2005 Sustainability Report - Lafarge

LOCAL EMISSIONS AND POLLUTANTS
NOX EMISSIONS
(grammes/tonne of clinker)
2,075
2,000
03 04 05
2,014
The 3% reduction in NOx emissions compared
with 2003 is mainly due to the installation of gas
treatment equipment in Europe, which keeps levels
down. We will continue these efforts in future years.
SO2 EMISSIONS
(grammes/tonne of clinker)
800
03 04 05
The increase in SO2 emissions can be explained
by higher emissions in North America, but also
by more comprehensive and reliable reporting
in this field.
STACK DUST EMISSIONS
(grammes/tonne of clinker)
03 04 05
The increase in stack dust emissions can be
explained by more comprehensive and reliable
reporting in this field, particularly in Central Europe.
Benchmark> Seven major competitors currently publish information on this subject. Comparability is limited as reporting often covers only a sample of kilns. According to the
information published in 2004, Lafarge's NOx and stack dust emissions are on average higher than those of its competitors. However, in terms of SO2, Lafarge is in second place.
Methodology: These emissions are estimated from continuous measurements in 80% of kilns (recommended by Cement’s reporting standards), or otherwise by one-off,
extrapolated measurements.
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
BREAKDOWN OF LCR* R&D BUDGET (millions of euros)
* Central Research Laboratory (LCR) budget
766
1,057
162
LAFARGE | 2005 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT | PAGE 41
124
2003 2004 2005
LCR budget 18 21.4 24,2
Exploration of new levers to reduce CO2 emissions 0.3 1.1 1.9
Programs with high impact on our CO2 emissions
(developing levers currently used)
2.4 2.5 1.5
Programs with indirect impact on our CO2 emissions
(high-performance products)
3.4 3.8 4
Other programs with no major impact on our sustainability performance 11.9 14 16.8
REHABILITATION
QUARRIES WITH A REHABILITATION PLAN
2003 2004 2005
Cement 65% 42% 32%
Aggregates & Concrete 85% 93% 88%
Roofing 90% 91% n/a
Gypsum 44% 69% 75%
Group 80% 79% 71%
In 2005, an independent third party verified this indicator (see third cover page). Since this verification revealed differences in the interpretation and the implementation
of the Group policies, the figures have been modified accordingly. Roofing has not formalized its reporting methodology, so we decided not to consider its figure.
Benchmark> In 2004, Lafarge ranked third among the three cement producers publishing information on this subject. The rate achieved for Cement is 8% below that of
the second-ranked producer and 44% below that of the number one. However, rehabilitation standards are not necessarily comparable between the different cement
producers.
171