Ship Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and the outcome of relevant UNFCCC meetings, in particular COP21, were put under the spotlight at the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee’s (MEPC) 69th session, held from April 18 – 22, 2016 in London.
In this article we review the debates and present and extensive account of Member State comments during the session.
It’s a bit like Eurovision, but for shipping GHG emissions debates….
A Quick Summary (in case you don’t want to read the official agenda that was debated for the Member State feedback)
MEPC Chairman, Mr Arsenio Dominguez confirmed that MEPC welcomes the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. He stated that current efforts introduced by IMO to enhance ship efficiency had been highly commended.
In summary the discussions that took place through “Item 7: REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS” surmounted in majority agreement that the adoption of data collection system is of high priority. Also that a 3 step process of data collection, analysis and decision-making is vital. The majority of Members States supported the development of work plan and also the development of a definition for “Shipping’s Fair Share” for international shipping to contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions.
The details of the work plan will be further considered at MEPC 70 with establishment of working group using all docs from this session and further proposals for analysis.
The official papers that were submitted to MEPC 69 under this agenda Item 7: REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS were:
7.Outcomes of the United Nations Climate Change Conferences held in Bonn in June, August and October 2015 and Paris in December 2015 – by the Secretariat
The UNFCC gave an introduction to the Committee and proceeded to discuss the outcomes of the about the COP21 Paris conference in December 2015 and the next steps for the maritime transportation sector. The main outcome reported is that IMO has been invited to report to future sessions on work relevant to emissions from fuel used for maritime transport.
7/1. Proposal to develop an “Intended IMO Determined Contribution” on CO2 reduction for international shipping – submitted by the International Chamber of Shipping
In this submission, ICS proposed the development of an Intended IMO Determined Contribution (IIDC) on CO2 reduction for the International Shipping Sector taking into full account the agreement reached at the COP 21 meeting in Paris.
7/2. International shipping’s share in international efforts to limit the rise of global average temperature – submitted by Belgium, France, Germany, the Marshall Islands, Morocco and Solomon Islands
The Co-sponsors proposed that a work plan should be developed to develop a definition of what is meant by a “fair share” for international shipping to contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions. A proposed draft work plan is provided in the annex to this submission. The proposed timescale aims for completion at MEPC 72 in spring 2018.
7/3. An appropriate IMO response to the Paris Agreement – Submitted by the Clean Shipping Coalition
The Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC) provided comment on four areas where it considers that further progress is needed at IMO in response to the November 2015 COP 21 meeting in Paris.
Shipping’s Fair Share: CSC called for the industry to decarbonise and for incentives to be put in place to achieve this.
Global MRV: CSC argued for the inclusion of detailed cargo information, which IMO has agreed is not necessary.
EEDI Phase 2 Requirements: CSC contended that the EEDI requirements should be made more demanding.
Measures For Existing Ships: CSC contended that the development of new measures should proceed in parallel with data collection.
7/4. Establishing a process for considering shipping’s appropriate contribution to reducing CO2 emissions – submitted by World Shipping Council, CLIA, INTERTANKO and IPTA
The co-sponsors of this paper broadly agreed that a work plan should be developed to develop a clear understanding of what should be the long term carbon objective for international shipping. This paper also proposed that in order to provide accurate information on actual consumption to inform a sound carbon policy it is necessary to finalise and adopt the IMO data collection system.
What the UNFCCC Said:
During their introduction, the UNFCCC stated that “Aviation and shipping must contribute and rapidly reduce emissions to move towards ‘climate neutral development’ by the end of the century”.
The IMO Secretary General, My Ki Tack Lim expressed that he hopes there to be more balanced development and progress in the shipping industry based on the Paris Agreement. Lim stated that he is looking forward to outcome of UN signing event tomorrow, saying that “This will be another stepping stone” in progress – for the IMO to do their best for climate change issues.”
The points put forward by Member States were as follows:
Norway: They welcomed all submissions. They stated that global services should be delivered in a safe and environmentally friendly manner. They highlighted the fact that key messages throughout all of the submission were the same. They voiced that the IMO and MEPC need to clearly define what our contribution will be towards the global goal. They pledged their support to initiate process to define and deliver progress for 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition).
