Maritime Transport and the Climate Change Challenge

Transcription

1 Multi-year Expert Meeting On Transport and Trade Facilitation: Maritime Transport and the Climate Change Challenge February 2009 Maritime Transport and Climate Change: Issues Under Negotiations On the Road to Copenhagen by Mr. Kenneth Odero Executive Director, Friends of Ozone - Africa This expert paper is reproduced by the UNCTAD secretariat in the form and language in which it has been received. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the United Nations.

2 MARITIME TRANSPORT AND CLIMATE CHANGE: ISSUES UNDER NEGOTIATIONS ON THE ROAD TO COPENHAGEN What we Know Kenneth Odero * Although it is acknowledged that shipping is the most environmentally friendly mode of transport, calls for more effort to be undertaken by way of mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from vessels require bold decisions and action by players in the maritime transport community. Engines of maritime ships emit a number of gases that have either positive or negative radiative forcing. The positive forcing is primarily caused by carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and tropospheric ozone (formed with nitrous oxide [NO x ] as a precursor). The large amounts of sulphur aerosols emitted from ships running on heavy fuel oil have a negative radiative forcing. 1 Reducing emissions of CO 2 and NO x from international shipping is therefore a prime objective regardless of whether the current mix is negative or positive (Kågeson, 2007). Emerging Issues Under the current negotiations on additional investment and financial flows to address climate change in developing countries, for example, it has been suggested that the International Maritime Emission Reduction Scheme (IMERS) could implement a charge on CO 2 emissions from international shipping based on fuel use. That fee would go to a fund established under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and be used in the following ways: (a) To fund maritime industry GHG improvements (b) To purchase CO 2 credits equal to the actual emissions in excess of an established emission cap (c) Contribute to climate change adaptation in developing countries. It is still not clear who would collect the revenue and who would bear the cost of the levy. Additional and pertinent considerations raised in the Note by the UNCTAD Secretariat relate to the need to thoroughly appreciate the effects of climate change and their implications for maritime transport, as well as for access to cost-efficient and sustainable international transport services. This is so that, among other things, appropriate adaptation measures are taken especially in countries most vulnerable to climate variability and change. * Kenneth Odero is the Executive Director of Friends of Ozone Africa, a climate change nonprofit organization based in Nairobi, Kenya IMO (2000) Study of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships, MARINTEK, Trondheim Kågeson, P. (2007) "Linking CO2 emissions from international shipping to the EU ETS", Paper commissioned by the Federal Environment Agency, Germany A new climate regime such as is envisioned after 2012 is likely to have a bearing on maritime transport and international trade through price effects. 1

3 It is noteworthy that some governments (for example, Ireland) have come forward to support the inclusion of maritime emissions in regional arrangements (i.e., the European Union Emission Trading Scheme ETS). Such trends are favourable for the eventual inclusion of maritime emissions in post-2012 agreement to build on the Kyoto Protocol and bring about the longer-term emission reductions that are required to limit the increase in global mean average temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. The position of Commission of the European Communities for addressing emissions from marine transport is forward looking in many ways. In broad terms, the Commission attitude is that all sectors should be included in the international climate change framework, marine transport included, 2 and as part of the Copenhagen agreement the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) should set targets of these sectors below 2005 levels by 2020, and significantly below 1990 levels of The IMO is under obligation 3 to facilitate the development and adoption of such global measures by This is as it should be although progress has been slow. 4 The IMO Assembly in December 2003 urged its Maritime Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) to identify and develop the mechanism or mechanisms that can achieve the limitation or reduction of GHG emissions from international shipping, and asked for the evaluation of technical, operational and market-based solutions to limiting the GHG output of maritime transport. Principles The principles undergirding the inclusion of the maritime transport and other sectors are captured in the Bali Action Plan with a call on developing countries to identify mitigation actions that are measurable, reportable, and verifiable (MRV). MRV implies: support for technology, finance, and capacity building or developing countries, developed countries, must make commitments and action, and international agreement will be a challenge. One of the key challenges under the Bali Action Plan agenda is the fact that mitigation is a highly contentious issue in negotiations, which is in danger of remaining blocked not least because of the issues around "common but differentiated responsibilities". Outcomes might differ depending on which GHG, which sources, timeframe or scale. "Comparability" is also a sticking issue in so far as how to bring the Convention and Kyoto Protocol tracks together. 5 Then finally, there is the issue of how to match mitigation actions by developing countries with support from developing countries. Despite the above challenges, a number of specific proposals have already been proffered and are currently under consideration by Parties. Without prejudice to the investments and financial flows necessary for adaptation, 6 a Maritime Adaptation Levy chargeable to ship owners, as well as Maritime Emissions Trading Scheme based on emissions reduction targets for the maritime sectors in Annex 1 countries have been proposed. In the latter case, a certain number of emissions permit would be auctioned off to the relevant entities in the maritime transport community. A portion of the revenue raised would go towards meeting the costs of adaptation. It has been observed that for political and institutional acceptance, a scheme for emissions trading in the maritime sector must be in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The way open to the Member States is to act as port states. Port states are allowed to make voluntary port calls conditional 2

