Displaying items by tag: Europe

Plenty to mull over this week in Cembureau’s newly published Activity Report for 2016. The association pulls together data from a variety of places including its own sources, Eurostat and Euroconstruct. For competition reasons much of it stops in 2015 but it paints a compelling picture of a continental cement industry starting to find its feet again.

Graph 1: Cement intensity of the construction sector in Europe, 2000 – 2015. Source: Cembureau calculation based on Eurostat and Euroconstruct in Activity Report for 2016.

The really interesting data concerns so-called cement intensity. This is the quantity of cement consumed per billion Euro invested in construction. Figures calculated by Cembureau from data from Eurostat and Eurocontruct show that cement intensity has remained stable in Germany, France and the UK but that it fell sharply in Spain and Italy from 2000 to 2015. In other words the pattern of construction changed in these countries. One suggestion for this that Cembureau offers is that construction moved from new projects to renovation and maintenance. These types of construction projects require less cement than new builds. Seen in this context the huge production over capacities seen in Italy and Spain in recent years makes sense as the local cement industries have coped with both the economic crash and a step change in their national construction markets.

Further data in the report falls in line with the impression given by the multinational cement producers in their quarterly and annual financial reports. Cement production picked up in the Cembureau member states from 2012 and in the European Union members (EU28) from 2013. Meanwhile, import and export figures disentangled from a close relationship at the time of the financial crash in 2008 with imports of cement declining and exports increasing markedly. Much of it will have originated from Italy and Spain as their industries coped with the changes. Cembureau then forecasts that cement consumption will rise in 2017 by 2.4% and 3.5% in 2018 in the 19 countries than form the Euroconstruct network. A key point to note here is that most of the larger European economies will see consumption consistently grow in 2017 and 2018 with the exception of France where it growth will remain positive but it will slow somewhat in 2018. This fits with last week’s column about France with the early reports from LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and Vicat reporting slight declines in sales volumes so far in 2017.

Cembureau’s country-by-country analysis also provides a good overview of its member industries. Looking at the larger economies, residential construction was the main driver for cement consumption in France and Germany in 2016. In Germany further growth is hoped for from an increased infrastructure budget set by the Federal Government. Italian cement consumption fell in 2016 and further decreases are anticipated for 2017, particularly from the public sector. By contrast though the story in Spain is still one of declining cement consumption but one heavily mitigated by exports. Spain is the described by Cembureau as the leading EU export country. Finally, there’s little recent on the UK other than uncertainty concerns about the Brexit process and an anticipated rise in infrastructure spending by 2019. The sparse detail here is probably for the best given the current political deadlock in the UK following the continued fallout from the general election in early June 2017.

In summary, Cembureau’s data shows that modest growth is happening in the cement industries of its member countries. It’s not uniform and some nations such as Spain and Italy are coping with changes in the composition of their industries. Cembureau also highlights the unpredictable consequences of the UK’s departure from the EU as one of the biggest risks in 2017. Check out the report for more information.

The Global Cement Weekly column of 22 February 2017 entitled ‘European Union (very) slowly tightens the screws on its Emissions Trading Scheme,’¹ bears witness to the misconception that we must choose between protecting the cement industry OR the climate. Quite the opposite is true: the objective is the cohesion between economic prosperity, meeting cement market demand AND lowering CO₂ emissions.

It is undisputed that, if climate protection is aspired to, there needs to be an adequate regulatory incentive that supports, perhaps even strengthens, industry’s profitability when companies act to lower their CO₂ emission. Some companies have tried selling low CO₂-cement at a price premium, marketing their lower embedded carbon. In a commodity market of a grey powder where low prices are a decisive purchasing point, this obviously doesn’t fly.

The only sustainable business incentive is to pass on the full cost of CO₂ not only in production but also in consumption of products. This would effectively result in higher cement sales prices for high-CO₂ cement and lower prices but higher margins for low-CO₂ cement, without losing competitiveness to producers that do not face regulatory CO₂ constraints. Hence, a win-win-win situation for low carbon cement producers, consumers and the environment. This is after all the purpose of the sectoral ETS mechanism with inclusion of importers and no free allowance allocation.

The studies undertaken by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) for CEMBUREAU simulated the potential gross margin for the domestic cement industry in case of different leakage prevention mechanisms. While this may sound shocking for some, there is nothing wrong with aiming at maximisation of gross margin. Quite the opposite, gross margin maximisation is absolutely necessary for the cohesion between economic prosperity and climate protection and the effectiveness of an ETS.

