The ship emissions debate:

ESPO’s view and implications for ports

Sulphur Directive 2005/33/EC: Implications for ports,

Zeebrugge, 23 March 2012

Dr Antonis Michail, Policy Advisor, ESPO

Content

1. ESPO and the environment

2. The ship emissions debate

3. Political process and ports’ response

4. Way forward and conclusions

ESPO

Founded in 1993

Represents European seaport authorities (members)authorities (members)

Members from EU and neighboring countries

Secretariat in Brussels

Recognised counterpart of EU institutions

ESPO and the environment

Pro-activeness / Self regulation

Sharing knowledge and experiences

Continuous environmental improvement through systematic approach to port environmental managementsystematic approach to port environmental management

Dialogue and cooperation with regulating authorities

Involvement of all relevant port users / stakeholders

EcoPorts integration within ESPO

www.ecoports.com

ESPO Green Guide - 5Es approach

Exemplify: Setting the good example towards the wider port

community

Enable: Providing infrastructural or operational conditions for port Enable: Providing infrastructural or operational conditions for port

users so that they can improve their environmental performance

Encourage: Providing incentives to port users in order to trigger

improved environmental performance

Engage: Engaging with port users and/or competent authorities in

sharing knowledge and skills towards joint projects

Enforce: Regulating behavior of port users and ensure compliance

Content

1. ESPO and the environment

2. The ship emissions debate

3. Political process and ports’ response

4. Way forward and conclusions

The ship emissions debate

Shipping is carbon efficient …

Air(Boeing 747-400)

Truck Truck (Global average)

Rail Diesel

Rail Electric(Global average)

Ocean(Avg. ML vessels)

CO2 (g/ton km)

Source: Based on data from the Network for Transport and Environment, Sweden

… but its green image is under threat!

“ships can be seen as floating incinerators”

“if shipping can only compete on the basis of a dirty “if shipping can only compete on the basis of a dirty

fuel, you have to wonder how ‘green’ it really is”

Ports’ interest

Maintaining / restoring the green image of shipping

Maintaining its competitiveness

Reducing impact on local air quality (SOx, NOx, PM)Reducing impact on local air quality (SOx, NOx, PM)

Maintaining good environmental condition in the port area (licence to operate and to grow)

Content

1. ESPO and the environment

2. The ship emissions debate

3. Political process and ports’ response

4. Way forward and conclusions

Sulphur Directive – Political process

EC Proposal

EP TRAN OpinionEP TRAN Opinion

EP ENVI Report – February 2012

EP Plenary – May 2012

Council and Parliament negotiations

First reading agreement?

Sulphur Directive – ESPO’s view

Shipping is a global industry, refrain from going beyond

IMO

� Passenger ships

� Restrictions on fuels placed in the market

� New SECAs through IMO

� Fuel availability clause

� Ambitious programme of accompanying measures

GHG emissions – Political process

IMO adoption of EEDI and SEEMP - July 2011

EC determination to propose regional Market Based EC determination to propose regional Market Based

Measures - Proposal is foreseen within 2012

Several stakeholders’ meetings (ECCP)

Ongoing impact assessment

Ongoing online consultation

GHG emissions – Political process

4 MMBs are being considered

� Compensation fund

� Mandatory emission reductions per ship

� Emission Trading Scheme

� Tax (on fuels or emissions)

Scope

� All vessels arriving from the last port of call

� All vessels departing until the next port of call

GHG emissions – ESPO’s view

It is counterproductive to tackle the contribution of a

global industry to a global environmental issue on a

regional basis!

The risk of evading practices is of great concern for the

ports especially in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea!

Promote the use of voluntary initiatives at European

level (e.g. WPCI, ESI, OPS, LNG, slow steaming)

Designation of NECAs – Process

North Sea NECA consultation group

� Draft environmental and economic impact assessment

arrive to the conclusion that a North Sea NECA is a

socio-economic cost-efficient measure with benefits

exceeding the costs

� Meeting 26-27 March

Similar process in the Baltic Sea is ongoing

Designation of NECAs – ESPO view

Each European region is free to examine whether a NECA

designation is beneficial and to follow the IMO processdesignation is beneficial and to follow the IMO process

But avoid the same mistakes as in the case of SECAs!

Thorough impact assessment needed (including potential

lack of level playing field related considerations)

Content

1. ESPO and the environment

2. The ship emissions debate

3. Political process and ports’ response

4. Way forward and conclusions

Way forward

Closely following the ship emissions debate / Lobbying

Promoting voluntary initiatives (WPCI, ESI, OPS, LNG,

EcoPorts)

ESPO Green Guide – 5Es (establish what port authorities

can do)

Conclusions

Shipping should be regulated globally through IMO

Ports have a clear interest in local air quality (licence to

operate and to grow)operate and to grow)

Ports have a clear interest to maintain the green image

of shipping while also maintaining its competitivenes

Enabling, Encouraging, Engaging

Thank you for your attention!

Sulphur Directive 2005/33/EC: Implications for ports, Zeebrugge,

23 March 2012

Dr Antonis Michail, Policy Advisor, ESPO, antonis.michail@espo.be

www.espo.be / www.ecoports.com