New Articles

China’s Recovered Fibre Pulp Market to Reach 82M Tonnes by 2025

Recovered fibre pulp

China’s Recovered Fibre Pulp Market to Reach 82M Tonnes by 2025

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘China – Recovered Fiber Pulp – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the recovered fibre pulp market in China amounted to $23.3B in 2018, approximately reflecting the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). Overall, the total market indicated a buoyant increase from 2007 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +4.2% over the last eleven years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, recovered fibre pulp consumption decreased by -23.7% against 2015 indices. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2012 when the market value increased by 32% y-o-y. Recovered fibre pulp consumption peaked at $30.5B in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, consumption remained at a lower figure.

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in China

Driven by increasing demand for recovered fibre pulp in China, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next seven-year period. Market performance is forecast to retain its current trend pattern, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +3.8% for the seven-year period from 2018 to 2025, which is projected to bring the market volume to 82M tonnes by the end of 2025.

Production in China

In 2018, the recovered fibre pulp production in China stood at 63M tonnes, leveling off at the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.2% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2009 with an increase of 13% against the previous year. Recovered fibre pulp production peaked at 63M tonnes in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, production failed to regain its momentum.

In value terms, recovered fibre pulp production amounted to $22.8B in 2018 estimated in export prices. In general, recovered fibre pulp production continues to indicate a prominent increase. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2011 with an increase of 47% against the previous year. Over the period under review, recovered fibre pulp production reached its maximum level at $33.3B in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, production remained at a lower figure.

Exports from China

In 2018, approx. 549 tonnes of recovered fibre pulp were exported from China; increasing by 3% against the previous year. Overall, the total exports indicated a conspicuous increase from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.0% over the last eleven years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, recovered fibre pulp exports decreased by -5.2% against 2016 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2012 when exports increased by 55% against the previous year. Over the period under review, recovered fibre pulp exports attained their maximum at 579 tonnes in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, recovered fibre pulp exports amounted to $198K (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Over the period under review, recovered fibre pulp exports continue to indicate a significant increase. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2012 with an increase of 114% y-o-y. Exports peaked at $282K in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Exports by Country

China, Hong Kong SAR (93 tonnes), Kyrgyzstan (76 tonnes) and the U.S. (74 tonnes) were the main destinations of recovered fibre pulp exports from China, together accounting for 44% of total exports.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main countries of destination, was attained by the U.S. (+55.3% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Kyrgyzstan ($45K), South Korea ($27K) and the U.S. ($24K) appeared to be the largest markets for recovered fibre pulp exported from China worldwide, with a combined 49% share of total exports.

Among the main countries of destination, Kyrgyzstan (+50.3% per year) experienced the highest growth rate of exports, over the last eleven years, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average recovered fibre pulp export price amounted to $361 per tonne, therefore, remained relatively stable against the previous year. Overall, the recovered fibre pulp export price continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2012 when the average export price increased by 38% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the average export prices for recovered fibre pulp reached their maximum at $525 per tonne in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, export prices failed to regain their momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was South Korea ($1,273 per tonne), while the average price for exports to Togo ($53 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to South Korea, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports into China

In 2018, the imports of recovered fibre pulp into China totaled 11K tonnes, going down by -3.9% against the previous year. In general, recovered fibre pulp imports continue to indicate a perceptible curtailment. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2009 when imports increased by 85% y-o-y. In that year, recovered fibre pulp imports reached their peak of 20K tonnes. From 2010 to 2018, the growth of recovered fibre pulp imports failed to regain its momentum.

In value terms, recovered fibre pulp imports amounted to $5.9M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Overall, recovered fibre pulp imports continue to indicate a temperate decrease. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2009 with an increase of 97% y-o-y. Over the period under review, recovered fibre pulp imports attained their peak figure at $12M in 2010; however, from 2011 to 2018, imports remained at a lower figure.

Imports by Country

Malaysia (3.4K tonnes), Indonesia (2.9K tonnes) and the U.S. (2.9K tonnes) were the main suppliers of recovered fibre pulp imports to China, with a combined 81% share of total imports.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main suppliers, was attained by Indonesia (+68.3% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the U.S. ($1.8M), Indonesia ($1.5M) and Malaysia ($1.4M) were the largest recovered fibre pulp suppliers to China, with a combined 79% share of total imports.

In terms of the main suppliers, Indonesia (+65.2% per year) recorded the highest rates of growth with regard to imports, over the last eleven years, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average recovered fibre pulp import price amounted to $512 per tonne, increasing by 1.8% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.8%. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2010 when the average import price increased by 24% year-to-year. Over the period under review, the average import prices for recovered fibre pulp reached their maximum at $610 per tonne in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, import prices remained at a lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Saudi Arabia ($961 per tonne), while the price for South Africa ($364 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Malaysia, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

spanish flu

The Spanish Flu and the Stock Market: The Pandemic of 1919

Everyone is concerned about the coronavirus and how it is impacting the global economy. Parts of China have been quarantined to prevent the spread of the virus and the world is wondering how the virus will disrupt supply chains between China and the rest of the world and how it will impact global travel. Will cities that are cut off from the rest of the world be able to contribute to the global economy?

The main precedent for the coronavirus is the SARS epidemic of 2002-2004, but you should also look at the more serious Spanish Flu pandemic of 1919.  It is estimated that the Spanish Flu infected 500 million people worldwide, or about 27% of the world’s population and killed between 30 million and 50 million people, or about 1.7% of the world’s population. Were a similar pandemic to hit the world today, this would translate into 100 million deaths. This made the Spanish flu one of the deadliest epidemics in history. The pandemic occurred in the last year of World War I and military censors in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, United States and other countries were told to control information on the flu fearing that it would affect their ability to win the war, but there was no censorship on the flu in neutral Spain where King Alfonso XIII took ill. This gave the world the false impression that the flu originated in Spain, hence the name.

