In-depth | regulations
COP 15; failure or opportunity?
Failure of the political leadership to achieve a global formula for reducing
greenhouse gases (GHGs) has left the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) with more time to secure a deal on its proposals for shipping at the
March 2010 Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC).
A
c

lean up operation of sorts has A market based instrument that will to function as the principal vehicle for the
begun in Copenhagen, the Bella include a fund collected either through a movement of global trade.”
Centre and its environs will be cap and trade system for carbon or taxes He went on to say that shipping
readied for the next event, the clean up levied on the cost of bunker fuel will also be “regulation should, without exception,
of the globe looks like it may take a while discussed at MEPC 60 in March, though a be the responsibility of an international
longer to achieve. hybrid of the two systems could eventually body dealing exclusively with maritime
Efthimios Mitropoulos, the IMO be agreed. A final sticking point on who matters, one that understands how the
secretary-general said there was “concern” will collect the funds and who will decide industry operates and has the specialised
that a legally binding agreement had failed knowledge, skills, track record, experience
to materialise from Copenhagen, mixed and expertise.”
with “measured satisfaction” that the
“international
Those words may yet fall on deaf ears,
Accord that was eventually thrashed out however, because with no targets for
could eventually lead to a legally binding shipping requires emissions reductions for shipping; no
agreement.
Mr Mitropoulos also spoke of his “hope”
global regulations
direction on whether a tax or an emissions
trading scheme should form the basis of
that post-Copenhagen consultations could
if it is to function
market-based emissions control; no clarity
also lead to some consensus on action that on whether the United Nations Framework
will be “on action needed to be taken to as the principal Council on Climate Change would leave
save the planet will be reached at the next
vehicle for the
responsibility for implementing any
Conference – possibly in Mexico one year emissions agreement that might emerge in
from now”.
movement of
the future to the IMO; and no resolution for
According to Mr Mitropoulos reconciling the Kyoto Protocol principle
despite the failure of COP15 to reach an
global trade”
of differentiating climate responsibilities
agreement and the disappointment that according to parties’ economic capacity
was created in communities around the with the IMO’s primary principle that all
world, the maritime community can now how they will be used could be the biggest ships and nations should be treated the
seize the opportunity afforded by the task that MEPC will face in March. same, there can be no guarantees that the
Copenhagen failure to show the world Nevertheless, Mr Mitropoulos argued in IMO will remain the responsible body for
that it is committed to reducing its GHG Copenhagen that the IMO had developed regulating shipping emissions.
emissions by supporting the IMO’s 2005 the skills for meeting these objectives over In fact some reports suggest that the
Action Plan. a period of 50 years. “The IMO’s Marine possibility that some form of unilateral
He said: “To that end, we have already Environment Protection Committee has action will be taken by Europe and the
made good progress through a partnership been developing measures to limit or USA is now more likely. Reports from the
of our Member States, the shipping industry reduce greenhouse gas emissions from EU suggest that it could make a move to
and civil society interests.” international shipping and has agreed that regulate emissions in shipping if no global
The three pronged Action Plan aims any related regulatory scheme should be agreement emerges. The EU proposes to
to reduce GHG emissions by requiring developed and enacted by the Organization impose targets for shipping to cut its
new ships to meet a complex formula as the most competent relevant international emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020.
known as the Energy Efficiency Design body,” he told the Copenhagen conference Both the USA and EU are developing
Index (EEDI). New and existing ships on 11 December. legislation to impose either a cap and
will be required to submit a Ship Energy Alluding to the Common But trade scheme for carbon emissions
Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for Differentiated Responsibilities, where within the EU or the USA Senate
the efficient operation of ships and a Ship developed countries taken on a greater appears to favour a levy on bunker fuel.
Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator element of the financial burden, Mr If this legislation is passed into law then
SEEOI) another formula that will measure Mitropoulos stressed: “That international the authority of the IMO may yet be
the fuel efficiency of a ship. shipping requires global regulations if it is severely dented. NA
28 The Naval Architect January 2010
NA Jan 10 - p28.indd 28 12/01/2010 09:53:42
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80