Displaying items by tag: European Union

Europe: Six cement plants were reportedly issued around Euro88m in free European Union emissions allowances (EUA) from 2019 to 2022 despite the clinker kilns at the units being idle or running at low levels. Research by the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) has revealed that plants operated by Buzzi, Cementos Portland Valderrivas (CPV), Cemex, Holcim and Votorantim Cimentos all benefited from the scheme despite only emitting 36,370t of CO2. The companies would then have been able to use the subsidy to cover emissions costs at other plants or sell the permits. OPIS identified five plants in Spain and one in Germany.

Australia’s Climate Change Minister announced plans this week to look at a potential carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). Chris Bowen told an Australian Business Economists forum in Sydney that policies were needed to ensure a level playing field for Australian firms. Mentioning the European Union’s (EU) CBAM by name, he said that his department would prepare a review to assess carbon leakage risks, develop policy options and look at the feasibility of an Australian CBAM, particularly in relation to steel and cement.

The Antipodean nation has past form when it comes to carbon legislation. Back in 2012 it introduced the Clean Energy Act under the Gillard administration. The legislation was intended to introduce an emissions trading scheme with a carbon pricing scheme. However, it faced opposition from rival political parties and the Cement Industry Federation warned that the local cement sector was vulnerable to overseas competitors outside of the scheme. Job losses followed and Adelaide Brighton appeared to react by focusing more on imports. The Abbott administration then abolished the act in 2014 putting forward its Clean Energy Future package instead, which focused more on investing towards change. Jump forward nearly a decade and the Albanese government passed its Climate Change Bill in 2022. This set legally binding targets, including a commitment to cut CO2 emissions by 43% from 2005 levels by 2030. Bowen’s look at a CBAM is an obvious next step from here, addressing one of the main criticisms of the previous Clean Energy Act.

Local building materials company Boral reacted positively to a CBAM in its annual results released earlier this week with chief executive officer Vik Bansal saying that the company was “...advocating for an effective Carbon Border Adjusted Mechanism for Australia.” He also reconfirmed the group’s commitment to a target of net zero emissions by 2050. However, at the same time, Boral also reduced its emissions reduction target to 2025 from 2019 figures to up to 14% from 19% previously. This was blamed on “external factors” such as delays in securing the required regulatory approvals for the next phases of an alternative fuel program. Mining company Rio Tinto also warned in late July 2023, as part of its half-year financial results, that it might potentially miss its emissions target for 2025 unless it resorted to buying carbon credits.

CBAMs became serious in 2023 when the EU passed its own scheme into law in May 2023. The EU CBAM will now enter into a transitional phase from 1 October 2023 until the end of 2025. During this period importers of goods covered by the legislation will be required to report greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) embedded in their imports (direct and indirect emissions) but they will not have to make any financial payments or adjustments. The system will then enter its full format from 1 January 2026, with affected importers being forced to purchase and surrender CBAM certificates, which will be priced at the EU emission trading scheme (ETS) rate, currently at around Euro88/t. Other CBAMs have also been mooted in Canada and the US. In Canada the government ran a consultation on border carbon adjustments in 2021. It is currently considering its next steps. The US meanwhile has had both Republican and Democrat party senators make separate suggestions for a CBAM since at least 2021.

Just because the EU is set to implement its CBAM and other countries are considering their own versions doesn’t mean that they are necessarily a good idea. Cembureau, the European cement association, has been steadily lobbying on the details such as indirect emissions and waste incineration in the EU CBAM for years. Criticisms of CBAMs in general include potential clashes with World Trade Organisation rules, accusations of protectionism, triggering inflation, not being equitable to less developed nations and even failing to stop carbon leakage in the first place. The EU CBAM has also linked itself to the local ETS price. So, even after the transitional period, the carbon price may start to jump about in unpredictable ways once the system fully goes live in 2026.

