Global Import Transaction Analysis Polyvinyl Alcohol July 2025 to June 2026

1. Executive Summary

From July 2025 to June 2026, global polyvinyl alcohol imports totaled 192.45 million kg, with 118.19 million quantity units and USD 237.61 million in transaction value across 11,796 transactions. The three measures did not move in the same direction throughout the year, so looking at tonnage alone would miss some important shifts in how the market was trading.

The clearest turning point came around January 2026, when showed import weight reached its highest level of the period. From there, activity weakened steadily through the second quarter. By June, weight, quantity, transaction value and transaction count had all fallen to their twelve-month lows, pointing to a broad slowdown rather than an isolated decline in shipment volume.

What is more notable is that pricing did not collapse with activity. Both unit-value measures ended June above their full-period weighted averages, suggesting that the sharp reduction in trade was accompanied by a change in product mix, shipment structure or the types of transactions still clearing the market.

Table 1. Twelve-month transaction overview

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

Core conclusion. The latest month represents a smaller but higher-unit-value transaction environment. Any thought of demand or market depth should therefore distinguish value resilience from the clear decline in physical and transactional activity.

2. Second-Half 2025 Transaction Pattern

Second-half 2025 established a relatively broad trading base. Weight totalled 97.451 million kg, while transaction value reached USD 148.852 million. September was the value peak at USD 28.798 million, although August produced the highest quantity at 15.092 million units. The presence of different peak months indicates that weight, quantity and value should not be used interchangeably.

Table 2. Monthly activity, July to December 2025

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

Within the half year, the highest weight unit value occurred in September at USD 1.8489 per kg, matching the value high rather than the weight high. The second half closed with a modest recovery in both physical indicators and trade count after the November trough, but it did not exceed the early-period trading intensity.

Interpretation. The July to December pattern provides the reference base for the subsequent contraction. It was diversified across several months rather than concentrated in a single extreme weight event.

3. First-Half 2026 Transaction Pattern

First-half 2026 began with an unusual January: 49.908 million kg of weight, more than four times the following month. April provided a brief rebound in weight and value, but May and June resumed the downtrend. By June, Weight had fallen to 4.687 million kg and transaction value to USD 7.579 million.

Table 3. Monthly activity, January to June 2026

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

The first-half total weight was only 2.52% lower than the second-half 2025 base, yet quantity fell 34.43%, value fell 40.37%, and transactions fell 29.61%. This difference is largely numerical evidence of a different mix of transactions, especially the January weight concentration, rather than proof of a single demand driver.

Interpretation. The early-2026 pattern should be considered as a volume spike followed by progressive thinning in trade activity. The June endpoint is more representative of the current transactional pace than the first-quarter aggregate.

4. Period Comparison and Value Structure

Aggregation by half year and quarter clarifies the change in market structure. The second half of 2025 produced USD 148.852 million of value; the first half of 2026 produced USD 88.762 million. The value decline was materially steeper than the change in weight because the calculated value per kg was lower in the first half, largely reflecting January’s low price.

Table 4. Period aggregates and calculated unit values

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

Q2 2026 weight was 68.11% below Q1, while its calculated value per kg was 88.02% higher. The improvement in unit value offset part of the reduction in weight but was insufficient to prevent a 40.04% quarter-on-quarter decline in value.

Value structure. Higher unit values should not be interpreted as an automatic recovery signal. In the observed data, they coincided with lower volume and fewer transactions.

5. Unit Value and Transaction Intensity

Unit values were volatile. The weight-based unit value reached its highest level in September 2025 at USD 1.8489 per kg and its lowest in January 2026 at USD 0.5179 per kg. The quantity-based measure peaked in September 2025 at USD 2.7327 per unit and reached a low in May 2026.

Table 5. 2026 unit values and value per transaction

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

From May to June, weight decreased by 36.02%, quantity by 61.15%, value by 31.84%, and trades by 40.51%. In contrast, the weight unit value increased 6.54% and the quantity unit value increased 75.44%. This was a contraction in activity accompanied by higher Unit values, not a broad increase in trading participation.

Pricing reading. The June increase in unit values provides a floor for value density, but the steep fall in transaction count limits confidence in any directional conclusion beyond the observed period.

6. Structural Change in Trade Activity

The trade became progressively smaller across several comparisons. The half-year comparison is the broadest measure, while the April to June comparison captures the latest deterioration. Each comparison shows that activity declined faster than the unit-value measures changed.

Table 6. Key rate-of-change comparisons

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

The Q2 decline is the strongest quarter-level signal: physical weight dropped more sharply than the decline in value, while the calculated value per kg rose from USD 0.7704 in Q1 to USD 1.4485 in Q2. That result is heavily influenced by the January profile, so it should be interpreted as a mix-adjustment measure rather than a price forecast.

Trade-activity signal. The common denominator across the latest comparisons is fewer transactions. This is the cleanest measure of a lower observed trading cadence, regardless of how weight and quantity units are defined.

7. January Concentration and Dataset Balance

January 2026 is the pivotal observation in the twelve-month series. It represented 25.93% of all Weight but only 10.88% of total transaction value and 10.13% of transactions. The month therefore carried an unusually large share of weight at a relatively low value per kg. This concentration is statistically important because it affects every period average that includes the first quarter.

Table 7. January 2026 contribution to the full-period dataset

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

The post-January months show a narrower trading scale and a higher weight unit-value range.

Analytical caution. A high weight is not equivalent to high transaction value or high transaction intensity.

8. Latest Run Rate: April to June 2026

Weight, transaction value and transactions declined in consecutive months from April to June. Quantity increased in May before falling sharply in June, so it did not change the overall direction. The April-to-June fall in trades was 50.35%, while Weight declined 57.22%.

Table 8. April to June 2026 run-rate comparison

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

The decline in June was particularly abrupt relative to May. The lower count of transactions suggests that the market had fewer individual movements as well as lower aggregate activity. Because the quantity unit-value measure rose strongly in June, value did not fall as sharply as quantity, but the absolute value level still reached the period low.

Table 9. Twelve-month high and low observations

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

9. Outlook, Monitoring Priorities and Conclusion

June activity was substantially below the twelve-month monthly average on all volume and transaction measures, whereas both unit-value measures were above their full-period weighted averages.

Table 10. June 2026 versus twelve-month monthly benchmark

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

Final assessment. The twelve-month record ends with a markedly lower transaction run rate than its historical average. The higher June unit values partially cushion the value contraction, but they do not alter the evidence of materially reduced showed trading activity.