South Africa: AfriSam is preparing to replace its chief executive officer (CEO) to aid its merger discussions with PPC. Rob Wessels, a former chief investment officer at AfriSam’s black empowerment partner Phembani Group, is set to replace current Stephan Olivier on a short-term contract, according to sources quoted by Boomberg. The personnel manoeuvring would also potentially place PPC’s current CEO Darryll Castle in a strong position to become the merged company’s new leader. PPC and AfriSam announced that they had resumed merger talks in February 2017 after a previous attempt stalled in 2015.

Kenya: Bamburi Cement has appointed three women to its board of directors. Alice Owuor, Rita Kavashe and Hellen Gichohi have been appointed to the board, according to the Business Daily newspaper. Two female directors Sheila M’Mbijjewe and Catherine Langreney, resigned from the board in 2016 leaving it with an all-male composition and no female representation.

Owuor was the former Kenya Revenue Authority Commissioner for Domestic Taxes until she retired in 2016. Kavashe has been the chief executive of General Motors East Africa since 2011 and has worked for the motor vehicle dealer for more than two decades.

Gichohi is the managing director of the Equity Bank’s social arm, the Equity Group Foundation. She joined the Equity Group Foundation in 2012 from the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) where she served for 11 years from 2001, as the President from 2007, Vice President from 2002 and Director of the Conservation Program from 2001 when she joined AWF. She holds a PhD in Ecology from the University of Leicester in the UK, a Master of Science degree in Biology of Conservation, and a BSc in Zoology from the University of Nairobi and Kenyatta University respectively.

The Global Cement Weekly column of 22 February 2017 entitled ‘European Union (very) slowly tightens the screws on its Emissions Trading Scheme,’¹ bears witness to the misconception that we must choose between protecting the cement industry OR the climate. Quite the opposite is true: the objective is the cohesion between economic prosperity, meeting cement market demand AND lowering CO₂ emissions.

It is undisputed that, if climate protection is aspired to, there needs to be an adequate regulatory incentive that supports, perhaps even strengthens, industry’s profitability when companies act to lower their CO₂ emission. Some companies have tried selling low CO₂-cement at a price premium, marketing their lower embedded carbon. In a commodity market of a grey powder where low prices are a decisive purchasing point, this obviously doesn’t fly.

The only sustainable business incentive is to pass on the full cost of CO₂ not only in production but also in consumption of products. This would effectively result in higher cement sales prices for high-CO₂ cement and lower prices but higher margins for low-CO₂ cement, without losing competitiveness to producers that do not face regulatory CO₂ constraints. Hence, a win-win-win situation for low carbon cement producers, consumers and the environment. This is after all the purpose of the sectoral ETS mechanism with inclusion of importers and no free allowance allocation.

The studies undertaken by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) for CEMBUREAU simulated the potential gross margin for the domestic cement industry in case of different leakage prevention mechanisms. While this may sound shocking for some, there is nothing wrong with aiming at maximisation of gross margin. Quite the opposite, gross margin maximisation is absolutely necessary for the cohesion between economic prosperity and climate protection and the effectiveness of an ETS.

The BCG studies led to the conclusion that in case of a tightening CO₂ allowance cap and under certain market conditions the importers’ inclusion mechanism can yield the best margin for the industry. Since however, as the Global Cement Weekly column mentions, the EU only very slowly tightens the screws on the supply of emission allowances, there will be sufficient free allocation for industry and there remains little need to lower emissions and thus little need for an importers’ inclusion mechanism.

CEMBUREAU called into doubt the representativeness of the technology penetration reported by the Cement Sustainability Initiative’s Getting the Numbers Right database. It is a well-established fact that the penetration of modern preheater precalciner kilns in most emerging countries is higher than in Europe, because the industry is younger outside of Europe and hence most installations have been built with more recent, more energy-efficient technology. Besides the CSI database, cement CO₂ inventories exist for about 10 emerging countries. They all confirm the same.

Beyond the comparison with other regions however, an emissions trading system that after 12 years still enables one fifth of production being made using the most energy-intensive technologies objectively misses its purpose.

Despite consuming up to 50% more energy than the Best Available Technology, such installations can survive thanks to free allocation and the revenues from waste derived fuels. The industry legitimately highlights the environmental benefits of using waste as a fuel. However, it is questionable whether keeping energy-intensive installations alive thanks to cheap energy from waste is consistent with this environmental narrative.

