Displaying items by tag: China

In late November 2013 Guangdong province in China announced that it will be launching its carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) in December 2013. Together with six other pilot projects in China the scheme will be the second largest carbon market in the world after the European Union (EU) when fully operational. Yet with the EU ETS floundering from excess carbon permits, with a resulting low price of permits and large cement producers such as a Lafarge reported as stockpiling permits, what are the Chinese schemes planning to do differently to avoid these pitfalls?

Overall, China has announced that it intends to cut its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by up to 45% by 2020 compared to 2005. In Guangdong, emissions from 202 companies will be capped at 350Mt for 2013, according to the local Development and Reform Commission. As shown in an article in the December 2013 issue of Global Cement Magazine, Guangdong province has a cement production capacity of 132.7Mt/yr, the second highest in the country after Anhui province.

From the perspective of the cement industry, Chunfang Wang from Huaxin Cement spoke about the importance of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) at an International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) workshop that took place in Guangzhou, Guangdong in early 2013. From Wang's perspective, emission assessment standards were at a 'developmental' stage in China and 'smooth' carbon trading would depend on consistent standards being adopted everywhere. Although at the time the particulars of the Guangdong scheme were unknown, participants at the IETA event advised cooperation with scheme planners to ensure emission producers and purchasers remained part of the decision process. Sliding carbon prices in the EU ETS may have been beneficial for permit buyers but once the government planners become involved to revive the market they might lose out.

As the Economist pointed out the summer of 2013, an ETS is a cap-and-trade scheme. Since China appears to have no definite cap to carbon emissions, how can the trading work? The Chinese schemes cap carbon per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Yet since GDP is dependent on production, any ETS run in this way would have to include adjustments at the end of trading. This would give central planners of the scheme plenty of wiggle room to rig the scheme. Worse yet, analysts Thomson Reuters Point Carbon have pointed out that the Chinese schemes face over-allocation of permits, the same issue that sank EU carbon prices. Additionally, one of the criticisms of the Guangdong Emissions Trading Scheme (GETS) pilot scheme was that the carbon prices may have been higher than expected due to market collusion.

The Chinese ETS projects face issues over their openness. If traders don't know accurately how much carbon dioxide is being produced by industry, such as cement production, then the scheme may be undermined. Similarly, over-allocating carbon permits may make it easier for producers to meet targets but it will cause problems in the trading price of carbon. However, given that a carbon emissions cap is an artificial mechanism to encourage markets to cut emissions, should any of these concerns really matter? The main question for Chinese citizens is whether or not China can cut its overall emissions and clear the air in its smog filled mega-cities.

Specifically for cement producers, it seems likely that large producers will be able to cope with the scheme best, from having more carbon permits to sell, to rolling out unified emissions assessment protocols, to liaising better with scheme planners. In Europe smaller cement producers, like Ecocem, have criticised the EU ETS for slowing a transition to a low carbon economy by subsidising the larger producers' emissions through over-allocation. In China, with its self-declared intention to consolidate an over-producing cement industry, whatever else happens it seems likely that smaller cement producers may become lost in the haze.

Minority shareholders have bowled a googly at Holcim's attempt to simplify its business structure in India.

Or for readers unacquainted with cricket terminology, domestic institutions which hold about 9% in Ambuja Cements have been widely reported in the Indian media as having voted against a move to merge the cement producer with its parent company, Holcim India. The final results of the shareholders vote will be publicly announced on 21 November 2013. The shareholders actions follow Holcim's recent approval by the Indian Foreign Investment Promotion Board for the merger.

That this is bad news for Holcim is not in doubt given that the multinational cement producer has taken a hit in its Asia-Pacific region, particularly in India. Overall for the region its operating profit fell by 32.5% year-on-year to US$333m for the quarter to 30 September 2013.

Specifically, Ambuja Cements managed to maintain its sales volume of cement and clinker year-on-year at 4.89Mt for the third quarter. However, its net profit after tax fell by 45.4% to US$27m. It blamed the decline on subdued demand due to overall economic slowdown combined with higher input costs. Meanwhile, ACC saw its sales revenue from cement fall slightly to US$388m for the third quarter while its profit for cement before costs and tax fell by 57% year-on-year to US$22m.

As mentioned in August 2013 when this column last looked at India, the parallels to cement industry consolidation in China are telling. In China guidelines have been issued to cut overcapacity in the cement industry, with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology releasing lists of companies that should cut excess production. Alongside this, the country's leading cement producers have reported a return to profit so far in 2013. Who exactly is taking the loss from this production retraction in China, if it is happening, remains unreported and unclear.

