The economic effect of the DCFTA on

Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia.

A comparative analysis

- Financed by the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy -

Second version: 1 July 2019

Dr Ricardo Giucci, Veronika Movchan, Woldemar Walter

 Summary

• In 2014, the EU signed deep and comprehensive free trade

agreements (DCFTAs) with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia
• We estimate the economic effect of the DCFTA on the three
countries by comparing relevant indicators in 2018 with 2013
• Afterwards we compare the effect between countries
• The overall effect of the DCFTA seems to be positive, but major
differences exist between the countries
• The strongest effect clearly relates to exports; the effect on FDI is
so far rather weak
Effect on categories, 2018 vs 2013
Ukraine Moldova Georgia
Exports ++ +++ +
Commodity composition of exports + 0 ++
FDI 0 + +

2
 Contents

1. Introduction
2. Method
3. Ukraine
4. Moldova
5. Georgia
6. Comparison
7. Conclusions
Annexes

3
 1. Introduction
2014: Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia concluded deep and comprehensive
free trade agreements (“DCFTAs”) with the EU, which came into force the
same year*

To be analysed here
• What has been the economic effect of the DCFTAs on the three
countries so far?
• Is the effect similar in all three countries or are there major differences?

Economic effect: represented by three categories

• Exports
• Commodity composition of exports
• FDI
* Ukraine: coming into force on January 2016, but EU applied its treaty obligations using autonomous trade measures
in 2014; i.e. for Ukrainian exports, DCFTA de facto in force since 2014

4
 2. Method: three steps

First step: choosing appropriate indicators for the three categories

exports, commodity composition of exports and FDI (see next slide)

Second step: for each country, calculation of the change of these

indicators in 2018 compared to 2013
• 2013: last year before the DCFTA
• 2018: last full year after the DCFTA
• Significant improvements of indicators in this period are interpreted
as a positive DCFTA effect; this does not necessarily imply causality

Third step: comparison of the changes in indicators between the three

countries

5
 3. Ukraine
Exports
i. Export to the EU in USD terms
ii. Exports to the EU in constant prices
iii. Exports to the EU as a share of total exports

Commodity composition of exports

iv. Share of new products in total exports to the EU
v. Degree of concentration of exports to the EU
vi. Change in exports to the EU by level of processing

FDI
vii. FDI stock in USD terms
viii. Share of EU in total FDI stock

6
 i. Exports to EU in USD terms
Exports to the EU in USD terms, Exports to the EU
2018 vs 2013
• 2013: USD 16.8 bn
25 USD bn • 2018: USD 20.2 bn
20 +20%
→ Moderate increase by 20%
15 But: result is quite remarkable in view of
10
• Military conflict in the Donbas region
• In this period, government lost control
5 over Crimea and part of Donbas
• Total exports decreased by 25% in this
0 period
2013 2018
• Global commodity prices for key export
Source: WITS, Ukrstat, authors’ estimates goods such as grain and metals were
Note: exports of goods much lower in 2018 than in 2013, thus
depressing exports in USD terms

7
 ii. Exports to the EU in constant prices
Exports to the EU in constant prices, Next step
2018 vs 2013 • Removal of effect of price changes
30 USD bn, in constant • How? Using constant prices of 2013
prices of 2013
25
+54% Exports to EU
20 (in constant prices of 2013)
2013: USD 16.8 bn
15
2018: USD 25.8 bn
10
→ Large increase by 54%
5

0
2013 2018
Interpretation: substantial effect of
DCFTA on exports to EU likely, once the
Source: WITS, Ukrstat, authors’ estimate; exports of goods negative effect of global prices is
removed

8
 ii. Regional structure
iii. Exports to the of
EUUkrainian
as a shareexports
of total exports
2013 2018
Other
countries Other
26% EU countries
27% 29%

EU
India 42%
3%
Belarus
3% Belarus
3%
Kazakhstan Egypt
3% 3% India
Russia
Egypt China Turkey 5%
24% China Turkey Russia
4% 4% 6%
5% 5% 8%

