India, Australia trade talks hit dairy, wine tariff hurdles as year-end deadline looms, say sources
An interim trade pact signed in 2022 lowered tariffs on a range of goods, but negotiations on a broader Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) covering goods, services and visas have slowed, with dairy and wine emerging as key sticking points, the sources said.
The officials declined to be named as they were not authorised to speak to media on confidential trade talks.
India's commerce ministry and Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
India's refusal to concede on politically sensitive dairy and agriculture products reflects mounting pressure from powerful farm groups, which is also shaping trade talks with other partners, including the United States.
"There is no question of agreeing to Australia's demands for further tariff cuts on dairy and wine," a senior Indian official with direct knowledge of the talks with Australia told Reuters.
"It could have an impact on millions of farmers and our nascent wine industry and grape producers."
Farmer groups and politicians from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's home state Gujarat and grape-growing Maharashtra, along with the $35 billion alcoholic beverages industry, are strongly opposing any concessions, the official added.
Under the interim pact, tariffs on Australian wine priced above $5 per 750ml bottle were cut to 100% from 150%, with a provision of a reduction to 50% over 10 years, while for bottles above $15, tariffs dropped to 75%, with a target of 25% in a decade.
Australia is pushing to accelerate these cuts and gain better access for dairy products - including cheese, high- protein whey concentrate, lactose and processed items - currently taxed between 20% and 30%.
"We'd like to see a reduction in the price at which tariff reductions kick in and a speeding up of those reductions," said Lee McLean, CEO of industry body Australian Grape & Wine, noting rising demand could benefit both Indian and Australian winemakers because they make different products.
Even relatively affordable Australian wines, he added, can retail for over A$100 ($65.77) in India due to high tariffs and taxes, despite costing just A$10-15 at home.
Karl Ellis of Dairy Australia said India's vast and culturally sensitive dairy sector limits mainstream exports, but niche products like high-protein whey, lactose, and select cheeses offer promise.
"Current tariffs are prohibitive," he said, adding lower duties could help Australia tap into the $30-40 million market now served by European exporters.
Despite the impasse, officials on both sides remain hopeful.
India is open to offer cutting tariffs on non-agricultural goods, including industrial items, while seeking more access for services and visas, a second official said.
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs said the talks for CECA are backed by both prime ministers, and conclusion of the pact would boost two-way trade, while building a more resilient economic partnership.
($1 = 85.8730 Indian rupees)
($1 = 1.5205 Australian dollars)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Homeowners warned their property value can decrease by 5 percent if it is within 3 miles of a certain building
They're pitched as a green energy miracle - but for homeowners, giant solar farms may spell financial gloom. A sweeping new study from Virginia Tech has revealed that homes located within three miles of a utility-scale solar facility lose around 5 percent of their value shortly after installation, according to Cardinal News. But while suburban homeowners take the hit, farmers and landowners are cashing in. The same study found that agricultural and vacant land within two miles of a solar plant saw prices soar by nearly 19 percent - as developers scramble to lease land for future expansion. Researchers analyzed 8.8 million real estate deals near 3,699 industrial-scale solar facilities across the United States. These aren't rooftop panels - they're sprawling fields of ground-mounted panels stretching across hundreds of acres. The Virginia Tech-led team built a detailed model to determine the impact of proximity, visibility and terrain - even factoring in elevation to see whether solar sites were visible from nearby homes. Surprisingly, it wasn't the view that affected home values. Whether or not residents could see the solar farm, the price dip remained roughly the same. And the hit didn't last forever. Prices typically rebounded within 10 years - but the short-term impact could be devastating for those trying to sell soon after construction. Meanwhile, homes sitting on larger lots - more than five acres - were largely immune to the drop. Experts believe the agricultural value surge is due to land near existing solar sites being seen as prime real estate for expansion. Developers prefer building next to existing infrastructure, making adjacent farmland highly attractive. But the study authors warned this may drive up rents for tenant farmers, even as landowners reap the benefits. The findings come as Virginia ramps up its solar footprint following a 2020 law mandating Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power go carbon-free by 2045 and 2050, respectively. And while the research covers the entire country, the battle over where to build solar farms is raging fiercest in rural Virginia - where locals are torn between environmental goals and personal financial loss. The researchers stopped short of drawing sweeping conclusions, noting that the results vary by region and circumstance. Still, the data points to a clear trend: solar farms do impact nearby property values. The study was led by Zhenshan Chen, an assistant professor of agricultural and applied economics at Virginia Tech, along with lead author Chenyang (Nate) Hu, who recently earned his Ph.D. The team also included faculty members Wei Zhang, Xi He, Darrell Bosch, and Pengfei Liu of the University of Rhode Island. The