Trending Now

Building a Resilient Supply Chain with Advanced Predictive…

New Articles

The EU Folding Boxboard Market Reached $9.6B

Folding Boxboard
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

The EU Folding Boxboard Market Reached $9.6B

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

google
Archives, Commentary, Global Trade Daily

How World-Class Amazon, Apple & Google Have Built Successful Cultures

Leave a comment

Every small business wants to be the next Amazon—or the next Apple or Google. Their products and services, as well as their growth and profit margins, are the envy of all. But it is their company cultures that drive their success. After all, without the brain trust and boots on the ground, those enterprises would have remained small and insignificant. Now, everybody wants to work for them. Why?

Their trendy work campuses capture headlines and imaginations, but location and environment are just veneers for the culture they contain. Yet, these headquarters are also extensions of brand. From Apple’s “spaceship” park to Amazon’s geodesic Spheres and Google’s playful Silicon Valley campus, the looks of these businesses reflect brands driven first and foremost by people-centric cultures.

It may seem skewed in priority to place workers before the actual work being done. But if we want to benefit from the lessons of these top organizations, we will focus on culture the way they do. As global competition for talent increases, this is the formula that works.

You can begin to build a better talent infrastructure by working on the seven “pillars” of good culture I’ve identified through researching leading companies. These include how organizations handle transparency, positivity, measurement, acknowledgment, uniqueness, listening, and mistakes. The examples of Amazon and friends, however, are worth studying in more detail. A few key techniques and best practices that these three amigos share warrant special consideration.

Transparency Is Clarity

The design of Amazon’s Spheres addition to its Seattle workplace campus is meant to inject nature into the business environment. But the glass-and-steel structure also embodies the company’s commitment to transparency. Three linked geodesic domes leave precious little in the dark—which is also the way to enable employees to do their best work.

Amazon, Apple, and Google use transparency in two major ways. First, they attract talent that aligns with their stated mission and values. They make these goals and guiding lights clear to all job candidates, weeding out of contention folks who won’t row with the crew. This creates a cohesive workforce that is dedicated to being part of the brand.

This both reveals and capitalizes on the companies’ uniqueness. They all stand out from the crowd. One way that our businesses can do this is to concentrate on hiring for a fit with our core values and a prevailing attitude. Using personality tests to assess potential hires for their inclinations and motivations can help standardize an otherwise subjective practice and get the right people in the right seats.

Second, these companies use technology to employees’ advantage. Access to relevant and accurate information is critical to their job roles, and these high-tech firms know how to centralize data. Amazon even launched a business service called the Transparency Program, which helps brand owners thwart counterfeiting and intellectual property theft.

But the retailer’s greatest wielding of transparency is most visible in its delivery services. Moving vast volumes of merchandise to their destinations requires an intricate web of logistics. Small businesses can imitate that command of information-sharing by giving workers open access to the details they need and the people in the company who can best assist them.

Positivity Is Power

One look at Apple’s massive, ring-shaped Campus 2 tells you how strong the tech giant really is. More than a mile in circumference, the structure’s powerful curved lines reveal something about the company’s working ethos. And any enterprise dependent on innovation would be wise to adopt the Apple staff’s positive mindset.

Because the business world is dynamic and markets fluctuate, many organizations find themselves reacting to problems and challenges rather than proactively getting out in front of them. That’s only a recipe for more of the same. Top companies like Apple and Google employ a positive approach to planning, pursuing goals, and solving problems called appreciative inquiry.

This model optimizes a team’s strengths while ferreting out less successful strategies that can tank morale. Appreciative inquiry adds a methodical element to what might otherwise be chaotic, and a means to innovate that could easily be squelched by negativity or repeated failure. It gives workers a sense of accomplishment, even when actual gains may be small.

The central technique involves four stages: discovery, dreaming, design, and destiny. This 4-D Cycle prompts teams to discover what is working for them, so they can preserve and expand upon it. Next, they dream big and imagine their ideal outcome. From there, they select a likely path and design systems or steps to move them forward. Finally, they do what it takes to achieve that destiny.

Becoming agile in this approach gives small businesses a way to break the cycle of putting out fires and watching morale sink. It sets a positive tone that can be echoed in every other area of planning and workflow. And it’s self-perpetuating: one accomplishment prepares the team for its next success.

Numbers Instill Confidence

Visiting Google’s eclectic California headquarters may seem like downing one gigantic energy drink, with something impish rushing around every corner. From fleets of brightly colored communal bicycles to a statue park of oversized sweets named after the company’s android inventions, the vibe is Google’s brand—and the brand is utterly self-confident. Here is a business that knows exactly who it is and why it exists.

This sense of definition extends to its talent. Most small businesses have only fuzzy outlines to their image. That’s because most of us allow culture to form rather than intentionally building it. Job candidates can sense this, and they will be drawn first to companies with strong, distinct personalities. Google, and other companies that cultivate the cultures they want, enjoy attention from people who want that too.

This begins with articulating a mission and vision that inspire. It continues through identifying the best-performing employees and attempting to attract more like them. Google does this via data collection and analysis. Having created the foundation, they could take a deep dive into assessing which parts of culture work best and why.

With a legion of employees, Google was able to conduct a two-year study with a decent sample size that showed them which psychological conditions are likely to coalesce with the company’s mission and values—not just to create a happy workplace, but to create the best support system possible in which to perform work. This is the essence of culture at its best.

