This document discusses ship emissions and the political process around regulating them. It provides ESPO's views. ESPO represents European seaport authorities and takes a proactive approach to port environmental management. There is debate around ship emissions and their impact on air quality and the green image of shipping. Political processes are considering new regulations from the EU and IMO around reducing sulfur levels in fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. ESPO supports global regulation through IMO but recognizes ports' interests in local air quality and maintaining shipping's competitiveness. It advocates voluntary initiatives and the ports playing a role in enabling, encouraging and engaging others in improved environmental performance.

1. The ship emissions debate:
ESPO’s view and implications for ports
Sulphur Directive 2005/33/EC: Implications for ports,
Zeebrugge, 23 March 2012
Dr Antonis Michail, Policy Advisor, ESPO

2. Content
1. ESPO and the environment
2. The ship emissions debate
3. Political process and ports’ response
4. Way forward and conclusions

3. ESPO
Founded in 1993
Represents European seaport
authorities (members)
Members from EU and
neighboring countries
Secretariat in Brussels
Recognised counterpart of EU
institutions

4. ESPO and the environment
Pro-activeness / Self regulation
Sharing knowledge and experiences
Continuous environmental improvement through
systematic approach to port environmental management
Dialogue and cooperation with regulating authorities
Involvement of all relevant port users / stakeholders

5. EcoPorts integration within ESPO
www.ecoports.com

6. ESPO Green Guide - 5Es approach
Exemplify: Setting the good example towards the wider port
community
Enable: Providing infrastructural or operational conditions for port
users so that they can improve their environmental performance
Encourage: Providing incentives to port users in order to trigger
improved environmental performance
Engage: Engaging with port users and/or competent authorities in
sharing knowledge and skills towards joint projects
Enforce: Regulating behavior of port users and ensure compliance

7. Content
1. ESPO and the environment
2. The ship emissions debate
3. Political process and ports’ response
4. Way forward and conclusions

8. The ship emissions debate

9. Shipping is carbon efficient …
Air
(Boeing 747-400)
Truck
(Global average)
Rail Diesel
Rail Electric
(Global average)
Ocean
(Avg. ML vessels)
CO2 (g/ton km)
Source: Based on data from the Network for Transport and Environment, Sweden

10. … but its green image is under threat!
“ships can be seen as floating incinerators”
“if shipping can only compete on the basis of a dirty
fuel, you have to wonder how ‘green’ it really is”

11. Ports’ interest
Maintaining / restoring the green image of shipping
Maintaining its competitiveness
Reducing impact on local air quality (SOx, NOx, PM)
Maintaining good environmental condition in the port
area (licence to operate and to grow)

12. Content
1. ESPO and the environment
2. The ship emissions debate
3. Political process and ports’ response
4. Way forward and conclusions

13. Sulphur Directive – Political process
EC Proposal
EP TRAN Opinion
EP ENVI Report – February 2012
EP Plenary – May 2012
Council and Parliament negotiations
First reading agreement?

14. Sulphur Directive – ESPO’s view
Shipping is a global industry, refrain from going beyond
IMO
Passenger ships
Restrictions on fuels placed in the market
New SECAs through IMO
Fuel availability clause
Ambitious programme of accompanying measures

15. GHG emissions – Political process
IMO adoption of EEDI and SEEMP - July 2011
EC determination to propose regional Market Based
Measures - Proposal is foreseen within 2012
Several stakeholders’ meetings (ECCP)
Ongoing impact assessment
Ongoing online consultation

16. GHG emissions – Political process
4 MMBs are being considered
Compensation fund
Mandatory emission reductions per ship
Emission Trading Scheme
Tax (on fuels or emissions)
Scope
All vessels arriving from the last port of call
All vessels departing until the next port of call

17. GHG emissions – ESPO’s view
It is counterproductive to tackle the contribution of a
global industry to a global environmental issue on a
regional basis!
The risk of evading practices is of great concern for the
ports especially in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea!
Promote the use of voluntary initiatives at European
level (e.g. WPCI, ESI, OPS, LNG, slow steaming)

18. Designation of NECAs – Process
North Sea NECA consultation group
Draft environmental and economic impact assessment
arrive to the conclusion that a North Sea NECA is a
socio-economic cost-efficient measure with benefits
exceeding the costs
Meeting 26-27 March
Similar process in the Baltic Sea is ongoing

19. Designation of NECAs – ESPO view
Each European region is free to examine whether a NECA
designation is beneficial and to follow the IMO process
But avoid the same mistakes as in the case of SECAs!
Thorough impact assessment needed (including potential
lack of level playing field related considerations)

20. Content
1. ESPO and the environment
2. The ship emissions debate
3. Political process and ports’ response
4. Way forward and conclusions

21. Way forward
Closely following the ship emissions debate / Lobbying
Promoting voluntary initiatives (WPCI, ESI, OPS, LNG,
EcoPorts)
ESPO Green Guide – 5Es (establish what port authorities
can do)

22. Conclusions
Shipping should be regulated globally through IMO
Ports have a clear interest in local air quality (licence to
operate and to grow)
Ports have a clear interest to maintain the green image
of shipping while also maintaining its competitivenes
Enabling, Encouraging, Engaging

23. Thank you for your attention!
Sulphur Directive 2005/33/EC: Implications for ports, Zeebrugge,
23 March 2012
Dr Antonis Michail, Policy Advisor, ESPO, antonis.michail@espo.be
www.espo.be / www.ecoports.com