Displaying items by tag: European Union

Poland: The European Union (EU) Innovation Fund has awarded Euro228m towards the Go4ECOPlanet carbon capture and storage project at Lafarge Poland’s Kujawy cement plant. The project has a total cost of Euro380m.

It will use Air Liquide's Cryocap FG technology to capture the CO₂ at the plant. The CO₂ will be liquefied and transported by rail to a port and then injected into a depleted oil field for permanent storage. The transport and storage of CO₂ once it has left the cement plant will be accomplished by cooperation with other partners with knowledge and experience in the liquefaction, transport and storage of gases. The goal is to create a complete carbon capture and storage industrial and logistics chain. Commissioning of the cement plant upgrade is planned for 2027.

Bulgaria: The European Union (EU) Innovation Fund has awarded a Euro190m grant to Devnya Cement and oil and gas producer Petroceltic for their 800,000t/yr ANRAV carbon capture, transportation and storage project. Devnya Cement's parent company Heidelberg Materials says that the partners expect to commission the full-chain project in 2028.

Heidelberg Materials Northern and Eastern Europe-Central Asia board member Ernest Jelito said "Devnya Cement's Devnya plant will be the first carbon-neutral cement plant in the country and the region. ANRAV will also enable other industrial players to join the carbon chain in the future and share storage capacity. In this way, we want to not only decarbonise our company in Bulgaria, but also provide opportunities for the whole region."

This week’s Virtual Global CemPower Seminar included an assessment on how interventions in European power markets might affect efforts to decarbonise industry. The presentation by Thekla von Bülow of Aurora Energy Research outlined how different countries in the European Union (EU) were implementing the forthcoming electricity price cap on ‘inframarginal’ producers to 180Euro/MWh. Each of these different proposals will entail differing levels of structural change to the wholesale energy market. For example, the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) has recommended establishing a series of frameworks including a stronger focus on Contracts for Difference (CfD) schemes to promote renewable energy sources.

These changes are a consequence of the EU’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gas prices surged and then pushed up other energy prices in turn to record levels. As this column covered in September 2022, the price of electricity shot up in the summer of 2022 whilst at the same time Russian gas imports ceased. Cembureau, the European Cement Association, called for urgent action to be taken to support cement production due to large increases in the cost of electricity. For example, in its latest overview of the German cement industry, the German Cement Works Association (VDZ) said that the sector has an electrical consumption of 30TWh/yr. Clearly energy policy is of great interest to the industry.

Since then, in late September 2022, Heidelberg Materials’ chief executive officer Dominik von Achten told Reuters that his company was preparing to shift production at its Germany-based plants to times and days when power prices are lower including at the weekend. However, this was dependent on negotiations with the unions. Von Achten also warned of plant closures being a possibility. Then, in November 2022, it emerged that Zementwerk Lübeck’s grinding plant in northern Germany had reportedly been only operating its grinding plant at night and at the weekend due to high electricity prices. Also in November 2022 European energy news provider Energate Messenger reported that Heidelberg Materials was preparing its cement plants in Germany with emergency backup power to keep critical services running in the case of electricity power cuts. One view from the outside came from equipment supplier FLSmidth’s third quarter results where it noted it had, “...started to see the first cases of budget constraints imposed by customers to counter the increasing energy cost. A high utilisation is still driving service activity in Europe, but some customers have put large capital investments on stand-by and we have experienced a slowdown in decision-making processes.” On the other hand it also pointed out that this trend is driving sales of products that helped reduce energy usage and/or switch to alternative fuels.