4 on unilaterally enforced standards if they consider this necessary for the protection of their environment. However, the requirements must be proportional to the subject pursued and non-discriminatory. They can be enforced on all vessels regardless of flag. States have on several occasions used the opportunity to enforce higher standards on ships calling at their ports. Parting Thoughts on Adaptation In spite of improvements in containerisation technology, most ports in Africa in dire need of rehabilitation. Long waiting time due to crippling shortage of berths and overstretched cargo handling facilities contributes to additional GHG emission from stationary vessels. ** It also explains the high costs of using such port facilities. And since maritime costs have a profound influence on international trade African goods are effectively less competitive in global markets. African ports need urgent and massive upgrading of landing facilities and improved management practices to inject efficiency to be able to cope with anticipated impacts of climate change. NOTES 1 Some experts believe that the current mix of gaseous emissions might on average have a cooling effect. However, because of concerns over the effects on terrestrial ecosystems and human health from large emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) and particulate matter, attempts are being made to reduce these emissions by shifting to low-sulphur fuels. This will affect the balance between cooling and warming effects. 2 Before the European Commission turned to emissions trading as the cornerstone of its climate strategy, it had long sought to implement a comprehensive scheme for carbon and energy taxation. After the failure of repeated attempts to push relevant legislation through the Council, the Commission proposed a less ambitious directive establishing very low minimum tax rates for energy products. Under the directive, energy products are only subject to taxation if used as motor fuel or heating fuel. Fuel used for industrial, commercial, and heating purposes is subject to preferential rates, and member states may apply further exemptions, for instance to promote public transportation or renewable energy sources. For the time being, however, energy products used for international air and maritime transport are excluded from the directive. 3 In a 1997, UNFCCC Decision 2/CP.3, Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol provides that emissions from international aviation and maritime shipping should be addressed separately, on a sectoral basis, by the relevant international organizations for maritime emissions, the IMO. Sectoral agreements are desirable for sectors with sui generis characteristics that make integration into a comprehensive, economy-wide approach difficult. 4 As early as 1995, the Conference of the Parties (CoP) to the UNFCCC asked the convention s Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) to address the issue of allocation and control of emissions from combustion of international bunker fuels. At SBSTA 4 in 1996, the secretariat presented a paper, which included eight options for allocation of shipping emissions. They were: 1. No allocation 2. Allocation of global bunker sales and associated emissions to parties in proportion to their national emissions ** The largest source of emission (e.g. sulphur dioxide [SO 2 ], carbon monoxide [CO], and nitrous oxide [NO x ]) in ports is engines of non-moving ships. Better management of port services leading to short turnaround time for vessels presents an opportunity to mitigate GHG emissions. 3

5 3. Allocation according to the country where the bunker fuel is sold 4. Allocation according to the nationality of the transporting company, or to the country were the vessel is registered, or to the country of the operator 5. Allocation according to the country of departure or destination of a vessel; alternatively, emissions related to the journey of the vessel shared by the country of departure and the country of arrival 6. Allocation according to the country of departure or destination of passengers or cargo; alternatively, emissions related to the journey of passengers or cargo shared by the country of departure and the country of arrival 7. Allocation according to the country of origin of passengers or owner of cargo 8. Allocation to a party of all emissions generated in its national space. SBSTA noted that there are three separate issues related to international bunker fuels: Adequate and consistent inventories Allocation of emissions, and Control options. In reviewing the eight options, SBSTA in 1997 recommended that allocation options 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 should be further considered. 5 Launched in 2005, the Kyoto Protocol track agreed on developed countries emission reduction targets by 2009; for 450ppm CO 2 eq, GHG emissions would need to be reduced for about 25 to 40% by 2020; means to achieve targets through Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Joint Implementation (JI) and Emission Trading ET mechanisms, national policies, accounting issues, role of Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), etc. The Convention track that was launched in 2007 focuses on four "building blocks", namely adaptation, mitigation, technology transfer and deployment, and financing; Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD); mitigation actions from developing countries; and mitigation commitments from developed countries. 6 The additional estimated amount of investment and financial flows needed in 2030 to address climate change is large compared with the funding currently available under the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, but small in relation to estimated global gross domestic product (GDP) ( per cent) and global investment ( per cent) in