Stakeholders in the green steel industry have asked the European Commission to exempt low-carbon steel products from any future iteration of the steel safeguards so that the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is not undermined, feedback provided to the commission says.
August 18 was the last day for market participants to submit their suggestions and comments to the commission over the implementation of a trade measure which will address the issue of global excess steelmaking overcapacity. Over the span of one month 143 businesses and stakeholders provided their input to authorities.
“Instead of quotas or tariffs, carbon pricing under CBAM must be applied to these green steel imports,” Singapore-based Meranti Green Steel said. “For out-of-quota duties we recommend zero tariffs for verifiably low-carbon steel and for dimensions where EU supply is insufficient,” trading firm Interfer said.
Meranti estimates that once CBAM is in full swing there will be a shortage of up to 50mn t of green steel in the EU by 2035, while Interfer has said penalising the import of low-carbon steel would directly contradict the EU Green Deal and the purpose of CBAM.
Swedish producer SSAB also pointed out how an overlap between any new potential safeguards and CBAM could double the burden on downstream users.
The implementation of CBAM is still set to go ahead on 1 January 2026, despite market talk of a potential postponement. Participants currently await CBAM guidelines to be published in the autumn.
European green steel producers have not reached any specific consensus on the exemption of low-carbon steel from trade restrictions. Rather their requests are aligned on the implementation of a new stricter tariff-rate quota (TRQ) system to be introduced in the first quarter 2026.
Suppliers which are developing green steel production in the EU such as SSAB, Celsa and Hydnum Steel have all expressed their support for a global TRQ, with a cap per exporting country and tariffs set at 50pc. Celsa and Hydnum Steel have also suggested a melt-and-pour clause to go along with the TRQ.
By Carlo Da Cas
Source: argusmedia.com
