New Articles

THE EAGLERAIL HAS LANDED: CEO MIKE WYCHOCKI PUSHES A “NO BRAINER” WHEN IT COMES TO MOVING SHIPPING CONTAINERS AT CONGESTED PORTS

eaglerail

THE EAGLERAIL HAS LANDED: CEO MIKE WYCHOCKI PUSHES A “NO BRAINER” WHEN IT COMES TO MOVING SHIPPING CONTAINERS AT CONGESTED PORTS

It’s amazing where new logistics solutions come from. They are usually born by veteran shippers with visions on how to improve an existing operation. Or it can be a customer or customers seeking help in conquering a specific challenge that eventually resonates throughout the industry.

Then there is the inception of Chicago-based EagleRail Container Logistics’ signature solution. It can be traced to a pitch meeting for a new monorail in Brazil that was attended by a port authority official who was there more as a cheerleader than a participant.

Watching a Chicago marketing man’s PowerPoint presentation about his company’s passenger monorail system to local leaders in São Paulo eight years ago, the port representative, Jose Newton Gama, marveled at how the magnetic levitation (Maglev) trains holding people would be suspended under overhead tracks.

Then the Brazilian known by friends as Newton raised his hand.

“Excuse me?” he asked the Americano. “Could your system be adapted to hold shipping containers?”

That had never occurred to project designers, whose monorail cars for passengers are much lighter than would be required for cargo containers hauled by ships, trucks and freight trains. But the marketing man shared Gama’s question with his colleagues in the Windy City, and that planted the seed that eventually bore EagleRail Container Logistics.

Chief Executive Officer Mike Wychocki was an early investor who eventually bought out that marketing man, but the first EagleRail system is named “Newton” after the Brazilian who now sits on the company’s board of advisors. “He’s a great guy,” says Wychocki during a recent phone interview. “Newton is our biggest cheerleader.”

Wychocki’s no slouch with the pom-poms himself, having pitched EagleRail at 40 ports in 20 countries over the past five years. His company, which has offices around the world, is developing its first prototype in China, and studies are underway at six ports as EagleRail sets about raising $20 million in capital. (The window for small investments had just closed when Wychocki was interviewed. His company has since shifted its focus to large investors.)

The way ports have operated for decades left no need for a system like EagleRail’s. Big ships dock, cranes remove containers stacked on their decks and each box is then moved onto the back of a flatbed truck that either hauls it to a distribution center or an intermodal yard. Until recent years, no one really thought of disrupting the process because, as Wychocki puts it, “you could always find cheaper truck drivers.”

However, truck driver shortages, port-area air pollution and congestion caused by the time it takes to load and unload ever-larger ships have prompted serious soul searching when it comes to short hauls. Expanding the size of ports is often not an option due to the cities that have grown to surround them. This has led to the creation of large container parks for trucks and/or freight trains within a few miles of ports, but getting boxes to those remains problematic—at a time when megaships are only making matters more difficult.

“There is an old saying that ports are where old trucks go to die,” says Wychocki, who ticks off as problems associated with that mode of moving containers pollution, maintenance and fuel costs, as well as the issues of public safety because some drivers essentially live inside of their vehicles, which can attract prostitution and leave behind litter and human waste. Adding even more of these dirty trucks would necessitate more road building, which only adds to environmental concerns.

With ground space at ports a constantly shrinking commodity, tunneling underground may be viewed as an option. But Wychocki points out that many ports have emerged on unstable ground like backfill, and water, power and sewer lines are usually below what’s under the streets beyond port gates. The idea of a hyperloop has been bandied about, but it would require emptying shipping containers at the port, loading the contents into smaller boxes, sending those through to another yard, and then repacking the shipping containers on the other side. “That defeats the whole point” of relieving port congestion, the EagleRail CEO says.

Ah, but every port has unused air space, which is what Wychocki’s company seeks to exploit. “If an Amazon warehouse can lift and shuttle packages robotically,” he says, “why not do the same with a 60,000-pound package? Go to a warehouse. See how Amazon works with packages. They use overhead light rails. It’s an obvious idea, so obvious. It’s a no brainer when you think about it.”

Yes, Amazon also uses drones, but can you imagine the size it would have to be to carry a 60,000-pound shipping container? Wychocki sees a suspended container track as an extension of the cranes on every loading dock worldwide, which is why EagleRail systems are also all-electric and composed of the same crane hardware to avoid snags when it comes to replacing parts.

However, Wychocki is quick to note EagleRail is not a total solution when it comes to port congestion. He calculates that among the short-haul trucks leaving a port, 50 percent are going to 500 different locations, many of which are different states away, while the other half is bound for just a couple nearby destinations. EagleRail is geared toward the latter, and the problem with getting containers to them “is not technological; it’s who controls the five kilometers between the port and the intermodal facility,” he says.

Lifting equipment at ports “is exactly the same in all 200 countries,” he adds. “The part that is not the same is the back end. What is the port’s configuration? Where do the roads come in? What we do is form a consortium and build it with each local player, such as the port authority, the road authority, the national rail company, the power company. Getting everyone involved helps get procurement and environmental rights of way.”

