Policy emphasis in ship design must be shifted away from global and idealized towards regional based and realistic vessel operating conditions. The present approach to reducing shipping emissions through technical standards tends to neglect how damages and abatement opportunities vary according to location and operational conditions. Since environmental policy originates in damages relating to ecosystems and jurisdictions, a three-layered approach to vessel emissions is intuitive and practical. Here, we suggest associating damages and policies with ports, coastal areas possibly defined as Emission Control Areas (ECA) as in the North Sea and the Baltic, and open seas globally. This approach offers important practical opportunities: in ports, clean fuels or even electrification is possible; in ECAs, cleaner fuels and penalties for damaging fuels are important, but so is vessel handling, such as speeds and utilization. Globally we argue that it may be desirable to allow burning very dirty fuels at high seas, due to the cost advantages, the climate cooling benefits, and the limited ecosystem impacts. We quantify the benefits and cost savings from reforming current IMO and other approaches towards environmental management with a three-layered approach, and argue it is feasible and worth considering.
Maritime shipping is the transmission belt of the global economy. It is also a major contributor to global environmental change through its under-regulated air, water and land impacts. It is puzzling that shipping is a lagging sector as it has a well-established global regulatory body—the International Maritime Organization. Drawing on original empirical evidence and archival data, we introduce a four-factor framework to investigate two main questions: why is shipping lagging in its environmental governance; and what is the potential for the International Maritime Organization to orchestrate emerging private ‘green shipping’ initiatives to achieve better ecological outcomes? Contributing to transnational governance theory, we find that conditions stalling regulatory progress include low environmental issue visibility, poor interest alignment, a broadening scope of environmental issues, and growing regulatory fragmentation and uncertainty. The paper concludes with pragmatic recommendations for the International Maritime Organization to acknowledge the regulatory difficulties and seize the opportunity to orchestrate environmental progress.
Global warming and, correspondingly, reducing CO2 emissions is one of the most challenging tasks the world faces today. The maritime industry contributed to 2.89% of the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. To decrease this share, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) defined, among others, the goal to reduce the carbon intensity of international shipping by 40% until 2030. In this context, the short-term measures recently adopted, in the form of a technical standard (Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index, EEXI) and a rating scheme based on an operational indicator (Carbon Intensity Indicator, CII), mark a crucial step to achieving the mentioned goal. In addition, the EU Commission has recently introduced the FuelEU Maritime Initiative limiting the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of a ship’s energy use incorporating a reduction occurring in a five-year rhythm between 2025 and 2050. The paper investigates the practical options availed to existing containerships of different sizes and technological vintages for meeting the specific EEXI, CII, and GHG intensity reduction requirements imposed by the regulations. The investigation will be based on the actual technical and operational profiles of six sample ships and will consider a set of possible compliance options including, but not limited to, engine power limitation, waste heat recovery system, variable frequency drives, and virtual arrival. The data used originates from noon reports of existing containerships provided by a European industry leader. The ship-specific CO2 emission reduction potentials required for the impact assessment result from either literature or actual data-based calculations. Financial data is used for investigating the economic impact of the reduction requirements. Conclusions drawn include an operational advantage that pre-EEDI ships enjoy when applying engine power limitation (EPL) for EEXI compliance, the occurrence of payback periods exceeding ship lifetimes, and an estimate of the effect that onshore power supply can have on complying with the FuelEU Maritime Initiative.
Wind propulsion systems (WPS) for commercial ships can be a key ingredient to achieving the IMO green targets. Most WPS installations will operate in conjunction with propellers and marine engines in a hybrid mode, which will affect their performance. The present paper presents the development of a generic, fast, and easy tool to predict the propeller and engine performance variation, along with the cost, as a function of the wind power installed in two operation conditions: fixed ship speed and constant shaft speed. Specific focus is directed toward showing generic trends and trade-offs that inform economic decision-making. To this end, a key feature of the presented work is the ability to assess the cost–benefit of both controllable pitch propellers and fixed pitch propellers (CPPs and FPPs). This provides advice on when, in terms of WPS installation size, it is worthwhile to install which kind of propeller. CPPs are found to be more suitable for newly built wind-powered ships (>70% wind power), while a conventional FPP is satisfactory for wind-assisted ships (<70% wind power) and retrofitted installations. The results for a 91,373 GT bulk carrier showed that a WPS unloads the propeller and the engine, which leads to an increase in the propulsive efficiency and a detrimental rise of the engine specific fuel oil consumption. However, propeller gains are found to be greater than engine losses, which result in extra savings. Thus, not only does a WPS save fuel and corresponding pollutant emissions, but it also increases the entire propulsive efficiency.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has recently adopted short-term measures introducing technical standards for existing ships and a labeling system reflecting their operational carbon intensity. This paper investigates the relevant techno-economic implications from a shipowner's perspective and estimates the effect of six compliance options on six sample containerships. The study applies a new evidence-based bottom-up approach, and the results show that compliance, when possible, is not straightforward and costly. Engine power limitation is the most cost-effective option, but low power limits can lead to substantially increased sailing times (up to 793.92 h/year), which can be prohibitive. The option favors older ships with oversized engines as its effectiveness is mainly determined by the main engine load profile. In general, the effectiveness of the measures is not without limits, particularly concerning older ships and those that have already installed several options. Solutions such as market-based measures and alternative fuels, classed by IMO as medium- and long-term measures, must be considered soon.
