We’ve covered some stories this week about new cement plants in Central Asia. Four new plants have been announced in Tajikistan and construction has started on an integrated plant in Kazakhstan. Let’s recap what’s been happening.

The office of Tajik President Emomali Rahmon announced that four new cement plants will be built to provide 6Mt/yr of production capacity by 2029. The plan is intended to increase domestic production, create a surplus and stabilise prices. The press release noted that local production grew to 5Mt in 2025 from 0.3Mt/yr in 2014. It also admitted that there have been ‘challenges’ with industry coordination, capacity utilisation and distribution. Cement prices have risen and localised shortages have been reported in recent months. The government says it is taking action in response to this. Separate media reports from the country, in late May 2026, suggest that cement prices have doubled recently, matching the cost of imports. This has been linked to a maintenance shutdown at the Jung-Tsai Mohir Cement plant in Yovon, high local demand and mounting exports to Afghanistan.

Then, in Kazakhstan, it emerged that construction work had commenced on the QazCem Industries plant at Baikaninsky in Aktobe. The US$177m project has a production capacity of 1.3Mt/yr. It is a joint-venture between China-based Sinoma Cement Company and Primus Capital. It is intended that three-quarters of the project will be built in 2026. Once completed the plant will target demand in the south of the country, with the option for export markets too. Other recent cement plant projects in the country include a US$222m unit at Alginsky in Aktobe in connection with West China Cement, which started construction in October 2025 and International Cement Group, which opened its fourth unit in the country in late 2024.

Another view on the cement market in Kazakhstan could be detected this week from Steppe Cement’s financial results for 2025. The leading cement producer in the country reported that its revenues rose by 20% year-on-year to US$101m. Its profit after tax more than tripled to US$3.3m. The company noted the contribution that residential construction growth had made to its balance sheet. Yet, it also warned of input cost inflation, negative currency exchange rate effects and competition from imports in the south of the country.

Graph 1: Cement production in Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, 2018 - 2025. Sources: Qazstat, Tajstat & Uzstat, figure estimated for 2025 in Tajikistan.

Uzbekistan, meanwhile, has generally been the other big cement producer in Central Asia. As can be seen in Graph 1 above, its annual production was generally around 10Mt from 2018 to 2023 and then it jumped up to 20Mt in 2025 following the opening of a number of new plants. A review of the local sector by Avestra Investment Group reported that the country’s capacity utilisation rate fell from 92% in 2019 to 45% in 2024. It has since improved somewhat to 50% in 2025. New companies entered the sector from 2019, mostly from China, including Huaxin Cement, Namangan Cement, Fergona Yasin, Andijon WCC Cement, Toshkent Konch Cement, and China Energy JV. Overcapacity in Uzbekistan also has implications for neighbouring countries as local producers have turned to exports. Tajikistan, for example, reported a fall in cement production and exports in 2024.

Coincidentally, Uzbekistan presented the results from its first systematic assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from its cement industry at a seminar in April 2026. The event was hosted by the Center for Economic Research and Reforms (CERR) in cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The country currently aims to reduce the carbon intensity of its gross domestic product by 50% by 2035, compared to 2010 levels, and is considering becoming carbon neutral by 2060. The cement sector is considering levers such as optimising cement composition, improving energy efficiency and increasing the use of alternative fuels.

Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan are the most populous countries in Central Asia. Consequently they have the largest cement industries. All three sectors have been growing in recent years as the nations develop, and as China has started financing and building cement plants overseas. This progress can be seen in the reports of new plants from Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. The aftermath is observable in Uzbekistan. Here, the new plants have been built and the industry is learning to cope with overcapacity. Its experience will be watched by its neighbours.

A major South African manufacturers’ association came out swinging this week, raising what it sees as the alarm over decline on the horizon for the nation’s cement plants. Philippa Rodseth, the Executive Director of Manufacturing Circle, said that West China Cement’s (WCC) acquisition of AfriSam risked creating a pan-southern African cement giant that would likely cause South African capacity to close in favour of imports from cheaper markets abroad. A quick look at Manufacturing Circle’s website reveals its three main aims: to advocate for a competitive manufacturing environment; to attain a proactive international trade position, and; to advance the reputation of South African manufactured products.1 The association, which represents many South African manufacturers across a range of industries, clearly feels that the ongoing acquisition is against all three of these.

Rodseth’s point of contention seems to be that WCC, having attained AfriSam’s South African assets, will systematically import cement from its plants across South Africa’s borders, particularly those in Mozambique. As part of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) and Southern African Development Community (SADC), Mozambique enjoys zero tariffs for cement exports to other members, including South Africa. With lower production costs in Mozambique, one does not need too much of an imagination to see what might unfold. If WCC can use its combined assets effectively, it will gain a price advantage over producers that operate in South Africa. With South African capacity utilisation floating at around 60% so far in the 2020s,2 something will have to give, most likely smaller producers that have already fended off cheap imports from Asia, particularly Pakistan, Vietnam and China, for much of the 2020s. Some periodic relief has been provided by anti-dumping duties on cement from these markets – as has been covered in depth in this column over the years - but this is simply not possible in the case of SACU members.

