EU Steel Demand Faces CBAM Risk Before 2028 Downstream Extension

EU Steel

EU steel demand could face significant pressure between 2026 and 2028 as carbon border adjustment costs apply to steel before they fully extend to downstream steel-consuming goods. European market participants warn that this timing gap could encourage imports of finished steel derivatives and weaken demand for EU-made steel.

The risk comes from the structure of CBAM implementation. Steel products will carry annual CBAM-related mark-ups before many downstream products are covered. As a result, imported finished goods with high steel content could become more competitive than goods manufactured inside the EU using CBAM-exposed steel.

EU steel demand is therefore exposed to a policy mismatch. CBAM aims to protect European industry from carbon leakage, but an uneven rollout could shift pressure from steel imports to finished product imports. That would create a new competitiveness problem for service centres, distributors, fabricators, machinery producers, vehicle parts makers, and appliance manufacturers.

Downstream Imports Could Undermine European Steel Consumption

Downstream steel-consuming goods are becoming a central concern for European industry. Product categories under discussion include car parts, specialised vehicle components, home appliances, machinery parts, and yellow goods. These sectors consume large volumes of steel and play a major role in sustaining regional industrial demand.

A proposed response is to create safeguards for selected downstream products before the 2028 CBAM expansion. The idea is to identify key HS codes for EU-manufactured products with high steel content and establish a quota system similar to existing steel safeguards.

This approach reflects a growing concern that steel protection alone may not protect the steel value chain. If downstream manufacturers lose competitiveness, EU steel demand could weaken even if direct steel imports fall. The strategic issue is not only steel trade, but the survival of manufacturing demand inside Europe.

Steel Safeguards and Weak Orders Add Pressure to the Market

The new version of EU steel safeguard measures is still expected to take effect in July. However, market participants remain concerned about World Trade Organisation compliance, especially as the EU negotiates free-trade agreements that may include country-specific quotas.

Market sentiment is already weak. European service centres reported soft order intake in February, with some seeing volumes 10-20pc lower than a year earlier. This points to sluggish industrial activity and limited confidence across the steel distribution chain.

Import reliance may also decline this year. Some service centres expect imported material to fall to around 20pc of flat steel use, compared with as much as 40pc in previous years. That shift may support EU mills, but it also reflects a more controlled and uncertain market environment rather than a broad recovery in demand.

The Metalnomist Commentary

The EU’s steel challenge is no longer only about protecting mills from imported coil. The real risk is demand leakage, where downstream production moves outside Europe before CBAM fully covers finished steel-intensive goods.

EU Steel Industry Faces Key Policy Shifts: A Call for Concrete Measures

EU Steel

The mood among European policy makers regarding the steel industry has notably shifted, with increasing support for the sector’s future. According to Axel Eggert, director-general of Eurofer, the European steel industry association, policymakers are beginning to recognize the importance of addressing the growing challenges in global steel production. However, while this shift in mood is encouraging, Eggert emphasized that these positive words must be followed by tangible actions.

Rising Political Support for EU Steel Industry

Eggert pointed out that there is more political backing for the European steel sector, especially as lawmakers become increasingly aware of the massive overcapacity in global steel production, particularly CO2-intensive steel. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicts that global steel capacity will grow by 157 million tons over the next three years, which will likely negate the decarbonization efforts of the EU steel industry.

In response, the European Parliament has called for a European steel action plan, which has been embraced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. However, Eggert stressed that while these statements are promising, they must be followed by concrete measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of the industry.

Green Steel and Public Procurement as Key Measures

One of the critical measures that Eggert advocates for is the implementation of public procurement for green steel. With the EU's ambitious decarbonization targets — a 55% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050 — Eggert emphasized that EU governments should lead by example. This means prioritizing green steel in public sector construction, vehicles, and other products, which would support European producers committed to decarbonizing their operations.

Global Overcapacity and Trade Distortions Impacting EU Steel

The steel industry crisis is largely driven by global overcapacity and low demand in Europe, exacerbated by high energy costs. Compounding this issue is the low-priced steel being exported by countries like China, Japan, and India, which depresses global markets. China’s exports, in particular, have been an issue for EU steel producers, as the country benefits from state subsidies, leading to significant trade distortions.

Eggert discussed how the EU has implemented anti-dumping measures on stainless steel from Indonesia, but Indonesia has circumvented these by exporting processed steel to third-party countries like Taiwan, Vietnam, and Turkey, which then re-export the products back to the EU. This tactic, along with the support from Chinese investments in Indonesia’s steel industry, has made Indonesia’s steel sector one of the largest globally.

EU Trade-Defense Measures: Need for Improvement

Eurofer has called for enhanced EU trade-defense measures to tackle issues such as dumping and excessive capacity from third countries. Eggert emphasized the need for improved steel safeguards and more effective enforcement of existing trade defense instruments. Currently, anti-dumping duties on Chinese steel are too low, undermining the efficacy of EU trade policies.

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) Concerns

The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) has been another point of contention. Third countries are already looking to export steel from their lowest CO2-emitting plants to avoid paying CBAM costs. Eggert advocated for including indirect CO2 emissions (Scope 2 emissions) in the CBAM, particularly for stainless steel, which is a major contributor to indirect emissions.

Scrap Export Concerns and India's Decarbonization Challenge

Finally, Eggert addressed concerns from India regarding the potential for a European export ban on scrap metal. While the EU does not currently have a scrap export ban, Eggert pointed out that India itself has export restrictions on scrap and needs to focus more on decarbonizing its domestic steel sector. He also warned that if India delays its decarbonization efforts until 2070, the EU will face a significant disadvantage in the global steel market.

CBAM Gaps Threaten EU Steel Trade

EU steel

CBAM gaps threaten EU steel trade as Eurometal warns that the mechanism will go live without a full rulebook. CBAM gaps threaten EU steel trade because key benchmarks, default values and recognition of foreign carbon prices remain undecided. As a result, CBAM gaps threaten EU steel trade just as distributors negotiate 2025 contracts without legal certainty on future carbon costs.

