BRICS+ Series: São Paulo's Agribusiness Exports Lead and Close Q1 2025
Image: TV BRICS
São Paulo's agribusiness sector reinforced its leadership in the first quarter of 2025 by posting a US $4.90 billion trade surplus. Although this figure represents a 19.9% decrease year-on-year, it underscores the state's enduring importance to Brazil's export economy. The results, released by the São Paulo State Department of Agriculture and Supply and prepared by the Agribusiness Technology Agency (Apta), confirm the state's strong role despite global market volatility. Exports totalled US $6.40 billion (a decline of 14.6%), while imports increased by 9.5% to reach US $1.50 billion. Agribusiness accounted for 41.7% of São Paulo's total exports and 6.8% of its total imports.
Export Performance and Product Leaders
The five leading agribusiness product groups in Q1 2025 were responsible for 73% of the state's total export value. The sugar and ethanol complex topped the list, contributing US $1.654 billion or 25.8% of the total. Of this, sugar accounted for 88.7%, with ethanol comprising the remaining 11.3%.
The meat sector followed with US $887.91 million in exports, representing 13.9% of the total. Beef was the dominant product in this category, responsible for 82.5% of the sector's foreign sales. Orange juice exports came third, amounting to US $863.07 million or 13.5% of total agribusiness exports, with 98.2% of this figure derived from orange juice alone.
Forestry products generated US $758.98 million (11.9%), led by pulp (55.1%) and paper (35.5%). Rounding out the top five was the soy complex, with exports totalling US $507.27 million (7.9%), of which 81.7% was soybean grain.
Coffee ranked sixth, contributing US $465.75 million or 7.3% of total exports. Within this figure, green coffee made up 73.4%, and soluble coffee 23.1%. Year-on-year, notable export growth occurred in several categories: coffee (+67.2%), juices (+37.5%), meats (+25.0%), and forestry products (+6.0%). However, sugar and ethanol fell sharply by 50.5%, and the soy complex declined by 17.9%.
Top Destinations for São Paulo Agribusiness
China remained São Paulo's largest agribusiness export destination, accounting for 19.3% of total sales. Leading products exported to China included soy complex goods (29%), meats (28%), and forestry products (23%). Despite maintaining the top spot, exports to China dropped by 12.6% compared to the previous year.
The European Union followed, with a 16.4% share. Its main imports from São Paulo included juices (37%), coffee (17%), and forestry and plant-based products (11% each). The United States ranked third with a 15.9% share, purchasing primarily juices (40%), meats (15%), animal products (9.5%), forestry goods (8.8%), and coffee (8.6%). São Paulo saw a 34.4% increase in exports to the EU and a 27.7% rise to the US, showing a positive shift in diversification of its export base.
São Paulo's National Standing in Agribusiness
São Paulo maintained its position as the top agribusiness exporting state in Brazil, accounting for 16.9% of the country's total sector exports. It was followed by Mato Grosso with 15.7% and Minas Gerais with 11.9%, the latter particularly strong in coffee exports. The data affirms São Paulo's leadership role not only in value but also in the diversity and innovation of its agribusiness output.
National Outlook: Brazil's Agribusiness Exports
At the national level, Brazilian agribusiness exports reached US $37.83 billion in Q1 2025, reflecting a modest year-on-year increase of 2.1%. Imports for the sector also rose, totalling US $5.18 billion, an 11.9% jump from the previous year. This resulted in a trade surplus of US $32.65 billion, up by 0.7%.
These figures reflect the strategic importance of the agribusiness sector not only to São Paulo but to the broader Brazilian economy. Agribusiness continues to be a key pillar in counterbalancing deficits in other sectors and reinforces Brazil's position as a leading global agricultural exporter.
Written by:
*Dr Iqbal Survé
Past Chairman of the BRICS Business Council and Co-Chairman of the BRICS Media Forum and BRNN
