New Articles

EU Mineral Wool Market Rose 3.5% to $2.6B

mineral wool

EU Mineral Wool Market Rose 3.5% to $2.6B

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – Slag Wool, Rock Wool And Similar Mineral Wools And Mixtures – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the mineral wool market in the European Union rose to $2.6B in 2018, growing by 3.5% against the previous year. Overall, mineral wool consumption continues to indicate a slight reduction. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2011 when the market value increased by 11% against the previous year. The level of mineral wools consumption peaked at $2.9B in 2008; however, from 2009 to 2018, consumption remained at a lower figure.

Mineral Wool Consumption by Country

Germany (476M square meters) remains the largest mineral wool consuming country in the European Union, accounting for 21% of total volume. Moreover, mineral wool consumption in Germany exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, France (228M square meters), twofold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by the Czech Republic (176M square meters), with a 7.8% share.

From 2008 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume in Germany stood at +4.2%. The remaining consuming countries recorded the following average annual rates of consumption growth: France (-1.2% per year) and the Czech Republic (-2.9% per year).

In value terms, Germany ($601M) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by France ($266M). It was followed by the UK.

The countries with the highest levels of mineral wool per capita consumption in 2018 were Finland (17 square meters per person), the Czech Republic (16 square meters per person) and Austria (12 square meters per person).

From 2008 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of mineral wool per capita consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Romania, while mineral wools per capita consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in the EU

In 2018, EU imports reached 1.4B square meters, with an increase of 4.2% against the previous year. The total imports indicated remarkable growth from 2008 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.0% over the last decade. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, mineral wools imports increased by +42.9% against 2011 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 when imports increased by 15% against the previous year. Over the period under review, mineral wools imports reached their peak figure in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, mineral wool imports rose to $1.5B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +3.1% from 2008 to 2018.

Imports by Country

The total purchases of the twelve major importers of slag wool, rock wool and similar mineral wools and mixtures, namely Italy, Germany, France, Poland, Austria, Romania, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands and Estonia, represented more than two-thirds of total import.

From 2008 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by Finland, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Germany ($237M), France ($165M) and Italy ($139M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, with a combined 35% share of total imports. These countries were followed by Poland, Austria, Belgium, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Romania, Finland, the Netherlands and Estonia, which together accounted for a further 41%.

In terms of the main importing countries, Finland experienced the highest rates of growth with regard to the value of imports, over the period under review, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

The mineral wool import price in the European Union stood at $1.1 per square meter in 2018, surging by 10% against the previous year. Overall, the mineral wools import price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2011 when the import price increased by 10% year-to-year. In that year, the import prices for slag wool, rock wool and similar mineral wools and mixtures reached their peak level of $1.2 per square meter. From 2012 to 2018, the growth in terms of the import prices for slag wool, rock wool and similar mineral wools and mixtures failed to regain its momentum.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Belgium ($1.4 per square meter), while Austria ($0.8 per square meter) was amongst the lowest.

From 2008 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Belgium, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

supply chain employee

Supply Chain Employee Engagement – 5 Benefits for your Business

Whether you operate out of a small warehouse or work as an international shipping company, employee engagement can be pivotal for your business’ ongoing success. According to Inbound Logistics, 85% of employees have reported that they feel disengaged from their jobs around the globe. However, those that feel engaged have reported 41% lower absenteeism, 24% less turnover and 70% fewer safety accidents on the job.

In terms of employee management, Forbes published a report which stated that 89% of HR leaders agree that ongoing employee feedback and engagement is crucial. Likewise, 89% of workers whose companies engage its employees are likely to recommend them as good workplaces to their friends and associates.

These numbers showcase that supply chain employee engagement factors into your business’ performance far more than it might seem at first glance. The way you treat your employees will have ripple effects on your overall output, brand reputation, and the subsequent bottom line as a direct result. Let’s take a closer look at why supply chain employee management matters so much, as well as the practical benefits of implementing it going forward.