He concedes that getting everyone on board “varies by location,” but when it comes to environmental concerns “everyone’s kind of wanting to do this because it means fewer trucks, and the power companies would prefer the use of electricity (over burning diesel). It sounds harder than it is to get everyone rowing in the same direction.”

Wychocki points to another bonus with EagleRail: It allows for total control of one’s intermodal yard because containers come and go on the same circular route—all day long. “We take this on as a disruptive business model,” he says, noting that short-haul trucks generally involve the use of data-chain-breaking clipboards and mobile phones. EagleRail systems track containers on them in real-time, rolling in all customs paperwork and billing invoices automatically.

“It’s amazing, I just came from the Port of Rotterdam, where I was a keynote,” Wychocki says. “Even the biggest ports in the world like Antwerp were saying, ‘This is great. Why isn’t anyone else doing it?’”

Actually, EagleRail accidentally created direct competition. Wychocki explains that during the initial design phase, his company worked with a foreign monorail concern whose cars used what were essentially aircraft tires rolling inside a closed channel. Concerns about maintaining a system that would invariably involve frequently changing tires—and thus slowing down operations—caused EagleRail to reject that design in favor of another third-party’s calling for steel-on-steel wheels. The designer with tires is pressing on with its own system and without EagleRail.

“I’m glad we didn’t go that route,” says Wychocki, who nonetheless expects more serious competition once EagleRail systems are up and running. Fortunately for the company, there are plenty of ports bursting at the seams that cannot wait that long. Wychocki says a question he invariably gets after pitching EagleRail is: “Where were you 10 years ago? Usually, there is an urgency.”

That’s why “our goal was to get out of the gate fast, build market share and our brand and create a quasi-franchise network,” says Wychocki, whose business model has EagleRail owning 25 percent of a system while the port and other local entities own the rest.

He estimates that within 10 years, 12 EagleRail systems will be operating. If that sounds like a pipe dream, consider that his company’s newsletter boasts 3,000 subscribers before a system is even up and running. Wychocki does not credit “brilliant marketing” for that keen interest. “It’s because every port’s problems are getting worse. Everyone is squealing about what to do with these giant ships that cannot be unloaded fast enough. They are desperate.”

toilet paper

Global Toilet Paper Market – U.S. ($375M), Germany ($320M), and the Netherlands ($164M) Are the Biggest Importers

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

The global toilet paper market revenue amounted to $60.4B in 2018, going up by 6.6% 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 +2.9% over the period from 2007 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 2008 with an increase of 12% year-to-year. The global toilet paper consumption peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Exports 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 2.1M tonnes of toilet paper were exported worldwide; going up by 4.9% against the previous year. Over the period under review, toilet paper exports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 when exports increased by 5.3% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global toilet paper exports reached their peak figure in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the near future.

In value terms, toilet paper exports totaled $3.7B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

China (229K tonnes) and Germany (222K tonnes) represented the main exporters of toilet paper in 2018, finishing at approx. 11% and 11% of total exports, respectively. It was followed by Italy (127K tonnes), France (113K tonnes), Poland (109K tonnes) and Sweden (104K tonnes), together comprising a 21% share of total exports. Canada (84K tonnes), El Salvador (80K tonnes), Mexico (73K tonnes), Slovakia (73K tonnes), the U.S. (71K tonnes) and Austria (70K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

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

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average toilet paper export price amounted to $1,735 per tonne, increasing by 5.9% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the toilet paper export price continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2008 when the average export price increased by 15% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the average export prices for toilet paper attained their maximum at $1,903 per tonne in 2011; however, from 2012 to 2018, export prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was the U.S. ($2,648 per tonne), while Slovakia ($1,346 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports 2007-2018

In 2018, the global toilet paper imports amounted to 2.1M tonnes, growing by 5.1% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.4% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being observed throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 when imports increased by 7.9% year-to-year. Over the period under review, global toilet paper imports attained their peak figure in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, toilet paper imports amounted to $3.6B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The U.S. (208K tonnes) and Germany (199K tonnes) represented roughly 20% of total imports of toilet paper in 2018. It was followed by the Netherlands (100K tonnes), achieving a 4.9% share of total imports. The following importers – France (87K tonnes), China, Hong Kong SAR (83K tonnes), Denmark (72K tonnes), Saudi Arabia (66K tonnes), Canada (66K tonnes), Belgium (64K tonnes), the Czech Republic (60K tonnes), Norway (52K tonnes) and Austria (48K tonnes) – together made up 29% 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 Saudi Arabia, while imports for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the U.S. ($375M), Germany ($320M) and the Netherlands ($164M) were the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, with a combined 24% share of global imports.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average toilet paper import price amounted to $1,747 per tonne, jumping by 3.1% against the previous year. Overall, the toilet paper import price 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 9.5% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the average import prices for toilet paper attained their maximum at $1,937 per tonne in 2011; however, from 2012 to 2018, import prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Norway ($2,473 per tonne), while Saudi Arabia ($1,460 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

strawberry

EU Strawberry Market Reached $3.8B and Is Set To Continue Moderate Growth

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

The revenue of the strawberry market in the European Union amounted to $3.8B in 2018, rising by 1.9% 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% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations over the period under review. Strawberry consumption peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Consumption By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of strawberry consumption in 2018 were Germany (233K tonnes), Poland (203K tonnes) and the UK (183K tonnes), together comprising 51% of total consumption. Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Romania, Greece, Portugal, Austria and Sweden lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 39%.