On the financial side, Holcim reiterated in its half-year report that, on the country, level the group uses a mixture of fixed price contracts, long-term power purchase agreements, on-site power generation projects and increased consumption of renewable energy at competitive prices to reduce the volatility from its energy bills. Both Cemex and Heidelberg Materials said similar things in their third quarter results conference calls. Cemex said that nearly 70% of its electricity requirements in Europe were fixed in 2022 with nearly 30% fixed for 2023. It went on to reveal that around 20% of its total costs for cement production in Europe derived from its electricity bill. Interestingly, it added that a higher proportion of its electricity costs in Germany were fixed than elsewhere in Europe, due to the use of a waste-to-electricity system owned by a third party that is fed with refuse-derived fuel (RDF), but that it was more exposed to floating fuel rates in Spain. Heidelberg Materials added that it supported energy price caps in both Germany and the EU whether they affected it directly or not.

So far it has been a mild start to winter in Europe. This may be about to change with colder weather forecast for December 2022. This will stress test the EU’s energy saving preparations and in turn it could force the plans of industrial users, such as the cement sector, to change. Some of the cement producers have commented on the financial implications of rising fuel costs but they have been quieter publicly about how they might react if domestic consumers are prioritised. Plant shutdowns throughout cold snaps are the obvious concern but it is unclear how likely this is yet. The variety of energy policies between fellow member states, their own supply situations and the differences between cement plants even in the same country suggest considerable variation in what might happen. If large numbers of cement plants do end shutting throughout any colder periods, then one observation is that it will look similar to winter peak shifting (i.e. closure) of plants in China. The more immediate worry in this scenario though is whether these plants actually reopen again.

The proceedings pack from the Virtual Global CemPower Seminar is available to buy now

Cembureau called for urgent action on electricity prices from European governments this week to protect cement plants. Its maths was crushingly simple. One tonne of cement takes around 110kWh of electricity to produce. Electricity prices started to top Euro700mWh in some European Union (EU) countries at the end of August 2022. The association says that this represents added costs of Euro70/t of cement and a tripling of the total cost of production. This kind of sudden extra cost to cement production could lead to the widespread closure of cement plants and lead to chaos in the construction supply chain.

Previously, Cembureau reported in 2020 that electricity accounts for about 12% of a cement plant’s energy mix. In a dry production process plant 43% of this is used for cement grinding, 25% goes into raw material preparation, another 25% on clinker production and the final portion is typically used for raw material extraction, fuel grinding and for packing and loading. However, the cost of the electricity can make a big difference to the overall energy bill for a cement plant. When a report by the European Commission’s (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) modelled a reference northern European cement plant with a production capacity of 1.0Mt/yr back in 2016, it concluded that the EU cement industry was spending around half of its energy costs on electricity compared to smaller ratios at plants in China, Egypt, Algeria and... Ukraine. That last country in the list is poignant given its unwitting participation in the current energy crisis. One other thing to note is that cement producers, as large scale users, may well be paying less than the wholesale prices Cembureau appears to be quoting.

The timing of Cembureau’s proclamation is pertinent because the EU and individual states have mostly been waiting until the autumn before revealing their energy support plans. However, the dilemma for Cembureau, and other industry lobbying groups, is how to protect their sectors whilst domestic consumers are threatened. The aftermath of the coronavirus lockdowns has shown what can happen when production of key commodities stops: supply chain disruption, shortages and price rises. One ironic shortage in the UK during the lockdown periods was that of CO₂, as high gas prices forced the main producer to shut down, leading to unexpected knock-on problems along the supply chain in areas such as food production. The same situation is reportedly at risk of happening again now too.

Cembureau’s wider solution is to link domestic and industrial consumers of electricity. So, some of its suggestions to policymakers are to use all available means of power generation, implement emergency measures such as price caps immediately, change the rules of the electricity market more generally to prevent future price shocks and to promote large scale renewable power source development. These are all things that could help both individual and industrial users of electricity.

