Displaying items by tag: Tax

India: The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) has lobbied the government in its Pre-Budget Memorandum 2020-21 over customs duties. The body is suggesting a reduction on the customs duty on packaging for use in bagging cement to 5% from 10%. There is currently no import tax on cement and duties of 5% and below on various clinker constituents.

Last month Soyuzcement, the Union of Russian Cement Producers, reported that cement production was on course to grow by 8% year-on-year to 58Mt in 2019. This estimate was based on growth from January to October 2019 followed by a modest rise in November.

Graph 1: Cement production in Russia, 2010 – 2019. Source: CM Pro, Ernst & Young.

The pickup is significant because it’s the country’s first annual resumption of growth since 2014. At that time low commodity prices, a worsening economy and international sanctions broke a fairly steady growth cycle that had started in 2000. The only blip in that run was the global economic downturn around 2008. In the medium to long term Soyuzcement’s review pinpointed growth drivers as being government-backed residential housing schemes, integrated land development projects and an increase in the construction of concrete roads. This increase has been driven by consumption growth in most regions, led by a 12% rise in the Central Federal District although the Volga Federal District started to slow in the second half of 2019.

Figure 1: Russian Federal Districts by cement production in 2016. Source: Soyuzcement.ru.

Anecdotally, this change in the fortunes of the Russian cement industry can be seen in the volume of news coverage on the Global Cement website over the last few years. The mean number of news stories on the country in 2016 and 2017, increased by half in 2018 and then again in 2019. Partly this is down to our attempts to increase our coverage of the region but it also shows a general trend. In the news specifically there haven’t been many new plant projects domestically but there has been a steady stream of upgrades and maintenance related stories. For example, Eurocement subsidiary Kavkazcement reported in recent weeks that it had installed a replacement dry kiln. This has been part of a group of upgrades that Eurocement has started in 2019. On the supplier side both Germany’s Gebr. Pfeiffer and Italy’s Bedeschi opened subsidiaries in Russia in 2019.

One thing that didn’t seem to slow down the growth were mounting tariffs on Russian exports into Ukraine. Russia’s neighbour first blocked imports of cement from Russia in May 2019 due to, what it said was a Russian ban on imports. It then followed this with an antidumping rate of 115% for imported clinker and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) from Russia. It also penalised imports from Belarus and Moldova, although at lower rates. Russia’s cement export rates seemed untroubled by this, rising by 13.5% year-on-year to 0.8Mt in the first 10 months of 2019. Exports hit of high of just below 2Mt/yr in 2014 but have since stabilised at around 1Mt/yr. Imports reached around 5Mt/yr in the early 2010s and have been slowly declining since then, reaching 1.5Mt in 2018.

The lowered production rate that the Russian cement industry has faced over the last five years has been noteworthy given the apparent low capacity utilisation rate. The Global Cement Directory 2019 records the country as having a production capacity of 111Mt/yr. This gives Russia a capacity utilisation rate of 48% in 2018! Unlike, say, the countries in southern Europe that have had to rationalise their cement industries following the post-2008 decline, Russia may have structural aspects to the industry that have helped protect it from lower utilisation rates. These include relatively low export-import rates and the large size of the country with limited sea access to many regions. Most of its production capacity is located in the west but a sizable minority of plants are based further east across the Ural, Siberian and Far Eastern regions. Even under subdued economic conditions, plants in these places are likely to be less susceptible to foreign imports, for example.

Looking ahead, the question is whether the current growth that the cement industry is enjoying is viable once government spending slows down. Alongside this the industry could also focus on sustainability. As the government announced in early January 2020, the country expects to face both negative and positive effects from climate change. The cement industry could be at the front of this trend if it decides to clean up production and/or move into new markets as the Arctic region opens up.

Ukraine: Antidumping duties on clinker and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) from Russia, Belarus and Moldova introduced by Ukraine in mid-2019 have benefitted local producers. Mykola Kruts, the chairman of the board of Ivano-Frankivskcement, said that his company has been operating at a 90% capacity utilisation rate, according to Interfax-Ukraine.

Costa Rica: The government plans to approve legislation charging a 5% tax on both locally produced and imported cement by the end of December 2019. The new rules will standardise existing laws that have only been applicable to the provinces of Cartago, San José and Guanacaste so far, according to the La Republica newspaper. The previous system was only being levied on two of the three cement companies with a presence in the country based on the location of their operations.

Philippines: The tariff on cement imports will not exceed US$5.68/t, the figure recommended by the Tariff Commission. Trade and Industry Secretary Ramón López has stated that the safeguard ought not cause prices to rise. The provisional safeguard duty of US$4.02/t will remain until 10th September 2019.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libya: The Libyan Cement Company (LCC) says taxes, poor weather and local fighting have hampered its progress over the last year. The introduction of a 183% Foreign Exchange Tax in the last quarter of 2018 has tripled the price of imported spare parts, supplies and capital goods. This has delayed repairs to the cement producer’s plants. However the company believes that the tax may be lowered in the near future. A long and wet winter has also been blamed for reducing the demand for cement and reducing the company’s cash flow.

