annual report 2001

rapport 2001 français couv. 21/05/02 11:24 Page 3

ANNUAL REPORT 2001

CEMBUREAU

CEMBUREAU – The European Cement Association, based in Brussels, is the representativeorganisation of the cement industry in Europe. Its Full Members are the national cementindustry associations and cement companies of the European Union and the EuropeanFree Trade Area (EFTA) countries plus the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, the SlovakRepublic and Turkey. Estonia is an Associate Member of CEMBUREAU.

The Association acts as spokesman for the cement industry before the European Unioninstitutions and other public authorities, and communicates the industry’s views on allissues and policy developments with regard to technical, environmental, energy andpromotional issues. Permanent dialogue is maintained with EU institutions, internationalauthorities and other international associations.

Serviced by a multi-national staff in Brussels and with the help of Standing Committeesand issue-related Project Groups established as required, CEMBUREAU takes action inrelation to all developments at European level affecting the cement industry.

CEMBUREAU plays a significant role in the world-wide promotion of cement and theready-mix and precast concrete industries in co-operation with Member Associationsand other relevant organisations. The Association regularly co-hosts conferences onspecific issues aimed at improving the market perception of the concrete industry andpromoting the use of cement and concrete products.

Since its foundation in 1947, CEMBUREAU has developed into the major centre for thedissemination of data, statistics and general information on the cement industry world-wide. Its publications serve as the principal source of information on the cement industrythroughout the world. It is the editor of the “ World Cement Directory ” providingdata on cement companies and plants based in some 160 countries.

Rue d’Arlon 55 – BE-1040 Brussels - Tel.: + 32 2 234 10 11 – Fax: + 32 2 230 47 20

E-mail: [email protected] - http://www.cembureau.be

AssociationEuropéennedu CimentThe EuropeanCementAssociation

rapport 2001 anglais couv. 21/05/02 11:11 Page 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT 2

MESSAGE FROM CEMBUREAU

CHIEF EXECUTIVE 4

THE OVERALL ECONOMIC CONTEXT 6

CEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY 8

THE EUROPEAN UNION 13

WORKING TO UNITE INDUSTRY’S VOICE

IN EUROPE AND AROUND THE GLOBE 15

LEGAL AFFAIRS 18

CEMBUREAU’S STANDING COMMITTEES

AND PROJECT GROUPS EXPERIENCE

EVER CLOSER CO-OPERATION 19

CEMBUREAU’S INTELLIGENCE UNIT:

THE FUTURE ON ITS RADAR SCREEN 28

EUROPEAN STATISTICS 29

ENERGY PRICES INCREASE OVER 2001,

COUPLED WITH A SHARP FALL

IN FREIGHT RATES 30

CONTINUALLY INCREASING EFFICIENCY

IN ADMINISTRATION 31

CEMBUREAU’S

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE 32

MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATE MEMBER 35

CEMBUREAU Annual Report 2001 1

rapport 2001 anglais 17/05/02 17:47 Page 1

CEMBUREAU Annual Report 20012 / 3

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

The year 2001 will go down in history as tragically marked by the terrible eventsof 11 September. Beyond this historicaljuncture, however, 2001 will provedifficult to analyse: euphoria at the startwas followed by pessimism about theworld economy, turning to horror after 11 September and the ensuing economicshockwave. The year ended on a moreoptimistic note, in Europe at least, with the first euros in everyone’s pockets.

Throughout all this, CEMBUREAUcontinued its day-to-day tasks and alsotook stock of accomplishments over the last few years with an eye topreparing the cement industry to facefuture challenges. Many of thediscussions which took place in 2001 will condition the future of our industry.This is especially true of CO2 emissionsand emissions trading, and the use of waste in the cement industry.

Climate change dominated the international environmental agendain 2001 and has also been given politicalpriority by the European Union (EU).Many years ago, the cement industry hadalready become one of the first industrialsectors to acknowledge this importanceand to take early action. In several European countries, voluntarycommitments to reducing emissionswere undertaken and respected. It is natural, therefore, to expect that anyproposal for new European legislation on emissions trading should recognisethis and draw lessons from “learning bydoing”. Instead, the EuropeanCommission is proposing mandatoryparticipation in a pilot scheme for certainindustry sectors, including the cementindustry.

It is still too early to tell, but the ideascurrently under discussion could lead, if realism does not prevail over ideology,to many cement companies being forcedto relocate outside the EU or else stopoperating. It must be statedunequivocally that we are European and want to stay European provided thatwe are permitted to.

“Anything one man can imagine, o


2 / 3

On a more positive note, our Membersin 2001 adopted an ambitious ActionPlan for the Use of Waste. This is an important step to enablingmuch greater use of alternative fuels and raw materials in the future. Our ambition is clear: we are aiming atincreasing the average substitution of fossil fuels with alternative fuels in Europe to more than twice the present12% by 2010. We have developed the right strategy, but success willdepend on our ability to work together,at all levels and in all countries.

The landmark first Life Cycle Analysis of functional units in concrete wassuccessfully completed in 2001 by CEMBUREAU, in close collaborationwith other European associationsrepresenting concrete and the constituents of concrete. The introduction of life-cycle thinking isan asset that will prove essential to securing a prosperous future for our industry by justifying our products,offering improved products, and responding to legitimateexpectations for information. There will be a time, in a not too distantfuture, when environmental informationon products, in particular constructionproducts, will become an essentialrequirement. The current greening of public procurement is indicative of that trend. It is now time to prepareourselves by developing life cyclethinking in our industry.

The issues I have mentioned are not onlyrelevant to the cement industry in Europe. They are also at the top of the agenda for our colleagues in Australia, the Americas and Japan.That is why we have started a dialoguewith them, to learn from and exchangeeach other’s experience.

Yes, 2001 was a year of shocks and uncertainty; it was also a year full of promise which we, in CEMBUREAU,shall work to fulfil.

DR. JÜRGEN LOSE

Brussels, May 2002

CEMBUREAU Annual Report 2001

Jules Verne, other men can make real.”



MESSAGE FROM CEMBUREAU CHIEF EXECUTIVE

In 2001, in addition to the ongoingregular work, CEMBUREAU got involvedin a number of projects aimed atpreparing the European cement industryfor the future.

Some of these projects were alsocompleted in 2001. A good example is a Life Cycle Analysis of functional unitsin concrete, which was finished by the end of the year within the plannedbudget.

In other cases, 2001 was the launch yearfor longer-term undertakings. Fire performance of concrete is now an established project that will run for three to five years, and a ProjectGroup has been set up to address the Eurocodes issue.

As these activities indicate, there hasbeen a definitive change of emphasis in Standing Committee 2 “Products and Marketing”. This Committee willwork towards promoting, through bothtechnical work and public affairs work,conditions that allow or facilitateincreasing the market share of concrete.

These activities have strengthened our relationships with other Europeantrade associations involved in the concrete business, in particular withBIBM (“Bureau International du BétonManufacturé”) and ERMCO (EuropeanReady-Mixed Concrete Organisation).The fruits of our successful collaborationover 2001 will no doubt result in closerand enhanced co-operation in future.

Regarding cement itself, 2001 wasmarked by a new awareness of the needto co-operate internationally to addressglobal issues like climate change. A number of important cementcompanies got together within the WorldBusiness Council for SustainableDevelopment (WBCSD) to look at the sustainability of the cement industryin some 20 years time. CEMBUREAUsupported and contributed to thisinitiative and seized the opportunities it presented. Thus, for example, a Protocol1 for reporting greenhousegases emissions put together by the World Resources Institute and the WBCSD was adopted,something which will bring benefitsacross the cement industry as a whole.


Very often, due to the nature of its work,CEMBUREAU finds itself having to reactto events rather than having the advantage of taking the lead. In 2001, however, we were able to adopta more proactive role on the “valorisation of waste”. Now that the Directive on the incineration of waste has established a clear andstable framework for incineration and co-incineration of waste as well as for the “valorisation” of bothhazardous and non-hazardous waste, the European cement industry is positioned to launch an ambitious“Action Plan for the Use of Waste”. The aim is to achieve a substantialincrease in the use of waste as alternativefuel and raw material by 2010. Approvedby the CEMBUREAU Board in December2001, this Action Plan must now beimplemented. Success will ultimatelydepend on our confidence that togetherwe can succeed.

Throughout our hard work in 2001, we have learned a fundamental lesson:whatever the future holds, it is certainthat our future will be, more than everbefore, a common future.

DR. JEAN-MARIE CHANDELLE

Brussels, May 2002


Acknowledging the importance of looking beyond Europe when it comesto dealing with global issues such asclimate change, CEMBUREAU’s PresidentDr. Jürgen Lose launched his “NewOrleans appeal” in April 2001 for globalco-operation within the cement industry.As a result, CEMBUREAU will establish a worldwide network to facilitate ideasexchange and co-ordination of activities.Latin America, North America, Japan andAustralia have all responded eagerly and a very fruitful exchange has alreadystarted. Discussions have coveredreducing of CO2 emissions, “valorising”animal meal and life-cycle thinking.

Climate change was certainly high on the agenda in Europe in 2001. The yearwas characterised by intense debates on how to meet the requirements and targets of the Kyoto Protocol.CEMBUREAU followed closely the development of the EuropeanClimate Change Programme (ECCP) and established its own strategy forclimate change activities. The proposalfor a Directive on emissions trading was received with mixed feelings by the cement industry. Particularlydisappointing was policy-makers’apparent lack of confidence in voluntaryinitiatives.

CEMBUREAU will continue to argue for more trust in and reliance onvoluntary mechanisms. Our argumentsare supported by the very successfulinitiatives developed by MemberAssociations at national level. This was clearly stated in a reportCEMBUREAU submitted to the international climate talks in Marrakech in November 2001.

4 / 5

1 “The Greenhouse Gas Protocol - a corporate

accounting and reporting standard” by World

Business Council for Sustainable Development

and World Resources Institute.


THE OVERALL ECONOMIC CONTEXT

The year 2001 started with high hopes,despite the first signs of a slowdown in the US economy at the end of 2000,but ended in a deeper downturn than anticipated. By the end of 2001there was much uncertainty about the world economy; growth forecasts in industrialised countries were reviseddownwards. In the EU, the percentagegrowth of real GDP is estimated to havebeen limited to 1.5% in 2001, half of the growth recorded in 2000.

While some economists and marketanalysts saw signs of a quick recovery at the end of 2001, the majorityestimated that the road to recoverywould be long and slow, perhaps evenslower in Europe than in the US.

The difficult economic situation which emerged mid-2000 wasconsiderably aggravated by the terribleevents on 11 September and the resulting reactions of stock markets around the world.

