Market evolution: Vegetable products not elsewhere specified (CN 1404) — 2015–2025
Introduction
CN 1404 covers "Vegetable products, n.e.s.", a bundled heading that encompasses two sub-products: cotton linters (CN 140420) and other vegetable products not elsewhere specified (CN 140490). The latter accounts for the overwhelming majority of trade volumes and values. Over the 2015–2025 period, the EU was a persistent net importer of these goods, with import values ranging from €118.2 million in 2017 to a peak of €222.8 million in 2022, while export values grew from €14.1 million to €29.4 million. This report examines three principal dynamics: the divergence between volume and price trends on both sides of the balance, the dramatic reconfiguration of supply partners following the 2022 geopolitical shock, and the structural shifts in market concentration and the EU's trade position.
1. Soaring Unit Values Drive Up Import Spending While the EU Doubles Its Export Earnings
1.1 The EU's trade deficit in CN 1404 has remained wide and volatile, reaching its worst point during the 2022 supply shock
Over the full period, the trade balance shifted from –€137.5 million in 2015 to –€140.4 million in 2025, a marginal widening of 2.1%. This superficial stability, however, conceals significant swings. The deficit narrowed to approximately –€99.0 million in 2017 before widening sharply to –€196.6 million in 2022 — the year of the most severe price shock — and then retracing to –€112.0 million in 2024 before settling again near its starting level.
| Indicator | 2015 | 2017 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2024 | 2025 | Δ 2015–2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Import value (€M) | 151.6 | 118.2 | 155.3 | 164.5 | 222.8 | 150.4 | 169.8 | +12.0% |
| Import volume (kt) | 1,124 | 876 | 1,018 | 660 | 724 | 803 | 774 | –31.2% |
| Import unit price (€/t) | 135 | 135 | 152 | 249 | 308 | 187 | 219 | +62.8% |
| Export value (€M) | 14.1 | 19.2 | 38.2 | 33.1 | 26.2 | 38.4 | 29.4 | +109.1% |
| Export volume (kt) | 40.8 | 53.9 | 125.2 | 94.4 | 54.5 | 75.2 | 56.9 | +39.5% |
| Export unit price (€/t) | 344 | 356 | 305 | 351 | 478 | 510 | 516 | +49.9% |
| Trade balance (€M) | –137.5 | –99.0 | –117.0 | –131.3 | –196.6 | –112.0 | –140.4 | –2.1% |
1.2 Import value growth was overwhelmingly driven by rising unit prices rather than increased physical volumes
A central feature of the period is the divergence between import value and volume. While import values rose 12.0% (from €151.6 million to €169.8 million), the physical quantity actually declined by 31.2%, from approximately 1.12 million tonnes to 774,000 tonnes. The entire increase in spending was therefore generated by a 62.8% rise in unit import prices, from €135/t to €219/t. The price trajectory was not linear: unit values doubled between 2020 (€152/t) and 2022 (€308/t), then partially retraced. This pattern is consistent with a commodity exposed to global supply disruptions and energy-cost pass-through, rather than one experiencing structural demand growth in the EU.
The bulk of imports falls under sub-heading 140490 ("Vegetable products n.e.s."), which accounts for over 99% of imported volume. This sub-product's unit price rose from €130/t in 2015 to a peak of €308/t in 2022, before settling at €218/t in 2025. The far smaller cotton linters segment (CN 140420) saw an even sharper price trajectory: import unit values climbed from €476/t to €1,374/t over the same span, even as volumes collapsed from 14,420 tonnes to just 1,078 tonnes. This may reflect a structural contraction in EU demand for cotton linters alongside tightening global supply.
1.3 EU export values more than doubled, supported by both volume growth and appreciating unit prices
On the export side, the trade performance was more dynamic. Export values grew 109.1%, from €14.1 million to €29.4 million, supported by a 39.5% increase in volumes and a 49.9% rise in unit prices (from €344/t to €516/t). Export volumes peaked sharply in 2020 at 125,183 tonnes — more than three times the 2015 level — coinciding with the pandemic year, when unit prices actually dipped to their period-low of €305/t. This volume spike followed by price recovery suggests a possible destocking effect or re-export channel in 2020. By 2024, export value hit its period maximum of €38.4 million on more moderate volumes of 75,221 tonnes, indicating that price appreciation — not volume — had become the primary driver of export revenue growth.
2. The 2022 Supply Shock and the Reconfiguration of EU Import Partners
2.1 Price shocks from Ukraine, Russia, and India in 2022 represent the period's most significant trade disruptions
The supply shock analysis identifies three major import-price shock events, all centred on 2022 — the year Russia's invasion of Ukraine disrupted Black Sea trade routes and sent commodity prices surging across categories:
| Partner | Flow | Price shift in 2022 | Abnormality score | Value share in year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Russian Federation | Imports | +100.4% | 49,168 | 16.3% |
| Ukraine | Imports | +162.3% | 25.3 | 38.4% |
| India | Imports | +56.8% | 5.0 | 45.3% |
Russia's shock exhibits an exceptionally high abnormality score (49,168), reflecting a price movement far outside normal variability. Ukraine's import prices more than doubled in a single year. India — although its price shift was smaller in percentage terms — absorbed the largest share of EU import value among the three affected partners. The volatility coefficients confirm the disruption: Ukraine (CV 0.48), Russia (0.40), and notably Indonesia (CV 2.25) and Kazakhstan (CV 1.84) — whose trade volumes were highly erratic precisely because they surged from negligible bases.
