New Articles

The U.S. Plastic Bottle Market to Struggle With the Pandemic and Rising Environmental Concerns

plastic bottles

The U.S. Plastic Bottle Market to Struggle With the Pandemic and Rising Environmental Concerns

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. – Carboys, Bottles And Similar Articles Of Plastics – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In 2019, the U.S. plastic bottle market increased by 0.1% to $11.5B, rising for the third consecutive year after two years of decline. Over the period under review, consumption recorded a relatively flat trend pattern.

Since plastic bottles are used in many sectors of consumer goods, the market is affected, on the one hand, by an increase in the population and its income, and on the other hand, the general dynamics of the economy and industrial production also constitute key fundamental factors.

In general, the food and beverage industry maintains modest but robust growth, driven by rising population and their incomes, which will remain the key positive fundamental factor behind the plastic bottle market growth. A moderate increase in production growth is forecast in the soft drinks segment, thereby shaping the possible growth of plastic bottle consumption. Moreover, the non-alcoholic beverages segment remains least competitive with alternative packaging materials. As a rule, soft drinks do not require long-term storage, therefore the possible advantages presented by glass packaging alternatives remain irrelevant for this market. Moreover, the relatively low cost of plastic bottles and their minimal weight make them a suitable option for beverage manufacturers.

However, since this market is well-established and saturated, there are no prerequisites for a sharp increase in the consumption of soft drinks. Moreover, an increasing number of consumers are paying attention to their health, which contributes to a slowdown in the consumption of sugar-based drinks. In terms of plastic bottle consumption, this may be relatively offset by the rising consumption of other types of drinks like mineral water.

A similar situation is also relevant for personal care products – in general, household incomes in the U.S. are relatively high, and the consumer goods markets are saturated, making a sharp increase in consumer demand unlikely. Recently, however, growth in consumer goods consumption has been hampered by a slowdown due to trade tensions with China, which could lead to a reduction in cheap imports and an increase in the prices for consumer goods.

Market Forecast to 2030

In early 2020, the global economy entered a period of the crisis caused by the COVID-19 epidemic, due to which most countries in the world put on halt production and transport activity. So far, the uncertainty regarding quarantine measures and the depth of the global economic decline is too great to make reliable forecasts. IMF states that even a short-lived outbreak would lead to at least a 3% contraction of the global GDP. The U.S. is expected to face an even deeper short-term recession, with the contraction of GDP of approx. -5.9% in 2020, as the hit of the pandemic was harder than expected, and unemployment soared due to the shutdown and social isolation.

In the medium term, should the pandemic outbreak end in the second half of 2020, the economy is to start recovering in 2021 and then return to the market trend of the gradual growth, driven by the fundamentals existed before 2020 and boosted by support measures imposed by the government. Driven by rising demand for plastic bottles in the U.S., 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 +0.4% for the period from 2019 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 3.2M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Plastic bottles as a product appear to be not very sensitive to the quarantine closure of the HoReCa sector since drinks are rarely sold in plastic bottles in restaurants and cafes. A much greater risk comes from a possible change in consumer habits – due to the risk of infection, consumers tend to visit shops much less frequently which also leads for a decrease in the number of impulsive purchases; together those factors may lead to reduced consumption of soft drinks and beauty products. In addition, amid increased attention to health, consumers can drink less sugar-based drinks in favor of products positioned as more “healthy”.

A more noticeable decrease can occur in the segment of chemical and construction containers, containers for fuel and lubricants. As the demand for trips fell sharply, the need for vehicle maintenance also contracted, which in turn reduces the demand for plastic containers for related products. In the construction sector, there may also be a moment of uncertainty due to reduced income for potential home buyers – this, in turn, may also lead to a decrease in the consumption of plastic bottles for construction-related products.

On the other hand, the pandemic leads to an increase in the consumption of detergents and disinfectants, which are packaged in plastic bottles in large quantities. This contributes to an increase in the demand for plastic containers for these products, although here plastic bottles may face competition from soft plastic containers, especially for bulk packaging.

Additional risk comes from the fact that plastic container consumption has recently started to slow down due to environmental concerns. The problem of plastic pollution is an acute problem worldwide, and many countries are trying to limit the consumption of plastic. Thus, in the EU, a ban was introduced on the use of disposable plastic utensils, and restrictions were imposed on the growth of consumption of non-recycled plastic bottles. In the U.S., there were also attempts to ban plastic products, but they have an effect only in individual states. Thus, California, New York, and hundreds of municipalities in the U.S. ban or fine the use of plastic. Some other states, however, refused to restrict the use of plastic packaging thereby letting it be the consumer choice.

Despite the fact that restrictive measures apply primarily to plastic bags and disposable tableware, these concerns could potentially benefit the alternative packaging market. Moreover, rising demand for “natural” and “healthy” drinks also promotes alternative glass bottle consumption, as it benefits from its ‘environment-friendly’ image among consumers. In response, plastic bottle manufacturers are increasing the use of recycled plastics and expanding the use of biodegradable plastics. In the medium term, it is expected that the struggle for and against the use of plastic will generally balance each other out, and a sharp reduction in the use of plastic bottles is unlikely.

Given the above-mentioned factors, the performance of the market is forecast to decrease slightly in 2020 and then to start a slow upward trend. Overall, the market is expected to rise with an anticipated CAGR of +0.2% for the period from 2019 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 3.1M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Imports into the U.S.

In 2019, approx. 224K tonnes of carboys, bottles and similar articles of plastics were imported into the U.S.; shrinking by -5.3% compared with 2018. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.0% from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations in certain years. In value terms, plastic bottle imports dropped modestly to $1.2B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019.

Imports by Country

Canada (64K tonnes), China (53K tonnes), and Mexico (53K tonnes) were the main suppliers of plastic bottle imports to the U.S., together comprising 76% of total imports. These countries were followed by Turkey and Taiwan which together accounted for a further 7.8%.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Turkey, while purchases for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest plastic bottle suppliers to the U.S. were China ($385M), Canada ($285M), and Mexico ($196M), with a combined 71% share of total imports. Taiwan and Turkey lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 4.2%.