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

In value terms, Germany ($819M), the UK ($792M) and Italy ($360M) were the countries with the highest levels of market value in 2018, together comprising 52% of the total market. Poland, France, Spain, Romania, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Portugal and Greece lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 36%.

The countries with the highest levels of strawberry per capita consumption in 2018 were Poland (5,315 kg per 1000 persons), Belgium (2,900 kg per 1000 persons) and Germany (2,844 kg per 1000 persons).

Market Forecast to 2030

Driven by increasing demand for strawberry in the European Union, 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 +1.1% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 1.4M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production in the EU

In 2018, approx. 1.3M tonnes of strawberries were produced in the European Union; standing approx. at the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.6% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations in certain years. In 2015, strawberry production reached its peak volume of 1.4M tonnes but from 2016 to 2018 it failed to regain its momentum. The general positive trend in terms of strawberry output was largely conditioned by a mild expansion of the harvested area and measured growth in yield figures.

Production By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of strawberry production in 2018 were Spain (345K tonnes), Poland (196K tonnes) and Germany (142K tonnes), together accounting for 54% of total production. The UK, Italy, the Netherlands and Greece lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 29%.

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

Harvested Area

In 2018, approx. 103K ha of strawberries were harvested in the European Union; reducing by -1.7% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the strawberry harvested area continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2013 with an increase of 9.6% against the previous year. In that year, the strawberry harvested area attained its peak level of 111K ha. From 2014 to 2018, the growth of the strawberry harvested area failed to regain its momentum.

Yield

The average strawberry yield stood at 12 tonne per ha in 2018, flattening at the previous year. The yield figure increased at an average annual rate of +2.1% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

Exports in the EU

In 2018, the amount of strawberries exported in the European Union totaled 476K tonnes, coming down by -3.8% against the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.3% from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. Over the period under review, strawberry exports reached their maximum at 515K tonnes in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure. In value terms, strawberry exports totaled $1.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

Spain represented the main exporter of strawberries exported in the European Union, with the volume of exports amounting to 279K tonnes, which was approx. 59% of total exports in 2018. The Netherlands (70K tonnes) ranks second in terms of the total exports with a 15% share, followed by Belgium (9.5%) and Greece (6.2%). Italy (14K tonnes), Germany (12K tonnes) and France (11K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

Exports from Spain increased at an average annual rate of +2.7% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, Greece (+19.9%), the Netherlands (+6.2%) and Belgium (+1.3%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Greece emerged as the fastest-growing exporter exported in the European Union, with a CAGR of +19.9% from 2007-2018. Germany experienced a relatively flat trend pattern with regard to strawberry exports. By contrast, Italy (-2.2%) and France (-7.2%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. From 2007 to 2018, the share of Spain, the Netherlands and Greece increased by +15%, +7.1% and +5.3% percentage points, while France (-2.8 p.p.) saw their share reduced. The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, Spain ($694M) remains the largest strawberry supplier in the European Union, comprising 52% of total strawberry exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by the Netherlands ($261M), with a 19% share of total exports. It was followed by Belgium, with a 13% share.

Export Prices by Country

The strawberry export price in the European Union stood at $2,810 per tonne in 2018, picking up by 2.9% against the previous year. In general, the strawberry export price continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. Over the period under review, the export prices for strawberries attained their peak figure at $3,298 per tonne in 2011; however, from 2012 to 2018, export prices remained at a lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Belgium ($4,000 per tonne), while Greece ($1,385 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports in the EU

In 2018, the amount of strawberries imported in the European Union stood at 428K tonnes, falling by -8.1% against the previous year. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2012 when imports increased by 13% against the previous year. In that year, strawberry imports attained their peak of 471K tonnes. From 2013 to 2018, the volume of strawberry imports remained at a lower figure. In value terms, strawberry imports amounted to $1.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Germany (103K tonnes), distantly followed by the UK (52K tonnes), France (47K tonnes), Italy (36K tonnes), Belgium (35K tonnes), the Netherlands (27K tonnes) and Portugal (20K tonnes) were the largest importers of strawberries, together mixing up 75% of total imports. The following importers – Spain (15K tonnes), Austria (14K tonnes), Poland (13K tonnes), the Czech Republic (13K tonnes) and Sweden (7.6K tonnes) – together made up 15% 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 Poland, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest strawberry importing markets in the European Union were Germany ($281M), the UK ($204M) and France ($173M), together accounting for 49% of total imports. These countries were followed by Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Sweden and the Czech Republic, which together accounted for a further 41%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the strawberry import price in the European Union amounted to $3,141 per tonne, picking up by 12% against the previous year. Over the last decade, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.1%.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Sweden ($4,036 per tonne), while Portugal ($2,113 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

DACHSER

DACHSER’s New LCL Service Offers Expanded Connections for Shippers

Shippers seeking a consolidated access option along the route from Europe to Chile are now offered DACHSER’s latest weekly schedule of LCL services. This added service streamlines the process by collecting container shipments followed by consolidation at its Hamburg warehouse. Once consolidated, the items are shipped directly to San Antonio, Chile without interruption.