The proposed changes to the EU ETS will not improve its effectiveness for the cement industry. Quite the opposite, it will make it even less effective because the introduction of a dynamic allocation based on a clinker benchmark completely nullifies the need for the industry to lower the clinker content in cement.

CEMBUREAU indeed has the right to protect the industry it represents, but is probably short sighted and ill informed when it does so to the detriment of society’s necessity to mitigate climate change. The rejection of the importers’ inclusion mechanism is a missed opportunity for the European Union to make the ETS effective and for the cement industry to maintain its competitiveness in a carbon constrained world.

Eric Olsen, CEO of LafargeHolcim, the largest global cement company, and chairman of the Cement Sustainability Initiative, has called for a meaningful and increasing carbon price that can be passed through the whole product value chain and for trade policy to be included in the ETS.²

Lakshmi Mittal, Chairman of ArcelorMittal, the largest global steel company, has also called for a border adjustment measure and inclusion of consumption in climate policies.³ High quality research by leading economists exists on this topic.⁴ Now that the reform of the EU ETS enters the trilogue negotiation between European Council, Commission and Parliament, these industry leaders should step forward with a concrete and workable solution to combine industrial, trade and climate policies by 2020.

1. http://www.globalcement.com/news/item/5836-european-union-very-slowly-tightens-the-screws-on-its-emissions-trading-scheme
2. WEF, Davos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_mhqcNR0uA
3. Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/8341b644-ef95-11e6-ba01-119a44939bb6
4. Climate Strategies, UK: http://climatestrategies.org/?s=consumption

China: China Pioneer Cement, the sole shareholder of Shandong Shanshui Cement, has removed Li Maohuan, Yu Yuchuan, Zhao Liping and Chen Zhongsheng as directors of Shandong Shanshui. In their place Liu Yiu Keung, Stephen, Yen Ching Wai, Chong Cha Hwa and Liu Dequan have been appointed as directors.

Sri Lanka: Nandana Ekanayake has been appointed as the chief executive officer of Siam City Cement Lanka. Previously Ekanayake was the Finance Director at Holcim Vietnam and was the Vice President of Holcim Lanka, according to the Daily News newspaper. Thailand’s Siam City Cement purchased Holcim Lanka in mid-2016.

The publication of LafargeHolcim’s annual financial results for 2016 this week starts to give us a review of the year as a whole for the multinational cement producers. Of the larger producers, CNBM, Anhui Conch and Votorantim are expected to make their releases in April 2016, so we’ll focus here on the available data from LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement, Cemex and BuzziUnicem, with UltraTech Cement included for some regional variety.

Graph 1: Sales revenue from multinational cement producers in 2015 and 2016 (Euro millions). Source: Company financial reports.

As can be seen in Graph 1 currency exchange effects have caused problems for producers’ sales revenues, with LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and Cemex all reporting falling sales on a direct comparison. Subsequently like-for-like adjustments have cropped up repeatedly on balance sheets to try and present a more investor-friendly picture, although even this has still seen LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement report small declines. In this sense it’s a little unfair to include India’s UtraTech Cement, given that the bulk of its business is in just one country. Operating in just one country though has its own risks, one of which we’ll discuss below.

Unsurprisingly, given the poor sales, the focus for the multinationals has generally been on earnings measures such as operating earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA). Here, LafargeHolcim and Cemex have done far better as they have streamlined their businesses. For example, LafargeHolcim’s operating EBITDA rose by 12.9% year-on-year to Euro4.895bn in 2016.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes from multinational cement producers in 2015 and 2016 (Mt). Source: Company financial reports.

Graph 2 looks at cement sales volumes. Most of the producers have made small gains or losses in 2016 with the stark exception of LafargeHolcim. Its cement sales fell by 12.9% to 233Mt in 2016. More alarmingly, for the fourth quarter of 2016 LafargeHolcim blamed an increased rate of declining cement sales volumes on demonetisation in India, tough trading conditions in Indonesia and a unusually good year (in 2015) to compare itself against in the US.

On that point about India, UltraTech may not have released any sales volumes figures but other larger Indian producers have experienced problems with the government’s decision to remove certain banknotes from circulation in November 2016. A report by HDFC Securities this week suggests that cement volumes fell by 13% year-on-year in January 2017 following a 9% decline in December 2016. The country may be facing its first decline in cement sales volumes since 2001. This is squarely down to government policy.

On a regional basis probably the most worrying theme has been an apparent slowdown in the US towards the end of the year. As mentioned above LafargeHolcim has blamed it on a good previous year and Cemex concurred. Buzzi Unicem also reported the same trend but didn’t attribute it to anything in paticular. President Donald Trump’s push for US$1tr investment on infrastructure in the US should help to reverse this along with anything that happens with his Mexican border wall plans.

