Displaying items by tag: carbon border adjustment mechanism

Australia: Minister for Climate Change and Minister Chris Bowen says that the government is ‘considering’ the enactment of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to prevent carbon leakage from high emissions-intensity products, including cement.

The Australian Parliament committed to 43% national CO₂ emissions reduction between 2005 and 2030 in 2022, and capped emitters’ individual carbon footprints in 2023. Final advice from a government Carbon Leakage Review was due after May 2025, and was possibly complicated by on-going US climate and trade reforms under President Trump. The Australian Cement Industry Federation bemoaned a lack of action on carbon leakage in March 2025. It warned of jeopardy to both decarbonisation and 1400 jobs in the Australian cement sector.

Australia’s construction industry imported 40% of its cement used in 2024.

EU: The European Parliament has approved proposed changes to the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) as part of efforts to reduce the administrative burden for small and medium sized enterprises (SME) and occasional importers. Members of the parliament adopted the text by 564 votes in favour, 20 against and with 12 abstentions.

While the changes do not affect large scale importers, including those of cement, they remove the need to pay for CBAM allowances for less than 50t of imports. This will exempt 90% of importers - mainly SMEs and individuals - that import only small quantities of CBAM-effected goods. However, the CBAM’s environmental objectives will reportedly remain achievable, as 99% of total CO2 emissions from imports of cement, iron, steel, aluminium and fertilisers would still be covered.

Vietnam: The government will allocate greenhouse gas emissions quotas to 150 facilities across the cement, thermal power and steel sectors, according to a draft decree discussed by the government. Under the proposed roadmap, quota allocation will be implemented in phases over the next five years.

These sectors account for 40% of national emissions, according to the Vietnam Investment Review, and are also subject to the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism. The draft decree proposes decentralised development of technical regulations and mutual recognition of carbon credit data with international partners. Quotas will be proposed annually by ministries and submitted to the prime minister for approval.

 Deputy prime minister Tran Hong Ha said “This is a technical decree with many variables. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment will provide a controlled framework and guiding principles using a ‘sandbox’ approach, allowing businesses to experiment while regulators monitor, evaluate and make adjustments.”

Boral announced this week that it had secured around US$15m from the Australian government towards decarbonisation upgrades at its Berrima cement plant in New South Wales. The funding will go towards the company’s own investment in a kiln feed optimisation project. A new specialised grinding circuit and supporting infrastructure at the site is intended to increase the proportion of alternative raw materials (ARM) from 9% to 23% to decrease the amount of limestone the kiln uses. The use of more ARMs should also enable the unit to reduce its energy intensity. Boral plans to use ARMs including granulated blast furnace slag, steel slag, cement fibre board, fly ash and fine aggregates from recycled concrete. Commissioning and full operation of the changes are scheduled for 2028.

The Berrima plant officially opened its last set of changes, including a chlorine bypass unit, in December 2024. This was done to allow the plant to reach a thermal substitution rate (TSR) of 60% by the end of 2027. At the end of 2024 the company said it had a TSR of 30% having risen by 20% from 2023. Another similar decarbonisation project at the plant is a carbon capture and storage demonstration pilot trial involving the recarbonation of construction and demolition waste.

Parent company SGH said in its annual report for 2024 that Boral was continuing to advocate for a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to prevent carbon leakage and that it had taken part in the ongoing government review on the issue. This lobbying was visible earlier in March 2025 when the Cement Industry Federation (CIF) publicly addressed the government on the issue ahead of its next budget. It asked that carbon leakage be addressed in the form of an import tax to protect the local cement and lime sector. Cement and lime imports from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and Japan are particularly seen as an issue. The government review into carbon leakage started in 2023 and is due to report back at some point in 2025, most likely after the parliamentary election in May 2025.