Import Prices by Country

The average plastic bottle import price stood at $5,415 per tonne in 2019, growing by 2.7% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2019, it increased at an average annual rate of +3.1%. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2008 when the average import price increased by 16% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the average import price attained the maximum in 2019 and is likely to see steady growth in the near future.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was China ($7,236 per tonne), while the price for Turkey ($1,819 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by China, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

dye

Global Direct Dye Market Decreased by -3.6% to $1.9B in 2019

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

After two years of growth, the global direct dye market decreased by -3.6% to $1.9B in 2019. Overall, consumption, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern in the past decade. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2014 when the market value increased by 13% year-to-year. As a result, consumption reached a peak level of $2.2B. From 2015 to 2019, the growth of the global market failed to regain momentum.

Consumption by Country

China ($460M), the U.S. ($333M) and India ($144M) were the countries with the largest market size in 2019, with a combined 48% share of the global market. Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Mexico, France, Canada, Germany, and the UK lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 27%.

The countries with the highest levels of direct dye per capita consumption in 2019 were the U.S. (265 kg per 1000 persons), Canada (253 kg per 1000 persons), and the UK (235 kg per 1000 persons).

From 2009 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of direct dye per capita consumption, amongst the key consuming countries, was attained by China, while direct dye per capita consumption for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Global Trade of Direct Dyes 2009-2019

In 2019, global trade of direct dyes and preparations based thereon increased by 1% to 110K tonnes, rising for the fourth year in a row after two years of decline. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.5% from 2009 to 2019. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2010 with an increase of 32% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global exports attained the peak figure in 2019 and are likely to see gradual growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, direct dye exports fell modestly to $398M (IndexBox estimates) in 2019.

Exports by Country

In 2019, India (38K tonnes) represented the largest exporter of direct dyes and preparations based thereon, achieving 34% of total exports. Spain (18K tonnes) ranks second in terms of the total exports with a 16% share, followed by China (9.7%) and Germany (6.9%). Taiwan, Chinese (4.8K tonnes), the U.S. (4.7K tonnes), the UK (4.2K tonnes), France (4.1K tonnes), Mexico (3.1K tonnes), Turkey (2.7K tonnes), Poland (2.5K tonnes) and Italy (1.9K tonnes) took a little share of total exports.

From 2009 to 2019, the average annual rates of growth with regard to direct dye exports from India stood at +14.5%. At the same time, Turkey (+27.1%), Poland (+12.8%), Spain (+9.4%), France (+8.8%), the U.S. (+4.6%), the UK (+4.5%), Mexico (+3.6%) and Italy (+2.8%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Turkey emerged as the fastest-growing exporter exported in the world, with a CAGR of +27.1% from 2009-2019. China and Taiwan experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, Germany (-4.2%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. India (+25 p.p.), Spain (+9.5 p.p.), Turkey (+2.2 p.p.), France (+2.1 p.p.), Poland (+1.6 p.p.) and the U.S. (+1.5 p.p.) significantly strengthened its position in terms of the global exports, while Germany saw its share reduced by -3.6% from 2009 to 2019, respectively. The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, India ($110M) remains the largest direct dye supplier worldwide, comprising 28% of global exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by China ($44M), with an 11% share of global exports. It was followed by Spain, with a 10% share.

In India, direct dye exports expanded at an average annual rate of +13.2% over the period from 2009-2019. In other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: China (+3.2% per year) and Spain (+7.3% per year).

Export Prices by Country

In 2019, the average direct dye export price amounted to $3,610 per tonne, dropping by -4.5% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the export price recorded a slight contraction. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2014 when the average export price increased by 13% y-o-y. As a result, the export price reached a peak level of $4,684 per tonne. From 2015 to 2019, the growth in terms of the average export prices remained at a somewhat lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2019, the country with the highest price was the UK ($6,110 per tonne), while France ($1,724 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2009 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by China, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports by Country

In 2019, Germany (12K tonnes), followed by Italy (7.2K tonnes), Japan (6.2K tonnes), France (6.1K tonnes), China (4.8K tonnes), the UK (4.7K tonnes) and Indonesia (4.5K tonnes) were the largest importers of direct dyes and preparations based thereon, together generating 45% of total imports. The following importers – the U.S. (4.1K tonnes), Taiwan, Chinese (3.4K tonnes), the Netherlands (3.4K tonnes), Poland (3.2K tonnes) and Spain (3.1K tonnes) – together made up 17% of total imports.

From 2009 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of purchases, amongst the key importing countries, was attained by Poland, while imports for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest direct dye importing markets worldwide were Germany ($36M), Japan ($35M) and Italy ($31M), together accounting for 26% of global imports. China, Indonesia, the U.S., France, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, Taiwan, Chinese and Poland lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 35%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2019, the average direct dye import price amounted to $3,933 per tonne, surging by 2.8% against the previous year.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Japan ($5,749 per tonne), while Poland ($2,290 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2009 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Indonesia, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

blockchain

Blockchain and its Impact on Business Operations

When one thinks of blockchain, one thinks of cryptocurrency, but even though much of this article is dedicated to the use of cryptocurrency, the truth is that more can be done with blockchain technology. This is because blockchain technology allows people from all over the world to create a transaction on a computer system. This transaction is secure (cannot be tampered with), it is dated, and it can be signed in many secure ways.

In short, if you wished, you could conduct a large digital Mexican wave around the world, and not only would the entire process be secure and efficient, it would also be traceable and wouldn’t rely on a central authority or third party to action.

The Omise Story

Omise is a company the operates a payment gateway for Thailand, Japan and Singapore. Rather than moving money from one country to another, convert it and so forth, they created their own coin OMISEGO, which they can quickly transfer anywhere. It can be deposited with an Omise office in another country. To help keep the price of their coin from fluctuating too much, they only conduct inter-office transfers as a way of getting money from one country to another. This is far faster and cheaper than using an Automated Clearing House, and far cheaper than using wire transfers.

But, what about the problem that each transaction creates a little more OMISGO coin? The answer for them was simple. They released the coin onto the general market, which gave it a market price, which therefore solved the “bit-extra” problem and introduced the problem that transactions now had to happen quickly for fear of sharp rises and falls in the coin’s price, which pushed up the potential transaction fee. However, the increase was marginal, and it was still cheaper than wire transfer and is still almost as fast.

Can the Omise Story Transfer Over?

Well, it certainly transfers to other payment gateways, and even modern US banks have stated their intentions to create their own cryptocurrency so they may move money within their own branches more easily. They would maintain full control of the currency, including its mining, which means that theft is more difficult and price fluctuations are not a problem.

