Shipping escapes measures in COP21 text

Many observers had feared that the text, agreed during intensive discussions between 195 nations held on 30 November to 11 December, might pave the way for mandatory carbon emission targets or market-based measures (under the ‘polluter pays’ principle). But while a draft released halfway through the talks revealed the extent of the division over the inclusion of maritime and aviation emissions – with suggestions to remove, mollify or strengthen the clause coming from various quarters – the final text mentioned neither industry.

IMO, which has long argued that it is the appropriate forum for discussions on reducing marine emissions, reacted by reaffirming its commitment to carbon advances. It said it would continue to develop a global data collection system for ship’s fuel consumption, to be discussed in detail at the next meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in 2016; further consider of a reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, as proposed by the Marshall Islands, to begin at a meeting in April next year; and investigate other ways for ships to support the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), representing (via national associations) the interests of more than 80% of the world fleet, stated that a complex and counterproductive scenario had been avoided. “Unilateral or regional regulation would be disastrous for shipping and disastrous for global CO2 reduction, whereas IMO is already helping shipping to deliver substantial CO2 reductions on a global basis,” argued Peter Hinchcliffe, secretary general of ICS.

The IMO maybe the only global body to have implemented industry-wide energy efficiency measures – specifically the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new vessels and Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for existing vessels – but other stakeholders were less enthusiastic about shipping’s emission reduction aspirations remaining solely in the hands of the IMO.

Victoria Stulgis, senior associate at Carbon War Room, commented: “Despite calls to regulate shipping from the European Parliament, Denmark and the Marshall Islands, as well as multiple industry leaders including Maersk, it is disappointing to learn that shipping has not been included. Some in the industry are resisting regulatory action, preferring instead to see how existing fuel efficiency measures such as EEDI and SEEMP play out. But we have yet to see these policies drive any meaningful investment in some of the promising new technologies that can unlock significant savings.

“Despite the outcome at COP, it is vital that the shipping industry recognises the importance and urgency of addressing greenhouse gas emissions, to effectively contribute to the global benchmark of well below two degrees [the temperature increase, compared to pre-industrial times, that the UNFCCC is hoping to avoid by 2050 – Ed].”