Lesley Bankes-HughesAt this week’s meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 78) there was acceptance of the outcomes of intersessional meetings on lifecycle guidelines and carbon pricing but some industry stakeholders have expressed their frustration that the proposal for an International Maritime Research Board and Fund has been rejected as a standalone measure. If it does come to pass, as part of a basket of measures, it will not be before 2025.
In its response to the outcomes of MEPC, UMAS said it would have been encouraging to see more decisive signals on what the IMO ambition level is likely to be in 2023, but the meeting did show momentum on achieving zero GHG by/no later than 2050 (as opposed to the current target of a 50% reduction in GHG emissions), as well as the need to achieve an ‘equitable transition’.
According to UMAS, this increases the chance of a consensus being achieved on the issues of market based measures and carbon pricing.
There was a change to the timetable on lifecycle guidelines – these will not now be first adopted at MEPC 79, as originally intended, but are now scheduled for adoption at MEPC 80 – a meeting which is looking to be an increasingly pivotal gathering in terms of IMO decision-making.
As Dr Tristan Smith, Director of UMAS, commented: ‘IMO continues to be on track for MEPC 80 in summer 2023 to be a key point at which direction, targets, GHG emissions framing (well-to-wake) and policy, including GHG pricing, will clarify. The momentum is building for a significant strengthening of ambition and policy action, which will then affect opportunities risks and values in the sector including in this decade.’
On the issue of the IMRF, which would levy $2 on every tonne of bunker fuel consumed to build a $5 billion fund to be a springboard for R&D on shipping’s decarbonisation, the International Chamber of Shipping’s Secretary General, Guy Platten, said the IMO had ‘wasted an opportunity to kick start a rapid transition to zero-carbon technologies.
If the IMRF proposal does survive, to be wrapped into a broader basket of mid-term measures, then there is no chance that it can happen before 2025 at the earliest.
‘Despite the support of many IMO States, we have been frustrated by short-sighted political manoeuvring which has led to the proposal in effect being killed,’ said Platten.
‘The signal this sends means that the financial risk associated with green investment will remain high, slowing down efforts to switch to zero-carbon fuels as soon as possible.’
He continued: ‘If governments had shown the political will, the separate R&D fund could have been up and running next year, raising billions of dollars from industry at no cost to governments.’
While echoing Platten’s sentiments, Simon Bennett, Deputy Secretary General of ICS, tried to put a positive spin on the IMRF decision.’ On the positive side, the possibility remains for the IMO to make use of the Fund’s proposed regulatory architecture to underpin a future global carbon levy on shipping’s CO2 emissions, to close the price gap with zero-carbon fuels when they become available and provide significant funds to help expedite the transition to net zero by 2050,’ he said
‘If the contribution system which we have developed can speed up implementation of a global carbon levy for shipping, we may yet be able to look back on this setback at the IMO as a significant moment of success.’
Ariane Morrissey