Source: UN ComTrade, WITS

• Very strong increase of share of exports to EU by 15 pp

• Breakdown of trade with RUS indirectly contributed to this increase

All in all: clear indication of a strong effect of DCFTA on exports

9
 iv. Share of new products in total exports to the EU
Number of UKR exported goods to the EU, Number of exported goods to the EU
2018 vs 2013
• 2013: 2,610 products
2,900
# of products
2,868 • 2018: 2,868 products
2,850
➢ Net increase of 258 products
2,800
2,750
2,700
Share of new products in exports to
2,650
EU, 2018 vs 2013
2,610
2,600 • Gross number of new goods: 584

2,550 • Export value: USD 302 m

2,500 • Share in value of exports to EU: 2%
2,450
2013 2018
➢ Active appearance of new
Number of products, HS 6-digit, export
value > USD 1,000 products, but so far limited role in
total exports
Source: WITS, Ukrstat, authors’ estimate; exports of goods

10
 v. Degree of concentration of exports to the EU
HHI on concentration of UKR exports to
the EU, 2018 vs 2013 Herfindahl-Hirschman-Index (HHI)
• Indicator of concentration of exports
0.040
by products
Concentration

0.035
• The higher the value, the more
0.030 concentrated are exports
0.025 • Maximum value = 1
0.020 HHI for exports to the EU
0.015 • 2013: 0.035
Diversification

0.010 • 2018: 0.028

0.005
• Relative change 2018/2013: -21%
→ Concentration of exports decreased
0.000
2013 2018
Thus: DCFTA seems to have stimulated
Source: WITS, Ukrstat, authors’ estimate using exports of diversification of exported products
goods at 6-digit HS

11
vi. Change in exports by level of processing
by the level of processing
Exports to EU by level of processing,
UKR exports to the EU, 2018 vs 2013, 2018 vs. 2013
by level of processing
Share of raw materials
9 USD bn +55%
• Decrease from 34% to 30% of total
8
7 +6% Share of semi-processed products
+2%
6
• Decrease from 34% to 28% of total
5
4 Processed products
3 • Increase from 32% to 41% of total
2
1 → Share of processed products increased
0 by 9 pp; positive development
Raw materails Semi-processed Processed
products products
2013 2018
All in all: moderate effect of DCFTA on
Source: WITS, authors’ estimated based on
MTN classification
commodity composition of exports

12
 vii/viii. FDI stock in USD and as a share of total FDI
FDI stock (equity capital) from the EU, vii. FDI stock from the EU
2018 vs. 2013, eop • 2013: USD 41 bn; 2018: USD 25 bn
45 USD bn ➢ Sharp decrease by 39%, in line with

40
overall reduction of FDI stock by 40%
35
- 39% Reasons for overall reduction
• Hryvnia devaluation & economic
30
crisis led to lower asset values
25 • Loss of assets in Donbas region
20 • Outflow of FDI
15 viii. Share of EU in FDI stock
10 • 2013: 76%; 2018: 77%
5 • Only marginal increase by 1 pp
0 ➢ First 5 years of DCFTA did not coincide
2013 2018
with stronger FDI from the EU
Source: Ukrstat

13
 4. Moldova
Exports
i. Export to the EU in USD terms
ii. Exports to the EU in constant prices
iii. Exports to the EU as a share of total exports

Commodity composition of exports

iv. Share of new products in total exports to the EU
v. Degree of concentration of exports to the EU
vi. Change in exports to the EU by level of processing

FDI
vii. FDI stock in USD terms
viii. Share of EU in total FDI stock

14
 i. Exports to the EU in USD terms
Exports of goods to the EU, 2018 vs 2013 Exports to the EU
1.8 USD bn • Focus: exports of domestically
1.6 produced goods, i.e. excluding re-
1.4 exports*
+60%
1.2 • 2013: USD 1.0 bn

1.0 • 2018: USD 1.6 bn

0.8 → Very large increase by 60%
0.6
0.4 Main reasons
0.2 • Rise in exports of spare parts for
- vehicles
2013 2018
• Intensification of agricultural
Source: WITS, authors’ estimates exports such as sunflower seeds,
Note: exports of domestically-produced goods,
excl. classical re-exports as defined by the NBS maize and wheat
* More precisely: excluding classical re-exports, as
defined by the NBS

