Market evolution: Vegetable residues for feed (CN 2308) — 2015–2025

Introduction

This report analyzes the evolution of the European Union's trade in CN 2308, covering vegetable residues and by-products used in animal feed, from 2015 to 2025. The analysis focuses on trade flows, partner dynamics, market structure, and vulnerability indicators. Over the decade, the EU market has undergone a significant transformation, moving from a period of high import reliance towards greater self-sufficiency and a more value-oriented trade profile, albeit with increased price volatility and a reshuffling of key trading partners.

I. A Shift from Volume to Value: The Moderation of EU Import Dependence

The EU's trade in vegetable residues for feed has seen a pronounced decoupling of volume and value trends. While the physical quantities traded have generally declined, the monetary values have been more resilient or have even grown, pointing to substantial price inflation across the period.

Import Dynamics: Rising Prices Amidst Falling Quantities

Total EU imports of CN 2308 have contracted significantly in volume. The import quantity fell from 1,557,508 tonnes in 2015 to 1,121,012 tonnes in 2025, a decrease of -28.0%. This drop in volume, however, was partially offset by rising prices. The average import price increased from €228 per tonne to €257 per tonne, a rise of 12.9%. Consequently, the total import value experienced a more moderate decline of -18.8%, falling from €354.9 million to €288.3 million (General Overview).

Export Performance: Higher Prices Drive Revenue Growth

A parallel trend is observed for EU exports. Export volumes decreased by -18.7% (from 153,639 to 124,940 tonnes), but a much stronger price increase of 42.5% (from €332 to €474 per tonne) led to a net rise in export value. Export revenue grew by 15.9%, climbing from €51.1 million to €59.2 million. This indicates that the EU has successfully capitalized on higher global market prices for these feed materials.

Consequence: A Narrowing Trade Deficit and Reduced Reliance

The combination of falling import bills and rising export revenues has substantially improved the EU's trade balance for this product. The trade deficit narrowed by 24.6%, from -€303.8 million in 2015 to -€229.1 million in 2025. This shift is a direct driver behind the sharp decline in the EU's net import reliance, which fell from a peak of 72.1% in 2015 to 47.6% in 2025. The EU has become less dependent on foreign suppliers to meet its domestic demand.

II. Structural Transformation: Domestic Surge and Partner Reconfiguration

The underlying market structure has evolved significantly, characterized by a boom in EU domestic production and a reshuffling of the relative importance of trading partners.

Domestic Production Takes the Lead

EU production of vegetable materials for feed has grown dramatically. Production quantity increased by 182.8% (from 870,000 tonnes to 2,460,000,000 kg), while production value surged by 381.0% (from €58 million to €279 million). This internal expansion is the primary factor behind the reduced import dependency and explains the drop in trade intensity, which measures the importance of trade relative to production.

Geographic Specialization and Concentration

The EU exhibits varied specialization among its member states. Countries like Romania (RSCA: 0.70) and Latvia (RSCA: 0.64) show strong comparative advantage in producing this category, likely due to their agricultural structures. Conversely, economies like Ireland and Luxembourg are highly unspecialized and reliant on imports.

Concentration on the supply side has increased. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) for import value rose by 26.6%, indicating that EU buyers are sourcing from a slightly more concentrated group of suppliers than at the start of the period.

A Reordering of Key Trade Partners

The list of top partners has shifted, revealing new dynamics:

This reconfiguration suggests a diversification away from traditional transatlantic suppliers and towards sources within the EU's geographical neighborhood (e.g., Ukraine, UK).

III. Navigating Price Volatility and Geopolitical Shocks

The period was marked by significant price volatility in bilateral trade relationships and identifiable supply shocks, underscoring the risks in the market.

Partner-Specific Price Volatility

Trade with several partners was highly volatile, as measured by the coefficient of variation (CV). On the import side, flows with Indonesia (CV: 1.41) and Viet Nam (CV: 0.75) were extremely unstable. For exports, the EU faced high volatility with partners like Lebanon (CV: 1.75) and Norway (CV: 1.57) (Volatility & Shocks). This indicates that certain trade links, while sometimes valuable, carry considerable pricing risk.

Identifying Market Shocks

Data analysis detects several significant shock events:

1. EU Export Price Shock (UK, 2017): A major price anomaly occurred in exports to the United Kingdom in 2017, characterized by a 55.7% price shift and high abnormality (29.9). This coincides with the period following the Brexit referendum, which likely introduced significant market uncertainty and currency fluctuations.
2. EU Export Price Shock (Lebanon, 2021): Exports to Lebanon saw an extreme 1,116.5% price increase in 2021, though its small value share limited the overall market impact. This could reflect the severe economic and financial crisis in Lebanon.
3. EU Import Price Shock (Russia, 2022): Imports from the Russian Federation experienced a 49.8% price shock in 2022, directly linked to the geopolitical turmoil following the invasion of Ukraine, which disrupted trade and energy flows, affecting agricultural commodities.

Conclusion

The EU market for vegetable residues for feed (CN 2308) has undergone a profound structural shift between 2015 and 2025. The dominant narrative is one of increasing self-sufficiency, driven by a 183% surge in domestic production, which has sharply reduced the bloc's net import reliance. The trade relationship has matured from a volume-driven to a value-driven model, with both imports and exports exhibiting significant price inflation.

The landscape of partners has been redrawn, with traditional suppliers like Brazil and the U.S. declining in importance, while neighboring countries like Ukraine and the United Kingdom have gained ground. This evolution, while improving the EU's trade balance and autonomy, has not been without challenges. The market witnessed pronounced price volatility and was subject to geopolitical shocks that disrupted specific trade flows. Looking forward, the EU's position appears more consolidated and less vulnerable, but its exposure to price swings in key bilateral relationships and macroeconomic instability in partner countries remains a critical point of monitoring.