Displaying items by tag: Import

South Korea: The Korea Cement Association (KCA) says its members will increase the use of coal ash from local thermal power plants or source alternative raw materials from domestic clay mines. The decision follows a trade dispute between South Korea and Japan, according to the Aju Business Daily newspaper.

The Environment Ministry started to tighten rules concerning the import of coal ashes from Japan in August 2019 citing fears of radioactive and heavy metal contamination. Importers are now required to submit an authorised radioactive inspection report and the analysis of heavy metal components. The KCA said its members use 3.15Mt/yr of coal ash and 1.28Mt/yr is imported from Japan.

Philippines: Trade Secretary Ramon Lopez has welcomed a Tariff Commission (TC) report that has increased the safeguard duty on imported cement, but noted that his department was still reviewing the evaluations made.

Speaking on 14 August 2019, Lopez said, "We just got the full report on cement from the TC and will study the evaluations made. We welcome the finding that there was injury to the industry and that the safeguard duty should be US$5.65/t or US$0.23/bag (40kg)." The TC report said the US$0.23/bag safeguard duty was the difference between the weighted average landed cost of imported cement and the average domestic ex-plant selling price of the local cement industry for 2018.

Lopez earlier claimed that imports of cement increased from only 3558t in 2013 to more than 3Mt in 2017. The share of imports increased from only 0.02% to 15% during the same period.

South Africa: The South African cement industry is calling on the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) to probe a flood of imports into the country. South Africa, which has six cement producers and more than 30% over-capacity, has become a net importer of cement. Imports have increased by 139% since 2016, according to The Concrete Institute’s (ITC) managing director Brian Perrie.

Perrie said in an interview that TCI, representing AfriSam, Dangote Cement South Africa, Lafarge Industries South Africa, Natal Portland Cement and PPC were approaching ITAC to investigate whether the industry required protection from an 18-month surge in imports.

He said that imported cement was undercutting South African prices by as much as 45%, while local producers also had to meet the requirements of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), meet black empowerment and other social requirements and, at the same time, protect thousands of jobs in the domestic industry. Also, the recent carbon tax translated into a 2% increase in selling prices, putting the local industry at a further price disadvantage. “Trade remedy protection is required," said Perrie, pointing out that producers did not want a ‘ban’ on imports, rather some form of protection to ‘level the playing field.’

South Africa instituted anti-dumping duties of 17 – 70% against importers from Pakistan in 2015. Imports duly fell in 2016 but rose again in 2017 and 2018, mainly from Vietnam and China. Perrie said that 350,441t of cement arrived in the second quarter of 2019 alone, the most since the third quarter of 2015. Most came in through Durban (260,909t), an 85% increase on the first quarter.

Spain: Cemex España plans to build a cement import terminal at the port of El Musel in Asturias in northern Spain. Cemex has requested 2491.2m2 of space within the second tranche of the Olano Engineer Dock. It is expected that the installation will be built by June 2020.

The Euro5m facility will have 6000t of cement storage capacity from two 41.1m-high silos with bulk truck loading capacity of 200t/hr and a cement bagging plant with a capacity of 1950bags/hr (25kg).

Trinidad & Tobago: The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has ruled that cement sold by Rock Hard Cement can be classified as ‘Other hydraulic cement.’ As such it is subject to a tariff of up to 5% under Common External Tariff (CET). Rock Hard Cement’s competitor Trinidad Cement and its subsidiaries had been arguing that the company’s products be classified as ‘Building cement (grey)’ and be charged a Caribbean Community (CARICOM) tax of 15% when imported into the region, according to the Barbados Today newspaper. The decision by the court is the latest in a series of legal cases between Rock Hard Cement and Trinidad Cement

However, the CCJ also said that recent developments in the cement industry made it appropriate for a study to be performed by the CARICOM Council for Trade and Economic Development (COTED) to assess whether the tariff rate for imported ‘Other hydraulic cement’ ought to be increased to give additional protection to regional cement manufacturers so that these manufacturers might obtain an appropriate level of protection. It also recommended greater collaboration between regional cement producers in undertaking global trade commitments.

Malaysia: Deputy Chief Minister and State Trade and Industries Minister Datuk Seri Wilfred Madius Tangau says that the Sabah Economic Development Corporation (SEDCO) and Cement Industries (Sabah) (CIS) are in talks about building an integrated cement plant in Sabah state in Borneo. The minister was replying to questions in the state assembly about the higher cost of cement in the region compared to West Malaysia, according to the Daily Express newspaper. There are no integrated plants in the state, although CIS operates a grinding plant that uses imported clinker.

