New Articles

THE GLOBAL TRAVELS OF LIVE ANIMALS

live animals

THE GLOBAL TRAVELS OF LIVE ANIMALS

Horses, Asses, Mules and Hinnies Atop the Tariff Schedule

Unless you’re a farmer or animal breeder, the first item in Chapter 1 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule is one we may think about the least – Live Animals. For most Americans, live animals are a long supply chain away from the supermarket.

At over $21 billion in 2017, global trade in live animals has increased 140 percent over the last two decades. Some 45 million hogs, 16 million sheep, 11 million head of cattle, 5 million goats and 1.9 million poultry (mainly chickens) were transported around the globe, some for breeding and about 80 percent intended for consumption.

A specialized segment within the transportation sector is dedicated to transporting live animals by air, land and sea – from air cargo, tractor trailers and trains, to ocean container shipping.

HTS snippet 0101

Shifting Resource Burdens

The world will be home to 9.7 billion people by 2050. With more mouths to feed, agriculture production must become more efficient against the challenges of limited arable land, energy and water resources, especially in developing countries. International development agencies promote raising livestock as a way to increase income for smallholder farmers (owners can sell products and/or offspring) and to achieve greater food security in rural areas through access to high quality proteins. Importing livestock in the last few months of their life can reduce expenses associated with animal feed and veterinary care while conserving limited water resources.

The water-stressed Middle East region has become a major importer of live animals. Demand for meat and dairy products has grown steeply in Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Importing mature live animals avoids the need to rear animals from birth, shifting the water burden while meeting demand for animals freshly slaughtered in adherence to religious requirements.

Trade in live animals 3x increase

Trade in Genetics, No Goats No Glory

Countries are investing in improving their livestock by either importing live animals or importing frozen semen and embryos for artificial insemination, a process that is achieving higher success rates as costs are coming down. Global trade in purebred animals for breeding in 2017 was a $780 million industry. The animal genetic market is projected to grow from $4.2 billion in 2018 to $5.8 billion by 2023.

In November last year, 1,503 U.S.-origin Holstein heifers valued at $3 million were sold out of Statesville, North Carolina and shipped to Egypt aboard a livestock carrier in an effort by the Government of Egypt to improve the country’s dairy operations supporting output of milk for yogurt and cheese. Qatar is importing American-born dairy cows to surmount trade bans by neighboring countries.

Chickens are by far the largest category of live animals traded globally with hogs coming in second. But it’s dairy goats that could prove key to achieving the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Goats consume fewer resource inputs than cows, goat milk is nutritious, and women often have strong roles in dairy goat ownership and management.

Caprikorn Farms is the oldest goat dairy in Maryland. Raising some of the best dairy goats in the United States and the world, their genetics are in demand. They have worked with Russian authorities to not only send several live animal shipments to Russia but also improve Russia’s health protocol for international shipment. Ten of their goats even flew to Qatar on a private jet.

Bees also get in on the global trade act. Not only do bees circulate throughout the United States to pollinate our many crops, $48.1 million worth of live bees – including Queen bees and semen — were exported globally in 2018. Europe shipped $26.5 million or 55.2 percent of the global total.

Live animal trade routes 2017

Protecting Livestock on the Journey

While North American cattle and hogs have a short truck ride or may even live on ranches along the borders, many animals face a long ocean journey during which their health can be compromised. They are sometimes relegated to older vessels that may be converted from general cargo and not purpose-built to transport the animals in safe conditions. Often on journeys for weeks at a time, animals are at risk for fatigue, heat stress, overcrowding, injury and the spread of disease in close quarters.

The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) issued the Terrestrial Animal Health Code in 2019 that provides standards for transporting animals by land, sea and air to protect the health and welfare of the animals and prevent the transfer of pathogens via international trade in animals.

As the global population increases and agricultural producers seek to maximize the resources available to them while improving output, global trade in live animals is likely to continue to grow. Standards and cooperation in international trade practices will need to evolve along with that trend.

Contributor Sarah Smiley lives on her family farm in Appalachia where they have raised fainting (myotonic) goats and Charolais cattle for more than 20 years.

______________________________________________________________

Sarah Smiley is a strategic communications and policy expert with over 20 years in international trade and government affairs, working in the U.S. Government, private sector and international organizations.

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

ecommerce business

How Coronavirus Impacts Ecommerce Business and Beyond

There is no vaccine to prevent the spreading Coronavirus, yet, and that holds lessons for ecommerce businesses and the people who work at them. Today, we’re facing a time to prepare and hopefully limit exposure and risks at work.