The BCG studies led to the conclusion that in case of a tightening CO₂ allowance cap and under certain market conditions the importers’ inclusion mechanism can yield the best margin for the industry. Since however, as the Global Cement Weekly column mentions, the EU only very slowly tightens the screws on the supply of emission allowances, there will be sufficient free allocation for industry and there remains little need to lower emissions and thus little need for an importers’ inclusion mechanism.

CEMBUREAU called into doubt the representativeness of the technology penetration reported by the Cement Sustainability Initiative’s Getting the Numbers Right database. It is a well-established fact that the penetration of modern preheater precalciner kilns in most emerging countries is higher than in Europe, because the industry is younger outside of Europe and hence most installations have been built with more recent, more energy-efficient technology. Besides the CSI database, cement CO₂ inventories exist for about 10 emerging countries. They all confirm the same.

Beyond the comparison with other regions however, an emissions trading system that after 12 years still enables one fifth of production being made using the most energy-intensive technologies objectively misses its purpose.

Despite consuming up to 50% more energy than the Best Available Technology, such installations can survive thanks to free allocation and the revenues from waste derived fuels. The industry legitimately highlights the environmental benefits of using waste as a fuel. However, it is questionable whether keeping energy-intensive installations alive thanks to cheap energy from waste is consistent with this environmental narrative.

The proposed changes to the EU ETS will not improve its effectiveness for the cement industry. Quite the opposite, it will make it even less effective because the introduction of a dynamic allocation based on a clinker benchmark completely nullifies the need for the industry to lower the clinker content in cement.

CEMBUREAU indeed has the right to protect the industry it represents, but is probably short sighted and ill informed when it does so to the detriment of society’s necessity to mitigate climate change. The rejection of the importers’ inclusion mechanism is a missed opportunity for the European Union to make the ETS effective and for the cement industry to maintain its competitiveness in a carbon constrained world.

Eric Olsen, CEO of LafargeHolcim, the largest global cement company, and chairman of the Cement Sustainability Initiative, has called for a meaningful and increasing carbon price that can be passed through the whole product value chain and for trade policy to be included in the ETS.²

Lakshmi Mittal, Chairman of ArcelorMittal, the largest global steel company, has also called for a border adjustment measure and inclusion of consumption in climate policies.³ High quality research by leading economists exists on this topic.⁴ Now that the reform of the EU ETS enters the trilogue negotiation between European Council, Commission and Parliament, these industry leaders should step forward with a concrete and workable solution to combine industrial, trade and climate policies by 2020.

1. http://www.globalcement.com/news/item/5836-european-union-very-slowly-tightens-the-screws-on-its-emissions-trading-scheme
2. WEF, Davos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_mhqcNR0uA
3. Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/8341b644-ef95-11e6-ba01-119a44939bb6
4. Climate Strategies, UK: http://climatestrategies.org/?s=consumption

LafargeHolcim was the last major European cement producer to release its second quarter financial results last week. The collective picture is confused. Cement sales volumes have risen but sales revenue have fallen.

Most of the producers have blamed negative currency effects for their falls in revenue during the first half of 2016. Holding a mixed geographical portfolio of building materials production assets has kept these companies afloat over the last decade but this has come with a price. The recent appreciation of the Euro versus currencies in various key markets, such as in Egypt, has hit balance sheets, since the majority of these firms are based in Europe and mostly use the Euro for their accounting. Meanwhile, sales volumes of cement have mostly risen for the companies we have examined making currency effects a major contributor.

Graph 1 - Changes in cement sales volumes for major non-Chinese cement producers in the first half of 2016 compared to the first half of 2015 (%). Data labels are the volumes reported in 2016. Source: Company reports.

As can be seen in Graph 1, sales volumes have risen for most of the producers, with the exception of LafargeHolcim. Despite blaming shortages of gas in Nigeria for hitting its operating income, LafargeHolcim actually saw its biggest drop in sales volumes in Latin America by 13.2% year-on-year to 11.8Mt. The other surprise here was that its North American region reported a 2.7% fall to 8.8Mt with Canada the likely cause. Vicat deserves mention here for its giant boost in sales volumes due to recovery in France and good performance in Egypt and the US, amongst other territories.

Graph 2 - Changes in sales revenue for major non-Chinese cement producers in the first half of 2016 compared to the first half of 2015 (%). Data labels are the sales reported in 2016. Source: Company reports.