Still, if it is to be applied to business operations, it needs to somehow improve efficiency, otherwise it is just another path to the same objective. If your business has an international element, then there is a chance that blockchain technology, specifically cryptocurrency, will help you. Otherwise, cryptocurrency needs to evolve and be retooled before it can do things like pay separate departments on demand more efficiently than the methods you are using right now.

What About Automated Clearing Houses?

ACH is hardly in its death throes since despite online transfers being as common as salt in the ocean, companies are still wrapping themselves in the warm blanket that is ACH, so what are their arguments against blockchain?

Argument – Costs pretty-much the same for each transaction.

Counter – Yes, on a per-transaction basis, but you receive your money up to 24 hours quicker with cryptocurrency.

Argument – We conduct thousands of transactions per day that only a clearing house could handle.

Counter – Dealing with fiat money yes, but transacting thousands of blockchain transactions per day can be done in house with almost no security risks.

The truth is that there are many ways that blockchain technology can replace Automated Clearing Houses, especially in terms of speed, security and traceability. But, ACH is trusted, tried and proven, whereas blockchain is still too new for most companies to trust.

The Demand for More Transparency

Let’s say there is a new law where every company had to track every supplier from its source. Every screw and every wire from every phone ever made, and so forth. A similar thing already happens with products labeled “Organic” in stores. Such a law would cost most primary and secondary industries a fortune, but the costs could be reduced in such an event with blockchain.

They could use blockchain to track transactions from start to finish. That way, every product being sold could have its own history that is stored in digital form. If required, an authority figure could back track every single element within a product, from where the coffee beans were bought to where the glue was manufactured for the label. Plus, the system could be set up so that each supplier need not consult a central authority to execute transactions, and each transaction would be protected with encrypted data. It would be difficult for a single entity to disrupt the history of transactions, which on its own will make the transactions a lot more secure.

Supply Chain Tracking

Using the same method as above, a company could track its supply chain, which is more important in the food industry than anywhere else. Walmart is unable to trust the record-keeping of companies in China, so it is using blockchain to track the supply of pork. Record-keeping transactions are marked at intervals so that Wal-Mart can see if a piece of pork sat in a warehouse for six months before being processed. The record-keeping process happens with regards to where the meat comes from, is slaughtered, processed, and stored, and this information is then used by the company in the US to create its sell-by-date.

Conclusion – A Tool is Only as Good as Its Use

A paintbrush in the hands of a novice is no more useful than a shotgun in the hands of a kangaroo. The intrinsic benefit of blockchain, as described in the introduction, is very powerful, but businesses are having a hard time integrating it into their companies. There are plenty who claim they have tried, such as Tyson, Nestle, Unilever and Dole, but they are more like nervous children dipping their toes in the shallow end of the pool.

Blockchain will benefit those who wish to transact payments domestically and overseas, and those who wish to track a process, a supply chain, and/or who just wish to be more transparent about their business operations. However, it is only the really competitive industries like the financial and food industries that are worth the added benefits of blockchain for the slight edge that blockchain technology gives them over their competitors.

_________________________________________________________________

Ava Williams is a Resumeble editor and a career expert from Vancouver. She finds her inspiration in blogging and career courses. Meet her on Twitter and LinkedIn

milk

Asia’s Milk Production Is Expected to Increase by 2% in 2020

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

After four years of growth, the Asian whole fresh milk market decreased by -2.1% to $309.6B in 2019. The market value increased at an average annual rate of +4.0% over the past decade. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2010 with an increase of 15% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the market attained the maximum level at $316.1B in 2018 and then dropped slightly in the following year.

Consumption by Country in Asia

India (198M tonnes) remains the largest whole fresh milk consuming country in Asia, accounting for 54% of total volume. Moreover, whole fresh milk consumption in India exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, Pakistan (47M tonnes), fourfold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by China (35M tonnes), with a 9.6% share.

From 2009 to 2019, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume in India totaled +5.4%. The remaining consuming countries recorded the following average annual rates of consumption growth: Pakistan (+3.2% per year) and China (-1.2% per year).

In value terms, India ($146.8B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Pakistan ($37.3B). It was followed by China.

The countries with the highest levels of whole fresh milk per capita consumption in 2019 were Uzbekistan (339 kg per person), Turkey (281 kg per person), and Pakistan (231 kg per person).

From 2009 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Uzbekistan, while whole fresh milk per capita consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Market Forecast 2020-2030

Driven by increasing demand for whole fresh milk in Asia, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to decelerate, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +2.4% for the period from 2019 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 477M tonnes by the end of 2030.

According to FAO projections, Asian production is expected to increase by 2% in 2020 due to expected growth in India, Pakistan, and China, while Turkey may experience a decline. India, the world’s largest milk producer, is projected to increase production by 2.6 percent, or 5 million tonnes. The increase expected this year reflects the efforts of the vast network of rural cooperatives that have been mobilized to maintain milk collection despite the pandemic lockdown. Given the loss of sales in the foodservice industry due to the COVID-19 lockdown, large volumes of milk were sent for processing to drying plants, which were reported to operate at almost full capacity.

Pakistan’s milk production is projected to increase by an average of 3% due to an increase in the herd population.

In China, where the sector has been recovering since 2018, it is projected that milk production will increase by almost 3% in 2020, amid ongoing consolidation of farms and increased efficiency of large dairy enterprises. The introduction of stringent food safety standards by the government has also increased consumer confidence in Chinese milk, which has helped support domestic production growth.

According to FAO forecasts, milk production in Japan will grow, which will be supported by the government measures offered to farmers to manage excess milk supplies and stabilize prices. This is despite a drop in milk consumption in the first months of the year after the government declared a state of emergency and closed schools amid concerns about COVID-19.

Production in Asia

In 2019, production of whole fresh milk in Asia rose to 368M tonnes, picking up by 3.8% against the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.6% from 2009 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2017 with an increase of 4.8% y-o-y. The volume of production peaked in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in the immediate term. The generally positive trend in terms of output was largely conditioned by a moderate increase in the number of producing animals and a tangible expansion in yield figures.