The game-changer in recent years for international carbon emissions reduction legislation though was arguably when the US government introduced its Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. This is because it served both sustainability and self-interest on a grander scale than seen previously. The act promised US$369bn in subsidies for companies to invest in low carbon technology. However, the catch was that the investment tied supply chains to the US market, much to the ire of some of the US’ trade partners such as the EU. CBAMs offer a similar opportunity to governments around the world if they choose. They can be used to protect domestic carbon emission reduction effects in heavy industry but they can also be used for protectionism. Hence Bowen was due to say during his speech that the Inflation Reduction Act and other policies elsewhere “mean that Australia needs to act to stay in the game.” Australia has the advantage that it can watch how the EU CBAM pans out before it implements its own version.

The close of the first half of 2023 brought the latest crop of seasonal cement data from the Vietnam National Cement Association (VNCA). Vietnam sold 61.4Mt of cement and clinker during the first half of 2023, up by 2.7% year-on-year.¹ Graph 1 (below) tracks the progress of full-year Vietnamese cement and clinker sales over the six years up to 2022, as well as the most recent half-year.

Graph  1 - Vietnamese annual cement production, January 2017 – June 2023

The first half of 2023 marks the first half-year in which lockdown restrictions have been absent in both Vietnam and its main export market, China, since the start of the Covid-19 outbreak.² Vietnam was especially hard-hit: it implemented the first lockdown outside of China in March 2020, and has recorded the 13th most Covid-19 cases of any country up to July 2023. Then, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 caused uncertainties for cement producers and importers all around the world. Yet the price of imported coal across Southeast Asia had returned to pre-war levels by the end of June 2023.³ This indicates that the first half of 2023 may represent a ‘typical’ first half for the Vietnamese cement industry, for the first time this decade. During the 2010s, this meant growth margins of over 10% year-on-year.

During the first half of 2023, Vietnam’s sales volumes grew by 30% from pre-Covid-19 levels of 47.1Mt in the first half of 2019, confirming the industry trend of rapid capacity expansion. Just in the course of the half year, Vietnam’s integrated cement capacity rose by 7.9% to 123Mt/yr.⁴ It previously rose by 6.9% year-on-year to 114Mt/yr in 2022. That year, first-half cement sales also grew by 6.9% year-on-year, to 59.8Mt from 55.9Mt. In the first half of 2023, capacity growth has outstripped the country’s sales growth, of 2.7% year-on-year.

Meanwhile, Vietnam exported 15.7Mt of cement and clinker in the first half of 2023, 26% of its total despatches.⁵ This corresponds to a decline of 31% year-on-year from 22.7Mt (38% of despatches) in the first half of 2022 and a rise of 0.5% from pre-Covid-19 levels of 15.6Mt (33%) in the first half of 2019.

Chinese construction is the lynchpin in the Vietnamese cement industry’s current growth model. Over successive Five-Year Plans, it has consumed increasing volumes of clinker from Vietnam, as well as cement, at diminishing prices. This strategy overreached itself in the first quarter of 2023, more than a year into an on-going Chinese property market slump, when the value of Vietnam’s cement and clinker exports to the country fell by 95% year-on-year, to US$11.4m.⁶

By lowering prices, Vietnam’s cement sector charts a careful course within the contested waters of global trade rules, but it has run aground before. Most recently, from the start of 2023, the Philippines attached tariffs of up to 28% (and up to 55% for blended cement) to Vietnamese cement from 11 different producers.⁷ The Philippines Tariff Commission had found that ‘dumped’ cement from Vietnam – constituting over 50% of cement imports over the 18 months up to the end of 2020 – threatened the domestic industry. The failure to diversify its markets is a further sign that Vietnam’s current positioning in the cement and clinker trade is, at best, medium-term.

From October 2023, cement entering the European Union (EU) will become subject to extra taxes under the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM).⁸ The EU is a relatively small trade partner for Vietnam, but the longer-term effect of this policy will be to replicate itself in the statute books of other nations and trade blocs, beginning in the Global North. With forecast lignite imports of 70 – 75Mt to Vietnam in 2023 – 2026, opportunities for cement exports from Vietnam, and countries like it, are diminishing.

