 321 0 9 2 9 339 

Artichoke 27 0 0 0 0 27 80 0 0 0 0 80 

Watermelon 26 0 0 0 0 27 72 0 0 0 0 72 

Guavas, m angoes 2 0 67 0 0 69 7 0 113 0 0 120 

M andarin, clem entine 11 7 1 4 0 23 34 13 3 12 0 61 

Cucum bers 2 4 0 18 0 24 5 10 3 52 0 70 

Rice 0 2 46 120 0 168 0 9 108 139 0 257 

C otton 82 19 0 0 48 149 103 27 0 0 43 173 

Fruit, nes 6 0 5 9 1 20 20 0 9 27 1 57 

Pears and quinces 0 0 0 25 0 25 0 0 0 51 0 52 

P otatoes 48 0 1 9 0 58 41 0 0 3 0 45 

Onion 3 0 28 0 0 31 3 0 41 0 0 45 

Peach 14 0 3 0 0 17 35 0 5 0 1 40 

Avocado 23 0 0 2 0 25 30 0 0 5 0 35 

Lemon and limes 3 0 2 0 2 7 7 0 2 0 11 21 

Trees 6 0 0 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 11 

Eggplant 2 0 0 2 0 4 7 0 0 3 0 10 

Apples, fresh 0 0 0 4 0 5 0 0 1 8 0 9 

Dates 1 0 0 0 4 5 3 0 1 0 5 8 

Tomatoes 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 5 

Kidney Beans 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 

Sweet Potatoes 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 

G arlic 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 3 

C au liflo w ers 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 

Lettuce 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 

Flax 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 

Broad Beans 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 

Roses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Gram Beans 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 

Grapefruit 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 

Bananas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 

Citrus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Cranberries, blueberr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Coffee, not roasted, n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Pineapples 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cuttings and slips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Raw sugar, cane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

W heat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Maize 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 792 33 299 371 61 1,557 1,684 63 469 541 79 2,837 

Proprietary Main Destination & Confidential Market





� Appendix 


Further analysis was undertaken to assess Egypt’s competitive 

position in the main importing country markets, for each of the 

seven strategic crops 

CONCEPTUAL 

CONCEPTUAL 

EU-25 

USA 

GCC 

CIS 

FE 

Country Selection 

�Within �Within each regional 

market, select up to 2 

destination country 

markets for each 

strategic crop 

�Selection �Selection of destination 

country markets based 

on: 

– Highest net import 

volume (Total 

imports – Total 

exports) in 2005 

– Positive or neutral 

net import volume 

growth from 2003 to 

2005 

– Other attractive 

qualitative or 

quantitative 

attributes (e.g. 

customer 

awareness, market 

penetration) 

Competitive Market Analysis of Strategic Crops 

Top 2 Importing Countries 

�� Austria 

�� Belgium 

�� France 

�� UK 

�� … 

�� USA 

�� Saudi Arabia 

�� Bahrain 

�� Oman 

� � .. .. 

�� Russia 

�� Armenia 

�� Uzbekistan 

�� Malaysia 

�� China 

�� Japan 

� � .. .. 

223 

Competitive Analysis 

�The �The competitive 

analysis is undertaken 

for each strategic crop 

and within every 

destination country 

market for 2006 

�For �For each strategic crop: 

– Identify major 

competitors having 

the highest market 

share within Egypt 

market window in 

the destination 

country market 

– Compare Egyptian 

market share with 

that of competitors 

– Compare import 

price of Egypt with 

that of competitors 

in destination 

country market 


Main 

Competitor 

s 

�Chile �Chile 

�Israel �Israel 

�Egypt �Egypt 

�Chile �Chile 

�Brazil �Brazil 



�Syria �Syria 

�Jordan �Jordan 

�Brazil �Brazil 

�Spain �Spain 


�Israel �Israel 

�Spain �Spain 


Market 

Share 

�48% �48% 

�29% �29% 

�3% �3% 

�33% �33% 

�23% �23% 

�11% �11% 

�59% �59% 

�15% �15% 

�14% �14% 

�33% �33% 

�23% �23% 

�1% �1% 

�25% �25% 

�19% �19% 

�2% �2% 


CIF 

�450 �450 

�445 �445 

�501 �501 

�252 �252 

�251 �251 

�303 �303 

�750 �750 

�832 �832 

�845 �845 

�10 �10 

�9 �9 

�15 �15 

�254 �254 

�299 �299 

�323 �323

Egyptian grapes, strawberries, watermelon and oranges are 

predominantly imported by Germany and France within EU region 

0% 

Italy 

Selection of Top 2 EU-25 Countries For Each Strategic Crop 

CAGR Net Imports 

(2003-3005) 

Grapes 

(Country, Imports Within Egypt Window K Tons) 

100% 

Slovakia 

100% 

0% 

Netherlands 

France 

UK, 170 

Germany, 200 

-500 0 500 

Slovakia 

Portugal 

France, 150 

Germany, 150 

Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 


(2003-3005) 

Watermelons 




(2003-3005) 

Strawberries 

400% (Country, Imports Within Egypt Window K Tons) 

0% 

France, 11 

Germany, 30 

Net Imports 

0 50 

(2005, K Tons) 

100 

-100% 

Poland 

Net Net Imports Imports 

(2005, (2005, K Tons) T Tons) 

-20% 

Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 

0 100 200 300 

-1,000 -500 

Note: (*) The country had a negative net import in 2003, therefore the growth was calculated using the absolute value 

Source: UN Comtrade; BAH Analysis 

224 

0 500 1,000 


200% 


(2003-3005) Oranges 


0% 

Spain 

UK 

Germany, 233 

France, 200

Italy and France are the main importers of Egyptian artichokes 


(2003-3005) 

25% 

0% 

-25% 

Selection of Top 2 EU-25 Countries For Each Strategic Crop 


(2003-3005) 

UK, 100 

100% 

Mandarins & Clementines 

(Country, Imports Within Egypt 

Window K Tons) 

Germany, 100 

0 500 

(*) Egypt is the main country exporting to all of the EU countries 

Source: UN Comtrade ; BAH Analysis 

Artichokes * 



Czech Rep. 

Italy, 8 

0% 

Spain 

France, 10 

Greece 

Netherlands 

Estonia 

-100% 

Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 

-5 0 5 10 15 

Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 

225 


(2003-3005) 

100% 

0 

France 


Guavas & Mangoes 



Netherlands, 35 

UK, 35 

0 25 

Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 

50 


Saudi Arabia and UAE are the largest net importers of grapes, 

strawberries and oranges in the GCC, and watermelon is mainly 

imported by Oman 


(2003-3005) 

0% 

0 

Qatar 

Oman 

Bahrain 


(2003-3005) 

0% 

-25% 

Selection of Top 2 GCC Countries For Each Strategic Crop 

Grapes 



Oman, 50 

Bahrain 

10 


UAE, 5 

Saudi Arabia, 15 

Watermelon 



Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 

KSA is is self sufficient in in 

watermelons, therefore 

does not appear as a top 

importer 

Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 

226 


(2003-3005) 

800% 

600% 

400% 

200% 

0% 

0% 

-20% 

Bahrain 

Oman 

Qatar 


Strawberries 




UAE, 2 

0 10 20 30 

Qatar 

Oman 

Bahrain 

Oranges 



UAE, 50 


0 250 500 

Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 

Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 


Similarly, UAE and Saudi Arabia are the largest net importers of 

mandarins, guavas and mangoes, while artichokes imports mainly 

go to UAE and Qatar 


(2003-3005) 

20% 

10% 

0% 

-10% 

Bahrain 

Qatar 

Selection of Top 2 GCC Countries For Each Strategic Crop 


UAE, 10 

Oman 

Selection of Top 2 Countries For Artichokes in GCC 

�� UAE has been selected as: 

– Most important in GCC market ( 60% of total GCC imports) 

– Ranked No. 3 in world importers of artichokes (Based on value of imports) 

�� Qatar has been selected as: 

– Second-most important GCC import market (30% of the total GCC imports) 

– Ranked No. 11 in world importers of artichokes (based on value of imports) 

�� Customer awareness is low in Saudi Arabia and does not represent a sizeable export opportunity 


Mandarins & Clementines 

(Country, Imports Within Egypt Window 

K Tons) 

Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 

227 


(2003-3005) 

50% 

0% 

-50% 

Qatar 

Oman 

UAE, 10 

0 50 






Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 


In the CIS region, Russia is the largest importer of grapes, 

strawberries, watermelon, mandarins and oranges but does not 

currently import artichokes, guavas and mangoes from Egypt 


(2003-3005) 

500% 

250% 

0% 

100% 

0% 

Ukraine, 15 

Georgia 

Belarus 

Selection of Top 2 CIS Countries Importing Each of the Strategic Crops* 

Grapes 

(Country, Imports K Tons**) 

Russia, 100 

0 100 200 300 


(2003-3005) 

Moldova 

Watermelon 

(Country, Imports Tons **) 

Russia, 200 

Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 

200% 

100% 

0% 

Ukraine 


(2003-3005) 


0 5 10 

Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 

15 

Russia, 410 

-100% 

0 100 

Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) -100% 

0 250 

Net Imports 0% 

(2005, K Tons) 

-250 0 

Net Imports 

250 

(2005, K Tons) 

(*) CIS market of artichokes, guavas & mangoes and mandarins in insignificant; (**) within Egypt market window 


228 


100% 

0% 

Belarus 

Rep. of Moldova 

Georgia 

Russia, 200 

Strawberries 


Russia, 9 



Oranges 

(2003-3005) 

(2003-3005) Mandarins & Clementines 

(Country, Imports K Tons **) 


200% 

Ukraine

In the Far East, Hong Kong is the dominant importer of Egyptian 

grapes, strawberries, watermelon, oranges, mandarins but is 

surpassed by China for guavas and mangoes imports 


(2003-3005) 

10% 

5% 

0% 

-5% 

Selection of Top 2 FE Countries Importing Each of the Strategic Crops 

South Korea 

Malaysia 

Grapes 


China, 15 

Japan 

Net Imports 

0 10 20 30 

(2005, K Tons) 

Watermelon 



(2003-3005) 

10% 

Hong Kong, 20 

Hong Kong, 30 


(2003-3005) 

50% 

0% 

Malaysia 

Strawberries 


Hong Kong, 2 

Japan, 2 

-50% 

0.0 2.5 

Oranges 

Net Imports 

(2005, 

5.0 

K Tons) 



10% (2003-3005) 

Malaysia 


(2003-3005) 


Top Importing Country of 

Mandarins 

�� Hong Kong is the most 

important Far-East import 

market (40% of the total Far- 

East imports) 

�� Hong Kong is ranked No. 9 in 

world importers (based on 

value of imports) 



5% 

0% 

Japan 

0% 

South Korea Japan 

Malaysia 

Note: 

Hong Kong, 15 

Japan China*, 20 

Hong Kong, 40 

Net Imports 

Rep of Korea, 30 

0% 

Net Imports -50% 

Net Imports 

(2005, K Tons) 

0 25 50 

0 10 20 

(*) The country had a negative net import in 2003, therefore the growth 0 was calculated using the 100 

(2005, K Tons) 

(2005, K Tons) 

absolute value; Far East imports of artichokes are insignificant; 

(**) Within Egypt market window 


229 


China, 3

In summary, Egypt could focus on sixteen major destination 

countries to drive exports of the seven strategic crops, as well as 

other crops in the proposed production mix 

Strategic 

Crops 

Regional Export 

Markets 

EU 

USA 

GCC 

CIS 

Far East 

I 

Grapes 

�Germany 

�UK 

�USA 

�Saudi Arabia 

�UAE 

�Russia 

�Ukraine 

�China 

�Hong Kong 

Best Export Country Markets for Egypt Strategic Crops 

II II 

Strawberries 

�Germany 

�France 

�USA 


�UAE 

�Russia 

�Japan 

�Hong Kong 

III 

Oranges 

�Germany 

�France 

�USA 


�UAE 

�Russia 

�Hong Kong 

�Rep of Korea 

230 

IV 

Artichokes 

�France 

�Italy 

�USA 

�UAE 

�Qatar 

�NA 

�NA 

VV 

Water – 

melon/ 

Other 

Melons 

�Germany 

�France 

�USA 

�Oman 

�Russia 

�Hong Kong 

�China 


VI 

Guavas & 

Mangoes 

�Netherlands 

�UK 

�USA 

�Saudi 

Arabia 

�UAE 

�NA 

�China 

�Hong Kong 

VII 

Mandarins 

�Germany 

�UK 

�USA 


�UAE 

�Russia 

�Hong Kong 


I 

Market Analysis: Grapes 

Leveraging early market window should enable Egypt to reinforce 

its position in EU, while moving up-market in GCC would provide 

substantial gains in exports 

Strategic Crop 

Grapes 

Total Imports 

within Egypt 

Window 

( K Tons) 

EU (400) 

GCC (40) 

Target Country 

Import Volumes & 

Growth within 

Egypt Window 

(K Tons; % 02-06) 

Germany 

(200; 11%) 

UK 

(170; 10%) 

KSA 

(15; 1%) 

UAE 

(5; 10%) 

Market Analysis for Grapes (2006; 2017) 

Egypt and Main 

Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 

�Egypt: 2%, $1,613 

�Italy: 50%, $1,328 

�Greece: 12%, 

$1,628 

�Turkey: 7%,$ 940 


�Spain: 23% $1,691 

�Greece: 13%, 

$2,368 

�India: 6%, $1,673 

Source: UN Comtrade ; Trademap; Eurostat; FAS; BAH Analysis; Interviews with Experts 231 

Market Entry Success Factors 

� Leverage early market window (late 

April) 

� Compete on quality with Italy (avoid 

head on cost battle with Turkey) 

� Focus on seedless grapes 

� Move from wholesalers (45% of 

current customers) to supermarkets 

� Leverage early market window (late 

April) 

� Dislodge India on logistics & Spain 

on cost advantage 

� Strengthen relationships with 

supermarkets chains 

�Enter market in May 

�Differentiate offer from low cost 

(Turkey) 

�Target Lebanon and to some extent 

India 

�Egypt: 4%, $530 

�Turkey: 20%, $407 

�India: 13%, $687 

�Lebanon: 10%,$867 

�Serve hotels & restaurants 


�Syria: 20%, $1,291 

�Italy: 13%. $1,470 

�India: 5%, $932 

�Pakistan: 5%, $953 

�Undercut Syria and Italy with quality 

products 

�Serve hotels & restaurants 

�Enter market in May 

Egypt Target 

Market Share 

(MS) & Volume& 

FOB & Export 

Value in 2017 

� MS 7% 

� Volume 40 KT 

� FOB $1,830/Ton 

� Value $M 73 

� MS 18% 


� FOB $2,250Ton 


�MS 10% 

�Volume 1.6 KT 

�FOB $ 700/Ton 

�Value $M 1 

�MS 13% 


�FOB $ 1,800/Ton 

�Value $M 3 

Comments 

� Egypt Season: 

April to end of 

July 

� Produce in Upper 

Egypt (best 

conditions) 

� Improve cold 

chain 

transportation 

� Promote 

Egyptian band/ 

grapes 


I 

Focus on quality, seedless grapes should allow Egypt to further 

penetrate the Hong Kong market, while low cost is a major 

determinant to gain market share in China 


Grapes 

Total Imports 


Window ( 

K Tons) 

CIS (150) 

Far East 

(50) 

Total 



Growth within 


(K Tons; % 02-06) 

Russia 

(100; 15%) 

Ukraine 

(15; 15%) 

Hong Kong 

(20; -4%) 