The main effect of the terrorist attack has been widespread insecurity for bothhouseholds and business, triggering a “wait and see” attitude. This has beenone of the factors accounting for the reduction in world trade in 2001. This downturn is a significant macro-economic factor in the lower GDPgrowth in 2001, which will probablycontinue in 2002.

It is clear, however, that the recessionstarted before 11 September. In the US, for the first time in 10 years,gross industrial output fell significantlybetween the second and third quarter of 2001, by more than 1%in extrapolated annual terms.

Three main factors triggered the downturn: (1) soaring oil pricesbetween 1999 and 2000; (2) tightening of monetary policies during late 1999and 2000, particularly in the US;and (3) the implosion of over-valuedtechnology stocks. As one observer put it,“11 September was merely the coup de grâce”.

Fortunately, inflation, which hadreappeared in Euroland in 2000, came under control in 2001. Consumer prices increased by only 2.5%in the EU. This allowed central banks,particularly the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank (ECB), to lower interest rates. In the US, in contrast with Europe, monetary policywas not, however, the only tool.President Bush launched and maintaineda fiscal reform initiative aiming at triggering growth through lower taxes.This seems to have had some effects, as consumption by US householdsincreased by about 3% at the end of 2001, despite a fall by 1%in September.

All European countries were inevitablyaffected by the slowdown experiencedworldwide in 2001, but some havesuffered more than others.

Very significant variations in GDP couldbe seen between countries. Spain registered 2.8% growth and Ireland registered 5.5%, whilegrowth rates in Finland and in Germanydeclined slightly to 0.5% and 0.6%.

Germany was in fact in recession in the second half of the year. After a flatgrowth in the first half of the year,German GDP fell by 0.2% in the thirdquarter and by a further 0.3% in the finalquarter. Growth in 2001 is likely to be confined to 0.6%, rather than the 2% initially forecast. With a generalgovernment deficit of 2.7% of the GDPin 2001, Germany is not far from the maximum 3% allowed under the “European Stability Pact”.

It appears, however, that in Euroland as a whole, no negative economicgrowth was recorded in 2001 even for one quarter, let alone for threeconsecutive quarters, the usual measureused by European economists to definea recession.



2001 Construction Volume -

Breakdown by Sector*

Billion EUR 914

* CEMBUREAU minus Greece, Iceland,

Luxembourg, Turkey

Unemployment in Western Europe1

continued to decline in 2001: from 7.8%of the active population in 2000 to 7.5%in 2001.

In Central Europe2, the overall growthrate was at 2.5% in 2001; however,different countries were affecteddifferently by the overall economicslowdown.

The Czech Republic confirmed its recovery after a significant economiccrisis between 1998 and 1999 and showed a 3.5% growth rate. Poland, after strong economicperformances in 1999 and 2000, had a growth of only 1.5%. This reducedgrowth is predicted to continue for oneor two more years. The Slovak Republichad 2.9% growth, after two years of crisis, while Hungary maintained a healthy 4.5% growth in 2001, despite the impact of the world crisis.

In contrast to Western Europe, the unemployment rate in thesecountries increased from 13% in 2000 to 14.4% in 2001. This was due to a significant increase in Poland from(+15% in 2000 to +17.5% in 2001) and, to a lesser extent, the Slovak Republic’sunemployment rate, which reached18.9% in 2001. On the other hand,Hungary’s unemployment rate decreasedsubstantially in 2000, and a slightreduction of the percentage of unemployed was also witnessed in the Czech Republic.

Turkey went through another difficultyear trying to come to terms withinflation and with deterioration of publicfinances. A negative growth of 9.4%is expected for 2001, with - 6.1% inagriculture, - 7.5% in industry and - 7.4%in services. The main obstacle to growthin Turkey is a strict regulation of currenttransactions aimed at controlling deficits.This has restricted demand.

In Asia, Japan plunged into recession in 2001, with a contraction of 0.6%. Not unexpectedly, therefore,unemployment reached a locallysignificant 5% of the active population.There is no sign of recovery in the shortterm and a decrease in the strength of the yen could help the overalleconomic situation.

In contrast, the rest of Asia sawcontinued growth throughout 2001,albeit at a more limited pace than previously. Growth was registered in Vietnam (+6.5%), Indonesia (+3.3%), the Philippines (+3.2%) and Thailand(+1.6%); however, negative growthprevailed in Singapore (-2.2%) andMalaysia (-0.5%). India’s GDP grew by5.7% in 2001.

CEMBUREAU Annual Report 2001 6 / 7

20.0%

14.6%

22.9%

New non-residential

57.5%

New civil engineering

New residential

22.9%

42.5%

6.3%

13.3%

Residential

Civil engineering

Non-residential

Renovation & modernisation

1 EU excluding Greece and Luxembourg,

including Norway and Switzerland.2 The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the

Slovak Republic.


In Latin America3, 2001 proved a difficult year. The weighted averagegrowth rate fell from 4.2% in 2000 to0.2% in 2001. Unemployment increasedfrom 6.7% of the active population to7.6%. There were, however, significantvariations within the region.

In 2001, signs of the crisis in Argentinawere already evident. The economycrashed, while unemployment soared to over 18% of the active population. In Brazil, GDP growth fell from 4%in March 2001 to 0% in the second halfof the year, despite the fact that industrymaintained growth at nearly 8%. Overalleconomic activity in Brazil was reducedby some 2% in 2001 compared to 2000,but unemployment was reduced over the year.

Colombia’s economy held more or lesssteady from the previous year, althoughindustrial output fell to nearly 0% growth.Ecuador saw its growth increase from2.5% in 2000 to 5% in 2001, alongside a clear increase in industrial activity.Unemployment decreased by 2%. In Mexico, growth fell from 7% in 2000 toclose to 0% in 2001. Industrial activitydropped from 7% growth in 2000 to minus 4% in 2001. Venezuela’seconomy retained a steady growth,however, a decline in the oil sector wasregistered in 2001.

CEMENT AND CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITY

As construction activity usually followseconomic trends with a certain time lag,the sector in Western Europe managed a relatively healthy 2001, particularly inthe earlier part of the year. This helpedto ensure satisfactory cement sales in 2001, despite the state of the economy.

However, as the economic situationdeteriorated throughout the year,weakened confidence and lowerinvestment growth meant an overalllower construction output than in previous years.

According to Euroconstruct estimates,total construction output in WesternEurope remained flat in 2001 with only0.1% growth compared to 2.7%in the previous year. The main reason for this decline in growth rate in WesternEurope was the significant drop in the new residential sector (-4.7%) and the recession in the Germanconstruction industry, which still accountsfor 24% of the total Western Europeanconstruction value.

Construction activity decreased overall in Eastern Europe by 2.2%, largely dueto a 7.8% decline in the Polishconstruction sector. Nevertheless, a strong performance was recorded in the Czech Republic (+11.5%) and in Hungary (+7%). The Slovak Republicconfirmed its recovery with 2.5% growth.

Euroconstruct forecasts that WesternEurope’s market should recover slightlyin 2002 and 2003. However, in 2001,Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,Germany, the Netherlands and Norwayhave all seen their construction activitydecreasing. With the exception of Spainand Italy, which registered growth of 5.1% and 4.1% respectively, all othercountries registered a moderate increasein construction output. After severalyears of steady growth in the constructionsector in Ireland, the country is nowseeing the first signs of a slowdown, with only 1.5% growth in 2001.


Cement 2001

in CEMBUREAU Countries

Million tonnes

� European Union

� CEMBUREAU

Production Exports Consumption Imports

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

3 Latin America refers to the sum of the GDP

weighted average of Argentina, Brazil, Chile,

Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela.


Cement consumption decreases in CEMBUREAU countries

Cement consumption in CEMBUREAUcountries dropped by 4%. Consumptionin the EU Member States saw a lesssignificant decline of 0.5%. That said, fiveof the fifteen EU Member Statesincreased their consumption by varyingdegrees, three stabilised, while theremaining seven all registered decreases.

Spain increased its consumption by a healthy 9.7%, followed by an increaseof 6.6% in Sweden and 5.1% in Greece.Germany and the Netherlands registeredquite significant declines of 13%and 8% respectively.

In CEMBUREAU countries outside theEU, only Estonia and Switzerlandregistered increases in theirconsumption, at 7.5% and 6.5%respectively. The Czech Republicstabilised consumption after a longperiod of crisis. Poland and Turkeydecreased consumption by 20%.Hungary, Norway and the SlovakRepublic decreased consumption tovarying degrees between 0.9% to 2.5%.

Economic growth in GDP terms inAustria was recorded at 1.3% in 2001,representing a slowdown from previousyears. Total construction outputdecreased by 3% and cementconsumption dropped by 1.5%. The most pronounced decline was in the new residential sector (-9.3%),while the renovation sector alsowitnessed a significant slowdown. A brighter outlook is forecast for the Austrian economy in 2002;it is hoped that the construction sectorwill follow suit by 2003.

Belgium experienced a sharp 3%deceleration in economic growth in 2001, a 3.7% drop in total constructionoutput and a 6.4% decrease in cementconsumption. The main source ofconstruction work was in residential andnon-residential renovation and modernisation, a segment whichconsumes less cement than newconstruction but which becomes moreand more relevant. The Belgian economyis expected to recover only gradually,starting in the second half of 2002.

Total construction output in the Czech Republic increased by a healthy11.5% in 2001, bolstered by a goodnumber of new civil engineering projects, up some 18.7% on the previous year.Cement consumption saw a marginal0.1% increase on the previous year.Despite an increase of 3.6% of the GDP,


CEMBUREAU Trade

Cement & Clinker 1977-2001

Million tonnes

� Exports

� Imports

20021987 1990 1993 1996 1999

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

20011977 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cement Consumption

1987-2002

Million tonnes

� European Union

� CEMBUREAU

European Union CEMBUREAU

this increase of cement consumptionremained limited as a result of the absence, contrary to expectations,of public investment in roads, underwaysand environmental applications.

Only 1.5% growth in the Danisheconomy was registered in 2001.Cement consumption fell by 4%,alongside total construction output,which decreased by 3.8%. There was a stagnation on new civil engineeringworks; the only increased outputregistered was in the non-residentialsector. Conditions in the Danisheconomy are forecast to improve in 2002. A good increase in housingstarts is expected during 2002, with further growth in this sectorexpected for the years ahead.


7.8%

5.4%

2.6%

1.0%

3.6%

11.4%

4.7%

0.5%

Other America

37.0%

USA

CIS

Other Europe

Other CEMBUREAU

European Union

Africa

Oceania

15.5%

63.0%

36.9%

6.1%

4.5%

Other Asia

China

India

Japan

Asia

The French economy displayed one ofthe best performances among the largerEU economies in 2001, with GDPgrowing by 2.1%. Total constructionoutput increased by 1.5%. However,cement consumption showed only a 0.1% growth rate. While new civilengineering works increased by 2.5%, the exceptional level of repair activityafter the storms in December 1999 has declined since the beginning of 2001 and showed only a smallincrease. Work in the new non-residentialconstruction sector saw a relativelysignificant increase at 7%.