Fighting in Tripoli has affected the LCC’s operations in the east of the country with multi-month long interruptions to the supply of raw materials. It said that key roads have recently been re-opened following negotiations relieving the situation and that it hopes they will stay open.

The company said that it is still working towards a Euro200m upgrade project to its plant in Benghazi. The plan is to increase the unit’s production capacity to 3Mt/yr from 2Mt/yr.

Guatemala: The government has introduced a new distribution tax of US$0.2 per 42.5kg bag of cement. The new legislation also intends to regulate cement and clinker imports and appoint personnel to supervise storage sites, according to the El Periódico newspaper.

Senegal: Ousmane Mbaye, the Administrative and Financial Director of Dangote Cement Senegal, says that his company is not worried about potential plans by the government to cut tax exemptions to cement plants as part of its Plan for an Emerging Senegal (PES). He said that the company was ready to discuss the proposals with the authorities, according to the Le Quotidien newspaper. He also blamed distributors and a breakdown at the plant of a competitor for recent swings in the price of cement. Mbaye made the comments at a ceremony giving away tickets for a pilgrimage to Mecca and/or Rome.

The UK waste fuels industry is facing potential challenge from changing Dutch environmental legislation. As part of its new National Climate Agreement the government in the Netherlands is considering imposing a tariff of Euro32/t on imported refuse-derived fuel (RDF) from the start of January 2020. It also wants to add a CO2 tax of Euro30/t on industrial emitters from the start of 2021.

This is bad news for the UK’s waste export market because 1.28Mt or 44% of exported waste fuels from the UK in 2018 went to the Netherlands. The majority of this was RDF. That was more than the next two biggest destinations, Sweden and Germany, combined. Andy Hill of Cynosure Partners summed up the UK situation in the June 2019 issue of Global Cement Magazine when he said, “The UK generates more far more waste than it has landfill, recycling and alternative fuel capacity combined. Quite simply, that’s why the UK exports and has become a leading force in Europe in terms of RDF and solid recovered fuel (SRF) exports.”

Graph 1: International Waste Shipments exported from England, 2011 – 2018. Source: UK Environment Agency.

Graph 2: Destinations of English waste fuels exports in 2018. Source: UK Environment Agency.

Waste management companies and their representative associations on both sides of the North Sea are not taking this terribly well. Robert Corijn, chair of the RDF Industry Group, a European waste organisation, summed up his members response by pointing out both the environmental cost of the new legislation and the risk to jobs in the UK. “RDF export forms a vital and flexible part of the UK’s waste management system, supporting over 6800 additional jobs in the UK, and saving over 0.7Mt/yr CO₂e emissions.” Robert Loos of the Dutch Waste Management Association made a similar response questioning what exactly the Dutch government was attempting to achieve.

Steve Burton, one of the directors of UK-fuels producer Andusia, went further by saying that the Dutch had proposed the move on environmental grounds because it has an incineration capacity of 8Mt/yr but produces only 6Mt/yr of waste. “So they think that by setting a tax it will significantly curtail how much gets incinerated in the Netherlands and thus produce less CO₂. All very sensible if you consider CO₂ in isolation in your own country. However, the Dutch Government aren’t looking at the bigger picture…” He then went on to point out that the RDF would then either get burnt elsewhere or landfilled resulting in no overall CO₂ emissions reduction. His further assessment, which you can read here, goes on to speculate amongst other things that Dutch Energy for Waste (EFW) plants could end up having to cut their gate fees by more than the import tariff in order to keep running. The state-owned EFW plants would then made a loss for the tax payers until the market stabilised. It should be noted that the data from the Environment Agency indicates that Andusia exported just under 38,000t of RDF to the Netherlands in 2018.

The more prickly issues of using waste fuels may prove tricky for Dutch legislators. Corijn’s distinction above of using CO₂e for the savings from RDF usage is important in this argument since burning RDF and alternative fuels, either for generating energy or making cement, still releases CO₂. In the European Union (EU) it’s the biomass fraction of RDF that’s important for the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the like because biomass emissions are counted as carbon-neutral. Remove this effect and the benefit of waste fuels are more to do with the waste hierarchy and reusing materials rather than leaving them to rot and release methane, a gas with a more potent global warming effect than CO₂. Despite this, at face value, importing rubbish and then burning it to release yet more unwanted CO₂ may seem nonsensical to the parliamentarians. Perhaps the other thing they should consider is that waste-derived fuels are manufactured products to set specifications. On-going arguments around the world about the developed world ‘exporting its rubbish’ frequently ignore this point.

Since the new Dutch National Climate Agreement is currently at the proposal stage it has a long way to go before it becomes law. First it has to be turned into legislation and then this has to be approved by the Dutch Parliament. As indicated so far the waste management industry will continue to fight its corner with vigour.