China 

(15; -4%) 

Market Analysis for Grapes (2006; 2017) 


Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 


�Uzbekistan: 40%, 

$994 

�Turkey: 20%, $ 

1,306 


�Turkey: 50%, $ 311 

�Italy: 20%, $350 

�Egypt: 1%,$1 ,626 

�USA: 97%,$1,987 


�USA: 90%, $ 1,549 

�Target: $343 Million in 2017 (62% of overall projections in 5 Key Regional Markets) 



� Target Turkey by undercutting 

average quality export grapes 

� Use early export window to gain 

market share from Uzbekistan 

� Export year round using Egypt’s 

geographical advantage 

� Move from traders to new 

supermarkets 

� Export low to average grapes to 

dislodge Italy 

� Improve cost advantage 

�MS 2% 

�Volume 1KT 

�FOB $430/Ton 

�Value $M 0 

�Attempt to gain market share from 

USA 

�MS 7% 

�Focus on seedless and high quality 

�Volume 1 KT 

grapes to enter Hong Kong 

�FOB $2,000/Ton 

�Move from green groceries (100% of 

�Value $M 2 

current customers) to catering for 

hotels and restaurants 

�Prioritize cost over quality – Export 

the lowest cost grapes 

�Dislodge USA by focus on different 

export window 

Market Analysis: Grapes 


Market Share 



Value in 2017 

� MS 4% 


� FOB $1,300/Ton 


�MS 6% 


�FOB $1.550/Ton 

�Value $M 1 

Comments 


April to end of 

July 

� Produce in 

Upper Egypt 

(best conditions) 

� Improve cold 

chain 



II 

II 

Shipping strawberries through sea should lower the import price to 

EU and allow Egypt to take significant market share from Moroccan 

exports of strawberries to the EU, given its market window advantage 


Strawberries 

Total Imports 


Window 

( K Tons) 

EU (150) 

USA 

GCC (2) 



Growth within 


(K Tons; % 02-06) 

France 

(40; 9%) 

Germany 

(12; 4%) 

USA 

(55) 

KSA 

(1; 11%) 

UAE 

(2; 3%) 

Market Analysis for Strawberries (2006; 2017) 


Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 

�Egypt*: 2%, $5,540 

�Morocco: 

59%,$2,106 

�USA: 15%, $ 3,184 

�Egypt*: 7%, $4,322 

�Morocco: 32%, 

$1,393 

�Poland: 32%; $800 

�Mexico: 99%, $ 

1702 


�USA: 5%, $1,193 


�Australia: 21%, 

$3,753 

(*) Egypt exports 6% of its exports to EU to Germany and France 



� Enhance competitive position in 

France by undercutting USA (avoid 

Morocco because captive market) � MS 4% 

� Leverage market window to supply � Volume 4 KT 

in late Nov/Dec (Christmas) � FOB $2,570/Ton 

� Focus on fresh, big and fully colored � Value $M 10 

with green leaves 

� Target supermarkets 

�Break into Morocco’s position 

through aggressive pricing (Poland 

mostly low grade for processing) 

�Leverage market window to supply 

in late Nov/ Dec 

�Target supermarkets 

�Market hard to penetrate due to 

logistical constraints 

�Capture US market share 

�Export Jan to March 

�Focus on small berries 

�Maintain market share by providing 

higher grade to catering industry 

Market Analysis: Strawberries 


Market Share 



Value in 2017 

�MS 12% 


�FOB $1,900/Ton 

�Value $M 4 

�MS 87% 

�Volume 3KT 


�Value $M 3 

�MS 62% 


�FOB $2,500/Ton 

�Value $M 4 

Comments 


from Nov to April 



conditions) 

� Ship strawberries 

through sea 

instead of air to 

reduce CIF 


II 

II 

Strawberry imports in CIS and Far East are dominated by Turkey 

and the US respectively, forcing Egypt to compete on CIF price 


Strawberries 

Total Imports 


Window 

( K Tons) 

CIS (15) 

Far East 

(5) 

Total 



Growth within 


(K Tons; % 02-06) 

Russia 

(9; 30%) 

Japan 

(2; 0%) 

Hong Kong 

(2; 5%) 

Market Analysis for Strawberries (2006; 2017) 


Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 


�Turkey: 50%, 

$1,305 

�Poland: 40%, 

$1,318 

�Egypt: 2%, $ 6,000 

�USA: 90%,$8,403 


�USA: 51%, $4,994 

�Australia: 8%, 

$4,456 


Source: UN Comtrade ; Trademap; Eurostat; FAS; BAH Analysis; Interviews with Experts 

234 


� Focus on Christmas period and on 

low cost exports to undercut Turkey 

� Export large berries 

� Move from traders (100% of current 

customers) to new supermarkets 

�Attempt to gain market share in Far 

East, where USA has invested 

heavily in promotion and brand 

recognition, with attractive prices 

�Avoid Californian season from Sept 

to Oct – start the exports in 

November 

�Prioritize quality and traceability – 

Far East has strict quality control 

restrictions 

�Focus on the packaging as it’s 

relevant to the Far East 

�Move from restaurants (50% of 


Market Analysis: Strawberries 


Market Share 



Value in 2017 

� MS 3% 


� FOB $830 /Ton 


�MS 15% 


�FOB $8,000 /Ton 

�Value $M 2.5 

�MS 17% 

�Volume 1KT 

�FOB $5,649 /Ton 

�Value $M 3 

Comments 


from Nov to April 



conditions) 

� Ship strawberries 

through sea 

instead of air to 

reduce CIF 


III 

Egyptian orange exports face fierce competition from Spain in the 

EU, and from Mexico in the US. – Main market differentiators are 

presentation, packaging, and cost 


Oranges 

Total Imports 


Window 

( K Tons) 

EU (600) 

USA 

(13) 



Growth within 


(K Tons; % 02-06) 

Germany 

(233; -6% ) 

France 

(200; -4% ) 

USA (13, 2%) 

Market Analysis for Oranges (2006; 2017) 


Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 


�Spain: 60%, $692 

�Greece: 15%, $592 

�Italy: 12%, $661 


�Spain: 60%, $806 


$585 

�Mexico: 80%,$1,269 

�Italy: 9%, $1,372 

(*) 4% of Egypt ‘s 2005 export s to EU are sent to France and Germany 


235 


� Compete with Spain by focusing on 

low cost/high volume (margin 

business) 

� Focus on uniformity in size and 

color of oranges 

� Package strongly and firmly 


customers) to discount markets 

�Compete with Spain by focusing on 

low cost/high volume ( margin 

business) 

�Target freshness of oranges 

�Package loosely as it will be 

repackaged and re-branded 

�Export “Naval” oranges 

�Move from wholesalers (20% of 


Market Analysis: Oranges 


Market Share 



Value in 2017 

� MS 14% 


� FOB $505/Ton 


�MS 15% 



�Value $M 9 

�Hard to penetrate 

–Well established competition from Mexico 

–Import restrictions 

–APHIS: Irritation/ deep cooling because of Peach Fly 

–Niche market on blood oranges for Italy 

Comments 


Nov to May 

� Amend 

regulations in 

order to allow the 

production of 

oranges in old 

lands, 

specialized for 

the production of 

wheat and maize 

� Invest for 

production in 



III 

Egypt can gain market share in KSA by segmenting its offer 

between low quality juice oranges and higher quality to hotels and 

restaurants 


Oranges 

Total Imports 

within 


Window 

( K Tons) 

GCC (240) 


Import Volumes 

& Growth within 


(K Tons; % 02-06) 

KSA 

(226; 5%) 

UAE 

(50; 18%) 



Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 


�Lebanon: 10%, 

$150 

�Syria: 2%, $300 


�USA: 50%, $491 


236 


�Capture Lebanon’s market share in 

juice oranges by providing lower 

quality product 

�Target also hotels and restaurants 

by providing higher quality 


Egypt Target Market 

Share (MS) & 

Volume& FOB & 

Export Value in 

2017 

�MS 65% 



�Value $M 60 

�Leverage geographical proximity to 

dislodge USA 

�MS 39% 

�Export high quality and medium size 


oranges 


�Target retailers, hotels and 

restaurants 


Comments 


Nov to May 

� Amend the 


order to allow the 

production of 

oranges in the 

old lands, 




� Invest for 

production in 



III 

Egypt oranges should gain market share in Russia by leveraging 

its long-standing relationship, competing on cost and focusing 

trade on supermarkets 


Oranges 

Total Imports 


Window 

( K Tons) 

CIS (450) 

Far East 

(100) 

Total 



Growth within 


(K Tons; % 02-06) 

Russia 

(350; 8%) 

Rep. of Korea 

(30; 2%) 

Hong Kong 

(40; 6%) 



Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 



$525 

�Turkey: 29%, $532 

� Egypt: 0%, $890 

� USA: 90%, $986 


�USA: 70%, $953 

�Target: $371 Million in 2017 (49% of overall projection in 5 Key Regional Markets) 


237 


�Gain market share from Morocco 

by leveraging established relations 

with Russia 

�Lower cost (most important criteria 

to Russia) by providing average 

quality product 

�Move from traders (100% of 

current customers) to 

supermarkets 

� Leverage logistics advantage to 

capture California’s share 

� Undercut competitors on medium 

to high quality 

� Move from catering institutions 

(30% of current customers) to 

supermarkets 

�Maintain market share in Honk- 

Kong 

�Shift from low/middle quality 

towards high quality oranges 

(quality is the most important 

criteria to Hong Kong) 



Market Share 



Value in 2017 

�MS 47% 

�Volume 380KT 



� MS 2% 

� Volume 1KT 

� FOB 

$1,053/Ton 


� MS 2% 


� FOB 

$1,018/Ton 


Comments 

�Egypt Season: 

Nov to May 

�Amend 


order to allow 


oranges in the 

old lands, 




�Invest for 

production in 


�Egypt’s Exports 

to Rep of Korea 

and Hong Kong 

= 18% of Exports 

to Far East 


IV 

Egypt should expand its artichoke target market by competing with 

Spain on the right variety and market window – It should also target 

the UAE and Qatar during the summer seasons 


Artichokes 

Total Imports 


Window 

( K Tons) 

EU ( 18) 

USA (1) 

GCC (2) 

CIS 

Far East 



Growth within 


(K Tons; % 02-06) 

France 

(10; -1%) 

Italy 

(8; 15%) 

USA 

UAE 

(1; 25%) 

Qatar (0.3; 10%) 

Market Analysis for Artichokes (2006; 2017) 


Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 

�Egypt: 7%, $ 583 

�Spain: 70%, $1,541 

�Italy: 20%, $726 


�Spain: 20%, $946 

�Mexico: 79%, $ 

1,908 


�Netherlands: 98%, 

$4,154 


�Netherlands: 96%, 

$4,989 


� Expand market by offering higher 

quality and undercuting Spain 

� Enter in Nov/ Dec 

� Export big and green globes 



� Maintain market share 

� Drive down costs to compete with 

Spain 

� Export pink and medium size 



� Difficult market 

� Envision frozen artichokes (processed food) 

� Focus on summer season 

� Undercut Netherlands 

� Grow green variety of artichokes 

� Target high quality catering for 

hotels and restaurants 

Non- significant market 

Market Analysis: Artichokes 


Market Share 



Value in 2017 

� MS 22% 


� FOB $1,700/Ton 

� Value $M 3.5 

� MS 67% 


� FOB $1,500/Ton 


� MS 2% 

� Volume 0.2 KT 

� FOB $4,000Ton 


� MS 15% 

� Volume 0.13 KT 

� FOB $5,000/Ton 

� Value $M 0.6 

Comments 


from Sept to April 

� Expand growing 

areas beyond 

Kafr Al Dawar 

into new lands to 

support export 

targets (4.5 

ton/acre 

required) 

Total �Target: $41 Million in 2017 (51% of overall projections in 5 Key Regional Markets) 


238 


Egypt competes with Spain and Morocco for watermelon exports to 

the EU, and should focus on producing the right varieties 


VV 

Watermelon 

& Other 

Melons 

Total Imports 


Window 

( K Tons) 

EU (380) 

USA 

GCC (100) 



Growth within 


(K Tons; % 02-06) 

Germany 

(150; 1%) 

France 

(150; 7%) 

USA 

(905) 

Oman 

(50; 1%) 


Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 

�Egypt: 0.1%, $450 

�Spain: 55%, $738 

�Brazil: 10%, $1,217 


�Spain: 30%, $768 


$1,362 

�Mexico: 38%, $455 


�Iran: 60%, $213 



� Capture window between Brazil and 

Spain’s season 

� Focus on seedless, medium, with 

consistent colors inside, with low 

tenure in sugar ( e.g. Galia melons) 

� Move to supermarkets 

� Capture window between Brazil and 

Spain’s season 

� Focus on seedless, medium, with 

consistent colors inside, with low 

tenure in sugar (e.g., Charentais) 


current customers) to direct 

supermarkets 

�Hard to penetrate 

�Develop direct trading partnership 

with Oman (away from UAE hub) to 

capture market share from Iran 

�Raise awareness of Egyptian 

watermelons 

�Focus on sweet and ripe 

watermelon 

Market Analysis: Watermelon & Other Melons 

Market Analysis for Watermelon & Other Melons (2006; 2017) 


Market Share 



Value in 2017 

� MS 7% 


� FOB $910/Ton 


�MS 7% 




�MS 2% 


�FOB $300 /Ton 


Comments 





conditions) 

� Improve 

infrastructure and 


means 


Egyptian watermelons should compete on cost to gain market 

share in CIS and Chinese markets, and on quality and traceability 

to enter Hong Kong 


VV 

Watermelon 

& Other 

Melons 

Total Imports 


Window 

( K Tons) 

CIS (250) 

Far East 

(70) 

Total 



Growth within 


(K Tons; % 02-06) 

Russia 

(200; 7%) 

Hong Kong 

(30; 0%) 

China 

(20; 28%) 


Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 


�Uzbekistan: 45%, 

$560 

�Kazakhstan: 40%, 

$526 

�Egypt: 0%, NA 

�Malaysia: 35%, 

$391 

�China: 35%, $322 


�Vietnam: 90%, $167 



240 


� Leverage market window advantage 

� MS 1% 

by exporting watermelon during 


Christmas 

� FOB $600 /Ton 

� Prioritize cost over quality 


� Focus on new supermarkets 

�Attempt to gain market share by 

leveraging market window 

advantage - November 

�MS 2% 

�Prioritize quality and traceability over �Volume 1 KT 

cost but price competitively �FOB $400 /Ton 

�Focus on packaging 


�Export seedless watermelons 

�Focus on new supermarkets 

�Attempt to gain market share in 

China by leveraging market window 

advantage - November 

�Cut down costs 

�Provide lower quality products 

�Focus on new supermarkets 

Market Analysis: Watermelon & Other Melons 

Market Analysis for Watermelon & Other Melons (2006; 2017) 


Market Share 



Value in 2017 

�MS 2% 


�FOB $200 /Ton 

�Value $M 0 

Comments 



� Upper Egypt 

(best conditions) 

� Improve 

infrastructure and 


means 

� Current Egypt’s 

exports to the Far 

East are nul 


VI 

Egypt guava & mango exports to the EU are price competitive, but 

should be re-focused on better quality varieties (red and yellow) – 

In the GCC, Egypt should compete on price 


Guavas & 

Mangoes 

Total Imports 


Window 

( K Tons) 

EU (100) 

GCC (80) 

Market Analysis for Guavas & Mangoes (2006; 2017) 



Growth within 


(K Tons; % 02-06) 

Netherlands 

(35; 14%) 

UK 

(35; 5%) 

KSA 

(48; 15%) 


Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 

� Undercut Brazil CIF prices 

� Target high-end customers 

�Egypt: 0%, $850 � Export red/ yellow mangoes (e.g. 