Google’s study found that successful outcomes correlated to the satisfaction of certain human needs, foremost of which was psychological safety. Workers needed to feel confident in taking risks, free of judgment or possible sanction. This let them stretch and sometimes fail—but ultimately innovate. From this confidence stemmed other areas of fulfillment, such as being able to depend on coworkers and to clearly understand the company’s expectations of them, which also helped teams achieve their goals.

Revealing these key conditions and the high performance that resulted from them allowed Google to continue to monitor variables and outcomes for further insights. The numbers instilled confidence in how the company manages its culture, which in turn lets it promote those traits when recruiting talent. Along with Apple and Amazon, Google leaders have embraced culture as a way to draw the best people—and they never let their employees forget who it is that makes those organizations successful.

____________________________________________________________________

Leadership speaker Chris Dyer is a recognised performance and company culture expert, Founder and CEO of PeopleG2 and author of The Power of Company Culture (Kogan Page, 2018).

veneer sheets
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Veneer Sheets Market in Asia-Pacific To Post Solid Gains

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

MDF
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Trade Cycle

The EU MDF Market to Post Moderate But Steady Growth

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.

Consumption by Country

Poland (3.3M cubic meters) constituted the country with the largest volume of MDF consumption, accounting for 28% of total volume. Moreover, MDF consumption in Poland exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, Italy (1.3M cubic meters), threefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by the UK (1.3M cubic meters), with a 11% share.

In Poland, MDF consumption expanded at an average annual rate of +6.6% over the period from 2013-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Italy (+7.5% per year) and the UK (+2.7% per year).

In value terms, the largest MDF markets in the European Union were Poland ($1.3B), Italy ($713M) and the UK ($657M), together accounting for 50% of the total market. France, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Romania, Portugal, Austria, Sweden and Hungary lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 39%.

In 2018, the highest levels of MDF per capita consumption was registered in Poland (87 cubic meters per 1000 persons), followed by Portugal (38 cubic meters per 1000 persons), Romania (29 cubic meters per 1000 persons) and Austria (28 cubic meters per 1000 persons), while the world average per capita consumption of MDF was estimated at 23 cubic meters per 1000 persons.

Market Forecast to 2030

Driven by increasing demand for MDF in the European Union, 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 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 16M cubic meters by the end of 2030.

Production in the EU

The volume of MDF production totaled 13M cubic meters in 2018, remaining constant against the previous year. The total output increased at an average annual rate of +2.7% from 2013 to 2018; 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 2015 with an increase of 8.4% y-o-y. The volume of MDF production peaked at 13M cubic meters in 2017, leveling off in the following year.

Production by Country

Poland (3.6M cubic meters) remains the largest MDF producing country in the European Union, accounting for 28% of total volume. Moreover, MDF production in Poland exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, Spain (1.5M cubic meters), twofold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Germany (1.5M cubic meters), with a 11% share.

In Poland, MDF production expanded at an average annual rate of +4.8% over the period from 2013-2018. In Spain, the average annual rates stood at +6.3% per year, while in Germany, the volume of production practically mirrored its outset level of 2013.

Exports in the EU

In 2018, the amount of MDF exported in the European Union amounted to 6.5M cubic meters, remaining relatively unchanged against the previous year. Overall, MDF exports, however, continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2016 when exports increased by 3.3% y-o-y. In that year, MDF exports attained their peak of 6.7M cubic meters. From 2017 to 2018, the growth of mdf exports failed to regain its momentum. In value terms, MDF exports amounted to $3.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

In 2018, Germany (1.5M cubic meters), distantly followed by Belgium (1,012K cubic meters), Poland (682K cubic meters), Spain (643K cubic meters), France (436K cubic meters), Austria (404K cubic meters) and Ireland (322K cubic meters) were the major exporters of MDF , together comprising 77% of total exports. Romania (261K cubic meters), Portugal (259K cubic meters), Italy (218K cubic meters), Hungary (185K cubic meters) and Slovenia (136K cubic meters) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main exporting countries, was attained by France, while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest MDF supplying countries in the European Union were Germany ($854M), Belgium ($565M) and Austria ($317M), with a combined 53% share of total exports. These countries were followed by Spain, Poland, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Hungary and Slovenia, which together accounted for a further 39%.

Export Prices by Country

The MDF export price in the European Union stood at $503 per cubic meter in 2018, picking up by 7% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the export prices for MDF reached their maximum in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, export prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Austria ($784 per cubic meter), while Romania ($292 per cubic meter) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Italy, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in the EU

In 2018, approx. 5.3M cubic meters of MDF were imported in the European Union; going up by 5.3% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +5.2% from 2013 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being observed throughout the analyzed period. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2017 with an increase of 8.6% against the previous year. The volume of imports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term. In value terms, MDF imports stood at $2.6B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The countries with the highest levels of MDF imports in 2018 were Italy (599K cubic meters), the UK (570K cubic meters), the Netherlands (469K cubic meters), Germany (463K cubic meters), France (433K cubic meters), Poland (411K cubic meters), Belgium (335K cubic meters), Portugal (269K cubic meters), Spain (249K cubic meters), Sweden (212K cubic meters) and Romania (201K cubic meters), together acoounting for 80% of total import.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by Poland, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest MDF importing markets in the European Union were the UK ($338M), Germany ($269M) and Italy ($255M), with a combined 33% share of total imports. France, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, Romania and Austria lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 49%.