full research was published in June in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Chen urged policymakers to get ahead of the issue and consider steering future development toward brownfields - previously developed, abandoned industrial land - instead of prime farmland. But building solar farms on brownfields comes at a price. While the EPA offers financial help for cleanup, many sites are still too expensive for developers to touch. The Virginia Tech findings echo a growing - and conflicting - body of research on the solar-real estate question. A Loyola University study last year found that homes near solar plants in the Midwest actually saw a bump in value - between 0.5 and 2 percent. But a 2023 analysis by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and the University of Connecticut found that homes in six states lost 1.5 percent of their value when located near large solar sites. Meanwhile, a separate March study from Virginia Commonwealth University found that more than 30,000 acres of land in the state are now occupied by utility-scale solar projects. And cropland has taken the brunt of it. While cropland makes up just 5 percent of Virginia's total land, it accounts for 28 percent of land used for solar - sparking fears that farmers could be squeezed out as demand rises. Forests, by comparison, have been affected more proportionally - around 50 percent of solar sites were built on land that was previously wooded, mirroring Virginia's broader forest coverage. As the solar boom continues across America, the message is clear: these projects might help fight climate change - but they're reshaping the housing market in their shadow.
Auto Blog
2 hours ago
- Auto Blog
ZF's Modular EV Range‑Extender Set to Launch in 2026
By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. As some automakers retreat from the 'all-EV by 2030' battle plan, suppliers like ZF Friedrichshafen are quietly preparing smarter alternatives. Its new modular range-extender systems, dubbed eRE and eRE+, are due to enter production in 2026 — and they could help keep internal combustion alive in a way that actually makes sense. Developed at ZF's technical center in Shanghai and engineered for flexible, scalable integration, the eRE platforms aim to provide automakers with an easier path to longer-range electrification — especially in regions with sparse charging infrastructure or price-sensitive buyers. Source: ZF How It Works Unlike a conventional plug-in hybrid, ZF's range-extenders never use the engine to drive the wheels. Instead, the gas engine powers a generator, which in turn charges the battery or powers an electric motor. The base eRE drives the rear wheels, while the eRE+ adds a planetary gearset, differential, and clutch to support front-wheel assist — or full four-wheel drive. The result is a modular, software-defined drivetrain that works with either 400V or 800V vehicle architectures. The eRE produces between 94 and 148 horsepower, while the eRE+ scales to 201 hp. Carmakers supply their own engines and batteries — ZF handles the rest. It's a concept that echoes similar efforts across the industry. ZF's own range-extender push has been framed as a way to extend EV range without resorting to larger, heavier batteries — a particularly useful idea in midsize crossovers, pickups, and vans where space and weight are major concerns. Source: Volkswagen Others Are Thinking The Same Way ZF isn't alone in this line of thinking. Volkswagen recently revised its future EV platform — the Scalable Systems Platform (SSP) — to accommodate optional range extenders. While SSP was originally designed as a pure BEV solution, the company now views a generator-equipped fallback as a pragmatic 'safety net' against softening EV demand. The SSP will remain electric-first, but the range-extender update shows just how much the industry's tone has shifted. Likewise, Scout Motors — the VW Group-owned electric off-road brand — is developing its own version of this concept. The upcoming Scout Traveler SUV and Terra pickup will be available with a 'Harvester Range Extender' that promises to boost range to 500 miles. As with ZF's eRE setup, the Harvester system uses a gasoline engine strictly as a generator, not as a means of direct propulsion. What they all share in common is intent: extending range through smarter architecture, not just bigger batteries. What's Next? ZF's system is ready for global adoption. Manufacturing begins in 2026, with the company targeting automakers across Europe, China, and North America. BMW is reportedly trialing range-extender concepts with its iX5 hydrogen test vehicles, while other brands — particularly those not developing ground-up EV platforms — are evaluating ZF's solution as a retrofit-friendly option. The company previously worked on range-extender setups for London black cabs and is now investing heavily in modular, powertrain-agnostic components that help manufacturers adapt without overhauling their entire production line. For consumers, that could mean EVs that charge less often, cost less upfront, and offer better winter performance — all without forcing a compromise on driving feel or emissions targets. Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Why It Actually Matters The EV narrative isn't collapsing, but it is correcting. Range anxiety hasn't gone away, and infrastructure rollouts are lagging behind adoption rates. Rather than wait for the grid to catch up, companies like ZF are finding ways to meet drivers where they are — with practical, affordable tools that bridge the gap. Range-extenders won't replace pure EVs or hybrids entirely, but as part of a broader strategy, they may prove to be the missing link — a smart compromise in a world that's still figuring out how to plug in. About the Author Max Taylor View Profile
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump's anger over Bolsonaro case leaves top adviser fumbling to justify ‘punishing' tariffs on Brazil: ‘So, what is it?'