�Brazil: 47% , $1,243 Tommy Atkins) and medium size 

�Peru: 17%, $1,178 green guavas 




�Pakistan: 

16%,$1,719 

�Brazil: 14%,$1,020 


�Pakistan: 31%, 

$414 

�Yemen: 25%, $704 


�Target ethnic population (e.g. Indian 

& Pakistani community) and valueoriented 

customers 

�Focus on flavor and aroma 

�Move from traders (15% of current 

customers) to supermarkets 

�Target Saudi nationals 

�Differentiate offer from loss leader �MS 46% 

providers 


�Capture Yemen’s share by providing 

�FOB $640Ton 

quality products 

�Move from traders (70% of current �Value $M 34 

customers) to supermarkets ( e.g. 

Panda, Charbatli) 

�Target foreign workers (main 

consumers) 

�Egypt: 10%, $450 �Provide lower quality and compete 

UAE (10; 22%) 

�Pakistan: 75%,$258 on price 


Source: UN Comtrade ; Trademap; Eurostat; FAS; BAH Analysis; Interviews with Experts 241 customers) to supermarkets 

Market Analysis: Guavas & Mangoes 


Market Share 



Value in 2017 

� MS 1% 


� FOB $1,550/Ton 


�MS 6% 


�FOB $2,000 Ton 

�Value $M 8 

Comments 

� Egypt season: 

Sept to January 

� Introduce & 

Develop 

adequate 

varieties for 


� Produce in 

Ismaili, Sharquia 

and in the New 

Lands 

� Improve 

productivity in 

Egypt (increase 

supply) in order 

to reduce price 

on the local 

market (currently 

$2,000/Ton) 

� Promote the 

brand 

�MS 15% 


�FOB $397 Ton 

�Value $M 5 


VI 

The number of competitors in guava and mango imports is 

growing in the Far East markets – These markets should not be a 

priority focus for Egypt 


Guavas & 

Mangoes 

Total Imports 


Window 

( K Tons) 

Far East 

(20) 

CIS 

Total 

Market Analysis for Guavas & Mangoes (2006; 2017) 



Growth within 


(K Tons; % 02-06) 

China 

(3; 6%) 

Hong Kong 

(15; -7%) 


Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 


�Thailand: 

60%,$1,259 

�Indonesia: 26%, 

$1,708 

Non significant market 



242 


�Establish tactical campaigns to chip 

away a few percentage points in MS 

from Thailand 

�Compete on price and low-medium 

grade (most important criteria to 

China) 



�Mirror Philippines’ offer in pricing 

�Focus on aroma, taste and quality 


product 

�Philippines: 50%, 

�Grow and export medium size 

$1,019 

guavas and mangoes 

�Thailand: 34%,$950 



Market Analysis: Guavas & Mangoes 


Market Share 



Value in 2017 

�MS 2% 


�FOB $1,260Ton 

�Value $M 0 

�MS 2% 

�Volume 0.1KT 

�FOB $1,020Ton 


Comments 

�Egypt season: 

Sept to January 

�Produce in the 

governorates of 

Ismaili, Sharquia 

as well as in the 

New Lands 

�Far East is a hard 

to penetrate 

market, as 

Thailand and 

Philippines are 

well established 

and the number of 

competitors is 

growing 


VII 

Egyptian mandarin exports should target the EU market with high 

quality, easy peel varieties, and GCC market with lower cost sweet 

varieties 


Mandarins & 

Clementines 

Total Imports 


Window 

( K Tons) 

EU (300) 

USA 

GCC (100) 



Growth within 


(K Tons; % 02-06) 

Germany 

(100; 8% ) 

UK 

(150; 6% ) 

KSA 

(15; 2%) 

UAE 

(10; 15%) 


Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 


�Spain: 49%, $1,315 


�Spain: 45%, $1,008 

�Turkey: 12%, $792 

� Hard to penetrate 

�Egypt: 5%, $ 380 

�Turkey: 40%, $413 

�Pakistan: 30%, 

$222 


�Pakistan: 85%,198 


243 


� Enter the market in Dec/ January to 

avoid competition from Spain (starts 

in January) 

� Export high quality, medium size, 

easy to peel, sweet and seedless 

varieties 

� Target supermarkets 

� Enter the market in Dec/ January to 

avoid competition from Spain (starts 

in January) 

� Export medium quality mandarins 



�Leverage proximity to capture a few 

points from Turkey’s market share 

�Lower export costs 



�Export sweet and high quality 

mandarins 



Market Analysis: Mandarins & clementines 

Market Analysis for Mandarins & Clementines(2006; 2017) 


Market Share 



Value in 2017 

� MS 3% 


� FOB $1,500/Ton 


� MS 3% 


� FOB $1,200/Ton 


�MS 7% 




�MS 17% 



�Value $M 2 

Comments 


Dec to April 

� Expand the 

growing area 

� Produce in New 

Lands 


VII 

Egypt should gain market share in CIS and Far East by 

undercutting its respective competitors: Morocco and USA 


Mandarins & 

Clementines 

Total Imports 


Window 

( K Tons) 

CIS 

(300) 

Far East 

(100) 

Total 



Growth within 


(K Tons; % 02-06) 

Russia 

(210; 10%) 

Hong Kong 

(5; 8%) 


Competitors: 

Market Share, 

CIF ( $/ Ton) 

�Egypt: 0%,$573 


$707 

� Turkey: 23%, 

$591 

�Egypt:0%, $641 

�USA: 51%, $1,400 

�Target: $34.5 Million in 2017 (56% of overall projections in 5 Key Regional Markets) 


244 


� Leverage existing trade relations 

between Russia & Egypt 

� Enter the market by undercutting 

Morocco 

� Lower the costs as determinant 

factor for Russia 

� Grow “Sadsouna” variety 

� Capture some of California’s 

market share 

� Export sweet, easy peeling 

mandarins 

� Prioritize quality over cost 

� Move from traders (100% of 

current customers) to 

supermarkets 

Market Analysis: Mandarins & clementines 

Market Analysis for Mandarins & Clementines(2006; 2017) 


Market Share 



Value in 2017 

� MS 3% 


� FOB 

$1,000/Ton 

� Value $M 17.5 

�MS 5% 


�FOB 

$3,300/Ton 

�Value $M 2 

Comments 


Dec to April 

� Expand the 

growing area 

� Produce in New 

Lands 






� Appendix 


Selected Crops 

Three drivers: forecasted export value, crops technical feasibility 

and yield of natural resources enable the ranking of each of the 41 

crops 

1&2&3&4&5 

Crops Rank 

Forecasted 


Crops 

Technical 

Feasibility 

Yield of 

Natural 

Resources 

Grapes 1 4 4 4 

Strawberries 2 4 4 4 

Oranges 3 4 3 2 

Watermelon 4 4 4 4 

Artichoke 5 3 4 4 

Mandarins 6 4 3 2 

Prioritization Weight 50% 25% 25% 

246 

Comments 

�According �According to historical growth, Egypt's market share in EU has 

been increasing by 22% yearly in an already growing market 

(10%) with an increasing FOB (3% yearly) 

�According �According to historical growth Egypt's market share in CIS has 







been increasing by 15% yearly in a growing market ( 1%) 

�According �According to historical growth, Egypt's market share in GCC 

has been increasing by 3% yearly in GCC growing market (4%) 

�According �According to historical growth, Egypt’s market share in CIS has 

been increasing by 15% in CIS growing market (4%) 

�EU �EU demand is growing at a rate of 11% yearly and Egypt’s 

market share is expected to shift from 2% until reaching in 2017 

Morocco’s current market share in EU, which is 9% 

�Egypt’s �Egypt’s market share in EU is expected to stay stable (40% to 

43% in 2017) in a market growing at a rate of 17% 

�Egypt’s �Egypt’s exported volume is expected to grow at a rate of 29% 

yearly in EU ( growing at 4%) and CIS ( growing at 19%) in 

order to reach Morocco's current market share 

Ranking explained e Last 10 

4 Top 10 


Selected Crop 



crops 

1&2&3&4&5 

Crops Rank 

Forecasted 


Crops 

Technical 

Feasibility 

Yield of 

Natural 

Resources 

Guavas & 

Mangoes 7 3 3 2 

Garlic 8 2 4 4 

Peaches & 

Nectarines 9 3 1 4 

Cucumbers 10 3 1 3 

Dates 11 2 3 4 

Onions 12 2 4 2 

Tomatoes 13 1 2 4 


247 

Comments 

�Egypt �Egypt market share in GCC countries is growing at a rate of 

15% in GCC growing market ( 6% annually) with an increased 

FOB 

�Garlic �Garlic is efficient in terms of land and water usage 

�Green �Green garlic can easily be transported and produced in Egypt 

�Egypt’s �Egypt’s market share in EU is growing at a rate of 3% in a high 

growth market ( rate of 13%) 

�Egypt’s �Egypt’s production and export overlap with the Italian season 

�CIS �CIS market is growing at a rate of 23% yearly and Egypt should 

reach by 2017, half of Spain’s current market share in the CIS 

countries ( 10%) 

�Egypt’s �Egypt’s market share in EU is growing at a rate of 11% in order 

to reach in 2017 Israel’s current market share ( 9%) 

�Dates �Dates could take advantage that its competitor Tunisia is 

reaching capacity 

�Onions �Onions are gaining market share in GCC countries with an 

export growth of 9%, higher than the 6% of the market demand 

�Green/spring �Green/spring onion can easily be grown in Upper Egypt 

�Cherry �Cherry tomato is the new variety highly demanded and that can 

easily be grown in Egypt 

�Tomatoes �Tomatoes are as efficient in water as in land 

Ranking explained e Last 10 Proprietary & 4 Confidential Top 10



crops 

1&2&3&4&5 

Crops Rank 

Forecasted 


Crops 

Technical 

Feasibility 

Yield of 

Natural 

Resources 

Rice 14 4 2 1 

Cotton 15 4 2 0 

Sweet Potatoes 16 1 4 3 

Eggplant 17 2 1 3 

Avocados 18 3 2 1 

Potatoes 19 3 2 1 


248 

Comments 

�Egypt’s �Egypt’s market share is growing at 12% and 28% in GCC and 

CIS respectively 

�Rice �Rice is water intensive which leads to its low positioning in 

terms of yield of natural resources 

�Egypt’s �Egypt’s market share in EU is growing at a rate of 10% 

�Cotton �Cotton is water intensive and the export value per land is 

among the lowest 

�EU �EU demand of sweet potatoes is decreasing at a rate of 6% 

�Sweet �Sweet potatoes can easily be grown in Egypt but the 

competition from South Africa and Israel is high 

�Even �Even though Egypt’s market share in EU is increasing at 12% 

yearly in a growing market 7%, however Extra EU total 

demand remains insignificant ( 5 Thousands tons) 

�Limited �Limited opportunity for eggplant 

�Egypt �Egypt is planned to reach in EU a market share of 22% by 

2017 – catching up with Israel which current market share is 

30% in EU 

�Local �Local market demand is low, opportunity to focus on exports 

�Egypt's �Egypt's market share in EU is dropping by 2% yearly in a 

slightly decreasing market – Neither Egypt nor Israel, Spain 

and Morocco entered the 4 other regional markets 

�EU �EU quotas are limiting the volumes that can potentially be 

exported to EU 

Ranking explained e Last 10 Proprietary & 4 Confidential Top 10



crops 

1&2&3&4&5 

Crops Rank 

Lemon and 

Limes 

Forecasted 


Crops 

Technical 

Feasibility 

Yield of 

Natural 

Resources 

20 2 2 2 

Fruits nes 21 4 0 0 

Pears & 

quinces 

22 3 0 2 

Flax 23 1 3 3 

Cauliflowers 24 1 1 3 

Lettuce 25 1 1 3 


249 

Comments 

�According �According to historical growth, Egypt’s market share is growing 

at a rate of 11% and 24% in EU and the Far East respectively 

�Only �Only limes can be exported 

�According �According to historical growth, Egypt’s market share is growing 

at least at a rate of 30 % in CIS, already increasing at a rate of 

22% 

�Fruits �Fruits nes can not be selected for its lack of precision 

�Egypt �Egypt plans to reach in 2017, the same market share than 

Spain’s current market share (5%) in the growing market of CIS 

( 16% annual growth) 

�Egypt’s �Egypt’s season for pears & quinces overlap with Italian season 

�Even �Even though Egypt’s market share in EU is increasing at 10% 

yearly , total EU demand is actually declining and its total 

volume is insignificant (4 Thousands tons) 

�Many �Many opportunities could be seized if the processing facilities 

were improved and fiber extract facilities 

�Egypt �Egypt entered GCC’s market and its market share has been 

growing at 50% yearly which justifies the 2 $ M exported 

towards GCC 

�According �According to historical growth, Egypt’s market share decreases 

in EU by 2% in a market growing at 15% of a current total 

volume of 5 Thousands Tons 

�Lettuce �Lettuce is a winter crop which partially explains its high water 

efficiency 


4 Top 10 




crops 

1&2&3&4&5 

Crops Rank 

Apples 26 

Kidney beans 27 

Grapefruit 28 

Trees 29 

Bananas 30 

Cranberries, 

Blueberries 

Raw sugar 

cane 

31 

Forecasted 


2 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

Crops 

Technical 

Feasibility 


250 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

4 

Yield of 

Natural 

Resources 

32 0 1 2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

Comments 

�Egypt �Egypt targets to reach by 2017, Spain’s current market share in 

the CIS countries 

�Egypt �Egypt don’t have the chilling requirements to export Anna 

apples 

�Kidney �Kidney beans’ yield is low, which leads to a low ranking in 

terms of optimization of land and water 

�Grapefruit’s �Grapefruit’s demand is extremely stable, except in the GCC 

with a demand growth of 7% and Egypt's market share of 19% 

�There �There might an opportunity to seize for the grapefruit that can 

easily be peeled 

�According �According to historical growth, Egypt’s market share in EU is 

growing at a rate of 7% in an already growing market (15%) 

which justifies the $ 10M of forecasted exported value 

�Egypt, �Egypt, Morocco and Israel did not manage to enter the 5 

regional markets, therefore Egypt won’t be able to gain market 

share 



�If �If Egypt were to produce cranberries, Egypt would benefit from 

its window 



�Even �Even though raw sugar cane might be a good opportunity, 

however the tendency of the government is to reduce areas of 

sugar cane and replace it with sugar beet 


4 


Top 10



crops 

1&2&3&4&5 

Crops Rank 

Forecasted 


Value 

Crops 

Technical 

Feasibility 

Yield of 

Natural 

Resources 

Gram Beans 33 0 1 0 

Broad Beans 34 0 1 0 

Citrus nes 35 0 1 0 

Roses 36 0 0 0 

Pineapples 37 0 0 0 

Coffee not 

roasted not 

decaffeinated 

Cuttings and 

slips 

38 0 0 0 

39 0 0 0 

Maize/ Wheat 40/41 0 0 0 


251 

Comments 

�Egypt’s �Egypt’s market share in EU is growing at a rate of 3% in a 

market increasing by 4% yearly, which justifies the $1 M of 

forecasted Egypt exports 

�Dried �Dried beans represent a great opportunity for Egypt 

�Egypt’s �Egypt’s market share in EU is growing at a rate of 9% in a 

market declining at 14% yearly, which justifies the $1 M of 

forecasted Egypt exports 

�Dried �Dried beans represent a great opportunity for Egypt 

�The �The new varieties of citrus represent a good opportunity for 

Egypt to seize 

�The �The growing conditions in Egypt are not suitable to the 

production of roses 

�Tropical �Tropical fruit difficult to compete with Ivory Coast 

�Tropical �Tropical products not suitable for Egypt, stiff competition from 

sub-Saharan Africa, Brazil, and others 

�The �The opportunity to export cuttings and slips is limited 

�Maize �Maize and wheat represent more than half of Egypt’s imports 

�Maize �Maize and wheat are both water intensive 


4 Top 10 


Five-year Export Promotion Plan 


To meet these targets, the plan should address five strategic 

objectives 

Egypt Export Promotion Plan Strategic Objectives 

Strategic Objectives Rationale 

A Consolidate Egypt's 

export promotion 

capacity 

B 

Brand Egypt as a 

premium quality exporter 

C 

Improve Egypt's access 

to international markets 

D 

Realize Egypt's 

agriculture full export 

potential 

E 

Encourage full 

liberalization of Egypt's 

agricultural sector 

� Consolidation of current export promotion capacity aims at coordinating and 

institutionalizing prevailing efforts of all industry stakeholders, both from the 

private and public sector, within a proper sector governance framework 

� Targeted branding of Egyptian agricultural products enables access to 

international markets. Sustainability of such initiatives requires however industrywide 

efforts to put greater emphasis on the quality of industry supply chain and 

export control quality 

� Access to international markets would be further facilitated through closer 

collaboration on trade agreements, air and maritime transport capacity 

enhancements, and the establishment of international distribution offices in key 

export markets 

� Long-term competitiveness and export potential requires structural modernization 

of the agricultural production capacity through an overhaul of current agricultural 

