As part of the proposed budget relief measures for 2027, the federal government is considering reducing its financial support for regional aerodromes.

LCTA joins ASPASI (the Association of Passengers and Airports of Southern Switzerland (ASPASI), the Ticino Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Cc-Ti), the Ticino Banking Association (ABT), and other economic and tourism associations in Ticino in voicing concern over the potential consequences of cutting the approximately 5 million Swiss francs in annual funding currently allocated to Lugano-Agno Airport.
As the only airport located south of the Alps, Lugano Airport holds strategic importance at the national level and deserves full recognition. Its strong emphasis on business travel also makes it a vital asset for the competitiveness of the Ticino economic region.

ASPASI Press Release, in Italian (April 16, 2025)



Steel, aluminum, and their derivatives will be subject to an additional 25% duty upon importation into the United States beginning March 12, 2025. The regulation, formalized by two notices from the US customs agency, marks a further tightening of the Country’s trade policy.

In February, President Trump enacted two proclamations – Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States (#10895) e Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States (#10896) – which bolster the tariffs established under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. The measure not only affirms the 25% duty on steel imports but also escalates the aluminum tariff from 10% to 25% and extends to derivative products effective from March 12, 2025.

The measure’s extension impact multiple product categories:

  • aluminum and derivatives: items classified under tariff chapters 66, 76, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 94, 95, and 96.
  • steel and derivatives: items classified under tariff chapters 72, 73, 84, 85, 87, and 94

The measures eliminate all types of preferential treatment, encompassing absolute quotas, tariff quotas, and exemptions for specific countries. Additionally, they terminate previously approved general exclusions (General Approved Exclusions, GEA), retaining only those specific exclusions recorded in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system, which remain valid until their expiration or until the authorized volume is depleted.

Only products manufactured from molten steel or extruded aluminum within the United States will be exempt from the heightened duties. The duty for any other derivatives will be determined based on the value of the base metal.

No duty drawback will be available for these imposed duties. Moreover, steel, aluminum, and their derivatives entering US free zones from March 12, 2025, will obtain “privileged foreign” status and will be subject to duties when entered into the U.S. for consumption.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has produced two operational documents to elucidate the implementation of the new measures:

The two documents list the subheadings of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) required for import declaration and offer comprehensive guidelines for accurately declaring aluminum and steel content, including the country of “melt and pour” (for aluminum: this also applies when recycled materials are utilized).

Comparison of tariff subheadings

Which tariff subheadings in chapter 99 correspond to the different steel and aluminum items? Refer to our summary table!



The European Commission proposes to streamline the rules on sustainability by changing the scope and timing of the adoption of the CSRD, CSDDD, CBAM and EU Taxonomy.

On February 26, 2025 the European Commission adopted the Omnibus package, a new package of proposals aimed at simplifying EU regulations, enhancing competitiveness, and facilitating increased investment capacity. The legislation encompassed in the package includes the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the EU Taxonomy Regulation.

The following is a succinct overview of the suggested changes, without claiming to be exhaustive:

CSRD

  • limitation of reporting companies’ scope to those with >1’000 employees;
  • “value chain cap”: a voluntary reporting standard will be implemented for companies outside the CSRD scope, restricting the information that in-scope companies or banks can solicit from companies in their value chains with <1’000 employees;
  • postponement of reporting obligations by two years for large companies and listed SMEs (so-called Wave 2 and 3);
  • revision of the European Sustainability Reporting standards (“ESRS”) to reduce data points, clarify unclear provisions and enhance alignment with other regulations;
  • deletion of sector-specific standards requirement;
  • removal of the reasonable assurance standard.

CSDDD

  • postponement of the transposition deadline and the application date for the first wave of companies by one year, now set for July 27 and July 2028 respectively, while the adoption of the necessary guidelines has been advanced to July 2026;
  • exemption from the requirement to systematically conduct thorough assessments of adverse impacts in complex value chains; full due diligence is required only when plausible information suggests such impacts;
  • further simplification of sustainability due diligence requirements, including an extension to 5 years for the intervals between periodic assessments and updates, streamlining of stakeholder engagement obligations, and the removal of the requirement to terminate business relationships as a last resort measure;
  • restriction on the information that in-scope companies may solicit from their SME and small midcap business partners (i.e. companies <500 employees) to that specified in the CSRD voluntary sustainability reporting standards (VSME standard); additional information may only be requested if essential for conducting the mapping and cannot be acquired through other reasonable methods;
  • deletion of the obligation to terminate as a last resort: companies would only be required to halt engagements pertaining to the relevant activity.

