Displaying items by tag: carbon border adjustment mechanism

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.

Vietnam: Vietnam's cement sector anticipates minimal impact from the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) as exports to the EU account for less than 2% of total sales, according to the Vietnam News Brief Service. However, Luong Duc Long, vice president and general secretary of the Vietnam Cement Association, remains alert to potential changes in emission thresholds that could incur additional taxes. Currently, the country’s cement sector emits 700 - 750kg/t of CO₂, with goals to reduce this to 650kg/t by 2030 and to 550kg/t by 2050 through technological advancements like rotary kilns and AI, as well as the use of alternative fuels and waste management solutions.

The mountainous eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea and its hinterlands in Europe’s Balkan Peninsula have one of the world’s highest densities of countries: six, across a broad equilateral triangle of 212,000km². All six states – Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia – are historically characterised by political non-alignment, carrying over from the Cold War period, and all the more notable for the presence of the EU to the north (Croatia, Hungary and Romania) and east (Bulgaria and Greece).

A nine-plant, 9Mt/yr local cement sector serves the 16.8m-strong population of the unconsolidated ‘bloc.’ Albania has 2.8Mt/yr (31%), Serbia 2.7Mt/yr (30%), Bosnia & Herzegovina 1.6Mt/yr (18%), North Macedonia 1.4Mt/yr (15%) and Kosovo 500,000t/yr (6%), while Montenegro has no cement capacity – for now. Altogether, this gives this quarter of South East Europe a capacity per capita of 539kg/yr. The industry consists entirely of companies based outside of the region. Albania’s two plants are Lebanese and Greek-owned (by Seament Holding and Titan Cement Group respectively). Titan Cement Group also controls single-plant Kosovo and North Macedonia, and competes in the Serbian cement industry alongside larger and smaller plants belonging to Switzerland-based Holcim and Ireland-based CRH, respectively. Lastly, Bosnia & Herzegovina’s capacity is shared evenly between Germany-based Heidelberg Materials and Hungary-based Talentis International Construction, with one plant each.

Lafarge Srbija, Holcim's subsidiary in Serbia, announced plans for its second plant in the country, at Ratari in Belgrade, last week. No capacity has yet emerged, but the plant will cost €110m, making something in the region of the country’s existing 0.6 – 1.2Mt/yr plants seem likely. This would give Serbia over a third of total capacity in the Central Balkans and twice the number of plants of any other country there, expanding its per-capita capacity by 22 – 44%, from a regionally low 408kg/yr to 500 – 590kg/yr.

In announcing the upcoming Ratari cement plant, Lafarge Srbija laid emphasis on its sustainability. The plant will use 1Mt/yr of ash from the adjacent Nikola Tesla B thermal power plant as a raw material in its cement production. In this way, it will help to clear the Nikola Tesla B plant’s 1600 hectare ash dumps, from which only 180,000t of ash was harvested in 2023. Circularity has been front and centre of Holcim’s discussions of its growth in Serbia for some time. When Lafarge Srbija acquired aggregates producer Teko Mining Serbia in 2022, the group indicated that the business would play a part in its development of construction and demolition materials (CDM)-based cement and concrete.

Holcim’s Strategy 2025 growth plan entails bolt-on acquisitions in ‘mature markets,’ backed by strategic divestments elsewhere. Other companies have been more explicit about a realignment towards metropolitan markets, above all in North America, at a time when they are also diversifying away from cement and into other materials. Just why a leading producer should look to build cement capacity in Serbia warrants investigation.

Serbia is the only Central Balkan member of Cembureau, the European cement association. In a European market report for 2022, the association attributed to it the continent’s fastest declining cement consumption (jointly with Slovakia), down by 11% year-on-year. Like the rest of Europe, Serbia is also gradually shrinking, its population dwindling by 0.7% year-on-year to 6.62m in 2023, which limits hopes for a longer-term recovery. Serbia remains the largest country in the Central Balkans, with 39% of the total regional population.

Several factors have compounded Serbia’s difficulties as a cement-producing country. Firstly, like the Nikola Tesla B thermal power plant, its kilns run on coal. 50% of this coal originated in Russia and Ukraine in 2021, causing the entire operation to become ‘imperilled’ after the former’s brutal invasion of the latter in February 2022, according to the Serbian Cement Industry Association. In planning terms, this was a case of putting half one’s eggs in two baskets – and dropping them both.

Secondly, Serbia’s choice of export markets is mainly confined to either the EU or global markets via the River Danube, Black Sea and Mediterranean. Either way, it is in competition with a cement exporting giant: Türkiye. Serbia sold €19.7m-worth of cement in the EU in 2023, up by 63% over the three-year period since 2020 – 31% behind Türkiye’s €28.8m (more than double its 2020 figure).¹ One other Central Balkan country had a greater reliance on the EU market: Bosnia & Herzegovina. It exported €48.4m-worth of cement there, quadruple its 2020 figure and behind only China (€133m) and the UK (€54.7) in cement exports to the bloc by value.