“Referring to ‘less than container load,’ our new LCL service is designed to meet the specific needs of our customers with smaller merchandise quantities. The service not only optimizes efficiencies and reduces costs, but the fixed weekly schedule improves the planning process,” said Guido Gries, Managing Director, DACHSER Americas.

“An effective LCL service comes down to timing—from the coordination of the grouping of goods and to the fixed container trips between ports. Our management of this timing allows our customers the benefit of improved planning and transit times as well as transparency of their shipments,” said Mr. Gries.

Markets including Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia are directly connected to the Chilean region thanks to this added service. DACHSER continues to showcase its dedication to expanding network capabilities while supporting the needs of its customers, particularly in a trying time for the supply chain and global logistics players.

“The service offers customers streamlined container coordination and management of all sea freight imports deployed on first-class carriers to Chile,” added Mr. Gries. “Thanks to our extensive European logistics network we can offer seamless visibility from the door of the supplier in Europe to the final destination.”

Additional service offerings include interlocked logistics solutions aimed to support road, air, and sea logistics through transportation and warehousing services as well as pre-carriage handling and transparent supplier tracking.

customs

Customs Providing Immediate Short-Term Duty Deferrals to Approved Importers Working to Provide Longer Term Relief to the Importing Community

Short term case-by-case relief to approved importers: On Friday, March 20, 2020, Customs issued the following message:

Due to the severity of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will approve on a case by case basis additional days for payment of estimated duties, taxes and fees due to this emergency. Please note we are working on a future message that will provide further information. Please watch your CSMS messages.

NOTE: CBP has confirmed that the March 20, 2020 debit authorizations for the Periodic Monthly Statements and the daily statements have been transmitted to the Department of Treasury. Please work directly with your financial institution if you wish to prevent these funds from being withdrawn.

Requests should be directed to the Office of Trade, Trade Policy, and Programs at OTentrysummary@cbp.dhs.gov.

We are advised that companies sending requests for “additional days” are receiving responses from CBP such as the following:

Thank you for your message. Yes, you are approved for additional days for payment due to the COVID – 19 emergency. Please note we are working on a future message that may provide an additional timeframe for payment. Please watch your CSMS messages. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Based on the above CBP Message and anticipated response, our comments and suggestions for companies seeking “additional days” for payment of duties are as follows:

-CBP does not specify the number of “additional days” in its Message or the response; however, we are advised that for the time being Customs is granting an additional 10 days to specifically approved companies.

-The message does not specify the information to be provided in the request. At a minimum, companies requesting additional days for payment of duties, taxes, and fees owing should include the exact company name and their Importer of Record (IOR) number with the request. Additionally, it may be prudent to include a brief statement specifying the company’s need for the additional time requested and the harm that the company is currently facing.

-The CBP Message advises companies granted additional days to “work directly with your financial institution.” Even if CBP grants the additional days requested, Customs at this time does not have the ability to stop its automated system from requesting the transfer of funds (duties, fees, taxes) from designated bank accounts for specific companies. As such, the company responsible for payment of the duties and fees will need to coordinate with its bank (i.e., its financial institution) in advance so that the bank will block incoming funds transfer requests from CBP. We are advised that CBP’s system normally transmits electronic payment requests three times, so the bank should be prepared to block transfers in response to all three incoming CBP requests.

-CBP’s system automatically generates liquidated damages notices for non-payment and late payment of duties, fees and other amounts owing. Companies receiving “additional days” for payment of amounts owing should expect to receive such notices. We understand that providing the CBP authorization message to the approved party should be sufficient to cancel any such notices in their entirety (assuming that the amounts owing were fully paid within the extension period).

-The CBP Message covers “estimated duties, taxes, and fees.” We are not aware that it provides additional time for the payment of penalties, liquidated damages or other amounts that may be owing CBP.

-We are aware that industry groups have identified different parties for the “additional days” request other than the party identified in the CBP Message (OTentrysummary@cbp.dhs.gov). At this time, we recommend that companies seeking additional days should use the email address specified in the CBP Message.

Likelihood of longer-term (90-day) relief to the importing community: In response to ongoing discussions and requests by several trade organizations CBP is considering a 90-day extension that would be applicable to the larger importing community. Essentially, this would align duty payments with the 90-day extension currently granted by the IRS to tax filers. We expect CBP to issue a Federal Register concerning this broader extension policy in the near future and will provide updates accordingly.

_______________________________________________________________

Robert Stang is a Washington, D.C.-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. He leads the firm’s Customs group.

Julia Banegas is an attorney in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington, D.C. office.

toys

BORN TO TRADE

The stork brings more than babies

My husband and I welcomed our first child, a baby boy, in January. As we prepared for his arrival, we quickly learned that as first-time parents, we will be acquiring an enormous amount of baby stuff, in complete disproportion to the expected size of our newborn. Our apartment was rapidly inundated with a car seat, stroller, swing and Pack ‘n Play, playmats, toys, onesies, hats, pajamas, burp cloths, swaddles, bibs, a crib, a changing table, and of course, mounds of diapers and wipes.

