The Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI), which operates under the auspices of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), is a global voluntary initiative consisting of 23 cement producers, among them all of the major multinationals. Among its members are cement operations in over 100 countries around the world. Global Cement recently spoke with its Managing Director, Philippe Fonta about the CSI's Getting the Numbers Right (GNR) project, barriers to increased cement sector sustainability, the possible effects of sustained low energy prices and the likelihood of commercially-viable carbon capture and storage projects in the future.
Background: Philippe Fonta
Prior to his involvement in the cement industry Fonta spent 20 years working in the aviation sector. He occupied several positions within Airbus before becoming head of sustainable development. At the same time as he was in that role, Fonta was also involved in coordinating the environmental committee of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the association for all of the world's major aircraft manufacturers.
From these roles Fonta gained experience of coordinating people from around the world and from different organisations. He transferred these skills to the cement sector when he moved to the WBCSD and CSI in March 2011.
"My experience of organising international groups and earlier background as an engineer were important, even though I didn't instantly understand all aspects of cement plant engineering!" he says. "I am presently involved in two major projects: One is the CSI and the other is the Tire Industry Project (TIP)."
GC: Could you briefly describe the work of the CSI?
PF: The CSI is a voluntary CEO-led programme that aims to increase sustainability in the cement sector around the world. Its stated aims are to: Explore the meaning of sustainable development in the cement industry; Identify actions and steps that companies can take to improve their sustainability; Provide frameworks for the inclusion of new members and; Create content and context for further stakeholder engagement.
CSI presently has 23 member companies that operate cement production facilities in more than 100 countries. As such they represent the leading-edge in terms of sustainability in the sector. Collectively CSI members account for around 30% of global cement production and range from very large multinationals to small producers with only one or two sites. Companies must produce clinker to join and be compliant with commitments in the CSI Charter within three years of becoming a member.
In addition to the cement producers as our members, we also have partners, including trade and industry associations like Cembureau (the European Cement Association) and FICEM in South America. We refer to these as Communication Partners due to their advocacy efforts in their respective regions. They also share information with the CSI on how regional conditions affect sustainability issues.
We also have additional partners, with which we work on specific sub-projects. These include organisations like the International Energy Agency (IEA), which is working on wide-ranging road-maps that look at reduction of CO2 emissions from all industry, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN), to name a few.
Getting the Numbers Right
GC: Our readers are probably most familiar with the CSI through its Getting the Numbers Right (GNR) programme. What are its main aims and how did it come about?
PF: The GNR database is a voluntary, independently-managed database of CO2 and energy use information about the global cement industry. It covers a wide range of key performance indicators (KPI) about these and related issues like alternative fuel switching, kiln technologies and clinker substitution.
The CO2 protocol that we have developed for individual companies to report is adapted from the global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol that was developed by the WBCSD and the World Resources Institute (WRI). This means that the data is reported in the same way and we can 'compare apples with apples.' This is crucial for members that are looking to improve.
Companies that are interested in joining CSI or reporting to GNR can already see the aggregated data contained in the database online. It is a tool where they can monitor their own performance against anonymous averaged data. They cannot see others' individual data because that would be a violation of antitrust rules.
This is why this process is assisted by a third party, currently PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). It is important to point out that CSI sets neither standards nor targets for any producer or agency, but rather provides the tools and means so that they can identify how to improve their sustainability performance.
GC: Is there any 'most important' KPI?
PF: The GNR project covers more than 300 KPIs so I don't think that it is sensible to label any single KPI as particularly important. It is a very powerful database on sustainability in the cement industry and the different KPIs will be more or less important to different audiences. Our methodology is to notify cement producers, policy makers and other interested parties about the GNR as a tool to demonstrate the evolution of the sector over periods of years and for CSI members to use it in order to improve sustainability in their own operations.
The KPIs break down into three main drivers towards improved sustainability: Energy-efficiency, Clinker substitution and the use of alternative fuels. In the current version of the protocol (Version 3, Published in 2011) that governs how members report to the project, we also include the use of electrical energy, for example for grinding.
GC: Can you summarise the GNR project's most recent findings?
PF: The most recent findings are for 2012, the eighth year of the GNR project. We have to delay publication by 12 months because a number of the KPIs are related to the production levels at the companies. This might cause problems with respect to antitrust regulations. By buffering the data like this we disconnect the published data from the current production volumes and we do not affect the project's main aim, which is to facilitate beneficial changes in the various KPIs on an ongoing basis.
The 2012 report covered more than 930 facilities in 11 different 'geographical regions,' as defined by the major producers. It showed a continued decline in specific CO2 emissions per tonne of clinker and per tonne of cement. This KPI is now 18% lower than the level seen in 1990. The data for 1990 and 2000 are baselines identified from the result of calculations by individual cement producers from known parameters at the time. They have been verified by a third party.
Elsewhere, we saw increases in energy efficiency, decreases in specific energy use, an increase in alternative fuel use and a reduction in the clinker factor from 83% in 1990 to 74.7% in 2012. Alternative fuel use increased from 2% in 1990 to 14.4% in 2012. Obviously there are variations between different geographical regions, especially with respect to alternative fuels.
(These major KPIs are summarised in Figures 1 - 4).
GC: There are great disparities between the amount of information that GNR gets from different countries and regions (See Table 1). How can coverage be improved?