Panama: The government is set to look at new regulations for hexavalent chromium (chromium VI) in cement imports. Jorge Azcárraga, the general manager of Cemento Interoceánico said that the authorities are expected to set up a technical forum to discuss the issue, according to the Panamá América newspaper. The issue is being treated separately from newly introduced requirements and standards of cement because it is considered a health issue. It was previously reported that the government was set to introduce testing imports for chromium VI in March 2019.

Panama: Ramón Martínez, the Minister of Trade and Industry, has signed two resolutions intended to improve the requirements and standards of cement quality both domestically and for imports. DGNTI-COPANIT 5-2019 sets out the chemical, physical and performance requirements of general and specialised cements, as well as the packaging, transportation, storage and use requirements, according to La Estrella newspaper. DGNTI-COPANIT-90-2019 specifies the procedure for verifying and monitoring the quality of hydraulic cements produced, imported and marketed in the country.

Guatemala: The government has introduced a new distribution tax of US$0.2 per 42.5kg bag of cement. The new legislation also intends to regulate cement and clinker imports and appoint personnel to supervise storage sites, according to the El Periódico newspaper.

The UK waste fuels industry is facing potential challenge from changing Dutch environmental legislation. As part of its new National Climate Agreement the government in the Netherlands is considering imposing a tariff of Euro32/t on imported refuse-derived fuel (RDF) from the start of January 2020. It also wants to add a CO2 tax of Euro30/t on industrial emitters from the start of 2021.

This is bad news for the UK’s waste export market because 1.28Mt or 44% of exported waste fuels from the UK in 2018 went to the Netherlands. The majority of this was RDF. That was more than the next two biggest destinations, Sweden and Germany, combined. Andy Hill of Cynosure Partners summed up the UK situation in the June 2019 issue of Global Cement Magazine when he said, “The UK generates more far more waste than it has landfill, recycling and alternative fuel capacity combined. Quite simply, that’s why the UK exports and has become a leading force in Europe in terms of RDF and solid recovered fuel (SRF) exports.”

Graph 1: International Waste Shipments exported from England, 2011 – 2018. Source: UK Environment Agency.

Graph 2: Destinations of English waste fuels exports in 2018. Source: UK Environment Agency.

Waste management companies and their representative associations on both sides of the North Sea are not taking this terribly well. Robert Corijn, chair of the RDF Industry Group, a European waste organisation, summed up his members response by pointing out both the environmental cost of the new legislation and the risk to jobs in the UK. “RDF export forms a vital and flexible part of the UK’s waste management system, supporting over 6800 additional jobs in the UK, and saving over 0.7Mt/yr CO₂e emissions.” Robert Loos of the Dutch Waste Management Association made a similar response questioning what exactly the Dutch government was attempting to achieve.

Steve Burton, one of the directors of UK-fuels producer Andusia, went further by saying that the Dutch had proposed the move on environmental grounds because it has an incineration capacity of 8Mt/yr but produces only 6Mt/yr of waste. “So they think that by setting a tax it will significantly curtail how much gets incinerated in the Netherlands and thus produce less CO₂. All very sensible if you consider CO₂ in isolation in your own country. However, the Dutch Government aren’t looking at the bigger picture…” He then went on to point out that the RDF would then either get burnt elsewhere or landfilled resulting in no overall CO₂ emissions reduction. His further assessment, which you can read here, goes on to speculate amongst other things that Dutch Energy for Waste (EFW) plants could end up having to cut their gate fees by more than the import tariff in order to keep running. The state-owned EFW plants would then made a loss for the tax payers until the market stabilised. It should be noted that the data from the Environment Agency indicates that Andusia exported just under 38,000t of RDF to the Netherlands in 2018.

The more prickly issues of using waste fuels may prove tricky for Dutch legislators. Corijn’s distinction above of using CO₂e for the savings from RDF usage is important in this argument since burning RDF and alternative fuels, either for generating energy or making cement, still releases CO₂. In the European Union (EU) it’s the biomass fraction of RDF that’s important for the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the like because biomass emissions are counted as carbon-neutral. Remove this effect and the benefit of waste fuels are more to do with the waste hierarchy and reusing materials rather than leaving them to rot and release methane, a gas with a more potent global warming effect than CO₂. Despite this, at face value, importing rubbish and then burning it to release yet more unwanted CO₂ may seem nonsensical to the parliamentarians. Perhaps the other thing they should consider is that waste-derived fuels are manufactured products to set specifications. On-going arguments around the world about the developed world ‘exporting its rubbish’ frequently ignore this point.

Since the new Dutch National Climate Agreement is currently at the proposal stage it has a long way to go before it becomes law. First it has to be turned into legislation and then this has to be approved by the Dutch Parliament. As indicated so far the waste management industry will continue to fight its corner with vigour.