The baby product industry is booming. Sales reached an estimated $10.9 billion in 2017 and are expected to reach $16.8 billion by 2025. And with the pressures placed on first-time moms to be the perfect parent, it’s no wonder we shell out thousands of dollars in the baby’s first year to keep them warm and safe, hoping to avoid the 3am cries as much as possible.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the annual spending on a child under two was $12,680 in 2015 (for a married couple with two children). While most of that spending was allocated to housing and child care, an average family still spent over $1,000 a year on baby products, excluding food.

No surprise, the three big components of baby-related expenditure – diapers, car seats and toys — are global industries.

Dry and clean derrieres

A first-time parent might be surprised by the number of diapers they will change in their child’s first year. At two and a half months, my son goes through 6-8 diapers a day, not including the occasional mishap affectionately known as a “poop explosion”. And while I applaud families that choose to use cloth reusable diapers, by necessity or out of eco-consciousness, we opted for disposable diapers in my family.

The global disposable diaper market is dominated by two brands – Pampers made by Procter & Gamble (P&G) and Huggies made by Kimberly-Clark. Together, the two companies control roughly 80 percent of the global disposable diaper market. The disposable diaper industry has been undergoing significant changes in recent decades, driven by a decline in birth rates in the West and increased demand in China and other emerging markets. Both P&G and Kimberly-Clark have complex supply chains that span dozens of facilities around the world to meet parental needs.

China only recently became a significant market for disposable diapers, with Pampers leading the way. In the 1990s, P&G launched a low-cost diaper brand in China that failed to make inroads locally. Recognizing that Chinese consumers valued the diaper’s softness and ability to absorb over price, the company reentered the market in 2010 with higher-end products targeted at China’s middle class, and sales have been growing strongly since. In 2018, diaper sale revenues in China reached $7.6 billion. American diaper producers are working to convince Chinese parents to ditch kaidangku, Chinese back split-pants, which allow young toddlers to squat anywhere. While kaidangku are still popular among China’s rural population, China’s middle class is rapidly adopting the disposable diaper lifestyle.

Strapped in for safety

Car seats are often one of the most expensive purchases new parents will make in the baby’s first year. Given the stringent safety requirements for baby car seats, large international brands generally do not face significant competition from low-cost, lower-quality brands.

The global car seat market was estimated at $7 billion in 2018, with infant seats representing 32 percent of global sales. Leading companies are headquartered around the world: Dorel, Quinny and Cosco are brands based in Canada; Artsana Group’s Chicco brand and Kiwi Baby are Italian; UPPAbaby and Newell Brands, which make Graco and Baby Jogger are based in the United States; Goodbaby, the maker of Cybex and Evenflo, is based in Hong Kong; Renolux is based in France, Mothercare in the U.K., and InfaSecure is headquartered in Australia – to name a few.

While the companies above are headquartered around the world, many of their brands are manufactured in China (a few high-end brands are also made in the United States). Over the last several years, the U.S. trade war with China placed significant pressure on the car seat industry. While the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) provided exemptions from Chinese tariffs to some safety products, including finished car seats, the components and materials used to manufacture the car seats did not receive the same treatment, placing increasing costs on U.S.-based car seat manufacturers. Advocating for an exemption for all baby safety products, the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association argued that an increase in the costs of these products could put children, especially those in low-income families, at risk. And while the conclusion of the phase one trade negotiation with China suspended the tariffs, the risk to the industry remains.

Play time

You may be surprised to learn, much like my husband was, that toys play an important role in a baby’s development from their first weeks of life. Toys not only entertain, but they help develop key skills such as creativity, innovative thinking, and other important developmental milestones.

The global toy market dwarfs all other products for children, reaching $90.4 billion in 2018. The top seven toy companies in the world account for 55 percent of global toy sales. These include Mattel (with brands such as Barbie and Fisher-Price), Hasbro (making the Disney toys), Lego, and others. It’s estimated that 80 percent of all toys produced worldwide are manufactured in China and 85 percent of U.S. toy imports are from China. It’s no wonder that the trade war between the U.S. and China had a significant impact on the toy industry.

While the toy industry managed to avoid the 15 percent tariffs that were planned for December 2019 on Chinese-made toys, the tariff threats resulted in a turbulent environment for two large U.S. toy makers Hasbro and Mattel. Shares of both companies fell in late 2019, driven in part by the tariff uncertainty. As toy manufacturers generally operate with low margins in a highly volatile market driven by consumer preferences, most manufacturers are hoping for a long-term resolution of the trade tensions with China to ease their pressures ahead of the next holiday season.

A bottomless pit

As my son approaches three months, I am amazed at how quickly my purchasing habits have changed. I’m already thinking of our next car seat that can transition with him as he gets older, looking into the weight recommendations for different diaper sizes, and researching new toys to keep him (and myself) interested. And while we may slow down our purchasing to prevent a total baby takeover of our apartment, one thing is absolutely clear – we will always need to buy more diapers.

______________________________________________________________

Ayelet Haran is a contributor to TradeVistas. She is a government affairs and policy executive in the life sciences industry. She holds a Master’s of Public Administration degree in International Economic Policy from Columbia University.