Production By Country in Asia

India (198M tonnes) remains the largest whole fresh milk producing country in Asia, accounting for 54% of total volume. Moreover, whole fresh milk production in India exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, Pakistan (47M tonnes), fourfold. China (35M tonnes) ranked third in terms of total production with a 9.5% share.

In India, whole fresh milk production expanded at an average annual rate of +5.4% over the period from 2009-2019. In other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Pakistan (+3.2% per year) and China (-1.4% per year).

Producing Animals in Asia

In 2019, the amount of producing animals in Asia expanded modestly to 427M heads, rising by 1.8% against the previous year. This number increased at an average annual rate of +1.5% over the period from 2009 to 2019; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2010 with an increase of 3.2% against the previous year. The level of producing animals peaked in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in the near future.

Yield in Asia

The average whole fresh milk yield amounted to 860 kg per head in 2019, picking up by 2% on the year before. The yield figure increased at an average annual rate of +2.1% over the period from 2009 to 2019; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2014 with an increase of 5.2% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the whole fresh milk yield attained the maximum level in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in the near future.

Exports in Asia

In 2019, after two years of decline, there was growth in overseas shipments of whole fresh milk, when their volume increased by 2.6% to 305K tonnes. Total exports indicated moderate growth from 2009 to 2019: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.9% over the last decade. Based on 2019 figures, exports decreased by -27.9% against 2014 indices. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2010 when exports increased by 50% y-o-y. The volume of export peaked at 423K tonnes in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, exports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, whole fresh milk exports expanded to $311M (IndexBox estimates) in 2019.

Exports by Country

The shipments of the twelve major exporters of whole fresh milk, namely Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Thailand, China, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, India, Kyrgyzstan, China, Hong Kong SAR, South Korea, and Viet Nam, represented more than two-thirds of total export.

From 2009 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of shipments, amongst the main exporting countries, was attained by Kazakhstan (+53.2% per year), while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Kuwait ($62M), Thailand ($49M), and Turkey ($25M) were the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2019, with a combined 44% share of total exports. China, Hong Kong SAR, the United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Pakistan, India, Viet Nam, and Kyrgyzstan lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 41%.

Kazakhstan saw the highest rates of growth with regard to the value of exports, among the main exporting countries over the period under review, while shipments for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

The whole fresh milk export price in Asia stood at $1,020 per tonne in 2019, approximately reflecting the previous year.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2019, the country with the highest price was  Hong Kong SAR ($2,147 per tonne), while Kazakhstan ($423 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2009 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Hong Kong SAR, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

coal

The Asian-Pacific Coal Market Grows Markedly for the Third Consecutive Year

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

In 2019, the Asia-Pacific coal market increased by 6.1% to $751.8B, rising for the third consecutive year after four years of decline. The total market indicated buoyant growth from 2007 to 2019: its value increased at an average annual rate of +3.8% over the last twelve-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Over the period under review, the market attained the maximum level in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in years to come.

Consumption by Country

China (4,136M tonnes) constituted the country with the largest volume of coal consumption, accounting for 69% of total volume. Moreover, coal consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, India (1,012M tonnes), fourfold. Japan (186M tonnes) ranked third in terms of total consumption with a 3.1% share.

From 2007 to 2019, the average annual growth rate of volume in China amounted to +3.7%. In India, the average annual rate of growth amounted to +5.2% per year, while in and Japan, the volume of consumption remained relatively unchanged against its outset level.

In value terms, China ($572.6B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by India ($90.7B). It was followed by Japan.

The countries with the highest levels of coal per capita consumption in 2019 were Australia (4.85 tonne per person), China (2.84 tonne per person) and South Korea (2.78 tonne per person).

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Indonesia, while coal per capita consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Production in Asia-Pacific

In 2019, production of coal increased by 3% to 5,771M tonnes, rising for the third consecutive year after three years of decline. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.3% from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2010 with an increase of 12% year-to-year. The volume of production peaked in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in the immediate term.

Production by Country

China (3,842M tonnes) constituted the country with the largest volume of coal production, comprising approx. 67% of total volume. Moreover, coal production in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, India (760M tonnes), fivefold. Indonesia (536M tonnes) ranked third in terms of total production with a 9.3% share.

In China, coal production expanded at an average annual rate of +3.0% over the period from 2007-2019. The remaining producing countries recorded the following average annual rates of production growth: India (+3.7% per year) and Indonesia (+7.8% per year).

Imports in Asia-Pacific

In 2019, supplies from abroad of coal increased by 2.2% to 1,093M tonnes, rising for the fourth consecutive year after two years of decline. Total imports indicated a resilient expansion from 2007 to 2019: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +6.7% over the last twelve years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2019 figures, imports increased by +24.1% against 2015 indices. The volume of import peaked in 2019 and is likely to see gradual growth in years to come.

In value terms, coal imports contracted to $102B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. In general, imports posted a buoyant expansion. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 with an increase of 79% y-o-y. The level of import peaked at $110.7B in 2018, and then shrank in the following year.

Imports by Country

In 2019, China (300M tonnes), India (254M tonnes), Japan (186M tonnes) and South Korea (141M tonnes) were the main importers of coal in Asia-Pacific, creating 81% of total import. They were distantly followed by Taiwan, Chinese (67M tonnes), committing a 6.1% share of total imports. The following importers – Malaysia (34M tonnes) and the Philippines (27M tonnes) – together made up 5.6% of total imports.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of purchases, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by China, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, China ($23.4B), Japan ($23.3B) and India ($23B) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2019, together accounting for 68% of total imports.

China saw the highest growth rate of the value of imports, among the main importing countries over the period under review, while purchases for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

The coal import price in Asia-Pacific stood at $93 per tonne in 2019, waning by -9.9% against the previous year. Import price indicated tangible growth from 2007 to 2019: its price increased at an average annual rate of +2.4% over the last twelve-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2008 when the import price increased by 71% y-o-y. Over the period under review, import prices reached the maximum at $130 per tonne in 2011; however, from 2012 to 2019, import prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Japan ($125 per tonne), while the Philippines ($70 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, 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

electrical insulator

The EU Electrical Insulator Market Slipped Back Slightly

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

For the third consecutive year, the EU electrical insulator market recorded decline in sales value, which decreased by -6.8% to $692M in 2019. In general, consumption recorded a perceptible contraction. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2011 with an increase of 3.1% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the market attained the peak level at $1.1B in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2019, consumption remained at a lower figure.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of electrical insulator consumption in 2019 were Germany (17M units), Italy (12M units) and Spain (12M units), with a combined 36% share of total consumption. Romania, France, Poland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, the UK, Belgium, Sweden and Austria lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 50%.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of electrical insulator consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Romania, while electrical insulator consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Germany ($168M) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Belgium ($64M). It was followed by France.