Compare and contrast, then, with the MPA’s (Mineral Products Association) approach to the same problem in the UK. Its strategy instead has been to ask the UK government for tax cuts and freezes and to hurry along the forthcoming policy on support for Energy Intensive Industries. That’s not to say that Cembureau’s suggestions don’t also include some sector specific requests. It has asked that the EU temporary state aid framework adopted in late March 2022 should allow all energy intensive industries to have access to state aid covering 70 - 80% of eligible costs. It has also encouraged the wider use of alternative fuels, although it doesn’t link the reason why beyond reducing imports of fossil fuels. Lastly, it bangs the drum for its recent preoccupation, the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, this time adding electro-intensity as a main criterion for eligibility for compensation under EU emission trading scheme (ETS) indirect state aid guidelines.

Government support packages for the energy crisis are starting to be announced in European countries but the question for everyone is whether they and other actions will be enough. One problem for the cement industry will be simply staying on the radar of policy makers facing a crisis looming over their citizens. Yet if there is not enough energy to go around then rationing of some kind will be inevitable and heavy industrial users will be the first obvious targets to be told to cut back. Some months later building material supply shortages will hit. One national cement sector to watch in the coming months may be the Spanish one as it has long warned of the risks of high electricity prices.

Belgium: Cembureau, the European Cement Association, has called for urgent action to be taken to support cement production due to large increases in the cost of electricity. It said that, if no measures were taken at both the European and national level, the current energy prices would lead to widespread plant closures across the European Union (EU). This in turn could create a crisis in the construction supply chain. It explained that one tonne of cement normally takes around 110kWh of electricity to produce. Therefore, with electricity prices now between Euro700 - 1000mWh, as observed in several EU member states, electricity costs amount to Euro70 – 110/t of cement, tripling the total cost of production.

The association has called for: all available sources of electricity generation to be used to boost power supplies; the immediate introduction of emergency measures, such as price caps; that the EU temporary state aid framework adopted in late March 2022 should allow all energy-intensive industries to have access to state aid covering 70 - 80% of eligible costs; and that co-processing in cement kilns should be actively encouraged and promoted at EU, state and local levels.

It added that further measures should also be considered, including: the electricity market design rules, including the marginal price setting mechanism, should be changed to prevent further electricity price hikes in the future; the cement sector should be made eligible for financial compensation under the EU emission trading scheme indirect state aid guidelines and that indirect emissions should be included in the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM); the large-scale deployment of renewable energy should be supported across the EU; and that the pace of the EU climate agenda ('Fit for 55') should be maintained, and the CBAM should be implemented in a timely manner.

It’s been a good week for carbon capture projects in Europe with the announcement of who the European Union (EU) has selected for a grant from its Innovation Fund. 17 large-scale projects have been pre-selected for the Euro1.8bn being doled out in the second round of awards. On the cement and lime sector side there are four projects. These include projects at Holcim’s Lägerdorf cement plant in Germany, HeidelbergCement’s Devnya Cement plant in Bulgaria, Holcim’s Kujawy plant in Poland and Lhoist’s Chaux et Dolomites du Boulonnais lime plant in France. Large-scale in this instance means projects with capital costs over Euro7.5m. To give readers some sense of the scale of the projects that the EU has agreed to pay for, if the funding was shared out equally between the current bunch, it would be a little over Euro100m per project. This is serious money.

Devnya Cement’s ANRAV carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) project in Bulgaria has received little public attention so far so we’ll look a little more closely at this one first. No obvious information is available on what capture technology might be in consideration at the plant. HeidelbergCement’s leading experience in carbon capture technology at cement plants gives it a variety of methods it could use from a solvent scrubbing route to something less common. What the company has said is that, subject to regulatory approval and permitting, the project could start to capture 0.8Mt/yr of CO₂ from 2028.

What has also been revealed is that the project is linking up via pipelines to a depleted part of the Galata gas field site in the Black Sea. Oil and gas company Petroceltic Bulgaria is a partner and the aim of the project is to start a CCUS cluster in Eastern Europe. with the potential for other capture sites in Romania and Egypt to join in. This is noteworthy because much of the focus for the burgeoning cement sector CCUS in Europe so far has been on usage on local industrial clusters or storage in the North Sea.