For businesses, preparation and the possibility of illness are going to reshape the day-to-day. After reviewing scenarios and government guidance (here’s your list of cleaners that can take out COVID-19), we’ve put together some thoughts on the most significant impacts we’ll see soon and how companies can respond to protect their people best.

Sending people home is best but expensive

Many ecommerce businesses are small shops, though we’ve been impressed to see some grow significantly in recent years. It’s always a fantastic thing to witness, but their scrappy nature usually means staff are perpetually busy and wearing multiple hats.

Unfortunately, that might mean the COVID-19 threat will hit you especially hard.

Your best bet to keep everyone at work safe is to let anyone go home when they feel even the slightest bit sick. If that happens, document the person arrived and left, plus who they came into contact with at work — employees and anyone who might’ve visited — and how they got to work. This can help medical professionals who are already going to be stretched thin.

The best practice here is going to cost you, but it could also save your team from significant harm, and that is to pay your team to stay home. Help people use their sick days and vacation time if they have it. If someone doesn’t, review your budget to see what you can offer.

If people can’t afford to stay home, they come into work even when sick. That’s a danger none of us can afford right now.

Wash your hands and everything else

There is a little bit of a silver lining in the ecommerce world: most of the products moving through your warehouse are going to be safe. You’re watching for people above all else.

This is because most coronaviruses, including COVID-19, struggle to live on surfaces. So far, we haven’t seen evidence of contaminated food products, which is generally where you’ll first see illnesses spread by products/goods.

For products, the risk is a “smear infection” where someone coughs or sneezes onto a product or package, and a new person touches that and then their face. The virus is believed to have a short lifespan in smear cases, so your team should be relatively safe. Maximize their safety by prioritizing handwashing. Have your team wear gloves at all times, but still make them wash up after unloading a truck.

What ecommerce and other businesses will want to be aware of is the route their goods are taking to get to warehouses. If something is passing through areas where there’s been an outbreak or if you learn that a delivery person for a specific company has fallen ill, pay extra close attention to cleaning these products and packages.

For goods that have been traveling to your company for days or weeks by ocean, there’s minimal product risk from that leg of the trip, but local infections may be possible. Air travel is fast enough that you could have higher smear risks.

So, wash hands, wear gloves, and clean everything as you go.

Alternatives may become scarce

Some impacts are already rippling through the global supply chain. One significant shift is that companies are scrambling to find alternative sources for products and raw materials. Not only are prices for some materials already rising, but there’s growing lane congestion.

This will be a double hit for businesses.

If you’re not manufacturing your own goods, then you need someone to do it for you. New partners can be expensive to source. At the same time, your competition will be turning to them as well. Also happening concurrently, manufacturers will be looking to secure new sources of raw materials. Shifts, such as nearshoring production and buying local, all come with increased costs and supply chain changes.

The other impact is that it could generate more congestion for local delivery and fulfillment options. Companies may face the cost of shipping their goods rise, as well as see delays in fulfillment times. Those delays are already happening in areas where there have been cases of the virus.

Your business will pay more, but you might not be able to pass on additional expenses to customers. Delays in fulfillment times will hit the ecommerce sector hard because customers already expect two-day shipping options. Now, you’ll have to tell them it could be longer and cost more, which may see them take their business elsewhere.

Outsourcing will increase

Expect companies to start diversifying the way they get goods to customers. One particular method is going to be outsourcing fulfillment to companies that have multiple warehouses. It’s a smart way to avoid supply chain bottlenecks because it minimizes the chances that a local outbreak will impact your entire fulfillment operations.

For some ecommerce companies, this outsourcing may come with a small benefit of reaching customers more quickly (once they get stock to third-party logistics providers), while also protecting some workers. If we see sustained infections and spreading of the virus, there’s a potential that many small ecommerce businesses will start outsourcing their entire fulfillment operations.

In the short-term, that could cause some issues with warehouse space and fulfillment staff. In the long run, it might cause cost reductions and lead to greater product availability.

Companies who can figure out how to avoid delivery slowdowns — such as large ones able to own and use their own delivery fleet — will dominate the market. The U.S. has faced a truck driver shortage for years, and growth in outsourcing may help curb some of that, but it would come with higher wages for those who have a greater potential risk of being exposed to the Coronavirus and other health concerns.

Our world will look different tomorrow

We’ve fully embraced the gig economy and home delivery, and there’s a potential it all comes crashing down. Whether these employees continue work amid growing exposure (and even after becoming sick) or if services start slowing down, it’ll impact the daily lives of many Americans.

Businesses will also face changes in the way we bring people to the office, help staff pay for healthcare, and what processes we no longer choose to do to protect ourselves. The global, interconnected supply chain is already changing, and nothing but time will tell us how profound and varied this impact is.