A downturn in domestic demand,combined with the deterioration in theglobal economy, led Germany very closeto economic recession in the thirdquarter of 2001. Total constructionoutput dropped by 5.6%. Civilengineering works were also hit, with a 4% decrease in new civilengineering. Activity in both the newresidential and new non-residentialconstruction sectors was also on the decline, while a flat change wasregistered in all repair and maintenancesectors. Consequently, cementconsumption dropped by 13%.

The Greek economy remained relativelystrong over 2001. This was accompaniedby a 5% increase in cement consumptionin 2001, which can be attributed largelyto the boost in construction activityneeded to prepare for the next OlympicGames. A 3% growth is expected in 2002, well above the Euroland average.

Cement consumption in Estonia(Associate Member of CEMBUREAU)increased by 6.9% in 2001, with totalconstruction output growing by 5%after a record increase of 15% in 2000.The civil engineering sector was the strongest motor of constructionactivity during last year.

The economy in Finland registered only0.5% growth in 2001, following a healthy5.7% increase in 2000. However, as the domestic markets continued togrow, the decline in construction activitywas limited to 1% in 2001 and the decline in cement consumptionto 3.8%. Construction’s share of GDP is healthy and no collapse is expected. Non-residential construction output and repair and maintenance work in boththe non-residential and residentialsectors increased in 2001.


2001 World Cement Production by Region

1.69 billion tonnes

20011996 1997 1998 1999 2000

CEMBUREAU

Other Europe

CIS

America

Africa

Asia

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Oceania

World Cement Production by Region

Evolution 1996 - 2001

Index 1996 = 100


CEM I - Portland

CEM V - Composite Cement & Others

CEM IV - Pozzolanic

CEM III - Blast furnace / slag

Portland-slag

Portland-silica fume

Portland-pozzolana

Portland-fly ash

CEM II

Portland-burnt shale

Portland-limestone

Portland-composite

Unspecified

34.2%

3.4%

5.0%

5.5%

51.9% 5.4%

0.073%

2.9%

6.2%

0.2%

18.9%

16.8%

1.4%

CEM II

Although slower than in previous years,the Hungarian economy still performedwell in 2001. Cement consumptiondecreased by 1%; however, a relativelyhealthy 7% increase in total constructionoutput was registered. Growth wasrecorded in all the main sectors of construction activity and thisis expected to continue over the nexttwo years, particularly in the newresidential construction and civilengineering sectors.

The year 2001 marked a turnaround in the Icelandic economy. Although GDPgrew by 3%, national expenditurecontracted by 3%, with a further declineforecast for 2002. Both privateconsumption and investment alsodeclined over 2001. This is expected to balance Iceland’s budgetary deficit.Cement consumption in Icelanddecreased marginally by 0.6% in 2001.There was a large increase in housinginvestment, which is forecast to increasefurther in 2002.

Economic growth in Ireland slowed fromover 10% in 2000 to around 5.5%in 2001, after seven years of continuousgrowth. The international and, morespecifically, the US slowdown affectedthe economy early in 2001. Having recorded phenomenal expansionfrom 1994-2000, the construction sectoris now going through a period of downward readjustment. Total construction output only increasedby 1.6% in 2001, while cementconsumption went up by a mere 0.3%.This slowdown in the Irish economy is expected to continue through 2002,although an upturn is expected in 2003.

The Italian industrial sector is still in recession and the GDP was estimatedto have shrunk by 0.9% in 2001. There is no improvement forecast for the immediate future. Nevertheless,cement consumption went up by 3.1%in 2001, alongside a 4.1% increase in construction activity. While increaseswere registered in all constructionsectors, growth was strongest in the newresidential construction sector (+8.5%).New civil engineering works will beimportant in the coming years, in line with an extensive infrastructureprogramme recently presented by the government.

In Luxembourg, exports and the financial services sector were hitsignificantly in 2001, causing outputgrowth to more than halve, to anestimated 4%. Cement consumptionincreased by 1.3%.

In the Netherlands, the economydecelerated sharply during 2001 as a result of the slowdown in the worldeconomy and weaker consumer demand.Growth is expected to remaininsignificant in 2002, but the economymay show signs of recovery in 2003.Total construction output was down 2%in 2001 and cement consumption fell by8%. The renovation sector was mostactive.

In 2001, Norway registered a 1% declinein construction output and a 2.5%decrease in cement consumption. New residential construction was the most active sector, with a 7.6%increase on the previous year’s output.All other sectors registered a decrease in activity. A period of stabilisation in the construction sector is expected for 2002, with a slow recovery starting in 2003.


Poland’s economy in 2001 saw a significant set back, compared to performances in previous years. It saw its growth fall by 1.5% in 2001,after a decrease of 4% in 2000. This helps explain a 7.8% decrease in construction output and consequentfall of 20.4% in cement consumption.The decrease in construction activity wasspread across all sectors. No recovery is predicted before 2003.

Domestic Deliveries by Cement Types

CEMBUREAU 2000 - 233.95 million tonnes


The estimated annual growth rate of around 1.6% in 2001 represented a significant slowdown for the Portuguese economy. This decline is forecast to continue in 2002, with a recovery forecast for 2003.Total construction output increased onlymarginally in 2001 (+1.7%). The bestperformance was in the repair and maintenance sector, up 16%. This sector is expected to continue itsgood performance over 2002. In 2001 cement consumption went up by1.9% over 2000.

Although the Slovak Republicexperienced 2.9% growth in 2001, total construction output increased by 2.5% and cement consumption,however, decreased by 0.9%. However,the construction sector is still recoveringfrom a crisis between 1998 and 1999.The recovery that started in 2000 has been marked by the implementationof an extensive infrastructure programmeand to new non-residential construction,particularly shopping centres and industrial parks, financed by foreigninvestors.

The Spanish economy continued to experience higher growth than the Euroland average in 2001, driven byrelatively healthy consumer spendingand a strong expanding constructionsector. Total construction outputincreased by 5.1%, helping to accountfor the healthy 9.1% increase in cementconsumption in 2001. The civil engineering sector had a particularly good year, thanks toinvestment in public works.

In Switzerland, the economyexperienced a sharp deceleration during2001, reflecting the global slowdownand the adverse impact of a strongcurrency on exporters. Nevertheless,Switzerland increased cementconsumption by 7.5% and saw totalconstruction output grow by 1.3%in 2001. The largest growth was in newcivil engineering works (+8.2%), while in the construction sector, non-residentialoutput saw 7.5% growth.

Sweden was also affected by the globaleconomic downturn. However, total construction output increased by 2.9% in 2001 and Sweden managedto maintain relatively healthy levels of cement consumption, with a 6.6%increase. This was probably accountedfor by a significant increase in newresidential construction at 19.9%, which was necessary due to a lack of residential flats and, in particular, smaller flats.


Turkey went through another difficultyear trying to come to terms withinflation and with deterioration of publicfinances. A negative economic growth of 9.4% is seen for 2001, and thereforeTurkish cement consumption went througha dramatic decline, with a 20% decrease.

In comparison with other majoreconomies, the United Kingdomcontinued to perform relatively well in 2001 due to the resilience of domesticdemand. However, cement consumptionis estimated to have decreased by 2.2%in 2001, despite an increase in totalconstruction output by 3.4%. The only decline on last year’sconstruction performance was registeredin new residential construction at 3.6%.


THE EUROPEAN UNIONUnsteady progresstowards enlargement and goals-based reform

In 2001 the European Union (EU) madeprogress, but only haltingly, towardsstructural reform and enlargement. The groundwork for the future-anenlarged Union operating closer to itscitizens-has been laid, but greater visionand political will are needed if this greathistorical experiment is to maintain its momentum and relevance.

Efforts were made, alas in vain, to revive the so-called “Lisbon Process”.This initiative, in accordance with aDeclaration made at the Lisbon Summitin March 2000, established the goal thatthe European economy should becomethe most competitive and dynamicknowledge-based economy in the world.

Europe’s business community, includingCEMBUREAU, was delighted with this more target-oriented approach.Business hoped it would lead to moreresponsible governance in establishingthe economic conditions under whichbusiness may prosper and jobs becreated.

However, these hopes were dashed as successive Council Presidencies failedto turn the Lisbon Process into reality. In this respect, 2001 may at best be seenas a year of transition. Attention will nowfocus on the Spanish Presidency of the EU in the first half of 2002 to breakthe inertia.

The message voiced by a growingnumber of economic operators in 2001was: the EU decision-making process is not able to deliver the promise of a more efficient EU and does not providean enabling regulatory framework for growth and jobs. Criticisms werenumerous and focused particularly onthe operation of the Council of Ministersas an inefficient and opaque institution.

CEMBUREAU added its voice to anappeal from the Society of EuropeanAffairs Professionals (SEAP) at the end of the year for more transparency and openness from the Institutions,particularly from the Council of Ministers.While recognising that certaindocuments relating to public security,military matters and competition issuesmust remain confidential, EuropeanAffairs Professionals question how, for example, the outcome of finaldiscussions on a draft Directive can betreated as confidential.

The adoption of new legislation in May2001 on access to documents of the Institutions was a step in the rightdirection. Restrictions on access will nowbe judged on a “harm” test. Officials would ask themselves whetherdivulging the requested documentwould harm the public interest. Access can be refused where disclosure“would seriously undermine theInstitution’s decision-making process”.This Regulation entered into force on 3 December 2001. While the Regulationis a step in the right direction, it remainsto be seen how it will work in practice,given the scope for interpretation andthe onerous official channels for accessing Council documents, which are bureaucratic and can take upto three weeks.

These new moves on transparency can be seen in the overall context of newplans for European “Governance”, best defined as the processes andpractices that affect how powers are exercised. Finding new forms of European Governance is one of the strategic priorities of the EuropeanCommission’s President Romano Prodi.The motivation for the initiative was a perceived increasing distance betweenEU’s politics and its Institutions on the one hand, and its citizens on the other. Low turnout in EuropeanParliamentary elections shows an increasingly disengaged populace.

The plans for reforming the governanceof the Union include reforming the operation of its Institutions. Five principles are to be applied:openness, participation, accountability,effectiveness and coherence. It remainsto be seen whether the bold reformsrequired can be carried through, given the sustained high level of politicalit requires.




