Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Session 41 Erik Svensson
Session 41 Erik Svensson
Session 41 Erik Svensson
Session 41 Erik Svensson
Session 41 Erik Svensson
Session 41 Erik Svensson
Session 41 Erik Svensson
Session 41 Erik Svensson
Session 41 Erik Svensson
Session 41 Erik Svensson
Session 41 Erik Svensson
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Session 41 Erik Svensson


Published on

The Regulation of Global SOx …

The Regulation of Global SOx
Emissions from Ships:
IMO proceedings 1988-2008

Transportforum 2012

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Transportforum 12.1.2012Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE The Regulation of Global SOx Emissions from Ships IMO proceedings 1988-2008 Erik Svensson Department of Shipping and Marine Technology Chalmers University of Technology
  • 2. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTREBunker Fuels • Residual fuels (~77% world fleet) – heavy fuel oil (HFO) – residues from refinery processes – in general high sulphur content (<4.5%, average ~2.4%) • Distillate fuels (~23% world fleet) – marine diesel oil (MDO) & marine gas oil (MGO) – high quality and low sulphur content (often <0.5%)
  • 3. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRESulphur Oxides (SOx) • Combustion of marine fuels Sfuel + O2  SO2 (~90%) + SO3 (~10%) • Wet deposition (acid rain) • Dry deposition (sulphate particles – PM) Impacts: • Acidification and climate (cooling) • Damages on buildings • Health impacts of PM – cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deceases
  • 4. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTREInternational Maritime Organization • Develops and maintain the regulatory framework for shipping – arena for its members to prepare/draft and amend maritime conventions – maritime safety – environment • Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) • Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG) – until 1995: Sub-Committee on Bulk Chemicals Handling (BCH) Plenary • Plenary, Working Groups & Drafting Groups • Intersessional Meetings • Correspondence Groups
  • 5. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTREMARPOL Annex VI • The MARPOL Convention – pollution from ships • Annex VI: air pollution from ships – adopted 1997, entered into force 2005 – sulphur content in bunker fuels – gobal & SOx Emission Control Areas (SECAs) • Revised in 2008 – entered into force: July 2010
  • 6. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRELicentiate Thesis How did the development of regulating global sulphur oxide emissions from ships end up with a global cap of 4.5% together with a regional SECA limit of 1.5%? What explains the turn towards a more stringent global cap of 0.5%?• Investigated documentation of 20 years of IMO deliberations• A case study of an IMO process (description)  Provides a basis for further research (analysis)
  • 7. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTREResultsBackground • SOx = transboundary pollutants - emissions from other countries - national measures had little effect in the 1970s • International agreements in the 1980s – LRTAP, Europa, US • Decreased SO2 emissions from land-based sources • The attention was drawn to increasing emissions from international shipping
  • 8. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTREAct 1. The Development of a 4.5% Global Cap,1988-1997 • Early target to halve global emissions by 2000 – proposals: 0.8-1.5% globally • Targets were removed • High costs for oil industry • A regional approach wins • Introduced a “cap” to supplement regional measures – not to reduce but to prevent a possible increase in the sulphur content But why 4.5%? • Oil influences • No prevention of a possible increase • Could only be motivated as a first step
  • 9. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE Act 2. The Revision, 2004-2008 (overture:1997-2004) • Health effects were one of the mainKey Events of the Second Act reasons for a revision (driver: EU) • A global uniform standard was sought by many. MEPC 53: A proposal by Iran MEPC 58:Adoption of gives an opportunity to Revised Annex VI amend • High costs on the oil industry made the MEPC 54: Decision to revise BLG 10: BLG 11: Report of the IMO focus on keeping the SECA The revision Six sulphur Group of Experts after a joint proposal starts options approach.2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 • Need for fast consensus Conditions met – to prevent unilateralism Entry into force First Intersessional Meeting: MEPC 57: Approval of for entry into force of Annex VI INTERTANKO proposal amendments – to show that IMO was capable of of Annex VI  three sulphur options taking action BLG 12: finalized technical work - three sulphur options • The result: stringent SECA limits and a global cap that would become stringent in 2020 or 2025, – after a review in 2018 of the ability of the oil industry to supply distillate fuels.
  • 10. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTREMain Conclusions • The regional focus can be explained by the IMO focusing on the high costs for the oil industry. • It can also be explained by the historical regional focus of the air pollution regime. • The oil industry and the shipping industry organizations shared positions many times and searched for status quo to postpone decisions that would have meant high costs. • As a result of the slow process and compromises towards regional solutions, the global cap still has no effect in this decade. – global, stringent measures: 20-25 years after the initial target date to halve global emissions • It should not be interpreted as an emission ceiling until the future reveals its results.