Import Prices by Country

The MDF import price in the European Union stood at $492 per cubic meter in 2018, rising by 4.9% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the mdf import price, however, continues to indicate a slight curtailment.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was the UK ($593 per cubic meter), while Poland ($320 per cubic meter) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Spain, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

grapefruit juice
Archives, Global Trade Daily

Global Grapefruit Juice Market: France, the Netherlands, and Germany Account for 52% of World Imports

Leave a comment

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

Imports 2007-2018

In 2018, the amount of grapefruit juice (single strength) imported worldwide amounted to 116K tonnes, reducing by -4.3% against the previous year. Over the period under review, grapefruit juice (single strength) imports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2008 when imports increased by 36% against the previous year. In that year, global grapefruit juice (single strength) imports attained their peak of 173K tonnes. From 2009 to 2018, the growth of global grapefruit juice (single strength) imports failed to regain its momentum.

In value terms, grapefruit juice (single strength) imports amounted to $126M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +1.3% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations throughout the analyzed period.

Imports by Country

In 2018, the Netherlands (24K tonnes), France (23K tonnes), Germany (16K tonnes) and Belgium (13K tonnes) represented the main importer of grapefruit juice (single strength) imported in the world, making up 65% of total import. It was distantly followed by the UK (7,504 tonnes), generating a 6.4% share of total imports. Japan (4,430 tonnes), Canada (3,919 tonnes), China (2,861 tonnes), Italy (2,157 tonnes), Switzerland (2,078 tonnes) and Sweden (1,924 tonnes) held 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 China, while imports for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, France ($28M), the Netherlands ($24M) and Germany ($14M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, with a combined 52% share of global imports. Belgium, the UK, Japan, Canada, Switzerland, Italy, Sweden and China lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 35%.

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

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average grapefruit juice (single strength) import price amounted to $1,085 per tonne, picking up by 14% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.1%. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2018 an increase of 14% against the previous year. In that year, the average import prices for grapefruit juice (single strength) attained their peak level and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Japan ($1,686 per tonne), while China ($849 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Exports 2007-2018

Global exports totaled 131K tonnes in 2018, stabilizing at the previous year. Overall, grapefruit juice (single strength) exports, however, continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 with an increase of 17% against the previous year. The global exports peaked at 178K tonnes in 2011; however, from 2012 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, grapefruit juice (single strength) exports totaled $131M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Overall, grapefruit juice (single strength) exports, however, continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Exports by Country

In 2018, Israel (27K tonnes) and the Netherlands (26K tonnes) represented the largest exporters of grapefruit juice (single strength) in the world, together resulting at approx. 40% of total exports. The U.S. (16K tonnes) occupied a 12% share (based on tonnes) of total exports, which put it in second place, followed by Mexico (11%), Belgium (10%) and Germany (5.5%). France (5,365 tonnes), Spain (3,644 tonnes) and Italy (2,662 tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

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

In value terms, the largest grapefruit juice (single strength) supplying countries worldwide were Israel ($27M), the Netherlands ($26M) and Belgium ($16M), with a combined 52% share of global exports. These countries were followed by the U.S., Mexico, Germany, France, Spain and Italy, which together accounted for a further 37%.

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

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average grapefruit juice (single strength) export price amounted to $999 per tonne, going up by 12% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.2%. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2018 when the average export price increased by 12% y-o-y. In that year, the average export prices for grapefruit juice (single strength) reached their peak level and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was France ($1,266 per tonne), while Spain ($831 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

ro/ro
Archives, Global Trade Daily, U.S. Ports

DOMINATE AND EXPAND: THIS STRATEGY PROPELS RO/RO LEADING PORTS OF BALTIMORE AND SAVANNAH/BRUNSWICK

Leave a comment

Being the Nos. 1 & 2 busiest roll-on/roll-off (Ro/Ro) ports in the nation isn’t quite good enough for the ports of Baltimore and Savannah/Brunswick. At least the Maryland Port Authority and Georgia Ports Authority are not resting on their laurels, anyway. These East Coast ports are doing their best to maintain their top-two rankings through initiatives such as investments in expansion and training programs for warehouse workers that are designed to increase efficiency and reduce damage and accidents in the loading/unloading process.

These growth initiatives are helping to not just cement the ports’ statuses in the Ro/Ro world—Baltimore has been the No. 1 Ro/Ro port in the United States for eight years running—but it’s making them even more desirable and competitive places for automobile manufacturers to do business.

Port of Baltimore

The Port of Baltimore continues to expand and thrive despite an uncertain trade climate. Larry Johnson, sales manager of Trade Development, Automotive, credits his port’s success to efforts to maintain positive relationships with their automotive industry partners, keeping those industry partners loyal.

One such partner, Volkswagen Group of America, recently began a partnership with Port of Baltimore to begin importing vehicles through the Tradeport Atlantic in Sparrows Point, which could provide an increase of 120,000 vehicles annually—and an additional 100 jobs.

The port also benefits from its proximity to the Midwest—it’s the closest seaport to Middle America—and with top notch services like efficient rail, cargo can get to destinations faster than from any other port on the East Coast. Baltimore’s strategic location is within two-thirds of the U.S. with just an overnight drive.

