Displaying items by tag: Cembureau

Cementa’s prospects for continued mining limestone in Sweden beyond the end of October 2021 have been looking dubious recently. The subsidiary of Germany-based HeidelbergCement wants to carry on mining limestone at its quarries near its integrated Slite plant in Gotland after 31 October 2021 when its current permits expire. However, the Supreme Land and Environmental Court rejected its renewal application in July 2021 on the grounds that the impact of the quarries on groundwater had not been sufficiently investigated. Then the Supreme Court ruled that it had no basis for appeal at the end of August 2021. This leaves the cement producer hanging on for proposed government plans to make legislative changes to keep limestone mining ongoing for another eight months until mid-2022 and then for whatever scheme the legislators cook up next.

In July 2021 construction multinational Skanska publicly said that it was taking the situation ‘seriously’ because its concrete suppliers had warned it of the impending risk that they would potentially be unable to meet demand in the third quarter of 2022. At the same time the Swedish Construction Federation and related bodies noted that up to 175,000 jobs in construction could be adversely affected with a loss of investment of nearly Euro2bn/month due to the predicted cement shortage. In their view, increasing imports in the short term was unrealistic due to capacity constraints at ports and import terminals. Understandably, the Swedish government has been scrambling to keep the quarries open to protect cement supply and has been accused by both the local press and environmental bodies of circumventing legal norms in the process.

This is not a good situation to be in for either Cementa or anyone who might want to use cement locally in the near future. The cement producer operates both of Sweden’s integrated plants, at Slite and Skövde respectively, with Slite holding around 80% of the company’s production capacity. On its own, the Slite plant alone supplies 75% of the country’s cement, with about another 10 – 15% provided by importer Schwenk Zement. As a whole Cembureau data shows that the country’s market was just under 3Mt/yr in 2020 and stable despite the coronavirus pandemic. A small decline in the residential segment was reported, coupled with a ‘flat’ infrastructure segment, although increased demand from wind farm construction was noted. Cementa stopped production at a third local integrated plant, Degerhamn, in mid-2019 due to low profitability at the site and tightening environmental regulations.

Cementa and HeidelbergCement are putting up a fight by publishing lots of information on Cementa’s website about the permit application process and working towards both solutions in the short and longer term. In early September 2021 Nordkalk signed a deal with Cementa to supply it with limestone. However, as Thomas Lind, the head of cement for HeidelbergCement Northern Europe, pointed out in August 2021, the agreement won’t cover the entire shortfall, nor would it be ideal from logistical or environmental angles. On the opposing side, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation has joined with the Supreme Land and Environmental Court in opposing the quarry permit renewal along with other environmental groups. Plus the government decision to force through a permit reprieve has also given ammunition to its political rivals.

The argument over Slite’s quarry sums up some of the challenges facing society over continued cement production in a world with ever-tougher environmental legislation. Cement plants are likely to face mounting opposition on environmental grounds but most governments will panic when facing the potential consequences of societies running out of essential building materials. There are many ways to avoid this scenario, such as far greater community and political involvement on the part of cement companies, recognition by governments of the importance of building materials, supporting the development and uptake of concrete made with less Ordinary Portland Cement or switching to higher ratios of other building materials and so on. Yet, without preparation, legislators elsewhere will also find themselves in similar positions to the one the Swedish government is in now.

Slite’s problems have arisen in part over a perceived direct threat to local drinking water, although Cementa says that this is absolutely not the case. Typically, cement plants in similar battles find themselves in opposition to local communities due to the immediate impacts of quarrying or production on water, or due to noise or dust. Yet the hidden consequence of clinker production is significant process CO₂ emissions with resulting global climate change. The particular tragedy in Gotland is that HeidelbergCement is one of the more sustainable-minded cement companies, with investment to match. In June 2021 it announced ambitions to upgrade the Slite plant to become the world’s first carbon-neutral cement plant through bio-based fuel substitution and a carbon capture and storage unit by 2030. This may be eight years away but it is one of very few full scale cement plant carbon capture upgrades that have been promised worldwide.

Belgium: The European cement association Cembureau says that the European Union’s (EU) upcoming ‘Fit for 55’ emissions legislation must provide an enabling regulatory framework for the cement industry’s carbon neutrality roadmap. Key issues of concern to the association are the prevention of carbon leakage, the retention of free allocation and a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) until 2030 and the need for a ‘coherent package’ to boost the uptake of low-carbon technologies. It said that the industry supports the European Green Deal and the major challenge of delivering deep emissions cuts by 2030.

Chief executive officer Koen Coppenholle said “Whilst we welcome that the CBAM will seek to bridge the widening gap in carbon costs between EU and non-EU countries, the proposed phase-out of free allocation and the absence of export rebates would cause significant risks to investments.” He added “The decision not to include indirect emissions at this stage is also regrettable.”

Europe: The European cement producers’ association Cembureau says that a possible reduction of European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) free allowances would endanger cement producers’ investment decisions and projects. It says that this in turn might produce competition distortions with third parties. The EU is planning to implement a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) but the association is concerned that its ‘Fit for 55’ 55% CO₂ emissions reduction target for 2030 may have negative implications for the cement industry. However, the association said that it supported the concept of a CBAM.