CBAM

  • exemption from CBAM obligations for small importers (<50 tons per year);
  • simplification of declarants’ authorization, embedded emissions’ calculation, reporting requirements and compliance with financial liabilities for CBAM in-scope importers.

The Commission confirms its intention to broaden the scope of CBAM to encompass other sectors within the existing emissions trading scheme and downstream products, with a legislative proposal expected by 2026.

Taxonomy

  • voluntary Taxonomy reporting for CSRD in-scope companies (>1’000 employees) with a net turnover of up to EUR 450 million;
  • simplification of reporting templates;
  • simplifications of Taxonomy-based KPIs for banks by excluding exposures from the Green Asset Ratio (GAR) for companies not included in the future scope of the CSRD.

Useful links



The EU Forced Labour Regulation entered into force on December 13, 2024. It will take effect on December 14, 2027 prohibiting the placement and availability of goods produced by forced labour on and from the EU market.

The Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market (Forced Labour Regulation, FLR), aligns the definition of “forced labour” (or “compulsory labour”) with the International Labour Organization Convention No. 29 (Forced Labour Convention). It encompasses all work or service “which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily”, or used as a method of coercion, punishment, discipline, or discrimination.

The FLR applies to all goods sold in or exported from the European Union, regardless of geographic origin or industry and without value thresholds: effective December 14, 2027, products and their components will be banned from the market if forced labour is employed at any stage of their production, manufacture, harvesting, or extraction, in whole or in part, including any work or processing associated with the product at any of these stages.

The Regulation does not introduce additional human rights due diligence obligations on businesses, but strengthens the Member States’ legislation on forced labour and the EU frameworks, including the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). While the CSDDD establishes due diligence obligations regarding forced labour impacts for businesses across the value chain but does not include provisions to ban the importation of products into the EU market, the FLR implements mechanisms for the ban, withdrawal or disposal of goods made with forced labour, requiring products to be recycled, rendered inoperable, or destroyed.

By December 14, 2025, Member States are required to appoint a competent authority and notify the European Commission, which will publish the authorities’ list in the so-called “Forced Labour Single Portal”. The portal, to be established by June 14, 2026, will also serve as a repository for decisions and guidelines for businesses, including due diligence procedures and best practices for termination and remediation of different types of forced labour. The European Commission is also required to establish a public database detailing forced labour risks in specific geographic areas, products or product categories, including forced labour imposed by state authorities. Decisions regarding the prohibition, withdrawal, or disposal of products will be acknowledged throughout the Member States. Businesses failing to comply with a decision under the Regulation may incur in fines.

Recommendations

Businesses have three years to assess the existence of forced labour risks within their supply chains, whether directly through their import or export activities or indirectly via reliance on imported or exported products, and to map their potential exposure. Concurrently, they should also ensure the inclusion of appropriate clauses in contracts with their suppliers to mitigate the risk of certain products being held at the EU border, resulting in market withdrawal or disposal.



Dear Members and extended Community,

as we bid farewell to 2024 and embrace new beginnings, we would like to take a moment to express our heartfelt gratitude for the trust and cooperation you have shown us. To be more specific, dear Members, your support has been vital to our journey, and we are extremely grateful to have you by our side.

The year has been once again a difficult one, with commodity traders facing daily challenges that have been further exacerbated by an increasing political interference in market activities. Fortunately, the sector has proven time and time again that it has what it takes to overcome these obstacles, but in an ever-changing environment, knowledge, training, experience sharing, and a competitive and attractive business location are cornerstones. Thus, in 2025 the LCTA will continue its efforts to offer valuable training and networking opportunities while also maintaining an open line of communication with authorities and other significant stakeholders.

During our discussions with such key players, we regrettably noticed that the sector’s significance is frequently undervalued. To address the shortage of accurate baseline statistic data and gain stronger bargaining power, the LCTA will therefore launch a substantial Industry Assessment and Data Collection survey. To safeguard your privacy, we will use state-of-the-art cryptography. We will delve deeper into this matter in the coming months, but for the time being, just know how important your input is: help us serve you!

In the meantime, we wish you and your loved ones a joyful holiday season and a New Year filled with opportunities, renewed partnerships, and continued growth.

Warmest regards,

Matteo Somaini, President & Monica Zurfluh, Secretary General



On December 5, 2024, at Hotel Splendide Royal in Lugano, the LCTA held the «Commodity Roundtable» alongside its Annual General Meeting. The event featured the participation of Swiss Ambassador Monika Schmutz Kirgöz as guest of honor, attracted over 120 participants from across Switzerland and highlighted the adaptability of commodity traders to escalating geopolitical risks and increasingly stringent regulatory frameworks.