15
 ii. Exports in USDto
ii. Exports terms vsin
the EU real terms prices
constant
Exports to the EU in constant prices, Next step
2018 vs 2013
• Removal of effect of price changes
1.8 USD bn, • How? Using constant prices of 2013
1.6 constant prices
of 2013
1.4 +73% Exports to EU
1.2
(in constant prices of 2013)
1.0
• 2013: USD 1.0 bn
0.8
• 2018: USD 1.7 bn
0.6
0.4
0.2 → Very strong rise by 73%
0.0
2013 2018
Interpretation: export performance even
Source: WITS, authors’ estimates stronger, once the negative effect of
Remark: exports of domestically-produced
goods, excluding classical re-exports as defined prices changes is removed
by the NBS

16
 iii. Exports to the EU as a share of total exports
iii. Regional2013 structure of Georgian
Ukraine
exports
2018
Belarus Other Other
2%
2% countries countries
Switzerland Switzerland
8% 9%
3% 3%

Ukraine Turkey
4% 5%

Turkey Russia
7% 7%
EU-28
56%
Russia
20%
EU-28
74%

Source: WITS, authors’ estimates; exports of domestically-produced goods, excluding classical re-exports
as defined by the NBS

• Share of EU in MDA exports rose by 18 pp; very large increase

• Breakdown of trade with RUS indirectly contributed to this increase

All in all: clear evidence of very strong effect of DCFTA on exports

17
 iv. Share of new products in total exports to the EU
Number of MDA exported products to EU, Number of exported goods to the EU
2018 vs 2013
• 2013: 927 products
1,100 # of products 1,084 • 2018: 1,084 products
1,050 ➢ Net increase by 157 products

1,000
Share of new products in exports to
950 927
EU, 2018 vs 2013
900 • Gross number of new goods: 411

850 • Export value: USD 49 m

• Share in value of exports to EU: 3%
800
2013 2018
Number of products, HS 6-digit, export value
> USD 1,000 ➢ Active appearance of new
products, but small role in total
Source: WITS, authors’ estimates
Remark: exports of domestically-produced goods, exports
excluding classical re-exports as defined by the NBS

18
 v. Degree of concentration of exports
HH index on concentration of MDA Herfindahl-Hirschman-Index (HHI)
exports to the EU; 2018 vs 2013
• Indicator on concentration of exports
0.050 by products
concentration

0.045 • Maximum value = 1

0.040
0.035
HHI for MDA exports to the EU
0.030
• 2013: 0.045
0.025
• 2018: 0.047
0.020
• Relative change 2018/2013: +4%
diversification

0.015
0.010 → Slight increase in concentration
0.005
0.000 Thus: DCFTA did so far not contribute to a
2013 2018 diversification of Moldova’s exports
Source: WITS, Ukrstat, authors’ estimate; exports of
domestically-produced goods at 6-digit HS, excl. classical
re-exports as defined by the NBS

19
 vi. Change in exports by level of processing
by the level of processing Exports to the EU by level of processing
MDA exports to the EU, 2018 vs 2013,
by the level of processing
Share of raw materials
1.2 • Increase from 23% to 28% of total
USD m

1.0 +54% Share of semi-processed products

• Decrease from 5% to 2% of total
0.8
Share of processed products
0.6
+99% • Decrease from 73% to 70% of total
0.4

0.2
-20% → No major change in the high share of
processed products in exports to the EU
0.0
Raw materails Semi-processed Processed
products products

2013 2018 All in all: no significant effect of DCFTA on

Source: WITS, authors’ estimated based on the commodity composition of exports
MTN classification

20
 vii/viii. FDI stock in USD and as a share of total FDI
FDI stock (equity capital) from the EU, vii. FDI stock from the EU
2017 vs. 2013, eop
• 2013: USD 2.1 bn
2.5 • 2017*: USD 2.2 bn
USD bn
+4%
➢ Moderate increase by 4%
2.0

viii. Share of EU in FDI stock

1.5
• 2013: 63% of total
1.0
• 2017*: 66% of total
➢ Significant increase by 3 pp