The best situation for Vietnam would be accelerated growth in its domestic consumption base. The government is attempting to trigger a construction boom with its 2023 budget, which includes US$5bn in residential construction funding. Meanwhile, full-year infrastructure spending will rise by 25% year-on-year.⁹ To this end, it also needs to keep the cement price low. From 1 January 2023, Vietnamese exporters paid a tax of 10% of value on shipments of cement and clinker, instead of the previous 5% rate. If successful, this will nourish booming consumption with booming, and cheap, supply. Vietnam is grafting its Chinese model back onto the domestic market.

Producers will keep exporting. In May 2023, Nghi Son Cement Corporation despatched a first shipment of 31,500t of cement to the US. Nghi Son Cement Corporation’s cement, produced with fly ash, is clearly considered by the company and its owners to have some long-term marketability in the US. Said owners include Japan-based Taiheiyo Cement, which produces cement in the US via its CalPortland subsidiary.

In Vietnam, the cement industry has undergone a period of unparalleled growth, fuelled by exports. It can now reinvest the proceeds in establishing a self-sufficient construction sector around an ever more sustainable cement industry, ready to become the first choice across new markets as they arise in Southeast Asia and beyond.

1. Global Cement, 'Vietnam's first-half cement production declines in 2023,' 29 June 2023, https://www.globalcement.com/news/item/15941-vietnam-s-first-half-cement-production-declines-in-2023

2. The Observer, ‘‘It was all for nothing’: Chinese count cost of Xi’s snap decision to let Covid rip,’ 29 January 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/29/chinese-cost-covid-xi-lockdowns-china

3. Reuters, ‘Column: Asia thermal coal prices get the blues from Europe and LNG,’ 20 June 2023, https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/asia-thermal-coal-prices-get-blues-europe-lng-russell-2023-06-20/

4. Việt Nam News, ‘Record input costs thwart cement groups,’ 12 July 2023, https://global.factiva.com/ha/default.aspx?mod=SavedSearch_SelectSearch&page_driver=SavedSearch_SelectSearch#./!?&_suid=168119771197707004455190223307

5. Việt Nam News, ‘Industry: Vietnam’s Cement, Clinker Exports +82.2% y/y to $116M in Jun: GSO,’ 4 July 2023, https://global.factiva.com/ha/default.aspx?page_driver=searchBuilder_Search#./!?&_suid=168908188871006418595282713178

6. Vietnam Investment Review, ‘A strenuous year ahead in cement,’ 9 May 2023, https://vir.com.vn/a-strenuous-year-ahead-in-cement-101707.html

7. Global Cement, 'Philippines Department of Trade and Industry to impose anti-dumping duties on cement from Vietnam,' 22 December 2022, https://www.globalcement.com/news/item/15084-philippines-department-of-trade-and-industry-to-impose-anti-dumping-duties-on-cement-from-vietnam

8. Global Cement, 'Too taxing? How the CBAM affects cement exporters to the EU,’ 29 June 2022, https://www.globalcement.com/news/item/14316-too-taxing-how-the-cbam-affects-cement-exporters-to-the-eu

9. Customs News, ‘Cement enterprises expect a "brighter" second half of 2023
https://english.haiquanonline.com.vn/cement-enterprises-expect-a-brighter-second-half-of-2023-25368.html

Belgium: The European cement association, Cembureau, has asked the Europen Union (EU) to provide a regulatory framework to support the work of the European cement industry in co-processing waste composite materials as alternative raw materials. The materials in question consist of glass, carbon or other fibres and polymer matrices. The association called on the EU to recognise co-processing as ‘recycling’ under the EU Waste Framework Directive, to establish waste composite materials collection schemes and phase out landfilling, and to introduce dedicated waste codes for the materials. Cembureau said that the last of these proposals would help to increase visibility and attract investments.

