Analysis

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.

Alpacem said this week that it had completed its acquisition of the Fanna cement plant near Pordenone. The 0.66Mt/yr integrated plant and a number of ready-mixed concrete plants became part of the Austria-headquartered group at the start of February 2025. Alpacem now has three integrated plants, with units at Wietersdorf in Austria and Anhovo in Slovenia, in addition to Fanna.

The deal dates back to mid-2023 when Alpacem said it had signed an agreement with Buzzi. In return Buzzi was set to receive a 25% stake in Alpacem Zement Austria. Prior to this the two companies had a strategic partnership in Austria and Slovenia that dated back to 2014. At the time of the agreement Buzzi held a 25% share in each of two Alpacem subsidiaries: Salonit Anhovo in Slovenia; and W&P Cementi in Italy. The Fanna plant was originally owned by Cementizillo before it was bought by Buzzi in 2018.

Also this week, Federbeton warned that the high cost of gas would add €80m/yr to the cost of cement production. Nicola Zampella, General Manager of Federbeton and the cement association AITEC, noted that local energy costs would reduce the competitiveness of producers against imports from outside of the European Union (EU). This ties into comments Stefano Gallini, the president of Federbeton, made in December 2024 when he highlighted the growing share of imports from outside the EU.

Federbeton raised the issue in its annual report for 2023, showing that imports rose to a 19% production share in 2023. Italy produced 18.8Mt of and imported 3.6Mt of cement and clinker in 2023. This is its highest level of imports for at least a decade. Over the same period the country’s cement exports, as a share of production, have remained steady at around 10 - 11%. In 2023 Türkiye was the biggest source of imports (25%) followed by Greece (17%), Slovenia (17%), Tunisia (12%) and Algeria (10%).

Graph 1: Cement production, imports and exports in Italy, 2019 - 2023. Source: Federbeton.

It is worth recalling that the cement sector in Italy used to be larger before it started consolidating in the late 2000s. Italcementi was acquired by Germany-based Heidelberg Materials. Operations by Sacci, Cementir and Cemenzillo were all bought out too. Local cement production reached a high of 47.9Mt in 2006 before it stabilised at around 20Mt/yr from 2015 onwards.

In its preliminary results for 2024, out this week too, Buzzi reported that the construction market In Italy probably shrank in 2024 due to a poor residential housing market. However, the cement company managed to keep its local net sales stable by raising prices and focusing on exports. Despite this, it noted a drop in cement and concrete sales volumes at the end of 2024. More data on the construction market in Italy may emerge when Heidelberg Materials releases its 2024 financial results at the end of February 2025.

The backdrop to this has been a rise in gas prices in Europe towards the end of 2024 as the EU ‘emergency’ price cap finished on 31 January 2025. Around the same time the EU is preparing to reveal information on its Clean Industry Deal towards the end of February 2025. Plus, the first active phase of EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is preparing to enter into force from the start of 2026. Each of these issues has implications for the cement sector in Italy as the location associations have been highlighting. One question will be whether the Clean Industry Deal can help producers cope with mounting energy prices. Another will be whether CBAM will change the proportion of imports for countries like Italy or will the sources of the imports simply change. Plenty to consider for the year ahead.

US President Donald Trump threatened tariffs on imports from Canada, China, Mexico and the European Union this week. Tariffs to Canada and Mexico were announced on 1 February 2025 and then paused for a month to allow for negotiations. Ones to China have been implemented. Tariffs to the European Union have been proposed but nothing has happened yet. What does this mean for the cement sector?

Graph 1: Imports of cement and clinker to the US. Source: USGS. Estimated data for 2024.

The data suggests that whacking 25% tariffs on cement imports from Canada and Mexico would have an impact. The US imported 26.5Mt of cement and clinker in 2023. Based on United States Geological Survey (USGS) data from January to October 2024, imports in 2024 have fallen by 8% year-on-year but they still represent a large chunk of consumption. Türkiye has been the biggest source of imports over the last five years but Canada has been the second biggest supplier. Together with Mexico, it provided over a quarter of imports in 2023. A similar share is expected in 2024. Greece, a country in the EU, has also been present in the top five importing countries to the US during this time.

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) reinforced this view. In a carefully worded statement it took pains to point out alignment with the intentions behind the tariffs, such as appreciating that the administration was open to negotiation and appeared to be flexible. However, it warned that the moves could adversely affect energy and national security, delay infrastructure projects and raise costs. It pointed out the import share from Canada and Mexico, adding that this represented nearly 7% of the US’ cement consumption. It noted which states were the main entry points for cement imports from the two countries. Finally, it highlighted the high level of consumption (36%) that imports from Canada might account for in northern states such as New York, Washington and so on. Meanwhile, Mexico’s National Chamber of Cement (CANACEM) warned that the proposed actions might trigger a ‘competitiveness crisis’ in the US.

