INTERVIEW: IMO's revised strategy was detrimental to island nations - Peter Nuttall
The Pacific Island nations were “forced to compromise” at the MEPC 80 “to keep an international process alive in the hope that ambition might be delivered in the future,” climate expert Peter Nuttall told ENGINE.
PHOTO: Port of Honiara on the Solomon Islands, a country in Oceania. Solomon Islands Port Authority
The climate-vulnerable Pacific microstates and other small island, and least-developed countries in the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and Africa had univocally advocated for more ambitious targets than what IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 80) adopted in 2023.
Island nations demanded Paris alignment
This included “an absolute reduction [in the GHG emissions] that included full in-sector reductions without recourse to out-of-sector off-setting,” Peter Nuttall, scientific and technical advisor at the Micronesian Center for Sustainable Transport informed ENGINE.
Peter Nuttall is also a board member at the Micronesian Center for Sustainable Transport, which promotes green energy transition in the Pacific Islands' transport sector. A leading voice in the shipping industry, Nuttall established low-carbon shipping as a multidisciplinary research priority for the University of South Pacific. Over the past few decades, governments in the Pacific region have sought his advice on shipping decarbonisation and sustainable development.
“So, conceding to net-zero in the final language was already an unnecessary compromise to a 1.5-aligned agenda,” Nuttall continued. “The numbers for a 1.5°C-aligned strategy, i.e. [that is] hard interim reduction targets of 37% by 2030 and 96% by 2040 with full reduction no later than 2050 was what science is telling us were the minimum numbers needed.”
A dichotomy in climate ambitions
Yet, the IMO guided the shipping sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2030 (striving for 30%) and 70% by 2040 (striving for 80%) with the goal of eliminating them by (or around) 2050. By definition, it falls within the scope of the Paris Agreement, but industry bodies worry that it is unlikely to reduce shipping emissions enough to limit global warming to 1.5°C by the end of this century.
“Prior to MEPC 80, both the US and the UK were telling us, and IMO, that they agreed with the science,” said Nuttall, “In the end, the Pacific continued to push for the greatest ambition possible but after it was clear that neither Europe or the other large developed economies would support real 1.5°C numbers, the Pacific was forced to compromise in order to keep an international process alive in the hope that ambition might be delivered in the future.”
A basket of disappointment
The island states had also urged the IMO to enforce a basket of measures starting in 2025 that combined a carbon levy, a feebate, and a GHG fuel standard. A standalone fuel standard could not guarantee a fair transition and carbon tax alone would not be able to control emissions if the market failed to respond, said the proposal. However, a combined package would provide the necessary incentives and enable an equitable transition.
While the IMO approved economic measures such as fuel standards and carbon levy, these will not be implemented until 2027. This raised the question of whether they are sufficient to meet climate targets. In response, Nuttall said scientific and economic analysis showed shipping needed to act more aggressively and urgently to limit emissions.
The IMO needed to set an "ambitious price" on GHG emissions in the form of a levy at MEPC 80 coupled with a Fuel Standard of "increasing stringency" as a supply of alternative fuels and technologies is established, he argued.
“To be effective our analysis is that the levy needed to be brought into operation by 2025 at an entry floor price of $100/ton CO2-eq. The final outcome, an extended process to agree on the content of the basket with both technical and economic measures only vaguely defined, only increases the work that the sector will need to do later, likely requiring an increased floor price to be effective and meaning further increased costs to the industry and society in the short term.”
“The clear independent advice to IMO prior to MEPC 80 was that hard policy is what was required, and we have heard this echoed from all quarters of the industry,” Nuttall said.
As a group of former political leaders working to tackle climate change in the Pacific region, Pacific Elders' Voice pointed out that MEPC 80 was the industry's "last chance" to meet 1.5°C targets. Failure to do so would result in disparate regional policies, further isolating island nations, and leaving them unable to cope with climate change without assistance or intervention, they warned.
“Unfortunately, the political process has not delivered this outcome at the level required by the deepening climate emergency. As usual the most vulnerable in our global society and future generations will continue to pay the greatest price,” Nuttall concluded.
By Konica Bhatt
Please get in touch with comments or additional info to news@engine.online
