Displaying items by tag: European Union

The Polish Cement Association (SPC) has taken a swing at mounting cement imports from outside of the European Union (EU) in recent weeks. Its ‘apocalyptic’ message was underlined by the name of a seminar it participated in at the European Parliament: “Is the end of cement production in the EU approaching?” The SPC’s primary target appeared to be imports from Ukraine. It said that, “...cement imports from Ukraine - only to Poland - have increased by almost 3000% over five years (2019 - 2024). (In 2024) it amounted to more than 650,000t, and forecasts for 2025 already indicate more than 1Mt.” However, it detailed other issues affecting the sector including high energy prices, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and decarbonisation costs such as carbon capture.

The SPC is clearly keen to find cross-country support in the EU. In its accompanying statement it said "The uncontrolled increase in imports - from Ukraine to Poland or Romania, and from Türkiye and Africa to Italy or Spain - is already directly threatening cement producers, and will only continue to rise until the full implementation of the CBAM. It shows that imports from outside the EU are not just a problem for Poland.” Representatives from the cement associations in the later countries - CIROM, AITEC and Oficemen - all added comments to the SPC statement.

The SPC has called for a customs quota on cement imports from Ukraine to Poland to be introduced. It also asked for the European Commission to extend the EU ETS indirect cost compensation scheme to include the cement sector in order to further hedge against rising energy bills. It argues that this measure is essential to keep the cement industry competitive both now and in the future. Future electricity consumption is expected to double as cement plants start to install carbon capture technology.

Graph 1: Domestic cement sales and imports in Poland, 2019 - 2024. Source: SPC, Eurostat. Note: 2024 sales estimated.

Data from the SPC suggests that domestic cement sales in Poland peaked at 19.4Mt in 2022. They fell by 12% year-on-year to 16.6Mt in 2023 and then appear to have grown to 17.1Mt in 2024 based on estimated data. It is hard to replicate the SPC’s methodology for determining cement imports into Poland based on Eurostat data. However, data in its Economic Impact Report published at the end of 2024 suggests that imports from Ukraine grew from 79,000t in 2019 to 332,000t in 2023. Any significant rise in imports of cement in 2024, as the local industry recovered from the decline in 2023, seems likely to have caused concern.

Polish concern at growing imports from Ukraine started to be expressed in the press from early 2024 onwards when the 2023 data became apparent. Germany had been the biggest source of imports from the mid-2010s. Yet Germany and Ukraine both supplied about 30% of total imports each in 2023. For example, SPC head Zbigniew Pilch noted in April 2024 that imports from Ukraine were growing steadily each month and represented nearly half of total imports in January 2024. He described these volumes as “deeply concerning.” The Association of Cement Producers in Ukraine (Ukrcement) later attempted to soothe Polish concerns in late 2024 looking at longer import trends and bringing up the challenges facing Ukraine-based producers operating in a warzone.

Concerns about imports from Ukraine in eastern countries in the EU go back decades but have been clouded by the war with Russia. This is now reasserting itself as import levels grow, the cost of decarbonising heavy industry becomes more urgent and the CBAM comes into force. That said , cement plants in Ukraine look unlikely to cope with the CBAM that well due to their relatively high emissions intensity. Yet, other exporting countries outside the EU with lower cement sector emissions intensities may simply displace their competitors. Hence, the SPC’s call for a quota. The kinds of arguments that the SPC is making about carbon leakage are likely to grow fiercer across the EU as the definitive stage of the CBAM, due to start in 2026, draws nearer. Will the current situation lead to ‘the end of cement production in the EU?’ Time will tell…

UK: The Mineral Products Association (MPA), which represents UK- based producers of cement and lime, has welcomed the UK government’s proposal to link the UK and EU Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS). The link was announced as part of a deal to streamline relations between the EU and UK. The MPA has been calling for a link between the UK and EU ETS since they were separated following the UK’s departure from the EU in 2020 and welcomed the announcement as part of the policy framework needed to support the sector. It said that linking the two schemes will give UK cement and lime producers access to a larger, more liquid carbon market, bringing the kind of stability that the sector needs to promote investment confidence.