Cembureau has called for a transition period until 2030 whereby free allocation under the EU ETS will continue fully alongside the introduction of the CBAM. It added that this is compatible with World Trade Organisation rules and avoids any form of ‘double protection’ provided the free allocation is taken into account when calculating the levy paid by any third-party importers. It further stated that the CBAM must cover both direct and indirect emissions. It has also continued to press the legislators to provide for a CO2 charge exemption for EU exporters to third countries, if the country in question is not covered by an equivalent carbon pricing mechanism. The association asked the EU to consider implementing secondary legislation before any CBAM enters force, and to ensure consistency of ‘Fit for 55’ legislative initiatives, applied across a sufficient breadth of sectors to preclude market distortions.

Belgium: Cembureau, the European Cement Association, has elected Isidoro Miranda as its president and Ken McKnight as its vice-president at its general assembly. Miranda, the managing director of LafargeHolcim Spain, who was previously the association’s vice-president, succeeds Raoul de Parisot in the president role. Knight is a member of the CRH executive committee.

EU: The European Commission is reportedly planning to introduce its carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) for cement imports from 2023. Reporting by Bloomberg has revealed that a ‘simplified’ system could be used in a transition period from 2023 with the full mechanism due to start in 2026. Under the new system, cement importers would have to buy certificates at a price linked to the European Union (EU) emissions trading system (ETS). Details on the CBAM and wider environmental plans are due to be made public in mid-July 2021. However, full legal acceptance of the scheme will require approval by the European Parliament and member states.

In a previous response to a report on the CBAM in February 2021, Koen Coppenholle, the head of the European Cement Association (Cembureau), said that a CBAM was a useful tool to address the imports of products not subject to similar carbon constraints in the European Union. He added, “The Environment Committee’s report highlights some key points in this respect, notably that a CBAM should result in EU and non-EU suppliers competing on the same CO2 costs basis; that the scope of CBAM should be wide to avoid market distortions, and that both direct and indirect emissions should be included.”

In May 2021 the EU ETS reached a price of Euro50/t following a significant rise from late 2020 onwards.

The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) looked like it might be about to hit Euro40/t this week. It still might. You can blame it on the current cold front bringing snow to much of Northern Europe and the bedding into of the fourth phase of the ETS that started in January 2021. In early 2020 analysts were generally predicting an average price of around Euro30/t by 2030 bolstered by volatility in the price due to the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Yet the price recovered and so did the European Commission’s resolve to push through its European Green Deal. By mid-December 2020 the price had shot past Euro30/t and analysts were forecasting average prices of well over Euro50/t by 2030. Depending on one’s disposition this is the rate at which either serious decarbonisation attempts will begin to be viable for commercial companies, or the point at which more plants simply close.

Figure 1: European Union Emissions Trading System carbon market price in Euros (European Union Allowance), February 2020 – February 2021. Source: Sandbag.

One group which is well aware of the EU ETS and its consequences upon the cement industry is Cembureau, the European cement association. Some of its current lobbying efforts have been directed at trying to shape how the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM) will appear in legislation proposals in June 2021. Its argument boils down to protecting its members from carbon leakage both in and out of the EU’s borders and maintaining free allocation until 2030 to ease the transition to a lower carbon economy. The former should find common ground. However, calls for a CO₂ charge exemption for EU exporters may perplex environmentalists, who might wonder how this could possibly encourage third party countries to introduce their own carbon pricing schemes. The latter is clearly pragmatism for an industry saying that it is facing change at a pace that may be too rapid for it to cope with. Concrete products do carry sustainability advantages over other building materials. Wiping out swathes of the region’s production base, simply because one knows exactly how much CO₂ they emit compared to rival building materials that one doesn’t, may not help the EU reach its climate commitments by 2050. As if to underline this fear, another European clinker line was earmarked for closure this week when Lafarge France announced the planned conversion of the Contes cement plant into a terminal.

Figure 2: Estimate of global cement production in 2018 by region. Source: Cembureau.

Figure 2 above puts the situation into a global perspective, showing that Cembureau’s members were responsible for below 7% of cement production in 2018. China produced an estimated 55% of global cement production in the same year. In terms of overall CO₂ emissions across all sources, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that China produced 30% of CO₂ emissions in 2018.

It seems odd then that the introduction of an interim ETS in China at the start of February 2021 didn’t receive more global news coverage. The new scheme covers 2225 power companies across the country. It follows pilot regional schemes that have run since 2011, covering seven provinces and cities including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong. Previously, the country’s largest local carbon market, the China Emissions Exchange (Guangzhou), was based in Guangdong province and it included power generation, cement, steel, and petrochemical sectors. State news agency Xinhua reports that this scheme reduced carbon emissions from these industries by 12% from 2013 to 2019. The new national ETS is expected to include cement and other industries at a later stage.