Another big sector news story to note is the ongoing acquisition of the cementitious division of the Buckeridge Group of Companies (BGC) by Cement Australia that was revealed in December 2024. Unsurprisingly, the European Commission (EC) approved the deal in late March 2025. Cement Australia’s parent companies Holcim and Heidelberg Materials are headquartered in Europe, but the EC concluded that the planned transaction was unlikely to dampen competition in Europe. The verdict of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is likely to be far more telling. It closed taking submissions on the proposed deal in late February 2025 and plans to release an update in May 2025.

The ACCC’s market inquiries letter reported that Cement Australia wants to run BCG Cement. However, under the acquisition proposal, BGC Quarries and BGC Asphalt will be acquired and operated by a new 50:50 joint venture between Holcim and Heidelberg Materials, which will operate as a production joint venture in respect of aggregates. Holcim and Heidelberg Materials have suggested taking four ready-mixed concrete (RMC) plants each in the greater Perth area. Finally, one RMC plant at Wangara could be divested due to the close proximity of existing plants run by Holcim and Heidelberg Materials. Whether this is what actually happens remains to be seen.

Finally, Holcim flagged-up Australia this week as one of the regions it intends to derive ‘profitable growth’ from after the planned spin-off of the US business. This approach is in line with the hunt by the big building materials companies for new growth markets as the cost of merger and acquisition activity in the US has risen. CRH, for example, bought a majority stake in AdBri in mid-2024. Further merger and acquisition activity in the cement sector in Australia seems less likely given its relative small size. Yet the higher economic growth forecast for the country compared to Europe is likely to keep multinationals interested.

Australia: The Australian government’s ‘unwillingness’ to impose a carbon levy on imported cement, lime and clinker is threatening decarbonisation efforts and could cost up to 1400 jobs, according to the Financial Review.

The Cement Industry Federation, which represents local producers Adbri, Boral and Cement Australia, has said that the absence of a carbon levy on imports from countries with less robust climate commitments paved the way for the offshoring of local manufacturing, a process known as ‘carbon leakage’.

It said “Not addressing the issue of carbon leakage in a timely manner will be detrimental to Australian cement and lime manufacturing and could lead to the unnecessary loss of key Australian cement and lime facilities."

Imports currently account for over 40% of domestic clinker consumption and originate largely from southeast Asia. In 2023, an energy expert was appointed by the government to assess the feasibility of an Australian carbon border adjustment mechanism, with a final recommendation expected to be delivered in 2024. However, only an interim report was released in November 2024, with the final advice now reportedly due after the election in May 2025.

The European Union (EU) is set to launch its Green Deal Industrial Plan, today, on 26 February 2025. It is the latest plan to help industry in the region reach net zero whilst remaining competitive. Key parts of the scheme that have been seen by the media include support for industries facing high energy prices, tax breaks for decarbonisation projects, simplifying the cross border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), linking funding for industrial CO₂ cutting more directly to revenue gathered from the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and revamping procurement rules.

Cembureau, the European cement association, presented its comments on the impending announcement earlier this week. On CBAM it said that more work was required on exports, “such as export adjustment or continued free allowances for exported goods through the application of the destination principle which merits more in-depth analysis and discussion as to its WTO compatibility.” On financing it called for 75% of ETS taxation on the cement sector to be funnelled straight back again in the form of a cement decarbonisation fund. On infrastructure it called for competitive access to low-carbon energy sources such as thermal biowaste and electricity. It also lobbied for the rapid-development of CO₂ pipelines and storage sites. Finally, on lead markets it asked that concrete carbonation and CO₂ use in construction materials be recognised as a carbon sink and that carbon capture and utilisation using CO₂ from industrial sectors be acknowledged through a review of the CO₂ accounting rules in the ETS.

