IMO on brink of ‘historic failure’ as crunch green talks get underway
Global maritime environment policy is set to be revised at the forthcoming Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) set of meetings at the headquarters of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London this week. To what degree remains highly uncertain as big nations such as China and Brazil lobby for less stringent new green targets with carbon levies not at all certain.
IMO member states will debate a revised greenhouse gas strategy. Currently, the goal is for a minimum 50% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared to 2008 levels.
The IMO is keen to develop a basket of technical and economic measures to get global shipping moving quicker towards green targets, but its diverse membership is not in total agreement about how to enact these.
Last week’s Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG 15) met ahead of the MEPC gathering with NGOs warning the UN body risks suffering a “historic failure”.
The drafting being forwarded to this week’s MEPC negotiations include some further narrowing down of options, however there are still large ranges on key parameters. For example the current leading proposal for 2030 and 2040 interim GHG reduction targets is a 20% GHG reduction in 2030 and 70% GHG reduction in 2040, likely on a well-to-wake basis, something that shipping decarbonisation experts say would put shipping some way off from complying with the 1.5 degree commitments of the Paris Agreement.
The Financial Times has reported that China has been lobbying a host of developing countries to water down green proposals while Climate Home, a climate change news site, has reported that Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala, Ecuador, and South Africa are also opposed to any form of a carbon levy.
China warned that “an overly ambitious emission reduction target will seriously impede the sustainable development of international shipping, significantly increase the cost of the supply chain and will adversely impede the recovery of the global economy”, according to a document seen by the Financial Times.
“Like the emissions they hope to reduce, much remains in the air after [last] week’s IMO negotiations on the revised GHG strategy and candidate measures, and like some of the most vulnerable climate areas, the members states too, found themselves poles apart on key issues,” said Dr Aly Shaw, policy lead at UMAS, a commercial advisory service affiliated with the UCL Energy Institute at University College London.
The other key items that remain under debate include the shortlisting of the mid-term measures and the way a just transition is included and referenced in both the revised strategy and in relation to mid-term measures. Although there was significant and coordinated opposition to the levy proposals moving forwards for finalisation from MEPC 80 last week, there was a majority who supported this to happen, and GHG pricing is currently on track to move forwards. There was a majority supporting that the IMO’s timeline for adoption of the mid-term measures is by 2025.
Dr Tristan Smith, director of UMAS, said the coming week serves as the last chance to “credibly align” shipping with the Paris Agreement, arguing that the main text is not 1.5-aligned, but it still can be if there is a “change in the dynamic”.
Faig Abbasov from the NGO Transport & Environment said: “By removing any explicit reference to 1.5C and gutting out the 2030, 2040 and even 2050 targets, the IMO would essentially recognise that its revised strategy is not 1.5C compliant. If they think that they could fool the whole world with this, they should think twice. Pacific Nations are at the brink of disappearing. European leaders must not abandon them by endorsing this pathetic draft strategy text and deploy all of their political capital to improve ambition during the final round of negotiations next week. It is not game over yet until MEPC 80 is over”.
Delaine McCullough from another NGO, Ocean Conservancy, warned: “The IMO is on the brink of historic failure.”
If the IMO fails to deliver, regional regulation, led by the European Union, will splinter how shipping’s green governance is handled.
Splash will be bringing readers updates from MEPC all week.
The carbon levies policy is a monumental failure based on its concept aiming at making alternative energy competitive against fossil fuels and pushing the economics toward wider adoption of green energy for its faster development. A prerequisite for this policy would be a mature market of alternative energy with established costs, which there isn’t because this market is not developed. You cannot compare apples with plans… And a global economy relieved from Major Uncertainties.
A second prerequisite has to do with the Major Uncertainties of the global economy that can only drive economic decisions based on the Sustainability of RoI on new Technology and the readiness of availability of new green energy sources, as the prime mover of the economy.
A third prerequisite is the Maritime Regulatory Integrity v-a-v New technologies linked with the Safety of Life and property and environmental protection. By applying a consolidated Solas 2018, copy of aged Solas regulations based on the probabilistic approach under a weakness of using aggregate statistics, Solas does not address and “shield” new design vulnerabilities of
ships, but what is known as the “compensation effect”. Class / ROs approved “in-principle” new design concepts in a Solas “probabilistic” environment are marginal, inconsistent, or unqualified by the lack of statistical data, or poor operational experience and without design safeguards. Green technology integrity imposes high risks in Maritime Investment and Insurance decision makers.
A fourth prerequisite is the global harmonization of green policies. State memberships under lobbyist policies within IMO, independent Regional policies, and conflicting Industrial, Flags, Shipping, and Trade interests, all guarantee its impossibility.
IMO is expected to bow down again and again under the pressures of its own foundation…
I think
Next year, grade E must be eliminated
Grade D requires a lot of taxation.
the following year
You have to tax grade C as well.
You need to change it gradually.