In India, much more light has been shone upon an over-producing cement industry. Holcim and its subsidiaries are just some of the companies reporting falling profits at present. Ambuja's minor shareholders look like they have made a decision that is counter to the best interests of the Indian cement industry.

In a recent UK newspaper article, political theorist David Runciman compared the respective merits of democratic and more autocratic modes of government. Unsurprisingly for a British academic Runciman came out in favour of democracies, yet the advantages of more centralised governments were noted, such as the ability to make wide-reaching decisions faster and more comprehensively.

In light of this, comparing the Indian and Chinese cement industries in 2040 will be fascinating. Minor shareholder tussles will likely be forgotten but cement (and hopefully cricket) will be as vital then as they are now.

China: The board of directors of Anhui Conch has announced that Ji Qinying tendered his resignation as an executive director on 1 November 2013. A new executive director will be elected and appointed in due course.

Lafarge's decision to expand in Zimbabwe adds to the mix in sub-Saharan Africa.

As we discussed in Global Cement Weekly #104, Dangote and PPC (formerly Pretoria Portland Cement) may be facing off as the biggest local cement producers in the region but the influence of the European-based producers should not be dismissed too readily. Investing US$200m over the next 10 years matches PPC's similarly sized investment announced in November 2012. According to Lafarge, the spend will help maintain the cement producer's market share in the country.

The other point of note from Lafarge's Zimbabwe announcement is the emphasis on the multinational's 'Building Better Cities' campaign in the story. This is unsurprising given that that Lafarge Zimbabwe Managing Director Jonathan Shoniwa made the comments about Lafarge Zimbabwe at a branding event for the campaign. Similar events are happening around the world. However, looked at overall, the decision to place cities at the heart of its marketing makes an increasingly compelling case for a variety of markets.

Some commenters on the Global Cement LinkedIn Group discussed this very issue recently in response to a news story on Lafarge's next set of expansion plans for China. Specifically, someone asked why would Lafarge want to expand in a market suffering from overcapacity!

The Building Better Cities campaign offers one answer. As China prepares to shut down excess capacity, Lafarge's strategy to be in place once the dust settles (perhaps literally in some places) starts to make sense. As a marketing tagline 'building better cities' works well because who doesn't – from Zimbabwe to China to even France – want better cities with better transport links through price, planning, technical and aesthetic innovations.

To give a sense of the environmental zeitgeist happening in China right now, this week we carry a news story on the Chinese Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs reporting 17 Chinese cement companies for environmental misdemeanours. Elsewhere, we can see evidence of continued foreign enthusiasm for investment in the Chinese cement market from Japan's Sumitomo Osaka Cement, despite fears of overcapacity. Lafarge is saying the right things at the right time but it may not be alone in its strategy.

China: China Tianrui Group Cement has said that Yu Yagang tendered his resignation as an executive director and chief financial officer with effect from 11 May 2013 for reasons of personal development. Yu will remain as the chief accountant of Tianrui Cement, a wholly owned subsidiary of China Tianrui.

Yang Yongzheng has been appointed as an executive director, authorised representative and a member of the nomination committee. Yang will remain as the general manager of Tianrui Cement. Xu Wuxue has been appointed as an executive director, chief financial officer and a member of the remuneration committee. Xu will remain as the chief financial officer of Tianrui Cement. Wang Delong has been appointed as an executive director and deputy chief executive officer.

Last week's news that Sinoma is considering European acquisitions may seem a little odd considering that Sinoma saw its profit halve in 2012. Yet the Chinese cement equipment builder and cement producer's income (US$3.42bn) puts it level with the likes of European producers, like Italcementi (US$5.75bn) and Buzzi Unicem (US$3.58bn), and the company still made a sizeable profit (US$123m).

Now what really seems odd is the amount by which each of the major Chinese cement producers' profits fell in 2012. Each of the top five producers by capacity, including Sinoma, saw their profits decrease by 40% to 50%. CNBM 'forgot' to report its profit drop but in November 2012 it recorded a 40% fall. Anhui Conch Cement's profit fell by 45.6% to US$1.03bn. Jidong Cement hasn't released any figures but was expecting a 50% drop in late October 2012. China Resources' profit fell by 44.4% to US$300m. Compare that with the diversity of profits reported by the top five European cement producers.

As has been clearly signposted by the Chinese government, the country is overproducing cement. Just how much we can't be sure but the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology declared that 220Mt/yr of 'obsolete' capacity was eliminated in 2012. The country's entire output was placed at 2.18Bt in official figures.