The other new one is the Go4ECOPlanet project at Holcim’s Kujawy plant in Poland. Lafarge Cement is working with Air Liquide on the project. The latter will be providing its Cryocap FG adsorption and cryogenics technology for direct capture of flue gas at the plant. The transportation of the CO₂ is also interesting here as it will be by train not pipeline. Liquid CO₂ will be despatched to a terminal in Gdańsk, then transferred to ships before being pumped down into a storage field under the North Sea.

Turning to the other two grant recipients, the Carbon2Business project plans to capture over 1Mt/yr of CO₂ using a second generation oxyfuel process at Holcim Deutschland’s Lägerdorf cement plant. This project is part of a larger regional hydrogen usage cluster so the captured CO₂ will be used to manufacture methanol in combination with the hydrogen. Finally, Lhoist’s project at a lime plant in France is another team-up with Air Liquide, again using the latter’s Cryocap technology. The capture CO₂ will be transported by shared pipeline to a hub near Dunkirk and then stored beneath the North Sea as part of the D'Artagnan initiative. Around 0.61Mt/yr of CO₂ is expected to be sequestered.

The key point to consider from all of the above is that all of these projects are clear about what is happening to the CO₂ after capture. The days of ‘carbon capture and something’ have thankfully been left behind. CO₂ transportation infrastructure is either being used or built and these cement plants will be feeding into it. This will inevitably lead to questions about whether all these new CO₂ networks can support themselves with or without EU funding but that is an argument for another day.

Finally, in other news, four residents from the Indonesian island of Pulau Pari started legal proceedings against Holcim last week for alleged damages caused by climate change. Industrial CO₂ emissions are unquestionably a cause of this along with other sources but what a court might think about this remains to be seen. Yet, it is intriguing that the plantiffs have decided to go after the 47th largest corporate emitter rather than, say, one of the top 10. Regardless of how far the islanders get this is likely not to be last such similar attempt. If the case does make it to court though it seems likely that Holcim will mention its work on CCUS such as the two projects above. Only another 200-odd cement plants in Europe to go.

Germany: Holcim Deutschland announced a planned upgrade to its Lägerdorf cement plant’s kiln on 14 July 2022. The producer will install a second generation oxyfuel kiln, which uses an air separation unit to supply oxygen directly, emitting CO₂-rich flue gas. A new carbon capture system will supply captured CO₂ to a synthetic hydrocarbons plant, which will produce methanol for other industrial applications. The upgrade will result in the capture of 1.2Mt/yr
of CO₂ emissions and make Lägerdorf one of the world’s first carbon neutral cement plants, according to Holcim Deutschland.

The project, called Carbon2Business, was among four cement plant projects and 13 other EU-wide projects to win a share of a US$1.81bn EU Innovation Fund funding pot. CEO Thorsten Hahn acknowledged that the awarding of funds was ‘good news for Holcim and all partners working with us to decarbonise cement.’ He said “Climate change means cement change.”

From 2027, the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) will begin to charge third country-based cement exporters for the CO₂ emissions of their products sold inside the bloc. The new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a lynchpin in the strategy to realise a 55% reduction in EU industries' CO₂ emissions between 1990 and 2030. Starving foreign cement industries of a source of income may also help to make them change their ways. A regional solution leveraged through an unfair head start, however, might cause progress to falter where it is most needed in the global fight against climate change.

Carbon leakage has hung over the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) since its inception in 2005. Cembureau, the European cement association, has reported a 300% five-year increase in third-country cement imports up to 2021, with spikes matching those in ETS credit prices. Companies from Turkey to Australia have produced and transported their cement into the EU, at great CO₂ cost, while benefitting from a competitive edge over domestic producers, it would seem. Lawmakers rectified the situation by maintaining free allocations of ETS credits to EU industries, including cement, which received US$92m-worth in 2021.¹ In the wake of the Paris Agreement, an emissions pricing mechanism on cement imports first came before a vote of the member states in February 2017.

