The Regulation of Global SOx Emissions from Ships: IMO proceedings 1988-2008 Transportforum 2012

1. Transportforum 12.1.2012
Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
The Regulation of Global SOx
Emissions from Ships
IMO proceedings 1988-2008
Erik Svensson
Department of Shipping and Marine Technology
Chalmers University of Technology
erik.svensson@chalmers.se

2. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Bunker Fuels
• Residual fuels (~77% world fleet)
– heavy fuel oil (HFO)
– residues from refinery processes
– in general high sulphur content (<4.5%, average ~2.4%)
• Distillate fuels (~23% world fleet)
– marine diesel oil (MDO) & marine gas oil (MGO)
– high quality and low sulphur content (often <0.5%)

3. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Sulphur Oxides (SOx)
• Combustion of marine fuels
Sfuel + O2  SO2 (~90%) + SO3 (~10%)
• Wet deposition (acid rain)
• Dry deposition (sulphate particles – PM)
Impacts:
• Acidification and climate (cooling)
• Damages on buildings
• Health impacts of PM
– cardiopulmonary and lung cancer
deceases

4. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
International Maritime Organization
• Develops and maintain the regulatory framework for shipping
– arena for its members to prepare/draft and amend maritime conventions
– maritime safety
– environment
• Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC)
• Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG)
– until 1995: Sub-Committee on Bulk Chemicals Handling (BCH)
Plenary
• Plenary, Working Groups & Drafting Groups
• Intersessional Meetings
• Correspondence Groups

5. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
MARPOL Annex VI
• The MARPOL Convention
– pollution from ships
• Annex VI: air pollution from ships
– adopted 1997, entered into force 2005
– sulphur content in bunker fuels
– gobal & SOx Emission Control Areas
(SECAs)
• Revised in 2008
– entered into force: July 2010

6. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Licentiate Thesis
How did the development of regulating global sulphur oxide emissions from
ships end up with a global cap of 4.5% together with a regional SECA limit of
1.5%?
What explains the turn towards a more stringent global cap of 0.5%?
• Investigated documentation of 20 years of IMO deliberations
• A case study of an IMO process (description)
 Provides a basis for further research (analysis)

7. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Results
Background
• SOx = transboundary pollutants
- emissions from other countries
- national measures had little effect in the 1970s
• International agreements in the 1980s
– LRTAP, Europa, US
• Decreased SO2 emissions from land-based sources
• The attention was drawn to increasing emissions
from international shipping

8. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Act 1. The Development of a 4.5% Global Cap,1988-1997
• Early target to halve global emissions by
2000 – proposals: 0.8-1.5% globally
• Targets were removed
• High costs for oil industry
• A regional approach wins
• Introduced a “cap” to supplement
regional measures
– not to reduce but to prevent a
possible increase in the sulphur
content
But why 4.5%?
• Oil influences
• No prevention of a possible increase
• Could only be motivated as a first step

9. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Act 2. The Revision, 2004-2008 (overture:1997-2004)
• Health effects were one of the main
Key Events of the Second Act
reasons for a revision (driver: EU)
• A global uniform standard was sought
by many.
MEPC 53: A proposal by Iran MEPC 58:Adoption of
gives an opportunity to Revised Annex VI
amend • High costs on the oil industry made the
MEPC 54: Decision to revise
BLG 10: BLG 11: Report of the IMO focus on keeping the SECA
The revision Six sulphur Group of Experts
after a joint proposal
starts options approach.
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 • Need for fast consensus
Conditions met
– to prevent unilateralism
Entry into force First Intersessional Meeting: MEPC 57: Approval of
for entry into force of Annex VI INTERTANKO proposal amendments
– to show that IMO was capable of
of Annex VI
 three sulphur options taking action
BLG 12:
finalized technical work
- three sulphur options
• The result: stringent SECA limits and a
global cap that would become stringent
in 2020 or 2025,
– after a review in 2018 of the ability of the
oil industry to supply distillate fuels.

10. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Main Conclusions
• The regional focus can be explained by the IMO focusing on the high costs for the oil
industry.
• It can also be explained by the historical regional focus of the air pollution regime.
• The oil industry and the shipping industry organizations shared positions many times
and searched for status quo to postpone decisions that would have meant high costs.
• As a result of the slow process and compromises towards regional solutions, the
global cap still has no effect in this decade.
– global, stringent measures: 20-25 years after the initial target date to halve global emissions
• It should not be interpreted as an emission ceiling until the future reveals its results.

11. Founder LIGHTHOUSE MARITIME COMPETENCE CENTRE
Thanks!
erik.svensson@chalmers.se