R&D practices in Egypt, as well as further development of small farmers’ potential 

in Upper Egypt 

� Full liberalization of agricultural sector would lead to market-based efficiencies 

and entails review of a number of policy areas in terms of input imports, water 

subsidies as well as support in agricultural production, processing & marketing 

253 


These strategic objectives are translated into phased initiatives, 

over the coming decade, … 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

EXAMPLE 

Example: Planning of Initiatives in Five-Year Export Promotion Plan 

Strategic Objectives and Related Initiatives 

Consolidate Egypt's export promotion capacity 

1 – Mobilize efforts to revamp export promotion 

2 – Outline export promotion governance and road-map 

3 – Formalize proposed institutional changes 

4 – Launch export governance reorganization 

Brand Egypt as a premium quality exporter 

Improve Egypt's access to international markets 

Realize Egypt's agriculture full export potential 

Encourage full liberalization of Egypt's agricultural sector 

254 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

2013 2014 2015 2016 


… And assigned to individual owners – The plan includes new and 

ongoing initiatives 

Strategic Objective: 

Owner: 

Duration: 

Description 

KPI 

Action Plan 

255 

Strategic Initiative: 

Number: 

Status: 

Key Dependencies / Prerequisites 

Key Risks / Mitigation Plans 

Cost -Benefit Analysis 

Key Milestones 

TEMPLATE 


As such, 16 initiatives are consolidated in the Export Promotion 

plan to set the agenda and underlying actionable steps, in order to 

boost Egypt’s agricultural exports over the coming decade 

Strategic Objectives 

A 

Consolidate 

Egypt's export 

promotion capacity 

B 

Brand Egypt as 

a premium quality 

exporter 

C 

D 

Improve Egypt's 

access to 

international 

markets 

Realize Egypt's 

agriculture full 

export potential 

E 

Encourage full 

liberalization of 

Egypt's 

agricultural sector 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

1 

2 

3 

Enabling Initiatives 

Mobilize efforts to revamp export promotion 

Outline export promotion governance and roadmap 

Formalize proposed institutional changes 

Launch export governance reorganization 

Create and launch export quality control agency 

Strengthen existing agro-export local supply chain 

Launch international Egyptian branding Initiative 

Drive common agriculture trade advocacy efforts 

Streamline and expand Egypt’s maritime transport 

Enhance Egypt’s air cargo sector competitiveness 

Broaden Egypt’s export distribution reach 

Promote market-driven agricultural R&D 

Build agricultural export potential in Upper Egypt 

Encourage import regulation reforms for agroinputs 

Advocate sustainable water policies 

Support full production deregulation of agriculture 

sector 

256 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

2015 


In the first year, the overall effort for consolidating export 

promotion efforts and establishing an export quality control 

agency would require around $10 million in funding 

Objectives Initiatives 

A 

Consolidate 

Egypt's 

export 

promotion 

capacity 

B 

Brand 

Egypt as a 

premium 

quality 

exporter 

Launch export 

governance 

Market 

Intelligence 

Packaging 

Trainings 

First Year Priority Activities Costs 

�Identify target markets and products with greatest likely-hood of sales 

$ 250,000 

�Determine importers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, standards and requirements 

�Analyze current packaging of Egyptian products in view of promoting quality and freshness, portion $ 70,000 

control, to positive attributes such as variety, origin 

�Provide trainings to companies on Sales & Marketing; Advertising; Sales Promotion; Public $ 120,000 

Relations; Negotiation; Customer Service etc 

Media 

�Engage International and target market local media with news on Egyptian Agriculture, events, $ 200,000 

reorganization 

Trade fairs 

(A1-A4) 

companies news, new products, promotional campaigns 

�Spear-head participation at trade fairs 

$ 1 M 

Communications �Launch Fresh Produce website 

$ 10,000 

Trade 

�Identify Trade Offices in target markets 

$ 150,000 

Representation �Provide trainings to Trade Attaches on the products, customers etc 

Operations �Cover yearly operational costs of EPA 

$ 1 M 

$ 3.8 M 

Regulatory 

Changes 

�Identify necessary regulatory changes to impose GOEIC as the sole authority for export control $ 15,000 

Standards � Identify by target marker the regulations and standards for market entry by product 

$ 10,000 

Laboratories � Conduct nation-wide campaign to accredit public/private laboratories to increase national footprint $ 1 M 

Create and Certification capacity for sanitary controls 

launch export Information �Update GOEIC website to include Standards requirements for export. Notify all exporting 

quality control Dissemination companies on where to find it and the process for GOIEC inspections 

agency 

(B1) 

Pesticide Residue � Launch Pesticide Residue Program. Collect data on agricultural commodities most frequently 

Program 

exported and match against export market requirements 

$ 10,000 

$ 100,000 

EgyptGAp �Design and launch EgyptGAP in accordance with GlobalGAP 

$ 250,000 

Quality Control 

Awareness 

�Launch Quality Control awareness campaign nationally and internationally 

$ 500,000 

Operations �Cover other operational costs 

$ 4 M 

Total Costs incurred the first year for the two initiatives 

257 

$ 5.9 M 

Proprietary & Confidential $ 9.7 M

Strategic Objective: Consolidate Egypt's export promotion capacity 

Owner: Chairman of AEC 

Duration: 1 month 

Description 

� Current efforts to promote exports in Egypt are too fragmented to provide 

sufficient support for private sector growth: lack of market intelligence, 

cooperation among exporters on mutually-beneficial initiatives, 

institutionalized export promotion, consistent branding of Egyptian products 

or advanced distribution networks significantly hamper Egypt’s export 

potential 

� As such, the existing framework for export promotion in Egypt must be 

revisited and amended to create a sustainable environment that will promote 

Egypt’s agriculture exports 

� The overall effort will be kick-started by the AEC that will engage key 

stakeholders in the agricultural export sector (e.g., Ministry of Trade, Ministry 

of Agriculture, EEPC, IMC, ExpoLink, UPEHC, HEIA, EAGA, ESHEDA) 

KPI 

� Steering committee’s chairman election status 

� Seed funding availability 

� Steering committee’s support staff headcount (actual vs. target) 

Action Plan 

� Prepare agenda to kick-start export promotion drive 

� Call meeting with key stakeholders (e.g., Ministry of Trade, Ministry of 

Agriculture, EEPC, IMC, ExpoLink, UPEHC, HEIA, EAGA) to review export 

performance and discuss strategic objectives 

� Create steering committee to monitor the progress of export promotion drive 

and elect chairman 

� Secure seed funding to start outlining export promotion governance 

� Appoint 3-4 dedicated staff to support steering committee 

258 

Enabling Initiative: Mobilize efforts to revamp export promotion 

Number: A1 

Status: New 


� N/A 


� Excessive Government 

management: assign responsibility to 

private sector 

� Overlap in responsibilities of existing 

institutions: engage institutions 

currently involved in export 


�Cost: N/A 

�Benefit: Increase awareness for 

export promotion drive 


� Steering committee creation 

� Appointment of steering 

committee chairman 

� Allocation of seed funding 



Owner: Steering Committee’s Chairman 

Duration: 4 months 

Description 

� The current export-oriented programs lack coordination and effectiveness 

� The end objective of this initiative is to propose a new governance that will 

streamline and better coordinate existing efforts 

KPI 

� Baseline completion status 

� Gap and overlap analysis completion status 

� Governance map completion status 

� Number of planned activities 

Action Plan 

� Review exact scope and mandate of current export promotion programs and 

organizations within public or private sector (agriculture-specific and overall 

trade) 

� Confirm/infirm possible overlaps, either in practice or through bylaws, in 

various initiatives, programs and organizations 

� Devise target governance, organization charts (e.g., creation laws, by-laws 

amendments, defining new membership type, funding mechanism) 

259 

Enabling Initiative: Outline export promotion governance and road-map 

Number: A2 

Status: New 


� A1 


� Broad focus: establish deadlines and 

KPIs 

� Lack of cooperation from existing 

organizations: insist on coordinationonly 

role for export promotion effort 


� Cost: 3-4 FTEs (LE 

3,000/month/employee) - LE 

36,000~48,000 

� Benefit: streamlining of current 

export promotion efforts 


� Presentation of proposed 

governance changes 

� Approval of action plan 

� Define high-level manpower plan with detailed job descriptions 

� Present findings and proposal to steering committee 

� Seek approval from steering committee to proceed with next steps 


The Agriculture Export Council (AEC) should become the focal 

point for providing export intelligence to the industry at large – 

EEPC will serve as main conduit for public & development aid 

PRELIMINARY 

PRELIMINARY 

Other 

Councils 

Voluntary Members 

Proposed Agricultural Egypt’s Export Promotion Structure 

EEPC 

� Serve as main conduit for channeling 

donor aid towards export promotion 

� Broker service requests from/to various 

councils 

� Help coordinate export promotion 

efforts across sectors 

Agriculture 


Council 

� Provide export data, market intelligence 

� Conduct PR & branding of commodity 

industry 

� Promote overall cooperation in the 

industry (e.g., fairs, logistics) 

� Deliver customized service (e.g., training) 

HEIA UPEHC ESHEDA 

Other 

Producer / 


Associations 

Private Public Private Public Other 

260 

Service Providers 

Expo Link 

� Provide logistical support for 

international trade fairs 

Funding Sources 

IMC 

� Conduct sectorial analysis 

� Provide funding 


Development Fund 

Other 

MoFTI 

MoA 

� Fund directly AEC 

� Provide input to AEC 

CAPMAS / ITC 

� Provide statistical 

agricultural data 

Egypt Commercial 

Service 

� Offer international 

presence 

EU 

USAID 

World Bank 

GTZ 

ARC 

� Oversees applied 

agricultural research 


The AEC will spearhead industry efforts in seven key areas: export 

development, communications, market intelligence, … 

Function 


Development 

Communication, 

Marketing & 

Branding 

Market 

Intelligence (1) 

Description of AEC Key Functions 

�Spearhead Egyptian presence at international trade shows and fairs 

�Develop contacts in international markets and provide international support to exporters with potential 

clients 

�Promote coordination among stakeholders along export value chain (e.g., Maritime Transport, Upper Egypt 

Development, Trade Negotiation) 

�Develop and manage Egypt’s local and international agriculture commodity brand 

�Administers media promotion and press announcements for overall industry 

�Provides support to companies with media & marketing materials, packaging, design, etc. 

�Gather and disseminate market information from international markets to Egyptian companies, growers, 

Ministries and associations, through various means. For example, Market Intelligence could use Agro- 

SMS, a fresh market pricing system providing data published by www.ams.usda.gov on a daily basis to 

indicate market prices of fresh fruits and vegetables in foreign markets 

�Leverage various forms of market information dissemination: Agro-SMS, e-mail newsletter, newspapers, 

agricultural extension service public announcements, radio (agricultural news), television (agricultural 

news), agricultural magazines 

�Inform exporters of market opportunities via e-mail as information becomes available. For example, if there 

is a freeze in Spain affecting the citrus crop, then Egyptian growers need to know the details as soon as 

possible in order to capitalize on the shortfall. 

261 

Main Activities 


… finance and investment, legal, trade & policy advocacy, and 

education & training 

Support Function 

Finance & 

Investment 

Legal, Trade & 

Policy Advocacy 

Education and 

Training 

Description of AEC Key Functions 

�Work and coordinate with EEPC, public bodies and NGOs to secure funding assistance for specific 

projects and programs to promote overall competitiveness of the sector 

�Develop and implement programs that address the financial and investment requirements of the different 

sectors and companies including trade financing, business plans, financial restructurings and investments 

�Assist companies with legal organization, foreign trade matters, contracts, etc. 

�Identify, in coordination with Sector Leads, policy changes needed to facilitate export growth 

�Prepare position papers for each sector, in order to support the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Industry in 

trade negotiations 

�Lobby Government on key of policy issues (e.g., Ministry of Agriculture on “Law of Protection of Varieties” 

and membership in UPOV, Ministry of Education on reforming agronomy curriculum to best fit the needs of 

the industry) 

�Provide trainings to companies in specific areas of deficiencies (e.g., logistics, post-harvesting) 

�Embed trainings into local curriculums 

�Coordinate and support existing organizations and donor programs 

262 



The target AEC organization structure encompasses core members 

support functions as well as forums/committees where members 

actively participate in decision-making 

�Strategic and Business Planning for 

AEC 

�Management and development of 

infrastructure including IT, assets and 

facilities 

�Financial Planning 

�Budgeting 

�Accounting 

Member Forums 

Committees 

Rice 

Potatoes 

Citrus 

Peanuts 

Onions 

Aromatic 

Flowers 

Strawberries 

Grapes 

Trade Advocacy 

New Crops 

Agro-Inputs 

Maritime Transport 

Air Transport 

Source: BAH Analysis 


4 

Horticulture 

Cereals 

Oil, Sugar Crops, 

SSF 

�Gathering market 

information from 

international markets 

�Market opportunities 

information 

Proposed AEC Organization Structure 

Strategy 

Planning 

Treasurer 

Core Member Support Functions 

Cotton 

2 

2 

Communications 

4 

Internal 

Public Relations 

Advertisement 

President 

�Internal communication 

with its members 

�Media communication 

�Advertisement to attract 

new members 

263 

33 

Corporate 

Secretary 

HR & 

Administration 

4 

�HR Support & Administration 

�Training 

�Procurement 

Consulting and 


Education & 

Advisory 

6 Development 

4 Training 

4 

Marketing Strategy 


Development 

Initiatives 

Operational & 

Logistics 

�Advisory services to its 

members including 

branding and monitoring 

implementation of export 

development initiatives 

2 

�Legal, trade and policy advocacy 

services 

�Contract Management with members/ 

contractors 

Fairs & Exhibitions 

International 

Representation 

�Negotiation with 

exporters and 

shippers 

Educational 

Programs 

Training 

�Provide/Manage 

trainings for 

members 


11 

22 

33 

AEC’s Board will comprise key management officers, prominent 

private sector players and Government representatives 

11 

Management Officers 

President 

Treasurer 

Secretary 

Management Officers to 

Support Board 

Private Sector 

Representatives 

Government 


Chair Vice Chair 

Proposed Board Composition for AEC 

AEC’s Board of Directors 

22 

Large 

Producers/ 


Associations 

Board Composition 

� Management officers support the Board in executing its management, financial, investment, and 

administrative functions, thereby alleviating the workload of the Chair and Vice-Chair 

� Management officers typically have non-voting rights 

� 3 to 5 large producers/ exporters associations are permanent members of the Board, determined on 

the basis of average annual export volume, as ascertained by the board, over the consecutive five 

years 

� 2 representatives of smaller exporter/ producer associations on a rotating basis 

� All members have voting rights as Directors 

� Influential member of the Ministry of Trade or Agriculture (e.g., IMC chair) to ensure sufficient visibility 

and awareness of the AEC 

264 

Small Producers/ 


Associations 

33 

Government 



AEC will be funded for its standard operating expenses by EEPC – 

project and specific services will be mainly compensated by AEC’s 

members 

Needs 

Funder 

1 

Basic Operational Needs 

EEPC 

�EEPC �EEPC is responsible for seeking 

funding for AEC’s operation from the 

following sources: 

– Donor agencies (World Bank / 

USAID / EU / UNIDO..) 