0.5

All in all: moderate effect of DCFTA on FDI

0.0
2013 2017
*Data for 2018 not available yet
Source: National Bank of Moldova

21
 5. Georgia
Exports
i. Export to the EU in USD terms
ii. Exports to the EU in constant prices
iii. Exports to the EU as a share of total exports

Commodity composition of exports

iv. Share of new products in total exports to the EU
v. Degree of concentration of exports to the EU
vi. Change in exports to the EU by level of processing

FDI
vii. FDI stock in USD terms
viii. Share of EU in total FDI stock

22
 i. Exports to EU in USD terms
Exports of goods to the EU, 2018 vs 2013 Definition of exports to EU
300 USD m
• Exports of domestically produced
+9%
goods, i.e. excl. re-exports
250
• Hazelnuts excluded because of stink
200 bug problem (see Annex 2)
• Copper ore excluded because of
150
discrepancies in national statistics
100 Exports to the EU
• 2013: USD 248 m
50
• 2018: USD 271 m
- → Small rise by 9% (from a low level)
2013 2018
Main changes
Source: WITS, authors’ estimates, exports of • Higher exports of non-crude
domestically produced goods, excl. hazelnuts
and copper ores petroleum products, wine and
mineral water
• Drop in exports of fertilizers

23
ii. Exports in USDto
ii. Exports terms vsin
the EU real terms prices
constant
Exports to the EU in constant prices, Next step
2018 vs 2013
• Removal of effect of price changes
600
USD m, constant
• How? Using constant prices of 2013
prices of 2013
500 Exports to EU
+115% (in constant prices of 2013)
400
• 2013: USD 248 m
300 • 2018: USD 533 m

200 → Very strong increase by 115%

100 Reason for difference USD & real terms
• Prices for key exports dropped
0
2013 2018 − Medium oils and preparations: -88%
− Ammonium nitrate: -31%
Source: WITS, authors’ estimates; exports of
domestically produced goods, excl. hazelnuts − Ferro-silico-manganese: -20%
and copper ores Interpretation: very strong rise of real
exports to the EU, from a rather low level

24
 iii. Exports to the EU as a share of total exports
iii. Regional structure of Georgian exports
2013 2018
Other Other
EU-28 Russia
countries countries
16% 22%
20% 18%
Switzerland
Azerbaijan 4%
Kazakhstan 14%
4% Armenia EU-28
Armenia 5% 16%
7% Ukraine
Ukraine 6%
Russia
8% USA 11% Azerbaijan Turkey
Turkey 8% USA
9% 12%
11% 9%

Source: WITS, authors’ estimates; exports of domestically produced goods, excl. hazelnuts and copper ores

• Share of EU as an export destination stayed flat at 16%; no change

• Major constraining factor: surge of exports to RUS, after RUS lifted sanctions
on agrofood products from GEO imposed in 2005/2006
All in all: moderate effect of DCFTA on exports

25
 iv. Share of new products in total exports to the EU
Number of GEO exports products to the EU, Number of exported goods to the EU
2018 vs 2013
• 2013: 499 products
700
# of products 627 • 2018: 627 products
600 ➢ Net increase by 128 products
499
500

400
Share of new products in exports to EU,
2018 vs 2013
300
• Gross number of new goods: 333
200 • Export value: USD 31 m

100 • Share in value of exports to EU: 12%

0
2013 2018
Number of products, HS 6-digit, export value ➢ Active appearance of new products,
> USD 1,000 playing a noticeable role in total
Source: WITS, authors’ estimates; exports of domestically
produced goods, excl. hazelnuts and copper ores
exports

26
 v. Degree of concentration of exports to the EU
HH Index on concentration of GEO Herfindahl-Hirschman-Index (HHI)
exports to EU, 2018 vs 2013
• Indicator of concentration of
0.160 exports by products; max = 1
concentration

0.140

0.120 HHI for GEO exports to the EU

0.100 • From 0.094 in 2013 to 0.053 in
0.080 2018
0.060
• Relative change 2018/2013: -43%
➢ Significant change
diversification

0.040

0.020

0.000 Thus: DCFTA seems to have stimulated

2013 2018 diversification of exported products
Source: WITS, authors’ estimate, exports of domestically
produced goods at 6-digit HS, excl. hazelnuts and copper
ores