Overall sales revenue for these companies presents a gloomier scenario with the majority of them losing revenue in the first half of the year, with most of them blaming negative currency effects for this. Titan is included in this graph to show that it’s not all bad news. Its growth in revenue was supported by good performance in the US and Egypt. Likewise, good performance in Eastern Europe and the US helped Buzzi Unicem turn in a positive increase in its sales revenue. They remain, however, the exception.

Looking at sales revenue generated from cement offers one way to disentangle currency effects from performance. Unfortunately, only about half of the companies looked at here actually published this for the reporting period. Of these, LafargeHolcim reported a massive rise that was probably due to the accounting coping with the merger process that finalised in 2015. Of the rest - HeidelbergCement, Italcementi and Vicat – the sales revenue from each company’s cement businesses fell at a faster rate than overall sales. Like-for-like figures here would help clarify this situation.

Meanwhile, a mixed global patchwork of cement demand is focusing multinational attention on key countries with growing economies like Egypt and Nigeria. Both of these countries have undergone currency devaluation versus the Euro and are facing energy shortages for various reasons. The exposure of the multinational cement producers to such places may become clearer in the second half of the year.

Europe: Lafarge and Holcim have completed the appointments for the future executive committee of LafargeHolcim following a recommendation by Eric Olsen, future CEO of the combined group. The future executive committee, under the leadership of Eric Olsen, is composed of:

• Finance - Thomas Aebischer, currently in charge of finance at Holcim;
• Integration, organisation and human resources - Jean-Jacques Gauthier, currently in charge of finance at Lafarge;
• Europe - Roland Köhler, currently in charge of Europe at Holcim;
• Asia Pacific - Ian Thackwray, currently in charge of East Asia Pacific and trading at Holcim;
• Middle-East Africa - Saâd Sebbar, currently in charge of Morocco at Lafarge;
• North America - Alain Bourguignon, previously in charge of North America and the UK at Holcim;
• Latin America - Pascal Casanova, currently in charge of France at Lafarge;
• Performance and cost - Urs Bleisch, currently in charge of corporate functions at Holcim;
• Growth and innovation - Gérard Kuperfarb, currently in charge of innovation at Lafarge.

Following appropriate information-consultation processes with relevant works councils and employee representatives, Lafarge and Holcim have now entered a binding agreement with CRH regarding the sale of several assets. The assets include operations mainly in Europe, Canada, Brazil and the Philippines with an enterprise value of Euro6.5bn. The divestments remain subject to the completion of the merger including the acceptance of Holcim's public exchange offer by the shareholders of Lafarge. The merger is expected to close in July 2015.

Europe: In the framework of their proposed merger of equals, the boards of directors (BoD) of Holcim and Lafarge have nominated their candidates for the future BoD of LafargeHolcim, subject to closing of the transaction. The designated BoD will consist of 14 members due to be elected at the Holcim Extraordinary General Meeting on 8 May 2015.

The candidates are:

• Wolfgang Reitzle, Co-Chairman (currently Chairman of the BoD of Holcim);
• Bruno Lafont, Co-Chairman (currently Chairman of the BoD and Chief Executive Officer of Lafarge);
• Beat Hess, Vice-Chairman (currently Deputy Chairman of the BoD of Holcim);
• Bertrand Collomb (currently Honorary Chairman of Lafarge);
• Philippe Dauman (currently member of the BoD of Lafarge);
• Paul Desmarais Jr. (currently member of the BoD of Lafarge);
• Oscar Fanjul (currently Vice-Chairman of the BoD of Lafarge);
• Alexander Gut (currently member of the BoD of Holcim);
• Gérard Lamarche (currently member of the BoD of Lafarge);
• Adrian Loader (currently member of the BoD of Holcim);
• Nassef Sawiris (currently member of the BoD of Lafarge);
• Thomas Schmidheiny (currently member of the BoD of Holcim);
• Hanne Birgitte Breinbjerg Sørensen (currently member of the BoD of Holcim);
• Dieter Spälti (currently member of the BoD of Holcim).

Subject to the execution and completion of the merger project, Anne Wade and Jürg Oleas will resign from their office as members of the BoD at Holcim with effect as of the completion of the merger project.

Europe: Lafarge has identified two potential chief executive candidates for LafargeHolcim, according to local media. Lafarge chief financial officer Jean-Jacques Gauthier and vice president Eric Olsen have both been named. The companies need to find a new chief executive after Holcim demanded a change to the initial agreement that would have installed Lafarge chief Bruno Lafont as head of LafargeHolcim.