France: In relation to – on 69/6/5 (Request to finalize a mandatory CO2 data collection system for international shipping) they suggested that Member States have the capabilities to reduce CO2. They spoke of their special responsibility to the Paris Agreement. They said that the future of the planet is at stake, as is the credibility of the signatories and of the Member States (who are also members of IMO). In relation to 69/7/2 ((work plan development for shipping’s “fair share”) they said in order for IMO to achieve this here and now MEPC needs to put together a working plan that is accompanied by a time frame. They voiced, “If we fail, people may see this as incompetence.” Also that “We (MEPC and IMO) need to show the credibility of our organisation.”
China: They stated that they believed it to be too early to consider proposals from Member States. They stated that IMO decisions should be based on data collection and analysis. Without a sound data collection system IMO MEPC may dive into a hasty discussion of organisations contribution, and it will not be along the 3 step approach. They assured that it would not be scientific or reliable.
Brazil: They stated that they support all documents to combat climate change. They advised that caution needed to properly set out the processes required by the IMO. They advised IMO to look at current IMO climate change measures suggested and suggested the IMO works on these before implementing more. They also stated that developing countries also need to be provided with the means to contribute to this agenda 7 item. However, Brazil does not support new negotiations right now.
India: They express support for China and Brazil. Voiced that comprehensive assessment of the proposals should be submitted.
Finland: They stated that data collection system is a priority.
Singapore: They pledged allegiance to IMO’s climate change efforts and said that they were ready to contribute to discussions. However, they advised that IMO must consider results of data collection process.
Vanuatu: They asked IMO to consider the consequences of climate change to their country, expressing that Vanuata has lowest contribution to GHG emissions but are very poor so low potential for tech investment to mitigate climate change effects.
Panama: They expressed that methodologies to some measures are not particularly clear. They suggested that at MEPC 69, the MEPC should focus work relating to a data collection system and invite countries to submit proposals to MEPC 70.
United States: They welcomed the adoption of the Paris Agreement.
Greece: They said that papers submitted to MEPC gave a constructive base for further discussion and that they support them in principal.
Poland: They expressed that they believed that the committee is already in a position to define the share of processes and that action should be taken at MEPC 70.
Canada: they expressed that they were uncomfortable with the “fair share terminology”. They said that the mitigation target is aspirational but any measures to reach it “should be implemented on a mandatory basis”.
Belgium: They said that the IMO needs to demonstrate to the world that this organisation can be as effective as the COP in Paris. They supported the finalisation of a data collection system.
Malta: They supported the ICS proposal particularly. They believe that international shipping must play its full part and must be achieved through IMO as it is the only organisation to regulate shipping. They said 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition )can be used as a good progress for commitment development within the organisation. They also expressed that there needs to be major achievements for IMO to show firm commitment towards GHG emissions.
Morocco: Host of COP22 in November 2016. They believe that COP22 will be opportunity for IMO to reaffirm its efforts towards international community.
Argentina: They expressed some reservations.
Chile: They said that the implementation of the Paris Agreement is fundamental if we are to move together towards a low carbon economy of fundamental importance to vulnerable countries like Chile.
Luxembourg: They support 69/7/2 (work plan development for shipping’s “fair share)
Marshall Islands: They agree with 7/2, support actions requested in para 12.
Cyprus: They support agreement to initiate process to develop commitment by IMO.
Sweden: They welcomes UNFCCC’s submission (69/7/1). They deemed the time plan and workshare proposed in 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition) necessary. They said that 69/7/4 (Establishing a process for considering shipping’s appropriate contribution to reducing CO2 emissions) important for discussions on long-term goals to be made in a transparent and long term matter.
