|
 Safety, Environment
& Security |
 |
 |
 |
| WEBSITES |
|
|
| |
Back to 20/2008
Emission cuts – a controversial and complex question
The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has held its 58th session at the IMO headquarters in London. There were several important items on the agenda, but most of the time was spent on air emissions from ships. The most controversial issue was solutions to tackle emissions of greenhouse gases, and the debate clearly demonstrated that there is a dividing line between developed and developing nations.
The latter category, which obviously feels that the former is responsible for today’s problems, made it crystal clear that no solutions that result in higher costs for the world’s poorer nations are acceptable, whether by market-based instruments or by technical and/or operational developments.
Unlike in many other international forums, the developed part of the world will have a hard time if it tries to over-run the poorer part in IMO, as most of the world’s merchant fleet is registered in developing countries.
There was no decision taken during the meeting on how to cut CO2 emissions, and further work is to be carried out by an intersessional working group in March. This means that there is little chance that a draft proposal can be presented in time for the next MEPC meeting, to be held next summer.
As a result, shipping will come to the Copenhagen Climate Conference next autumn without an agreed plan on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated by maritime transport. This may lead to regulation forced on shipping through the protocol from the Copenhagen meeting. It also opens up for regional solutions, for instance by the EU, and we all know what amount of problems regional measures can mean for international shipping.
Another emission issue was however entirely uncontroversial as an unanimous gathering of flag states decided on a revised Annex VI to also include a plan to reduce sulphur content in bunker fuel to 0.5 per cent worldwide by 2020 and 0.1 per cent in so called Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA) by 2012.
The main reason behind this unity seems to be that any other decision would be impossible bearing in mind the current pressure from politicians, in their turn pressed by their constituencies and a general public demanding concrete action against air pollution.
”The developed part of the world will have a hard time
if it tries to over-run the poorer part in IMO,
as most of the world’s merchant fleet is registered
in developing countries.”
For the shipping industry, new and tough rules for SOx and other emissions have become an issue by which the industry can show decisiveness to a surrounding world that sometimes is sceptical to the environmental ambitions of those involved in maritime transport.
The decision is probably right, but the consequences of it have not been investigated enough. A number of national delegations will, or have already started, their own inquires into what effects the new sulphur limits will have.
This includes industries in peripheral countries, already with a distance disadvantage to their markets compared to competitors that have started to voice their concerns. In Sweden, the base industry has highlighted this to the Swedish government, claiming that the MEPC decision could lead to a modal shift, that is more transport by land than by sea. In Finland, a study says that the decision will add EUR 700 million per year to the country’s transport costs for its seaborne export and import. Also the German delegation at the MEPC, while applauding the decision, warned of a modal shift and said they would initiate a consequence investigation.
If the MEPC decision in fact will lead to a competitive disadvantage for some parts of Europe and indeed a modal shift, this might overshadow the environmental benefit it was intended to give.
Cutting emissions from ships will cost money and there is a limit somewhere when added costs for maritime transports may result in unwanted consequences, also in international trade where developing nations stand to lose most. This must be investigated thoroughly before a final decision is taken.
In a European perspective, and if EU and its member states means business when they say that maritime transport is a solution for mounting transport and environmental problems, added costs must be evenly spread throughout the logistical chain in a competition neutral manner.
By the end of the day, the cost will be tossed to the end-users, that is every one of us as consumers and citizens, either by the tax bill or by higher prices in the shops. Responsibility to explain this lies with the politicians and not with the shipping industry.
Rolf P. Nilsson, Editor-in-Chief.
Latest update 24-10-2008 |
|
 CURRENT SSG |
|
No 20/2008
Order a copy
|
 |
| CURRENT SST |
|
No 4/2012
Köp numret
|
|
|
2008