In conjunction with its 14th Ordinary General Meeting, the Lugano Commodity Trading Association (LCTA) sought to assess the prevailing landscape amid another demanding year by convening a panel discussion with several members on a critical topic: geopolitical challenges and constraints on free trade.

The event opened with introductory remarks from LCTA President Matteo Somaini emphasizing that commodity traders continue to navigate unchartered waters following a year marked by increasing political intervention in market activities and unprecedented challenges for the sector. The baton was then handed over to the guest of honor, Swiss Ambassador Monika Schmutz Kirgöz. Currently head of mission in Rome and previously serving in Tel Aviv, Istanbul and Beirut, Ambassador Schmutz Kirgöz will assume leadership of the Middle East and North Africa Division of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) starting January 2025. At the event, she conveyed her firsthand experience in the Middle East and emphasized the critical transitional phase the world is undergoing, characterized by a pivotal geopolitical shift towards a new multipolarity, coupled with the rise of artificial intelligence as a transformative force, with substantial implications for the business sector.

The remarks of Ambassador Schmutz Kirgöz contributed to prompt a panel discussion moderated by LCTA Vice President Roberto Grassi, featuring also Costanza Eufemi (Co-founder of Lyra Commodities SA), Mattia Giussani (Head of Power Origination of Sirius Energy SA) and Roger Hughes (COO and Risk Manager of DITH). The discussion addressed Europe’s decline in productivity and technology, its emergence as regulatory power, and the winners and losers of the sanctions war. Panelists recognized that while segments of the commodity trading sector have lost part of their business and were forced to seek alternative suppliers or customers, there have also been positive developments. Specifically, Europe’s concerted initiative to achieve energy independence through the diversification of energy sources and the promotion of renewable energy has benefited trading companies engaged in these areas, , or supporting the development of required infrastructures.

China’s growing global influence is also undeniable: the Asian powerhouse plays a pivotal role in the global supply chain of essential raw materials and it is also expanding its reach by strategically securing mines and resources in regions such as Africa and South America, often in exchange for building infrastructures or by integrating the entire value chain, from extraction to production, thereby gaining a competitive advantage over its competitors. Moreover, China has stakes in or oversees various vital ports around the world, including the Port of Piraeus in Greece, the Port of Gwadar in Pakistan, and the recently inaugurated Chancay port in Peru, just to name a few. The Chinese control of critical infrastructure is evidence of a farsighted and well coordinate strategic approach, although it raises concerns, since it may serve as a mechanism for geopolitical leverage.

Overall, the panel examined how the interplay between deglobalization and trade protectionism affects business decisions and investments patterns, leading to redundancies within supply chains to bolster corporate resilience and ensure operational continuity. Despite the objective challenges, a positive picture of commodity trading companies that are adaptable and flexible in rapidly evolving markets, customer-centric, and innovative in problem-solving in areas such as logistics and risk management, has arisen from the discussion. A discussion that culminated with a cherry on top. Although the topic was not explicitly discussed, the response to a legitimate yet provocative question from the audience was unequivocal: Ticino, and Switzerland more broadly, maintain favorable framework conditions and as long as the regulatory framework remains business friendly, they remain the preferred locations for commodity traders to conduct business.

Lugano, December 6, 2024
For further information: Monica Zurfluh, Secretary General, LCTA, zurfluh@lcta.ch, M +41 79 220 40 71



LCTA is honored to report that on Wednesday, November 28, 2024 its President Matteo Somaini was reelected as a Member of the Executive Board of the Swiss umbrella association SUISSENÉGOCE for the term 2024-2026.

In this capacity, he will not only continue to advocate for the interests of our Members and represent our Association, but also engage in critical discussions about the commodity trading sector within a committee comprised of senior representatives from leading commodity trading companies and financial institutions, alongside our sister organization, the Zug Commodity Association (ZCA).

We congratulate Matteo and the newly elected Executive Board of SUISSENÉGOCE, wishing them productive deliberations!

In today’s budget announcement, the UK Government has released its comprehensive response to the CBAM consultation held earlier this year, confirming that the UK CBAM will impose a carbon price on goods imported from the aluminium, cement, fertiliser, hydrogen, iron, and steel sectors beginning January 1, 2027. Commodity codes falling within the scope of UK CBAM are listed in Annex B.

Products from the glass and ceramic sectors will be exempted from CBAM in its initial rollout.

The registration threshold is set at £50,000 for CBAM goods imported into the UK within a 12-month timeframe.



