7 Atmospheric emissions from sea-going
ships
| (a)
(24065)
14933/02
COM(02) 595
+ ADD 1
|
Commission Communication: "A European Union strategy to reduce atmospheric emissions from sea-going ships".
Draft Directive amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels.
|
| (b)
(24841)
12142/03
COM(03) 476
|
Amended draft Directive amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels.
|
| Legal base | Article 175(1) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Second SEM of 29 November 2003
|
| Previous Committee Reports | (a) HC 63-ix (2002-03), paragraph 2 (22 January 2003) and HC 63-xxx (2002-03), paragraph 3 (16 July 2003)
(b) HC 63-xxxiii (2002-03), paragraph 7 (15 October 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 22 December 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (Both) Cleared
|
Background
7.1 In November 2002, the Commission put forward a Community strategy
for reducing atmospheric emissions from ships, together with proposals
for specific measures for limiting the sulphur content of marine
fuels (document (a)). We first reported on these on 22 January
2002, when we noted that the latter wouldCommission Communication
introduce a 1.5% sulphur limit for marine fuels used by all
seagoing vessels in the North Sea, English Channel and Baltic
Sea (known as Sulphur Emission Control Areas) in line with Annex
VI of the MARPOL Convention,[13]
which is expected to come into force in 2004; introduce such a
limit from July 2007 for marine fuels used by passenger vessels
on regular services to and from any Community port, in order to
improve air quality and help to create sufficient demand to ensure
a Community-wide supply of low-quality sulphur fuel; ban the sale
of marine diesel oils having over 1.5% sulphur; and amend existing
provisions for marine gas oils used by seagoing and inland vessels,
so as (a) to require all marine fuels used by ships at berth in
all Community ports to contain 0.2% sulphur or less, and (b) to
ban the sale of marine gas oils having more than 0.2% sulphur
(0.1% by 2008).
7.2 In our Report, we noted that the Government was
seeking views from interested parties, and we therefore said that
we would return to the document when we had received further information,
including a Regulatory Impact Assessment. We also indicated that
it would be helpful if the Government were to spell out more fully
its views on the various aspects of the proposal. These were subsequently
set out in a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 7 July 2003
from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Farming, Foods
and Sustainable Energy) at the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty), which also drew attention to
a number of amendments which the European Parliament had proposed
at its first reading in June 2003. The Minister attached a partial
Regulatory Impact Assessment, which indicated that further work
was in hand to refine the estimates provided. In view of this,
we said that we would continue for the time being to hold the
document under scrutiny.
7.3 Document (b) simply set out the Commission's
response to the European Parliament's amendments, and we noted
in our Report of 15 October 2003 that, although this had been
dealt with in a further Explanatory Memorandum of 17 September
2003, it covered similar ground to the Minister's supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum of 7 July. We concluded that, having already
decided to hold the Commission's original proposal under scrutiny
pending receipt of an updated Regulatory Impact Assessment, we
would adopt a similar approach to the amended proposal.
Second supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
7.4 The Minister has now provided a supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum the updated Regulatory Impact Assessment
promised. This shows for each of three options —
observance of the measures already agreed under MARPOL VI, adoption
of the Commission proposal as drafted, and adoption subject to
the amendments put forward by the European Parliament —
the costs to UK vessels and the benefits which would arise. The
latter include a reduction in the ecosystem area in which critical
loads for acidification are exceeded, a reduction in the number
of deaths brought forward and hospital admissions, the years of
life gained as a result of reductions in particulate emissions,
and the reduction in damage to building materials.
7.5 It summarises the situation, as follows:
| MARPOL VI
| Commission proposal | European Parliament amendment
|
| Cost to UK owned vessels (£m) | 29
| 73 | 174 |
| Reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions (kt)
| 372 | 687 | 2385
|
| Reduction in ecosystem area exceeding critical acidification load (km2)
| 384 | 455 | 1086
|
| £000/km2 reduced | 75
| 160 | 160 |
| Reduction in deaths brought forward | 20
| 73 | 87 |
| £000/reduction in deaths brought forward
| 1,450 | 1,000 |
2,000 |
| Reduction in hospital admissions | 16
| 67 | 79 |
| £000/reduction in hospital admissions |
1,812 | 1,089 | 2,202
|
| Life years gained from reduced particulates
| 0 | 7,936 | 8,993
|
| £000/life year gained | n/a
| 9 | 19 |
| Reduction in damage to building materials (£m)
| 3 | 7 | 9
|
| £000/£m reduction in damage | 9,666
| 10,428 | 19,333 |
7.6 The Assessment therefore indicates that:
- the Commission proposals are
2.5 times more expensive than Annex VI of MARPOL, and those of
the European Parliament six times more expensive;
- the Parliament's proposals are the most cost-effective
in terms of total reduced emissions, and the Commission proposals
the least;
- these figures do not, however, translate into
reduced acidification, where the cost-effectiveness of both the
Commission and Parliament proposals is less than half that of
MARPOL VI;
- the Commission proposals are nevertheless by
some margin the most cost-beneficial in terms of reduced harm
to human health; and
- for material damage, Annex VI and the Commission
proposals deliver approximately the same level of cost-effectiveness,
whereas the Parliament's proposal are only half as cost-effective.
7.7 The Assessment also reiterates the Government's
position, as set out in the Minister's supplementary Explanatory
Memorandum of 7 July 2003, and in paragraph 3.5 of our Report
of 16 July. This is that it supports the measures in MARPOL VI
(which it already intends to ratify), and that it also intends
to support the Commission's proposal to extend these to passenger
vessels providing services to and from any Community port (which
it says will have relatively little effect in the UK, as a number
of high-volume ferry ports lie within the Sulphur Emission Control
Areas laid down in MARPOL). In addition, it supports the Commission's
proposal to limit to 0.2% the sulphur content of marine fuels
used by ships on inland waterways and at berth in Community ports,
though it may seek derogations or amendments. It is, however,
opposed to the European Parliament's amendments, which it regards
as considerably less cost-effective than the other options.
Conclusion
7.8 It appears from the figures provided by the
Minister that adoption of the Commission proposals would provide
some useful environmental benefits at a relatively modest additional
cost, as compared with the measures already agreed within MARPOL.
In view of this, and in the light of the Government's clear exposition
of its position, we are now clearing these documents.
13 A 1997 Protocol to amend the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973. Back
|