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

Spain’s Production of Corrugated Paper and Paperboard Posted Solid Gains over the Last Decade

The revenue of the corrugated paper market in Spain amounted to $635M in 2018, flattening 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). Overall, corrugated paper consumption continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2011 when the market value increased by 14% year-to-year. In that year, the corrugated paper market reached its peak level of $806M. From 2012 to 2018, the growth of the corrugated paper market remained at a lower figure.

Production in Spain

In 2018, the amount of corrugated paper and paperboard produced in Spain amounted to 947K tonnes, approximately reflecting the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.6% over the period from 2008 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 2017 when production volume increased by 14% against the previous year. Over the period under review, corrugated paper production reached its maximum volume in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future.

In value terms, corrugated paper production totaled $624M in 2018 estimated in export prices. Overall, corrugated paper production continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2010 when production volume increased by 15% against the previous year. Corrugated paper production peaked at $832M in 2011; however, from 2012 to 2018, production failed to regain its momentum.

Exports from Spain

In 2018, the corrugated paper exports from Spain stood at 22K tonnes, going up by 40% against the previous year. Overall, corrugated paper exports, however, continue to indicate a pronounced contraction. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2018 when exports increased by 40% against the previous year. Over the period under review, corrugated paper exports attained their peak figure at 32K tonnes in 2008; however, from 2009 to 2018, exports failed to regain their momentum.

In value terms, corrugated paper exports amounted to $23M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Over the period under review, corrugated paper exports, however, continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 when exports increased by 40% year-to-year. Over the period under review, corrugated paper exports reached their peak figure at $25M in 2008; however, from 2009 to 2018, exports failed to regain their momentum.

Exports by Country

France (11K tonnes), Saudi Arabia (6.5K tonnes) and Portugal (3.6K tonnes) were the main destinations of corrugated paper exports from Spain, with a combined 97% share of total exports.

From 2008 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main countries of destination, was attained by Saudi Arabia, while the other leaders experienced mixed trend patterns.

In value terms, France ($9.1M), Saudi Arabia ($7.9M) and Portugal ($2.3M) constituted the largest markets for corrugated paper exported from Spain worldwide, together accounting for 82% of total exports.

Portugal recorded the highest growth rate of exports, in terms of the main countries of destination over the last decade, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

The average corrugated paper export price stood at $1,045 per tonne in 2018, approximately mirroring the previous year. Over the last decade, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.1%. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2011 an increase of 36% year-to-year. The export price peaked at $1,202 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 Saudi Arabia ($1,209 per tonne), while the average price for exports to Portugal ($631 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2008 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to Mauritania, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced mixed trend patterns.

Imports into Spain

In 2018, the imports of corrugated paper and paperboard into Spain stood at 5.6K tonnes, falling by -3.8% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the total imports indicated a mild increase from 2008 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.6% over the last decade. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, corrugated paper imports increased by +114.3% against 2016 indices. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2017 with an increase of 123% year-to-year. Over the period under review, corrugated paper imports reached their peak figure at 7.1K tonnes in 2011; however, from 2012 to 2018, imports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, corrugated paper imports amounted to $6.4M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Overall, corrugated paper imports, however, continue to indicate a notable increase. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2017 with an increase of 140% y-o-y. In that year, corrugated paper imports attained their peak of $7.3M, and then declined slightly in the following year.

Imports by Country

Germany (1.8K tonnes), France (1.4K tonnes) and Italy (1.1K tonnes) were the main suppliers of corrugated paper imports to Spain, with a combined 78% share of total imports. Slovenia, Portugal, China and the UK lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 24%.

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

In value terms, the largest corrugated paper suppliers to Spain were Germany ($2.7M), France ($1.7M) and Italy ($1.3M), together comprising 87% of total imports. Slovenia, Portugal, China, and the UK lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 24%.

Among the main suppliers, Slovenia experienced the highest growth rate of imports, over the last decade, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

The average corrugated paper import price stood at $1,144 per tonne in 2018, coming down by -8.3% against the previous year. Overall, the import price indicated a slight increase from 2008 to 2018: its price increased at an average annual rate of +1.4% over the last decade. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2010 when the average import price increased by 26% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the average import prices for corrugated paper and paperboard attained their peak figure at $1,248 per tonne in 2017, and then declined slightly in the following year.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was the UK ($1,536 per tonne), while the price for Slovenia ($900 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

meat

Global Market for Meat Flour, Meals And Pellets 2020: Exports is Under Pressure

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Flours, Meals And Pellets Of Meat Or Meat Offal – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The global meat meals and pellets market revenue amounted to $23.1B in 2018, jumping by 6% against the previous year. In general, the total market indicated resilient growth from 2007 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +2.1% over the last eleven years.

However, the intense trade growth seen in recent years is threatened by problems in China, due to the coronavirus epidemic and fears of economic growth.

Consumption By Country

China (6.6M tonnes) remains the largest meat meals and pellets consuming country worldwide, comprising approx. 17% of total volume. Moreover, meat meals and pellets consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, the U.S. (3.3M tonnes), twofold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by India (2.6M tonnes), with a 6.6% share.

In China, meat meals and pellets consumption increased at an average annual rate of +2.4% over the period from 2007-2018. The remaining consuming countries recorded the following average annual rates of consumption growth: the U.S. (-0.1% per year) and India (+2.8% per year).