The Baltimore port’s training initiatives have helped cultivate the lowest damage rates in the industry. The port has also pioneered a program, Ro/Ro Rodeo, which is an intensive class to educate manufacturers in the highly specialized processes required to handle each specific type of vehicle that is processed through the port. Ro/Ro Rodeo has even developed a program for the highly specialized processing of farm and other industrial equipment

With almost 200 acres of pavement at the Dundalk Marine Terminal alone, the Port of Baltimore consistently breaks its own records for Ro/Ro processes, often increasing its volume as frequently as month to month, and their investments in expansion and training will likely keep that volume increasing for years to come.

“The Port of Baltimore is the No. 1 auto port in the nation and continues to break cargo records every month,” says Maryland Governor Larry Hogan in the September/October 2019 edition of Helen Delich Bentley Port of Baltimore Magazine. “Our administration is committed to furthering this growth and strongly supports our great port and its thousands of hardworking men and women handling the millions of tons of cargo coming in throughout the year.”

Ports of Savannah and Brunswick, Georgia

The Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) is the No. 2 Ro/Ro port in the United States. Its Port of Savannah increased volume almost 250,000 TEUs in 2019, according to the GPA. This growth of 5.6 percent over the previous year came at a time when auto sales are actually dropping–a true testament to the hard work of the port employees at Savannah and Brunswick.

A banner year for the ports, the Ocean Terminal recently won contracts with both Volvo and General Motors. The Colonel’s Island Terminal in Brunswick is a Ro/Ro-only port that is already home to International Auto Processing, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Solutions and Mercedes Benz USA.

The GPA properties are undergoing an expansion that will eventually create an additional 150,000 spaces for automobiles, bumping their processing capacity from 900,000 annually to 1.5 million. There are currently three dedicated Ro/Ro berths that process cargo via nine different steamship lines.

“Both Savannah and Brunswick are outperforming the market, with Garden City container trade growing at a rate three times faster than the U.S. total, and Brunswick Ro/Ro units increasing despite a drop in U.S. vehicle sales in 2019,” says GPA Board Chairman Will McKnight in a Jan. 28 statement.

Growth Despite Uncertainty

Strategic locations, ample space and work ethics that include faster cargo processing, in-depth training and safety records that far eclipse many competing ports are just a few reasons that these ports are leading the pack in Ro/Ro. With the onset of trade tariffs, such as those imposed on China, and reports that the United States’ manufacturing industry has experienced slowed growth recently, these ports have nevertheless managed to increase growth consistently. Growth when economic uncertainly looms large is a true testament to the power of excellent service and sound investment.

If these and other Ro/Ro ports can continue to capitalize on trends such as exporting goods to other countries competing for business with China, they will have learned that they can not just maintain their positions in the Ro/Ro processing rankings, but keep growing.

coronavirus
Archives, Global Trade Daily, In The News

Coronavirus and Global Trade

Leave a comment

Global trade is affected by myriad factors. The latest event to affect the international supply chain is the recent coronavirus that causes COVID-19. This novel virus has infected more than 80,000 people and killed more than 2,700.1 More cases are expected as the virus moves beyond its point of origin in China’s Hubei province to the rest of the world.

Resulting labor deficits and quarantine procedures could have major effects on production and shipping worldwide. Events like this one reinforce the need for companies to have detailed logistical plans in place to compensate for the shortages and delays that are likely to result.

Serious impacts expected

Worldwide health crises and other disasters have had significant effects on the global supply chain in the past. The comparatively minor outbreak of sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) identified in 2003, also originating in China, cost the global economy about $40 billion dollars.2

In the wake of such catastrophes as SARS; the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; Hurricane Katrina in 2005; and the meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in 2011, it is reasonable to expect that the coronavirus could have similarly long-reaching effects. Several factors are likely to exacerbate its impacts on global supply chain economics.

First, the outbreak occurred during the Chinese Lunar New Year holiday, which took place between Jan. 25 and Feb. 4. Annually, this holiday precipitates what is considered the largest human migration on Earth over a period of about 40 days.3 Between early January and mid-February each year, hundreds of millions of Chinese people travel to visit relatives, much as Americans do during the Christmas holiday.

In an effort to slow the spread of the virus, many Lunar New Year celebrations were canceled, and the government issued travel bans4 and instituted a quarantine of millions of people, which prevents laborers from returning to work.5 The quarantine has had major effects on the labor force responsible for producing goods as well as loading and piloting the ships and planes used to transport goods all over the world.

The effects of the coronavirus outbreak might also affect the detente in the trade war between the United States and China signified by the signing of the “phase one” trade deal on Jan. 15. The new deal orchestrated by the administration of President Donald Trump promises $200 billion in sales to China.6 The coronavirus outbreak has the potential to impede these sales by creating a drag on the supply chain.

Identifying alternatives

Companies increasingly have attempted to anticipate the consequences of unexpected events on their suppliers and shippers. Disaster recovery plans have become an essential defense against the ramifications of these events.

While the production of these plans has become an industry in and of itself, all plans are not created equal. Some do not factor in delays in production and transport. A comprehensive disaster recovery plan needs to account for both. Merely hoping that problems will not rear their heads is no longer an adequate strategy.