_____________________________________________________________

Jake Rheude is the Director of Marketing for Red Stag Fulfillment, an ecommerce fulfillment warehouse that was born out of ecommerce. He has years of experience in ecommerce and business development. In his free time, Jake enjoys reading about business and sharing his own experience with others.

Recovered fibre pulp

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

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

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

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in China

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

Production in China

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

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

Exports from China

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

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

Exports by Country

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

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

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

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

Export Prices by Country

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

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

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

Imports into China

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

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

Imports by Country

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

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

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

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

Import Prices by Country

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

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

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

spanish flu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________

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

scaffolding

EU Scaffolding Market Rose 4.5% to Reach $2.4B in 2018

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – Equipment For Scaffolding, Shuttering, Propping Or Pit Propping – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the scaffolding market in the European Union amounted to $2.4B in 2018, surging by 4.5% 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).

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of scaffolding consumption in 2018 were Poland (489K tonnes), Italy (317K tonnes) and Germany (161K tonnes), with a combined 52% share of total consumption. These countries were followed by France, Spain, Belgium, the UK, Bulgaria, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and the Czech Republic, which together accounted for a further 37%.

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

In value terms, the largest scaffolding markets in the European Union were Poland ($401M), Germany ($333M) and Italy ($300M), together accounting for 42% of the total market. France, the UK, Austria, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Portugal lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 40%.

The countries with the highest levels of scaffolding per capita consumption in 2018 were Poland (12,800 kg per 1000 persons), Belgium (10,778 kg per 1000 persons) and Bulgaria (10,126 kg per 1000 persons).

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

Production in the EU

The EU scaffolding production totaled 2.1M tonnes in 2018, therefore, remained relatively stable against the previous year. Overall, scaffolding production, however, continues to indicate a measured drop. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2014 with an increase of 16% against the previous year. Over the period under review, scaffolding production attained its maximum volume at 2.8M tonnes in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2018, production failed to regain its momentum.

Production by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of scaffolding production in 2018 were Poland (541K tonnes), Italy (389K tonnes) and Germany (257K tonnes), with a combined 57% share of total production. These countries were followed by Austria, Spain, Belgium and Bulgaria, which together accounted for a further 29%.

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

Exports in the EU

In 2018, the exports of equipment for scaffolding, shuttering, propping or pit propping in the European Union amounted to 1.3M tonnes, surging by 13% against the previous year. In general, scaffolding exports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2011 with an increase of 20% year-to-year. Over the period under review, scaffolding exports reached their peak figure in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, scaffolding exports totaled $3.1B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

Germany (360K tonnes) and Austria (266K tonnes) were the largest exporters of equipment for scaffolding, shuttering, propping or pit propping in 2018, accounting for approx. 28% and 21% of total exports, respectively. Italy (115K tonnes) occupied the next position in the ranking, followed by Spain (109K tonnes) and Poland (101K tonnes). All these countries together occupied approx. 26% share of total exports. The Czech Republic (44K tonnes), the Netherlands (43K tonnes), Belgium (39K tonnes), the UK (36K tonnes), Sweden (26K tonnes), France (25K tonnes) and Portugal (21K tonnes) occupied a little share 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 Sweden.

In value terms, the largest scaffolding supplying countries in the European Union were Germany ($1.1B), Austria ($652M) and Spain ($235M), together comprising 63% of total exports. These countries were followed by Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, the Czech Republic, Sweden, France and Portugal, which together accounted for a further 31%.

Export Prices by Country

The scaffolding export price in the European Union stood at $2,440 per tonne in 2018, surging by 8.7% against the previous year. Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Germany ($2,954 per tonne), while the Czech Republic ($1,538 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Belgium.

Imports in the EU

The imports totaled 1M tonnes in 2018, going up by 15% against the previous year. In general, scaffolding imports, however, continue to indicate a slight curtailment. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2018 when imports increased by 15% against the previous year. The volume of imports peaked at 1.2M tonnes in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2018, imports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, scaffolding imports amounted to $2.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Germany (263K tonnes), distantly followed by France (114K tonnes), the UK (91K tonnes), Austria (72K tonnes), the Netherlands (54K tonnes), Belgium (49K tonnes), Poland (49K tonnes) and Sweden (49K tonnes) were the main importers of equipment for scaffolding, shuttering, propping or pit propping, together comprising 71% of total imports. The following importers – Spain (45K tonnes), Italy (42K tonnes), the Czech Republic (29K tonnes) and Denmark (25K tonnes) – together made up 14% of total imports.

