Displaying items by tag: Tax

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 reduce EU industries' CO₂ emissions by 55% 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, 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 towards a total 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/

Pakistan: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has ordered cement producers to ensure that all cement bags that leave manufacturing sites include a tax stamp or unique identification marking from October 2022. The new requirement is intended to allow for the electronic monitoring of production and sales of goods, according to the Pakistan Today newspaper. This is part of a set of measures designed to increase tax revenue, reduce counterfeit products and stop smuggling.

US: The Portland Cement Association (PCA) has opposed a proposed federal temporary suspension to a petrol tax. PCA president and chief executive officer (CEO) Mike Ireland said, “Pausing the federal gas tax is the wrong decision at the wrong moment. Gas tax revenues fund the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to remake American industry and infrastructure with sustainability at its core. Removing the funding from the gas tax will strangle the IIJA before it is even up and running.”

The passage of the IIJA has coincided with PCA's launch of its Roadmap to Carbon Neutrality, which outlines the steps needed to achieve carbon neutrality across the entire cement-concrete-construction value chain by 2050. The PCA says that implementing the changes in its roadmap will require ‘significant’ funding such as those generated from the petrol tax.

Tanzania: ARM Cement has repaid all creditors of Tanzanian subsidiary Maweni Limestone to which it owed money. The East African newspaper has reported that the group used the proceeds from its sale of Maweni Limestone to Huaxin Cement for US$102m to pay off the debts. It paid US$74.4m to creditors and US$4.6m to the Tanzanian tax authorities.

In its native Kenya, ARM Cement sold its assets to National Cement Company (NCC) for US$42.7m. It has paid secured creditors there US$42.6m of a total US$68.7m due. It also owed unsecured creditors US$98.4m.

India: Cement producers and analysts say that a government cut to fuel duty may reduce the price of cement. The reduction may be minimal but it will stand out amongst inflation on other input costs for cement production, according to sources quoted by the Business Standard newspaper. Shree Cement hopes to pass on any reduction in costs from transportation to consumers but UltraTech Cement and JSW Cement are yet to announce a price cut. Most cement producers raised their prices by 8% month-on-month in April 2022 with a similar increase expected in May 2022.

Pakistan: Maple Leaf Cement’s first-half standalone sales were US$121m in the 2022 financial year, down by 33% year-on-year from a first-half 2021 financial year figure of US$91.5m. Export sales fell by 46% to US$2.63m, 2.5% of total sales. Its main export markets were Afghanistan, the Seychelles, Oman and Tanzania. The company reported a 70% increase in its consolidated net profit to US$15.2m from US$8.97m in the first half of the 2021 financial year. The producer said that it expects the domestic cement market to remain ‘stagnant’ for numerous reasons, including high inflation, increased interest rates and decelerating implementation of projects under the Public Sector Development Programme.

Congo: The government has reduced tolls on the transport of cement by road by 50%. The Journal de Brazza newspaper has reported that the government contacted Dangote Cement to encourage it to resume dispatches from its Ndingui cement plant.

India: The South India Cement Manufacturers’ Association (SICMA) has joined the Confederation of Indian Industry and the associations of other Telangana industries in lobbying the state government against its proposed Grid Support Charge levy on captive power plants operating in parallel to the state grid. The Hindu Business Line News has reported that power plant operators will pay a monthly levy of US$37,100/MW, potentially from 1 April 2022.

One cement company official said “Some of the most industry-friendly states such as Odisha, Karnataka and West Bengal do not levy such charges, while Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat levy a minimal rate of US$261 – 392/MW per month.”

UK: The Mineral Products Association (MPA) has urged the the UK government to reduce energy costs, maintain mineral products companies’ access to low-tax red diesel and to deliver on planned infrastructure investments. The association says that high costs already threaten its member’s competitiveness against EU-based rivals. The Ukraine crisis has caused energy costs to rise, while mineral products companies expect their rebate for red diesel to end on 1 April 2022. The MPA has asked the government to delay the end of the red diesel rebate. It also called for transparency on the delivery of the government’s infrastructure plans.

CEO Nigel Jackson said “The high ambitions the government has set out for the UK’s infrastructure and housing rely on our members’ ability to supply aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete and other essential materials You can’t build with thin air – construction needs materials and producing materials requires long-term planning and investment, so our industry needs clarity on what’s in the pipeline for the next 10 or 20 years, not the next 10 months. There is a widely recognised maxim ‘if you can’t grow it, you have to dig it.’ Clearly, this is not as recognised by government given the exemptions and subsidies some other industries enjoy. We also provide high-skill, well-paid jobs in regions most in need of economic growth.” Jackson concluded “Our overriding aim is for our sector to deliver for the UK by having economic conditions that reduce uncertainty and boost confidence to encourage investment for growth.”

US: The Portland Cement Association (PCA) has told the Department of Energy’s Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO) that federal policy and support is vital to accelerate the deployment of technologies that can decarbonise the local industrial sector. In its comments to the office, the PCA said that it shares the Biden-Harris Administration’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 through its own Roadmap to Carbon Neutrality, which lays out a pathway to achieve this across the cement-concrete-construction value chain by 2050. However, it warned that without strong federal support the AMO’s timeline to reach carbon neutrality across industry was unrealistic due to the “significant technical, legal and economic challenges regarding technologies like carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS), and others including hydrogen fuel and kiln electrification.”

“Federal policy must accelerate the significant technology, funding, and market innovation needed for rapid decarbonisation while preserving economic growth and international competitiveness,” said Sean O’Neill, senior vice president of government affairs at the PCA. “The adoption of CCUS is key to achieving deep decarbonisation in the cement industry.”

The PCA added that with the right federal and state policies, CCUS could become scalable within 10 years but infrastructure, policy, permitting and funding challenges remain. It suggested that tax incentive reforms and the use of Department of Energy loan programmes could accelerate early investment and adoption of CCUS.

The use of hydrogen fuels and kiln electrification was mentioned but these technologies are seen as being at least 15 – 20 years away. The association said that hydrogen remained very expensive and there was little current infrastructure for the transport and storage of hydrogen. More research and development is required to start evaluating the efficacy of kiln electrification.