MEPC 80: Devil in the detail – Edmund Hughes

While a net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target is likely to be the biggest headline-grabber as the IMO adopts a revised strategy this week, we have to read the fine print to see if shipping will actually have a shot at being on track to meet this target.

PHOTO: Opening of the 80th Session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) at IMO HQ this week. IMO

“The devil is very much in the detail,” ex-IMO official Edmund Hughes tells ENGINE. He would know better than just about anyone, having headed up Air Pollution and Energy Efficiency in the IMO’s Marine Environment Division for many years.

Among other projects he helped steer the shipping regulator towards adoption of the initial GHG strategy in 2018, and implementation of the global sulphur cap in 2020. After stepping down shortly after IMO 2020, Hughes now advises the industry on shipping decarbonisation through his consultancy Green Marine Associates.

He says the most contentious GHG issues have yet to be resolved between IMO members, and that this is clear from the draft strategy that is in play this week. Member states seem to agree that GHG emissions should peak “as soon as possible”, but exactly when the global maritime fleet should have net zero GHG emissions is another, more disputed question, Hughes points out.

Three seemingly similar timelines for net zero maritime GHG emissions have been put forward:

• The most ambitious is “by 2050 at the latest”, which is also less ambiguous and more binding than the second;
• “by or around mid-century, mindful of different national circumstances”;
• And the last timeline is a semantic cousin of the second: “by or around 2050, taking into account different national circumstances”

The second and third proposed timelines could give some leeway in exactly when the global fleet should go net zero and perhaps stretch the deadline by a few years. The ambiguous "national circumstances" elements in both could also mean it would be more up to the discretion of individual countries whether they deem their national interests to trump global GHG reduction targets.

The draft strategy then goes on to say that a revised strategy should be consistent with the Paris Agreement’s long-term goal of limiting the global temperature rise to less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Several prominent academics, shipping organisations, companies and industry observers have called for a net zero by 2050 target for shipping and that this is the time for the IMO to shake off its climate laggard stamp by setting ambitious emissions targets. To have a serious shot at both phasing out emissions by 2050 and aligning with the Paris Agreement, interim targets need to be of a certain magnitude, they say.

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), a global body encouraging companies and institutions to set emission reduction targets in line with climate science, has advocated for two interim targets for shipping on the path to net zero by 2050:

• 37% absolute GHG reduction by 2030
• 96% absolute GHG reduction by 2040

These interim targets later got backing from Canada, the US and UK in a submission to the IMO.

But MEPC 80’s draft strategy text this week outlines significantly less ambitious “indicative checkpoints” on the way to net zero:

• 20-25% absolute GHG reduction by 2030
• 70-75% absolute GHG reduction by 2040

Targets at the lower ends of those scales were the “leading proposal” during last week’s intersessional working group meeting at the IMO, UMAS wrote on Friday.

“If these numbers solidify in the strategy, it will not be possible to say the IMO’s GHG reduction strategy is directly or transparently aligned with the 1.5°C temperature goal,” Alison Shaw and Tristan Smith wrote.

Edmund Hughes says opinion is split between IMO delegates on whether these targets are ambitious enough. Some say they are not aligned with the Paris Agreement, while others have pointed out that there is very limited time to reach more ambitious targets due to uncertainty about the future availability of alternative fuels and energy efficiency technologies.

“Some countries are saying ‘it’s too expensive’, we need more time’…but right now we do not have this. If by the end of the week we do not have a strategy that is unequivocally 1.5°C-aligned, we will have lost that opportunity,” Christiaan De Beukelaer from the University of Melbourne told ABS News Australia this week.

The undecided net zero deadline and magnitudes of GHG emission reductions at checkpoints are the most contentious issues up for adoption this week, Hughes says.

Then there are the tools, or mid-term measures, that will be deployed to reach these targets. A global GHG Fuel Standard (first proposed by the EU) is up for debate. There has been a growing consensus around applying a lifecycle assessment, or well-to-wake approach, to this Fuel Standard to make sure it accounts for different fuels’ varying GHG intensities and emissions. That would alter the current IMO approach of just gauging tank-to-wake emissions the ship stack – which could inadvertently shift emissions from sea to land, UMAS and others have pointed out.

A GHG Fuel Standard aimed at reducing the GHG intensity of marine fuels over time “has received support by many delegations but other delegations have made its development as a measure contingent on development of an ‘economic element’ which as you might imagine is somewhat more contentious,” Hughes says.

Mid-term GHG reduction measures

A carbon levy is such an economic element and has been a point of contention this week, according to several observers, like Transport & Environment's shipping programme director Faig Abbasov. Some member states like China have actively been opposing it and worked to rally up support for this stance among other members, delegates ENGINE have spoken to have noted.

There has been media reports of a “developed-developing country divide” materialising at MEPC 80 this week. But while this take on the discussions can highlight a need for a “just and equitable” energy transition that supports countries with less ability to pay a higher price for energy, it has come under criticism for lacking nuance.

“Support for and opposition to the levy cannot be reduced to a developed-developing country divide. In fact, a Universal GHG Levy was initially proposed by the Marshall Islands and the Solomon Islands, two Small Island developing States from the Pacific,” Christiaan De Beukelaer has argued and pointed out that seven (developing) African member states backed a carbon levy last week, too.

While mid-term measures like a technical GHG Fuel Standard and an economic carbon levy have been up for discussion and contention this week, they are not expected to be adopted by the IMO until 2025, with implementation from 2027 as the most likely, UMAS has said.

Edmund Hughes is still optimistic that the MEPC will adopt a revised GHG strategy tomorrow, as well as guidelines on the lifecycle GHG intensity of marine fuels. But he stresses that we need to pay special attention to the exact wording that comes out.

By Erik Hoffmann

Please get in touch with comments or additional info to news@engine.online