The Spanish flu came in three waves as is illustrated in Figure 1. The first wave, which made people notice the flu, occurred in July 1918.  The second and most deadly wave occurred in October 1918 and resulted in millions of deaths. A final wave of the flu occurred in February 1919, and after that, the flu disappeared. Either the virus mutated to a less lethal form or doctors got better at treating or preventing it. Just as no one knows for sure exactly where the virus came from, no one knows why it disappeared.

Figure 1. Death Rates of the Spanish Flu, June 1918 to May 1919

It is interesting to contrast the response of the stock market to the Spanish flu in 1919 with the coronavirus in 2020. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell over 2,000 points in four days out of fear that the coronavirus will continue to spread and impact the global economy. The fear is that cities will become quarantined, supply chains will be broken, world trade will be impacted and growth in the global economy will slow down.

However, the impact of the Spanish Flu on the stock market was minimal. If you look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1918 and 1919, you can see that the stock market was relatively unaffected by any of the three waves of the Spanish flu. Of course, the Spanish flu occurred in 1918 while World War I was raging in Europe so the war had a larger impact on the stock market than the flu. There were few if any global supply chains that the Spanish Flu could disrupt because the war made supply chains nonexistent. The second and worst wave of flu occurred at the end of World War I when peace was finally achieved after four years of devastating destruction. It is interesting that there was little impact on the stock market of World War I ending on November 11, 1918. Perhaps euphoria about the conclusion of the war was offset by concerns about the Spanish flu.

It is comforting to see that when the final wave of the Spanish flu subsided in February 1919, the market began an increase of 50% which lasted until November of 1919.  Whether this increase occurred because of the end of World War I or the end of the flu or both is impossible to say, but it does provide encouragement that once the coronavirus begins to subside, the market will bounce back once again.

Figure 2. Dow Jones Industrial Average, January 1918 to December 1919

________________________________________________________________

Dr. Bryan Taylor is President and Chief Economist for Global Financial Data. He received his Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate University in Economics writing about the economics of the arts. He has taught both economics and finance at numerous universities in southern California and in Switzerland. He began putting together the Global Financial Database in 1990, collecting and transcribing financial and economic data from historical archives around the world. Dr. Taylor has published numerous articles and blogs based upon the Global Financial Database, the US Stocks and the GFD Indices. Dr. Taylor’s research has uncovered previously unknown aspects of financial history. He has written two books on financial history.

modex

MODEX Day Two: Coronavirus Impacting More than Just Trade Operations

Day two for MODEX 2020 concluded with industry players addressing the now-notorious coronavirus and what this means for both domestic and international markets fortunate enough to continue operations without disruption. From what we learned during the session, “Coronavirus and Global Supply Chains” the wave currently felt in China, Italy, and beyond, will eventually make its way to the U.S. and companies have no reason not to be prepared.

Researcher Philip J. Palin, John Paxton with MHI, and David Shillingford with Resilience360 took the unsettling topic head-on and addressed concerns without hesitation. Traders be aware: for domestic and untouched international markets, the worst isn’t over. The coronavirus creates more than just health concerns. It impacts trade operations, legal concerns, and causes financial turmoil as we’ve already started to see.

“The virus is the primary cause of the supply chain impact but the secondary causes coming from the virus include financial, regulatory, compliance, and legal,” explained Shillingford. “Another risk to think about is workforce risk. How many of the workers that left for Chinese New Year have been able to come back, and for those that have returned, are they able to work with open factories or are they still under quarantine?”

“The good news is, the extraordinary supply and demand disruption we’re discussing in terms of China is being released. It’s slow but it’s happening and it’s giving us a benchmark of for how long domestic disruption will be,” Palin stated after announcing the first containership from China arrived at the Port of Los Angeles in almost 10 days on Monday.

Shillingford goes on to explain the shifting patterns in consumer behavior as well, noting that due to worldwide panic, demand is shifting and challenging the logistics sector. Buying habits have undoubtedly changed in recent weeks along with mindsets. Interactions are now limited to a fist-bump or elbow touch rather than a handshake and the numbers of public events cancelled are going up.

“Other things we are seeing involve personnel movement. It’s not just transportation impacted,” Shillingford added.

On the legal side of the crisis, Chinese suppliers are having an issue with certificates and contractual obligations. Shillingford urges industry players to understand the importance of knowing if suppliers have been issued force majeure slips.

“One thing supply chains hate is variance, and there’s going to be a lot of variance and volatility on the demand side,” he concluded.

What does all this mean for the U.S.? At the end of the day, it’s a matter of preparation and strategizing for the more fortunate markets without the disruption of a complete shut-down.

“There was a hidden, horrible problem in the Hubei province that required a draconian measure to prevent transmission of the virus. We should be ahead of that curve as well as the rest of the world, even with this very contagious virus,” explained Palin. “And even if we are behind that curve, we don’t have 300 million workers separated from their place of work.”

veneer sheets

Veneer Sheets Market in Asia-Pacific To Post Solid Gains

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘Asia-Pacific – Veneer Sheets – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the veneer sheets market in Asia-Pacific amounted to $10.8B in 2018. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). The market value increased at an average annual rate of +1.9% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. Over the period under review, the veneer sheets market reached its peak figure level in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Consumption By Country in Asia-Pacific

China (2.7M cubic meters) constituted the country with the largest volume of veneer sheets consumption, accounting for 33% of total volume. Moreover, veneer sheets consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, Viet Nam (1.1M cubic meters), twofold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Indonesia (684K cubic meters), with a 8.2% share.