Why Supply Chain Employee Engagement Matters

Let’s look at why supply chain employee engagement is pivotal before we move on to the benefits of active communication with your employees. Supply chain management is an industry with a flat vertical curve when it comes to warehouse and storage management employees. The HR structure typically isn’t built with vertical advancement and career development in mind (apart from mandatory hard skill development).

However, this doesn’t mean that you can’t pay closer attention to your employees, their feedback, opinions, suggestions and personal goals. Tyler Jonas, Head of HR at Top Essay Writing spoke recently: “All employees have equal rights for engagement. You don’t have to offer elaborate rewards, position advancements or paycheck bumps to make your employees happy. Sometimes all it takes is to open a line of communication and discuss what can be done to make the work environment more enjoyable for everyone.”

Some of the common complaints and bottlenecks which hinder supply chain employees’ performance include:

-Lack of hands-on leadership and coordination from managerial staff

-High focus on supply chain ROI instead of employee wellbeing

-Poor health coverage and off days management

-Undefined employee advancement systems

Benefits of Supply Chain Employee Engagement

Let’s assume that you’ve rooted out the above-mentioned bottlenecks in your company’s supply chain management – what happens next? As you can see, the complaints most employees have in terms of engagement are not irrational – they are simply absent from the supply chain management pipeline. If you decide to pursue to correct these shortcomings, you will effectively gain a plethora of benefits in regards to your employees, including the following:

1. More Efficient Coworker Communication

Supply chain employees who are satisfied with their work methodology and engagement are far more likely to cooperate and coordinate efficiently among themselves. This will come as a natural outcome of better communication with the upper management and their efforts to make the work environment more appealing.

Aim to emancipate your employees to cooperate autonomously. Let them know that you value their opinions, experience and expertise – delegate certain decisions to their discretion to facilitate coworker communication. Once that happens, your employees will feel free to communicate their thoughts and concerns for the benefit of your company as a whole.

2. Higher Employee Retention

A major point of concern for the supply chain management sector lies in employee retention and how to entice people to renew their contracts regularly. As we’ve mentioned previously, employees who don’t feel valued or engaged by the company will likely seek greener pastures. This will leave you with a roster of employees who are there simply because they have no other option at the moment.

Such a scenario can quickly lead to a toxic work environment which will reflect poorly on your overall quality of service and brand reputation. You can avoid both points by investing time and resources into establishing a communication channel with your employees proactively rather than reactively. Don’t wait for things to go bad in your supply chain management department before opening a dialogue – increase your retention rates early on.

3. Better Productivity & Morale

Coworkers who are satisfied with the way they are being treated by the upper management will subsequently perform better in their daily work routines. This same rule applies to supply chain management as well as other industries which naturally involve a more hands-off approach from the management.

Regardless, engaging your staff frequently and communicating about what works and doesn’t in the company will help gain a lot of points in your favor. This will inevitably raise the morale and energy in your staff, leading to further improvements in productivity and their sense of belonging in the company.

4. Lowered Margin for Errors

Shipping errors and supply chain mistakes, in general, are something you want to mitigate as much as possible in your company. While mistakes are bound to happen even in the best-maintained companies, their frequency will speak volumes of how you treat your employees. Dissatisfied employees who lack any faith in their managerial staff are likely to make accidental mistakes simply because they lack the morale to do otherwise.

These mistakes can cost your company tremendously in terms of reputation, resources, time and B2B partners if they persist. However, by introducing a communication channel with your supply chain employees early on, you will effectively lower the margin for error significantly. Employees will pay far closer attention to their work and do their utmost to avoid mistakes simply because their managerial staff cares about them more.

5. Healthy Coworker Competition

Lastly, a major benefit of engaging your supply chain employees goes back to their internal communication. More specifically, employees who are simply happy with their work environment are likely to develop internal camaraderie and healthy competition among coworkers.

