Displaying items by tag: European Union
Europe: Cembureau, the European Cement Association, has raised concerns that amendments submitted by the European Parliament’s Environment Committee, which foresee in an introduction of a Border Adjustment Measure (BAM) with the loss of free allowances for the cement sector in Phase IV of European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), starting in 2020, will be detrimental to the local cement industry. The association is concerned that the changes unduly affect the cement industry, although lime, brick and tile industry have been included also.
The association described included that a BAM against certain but not all sectors as 'discriminatory and legally flawed.' It raised the problems that the policy would bring for the competitiveness of the cement industry both globally and internally. It also blamed the influence of reports by non-government agencies upon policymakers.
Environmental campaign group Sandbag defended the changes as ones that could put a stop to the, ‘cement sector’s windfall profits from the ETS.’ It argued that the proposed import inclusion carbon mechanism would expand the scope of the ETS to
include imported materials for a number of sectors, meaning that products sold in the EU would face the same costs for carbon compliance, regardless of their origin.
"In a number of ways, this proposal marks a huge step forward in the evolution of the ETS. The proposed border adjustment measures are a good starting point for levelling the playing field for all cement producers," said Wilf Lytton, Industrial Carbon Researcher at Sandbag.
Belgium: Data from the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) suggests that the carbon intensity of European Union (EU) cement increased from 2008 to 2014, according to analysis by the environmental campaign group Sandbag. It adds that the sector made greater strides in reducing emissions in the years prior to the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). Since 2011, the EU cement sector has increased exports of cement clinker outside the EU, demonstrating that the EU ETS has not made the sector globally uncompetitive.
“EU policymakers have overprotected the cement sector in the EU ETS to such an extent that companies have not taken any action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The EU’s approach is killing with kindness; by maintaining the status quo on free allocation of allowances they are making their own climate targets undeliverable,” said Wilf Lytton, analyst at Sandbag.
Sandbag say that this highlights the inability of the EU’s climate policy, as currently designed, to address European cement sector emissions. Meanwhile, low-carbon new entrant cement companies operating outside of the EU ETS have commercialised technologies to dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of cement, yet are struggling to scale-up as they fight through a mass of regulation and product standards that support the high-carbon status quo.
Research by Sandbag revealed in March 2016 that incentives in the design of the EU ETS have driven higher greenhouse gas emissions emissions in the cement sector.
Sandbag, a climate policy think tank, published its report on the European cement sector entitled ‘Cement - The Final Carbon Fatcat’ last week on 16 March 2016. Amongst its findings the report accused the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) of pushing up emissions created by the cement industry. Unsurprisingly, Cembureau, the European Cement Association, took exception to some of the content of the report and issued a rebuttal. Notably, it said that ‘allegations that the ETS has incentivised overproduction are based on thin air.’
Here we present a section of the executive summary of Sandbag’s report that describes the current situation with the EU ETS and how Sandbag argue this has distorted the European cement industry.
The depressed carbon price under the EU ETS has done little to effect a reduction in emissions from the European cement sector. A surplus of more than 2bn EU allowances (EUAs) has built up in the European carbon market since 2008 with no expectations for the situation to change significantly over the medium term. Industry sources cite that the costs of upgrades to best available technology are tantamount to greenfield investments. The current low carbon price alone is not enough to render such investments economic, especially in the context of a depressed cement market. This applies even more so in the case of capturing and storing/using direct emissions (CCUS) which at this stage seems to be an expensive technology merely in the development stages across Europe.
Figure 1: Expected development of allowance surpluses for major industrial sectors until the end of Phase 3. Source: EUTL (Sandbag calculations).
The rules governing free allocation of allowances have failed to incentivise abatement in the cement sector. In particular, the sector’s inclusion on the list of sectors exposed to the risk of carbon leakage, as well as insensitivity to production changes, will cause its over-allocation to balloon. As we reveal in Figure 1, if activity levels continue at 2014 levels, by 2020 this surplus will be larger than 2.5 years’ worth of emissions. This is more than would be the case for almost any of the other major industrial sectors, practically all of whom expect to lose all or most of their earlier surpluses by the end of this decade.