The countries with the highest levels of electrical insulator per capita consumption in 2019 were Romania (575 units per 1000 persons), the Czech Republic (564 units per 1000 persons) and the Netherlands (384 units per 1000 persons).

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of electrical insulator per capita consumption, amongst the leading consuming countries, was attained by Romania, while electrical insulator per capita consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Market Forecast 2019-2030

Driven by rising demand for electrical insulator in the European Union, 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 +0.1% for the period from 2019 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 115M units by the end of 2030.

Production in the EU

In 2019, after three years of decline, there was growth in production of electrical insulators, when its volume increased by 3% to 132M units. In general, production, however, recorded a slight decrease. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2015 with an increase of 9.2% y-o-y. The volume of production peaked at 166M units in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2019, production failed to regain the momentum.

In value terms, electrical insulator production amounted to $967M in 2019 estimated in export prices. Overall, production, however, continues to indicate a pronounced reduction. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2011 when the production volume increased by 4.4% against the previous year. The level of production peaked at $1.4B in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2019, production remained at a lower figure.

Production by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of electrical insulator production in 2019 were Italy (23M units), Spain (21M units) and Germany (20M units), together accounting for 49% of total production. Romania, Poland, Portugal, France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 47%.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of electrical insulator production, amongst the leading producing countries, was attained by Romania, while electrical insulator production for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Exports in the EU

In 2019, after three years of decline, there was growth in shipments abroad of electrical insulators, when their volume increased by 2.1% to 100M units. Over the period under review, exports, however, showed a mild contraction. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2014 with an increase of 4.7% y-o-y. The volume of export peaked at 123M units in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2019, exports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, electrical insulator exports declined to $890M (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. In general, exports, however, continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Exports by Country

In 2019, Italy (24M units), distantly followed by Spain (15M units), Germany (15M units), Poland (7.3M units), Portugal (6.6M units), Romania (6.3M units), Slovakia (5.3M units) and the Czech Republic (4.6M units) represented the major exporters of electrical insulators, together making up 84% of total exports.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Poland, while shipments for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Germany ($250M), Italy ($150M) and Portugal ($48M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2019, together comprising 50% of total exports. These countries were followed by Spain, the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania and Slovakia, which together accounted for a further 18%.

Poland saw the highest growth rate of the value of exports, among the main exporting countries over the period under review, while shipments for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

The electrical insulator export price in the European Union stood at $8.9 per unit in 2019, declining by -5.9% against the previous year. Overall, the export price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 an increase of 14% year-to-year. As a result, export price reached the peak level of $9.5 per unit, and then fell in the following year.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Germany ($17 per unit), while Slovakia ($2.8 per unit) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Germany, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in the EU

In 2019, approx. 82M units of electrical insulators were imported in the European Union; which is down by -6.4% against 2018 figures. Over the period under review, imports recorded a slight curtailment. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2010 when imports increased by 13% y-o-y. Over the period under review, imports hit record highs at 95M units in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2019, imports failed to regain the momentum.

In value terms, electrical insulator imports contracted to $600M (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. In general, imports continue to indicate a mild decline. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2018 with an increase of 11% year-to-year.

Imports by Country

In 2019, Italy (13M units), Germany (11M units), France (8.4M units), Sweden (6.5M units), Spain (5.3M units), the UK (4.9M units), the Czech Republic (4.7M units), Poland (4.1M units), the Netherlands (2.9M units), Portugal (2.7M units), Romania (2.3M units) and Austria (2.2M units) represented the major importer of electrical insulators in the European Union, mixing up 83% of total import.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of purchases, amongst the key importing countries, was attained by Romania, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Germany ($116M), Italy ($59M) and the UK ($56M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2019, together accounting for 38% of total imports. These countries were followed by France, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Austria, Sweden, Portugal and Romania, which together accounted for a further 46%.

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

Import Prices by Country

The electrical insulator import price in the European Union stood at $7.3 per unit in 2019, approximately mirroring the previous year. In general, the import price showed a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2008 an increase of 9.3% year-to-year. As a result, import price reached the peak level of $8 per unit. From 2009 to 2019, the growth in terms of the import prices failed to regain the momentum.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2019, the country with the highest price was Austria ($12 per unit), while Sweden ($3.9 per unit) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by the Netherlands, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

canned meat

Global Canned Meat Market Grows For the Fourth Consecutive Year

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

In 2019, the global canned meat market increased by 2.9% to $245.5B, rising for the fourth year in a row after two years of decline. The market value increased at an average annual rate of +3.2% over the period from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 with an increase of 13% against the previous year. Global consumption peaked in 2019 and is likely to see steady growth in the immediate term.

Consumption By Country

China (10M tonnes) constituted the country with the largest volume of canned meat consumption, comprising approx. 18% of total volume. Moreover, canned meat consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, India (3.8M tonnes), threefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Russia (2.1M tonnes), with a 3.6% share.

In China, canned meat consumption increased at an average annual rate of +1.1% over the period from 2007-2019. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: India (+2.7% per year) and Russia (+1.7% per year).

In value terms, China ($45.8B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by India ($16.7B). It was followed by Japan.

The countries with the highest levels of canned meat per capita consumption in 2019 were the UK (18 kg per person), Japan (16 kg per person) and Germany (15 kg per person).

Market Forecast 2019-2030

Driven by increasing demand for canned meat worldwide, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to decelerate, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +0.2% for the period from 2019 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 58M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production 2007-2019

For the fifth consecutive year, the global market recorded growth in production of canned meat, which increased by 1.6% to 57M tonnes in 2019. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.8% over the period from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being observed in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2016 with an increase of 3.3% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global production hit record highs in 2019 and is likely to see gradual growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, canned meat production rose modestly to $1,808.7B in 2019 estimated in export prices. The total output value increased at an average annual rate of +3.9% from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

Production By Country

China (11M tonnes) remains the largest canned meat producing country worldwide, comprising approx. 19% of total volume. Moreover, canned meat production in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, India (3.8M tonnes), threefold. Russia (2.1M tonnes) ranked third in terms of total production with a 3.6% share.