Donald Trump 's economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, struggled to justify the rationale for 'punishing' new tariffs on imports from Brazil during an appearance on ABC's This Week. Host Jonathan Karl questioned the rationale behind the new 50 percent tax on Brazilian goods, highlighting the $6.8 billion trade surplus with Brazil last year, and noting that the U.S. hasn't had a trade deficit with Brazil since 2007. The Trump administration has argued that tariffs are to counter trade deficits with U.S. trading partners, and the topic arose in a broader discussion of the president's newly announced tariffs on America's closest allies, including Mexico, Canada, and the European Union. 'So why, why, why are we putting a punishing 50 percent tariff on Brazil?' asked Karl. Hassett, speaking from the North Lawn of the White House, began: 'Well, bottom line is the president has been very frustrated with negotiations with Brazil and also with the actions of Brazil. In the end, though, you know, we're trying to put America first. I think that a lot of people, when I'm talking to negotiators from other countries, at some point they'll say, 'What did we do wrong?'' 'The message we're all trying to get across is this is about America getting itself ready for the golden age by getting our house in order, by getting our tariff and trade policy and tax policy exactly where it needs to be for a golden age,' he continued. 'And normally, it's not necessarily about a specific country, but with Brazil, it is. Their actions have shocked the president at times, and he's … been clear about that.' Karl pounced, noting that the president has been explicit as to why he is imposing such a high tax on Brazil. Trump expressed his anger in a letter to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva that the trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro for his role in an alleged coup to overturn his 2022 reelection loss was a 'witch hunt' and should 'end immediately.' The president specifically said the 50 percent tariff was coming in part due to 'Brazil's insidious attacks on Free Elections.' Said Karl: 'I don't understand how you're saying it's about America because the president has made it quite clear that what he's upset about is how the Brazilian Supreme Court has handled the criminal case involving former President Bolsonaro.' Hassett jumped in: 'I'm agreeing with you. What I'm saying is that … with most countries was that it's really about us getting the tariffs in order. And I think that this tariff for Brazil is a lot higher because of the president's frustration with Bolsonaro.' Karl persisted: 'But can you explain to me, because I find it confusing here … on what authority does the president have to impose tariffs on a country because he doesn't like what that country's judicial system is handling a specific case?' 'If he thinks it's a national defense emergency or if he thinks it's a national security threat, that he has the authority under IEEPA,' countered Hassett, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, at the center of a lawsuit over Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs that is currently before a federal appeals court. 'So, how is it a national security threat that, you know, how Brazil is handling a criminal case against this former president?' pressed Karl. 'Well, that's not the only thing. That's not the only thing. I mean…' a flustered Hassett replied. 'So, what is it? I mean, I've asked what it is,' said Karl. 'I mean, it seems that that's what President Trump's talking about. He's talking about his anger and his frustration. He's been quite candid about it with the Bolsonaro case.' Regrouping, Hassett said: 'Right. Well, the bottom line is that what we're doing absolutely collectively across every country is we're onshoring production in the U.S. to reduce the national emergency that is — that we have a massive trade deficit, that's putting it at risk should we need production in the U.S. because of a national security crisis. And this is part of an overall strategy to do that.' 'But again, as we've just established, we have a trade surplus with Brazil, not a deficit,' said Karl, adding over an interjected 'but' from Hassett, 'And we've had a surplus with Brazil for 18 years.' 'If you look at an overall strategy, if you don't have an overall strategy for this, then there'll be trans shipping and everything else, and you won't achieve your objectives,' Hassett argued. 'Okay. I'm still confused, but let me move on,' said Karl, concluding the discussion none the wiser.