In the case of the coronavirus outbreak, if a vendor relies on goods produced in China, it needs to have an alternative source of production. With a labor supply held up by quarantine procedures, it might be a while before production capabilities reach normal levels. The trade war has opened competitive production markets in Mexico, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia, among other places. Thus, there is little if any excuse not to have identified other production centers that can make up the shortfall in the event of a disaster.

Furthermore, it is imperative to assess whether transport services will have the capacity to ship existing inventory in the case of a crisis. If there is a backlog and a resulting lack of transport space, shipping costs might increase substantially. Delays in the wake of the Chinese Lunar New Year take place every year regardless, and in a time of crisis, delays will be even more marked. Establishing a plan with shipping partners for such events might not totally offset the cost increase. However, it can create space in the budget for it. Additionally, locating alternative routes and carriers ahead of time can allow companies to circumvent delays entirely.

While certainly expensive and complicated at the outset, disaster planning can pay dividends in the inevitable case of a major global crisis. Even if anticipated delays never manifest, planning for them might open new routes of production and shipping that ultimately can be used to increase efficiency during times of normal business operation.

Thinking ahead

Ample precedent exists for the alternative of no plan, which leads to an inability to meet demand and the financial consequences that result. Investors take note of such deficiencies and allocate funds accordingly. Developing an agile approach to anticipated problems will increase in importance as the global economy becomes more complex.

While the coronavirus outbreak continues, another disaster is already looming. The implementation of Brexit over the next year will have massive consequences in terms of customs and duty, taxation, and supply chain strategy. Getting ahead of this incipient crisis by anticipating its effects on the production and movement of goods can increase your company’s resilience.

______________________________________________________________

 Learn more

Pete Mento, Managing Director at Crowe LLP

+1 202 779 9907 or pete.mento@crowe.com

Endnotes

1. Helen Regan, Adam Renton, Meg Wagner, Mike Hayes, and Veronica Rocha, “February 25 Coronavirus News,” CNN, Feb. 25, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-02-25-20-hnk-intl/index.html

2. World Health Organization, “SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome),” https://www.who.int/ith/diseases/sars/en/; William Feuer, “Coronavirus: The Hit to the Global Economy Will Be Worse Than SARS,” cnbc.com, Feb. 6, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/06/coronavirus-the-hit-to-the-global-economy-will-be-worse-than-sars.html

3. Karla Cripps and Serenitie Wang, “World’s Largest Annual Human Migration Now Underway in China,” CNN, Jan. 23, 2019 https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/lunar-new-year-travel-rush-2019/index.html

4. “China Coronavirus Spread Is Accelerating, Xi Jinping Warns,” Jan. 26, 2020, BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51249208

5. Emily Feng, “45 Million Chinese Now Under Quarantine as Officials Try to Halt Coronavirus Spread,” NPR, Jan. 27, 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/01/27/800158025/45-million-chinese-now-under-quarantine-as-officials-try-to-halt-coronavirus-spr

6. James Palmer, “The ‘Phase One’ Trade Deal Is Still Hypothetical,” Foreign Policy, Jan. 15, 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/15/phase-one-us-china-trade-deal-hypothetical-trump-liu-he/

plywood
Archives, Foreign Trade Zones, Global Trade Daily

Plywood Market in the Middle East is Set to Expand Robustly

Leave a comment

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

The revenue of the plywood market in the Middle East amounted to $1.4B in 2018, increasing by 1.9% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). The total market indicated a remarkable expansion from 2007 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +4.1% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of plywood consumption in 2018 were the United Arab Emirates (726K cubic meters), Saudi Arabia (648K cubic meters) and Qatar (394K cubic meters), together comprising 51% of total consumption. Israel, Turkey, Iraq and Oman lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 30%.

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

In value terms, the largest plywood markets in the Middle East were the United Arab Emirates ($260M), Saudi Arabia ($233M) and Israel ($215M), together comprising 50% of the total market. Turkey, Qatar, Iraq and Oman lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 32%.

The countries with the highest levels of plywood per capita consumption in 2018 were Qatar (136 cubic meters per 1000 persons), the United Arab Emirates (71 cubic meters per 1000 persons) and Israel (43 cubic meters per 1000 persons).

Market Forecast to 2030

Driven by increasing demand for plywood in the Middle East, 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 +2.8% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 4.8M cubic meters by the end of 2030.

Production in the Middle East

In 2018, approx. 263K cubic meters of plywood were produced in the Middle East; surging by 2.7% against the previous year. In general, plywood production, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 with an increase of 5.1% against the previous year.

Production by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of plywood production in 2018 were Turkey (112K cubic meters), Israel (109K cubic meters) and Lebanon (34K cubic meters), together comprising 97% of total production.

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

Exports in the Middle East

In 2018, approx. 171K cubic meters of plywood were exported in the Middle East; increasing by 26% against the previous year. In general, plywood exports continue to indicate prominent growth. The volume of exports peaked at 180K cubic meters in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure. In value terms, plywood exports stood at $65M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

The United Arab Emirates (70K cubic meters) and Saudi Arabia (59K cubic meters) were the major exporters of plywood in 2018, reaching near 41% and 35% of total exports, respectively. Turkey (25K cubic meters) held a 14% share (based on tonnes) of total exports, which put it in second place, followed by Palestine (5.8%). Kuwait (2,719 cubic meters) occupied a little share of total exports.