Outmoded capacity is being shut down and industry consolidation encouraged for the main players. Given the state-owned nature of Chinese heavy industry some level of coordination between bad results is to be expected. To give readers an idea of the challenge facing Chinese central planners, Anhui Conch added 28.3Mt/yr of additional cement production capacity in 2012. This is equivalent to the entire capacity of Nigeria or Germany!

Of interest here are China's cement export figures that the government's General Administration of Customs recently released. Exports hit a peak of 33Mt in 2007 and then declined by 68% to 11Mt in 2011. In 2012 they increased slightly to 12Mt. That's 20Mt of cement not leaving the country any more. Plus, the 'Shenzhen sea-sand in concrete scandal' can't be helping the industry's reputation abroad either.

Also of note last week, a Kyrgyzstan minister proposed restricting imports of Chinese cement to his country. Cement produced at Chinese-owned plants will be much harder to block. The next prong of the Chinese plan to tackle its cement industry is direct overseas expansion and this is what we're seeing from the likes of Sinoma and Anhui Conch. Sinoma, as mentioned above, appears to have cash to spend and in 2012 Anhui Conch began its first international project in Indonesia.

Liu Ming of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) once again stated the obvious this week: China is producing too much cement.

He made the same warning on overcapacity that has been made all year. Officials from the NDRC have recommended stricter controls on new capacity, faster mergers and acquisitions, elimination of out-dated capacity and faster industry upgrades. Unsurprisingly this is exactly the line that China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) was hawking in its 12th Five-year Plan (2011-2015) for the country's building materials industry that it released back in 2011.

So what's actually happened since last time Liu Ming played Cassandra?

Back in July 2012, at the time of the half-year financial reports, it looked like Chinese cement producers were facing profit gaps of around 50%. Now it looks worse. Major producer China National Building Material Co (CNBM) has reported a drop in net profit of 40% to US$575m for the nine months to 30 September 2012. Anhui Conch has reported a drop in net profit of 57% to US$632m. China National Materials Co Ltd (Sinoma) has reported a 76% drop in net profit to US$48.8m for the same period. Jidong Cement reported a 83% drop in net profit to US$38.6m.

In 2010 Chinese cement production was 1.87Bt. In 2011 it was 2.06Bt, according to Chinese state-released statistics. From January to September 2012, the country produced 1.59Bt of cement, a year-on-year increase of 6.7%. For the full year of 2012 it is estimated that China will produce 2.8Bt/yr. However, according to the NDRC production growth have fallen to 6.7% in 2012 compared to 11.4% in 2011. Capacity is still rising whilst profits are plummeting.

At the start of 2012 the Chinese Vice Minister of Environment Protection, Zhang Lijun, announced that the ministry plans to introduce stricter rules on NOx emissions from cement plants. At the time it was reckoned that the move could wipe out a third of the industry's total net profits. Then in September 2012, industry reports suggested that the government was now going to set nitrogen oxide emissions to 300mg/m3, below the international standard of 400mg/m3. It was estimated that only about a third of producers would be able to afford the necessary upgraded equipment to meet the requirement. Then, also in September 2012, the Guangdong Emissions Trading Scheme (GETS) was launched, which might offer another way of restraining production.

In summary: profits are tumbling, production is probably slowing and new controls are as-yet unbinding. Yet, perhaps Liu Ming repeated his warning for one particular audience who can make a difference. On 8 November 2012 the Chinese Communist Party holds its 18th national congress to decide the new leadership. Producers like West China Cement are certainly hoping this shakes things up. It recently announced that it was waiting for new infrastructure projects to be approved to swallow up its growing surplus.

Today's report that cement producers from Taiwan are preparing for new Chinese NOx regulations is yet another reaction to several 'seismic' shifts of government-led change rocking the industry in China. These have included the closure of old, inefficient capacity and significant implementation of waste-heat recovery (WHR) systems. Last week's launch of the Guangdong Emissions Trading Scheme (GETS) is one more.

As reported by Reuters Point Carbon, GETS involves four cement plants from the start and it is the largest of seven such provincial schemes. It is as big and bold as the manufacturing hub that it covers. It includes over 800 manufacturing sites and will regulate the emissions from 42% of all power consumed in Guangdong and 63% of all its industrial emissions. It will be the fifth biggest ETS in the world after those in the EU, Australia, California and South Korea.

While GETS is large, the rate that it will be implemented will be more restrained. There will be three years of testing (2012-2015), an 'improvement period' (2016- 2020) and a proper market from 2020. The scheme's progress will be watched closely - its success or failure could determine the shape of emissions trading schemes (ETS) across China and the rest of Asia.