Russia: They welcomed COP21 update, but suggested that the IMO and MEPC should establish their own goals for reduction of GHG. They stated that at the moment no factors to show lack of measures that have been applied yet. They pointed out that the IMO was assessed positively although left out of COP21. They said that IMO should take well founded technical decisions and send “clearly understandable signals to the maritime sector”. They also said the IMO should not give in to more populistic or ambitious tasks but to reinforce work in area of technical cooperation. In closing they said that for now the IMO’s work should be based on collecting data.
Saudi Arabia: They said that they support collection, analysis, decision-making three step process. Therefore suggested that some proposals should therefore be delayed until a later stage until the data collection is carried out.
Monaco: They said that the IMO needs to be realistic and consider economic factors now, but then IMO really needs to set the pace. 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition) has full support from Monaco.
Bahamas: They stated how vulnerable the Bahamas was to climate change. 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition), particularly paragraph 12 has their full support. They backed up Vanuata and Malta’s comments.
Ireland: They supported calls for political reduction on GHG. They stated aligned with Finland, Sweden and Netherlands.
Cook Islands: They highlighted the confusion in 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition) 69/6/2 (data collection) where the step three approach in 6/2 stresses transparency and data collection as soon as possible to ensure data is available for analysis to inform decision. They highlighted that in 69/7/2 data collection is dismissed. They said that therefore it was difficult to give support based on this. They said that the country is committed to the organisation and to be part of the efforts and is hopeful that IMO will adopt a mandatory data collection system to be analysed under stage 3 and to establish what energy efficiency measures should be pursed and adopted. They stated that “anything else at the moment is an unwelcome distraction”.
Code d’Ivoire: They supported 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition).
Turkey: They believe that IMO has started initiative by adapting course for data collection system. They said that setting a designated time for emissions reductions is too early at this stage but we would like to see a global data collection system set up.
Australia: They said that “a GHG emissions target should be aspirational and not legally binding”. They support a data collection system.
Latvia: They support 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition).
Angola: They agree that the IMO should endeavour a CO2 reduction and demonstrate commitment to the world. However, they stated that whatever steps are taken now should not act through reaction but through effective steps that ensure caution and long term stability of policies in relation to the issue at hand.
Malaysia: They support the data collection system. They expressed that they didn’t want any delays to this work and for “data collection system to get underway as soon as possible.
Spain: They support 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition) and said that IMO should begin working on the plan.
Denmark: They support the data collection system and noted strong support from the industry.
Colombia: They expressed that the IMO “needs to collect the right statistics in the right way”. They said that once the IMO and MEPC have the data they can analyse and put together a plan of work establishing their own specific objectives.
New Zealand: They said that IMO needs to demonstrate progress. They said that flexibility is key and that a policy solution will not be simple.
South Africa: They agreed with 3 step data approach.
Germany: They said that the IMO needs to develop a scope of capability.
Palau: They agreed in principle with all of the papers, but said that the IMO and industry needed to move together.
Korea: They favoured the IMO and Member States focusing on current systems such as EEDI and capacity building for developing countries rather than developing new measures.
Iceland: They supported 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition) in principal.
Italy: They support a global commitment to reductions. Need to define fair share through 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition).
Estonia: They agree with 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition).
Liberia: They supported the finalisation of a data collection system.
Equatorial Guinea: They welcomed 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition).
Hong Kong: They welcomed the 3 step approach saying that it was a roadmap that would lead to the ultimate goal of reducing emissions.
Peru: They committed to achieving COP21 goals and believe that IMO has made significant progress. They agrees with 3 step approach and believe that the data collection system should be mandatory.
Tuvalu: They supported 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition). They are supporting further measures to be adopted.
Mexico: They hope that IMO will commit to global commitment. They support 69/7/1/ and 69/7/2
Nigeria: They expressed that the role of the maritime sector cannot be overemphasised. They support 69/7/2 (work plan and development of “fair share” definition).
Ship Efficiency Review has been reporting throughout the duration of MEPC 69. For all news and insight published search for articles tagged “MEPC 69” on Shipefficiencyreview.com or search via #MEPC69 on Twitter.
Ship Efficiency Review News
To contact the reporter responsible for this article, please email editor@fathom-mi.co