However, the MPA has also repeated its calls for the government to tackle the high electricity costs that exacerbate the issues facing the industry, undermining its international competitiveness and making it vulnerable to imports. It has also reiterated the importance of delivering a watertight UK Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), levelling the carbon costs with imports from outside the EU and preventing decarbonisation by deindustrialisation.

EU: The European Parliament has approved proposed changes to the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) as part of efforts to reduce the administrative burden for small and medium sized enterprises (SME) and occasional importers. Members of the parliament adopted the text by 564 votes in favour, 20 against and with 12 abstentions.

While the changes do not affect large scale importers, including those of cement, they remove the need to pay for CBAM allowances for less than 50t of imports. This will exempt 90% of importers - mainly SMEs and individuals - that import only small quantities of CBAM-effected goods. However, the CBAM’s environmental objectives will reportedly remain achievable, as 99% of total CO2 emissions from imports of cement, iron, steel, aluminium and fertilisers would still be covered.

Ireland: Ecocem has secured €4m in research funding as part of the European Innovation Council’s Pathfinder Challenges 2024 in order to optimise electric arc furnace (EAF) slag for low-carbon cement production. The four-year programme is funded by Horizon Europe and will explore ways to enhance EAF slag reactivity and its suitability as a supplementary cementitious material without compromising cement durability. The project was submitted to the Pathfinder Challenge 2 call: “Towards Cement and Concrete as a Carbon Sink.”

Corporate development executive director Eoin Condren said “For many years, we have been pioneering the use of a range of slags and cementitious materials to create scalable and durable low-carbon cement. Thanks to this grant, we will continue our groundbreaking work as the steel industry transitions to new manufacturing processes, delivering a viable solution for a new generation of waste from steel.”

Europe: 77 decarbonisation projects (including 14 for the cement sector) have signed grant agreements under the Innovation Fund 2023 Call (IF23), following the announcement of results in October 2024. The cement projects, spanning nine European countries, will begin operations between 2025 and 2029.

The funding, sourced from the EU Emissions Trading System, provides grants ranging from €4.4m to €234m, supporting projects expected to avoid 118Mt of CO₂. The total 77 projects funded have the potential to reduce emissions by around 398Mt of CO₂ equivalent over their first 10 years of operation. The projects funded in the cement industry mostly involve carbon capture and storage (CCS). Among the selected CCS projects are Carbon2Business in Germany, Olympus in Greece, Go4Zero in Belgium and Cementir’s Accsion project in Denmark.

The European Union (EU) is set to launch its Green Deal Industrial Plan, today, on 26 February 2025. It is the latest plan to help industry in the region reach net zero whilst remaining competitive. Key parts of the scheme that have been seen by the media include support for industries facing high energy prices, tax breaks for decarbonisation projects, simplifying the cross border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), linking funding for industrial CO₂ cutting more directly to revenue gathered from the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and revamping procurement rules.

Cembureau, the European cement association, presented its comments on the impending announcement earlier this week. On CBAM it said that more work was required on exports, “such as export adjustment or continued free allowances for exported goods through the application of the destination principle which merits more in-depth analysis and discussion as to its WTO compatibility.” On financing it called for 75% of ETS taxation on the cement sector to be funnelled straight back again in the form of a cement decarbonisation fund. On infrastructure it called for competitive access to low-carbon energy sources such as thermal biowaste and electricity. It also lobbied for the rapid-development of CO₂ pipelines and storage sites. Finally, on lead markets it asked that concrete carbonation and CO₂ use in construction materials be recognised as a carbon sink and that carbon capture and utilisation using CO₂ from industrial sectors be acknowledged through a review of the CO₂ accounting rules in the ETS.