Incomplete CBAM Framework Raises Contract and Pricing Risks

European steel distributors now face CBAM implementation in 2026 while several core design details remain unresolved at EU level. Benchmark and default values for embedded carbon are still under discussion, leaving buyers unsure how imported steel will be priced. At the same time, the methodology for recognising carbon prices paid in third countries remains unclear for many import routes. However, importers must already negotiate term contracts, while they cannot accurately model future CBAM-related charges. This lack of clarity creates room for speculative behaviour, mispricing and contractual disputes between mills, traders and end users. Small and medium-sized enterprises are especially exposed because they lack in-house compliance and pricing expertise to manage CBAM risk.

Eurometal Calls for Provisional CBAM Values and Clear Signals

Eurometal argues that CBAM can support decarbonisation only if steel market participants receive timely and predictable guidance from Brussels. The association has urged the commission to publish provisional CBAM benchmarks and default values without further delay. It also wants clarity on which downstream steel products will fall under CBAM coverage, including processed and fabricated items. Meanwhile, the sector is still waiting for details on the export adjustment mechanism that will affect EU steel shipped abroad. Eurometal proposes a provisional border charge to anchor expectations until the final legal text is adopted. It also calls for an EU-wide communication to calm markets and reduce uncertainty before the full CBAM phase-in. Without such steps, CBAM gaps risk undermining investment, hedging strategies and long-term decarbonisation planning in the EU steel value chain.

The Metalnomist Commentary

CBAM is meant to level the carbon playing field, but today CBAM gaps threaten EU steel trade and investment planning. Unless Brussels moves quickly with provisional numbers and clear communication, the risk is that confusion, not carbon, becomes the main cost driver in Europe’s steel imports.

EU Steel Import Proposal Freezes Trade and Deepens Market Divide

EU steel

The EU steel import proposal has pushed the European steel market into a new standstill as stakeholders reassess risk and supply. Producers see the EU steel import proposal as a long-awaited shield against global overcapacity and unfairly priced imports. However, buyers and downstream manufacturers warn that the same EU steel import proposal could choke critical inflows, push prices higher and erode competitiveness just as demand remains fragile.

Buyers fear a ‘steel clamp’ on downstream manufacturing

Assofermet describes the new regime as a “steel clamp” on distributors and processors that depend on non-EU material to fill gaps. It argues that the 50pc out-of-quota duty and deep quota cuts could effectively shut many import routes and destabilise supply. As a result, downstream steel users face higher costs, thinner margins and greater difficulty competing in global export markets. European automakers share similar concerns. Acea notes that even though 90pc of their steel is sourced domestically, the remaining imported grades are essential for safety-critical and advanced components. However, the group warns that sharply lower quotas and a 50pc duty will remove an important pressure valve for a market already stretched by energy costs and decarbonisation demands. Acea also criticises the melt-and-pour origin rule, arguing that it will add heavy administrative load to complex automotive supply chains without clear proportional benefits.

Producers back tighter controls to restore utilisation and independence

In contrast, Eurofer hails the proposal as a “major leap forward” in defending EU steel from low-priced, high-volume imports. The association points to quota breaches “by triple digits in just two days” under current rules as proof that existing safeguards are too loose. Therefore, Eurofer sees the new tariff-rate quota structure as a way to maintain fair import access while preventing destabilising surges. The ultimate objective is to lift plant utilisation from unsustainable levels around 65pc back towards 80-85pc, which is vital for viability and decarbonisation investment. Eurofer also backs the melt-and-pour clause to improve traceability and deter circumvention via third countries, and wants future coverage extended to steel derivatives. Meanwhile, day-to-day trading has slowed sharply as mills, traders and buyers wait for clarity on timelines and country allocations. Import activity is likely to remain subdued until the proposal passes the EU’s legislative process and implementation details become clearer, leaving the market in limbo.

The Metalnomist Commentary

The EU steel import proposal underscores a widening policy divide between protecting primary production and safeguarding downstream competitiveness. If design and implementation lean too far toward insulation, the risk is a tighter, more expensive steel market that accelerates deindustrialisation rather than preventing it. The eventual outcome will hinge on how Brussels balances utilisation targets with the real needs of processors, automakers and exporters across the EU value chain.

Outokumpu Pushes for Tighter EU Steel Safeguards

Outokumpu

Outokumpu is putting EU steel safeguards at the centre of Europe’s industrial and climate debate. The Finnish stainless producer argues that current EU steel safeguards are too weak in the face of Asian overcapacity, diverted imports and sluggish European demand. As a result, Outokumpu says stronger EU steel safeguards are now essential to protect strategic supply chains and the business case for green steel investment.

Outokumpu links safeguards to decarbonisation and strategic autonomy

Outokumpu warns that Europe faces a surge of low-priced Asian stainless imports just as demand remains weak. The company argues that US tariffs of 50pc on steel are pushing excess volumes away from the US and into the EU market. Therefore, it believes new EU steel safeguards must prevent Europe from becoming a dumping ground for surplus Asian stainless steel. The company frames stronger safeguards as vital for mobility, infrastructure, defence and clean-tech value chains.

Outokumpu also connects trade defence directly to climate policy and low-carbon steel investment. It highlights its own stainless footprint of 1.6kg CO₂e/kg, versus a global average near 7kg CO₂e/kg. That advantage relies on high scrap usage and low-carbon power, which also increase production costs. Without tougher EU steel safeguards, Outokumpu argues, higher-emission Asian material will undercut European producers and undermine decarbonisation.

A blueprint for stricter quotas and carbon-aware trade rules

Outokumpu has tabled a detailed proposal for the next safeguard regime after 2026. It wants global tariff-rate quotas with strict per-country limits based on low-demand years such as 2012-13. Under its plan, imports above quota would face a 50pc tariff, with origin defined by melt-and-pour to block circumvention. It also opposes any quota carry-over, which can create import surges at quarter-end and destabilise prices.

The company calls for regular reviews of quota levels and tariffs, plus an emergency mechanism for sudden demand shocks. That mechanism would allow the EU to react if steel demand rebounds or if geopolitical events reshape trade flows. Outokumpu says the goal is to restore sustainable capacity utilisation and profitability for European mills. It stresses that, if Asian production displaces European output, Europe’s carbon footprint will rise and valuable stainless scrap will remain under-used.

Outokumpu further warns of growing strategic dependence on Indonesia and China if Brussels fails to act. In its view, weaker safeguards risk eroding European melting capacity and hollowing out the region’s stainless value chain. That would leave downstream manufacturers more exposed to external shocks and politically driven export restrictions. Stronger EU steel safeguards, the company argues, are therefore not only about prices, but also about security of supply.