This will raise your staff’s morale significantly and ensure that people are more satisfied with their place in your company due to consistent vertical communication. Remember that while your B2B networking may be efficient, ground-level operations still depend on the efficacy and dedication of your supply chain employees. Facilitating a healthy coworker competition and emancipating your staff through it will bring about a plethora of improvements in your supply chain pipeline.

Parts of a Whole (Conclusion)

A company consists of numerous departments which all rely on one another to make the company viable on the market. As such, paying closer attention to your employees in supply chain management will allow the company to thrive internally. Besides the obvious increase in productivity, this will also improve your reputation on the market and make your company more attractive to future employees. Meet your staff halfway and establish a meaningful dialogue – you will undoubtedly be pleasantly surprised with the results.

___________________________________________________________________

Kristin Savage nourishes, sparks and empowers using the magic of a word. Along with pursuing her degree in Creative Writing, Kristin was gaining experience in the publishing industry, with expertise in marketing strategy for publishers and authors. Now she works as a freelance writer at ClassyEssay, Studyker and Subjecto. Kristin runs her own FlyWriting blog.

global tea

Global Tea Market Overcame $25B, Growing Robustly Over the Last Decade

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

The global tea market revenue amounted to $25.9B in 2018, picking up by 7.7% 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). Overall, the total market indicated a strong growth from 2007 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +4.3% over that period. Global tea consumption peaked in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Consumption By Country

China (2.3M tonnes) constituted the country with the largest volume of tea consumption, comprising approx. 35% of total volume. Moreover, tea consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, India (1.1M tonnes), twofold. Turkey (258K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total consumption with a 3.9% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of volume in China amounted to +9.2%. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: India (+2.7% per year) and Turkey (+1.6% per year).

In value terms, China ($10.7B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by India ($3.4B). It was followed by Turkey.

The countries with the highest levels of tea per capita consumption in 2018 were Kenya (4,903 kg per 1000 persons), Turkey (3,164 kg per 1000 persons) and Viet Nam (2,663 kg per 1000 persons).

Market Forecast 2019-2025

Driven by increasing demand for tea worldwide, 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 +2.9% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 9.3M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production 2007-2018

Global tea production totaled 6.7M tonnes in 2018, surging by 5.5% against the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.3% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The general positive trend in terms of tea output was largely conditioned by a strong expansion of the harvested area and a relatively flat trend pattern in yield figures.

Production By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of tea production in 2018 were China (2.7M tonnes), India (1.4M tonnes) and Kenya (740K tonnes), together accounting for 71% of global production.

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

Harvested Area 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 4.2M ha of tea were harvested worldwide; picking up by 4% against the previous year. The harvested area increased at an average annual rate of +3.6% over the period from 2007 to 2018, which largely made the strong growth of tea production feasible.

Yield 2007-2018

In 2018, the global average tea yield stood at 1.6 tonne per ha, stabilizing at the previous year. Over the period under review, the tea yield continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Exports 2007-2018

In 2018, the global tea exports stood at 2M tonnes, increasing by 4.1% against the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.4% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. In value terms, tea exports stood at $8.4B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

The exports of the four major exporters of tea, namely Kenya, China, Sri Lanka and India, represented more than two-thirds of total export. The following exporters – Viet Nam (77K tonnes), Argentina (74K tonnes), Indonesia (49K tonnes), Malawi (43K tonnes) and the United Arab Emirates (34K tonnes) – together made up 14% of total exports.

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

In value terms, China ($1.7B), Sri Lanka ($1.6B) and Kenya ($1.4B) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2018, together accounting for 56% of global exports.