The other area to pay attention to is Indonesia. Both LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement reported tough trading here prompted by production overcapacity. Locally, Semen Indonesia said this week that its sales revenue fell by 3% to US$1.95bn in 2016 and it still has new cement plants to be commissioned in 2017.

The overall picture for 2016 from these cement producers appears to be one of companies treading water and making savings as their sales were battered. As mentioned previously (The global cement industry in 2016, Global Cement Magazine, December 2016) the geographic spread of assets the multinationals own doesn’t seem to be protecting them from world events as well as they once did. On the plus side northern Europe seemed to pick up or at least hold steady in 2016 but various political shocks such as the UK departure from the European Union and elections in France and Germany may scupper this. In a similar vein India remains one of the key markets but government policy has potentially dented its growth this year. In the US cement volumes may be slowing but Donald Trump is riding to the rescue! With this continued high level of potentially disruptive events cement producers are probably hoping for a quiet year in 2017.

Turkey: Mehmet Göçmen has been appointed as the new chief executive officer of Sabancı Holding, the owner of several Turkish cement companies including Çimsa and Akçansa. He replaces Zafer Kurtul, who will vacate his position from 30 March 2017. Göçmen currently serves as Sabancı Holding Energy Group Head.

Göçmen graduated from the Department of Industrial Engineering at the Middle East Technical University in 1981. He also holds an MS degree from the Department of Industrial Engineering at Syracuse University in the US. He worked in executive positions between 1983 and 1995 at Steel Wire & Rope Industry, at Lafarge between 1996 and 2003 and he was appointed as General Manager of Akçansa in 2003. He has served as Human Resources Group Head, Cement Group Head and Energy Group Head at Sabancı Holding since 2008.

A couple of news stories from Australia this week give us a reason to look at the country’s cement industry. All the main producers have now released their preliminary reports for the second half of 2016, with the exception of LafargeHolcim, one of the joint owners of Cement Australia. Essentially, the picture is mixed from two of the three main producers - Adelaide Brighton and Boral - with falling sales revenues but growing sales in the east. In mid-2016 the Australian Industry Group Construction Outlook survey predicted that the infrastructure, commercial and residential sectors would start to recover in the second half of 2016 leading to an upturn in 2017, although falling mining and heavy engineering construction was expected to continue to contrast in 2016.

The local market is split in clinker production terms with most of the producers (relatively) concentrated in the south and east of the country. Cement Australia leads in cement production capacity with 2.8Mt/yr or 42% of the country's production base from two integrated plants. Adelaide Brighton then comes next with 2.3Mt/yr or 35% from three plants and Boral follows with 1.5Mt/yr from one plant since the closure of clinker production at its Waum Ponds Plant in Victoria in 2012. The cement grinding plant situation is more varied with Adelaide Brighton's Northern Cement plant in the Northern Territory and BGC Cement plant in Western Australia amongst the country's 12 units, according to Global Cement Directory 2017 data. This total also includes a few slag cement grinding plants such as the Australian Steel Mill Services' plant and the Cement Australia-Ecocem plant that are both in Port Kembla.

Adelaide Brighton reported that its sales volumes of cement were down in 2016 due to major declines in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Here, volumes had fallen by around 20% year-on-year. Unfortunately, a revival in southern and eastern Australia in the second half of the year wasn’t enough to stem the tide of poor sales. Power supply issues in Southern Australia also caused disruptions at both the company’s own plants and at those of its customers, leading to reduced sales. The cement producer also said that its import volumes had fallen by 2Mt due to lower sales in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and that import costs had increased due to a drop in the value of the Australian Dollar. Adelaide Brighton's reliance on imports is interesting given that this week Semen Padang, a subsidiary of Semen Indonesia, announced that it had started exporting cement to Australia.

Meanwhile, Boral Australia said that its cement revenue had fallen by 3% year-on-year to US$95.3m for its first half to 31 December 2016. However, cement sales volumes grew by 3% driven by higher direct sales. It also noted that competition and energy costs had increased in the period. HeidelbergCement, the other joint owner of Cement Australia, along with LafargeHolcim, said that its operations in Australia had delivered solid development due to strong residential construction demand and strong demand on the East Coast that compensated for a weaker mining sector. LafargeHolcim confirmed this in its half-year report adding that road infrastructure projects had also helped. It also noted that benefits to its adjusted operating earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) had been accrued through energy savings and lower clinker import costs.