In what would become a recurring theme, opposition from all sides of the issue defeated the proposal. Most interesting was the international response: Brazil, China, India and South Africa voiced ‘grave concern’ over the proposed CBAM. A Russian representative at the Department of European Cooperation lamented the possible necessity of ‘response measures,’ while US Climate Envoy John Kerry coolly urged the EU to wait until after the COP26 climate change conference in November 2021. The outbursts were surprising given that the mechanism clearly conformed to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules: free allocations were always expected to phase out in a mirror image of the CBAM phase-in. The proposal eventually adopted on 22 June 2022 set the end date for both as 2032.

In 2020, the EU imported US$383m-worth of cement and concrete across its external borders, down by 17% year-on-year from US$463m in 2019.² Imports had previously more than doubled decade-on-decade from US$204min 2009. China accounted for US$167m-worth (43%) of global cement and concrete exports to the EU in 2020, followed by Vietnam with US$34m (9%) and the UK with US$30m (7.9%). Other significant sources include Belarus (US$28m - 7.4%), Russia (US$13.8m - 3.6%), Bosnia and Herzegovina (US$13.5m - 3.5%), Serbia (US$13.1 million - 3.4%), Israel (US$13m - 3.4%), Turkey (US$12.6m - 3.3%) and the US (US$10.3m - 2.7%).

China

China’s first emissions trading scheme will be one year old on 16 July 2021. The scheme, covering more than twice the CO₂ emissions accounted for under the EU ETS, may lend an apparent synergy to EU energy policy and that of the bloc’s main trade partner.³ On the contrary, Chinese carbon credits cost 8.5% the price of EU ETS credits on 29 June 2022, with a growth rate of just 10% year-on-year, compared to 53% in EU ETS credit prices. Unlike their European equivalent, they are also restricted to the energy sector. Chinese cement exporters are unready to meet the CBAM on its own terms. The inclusion of indirect emissions further disadvantages plants operating in China’s 57% coal-powered economy. Premier Li Keqiang has warned countries to be on their guard against a ‘new green trade barrier.’

These concerns ought to be considered in light of the scale and diversified nature of the China-EU trade partnership. The eventual inclusion of polymers, hydrogen and ammonia under the CBAM still does not extend its scope beyond 3% of Chinese imports to the EU by value, enabling China to retain the leverage it has previously proved willing to exercise against those who threaten the perceived interests of global trade.

China plans to reach net zero CO₂ emissions by 2060 through an energy transition in which it invested US$266m in 2021, more than the next six ranked countries combined.⁴ In the medium-term future, the CBAM may become a green bridge, connecting with Chinese emissions reduction policies in a single carbon border measure to raise money for developing countries’ sustainable transitions, as suggested by former governor of the People’s Bank of China Zhou Xiaochuan. Until then, China seems well positioned to ensure that a fair share of the costs arising from the CBAM pass to importers and the consumer.

Turkey

Turkey provided 3.3% of the EU’s cement and concrete imports in 2020, but the volume corresponded to 13% of Turkey’s total exports of the same. Thus, the country has a high exposure to any adverse effects of the CBAM – quantified at an estimated US$789m/yr by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.⁵ Turkey’s ratification of the Paris Agreement in late 2021 is among the positive outcomes of the CBAM. The country now plans to align with the CBAM. In this, the Turkish cement industry will rely on a share of a US$3.2bn loan from the World Bank, France and Germany.

The UN has yet to receive an updated climate action plan from the Turkish government in line with its pledges. Should Turkey fail to transition within the short timeframe provided by the CBAM, its cement sector might increase its existing focus on the West African market, where it holds 55% and 46% market shares for cement and clinker imports to Ghana and Ivory Coast respectively. The beleaguered industry has one greater refuge still: the US market, which consumed 18% of Turkish cement exports in 2020.

