Displaying items by tag: European Union

Romania: Holcim has completed the extension of its waste co-processing platform in Campulung, Arges County, following a Euro6m investment that was co-funded by the European Union (EU).
The project was implemented throughout 20 months via ecovalor, a Holcim division that specialises in waste management. Of the total Euro6m investment, Euro1.6m came from EU funds under the economic competitiveness programme. Holcim Romania introduced waste co-processing in its cement plants in 2003 and has invested Euro32m in waste processing.

World: Holcim and Lafarge have begun to formally notify regulators as to how they will tackle antitrust concerns, according to Holcim's CEO Bernard Fontana. The two companies have filed formal notifications, which generally include information on what the combined entity will look like and steps it will take to prevent it from abusing its size, in about two-thirds of the 15 jurisdictions that require a review of the proposed deal. Those include the US, Canada, Mexico, India and Russia, among others.

Fontana said that discussions with the European Union (EU), where the two companies have some of their greatest overlap, were at an 'advanced' stage. He added that he expects formal notification to be made in the summer of 2014. "We are on track," said Fontana, who has run Holcim since 2012. "We will do what we planned to do."

Holcim and France's Lafarge have moved quickly to satisfy regulators since unveiling their proposed transaction, which will create a cement company with combined sales of Euro31.8bn. The deal is expected to face significant challenges from competition authorities. EU antitrust chief Joaquin Almunia has already said that the deal is likely to face an extended probe by his agency.

Fontana said that the list of proposed businesses and plants it would sell in order to satisfy regulators, which it announced recently, would maintain entire businesses that function well and generate the greatest proceeds from the sale process. According to Fontana, Holcim and Lafarge have received more than 100 expressions of interest from potential buyers of the assets.

"We have had marks of interest from all kinds of prospective buyers," said Fontana. He added that potential buyers include private-equity groups and companies in the cement industry, including some from emerging markets. Holcim and Lafarge could also choose to sell some assets via initial public offerings.

Belgium: Cembureau has issued a joint statement with other members of the Industrial Emissions Alliance declaring its concern for aspects of the upcoming European Commission proposals regarding the Air Policy Review. In particular the European Cement Association (Cembureau) singled out emissions reduction targets and the target year of 2025.

The statement calls for 50% 'gap closure' for emission reductions as it views a proposed rate of 75% as 'unobtainable' due to issues with how emissions reductions will be delivered by current legislation, the costs of going beyond current legislation and the environmental benefits of further measures. It added that the high rate would damage European Union (EU) industrial competiveness and EU jobs. The statement also calls for the target year to be extended to 2030 to align it with the Framework for Climate and Energy Policies dates.

In late November 2013 Guangdong province in China announced that it will be launching its carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) in December 2013. Together with six other pilot projects in China the scheme will be the second largest carbon market in the world after the European Union (EU) when fully operational. Yet with the EU ETS floundering from excess carbon permits, with a resulting low price of permits and large cement producers such as a Lafarge reported as stockpiling permits, what are the Chinese schemes planning to do differently to avoid these pitfalls?

Overall, China has announced that it intends to cut its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by up to 45% by 2020 compared to 2005. In Guangdong, emissions from 202 companies will be capped at 350Mt for 2013, according to the local Development and Reform Commission. As shown in an article in the December 2013 issue of Global Cement Magazine, Guangdong province has a cement production capacity of 132.7Mt/yr, the second highest in the country after Anhui province.

From the perspective of the cement industry, Chunfang Wang from Huaxin Cement spoke about the importance of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) at an International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) workshop that took place in Guangzhou, Guangdong in early 2013. From Wang's perspective, emission assessment standards were at a 'developmental' stage in China and 'smooth' carbon trading would depend on consistent standards being adopted everywhere. Although at the time the particulars of the Guangdong scheme were unknown, participants at the IETA event advised cooperation with scheme planners to ensure emission producers and purchasers remained part of the decision process. Sliding carbon prices in the EU ETS may have been beneficial for permit buyers but once the government planners become involved to revive the market they might lose out.

As the Economist pointed out the summer of 2013, an ETS is a cap-and-trade scheme. Since China appears to have no definite cap to carbon emissions, how can the trading work? The Chinese schemes cap carbon per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Yet since GDP is dependent on production, any ETS run in this way would have to include adjustments at the end of trading. This would give central planners of the scheme plenty of wiggle room to rig the scheme. Worse yet, analysts Thomson Reuters Point Carbon have pointed out that the Chinese schemes face over-allocation of permits, the same issue that sank EU carbon prices. Additionally, one of the criticisms of the Guangdong Emissions Trading Scheme (GETS) pilot scheme was that the carbon prices may have been higher than expected due to market collusion.

The Chinese ETS projects face issues over their openness. If traders don't know accurately how much carbon dioxide is being produced by industry, such as cement production, then the scheme may be undermined. Similarly, over-allocating carbon permits may make it easier for producers to meet targets but it will cause problems in the trading price of carbon. However, given that a carbon emissions cap is an artificial mechanism to encourage markets to cut emissions, should any of these concerns really matter? The main question for Chinese citizens is whether or not China can cut its overall emissions and clear the air in its smog filled mega-cities.

Specifically for cement producers, it seems likely that large producers will be able to cope with the scheme best, from having more carbon permits to sell, to rolling out unified emissions assessment protocols, to liaising better with scheme planners. In Europe smaller cement producers, like Ecocem, have criticised the EU ETS for slowing a transition to a low carbon economy by subsidising the larger producers' emissions through over-allocation. In China, with its self-declared intention to consolidate an over-producing cement industry, whatever else happens it seems likely that smaller cement producers may become lost in the haze.