In China, veneer sheets consumption remained relatively stable over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Viet Nam (+20.9% per year) and Indonesia (+4.6% per year).

In value terms, the largest veneer sheets markets in Asia-Pacific were Viet Nam ($2.8B), China ($2.6B) and Malaysia ($1.7B), together accounting for 66% of the total market.

In 2018, the highest levels of veneer sheets per capita consumption was registered in New Zealand (99 cubic meters per 1000 persons), followed by Malaysia (19 cubic meters per 1000 persons), Viet Nam (12 cubic meters per 1000 persons) and South Korea (7.39 cubic meters per 1000 persons), while the world average per capita consumption of veneer sheets was estimated at 2 cubic meters per 1000 persons.

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in Asia-Pacific

Driven by increasing demand for veneer sheets in Asia-Pacific, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to retain its current trend pattern, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +2.2% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 11M cubic meters by the end of 2030.

Production in Asia-Pacific

In 2018, the veneer sheets production in Asia-Pacific stood at 7.4M cubic meters, standing approx. at the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.2% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations in certain years. Over the period under review, veneer sheets production reached its maximum volume at 7.8M cubic meters in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, production stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Production By Country in Asia-Pacific

China (3M cubic meters) remains the largest veneer sheets producing country in Asia-Pacific, accounting for 40% of total volume. Moreover, veneer sheets production in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, Viet Nam (1.1M cubic meters), threefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Indonesia (761K cubic meters), with a 10% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of volume in China was relatively modest. The remaining producing countries recorded the following average annual rates of production growth: Viet Nam (+20.6% per year) and Indonesia (+5.9% per year).

Exports in Asia-Pacific

In 2018, approx. 817K cubic meters of veneer sheets were exported in Asia-Pacific; going up by 12% against the previous year. The total exports indicated a prominent expansion from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +5.3% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The volume of exports peaked in 2018 and are likely to see steady growth in the near future. In value terms, veneer sheets exports amounted to $843M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

China represented the key exporter of veneer sheets exported in Asia-Pacific, with the volume of exports accounting for 508K cubic meters, which was near 62% of total exports in 2018. Indonesia (97K cubic meters) occupied the second position in the ranking, followed by Myanmar (61K cubic meters) and New Zealand (54K cubic meters). All these countries together held approx. 26% share of total exports. The following exporters – Viet Nam (24K cubic meters) and Malaysia (24K cubic meters) – each recorded a 6% share of total exports.

Exports from China increased at an average annual rate of +10.0% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, Indonesia (+15.8%), Myanmar (+14.0%) and Viet Nam (+10.7%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Indonesia emerged as the fastest-growing exporter exported in Asia-Pacific, with a CAGR of +15.8% from 2007-2018. By contrast, New Zealand (-1.5%) and Malaysia (-7.1%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period.

In value terms, China ($448M) remains the largest veneer sheets supplier in Asia-Pacific, comprising 53% of total veneer sheets exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Indonesia ($88M), with a 10% share of total exports. It was followed by Malaysia, with a 9% share.

Export Prices by Country

The veneer sheets export price in Asia-Pacific stood at $1,032 per cubic meter in 2018, reducing by -1.7% against the previous year. Overall, the veneer sheets export price continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Malaysia ($3,129 per cubic meter), while New Zealand ($684 per cubic meter) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Viet Nam, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in Asia-Pacific

In 2018, the veneer sheets imports in Asia-Pacific totaled 1.7M cubic meters, picking up by 5.6% against the previous year. In general, veneer sheets imports continue to indicate buoyant growth. In value terms, veneer sheets imports totaled $1.1B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

Japan (515K cubic meters) and India (351K cubic meters) represented the main importers of veneer sheets in 2018, reaching near 30% and 20% of total imports, respectively. China (227K cubic meters) held a 13% share (based on tonnes) of total imports, which put it in second place, followed by South Korea (9.4%), Taiwan, Chinese (7.2%), Malaysia (5.7%) and Viet Nam (5.1%).

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by India, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, India ($227M), Japan ($185M) and Viet Nam ($114M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, together accounting for 49% of total imports.

Import Prices by Country

The veneer sheets import price in Asia-Pacific stood at $619 per cubic meter in 2018, growing by 5.9% against the previous year. In general, the veneer sheets import price, however, continues to indicate a slight decrease.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Viet Nam ($1,293 per cubic meter), while Japan ($358 per cubic meter) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Malaysia, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

MDF

The EU MDF Market to Post Moderate But Steady Growth

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – MDF – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the MDF market in the European Union amounted to $5.3B in 2018. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). The market value increased at an average annual rate of +5.5% over the period from 2013 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations in certain years. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2018 when the market value increased by 12% y-o-y. In that year, the market attained its peak level and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Consumption by Country

Poland (3.3M cubic meters) constituted the country with the largest volume of MDF consumption, accounting for 28% of total volume. Moreover, MDF consumption in Poland exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, Italy (1.3M cubic meters), threefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by the UK (1.3M cubic meters), with a 11% share.

In Poland, MDF consumption expanded at an average annual rate of +6.6% over the period from 2013-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Italy (+7.5% per year) and the UK (+2.7% per year).

In value terms, the largest MDF markets in the European Union were Poland ($1.3B), Italy ($713M) and the UK ($657M), together accounting for 50% of the total market. France, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Romania, Portugal, Austria, Sweden and Hungary lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 39%.

In 2018, the highest levels of MDF per capita consumption was registered in Poland (87 cubic meters per 1000 persons), followed by Portugal (38 cubic meters per 1000 persons), Romania (29 cubic meters per 1000 persons) and Austria (28 cubic meters per 1000 persons), while the world average per capita consumption of MDF was estimated at 23 cubic meters per 1000 persons.

