Market evolution: Wood and articles (CN 44) — 2015–2025

Introduction

This report examines the evolution of EU trade in product group CN 44 — WOOD AND ARTICLES OF WOOD; WOOD CHARCOAL — over the period 2015–2025. The analysis covers trade flows with non-EU countries and draws on data spanning imports, exports, partner concentration, production volumes, and supply-chain volatility. CN 44 is a broad heading that bundles 21 subcategories, from raw materials such as fuel wood (4401) and wood in the rough (4403) to processed products such as plywood (4412), particle board (4410), builders' joinery (4418), and charcoal (4402). The decade under review witnessed dramatic geopolitical shocks — particularly the conflict in Ukraine and subsequent sanctions — which fundamentally restructured the EU's sourcing patterns, alongside a broader secular shift toward higher unit values and greater export orientation.

I. Geopolitical Ruptures and the Reconfiguration of Import Supply Chains

Russia and Belarus collapsed as suppliers, erasing over €2.7 billion in imports

The most striking structural change in the EU wood trade between 2015 and 2025 was the near-total disappearance of Russia and Belarus as import partners. Russia, which supplied €1.50 billion of wood imports in 2015 and peaked at €3.16 billion in 2021, fell to just €0.20 million by 2025 — effectively a trade collapse of -100%. Belarus followed a similar trajectory, declining from €430 million (2015) to €11 thousand (2025), also a -100% change. These two countries together had represented a substantial share of EU raw-material supply, particularly of wood in the rough (4403), whose imports fell from 14.3 million tonnes (2015) to 5.9 million tonnes (2025) — a decline of -58.5% in volume.

The volatility data confirms that these were the two most erratic trading relationships. The coefficient of variation for Russian imports was 0.71 and for Belarus 0.73 — far above the levels observed for other partners — reflecting the sharp swings associated with the imposition of EU sanctions in 2022.

Norway, Ukraine, and Brazil emerged as alternative suppliers, but not enough to offset the volume loss

As Russia and Belarus receded, other suppliers gained market share. Norway's imports to the EU grew from €485 million to €1.03 billion (+111.5%), making it the EU's largest non-EU wood supplier by 2025. Ukraine also expanded substantially, rising from €760 million to €1.37 billion (+80.4%), despite the disruption of the ongoing conflict. Brazil grew from €434 million to €701 million (+61.6%).

However, in aggregate terms, total EU wood imports declined sharply in volume — from 36.8 million tonnes in 2015 to 22.9 million tonnes in 2025 (-37.8%). This indicates that the growth from alternative suppliers was insufficient to compensate for the loss of Russian and Belarusian volumes. The EU effectively absorbed this supply contraction through a combination of higher prices, reduced consumption, substitution toward domestic production, and sourcing from closer or more reliable partners.

The import-side Herfindahl index rose only modestly, masking underlying structural change

Despite the radical partner restructuring, the import concentration index (HHI) by value increased only from 852 to 943 (+10.6%). This indicates that while the identity of suppliers changed dramatically, the overall degree of diversification did not deteriorate severely in aggregate — the EU found multiple alternative partners. However, the volume-based HHI tells a different story: it rose from 1,463 to 1,308 (-10.6%), suggesting that volume-based trade became slightly less concentrated as raw-material flows from the heavily-concentrated Russian/Belarusian channels were replaced by more distributed sourcing.

II. Rising Prices, Falling Volumes, and the EU's Strengthening Net Export Position

The EU trade surplus in wood products expanded from €6.0 billion to €9.1 billion

Over the decade, the EU's trade balance in CN 44 widened from €6.0 billion (2015) to €9.1 billion (2025), a growth of +50.8%. The minimum was €5.8 billion (2020) and the maximum reached €9.9 billion (2022). This growing surplus reflects not a boom in physical volumes traded, but rather a dramatic repricing of wood products and the EU's structural advantage as a net exporter of processed wood goods.

Export values rose while volumes contracted — the price effect dominated

EU exports of CN 44 grew in value from €15.2 billion to €19.9 billion (+30.6%), yet the quantity shipped declined from 33.3 million tonnes to 31.1 million tonnes (-6.5%). The average export price surged from €457 per tonne to €639 per tonne (+39.7%). On the import side, the pattern was even more pronounced: import value grew from €9.2 billion to €10.8 billion (+17.4%), while quantity plummeted from 36.8 million tonnes to 22.9 million tonnes (-37.8%), implying an import price increase of +88.9% — from €250/t to €471/t.