*Cole Jackson
Lead Associate at BRICS+ Consulting Group Chinese & South American Specialist
**The Views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.
MORE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE: https://bricscg.com/
Follow @brics_daily on X/Twitter & Instagram for daily BRICS+ updates
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
Brazil seeks WTO relief against Trump tariffs
BRASILIA - Brazil on Wednesday approached the World Trade Organization (WTO) for relief against a hefty trade tariff imposed by President Donald Trump on more than a third of US-bound exports from the Latin American powerhouse. The 50-percent tariff on several Brazilian goods went into force Wednesday over what Trump has termed a "witch hunt" against his far-right ally Jair Bolsonaro, the former president on trial for plotting a coup. Sources in the government of incumbent President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told AFP Brasilia had filed a request for consultations with the US mission to the WTO -- the first formal step in the trade body's dispute settlement process. Trump's latest tariff salvo raised duties on Brazil from 10 percent to 50 percent for key exports including coffee, beef and sugar. Exempt were nearly 700 other exports including civilian planes, orange juice and pulp, Brazil nuts, and some iron, steel and aluminum products. Brazil's Vice President Geraldo Alckmin previously told journalists the new tariff would apply to about 36 percent of the country's exports to the United States, equal to trade of about $14.5 billion last year. Trump's Brazil tariff is among the highest imposed on US trading partners and was framed in openly political terms, sweeping aside centuries-old trade ties and a surplus Brasilia put at $284 million last year. 'Judge and jury' In an executive order last week, the Trump administration lashed out at Brazilian officials for "unjustified criminal charges" against Bolsonaro, on trial for allegedly plotting to wrest back power after losing the 2022 presidential election to Lula. Trump's order also charged that the Lula government's recent policies and actions threatened the US economy, national security, and foreign policy. US tensions with Brazil are not likely to dissipate soon, with a Brazilian judge on Monday placing Bolsonaro under house arrest pending the outcome of his trial for contravening a social media ban. The judge, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, presides over Bolsonaro's trial and was himself hit with financial sanctions this week as Washington claimed he had "taken it upon himself to be judge and jury in an unlawful witch hunt." Moraes has clashed repeatedly with the far-right in Brazil, and with tech titan Elon Musk over the spread of online misinformation. Bolsonaro risks decades in prison if found guilty on the coup charges that had allegedly also included discussions to assassinate Lula and other senior officials. The tariff hike on Brazilian goods came a day before a separate wave of higher duties on dozens of economies ranging from the European Union to Taiwan. Analysts at Pantheon Macroeconomics estimate the pending increases would boost the average effective tariff rate for US imports to nearly 20 percent.
The Citizen
4 hours ago
- The Citizen
US tariff an existential threat for a third of metals and engineering sector
The effect of the US tariff on South African goods could cause many job losses in the metals and engineering sector and cause companies to close. The US tariff imposed on goods from South Africa exported to the United States poses an existential threat for some companies in the metals and engineering sector, according to a survey among SEIFSA member companies that showed 33.3% of companies in this sector are affected. The US announced a 30% import tariff on South African exports that will come into effect on Friday. This development prompted widespread concern in the South African metals and engineering sector, which relies on the US for approximately 8% of its total output. The Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of Southern Africa (SEIFSA) then conducted a snap survey across its membership base to assess the likely implications. SEIFSA received 126 responses from member companies and used it to compile an initial report on the impact of US tariffs on the metals and engineering sector. This report combines the quantitative as well as the qualitative feedback received and identifies the direct and indirect effects on companies, the market alternatives considered and notable initial perspectives emerging from the sector. ALSO READ: Act now to absorb impact of Trump tariffs on SA vehicle manufacturing sector – BLSA US tariffs in the metals and engineering sector According to the report, the self-reported exposure to the US tariffs can be categorised like this: Directly affected (revenue/job losses): 33.3% Indirectly affected (supply chain/economy): 23.8% Exploring alternative markets: 15.9% Uncertain about impact: 14.3% Unaffected: 12.7% Tafadzwa Chibanguza, CEO designate of SEIFSA, says these figures show that while not every respondent is directly exposed to the tariff, the majority anticipate either direct or cascading economic consequences which demonstrates the interconnectedness of the metals and engineering ecosystem. According to the survey, 71.1% of the respondents operate in the downstream value chain, while 13.3% operate in other value chains, 9.4% in the midstream (fabrication, processing and casting) and 6.3% upstream in metal production. Only 34.9% of the respondents export directly to the US, while 11.6% export indirectly through a value chain and 53.5% do not export to the US at all. Among those that do export to the US, 72.4% said up to 25% of their total sales are to the US, while 18.4% said it is the case for 26% to 50% of their exports, 51%-75% for 3.5% of the respondents and 76% to 100% for 5.8% of the respondents who export to the US. When the respondents were asked if they have long-term contracts with US-based customers that could be affected, 27.3% said yes, while 64.8% said no and 7.8% were not sure. Asked about their company's anticipated response or outcome as a result of the tariffs, these were their answers: What worries companies about US tariffs The respondents also gave these open-ended responses A significant number of respondents reported that the new tariffs would have severe and immediate consequences for their