Lobbyists from the other side of the argument, also ahead of the official unveiling of the Green Deal Industrial Plan, took a dim view of the ETS. A report published by Carbon Market Watch and WWF called for greater scrutiny to be placed on the scheme. Its argument is that the “current architecture of the EU ETS continues to reward heavy polluters by granting them free allowances instead of incentivising emissions reductions.” Holcim, Heidelberg Materials and Cemex were each singled out as having received more free allowances under the ETS than the actual emissions they were responsible for in 2023. The report also reflected the growing environmental backlash against carbon capture and utilisation and/or storage (CCUS). In its view the money from the ETS going into the Innovation Fund should be directed at schemes that directly reduce emissions, not at CCUS projects, although it did concede that the cement and lime industries were some of the few sectors that should be allowed funding towards CCUS. This may be a point for the cement sector to watch for in the future if there ends up being a wider backlash against CCUS in general.

The Carbon Market Watch-WWF case is that the cement sector (and others) have received far too many free allowances in the ETS for far too long. The authors admit that the allowances are set to fall fast, to 2034, as the CBAM comes in but they don’t think that anywhere near enough has been done. This has not been helped over the years by news stories occasionally emerging of idled cement plants appearing to make money from emissions allowances. These occurrences date back to the drop in production following the financial crash in 2008 but there have been more recent examples.

Graph 1: Allowances for and emissions from clinker production from the emissions trading scheme in the European Union, 2017 - 2023. Source: EU Transaction Log (EUTL).

As Graph 1 above shows the environmentalists may be overstating their point on the ETS given that emissions were higher than the free allocation in 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022. Roughly speaking, both the allowances and emissions by the cement sector from clinker production have been dropping since 2017 and further back to the mid-2000s. The system is intended to squeeze emissions but it doesn't take into account short-term variations in market conditions. Cembureau data shows that production rose in 2021. Sure enough, emissions jumped above the allocation. Although the cement production data is yet to be released for 2023, it is looking fairly likely that it will have decreased. Hence, emissions have fallen below the allocation level.

Few are likely to be happy with the EU’s Green Deal Industrial Plan. For producers, it is unlikely to add sufficient support against the additional ‘green’ cost burden. For environmentalists, it doesn't go far enough. The usual equilibrium for EU sustainability legislation is aiming at the target of net-zero without killing industry. The current US administration has further tipped this balancing act with its threats to fight against CBAM and the like with trade tariffs. Tom Lord, Redshaw Advisors described the EU ETS as a political construct at the Global FutureCem Conference that took place in February 2025 in Istanbul. This also applies to the EU’s green legislation (like any laws). Subsequently, certainty is a word that crops up frequently in discussions about EU green policies. Can EU industry be certain that these political constraints remain should circumstances change? With the ETS allowances dropping, CBAM coming and industry facing higher energy prices than its competitors, we’re about to find out how committed the EU is on net-zero and who the winners and losers will be.

Two news stories to note this week concerning climate legislation in eastern Asia. First, the Indonesian government announced plans to create a mandatory carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) for key industries including cement. Second, an initiative to set up a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) in Taiwan emerged.

The proposal in Indonesia has been expected by the local cement sector and the wider market. Back in November 2024 at the ASEAN Federation of Cement Manufacturers (AFCM) event, an Indonesian Cement Association (ASI) speaker said that a preparation period for carbon trading by industrial sectors was expected from 2025 to 2027 followed by an easing-in period and then full implementation from 2031 onwards. This latest announcement appears to confirm the planned roll-out of the country’s cap-and-trade system. So far the government has set up a carbon tax, a voluntary carbon trading scheme (IDX Carbon) and a mandatory carbon trading scheme for part of the power sector. Notably, the local carbon price for that last one is low compared to other schemes elsewhere around the world. In 2024 the World Bank reported a price of US$0.61/t of CO₂. Since it only started in 2023 it is still early days yet though.

The new information confirms that the cement, fertiliser, steel and paper industries will be added to the mandatory emissions trading scheme. As per other cap-and-trade schemes, low emitters should be able to sell spare credits. However, comments made by Apit Pria Nugraha, Head of the Center for Green Industry, Ministry of Industry, at a recent trade event in Jakarta suggested that companies that emit more than their allowance would have to pay a 5% levy on the excess and buy credits for the rest. This seems to be different from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, where companies are fined only if they go above their allowance and they do not buy sufficient credits to cover themselves. However, we’ll have to wait to confirm this and other details.