In seeking to fulfill its mission, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is dependent on the capabilities of its Member States. While flag States remain primarily responsible for ensuring compliance of their registered vessels with instruments adopted under that United Nations specialized agency's aegis, coastal States also play a competing but complementary role in the balance of jurisdiction over ships. In particular, the right to regulate the vessel's intent on visiting the port, or its presence therein, is often relied upon to account for the limitations of flag State enforcement. The capacity to act as a port State under international law is the basis for certain implementation mechanisms stemming from treaty provisions on port state control, as well as for innovative practices of port States, either collectively or individually. This chapter provides the reader with an overview of the role of port State jurisdiction in IMO law and practice, and the challenges that can arise in the complex relationship between port States and the IMO.
The capacity to act as a port state in international law is best described by the specific powers exercised over foreign ships, namely inspection, detention, expulsion or request of any type of information prior to the entry into the port. Many of these powers are explicitly attributed to the state in multilateral instruments, whereby the flag state consents to having its ships subject to the jurisdiction of the port state. Notwithstanding the consensus around the complementary nature of port state jurisdiction with respect to certain obligations of the flag state, the port state is not limited to fulfilling a secondary role. This is especially visible in the prevention, reduction and control of ship-source pollution, where some port states have not hesitated in acting regardless of an expressed consent by the flag state to the rule or standard being applied with the support of port powers. Not only do port states use more stringent enforcement powers to ensure that international treaties are effective, but they also prescribe novel rules and standards upon any foreign ship that approaches the port, often as a means of breaking an international negotiation deadlock. This study discusses the international legal basis for such unilateral jurisdiction by analyzing the principles of state jurisdiction under the dichotomy parochial/cosmopolitan. By interpreting the stated and implicit purposes of port state actions under that dichotomy, this study proposes that states are finding a legal ground to act based on certain legal functions they fulfill in the international legal order. This argument puts into perspective the assumed self-sufficiency of territoriality and shows how unilateralism may also serve to seek to set universally applicable norms.
The content of Resolution MSC.473(ES.2) can be summarized in five main points and one invitation to IMO Member States.
The first point pertains to the implementation of the Framework of Protocols. The second point pertains to the designation of seafarers as 'key workers' in order to facilitate safe and unhindered movement for embarking or disembarking a vessel. The third point pertains to the consideration of temporary migration measures to ease mobility of seafarers, eg waivers or relaxations of visa or documentary requirements. The fourth point is on the use of prevention measures such as testing crews before embarkation; this requires active conduct by port states, namely providing access to personal protective equipment and testing facilities. The fifth point is on providing seafarers with immediate access to medical care and facilities, as well as with evacuation when the assistance required cannot be provided on board or at port; this aims to prevent humanitarian situations such as casualties on board vessels due to lack of access to intensive care units.
Furthermore, the Resolution invites Member States to designate a National Focal Point on Crew Change and Repatriation of Seafarers ('National Focal Point').
Ship-source pollution represents a threat to the environment, regardless of where it occurs. The European Union has been developing standards that aim to counter accidental, operational and intentional pollution in the waters under its member-state's jurisdiction. However, and precisely because marine pollution knows no boundaries, the EU is not coy in contemplating what ships do beyond waters under the sovereignty of its member states. This article analyzes the international legality of EU claims to port state jurisdiction over ship-source pollution. It demonstrates that port state jurisdiction is today not only a means to ensure compliance with international standards but also a means to unilaterally enforce more stringent environmental standards.
The purpose of this paper is to assess the status and prospects of the decarbonization of maritime transport. Already more than two years have passed since the landmark decision of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in April 2018, which entailed ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships. The paper attempts to address the following three questions: (a) where do we stand with respect to GHG emissions from ships, (b) how is the Initial IMO Strategy progressing, and (c) what should be done to move ahead? To that effect, our methodology includes commenting on some of the key issues addressed by the recently released 4th IMO GHG study, assessing progress at the IMO since 2018, and finally identifying other issues that we consider relevant and important as regards maritime GHG emissions, such as for instance the role of the European Green Deal and how this may interact with the IMO process. Even though the approach of the paper is to a significant extent qualitative, some key quantitative and modelling aspects are considered as well. On the basis of our analysis, our main conjecture is that there is not yet light at the end of the tunnel with respect to decarbonizing maritime transport.