Market Forecast to 2030

Driven by increasing demand for MDF in the European Union, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to decelerate, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +2.4% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 16M cubic meters by the end of 2030.

Production in the EU

The volume of MDF production totaled 13M cubic meters in 2018, remaining constant against the previous year. The total output increased at an average annual rate of +2.7% from 2013 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2015 with an increase of 8.4% y-o-y. The volume of MDF production peaked at 13M cubic meters in 2017, leveling off in the following year.

Production by Country

Poland (3.6M cubic meters) remains the largest MDF producing country in the European Union, accounting for 28% of total volume. Moreover, MDF production in Poland exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, Spain (1.5M cubic meters), twofold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Germany (1.5M cubic meters), with a 11% share.

In Poland, MDF production expanded at an average annual rate of +4.8% over the period from 2013-2018. In Spain, the average annual rates stood at +6.3% per year, while in Germany, the volume of production practically mirrored its outset level of 2013.

Exports in the EU

In 2018, the amount of MDF exported in the European Union amounted to 6.5M cubic meters, remaining relatively unchanged against the previous year. Overall, MDF exports, however, continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2016 when exports increased by 3.3% y-o-y. In that year, MDF exports attained their peak of 6.7M cubic meters. From 2017 to 2018, the growth of mdf exports failed to regain its momentum. In value terms, MDF exports amounted to $3.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

In 2018, Germany (1.5M cubic meters), distantly followed by Belgium (1,012K cubic meters), Poland (682K cubic meters), Spain (643K cubic meters), France (436K cubic meters), Austria (404K cubic meters) and Ireland (322K cubic meters) were the major exporters of MDF , together comprising 77% of total exports. Romania (261K cubic meters), Portugal (259K cubic meters), Italy (218K cubic meters), Hungary (185K cubic meters) and Slovenia (136K cubic meters) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main exporting countries, was attained by France, while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest MDF supplying countries in the European Union were Germany ($854M), Belgium ($565M) and Austria ($317M), with a combined 53% share of total exports. These countries were followed by Spain, Poland, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Hungary and Slovenia, which together accounted for a further 39%.

Export Prices by Country

The MDF export price in the European Union stood at $503 per cubic meter in 2018, picking up by 7% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the export prices for MDF reached their maximum in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, export prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Austria ($784 per cubic meter), while Romania ($292 per cubic meter) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Italy, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in the EU

In 2018, approx. 5.3M cubic meters of MDF were imported in the European Union; going up by 5.3% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +5.2% from 2013 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being observed throughout the analyzed period. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2017 with an increase of 8.6% against the previous year. The volume of imports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term. In value terms, MDF imports stood at $2.6B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The countries with the highest levels of MDF imports in 2018 were Italy (599K cubic meters), the UK (570K cubic meters), the Netherlands (469K cubic meters), Germany (463K cubic meters), France (433K cubic meters), Poland (411K cubic meters), Belgium (335K cubic meters), Portugal (269K cubic meters), Spain (249K cubic meters), Sweden (212K cubic meters) and Romania (201K cubic meters), together acoounting for 80% of total import.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by Poland, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest MDF importing markets in the European Union were the UK ($338M), Germany ($269M) and Italy ($255M), with a combined 33% share of total imports. France, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, Romania and Austria lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 49%.

Import Prices by Country

The MDF import price in the European Union stood at $492 per cubic meter in 2018, rising by 4.9% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the mdf import price, however, continues to indicate a slight curtailment.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was the UK ($593 per cubic meter), while Poland ($320 per cubic meter) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Spain, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

coronavirus

Coronavirus and Global Trade

Global trade is affected by myriad factors. The latest event to affect the international supply chain is the recent coronavirus that causes COVID-19. This novel virus has infected more than 80,000 people and killed more than 2,700.1 More cases are expected as the virus moves beyond its point of origin in China’s Hubei province to the rest of the world.

Resulting labor deficits and quarantine procedures could have major effects on production and shipping worldwide. Events like this one reinforce the need for companies to have detailed logistical plans in place to compensate for the shortages and delays that are likely to result.

Serious impacts expected

Worldwide health crises and other disasters have had significant effects on the global supply chain in the past. The comparatively minor outbreak of sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) identified in 2003, also originating in China, cost the global economy about $40 billion dollars.2

In the wake of such catastrophes as SARS; the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; Hurricane Katrina in 2005; and the meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in 2011, it is reasonable to expect that the coronavirus could have similarly long-reaching effects. Several factors are likely to exacerbate its impacts on global supply chain economics.

First, the outbreak occurred during the Chinese Lunar New Year holiday, which took place between Jan. 25 and Feb. 4. Annually, this holiday precipitates what is considered the largest human migration on Earth over a period of about 40 days.3 Between early January and mid-February each year, hundreds of millions of Chinese people travel to visit relatives, much as Americans do during the Christmas holiday.

In an effort to slow the spread of the virus, many Lunar New Year celebrations were canceled, and the government issued travel bans4 and instituted a quarantine of millions of people, which prevents laborers from returning to work.5 The quarantine has had major effects on the labor force responsible for producing goods as well as loading and piloting the ships and planes used to transport goods all over the world.

The effects of the coronavirus outbreak might also affect the detente in the trade war between the United States and China signified by the signing of the “phase one” trade deal on Jan. 15. The new deal orchestrated by the administration of President Donald Trump promises $200 billion in sales to China.6 The coronavirus outbreak has the potential to impede these sales by creating a drag on the supply chain.