Meanwhile in Taiwan, Peng Chi-ming, the Minister of Environment, announced that a bill establishing a local CBAM could be prepared in the second half of 2025. What is telling though is how the local press coverage of this story framed the trade policy aspects of such a scheme. Peng questioned how the EU CBAM might fare in response to the protectionist and pro-tariff administration in the US. He also noted that importers of cement and steel didn’t have to disclose their carbon emissions compared to local producers. Vietnam, unsurprisingly, was singled out as a likely target of a CBAM given that one third of Taiwan’s imports of cement come from there. Lastly, Peng also said that Taiwan would have to apply to the World Trade Organization for approval if or when it did set up its own CBAM.

Taiwan introduced a carbon tax at the start of 2025 with a standard price of US$9.16/t of CO₂ and lower prices for companies using approved reduction plans or meeting technology benchmarks. Research by Reccessary indicated that Taiwan Cement might face a carbon tax bill of US$41m and Asia Cement could be looking at US$28m based on 2023 data. These additional costs will increase operating costs and reduce profits.

All of this may sound familiar because it has already happened in Europe. Some form of carbon trading or taxation is introduced and then the debate moves on to carbon leakage via imports. The cement industries in Indonesia and Taiwan are unlikely to be aggravated directly by the EU CBAM but the wider economies of both countries are reacting to secure access to export markets. This, in turn, has implications for a heavy CO₂-emitting sector like cement. For example, if a CBAM isn’t already being considered in Indonesia, local heavy industry is likely to start lobbying for one, if the new ETS starts affecting import rates.

The Minister of Environment in Taiwan and others before him have identified that climate policies can be protectionist. As more countries regulate local carbon emissions, more trade disputes look likely. The big one right now might be the growing argument between the US Trump administration and the EU. Yet, every time a country sets up a new carbon scheme, a potential new argument over trade is brewing. And cement producers in Indonesia, Taiwan and everywhere else are stuck in the middle of all of this.

Taiwan: The government will draft carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) legislation in the second half of 2024 ‘at the earliest’, according to the Taipei Times. The measure will follow the EU's CBAM implementation in 2026, with official guidelines expected to be issued by July or August 2025.

Domestic cement and steel producers have reportedly complained to the Ministry of Environment that competing importers are not required to disclose their emissions. Subsequently, the Ministry is preparing a list of importers to be regulated. According to the Minister of Environment, Peng Chi-Ming, Taiwan imports about one-third of its cement from Vietnam, which would be subject to CBAM regulations.

The legislation will align with corresponding EU regulations and complement carbon fees for domestic producers introduced in 2024.

Mexico: The Mexican National Chamber of Cement (CANACEM) has warned that the US government’s proposed reimposition of a 25% tariff on imports of cement from Mexico may trigger a ‘competitiveness crisis’ in the US, with dire consequences for North America as a whole. Mexico exported 1.5Mt of cement to the US in 2024. This corresponds to 7% of US cement imports and 1.4% of the country’s total consumption. The El Norte newspaper has reported that CANACEM sees the current situation as an opportunity for Mexican and US policymakers and stakeholders to increase their mutually beneficial initiatives, citing the example of a proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on a region-wide scale.

CANACEM president José María Barroso said "In addition to incentivising more sustainable production, this would promote greater integration and strengthen the regional market. The Mexican cement industry is ready to work with our government and our trade partners to find solutions that promote greater regional integration."

China: China plans to expand its national carbon trading market to encompass the cement industry by the end of 2024, Bloomberg reports. This initiative, announced by Minister of Ecology and Environment Huang Runqiu, aims to reduce emissions in high-pollution sectors and prepare for the EU’s impending carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) starting in 2026. Currently limited to 2200 power utilities, the expansion will integrate seven more sectors into the market, which China hopes will cover 70% of its emissions by 2030. The Ministry is reportedly seeking public feedback on the proposal until 19 September 2024.