27
 vi. Change in exports by level of processing
by the level of processing Exports by level of processing
GEO exports to the EU, 2018 vs 2013,
by the level of processing Share of raw materials
200 USD m • Decrease from 20% to 6% of total
180 +97%

160 Share of semi-processed products

140 -20% • Decrease from 46% to 34% of total
120
100 Processed products
80 • Increase from 34% to 61% of total
60 -70%
→ Swift of exports towards processed
40
20
products thanks to expansion of exports
0
of non-crude petroleum products,
Raw materails Semi-processed Processed beverages and pet furniture
products products
2013 2018
Source: WITS, authors’ estimated based on WTO All in all: likely strong positive effect of
multilateral trade negotiations classification, exports of
domestically produced goods, excl. hazelnuts and
DCFTA on commodity composition of
copper ores exports

28
 vii/viii. FDI stock in USD and as a share of total FDI
FDI stock (equity capital) from the EU, vii. FDI stock from the EU
2018 vs. 2015, eop
• 2015*: USD 5.8 bn
9 USD bn • 2017: USD 7.7 bn
8

7
+33% ➢ Strong increase by 33% of FDI stock
from EU
6

5 viii. Share of EU in FDI stock

4 • 2015*: 44% of total
3 • 2017: 44% of total
2
➢ Constant share of FDI from the EU; no
1 change
0
2015 2018
All in all: moderate effect of DCFTA on FDI
Source: Geostat
* Not available for 2013

29
 6. Comparison of DCFTA effect by indicators

2018 vs. 2013 Ukraine Moldova Georgia

# Indicator Change Assessment Change Assessment Change Assessment

i. Exports in USD terms 20% + 60% +++ 9% 0

ii. Exports in constant prices of 2013 54% ++ 73% +++ 115% +++

iii. Exports to EU as % of total exports 15pp +++ 18pp +++ 0pp 0

Share of new products in total
iv. exports 2% + 3% + 12% ++

v. Degree of concentration -21% + 4% 0 -43% ++

% of exports of processed
vi. products 9pp + -3pp 0 27pp ++

vii. FDI stock from EU in USD terms -39% na 5%* + 33%** ++

viii. Share of FDI stock from EU 1pp + 3pp* ++ 0 pp** 0

* 2017 vs 2013; ** 2018 vs 2015

30
 Comparison by categories
Categories, 2018 vs 2013

Ukraine Moldova Georgia

Exports ++ +++ +

Commodity composition of exports + 0 ++

FDI 0 + +

Summing up
• DCFTA seems to have a rather strong effect on exports; this is
particularly the case for Moldova and Ukraine
• DCFTA also seems to have a positive influence on the commodity
composition of exports, as shown by the experience in GEO and UKR
• The effect of the DCFTA on FDI is so far limited and only to be observed
in Moldova and Georgia

Thus: main effect of DCFTA relates to exports

31
 7. Conclusions
1. Economic indicators suggest an overall positive effect of DCFTA
2. At the same time: major differences between countries
3. Main effect of DCFTA relates to exports
4. Effect on FDI rather weak; FTAs no substitutes for deficiencies in inv. climate
5. Moldova and Ukraine became economically more integrated with the EU
6. Georgia maintains strong links with neighbours due to its geographical situation
7. DCFTA and trade with Russia
• UKR/MDA: trade with Russia strongly decreased since 2013
• Main reason: Russian imposed trade sanctions on goods from UKR and MDA
• GEO: trade with Russia increased strongly since 2013
• Main reason: lifting of Russian sanctions on goods from GEO

32
 Contact

Dr Ricardo Giucci
giucci@berlin-economics.com

BE Berlin Economics GmbH

Schillerstraße 59, D-10627 Berlin
Tel: +49 30 / 20 61 34 64 0
info@berlin-economics.com
www.berlin-economics.com
Twitter: @BerlinEconomics
Facebook: @BE.Berlin.Economics

33
 List of annexes

Annex 1: level of integration with EU in 2013 and 2018

Annex 2: calculation of exports in constant prices
Annex 3 : the issue of re-exports in Moldova
Annex 4: the issue of re-exports in Georgia
Annex 5: the issue of hazelnuts in Georgia
Annex 6: shares of top Ukrainian export products to the EU
Annex 7: shares of top Moldovan export products to the EU
Annex 8: shares of top Georgian export products to the EU
Annex 9: sectoral structure of FDI stock from EU in Ukraine
Annex 10: sectoral structure of FDI stock from EU in Moldova

