Market evolution: Rough wood (CN 4403) — 2015–2025

Introduction

This report examines the trade dynamics of CN 4403 — wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood, or roughly squared — for the European Union in its trade with non-EU countries over the period 2015–2025. The decade witnessed dramatic structural shifts: the EU transformed from a net importer of roughly €424 million (2015) into a net exporter of €309 million (2025). This reversal was driven by the simultaneous collapse of traditional Eastern European supply channels and a surge in EU exports toward Asian markets, all against a backdrop of steep price escalation and rising trade concentration. The following three sections unpack these dynamics.

1. The Collapse of Eastern European Supply Chains

1.1 Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine: from major suppliers to near-zero

The most striking development in EU rough wood imports over the decade has been the near-total withdrawal of three historically important suppliers — the Russian Federation, Belarus, and Ukraine. Together, these three countries supplied approximately €465 million worth of rough wood to the EU in 2015 (Russia: €256M, Belarus: €87M, Ukraine: €123M), representing roughly half of all EU imports by value. By 2025, their combined contribution had fallen to just €28 million:

This collapse is broadly consistent with successive rounds of EU sanctions on Russian and Belarusian timber exports (starting 2022), alongside the severe disruption of Ukrainian supply chains following the onset of the war. However, the data shows that Ukraine's decline began well before 2022 — its share was already falling from 2017 onward — suggesting structural supply-side pressures pre-dating the conflict.

1.2 Norway emerges as the dominant supplier

As Eastern European sources evaporated, Norway consolidated its position as the EU's principal external supplier of rough wood. Norwegian imports grew from €218 million in 2015 to €538 million in 2025 (+147%), a period over which Norway's share of total EU rough wood imports surged from roughly 23% to approximately 74%. Norway's low coefficient of variation (0.15) relative to other partners testifies to the stability and reliability of this supply relationship — a quality that likely contributed to its increasing importance.

1.3 Import concentration reaches historically high levels

The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) for imports by value rose from 1,685 in 2015 to 5,654 in 2025 — an increase of 235.5%. An HHI above 2,500 is conventionally considered a "highly concentrated" market, meaning the EU's import base has become substantially less diversified. The loss of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, combined with Norway's dominance, has left the EU with a notably narrower supplier base for rough wood. Brazil emerged as a partial alternative (from €0.6M in 2015 to €42.5M in 2025), but its contribution remains modest relative to Norway.

1.4 EU-level importer shifts: Finland and Romania collapse, Sweden surges

At the EU member-state level, the most dramatic importer changes were:

Finland and Romania had historically relied heavily on Russian and Ukrainian wood; the severing of those supply lines explains their dramatic decline. Sweden, by contrast, was able to scale up sourcing, primarily from Norway. Portugal's growth likely reflects domestic forestry demand and the Iberian peninsula's role as a timber-processing hub.

2. The EU's Transformation into a Net Exporter of Rough Wood

2.1 The trade balance reverses

The most consequential structural shift in this market is the reversal of the EU's trade balance. In 2015, the EU was a net importer of rough wood to the tune of €424 million. By 2025, it had become a net exporter of €309 million:

A negative net import reliance indicates that the EU is a net exporter. The deepening of this figure from −8.3% to −33.9% confirms that the EU's export orientation in rough wood has strengthened considerably.

2.2 China: the engine of EU export growth

The primary destination driving this export surge has been China. EU exports of rough wood to China grew from €247 million in 2015 to €594 million in 2025 (+139.9%), though the peak was reached in 2021 at nearly €1.96 billion — reflecting the extraordinary post-pandemic commodity boom. The subsequent decline from the 2021 peak may reflect both China's economic slowdown and the price shock detected in 2022 (abnormality score of 4.6, with a +56.6% price shift centred on 2022).

Other key export destinations also expanded:

Viet Nam's 302.5% growth stands out; it may reflect the country's growing role as a wood-processing hub in Southeast Asia, partly absorbing flows that might otherwise go directly to China.

2.3 EU exporters: Central and Eastern Europe take the lead

Among EU member states, the most dynamic export growth came from newer member states:

Poland and Czechia experienced extraordinary growth rates, consistent with their large forest endowments and improving integration into global timber supply chains. Germany and Belgium maintained their positions as the EU's largest absolute exporters, though their growth was more moderate. The specialisation indices confirm the Baltic states' deep structural dependence on this sector: Latvia (RSCA: 0.92), Estonia (0.83), and Lithuania (0.77) are the most specialised exporters of rough wood in the EU.

2.4 Export propensity confirms the structural shift

The EU's export propensity — the share of domestic production that is exported — rose from 9.5% in 2015 to 28.5% in 2025 (+201.5%). Similarly, trade intensity grew from 11.1% to 30.7% (+177.6%). These metrics indicate that rough wood has become significantly more "trade-exposed" over the decade — both in terms of outward flows and overall engagement with international markets.

