Why Australian almonds are gaining share in China and Asia and what that changes globally
China is pulling Australian almonds harder than most European buyers are used to seeing. Trade reporting indicates China received about 76.1k MT so far in 2024/25, roughly 45% of Australia’s 2024/25 crop, up 128% year on year. When that happens, Australian kernels that might have gone to Europe or the Middle East get re-routed into Asia, and nearby Asian spot markets tighten quickly.
Export value confirms this is not just a volume story. Australia’s almond export value reached about A$1.3B in FY2024/25, up 23%, even while production fell by around 5% and export volume dipped by around 2%. That combination usually means price and mix effects, plus destination effects, such as more sales into higher-value channels or better realized prices on specific grades.
Europe should treat Australia less like a passive secondary origin and more like a swing origin that can change the global basis. Australia has a large export-oriented crop, with a 2025 intake finalized at 155,697 MT kernel weight equivalent. When China is active, Australia can become the marginal supplier for Q2 to Q3 shipments into Asia, and that can widen or narrow the spread between US and Australian offers in ways that matter for EU landed cost.
Buyers should ask the uncomfortable questions early, not after a tender is awarded. If China keeps buying at pace, will EU supply tighten in the shipment months you rely on? When do Australian exporters prioritize Asia versus Europe? The typical trigger points are straightforward: China buying accelerates when US-origin faces friction and when Australia has fresh crop availability plus competitive freight lanes into North Asia.
In-shell trade makes the shift easier for China to scale. Australia was the number two global exporter of in-shell almonds in 2024 at about 79.8 million kg, worth about $300.6M. Chinese snack and nut processors and in-shell traders often buy in-shell for local cracking, so demand can ramp without needing the same kernel-spec alignment that EU industrial users require.
Origin competition in Europe: where Australia pressures California, Spain, and Italy most
Europe remains structurally import-dependent, and the US still dominates supply. Market overviews also highlight how concentrated the trade is through Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany as transit and re-export hubs. That matters because Australia often competes first at the hub level, with Spanish importers, Dutch traders, and German ingredient distributors, before it competes at the factory gate.
Australia pressures California most in industrial kernels and in-shell channels. For kernels, the battleground is standard grades used in confectionery, bakery, diced, and meal applications where consistency and throughput matter more than origin storytelling. For in-shell, Australia can compete into Mediterranean cracking and trading channels when the economics work.
Spain and Italy compete differently than the US and Australia. Spain is both a producer and a major importer and processor, so it can switch between local and imported supply depending on price and availability. Italy is much smaller in volume terms, with industry supply tables placing the crop roughly in the 21 to 23k MT range, so it tends to win through quality positioning, freshness, and regional programs rather than commodity scale.
Australia pressures Spain specifically when Spanish plants need steady input and local pricing is not competitive. Spain is Europe’s largest producer by area and has variable output, but mainstream buyers still import when local price is higher or when they need continuity. In those moments, Australian kernels can replace part of US supply if the landed cost and spec fit are right.
A practical mapping helps procurement teams align origin choice to plant reality. Spanish turrón and confectionery users and industrial roasters often need steady kernel specs and predictable deliveries. German bakery and ingredient blenders often buy full containers and care about lot consistency and documentation. Italian dragée and chocolate producers tend to be strict on blanching yield and split rates, so they will multi-source across Australia, the US, and Spain depending on spec risk and internal quality policy.
Pricing mechanics: freight, FX, crop timing, and how they reshape landed cost into the EU
Landed cost is what matters, not the headline FOB. A workable model is simple: FOB by origin plus ocean freight plus insurance plus any EU duty if applicable, then port and handling, inland transport, financing and FX hedging, and a realistic reserve for quality loss and claims. The buying question is always the same: what is my euro per MT delivered, and what basis risk am I taking versus my finished-goods contracts?
Crop timing is Australia’s strategic edge, and it cuts both ways. Australia’s counter-seasonal cycle gives EU buyers another window versus California, which can reduce single-origin exposure and sometimes create pricing dislocations. The 2025 intake was confirmed at 155,697 t kernel weight equivalent, and industry commentary around the next cycle includes upside expectations but also weather-driven downside risk. For forward coverage, timing plus weather risk is not a detail, it is the core of the decision.
FX policy can decide whether an Australian program actually saves money. EU buyers often run USD-based contracts even for Australian origin, but some exporters quote in AUD or offer EUR programs via traders. Procurement should choose a clear policy: hedge at purchase order, hedge at shipment, or use layered hedges, then measure the variance between budgeted and realized euro per kg.
Freight and discharge-port choices can flip the ranking between origins. The same kernel price can land very differently depending on route availability, container tightness, and whether you discharge in Rotterdam or Hamburg versus Barcelona or Genoa. A practical tactic is to split awards across two discharge ports so congestion and inland trucking volatility do not become a single point of failure.
A simple comparison framework keeps teams honest without pretending to know exact numbers. If Australia is €150/MT cheaper FOB but €120/MT higher freight into North Europe, the decision hinges on FX hedge costs, arrival month, and spec yield such as blanching loss and roast loss. The right metric is cost per usable kg after defects, splits, moisture, and process yield, not just euro per MT on the invoice.