From 2007 to 2018, average annual rates of growth with regard to scaffolding imports into Germany stood at +5.8%. At the same time, Sweden (+6.9%), the Czech Republic (+1.8%), Denmark (+1.6%) and Austria (+1.1%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Sweden emerged as the fastest-growing importer imported in the European Union, with a CAGR of +6.9% from 2007-2018. France experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, Poland (-1.8%), Belgium (-1.9%), Spain (-4.8%), the Netherlands (-7.0%), Italy (-7.2%) and the UK (-8.3%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. While the share of Germany (+12 p.p.) and Sweden (+2.4 p.p.) increased significantly in terms of the total imports from 2007-2018, the share of Spain (-3.2 p.p.), Italy (-5.2 p.p.), the Netherlands (-6.3 p.p.) and the UK (-14 p.p.) displayed negative dynamics. The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, Germany ($539M) constitutes the largest market for imported equipment for scaffolding, shuttering, propping or pit propping in the European Union, comprising 24% of total scaffolding imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by France ($251M), with a 11% share of total imports. It was followed by the UK, with a 9.2% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value in Germany amounted to +3.3%. The remaining importing countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: France (-0.4% per year) and the UK (-4.8% per year).

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the scaffolding import price in the European Union amounted to $2,185 per tonne, increasing by 5.3% against the previous year. In general, the scaffolding import price continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2008 an increase of 19% y-o-y. In that year, the import prices for equipment for scaffolding, shuttering, propping or pit propping attained their peak level of $2,586 per tonne. From 2009 to 2018, the growth in terms of the import prices for equipment for scaffolding, shuttering, propping or pit propping failed to regain its momentum.

Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, major importing countries recorded the following prices: in the Netherlands ($2,588 per tonne) and Austria ($2,468 per tonne), while Poland ($1,998 per tonne) and Germany ($2,044 per tonne) were amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

coronavirus

The Impact of the Coronavirus on U.S. Trade Proceedings

The coronavirus (COVID-19) has had an undisputed impact on health and travel around the globe during the past two months. It has also stifled trade with China, where it originated. The pressure from tariffs and the ongoing trade war is beginning to shift to pressure from supply chain disruptions caused by the coronavirus. Importers and manufacturers that source from China have been particularly affected, as have maritime, construction, and global supply chain entities. But as trade with China has taken a hit, how have U.S. agencies handled the administration and enforcement of ongoing proceedings involving China?

Of all U.S. federal agencies with oversight over trade with China, the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) is perhaps the most directly involved. The DOC administers antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing (“CVD”) cases, as well as Section 232 tariffs that target Chinese imports. The Office of the United States Trade Secretary (“USTR”) administers the Section 301 tariffs specifically targeting China.

The virus has had a lesser impact on the administration of Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs because this is handled almost entirely in Washington. However, in AD/CVD cases DOC officials must regularly travel to China to conduct onsite verifications of Chinese producers examined in these proceedings. The DOC is currently overseeing nearly 200 ongoing AD/CVD cases against China. Of these, new investigations require verifications, and in the remaining annual reviews the DOC must verify Chinese producers at least once every three years. Each verification takes at minimum a week and involves two or three officials. That adds up to significant travel to China during an average year.

So how has the DOC been mitigating the impact of the virus on its ability to administer trade remedy proceedings? For one, many AD/CVD verifications have been put on hold indefinitely due to health concerns and because major airlines have suspended flights to China. This can be good or bad depending on which side of the case one is (i.e., U.S. companies that brought the cases vs. the importers that have to pay the duties). If the case is likely to result in high margins, importers and their Chinese suppliers would likely want verification so that they can personally prove to DOC officials that they are not dumping and do not receive illegal subsidies. On the other hand, if the AD/CVD margins are projected to be low, then U.S. producers may want the Chinese producers verified, and conversely the latter would prefer not to be audited.

The DOC has also been generous about granting extensions for submissions to Chinese respondents in AD/CVD cases. The agency recognizes that responses to its questionnaires require access to information which has been difficult for Chinese employees to access. Many of them are in quarantined areas and unable to get to work, let alone respond to DOC’s requests. Chinese legal counsel and accountants that regularly support respondents in DOC’s proceedings also are less able to reach their clients.

The DOC may even consider a less conventional approach – tolling of AD/CVD cases. Tolling would allow for ongoing proceedings to be paused or delayed. There is little precedent for such action in response to a foreign emergency or crisis. The DOC last tolled deadlines in its proceedings during the U.S. government shutdown in January 2019. But that was necessitated by domestic federal government concerns. With the coronavirus, a close comparison could be made to the 2004 Asian tsunami crisis, but that event did not necessitate tolling of DOC’s AD/CVD cases involving shrimp from Thailand and India whose seafood industries were decimated.