Cembureau set out its proposals in a joint statement with resins associations Cefic UP/VE and Cefic Epoxy Europe, boating association EBI, composite materials association EuCIA, glass fibre association Glass Fibre Europe and wind energy association WindEurope.

Lithuania: Akmenes Cementas has benefitted from a European Union (EU) ban on cement exports from Belarus in response to the Russian-led invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The subsidiary of Germany-based Schwenk Zement reported a profit of Euro16m in 2022, according to the Baltic News Service. This is its first recorded profit since 2013. Artūras Zaremba, the head of Akmenes Cementas, added that higher cement prices, further borrowing from its parent company and fixed electricity prices also helped it make a profit.

The company’s income grew by 53% year-on-year to Euro134m in 2022 from Euro87.5m in 2021. Its cement sales volumes increased by 6% to 1.5Mt and cement production rose by 8% to 1.1Mt. Around 1.1Mt of cement was sold domestically with the remainder exported to other countries within the EU. Cement sales are expected to fall in 2023 due to changes in the local market.

Betolar has called today for a global performance-based standard to replace existing prescriptive standards. Riku Kytömäki, the head of Betolar, argued at the London-based Concrete Expo that the lack of a performance-based standard is holding back the use of low-carbon materials from replacing cement in concrete production. He said “the current regulations across the markets are restricting the use of circular materials allowed in concrete buildings.” Betolar produces Geoprime, an additive designed for use in cement-free concrete production with ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). This gives the company a financial reason to want standards to change, as it will potentially allow it to sell more of its product. However, as the company points out, “there is a huge need for new alternatives.” The world needs around 4Bnt/yr of cement but there is only 300Mt/yr of slag available.

Building materials producers and related companies wanting to change rules and standards in response to new trends is a common refrain. For instance, the increased use of alternative fuels by the cement sector has prompted all sorts of regulatory changes. However, rather than simply asking for amendments to the existing ways of doing things, Betolar is advocating for more wholesale change. It isn’t alone. Also this week the ASTM in the US announced that it is writing a specification to include a wider range of secondary cementitious materials (SCM). In addition, many of the interviews Global Cement Magazine has conducted with companies developing and marketing new types of cement and concrete in recent years have said similar things. Examples include the use of graphene, carbon nanotubes or sequestering CO₂ into industrial by-products to create novel secondary cementitious materials (SCM).

Prescriptive versus performance-based approaches to buildings and building materials tie into wider design philosophies about construction. The prescriptive approach provides detailed descriptions of regulations, methods and components, such as cement and concrete standards. With respect to concrete standards, this might mean setting mandatory SCM and cement proportions, determining allowable water content, certain types of aggregate to be used and so on. The performance approach focuses on the end results, although it can be just as codified and standardised as the prescriptive route. For concrete, for example, this means that performance is measured by standard test methods with defined acceptance criteria stated in the contract documents with no restrictions on the parameters of concrete mixture proportions.

For cement and concrete standards the prescriptive approach dominated in Europe and North America in the 20th century. However, this began to change in the US in 2002 when the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) started working on its roadmap towards its Prescription to Performance (P2P) initiative. The key aim of the scheme was to shift the emphasis from prescribing (or indeed proscribing) the ingredients and their proportions in a concrete mixture to an emphasis on the performance properties of the combined materials. A decade later in the mid-2010s it found during a progress review that about half of the sample of project specifications studied were classified as ‘prescriptive.’ The biggest prescriptive restriction was on the quantity of SCMs set by specification writers. These were often percentages required in certain circumstances, such as freezing and thawing cycles, but imposed on all usage.