The chronic oversupply of EUAs to the cement sector is partly due to the fact that cement firms are able to optimise their production of different products across different facilities to maximise their free allocation. Free allocation to cement installations is based on benchmarks relating only to the manufacture of clinker, an intermediate product. Many firms have been able to retain maximum free allocation, corresponding to peak production, by keeping a range of their facilities operating at just above 50% of their historic activity levels – the level required to retain 100% free allocation.
Figure 2: EU net clinker trade. Source: UN COMTRADE (Sandbag calculations).
This free allocation loophole has resulted in both windfall profits and a de facto production subsidy for highly carbon-intensive clinker. This clinker is then either blended in higher than necessary shares into cement or, as we show in Figure 2, actually exported, as EU cement subsidised by free allowances has a competitive advantage compared to manufacturers outside the ETS. This creates a net import of emissions to the EU – the complete reverse of the carbon leakage threat that many industry groups have emphasised. As we show in Figure 3, this stimulation of clinker exports to countries outside the EU has been the single most damaging factor to the decarbonisation of this sector, pushing 2013 emissions nearly 15Mt higher than they could have been.
Figure 3: Different factors’ contribution to cutting the cement sector’s emissions EU-wide during 2005 - 2013. Source: Cement Sustainability Initiative ‘Getting the Numbers Right’ database (Sandbag calculations).
As well as causing a surge in emissions, the insufficiently responsive free allocation rules leave cement companies strongly over-allocated. Table 2 shows the surpluses we estimate that the five cement majors have accumulated (or monetised) since the beginning of Phase 2.
Company | 2008 - 2014 surplus | Value | 2014 emissions |
(Million EUAs) | (Million EURO) | (Mt) | |
Lafarge-Holcim | 49.8 | 299.7 | 18.2 |
Heidelberg-Italcementi | 45.8 | 275.5 | 28.1 |
CRH | 31.9 | 191.8 | 10.3 |
Cemex | 26.2 | 157.5 | 8 |
Buzzi Unicem | 10.4 | 62.5 | 7.3 |
Table 2: Largest cement companies’ surpluses and emissions (millions of EUAs, euros and tonnes). Source: EUTL (Sandbag calculations).
These five companies from the cement sector have collectively received nearly Euro1bn worth of spare EU allowances (EUAs) for free between 2008 and 2014. As the number of free allowances available to all industry is fixed, over-allocation to cement companies reduces the allowances available to other sectors that might really need protection.
The ETS therefore provides few incentives for these firms to invest in decarbonisation technologies. Given widespread expectations for an over-supplied carbon market well in to the 2020s and, consequently, a low carbon price, the opportunity cost of holding onto allowances is negligible when compared to the high cost of investment in abatement technologies.
Thanks to Alex Luta and Wilf Lytton at Sandbag for letting Global Cement publish this extract of their report. The full version of ‘Cement - The Final Carbon Fatcat: How Europe’s cement sector benefits and the climate suffers from emissions trading flaws’ is available to download from Sanbag’s website.
Belgium: Cembureau has taken exception with a report published by Sandbag on the emissions trading scheme and European cement sector entitled ’ Cement - The Final Carbon Fatcat - How Europe’s cement sector benefits and the climate suffers from emissions trading flaws.’ The European Cement Association alleged that the report contains factual and numerical errors. It also criticised the conclusion that the European Union (EU) emissions trading scheme (ETS) has incentivised overproduction.
“The allegations that the ETS has incentivised overproduction are based on thin air and do not acknowledge the strides the cement sector has made through investments in the reduction of its CO2 emissions. The ever-recurring mantra on over-allocation ignores that the cement industry has always called for an allocation closer to production and will continue to do so,” said Cembureau in a statement. It pointed out efforts by the cement industry to reduce the clinker content of cement and the presence of cement at the start of the building supply chain.