PF: We already have 25% or so of global capacity coverage but we are not complacent. We continually seek new members, especially through trade and industry associations. We have 94% coverage in Europe thanks in part to our relationship with CEMBUREAU. In South America we are improving our coverage through working with FICEM. We also have good coverage in North America, despite not having any US-based cement producers as members. The coverage is entirely through large multinationals that have operations there.
We want to develop relationships with further associations around the world, for example the ASEAN Federation of Cement Manufacturers (AFCM). We are also focusing massively on individual producers in Russia, China and the Middle East and want to further develop our positions in other countries that we already have good coverage in.
(Coverage rates are shown in Table 1).
Region / Country | Coverage (%) |
Europe | 94 |
North America | 78 |
Brazil | 78 |
Central America | 77 |
USA (excl. Puerto Rico) | 74 |
South America (excl. Brazil) | 54 |
Africa | 44 |
Asia & Oceania (excl. China, India & CIS) | 36 |
CIS | 21 |
Middle East | 12 |
China | 4 |
Table 1: Coverage in different countries / regions covered by the GNR project. Source: CSI.
GC: Does the fact that the data is made anonymous by the GNR limit its usefulness?
PF: No, not at all! On the contrary, the fact that it is anonymous is essential to enable members to provide confidential information to the third party and make sure this information is not shared with competitors or with the CSI secretariat. Global individual performance is basically what interests the general public and this information is available through the individual company's sustainability reports.
What we target through GNR is a tool to report at sector level, not at individual level, and a tool for individual players to benchmark themselves towards the sector's values and be able to pilot their improvement strategy accordingly for higher and faster improvement.
GC: Do you foresee any future scenarios whereby reporting to the GNR could be made compulsory?
PF: I'm not sure whether this could happen one day. CSI is not a standard-making body and does not intend to become one. What I can say is that the protocol that we have developed is currently being used as a basis for the development of a standard by the European Standards Agency (CEN). It might become a CEN Standard or ISO Standard at some point in the future, or not.
What is important is that, if a standard is one day developed, our members that have taken the lead in reporting should be recognised as early movers.
GC: What are the main barriers to improving sustainability in the cement industry?
PF: Different producers face different constraints and have different weak-spots, whether these are due to the producer or their geographical situation. For example, in countries like India, obtaining suitable quantities and qualities of alternative fuels is a major barrier due to poor nationwide waste processing infrastructures. Waste in India is dealt with on a state-by-state basis. This means that you get situations in which waste is available in one state but it cannot be transported over to a cement plant just over the border in a neighbouring state – it's not permitted. There are examples like this in many jurisdictions in which landfilling and waste-to-heat are preferred by existing regulations.
However, despite its low use of alternative fuels, India actually has one of the most modern and thermally-efficient cement industries on the planet due to the low age of most of its capacity, so this is not a barrier to improved sustainability. Of course in some countries, like Russia for example, the technology is older and the industry needs major investment before advances in energy efficiency become possible.
The clinker to cement ratio is also affected by local conditions and there may be impenetrable barriers in some cases due to low availability of slags, ashes and other additives. Overall, it is the aim of the GNR to make it possible for individual producers to identify their relative shortcomings and enable them to improve where they need. There is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution, as alternative fuels used in different parts of the world might be very different too.
GC: How do you think the current low fossil fuel prices will affect the use of alternative fuels in the cement industry?
PF: If there is cheap coal and you use coal for your plant the bottom line suggests that you will be less inclined to use alternative fuels. In some places that were thinking about using alternative fuels, this could delay the onset of projects.
However, it is very important for a sector in which the investments are made on long life-cycle assets that the short and the longer term are better reconciled. Then the use of alternative fuels makes sense. Using alternative fuels also brings real benefits to other societal challenges like waste management
GC: Could low prices lead to a reduction in alternative fuel usage in some places?
PF: I don't think there is a risk of that because changing the fuel mix in a cement plant affects production processes and supply contracts. In much of Europe, where alternative fuels are most widely used, there are longer-term contracts between cement producers and waste processors so the waste infrastructure is well established. There are landfill taxes or banning policies and more and more waste is produced every day.
GC: What are the long term aims for the GNR?
PF: I think that the GNR is running quite well. However, I want to expand its coverage to be more representative of overall cement production and consequently make the project more relevant to governments, policy makers and international organisations. We also increase the number of KPIs as the approach becomes more mature and more in-depth measurements can be achieved in a robust manner.
GC: Do you think that carbon capture and storage technologies will be viable for the cement industry in the longer term?
PF: The cement sector is currently mainly focused on CO2 capture, which is the closest link to our basic business. In addition, we also consider CO2 usage, in addition to capture and and storage. We currently have a number of examples of projects in which capture of CO2 is being used to feed algae and to make ethanol or other chemical intermediates for onward use. Unfortunately these are very costly at the moment and so remain unviable from a commercial standpoint. However, perhaps one day if there is a higher cost for CO2 credits the equation could switch. Perhaps then we could see some carbon capture and usage projects coming to fruition. That is a question for many sectors though, not just the cement sector.
Of course the prospect of CO2 storage brings up a large number of issues relating to proof of concept, legislation and safety. Nobody wants it in their back yard at the moment so it is up to industry as a whole to provide evidence that long-term storage is an option.
GC: Many thanks for speaking with us today.
PF: You are most welcome.