Lobbyists from the other side of the argument, also ahead of the official unveiling of the Green Deal Industrial Plan, took a dim view of the ETS. A report published by Carbon Market Watch and WWF called for greater scrutiny to be placed on the scheme. Its argument is that the “current architecture of the EU ETS continues to reward heavy polluters by granting them free allowances instead of incentivising emissions reductions.” Holcim, Heidelberg Materials and Cemex were each singled out as having received more free allowances under the ETS than the actual emissions they were responsible for in 2023. The report also reflected the growing environmental backlash against carbon capture and utilisation and/or storage (CCUS). In its view the money from the ETS going into the Innovation Fund should be directed at schemes that directly reduce emissions, not at CCUS projects, although it did concede that the cement and lime industries were some of the few sectors that should be allowed funding towards CCUS. This may be a point for the cement sector to watch for in the future if there ends up being a wider backlash against CCUS in general.

The Carbon Market Watch-WWF case is that the cement sector (and others) have received far too many free allowances in the ETS for far too long. The authors admit that the allowances are set to fall fast, to 2034, as the CBAM comes in but they don’t think that anywhere near enough has been done. This has not been helped over the years by news stories occasionally emerging of idled cement plants appearing to make money from emissions allowances. These occurrences date back to the drop in production following the financial crash in 2008 but there have been more recent examples.

Graph 1: Allowances for and emissions from clinker production from the emissions trading scheme in the European Union, 2017 - 2023. Source: EU Transaction Log (EUTL).

As Graph 1 above shows the environmentalists may be overstating their point on the ETS given that emissions were higher than the free allocation in 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022. Roughly speaking, both the allowances and emissions by the cement sector from clinker production have been dropping since 2017 and further back to the mid-2000s. The system is intended to squeeze emissions but it doesn't take into account short-term variations in market conditions. Cembureau data shows that production rose in 2021. Sure enough, emissions jumped above the allocation. Although the cement production data is yet to be released for 2023, it is looking fairly likely that it will have decreased. Hence, emissions have fallen below the allocation level.

Few are likely to be happy with the EU’s Green Deal Industrial Plan. For producers, it is unlikely to add sufficient support against the additional ‘green’ cost burden. For environmentalists, it doesn't go far enough. The usual equilibrium for EU sustainability legislation is aiming at the target of net-zero without killing industry. The current US administration has further tipped this balancing act with its threats to fight against CBAM and the like with trade tariffs. Tom Lord, Redshaw Advisors described the EU ETS as a political construct at the Global FutureCem Conference that took place in February 2025 in Istanbul. This also applies to the EU’s green legislation (like any laws). Subsequently, certainty is a word that crops up frequently in discussions about EU green policies. Can EU industry be certain that these political constraints remain should circumstances change? With the ETS allowances dropping, CBAM coming and industry facing higher energy prices than its competitors, we’re about to find out how committed the EU is on net-zero and who the winners and losers will be.

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.

US: Holcim’s CEO Miljan Gutovic says he does not expect any effects of proposed US tariffs upon his company. "I don't really see any impact, because our business is a local business (in the US)," said Gutovic in an interview with Reuters. "We are producing locally, we are sourcing the equipment, the spare parts locally, so how is this going to affect us? I do not see it." He added that the proposed tariffs were also unlikely to pose any problems to the group’s planned spin-off of its business in the US. The listing of its North America-based business is remains scheduled for the first half of 2025.

The US government proposed tariffs upon imported goods from Canada and Mexico in early February 2025 but these have been paused for one month. Tariffs on China are set to start on 4 February 2025. US President Donald Trump has also spoken about implementing tariffs on the EU.

Italy: Cement and clinker imports from non-EU countries rose by 43% year-on-year in the first nine months of 2024, following 2023's high of 2.28Mt of cement and 1.33Mt of clinker, up by 22.6% on 2022 and 572% compared to 2018, according to Federbeton.