The DOC has the discretion to toll its deadlines. However, an action that changes AD/CVD duties would require Congressional approval. Hence pleas for a reduction in such duties would face an uphill effort and encounter resistance from domestic producers (as it did when Thailand asked to have dumping duties on its shrimp reduced after the tsunami).

Although the coronavirus itself appears to have become a non-tariff barrier, the Trump Administration has given no indication of backing off its trade deal reached with China in January. Under the agreement, China promised to increase purchases of U.S. crops and meat products by $20 billion in 2020 in exchange for a reduction or delay on current tariffs. Indeed, in late February, USTR Robert Lighthizer and Agricultural Secretary Sonny Perdue insisted that the Administration will hold China accountable for its commitments, even as the outbreak disrupts global supply lines.

_______________________________________________________________

*Mark Ludwikowski is the leader of the International Trade practice of Clark Hill, PLC and is resident in the firm’s Washington D.C. office. He can be reached at 202-640-6680 and mludwikowski@ClarkHill.com

congress

DRIVING CONGRESS TO ACT ON NATIONAL SECURITY TARIFFS

Volkswagen GTI is turbocharged with room for…tariffs?

The Volkswagen Golf GTI is a perennial winner of Car and Driver’s 10Best award. The German-built sport hatchback combines “speed, handling, build quality, an attractive interior, and room for the family,” all for under $30,000. Car and Driver raves about the GTI’s turbocharged engine and notes it’s a formidable challenger to competing “hot hatches.”

Apparently, the U.S. Department of Commerce believes that the GTI poses another challenge — maybe a turbocharged threat to America’s national security.

In a still-confidential 2019 report, the Department reportedly found that imported autos like the GTI “threaten to impair the national security” and recommended that the president impose tariffs as high as 25 percent.

All revved up

The president would enact these tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. As TradeVistas’ Andrea Durkin has detailed, Section 232 is a little-used Cold War-era law under which Congress delegated broad authority to the president to restrict imports for national security reasons. The law is also the basis for current controversial duties on steel and aluminum.

The proposed tariffs have generated opposition from vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, economic analysts and members of Congress. The Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers notes that a 25 percent tariff on autos and parts would raise the price of an average imported car by an estimated $6,000 (and add $2,000 to a U.S.-built car) while potentially leading to the loss of over 600,000 American jobs. The Association of Global Automakers (now merged with the Auto Alliance to form the Alliance for Automotive Innovation) questions how passenger cars and light trucks are relevant to national security, suggesting that “America does not go to war in a Ford Fiesta.” Statements from Administration officials suggest that the “national security” justification for auto tariffs may be a pretext to gain negotiating leverage in other contexts.

Sourcing of US Light Vehicle Sales 2017

Congress may put the brakes on Presidential tariffs

With the possible exception of avid inventor Ben Franklin, America’s founders would be astounded by the GTI. They might be equally astonished, however, by the Trump Administration’s assertion of broad authority to impose tariffs. After fighting a revolution against “taxation without representation,” the founders believed it was vital to entrust the power to impose tariffs and other taxes to the people’s representatives. Specifically, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution vests Congress with the “power to lay and collect taxes [and] duties.”

Since 1934, after its disastrous experience with the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, Congress has increasingly delegated specific trade and tariff powers to the president, subject to a variety of limitations. Presidents have generally used these powers judiciously and to reduce tariffs to expand trade. For example, when President Kennedy signed the 1962 Trade Expansion Act (which enacted Section 232), he emphasized the importance of opening trade and reducing trade barriers and warned against “stagnating behind tariff walls.”

President Trump has taken a maximalist approach to his delegated powers to impose tariffs, particularly for “national security” reasons. In response, Congressional critics from both parties point out that under the Constitution, Congress should be the ultimate driver of tariffs, not the president.

Other concerns with the Administration’s application of national security tariffs include a lack of transparency in determining tariffs and administering tariff exclusions, its use of an overly broad definition of national security, and the cascading impacts on U.S. producers from higher metal prices. Legal experts are also concerned that the Administration did not follow the law when it imposed new tariffs on derivative steel products (including nails and bumpers) and when it extended its review of auto tariffs when time limits under Section 232 have likely expired.

Cost of Autos 232 Tariffs

Time for a trade law tune-up?

Congress could rein in presidential national security tariffs by simply repealing Section 232. However, even critics of current tariffs recognize that there are circumstances where the president might need authority to adjust trade in response to national security threats. Accordingly, Congress has focused instead on bipartisan proposals to place additional limits on the president’s ability to employ Section 232.