From 2007 to 2019, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume in China totaled +1.0%. The remaining producing countries recorded the following average annual rates of production growth: India (+2.7% per year) and Russia (+1.8% per year).

Exports 2007-2019

In 2019, approx. 3.9M tonnes of canned meat were exported worldwide; standing approx. at the year before. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.7% over the period from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2011 when exports increased by 8.9% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global exports hit record highs in 2019 and are expected to retain growth in years to come.

In value terms, canned meat exports rose modestly to $16.9B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. The total export value increased at an average annual rate of +3.9% from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

Exports by Country

Thailand (632K tonnes), China (432K tonnes), Germany (358K tonnes), Poland (275K tonnes), the U.S. (272K tonnes), the Netherlands (236K tonnes), Brazil (217K tonnes), Belgium (149K tonnes), Ireland (145K tonnes), Denmark (144K tonnes) and France (139K tonnes) represented roughly 76% of total exports of canned meat in 2019. Italy (78K tonnes) held a relatively small share of total exports.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Poland, while shipments for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Thailand ($2.9B), China ($1.9B) and Germany ($1.7B) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2019, together accounting for 38% of global exports. These countries were followed by the U.S., Poland, the Netherlands, Brazil, Ireland, Belgium, France, Denmark and Italy, which together accounted for a further 42%.

Export Prices by Country

In 2019, the average canned meat export price amounted to $4,278 per tonne, therefore, remained relatively stable against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2019, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.2%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 when the average export price increased by 12% year-to-year. Global export price peaked at $4,550 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, export prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Ireland ($5,652 per tonne), while Poland ($3,607 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by China, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports 2007-2019

In 2019, purchases abroad of canned meat decreased by -0.4% to 3.8M tonnes for the first time since 2015, thus ending a three-year rising trend. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.6% over the period from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2011 with an increase of 12% y-o-y. Over the period under review, global imports hit record highs at 3.8M tonnes in 2018, and then dropped in the following year.

In value terms, canned meat imports declined to $16.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +3.6% over the period from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

Imports by Country

Japan (723K tonnes) and the UK (584K tonnes) represented roughly 34% of total imports of canned meat in 2019. Germany (235K tonnes) occupied the next position in the ranking, followed by the Netherlands (192K tonnes) and China, Hong Kong SAR (181K tonnes). All these countries together held near 16% share of total imports. The following importers – France (153K tonnes), the U.S. (146K tonnes), Canada (128K tonnes), Belgium (104K tonnes), Ireland (102K tonnes), Denmark (77K tonnes) and Sweden (57K tonnes) – together made up 20% of total imports.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in China, Hong Kong SAR, while purchases for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Japan ($3.2B), the UK ($2.5B) and Germany ($1.1B) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2019, with a combined 41% share of global imports. The U.S., the Netherlands, France, Canada, China, Hong Kong SAR, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark and Sweden lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 32%.

In terms of the main importing countries, China, Hong Kong SAR recorded the highest rates of growth with regard to the value of imports, over the period under review, while purchases for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

The average canned meat import price stood at $4,294 per tonne in 2019, flattening at the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2019, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.0%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 when the average import price increased by 12% y-o-y. Over the period under review, average import prices attained the peak figure at $4,656 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, import prices failed to regain the momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was the U.S. ($6,862 per tonne), while China, Hong Kong SAR ($3,121 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by the U.S., while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

honey

The EU Honey Market Slipped Back Slightly to $1.4B

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

In 2019, after two years of growth, there was significant decline in the EU honey market, when its value decreased by -6.1% to $1.4B. The market value increased at an average annual rate of +3.8% over the period from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 with an increase of 17% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the market attained the peak level at $1.5B in 2018, and then declined in the following year.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of honey consumption in 2019 were Germany (69K tonnes), France (52K tonnes) and the UK (45K tonnes), with a combined 38% share of total consumption. These countries were followed by Spain, Poland, Italy, Greece, Romania, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Czech Republic and Croatia, which together accounted for a further 47%.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Croatia, while honey consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest honey markets in the European Union were Germany ($214M), France ($184M) and Greece ($133M), with a combined 37% share of the total market. These countries were followed by the UK, Italy, Spain, Romania, Poland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Portugal, which together accounted for a further 45%.

The countries with the highest levels of honey per capita consumption in 2019 were Croatia (2.59 kg per person), Greece (2.47 kg per person) and Romania (1.13 kg per person).

Market Forecast 2019-2030

Driven by increasing demand for honey in the European Union, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to retain its current trend pattern, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +1.8% for the period from 2019 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 533K tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production in the EU

For the third year in a row, the European Union recorded growth in production of honey, which increased by 3.1% to 257K tonnes in 2019. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.8% from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 with an increase of 22% year-to-year. The volume of production peaked in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in the near future.

In value terms, honey production shrank to $1.1B in 2019 estimated in export prices. The total output value increased at an average annual rate of +3.9% from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

Production by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of honey production in 2019 were Spain (37K tonnes), Romania (31K tonnes) and Hungary (29K tonnes), with a combined 38% share of total production. These countries were followed by Poland, Greece, Germany, France, Bulgaria, Portugal, Croatia, Italy and the Czech Republic, which together accounted for a further 52%.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of honey production, amongst the main producing countries, was attained by Croatia, while honey production for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Exports in the EU

Honey exports expanded to 165K tonnes in 2019, surging by 2.5% on 2018. Total exports indicated a measured increase from 2007 to 2019: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.1% over the last twelve years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2019 figures, exports decreased by -4.7% against 2017 indices. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2013 when exports increased by 20% against the previous year. The volume of export peaked at 173K tonnes in 2017; however, from 2018 to 2019, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, honey exports shrank to $693M (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. Total exports indicated prominent growth from 2007 to 2019: its value increased at an average annual rate of +4.1% over the last twelve-year period.