– Ministries ( MoFTI, Mo Trade, 

MoA) and 

– Public organizations such as IMC 

and Expo Link 

�AEC’s �AEC’soperational operational needs have been 

estimated to $1 Million (~30 FTEs) 

AEC’s Funding 

Funding of AEC operational, projects 

and specific services needs 

2 3 

Project Needs 

Members and Other Funding 

�� This type of funding is temporary 

and allows to meet project needs 

that have been agreed upon at 

roundtables with all AEC’s members 

�� Members can decide to contribute to 

the funding if if they desire to be part 

of the project 

�� EPA projected expense budget (see 

first year initiatives): 

– $1,500,000 from Industry 

– $1,500,000 from Government 

265 

Specific Customized Services 

Members 

�� A fee structure sets the costs for 

each type of specific service 

provided by AEC such as 

– Education and training 

– Export development initiatives 

– Logistics optimization 

�� Ministry of Agriculture is solicited to 

contribute to the funding of training 

and seminars 



Owner: Steering Committee’s Chairman 


Description 

� The further elaboration of the agricultural promotion effort requires the buy-in 

from the industry at large. In particular, legal changes required to formalize 

proposed institutional changes need to be ratified by the Egyptian legislature 

� In addition, organizations that were not initially involved in designing 

governance changes should be engaged at this stage to maintain overall 

effort momentum 

� The objective is this initiative is to obtain final approval of governance and 

organizational changes and secure funding to launch actual promotion 

KPI 

� Funding status 

� Required legislative changes enactment status 

Action Plan 

� Build business plan and business case: 

– Forecast staff headcount, infrastructure needs (e.g., international sales 

office), funding for activities 

– Project additional revenues in export attributable to promotional 

activities 

� Detail institutional changes required 

� Obtain approval from the steering committee on proposed business case 

� Organize “socialization” gatherings with key stakeholders: 

– Government (e.g., Ministry of Trade, IMC, Ministry of Agriculture) 

– Agricultural associations 

– EU, USAID and World Bank 

266 

Enabling Initiative: Formalize proposed institutional changes 

Number: A3 

Status: New 


� A2 


� Legislative process delays: launch 

quick wins in promotional efforts 

prior to formal legislation 


� Cost: 3-4 FTE (LE 

3,000/month/employee) - LE 

108,000~144,000 

� Benefit: ensure long-term 

sustainability of export promotion 


� Formal Agreement on proposed 

action plan 

� Funding secured 

� Legislative changes enacted 

� Secure commitment of logistical support, funding and long-term pledge from 

various stakeholders (e.g., Ministry of Trade, EU, World Bank) 

� Follow-up on legislative changes required to enhance Egypt’s agricultural 

export promotion governance 



Owner: Agricultural Export Council’s Director 


Description 

� Once the legislative changes have been approved, the reorganization of 

Egypt’s export governance can be launched in full 

� This initiative can start with quick wins identified in A2 so as to raise the 

profile of the export promotion efforts and encourage the passage of 

legislation 

KPI 

� AEC’s operational performance indicators per promotion program 

� Year-on-year agricultural export growth 

Action Plan 

� Finalize AEC executive management structure 

� Ramp-up key positions within AEC as per target governance identified in A2 

– Sector Specific Leads (Experts) 

– Support Leads responsible of each support function 

� Export Development 

� Communications 

� Market Intelligence 

� Financial & Investment 

� Legal Trade & Policy Advocacy 

� Logistics 

� Education & Training 

267 

Enabling Initiative: Launch export governance reorganization 

Number: A4 

Status: New 


� A2, partly A3 (Quick wins could be 

launched prior to full legislative 

changes) 


� Failure of Legislative confirmation: 

create export promotion board as a 

non-governmental entities 


� Cost: Hiring and Operations 

Budget: 12 million LE / year 

� Benefit: LE 285 million per year 

(differential impact in total export 

value between best and base 

scenario assuming 96-to-1 return 

on investment over next 11 years) 


� Organization fully operational 

� Assign quick wins identified in A2 to sector specific leads. For instance, AEC 

could initiate the following short-term actions: 

– coordinated press awareness campaign in Egypt on current efforts 

– International media promotion of Egypt’s agriculture exports 

� Develop internal process to coordinate and develop matrix-based organization, 

aligned on specific export promotion programs 

� Develop focused work-plans for each sector with specific performance 

indicators to assess progress against plans 

� Follow-up on proposed changes to overall export promotion governance (e.g., 

funding and interfaces with EEPC/IMC 


In the first year, AEC should launch a number of activities to help 

promote Egypt’s agricultural exports 

1 � Identify target markets and products with greatest likely-hood of sales for both value and volume. (See 


Booz Allen Market Analysis) 

� Determine importers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers, standards (GlobalGAP), and 

requirements 

2 

� Analyze current packaging of Egyptian products in view of promoting (a) quality and freshness, (b) 

Packaging 

portion control, (c) to positive attributes such as variety and origin. Packaging can also increase 

perceived value of fresh produce. Consumers will pay more for some individually labeled and 

packaged produce than for bulk produce. 

3 � Provide trainings to companies on Sales & Marketing; Advertising, Sales Promotion, and Public 

Trainings 

Relations; Packaging Design, Negotiation, Customer Service, Financial Mgmt 

� Contract out trainings packaging to Studio Spear (www.studiospear.com), negotiation (swanson & 

randolf – www.csradr.com) 

4 

5 

Media 

� Engage International and target market local wedia with news on Egyptian Agriculture, events, 

companies news, new products, promotional campaigns, etc. (Eurofruit Magazine – 

www.eurofruitmagazine.com, Fresh Produce Journal – www.freshinfo.com, Fresh Plaza – 

www.freshplaza.com, Agra-Net (FoodNews) www.agra-net.com, AsiaFruit Magazine – 

www.asiafruitmagazine.com, Americafruit Magazine – www.americafruitmagazine.com 

Trade Fairs 

Communications 

AEC’s First Year Priority Activities 

� Spear-head participation at trade fairs at U.S. – Produce Marketing Association (PMA) (www.pma.com), 

Germany (Global), ANUGA (www.anuga.com), Fruit Logistica (www.fruitlogistica.com), SIAL 

(www.sial.fr), MACFRUT (www.macfrut.com), IFE Fresh Produce (www.ifefreshproduce.com), Fresh 

Rotterdam (www.freshrotterdam.nl), FRESH (www.freshcongress.com), Southern Hemisphere 

Congress (www.shcongress.com), Middle East Congress (www.middleeastcongress.com) 

6 � Launch Fresh Produce website – 4 topics: (1) About us - keep it short and relevant (50 to 300 words) 

(2) Products & Availability - varieties, dates of availability, certifications, packaging and copackaging 

options, relevant shipping and storage information. (3) News - where to present new 

products, announce trade shows and promotional campaigns and other developments of interest and 

(4) Contact information – main contact person in each area, address, phone, fax, email 

7 � Identify Trade Offices in Target markets. Where necessary based on market growth opportunity, new 

Trade Representation 

stand alone Egyptian Agricultural Promotional Offices may be established 

Representation 

� Provide trainings to Trade Attaches on the products, customers, how to gather market intelligence 

(pricing, buyers, news articles, etc.) and supply to AEC, and on setting-up promotional activities 


268

In the short term, AEC should monitor major trade publications 

about EU fresh produce markets, and compile information into 

weekly newsletters published via e-mail each Friday 

Trade Publication 

EUROFRUIT 

www.eurofruitmagazin 

e.com 

FRESH PRODUCE 

JOURNAL / 

FRESHINFO 

www.freshinfo.com 

FRESH PLAZA 

www.freshplaza.com 

AGRA-NET 

www.agra-net.com 

Major Trade Publications on Fresh Produce Markets in EU 

Front Page 

�Eurofruit is the leading monthly magazine in Europe for fresh produce 

�Eurofruit reaches more than 8,000 readers worldwide 

�Copies are distributed to buyers free of charge at major trade shows such as Fruit 

Logistica 

�The Fresh Produce Journal has been a leading source of news about fresh produce 

markets since 1895 

�FPJ now boasts the largest paid circulation of any weekly publication in the industry 

�FPJ publishes daily updates and news alerts via the FreshInfo website and publishes 

Fresh Product Guides and the Fresh Deskbook 

�Fresh Plaza is an independent news source for companies operating in the global fruit 

and vegetable sector 

�Based in the Netherlands, FreshPlaza aims to provide producers and buyers with a 

variety of perspectives from as many sources as possible 

�Daily readership of the Fresh Plaza newsletter is 7,500. The service is free of charge but 

stories may be less thoroughly checked than other sources 

�Agra-Net is the online home of Agra Informa Group, a leading information specialist on 

agriculture and food policy, markets and trade 

�The Agra-Europe division publishes specialized trade magazines and newsletters, 

including FoodNews, Fruit and Vegetable Markets, Agra-Europe Weekly and many more 

�For fresh exporters, FoodNews and Fruit and Vegetable Markets are most relevant 

�These publications reach up to 16,000 decision makers in 85 countries 

269 

Description 


AEC could also launch Agro-SMS, an effective program for 

disseminating pricing information from international markets to 


Service 

Description 

Promotion of 

the Service 

Information 

Sources 

Agro-SMS Service Concept 

�� Agro-SMS provides customers with market data through short messages on their mobile phone 

�� Agro-SMS can be offered by marketing firms that use SMS as a means of promotion. These 

firms have bulk SMS contracts with phone companies that allow subscribers to access 

information with their cell phone 

�� Customers enter a code in the SMS text box and send to designated number. They are charged 

a small fee for the information, and obtain fresh market pricing in targeted markets updated daily 

�� The main challenge for promoting the Agro-SMS service is to develop a simplistic language 

system 

�� Promotion can be undertaken through agricultural news magazines, extension services, or 

distribution of small wallet-size cards that have all directions and access codes 

�� Info sources for foreign terminals are: 

– USDA website: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/mncs/intfru.htm - For fruits 

– USDA website: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/mncs/intveg.htm - For vegetables 

– Today Market website: www.todaymarket.com - For fruits and vegetables 

�� Primary source of information for London (New Covent Garden), Sofia, Paris, Hamburg and 

Rotterdam terminals is USDA web site. Only in case some information does not exist on USDA 

web site you should use Today market web site as a backup source 

270 


Strategic Objective: Brand Egypt as a premium quality exporter 



Description 

� Organize and structure an independent export quality control agency 

responsible of monitoring and advising on agricultural exports safety under 

government contract 

� Involve Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health to coordinate programs 

� The QA Agency is to provide competitive fee based trainings and services 

for Quality Assurance systems, HACCP*, Egypt Gap, and food safety and 

facilitate process of obtaining pre-clearance of agricultural exports 

KPI 

� Yearly sanitary interceptions in key export markets 

Action Plan 

� Form quality control advisory board – Ministry of Health, Ministry of 

Agriculture (e.g., quarantine), and selected private sector exporters 

� Secure “seed” funding and mobilize expert team (e.g., legal, sanitary control) 

� Baseline existing quality control legislations and processes 

� Propose target sanitary legislation for agricultural export control 

� Design regulatory environment to ensure Government maintains proper 

control over quality control agency 

� Prepare quality control agency governance & business case 

– structure agency on commercial-basis with inspection services provided 

under government contract (e.g., pesticide residues) 

– Identify funding, experts and skills requirements 

– Assess benefits from increased quality control on export potential 

Note: (*) Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point 

271 

Enabling Initiative: Create and launch export quality control agency 

Number: B1 

Status: New 


� N/A 


� Resistance from Ministry of Health: 

program should be joint initiative 

sponsored by various Ministries 

� Enforcement: design proper incentive 

and regulatory system to ensure 

strict application of quality controls 

� Lobby for legislation changes with help from quality control advisory board 

� Launch quality control agency with the following proposed initiatives: 

– Start pesticide residues monitoring program 

– Design and Implement Egypt GAP 


�Cost: N/A – agency should run on 

a break-even basis 

�Benefit: Elimination of 

interceptions and quarantined 

shipments to Western markets 


� Establishment of new quality 

control agency 

– Launch quality control awareness nationally (e.g., packhouses, transport 

companies) and internationally (e.g., DG Sanco, APHIS) 

– Investigate feasibility of pre-clearance frameworks for EU and US 

exports 


To effectively control the sanitary quality of commodities export, 

GOEIC should become a private-public joint-venture, regulated by 

the Ministry of Trade 

Food Safety 

Ministry of 

Health 

� Regulate Human 

Health Standards 

Food Safety 

Authority * 

� Define & control 

basic food standards 

Organization for 

Standardization 

& Quality Control 

� Administers 

overall national 

quality standards 

Grower’s 

Fields 

Proposed Agriculture Commodities Quality Control Structure 

Coordination 

Accredited 

Individual 

Individual 

Private 

Labs 

Labs Sector 

Labs Sector 

Sanitary 

Labs 

GOEIC 

� Develop sanitary & quality standards 

according to target export countries 

� Inspect exports of agricultural 

commodities for sanitary issues (e.g., 

fertilizers, pesticides, residues) along 

all the value chain 

� Administers sanctions & fine regimes 

for non-compliance 

� Certify sanitary laboratories 

Cold 

Facilities & 

Storages 

Supervision 

Inspection 

Pack- 

House 

Private Public Private Public 

Individual 

MoA 

Individual 

MoA / 

Individual 

Labs 

GOEIC 

Labs 

GOEIC 

Sanitary Labs 

Sanitary Labs 

Labs 

272 

Coordination 

Ports, 

Airports & 

Transits 

Regulation 

Ministry of Trade 

� Regulates GOEIC’s activities 

Export Supply Chain Stakeholders 

MoA - 

Quarantine 

� Liaise with GOEIC on 

import regulations 

Customs 

� Inspect administrative 

details for all agricultural 

exports 

MoFTI CAPMAS 

� Liaise with GEOIC on 

trade data analysis 

E-Traceability 

UNIDO 

� Promote traceability 

capability at pack-houses 

� Communicate statistical 

data related to fertilizers 

and number of 

producers/ exporters 


GOEIC will define basic sanitary & quality standards will ensure 

that all commodities exports out of Egypt fulfill basic sanitary 

requirements 

Description of GEOIC Key Functions 

Function 

Standards 

Inspection & 

Fines 

Accreditation 

�Develop and manage Egypt’s sanitary and quality standards for each target export market country in 

collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health (food safety) 

