It suggests urgent short-term solutions needed to reduce GHGs by 48% in 11 years to achieve the goal of the Paris Agreements. In the face of this, all sectors of the world are under even more pressure to act on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Accounting until 2014, 3rd The IMO study on GHGs identified that shipping emits about 1 billion tons of CO2 annually and is solely responsible for 2.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The climate change regime and the shipping industry
The 1995 UNFCCC referred to GHGs for the first time, regulating GHG emissions from shipping was a challenge due to its cross-border commitment. In early 1996, the UNFCCC Subsidiary Agency for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) attempted to regulate GHGs in shipments, but was unable to make an effective decision. Since then, the UNFCCC has chosen to transfer responsibility to the IMO to resolve the issue. This same decision is mentioned in Article 2 (2) of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which mandated the IMO to reach a solution aimed at all its stakeholders to take possible measures to reduce GHGs. . As a result, the IMO took the first step towards the adoption of Resolution 8 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) on “CO2 Ship emissions “, asking the IMO to conduct a study on GHG emissions and to consider strategies for CO2 reduction. as a result, technical and operational measures have been adopted (EEDI, SEEMP).
“Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the IMO took 14 years to adopt with the amendments to Annex VI 2011 to MARPOL 73/78, it shows the complication that regulates GHGs in the industry.”
The IMO has had to address a number of specific regulatory challenges, such as how to assign emissions to individual states, how to determine the appropriate regulatory roles for the UNFCCC and the IMO, how to choose between different regulatory tools to achieve a reduction. notable of shipping. GHG emissions and how to balance the interests of developed and developing states and other stakeholders.
So what are these principles?
Today more than at any time in history we see a social activism on climate change that points to different ideas and concepts to address the problem. However, under the UN framework for regulating GHGs in the atmosphere, negotiations between stakeholders were under two proposals. One is a different treatment between member parties based on justice and equity which is represented by the principle “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR)” and the other is equal treatment between all member parties also called “No more favorable treatment (NMFT) “.
The conflict focuses on the question of how to harmonize the “CBDR” principle and the “NMFT” principle when regulating GHG emissions from international maritime transport. The whole process of negotiating GHG emission reductions within the IMO has been shaped by the fundamentally different approach between states to this principle. Given that regulations and economic development play an important role in the maritime weather industry, the IMO is tasked with creating a fair viable mechanism to address all sectors.
It was also made clear that states of late development, such as China, India and Brazil, do not fully agree on setting a global limit on GHG emissions from maritime transport, the reduction being added to the same group. Interestingly, some international shipping associations were opposed to any binding limit on the total CO2 of the international maritime sector.2 emissions, but suggested that the IMO adopt aspirational targets based on the results of the three-phase “Data Collection System”.
The joint submission of China and India in March 2017 a proposal referring to the “IMO Comprehensive Strategy on Reducing GHG Emissions from Ships”. projects a future agreement on a proposal that incorporates both the CBDR and NMFT principles.
The proposal of Key measures to reduce GHG emissions from maritime transport, presented by Canada at the 71st Session of the MEPC, states such as Canada and the Republic of Korea strongly recognize that “No more favorable treatment” it should be the only guiding principle in addressing IMO competence in the field of GHGs.
Similar interest groups were introduced in 2008 Future IMO regulation on greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping. The proposal expressed views of the international shipping industry’s support for the NMFT principle, making it a basis for future discussions on reducing GHG emissions from international shipping.
The proposal was presented by the group of The Round Table of International Shipping Associations formed by Bimco, whose members are made up of owners, brokers, ship agents and other operators; The International Navigation Chamber (ICS) whose members are made up of the national shipowners’ associations of 37 countries; Intercharge, the International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners; Interchange, the International Association of Independent Oil Owners. The proposal also had the support of other states and co-sponsoring organizations such as Denmark and the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF).
Since 2004, China has come forward to present various statements and proposals expressing its support for the CDBR principle, given that the shipping industry, Chinese documents provide ways and justifications for implementing the CDBR principle.
Although the IMO adopted the EEDI and the SEEMP in July 2011, it applies equally to all ships of 400 gross tonnage or more and regardless of the nationality of the vessel, the interests among developed states and in development are clearly represented during the negotiations. The CDBR principle for GHG emission regulations is preferred by large developing states such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
However, the adoption in 2011 of amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, which was rooted in the NMFT principle, was not welcomed by developing states such as China and India, as they immediately submitted reservations to in a totally objective way, China stated that they would not accept the amendments as they did not reflect the CBDR principle.
Most importantly, the CDBR principle helped countries negotiate the issue of climate change, although it is not the right time to say whether the principle helped to deliver positive results. However, after decades of negotiations on the climate change regime, two observations are clear:
1) National Sovereignty: Powerful countries (developed countries) do not like to change their national policies to meet the demands of small developing nations. (Simply put, big countries don’t like small countries to advise them or small countries to tell big ones what to do)
2) Basically, all countries value their national image globally and do not want to be cited as a polluting country.
These two scenarios are closely monitored and implemented as tools of the Paris Agreement; one is the “Determined National Contributions (NDC)” in order to give member states full control of their actions by emphasizing national sovereignty. The other is “Transparency”. NDCs give countries to determine their contributions to achieving the goal of the agreement, while transparency gives public awareness by making states ashamed of not fulfilling them. These two mechanisms work hand in hand, as many developing nations are cited as climate advocates, while some developed nations are politically embarrassed in public.
The IMO should consider working on this mechanism in order to advance certain national contributions to the shipping industry as a bottom-up approach to complying with the IMO’s GHG strategy, this could open a forum completely new to transform ports into digital control systems. coordinated by the IMO MTC network. Second, to improve transparency in order to publish the results of IMO data in a public database, especially in organizations located outside London.
This is an area where the IMO still can’t find a suitable answer, if you have any comments or suggestions, write to me at [email protected]
The views expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily those of Seatrade Maritime or Informa Markets.
Copyright © 2022. All rights reserved. Seatrade, a trade name for Informa Markets (UK) Limited.