Identifying alternatives

Companies increasingly have attempted to anticipate the consequences of unexpected events on their suppliers and shippers. Disaster recovery plans have become an essential defense against the ramifications of these events.

While the production of these plans has become an industry in and of itself, all plans are not created equal. Some do not factor in delays in production and transport. A comprehensive disaster recovery plan needs to account for both. Merely hoping that problems will not rear their heads is no longer an adequate strategy.

In the case of the coronavirus outbreak, if a vendor relies on goods produced in China, it needs to have an alternative source of production. With a labor supply held up by quarantine procedures, it might be a while before production capabilities reach normal levels. The trade war has opened competitive production markets in Mexico, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia, among other places. Thus, there is little if any excuse not to have identified other production centers that can make up the shortfall in the event of a disaster.

Furthermore, it is imperative to assess whether transport services will have the capacity to ship existing inventory in the case of a crisis. If there is a backlog and a resulting lack of transport space, shipping costs might increase substantially. Delays in the wake of the Chinese Lunar New Year take place every year regardless, and in a time of crisis, delays will be even more marked. Establishing a plan with shipping partners for such events might not totally offset the cost increase. However, it can create space in the budget for it. Additionally, locating alternative routes and carriers ahead of time can allow companies to circumvent delays entirely.

While certainly expensive and complicated at the outset, disaster planning can pay dividends in the inevitable case of a major global crisis. Even if anticipated delays never manifest, planning for them might open new routes of production and shipping that ultimately can be used to increase efficiency during times of normal business operation.

Thinking ahead

Ample precedent exists for the alternative of no plan, which leads to an inability to meet demand and the financial consequences that result. Investors take note of such deficiencies and allocate funds accordingly. Developing an agile approach to anticipated problems will increase in importance as the global economy becomes more complex.

While the coronavirus outbreak continues, another disaster is already looming. The implementation of Brexit over the next year will have massive consequences in terms of customs and duty, taxation, and supply chain strategy. Getting ahead of this incipient crisis by anticipating its effects on the production and movement of goods can increase your company’s resilience.

______________________________________________________________

 Learn more

Pete Mento, Managing Director at Crowe LLP

+1 202 779 9907 or pete.mento@crowe.com

Endnotes

1. Helen Regan, Adam Renton, Meg Wagner, Mike Hayes, and Veronica Rocha, “February 25 Coronavirus News,” CNN, Feb. 25, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-02-25-20-hnk-intl/index.html

2. World Health Organization, “SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome),” https://www.who.int/ith/diseases/sars/en/; William Feuer, “Coronavirus: The Hit to the Global Economy Will Be Worse Than SARS,” cnbc.com, Feb. 6, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/06/coronavirus-the-hit-to-the-global-economy-will-be-worse-than-sars.html

3. Karla Cripps and Serenitie Wang, “World’s Largest Annual Human Migration Now Underway in China,” CNN, Jan. 23, 2019 https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/lunar-new-year-travel-rush-2019/index.html

4. “China Coronavirus Spread Is Accelerating, Xi Jinping Warns,” Jan. 26, 2020, BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51249208

5. Emily Feng, “45 Million Chinese Now Under Quarantine as Officials Try to Halt Coronavirus Spread,” NPR, Jan. 27, 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/01/27/800158025/45-million-chinese-now-under-quarantine-as-officials-try-to-halt-coronavirus-spr

6. James Palmer, “The ‘Phase One’ Trade Deal Is Still Hypothetical,” Foreign Policy, Jan. 15, 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/15/phase-one-us-china-trade-deal-hypothetical-trump-liu-he/

wine

U.S. WINE INDUSTRY IS DROWNING ITS SORROWS OVER TRANSATLANTIC TRADE SPAT

Tipsy trade policy

The United States imported $6.5 billion worth of wine in 2018, equal to 17 percent of total wine imports worldwide. We like our Rioja from Spain, Bordeaux from France, and Italian Vernaccia as much as our California counterparts.

Instead of toasting, American wine importers — and the many businesses that rely on imported wine, from distributors to wine shop owners to restaurateurs — are protesting. Why? Because the administration was seriously considering raising tariffs to 100 percent on a range of imported Euro

pean products, including French, German and Spanish wine.

Imported European wines are already more expensive due to a 25 percent the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) imposed in October 2019. The wine industry is concerned that raising the tariff to 100 percent will cost thousands of jobs as the higher prices on European wines knock out a large chunk of the industry’s wholesale and consumer sales.

A drunken trade brawl

European wine is but a pawn in a decades old trade dispute. In October, the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that Airbus, a European aerospace corporation and Boeing’s big rival, had illegally received over $22 billion in state-sanctioned subsidies. The WTO authorized the United States to apply retaliatory tariffs on as much as $7.5 billion worth of European exports each year until the subsidies are removed.

Under U.S. law, the USTR must review and possibly revise (maybe increase) or “rotate” the list of products subject to tariffs after 120 days, known as “carousel retaliation,” to ensure the tariffs are causing enough pain to induce a negotiated resolution.

Even if wine were spared a tariff increase in the aircraft case, a new front has opened in this trade brawl. In July last year, France announced its Digital Services Tax, a tax of three percent on revenues generated in France by a digital company, independent of where that company was established. The tax appears targeted at American companies like Google and Facebook and was denounced by President Trump. When it became clear France had no intention of backing down, the U.S. administration threatened tariffs of up to 100 percent on popular European imports — including wine.

Value of US wine imports

Friends don’t let friends retaliate

The U.S. wine industry is getting whiplash from the prospects of cross-retaliation in this trade war. The Europeans are also awaiting a WTO verdict on their case against Boeing subsidies that could authorize tariffs on U.S. imports. One-third of total U.S. wine exports, some $469 million worth, come from California shipping wine to the European Union, making it a prime target for retaliatory tariffs. The European Union could also decide to counter with tariffs in protest of the U.S. response to France’s digital tax.