North America

Discussions of the CBAM’s impacts in Canada and the US are tied to those countries’ on-going deliberations over possible adjustment mechanisms of their own. At present, individual provinces and states are responsible for implementing carbon pricing. An international emissions trading scheme, called the Western Climate Initiative, already exists between the US state of California and the Canadian province of Quebec. The Canadian government is conducting a consultation on federal Border Carbon Adjustment (BCA) credits in the context of economy-wide pricing.⁶ Carbon border adjustment was previously an item on the US Trade Policy Agenda in 2021, but disappeared in 2022. President Biden pledged to impose 'carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations' during his candidateship in the 2020 US presidential election. On 7 June 2022, two weeks before the EU adopted CBAM, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse introduced a carbon border adjustment bill to the US Senate, which it referred to its Committee on Finance.⁷

North American legislators will need to follow the European Parliament in building a broad centrist majority in order to pass their CBAMs. If they succeed, the world will gain a low-carbon axis of cement markets, bringing their trade partners behind them.

Other European countries

The UK cement industry expects to pay an extra US$30.1m/yr on account of the CBAM.⁹

A November 2021 report by the Ukraine Resource & Analysis Centre (Society and Environment) concluded that Ukraine's 'largest and most technological' cement producers will experience no critical influence from the CBAM when exporting to the EU.⁸ At that time, the Ukrainian strategy consisted of an alignment with any future CBAM. On 31 May 2022, The European Business Association calculated Ukrainian cement producers' total CBAM tax bill as US$3.36m/yr.¹⁰

Montenegro introduced its own emissions trading system, modelled on the EU ETS, in February 2021, a move which Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia have both announced their intent to follow.¹¹

Norway has called for international acceptance of the CBAM, but questioned the practicality of including indirect carbon pricing.

An example of the possible adverse effects of the CBAM comes from the EU's ban on Russian cement imports in April 2022. The loss of the EU market was one likely contributor to a rollback of climate regulation there.¹²

Developing countries

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) Oxfam has criticised the CBAM's failure to include an exemption for the least developed countries. The EU's solution is an indirect one: it will put CBAM revenues towards its budget, from which international climate finance funding will be raised to an equivalent level. As Paris Agreement signatories, EU member states already expect to contribute to the achievement of US$100bn/yr in climate finance funds for poorer countries in 2023.

Oxfam has recommended that the EU do more to take account of its disproportionate contribution to cumulative global CO₂ emissions. This would include directly paying CBAM revenues into international climate finance and accelerating the phase-out of free ETS allocations.

Conclusion

On 22 June 2022, the most sustainable cement market in the world successfully harnessed market forces to its emissions reduction ambitions. The European cement industry will be able to celebrate the end of carbon leakage. Cement companies outside of the EU, however, now face increased costs and lower prices for their product. The legislation addresses some of the harm that it causes to less developed countries; those – like China, Turkey and Vietnam – in the middle must meet it head-on.

So far, we have cited governments and lobby groups, but the real question of readiness for the CBAM lies with producers. Global cement companies, including those based in the EU, have implemented their sustainable cement technologies across all continents, and are beginning to reap the rewards of a new world where paying for pollution is unavoidable.

Sources

1. Sandbag, E3G and Energy Foundation, A Storm in a Teacup, Impacts and Geopolitical Risks of the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, August 2021, https://9tj4025ol53byww26jdkao0x-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/E3G-Sandbag-CBAM-Paper-Eng.pdf

2. Trend Economy, ‘Imports: European Union: 6810,’ 14 November 2021, https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/EuropeanUnion/6810

3. Energy Monitor, ‘Carbon trading the Chinese way,’ 5 January 2022, https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/carbon-markets/carbon-trading-the-chinese-way

4. China Power, ‘How Is China’s Energy Footprint Changing?’ https://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/