businesses. Many companies anticipate a dramatic drop in sales, with some stating that the US accounts for up to 20% of their turnover. The expected revenue declines are estimated at 10–20%. Several respondents indicated that if the tariffs persist, they would be forced to reduce their workforce or even close operations. In addition, some companies had to reconsider or halt planned investments. One notable case involved the redirection of equipment and production intended for the United States to another subsidiary, leading to the effective shutdown of a new South African facility. Manufacturers also expressed concerns about production uncertainty, especially where their product offerings are specifically tailored to US market demand. While some companies acknowledged the existence of alternative markets, most noted that these are limited and already under pressure. Asian suppliers, particularly from China, are aggressively pricing into African markets, making it difficult to shift exports regionally. Furthermore, protectionist policies in other countries have made export diversification even more challenging. Several companies reported a trade diversion effect, where redirected global supply chains have led to increased competition from lower-priced imports in key third markets, eroding South African competitiveness. Even companies not directly exporting to the US are bracing for spillover effects. Suppliers to exporters are anticipating reduced orders, while increased global steel prices and constrained access to key materials are expected to raise input costs. Respondents also flagged broader macroeconomic concerns, including rising inflation, decreased gross domestic product and worsening unemployment. There is a general sense of uncertainty, with companies citing delayed orders, client hesitation and investor risk aversion as immediate consequences. ALSO READ: 'It's just gone' – Trump's tariffs cost SA company R750m overnight US tariff responses from the metals and engineering sector These notable observations emerged from the responses: While some companies reported being unaffected, others described the tariffs as an existential threat, underscoring the uneven exposure within the sector. There were multiple calls for government intervention through export diversification incentives, financial support and stronger trade diplomacy. Some respondents criticised broader industrial policy frameworks, arguing that structural issues, such as high labour costs and electricity tariffs already undermined competitiveness before the tariffs were imposed. Lastly, one respondent highlighted the adverse impact on emerging green technology, noting that its unique energy-efficient product, which showed great promise, is now facing reduced demand due to the tariff-related uncertainty. Chibanguza says these responses show that the 30% US tariff is expected to have a significant and multidimensional impact on the South African metals and engineering sector. 'While not all companies are directly affected, the broader ecosystem, including suppliers, customers and competitors, face serious disruption.' ALSO READ: Concern about SA steel industry: Trump's tariffs and ArcelorMittal closure looming
Mail & Guardian
10 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Trump's tariffs are illegal under international trade law
US President Donald Trump. Photo: Supplied The Trump administration's trade tariffs are illegal and fall outside the legal framework of international trade law. South Africa should call out the US government for violating basic principles of international law South Africa is subject to a 30% US tariff rate, announced during the so-called liberation day tariffs declaration on 2 April, and will take effect from 1 August. The South African economy is likely to be significantly affected by these tariffs, particularly the agricultural sector and vehicle industries. The specific regions that will be affected are the Eastern Cape vehicle corridor and citrus fruit small towns in the Western cape. The tariffs are eroding the rule-based international trade order by unilaterally imposing tariffs to balance American trade deficit with its trading partners. The United States, being one of the chief architects of the international trade system is now questioning the benefits of the rule based global trade order. The first assault of the global trade order was in 2017, when the US, under Trump, started blocking all new appointments to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) appellate body as the terms of its Judges were expiring. Trump started his trade war with China in early 2018, when he started setting tariffs and other trade barriers against China. Breach of the WTO rules Trade within the auspices of the WTO is rules-based and has been a source of international economic stability and success in many of the world's economies. Established through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1948 and subsequently the WTO in 1994, the rules-based international trade law has been founded on what is known as diffuse reciprocity. Diffuse reciprocity essentially negates formal numerical equality in tariffs within the context of the global trade system. This is because reciprocal tariffs are a fundamental rejection of the WTO rules. Throughout the years, the international trade system has been based on the principle of non-discrimination amongst the member countries of the WTO. Non-discrimination principle promotes universal equal treatment between the WTO member countries. This trade without discrimination is known as the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) Treatment. The MFN is the first article of the GATT agreement, which regulates trade in goods. It requires a nation providing a trade concession to one trading partner to extend the same treatment to all. Therefore, countries cannot discriminate between their trading partners. For example, if country A offers a lower custom duty rate to country B, it has to extend the same treatment to others. Similarly, if a country imposes additional restrictions on the WTO member nation, it must do the same to all the other trading partners. A Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), Free Trade Agreements and Customs Union are some carve outs and exceptions to the MFN principle. For instance, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) is an exception to the MFN rule under the WTO legal