Export Prices by Country

The average tea export price stood at $4,134 per tonne in 2018, going up by 3.3% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.6%.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was the United Arab Emirates ($8,419 per tonne), while Argentina ($1,254 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports 2007-2018

In 2018, the amount of tea imported worldwide amounted to 2M tonnes, rising by 3.6% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.4% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations in certain years. In value terms, tea imports amounted to $7.7B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The imports of the twelve major importers of tea, namely Pakistan, Russia, the UK, the U.S., Egypt, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Poland, represented more than half of total import.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by Viet Nam (+50.2% per year), while imports for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Pakistan ($570M), Russia ($497M) and the U.S. ($487M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, with a combined 20% share of global imports. The UK, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Iraq, Viet Nam and Poland lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 31%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average tea import price amounted to $3,878 per tonne, jumping by 1.9% against the previous year. Over the last eleven years, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.3%.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Saudi Arabia ($6,921 per tonne), while Viet Nam ($2,062 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Argentina

ARGENTINA APPLIES OVER 500 EXPORT DUTIES – HOW’S THAT WORKING OUT?

Argentina is no stranger to economic crisis. Nearly 600 different export taxes aren’t helping.

Argentina is no stranger to economic crisis. Before the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, Argentina was experiencing more than 50 percent annual inflation, among the highest in the world. The IMF recorded a 2.5 percent drop in Argentina’s GDP in 2018, which shrank another 2.2 percent in 2019, throwing some 40 percent of the population into poverty. With a debt-to-GDP ratio of almost 90 percent and facing economic contraction of as much as 5.7 percent this year, Argentina’s government stands at the brink of its ninth default on international loans.

How could it get worse?

Trade restrictions can reinforce poor economic outcomes. As reported to the OECD, Argentina introduced, increased or expanded 585 different export taxes between 2000 and 2012. Hitting its farmers hard, Argentina’s new government recently increased export taxes on agricultural commodities. Export taxes on soybeans, soy oil and soy meal increased from 25 to 33 percent, while the taxes on exporting corn and wheat were raised to 12 percent from around 7 percent.

Export taxes distort decisions about what and how much to produce, affecting the cost to produce and the price of the export. Whether the measure significantly affects the world supply and price of that commodity depends on the global market power of the exporting country. For example, Argentina is the world’s third largest supplier of corn and soybeans. To the extent that Argentina’s exports are deterred by the tax, supply in the domestic market could increase, driving prices for the commodity producer down but also creating an input subsidy for domestic producers that use that commodity. As a result of the distortive effect of export taxes on the price of traded goods, it is unsurprising that trade as a percentage of Argentina’s GDP is significantly lower than countries in its peer group of middle income countries.

Argentina 585 export taxes

So why have them?

It is more common for governments to restrict imports to try to protect domestic producers of goods that compete with imports. For example, restricting imports of bread might favor local bakers who could then sell their products at higher prices without fear of competition from foreign producers. Yet we know the cost of suppressing competition means consumers (companies and individuals) will pay higher prices.

In contrast, export duties are less common than import restrictions and have a different justification. Smaller, resource-limited countries sometimes apply export restrictions to a small number of products to ensure adequate domestic supplies or to lower domestic prices. As a major world exporter of agricultural products, Argentina’s export taxes are a way for the government to raise revenue and address its fiscal gap.

How’s it working?

Argentina requires export registrations and permits, while fully banning the export of certain commodities including scrap iron, steel, copper and aluminum. Export taxes vary but Decree 37/2019 issued in December 2019 sets a general rate at 12 percent, with exceptions. The incoming government has already adjusted the rates, increasing soybeans and soy products to 33 percent while reducing others such as rice from 12 to six percent, dry beans from nine to five percent. Others remained the same. Wheat, corn, sorghum, wine, fruits and vegetables are taxed at 12 percent, while beef and chicken at nine percent.

Heavy trade taxation has distorted and decreased the productivity of Argentina’s economy. Moreover, the duties create incentives for rent-seeking as businesses seek special exemptions or reductions in taxes. Special exemptions prop up businesses that may have otherwise failed, preventing workers and resources from moving to their highest-valued uses in the economy. Such outcomes follow the tenets of Adam Smith’s basic economic treatise, The Wealth of Nations: the result of price and trade intervention “can only be to force the trade of a country into a channel much less advantageous than that in which it would naturally run of its own accord.”