Sawmill products (4407) and plywood (4412) saw the steepest price increases

Breaking the data down by product segment, the most striking price movements occurred in:

• 4407 (Wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, >6 mm): Import prices rose from €367/t (2015) to €741/t (2025) — more than doubling. This category is the single largest import by value and its price trajectory closely mirrors the global timber price boom of 2021–2022.
• 4412 (Plywood): Import prices rose from €676/t to €812/t, peaking at €1,061/t in 2022.
• 4403 (Wood in the rough): Import prices nearly doubled from €65/t to €122/t, reflecting the scarcity of raw roundwood previously sourced from Russia.
• 4415 (Packing cases, boxes, pallets): Import prices climbed from €313/t to €535/t, consistent with rising global logistics and packaging demand.
• 4411 (Fibreboard): Import prices moved from €477/t to €764/t.

The price spike was most acute in 2021–2022, aligning with the post-COVID construction boom and the onset of sanctions on Russian timber. By 2023–2025, prices partially moderated but remained well above pre-2020 levels.

III. Deepening EU Specialisation and Production Intensification

EU production volumes and values surged dramatically

The production data shows a remarkable expansion: production quantities (in cubic metres) grew from 10.3 billion m³ (2015) to 77.3 billion m³ (2025) — a +649% increase. Production values rose from €26.7 billion to €97.6 billion (+266%). While these figures are partly influenced by improved reporting coverage over the period, they indicate a genuine expansion of EU wood-processing activity, likely accelerated by import substitution following the loss of Russian raw materials and by growing demand for wood-based construction materials in the context of EU sustainability and bio-economy policies.

The Baltic and Nordic states are the EU's most specialised wood exporters

The specialisation analysis for 2025 reveals a clear geographic pattern:

Latvia and Estonia display exceptionally high Revealed Symmetric Comparative Advantage (RSCA) scores, indicating that wood products constitute a dominant share of their export profiles. These countries are heavily forested and have developed large-scale sawmill and pellet industries. Finland, Sweden (which ranks as the EU's second-largest wood exporter by value at €3.0 billion), and Austria also show strong specialisation.

Conversely, Malta (RSCA: -0.99), Cyprus (-0.81), Ireland (-0.74), and the Netherlands (-0.58) are net importers with negligible comparative advantage in this sector.

The EU's net exporter status deepened and export propensity nearly tripled

The net import reliance metric moved from -3.4% (2015) to -9.3% (2025), confirming a deepening of the EU's net exporter position (a negative value means the EU exports more than it imports). Meanwhile, export propensity — the share of EU production that is exported to non-EU countries — rose from 7.7% to 18.8% (+142.8%). Trade intensity similarly doubled, from 11.7% to 26.4% (+125.5%).

The top EU wood-exporting member states by value in 2025 were:

Latvia's +82.9% growth in exports is the most dramatic among major exporters, consistent with the Baltic states' aggressive capacity expansion in sawn wood and wood pellets.

Export shocks were concentrated in North African and Middle Eastern markets in 2021

The supply-shock analysis identified abnormal price movements concentrated in 2021, primarily in EU exports to:

• Egypt — an abnormality score of 269.1 and a price shift of +36.2%, affecting 4.2% of export value.
• Saudi Arabia — abnormality of 10.3 and price shift of +36.6%, affecting 2.5% of export value.
• Algeria — abnormality of 6.3 and price shift of +29.9%, affecting 2.6% of export value.

These shocks are consistent with the global timber price surge of 2021 driven by post-pandemic construction demand and supply bottlenecks. The EU's traditional export destinations — the United Kingdom (€4.7 billion, +32.2%), Switzerland (€2.1 billion, +38.7%), and the United States (€2.5 billion, +172.6%) — showed lower volatility coefficients (0.10, 0.07, and 0.25 respectively), reflecting more stable, established trade relationships.

Conclusion

The EU wood trade over 2015–2025 was shaped by three converging forces: geopolitical disruption, price repricing, and structural deepening of export capacity. The loss of Russian and Belarusian supply — representing over €2.7 billion in annual trade — was the decade's defining shock, triggering a 38% decline in import volumes. This vacuum was partially filled by Norway, Ukraine, and Brazil, but the EU ultimately absorbed the adjustment through higher domestic production and soaring unit prices (import prices rose by 89% over the period).

Paradoxically, the EU's position as a net exporter of wood products strengthened considerably: the trade surplus grew by 51% to €9.1 billion, and export propensity nearly tripled to 18.8%. The Baltic states, Scandinavia, and Central European members drove this export growth, with Latvia's exports surging by 83%. Meanwhile, the geography of demand shifted, with the United States becoming an increasingly important export destination (+173%), complementing the traditional UK and Swiss markets.

Looking ahead, the EU wood sector appears structurally more resilient than it was in 2015 — more diversified in its sourcing, more price-competitive in its exports, and more deeply integrated into global value chains. However, persistent reliance on a small number of high-volume suppliers (Norway, Ukraine) and the continued sensitivity of raw-material prices to geopolitical events remain areas of vulnerability.