This week saw Lafarge and Holcim announce a list of proposed asset divestments following months of research by a Divestment Committee. The mass divestment is planned so that competition authorities around the world can approve the proposed Euro40bn merger of equals to produce LafargeHolcim. When the merger was initially proposed on 7 April 2014, Lafarge and Holcim estimated that some Euro5bn of asset disposals would be necessary and they are already well on their way.

Europe is facing the brunt of asset divestments, as this is where the companies have the largest market overlap. Holcim plans to sell all of its assets in Hungary and Serbia, while Lafarge will sell all of its assets in Germany, Romania and the UK (with one possible cement plant exception). In Austria, Lafarge has opted to divest its Mannersdorf cement plant, while in France it would sell its Reunion Island assets (excluding its shareholding in Ciments de Bourbon). Holcim plans to sell all of its assets in France except for its Altkirch cement plant and aggregates and ready-mix sites in the Alsace Region.

Elsewhere in the world, Holcim plans to sell all of its assets in Canada and Mauritius. In the Philippines the companies plan to combine the operations of Lafarge Republic Inc and Holcim Philippines Inc and to divest Lafarge's Bulacan, Norzagaray and Iligan plants. In Brazil, where Lafarge and Holcim both have a significant presence, the companies plan to announce their intentions after collaboration with CADE, the country's competition authority. There is little market overlap in most of Asia and the Middle East: Lafarge's assets in Malaysia and Syria complement Holcim's strong presence in India and Indonesia.

So far, Lafarge has consolidated its African operations by establishing Lafarge Africa and selling its assets in Ecuador. Holcim has been granted approval from the European Competition Commission to purchase Cemex West in Germany and, most recently, Lafarge has announced that it intends to buy out its joint venture partner, Anglo American, from Lafarge Tarmac in order to sell the entire business.

While the asset divestment list shows good will to global competition authorities, there remains no guarantee that Lafarge and Holcim will not need to divest even more assets. However, by nominating such a large number of divestments in the first instance, the companies have shown willing to cooperate with anti-monopoly measures, potentially easing the path of the LafargeHolcim mega-merger.

Industrial energy consumers in Romania have succeeded in extracting concessions from the government's green certificates scheme this week. Cement producers, including Lafarge, Holcim and local HeidelbergCement subsidiary CarpatCement Holding, will benefit now from a 10-year facility to acquire the certificates and they will be allowed to buy up to 85% fewer certificates than at present.

The Romanian government reckons the change will save industry Euro750m. It will be good news for the cement producers and aluminium producer Alro Slatina, one of the chief lobbyists for the change which paid Euro39m for the certificates in 2013, reported losses of Euro17m and threatened production closures.

The debacle strikes a chord with other government-led attempts to nudge society towards lower-carbon emitting energy sources. First a national or international scheme offers economic incentives toward some sort of carbon reduction. Then major industrial users either complain that the system 'unfairly' penalises them or they find a way to play the system. The latest example of the adjustments in Romania is an example of the former, as is the current Australian government's intention to remove its carbon tax. Multinational companies surrendering carbon offsets into the European Union's (EU) emissions trading scheme (ETS) is an example of the latter.

In defence of government-industry negotiation, the EU ETS is now in its third phase of trying to make the scheme work as the EU tries to reach its target of a 20% cut in emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2020. In late 2013 environmental group Sandbag accused the target of containing a loophole that allows for a much smaller cut in emissions due to a slack in carbon budgets, of potentially 2% of 1990 levels. However, the EU confirmed in early June 2014 that it is on track to beat its target and cut down total emissions by 24.5% by 2020.

Alongside all of this arguing, overall energy costs have steadily risen over the last decade, as have the rates of co-processing at European cement plants. As a secondary major fuels consumer, behind energy generation and transportation, the cement industry is particularly susceptible to energy prices being jolted around behind various market trends, such as increases in natural gas supply in the US market. In effect the cement industry hops between different 'next best' options, after the leading energy consumers have taken the premium fuels. The interplay between legislators and heavy industry over carbon taxes prompts the following question: what encourages cement producers more to move to reduce their carbon emissions – legislation or fuel prices?

In other news this week, the chief executive of African producer Bamburi Cement, Hussein Mansi, has announced his plans to move on to Lafarge Egypt. In his memo to staff he mentioned, '...five very interesting years leading the Kenya – Uganda business.' Telling words perhaps given the Kenyan government's attention on Bamburi Cement and the East Africa Portland Cement Company, a producer minority-owned by Lafarge. Of course Mansi may discover that 'interesting' is relative in Egypt, a country on the other side of the energy subsidy spectrum to Europe and its carbon taxes.

