World Bunkering > News > Spring 2010 > Disappointment at Copenhagen

Efthimios Mitropoulos

After all the hype, all the build-up, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) at Copenhagen turned out to be an anti-climax. There was disappointment for both the environmental lobby desperate for action on global warming and for the shipping industry, which wanted to see IMO put in charge of developing CO2 reduction measures for the maritime industries.

With all the attention on the broad issues facing the world’s leaders and the limited agreement that was eventually reached, COP15 got nowhere near addressing shipping’s unique issues. The painstaking and detailed work undertaken by the shipping community and presented by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) stayed off the top table.

IMO

IMO Secretary-General Efthimios Mitropoulos put on a brave face, saying: “Like many others who have made comments on the outcome of COP15, I have viewed the end result of the Copenhagen Conference with mixed feelings: with concern that the target initially pursued, following the 2007 Bali Conference, of a legally binding instrument, was not achieved; with measured satisfaction that, through the Accord tabled at the end of the deliberations, a step in the right direction was taken enabling progress to be made towards a legally binding instrument; and with hope that, following new rounds of consultations to be held post-Copenhagen, the required consensus on action needed to be taken to save the planet will be reached at the next Conference – possibly in Mexico one year from now.”

The reality must be that Mr Mitropoulos was very disappointed, given the huge effort he personally has put in to ensuring IMO did its utmost to make sure shipping is prepared to make meaningful cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Mitropoulos made the point that COP15 has given the industry more time to make “real progress in our work. At the same time it creates an increased obligation on IMO to intensify its efforts so that it may be able to present, to COP16/17, concrete results as evidence not only of its determination to play its part in the world efforts to stem climate change and global warming, but also of its continued capability to serve the environment, as it has successfully done over the years”.

That was a reference to what shipping will see as COP15’s failure to give IMO the mandate to oversee the industry’s response to the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

International response

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) couched its response to COP15 in diplomatic language, acknowledging “the progress made by governments, reflected in the Copenhagen Accord”. But it added: “ICS is disappointed that the text of the Accord is silent on the treatment of international shipping in the delivery of further CO2 emission reductions, to which the industry remains firmly committed.”

ICS also highlighted the big problem that still haunts the whole Kyoto/Copenhagen process. It said: “In particular, it remains unclear how the Kyoto Protocol principle of ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibility’ (CBDR) should be reconciled with the important need for global rules on CO2 reductions for the carriage of world trade – about 90% of which is carried by ships (acknowledged as the most carbon efficient mode of commercial transport).” Basically CBDR means that only the developed countries (the so-called Annex 1 countries) are committed to reduce CO2 emissions.

ICS stressed the point that it always makes with regard to regulation of the industry – that shipping is a uniquely international industry that can only work efficiently when operating within a framework of uniform global regulation that applies equally to all ships regardless of flag. The shipowners’ body warned that there is a serious risk that some countries will develop unilateral measures to regulate at national or regional level the CO2 emissions of ships trading internationally. It says: “Such unilateral measures would likely result in serious market distortions and – most importantly – be far less effective in ensuring the reduction of CO2 emissions by the global shipping sector as a whole.”

Where next?

That the possibility of unilateral regulations was raised does underscore the need for IMO to be able to go to COP16 next year with a fully worked-out plan to use financial incentives – market based instruments – to achieve significant cuts in emissions. That would mean IMO has to achieve a consensus on this issue – a consensus that has so far eluded it. That probably means a levy-based system rather than emissions trading.

Prior to COP15 it was clear that that the shipping industry was sharply divided on whether market based instruments should be in the form of an emissions trading scheme or a levy. In the past few weeks a third option has emerged, with the US and Japan separately proposing systems using IMO’s Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI). These proposals are at a tentative stage but are likely to to firmed up soon.

Meanwhile, it is understood that the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Co-operation that had prepared a draft on options for COP15 on fuel for shipping and aviation is likely to rework its proposal, which did not manage to reach the plenary session at Copenhagen. The two options were to have been either giving IMO the responsibility for reducing emissions from shipping or imposing an international tax on aviation and shipping, to be administered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat. During COP15 there was a suggestion that money raised in this way could be used to partly fund an overall climate change deal.

At present there is a lot of work going on by UNFCCC and national officials to put the process back on track for a possible deal at COP16, which is being held in Mexico in December this year. The first major preparatory meeting is to be held in Bonn in May and June.

The Viking Lady at Copenhagen

Fuel cell demo at COP15

The offshore support vessel Viking Lady was docked in Central Copenhagen during the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP15), and shown off to the press and COP15 delegates as the “only ship with a fuel cell integrated as part of its power generation”.

It was claimed that, compared to a traditional ship, the Viking Lady’s advanced technology enabled her to reduce harmful NOx emissions by 180 tonnes and CO2 emissions are reduced by 20%. The Viking Lady’s LNG-powered engines emit no smoke or sulphur.

Classification society Det Norske Veritas’s chief operating officer Tor Svensen used the vessel as a venue for a press conference announcing the results of a study which points to potential emission reductions of up to 25% for the existing merchant fleet, which could translate into annual reductions of more than 250 million tonnes of CO2. He said that the potential for emission reduction in newbuildings is even higher.