�Champion the creation of an Egypt-based quality standard (e.g., Egypt GAP) to comply with GlobalGAP and 

Primus Labs 

�Control all agriculture exports from Egypt at port of departures (e.g., airport, port) according to specifications 

& norms 

�Inspect sanitary and quality standards along the value chain (e.g., packing houses, ports, loading facilities) 

�Maintain relationships with testing laboratories, either under Government or private contract 

�Administers sanctions & fines regime 

�Define procedures and protocols to accredit various laboratories 

�Provide accreditation services to various laboratories across Egypt 

�Audit existing laboratories 

273 



The GOEIC should be reorganized as to focus on its role of setting 

standards, inspection and laboratory accreditation 

Source: BAH Analysis 

Standards 

Fresh produce 

Imports/Exports 

Food Imports/Exports 

Industrial and Engineering 

Imports/Exports 

�Establish sanitary & 

quality standards 

5 

Proposed GOEIC Organization Structure 

Planning 

Treasury 

2 

4 

President 

Fines & Sanctions 

274 

185 

Corporate 

Secretary 

HR & 

Administration 

2 

Inspection 150 

Laboratory Accreditation 

20 

Pesticides, Fertilizers, 

Residues Laboratories 

Assessment & Capacity 

Building 

Storage & Logistic Inspection 

� Conduct inspection along 

the value chain 

� Handle fines & sanction 

regime 

2 

Audit 

�Accredits national 

laboratories for compliance 

with sanitary & quality 

standards 

�Verifies continued 

compliance of accredited 

laboratories 


11 

22 

33 

GEOIC’s Board will comprise key management officers, prominent 

industry members along the export value chain and Government 

representatives 

11 

Management Officers 

President 

Treasurer 

Secretary 

Management Officers to 

Support Board 



Government 


Chair Vice Chair 

Proposed Board Composition for GEOIC 

22 

GEOIC Board of Directors 


Associations 

Board Composition 

� Management officers support the Board in executing its management, financial, investment, and 

administrative functions, thereby alleviating the workload of the Chair and Vice Chair 

� Management officers typically have non-voting rights 

� 2 to 3 representatives from exporter associations 

� 2 to 3 representatives from growers associations 

� 1-2 representative from national & international logistics companies 

� All members have voting rights as Directors 

� Influential member of the Ministry of Trade or Agriculture (e.g., IMC chair) to ensure sufficient visibility 

and awareness of the GOEIC 

275 

Growers 

Associations 

Logistics 

Associations 

33 

Government 

Representative 


GEOIC will fund its activities by collecting levies & fines on all 

exporters – additionally, GOEIC could complement its activities by 

providing customized services to the industry 

Needs 

Funder 

11 

Basic Operational Needs 


�GOEIC �GOEIC will subsidize its basic 

operational needs through levies 

collected from each exporter 

�Initial �Initial CAPEX investment can come 

from existing infrastructure (e.g., 

laboratories) 

�Adjust �Adjust levy based on cost-recovery 

for inspection 

�GOEIC �GOEIC estimated operational budget 

is estimated at $5 Million (150~180 

FTEs $2M & operating expenses 

$3M) 

GOEIC’s Funding 

Various Sources for Funding 

22 33 

Sanction & Fines 


�� GOEIC will be entitled to levy fines 

and sanctions against exporters who 

would violate sanitary & quality 

standards 

�� Sanctions & fines would be based 

on cost recovery program authorized 

by Ministry of Agriculture 

276 

Specific Customized Services 


�� Additional revenues could be 

generated by adding some add-on 

services (subject to approval by 

regulatory authorities): 

– BRC, GlobalGAP certification 

– Technical Support & Training 

through Food Safety 

Workshops 


In the first year, GOEIC will launch a series of initiatives to move 

Egypt towards meeting international market standards 

GOEIC’s First Year Priority Activities 

1 � Identify necessary regulatory changes to impose GOEIC as the sole authority for export 

Regulatory Changes 

control of commodities 

� Define regulatory regime with Ministry of Agriculture on GOEIC operations & inspection 

legislative and judiciary implications 

2 � Identify by target market the regulations and standards for market entry by product. Such as, 

Standards 

approved pesticides, tolerance levels, residue allowances, EurepGAP, HACCP, chilling 

requirements, etc. 

3 

Laboratories 

Accreditation 

� Conduct nation-wide campaign to accredit public/private laboratories to increase national 

footprint capacity for sanitary controls 

4 � Update GOEIC website to include Standards requirements for export. Notify all exporting 

Information 

companies on where to find it and the process for GOIEC inspections 

Dissemination 

5 

Pesticide Residue 

Program 

EgyptGAP 

� Launch Pesticide Residue Program. Collect data on agricultural commodities most frequently 

exported and match against export market requirements. 

6 � Design and launch EgyptGAP in accordance with GlobalGAP, but adapting to localized to 

7 

Quality Control 

Awareness 

Egypt: (1) Encouraging adoption of commercially viable Farm Assurance Schemes, which 

promote the minimization of agrochemical inputs, within Europe and worldwide. (2) 

Developing a Good Agricultural Practice (G.A.P.) Framework for benchmarking existing Farm 

Assurance Schemes and Standards including traceability. (3) Providing guidance for 

continuous improvement and the development and understanding of best practice. (4) 

Establishing a single recognized framework for independent verification. 

� Launch Quality Control awareness campaign nationally (e.g. packinghouses, transport 

companies) and internationally (e.g. DG Sanco, APHIS) 

277 



Owner: AEC - Education/Training/Support & Logistics Lead 

Duration: On-going 

Description 

� Current efforts to improve the existing local supply chain lack coordination 

and planning 

� AEC should coordinate the various programs (e.g., UNIDO, World Bank, 

AEC, HEIA, Ministry of Agriculture’s Extension Services) and link them to 

achieve greater focus and effectiveness 

KPI 

� Survey results from Egyptian exporters on quality of local supply chain (e.g., 

road infrastructure, professionalism of ground haulage companies) 

� Survey results from Egyptian exporters on average loss ratio on exported 


Action Plan 

� Identify all programs/ initiatives that support capacity along the local supply 

chain (e.g., ground transport, packaging, traceability, training, support 

services) 

� Map different programs and ensure efficient coordination/ linkages from one 

program to another 

� Establish Agricultural Project Review Committee consisting of AEC, Export 

Quality Control Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, and all Donor Projects to 

empower existing programs on following themes: 

– Traceability : encourage UNIDO project and link up with Export Quality 

Control Agency 

– Post-harvesting and packing: centralize & specialize vocational trainings 

and ensure integration with local extension services 

– Local transport/infrastructure improvements: create task force with local 

ground transportation companies and freight forwarders to examine key 

challenges to be addressed 

278 

Enabling Initiative: Strengthen existing agro-export local supply chain 

Number: B2 

Status: New 


� A4 


� Lack of buy-in from existing 

programs: promote a cohesive 

integrated export strategy with quick 

tangible results 


�Cost: N/A - included in AEC’s 

budget 

�Benefit: enhanced exportability of 

Egyptian agricultural commodities 


� Establishment of Agricultural 

Project Review Committee 

� Setup exploratory committees with local (e.g., HyperOne) and international 

(e.g., Carrefour) retail chains to assess development of retail market in Egypt 

in order to further enhance local supply chain 



Owner: AEC - Communications and Export Development Lead 


Description 

� Creation and Launch of an Egyptian Brand for export promotion of quality 

assured agricultural products 

KPI 

� Survey results from international importers on Egyptian brand awareness and 

perception 

Action Plan 

� Develop Request for Proposals for the creation of an Egyptian agriculture 

commodities brand (either sector-wide or focused on fresh products, cotton 

and rice) 

� Solicit bids from a minimum of 3 competent agencies. Consider creating a 

branding competition 

� Review of bids and competencies by Communications Team. Submission to 

AEC Board of Directors for Approval 

� Execute and disseminate communication plan to members and exporters 

community at large (e.g., ensuring awareness, logo availability) 

279 

Enabling Initiative: Launch international Egyptian branding initiative 

Number: B3 

Status: New 


� A4, B1 


� Failure of exporters to adhere to 

brand reputation: vetting by quality 

control agency of exporters 

promoted under the brand 


�Cost: Total $120,000 

–Brand Creation $20,000 

–Promotion: $100,000 

�Benefit: Enhancement of Egypt’s 

agriculture image and quality 

recognition by foreign buyers 


� Brand Creation 

� Media Campaign Launch 

� Link brand to Egyptian quality through media campaign and labeling as well 

as control from quality control agency 

� Monitor on a recurrent basis awareness and perception of Egyptian 

produces. Adjust promotional campaigns accordingly 


Egypt branding initiative could adopt a hierarchy model which is 

common to national export promotion branding efforts 

Scope Brand Owner 

National 

Brand 

Industry 

Brand 

Category 

Brands 

Private 

Company 

Brands 

Food 

Commodity 

Council 

Egypt – Brand Hierarchy for Fruits 

Textile 

Council 

280 

� EEPC 

� E.g., AEC, 

Furniture 

Council, Textile 

Council 

� HEIA 

� E.g., MAFA, 

SONAC, SEKEM, 

El Wadi, Agro 

Farms, Green 

Egypt, Al-Kenana, 

Green Land, Fresh 

Fruit Company, El 

Aguizy, Green 

Farm Company 

Brand Hierarchy Functioning 

�� EEPC would establish a national 

brand to all Egypt’s exports 

�� Agricultural commodities exports 

would have specific brands, 

aligned to the major country 

brand – hierarchy of brands 

(Specific fruit / country brands) 

– Fruits brands (e.g., oranges, 

mangoes, grapes) 

– Vegetables brands (e.g., 

artichokes, potatoes) 

– Cereals brand (e.g., rice) 

– Cotton brand (currently used) 

�� AEC leads the regional 

branding initiatives 

�� The existence of umbrella brands 

allows capturing of synergies 

and enhancing of promotion 

cost-effectiveness 


The request for proposal for branding Egyptian agricultural 

products should comprise an overview, clear guidelines for 

evaluation, expectations as well as administrative details 

Project 

Overview 

Evaluation 

Expectations 

Administrative 

Details 

Primary Components of Branding RFP 

�� Situational overview that describes the desired results of the project and objectives for building a brand 

�� Framework of the problem at hand and how an external entity can help meet the organization’s goals in 

developing a holistic brand and campaign 

�� Background of the organization and previous initiatives related to branding and marketing 

�� Relevant sections in in RFP: Introduction, overview 

�� Clearly defined evaluation process that enumerates how the project will be awarded as well as the criteria 

�� Types of branding firms or marketing organizations/individuals that qualify, necessary credentials, and 

necessary experience. 

�� Relevant sections in in RFP: Evaluation criteria, Eligibility, Candidate Qualifications & References 

�� Types and content of deliverables required from the contractor. The awarding entity also states what 

information it it is is responsible for providing to the contractor 

�� Conditions for managing and implementing the project, including decision rights and authority 

�� Schedule and development process for the project. Includes deadline of proposal delivery by date and 

hour, decision date and notification details of award winners, targeted project completion date and any 

factors that may be driving that date 

�� Relevant sections in in RFP: Deliverables, Management Requirements, Timelines 

�� Details on how contractors are to submit pricing information 

�� Information on purchase contracts, nondisclosure agreements, copyright ownership, and other legal 

documents as appropriate 

�� Specifics on payment terms, i.e. payment timelines, type of contract (fee-for-service contract or lump-sum 

contract), acceptable expenses or charges, etc. 

�� Relevant sections in in RFP: Pricing, Contracts and Licenses, Payment Terms 


281

Strategic Objective: Improve Egypt’s access to international markets 

Owner: AEC - Legal, Trade & Policy Advocacy Lead 


Description 

� Current efforts on advocating interests of agricultural commodities exporters 

are too fragmented and fail to leverage full potential 

� AEC could play a coordination role between various sector stakeholders to 

liaise with the Ministry of Trade in order to present a common and cogent 

front in trade negotiations 

KPI 

� Year-on-year percentage reduction in tariffs/quotas/windows facing Egypt per 

crop category in key destination markets 

Action Plan 

� Assemble Foreign Trade Advocacy Committee for each agricultural sector 

� Build analytics (e.g., econometrics model) to justify position 

� Disseminate negotiation schedule to all members to prepare for upcoming 

negotiations 

� Institutionalize participatory mechanism to: 

– Build common negotiation position among Egyptian agricultural 

exporters based on benefits to overall sector 

– Prepare position papers on trade matters for Egyptian Government. 

(AEC to prepare all background information) 

282 

Enabling Initiative: Drive common agriculture trade advocacy efforts 

Number: C1 

Status: New 


� A4 


� Conflicting interest among exporters: 

create institutionalized, transparent, 

data-driven and participatory 

mechanism to ensure fair 

representation. Remind overall 

sector incentive of lowering trade 

tariffs and export subsidies 


� Cost: N/A - included in AEC’s 

budget 

� Benefit: 681 million LE per year 

(Average difference in total export 

over next 11 years between best 

and base case following trade 

liberalization - average increase 

of 1% in market share per crop) 


� Establishment of Foreign Trade 

Advocacy Committees 

� AEC to conduct trade analysis to determine economic advantages of 

establishing partnership with Cairn’s Group and other international trade 

bodies. 

– Discuss proposal with various Trade Advocacy Committees and key 

sector stakeholders 

– Develop working papers to be presented to Egyptian Government to 

assist in negotiations benefiting the Egyptian agricultural sector 


The Cairns group is a coalition of 19 agricultural exporting 

countries, mostly developing countries, intent on bringing about 

full liberalization of global agricultural trade 

�Argentina 

�Australia 

�Bolivia 

�Brazil 

�Canada 

�Chile 

�Colombia 

�Costa Rica 

�Guatemala 

Geographical Distribution 

Member Countries 

�Indonesia 

�Malaysia 

�New Zealand 

�Pakistan 

�Paraguay 

�Peru 

�the Philippines 

�South Africa 

�Thailand 

�Uruguay 

Cairns Group Description 

Historical Background 

�� Established in 1986, the Cairns Group is a coalition of 

agricultural exporting countries which account for over 25% of 

the world’s agricultural exports 

�� The Group’s objective is to bring about liberalization of global 

trade in agricultural produce and abolish trade-distorting 

measures 

�� Most notable success occurred during Uruguay Round of the 

WTO talks with the conversion of import restrictions into 

tariffs. Helped develop stricter rules against export subsidies 

and a decrease in domestic agricultural support policies 

Accession Process 

�� No official membership process. Interested countries usually 

complete following steps to join the Cairns Group: 

− Exhibit support of 3 main Cairn tenets: deep tariff cuts, 

export subsidy elimination, prevention of agri-support 

− Express interest to the Australian Minister of Trade, 

chair of the Cairns Group 

− Obtain approval from Cairns Group members 

− Attend on provisional basis technical meetings 

− Join officially as member at Ministerial meetings 


283

Egypt would benefit from joining the Cairns group by reaping 

greater bargaining power, opening up additional trade 

opportunities and gathering trade intelligence & know-how 

1 

2 

3 

Greater 

Bargaining 

Power 

Additional Trade 

Opportunities 

Intelligence & 

Know-How 

Benefits of Joining Cairns Group 

�Acting collectively, the Group has more influence and impact on agriculture negotiations than any individual 

members could have independently, which is done by building consensus on some of the important issues 

for developing countries during trade negotiations 

�In the case of Egypt, a large majority of its exports sent to the EU. Because of the dependency on one 

trading partner, Egypt maintains little ability to leverage its position independently, which could be offset by 

joining a consortium of other countries trading with the EU 

�Membership increases the ability for Egypt to strike new relationships with member countries and open 

additional target markets for exports 

�Most of Egypt’s competitors in fresh produce are members of the Cairns group (except Israel). Egypt would 

gain better visibility on the strategy and objectives of comparable countries 

�Egypt would also be exposed to the Cairns group negotiation techniques, that were honed over the last 20 

years. This could help agriculture negotiation teams within the Ministry of Trade to acquire new skills & knowhow 

284 



Owner: AEC – Logistics Lead 


Description 

� Streamlining Egypt’s maritime logistics through: 

– Coordinated efforts to merge volumes 

– increase logistical capabilities through implementation of integrated 

transportation process 

– increased availability of Ro-Ro service, reefer container service 

– Creation of a designated reefer vessel fleet and EU maritime 

distribution terminal 

KPI 

� Mix of various transportation modes (percentage reefer containers, reefer 

vessels, air cargo, truck, etc...) 