Exports 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 4.4M tonnes of flours, meals and pellets of meat or meat offal were exported worldwide; going up by 14% against the previous year. Overall, meat meals and pellets exports continue to indicate a strong expansion. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2017 with an increase of 26% year-to-year. The global exports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, meat meals and pellets exports amounted to $2.2B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Over the period under review, meat meals and pellets exports continue to indicate a remarkable expansion. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 with an increase of 37% year-to-year. Over the period under review, global meat meals and pellets exports attained their maximum in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Exports by Country

In 2018, the U.S. (969K tonnes), distantly followed by the Netherlands (434K tonnes), Germany (354K tonnes), Australia (300K tonnes), France (298K tonnes), Spain (224K tonnes) and Poland (214K tonnes) represented the main exporters of flours, meals and pellets of meat or meat offal, together comprising 64% of total exports. The following exporters – Italy (196K tonnes), Brazil (168K tonnes), New Zealand (157K tonnes), Belgium (155K tonnes) and the UK (94K tonnes) – together made up 18% of total exports.

From 2007 to 2018, average annual rates of growth with regard to meat meals and pellets exports from the U.S. stood at +11.6%. At the same time, Poland (+30.8%), the Netherlands (+15.1%), Spain (+14.7%), France (+13.9%), the UK (+11.9%), Belgium (+11.6%), Germany (+10.6%), Brazil (+8.2%) and Italy (+7.9%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Poland emerged as the fastest-growing exporter exported in the world, with a CAGR of +30.8% from 2007-2018. Australia and New Zealand experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. While the share of the U.S. (+15 p.p.), the Netherlands (+7.8 p.p.), Germany (+5.4 p.p.), France (+5.2 p.p.), Poland (+4.6 p.p.), Spain (+4 p.p.), Italy (+2.5 p.p.), Belgium (+2.5 p.p.), Brazil (+2.2 p.p.) and the UK (+1.5 p.p.) increased significantly, the shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, the U.S. ($564M) remains the largest meat meals and pellets supplier worldwide, comprising 26% of global exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Australia ($219M), with a 10% share of global exports. It was followed by the Netherlands, with a 9.5% share.

In the U.S., meat meals and pellets exports increased at an average annual rate of +15.1% over the period from 2007-2018. The remaining exporting countries recorded the following average annual rates of exports growth: Australia (+6.8% per year) and the Netherlands (+18.2% per year).

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average meat meals and pellets export price amounted to $497 per tonne, rising by 2.2% against the previous year. Over the last eleven-year period, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.4%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 an increase of 18% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the average export prices for flours, meals and pellets of meat or meat offal reached their maximum at $576 per tonne in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, export prices failed to regain their momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Australia ($730 per tonne), while Belgium ($327 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports 2007-2018

Global imports stood at 4M tonnes in 2018, surging by 14% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the total imports indicated a resilient increase from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +9.3% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, meat meals and pellets imports increased by +165.5% against 2007 indices. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 when imports increased by 27% y-o-y. Over the period under review, global meat meals and pellets imports reached their peak figure in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the near future.

In value terms, meat meals and pellets imports stood at $2B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Overall, meat meals and pellets imports continue to indicate a resilient expansion. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 when imports increased by 39% y-o-y. The global imports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Imports by Country

The countries with the highest levels of meat meals and pellets imports in 2018 were Viet Nam (412K tonnes), the Philippines (336K tonnes), Thailand (315K tonnes), China (307K tonnes), Italy (291K tonnes), the U.S. (233K tonnes), the Netherlands (202K tonnes), Germany (157K tonnes), Mexico (144K tonnes), Chile (134K tonnes), France (108K tonnes) and Canada (80K tonnes), together reaching 68% 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 the Philippines, while imports for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest meat meals and pellets importing markets worldwide were China ($207M), Viet Nam ($156M) and Thailand ($155M), together comprising 26% of global imports. These countries were followed by the U.S., the Philippines, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, France, Chile, Canada and Mexico, which together accounted for a further 42%.

In terms of the main importing countries, the Philippines recorded the highest growth rate of the value of imports, over the period under review, while imports for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

The average meat meals and pellets import price stood at $504 per tonne in 2018, reducing by -2.8% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.4%. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2013 an increase of 16% against the previous year. In that year, the average import prices for flours, meals and pellets of meat or meat offal attained their peak level of $610 per tonne. From 2014 to 2018, the growth in terms of the average import prices for flours, meals and pellets of meat or meat offal remained at a lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Canada ($869 per tonne), while Italy ($300 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

feldspar

Global Feldspar Market Reached $2.1B, Growing for the Second Consecutive Year

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

The global feldspar market revenue amounted to $2.1B in 2018, growing by 7.2% 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 +1.6% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations being recorded in certain years. Over the period under review, the global feldspar market reached its maximum level in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Consumption By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of feldspar consumption in 2018 were Italy (5.4M tonnes), China (3.6M tonnes) and Spain (3.2M tonnes), together comprising 48% of global consumption. In these countries, feldspar is consumed mainly by the well-established domestic ceramic industry. Thailand, Iran, Russia, Poland, India, Pakistan, France, Bangladesh and Taiwan, Chinese lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 29%.