The current bout of interest in performance-based standards appears to be driven by the growing demand for cement and concrete products to lower their clinker factor by using higher amounts of SCMs. A far wider range of SCM-based products are being developed and coming to market and then encountering regulatory burden. These new material manufacturers are meeting up with the sustainability lobby, which also has an interest in decarbonising building materials. In 2022, for example, the Belgium-based Environmental Coalition on Standards (ECOS) started pushing for performance-based standards for cement. In a statement it said that, “it is commonly accepted that prescriptive specifications are convenient, but that this convenience is obtained at the expense of (eco-) innovation and decarbonisation.” It added that the switch to performance-based standards would also strengthen the European internal market for construction products as part of the Construction Products Regulation (CPR). It noted the ASTM standards for hydraulic cements (ASTM C-1157), that were developed in the 1990s in the US, and more recent developments in the field in Latin America.

It is worth pointing out that the prescriptive route does have its advantages. Using a prescriptive system is easier for less-experienced practitioners or generalists as it sets a minimum standard, even if it is over-engineered. Responsibility is shared out among the supply chain under a performance-based system for the quality of concrete. Under a prescriptive system, the supplier or contractor can be held responsible for quality control issues. For the performance approach this has to be specifically defined, although systems are in place to help. Making it harder via ‘red tape’ for new products to enter a market may stifle innovation but it also gives these new products far more time to be tested rigorously.

The whole prescriptive-performance standards issue opens up the wider implications of decarbonising construction materials. Where once there was a relatively small number of different types of cement and concrete now there are potentially hundreds, each looking for market share. Whether this situation will be the same in a decade’s time remains to be seen. A few common SCM-based cement and concrete products and formulations may predominate. For now, the future seems wide open and bigger changes, such as the global performance-based standards Betolar is advocating, may be required to support this. Considering the massive variation between countries and states, even within the US and the European Union, let alone the rest of the world, this seems ambitious. But it is not impossible!

Belgium: France-based Air Liquide has signed a memorandum of understanding with Holcim to supply and operate a Cryocap Oxy carbon capture unit for the forthcoming upgrade to the Obourg cement plant. The intention is that 95% of the CO₂ generated from the new production line will be captured and then transported via the Antwerp@C export terminal for under-sea sequestration. Air Liquide and Holcim have co-applied for the European Innovation Fund to support the project.

Pascal Vinet, Senior Vice President at Air Liquide Group, said “The decarbonisation of the industry is at the heart of our Advance strategy. We are committed to accompany our customers through providing a wide range of innovative solutions. As an example, Air Liquide's proprietary Cryocap technology is particularly well suited to decarbonise the cement industry.”

Holcim launched its formal take on construction and demolition waste (CDW) this week with the unveiling of its ECOCycle technology platform at the BAU architecture fair in Munich. This amounts to managing the distribution, processing, grinding and recycling of CDW back into new building material products. It claims that its concrete, cement and aggregate products can contain 10 - 100% of CDW with no drop in performance.

It is hard to gauge whether this is marketing for existing operations or the start of something new. Yet, in its 2022 Sustainability Report, Holcim said that it recycled 6.8Mt of CDW back into building products and that it is on track to meet its target of 10Mt by 2025. This target was neatly put into words as wanting “to build more new buildings from old ones.” Ahead of the announcement of the launch of ECOCycle, it added that it was going to roll out its Susteno product around Europe. This product, made from 20% CDW, was originally released in Switzerland in the late 2010s. Notably, recent acquisitions by Holcim that connect to its growing focus on CDW include Poland-based Ol-Trans in July 2022, UK-based Wiltshire Heavy Building Materials in October 2022 and UK-based Sivyer Logistics in April 2023.

As covered by Global Cement Weekly in February 2023, Holcim is not the only heavy building materials company pivoting to CDW. The European Union (EU) set a 70% recovery target for it in 2020 and various cement company sustainability reports have described the region as being receptive to moves into this sector. Cemex set up a global waste management subsidiary called Regenera at the end of January 2023. This division covers both alternative fuels, CDW and industrial by-products, so it is more general than Holcim’s current effort, but it shows intent in the same direction. Cemex previously set a target of recycling 14Mt/yr CDW by 2030.

