Taking out the politics

Politics is making a comeback in the UK. Not only do we have the most tightly contested election for many decades, but the UK played host to a recent IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in March that inspired much political gesturing yet little progress on improving the environmental performance of the international shipping fleet.

Despite the hubbub of lobbying and cajoling of IMO member states, we know that central to generating the will that is required to drive change is the instigation of widespread engagement with multiple stakeholders across the shipping industry; an inclusive approach that factors all elements of the ‘shipping supply chain’. It is an area, which at a regulatory level has been slow to develop, where the focus of debate has been centred on market measures and design indexes that affect the ship, and not the interaction between shipping and ships and the supply chain.

The carbon message

Despite this, the Clean Cargo Working Group and other NGOs and industry associations have begun to take the message to charterers or shippers that they have a responsibility for the CO₂ emitted from the vessels they charter. It is a bold approach with significant ramifications for the industry when the likes of Coca Cola, NIKE, Wal-Mart and other large ‘consumer facing’ companies understand the true environmental and financial impact of shipping. Indeed, many have made great strides in understanding their supply chain and implementing strict Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programmes around internal emissions targets; while altruism plays its role, they fundamentally realise the financial and brand benefits of environmental credibility.

In line with this, and as an immediate action, some of these large companies have taken a further step in recent weeks by accepting reduced arrival times for their goods and thereby enabling vessels to reduce speed and take advantage of a slow steaming ratio of about 1% less speed for 2.3% less fuel burn/CO₂.

This was preceded in December 2009 when the National Industrial Transportation League, an influential organisation speaking for cargo-owning heavyweights such as IBM, JC Penney, Target and Walgreen, also expressed no opposition to the prospect of receiving shipments a few days late as a result of containerships sailing more slowly.

It is a clear sign of large multi nationals seriously looking at joined up thinking for shipping.

Slower shipping

Reassuringly, NITL executive vice-president Peter Gatti told Lloyd’s List that advanced knowledge of when to expect the shipments was almost always more important than the time taken at sea.

“As long as everyone understands from the beginning that the shipment would arrive two days late, I do not see any problem in our importer members adjusting their supply chains to provide for this,” Gatti was reported saying.

There is momentum from the container shipper side then. The next step is to ensure that the thousands of smaller charterers, who ship one or two boxes around the world, have an opportunity to instruct the shipping companies to do the same. In other words, there needs to be a public forum that encourages shipping based on efficiency, not merely price.

The ports too, under the guidance of the International Ports and Harbours World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI) have begun to develop incentive schemes that encourage shipping companies to reduce arrival times and, in so doing, receive the benefit of a ‘green lane’ access to the port, much like a bus might progress into a city centre in a separate lane from other vehicles. This project, started in the Port of Rotterdam, is proving successful. Additionally, in the oil sector, attention is being paid to the issue of ships waiting days to discharge after having completed a voyage at full speed.

The Green Lane initiative and the actions of the NITL shows that ports and charterers are beginning to connect to the shipping community, yet it remains a fact that large sections of other stakeholders related to the shipping industry are oblivious to the problem of its emissions and – crucially – unaware of the potential benefits of dialogue and engagement between ports, charterers and shipping companies.

We continue to work towards sustainable and practical solutions to reducing shipping emissions and SEAaT’s work, along with the UK Chamber of Shipping to introduce an emissions trading scheme (ETS) for ships continues apace in conjunction with, and outside the regulatory framework.

For SEAaT and supporters of ETS for shipping, emissions targets remain undefined and policy instruments are undecided. There now appears to be support for the IMO to oversee any future environmental regulation and shipping will undoubtedly be on the agenda in Mexico later this year, at COP 16; other legislative bodies, particularly the European Commission will not tolerate inaction, an understandable position, but one, which threatens fragmentation.

ETS benefits

SEAaT believes an ETS for shipping is not only good for the environment as it facilitates definitive and sustainable emissions reduction; it provides a fair, economically viable and commercial framework within which to operate. It has the potential to help the ailing shipbuilding industry, as ship owners and operators look to engage the yards to develop and perhaps retrofit technologies such as air lubrication, improved hull coatings, sail power of various guises, solar and novel propulsion systems and exhaust gas treatment technologies.

What is clear is that all the necessary elements exist to drive long-term and sustainable change. All that is needed is a little joined up thinking and the member states of IMO talking opportunity and not politics.