Argentina counter to WTO norms on export taxes

Argentina isn’t exempt from economic laws

Trade, Adam Smith went on to observe, is driven by “a propensity in human nature … to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.” Certainly, in Argentina this propensity is curtailed today by these restrictions that make it almost impossible for people to exchange goods and services abroad.

Economic laws are universal. Individuals in Argentina have the same creativity and entrepreneurial capacity as do people in other countries. An important way of helping to unleash that capacity would be for Argentina to remove all export and import duties without pitting sectors against one another.

In Argentina, policymakers believe that they can manage the economy better than the forces of market competition. But Argentina has spent more than a third of the last 70 years in recession. Global trade rules explicitly prohibit quantitative restrictions but permit export taxes under limited circumstances. Instead, Argentina uses them liberally and broadly. Eliminating them would enable free trade to spur economic growth.

__________________________________________________________________

Agustin Forzani

Agustin Forzani is an MA student in the George Mason University economics department and MA fellow with GMU’s Mercatus Center. He received a BA in economics from the National University of Rosario in Argentina and a BA in Agribusiness from the National Technological University in Argentina.

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

hydrogen peroxide

Global Hydrogen Peroxide Market – India ($55M), Germany ($54M), and the U.S. ($48M) are the Most Promising Overseas Markets

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

The global hydrogen peroxide market revenue amounted to $3.2B in 2018, going up by 8% against the previous year. The market value increased at an average annual rate of +2.5% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations over the period under review. The global hydrogen peroxide consumption peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Imports 2007-2018

In value terms, hydrogen peroxide imports totaled $823M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +2.7% from 2007 to 2018.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Germany (153K tonnes), followed by Italy (100K tonnes), the U.S. (91K tonnes), India (88K tonnes) and Russia (87K tonnes) represented the major importers of hydrogen peroxide, together comprising 30% of total imports. The following importers – France (70K tonnes), the Netherlands (65K tonnes), Austria (62K tonnes), Taiwan (61K tonnes), Chile (47K tonnes), Mexico (47K tonnes) and Belgium (45K tonnes) – together made up 23% of total imports.

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

In value terms, India ($55M), Germany ($54M) and the U.S. ($48M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, with a combined 19% share of global imports.

Import Prices by Country

The average hydrogen peroxide import price stood at $483 per tonne in 2018, picking up by 4.2% against the previous year. In general, the hydrogen peroxide import price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2008 when the average import price increased by 5.7% year-to-year. In that year, the average import prices for hydrogen peroxide reached their peak level of $535 per tonne. From 2009 to 2018, the growth in terms of the average import prices for hydrogen peroxide remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was India ($619 per tonne), while Austria ($315 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

mobile cranes

Commerce Announces New Section 232 Investigation on Imports of Mobile Cranes

On May 6, 2020, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced that the Commerce will initiate an investigation to examine whether imports of mobile cranes were threatening to impair the national security. Commerce will conduct an examination into both the quantities or circumstances of mobile crane imports.

Section 232 investigations are conducted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and authorizes the President of the United States, through tariffs or other means, to adjust the imports of goods or materials from other countries if it deems the quantity or circumstances surrounding these imports threaten national security.

This new investigation was initiated after the filing of a petition by domestic producer, The Manitowoc Company, Inc. (Manitowoc), on December 19, 2019, requesting that the Department of Commerce launch an investigation into mobile crane imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. Similar to all other 232 investigations, this one will also be conducted by Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security. Commerce in its announcement stated that it will be providing an opportunity for public comment once the initiation is published in the Federal Register.

Manitowoc’s petition alleges that increased imports of low-priced mobile cranes, particularly from Germany, Austria, and Japan, and intellectual property (IP) infringement by foreign competition, have harmed the domestic mobile crane manufacturing industry. The Department of Homeland Security has identified mobile cranes as a critical industry because of their extensive use in national defense applications, as well as in critical infrastructure sectors.