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

In value terms, the United Arab Emirates ($24M), Saudi Arabia ($18M) and Turkey ($13M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2018, together comprising 83% of total exports.

Export Prices by Country

The plywood export price in the Middle East stood at $381 per cubic meter in 2018, declining by -4% against the previous year. Overall, the plywood export price continues to indicate a moderate contraction.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Palestine ($806 per cubic meter), while Kuwait ($223 per cubic meter) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports in the Middle East

In 2018, approx. 3.3M cubic meters of plywood were imported in the Middle East; falling by -2.7% against the previous year. The total imports indicated a strong expansion from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.6% over the last eleven years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, plywood imports increased by +18.9% against 2016 indices. Over the period under review, plywood imports reached their peak figure at 3.4M cubic meters in 2017, and then declined slightly in the following year. In value terms, plywood imports totaled $1.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

In 2018, the United Arab Emirates (796K cubic meters) and Saudi Arabia (707K cubic meters) were the largest importers of plywood in the Middle East, together comprising 45% of total imports. It was distantly followed by Qatar (395K cubic meters), Israel (255K cubic meters), Iraq (219K cubic meters), Oman (181K cubic meters), Turkey (175K cubic meters) and Kuwait (154K cubic meters), together comprising a 41% 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 Oman, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest plywood importing markets in the Middle East were the United Arab Emirates ($272M), Saudi Arabia ($250M) and Israel ($153M), with a combined 52% share of total imports. Qatar, Turkey, Iraq, Oman and Kuwait lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 33%.

Import Prices by Country

The plywood import price in the Middle East stood at $389 per cubic meter in 2018, picking up by 9% against the previous year. In general, the plywood import price continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2011 when the import price increased by 26% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the import prices for plywood reached their maximum at $528 per cubic meter in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, import prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Israel ($597 per cubic meter), while Qatar ($292 per cubic meter) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

wood charcoal
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Global Wood Charcoal Market Reached $24B, Buoyed By Robust Demand in Africa

Leave a comment

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

The global wood charcoal market revenue amounted to $24.2B in 2018, remaining relatively unchanged against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). The market value increased at an average annual rate of +2.6% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The global wood charcoal consumption peaked in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Consumption By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of wood charcoal consumption in 2018 were Brazil (5.5M tonnes), Ethiopia (4.4M tonnes) and Nigeria (4.2M tonnes), together accounting for 28% of global consumption. These countries were followed by India, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Tanzania, China, Thailand, Madagascar, Egypt and Zambia, which together accounted for a further 33%.

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

In value terms, the largest wood charcoal markets worldwide were Brazil ($2.5B), Ethiopia ($2.2B) and Zambia ($2B), with a combined 27% share of the global market.

The countries with the highest levels of wood charcoal per capita consumption in 2018 were Zambia (74 kg per person), Ghana (68 kg per person) and Madagascar (60 kg per person).

Market Forecast 2019-2025

Driven by increasing demand for wood charcoal worldwide, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to retain its current trend pattern, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +1.6% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 62M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 52M tonnes of wood charcoal were produced worldwide; flattening at the previous year. Over the period under review, wood charcoal production continues to indicate a modest increase. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2013 with an increase of 3.3% y-o-y.

Production By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of wood charcoal production in 2018 were Brazil (5.5M tonnes), Nigeria (4.5M tonnes) and Ethiopia (4.4M tonnes), together comprising 28% of global production. India, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Tanzania, China, Madagascar, Thailand, Egypt and Zambia lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 33%.

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

Exports 2007-2018

Global exports amounted to 3M tonnes in 2018, jumping by 20% against the previous year. In general, the total exports indicated a resilient expansion from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +6.4% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. In value terms, wood charcoal exports stood at $1.4B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

In 2018, Indonesia (511K tonnes), distantly followed by Nigeria (280K tonnes), Myanmar (190K tonnes), Poland (185K tonnes) and Ukraine (174K tonnes) were the key exporters of wood charcoal, together comprising 45% of total exports. Namibia (126K tonnes), Viet Nam (123K tonnes), China (110K tonnes), Paraguay (106K tonnes), Cuba (102K tonnes), the Philippines (99K tonnes) and India (97K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

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

In value terms, Indonesia ($288M) remains the largest wood charcoal supplier worldwide, comprising 21% of global exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Poland ($120M), with a 8.7% share of global exports. It was followed by China, with a 6.7% share.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average wood charcoal export price amounted to $463 per tonne, approximately mirroring the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.2%. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2013 when the average export price increased by 13% y-o-y. The global export price peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was China ($845 per tonne), while Myanmar ($172 per tonne) 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 global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports 2007-2018

In 2018, the amount of wood charcoal imported worldwide amounted to 2.8M tonnes, going up by 22% against the previous year. In general, the total imports indicated a remarkable expansion from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +6.4% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. In value terms, wood charcoal imports totaled $1.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The imports of the twelve major importers of wood charcoal, namely Germany, Japan, Poland, China, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, France, the U.S., the UK, the Netherlands, South Africa and Turkey, represented more than half of total import.

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

In value terms, Germany ($129M), Japan ($124M) and Saudi Arabia ($73M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, together accounting for 25% of global imports.