3. Price Escalation, Volatility, and Product-Segment Divergence

3.1 Prices have nearly doubled across both imports and exports

Both import and export unit prices for rough wood have increased substantially over the period:

The divergence between the per-tonne and per-cubic-metre export price trajectories is particularly noteworthy: while the export price per tonne rose by 65.7%, the supplementary price per cubic metre fell by 69.2%. This implies a shift in the density composition of exported wood: the EU is increasingly exporting lighter, lower-density timber species or timber with higher moisture content in larger volumes (the supplementary quantity in cubic metres surged from 5.98 million m³ in 2015 to 39.82 million m³ in 2025, +565.6%). In other words, the EU is shipping much larger volumes of lighter wood — likely including species such as spruce and pine — even as unit values per tonne rise, reflecting global timber inflation.

3.2 Price shocks: the United Kingdom, Russia, and China

The shock detection analysis identifies three significant price shocks:

The UK export price shock in 2017 (abnormality of 25.7) stands out as the most extreme event in the dataset. It coincides with the period following the Brexit referendum, when the sharp depreciation of the British pound may have raised the euro-denominated cost of timber imports into the UK. The Russian import price shock in 2018 likely reflects early supply-side tightening, while the 2022 China shock aligns with the global commodity price spike and post-pandemic demand surge.

3.3 Product-segment dynamics: the rise and fall of large-diameter fir and spruce exports

At the product-segment level, the most dramatic movements occurred in specific sub-headings of CN 4403:

Exports — Fir/spruce ≥15 cm (CN 440323): This segment experienced an extraordinary boom-and-bust cycle. Export volumes surged from 480,808 tonnes in 2017 to a peak of 10.1 million tonnes in 2020, before falling back to 1.1 million tonnes in 2025. The supplementary unit data shows a similar pattern: volumes peaked at 19.5 million m³ in 2022 before declining. This boom likely reflects the exceptional demand from China for construction-grade softwood during the post-COVID recovery, followed by a normalisation.

Exports — Oak (CN 440391): Oak exports remained relatively stable in volume (from 632,333 tonnes in 2015 to 970,698 tonnes in 2025), but values nearly tripled from €105M to €333M, driven by rising unit prices (from €166/t to €343/t). This points to strong, sustained global demand for European oak — a premium hardwood species used in flooring, furniture, and barrel-making.

Imports — Birch ≥15 cm (CN 440395): This was the single largest import category by volume until 2021, reaching 3.37 million tonnes in that year. However, by 2025 it had collapsed to just 1,443 tonnes — a decline of over 99.9%. This near-total evaporation is directly linked to the loss of Russian and Belarusian supply, as birch in the rough was predominantly sourced from these countries. The volatility coefficient for imports from the Russian Federation was 0.36, while Belarus stood at 1.19 — reflecting the sharp discontinuity in supply rather than stable volatility.

Imports — Fir/spruce (CN 440323 and 440324): These segments proved more resilient. Fir/spruce ≥15 cm imports actually grew from 1.83M tonnes (2017) to 2.24M tonnes (2025), while the <15 cm category declined from 904,103 tonnes to 352,723 tonnes. This divergence suggests that large-diameter construction-grade softwood maintained its import profile (likely from Scandinavian sources), while smaller-diameter wood — previously sourced from Ukraine and Russia — was not fully replaced.

3.4 EU domestic production: modest growth

The EU's own production of rough wood grew modestly over the period: from 1.36 million m³ in 2015 to 1.50 million m³ in 2025 (+10.2% by volume, +21.2% by value). This indicates that while EU forestry has expanded its output, the growth has been incremental — insufficient to fully compensate for the loss of imports from the East, which has instead been absorbed through a combination of increased Norwegian imports and reorientation of domestic wood toward export markets.

Conclusion

The EU rough wood market (CN 4403) has undergone a profound structural transformation between 2015 and 2025. Three forces — geopolitical disruption, Asian demand, and price inflation — have combined to reshape the market from one characterised by net imports and diversified supply into one defined by net exports, rising concentration, and higher prices. The loss of Russian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian supply channels removed roughly €465 million of annual imports, driving a surge in import concentration (HHI from 1,686 to 5,654) and elevating Norway to a near-monopoly position among external suppliers. Simultaneously, EU exports more than doubled in value, propelled by Chinese and Vietnamese demand for European softwood and hardwood. Prices rose by 66–87% in nominal terms, though the composition of trade shifted toward lighter, higher-volume shipments. Looking ahead, the EU's growing dependence on Norway for imports and on China for export demand — both reflected in elevated concentration metrics — presents potential vulnerabilities should either relationship face disruption.