Speaking in unison with Philippa Rodseth was Matias Cardarelli, CEO of South Africa-based cement producer PPC. He said this week that WCC was already operating an import business into South Africa from its Mozambique operations. "The proposed acquisition (of AfriSam by WCC) raises serious concerns for South African local production, with AfriSam downsizing its production in South Africa and moving production to Mozambique, where WCC has significant spare capacity. It will become a distribution platform for Mozambique-produced cement,” he said. Cardarelli seems to suggest that WCC’s long-term play is to mothball its own capacity in South Africa, stating “This transaction creates strong incentives to abandon local manufacturing. Clearly it is cheaper to produce cement in Mozambique and sell it in South Africa with no tariffs." Perhaps he is concerned that, after a few years - and after a few of its competitors’ plants have closed - WCC will re-start its own South African cement plants, effectively cornering the market.

Given Cardarelli’s concerns, it is interesting to see that PPC itself has signed an agreement this week with Sinoma Overseas Development to collaborate on efficiency improvements and possible expansion of its capacity in Zimbabwe. The two companies will enhance operational efficiencies at PPC Zimbabwe, while also assessing the feasibility of constructing a new integrated cement plant in the country. In a statement, Cardarelli said that this is about enhancing PPC’s role in Zimbabwe.

Back to South Africa, it is important to note that, despite its current low capacity utilisation rates, South Africa will need a lot more cement in the future. A 2025 report from iMarc forecasts a 5.2% compound annual growth rate between 2025 and 2034, taking the value of the market from US$3.0bn to US$4.9bn.3 This will be driven by rapid population growth and an increasing demand for meaningful infrastructure development. What this means for volume is unclear but, given that production is currently around 12Mt/yr, the country could be looking for an extra 4-6Mt/yr of cement within the next eight years. Coincidentally this figure takes us close to 20Mt/yr, its current capacity according to the Global Cement Directory 2026.

By pretending that South Africa is an island, Manufacturing Circle appears to be shouting into the void to some extent. It was possible for manufacturers to cry foul when cement is being dumped en-masse from Asia and the government did eventually step in. However, the emerging dynamics within the SACU present an entirely new risk for cement producers that consider South Africa to be a core market. In the face of this, local producers would do well to reposition themselves: Diversify energy sources, particularly with captive renewables and alternative fuels; Increase efficiency through digital transformation and AI and; Contain costs to try and manage increasing pressure on margins.

A new front is opening in the battle for the South African cement market, one that will be considerably more lucrative in the coming decade or so. We watch with continued interest.

1. https://www.manufacturingcircle.co.za
2. https://www.globalcement.com/news/17795-cheap-imports-threaten-local-cement-industry
3. https://www.imarcgroup.com/south-africa-cement-market

An updated version of the Green Cement Technology Tracker was released this week. The summary is that carbon capture utilisation and/or storage (CCUS) projects are now commercial but that less than 2% of total global emissions from the cement industry are expected to be captured by 2035. With the Global CemCCUS Conference due to take place in Hamburg in early June 2026, we take stock of what’s been happening.

The Green Cement Technology Tracker maps more than 175 projects around the world, at various stages of development, covering both carbon capture and calcined clay kilns. It is run by the Leadership Group for Industry Transition (LeadIT), an initiative that was launched by the governments of Sweden and India at the United Nations Climate Action Summit in 2019. Another perspective on this can be viewed in Global Cement’s own listing of industrial scale CCUS projects in the cement sector.

Graph 1: Total carbon capture project announcements in cement plants by year and continent. Source: Green Cement Technology Tracker/LeadIT.

Two trends can be seen in Graph 1 above if we focus on CCUS. Firstly, the number of projects being announced fell to 12 in 2025 from 19 in 2024. The numbers are small but this is the first fall in the data since it started recording these schemes in 2015. Secondly, the number of projects outside of Europe outnumbered the ones from within it for the first time since 2019. Notably, the number of CCUS projects in Asia grew to seven in 2025. Aaron Maitais, the Policy Lead at LeadIT, interpreted this as follows: “…the successful delivery of first-of-a-kind large-scale projects is more significant for building confidence and unlocking future investments, rather than the number of announcements.” Analysis by LeadIT noted that both access to government finance and to CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure has proved vital for the early projects. It forecasts that around 58Mt/yr of CO₂ is likely to be captured by 38 commercial-scale CCUS projects in 2035.

So far, the signs suggest that a deceleration of new CCUS projects looks set to continue in 2026. Two key projects have stalled. These are Holcim’s project at its Obourg cement plant in Belgium and Heidelberg Materials’ project at the Slite plant in Sweden. Neither of these projects has been cancelled, but their future remains uncertain. LeadIT was also anticipating the commissioning of Heidelberg Materials’ Edmonton CCS project in late 2026 but announcements on this one have been scarce although it is progressing. A presentation by the cement producer at the Global CemCCUS Conference 2025 suggested a commissioning date in 2028 instead. Smaller demonstrations such as Ash Grove Cement’s project with Carbon Upcycling at its Mississauga plant in Canada and Heidelberg Materials’ Leilac demonstration at its Ennigerloh plant in Germany are likely to start by the end of 2026.