Wine tariffs will not age well

An attack on wine strikes at the hearts of many. French and Italian wines alone account for one-third of the $70-billion U.S. wine market. The very biggest wine distributors may be able to afford to absorb the cost to remain competitive, but smaller importers and distributors will have a much harder time. The higher costs are passed along to distributors, drivers, specialty retailers, supermarkets and hotels, hitting everyone from the specialist Italian wine store to the French bistro that makes its margin on alcohol sales to the forklift operator in the warehouse. Wine sales also generate local and state tax revenue, particularly in states like Mississippi and Pennsylvania where the Liquor Control Board is the main wine buyer and seller.

In January, House Small Business Committee Chair Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY) and eight Committee Democrats sent a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer voicing their fears about the tariffs’ impact on small businesses in the United States. They project that even the original 25 percent tariff could cost as many as 12,000 American jobs. A 100 percent tariff could risk 78,000 American jobs.

The 106 bipartisan members of the Congressional Wine Caucus also got together in January to send their own letter to Lighthizer, urging him to leave wine out of the sanctions, emphasizing the potentially crippling effects on America’s $220 billion wine economy.

Risk to wine chain of 100% tariff

Reason to celebrate?

Last week, the USTR made a sobering decision not to raise tariffs on imported European wines as part of the carousel review.

The entire industry is breathing a small sigh of relief, even producers in California. They would be unlikely to benefit significantly from the loss of competition from European wines. Due to laws on provenance, it is literally impossible to produce Chablis or Champagne anywhere else but France, for example. And compared to numerous competitors across the world, American producers have higher labor costs and limited supplies that could not fill the giant hole in the U.S. market left by European wines. Instead it seems likely that lower-cost South African and South American wine would be the beneficiaries as the more economical switch. Tariffs are a lose-lose for the U.S. industry.

In Vino Veritas

The tariffs are not an end unto themselves. They are meant to raise the stakes and bring the parties to the negotiating table. European trade officials appear to be contemplating measures to mitigate the trade row. Officials in Washington state appear to be reviewing its tax incentives to Boeing. The United States is seeking an international resolution to the question of digital taxes and French economy minister Bruno LeMaire seems more interested to resolve the digital tax dispute with President Trump.

Meanwhile, the U.S. wine industry cannot raise a glass. They must continue to live with the consequences of the 25 percent tariff, which they say could cost as much as $1.6 billion in lost wages throughout the distribution chain.

As for American wine lovers, another terrible reality sets in. After the 25 percent tariff went into effect in November, U.S. wine imports from Europe fell by half over previous months. Over the same period, China’s imports of French wine rose 26 percent. If European winemakers can shift their export focus, they might avoid the U.S. tariff pain and grow their market share in emerging economies while U.S. wine drinkers are left to abstain or drown their sorrow over higher prices.

Let’s all hope the issue is resolved and tariffs removed long before Beaujolais Nouveau Day in November.

_______________________________________________________________

Alice Calder

Alice Calder received her MA in Applied Economics at GMU. Originally from the UK, where she received her BA in Philosophy and Political Economy from the University of Exeter, living and working internationally sparked her interest in trade issues as well as the intersection of economics and culture.

This article originally appeared on TradeVistas.org. Republished with permission.

steel

Commerce Finds Dumping and Countervailable Subsidization of Imports of Carbon and Alloy Steel Threaded Rod from China and India

On February 10, 2020, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) announced its affirmative final determinations in the AD and CVD investigations of imports of carbon and alloy steel threaded rod from China and India. See the fact sheet for a summary of the final cash deposit rates and margins.

In the China AD investigation, Commerce calculated cash deposit rates of 4.26% and 14.16% to the mandatory respondents Zhejiang Junyue Standard Part Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Zhongjiang High Strength Bolts Co., Ltd., respectively. Chinese companies that are eligible for a separate rate received a rate of 11.47%. The antidumping cash deposit rate for all other Chinese companies is 59.45%.

In the China CVD investigation, Commerce calculated and assigned subsidy rates of 66.81% and 31.02% to the mandatory respondents Zhejiang Junyue Standard Part Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Zhongjiang High Strength Bolts Co., Ltd., respectively. The subsidy rate for all other Chinese exporters is 41.17%.

In the India AD investigation, Commerce assigned a cash deposit rate of 28.34% to mandatory respondent Daksh Fasteners and 2.47% for mandatory respondent Mangal Steel Enterprises Limited. The cash deposit rate for all other Indian exporters is 2.47%.

In the India CVD investigation, Commerce assigned a cash deposit rate of 211.72% to mandatory respondent Daksh Fasteners and a rate of 6.07% to mandatory respondent Mangal Steel Enterprises Limited. The cash deposit rate for all other Indian exporters is 6.07%.

The ITC is currently scheduled to make its final determinations on or about March 23, 2020. If the ITC makes affirmative final determinations of material injury to domestic industry, then Commerce will issue AD and CVD orders instructing Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to collect deposits based on the applicable duty rate. If the ITC makes negative determinations of injury, then the investigations will be terminated.

__________________________________________________________________

Nithya Nagarajan is a Washington-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. Shee practices in the International Trade & Supply Chain group of the firm’s Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation industry team.

