Day: 8 April 2026

Exporting steelmakers in Asia are providing EU buyers with unrealistic verification reports, particularly in relation to ex-China production, sources tell McCloskey, threatening to undermine importers’ best efforts to use verified ‘actual’ emissions data to lessen their Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) liabilities.

McCloskey has spoken with a number of importers and verification experts in assessing the reality of verification reports issued to EU buyers of Asian-origin material, identifying inaccuracies and misalignments in documents that would not pass scrutiny by independent reviewers, or national authorities – as required by the CBAM regulation.

The trend highlights that importers of in-scope steel goods must be wary not only of arranging verification across their supply chains, but also sensitive to the quality and expertise of the verifier, or risk being forced to pay punitive CBAM costs on default values when declarations are due. As illustrated by McCloskey’s Default Values Calculator, additional CBAM costs on default values can even exceed the price of the underlying good itself, for some steel products and origins such as Indonesian hot-rolled coil.

Verification Reports – the improbable and impossible

These verification reports – considered dubious as best – are not limited to smaller, or less experienced consultants. For example, McCloskey had sight of one verification report issued by Bureau Veritas China which assesses direct emissions via primarily integrated blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) route production as between 1.1-1.3t CO2e/t – levels described by China CBAM analyst Jing Liu as “ridiculous and absurd […] blatantly violating the basic laws of physics and metallurgy.”

Speaking to McCloskey, Liu outlined how Chinese integrated steel mills are generally reporting BF-BOF direct emissions at around 1.5t CO2e/t, but use data and calculation ledgers that are “flawed,” or could at best be considered “a mess,” drawing comparison to the extensive efforts of European integrated steelmakers to achieve actual emissions reductions to even 1.8t CO2e/t for their carbon steel production.

This is not only true of smaller mills in Asia, but also steelmaking groups with 7-figure total annual capacities, as evidenced by verification reports and source attestations.

The endorsement of this data – and in some cases its original calculation – by those Liu characterises as “internally renowned certification bodies” could thus threaten disaster for European importers that subsequently find their pre-verified emissions, and thus CBAM declarations on ‘actual’ values, rejected by accredited verifiers or EU CBAM authorities, potentially leaving importers without sufficient time to remedy the emission, verification, or overall CBAM report by any significant margin.

What’s in an error?

So how are these unrealistic verification reports produced? Data manipulation is a primary factor, described by Liu as encompassing elements like the omission of precursor data, exaggerated emissions deductions for energy-related elements, and mass-balancing inaccuracies.

A verification report seen by McCloskey appears to only assess CBAM emissions liability on export quantities, as opposed to the installation’s total production capacity (over double the reported volume), claiming a weighted average direct specific energy emissions (SEE) value below 1.3t CO2e/t – even despite the use of default values for iron and ferroalloy precursors.

One of McCloskey’s European trading sources notes that in some cases the ‘verified’ emissions are “clearly calculated to be under the [CBAM] benchmark” – which would suggest to importers that the import material comes free of any CBAM liability via specific embedded free allocation (SEFA) deductions, but of course only where the verification report is accepted by CBAM authorities.

And in fact, following the passing of the deadline to register as an authorised CBAM declarant – necessary to import in-scope CBAM goods, including iron and steel – on 31 March, importers now do not actually have any formal reporting obligations with European authorities until CBAM declarations for embedded emissions imported in 2026 come due, in September 2027.

While these unrealistic verification reports will of course need to be re-assessed on the relevant installation’s emissions data for calendar year 2026 (as the earliest possible reporting period) – rendering said verification reports a form of ‘pre-verification’ – importers have little else to rely on in trusting the integrity of foreign supplier data and making competitive sourcing decisions in the CBAM cost context, especially for smaller importing operators with lesser monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) expertise or insufficient capital for CBAM consultancy services.

Bragging rights?

A German distributor described to McCloskey how their importing competitors have been “showing off” verification reports for Asian-origin steel that generates a minimal or even zero CBAM liability – despite the impossibility of some of the claimed emissions intensities for integrated productions – demonstrating the superficial attractiveness of a low CBAM duty to European steel buyers.

European steelmakers have identified a similar trend toward the impossible, with a source at a re-rolling mill describing a progressive reduction in reported Chinese slab emissions in recent years to the point of “fantasy.”

“The early data we received [from China] was feasible, but has turned into fantasy as time has passed,” said the source, citing emissions reports approaching 1t CO2e/t for integrated slab production.

