Market evolution: Lead articles (CN 7806) — 2015–2025

Introduction

This report analyses the trade dynamics of EU extra-EU trade in articles of lead, not elsewhere specified (CN 7806), over the period 2015–2025. Covering a residual category that includes a variety of finished and semi-finished lead products — mapped to Prodcom code 25.99.29.74 ("Other articles of lead, n.e.c.") — the data reveals a market that has undergone significant structural transformation. While the EU has remained a net exporter throughout the period, the underlying drivers of trade have shifted markedly: unit values have surged, volumes have declined on the export side, the geographic composition of both sourcing and destination markets has changed, and EU domestic production has pivoted toward higher-value output despite shrinking physical volumes. The overview page provides the full interactive data behind this analysis.

1. Price-led growth: surging unit values mask declining physical volumes

1.1. Export revenues grew despite a 26% drop in shipped tonnage

EU exports of CN 7806 articles increased in value by 36.0% over the period, rising from €30.2 million in the first observed year to €41.0 million in the last. However, this headline growth was entirely driven by higher unit prices. Export volumes fell by 26.0%, from 5,874 tonnes to 4,346 tonnes, while the average export price climbed by 83.9%, from €5,131/t to €9,437/t. This pattern points to a combination of cost-push inflation in lead-containing products and a compositional shift toward higher-value-added articles.

1.2. Import growth was more balanced between volume and price

On the import side, the EU's purchases from non-EU countries rose by 71.6% in value, from €18.9 million to €32.4 million. Unlike exports, import volumes also grew (+12.5%, from 4,678t to 5,261t), while import unit values increased by 52.5% (from €4,035/t to €6,154/t). The fact that import prices rose less steeply than export prices — a gap of over 30 percentage points — suggests that EU producers have been able to pass on cost increases and/or move up the value chain relative to their foreign competitors.

1.3. The trade surplus narrowed but the EU remained a consistent net exporter

The EU's trade surplus in CN 7806 declined from €11.3 million to €8.6 million (−23.4%), as import growth outpaced export growth in value terms. Nevertheless, the EU maintained a positive trade balance in every year observed, and the net import reliance indicator deepened from −5.9% to −33.0%, reflecting the growing weight of domestic production relative to net trade flows.

2. A reshaped partner landscape: from emerging-market volatility to Western consolidation

2.1. Brazil emerged as the EU's single largest import source

The most dramatic shift on the import side was the emergence of Brazil, whose shipments to the EU grew from a negligible €3,756 to €6.1 million — a staggering increase that made it the top import partner by value in the final period. Simultaneously, traditional suppliers Algeria and Egypt collapsed: Algeria fell from a peak of €5.3 million to €5,000, and Egypt dropped from €2.4 million to just €554. These swings are reflected in extremely high coefficients of variation (Algeria: 2.01; Egypt: 1.76), confirming the sporadic and project-driven nature of these trade flows.

2.2. The United Kingdom became a critical bilateral partner post-Brexit

The United Kingdom features prominently on both sides of the ledger. EU imports from the UK grew by 248.8% (to €5.7 million), while EU exports to the UK rose by 127.8% (to €5.7 million). The near-symmetry of bilateral flows with the UK in the latest period is notable, and the high volatility on the import side (CV: 0.65) likely reflects transitional disruptions around Brexit and subsequent normalisation. The partner dashboard shows the UK consolidating its position among the EU's top three partners in both directions.

2.3. Export destinations shifted away from politically unstable or sanctioned markets

On the export side, the EU's largest traditional markets — the United States (€4.7M, +67.8%), Switzerland (€5.7M, +59.3%) and Norway (€3.2M, +117.2%) — all grew, confirming the EU's orientation toward stable, high-income partners. By contrast, exports to the Russian Federation fell by 81.8% (from €900K to €164K), with a coefficient of variation of 1.88, reflecting the impact of EU sanctions and geopolitical realignment. Tunisia also contracted sharply (−76.6%).