Heidelberg Materials has been working on developing recycled concrete paste and its ReConcrete-360° concrete recycling process. As of its last sustainability report, this process had been tested at the pilot scale and is now being developed and scaled for industrial application. In addition to acquiring UK-based Mick George Group in December 2022 Heidelberg Materials has also purchased Germany-based RWG Holding in January 2023 and Germany-based SER Group in February 2023. All three companies operate in the CDW sector.

The other notable contribution that Heidelberg Materials has been making is as a partner of the ‘Circular City - Building Material Registry for the City of Heidelberg’ project. When Heidelberg Materials announced its involvement in the initiative in mid-2022 it said it was the first city in Europe to apply the principles of urban mining. The goal of the project is to take an inventory of the city’s buildings and then compile it in a digital material registry. The basis for the registry is the Urban Mining Screener developed by EPEA (Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency). This programme can estimate the composition of buildings based on building data such as location, year of construction, building volume or building type. Circular economy supply chains can then act accordingly when a building is retrofitted, demolished or deconstructed. So, for example, at the start of the project it worked out that a former US Army housing estate conversion site was calculated to contain approximately 466,000t of material, with about half in the form of concrete, a fifth in the form of bricks and 5% as metal.

That last example compares to a European Commission estimate that, as a whole, Europe generates around 450 - 500Mt/yr of CDW. A third of this is concrete. As with alternative fuels and slag previously, this may be money going into the ground. Recycling building materials is not new but any significant increase in reusing CDW that can reduce the clinker factor of cement (and the cement factor of concrete) offers a potentially cheaper route to building materials decarbonisation than carbon capture and utilisation/storage at current costs. Hence the continued interest.

Heidelberg Materials’ reaction to changes in the law in Hungary received attention this week in the German press. The government introduced its Act on Hungarian Architecture in March 2023 that will enable it to set production levels and prices upon foreign-owned cement producers when the new legislation takes force in July 2023. An unnamed executive at the Germany-based Heidelberg Materials told Der Spiegel that, "These regulations represent a complete violation of all rules of the European single market.” They added that the Hungarian government appeared to be trying to force the producer to sell up. The report further alleges that the owners of Duna-Dráva Cement, Heidelberg Materials and Schwenk Zement, also received an offer to buy them out in mid-2022 from an individual with links to Prime Minister Victor Orbán.

This latest move to corral the cement sector in Hungary follows a number of recent changes in legislation. Notably, Decree 404 was introduced in July 2021. This set a 90% tax on the ‘excess’ profits of cement, plaster, chalk, gravel, sand, clay, lime and gypsum producers with the stated intention of wanting to prevent rising prices. The government set a threshold price for cement of Euro56/t at the time. At the same time it also blocked exports of cement and other raw materials of declared strategic importance unless affected companies had registered with the Ministry of the Interior. The European Commission (EC) responded to a parliamentary question on the matter in November 2021 saying that it had sent a formal letter to Hungary informing it that it was breaching some parts of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU) on the free movement of goods. Although it noted that the new law also affected exports outside the EU, which was beyond the EC's remit. It added that the so-called ‘mining royalties’ did not seem to breach EU tax law.

Concerns over these issues between Hungary and Germany also surfaced in October 2022 when Orbán met with the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. At this time Thomas Spannagl, the head of Schwenk Zement, said that the windfall profit tax in Hungary had a "serious negative" impact on business and that importers were not affected in the same way.

Heidelberg Materials’ subsidiary Duna-Dráva Cement is the largest cement producer by production capacity in Hungary with two integrated plants at Beremend and Vác. Together they have a production capacity of 2.8Mt/yr, according to the Global Cement Directory 2023, or about 70% of the country’s active national capacity. Heidelberg Materials reported that its result from equity accounted investments fell by 27% year-on-year to Euro262m in 2022 from Euro356m in 2023 due to a decline in earnings particularly in China and Hungary. This compares to a 4% drop to Euro3.74bn in its result from current operations before depreciation and amortisation across the whole business. Despite this it also noted that Hungary’s overall economic output had grown by 5% in 2022.