“Numbers like 1.1t are simply impossible from a blast furnace. I do not think these reports from China are 100% reliable – it seems direct emissions are sometimes presented as indirect emissions, for example, so the total footprint at least looks correct,” said the re-roller.

The steelmaker said that they do not take these reports at face value, and instead use their own estimations for the emissions embedded via BF-BOF semi-finished production. Ultimately, however, any use of ‘actual’ CBAM data requires that this more ‘representative’ data be compiled by the exporter, and subsequently signed-off by an accredited verifier.

Not all doom and gloom, but far to go

A European trading source did offer some solace, stating that some of their suppliers in Asia – particularly among larger steelmaking groups – are demonstrating a greater understanding of CBAM’s unique requirements. These operators are engaging with CBAM requirements  directly, identifying where the instrument introduces data transparency requirements beyond industry and global standards that inform, for example, the Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) that previously guided low-carbon sourcing decisions, and aligning their MRV processes to best facilitate the successful verification of their ‘actual’ values.

That said, the trader only attributed a rough 10% of their supply chain to said camp, considering 90% of exporters as insufficiently prepared to produce a defensible verification report. Liu estimated similar levels of competency (for Chinese exporters specifically) in a social media post 8 April, stating “from my observation [of around 80 steel mill reports] 90% of the data from [Chinese] steel mills is incorrect.”

This assessment chimes well with comments made by Francesca Cerchia, Global Head of Climate Solutions at verifier SGS in an OECD webinar back in March, expecting that “zero foreign exporters would pass a CBAM verification today” on the basis of misalignment between industry norms, and the realities of supply chain transparency demanded by CBAM for a successful declaration on ‘actual’ values.

In the Chinese steel sector, market participants tell McCloskey that as the extent of CBAM’s compliance requirements become more clear, buyers are increasingly consolidating their sourcing toward a select group of larger Chinese mills considered better prepared to pass verification, even where these producers command a price premium. This trend is evident both in direct exports to the EU and in shipments to intermediary hubs like Turkey, where the verified emission data of the steel is essential for re-exporting to the European market, a Chinese trader said.

Author: Benjamin Steven and Maria Tanatar

opisnet.com

NLMK DanSteel announced that, as of May 18, 2026, Fredrik Nilsson has been appointed as CEO. Nilsson will replace interim CEO Cornelius Louwrens and will take on the task of strengthening the company’s operational performance.

Fredrik Nilsson has over 25 years of international experience in the metals and materials sector. Most recently, he served as Vice President of Supply Chain and Operations in the Powder Metallurgy division of Höganäs AB. Nilsson has experience managing large-scale operations in Europe, the United States, and China.

Interim CEO Cornelius Louwrens said about Nilsson: “Fredrik Nilsson, with his strong operational expertise and performance-driven approach, is the right person to strengthen DanSteel’s long-term competitiveness.” Nilsson stated: “I look forward to working on further strengthening reliability, quality, and performance with NLMK DanSteel’s solid foundation and team spirit.”

NLMK DanSteel, Denmark’s only steel plate mill, produces high-quality steel products as an important part of NLMK Europe. The company specializes in heavy steel plates used in the wind energy, infrastructure, and heavy industry sectors. Its product portfolio includes advanced steel grades such as quenched and tempered steels, pressure vessel grades, and offshore grades.

Operating under NLMK Europe, DanSteel forms an integrated European production platform with facilities in Denmark, Belgium, and Italy, enabling the company to offer a wide range of plate sizes and specifications. This structure enhances the company’s ability to provide reliable and technically compliant solutions to customers in Europe and beyond.

Author: SteelRadar Editorial Team

steelradar.com

 

The European Commission has published the first quarter price for Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) certificates at EUR75.36, 7 April, allowing importers to better assess their ongoing liability to the carbon leakage instrument. 

The CBAM certificate pricing methodology ties certificate value to the average price of EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) allowances, to ensure CBAM imposes equivalent costs on foreign and domestic producers as far as possible.

In 2026, CBAM certificate prices are calculated in reference to the quarterly average of ETS allowances over the period of import for the CBAM good. From 2027, CBAM certificate prices take a weekly average of the ETS price, and are no longer temporally tied to the import period, with importers instead required to hold a minimum 50% of their rolling emissions liability by the end of each quarter.

At a first-quarter price of EUR75.36, the Commission’s published price is slightly below steelmakers’ hopes for CBAM’s inaugural cost reference, depressed by bearish volatility in EUA prices as the EU ETS is increasingly politicised as a factor in the EU’s declining industrial competitiveness on the global stage.

However, as illustrated by McCloskey’s Default Values Calculator, a EUR75 CBAM certificate price still threatens potentially existential costs to small and medium-sized importers, if they fail to sufficiently verify embedded emissions across the supply chain of their imported steels.

For example, Indonesian origin hot-rolled coil (HRC) imported into the EU in Q1 – a trade flow that has arguably been a primary factor in destabilizing the domestic market in the last year via aggressive import offers and exemption from the EU’s existing steel safeguard – could face CBAM costs of as much as EUR580/t if calculated purely on default values.

Imports of Indonesian HRC under commodity code heading 7208 in January are down 37% on the year, according to import data from Global Trade Tracker (GTT), but show a much greater decline in comparison to December clearances – an 86% reduction – illustrating importer desire to minimise CBAM liabilities.

Indian HRC has a lesser, but still significant liability at just over EUR250/t. Code 7208 imports to the EU from India in January, in contrast, have actually increased by 350% on year to almost 200,000 tonnes, or just over 230% higher than December volumes.

McCloskey has tracked high volumes of Indian HRC to the EU’s domestic steelmakers, importing the material for further sale in the EU market, or for processing for downstream portfolio demand.

The EU has already signalled its intention to support India in shifting carbon revenues to its domestic market via provisions included in the recent EU-India Free Trade Agreement, relating to India’s national carbon pricing scheme, the creation of a new default value dataset for in-scope Indian exporters, and the possibility of extending accreditation competencies to India for verification purposes.

Author: Benjamin Steven

opisnet.com

The European Commission has published the first official Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) certificate price, setting the level at €75.36 for the first quarter of 2026.

The pricing methodology ensures that CBAM certificate costs are aligned with the average price of allowances under the EU Emissions Trading System. This approach is designed to maintain consistency between the carbon costs faced by EU producers and those applied to imports entering the EU market.

For 2026, CBAM certificate prices will be calculated and published on a quarterly basis, with one price set for each calendar quarter. Each quarterly price will be determined during the first week following the end of the respective quarter, based on the weighted average of EU ETS auction clearing prices. The certificate price for the second quarter is expected to be published on July 6.

Starting from 2027, CBAM pricing will shift to a weekly system, increasing responsiveness to market developments and improving transparency. This change is expected to enhance alignment between CBAM costs and real-time carbon market dynamics.

In line with Regulation (EU) 2023/956, CBAM certificates will be purchased through a centralized common platform. This transition will support a fully operational and standardized system for managing carbon cost compliance for imports into the EU.

Author: SteelOrbis Editorial Team

steelorbis.com

The Italian downstream segment is being heavily impacted by the consequences of the conflict in Iran, with demand remaining particularly weak for Italian service centres, Kallanish learns.

In this context, a reversal of the current trend appears realistic only if negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict take place, according to a recent note by Italian steel trade association Assofermet.

“The sharp rise in fuel and energy costs is having a dual impact: on one hand, a contraction in downstream demand for finished products; on the other, an increase in logistics and production costs, particularly significant for energy-intensive sectors such as steel. This situation is unfolding against an already complex international backdrop, further complicated by the effects of US protectionist trade policies,” the note states.

CBAM, together with current and new safeguard measures expected to take effect from 1 July and anti-dumping duties, represents a strong deterrent to steel imports. The result is a shift in demand towards European suppliers which is supporting price increases even in an environment of weak demand and consumption, the association warns.

Service centres are reporting slim order books at the start of the second quarter, following a first quarter with overall volumes in sharp contraction.

Assofermet notes that steelmakers are seeing a firmly upward price trend while service centres are more cautious but determined to increase their prices despite the uncertain market environment.

Meanwhile, significant challenges persist around sourcing material from third countries. There is currently a real risk of being unable to guarantee customers the availability of specific grades typically procured from import markets. Supply concerns are persisting around cold rolled coil derivatives, with multiple service centre sources talking about a protracted shortage.

Imports of CRC from Asia have continued despite CBAM charges, but allocations are described as thin. One trader reports auction-style transactions taking place, with CRC quoted as high as €870/tonne cif ($1,002.88/t).

A service centre source that has continued to source imported CRC due to a lack of available European alternatives says it is preparing to inform customers that derivatives of specific cold rolled grades may not be available in the coming months.

Author: Natalia Capra

kallanish.com