CEMBUREAU did not wait for the enlargement to progress at EU levelbefore welcoming new Members fromcountries on the accession list. The Czech Republic, Poland, Hungaryand the Slovak Republic are already FullCEMBUREAU Members and Estonia is an Associate Member. It is importantfor CEMBUREAU to stay ahead of the game in taking in other countriesapplying to join the EU. If CEMBUREAUwere not represented in one or some of the new Member States, its influencein the European legislation and decision-making process may bediminished. CEMBUREAU must payattention to the enlargement issue in order to maintain full representation of the cement industry in all MemberStates of the EU in the future.

The reality of enlargement isapproaching fast but, at the same time,EU leaders seem to hesitate, in the faceof a largely indifferent public opinion, as to what Europe should look like in thefuture. Some are nostalgic about timeslong past rather than enthusiasticallyenvisioning the future. It was only in the very last month of 2001 that hopeswere raised for a potential breakthrough:the convening of a “Convention on the Future of Europe” by the LaekenSummit.

On a more positive note, it is clear thatpreparation for the launch of the Euro in notes and coins was well orchestrated,as was proved in the very first days of 2002.

1 Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,

Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,

the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia.

These plans come hand in hand with the necessity for reform brought aboutby the enlargement process. The decision-making process has beencriticised for its inability to adopt the changes made necessary byenlargement. Visionary goals have beensacrificed for short-term politicalconsiderations. In this respect, 2001 suffered from the unhelpfulcompromise of the Nice Treaty agreed in December 2000.

Despite the ups and downs of 2001, the enlargement process did progresswithin the EU Institutions. In December,the EU agreed on the 10 countries1 to bein the first wave of accession in 2004.This will coincide with the election of the next European Parliament.


Talking to institutions and governments

Although information on what is happening within the EU Institutions isincreasingly available and the Institutionsthemselves have taken significant stepstowards transparency, this does noteliminate the need for daily dialoguewith EU officials.

Throughout the year, CEMBUREAU wasable to have one-on-one discussions with many officials within the EuropeanCommission by participating in workinggroups and consultation meetings on important policy initiatives includingclimate change, environmental liability,integrated product policy, air quality and waste. CEMBUREAU enjoyed a particularly close co-operation with the Commission’s Enterprise DirectorateGeneral in 2001, particularly with thoseofficials charged with developing policiesrelating to the construction industry.Excellent co-operation was experiencedin looking at the implementation of the cement standards.

The European Parliament requiredcareful attention throughout 2001. Given its recent increase in power (in 1999, when it gained the right of vetoon the majority of legislative and otherpolicy proposals) many observersthought that a “coming of age” of thatInstitution might be witnessed. This increase in power, which theParliament itself fought hard to obtain,brings with it a greater degree of responsibility, particularly in light of the multitude of technical, scientificand economic implications of itsdecisions.

A case in point was the debate on legislation to protect workers fromexposure to mechanical vibrations. This would restrict the length of timeworkers may operate vibrating machineryduring a typical eight-hour shift. The Parliament approved, by a largemajority, exposure values which aretechnically unachievable. These wouldhave had disastrous consequences for a number of sectors includingconstruction, quarrying, engineering and mining, because they would havelimited the operation of many types of machinery to time periods of betweentwo to four hours per day per driver.

This vote left many in the industryquestioning how seriously the Parliamentwas really taking its new responsibilities,given that it had ignored the prevailingconsensus on the serious implications of unfeasible values. Thankfully, the lesson from the vibrations episodeappeared to have been learned in somequarters, as a vote on protecting workersfrom exposure to noise, despite initialindications, had a much more rationaloutcome.


WORKING TO UNITEINDUSTRY’S VOICE IN EUROPE AND AROUND THE GLOBEImportant relationships are developed to helpindustry tackle future global problems in an efficient and mutuallybeneficial way

CEMBUREAU continued throughout2001 to build on and develop its networkof contacts in Europe and further afield,inside and outside of governmentinstitutions. In view of the inherentlytransitory nature of the political world,this work is continuous because newentities, new faces and new personalitiesare always appearing on the scene.

CEMBUREAU still emphasises thepersonal touch in everyday dealings.While new communications technologieshave been positive for businessefficiency, meeting people anddiscussing issues face to face, wherepossible, is still a more satisfactory way to do business. Therefore, in 2001CEMBUREAU successfully developedexisting relationships and establishednew ones, both in the course of currentwork and with an eye to strategicpartnerships for addressing issues on the horizon.


CEMBUREAU enjoyed several fruitfulhigh-level discussions in 2001. The “Meet the PresidenciesProgramme”, which has been operatingsince the Portuguese Presidency in the first half of 2000, is working well.Therefore, in 2001, important meetingswere held with the Swedish Presidency in January and with the BelgianPresidency in November. As CEMBUREAU is followingdevelopments regarding the taxation of energy products very closely, this debate has tended to be one of the main talking points during thesemeetings.

In preparation for the Spanish Presidencyin 2002, CEMBUREAU and OFICEMEN,the Spanish cement association, visited the Spanish Presidency team in Brussels in October 2001. Again, the taxation of energy productswas of first importance. NationalAssociations have an important role in communicating concerns directly totheir governments before Ministersdepart to make decisions in Brussels.Therefore, it is important thatCEMBUREAU and the Associations workever more closely to benefit the industryas a whole.

Laying the factual foundations

In the course of CEMBUREAU’scommunications with the EU Institutions,CEMBUREAU needs to support itspositions and arguments with solidfactual and statistical information. This can then be supplied directly toofficials involved in preparatory researchand the drafting of proposals for legislation. This is essential to the effective work of CEMBUREAU.Although CEMBUREAU (afterconsultation with the EuropeanCommission) reached an agreement with Members on the compilation and provision of statisticsin 2000, it is still suffering from a lack of data. CEMBUREAU will continue tomake efforts to improve this situation.

CEMBUREAU’s commitment to basing its positions on verifiable facts remainsrooted in strict adherence to the Societyof European Affairs Professionals’ rules(SEAP) of professional ethics. Each individual member of CEMBUREAU’s staff involved in publicaffairs work committed to abiding bythese rules two years ago and remaincommitted to these principles.

Harnessing industry expertise

Over 2001, European CommissionPresident Romano Prodi placedemphasis on the need to connect withthe citizens of Europe, some of whommay feel disenfranchised from the decision-making bodies in Brussels.Mr. Prodi’s Commission is thereforethinking of ways to connect and establishlinks with local governments. That way,the Institutions can also be sure that the rules decided at EU level are understood and implemented.

Similarly, CEMBUREAU has built up a network of experts from within the cement industry who can carry the industry’s message and give the necessary explanations to officials at local and national levels. In turn, these officials may sometimes have a willing ear in Brussels as the politicallandscape turns to favouring moreparticipation from the grassroots.

Still focusing on decentralisation,CEMBUREAU increased efforts during2001 to stay in closer contact withMembers, especially the national cementassociations. CEMBUREAU’s mainchannels for so doing include regularcountry visits and the two annualmultilateral meetings of the Membersand Associate Member. The main benefitof such interaction is that it allows the industry to present a united,therefore, stronger front, on many issues.Moreover, this interaction also provesinvaluable as a way for CEMBUREAU to understand specific needs at nationallevel.



CEMBUREAU also held importantmeetings or contacts with cementproducer and association in Latvia andRomania in 2001, with a view towelcoming them as Associate Membersin the near future.

Contacts with other cementassociations around the globe

Contacts with CEMBUREAU’scounterparts all over the worlddeepened and matured in 2001 despitethe difficulties created by 11 September.The annual meeting of FICEM(“Federación Interamericana delCemento”) in Latin America had to becancelled, which was a disappointmentto all people from the cement industry.

Nevertheless, 2001 was an exciting yearin terms of developing the global face of the cement industry. In April 2001,CEMBUREAU’s President Dr. Jürgen Loselaunched his “New Orleans Appeal” to set up International Cement IndustryNetwork. This idea was well received.This would lead to more regular and systematic meetings withassociations including the PortlandCement Association (PCA) and the American Portland Cement Alliance(APCA) in the US, FICEM in LatinAmerica, the Cement Association of Canada (CAC), the Japan CementAssociation (JCA) and the Cement & Concrete Association of Australia(CCAA) and the Cement IndustryFederation (CIF) in Australia. Global issues such as climate change andthe use of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) in the cement and concrete industriesrequire responses from an industry co-operating on a global level.

CEMBUREAU played an active part in the development of a very importantstudy-Towards a Sustainable CementIndustry-which was co-ordinated by the World Business Council forSustainable Development (WBCSD).CEMBUREAU’s participation in consultation meetings provided an interesting channel for developingand deepening relationships within the industry on a global scale.CEMBUREAU was also delighted to provide the WBCSD with advice and information on various aspects of the draft and study.

Important industry alliances in Brussels

CEMBUREAU is directly strengthened in carrying out its mission of influencingEuropean policy development throughco-operation with other sectors.CEMBUREAU is actively involved in working groups in organisations suchas UNICE (Union for Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe), CEPMC (Council of EuropeanProducers of Materials for Construction)and, of course, the EuropeanConstruction Forum.

Close contacts with other Europeanindustry associations are an everydaypractice. This enhances the performanceof all the associations through exchangeof information and experiences, and enhances effectiveness in responding to issues where varioussectors share a common interest. Good examples are the taxation of energy, environmental liability, the use of LCA and emissions trading.

In 2001 CEMBUREAU developedparticularly close relations with CEPMC,and started close co-operation on monitoring issues. CEMBUREAU was delighted to participate in a veryinteresting CEPMC seminar in May 2001devoted to Life Cycle Analysis, a theme echoed in CEMBUREAU’sGeneral Assembly.

Of particular significance in 2001 was the finalisation of the Life Cycle Analysisof ten selected functional units in concrete. This was completed by the end of the year within the plannedbudget. No doubt this tool will providean educational opportunity to all the associations involved in the work; it is certainly fundamental toCEMBUREAU’s work on products and marketing.



LEGAL AFFAIRSCEMBUREAU’s membership policy approved by the European Commission

CEMBUREAU revised and updated itsmembership policy in 2001. This clarifiedthe principles governing admissions of new Members in order to facilitateaccession of potential new Members in light of EU enlargement.

It was decided, as a matter of precaution,to notify the updated policy to the European Commission (DG Competition), following approval of the new membership policy by the General Assembly.

In October 2001, the EuropeanCommission issued a “Comfort Letter”confirming that the updated policy didnot give rise to any objection on theCommission’s part.


The satisfaction of successfullycompleting such a big project wasshared by all those involved-BIBM(“Bureau International du BétonManufacturé”), ERMCO (European ReadyMixed Concrete Association), EFCA (European Federation of ConcreteAdmixtures Associations), EISA (European Independent SteelworksAssociation) and UEPG (European Aggregates Association).