Cement cartels (or at least cases of cartel-like behaviour) have reared their ugly heads this week... again. In two different markets, Australia and Brazil, competition authorities are at various stages of taking major action against large proportions of their respective cement industries. In another, Europe, it is the cement producers that are taking on the authorities.

This week, the Australian Federal Court has found five producers guilty of agreeing anti-competitive contracts with regard to fly-ash supply contracts from power stations in the state of Victoria. Only Cement Australia Holdings was not accused. Penalties are to be determined at a later date – watch this space.

As drastic as the Australian situation may be, it is Brazil's anti-trust authority Cade that looks set to make the biggest 'splash' in a cement industry in 2014. On 13 March 2014 it was reported that a US$1.32bn fine, split over six cement producers, has been put on hold after the producers disputed a ruling that would see them lose an average 24% of their cement assets each. So big is this fine that it actually eclipses the US$1.1bn fine seen in India in 2012. In light of the amount of influence that they look set to lose, it now looks extremely likely that the producers will appeal. This sets the scene for indeterminably long waits for legal proceedings and more evidence to be collected. Whatever happens in Brazil, there will be major implications for its increasingly-concentrated cement market.

Elsewhere, in a strange inversion of the normal situation, in Europe it is the cement producers that are taking action. This week the European Court has rejected an appeal from eight major cement producers including Holcim, HeidelbergCement and Cemex subsidiaries with respect to the European Commission's handling of an anti-cartel investigation that began in 2008. That case saw anti-trust investigations start in 2010. Proceedings continue.

As stated previously in this column, cartel-like behaviour is not necessarily indicative of a formal cartel. There are innumerable factors that make every case different and, in each, proving actual collusion is very hard indeed. In the cement industry however, it appears that 'convictions' in cartel cases are easier to spot than in other sectors.

"The first thing for any new competition regulator is to go out and find the cement cartel. My experience of this subject is, it is always there, somewhere," wrote Richard Whish, a Professor of Law at King's College London in 2001. "The only countries in which I had been unable to find the cement cartel is where there is a national state-owned monopoly for cement."

The authorities will keep looking and producers, guilty or not, will continue to wait for their call.

Recovery in the European cement markets arrived slowly in 2013. Balance sheets at HeidelbergCement, Cemex, Italcementi, Vicat and Buzzi Unicem appear to have stalled into something less than the recovery that everybody wants. The picture is more stable in Western Europe but declining revenues have headed east.

The European Commission's Autumn 2013 Economic Forecast has summed it up well, predicting that the European Union's (EU) gross domestic product (GDP) would remain static in 2013. On the strength of the results seen so far that feels about right. The cement industry in Europe hasn't continued to decline but the 'recovery' is slow. Yet a recovery is happening on the strength of these financial results so far. Compared to some of the sales declines seen in 2012 this is good news.

With results from the big European-based cement producers Lafarge and Holcim due later in February 2014, here is a summary of the European situation.

HeidelbergCement's revenue has remained flat in 2013 at Euro13.9bn although its cement, clinker and ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) sales volumes have risen by 2.6% to 91.3Mt. Compare this with the 8.7% bounce in revenue from 2011 to 2012. By region, the problem areas have now shifted from losses in Western and Northern Europe to losses in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Market pickup in the UK has driven this turnaround, despite diminished sales volumes in Germany.

Similarly, Cemex's sales have also remained flat at US$15.2bn. Both of its European areas have improved their sales, with sales losses only reported for the Northern Europe region. Again, sales in the UK drove overall business with France starting to improve too.

Italcementi had it tougher in 2013 with its sixth consecutive drop in revenue since 2008. Just like HeidelbergCement, the problem regions for Italcementi have shifted east in 2013 from Western Europe to the group's Emerging Europe, North Africa and Middle East area. However Italcementi is losing revenue in Western Europe faster than HeidelbergCement, mainly due to the poor Italian market.

Elsewhere, Vicat reported that its consolidated cement sales fell by 4% to Euro1.11bn. Sales decline lessened in France and the rest of Europe even saw sales rise by 4% to Euro427m. Buzzi Unicem saw its cement sales volumes remain static in 2013 at 27.4Mt.

Overall it may not feel great but it's better than the cement industry news for Europe we've been used to in recent years. With the European Commission Economic Forecast suggesting a 1.4% rise in GDP in 2014, the next 12 months look more promising.