Cembureau also disagreed with the concept of a tiered approach as suggested by Sandbag. It has lobbied for a revision of the auctioning/free allowance of shares so as to allow the best performers to receive full free allocation, in line with the European Council Conclusions of 23 October 2014. It pointed out risks of a tiered approach to include unclear and unverifiable criteria to distinguish between sectors that could be discriminatory and open to legal challenge.
Despite its complaints Cemburea did partly agree with Sandbag’s views on the need for innovation funding to stimulate breakthrough technologies, a closer alignment between allocation and production in the form of a dynamic allocation and a stronger recognition of the role of alternative fuel and raw material use in emission reductions, with the inclusion of a landfill ban on recoverable and recyclable raw materials.
In its report Sandbag suggested that the EU ETS may have caused emissions in the cement sector to have risen beyond ‘business as usual.’ It estimated that emissions may have risen by more than 15Mt due to the scheme. It also flagged up five ‘Carbon Fatcat Companies’ from the cement sector who have collectively received nearly Euro1bn worth of spare EU allowances for free between 2008 and 2014. The cement producers cited by Sandbag were LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and Italcementi, CRH, Cemex and Buzzi Unicem.
A pessimist's guide to the cement industry in 2016
06 January 2016We're going to start 2016 with a list of some of the worst things that could happen to the global cement industry this year. The idea is taken from Bloomberg Business who ran 'A Pessimist's Guide to the World in 2016' in mid-December 2015. For some of these suggestions there will be both winners and losers. Remember: forewarned is forearmed.
Continuing low oil prices hit Russia and other petro-propped economies
Cheaper fossil fuels should mean cheaper energy bills for cement producers. However, that saving must be compared to the overall cost to the global cement industry of poor construction markets in Russia and other economies that rely on oil. For example, Russian construction output fell by 4.5% to US$81bn in 2014 according to PMR. It is possible that the fuels bill saving worldwide is greater than the contraction of certain construction markets. If it is though, is this a price that the cement industry is willing to pay?
China enters a recession
The long-expected Chinese 'hard landing' seems closer than ever, as economic growth slows. It hasn't happened yet (according to official figures at least) but the 7% drop in Chinese markets on 4 January 2015 gives observers the jitters. The financial reverberations from a full Chinese financial crash would be felt around the world, derailing emerging economies due to reducing demand for exports and commodities. Naturally, construction markets would suffer. This would add to the woes currently being experienced by Brazil, Russia and South Africa. The other worry for the cement industry specifically might be the complications from a desperate Chinese industry trying to flood the outside world with even more of its products and services, including lots of cement.
Climate change impacts cement plants
Normally when it comes to climate change the cement industry worries about the effects of carbon taxation and pollution controls. However, media reporting about flooding in the UK in late December 2015 and strong El Niño effects elsewhere makes a pessimist wonder about the effects of hotter and wetter weather upon the infrastructure of the industry. The cost to repair the flooded Cemex UK South Ferriby cement plant in 2014 was rumoured to run to Euro14m and production stopped for a whole year. Costs like these are something the industry could do without.
International sanctions remain in place for Iran
Hoping that lifting economic sanctions from Iran will boost the fortunes of multinational cement producers and equipment manufacturers may be wishful thinking. Yet if the sanctions stay in place due to deteriorating relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia then nobody can discover what opportunities there might be in the world's fourth largest cement producing nation. Of course Iran's geographical neighbours across the Gulf (and in Pakistan) might be hoping that the sanctions stay in place for a very long time indeed.
Sub-Saharan Africa builds production capacity too fast
Multinationals and local cement producers alike are scrambling to build cement plants in sub-Saharan Africa. Demand for cement and low per capita consumption suggest that it is a clear investment opportunity as development kicks in. However, we have already reported on scraps between local cement associations and importers from other continents. If the cement producers build capacity faster than these countries develop, then a crash can't be too far fround the corner and everybody loses.