Notably, most of those Asia-based projects flagged by LeadIT were pilots in India. This roughly fits with growing preparation for net-zero in the country such as the government issuance of emission intensity targets and the launch of a National R&D Roadmap for CCUS. The government then set aside just over US$2bn in its budget in early 2026 for investment on CCUS in hard to abate sectors, including cement. It is likely that early movers in the local cement sector are jockeying to capture some of that funding.

Co-incidentally another CCUS project was announced this week by the Thai Cement Manufacturers Association (TCMA). From July 2026 a mobile CCUS unit supplied from Canada-based Clean Energy Technologies Research Institute (CETRI) will be rotated between cement plants in the Saraburi Sandbox. The pilot is intended to validate performance under diverse operational conditions and prepare for commercial-scale deployment.

To finish, carbon capture isn’t getting any easier for the cement sector. The key problems of de-risking early large projects through government funding and connecting to CO₂ infrastructure remain. As the flagship projects start to arrive, we may now face a credibility gap between government encouragement and market acceptance. Debate and information exchange on the topic at this stage now becomes more important than ever. Provided that net-zero policies remain in place, then research and deployment of CCUS by the cement sector is likely to continue. This can be seen as the projects keep coming from different parts of the world.

The 3rd Global CemCCUS Conference will take place in Hamburg, Germany on 9 - 10 June 2026.

A report emerged this week indicating that exports of cement from China to North Korea have risen markedly in the last few months. We will use this as an opportunity to examine the state of the local cement sector in the so-called ‘Hermit Kingdom.’

Daily NK has reported cement shipments “moving through border crossings along the Yalu River have risen noticeably since early April 2026.” This is the main border crossing between China and North Korea. It includes the Sino - Korean Friendship Bridge, with road and railway lines, which links Dandong with Sinuiju. In 2023 an estimated 98% of official trade imports to North Korea came from China. The increase in imports has been linked to North Korea’s ‘20×10 Regional Development Policy,’ which has proposed building 20 infrastructure and residential projects in 20 counties for 10 years from 2024. It is also proving cheaper to use imports in border regions rather than shipping cement from the country’s own plants. Finally, the source Daily NK used has suggested that local builders prefer using Chinese cement in some cases, despite it being moreexpensive, due to its higher strength and workability.

Some of the news sources that Global Cement uses to cover North Korea are state-owned media such as the state-run Korean Central News Agency. Daily NK by contrast is based in South Korea. The use of state news sources generally means that some of the coverage is overwhelmingly positive. So it was distinctive in March 2026 when state media announced that ‘supreme leader’ Kim Jong-un had called for ‘all-out’ efforts to boost cement production during a visit to the Sangwon cement plant. This implied that the country wasn’t making enough cement! Luckily for the plant workers, Kim was described as having a 'relaxed demeanour and expression' on this tour. Perhaps the cigarette he smoked in the plant’s central control room helped his mood.

Other than this, the general trend in the sector in North Korea since 2021 has been that of capacity enlargement projects at the large Sangwon and Sunchon plants. Daily NK reported in late 2021 that there had been an explosion at the Komusan cement plant that killed two workers. It attributed the incident to the plant being forced to work at maximum output with minimal maintenance. This was allegedly done in order to reach national economic targets in time for former leader Kim Jong Il’s birthday in mid-December. Another explosion was reported at the Mount Purae plant in late 2024. This one was thankfully non-fatal but it was blamed on the factory management pushing output in response to pressure from local government officials.

Graph 1: Cement production in North Korea, 2015 - 2023. Source: Bank of Korea.

Bank of Korea estimates on cement production in North Korea placed the level at 6.7Mt in 2023. Output appears to have been rising again since a dip in 2019. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) concluded in 2024 that United Nations sanctions on the country’s fuel imports in 2017 had restricted heavy fuel oil imports and that this had negatively affected the cement industry. The closure of the border in early 2020 further reduced fuel imports.

One of the best pieces of research available in English on the cement sector in North Korea is a report by 38 North in 2021. An abridged version was also published in the July - August 2021 issue of Global Cement Magazine. The magazine from the Stimson Center, a US-based thinktank, used satellite images to check on the state of the industry. It identified 21 cement plants at this time that may have been active. It also assessed whether various upgrade projects had been realised or not. It concluded that it was impossible to tell by imagery whether many of the proposed production upgrade projects had been realised over the preceding decade. Since 2021, as mentioned above, there has been a steady stream of reported production increases at cement plants reported by state media.

In summary, the North Korean government has large infrastructure plans, it has been attempting to increase production at key plants but it appears to be importing cement from China to compensate. The country remains under a complex group of UN economic sanctions. Those on fuel and equipment imports pose particular challenges to the local cement sector. This may be reflected in the reports of explosions at plants in the last few years. Recent economic deals with Russia and the 20×10 plan suggest that there is scope for development of the local cement market, despite the continued hardships the general population reportedly face.