� Year-on-year evolution of average unit cost (per ton, per km) faced by 


Action Plan 

� Commission a study of Egypt’s agricultural export transport logistics and 

processes: 

� Review current regulation bottlenecks that hamper cost-effective service of 

ro-ro vessels operating out of Egypt 

� Enhance current planning and coordination for reefer container service: 

– Establish Maritime Shippers Committee to identify common 

opportunities for expansion of service availability on reefer container 

service (e.g., greater coordination) 

– Identify key bottlenecks to improve service time and reliability for 

reefer containers (e.g., Egyptian Customs streamlining procedures for 

expediting exports) 

285 

Enabling Initiative: Streamline and expand Egypt’s maritime transport 

Number: C2 

Status: New 


� A4 


� Exporter fail to unite: Financial 

analysis detailing advantages 

� No buy-in from shipping companies: 

volume negotiation 

� No financing for Reefer vessel: open 

door to private operators 


�Cost: Maritime commissioned 

studies: ~3 million LE 

�Benefit: 475 million LE per year 

(Average annual impact over next 

11 years resulting from a 20% 

reduction in cost per kg of reefer 

containers, reefer vessels, and Ro- 

Ro vessels) 


� Establishment of Agricultural 

Logistics Export Committee and 

Maritime Shippers Committee 

� Establishment of Reefer Vessel 

� Conduct a maritime study and assess the cost and benefits for the 

implementation of a designated reefer vessel (e.g., Flexcon 21) 

� Assess needs and feasibility of maritime distribution hub in dedicated port 



Owner: AEC - Logistics & Legal Lead 

Duration: 5-10 years 

Description 

� Current air cargo market is characterized by a quasi-monopoly from Egypt 

Air. Other providers (e.g., Lufthansa, Air France) ship cargo but only on 

commercial aircrafts 

� Through deregulation of the sector, exporters should reap the benefits of 

quality air cargo logistics, price stability, and peak volume management 

KPI 

� Year-on-year evolution of average air transportation cost (seasonally 

adjusted) 

Action Plan 

� Create agriculture air cargo committee (incl. foreign airlines, exporters) 

� Prepare business case for air cargo liberalization: 

– Conduct a complete analysis and review of air cargo challenges 

– Estimate current burden imposed by quasi-monopoly by Egypt Air 

through econometric model 

– Prepare and disseminate business case for de-regulation of air cargo 

market to key export stakeholders 

– Submit business case to Government 

286 

Enabling Initiative: Enhance Egypt’s air cargo sector competitiveness 

Number: C3 

Status: New 


� A4 


� Egypt Air/Government reluctance to 

de-regulate air cargo market: 

submission of economic cost of 

monopoly 



budget 

� Benefit: 430 million LE per year 

(Average annual impact over next 

11 years resulting from a 20% 

reduction in cost per kg of air 

transport) 


� Organization of air cargo 

committee 

� Presentation of business case for 

air cargo deregulation 

� Coordinate industry capacity planning: 

– Develop program for consolidation of exporter volumes to negotiate 

improved air cargo rates and coordinate capacity with airlines 


The AEC should lobby the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Egypt Air 

for deregulation of the air cargo market in Egypt along 7 distinct 

components to achieve full liberalization in 10 years 

1 

Promote Creation of 

Civil Aviation 

Regulatory Authority 

Egypt’s Proposed Air Cargo Liberalization Steps 

� Propose to create independent authority, independent from current air transport incumbent (Egypt Air) 

to regulate all air transport activities and infrastructure 

� Promote vibrant and competitive air transport and infrastructure industry 

2 

Award National Air 

Cargo Carrier Licenses 

� Propose to authorize a number of new carriers to operate air cargo services (including mail), either 

scheduled or charter or both 

� Review multi-lateral agreement by Arab Civil Aviation Commission (ACAC) should help promote open 

skies principles applied to cargo services throughout the Arab League. 

3 

Negotiate Bilateral 

Reciprocal Cargo 

Agreements 

� Propose to implement a bilateral negotiating strategy of seeking reciprocal open skies for dedicated air 

cargo services by 2010, including 5th Freedom rights 

� Promote national carriers to operate in a flexible manner, without geographic restrictions within an 

enlarged market, and in some cases, to operate cargo hubs throughout Egypt 

4 

Abolish Egypt Air 

Quasi-Monopoly on 

Cargo Handling 

� Propose immediate abolition of Egypt Air’s monopoly on air cargo handling facilities and allow new 

entrants into the air cargo ground handling services market 

� Promote a competitive market in air cargo ground handling services that would deliver services at the 

required quality and cost levels that customers demand 

5 

Establish Egypt Air 

Cargo Facilities Sharing 

Arrangements 

� Open-up Egypt Air’s existing air cargo buildings to facilitate and allow other operators to share the 

existing facilities 

� Maintain short-term arrangement until opening of dedicated air cargo facilities by new entrants 

6 

Streamline Customs & 

Security Procedures for 

Air Cargo 

� Engage with customs authorities with the objective of improving air cargo processes to address cost 

and speed issues, for example, for interlining and shipment consolidation 

� Ensure efficient and timely processing of sensitive goods through customs while guaranteeing 

adequate sanitary quality control 

7 

Promote Full 

Liberalization of Air 

Cargo Market 

� Establish full liberalization of air cargo transport by 2016, fully regulated by Civil Aviation Regulatory 

Authority 

� Enable Egypt’s export industry access to affordable & quality air shipping services from major 

Egyptian airports 


287


Owner: AEC - Export Development, Communication Lead 

Duration: 5 years 

Description 

� Best-in-class experience reveals that international offices help establish a 

link between exporters and importers 

� As such, the establishment of AEC promotion offices in designated foreign 

markets would improve business relationships, help implement Egyptian 

promotional campaigns and open new business for Egyptian exporters 

KPI 

� Implementation of agricultural trade promotional offices status 

� Number of promotional agents hired 

� Frequency of promotional campaigns 

� Increase in sales opportunities 

Action Plan 

� Prepare analysis and business case for the establishment of agricultural 

trade promotion offices in targeted markets. In particular, assess the need 

to coordinate promotional offices with other industry to share investments 

� Prepare budget and submit business case to AEC Board and Ministry of 

Trade to secure funding 

� Hire sales promotion manager for target markets 

– Must have industry background ideally in target market 

– Must speak language of target market 

� Roll-out offices in target markets 

� Establish working relationships with distribution companies, category 

managers and buyers 

� Implement promotional campaigns with distributors, super markets, 

produce markets, restaurants and in local media 

� Seek out sales opportunities and send back to AEC sector leads for followup 

with appropriate companies 

288 

Enabling Initiative: Broaden Egypt’s export distribution reach 

Number: C4 

Status: New 


� A4 


� Pressure to hire political appointees: 

establish Scope of Work requiring 

industry persons only 


�Cost: ~500,000 LE annually / office 

�Benefit: Improved promotion of 

quality Egyptian products and 

increased sales in targeted 

markets 


� Promotional offices opened in 

target markets 


In summary, Egypt could focus on 15 major destination countries 

to enhance the exports of its seven strategic crops 

Strategic 

Crops 

Regional Export 

Markets 

EU 

USA 

GCC 

CIS 

FE 

I 

Grapes 

�Germany 

�UK 

�USA 


�UAE 

�Russia 

�Ukraine 

�China 

�Hong Kong 

Best Export Country Markets for Egypt Strategic Crops 

II II 

Strawberries 

�Germany 

�France 

�USA 


�UAE 

�Russia 

�Japan 

�Hong Kong 

III 

Oranges 

�Germany 

�France 

�USA 


�UAE 

�Russia 

�Hong Kong 

�Rep of Korea 

289 

IV 

Watermelon/ 

other 

Melons 

�Germany 

�France 

�USA 

�Oman 

�Russia 

�Hong Kong 

�China 

VV 

Artichokes 

�France 

�Italy 

�USA 

�UAE 

�Qatar 

�NA 

�NA 

VI 

Mandarins 

�Germany 

�UK 

�USA 


�UAE 

�NA 

�Hong Kong 

VII 

Guavas & 

Mangoes 

�Netherlands 

�UK 

�USA 

�Saudi 

Arabia 

�UAE 

�NA 

�China 

�Hong Kong 


The location of the agricultural trade promotion offices should be 

determined through market and return-on-investment analyses… 

Selection Process for the Location of International Agricultural Trade Promotion Offices 


�� Analyze target 

market along the 

following axes: 

– Product 

preferences 

– Pricing structure 

– Distribution 

channels 

– Potential 

customers 

– Competitors 

– Regulations 

Market and Profitability Assessment Criteria 

�� Which Egyptian products have the best opportunity in the 

targeted market? 

�� Is there sufficient demand? Does the current pricing 

structure allow for profits on sale of Egyptian products? 

�� Are investments necessary to ensure successful marketentry? 

Are these justified, given expected returns? 

�� What are available distribution channels? 

�� Is there a qualified and skilled workforce to manage 

logistics (transport, warehousing, delivery)? 

�� Who are the existing retailers (buyers)? What is their 

knowledge and perception of Egyptian products? 

�� How can customers find more information on Egyptian 

products? Is there an efficient customer service? 

�� Who are competitors in the market? What are their 

strengths and weaknesses? 

�� How are they operating in the market? 

�� What are the relationships between competitors and target 

customers? 

�� Are competitors supplying through distributors or directly? 

�� Are there any market regulations, duties or standards 

required for Egyptian products? 

290 

Location Selection 

�� Selected markets 

should provide 

favorable aspects 

along the different 

assessment criteria 

�� Selected markets 

should provide 

significant 

opportunities, based 

on in-depth financial 

analysis 

�� Local promotional 

offices should 

provide high value 

to AEC in the 

specific location 


… Thus increasing the opportunity for success by establishing 

strategies tailored for each market 

Country 

Germany 

& 

Netherlands 

(Berlin) 

Italy 

(Bergamo) 

USA 

(New York) 

Russia 

(Moscow) 

Key Crop 

� Mangoes 

� Artichokes 

� Mandarin 

� Grapes & 

Oranges 

Rationale 

� Logistics center to service 

regional markets 

� Wide variety of distribution 

channels 

� Centrally located 

� Centrally located to 

expand local market and 

push into Switzerland, 

Austria, Slovenia and 

Hungary 

� Trading Center 

� Value Proposition 

� Strategically located US 

trading center to service 

US and Eastern Canada. 

� Proximity to port facilities 

in New England, Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic 

� National recognition 

� Diverse population 

� Very large market and 

rapid growth opportunity 

� Competitive logistics 

� Centrally located 

� Keitt is the preferred mango 

variety 

� Well established competition 

(e.g., Pakistan, Brazil) 

� Lack of Egyptian brand 

recognition 

� High Egyptian market share 

� Direct market access 

� Domestic competition and 

protectionist policies 

� APHIS: Irradiation/deep 

cooling is required because of 

Peach Fly. 

� Well established competition 

(e.g. Morocco & Spain) 

� import restrictions 

� Competition has a very well 

established market share and 

distribution. 

� Customs entry long and 

complicated 

291 

Constraints 

Initiatives 

NON- NON- 

EXHAUSTIVE 

EXHAUSTIVE 

� Identify distributors 

� Launch Egyptian mango promotional 

campaign 

� Assess the necessity of adding more 

internationally recognized varieties. 

� Identify greater regional expansion 

� Trade fair: Fruit Logistica, Rotterdam 

� Capitalize on the success of Egyptian 

artichoke in Italy by pushing into 

neighboring EU countries (e.g., 

Slovenia, Austria). 

� Identify regional access points, 

wholesalers and distributors. 

Trade fair - MACFRUT 

� Become a certified pest-free supplier 

� Launch promotional campaign 

highlighting the quality of Egyptian 

Clementines 

� Identify distributors and retailers 

� Trade Fair - PMA 


� Develop branding and promotional 

campaigns 

� Initiate pre-customs clearance in Egypt 

for agricultural exports to Russia 

� Trade Fair – Proprietary IFE Fresh & Produce Confidential


strategies tailored for each market (Cont’d) 

Country 

KSA 

(UAE-Dubai) 

China 

(Hong Kong) 

France 

(Perpignan & 

Rungis 

UK 

(London) 

Key Crop 


� Grapes 

� Strawberries, 

Artichokes & 

Melons 

� Watermelon & 

Guava/Mango 

Rationale 

� Strategically located 

� Large Regional Market 

� Competition logistics easily 

challenged (USA) 

� Expanding HORECA 

market 

� Regional proximity to 

Chinese Mainland, Taiwan 

and Japan 

� High demand and sufficient 

market capacity 

� Central trading hub to build 

increased distribution 

� Volume consumer and EU 

distribution center 

� Located in strategic 

European terminal market 

� Established Egyptian 

Market Share on which to 

build growth targets 

� Low Egyptian Market share 

with opportunity for growth 

� High visibility and market 

accessible 

� Access to fastest growing 

EU retailers 

Target Markets 

292 

Constraints 

� Distances to reach to 

other regional countries 

� Air Cargo Logistics for 

regional delivery 

� Maintaining freshness 

� Egyptian market share 

� Logistics – distance from 


� Lack of quality 

recognition 

� Low Egyptian product 

recognition 

� Long relationships with 

competing regional 

suppliers. 

� French protectionism of 

domestic growers. 

� Price competition – Egypt 

is high (Melon) but very 

competitive with 

Guava/Mango 

� Low product recognition 

and availability 

� Limited retail access 

Initiatives 

NON- NON- 

EXHAUSTIVE 

EXHAUSTIVE 

� Identify importers, distributors, 

retailers 

� Examine Establishment of Logistics 

hub 

� Launch Egyptian Strawberry Quality 

promotional campaign 

� Trade fair - Gulfood Fresh Produce 


wholesalers, retailers and foodservice 

� Launch Egyptian Seedless Grape 

Promotional campaign 

� Identify market constraints to entry 

� Trade fair – Fresh Produce Shanghai 


� Launch promotional campaign 

highlighting the quality of Egyptian 

Produce 

� Examine establishment of Egyptian 

fruit & vegetable terminal 

� Trade fair - SIAL 

� Examine establishment of Egyptian 

Fruit & Vegetable market terminal 


� Launch Promotional Campaign 

highlighting Egyptian Quality 

� Trade Fair participation 



strategies tailored for each market (Cont’d) 

Country 

Ukraine 

(Kiev) 

Singapore 

Japan 

(Tokyo) 

Key Crop 

� Grapes 

� Oranges, 

Artichokes, 

Grapes, etc 


Rationale 

� Growing Demand – 

large market 

� Large regional Market 

� Black Sea access with 

opportunity for regional 

growth and direct 

transport access to 

Russian Market 

� EU competition selling 

at much higher prices 

� High value proposition 

during opposing 

Southern Hemisphere 

season 

� Regional market – 

Thailand, Malaysia, 

Vietnam, Indonesia 

� Access to 550 million 

consumers 

� Zero Egyptian presence 

� High Profile Market 

� High Value Opportunity 

� Educated consumer 

base with healthy 

eating demands 

Target Markets 

� Low CIF Price. 

