DRIVING CONGRESS TO ACT ON NATIONAL SECURITY TARIFFS

Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

DRIVING CONGRESS TO ACT ON NATIONAL SECURITY TARIFFS

March 9th, 2020 Ed Gerwin Leave a comment

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.

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.

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 2019, introduced 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.

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

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

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

The EU Folding Boxboard Market Reached $9.6B

March 6th, 2020 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

The revenue of the folding boxboard market in the European Union amounted to $9.6B in 2018, growing by 7.9% 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). Overall, folding boxboard consumption continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2011 when the market value increased by 8% year-to-year. In that year, the folding boxboard market attained its peak level of $10.7B. From 2012 to 2018, the growth of the folding boxboard market remained at a lower figure.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of folding boxboard consumption in 2018 were Germany (1.1M tonnes), Poland (1M tonnes) and France (1M tonnes), with a combined 40% share of total consumption.

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

In value terms, the largest folding boxboard markets in the European Union were Germany ($1.4B), Poland ($1.3B) and France ($1.3B), with a combined 41% share of the total market.

In 2018, the highest levels of folding boxboard per capita consumption was registered in Austria (63 kg per person), followed by Poland (27 kg per person), the Netherlands (21 kg per person) and Italy (17 kg per person), while the world average per capita consumption of folding boxboard was estimated at 15 kg per person.

Market Forecast to 2030

Driven by increasing demand for folding boxboard in the European Union, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to accelerate, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +1.8% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 9.8M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production in the EU

In 2018, approx. 12M tonnes of folding boxboard were produced in the European Union; picking up by 1.6% against 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 throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 with an increase of 7.6% y-o-y. Over the period under review, folding boxboard production attained its peak figure volume in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the near future.

Production by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of folding boxboard production in 2018 were Sweden (3.1M tonnes), Finland (2.8M tonnes) and Germany (1.8M tonnes), with a combined 64% share of total production. Italy, Austria, Poland and France lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 24%.

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

Exports in the EU

In 2018, the amount of folding boxboard exported in the European Union totaled 11M tonnes, approximately equating the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.3% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. In value terms, folding boxboard exports totaled $13.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

The exports of the three major exporters of folding boxboard, namely Sweden, Finland and Germany, represented more than two-thirds of total export. Italy (503K tonnes), Belgium (461K tonnes), Austria (363K tonnes), Poland (350K tonnes), France (341K tonnes), the Netherlands (319K tonnes), Spain (295K tonnes), Slovenia (233K tonnes) and the UK (214K tonnes) held a minor 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 Belgium, while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Sweden ($3.1B), Finland ($2.8B) and Germany ($2.8B) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2018, together comprising 66% of total exports. Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Spain, Austria, the UK and Slovenia lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 30%.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the folding boxboard export price in the European Union amounted to $1,160 per tonne, jumping by 5.1% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the folding boxboard export price, however, continues to indicate a slight reduction. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2011 when the export price increased by 12% year-to-year. In that year, the export prices for folding boxboard reached their peak level of $1,471 per tonne. From 2012 to 2018, the growth in terms of the export prices for folding boxboard remained 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 Poland ($1,711 per tonne), while Slovenia ($753 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports in the EU

The imports totaled 7.3M tonnes in 2018, approximately mirroring the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.5% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2010 when imports increased by 14% against the previous year. The volume of imports peaked in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term. In value terms, folding boxboard imports amounted to $8.9B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Germany (1.4M tonnes), distantly followed by the UK (768K tonnes), Italy (743K tonnes), France (678K tonnes), Poland (671K tonnes), Spain (546K tonnes), the Netherlands (541K tonnes) and Belgium (462K tonnes) represented the main importers of folding boxboard, together mixing up 79% of total imports. The Czech Republic (208K tonnes), Austria (190K tonnes), Portugal (159K tonnes) and Hungary (139K tonnes) took a little share 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, Germany ($1.7B), the UK ($928M) and Italy ($849M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, with a combined 38% share of total imports. These countries were followed by France, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, the Czech Republic, Portugal and Hungary, which together accounted for a further 49%.

Import Prices by Country

The folding boxboard import price in the European Union stood at $1,217 per tonne in 2018, increasing by 7.7% against the previous year. In general, the folding boxboard import price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2011 when the import price increased by 12% y-o-y. In that year, the import prices for folding boxboard reached their peak level of $1,458 per tonne. From 2012 to 2018, the growth in terms of the import prices for folding boxboard remained at a lower figure.

Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, major importing countries recorded the following prices: in Austria ($1,416 per tonne) and Portugal ($1,407 per tonne), while the Czech Republic ($1,125 per tonne) and Belgium ($1,136 per tonne) were amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by the Netherlands, while the other leaders experienced a decline in the import price figures.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily

Industry Advocacy Required to Enable Trade Finance Market Access and Growth

March 4th, 2020 Olivier Paul Leave a comment

In a whitepaper released last year, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) urged the trade finance industry to work together to ensure that regulation does not hinder the availability of trade finance. Olivier Paul, Director, Finance for Development at ICC, explains how a fair regulatory environment across regions is key to the industry’s growth.

In the wake of the financial crisis of 2007, regulation and compliance requirements have had the unintended consequence of negatively impacting trade finance provision. As banks adapt to ever greater compliance and regulatory requirements, they seek to minimize risk by reducing their number of correspondent banking relationships. This phenomenon, known as “de-risking”, especially affects small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) in emerging markets that need financing the most.

Accessing adequate trade finance is already tough for SMEs, who often lack the collateral, documented history of past transactions and knowledge of the financial instruments available to them. This has led to a US$1.5 trillion gap between the demand and supply of trade finance – or gap – as SMEs find themselves most neglected by financiers.

In its report, Banking regulation and the campaign to mitigate the unintended consequences for trade finance, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) outlines how some post-crisis banking regulation has unintentionally led to the widening of this trade finance gap. The report argues that industry advocacy is necessary to ensure fairer treatment of trade finance, as several examples already demonstrate.

Unintended Consequences and Successful Advocacy

Despite well-meaning capital and liquidity requirements contributing to the resilience of the financial system, they have also limited banks’ ability to invest in cross-border relationships, leading to concerns relating to the treatment of trade finance instruments across regions.

For example, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) introduced the third installment of the Basel Accords – a set of international banking regulation recommendations – in 2010. However, the BCBS does not have the authority to enforce its recommendations, leaving national – or supranational – institutions to write the recommendations into law.

What’s more, these recommendations allow significant room for interpretation, allowing each jurisdiction to adapt them accordingly. This results in inconsistencies across jurisdictions, leaving emerging market banks subject to the resulting ambiguity.

In particular, the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) for financial instruments supporting trade finance caused concern among many industry practitioners. The European Commission and Council, as well as the European Banking Authority, recommended that NSFR have a variable rate of 5%-15% depending on the maturity of the transaction. In many jurisdictions outside the European Union, however, the NSFR rate is either flat – at a maximum level of 5% – or non-existent.

This represented a clear disadvantage, and one affecting the whole market. As such, the industry-led by ICC – advocated for a fairer treatment of NSFR ratios for trade finance. This resulted in a significant reduction in the spectrum of rates which now stand at 5% for a transaction maturity of under six months, 7.5% for a transaction maturity of under a year, and 10% for maturity of over 12 months.

Early Start

To ensure the highest success rate, it is essential that discussions between industry members and regulatory authorities take place at the earliest stages of the decision-making process. With regulatory adoption and implementation processes taking up to a decade in some cases, the industry must work together with regulators and maintain a proactive approach to promoting fair regulatory treatment of trade finance.

The document outlining the finalization of the Basel III framework was published in 2017 but will only be enforced between 2022 and 2027. Action is needed today if the industry’s voice is to be heard and acted on.

Banks have already identified several areas relating to trade finance – such as the treatment of unconditionally cancellable commitments, the minimum durations to calculate risk-weighted assets and the treatment of subsidiaries in large groups – where discussion is needed. Over the next few years, banks and industry bodies will need to engage with these topics, as national regulators translate the finalization package into national legislation.

Next steps

Some 80% of international trade flows involve the recourse to a financial instrument, according to the World Trade Organization. To encourage the use of trade finance worldwide – and ensure the widest market access especially for SMEs – harmonization of regulations will be required.

Much work has already been done to promote the fair treatment of trade finance within banking regulations. However, regulations will not adapt unless all stakeholders voice their concerns. It is up to the entire industry – and ICC, as the largest and most authoritative voice in trade finance – to be at the forefront of this work.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Veneer Sheets Market in Asia-Pacific To Post Solid Gains

March 2nd, 2020 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

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

Consumption By Country in Asia-Pacific

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

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

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

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

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in Asia-Pacific

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

Production in Asia-Pacific

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

Production By Country in Asia-Pacific

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

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

Exports in Asia-Pacific

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

Exports by Country

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

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

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

Export Prices by Country

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

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

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

Imports in Asia-Pacific

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

Imports by Country

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

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

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

Import Prices by Country

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

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

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Trade Cycle

The EU MDF Market to Post Moderate But Steady Growth

March 1st, 2020 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

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