Just before the new laws affecting cement companies starting arriving in mid-July 2021, the Hungarian Competition Authority started an investigation into a “drastic” increase in raw material prices. This followed a warning a year earlier in 2020 that it had started competition supervision proceedings against the three main market participants: Duna-Dráva Cement, Lafarge Cement and CRH. All three are foreign-owned companies.

Lafarge Cement Hungary operates the Kiralyegyháza plant and it is due to change its name to Holcim in May 2023. Its predecessor companies, Holcim and Lafarge, also used to run plants at Hejocsaba and Lábatlan before the merger in 2015. However, the Hejocsaba plant ran into legal problems between Holcim and another investor, shut in 2011 and was later forcibly taken over by the other party in 2014. Today the plant operates as Hejőcsabai Cement- és Mészipari (HCM) but cement production is reportedly yet to restart nearly a decade later and Holcim says that legal proceedings are still ongoing. The Lábatlan plant, meanwhile, closed for good in the early 2010s. CRH took over some of Holcim’s other operations in Hungary in 2015 at the same time as the formation of LafargeHolcim but does not run any cement plants in the country at present. It does own cement plants in nearby countries that are able to supply the Hungarian market as well as running 19 concrete units. It describes itself as the “number two player” in the local market. It wasn’t specific on Hungary in its financial results for 2022 but it did describe sales in its Europe East region as being ahead of 2021, “due to a strong focus on commercial actions to offset significant cost inflation.”

Construction costs in Hungary do appear to have grown faster than other European countries in the second half of 2021 as the country came out of the coronavirus pandemic. However, the country's anti-immigrant labour stance may have also contributed to the situation, in addition to the high-energy prices and supply chain bottlenecks experienced elsewhere. In addition, cement companies are also capable of monopolistic behaviour. For example, Duna-Dráva Cement’s proposed acquisition of Cemex Croatia was blocked by the EC back in 2017 on competition grounds. However, given how international the cement industry has become, it is surprising to see this kind of treatment from a government within the European Union.

Belgium: Cembureau, the European cement association, has warned against a proposed 2041 phase-out date for industrial CO₂ in the Commission draft Delegated Act on renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs). The European Commission’s (EC) draft Delegated Act on the greenhouse gas saving criteria for RFNBOs sets the rules under which such fuels can qualify as sustainable. The European Commission considers that CO₂ from industrial sources should not be allowed for the production of synthetic fuels as of 2041, as this would go against the objective of carbon neutrality by 2050.

Koen Coppenholle, the chief executive officer of Cembureau, said “By proposing an arbitrary deadline on the use of industrial CO₂, the EC severely restricts the deployment of carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) in the cement sector.” He continued “We regret that this phase-out date was established without a thorough impact assessment. This risks negatively impacting several on-going carbon capture projects in the European Union (EU), at a time of a global race for green investments.” Coppenholle also called for a “real, thorough debate on CO₂ utilisation” to ensure that EU policies support CCU and the deployment of CO₂ transport infrastructure and storage.

The association is objecting against this proposal because in its view: manufacturing synthetic fuels using industrial CO₂ make a “decisive” contribution to climate mitigation in the short to medium term; no impact assessment has been presented by the EC; the delegated act threatens the viability of existing CCU projects in the cement sector, which require a payback time of 30 - 35 years; and the Delegated Act does not recognise the reality of industrial installations like cement plants, which are faced with unavoidable CO₂ emissions, and may not have access to CO₂ geological storage sites.

The Delegated Act will be passed to the European Parliament and Council for further scrutiny until April 2023 whereupon they will either accept to reject the proposals. The scrutiny period can be extended to June 2023 at the request of either body.