Bosnia & Herzegovina’s cement industry underwent a different permutation at the start of 2024: an acquisition, replacing one EU-based player with another. Lukavac Cement, which operates the 800,000t/yr Lukavac cement plant in Tuzla, changed hands from Austria-based building materials producer Asamer Baustoffe to Hungary-based property developer Talentis International Construction. Talentis International Construction belongs to one of Hungary’s major family-owned conglomerates, Mészáros Csoport.

Besides Central Europe, Balkan countries have found a ready source of investments in the past decade in China. In construction alone, Chinese investments total €13.2bn in Serbia, €2.4bn in Bosnia & Herzegovina, €915m in Montenegro and €650m in North Macedonia.² This can be a booster shot to all-important domestic cement markets, but has some risks. Montenegro previously faced bankruptcy after Export-Import Bank of China began to call in an €847m loan for construction of the still upcoming A1 motorway in the country’s Northern Region. This did not put off the Montenegrin government from signing a new memorandum of understanding (MoU) with China-based Shandong Foreign Economic and Technical Cooperation and Shandong Luqiao Group for construction of a new €54m coast road in the Coastal Region in mid-2023.

In Montenegro, UK-based private equity firm Chayton Capital is currently funding a feasibility study for a partly state-owned cement plant and building materials complex at the Pljevlja energy hub in the Northern Region. Along with an upgrade to the existing Pljevlja coal-fired power plant, the project will cost €700m.

In 2026, EU member states will begin to partly tax third-country imports of cement and other products against their specific CO₂ emissions, progressing to the implementation of a 100% Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) by 2034. Montenegro led the Central Balkans’ preparations for the EU’s CBAM roll-out with the introduction of its own emissions trading system in early 2021. Bosnia & Herzegovina will follow its example by 2026, but other countries in the region have struggled to conceive of the arrangement except as part of future EU accession agreements.

Based on the average specific CO₂ emissions of cement produced in the EU, the World Bank has forecast that exporters to the bloc will be disadvantaged if their own specific emissions exceed 5.52kg CO₂eq/€.³ By contrast, any figure below this ought to offer an increased competitive edge. Albanian cement has average emissions of 4.71kg CO₂eq/€, 15% below ‘biting point’ and 13% below Türkiye’s 5.39CO₂eq/€. Albania’s government consolidated its anticipated gains by quintupling the coal tax for 2024 to €0.15/kg. The figure is based on the International Monetary Fund’s recommended minimum CO₂ emissions tax of €55.80/t, 21% shy of the current EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) credit price of €70.49/t.⁴

The Central Balkans is a region of apparently slow markets and industry growth regardless – to 11 cement plants, following the completion of current and upcoming projects. A recurrent theme of capital expenditure investments and the way investors talk about them may help to explain this: sustainability. Looking at the mix of technologies in the current nine plants, these include wet kilns and fuels lines built for conventional fossil fuels. This is not to presume that any given plant might not be happy with its existing equipment as is. Nonetheless, the overall picture is of a set of veteran plants with scope to benefit from the kind of investments which all four global cement producers active in the region are already carrying out elsewhere in Europe. Such plans may already be in motion. In late 2023, Titan Cement Group’s North Macedonian subsidiary Cementarnica Usje secured shareholder approval to take two new loans of up to €27m combined.

As the latest news from Serbia showed, taking care of existing plants does not preclude also building new ones. The cement industry of the Central Balkans is finding its position in the new reduced-CO₂ global cement trade – one in which old and new work together.

References

1. Trend Economy, ‘European Union – Imports and Exports – Articles of cement,’ 28 January 2024, https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/EuropeanUnion/6810#

2. American Enterprise Institute, 'China Global Investment Tracker,' 3 February 2024 https://www.aei.org/china-global-investment-tracker/

3. World Bank Group, ‘Relative CBAM Exposure Index,’ 15 June 2023, https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/interactive/2023/06/15/relative-cbam-exposure-index

4. Ember, 'Carbon Price Tracker,' 26 August 2024, https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/carbon-price-viewer/

The Hillhead Quarrying, Construction and Recycling Show is in full flow this week, taking place near Buxton in Derbyshire. As one delegate marvelled on the panoramic minibus journey down to the quarry, “It’s like a music festival without the music and… other stuff.” Indeed. Of course what one doesn’t find at Glastonbury and the like is a near comprehensive range of suppliers, over 600 of them, to the industry all in one place… in a quarry! Where else can one get up close and see the new hydrogen-powered generators and excavating vehicles that are being piloted? The official attendance figures don’t get released until after the event but on the ground it looks as busy as ever. It’s truly the place to be this week.