Framework. But it should be noted that although South Africa's membership in Agoa gives preferential access to the US market, economists have said that only 20% of our exports constitute the Agoa export. Therefore, most of the country's exports are not under the Agoa preferential access. Beginning on 1 August 2025, the US will continue to violate Article I of the GATT by unilaterally imposing 30% reciprocal tariffs on the South African government. For example, while the Indian exporters will now face 20% US tariffs, South Africa's exporters will face 30% tariffs on the same products. The US is also in breach of its commitment under Article II of the WTO's GATT agreement, which deals primarily with the schedule of concessions. This provision details the tariffs commitments the WTO member states have made to other countries. It mandates the WTO member countries to provide treatment not less favourable than the one provided under its schedule of concessions, including adhering to bound tariffs that a country has committed itself to. By unilaterally imposing reciprocal tariffs that are not agreed to by other member states of the WTO, the US violates its legal commitment that it has made under Article II of the WTO's GATT agreement. While the US is permitted under Article XX VIII of the GATT to unilaterally modify its tariff commitment under international trade law, this approach requires a negotiated compensation with the affected member states. The Trump administration has not adopted this approach. Furthermore, the reciprocal actions also undermine the WTO law principle of special and differential treatment accorded to least developed and developing countries, to which South Africa is one of them. The rationale behind the special and differential treatment principle is to allow least developed countries and developing countries to provide less than full reciprocity in their tariff obligations to developed countries. Criticism of the US reciprocal tariffs Many countries have criticised the US reciprocal tariffs for violating basic principles of international trade. China has openly criticised the US government saying that the US move disregards the balance of interest reached in multilateral trade negotiations over the years and the fact that it has long benefited greatly from international trade. China has instituted a WTO case against the US for breaching of its WTO obligations. The second critic of Trump is the Singaporean government. The country's prime minister recently remarked that the US appears to be withdrawing from the global leadership to a less predictable international trade system and the messier world. He said the era of rule- based globalisation and free trade is over. He has labelled the US new tariff regime as a repudiation of the MFN principle. Likewise, the Canadian government has challenged the legality of the US tariffs. It has retaliated to the US tariffs by imposing 25% tariffs on $30 billion of US imports and has plans to expand to $155 billion after consultation. In addition to this, Canada has filed a legal claim against the US by requesting WTO dispute consultations with the US concerning the imposition by the US of import duties on certain steel and aluminium products from Canada. The initiation of this dispute has been circulated to all the WTO member countries. The actions by these countries are justified. The US government should be held accountable for its erosion of international trade rules. The South African government has not condemned the Trump administration for its violation of international law; it has instead insisted on one-sided attempts to negotiate trade deals with the US government. South Africa's position therefore does not explicitly express its discontent with the US illegal tariffs, but it is hoping that its negotiation will yield some trade deals with the US. One wonders if the results of that trade deal itself will be compliant with the WTO trade rules, but this will be seen once the US tariffs decision on South Africa has taken effect. The South African strategy On 7 July, the South African president issued a statement attempting to push back on Trump's imposition of 30% tariffs, saying that they are an inaccurate view of US-South Africa's trade relations. He has argued that these tariffs are not an accurate representation of available trade data. But this is not enough. South Africa appears to be hesitant to publicly call out the illegal tariffs of the US government, possibly because such public condemnation of Trump tariffs would not be in the interests of South Africa. According to the joint statement by the ministers of international relations and trade, industry and competition, South Africa is seeking to secure favourable quota agreements and additional exemptions by ensuring that its industries still maintain access to the US market including sectoral cooperation. The joint statement has reiterated that the country is committed to the mutual beneficial trade relationship between the US and South Africa. Instead of calling the tariffs illegal and against international trade law, the joint statement expresses concerns over shared prosperity between the two nations and it acknowledges these tariffs as constituting barriers to trade. Other countries have continued to negotiate with the US government on this tariff issue while taking it to the WTO dispute settlement system. If South Africa were to take a similar approach, it would continue to negotiate with the US government while reminding it of its commitment to the global trade rules. Perhaps the South African government might argue that this will not yield any results, given that the WTO settlement body is dysfunctional. The other impediment is that the appellate body of the WTO is not currently functional, because the US has blocked the appointment and reappointment of its judges. But China and Canada have continued to file legal claims against the US government. They understand the use of the global trade rules to enforce their claims against the violator of the trade system. As it did with the International Court of Justice case against Israel, history should remember South Africa as a country that fought for the stability of the multilateral trade system, a fair system of international trade and revitalisation of the WTO dispute settlement system. Mmiselo Freedom Qumba is a lecturer at the University of Pretoria and an admitted attorney of the High Court of South Africa.