LafargeHolcim's financial results for 2016 are due later this week on 2 March 2017. Potentially they have big implications for the Australian cement market given the rumours that were swirling around a year ago about a potential divestment. Although the signs so far suggest that its subsidiary Cement Australia did okay in 2016, pressure elsewhere in the group might prompt a sale of its share. We discussed this issue in December 2015 but since then Adelaide Brighton publicly said it was working on an acquisition plan, including strategy on how to cope with any potential competition issues. All eyes will be on LafargeHolcim later in the week.

Belgium: Henk Mariën, the managing director and owner of Arodo, has died. He passed away suddenly on 9 February 2017. Mariën built the company that designs and builds bagging machines, palletisers and shrink covers leaving behind an international presence in the business and a workforce of over 100 staff. The company intends to continue his mission and continue to build Arodo’s future.

It looks like Cembureau, the European Cement Association, got its own way on the proposal to amend the European Union's (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) that the European Parliament voted on last week. The system has been tightened but not enough to make the cement industry suffer, for now. Naturally, the environmentalists are outraged.

The key reform was that the carbon credits reduction rate (the linear reduction rate) will increase and the market stability reserve (MSR) will double its capacity to absorb excess allowances on the market. However, the big battle was fought over whether to include an importer inclusion scheme (or Border Adjustment Measure) or not. Lots of political 'horse-trading' took place right up to the vote on 15 February 2017 to adopt the draft proposal, with particular battles over the importer inclusion scheme. Negotiations will now continue with the Council of the European Union before the proposal returns to the European Parliament for a final vote.

Cembureau seemed pleased with the outcome. It supported the proposal principally for maintaining competitiveness and for not ‘deliberately discriminate between sectors.' It also liked the inclusion of dynamic allocation, a benchmark based on what it said was real data, a flexible reserve in relation to the allowances available for free and those designated for auctioning and an impetus towards funding carbon capture and storage. It also singled out its pleasure that an amendment for an importer inclusion scheme had not been accepted.

This last point caused a spat between Cembureau and Bruno Vanderborght, a former executive at Holcim, at the end of January 2017 in the lobbying frenzy before the vote. In robust language Vanderborght accused the European cement industry of using the ETS for negative leakage. His argument was that the free allocation of carbon credits given to the cement industry had been used to 'maximise gross margin.' Instead of spending the money on upgrading inefficient units, the industry had used its same inefficient units to increase exports of clinker to outside the EU, to places like Africa. Cembureau countered that it had been taken out of context by Vanderborght and that arguments he levelled, such as data from the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) suggesting that the EU has the highest share of clinker production in old, energy-intensive installations worldwide, were misleading since CSI reporting may not be as thorough outside of Europe.

Predictably, the proposal didn't please the environmental lobby, which denounced the deal as toothless. Environmental campaign group Sandbag has been on the case of the cement industry for several years, pointing out that its own research shows that cement producers have 'abused' the free allocation scheme for profit and that emissions have actually increased under the ETS so far. Its headline figure in the wake of the vote was that the cement sector was set to rake in a surplus of allowances worth Euro2.8bn by 2030.

Following the vote Sandbag took no time to point out that the ETS carbon price had sunk below Euro5/t. In its assessment, a carbon price of least Euro50/t is required to stimulate low carbon investment. However, the carbon price soon rose back up. Little impartial analysis is available on whether the amended proposal will actually deliver its aims, although a Thomson Reuters analyst did describe the outcome as one that 'significantly tightens the market balance.'

In a final twist, the lead rapporteur for the reforms to the EU ETS is a UK member of the European Parliament (MEP). Depending on how the Brexit negotiations go, the guy marshalling the amendments to the EU ETS won't be subject to its eventual implementation.

The EU ETS is slowly starting to improve through reforms such as those voted on last week but it remains very much in doubt whether it will be able to deliver solid meaningful reductions in carbon emissions. Cembureau is rightly protecting the industry it represents but at present the price of coal appears to be a better driver of measures such as increased use of alternative fuels than the ETS. The ETS has had the misfortune in operating for the last few years throughout a market depression in Europe where it has been propping up some cement producers and now it’s helping them get back on their feet as they export their products out of the continent. In a world awash with excess clinker the policy makers are eventually going to have to decide how much they want to damage industry in order to meet their environmental aims. We need cement and we need to cut carbon emissions. Someone is always going to be unhappy in this situation.