Commentators in the European press have pointed out that the Chinese national ETS is actually planning to make an effort on transparency and to force companies to publish their pollution data publicly. Yet, they’ve also said that the data may be inaccurate anyway, echoing the usual Western fears about Chinese figures. Other concerns include the method of giving out pollution permits rather than allocating them by auction as in other cap and trade systems, which could reduce the incentive to reduce emissions. It’s also worth pointing out that carbon was priced at US$6/t under the Chinese system compared to around US$35/t in the EU and US$17/t in California, US at the end of 2020. At this price it seems unlikely that the Chinese national ETS will encourage much change without other measures.

The EU and Chinese ETS are at different stages but the differences in scale are stark. When or if the Chinese one goes national across those eight core industries it will likely leapfrog over the EU ETS and become the world’s largest with an estimated 13,235MtCO₂e under its purview. By contrast, the EU ETS manages 1816MtC0₂e according to World Bank data. The kind of dilemmas Cembureau and others are tackling with the EU ETS such as carbon leakage and how fast to tighten the system against heavy emitters are illustrative to other schemes in China and elsewhere.

Belgium: The European cement association Cembureau has called for the European Union (EU) to continue to permit the free allocation of carbon credits under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) until it completes the roll-out of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM) in 2030 at the earliest. It said that this would provide indirect cost compensation and mitigate the risk of the relocation of industries. It would additionally incentivise emissions reduction by EU suppliers, ensure a smooth implementation of CBAM in the event of challenge to CBAM by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and mitigate distortions on the EU internal market, according to the association. It gave the example of cement producers competing with other building materials producers as a way in which an overlap period can limit the disruptive impact of CBAM on European value chains.

Chief executive officer Koen Coppenholle said, “A pragmatic approach is needed regarding the interaction of CBAM with the existing carbon leakage measures. A full co-existence of CBAM and free allocation is essential to minimise risks for the industry, avoid distortions on the internal market, safeguard the competitiveness of exports and provide certainty for investors. Such full co-existence, which can be done without any risk of ‘double protection,’ should last at least until the end of Phase IV of the EU ETS in 2030, following which the CBAM will hopefully be mature and expanded to cover most sectors of the economy.” He added, “CBAM is a useful tool to address the imports of products not subject to similar carbon constraints in the EU and therewith mitigates the carbon leakage risk allowing the European cement industry to deliver low-carbon investments. The Environment Committee’s report highlights some key points in this respect, notably that a CBAM should result in EU and non-EU suppliers competing on the same CO₂ costs basis, that the scope of CBAM should be wide to avoid market distortions and that both direct and indirect emissions should be included.”

Spain: The Spanish cement association Oficemen has targeted a 43% emissions drop by 2030 across its entire value chain compared to 1990 levels. The objective has been published as part of the association’s sustainability roadmap to 2050. It is a tightening of the previous target of 27% by 2030. Oficemen intends to meet the tougher reduction by using the so-called 5C approach - clinker, cement, concrete, construction and built environment, and (re)carbonation – as detailed by Cembureau, the European Cement Association. Oficemen also revealed that it is working with the Spanish Technological Platform for CO₂ (PTECO₂) on identifying potential locations for storing captured CO₂. Hugo Morán, Secretary of State for the Environment, participated remotely with the launch event.

Oficemen also reports that Spanish cement consumption fell by 12% year-on-year to 12.2Mt in the first 11 months of 2020. Exports declined by 5%.

Europe: Cembureau, the European Cement Association, has announced that its ‘Cementing Europe’s Future: Building the Green Deal’ webinar will take place on 13 October 2020. The programme includes keynote speeches from association president Raoul de Parisot and German Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Jochen Flasbarth. Additionally, members of the European Parliament and representatives of the European Commission, LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and several other companies involved in the European cement industry will speak.

Belgium: Cembureau, the European Cement Association, has published its new Carbon Neutrality Roadmap, setting out its ambition to reach net zero emissions along the cement and concrete value chain by 2050. The roadmap examines how CO₂ emissions can be reduced at each stage of the value chain – clinker, cement, concrete, construction and (re)carbonation – to achieve zero net emissions by 2050. It quantifies the role of each technology in providing CO₂ emissions savings, making concrete political and technical recommendations to support this objective.

“As Europe begins its green recovery, the significance of this moment for our sector is huge. This is our response to the EU Green Deal – we have a plan and are ready to make the leap.” said Raoul de Parisot, president of Cembureau. The association has identified areas where it says it requires decisive political action from the European Union (EU). These include: the development of a pan-European CO₂ transportation and storage network; action on circular economy to support the use of non-recyclable waste and biomass waste in cement production; policies to reduce European building’s CO₂ footprint, based on a life-cycle approach, that incentivise the market uptake of low-carbon cements; a ‘level’ playing field on carbon, regulatory certainty and an industrial transformation agenda.

Cembureau says it aspires to be in line with the Paris Agreement’s two degrees scenario, reducing CO₂ emissions by 30% for cement and 40% down the value chain. Its chief executive Koen Coppenholle added that, “Carbon neutrality along our full value-chain will be a massive effort, but we are confident we can achieve it. Our sector has made significant progress and, with the right tools and support from the EU, we can go much further.”