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

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average wood charcoal import price amounted to $467 per tonne, remaining stable against the previous year. Over the last eleven-year period, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.4%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2011 an increase of 8.4% against the previous year. The global import price peaked at $479 per tonne in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, import prices failed to regain their momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was the U.S. ($601 per tonne), while Thailand ($144 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

U.S.-China trade
Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade, Stories

Are You Prepared for the Outcome of the U.S.-China Trade War?

Leave a comment

For exporters, importers, manufacturers and investors who are heavily involved in U.S.- China trade, the recent agreement provides potentially immense benefits – but still doesn’t end their uncertainty or anxieties about what the future may bring.

Every participant in U.S.-China trade should now be reassessing his or her own expectations and strategic plans for not only surviving the trade war but, as importantly, for maximizing business success.

Clearly, preparation is essential for businesses to thrive and avoid suffering substantial harm at a time when critical political, economic and legal factors beyond a company’s control are constantly changing.

To help business owners and senior executives shape business and legal strategies tailored to their company operations, I’ll first clarify what the U.S. and China have decided and what is still in play. I’ll then lay out possible scenarios and the strategic approaches that executives should consider taking to protect themselves and position their businesses for future success.

The New Phase 1 Agreement

Under the signed agreement China will:

-Buy at least $200 billion of additional US exports in goods and services over the next two years, on top of amounts it imported in 2017, in the following areas:

-$78 billion of manufactured goods including vehicles and industrial machinery

-$52 billion of energy products, including crude oil and LNG

-$32 billion of agricultural and food products

-$38 billion of financial and business services

-Open its financial sector by abolishing limitations on foreign ownership of Chinese securities by April 1, 2020 and ensure market access on a non-discriminatory basis for US securities, insurance and fund management companies.

-End its longstanding practice of requiring US companies to transfer technology to Chinese companies as a condition for obtaining market access.

In exchange, the U.S.:

-Suspended a planned tariff scheduled to go into force on December 15th covering $156 billion of apparel products (Tranche 4B) and lowered the tariff rate from 15 percent to 7.5 percent on another group of apparel products (Tranche 4a)

The signed Phase 1 deal also requires China to:

-Adopt an action plan to make major structural changes for protecting US intellectual property

-Implement a dispute resolution mechanism that puts in place “strong procedures” for the US and Chinese parties to resolve disputes fairly and expeditiously

Under the Phase 1 agreement, the U.S. will maintain its current tariffs of 25 percent on $250 billion in Chinese products and 10 percent on an additional $300 billion of Chinese consumer goods.

FUTURE SCENARIO #1:

The U.S. and China Reach a  Phase 2 Deal & Comprehensive Settlement

Without question, the Phase 1 agreement signed on January 15th is a game-changer for U.S.-China trade relations – the likely beginning of the end of the trade war.

Phase 1 represents the first time since the opening shots of the trade conflict, approximately 20 months ago, that the parties have found common ground and enshrined it in a binding legal agreement. With public expectations for a complete settlement raised by both President Trump and President Xi, negotiators are now incentivized to reach agreement on the remaining U.S. and Chinese demands.

Even though most previously existing tariffs still remain in place, it is now realistic to anticipate a broad negotiated settlement in a Phase 2 deal that includes a sharp reduction in tariffs, Chinese implementation of necessary reforms, and a far more balanced U.S.-China trade relationship. A settlement of this kind would significantly expand business opportunities for American companies to export more products to China and to import more Chinese products to the United States.

Consequently, both exporters and importers can and should now formulate and implement plans as part of their business strategies for improved trade relations with China that seemed highly unlikely and unrealistic only a few weeks ago.

U.S. Importers

To prepare for the possible elimination of high tariffs imposed by the U.S. and China during the trade war as well as other beneficial reforms, key  executives of U.S. importers should  ask the following questions:

-How can we expand the quality and quantity of Chinese products we import?

-To what extent will a sharp reduction of tariffs improve the competitiveness of the products we import in various S. market sectors?

-If Chinese companies curtail their practice of forcing transfer of U.S. intellectual property, how will this help us expand our China-based supply chain?

-If the Chinese government significantly reduces its subsidies for competitive Chinese companies, what kind of openings for increased imports will this create?

-In what ways can and should we encourage our Chinese business partners to invest in the U.S. by building factories here for which our company could handle marketing and distribution?

U.S. Exporters

To  take advantage of China’s Phase 1 agreement to buy $200 billion in U.S. export products during the next two years on top of amounts it imported in 2017 as well as to prepare for the elimination of high tariffs in Phase 2, key  executives of U.S. exporters should ask  the following questions:

-How can we expand the quality and quantity of products we export to China?

-In what sectors of the Chinese market will the products we export become more competitive?

-How will the potential reduction of government subsidies to our Chinese competitors allow us to penetrate the China market more effectively?

-In what areas should we explore new relationships with Chinese companies for producing finished products that include the American intermediary goods we export?

-To what extent will a full Phase 2 settlement of the trade war and the reforms accompanying it enable the U.S. government to modify the controls it currently imposes on specific exports?

FUTURE SCENARIO #2:

The U.S. and China continue their negotiations for a Phase 2 deal but find it difficult to reach agreement

Despite agreement on a Phase 1 deal, the tensions and uncertainty of U.S.-China negotiations mean the U.S. and China may face complications and delays reaching a meaningful Phase 2 deal requiring new Chinese commitments and an end to high U.S. tariffs.