The UK leads an exodus from the European Union
For the cement industry a UK exit, to be voted on later in 2016, from the European Union (EU) isn't necessarily a bad things. What would be negative though is a badly handled exit process as vast swathes of trade legislation is renegotiated. What a 'Brexit' might initiate are further exits from the EU, leading to further trade disruption on a larger scale. None of this would aid Europe's economic recovery in the short term.
US Presidential elections slow the construction market
Irish bookmaker Paddy Power is currently placing odds of 9/2 for Donald Trump to be elected the next US president in late 2016. He's the second favourite candidate after Hillary Clinton despite not even having been nominated as the Republican party's presidential candidate yet. Whoever becomes the next president, the political uncertainty that occurs as the election progresses may impact upon the US construction market. It would be unfortunate to discover that the sector is weaker than expected if, say, the election rhetoric turns nasty.
Next week: reasons to be cheerful.
Happy New Year from Global Cement!
The Greek debt crisis directly hit the local cement industry on Tuesday 30 June 2015 when Titan Cement reported that it was unable to pay a dividend to its shareholders. The leading local cement producer blamed the capital controls introduced by the government.
It is worth looking at the effects on the domestic cement industry as the Eurozone bureaucracy and the Greek government play 'chicken' with each other while Greece starts the default process, having failed to pay the latest International Monetary Fund (IMF) payment on 30 June 2015. Greece will now join a group, possibly even more select than the European Union, of countries that have failed to pay back the IMF, including current defaulters like Sudan and Zimbabwe.
A better comparison might be made with Argentina which defaulted upon its foreign debts in 2001. Its construction industry fell by 12% year-on-year in 2001 and by a further 30% in 2002. Cement consumption and cement production utilisation rates hit 23% in 2002. One key difference with Greece is that the country has had major financial difficulties for far longer than Argentina. Argentina ran into financial depression in 1998 and defaulted in 2001. Greece ran into financial trouble following the 2008 financial crisis and then received its first bailout in 2010.
As the capital controls show, even initial responses to the financial situations are impacting upon the standard transactions a limited company conducts. The Financial Times ran an article in May 2015 examining the potential effects on businesses of a debt default and Greek exit from the Eurozone (Grexit). In short, business and commerce will continue where possible reacting to whatever comes their way. For example, an olive oil producer reported switching to exports to make profits. Crucially though, another company interviewed, a construction contractor, worried about potential cuts to government or EU-led infrastructure projects.
As Titan reported in its first quarter results for 2015, its Greek market has been dependent on road building. In February 2014 Titan Cement reported its first improved operating results in seven years followed by profit in 2014 as a whole. The other major cement producers, Lafarge subsidiary Heracles General Cement and Italcementi subsidiary Halyps Cement, reported an improved construction market in 2014 with rising cement volumes. However, it was noted by Lafarge that it was developing exports to 'optimise kiln utilisation.' Titan also noted the benefits of exports in its first quarter report for 2015, focusing on a strengthening US Dollar versus the Euro. Given on-going events, one suspects there is going to be a lot more 'development' of this kind.
To set some sense of scale of the crisis Jim O'Neill, former head of economics at Goldman Sachs, famously calculated that, at the height of its growth, China created an economy the size of Greece's every three months. What happens next is down to the crystal balls of economists, although the path of least resistance now seems to be pointing at further default, departure from the Eurozone and Euro and further significant financial pain for Greece.
It looks likely that the local construction market will stay subdued and exports will offer a lifeline. How much the EU is prepared to let Greece default on its bills and then try and undercut its own over-capacity cement industries remains to be seen. However, since the main cement producers in Greece are all multinational outfits, it will afford them some flexibility in their strategy in coping with the fallout. Meanwhile a cement production capacity of around 14Mt/yr for a population of 11m suggests over capacity by European standards. If exports can't help then the situation looks grim.
UPDATE: Here is Global Cement's previous take on Greece from June 2012
Europe: CRH has been approved by the European Commission as a purchaser of assets in the European Union from Lafarge and Holcim. CRH has also received from the European Commission the clearance for the acquisition of these assets. These divestments remain subject to the completion of the merger between Lafarge and Holcim, including a successful public exchange offering to Lafarge's shareholders and approval by Holcim's shareholders.