While the text of the petition has yet to be made available to the public for review, according to Commerce’s press release the “petitioner claims the low-priced imports and IP infringement resulted in the closure of one of its two production facilities in the United States and eliminated hundreds of skilled manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.” In addition, Manitowoc alleges that imports have increased “152% between 2014 and 2019.” This increase in imports coupled with an earlier 2015 finding that a Chinese crane manufacturer “misappropriated six trade secrets and infringed on a patent” which resulted in the ITC banning the sale of a Chinese crane in the United States led to the filing of the case.

___________________________________________________________________

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

frozen

Spain’s Market for Frozen Crabs, Lobsters, Shrimp, and Prawns Totaled $1.3B

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘Spain – Frozen Crustaceans – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the frozen crustaceans market in Spain amounted to $1.3B in 2018, standing approx. at 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).

Production in Spain

In 2018, approx. 39K tonnes of frozen crustaceans were produced in Spain; coming down by -2.3% against the previous year. Overall, frozen crustaceans production continues to decline.

Exports from Spain

In 2018, approx. 44K tonnes of frozen crustaceans were exported from Spain; approximately reflecting the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +6.9% over the period from 2014 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 when exports increased by 18% y-o-y. Over the period under review, frozen crustaceans exports attained their maximum at 45K tonnes in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, frozen crustaceans exports stood at $418M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

Italy (17K tonnes), Portugal (10K tonnes) and France (5.6K tonnes) were the main destinations of frozen crustaceans exports from Spain, together accounting for 74% of total exports. These countries were followed by the U.S., Germany, Greece, Belgium, the UK and the Netherlands, which together accounted for a further 18%.

From 2014 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main countries of destination, was attained by the U.S. (+52.7% per year), while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Italy ($164M), Portugal ($96M) and France ($61M) appeared to be the largest markets for frozen crustaceans exported from Spain worldwide, together accounting for 77% of total exports. Germany, the U.S., Belgium, Greece, the UK and the Netherlands lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 16%.

Export Prices by Country

The average frozen crustaceans export price stood at $9,432 per tonne in 2018, growing by 3.9% against the previous year. In general, the frozen crustaceans export price, however, continues to indicate a perceptible setback. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 an increase of 6.3% y-o-y. The export price peaked at $10,776 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, export prices remained at a lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices for the major foreign markets. In 2018, the country with the highest price was the UK ($11,039 per tonne), while the average price for exports to the U.S. ($5,359 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2014 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to the Netherlands, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced a decline.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

textile

Nonwoven Textile Market in Asia Amounted to $16.1B

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

The revenue of the nonwoven textile market in Asia amounted to $16.1B in 2018, increasing by 3.9% against the previous year.

Consumption By Country in Asia

In value terms, China ($7.8B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Japan ($1.4B). It was followed by Indonesia.

The countries with the highest levels of nonwoven textile per capita consumption in 2018 were Saudi Arabia (4.28 square meters per person), South Korea (4.21 square meters per person) and Japan (3.37 square meters per person).

From 2014 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of nonwoven textile per capita consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by India, while nonwoven textile per capita consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Market Forecast to 2019-2030

Driven by increasing demand for nonwoven textile in Asia, 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 +1.1% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 5.3B square meters by the end of 2030.

Exports in Asia

In 2018, Asia’s nonwoven textile exports stood at $6.6B (IndexBox estimates). The total export value increased at an average annual rate of +5.5% from 2014 to 2018; however, the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations over the period under review. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2018 with an increase of 13% y-o-y. In that year, nonwoven textile exports reached their peak and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Exports by Country

China represented the key exporter of nonwoven textiles in Asia, with the volume of exports resulting at 1B square meters, which was approx. 53% of total exports in 2018. Turkey (211M square meters) took the second position in the ranking, followed by Taiwan, Chinese (110M square meters). All these countries together held near 17% share of total exports. The following exporters – Thailand (81M square meters), Malaysia (75M square meters), Japan (71M square meters), Israel (71M square meters), Saudi Arabia (70M square meters), South Korea (60M square meters), China, Hong Kong SAR (55M square meters) and India (55M square meters) – together made up 28% of total exports.

