World Bunkering > News > Summer 2009 > Emissions rules hit ferry sector

Len Roueche

Until recently the ferry industry as a whole had not felt unduly threatened by moves towards cleaning up emissions. That has changed dramatically over the past year and the sector’s representative body, Interferry, has found itself fighting a rearguard action against not only the agreed sulphur restrictions but also against a key part of IMO’s strategy to curb greenhouse gases.

So, I asked: “ Would it be true to say Interferry was late in realising the implications of the process going on at IMO to further curb sulphur emissions? Did you miss the boat?”

“Yes, that is true,” agreed Roueche. “We were attending the MEPC meetings regularly but we were caught by surprise when it turned out that the key decisions had already been made in the BLG (Bulk Liquids and Gases) subcommittee. When it came back to MEPC we tried to garner support for our view that there would be unforeseen consequences in the ECAs but we were told that the deal had been done, compromises made and there was no going back.”

Interferry made representations at IMO when the amendments to Annex VI were being agreed. Would it be true to say, I ventured, that the eventual deal took no notice of the ferry sector’s concerns? That drew an unequivocal reply: “If you are referring to the sulphur limits in the North Sea and Baltic ECAs, you are correct.”

Roueche added: “Apparently our only other avenue for recourse is to try to persuade the EU to take some kind of countervailing action with regard to their Motorways of the Sea policy. We believe that sulphur limits will result in a shift of traffic from short sea routes to motorway routes. This will result in more, not less, environmental impact. The issue is being pursued with the EU through ECSA.”

Details of the proposed North American ECA had just been announced so I asked what impact would it have on ferries?

“I am not certain,” Roueche replied, “but I believe that most NA operators burn low-sulphur diesel already, so impact will be minimal. I know that to be the case for the two largest operators, Washington State Ferries and BC Ferries, as well as all of the passenger-only operators.”

The emphasis has now switched to reducing CO2 emissions. What specific issues does this raise for the ferry industry?

Once again, ferries were fighting an uphill battle. “Right now we are particularly concerned about the Energy Efficient Design Index (EEDI). Essentially it is CO2 emissions divided by capacity times speed – with a bunch of correction factors thrown in for good measure.

“Eventually this will apply to all newbuilds. EEDI appears to work fairly well for standardized vessels operating on trans-oceanic routes – like tankers and bulk carriers. However, for passenger ships, short sea trades, diesel electric propulsion and other specialised vessels, it appears to produce almost random results.

“We have pleaded for extra time to work on refinements but there seems to be a real push to get something agreed to in time for the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December. At the recent GHG working group meeting we eventually got approval to make additional submissions to the next MEPC in July. However, the submission deadline gave us only four weeks and we are working hard to get it done in time.”

“So,” I asked, “is Interferry happy with the way this issue is progressing at IMO?”

Another blunt reply. “In a word – no! Right now we believe GHG issues are being rushed through without time for adequate study and reflection on the consequences.”

Some operators have been experimenting with alternative fuels such as bio-diesel and LPG, while at least one has been testing scrubber technology. Does Interferry have a role in stimulating developments?

“We encourage this sort of experimentation,” Roueche replied, “and have presentations on these subjects at our annual conference. Not just ferries but every sector of shipping will have to look seriously at alternative fuels and technologies. We understand that as the sulphur rules come into force we could expect a shortage of low-sulphur fuels and potentially a big increase in price.”