5. Politico, ‘EU’s looming carbon tax nudged Turkey toward Paris climate accord, envoy says,’ 6 November 2021, https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-turkey-paris-accord-climate-change/

6. Canadian Climate Institute/L'Instut Climatique du Canada, 'Border Carbon Adjustments,' 27 January 2022, https://climateinstitute.ca/publications/border-carbon-adjustments/

7. Congress, 'S.4355 - Clean Competition Act,' 7 June 2022, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4355?s=1&r=6

8.Ukraine Resource & Analysis Centre (Society and Environment), ' The Impact of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on the EU - Ukraine trade,' November 2021, https://www.rac.org.ua/uploads/content/624/files/impactcarbonmechanismcbamukrainesummaryen.pdf

9. Burke et al, 'What does an EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism mean for the UK?' April 2021, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/What-does-an-EU-Carbon-Border-Adjustment-Mechanism-mean-for-the-UK_FULL-REPORT.pdf

10. European Business Association, 'Ukrainian exporters to pay more than € 1 billion in carbon tax to the EU under the CBAM,' 31 May 2022, https://eba.com.ua/en/ponad-1-mlrd-yevro-podatku-na-vuglets-shhoroku-splachuvatymut-ukrayinski-eksportery-v-yes-v-ramkah-svam/

11. Balkan Green Energy News, 'Which Western Balkan countries intend to introduce carbon tax?' 18 May 2022, https://balkangreenenergynews.com/which-western-balkan-countries-intend-to-introduce-carbon-tax/

12. Climate Home News, 'Russian climate action and research is collateral damage in Putin’s war on Ukraine,' 26 May 2022, https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/05/26/russian-climate-action-and-research-is-collateral-damage-in-putins-war-on-ukraine/

Russia: Kaliningrad region is redirecting cement deliveries to the region to sea transport following the implementation of trade sanctions by neighbouring Lithuania. The first consignment of cement redirected from the railroad, on the Kholmogory dry-cargo carrier, is scheduled to be transported on the Bronka - Kaliningrad shipping route by the end of June 2022, according to Interfax. The Ursa Major cargo ship will also be used on the Ust-Luga - Baltiisk shipping route. Additional ships will be used to increase transport capacity to supply the Russian enclave.

Deputy head of the regional government Alexander Rolbinov said, "Now, with the support of the Russian Transport Ministry, the logistics of supplying the region with essential cargos are changing. In particular, we are fully redirecting cement deliveries to sea transport. We have already worked out with Eurocement the required amount of material for the construction industry, which will be packed in 'big bags' and shipped by the fleet. The situation is under the constant control of the governor."

The Kaliningrad region needs about 600,000t/yr of cement. Previously cement was transported by rail through the European Union (EU). However, EU economic sanctions in response to the war in Ukraine started being implemented directly by Lithuania from 18 June 2022. The Russian government has threatened Lithuania with retaliatory sanctions.

Belgium: Cembureau, the European Cement Association has welcomed the adoption of the European Parliament reports on the European Union (EU) Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).

Koen Coppenholle, the chief executive officer of Cembureau, said “Our sector needs a coherent and predictable regulatory framework to deliver on its carbon neutrality ambitions. The texts adopted today offer significant improvements on key issues – such as the reinforcement of CBAM, the inclusion of indirect emissions, the need for a strong export solution for CBAM sectors, the inclusion of waste incineration in the EU ETS and the support for key breakthrough technologies - which we welcome.” He added that the association regretted the compromise reached suggesting delaying the implementation of the CBAM by one year as cement imports into the EU were growing “exponentially”.

Eurostat data cited by Cembureau shows that EU cement imports have increased by 300% in the past five years from 2016 to 2021, with specific spikes when the EU carbon price was at its highest level. The association is lobbying for what it calls a ‘watertight’ CBAM and a ‘realistic’ with the phase-out of free allocation of carbon credits to cement producers.