The Metalnomist Commentary

Outokumpu’s intervention shows how trade defence, scrap utilisation and decarbonisation are now tightly interconnected in stainless steel. Brussels will need to balance open markets with credible protection for low-carbon producers if it wants green steel investment to continue. How the next safeguard package is designed will shape Europe’s stainless landscape – and its climate credentials – for the next decade.

EUROFER Revises 2024 EU Steel Consumption Forecast Downwards

The European Steel Association (EUROFER) has revised its 2024 steel consumption forecast for the European Union, citing an array of economic challenges. These include the protracted period of elevated interest rates, the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, resultant energy crises, inflation, labor shortages, and supply chain disruptions in the Red Sea region due to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

In its recent "2024-2025 Economic and Steel Market Outlook" report, EUROFER predicts a modest 1.4% year-over-year increase in nominal steel consumption within the EU, reaching 127 million tons in 2024. This is a notable downward adjustment from the previously anticipated 3.2% increase to 130 million tons.

The report also recalibrates the 2025 forecast, lowering the expected growth from 5.6% to 4.1%, thereby predicting a total consumption of 133 million tons, down from the prior forecast of 137 million tons.

The first quarter of 2024 witnessed a 3.1% decline in EU nominal steel consumption year-over-year, totaling 31.9 million tons. This early-year contraction is expected to dampen the forecasted recovery for the remainder of the year. Significant uncertainties persist in steel consumption due to supply chain disruptions linked to the ongoing geopolitical conflicts, unprecedented surges in energy prices, and escalating production costs. Despite a gradual anticipated improvement towards the year's end, actual steel consumption is projected to remain below pre-pandemic levels.

EUROFER has also adjusted growth projections for steel demand industries downward. The Steel Weighted Industrial Production (SWIP) index fell by 1.9% in the first quarter of 2024, a stark contrast to the previous quarter's 0.5% rise. The decline in production across the EU’s steel-using sectors is attributed to the sustained impact of the Russia-Ukraine war, pervasive manufacturing weaknesses, global geopolitical tensions, and the long-term repercussions of the energy crisis.

The SWIP index decline highlights a persistent downturn in the construction, machinery, appliance, and metal product sectors, partially mitigated by continued growth in the automotive sector. The construction sector, which constitutes 35% of EU steel consumption, has been in recession since the third quarter of 2022, declining for seven consecutive quarters (-2.3%) through the first quarter of this year. High interest rates, labor shortages, and escalating material prices are expected to perpetuate the construction sector's downturn throughout the year.

The report states, "The positive trend in steel demand industries, which commenced post-pandemic, began to decelerate from the second half of 2022 due to rising energy costs and labor shortages following the Russia-Ukraine conflict, continuing through the fourth quarter of last year. This year’s deteriorating economic and industrial outlook for the EU is driven by high inflation and resultant interest rate hikes by the European Central Bank (ECB), with particularly adverse effects from the prolonged construction sector recession, ongoing geopolitical tensions, and worsening manufacturing conditions due to high interest rates."

The report continues, "Amid persistent adverse factors, the growth rate for steel demand industries is expected to decline to -1.6% in 2024, down from the previous forecast of -1%, with a rebound to 2.3% anticipated in 2025."

Notwithstanding the lowered forecasts for steel consumption and demand industries, import volumes have risen. According to the report, EU steel imports, including semi-finished products, increased by 12% year-over-year in the first quarter, mirroring the previous quarter's 11.3% rise.

Axel Eggert, EUROFER's Secretary General, emphasized, "While the EU's steel demand industries face a protracted downturn due to various adverse factors, import market share has risen significantly. This jeopardizes both European steel production and the associated clean technology value chains, necessitating urgent action at the EU level. The European Commission must swiftly conclude a European Clean Industry Agreement focused on the steel sector."

CBAM to Add 15-25% Surcharge to EU Steel Import Costs Starting January 2026

EU Steel

The European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will impose 15-25% surcharges on CBAM steel import costs when full implementation begins January 1, 2026, according to Euranimi analysis. The European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & Distributors warned that these additional costs will vary significantly depending on product type and country of origin. Steel importers face substantial cost increases as CBAM steel import costs rise through carbon pricing mechanisms designed to protect EU domestic steel producers from unfair competition.

CBAM Calculation Formula Creates Variable Cost Impact Across Origins

The CBAM surcharge calculation uses a specific formula measuring the difference between embedded emissions and 97.5% of EU benchmark standards multiplied by emissions trading system (ETS) pricing. This methodology ensures that steel imports face carbon costs comparable to EU domestic production under the emissions trading system. Meanwhile, Euranimi recommends that suppliers introduce separate CBAM surcharge lines in commercial offers, similar to existing alloy surcharge practices in steel trading.

Market participants anticipate significant import pattern changes as CBAM implementation approaches, with potential steel import surges in the fourth quarter of 2025. Importers may accelerate purchases before January 2026 to avoid initial CBAM steel import costs and associated compliance complexities. However, steel imports could decline sharply after January as buyers adjust to higher costs and new administrative requirements.

Implementation Timeline Creates Uncertainty for Steel Trade

Euranimi collaborates with the European Commission to develop "manageable" CBAM implementation procedures that minimize trade disruption while achieving environmental objectives. The association requests June publication of temporary benchmarks and default values for 2026 imports to provide market clarity. As a result, transitional benchmarks should be less strict initially while default values require reasonable levels to manage compliance costs.

Steel importers face significant uncertainty because verified emission data from non-EU suppliers won't be available until late 2026 at the earliest. Default values will play crucial roles in managing CBAM steel import costs during this transition period without verified supplier data. Therefore, appropriate default value settings prevent excessive financial exposure from unforeseen corrections and compliance adjustments.

The CBAM implementation represents a fundamental shift in global steel trade dynamics, creating competitive advantages for low-carbon steel producers while penalizing high-emission suppliers. European steel importers must adapt business models to incorporate carbon costs into pricing strategies and supplier selection processes. Consequently, CBAM steel import costs will reshape trade flows and encourage global steel industry decarbonization efforts through market mechanisms.

The Metalnomist Commentary

The 15-25% CBAM surcharge on steel imports marks a pivotal moment in global trade policy, potentially reshaping steel supply chains as importers seek lower-carbon suppliers to minimize carbon border costs. This mechanism could accelerate global steel industry decarbonization by creating economic incentives for cleaner production technologies, though it also risks disrupting established trade relationships and creating competitive disadvantages for developing country steel producers lacking access to clean technology.

