Post-Copenhagen - no agreement
Where does this leave us now? asks Ben Knowles, of international law firm Clyde & Co
The Copenhagen climate change summit, held in mid-December, failed to reach a legally binding agreement, and instead merely took a “decision to note” a non-binding accord. The accord has since been widely criticised, not least for failing to include even aspirational targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions.
Just as importantly, the accord also fails even to mention a number of other key areas, including marine emissions. Shipping industry observers had expected that, at a minimum, the Copenhagen summit would reach a political agreement on bunker fuels, perhaps together with a carbon-emissions trading scheme.
It was envisaged that the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and its Marine Environment Protection Committee would be assigned responsibility for working out the details. In the end, nothing was included in the final text of the accord which, in the words of the International Chamber of Shipping, leaves the way ahead “uncertain”.
Going forward: what to expect
In the short-run, no new regulatory requirements have been imposed on the shipping industry’s greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the Copenhagen summit, with the result that the Kyoto Protocol’s provisions will continue to operate unchanged until 2012.
In particular, under Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the marine industry will continue to be pursued through the IMO, which has focused on three areas: technical measures applied to new ships; operational measures valid for all ships; and what the IMO calls “market-based reduction measures to provide emission-cutting incentives”. Formally, the IMO’s role will remain unchanged through the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.
However, in the medium term, there are signs that, despite the shipping industry’s support for the IMO’s efforts, if the UN climate change process stalls further in the wake of the Copenhagen debacle, regional initiatives may supersede this work – with a resulting patchwork of regulation creating headaches for the industry.
In particular, the EU emission trading scheme – which has already been extended to the aviation industry – could be modified to include shipping. The US Senate is also debating bunker fuel legislation, which, among other things, would make the US Environmental Protection Agency responsible for regulating the efficiency of marine engines.
In short, measures aimed at reducing emissions still seem to be the way of the future for the shipping industry. Post-Copenhagen, the difficulty is that significant uncertainty still surrounds the key questions as to who will impose the necessary regulation, how, and when.
Just as importantly, the accord also fails even to mention a number of other key areas, including marine emissions. Shipping industry observers had expected that, at a minimum, the Copenhagen summit would reach a political agreement on bunker fuels, perhaps together with a carbon-emissions trading scheme.
It was envisaged that the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and its Marine Environment Protection Committee would be assigned responsibility for working out the details. In the end, nothing was included in the final text of the accord which, in the words of the International Chamber of Shipping, leaves the way ahead “uncertain”.
Going forward: what to expect
In the short-run, no new regulatory requirements have been imposed on the shipping industry’s greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the Copenhagen summit, with the result that the Kyoto Protocol’s provisions will continue to operate unchanged until 2012.
In particular, under Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the marine industry will continue to be pursued through the IMO, which has focused on three areas: technical measures applied to new ships; operational measures valid for all ships; and what the IMO calls “market-based reduction measures to provide emission-cutting incentives”. Formally, the IMO’s role will remain unchanged through the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.
However, in the medium term, there are signs that, despite the shipping industry’s support for the IMO’s efforts, if the UN climate change process stalls further in the wake of the Copenhagen debacle, regional initiatives may supersede this work – with a resulting patchwork of regulation creating headaches for the industry.
In particular, the EU emission trading scheme – which has already been extended to the aviation industry – could be modified to include shipping. The US Senate is also debating bunker fuel legislation, which, among other things, would make the US Environmental Protection Agency responsible for regulating the efficiency of marine engines.
In short, measures aimed at reducing emissions still seem to be the way of the future for the shipping industry. Post-Copenhagen, the difficulty is that significant uncertainty still surrounds the key questions as to who will impose the necessary regulation, how, and when.
Click here to email the editor and comment on this story
Receive our FREE news email bulletin click here