Interview with Anna Borschchevskaya, Senior Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, USA, by di Dimitri Loringett

The Middle East’s strategic location between Europe, Asia and Africa makes it an important hub for global trade, particularly maritime transportation. The continuation of Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, as well as the dreaded conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon, are a major concern also for the commodity trading industry in Ticino, represented by the Lugano Commodity Trading Association. In anticipation of the Global Commodities Conference, which will take place at LAC on July 2, we spoke with foreign policy expert Anna Borschchevskaya, who specializes on Russia and its role in the Middle East.

Part of the Lugano conference is dedicated to the Middle East, where the outbreak of the war in Gaza made the world of global trade jittery about the possible consequences of another crisis situation. Which ones, specifically?

«Overall, the region is going through a lot of turbulence. That is unlikely to change anytime soon, so it’s important to prepare for long-term disruption. This region sits at strategic nodes that impact maritime trade. Consider how the Yemeni Houthi rebels in the Red Sea utilize “cheap” drones to force the US to retaliate with more expensive weaponry. Other opponents of the West are likely to follow the Houthis’ example and discover ways to disrupt marine trade at low cost to achieve their own strategic objectives, which likely includes more disruptions to weaken the US and its allies.
Russia for its part is also involved in the region, and Russia’s so-called ghost fleet continues to deliver oil through these waters, but at far greater risk. For one thing the ghost fleet has no indemnification insurance, so the risk is simply higher when dealing with these ships».

The U.S. is called upon, and expected, to ‘fix’ the very complex and fragile situation in the M.E., but its long-standing influence and role as the ‘world police’ is (arguably) waning. On the other hand, there are also interests in the M.E. of other global powers, namely Russia which, however, is not involved in the ceasefire negotiations. Could Moscow do more (or anything) to ease tensions?

«Whether US influence is waning or not, Putin wants to remake the world order by enhancing Russian power and influence to weaken the West. Russia has always seen the Middle East as an arena of competition with the West. Moscow’s military intervention in Syria in late 2015 was a challenge to the liberal world order. Russia wants to see a multipolar world Moscow has used this region to achieve this aim. Russia for years had positioned itself as a mediator in the region, someone who can talk to all sides. But in reality, they always leaned closer to anti-American forces in the region, namely Iran and its proxies along with the Assad regime. Russia’s response to October 7 however has marked a break with this approach—Putin has demonstrated in clearest terms that he’s no friend of Israel. He did not directly condemn Hamas even as Russia’s own citizens were killed. Instead, Putin blamed the US the region’s problems. Russia also used the resultant chaos in the region to its advantage and worked to further exacerbate it because it benefits from this chaos on multiple fronts. Certainly, it had taken the West’s attention away from Ukraine. Russia was also bitter about ongoing Arab normalization efforts with Israel, because it was negotiated by the US. Russia was happy to see this agreement put in jeopardy and worked to exacerbate anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab world. It’s hard to see what positive role Russia can play to contribute to solving the Israeli-Palestinian war. Given Russia’s October 7 response, it is unlikely that Israel sees Moscow as a neutral mediator, but the purpose of any Russian mediation is not to come up with a genuine resolution. It has no ability nor desire to bring forth a genuine resolution».

Iran is the declared archenemy of Israel and it is also a strategic ally of Russia. What does this alliance mean for the (in)stability in the Middle and Near East region?

«Russia benefits from perpetuated low-level conflict instead. For the first time in the Russia-Iran history, Russia now finds itself reliant on Iran, specifically on Iranian drones, which it deploys to hit Ukrainian targets. This means that the strategic partnership with Iran is not only going to deepen, but Russia will be likely to go further in terms of what it offers to Iran than it would have prior to the invasion of Ukraine. This means that together Russia and Iran are likely to cooperate more to exacerbate tensions and chaos in the region, to the detriment of Western interests».

How high is the risk of a war spreading to the Persian/Arabian Gulf?

«War is destabilizing no matter what. So while there is always a risk, a country usually would prefer to limit war. This is true, generally speaking, even of Russia’s war on Ukraine, at the time of this writing at least. Russia would prefer not to fight a direct war with NATO or the US for instance.
As for Iran, it doesn’t seem that Tehran wants to see wide-scale war. Certainly, it would want to see continual conflict, but it is easier to maintain this conflict from full-scale war. And Russia would prefer that also. Russia for its part wouldn’t want to be put in a position where it would need to overcommit resources it needs to fight the war in Ukraine».


Beyond the propaganda and allegations from the West, how real is the threat of Russia extending its military action beyond Crimea and the other eastern Ukraine territories it has occupied?