� Large influx of Turks in distribution 

and close proximity to Turkey 

� Very diverse distribution channels 

– open air markets, small retailers 

and large supermarkets – all 

commanding different price points 

� Logistical delivery and service 

� Low product recognition 

� Difficult regulations for market 

entry 

� Logistics – air cargo – expensive 

� Zero supplier awareness 

� High market access quality control 

restrictions. 

� Market dominated by US who 

have invested heavily in 

promotion and brand recognition 

293 

Constraints 

Initiatives 

NON- NON- 

EXHAUSTIVE 

EXHAUSTIVE 


retailers 

� Examine establishment of 

Egyptian Produce Distribution 

Center for Region (Incl. Russia) 

� Launch Egyptian Quality 

promotional campaign 

� Trade Fairs: ANUGA, IFE 

Moscow, Fresh 

� Identify market access 

procedures 


and retailers 

� Examine opportunity for Egyptian 

regional trade logistics hub 

� Launch promotional campaign to 

raise awareness of Egyptian High 

Quality Produce 

� Trade Fair: Asia Fruit Logisitica 

� Identify market access 

procedures 

� Identify importers, distributors 

and retailers. 

� Launch promotional campaign to 

raise awareness of Egyptian High 

Quality Produce. 

� Trade Fair – Asia Fruit Logistica 


Strategic Objective: Realize Egypt’s agriculture full export potential 



Description 

� This initiative intends to federate current agricultural R&D efforts into an 

integrated strategy that will focus on applied research for export development 

� The promotion of a unified Agricultural Research Center, with direct link to 

private sector agricultural producer/processor/exporters and the AEC would 

increase Egypt’s agricultural competitiveness 

� In addition, Egypt’s membership in Union for Protection of Varieties can 

further stimulate private sector agricultural R&D investment in Egypt 

KPI 

� Launch of ARC status 

� Consolidation of all applied research R&D efforts in Egypt’s status 

� Number of yearly Egyptian-registered agricultural patents 

� Egypt’s UPOV membership status 

Action Plan 

� AEC to organize agriculture research steering committee with growers, 

packers, processors, exporters and agricultural scientists to develop the 

Agriculture Research Center (ARC) 

� Prepare analysis, business case and position paper on roles 7 prerogatives 

of such a center 

� Support ARC as dedicated agency to foster applied research (e.g. food 

technology, R&D, packaging materials, new varieties, growing & harvesting 

techniques, irrigation, crop protection - pest management) 

294 

Enabling Initiative: Promote market-driven agricultural R&D 

Number: D1 

Status: New 


� A4 


� Government has low budget 

available for R&D: lobby private 

sector and donor agencies for 

assistance 

� Challenge by existing seed 

companies to UPOV: prepare crop 

analysis for benefits of new varieties 



budget 

� Benefit: Develop and promote 

leading edge technologies for the 

advancement of agriculture sector 

export 


� Establishment of agriculture 

research committee 

� Establishment of new R&D 

Agency 

� Membership in UPOV 

� Encourage ARC to launch initiatives towards greater agricultural export 

performance: 

– Consolidate and unify all applied research R&D efforts in country under 

ARC 

– Prepare analysis for UPOV membership and obtain buy-in from Ministry 

of Agriculture for Egypt to become member 


The Agriculture Research & Development Agency is based on a 

Private-Public Partnership (PPP), which undertakes applied research 

aligned with the export strategy 

�Include AEC Director, 

Ministry of Agriculture 

Chief Scientist, University 

of Agriculture Scientist 

Designate, Minister of 

Science (if applicable) and 

top exporter firms. 

�Include producers, packers 

and exporters who require 

innovative technologies 

and products for the export 

market 

�Structured, organized and 

managed by each Sector 

Lead in their respective 

sectors 

�Provide guidance to the 

Individual Evaluation 

Committee 

�Developed under the 

renewed Extension Service 

i.e. Ministry of Agriculture 

and University School of 

Agriculture 

Agriculture Research and Development Agency Organization 

Independent Evaluation 

Committees 

Product 

Oriented 

Institutes 

Research Steering 

Committees 

Horticulture 

Cereals 

Sugar Crops 

Oil Crops 

Cotton 

SSF 

Regional R&D Centers 

295 

Ministry of 

Agriculture 

Chief Scientist 

Universities 

Plant Protection 

Disease and pest management 

Soil, Water & Environment Quality 

Management of fertile soils, water 

resources and environment 

Technology in Storage 

Extension of shelf-life to hold products 

in in markets until prices increase 

Agricultural Engineering 

Development of resistant crops, crops 

designed for dry climates, etc. 

Discipline 

Oriented 

Institutes 


The Agriculture Research & Development Agency could be funded 

through several options that depend on the status of the agency 

Public 

Funding 

Public- 

Private 

Funding 

Agriculture Research & Development Agency Funding Options 

�� Agriculture Research & Development Agency funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, if if 

assimilated to a Directorate of this Ministry 

�� Agency could also be established as a separate public entity, jointly funded by the Ministry 

of Agriculture and the Ministry of Science 

�� Agriculture Research & Development Agency could be established under the University 

system, and receive funding from multiple parties: 

– Industry or AEC, for specific projects 

– Ministries of Agriculture, Science and Education for ongoing activities 

296 


Strategic Objective: Realize Egypt’s agriculture full export potential 

Owner: AEC - Agricultural Export Council’s Director 


Description 

� For Egypt to realize its full export potential, additional farming resources from 

Upper Egypt must be leveraged. Indeed, current resources (water, land, 

labor) dedicated to exports will not suffice to reach full potential 

� As such, AEC should lead the coordination of all capacity building efforts by 

the Ministry of Agriculture, EU, USAID, and World Bank to formulate a united 

strategy for Upper Egypt farming on a number of topics 

KPI 

� Establishment of Upper Egypt Agricultural Development Committee and 

Investment Fund 

� Revitalization and enhancement of Agricultural Extension Service status 

� Improved access to credit and financial tools status 

� Number of vocational trainings provided and embedded in local institutions 

� Share of agricultural export from Upper Egypt 

Action Plan 

� Create Upper Egypt Agricultural Development Committee and Investment 

Fund in coordination with Ministry of Agriculture and bilateral/multilateral 

donor organizations 

� Establish mandate for Development Committee through: 

– Cataloguing current capacity building programs in Upper Egypt 

– Arranging consolidation of various funding initiatives under Upper Egypt 

Agricultural Development Fund 

– Commissioning Upper Egypt’s farming potential baseline along 5 key 

themes: cooperatives/associations, contract farming, access to 

infrastructure, access to credit, extension & training 

– Developing integrated implementation strategy for identified weaknesses 

in coordination with existing donor programs 

297 

Enabling Initiative: Build agricultural export potential in Upper Egypt 

Number: D2 

Status: New 


� A4 


� Conflict between subsistence and 

export farming: build consensus 

around basic development needs for 

farming in developing potential 


�Cost: N/A - included in AEC’s 

budget 

�Benefit: increased export volumes 

and quality 


� Creation of Upper Egypt 

Agricultural Development 

Committee 

� Integrated strategy implemented 

� Propose various initiatives to Development Committee: 

– Analyze current extension services, materials and functionality. Create 

partnership between Ministry of Agriculture and School of Agriculture for 

the enhancement and revitalization of Extension Services. Develop new 

extension materials focused on varieties best suited to Upper Egypt 

conditions 

– Develop access to credit and financial tools. Encourage cooperation 

within small farmer community and ensure that economies of scale may 

be obtained with competitive opportunities 

– implement vocational training (e.g., logistics coordination, market 

education, etc.) through donor programs 


Strategic Objective: Encourage full liberalization of agricultural sector 

Owner: AEC - Legal Policy Advocacy Lead 


Description 

� Current Government regulations for fertilizers, pesticides and seeds prevent 

full development of Egypt export potential 

� The objective of this initiative is to Improve the value chain process for the 

importation of agricultural inputs through process streamlining and 

acceleration 

KPI 

� Working group assembly and meetings status 

� Input analysis and position paper status 

� Improvement to current procedures status 

Action Plan 

� Assemble a working group with an interest to ensure liberalization and 

streamlining of imports for agricultural inputs. 

� Review all current laws 

� Conduct analysis of best practices in other countries 

� Submit position paper and seek procedural changes to current system that 

would help the industry 

� Seek buy-in from the government 

� Launch reform program 

298 

Enabling Initiative: Encourage import regulation reforms for agro-inputs 

Number: E1 

Status: New 


� A4 




budget 

� Benefit: Improved 

competitiveness and cost 

reductions 


� Assembly of working group 

� Submission of position paper and 

recommendations for procedural 

changes 

� Reforms launched 


The newly proposed import procedures for seeds should establish 

an expedited registration process and investigate classifying 

varieties into few distinct groups 

Preliminary 

Preliminary 

Key Elements of Seed Import Law 

Registration Process Recommended List of Varieties 

�� Every variety of fruits and vegetables needs to be listed in in the 

Register of Varieties before it it is is allowed to be sold on local market 

�� Documents needed for registration of foreign varieties: 

– Requirement for registering new variety in in the Register of 

varieties 

– Morphologic variety description with UPOV descriptors 

– Authorization of variety owner for registering the variety in in the 

Register of varieties 

– Statement on delivering seedlings for the needs of List of 

recommended varieties and soils 

– Prescribed number of foreign variety seedlings for test fields 

for the needs of List of recommended varieties and soils 

– Suggest payment of processing tax and handling charges. 

Payment should be reasonable 

�� If If all documents are valid, new varieties will be registered within 7 

days. After registration, new variety can be produced, imported or 

traded. 

�� Documents needed for registration of local varieties: 

– Requirement for accepting new variety 

– Prescribed number of foreign variety seedlings for test fields 

– Suggest local variety tax as well 

�� Testing of local varieties lasts 2 years after which results are 

statistically processed and Commission on new varieties gives its 

opinion. 

�� Varieties that do not have to be registered in in the Register of 

varieties are mainly for: 

– Scientific purposes – can’t be sold or multiplied 

– Import for the sake of export – needs to be exported until the 

set date 

299 

�� After being registered, each variety needs to be tested in in the test 

fields for three years (local varieties after 2 years of preliminary 

testing and approval, also need to be tested for additional three 

years) 

�� The list of recommended varieties is is made after this period 

divided in in four types: 

1. List A: Varieties suitable for production in in all test fields, 

therefore recommended for planting across Egypt 

2. List B: Suitable for production in in some test fields, therefore 

recommended in in certain regions 

3. List C: Varieties that got optimal results in in two year 

preliminary testing which will get final recommendation after 

3 year testing 

4. List D: Not recommended, but allowed for planting 





Description 

� Egypt’s irrigation withdrawal share of overall consumption ranks among the 

highest in the world. As the country develops further its agricultural potential, 

water is fast becoming a scarce resource and a limiting factor to achieve full 

potential 

� As such, Egyptian agriculture exporters should preempt any attempt from the 

Government to introduce anti-export legislation (e.g., rice export tax) and 

advocate sustainable policies that will curb water wastage and optimize 

cropping pattern mix while maintaining a competitive market 

KPI 

� Agriculture irrigation share of national water consumption 

� Overall Egyptian exporter value added 

� Cropping pattern and associated land & water usage 

Action Plan 

� Assist current Government efforts to establish an integrated water 

management approach (e.g., actively participate working committees) 

� Advocate among aid agencies (e.g., World Bank) greater funding towards 

building/renovating national, regional and district canals as well as irrigation 

equipments (e.g., water pumps) 

� Coordinate current R&D and training efforts (e.g., HEIA, Extension Services, 

ARDAAS) in on-farm on-farm water management techniques 

� Assemble working group with agriculture exporters associations (e.g., 

UPHEC, El Shams) to prepare position paper on water right allocation and 

water pricing. Lobby Government to pre-empt legislation that would hurt 

overall export potential (e.g., export tax on rice) 

300 

Enabling Initiative: Advocate sustainable water policies 

Number: E2 

Status: New 


� A4, D1 


� Reluctance from exporters to 

advocate water management: build 

case for benefit to overall industry 


� Cost: 690 million LE in 

reduced added value per year 

� Benefit: 2,500 million LE in 

increased added value per 

year 


� Baseline and expected benefit 


Introducing water saving incentives such as pricing or control 

mechanisms could deter farming of low-margin and waterintensive 

export crops with an overall positive effect on production 

CONCEPTUAL 

CONCEPTUAL 

Others 

Vegetables 

Cotton 

Rice 

Sugar 

Cane 

Wheat 

Current vs. Optimized Land Allocation * 

52% 52% 

8% 

5% 

11% 

4% 

19% 

13% 

11% 

24% 

Current Crop Mix Optimized Crop Mix 

Note (*): linear optimization of exporter margin per m3 of water based on land allocation 

Note (**): Cost of water = 0.05 LE/ m3 in old lands and 0.2 LE/ m3 in new lands 

Source: FAOSTAT; CAPMAS; World Bank; Ministry of Agriculture Statistics 

301 

Estimated Impact of Water Pricing on Egypt’s Gross 

Exporter Margin ** 

(2004, million LE) 

Pricing would optimize land 

allocation towards more 

water- efficient crops… 

… and increase overall export 

profitability thanks to higher 

exporter margins 

2,056 

Current Exporter 

Margin 

-691 

Cost of Pricing 

Water 

+2,530 

Additional 


From Optimized 

Crop Mix 

3,883 

Projected 


+1,827 

(+88%) 



Owner: AEC - Export Development, Legal Lead 


Description 

� Although Egypt’s Government since the 1980’s has largely deregulated the 

production, marketing and processing of the agriculture sector, some 

pockets of “strategic crops” continue to experience anti-export bias and 

unfair competition from state-owned enterprises 

� AEC must continue to lobby the Government for complete de-regulation and 

removal of agricultural production or processing support mechanisms 

KPI 

� Year-on-year price support estimate per crop 

� Percentage of agriculture product processing capacity owned by private 

sector 

Action Plan 

� Organize working group on deregulation in the agricultural sector with key 

stakeholders (e.g., Government, Food Security Institute, FAO) 

� Conduct analysis on strategic crops and effects of Government 

interventions 

� Prepare position paper based on increase in exports and values realized 

through de-regulation 

� Submit position paper to Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Trade, Ministry 

of Commodities Supply 

302 

Enabling Initiative: Support full production deregulation of agriculture 

Number: E3 

Status: New 


� A4 


� Politically sensitive: Include food 

security experts 



budget 

� Benefit: healthy agriculture sector 

that promotes efficiency through 

competition 


� Assembly of working group 

� Publication of position paper 

� De-regulation and removal of 

Government support mechanisms

Egypt Agricultural Export Strategy Report - Full - IMC EGYPT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?