34
 Annex 1: level of integration with EU in 2013 and 2018
2013
Indicator Ukraine Moldova Georgia*
Exports to EU as % of total exports 27% 56% 21%
Number of products exported to the EU 2,610 927 499
Degree of concentration of exports to EU 0.035 0.045 0.144
% of exports of processed products 32% 73% 23%
Share of FDI stock from EU 76% 63% 44%
*including hazelnuts; for that reason, numbers differ from other tables

2018
Indicator Ukraine Moldova Georgia*
Exports to EU as % of total exports 42% 74% 17%
Number of products exported to the EU 2,868 1,084 627
Degree of concentration of exports to EU 0.028 0.047 0.054
% of exports of processed products 41% 70% 54%
Share of FDI stock from EU 77% 66% 44%
*including hazelnuts; for that reason, numbers differ from other tables

35
 Annex 2: calculation of exports in constant prices

Methodology
Step 1. Remove outliers, i.e. too small value and/or volume of exports
distorting unit price estimates. To remove outliers, we set export thresholds
for each HS 6-digit sub-heading. Unit value of exports is not estimated if
thresholds are violated.
• Volume threshold: min 10 kg

• Value threshold: min USD 1,000 (for Ukraine: min USD 5,000)

Step 2. For base year (2013), estimate of unit value of (a) exports to the EU
(UV-eu) and (b) exports of total exports (UV-world)
Step 3. Estimate exports in constant prices for each HS 6-digit sub-heading:
• If UV-eu > 0, UV-eu is multiplied by volume of exports to EU in 2018

• If UV-eu > 0, but UV-world > 0, UV-world is multiplied by volume of

exports to EU in 2018

36
 Annex 3: the issue of re-exports in MDA
Exports of goods to the EU, Three exports concepts (following WITS)
2018 vs. 2013
2.0
• Gross exports
USD bn
• Exports of domestically produced goods
• Re-exports
1.5

Moldova: re-exports are significant

1.0

Implication for our analysis

0.5 • Only domestically produced goods are
relevant, since re-exports do not depend
0.0 on trade agreements
Gross
Headline Exports of
Domesticly Classical re-
exports
exports domestically
produced exports
produced
exports
2013 2018 exports, excl. Thus: focus here exclusively on exports of
classical re- domestically produced goods
exports
Source: WITS, authors’ estimates, “classical” re-
exports as defined by the NBS

37
 Annex 4: the issue of re-exports in Georgia
Headline exports of goods to the EU,
2018 vs. 2013
Three exports concepts (following WITS)
• Gross exports
800 USD m
• Exports of domestically produced goods
700
• Re-exports
600
500
Georgia: re-exports are very significant
400
300
Implication for our analysis
200
• Only domestically produced goods are
100 relevant, since re-exports do not depend
- on trade agreements
Gross
Headline Exports of
Domesticly Re-exports
exports
exports domestically
produced
produced
exports Thus: focus here exclusively on exports of
exports domestically produced goods*
2013 2018

Source: WITS, authors’ estimates, re-exports

include copper exports * exports of copper ores are considered as re-
exports, given their uncertain origin

38
 Annex 5: the issue of hazelnuts in Georgia

Traditionally
• Hazelnuts by far the most important GEO export good to the EU
• 2013: hazelnuts accounted for 32% of total GEO exports to the EU

Years 2017 and 2018

• Stink bug decimated the harvest of hazelnuts in GEO
• As a result, GEO exports of hazelnuts to EU went down by 71%
(2018/2013)

Implications for our analysis

• Strong influence of hazelnuts on export performance to the EU
• But: stink bug problem has not link whatsoever to DCFTA
• Thus: necessity to remove special hazelnut issue