2.2 India replaced Ukraine as the EU's foremost import partner, while the share of Russia and Türkiye contracted
The partner composition of EU imports underwent a pronounced restructuring between 2015 and 2025:
| Import partner | 2015 (€M) | 2025 (€M) | Change (%) | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ukraine | 61.1 | 26.4 | –56.8% | Lost dominant position |
| India | 22.5 | 55.5 | +146.6% | Now the leading supplier |
| Russian Federation | 14.5 | 10.6 | –26.7% | Declined post-sanctions |
| Sri Lanka | 11.1 | 16.4 | +47.7% | Steady growth |
| Indonesia | 0.6 | 13.3 | +2,237.9% | Emerged from near-zero |
| Kazakhstan | <0.1 | 7.3 | +16,092.0% | Emerged from near-zero |
| Türkiye | 3.4 | 1.8 | –47.3% | Significant decline |
In 2015, Ukraine alone accounted for roughly 40% of EU imports by value. By 2025, India had assumed the top position with approximately 33% of the total, while Ukraine's share had fallen to about 16%. The most dramatic proportional changes came from Indonesia and Kazakhstan, which went from negligible suppliers to holding combined import values exceeding €20 million — a clear indication that EU importers actively sought alternative sources following the Black Sea disruption.
2.3 The Ukraine conflict also affected EU export markets, though with less pronounced structural consequences
On the export side, volatility was concentrated among smaller partners. Exports to the United Kingdom — the largest single destination — grew from €4.8 million to €7.9 million (+63.5%), with a relatively low coefficient of variation (0.20), suggesting a stable trade relationship. Exports to the United States also grew (€2.4 million to €4.3 million), though with much higher volatility (CV 0.99). In contrast, exports to North Macedonia collapsed from €747,000 to €1,725 (–99.8%), and shipments to Türkiye fell 73.4%. Exports to Morocco surged from €47,000 to €744,000 (+1,473%), but from a very low base and with high variability (CV 0.84).
3. Market Concentration Declines as EU Domestic Production Expands and Structural Indicators Shift
3.1 Both import and export markets have become meaningfully less concentrated over the period
The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) provides a quantitative measure of supplier and buyer concentration:
| HHI dimension | 2015 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Import concentration (value) | 2,104 | 1,615 | –23.3% |
| Import concentration (volume) | 5,249 | 1,859 | –64.6% |
| Export concentration (value) | 1,779 | 1,253 | –29.6% |
| Export concentration (volume) | 2,861 | 2,630 | –8.1% |
The decline in import concentration by volume is particularly striking, falling from 5,249 to 1,859 — a drop of 64.6%. An HHI above 2,500 is generally considered "highly concentrated"; the import market by volume moved from well above that threshold to below it. This reflects the diversification away from Ukraine and Russia toward a broader set of suppliers including India, Indonesia, and Kazakhstan. Export concentration also declined, though more modestly, with the HHI by value falling from 1,779 to 1,253, indicating a broader distribution of EU exports across partner countries.
3.2 EU domestic production of CN 1404 products has expanded substantially, though from a very low base
The production data available for EU member states shows a dramatic expansion in domestic output. Reported production quantity rose from 800,000 kg in the first observed period to approximately 13.8 million kg by 2025 — a 1,629% increase. Production value followed an even steeper trajectory, climbing from €300,000 to €19.1 million (+6,272%). These figures likely reflect primarily the cotton linters sub-sector (CN 140420), which is the only product mapped to a PRODCOM code (10.41.30.00). Notably, within the specialisation analysis, Latvia (RSCA 0.83), Greece (0.67), and Portugal (0.55) display the highest revealed comparative advantage in CN 1404, while Ireland, Romania, and Sweden show near-zero specialisation.
3.3 Structural vulnerability indicators have shifted dramatically, though the scale of the change warrants cautious interpretation
The net import reliance, trade intensity, and export propensity metrics all show substantial shifts:
| Indicator | 2015 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net import reliance (%) | 98.2% | 2.4% | –97.5% |
| Trade intensity (%) | 123.6% | 2.7% | –97.8% |
| Export propensity (%) | 1,846% | 0.15% | –100.0% |
These figures suggest a fundamental transformation of the EU's structural trade position for CN 1404. However, the magnitude of the shift — particularly the near-elimination of import reliance despite continued import values of €170 million — should be interpreted with caution. The production data underpinning these ratios appears to be concentrated in the cotton linters sub-sector, whereas the vast majority of trade by volume and value falls under CN 140490 (other vegetable products), for which comprehensive EU production data may not be fully captured. The EU reporters data shows Poland, the Netherlands, and Spain as the largest EU importers by value, with the Netherlands also leading on the export side (€12.9 million in 2025, up 150% from 2015).
Conclusion
The EU trade in CN 1404 over 2015–2025 is defined by three overarching dynamics. First, the EU's substantial trade deficit (–€140 million in 2025) has been sustained not by growing import volumes — which actually declined by 31% — but by a pronounced increase in unit prices, particularly during the 2022 commodity shock. Second, the geopolitical disruption of 2022 fundamentally reordered the EU's supply landscape: Ukraine's share collapsed while India became the dominant supplier, and previously marginal partners such as Indonesia and Kazakhstan emerged as significant sources. Third, import concentration has fallen meaningfully (HHI by volume down 65%), indicating a more diversified — and potentially more resilient — supply base. Export performance has strengthened, with values more than doubling and the Netherlands consolidating its role as the EU's primary re-export hub. While structural vulnerability indicators point to a radical improvement in the EU's trade position, this likely reflects data coverage in the cotton linters sub-sector rather than a complete picture across all CN 1404 products. Overall, the period has seen the EU's vegetable-products trade become more expensive, more diversified, and more geographically reoriented toward Asia.