Camron Greer is an assistant trade analyst in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington, D.C. office.

melon

Global Melon Market Reached $27B, Driven By Rising Demand in China

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Melons – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The global melon market revenue amounted to $27.4B in 2018, increasing by 2.2% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). The market value increased at an average annual rate of +2.1% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being recorded in certain years. Over the period under review, the global melon market attained its peak figure level in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Consumption By Country

The country with the largest volume of melon consumption was China (17M tonnes), comprising approx. 53% of total volume. Moreover, melon consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, Turkey (1.8M tonnes), tenfold. Iran (1.6M tonnes) ranked third in terms of total consumption with a 4.8% share.

In China, melon consumption increased at an average annual rate of +1.9% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Turkey (+0.9% per year) and Iran (-2.3% per year).

In value terms, China ($15.1B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Turkey ($1.3B). It was followed by Egypt.

In 2018, the highest levels of melon per capita consumption was registered in Kazakhstan (50 kg per person), followed by Turkey (22 kg per person), Iran (19 kg per person) and Morocco (15 kg per person), while the world average per capita consumption of melon was estimated at 4.25 kg per person.

Market Forecast 2019-2025

Driven by increasing demand for melon worldwide, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to retain its current trend pattern, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +0.9% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 36M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production 2007-2018

Global melon production totaled 33M tonnes in 2018, going up by 1.6% against the previous year. Over the period under review, melon production continues to indicate a modest growth. The general positive trend in terms of melon output was largely conditioned by a modest expansion of the harvested area and a mild increase in yield figures.

Production By Country

China (17M tonnes) constituted the country with the largest volume of melon production, comprising approx. 53% of total volume. Moreover, melon production in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, Turkey (1.8M tonnes), tenfold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Iran (1.6M tonnes), with a 4.7% share.

In China, melon production expanded at an average annual rate of +1.9% over the period from 2007-2018. The remaining producing countries recorded the following average annual rates of production growth: Turkey (+0.9% per year) and Iran (-2.3% per year).

Harvested Area 2007-2018

In 2018, the global melon harvested area amounted to 1.2M ha, therefore, remained relatively stable against the previous year. Overall, the melon harvested area, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Yield 2007-2018

In 2018, the global average yield of melons amounted to 27 tonne per ha, therefore, remained relatively stable against the previous year. The yield figure increased at an average annual rate of +1.3% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations being observed over the period under review.

Exports 2007-2018

In 2018, the global exports of melons stood at 2.3M tonnes, rising by 8.6% against the previous year. Over the period under review, melon exports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2018 when exports increased by 8.6% y-o-y. In that year, global melon exports reached their peak and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term. In value terms, melon exports stood at $1.9B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

In 2018, Spain (405K tonnes) and Guatemala (397K tonnes) were the largest exporters of melonsin the world, together accounting for approx. 34% of total exports. Honduras (254K tonnes) occupied an 11% share (based on tonnes) of total exports, which put it in second place, followed by Brazil (10%), the U.S. (8.7%), the Netherlands (6.8%), Costa Rica (5.7%) and Mexico (5.7%).

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main exporting countries, was attained by the Netherlands, while exports for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest melon supplying countries worldwide were Spain ($361M), Guatemala ($236M) and Honduras ($189M), with a combined 42% share of global exports.

Export Prices by Country

The average melon export price stood at $800 per tonne in 2018, lowering by -4.4% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.6%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 when the average export price increased by 12% year-to-year. In that year, the average export prices for melons reached their peak level of $838 per tonne, and then declined slightly in the following year.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was the Netherlands ($1,155 per tonne), while Guatemala ($594 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Costa Rica, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports 2007-2018

In 2018, the amount of melons imported worldwide amounted to 2.1M tonnes, stabilizing at the previous year. Overall, melon imports, however, continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. In value terms, melon imports stood at $1.8B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The U.S. represented the main importer of melons imported in the world, with the volume of imports recording 655K tonnes, which was approx. 30% of total imports in 2018. The Netherlands (205K tonnes) ranks second in terms of the total imports with a 9.5% share, followed by France (8.5%), the UK (8%), Canada (7.4%) and Germany (6.2%). Spain (86K tonnes), Portugal (62K tonnes), Belgium (40K tonnes), Switzerland (33K tonnes), Italy (33K tonnes) and Mexico (33K tonnes) occupied minor shares of total imports.

The U.S. experienced a relatively flat trend pattern with regard to volume of imports of melons imports. At the same time, Mexico (+7.1%), Switzerland (+3.2%), France (+2.7%), Spain (+2.3%), the Netherlands (+1.8%) and Portugal (+1.3%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Mexico emerged as the fastest-growing importer imported in the world, with a CAGR of +7.1% from 2007-2018. Italy and Canada experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, Germany (-1.3%), the UK (-1.9%) and Belgium (-2.5%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period.

In value terms, the U.S. ($403M) constitutes the largest market for imported melons worldwide, comprising 22% of global imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by France ($197M), with a 11% share of global imports. It was followed by the Netherlands, with a 10% share.

Import Prices by Country

The average melon import price stood at $857 per tonne in 2018, picking up by 5.5% against the previous year. Over the last eleven years, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.6%.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Belgium ($1,461 per tonne), while the U.S. ($615 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Mexico, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

china

China Seeks to Redraw the Global Trade Map

Don’t Forget About Belt and Road

It’s a busy time for trade news. Headlines report every twist in the U.S.-China trade war, Brexit nears another deadline, and the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) only just passed in Congress after a year of domestic debate. In Asia, countries are negotiating “mega” trade deals like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the China-Japan-South Korea deal, while the United States is favoring “mini” or partial deals like the initial U.S.-Japan Free Trade Agreement. The WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism is stalling out without a functioning appellate body. The list of negotiations goes on.

All the while, China moves forward with its ambitious hard infrastructure plan to connect continents through its Belt and Road Initiative. The results will have a serious long-term impact on global trade. Policymakers are working to get their arms around its implications. Here are the basics everyone should know.