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

In value terms, Italy ($231M), China ($202M) and Poland ($158M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of market value in 2018, with a combined 28% share of the global market. These countries were followed by Spain, Pakistan, India, France, Thailand, Iran, Russia, Bangladesh and Taiwan, Chinese, which together accounted for a further 25%.

The countries with the highest levels of feldspar per capita consumption in 2018 were Italy (91 kg per person), Spain (69 kg per person) and Poland (25 kg per person).

Market Forecast 2019-2025

Driven by increasing demand for feldspar 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 +2.5% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 34M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 25M tonnes of feldspar were produced worldwide; flattening at the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.3% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations throughout the analyzed period.

Production By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of feldspar production in 2018 were Turkey (6.6M tonnes), China (4M tonnes) and Italy (3M tonnes), with a combined 54% share of global production. These countries were followed by India, Thailand, Iran, Pakistan, France, Spain, Poland, the Czech Republic and the U.S., which together accounted for a further 29%.

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

Exports 2007-2018

In 2018, the global exports of feldspar stood at 10M tonnes, going up by 6.3% against the previous year. In general, the total exports indicated a measured expansion from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.5% over the last eleven-year period. The global exports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term. In value terms, feldspar exports totaled $447M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

Turkey dominates feldspar exports structure, resulting at 6.7M tonnes, which was approx. 66% of total exports in 2018. India (642K tonnes) held a 6.3% share (based on tonnes) of total exports, which put it in second place, followed by China (4.9%) and Ukraine (4.8%). The following exporters – Thailand (412K tonnes), Italy (266K tonnes) and the Czech Republic (259K tonnes) – together made up 9.3% of total exports.

Exports from Turkey increased at an average annual rate of +4.0% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, Ukraine (+17.6%), the Czech Republic (+4.0%), Thailand (+3.9%) and India (+2.8%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Ukraine emerged as the fastest-growing exporter exported in the world, with a CAGR of +17.6% from 2007-2018. Italy experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, China (-7.8%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period.

In value terms, Turkey ($206M) remains the largest feldspar supplier worldwide, comprising 46% of global exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by India ($47M), with a 11% share of global exports. It was followed by China, with a 6.4% share.

Export Prices by Country

The average feldspar export price stood at $44 per tonne in 2018, rising by 6.8% against the previous year. Overall, the feldspar export price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The global export price peaked at $55 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, export prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was India ($73 per tonne), while Turkey ($31 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 10M tonnes of feldspar were imported worldwide; jumping by 16% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the total imports indicated a pronounced increase from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.6% over the last eleven-year period. In value terms, feldspar imports totaled $532M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

Spain (2,813K tonnes) and Italy (2,705K tonnes) represented roughly 53% of total imports of feldspar in 2018. Russia (664K tonnes) held the next position in the ranking, followed by Bangladesh (528K tonnes) and Taiwan, Chinese (486K tonnes). All these countries together occupied near 16% share of total imports. Poland (437K tonnes), the United Arab Emirates (386K tonnes), Indonesia (232K tonnes) and Viet Nam (216K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

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

In value terms, the largest feldspar importing markets worldwide were Italy ($110M), Spain ($104M) and Russia ($29M), with a combined 46% share of global imports. Poland, Bangladesh, Taiwan, Chinese, Indonesia, Viet Nam and the United Arab Emirates lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 23%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average feldspar import price amounted to $51 per tonne, approximately mirroring the previous year. Over the period under review, the feldspar import price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Indonesia ($89 per tonne), while Spain ($37 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Indonesia, while the other global leaders experienced mixed trends in the import price figures.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

nominations

Global Trade Magazine Accepting “Women in Logistics” Nominations

Global Trade Magazine officially opened nominations for its May/June cover story, “Women in Logistics” beginning this week through the end of March. This marks the publication’s second annual feature spotlighting leading female executives reshaping the way companies approach industry disruptions. The ideal candidate has a proven track record of creating long-term solutions impacting various sectors including transportation, warehousing, shipping, and supply chain management.

“As we continue to see a rise in female leaders within the logistics industry, I wanted to take recognition to the next level for female executives fostering positive company culture while displaying exemplary leadership all industry players can learn from,” said Eric Kleinsorge, Publisher and Chairman of Global Trade Magazine. “Last year’s cover story was a huge success. We received a lot of positive feedback from our readers and we’ve already received impressive nominations for this year’s feature.”

Among leading ladies featured in the 2019 issue included Joan Smemoe of RailInc., Jane Kennedy Greene of Kenco, Wendy Buxton of LynnCo Supply Chain Solutions, and Barbara Yeninas and Lisa Aurichio of BSYA. This year’s selected nominees will be selected based on factors including tenure, industry relevance, impact on the industry, the health of relationships with employees, with a high emphasis on their workplace culture approach. Nominations will be limited to one executive per submission and participants can enter their executive of choice until March 31st at 5 p.m.

“I encourage workers from around the globe to take a few minutes and submit female leaders that have changed the way they view leadership and have made a positive impact on their career and industry. It’s important to the evolving culture of global companies to recognize these women for their dedication to the industry and the workers that make success possible,” Kleinsorge concluded.

To submit a nomination, please click here or call (469) 778-2606 for more information.