In France Holcim and Lafarge are divesting all of Holcim's assets, except for its Altkirch cement plant and aggregates and ready-mix sites in the Haut-Rhin region, and a grinding station of Lafarge in Saint-Nazaire. Lafarge's assets on Reunion island are being sold except for its shareholding in Ciments de Bourbon. All of Lafarge's assets are also being sold in Germany and Romania. Lafarge Tarmac assets in the UK are being sold with the exception of its Cauldon and Cookstown plants and certain associated assets. In Hungary all of Holcim's operating assets are being divested and it is selling its assets in Slovakia.
Lafarge and Holcim about to request EU approval to merge
10 October 2014Europe: Lafarge and Holcim are about to request approval from the European Commission (EC) for their planned merger, according to Lafarge CEO Bruno Lafont.
"We are indeed very close to EU notification," said Lafont. He added that talks with Brussels had been constructive and that the companies were 'well on track' to close the deal in the first half of 2015.
Romania: Holcim is mulling its options after the European Union's (EU) top court dismissed its lawsuit against the European Commission (EC) over the theft of 1.6 million emissions allowances in 2010.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 18 Sept 2014 rejected Holcim's arguments that the EC should compensate it for Euro17.6m for damages suffered when the online carbon trading account of its Romanian subsidiary was hacked. In its judgment, the court ruled that Holcim must bear the losses resulting from the thefts and pay the EC's legal costs in the case, which were not disclosed.
"Holcim has taken note of the General Court's judgement," said a Holcim sposewoman. "We are currently analysing the decision in more detail and cannot comment any further."
In November 2010 cyber criminals hacked into Holcim's account at the Romanian emissions trading registry - previously one of around 30 online trading hubs in the EU carbon market - and transferred 1.6 million s-called EU allowances to two accounts at the Italian and Liechtenstein registries. According to EU records, the allowances then passed through registry accounts in the UK, France, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic within hours, before eventually being sold on emissions exchanges in Paris and Amsterdam.
Around 695,000 allowances were later returned to Holcim by various European authorities, but the company's spokeswoman said that the remaining units have still not been recovered.
Holcim sued the EC, which administers the bloc's electronic emissions trading network, in 2012 for failing to freeze the accounts containing the stolen units, for not returning them and for allowing other companies to turn them in for compliance under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). The EC refused to reveal the location of the allowances, saying that under EU law the details were confidential and could only be passed to European authorities.
Several European companies including International Power and ScottishPower have since surrendered some of the units to comply with the ETS, but claimed that they bought them in good faith, without knowing that they had been reported stolen.
Holcim had claimed that the EU should pay it the value of any allowances still missing, based on the market price on 16 November 2010 (the day of the theft) plus annual interest of 8%. That amounts to more than Euro17.6m, based on a spot allowance price of Euro14.60/unit.
Holcim has also sued Romania's National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) over similar claims.
"The court case against NEPA has been suspended by the civil court until the Romanian law enforcement agency (DIICOT) finalises the criminal investigation, but as of now we have no indication as to when this might happen," said Holcim.
Holcim and Lafarge enter talks with EU to expedite merger
19 September 2014Europe: Holcim and Lafarge are holding talks with the European Union (EU) in a bid to obtain fasterapproval of their merger plan. Holcim and Lafarge plan to iron out possible EU concerns over the merged company's market power before filing for approval of the deal, the step that starts the EU's review.
Addressing EU issues at an early stage may allow regulators to approve the deal without opening an in-depth probe, which could add about four months to the process. The companies announced a wave of divestments in July 2014 in an attempt to ward off regulatory obstacles. Planned sales are weighted toward Europe, cutting exposure of both companies to the slower-growing region. European plants earmarked for divestment include sites in Austria, France, Germany and Romania. Under the EU's merger-review process, most deals are cleared at the first hurdle.