As a result, important alliances havebeen strengthened and CEMBUREAUlooks forward to good co-operation on projects of mutual benefit in future.Already a decision has been taken by BIBM, CEMBUREAU and ERMCO to join forces on other issues such as fireperformance and the Eurocodes.

MR. PATRICK NODÉ-LANGLOIS

Chairman of Standing

Committee 1 “ Industry”


Production, Environment and Energy Issues

Standing Committee 1 “Industry”continued to work apace with both EU and international policy-makers.

The cement industry conservesnatural resources by using wasteinstead

The drive for European and globalsustainable development is unrelenting.Some may say that it is moving tooslowly, but no one can deny that it is a permanent feature of the EU’s politicalagenda following the meeting of EUHeads of State and Government in Göteborg in June 2001. What doesthis mean for the cement industry? The answer can be found in the Commission’s proposal for a SixthEnvironmental Action Programme,proposed in January 2001 and entitled“Our Future, Our Choice”.

The Commission’s proposal emphasisedits intention to look more closely at the sustainable use of natural resourcesand management of waste. Given the squeeze on using virgin rawmaterials, controls on mining andquarrying, and attempts to halt declinesin biodiversity by setting aside hugeareas of EU territory as “speciallyprotected”, the cement industry needsother sources of raw materials.

Fortunately the cement industry startedlooking at these issues some 20 yearsago. Using waste as a raw material notonly provides a source for manufacture, it also solves waste disposal problems.The cement industry can thus make a significant contribution to sustainabledevelopment. Many different types of waste are valorised in cement kilns:used tyres, rubber, paper, oils, wood,sludge of various types and animal mealto name but a few. The non-combustibleparts of the waste replace raw materials.Using waste in this way saves both fossilfuels and primary raw materials.

CEMBUREAU turns challenge to opportunity with newlegislation on waste incinerationby valorising waste as a new source of energy

A good part of 2001 was devoted to formulating a new and very ambitiousAction Plan to increase the use of wasteas fuels and as raw materials in cementkilns and to promote a positive view on valorisation of waste. This wasapproved by the Board in December2001. The context for developing the Action Plan was Directive2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste,which entered into force on 28 December 2000.


CEMBUREAU’S STANDING COMMITTEES AND PROJECT GROUPSEXPERIENCE EVER CLOSER CO-OPERATION

Regulators at EU level are broadeningtheir focus from production processes to a more holistic view of products and their impacts throughout theirlifecycles, particularly with regard topublic health and the environment. This was seen clearly in 2000 and is a trend that is expected to continue.

As a consequence, CEMBUREAU’soperational structures may need to beoverhauled or adapted to maintain fulleffectiveness. CEMBUREAU realised in 2000 that what had for a long timebeen a logical allocation of issuesbetween Standing Committee 1“Industry” and Standing Committee 2“Products and Marketing” as a result of a changing regulatory environment is not so obvious.

There is a need to intensify co-operationbetween the two Committees. The two Standing Committees have onejoint meeting per year. This formalisedrecognition of the need for closer co-operation has instilled a new spiritinto the work of the Project Groupsunder both Committees. The co-operation flourished during 2001.A joint Project Group was establisheddevoted to health and safety issues in relation to both manufacture of cement and products. It reportsdirectly to both Standing Committees.


This challenging piece of legislationallows the cement industry to continuedeveloping the use of waste in cementkilns. It will also provide a strong rebuttalof any criticisms levelled at the cementindustry for burning waste. This isbecause the cement industry will be regulated at EU level for hazardous as well as non-hazardous waste, and the law in practical terms is notdifferent from that applicable to incinerators.

CEMBUREAU’s Action Plan aims to assistcompanies in both the start-up phase of using waste and later on in furtherdeveloping the use of waste as fuel. It is a proactive approach which identifiesthe issues associated with increasing theuse of waste. These issues include accessto waste, cost of waste, limits to use,permitting procedures and the publicimage of the cement industry. The ActionPlan will be implemented along fourbroad lines: communication andeducation, information and knowledge,other tools relating to permittingprocesses and procedures, and regulatory affairs.

This Plan provides a solid vision for futuredevelopment of the cement industry,enabling it to contribute to sustainabledevelopment by ensuring optimalsolutions for the EU’s increasing wasteproblems. It requires participation and full commitment from all players in the industry.

The cement industry had an interestingrole in particular waste managementproblems that arose unexpectedlytowards the end of 2000. In November 2000, the EuropeanCommission proposed to ban, for a six-month period, the use of animalmeal in the feed of farm animalsthroughout the EU. The governments ofFrance and Belgium turned to the cement industry to ask for help by burning such animal meal in cementkilns. It was proven in these two countriesas well as in Switzerland that this couldbe done safely because of the very hightemperatures in cement kilns.

The threat of energy taxation was not dispelled in 2001

While there was no real progress with the discussions of a 1997 proposalon taxation of energy products,CEMBUREAU continued to keep a watchful eye on this issue, in case a breakthrough became possible. The Swedish and Belgian Presidencies, in the first and second halves of 2001respectively, continued to lead talks on the dossier. CEMBUREAU, therefore,met officials from both Presidencies to obtain assurances of transparency and to explain the particularvulnerabilities of the cement industry.

CEMBUREAU, along with other industryalliances, remained prepared to supportrejection of the proposal if required.CEMBUREAU has explained to the Member States that the proposed taxcould never be neutral for the cementindustry due to the fact that it is at oncevery energy-intensive and not labour-intensive. (The Commission claimsthat the proposed tax will be neutral by reducing taxes on labour whileincreasing tax on energy). CEMBUREAUexplained to representatives from the respective Presidencies the effortsthat the cement industry has made overthe last forty years to reduce energyconsumption. Moreover, the industry is now very close to the limit of what canbe achieved through technicalimprovements and rationalisation.Therefore, if energy taxes are imposed,the European cement industry will find it hard to remain competitive given its current sensitivity to exports fromneighbouring countries outside the EU.

Climate Change: After years of political and scientificuncertainty, the Kyoto Protocolwas agreed as the roadmap for the future

On receiving the go-ahead from the international community followingsuccessful talks in Bonn in July 2001, the EU began preparations in earnest for ratifying the Kyoto Protocol towardsthe end of 2001. The Protocol requiresan 8% reduction in greenhouse gasemissions by 2012, compared to 1990levels.



The first half of 2001 was spent finalisingand concluding work on the EuropeanClimate Change Programme (ECCP). This Programme brought togetherrepresentatives of the Commission and national governments, as well as representatives from industry and environmental organisations. It was charged with the task of identifying and developing an EUstrategy to implement the KyotoProtocol. CEMBUREAU participatedactively in the working groups under the Programme.

Nevertheless, political uncertainty stillsurrounded the future of the Protocolright up to the following set of international talks, in Marrakech in lateOctober and early November 2001. A new administration in the UScompounded this uncertainty. The KyotoProtocol’s survival depended onparticipation by countries like Japan,Canada, Australia and Russia. They agreed, during the talks in Marrakech, to ratify the Protocol, after having obtained some concessionsto which the EU reluctantly agreed.

In order to show political leadership, the Commission presented its proposalsfor implementing the Protocol, as decided under the European ClimateChange Programme, in October 2001,before the talks began in Marrakech.These included: a proposal for a Directive on emissions trading, a proposal for a Decision on theratification of the Kyoto Protocol and a Communication outlining an EU plan to implement the Protocol.

Certain now that work on implementingthe Protocol would begin in 2002,CEMBUREAU Members agreed in December 2001 on how best to react.The cement industry has much work to do in ensuring that regulators providefor cost-effective, flexible instrumentswith which climate change obligationsmay be met. Voluntary agreements are vital in this regard, as they offer the flexibility that industry needs to bestexploit its available range of abatementmethods. Although some movement was expected in 2001 on defining the framework for the operation of suchagreements, not much progress was made. The cement industry, in the meantime, has been able to provereal results from similar commitmentsundertaken at national level.CEMBUREAU submitted to the Marrakech Conference an overviewof voluntary commitments to reduce CO2

emissions undertaken in Belgium,France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

The continued reluctance of EUregulators to tackle other significantsources of CO2 is also a cause for concern. Although the Commissionproposed legislation on energy efficiencyin buildings, it is still not clear howseriously the potential for reducing CO2

emissions from this source is beingtaken. The cement industry has alreadybeen forced by high energy prices to reduce its energy consumption by about 30% over the past twenty years.This means that there is little room for further reducing emissions throughincreased efficiency. On the other hand,if the use of waste as an alternative fueland a raw material in an environmentallysafe manner is supported, then there issignificant potential for global CO2

savings, not to mention conservation ofnatural resources.

The European Commissioncontinues in its quest to empower“civil society” with increasedinformation and publicparticipation in decision-making

In 2001 industry had to report to nationalauthorities on emissions of up to 50 substances. Member States werethen to have submitted this informationto the European Commission for the firstedition of the European PollutantEmissions Register (EPER). This firstregister will be published in July 2003.



New national emissions “ceilings”agreed and groundwork laid for integrated air quality strategy

A Directive on national emissions“ceilings” for sulphur dioxide (SO2),nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) and ammonia (NH3)was adopted in 2001. These “ceilings”mean the total amount of eachsubstance which may be emitted from all sources. Member States are requiredto draw up programmes for compliancewith these ceilings by 2002 and to honour their obligations by 2010.

Parliament and Council had difficultyagreeing the levels of the ceilings.Parliament, backed by the EuropeanCommission, sought to impose muchlower ceilings than many Member Stateshad agreed to in a Protocol to the 1979Geneva Convention on Long-rangeTransboundary Air Pollution. In the end,Member States managed to maintaintheir original position. The lower ceilingssought by Parliament and theCommission are to be included in the Directive as “indicative”, and will be reconsidered in a review in 2004. While the choice of how to meetthese ceilings will be left to MemberStates, it cannot be ruled out that thecement industry will be further hit withstricter limits on NOx emissions.


Nothing will prevent environmentalgroups from using the information in this register to draw up “black lists” of polluters. In addition, members of thepublic will be able to compare emissionsfrom individual facilities, industrialsectors or countries. Governments willalso use the information to monitorprogress made by industry in meetingenvironmental targets imposed by national or international agreementsor protocols.

On the international front, seriouspreparations for an instrument to implement the 1998 AarhusConvention on access to information,public participation in decision-makingand access to justice in environmentalmatters got underway. Meetings wereheld in March, July and December 2001.The aim is to approve a legal instrumenton pollutant release and transfermechanisms in 2003. This register maycover even more substances than thosecovered by the European one and willalmost certainly oblige industry to collectand publish information on wastequantities and disposal. Whatever is agreed at international level will almostcertainly provide the blueprint for furtherextension and development of the European register.