Exports by Country

In 2019, Germany (26K tonnes), Spain (22K tonnes), Hungary (21K tonnes), Belgium (18K tonnes), Poland (17K tonnes), Bulgaria (12K tonnes) and Romania (11K tonnes) was the largest exporter of honey in the European Union, achieving 78% of total export. Portugal (6.5K tonnes), Italy (5K tonnes), France (4.9K tonnes), the UK (3.7K tonnes) and Denmark (3.3K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of shipments, amongst the leading exporting countries, was attained by Poland, while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest honey supplying countries in the European Union were Germany ($138M), Spain ($89M) and Hungary ($85M), together comprising 45% of total exports. These countries were followed by Belgium, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, France, the UK, Italy, Denmark and Portugal, which together accounted for a further 46%.

Export Prices by Country

In 2019, the honey export price in the European Union amounted to $4,192 per tonne, with a decrease of -7.8% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2019, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.0%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 when the export price increased by 17% year-to-year. The level of export peaked at $4,844 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, export prices failed to regain the momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was the UK ($7,966 per tonne), while Portugal ($1,918 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by the UK, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in the EU

In 2019, after two years of growth, there was decline in purchases abroad of honey, when their volume decreased by -1.2% to 345K tonnes. Total imports indicated notable growth from 2007 to 2019: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.8% over the last twelve-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2013 with an increase of 13% year-to-year. The volume of import peaked at 349K tonnes in 2018, and then shrank in the following year.

In value terms, honey imports contracted to $994M (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. Total imports indicated a strong expansion from 2007 to 2019: its value increased at an average annual rate of +3.8% over the last twelve years.

Imports by Country

In 2019, Germany (75K tonnes), distantly followed by the UK (49K tonnes), France (39K tonnes), Poland (30K tonnes), Spain (27K tonnes), Belgium (25K tonnes), Italy (25K tonnes) and the Netherlands (17K tonnes) were the largest importers of honey, together achieving 83% of total imports.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Poland, while purchases for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest honey importing markets in the European Union were Germany ($228M), France ($138M) and the UK ($111M), with a combined 48% share of total imports. These countries were followed by Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland and Spain, which together accounted for a further 33%.

Import Prices by Country

The honey import price in the European Union stood at $2,879 per tonne in 2019, which is down by -9.3% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2019, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.6%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 an increase of 27% year-to-year. The level of import peaked at $3,633 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, import prices failed to regain the momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was the Netherlands ($4,051 per tonne), while Poland ($2,084 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Germany, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

apple market

Global Apple Market Reached $78M, but the Pandemic Might Put a Drag on Further Growth

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

The global apple market was finally on the rise to reach $78.8B in 2019, after four years of decline. Over the period under review, the total market indicated a temperate expansion from 2007 to 2019: its value increased at an average annual rate of +2.1% over the last twelve-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 with an increase of 16% y-o-y. Global consumption peaked in 2019 and is expected to retain growth in the immediate term.

COVID-19: Challenges and Opportunities

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered noticeable transformation of the markets throughout the world, in particular, with regard to the apple market. So far, the uncertainty regarding the depth of both the global and the national economic decline is too great to make reliable forecasts. However, changes are currently taking place in key market fundamentals: macroeconomic background, sales channels, supply chains, consumer behavior and prices.

According to the IMF, even several months lived outbreak would lead to at least a 3% contraction of the global GDP in 2020. Previously, during the 2008-2009 crisis, apple production in the world remained stable, but then it stagnated in 2010 and afterward, it continued robust growth.

Since apple constitutes a kind of staple food, the apple market is not too susceptible to falling incomes and economic downturns. However, apples are consumed widely in the HoReCa sector that suffered heavily from the pandemic. Given those assumptions, the contraction of the market in the short term of 2020 might be perceptible but not disastrous. In the medium term, the market growth may be hampered by the possible lack of investment into apple orchards in 2020 due to the economic uncertainty and tight financial conditions for both farmers and investors.

Major supply chain risk comes from possible weather effects rather than the economic crisis. It may be caused by the mild temperatures during the winter season of 2019-2020, which is particularly relevant for Eastern Europe. The mild temperatures could also result in an early blooming that may later cause the fruits to suffer the risk of a freeze.

Certain supply chain risks also exist with regard to quarantine measures.  While workers are locked down, the period of the treatment of trees begins, which is followed by the flowering period; those periods are critical for the appropriate orchard management. This may reduce the future quality of apples or require additional pesticide use to treat plant diseases. Moreover, in China, which is the largest producing country, there is a concern among beekeepers as they cannot serve their beehives appropriately due to the lockdown. This, in turn, may affect the pollination severely and thereby reduce harvests of fruits pollinated by bees; however, the impact of the problem may be rather local than systematically affect the entire market.

Another risk may appear due to the disruption of established international supply chains including food handling and packaging intermediaries, as well as in the processing sector. Supply chains may be undermined by asynchronous quarantine measures taken in the involved countries as well as the restraints in deliveries. However, this is now mitigated by the gradual re-opening of the economies in China, Europe, and other countries; the supply chains are also to be re-established.

Pastry containing apples and apple jams, as well as apple juice, constitute a popular product in cafes, especially in Europe and Western countries, but now this sales channel temporarily collapsed due to the quarantine. Given the limitations of the HoReCa sector, online retail is becoming a key channel for the sale of food products, including apples, apple juice, and processed apple products. Moreover, contactless delivery becomes a ‘must-have’ option for retail services.

Accordingly, retail packaging adapted to different consumption situations becomes more popular, especially for processed apple products: family packages, single person packages of various shapes and dimensions, etc.

As online retail becomes the key sales channel, advertising budgets are to shift increasingly from point-of-sale advertising towards Internet messengers and social networks. Furthermore, increased consumer attention to health stimulates changes in branding and promotion towards focusing on the health benefits of apples and apple products.

Consumption By Country

China (40M tonnes) remains the largest apple consuming country worldwide, comprising approx. 48% of total volume. Moreover, apple consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, the U.S. (4M tonnes), tenfold. Turkey (2.7M tonnes) ranked third in terms of total consumption with a 3.3% share.

In China, apple consumption increased at an average annual rate of +3.4% over the period from 2007-2019. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: the U.S. (+0.7% per year) and Turkey (+0.9% per year).

In value terms, China ($44.9B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by the U.S. ($4.6B). It was followed by France.

The countries with the highest levels of apple per capita consumption in 2019 were Poland (45 kg per person), Turkey (33 kg per person) and Iran (33 kg per person).