The Trade Security Act of 2019, introduced by Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and Representative Ron Kind (D-WI), would bifurcate the Section 232 process. The Department of Defense (DoD) would first investigate whether there is a national security basis for restricting imports of an article. If DoD finds that an article poses a security threat and the president decides to act, the Commerce Department would then recommend tariffs or other measures to address the threat. The Portman-Kind bill would also enable Congress to disapprove any Section 232 trade restriction imposed by the president through a resolution of disapproval that would itself be subject to a veto by the president. This legislation would not impact current Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum.

The Bicameral Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019introduced by Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI) would also require DoD to take the lead in investigating whether an article poses a national security threat, while also adopting a tighter definition of national security. Notably, under this legislation, no proposed Section 232 action by the president could take effect unless Congress first passes a resolution of approval. The Toomey-Gallagher bill would also (i) repeal current steel and aluminum duties unless Congress passes an expedited resolution of approval, (ii) direct the independent U.S. International Trade Commission to report to Congress on the economic impacts of Section 232 actions, and (iii) require that the USITC administer the tariff exclusion process for future Section 232 actions.

Two bills in Congress to brake 232

Getting out of neutral

For the past year, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has been attempting to meld the Portman and Toomey bills into a compromise measure that would attract veto-proof majorities in Congress. Despite considerable bipartisan support, Grassley notes that this effort has faced two challenges. First, there’s opposition from Republicans who see the legislation as a rebuke of President Trump. Second — as any student of U.S. trade history could have predicted —interests that benefit from new national security tariffs are now lobbying intensely to retain these tariffs. Despite this opposition, Grassley has vowed to continue efforts to enact Section 232 reform in 2020.

More potholes ahead?

Meanwhile, Volkswagen’s GTI and other imported autos will continue to face the threat of national security tariffs. And that threat won’t necessarily subside if a Democratic president takes office next year. Some Democrats have already proposed using the Trump Administration’s expansive reading of Section 232 to advance their own policy goals — particularly to address the climate crisis. Carbon-emitting autos like the GTI would be a prime target for new tariffs.

The GTI was designed for Germany’s smooth, high-speed autobahns. When it comes to U.S. national security tariffs, however, the GTI’s road ahead may continue to be full of potholes.

_________________________________________________________________

Ed Gerwin

Ed Gerwin is a lawyer, trade consultant, and President of Trade Guru LLC.

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

plaster

Germany’s Gypsum Plaster Production Grew for the Fifth Consecutive Year in 2018

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

The revenue of the plaster market in Germany amounted to $208M in 2018, increasing by 3.8% 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 +1.2% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 with an increase of 21% y-o-y. Plaster consumption peaked at $239M in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, consumption stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Market Forecast to 2030

Driven by increasing demand for plaster in Germany, 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 +1.8% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 2.5M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production in Germany

Plaster production in Germany amounted to 3.3M tonnes in 2018, levelling off at the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.5% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being observed in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 with an increase of 11% against the previous year. Over the period under review, plaster production attained its maximum volume in 2018 and is likely to see steady growth in the near future.

In value terms, plaster production stood at $326M in 2018 estimated in export prices. In general, plaster production continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Exports from Germany

In 2018, the amount of plaster exported from Germany totaled 1.4M tonnes, falling by -4.1% against the previous year. Over the period under review, plaster exports attained their maximum at 1.4M tonnes in 2012; however, from 2013 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, plaster exports totaled $100M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

The UK (308K tonnes), Belgium (259K tonnes) and the Netherlands (155K tonnes) were the main destinations of plaster exports from Germany, with a combined 13% share of total exports.

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

In value terms, the largest markets for plaster exported from Germany were Switzerland ($16M), Belgium ($14M) and the UK ($13M), with a combined 7.1% share of total exports.

The UK recorded the highest rates of growth with regard to the value of exports, in terms of the main countries of destination over the period under review, while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average plaster export price amounted to $74 per tonne, jumping by 6.7% against the previous year. Overall, the plaster export price, however, continues to indicate a mild descent. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2013 an increase of 29% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the average export prices for plaster reached their peak figure at $107 per tonne in 2009; however, from 2010 to 2018, export prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Switzerland ($130 per tonne), while the average price for exports to the UK ($43 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to Belgium, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced mixed trend patterns.

Imports into Germany

In 2018, the amount of plaster imported into Germany totaled 112K tonnes, growing by 14% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.6% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 when imports increased by 34% y-o-y. Imports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, plaster imports amounted to $10M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

Austria (45K tonnes), Belgium (36K tonnes) and France (14K tonnes) were the main suppliers of plaster imports to Germany, with a combined 2.4% share of total imports. The U.S., the Netherlands, the UK and Poland lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 0.3%.