«First, let me say that it is Russian officials themselves that have made it clear that their ultimate aims go beyond Ukraine. Their destabilizing activities in Moldova, Georgia, and towards NATO members also raise legitimate concerns. Unofficially, Belarus has been involved for a long time. Their nuclear threats are also designed to deter the West from further action. Putin also casts the war as an existential battle where the West supposedly attacked Russia using Ukraine, so from the Kremlin’s perspective it is a global battle. It is certainly possible that if Putin feels that the war is going poorly, he may get more aggressive as part of escalation management, to move to other countries».


Is it truly in the best interest of the Western world to have Russia as an enemy?

«It is Russia that sees the West as the enemy. The West, to the contrary, for years had taken steps to integrate Russia, to address its concerns, and closed its eyes to its aggressive behavior. To give a few examples, NATO had set up a special Russia-NATO Council precisely to include Russia in discussion about NATO enlargement. Putin for his part never paid a price for his aggression, from Georgia in 2008, to Crimea in 2014, to Syria in 2015. These steps led him to conclude that the West is weak and would not oppose further aggression. Putin has been fighting a war with the West for years. It was not a direct conventional war, but a war nonetheless. It has taken the invasion of Ukraine for the West to begin to acknowledge that, and to begin re-evaluate its fundamental assumptions about Russia».


Is it safe to say that once the fighting will have stopped, and whatever the outcome of the conflict (which, as many analysts increasingly claim will bear neither a winner nor a loser), that the West-East divide is so deep that it will take at least a generation to change the narrative and regain trust between the two blocks?

«Russia has never come to terms with Holodomor (the man-made famine in Ukraine that caused several million deaths from 1932 to 1933, ed.). What we know from history of World War II is how difficult it is to get a country to come to terms with perpetrating a genocide. In Germany’s case it took not only losing the war but many years of American occupation. We don’t know how the war is going to end and when, but it is safe to assume that until Russia has a true internal reckoning with its past, it will take a lot more than a generation to overcome this enormous divide».

Article first published in the newspaper Corriere del Ticino, 28.06.2024 (in Italian)



On June 24, 2024, the European Union (EU) adopted a further package of sanctions against Russia, targeting the Country’s gas sector for the first time and imposing an array of new measures.

The so-called 14th package of measures targeting Russia is set out in the Regulation (EU) 2024/1745 and includes, among others, the following elements:

Energy

  • Russian LNG transshipment through EU ports is prohibited following a 9-month transition period
  • Russian LNG cannot be imported into terminals that are not connected to EU gas pipelines
  • prohibition on future investments and exports to LNG projects under construction, such as Arctic LNG 2 and Murmansk LNG
  • List of vessels supporting the Russian warfare and the energy sector and that have been banned from port entry and service provision.

Anti-circumvention measures

  • EU parent companies must prevent their subsidiaries in third countries from engaging in sanctions-violating transactions;
  • EU companies must conduct due diligence to prevent common high priority (CHP) goods from entering Russia and ensure that their foreign subsidiaries trading in CHP goods follow suit;
  • EU companies may not be protected from liability if they did not comply with due diligence responsibilities, even if they had no reasonable suspicion of violating EU sanctions (see Decision (CFSP) 2024/1744);
  • Individuals can face prosecution for both willfully circumventing EU sanctions and participation in such transactions; this also applies if the individual suspects or tolerates that sanctions are being circumvented.

Additional listings

  • There are 116 further listings of 69 individuals and 47 entities with asset freezes and travel bans. The listings cover a wide range of Russian government sectors, including military companies, space engineering firms, chemical and explosive companies, and significant Russian energy companies.

Financial sector

  • EU banks outside Russia are prohibited from using the Financial Messaging System of the Central Bank of Russia (SPFS), the Russian equivalent of SWIFT, to connect and carry out transactions;
  • Transactions with third-country banks using SPFS are prohibited;
  • Prohibition of transactions with Russian and third-party banks and crypto assets providers facilitating transactions supporting Russia’s defense-industrial base.

Trade

  • Extension of the export restrictions on dual use/advanced technology items;
  • Reinforced export bans on for vital sectors for Russia’s military economy, including chemicals, plastics, vehicles parts and machinery;
  • Import ban on helium;
  • Extension of the Common High Priority (CHP) list;
  • Finetuning of the import ban on Russian diamonds.

Transport

  • Prohibition of port access and services for listed vessels;
  • Current EU road transport undertakings owned 25% or more by Russian individuals are prohibited from transporting goods into the EU; companies owned 25% or more by Russian individuals are also barred from becoming EU road transport undertakings

Useful links:
Q&A 14th package of restrictive measures against Russia (europa.eu)

News & Agenda

Newsletter

Do you have a question?
Get in touch.

© LCTA – made by studio daulte

News & Agenda

Newsletter

Do you have a question?
Get in touch.

© LCTA – made by studio daulte