Production 2007-2019

In 2019, production of apples increased by 6.7% to 84M tonnes for the first time since 2016, thus ending a two-year declining trend. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.1% from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations throughout the analyzed period.

The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2011 with an increase of 8.1% year-to-year. Over the period under review, global production attained the maximum volume at 85M tonnes in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, production failed to regain the momentum. The general positive trend in terms output was largely conditioned by a temperate increase of the harvested area and a mild expansion in yield figures.

Production By Country

China (41M tonnes) remains the largest apple producing country worldwide, accounting for 49% of total volume. Moreover, apple production in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, the U.S. (4.7M tonnes), ninefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Turkey (3M tonnes), with a 3.6% share.

From 2007 to 2019, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume in China amounted to +3.3%. The remaining producing countries recorded the following average annual rates of production growth: the U.S. (+1.0% per year) and Turkey (+1.7% per year).

Harvested Area 2007-2019

In 2019, the global apple harvested area expanded to 5.1M ha, increasing by 3.5% on the previous year’s figure. In general, the harvested area saw a relatively flat trend pattern. Over the period under review, the harvested area dedicated to apple production attained the maximum at 5.2M ha in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2019, the harvested area stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Yield 2007-2019

The global average apple yield rose modestly to 17 tonne per ha in 2019, with an increase of 3.1% compared with the year before. The yield figure increased at an average annual rate of +1.4% over the period from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2011 when the yield increased by 6.2% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the average apple yield attained the peak level at 17 tonne per ha in 2017; however, from 2018 to 2019, the yield stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Exports 2007-2019

Global apple exports reached 8.2M tonnes in 2019, remaining constant against 2018. Overall, exports saw a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2015 with an increase of 11% against the previous year. As a result, exports reached the peak of 9.3M tonnes. From 2016 to 2019, the growth of global exports remained at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, apple exports dropped to $7B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. The total export value increased at an average annual rate of +1.2% from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

Exports by Country

The shipments of the five major exporters of apples, namely Poland, China, Italy, the U.S. and Chile, represented more than half of total export. It was followed by South Africa (464K tonnes), New Zealand (432K tonnes) and France (381K tonnes), together creating a 16% share of total exports. Turkey (256K tonnes), Moldova (255K tonnes), Serbia (217K tonnes) and Belgium (195K tonnes) took a minor share of total exports.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Turkey, while shipments for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, China ($1.2B), the U.S. ($962M) and Italy ($841M) were the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2019, with a combined 44% share of global exports. Chile, New Zealand, France, South Africa, Poland, Serbia, Moldova, Belgium and Turkey lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 39%.

Export Prices by Country

The average apple export price stood at $853 per tonne in 2019, which is down by -6.6% against the previous year. In general, the export price, however, recorded a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2011 when the average export price increased by 14% year-to-year. Global export price peaked at $913 per tonne in 2018, and then fell in the following year.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was New Zealand ($1,311 per tonne), while Turkey ($350 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by China, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports 2007-2019

In 2019, global apple imports shrank slightly to 8M tonnes. Overall, imports, however, showed a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 when imports increased by 14% against the previous year. As a result, imports reached the peak of 9.7M tonnes. From 2016 to 2019, the growth of global imports remained at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, apple imports shrank modestly to $7.2B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +1.6% from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations being recorded in certain years.

Imports by Country

Russia (701K tonnes) and Germany (603K tonnes) represented roughly 16% of total imports of apples in 2019. The UK (342K tonnes), Egypt (297K tonnes), Bangladesh (252K tonnes), India (250K tonnes), the Netherlands (242K tonnes), Belarus (222K tonnes), Viet Nam (219K tonnes), Spain (218K tonnes), Canada (202K tonnes) and China, Hong Kong SAR (189K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of purchases, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by Egypt, while imports for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest apple importing markets worldwide were Germany ($482M), the UK ($424M) and Russia ($394M), together accounting for 18% of global imports. Viet Nam, the Netherlands, India, China, Hong Kong SAR, Canada, Bangladesh, Spain, Egypt and Belarus lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 27%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2019, the average apple import price amounted to $897 per tonne, declining by -1.6% against the previous year. Over the last twelve-year period, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.2%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2011 when the average import price increased by 13% y-o-y. Over the period under review, average import prices reached the peak figure at $911 per tonne in 2018, and then reduced modestly in the following year.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Viet Nam ($1,608 per tonne), while Belarus ($285 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Viet Nam, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

metallised yarn

Global Metallised Yarn Market 2020 – Key Insights

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

Global Trade of  Metallised Yarn 2014-2018

Global exports amounted to 23K tonnes in 2018, picking up by 11% against the previous year. In value terms, metallised yarn exports totaled $253M (IndexBox estimates). In general, exports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. Over the period under review, global metallised yarn exports attained their maximum at $261M in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Exports by Country

China represented the largest exporter of metallised yarn and strip exported in the world, with the volume of exports recording 13K tonnes, which was approx. 58% of total exports in 2018. It was distantly followed by India (4.2K tonnes) and Turkey (1.3K tonnes), together achieving a 24% share of global exports. The following exporters – Japan (524 tonnes), Germany (428 tonnes), Georgia (414 tonnes) and France (392 tonnes) – each accounted for a 7.8% share of total exports.

China experienced a relatively flat trend pattern with regard to volume of exports of metallised yarn and strip. At the same time, Georgia (+140.7%), Turkey (+16.2%) and India (+7.4%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Georgia emerged as the fastest-growing exporter exported in the world, with a CAGR of +140.7% from 2014-2018. By contrast, Japan (-4.2%), France (-7.2%) and Germany (-11.8%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. India (+4.6 p.p.), Turkey (+2.6 p.p.) and Georgia (+1.8 p.p.) significantly strengthened its position in terms of the global exports, while China saw its share reduced by -2.2% from 2014 to 2018, respectively. The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, China ($109M) remains the largest metallised yarn supplier worldwide, comprising 43% of global exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Japan ($21M), with a 8.4% share of global exports. It was followed by India, with a 6.1% share.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average metallised yarn export price amounted to $11,157 per tonne, coming down by -4% against the previous year. Overall, the metallised yarn export price continues to indicate a slight descent. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2016 when the average export price increased by 9% year-to-year. The global export price peaked at $11,617 per tonne in 2017, and then declined slightly in the following year.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Japan ($40,672 per tonne), while India ($3,642 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform