Economy

Steel Groups Call for Action to Cut Global Excess Capacity
Written by Sandy Williams
October 23, 2020
Steel associations from around the globe called on steel-producing economies to intensify their work in the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity.
Recent increases in steel overcapacity have reversed a three-year declining trend and are of “tremendous concern” during a pandemic where steel demand is severely depressed. The associations urge participating countries in the Global Forum to renew their commitment and take stronger measures toward transparency and policy to stem the risk of potential destabilization of the international steel markets.
The associations recommend that members of the Forum:
- Develop stronger disciplines on industrial subsidies and other support measures that contribute to excess capacity and distort markets;
- Uphold effective trade remedies to ensure a level playing field driven by market forces and fair trade;
- Deepen the analysis of the drivers of steel capacity expansions to expose subsidized or non-market driven investments;
- Make a reliable forecast for steel demand in the markets where investments are to be made;
- Add value to the transparency work by developing open communication and information to the public; and
- Communicate to G20 Leaders on the need for expanded efforts to address the growing steel excess capacity crisis.
The steel associations also call for non-participating governments (notably China) to become active in the GFSEC’s work.
“Effectively addressing the global steel crisis is in the interest of all economies, steel producers, and steel consumers worldwide, and requires the active engagement of all G20 economies.”
The steel groups include: AISI, EUROFER, CSPA, CANACERO, SMA, Alacero, Brazil Steel Institute, JISF, Russian Steel, Turkish Steel Producers Association, ESTA, AMME, SAISI, KOSA, Ukrmetalurgprom, SINA, CPTI, CFSBI, SEIFSA and Acero Argentino.

Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Economy

Steel, manufacturing, and union groups divided on S232 tariffs
Domestic steel trade associations, manufacturing groups, and the United Steelworkers (USW) union had mixed reactions to the implementation of new Section 232 tariffs without exclusions on Wednesday. Trade groups representing steel mills broadly supported President Trump’s actions, while the USW and some groups representing manufacturers were more critical. AISI Kevin Dempsey, president and CEO of […]

CRU: Will US tariff policy be transactional or transformational?
The Trump 1.0 tariffs appeared to have little positive effect on the US manufacturing, partly because they hurt export competitiveness.

Beige Book finds mixed demand trends, tariff concerns
Manufacturing activity exhibited slight to modest increases across a majority of districts. However, manufacturers expressed concerns over the potential impact of looming trade policy changes between late January and February.

Construction spending drops marginally in January
Construction spending edged down slightly in January, slipping for the first time in four months. The US Census Bureau estimated spending at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $2,196 billion in January, down 0.2% from December’s downward revised rate. The January figure is 3.3% higher than a year ago. January’s result, despite the slight erosion, […]

ISM: Manufacturing expansion slowed in February
The Manufacturing PMI registered 50.3% in February. That’s 0.6 percentage points lower compared to the 50.9% recorded in January.