➢ Decision: exclusion of hazelnuts from export data and analysis

39
Annex 6: shares of top UKR export products to the EU
HS Description 2013 2018
100590 Maize (excl. seed) 10% 9%
854430 Ignition wiring sets 6% 7%
720712 Semi-finished products of iron/non-alloy steel 10% 6%
260112 Iron ores & concentrates, agglomerated 4% 5%
151211 Sunflower seed oil, crude 2% 5%
120510 Low erucic acid rape/colza seeds 5% 4%
260111 Iron ores & concentrates, non-agglomerated 6% 4%
720851 Flat-rolled products of iron/non-alloy steel, hot-rolled 2% 2%
230630 Solid residues from extraction of sunflower seeds 3% 2%
720230 Ferro-silico-manganese, in granular/powder form 1% 2%
Other products 52% 55%
Source: UN ComTrade, WITS

• The list of key export products to the EU remained quite stable, with maize
being No.1, but the sequencing of products changed
• Ignition wiring sets – a part of the EU automotive value chain - gained
importance surpassing metals and ores
• Higher share of “other products” suggests a diversification of exports

40
 Annex 7: shares of top MDA export products to the EU
HS Description 2013 2018
854420 Co-axial cable & other co-axial electric conductors 15% 12%
854430 Ignition & other wiring sets used in vehicles 6% 12%
120600 Sunflower seeds 5% 8%
080232 Walnuts, shelled 8% 5%
Other electric conductors, for a voltage not > 1,000 V, not fitted
854449 0% 5%
with connectors
100590 Maize (corn) 1% 4%
100190 Wheat (other than durum wheat) 2% 4%
151211 Sunflower oil, crude 4% 4%
701090 Carboys, bottles & other containers, of glass 2% 2%
Other electric conductors, for a voltage not > 1,000 V, fitted
854442 0% 2%
with connectors
Other products 56% 42%
Source: WITS, authors’ estimates; exports of domestically-produced goods, excluding (classical) re-exports
as defined by the NBS
• The structure of the Moldavian exports to the EU remained quite stable
• Cables, ignition wiring sets and conductors - a part of the EU automotive value chain -
gained importance surpassing agricultural and food products
• Lower share of “other products” suggests a stronger concentration of exports

41
 Annex 8: shares of top GEO export products to the EU
HS Description 2013 2018
310230 Ammonium nitrate 14% 15%
080222 Fresh or dried hazelnuts 32% 11%
271019 Medium oils and preparations, of petrol. or bitum. minerals 0% 7%
220421 Wine of fresh grapes 3% 6%
220820 Spirits obtained by distilling grape wine 5% 6%
220110 Mineral waters and aerated waters 2% 5%
720230 Ferro-silico-manganese 7% 4%
442190 Other articles of wood 0% 3%
200819 Nuts and other seeds, prepared or preserved 1% 2%
730419 Line pipe, seamless, of iron or steel 1% 2%
Other products 35% 39%
Source: WITS, authors’ estimates; only domestically produced goods, including hazelnuts, excluding copper ores
• The structure of exports to the EU changed considerably after the drop in exports of
hazelnuts due to poor harvest in 2017 and in 2018
• Wine, spirits, mineral water and new products such as petroleum products (not crude)
and articles of wood (pet furniture) increased their share in exports
• Change in product structure to a large extent a by-product of the hazelnut decline

42
 Annex 9: sectoral structure of FDI stock from EU in UKR
2013 2017
Other Transport Other
IT Transport 9% 11%
4%
4% 3%
Professional Industry
Professional Industry 31%
activity 34% activity
6% 6%

Real estate IT
8% 7%

Real
Trade estate
10% 10%
Finances
Finances Trade
20%
26% 11%

• Some changes in sectoral structure of FDI stock from the EU

• Significant decline of FDI in finance, higher share of IT and other sectors

43
 Annex 10: sectoral structure of FDI stock from EU in MDA
2013 Other 2017
Electricity, gas Other sectors
and water sectors Manufacturing 7% Manufacturing
Real estate
supply 3% 23% 26%
6%
12%
Finances
18% Electricity,
gas and
Trade
water
12%
supply
13%

ITC
Real 13%
estate Hotels & Finances
15% restaurants 21%
Trade
17%
14%

• Changes in sectoral structure of FDI stock from the EU

• Significant decline of FDI in real estate and hotels & restaurants, higher share of IT

44