What is the Belt and Road Initiative?

Announced by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is made up of two parts: The Silk Road Economic Belt (a “belt” by land) and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road (a “road” by sea). Inspired by the historic trade routes forged between Asia and Europe and that once bustled with traders swapping silk, spices, tea, paper, and gunpowder, China is driving a state-planned version around its own vision of China-centered global trade.

The project has gone by many names: Launched as “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR), it’s now referred to as the “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI). The plan redraws and expands China’s modern land and sea routes through new roads, railways, ports, bridges, power plants and more.

BRI spans some 138 countries, collectively home to 4.6 billion people and $29 trillion in combined GDP, an area the Chinese have loosely divided into six corridors. The biggest is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), where China has spent an estimated $68 billion to date.

According to the American Enterprise Institute, Pakistan has received the most Chinese construction funds ($31.9 billion) along the BRI so far, followed by Nigeria and Bangladesh, but China is also investing heavily in more developed economies like Singapore ($24.3 billion), Malaysia and Russia. Construction projects have focused mostly on the power, transport and property sectors.

BRI Spending FN

$1 Trillion Price Tag

The World Bank estimates investment in BRI totals $575 billion so far. Firms like PWC and Morgan Stanley estimate the final cost at around $1 trillion over the next 10 years. To put that number in perspective, the U.S. spent just $13.2 billion ($135 billion in today’s dollars) to help rebuild western Europe after World War II under the 1948 Marshall Plan.

The $1 trillion price tag is just a drop in the bucket compared to the overall infrastructure needs of the region. The Asian Development Bank estimates that Developing Asia will need to invest $1.7 trillion a year in infrastructure to maintain its growth, respond to climate change and eradicate poverty. This adds up to over $26 trillion in total investment needed by 2030.

$26 trillion needed in infrastructure

Many participating BRI economies are in desperate need of infrastructure to expand trade. Trade in BRI corridor economies is 30 percent below its potential, and FDI is 70 percent below potential, according to a recent World Bank report. The BRI has the potential to increase trade, encourage foreign investment and reduce poverty by lowering trade costs. If fully implemented, the World Bank says it could end up increasing global trade between 1.7 and 6.2 percent. But improvements need to be implemented to make this a reality.

Opportunity Costs

For BRI to live up to its potential, the World Bank says China and participating countries must work to deepen policy reforms like increasing transparency, improving debt sustainability, and mitigating environmental, social and corruption risks along the belt and road.

Large infrastructure projects are notoriously difficult to execute. But risks are heightened along the BRI, where limited transparency along with weak economic fundamentals and governance make debt sustainability a real concern. The World Bank estimates 12 of the 43 BRI corridor economies are at risk for deterioration in their debt sustainability outlooks.

China has been criticized for using “debt-trap diplomacy” along the BRI to take advantage of developing countries unable to repay large debts. One frequently cited example is Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port, which was handed over to a Chinese state-owned company in 2017 after the Sri Lankan government was unable to pay its bill for the Chinese-built port. China now holds a 99-year lease on the strategic port.

Some countries have been able to successfully renegotiate their BRI debt with Chinese banks. Malaysia recently refinanced its East Coast Rail Link project from over $15 billion to $10.7 billion after Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad initially cancelled $22 billion worth of BRI projects. Myanmar scaled back a major port project from $7.3 billion to $1.3 billion in 2018.

In a study of 40 cases of China’s external debt renegotiations with 28 different countries, research firm Rhodium Group found that asset seizures were rare and debt renegotiations in the form of write-offs, deferral and refinancing were far more common.

Rebranding the Belt and Road

Facing growing criticism abroad, BRI leaders announced at the second major BRI forum held in Beijing in April 2019 that the project would be getting a facelift. The joint statement says BRI investments would focus on “high-quality” cooperation, green development, and debt sustainability moving forward.

China’s Ministry of Finance also released a debt sustainability framework (DSF) for the BRI. The Chinese DSF closely mirrors the World Bank-IMF DSF, which has been used for over 20 years as a framework to guide countries and investors on how best to finance development needs while avoiding potential build up of excessive debt. The World Bank-IMF DSF requires regular debt sustainability analyses (DSAs) measuring a country’s projected debt burden, vulnerability to economic and policy shocks, and assessing the risk of debt distress.

While the introduction of the Chinese DSF is a welcome step toward improving debt sustainability along the BRI, there are still outstanding questions about how China will actually implement it. For example, Chinese officials have not yet indicated whether the DSF will be binding, or how transparent the DSF process will be.

All Roads Lead Back to Beijing

There’s plenty of trade news to vying for our attention nowadays. But China’s Belt and Road Initiative should not get lost in the shuffle. Beyond building roads and bridges in developing countries, the BRI also has serious implications for trade in areas like 5G technology, arctic trade and even space travel.

The U.S. response to the BRI has varied. The Obama administration followed a “Pivot to Asia” approach, negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a mega-trade deal excluding China. President Trump scrapped the TPP days after coming to office. His administration has since passed the BUILD Act which authorizes the U.S. government to invest up to $60 billion in developing countries across Asia and Africa.

But the United States’ muted response may be too little too late. With every new BRI project, China is physically laying the groundwork for new trade routes across the region. If successful, BRI means all roads will lead back to Beijing.

_________________________________________________________________

Lauren Kyger

Lauren Kyger served as Associate Editor for TradeVistas. A former Research Associate at the Hinrich Foundation, Lauren is also a Hinrich Foundation Global Trade Leader Scholar alumna. She recently joined the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations as digital content manager.

This article originally appeared on TradeVistas.org. Republished with permission.