Factors that could slow down the process of reaching a Phase 2 agreement include various threats by the Trump administration:

-Delisting Chinese companies from S. stock exchanges

-Blocking a range of public and private pension funds and university  endowments  from making certain investments in China

-Putting other capital controls on U.S. private sector investment in China to protect against opaque Chinese company accounting and business practices

-Broadening scrutiny of potential Chinese investments in the United States on national security grounds

-Expanding checks by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of Chinese companies that do business in the S.

-Disrupting the flow of capital between Hong Kong and mainland China if China does not adequately respect the autonomy of Hong Kong

Each of the U.S. measures described above would likely cause China to take reciprocal retaliatory actions – just as China has responded to U.S. tariffs with reciprocal tariffs of its own on American products.

At stake in the Phase 2 negotiation are issues that will determine whether the Trump administration achieves its core objectives in the trade war, including:

-Stricter rules to strengthen information security for cross-border data flows of American companies that do business in China

-Limiting the subsidies by China’s government to state-owned companies which facilitate unfair competition

The issue for Phase 2 that is likely of greatest importance to American importers is whether an agreement removes U.S. tariffs on more than $500 billion in Chinese products that threaten the well-being of their businesses.

Given the uncertainty of reaching a follow-on Phase 2 agreement, key executives of U.S. importers and exporters should ask the following questions:

U.S. Importers

-If a Phase 2 agreement with China does not materialize, how should we plan to modify the sourcing of products we currently import from China to avoid high tariffs?

-What kind of exploratory discussions with suppliers outside China should we initiate as a hedge against uncertainty and continuing tension in S.-China trade relations?

-To prepare for a possible shift in import strategy, should we participate in the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) program that reduces the number of Customs examinations, accelerates Customs processing times and expedites border crossing privileges?

-What measures can we take to lower cost and raise efficiency to improve the competitiveness of Chinese-origin products in the S. market?

-Does our supply chain include middlemen who resell products to us at a marked-up price? If so, can we utilize the established “first sale rule” under U.S. law that allows us to avoid paying any duty on the amount of the mark-up?

U.S. Exporters

In light of continuing uncertainty about the Phase 2 negotiations, exporters should ask themselves:

-How can we modify the quantity and type of our exports to China in light of unfair competition from state-owned companies receiving government subsidies?

-If existing Chinese tariffs remain in place for the foreseeable future, how will that affect sales of our products in the Chinese market?

-How will increased U.S. controls on exports of American products to China affect our business strategy?

-If the U.S. imposes new tariffs on China and China retaliates, how can we manage and mitigate the likely negative impact on our sales in China?

-In light of the trade obstacles we now face and may continue to face, how should we modify our export strategy for China?

FUTURE SCENARIO #3:

The U.S. and China break off discussions on a final Phase 2 settlement of the trade war after negotiations fail and they pursue hostile trade policies toward each other

If the U.S. and China cannot reach a meaningful trade agreement in 2020, it is likely they will break off negotiations and pursue hostile trade policies toward each other. In this case, some or all of the following economic and political developments are likely to occur:

-The trade war will evolve into a major, multifaceted dispute – the equivalent of a cold war – that involves geopolitical and security disputes as well as trade issues

-Both the U.S. and China will find it difficult to stop a vicious cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation on trade and other issues

-China and the S. will strive to consolidate their own trade blocs that exclude the other country – potentially decoupling the U.S. and Chinese economies/financial sectors

-China will enhance the role of its state-owned businesses using increased subsidies

-The U.S. will significantly expand its restrictions on trade with China by delisting Chinese companies from U.S. exchanges, blocking public and private U.S. investments in China, enacting much more restrictive export controls, ending most Chinese investment in the United States, exercising greater scrutiny by the SEC of Chinese companies and taking other restrictive measures

Outlook for Importers and Exporters

While future events could potentially reignite the trade war and eventually lead to a breakdown in U.S.-China relations, this dire prospect should not be the immediate focus of planning and preparation by importers, exporters, manufacturers and investors. The collapse of normal economic and trade relations represented by Scenario #3 is only likely to occur after China and the U.S. go through an extended period of uncertainty, tension,  and deterioration in trade relations described in Scenario #2.

Companies involved in U.S.-China trade should therefore base their business and legal planning on the high probability that the trade war will likely evolve either toward a settlement of most outstanding issues or toward continuing uncertainty characterized by the inability of negotiators to resolve remaining differences.

It would be a major mistake at this time to take a “wait and see” approach or bet exclusively on either Scenario #2 or Scenario #3 coming to pass.

For this reason, importers, exporters, manufacturers and investors should focus on modifying their business/legal strategies to take advantage of the potentially immense benefits of the Phase 1 agreement and preparing contingency plans for either a Phase 2 agreement or the occurrence of Scenario #2 in trade negotiations with China – the two scenarios that are most likely to materialize between now and the end of 2020.

______________________________________________________________

Donald Gross  is  founding  partner  of  Donald  Gross  Law,  an international trade law and strategy advisory firm in Washington, D.C. (https://www.donaldgrosslaw.com). He participated in U.S. negotiations with China as a Senior Adviser for International Security Affairs at the State Department from 1997 to 2000, and as Counselor of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1994 to 1997. He is the author of “The China Fallacy: How the U.S. Can Benefit from China’s Rise and Avoid Another Cold War” (Bloomsbury, 2013). He can be reached at don@donaldgrosslaw.com.