Exports from China increased at an average annual rate of +11.9% from 2014 to 2018. At the same time, Saudi Arabia (+24.5%), Turkey (+17.6%), India (+15.6%), Thailand (+12.2%), Malaysia (+7.1%), China, Hong Kong SAR (+6.8%), Japan (+6.1%) and Taiwan, Chinese (+4.3%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Saudi Arabia emerged as the fastest-growing exporter exported in Asia, with a CAGR of +24.5% from 2014-2018. Israel experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, South Korea (-5.4%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. While the share of China (+19 p.p.), Turkey (+5.2 p.p.), Saudi Arabia (+2.1 p.p.) and Thailand (+1.5 p.p.) increased significantly, the shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, China ($3.1B) remains the largest nonwoven textile supplier in Asia, comprising 46% of total nonwoven textile exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Japan ($768M), with a 12% share of total exports. It was followed by Turkey, with a 9% share.

Export Prices by Country

The nonwoven textile export price in Asia stood at $3.4 per square meter in 2018, approximately mirroring the previous year.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Japan ($11 per square meter), while Saudi Arabia ($1.5 per square meter) was amongst the lowest.

From 2014 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Israel, while the other leaders experienced mixed trends in the export price figures.

Imports in Asia

Asia’s nonwoven textile imports amounted to $4.8B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +3.9% from 2014 to 2018; however, the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 with an increase of 8.8% against the previous year. In that year, nonwoven textile imports reached their peak and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Japan (268M square meters), distantly followed by China (144M square meters), South Korea (129M square meters), Viet Nam (122M square meters) and India (77M square meters) represented the largest importers of nonwoven textiles, together mixing up 62% of total imports. The following importers – Indonesia (53M square meters), Turkey (49M square meters), Pakistan (42M square meters), Thailand (37M square meters), Saudi Arabia (35M square meters), Malaysia (31M square meters) and Taiwan, Chinese (27M square meters) – together made up 23% of total imports.

From 2014 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by Pakistan, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, China ($905M), Japan ($858M) and Viet Nam ($525M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, with a combined 47% share of total imports. South Korea, Indonesia, India, Turkey, Thailand, Malaysia, Taiwan, Chinese, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 37%.

Import Prices by Country

The nonwoven textile import price in Asia stood at $4.1 per square meter in 2018, approximately mirroring the previous year.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was China ($6.3 per square meter), while Pakistan ($1.9 per square meter) was amongst the lowest.

From 2014 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Indonesia, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

belt

EU’s Belt and Bandolier Imports Bounced Back to $817M in 2018

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

The belt and bandolier market size in the EU is estimated at $711M in 2018, an increase of 1.5% 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).

Overall, belt and bandolier consumption continues to indicate a moderate shrinkage. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2014 when the market value increased by 6.2% y-o-y. The level of belt and bandolier consumption peaked at $858M in 2009; however, from 2010 to 2018, consumption remained at a lower figure.

Consumption by Country

Germany ($123M), France ($109M) and the UK ($95M) were the largest markets for belts and bandoliers, together accounting for 46% of the EU market. These countries were followed by Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Romania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and the Czech Republic, which together accounted for a further 46%.

Imports in the EU

In 2018, EU’s belt and bandolier imports stood at $817M (IndexBox estimates). The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +1.7% over the last decade; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2011 when imports increased by 14% against the previous year. Over the period under review, belt and bandolier imports reached their peak figure at $829M in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, imports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Imports by Country

In value terms, the largest belt and bandolier importing markets in the European Union were Germany ($173M), France ($161M) and the UK ($122M), with a combined 56% share of total imports.