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

In value terms, France ($3.8M) constituted the largest supplier of plaster to Germany, comprising 0.7% of total plaster imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Austria ($1.6M), with a 0.3% share of total imports. It was followed by Belgium, with a 0.3% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value from France amounted to +4.5%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: Austria (-0.6% per year) and Belgium (+1.6% per year).

Import Prices by Country

The average plaster import price stood at $91 per tonne in 2018, declining by -13.2% against the previous year. In general, the plaster import price continues to indicate a mild shrinkage. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2008 when the average import price increased by 31% year-to-year. In that year, the average import prices for plaster attained their peak level of $136 per tonne. From 2009 to 2018, the growth in terms of the average import prices for plaster remained at a somewhat lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was France ($267 per tonne), while the price for Austria ($36 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

costs

10 Tips for Cutting Costs and Improve Customer Service in Supply Chain Logistics

As organizations continue to create and source raw materials from overseas, controlling expenses remains the number one priority for players involved in international trade.

One critical factor that executives should monitor closely is logistics management. This sector covers important activities relating to procurement, transport, and storage of goods. In most industries, supply chain logistics account for 5% to 50% of a product’s total cost.

Some of the issues that affect logistics costs include fuel prices, complex international trade laws, and security. High transportation fees are mainly caused by high fuel prices delays in ports. Complex international trade laws increase warehousing costs by lengthening delivery times.

As technology evaluation.com reports, air-freight shipment takes about eight to twelve days. During these days, the cargo is on ф route around 5% of the time. 95% of the time is spent lying in warehouses waiting for compliance checks and documents. So, how can you cut down costs and improve customer service in supply logistics? Keep reading!

1. Use your space efficiently

Using your space efficiently will save you a lot of money in the long run. As you already know, storing your supplies in a warehouse comes at a cost. Figure out whether you are making the most out of your space or not.

You might discover other ways of finding spaces that are best suited for your business. As we’ve seen, supplies, spend most of their time in warehouses waiting for compliance checks. The more efficient you are at warehousing; the more profits you’ll generate at the end of the day.

2.  Automate your processes

Organizations that use technology solutions to automate compliance processes have the power to speed up the process four times as much compared to organizations that rely on manual work. Automating tasks such as document preparation will eliminate expensive mistakes and errors.

Automating your processes also leads to fewer delays at crossing points thus resulting in timely deliveries, increased customer satisfaction and avoidance of expensive fines.

3. Inform decision-makers

According to dissertation service, providing decision-makers or your customers with the costs of freight associated with each service level, the reliability of every lane and the total cost of transporting inventory will make it easier for them to make informed decisions and work with you in the future. In most cases, your customers will select the cheapest option that complies with the laws to meet their needs.

4. Figure out the real costs of sourcing overseas

Before sourcing overseas, you need to calculate freight, brokerage, duty, and transportation costs to support these long supply chains. You should factor in other costs such as engineers flying overseas. Once you figure out the total landed cost and its impact on your business, you might discover that domestic buy is quite attractive. For instance, sourcing from Ohio to your plant in the US might be cheaper in the long run compared to sourcing from China.

5. JIT inventory management

There are many benefits to implementing Just-in-Time inventory management. With this system, you can order and receive inventory only when you need to. In the long run, this will reduce your inventory transportation costs, protect against write-downs attributed to dips and eliminate unnecessary overhead costs caused by excess inventory.

6. Sales and operations planning

For a supply chain to function at its highest efficiency, sales, and operations planning is required. Optimal performance greatly depends on creating proper plans. However, it can be complicated and expensive in the long run.

By working with a third-party logistics provider, your team will eliminate waste and redundancies thus enabling you to analyze data, forecast and enhance visibility so that everyone is involved. During the sales and operations planning process, you should address issues such as unrestrained stock-outs, obsolete inventory, inaccurate forecasts and adjusting demand and production schedules.

7. Package your products well

Packaging your products well will result in less or no damages during the shipping process. Ensuring that the people responsible for packaging your products do it properly will minimize quality costs and build your reputation. As the saying goes, it’s the smallest things that matter the most.

8. Assess your performance

You have to measure the performance of your strategies to forge the way forward. Doing business without assessing your performance regularly is a recipe for disaster. By not assessing your performance, you’ll have a hard time determining how much money you are spending and saving. Come up with your key performance indicators and gauge how well your business is doing.

9. Eliminate variability during transit times

The more variable the transit times, the higher the likelihood that the receiving party is using premium freight, ordering more quantity than is necessary to compensate for the uncertainty of creating buffers of inventory. When you understand these dynamics, you’ll realize that paying for higher freight costs will enhance variability and save your company loads of cash in the long run.