This review, along with many otherDirectives on air quality, would be co-ordinated under the Commission’snew Clean Air for Europe Programme(CAFE). This work will focus onparticulates and ozone as priorities. The details of this new Programme wereannounced in a CommissionCommunication of May 2001. The Programme will bring togetherrelevant experts in a series of workinggroup meetings. It will involve technicalanalysis and policy development and will lead to the adoption of an overall strategy on air quality.CEMBUREAU will participate in theseworking groups where appropriate,emphasising that the emission limitvalues in the new Directive on the incineration of waste are alreadyenough of a challenge for the Europeancement industry.

The legal environment: Proposalon liability for environmentaldamage more balanced thanearlier drafts; new product safetylegislation agreed

It was expected that the EuropeanCommission would present a proposal in 2001 for a Directive on liability forenvironmental damage. In the end, the proposal emerged from theCommission in January 2002 as a morebalanced text than what had been hintedat in prior consultation papers.

Many of industry’s comments wereindeed reflected in the final proposal.Industry had asked the Commission to base the proposal for a Directive on public rather than civil law. The Commission slowly came around to this way of thinking, in light of national“trends” to address soil contamination or water pollution through public lawsystems. This means that nationalgovernments have primary responsibilityfor preventing or restoring environmentaldamage and for recovering costs (within five years). However, the proposalwould also grant rights to interestedparties or environmental organisations to request national authorities to takeaction. They may also challenge anyaction or inaction of a national authoritywith respect to its obligations.

Industry maintained throughout the consultation process that personalinjury and damage to goods andproperty (so-called “traditional damage”)should not be within the scope of the proposal. The change of approachto public law showed that theCommission finally accepted that traditional damage is adequatelycovered by national civil liability laws.The Commission conceded that therewas no real need for EU action on traditional damage.

CEMBUREAU, along with other industrybodies, had maintained throughout the discussions on liability that theysuffered a very real risk of frivolous claimsand even judicial harassment, if environmental organisations weregranted a direct right of action under the proposal. Therefore, it is welcomethat the designated authority in the Member States would act as a “buffer zone” between industry andenvironmental activists. The publicauthority will decide which actions to bring, mindful of the rights of environmental organisations.

One particular aspect of the proposalwhich had caused CEMBUREAU someconcern was the element of causation.Although strict liability (no fault) wouldapply to certain hazardous activities, the national authority would still have to prove that the damage was caused by a particular operator. CEMBUREAUobtained a clarification from theCommission that causation would beretained. Otherwise, industry may havefaced the impossible situation of beingheld responsible for damage whichwould not have had to be traced back to it. CEMBUREAU is also pleased that the proposal will not apply to environmental damage caused in the past.



Just prior to presenting this proposal, the Commission decided to include twocrucial defences on which industry hasalways insisted: development risks, and compliance with a permit. Therefore,industry can be assured that it isoperating with more legal certainty.

Also in 2001, the Parliament and Councilagreed a new Directive on generalproduct safety. This new EU law, which must be transposed into nationallaw of the Member States by 15 January2004, obliges manufacturers and distributors to place only safeconsumer products on the market. In addition, the legislation imposesspecific market surveillance requirementson Member States. Companies will beobliged to inform a competent authoritywhen they discover that their productsare unsafe. Producers and distributorswill have to recall dangerous productswhere necessary.

New labelling requirements for chromate

In 2001 a new Directive was adoptedwhich obliges cement producers to labelcement with a warning if it contains morethan 0.0002% (2ppm) soluble chromium(VI). The warning relates to the risk of an allergic reaction due to prolongedskin contact with wet cement. The Directive will have to beimplemented at national level by 30 July2002. It is expected that this will raise the awareness of the need for personalprotection among workers with dailyexposure to wet concrete or wet mortar.


Enthusiastic marketing specialists attend PromotionOfficers’ Conference

As a perfect end to years of effort,EcoConcrete was presented, alongside a detailed communications plan, at the 5th Conference of Cement and Concrete Marketeers and PromotionOfficers in Brussels in November 2001.The Conference, organised byCEMBUREAU with co-hosts BIBM and ERMCO, was a great success. The 130 marketing and promotionspecialists in attendance all responded to the presentations with keen interestand a high degree of appreciation.

Products and Marketing

Standing Committee 2 “Productsand Marketing”uses product legislation to drive newmarketing ideas and promote life-cyclethinking.

Product legislation has a direct impact on access to the market. Therefore,CEMBUREAU’s marketing work over 2001 was driven by this policy area.There are several ways to demonstrate to the public and the regulators that a product fulfils essential safety and environmental requirements. Thecement standard is one example;lifecycle information is another.

Therefore, CEMBUREAU is pleased to announce that a Life Cycle Analysis of ten selected functional units inconcrete was completed by the end of2001 within the planned budget. This is fundamental to work on productsand marketing. As a result, importantalliances were strengthened with otherindustry organisations including BIBM(“Bureau International du BétonManufacturé”), ERMCO (European ReadyMixed Concrete Association), EFCA (European Federation of ConcreteAdmixtures Associations), EISA (European Independent SteelworksAssociation) and UEPG (EuropeanAggregates Association). The LCA wasrenamed the EcoConcrete study and was peer-reviewed by IKP (Institutefor Polymer Testing and Polymer Scienceat the University of Stuttgart).

DR. WIM VAN LOO,Chairman of Standing Committee 2

“Products and Marketing”


The Conference ”How to promoteconcrete in the new millennium”included an update on the latestconcrete promotion initiatives and enabled participants to discover newmarketing approaches. Experiences wereexchanged on a free and friendly basisfor the mutual benefit of the wholeconcrete industry. This will help decidehow best to market the LCA of concretein the future.

Market acceptance is the test for European Cement Standard

After decades of hard work, the European Cement Standard (EN 197-2) was officially published in January 2001. It could be used from April 2001; national technicalspecifications have to be withdrawn from April 2002. This HarmonisedStandard specifies the requirementswhich must be met by a product to meritthe CE mark and be placed on the market. The future of the standardwill depend on market acceptance and it is too early to predict this for the moment. However, it looks like mostcountries and most cement plants areintroducing the CE marking graduallywithout major problems. In manycountries, quality marks are being usedin addition to the CE marking.

As the cement standard was the first to be adopted under the ConstructionProducts Directive, CEMBUREAU was invited to speak on its experiencewith the adoption of the standard at a conference organised by the EuropeanStandardisation Committee (CEN) in December 2001. While major effortswere needed to ensure the finalconclusion of the work on the standard,

CEMBUREAU was proud to be involvedin this mammoth task. It is hoped that the standard will be recognised as a basis for presumption of conformitywith the Construction Products Directive;otherwise, the cement industry will notfully reap the benefits of its efforts in this regard. Moreover, the completionof the first standard for common cementshas opened the way for more rapidcompletion of further standards for othercement types. Cement for whichstandards are in the course of preparation and, in most cases, nearcompletion, include low-heat cements,masonry cement, calcium aluminatecements, hydraulic road binders and building limes.

The adoption of the cement standarddoes not mean an end to work onstandardisation. The industry is alreadyplanning its approach for a possiblereview of the standard in five years time,which is very likely to address the inclusion of environmental aspects in the cement standard. With the LifeCycle Analysis already prepared, the cement industry is well on its way to being ready for any future regulatorydemand for standardisation of environmental information onconstruction products. Such informationshould serve the dual purpose of meeting demands from regulators and supporting marketing efforts.

Fire safety with concrete

Project Group 2.2 “Fire Safety withConcrete”, established in September1999, continued to take care of this highly technical, yet instantlyemotive issue. Fire safety of concrete is a crucial issue for the future of the industry, and Project Group 2.2 isever mindful of new or forthcoming EUor national regulations which may reducethe performance requirements for fireresistance of building structures, which have previously worked to the competitive advantage of concrete.

The Group will work, among otherthings, on restoring a positive image of the fire safety of concrete,safeguarding concrete advantage in regulatory framework and counteringdamaging attacks against concretespalling through design rules and bestpractice guidelines for producing HighStrength Concrete (HSC) and Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC). These may be included in Europeanstandards at a later stage. The ProjectGroup will also develop the presence of “fire concrete experts” acrossEuropean and international regulatorybodies.



Highlights of the year for Project Group 2.2 included a full-scale fire test on a seven-storey concrete framestructure in Cardington (UK) in September 2001. Important work ondeveloping recommendations for firedesign methodology was also launchedin 2001. Design rules for global fireperformance of whole concrete buildingstructures will be available in three yearstime. In relation to Eurocode 2“Concrete Structure” - Fire part, Project Group 2.2 defended lowerthermal conductivity values for concreteand successfully obtained normativetabulated data for columns based on the Belgian National ApplicationDocument (NAD). They will beincorporated in prEN 1992 1-2, makingthe application more user-friendly.

Eurocodes - design requirementsfor construction products

The “structural Eurocodes” (ECs) are a set of European standards setting outdesign rules for different types of construction and materials. Their purpose is to promote free trade in construction products and they arelinked to the implementation of the Construction Products Directive,which contains a mandate to theEuropean Committee for Standardisation(CEN) to elaborate the Eurocodes.

The first standard, Eurocode 0 “Basis of Design”, was approved in December 2000. Although ProjectGroup 2.5 “Eurocodes” managed, by insisting on an alternative formula in a footnote, to mitigate the worst of the damage that might have beencaused by a load combination formulawhich unwarrantedly discriminatedagainst concrete structures, more hardwork is still needed to promote thisformula. Moreover, the Eurocode will berevised over a five-year period, during which the cement and concreteindustry will work to strengthen itsrepresentation within the relevant CENbodies to ensure that the industry is notput at a competitive disadvantage again.

CEMBUREAU assesses perceptionsof concrete in architecturaleducation

Close co-operation with the EuropeanAssociation for Architectural Education(EAAE) continued to prove mutuallybeneficial in 2001. The highlight for Project Group 2.4 “Co-operation withSchools of Architecture” was thesuccessful completion of a pan-Europeansurvey on the perception of architecturaleducation and the challenges it faces. A questionnaire, with a particular focuson the teaching of building materials,was sent to teachers in 150 EAAEEuropean schools of architecture.



The results of the survey were presentedin two reports: one for the EAAE on “The Educational Community’s Viewsof Challenges in ArchitecturalEducation”, and the other for CEMBUREAU on “Views of Concreteand Other Building Materials amongArchitectural Educators in Europe”.

CEMBUREAU presented the results at the 4th EAAE Meeting of Heads of Schools of Architecture in Chania,Crete, on 2 September 2001. It was alsopresented to marketing specialists at the 5th Conference of Cement and Concrete Marketeers and PromotionOfficers in Brussels in November.

The studies are food for thought for the concrete industry. Concrete is one of the materials that teachers believethey know most about. It ranks close to average among seven materials whenteachers were asked about their views on the performance aspects of buildingmaterials (cost, energy, safety, etc.).Nevertheless, the teachers rankedconcrete as a commodity of yesterdaywhen asked about future trends in building materials. Teachers ofarchitecture see their biggest futurechallenge as sustainable architecture and socially-responsible architects. There thus appears to be widespreadmisconception regarding the sustainability of concrete.

Benchmarking successes - nowavailable in user-friendly format

Following the successful completion in 2000 and early 2001 of the “TechnicalMarketing Successes” Project, Project Group 2.8 set about promotingtheir work, which provides sevenexamples, covering different marketsegments, of cement-based technicaland market-driven solutions which canbe used by the cement and concreteindustry throughout Europe. The lessonscontained in the case-studies can easilybe transferred to specific markets.

The seven case-studies are now availableon Cindi (CEMBUREAU InternationalNetwork for Documentation and Information) in an overviewpresentation and separately, in a summary format. Detailed reports on the seven case-studies are availableon request in a CD-ROM.

The seven case-studies cover:� Concrete for urban and rural low-traffic

roads in France (Pilot case)� Concrete road safety barriers systems

in Austria� Environmental promotion of brownfield

land in the UK� Deep-soil stabilisation

with lime-cement columns in Sweden� Promotional activities

on roller-compacted concrete dams in Spain

� In situ concrete housing (ISCH) and reaction by cement industry in the Netherlands

� Concrete promotion activity for architectural claddings and buildings in Belgium.

End uses of cement

In order to address a lack of data on enduses of cement which has beenpreventing the proper identification and measurement of market segmentssuch as civil engineering, new houses,non-residential buildings, etc., the firstmeeting of the new Project Group 2.3“End Uses of Cement” was held inOctober 2000. It will investigate andanalyse methodologies on end uses of cement in CEMBUREAU Membercountries and make recommendationsfor a European model if possible. This should help identify market prioritiesand exploit the opportunities presentedby downstream market segments or regional trends.

The main objective is to determinewhether European harmonisation is, in fact, desirable and/or feasible, and to analyse best practices within the industry. Information on end uses of cement is available in some countries;however, the methods used at nationallevel to produce such data vary greatly,making comparisons very difficult. Final conclusions and recommendationswill be presented in mid-2002.



CEMBUREAU’S INTELLIGENCE UNIT:THE FUTURE ON ITSRADAR SCREEN

During 2001 the Intelligence Unitcontinued to hone its early-warning alertcapabilities to ensure that the Secretariatand Members are strengthened in their activities by the best possibleinformation.

The Intelligence Unit systematicallymonitors all Internet websites of interestto the cement industry, using the latesttechnology. Modern software technologythus ensures coverage of issues for Members twenty-four hours a day,seven days a week.

Urgent news is broken to Membersthrough FAST (Fast Answering ServiceTool). This and other features of Cindi(CEMBUREAU International Network for Documentation and Information) are proving ever-more popular after a significant re-design in 2001. The Intelligence Unit recorded some 700regular users of Cindi over the year.

CANTRACK (CEMBUREAU AlertNetworking Tracking System) alsounderwent a face-lift in 2001; a projectwhich had been postponed from 2000.The system had become overloaded andslightly cumbersome. It was rebuilt and,from the second half of 2001, Membershad access to a fully streamlined and more user-friendly service to keepabreast of CEMBUREAU’s lobbyingactivities.

A new statistics feature on Cindi is alsoproving popular with Members, who cannow access and make immediate use of all the statistics produced byCEMBUREAU. The monthly Eurobrief,providing complete and up-to-dateinformation of what is going on in Brussels, is now available online.Information on benchmarking successfulmarketing actions in the Europeancement industry is also available.

All these new features give CEMBUREAUMembers the advantage of access to information whenever they may needit and not have it to hand-for example,when they are travelling. The staff at the Secretariat hope to free up some of the time they would, in the past, have spent answering informationrequests from Members. Of course, this in no way diminishes the need for constant communication flowsbetween the staff in Brussels andCEMBUREAU Members, particularly on urgent lobbying matters where time is often of the essence.

Communicating to the public about the cement industry’s contribution to economic well-being, job creation,and sustainable development is an equally important function of the Intelligence Unit. CEMBUREAU’s public website is the main communication channel to the outside world. Therefore, the Intelligence Unit ensures that the public website is updated regularly and that the information contained there is presented clearly and concisely.



EUROPEAN STATISTICSCollecting complete data still presents a major challenge

During most of 2001, CEMBUREAUmade great efforts to obtain the datarequired to complete the new edition of the World Cement Directory. Even with some data missing, a decisionwas taken to go ahead with publication.The first volume was available in print at the end of the year.

In order to facilitate access to the keystatistics on the cement industry,CEMBUREAU has made its statisticsavailable to Members online via Cindi(CEMBUREAU International Network for Documentation and Information). It is hoped that Members will use thisservice, which increases the efficiency of the Secretariat. By providing access to vital information through its website,CEMBUREAU hopes to be able to spendless time answering queries for suchinformation and thus to concentratemore on following up early-warning signsof new policy developments.


The Intelligence Unit at CEMBUREAUhas learned quickly how to make use of state-of-the-art technology to providethe best service to Members. It hopesthat this will also make it easier for Members to retrieve the information they require, when they need it, throughthe electronic services on offer. This should free up time for an evencloser follow-up of the issues at the heartof CEMBUREAU’s activities.


ENERGY PRICESINCREASE OVER 2001,COUPLED WITH A SHARP FALL IN FREIGHT RATESSpot purchasing still most profitable strategy for cement

The sharp increase in energy pricesrecorded during 2000 continued into the first months of 2001. A major reasonfor this was the strong US domesticdemand for coal and natural gas.

The steam coal prices for the 6,000 kcal/kg net quality rose from a low of US$19 FOB South Africa1

in the third quarter of 1999 to a high of US$33 FOB South Africa in the secondquarter of 2001.

However, the increased output of coaland, in particular, more exports fromChina and Russia subsequently putpressure on the coal market. Therefore, by the end of 2001, FOB prices South Africa had fallen backto around US$29.

The recent concentration of the supplyside of the coal market to four majorplayers has contributed to historical coalprice highs. This will prevent anyrecurrence of a collapse of the coalmarket, as has been witnessed in the past.

More important than lower FOB pricesfor coal in 2001 was the sharp fall of freight rates, which began in mid-2001. For the European cementindustry, the C&F2 prices in panamaxesfell back from US$43 in the beginning of 2001 to around US$35 by the end of 2001.

In 2002, there will be continued pressureon FOB prices, but a stable freightmarket may well mean that C&F pricesstay roughly unchanged.

Prices for high-sulphur petcoke rosesharply during 2000, but fell again at the beginning of 2001. For thestandard 4% sulphur petcoke, 50 hardgrove, FOB US Gulf pricespeaked at US$28-30 at the beginning of 2001, falling back to around US$15 atthe end of the year. For the lowestgrades of 6.5% sulphur, 35-40 hardgrove,FOB prices fell from around US$20 USGulf at the beginning of the year to US$7-8 at the end.

The pressure on the market will continueduring 2002 with output rising morerapidly than new demand. However,there are signs of more interest in petcoke from US and European powerstations, so the downside will be limited.In previous down cycles, petcoke priceshave bottomed out in the range of US$0-5 FOB US Gulf, and increasedconsumption by utilities will probablymean that the coming turnaround ofprices expected throughout 2002-2003will be at the high end of this range.

In 2001, with falling prices for combustibles, spot purchasing for coal and petcoke was the mostprofitable strategy. With prices expectedto bottom out during 2002-2003, supplycontracts are likely to become a betteroption.

These fluctuations in the energy marketswere the focus of discussions at the annual CEMBUREAU energy marketconference (CEM•PROSPECTS) held in Paris in November 2001. The conference brought together 120 participants, both market tradersand representatives of cementcompanies, from around the world.

CEMBUREAU’s Solid Fuels Committeetook the opportunity to meet just afterthe conference closed. It agreed that, in order to ensure maximum attendanceand value for participants,CEM•PROSPECTS should take placeseveral weeks in advance of the International Coaltrans Conference,meaning that the next one would beheld in early October 2002.


1 FOB stands for free on board.2 C&F stands for cost and freight.


CONTINUALLY INCREASING EFFICIENCY IN ADMINISTRATION

CEMBUREAU’s workload is alwaysincreasing as it strives continually to addvalue to the services it provides to itsMembers. Therefore, practices andprocedures need to be reviewedregularly to maximise efficiency. The more streamlined proceduresbecome, the more time can be devotedto more strategic, long-term activities,and to planning.

A simple, yet very good example, is the use of the website. By investingtime in keeping this up to date, the Intelligence Unit manages to savetime in the long run by avoiding havingto respond to requests for information. It can simply direct inquiries for information to the website. This allows the Intelligence Unit todevote more time to following up early-warning signs of new policydevelopments and to following lobbyingactivities ever more closely.

A workflow management system wasassessed in 2000 with a view to itsimplementation in 2001. Given the significant changes such a system will bring to the way in whichCEMBUREAU is run, its introductionproved more difficult than initiallyanticipated. Therefore, this has beenpostponed to 2002, with full-scaleapplication planned for 2003. Initially, it will present a challenge to staff, who will have to learn new skills and procedures. Once mastered,however, it will generate significantefficiencies. Although CEMBUREAU is still far from a “paperless office”, it is striving towards an administrationmanaged via a comprehensive workflowsystem.

An activities-based costing (ABC)system, which was introduced as plannedin 2001, became fully operational at mid-year 2001. This completes the reform launched in 1997, which ledto an analytical presentation of the costing per issue, giving Members a precise and clear picture of CEMBUREAU’s spending.

The new membership policy, agreed in 2000 as prompted by applications for membership from outside of geographic Europe, was approved bythe European Commission. The latterissued a “Letter of Comfort” to confirmthat it would raise no objection to the updated membership policy.CEMBUREAU decided to confirm the European nature of the organisation,with membership open to applicationsfrom within geographic Europe but notbeyond.

By the end of the year 2001, the “Contacts” database, which is anatural complement to CEMBUREAU’sissue management process, was fullyoperational as planned.