The UK experienced the highest rates of growth with regard to the value of imports, among the main importing countries over the period under review, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the belt and bandolier import price in the European Union amounted to $47,531 per tonne, jumping by 3.8% against the previous year. There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was the UK ($59,224 per tonne), while Belgium ($28,562 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

trade protectionism

Trade Protectionism Won’t Help Fight COVID-19

Countries around the world are limiting international trade and turning inward, seeking to produce nearly everything — especially medical supplies — themselves.

The Trump administration, for instance, is considering a “Buy American” executive order that would require federal agencies to purchase domestically made masks, ventilators, and medicines. And over two dozen countries — including France, Germany, South Korea, and Taiwan — have banned domestic companies from exporting medical supplies.

The scramble for self-sufficiency in medical supplies and medicines needed to fight the coronavirus is make-believe. It is neither feasible nor desirable, and will only deepen the pain felt amidst this pandemic.

Governments around the world have responded to COVID-19 by imposing export restrictions on things like ventilators and masks. In mid-April, Syria became the 76th country to follow suit. The import side of things isn’t much better. The World Trade Organization (WTO) reports that tariffs remain stubbornly high on protective medical gear, averaging 11.5 percent across the 164 members of the Geneva-based institution, and peaking at just under 30 percent.

This is no way to fight a pandemic.

It’s not that COVID-19 caused this bout of trade protectionism. It’s just that COVID-19 offers up a useful narrative to promote trade protectionism.

The Trump administration, for instance, has been touting its “Buy American” executive order as a move to spur local manufacturing. Canada has also considered going it alone in ventilators and masks, but recently acknowledged it can’t possibly achieve self-sufficiency in medicines. No one can.

The way many governments see it, the only thing standing in the way of greater self-reliance in medical equipment and medicines is the will to pay for it. The story is that ventilators might be more expensive if made domestically, but that’s the cost of going it alone. It’s only a matter of getting Bauer and Brooks Brothers, for example, to make personal protective equipment, rather than hockey gear and clothing.

But there’s a reason Bauer makes skates instead of surgical masks. It’s better at it, and skates are a much more lucrative business. Bauer didn’t misread the market. It’s heartwarming to hear that Bauer is stepping in to help out, but the company knows that making surgical masks in the US is five times more expensive than making them in China. That’s why 95 percent of the surgical masks in the US are imported.

The absurdity of self-sufficiency in medicines is even more glaring. The US is a major exporter of medicines, but the raw chemicals used to make them are imported. Nearly three-quarters of the facilities that manufacture America’s “active pharmaceutical ingredients” are overseas. To reorient supply chains to produce these ingredients domestically would take up to 10 years and cost $2 billion for each new facility.  Consumers would pay at least 30 percent more at the pharmacy.

The last plug for self-sufficiency in medical equipment and medicines is that it’s not a good idea to depend on adversaries to keep us healthy. We don’t. What’s striking about medicines, medical equipment, and personal protective products is that market share is highly concentrated among allies. For example, Germany, the US, and Switzerland supply 35 percent of medical products sold worldwide. True, China leads the top ten list of personal protective products, at 17 percent market share, but the other nine, including the US at number three, are all longstanding allies. To be sure, the untold story of China is that it depends on Germany and the United States for nearly 40 percent of its medical products.

This past week, the WTO and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) called for an end to the folly of trade restrictions during this pandemic. The communique should have — but obviously couldn’t — call out governments around the world for maintaining, on average, a 17 percent tariff on soap. That tariffs on face masks average nearly 10 percent is baffling. That 20 countries in the WTO have no legal ceiling on the tariffs they impose on medicines is unforgivable.

Self-sufficiency in medical supplies and medicines is a political sop. It’s a narrative that can’t deliver anything but misery. If governments want to fight COVID-19, they should spend more time looking at how they’re denying themselves access to medical necessities, and less time on how to deny others the tools to save lives.

______________________________________________________________________

Marc L. Busch is the Karl F. Landegger professor of international business diplomacy at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a nonresident senior fellow in the Atlantic Council.