Holcim’s CEO, by contrast, nonchalantly told Reuters that he didn’t expect any impact by tariffs on his business. Miljan Gutovic described the group’s US operations as a local business with production happening in the country and equipment and spare parts all being sourced locally. This optimistic view is likely to be influenced by the company’s impending spin-off of its US business. The listing in the US remains scheduled for the first half of 2025 with no complications expected from tariffs.

Clearly, implementing tariffs on imports of cement and clinker from Canada and Mexico could cause a shortage in the US in the short term. This, in turn, could lead to higher prices for consumers in the US. This potential effect would be pronounced in border regions that are reliant on imports. It is worth noting that a number of production lines in both Mexico and Canada have previously been mobilised to meet the export market to the US. These lines would likely be mothballed if tariffs were to be implemented, unless they could find other markets. In the medium term though, as the World Cement Association (WCA) pointed out this week, the world produces too much cement. So it looks likely that the US cement market would adjust to a new equilibrium. Taxing imports from the EU would have a similar effect. Although it seems like it would be less pronounced for the US cement market unless it was in conjunction with tariffs to Canada and Mexico. It would certainly be bad news for cement producers in Greece.

Cement producers in the US look set to benefit from tariffs as demand for their products and prices could increase. There is a risk that too sudden a change to the import market could cause adverse market effects through shortages. Many of these companies are multinational groups with headquarters in foreign countries. However, the strength of the US market compared to elsewhere has prompted some of these businesses to become more ‘American’ through listing in the US or focusing merger and acquisition activity in North America.

At this point we’re stuck in a half-way house place where import tariffs have been threatened and negotiations are pending. The relatively muted stock market reaction to the tariffs and Trump’s swiftness in enacting pauses suggest that it is brinkmanship by the US administration. If this situation continues for any length of time then it will likely have an effect all of its own. In which case don’t expect any export-focused investment by cement companies in Canada and Mexico any time soon.

Northern-Ireland based cement producer Cemcor said this week that it has completed trials of a calcined clay cement product called CalcinX. The company started its trials in 2023 and it has been supported by Queen’s University Belfast and funding from Innovate UK. Work with commercial partners has involved precast concrete paving manufacturer Tobermore producing paviours made from 50% CalcinX as a CEM II replacement and Moore Concrete has also manufactured precast units using 50% CalcinX as a CEM I replacement. So far over 3000t of CalcinX has been produced in a number of industrial-scale trials.

David Millar, the managing director of Cemcor, mentioned his company’s plans for calcined clay in June 2022 when he was interviewed by Global Cement Magazine. The company that became Cemcor bought the Cookstown cement plant and a few other assets from Holcim at the start of 2022. It then changed its name to Cemcor in November 2022. At the time of the interview the company was looking to “...develop new value-added products, including low-CO₂ options. This will allow us to use the same amount of clinker to produce more cement.” Millar couldn’t give away too many details at the time, however calcined clay was cited specifically. It was also noted that the company had the right material in its quarry and that it was already working with partners on it.

Amongst all the other decarbonisation options available for cement plants, a slow trickle of calcined clay projects keep being announced. In January 2025, for example, thyssenkrupp Polysius said it had secured a front-end engineering design contract from Circlua for the construction of the world’s largest activated clay plant in Brazil. This project in Para state will have a capacity of 3000t/day, will use renewable energy sources and will “improve the CO₂ footprint in cement production.” CBMI Construction also officially launched a flash calcination clay project in Tangshan, Hebei province in China. In December 2024, Vicat signed an agreement with the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations to develop the Lebec Net Zero (LNZ) project at its Lebec cement plant in California. This includes plans to produce calcined clay-based cement. Earlier in the autumn of 2024 Portugal-based Cimpor said it was preparing to convert a kiln at its Souselas plant to produce calcined clays, AVIC International Beijing and KHD said that they had secured a deal to build a 900t/day clay calcination plant for Ciments de l'Afrique (CIMAF) in Burkina Faso, and Holcim Česko said it was going to construct a calcined clay processing line at the Čížkovice cement plant in the Czech Republic.

One news story that stuck out in the autumn was the progress of a collaboration between Aumund and Holcim towards developing an electric linear calcination conveyor (eLCC). The two companies started work on the project in 2020 intending to look at the electrical calcination of clay using an Aumund pan conveyor. Initial tests of the eLCC reportedly demonstrated efficient thermal activation of clay through a combination of radiant heat and material circulation. The eLCC system is fully enclosed, insulated, has a compact design and can operate using electrical-powered renewable sources. The first industrial plant utilising this technology is scheduled for construction in 2025. Calcined clay technology and products by other industrial suppliers are available. The work by Aumund and its competitors show they are watching this market closely.

OneStone Consulting’s Joe Harder has found that only 14 clay calcination plants were operational worldwide in 2023 with a production capacity of just under 3.5Mt/yr. These are based in Latin America, Europe and Africa. In an article previewing a market report in the February 2025 issue of Global Cement Magazine, Harder predicts that by 2035 there will be 79 clay calcination plants with a capacity of just under 21Mt/yr. A steady growth of over 20 new plants annually is also expected subsequently from 2035 to 2050 as cement producers seek cost-effective ways to reduce their clinker factor. He identified installation costs, a lack of knowledge about clay-based cements, trouble obtaining mining rights and policy issues amongst other issues as holding back the use of clay calcination.

The current expectation is that calcined clay usage in the cement industry will be a minority option. Yet the size of global cement production can make a production share of, say, 3 - 8% a viable option for both cement manufacturers and equipment suppliers. The adoption of new cement products and standards can also take a long time and this clouds predictions of how far clay can go in the cement industry. At this point in the calcined clay story it is time to keep track of the new projects being set up.

Joe Harder will present a talk entitled ‘Calcined clay market trends by 2035’ at the Global FutureCem Conference taking place in Istanbul in early February 2025

PPC revealed plans this week to build a new cement plant in the Western Cape region of South Africa. It has entered into a “strategic cooperation agreement” with Sinoma Overseas Development Company to put together a 1.5Mt/yr integrated plant for around US$160m. It is hoped that construction will start in the second quarter of 2025 with commissioning scheduled by the end of 2026.

CEO Matías Cardarelli described more details about the project during a tie-in webcast on 16 January 2025. Specifically, the new unit will be built at the company’s integrated Riebeeck Plant site due to the quality of the local limestone and the greater reserves. In addition, all the key environmental approvals and mining rights have already been obtained. Both this plant, and the nearby De Hoek Plant, will continue to run throughout the construction and commissioning period. A decision will then be made about required staffing. PPC did not explicitly say whether the two old plants would be closed but the new plant will “replace and increase the existing capacity” at the other sites.

Points to note from the announcement start with the low cost for the clinker production line. PPC’s 1Mt/yr line at its Slurry plant cost around US$75m when it was commissioned in 2018. Sinoma also built that one. However, negative currency exchange effects make comparisons tricky. In 2015 PPC said that the cost of the Slurry line was around US$115/t. It pointed out that the price was low as it was a brownfield investment. This compares to US$107/t for the Western Cape project, another brownfield project. Other recent integrated plant projects in Sub-Saharan Africa to consider include Cemtech’s clinker plant in Sebit, Kenya (US$170/t) or West International Holding’s forthcoming plant in Buikwe District, Uganda (US$150/t). Plans for a new PPC plant in the Western Cape go back to at least 2017 when the then CEO Johan Claassen said it was preparing for a ‘mega plant.’ At the time it was hoping to replace its Riebeeck plant with a ‘semi-brownfield’ facility that would use around 25% of the current plant’s equipment. The scheme had actually been around longer but Claassen remarked that insufficient domestic demand had held it back.

The next detail to consider is that PPC is planning to build this new plant within 100km of the coast. This was addressed directly with PPC saying that the new plant would be “extremely competitive” against imports. They say it will be able to produce cement, at least, to a similar cost to imports from Vietnam. It was also remarked that only 10 - 15% of the 1Mt/yr of imports, mainly from Vietnam, go to the Western Cape with the rest heading to KwaZulu-Natal via the Port of Durban.

PPC’s plans in Riebeeck are part of its ‘Awaken the Giant’ development strategy. For its six month financial results statement to September 2024 it said that it had “early positive and encouraging signs in all lines of our business.” In South Africa its earnings were up despite lower sales volumes. Dangote Cement’s local subsidiary, Sephaku Holdings, reported a similar picture with a small bump in revenue and earnings back up after coal and fly ash supply constraints a year earlier. PPC isn’t the only cement company developing capacity. Huaxin Cement-owned Natal Portland Cement was reportedly investing US$65m in the autumn of 2024 towards expanding its Simuma Plant in KwaZulu-Natal.

The cement sector in South Africa had a couple of ownership changes in 2024. As mentioned above, China-based Huaxin Cement bought Natal Portland Cement from InterCement at the start of the year. Then, Afrimat received approval to buy Lafarge South Africa in April 2024. Both of these incomers have clear ambitions to expand in the industry. In this context PPC’s decision to finally revive its Western Cape plans, before whatever its new competitors devise, makes sense. Expect more talk of capacity upgrades in the future.