IMO's 'small first step': will giant leaps follow quickly enough?

Following the announcement of the Glasgow Climate Pact during the UN Conference of Parties (COP26), many hoped IMO would find agreement on some of the more ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG)-reduction proposals tabled by its member states, observers and consultant members.

Instead, the result of MEPC was to shelve most of the GHG proposals for discussion in future meetings.

The committee pushed debate anywhere from six months to two years into the future on proposals including reducing global shipping emissions to zero (or net-zero) by 2050 as well as establishing a research and development fund of US$5Bn based on a mandatory carbon tax of US$2/tonne of fuel to scale up production and proliferation of low- and no-emissions fuels.

While the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) lamented IMO’s "missed opportunity," particularly on its US$2/tonne carbon levy on fossil fuels for research and development, saying governments were "kicking the can down the road", some NGOs with consultative status within IMO struck a more hopeful tone following the passage of a voluntary resolution to tackle the black carbon emitted by ships in the Arctic.

In response to IMO’s passage of a non-binding resolution on the use of less particulate-heavy distillate fuels in the Arctic, NGOs including Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) expressed disappointment that some of the substance of the resolution had been lost after the full backing of the original text by 30 delegations. But they also indicated that any step to reduce the soot that is accumulating and acting as an accelerant on the polar region’s already rapidly melting sea ice is positive.

Calling the resolution a "small first step to reducing shipping’s impact in the Arctic", where black carbon is said to equate to some 20% of shipping’s total impact on climate change, FOEI was not the only group to express mixed feelings on the measure.

The Clean Arctic Alliance "welcomed’" the resolution on black carbon in the Arctic, "but expressed disappointment in the watering down of its substance to reach consensus and placate a small but vocal group of opposing countries".

The ICS joined Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Japan in refusing to support the resolution, citing the need for more data on engines and fuel types. In addition, Russia asked for clarifications on mandatory instruments and language determining the waters covered by the resolution, and then said it would object to proceeding with existing text towards a mandatory resolution.

The Clean Arctic Alliance’s HFO-Free Arctic campaign took a different view on IMO’s general progress on emissions, citing an "appalling lack of ambition" that covered black carbon and revision of GHG targets.

"IMO member states agreed on a 1.5% rate of improvement in carbon intensity, the same as was already occurring in the absence of regulation," an HFO-Free Arctic statement said. "Ship emissions have the green light to continue growing, perhaps by as much as 16% by 2030. None of this comes close to the 7% annual improvement needed to keep to the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature goal."

By contrast with IMO, COP26’s Glasgow Climate Pact, whose nearly 200 nations who have signed on to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), hammered out limited but substantive progress on nationally determined contributions (NDCs) toward lowered emissions, "phasing down" of coal-fired power plants and transferring wealth and resources earmarked for climate change impacts on less developed countries. The COP26 pact also includes a clause that will bring countries back to the table to revisit NDC targets in 2022.

However, despite the comparatively slow progress on emissions targets from IMO, the decisions taken by the MEPC may yet build momentum and bring about more ambitious targets in limiting the use and destructive impacts of GHGs in shipping.