While the aims of ETS are laudable, they have met with 'mixed' reviews in other parts of the world. In Australia in 2011, there were dire warnings of the potential for job-losses and carbon-leakage, with China itself identified as a probable destination for both.

In Europe there is now a strong claim that the EU-ETS has been ineffective, with carbon prices slumping to under Euro10/credit (~US$13/credit), less than a quarter of projected levels for 2012. In the midst of the downturn Ireland's CRH 'earned' millions of Euros in unused credits. Security has also been a problem for the EU-ETS.

Even GETS, less than a month old, has drawn criticism. Unnamed commentators have suggested that the higher-than-expected prices, US$9.50/credit, (only slightly lower than in Europe), already look like the result of collusion in the market.

With all of these concerns, the immediate demand from the cement producers, China Resources Cement, Sinoma, Taipai and Yangchun Hailuo, looks a little strange. However, local media reports that there are advantages to be gained by buying early. All of the four producers have to buy credits for cement plant projects they are currently working on. They are gambling on the fact that carbon prices can only rise - something that is not expected by analysts.

In addition the producers can gain valuable experience of the scheme before it has to be used 'in anger,' which may give them an operational advantage over others. They also know that, unlike in other parts of the world, the government will not backtrack on its decision. Recent NOx regulations, closure of older capacity and implementation of WHR have all been imposed (or are being imposed) from above. They know that it is better to jump into the deep end than to be pushed.

Cement industry results from China have all told an alarming story this week: profits for the first half of 2012 look set to fall by more than 50% year-on-year.

China Resources Cement Holdings warned that its first-half earnings were down sharply. China National Materials Co. Ltd. (Sinoma), the cement equipment and engineering services provider, and Gansu Qilianshan Cement, a small Shanghai-listed cement producer, have both forecast similar drops. Sinoma blamed its drop in profit partly on an overseas project but 'interestingly' no further information was released detailing which project.

Previous to this in June 2012 Anhui Conch Cement warned that its net profit would fall by more than 50% due to weak demand and falling product prices. In May 2012 China National Building Material Co Ltd (CNBM) reported that its net profit for the first quarter of 2012 was down by 45% year-on-year. In April 2012 Jidong Cement reported an increase in its net loss for the first quarter and a year-on-year revenue drop of 14%.

Each of the Chinese big players in the cement industry have issued profit warnings of a similar scale suggesting that the Chinese market faces a uniform downturn or that a slowdown is being centrally managed. Official signs that the Chinese industry faced a slowdown emerged in March 2012 when the national growth target was lowered, analysts' predictions were released forecasting weakened profits for the nation's main producers and government officials admitted that overcapacity loomed within five years.

According to OneStone Research data on the Chinese market in 2010 CNBM, Anhui Conch, Jidong and Sinoma represented over 20% of Chinese capacity. To give these figures some perspective, in 2011 CNBM's profit was US$1.7bn. Holcim's operating profit for the same period was US$2bn and Lafarge's operating income was US$2.74bn. Even halved, CNBM's profit is a massive figure for a company with less of an international presence than the European multinationals.

Friday saw the news that many have long suspected: China is producing too much cement. Liu Ming, an official with the department of industry within the National Development and Reform Commission, announced that China faces national overcapacity in the next five years.

For anyone used to reading the permanently good news from China's cement industry this is a massive jolt. The natural reaction to dealing with industrial news from a command-style economy is to assume that everything is 'airbrushed'. This then demands the question: how much trouble is the Chinese cement industry really in?

Despite persistent rumours querying how long China's unparallelled growth could last, official responses have only appeared in the last two months. First the environment ministry announced stricter rules regarding nitrogen oxide emissions from cement plants in February 2012. Commentators suggested that the move could wipe out a third of the industry's profits. Shortly afterwards FLSmidth, entered the Chinese environmental control technology market.

In early March 2012 Premier Wen Jiabao lowered China's growth target for 2012, signalling public political acceptance of an inevitable economic 'soft landing'. Then in late March 2012 analysts' reports emerged predicting that each of China's main producers would suffer weakened profits in 2012. Only CNBM, China's biggest producer, appears to have bucked this trend. It announced that it expected its net profit to jump more than 100% compared to 2011. However the general uncertainty regarding statistics from China throws doubt on how realistic this forecast may be.

Yet before we give up hope it's worth remembering that opportunity abounds in a market as gargantuan as China. The rest of 2012 will be an interesting period for the Chinese cement industry.