Federbeton president Stefano Gallini said “Italy shares its Mediterranean coastline with countries that, although they boast a large cement manufacturing industry, do not share the stringent environmental and safety standards of EU countries. The increase in imports from these countries therefore risks having repercussions not only on the cement and concrete sector, but on the entire Italian economic and social context.”

Gallini warned that Italy faces challenges from cheaper imports driven by lower environmental investments abroad. He added “Federbeton, like the entire hard-to-abate industry, is in a moment of great turmoil, engaged in a path for decarbonisation with investments of €4.2bn in addition to extra operating costs of approximately €1.4bn/yr. Asking the Italian industry for an effort of this type and continuing not to protect it by allowing uncontrolled imports means relocating emissions to foreign countries, to which are added those due to increased transport, with dangerous repercussions for the future of our own planet.”

The mood music for this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Azerbaijan has been poor. Despite this though the decarbonisation prospects for the cement sector are looking rosier than other industries.

First, the negatives. People are starting to question whether the COPs are fit for purpose. Donald Trump’s election as President-Elect in the US before the event started pretty much set the tone given that he intends to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Again. Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev described his country’s natural gas resources as a “gift from God” following reports that, once again, COP national delegates had been caught promoting fossil fuel deals. France and Argentina also withdrew their lead negotiators for differing political reasons. Meanwhile, there has been increasing lobbying against carbon capture from the environmental sector. In short the view is growing that carbon capture is a delaying tactic by fossil fuel companies rather than a viable solution. This poses a threat to the cement sector because its current net zero roadmaps require carbon capture.

The World Cement Association’s CEO Ian Riley asked in a statement whether there might be “...a shift toward negotiations driven by the major emitters - China, the US, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.” However he observed that none of these countries yet seem ready to lead on the climate agenda globally.

Now, the positives. Cement CO₂ sector emissions may have continued to fall in 2023. The Global Carbon Project published its Global Carbon Budget 2024 in mid-November 2024. It predicts that global fossil CO₂ emissions will rise by 0.8% year-on-year in 2024 with emissions from coal, oil and gas still mounting. However, emissions from cement producers are expected to fall by 0.8%. This trend started in 2022. It appears to be due to declines in China, the US and the EU but, notably, not in India. It’s worth commenting here that this decline may be principally down to the parlous state of the real estate market in China, but there is also a lot of decarbonisation work happening. We’ll take a win where we can.

Next, the Global Cement and Concrete Association’s two big announcements at COP29 have been the publication of its Cement Industry Net Zero Progress Report 2024/25 and the launch of international definitions for low carbon cement and concrete. The progress report proffers a nifty update on how well it’s going. Short version: 23% reduction in emissions intensity since 1990; lots going on; plenty more to do.

One of those issues that require attention is low-carbon procurement. Hence those international definitions. This may seem like an abjectly boring topic but never underestimate the power of standards upon building materials. This should help support governments, policy makers and the private sector to set low carbon procurement rules. Since governments are among the biggest buyers of building materials worldwide, both directly and indirectly, this is intended to start speeding up decarbonisation by driving demand for existing lower carbon cement and concrete products. Whether this is the tool that cracks the global adoption of low carbon building materials remains to be seen. Yet the long lead time it took the Portland Cement Association (PCA) in the US, for example, to promote the use of Portland Limestone Cement is both instructive and inspirational. It can be done and it can deliver results.

COP29 has been described as the ‘finance COP’ because the representatives are hoping to set a new global climate finance target. This target, or new collective quantified goal (NCQG), is seen as one of the summit's main outcomes. It is intended to replace the existing US$100bn goal that is due to expire in 2025. However, the question of how much each country pays has predictably caused disagreements between developed, developing and those countries in between. All of this is well above the ‘paygrade’ of the cement sector but is crucial to what happens next, because it’s going to get expensive. Establishing regional carbon capture infrastructure requires serious funding. Time will tell whether COP29 can actually further this aim. The arguing continues.