10. Choose your mode of transport.

Which mode of transport is the cheapest? Trains? Airplanes? Automobiles? In most cases, rail is cheaper when transporting bulky goods than air or trucking. Also, water is cheaper than air. Regardless of the delivery model, it’s important to get all the quotes from different modes of transport available.

Conclusion

Managing a supply chain logistics company is not the easiest thing to accomplish. You have to make the right move every time out to avoid expensive mistakes and losses. The ten tips discussed above will help you reduce your costs and grow your business. You owe it to yourself to assess your situation and determine what needs to be changed or implemented.

_____________________________________________________________

This guest post is contributed by Kurt Walker who is a blogger and college paper writer. In the course of his studies he developed an interest in innovative technology and likes to keep business owners informed about the latest technology to use to transform their operations. He writes for companies such as Edu BirdieXpertWriters and uk.bestessays.com on various academic and business topics.

calcium carbonate

Calcium Carbonate Production in Germany Totaled 155K Mt in 2018

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

The revenue of the calcium carbonate market in Germany amounted to $126M in 2018, declining by -5.9% 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).

In general, calcium carbonate consumption continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2015 when the market value increased by 34% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the calcium carbonate market attained its maximum level at $139M in 2008; however, from 2009 to 2018, consumption remained at a lower figure.

Market Forecast to 2030

Driven by rising demand for calcium carbonate in Germany, the market is expected to start an upward consumption trend over the next decade. The performance of the market is forecast to increase slightly, with an anticipated CAGR of +0.8% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 713K tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production in Germany

Calcium carbonate production in Germany totaled 155K tonnes in 2018, flattening at the previous year. Over the period under review, calcium carbonate production continues to indicate a steady decline. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2012 with an increase of 28% y-o-y. In that year, calcium carbonate production reached its peak volume of 291K tonnes. From 2013 to 2018, calcium carbonate production growth remained at a lower figure.

Exports from Germany

In 2018, the amount of calcium carbonate exported from Germany totaled 42K tonnes, going down by -6.9% against the previous year. In general, calcium carbonate exports continue to indicate a drastic decline. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2014 when exports increased by 233% against the previous year. In that year, calcium carbonate exports reached their peak of 177K tonnes. From 2015 to 2018, the growth of calcium carbonate exports remained at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, calcium carbonate exports amounted to $27M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

Poland (5.6K tonnes), France (4.4K tonnes) and Denmark (4K tonnes) were the main destinations of calcium carbonate exports from Germany, together comprising 0.3% of total exports. These countries were followed by the Netherlands, Italy, China, Turkey, Austria, the Czech Republic, the UK, Belgium and Spain, which together accounted for a further 0.4%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main countries of destination, was attained by China, while exports for the other leaders experienced mixed trend patterns.

In value terms, the largest markets for calcium carbonate exported from Germany were France ($2.7M), Poland ($2.5M) and Italy ($2.1M), with a combined 1% share of total exports. These countries were followed by Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, China, Turkey, Spain, the Czech Republic, Belgium and the UK, which together accounted for a further 1.2%.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average calcium carbonate export price amounted to $632 per tonne, rising by 10% against the previous year.

There were significant differences in the average prices for the major foreign markets. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Spain ($803 per tonne), while the average price for exports to Denmark ($409 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports into Germany

In 2018, approx. 538K tonnes of calcium carbonate were imported into Germany; shrinking by -27.3% against the previous year. Over the period under review, calcium carbonate imports continue to indicate a mild descent. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2017 when imports increased by 66% y-o-y. In that year, calcium carbonate imports reached their peak of 739K tonnes, and then declined slightly in the following year.

In value terms, calcium carbonate imports amounted to $93M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Belgium (545K tonnes) constituted the largest calcium carbonate supplier to Germany, accounting for a 11% share of total imports. Moreover, calcium carbonate imports from Belgium exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest supplier, Slovenia (115K tonnes), fivefold. Austria (23K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total imports with a 0.5% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume from Belgium stood at +3.8%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: Slovenia (+7.7% per year) and Austria (+4.6% per year).

In value terms, Belgium ($43M) constituted the largest supplier of calcium carbonate to Germany, comprising 5.2% of total calcium carbonate imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Slovenia ($19M), with a 2.2% share of total imports. It was followed by the UK, with a 1.1% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of value from Belgium amounted to -1.5%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: Slovenia (+12.9% per year) and the UK (-3.4% per year).

Import Prices by Country

The average calcium carbonate import price stood at $173 per tonne in 2018, jumping by 52% against the previous year.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was the UK ($560 per tonne), while the price for Belgium ($79 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 prices for the other major suppliers experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform