Displaying items by tag: China

It’s the end of the year so it’s time to look at trends in the sector news over the last 12 months. It’s also the end of a decade, so for a wider perspective check out the feature in the December 2019 issue of Global Cement Magazine. The map of shifting production capacity and the table of falling CO₂ emissions per tonne are awesome and inspiring in their own way. They also point towards the successes and dangers facing the industry in the next decade.

Back on 2019 here are some of the main themes of the year in the industry news. This is a selective list but if we missed anything crucial let us know.

European multinationals retreat

LafargeHolcim left the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, HeidelbergCement sold up in Ukraine and reduced its stake in Morocco and CRH is reportedly making plans to leave the Philippines and India, if local media speculation can be believed. To be fair to HeidelbergCement it has also instigated some key acquisitions here and there, but there definitely has been a feel of the multinationals cutting their losses in certain places and retreating that bit closer to their heartlands.

CRH’s chief executive officer Albert Manifold summed it up an earnings meeting when he said, “…you're faced with a capital allocation decision of investing in Europe or North America where you've got stability, certainty, overlap, capability, versus going for something a bit more exotic. The returns you need to generate to justify that higher level of risk are extraordinary and we just don't see it.”

The battle for the European Green Deal

One battle that’s happening right now is the lobbying behind the scenes for so-called energy-intensive industries in Europe as part of the forthcoming European Green Deal. The cement industry is very aware that it is walking a tightrope on this one. The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) CO₂ price started to bite in 2019, hitting a high of Euro28/t in August 2019 and plant closures have been blamed on it. The rhetoric from Ursula von der Leyen, the new president of the European Commission, has been bullish on climate legislation and the agitation of Greta Thunberg internationally and groups like Extinction Rebellion has kept the issue in the press. Cembureau, the European Cement Association, is keen to promote the industry’s sustainability credentials but it is concerned that aspects of the proposed deal will create ‘uncertainty and risks.’ Get it wrong and problems like the incoming ban on refuse-derived fuel (RDF) imports into the Netherlands may proliferate. What the Green Deal ends up as could influence the European cement industry for decades.

The managed march of China

Last’s week article on a price spike in Henan province illustrated the tension in China between markets and government intervention. It looks like this was driven by an increase in infrastructure spending with cement sales starting to rise. Cement production growth has also picked up in most provinces in the first three quarters of 2019. This follows a slow fall in cement sales over the last five years as state measures such as consolidation and peak shifting have been implemented. The government dominates the Chinese market and this extends west, as waste importers have previously found out to their cost.

Meanwhile, the Chinese industry has continued to grow internationally. Rather than buying existing assets it has tended to build its own plants, often in joint ventures with junior local partners. LafargeHolcim may have left Indonesia in 2018 but perhaps the real story was Anhui Conch's becoming the country's third biggest producer by local capacity. Coupled with the Chinese dominance in the supplier market this has meant that most new plant projects around the world are either being built by a Chinese company or supplied by one.

India consolidates but watches dust levels

Consolidation has been the continued theme in the world's second largest cement industry, with the auction for Emami Cement and UltraTech Cement’s acquisition of Century Textiles and Industries. Notably, UltraTech Cement has decided to focus its attention on only India despite the overseas assets it acquired previously. Growth in cement sales in the second half of 2019 has slowed and capacity utilisation rates remain low. Indian press reports that CRH is considering selling up. Together with the country's low per capita cement consumption this suggests a continued trend for consolidation for the time being.

Environmental regulations may also play a part in rationalising the local industry, as has already happened in China. The Indian government considered banning petcoke imports in 2018 in an attempt to decrease air pollution. Later, in mid-2019, a pilot emissions trading scheme (ETS) for particulate matter (PM) was launched in Surat, Gujarat. At the same time the state pollution boards have been getting tough with producers for breaching their limits.

Steady growth in the US

The US market has been a dependable one over the last year, generally propping up the balance sheets of the multinational producers. Cement shipments grew in the first eight months of the year with increases reported in the North-Eastern and Southern regions. Imports also mounted as the US-China trade war benefitted Turkey and Mexico at the expense of China. Alongside this a modest trade in cement plants has been going on with upgrades also underway. Ed Sullivan at the Portland Cement Association forecasts slowing growth in the early 2020s but he doesn’t think a recession is coming anytime soon.

Mixed picture in Latin America

There have been winners and losers south of the Rio Grande in 2019. Mexico was struggling with lower government infrastructure spending hitting cement sales volumes in the first half of the year although US threats to block exports haven’t come to pass so far. Far to the south Argentina’s economy has been holding the cement industry back leading to a 7% fall in cement sales in the first 11 months of the year. Both of these countries’ travails pale in comparison to Venezuela’s estimated capacity utilisation of just 12.5%. There have been bright spots in the region though with Brazil’s gradual return to growth in 2019. The November 2019 figures suggest sales growth of just under 4% for the year. Peru, meanwhile, continues to shine with continued production and sales growth.

North and south divide in Africa and the Middle East

The divide between the Middle East and North African (MENA) and Sub-Saharan regions has grown starker as more MENA countries have become cement exporters, particularly in North Africa. The economy in Turkey has held back the industry there and the sector has pivoted to exports, Egypt remains beset by overcapacity and Saudi Arabian producers have continued to renew their clinker export licences.

South of the Sahara key countries, including Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa, have suffered from poor sales due to a variety of reasons, including competition and the local economies. Other countries with smaller cement industries have continued to propose and build new plants as the race to reduce the price of cement in the interior drives change.

Changes in shipping regulations

One of the warning signs that flashed up at the CemProspects conference this year was the uncertainty surrounding the new International Maritime Organistaion (IMO) 2020 environmental regulations for shipping. A meeting of commodity traders for fuels for the cement industry would be expected to be wary of this kind of thing. Their job is to minimise the risk of fluctuating fuel prices for their employers after all. Yet, given that the global cement industry produces too much cement, this has implications for the clinker and cement traders too. This could potentially affect the price of fuels, input materials and clinker if shipping patterns change. Ultimately, IMO 2020 comes down to enforcement but already ship operators have to decide whether and when to act.

Do androids dream of working in cement plants?

There’s a been a steady drip of digitisation stories in the sector news this year, from LafargeHolcim’s Industry 4.0 plan to Cemex’s various initiatives and more. At present the question appears to be: how far can Industry 4.0 / internet of things style developments go in a heavy industrial setting like cement? Will it just manage discrete parts of the process such as logistics and mills or could it end up controlling larger parts of the process? Work by companies like Petuum show that autonomous plant operation is happening but it’s still very uncertain whether the machines will replace us all in the 2020s.

On that cheery note - enjoy the winter break if you have one.

Global Cement Weekly will return on 8 January 2020

In case you’ve missed it there’s been a boom in cement demand in China during the current quarter. Henan province saw a run on cement prices in November 2019 that the local press described as ‘crazy.’ Some companies were issuing price adjustments twice a day, according to the China Cement Association. The article on the CCA’s website also includes a video showing dozens of cement trucks queuing at a mill with the caption ‘all the plants are like this, don’t ask the price any more.’

The CCA’s blamed the situation in Henan on pollution controls on production and a rebound in cement demand. Weather-based pollution controls enacted in late October 2019 shut-down or limited production at 66 of the province’s 72 clinker production lines. Builders were then forced to source cement from neighbouring Shanxi, Hebei and Shaanxi provinces. At the same time demand for cement from real estate and infrastructure sectors picked up in the fourth quarter of 2019. Following advice from the local cement manufacturers’ association, the provincial government relaxed the rules on peak shifting that normally run from November to February in a bid to control the situation. Cement prices in Henan hit a high in mid-to-late November 2019 and have since subsided somewhat.

Nationally, Chinese cement prices hit a high in late November 2019 beating the highest level in 2018 and also setting the highest price since 2011. The key regions driving the increase have been in central and south China, including Guangxi, Guangdong and Henan. One more thing to note here is that peak shifting or seasonal shutdown of production capacity has different dates in different provinces. So, potentially, the situation could repeat itself if unexpected demand continues and provincial governments fail to monitor the situation.

Recently a couple of economic indicators in China have suggested a recovery in infrastructure spending in recent months, supporting increased cement demand. Data from Wind quoted by the Financial Times newspaper suggests that the cement price rose by 15% since September 2019 in large cities. Reinforced steel (rebar) and aggregates prices have increased similarly. At the same time the South China Post newspaper has reported a growth in the Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI), an indicator of manufacturing activity that could also point to renewed infrastructure spending. Central government is also reported to be taking measures to support provincial infrastructure development.

If true then this may be creating some pretty direct lessons in economic interventionism. The Chinese government appears to be stimulating demand for cement via infrastructure growth while restricting production at the same time. Cement prices have reacted in a ‘crazy’ fashion. The real tension here is between two conflicting desires: protecting the economy and protecting the environment. The state planners may be grappling with this one for a while.

Cemex pushed ahead yesterday and announced that it had sold the Kosmos Cement Company to Eagle Materials for around US$665m. It owns a 75% stake in the company, with Italy’s Buzzi Unicem owning the remaining share, giving it roughly US$449m once the deal completes. Proceeds from the sale will go towards debt reduction and general corporate purposes. The sale inventory includes a 1.7Mt/yr integrated cement plant in Louisville, Kentucky as well as seven distribution terminals and raw material reserves.

The decision to sell assets makes sense given Cemex’s financial results so far in 2019. It reported falling sales, cement volumes and earnings in the first nine months of the year although much of this was down to poor market conditions in Mexico. However, the US, along with Europe, was one of its stronger territories with rising sales. Earnings were impaired in the US, possibly due to bad weather in the southeast and competition in Florida, but infrastructure and residential development were reported to be promising.

Graph 1: Portland & Blended Cement shipments in 2018 and 2019. Source: United States Geological Survey (USGS).

Graph 2: Change in imports of hydraulic cement & clinker to the US in 2018 and 2019 from selected countries. Source: USGS.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) data also supports a picture of a growing US market. Shipments of Ordinary Portland Cement and blended cements grew by 2.4% year-on-year to 66.9Mt for the first eight months of 2019 from 65.4Mt in the same period in 2018. By region growth can be seen in the North-East, South and imports. Declines were reported in the West and Midwest. The states of Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee – the area where the Kosmos plant is located – saw shipments grow by 4% to 4.77Mt from 4.58Mt. It is worth noting that Louisville is in the north of Kentucky near the border with Indiana, where shipments also grew.

The Portland Cement Association’s (PCA) fall forecast may also have helped Cemex’s decision. Ed Sullivan, PCA Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, said that he expected cement consumption in the US to continue growing in 2019 and 2020 but with a slowing trend into 2021 following general gross domestic product (GDP) predictions. The PCA’s view is that pent-up demand following the recession in 2008 was gone and the economy was gradually weakening. Crucially though it didn’t think a recession was impending. In this scenario Cemex might be taking a medium-term view with regards to the Kosmos Cement Company.

Another more general interesting data point from the USGS was the change in import origins to the US. Imports grew by 11.3% to 66.9Mt in January to August 2019. The top five importing countries and their overall share remained the same but there was some movement between them. Turkish and Mexican imports surged at the expensive of Chinese ones as can be seen in Graph 2. The go-to explanation for this would be the on-going US - China trade war. Cemex is a Mexican company with a strong presence in both the US and Mexico. This change in the make-up of the import market in the US may also have informed its decision to sell Kosmos Cement as it looked at the macro scale.

More generally the US market is looking buoyant in the short to medium term. Plants are being sold like Kosmos Cement to Eagle Cement and the Keystone cement plant in Bath, Pennsylvania to HeidelbergCement and a major upgrade project is underway on the new production line at the Mitchell plant in Indiana. In Cemex’s case, as ever with asset sales, the seller sometimes has to make the hard decision of whether to divest a plant in a growing region to help the business in other places that might not be doing so well. The growth of America’s largest locally owned producer, Eagle Cement, may also give cheer to the US’ current ‘America First’ administration.

Semen Indonesia’s third quarter results this week give us a reason to look at one of the world’s largest cement producing countries, Indonesia. As the local market leader, Semen Indonesia’s financial results have been positive so far in 2019 following its acquisition of Holcim Indonesia at the start of the year. Analysts at Fitch noted that gross margins for Semen Indonesia and its rival Indocement grew in the first half of 2019 as coal prices fell and cement sales prices rose.

Sales volumes, however tell a story of local production overcapacity and a move to exports. Domestic sales volumes fell by 2.05% year-on-year to 48.8Mt in the first nine months of 2019. Cement and clinker exports nearly compensated for this by rising by 15.4% to 4.8Mt. This is brisk growth but slower than the explosion of exports in 2018. Semen Indonesia’s local sales from its company before the acquisition fell faster than the national rate at 4.9% to 18.7Mt. The new sales from Solusi Bangun, the new name for Holcim Indonesia, partially alleviated this. It’s been a similar story for HeidelbergCement’s Indocement. Its sales revenue and income have risen so far in 2019. At the mid-year mark its sales volumes fell by 2.3% year-on-year to 29.4Mt.

Graph 1: Indonesian cement sales, January – September 2019. Source: Semen Indonesia.

Geographically, Indonesia Cement Association (ASI) data shows that over half of the country’s sales volumes (56%) were in Java in the first half of 2018. This was followed by Sumatra (22%), Sulawesi (8%), Kalimantan (also known as Indonesian Borneo, 6%), Bali-Nusa Tenggara (6%) and Maluku-Papua (2%). By cement type the market is dominated by bagged cement sales. It constituted 74% of sales in September 2019. The main producers have been keen to point out growth in bulk sales as its share has increased over the last decade.

Graph 2: Indonesian cement sales by type, 2010 – 2019. Source: Semen Indonesia/Indonesia Cement Association.

Previously the main story from the Indonesian market has been one of overcapacity and this has continued. It had a utilisation rate of 70% in 2018 from production volumes of 75.1Mt and a capacity of 110Mt, according to ASI data. This was likely to have been a major consideration in LafargeHolcim’s decision to leave the country and South-East Asia (see GCW379) with no end in sight to the situation in the short to medium term. At the end of 2018 it felt like consolidation was in progress following this sale and the reported sale of Semen Panasia. So far though this has been all and perhaps the upturn in the second quarter might buy the producers more time.

As mentioned at the start, another aspect of the Indonesian market deserving comment is that it is one of the first countries with a large cement sector where a Chinese company has made a significant entry. Conch Cement Indonesia, a subsidiary of China’s Anhui Conch, became the third largest producer following the acquisition of Holcim Indonesia. Semen Indonesia and Indocement control 70% of local installed capacity across both integrated and grinding plants with 51Mt/yr and 25.5Mt/yr respectively.

Conch Cement Indonesia is the next biggest with 8.7Mt from three integrated plants and a grinding unit. It’s in a tranche of three smaller producers locally, along with Semen Merah Putih and Semen Bosowa. Fitch also picked up on this in a research report on the cement sector published in August 2019. It pointed out that, although Holcim Indonesia and Indocement had gained pricing power through their leading market share, this is being eroded by local producers owned by Chinese companies.

Depending on how you look at it, Indonesia has the ‘fortune’ to be only the second largest producer in South-East Asia, after Vietnam. China, the world’s largest producer, is not too far away either. As can be seen above this can be a mixed blessing for local producers as the market changes. Overcapacity abounds, a major multinational has moved out, a local firm has consolidated the market as a result and Chinese influence grows steadily. Indonesia could well be an example of things to come for other markets.

China: Huang Ting has ceased to be the chief financial officer (CFO) of China Resources Cement. He will remain as the company’s vice president and has been reassigned as chief procurement officer.

Duan Wanli, the general manager of finance department of the company will take on the duties of the CFO role on a temporary basis. She joined the finance department of the China Resources Cement in 2014. She holds a Master’s degree in accounting from the Macquarie University in Australia and is a member of CPA Australia.

No overarching theme this week but rather four changes of note in different markets. The first is Lehigh Hanson’s agreement to buy the integrated Bath plant in Pennsylvania, US, from Giant Cement, a subsidiary of Mexico’s Elementia. Lehigh Hanson, a subsidiary of Germany’s HeidelbergCement, plans to pay US$151m for the 1.1Mt/yr unit giving it a cost of US$137/t of cement capacity. That’s a similar price that Elementia paid when it acquired Giant Cement in 2016. The Mexican conglomerate paid US$220m for a 55% stake in 2016 for three cement plants with a combined production capacity of 2.8Mt/yr or US$143/t.

The purchase by HeidelbergCement draws a line following problems selling its business activities in Ukraine. The group blamed a drop in profit in the first half of 2019 on this. Since then though it has been linked to a takeover of UltraTech’s stake in Emirates Cement, the owner of the 0.5Mt/yr Emirates grinding plant in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Buying a cement plant in North America, its second most lucrative region after Western and Southern Europe, looks set to be a wise investment.

The timing here is interesting given that Elementia, the building materials company partly-owned by ‘Mexico’s richest man,’ Carlos Slim, has been steadily expanding in recent years. As stated above it only acquired Giant Cement in 2016. However, its net sales and earnings fell in the second quarter of 2019 caused by a market contraction in Mexico affecting all of its businesses. Sales from its cement businesses in the US and Central America grew but they fell by 6% at home in Mexico. Elementia said that proceeds from the sale of the Bath plant will be used for debt repayment and ‘general’ corporate purposes. Notably, Ricardo Naya Barba, the president of Cemex Mexico, has also described the local market as ‘difficult’ this week, in comments reported upon by local media.

Meanwhile in Africa, China’s Huaxin Cement purchased Maweni Limestone from Athi River Mining (ARM) Cement in Tanzania as part of the latter’s on-going administration process. Local press reported the transaction as costing US$116m and subject to regulatory approval. This one’s interesting because it shows a major Chinese cement producer buying related assets outside of China. This is likely part of the country’s Belt and Road Initiative to develop industry and infrastructure around the world and to give its overproducing industries new markets. Perhaps the surprise here is that Huaxin Cement hasn’t gone after the rest of Kenya’s ARM Cement… yet.

The other African news story of note this week was the confirmation that Singapore’s International Cement Group (ICG)’s intended purchase of Schwenk Namibia had failed. This deal was announced in March 2019 but it later ran into trouble when the Singapore Exchange blocked the proposed acquisition in June 2019 on the grounds that ICG didn’t appear to have the money to pay for it.

Lastly, Yamama Cement announced that it wants to sell its Production Lines 1-5, which have a daily clinker production capacity of 5600t/day. The producer previously temporarily shut down the lines in 2017 and it has been planning to build a new cement plant. Since then though it has faced shrinking sales and profits in the tough Saudi Arabian market.

The takeaway from all of this is that, despite the doom and gloom of a world producing too much clinker, some cement companies are targeting growth in specific territories. Sometimes these schemes succeed, as in the case of HeidelbergCement and Huaxin Cement, and sometimes they don’t, as ICG has found out. Heavy building materials like cement are costly to move around so a plant or assets in the right place at the right time can make a fortune.

Forgive the poor image quality but our magazine editor Peter Edwards spotted this provocative graphic (above) at the Federación Interamericana del Cemento (FICEM) technical congress that is taking place in the Dominican Republic this week. It came from a presentation given by Yassine Touahri from On Field Investment Research. The reason this slide raises eyebrows is because it seems to inversely link CO₂ emission regulations with cement grinding capacity growth.

One would expect integrated or clinker production capacity addition to decline in the face of various carbon taxes because the majority of emissions in cement production are process emissions. Yet this graphic suggests that it goes further by affecting the supply of clinker in these regions. If correct then it supports the argument that introducing carbon taxes forces related capacity investment to go elsewhere. In other words, if governments try to control industrial CO₂ emissions, then the market will follow the path of least resistance. The world has a clinker production capacity surplus and the countries with no CO₂ regulations are scooping it up.

The counter argument is that capacity growth and CO₂ legislation is unrelated. The regions with flat or falling grinding capacity additions are the places were this trend is occurring anyway for other reasons. These areas have built their houses and infrastructure and so one would expect no or low capacity growth. In this environment it is easier to introduce CO₂ laws because, rightly or wrongly, it is perceived to be less important to the overall economy. Meanwhile, outside of these zones national economies are growing: they want to build things and new grinding plants to take advantage of a global glut of clinker are helping them to do this.

Other issues with this graphic are the widely different reasons for low cement grinding capacity growth in the areas with CO₂ legislation. Europe, for example, has endured the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for over a decade and it has seen growth in the slag-cement grinding model in some countries in recent years. General trends have also seen a considerable drop in production capacity in Southern Mediterranean countries as their export markets decline. China is actively trying to manage a reduction in production capacity following a period of unparalleled growth. CO₂ legislation is one potential means to do this.

The next step here would be to model the effect of a carbon tax on a developing market, which is genuinely growing its cement consumption, compared to a more mature one. This might help to answer whether economic development can be untangled from carbon emissions. CO₂ regulations are undoubtedly distorting cement markets though. Touahri is right when he says that, “CO₂ management will be the key challenge for the cement industry in the 21st century.” Once it is given a value then it changes the nature of the business.

There will be a full review of the FICEM technical congress 2019 in a future issue of Global Cement Magazine

The publication of CNBM’s financial results presents a good opportunity to take stock of the Chinese cement industry in the first half of 2019. Looking at the big picture first, cement sales rose by 5% year-on-year to 1.03Bnt in the first half of 2019 from 0.98Bnt in the same period in 2018. Graph 1 below shows the sales over the last five years since 2014. Generally, sales are decreasing each year but there has been some variation in the half-year periods.

Graph 1: Cement sales in China, 2014 – 2019. Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China.

As the China Cement Association (CCA) pointed out in its summary for the first half of 2019, the cement industry ‘swelled in volume and price’ as industry efficiency grew but that the growth rate dropped ‘significantly’ compared in 2018. By region, as Graph 2 shows, variation can be seen between the south-east of the country where growth was slow or even fell compared to stronger performance elsewhere. Cement production increased by above 20% in Jilin, Shanxi, Shandong, Tibet and Heilongjiang and by over 10% in Hebei, Gansu, Tianjin, and Liaoning. However, it fell in Hainan, Beijing, Qinghai, Guizhou, Guangxi, Hunan, Guangdong and Ningxia. Most of these changes were attributed to either rising or falling demand for cement, except for Jilin where reduced imports from neighbouring provinces pushed up its demand. In most of these latter regions it attribute the decline to falling demand for cement.

Graph 2: Cement production growth by province in first half of 2019. Source: China Cement Association.

Other points of note from the CCA include the surge in imports to China. Imports of cement and clinker rose by 149% year-on-year to 8.97Mt in the five months from January to May 2019. Vietnam supplied 68% of this followed by 11% from Thailand. On the production side, 10 new production lines with a total capacity of 15.5Mt/yr were commissioned in the period. These were fairly scattered across nine provinces, in Shanxi, Anhui, Hubei, Fujian, Guangxi, Hunan, Guizhou, Gansu and Yunnan respectively.

Sales and profits were supported by growing demand and prices on the corporate side. CNBM’s operating income for its cement businesses grew by 16% to US$8.14bn from US$7.04bn. Its adjusted profit increased by 40% to US$2.76bn from US$1.98bn. Anhui Conch’s sales rose by 17.9% to US$2.15bn from US$2.11bn. It blamed poorer profits in the south of the country on adverse weather leading to weakened demand.

The weaker sales in the south could be seen in China Resources Cement’s (CRC) results with its turnover down by 6% to US$2.22bn from US$2.36bn. Likewise, its earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) dropped by 8.5% to US$820m from US$896m. The majority of its cement plants are based in Guangxi, Guangdong and Fujian. Jidong Cement was also reported as having received US$30m in subsidies from the government during the first half of 2019 in relation to its ‘daily activities.’

As is usual for these kinds of roundups the dynamic in China is between government industrial policies, like peak shifting and pollution mitigation, and local demand and price trends. One of the latest spins on peak shifting, for example, is a rating system that is being considered to decide which companies should be subject to production limits and for how long. General cement sales are slowly falling each year but the rise of imports into the word’s biggest cement producing nation (!) mark an interesting trend. Also, it may not be connected, but lots of those provinces with falling demand so far in 2019 are those on the south coast facing the heavy clinker exporting nations of South-East Asia. Given the decisiveness with which the Chinese government dispensed with imports of waste materials under its National Sword initiative since 2017, those countries importing cement to China should beware. It could change very quickly. The Chinese cement market is never dull.

Predictably, the recent investigation by the Tariff Commission in the Philippines on whether to maintain duties on imported cement recommended that the safeguard duty be kept. It even suggested raising the rate to nearly US$6/t from US$4/t at present. The report has been passed to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which will make the final decision on the matter.

Graph 1: Market share of the Philippines cement industry between local producers and traders, 2013 - 2018. Source: Tariff Commission of the Philippines.

As the commission built its argument it released a great snapshot of the local cement industry and it’s well worth a read for anyone who is interested. One key graph here was the speed at which the market share of cement sold by local producers fell compared to importers from 2013 to 2018. As Graph 1 shows above, traders imported 0.29Mt in 2015 and this rose to 4.66Mt 2018. Imports by local producers also grew during this time but at a far slower rate. They were 0.45Mt in 2015, grew to a high of 1.65Mt in 2016 and then stabilised at around 1Mt/yr since then. Seven of the top 10 cement exporters were Vietnamese companies followed by two from China and one from Thailand. However, the local producers were importing clinker on a far larger scale during this period. 16.8Mt of clinker was imported from 2013 to 2018 led by Holcim Philippines with 5.54Mt or a 33% share. In Holcim’s case this was coming from China, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.

Elsewhere, the report established the various production capacity upgrades the local cement producers had invested in or were planning to in the near future. Taiheiyo Cement Philippines, for example, was reported as planning an expansion to its Cebu plant production line from 2022 to 2025. It then looked at kiln capacity utilisation rates, prices and how profits have changed amongst much else. It concluded that the import surge from 2015 to 2018 had depressed prices and decreased the profitability of the local producers. This fitted its definition of ‘serious injury’ as one reason to impose a safeguard duty on imports.

Importers presented a different scenario to the commission during its investigation and afterwards. Phinma, for example, told local press that the commission’s comparison calculation of the costs behind local and imported cement didn’t take into all the costs the importers endured such as a local distribution and handling once in the country. The Philippines Cement Importers Association reiterated the view of its members that they were simply meeting market demand, that local producers had caused their own problems through overcapacity and that profits varied considerably amongst local producers, amongst other arguments. This has been borne out by some of the half-year results amongst the local producers. Eagle Cement, for example, saw its earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) grow by 21% year-on-year to US$80.6m.

With the publication of the commission’s report the DTI has been handed the impetus to hold up or even raise the duty on imported cement. Based on its actions in recent years the ministry seems likely to do so. This presents a contrast to Trinidad & Tobago where importer Rock Hard Cement won a legal battle earlier in August 2019 against competitor and Cemex-subsidiary Trinidad Cement over the classification of imported cement products. These kinds of trade conflicts are likely to proliferate whilst global production capacity outstrips demand but the outcomes may vary.

There was a glimmer of good news visible through the Delhi smog this week with the launch of a market-based emissions trading scheme (ETS) for particulate matter (PM). A pilot has started at Surat in Gujarat. The scheme will apply to 350 industries in the locality and it will be scrutinised for wider rollout in the country.

China robustly started to tackle its industrial PM emitters a few years ago although the work remains on-going. In its wake India has increasingly made the wrong sort of headlines with horrifically high dust emissions. Delhi, for example, reportedly had PM2.5 emissions of over 440µg/m³ in January 2019. To give this some context, the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) annual upper guideline figure for safe human exposure is 10µg/m³. Research by the Financial Times newspaper suggested that more than 40% of the Indian population is subject to annual PM2.5 emissions of over 50µg/m³.

Air Quality Life Index (AQLI) research reckons that if India were able to meet its national PM2.5 standard of 40µg/m³ then its population would live 1.8 years longer or 4.3 years longer if it met the WHO guideline level. The current situation is an unnecessary tragedy. In strictly structural terms the country’s productivity is being thrown away by damaging the health of its workforce. For comparison amongst other major cement producing countries, AQLI data placed China’s PM2.5 emissions at 39µg/m³, Indonesia at 22µg/m³, Vietnam at 20µg/m³ the US at 9µg/m³. These figures cover all industries in different conditions and climates. If the US can do it, why not the others?

Back on trading schemes, the famous ETS at the moment is the European one for CO₂ emissions. Similar schemes are slowly appearing around the world as governments look at what the European Union (EU) did right and wrong. For example, South Africa started up a carbon tax in early June 2019. Yet as the supporting documents by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) point out there have been a variety of ETS systems’ over the years. The US’s Acid Rain Program is generally seen to have achieved significant reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions although the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) has continued this work. Chile even ran its own PM ETS in the 1990s although the outcomes have been disputed.

One problem with a CO₂ ETS, and anthropomorphic or man-made climate change in general, is that it is intangible. Even if sea levels deluge major coastal cities, rising mean temperatures reduce agricultural yields and human populations contract sharply, people will still be arguing over the research and the causes. The beauty of a PM ETS is that if it works you can literally see and feel the results. A famous example here is the UK’s Clean Air Act in the 1950s that banished the fog/smog that London used to be famous for.

The Gujarat PM ETS is a pilot, the results of which will be considered by researchers from a number of US-based universities and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. Explicitly, the study plans to use a randomised control trial to compares its results against the command and control style approach used in the rest of the country. On the cement-side various Indian news stories have emerged as state pollution boards have increasingly started fining producers for emission limit breaches. Clearly the government is taking dust emissions seriously. Reduction is long overdue.