Quality and spec fit: varieties, sizing, blanching performance, and food safety expectations for EU buyers
Plant performance should drive origin choice more than origin reputation. EU processors typically care about screen size such as 23/25 or 27/30, defect tolerance, splits and doubles, moisture, foreign material, skin adhesion, blanching yield, roast color development, and lot-to-lot consistency. If those are not written into the buying spec, the tender is incomplete.
Australia’s mainstream export types are generally positioned for uniform industrial kernel specs. Many are aligned with high-throughput blanching and slicing lines, where consistency matters as much as the nominal grade. Buyers should request plant trial lots and define acceptance using measurable KPIs such as blanch loss percent and breakage percent, not only visual inspection.
Food safety expectations in the EU are documentation-heavy and time-sensitive at port. Buyers typically require controls aligned with recognized food safety schemes such as BRCGS, IFS, or FSSC 22000, plus allergen management and clear testing plans for Salmonella and aflatoxins, along with pesticide and MRL compliance. The operational questions are practical: do you supply a COA per lot, full traceability, and a rapid hold and release protocol if a container is flagged?
Contract language should reduce arguments, not create them. Many buyers reference established grade frameworks and then add tolerances, pre-shipment inspection rules, retain samples, arbitration venue, and claims windows. The goal is to make disputes about facts and thresholds, not about opinions after the product is already in production.
Application-specific specs keep procurement aligned with R&D and production. Chocolate dragée buyers prioritize low splits and tight sizing for panning uniformity. Bakery inclusion users prioritize slice integrity and color. Almond flour buyers care about fat and protein consistency and microbiological profile, plus predictable milling behavior.
Procurement strategy for 2026–2028: building a resilient multi-origin portfolio and contract structure
A portfolio approach beats chasing the cheapest spot price. A practical structure is Core, Flex, and Strategic reserve: US for scale and liquidity, Australia for counter-season supply that is increasingly Asia-linked, and Spain and Italy for regional programs, premium positioning, and shorter chains where that matters. This is continuity planning for factories that run every day, not a theoretical sourcing exercise.
Australia’s forward context supports multi-year planning, but not single-origin bets. The 2025 intake was about 155.7k t kernel weight equivalent, and public industry reporting points to expectations of a larger next crop in headline forecasts around 167k t, while also noting weather risk. Buyers should treat that as a reason to diversify coverage timing and contract optionality, not as a reason to over-commit early.
Contract structures should match the volatility you actually face. Layered coverage is common: a portion 12 to 18 months forward, another portion 6 to 9 months, and the balance spot. Index-linked pricing with an origin differential can reduce negotiation friction, and optionality clauses matter more than ever, including origin substitution, shipment-month flexibility, and quantity tolerance bands.
Risk controls should be negotiated before the first container sails. EU buyers typically want clear force majeure language, rules for quality claims such as credit notes or escrow mechanics, demurrage responsibility, and a deliberate Incoterms choice such as FOB, CIF, or DAP depending on who can manage freight risk best. A practical tactic is dual-sourcing with two approved blanched-kernel suppliers so a food-safety hold in one origin does not stop production while you re-validate.
Supplier management needs crop-year transparency and a shared playbook for deviations. Buyers should insist on clarity on old crop versus new crop, packing date and lot coding, and a pre-agreed spec deviation matrix that states what happens if moisture is slightly high or splits exceed tolerance. Scorecards should stay simple and operational: OTIF, claim rate, COA accuracy, and responsiveness.
What Italian operators can do now: positioning, differentiation, and risk management as supply expands
Italy cannot win a commodity price war on volume, and it should not try. With industry supply tables placing Italy roughly in the 21 to 23k MT crop range, the defensible path is differentiation through premium confectionery, artisanal bakery, and Italian-origin traceability programs where buyers pay for specificity and trust.
Differentiation levers should be technical as well as narrative. Varietal identity, sensory profile, and freshness from shorter time-to-factory can be turned into measurable value through custom roasts and tailored blanching for local plants. Certified supply chains can also help when they are auditable and tied to buyer requirements, such as organic or integrated pest management programs.
Continuity planning matters even for premium players as Australian supply expands into Europe. Italian operators can protect margins with a two-tier product architecture: an Italian-origin SKU priced for premium channels, and a blended-origin industrial SKU that uses strategic import partnerships from Australia and the US to keep factories supplied. That approach reduces the temptation to discount Italian-origin product when global supply is long.
Commercial tactics should shift from origin-only selling to spec-based selling. Process yield guarantees, defect caps, and blanching performance KPIs are easier for industrial buyers to justify internally than general claims. Technical data packs for R&D teams can also shorten qualification cycles, especially when they address practical topics like moisture behavior, roast curves, and blanch loss.
Hedging and logistics should match the sales model. If selling into fixed-price retail or private label, procurement needs to align with FX and freight exposure and use back-to-back contracts where possible. Multi-port logistics planning, such as keeping options across Italian ports and partner routes via major EU hubs, can keep factories supplied during disruption.