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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
11. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE Thanks! email@example.com