BOARD (*)

President J. Lose (1)

Vice-President M.J. Lodge

Full Members Permanent Alternates

AUSTRIA P. Orisich (2) M.I. Machanek

M. Kriegner (1)

BELGIUM B. Ghins (2) B. Küng

CZECH REPUBLIC M. Weber (1) P. Laube

DENMARK S. Vinther (1) J. Norup

FINLAND A. Miettunen (1) R. Vaulamo

FRANCE J-M. Domange (1) J-C. Angulo

GERMANY A. Kern (1) P. Steiner

GREECE E.J. Paniaras (1) J. Watts

HUNGARY M. Oberritter (1) I. Nagy

ICELAND G. Gudmundsson (1) G. Thordarson

IRELAND B. Griffin (1) D. Doyle

ITALY G. Marazzi (1) C. Pesenti

LUXEMBOURG J-P. Proth (1) C. Weiler

NETHERLANDS P. Vanfrachem (1) G. Westra

NORWAY G. Syvertsen (1) B. Mørck

POLAND A. Balcerek (1) A. Tekiel

PORTUGAL C. Coelho Alves (1) L.F. Sequeira Martins

SLOVAK REPUBLIC Z. Demján (1)

SPAIN M. de Melgar y Oliver (2)

J.M. Framis Llopart (1)

SWEDEN H. Fernvik (1) B. Ahlkvist

SWITZERLAND L. Mittelholzer (2) U. Sandmeier

U. Böhlen (1)

TURKEY A. Ignebekçili (1) T. Ünal

UNITED KINGDOM R. Olsen (2) S. Eastwood

M.J. Lodge (1)

MEMBERS EX OFFICIO

Chief Executive J-M. Chandelle

Chairman of Standing Committee 1 P. Nodé-Langlois

Chairman of Standing Committee 2 W. van Loo

President of Liaison Committee P. Vanfrachem

(*) Situation on 14 April 2002(1) Approved during the General Assembly of 5 June 2001(2) Modified after the 5 June 2001


LIAISON COMMITTEE OF THE CEMENT INDUSTRIES IN THE EU (*)

President P. Vanfrachem

Vice-President B-H. Koch

Full Members Permanent Alternates

AUSTRIA P. Orisich M.I. Machanek

BELGIUM B. Küng B. Ghins

DENMARK S. Vinther J. Norup

FINLAND A. Miettunen R. Vaulamo

FRANCE J-C. Angulo J-M. Domange

GERMANY P. Steiner G. Hirth

A. Kern

GREECE E.J. Paniaras J. Watts

IRELAND A. O’Loghlen D. Doyle

ITALY C. Pesenti G. Marazzi

LUXEMBOURG J-P. Proth C. Weiler

NETHERLANDS P. Vanfrachem G. Westra

PORTUGAL L.F. Sequeira Martins C. Coelho Alves

SPAIN J.L. Sáenz de Miera Alonso M. de Melgar y Oliver

SWEDEN H. Fernvik B. Ahlkvist

UNITED KINGDOM M.J. Lodge S. Eastwood

Secretary General J-M. Chandelle

CEMBUREAU RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Chairman J. Lose

Members J. Watts

G. Marazzi

M.J. Lodge

Members Ex Officio J-M. Chandelle

A. Van der Vaet

(*) Situation on 14 April 2002




STANDING COMMITTEES AND PROJECT GROUPS

Standing Committee 1 “Industry”

Chairman P. Nodé-Langlois

Project Group 1.1 “Environmental Liability”

Project Group 1.2/2.6 “Health and Safety”

Project Group 1.3 “CO2 Reduction Measures”

Project Group 1.4 “Environment and Energy”

Project Group 1.5 “European Cement Standards”

Project Group 1.6 “European Concrete Standard”

Project Group 1.7 “Solid Fuels”

Standing Committee 2 “Products and Marketing”

Chairman W. van Loo

Project Group 2.1 “Backing Group for LCI/LCA of Concrete”

Project Group 2.2 “Fire Safety with Concrete”

Project Group 2.3 “End Uses of Cement”

Project Group 2.4 “Co-operation with Schools of Architecture”

Project Group 2.5 “Eurocodes”

Project Group 2.6/1.2 “Health and Safety”

Project Group 2.8 “Technical Marketing Successes”

CEMBUREAU MANAGEMENT

Chief Executive J-M. Chandelle

Technical Director L. Hjorth

Secretary General A. Van der Vaet


AUSTRIAVÖZ – Vereinigung der ÖsterreichischenZementindustrieAssociation of the Austrian Cement IndustryReisnerstrasse 53AT – 1030 WienTel. : +43 1 714 66 81 0Fax: +43 1 714 66 81 66E-mail: [email protected]

BELGIUMFebelcem – Fédération de l’Industrie Cimentière Belge a.s.b.l.Association of the Belgian Cement IndustryRue Volta 8BE – 1050 BruxellesTel.: +32 2 645 52 11Fax: +32 2 640 06 70E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.febelcem.be

CZECH REPUBLICCzech Cement AssociationK Cementarne 1261CZ – 153 00 Praha 5 – RadotinTel.: +420 2 57 81 17 97Fax: +420 2 57 81 17 98E-mail: [email protected]

DENMARKAalborg Portland A/SRørdalsvej 44DK – 9100 AalborgTel.: +45 98 16 77 77Fax: +45 98 10 11 86E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.aalborg-portland.dk

FINLANDFinnsementti OyFI – 21600 ParainenTel.: +358 2 45 45 67Fax: +358 2 45 42 65 35E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.finnsementti.fi

FRANCESFIC – Syndicat Français de l’Industrie CimentièreAssociation of the French Cement Industry7, place de la DéfenseFR – 92974 Paris-La Défense CedexTel.: +33 1 55 23 01 23Fax: +33 1 55 23 01 24E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.infociments.fr

GERMANYBDZ – Bundesverband der DeutschenZementindustrie e.V.Association of the German Cement IndustryPferdmengesstrasse 7DE – 50968 KölnTel.: +49 221 37 65 60Fax: +49 221 37 65 686E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.bdzement.de

GREECEHellenic Cement Industry AssociationStavrou P. Street 13GR – 115 24 AthensTel.: +30 10 69 11 886Fax: +30 10 69 93 398E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.hcia.gr

HUNGARYMagyar Cementipari SzövetzégHungarian Cement AssociationBécsi út 120-122HU – 1034 BudapestTel.: +36 1 250 16 29Fax: +36 1 368 76 28E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.mcsz.hu

ICELANDIceland Cement LimitedSementsverksmidjan hfMánabraut 20IS – 300 AkranesTel.: +354 430 50 00Fax: +354 430 50 01E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.sement.is


IRELANDIrish Cement LimitedStillorgan RoadIE – Stillorgan Co. DublinTel.: +353 1 206 40 00Fax: +353 1 206 40 01E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.irishcement.ie

ITALYAITEC – Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica del CementoItalian Technical and Economic Association of CementPiazza G. Marconi 25IT – 00144 RomaTel.: +39 065 421 02 37Fax: +39 065 91 54 08E-mail: [email protected]

LUXEMBOURGCiments Luxembourgeois S.A.Zone IndustrielleLU – 4002 Esch-sur-AlzetteTel.: +352 55 25 25 1Fax: +352 55 70 61E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.gcl.lu

NETHERLANDSVNC – Vereniging Nederlandse CementindustrieAssociation of the Dutch Cement IndustrySt. Teunislaan 1NL – 5231 BS ‘s-HertogenboschTel.: +31 73 640 11 50Fax: +31 73 640 12 84E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.enci.nl

MEMBERS


NORWAYNorcem A.S.Lilleakerveien 2 BNO – 0216 OsloTel.: +47 22 87 84 00Fax: +47 22 87 84 01E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.norcem.no

POLANDPCLA – Stowarzyszenie Producentów Cementu i WapnaThe Polish Cement and Lime AssociationLubelska Str. 29PL – 30 003 KrakówTel./Fax: +48 12 632 37 22/+48 12 632 37 25E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.polskicement.com.pl

PORTUGALATIC – Associação Técnica da Indústria deCimentoTechnical Association of the Cement IndustryAvenida 5 de Outubro 54 – 2° DtoPT – 1050-058 LisboaTel.: +351 21 351 08 30Fax: +351 21 351 08 38E-mail: [email protected]

SLOVAK REPUBLICZVCV SR – Zväz vy’robcov cementu a vápnaSlovenskej republikyThe Cement and Lime Producers Associationof the Slovak RepublicPartizánska cesta 91SK – 975 44 Banská BystricaTel.: +421 48 414 25 49Fax: +421 48 414 55 76E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.zvcv.sk

SPAINOficemen – Agrupación de Fabricantes deCemento de EspañaAssociation of Spanish Cement ProducersJosé Abascal 53 – 1°ES – 28003 MadridTel.: +34 91 441 16 88Fax: +34 91 442 38 17E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.oficemen.com

SWEDENCementa ABVendevägen 90SE – 182 12 DanderydTel.: +46 8 625 68 00Fax: +46 8 625 68 98E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.cementa.se

SWITZERLANDcemsuisseMarktgasse 53CH – 3011 BernTel.: +41 31 327 97 97Fax: +41 31 327 97 70E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.cemsuisse.ch

TURKEYTCMA – Türkiye Çimento Müstahsilleri BirligiTurkish Cement Manufacturers’ AssociationEskisehir Yolu 9 Km.TR – 06530 Bakanliklar AnkaraTel.: +90 312 287 32 50Fax: +90 312 287 92 72E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.tcma.org.tr

UNITED KINGDOMBCABritish Cement AssociationCentury HouseTelford AvenueGB – Crowthorne Berkshire RG45 6YSTel.: +44 1344 76 26 76Fax: +44 1344 76 12 14E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.bca.org.uk

ESTONIAKunda Nordic Cement CorporationPeterburi Road 75EE – 11415 TallinnTel.: +372 620 96 50/+372 3 22 99 00Fax: +372 620 96 51E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.knc.ee


ASSOCIATE MEMBER

Situation as of 26 April 2002

All country codes are written in accordance with

ISO Standard 3166 – Part 1


© Copyright: CEMBUREAUN° Editeur: D/2002/5457/May

All rights reserved. No part of this reportmay be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem or transmitted in any form or by

any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,

without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Published by CEMBUREAUThe European Cement Association

Rue d’Arlon 55 - BE-1040 BrusselsTel.: + 32 2 234 10 11Fax: + 32 2 230 47 20

E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.cembureau.be

Lay out and Printing:

Weissenbruch s.a. Since 1755

Photographs - Courtesy of:

Betorix (Page 31)

Febe Architects:

Driessens, Pluymers, Renson,

Van Lombeek

(Pages 3-14-20-29)

Artist:

Marin Kasimir

(Pages 22-26)

Febelcem Arnaud Carette©

(Cover and pages 1-8-12-18)

Photodisc© (Page 4)


annual report 2001

Documents

cembureau cembureau

cement companies

european cement association

use of cement

cement industrythroughout

cement industry worldwide

cembureau annual report

worldwide promotion