The show gives us a reason to take a look at the UK cement sector. Like many other countries around the world it is an election year in the UK, with a General Election scheduled for 4 July 2024. The result of this should determine the next Prime Minister and the ruling party. So, naturally, the MPA, the trade association for the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and industrial sand industries, is taking the opportunity to remind the political parties what its priorities are. The quick version is: support for decarbonisation; a streamlined planning system; and better delivery of projects. This sounds familiar to priorities in other countries but one British spin on this includes the UK’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM).

Graph 1: Domestic cement sales and imports in the UK, 2017 – 2022. Source: MPA.

Edwin Trout’s feature on the UK cement sector in the June 2024 issue of Global Cement Magazine presents a good overview of the last 12 months. The general UK economy has faced shocks in recent years such as Brexit, Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine. However, this has been further compounded by a downturn and high interest rates since late 2022 when the then Prime Minister Liz Truss caused market turbulence in the wake of a badly received government financial statement. As Trout relates, sales of heavy building materials have been in relative decline since mid-2022 with more of the same expected in 2024. Production of cement in 2023 is currently uncertain given the reporting time lag from the MPA but up until 2022 domestic cement sales fell somewhat but imports grew. This has created a situation where overall cement sales in 2022 were 12Mt, not far behind the annual level in the early 2000s. However, the share of imports has nearly doubled since then. More recent MPA data on mortar and ready-mixed concrete sales throughout the first nine months of 2023 suggest that market activity has decreased and poor weather at the start of 2024 looks set to have made this worse.

Despite the apparent slowdown in building materials sales the cement companies have been conducting smaller-scale maintenance and upgrade projects at their facilities and supply chain schemes such as the cement storage unit for deep sea shipping lines that Aggregate Industries said in February 2024 it was going to build at the Port of Southampton. The news the cement companies want to show off has been a steady stream of information about ongoing decarbonisation projects in the cement sector. C-Capture started a carbon capture trial at Heidelberg Materials’ Ketton cement works in Rutland in May 2024, Capsol Technologies said in March 2024 that it had been selected to conduct a study on its carbon capture technology at Aggregate Industries Cauldon cement plant in Staffordshire, Heidelberg Materials' Ribblesdale cement plant in Lancashire announced in March 2024 that it was taking part in a study to assess the use of ammonia as a hydrogen source for fuelling cement kilns and Heidelberg Materials awarded Japan-based Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) a front end engineering design contract for a carbon capture installation at its Padeswood cement plant in Flintshire in February 2024. Finally, on the divestment front, CRH completed the sale of its UK-based lime business to SigmaRoc for €155m in March 2024. The business operates from sites in Tunstead and Hindlow with five permitted lime kilns.

That’s it for this short recap on the UK for now. For a longer look at the UK cement sector read Edwin Trout’s feature in June 2024 issue of Global Cement Magazine.

Hillhead 2024 runs until 27 June 2024

UK: The UK cement industry has welcomed the government's proposal for a UK carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) but urged for its implementation by 2026 to align with the EU CBAM and avoid competitive disadvantages. The Mineral Products Association (MPA) and UK Concrete responded to the government’s consultation, highlighting the need to level the carbon-cost playing field between domestic production and imports, as well as to prevent high-emission cement imports from impacting the UK market. It emphasised the urgency of introducing CBAM in 2026 rather than the proposed 2027, to prevent import diversion from the EU.

The MPA is calling for accurate measurement and reporting of embodied emissions by importers, clear calculation of CBAM rates, improved transparency in UK trade data and strict enforcement procedures with high penalties for non-compliance.

MPA executive director for energy and climate change Diana Casey said "The UK has a great opportunity to accelerate the transition to net zero while securing domestic cement supply for priority construction like housing and infrastructure. A well-designed CBAM is vital to maintain the level playing field and ensuring competitiveness of domestic cement production while it continues its transition to net zero.’

Europe: Cembureau has released an update to its net zero roadmap. The roadmap now aims for a 37% reduction in CO₂ emissions related to cement production by 2030, 78% by 2040 and net zero cement production by 2050, with potential to become carbon negative.

The roadmap also states the key policy measures needed to meet these updated goals, including: The implementation of a watertight carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), the increase in funding for decarbonisation initiatives, the need for guaranteed access to affordable decarbonised energy, infrastructure and raw materials, as well as the creation of lead markets for low carbon, circular products.

President of Cembureau, Ken McKnight said "In the past four years, the European cement sector has clearly moved from ambition to deployment. We have the potential to scale up our climate ambition, but we need policymakers to match this ambition through decisive policies."