Trade Measures to Dominate Steel Industry in 2025: Focus on Imports and Global Overcapacity

China Steel Factory

Trade protection measures have been the focal point of the global steel industry throughout 2024, with little indication of this trend slowing down in 2025. Steel producers, industry associations, and governments worldwide are increasingly advocating for stronger import barriers to safeguard domestic markets and improve the competitiveness of their industries. In particular, European steel mills have been at the forefront of this movement, calling for more robust action to combat what they view as unfair imports and growing overcapacity in the global market.

European Steel Industry Pushes for Stronger Import Protection

Eurofer, the industry association for European steel manufacturers, has been particularly vocal about the need for stronger trade defence instruments. The association has urged the European Union to implement short-term emergency measures, including import tariffication, to curb the influx of low-cost steel products. Eurofer's stance has been largely driven by the EU’s ambitious decarbonisation goals, with the bloc committing billions of euros in investment. Steel producers argue that the EU's current measures are insufficient, particularly in light of increasing steel imports from countries with lower production costs and fewer environmental regulations.

Significant progress has already been made, with Eurofer helping secure changes to the EU’s safeguard system for key products like hot-rolled coils (HRC) and wire rods. Additionally, the EU anti-dumping investigation targeting several HRC suppliers has gained traction, and further investigations are planned on downstream steel products. As European steel suppliers continue to collect evidence of unfair trade practices, more scrutiny is expected on countries like China, India, and Vietnam.

The Impact of Global Overcapacity and Chinese Steel Exports

The issue of global steel overcapacity has also been a major concern. The OECD has raised alarms about the growing steel production capacity, projecting a 158 million tonnes per year increase in global capacity between 2024 and 2026. This expansion, however, comes at a time when global steel demand remains uncertain. Despite this, steel exports from non-OECD countries have been recovering since 2023, particularly from China, whose steel exports surged by 22.6% from January to November 2024.

China has also been exporting record volumes of semi-finished steel, despite the country’s preference for exporting higher-value products. As China continues to ramp up exports, it has attracted the attention of both European and global policymakers, leading to new protectionist measures targeting Chinese steel. This includes potential investigations and pending duties on Chinese steel, which could affect up to 15 million tonnes per year of exports.

Countries like India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia are also seeing increases in steel exports, contributing to the global capacity glut. Turkey, a major market for Chinese steel, has already imposed duties on imports from China, India, Russia, and Japan in response to the increasing influx of steel from these regions. The EU is similarly considering the inclusion of Indonesia in its safeguard measures due to the country’s rising steel exports to Europe. From July to October 2024, Indonesia exported 494,650 tonnes of HRC to the EU, surpassing the previous half-year period, a trend that is expected to continue.

Investigations and Measures Targeting Global Steel Exporters

The growing export volumes from India and Vietnam, along with the rise in Indonesia’s exports to Europe, have prompted investigations into dumping practices in these countries. The EU has already initiated anti-dumping investigations on steel products from Egypt, Japan, India, and Vietnam, with the preliminary results of these investigations expected in March 2025. If these investigations lead to findings of unfair trade practices, retroactive duties could be applied, further tightening global trade conditions.

In response, producers are gearing up for a potential wave of new safeguard measures and anti-dumping duties. Countries that are impacted by these measures may look to retaliate, creating a complex global trade landscape for steel. As trade protectionism increases, the global steel market is expected to undergo significant shifts in the coming years.

EU Launches Review of Steel Import Safeguard Tariffs: Changes Expected from April 2025

The European Commission(EC)

The European Commission(EC) has officially launched a review of its steel import safeguard tariff-rate quotas, with proposed changes to take effect from 1 April 2025. This review, which follows a request by 13 EU member states on 29 November 2024, aims to address the evolving dynamics of steel imports into the EU. The focus will be on adjusting quotas, particularly in light of a contraction in EU demand and a rise in Chinese steel exports, which have led to shifts in trade flows.

Key Changes Under Review for Steel Safeguard Tariffs

The EC's review will examine several key aspects of the current steel import safeguard measures. Among the possible changes is the introduction of a new quota volume. EU steel producers have expressed concerns that current duty-free quota volumes no longer align with the demand in the EU, with some regions experiencing gaps due to shrinking consumption. Additionally, an increase in Chinese steel exports has led to an influx of steel from other countries into the EU market, further complicating the allocation of quotas.

The EC will reassess how these quotas are managed and allocated. Producers and users have been invited to provide feedback via a questionnaire, which must be submitted by 10 January 2025. Some of the other factors under evaluation include the exclusion of certain developing countries from the safeguard measures based on their 2024 imports, as well as potential updates to the level of liberalization within the quotas.

The steel safeguard measures, which were first introduced provisionally in 2018, became definitive in 2019. Initially set for a three-year period, they were extended for another year until June 2024 and then further extended until June 2026. Recent updates to these measures have had a noticeable impact on trade, particularly with the cap on hot-rolled coils (HRC) and wire rod quotas from ‘other countries’ being limited to 15% per origin. This has resulted in a significant reduction in import opportunities, especially for smaller markets.

The Impact of the Quota Review on Steel Imports

The current steel import safeguard measures have significantly impacted trade flows within the EU. In previous years, quotas would exhaust quickly after being reset each quarter, but the 15% cap on 'other countries' volumes has left a larger portion of the quotas underused. While there were expectations that some countries, like South Korea, could increase exports to the EU in April 2025 when residual quota volumes become available, the upcoming review could alter this outlook.

With EU imports largely unaffected by these changes so far due to a rush to buy final volumes before the duties apply, the redistribution of quotas will be a key focus of the review. The EC aims to ensure that the safeguard measures strike a balance between protecting EU producers and allowing for sufficient import access to meet demand. These changes, when finalized, could have significant implications for steel producers and importers alike, influencing trade relationships and steel prices in the EU market.

EU flat-rolled steel import quotas tighten under new safeguard regime

Flat-rolled

The EU flat-rolled steel import quotas are tightening sharply as Brussels moves from safeguards to a tougher quota–tariff regime. The new framework cuts flat-rolled quotas by 8.5mn t and caps hot-rolled coil imports at 5.2mn t. Any imports above quota will face a 50pc tariff, putting EU flat-rolled steel import quotas at the centre of trade and pricing strategy for mills and buyers.

New quota caps reshape EU flat-rolled trade flows

The EU flat-rolled steel import quotas now impose strict volume limits on key product groups. Hot-rolled coil quota falls by 3.6mn t versus 2024 import levels, compressing available third-country supply. Cold-rolled coil quota drops to 1.5mn t a year, while hot-dip galvanised is capped at 2.85mn t. As a result, quarterly quotas with no rollover will force importers to time cargoes far more precisely.

However, the system still applies a pro-rata approach at the start of each quota period. Once the EU flat-rolled steel import quotas are exhausted, the 50pc tariff will effectively price out most additional tonnes. All origins, including Ukraine, remain in scope, although the commission signalled it will consider Kyiv’s security situation when allocating volumes. The package also introduces a melt-and-pour information requirement, but without yet blocking Chinese-melted steel processed elsewhere.

Policy aims: higher utilisation, stronger EU pricing power

The EU flat-rolled steel import quotas aim to lift mill utilisation from about 67pc to 80pc. Eurofer quickly hailed the proposal as a long-awaited defence of the European steel sector. European producers hope tighter borders will support base prices and margins after years of pressure from low-cost Asian imports. Meanwhile, UK Steel urged London to seek preferential treatment and tighten its own safeguards to protect British mills.

Yet the new framework also raises concerns among downstream users such as re-rollers, processors and steel service centres. Quarterly caps without carry-over increase the risk of abrupt supply squeezes and bidding wars late in each period. Buyers will need to diversify sourcing, lock in earlier contracts and hedge more actively as EU flat-rolled steel import quotas bite. Market participants must also watch the regulatory process, since the proposal still needs EU parliament approval and could evolve before implementation.

The Metalnomist Commentary

The shift from classic safeguards to hard volume caps and 50pc tariffs marks a structural tightening of Europe’s import gate. For supply-chain planners, the key is to model quarterly quota exhaustion and stress-test exposure to high-tariff volumes, especially in HRC and galvanised. Over the medium term, the system could accelerate onshoring and green-steel investment, but at the cost of more volatile availability and pricing for downstream manufacturers.

CBAM certificate exemption debate exposes EU steel and aluminium fault lines

Assofermet

European metals companies are intensifying calls for a CBAM certificate exemption as the carbon border regime nears full implementation. The demand for a temporary CBAM certificate exemption reflects deep concern that missing benchmark values and default parameters could destabilise trade in steel and aluminium. Without clarity on CBAM certificate obligations, EU importers are being asked to place orders blind, with no way to predict final embedded carbon costs.

Importers warn of blind CBAM exposure and supply risk

Assofermet argues that a CBAM certificate exemption is needed for imports cleared from 1 January 2026 until several months after default values are published. The association stresses that the absence of final CBAM benchmarks forces buyers to commit to steel and aluminium imports today without knowing future certificate prices. As a result, many traders see the current framework as an unacceptable risk, especially for long-lead contracts and financially constrained small and mid-sized firms.

The proposed CBAM certificate exemption would cover a transition window of up to five months after the release of default values. During this period, importers would not need to surrender CBAM certificates, allowing them to honour existing supply contracts and avoid sudden cost shocks. However, policy uncertainty remains high, as Brussels continues to refine CBAM methodologies, rules for recognising third-country carbon prices, and the interaction with free ETS allocations. Meanwhile, downstream users fear that simultaneous measures, including “melted and poured” origin rules and potential extensions of steel and aluminium safeguards, could combine with CBAM to sharply reduce available import volumes.

Downstream steel users fear a pincer movement on competitiveness

Metals distributors and processors warn that CBAM certificate obligations, when combined with new safeguards, risk forming a regulatory pincer on the EU manufacturing base. Assofermet says the current steel and metals action plan prioritises primary producers while overlooking the needs of re-rollers, processors and trading firms that depend on diverse import flows. If imports drop too sharply, many downstream players could face supply gaps, higher input costs and further margin compression in an already weak economic environment.

A parallel warning comes from steel distributors who highlight a surge in imports of steel-intensive finished goods that fall outside current trade defence instruments and CBAM coverage. Products such as drive axles, electric motor components, fabricated assemblies and metal furniture embed significant steel content but enter the EU under less restrictive regimes. Industry groups argue this asymmetry accelerates deindustrialisation: raw and semi-finished steel face tight controls and rising costs, while finished imports gain a competitive edge. Many therefore call not only for targeted CBAM certificate exemption windows, but also for broader reform to extend CBAM and trade defence tools to steel-containing goods with high import growth and proven steel intensity.

The Metalnomist Commentary

The struggle over CBAM certificate exemption shows how climate policy can collide with industrial realities when timelines and technical details are misaligned. Unless benchmarks, default values and scope definitions are finalised quickly, the EU risks pushing critical downstream manufacturers into supply insecurity just as it needs them to invest in green technologies. A more calibrated rollout, including temporary exemptions and better coverage of steel-intensive finished goods, will be essential to protect both decarbonisation goals and Europe’s industrial backbone.

Eurofer Warns of Fourth Consecutive Year of EU Steel Demand Recession

Eurofer

Steel Market Weakness Deepens Amid Tariff Pressure and Global Overcapacity

The European Steel Association (Eurofer) forecasts that EU apparent steel consumption will contract by 0.9% in 2025, marking the fourth consecutive year of decline. This represents a sharp reversal from its earlier prediction of 2.2% growth. Steel-using sectors are also projected to shrink by 0.5%, instead of the 1.6% recovery previously expected.

Eurofer cites the new U.S. 50% tariffs on steel as a significant additional burden on an already fragile market. Global overcapacity, high energy costs, and geopolitical tensions continue to erode the competitiveness of EU steelmakers. As a result, producers may face capacity closures, job losses, and delays in decarbonisation investments.

The association now expects any demand recovery to be postponed until the first quarter of 2026, contingent on improvements in global economic conditions. If no resolution is reached between the EU and U.S. over tariffs, Eurofer urges the European Commission to enact emergency trade measures under its Steel and Metals Action Plan.

In 2024, EU apparent steel consumption declined by 1.1%, while domestic deliveries fell 2%. Steel-using industries, particularly automotive and construction, contracted by 3.7%, intensifying the sector’s challenges.

The Metalnomist Commentary

Eurofer’s outlook underscores the compounding impact of trade disputes, structural overcapacity, and energy costs on Europe’s steel industry. Without swift trade safeguards and competitive energy pricing, EU steelmakers risk losing ground to global rivals, jeopardising both jobs and decarbonisation goals.

EU to Implement ‘Melt and Pour’ Rule in Steel Trade Defense

EU Steel

New origin rule targets duty evasion and strengthens trade protections

The European Commission will introduce a “melted and poured” clause as part of its steel and metals action plan, aimed at tightening trade defense measures across the EU steel sector. This clause will assign origin based on where steel was originally melted, regardless of later processing locations.

Steel Origin Rules Target Evasion via Minimal Processing

The move addresses growing concerns that foreign producers—especially in countries like China—circumvent EU tariffs through minimal downstream processing. For example, converting hot-rolled steel into hot-dip galvanised outside the EU currently allows for reclassification, bypassing existing anti-dumping duties.

With the new rule, such transformations will no longer alter origin, preventing manipulation and reinforcing fair-trade enforcement. According to a draft of the plan, this rule will clarify product origin and prevent exploitation of loopholes in trade regulations.

Broader Measures Target Steel Overcapacity and Carbon Leakage

In addition to the melt and pour clause, the European Commission plans to proactively launch investigations based on “threat of injury” instead of waiting for economic harm. The action plan also extends the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to include downstream steel products, such as finished or semi-finished components.

This change addresses the risk that producers may shift exports to downstream goods to avoid carbon taxes on raw materials. European steel service centers and distributors have demanded such protections to prevent unfair import competition and carbon leakage.

Trade groups like Eurofer have long requested these rules, especially as Chinese-origin steel continues entering the EU via indirect supply chains. A representative from a major steel trading firm called the new clause a "game changer" for the European market.

EU and UK Extend Steel Safeguard Measures to 2026

In a significant policy update, the European Commission has extended its steel safeguard measures for an additional two years, setting the new expiration date to June 2026. This decision, announced on June 25, 2024, follows an in-depth investigation prompted by 14 EU member states, which highlighted the necessity of these measures to prevent significant damage to the EU steel industry​.

The investigation identified several critical factors contributing to the ongoing import pressures on the EU market. These include persistently high global steel production capacity, increased exports from China to third countries (notably in Asia), and a rise in trade defense and restrictive measures by other countries. Additionally, there has been a significant decline in steel demand within the EU, further straining the market​.

First introduced in July 2018 in response to the US's Section 232 tariffs on steel, the EU’s safeguard measures involve Tariff-Rate Quotas (TRQs). These quotas allow certain volumes of steel imports at lower duty rates, with a 25% duty imposed on imports exceeding these quotas. The latest extension includes technical adjustments to better align the measures with current market conditions, effective from July 1, 2024.

Similarly, the UK government has extended its steel safeguard measures until June 30, 2026. This decision, approved by the UK Secretary of State for Business and Trade on June 26, 2024, came after a recommendation from the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA). The UK steel industry, facing similar global pressures and market imbalances, has welcomed this extension as vital for its protection.

Industry experts have underscored the importance of these measures in maintaining the stability of the steel market within the EU and the UK. They argue that the measures help counteract the effects of global overcapacity and redirected trade flows, providing a necessary buffer for domestic producers​​.

In conclusion, both the EU and the UK are taking significant steps to safeguard their steel industries from ongoing global market pressures, ensuring stability and protection for the foreseeable future.

EU Ferro-Titanium Prices Decline Amid Weak Demand and Russian Imports

Russian Ferro-Titanium

Ferro-titanium prices in the European and UK markets have faced a significant decline of 6.5% in the second half of 2024, driven by several key factors. The most notable reasons for this decrease include an ongoing influx of Russian ferro-titanium imports, weakening demand from steel mills, and a substantial drop in the cost of titanium scrap.

As of recent assessments, Russian ferro-titanium prices are sitting at $5.20–5.60 per kilogram of titanium delivered to Europe (import duty unpaid), representing a widening discount compared to European and UK market prices. Sellers in Europe, holding large inventories, are eager to offload their stock before the end of the year, while Russian producers are scrambling to secure contracts before sanctions take full effect on December 20, 2024.

Russian Imports and Weak Demand Pressure Prices

Historically, ferro-titanium prices see an uptick in the first quarter, driven by steel mills restocking and seasonal disruptions in scrap deliveries around late December and early January. This year, however, the expected price rally failed to materialize. Although European Union (EU) sanctions initially prompted some price increases due to mills tightening procurement terms, the continued influx of Russian imports has kept prices under pressure. While Russian ferro-titanium volumes to the EU have fluctuated, the EU has remained the largest importer of Russian material.

From January to August 2024, the EU imported 6,115 tons of Russian ferro-titanium, down from 8,018 tons in the same period of the previous year. However, in July and August, imports rose by 21% and 9%, respectively. Estonia and the Netherlands accounted for 70% of these imports, with Germany and Latvia sharing the remainder. Despite a drop in overall imports, the EU continues to face competition from other regions, particularly China, which has seen a rise in Russian ferro-titanium exports.

The lack of spot demand across multiple non-ferrous markets, including those adjacent to steel and aluminum industries, has been a contributing factor. The sluggish performance of Europe's automotive and construction sectors further dampened demand. Steel association Eurofer recently downgraded its 2024 steel consumption forecast to a 1.8% contraction, signaling weak prospects for the steel market in Europe. The closure of Volkswagen plants in Germany and ongoing industrial slowdowns have heightened concerns over Europe's economic outlook.

Titanium Scrap Costs and Market Outlook

The downturn in ferro-titanium prices has been exacerbated by a sharp drop in titanium scrap prices. In early October 2024, titanium turnings prices plummeted, prompting ferro-titanium prices to follow suit. As scrap dealers began releasing more material into the market, the availability of titanium scrap increased, driving down prices further. Currently, the spread between 90/6/4 titanium turnings and ferro-titanium in Europe is around $3 per kilogram, up from a year-to-date average of $2.81 per kilogram. In the U.S., titanium scrap prices have also fallen, with mixed turnings now priced at $0.90–1.00 per pound.

Scrap processors, sitting on high inventories of aerospace-grade turnings and solids, may push out more ferro-titanium grade material to free up space and generate cash flow before the year ends. This move could further intensify the downward pressure on ferro-titanium prices, as scrap processors attempt to liquidate their stocks.

Market Forecast and Challenges Ahead

Despite expectations of a price rebound, both short-term and medium-term forecasts for the ferro-titanium market remain uncertain. Eurofer has projected a 3.8% recovery in steel consumption by 2025, while the World Steel Association expects a 1.2% growth in the global steel market in 2025. However, these increases are unlikely to signal a full recovery, as they come after two years of contraction in the sector. As Europe grapples with economic challenges, the demand for ferro-titanium remains subdued, and prices are expected to stay under pressure in the coming months.

EU to Launch Aluminium Safeguard Probe Amid Rising Import Pressure

EU Aluminium

New U.S. Tariffs and CBAM Adjustments Prompt EU to Rethink Aluminium Trade Policy

Brussels Acts to Shield European Aluminium Industry

The European Commission will launch a safeguard investigation on 19 March to assess the need for trade defense measures on aluminium imports. This move responds to fears that U.S. tariffs will redirect global aluminium flows into Europe.

Washington reintroduced 25% import tariffs on steel and aluminium on 12 March, prompting the EU to act. European producers risk losing U.S. market access while facing increased inflows of diverted metal. Unlike steel, aluminium is not yet protected by EU safeguard measures.

Since 2021, over half of Europe’s aluminium smelting capacity has been curtailed. Today, just 46% of EU aluminium demand is sourced domestically. The Commission warns that continued pressure from imports threatens the survival of remaining producers.

New 'Melt and Pour' Rule and CBAM Reform

In addition to safeguard measures, the Commission will implement a new “melt and pour” rule. This rule defines the origin of metal products based on where they were originally melted—not where they were later processed. It aims to block minimal transformations that allow products to bypass tariffs or dumping duties.

The carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) will also undergo revisions. The proposed update would extend the carbon levy to more aluminium- and steel-intensive downstream products. This adjustment addresses concerns that carbon-intensive imports could undercut EU-made goods, which comply with stricter climate rules.

The EU also plans to address carbon leakage. It will design compensation mechanisms for CBAM-regulated goods exported from the EU, with new anti-circumvention rules due in Q4 2025, before CBAM fully activates in 2026.

Scrap Export Restrictions and Demand Boosts Ahead

To secure domestic raw materials, the EU plans to tighten scrap metal export controls. The Commission will explore reciprocal restrictions on countries that limit scrap exports to the EU and may impose new charges on outbound scrap.

By the end of 2026, the EU will propose new demand-side targets for steel and aluminium usage in critical sectors like construction. These measures aim to support domestic producers while aligning with climate and circular economy goals.

Uncertainty Looms Over Russian Ferro-Titanium Market Amid EU Sanctions

Ferro-Titanium (Fe-Ti)

The European ferro-titanium (FeTi) market is facing a period of uncertainty as the EU sanctions on Russian ferro-alloys are set to be fully enforced. Market participants are divided over whether the sanctions will have a lasting impact on Russian FeTi supplies or if the overhang of Russian units in Europe, coupled with low demand from steel mills, will continue to create downward pressure on prices in 2025. A key point of concern is the potential for circumvention, with fears that Russian material may be rerouted or rebranded through non-EU countries.

Legal Framework and Market Response to Sanctions

Under the sanctions, ferro-titanium imports from Russia that were contracted before 19 December 2023 and presented to customs before 20 December 2024 may still enter free circulation within the EU. However, despite the clear framework outlined in Council Regulation 833/2014, uncertainty continues to surround how the market will react once these conditions change.

"Everyone is waiting for 20 December, it seems nobody understands what will happen," commented a European producer. There is significant ambiguity as to how the market will balance the loss of Russian material, particularly in light of high inventories of Russian ferro-titanium already present in warehouses in the Netherlands, Estonia, Latvia, and Germany. Imports in 2024 have already been lower than in previous years, but it remains unclear where the remaining stock will end up, especially as many buyers continue to avoid Russian FeTi.

Trade Dynamics and Impact on the Market

Despite sanctions, imports of Russian ferro-titanium to the EU remained significant in 2024, particularly in Estonia, Germany, and the Netherlands. In fact, Estonian imports in October 2024 reached a 10-year high of 591 tonnes, signaling that sanctions have not entirely stopped the flow of Russian material into the EU. Westbrook Resources, a UK producer, has called for increased vigilance among buyers to ensure they are not inadvertently purchasing smuggled or rerouted material, highlighting the difficulty of tracking the origin of ferro-titanium in the current market environment.

As of 20 December 2024, no fresh Russian ferro-alloys will be allowed into the EU, leading to a projected loss of 766 tonnes per month based on 2023 averages. While EU and UK producers may be able to cover this shortfall with unused capacity, the reduction in available supply is likely to increase demand for raw materials, driving up prices for scrap and raising production costs for ferro-titanium. However, overall demand from steel mills and cored wire manufacturers has been weak, due to an economic downturn and lower steel prices. This will likely temper any significant price increases, though temporary spikes may occur if first-quarter tenders prompt urgent purchases.

Circumvention Risks: Material Rerouting and Relabelling

Despite the official ban on Russian ferro-titanium imports, there are ongoing concerns about circumvention. The EU regulation explicitly prohibits releasing goods if there are grounds to suspect circumvention, but market sources argue that loopholes remain. Materials may be rerouted, relabelled, or blended through countries such as Turkey, India, China, or Kazakhstan, creating a potential grey market for Russian FeTi in Europe. Chinese imports of Russian ferro-titanium have already been on the rise, suggesting that circumvention may already be in play, though Europe has not yet seen significant volumes of these rerouted materials.

Logistics challenges, including the extra costs of rerouting and repackaging, may limit the feasibility of circumvention unless steel prices in Europe increase. Additionally, there are reports that Russian producers may shift to exporting titanium scrap, a material not covered under the EU sanctions. This could provide an alternative route for Russian producers to bypass restrictions, further complicating the market dynamics.

Conclusion

As the sanctions on Russian ferro-titanium fully come into force in December 2024, European market participants remain in a state of uncertainty, unsure of how the market will respond to the loss of Russian material and the potential for circumvention. While EU producers may absorb some of the shortfall with existing capacity, broader market conditions, including weak demand from steelmakers and rising production costs, could create a complex and volatile pricing environment.

Jindal Steel Angul capacity expansion reshapes India’s steel landscape

Jindal Steel

India’s latest Jindal Steel Angul capacity expansion signals a new phase in the country’s flat steel growth. The Jindal Steel Angul capacity expansion lifts the site’s output and pushes India further into a high-capacity cycle. As a result, the Jindal Steel Angul capacity expansion also raises questions about future domestic oversupply and export pressure.

Jindal Steel Angul capacity expansion lifts output toward 12mn t/yr

Jindal Steel has commissioned a new 3mn t/yr basic oxygen furnace at its Angul plant in Odisha. The BOF takes the site’s steelmaking capacity from 6mn t/yr to 9mn t/yr, with a target of 12mn t/yr in the 2025-26 fiscal year. The Jindal Steel Angul capacity expansion is anchored by a new 5mn t/yr blast furnace, started last week. Together, these assets support a broad product mix, including hot-rolled coil, galvanised steel, plate and rebar. This positions Angul as one of India’s key integrated hubs for flat and long products.

Indian steel capacity race intensifies across multiple producers

However, Jindal is not expanding alone, as rival Indian steelmakers also push new capacity. JSW Steel is enlarging its Vijayanagar facility in Karnataka, while Tata Steel brought a 5mn t/yr blast furnace online at Kalinganagar in 2024. These projects, combined with the Jindal Steel Angul capacity expansion, are driving a rapid rise in India’s crude steel potential. Domestic demand remains strong in construction, infrastructure and manufacturing, yet capacity growth is outpacing exports. Therefore, market participants are increasingly focused on how new tonnes will be absorbed if external demand falters.

CBAM and weak exports raise risk of domestic stock build-up

Meanwhile, looming changes under the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism are already dampening Indian steel export flows. Buyers in Europe are reassessing supply chains and potential carbon cost pass-throughs, which could limit future Indian shipments. As exports dwindle, the Jindal Steel Angul capacity expansion and parallel projects at JSW and Tata could contribute to inventory accumulation in the domestic market. A stock build-up would pressure prices and margins for Indian mills, especially in commoditised hot-rolled and rebar segments. As a result, strategic responses may include more value-added products, new export destinations and accelerated downstream integration.

The Metalnomist Commentary

India’s aggressive build-out, anchored by the Jindal Steel Angul capacity expansion, underlines its ambition to become a global steel powerhouse. Yet policy shifts such as CBAM mean that capacity alone is no longer enough; carbon cost, product mix and market access will decide who wins. For global buyers, India’s rising volumes may offer pricing opportunities, but also higher exposure to trade and climate-policy risk.

EU Weighs Extending CBAM to Downstream Industries

EU CBAM

The European Commission is evaluating the possibility of expanding the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to downstream sectors, a move anticipated by European steel associations and member states. The current CBAM focuses primarily on upstream industries, but this shift aims to curb the rising cost of downstream products and mitigate risks to local steel supply chains.

Steel associations like Eurofer strongly advocate for the CBAM’s extension, as they believe it is essential for controlling carbon emissions and managing increasing imports. The downstream industries have been notably absent from the current framework, a gap that stakeholders fear could lead to "carbon leakage"—where manufacturers relocate outside the EU to take advantage of less stringent climate regulations.

Italian steel association president Paolo Sangoi emphasized the need for a comprehensive approach in April, warning that neglecting downstream sectors would weaken the CBAM’s effectiveness. Steelmaker ArcelorMittal also advocates for "swift and effective" measures to protect the EU steel market, underscoring the importance of extending the CBAM.

Other countries such as Canada, the US, and ASEAN are considering their own versions of CBAM, while the UK plans to implement its CBAM in 2027. However, UK Steel is pushing for an earlier implementation in 2026 to align more closely with the EU's timeline.

EU sets ferro-alloy, stainless steel CBAM benchmarks for 2026–2030 imports

CBAM, Stainless Steel

The European Union sets ferro-alloy, stainless steel CBAM benchmarks to shape 2026 import liabilities. EU sets ferro-alloy, stainless steel CBAM benchmarks using provisional values tied to production periods. As a result, importers can estimate deductions from free allocation benchmarks once charges begin in 2026.

The provisional benchmark reduces CBAM liability by deducting a free-emissions allocation. Meanwhile, the draft applies charges only to direct process emissions at first. It excludes energy-source emissions from the early ferro-alloy and steel scope.

The draft splits ferro-alloy benchmarks into 2026–2027 and 2028–2030 values. Therefore, suppliers face a tightening standard after 2027. EU sets ferro-alloy, stainless steel CBAM benchmarks with lower values in 2028–2030.

Ferro-alloy benchmarks tighten after 2027 across key products

Ferro-chrome receives a benchmark of 2.005 tCO2 per tonne for 2026–2027. It then drops to 1.881 tCO2 per tonne for 2028–2030. Meanwhile, the draft applies the same values across low- and high-carbon ferro-chrome classes.

Ferro-manganese receives a benchmark of 1.397 tCO2 per tonne for 2026–2027. It then falls to 1.31 tCO2 per tonne for 2028–2030. Therefore, exporters must document process efficiency to protect netbacks.

Ferro-nickel carries the highest benchmark among the listed ferro-alloys. It starts at 3.376 tCO2 per tonne for 2026–2027. It then declines to 3.167 tCO2 per tonne for 2028–2030.

Stainless steel benchmarks add defaults and a process-data option

Stainless steel receives more benchmark values because products vary widely. Cold-rolled stainless flat products carry a default of 2.152 tCO2 per tonne for 2026–2027. The default drops to 2.047 tCO2 per tonne for 2028–2030.

Hot-rolled stainless flat products carry a default of 2.021 tCO2 per tonne for 2026–2027. The default drops to 1.92 tCO2 per tonne for 2028–2030. Meanwhile, the draft adds process-related benchmarks when importers provide verified actual data.

Cold-rolled stainless adds a process-related benchmark of 0.165 tCO2 per tonne for 2026–2030. Hot-rolled stainless adds a process-related benchmark of 0.11 tCO2 per tonne for 2026–2030. Therefore, strong measurement and reporting can lower default exposure.

The Metalnomist Commentary

These benchmarks will reward producers that can prove direct emissions with audited data. Meanwhile, stainless importers will gain leverage by replacing defaults with verified process figures. Therefore, exporters should invest now in MRV systems and product-level carbon accounting.