2.4. Price shocks were concentrated in specific bilateral relationships

The supply-shock analysis identifies three notable price shock events. The largest, in 2018, involved an abnormal spike in EU export prices to China (+49% shift, abnormality score 15.8, accounting for 9.2% of export value). A second shock in 2023 affected import prices from Egypt (+918% shift), though at a marginal value share of 1.9%. A third, in 2021, hit export prices to Switzerland (+49.1% shift, 19.2% value share), likely linked to pandemic-era supply disruptions and raw material cost inflation.

3. EU production up-traded in value while member-state specialisation diverged

3.1. Domestic production volumes fell but output values surged

According to the production data, EU production of CN 7806 articles declined by 23.8% in volume (from 31,510 tonnes to 24,000 tonnes) but rose by 44.9% in value (from €103.5 million to €150.0 million). This implies that the average production unit value roughly doubled over the decade, indicating a clear shift toward higher-specification, higher-margin products. This is consistent with the observation that EU exports increasingly command premium prices (€9,437/t vs. the import price of €6,154/t).

3.2. Export concentration increased while import sourcing remained diversified

The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) for export concentration by value rose from 510 to 796 (+56%), indicating that EU export sales became more concentrated among fewer destination countries. By contrast, import concentration by value was essentially flat (HHI around 1,307–1,309), though the identity of the top suppliers changed dramatically, as discussed above. The combination of stable overall import concentration with volatile individual partners (Brazil's rise, Egypt's collapse) suggests that the market absorbed partner-level shocks through substitution rather than fundamental restructuring.

3.3. Poland and Italy led EU specialisation, while large economies showed mixed revealed comparative advantage

The specialisation analysis for 2025 identifies Poland (RSCA: 0.43, RCA: 2.48) and Bulgaria (RSCA: 0.39, RCA: 2.28) as the most specialised EU members in CN 7806 production, followed by Italy (RSCA: 0.28, RCA: 1.78). These countries account for a disproportionate share of EU production relative to their overall manufacturing output. At the other end, Ireland (RSCA: −1.00), Slovenia (RSCA: −0.94) and Romania (RSCA: −0.91) show virtually no specialisation, indicating that their CN 7806 trade flows are dominated by re-exports or consumption rather than domestic production.

3.4. Within-EU export leadership consolidated in Germany and the Netherlands

Among EU member states reporting extra-EU exports, Germany remained the dominant exporter throughout the period, growing from €10.4 million to €15.7 million (+51.9%), while the Netherlands more than doubled its exports from €3.9 million to €9.4 million (+142.2%). These two countries now account for the bulk of extra-EU CN 7806 exports. By contrast, Poland's exports collapsed from €5.0 million to €1.6 million (−67.4%), and Finland's dropped by 99.1% — a dramatic reversal from a peak year when Finland exported over €8.5 million. The reporter dashboard shows this consolidation clearly. On the import side, the Netherlands surged to become the largest EU importer (€12.2M, +631.3%), likely reflecting its role as a logistics hub for redistribution within the single market.

Conclusion

Over the 2015–2025 period, the EU market for articles of lead (CN 7806) evolved from a relatively low-value, volume-driven trade into a higher-value, price-driven market characterised by significant geographic realignment. The EU maintained its status as a net exporter, but the underlying dynamics changed substantially: export volumes declined while prices nearly doubled, domestic production shed tonnage but gained in value, and the partner landscape was reshaped by the emergence of Brazil as a major supplier, the growing bilateral importance of the United Kingdom, and the withdrawal from sanctioned or unstable markets such as Russia and Egypt. Within the EU, trade in this product became more concentrated among fewer member states, with Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy consolidating their roles. Looking ahead, the combination of rising unit values, declining physical volumes, and increasing export concentration suggests a market that is becoming more specialised and potentially more sensitive to demand shocks in a narrow set of high-income destination markets.